evidence gathering questionnaire for the fitness check of...

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

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


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]


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.


QUESTIONNAIRE

A. General Information

Please answer ALL questions in this table

Answer

Organisation:

Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA)

and

Wild Birds Regulations Unit (WBRU)

Date: 14 April 2015

Country (and, if applicable, region)

represented:

Malta

Organisation(s) represented:

Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA)

and

Wild Birds Regulations Unit (WBRU)

Name of contact for enquires (including

follow-up interview if required):

Main: Darrin T. Stevens (MEPA)

Other: Sergei Golovkin (WBRU)

Contact email address: Main: [email protected] (MEPA)

Other: [email protected] (WBRU)

Contact telephone number: Main: (+356) 2290 7113; (+356) 2290 7102 (MEPA)

Other: (+356) 23886214 (WBRU)

Languages spoken fluently by contact

person:

English, Maltese

Language for the interview if it is not

possible to conduct it in English

n/a

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).

Member State authority/unit under the environment

Ministry

Sector represented: environment / water /

agriculture / forestry / fisheries / transport /

energy / extractive industry / industry /

housing and other buildings / recreation &

tourism / science & education / other

(please specify)

Nature

Additional comments:




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.


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.

Answer:

PROGRESS ACHIEVED UNDER THE BIRDS DIRECTIVE

A comprehensive general system of protection for all birds was established by virtue of the Conservation of Wild Birds Regulations (Subsidiary Legislation 504.71). This law can be accessed from here: http://environment.gov.mt/en/Pages/WBRU/Legislation--Policy.aspx. Amongst other provisions, this legislation established a network of designated bird sanctuaries and other protected areas within and outside Natura 2000 sites where the hunting or taking of birds is prohibited

Articles 2/12: Malta’s submission to the EU as part of the Article 12 reporting obligation indicates that the local population of 17 out of 237 monitored species (regular breeders) exhibited a short term (2001-2012) increase, three species were stable and three species showed a decrease. Taking into account the long term population trend (1980–2012), 16 species exhibited an increase in the population size, one species was stable, four species showed a decrease, whereas the status of two species was fluctuating. These trends are largely mirrored in the breeding range distribution trends, whereby short-term trends indicate an increase for seven species, stable range for 12 species, decrease for one species, fluctuation for another species, with data for two species lacking. Scientific range data for 2 species was not available. Long-term breeding range data indicates an increase in breeding range distribution for ten species, decrease for three species and stability for seven species, with data for three species lacking. Results show that during the reporting period, the majority of birds that breed in the Maltese Islands have increased in both the short-term trend (71% of all breeding species) and the long-term trend (67% of all breeding species). Malta is the only Member State displaying increasing population trends for more than half of its breeding birds.

The link to the Member States' National Summary Reports is available here: https://circabc.europa.eu/faces/jsp/extension/wai/navigation/container.jsp?For mPrincipal:_idcl=FormPrincipal:libraryContentList:pager&page=1&FormPrincipal_S

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/ 7 Excludes Tyto alba since the last confirmed breeding record was in 1988.

http://environment.gov.mt/en/Pages/WBRU/Legislation--Policy.aspx

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/


UBMIT=1&org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.faces.STATE=DUMMY

Malta also scored highly on the implementation of EU Management Plans for Huntable Species. The report on the implementation of these management plans was circulated to EU Ornis Committee members, but was not published. This report may be obtained from the European Commission.

Articles 3 & 4(1): Since its accession to the European Union, Malta has designated a total of thirteen Special Protection Areas (SPAs). Moreover, as part of LIFE Malta’s Seabird Project, additional marine sites may be potentially identified for such designation. Areas which are deemed to be essential for the conservation of birds have been declared as bird sanctuaries and no hunting (or trapping) is allowed within such sites. In addition, various other legal provisions also exist which afford habitat protection through the declaration of Nature Reserves, Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Tree Protection Areas (TPAs), Areas of Ecological Importance (AEIs) and Sites of Scientific Importance (SSIs).

The thirteen Species Protection Areas cover a total area of 16km2. Aside from covering important areas for SPA trigger species such as Calonectris diomedea (Scopoli’s Shearwater, Maltese: iċ-ċiefa), Puffinus yelkouan (Yelkouan Shearwater, Malt.: il-garnija) and Hydrobates pelagicus (European Storm-petrel, Malt.: il-kanġu ta’ Filfla), such areas include two important wetlands; Is-Simar (l/o San Pawl il-Bahar) and L-Ghadira, as well as areas deemed to be important for migratory birds such as the Buskett-Girgenti Area.

Article 4(3): For the objective relating to coherence (Art. 4(3)) refer to the evidence given for Art. 10 under the Habitats Directive

Objective emanating from Art. 4(4). Please refer to the comments below concerning Art. 6 of the Habitats Directive.

Article 5 & 7: Provisions concerning sustainable hunting governance are fully integrated within the Conservation of Wild Birds Regulations (Subsidiary Legislation 504.71). The legislation establishes parameters regulating hunting seasons, provisions concerning licensing, restrictions pertaining to time and space, the species that may be hunted, the means of hunting and other restrictions. This legislation also provides a penalty regime for offences related to the illegal killing, trapping and trade in wild birds. These penalties are amongst the harshest in the EU, and include fines of up to €15,000, permanent revocation of hunting license or ban on obtaining a license, confiscation, and imprisonment for up to two years. The legal deterrents are underpinned by robust institutions, including a dedicated unit dealing with sustainable hunting governance and conservation of wild birds (Wild Birds Regulation Unit, http://environment.gov.mt/en/Pages/WBRU/Wild-Birds-Regulation-Unit.aspx) as well as a dedicated enforcement structure within the Malta Police Force (Administrative Law Enforcement Unit). These institutions ensure that hunting does not jeopardize conservation efforts and complies with the principle of wise use and ecologically balanced control of the species concerned. Relevant scientific studies to monitor the extent of migration of certain huntable species as well as a review of their conservation status are being conducted on a regular basis. Reports of such studies are published here: http://environment.gov.mt/en/Pages/WBRU/Reports-and-Statistics.aspx.

Article 5 (a-e), 6, 7 & 8: Restrictions and prohibitions relating to the taking, killing and deliberate significant disturbance of wild birds, particularly during the breeding and rearing periods, provisions concerning the importation, possession, trade and taxidermy of wild birds, general parameters concerning hunting and taking, prohibitions concerning methods of hunting, provisions concerning derogations and other parameters are regulated by the Conservation of Wild Birds Regulations (S.L. 504.71).

Article 9: The Directive’s provisions concerning derogations are firmly embedded into national legislation (Conservation of Wild Birds Regulations, S.L. 504.71), and in other relevant subsidiary legislation. Derogations are only authorised where there is no other satisfactory solution, and subject

http://environment.gov.mt/en/Pages/WBRU/Wild-Birds-Regulation-Unit.aspx

http://environment.gov.mt/en/Pages/WBRU/Wild-Birds-Regulation-Unit.aspx

http://environment.gov.mt/en/Pages/WBRU/Reports-and-Statistics.aspx


to strict supervision and enforcement of the limits and parameters imposed by virtue of national legislation. The Malta Ornis Committee, drawing on the support of the Wild Birds Regulation Unit, monitors the application of derogations, and their implementation. Annual derogation reports are submitted well ahead of the legal deadline. An average of 6-8 derogations is reported annually. In 2014, two derogations were applied under Article 9(1)(a) (for air safety, and for the protection of avifauna respectively), three derogations were applied under Article 9(1)(b) (research and teaching) and three derogations were applied under Article 9(1)(c) (capture and keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers). In the case of Article 9 (1)(c) derogations, in addition to the formal annual report to the Commission, the Government of Malta also compiles detailed and comprehensive reports on the implementation of these derogations, including detailed description of enforcement measures in place, the controls implemented on the ground, regulatory measures and other details. These reports are published on http://environment.gov.mt/en/Pages/WBRU/Reports-and-Statistics.aspx and are open to scrutiny by the public and NGOs.

Article 10: Research is being supported through a number of joint projects between the Maltese authorities and NGOs, as well as through regular scientific studies concerning migration of certain birds.

Article 11: The Conservation of Wild Birds Regulations (S.L.504.71) incorporates provisions that empower the Malta Ornis Committee to make recommendations with regards to control and monitoring to ensure that the introduction of bird species not occurring naturally in the wild state within the territory of EU Member States does not prejudice the Maltese flora and fauna. To date, these provisions have not been used as there have been no attempts at introducing such species locally into the wild.

PROGRESS ACHIEVED UNDER THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE

Article 2: Malta’s second assessment under the Article 17 report provided an overall positive picture since Malta has remained in line with the objectives of the Directive and the conservation status of those habitats and species such as reported in 2013 have generally remained unchanged or improved when compared to the 2007 report. Improvements from the first report submitted were normally due to improved knowledge; genuine improvements were noted for two insect species and one habitat. Such an assessment revealed the need to focus more attention on certain aspects, especially when considering the marine environment. Nonetheless, action has already been taken in this regard when noting that current EU-funded projects are catering for at least some of the prevailing gaps and that other targeted research is being considered.

