Boreal Biogeographic Region
Boreal Natura 2000
Seminar Document
(Draft)
ECNC, ARCADIS Belgium, Aspen International, CEH, ILE SAS / 22 May 201222
Natura 2000 Seminars
1. Introduction: the role of this document and the Boreal Seminar
The purpose of the New Biogeographical Process is to help Member States to manage Natura 2000 as a coherent ecological network, whilst exchanging experience and best practice, addressing objectives and priorities and enhancing cooperation and synergies. The process should contribute to the achievement of Favourable Conservation Status-FCS for those habitats and species of community interest that have been identified as having priority within the given biogeographic region, with a special focus on the contribution of the Natura 2000 network. The seminar cycle is summarised in the document: “Summary of the Process: an information note for Member States”, which is available on CIRCA.
The Boreal Cycle is led by Finland. The Steering Committee of the Boreal cycle is composed of representatives of the five Member States (EE, FIN, LT, LV, SE) and the EEA, ETC BD, & EC. Four priority habitat groups were selected: Fresh water; Wetlands; Forest; Grasslands & Coastal. The objectives of the Boreal Workshop, held in Helsinki, Finland, hosted by the Finnish Ministry of Environment, was to discuss the key conservation issues for each group of selected habitat types in the Boreal biogeographical region and to prepare the ground for the Pilot Natura 2000 Seminar for the Boreal biogeographical region; (to be held in Hotel Aulanko, Hämeenlinna, Finland 28 and 29 May 2012). The workshop report: “DRAFT WORKSHOP REPORT: For the Boreal Natura 2000 Workshop”, is also available on CIRCA.
The objective of the Boreal Seminar will be to jointly agree and prioritise the key actions that can provide solutions to specific conservation issues in the form of a ‘ROADMAP’ for the Boreal Biogeographic Region. The ROADMAP will provide the basic framework, key actions and milestones, including the establishment of a functional network and communication platform, for delivering solutions to specific conservation issues for each group of selected habitat types and cross cutting issues identified in the workshop and set out in this Seminar Document. The ROADMAP will be produced as a report with recommendations (on delivering Favourable Conservation Status of habitat types and species of community interest).
The role of this document is therefore to provide the basis for the debate and discussion. It is intended that participants in the Seminar should read the contents as a basis for provoking thought and opinion prior to the seminar itself and as a basis for agreeing the key elements with the ROADMAP. Further information in relation to current status, pressures and threats, recommended management, etc for the individual habitats, habitat groups and associated species can be found in the: “WORKSHOP DOCUMENT for the pilot Boreal Natura 2000 Workshop”, available on CIRCA.
2. Issues
A preparatory workshop was held in Helsinki in January. More than 80 experts and practitioners from all 5 Member States (MS) within the Boreal Biogeographic Region attended the meeting. During the workshop, the different habitats were discussed in separate working groups, and important issues were listed and prioritised. Each working group was chaired by a representative from the MS who had taken the lead on the habitats under consideration in the specific working group.
All of the issues identified by the working groups were collated and presented to the afternoon plenary on the second day. Many of the issues were not habitat specific, and a set of cross cutting issues was proposed, together with a smaller number of issues that were unique to each habitat grouping/working group. These have since been the subject of discussion and limited consultation.
The issues have subsequently been developed based on the conclusions made at the workshop. Each elaboration of an issue contains three main elements:
1. A short problem definition
2. A brief review of the possible solutions
3. A politically neutral recommendation, as concrete as possible, on possible tools or actions in order to achieve the solution.
It was proposed that, if possible, once the A4 summary sheets had been prepared by the respective lead countries, countries could give their commitment to lead on certain actions (involving NGOs as appropriate – who volunteered their support). Furthermore it should be clear that if these recommendations are implemented following the Seminar, they should make a direct contribution to meeting the EU 2020 biodiversity targets – and that this should also be clear from the Seminar document narrative.
