scholarly journals Evaluating European Conservation Areas and Proposal of New Zones of Conservation under the Habitats Directive. Application to Spanish Territories

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 398
Author(s):  
Víctor Rincón ◽  
Javier Velázquez ◽  
Javier Gutiérrez ◽  
Beatriz Sánchez ◽  
Ana Hernando ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Multicriteria Analysis ◽  
Natura 2000 ◽  
Habitats Directive ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Conservation Areas ◽  
Natura 2000 Network ◽  
Geostatistical Methods ◽  
Castilla Y Leon

The European Union (EU) ensures the conservation of biodiversity through the Natura 2000 Network, which establishes the classification and selection of protected areas at European level. Unfortunately, member countries cannot make the best zoning decisions for biodiversity conservation because there are no clear and uniform parameters to designate Natura 2000 sites. Due to this, it is convenient to evaluate the importance of the criteria for biodiversity conservation through a general assessment, which could establish relevant criteria that can be analysed through geostatistical methods combined in multicriteria analysis. This paper aims to consider biodiversity importance values taking into account land use, so that it is possible to develop a zoning proposal which verifies or corrects the suitability of the designated areas for the Natura 2000 Network in Castilla y León, Andalucía and Madrid (Spain). The choice of these regions allows us to compare areas with a high variability of population density, making possible to compare the potential protected areas with respect to the population living in each area. This assessment has been performed using basic and easily adaptable criteria of biodiversity conservation, so it could be applied in other European territories. In this way, clear and uniform parameters for zoning will be used, being possible to detect the best protected areas. One of the most important purposes of the Natura 2000 Network is to increase connectivity between territories; our work proposes new areas that could be linked to currently protected territories, to favour the achievement of this purpose of the Natura 2000 Network.

Obligaciones de los Estados miembros en materia de gestión de los Espacios Natura 2000 derivadas de los apartados 1 y 2 del artículo 6 de la Directiva Hábitats

2014 ◽  
pp. 2455-2494
Author(s):  
Juan José PÉREZ PÉREZ
Keyword(s):  
Natura 2000 ◽  
Habitats Directive ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Natural Habitats ◽  
Natura 2000 Network ◽  
Ecological Requirements ◽  
Wild Fauna ◽  
Community Interest ◽  
European Court ◽  
La Red

LABURPENA: Habitaten Zuzentarauaren bidez, Natura 2000 Sarea sortu zen. Europar Batasuneko kontserbazio-eremu berezien sare ekologiko koherentea da, fauna- eta flora-espezie basatien zein Europar Batasunerako garrantzitsuak diren habitat naturalen kontserbaziorako. Estatu kideek zuzentarauaren 6. artikuluan xedatutako lan batzuk egin behar dituzte. Arau hori funtsezkoa da, Natura 2000 Sareko eremuen kudeaketari dagokionez. Lan honetan, ez zaio heltzen eremu horietan eragina izan dezaketen planen eta proiektuen ebaluazioa egiteko betebeharra aztertzeari, oso espezifikoa baita. Hain zuzen ere, Batzordeko erreferentziazko dokumentazioaren eta Europar Batasuneko Justizia Auzitegiaren jurisprudentziaren azterketa oinarri hartuta, honako hauek azaltzen saiatuko da lan honetan: zer jasotzen den babestu beharreko habitaten eta espezieen eskakizun ekologikoak betetzeko neurrietan, eta zein diren hartu beharreko neurri egokiak habitat eta espezie horiek hondamendi edo aldaketa nabarmenik ez izateko, eta zuzentarauaren helburuak betetzeko. RESUMEN: La Directiva Hábitats crea la Red Natura 2000, una red ecológica europea coherente de Zonas Especiales de Conservación existente en la Unión para la conservación de especies de fauna y flora silvestres y de hábitats naturales de importancia comunitaria. Los Estados miembros tienen que acometer unas tareas contempladas en el artículo 6 de la Directiva, precepto fundamental en cuanto a la gestión de los lugares Natura 2000 concierne. En este trabajo, sin abordar, por su especifidad, la obligación de evaluar planes y proyectos que puedan afectar a estos lugares, y analizando documentación de referencia de la Comisión y la jurisprudencia del TJUE, se intenta explicar en qué consisten esas medidas de conservación necesarias que respondan a las exigencias ecológicas de los hábitats y especies a proteger, así como las medidas apropiadas para evitar, en esos hábitats y especies, deterioros y alteraciones con efectos apreciables en los objetivos de la Directiva. ABSTRACT: The Habitats Directive established the Natura 2000 network, a coherent European ecological network of special areas of conservation that exists in the European Union for the conservation of species of wild fauna and flora and natural habitats of Community interest. Member states have to undertake some tasks contemplated in article 6 of the Directive, an essential provision as far as the management of Natura 2000 sites is concerned. This work, without tackling the duty to assess plans and projects that might affect these sites because of their specifity, and analyzing the documentation of reference of Commission and the caselaw of the European Court of Justice, tries to explain those necessary measures of conservation that meet the ecological requirements of habitats and species to protect together with the appropriate measures to avoid in those habitats and species, deteriorations and alterations in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of the Directive.