Regarding species listed in the Directive and present in Malta, 40% were considered to have a favourable status, up from 20% in 2007. With regard to species having an unfavourable status, the figures were 45% and 44% in 2013 and 2007 respectively. According to the latest assessment the conservation status was unknown for 15% of species (mostly marine) a considerable decrease from the 36% in 2007. Considering habitats, there is an overall improvement in conservation status, 43% of habitats were considered to have a favourable conservation status, up from 6% in 2007. This reflects in a decline in habitats having an unfavourable status from 65% in 2007 to 57% in 2013 and that no habitats had an unknown status in 2013 (29% in 2007).

Articles 4 & 5: Since Malta’s accession into the European Union, 27 terrestrial Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) have been designated, covering a total of 13.6% of the total land area and 5 marine SCIs. Specific projects aimed at gathering more scientific information on Annex I habitats and Annex II species are on-going, following which further marine SCIs may be identified as deemed relevant. The boundaries for such designated sites may be found at http://www.mepa.org.mt/impnatareas-pas-int-n2k-dsmap and relevant legislation available at http://www.mepa.org.mt/file.aspx?f=1699 (Government Notice 112 of 2007), http://www.mepa.org.mt/file.aspx?f=1310 (Government Notice 812 of 2008), http://www.mepa.org.mt/file.aspx?f=1312 (Government Notice 859 of 2008) and



http://www.mepa.org.mt/impnatareas-pas-int-n2k-dsmap

http://www.mepa.org.mt/file.aspx?f=1699




http://www.mepa.org.mt/file.aspx?f=5101 (Government Notice 851 of 2010).

It is noted that as early as 2008 Malta had reached the high percentage of 92.64% under the sufficiency index; following this, some amendments were made to the Natura 2000 database/maps and the related submissions were sent accordingly.

Article 6(1): Currently, implementation of management provisions and/or agreements are in place for 22% of Natura 2000 sites; these, however, do not necessarily cover the entire site and the percentage may be lower. Nevertheless, management plans and conservation orders have been developed for all terrestrial Natura 2000 sites..The preparation of such management plans involved the undertaking of a number of surveys and data gathering exercises; such data was then evaluated and used to produce the conservation objectives for each site. Stakeholder involvement was a key part of the project and took several forms, such as through the setting up of meetings with stakeholders/the public, the setting up of working groups, the organisation of national public events and the undertaking of various awareness initiatives (i.e. websites and blogs, exhibitions, publication of outreach material and the use of audiovisual media). Stakeholders were involved throughout the management planning process such as when collecting data (pre-drafting phase), upon the drafting of management objectives and measures and following the approval of the concerned management plans by the competent authority (the latter is currently underway). The conservation orders, which do not require any further consultations, are to be published in the coming months Moreover, management plans are also currently being developed for the first of the five Marine Protected Areas designated.

Article 6(2): The management plans and conservation orders prepared in 2014 for the terrestrial Natura 2000 sites have analysed the conservation status of Annex I habitats and Annex II species for which the sites have been designated. Based on this, management objectives aimed at ensuring that the relevant habitats and species are maintained at or restored to a favourable status have been prepared. Measures and actions directly linked to achieve these objectives, including the regulation of activities which could significantly disturb these species or deteriorate the habitats of such species or habitat types, have also been identified.

Article 6(3/4): In Malta, most plan-making and development consent processes require or involve consultation with the public and/or environmental authorities. As part of this consultation process, all relevant plans and projects are assessed for their potential environmental impacts in accordance with established procedures and legal requirements. Those which are likely to affect Natura 2000 sites are evaluated further for the need for an Appropriate Assessment (AA) in line with Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.

Subject to preliminary evaluation by the Competent Authority (Malta Environment and Planning Authority - MEPA), relevant plans and projects are hence subject to an AA, alternative solutions and compensatory measures to ensure that the proposals in draft plans and specific projects do not adversely affect Natura 2000 sites. Avoidance and mitigation of possible significant adverse impacts on Natura 2000 sites were the preferred options and therefore, no proposals were considered further due to reasons of overriding public interest as yet.

During the past two years (2013 – 2014), 41 projects were screened in view of their possible impacts on Natura 2000 sites, of which 36 were determined to have no significant impact on the integrity of the SAC and its habitats. 5 detailed AAs were requested and case-specific Terms of Reference were issued for the carrying out of such studies. During this period, no detailed AAs were carried out on plans and policies, since the main concerns raised through AA screening were addressed through policy revisions or because the plan-making process was delayed or halted.

Article 8: Malta has utilised various EU financial instruments such as EAFRD and LIFE+. Such co-financing aided with the development of management measures for Natura 2000 sites and research projects in support of the objectives of the Directive. Indeed, these investigations ranged from studies on the status of species populations, the collection of scientific data on Natura 2000 sites and



the investigation regarding possible new SCIs.

Article 10: Connectivity within the Natura 2000 network is achieved in Malta in view that the boundaries of some protected areas (SCIs and SPAs) overlap and that protected areas are also accompanied by buffer zones. Malta has also designated through national law a number of scheduled/protected areas, such as tree protection areas, areas of high landscape value, areas of ecological importance and/or sites of scientific importance.

Moreover, in order to ensure coherence, various mechanisms are employed, such as the screening of interventions concerning land development or interventions which may potentially disrupt the Natura 2000 network, so as to ensure no damage to the SCIs and the habitats and species for which they have been designated. This is also particularly relevant with respect to ecological corridors between fragmented areas and protected areas, such as watercourses in valleys and dry stone walls. The latter are also protected by law through legislation, such as the Rubble Walls and Rural Structures (Conservation and Maintenance) Regulations, 1997 (SL 504. 14), which is available in its consolidated version at: http://justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=11490&l=1.

The issues of defragmentation and coherence have been taken into account in the development of conservation measures during the management planning exercise for terrestrial Natura 2000 sites and other management considerations. Such include, for instance, the designation of Nature Reserves, the eradication of alien species, a first attempt at increasing the area covered by a phrygana species, clean-ups, research, surveillance, management of selected areas mostly in liaison with national NGOs and relevant Ministries, amongst others. Some areas have in the past also been subject to site engineering, to ensure coherence and their long-term survival.

Article 11: MEPA (the designated competent authority) carries out in-house surveillance and monitoring which targeted principally protected areas and species, including Natura 2000 sites. Moreover, through the management plan process for terrestrial sites, updated information on the conservation status of all Annex I habitats and Annex II species has been collated.

Monitoring and surveillance requirements of marine habitats as listed in the Habitats Directive have also been considered throughout the development of the monitoring programme pursuant to the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive. This monitoring programme is considering streamlining requirements emanating from related policies including the Habitats Directive. Within this context, monitoring would take into consideration the criteria and indicators for assessment of conservation status under the Habitats Directive.

Research needs or baseline surveys required to address knowledge gaps on habitats/species listed in the Directive have also been identified.

Article 12-13: The species listed under Annex IV of the Habitats Directive have also been awarded protection through national legislation namely the Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations, 2006 (S.L. 504.73), which lays down a number of prohibitions such as prohibiting the collection, damage, capture, killing, importation or exportation and offering for sale. This legislation may be downloaded through the following link: http://justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=11550&l=1.

Article 14: The objectives of the Habitats Directive were transposed to national legislation, specifically the Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations, 2006 which (S.L. 504. 73), which sets out a legal framework for the adoption of measures to ensure that the taking or exploitation of Annex V species is compatible with their conservation status, the prohibition of indiscriminate methods of capture and killing. This legislation can be accessed from the following link:http://justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=11550&l=1. (Also vide comments below on the drafted Dossier on the Capture, Killing and Exploitation of Wild Fauna in the Maltese Islands).

Article 15: In 2011, Malta launched for public consultation a Dossier on the Capture, Killing and

http://justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=11490&l=1




Exploitation of Wild Fauna in the Maltese Islands, which was compiled in response to the provisions of the Habitats Directive and biodiversity-related multilateral environmental agreements. This document addresses protected fauna that are, or are likely to be, threatened by deliberate and/or incidental capture and killing, as well as animal species whose exploitation should be managed; it is linked to Malta’s National Biodiversity Action Plan Programme and devises strategic recovery plans for each species or group addressed in the Dossier. The Dossier may be downloaded through the following link: http://www.mepa.org.mt/topic-bio-dossier.

Article 16: Activities prohibited under Articles 12, 13, 14 & 15 of the Habitats Directive are also prohibited under national legislation save when in possession of a prior official permit from the Competent Authority. Such a permit is issued for specific motives, provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and the concerned derogation is not detrimental to the conservation status of the population of the species in their natural range. In this regard, Malta regularly sends biennial reports to the Commission on the derogations it has issued.

Article 17: To date Malta has sent two comprehensive reports on the implementation of the measures taken under the Habitats Directive under this Article, the latest covering the interim 2007-2012. The latest assessment had an overall positive outcome when compared to the first report. Further details under the section regarding Article 2 above.

