Download Report

Red Lists and Money.
Why EU nature conservation financing
has to change.
Konstantin Kreiser
Referent für Internationale Biodiversitätspolitik
NABU-Bundesverband
1990
(c) NABU/U.Doll
(c) NABU/U.Doll
(c) NABU/U.Doll
2015
(c) NABU/U.Doll
(c) NABU/U.Doll
Skylark (Feldlerche): - 34%
1990
(c) NABU/C. Hektor
(c) NABU/C. Hektor
(c) NABU/C. Hektor
(c) NABU/C. Hektor
(c) NABU/C. Hektor
(c) NABU/C. Hektor
(c) NABU/C. Hektor
(c) NABU/C. Hektor
(c) NABU/C. Hektor
(c) NABU/C. Hektor
(c) NABU/C. Hektor
(c) NABU/C. Hektor
(c) NABU/C. Hektor
2015
(c) NABU/C. Hektor
(c) NABU/C. Hektor
(c) NABU/C. Hektor
(c) NABU/C. Hektor
Lapwing (Kiebitz): - 75%
1990
(c) Rapphöna, Iduns kokbok
Wikimedia Commons
(c) Rapphöna, Iduns kokbok
Wikimedia Commons
(c) Rapphöna, Iduns kokbok
Wikimedia Commons
(c) Rapphöna, Iduns kokbok
Wikimedia Commons
(c) Rapphöna, Iduns kokbok
Wikimedia Commons
(c) Rapphöna, Iduns kokbok
Wikimedia Commons
(c) NABU/C. Hektor
(c) Rapphöna, Iduns kokbok
Wikimedia Commons
(c) Rapphöna, Iduns kokbok
Wikimedia Commons
(c) Rapphöna, Iduns kokbok
Wikimedia Commons
(c) Rapphöna, Iduns kokbok
Wikimedia Commons
(c) Rapphöna, Iduns kokbok
Wikimedia Commons
(c) Rapphöna, Iduns kokbok
Wikimedia Commons
(c) Rapphöna, Iduns kokbok
Wikimedia Commons
(c) Rapphöna, Iduns kokbok
Wikimedia Commons
(c) Rapphöna, Iduns kokbok
Wikimedia Commons
(c) Rapphöna, Iduns kokbok
Wikimedia Commons
(c) Rapphöna, Iduns kokbok
Wikimedia Commons
(c) Rapphöna, Iduns kokbok
Wikimedia Commons
2015
(c) NABU/C. Hektor
(c) Rapphöna, Iduns kokbok
Wikimedia Commons
Grey Partridge (Rebhuhn): - 94%
The EU Red Lists
Species threatened with extinction in the EU
Mammals
Birds
Birds: 17%
Reptiles
Amphibians
Amphibians:
22%
Freshwater fish
Freshwater
Fish: 49%
Butterflies
Dragonflies
Bees
Bees: 10%
Unknown: 58%
Freshwater molluscs
Aquatic plants
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Extinction risks in the EU (Red: % of Threatened species in taxonomic Red Lists)
BirdLife (2015): Half way there?
The State of Nature in the EU 2015
European Commission (2015): The State of Nature in the EU, p.11/19
The main reasons for biodiversity loss
(EU State of Nature Report 2015 based on Member State information)
European Commission (2015): The State of Nature in the EU, p.32
12 years trends
Sudfeldt C. et al, 2014.: Vögel in Deutschland 2013
Germany: birds protected by the
EU Birds Directive do better
100
80
%
27%
increasing
40%
(c) FILIPE VIVEIROS
60
stable
40
20
decreasing
(c) NABU/F.Derer
0
all species
trigger species
= Birds Directive Annex I + threatened migratory species
 But many Natura 2000 sites not properly managed
/protected.
 Lack of funding. Lack of people. Lack of acceptance.
The more personnel involved,
the more conservation success
Relation between success of conservation measures and
personnel resources in German protected areas (Lapwing)
Hötker H., Leuschner C. (2014): Naturschutz in der Agrarlandschaft am Scheideweg
Natura 2000 Financing
Annual costs
 EU: approx. 6 billion EUR (>26.000 sites)
 Germany: approx. 630 million EUR (>5.000 sites)
EU: Coverage of Natura 2000 costs (-2013)
 EU-cofinancing: 10-20 % (EC 2011)
 other national/regional/private sources: < 20% (???)
 Funding gap: (much?) more than 50%
13
The “integration approach”
EU Habitats Directive (Art.8) and EU Biodiversity Strategy:
 co-financing of measures through EU budget
Political agreement:
 no dedicated fund but “horizontal objective”
 Rural Development (2nd Pillar; “ELER” /”EAFRD”)
 Regional Development (“EFRE” /”EFRD”)
 Marine & Fisheries (“EMFF”) and LIFE
Attempts of EC to improve situation for nature from 2014:
 stronger commitments, horizontal strategic instruments
 very weak/no legally binding provisions
14
The reality for biodiversity funding in 2015
No increase of EU co-financing expected, rather decrease.
Estimated contribution of EU funds to Natura 2000 costs
in Germany (and trend):
0.0 %
0.2 %
0.6 %
1-2 %
ESF (Social Fund)
LIFE
?
EMFF (Marine & Fisheries)
ERDF (Regional Development)
<< 50% ELER (Rural Development)
?
?
15
Why is integration approach failing?
• reduction of Rural Development Fund overall
• no obligatory biodiversity spending
• pressure of EC to focus + political priorities of governments
• governments discouraged (administrative costs/efforts)
(e.g. Bavaria, Hessen, Hamburg)
• more „broad and shallow“ - less targeted „dark green“
support schemes (reasons: controllability issues of EC)
• 1st Pillar Greening did not lift the baseline!
• even “dark green measures” might fail:
• financially not attractive enough
• lack of advisory services.
16
Conclusions
1) Unprecedented and dangerous crisis of biodiversity.
2) EU Nature Directives successes blocked by lack of
funding. This undermines acceptance of land users.
3) Current integration approach has failed and will fail
again 2014-2020.
TIME TO RETHINK
Model I) A new standalone EU fund for nature and
environment?
Model II) a co-management of existing funds, obligatory
ring-fencing and “equal rights” for environment sector?
17
www.NABU.de/eu-naturschutzfoerderung
[email protected]