scholarly journals The Comparative Analysis of Pressures and Threats to The Natura 2000 Sites for Wild Birds Protection - Case Studies in Wetlands in Romania and Bulgaria

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 183-192
Author(s):  
Doina Cioacă
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Protected Areas ◽  
Natura 2000 ◽  
Habitats Directive ◽  
Infrastructure Development ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Natural Protected Areas ◽  
Birds Directive ◽  
Green Corridor ◽  
Natura 2000 Site

ABSTRACT The Natura 2000 concept and wetlands protection are relatively new for Romania and Bulgaria, because they are former communist countries and, after the 1990s, had too little value placed on nature conservation in favour of infrastructure development and agriculture. The development of the European ecological network Natura 2000 on these territories has come as an obligation for accession of these countries to The European Union on 01.01.2007. During the period 2006-2009 I made an analysis for the management of protected areas along the Danube Green Corridor, between Romania and Bulgaria, especially for wetlands, similar to the results of the WWF Germany project “Lower Danube - Green Corridor (LDGC): Freshwater protected area management and freshwater restoration in Bulgaria, Romania and trans-boundary conservation along the Lower Danube”. To have a complete view of the situation of the protected areas management between Romania and Bulgaria, along the Lower Danube Green Corridor, and the perspectives for the next years, I carried out some evaluation for more than 20 Natura 2000 sites, which are alike in many ways, such as: the object of protection (Sites of Community Importance, SCI, under the Habitats Directive; Special Protection Areas for birds, SPAs, under the Birds Directive; natural protected areas of national importance for these two countries, or other natural and semi natural areas with the potential to be protected), human activities, pressures and threats, and other aspects. Later, I used these results to make a comparative analysis of the Cernica area (Ilfov County, Romania), to add another argument to include it in the Natura 2000 Network from Romania, as ROSPA0122 Cernica Lake and Forest. This analysis showed that Cernica faces approximately the same pressures and threats as other protected areas and has almost the same efficiency in management planning as the highest assessed Natura 2000 SPAs, respectively Iezer-Călăraşi in Romania and Srebarna of Bulgaria, which is an argument to establish this area as a Natura 2000 site.

scholarly journals Integrating the Water Framework Directive into the Habitats Directive: analysis of distribution patterns of lacustrine EU habitats in lakes of Lombardy (northern Italy)

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rossano Bolpagni ◽  
Mattia M. Azzella ◽  
Chiara Agostinelli ◽  
Andrea Beghi ◽  
Eugenia Bettoni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Water Framework Directive ◽  
Ecological Status ◽  
Natura 2000 ◽  
Northern Italy ◽  
Habitats Directive ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Aquatic Habitats ◽  
Eutrophic Lakes ◽  
Natura 2000 Network ◽  
Use Of Resources

