Home > Posts > Future EU co-financing of Natura 2000 – open consultation

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

Advertisements
Categories: Posts
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: