Proceedings of the International Conference on Nature ... · Proceedings of the International Conference on Nature Conservation in the European Union – Grant Programs and Financial

Proceedings of the International Conference on Nature Conservation in the European Union –

Grant Programs and Financial Compensation

Prague, December 2005

Motto: Better to have tiny numbers of people ACTING, rather than millions just watching. Unknown author

Proceedings of the International Conference on Nature Conservation in the European Union – Grant Programs

and Financial Compensation

held in Prague on March 24th – 25th, 2005, in Prague

IREAS, Institute for Structural Policy, o.p.s. Prague, December 2005

Title: Proceedings of the International Conference on

Nature Conservation in the European Union – Grant Programs and Financial Compensation

Editor: Jiří Moravec Technical design: Martin Doležal

Technical cooperation:

Tereza Tichá, Jana Jiroušková

Publisher: IREAS, Institute for Structural Policy, o.p.s. Mařákova 292/9, Prague 6, 160 00 office: Štěpánská 45, Prague 1, 110 00 tel./fax: +420 222 230 259 e-mail: [email protected], http://www.ireas.cz

Published in: Prague, December 2005 Edition: First

Number of copies: 250 Pages: 73

Printed by: NVT Repro, spol. s r.o. ISBN: 80–86684–33–8

© IREAS, Institute for Structural Policy, o.p.s.

3

Contents

Liability for Environmental Damage in the European and in the Czech Legal Context ........................................................................................... 4

Milan Damohorský and Karolina Žákovská .......................................................... 4

Voluntary Instruments of Nature Conservation for Realisation of Important Goals of Nature Conservation – Practical Examples of Projects in Austria............................................................................................. 12

Wolfgang Suske .................................................................................................... 12

Agri-environment Funding for Natura 2000 .................................................. 17

Clunie Keenleyside ............................................................................................... 17

Financial Perspective 2007-2013: EU Finances and their Effects on Nature Conservation ......................................................................................... 24

Kerstin Bohnsack .................................................................................................. 24

Financing and Nature Conservation in Slovakia ........................................... 34

Michal Tvrdoň ....................................................................................................... 34

Evaluation of Selected International Conventions ........................................... 50

Mojmír Vlašín ....................................................................................................... 50

A Biological Factor (European Beaver – Castor Fiber): The Issue of Financial Compensation or an Alternative to the Public Expenditure Program? ..................................................................................... 62

Jiří Moravec........................................................................................................... 62

Conference Program .......................................................................................... 72

4

Liability for Environmental Damage in the European and in the Czech Legal Context

Milan Damohorský and Karolina Žákovská Charles University in Prague, Law Faculty

I. Introduction

Environmental liability, i.e. legal liability in the field of environmental protec-tion, is currently one of the most discussed environmental law questions both at the supranational (international and European Community) and the national level. This is quite understandable given its importance for the effective functioning of environmental norms. However, the high number of legal (e.g. causality and its proving, quantification of damage, means of remedy) and political problems re-lated to it makes it one of the most difficult questions as well.

Generally, legal liability – as a second basic category of liability, the first be-ing the moral one – can be defined as a secondary duty of a person to bear the un-favourable results of his/her breaching of the primary (original) duty. There are two basic types of liability – the delictual one, i.e. liability for illegal acts (charac-terized by the duty to bear a sanction), and liability for damage (characterized by the duty to restore or to compensate the damage). From another point of view we can distinguish subjective liability or liability based on fault (typical for criminal liability as the most serious form of delictual liability or for the general civil law liability for damage) and the objective (or strict) one, it means liability based on result, where the person has to suffer the unfavourable legal consequences re-gardless of his/her fault (typical for liability for administrative delicts of legal en-tities or natural persons undertaking their business and for liability for damage caused by certain dangerous activities).

Liability in the field of environmental protection is based upon three basic principles – prevention (its main function is to prevent damages to the environ-ment, in this sense it fulfils an important educational function as well), remedy (restoring to a previous state or compensation in the case of damage) and sanc-tion (reflects above all the repressive function of delictual liability).


5

In this article the authors focus on the second type of liability mentioned above – the liability for damage – and its application in the field of environmental pro-tection. The main supranational legal instruments dealing with this issue within the European region and the Czech legal regulation are discussed.

II. Legal regulation of liability for environmental damage in the European region

Two supranational legal systems are to be distinguished within the European re-gion, both paying attention to questions of environmental liability – the interna-tional law embodied in treaties adopted within the Council of Europe and the EC law.

1. International conventions adopted within the Council of Europe The conventions adopted in this field within the Council of Europe play above all an integrating and inspiring role. The Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Resulting from Activities Dangerous to the Environment adopted in Lugano in June 1993 is of particular importance in this sense. It is a modern treaty, based on the strict liability principle and providing a wide definition of damage and rela-tively long periods for claiming damages. Its main objective is to assure a reason-able compensation for damage caused to the environment due to enumerated dangerous activities. The burden of proof concerning the causal link is placed on the side of the operator of the dangerous activity. Further, the convention deals with the access to information, public participation and obligatory financial as-surance. However, despite its progressive character (if not because of it), the con-vention has not yet been ratified by a sufficient number of States (including the Czech Republic) and its entry into force is uncertain.

The second treaty worth mentioning is the Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law adopted in Strasburg in 1998. However, dealing with the most serious form of delictual liability in the field of environ-mental protection this convention is beyond the scope of this article. Let us just say that the Strasburg Convention, similarly as the Lugano one, has not yet en-tered into force.

2. EC law In spite of longstanding debates held on this subject within different bodies of the European Communities, liability for environmental damage was, until recently, only treated by a few soft law instruments. The first document in this field was


6

the Green Paper on Remedying Environmental Damage presented by the Com-mission in 1993. Being issued at the same time as the Lugano Convention, the Green Paper deals with analogous problems (form of liability – whether based on fault or strict one, definition of damage, burden of proof, financial assurance etc.). The sharp discussion that rose after its presentation amongst the legal ex-perts of different Member States has revealed all the difficulties of an integrated European approach in this field. The progress was slow and the next document, the White Paper on Environmental Liability, was not adopted until 2000. The White Paper (despite its general title, it only treats liability for environmental damage, not the delictual one) is much more detailed than its “green” predeces-sor. It distinguishes – besides the traditional material damage on health or prop-erty – two new categories of environmental damage, namely damage caused by contamination of land and damage to biodiversity. Both forms of liability are provided for – the subjective one (fault-based liability) for damages caused by an “ordinary” activity, the objective one (strict liability) for damages due to a dan-gerous (or potentially dangerous) activity regulated by the EC law.

The debate continued and finally resulted in the adoption, on 21 April 2004, of Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and the Council on environ-mental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage. The purpose of the directive is “to establish a framework of environ-mental liability based on the ‘polluter –pays’ principle, to prevent and remedy environmental damage” (art. 1). It distinguishes three types of environmental damage – damage to protected species and natural habitats, water damage and land damage (art. 2 par. 1). The Member States were given three years to adapt their national laws to the directive (“Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Di-rective by 30 April 2007.”, art. 19 par. 1).

III. Czech legal regulation of liability for environmental damage

Before examining the Czech legal regulation of liability for damage to the envi-ronment, it is necessary to make a terminological digression. In fact, for describ-ing any detriment caused to the environment, the Czech legal doctrine often uses the general term environmental loss encompassing the legal concepts of damage as a material (economic) loss and that of environmental harm as an immaterial loss or impairment of ecosystems’ natural functions. These two concepts differ


7

largely in their character and construction. Besides them there exists a third type of damage that must be dealt with – the “historical” contaminations.

1. Civil law liability for environmental damage Liability for damage – as a material loss to property – is a typical private law concept dealt with traditionally in the Civil Code (Act. No. 40/1964 Coll.). It is characterized by the possibility of expressing it as a financial equivalent, even though the quantification may sometimes be difficult. The quantification gener-ally includes two parts – the real damage (damnum emergens) and the loss of profit (lucrum cessans). The means of remedy is closely linked to the possibility of quantification, having mostly the form of financial compensation, exception-ally of natural restitution (section 442). The Code lays down the general preven-tive duty (neminem laedere) stating that “everyone is obliged to act in such a way as not to cause damage to health and property, nature and the environment” (section 415). Even if the term “environment” appears in this section, the Code does not use it in any other provision. Liability for environmental damage is based on provisions concerning the general liability for damage based on fault (section 420) or the strict liability for damage caused by “operational activity” (section 420a, activities exercised on a professional, repeated basis are meant here).

From the environmental point of view, the concept of damage presents a num-ber of disadvantages. First, the precise and adequate quantification of environ-mental damage is in most cases extremely difficult and often impossible. Second, it is applicable only to those components of the environment that are considered as things in the legal sense and that are owned by someone. Third, the owner is free to decide whether or not he will claim damages, in what form and how he will use the money eventually awarded in compensation. These civil law charac-teristics, together with the problems of proving the causal link and rather short periods for claiming damages (and the fact that it is often the owner himself who causes the damage) are the reasons why the contribution of this type of liability for the protection of the environment is rather marginal.

2. Public (administrative) law liability for environmental harm Given the limited use of the civil law liability for damage in the field of environ-mental protection a new concept was introduced into Czech law in 1992 – liabil-ity for environmental harm as a primarily immaterial environmental loss (Act No. 17/1992 Coll. on the Environment). Environmental harm is defined as “the loss


8

or impairment of natural functions of ecosystems due to damage to their compo-nents or disruption of their internal relations and processes as a result of human activity” (section 10).

The public law concept of environmental harm intends to balance the disad-vantages of the private law concept of damage. It not only concerns damage to the material components of the environment but also and above all the detriment of the natural processes that may result from it. It is no longer the economic loss of the owner that is the centre of attention but the far more important and serious disruption of ecosystems’ ecological functions, which may harm other people and, potentially, society as a whole. The means of remedying environmental harm correspond to its immaterial character – the first and preferred possibility is the natural restitution (restoring to the previous state, if it is possible and eco-nomically feasible), in second place is natural compensation (i.e. an activity that is aimed at compensating, in a naturalmanner, the damage caused). Financial compensation is the last choice, not only because – from the ethical point of view – no sum of money can balance the loss of a precious component of nature or of the natural functions of an ecosystem (reasoning in economic terms is totally in-appropriate here, e.g. what is the death of a couple of sea eagles worth?), but – more practically – because the quantification of this type of damage is extremely difficult. Last but not least, the remedy of environmental harm is not a question of free disposition of the owner or any other person, it is the duty of the State rep-resented by a competent authority to claim the remedy against the liable person (that could even be the owner of the damaged component himself).

Despite the potential of the concept of environmental harm both from the point of view of prevention and remedy of losses to the environment it has to be said that it remains a “sleeping provision” of the Czech legal order. Even if the Act on the Environment lays down certain basic principles and provides for a special law in this field (section 27), the comprehensive legal regulation of liability for envi-ronmental harm is still lacking. It is true that the Act refers to the use of the civil law regulation of liability for damage (section 27 par. 4) but this provision is rather misleading for this is not possible given the fundamental differences be-tween the two concepts.

3. Remedying of “historical” (old) environmental damages Historical damages (or contaminations) represent one of the most serious problems not only from the environmental point of view (generally they produce their nega-


9

tive effects for a long time and most often in a latent way) but from the legal one as well. The use of the expression “liability for damage” is not precise here, because the person who has caused the damage is either not known or does not exist any-more (e.g. foreign armies, former state enterprises) and the person upon whom the duty to remedy the damage will be imposed usually has no relation to the activity that caused it (in most cases it will be the owner of the contaminated site). In this sense the person is “liable (i.e. legally bound) to remedy the historical damage” (this liability is concretized in practice mostly as a duty to decontaminate the polluted site) which differs from the strict liability concept.

Because the cost of the decontamination will generally be rather high and it would be not only unjust but often economically unfeasible for the owner of the site to bear the total of it, it is normally the State that participates in the decon-tamination. The form and proportion of State participation may be various (e.g. diminution of the price of the site when sold by the State, compensation of decon-tamination costs from a special State fund or tax relief).

In the Czech Republic (similarly as in other post-communist countries) these questions are closely linked to the massive changes in ownership occurring after 1989 (privatization and restitutions of property). Old environmental damages were dealt with on the basis of government decision No. 123 from 1993 that fo-cused on three types of damages – contamination of underground water, con-tamination of soil and old landfill sites containing dangerous waste. Decontami-nations were carried out by the new owners of contaminated sites with important financial contribution from the State on the basis of contracts concluded between the owner and the National Property Fund.

4. Financial assurance of liability for environmental damage Given the often important costs related to remedying environmental damage the financial (economical) assurance of liability is often discussed, particularly in re-lation to some dangerous activities. This can be either voluntary (mostly in the form of liability insurance) or obligatory, based on a legal norm. Both approaches are used in the Czech Republic, though in a limited scope.

Concerning the obligatory financial assurance of liability for environmental damage, two forms are used within the Czech legal system – obligatory insur-ance (e.g. obligatory insurance of hunters for damages caused by the hunting ac-tivities or of operators of nuclear installations and nuclear waste deposits) and the creation of an obligatory financial reserve (e.g. an obligatory financial reserve


10

that must be created by operators of landfill sites). Concerning the voluntary li-ability insurance, even though it is quite widespread, the industrial sector faces a rather limited offer of insurance companies in this field. In fact, liability for dam-ages to the environment is mostly not covered by the insurance policies or it is but only in a limited scope. However, it seems inevitable that the Czech insurance market will develop to take this type of damages into account.

IV. Conclusion

Liability for environmental damage plays a crucial role in the effective protection of the environment, both for its preventive and remedial function. However, the prob-lems related to it make it one of the most difficult questions of contemporary envi-ronmental law. The specificity of environmental losses – compared to the traditional civil law concept of damage as a material loss – requires new approaches and solu-tions that are not easy to find and be agreed upon. Czech law is far from treating this question in a complex and satisfactory manner, the need for a detailed legal regula-tion of liability for environmental harm being particularly urgent. The changes nec-essary to adapt the Czech law to the new European directive on environmental li-ability could present a good occasion in this sense.

