Archive
Future EU co-financing of Natura 2000 – open consultation
Με αφορμή το http://twitter.com/Zoomicon/status/27647014502137856
απάντησα στη διαβούλευση της ΕΕ “Future EU co-financing of Natura 2000”
http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=FinanceN2K
(ανοικτή έως 17 Φεβρουαρίου 2011) τα παρακάτω:
Future EU co-financing of Natura 2000
Meta Informations
Creation date
19-01-2011
Last update date
User name
null
Case Number
274425232540901911
Invitation Ref.
Status
N
Language
en
Profile of the respondent
Status confirmation – I am responding on behalf of:
I am an interested citizen
Country
Greece
General questions
1. The effective management and restoration of Natura 2000 areas requires significant financial investments. This potentially can be provided by different sources. Please indicate how much you agree/disagree with the following statements:
There should be a dedicated EU fund
Rather agree
Natura 2000 should continue to be mainly supported through the main EU integration funds (e.g. CAP, Regional Funds, Fisheries Funds, LIFE)
Very much agree
There should be less EU funding as this is a Member State responsibility
Disagree
Natura 2000 funding should come primarily from the private sector
Disagree
2. The current approach to the financing of Natura 2000 is to integrate it into the funding streams of different EU policy sectors, especially agriculture, regional development and fisheries funds to achieve good conservation and management results creating new economic opportunities within those sectors. In your opinion and up to now, how successful has this integration been?
Agriculture
Rather unsuccessful
Industry
Rather unsuccessful
Tourism
Rather unsuccessful
Fisheries
Rather unsuccessful
Forestry
Rather unsuccessful
Energy
Rather unsuccessful
Transport
Rather unsuccessful
Natura 2000 Funding Instruments
3. What are the most significant obstacles to Natura 2000 funding under current approach?
Lack of long-term funding strategies for Natura 2000 in the Member States
Rather agree
Lack of management plans from Member States and the measures taken were not sufficiently ambitious
Rather agree
Lack of prioritization of Natura 2000 requirements in administrations dealing with main EU funding instruments
Rather agree
National/regional conditions to apply to EU funds are not sympathetic to Natura 2000 funding needs
Rather agree
The administrative burden related to the use of EU funds
Rather agree
Lack of capacity to use large amounts of funding for Natura 2000 including in relation to its integration in other policies (e.g. agriculture)
Rather agree
Payment levels for Natura 2000 are not sufficiently attractive to landowners and managers
Rather agree
A low level of awareness and support whereby the socio-economic benefits provided by Natura 2000 sites are underestimated or unknown
Very much agree
4. What are the most important stakeholders/user groups to be supported?
Farmers
Very important
Local stakeholders and environmental NGOs
Somewhat important
Fishermen
Very important
Foresters
Somewhat important
Public and Local authorities
Very important
Private entrepreneurs
Somewhat important
Tourist operators
Somewhat important
Other
http://twitter.com/Zoomicon/status/27647014502137856
5. How can Natura 2000 funding be improved?
Earmarking financing for Natura 2000 under different funds
Somewhat important
Provide for a general Natura 2000 payment to recognise the EU public good of Natura 2000
Very important
Securing private investment using innovative and market-based instruments
Very important
Linking payments to results in relation to conservation objectives
Very important
National and Regional multi-annual strategies for Natura 2000 for integration in the different EU financing tools
Very important
Reduce administrative burden linked to EU funding programmes
Very important
Increase knowledge base, training and capacity building in national/regional administrations on management measures and funding opportunities to support their delivery
Very important
Other
6. What innovative instruments could be used?
Fiscal instruments such as tax exception for Natura 2000 landowners and managers
Agree
Involvement of the banking sector through green funds
Agree
Payment for ecosystem services (PES) (e.g. payments for provision of clean water, flood management, health and recreation benefits, etc) linked to Natura 2000
Agree
Boost private engagement on natural sites in the frame of CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility)
Agree
Fees and taxes from specific beneficiary sectors (i.e. transport, energy producers, agro-business, tourism)
Disagree
Habitat banking
Agree
Other
7. The LIFE Nature and Biodiversity instrument specifically supports nature conservation projects, especially for Natura 2000. What could be the future potential role of LIFE instrument for Natura 2000?
The future LIFE instrument should continue focusing on start-up initiatives and best practices
Rather agree
The future LIFE instrument should become the main source of funding for Natura 2000 sites
Rather agree
The future LIFE instrument should focus on setting up the conditions for long term management of Natura2000 sites
Very much agree
LIFE should support more strategic programmes of action for Natura 2000
Very much agree
LIFE should primarily aim to be a catalyst for other major EU funds (e.g. agriculture)
Very much agree
I don’t know what LIFE is
Rather agree
8. In your opinion, should the funding allocation be conditional on management plans or equivalent instruments setting out the necessary conservation measures?
Yes
9. If funding is limited, should prioritization be given to sites hosting priority habitats and species (listed in Annexes I and II to the Habitats Directive as well as the indicative list of priority bird species)?
Yes
10. How to monitor the efficacy of Natura 2000 financial investments?
Each fund needs ecological indicators to determine if there are improvements in the sites
Agree
Set up monitoring committees at the national/regional level to assess the use of funds
Agree
A better coding system in different EU instruments to determine allocation of funds to Natura 2000
Agree
The conservation status assessment of species and habitats (e.g. Article 17 report) is sufficient
Disagree
Supporting local stakeholder involvement in the tasks of on-site result evaluation
Agree
Other
Support NGO involvement in evaluation (and why not visitors/citizens too)
Additional comments
How did you perceive the questionnaire?
Expectations not met
Why?
too long
