Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Kristiina Niikkonen - Finnish Prioritized Action Framework (PAF) and Update by 2019


Published on

Presentation of the Ministry of the Environment

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

Kristiina Niikkonen - Finnish Prioritized Action Framework (PAF) and Update by 2019

  1. 1. Bilateral meeting - Finnish Prioritised Action Framework (PAF) and update by 2019 14th May 2018 Kristiina Niikkonen, Ympäristöministeriö
  2. 2. Background - Prioritized Action Framework - (Art. 8 of the Habitats Directive) Kristiina Niikkonen 2 • PAF is strategic multiannual planning tool with overview of the measures needed Natura 2000 network and its associated green infrastructure, specifying the financing needs and linking them to the corresponding EU funding programmes • The aim is to fully utilize and influence the various EU financial instruments for the next EU Multiannual financial framework (MFF) • Financing principles for EU Natura 2000 –network financing: • LIFE – financing programme, work plan 2018-2020 • Integration of different financing instruments 1) • Biodiversity proofing 1) KOM(2004) 431 lopullinen, 15. heinäkuuta 2004, ”Natura 2000 -verkoston rahoittaminen”, ja SEC(2011) 1573 lopullinen.
  3. 3. Finnish Prioritized Action Framework (PAF) Kristiina Niikkonen 3 • 1st Finnish PAF was prepared in 2013 for the current EU MFF 2014-2020 • Based on the national strategy and action plan for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, entitled “Saving Nature for People”, was approved by the government resolution in December 2012. • Link: 8DB2-1318FDA2F96C%7D/119394 • Mid-term review done of the action plan in 2016: 68335D221678%7D/119232 • Updated information of the implementation:
  4. 4. A study of the Implementation of the Finnish PAF1) • All EU –financing tools could be used for implementing the Finnish PAF, note different decision making processes: • National: EAFRD, ERDF and EMFF financing programmes (Mentioned in Partner Agreement, but national limitations) • EU-level: LIFE- and Horizon 2020 • Joint: EU:n Interreg- and Cross Border Cooperation programmes (Finland: 9 programmes) • The implementation of the Finnish PAF is underway in large part. Since the measures are largely very extensive and cover very widely different habitats and species, it will be very difficult to estimate when the measure is complete and the objective is achieved. Yellow = Implemented, Green= In progress 1) The study of MoE, Jan 2018, Trans-Mond Environment Oy Kristiina Niikkonen 4
  5. 5. Possible funding instruments for Finnish PAF 2014-2020 Instrument EU wide Million € Finland Million € Notes LIFE 2014-2017 - Nature, BD LIFE 2018-2020 1,800 610 1,600 20,4 Nat,BD 12,7 Other Not all funding used No MS allocations LIFE Total 3,400 EAFRD 95,338 2,380 ESF 84,000 515 Employment ERDF 268,000 789 EMFF 6,400 74 HORIZON 2020 77,000 No MS allocations INTERREG * 464 Environment in all CROSS-BORDER * 82 Environment in all *) Programmes in which Finland is involved Kristiina Niikkonen 5
  6. 6. A study of the Implementation of the Finnish PAF1) : Findings • Financial decision making processes involve many organizations; • General aim employment, is not significant with BD-projects; • Potential of new stakeholders as applicants; • Project ”bureaucracy” is demanding for small organizations; • Difficulties to show added value for EU vs. site benefits; • Biodiversity Proofing-process is not working; • A structured process of ensuring the effective application of tools to avoid or at least minimize harmful impacts of EU spending and to maximise the biodiversity benefits. It applies to all spending streams under the EU budget, across the whole budgetary cycle and at all levels of governance. • Prospects for simultaneous benefits of the EU-funded projects should be reviewed; • The authorities responsible for planning EU-financing instruments should make recommendations to the governing bodies dealing with BD related projects (MoE, MoMAF, MoEAE). 1) The study of MoE, Jan 2018, Trans-Mond Environment Oy Kristiina Niikkonen 6