<p>The existence of strong potential synergies between the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Habitats Directive (HD) is widely acknowledged. Indeed, ensuring favourable conservation conditions for aquatic habitats and species of conservation concern is closely related to the achievement of a good ecological status in water bodies. However, since these two sets of European laws are generally applied without any coordination, an inefficient use of resources may adversely affect their goals. The main negative outcome is an increase in the cost of monitoring programs for collecting data in nature (<em>i.e.</em>, physical and chemical parameters, species and habitats, plant communities). The use of macrophytes as a bioindicator, as imposed by the WFD, may instead help to integrate data on aquatic EU habitats and enhance knowledge of such habitats outside the Natura 2000 network. The aim of present study was to evaluate the usefulness of data collected in WFD monitoring surveys as a means of inferring the occurrence and the distribution of lacustrine aquatic habitats in countries belonging to the European Union (EU). The main aim of the analysis was to identify the depth gradient distribution of diagnostic macrophyte <em>taxa</em> in two EU habitats (3140, <em>i.e.</em>, <em>Chara</em>-dominated benthic communities, and 3150, <em>i.e.</em>, natural eutrophic lakes) using data collected in lakes in Lombardy (northern Italy), some of which are included in the Natura 2000 network (10 out 16). While recognizing the limitations of the data collected within the two frameworks, the results confirmed the marked usefulness of WFD data as a means of enhancing the knowledge available on lacustrine aquatic habitats in the EU. WFD data can actively help to improve the basic information on aquatic habitats, thereby more effectively supporting regional strategies for biodiversity conservation as well as recovery programs.</p><p> </p>

Natura 2000: deterioro, desclasificación de lugares de importancia comunitaria y derecho de propiedad

2014 ◽  
pp. 1543-1561
Author(s):  
Agustín GARCÍA URETA
Keyword(s):  
Natura 2000 ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Habitats Directive ◽  
Private Ownership ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Conservation Areas ◽  
Locus Standi ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

LABURPENA: Lan honek, Europar Batasuneko habitatei buruzko Zuzentarauaren eta Justizia Auzitegiaren gaiari buruzko doktrinaren pean, garrantzi erkideko lekuei ken dakiekeen sailkapena aztertzen du. Iruzkinak Auzitegiak onartutako fokatzeari kritikak egiten dizkio, bereziki, Cascina uzian, balizkotasun hura onartzen baitu, Zuzentarauaren hitzez hitzekoak kontserbazio bereziko guneak bakarrik aipatu arren. Agerian jartzen dira baita ere beste alderdi batzuekiko Auzitegiaren jarrerak dakarren sendotasunik eza, besteak beste, kontserbazio bereziko gune izendatu aurretik garrantzi erkideko lekuen babesarekiko eta garrantzi erkideko lekuen behin betiko zerrenda onartzen duen Batzordearen erabakia aurkaratzeko legitimazioarekiko. Azkenik, garrantzi erkideko leku bati sailkapena kentzen zaionean jabetza-eskubideak duen papera ere aztertzen da. RESUMEN: Este trabajo examina la posible desclasificación de los lugares de importancia comunitaria (LIC) bajo la Directiva de hábitats de la Unión Europea y la doctrina del Tribunal de Justicia a este respecto. El comentario plantea una serie de críticas al enfoque adoptado por el Tribunal, en particular en el asunto Cascina, en el que se acepta tal eventualidad a pesar del tenor literal de la Directiva, que solo se refiere a las zonas de especial conservación (ZEC). También se ponen en evidencia las inconsistencias que plantea la postura del Tribunal con otros aspectos, tales como la protección de los LIC antes de designarse como ZEC y la legitimación para recurrir la decisión de la Comisión que aprueba la lista definitiva de LIC. Finalmente, se examina el papel del derecho de propiedad en el caso de la desclasificación de un LIC. ABSTRACT: This contribution examines the declassification of sites of community importance (SCIs) under the European Union Habitats Directive and the case law of the European Court of Justice. The comment criticizes the approach adopted by the Court, in particular in the Cascina case, which admits that possibility despite the Directive’s express wording that only refers to special conservation areas (SCAs). The comment also highlights other inconsistencies derived from the case law such as the provisional protection of SCIs before being designated as SCAs and the locus standi to challenge the Commission’s decision adopting the definitive list of SCIs so far rejected by the Court. The comment also examines the role of private ownership in the declassification procedure.

