English Translation: For information purposes only …ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check...English Translation: For information purposes only 5 B. EVALUATION

Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives

English Translation: For information purposes only

1

Evidence Gathering Questionnaire for the Fitness Check of the Nature Directives

Introduction

As part of its Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT), the European

Commission is undertaking a Fitness Check of the EU nature legislation, the Birds Directive1

and the Habitats Directive2 ('the Nature Directives'),3 which will involve a comprehensive

assessment of whether the current regulatory framework is “fit for purpose”.

Adopted in 1979, the Birds Directive relates to the conservation of all wild birds, their eggs,

nests and their habitats across the EU. Its strategic objective is ‘to maintain the population of

all species of wild birds in the EU at a level which corresponds to ecological, scientific and

cultural requirements, while taking account of economic and recreational requirements, or to

adapt the population of these species to that level’.

The Habitats Directive, adopted in 1992, covers around 1000 other rare, threatened or

endemic species of wild animals and plants and some 230 habitat types. These are collectively

referred to as habitats and species of Community interest. The strategic objective of the

Habitats Directive is "to maintain or restore natural habitats and species of Community

interest at favourable conservation status, taking into account economic, social and cultural

requirements and regional and local characteristics".

The Directives require Member States to take a variety of measures to achieve these

objectives. These measures include the designation of protected areas for birds (Special

Protection Areas) and for habitats and species of Community interest (Special Areas of

Conservation), which together comprise the Natura 2000 network, and the adoption of strict

systems of species protection (see objectives of the Directives in Annex I to this document).

The Fitness Check is intended to evaluate how the Nature Directives have performed in

relation to the achievement of the objectives for which they were designed. In accordance

with its mandate,4 adopted by the European Commission in February 2014, it will assess the

effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value of the Nature Directives5.

As part of this process, the European Commission has commissioned an evaluation study to

support the Fitness Check. The study is tasked with gathering and analysing evidence and

data held by a wide range of stakeholders.

The Questionnaire presented below is a key tool to enable you to provide this evidence.

In parallel to this questionnaire, you are invited to contribute to the initial list of published and

peer-reviewed documents identified as being relevant for the Fitness Check. The list, which

1 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild

birds (OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7-25. 2 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206,

22.7.1992, p. 7-50). 3 Please note that for the purposes of this questionnaire, the terms 'EU nature legislation' and 'Nature Directives' refer to the

Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive. 4 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/evaluation/docs/mandate_for_nature_legislation_en.pdf

5 For more information see: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/index_en.htm



2

will be updated at regular intervals, is structured according to the evaluation categories set out

in the mandate. It can be accessed at:


The European Commission will also launch an online public consultation for 12 weeks from

April to June 2015. You are welcome to fill in that survey as well, but please be aware that the

two exercises are of a different nature. The public consultation will collect views and

opinions, whereas the questionnaire presented below aims to collect evidence, meaning facts

or information (such as case studies, research findings, infringement cases, case law and data)

which support a point or position.

The questionnaire

The questionnaire has been prepared in order to gather evidence-based information for the

evaluation. It is being sent out to all Member States and selected key stakeholders across the

EU.

Please answer all questions that you consider relevant to the situation in your

country/region/sector/area of activity, based on direct experience supported by evidence.

You are not expected or obliged to answer all questions.

Where possible, quantitative evidence should be provided. Where this is not possible, semi-

quantitative or qualitative evidence would be welcome.

We would encourage you to answer in English. In your answers please specify why and how

the evidence and documents provided is relevant for the specific question. For documents that

are not in English, please provide in the answer to the question a brief summary in English

that explains its relevance to the question.

Please provide full reference details for all documents cited or referred to in your

answers: author / editor names and their initials, full titles, full names of journals, relevant

page numbers, publishers and place of publication. If the document is available online, please

add a URL link. If it is unpublished information, please supply a copy or relevant excerpt.

When citing in short a document for which you have already provided full reference details,

please ensure that we can distinguish between references that have the same author(s) and

year of publication.

Please, make sure that the link between a question and the document related to it is clear. You

may choose to provide the full reference of cited documents in footnotes or in notes numbered

and linked to a reference list at the end of the questionnaire. If you send documents as

attachments to the email, please give them a name that includes the number of the question(s)

they are related to.

Deadlines for submission of the questionnaire

We kindly ask you to fill in the questionnaire and return it by e-mail within 5 weeks of

receiving it to: [email protected].

We appreciate that it may not be possible to provide complete answers to all the questions and

collect all the evidence you may wish to provide within this timeframe. However, it is

essential that we receive an initial response which is as complete as possible within 5 weeks

in order to enable us comply with the tight evaluation schedule.


mailto:[email protected]



3

On the basis of the initial responses received, follow-up interviews may be organised to seek

clarification or additional information if required. It may not be possible to organise such

interviews for responses received after the 5 week deadline. However, you will have until the

end of April to complete your final submission in response to the questionnaire. Please note

that it will not be possible to take into account contributions received after that deadline.

The evidence gathered through this questionnaire will be vital to the overall process. For this

reason, if you anticipate that you will not be able to complete the questionnaire, please let

us know as soon as possible.

Thank you in advance for your contribution.



4

QUESTIONNAIRE

A. General Information

Please answer ALL questions in this table

Answer

Organisation:

Date:

Country (and, if applicable, region)

represented:

Organisation(s) represented:

Name of contact for enquires (including

follow-up interview if required):

Contact email address:

Contact telephone number:

Languages spoken fluently by contact

person:

Language for the interview if it is not

possible to conduct it in English

Type of organisations you represent:

EU authority or agency / Member State

authority or agency / business or industry /

educational or scientific institute / nature

conservation charity / recreation / individual

expert / other (please specify).

[select one from list]

Sector represented: environment / water /

agriculture / forestry / fisheries / transport /

energy / extractive industry / industry /

housing and other buildings / recreation &

tourism / science & education / other

(please specify)

[select one from the list]

Additional comments:



5

B. EVALUATION / FITNESS CHECK questions

Please answer all questions that are relevant to you and for which you can provide

informed insights from direct experience and/or supporting evidence.

We would kindly ask that you keep your answers as succinct as possible. They should

summarise in no more than 2 pages any evidence relevant to a given question. More

complete/detailed information, if any, should be provided in the form of references and/or

web links. Definitions, explanations and examples are provided under each question to assist

you in answering them.

When answering the questions, please note that the Fitness Check intends to examine the

performance of the Nature Directives in relation to their stated objectives, taking into account

expected results, impacts and external factors. The figure below presents the intervention

logic as included in the mandate. For ease of reference, a table presenting the objectives of the

Directives, differentiating between different types of objectives (strategic, specific,

operational), is included in Annex I to this document.

The questions are structured around the five evaluation criteria addressed in the mandate:

effectiveness = S, efficiency = Y, coherence = C, relevance = R, and EU added value = AV.



6

Effectiveness

This section focuses on assessing the extent to which the objectives of the Birds Directive and Habitats

Directive have been met, and any significant factors which may have contributed to or inhibited

progress towards meeting those objectives. By 'objectives', we refer not only to the strategic

objectives, but also to other specific or operational objectives required under other articles of both

Directives (as set out in Annex I to this questionnaire).

'Factors contributing to or inhibiting progress' can relate to the Nature Directives themselves (e.g. the

clarity of definitions) or be external factors such as lack of political will, resource limitations, lack of

cooperation of other actors, lack of scientific knowledge, or other external factors (e.g. see those listed

in the above intervention logic).

We are particularly keen to learn of evidence that is not included in the Member State implementation

reports6.

S.1.1 What progress have Member States made over time towards achieving the

objectives set out in the Directives and related policy documents?

Please provide evidence on what progress has or is being made towards the achievement of the

objectives set out in Annex I that are of relevance to you. Please address separately the objectives of

the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive, and specify which objective(s) you are referring to,

with references to the corresponding Articles. If possible quantify the progress that is being made.

Strategic objective of the Birds Directive:

The progress achieved has been documented in the last German report prepared as required by Article

12 of the Birds Directive (Bundesregierung 2014; statistical analysis in Sudfeldt et al. 2013). As the

report states, 30 % of the breeding bird species reported in the last 12 years had an increasing trend,

35 % a stable or fluctuating trend and 35 % a declining trend. The increasing species included

particularly large numbers of overwintering bird species such as geese and ducks; the declining

species were predominantly open-country birds and long-distance migratory birds.

Strategic objective of the Habitats Directive:

The progress achieved has been documented in the last German report prepared as required by Article

17 of the Habitats Directive (Bundesregierung 2013; statistical analysis in Ellwanger et al. 2014). As

the report states, approx. 25 % of species and habitat types have a favourable conservation status,

approx. 60 % of species and approx. 70 % of habitat types have an unfavourable conservation status.

In the case of species, these percentages for the most part correspond to the last but one report, which

was submitted in 2007 (see Balzer et al. 2008a, b; Ellwanger et al. 2008). In the case of habitats, many

habitat types that are dependent on sustainable use of grasslands or biotope management have

deteriorated (e.g. hay meadows, inland dunes, heaths). 55 % of species and 58 % of habitats have an

increasing or stable trend and 21 % of species and 31 % of habitats a declining trend.

Specific objectives of the Birds Directive

Article 3:

Germany completed its designation of Special Protected Areas in 2009 and currently has 742 SPAs

(11.2 % of Germany’s land area). Measures to achieve the objectives of Article 3 are being carried out

predominantly in the Special Protected Areas. There have been key successes with species for which

species recovery programmes were carried out and where their breeding sites were protected. They

include the black stork, white-tailed eagle, peregrine, little owl, common tern. To date there are

management plans for 22.2 % of the surface area of the Special Protected Areas

6 Habitats Directive Reports: http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Reporting/Article_17/Reports_2013/

Birds Directive Reports: http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Reporting/Article_12/Reports_2013/

http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Reporting/Article_17/Reports_2013/Member_State_Deliveries

http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Reporting/Article_12/Reports_2013/



7

Article 5:

A protection regime for European bird species was established. All bird species that naturally occur in

Europe are protected by law. Article 44 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act implements the

protection obligations under Article 5 along with bans that go beyond those obligations. There is a

similar legal protection mechanism for bird species to which hunting regulations apply.

Under the Directives, species protection must also be taken into account in any intervention measures.

To that end, specific legal regulations have been developed, which make use of the leeway available

under European law. A number of guidelines issued by the European Commission, the German

government and the Länder are helpful in implementing them. It is now common practice to take

species protection into account as a matter of course.

Article 7:

The requirements have been implemented in Germany in the Federal Hunting Act and its secondary

legislation - the Federal Hunting Season Ordinance – along with the hunting regulations issued by the

individual Länder (esp. hunting seasons, regulations on monetary fines). [addition on threats of illegal

hunting of birds in southern Europe and on hunting on their flyway outside Germany]

Specific objectives of the Habitats Directive:

Article 4:

Designation of Habitat Directive sites in Germany was concluded in 2006 for terrestrial sites and in

2008 for marine sites. There are currently 4,603 sites (9.3 % of Germany’s land area).

Article 6:

A detailed report on the current status of requirements under Article 6 was forwarded to the EU

Commission on 26 June 2014 as part of pilot procedure 6117/14/ENVI (designation of Special Areas

of Conservation (SACs)). It stated that at this time conservation objectives and measures had been

established for 1,840 areas (= 40 %). They will have been established for almost 80 % of areas by the

end of 2016, for 97 % by 2020, and for all areas by 2022. Management plans are in place for 1,740

areas (20.4 % of the land area) and are being developed for 591 areas (Bundesregierung 2013).

Management plans are scheduled to be developed for the vast majority of areas, so that they give a

good indication of implementation progress.

Article 10:

The 2002 amendment to the Federal Nature Conservation Act stipulated the creation of a network of

interlinked biotopes on at least 10 per cent of Germany’s land area. A concept for a nationwide

biotope network was developed in 2010, which identified the nationally and internationally important

corridors connecting the biotopes (Fuchs et al. 2010). The legally protected biotopes are also part of

the biotope network. In addition, features of the landscape are given special consideration in various

other policy fields (e.g. implementation of the Water Framework Directive, good agricultural

practice). The establishment of management plans for fishing in Natura 2000 sites has only had a legal

basis since 01.01.2014 in the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation.

Article 12-13:

All the species of fauna and flora listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive are under strict legal

protection. The protection obligations under Articles 12 and 13 and bans that go further than those

obligations are implemented by Article 44 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act. There is a similar

legal protection mechanism for bird species to which hunting regulations apply.

Article 38 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act includes the obligation to put in place effective and

coordinated precautionary protection measures for these species. Under this article, the responsible

agencies also put the measures in place necessary to ensure that unintentional capture and killing do

not have any serious harmful impact on these species.

The Directives also require that species protection be taken into account in any intervention measures.

To that end legal regulations have been developed, which make use of the leeway available under

European law. A number of guidelines issued by the European Commission, the German government



8

and the Länder are helpful in implementing them. It is now common practice to take species protection

into account as a matter of course.

In addition to legal regulations, a diverse range of recommendations has been developed to

complement the protection regulations and to ensure the conservation of Annex IV species. They

cover, for example, protection of bats in trees and caves, and recommendations for action for

agriculture and forestry to conserve local populations (BfN no date given). The latter help to ensure

the protection of those species that are often also key species in endangered or sensitive biotope types.

Article 14:

Many of the species of fauna and flora that are listed in Annex V and occur in Germany are covered

by bans on their being taken in the wild, which aim to protect the species. Some species of fauna listed

in Annex V are covered by hunting legislation, which implements the requirements of Article 14. The

situation is similar for some fish species; here the fishing legislation of the individual German Länder

ensures the implementation of Article 14. Article 39, paragraph 2, of the Federal Nature Conservation

Act also includes a blanket ban on taking in the wild of specimens of species of wild fauna and flora

listed in Annex V of Directive 92/43/EEC. The Länder may grant exemptions to this ban provided this

does not contravene the conditions of Article 45 paragraph 7 or Article 14 of the Habitats Directive.

Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Federal Ordinance on the Conservation of Species contains a specific

regulation for the Roman snail (Helix pomatia), which implements the requirements of Article 14 of

the Habitats Directive. In the case of most Annex V species, there are safeguards to ensure that they

are sustainably exploited, if exploitation of any kind is permitted.

Article 22:

Germany’s 2007 and 2013 Habitats Directive Reports gave details of reintroduction projects for

Annex IV species and the success achieved thus far. They report that numerous measures of this kind

were carried out - 66 according to the 2013 Habitats Directive Report.

Measures/Operations objectives of the Birds Directive:

Article 10:

At national level, we can make far-reaching statements about birdlife in Germany, about the necessity

for and management of protection measures and about the success of management activities with

regard to the conservation status of species. We were able to achieve this particularly as a result of the

administrative agreement between the federal government and the Länder on bird monitoring, which

entered into force in 2008 in Germany. Based on this, the federal government and Länder jointly

finance nationwide coordination of the volunteer bird monitoring programmes and processing of the

data by the Federation of German Avifaunists (DDA) (Sudfeldt et al. 2012). The results were fed into

the reporting activities under Article 12, the species diversity and countryside quality indicator, which

is part of the LIKI indicator sets (Länder Initiative for a Set of Core Indicators - Länderinitiative

Kernindikatoren; www.liki.nrw.de) and the indicator sets of the national sustainability strategy

(www.nationale-nachhaltigkeitsstrategie.de) and the national biodiversity strategy

(www.biologischevielfalt.de). The random sampling design of the procedure for monitoring frequent

breeding bird species in Germany is also used for the high nature value farmland indicator, which is

part of the EU Common Agricultural Policy and will be further developed (Benzler 2012).

Knowledge about the distribution of breeding bird species has been continuously improved. Also the

“Atlas deutscher Brutvogelarten (ADEBAR)” expanded it considerably (Gedeon et al. 2015). Mapping

for this project was carried out from 2005 to 2009 and was coordinated nationwide by the Federation

of German Avifaunists (DDA).

Furthermore, the Länder also to some extent set up a monitoring regime in line with the Birds

Directive.

Numerous other research findings on birds have been developed (e.g. Mendel et al. 2008: species

profiles of seabirds, annual status reports on birds in Germany since 2007: Sudfeldt et al. 2007, 2008,

2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, Wahl et al. 2012; Sudfeldt 2009, Inger et al. 2015 on the decline of particular

http://www.liki.nrw.de/

http://www.nationale-nachhaltigkeitsstrategie.de/

http://www.biologischevielfalt.de/

http://www.bfn.de/0315_vogelmonitoring.html#c11444

http://www.bfn.de/0315_vogelmonitoring.html#c11444



9

species; Lehikoinen et al. 2013 on climate change and birdlife; Boye et al. 2010, Sudfeldt &

Dröschmeister 2010 on the history of implementation; Wahl & Sudfeldt 2010 on bird monitoring by

volunteers).

[addition on less bureaucracy by putting together available information]

Article 12:

Germany has conscientiously produced its national reports and submitted them on time. It also

supported the change towards status and trends in bird species in the reporting format. The data

needed for this report was compiled as a result of the administrative agreement on bird monitoring,

surveys carried out by sectoral authorities/bird observatories at Länder level, the Federal Agency for

Nature Conservation, and voluntary organisations (Sudfeldt et al. 2013).

Measures/Operations objectives of the Habitats Directive:

Article 8:

Financing requirements and instruments are detailed in the German prioritised action framework -

PAF (2013). There are specific funding programmes in all of Germany’s Länder to implement Natura

2000.

Article 11:

A system to monitor habitat types under Annex I and species under Annexes II and IV has been

developed since 2001, and has been implemented since 2008 for the Atlantic and Continental region.

It was incorporated into the Habitats Directive Report for the first time in 2013 (Doerpinghaus et al.

2003, Sachteleben & Behrens 2010, Schnitter et al. 2006, Weddeling et al. 2007).

Article 17:

A procedure for producing the national Habitats Directive Reports, based on close cooperation

between the Länder and the federal government, has been established in Germany since the 2007

Habitats Directive Report.

S.1.2- Is this progress in line with initial expectations?

'Initial expectations' refer to the expectations, positive or negative, held by different stakeholders at

the time the legislation transposing the Directives came into force in your country. For example,

government reports and plans might provide evidence of intended timetables for the identification and

designation of Natura 2000 sites. We are seeking to understand the extent to which progress made to

date has met, exceeded, or fallen short of such expectations. If possible, in your answer please address

separately each of the objectives referred to in question S1.1 for which you have provided evidence.

Strategic objective of the Birds and Habitats Directive:

The progress achieved meets expectations. Many ecosystems and species have complex biological

requirements and react with a time lag, so that changes in underlying conditions and measures can

often only be effective in the medium or long term (e.g. forests, moorlands). Designation of sites was

not completed until 2006 and, in the case of terrestrial sites, 2009. The most important conditions to

facilitate implementation have now been created (in addition to the implementation into law at

national and Land level, extensive information is now also available, along with training opportunities,

and assistance in the form of guidelines or advisory services etc.) The systematic establishment of

measures for Natura 2000 sites is well underway (see below). The protection mechanisms are already

beginning to take effect (e.g. Donald et al. 2007). For example, actual improvements in the

conservation status of some species can already be seen, especially in the case of fish, reptiles, and

larger mammals such as the beaver, wildcat, and grey seal. Other species too such as the European

river otter, lynx, common seal, osprey, peregrine, and some species of swan, goose and duck are

showing signs sometimes of regional and sometimes of transregional improvement (Bundesregierung

2013, 2014). And yet the objectives of the Directives have not yet been achieved for most species and

habitats; the conservation status of marine and coastal habitats, water-based habitats and grasslands,



10

oligotrophic grasslands and heaths is particularly unfavourable. Here it particularly discouraging that it

has not been possible to prevent deterioration of many habitat types that depend on extensive use of

grasslands or biotope management (e.g. extensive hay meadows, inland dunes, heaths). In cases of

habitats that depend on management or use for which deterioration of the conservation status was

prevented (e.g. oligotrophic grasslands), this must be seen as a success. Furthermore, the Directives

have made a major contribution to reducing the rate of biodiversity loss in the last 20 years; it would

otherwise have been far more serious. This is true of lowland and mountain hay meadows for example,

which were still relatively prevalent in the 1980s and since then have to some extent disappeared at

regional level.

Specific objectives of the Birds and Habitats Directives

Article 3 of the Birds Directive and Article 4 of the Habitats Directive:

Site designation was overall significantly slower than expected, with differences across the individual

Länder and more prompt site designation in the Exclusive Economic Zone than in other countries

(Ssymank & Vischer-Leopold 2006, Ssymank et al. 2010; see also Evans 2012). The rulings of the

European Court of Justice were a major factor in its conclusion. When the Habitats Directive entered

into force, 2.5 % of Germany’s land area was comprehensively protected (nature reserves, national

parks), just less than 20 years later that figure was 4.3 %. By contrast, the designation of 15.4 % of the

country’s land area and 45 % of its marine area as European protected areas in Germany, which is a

densely populated and highly industrialised country with high-intensity use, is a significant

achievement on the part of all stakeholders. Furthermore, a systematic selection of protected areas was

carried out for the first time on the basis of overarching nature conservation criteria, creating good

conditions for effective protection. In particular, nature conservation began to focus on elements of

biodiversity that until then had not been so well covered by protected areas. Examples of this are bats,

fish, molluscs and crustaceans, offshore marine areas and beech forests.

Article 6 of the Habitats Directive:

Even if the establishment of conservation objectives and measures is behind the schedule set by the

Habitats Directive, they nevertheless meet expectations in that they are ambitious in terms of the

content being implemented. This requires, on the one hand, extensive technical input (mapping etc.),

and, on the other hand, intensive coordination across all stakeholders (government agencies, land

users, associations) to ensure that high-quality measures are put in place, increase acceptance for their

implementation (e.g. Ellwanger & Schröder 2006). The progress achieved thus far already surpasses

similar work that preceded the establishment of Natura 2000 and achievement of objectives, which is

currently making progress, is foreseeable in the medium term (see S 1.1). Only then will Natura 2000

be able to be fully effective across its entire area.


The provisions of this Article have the character of recommendations and there are no further EU

implementation instructions. In Germany, there is neither a specific target for features of the landscape

to be created or conserved nor current data on their number and quality. As a result of the progress

described under S 1.1, it can be assumed that the creation and conservation of landscape features has

not yet been completed but is nevertheless in line with expectations.

Article 5 of the Birds Directive and Articles 12-13 of the Habitats Directive:

The species protection regulations have been implemented in the light of current rulings of the

European Court of Justice and the protection regulations are now widely firmly anchored in the

awareness of land users (e.g. forestry) and the interested public. Expectations have been met.


Even before the Directives entered into force, hunting and fishing legislation already included

regulations that allowed the use of similar criteria to those of Article 7 of the Birds Directive and

Article 14 of the Habitats Directive. For species listed in Annex V of the Habitats Directive that are

not covered by hunting and fishing legislation a more stringent approach was implemented.

Expectations have been met. Implementation of the regulations caused no problems.



11


At federal government level there is no specific target regarding species to be reintroduced. However,

the progress described under S 1.1 indicates that reintroduction schemes are being regularly carried

out and that expectations are therefore being met. Examples of reintroduction projects include

sturgeon (Tautenhahn & Geßner 2014), salmon (http://www.iksr.org/index.php?id=124,

https://publikationen.sachsen.de/bdb/artikel/13551), allis shad (Schabert 2011), lynx

(http://www.luchsprojekt-harz.de/) and the European pond turtle

(http://www.lugv.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/bb1.c.313846.de, Winkel & Kuprian 2011), which

are still in the implementation phase, since their reintroduction usually takes longer.


Article 10 and Article 12:

With the new reporting format and the reporting system that was established in 2013, which was made

possible by the administrative agreements between the federal government and the Länder on bird

monitoring, expectations have largely been met. With the research findings, just a few examples of

which were cited in answer to Question S.1.1, expectations were surpassed.


Article 8:

Expectations were partially met (see answer to Question C.7).

Article 11:

Expectations were met and those relating to achieving a procedure coordinated at national level were

surpassed.

Article 17:

Expectations were met.

S.1.3 - When will the main objectives be fully attained?

On the basis of current expectations and trends, please provide evidence that indicates the likely year

or range of years that the main objectives will be met. By 'main objectives' we mean the strategic

objectives of the Birds Directive (as set out in its Article 2) and the Habitats Directives (in its Article

2), as well as the specific objectives set out in Annex I to this document.

Strategic objective of the Birds and Habitats Directive:

It is not possible to specify a target year or period for meeting the strategic objectives of the Habitats

and Birds Directives in Germany. This depends on numerous factors that cannot be predicted and that

are influenced by developments at different levels (EU, national, regional) and in different areas

(nature conservation, infrastructure, industry, management of biological resources, climate trends etc.).

Attainment of the objectives is particularly dependent on the human and financial resources deployed

and that in turn depends on political priorities (e.g. funding systems), economic developments and

public opinion. Initial successes indicate that the measures are starting to take effect.

