The challenge of financing the implementation of Natura 2000 – Empirical evidence from six European Union Member States. Geitzenauer, M., Blondet, M., de Koning, J., Ferranti, F., Sotirov, M., Weiss, G., & Winkel, G. Forest Policy and Economics, 82:3 – 13, Elsevier B.V., 2017. Cited by: 23
The challenge of financing the implementation of Natura 2000 – Empirical evidence from six European Union Member States [link]Paper  doi  abstract   bibtex   
Natura 2000, which is the core pillar of the European Union's biodiversity conservation policy, is an ambitious and complex venture that requires funding to be successful. A major challenge is said to be a lack of available funding, and a low uptake of allocated funds is also reported. However, in in-depth analysis has still not been produced to assess the approaches to funding, the reasons for these approaches and their impact regarding the achievement of the aims of Natura 2000. Thus, with this article, we intend to fill this gap. To accomplish this, a case study analysis was carried out in six selected EU Member States: Austria, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK. In our study, we perceived different approaches which we sum up to two main types of approaches that were present in the Member States to different degrees. The first type was to find the funding necessary for the required activities, and the second was to delay the implementation of Natura 2000. The major reasons for the different approaches were related to domestic political power realities. The funding approaches impacted onto the attractiveness of EU co-financing instruments, and the sustainability of the schemes. Alternative approaches were either absent or declining in importance. The economic benefits were not perceived on the ground. We conclude that neither a “one size fits all” approach to funding Natura 2000 will work nor will a universal claim for “more money”. Therefore, a successful funding strategy ultimately necessitates effective interventions at institutional levels, the business environment and the local level. © 2017 Elsevier B.V.
@ARTICLE{Geitzenauer20173,
	author = {Geitzenauer, Maria and Blondet, Marieke and de Koning, Jessica and Ferranti, Francesca and Sotirov, Metodi and Weiss, Gerhard and Winkel, Georg},
	title = {The challenge of financing the implementation of Natura 2000 – Empirical evidence from six European Union Member States},
	year = {2017},
	journal = {Forest Policy and Economics},
	volume = {82},
	pages = {3 – 13},
	doi = {10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.008},
	url = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85017132713&doi=10.1016%2fj.forpol.2017.03.008&partnerID=40&md5=e565fd41d5d989259dae992dc8281c7e},
	affiliations = {Central-East European Regional Office of the European Forest Institute (EFICEEC), Institute of Forest, Environmental and Natural Resource Policy, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Feistmantelstrasse 4, Vienna, A-1180, Austria; Départment Hommes, Natures, Sociétés, Muséum national d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris & Laboratoire d'Economie Forestière (LEF), INRA AgroPrisTech, Nancy, France; Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Wageningen University, Netherlands; Nature & Society Consultancy in Research and Publishing, Dreikoenigstr. 47, Freiburg, 79102, Germany; Chair of Forest and Environmental Policy, University of Freiburg, Germany; European Forest Institute, Yliopistokatu 6, Joensuu, 80100, Finland},
	abstract = {Natura 2000, which is the core pillar of the European Union's biodiversity conservation policy, is an ambitious and complex venture that requires funding to be successful. A major challenge is said to be a lack of available funding, and a low uptake of allocated funds is also reported. However, in in-depth analysis has still not been produced to assess the approaches to funding, the reasons for these approaches and their impact regarding the achievement of the aims of Natura 2000. Thus, with this article, we intend to fill this gap. To accomplish this, a case study analysis was carried out in six selected EU Member States: Austria, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK. In our study, we perceived different approaches which we sum up to two main types of approaches that were present in the Member States to different degrees. The first type was to find the funding necessary for the required activities, and the second was to delay the implementation of Natura 2000. The major reasons for the different approaches were related to domestic political power realities. The funding approaches impacted onto the attractiveness of EU co-financing instruments, and the sustainability of the schemes. Alternative approaches were either absent or declining in importance. The economic benefits were not perceived on the ground. We conclude that neither a “one size fits all” approach to funding Natura 2000 will work nor will a universal claim for “more money”. Therefore, a successful funding strategy ultimately necessitates effective interventions at institutional levels, the business environment and the local level. © 2017 Elsevier B.V.},
	author_keywords = {European Union; Financing instrument; Forest policy; Nature conservation; Policy implementation},
	keywords = {Conservation; Finance; Instruments; Biodiversity; Coastal zones; Conservation; Forestry; Sustainable development; Biodiversity conservation; Business environments; Case study analysis; Economic benefits; European union; Forest policy; In-depth analysis; Policy implementations; Finance},
	correspondence_address = {M. Geitzenauer; Central-East European Regional Office of the European Forest Institute (EFICEEC), Institute of Forest, Environmental and Natural Resource Policy, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Feistmantelstrasse 4, A-1180, Austria; email: m.geitzenauer@cgiar.org},
	publisher = {Elsevier B.V.},
	issn = {13899341},
	coden = {FPEOA},
	language = {English},
	abbrev_source_title = {For. Policy Econ.},
	type = {Article},
	publication_stage = {Final},
	source = {Scopus},
	note = {Cited by: 23}
}
Downloads: 0
About
Documentation
Keywords
Search
Users
Terms and Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
© BibBase.org 2021