Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 19, Issue 7, pp 2053–2069 | Cite as

Cost-effectiveness of managing Natura 2000 sites: an exploratory study for Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Poland

  • Frank WätzoldEmail author
  • Melanie Mewes
  • Rob van Apeldoorn
  • Riku Varjopuro
  • Tadeusz Jan Chmielewski
  • Frank Veeneklaas
  • Marja-Leena Kosola
Original Paper

Abstract

Natura 2000 sites are expected to assure the long-term survival of Europe’s most valuable and threatened species and habitats. It follows that successful management of the sites is of great importance. Next to goal attainment, cost-effectiveness is increasingly recognised as a key requirement for gaining social and political acceptance for costly conservation measures. We identify and qualitatively examine issues of cost-effectiveness related to the design and implementation of management measures in Natura 2000 sites in Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Poland. Given the wide variety of management design and implementation options within the four countries, our study is purely of an exploratory nature. We derive recommendations for improving the cost-effectiveness of management in Natura 2000 sites and for future research. Examples of policy recommendations include guaranteeing the availability of funds for longer periods, and ensuring the appropriate allocation of funds between the different tasks of designing and implementing management plans. Further research should examine the cost-effectiveness of controversial suggestions such as, for example, more tailored payment schemes for conservation measures that result in higher ecological outputs but are costly to administer. Moreover, more research is needed to better understand how rules for administrations, as well as rules and governance structures for tasks within administrations, should be designed.

Keywords

Conservation Cost-effectiveness Exploratory study Management Natura 2000 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work of this paper has been made possible by the EU FP6 Network of Excellence ALTER-Net (EU grant GOCE-CT-2003-505298-Alternet). We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for detailed and helpful comments and to Amrei Aigner for helping us with the manuscript layout.