The EU Habitats Directive and the German Natura 2000 Network of Protected Areas as Tool for Implementing the Conservation of Relict Species

2009 ◽  
pp. 323-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Zimmermann ◽  
Mareike Vischer-Leopold ◽  
Götz Ellwanger ◽  
Axel Ssymank ◽  
Eckhard Schröder
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Natura 2000 ◽  
Habitats Directive ◽  
Natura 2000 Network ◽  
Relict Species ◽  
Eu Habitats Directive ◽  
The Eu

scholarly journals Identification of areas of very high biodiversity value to achieve the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 key commitments

PeerJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. e10067
Author(s):  
Iulia V. Miu ◽  
Laurentiu Rozylowicz ◽  
Viorel D. Popescu ◽  
Paulina Anastasiu
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Conservation Planning ◽  
National Level ◽  
Natura 2000 ◽  
Habitats Directive ◽  
Natura 2000 Network ◽  
Spatial Prioritization ◽  
Biogeographical Region ◽  
Very High ◽  
The Eu

Background The European Union strives to increase protected areas of the EU terrestrial surface to 30% by year 2030, of which one third should be strictly protected. Designation of the Natura 2000 network, the backbone of nature protection in the EU, was mostly an expert-opinion process with little systematic conservation planning. The designation of the Natura 2000 network in Romania followed the same non-systematic approach, resulting in a suboptimal representation of invertebrates and plants. To help identify areas with very high biodiversity without repeating past planning missteps, we present a reproducible example of spatial prioritization using Romania’s current terrestrial Natura 2000 network and coarse-scale terrestrial species occurrence. Methods We used 371 terrestrial Natura 2000 Sites of Community Importance (Natura 2000 SCI), designated to protect 164 terrestrial species listed under Annex II of Habitats Directive in Romania in our spatial prioritization analyses (marine Natura 2000 sites and species were excluded). Species occurrences in terrestrial Natura 2000 sites were aggregated at a Universal Traverse Mercator spatial resolution of 1 km2. To identify priority terrestrial Natura 2000 sites for species conservation, and to explore if the Romanian Natura 2000 network sufficiently represents species included in Annex II of Habitats Directive, we used Zonation v4, a decision support software tool for spatial conservation planning. We carried out the analyses nationwide (all Natura 2000 sites) as well as separately for each biogeographic region (i.e., Alpine, Continental, Pannonian, Steppic and Black Sea). Results The results of spatial prioritization of terrestrial Natura 2000 vary greatly by planning scenario. The performance of national-level planning of top priorities is minimal. On average, when 33% of the landscape of Natura 2000 sites is protected, only 20% of the distribution of species listed in Annex II of Habitats Directive are protected. As a consequence, the representation of species by priority terrestrial Natura 2000 sites is lessened when compared to the initial set of species. When planning by taxonomic group, the top-priority areas include only 10% of invertebrate distribution in Natura 2000. When selecting top-priority areas by biogeographical region, there are significantly fewer gap species than in the national level and by taxa scenarios; thusly, the scenario outperforms the national-level prioritization. The designation of strictly protected areas as required by the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 should be followed by setting clear objectives, including a good representation of species and habitats at the biogeographical region level.

Biodiversity protection under the habitats directive

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-125
Author(s):  
Bettina Kleining
Keyword(s):  
Public Administration ◽  
Significant Contribution ◽  
Natura 2000 ◽  
Habitats Directive ◽  
Private Land ◽  
Conservation Areas ◽  
Natura 2000 Network ◽  
Adverse Impacts ◽  
Draft Proposal ◽  
European System

Although the Habitats Directive has enhanced nature conservation in Europe, it has failed to stop deterioration in its biodiversity. A significant contribution to this failure is the weak provision on compensatory measures under Article 6(4) of the directive in the event that Member States decide to authorise activities which harm protected areas. As the directive’s Natura 2000 network fails to include sufficient private land, it forms a patchwork of conservation areas which do not thrive. This article investigates the extent to which this weakness could be effectively addressed via habitats banking, a system in which developers purchase credits from private landowners to offset adverse impacts of developments on protected sites. While habitats banking does not prevent developments as such, it ensures the maintenance of a certain biodiversity level on the participating sites. A draft proposal will show how such a banking scheme could work in practice, critically bearing in mind the dangers of a fully privatised system. The article draws the conclusion that a European system of habitats banking with a sensible amount of public administration would improve the overall effectiveness of compensatory measures under the Habitats Directive.

