Transcript Development of the Natura 2000 Ecologi in Greece

Development of the Natura 2000
Network in Greece
Spyros Psaroudas, M.Sc.
Creation of the Natura 2000

Birds Directive (79/409):
Special Protection Areas
(SPAs)

Habitats Directive (92/43):
Special Areas of
Conservation (SACs)
SPAs + SACs = Natura 2000 Network
Implementation procedure
Habitats Directive
Birds Directive
Special Protection Areas
(SPAs)
Sites of
Special
National
Community
Areas of
Lists
Importance
(SCIs)
Conservation
(SACs)
NATURA
2000
The National Lists (of pSCIs)

Criteria for inclusion of an area:





Representation of habitat types and species
concerned
Total surface area
Relative value in the biogeographical region
Importance as a migratory route or transboundary site
The sites, which contain priority habitats or
species, should be included in the national lists
Approval of the National List


In cases where a Member State overlooks an
exceptional site, the European Commission can
suggest adding it to the list, if it can be
scientifically demonstrated that the site is
essential for the preservation of habitats or
species covered by the Habitats Directive.
After discussion with the Member State
concerned, the final unanimous decision rests
with the European Union’s Council of Ministers
Obligations on managing N2000
Each member state
should:
 Elaborate Management
plans
 Specify conservation
objectives
 Establish implementation
mechanisms and longterm conservation plans.
Obligations on managing N2000
Once a N2000 site has been designated:
 Any new plan or project likely to have a
significant effect on a Natura 2000 site must
take account of the natural value which
determined the integration of the site into the
network.
The National List of Greece


The National List of pSCI was based on a
list (“scientific list”), which was prepared
by experts: They provided the required
information and filled in all the required
Standard Data Forms (SDFs).
Only scientific criteria were used for
preparation of this list, which proposed the
inclusion of 296 sites in N2000.
The National List of Greece

The Greek government modified the
“Scientific List”, in order to draft the
National List.

Besides scientific criteria, social,
economic, administrative and political
criteria were used.
The National List of Greece

First part of the National List was
submitted to EC on 22-7-1996 including
164 pSCIs and 29 SPAs.

A second part of the National List was
submitted to EC on 4-4-1997, including
more sites: 81 pSCIs and 23 SPAs.
The National List of Greece

Finally, after negotiations between Greek
government and the European
Commission (EC), the list included more
sites and was approved last summer,
2006.
The National List of Greece


The Greek National List of Natura 2000
includes 150 SPAs and 239 SACs.
Some of the latter coincide partially or
totally with the SPAs.
Natura 2000 in the GR-BG CBC area
The National List of Greece


Total land surface: 27.228 km2
Percentage: 17,9% of land surface + 2,8%
of sea surface = 20,7% of total national
territory.
Comparison with EU15
% of land surface
25
20
15
10
5
0
NL
FR
UK
DE
IE
BE
DK
AT
EU15
FI
SE
IT
LU
GR
PT
ES
Character of the sites: Size
Character of the sites: Size


Site boundaries do not coincide with
isolated habitat types.
This is main reason for the enlargement of
site surfaces: Isolated habitat types were
grouped together and formed larger sites.
Character of the sites: Villages


The inclusion of isolated (and often
uninhabited) villages within site
boundaries, mainly in remote mountainous
areas, was questioned several times.
Finally, it was decided that they consist an
inseparable part of the landscape and that
they should be part of the sites.
Character of the sites: Altitude


The majority of
sites are
mountainous.
This reflects the
mountainous
character of the
country.
Management of the sites


According the “Master Plan for the
Protection of Nature” of 1999 (Ministry of
Environment) the sites were grouped in
162 “Protected Areas”, for easier
management purposes at local level.
Distribution of the sites was mainly based
on geographical and administration
criteria.
Management of the sites


According the same “Master Plan”,
Management Authorities (MA’s) should
undertake the management of the
Protected Areas (PA’s).
The MA’s should manage the majority of
the pSCI’s in Greece, while the
management of the rest should be either
subcontracted, or undertaken later by one
of the existing MA’s.
The Management Authorities


Initially, the creation of forty (40) MAs was
foreseen, in order to cover 79 of the
aforementioned “Protected Areas”.
However, finally, twenty five (25)
Management Authorities were created with
National Law 3044/02, for equal number of
Protected Areas.
The Management Authorities


The 25 selected areas with MA’s were
chosen among those with urgent
management requirements: National
Parks, Ramsar, sites, and sites important
for conservation of priority species (like:
brown bear, monk seal, etc.)
In 2003, another two (2) Management
Authorities (MA’s) were created, reaching
their total number to 27.
MA of Rhodope Mt. Range
Character of the MA’s


The MA’s are private legal entities, which
undertake the task of implementing the
approved by the state management plan,
for the relevant PA.
The decisions are made by a
Management Board (MB), in which the
most important stakeholders at local and
national level are represented.
Character of the MA’s


As private legal entities, the MA’s are not
qualified with the power to rule the PA’s or
impose financial penalties to those who
break the law.
The decisions are made by a
Management Board (MB), in which the
most important stakeholders, at local and
national level, are represented.
Management Boards of MA’s
Stakeholders represented in the MB’s:
 Ministries
 Regions
 Prefectures
 Municipalities
 Social groups (e.g. farmers, fishermen)
 Experts/Universities
 Environmental NGOs
Personnel of MA’s





Managers
Researchers
Technicians – “wardens”
Administrative personnel (e.g. secretary,
accountant)
External Consultants (e.g. legal advisor)
Operational costs






Buildings, furniture, office equipment
Infrastructure for conservation
Vehicles, special equipment, tools
Travel and maintenance costs
Awareness raising costs
Subcontracting costs (e.g. elaboration of
specific studies, or additional conservation
works and services)
Coverage of costs


For the period 2004-2008, the personnel
and start-up operational costs are covered
by the Operational Programme
“Environment”, co-financed by EC and the
Greek state.
No provision has been made for long-term
operation of the MA’s
Main Problems



Public opinion in Greece does not perceive
nature conservation as a first priority issue…
…consequently there is lack of political will to
establish implementation mechanisms and
long- term conservation plans…
… which brings delays to establish strong
management authorities capable for
implementing conservation actions and plans.
Consequent Problems



There is no provision for adequate technical
support to the MA’s, for training MA’s
personnel, or for awareness raising of MB’s
members
There is a serious lack of knowledge on the
potential role of protected areas for rural and
sustainable development
No provision has been made for long-term
operation of the MA’s
Results


MA’s are seen by rural people either as a new
way of imposing prohibitions and restrictions
to their activities, or, under best conditions, as
a new kind of “development companies” - not
conservation instruments or a way of
improving their standards of living conditions!
Establishment of implementation mechanisms
and long- term conservation plans are not
secured!
MA’s: Hope for the future

The pluralism in composition of their MB’s, and
the potentiality of receiving financial and political
support from the EC, make possible for MA’s to
play an important role on:



Dissemination & exchange of knowledge - awareness
raising
Co-ordination of current activities/projects as well as
of future plans
Organisation of participatory and consultation
procedures that could achieve local consensus on
conservation goals
MA’s: Hope for the future

In turn, this could potentially initiate a democratic,
transparent and participatory model for managing
N2000 in a way that that should:




represent a bottom-up approach of management;
secure transparency and other necessary conditions
for realisation of criticism or/and multiple controls;
corresponds to the public character of the natural
environment as a common good,
corresponds to the necessity for environmental
protection from both governmental or private selfinterested interventions.