Article 18: Various projects have contributed to strengthening the knowledge and science base, such as the EAFRD Natura 2000 Management Project, ERDF Monitoring Strategy and Programme for the Marine Environment, Med-Pan North Project, Life Baħar for Natura 2000, the LIFE Malta Seabird Life Project, LIFE Migrate Project and Interreg IIIC-Rete dei Parchi. Moreover, research has been carried out by local experts and environmental consultancy agencies, which have also contributed invaluable information on components of biological diversity. For the marine environment, Malta is currently drafting a marine monitoring strategy with the aim of streamlining monitoring obligations pertaining to the marine environment and ensuring comprehensive data collection. The MSFD monitoring programme which is also being drawn up as part of thematic monitoring factsheets for the marine environment, should also address some of the data gaps as identified through the MSFD Initial Assessment.

Moreover, Malta has encouraged and supported various research initiatives, sponsored the dissemination of scientific theses carried out by the University of Malta via biological symposia and related annual publications, commissioned studies (e.g. on alien fauna, threatened and/or endemic insects and other invertebrates) and issued permits in relation to research on threatened and protected species.

Article 22: Collation of data on species is currently on-going, which shall aid in the prioritisation of those species that require reintroduction or reinforcement procedures. Reports were also complied on alien species such as the “Setting up of a list of Alien Fauna in the Maltese Islands” and the “Setting up of a list of Alien Flora in the Maltese Islands” which were commissioned by MEPA.

In 2013 Malta adopted ‘Guidelines on Managing Non-Native Plant Invaders and restoring Native Plant communities in terrestrial settings in the Maltese Islands’ – available at http://www.mepa.org.mt/file.aspx?f=9658. One conservation endeavour of such guidelines addresses the considerations to take when planning and implementing native species reintroduction or reinforcement programmes; such complements earlier related guidance documents such as the “Code of Conduct on Horticulture of Invasive Alien Plants”–available at www.mepa.org.mt/file.aspx?f=6839. These guidelines, moreover, also address the eradication of alien species. Nonetheless, both endeavours are complementary in that the removal of invasive species and their associated impacts would contribute to reaching a favourable conservation status of native communities, whereas native species translocations (such as reintroductions and reinforcements) would contribute to the resilience and resistance of communities to biological invasions and other man-made pressures.

The introduction/importation of non-native species are also regulated through various national

http://www.mepa.org.mt/topic-bio-dossier




regulations such as the Trade in Fauna and Flora Regulations, 2004 (S.L. 504.64), the Trees and Woodlands Protection Regulations, 2011 (S.L. 504.16) and the Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations, 2006 (S.L. 504.73).

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.

Answer:

BIRDS DIRECTIVE

The Maltese authorities’ initial expectations at the time the legislation transposing the Birds Directive came into force, have been met.

Article 3, 4(1), 4(3) 4(4): Considering that the SPA coverage covers 16km2 (5% of the Maltese Islands), such designation is in line with Malta’s initial expectations. Moreover, coherence is also achieved through national law through various scheduled/ protected areas such as Bird Reserves, Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Tree Protection Areas (TPAs), Areas of Ecological Importance (AEIs) and Sites of Scientific Importance (vide comments regarding Article 10 below).

HABITATS DIRECTIVE

Article 2: Notwithstanding that in relation to Article 2 Malta is in line with its national targets as established in the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), further efforts to address selected data gaps are however still required.

Article 4 & 5: In view that Malta has reached a high degree of sufficiency in the designation of terrestrial Natura 2000 sites (for further details vide the following link: http://www.mepa.org.mt/impnatareas-pas-int-n2k-mt) and significant progress has been made with respect to designations in the marine environment, progress is in line with Malta’s expectations. Malta’s 5 marine SCIs cover 190.8km2 of the territorial waters, whilst terrestrial SCIs cover 42km2 or 13.3% of land area. Nevertheless, ongoing projects (e.g. LIFE Migrate Project and LIFE Baħar Project) could indicate the need for additional site designations for the loggerhead turtle, the bottle-nosed dolphin and marine habitats.

Article 6(1) & 6(2): Through the completion of an EAFRD project – ‘Natura 2000 Management Planning for Malta and Gozo’ - Malta has prepared management plans or conservation orders for all its terrestrial Natura 2000 sites and such plans and orders are currently in the process of being formally adopted. This is in line with expectations.

Article 8: While funding needs have been sought, as also depicted through replies to questions C7 and Y1, there are some factors which have limited Malta from reaching expectations. Amongst these are the co-financing rates and the apparent misconception that funds are ‘reserved’ or earmarked for the environmental authorities and non-governmental organisations In view of the latter, there needs to be an increased effort to make the public more aware of the opportunities of such funding.

Article 10: The principals of connectivity have been addressed through the designation of Natura 2000 sites, and the subsequent drafting of management plans and conservation orders which have been developed for all terrestrial Natura 2000 sites. Concepts related to green infrastructure are then found in the Malta’s national planning framework. These include networks of countryside walkways identified in the Structure Plan for the Maltese Islands; and the scheduling of

http://www.mepa.org.mt/impnatareas-pas-int-n2k-mt


environmentally sensitive areas and the designation of ‘green gaps’ between urban areas located in close proximity indicated in Local Plans. Initial expectations have hence been met, while it is acknowledged that more aspects would need to be considered to enhance this.

Article 11. On-going surveillance of habitats and species of Community Interest has decreased knowledge gaps. Initial expectations have hence been met, while it is acknowledged that more work needs to be done and is already being considered, especially in view of data gaps (reference is made to S.1.1 – comments regarding Article 11).

Article 12-13, Article 14, 15: A strict protection regime is in place in line with the objectives of the Habitats Directive. Moreover, a draft dossier on the ‘Capture, Killing and Exploitation of Wild Fauna in the Maltese Islands’ has been compiled (reference is made to S.1.1). In terms of incidental capture or by-catch, it should be noted that discards in Maltese fisheries are generally not significant mainly as a result of quotas being used up; moreover, any specimens of incidentally caught Caretta caretta, are in most cases released in accordance with current legislation and are only landed for rehabilitation purposes. Noting these aspects, initial expectations have been reached.

Article 16: Persons requiring a derogation from the provisions of the Habitats Directive routinely apply for prior permits from the competent authority (MEPA) in order to carry out research, conservation projects or other activities on protected species or within protected areas. This is in line with Malta’s expectations for the implementation of this obligation.

Article 17: In line with expectations Malta submitted the requested assessment on the conservation status of species and habitats of European Community Importance, as was required. Of note according to Malta’s latest assessment there has been a substantial increase in knowledge in the status of such species and habitats, while the quality of the report was very commendable.

Article 18: Although Malta has managed to access a number of funding opportunities which support research projects addressing a number of knowledge gaps, nevertheless, a lack of resources have at times prevented Malta to access additional funding and limited the research carried out.

Article 22: Although good progress has been made on this objective, further action is required. Currently, Malta applies permitting procedures for the importation of live species from third countries and through Trade import licences continually screens the imported species in order to weed out possible alien species that could survive in the wild in Malta from being imported. Moreover, the release of species into the environment is also controlled through national legislation as mentioned in Section S 1.1. Malta has also adopted “Guidelines on Managing Major Plant Invaders and Restoring Native Plant Communities within Terrestrial Settings in the Maltese Islands” which is to aid the planning and implementation of management programmes, aimed at counteracting the spread of existing plant invaders. Malta is also currently drafting the implementation legislation concerning the Introduction and spread on Invasive Alien Species which is to transpose the related EU legislation. This will be complemented by a national strategy on invasive non-native species and national codes of best practices for sectors which introduce/spread invasive species, complemented with the attainment of further information as required.

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.

Answer:

BIRDS DIRECTIVE


The manner in which “main objectives” are formulated does not presume that there is a definite and specific point at which these are to be fully attained. These objectives have an a priori presumption that there is an ongoing, continuous effort to maintain naturally occurring wild bird populations at a level which corresponds to ecological, scientific and cultural requirements.

HABITATS DIRECTIVE

Malta’s NBSAP defines national targets that are aligned with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Aichi Targets and the EU targets adopted in the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. (This policy framework may be downloaded through this link: http://www.mepa.org.mt/biodiversity-nbsap). National Targets of direct and indirect relevance to advancing the implementation of the Nature Directives at a national level are the following:

Target 1: By 2020 more than 55% of Maltese citizens are aware of the term “biodiversity”, know what it means and also know what steps they can take to conserve and use biodiversity in a sustainable manner.

Target 5: By 2020, the rate of loss of natural and semi-natural habitats of conservation value is at least halved, and degradation and fragmentation is significantly reduced. The percentage cover of “forests and semi-natural areas” has not decreased below the CORINE land cover data of 2006.

Target 9: By 2020, measures are in place to prevent, in so far as practical, the introduction and establishment of new invasive non-native species, while those that are established are identified and prioritised for eradication or control, where feasible.

Target 10: By 2020, Malta's 13% land area covered by terrestrial Natura 2000 sites is maintained, and Malta's sufficiency in the designation of key marine biodiversity areas is improved through a representative network of marine protected areas.

Target 11: By 2020, the risk of local extirpation of known threatened species has been reduced, with 30% of the species of European Community Importance in the Maltese territory having a favourable or improved conservation status.