scholarly journals Identification of areas of very high biodiversity value to achieve the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 key commitments

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iulia V. Miu ◽  
Laurentiu Rozylowicz ◽  
Viorel D. Popescu ◽  
Paulina Anastasiu
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Conservation Planning ◽  
National Level ◽  
Natura 2000 ◽  
Habitats Directive ◽  
Natura 2000 Network ◽  
Spatial Prioritization ◽  
Biogeographical Region ◽  
Very High ◽  
The Eu

AbstractBackgroundThe European Union strives to increase protected areas of the EU terrestrial surface to 30% by year 2030, of which one third should be strictly protected. Designation of the Natura 2000 network, the backbone of nature protection in the EU, was mostly an expert-opinion process with little systematic conservation planning. The designation of the Natura 2000 network in Romania followed the same non-systematic approach, resulting in a suboptimal representation of invertebrates and plants. To help identify areas with very high biodiversity without repeating past planning missteps, we present a reproducible example of spatial prioritization using Romania’s current terrestrial Natura 2000 network and coarse-scale terrestrial species occurrence.MethodsWe used 371 terrestrial Natura 2000 Sites of Community Importance (Natura 2000 SCI), designated to protect 164 terrestrial species listed under Annex II of Habitats Directive in Romania in our spatial prioritization analyses (marine Natura 2000 sites and species were excluded). Species occurrences in terrestrial Natura 2000 sites were aggregated at a Universal Traverse Mercator spatial resolution of 1 km2. To identify priority terrestrial Natura 2000 sites for species conservation, and to explore if the Romanian Natura 2000 network sufficiently represents species included in Annex II of Habitats Directive, we used Zonation v4, a decision support software tool for spatial conservation planning. We carried out the analyses nationwide (all Natura 2000 sites) as well as separately for each biogeographic region (i.e., Alpine, Continental, Pannonian, Steppic and Black Sea).ResultsThe results of spatial prioritization of terrestrial Natura 2000 vary greatly by planning scenario. The performance of national-level planning of top priorities is minimal. On average, when 33% of the landscape of Natura 2000 sites is protected, only 20% of the distribution of species listed in Annex II of Habitats Directive are protected. As a consequence, the representation of species by priority terrestrial Natura 2000 sites is lessened when compared to the initial set of species. When planning by taxonomic group, the top-priority areas include only 10% of invertebrate distribution in Natura 2000. When selecting top-priority areas by biogeographical region, there are significantly fewer gap species than in the national level and by taxa scenarios; thusly, the scenario outperforms the national-level prioritization. The designation of strictly protected areas as required by the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 should be followed by setting clear objectives, including a good representation of species and habitats at the biogeographical region level.

scholarly journals Natura 2000 Network vs. Tourism and Investment Potential of Communes—A Case Study of Czarnkowsko-Trzcianecki County

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (21) ◽  
pp. 11668
Author(s):  
Marta Lisiak-Zielińska ◽  
Arlinda Cakaj ◽  
Anna Budka ◽  
Maria Drapikowska ◽  
Klaudia Borowiak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Natura 2000 ◽  
Community Economic Development ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Natura 2000 Network ◽  
Technical Aspects ◽  
Future Potential ◽  
Eu Directives

The Natura 2000 is a network of protected areas established in the European Union on the basis of EU Directives. Simultaneously it is the youngest form of protected areas in Poland. Hence conflicts between conservation objectives and opportunities as well as needs of community economic development are quite common. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the tourism and investment potential of Czarnkowsko-Trzcianecki County and determine whether the Natura 2000 network is a factor in increasing the tourism and investment development of the commune or limiting it. We evaluated the tourism and investment potential based on modification of the Gołembski method (i.e., multidimensional comparative analysis) and measured the proportion of the Natura 2000 network in the total area of the commune. The Trzcianka commune was found to have the greatest tourism development and investment potential, but the Wieleń commune was the most attractive in terms of tourism, and Czarnków (municipal commune) was found to have the highest investment attractiveness. Moreover, there was no correlation between the Natura 2000 network and tourism and investment potential of communes. However, these areas had a negative impact on the investment attractiveness of communes, due to socio-economic and technical aspects, which may cause future potential limitation of development.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document