References

  1. Ando A, Camm J, Polasky S, Solow A (1998) Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation. Science 279:126–2128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ANFQ (Ministry of Agriculture, Nature, Food Quality) (2006) Natura 2000 targets document summary. Setting conservation objectives for the Natura 2000 network in the Netherlands. Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  3. BfN (Federal Nature Conservation Agency) (2007a) http://www.bfn.de/0316_natura2000.html. Cited 10 Feb 2010
  4. BfN (Federal Nature Conservation Agency) (2007b) http://www.bfn.de/0316_gebiete.html. Cited 10 Feb 2010
  5. BfN (Federal Nature Conservation Agency) (2008) http://www.bfn.de/0316_finanzen.html, Finanzierung von Natura 2000 Leitfaden, also available in English (and 20 other EU member state languages), http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/index_en.htm. Cited 10 Feb 2010
  6. Birds Directive (1979) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31979L0409:EN:HTML. Cited 10 Feb 2010
  7. Birner R, Wittmer H (2004) On the efficient boundaries of the State—the contribution of transaction costs economics to the analysis of decentralization and devolution in Natural Resource Management. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 22(5):667–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buitelaar E (2004) A transaction-cost analysis of the land development process. Urban Studies 41(13):2539–2553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cabeza M, Moilanen A (2006) Replacement cost: a practical measure of site value for cost-effective reserve planning. Biol Conserv 132:336–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chmielewski TJ (1994a) Principles of developing nature conservation plans for landscape parks. Methodological and organisational recommendations (in Polish). Ministerstwo Ochrony Środowiska, Zasobów Naturalnych i Leśnictwa, WarszawaGoogle Scholar
  11. Chmielewski TJ (ed) (1994b) National park conservation plans. A manual (in Polish). Ministerstwo Ochrony Środowiska, Zasobów Naturalnych i Leśnictwa; Krajowy Zarząd Parków Narodowych, WarszawaGoogle Scholar
  12. Chmielewski TJ (ed) (2004) Problems with organization and function of Natura 2000 network in Poland. (in Polish, English summary) Zeszyty Naukowe Komitetu “Czlowiek i Srodowisko” przy Prezydium PAN, Nr 38; Warszawa-LublinGoogle Scholar
  13. Chmielewski TJ (ed) (2006a) Nature resources management in Natura 2000 areas in Poland (in Polish, English summary). Wydawnictwo Akademii Rolniczej w Lublinie, LublinGoogle Scholar
  14. Chmielewski TJ (2006b) The integrated cost-effectiveness analysis of nature conservation as an instrument of Natura 2000 sites management (in Polish, English summary). In: Chmielewski TJ (ed) Nature resources management in Natura 2000 areas in Poland. Wydawnictwo Akademii Rolniczej w Lublinie, Lublin, pp 32–40Google Scholar
  15. Chmielewski TJ (ed) (2007) Nature conservation management: from idea to practical results. European Commission 6th Framework Program: ALTER-Net. PWZN Print 6. Lublin-Lódz-Helsinki-AarhusGoogle Scholar
  16. Chmielewski TJ (2008) Landscape and protected areas—Polish experiences. In: Schmidt M, Glasson J, Emmelin L, Helbron H (eds) Standards and thresholds for impact assessment. Series: environmental protection in the European Union, vol 3. Springer, Berlin, pp 315–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chmielewski TJ, Gromadzki M, Jankowski W, Kistowski M (2006) The role of Natura 2000 areas network in the formation of the new nature conservation paradigm in Poland (in Polish, English summary). In: Chmielewski TJ (ed) Zarządzanie zasobami przyrody na obszarach Natura 2000 w Polsce. Wydawnictwo Akademii Rolniczej w Lublinie, Lublin, pp 6–12Google Scholar
  18. COM (2004) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Financing Natura 2000. Commission of the European Communities: COM (2004) 431 final. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  19. De Jong JJ, Bouwma IM, Van Wijk MN (2007) Beheerskosten van Natura 2000-gebieden. Wageningen, Wettelijke Onderzoekstaken Natuur & milieu, Wot-werkdocument 56Google Scholar
  20. Drechsler M (2005) Probabilistic approaches to scheduling reserve selection. Biol Conserv 122:253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Drechsler M, Johst K, Ohl C, Wätzold F (2007a) Designing cost-effective payments for conservation measures to generate spatiotemporal habitat heterogeneity. Conserv Biol 21(6):1475–1486PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Drechsler M, Wätzold F, Johst K, Bergmann H, Settele J (2007b) A model-based approach for designing cost-effective compensation payments for conservation of endangered species in real landscapes. Biol Conserv 140:174–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. DVL (Deutscher Verband für Landschaftspflege) (2005) Managementpläne – Schlüssel für eine kooperative Umsetzung von Natura 2000. Vier Anforderungen aus Sicht des DVL, AnsbachGoogle Scholar
  24. Eben M (2006) Public Participation during Site Selections for Natura 2000 in Germany: The Bavarian Case. In: Stoll-Kleemann S, Welp M (eds) Stakeholder dialogues in natural resources management, Part III. Environmental Science and Engineering Subseries: Environmental Science, Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  25. Ferraro P, Pattanayak SK (2006) Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLOS Biol 4(4):0482–0488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Finnish Ministry of the Environment (2002) Natura 2000 – alueiden hoito ja käyttö (Management of Natura 2000 sites). Työryhmän mietintö. Suomen ympäristö 597. Ympäristöministeriö, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  27. Finnish Ministry of the Environment (2003) National priorities in planning of management of Natura 2000 sites. Letter to the regional environmental centresGoogle Scholar
  28. Finnish Ministry of the Environment (2004) Natura 2000 – verkoston tavoitteet, oikeusvaikutukset ja toteuttaminen (Natura 2000 network – objectives, legal consequences and implementation). Ympäristöministeriö, Alueidenkäytön osasto. Helsinki. http://www.ymparistokeskus.fi/download.asp?contentid=23493&lan=fi. Cited 10 Feb 2010
  29. Grzesiak M, Domanska W (eds) (2006) Environment protection in Poland, 2006. Information and statistical analyses (in Polish). Główny Urząd Statystyczny, WarszawaGoogle Scholar
  30. Habitats Directive (1992) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0043:EN:HTML . Cited 10 Feb 2010
  31. Hagedorn K (ed) (2002) Environmental cooperation and institutional change: theories and policies for European agriculture. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  32. Hartmann E, Schekahn A, Luick R, Thomas F (2006) Kurzfassungen der Agrarumwelt- und Naturschutzprogramme – Darstellung und Analyse von Maßnahmen der Agrarumwelt- und Naturschutzprogramme in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. BfN-Skripten 161, BonnGoogle Scholar
