• Home
  • Topics
    • Industry and air
    • Waste and TFS
    • Water and land
    • Nature protection
    • Cross-cutting tools and approaches
  • Tools
    • Permitting
    • Inspections
    • Doing the right things
    • Better regulation
    • IMPEL Review Initiative
    • PREVENT
  • Projects
    • IMPEL projects
    • IMPEL-ESIX
    • LIFE SWEAP
    • WasteForce
    • SPIDER WEB
  • News
    • Latest news
    • Press releases
  • Publications
    • Outreach material
    • IMPEL Documents
    • General Assembly Meetings
    • Conference reports
    • EU Documents
  • Events
    • Internal meetings
      • General assembly
      • Board meetings
      • Expert team meetings
    • Project meetings
    • Conferences
  • About IMPEL
    • Strategy
    • Organisation
      • Board
      • Secretariat
    • Members and observers
    • Becoming a member
    • Contact
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • Log in

IMPEL

European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law

You are here: Home / Featured / Natura 2000 needs better management, financing and monitoring, say EU Auditors

Natura 2000 needs better management, financing and monitoring, say EU Auditors

February 21, 2017

21 February 2017, Luxembourg – Improvements are needed in the management, financing and monitoring of Natura 2000, the EU’s flagship biodiversity programme, according to a new report from the European Court of Auditors. While recognising that Natura 2000 plays an important role in protecting biodiversity, the auditors found shortcomings in management and a lack of reliable information on costs and financing. Funding was not sufficiently tailored to the needs of environmental sites.

The auditors visited 24 Natura 2000 sites in France, Germany, Spain, Poland and Romania, covering most of the biogeographical regions in Europe, and consulted with various stakeholder groups. They acknowledged the major role played by Natura 2000 in protecting biodiversity, but concluded that the network had not been implemented to its full potential.

“The setting-up of the Natura 2000 network was a long process, now mostly completed. To
achieve adequate protection of biodiversity across the Natura 2000 sites, the Member States
must still put in place proper conservation measures, appropriately funded and with a complete set of indicators measuring the results achieved,” said Nikolaos Milionis, the Member of the European Court of Auditors responsible for the report.

The auditors found that Member States were not managing the Natura 2000 network sufficiently well. Coordination between relevant authorities, stakeholders and neighbouring Member States was not sufficiently developed. The necessary conservation measures were too often delayed or inappropriately defined. The Member States visited did not adequately assess projects impacting on Natura 2000 sites. Although the Commission was actively supervising Member States, there was scope to improve the way its guidance was communicated. The Commission dealt with a high number of complaints, generally finding solutions with the Member States or starting infringement procedures where necessary.

EU funds were not well mobilised to support the management of the network, said the auditors. The approach taken was for the Member States to use existing EU funds in addition to their own funds, and the auditors found a lack of reliable information on the costs of the network and on its financing needs. There was an incomplete picture of actual EU funding up to 2013 and of the planned allocation of funds for 2014-2020. At site level, management plans rarely gave complete cost assessments. The 2014-2020 programming documents did not fully reflect funding needs, and the Commission did not address these shortcomings in a structured manner. EU funding schemes were insufficiently tailored to the sites’ objectives.

Monitoring and reporting systems were not adequate: there was no specific performance indicator system for the use of EU funds. Indicators at funding programme level related to general biodiversity objectives rather than the conservation results of the network. Site monitoring plans were often not included in management documents. Basic data on the characteristics of sites were generally not updated following monitoring activities. Data reported by the Member States was too often incomplete, and comparability remained a challenge.

The auditors make a number of recommendations to the Commission and the Member States to help achieve full implementation of the Nature Directives, clarify the financing and accounting of Natura 2000, and better measure the results it achieves.

Further information:

  • Press release European Court of Auditors
  • Report ‘More efforts needed to implement the Natura 2000 network to its full potential’
« Local leaders call for a budget increase of EU’s major environment programme LIFE
Outcomes of Swedish research programme on Efficient Environmental Inspections and Enforcement »

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Join the IMPEL.eu newsletter list and stay up to date on all IMPEL.eu news.

Subscribe

Twitter Feed

  • New! Register to #PREVENT, a great portal! https://t.co/VRWueorYL8 https://t.co/kuaFX5vbpy
    December 10, 2019
  • #Shipment of #waste does not stop at the EU borders: https://t.co/xDWgYS9AEt https://t.co/OKKUSw26U6
    December 10, 2019
  • Lots of work to do for #IMPEL and all of us! Read this #EEA report https://t.co/ssPPrfiRec https://t.co/Kdve1LNgZl
    December 5, 2019
  • #IMPEL is part of the 4 Networks calling on the EU #institutions with a strong message! https://t.co/jTwBlbATdy https://t.co/y5q6e9eBdA
    December 4, 2019
  • Meet the highest #IMPEL body! https://t.co/HK4IkihNS4 https://t.co/3G4Vopus6R
    November 29, 2019

News tags

Action Plan Air pollution Biodiversity Circular economy Compliance Assurance Conference DTRT E-waste ECA ECHA EEA EIR End-of-life vehicles ENPE Environmental Compliance Environmental crime Environmental Crime Directive General Assembly IED IED Implementation Illegal waste Implementation Challenge INECE IRI landfill LIFE Natura 2000 Nature Plastic waste Public consultation REACH River development planning Ship recycling SPIDER WEB SWETE Themis Waste Waste and TFS WasteForce Waste management Waste Shipment Regulation Water Water Framework Directive WEEE WSR

Menu

  • Home
  • Topics
    • Industry and air
    • Waste and TFS
    • Water and land
    • Nature protection
    • Cross-cutting tools and approaches
  • Tools
    • Permitting
    • Inspections
    • Doing the right things
    • Better regulation
    • IMPEL Review Initiative
    • PREVENT
  • Projects
    • IMPEL projects
    • IMPEL-ESIX
    • LIFE SWEAP
    • WasteForce
    • SPIDER WEB
  • News
    • Latest news
    • Press releases
  • Publications
    • Outreach material
    • IMPEL Documents
    • General Assembly Meetings
    • Conference reports
    • EU Documents
  • Events
    • Internal meetings
      • General assembly
      • Board meetings
      • Expert team meetings
    • Project meetings
    • Conferences
  • About IMPEL
    • Strategy
    • Organisation
      • Board
      • Secretariat
    • Members and observers
    • Becoming a member
    • Contact
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • Log in

IMPEL

Chemin des deux maisons 73, box 3
1200, Brussels
Belgium
Phone: +44 (0)20 3289 7442
Email: info@impel.eu
Skype: impelsecretariat


Become a member

Membership of IMPEL is open to organisations or authorities working in the public sector who implement and enforce environmental legislation. Learn all about the benefits​ of being a member to our network.
Read More

Copyright © 2019 IMPEL · Privacy · Webdesign: Alva Design

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok