1. Protection of Valuable Forest Habitats in Estonia
National Audit Office of Estonia
Protection of Valuable Forest Habitats in Estonia
Does the created network Natura 2000 ensure the favourable status of valuable forest habitats in Estonia?

2. Nature conservation in the European Union
National Audit Office of Estonia
Nature conservation in the European Union
Preservation of the status of the environment and protection of natural diversity is a goal set in the Treaty establishing the European Community.
The European Union (EU) has set the goal of stopping the loss of biodiversity in Europe by 2010, supporting with it the conservation of biodiversity on the global scale (6th Environmental Action Programme 2002–2012, approved by European Parliament and the Council on 22 July 2002).
Photo: Anneli Palo

3. Nature conservation in the European Union
National Audit Office of Estonia
Nature conservation in the European Union
Nature conservation in the EU is based on the
Birds Directive (EEC/79/409 directive)
and Habitats Directive (EEC/92/43 directive)
which are focused on the protection of the habitat types and the species listed in the annexes to these directives.
To fulfill the objectives of these directives there is set up the network of areas of conservation called Natura 2000 all over Europe. Each Member State of the EU has to contribute in proportion to the representation within its territory of the natural habitat types.

4. The objective of the Natura 2000 network
National Audit Office of Estonia
The objective of the Natura 2000 network
The objective of the Natura network is to enable natural habitat types and the species' habitats to be maintained or restored at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.
The Habitats Directive requires that the preservation of the favourable status of natural habitats and species should be ensured in their whole natural range not just in conservation areas.

5. Favourable conservation status
National Audit Office of Estonia
Favourable conservation status
The status of a natural habitat is favourable if:
its natural range and areas it covers within that range are stable or increasing, and
the specific good natural conditions (structure and functions) which are necessary for its long term maintenance exist and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future, and
the conservation status of its typical species is favourable.
The favourable status of a habitat type has not been preserved if, among other things, its area has decreased by more than 1% in a year or by more than 10%, compared with the area of the habitat type in the year of implementation of the Habitats Directive in a Member State.

6. Biogeographical regions
National Audit Office of Estonia
Biogeographical regions
The European Union analyses the Natura proposals of the Member States and evaluates whether all habitat types have been sufficiently represented in order to ensure their conservation in the biogeographical region.
Biogeographical regions are areas characterising the distribution of species and ecological communities on the Earth. Europe consists of 11 biogeographical regions.
Estonia with Sweden, Finland, Latvia and Lithuania belongs to the boreal biogeographical region.

7. Biogeographical regions
National Audit Office of Estonia
Biogeographical regions

8. Natural habitats (Annex I of the Habitats Directive)
National Audit Office of Estonia
Natural habitats (Annex I of the Habitats Directive)
Natural habitats are divided into 9 groups:
Costal and halophytic habitats – 28 different habitat types
Costal sand dunes and inland dunes – 21 different habitat types
Freshwater habitats – 19 different habitat types
Temperate heath and scrub – 10 different habitat types
Sclerophyllous scrub (matorral) – 13 different habitat types
Natural and semi-natural grassland formations – 29 habitat types
Raised bogs and mires – 12 different habitat types
Rocky habitats and caves – 14 different habitat types
Forests – 72 different habitat types
Represented habitats and conservation needs are different by biogeographical regions and by Member States.

9. National Audit Office of Estonia
The Natura audit in Estonia: Protection of Valuable Forest Habitats in the Natura 2000 Network
It was evaluated in the course of the audit whether the Natura network set up in Estonia ensures the favourable status of valuable forest habitats.
The audit focused only on the forest habitat aspects because the risk of fast and irreversible damage caused by economic activities is higher in forest habitats (similar to bog habitats), in comparison with other habitat types.
Photo: Anneli Palo

10. National Audit Office of Estonia
The Natura audit in Estonia: Protection of Valuable Forest Habitats in the Natura 2000 Network
The second reason, why the audit focused on the forest habitats was structure of land coverage: half of Estonia is forested.
The area covered by forest is increasing both due to active planting, and naturally through the reforestation of abandoned fields. However, very few of the truly natural old-growth forests remain. Our forestry practice based on clear-felling and replanting, often associated with draining.
Photo: Anneli Palo

11. Results of the Audit: Setting up Natura 2000 network in Estonia
National Audit Office of Estonia
Results of the Audit: Setting up Natura 2000 network in Estonia
Evaluation criteria:
The reliable information is gathered to ensure the preservation of the favourable status of forest habitats in the whole country.
No valuable habitats have unfoundedly remained without protection.
Audit findings:
Natura 2000 network in Estonia was not set up keeping in mind the goal of setting up the network, namely to preserve the favourable status of habitats all over the country. The Ministry of the Environment did not make use of all opportunities for gathering information on the extent and locations of habitats.
Some valuable areas have remained out of the Natura 2000 network without a basis. Results of National Forest Inventory show that 52% of total area of valuable forest habitats remained without protection.

