National Prioritized Action Framework for Natura 2000 Hungary, 2014-2020 - Örs Marczin
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
National Prioritized Action Framework for Natura
2000 Hungary, 2014-2020
.
Örs Marczin
Nature Conservation Department
Ministry of Rural Development
Basic information • Prepared by the Ministry of Rural Development (Nature Conservation Department) and directorates of 10 national parks (no external expert support) • Submitted to the EC on 18 April 2013 The process (launched in February 2012) • Internal consultation meetings with national park directorates (Feb. 2012) • Data gathering (Natura 2000 database, existing plans, expert judgement etc.) • Analysis, setting priorities, defining measures (Nov. 2012) • External consultations: within the ministry, with other ministries and key NGOs • National seminar on financing Natura 2000 (Sept. 2013)
Overall objective
To contribute to the full implementation of EU nature directives
(Target 1 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020), by significantly
improving the conservation status of species and habitats
To ensure that by 2020 (at the EU-level!):
• 34% of habitats (currently: 17% at the EU-level, 11% in Hungary)
• 26% of species (currently: 17% at the EU-level, 25% in Hungary)
• 80% of bird species (currently: 52% at the EU-level, national data is to be
provided by the end of 2013)
Is in a favourable or improving conservation status
3
The starting point (baseline 2010)
The conservation status of species and habitats of the Pannonian
region in 2007:
Favourable Inadequate Bad Unknown
100% 2
90% 18 18
31
80%
13
70%
37 67
60% 22
50% 44
40%
30% 30 28
20% 20
10% 25
17 17 11
0%
EU25 Hungary EU25 Hungary
Species Habitats
4
The structure of the PAF (template by EC & MS)
Background
(A) Overview of the national Natura 2000 network
(B) The conservation status of species and habitats
(C) Legal and administrative provision
(D) Experience concerning the use of EU funds
(E) Estimate of financial needs
Objectives and measures
(F) Strategic priorities and objectives for 2014-2020
(G) Measures serving the achievement of strategic priorities
(H) Monitoring and updating of the PAF
5
Defining priorities and measures
Conservation status
of species and
EC position habitats Importance of
paper for Hungarian
2014-2020 populations
Opportunities PAF priorities The urgency of
in 2014-2020 and measures intervention
Experiences Pressures and
of 2007-2013 Applicability of threats
financial
instruments
6
Priorities and objectives 1. 6 priorities for 6 main ecosystems: 1. Wetlands and floodplains with a vulnerable water balance 2. Living communities of artificial or natural aquatic habitats 3. Grasslands, forests and grassland-forest complexes of lowlands 4. Extended woodlands of hills and mountains 5. Grasslands, forests and peripheral habitats of hills and mountains 6. Areas under intensive economic use and human settlements Overall objective: to improve the conservation status of species and habitats of the ecosystem concerned 7
Priorities and objectives 2. 3 General priorities with mostly indirect contributions to improving conservation status: 7. Research, monitoring and ex-situ conservation 8. Interpretation, awareness raising and capacity building of institutions 9. Sustainable use of socio-economic benefits Overall objective: strengthening the basis for the conservation of Natura 2000 sites and natural values (species and habitats) of Community interest 8
Measures
• A common list of 41 priority measures
• Each measure is linked to:
• Species and habitats (based on special needs, pressures and threats)
• Potential sources of financing
• Priorities
Group of measures Nr. Source of financing
1. Management 13 EAFRD and EMFF (+ERDF)
2. Restoration of habitats 10 ERDF, CF, LIFE
ERDF, EAFRD, EMFF, LIFE,
3. Research and monitoring 8
Horizon 2020, national
4. Planning, awareness rasing and
7 ERDF, EAFRD, LIFE
capacity building
5. Sustainable use of socio-economic
3 ERDF, EAFRD, EMFF
benefits
9
Monitoring implementation
Questions: Answers:
1. Do EU funds provide the • The evaluation (ex ante,
necessary means for interim and ex post) of relevant
improving the conservation operational programmes
status of species and
habitats? (inputs and • The monitoring and evaluation
output)? of concrete projects
• National evaluation and
2. Does the conservation status reporting (art. 17, art. 12.) on
of species and habitats the conservation status of
improve (result)? species and habitats (2007,
2013, 2019…)
10Monitoring (concrete objectives to 2020)
The PAF can be considered successful if funding provided through EU
and national funds ensure that:
• Measures to improve conservation status are implemented on at least 5% of
the national Natura 2000 network
• The infrastructure background of nature conservation management is in place
on at least 50% of sites managed by national park directorates
• Compulsory management prescriptions are in place on all Natura 2000
grasslands and fisheries and compensated for where applicable
• Support for voluntary Natura 2000 measures is available on all Natura 2000
land subject to cultivation
• Natura 2000 management plans or equivalent management documents are
available for all Natura 2000 sites
• The share of „unknown” species and habitats is reduced by 50%
• Well documented monitoring methodology is available for all species and
habitats of community importance
11First revision of the PAF (2014/2015)
The 4 main reasons of revision:
• Art. 8 of the Habitats Directive (provides for the revision of the
PAF in every two years)
• The evaluation of the conservation status of species and habitats
(according to schedule by the end of 2013 a new set of data will be
available)
• Closure of the 2007-2013 period (last projects close by mid 2015)
• Planning of the 2014-2020 MFF (still in progress, EU-level
regulations and the system of national operational programmes
will be in place by mid 2014)
12Conclusions
Strengths
• Well prepared network of local level experts at national park directorates
• Detailed background work (going down to the level of individual features) to
define priorities and measures
The first PAF gives a strong basis to introduce such a
coordination tool
Key challenges
• Providing detailed financial data and a detailed assessment of financing needs
• Prioritization among species and habitats
• Timing
• No good practices, lack of routine in the use of the PAF
• The lack of coordination among reporting mechanisms and databases
13Integrating the PAF in operational programmes
Relevant OPs and funds:
• Environment and Energy Efficiency Operational Programme
(EEEOP) – ERDF and CF
• Rural Development Operational Programme (RP) – EAFRD
• Hungarian Fishery and Aquaculture Operational Programme
(HFAOP) – EMFF
• Economic Development and Innovation Operational Programme
(EDIOP) – ERDF
• Territorial and settlement development Operational Programme
(TOP) – ERDF
• Competitive Central-Hungary Operational Programme (CCHOP) -
ERDF
• ETC Cross-Border Cooperation Programmes (CBC OPs) – ERDF
14Integrating the PAF in operational programmes
PAF Measures OP Foreseen interventions
Payments for applying specific management
RP
regimes, non-productive investments
1. Management Extensive fishponds - specific management
HFAOP
and small investments
EEEOP Management infrastructure
Ecological restoration , species conservation
2. Restoration of habitats EEEOP
measures
3. Research and monitoring EEEOP Monitoring infrastructure
Capacity building of farmers, Natura 2000
RP
management plans
4. Planning, awareness
EEEOP Basic interpretation infrastructure
rasing and capacity building
Cross-border cooperation (management,
CBC OPs
research, planning, restoration etc.)
RP Support to microenterprises
5. Sustainable use of socio-
EDIOP Eco-tourism development
economic benefits
CCHOP Eco-tourism development 15Thank You for your attention!
16You can also read