Specific objectives of the Birds and Habitats Directive


The objective was achieved (see S 1.1)


The objective will probably be achieved by 2022 (see S 1.1).

http://www.iksr.org/index.php?id=124

http://www.lugv.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/bb1.c.313846.de



12


Due to the unspecific objective of the Habitats Directive, it is not possible to predict when it will be

achieved.

Article 5 of the Birds Directive and Articles 12-13 of the Habitats Directive:

The objective was achieved (see S 1.1).


The objective was achieved (see S 1.1).


This provision does not contain any specific targets. Should invasive species occur, Germany will take

all necessary and proportionate measures.


Article 10:

The objective was achieved.

Article 12:



Article 8:

It is not possible to conclusively specify a period of time, because implementation is decisively

influenced by numerous factors not connected with nature conservation (European, national and

regional budget decisions).

Article 11:

The objective has been achieved for the Atlantic and Continental region and for the Alpine region will

be an important element of the 2019 Habitats Report.

Article 17:


S.2 – What is the contribution of the Directives towards ensuring biodiversity? In

particular to what extent are they contributing to achieving the EU Biodiversity

Strategy* Objectives and Targets?

By 'contribution towards ensuring biodiversity', we are referring not only to the conservation of the

species and habitats specifically addressed by the Directives, but also to biodiversity more broadly

defined: i.e. other species and habitats not targeted by the Directives; ecosystems (terrestrial and

marine); and genetic diversity, both within and beyond the Natura 2000 network – in line with the

EU’s 2050 vision and 2020 headline target and the Targets of the EU's Biodiversity Strategy to 2020.

* For an overview of the EU biodiversity Strategy see:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/factsheets/Biod%20Strategy%20FS.pdf

Since a broad spectrum of the habitats occurring in Germany that are listed in Annex I of the Habitats

Directive is covered, the majority of species of fauna, flora, and fungus are covered either indirectly or

as characteristic species of habitats (Ssymank et al. 1998). The spectrum of protected habitats will be

expanded by the designation of special protection areas for bird species listed in Annex I of the Birds

Directive and regularly occurring migratory birds referred to in Article 4 (2) of the Birds Directive.

The species listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive usually have a flagship function, i.e. protecting

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/factsheets/Biod%20Strategy%20FS.pdf



13

them also affords protection to other habitats that are of key importance for biodiversity. Since Natura

2000 sites are distributed across a wide area, they contain a broad spectrum of the genetic diversity of

wild species. This generates a crucial positive influence on biodiversity in general (Devictor et al.

2007, Gaston et al. 2007, Trochet & Schmeller 2013, Zimmermann et al. 2010).

In the light of climate change, we anticipate that in future Natura 2000 sites could play an important

role, on the one hand providing refugia, but also enabling species to proliferate in new climatically

suitable areas (Beierkuhnlein et al. 2014, Ellwanger et al. 2012a, 2013, Huntley et al. 2012, Normand

et al. 2007, Petermann et al. 2007, Schlumprecht et al. 2011, Vohland et al. 2013a, b, Lovejoy u.

Hannah 2005, Huntley 2007, Araújo 2009, Heller u. Zavaleta 2009, Mawdsley et al. 2009, Araújo et

al. 2011).

The factors cited in the answer to S.4 contribute to a similar degree as the EU Nature Directives

themselves to attainment of the general biodiversity objectives.

The importance of the EU Nature Directives in safeguarding biodiversity is also reflected in the

implementation structure of the EU biodiversity strategy (CIF, common implementation framework),

under which the Directives are intended to make the sole contribution to Target 1 (To halt the

deterioration in the status of all species and habitats covered by EU nature legislation and achieve a

significant and measurable improvement in their status so that, by 2020, compared to current

assessments, 100 % more habitat assessments and 50 % more species assessments under the Habitats

Directive show an improved conservation status; and (ii) 50 % more species assessments under the

Birds Directive show a secure or improved status) and important contributions to two other targets

(Target 2: Maintaining ecosystems and their services and restoring 15 % of degraded ecosystems;

Target 3: Increasing the contribution made by agriculture and forestry to conserving and enhancing

biodiversity). Germany also intends to achieve the targets of the EU biodiversity strategy

predominantly on the basis of the EU Nature Directives. For example, measures to protect and develop

habitat types and species habitats within the Natura 2000 sites contribute crucially to Target 2,

maintaining and restoring ecosystems and their services. They include management of wetlands or

regeneration of degraded bogs to store water, reducing excess nitrogen surplus and soil erosion by

conserving grasslands, maintaining pollination services and controlling pests by encouraging species-

rich habitats close to agricultural land, flood protection effects resulting from restoring water

meadows, and improving the appearance of the landscape, the recreational appeal and therefore

income generated by tourism in areas with a high proportion of habitats subject to the Habitats

Directive.

The Directives are also of key importance in restoring 15 % of degraded ecosystems (Target 2).

Germany is prioritising bogs and alluvial meadows here. For example, all active raised bogs in

Germany are within Habitat Directive sites and 51 % of recent alluvial meadows in Germany are

Natura 2000 sites.

As part of the above-mentioned objectives of Target 1, the federal government and Länder have

agreed to identify those species and habitats where there is primarily a need for action to achieve as

effective an improvement as possible in the conservation status and to take appropriate opportunities

for collaboration. This should make implementation of the EU Nature Directives more success-

oriented and effective in future.

Without full implementation of the Directives, achievement of the targets of the EU biodiversity

strategy would only be possible with new, similar legal regulations.

S.3 – Which main factors (e.g. implementation by Member States, action by

stakeholders) have contributed to or stood in the way of achieving the Directive’s

objectives?

Please summarise evidence of the main factors that have supported or constrained progress towards

achieving the objectives of the Nature Directives. As in previous questions, by 'objectives' we mean not

only the strategic objectives set out in Articles 2 of both Directives, but also specific and operational

objectives, as set out in Annex I to this document. Relevant factors might include, for example,



14

resource limitations, lack of cooperation of other actors, lack of scientific knowledge, or other

external factors (e.g. those listed in the above intervention logic).

Initially, the delay in implementing them into national law, particularly with regard to site designation,

hindered faster implementation. Here it was primarily court rulings, particularly by the European

Court of Justice, that made their relevance clear. Site designation based on technical criteria increased

the quality of the Natura 2000 framework but had a negative impact on acceptance by user groups.

This provoked opposition, sometimes powerful opposition, e.g. in form of complaints.

Especially, the knowledge and the information of the user groups was not enough. This also led to

decrease acceptance (Seintsch et al. 2012).

In addition to this, there was uncertainty in the early years about how to interpret Article 6.3

(assessment of the implications for the site), but this did not prevent it from being applied early on

(e.g. for a number of planned road transport projects). Sectoral agencies at federal and Länder level

processed methodological and content issues early on (see for example BfN and Landesanstalten

1998). Implementation of Article 6.3 made an important contribution to optimising many

infrastructure and building projects to make them more compatible with nature. Contrary to initial

fears, it proved perfectly possible to carry out infrastructure projects that were in the public interest,

either by designing them to be compatible with nature or by putting damage limitation or coherence

measures in place. Furthermore, coherence measures were necessary for only six or seven projects a

year in Germany, which was fewer than anticipated (Bundesregierung 2013). Nevertheless, projects

may have changed or be delayed and higher coasts and administrative burden might have occurred (s.

Answer to question Y.1).

Overall, nuanced rulings by the European Court of Justice (cf. European Commission 2006) and the

national courts has evolved over the last 25 years, permitting the Directives to be implemented on a

sound legal basis. Nevertheless, legal uncertainties still exist that are constraints to for the permission

of projects.

The regulations on cross compliance were particularly helpful for implementation of Natura 2000.

This control instrument makes a particular contribution to raising awareness of land users for nature

conservation.

The development of EU guidelines with guidance on interpretation and solutions in different areas has

– in cases where they were available in time for national implementation – increased legal certainty

and made implementation simpler and more effective in practice. They were adapted to the national

situation in Germany (e.g. significance thresholds; Lambrecht & Trautner 2007), or sometimes

complemented (e.g. guidelines on management of species listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive;

www.ffh-anhang4.bfn.de; guidelines on enforcing species protection legislation in North Rhine-

Westphalia). [sentence that in future economy should be stronger involved in guidelines]

The nature conservation organisations played a decisive role in setting up the Natura 2000 network

and their specialist expertise came to have a significant effect in conjunction with the above-

mentioned rulings (Important Bird Areas as de facto SPAs) (e.g. Mayr 2010). Organisations of

affected land users have often been not consulted or too late.

The human and financial resources of the implementing agencies improved as implementation

progressed. A basically positive aspect is the fact that nature conservation funding has become an

established part of the EU’s ELER, EFRE, EFF/EMFF funds, permitting partly both funding and

compensation for losses suffered by land users. This has increased acceptance. [sentence on deficits in

the forest sector]

Specialist knowledge about the occurrence of habitat types and species habitats was not always

available to a sufficient degree. Basic data collection has now largely been completed and nationwide

monitoring to meet the requirements of Article 11 of the Habitats Directive has been established.

Currently specialist knowledge is lacking for only a few very special species, particularly in regions

such as the Alps that are difficult to access (see the high percentage (31 %) of “not known” ratings for

the Alpine region in the German Habitats Directive Report) or for rare species that have very complex

biology. For bird species too the administrative agreement on bird monitoring among other things

http://www.ffh-anhang4.bfn.de/



15

closed gaps in knowledge and paved the way for improved, targeted implementation of protection and

conservation measures.

Cooperation with other sectors plays a key role in meeting the objectives of the Directives.

Cooperation has improved as implementation has progressed, but still needs improvement. It varies

depending on the sector (agriculture, forestry, planning), region and local conditions. See examples

given in answer to Question S.4.

Thus, for example, Natura 2000 sites are now taken into consideration in the initial stage of planning

processes, e.g. for new roads or railway routes or nationwide expansion of the electricity grid. In the

case of the latter, the Federal Network Agency takes Natura 2000 sites into account when considering

potential electricity transmission routes and involves nature conservationists in its planning processes

from the very outset. The Directives are also taken into consideration at a very early stage in planning

procedures for federal highways and those of Deutsche Bahn railways. For example, the Federal

Agency for Nature Conservation, the Federal Railway Authority and the Federal Network Agency

regularly share GIS data. Furthermore , information on all the sites can be accessed via the EU, federal

government and Länder websites and can be taken into consideration in planning processes.

Particular importance is accorded to the need to take the EU Directives into consideration in the case

of maintaining military property (e.g. military training areas) (Ellwanger et al. 2012b). Here there are

corresponding internal rules concerning site management. For all military training areas belonging to

the Bundeswehr (German armed forces), which comprise Natura 2000 sites, the Bundeswehr has

already collaborated with the Länder on developing management plans. It aims to do this for all

military training areas containing affected by Natura 2000 (Velte & Puffpaff 2012). Similar rules exist

for military training areas used by guest troops and administrated by the Bundesanstalt für

Immobilienaufgaben (Gutsche & Schleyer 2009; Schmid 2012).

Examples of best practice in implementing the EU Nature Directives have also been compiled with

regard to the cooperation between nature conservation and the mining, waterways and groundwater

use sectors (BfN 2010). In the current evaluation by Sundseth & Roth (2013:65ff.) there are also

numerous examples of good practice that illustrate how implementation of the Directives has been

optimised over time. Nevertheless, the incorporation of Natura 2000 requirements for maintaining and

developing water roads is still connected with huge efforts and difficulties.

The Natura 2000 sites have also now been integrated into planning at Land and regional level (cf.

Ministerkonferenz für Raumordnung 2006). This makes it possible to take protection needs into

account at an early stage in the planning process and to integrate regional biotope network concepts

into regional planning.

There are numerous practical examples from agriculture and forestry that cite the factors involved in

successful implementation (e.g. guidance on Natura 2000 implementation; DVL 2007). They include

long-term site stewardship, involvement of regional stakeholders, implementation of funding

programmes on a voluntary basis, practice-oriented management planning, qualified advisory services

such as the “Partnerbetrieb Naturschutz” in Rhineland-Palatinate (a nature conservation stewardship

scheme for farmers and vintners), open communication, and funding programmes that make it possible

for farmers to earn a living even within Natura 2000 sites. The management planning aims for the

involvement of, and collaboration with, land users.

Nevertheless, implementation of the Directives has not yet been integrated into all policy fields to such

an extent that their objectives can be achieved. For example, it only proved possible to establish

conservation measures for the fisheries management sector by 31.12.2013 because a proposal was

submitted to the EU Commission, who then had to develop its own proposal, which in turn was

discussed under the “proper procedures” and then approved. This has in fact happened in the EU in

only a handful of cases. With enforcement of EU Regulation reforming the Common Fisheries Policy,

the legal basis for fishery measures exists. (on fisheries see also the answer to C.4).

A challenge for reaching the strategic objectives of the directive are intensification of land

management, including in connection with increased use of renewable energy crops (maize

cultivation), development of wind power, nitrogen input from energy, transport and agriculture or also

climate change (see German national reports of the bids and habitats directive).



16

S.4 - Have the Directives led to any other significant changes both positive and negative?

This question aims to assess whether the implementation of the Nature Directives has brought about

any significant environmental, social or economic effects or changes that were not intended or

foreseen by the Directive at the time of their approval, and whether these changes were positive,

negative or neutral in terms of their contribution towards meeting the objectives of the Directives.

Examples of such effects or changes might include the development of a culture of social participation

in nature-related decisions as evidenced by Committees for the development of management plans or

higher cooperation of departments of different ministries, etc.

The implementation of the EU Nature Directives has significantly improved nature and biodiversity

conservation in Germany above and beyond the Natura 2000 sites and the targets for protection listed

in the Annexes. For example, as a result of the implementation process (see S.1), wide sections of the

general public, planners, land managers, and policymakers have become aware of the significance of

nature conservation. Planners, government agencies, interest groups and many individual members of

the public are now familiar with the Directives and incorporate them into their activities. They have

also triggered a diverse range of new activities. For example, they have been included in school

textbooks in Bavaria, Rhineland-Palatinate has launched a project for schools entitled “Natura 2000

macht Schule”, there is a Junior Ranger project in the Greifswald Bodden (Bay of Greifswald) area,

where children talk to visitors to the beach about seals and about appropriate behaviour around them,

passenger ships take people out who are interested in monitoring grey seals, there are information and

training courses in educational institutions and forest youth centres, voluntary agreements have been

made concerning outdoors sports, Bodden managers work in Wismar Bay giving sailing enthusiasts,

anglers etc. information about the voluntary agreement on water sports in the bay, and there is also a

voluntary agreement between Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and canoeing businesses about

boating on the River Warnow, the Directives are given media coverage, special consideration is given

to Natura 2000 sites that have hiking trails and other tourist activities, and the subject has been

integrated into training schemes for occupations outside the nature conservation field per se.

The position of Natura 2000 sites is one of the criteria for decision-making in strategic planning and

activities, for example when selecting National Natural Heritage sites, setting funding priorities at

federal and Land level, including for voluntary nature conservation e.g. stewardship of protected areas,

when setting priorities for restoring free passage for migratory fish in watercourses (BfG 2010), in

local authority decision-making about designating areas needed for natural processes in riparian

woodland (Speyer, Rhineland-Palatinate), on tariffs for wind turbines (wind turbines that were

approved after 31.12.2004 in Natura 2000 sites within the Exclusive Economic Zones are not eligible

for tariff payments), in selecting sites for wind turbines based on regulations at Länder level (e.g.

prohibiting wind power facilities in Natura 2000 sites in Hamburg, Saarland and Schleswig-Holstein,

in Special Protected Areas in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, permitting repowering of existing

wind turbines only in Natura 2000 sites in North Rhine-Westphalia) or imposing sustainability

requirements for biofuels.

The EU Nature Directives impose higher requirements than the former national nature conservation

instruments. This has helped to strengthen the scientific nature conservation education. For example,

in the early 1990s it spawned numerous degree courses specialising in nature conservation (nature

conservation and landscape ecology degree within the faculty of agriculture at Bonn University and in

the biology department of the zoology institute at Hamburg University, nature conservation degree at

Marburg University, chair in nature conservation in the Faculty of Forest and Environment and degree

in landscape management and nature conservation at Eberswalde University for Sustainable

Development) and training courses in the public sector (training course in landscape conservation for

civil servants since 1985 in NRW; Voithenberg 2010; cf. also APO 2013: S. 103).

The EU Nature Directives gave rise to greater institutionalisation of cooperative nature conservation

models, in which nature conservation, agriculture and forestry, hunting and local authority interests

were represented (e.g. Ökonsult 2003, Ssymank et al. 2014). Examples are landscape management and



17

conservation associations, e.g. in Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria and Saxony. Schleswig-Holstein

currently has 155 “Lokale Aktionen” designed to facilitate cooperation among all stakeholders; the

German Association for Landscape Conservation (Deutscher Verband für Landschaftspflege” was

founded in 1993 (Metzner 2013). These organisations specialise in management planning and Natura

2000 implementation (Boller et al. 2013). In 1990, North Rhine-Westphalia began to set up biological

stations across almost the entire state, stepping up the pace over the course of the decade

(www.biostationen-nrw.com); they also play an important role in education and public outreach. Both

organisations also advise and support farmers, particularly on matters of funding programmes, so that

their remit goes far beyond implementing Natura 2000 (Metzner et al. 2013). In Brandenburg, LIFE

projects were jointly carried out with landowners and users to establish or continue land uses that are

compatible with nature conservation, e.g. of inland salt meadows and marshes and sand grasslands.

The fact that during these projects, or as part of the management planning, nature conservationists and

user groups exchanged views – in some cases for the first time – promoted understanding for each

other’s positions and helped to overcome reservations. The integrated management plans for the

German North Sea Estuaries are an example of how this can also succeed even when there are

powerful economic interests at stake. Interest groups concerned with these federal waterways, which

are important for the national ports industry and have a high volume of traffic, sat down together for

the first time at a Round Table. This process even enabled new synergies to be discovered (see answer

to R.3).

Furthermore, the necessity of any intervention is now carefully scrutinised. The consideration of

options that is part of an assessment of the implications for the site makes a key contribution to

avoiding unnecessary negative impacts on biodiversity. Ensuring coherence in the case of major

interventions guarantees actual ecological compensation. On taking nature conservation aspects into

account early on in planning processes cf. the answer to Question S.3.

The implementation of the Directives gave the impulse to the legal basis for nature conservation being

expanded both in terms of content and geographic reach. For example, the fact that from 2002 the

regulations on Natura 2000 applied to the German exclusive economic zone meant that in 2010

virtually all the provisions of the Federal Nature Conservation Act (e.g. intervention regulations,

biotope conservation) were extended to cover this marine area. Since 2006, Natura 2000 sites must be

given consideration with regard to release of genetically modified organisms.

The knowledge base for nature conservation has increased. The monitoring and reporting obligations

have meant that mapping activities and surveys have increased in number or in some cases been

carried out for the first time. This has made new synergies possible (e.g. more frequent monitoring of

forests due to the expansion of the National Forest Inventory (Bundeswaldinventur) and joint

monitoring for the Habitat Directive and Water Framework Directive and for the Birds Directive,

Habitats Directive and Marine Strategy Framework Directive). This means that for the first time the

quality of nature conservation data in Germany is on a par with that for other environmental areas.

Furthermore, the attainment of nature conservation targets has become measurable and quantifiable for

the first time.

Civil society involvement in nature conservation has become more important. This becomes clear by

increasingly involving volunteers in some areas of monitoring, such as bats, amphibians,

bivalves/gastropods and insects, or the use of data collected by volunteers for the Birds Directive

Report as a result of voluntary stewardship of Natura 2000 sites). The volunteers’ services more or

less match the funding provided by the federal government, foundations and users (e.g. in the form of

compensation payments, water abstraction charges, waste water charges, fishing and hunting fees)

(PAF 2013; see answer to Question Y.2). Cooperation between public sector bodies and associations

has also improved in some areas, e.g. implementation by the Federation of German Avifaunists

(Dachverband Deutscher Avifaunisten, DDA) with 6,000 volunteers of the administrative agreement

between the federal government and the Länder on bird monitoring (Sudfeldt et al. 2012b).

Furthermore, the cooperation between the federal government and the Länder on nature conservation

has also intensified. This is of fundamental importance, since Germany is a federal country. For

example, bodies were set up as part of the process of implementing the EU Nature Directives, in

which alongside, or against the backdrop of, the Directives, other issues outside the remit of the

Directives were intensively discussed (e.g. a standing committee on fundamental policy issues and

http://www.biostationen-nrw.com/



18

Natura 2000 set up by the supreme nature conservation agencies at federal and Länder level, federal

government/Länder working group on monitoring and reporting duties of the sectoral agencies

responsible for nature conservation at federal and Länder level, federal government/Länder working

group on Natura 2000 in forests, made up of federal and Länder forestry commissions). Dealing with

the EU Nature Directives also injected new impetus into the work of many existing bodies, including

those within the supreme nature conservation authorities at federal and Länder level responsible for

legal aspects, species and habitat protection and intervention planning, for example. One outcome was

that methods of data acquisition were standardised (e.g. biotope mapping outside forests), which

meant that for the first time data could be compared across the different Länder and a standardised

nationwide monitoring system could be set up (Sachteleben & Behrens 2010). This improved standard

of cooperation between the federal government and the Länder and among the Länder themselves

meant that unnecessary conflict and duplication of effort could be avoided, problems identified early

on and ideas for practicable solutions shared. The effectiveness and efficiency of nature conservation

activities has improved as a result.

Cooperation with other EU Member States and in particular with Germany’s neighbours has been

stepped up (see the answer to Question AV.1).

The examples cited above help to make implementation more efficient. A change to the statutory

provisions could jeopardise this and entail changeover costs.

As Negative effect of the directives it could be mentioned: durable coasts (administrative coasts e.g.

for administrations, land users, enterprises, reduction of gain), legal uncertainties, and time delay; s.

answer to question Y.1.



19

Efficiency

Efficiency is essentially a comparison between inputs used in a certain activity and produced outputs.

The central question asked here is whether the costs involved in the implementation of the EU nature

legislation are reasonable and in proportion to the results achieved (benefits). Both 'costs' and

'benefits' can be monetary and/or non-monetary. A typology of the costs and benefits resulting from

the implementation of the Directives is given in Annex II to this questionnaire. In your answers, please

describe the nature, value and overall significance of the costs and benefits arising from the

implementation of the Directive, supported by evidence.

Y.1 - What are their costs and benefits (monetary and non-monetary)?

Based on the explanation given above, please indicate, supported by evidence, what types of costs and

benefits have resulted from the implementation of the Nature Directives. Please provide evidence,

quantitative where possible, of costs and benefits, describe their nature (monetary/non-monetary) and

value, and who is affected and to what extent. Please distinguish between the costs and benefits

arising from the Directives themselves and those arising as a result of other factors. To facilitate

analysis of the answers it would be useful if costs and benefits could be addressed separately.

I Costs

The costs for setting up and maintaining the Natura 2000 network of protected areas in Germany are

estimated to be € 627 million per year (PAF 2013). With an overall Natura 2000 area of 8,083,224 ha,

including a terrestrial area of 5,503,033 ha, (data from 2014), this amounts to costs of € 77 or € 114

per hectare, per year. However, it is important to note that some of the costs would also arise without

the EU Nature Directives, i.e., to fulfil national nature conservation requirements (e.g., managing

national special protection areas, national monitoring obligations, etc.)

[Land managers may be confronted with costs due to regulations on utilisation or restoration

measures that are in principle voluntary by nature. An average loss of the silvicultural contribution

margin of € 40 per ha of the area of beech habitat types has been calculated for forests (including

administrative expenses, without administrative expenses: € 20; Rosenkranz et al. 2012). For the

most part, these refer to the implementation of management measures targeting improvement. It is

important to take into account that owners and managers are not obligated to carry out improvement

measures, and thus compensate for their losses with active management measures, meaning these

costs incurred by owners and managers are already included in the first figure mentioned.

Conversely, land managers are obligated to comply with the no-deterioration principle, the costs of

which are also partially compensated for by public funds, for example, Natura 2000 compensation

payments or remuneration for the non-use of fertilisers in the context of agri-environmental

measures. Compensation payments may be higher than the costs incurred due to utilisation

regulations. Lower Saxony, for example, is authorised to pay compensation for measures to maintain

or reach an improved conservation status for dedicated Natura 2000 protected areas amounting to €

100 in beech habitat types and € 110 in oak habitat types] many changes, delations and additions to

this passage; admission of a passage of an English publication:

Over the entire 200-year simulation period the mean values for the differences in felling through FFH

planning of measures in beech forest habitat types compared to the forest management reference

„Enterprise Objective” range between 0 up to -1.6 harvested m³/ha/annum. The difference in felling

with view to the habitat type area amounts in its arithmetic average to -0.66 harvested m³/ha/annum.