12. Results of the Audit: Setting up Natura 2000 network in Estonia
National Audit Office of Estonia
Results of the Audit: Setting up Natura 2000 network in Estonia
For example:
Area described as habitat “Western Taiga” during the Natura pilot project in 2001, was left out of protection by the Ministry of the Environment with the justification that it is mostly an area with low natural value which does not conform to the criteria of Western Taiga habitat.
Photo: Anneli Palo

13. Results of the Audit: Setting up Natura 2000 network in Estonia
National Audit Office of Estonia
Results of the Audit: Setting up Natura 2000 network in Estonia
Evaluation criterion:
The information used by the Ministry of the Environment on forest habitats of high natural value is correct and usable for the practical organisation of nature conservation.
Audit finding:
The information of the Ministry of the Environment on forest habitats found in nature does not conform to the actual situation to a significant extent. Physical inventories performed in Natura sites are inconsistent in quality and often present the locations and extent of habitats inaccurately.

14. Results of the Audit: Setting up Natura 2000 network in Estonia
National Audit Office of Estonia
Results of the Audit: Setting up Natura 2000 network in Estonia
For example:
Young spruce plantation, established apr. 30 years ago, which was described as habitat “Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior” in the database used by the Ministry of the Environment of Estonia.
Photo: Anneli Palo

15. Results of the Audit: Setting up Natura 2000 network in Estonia
National Audit Office of Estonia
Results of the Audit: Setting up Natura 2000 network in Estonia
Evaluation criterion:
A monitoring system has launched which enables to evaluate the area of valuable habitats and changes in it.
Audit finding:
The Ministry of the Environment has not created a monitoring system that would make it possible to assess the preservation of habitats in the whole country and to take measures, if necessary, for raising the efficiency of the protection of endangered habitats. State monitoring of forest habitats does not make it possible to draw generalised conclusions, because sample of monitored forest habitats is too small.

16. Results of the Audit: Protection of forest habitats in Estonia
National Audit Office of Estonia
Results of the Audit: Protection of forest habitats in Estonia
Evaluation criterion:
In the case of activities which may have an effect on achieving the protection objectives of Natura sites, the impact of planned activities is evaluated in advance and only the activities of which an adverse effect on protection objectives is excluded should be allowed.
Audit finding:
The effect of the planned activities on forest habitats is not assessed and in that respect the requirements of the Habitats Directive have not been transposed to the Estonian legislation. So it may happen that a habitat located in a Natura site is damaged without directly violating the legislation.

17. National Audit Office of Estonia
Results of the Audit: Recommendations to the Minister of the Environment
To organize additional inventories in the field to identify any habitats outside the Natura network which conform to the criteria of the Habitats Directive and to supplement the network to preserve the favourable status of habitats all over the country.
Photo: Anneli Palo

18. National Audit Office of Estonia
Results of the Audit: Recommendations to the Minister of the Environment
To ensure the protection of forest habitats by the assessment of the possible impact of activities planned in the Natura sites or in their surroundings, and allowing only such activities which will not impair the habitats.
Photo: Anneli Palo

19. Results of the Audit: Reply of the Minister of the Environment
National Audit Office of Estonia
Results of the Audit: Reply of the Minister of the Environment
The Minister of the Environment acknowledges in the reply sent to the NAOE that the status of 80% of the valuable Estonian forest habitats is not favourable.
Unfortunately the Minister does not regard it important to focus on finding solutions in his reply but instead on the justification of the activities of the ministry.
Photo: Anneli Palo

20. National Audit Office of Estonia
Natura 2000 in Europa
In the opinion of the European Commission, the network of protected areas required for the preservation of the favourable status for natural habitat types and habitats of species is not yet complete, although the older EU Member States had to present their full lists of areas suitable for setting up the Natura network already more than 10 years ago.
The Member States have to make additions in their Natura proposal.

21. rainer.kuuba@riigikontroll.ee www.riigikontroll.ee
National Audit Office of Estonia
Thank You!