Public consultation as part of the Fitness Check of the EU nature legislation (Birds and Habitats Directives)

Similar documents
16540/14 EE/cm 1 DG E 1A

Geodiversity, Geoheritage & Geoconservation

ACRONYMS AREAS COUNTRIES MARINE TERMS

Land Use in the context of sustainable, smart and inclusive growth

Maria Andrzejewska UNEP/GRID Warsaw Centre

Emerging tensions between blue growth and good environmental status

ANNEXES. to the REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services

Marine/Maritime Spatial Planning Andrej Abramić

CLLD Cooperation OFFER

Navigable maritime and river waterways in the seaside - Danube Delta area and the connected rural development

Geotourism s Contribution to Protected Areas

WELCOME & INTRODUCTION

Natura 2000 in the marine environment: state of implementation and next steps

The National Spatial Strategy

Marine Spatial Planning (MSP): A practical approach to ecosystembased

HELSINKI COMMISSION Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission

Asia Protected Areas Charter

The ESPON Programme. Goals Main Results Future

SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE OF THE AGRICULTURE LEGISLATION

Coastal Environment. Introduction. 4.1 Coastal Environment. Extent of Coastal Environment

CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Management Planning & Implementation of Communication Measures for Terrestrial Natura 2000 Sites in the Maltese Islands Epsilon-Adi Consortium

Geodiversity Action Plan, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly 1 st Edition, 2005

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 2 May /14 CULT 68

Tourism. April State Planning Policy state interest guideline. Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning

Arctic ecosystem services: TEEB Arctic Scoping study. Alexander Shestakov WWF Global Arctic Programme 3 December Arctic Biodiversity Congress

National Perspectives - Portugal. Margarida Almodovar

DELIVERING ECOSYSTEM- BASED MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING IN PRACTICE

SPLAN-Natura Towards an integrated spatial planning approach for Natura th January, 2017 Brussels. Commissioned by DG Environment

PURR: POTENTIAL OF RURAL REGIONS UK ESPON WORKSHOP Newcastle 23 rd November Neil Adams

Regional stakeholders strategy of Donegal County Council

Towards coherent maritime spatial planning in the Baltic Sea Region, transnational and project perspective Talis Linkaits Head of VASAB Secretariat

Policy framework The Netherlands and the Polar Regions, Summary and priorities

Summary: This paper updates the Sub-committee on current thinking regarding the proposal for a Cotswolds Geopark

Local Development Pilot Project: Island of Cres. Ranka Saračević Würth, Ministry of Culture, Republic of Croatia

SIF_7.1_v2. Indicator. Measurement. What should the measurement tell us?

How to make the European landscape climate-change proof for biodiversity? Prof. Paul Opdam

European Regional and Urban Statistics

TOWARDS CLIMATE-RESILIENT COASTAL MANAGEMENT: OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVED ICZM IN BELIZE

Nordic Council of Ministers Grant Programme for Nordic-Baltic Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO) Cooperation 2019 Estonia.

Seabed knowledge In support of UN SDGs

PROTOCOL ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ALPINE CONVENTION OF 1991 RELATING TO SPATIAL PLANNING AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The European Union and its Overseas Entities

IN THE ZONE? Nature and culture in a Swedish Biosphere Reserve. Katarina Saltzman Department of Conservation University of Gothenburg

The Governance of Land Use

Strategies for biodiversity conservation

Regional Plan 4: Integrating Ecosystem Services Mapping into Regional Land Use Planning

Cultural Routes of the Council of Europe - Glossary

Greenland: Balancing the need for development and environmental protection. Arctic Frontiers 2016 Industry and Environment

EUSAIR on sea topics from Slovenian perspective

Strengthening the cooperation in the region: Carpathian, Tisa,, Danube and Black Sea areas

Marine Spatial Planning Leslie-Ann McGee Battelle Memorial Institute

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Executive Board

Annex I. Common criteria for the choice of Protected Marine and Coastal Areas that could be included in SPAMI list

THE SEVILLE STRATEGY ON BIOSPHERE RESERVES

Together towards a Sustainable Urban Agenda

Highlands and Islands European Partnership Response to the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion

Framework for the Basin-Wide Socio-Economic Analysis of Four Proposed Sediment Diversions. August 4, 2015

Country Fiche Sweden Updated May 2018

Natura 2000 and spatial planning. Executive summary

ESPON support for Targeted Analyses Ilona Raugze Director

Alluvium Consulting Australia Senior integrated water management specialist Position Description March 2018

Key Indicators for Territorial Cohesion & Spatial Planning Stakeholder Workshop - Project Update. 13 th December 2012 San Sebastián, Basque Country

GEOCONSERVATION (GEOPARKS) CASE STUDY

TERRITORIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: AN APPROACH TO IMPROVE THE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL INTEGRATION OF EU POLICIES

How important is to be a Biosphere Reserve of UNESCO? The case of Berlenga Islands (Peniche Portugal)

Louisiana Academic Standards Science Grade: 9 - Adopted: 2017

What is Spatial Planning?