Literature

Bocken, H.: Financial assurances in the directive on prevention and remediation of environmental damage, Liber Dufwa, 2005

Damohorský, M.: Liability for Environmental Losses, Karolinum Publishers, Prague 2003

Damohorský, M.: Environmental Liability and Litigations, TEMPUS JEP “Curriculum Development in Environmental Law”, PF UK and VŠB TU Ostrava, MŽP ČR, Prague 1997

Stejskal, V.: About new EC – Directive on environmental liability, Czech Environmental Law Journal, N. 3(13)/2004, pgs. 9-19


11

Annex – Comparison of Damage and Environmental Harm

DAMAGE (economic) HARM (environmental)

REGULATION IN Civil code Act on the Environment and other special acts

DEFINITION private law (loss of property)

public law (loss of environmental functions of the biotope)

QUANTIFICATION in money (stemming from the price)

no legal regulation, no experiences

ENTITLED PERSON owner of the thing state represented by a competent authority

OBLIGATION FOR REMEDYING

free disposition (facultative)

obligatory (ex offo)

MODES OF REMEDYING

1. financial 2. nature restitution

1. natural restitution 2. compensation 3. financial

TIME LIMITS

objective: 3 years (generally) 10 subjective (intentional damage)

2 years

no provisions

12

Voluntary Instruments of Nature Conservation for Realisation of Important Goals of

Nature Conservation – Practical Examples of Projects in Austria1

Wolfgang Suske Independent expert for EU nature conservation, former associate of the

Department of Nature Conservation of the Regional Government of Lower Austria

At the beginning I would like to mention the generally known fact, that a require-ment could be fulfilled either on a obligatory basis or on a voluntary one.

My presentation will be focused especially on the voluntary instruments, but the obligatory ones will also be mentioned. The obligatory requirements are regu-lated by law and every person or subject therefore must fulfil it. Voluntary re-quirements are either part of national programmes or EU programmes; it is up to the individual subject if it takes part in the measure or not. In Austria you usually get compesation in case you suffer damage or disadvantage as a result of a re-quirement. But there is a certain time period when one has to ask for a compesa-tion, later on it is not possible to apply for the compensation.

Some requirements of voluntary programmes are performed free of charge, some are based on a contract. Voluntary work plays a very important part in these programmes as there are many non-governmental organisations and other asso-ciations that do a lot for nature preservation. I think this is one of the special fea-tures of nature preservation because there are always many people that love na-ture and are ready to do something for nature without being paid for it.

Now we will be more interested in the another possibility, i.e. if there is a con-tract. I will give some examples in this respect – protected nature regions, nature re-serves, nature parks. Some programmes are managed by state, some have regional character, some are focused on a specific areas – e.g. meadows in the Alps.

1 Editor’s remark: The following text is a recorded lecture from the conference.

Voluntary Instruments of Nature Conservation for Realisation of Important Goals of Nature Conservation – Practical Examples of Projects in Austria

13

It is interesting to mention that within the programme Natura 2000 there are both obligatory projects and voluntary ones.

Now a short historic overview of the systems of voluntary and obligatory nature preservation in Austria. About 150 years ago the nature preservation started with the legal protection of the flower named edelweiss. Some 100 years ago the first nature region protected by law has been established in Austria – the region of Wiener Wald, close to Vienna. Both mentioned examples belong to the group of strictly obligatory programmes of nature conservation. Now I would like to mention a typical Austrian phenomenon – namely two demonstrations that took part in the eighties of the 20th century in Austria; they became the basis for the ecological movement in this country. The important fact was that the most influential newspapers in Austria supported this demonstration. It was a demostration for nature protection along the Danube in the region Niederösterreich (Lower Austria), where the government planned a construc-tion of a power plant; but at the end this region became a protected nature park. Also at this time, the voluntary system for nature preservation that were financed by the state, but not organised by the state was established. In the nineties of the 20th century there were many amendments to the existing laws regarding nature preservation. In four Austrian regions so called funds for landscape preservation were established; companies that made some damages to the environment made contributions to these funds. In 1995 Austria became a member of the EU and new forms of financing of nature preservation and new programmes for nature preservation have been devel-oped. In 2000 the system of preserving national parks in Austria was changed in order to utilize financial means from EU for nature preservation. Nowadays almost all Aus-trian programmes for nature preservation are co-financed by the European Union.

Obligatory nature preservation stipulated by different laws plays so far the most important part in nature preservation, but at the same time the voluntary form of nature preservation is becoming increasingly vital. Since Austria became a member of the European Union, the number of contracts for nature preservation has increased dramatically.

If we compare in the time period of 1994 – 1996 the relationship between the in-dividual incomes of farmers – i.e. income from agricultural funds, incomes from ag-ricultural production, income from non-agricultural activities, incomes from social transfer payments – we can see that at the end of this period the incomes from agri-cultural funds increased dramatically. This is a typical phenomenon in all “old” EU countries, in new member states this does not apply yet. The main reason for this is the fact, that the farmers realized that they can take part in nature preservation and


14

get financial means for it. This also has the consequences that the administrative costs for handling and distribution of these funds increased considerably.

Up to 1995 one can see a decrease in the number of farmers in Austria, then their number has stabilised; this means, by the way, that at the present one farmer takes care of larger area also regarding nature preservation.

Now we will concentrate on the voluntary form of nature preservation in Aus-tria. There are several reasons why farmers conclude contracts on nature preser-vation. One of the main motivation is to improve his/her financial situation. Other reason could be to get a good reputation. But sometimes it could happen, that the requirements for nature preservation are for farmers unacceptable. Sometimes it is also necessary to fight prejudices against nature preservation. The most impor-tant thing is that the farmer understands the goals of nature preservation and ac-cepts them as his/her own.

What facts make farmers to conclude contracts on nature preservation ? In Austria there are richer and poorer agricultural regions. The farmers from the poorer regions are more motivated to conclude contracts on nature preservation because their in-come will increase by the transfers. For the decision making of the farmer it is also important the relationship between the incomes from agricultural production and the potential income deriving from the nature preservation. The larger the proportion of the income from nature preservation is, the greater motivation for farmer to con-clude a contract for nature preservation. Generally speaking, farmers have lower in-comes in vegetable production and higher income in livestock farming.

Now I would like to present some facts regarding the individual programmes for nature preservation. The participation of state funds in individual programs varies considerably. Programmes that are announced by municipalities are financed from state’s budget by cca. 30 %, the rest is covered by the individual municipality. Rela-tively the largest proportion of state financial means goes to different educational campaigns. Projects on preservation of only specific species are covered by 90 % by state, as there is only small interest of the public in this sort of nature preservation.

Sometimes the assistance to farmers does not have to be in the form of direct payments, it can be in the form of advertising “nature” – e.g. a special label on wine bottles that informs the consumer that the wine producer supports the pres-ervation of certain bird species.

In Austria there is also e.g. an eco-hotel. At the present this hotel has about 150 beds and is advertising “nature” – i.e. it stresses the fact that it is located close to protected nature reserve.


15

It is interesting to mention, that in this area – programmes for nature preserva-tion – there are some difficulties in co-operation with ecological farmers. One reason for this is that they already have their well-known labels and are therefore not ready to add aditional labels on their products; they also have their own strict rules for farming and production processes and do want to change them. Con-sumers therefore assume that these ecological farmers also preserve nature. But this is not always the case. Sometimes ecological farmers have difficulties re-garding fertilizing and the intensive usage of grassland. Ecological farmers are therefore mainly interested in programmes for nature preservation in order to keep their reputation, not because of getting financial transfers from the state.

Other reason why farmers conclude contracts on nature preservation is the fact that it will solve some of their existing problems. E.g. by using specific type of fertilizer the land is covered by a special weed that will disappear when this fer-tilizer is not used anymore. At this point it is for the farmers, especially from the richer regions, more important to solve such problem, not the amount the finan-cial means this programme is associated with.

It is very important how exactly the requirements are specified in the respec-tive programmes. E.g. in the past the farmer had to agree with the requirement of mowing grass at pasture later on, but sometimes it happened that due to the bad weather forecast the farmer started mowing a couple of days earlier than agreed; in case of a control, this farmer must have returned the whole amount of the fi-nancial transfer. That is why the deadline for mowing has been changed based on the result of a project – now the deadline is not set by a specific calendar day but depends on certain signs of the vegetation in that calendar period.

For farmers to understand the programmes for nature preservation it is impor-tant not only to discuss with them these programmes, but also to talk with them about their problems. That is why there are consultation centres in Austria that try to solve their problems and at the same time help to inform them about the pro-grams for nature preservation.

We are also e.g. interested in preserving typical vegetation in certain regions. That is why we have organised sale of different types of trees, bushes in Lower Austria (Niederösterreich) that are typical only for this region.

The success rate of the voluntary programs depends not only on financing, fi-nancial transfers from EU, but it is also very important to discuss with the farm-ers their problems, to explain the advantages of the individual programmes for nature preservation from their point of view.


16

Discussion:

? Are the eco-hotels not parasitizing at nature, are they useful for

nature at all?

It is clear that just its location near natural reserve is not enough. The main point is how they can contribute to the nature preservation. E.g. the eco-hotel organises trips into the surrounding nature areas with specially trained nature guides. Re-search has shown that different managers from Vienna are interested in such pro-grams. It is in the own interest of the eco-hotel to preserve nature in its neighbor-hood, otherwise not only nature, but also the eco-hotel will suffer a loss.

? Who pays for the guides of the eco-hotel ? Are they employees of the eco-hotel? Are these guides financed also from public funds?

The guides are members of the nature preservation organisations, their training is paid by the state, there is a special course financed by state for nature guides. Eco-hotels pays the nature guides for their service done.

? What experience do you have in co-operation between municipalities and agricultural companies?

There are a lot of common projects based on co-operation between municipali-ties and farmers. We do not have any problems with these projects; the most im-portant thing is to construct these programs in such a way that they are also ad-vantageous for the farmers.

? How are the farmers in Austria motivated to conclude voluntarily programme of nature preservation?

There is no standard way how to motivate farmers for this voluntary co-operation. The main thing is to understand the specific problem of the respective farmers and to show them the advantage of being a part of the voluntary pro-gramme. For this dialogue we use our different contractual partners, as we do not have such a large personnel; e.g. we co-operate successfully with independ-ent voluntary ecological activists in this respect for over 10 years.

17

Agri-environment Funding for Natura 2000

Clunie Keenleyside Associate of IEEP London; Crex Rural Land Use Consultants, United Kingdom

Introduction

This paper considers the relevance of agri-environment funding to the manage-ment of Natura 2000 sites, discusses the policy arguments for using CAP funding in this way, identifies the types of management which could be supported within an agri-environment scheme and gives some examples from the 2000-06 Rural Development Plans1. The paper concludes with a short discussion of the prob-lems and opportunities for such funding in the 2007-13 Plan period.

Farming activities and Natura 2000

Over the centuries, many of the Natura 2000 habitats and the species they support have developed in harmony with Man’s use of the land. By the end of 2002 about one third of the total area of pSCIs notified under the Habitats Directive in EU15 was on land used by farmers (Table 1). Much of it is under some form of exten-sive grassland management, where grazing pressures are low and few, if any, fer-tilisers or pesticides are used. Other features, which are an integral part of the farming system, may be of value to Natura.

2000 species, such as scattered trees, stone terraces or walls, wetlands and wa-tercourses. Although most of these farming systems are of low productivity in agricultural terms they may be labour intensive. As a result of technological and policy development in agriculture over the past 50 years, and the changing eco-nomic and social expectations of rural communities, many farmers no longer find it economically attractive to continue such extensive farming. In the absence of

1 Please note: this paper is based on the provisions of the existing Rural Development

Regulation 1257/99, amended by Regulation 1783/2003, and the Implementing Regulation 817/2004. It does not cover the provisions of the draft EAFRD Regulation which was under negotiation at the time of writing.


18

ongoing financial support for farming methods compatible with ‘favourable con-servation status’ many of the Natura 2000 sites on farmland are now threatened by abandonment in marginal areas and by agricultural intensification elsewhere. In a very few of these cases farm tourism, the sale of niche products or off-farm employment may provide the necessary support for the farm, but in most of them on-going public funding will be required to support the active management needed to maintain or improve their conservation status.

Table 1. Analysis of pSCI sites by land use (2002 data for EU 15)

AGGREGATED LAND USE CATEGORY COVERAGE %

AREA IN HECTARES

Pasture, heath, scrub, grassland 26.30 11,170,888 Agriculture 5.59 2,373,722 Orchards, dehesa 1.83 778,019 Marine 12.48 5,301,803 Coastal areas, wetlands, inlandwaters, marshes, bogs 16.78 7,131,160 Forests 28.95 12,296,965 Snow, rocks, other 8.06 3,421,652 Total 100 42,477,579

Source: Commission Working Document Annex to COM (2004)431 Financing Natura 2000

Policy justification for using CAP funding for Natura 2000

The Habitats and Species Directive 2 92/43/EEC recognises that conserving Natura 2000 habitats and species ‘may however impose an excessive financial burden on certain Member States given, on the one hand, the uneven distribution of such habitats and species throughout the Community and, on the other hand, the fact that the ‘polluter pays’ principle can have only limited application in the case of nature conservation’. Article 8 of the Regulation makes provision for Commission co-financing, but does not identify the sources of funding to be used. Several key EU documents refer to the need for a link between EU envi-ronmental and agricultural policy, including the 5th and 6th Environmental Action Plans, the EC Biodiversity Strategy and the EU Sustainable Development Strat-egy. One of the priorities of the EC Biodiversity Strategy for Agriculture3 is to

2 Habitats and Species Directive 92/43/EEC, quote from text of the recitals (whereas…)

at the beginning of the Directive 3 Commission of the European Communities, 2001. Biodiversity Action Plan for Agriculture

COM (2001)162 Volume III


19

use the potential of agri-environmental measures for the conservation of wild flora and fauna in biodiversity-rich regions. The El Teide Declaration, signed by environment ministers the following year, endorsed the commitment to take all necessary measures to halt biodiversity loss by 2010, including ensuring that ‘the needs of Natura 2000 are effectively implemented in other community policies’. Although there are strong arguments and a clear policy justification for using agri-environment funding to deliver the management of Natura 2000 sites there are also a many other demands on RDR funds. All Member States are required to have agri-environment programmes but there is a high degree of subsidiarity in their design and targeting, and no guarantee that they will be of benefit to Natura 2000 unless this is taken into account in setting up the programme.