  33. Hiedanpää J (2002) European-wide conservation versus local well-being: the reception of the Natura 2000 Reserve Network in Karvia, SW-Finland. Landsc Urban Plan 61:113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hiedanpää J (2005) The edges of conflict and consensus: a case for creativity in regional forest policy in Southwest Finland. Ecol Econ 55:485–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Holzkämper A, Seppelt R (2007) Evaluating cost-effectiveness of conservation management actions in an agricultural landscape on a regional scale. Biol Conserv 136:117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Horn R, Simon L, Ströger L, Unkel I (2008) Rheinland-Pfalz – Entwicklung der neuen Kennartenprogramme zur erfolgsorientierten Honorierung von Grünland. Natur und Landschaft 5:206Google Scholar
  37. Johst K, Drechsler M, Wätzold F (2002) An ecological-economic modelling procedure to design compensation payments for the efficient spatio-temporal allocation of species protection measures. Ecol Econ 41:37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kleijn D, Berendse F, Smit R, Gilissen N (2001) Agri-environment schemes do not effectively protect biodiversity in Dutch agricultural landscapes. Nature 413:723–725CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Klimek S, gen Richter, Kemmermann A, Steinmann HH, Freese J, Isselstein J (2008) Rewarding farmers for delivering vascular plant diversity in managed grasslands: a transdisciplinary case-study approach. Biol Conserv 141:2888–2897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kostrzewski A (ed) (1993) Integrated monitoring on natural environment in Poland (in Polish). Państwowa Inspekcja Ochrony Środowiska. Biblioteka Monitoringu Środowiska, WarszawaGoogle Scholar
  41. Kostrzewski A, Stach A (eds) (1992) Local (field) stations for natural environment monitoring in Poland (in Polish). Państwowa Inspekcja Ochrony Środowiska. Biblioteka Monitoringu Środowiska, WarszawaGoogle Scholar
  42. Lehmann P, Schleyer C, Wätzold F, Wüstemann H (2009) Promoting multifunctionality of agriculture: an economic analysis of new approaches in Germany. J Environ Policy Plan 11(4):315–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Leneman H, Graveland C (2004) Deelnamebereidheid en continuiteit van het Agrarisch Natuurbeheer. Report 7.04.06. LEI, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  44. Lindlof TR, Taylor BC (2002) Qualitative communication research methods, 2nd edn. SAGE, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  45. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: policy responses: findings of the responses working group of the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington (D.C.)Google Scholar
  46. MRL BW (Ministry of Nutrition and Rural Areas Baden-Wuerttemberg) (2008) http://www.mlr.baden-wuerttemberg.de/content.pl?ARTIKEL_ID=11450. Cited 10 Feb 2010
  47. National Audit Office (2007) Natura 2000 verkon valmistelu (Preparation and designation of Natura 2000 network). Tarkastuskertomus 140/2007. Valtiontalouden tarkastusvirasto, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  48. NCA (Nature Conservation Act of 16th April) (2004) Dziennik Ustaw 04.92.880, with subsequent revisions (in Polish)Google Scholar
  49. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2007) Executive summary: Ecological Evaluation of Nature Conservation Schemes run under the Stewardship Programme and the Dutch National Forest Service 2000–2006. Netherland Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), BilthovenGoogle Scholar
  50. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2009) Natuurbalans 2009. PBL publication 500402017, BilthovenGoogle Scholar
  51. Newig J, Fritsch O (2009) Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level—and effective? Environ Policy Gov 19:197–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ojala O (2007) Natura 2000 – alueiden hoidon ja käytön yleissuunnitelma. Uusimaa ja Itä-Uusimaa (Natura 2000 sites management in the counties of Uusimaa and Itä-Uusimaa). Uudenmaan ympäristökeskuksen raportteja 3/2007. http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=67868. Cited 10 Feb 2010
  53. Olaczek R (1996) Instructions for the development of nature preserve management plans (in Polish). Ministerstwo Ochrony Środowiska. Zasobów Naturalnych i Leśnictwa, WarszawaGoogle Scholar
  54. Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  55. Paavola J, Gouldson A, Kluvánková-Oravská T (2009) Interplay of actors, scales, frameworks and regimes in the governance of biodiversity. Environ Policy Gov 19:148–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Penker M (2000) Vertragsnaturschutz in Österreich – Bestandsaufnahme seiner praktischen Handhabung sowie Maßnahmen des Verwaltungscontrollings für eine ökonomisch effiziente und ökologisch effektive Mittelallokation. Dissertation am Institut f. Agrarökonomik der Universität für Bodenkultur WienGoogle Scholar
  57. Reiter K, Schmidt A, Stratmann U (2004) „ … Grünlandnutzung nicht vor dem 15.Juni …” Sinn und Unsinn von behördlich verordneten Fixterminen in der Landwirtschaft, BfN-Skripten 124, BonnGoogle Scholar
  58. Statistics Finland (2006) Luonnonvarat ja ympäristö 2006 (Statistical report on environmental protection and natural resources 2006). Tilastokeskus, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  59. Stoll-Kleemann S, Welp M (eds) (2006) Stakeholder dialogues in natural resources management. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  60. Suda M, Sauer A, Luz F, Dettweiler G, Beck R (2005) FFH – Schlüssel zur Kooperation oder Motor von Konflikten. BfN-Skripte 159, BonnGoogle Scholar
  61. Wätzold F, Schwerdtner K (2005) Why be wasteful when preserving a valuable resource? A review article on the cost-effectiveness of European biodiversity conservation policy. Biol Conserv 123:327–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Whitby M, Saunders C (1996) Estimating the supply of conservation goods in Britain. Land Econ 72:313–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Witzel A (2000) Das problemzentrierte Interview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum, Qualitative Social Research 1(1)Google Scholar
  64. Zabel A, Roe B (2009) Optimal design of pro-conservation incentives. Ecol Econ 69(1):126–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank Wätzold
    • 1
    Email author
  • Melanie Mewes
    • 2
  • Rob van Apeldoorn
    • 3
  • Riku Varjopuro
    • 4
  • Tadeusz Jan Chmielewski
    • 5
  • Frank Veeneklaas
    • 3
  • Marja-Leena Kosola
    • 4
  1. 1.Faculty of Law and Economics and Institute for Botany and Landscape EcologyErnst-Moritz-Arndt University of GreifswaldGreifswaldGermany
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research UFZLeipzigGermany
  3. 3.Centre Landscape, Alterra Wageningen URWageningenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Research Programme for Environmental PolicyFinnish Environment InstituteHelsinkiFinland
  5. 5.Department of Landscape Ecology and Nature ConservationUniversity of Life Sciences in LublinLublinPoland

Personalised recommendations