The minimum and the maximum of the difference in felling ranges in one extreme case between-5.3

harvested m³/ha/annum and +3.7 harvested m³/ha/annum in the respective period under consideration.

Including the additional administrative costs, the mean difference of the silvicultural contribution

margin of the forest enterprises lies within a range of 0 up to 180 €/ha/annum across the entire 200-

year period. On average of all forest enterprises, the loss of the contribution margin amounts to 40

€/ha/annum in relation to the habitat type areas. The differences of the contribution margin range

across all case study forest enterprises between -234 €/ha/annum and +97 €/ha/annum in the

respective periods under consideration.



20

The analysis of the loss of value of the management unit „beech habitat type area” comparing forest

management under the „FFH-Regime” and the reference „Enterprise Objective” leads in average to a

reduced cash value of 2,496 €/ha. As highest value a loss in cash value of 10,945 €/ha was identified.

In average a difference of the capitalised value of -2,501 €/ha was calculated. A difference in

capitalised value of -10,945 €/ha was identified as the highest value.

Furthermore additional ongoing administrative costs are to be expected within environmental and

forest administration.

Planning costs for infrastructure projects (Habitats Directive-based preliminary screening and, if

necessary, impact assessment including extensive surveys and contributions on species protection)

constitute another important cost category. These may entail costs for modifying planned projects,

mitigation and containment, and measures to ensure coherence. It is important to note that for certain

parts these costs would also arise due to national planning regulations (e.g. intervention rules) or

European ones (e.g. environmental impact assessment), and/or that by fulfilling Habitats Directive

requirements, national requirements (intervention and compensation regulations) are fulfilled at the

same time. Finally, there may be costs incurred by mitigation and containment, or coherence

measures.

In many cases a review of planned projects by courts and the ensuing legal uncertainty and delays

seem to be as problematic as costs. All in all, planning processes are becoming more complex, take

longer, and require more effort in an ever denser landscape against the backdrop of increasing public

interest and the associated calls for transparency (cf. e.g. Aarhus Convention) and participation. The

Federal Government assumes that Stakeholders will contribute extensively to their coasts.

II Benefits

The Union’s economic prosperity and well-being is underpinned by its natural capital, i.e., its

biodiversity, including ecosystems that provide essential goods and services (fertile soil, multi-

functional forests, productive land and seas; good quality fresh water and clean air and pollination;

climate regulation and protection against natural disasters). A substantial body of Union legislation

seeks to protect, conserve and enhance this very natural capital, including the Habitats and Birds

Directives.

The EU Nature Directives and the conservation and improvement of flora and fauna habitats have

numerous positive impacts on economic and societal objectives and well-being in general

(macroeconomic benefit). In addition to contributing to biodiversity preservation (and the associated

appreciation thereof), they provide the following ecosystem services:

contribute to climate change mitigation as ecosystems function as sinks, especially when

bogs are renaturalised

contribute to climate change adaptations; this reduces consequential follow-up costs

(reducing flood-related damages, buffering extreme weather conditions, a.o.)

preserve the flood control effect of intact alluvial areas,

better climate change adaptability (resilience) of semi-natural ecosystems

reduce pollution through reduced nitrogen excess as a contribution to water quality control

and drinking water protection,

reduce soil erosion (e.g. by protecting grassland),

maintain pollination and pest control functions when flora and fauna habitats providing

biodiversity are protected in spatial connection to areas used for agricultural production,

cultural ecosystem services due to improving natural scenery and to their recreational

qualities, their attractiveness for tourists, and tourism-related income in landscapes and

regions with a high share of flora and fauna habitats.

The last bullet point refers to substantial positive effects for regional economies; these are especially

relevant in the case of larger protected areas. They can count as valorisations for safeguarding and

improving cultural ecosystem systems by nature conservation measures, including Natura 2000.

However, it is significantly more difficult to give figures for benefits directly associated with the EU



21

Nature Directives compared to giving figures for the costs of implementing them (see above). As

there are no specific studies in Germany in this regard, other studies are used on the general

appreciation of nature, specific ecosystems, and positive effects of large protected areas on regional

economies.

Social recognition of preserving habitats

One essential benefit of preserving flora and fauna habitats lies in appreciating nature and

biodiversity. This is also reflected in the results of studies on natural awareness in Germany (see R.4).

A number of studies in Germany have shown that the population is willing to forego a share of their

income for this value. In the most recent study, a representative cross-section of the population was

asked about their willingness to make annual payments towards preserving biodiversity (implement

Natura 2000 and other national biodiversity targets). This willingness was significantly higher than

the coast estimates (Wüstemann et al. 2014; Meyerhoff et al. 2012).

Ecosystem services for specific habitats

Analyses have been carried out on individual ecosystems and development measures. In the analyses,

the services these biotopes provide for mankind and society along with their nature conservation

impact were evaluated. Specific analyses were carried out in the case of floodplains, grassland, and

bogs. Moreover, information was also given on forests and marine areas.

Floodplains

Semi-natural water bodies and alluvial areas offer an enormous benefit to society that can even be

measured in monetary terms: they provide effective flood control, effective water purification, retain

greenhouse gases, and provide a recreational value that can be experienced by everyone. Traditional

studies on economic efficiency usually pay little attention to this connection so that it does not always

become visible. The costs of renaturalisation measures need to be juxtaposed against services

provided by intact water bodies and floodplains from which society benefits over a long period of

time (Schäfer & Kowatsch 2015).

Identifying the costs and benefits of a number of potential measures to re-create embankments and

floodplains at the Elbe river, covering a total area of 35,000 ha, has led to compliance with the

objectives of the Water Framework Directive when considering solely their flood control effect

(avoiding flood-related damages of an average of € 6 million per year) and the improved self-

purifying capacity of water bodies. These objectives would have had to be achieved in different ways,

e.g., restricting agricultural utilisation of land or increasing the purification capacity of sewage

treatment plants at a cost of € 16 million per year, and a benefit-cost ratio of about 1:1 (Grossmann

2012a; Grossmann 2012b; Grossmann et al. 2010). If the population’s willingness to pay for nature

conservation separately identified and the improved recreational quality of alluvial areas are taken

into account as well, the benefit-cost ratio amounts to about 3:1 which, compared to other state or

private investments, can again be considered very high.

Embankments are often re-created and floodplains renaturalised with the aim of increasing the value

of flora and fauna habitats or improving the coherence of the Natura 2000 system of protected areas.

The implementation of the Habitats Directive can therefore be seen as a key reason why such

economically efficient measures are taken.

Grassland

In the scope of a nation-wide study the costs and benefits of preserving high-nature-value grassland

were identified (Matzdorf et al. 2010).

Some of these grassland types qualify as flora and fauna habitat types according to the Habitats

Directive. Grassland was under threat especially due to conversion into arable land. Preserving

grassland was compared to converting grassland into arable land. Among the various ecosystem

services, the analysis used the agricultural production function, carbon sink function, effect on ground

water quality, and contribution to preserving biodiversity. It was not possible to identify values for

pollination and reducing organisms harmful to agriculture. Margins were calculated for all the



22

identified values. On average, the preservation of a high-nature-value grassland amounts to a loss in

agricultural production of about € 550 compared to its use as arable land. The increased carbon

sequestration by grassland as opposed to arable land amounts to an average mean of about € 1,100 per

year, based on the assumption of a long-term damage valued at € 80 per tonne of CO2. A value of €

80 was calculated for the water protection effect compared to costs for regulations to be fulfilled in

case of agricultural utilisation. All the above results in a benefit-cost ratio for preserving high-nature-

value grassland of about 2:1. No value was attributed specifically to nature conservation, but it can be

calculated in rough terms on the basis of a benefit-transfer from the study on the population’s

willingness to pay for a programme to implement national biodiversity strategies mentioned above.

Bogs

When bogs are drained, they constitute an emission source for the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide

and nitrogen dioxide. Drained bogs emit about 5% of Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions (Federal

Environment Agency 2012, Wolters et al. 2013). For the most part, these emissions originate from

bog soil used for farming. The costs and benefits of re-irrigating bogs have been analysed in a number

of case studies.

The social benefit or in other words avoided costs of re-irrigated bog zones are significant. This has

been illustrated by several studies:

In the context of a study on the costs and benefits of measures to achieve biodiversity objectives, the

effects of the measures on climate change mitigation were also analysed, based on damage costs of €

70 / t of CO2 equivalent (Federal Environment Agency 2007). According to this study, a

renaturalisation of bog areas of more than 300,000 ha in Germany may contribute to avoiding

greenhouse gas emissions of 3.1 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents, and thus to avoiding climate-

related damages of € 217 million per year (Wüstemann et al. 2014).

The re-irrigation of bogs for reasons of nature conservation may contribute to reducing greenhouse

gas emissions of 4-15.5 t of CO2 equivalents per hectare and year (Drösler et al. 2012). The costs for

this amount to € 40 – € 110 / t of CO2 equivalents and are lower than the costs for many alternative

measures to mitigate climate change, such as biofuels or corn-based biogas at costs of € 150 – 300 / t

of CO2 equivalents (Scientific Advisory Board on Agricultural Policy 2007). If the EU Nature

Directives were not implemented, much higher costs would be incurred for achieving national or

European objectives in reducing greenhouse gases.

The costs of climate-related damages at drained locations that are used for energy crops to produce

biogas may be € 2,151 per hectare and year, or € 2,800 per hectare and year for utilisation in fodder

maize production. At a re-irrigated location, these costs are only € 600 per hectare and year

(Berghöfer & Röder 2014, Drösler 2011, Couwenberg et al. 2008, Joosten et al. 2013, Federal

Environment Agency 2012).

Forest

Land use as “forest” is subject to stringent protection in Germany, by the Federal Forest Act, the

forest acts of the Laender and other acts even without the Habitats Directive. This protection entails

that the services of forest habitat types for carbon sequestration, their recreational function, and the

forests’ function in water management are relatively well secured even without protection under the

Habitats Directive.

Marine protected areas

International studies have shown that protected areas improve fishery yields and offer a series of

economic benefits for the fishing industry: e.g. improved fish recruitment, recovery of fish

populations, re-establishing a natural age structure in fish populations, higher-quality products, and

the possibility of eco certification (Carstensen et al. 2011, Helson et al. 2010; Pezzey et al. 2000.

Sanchirico 2000; 2004; Grafton et al. 2006, Kerwath et al. 2013).

As marine Natura 2000 areas in German waters are relatively small on a global scale, it is difficult to

provide detailed information on their benefits. This is why general studies on marine protected areas

have been used for the analysis below (GEOMAR 2014).



23

Protected areas offer a series of economic benefits for the fishing industry. These can be summarised

as follows:

Protected areas enable fish to grow larger and improve the conditions for larvae and juvenile

fish to survive. Both factors improve and stabilise the recruitment and productivity of fish

populations. Better and more stable recruitment means fewer “bad” years during which catch

rates must be reduced, and better productivity makes for larger-scale catches.

When fish recruitment is better and more stable, overfished populations can recover faster. As

total allowable catches are a measure used to control population sizes, allowable catches

outside a protected area are increased faster as well compared to areas without a system of

protected areas.

For most species, larger fish yield higher prices per unit of weight. Moreover, these fish can

be marketed as better and higher-quality products, i.e., fresh or smoked produce rather than

frozen fish or fishmeal.

A better age structure in fish populations means more genetic diversity and better resilience

against, e.g., extreme weather conditions which will happen more frequently due to man-

made climate change. Better resilience also means fewer years in which catches need to be

reduced by state regulations.

Fish from recognised healthy and well-managed stock may receive an eco label and yield

higher prices.

So-called no-take areas are reference areas for fishery research where key management

parameters (natural mortality, growth in body size, population growth) can be reviewed and

determined in more detail. This reduces uncertainty in population estimations, reduces the

risk of overfishing, and results in more stable catch rates.

Reduced costs for drinking water due to protected areas

Diffuse source input from farming constitutes the main source of ground water pollution and surface

waters. Treating polluted water generates heavy costs (€ 5 to 30/kg N, Grossmann et al. 2010). Land

use compatible with nature conservation in protected areas can have significant beneficial effects.

According to estimates by Behrendt et al. (2004) the N discharge from maize production on bog soil

is 122 kg/ha/year. On the basis of a very conservative estimate of a cost avoidance for drinking water

treatment plants of € 5/kg N (Grossmann et al. 2010), the effect of avoiding pollutants by using intact

or re-irrigated bogs amount to € 610/ha/year.

Through a modification of management practices, such as growing intermediate crops on intensely

fertilised arable land, nutrient discharges can be avoided at costs of only € 0.4 - 2 /kg N, i.e., much

more cheaply (Osterburg, Runge 2007). When the land is used alternatively as grassland, even these

costs may be avoided. Due to the low discharge of nutrients, the effects of grassland on pollutant

avoidance can be calculated at € 40 - 120 /ha/year based on the cost avoidance described above

(Matzdorf et. al. 2010).

Protected areas can offer a significant benefit for the urban drinking water supply. Munich, for

example, receives roughly 110 million m3 water from the protected areas surrounding the city,

covering 6,000 ha. Due to an adapted ecological land use, the water is of high purity, meaning further

water purification is not necessary. Therefore, the value of the protected areas in terms of water

purification can be calculated to be more than € 8.5 million/year. Berlin’s 23,000 ha of groundwater

protection areas within its metropolitan area provide more than 213 million m3 water. This water is

less polluted and requires less resources for further treatment, which results in the calculation of the

water purification value of the ground water protection areas at almost € 17 million/year (European

Commission 2013).

Even without any further studies on the benefits of other habitat types (e.g., coasts, water bodies) and

other ecosystem services (such as air pollution control, pollination, erosion control, pest control) it

can be concluded that studies and estimates currently available – as outlined above – in some cases

already indicate that the benefits of implementing the Habitats Directives may be by far greater than

its costs. The studies carried out in Germany thus support corresponding results in other EU Member



24

States (cf. European Union 2013).

Effects on the regional economy and added value in protected areas

Additional positive economic effects can be generated by protected areas especially as they increase

recreational quality – while taking into account that sensitive habitats and species are not disrupted;

protected areas are tourist attractions due to their natural beauty (e.g. meadows rich in flowers) and

result in a high added value:

About 51 million tourists visit Germany’s national parks each year. These guests generate an annual

gross turnover of € 2.1 billion. This corresponds to 68,749 income equivalents (Job et al. 2009). As

94.8% and 97.0% of the area of the national parks are flora and fauna habitats and special protection

areas (source: Federal Agency for Nature Conservation calculation), these economic benefits can be

almost fully attributed to Natura 2000 areas.

Moreover, about 65.6 million tourists visit Germany’s biosphere reserves each year. These guests

generate an annual gross turnover of € 2.9 billion. This corresponds to 80,944 income equivalents

(Job et al. 2013). Assuming that 56.2% or 65.6% of the areas of the biosphere reserve are flora and

fauna habitats or special protection areas (source: Federal Agency for Nature Conservation

calculation), these economic effects can be attributed in part to Natura 2000 areas.

The gross turnover is the result of multiplying the number of visitors by the money spent on average

on site. The quotas for the added value vary among the different analysed sites, because visitors show

varying spending structures and the sites’ ties to the regional economy differ from industry to

industry. The gross turnover is shared directly by the hotel and restaurant industry, retailers, and

service providers. Most of the time the hotel and restaurant industry achieves high quotas of added

value while the retail industry shows only low quotas due to its national and international market

structure. The services sector has mostly even higher added value quotas than the hotel and restaurant

industry. The income that is generated there, however, is distributed among additional sectors (e.g.

agriculture) due to delivery commitments within the regions.

Conglomerations of Natura 2000 areas have led to further designations of national parks, nature

parks, and biosphere reserves in rural regions, in which it was possible to achieve an increased

regional added value that was for the most part due to enhanced tourism.

[addition of a passage that the positive economic effects of protected areas for tourism mentioned

above may on the other hand lead to reduced or no utilisation of the protected areas by land users:

Den o.g. positiven wirtschaftlichen Effekten von Schutzgebieten durch Tourismus können eine

geringere oder gar keinen weiteren Nutzung der Schutzgebiete durch die bisherigen Landnutzungen

gegenüberstehen. Dies führt zu einer Reduzierung oder zum Verlusten an Produktion, die wiederum

eine verringerte Wertschöpfung und Beschäftigung bzw. Arbeitsplatzverluste nach sich zieht. Zu

Arbeitsplatzverlusten im Cluster Forst & Holz s.u., zu den Kosten für die Waldbewirtschaftung vgl.

Y.1.]

Other economic benefits

The EU Nature Directives have had the following additional positive economic effects:

Effect on employment: directly (management of protected areas, measures in flora and fauna habitats)

and indirectly (planning agencies, public authorities), which can be a positive factor especially for

structurally weak regions. [addition of a passage that these positive economic effects may on the

other hand lead to loss of production and jobs in land use: „Dem gegenüber stehen jedoch auch

mögliche Arbeitsplatzverluste infolge Verlusten an Produktion, Wertschöpfung und Beschäftigung auf

Seiten der bisherigen Landnutzung. So geht im Cluster Forst & Holz im Durchschnitt pro

Mindereinschlag von 100 m³ pro Jahr je ein Arbeitsplatz verloren.“]

Y.2 - Are availability and access to funding a constraint or support?

This question focuses on the proportion of identified funding needs that has been or is being met by

EU and Member State funding, respectively, the extent to which the level of available funding affects



25

the implementation of the Directives and enables the achievement of their objectives (as set out in

Annex I to this questionnaire), and the extent to which initial funding allocations for nature under EU

funding instruments were used as well as any factors which may have favoured or hindered access to

and use of funds. In your answer please consider whether funding constraints affect costs or create

administrative burdens (eg as a result of limitations on guidance or delays in decision making).

The availability of adequate funding is important for both implementing pertinent measures and

increasing acceptance. [addition that there are still deficits and high bureaucratic burden in using EU

funds: Hier bestehen noch Defizite. Vielfach ist der bürokratische Aufwand für die Beantragung und

vor allem Dokumentation und Kontrolle von EU-Mitteln unverhältnismäßig hoch, vor allem im

Verhältnis zur Höhe der Mittel und unter Berücksichtigung der in Deutschland gegebenen

Eigentümerstrukturen (siehe Antwort zu Frage C.7)].

In Germany’s Habitats report future prospects have been described significantly more negatively than

they were in 2006. This indicates that the availability of adequate funding is an issue. Without any

doubt, higher allocations for nature, which could be used to, for example, adjust premium rates for

measures beneficial to nature conservation, would support implementing the Directives.

In the German PAF (2013) the main funding sources for implementing the EU Nature Directives have

been evaluated as follows:

EU funds

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development: great significance

LIFE: medium significance

European Fisheries Fund: low significance

European Social Fund: low significance

European Regional Development Fund incl. INTERREG: low significance

Research funds: low significance

National public funds

Funds at Länder level: great significance

Federal Funds: medium significance

Funds at the level of districts, municipalities, and local authorities: low significance

Other funds

Funds from foundations and associations: medium significance

User funds: medium significance

Volunteer funds: medium significance

Public Private Partnership funding mechanisms: low significance

Application of innovative financing instruments: low significance

The use of EU funding for implementing the EU Nature Directives shows a heterogeneous picture (see

answer to Question C.7).

Länder funds are used to maintain administrative structures, human resources, etc., to finance Länder-

specific programmes, non-governmental nature conservation facilities, and to co-finance EU funding

(LIFE, ELER, etc.) and federal programmes (see below), and to support volunteer work. These funds

focus on essential maintenance and development measures that aim to preserve and improve

conservation status, for reporting and monitoring obligations, and for public relations activities.

Federal funds are offered in the scope of the Joint (Federal level and Laender) Task for the

“Improvement of Agricultural Structures and Coastal Protection” as well as grant programmes for

major nature conservation projects of nationally representative importance, and the Federal Biological



26

Diversity Programme.

Länder-owned nature conservation foundations and other foundations (e.g., Federal Environment

Foundation “Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt”, lottery foundations, and, to a smaller extent, small

regional private foundations) contribute to funding Natura 2000 in all Länder, sometimes through their

own operational work / carrying out projects, sometimes by co-funding state-run and private projects.

User funds support the implementation of Natura 2000 in the case of substitution measures or

compensation payments in the context of intervention regulations or Eco points in cases when

measures go beyond Länder obligations. In individual cases, charges and fees (e.g., water extraction

charges, waste water charges, fishery charges and hunting fees) are used to finance measures with

synergy effects for Natura 2000 areas.

Volunteer services support the implementation of Natura 2000 in manifold ways, e.g., by providing

expert data free of charge, managing areas, or doing PR work. This essential contribution to the

implementation of Natura 2000 in Germany cannot be dispensed with.

Y.3 - If there are significant cost differences between Member States, what is causing

them?

This question seeks to understand the factors that affect the costs of implementing the Directives,

whether there is evidence of significant cost differences between Member States, and the causes of

these cost differences. In your answer, please describe the cost differences and the reasons for them

(e.g. whether they arise from specific needs, circumstances or economic factors), supported by

quantitative evidence. Do these differences lead to differences in impact? Please note that Question

Y.5, below, focuses on good practices in keeping costs low. For this Question Y.3 we are interested in

evidence of overall differences in implementation cost (see typology of costs in Annex II to this

questionnaire) along with the reasons for them.

No information is available in Germany on the costs of implementing the EU Nature Directives in

other Member States.

Within Germany, cost differences can be expected in particular due to varying wage costs, income

levels, real estate prices, and characteristics of the nature areas. Mowing a hillside meadow takes more

effort in a mountainous and hilly landscape than in flat lands. It is likely that such differences are even

more pronounced across the EU. The scope and involvement of volunteer work, which can result in

significant reductions of costs in some fields, are not the same in every region. As the implementation

of the Directives is based on the principle of subsidiarity, cost differences caused by differences in

administrative and legal structures are legitimate.

Y.4 - Can any costs be identified (especially regarding compliance) that are out of

proportion with the benefits achieved? In particular, are the costs of compliance

proportionate to the benefits brought by the Directives?

Please provide any quantitative evidence you may have demonstrating that the costs of implementing

the Directives exceed the benefits. Do the Directives require any measures which give rise to

significant costs but which bring about little, or only moderate benefits?. If so, please explain the

extent to which any imbalances are caused by the Directives themselves, or by specific approaches to

implementation.

This question is difficult to answer as it is difficult to incorporate the benefits of the implementation in

figures (see answer to Y.1).

The Germans government asked stakeholders to submit examples for not proportional coasts. Industry

regularely complains that the implementation of the individual focussed provisions for species

protection and the CEF-measures needed are often extremely complex. As a consequence, plans and

projects of industry and infrastructure can be delayed or prevented noticeable.

[The following passage has been shortened and softened:



27

As the principle of proportionality in German legislation stipulates that measures pursuing a

legitimate public purpose must be suitable and proportionate in achieving their objectives, it can be

assumed that the implementation of the Directives does not generate out-of-proportion costs or

restrictions for Germany’s citizens. There is an analogous rule stating that pursuant to § 6 of the

Federal Budget Code in combination with § 7, public expenditure may be deployed only to fulfil

necessary functions and must comply with the principles of economy and efficiency. In the case of

cabinet drafts (required at Länder level, for example, for area designations or regulations concerning

protected areas, etc.) and parliamentary initiatives, proportionality, costs for the public and

companies, and bureaucracy expenses need to be reviewed. Moreover, the principle of proportionality

also applies to EU legislation pursuant to Art. 5 para 4 of the EU Treaty, and thus needs to be taken

into account when interpreting the Directives.]

[addition that the bureaucratic burden for using EU funds is often high: Vielfach ist der bürokratische

Aufwand für die Beantragung und vor allem Dokumentation und Kontrolle von EU-Mitteln

unverhältnismäßig hoch, vor allem im Verhältnis zur Höhe der Mittel und unter Berücksichtigung der

in Deutschland gegebenen Eigentümerstrukturen (siehe Antwort zu Frage C.7).)

[addition that in Germany administrations and freelance planers do not take into account land use

restrictions and coasts, also because of missing knowledge. This leads to unnecessary constraints: Ein

spezifisches Problem des Naturschutzes in Deutschland ist es, dass zuständige Behörden und

Planungsbüros Maßnahmen planen, ohne dabei die Möglichkeiten und Restriktionen der jeweils

gegebenen Nutzungsformen sowie die sich aus Planungen ergebenden Kosten (Kostenhöhe und

Finanzierung) zu beachten. Diese Planungspraxis in Verbindung mit oftmals fehlenden

Fachkenntnissen der Planer über die jeweilige Landnutzungsart führt dazu, dass bei betroffenen

Grundeigentümern teilweise unnötige oder unverhältnismäßig hohe Einschränkungen und

Belastungen entstehen können.]

Y.5 - Can good practices, particularly in terms of cost-effective implementation, be

identified?

Here we are looking for examples of where the objectives of the Directives are being met more cost-

effectively in some Member States or regions than others, and the reasons for these differences. It is

important to understand whether they are due to particular practices (rather than, for example,

differences in needs, circumstances or economic factors) that have kept costs relatively low. We would

welcome examples of differences in practices between Member States in implementing the

requirements of the Directives, including initiatives designed to achieve cost-effective implementation,

and evidence of whether these initiatives or practices have reduced costs in certain Member States or

regions.

The following examples illustrate cost-efficient implementation in Germany:

The data gathered for monitoring obligations under the Habitats Directive is also used for other EU

Directives such as the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (for 6 water-bound habitat

types, fish, cyclostome, and the common otter) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (marine

habitat types, sea birds, marine mammals). The data collection of the Federal Forest Inventory was

extended to include frequent forest habitat types. Data used for the national report on bird protection is

also used as indicators for the status of implementation of the national biodiversity strategy. Using

data jointly or extending existing data collection reduces effort and thus costs (cf. multiple use of birds

monitoring data, answer to Question S.1.1). Moreover, this improves cooperation among sectors

involved.

When measures are carried out to implement the Water Framework Directive, the objectives of the EU

Nature Directives are integrated or directly implemented (e.g., improving passage for migratory fish

covered by the Habitats Directive through Federal waterways) when habitats of specific migratory fish

species are taken into account, while determining the urgency of measures along Federal waterways

(Federal Institute of Hydrology 2010). This joint process has already shown initial success (improving

the conservation status of some fish species; see S.1.2).

The requirements outlined in Articles 6.3 and 6.4 of the Habitats Directive are fulfilled in the context



28

of specialised procedures as defined by the legislation applicable. Only if a project does not fall under

any other legislation requiring an official decision or notification at a public authority, is a Habitats

Directive-based preliminary screening carried out during a so-called subsidiary notification procedure

by the competent nature conservation authority (§ 34 para 6 Federal Nature Conservation Act,

BNatSchG). An unnecessary duplication of effort is avoided by integrating this preliminary screening

into the procedures of responsible authorities. Moreover, ecological inventories can be used as a basis

for reviews in various legal fields.

Management planning for Natura 2000 areas and surveying species and habitats are often combined

with other topics and obligations. In Bremen, for example, maintenance planning is integrated with

management planning and there is also an integrated surveying programme which implements

management and monitoring requirements of the Directives and offsetting obligations in an integrative

and thus cost- and effort-effective manner (Handke et al. 2010).

[addition that coasts increase with ambition of conservation targets: Grundsätzlich gilt jedoch, dass

die Umsetzungskosten mit steigenden Naturschutzzielen überproportional steigen. Weniger

ambitionierte, realistische Zielvorgaben könnten kosteneffizienter sein und im Sinne der

Akzeptanzverbesserung auch zu „echten“ win-win-Situationen beitragen.]

Y.6 - What are likely to be the costs of non-implementation of legislation?

This question seeks to gather evidence on the impacts of non-implementation of the Birds and Habitats

Directives, and its associated costs, whilst assuming that some measures would be taken to conserve

nature. Taking into account current national measures that do not arise directly from obligations

under the Directives, please describe and, if possible, quantify, with supporting evidence, the potential

impacts and associated costs of non-implementation of the Directives, for instance on: habitats and

species of Community interest and wider biodiversity; ecosystem services (eg in relation to carbon

sequestration, areas for recreation); and economic and social costs (eg jobs and health).

Incomplete and delayed implementation has led to great legal uncertainty in Germany (“factual bird

sanctuaries”) causing numerous infrastructure measures to be blocked for some time. It can be

assumed that this has generated significant costs for companies and administrations involved. If

conservation objectives were not clearly defined, this would also cause uncertainty and likely costs as

the objectives would then need to be worded on a case-by-case basis.

Without the EU Nature Directives and their standards of protection the benefits (through ecological

services, etc.) described in the answer to Y.1 would be non-existent. The area of protected areas

covering 15.4% of Germany would drop to 4.3% in existing nature protection areas and national parks.

[Addition that forestry is sustainable in Germany and improved the ecological situation in recent

years without N2000: Für den Wald und die Forstwirtschaft in Deutschland gilt zum Beispiel, dass sie

nachhaltig und naturnah arbeitet und gerade in den letzten Jahrzehnten – unabhängig von Natura

2000 – deutliche Verbesserungen der ökologischen Standards erreicht hat.]

[addition that N2000 has an special relevance for border crossing species: Besondere Relevanz hat

Natura 2000 dagegen insbesondere für grenzübergreifend wandernde Arten. Hier würde ein Fehlen

der Natura-2000 Regelungen erhebliche zusätzliche Kosten (ökologische und wirtschaftliche)

verursachen.]

Y.7 - Taking account of the objectives and benefits of the directives, is there evidence

that they have caused unnecessary administrative burden?

This question seeks to gather evidence of any unnecessary burden arising from the administrative

requirements of the Directives for different stakeholders (MS authorities, businesses, landowners, non-

governmental organisations, citizens). Administrative burdens are the costs to businesses and citizens

of complying with information obligations resulting from legislation, and relate to information which

would not be collected in the absence of the legislation. Some administrative burdens are necessary if

the objectives of the legislation are to be met effectively. Unnecessary burdens are those which can be

reduced without affecting the objectives. Quantitative evidence may include typical requirements in



29

terms of human resource inputs, financial costs (such as fees and wages), delays for development and

other decision-making processes, and other measures of unnecessary or disproportionate burden the

administrative costs in terms of effort and time, and other inputs required, financial costs, delays and

other measures of unnecessary or disproportionate burden.

[addition that the bureaucratic burden for using EU funds is often high: Vielfach ist der bürokratische

Aufwand für die Beantragung und vor allem Dokumentation und Kontrolle von EU-Mitteln

unverhältnismäßig hoch, vor allem im Verhältnis zur Höhe der Mittel und unter Berücksichtigung der

in Deutschland gegebenen Eigentümerstrukturen (siehe Antwort zu Frage C.7).]

[addition that Seintsch et al. (2012) calculated N2000 coasts for beech forests: Für Buchenwälder

haben Seintsch et al. (2012) die Kosten für Verwaltung und Nutzungseinschränkungen bei der

Umsetzung der FFH-RL in Buchenwäldern errechnet (s. Antwort zu Fragen Y.1).]

Currently, the Federal Government is not aware of costs that can be reduced without affecting the

objectives of the Directives. [addition that stakeholder could give ideas how the efficiency of the

directives can be increased: Insoweit erwartet die Bundesregierung aber, dass die

Stakeholderbefragung wichtige Hinweise ergeben wird, wo die Effizienz der Richtlinien erhöht werden

kann. In der Praxis werden immer wieder die sehr strengen Anforderungen an Gutachten zum Beweis

der Verträglichkeit des Vorhabens genannt, einschließlich der damit verbundenen

Verfahrensverzögerungen und Kosten für den Projektträger]

Y.8 - Is the knowledge base sufficient and available to allow for efficient

implementation?

This question seeks to establish the extent to which adequate, up-to-date and reliable information

required to implement the Directives efficiently is available, such as information related to the

identification, designation, management and protection of Natura 2000 sites, the choice of

conservation measures, the management and restoration of habitats, the ecological requirements of

species and the sustainable hunting/use of species, permitting procedures, etc. Please indicate key

gaps in available knowledge relating to your country and, if relevant, at biogeographical and EU

levels. If possible, please provide evidence that inadequacies in the knowledge base have contributed

to the costs and burdens identified in previous questions.

The knowledge base has been continuously improved in the course of implementation, especially in

marine-related fields, so that knowledge gaps with regard to species and habitat distribution and their

ecology have been reduced (see S.3). In particular, a nation-wide monitoring system has been

established (Sachteleben & Behrens 2010). A good knowledge base was also created by means of the

administrative arrangement on bird monitoring (e.g., Wahl et al. 2011, Sudfeldt et al. 2013). Extensive

literature, including manuals, etc., has been developed concerning suitable management measures for

utilisation- and maintenance-dependent habitat types and species habitats (e.g., Biewald et al. 2013,

Ellwanger & Schröder 2006, Ellwanger et al. 2010, 2012b, Finck et al. 2009, Riecken & Schröder

2012). The Federal Government and the Länder (specialised authorities, nature conservation

academies, etc.) promote updating topical scientific knowledge and transferring it to the practice of

nature conservation by organising regular events.

The data is available in specialised publications and for frequently used data also on the Internet (e.g.,

the manual on the species listed in the annexes, Habitats Directive reports, Birds Directive reports,

information for purposes of preliminary screening; http://ffh-vp-info.de), management

recommendations for the agricultural, forestry, fishery industries (www.ffh-anhang4.bfn.de). The

knowledge base is continuously improved, for example, in research projects of the Federal

Government. This ensures that a better database is also available for planning processes.

A plethora of information is also available for administrative implementation. GIS applications show

the location and boundaries of protected areas (e.g. www.geodienste.bfn.de/schutzgebiete/) and

enable this data to be combined with other specialised data (agricultural measures, biotope mapping,

forest areas, etc.; e.g. http://www.geoportal-th.de/). Regulations and management plans are usually

fully available on the Internet. Sections C.1 and C.2 of PAF (2013) are included as Annex 1 to provide

http://ffh-vp-info.de/


http://www.geodienste.bfn.de/schutzgebiete/

http://www.geoportal-th.de/



30

an overview of them.

A sufficient knowledge base exists on the implementation of a sustainable use of species in Annex V

of the Habitats Directive and the requirements for hunting species in Annex II of the Birds Directive,

enabling reviews of this type of use as precautionary measures.

These extensive sources of information described above help in implementing the Directives

efficiently. Administrative bodies and interested parties not directly linked to nature conservation

benefit from this data, for example in planning processes (e.g., spatial planning, other authorities,

private and public project operators, etc.).

Finally, generally understandable, introductory information has become available down to the local

level (e.g., Wartburgkreis 2005: Erlebnis Natura 2000). This information is intended to increase

acceptance and make the Directives and nature conservation issues widely known.



31

Relevance

Relevance concerns the extent to which the objectives of the nature Directives are consistent with the

needs of species and habitats of EU conservation concern. The question of relevance relates to whether

the objectives of the legislation are still necessary and appropriate; whether action at EU level is still

necessary in light of the challenges identified and whether the objectives and requirements set out in

the EU nature legislation are still valid.

R.1 - Are the key problems facing species and habitats addressed by the EU nature

legislation?

By ‘key problem’, we mean the main pressures and threats that species and habitats face, which are

significantly widespread in terms of their incidence (geographic extent) and/or magnitude/severity. Do

the Nature Directives respond adequately to these problems? Are the specific and operational

objectives of the Directives suitable in light of the key problems identified? Please justify your answers

with evidence.

According to Article 1 of the Birds Directive, the EU Nature Directives relate to the conservation of

all species of naturally occurring birds, and according to Article 2.1 of the Habitats Directive, to the

comprehensive protection of biodiversity in Europe. Because of this broad-based approach, and

indirectly via the conservation of species and habitat types listed in the Annexes, they cover all

principal components of biological diversity in Europe and the factors affecting them.

Germany's Birds and Habitats Reports (Bundesregierung 2013, 2014) cite agriculture/intensification

and succession (A), changes in natural systems/drainage (J) and environmental pollution/nitrogen

emissions (H) as particularly common impairments and threats. As a result of this, and given the large

proportions of land allocated to agriculture (52%) and forest (30%), factors directly and indirectly

associated with land management are particularly significant. For flowering plants, intensification of

use and cessation of use are the principal threats (Korneck et al. 1998). As the Annexes to the

Directives list numerous species and habitats that are dependent on land management, the Directives

address these principal factors affecting biological diversity. Consistent application of the Directives

therefore offers a range of mechanisms for counteracting the immediate threats to biodiversity. There

are initial signs of success from this approach (cf. S 1.2).

Indirect threats to biodiversity and those with a non-area-specific effect, such as land consumption for

settlements, traffic, and business, climate change, invasive species, changes in the water regime and

diffuse nutrient emissions via air and waterbodies, are more challenging. In order to structure such

developments without adversely impacting the natural resources protected by the Directives, nature

conservation aspects are integrated into other policy areas (see also our response to question C.2).

Here there is still partly need for action.

Furthermore, management measures for fishing in protected areas cannot be defined within the

framework of the EU Nature Directives, since this falls within the remit of the Common Fisheries

Policy (CFP).

[adition that it should be checked how the concept of „nature for time“ could be made compatible

with the species protection obligations oft he directive: Es sollte geprüft werden, inwieweit das

Konzept „Temporary Nature“ („Natur auf Zeit“) besser mit dem Artenschutz kompatibel gemacht

werden könnte. Die Regelungen zum Artenschutz stehen dem Zulassen von „Wildwuchs“ auf Flächen,

die eigentlich nur in längeren Zeitabständen unterhalten werden müssten, entgegen, weil für

Unterhaltungspflichtige die „Gefahr“ besteht, dass sich geschützte Arten ansiedeln, die später eine

erforderliche Unterhaltung be- oder verhindern.]

R.2 - Have the Directives been adapted to technical and scientific progress?

With this question, we are seeking to examine the implications of technical and scientific progress

regarding the habitats and species that the Directives focus on. Please summarise, and provide any

evidence you may have that indicates that the annexes listing habitats and species in both Nature

Directives are, or are not, sufficiently updated to respond to technical and scientific progress.



32

Any adaptation of the Directives in line with technical and scientific progress would need to occur at

EU level. To this end, Articles 15 of the Birds Directive and 19 of the Habitats Directive refer to a

procedure which has already been applied on multiple occasions in conjunction with EU enlargement.

For the reasons cited in our response to question R.1, we feel there is currently no need for any such

adaptation. This topic should be discussed in the foreseeable future if the objectives of the Directives

have been largely met, or if it can reliably assumed that the objectives for certain protected resources

cannot be met on technical grounds (e.g. melting of habitat type glaciers with climate change, no

military use on nearly all occurrences of a habitat type depending on this use).

Until now, in implementing the Directives, taxonomical progress (e.g. species splitting) has been taken

into account when adapting the Annexes in conjunction with EU enlargement and in subordinate

documents such as the EU taxonomical checklists and the national lists. Further adapting of Annexes

should be reviewed in future.

The updated standard data sheet (Commission Implementing Decision C(2011)4892) in 2011 was

likewise adapted to reflect technical progress. As such, protected areas under the Habitats and Birds

Directives are now subject to identical data documentation standards. In terms of the periodicity and

content of the reports, Article 12 of the Birds Directive has likewise been adapted in line with the

Habitats Directive.

Irrespective of this, implementation of the Directives is regularly updated to reflect technical and

scientific progress, e.g. by writing or revising European and national guidance documents (most

recently, for example, on the implementation of Natura 2000 in forests), with new and updated

information systems, (in Germany, for example http://ffh-vp-info.de), with modified reporting

requirements at European and national level (e.g. conversion from the mapping of all occurrences to

the mapping of random samples only for species that have become more common), or by improving

data capture measures.

Judicial decisions by the national and European courts likewise help to adapt implementation in line

with current developments.

R.3 How relevant are the Directives to achieving sustainable development?

This question seeks to examine the extent to which the Directives support or hinder sustainable

development, which is about ensuring that the needs of the present generation are met without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It requires ensuring a balance

between economic development, social development and environmental protection. . In your answer,

please provide evidence of the impacts that implementation of the Directives has had in relation to

these three 'pillars' of sustainable development.

In our response to question S.1, we have already outlined the contribution of the EU Nature Directives

to conserving biodiversity beyond protecting the Annex-listed species and habitat types, while the

benefits e.g. for conserving ecosystem services are outlined in our response to Y.1. Conserving

biodiversity and ecosystem services is an important pillar of sustainable development.

Above and beyond this, the Directives also contribute to sustainable development in other important

ways. For example, avoiding or compensating for significant impairments to the Natura 2000 network

associated with plans and projects entails weighing up the three pillars of environmental protection,

social development and economic development in order to establish the prevailing public interest.

The available participation options when drawing up management plans are intended primarily to

harmonise the interests of the affected parties with the objectives of the Directives, and thus create a

balance between economic development, social interests and the need for protection (s. also answer of

question S.4).

Striving for balance between the aforementioned three pillars may lead to the emergence of new

synergies. For example, the establishment of an integrated management plan for the Elbe estuary led

to modified sediment management in the Lower Elbe, and a win/win situation between the port

authorities and nature conservation. The Hamburg Port Authority's implementation of a project to

http://ffh-vp-info.de/



33

reduce tide amplitude created a shallow water bay which is also highly significant to nature

conservation (www.natura2000-unterelbe.de/plan-Der-Gesamtplan.php). Similar plans were also

prepared for the Rivers Ems

(http://www.nlwkn.niedersachsen.de/naturschutz/natura_2000/integrierte_bewirtschaftungsplae

ne_aestuare/emsaestuar/) and Weser

(http://www.umwelt.bremen.de/de/detail.php?gsid=bremen179.c.8044.de). Nevertheless, the

incorporation of Natura 2000 requirements for maintaining and developing the North sea estuaries is

still connected with huge efforts and difficulties.

Synergies can also apply in the areas of tourism and recreation. Conflicting interests were identified

early on and joint solutions developed, leading to positive impacts for sustainable tourism (for

examples, refer to Pröbstl & Prutsch 2009). Tourism, forestry and nature conservation representatives

in some regions also view the designation of Natura 2000 sites as an opportunity for tourism, by

preserving a landscape perceived as aesthetically pleasing (Garbe et al. 2005) and enhancing its value

through formal recognition. 40% of respondents anticipate financial benefits from the funding

possibilities associated with Natura 2000 sites. Although many fear obstacles to further tourism

development and limitations on certain leisure activities, only a small proportion (16%) expect adverse

changes to existing tourism offers. It has to be noticed that these synergies may at the expense of land

users (s. answer to question Y.1). German Forestry enterprises affected by N2000 may have serious

disadvantages.

R.4 - How relevant is EU nature legislation to EU citizens and what is their level of

support for it?

The aim of this question is to understand the extent to which citizens value the objectives and intended

impact of the EU nature legislation. To this end, we would like to obtain information and evidence on

the extent to which nature protection is a priority for citizens (e.g. in your country), including in

comparison with other priorities; for example whether citizens (e.g. in your country) support the

establishment and/or expansion of protected areas, the extent to which they access/use them or; the

extent to which citizens are involved in any aspect of the implementation of the Directives (e.g.

participation in the development of management plans of protected areas or decisions concerning the

permitting of projects which have an impact on protected areas).

Please note that the Birds and Habitats Directives may be relevant to citizens even if they do not

actually know of their existence or the existence of the Natura 2000 network.

In the most recent Nature Awareness Studies (BMUB & BfN 2014: p. 43, Fig. 17), 86 percent of

respondents rated nature conservation as an important political task in Germany (45 % "strongly

agreed" and 41 % "agreed"). By contrast, just 6% "strongly agreed" that nature must not be allowed to

stand in the way of economic development, a further 26% "agreed", while 63% defended nature over

economic interests (40% "disagreed", 23% "strongly disagreed"). The question about whether the

preservation of biological diversity is a social task of overriding importance attracted a similarly high

level of support among respondents. In the 2013 Nature Awareness Study, a total of 71% agreed with

this statement (36% "strongly agreed" and a further 35% "agreed"). The results have remained at a

similar level in all previous surveys (2009, 2011 and 2013), suggesting that these views are firmly

anchored among the general public.

Because the EU Nature Directives are a central component of nature conservation in Germany, and

many people's core values are quite separate from the associated administrative level, the above

statements can also be considered to include the Directives. This is also reflected in the high levels of

agreement in representative Natura 2000 surveys at EU level (European Commission 2013). For

example, 75% of EU citizens rate the use of Natura 2000 sites to conserve species and habitats as

"very important" and a further 22% as "fairly important". Only 9% feel that damaging protected areas

is justified by overriding economic concerns, 42% only if such damage is compensated for and is in

the overwhelming public interest, while 45% reject any form of damage.

The good attendance and coverage of nature conservation events by the general public and the media

reinforces this. Examples include international and national action days such as the International Day

http://www.natura2000-unterelbe.de/plan-Der-Gesamtplan.php

http://www.nlwkn.niedersachsen.de/naturschutz/natura_2000/integrierte_bewirtschaftungsplaene_aestuare/emsaestuar/

http://www.nlwkn.niedersachsen.de/naturschutz/natura_2000/integrierte_bewirtschaftungsplaene_aestuare/emsaestuar/

http://www.umwelt.bremen.de/de/detail.php?gsid=bremen179.c.8044.de



34

for Biological Diversity (on 22 May each year), International Migratory Bird Day (annual), European

Bat Night (annual), International Day of the Baltic Sea Porpoise, GEO Species Diversity Day

(annual), the Birdrace event to record sightings of bird species (Wahl et al. 2013), and Biodiversity

Hiking Day (www.wandertag.biologischevielfalt.de; since 2010, there have been around 1,000-1,500

events per year with up to 300,000 participants).

The increased transparency of planning and decision-making processes effected by the Habitats

Directive likewise satisfies a growing public interest in the transparency of and participation in

infrastructure projects.

Public support for the Directives is also reflected in the high level of voluntary involvement in their

implementation (see our response to question Y.2).

R.5 - What are citizens’ expectations for the role of the EU in nature protection?

The aim of this question is to obtain information and evidence on questions such as: whether citizens

submit complaints or petitions to the EU requesting its involvement on cases regarding nature

protection, whether citizens expect the EU to become more involved in promoting nature protection,

or whether nature protection should be left to each individual Member State; whether citizens expect

the EU to introduce laws on nature protection to be applied in all Member States equally or whether

the EU should limit itself to coordinating Member States’ initiatives; whether the EU should focus on

laying down rules, or whether the EU should more actively promote their monitoring and enforcement

in Member States.

In the past, the European Union was a major driving force in environmental legislation. Today,

Germany's environmental legislation is based largely on EU law. The general public has

correspondingly high expectations of the European Union with regard to environmental protection and

nature conservation. This is also reflected in the large number of complaints submitted to the European

Union by German citizens and organisations over non-compliance with EU environmental law,

leading to a correspondingly high number of EU Pilot and infringement proceedings. Nature

conservation-related complaints account for a particularly high/considerable proportion of such

proceedings.

Furthermore, the general public expects greater commitment to nature conservation, particularly from

the public sector. This is demonstrated by the very strong level of support among the general public

for more stringent regulations and guidelines, greater regulation of subsidies, and more widespread

communication and education on nature conservation issues reflects their high expectations of the

administrative level (Nature Awareness Study 2011, BMU & BfN 2012). For example, 59% of

German respondents rated the measure "Overfishing is prevented by stricter regulations" as "very

important" and a further 29% as "rather important". 36% considered it "very important" for the

government to provide more funding for nature conservation and the preservation of animal and plant

species, and a further 43% "rather important". 50% considered it "very important" that nature and

environmental education at school is enhanced, and a further 38% "rather important".

German expectations are below the European average (European Commission 2013). For example,

EU-wide, 72% of citizens agreed completely, and a further 23% tended to agree, that information on

the importance of biodiversity is needed, while in Germany the figures were 67% and 26%

respectively. 65% of EU citizens agreed completely, and a further 38% tended to agree, that protected

areas should be extended; in Germany the figures were 54% and 32% respectively.

Regarding citizens’ expectations it must not be ignored that they normally do not have to pay for the

conservation benefits but that these benefits can go at the expense of land owners and users (s. also

answer on question Y.1).

http://www.wandertag.biologischevielfalt.de/



35

Coherence

Evaluating the coherence of legislation, policies and strategies means assessing if they are logical and

consistent, internally (i.e. within a single Directive), with each other (i.e. between both Directives),

and with other policies and legislation. Here we are looking for evidence regarding how far and in

what ways the Directives are complementary and whether there are significant contradictions or

conflicts that stand in the way of their effective implementation or which prevent the achievement of

their objectives.

C.1 – To what extent are the objectives set up by the Directives coherent with each

other?

This question focuses on coherence between objectives within each Directive, and/or between

objectives of the Birds and Habitats Directives. It covers not only the strategic objectives but also the

specific and operational objectives set out in Annex I to this document. Based on experience in your

country/region/sector, please provide evidence of any inconsistencies between the objectives that

negatively impact on the implementation of the Directives.

The objectives of the EU Nature Directives are coherently interconnected with one another. For

example, the Habitats Directive has a clear concept outlining the interrelations between the objectives

(Art. 2), measures (Art. 4, 6) and the assessment of target achievement (Art. 11, 17), each linked to the

definitions in Article 1. The principal mechanisms of the Directives - species conservation,

designation of protected areas and impact assessment - are likewise coherent, and there are no

significant conflicts.

As the Directives cover a large proportion of biological diversity (see our response to question S.2),

including both natural and near-natural, usage- and maintenance-dependent habitats and species with

varying demands on their habitat or the management thereof, some cases may require assessment at

area level (definition of conservation objectives and measures) to prioritise protected resources when

formulating measures (e.g. forest development versus preserving open spaces). Suitable decision-

making scope and criteria, including conservation status (protected resources in a favourable

conservation status require less protection than those which are highly endangered) and the importance

of individual occurrences to the coherence of the Natura 2000 network, are available.