2.1 Priority cross-cutting issues
The following issues have been selected for urgent development based on their contribution to establishing favourable condition on Annex 1 habitats as follows:
- Setting objectives
- Article 17 calibration & FCS
- Management planning process
- Stakeholders – communication and participation
Note: 1) that the implementation of any actions resulting from these issues should be the basis of development via the networking framework set out in Chapter 4; 2) these are just a selection of crosscutting issues that provide examples of how the issues can be elaborated; and 3) the seminar should provide the basis for agreeing on additional issues and prioritising them for action.
2.1.1 Setting objectives and identifying FCS (local, regional, national scale)
Problems
Setting objectives for site and species management is critical to achieving FCS. It is also important in relation to objectives formulated for the national or regional level. However, among the 5 Boreal MS there is an accepted shortfall in capacity (in terms mainly of experience and knowledge of process) in relation to framing objectives to guide the appropriate management. There is also a need for national and regional objectives, and since all boreal MS still have to complete most of this work, joint work and experience-sharing can bring important benefits.
Solutions
Experience-sharing, translation of national guidance documents.
Training.
An expert network in the Boreal MS who have the capacity to provide advice and guidance/review of written material/etc to inexperienced practitioners.
Proposed actions/improvements
MS who have prepared guidance material translate this to English and publish it on the communication platform.
To organise a training workshop, led by a Boreal MS that has the relevant skills and knowledge,
The identification of a small number fo experts in the Boreal MS who have the capacity to provide advice and guidance/review of written material/etc to inexperienced practitioners.
2.1.2 Article 17 calibration & FCS
Problems
Linked to 2.1.1 above, agreeing common standards for what constitutes FCS is important for judging what action is required (management, policy, etc) in order to move towards improved conservation status. However, among the 5 Boreal MS there is an accepted shortfall in terms mainly of experience and knowledge in relation to assessing current site status, and also concerning assessment of FCS at regional or national level.
Solutions
’Calibration’ meeting to agree common standards that will be used in the report 2013.
An expert network in the Boreal MS who have the capacity to provide advice and guidance/review of written material/etc to inexperienced practitioners.
Proposed actions/improvements
To organise a meeting (perhaps linked to the training workshop in 2.1.1 above), led by a Boreal MS that has the relevant skills and knowledge.
The identification of a small number of experts in the Boreal MS who have the capacity to provide advice and guidance/review of written material/etc to inexperienced practitioners.
2.1.3 Practical management – how to make management plans, and how to manage areas in an adaptive and knowledge-based manner.
Problems
Understanding and knowledge of the most efficient and effective management intervention on a site with unfavourable status is critical to moving towards FCS. Relevant management plans are an important tool. It is also challenging to balance resource availability against the most suitable management measures. However, among the 5 Boreal MS there is an accepted shortfall in capacity (in terms mainly of experience and knowledge) in relation to selecting the appropriate management interventions.
This includes the problem of integrating appropriate management for selected species.
Solutions
Training/information exchange concerning management planning. Translation of good examples and guidance documents.
Site visits and workshops for selected habitat groups.
Proposed actions/improvements
Workshop and experience-sharing on management planning, and on management with limited resources.
To organise a programme of site visits and associated workshops, led by a Boreal MS that has the relevant skills and knowledge, for each or combinations of the selected habitat groups.
2.1.1 Stakeholders - communication and participation
Problems
Conflict with stakeholders, including site owners and users, stakeholder groups and stakeholders from other sectors ca be a critical barrier to achieving the effective management of sites (and therefore FCS). Different MS can have good examples and experience that can be of value for other MS.
Solutions
experience-sharing
Proposed actions/improvements
To organise a training workshop, led by an experienced facilitator(s)/moderator(s) who have the relevant knowledge in relation to protected areas and the engagement of stakeholders, sectors, etc.
