ENVE-V/005
Commission meeting, 30 June 2015
WORKING DOCUMENT
Commission for the Environment, Climate Change and Energy
OWN-INITATIVE OPINION
CONTRIBUTION TO THE FITNESS CHECK ON THE EU BIRDS AND
HABITATS DIRECTIVES
_____________
Rapporteur: Roby Biwer (PES/LU)
_____________
This document will be discussed at the meeting of the Commission for the Environment, Climate
Change and Energy to be held on Tuesday 30 June 2015.
DOCUMENT SUBMITTED FOR TRANSLATION: 2 JUNE 2015
COR-2015-02624-00-00-DT-TRA (DE/EN) 1/6
— Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 101 — 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel — BELGIQUE/BELGIË —
Tel. +32 22822211 — Fax +32 22822325 — Internet: http://www.cor.europa.eu
EN
Reference document
Own-initiative opinion
COR-2015-02624-00-00-DT-TRA (DE/EN) 2/6
1.
Introduction
In spring 2015, the European Commission embarked upon a review of EU Nature Legislation (Birds
and Habitats Directives) as part of the Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT) programme. This
should involve looking into whether these legal instruments – which date back to 1979 (Birds
Directive) and 1992 (Habitats Directive) – and their implementation achieve their aims and help in
reaching the strategic goals set at that time and reaffirmed in the EU's 2011 biodiversity strategy. How
far the international obligations undertaken by the EU are respected is to be gauged, as well as
progress in implementing the EU's own biodiversity strategy.
A fitness check provides for a comprehensive review of the instruments with respect to their
effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance, EU added value and compliance with the subsidiarity
and proportionality principles. This is also, and in particular, about whether EU directives transposed
into domestic law can be implemented in practical terms with a reasonable amount of administration,
what costs or income they generate, whether they are consistent with other EU policies, whether they
may be in part obsolete and how possible improvements could be achieved.
The REFIT is initially the sole responsibility of the European Commission, which will later decide
(probably towards the end of 2015) whether or not to propose a revision of the legal instruments
(possibly in a new legislative procedure).
In April 2015, the European Commission launched a consultation procedure that will run until the end
of July1. The Member States and certain interest groups are being consulted in parallel. One important
source of information is the recently published version for 2007-2012 of the State of Nature in the EU
report, which is drawn up every five years for the two directives2.
The Committee of the Regions is not formally involved in this procedure and has therefore decided to
have its ENVE Commission draw up an own-initiative opinion on this matter in order to gather and
introduce into the debate the proposals and experience of local and regional authorities with the Birds
and Habitats Directives and, especially, Natura 2000 sites. The opinion will also draw on the CoR's
own consultations carried out for its Territorial Impact Assessment.
2.
The role of local and regional levels
The EU nature protection directives demonstrably work and have incontestably injected important new
impetus into nature conservation in the EU. The loss of biological diversity is seen as a serious
problem by 88% of the EU population3. Local and regional authorities are involved in many ways in
implementing and applying EU nature conservation legislation, their involvement in each case
differing depending on the constitutional and legal make-up of the country, the competences of the
various local and regional tiers or the instruments chosen for implementation. The Natura 2000 sites
1
2
3
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/index_en.htm.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=COM:2015:219:FIN&from=EN.
Flash Eurobarometer Report 379 (2013): Attitudes towards biodiversity.
COR-2015-02624-00-00-DT-TRA (DE/EN) 3/6
designated under the EU Birds and Habitats Directives cover around 20% of the EU's territory4. The
selection of suitable areas, the continuing implementation of the necessary protection measures and the
carrying out of impact assessments all fall in a number of Member States within the remit of regional
or local authorities and may impinge on the planning powers of the different levels.
In addition, designating Natura 2000 sites is in many cases lengthy and often also triggers conflicts
between the land's various uses (farming, tourism, urban planning, industrial development, and so on)
that have to be solved or mediated on the ground by local and regional authorities. At the same time,
the designated protected areas and the associated EU funding opportunities also offer chances for
developing sustainable uses and the economic potential that these bring5.
3.
Key points for the Committee of the Regions to consider
Below we pose a series of questions to which we would ask ENVE Commission members to respond
with their own personal input or views and experience from the local or regional level, in order to give
the rapporteur a comprehensive and balanced picture of how the effects of the Birds and Habitats
Directives can be assessed and whether changes should be recommended to the European
Commission.
There are questions about the structure of the fitness test mandate and questions relating to the
European Commission's public consultation and the Committee of the Regions' own consultation as
part of its Territorial Impact Assessment.
3.1
Relevance


3.2
How important are the directives for the protection of species and habitats from pressures
and threats at local/regional level through loss or fragmentation of habitats, nonsustainable use of species and habitats, pollution, spread of alien fauna and flora, and
climate change?
How far do the directives really cover those habitats and species in the EU that are most
urgently in need of protection?
Effectiveness