The Rural Development Regulation 1257/1999 Article 22: ‘Support for agricultural production methods designed to protect the environ-ment and to maintain the countryside (agri-environment) shall contribute to achieving the Community's policy objectives regarding agriculture and the en-vironment.

Such support shall promote: ▪ ways of using agricultural land which are compatible with the protection and

improvement of the environment, the landscape and its features, natural re-sources, the soil and genetic diversity,

▪ an environmentally-favourable extensification of farming and management of low-intensity pasture systems,

▪ the conservation of high nature-value farmed environments which are under threat,

▪ the upkeep of the landscape and historical features on agricultural land, ▪ the use of environmental planning in farming practice.’

What agri-environment funding can offer

The Rural Development Regulation offers MS the opportunity to devise a wide a rage of measures tailored to their specific agricultural and environmental needs (see boxed text above for details); some measures may be available to farmers on a na-tional or regional scale, others may be designed only for specific areas or zones. The Regulation requires every Member State to have an agri-environment programme but at the farm level agri-environment agreements are voluntary for both the gov-ernment (who can set entry requirements, including environmental criteria) and for


20

the farmer (who decides whether or not to apply, but has no automatic right to enter the scheme). An agri-environment agreement between the farmer and the govern-ment lasts for at least five years; for each measure there is a standard annual pay-ment rate calculated (for a typical farm in the region) as: income foregone (e.g. re-duced crop yield if fertilisers are restricted) + additional costs resulting from the measure (e.g. more frequent mowing, or moving grazing animals) + an incentive (this is optional and not always used). There is also limited scope to pay farmers for essential capital investment, such as removing overgrown scrub from grassland. Maximum annual payment rates per hectare are: €600 for annual crops, €900 for specialised perennial crops, €450 for other land uses and €200 per livestock unit for local breeds in danger of loss. The inherent flexibility of agri-environment schemes offers wide scope for supporting Natura 2000 in terms of:

habitat management and restoration of low-intensity grazing land, heathlands, hay meadows, dehesa and other habitats which depend on specialised agricultural management;

species conservation by providing optimum conditions for Natura 2000 plants and animals, such as arable crops grown without fertilisers or pesticides for the benefit of arable weeds and invertebrates, late mown grassland for breeding waders, rough grass field margins (and associated small mammals) to provide hunting grounds for raptors.

buffer zones and resource protection measures near Natura sites can benefit them indirectly through protection from spray drift and fertilisers, reduced pollution of surface water and soil conservation.

landscape features may be important for breeding or shelter (e.g. traditional buildings as bat roosts and owl nesting sites) but are perhaps most significant for Article 10 of the Habitats Directive which seeks to ‘encourage the management of features of the landscape which are of major importance for wild fauna and flora. Such features are those which, by virtue of their linear and continuous structure (such as rivers with their banks or the traditional systems for marking field boundaries) or their function as stepping stones (such as ponds or small woods), are essential for the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species.’

conservation of local breeds and varieties of crops may not be of obvious relevance to Natura 2000, but these plants and animals may have a significant role in protecting species and habitats, perhaps as food plants for invertebrates or because some native breeds of cattle and sheep have evolved in parallel with their habitat and may have quite different grazing habits and preferences from modern commercial breeds.


21

Natura 2000 in the 2006-13 Rural Development Plans

The examples in the box below, taken from two current Rural Development Plans, illustrate the possibilities. In some cases agri-environment schemes may be only one part of a package of management measures for individual Natura 2000 sites. For example in Wales (UK) the Tir Gofal whole farm agri-environment scheme has 2,318 whole farm agreements covering some 249,398 ha of which almost 15 % (37,249 ha) are existing or candidate Natura 2000 sites4. On some of these sites the agri-environment measures may be sufficient, on others there may also be a separate state-aid management agreement (under national wildlife con-servation powers) which ‘tops up’ the Tir Gofal agreement.

Examples of Natura management under 2000-06 Rural Development Plans

Habitat management in Estonia Wooded meadows and pastures were traditionally managed as a source of hay, grazing, firewood, timber, nuts and edible fungi. They are among the richest habitats in Estonia, with some meadows having more than 60 species of vascu-lar plant per m2, but the total area has been reduced by 99 % in the past century as a result of abandonment and mechanisation of hay mowing. The Estonian RDP 2004-06 offers farmers €89 – €247/ha/year to manage wooded meadows and pastures, plus a 15 % incentive in Natura 2000 areas, protected areas, and valuable landscapes. The management requirements are: ▪ Wooded meadows – mowed from 1 July at least once a year and the hay re-

moved. ▪ Wooded pastures – land covered by tree crowns must be at least 0.2 ha, stock-

ing rate should be 0.3–1.0 Livestock Units per hectare, trees and bushes should be thinned where necessary.

In addition, each applicant must participate in a 6-hour training programme in the management of semi-natural habitats once in the first year and once again during the rest of the contract period.

4 as at end of December 2004, data supplied by Countryside Council for Wales


22

Geese and swans in Northern Ireland (UK) Internationally important numbers of whooper swans, Bewick’s swans, Greenland white-fronted geese, pale-bellied brent geese and greylag geese mi-grate every winter to Northern Ireland to feed on wetland sites and adjacent ag-ricultural land, damaging improved grassland and arable crops. The Northern Ireland Environmentally Sensitive Areas scheme offers farmers payments of €160 – 285/hectare for fields of improved grassland, winter cereals and winter oilseed rape that are regularly used for grazing during the period October to March by at least 25 migratory swans and/or geese per hectare. The manage-ment requirements are: ▪ In summer (April – September) there are no grazing restrictions in summer

but by 1 October sward height should be between 5 and 10 cm; if grassland has suffered extensive poaching and grazing damage by swans/geese during the previous winter the damaged area may be re-seeded after 31 March. Win-ter cereal or oilseed rape should be established in before 1 October by normal cultivation.

▪ In winter (October – March) all livestock must be excluded and there must be no ploughing, rolling, drainage or reseeding, and no application of slurry, farmyard manure, lime or pesticides. The use of bird scarers or other equip-ment to disturb feeding geese and swans is not permitted.

These are examples of agri-environment schemes deliberately targeted at habi-tat and species management but the degree of subsidiarity afforded to Member States means that at an EU scale it is difficult to evaluate the extent to which agri-environment schemes have benefited Natura 2000 sites and species. In 2000-02 the proportion of Rural Development expenditure allocated to agri-environment and Less Favoured Area payments varied from almost 90 % in Sweden to less than 10 % in Greece, with an EU15 average of about 50 %; within the agri-environment programmes the share of measures targeted at biodiversity and land-scape varied from more than 50 % in the Netherlands to less than 5 % in Ger-many and Denmark (2001 data)5.

5 quoted in DG Agri 2004


23

The next Rural Development Plan 2007-13

The context for agri-environment schemes in the next plan period will be differ-ent in several ways; most farmers will subject to cross-compliance requirements on their Single Payment, the EAFRD is likely to have new measures, including some specifically for Natura 2000, and budgetary pressure may increase. The diagram below illustrates a possible model in which Natura 2000 management is underpinned by cross-compliance and ‘broad and shallow’ agri-environment schemes and directly supported by targeted agri-environment schemes and state-aid payments.

legal requirements for all land managers

Single Payment cross-compliance

Entry level AE schemes Organic AE

AE higher level measures for habitats and species

Stateaid

broad dshallow

AE schemes

narrow and deep AE schemes

Natura 2000

Proportion of total farmed land

The extent to which agri-environment schemes may contribute to Natura 2000 management will depend on many factors including:

policy integration at all levels from the new EAFRD Regulation to national strategies, through scheme design, delivery and evaluation at a farm level;

institutional capacity, including links between environment and agricultural ministries, to ensure that measures are appropriate and their impact on Natura 2000 habitats and species is properly evaluated;

flexibility of scheme design and payment rates to accommodate the needs of Natura 2000;

advice and training for advisers delivery staff and farmers; adequate budget allocations for payments to farmers and for delivery costs; and competing demands for funding from other rural development measures.

24

Financial Perspective 2007-2013: EU Finances and their Effects on Nature Conservation

Kerstin Bohnsack European Nature Heritage Fund (EURONATUR),

Rheinbach/Bonn, Germany

1. Introduction

This article has two objectives. It is to give an overview of EU financial planning for 2007 – 2013 as proposed by the Commission, of structural changes in the budget, and of the specific headings under which planned expenditure will be made. It particularly wishes to provide information on the assessment of the cur-rent debate in Germany on the financial perspectives from the environmental, so-cial, and economic points of view as expressed by the broad alliance of non-governmental organisations from the environmental, agricultural, animal welfare and other fields.

Overview of EU financial planning

The EU adopts so-called “financial perspectives” for fixed time periods. The cur-rent period covers the years 2000 – 2006 and the period covered by the new fi-nancial framework extends from 2007 – 2013. The Commission adopted on 10 February 2004 a Communication outlining its proposals for the EU’s budget plan for the period 2007 – 2013 (the ‘financial perspective’). The EU budget contains an expenditure ceiling. This has so far been set at 1.24 % of the Member States’ gross national income (GNI); the Commission plans to continue to respect this ceiling during the new period without, however, necessarily fully exhausting it.

The EU budget is largely comprised of contributions from the Member States, based on a contribution scale which is rather complicated and not easily compre-hensible for the layperson. Every Member State makes a certain annual financial contribution to Brussels and in return receives moneys from the EU in the context of its expenditure policies for the individual policy areas (such as agricultural policy, structural funding etc.). In accordance with the focal tasks the EU has to implement and finance, some countries receive more money from Brussels than


25

they have ‘paid in’ (net recipients) and others contribute more money than they receive, i.e. they are net contributors. Germany is one of these net contributors.

A few months ago six net contributors (Germany, France, the United King-dom, the Netherlands, Austria, and Sweden) have positioned themselves, espe-cially with regard to their rather strained budgetary situations: They want the EU to spend less money in the next financial period than the Commission has planned, so that their contributions to the EU can be reduced, in other words, so that they can save money. They want the expenditure ceiling to be set at 1.0 % of GNI, not at 1.24 % as the Commission has proposed. This would mean that for 2007 the commitment appropriations could only amount to €107.000 million in-stead of the planned €133.000 million, and to only €127.000 million for 2013 in-stead of the envisaged €158.000 million. The EU would have to spend €30.000 – €35.000 million less per year.

At the EU level the net contributors’ demand currently dominates the debate on financial planning. In order to further emphasise their demands the net con-tributors are currently preparing proposals as to how annual savings of €25.000 – 30.000 million can be made compared to the Commission proposals. The German Federal Government also currently coordinates its proposals in this regard.

One area of Community spending for which the NGOs working in the areas of environmental protection, nature conservation, consumer protection, animal wel-fare, and agriculture have been fighting especially hard is coming under particu-lar pressure – the so-called Second Pillar of the CAP, the “support for rural de-velopment”.

2. The structure of the Financial Perspectives 2007 – 2013 and planned expenditure as proposed by the EU Commission

The structure of the EU budget for the current financial period (2000 – 2006) is as follows:


26

Part A Administrative appropriations

Part B Commission budget (accounts for about 98 % of total EU expenditure), divided into

B1 Agriculture B2 Structural operations (structural funds) B3 Internal policies (incl. i.a. environmental protection) B4 External policies B5 Administration B6 Reserves B7 Pre-accession aid

The Financial Perspective 2007 – 2013: Concentration on EU priorities

The planned “Financial Perspective for 2007 – 2013” will introduce a new budget structure which is derived from the EU priorities regarding the “Lisbon Strategy” and the “EU Strategy for Sustainable Development” endorsed in Gothenburg in 20011.

The Commission proposed that the Union concentrates its action for the Next Financial Perspective on three Priorities:

The Internal Market must be completed so that it can play its full part in achieving the broader objective of sustainable development, mobilising economic, social, and environmental policies to that end. This encompasses competitiveness, cohesion and the sustainable management and protection of natural resources.

The political concept of European citizenship hinges on the completion of an area of freedom, justice, security and access to basic public goods.

Europe should project a coherent role as a global partner, inspired by its core values in assuming regional responsibilities, promoting sustainable development, and contributing to civilian and strategic security.

1 Lisbon strategy: Includes all measures for the economic, social, and environmental

transformation of the EU. In March 2000 the European Council at its Lisbon meeting had tabled this ten-year agenda, the aim of which is to transform the European Union into the world’s most dynamic and competitive economy. The tenet of the strategy is that a solid economy promotes job creation and supports social and environmental measures which in turn are to guarantee sustainable development and social cohesion.

Gothenburg strategy: EU Strategy for Sustainability


27

The following new structure of the financial framework 2007-2013 results from these priorities

Heading 1 (Sustainable development/“growth”) is divided into two separate, but interlinked components:

1a. Competitiveness for growth and employment, encompassing expenditure on research and innovation, education and training, EU networks, the internal market and accompanying policies (the need to implement Lisbon).

1b. Cohesion for growth and employment, designed to enhance convergence of the least developed Member States and regions, to complement the EU strategy for sustainable development outside the less prosperous re-gions and to support inter regional cooperation (this section concerns the newly designed Structural Funds).

Heading 2 (Preservation and management of natural resources) includes the common agricultural and fisheries policies (old First Pillar of the CAP), rural development and environmental measures, in particular Natura 2000 (new rural development policy (EAFRD Regulation on Rural development)).

The new heading 3 (Citizenship, freedom, security and justice) reflects the growing importance attached to certain fields where the Union has been assigned new tasks – justice and home affairs, border protection, immigration and asylum policy, public health and consumer protection, culture, youth, information and dialogue with citizens. This heading also covers the Union’s Solidarity and Rapid Reaction Fund.