Target 13: By 2020, vulnerable ecosystems that provide essential services are safeguarded, with at least 15% of degraded ecosystems restored, while 20% of the habitats of European Community Importance in the Maltese territory have a favourable or improved conservation status.

In all, Malta has adopted 19 targets which are accompanied by 80 actions and outcome oriented-measures under 18 thematic areas. Those areas of particular relevance to the implementation of the Nature Directives are theme 2 on species and habitats and theme 3 on the ecological network of protected areas. Measures are colour-coded according to the indicative timeline during which they are expected to be implemented or achieved:

Implementation Period

2012-2014

2015-2017

2018-2020

2012-2020

Examples of measures include:

SH2: Species and Habitats of European Community and National Importance are maintained

http://www.mepa.org.mt/biodiversity-nbsap


across their natural range via the implementation of adequate conservation measures (see measures SH3, SH4 and SH5), which support the existing legal protection regime. Maintenance or improvement in the status of Maltese species and habitats of European Community Importance, when compared to current assessments, is achieved by 2020, in so far as feasible.

EN2: Conservation objectives and management plans are defined (by 2014 for terrestrial areas) and implemented in a timely manner for Natura 2000 sites, which are also supported by sectoral policies and planning instruments that allow a fully integrated ecosystem approach.

BR5: The regulation of capture and killing of protected species builds on sustainability principles and is in line with provisions of national law and the EC Nature Directives. This is ensured via the better regulation initiative and also in the light of conservation status assessments.

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

Answer:

BIRDS AND HABITATS DIRECTIVES

The Habitats Directive focuses on maintaining or improving the conservation status of species and habitats of Community importance. Through this focus on Community species only, the Directive is deemed to partly contribute to curbing trends of biodiversity loss at least at a national level since a species of national importance would warrant the same kind of action. Hence, the Habitats Directive would need to be supplemented by additional and tailored safeguards and measures within a country context. (This does not apply in the case of the Birds Directives, which aims to safeguard all wild birds and hence its scope of coverage would be deemed comprehensive.)

The Directives contribute directly to Target 1 in view of the Article 17 and Article 12 reporting requirements of the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive, respectively, as well as the Natura 2000-related obligations, as well as to Target 2 and Target 5 since reaching goals of favourable conservation status would comprise measures on ecosystem restoration, the deploying elements of green infrastructure that are deemed beneficial for instance to enable connectivity, and for threat mitigation seeing that Invasive Alien Species (IAS) directly undermine the goals of the Directives. Restoration and threat mitigation is also part and parcel of management plans for Natura 2000. For addressing Target 2 in the wider countryside or seaside, the Directives are not sufficient and need to be complemented by other instruments especially those adopting an ecosystem approach. For green infrastructure, integration in spatial planning is of essence.

For the other targets of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, the Directives are important instruments, but are now much better augmented through the recent adoptions of Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species for Target 5 and Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 on compliance measures for users from the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization in the Union for Target 6.

The Habitats Directive, via the safeguard of forest-related habitats that are included in Annex I, also contributes to Target 3 on forestry at least in Malta's case since there is no commercial forestry

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


sector in Malta.

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, 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).

Answer:

BIRDS DIRECTIVE

The principal factor that underpins implementation of the Birds Directive in Malta is enforcement of existing regulations. This factor has been progressively strengthened through the introduction of harsher legal deterrents against bird-related crime and hunting violations; through investment in the capacity building of enforcement institutions (strengthening of the Administrative Law Enforcement Unit within the Malta Police Force, creation of the Specialist Enforcement Branch of the Wild Birds Regulation Unit, training initiatives, investment in IT and technical enforcement infrastructure, etc); through public education and regulatory awareness initiatives (e.g. support for educational programmes run by NGOs, awareness raising campaigns aimed at hunters, etc). Relevant reports and statistics concerning enforcement can be accessed from here: http://environment.gov.mt/en/Pages/WBRU/Reports-and-Statistics.aspx http://environment.gov.mt/en/Pages/WBRU/News.aspx.

The main obstacle to implementation is polarisation of public perception and conflict between stakeholders, particularly between the hunting organisations and conservation NGOs over issues concerning hunting. Platforms exist at the national level to bridge the gaps and promote consensus on key issues amongst all stakeholders; however a high level of polarisation over hunting-related issues still exists.

HABITATS DIRECTIVE

Factors contributing to the achievements of the objectives of the Habitats Directive include the streamlining of processes, enhancement of the scientific knowledge and setting up of a platform for the sharing of data, knowledge and expertise. Moreover, in view that Malta is a small State, it has a small number of dedicated officials working on various Multilateral Environmental Agreements (such as Convention of Biological Diversity, Nature Directives, Bern Convention, Barcelona Convention, Ramsar Convention) resulting in employees having a much broader understanding and knowledge of such Agreements. This has also led to an increased streamlining of selected issues even though this may lead to resource constraints on those aspects requiring more detailed expertise.

Another contributing factor to the achievements of the objectives of the Nature Directives stems from national procedures in determining development applications which are detailed below.

The procedure for determining applications for development consent is established through subsidiary legislation Legal Notice 514 of 2010 under the Environment and Development Planning Act of 2010. Essentially, these legal provisions set up the planning procedures in the local context. MEPA is currently responsible for, both development planning and environmental protection. Environmental assessment of projects, including screening for EIAs and Appropriate Assessments, is


http://environment.gov.mt/en/Pages/WBRU/News.aspx


carried out through internal set-ups and according to pre-set criteria involving consultation with MEPA's Environment Protection Directorate (EPD).

The current development planning system involves a number of stages which are set up through Legal Notice 514 of 2010. Different issues and considerations are taken into account at these stages including possible pre-submission discussions, a mandatory Screening application where the assessment focuses purely on major environmental issues/requirements and any required or mandatory assessments such as EIAs and other Appropriate Assessments. EPD is consulted both on screening applications and validated planning applications, as well as any relevant post-permit follow-ups. The types of projects that are vetted from an environmental point of view at each stage of the planning system are comprehensive and go beyond those that may require an EIA and/or an Appropriate Assessment. The latter assessments are integrated as part of a broader environmental assessment process managed by the EPD. In fact, EPD reviews an annual average of around 860 screening (planning) applications and 1,400 validated planning applications or similar, including related follow-ups. An annual average of 85 applications for development consents are screened under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.

As part of the consultation process, MEPA identifies potentially significant environmental impacts, other detailed environmental considerations, possible alternatives and suitable mitigation measures to address such issues. Projects qualifying for an EIA procedure are evaluated through the EIA process. The assessment of possible significant impacts on Natura 2000 sites is initiated by the EPD, including the identification of possible alternatives or mitigation measures to avoid or suitably reduce any identified impacts. Where such assessment is inconclusive, further detailed ecological studies or information, including consideration of mitigation measures, are requested to be carried out by the applicant. Streamlining of EIAs and AAs is a requirement of the revised EIA Directive 2014/54/EU, apart from avoiding duplication of work and coordinating the two processes together, such practice is particularly important with respect to projects which could have unacceptable impacts on Natura 2000 sites. In such cases, it is recommended that the applicant carries out the AA before starting the EIA process; however, it is for the applicant to decide whether to follow such recommendation. Before an application for development consent can be validated, all required assessments and studies need to be completed as per Legal Notice 514 of 2010. Projects which are considered to have significant impacts on Natura 2000 sites are either discontinued or adapted to integrate suitable mitigation measures in order to avoid or reduce the significance of the impacts. So far, since Malta has started to implement Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, there have not been any plans or projects which resulted in a significant negative assessment without the possibility of alternative solutions/mitigation, and which were deemed to be of overriding public interest, necessitating the implementation of Article 6(4).

Environmental studies such as Appropriate Assessments and EPD's initial assessment of the environmental impacts of projects are carried out prior to the validation of a Planning Application and are uploaded on Malta's e-Planning system. Moreover, validated Planning Applications are subject to public consultation and during such period the public may register an interest or objection on any validated application. Validated Planning Applications, as well as various planning-related and environmental spatial information (e.g. Natura 2000 boundaries, Areas of High Landscape Value, Areas of Ecological Importance, areas designated for urban development, etc.) are all available online on MEPA's MapServer (http://www.mepa.org.mt/mepa-mapserver). Public representations on such applications may be submitted online. The same information is available to applicants who can easily determine whether their land or projects are located within or close to Natura 2000 sites. Applicable planning and environmental policies are also available online on MEPA's website.

Capacity building within the Environmental Assessment function of MEPA remains an issue. At present, this function handles all environmental assessment-related issues nationally including plan-level environmental evaluation, evaluation of SEAs, and management of the EIA and AA processes.