In practice, implementation of the principal provisions of the two Directives has been largely

consistent (reporting has also been harmonised). One reason for this is that key elements of the

Habitats Directive were transferred to the Birds Directive upon its entry into force (e.g. Habitats

Directive assessment and coherence compensation, Natura 2000 network). Despite the differences in

the defined objectives and approaches of these two Directives (partly different requirements for

exceptions from species protection provisions according to Article 16 of the habitats and article 9 of

the birds directive), there is no conflict between their respective objectives; rather, the two Directives

complement one another, and there would be no advantage in consolidating them.

C.2 – To what extent are the Directives satisfactorily integrated and coherent with other

EU environmental law e.g. EIA, SEA?

This question is similar to the previous question, but focuses on the extent to which the EU Nature

Directives are coherent with and integrated into other EU environment legislation, and the extent to

which they are mutually supportive. EU environment legislation of particular relevance to nature

conservation includes the following:

Strategic environmental assessment of policy plans and programmes 2001/42/EC Directive

(SEA)

Environmental impact assessment of projects 85/337/EC Directive as codified by Directive

2011/92/EU (EIA)

Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC, (WFD)

Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008/56/EC (MSFD)



36

Floods Directive 2007/60/EC (FD)

National Emission Ceilings Directive 2001/81/EC (NECD)

Environmental Liability Directive 2004/35/EC (ELD).

This question considers how the main provisions and measures set out in these instruments interact

with the EU nature legislation, including whether there are potential gaps or inconsistencies between

these instruments and the EU nature legislation, for example whether the current permitting

procedures are working in a coherent way or whether they are acting as barriers to achieve the EU

Nature Directive’s objectives; whether the assessments required under the different pieces of EU

legislation, in particular under the EIA, are aligned or whether there are differences which result in

additional administrative burden; whether any identified gaps and inconsistencies are due to the texts

of the Directives or due to implementation in your/a Member State.

The coherence and integration of the EU Nature Directives with the strategic environmental

assessment (SEA) and environmental impact assessment (EIA) is guaranteed to a large extent, because

these Directives refer to one another, and the definitions, protected resources and work stages either

build on one another or complement one another. Furthermore, the protection objectives and protected

resources are carefully coordinated. For example, the SEA / EIA and Habitats Directive assessment

are generally carried out within the context of a coordinated procedure. Like the SEA/EIA, the

Habitats Directive assessment is carried out by the competent licensing authority. Information (such as

surveys on the occurrence of species and habitat types) obtained from SEAs and EIAs is incorporated

into the Habitats Directive assessment.

We are unaware of any inconsistencies with the EU Nature Directives arising from implementation of

the Environmental Liability Directive. Because the resources protected against biodiversity

impairments are entirely consistent with those of the EU Nature Directives, any such inconsistencies

are unlikely.

One key objective of the National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD) is to minimise the impacts of

air pollutants on ecosystems. Article 5 sets out interim environmental objectives with regard to

acidification and ozone exposure, and also aims to minimise eutrophication associated with nitrogen

emissions (Article 1). As such, the NECD and the Nature Directives pursue similar intentions.

However, the NEC ceilings applicable to Member States since 2010 are insufficient to meet the

objectives of the EU Nature Directives, or to comply with the critical loads of the habitats, which are

currently exceeded in 70% of Natura 2000 territory in Europe with respect to eutrophication from

nitrogen emissions (Slootweg et al. 2014). A revised version of the NECD is currently under

negotiation, with the aim of further reducing pollutant emissions by 2030. However, the emission

limits proposed by the COM would still fall short of area-wide compliance with the critical loads in all

areas.

The objective of the Floods Directive, namely, to improve preventive flood protection in harmony

with nature, is likewise consistent with the EU Nature Directives. The two largest dyke relocations on

the River Elbe, "Lenzener Elbtalaue" (420 ha reclaimed floodplain) (Bundesanstalt für Wasserbau

2013) and "Mittlere Elbe" (under construction) are located entirely within Habitats and Birds Directive

sites. In both sites, the dyke relocations were recognised as a management plan, since improving flood

protection meant that nature conservation and development objectives could also be met at the same

time.

There are particular synergies in implementing the EU Nature Directives and the Water Framework

Directive (cf. improved conservation status of fish fauna: S.1.2; protection of water-dependent habitats

and species through joint management plans: Y.5; joint directory of protected areas; joint monitoring:

Y.5). As ascertained at EU level on several occasions (most recently at the workshop from 2-3

December 2014, cf. European Commission 2014), there are no fundamental conflicts between the

respective objectives; rather, the Directives' objectives complement one another, and implementation

may be mutually supportive: The achievement of a good ecological status in waterbodies is supported

by adjacent and overlapping sites of community interest (SCIs) and special areas of conservation

(SACs), as is the achievement of a favourable conservation status through implementation of the

Water Framework Directive (WFD). Both Directives have the necessary discretionary scope to



37

accommodate individual cases, as outlined in greater depth by the EU Commission (Frequently Asked

Questions, European Commission 2011). Differing terminology and interpretations arising from the

different application areas and objectives is no obstacle to joint, targeted implementation of the

Directives, provided there is good cooperation between the water management and nature

conservation administrations (e.g. early mutual involvement). On the contrary: there are many

examples of synergetic effects between the Directives. Examples include the priority given to WFD

measures on waterbodies which are also water-dependent SCIs or SACs (Sellheim 2014) and the

integrated planning of nature conservation and water management according to the "Landshut Model"

in Lower Bavaria (Lorenz 2014) and Bavaria. The integrated management plans for the North Sea

estuary cited under R.3 also incorporate the key requirements of the Water Framework Directive. The

fact that 51% of extant alluvial meadows are also Natura 2000 sites highlights the importance of joint

implementation in Germany. 702 of the sites protected under the Habitats Directive are located

entirely or partially within extant alluvial meadows. 3,584 or 78% of SCIs and SACs and 638 or 86%

of SPAs are classified as "water-dependent" as defined by the WFD.

Implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in Germany is particularly

closely linked to the EU Nature Directives. A number of different bodies are accompanying its

conceptual implementation, including representatives of the marine conservation, fishing, transport

and nature conservation authorities. For example, the "Federal/Länder Administrative Agreement on

Marine Conservation" regulates cooperation between the Federal Government and coastal Länder,

particularly with respect to implementation of the MSFD, and the joint monitoring and assessment of

the marine environment of the North and Baltic Seas within the context of OSPAR, HELCOM and the

trilateral Wadden Sea cooperation. Implementing bodies such as the Federal/Länder Committee on the

North and Baltic Sea (BLANO), the Marine Conservation Coordination Board (Kora) and the cross-

sectional and specialist task forces ensure that particular consideration is given to the requirements of

the Habitats and Birds Directives. Monitoring under the Habitats and Birds Directives is fully

incorporated into MSFD reporting. The marine Natura 2000 areas are also Marine Protected Areas

(MPAs) as defined by the MSFD. Inter alia, the relevant European guidance document (European

Commission 2012) has proven very useful for joint, legally compliant implementation.

When defining geographical ranges for the identification of grasslands with high biodiversity value,

reference is made to the EU Nature Directives (Commission Regulation (EU) No. 1307/2014 of 8

December 2014). Biomass used in the production of biofuels and liquid biofuels must not be taken

from certain areas, unless harvesting of the biomass is necessary in order to preserve the grassland.

This ensures coherence with the objectives of the EU Nature Directives.

The regulation of fishing within and outside of the protected areas in line with environmental and

conservation principles falls within the remit of Regulation 1380/2013 on the Common Fisheries

Policy. Whether or not the possible measures are capable of making an effective contribution towards

reaching the Natura 2000 objectives, remains to be seen.

[addition that for plans and projects there are some differences between the mentioned directives so

that conservation questions cannot be dealt with in one approach, that this leads to efforts and coasts

and that a standardization of terms and definitions of terms for assessment of the directives should be

considered: Bei der Zulassung von Projekten sind alle Richtlinien einzeln abzuarbeiten und zu prüfen.

Selbst wenn gewisse Überschneidungen vorhanden sind, unterscheiden sich die Richtlinien doch

soweit, dass eine gemeinsame Abarbeitung von naturschutzfachlichen Fragen nicht bzw. nur in

geringem Ausmaß möglich ist. So beziehen sich die einzelnen Richtlinien entweder auf

unterschiedliche Gebiete (z.B. Schutzgebiete FFH, Wasserkörper WRRL) und decken nur selten die

gleiche Fragestellung ab. So führt ein Ergebnis, ob eine Auswirkung (FFH) erheblich ist, nicht

zwangsläufig zur Beantwortung der Frage, ob auch eine Verschlechterung z. B. eines Wasserkörpers

(WRRL) stattfindet, selbst wenn der Auswirkungsbereich derselbe ist. Auch die zu betrachtenden

Arten/Lebensgemeinschaften unterscheiden sich in den Richtlinien. Die Abarbeitung der einzelnen

Richtlinien in der Genehmigungspraxis erfordert einen deutlichen Mehraufwand an Zeit, Umfang und

Kosten. Eine Vereinheitlichung hinsichtlich Begrifflichkeit und Definition von Bewertungsbegriffen

(Erheblichkeit, Verschlechterung) sollte geprüft werden.“]

Concerning the competition between Natura 2000 and production of wood biomass see answer to



38

question C.4.

C.3 - Is the scope for policy integration with other policy objectives (e.g. water, floods,

marine, and climate change) fully exploited?

This question is linked to the previous questions as it addresses the extent to which the objectives of

the Nature Directives have been integrated into or supported by the objectives of other relevant EU

environment policies. However, this question focuses more on policy implementation. The other EU

legislation and policies targeted in this question are the same as those referred to under question C.2,

as well as climate change policy. When answering this question, please note that the scope of

integration refers to the integration from the EU Nature Directives to other policies as well as to the

extent in which the objectives of these other policies are supported by the implementation of the

Nature Directives.

The examples cited in our response to C.2 illustrate the fact that implementation of the EU Nature

Directives in Germany is largely harmonised and integrated with the implementation of other elements

of EU environmental legislation to the best of our ability. This contributes to the effectiveness of all

affected Directives, to more efficient implementation, and maximising synergy potential.

C.4 – To what extent do the Nature Directives complement or interact with other EU

sectoral policies affecting land and water use at EU and Member State level (e.g.

agriculture, regional and cohesion, energy, transport, research, etc.)?

In this question we are aiming at gathering evidence on whether the provisions of EU nature

legislation are sufficiently taken into account and integrated in EU sectoral policies, particularly in

agriculture, rural development and forestry, fisheries and aquaculture, cohesion or regional

development, energy, raw materials, transport or research policies. It also addresses whether those

policies support and act consistently alongside EU nature legislation objectives. Please provide

specific examples which show how the Nature Directives are coherent with, or conflict with, relevant

sectoral legislation or policies. Please be as precise as possible in your answers, e.g. pointing to

specific articles of the legislation and how they support or contradict requirements or objectives of

other legislation or policies, stating what are main reasons or factors for the lack of consistency and

whether there are national mechanisms in place to monitor coherence.

Implementation of the EU Nature Directives is positively or negatively influenced by many different

areas of EU policy-making. In regional development, transport planning and all types of structural

measures, the requirements of the EU Nature Directives are covered in full by the provisions of Article

6.3 of the Habitats Directive on Special Areas of Conservation (see our response to question S.1.1).

Article 6.2 states that there must not be any deterioration in SACs from agriculture and forestry,

fishing and other extensive uses.

The major significance of agriculture-related impairments highlighted by Germany's Habitats and

Birds Reports, the actual deterioration in habitats linked to modified uses, and the declining population

trends among many open land bird species associated with high proportions of agricultural land

indicate a particular need for action here (cf. also our response to question R.1). In this regard, and

also with a view to adequate, targeted financing (cf. our response to C.7), the Common Agricultural

Policy offers an important starting point. It is important to remember that, as well as safeguarding food

production, promoting renewable energies also places increased pressure on land use.

For the marine Natura 2000 sites, adequate fishing regulations are urgently needed to ensure that the

protection objectives are met. Responsibility for this lies solely with the respective Member States in

whose territories the Natura 2000 sites are located; however, in accordance with Articles 11 and 18 of

the Ordinance on the Common Fisheries Policy, any such regulations would need to be proposed in

agreement with those states that have fishing interests in the Natura 2000 sites.

Forestry is not covered by an EU legislative regime. However, the EU Forest Strategy adopted in 2013



39

(COM (2013) 659 final) sets clear signals to support the implementation of Natura 2000. The

objectives of the Habitats Directive in the forest-rich central highland regions and in the Alps have

already been met, particularly for relevant-sized beech forest habitats. By contrast, most of the forests

in special sites (such as alluvial forests and bog woodlands) exhibit an unfavourable conservation

status, and some oak forests have deteriorated due to natural processes in combination with the

prohibition of clear cutting.

[adition that forests are relatively near to nature, that they are over represented in N2000, that

integrated approaches are needed which can be endangered if freelance planers only consider

conservation aspects: Im Übrigen ist der Wald eine relativ naturnahe Landbedeckung und die

Forstwirtschaft die Landnutzung, die am naturnächsten arbeitet. Dementsprechend sind bei der

Ausweisung der Natura 2000-Gebiete Waldgebiete im Vergleich zu anderen Landnutzungsarten in

Deutschland deutlich überrepräsentiert. Dadurch ist der Anteil der Natura-2000 Flächen auch für die

anderen Waldfunktionen (z. B. Lieferung nachhaltiger Rohstoffe, Einkommensfunktion etc.) von

großer Bedeutung ist. Dies erfordert gerade beim Wald integrative Ansätze, die ein konstruktives

Nebeneinander dieser unterschiedlichen Waldfunktionen ermöglicht. Probleme dabei können

insbesondere dann entstehen, wenn Planungsbüros diesen Tatbestand zu wenig berücksichtigen und

ausschließlich Naturschutzziele verfolgen. Dies ist aber eher ein Problem der nationalen Umsetzung,

denn der eigentlichen Richtlinie.]

[adition that Rosenkranz et al. (2012) showed measures to implement the habitat directive are in

competition with wood biomass production and of a citation from this study: Die Studie von

Rosenkranz et al. (2012) hat zudem gezeigt, dass Maßnahmen zur Umsetzung der FFH-RL wie

Totholzschutz im Wettbewerb zum Biomasseaktionsplan der EU stehen, wonach die Mitgliedstaaten

die energetische Nutzung von Biomasse erhöhen sollen (COM (2005) 628 final). Die Umsetzung von

FFH-Maßnahmen kann zu einer Reduzierung der Holzmenge führen, die ansonsten energetisch

genutzt werden könnte. Dazu ein Beispiel in Form eines Originalzitates:]

The results from three regional case study forest enterprises on the impacts of FFH planning measures

on the felling rate were transferred for an assessment on the pilot region Lower Franconia. In relation

to the 79,000 ha wooded area with the tree species beech the areas of the two habitat types represent a

regional share of 40 %. Under the given assumptions, the regional timber supply from beech would

decrease by about 6 %, which would correspond to the demand for split logs of about 4,300 private

households and the demand for raw wood of several small sawmills processing hardwood. In this

regard it has to be taken into account that the decline in the felling rate in areas of beech habitat types

could be compensated by a higher felling rate on the remaining wooded area covered by beech outside

FFH areas in the region.

C.5 - How do these policies affect positively or negatively the implementation of the EU

nature legislation

In this question, we are keen to gather evidence on whether agriculture and rural development,

fisheries and aquaculture, cohesion or regional development, energy, raw materials, transport and

research policies have a positive or negative impact on the achievement of the objectives of nature

legislation. Please provide specific examples/cases (including infringement cases or case law), which

demonstrate clear conflicts or incoherencies between sectoral policies and EU nature legislation,

and/or examples showing how specific policies influence the implementation of the Nature Directives

in a positive or negative way, for example in relation to Article 6 of the Habitats Directive (see Annex

I to this questionnaire). Where possible, please include evidence of the main factors influencing the

positive and negative effects. Please consider in your answer what ex ante and ex post evaluation

procedures are applied to ensure that this coherence is implemented or supervised.

Please refer to our answer to question C.4.

C.6- To what extent do they support the EU internal market and the creation of a level

playing field for economic operators?



40

This question seeks to gather evidence of the implications of the EU Nature Directives for economic

operators in terms of whether they help ensure a level playing field across the EU (e.g. by introducing

common standards and requirements for activities carried out in or around Natura 2000 areas or

otherwise depend on natural resources protected under the Directives), predictability and legal

certainty (e.g. helping to avoid that developments are blocked due to 'Not In My Backyard' type

challenges), or whether they negatively affect the internal market.

The economic advantages and disadvantages of the EU Nature Directives, including the economic

potential for market players, were outlined in our answer to question Y.1.

Nature and environmental parameters are important foundations and framework conditions of

economic activity. In the ongoing process of increasing European integration and the completion of

the European single market, the EU needs identical economic framework conditions in order to

prevent distortions of competition between companies from different Member States. Otherwise,

companies in EU Member States with more stringent nature conservation standards would be at a

significant competitive disadvantage. As such, uniform EU-wide regulations on nature and

biodiversity conservation have a positive impact on the single market. This is particularly important

for an export nation like Germany. The REFIT process should be the occasion to evaluate to what

extend different implementation across the EU may have caused new competition disadvantages.

Furthermore, recent studies indicate that it is possible to have an ambitious environmental policy

without compromising an economy's productivity, and that conversely, lowering environmental

standards does not lead to economic revival. Clear signals must be given to the market, indicating that

a rigorous environmental policy is in place without barriers to competition, thereby providing a

reliable basis for investment in the development of new technologies, procedures and business models

(Albrizio et al. 2014a, 2104b, Botta & Kozluk 2014).

It may also be more efficient if companies operating across the EU can be sure of identical

requirements in every country. For example, during site selection processes and strategic plans can be

made on the basis of experience gleaned in only one Member State.

The transfer of environmental expertise and technology to other countries may also prove to be a

location advantage for European business in the medium term.

[addition that N2000 leads to higher coasts for agriculture and forestry and that wood supply will be

reduced in the long run and that this is negative for jobs in industries depending on wood: Für die

Land- und Forstwirtschaft führt Natura 2000 zu höheren Kosten und verringert langfristig z. B. den

Umfang der Bereitstellung des erneuerbaren Rohstoffes Holz. So können z.B. durch eine weitere

Reduktion des Nadelholzanteils in den FFH-Gebieten Substitute und Konkurrenzprodukte mit deutlich

schlechterer Ökobilanz einen Marktvorteil gewinnen. Dies hat auch negativen Einfluss auf mit dem

Cluster Forst- und Holz verbundene Arbeitsplätze und damit auch auf Entwicklungschancen in eher

strukturschwachen ländlichen Regionen (vgl. Antwort zu Frage Y.1)]

C.7 – To what extent has the legal obligation of EU co-financing for Natura 2000 under

Article 8 of the Habitats Directive been successfully integrated into the use of the main

sectoral funds?

This question builds on question Y.2 on the availability and access to funding, but aims at examining

whether Member States have sufficiently identified the funding needs and are availing of EU funding

opportunities to meet the requirements of Article 8 of the Habitats Directive. EU co-funding for the

Natura 2000 network has been made available by integrating biodiversity goals into various existing

EU funds or instruments such as the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD),

European (Maritime and) Fisheries Fund (EFF / EMFF), Structural and Cohesion funds, LIFE and

Horizon 2020. In your reply, please distinguish between different sources of funding.

The situation regarding the use of EU financing mechanisms to implement EU Nature Directives is

extremely heterogeneous.

Germany does not receive any funding from the Cohesion Fund.



41

Regarding the European Social Fund (ESF), an operational programme in the previous funding period

included biodiversity-related measures for financing the management of Natura 2000 sites in Bavaria.

Because the ESF has discontinued this form of financing in the current funding period, biodiversity-

related measures can no longer be financed in any of Germany's operational programmes, and

therefore, the ESF in Germany does not contribute to the implementation of Natura 2000 or the

achievement of biodiversity objectives.

In the most recent funding period up to the end of 2012, 0.2% of financing from the European

Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in Germany was allocated to biodiversity (€52 million from a

total of €25.5 billion; Europäischer Rechnungshof 2014). This corresponds to 1.2% of the estimated

public Natura 2000 costs of around €627 million per annum (see also our response to question Y.1).

[addition that the partnership agreement between KOM and DE as framework for European ESI funds

offers funding opportunities for N2000 but that 60%/80% is reserved for “thematic concentration”

and that this reduces significantly the options for nature funding. Limitation on 30% for land purchase

in ERDF will be a constraint for nature spending. Overview which Laender use ERDF in the new

periode in WWF 2014: In der Förderperiode 2014-2020 zeigt die Partnerschaftsvereinbarung als

nationaler Rahmen für Investitionen aus den Europäischen Struktur- und Investitionsfonds (ESI-

Fonds) in Deutschland Fördermöglichkeiten für Biodiversität (Natura2000, Naturerbe etc.) auf. Die

Partnerschaftsvereinbarung ist damit die Grundlage für die Verankerung entsprechender

Fördermaßnahmen in den Operationellen Programmen der Länder. Allerdings gibt es die Vorgabe,

in stärker entwickelten Regionen 80% und in Übergangsregionen 60% der EFRE-Mittel für

Innovation und Forschung, kleine und mittlere Unternehmen sowie CO2-Einsparung einzusetzen

(„thematische Konzentration“). Diese Ausrichtung des EFRE auf Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, Wachstum

und Beschäftigung schränkt den Spielraum für andere Bereiche, wie Stadtentwicklung, Umwelt etc.,

erheblich ein. Auch Förderfähigkeitsregelungen, z.B. die Deckelung des Landkaufs auf 30% der

Projektkosten, dürften die Nutzung des EFRE für biodiversitätsbezogenen Maßnahmen künftig

erschweren. Welche Länder den EFRE in der laufenden Förderperiode für biodiversitätsbezogene

Maßnahmen nutzen ist in WWF 2014 wiedergegeben.]

In the current funding period, Germany's operational programme for the European Maritime and

Fisheries Fund has set aside some €33.6 million for the continuity of rivers, marine Natura 2000 sites,

and research and investment funding for eco-friendly fishing practices (out of a total of €220 million,

equivalent to around 15%). This is thought to be more than in the preceding period. However, the

EMFF only covers a negligible proportion of the total Natura 2000 costs, at 0.77%.

The bulk of nature conservation funding originates from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural

Development (EAFRD). In the funding period 2007-2013, this supplied Natura 2000 payments

(including implementation of the Water Framework Directive) totalling some €16.2 million per annum

(all public money, not only EU-contribution), as well as agro-environmental measures totalling around

€577.8 million per annum, of which around €177.6 million per annum, or roughly 30% (with very

significant variations between individual Länder), can be considered genuinely biodiversity-relevant.

[adition that a new study showed 610 Mio. €/a (all public money, not only EU-contribution) with 45%

relevant for biodiversity. From 2014 an, national program allow woking out concepts and

implementation supporting farmers with 50.000 €: Zwischenzeitlich liegt eine Auswertung des

Thünen-Instituts zur Förderung von Agrarumwelt- und Klimamaßnahmen im Jahr 2013 vor. Danach

wurden 2013 insgesamt rd. 610 Mio. € (EU-, Bundes- und Landesmittel) eingesetzt. Ca. 45 % dieser

Mittel sind für Maßnahmen eingesetzt worden, die vorrangig ein Biodiversitätsziel verfolgen. Ab 2014

wurde innerhalb der GAK eine Maßnahme zur Erarbeitung von Konzepten (sowie der Umsetzung und

Konzeptbegleitung) neu aufgenommen wurde. Diese ermöglicht landwirtschaftlichen Betriebsinhabern

in Zusammenarbeit mit anderen relevanten Akteuren (wie Naturschutz-/Umweltverbänden) auf Basis

der Analyse der Ausgangslage und Beschreibung der Belange des Umweltschutzes, Natur- und

Tierschutzes die Erarbeitung eines konkreten Maßnahmenplans im Bereich der markt- und

standortangepassten Landbewirtschaftung mit einem Zuschuss von bis zu einmalig 50.000 €.

Maßnahmen, die aufgrund öffentlich-rechtlicher Vorgaben vorgeschrieben sind, können hierbei nicht

berücksichtigt werden. Nach den EU-rechtlichen Vorgaben müssen die Anforderungen an eine

Förderung über die bestehenden ordnungsrechtlichen Bestimmungen hinausgehen.]



42

The EAFRD can also be used for nature conservation investment measures including the preparation

of management plans and nature conservation advisory services (EAFRD codes 216, 323, 412). For

some Federal Länder, this is the principal financing mechanism for implementing Natura 2000. On

average over the years 2009-2013, some €93.6 million per annum was allocated to investments in

waterbodies and nature conservation (excluding forestry measures). Also through supporting for

mountain areas etc. conservation targets are supported with 250 €/a.