Mapping of marine habitats in shallow coastal areas in Denmark

Country Fiche Lithuania

Accounting for Ecosystem and Biodiversity Related Themes in Uganda

Marine Spatial Planning in Hellas; Recent Facts and Perspectives

Marine Spatial Planning: A Tool for Implementing Ecosystem-Based Management

Ecological networks and coherence according to article 10 of the Habitats Directive

Using Data and Evidence to Inform Marine Spatial Planning

MESMA: An integrated tool box to support an ecosystem based spatial management of marine areas

Shetland Islands Council

Lombardy Region Territorial Context and Planning Structures

The Socio Economic Development of the Marine Sector in the Atlantic Area. Stephen Hynes

Sediment management: a european perspective. Piet den Besten Centre for Water Management Rijkswaterstaat, Netherlands

MODELS AND TOOLS FOR GOVERNANCE OF

Designing Networks of Marine Protected Areas in DFO s Three Atlantic Bioregions

Towards a City Model for Heritage-Led Regeneration and Tourism Development

EcoServ-GIS. EcoServ GIS Stage I. Why EcoServ GIS? 17/12/2012

Rete Natura 2000, Servizi ecosistemici e reti complesse

Role of Geotourism in Australia s Nature Based Tourism Strategy GlobalEco Angus M Robinson Geotourism Forum, Ecotourism Australia

Dr. Biliana Cicin-Sain President, Global Ocean Forum 1

Ecological Land Cover Classification For a Natural Resources Inventory in the Kansas City Region, USA

Europe's ecological backbone: recognising the true value of our mountains ISSN

PROGRAM OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE ARCTIC COUNCIL IN

CONFERENCE STATEMENT

EU STRATEGY FOR THE ALPINE REGION (EUSALP) PUBLIC CONSULTATION QUESTIONAIRE

PARC NATUREL DE LA MER DE CORAIL. The planned management project. with 15 objectives. Jean-Michel Boré - IRD

European Maritime Day conference 21 May Hon Karmenu Vella, Minister for Tourism welcome speech

DEPENDENCE OF THE LOCATION OF THE EUROPEAN CAPITALS AND COMPETITIVENESS OF THE REGIONS

Ocean planning as a tool for blue growth and smart specialization - Frederico Cardigos -

Entrepreneurship on islands and other peripheral regions. Specific Contract No 6511 implementing Framework contract No CDR/DE/16/2015/

Haida Gwaii Queen Charlotte Islands

Towards a National Ecosystem Services Strategy for Australia

Transcription:

Case Id: 7df4fdbc ca14 4a2e a719 8d5184da46c3 Public consultation as part of the Fitness Check of the EU nature legislation (Birds and Habitats Directives) Fields marked with are mandatory. Public consultation as part of the 'fitness check' on EU nature legislation (Birds Directive, Habitats Directive) (EN) About you Your name or organisation: 40 character(s) maximum The Geological Society Please provide your EU Transparency Register ID number (if you have one): 15 character(s) maximum If your organisation is not registered, you can register now. Can your reply be published: with your name or that of your organisation? anonymously? For information on how your personal data and contribution will be dealt with, please refer to the privacy statement in the introduction to this consultation. What is your main country of residence or activity? BELGIQUE BELGIË DANMARK DEUTSCHLAND EESTI ESPAÑA

FRANCE HRVATSKA IRELAND ITALIA LATVIJA LIETUVA LUXEMBOURG MAGYARORSZÁG MALTA NEDERLAND OTHER COUNTRY (non EU) POLSKA PORTUGAL ROMÂNIA SLOVENIJA SLOVENSKO SUOMI / FINLAND SVERIGE UNITED KINGDOM ÖSTERREICH ČESKÁ REPUBLIKA ΕΛΛΑΔΑ (ELLADA) ΚΥΠΡΟΣ (KÝPROS) БЪЛГАРИЯ (BULGARIA) Region (optional): EAST MIDLANDS (ENGLAND) EAST OF ENGLAND LONDON NORTH EAST (ENGLAND) NORTH WEST (ENGLAND) NORTHERN IRELAND SCOTLAND SOUTH EAST (ENGLAND) SOUTH WEST (ENGLAND) WALES WEST MIDLANDS (ENGLAND) YORKSHIRE AND THE HUMBER

I am replying to this questionnaire as an individual a business a non governmental organisation (NGO) an organisation or association (other than NGO) a government or public authority a European institution or agency an academic/research institute other Is your organisation: an international organisation a business network or association a charity other Which of the following best describes your main field of activity or interest? agriculture angling construction & development culture education energy environment extractive industry fish farming & associated activities fishing (other than angling) forestry hunting nature recreation science tourism transport water management Part 1 General questions