On the other hand, the main factors hindering the implementation of the Habitats Directive include:

i) Financial and human resource limitations including, but not only, limitations in the scientific expertise in the various scientific fields;

ii) Limited scientific knowledge and decentralised data/information, which hinders the application of criteria and indicators for assessment of status or favourable reference values (this is however, being partially addressed through LIFE+ Projects);

iii) The uptake of the Nature Directive’s objectives by other sectoral policies is limited; the mainstreaming of the Nature Directive’s obligations in relevant policies and plans requires significant discussions with stakeholders and is time-consuming;

iv) Research on the envisaged effects of pressures/threats on species and/or habitats entails the carrying out of studies across generations of species and six years (i.e. the reporting period) may not be sufficient to establish the actual effects of the concerned pressures; moreover, the cumulative impacts of pressures and threats may not always be adequately addressed since this is not always a straight-forward matter to consider;

v) The need for increase in awareness to enable a more widespread understanding of the issues addressed by the Directive.

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.

Answer:

BIRDS DIRECTIVE

Implementation of the Birds Directive in Malta has had a significant positive effect on:

Increase in the general public level of awareness of the need to conserve biodiversity; Efficacy of enforcement, which was progressively strengthened and increased; The levels of bird-related crime, particularly the illegal killing, trapping and trade in wild

birds, which have been greatly reduced; The levels of stakeholder involvement and participation in policy making processes, through

national platforms such as the Malta Ornis Committee; Availability of scientific information and regulatory data concerning implementation of the

Birds Directive – a wealth of statistics and reports are published on the Wild Birds Regulation Unit’s website http://environment.gov.mt/en/Pages/WBRU/Reports-and-Statistics.aspx.

The integration of biodiversity-related consideration within other policy areas, such as land use planning, transport planning, energy policies and other areas through EIA, SEA, appropriate assessment and other processes.

HABITATS DIRECTIVE

The Directives have compelled a dedicated commitment towards reaching set targets and a



predisposition against plans and activities which counter this progress, as well as a coherent approach within Malta as well as between Member States. Besides such benefits, Malta has also noted the following positive changes:

An increased capacity building on the implementation of the provisions of the Habitats Directive and hence regarding natural elements of importance for Malta;

An increase in scientific knowledge;

Job creation in the open market (such as for the management of Natura 2000 sites, carrying out of assessments, research carried out through funded projects);

Coherence in the conservation of species and habitats through standardisation of protection regimes, data collection and interpretation;

Integration of biodiversity-related consideration within other policy areas;

Increases in the public’s awareness of biodiversity and Natura 2000 sites (hence on important natural areas in Malta);

Greater stakeholder involvement;

Access of funding to achieve the implementation of the Directives (e.g. LIFE + projects).

Another change is the shift in the magnitude of the reporting required by Malta; there is a delicate balance between the conservation of protected species and habitats and the necessity to report on their status. In this respect, reporting obligations should not encumber authorities to the detriment of conservation efforts. Such administrative burdens are exemplified by multiple meetings and working groups to address selected issues, apart from administrative aspects to cater for reporting obligations (drafting, review, approvals), amongst others.


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.

Answer:

BIRDS DIRECTIVE

The main cost factors associated with the implementation of the Birds Directive in Malta are related to enforcement, governance and research. In monetary terms, these costs can be approximately quantified as follows:

Policy and governance processes: circa €500,000 per annum

Field enforcement: circa €800,000 per annum

Research: circa €500,000 per annum

The bulk of these costs are recovered through relevant regulatory processes (e.g. cost of hunting licenses, fines imposed for violations, etc.).

EU programmes such as LIFE+ also provide support for certain activities such as species re-introduction programmes, scientific research, education and conservation action on the ground.

The benefits of implementation cannot be easily quantified in monetary terms as no economic valuation of biodiversity locally has been performed.

HABITATS DIRECTIVE

The Costs

The main costs associated with the implementation of the Habitats Directive in Malta are related to policy and governance, research, funding and management costs as highlighted below:

Policy & Governance - circa €800,000 per annum

Research & Management Costs: Various projects/studies amounting in the region of €10,000,000 since accession (some of which were co-financed, under for instance LIFE and MedPAN).

Increase in Biodiversity Awareness: €30,000 per year by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority and circa €400,000 for e-actions in connection with two LIFE projects to be considered between 2012 and 2017

The Benefits


The benefits of implementation cannot be easily quantified in monetary terms as no economic valuation of biodiversity has been performed locally; However, there have been a number of noticed benefits, which include the following, amongst others.

Increased Awareness: As evidenced by the latest Eurobarometer report, in Malta there has been an increase in the public’s awareness on what biodiversity and Natura 2000 network are. According to the findings in 2013 survey (which is available at http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_379_en.pdf) 28% of Maltese respondents knew what the term biodiversity was - such translated in a 10% and 13.6% increase from the 2010 and 2007 Eurobarometer surveys, respectively. Furthermore, 18% of Maltese heard of the Natura 2000 network and knew what the term meant, an increase of 9% and 13% from the previous surveys, respectively. (Vide the table below for further details.)

Summary of results from the 2013 Flash Eurobarometer “Attitudes towards biodiversity”

Question 2007 2010 2013

Know what biodiversity is 14.4% 18%

(+3.6% from 2007)

28%

(+10% from 2010)

Never heard what biodiversity is 57.3% 46.6%

(-10.7%)

28%

(-18.6% from 2010)

Know what Natura 2000 is 5.3% 8.5%

(+3.2% from 2007)

18%

(+9.5 % from 2010)

Never heard what Natura 2000 is 82.5% 70.3%

(-12.2% from 2007)

55%

(-15.3% from 2010)

An increase in public awareness was also evidenced in the Public Attitude Surveys (PAS). As part of the Management Planning process three Public Attitude Surveys (PAS) were carried out, such surveys illustrated that following the implementation of the Communications and Awareness Campaign and the Action Plan, the general public was overall more aware of Natura 2000 than they had previously been atthe onset of the Project. In the baseline survey, only 20.3% of the sample group had heard of Natura 2000, this figure had risen to 42.4% and 46.4% during the second and third surveys respectively. Moreover, the results of the final PAS also pointed to a better level of understanding of what Natura 2000 was, with an increase in the number of interviewees more correctly describing Natura 2000. There was also a noted increase in the public’s awareness of the Maltese Natura 2000 network, particularly in respect to correctly identifying the sites which formed part of the local network.

Management of Protected Sites and Species Protection: In line with the provisions of the Directive, relevant management measures have been drafted for all terrestrial Natura 2000 sites. The transposition of the Habitats Directive has also led to an increased protection afforded to habitats and species, both within and outside protected sites.

Improved Permitting System: Such involves the establishment of a nature permitting process which incorporates and streamlines the provisions of the Nature Directives and various Multilateral Environmental Agreements. This is complemented with the establishment of an appropriate assessment procedure.

Y.2 - Are availability and access to funding a constraint or support?

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_379_en.pdf


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

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).

Answer:

BIRDS AND HABITATS DIRECTIVE

Although EU funding is an essential financial tool that supports Member States in implementing the Directives and achieving the required objectives, there are also constraints, such as administrative burdens, co-financing, and absorption of funds, amongst others. For instance, LIFE+ beneficiaries generally find it difficult to source the 50% co-financing required from their end, especially if they are NGOs or private entities. This may hinder access to, and use of, funds, and ultimately the implementation of the Directives.

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.

Answer:

BIRDS DIRECTIVE

N/A

HABITIATS DIRECTIVE

Member States having marine territories bear greater financial costs than landlocked Member States in view that research and monitoring of the marine environment is more expensive than that carried out for terrestrial species/habitats.

Considering that Malta’s predominate land coverage consists of agriculture land (51%), followed by urban areas covering (22%), Malta faces very particular challenges in order to ensure that Natura 2000 sites in Malta form a coherent whole. Moreover, the management of Natura 2000 sites in Malta may also incur higher costs in view that the majority of sites are composed of a mosaic of habitats, as opposed to a homogeneous habitat type. In view that the Islands are dotted with a variety of small habitats existing alongside and overlapping each other, it is also particularly challenging to categorise a habitat in accordance with the Interpretation Manual of European Union Habitats.

Malta’s small size presents a big challenge for the protection of biodiversity in view that it needs to meet the future demands of a growing population for land, water, food and energy, while at the same time halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services, all within very limited land resources. The attainment of a favourable conservation status may be moreover more challenging in view of genetic depression (inbreeding), species endemicity, together with the intrinsic nature of important natural areas (protected areas), including their limited size and


distribution. Such challenges are further exacerbated by other environmental concerns, which are inherent to Malta’s isolated and insular ecosystems.

Local expertise on certain species/habitats is sometimes lacking/limited, which requires Malta to engage foreign experts in the field, hence possibly augmenting research costs. Having said this, Malta has a relatively good network of national experts, some of whom are ready to discuss matters and provide information on a voluntary basis.

The costs incurred by Member States in connection with meetings may also vary, in that flights from many continental areas are not necessary daily, which leads to additional costs in relation to working hours lost (a day meeting would affect more than one working day) as well as travelling and subsistence costs (due to overnight stays). This differs from the Member States who can travel to and from a meeting on the same day as when the meeting takes place.

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.

Answer:

BIRDS DIRECTIVE

N/A

HABITATS DIRECTIVE

The conservation and effective management of migratory species requires the concerted action of all States within which such species spend any part of their life cycle and may thus require action from both EU Member States and non-EU States. The actions undertaken by one Member State to improve the conservation status of a migratory species may be out of proportion to the benefits achieved unless, such actions are reciprocated throughout the other EU Range states, as necessary.

