Natura 2000 payments for private forest owners in Rural Development Programmes 2007–2013 - a comparative view

Highlights

• Financial compensation mechanisms within Natura 2000 payments are investigated.

• The implementation of the RDP 2007–2013 Measure 224 is compared in seven MSs.

• Activities and costs eligible for support vary from country to country.

• The original expectation of the RDP Measure 224 is not met.

• RDP Measure 224 was not sufficient to fulfil the objectives of the Natura 2000 in forests, new approach for the future is needed.

Abstract

The role of Natura 2000 network is to ensure the long-term survival of Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats. Ecologically valuable forest ecosystems are often owned or managed by private forest owners. Natura 2000 benefits communities by enhancing tourism, regional brands and marketing. In private forests, however, its restrictions imposed on land owners cause financial losses in comparison to the usual forest management. The paper compares the level at which the compensation mechanism within the European Rural Development Programmes (RDP) for the period 2007–2013 was implemented in seven European Union countries - Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania and Slovakia. The research focuses on compensation and restrictions within Measure 224 - Natura 2000 Payments - imposed on forest owners in Natura 2000 sites. To obtain the data, a non-reactive research method was applied using a content analysis of the existing documentation. The data sources include European and national statistics and expert knowledge based on common terms of reference. The results show that due to substantial gaps in the implementation of Measure 224 across the EU, there are significant differences in compensation and restrictions for private forest owners in individual countries of the European Union (EU). As opposed to the initial expectations of the measure, the financial support reached less than a third of the forest holdings and less than half of the forest land. The member states (MSs) which implemented the measure spent 92% of their original budget on average. Moreover, rural development funds for private forest owners are very limited and the implementation of Measure 224 says nothing about the success of Natura 2000 with regard to biodiversity targets in private forests. One approach to financing Natura 2000 network is a comprehensive use of all existing EU funds, another would be to propose own Natura 2000 fund.

Introduction

The aim of the Natura 2000 network is to assure the long-term survival of Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats. It is comprised of Areas of Special Conservation Interest (SCI) designated by MSs under the Habitats Directive,¹ and Special Protection Areas (SPA) under the Birds Directive² (EC, 2000). In Natura 2000 sites, all EU MSs are obliged to establish conservation measures necessary to maintain habitat types and species in a favourable conservation status. That means not necessarily strict protection where all human activities are excluded. But the management and restoration of sites in the Natura 2000 network requires special measures. All of these measures address biodiversity and – as a side effect – an enhanced supply of the ecosystem services. But such measures, too, can mean a significant expense for forest owners, because they include restrictions on management in the specific areas which, in practice, may limit private economic returns.

Ecologically valuable forest ecosystems are often owned or managed by private forest owners. During the last decade, the Natura 2000 network increased and new EU MSs significantly contributed to the Natura 2000 network (EC, 2015b; Sarvašová et al., 2013). Private forest ownership in the EU territory presently stands at 31.4% on average (Schmithüsen and Hirsch, 2010), with the Natura 2000 network average being somewhere around 17.5% of the EU total land area (EC, 2000). As 50% of the Natura 2000 sites are forests, and approximately 20% of Europe's forests fall under this specific nature protection category, forest owners have to be seen as key partners in the further development and successful implementation of Natura 2000 (CEPF Eustafor, 2012).

Nature protection services functioning in the framework of Natura 2000 usually have the character of public goods. Natura 2000 benefits the community: more tourism, regional branding and marketing (e.g. EC, 2013; Gantioler et al., 2014). But in private forests, restrictions by Natura 2000 regularly cause financial losses in comparison to the usual forest management (e.g. Jacobsen et al., 2013; Kovalčík et al., 2012; Pešout and Hulová, 2011; Rosenkranz et al., 2014). The restrictions imposed on landowners and the perception of an unequal distribution of costs and benefits among the social actors has resulted in the stakeholders' opposition towards Natura 2000 sites (Brescancin et al., 2017; Doremus, 2003). Economic incentives could be used to reduce the conflicts with landowners in Natura 2000 sites. Some scholars criticize this forest protection economic approach which is often seen as disadvantageous to local communities. The communities rarely derive profits from natural commodities (e.g. Büscher and Fletcher 2014; Duffy et al., 2015; German et al., 2010; Klooster 2010). Therefore, Kopnina (2017) indicated the need for a renewed focus on existing examples of economic instruments in forest protection and argued for the need to consider ecological justice as an important aspect of more socially orientated environmental justice for forest protection.

In fact, the EU and also the individual MSs have the goal to compensate private forest owners (EU, 2003; BMU, 2007 or national legislation on nature protection). To compensate the costs of the limited use of private forests in Natura 2000 areas, MSs promoted several mechanisms for private forest owners. Those mechanisms can range from public to private (Weiss et al., 2011).

For example, in Hesse, Germany, there is a foundation which pays for the preparation of forest management plans in Natura 2000 areas as well as for the implementation of its measures (Wilke, 2011). The latest amendments of the Law on the Nature Conservation in Slovakia in 2014 (2002), introduced new tools to solve the problem of restricted management in nature protection areas, including Natura 2000 sites. These tools include the possibilities to lease the properties (lands) for several decades, to buy private properties or to exchange them for state properties outside the protected area. Forest owners in the Czech Republic also have the possibility to claim financial compensation for damages caused by the restrictions to forest management according to the Act on the Protection of Nature and Landscape (1992/a), which is assessed by the Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic.

Besides the Program for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) is the main instrument to finance nature protection services in the framework of Natura 2000 at an EU-level (Geitzenauer et al., 2017). The Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 forms a common framework of the compensation mechanism within the EAFRD. Within the second objective of the EAFRD “improving the environment and the countryside through land management” there was one measure during the programming period 2007–2013 with an explicit focus on Natura 2000 compensation payments in forests (Measure 224) (EC, 2006). The goal of this measure was to compensate private forest owners for disadvantages related to forest areas in the Natura 2000 network (EC, 2017). But according to the Maastricht Treaty, MSs are responsible for implementing and financing the EU environmental policy. Thus the implementation and the design of the compensation mechanisms can differ in practice. The question arises whether this central financing instrument actually has a central meaning for the compensation of private forest owners all over the EU.

One of the important issues in nature conservation is connected with integration of social considerations into conservation planning which falls into two categories: use of spatial data on how people use resources and social assessment (Ban et al., 2013). The spatial data on how people use resources are increasingly incorporated into conservation assessment and are usually represented as threats to biodiversity or as costs associated with conservation actions (Ban et al., 2013), while the social assessment deals with social, cultural, economic and political conditions in the area (Conservation Measures Partnership, 2007; Cowling and Wilhelm-Rechman 2007; Knight et al., 2006).

In our study we start with the hypothesis that Measure 224 was implemented particularly in MSs with a significant share of private forests in the Natura 2000 network. First, we present an overview of the share of Natura 2000 and private forest ownership in the EU. As the next step, we look at the implementation of Measure 224 and the success of implantation regarding the programmed output targets. In addition, we provide an overview of the constraints and obligations related to forest management in the Natura 2000 forest areas and the implementation of Measure 224 in seven MSs.

The next section of the paper describes the methodological framework and data collection details. Section 3 presents the results of our analysis. Finally, we discuss findings regarding the further development of the Rural Development instruments focused on Natura 2000 payments for private forest owners.