Heading 4 (The European Union as a global partner) covers all external ac-tion, including pre-accession instruments, integration of the European Develop-ment Fund (EDF) into the budget and the current reserves for emergency aid and loan guarantees.

Heading 5 (Administration) covers expenditure for institutions other than the Commission, pensions and the European Schools. Commission administrative expenditure will be included directly under the relevant operational headings, as part of a new approach in line with the rationale of activity-based management, which already forms the basis for establishing the annual budget. The new pres-entation allows the budgetary authority to discuss and vote on the operational and administrative appropriations for each policy area simultaneously.


28

The Financial Perspective 2007 – 2013: Structure and classification of expenditure

According to the Financial Perspective the commitment appropriations for all headings are as follows (in million €):

COMMITMENT APPROPRIATIONS

2006 (a) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

1. Sustainable growth 47.582 59.675 62.795 55.800 68.235 70.660 73.715 76.7851a. Competitiveness for growth and employment 8.791 12.105 14.390 16.680 18.965 21.250 23.540 25.825

1b. Cohesion for growth and employment 38.791 47.570 48.405 49.120 49.270 49.410 50.175 50.960

2. Sustainable manage-ment and protection of natural resources

56.015 57.180 57.900 58.115 57.980 57.850 57.825 57.805

CAP (market organisations, direct payments) 43.735 43.500 43.673 43.354 43.034 42.714 42.506 42.293

Rural development (EAFRD Regulation) 10.544 11.575 12.050 12.500 12.600 12.725 12.850 12.975

Fisheries policy (incl. international agreements) 909 1.025 1.050 1.075 1.100 1.100 1.125 1.125

i.a. environmental protection (incl. LIFE+) 254 275 300 325 350 375 400 425

Other (incl. administration) 573 804 827 862 897 934 944 9873. Citizenship, freedom, security and justice 1.381 1.630 2.015 2.330 2.645 2.970 3.295 3.620

4. The EU as a global partner 11.232 11.400 12.175 12.945 13.720 14.495 15.115 15.740

5. Administration 3.436 3.675 3.815 3.950 4.090 4.225 4.365 4.500Source: European Commission

http://europa.eu.int/comm/press_room/presspacks/enlarg/com_2004_101_de.pdf

3. The German debate on reductions in the financial perspectives for 2007 – 2013

The current situation in Germany is as follows: 1. The entire Federal Government, that is all ministers and ministries, support

the “1 % ceiling” as a reduction goal2.

2 The paper presented here does not deal with the general issue of the Federal

Government’s reduction goal. It exclusively discusses the issue of where savings could be made on the basis of environmental and social considerations (i.e. with a view to sustainability), provided savings are seen as being useful or unavoidable.


29

2. In the internal governmental negotiations on the issue of where possible savings could be made, the Federal Chancellery, the Federal Ministry of Fi-nance (BMF), and the Foreign Office (AA), under the aegis of which the negotiations are being held, all hold that no (!) savings can be made in the First Pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy (direct payments, market or-ganisations, export refunds)3; the European Council’s decision of October 2002 is being cited in support of this stance, which has established an ex-penditure ceiling for the First Pillar4.

3. Furthermore, the Federal Government will in future give the highest priority to EU policy on research, in order to strengthen competitiveness and eco-nomic growth. This is part of the so-called Lisbon Strategy (see below) which seeks to make Europe the world’s most important economic area. Therefore, the Federal Government holds that this is another area where no cuts should be made.

4. As areas where budgetary savings should be made the government has thus identified the Structural Funds and the Second Pillar of the EU agricultural policy in particular, which over the past few years has been transformed into an important policy instrument as part of the “rural economic develop-ment policy”.

From the information which has been accessible it is obvious that the Federal Government internally discusses scenarios which envisage radical cuts in the support for “Rural Development”: Of the approximately €88.000 million in fund-ing planned for by the Commission, only €55.000 million would remain, or in the most extreme scenario a mere €34.000 million.

4. Positions of German NGOs

These envisaged budgetary savings would be a catastrophic development as it would put in question the “turnaround in agriculture” (Agrarwende) and the fi-nancing of the EU Network of protected areas “NATURA 2000” as a whole

3 They state that quite to the contrary, due to the accession of Bulgaria and Romania

(planned for 2007 or thereafter) this item will need to be allocated up to €8.000 million in additional funding over the programme period.

4 The expenditure ceiling negotiated by Schröder and Chirac in 2002 and later adopted by the Council, is, as the name says, an upper limit, not a minimum amount to be spend. It is obvious that it is in France’s interest, or rather in the interest of its particularly influential “conservative” agricultural lobby, not to make any changes to the way direct payments are made to their farmers. However, we are of the opinion that the German Federal Government can and should at first establish its own position and that it should not solely seek orientation from the specific interests of our, undoubtedly important, partner state France.


30

which in turn aims at i.a. achieving the European Council objective to “Stop Bio-diversity Loss by 2010”. The questions remain unsolved how the LEADER pro-gramme can continue if funding is cut especially in these innovative and effective areas of “rural development”. How can the shifts in funding between the Member States and the regions, particularly in the field of structural aid be achieved in an appropriate manner within the future?

However, both the EU Commission and the German Federal Government have stressed the importance of the Second Pillar/Rural development instrument time after time as well as the extension of the Second Pillar has repeatedly been an-nounced by the policy-makers and the transfer of the funds from the First Pillar (90 % of all agricultural expenditure to date) into the Second Pillar (only 10 % of agricultural expenditures to date) hardly any aspect of these proclamations has survived. The net contributor position is much more advantageous in the Second Pillar than in the First Pillar as the percentage return of funds to Germany is greater for the former. (Of each Euro Germany transfers to Brussels, 55 cent re-turn to Germany through the First Pillar, while 73 cent return through the Second Pillar.)

The position of the net contributor countries requires, moreover, a complete re-evaluation of all EU expenditure. This can indeed be regarded as an opportunity. Each and every item of expenditure should, without prejudice, be newly assessed as to its usefulness and its impacts. In the future the expenditure must – more strongly than in the past – be aligned with the priorities agreed by the EU. These are both the implementation of the Lisbon strategy (Objectives: Creation of a competitive economic area, creation of new jobs [full employment by 2010], support for environmental protection) and the implementation of the Gothenburg strategy (sustainable development). Consequently, all the expenditure headings must be subjected to “impact assessments”.

5. The debate on the financing of nature conservation: Natura 2000

The establishment of the Natura 2000 network is based primarily on the Habitats Directive adopted in 1992. In adopting this Directive, the EU Member States and the EC Commission made two promises:

to conclude the establishment of a European nature conservation network, to be known as the Natura 2000 network, within three years;

to make the requisite funding available in order to ensure that landowners or land-users do not have to bear the financial burden.


31

Neither of these promises has yet been kept. Both the Commission and the Member States are thus urged not just to take fine-sounding decisions but also to be fully consistent in implementing such decisions.

The discussion on the financing of Natura 2000 sites has to take place against the background of the expected wrangling over the size of the overall EU budget and the allocation of resources. The discussion on the financial upper limit should be seen in the context that the amount to be set aside for nature conservation, es-timated by the Commission at least EUR 6.1 billion per year, is an addition to the tasks to be carried out under the second pillar, even though, up to now, the requi-site funding has not been provided under the financial perspective. Steps must therefore be taken to ensure that nature conservation and therefore to help to fi-nance Natura 2000, which is seen as forming part of overall EU policy, is not subordinated to other tasks when funding is being provided by Member States. Nature conservation in Europe is not to be regarded as a luxury which we can “afford” when the economic situation is favourable and which we can turn our back on when we are of the opinion that no funding is available. As the heads of state have often stressed, nature conservation is a task for society as a whole and a vital political requirement for which financing had to be found.

Reductions in support for rural development are incompatible with the EU’s own objectives. Moreover, to make such cuts while leaving all the direct pay-ments under the First Pillar uncut, would be a disastrous move: High direct pay-ments without sufficient environmental requirements and without any social cri-teria attached would remain intact, while at the same time there would not be suf-ficient funding to pay farmers for environmental services or to finance the creation of jobs in the context of “rural development”.

6. Conclusion

If we wish to maintain the quality of rural development and also help to finance Natura 2000 via the second pillar of the CAP, additional funds clearly have to be earmarked. However, such an increase in funding is not provided for under the fi-nancial perspective presented by the Commission and there is a very grave danger that savings are to be made, particularly under the second pillar. Furthermore, the figure for EU revenue proposed in the financial perspective is not accepted by the Member States which are ‘net contributors’. This set of circumstances not only con-stitutes a major weak point and presents considerable potential for conflict; it also jeopardises the full range of nature conservation efforts in the EU.


32

The position of the net contributor like Germany would thus largely destroy any step taken over the past few years towards more environmental protection and social compatibility in agricultural policy and towards the creation of alterna-tive employment opportunities in the rural regions. Should additional funding not be made available, neither the Commission nor the Member States will be able to fulfil their claim and their political promise both to promote rural development and implement Natura 2000. Politicians wishing to pursue this line in the EU should at least have the courage to tell the public openly that there is no longer a political will to assume certain tasks (e.g. nature conservation).

In the context of the “Financial Perspectives” 2007 – 2013, politicians who are serious about their commitment to more sustainability should fight for a strength-ening of the Second Pillar – which could be regarded as rural economic develop-ment. Potentially required savings should be made in the First Pillar of the CAP, in the direct payments which due to a lack of attached environmental and social criteria are becoming increasingly harder to justify, as well as in other, much less effective sectors.

7. Literature

European Commission (ed.) (2004): Mitteilungen der Kommission an den Rat und das Europäische Parlament: “Unsere gemeinsame Zukunft aufbauen” – Politische Herausforderungen und Haushaltmittel der erweiterten Union 2007-2013 – COM (2004) 101 endgültig. Brüssel. See: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/de/com/cnc/2004/com2004_0101de03.pdf

Ribbe, L. (2005): Die Natur im Haifischbecken. Rot-grüne Regierung plant Aderlass bei der “Ländlichen Entwicklung”. In: euronatur-Magazin 01/2005. See: http://www.euronatur.org/aktuelles_hintergrund/eu.finanzplanung_kommentar_ ribbe_ 20041221.htm

Stiftung Europäisches Naturerbe (EURONATUR) & Arbeitsgemeinschaft bäuerliche Landwirtschaft (Abl) (ed.) (2005): The EU Financial Perspective 2007 – 2013. State and Assessment of the Current Debate. Joint platform by environmental, nature conservation, agricultural, animal welfare and consumer affairs. Rheinbach, Hamm. See: http://www.euronatur.org/PDF_Dateien/Verbaende-zur-Finanz-Vorausschau-EU-Jan-2005.pdf


33

Links (web pages)

Die Finanzielle Vorausschau der EU 2007 – 2013. Positionspapier der Verbände aus Umwelt- und Naturschutz, Tierschutz und Landwirtschaft. See: http://www.euronatur.org/PDF_Dateien/Verbaende-zur-Finanz-Vorausschau-EU-Jan-2005.pdf

Vorschlag der Kommission über die Finanzielle Vorausschau 2007-2013. See: http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/pdf/financialfrwk/enlarg/COM_2004_101_de.pdf

Zusammenfassung und tabellarische Übersicht über die Ausgabenstruktur. See: http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/de/lvb/l34004.htm

Brief der Sechs. See: http://www.bundesregierung.de/artikel-,413.577056/ Gemeinsames-Schreiben-Deutschl.htm

EU-Haushalt und mittelfristige Finanzplanung. See: http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Europa-und-internationale-Beziehungen/Haushalt-und-Finanzen-der-EU-.554.htm

EU-Nachrichten Nr. 32. See: http://www.eu-kommission.de/pdf/eunachrichten/32_04_INTERNET.pdf

Einsparungen in der zweiten Säule. See: http://www.agra-europe.de/akt_meld/a_meld.htm#Artikel1

Verhandlungen über die Agenda 2007-2013. See: http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www/de/eu_politik/aktuelles/agenda2007-2013_html

Europäischer Rat von Lissabon: Schlussfolgerung des Vorsitzes. Europäischer Rat (Lissabon). See: http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/de/ec/00100-r1.d0.htm

34

Financing and Nature Conservation in Slovakia

Michal Tvrdoň Slovak Agency of the Environment

Slovakia is geographically in the center of Europe, formed by Carpathian moun-tains and the Pannonian lowland areas which allows for a rich diversity of flora and fauna compared to most Western European countries.

National parks together with protected landscape areas comprise 23 % of the total country area.

Slovak Republic has a very high species diversity. Approximately 11 200 spe-cies of wild plants and more than 25000 species of wild animals were described. More than 2900 plants and more than 1900 animal species can be considered for taxons in risk.

The act defines 5 levels of protection and 7 categories of protected areas: pro-tected landscape area (14), national park (9), protected site (192), nature reserve (385), nature monument, protected landscape element ad protected bird area.

Category Number of PA Size of PA in ha Size of protective zones (PZ) in ha

Protected landscape areas 14 525 547 National parks 9 317 890 267 725,36 Protected sites 192 6 800,54 2536,17 Nature reserves 385 12 416,35 256,31 National nature reserves 228 85 775,63 3054,76 Nature monuments 231 1 535,36 207,73 National nature monuments 60 58,9381 26,6225


35

FinancingFinancing ofof NatureNature ConservationConservation in in thethe SRSR

Pre-accessionperiod before

May 2004

SR as a memberof EU afterMay 2004

Investment funded fromthe state budget

Financing

EU/ForeignAssistance

The Ministry of the Environment (MoE) is the central body of the state ad-ministration in the field of water protection and its rational use, waste manage-ment, air quality and nature conservation.

Relevant environmental legislation was fully harmonized with EU require-ments in 2002, but several antagonistic provisions still exists in other national le-gal regulations.

