Development of the Natura 2000 Network in Greece

1. Development of the Natura 2000 Network in Greece Spyros Psaroudas, M.Sc.

2. Birds Directive (79/409): Special Protection Areas(SPAs) Habitats Directive (92/43): Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) Creation of the Natura 2000 SPAs + SACs = Natura 2000 Network

3. Implementation procedure Habitats Directive Birds Directive Special Protection Areas (SPAs) Sites of Special NationalCommunity Areas ofNATURA ListsImportanceConservation2000 (SCIs)(SACs)

4. The National Lists (of pSCIs) • Criteria for inclusion of an area: • Representation of habitat types and species concerned • Total surface area • Relative value in the biogeographical region • Importance as a migratory route or transboundary site • The sites, which contain priority habitats or species, should be included in the national lists

5. Approval of the National List • In cases where a Member State overlooks an exceptional site, the European Commission can suggest adding it to the list, if it can be scientifically demonstrated that the site is essential for the preservation of habitats or species covered by the Habitats Directive. • After discussion with the Member State concerned, the final unanimous decision rests with the European Union’s Council of Ministers

6. Obligations on managing N2000 Each member state should: • Elaborate Management plans • Specify conservation objectives • Establish implementation mechanisms and long- term conservation plans.

7. Obligations on managing N2000 Once a N2000 site has been designated: • Any new plan or project likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site must take account of the natural value which determined the integration of the site into the network.

8. The National List of Greece • The National List of pSCI was based on a list (“scientific list”), which was prepared by experts: They provided the required information and filled in all the required Standard Data Forms (SDFs). • Only scientific criteria were used for preparation of this list, which proposed the inclusion of 296 sites in N2000.

9. The National List of Greece • The Greek government modified the “Scientific List”, in order to draft the National List. • Besides scientific criteria, social, economic, administrative and political criteria were used.

10. The National List of Greece • First part of the National List was submitted to EC on 22-7-1996 including 164 pSCIs and 29 SPAs. • A second part of the National List was submitted to EC on 4-4-1997, including more sites: 81 pSCIs and 23 SPAs.

11. The National List of Greece • Finally, after negotiations between Greek government and the European Commission (EC), the list included more sites and was approved last summer, 2006.

12. The National List of Greece • The Greek National List of Natura 2000 includes 150 SPAs and 239 SACs. • Some of the latter coincide partially or totally with the SPAs.

17. Natura 2000 in the GR-BG CBC area

18. The National List of Greece • Total land surface: 27.228 km2 • Percentage: 17,9% of land surface + 2,8% of sea surface = 20,7% of total national territory.

19. Comparison with EU15

20. Character of the sites: Size

21. Character of the sites: Size • Site boundaries do not coincide with isolated habitat types. • This is main reason for the enlargement of site surfaces: Isolated habitat types were grouped together and formed larger sites.

22. Character of the sites: Villages • The inclusion of isolated (and often uninhabited) villages within site boundaries, mainly in remote mountainous areas, was questioned several times. • Finally, it was decided that they consist an inseparable part of the landscape and that they should be part of the sites.

23. Character of the sites: Altitude • The majority of sites are mountainous. • This reflects the mountainous character of the country.

24. Management of the sites • According the “Master Plan for the Protection of Nature” of 1999 (Ministry of Environment) the sites were grouped in 162 “Protected Areas”, for easier management purposes at local level. • Distribution of the sites was mainly based on geographical and administration criteria.

25. Management of the sites • According the same “Master Plan”, Management Authorities (MA’s) should undertake the management of the Protected Areas (PA’s). • The MA’s should manage the majority of the pSCI’s in Greece, while the management of the rest should be either subcontracted, or undertaken later by one of the existing MA’s.

26. The Management Authorities • Initially, the creation of forty (40) MAs was foreseen, in order to cover 79 of the aforementioned “Protected Areas”. • However, finally, twenty five (25) Management Authorities were created with National Law 3044/02, for equal number of Protected Areas.

27. The Management Authorities • The 25 selected areas with MA’s were chosen among those with urgent managementrequirements: National Parks, Ramsar, sites, and sites important for conservation of priority species (like: brown bear, monk seal, etc.) • In 2003, another two (2) Management Authorities (MA’s) were created, reaching their total number to 27.

29. MA of Rhodope Mt. Range

31. Character of the MA’s • The MA’s are private legal entities, which undertake the task of implementing the approved by the state management plan, for the relevant PA. • The decisions are made by a Management Board (MB), in which the most important stakeholders at local and national level are represented.

32. Character of the MA’s • As private legal entities, the MA’s are not qualified with the power to rule the PA’s or impose financial penalties to those who break the law. • The decisions are made by a Management Board (MB), in which the most important stakeholders, at local and national level, are represented.

33. Management Boards of MA’s Stakeholders represented in the MB’s: • Ministries • Regions • Prefectures • Municipalities • Social groups (e.g. farmers, fishermen) • Experts/Universities • Environmental NGOs

34. Personnel of MA’s • Managers • Researchers • Technicians – “wardens” • Administrative personnel (e.g. secretary, accountant) • External Consultants (e.g. legal advisor)

35. Operational costs • Buildings, furniture, office equipment • Infrastructure for conservation • Vehicles, special equipment, tools • Travel and maintenance costs • Awareness raising costs • Subcontracting costs (e.g. elaboration of specific studies, or additional conservation works and services)

36. Coverage of costs • For the period 2004-2008, the personnel and start-up operational costs are covered by the Operational Programme “Environment”, co-financed by EC and the Greek state. • No provision has been made for long-term operation of the MA’s

37. Main Problems • Public opinion in Greece does not perceive nature conservation as a first priority issue… • …consequently there is lack of political will to establish implementation mechanisms and long- term conservation plans… • … which brings delays to establish strong management authorities capable for implementing conservation actions and plans.

38. Consequent Problems • There is no provision for adequate technical support to the MA’s, for training MA’s personnel, or for awareness raising of MB’s members • There is a serious lack of knowledge on the potential role of protected areas for rural and sustainable development • No provision has been made for long-term operation of the MA’s

39. Results • MA’s are seen by rural people either as a new way of imposing prohibitions and restrictions to their activities, or, under best conditions, as a new kind of “development companies” - not conservation instruments or a way of improving their standards of living conditions! • Establishment of implementation mechanisms and long- term conservation plans are not secured!

40. MA’s: Hope for the future • The pluralism in composition of their MB’s, and the potentiality of receiving financial and political support from the EC, make possible for MA’s to play an important role on: • Dissemination & exchange of knowledge - awareness raising • Co-ordination of current activities/projects as well as of future plans • Organisation of participatory and consultation procedures that could achieve local consensus on conservation goals

41. MA’s: Hope for the future • In turn, this could potentially initiate a democratic, transparent and participatory model for managing N2000 in a way that that should: • represent a bottom-up approach of management; • secure transparency and other necessary conditions for realisation of criticism or/andmultiple controls; • corresponds to the public character of the natural environment as a common good, • corresponds to the necessity for environmental protection from both governmental or private self-interested interventions.