The ability of a Member State to maintain at, or restore to, a favourable conservation status a habitat/species of Community interest could depend on the main pressures/threats affecting the species; nevertheless, the actions entailed to address certain pressures may not always be proportionate to the benefits attained. For instance, for species whose status is solely affected by climate change, although Member States may reduce green house gas emissions, such may have little impact, if any at all, on the conservation status of the concerned species.

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.


Answer:

BIRDS DIRECTIVE

Certain aspects of the implementation of the Birds Directive in Malta were aided with the use of information technology which helped to reduce costs of regulatory processes. For example, the Wild Birds Regulation Unit has implemented a state-of-the-art electronic game reporting system used for real time monitoring bag limits uptake by hunters/live-capturers and for verification of regulatory compliance. This system has proven to be a very effective and relatively inexpensive way of obtaining real time information in a reliable and efficient manner. Another example of the use of technology is in enforcement. The Malta Police Force has deployed unmanned aerial surveillance vehicles (drones) during surveillance operations conducted during bird migration seasons. This deployment has been effective in providing deterrence against abuse, and in detection of potential illegalities. Deployment of drones for surveillance of poorly accessible areas has also led to cost savings in comparison with the alternative deployment of personnel on the ground. Another example of the use of technology in enforcement was the development of a geographic information system containing regulatory information pertaining to licensed live-capturers during autumn live-capturing derogations. The system which is installed on portable tablet computers allows instant on-site verification of regulatory compliance during inspections.

HABITATS DIRECTIVE

Good practices could include data and information resource centralisation, synergy between different entities sharing common objectives, and the setting up of procedures for a coherent approach. Examples of synergies between different policies include the Mediterranean Experience of Eco-Tourism (MEET), which aims to develop an ecotourism model for Mediterranean Protected Areas (PAs). The Majjistral Park, which is the Maltese partner in the MEET project, shall be carrying out a number of activities which should lead to the formulation of an eco-tourism package.

An important tool utilised by Malta is the MapServer, hosted on the website of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (http://www.mepa.org.mt/mepa-mapserver), which includes various map layers, covering both development and environment aspects. This is of relevance for both government officials and the public (including for instance architects) so as to be able to attain various levels of information, including the location of protected areas (Natura 2000 and beyond).

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).

Answer:

BIRDS and HABITATS DIRECTIVE

The economic costs of non-implementation cannot be readily quantified in the case of Malta due to absence of necessary economic valuation research in the area of biodiversity. The likely economic and non-economic costs of non-implementation inter alia include:

Deterioration in the quality of recreation and enjoyment of countryside and biodiversity and associated impacts on human health;

The loss of scientific and educational value of biodiversity;

http://www.mepa.org.mt/mepa-mapserver


A decrease in knowledge of the habitats and species of European Community Interest which are found in Malta;

Adverse effects on wild bird populations due to hunting practices, which, if not regulated in accordance with the Directive, are likely to be unsustainable due to over-exploitation;

Intangible costs associated with Malta’s perception and image overseas;

Detriment caused to fisheries, aquaculture, tourism and other economic groups (vide the note below).

NOTE: The costs of environmental degradation were preliminarily assessed for the marine environment as part of the Economic and Social Analysis required by the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Although this assessment was targeted at the marine environment in the broad sense and was not specific to the habitats listed in the Habitats Directive, it can shed light on the costs associated with pressures on marine biodiversity in the absence of environmental management procedures. This economic assessment was limited due to limitations in data and knowledge on ecosystem services; nevertheless, the study, which should be considered preliminary, indicated that environmental degradation is seen to be most harmful to the fishing and aquaculture sector, followed by tourism and the economic group that aggregates energy generation, water abstraction, waste and wastewater activities. The cost of degradation to the total economy was estimated by multiplying the expected percentage change in value added by economic sector with the marine-dependent value added of each sector. The sum total gives an expected cost of degradation to the entire economy (in terms of loss of level of economic value added) of 0.4%. For further information vide http://www.mepa.org.mt/water-msfd.

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

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.

http://www.mepa.org.mt/water-msfd


Answer:

BIRDS DIRECTIVE

A significant proportion of infringement procedures initiated by the European Commission against MS in relation to the implementation of the Birds Directive concerns Article 9 derogations. These procedures result in complex, time consuming and expensive administrative, legal and regulatory processes, which detract both MS and Commission’s resources from the actual implementation on the ground.

Malta also believes there is scope for further streamlining and simplification of reporting obligations under the Birds Directive, such as, for example, the possibility of a longer reporting cycle for Article 12 reports, which require commissioning of extensive monitoring programmes, as well as simplification of Article 9 reporting.

HABITATS DIRECTIVE

It is acknowledged that selected administrative burdens are necessary in order to achieve the objectives of the Directive. However, when considering small Member States, these burdens might be more pronounced in view of the limited number of officials and experts involved in such matters. It is important to not create too many groups/meetings, whilst noting that at times the same official is required to attend various types of meetings.

When considering reporting, the six year reporting cycle of the Article 17 report implies that an extent of human resources are focusing on reporting rather than on conservation aspects per se. This is exacerbated by the fact that the six year reporting cycle might be too short to assess certain aspects e.g. pressures and threats and their effects on the populations/areas/status.

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.

Answer:

BIRDS DIRECTIVE

In Malta’s case, extensive scientific data is available for certain species, whilst the situation in the case of other species is deemed to be adequate. Also adequate is the availability of necessary regulatory information concerning permitting, enforcement, planning and management measures.

However, the extreme polarisation that exists amongst certain special interest groups, particularly the hunting organisations and conservation NGOs, is not conducive to an impartial and objective science-based evaluation and policy-making. There is a general tendency, in the case of Malta, for conservation NGOs to overstate the extent of illegal killing or taking of protected birds, whilst hunting organisations, on the contrary, understate the extent of illegal killing or taking of protected birds. In a scenario where certain aspects of implementation of the Birds Directive in Malta is characterised by an intense and polarised public debate, objective statistical and scientific data provided by independent researchers, as well as by the authorities, is often obscured by unscientific partisan claims. The European Commission appears to be sensitive to such claims, which are often


unfounded and not backed in real scientific evidence. This in turn leads to opening of “EU Pilot” procedures and sometimes infringement procedures to investigate further claims made by specific interest groups. Such cases lead to the diversion of administrative effort and resources which could be more productively deployed on concrete conservation actions on the ground and further efforts to ensure the proper implementation of the Directive. In other words, implementation of the Birds Directive should be less about a battleground for special interest groups contesting each other’s claims, but more about adopting a concerted effort by all stakeholders towards achieving the objectives of the Directive.

HABITATS DIRECTIVE

Data limitations include:

Incomplete knowledge on the links between levels of/different pressures and ecological responses to such pressures, limits the extent to which targeted management measures can be defined;

Incomplete information on marine habitats and species limits the extent to which Malta can assess their status;

The lack of a national centralised system hinders the collation and streamlining of information on relevant species/habitats and other related relevant information; such decentralised information across sectors, moreover, also renders the holistic assessment of the effects of anthropogenic activities on biodiversity difficult;

Studies and research might utilise different sampling/collection methodologies or different/very broad habitat categorisation, which complicates interpretation.

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.

Answer:

BIRDS DIRECTIVE

Whilst the Birds Directive provides the minimum standards and basic principles for adoption across Member States, thus leaving sufficient scope for national administrations to adopt stricter and more extensive measures than those prescribed in the Directive, it is also evident that the Directive is too focused on specific pressures and potential threats such as hunting, whilst not giving enough attention to other pressures and threats, such as agricultural practices, various forms of pollution


(including light pollution, electromagnetic pollution, etc), land-use planning and climate change.

HABITATS DIRECTIVE

Although, it is considered that the Habitats Directive provides the right tools to address the main problems facing species and habitats the Directive does not adequately cover migratory species which cross national borders and areas beyond national jurisdiction in view that their protection is an international environmental concern and co-operation, coordination and management is required at global, regional and national levels. A harmonised and coherent EU-wide/regional approach addressing the conservation of migratory species may be called for, which would ensure more consistency between range States in dealing with the pressures and threats faced by such fauna; although the importance of considering transboundary aspects is implied in the Directive, possibly more attention to this matter would be relevant.

The Directive should also ideally address selected aspects of the Convention on Biological Diversity and its implementation, including provisions relevant to selected aspects of the Directive e.g. Green Infrastructure in connection with Natura 2000 coherence; the links between AAs and SEAs or EIAs bearing in mind the interpretation of case law; and MAES (Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services). More specific interlinkages between the Environment Liability Directive and the Nature Directives may also be relevant to mention.

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 Directive 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.