One of the priorities in the field of the nature and landscape protection is the management of the protected areas, important habitats and management of the protected species. These priorities follow from the Act No 543/2002 Coll. on na-ture and landscape protection, came into the force on 1 January 2003 (hereinafter as the Act). The aim of this act is “to support preservation of diverse living condi-tions and life forms on the Earth, to create conditions for sustainability, restora-tion and rational use of natural resources, preservation of natural heritage, charac-teristic landscape features and to reach and maintain ecological stability.”

Pre – accession Period in the Slovak Republic

ISPA Sapard

PHARE Bilateral cooperation LIFE III


36

Based on the conclusions of Berlin Summit (Berlin, 24. – 25. of March, 1999), the European Commission elaborated a proposal for the financial allocation to the accession countries.

These funds provided to candidates within the pre – accession aid period through three programmes: Phare (Council Regulation 3906/890), Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-accession – ISPA (Council Regulation 1267/990) and Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development – SAPARD (Council Regulation 1268/99) from 2000 until their accession to the European Union.

Structural FundsStructural Funds in in the Slovak Republicthe Slovak Republic

•ERDF: European Regional Development Fund

•ESF: European Social Fund

•EAGGF: European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund

•FIFG: Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance

According to the decision of the Slovak government adopted in January 2003, structural funds were divided by the following ratio: European Regional Devel-opment Fund (ERDF) 42.62 %; European Social Fund (ESF) 28 %; European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF + FIFG) 24 %; and commu-nity initiatives (Interreg a Equal) 5.38 %.


37

StructuralStructural FundsFundsNational

Development Plan

SOPIndustry and Services

Managing authority:MoEco

SOPHuman ResourcesManaging authority:

MPSVR SR

SOPAgriculture and Rural

DevelopmentManaging authority:

MoA SR

OPBasic InfrastructureManaging authority:

MoBRD SR

The National Development Plan (NDP) of the SR is the basic programming document for drawing on structural funds following Slovakia’s accession to the EU. The NDP defines the following strategic objective of the NDP for the period 2004-2006:

Economic growth and competitiveness Employment Balanced regional development

NDP defines four priorities for Slovakia’s development: Competitiveness Employment Agriculture and rural development Basic infrastructure

The priorities of the NDP are implemented by means of four Operational Pro-grammes:


38

Priority 1: Transport Infrastructure (MoTPT SR)

Priority 2: Environmental Infrastructure (MoE SR)

Measure 2.1: Improvement and development of the infrastructure for the protection and rational use of water

Measure 2.2: Improvement and development of the infrastructure for atmospheric protection

Measure 2.3: Improvement and development of the infrastructure in the field of waste management

Measure 2.4: Protection, improvement and restoration of the environment

Priority 3: Local Infrastructure (MVRR SR)

Operational Operational PProgrammerogramme –– Basic Basic IInfrastructurenfrastructure: :

The aim of priority 2 is to improve environmental infrastructure and environ-mental management for the purpose of improving the basis for sustainable social and economic development of regions and reducing disparities between them. This will be achieved by means of the following measures:

Improvement and development of the infrastructure for the protection and rational use of waters

Improvement and development of the infrastructure for atmospheric protection

Improvement and development of the infrastructure in the field of waste management

Protection, improvement and restoration of the environment.

Priority 2 Priority 2 -- Environmental Infrastructure:Environmental Infrastructure:Approved applications Approved applications

974 639,38 €

6 252 087,18 €

648 169,23 €

Measure 2.1Measure 2.2Measure 2.3Measure 2.4

5 of 6 projects of the Measure 2.4 are focused on implementation of NATURA 2000.


39

ISPAISPA

• supports large-scale infrastructure projects in the fields of transport and environment (in a 50-50 proportion)

• it comes under the responsibility of the Regional Policy Directorate-General)

Instrument for Structural Policiesfor Pre-accession

ISPA assistance was concentrated on the “investment heavy” directives, direc-tives that are costly to implement, and, that deal with worst environmental prob-lems, in areas such as: drinking-water supply, treatment of waste water, solid-waste management and air pollution.

These required major investments, ISPA therefore contribute to funding the development of railways, roads, ports and airports, taking into account require-ments for sustainable transport and modal change.

ISPA in ISPA in FactsFacts

LIFE has been implemented in phases: 400 million euros were allocated for the first phase (1992-1995), approximately 450 million euros were allocated for the second phase (1996-1999), the third phase, "LIFE III" (2000-2004) has a budget of 640 million euro. LIFE III has been extended (2005-2006) by Regulation (EC) No 1682/2004 of 15 September 2004 with a budget of 317 million euro.

ISPA

• 22 projects during 4 years

• all projects focused on environmental infrastructure

• total investment to the environment: 336,78 M €

• ISPA contribution: 55 %

• Slovak contribution: 45 %

During 4 years was realized 22 projects mostly focused for environmental in-frastructure.


40

SapardSapard

• supports the efforts made by the future Member States of central and eastern Europe in the pre-accession period as they prepare for implementation of the acquis communautaire in the fields of agriculture and rural development

• it comes under the responsibility of the Agriculture Directorate-General

Special Accession Programme for Agricultureand Rural Development

Sapard was a financial instrument during pre-accession period and was focused on implementation of acquis communitaire in the field of agriculture and rural development.

PHAREPHARE• it was one of the three pre-accession instrumentsfinanced by the European Union

• has assisted the future Member States of centralEurope in their preparations for joining the EuropeanUnion

• started in 1998 in the Slovak Republic• € 1.6 billion per year has been allocated for Phare• it comes under the responsibility of the Enlargement

Directorate-General

Since 2000 more than 20 Twinning projects have been implemented in the Slovakia and financed under PHARE or other pre-accession instruments. For ex-ample project were focused on EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment), Institu-tion Building, etc.


41

PHAREPHARE


OverviewOverview of obtainedof obtained Phare Phare fundsfunds during the periodduring the period19981998--2003 2003 inin M M €€ forfor

MinistryMinistry of Environmentof Environment SRSR

17,53**

0,40,791,49

14,85Paid resourcesAlloc. resourcesYEAR

27,2Total2,9200342002

0,420010,920001,51999

17,51998

This Table is an overview of how much resources was allocated in every year and how much resources was paid. Programs from year 2002 and 2003 are still running therefore there is no information about paid resources.

PHARE in PHARE in FactsFacts


• 20 projects

- Phare Twining (2000)

- National program 2001


- Phare – Unallocated Inst. Building Facility 2002


- Phare CBC 2003

- Phare MCP

Firstly, twinning projects were built around jointly agreed EU policy objec-tives, such as the preparation of EU enlargement (PHARE) and further strength-ening of the administrative capacity of the new Member States (Transition Facil-ity). But only one of this projects was focused on nature conservation.

Due to the horizontal character of the majority of PHARE programmes it is diffi-cult to analyse the overall contribution of the PHARE programme to nature conser-vation.


42

Generally, it can be concluded that investment in institutional improvement, political criteria, justice and internal affairs has not succeeded in being trans-ferred to the regional level and is not included in the calculation.

The final amount consists of spending on the national programme, the envi-ronment, cross border co-operation and community initiatives.

The implementation strategy introduces the basic instruments for implement-ing EU requirements and its central feature is the implementation plan for the CITES regulations and key directives of EU legislation on nature protection (di-rective on habitats and directive on birds) and creation the NATURA 2000 net-work on the one side and institutional strengthening of the state administration in the implementation of other directives and regulations on the other.

LIFE III

LIFE III (The Financial Instrument for the Environment) was launched in 1992 as a Community Programme.

LIFE has been implemented in phases: first phase (1992 – 1995) 400 million euros were allocated second phase (1996 – 1999) 450 million euros were allocated third phase, “LIFE III” (2000 – 2004) has a budged of 640 million euro

LIFE III has been extended (2005 – 2006) by Regulation (EC) No 1682/2004 of 15 September 2004 with a budget of 317 million euro.

LIFE III – NATURE Total: 1 962 244 € LIFE Contribution: 1 289 622 € LIFE III – ENVIRONMENT Total: 6 400 633 € LIFE Contribution: 1 464 448 €

Summary of the environmental investment from the Life contribution is more than 2 and half million Euro and total investment is more than 8 million Euro.


43

LIFE III – Nature Conservation of Aquila Heliaca in the Carpathian Basin (2003) Total: 492 000 € LIFE: 369 000 € Conservation and Management of Danube Floodplain Forest (2003) Total: 570 000 € LIFE: 370 500 € Restoration of Water Regim in “Sur” Fen Nature Reserve (2003) Total: 400 000 € LIFE: 300 000 € Conservation of Habitat Diversity in Slovensky Raj National Park (2004) Total: 500 244 € LIFE: 250 122 €

SEVERAL LIFE – Nature conservation projects have been implemented in the Slovak Republic.

LIFE III – Environment Integrated Logistic for Use of Biomass Energy (2003) Total: 5 733 000 € LIFE: 1 012 000 € Innovative Approach in Waste Reduction of Propylene Oxide Prod. (2004) Total: 1 775 842 € LIFE: 281 503 € SD of the Cities and Mitigation of Impacts Of Climate Change on Quality of Life Total: 355 739 € LIFE: 170 945 €

3 LIFE – Environment conservation projects have also been implemented in the Slovak Republic.


44

LIFE III LIFE III –– CContributionontribution


Slovak Republic obtained from LIFE III

99,571%

0,429%

LIFE Buget

Slovak Republic

This GRAF shows how much percent of the total conservation budget The Slovak Republic Obtained from whole LIFE III.

BilateralBilateral CooperationCooperation in in Nature Nature ConservationConservation –– BelgiumBelgium


Flemish Environmental Agency

• 1 project

• focused on monitoring of air quality

• duration from January 2003 until December 2004

• total investments: 193 020 €

• foreign contribution: 159 918 €

DANCEE DANCEE –– DenmarkDenmark


DANCEE – completed projects

• 10 projects

• 5 of 10 focused on conservation of nature

• total investment to the environment: 6 986 700 €

• total investment to the nature conservation: 3 823700 €

• DANCEE contribution: 5 064 750 €

• Slovak contribution: 1 291 950 €


45

Several calculations for the cost of compliance with EU environmental legisla-tion have been made, with different results. Nevertheless, all estimates indicate that the environmental sector will represent the most costly chapter in EU nego-tiations.

The most relevant document in respect to approximation in this area is the In-tegrated EU Approximation Strategy in the Environmental Sector prepared under the umbrella of the Ministry of the Environment (the DANCEE project). This project, which was completed in 2001, calculated approximation costs in the en-vironmental sector for the period of 2001 to 2035.

DANCEE DANCEE –– in grafin graf


545 000 €

926 500 €

797 500 €

264 000 €

0 €

1 353 500 €

925 750 €

252 500 €

0 €

706 500 €

275 450 €

310 000 €

2000

2001

2002

2003

Contribution of SRProtection of natureEnvironmental projects

This graf 2 also shows the annual costs for sector Environment and for the Pro-tection of nature for the year in which they are the highest.

DANCEE DANCEE –– in grafin graf

LIFE has been implemented in phases: 400 million euros were allocated for the first phase (1992-1995), approximately 450 million euros were allocated for the second phase (1996-1999), the third phase, "LIFE III" (2000-2004) has a budget of 640 million euro. LIFE III has been extended (2005-2006) by Regulation (EC) No 1682/2004 of 15 September 2004 with a budget of 317 million euro.545000

926500797500

264000

1353500

925750

252500

706500275450

310000

00

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2000 2001 2002 2003

Contribution of SRProtection of natureEnvironmental projects


46

That is the same graph like before but this one shows annual costs in percentage.

Bilateral Bilateral –– NetherlandsNetherlands


Programme MATRA, pre-accession

• 7 projects

• focused on waste management

• 4 project - finished

• 3 projects duration until 2005

• total investments: 2 448 000 €

• foreign contribution: 1 548 000 €

Bilateral Bilateral –– NorwayNorway

LIFE has been implemented in phases: 400 million euros were allocated f or the first phase (1992-1995), approximately 450 million euros were allocated f or the second phase (1996-1999), the third phase, "LIFE III" (2000-2004) has a budget of 640 million euro. LIFE III has been extended (2005-2006) by Regulation (EC) No 1682/2004 of 15 September 2004 with a budget of 317 million euro.

• 3 projects

• focused on sustainability of regions, conservation of Ramsar habitats, culturalheritage

• total investments: 192 000€

Bilateral Bilateral –– SwitzerlandSwitzerland


• 7 projects

• focused on sustainable development, technical andorganization support, municipal waste incinerationplant

• total investments: 2 860 875 €

Bilateral Bilateral –– U.K.U.K.• 2 projects

• focused on environmental education, multilateralproject

• total investments: 436 472 €


47

Bilateral Bilateral –– JapanJapan• 2 projects

• focused on conservation of caves, water management

• material support: 104 000 €

Structural FundsStructural Funds

ESFBratislavský kraj Objective3

ESFERDF

Vybraté územie BA kraja:Pezinok, Senec, Malacky, územieČuňova, Jarovce, Rusovce, Z.Bystrica,Vajnory

Objective2

ERDF,EAGGF, FIFG,ESF

Trnavský, Trenčiansky,Nitriansky,Banskobystrický, Prešovský, Košický, Žilinský kraj

Objective1

SFEligible regions SRObjective

SpatialSpatial ClassificationClassification ofof SR SR ofof DrawingsDrawings SFSFNUTS – Nomenclature des Unités Territoriales StatistiquesNUTS I – Slovak RepublicNUTS II – 4 statistical spatial units: BA region, West Slocakia

Central Slovakia, East SlovakiaNUTS III – county (8)NUTS IV – region (79)NUTS V – municipality (2883)


48

Administrative Structure of theAdministrative Structure of theSlovak Republic NUTS IISlovak Republic NUTS II

The major differences between Slovak regions (classified according to NUTS II, see this Figure) can be observed on the west-east axis. NUTS II: Bratislava, Western Slovakia (Trnavský, Trencianský, Nitriansky Counties), Central Slova-kia (Banskobystrický, Zilinský, Counties), Eastern Slovakia (Presovský, Kosicky Counties).