It is impossible to ascertain what proportions of these amounts were dedicated to implementing EU

Nature Directives, since there is no requirement from the EU to report such information, and the

aforementioned data is therefore derived from a special evaluation by the Deutsche Vernetzungsstelle

für Ländliche Räume (German Networking Agency for Rural Areas) using the annual EAFRD reports

of the Länder as a basis (Freese 2015). Compared with the total environment-related (or potentially

environmentally relevant) funds provided by the EAFRD, however, the amount channelled into direct

nature conservation measures is proportionately small.

Overall, it can be asserted that only the EMFF and EAFRD contribute significant levels of nature

conservation funding in Germany.

In the most recent funding period, Germany received €99 million from the EU programme LIFE for

the implementation of Natura 2000, corresponding to around €14 million per annum or approximately

2% of the public costs of Natura 2000. In the light of inflation and the inclusion of an additional

Member State in the current funding period, Germany is unlikely to benefit from the small increase in

available LIFE funds for nature conservation and biodiversity.

Although the level of EU funding allocated to the implementation of EU Nature Directives in

Germany cannot be precisely quantified, EU funding does play a significant role in the financing of

nature conservation (cf. also our response to question Y.2). For example, the EU Commission

estimates that of total EU-wide cost of implementing the Nature Directives of at least €5.8 billion per

annum, an estimated 10-20% was covered by EU funds in the most recent funding period (European

Commission 2011). The EU nature directives are not only implemented by funding instruments, but

also by regulative law. Nevertheless, economic disadvantages arising from this way of implementation

can also be compensated through EU funding, e.g. compensation payments.

Another increasingly problematic barrier to the use of EU funding for nature conservation concerns

the substantial amount of bureaucracy involved (which has increased still further in the current

funding period), and associated with this, high administrative costs. Each EU fund requires its own

differentiated administrative structure. If multiple funds are to be used for nature conservation

measures, the nature conservation administrative bodies, which are far smaller than the fund

administrators, must be able to draw from a range of different mechanisms (for example, in the most

recent funding period, Bavaria participated in four different programme plans). As a result, many

Länder opt instead to concentrate on just one or two funds, so their options for EU nature conservation

financing are limited from the outset.

Mindful of the requirements governing the use of EU funds (e.g. no duplicate funding, controllability),

it is becoming increasingly difficult to implement measures that satisfy the complex requirements of

biodiversity. As a result, for example, when using the EAFRD, agro-environmental measures with

minimal effects on biodiversity tend to be given preference over more effective measures (such as

contract-based nature conservation), and essential nature conservation measures (such as mowing from

the inside out to protect meadow-breeding birds) are precluded by their poor controllability.

Furthermore, the selection criteria applied when assessing a project's suitability are inappropriate in

the nature conservation context, since most of the applicants are volunteers, and their ability to submit

complex EU project applications is very limited. Bureaucracy and restrictions / exclusions of effective

measures have prompted some Federal Länder to opt out of EAFRD funding altogether (Hamburg), or

to avoid using EU funds for nature conservation measures (Hesse), or to discontinue the use of nature

conservation-related investment measures (Bavaria). The bureaucracy is further exacerbated by the

requirement for state aid proceedings with nature conservation measures financed from national or

regional funds.

There are various ways in which administration could be simplified, but the EU Regulations do not

make adequate use of them. For example, protected areas under the Habitats Directive that rely on



43

sustainable management (generally extensive grazing) which has particular importance to nature

conservation and which are also in a particularly unfavourable conservation status (see our response to

question S.1.2), such as heathlands, oligotrophic grassland and reedbeds, are sometimes excluded from

direct payments, or their integration poses considerable difficulties for farmers and administrative

bodies.

Furthermore, the funds used must also satisfy the different principal objectives of the funds (such as

enhancing competitiveness or creating jobs). By this, different measures compete on the restricted

money available. For example, the low uptake of EAFRD funds for the implementation of Directives

in forests is a result of this competition, but also of high efforts needed for administration and control.

Seen from the forestry enterprises besides the high bureaucratic input when applying for money, low

funding rates are the main reason that funding is purely demanded. Therefore, EU-funding should be

made more attractive for the forest sector in future (DFWR 2014, NABU 2014). Moreover, there are

usually no compensation payments for use restrictions in the forest sector.

C.8 - Are there overlaps, gaps and/or inconsistencies that significantly hamper the

achievements of the objectives?

This question refers to overlaps, gaps and/or inconsistencies in the different EU law/policy

instruments regarding nature protection. It therefore depends largely on the results of other questions

related to the coherence of the Nature Directives with other EU law and policies. When answering this

question you may want to consider whether the identified overlaps, gaps and inconsistencies hamper

the achievement of the Directive’s objectives (e.g. see Annex I to this questionnaire).

Regarding the coherence of EU environmental legislation, please refer to our responses to questions

C.2 and C.3; concerning the need for greater integration of the objectives of the EU Nature Directives

into other areas of EU law and associated inconsistencies, please refer to our responses to questions

C.4 and C.5.

C.9 - How do the directives complement the other actions and targets of the biodiversity

strategy to reach the EU biodiversity objectives?

With this question we seek to collect evidence on ways in which the implementation of measures under

the Birds and Habitats Directives that are not explicitly mentioned in the EU Biodiversity Strategy,

help to achieve actions and targets of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. For example, restoration of

Natura 2000 sites can significantly contribute to helping achieve the goal under Target 2 of the EU

Biodiversity Strategy to restore at least 15% of degraded ecosystems.

The meaning of this question is unclear. The contribution of the EU Nature Directives to

implementation of the EU biodiversity strategy has already been outlined in our response to question

S.2.

C.10: How coherent are the directives with international and global commitments on

nature and biodiversity?

This question seeks to assess whether and how the EU nature legislation ensures the implementation

of obligations arising from international commitments on nature and biodiversity which the EU and/or

Member States have subscribed to 7 , and whether there are gaps or inconsistencies between the

objectives and requirements of the EU nature legislation and those of relevant international

commitments, including the way they are applied. For example, the Directives’ coherence with

international agreements which establish targets relating to nature protection and/or require the

establishment of networks of protected areas.

7 e.g. Bern Convention; Convention on Biological Diversity; Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural

Heritage; Ramsar Convention; European landscape Convention; CITES Convention; CMS (Bonn) Convention; International

Convention for the protection of Birds; Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds; Regional

Sea Conventions (Baltic, North East Atlantic, Mediterranean and Black Sea).



44

In Germany, the EU Nature Directives are crucial to the implementation of international conventions.

As such, not only are the obligations of the cited Conventions met; what is more, reporting under the

EU Directives and the data thereby obtained also completely or largely covers the reporting

obligations of these Conventions. For example, the national concepts for bird monitoring already meet

the requirements of the various international agreements and conventions (cf. Sudfeldt et al. 2012).

Synergies in this connection may be used and developed (e.g. comparative representation of data in

different international regulations).

The EU Nature Directives are important tools for implementing the Convention on Biological

Diversity (CBD), both in Germany and at European level. For example, the CBD's objective of

developing a network of protected areas on 17% of Germany's territory by 2020 can be met by the

Natura 2000 sites covering more than 15%. Moreover, the EU Directives represent a vital link

between the national and global levels.

In Germany, the Bern Convention is for the most part implemented by the EU Nature Directives.

Since the Annexes to the Habitats Directive were based largely on the Annexes to the Bern

Convention, most of the species listed are protected under the Habitats Directive. Subsequent

implementation of the Bern Convention was continuously coordinated with the bodies responsible for

the EU Nature Directives, including the establishment of the Emerald Network of sites of particular

nature conservation interest outside of the EU.

The Ramsar Convention is for the most part implemented in Germany via the EU Nature Directives

(cf. Sudfeldt et al. 2012c). 97% of the total area of Germany's 34 Ramsar sites has now been protected

is now designated as special protected areas (SPA) under the Birds Directive, thereby meeting the

Ramsar requirements in full.

The Convention on Migratory Species (Bonn Convention/CMS), including the African-Eurasian

Migratory Waterbird Agreeement (AEWA), the Regional Agreements on the Conservation of

Populations of Bats (Eurobats) and on the Conservation of Seals in the Wadden Sea (CWSS), the

Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North

Seas (ASCOBANS) and the Memorandums of Understanding on the Conservation and Management

of Middle-European Populations of the Great Bustard, concerning Conservation Measures for the

Aquatic Warbler and on the Conservation of Migratory Birds of Prey in Africa and Eurasia have been

largely implemented in Germany by the EU Nature Directives. Species occurring naturally in the

Community that are listed in AEWA and the regional agreements and Memorandums of

Understanding are fully protected under the Annexes to the Habitats and Birds Directives.

Significant parts of the Conventions for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East

Atlantic (OSPAR) and the Baltic Sea (HELCOM) and the Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation are

likewise implemented in Germany by the EU Nature Directives. Since the EU Directives were already

in force before the relevant measures from these marine conventions were adopted, implementation of

the EU Nature Directives could be taken into consideration with, or is the declared intent of, all

relevant resolutions. For example, protected sites under the Habitats and Birds Directives are

simultaneously marine protected areas under OSPAR/HELCOM.

The prohibition of sale outlined in Articles 12 and 13 of the Habitats Directive and Article 6 of the

Birds Directive draws on the provisions of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulation (EC Reg. 338/97). For

this reason, many of the species listed in Annex IV to the Habitats Directive and Article 1 of the Birds

Directive are also listed in Annexes A or B of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulation.



45

EU Added Value

Evaluating the EU added value means assessing the benefits/changes resulting from implementation of

the EU nature legislation, which are additional to those that would have resulted from action taken at

regional and/or national level. We therefore wish to establish if EU action (that would have been

unlikely to take place otherwise) made a difference and if so in what way? Evidence could be

presented both in terms of total changes since the Directives became applicable in a particular Member

State, in changes per year, or in terms of trends.

AV.1 - What has been the EU added value of the EU nature legislation?

When responding to this question, you may wish to consider the following issues: What was the state

of play or the state of biodiversity in your country at the moment of the adoption of the Directives

and/or your country’s entry into the EU? To what extent is the current situation due to the EU nature

legislation? In answering this question, please consider different objectives/measures set out in the

Directives (eg regarding protected areas, species protection, research and knowledge, regulation of

hunting, etc, including their transboundary aspects).

The added value of the EU Nature Directives in terms of an enlarged network of protected areas, a

broad-based consideration of species protection, the inclusion of nature conservation aspects in

planning considerations, the enhanced level of knowledge etc. has already been outlined in our

answers to questions S.1 and S.3. Another added value of the EU Nature Directives is the improved

cooperation within Germany (both between the Länder responsible for nature conservation, and

between the various sectors; cf. our response to question S.4).

European cooperation has likewise been intensified, or in many cases initiated. Examples here include

the international LIFE projects, where joint projects have since been conducted with seven of

Germany's eight EU neighbouring states and with at least a further five EU Member States (UK, SW,

FI, LV, EE) (LIFE92 ENV/D/100002 Salmon 2000: Return to the Rhine of Long Distance Migratory

fish with FR, LU, NL; LIFE95 NAT/D/000045 Transboundary Programme for the Protection of Bats

in Western Central Europe with BE, LU, FR; LIFE98 NAT/D/005372 Unterer Inn with Floodplains

with AT; LIFE03 NAT/CP/D/000009 Handbook Bittern - Handbook for Actions to Promote Bittern in

Europe with UK, FR; LIFE02 NAT/CP/D/000004 Grouse + Natura 2000 - Grouse and Tourism in

NATURA 2000 Areas with UK, FI, LIFE04 NAT/DE/000028 Management of Fire-Bellied toads in

the Baltic Region with DK, LV; LIFE05 NAT/D/000152 Rehabilitation of the Baltic Coastal Lagoon

Habitat Complex with DK, SW, LV, EE; LIFE05 NAT/PL/000101 Conserving Acrocephalus

paludicola in Poland and Germany, PL with DE; LIFE06 NAT/D/000005 The Reintroduction of the

Allis shad (Alosa alosa) into the Rhine River System with NL, FR; LIFE06 NAT/D/000008

Conservation and regeneration of Nardus Grasslands in Central Europe with BE, LU; LIFE09

NAT/DE/000008 Conservation and Restoration of the Allis shad in the Gironde and Rhine with FR;

LIFE10 NAT/DE/000011 Waterlogging and Grassland Extensification in Lower Saxony to Improve

Habitats of the Corncrake (Crex crex) and the Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa) with NL; LIFE13

NAT/DE/000755 Reintroduction of Lynxes (Lynx lynx carpathicus) in the Palatinate Forest Biosphere

Reserve with FR). The "new biogeographical process" operated by the EU Commission facilitates

even farther-reaching cooperation within entire biogeographical regions. For example, Germany will

be organising an international workshop on the integrated management plans for the North Sea

estuaries for the Atlantic region (see our response to question R.3).

A European approach to nature conservation adds value simply by virtue of the fact that species and

habitats are dispersed across national borders, individuals of many species regularly migrate, often

over very long distances and across national borders (such as migratory birds, migratory fish, bats,

large mammals such as wolves, porpoises and seals), or the populations themselves are transboundary

in nature (such as fish and other limnic species - the only German occurrences of the Habitats species

orange-spotted emerald (Oxygastra curtisii) are found in the area bordering with Luxembourg). In this

way, for example, the European legal framework facilitates transboundary cooperation with regard to

large predators such as wolves, bears and lynxes so as to minimise conflict potential. The European



46

Commission's guidelines on population-based management plans and "key actions" are helpful in this

respect. Building on this, Germany cooperates with its Alpine neighbours on the lynx and wolf under

the Convention Concerning the Protection of the Alps, as well as on the wolf with Poland.

The protection of these species requires a uniform, binding European legal framework in order to

coherently identify supra-regional requirements, facilitate integrated, ecosystemic protection, and

enable far-reaching simplifications and harmonisations.

AV.2 - What would be the likely situation in case of there having been no EU nature

legislation?

This question builds on question AV.1. In answering it, please consider the different

objectives/measures set out in the Directives (eg. whether there would be a protected network such as

that achieved by Natura 2000; whether the criteria used to identify the protected areas would be

different, whether funding levels would be similar to current levels in the absence of the Nature

Directives; the likelihood that international and regional commitments relating to nature conservation

would have been met; the extent to which nature conservation would have been integrated into other

policies and legislation, etc).

Answering this question is highly speculation and therefore has a low significance.

At the time of negotiating the EU Nature Directives, there were no comparable plans to extend the

range of nature conservation instruments in the Federal Republic of Germany (and the German

Democratic Republic). A national biodiversity strategy was adopted many years after the EU Nature

Directives, in 2007, and does not contain any legal implementation obligations. Changes to nature

conservation law (e.g. extending nature conservation law to the Exclusive Economic Zone; for other

examples, please refer to our answer to question S.4) and extensions to the range of nature

conservation instruments (such as monitoring; for further examples see our responses to questions

S.1.1, S.3) by the Federal Government and Länder have occurred predominantly in response to judicial

developments and the implementation of the EU Nature Directives. It is therefore highly improbable

that a comparable level of protection would have been achieved in Germany without the EU Nature

Directives in respect of the topics cited in our answers to questions S.1 and S.2, particularly the

systematic designation of protected areas, but also with regard to ensuring coherence in protected

areas, nationwide monitoring etc. For making plans and projects nature compatible this is only partly

true since there is a long tradition on this in Germany (“Eingriffsregelung”).

The existing Birds Directive and the imminent entry into force of the Habitats Directive were

particularly important for the territory of the former German Democratic Republic at the time of

accession. Here, during a time of political, social and legal upheaval, the Directives helped to ensure

that there were regulations in place early on to counteract potential mistakes, such as non-sustainable

investment decisions.

It would also seem evident that the EU Nature Directives have led to a significant increase in the level

of public funding available for nature conservation (cf. our responses to question C.7).

Concerning forest habitat types can be stated that some rare habitat types (Forest on dry soils, alluvial

and riparian forests) have already been protected nationally before the habitat directive. Beech and oak

forest are mostly used economically. The Federal forest inventory 2012 (https://bwi.info/start.aspx) and

the report 2013 for the habitat directive show increasing areas of beech forests and no deterioration of

oak forests. Although the implementation of the habitat directive may have been supportive for this

development, is can be assumed that these forest habitat types would be in a comparable situation

without the habitat directive. Also the national biodiversity indicator is stable until 1979 (StBA 2014).

https://bwi.info/start.aspx



47

AV. 3 - Do the issues addressed by the Directives continue to require action at EU level?

When answering this question the main consideration is to demonstrate with evidence whether or not

EU action is still required to tackle the problems addressed by the Directives. Do the identified needs

or key problems faced by habitats and species in Europe require action at EU level?

The designation of terrestrial sites just has been finalised in 2006 resp. 2009. Meanwhile, the most

important framework conditions exist. Until all protection provisions of the directive have not had the

possibility to be effective (see also answer on question S.1.2), it is very difficult to make a statement

on further action needed on EU level.

Given that the strategic objectives of the EU Nature Directives have not yet been met for the majority

of species and habitats in Germany (see our response to question S.1.1), we have fallen short of the

European biodiversity targets for 2010, and most of the national (Bundeskabinett 2015) and global

targets (CBD 2014) are still a long way from being realised, there is still a need for measures to protect

biodiversity. This is particularly true when we consider that many biological systems (peatlands) have

only a delayed response to measures (see our response to question S.1.1), and for this reason, it is

impossible to meet all biodiversity objectives in the short term.

Concerning the importance of environmental factors for economic production in the European single

market (avoidance of distortions of competition; see our response to question C.6) and the added value

of an EU-wide approach (e.g. transboundary dispersion of species; see our response to question AV.1),

such measures should be carried out within the existing framework of EU law. This is particularly apt,

since European law ascribes particular importance to the environment and aspires to a high level of

environmental protection. According to Article 3 III of the EU Treaty, the Union aspires to sustainable

development, a high level of protection, and improvement of the quality of the environment. Article

191 II of the Lisbon Treaty states that Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of

protection, while Article 191 I sets out the precautionary and preventive principle as a basis for

achieving this. The cross-sectional clause in Article 11 of the Lisbon Treaty extends the principles of

environmental law to other policy areas. The implementation of nature conservation under EU law

also ensures that the international obligations entered into by the EU as the Party to numerous

Conventions (particularly the Convention on Biological Diversity; cf. our answer to question C.10) are

coherently implemented in Europe.

Regarding the specific and operational objectives of the Directives, which have since been

implemented for the most part (cf. our response to question S.1), the positive effects of the EU Nature

Directives (cooperation between user groups, strengthening of civil society, improving the level of

knowledge etc.; cf. our responses to questions S.2 and S.4) and the associated preservation of legal

certainty (cf. answer to question S.3), we fell it is self-evident that these measures should continue to

be carried out within the existing EU legal framework.

A need for new or further EU regulation going beyond the EU nature directives cannot be identified at

the moment.



48

Annex 2: Typology of cost and benefits

This annex sets out a typology of costs and benefits resulting from implementation of the Nature

Directives in the EU, which need to be considered in the evaluation.

Typology of Costs

The evaluation will consider costs which result directly and indirectly from the Directives, including

both monetary costs (i.e. involving direct investments and expenditures) and non-monetary costs

(involving additional time inputs, permitting delays, uncertainty and missed opportunities).

It will include both the compliance costs of the legislation, and any opportunity costs resulting from

missed or delayed opportunities for development or other activities. Compliance costs can be further

divided into administrative costs and costs of habitat and species management. Examples of each

of these types of costs are set out in Table 1.

Administrative costs refer to the costs of providing information, in its broadest sense (i.e. including

costs of permitting, reporting, consultation and assessment). When considering administrative costs,

an important distinction must be made between information that would be collected by businesses and

citizens even in the absence of the legislation and information that would not be collected without the

legal provisions. The costs induced by the latter are called administrative burdens.

Evidence of these costs will include:

Monetary estimates of investments required and recurrent expenditures on equipment,

materials, wages, fees and other goods and services; and

Non-monetary estimates of administrative time inputs, delays, missed opportunities and

other factors affecting costs.

Typology of benefits

The evaluation will collect evidence on the direct and indirect benefits derived from EU nature

legislation, which include benefits for biodiversity and for the delivery of ecosystem services, and the

resultant effects on human well-being and the economy.

The ecosystem services framework provides a structured framework for categorising, assessing,

quantifying and valuing the benefits of natural environmental policies for people. However, it is also

widely recognised that biodiversity has intrinsic value and that the Directives aim to protect habitats

and species not just for their benefits to people, but because we have a moral duty to do so. In

addition, consideration of benefits needs to take account of the economic impacts of implementation

of the legislation, including effects on jobs and output resulting from management activities as well as

the effects associated with ecosystem services (such as tourism).

A typology of benefits is given in Table 2. Assessment of the benefits of the Directives for

biodiversity is a major element in the evaluation of their effectiveness. Effects on ecosystem services

will be assessed in both:

Biophysical terms – e.g. effects on flood risk, number of households provided with clean

water, number of visitors to Natura 2000 sites etc.; and

Monetary terms – e.g. reduced cost of water treatment and flood defences, value of

recreational visits, willingness to pay for conservation benefits.

Evidence of economic impacts will include estimates of expenditures by visitors to Natura 2000 sites,

employment in the creation and management of the Natura 2000 network, and resultant effects on

gross value added in local and national economies.



49

Typology of costs resulting from the Nature Directives

Type of costs Examples Administrative costs

Site designation, including scientific studies, administration,

consultation etc.

Establishing and running of management bodies

Preparation and review of management plans

Public communication and consultation

Spatial planning

Development casework, including time and fees involved in

applications, permitting and development casework affecting

habitats and species, including conducting appropriate assessments

Time and fees involved in compliance with species protection

measures, including derogations

Research

Investigations and enforcement

Habitat and species

management costs Investment costs:

Land purchase

Compensation for development rights

Infrastructure for the improvement/restoration of habitat and species

Other infrastructure, e.g. for public access, interpretation works,

observatories etc.

Recurrent costs - habitat and species management and monitoring:

Conservation management measures– maintenance and

improvement of favourable conservation status for habitats and

species

Implementation of management schemes and agreements with

owners and managers of land or water

Annual compensation payments

Monitoring and surveillance

Maintenance of infrastructure for public access, interpretation etc.

Risk management (fire prevention and control, flooding etc.)

Opportunity costs Foregone development opportunities resulting from site and species

protection, including any potential effects on output and employment

Delays in development resulting from site and species protection, and

any potential effects on output and employment

Restrictions on other activities (e.g. recreation, hunting) resulting from

species and site protection measures



50

Typology of Benefits

Type of benefit Examples Benefits for species and

habitats Extent and conservation status of habitats

Population, range and conservation status of species

Ecosystem services Effects of Directives on extent and value (using a range of physical and

monetary indicators) of:

Provisioning services – food, fibre, energy, genetic resources,

fresh water, medicines, and ornamental resources.

Regulating services – regulation of water quality and flows,

climate, air quality, waste, erosion, natural hazards, pests and

diseases, pollination.

Cultural services – recreation, tourism, education/ science,

aesthetic, spiritual and existence values, cultural heritage and

sense of place.

Supporting services – soil formation, nutrient cycling, and

primary production.

Economic impacts Effects of management and ecosystem service delivery on local and

national economies, measured as far as possible in terms of:

Employment – including in one-off and recurring conservation

management actions, as well as jobs provided by tourism and

other ecosystem services (measured in full time equivalents);

Expenditure – including expenditures by visitors as well as

money spent on conservation actions;

Business revenues – including effects on a range of land

management, natural resource, local product and tourism

businesses;

Local and regional development – including any effects on

investment, regeneration and economic development; and

Gross Value Added – the additional wages, profits and rents

resulting from the above.



51

Literatur

1. Im Text zitierte Literatur:

Albrecht, J., Andrian-Werburg, F.v., Drüke, J., Hofmann, M., Jessel, B., Köhler, R., Kraier, W.,

Lorenz, W., Neukirchen, B., Peters, A., Schackers, B. & Sellheim, P. (2014): Naturschutz und

Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in der Praxis. Tagungsdokumentation der BfN-Fachtagung am 26.11.2013 in

Bonn. – BfN-Skripten 381.

Albrizio, S., E. Botta, T. Kozluk and V. Zipperer (2014), “Do Environmental Policies Matter for

Productivity Growth? Insights from new Cross-Country Measures of Environmental Policies”, OECD

Economics Department Working Paper No. 1176.

Albrizio, S., T. Kozluk and V. Zipperer (2014), “Empirical evidence on the effects of environmental

policy stringency on productivity growth”, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, OECD

Economics Department Working Paper No. 1179.

APO - Ausbildungs- und Prüfungsordnung für das technische Referendariat (2013): Empfehlung des

Kuratoriums des Oberprüfungsamtes

ARÁUJO, M.B. (2009): Protected areas and climate change in Europe. Standing Committee of the

Convention on the Conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats. Council of Europe, T-

PVS/Inf(2009) 10 rev (Strasbourg): 29 S.