Answer:

BIRDS DIRECTIVE

N/A

HABITATS DIRECTIVE

Annexes to the Habitats Directive may need to be updated to (i) reflect the current species status in view of Article 17 reporting assessments, taxonomical changes in nomenclature (such as the split of Pipistrellus pipistrellus and Myotis blythii into more species) (ii) the update of scientific names (such as Zamenis situla (listed as Elaphe situla), Hierophis virdiflavus (listed as Coluber virdiflavus) and Atelerix algirus (listed as Erinaceus algricus)), as relevant and (iii) to reflect changes in the conservation status of species in view that certain taxa may not require the strict protection awarded in 1992 (or through the amendments of the Habitats Directive) or the inclusion of threatened species which are not covered by the Directive.

Moreover, the description of EU Habitats in the Interpretation Manual of European Union Habitats types may not adequately cover the species assemblages which are found in Malta and possibly other Member States.

Reference should also be made to the replies provided for Question C10 in connection with synergies with Multilateral Environmental Agreements.

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.

Answer:

BIRDS DIRECTIVE

The Birds Directive is undoubtedly directly relevant to the achievement of sustainable development aims. However, in its present form, the Directive contains only few scant references to “cultural”, “recreational” and “economic” requirements, thus manifesting a virtual absence of consideration of the social and economic dimensions of sustainable development. This apparent lack of consideration for economic and social elements of sustainable development may be causing an inherent tension and conflict between various stakeholder groups involved in the implementation of the Directive. Therefore the apparent lack of balance amongst the three elements of sustainable development within the Directive is causing a problem in its implementation, thus hindering a concerted effort by all stakeholders to implement the strategic goals of the Directive.

HABITATS DIRECTIVE

Biodiversity and associated ecosystem services are essential for reaching goals of sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations. Without biodiversity we wouldn’t have the various ecosystem goods and services that are essential for the social and economic pillars of sustainable development, in terms of resource provision, productivity of sectors, tourism and recreation, job creation, economic activity, human welfare and nature protection and regulation in the face of growing environmental challenges, including, but not limited to, climate change.

The Directives are key instruments at EU level to reverse trends of biodiversity loss and for ensuring the protection of European ecosystems and associated ecosystem services. Investing resources in the protection of elements of biodiversity through legal status of species, as well as the designation of protected areas and adoption of conservation and regulatory measures to ensure sustainable practices, also contributes to goals of sustainable development. Malta’s current Natura 2000 sites give indication of the positive influence of the Directives and of safeguarding the objectives they set out. It has been beneficial for the protection of the flora and fauna (including birds) and it has increased awareness amongst diverse stakeholders (in accordance with the National Environment Policy which may be downloaded through the following link: https://secure2.gov.mt/tsdu/file.aspx?f=7342 ).

The Directives, moreover, provide appropriate guidelines as to the procedures to be followed to ensure that development can only be permitted in those instances where such proposals would not have significant negative impacts on protected habitats and species and the integrity of Natura 2000 sites. Therefore, the legal framework provided by the Directives is sufficiently robust to provide an overriding justification for the conservation of Natura 2000 sites. In terms of implementation, the provisions of the Nature Directives are evaluated according to site-specific environmental considerations, as well as the purpose and nature of the proposals. This has resulted in innovation in design as alternative solutions to identify more environmentally-sound options for proposed projects. Gradually, this is leading to a more environmentally-conscious cohort of architects and planners, encouraging applicants to take on board environment-friendly measures and solutions to avoid or suitably mitigate the impacts of their projects on Natura 2000 sites.

Effectively, both Directives support sustainable development principles as they also address the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals, the Sustainable Development Goals and the wider contribution towards EU2020 objective.

https://secure2.gov.mt/tsdu/file.aspx?f=7342


Finally, it must be noted that the nomenclature should be dimensions and not pillars of sustainable development as the influence of each pillar is actually very much interconnected to, and influences, each other, i.e. they are not standalone sectors.

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.

Answer:

BIRDS DIRECTIVE

Due to Malta’s unique biogeographic and demographic circumstances, particularly in the light of factors such as size of the territory, insularity and extremely high population density, environmental protection in general and biodiversity protection in particular feature prominently amongst citizens’ concerns. This is confirmed by various Eurobarometer (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_379_en.pdf) and national surveys.

These concerns are extremely widely publicised in the local media, which sometimes gives greater prominence to coverage of issues related to hunting and birds in relation to other important national concerns.

Malta is the only EU Member State to have held a national abrogative referendum on an issue directly related to the implementation of the Birds Directive.

HABITATS DIRECTIVE

In accordance with the latest Eurobarometer findings (which are available at http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_379_en.pdf) the majority of Maltese deem that climate change (90%), the decline and disappearance of forests (90%) and the endangerment and disappearance of animals (88%) are all serious problems. Moreover, they believe that the EU should undertake various measures to protect biodiversity loss with 84% totally agreeing that the EU should increase the areas where nature is protected whilst, 76% totally agreeing that the EU should allocate more financial resources to nature protection in Europe. The majority of the Maltese interviewed (87%) were personally making efforts to protect biodiversity, principally by respecting nature.

In April/May 2014 the Malta Environment and Planning Authority undertook a preliminary exercise in the form of a questionnaire aimed at assessing biodiversity valuation in the Maltese Islands (results still to be published) which queried the interviewees on preferred areas for outdoor recreation. It transpired that by far the most valued areas for recreation was the countryside with the following order of preference: natural/semi-natural woodland (38%), valleys (35%) and cliffs (27%); such areas principally falling within or around Natura 2000 sites.

Moreover (as mentioned in our replies to Y.1) the third Public Attitude Survey (PAS), which was carried out in 2014, indicated that just over 46% of the persons interviewed had heard of Natura 2000 all interviewees (100%) considered it was important to protect and manage Natura 2000 sites




(once it was explained what Natura 2000 meant).

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.

Answer:

BIRDS DIRECTIVE

In Malta, citizens’ concerns related to the implementation of the Birds Directive are extremely polarised. A significant proportion of the population does not agree with what is perceived to be an “excessive” role of EU institutions in national policy agenda concerning conservation of wild birds. These citizen groups argue that the social and cultural dimensions should not be overshadowed in favour of a one-size-fits-all approach. These groups also argue that certain enforcement measures adopted by the Maltese authorities, such as the use of drones in hunting surveillance, harsh penalties for abuse, and various regulatory restrictions are “draconian” and tantamount to measures that befit a “police state”. The Maltese authorities, believe that, despite polarised public perception, the right balance between these extreme views has been achieved, allowing Malta to register good progress in the implementation of the Birds Directive.

HABITATS DIRECTIVE

Reference is made to R.4.

Malta is aware of the complaints relating to the implementation of this Directive, which have been raised by Maltese citizens to the European Commission. Moreover, Maltese Competent Authorities receive various complaints and request for information by the concerned public regarding protected species and sites.

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.


Answer:

COHERENCE BETWEEN THE OBJECTIVES OF THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE

Annex II of the Habitats Directive lists those species for which the principal factor determining their survival and well-being is habitat conservation. However, it is noted that the protection of Annex II species through habitat protection is not always suited for all range States, such as the case of the Elaphe situla in Malta, which species has locally seemingly adapted to urban environments, and protection through habitat conservation is not considered adequate.

INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE OBJECTIVES OF THE NATURE DIRECTIVES

The very fact that the Birds and Habitats Directives are two separate instruments with own comitology procedures leads to a degree of complexity of co-ordination amongst the various departments in Member State administrations responsible for these instruments, which may at times lead to disjointed thinking and duplication of effort. There also appears to be a certain lack of coherence with regards to the provisions in both Directives concerning designation and management of protected areas, assessment of species and selected aspects of implementation, such as derogations and means of capture and killing. There is also a lack of coherence in certain reporting requirements. Whilst steps have been taken at EU level to harmonise the reporting approach, there is scope for further harmonisation and simplification in this regard. Nevertheless, linking the Birds and Habitats Directive into one instrument may increase the Member States reporting obligations.

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)

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.

Answer:

BIRDS DIRECTIVE

N/A

HABITATS DIRECTIVE


Water Framework Directive and Marine Strategy Framework Directive

Malta notes that the criteria defining ecological or environmental status for the purpose of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) respectively reflect the definition of the Habitats Directive’s conservation status for habitats and species. More specifically, range and extent of habitats and species and population size of species are also adopted by the MSFD criteria and indicators; structure and functions of habitats are to a certain extent included in both WFD and MSFD in terms of habitat condition. Such links facilitate synergies across the implementation of the three Directives. Nevertheless, Malta deems that more concrete alignment and common understanding of the definitions of Favourable Conservation Status under the Habitats Directive, Good Ecological Status under the WFD, and Good Environmental Status for biodiversity MSFD descriptors is necessary to ensure coherent implementation of all three Directives aimed at achieving one common goal.

A potential gap when considering the provisions of all three Directives relates to consideration of the interactions between anthropogenic pressures and biodiversity status. The WFD and MSFD follow a similar approach whereby thresholds or boundaries for status need to be defined, with the WFD aligning such definition of status with levels of pressures. The Habitats Directive does not stipulate methodologies for defining links between pressures/threats and status, and this might affect the coherence in status determination and identification of management measures across the three Directives – therefore guidelines in this regard would be helpful.