HISTORY OF HISTORY OF ECONOMICS OFECONOMICS OFENVIRONMENTALENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONPROTECTION

• 1998 – 2001 State Environmental Fund, the purpose ofwhich shall be to raise,allocate and provide financialresources and their proper use in environmentalprotection,shall be established. §1 of Act No.69/1998Coll. of Laws on State Environmental Fund

• 2002 – 2004 Section of Environmental ProjectsRealisations

• 1 January 2005 Environmental Fund established by ActNo.587/2004 Coll.of Laws on Environmental Fund

State Environmental Fund of the SR (MoF SR) represented the basic source for environmental projects funding. Pursuant to Act No. 69/1998 Coll. of Laws on


49

State Environmental Fund, the funds in 2001 were divided into the groups of non-repayable and repayable funding.

HISTORY OF HISTORY OF ECONOMICS OFECONOMICS OFENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

• 1993 – 2003 Summary of environmental investmentsfunded from the state budget is 613 750 000 €

• more than 45% was funded from MoE• In 2003, the Minister of Environment of Slovakia decidedto award 840 subsidies at the amount of 25,988,556 €

• of this amount, 16,3 mil. € was set aside to address 308activities within the for the protection and rational use ofwaters

Investment Investment FFundedunded from the from the SStatetate BBudgetudget–– in in grafgraf


€ 0

€ 5

€ 10

€ 15

€ 20

€ 25

2001 2002 2003

MEu

r

Water supplies

WWTP

Air protection

Waste management

Nature protection

Spatial planning

Other

Villaga renewal

Accidents

Links (web pages)

http://www.sazp.sk

http://www.euroenviro.sk

http://www.enviro.gov.sk

http://www.vlada.gov.sk

http://www.strukturalne-fondy.gov.sk

http://www.build.gov.sk

http://www. europa.sk

http://www.eurofondy.org

http://www.ekopolis.sk

50

Evaluation of Selected International Conventions

Mojmír Vlašín Ecological Institute Veronica of the Czech

Union for Nature Conservation, Brno

Introduction

The Czech Republic is an inland country lying in the centre of the temperate zone of the northern hemisphere in the central part of Europe. With an area of 78 866 km2 it is the 21st in size among European countries. Its population of 10 309 000 inhabitants places it in 12th position in Europe. The CR1 has a state border with Poland, Germany, Austria and Slovakia.

The main European watershed passes through the CR, separating the Baltic Sea and Black Sea watersheds. The central node of this watershed is Kralicky Sneznik mountain, 1423 m above sea level.

The CR is very rich in geological sources and mineral water. For example the warmest mineral spring is Vridlo in Karlovy Vary Spa at 72 oC.

The Czech Republic has a rich and varied ecosystem due to its location be-tween different ecological regions and the variations in geography from fertile plains to high mountains. The impact of human activity varies significantly, on the one hand there are areas that have been utilised intensively for hundreds of years, and on the other hand there remain areas of pristine forests with a mini-mum of human impact.

There are more than 200 environmentally oriented NGOs in the CR. The big-gest one by membership is CSOP (8 000 members).

1 Abbreviations: MoE – Ministry of Environment

CR – The Czech Republic, Czech PLA – Protected Landscape Area NP – National Park


51

International Commitments

In the following, the relevant EU legislation and conventions are described in brief. The two most important Directives, 79/40)/EEC (the Birds Directive) and 92/43/EEC (the Habitats Directive) are not described in detail, because they are a part of the EU accession agreement. Council Regulation 338/97 and Commission Regulation 2307/97 are also important, since they implement the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). It should be noted that the set of legis-lation and conventions provided here is not all-inclusive. As a consequence, the Convention on Desertification, and other international treaties and conventions have been omitted. In addition, the EU Directives dealing with water manage-ment and air quality have not been included, even though they are of major im-portance to the health of Czech ecosystems. Due to the limited scope and dura-tion of this analysis the review has been selective.

Evaluation of conventions

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention)

The Czech legislation, in particular Act No. 114/1992 on nature conservation and landscape protection, covers the requirements laid down by the Convention. However, there are certain provisions of the Convention which need to be trans-posed into Czech Law.

Act No.114/1992 should state that in the event that the Czech Republic is in the range of a migratory species listed in Appendix I of the Convention it must prohibit the taking (defined according to the Convention) of animals belonging to such species. This statement should be set in the section of Act No. 114/1992 dealing with the special protection of animal species.

The convention was signed on 20.10.1993 by the minister of Environment. Rati-fied by Parliament 1.5.1994. Participation at international conferences is regular.

Background to the participation: there was a large and long debate about the participation between the ministries of Environment and Agriculture. The hunters lobby do not want to follow the convention and that is why the Czech Republic excluded some species from conservation. The Agreement for Conservation of Bats was signed on 24.2.1994.


52

Focal point: Libuse Vlasakova, MoE Reports: Hlavácek, 2001: International activities of MoE, 2000-2001, Pra-gue, 2001, ISBN 80-7212-173-1

Financial resources

Membership fee: approx. – 4000 USD/year International funding: only Phare, no Life National, regional resources for implementation Approximately 1mil. CZK (= 33 000 Euro) per year for NGO grants each

year (together with Bern Con.) Availability of other funding: ???

How much money has been spent totally on implementation? It is difficult to say: there is half a person for this convention in the MoE and a few people work on it in the Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection of the CR.

Institutional and personnel capacity

Infrastructure developed for implementation: nearly zero: half a person in the MoE, no secretariat, department.

People employed: 1 person in Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection of the CR

Concrete achievements

The influence in the legal system and institutional structure is very low. The only advantage was when adapting the new hunting act 449/2001 coll.

NGOs used it as an argument, but Habitats and Birds directives was more useful. An agreement about the protection of bats was signed. This agreement was pub-lished in the official journal – it means that it is a part of Czech legislation. Be-cause this is not implemented in any other law (e.g. Nature protection act) it does not have any significant influence. Protected areas established so far: nothing, absolutely nothing. I don’t know of any special protected area established be-cause of this convention. There is no co-ordination with other international con-ventions.

Every year at the end of August there is a celebration of European bat night. This is organised by the Czech Union for Nature Conservation and the Czech As-sociation for Bat Conservation. These activities used to be supported by the Czech National Forestry Enterprise. and the Ministry of Environment.


53

Monitoring and evaluation

The person responsible is Eva Suchomelová from the Agency for Nature Conser-vation and Landscape protection.

Regularly written reports which only refer to bureaucratic procedures, but not about achievements.

On the MoE web page there is nothing about monitoring in Czech or in English.

NGO participation

During the preparation of the ratification 3 NGOs were involved. The Czech Un-ion of Hunters and Hnutí Duha – Friends of the Earth CR plus the Czech Ornitho-logical Society. The 1st organisation wanted the convention as weak as possible while the other two wanted to have it as strong as possible. Now this convection is neglected, because all NGOs are focusing on Natura 2000. There is no active information sharing, no real implementation and evaluation.

Convention on Biological Diversity (Implemented by Directives 79/409/EEC And 92/43/EEC)

The Convention seeks to conserve biological diversity and to ensure the sustain-able use of biological resources. It also aims for an equitable distribution of the benefits accruing from the use of genetic resources. By enabling developing countries to receive the benefits from maintaining and preserving their biological resources, the Convention seeks to ensure that a true economic value is attributed to such resources. Each signatory is required to set up a system of protected ar-eas. The Convention was signed at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. The material rules of the Convention are in-cluded in the Habitats (92/43/EEC) and Wild Birds (79/409/EEC) Directives.

Endorsement

Signed in 1992 by the federal minister of Czechoslovakia in Rio It was ratified by the Czech Parliament 3.3.1994 Regular participation at international conferences (COP meetings, etc.)

This document was signed before Czechoslovakia split up and after splitting the Czech Republic has done nothing for real implementation. The first step – to prepare and publish a National Biodiversity Strategy – has not been done. All other countries – parties to the convention- have fulfilled this goal.


54

Focal point is ing. Milena Roudna, MoE Reports: Hlavácek, 2001: International activities of MoE, 2000-2001, Pra-gue, 2001, ISBN 80-7212-173-1, (http://www.env.cz) Hruby, Rezek: National Report on the Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity manuscript for FERN (Bonn, 2002)

Financial resources

There is no support system for the implementation of the convention. There is a grant programme from the MoE open for all NGOs for practical support in biodi-versity in the CR, but it is NOT due to this convention. It is due to the implemen-tation of the Czech Nature Conservation Act 114/92 coll., which was prepared and adopted before this convention.

International funding: the GEF has paid twice for the National biodiversity strategy and it is still not finished. To achieve this target state money was also used through the Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection.

For a critical revue of the convention the international NGO Fern pays some money to Hnutí Duha (Rainbow Movement) – Friends of the Earth CR.

It is difficult to say how much money has been spent in all on the implementa-tion because some money was used (without any effect) to prepare the Strategy. For example in the MoE Action Plan (see references) there is a goal to finish the Strategy by the 30th of May 2001. Nothing was done! But – without the Strategy many useful measures were taken using money from different sources: State En-vironmental Fund, State Programme for Revitalising River Systems, State Pro-gramme for Landscape Management etc


There is no infrastructure for implementation such as a secretariat or depart-ment. Mrs. Roudna is the only person in the MoE working with this convention. However she has no persons employed full time for convention related work.

A very important document for implementing the Convention is the State Pro-gramme of Nature Conservation and Landscape. Owing to the dilatory work of the MoE and the MoA it remains through proclamations.

A big contribution to maintaining biodiversity is the work of scientific research institutes such as the Research Institute for Forestry and Game Management, the In-stitute for Forest Management, the Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection, the Czech Environmental Inspection etc.


55

Specific achievements

This convention has no influence on the legal system and institutional structure. No one protected area was established because of this convention. The only co-ordination with other international conventions is through preparing the Natura 2000 network, but this network should be finished anyway due to joining the EU.

NO achievements have been made due to this convention‼


The person responsible for this convention is Dr. Jan Plesník from the Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection. Because the strategy for imple-mentation has yet to be prepared, there is NOTHING to monitor.

NGO participation

There was no NGO participation during the preparation of the ratification. Dealing with implementation: there were two attempts to prepare the Strategy.

More then 200 pages of very difficult text in English was distributed to more than 50 NGOs in the CR one week (!) before the meeting.

All NGOs were invited and asked for comments. Because of the circumstances – NO comments and only 3 NGOs participated.

This is a typical convention, which has no influence on the practical life.

Bern Convention

The Convention was drawn up under the United Nations Environment Pro-gramme (UNEP) in order to conserve threatened migratory species of wild ani-mals. According to the main principle of the Convention, the states on whose ter-ritory the populations of threatened migratory species are found must take the conservation and management measures appropriate for the species in question, covering the whole of the geographic area of the species. The species concerned are divided into two categories: those that require immediate and strict protection actions and those that are subject to later international agreements. It is strictly forbidden to hunt the species belonging to the first category but in the second category the protection obligations are less severe.

The Convention also covers measures for controlling the taking of animals be-longing to the species in question, conservation and management plans, the main-tenance of networks of suitable habitats, and the control of discharges of sub-stances which are harmful to migratory species.


56

Endorsement

Signed by minister 2.7.1990. Ratification was done by Parliament of Czech Re-public 8.10.1997, endorsed 1.6.1998. CR regularly participated in international conferences (COP meetings).

This convention is a hidden one. For example the work on the implementation of the Emerald Network never started, because Natura 2000 arose.

The focal point is Dr. Jan Plesnik, deputy director of the Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection. Annual reports are not available. Reports: Hlavácek, 2001: International activities of MoE, 2000-2001, Pra-gue, 2001, ISBN 80-7212-173-1, (http://www.env.cz)

Financial resources

There is no specific support system for the implementation of the convention. Something was done through the Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection and through the Programme of Countryside Management, but it was NOT done because of this convention. For example – several new protected areas were established.

There is no membership fee so the CR pays nothing for membership. International funding possibilities are not known. There are no specific national or regional resources for the implementation

of the convention.


There is no infrastructure for implementation (secretariat, department, etc.). There is one person employed full time for convention related work in the

MoE and one in the Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection.


There is no direct influence in the legal system and the institutional structure in the CR. But – thanks to implementing the EU Birds and Habitats Directive – many positive measures were taken (for example: changes in hunting legislation – protected species, establishing protected areas, etc.).

Besides the work done through implementing EU legislation no other co-ordination with other international conventions has been done since 1998. In the MoE Action Plan there is the goal of establishing a the reservation for the great bustard (Otis tarda) but it has yet to be established.


57


Dr. Jan Plesnik, deputy director of the Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection is the person responsible. Annual reports are not available.

NGO participation

During the preparation of the ratification there was participation by the Hnuti Duha Movement- Friends of the Earth CR, which comments on changes in the hunting law. Information exchange is only done through the MoE web pages.

This is not a working convention.

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, Implemented by Regulation 338/97) on the Protection of Species of Wild Fauna and Flora by Regulating Trade Therein (as Amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2307/97)

The Regulation implements the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). It aims to protect wild species which are or may be affected by uncon-trolled trade by means of protection, regulation or monitoring.

The Regulation establishes a framework covering all aspects of trade in wild animals and plants both inside and outside the European Community. Species listed in Annexes to the Regulation may only be imported to the EU upon issu-ance of a permit by the management authority of the Member State of destina-tion. The issuance of a permit is subject to certain restrictions. Moreover, the Member States are required to notify the Commission before introducing controls for a particular species. The Regulation also introduces strict trade control meas-ures at the EU’s external borders to compensate the abolition of controls at inter-nal borders. Certain types of species under certain conditions can be exempted from the scope of the Regulation.

Endorsement

signed by deputy minister 28.5.1992, ratification by Parliament in 1992, in force since 1.1.1993

regular participation on international conferences (COP meetings) NGOs are pushing the MoE and parliament toward ratification, two

amendments have been signed and ratified focal point Dr. Jan Kucera, MoE, reports are available on web sites


58

Financial resources

International funding possibilities: EU and CITES secretariat pay a lot of money for training customs officials and environmental inspectors (about a million EURO).