ARAÚJO, M.B., ALAGADOR, D., CABEZA, M., NOGUÉS-BRAVO, D. & THUILLER, W. (2011):

Climate change threatens European conservation areas. . Ecology Letters 14: 484-492.

Balzer, S., Ellwanger, G., Raths, U., Schröder, E. & Ssymank, A. (2008a): Verfahren und erste

Ergebnisse des nationalen Berichts nach Artikel 17 der FFH-Richtlinie. - Natur und Landschaft 83 (3):

111-117.

Balzer, S., Ellwanger, G., Schröder, E. & Ssymank, A. (2008b): Der Erhaltungszustand der

Lebensraumtypen und Arten der FFH-Richtlinie in Deutschland. In: Balzer, S., Dieterich, M. & Kolk,

J. (Bearb.): Management- und Artenschutzkonzepte bei der Umsetzung der FFH-Richtlinie. -

Natursch. Biol. Vielf. 69: 13-40.

Behrendt, A., Schalitz, G., Müller, L., Schindler, U. (2004): Effects of different drain depths on

nutrient leaching of lowland soils in North-East Germany. Drainage VIII : Proceedings of the Eighth

International Drainage Symposium, 21 – 24 March 2004: 241 – 245. American Society of Agricultural

Engineers, Sacramento, California.

Beierkuhnlein, C., Jentsch, A., Reineking, B., Schlumprecht, H., Ellwanger, G., Stahlmann, R.,

Bittner, T., Gellesch, E., Jaeschke, A., Dempe, H., Hein, R., Nadler, S. & Rauhut, S. (2014):

Auswirkungen des Klimawandels auf Fauna, Flora und Lebensräume sowie Anpassungsstrategien des

Naturschutzes. Ergebnisse des gleichnamigen F+E-Vorhabens (FKZ 3508 85 0600). - Naturschutz und

Biologische Vielfalt 137, 484 S.

Benzler, A. (2012): Measuring extent and quality of HNV farmland in Germany.- In: Oppermann, R.,

Beaufoy, G. & Jones, G.(eds.): Measuring extent and quality of HNV farmland in Germany.- Ubstadt-

Weiher (Verlag Regionalkultur): 507-510.

Berghöfer, A., Röder, N. (2014): Kosten und Nutzen von Ackerbau auf Moorböden. In: Naturkapital

Deutschland – TEEB DE: Naturkapital und Klimapolitik – Synergien und Konflikte. Kurzbericht für

Entscheidungsträger. Technische Universität Berlin, Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung – UFZ,

Leipzig, S. 40.

BfG - Bundesanstalt für Gewässerkunde (2010): Herstellung der Durchgängigkeit an Staustufen von

Bundeswasserstraßen. – URL:

http://www.bafg.de/DE/07_Aktuell/Archiv/2010/20100917_bfg_bericht.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

http://www.bafg.de/DE/07_Aktuell/Archiv/2010/20100917_bfg_bericht.pdf?__blob=publicationFile



52

BfN - Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2010): Natura 2000. Kooperation von Naturschutz und Nutzern.

Bonn (Bundesamt für Naturschutz): 78 S.- URL:

http://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/service/BfN_Broschuere_Management_Nutzer.pdf

BfN - Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2014): Grünland-Report. Alles im Grünen Bereich? Bonn (BfN):

34 S.

Biewald, G.; Marx, J.; Dümas, J.; Breunig, T.; Demuth, S.; Weckesser, M.; Trautner, J.; Bräunicke,

M.; Hermann, G.; Mayer, J.; Bense, U.; Colling, M.; Schabel, A.; Sippel, A.; Rajewski, M.

(Bearb.)(2013): Handbuch zur Erstellung von Managementplänen für die Natura 2000-Gebiete in

Baden-Württemberg: Version 1.3 [Elektronische Ressource]. - Karlsruhe: Landesanstalt für Umwelt,

Messungen und Naturschutz Baden-Württemberg: 460 S.

BMU; BfN (2012): Naturbewusstsein 2011. Bevölkerungsumfrage zu Natur und biologischer Vielfalt.

- www.bfn.de/naturbewusstsein.html

BMUB; BfN (2014): Naturbewusstsein 2013. Bevölkerungsumfrage zu Natur und biologischer

Vielfalt. - www.bfn.de/naturbewusstsein.html

Boller, F.; Elscher, T.; Erinc, M.; Ulbrich. S. (2013): Strategien zur Umsetzung von Natura 2000 mit

kooperativ strukturierten Verbänden. Das Beispiel der Bundesländer Baden-Württemberg und

Schleswig-Holstein. - Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 45 (10/11): 322-326.

Botta, E. and T. Kozluk (2014), “Measuring Environmental Policy Stringency in OECD Countries – A

Composite Index Approach”, OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 1177.

Boye, P., Vischer-Leopold, M., Paulsch, C., Ssymank, A. und Beulshausen, F. (Bearb.) (2010): Drei

Jahrzehnte Vogelschutz im Herzen Europas: Rückblick, Bilanz und Herausforderungen. Naturschutz

und Biologische Vielfalt 95. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn: 258 S.

Bundesamt für Naturschutz (o.J.): Internethandbuch zu den Arten der FFH-Richtlinie Anhang IV. -

http://www.ffh-anhang4.bfn.de/ (zuletzt gesehen 26.02.2015)

Bundesanstalt für Wasserbau (Hrsg.)(2013): Die Deichrückverlegung bei Lenzen an der Elbe. -

Karlsruhe: 192 S. (BAWMitteilungen; 97)

Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (2012): Gesundheits- und Umweltaspekte bei der Verwendung

von Bleimunition bei der Jagd. Tagungsband. Berlin (BfR): 140 S.

Bundeskabinett (2015): Indikatorenbericht 2014 zur Nationalen Strategie zur biologischen Vielfalt.

Bonn, 109 S.

http://www.bmub.bund.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Naturschutz/indikatorenbericht_20

14_biolog_vielfalt_bf.pdf

Bundesregierung (2013): Nationaler Bericht nach Artikel 17 der FFH-Richtlinie. Bonn (BMUB &

BfN): http://www.bfn.de/0316_nat-bericht_2013-komplett.html

Bundesregierung (2014): Nationaler Bericht nach Artikel 12 der Vogelschutz-Richtlinie. Bonn

(BMUB & BfN): http://www.bfn.de/0316_vsbericht2013.html

Carstensen, D.; Froese, R.; Opitz, S.; Otto, T. (2014): Ökologischer und ökonomischer Nutzen

fischereilicher Regulierungen in Meeresschutzgebieten. Im Auftrag des Bundesamtes für Naturschutz.

- Kiel: GEOMAR Helmholtz-Zentrum für Ozeanforschung, 33 S. http://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/themen/meeresundkuestenschutz/downloads/Berichte-

und-Positionspapiere/Nutzen-fischereil-Regulierungen-in-Meeresschutzgebieten.pdf

CBD –Convention on Biological Diversity (2014): Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. - Montreal, 94 S.

Couwenberg, J., Augustin, J., Michaelis, D., Wichtmann, W., Joosten, H. (2008): Entwicklung von

Grundsätzen für eine Bewertung von Niedermooren hinsichtlich ihrer Klimarelevanz. Endbericht für

Studie im Auftrag des Ministeriums für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Greifswald.

http://www.bfn.de/naturbewusstsein.html

http://www.bfn.de/naturbewusstsein.html


http://www.bmub.bund.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Naturschutz/indikatorenbericht_2014_biolog_vielfalt_bf.pdf

http://www.bmub.bund.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Naturschutz/indikatorenbericht_2014_biolog_vielfalt_bf.pdf

http://www.bfn.de/0316_nat-bericht_2013-komplett.html

http://www.bfn.de/0316_vsbericht2013.html

http://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/themen/meeresundkuestenschutz/downloads/Berichte-und-Positionspapiere/Nutzen-fischereil-Regulierungen-in-Meeresschutzgebieten.pdf

http://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/themen/meeresundkuestenschutz/downloads/Berichte-und-Positionspapiere/Nutzen-fischereil-Regulierungen-in-Meeresschutzgebieten.pdf



53

Devictor, V., Godet, L., Julliard, R., Couvet, D., Jiguet, F. (2007): Can common species benefit from

protected areas? Biological Conservation 139: 29-36.

Doerpinghaus, A.; Verbücheln, G.; Schröder, E.; Westhus, W.; Mast, R. & Neukirchen, M. (2003):

Empfehlungen zur Bewertung des Erhaltungszustands der FFH -Lebensraumtypen: Grünland.- Natur

und Landschaft 78 (8): 337-401

Donald, P.F. et al. (2007): International conservation policy delivers benefits for birds in Europe.

Science 317 (no. 5839): 810-813.

Drösler, M., Freibauer, A., Adelmann, W., Augustin, J., Bergmann, L., Beyer, C., Chojnicki, B.,

Förster, C., Giebels, M., Görlitz, S., Höper, H., Kantelhardt, J., Liebersbach, H., Hanschöfl., M.,

Minke, M., Petschow, U., Pfedenhauer, J., Schaller, L., Schägner, P., Sommer, M., Thuille, A.,

Wehrhan, M. (2011): Klimaschutz durch Moorschutz in der Praxis. Arbeitsberichte aus dem vTI-

Institut für Agrar relevante Klimaforschung 04/2011.

Drösler, M.; Schaller, L.; Kantelhardt, J.; Schweiger, M.; Fuchs, D.; Tiemeyer, B.; Augustin, J.;

Wehrhan, M.; Förster, C.; Bergmann, L.; Kapfer, A.; Krüger, G.-M. (2012): Beitrag von Moorschutz-

und -revitalisierungsmaßnahmen zum Klimaschutz am Beispiel von Naturschutzgroßprojekten. - In:

Natur und Landschaft 87 (2): 70-76.

DVL 2007: Natura 2000 – Lebensraum für Mensch und Natur : Ein Praxisleitfaden. Schriftenreihe

„Landschaft als Lebensraum“ Heft 11

Ellwanger, G. & Schröder, E. (Bearb.) (2006): Management von Natura 2000-Gebieten. Erfahrungen

aus Deutschland und ausgewählten anderen Mitgliedsstaaten der Europäischen Union. - Natursch.

Biol. Vielf. 26, 302 S.

Ellwanger, G., A. Ssymank, A. Buschmann, M. Ersfeld, W. Frederking, S. Lehrke, M. Neukirchen, U.

Raths, U. Sukopp & M. Vischer-Leopold (2014): Der nationale Bericht 2013 zu Lebensraumtypen und

Arten der FFH-Richtlinie. Ein Überblick über die Ergebnisse. Natur und Landschaft 89(5): 185-192.

Ellwanger, G., Balzer, S., Isselbächer, T., Raths, U., Schröder, E., Ssymank, A., Vischer-Leopold, M.

& Zimmermann, M. (2008): Der Nationale Bericht 2007 nach Art. 17 FFH-Richtlinie: ein Überblick

über die Ergebnisse unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Käfer. - Naturschutz und

Landschaftsplanung, Zeitschrift für angewandte Ökologie 40 (1): 5-8.

Ellwanger, G., Finck, P. & Schröder, E. (Bearb.) (2010): Managementmaßnahmen in

Küstenlebensräumen und Ästuarien der Nord-und Ostsee. - Natursch. Biol. Vielf. 91, 271 S.

Ellwanger, G., Ssymank, A. & Paulsch, C. (Eds.). (2012a): Natura 2000 and Climate Change - a

Challenge. - Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 118, 211 S. (Presentations and conclusions of the

workshop "Natura 2000 and Climate Change - a Challenge", 3rd to 7th May 2010, Isle of Vilm,

Germany).

Ellwanger, G., Ssymank, A. & Vischer-Leopold, M. (Bearb.) (2012b): Erhaltung von

Offenlandlebensräumen auf aktiven und ehemaligen militärischen Übungsflächen: Referate und

Ergebnisse der gleichnamigen Fachtagung am 7.9.2010 im Bundesamt für Naturschutz in Bonn. -

Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 127, 149 S.

Ellwanger, G., Ssymank, A., Essl, F., Rabitsch, W. (2013): 9.2 Bedeutung der Schutzgebietsnetze im

Klimawandel. - In: Essl, F. & Rabitsch, W. (Hrsg.) : Biodiversität und Klimawandel - Springer

Spektrum, Berlin-Heidelberg: 342 - 352.

Europäischer Rechnungshof (2014): Ist der EFRE bei der Finanzierung von Projekten zur direkten

Förderung der Biodiversität im Rahmen der EU-Biodiversitätsstrategie für das Jahr 2020 wirksam?

Luxemburg, Amt für Veröffentlichungen der Europäischen Union, 43 S.

European Commission (2006): Nature and biodiversity cases. Ruling of the European Court of Justice.

Luxembourg (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities): 128 pp.;

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/others/ecj_rulings_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/others/ecj_rulings_en.pdf



54

European Commission (2007): Flash Eurobarometer 219. Attitudes of Europeans towards the issue of

biodiversity. Analytical report. - Abrufbar unter

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_219_en.pdf

European Commission (2010): Flash Eurobarometer 290. Attitudes of Europeans towards the issue of

biodiversity. Analytical report – Wave 2. - Abrufbar unter


European Commission (2011): Links between the Water Framework Directive (WFD 2000/60/EC)

and Nature Directives (Birds Directive 2009/147/EC and Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC). Frequently

Asked Questions. – Brussels, 31 S.

European Commission (2012): Links between the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD

2008/56/EC) and the Nature Directives (Birds Directive 2009/147/EEC (BD) and Habitats Directive

92/43/EEC (HD)). Interactions, overlaps and potential areas for closer coordination. - Brussels, 31 S.

European Commission (2013): Flash Eurobarometer 379. Attitudes towards biodiversity. -


European Commission (2014): Workshop on coordinated implementation of nature, biodiversity,

marine and water policies. 2-3 December 2014 Brussels: Summary Report

European Commission, 2013: The Economic benefits of the Environment Natura 2000 Network.

Luxembourg.

European Union (2013): The Economic benefits of the Natura 2000 Network. Synthesis Report.

Evans, D.: Building the European Union`s Natura 2000 Network (2012). Nature Conservation 1, S.

11-26

Finck, P., Riecken, U. & Schröder, E. (Bearb.) (2009): Offenlandmanagement außerhalb

landwirtschaftlicher Nutzflächen. - Natursch. Biol. Vielf. 73, 274 S.

Fuchs, D., Hänel, K., Lipski, A., Reich, M., Finck, P. & Riecken, U. (2010): Länderübergreifender

Biotopverbund in Deutschland - Grundlagen und Fachkonzept. - Natursch. Biol. Vielf. 96, 191 S. +

Kartenband.

Garbe et al. (2005): Natura 2000 und nachhaltiger Tourismus in sensiblen Gebieten. - BfN -Skript 134

(https://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/skript134.pdf)

Gaston et al. (2006): The ecological effectiveness of protected areas: The United Kingdom. Biological

Conservation 132: 76-87.

Gedeon, K., C. Grüneberg, A. Mitschke, C. Sudfeldt, W. Eikhorst, S. Fischer, M. Flade, S. Frick, I.

Geiersberger, B. Koop, M. Kramer, T. Krüger, N. Roth, T. Ryslavy, F. Schlotmann, S. Stübing, S. R.

Sudmann, R. Steffens, F. Vökler & K. Witt (2015): Atlas Deutscher Brutvogelarten. Stiftung

Vogelmonitoring Deutschland und Dachverband Deutscher Avifaunisten, Hohenstein-Ernstthal und

Münster: 800 S.

Grafton, R. Q. et al (2007): Economics of Overexploitation Revisited. in: Science 7 December 2007

Grossmann, M. (2012a): Economic value of the nutrient retention function of restored floodplain

wetlands in the Elbe river basin. Ecological Economics 83(11), 108-117.

Grossmann, M. (2012b): Economic Valuation of Wetland Ecosystem Services. Accounting for

wetland ecosystem service benefits in cost benefit analysis of river basin management options with

case studies from the Elbe River Basin, Dissertation an der TU Berlin, Institut für

Landschaftsarchitektur & Umweltplanung. http://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-

tuberlin/files/3311/grossmann_malte.pdf. http://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-

tuberlin/files/3311/grossmann_malte.pdf.




https://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/skript134.pdf

http://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-tuberlin/files/3311/grossmann_malte.pdf






55

Grossmann, M., Hartje, V., Meyerhoff, J. (2010): Ökonomische Bewertung naturverträglicher

Hochwasservorsorge an der Elbe. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 89, Bundesamt für

Naturschutz: Bonn

Grossmann, M., Hartje, V., Meyerhoff, J. (2010): Ökonomische Bewertung naturverträglicher

Hochwasservorsorge an der Elbe. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 89. Landwirtschaftsverlag,

Münster.

Handke, K.; Kunze, K.; Nagler, A.; Tesch, A.; Theilen, A. (2010): Das Integrierte

Erfassungsprogramm Bremen - Ansätze zur Bündelung und Optimierung von Kartierungen für den

Naturschutz. In Doerpinghaus, A.; Dröschmeister, R.; Fritsche, B. [Bearb.]: Naturschutz-Monitoring

in Deutschland: Stand und Perspektiven. - Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 83: 197-209.

HANNAH, L., MIDGLEY, G., ANDELMAN, S., ARÁUJO, M., HUGHES, G., MARTINEZ-

MEYER, E., PEARSON, R. & WILLIAMS, P. (2007): Protected area needs in a changing climate.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5(3): 131-138.

HELLER, N.E. & ZAVALETA, E.S. (2009): Biodiversity management in the face of climate change:

A review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation 142: 14-32.

Helson, J., Leslie, S., Clement, G., Wells, R. & Wood, R. (2010). Private rights, public benefits:

Industry-driven seabed protection 34 (3): 557-566.

HUNTLEY, B. (2007): Climatic change and the conservation of European biodiversity: Towards the

development of adaptation strategies, T-PVS/Inf(2007)3. Council of Europe, Convention of the

Conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats (Strasbourg): 58 pp.

HUNTLEY, B., COLLINGHAM, Y., WILLIS, S. & HOLE, D. (2011): Protected areas and climate

change in Europe: Introduction. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 118: 29-47.

Inger, R., Gregory, R., Duffy, J. P. et al. (2015): Common European birds are declining rapidly while

less abundant species' numbers are rising.- Ecology Letters [online] 18: 28-36.

Job, H., Kraus, F., Merlin, M. & Woltering, M. (2013): Wirtschaftliche Effekte des Tourismus in

Biosphärenreservaten Deutschlands. - Naturschutz u. Biol. Vielfalt 134.

Job, H., Woltering, M. & Harrer, B. (2009): Regionalökonomische Effekte des Tourismus in

deutschen Nationalparken. - Naturschutz u. Biol. Vielfalt 76

Joosten, H., Brust, K., Couwenberg, J., Gerner, A., Holsten, B., Permien, T., Schäfer, A., Tanneberger,

F., Trepel, M., Wahren, A. (2013): MoorFutures® Integration von weiteren

Ökosystemdienstleistungen einschließlich Biodiversität in Kohlenstoffzertifikate – Standard,

Methodologie und Übertragbarkeit in andere Regionen. BfN-Skripten 350. Bundesamt für

Naturschutz, Bonn.

Kerwath, S.E., Winker, H., Gtz, A., Attwood, C.G. (2013). Marine protected area improves yield

without disadvantaging fishers. Nature communications DOI: 10.1038/ncomms3347 1

Knickel, K. (2015): Plädoyer für einen Abbau naturschädlicher Subventionen. Natur und Landschaft

90(2): 62-68.

Korneck et al. (1998): Warum verarmt unsere Flora? Auswertung der Roten Liste der Farn- und

Blütenpflanzen Deustchlands. In: Ursachen des Artenrückgangs von Wildpflanzen und Möglichkeiten

zur Erhaltung der Artenvielfalt. Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde Heft 29: 299-444. BfN, Bonn-

Bad Godesberg 1998.

Kozluk, T. and V. Zipperer (2014), “Environmental Policies and Productivity Growth: A Critical

Review of Empirical Findings”, OECD Journal: Economic Studies, Vol. 1, 2014.

Krone, O. (Hrsg.) (2011): Bleivergiftungen bei Greifvögeln: Ursachen, Erfahrungen,

Lösungsmöglichkeiten; der Seeadler als Indikator. - Berlin: Leibniz-Institut für Zoo- und

Wildtierforschung (Berlin): 126 S.

tel:299444



56

Lambrecht, H., Traunter, J. (2007): Fachinformationssystem und Fachkonventionen zur Bestimmung

der Erheblichkeit im Rahmen der FFH-VP, Hannover, 239 S.

Lehikoinen, A., K. Jaatinen, A. V. Vähätalo, P. Clausen, O. Crowe, B. Deceuninck, R. Hearn, C. A.

Holt, M. Hornman, V. Keller, L. Nilsson, T. Langendoen, I. Tománková, J. Wahl & A. D. Fox (2013):

Rapid climate driven shifts in wintering distributions of three common waterbird species. Global

Change Biology 19: 2071–2081.

Lenkungsgruppe der Länder Brandenburg, Hessen, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern und Thüringen mit

dem Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit und dem Bundesamt für

Naturschutz (2009): Anmeldung "Alte Buchenwälder Deutschlands" als Erweiterung des

Weltnaturerbes Buchenurwälder der Karpaten. Nominierungsdossier für die UNESCO zur Eintragung

in die Welterbeliste. – Niederstein, 186 S. http://weltnaturerbe-

buchenwaelder.de/fileadmin/media/pdf/Welterbe_Dossier_DE.pdf

LOVEJOY, T.E. & HANNAH, L. (Eds.) (2005): Climate change and biodiversity. Yale University

Press (New Haven): 418 S.

LOVEJOY, T.E. (2006): Protected areas: a prism for a changing world. Trends in Ecology and

Evolution 21: 329-333.

Matzdorf, B., Reutter, M., Hübner, C. (2010): Vorstudie: Bewertung der Ökosystemdienstleistungen

von HNV-Grünland (High Nature Value Grassland), Abschlussbericht. Leibniz-Zentrum für

Agrarlandschaftsforschung (ZALF) e. V. im Auftrag des Bundesamtes für Naturschutz.

Matzdorf, B.; Reutter, M. & Hübner, C. (2010) : Vorstudie: Bewertung der

Ökosystemdienstleistungen von HNV-Grünland (High Nature Value Grassland), Abschlussbericht.

Leibniz-Zentrum für Agrarlandschaftsforschung (ZALF) e. V. im Auftrag des Bundesamtes für

Naturschutz. http://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/themen/recht/oekosdienstleist_hnv.pdf)

MAWDSLEY, J.R., O’MALLEY, R. & OJIMA, D.S. (2009): A review of climate-change adaptation

strategies for wildlife management and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 23: 1080-

1089.

Mayr, C. (2010): Bilanz der Umsetzung der Vogelschutzrichtlinie und Forderungen zur Verbesserung

des Vogelschutzes aus Sicht des NABU. In: Boye, P., Vischer-Leopold, M., Paulsch, C., Ssymank, A.,

Beulshausen, F. (Bearb.): Drei Jahrzehnte Vogelschutz im Herzen Europas: Rückblick, Bilanz und

Herausforderungen. - Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 95, S. 39-53.

Mendel, B., Sonntag, N., Wahl, J., Schwemmer, P., Dries, H., Guse, N., Müller, S. & Garthe, S.

(2008): Artensteckbriefe von See- und Wasservögeln der deutschen Nord- und Ostsee. Naturschutz

und Biologische Vielfalt 59. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn: 437 S.

Metzner, J. (2013): Landschaftspflegeverbände – Markenzeichen des kooperativen Naturschutzes in

Deutschland. Strukturen, Arbeitsweise und Potenzial. - Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 45

(10/11): 299-305.

Metzner, J.; Keller, P.; Kretschmar, C.; Krettinger, B.; Liebig, N.; Mäck U.; Orlich, I. (2013):

Kooperativer Naturschutz in der Praxis. Umsetzungsbeispiele der Landschaftspflegeverbände und ihre

Bewertung. - Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 45 (10/11): 315-321.

Meyerhoff, J., Angeli, D., Hartje, V. (2012): Valuing the benefits of implementing a national strategy

on biological diversity - the case of Germany. Environmental Science & Policy 23, 109-119

Ministerkonferenz für Raumordnung (2006): Leitbilder und Handlungsstrategien für die

Raumentwicklung in Deutschland.

http://www.landesentwicklung.bayern.de/fileadmin/Dokumente/PDF/Organisation/Leitbilder-und-

Handlungsstrategien-fuer-die-Raumentwicklung-in-Deutschland-2006.pdf

NABU - Naturschutzbund Deutschland (2014): Natura 2000 im Privatwald:

Umsetzungsmöglichkeiten durch die EU-Naturschutzfinanzierung. – NABU (Berlin), 53 S.

http://weltnaturerbe-buchenwaelder.de/fileadmin/media/pdf/Welterbe_Dossier_DE.pdf

http://weltnaturerbe-buchenwaelder.de/fileadmin/media/pdf/Welterbe_Dossier_DE.pdf

http://www.landesentwicklung.bayern.de/fileadmin/Dokumente/PDF/Organisation/Leitbilder-und-Handlungsstrategien-fuer-die-Raumentwicklung-in-Deutschland-2006.pdf

http://www.landesentwicklung.bayern.de/fileadmin/Dokumente/PDF/Organisation/Leitbilder-und-Handlungsstrategien-fuer-die-Raumentwicklung-in-Deutschland-2006.pdf



57

NABU – Naturschutzbund Deutschland (2015): Leitfaden zur Naturschutzfinanzierung in der EU-

Förderperiode 2014–2020. - NABU (Berlin), 39 S.