  7. 7. European Court of Auditors Special report 1/2017: Findings about EU-financing • EU funds have not been used effectively to support the management of the Natura 2000 network. The integration and use of EU funds in the network is a matter for the Member States. • There was insufficient reliable information on the EU funds spent on the Natura 2000 network for the 2007-2013 programming period. • The financial needs of the programming period -2014-2020 were assessed imprecisely or incompletely. • In the case of EU funds, there was no specific performance indicator system in place. Kristiina Niikkonen 7
  8. 8. European Court of Auditors Special report 1/2017: Three Recommendations 1. To achieve the full implementation of Habitats Directives 2. Financing Natura 2000 and taking account of costs (PAF update) and ensuring consistency with the financial instrument programming documents 3. Measuring the results of Natura 2000 - Member States: for each Fund, in particular, indicators and targets related to the Natura 2000 network - Commission: to carry out cross-sectoral Natura 2000 indicators for all EU funds. - Member State: draw up monitoring plans for measuring the results of conservation measures Kristiina Niikkonen 8
  9. 9. Structure of the new PAF (1/2) A. Introduction B. Summary of priority financing needs for the period 2021-2027 C. Current state of the Natura 2000 network (Area and map) D. EU and national financing of the Natura 2000 network during the period 2014 – 2020 - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) - LIFE Programme - Other EU funds, including Interreg - Other (mainly national) funding for Natura 2000, green infrastructure and species protection in 2014-2020 Kristiina Niikkonen 9
  10. 10. Structure of the new PAF (2/2) E. Priority measures and financing needs for 2021 – 2027 (annual running costs/One-off, project costs) - E1. Horizontal measures and administrative costs related to Natura 2000 - E.2 Site-related maintenance and restoration measures, within and beyond Natura 2000 - E.3. Additional species-specific measures not related to specific ecosystems or habitats - See detailed, four summary columns F. Further added values of the prioritized measures Kristiina Niikkonen 10
  11. 11. 1. Horizontal measures and administrative costs related to Natura 2000 1.1. Site designation and management planning 1.2. Site administration and communication with stakeholders 1.3. Monitoring and reporting 1.4. Remaining knowledge gaps and research needs 1.5. Natura 2000-related communication and awareness raising measures, education and visitor access Sub-total Kristiina Niikkonen 11
  12. 12. 2.a Natura 2000 site-related maintenance and restoration measures for species and habitats 2.1.a Marine and coastal waters 2.2.a Heathlands and shrubs 2.3.a Bogs, mires, fens and other wetlands 2.4.a Grasslands 2.5.a Other agroecosystems (incl. croplands) 2.6.a Woodlands and forests 2.7.a Rocky habitats, dunes & sparsely vegetated lands 2.8.a Freshwater habitats (rivers and lakes) 2.9.a Others Sub-total Kristiina Niikkonen 12
  13. 13. 2.b Additional "Green infrastructure" measures beyond Natura 2000 (further improving coherence of the Natura 2000 network, including in a cross-border context) 2.1.b Marine and coastal waters 2.2.b Heathlands and shrubs 2.3.b Bogs, mires, fens and other wetlands 2.4.b Grasslands 2.5.b Other agroecosystems (incl. croplands) 2.6.b Woodlands and forests 2.7.b Rocky habitats, dunes & sparsely vegetated lands 2.8.b Freshwater habitats (rivers and lakes) 2.9.b Others (caves, etc.) Sub-total Kristiina Niikkonen 13
  14. 14. 3. Additional species-specific measures not related to specific ecosystems or habitats 3.1 Species-specific measures and programmes not covered elsewhere 3.2. Prevention, mitigation or compensation of damage caused by protected species Sub-total Annual total Total (2021-2027) Kristiina Niikkonen 14
  15. 15. Next steps • Update should be ready for commisson comments by Jan 2019 • Preparation with national experts • Stakeholder dialog – seminar 30.11.2018 (Freshabit) • Dialog with responsible programming authorities Kristiina Niikkonen 15
  16. 16. Thank you! Kristiina Niikkonen