National resources for implementation are a state budget through the Czech Environmental Inspection, the Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection and the State Environmental Fund.

Amount of money that has been spent in total on implementation. Excluding the membership fee (around 10 000 USD) there is no specific

money for implementation (it is hidden in the budgets of the MoE, the Czech En-vironmental Inspection, the Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Pro-tection and the State Environmental Fund).


There is a special department inside the Czech Environmental Inspection. There are approximately 20 persons employed full time for convention related work.


Due to this convention a special law was adopted 16/98 Coll., which imple-mented this convention. This law is quite good. It is good enough for the EU. Be-cause of implementing this law smuggling endangered species has seen a three-fold drop over the last 5 years.


The MoE, the Czech Environmental Inspection, the Agency for Nature Conserva-tion and Landscape Protection and Czech Customs are responsible for monitor-ing.

The MoE regularly produces an annual report. The endangered species moni-tored are those under annex I and II of CITES, how many specimens were de-clared and how many of them discovered and caught by smugglers. It is reported to the CITES secretariat.

Reports: Hlavácek, 2001: International activities of the MoE, 2000-2001, Prague, 2001, ISBN 80-7212-173-1

NGO participation

There is a large NGO participation in implementation. Besides zoological gar-dens and botanical gardens there are special stations for wounded animals run by


59

the Czech Union for Nature Conservation. These are places where customs bring confiscated animals.

This is probably the only truly working convention in the CR.

Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar convention)

Endorsement

it was signed by the minister of environment in 1990 it was ratified by the Federal Parliament on 22.7.1990 it has been in force in the CR since 1.1.1993 the focal point is Josef Chytil. Secretary of the Ramsar Committee

Financial resources

All Ramsar sites – RS – (excluding one) are protected as either a PLA or NP and all costs are paid for by the state budget


There is the Czech National Ramsar Committee. Its head is Petr Roth (MoE), the secretary is Josef Chytil. There are several member scientists from the Academy of Sciences, Universities and Museums and/or from Nature Conservation Au-thorities. Petr Roth works ¼ of his capacity for RC, Josef Chytil ½ capacity. The Committee’s set up is paid for by the MoE.


According to the convention all Ramsar sites should be protected in accordance with national law. One of the10 RS listed in the international Ramsar list is still unprotected, which is a specific example of appalling law breaking in the field of nature conservation.


Monitoring is only obliged to monitor activities inside the RS listed area, in the so called Moreaux record. The Ramsar advisory mission was in the Sumava Mountains and the MoE and Sumava NP headquarters feel no obligation to fulfil the findings of the mission.

NGO participation

Czech Ornithological Society, Hnuti Duha Movement – Friends of the Earth CR and the Czech Union for Nature Conservation co-operated with the National Ramsar Committee very closely. For example together with the General Secre-


60

tary of the Ramsar Convention the Ramsar advisory Mission to Sumava NP was organised in 2001. The maim aim was to pass judgement on the management of the RS inside the Sumava NP.

Two representatives from the NGOs (Mr. Hora from the Czech Ornithological Society and Ms. Pellantová from the Czech Union for Nature Conservation regu-larly participated in National Ramsar Committee meetings.

This convention is partly working..

Aarhus Convention on Access to Environmental Information etc.

Endorsement

It was signed by the Minister of Environment in Aarhus 25.6.1998. It has still not been ratified by Parliament. Of the 3 pillars of the convention –

2 have actually been implemented: Access to environmental information, through Act No. 123/98 Coll., and access to justice by establishing an Ombudsman. The focal point is Marie Cerna from the MoE.

There are no reports, further plans, etc

Financial resources

No resources


No capacity


Access to environmental information, through Act No. 123/98 Coll., and access to justice by establishing an Ombudsman.


No monitoring Reports: Hlavácek, 2001: International activities of the MoE, 2000-2001, Pra-gue, 2001, ISBN 80-7212-173-1

NGO participation

No participation


61

Conclusions

It is very difficult to comment on any positive effects from the convention in the field of nature conservation. Firstly – there are too many conventions and there is very little practical knowledge about them (also in the MoE). Secondly there is a great deal of overlapping between these conventions and/or EU directives and sometime it is difficult to say which convention has had a positive effect (if any).

If the convention is not implemented and enforced by a special law, then it is too abstract to help in any real practical nature conservation.

There is a really lost opportunity: excluding CITES all of the conventions have no financial (penalty, incentive) mechanism, which pushes parties (states) to ful-fill the convention.

Technically the convention has more power, but it is not used. Recommendations: to prepare and adopt an amendment of the Ramsar, Bonn

and Bern conventions, which will have execution mechanisms using financial in-struments and a mechanism for excluding parties, which do not meet the conven-tion.

62

A Biological Factor (European Beaver – Castor Fiber): The Issue of Financial Compensation or an Alternative to the Public Expenditure Program?

Jiří Moravec IREAS, Institute for Structural Policy, Prague

Abstract

The reappearance of the European beaver in the Czech Republic has been seen as a positive result of nature conservation efforts. Still, there are problems to be solved. There are legal instruments that deal with the presence of the beaver. Some public expenditure programs have similar positive effects upon landscape as beaver activi-ties. The beaver population is on the rise in the Czech Republic. There are several areas of human interest where this exclusive herbivore can inflict damage through digging and local flooding. Fish pond cultivation and transport infrastructure can be occasionally harmed by the beaver. Methods, both technical and organizational, are being worked out to prevent this harm. The traditional economic benefits of the beaver, related to clothing and gastronomy, are not strong at the present. However, there are great opportunities to save public finances and to improve the operation of public expenditure programs. These opportunities are in the area of water stream and floodplain revitalization.

Key Words

European beaver, public expenditure programs, economic instruments in nature conservation and landscape protection, biological factors influencing landscape, economic factors and nature conservation, revitalization of water streams and floodplains

Introduction

The European beaver has received a lot of media attention in recent years. Usually, the reappearance of the beaver is considered a success of nature conservation efforts, and a sign of hope for nature restoration. Sometimes, however, the comeback of the beaver is met with distrust, fabulous stories, or even panic.


63

The aim of this article is to describe the current situation of the beaver in the Czech Republic taking into consideration the economic and legal issues. The au-thor of the article directly observed European beaver activities in the Czech Re-public and in Lithuania. The available literature and web sources were researched and local residents in beaver areas questioned.

1. Animal Biological Factors Influencing Landscape and Its Ecological Balance in the Czech Republic

In the Czech Republic, there are certainly more animal biological factors that sig-nificantly influence the natural landscape, both in its appearance, and in its ecologi-cal balance. Among others, let us mention ungulates and the bark beetle. In forest ecosystems, probably the best known examples are the ungulates1 that have a large influence upon vegetation cover. An often cited problem is roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) overpopulation. This animal population is in excess relative to the condi-tions of the forest. The numbers of roe deer in the Czech forests in the last decades multiplied in comparison to the numbers in the first half of the 20th century2. The increase of abundance is due to the support (esp. feeding) that the roe dear receives from the hunting/game keeping groups in the Czech Republic. Moreover, natural predators of the roe dear3 have been exterminated on the most part of the Czech ter-ritory during last centuries. The current large numbers of the roe dear do not allow natural renewal of the forest, and, consequently, increase the costs of the forest in-dustry. A similar problem exists with the red dear (Cervus elaphus), especially in the mountain border areas of the Czech Republic4. These ungulates can be “credited” for supporting the coniferous dominance at the tree level, which is certainly mostly human induced, as well as for changing the conditions for bush and herbs in the for-est. This way the ungulates influence the appearance of the landscape and the eco-logical balance of the forest ecosystem.

Another animal that is blamed for destroying whole forests, especially in the Czech borderland, is the bark beetle (Ips typographus). The beetle leaves large areas of dead trees behind it and changes the appearance of the landscape. Certainly, the

1 in the Czech Republic that means mostly roe dear (Capreolus capreolus), red dear (Cervus

elaphus), to a lesser degree fallow deer (Dama dama) and mouflon (Ovis musimon). 2 there were more than 250 000 ex. of roe dear in 2001 in the Czech Republic (source:

Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic, primary dBase [1]. 3 ie Euroasian lynx (Lynx lynx) and grey wolf (Canis lupus) 4 there were more than 22 000 ex. of red dear in 2001 in the Czech Republic (source:

Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic, primary dBase [1]


64

beetle is primarily attacking forests that have been weakened by other factors (air pollution, unsuitable species composition of man-planted forests, etc.).

The beaver, which reappeared relatively recently (Šafář 2002, Anděra & Čer-vený 2004) in the territory of the Czech Republic, is another biological factor that can influence both the appearance of the landscape and the ecological balance at the local level. The extraordinary importance of the beaver may be in the fact, that right after mankind, the beaver is probably the species that has the largest potential to change a landscape towards more diversity and greater ecological balance. The beaver represents an inexpensive alternative to current landscape management programs that attempt to restore ecological balance in the Czech landscape. There is an economic advantage in using (or allowing) beaver activi-ties to accomplish certain tasks. However, certain problems have to be solved as well, in order to limit the negative influence of the beaver on some human inter-ests.

2. Legal and Economic Instruments in Nature Conservation

Let us first inspect the state of the current legislation in the Czech Republic, and also economic instruments that are concerned with the issue.

The European beaver is declared to be a critically threatened species protected by the Czech Nature Conservation Act No. 114/1992, listed in the related Regulation No. 395/1992. The Czech law currently distinguishes three groups of threatened species, critically threatened, highly threatened, and threatened5 (degree of endangerment in descending sequence), which are granted different levels of protection.

Besides restrictive legal measures that penalize harm done to a protected ani-mal species, there are motivational economic instruments used in nature conser-vation. These may support tolerance (indemnity for damages caused by animals to humans), or they may support the creation of balanced ecosystems. Certainly these economic instruments also have a legal background.

The Czech Act No. 115/2000 on compensation for damage caused by selected protected animals provides the right for compensation for damages caused by the beaver. In the last few years, compensation money has been paid out for damage claims, mostly to forestry companies. There were claims for damages of about 680 000 CZK in 2004 (source AOPK ČR).

5 in Czech: “kriticky ohrožené”, “silně ohrožené” and “ohrožené”, respectively.


65

On the other hand, the so called landscape creation programs (in Czech: krajino-tvorné programy) have the task of restoring ecological balance and biodiversity in the Czech landscape. The Program of Revitalization of River Ecosystems6 (in Czech: Program revitalizace říčních systémů) is the most relevant in relation to beaver ac-tivities. This program is supposed to help in restoring the natural functions of water ecosystems in the Czech Republic. Also the Landscape Management Program7 (in Czech: Program péče o krajinu) may be partly relevant, since it occasionally sup-ports the creation of small water reservoirs.

3. Trends in the European Beaver Population

The beaver numbers have increased substantially in Europe in the last two dec-ades. While the beaver was exterminated in most European countries by the end of the 19th century, humans’ changing attitudes in the 2nd half of the 20th century allowed its gradual comeback. This return was partly natural (through expansion from surviving European beaver colonies), and partly induced by humans (through the re-introduction of beavers to their former localities). Beavers were re-introduced by man in several places in Europe (Austria, Bavaria, Croatia, Denmark, Hungary, the Netherlands, Romania), where they were earlier extinct or almost extinct. Also, some countries with small surviving beaver populations succeeded in establishing additional beaver colonies in new areas (Germany, Norway, Poland, Sweden). The following table illustrates the situation in Europe, in Lithuania and in the Czech Republic.

Table 2. Trends in European Beaver Population EUROPE LITHUANIA8 CZECH REPUBLIC

1960: 700 ex. 1960: – 1985: 10 950 ex. 1986: 1 ex. 1995: about 450 000 ex. 1990: 11 650 ex. 1990: about 50 ex. … 1995: about 250 ex. 2004: more than 700 000 ex. 2000: 32 000 – 50 000 ex. 2003: more than 1000-1200 ex.

6 http://www.aopk.cz/~dotace v ochraně přírody a krajiny/~krajinotvorné programy 7 http://www.aopk.cz/~dotace v ochraně přírody a krajiny/~krajinotvorné programy 8 Balsciauskas, L. (1996): Lithuanian mammal fauna review. Bystrix, 8 (1-2), p. 9-15 (yrs

1960-1990) Haley, D. J. (2003): Beaver Reintroductions. The European Experience. Report. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research. Trondheim, Norway (yr 2000)


66

In Lithuania, the beaver was hunted to extinction, just like in many other European countries. Later, the beaver was re-introduced to Lithuania in 1948, 1949, and 1958, while some beavers immigrated from neighboring Byelorussia and the Kaliningrad area9. Today, the number of beavers is in the tens of thousands. Beavers are living in the outskirts of Lithuania’s largest cities (Kaunas, Vilnius). In the Czech Republic, the formerly exterminated beaver was re-introduced in the area of Litovelske Pomoravi, however, most beavers today originate due to im-migration from the neighboring countries (Austria, Germany). A significant factor in the increase in numbers is the beaver’s high level of toler-ance (as it seems so far) to human-induced changes in the environment (polluted waters, regulated rivers). The beaver can also tolerate close proximity to human settlements, if it is not intensively hunted.

4. Potential Damages for Humans

Unfortunately for the beaver, which cannot claim property rights, there are possible conflicts of interest when it returns to its former localities. Certain problems are expected and feared by some interest groups. These are in the area of fish pond pro-duction, watershed management, transportation infrastructure, gardening and also wood production. Therefore, first of all, let us have a look at these potential nega-tive effects. Beaver settlement can influence its environment through building dams, through digging shelters10, and through its feeding habits.

Through building dams, the beaver may cause damage by causing road or rail-road structures to become waterlogged and by flooding agricultural and wooded areas. (Certainly the flood damage caused by the beaver was very small in com-parison with the recent catastrophic floods of 1997 and 2002 caused by other fac-tors). In the area of fish pond production as well as water reservoir management, the beaver could cause damage by threatening the stability of water reservoirs. The beaver can, by digging holes into the banks, increase bank erosion and cause the water to flow in directions that are undesired by man. Furthermore, the exclu-sively herbivorous11 beaver may cause damage to fruit trees close to streams. The beaver may cause problems in human settlements with small bridges by felling trees into the stream.