1. How important is nature conservation to you? not important not very important important very important 2. How familiar are you with EU nature conservation measures? not familiar slightly familiar quite familiar very familiar Birds Directive Habitats Directive Natura 2000 network of protected areas 3. How important to nature conservation are the Birds and Habitats Directives? not important not very important important very important 4. Are the Directives' strategic objectives appropriate for protecting nature in the EU? The strategic objective of the Birds Directive is to maintain the population of all species of wild birds in the EU at a level which corresponds to ecological, scientific and cultural requirements, while taking account of economic and recreational requirements, or to adapt the population of these species to that level. The strategic objective of the Habitats Directive is to maintain or restore natural habitats and species of Community interest at favourable conservation status, taking into account economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics. not appropriate somewhat appropriate appropriate very appropriate 5. Is the approach set out in the Directives an appropriate way to protect species and habitats in the EU? The Directives require EU countries to establish strict protection rules for all of Europe's wild birds and a wide range of other rare, threatened or endemic species, and to designate specific nature protection areas to assure the long term survival

of Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats, as well as migratory birds. Together, these areas form a network covering approximately 18% of the EU and over 4% of its seas. not appropriate somewhat appropriate appropriate very appropriate 6. Have the Directives been effective in protecting nature? not effective somewhat effective effective very effective 6 b. If you think the Directives have not been effective or have only been somewhat effective, is this mainly due to: problems inherent in the legislation problems with implementation problems with enforcement none of the above 7. How important is the Natura 2000 network for protecting threatened species and habitats in the EU? The Natura 2000 network comprises some 27,000 protected areas with a high biodiversity value covering approximately 18% of the EU and over 4% of its seas. not important somewhat important important very important 8. How do the costs of implementing the Birds and Habitats Directives compare with the benefits from their implementation? The implementation costs are more or less equal to the benefits The implementationcosts are somewhat greater than the benefits The benefits of implementation are somewhat greater than the costs The implementation costs far exceed the benefits The benefits of implementation far exceed the costs

9. While the Directives are primarily focused on conserving nature, to what extent have the following been taken into account in implementing them? Economic concerns Social concerns Cultural concerns Regional characteristics Local characteristics Not at all Not enough Enough Very well 10. Do EU policies in the following areas generally support the objectives of the Birds and Habitats Directives? Agriculture & rural development Fisheries & maritime Cohesion (regional) Energy Transport Environment Industry/enterprise Climate change Health Research & innovation No Yes Could contribute more 11. To what extent have the Directives provided more value than could have been acheived through national or regional laws in this area? no added value some added value significant added value 12. To what extent have the Directives added value to the economy (e.g. job creation, business opportunities linked to Natura 2000)

no added value some added value significant added value 13. To what extent have the Directives brought additional social benefits (e.g. health, culture, recreation, education)? no added value some added value significant added value 14. Is there still a need for EU legislation to protect species and habitats? Yes No Would you like to answer the more specific questions in part 2 of the questionnaire? Yes No The following questions explore the extent to which the objectives of the Birds Directive and Habitats Directive have been met, and any significant factors which may have contributed to or inhibited progress towards meeting those objectives. The following questions explore whether the costs of implementing the EU Nature Directives are reasonable and in proportion to the results achieved. The directives were designed to promote the conservation of species and habitats, but they also provide other benefits to the environment and society. Costs arise from administrative requirements, compliance enforcement, and forfeited opportunities, for instance those due to licensing delays or restrictions on activities in Natura 2000 sites. This section explores whether the Birds and Habitats Directives are consistent with each other and with other policies and legislation, whether they are complementary or if there are significant gaps, overlaps and inconsistencies that prevent them from being effectively implemented The following questions explore whether EU nature legislation has made a difference compared to national, regional and/or local action alone, and if so, how. Final remarks

Any further comments? Text of 1 to 2000 characters will be accepted EU nature conservation legislation is currently primarily focused on the conservation of biodiversity and omits consideration of the abiotic aspe cts of nature and ecosystems. Natural heritage includes both biological and geological heritage. The latter is made up of geological sites of in terest, as well as landscapes, shaped and defined by their geological fe atures. Fossils, rocks, minerals, landforms and geological structures ar e just as much part of our natural heritage as plants and animals and re quire proper protection and management. Such geological features are als o a major scientific asset shared by all countries, as well as an educat ional and cultural resource. In addition, the geosphere assures fundamen tal support services to biodiversity and contributes significantly to ec osystem services. Its implementation should be strengthened, but also ai ded by a wider perspective to include geological heritage and the subsur face. It is vital that there is recognition of the underpinning and dyna mic role of the geosphere if the benefits of a truly holiostic approach to environmental conservation and management is to be achieved. A clear er text in this regard and its stronger implementation will contribute t o holistic nature conservation. Without it, the degradation of an import ant part of Europe s natural heritage its geoheritage will continue. The two nature Directives as implemented today narrow the social perspec tive of what nature is and what aspects deserve to be conserved and mana ged, making the conservation of geoheritage more difficult. Proper conse rvation and management of geoheritage and geodiversity will also benefit biodiversity and increase its resilience. Both are fully compatible, and nature and society will benefit from such an approach. Rec(2004)3 of the Council of Europe, and Resolution 5.048 of IUCN (Jeju, 2012) promote thi s holistic view of nature conservation. Thank you for your feedback! Contact http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/index_en.htm ()