How effective do you think the directives are in terms of local and regional protection of
the species and habitat types they target? In particular, how effective are the various rules
on species protection, on establishing and managing Natura 2000 sites, on managing the
risks that planning and projects for Natura 2000 sites could engender, and how well do
instruments for protecting landscape elements outside such sites work?
How far do the directives contribute to implementing additional local or regional nature
conservation goals as pursued by the EU biodiversity strategy? This is about, for
4
Around 1 million km2 (1 029 529 km2) making up around 18% (20%) of the surface, marine protected areas with 250 000 km2
(340 000 km2) equalling around 4% (6%) of EU seas. This has created the largest ecological network in the world.
5
Commission staff working paper "Financing Natura 2000 – Investing in Natura 2000: Delivering benefits for nature and people",
SEC(2011) 1573 final, 12.12.2011.
COR-2015-02624-00-00-DT-TRA (DE/EN) 4/6
example, protection of locally or regionally important species and habitats, preserving
and improving ecosystems, and maintaining biodiversity on land used for agriculture and
forestry outside Natura 2000 sites.
3.3
Efficiency




6
7
8
9
The declared aim of the directives may well be the preservation of species and habitats,
but what additional benefits are foreseen at local and regional levels, in particular for
o the provision of ecosystem services6
o the economy7 (e.g., jobs, tourism, easier access to EU funds)
o society8 and governance?
How can these positive elements be strengthened locally and regionally?
What costs arise (administration, opportunity costs – such as restrictions on landowners,
agriculture and forestry, costs of failure to implement) for local and regional authorities?
Many studies posit a high cost/benefit ratio at local/regional level9 – is this a view you
share?
What measures should be recommended and at what level (from EU to local) to make
implementation of the directives by local and regional authorities more efficient?
(Formulation of the EU directives, means of legislative transposition, implementation and
compliance with the directives at national/regional level, political support, degree of
horizontal and vertical coordination of the various levels, availability of guidelines and
best practice, funding, sufficiently well qualified staff, scientific knowledge on species
and habitats, forms of stakeholder involvement, awareness of the issue and backing from
the public, incorporation of nature protection in other policy fields, management methods
for protected areas)
How do you view both the initial availability of resources and the final allocation of
resources from EU, national, regional and local funds for local and regional measures to
carry out the directives? What role do you see for the national or regional Prioritised
Action Frameworks (PAFs) under Article 8 of the Habitats Directive?
In the form of provision of clean water, clean air, productive soil, carbon sequestration, and so on, see Commission staff working
paper "Investing in Natura 2000: Delivering benefits for nature and people", 12.12.2011, SEC(2011) 1573 final.
e.g., jobs, tourism and easier access to EU funds.
e.g., closer collaboration between various stakeholders, health promotion, leisure time, and science.
Various EU reports: full implementation of Natura 2000 sites would cost the EU Member States around EUR 6 billion a year,
with ecosystem services delivering up to EUR 300 billion to society in return and helping to create up to eight million jobs linked
to Natura 2000 sites.
COR-2015-02624-00-00-DT-TRA (DE/EN) 5/6
3.4
Coherence




3.5
How well is the EU meeting the obligation in Article 8 of the Habitats Directive on EU
co-financing of Natura 2000 in the new EU funding period? How well does the EU cover
the local/regional financing requirement of the directives?
Has local/regional experience in administration revealed any major gaps, overlapping or
discrepancies that impede effective local/regional implementation of the directives:
o between the two directives,
o between them and other EU nature conservation legislation, such as the Strategic
Environmental Assessment Directive, the Environmental Impact Assessments
Directive, the Water Framework Directive, the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive, he Floods Directive, the National Emissions Ceilings Directive or the
Nitrates Directive?
How helpful are the directives and their transposition into national/regional law in
creating a competitive level playing field in Europe's various regions, especially border
regions? Could they make an even bigger contribution and, if so, how?
How do other EU policies, such as the Common Agricultural Policy, regional and
cohesion policy, and energy and transport policies, influence local and regional
implementation of the directives? How can alignment and synergies between these
policies be increased?
EU added value



How far have the directives contributed to improvements that could not have been
achieved with national, regional or local legislation alone? This is about, for example, the
extension and restoration of protected areas, protection and monitoring of species living
in the wild or in endangered habitat types, the financing of nature conservation, staff
working in nature conservation, pooling of best practice in nature conservation and the
regulation of hunting.
How far does the CoR agree that good implementation of the directives is the key to
success and that this can be done without undue impediments for the economy or
excessive bureaucracy? Where they are rationally and strategically carried out and
communicated, and where adequate funding and staff are available, they are very
successful and accepted on the ground.
How far does the CoR agree that the EU nature protection directives have provided
international protection and the same legal nature protection standards for enterprises
throughout the single market that offer a reliable basis for growing businesses? The EU
nature protection directives have made it possible to preserve many natural areas across
Europe that are important, for example, for the survival of migratory birds that nest here.
The legal certainty and understanding between interest groups achieved after many years
must be preserved and built on in the interests of both the economy and of nature
conservation.
_____________
COR-2015-02624-00-00-DT-TRA (DE/EN) 6/6