2.2 Identified specific issues per habitat group
The following unique/habitat group specific issues were identified:
Habitat Group / Discussion IssuesGrasslands / - CAP
- Land abandonment and fragmentation
- Unsuitable management
- Alternative management
Forestry / - Management and restoration
- Mimicking natural disturbances
- Non-intervention management: how much management can be accepted; sustainable use issues; etc
- Connectivity issues outside Natura 2000
Wetlands / - Modification of hydrological functions of mires
- Lack of knowledge about ecological processes in minerotrophic mires
- Restoration methodologies
Freshwater / - Catchment approach
- Ecological functionality eg Hydropower, etc
- Cross sectoral cooperation (eg synergies with WFD, etc)
- Complexity of habitat
2.2.1 Grasslands
2.2.1.1 Grassland and Coastal Habitats: Common Agricultural Policy
Problems
The situation for biodiversity-rich grassland habitats in the EU is very severe – only 7% are reported as having FCS and abandonment/encroachment is a large and increasing problem in many regions. In semi-natural grasslands traditional use actually produces significant environmental and biodiversity benefits as well as the ecosystems maintained or enhanced this way provide valuable services for economy and society; benefits that are lost if the management ceases. These benefits are also of the “non-exclusive” kind (like clean air) that cannot be compensated by the market.
CAP has a fundamental importance for the economy of farmers/managers of traditional pastures/semi-natural grasslands; many agri-environmental payments for grassland areas are already made for positive actions and for continuing 'traditional use'. However, in the Boreal biogeographic region it is clear that CAP is focusing too much on competitiveness and production (food and fodder). As a result the payments here are more focused on discouraging/preventing farmers from taking certain actions (fertilising, grazing too heavily or too early) rather than on compensating them for costs associated with positive management and for promoting environmental benefits.
Current experience of CAP payments in the Boreal region has shown that the rules focusing on “fodder” value often have perverse effect for biodiversity. They lead to abandonment or intensification of land that is valuable for biodiversity. They also give incentives (due for example the demand for a maximum coverage/number of trees) for actions that may cause direct harm to biodiversity and to habitats in annex 1 of the habitats directive (like wooded pastures, 9070, or wet meadows 6410, some valuable grasslands rich in bushes, and temporarily flooded areas where the management is important for many bird and plant species) though rewarding clearings of trees or bushes, or drainage, that often reduces the ecological value of a pasture. In other cases the rules (lack of payment) lead to abandonment of biologically rich grassland, and that grazing is concentrated on cultivated fields (which fit well into the CAP grassland definition). The Swedish experience of Pillar 1 payments has shown that they are a very blunt tool for financing management of semi-natural grasslands. In many areas, the controls for the payment has lead to a “cheese-hole effect”, where the manager is only paid for managing open areas in a complex pasture, and not for patches with trees, bushes, wet grassland etc - even though the fact that it’s in these “cheese-holes” that most of the grassland’s biodiversity values are found, and that these values are dependent on continuous management, even though their fodder production might be low. The problems (e.g. a demand for the ‘dominance of grass’ at the expense of variation in the habitat structure) have not been caused by a strict national application, but are due to regulations set at EU level, that a single MS has little influence on.
The new proposal for direct payments and RDP has yet to address these problems and there is a perceived risk that the future CAP is not sufficiently functional for promoting biodiversity; however, one of the 6 EU priorities explicitly mentions Natura 2000 and the Member States will have to integrate within their RDPs their approach to address specific needs of Natura 2000 areas.
The CAP rules appear to “punish” farmers in countries with an ambitious environmental legislation, since they cannot be compensated for environmental consideration that are required by the national regulations.
In the proposal for future CAP, support will be directed to “active farmers”. This has many benefits, but there is a risk that leads to negative effects for the management economy in many protected areas and other valuable sites, if environmental NGOs as well as authorities responsible for management of protected areas are not eligible for funding. This point needs to be made by the MS in Council.
Solutions
The definition of grasslands/permanent pastures according to pillar 1 or pillar 2 should, at it’s core/as a bottom-line, always include all areas that comply with the definitions of grassland habitats according to annex 1 in the Habitats Directive and other valuable grassland ecosystems dependent on management. Relevant national authorities in each MS should suggest which of these habits are dependent on management.
It should be up to national authorities to define which landscape elements can be considered eligible for payment, within semi-natural grassland. This has to be done with regard to the habitats directive, and it should be possible to include habitats depending on extensive management (like some wooded pastures, limestone grasslands etc) – sometimes with a reduced payment level. (Ensuring that if MS have to decide this, the risk that they may not all decide in favour of the environment is avoided).