1. Towards a prioritised action framework for financing Natura 2000
CGBN
Co-ordination Group
for Biodiversity and Nature
10th meeting - 08/04/2011
Agenda item 4.1
Towards a prioritised action framework for financing Natura 2000

2. The need for strategic multi-annual planning
Need for more successful uptake of funds for Natura 2000 under next financial perspective
Better planning also needed to optimise contribution of Natura 2000 to EU 2020 biodiversity target
Given limited resources and potential financial constraints there is a need for
clearer framework to set out objectives and priorities
joined up approach that provides oversight and integrated perspective to better align Natura with EU programmes
This should also help identify and address gaps in current administrative and other capacities

3. ‘Prioritised Action Frameworks’
PAFs are frameworks to set out objectives and priorities, describe the Natura 2000 measures to be financed, identify the potential role of each EU fund to the national Natura 2000 network for the next Financial Perspective, set out the prioritised actions to be taken, including monitoring and evaluation measures
Article 8 of the Habitats Directive already foresees the need to develop "a prioritized action framework " (PAF), to be taken when sites are designated as Special Areas of Conservation
For the Member States concerned to decide on whether national and/or regional frameworks to be prepared

4. INITIAL OUTLINE FOR PAF (CGBN 18/11/10 DOC 2.1)
Contextual information
A general description of the nature conservation values of the territory
specific legal, administrative & other provisions for conservation
A list of Natura 2000 sites and an assessment of their contribution to FCS
Information on the results of the Article 17 status assessment
Information on the main risks and threats to habitats and species
Information on relevant governmental and NGO plans and other arrangements for conservation and recovery of species and habitats
strategic conservation objectives and priorities for the period
Sufficient detailed information on measures to achieve objectives/ priorities
procedural provisions and co-operation between public authorities + with private bodies, technical and scientific institutions etc.
An outlook for financing beyond this period

5. MS Feedback– positive elements
A national, strategic and prioritised approach to financing measures related to Natura 2000 is necessary
PAF important for long term strategic planning, identifying priorities to be financed, enhancing cost-efficiency, supporting requests for funding on longer term and to strengthen possibility for earmarking budgets based on objectives or implementation of instruments for conservation & supporting partnerships
PAF approach would also allow for developing a flexible finance mechanism tailored to the real needs that relate level of funding to the level of ambition shown in the adopted conservation objectives and the efforts needed for reaching those objectives
PAF sounds encouraging for the marine environment if it was to help cross- border regional management for sites and species

6. MS feedback –less positive elements
would cause additional administrative burden - therefore ensure legal commitments in other programmes ( EAFRD, ERDF & ESF)
timeframe foresees the end of 2012 for delivering of PAF it is unlikely that these commitments can be covered by other funds.
If we introduce this it must be to support and enhance mainstreaming and not be a standalone priority. Nor should it inhibit other priority areas of work that come through the RDR.
Proposal gives the impression of new reporting system for MS, repeating already available information -could easily lead to time consuming duplication of other exercises
a significant amount of work of difficult synthesis and prioritisation - current financial estimates are approximate
More information needed on the scope of exercise & timeframe
Need to specify more clearly the legal basis under Article 8 focus on priority habitats and species

7. Further considerations on « Content »
Will be limited to the necessary information - where COM has already received important elements (e.g. overview of list of Natura 2000 sites, article 17 report assessment, EU biodiversity action plan, response to earlier questionnaire on financing) this will be used and Member States would not be requested to duplicate this report but to check and verify the extracted information

8. Further considerations on « Format »
COM will prepare standard format for required information
Likely to contain following elements
Overview of Natura 2000 network for territory
Legal and administrative provisions
Most up to date assessment on status of species and habitats
Summary of experience under current financial perspective
Strategic conservation objectives and priorities for next period
Description of priority measures and relevant funding sources
Format to the Habitats Committee for its agreement

9. Further considerations on « Level of detail »
current limitations in knowledge of financing Natura 2000, which have to be factored into the design of the PAFs, especially as regards cost breakdown of measures.
not expected that each priority measure set out under PAF would has detailed costings.
need to allow for future updating by MS in light of improved knowledge on management measures, including as a result of future biogeographical seminars

10. Further considerations on « Scope of species and habitats covered»
Current approach is to allow EU co-financing of essential conservation measures for all Natura 2000 habitats and species
If PAF restricted to ‘priority habitats and species’ then very limited applicability to “marine” and none for Birds Directive
Updated Cost estimates of MS do not provide detailed cost estimates for priority habitats and species
COM propose priority focus on ‘priority habitats and species’ but also
Actions for nationally important species and habitats under Directive
actions necessary to ensure good functioning of Natura 2000 network (SACs + SPAs),
attainment of the 2020 biodiversity targets (especially nature sub-target)
multiple ecosystem benefits from effective management and restoration of Natura 2000 sites (including links to climate change mitigation/adaptation).
For Member States to set out their priorities in light of the above considerations.

11. Further considerations on « Link to EU financial instruments»
PAF not a standalone document but as a tool for mainstreaming
Aim to have specification of the need for funding of Natura 2000 in relevant programmes ‘consistent with the PAFs’ but not yet assured of formal links with EU financial instruments
aim is to identify measures relevant to key funds (e.g. rural development under CAP, fisheries management under CFP) that could then be integrated into these programmes
PAF may represent a particularly valuable tool to promote 'integrated projects' under possible future LIFE type instrument
To maximise influence and the prospect of the uptake first PAFs should be in place by end 2012
Aim will be to ensure complementarity and consistency between information in PAFs and the relevant programmes

12. Further considerations on « Approval of PAFs»
It is proposed that draft PAFs are submitted to COM by each MS
This would be followed by bilateral discussions between COM and MS to refine and finalise PAFs.
COM would then propose the PAFs for approval within the framework of the Habitats Committee.
PAFs would be open to further review and updating in light of experience & further refinement (e.g. arising from LIFE projects)

13. Issues for which views of CGBN sought
The scope of the exercise
Content of PAF - finding right balance between information required and feasibility/added value of PAF
What risks there are linked to the process and how best to mitigate them
How formal the process of adoption/approval of the PAFs should be (Article 8, Habitats Committee, adoption of decisions etc)
Timing of PAF in relation to other EU financial instruments and how to best ensure alignment with other programming processes and programmes, ensuring consistency and avoiding double work.