1. PAF and EU-money for Natura 2000: the German experience
Wolfram Güthler
Head of Unit – Financing nature and landscape conservation
Bavarian State Ministry of the Environment and Consumer Protection

2. Starting positon in Germany
16 individual federal state governments (“Länder”) are responsible for the implementation of most EU-funds
13 rural development plans,…
“Länder” are also responsible for the implementation of Natura 2000
Scarce human resources in the nature conservation administration

3. The German PAF
Working-group coordinated by North Rhine-Westphalia and supported by of Federal Ministry of the Environment
184 pages
a lot of long tables
detailed and little strategic
including redundant information

4. The German PAF – our experience
Additional work in a very busy time
PAF structure -> not focused on the purpose
EU-regulations + guidelines for 2014 – 2020 not clear when writing the PAF -> difficult to allocate measures to funds
PAF not embedded in the regulations (besides EMFF) -> very little relevance for a better funding of “Natura 2000 measures” in the programmes (e.g. rural development)

5. New German cost-estimation Natura 2000
Working-group with leadership of the Federal Ministry of the Environment
Policy paper: „Effectiveness of the current EU Nature Conservation Financing in Germany and Requirements for the next Funding Period post 2020”
politik/agrarreform.html (german and english)

6. Bavarian Conservation Programme in forests

9. Conclusion
Costs of Natura 2000 are much higher in Germany than estimated in 2004 (more than doubled) ->1.4 Bio. € / Year
Costs should be based on estimations (very useful: 2013 national reports pursuant to Art. 17 Habitats Directive and Art. 12 Birds Directive)
KOM-Option 3 is a good idea -> but it should be clearly simplified
reduce details -> unneeded information should be deleted (source of funding, information on priority habitats, co-benefits, responsible authorities, co-financing, …)
no correlation measure -> funds
information should be strategically bundled (e.g. grouping habitats and species, measures)
idea: just one single table and a few pages!
PAF has to be clearly reflected in the ESI Regulations ensuring that it has to be taken into account in the programming process
Measures which are concretely meant for Natura 2000 and nature conservation have to be clearly identified in the programs of the funds

10. A good Chance!
Commissioner Hogan: “The Future of Food and Farming”: “When preparing CAP strategic plans, the Member States will take into account their planning tools adopted emanating from EU environmental and climate legislation and policies.9" 9 Such as the Management Plans and Prioritised Action Frameworks for Natura 2000, River Basin Management Plan, Air Quality and Air Pollution Programmes, Biodiversity Strategies. Brussels, COM(2017) 713 final

11. Thank you very much for your attention!
Erhaltungsziele der vorkommenden Schutzgüter
Ppt/Bilder/Güthler/GAP