9 Balsciauskas, L. (1996): Lithuanian mammal fauna review. Bystrix, 8 (1-2), p. 9-15 10 in some areas beavers do not build lodges (=water castles), but only dig holes in the banks 11 the beaver does not eat fish, as some people believe


67

Also, an often discussed fear is the damage to wood production. The beaver prefers soft wood species that are not of much commercial interest in the Czech Republic such as poplar, aspen, willow and birch. However, there are some cases, though rather rare and exceptional, where beavers have also damaged commer-cially interesting tree species in the Czech Republic.

5. Problem Solutions – Zoning and Technology

Zoning is probably the key to the further co-existence of the beaver and man in the Czech Republic. Most likely, several zones will be established with different beaver management in each. There will be zones where the presence of beaver will be considered unwanted and its settlement will be reduced. On the other hand, there will be zones where the beaver will be allowed to maintain its activi-ties. This kind of space allocation has to be supported by legislative changes first. At present, an action plan for the European beaver in the Czech Republic is being prepared which differentiates the conservation rules by region.

Technological measures consist in relatively simple mechanisms that solve the problem of local flooding. For instance, a rigid pipe pushed through the bea-ver dam and stabilized through a wire enclosure can eliminate the local flooding caused by beavers. The beavers are unable to figure out the cause of water out-flow that prevents their dam from working. Also, mechanical defenses can be used against beavers cutting down trees.

6. The Economic Benefits for Humans

The economic benefits of beavers’ presence are, first, traditional, related to the fur trade and gastronomy. Second, more importantly, there are opportunities to save on public expenditure programs. Beaver fur was the traditional economic benefit that caused the beaver’s extermination from many areas in the world. As historical evidence, as well as current experience in some areas of the world, proves, beaver pelts were used in manufacturing beaver coats and vests, beaver mittens, beaver hats, as well as trimming for boots.

While we cannot speak of a market for beaver pelts in most European coun-tries at present, there is a market in Northern America12 and in Russia. The cur-rent demand in the United States is low, partly due to the increased aversion of the American public towards wearing animal skins. The changing sentiments of

12 in Canada and the United States we find another, slightly larger, species of beaver:


68

the American public influenced the increase in the number of beavers in the con-tinental United States. Some of the demand for pelts has been picked-up by the newly-rich of China and Korea. Therefore, a significant part of North-American pelts is now being exported. In Alaska, in the 90’s, the price of beaver pelts was in the region of 15 to 30 dollars (about 5000 beaver pelts sealed13 annually). Rus-sia has been the main market for Lithuanian beaver pelts. In the last few years, however, the demand and price dropped so low, that it is not time- and cost-effective for Lithuanians to hunt beavers for pelts. Furthermore, trapping14 is not a part of the Lithuanian gamekeeping tradition.

Beaver’s meat, as food for humans, was another economic benefit in the past. Even today beaver meat is being served in a restaurant in Vilnius, Lithuania, as a delicacy15. Alaskan Eskimos prefer to eat the beaver’s tail and paws as well as the head; they usually feed the other parts to the dogs. Several cases of death were reported among Alaskan Eskimos as a consequence of botulism after eating pick-led beaver paws16 (MÜLLER-SCHWARZE & SUN).

In the past, beavers have been hunted not only for their fur and meat, but also for their anal glands. Both sexes possess scent glands at the rear of the body that produce a musk called castoreum, which is used in perfumes as a stabilizer of the solution. Some of the perfume brands that use castoreum are Lancome, Em-eraude, Coty, Givenchy III, Hechter and Guerlain17. The sources quoted are Hud-son Bay (Canada) and Siberia. The use of animal parts for luxury consumption is facing, in the developed world, increased criticism, led by animal rights groups.

Castoreum was also a popular medicine. Castoreum was used against epilepsy in Germany until the 19th century18. It had a reputation in the treatment of dys-menorrhoea and hysterical conditions19.

Today, however, more economic significance is attributed to the living beaver, more exactly, to its ability to change the landscape. Governments of the devel-

13 putting seals on pelts of some animal species is a part of a legal regulation in the United States 14 in the European Union and throughout Europe most means of trapping are prohibited on

the basis of animal-cruelty laws and other legislation 15 see restaurant Lokys, Stiklu 8, Vilnius:

http://www.lokyslt/English/~Menu/~Food/~Hunter’s Courses/, access 8/05 16 http://tarakharper.com/~science/~botulinus/~outbreaks and history of infection, access 8/05 17 http://www.museesdegrasse.com/~International Perfume Museum/~raw

materials…/castoreum/ access 8/05 18 http://www.deutscheepilepsiemuseum.de, access 8/05 19 Cook. W. (1869): The Physiomedical Dispensatory. Cook, Cincinnati, p. 141


69

oped countries are spending substantial sums on revitalizing land that was earlier damaged by insensitive land and water management practices. Draining of wet meadows adjoining to the water streams, improper river bank reinforcement in the open landscape, straightening rivers, various in-stream and floodplain struc-tures all disrupted the ecological balance and contributed to the harmful effects of floods. Consequently, large sums of money are being spent on projects attempt-ing to bring water flows closer to their natural condition.

A lot of this work can be done by the beaver, and, not only for free, but often with better results. There are already measurable effects of the beaver’s work in terms of biodiversity increase in some places in the Czech Republic (VLACHOVÁ

& VOREL 2002). Beavers construct valuable wildlife habitats. We may speak of a re-naturalization effect upon the environment. In the areas with beaver activities, an increase in biodiversity and abundance in fish numbers, small terrestrial mammals, amphibians and invertebrates has been recorded (NAIMAN & AL. 1984, NUMMI 1989, FRANCE 1997, SCHLOSSER 1995). Small structures built by beavers reduce flow velocity, trap and stabilize sediment, and cause water to infiltrate stream banks for storage (Vlachová & Vorel 2002). Also beaver lakes have a positive effect on water quality. The beavers tend to bring the water regime to the original more ecologically balanced natural condition through waterlogging areas by building dams and digging water channels. In addition, ground water rises and riparian vegetation reappears in artificially drained areas.

Beavers are able to locally increase the water retention capacity of areas alongside the water stream. In areas where periodic drying-up of the streams occurs, water ponds created by beavers sustain wildlife in the local area. Even after the beavers leave (when the beaver dams gradually fall apart ponds fill with sediment and flooded areas become wet meadows), the abandoned area exhibits positive effects in terms of biodiversity. Softwood vegetation, consumed by beavers, regenerates pretty well after beavers leave the area after exhausting the food sources.

The attitude of the Czech public varies, according to the region where the bea-ver occurs, from positive to negative. Therefore careful attention needs to be given to a proper beaver management plan and its implementation, as well as to educating the public on beaver lifestyle. The beaver can inflict damage to some human interests. On the other hand, the beaver can save large sums of public money and benefit the landscape that it shares with humans.


70

Discussion

There remain a few questions to be dealt with in connection to the return of the beaver in the Czech Republic. One question is the size and distribution of differ-ent beaver management zones, together with the particularities of beaver man-agement in each zone. The other question is the legal changes that, most likely, will be needed to support this kind of differentiated management. Since a zone where the beaver is unwanted is planned, methods of suppressing the beaver’s presence have to be discussed. Certainly, the question will arise, whether the regulation of the beaver’s presence will be dealt with in terms of a hunt-ing/gamekeeping law. The compensation issue within the current law needs to be dealt with as well, including its aspects such as substantiated claims, pricing of damage, due care, etc. Also, there is still a general problem of watershed man-agement in the Czech Republic. Various stakeholders have different attitudes to-wards river and other stream management (often called “technical vs. ecological” approach). The political outcome of the discussion may have an indirect, however substantial effect on potential beaver habitats.

Summary

Significant economic benefits can be expected from the presence of the beaver in the Czech Republic. Public finances that are required for the revitalization of wa-ter streams and floodplains can be saved by beaver activity. The operation of public expenditure programs can be supplemented and improved through the beaver’s presence. However, problems have to be resolved that are associated with the beaver’s infringement on particular human interests, especially in the area of fish pond cultivation and the transportation infrastructure.

Literature

ANDĚRA M. & ČERVENÝ J., 2004: Atlas rozšíření savců v České republice. Předběžná verze. IV. Hlodavci (Rodentia) – 3. Veverkovití (Sciurudae), bobrovití (Castoridae), nutriovití (Myocastoridae). Národní Museum, Praha.

BAKER B. W. & HILL E. P., 2003: Beaver (Castor canadensis). 288-310. in FELDHAMER G. A., THOMPSON B. C., & CHAPMAN J. A. (eds.), 2003: Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Conservation. Second Edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

BALSCIAUSKAS, L. (1996): Lithuanian mammal fauna review. Bystrix, 8 (1-2), p. 9-15


71

FRANCE R. L., 1997: The importance of beaver lodges in structuring littoral communities in boreal headwater lakes. Canadian Journal of Zoology 75:1009-1013

HALEY, D.J. (2003): Beaver Reintroductions. The European Experience. Report. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Trondheim, Norway

MRKVA, R. (2001): Škody způsobené loupáním a ohryzem jelení zvěře rostou (English: Damages through peeling and gnawing of red dear are on increase). Lesnická práce, č. 4/2001, s. 164

MÜLLER–SCHWARZE D. & SUN L., 2003: The beaver: natural history of wetlands engineer. Comstock Publishing Associates, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London.

NAIMAN R. J., MCDOWELL D. M. & FARR B. S., 1984: The influence of beaver (Castor canadensis) on the production dynamics of aquatic insects. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 22: 1801-1810

NUMMI P., 1989: Simulated effects of the beaver on vegetation, invertebrates and ducks. Ann. Zool. Fennici 26: 43-52

SCHLOSSER I. J., 1995: Dispersal, boundary processes, and trophic-level interactions in streams adjacent to beaver ponds. Ecology, 76/3: 908-925

ŠAFÁŘ J., 2002: Novodobé rozšíření bobra evropského (Castor fiber L., 1758) v České republice. AOPK ČR, Praha. Příroda 13: 161-196

VÁCA, D., TŘEŠTÍK, M. (2005): Stavy jelení zvěře se musí snížit na únosnou míru (English: Numbers of red deer need to be lowered to bearable numbers), Svět myslivosti, ročník 6, 03/2005, s. 4

VLACHOVÁ B. & VOREL A., 2002: Bobr evropský jako silný krajinotvorný činitel (English: European Beaver as a Significant Landscaping Factor. Academia, Praha. Živa 1: 39-41

Links (web pages)

[1] 2005 MA CZE. Downloaded 6 September 2005 <http://www.mze.cz/default.asp?ch=77&typ=1&val=14211&ids=744>.

[2] 2005 Natura 2000. Downloaded 2 September 2005 <http://www.natura2000.cz>

[3] Downloaded 30 August 2005 <http://www.uhul.cz/zelenazprava/1996/>, tab. 2.2.7.3, <http://www.uhul.cz/zelenazprava/1998/>, tab. 3.5.1, <http://www.uhul.cz/zelenazprava/2004> p. 84 (see statistics roe dear, red dear)

72

Program of the International Conference on Nature Conservation in the European Union – Grant

Programs and Financial Compensation –

held on March 24th – 25th, 2005, in Prague Conference Program

March 24th 2005 – Introduction and moderation by Jiřina Jílková (IREAS)

PRESENTATIONS:

10:00 Milan Damohorský (Charles University in Prague, Law Faculty) Legal Responsibility for Environmental damages – EU and Czech republic Discussion

10:30 Wolfgang Suske (Independent expert for EU nature conservation, former associate of the Department of Nature Conservation of the Regional Government of Lower Austria) Voluntary Instruments of Nature Conservation for Realisation of Important Goals of Nature Conservation – practical examples of projects in Austria

Discussion

12:30 Clunie Keenleyside (Associate of IEEP London, Institute for European Environmental Policy, Great Britain) Agro-environmental measures as a source of funding Natura 2000

Discussion

14:15 Václav Treml (Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection of the Czech Republic, Department of Landscape Ecology) Support to Rural Development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)

Discussion

73

16:00 Kerstin Bohnsack (European Nature Heritage Fund, Rheinbach/Bonn, Germany) Financial Perspective 2007-2013 – EU Finances and their Effects on the Nature Conservation

Discussion

18.00 Official End of the Conference Day

March 25th 2005 – Moderated by Jiřina Jílkova (IREAS)

9:00 Michal Tvrdoň (Slovak Agency for Environment, Bratislava) Financing and Protection of Nature in Slovakia

Discussion

11:00 Roman Scharf (Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection of the Czech Republic, Department of revitalisation river systems) Program of Landscape Care (Czech: PPK) – Goals and Results

Discussion

12.30 Mojmír Vlašín (Ecological Institute Veronica, Brno) Evaluation of Nature Conservation Programs and Natura 2000 in the Czech Republic

Discussion

14.00 Jiří Moravec (IREAS, Institute for Structural Policy, Prague) A Biological Factor (European Beaver – Castor Fiber): The Issue of Financial Compensation or an Alternative to the Public Expenditure Program?

Discussion

16.00 Official End of the Conference

This publication was made possible by the grant of the Czech Ministry of Environment (project number VaV/610/01/03).

Photographs: Front Cover: Pools’ construction – Doupě by Telč (Vojtěch Kodet, October 2005) Back Cover: Rosemary-leaved Willow, Dušejov, Region Vysočina (Vojtěch Kodet, April 2004) Back Cover Inside: European beaver – river Labe, locality Svadov at Ústí n. Labem (Aleš Vorel, April 2004)

This publication was printed on recycled paper.

ISBN 80–86684–33–8

Published by IREAS, Institute for Structural Policy, in Prague, December 2005.

9 788086 684338

0 8

Documents

Proceedings of the International Conference on Nature ... · Proceedings of the International Conference on Nature Conservation in the European Union – Grant Programs and Financial