Naturkapital Deutschland – TEEB DE (2014): Naturkapital und Klimapolitik – Synergien und

Konflikte. Kurzbericht für Entscheidungsträger. Technische Universität Berlin, Helmholtz-Zentrum

für Umweltforschung – UFZ, Leipzig.

Naturkapital Deutschland – TEEB DE (2012): Der Wert der Natur für Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft –

Eine Einführung. München, ifuplan; Leipzig, Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung – UFZ; Bonn,

Bundesamt für Naturschutz

NORMAND, S., SVENNING, J.-C. & SKOV, F. (2007): National and European perspectives on

climate change sensitivity of the habitats directive characteristic plant species. Journal for Nature

Conservation 15: 41-53.

ÖKONSULT GBR (2003): Öffentlichkeitsarbeit für die Umsetzung von Natura 2000 in Baden-

Württemberg, Strategie und Empfehlungen. – Karlsruhe (Unveröff. Studie im Auftrag der

Landesanstalt für Umweltschutz Baden-Württemberg).

Osterburg, B., Runge, T. (2007): Maßnahmen zur Reduzierung von Stickstoffeinträgen in Gewässer –

eine wasserschutzorientierte Landwirtschaft zur Umsetzung der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie. Sonderheft

307, Bundesforschungsanstalt für Landwirtschaft (FAL).Braunschweig.

PAF 2013: Deutscher Prioritärer Aktionsrahmen für Natura 2000 für den mehrjährigen

Finanzierungszeitraum 2014-2020 der EU.

Petermann, J., Balzer, S., Ellwanger, G., Schröder, E. & Ssymank, A. (2007): Klimawandel -

Herausforderung für das europaweite Schutzgebietssystem Natura 2000. In: Balzer, S., Dieterich, M.

& Beinlich, B. (Bearb.): Natura 2000 und Klimaänderungen. - Natursch. Biol. Vielf. 46: 127-148.

Pezzey, J. et al. (2000): A simple bioeconomic model of a marine reserve. In: Ecological Economics

33 (2000) 7791

Pröbstl, U.; Prutsch, A. (2009): Natura 2000 - Sport und Tourismus - Ein Leitfaden zur Anwendung

der Fauna-Flora-Habitat-Richtlinie und der Vogelschutzrichtlinie.

Riecken, U. & Schröder, E. (Bearb.) (2012): Management kleinparzellierter Offenlandökosysteme. -

Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 115, 281 S.

Riecken, U.; Finck, P.; Raths, U.; Schröder, E.; Ssymank, A. (2010): Ursachen der Gefährdung von

Biotoptypen in Deutschland. - Natur und Landschaft 85 (5): 181-186.

Rosenkranz, L., Wippel, B., Seintsch, B., Becker, G. & Dieter, M. (2012): Auswirkungen der FFH-

Maßnahmenplanungen auf die Waldbewirtschaftung. AFZ-Der Wald 20/2012: 12-14.

Sachteleben, J. & M. Behrens (2010): Konzept zum Monitoring des Erhaltungszustandes von

Lebensraumtypen und Arten der FFH -Richtlinie in Deutschland. - Ergebnisse des F+E -Vorhabens

"Konzeptionelle Umsetzung der EU-Vorgaben zum FFH -Monitoring und Berichtspflichten in

Deutschland". - BfN-Skripten 278, 183 S.

Sanchirico, J. (2000): Marine Protected Areas as Fishery Policy: A Discussion of Potential Costs and

Benefits. - May 2000 (Revised November 2000) Discussion Paper 0023 Washington, D.C., USA:

Resources for the Future

Sanchirico, J. (2004): Bioeconomy Econominally optimal spatial and inter-temporal fishing patterns in

a metapopulation. in: Marine protected areas: a multidisciplinary approach. Camebridge, UK,

Camebridge University

Schabert, A. (2011): The re-introduction of the Allis shad (Alosa alosa) to the Rhine system (LIFE06

NAT/D/000005). Conservation-Plan for the after-LIFE period. Düsseldorf (LANUV): 18 pp.

Schäfer, A. & Kowatsch, A. (2015): Gewässer und Auen - Nutzen für die Gesellschaft. 58 S.

http://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/service/skript_278.pdf





58

Schlumprecht, H., Bittner, T., Gellesch, E., Gohlke, A., Jaeschke, A., Nadler, S., Beierkuhnlein, C.,

Ellwanger, G. & Schröder E. (2011): Climate change and Natura 2000. r+d -project: Effect of climate

change on flora, fauna and habitats and strategies of adaptation for conservation (FKZ 3508850600). -

Brochure German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Bonn 79 pp.

Schnitter, P., Ellwanger, G., Neukirchen, M. & Schröder, E. (Bearb.)(2006): Empfehlungen für die

Erfassung und Bewertung von Arten als Basis für das Monitoring nach Artikel 11 und 17 der FFH -

Richtlinie in Deutschland. - Berichte des Landesamtes für Umweltschutz Sachsen-Anhalt (Halle),

Sonderheft 2, 370 S,

Slootweg, J.; Posch, M.; Hettelingh, J.-P.; Mathijssen, L. [eds.] (2014): Modelling and Mapping the

impacts of atmospheric deposition on plant species diversity in Europe. CCE Status Report 2014,

CCE, 160 S. (http://wge-cce.org/Publications/CCE_Status_Reports/Status_Report_2014)

Ssymank, A. & Vischer-Leopold, M. (2006): Die aktuelle Meldesituation und die Umsetzung von

Natura 2000 in Deutschland. - In: Spannowsky, W. Hofmeister, A.: Der europäische Biotopschutz in

der städtebaulichen Planung. - Carl Heymanns Verlag: 1-17.

Ssymank, A., Ellwanger, G., Ihl, A. & Burggraf, C. (2014): Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung und -

information beim Management des Schutzgebietsnetzes Natura 2000. - Natur und Landschaft 89 (6):

264-270.

Ssymank, A., Hauke, U., Rückriem, C. & Schröder, E. unter Mitarbeit von Messer, D. (1998): Das

europäische Schutzgebietssystem NATURA 2000 - BfN-Handbuch zur Umsetzung der Fauna-Flora-

Habitat-Richtlinie (92/43/EWG) und der Vogelschutz-Richtlinie (79/409/EWG). - SchrR. f.

Landschaftspfl. u. Natursch. 53, 560 S.

Ssymank, A., Vischer-Leopold, M. & Boye, P. (2010): Historische und aktuelle Entwicklungen der

Vogelschutzrichtlinie in Deutschland und der Europäischen Union. - In: Boye, P., Vischer-Leopold,

M., Paulsch, C., Ssymank, A. & Beulshausen, F. (Bearb.): - Drei Jahrzehnte Vogelschutz im Herzen

Europas: Rückblick, Bilanz und Herausforderungen. - Natursch. Biol. Vielf. 95: 9-38.

Sudfeldt et al. (2012): Vogelmonitoring in Deutschland. – Naturschutz und biologische Vielfalt 119

Sudfeldt, C. & Dröschmeister, R. (2010): 30 Jahre Vogelschutzrichtlinie - Bilanz zeigt

Handlungsbedarf in Deutschland.- Der Falke 57 (3): 106-112.

Sudfeldt, C. (2009): Statusbericht "Vögel in Deutschland 2008": Anpassungsfähige Arten nehmen zu -

Spezialisten sind gefährdet.- Der Falke 56 (1): 22-24.

Sudfeldt, C., Bairlein, F., Dröschmeister, R. et al. (2012a): Vögel in Deutschland 2012.- Münster

(Dachverband Deutscher Avifaunisten): 55.S.

Sudfeldt, C., Dröschmeister, R., Frederking, W., Gedeon, K., Gerlach, B., Grüneberg, C., Karthäuser,

J., Langgemach, T., Schuster, B., Trautmann, S. & Wahl, J. (2013): Vögel in Deutschland 2013. DDA,

BfN, LAG-VSW, Münster, 60 S.

Sudfeldt, C., Dröschmeister, R., Frederking, W., Gedeon, K., Gerlach, B., Grüneberg, C., Karthäuser,

J., Langgemach, T., Schuster, B., Trautmann, S. & Wahl, J. (2013): Vögel in Deutschland 2013. DDA,

BfN, LAG-VSW, Münster, 60 S.

Sudfeldt, C., Dröschmeister, R., Grüneberg, C. et al. (2007): Vögel in Deutschland 2007.- Steckby






Sudfeldt, C., Dröschmeister, R., Langgemach, T. et al. (2010): Vögel in Deutschland 2010.- Münster


http://wge-cce.org/Publications/CCE_Status_Reports/Status_Report_2014



59

Sudfeldt, C., Dröschmeister, R., Wahl, J., Berlin, K., Gottschalk, T., Grüneberg, C., Mitschke, A. &

Trautmann, S. (2012): Vogelmonitoring in Deutschland: Programme und Anwendungen. Naturschutz

und Biologische Vielfalt 119, Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn: 255 S

Sudfeldt, C., Dröschmeister, R., Wahl, J., Berlin, K., Gottschalk, T., Grüneberg, C., Mitschke, A. &

Trautmann, S. (2012b): Vogelmonitoring in Deutschland: Programme und Anwendungen.

Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 119, Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn: 255 S

Sudfeldt, C.; Dröschmeister, R.; Langgemach, T.; Wahl, J. (2012c): 40 Jahre Ramsar-Konvention:

Wasservogelschutz in Deutschland. Der Falke : Das Journal für Vogelbeobachter 59 (7): 252-257.

Sulawa, J.; Kenntner, N.; Krone, O. (2011): Einflussfaktoren auf die Verteilung von Bleivergiftungen

in der Population des Seeadlers (Haliaeetus albicilla) in Deutschland. In Krone, O. (Hrsg.):

Bleivergiftungen bei Greifvögeln : Ursachen, Erfahrungen, Lösungsmöglichkeiten; der Seeadler als

Indikator. - Berlin : Leibniz-Institut für Zoo- und Wildtierforschung, S. 52-57.

Sundseth, K. & Roth, P. (2013): EC Study on evaluating and improving permitting procedures related

to Natura 2000 requirements under Article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. – EC Study -

Final Report. Brussels (Ecosystems LTD (Belgium)): 104 pp., Annexes.

Tautenhahn, M. & J. Geßner (2014): Schutz des Europäischen Störs (Acipenser sturio) in seinem

deutschen Verbreitungsgebiet. BfN-Skripten 363: 91 S.

Trochet, A. & Schmeller, D.S.: Effectiveness of the Natura 2000 network to cover threatened species

(2013). Nature Conservation 4: 35-53.

UBA – Umweltbundesamt (2012): Berichterstattung unter der Klimarahmenkonvention der Vereinten

Nationen und dem Kyoto-Protokoll 2012. Nationaler Inventarbericht zum deutschen

Treibhausgasinventar 1990 – 2010. Umweltbundesamt, Dessau.

UBA (Umweltbundesamt) (2007): Ökonomische Bewertung von Umweltschäden –

Methodenkonvention zur Schätzung externer Umweltkosten, Umweltbundesamt, April 2007.

Velte, U., Puffpaff, S. (2012): Management von Natura 2000-Flächen auf militärisch genutzten

Übungsplätzen der Bundeswehr. In Ellwanger, G., Ssymank, A., Vischer-Leopold, M. [Hrsg.]:

Erhaltung von Offenlandlebensräumen auf aktiven und ehemaligen militärischen Übungsflächen. -

Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 127, S. 25-31.

Vohland, K., Badeck, F., Böhning-Gaese, K., Ellwanger, G., Hanspach, J., Ibisch, P. L., Klotz, S.,

Kreft, S., Kühn, I., Schröder, E., Trautmann, S. & Cramer, W. (Hrsg.) (2013a): Schutzgebiete

Deutschlands im Klimawandel - Risiken und Handlungsoptionen. - Naturschutz und Biologische

Vielfalt 129, 234 S.

Vohland, K., Essl, F., Ellwanger, G., Hanspach, J., Kühn, I., Ssymank, A., Schröder, E. (2013b): 8.2

Können Schutzgebiete ihre Schutzgüter verlieren? In: Essl, F. & Rabitsch, W. (Hrsg.): Biodiversität

und Klimawandel - Springer Spektrum, Berlin-Heidelberg: 295 - 303.

Voithenberg, E. von (2010): 25 Jahre Referendariat Landespflege in NRW: Rückblick auf eine

Erfolgsgeschichte. - Stiftung Naturschutzgeschichte 10: 23-31.

Wahl, J. & Sudfeldt, C. (2010): Ehrenamtliches Engagement im Vogelmonitoring in Deutschland.- In:

Boye, P., Vischer-Leopold, M., Paulsch, C., Ssymank, A., and Beulshausen, F.: Drei Jahrzehnte

Vogelschutz im Herzen Europas: Rückblick, Bilanz und Herausforderungen.- Naturschutz und

Biologische Vielfalt 95: 199-230.

Wahl, J., Dröschmeister, R., Langgemach, T. et al. (2012): Vögel in Deutschland 2011.- Münster


Wahl, J., Dröschmeister, R., Langgemacht, T. & Sudfeldt, C. (2011): Vögel in Deutschland 2011.

DDA, BfN, LAG-VSW, Münster, 72 S.



60

Wahl, J., Dröschmeister, R., Langgemacht, T. & Sudfeldt, C. (2011): Vögel in Deutschland 2011.

DDA, BfN, LAG-VSW, Münster, 72 S.

Wahl, J.; Berlin, K.; König, C.; Leistikow, A. (2013): Zehn Jahre bundesweites Birdrace :

Rückblende. Der Falke : Das Journal für Vogelbeobachter 60 (6): 248-249.

Wamelink, G.W.W. et al. (2013): Considerable environmental bottlenecks for species listed in the

Habitats and Birds Directives in the Netherlands. Biological Conservation 165: 43-53.

Wartburgkreis 2005: Erlebnis Natura 2000. - Schriftenreihe Naturschutz im Wartburgkreis 15.

Weddeling, K., Eichen C., Neukirchen, M., Ellwanger, G., Sachteleben, J. & M. Behrens (2007):

Monitoring und Berichtspflichten im Kontext der FFH -Richtlinie: Konzepte zur bundesweiten

Erfassung des Erhaltungszustandes von nutzungsabhängigen Arten und Lebensraumtypen. S. 177-195.

- In: Begemann, F., Schröder, S., Wenkel, K.-O. & H.-J. Weigel: Monitoring und Indikatoren der

Agrobiodiversität. - Agrobiodiversität - Schriftenreihe des Informations- und Koordinationszentrums

für Biologische Vielfalt 27, 328 S.

WINKEL, S. & M. KUPRIAN (2011): Die Rückkehr der Sumpfschildkröte an den hessischen Rhein. -

Collurio 29:50-60.

Wissenschaftlicher Beirat für Agrarpolitik (2007): Nutzung von Biomasse zur Energiegewinnung –

Empfehlungen an die Politik.

http://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/Ministerium/Beiraete/Agrarpolitik/GutachtenWBA.pdf?

__blob=publicationFile (Zugriff: 02.03.2015)

Wolters, S.; Tänzler, D.; Theiler, L.; Drösler, M. (2013): Entwicklung von Konzepten für einen

nationalen Klimaschutzfonds zur Renaturierung von Mooren (Abschlussbericht FKZ: 3712 41 508).

Climate Change 2013 (05). 91 S.

Wüstemann, H., Meyerhoff, J., Rühs, M., Schäfer, A., Hartje, V. (2014): Financial costs and benefits

of a program of measures to implement a National Strategy on Biological Diversity in Germany. Land

Use Policy 36, 307-318.

Wüstemann, H., Meyerhoff, J., Rühs, M., Schäfer, A., Hartje, V. (2014): Financial costs and benefits

of a program of measures to implement a National Strategy on Biological Diversity in Germany. Land

Use Policy 36, 307 – 318.

WWF (2014): Analyse der Fördermöglichkeiten für Umwelt- und Naturschutz durch die deutschen

Operationellen Programme der EFRE-Förderung 2014–2020. – WWF Berlin 276 S.

Zimmermann, M., Vischer-Leopold, M., Ellwanger, G., Ssymank, A. & Schröder, E. (2010): The EU

Habitats Directive and the German Natura 2000 Network of Protected Areas asTool for Implementing

the Conservation of Relict Species. - In: Habel, J.C. & Assmann, T. (Eds.): Relict Species -

Phylogeography and Conservation Biology. - Springer, Berlin - Heidelberg: 323-340.

2. Weitere Literaturangaben:

Balmford A, Green JMH, Anderson M, Beresford J, Huang C, et al. (2015) Walk on the Wild Side:

Estimating the Global Magnitude of Visits to Protected Areas. PLoS Biol 13(2): e1002074.

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002074

BfN (2014): Rote Liste gefährdeter Tiere, Pflanzen und Pilze Deutschlands - Bd 2:

Meeresorganismen. - NaBiV Heft 70/2: BfN Schriftenreihe Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt Heft

70/2. Bonn: Bundesamt für Naturschutz (Herausgeber)

Bund-Länder Initiative Windenergie (2013): Überblick zu den landesplanerischen

Abstandsempfehlungen für die Regionalplanung zur Ausweisung von Windenergiegebieten. Bericht

Stand 01.05.2013. – URL: http://www.erneuerbare-



61

energien.de/EE/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/Berichte/2013_05_01_ueberblick_zu_den_landesplanerisch

en_abstandsempfehlungen_fuer_die_regionalplanung_zur_ausweisung_von_windenergiegebieten.htm

l

Darr, A; Zettler, M. (2011): Erprobung eines Fachvorschlags für das langfristige benthologische

Monitoring der Natura 2000 Lebensräume in der deutschen AWZ der Ostsee als Grundlage für die

Erfüllung der Natura 2000 – Berichtspflichten (FFH - Berichtsperiode 2007 – 2012) - Leibniz - Institut

für Ostseeforschung Warnemünde Biologische Meereskunde, im Auftrag des Bundesamts für

Naturschutz (BfN)

Darr, A; Zettler, M. (2012): Monitoring der benthischen Lebensgemeinschaften in den FFH-

Lebensraumtypen als Grundlage für die Erfüllung der Natura 2000- und HELCOM-Berichtspflichten

in der deutschen Ausschließlichen Wirtschaftszone, Seegebiet Ostsee (Berichtsperiode 2007 – 2012). -

Leibniz - Institut für Ostseeforschung Warnemünde Biologische Meereskunde, im Auftrag des

Bundesamts für Naturschutz (BfN)

Gallus, A.; Benke, H. (2013): Monitoring von marinen Säugetieren 2012 in der deutschen Nord- und

Ostsee, B: Akustisches Monitoring von Schweinswalen in der Ostsee. - Deutsches Meeresmuseum,

Stralsund, im Auftrag des Bundesamts für Naturschutz (BfN)

Gallus, A.; Dähne, M.; Benke, H. (2010): Monitoringbericht 2009-2010, Marine Säugetiere und

Seevögel in der deutschen AWZ von Nord und Ostsee. B: Akustisches Monitoring von

Schweinswalen in der Ostsee. - Deutsches Meeresmuseum, Stralsund, im Auftrag des Bundesamts für

Naturschutz (BfN)

Gallus, A.; Hansen, S.; Krügel, K.; Dähne, M.; Benke, H. (2011): Monitoringbericht 2010-2011,

Marine Säugetiere und Seevögel in der deutschen AWZ von Nord und Ostsee. B: Akustisches

Monitoring von Schweinswalen in der Ostsee. - Deutsches Meeresmuseum, Stralsund, im Auftrag des

Bundesamts für Naturschutz (BfN)

Getzner, M. & Jungmeier, M. (2002): Conservation policy and the regional economy: the regional

economic impact of Natura 2000 conservation sites in Austria. Journal for Nature Conservation 10:

25-34.

Gilles, A.; Peschko, V.; Siebert, U. (2011): Monitoringbericht 2010-2011, Marine Säugetiere und

Seevögel in der deutschen AWZ von Nord und Ostsee. A: Visuelle Erfassung von Schweinswalen. -

Stiftung Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover, Institut für Terrestrische und Aquatische

Wildtierforschung, Büsum , im Auftrag des Bundesamts für Naturschutz (BfN)

Gilles, A.; Peschko, V.; Siebert, U. (2013): Monitoring von marinen Säugetieren 2012 in der

deutschen Nord- und Ostsee. A: Visuelle Erfassung von Schweinswalen. - Stiftung Tierärztliche

Hochschule Hannover, Institut für Terrestrische und Aquatische Wildtierforschung, Büsum , im

Auftrag des Bundesamts für Naturschutz (BfN)

Gilles, A.; Siebert, U. (2010): Monitoringbericht 2009-2010, Marine Säugetiere und Seevögel in der

deutschen AWZ von Nord und Ostsee. A: Visuelle Erfassung von Schweinswalen. - Stiftung

Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover, Institut für Terrestrische und Aquatische Wildtierforschung,

Büsum , im Auftrag des Bundesamts für Naturschutz (BfN)

Jones-Walters, L. & Civic, K.: European protected areas: Past, present and future (2013). Journal for

Nature Conservation 21 , S. 122-124

Markones, N.; Garthe, S. (2011): Monitoring 2010/2011 – Endbericht Marine Säugetiere und

Seevögel in der deutschen AWZ von Nord- und Ostsee - Teilbericht Seevögel . - Forschungs- und

Technologiezentrum Westküste (FTZ), Büsum, im Auftrag des Bundesamts für Naturschutz (BfN)

Markones, N.; Schwemmer, H.; Garthe, S. (2010): Seevogel-Monitoring 2011 / 2012 in der deutschen

AWZ von Nord- und Ostsee. - Forschungs- und Technologiezentrum Westküste (FTZ), Büsum, im

Auftrag des Bundesamts für Naturschutz (BfN)



62


(2008): Artensteckbriefe von See- und Wasservögeln der deutschen Nord- und Ostsee: Verbreitung,

Ökologie und Empfindlichkeiten gegenüber Eingriffen in ihren marinen Lebensraum. - NaBiV Heft

59: BfN Schriftenreihe Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt Heft 59. Bonn: Bundesamt für

Naturschutz (Herausgeber)


(2008): Profiles of seabirds and waterbirds of the German North and Baltic Seas: Distribution, ecology

and sensitivities to human activities within the marine environment. - NaBiV Heft 61: BfN

Schriftenreihe Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt Heft 61. Bonn: undesamt für Naturschutz

(Herausgeber)

Nagel, B.; Schwarz, T.; Köppel, J. (2014): Ausbau der Windenergie - Anforderungen aus der

Rechtsprechung und fachliche Vorgaben für die planerische Steuerung. In: Umwelt- und

Planungsrecht (UPR), Ausgabe 10/2014, S. 371-382.

Narberhaus, I.; Krause, J.; Bernitt U. (2012): Bedrohte Biodiversität in der deutschen Nord- und

Ostsee, Empfindlichkeiten gegenüber anthropogenen Nutzungen und den Effekten des Klimawandels.

- NaBiV Heft 116: BfN Schriftenreihe Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt Heft 116. Bonn:

Bundesamt für Naturschutz (Herausgeber)

Narberhaus, I.; Krause, J.; Bernitt U. (2012): Threatened Biodiversity in the German North and Baltic

Seas: Sensitivities towards Human Activities and the Effects of Climate Change. - NaBiV Heft 117:

BfN Schriftenreihe Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt Heft 117. Bonn: Bundesamt für Naturschutz

(Herausgeber)

Pusch, C.; Pedersen, S. Anker (Eds.) (2010): Environmentally Sound Fisheries Management in Marine

Protected Areas (EMPAS) in Germany Results of the Research and Development ( F+E )-Project

(FKZ-Nr. 804 85 003) of the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation. - NaBiV Heft 92: BfN

Schriftenreihe Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt Heft 92. Bonn: Bundesamt für Naturschutz

(Herausgeber)

Sonntag, N.; Markones, N.; Garthe, S. (2010): Monitoringbericht 2009-2010, Marine Säugetiere und

Seevögel in der deutschen AWZ von Nord- und Ostsee - Teilbericht Seevögel. - Forschungs- und

Technologiezentrum Westküste (FTZ), Büsum, im Auftrag des Bundesamtes für Naturschutz (BfN)

tel://371382/

Documents

English Translation: For information purposes only …ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check...English Translation: For information purposes only 5 B. EVALUATION