Malta is actively considering policy integration in relation to the Habitats Directive, WFD and MSFD, especially when considering benefits vis-à-vis resources, also noting that the goals of the Directives are deemed to be mutually supportive. This is taken into consideration in relation to habitat assessments and monitoring, while the need for aligning MSFD and WFD Programme of Measures to the requirements of the Nature Directives is also acknowledged.

Strategic Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment

With respect to the interactions between Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Appropriate Assessment procedures, there are adequate legal provisions in the SEA Directive to ensure that the likely significant impacts of plans and programmes on Natura 2000 sites are screened at an early stage on the basis of the Nature Directives. Plan-level Appropriate Assessments are carried out under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive as required. However, the following issues are noted from the practical implementation of both Directives vis-à-vis draft plans:

(i) The SEA Directive adopts a more integrated and holistic approach to the evaluation of impacts on biodiversity and the natural environment (e.g. flora, fauna, landscape, etc.). The more detailed and specific Appropriate Assessment, as required by the Nature Directives, focuses on the potential impacts on specific types of natural habitats and species, as well as the integrity of Natura 2000 sites. Other important biodiversity issues, including the overall natural state and beauty of Natura 2000 sites, are not addressed holistically or tend to be diluted in such specialised Assessments. The Nature Directives need to cover biodiversity issues more comprehensively in order to compliment the coverage of nature-related issues in the SEA Directive, i.e. to take a more integrated and holistic approach to biodiversity conservation, protection of the overall natural state and other important environmental features/characteristics of Natura 2000 sites.

(ii) Generic, vague plans and programmes tend to be difficult to evaluate at policy-level in terms of their likely significant environmental impacts vis-à-vis the requirements of the SEA Directive and Article 6 of the Habitats Directive. Whilst, other plans and programmes with clearer possible environmental impacts on Natura 2000 sites tend to be counter-balanced by suitable policy provisions requiring avoidance of such impacts at project stage. In both scenarios, the impact assessment is delayed to the next stages of assessment, i.e. when specific projects are submitted for permission. In practice, this tends to miss the opportunity to address strategic environmental issues holistically and


at an early stage, including potential cumulative and synergistic impacts, which may be difficult to address in a piece-meal and fragmented manner during case-by-case assessment of individual projects. A tiered and coordinated approach to assessments is required in order to ensure that relevant issues are assessed at the most appropriate level/stage of the plan-making process, thereby filling in current gaps between the plan/policy preparation stage and the permitting of specific projects.

In Malta, for projects which fall under both the Habitats and the Birds Directive, it is ensured that coordinated and/or joint procedures are followed, albeit Appropriate Assessment and Environment Impact Assessment documentation are submitted as standalone documents.

Regulation (EU) No. 347/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council on the guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure and Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU, require Member States to ensure coordinated and/or joint procedures fulfilling the requirements of Nature Directives. Malta will be transposing the provisions to the said Regulation and the amended EIA Directive to include reference to the co-ordination of environmental assessment procedures arising from the requirements of Council Directives 2014/52/EU, 92/43/EEC and other related Union legislation.

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.

Answer:

BIRDS DIRECTIVE

There is scope for further integration of the Birds Directive with other policy areas, particularly those concerning spatial planning, transport, energy, the Common Agricultural Policy, water policy, health and veterinary policies, and climate-related policies. Pressures and threats upon populations of wild birds that may arise as a result of implementation of these policies are not adequately reflected, if at all, within the Birds Directive, which is heavily focused on hunting, whilst on the other hand, various policy instruments do not adequately refer to Birds Directive objectives.

HABITATS DIRECTIVE

Reference is made to C.2 and C.4.

Policy integration of the Habitats Directive with the WFD and MSFD is being fully explored in Malta in view of the gained benefits vis-à-vis most efficient use of resources, not to mention that the goals of the directives are deemed to be mutually supportive. Within this context, assessment of status of marine benthic habitats as part of the MSFD Initial Assessment was aligned with the Habitats Directive Article 17 reporting for marine habitats and species. Furthermore, the monitoring programme pursuant to the requirements of the MSFD which is currently under development, is also taking into consideration the monitoring and surveillance requirements of the Habitats Directive for the listed marine habitats and species. Malta also acknowledges the need for both MSFD and WFD


Programme of Measures to be aligned with the requirements of the Nature Directives.

Malta deems that further work needs to be done to ensure policy integration at various levels. At EU level, further effort can be made to streamline reporting streams (and related timelines) for related policies, which would hence promote synergistic implementation of related policies at national scale. There is scope for integration in particular when considering policies regarding climate change, veterinary aspects, animal welfare, and human health, and this concerning both design and implementation aspects.

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.

Answer:

BIRDS DIRECTIVE

This is an issue that is not specific to Malta, but a concern throughout the EU. There may be some potential for a conflict between certain objectives of the Birds Directive and the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Insufficient consideration is given to the impact of CAP policies on bird populations. Support for certain agricultural practices, intensive farming, the preference for certain crops, pest control issues and irrigation practices, may at times have a negative impact on populations of specific species of wild birds on a large scale. Likewise, certain specific technical concerns, such as impact of power lines, and of energy generation and transmission infrastructure, on mortality of wild birds are often considered through EIAs on a project-specific level, but not systemically at policy level.

HABITATS DIRECTIVE

Reference is made to C.2.

The Habitats Directive interacts with other EU sectoral policies affecting land and water use, namely in view of Natura 2000 and the obligations that stem from Article 6 requirements for activities that take place within such sites or that may affect such sites for example, through land-use conversion. Various aspects related to climate change, energy and transport also interact with relevant appropriate assessment provisions for Natura 2000 sites. The integration with such policy aspects leads to concerns, such as when considering the integration of development infrastructure or the generation of underwater noise, which may impact selected marine species, such as cetaceans.

In terms of agriculture, interaction is vis-à-vis cross-compliance obligations and agri-environment measures, while the implementation for instance of the Nitrates Directive would also positively contribute towards the Nature Directives.

Complementarity is however mostly visible with the water sector in view of the interlinkages between the Habitats Directive, WFD and MSFD. Synergies during implementation of these directives


are continuously sought and the fact that the WFD identifies measures emanating from the Nature Directives as basic measures means that the implementation of all these Directives together lead to mutual benefits. Nonetheless, there could be potential conflicts where particular Articles included under the WFD refer specifically to objectives contained under both the Nature Directives and the WFD. Article 4 (c) of the WFD makes direct reference to the fact that there could be more than one objective that could apply to a water body. This article clearly states that the more stringent objectives should apply. Such an article may give rise to subjective interpretations of which objectives should in fact apply, when more than one objective is defined for a particular area. This could be problematic in cases where conflicts over the use of the water body in question arise.

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.

Answer:

BIRDS DIRECTIVE

CAP in particular has a high potential to affect both positively and negatively certain aspects of the implementation of Nature Directives.

HABITATS DIRECTIVE

Reference is made to C.2.

Sectoral policies that build on the principles of sustainable development, where biodiversity is recognised as a core element of the environment pillar and that regulate land use and activities that may undermine the goals of the Habitats Directive are deemed to affect the EU nature legislation positively. In this regard the EIA and SEA Directives are deemed of essence in order to strengthen the implementation of the Habitats Directive vis-à-vis sectoral policies that involve and influence land use and use of natural resources. Policies that are of a voluntary nature would entirely depend on extent of application (e.g. the agri-environment measures). Policies that are driven solely by economic goals would in general negatively impact the EU Nature Legislation.

FISHERIES SECTOR

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP): Article 25 of the approved legislative text of the basic regulation calls on Member States to collect biological and environmental data necessary for fisheries management. This data shall enable the assessment of the state of exploited marine biological resources; the level of fishing and the impact that fishing activities have on the marine biological resources and on the marine ecosystems; and the socio-economic performance of the fisheries, aquaculture and processing sectors within and outside Union waters”. Data collected in line with this Article would enable assessment of impacts from the Fisheries sector and hence inform required management measures for the achievement of the Nature Directive’s objectives.

Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 concerning management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea: this regulation constitutes a number of


provisions related to the conservation of marine resources including the regulation or prohibition of specific fishing activities on protected or sensitive habitats, in particular Posidonia oceanica, coralligenous habitats, maerl beds and corals. The Regulation also calls for the establishment of Fishing Protected Areas in which fishing activities may be banned or restricted in order to conserve and manage living aquatic resources or maintain or improve the conservation status of marine ecosystems; and for the adoption of management plans for specific Mediterranean fisheries. Therefore this regulation is deemed to contribute to the implementation of the Nature Directives. One could also possibly consider whether it would be relevant to have a common reporting system on conservation status on MedReg species and other species listed under Annex V of the Habitats Directive which are exploited by Fisheries (eg. Syllarides latus).

CLIMATE SECTOR

The EU climate and energy package sets climate and energy targets for 2020 known as the "20-20-20" targets:

A 20% reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels;

Raising the share of EU energy consumption produced from renewable resources to 20%;

A 20% improvement in the EU's energy efficiency.

These targets should be delivered through the implementation of complementary pieces of legislation, including:

The EU Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (EU ETS) aimed at promoting reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in a cost-effective and economically efficient manner. This Directive introduces a single EU-wide cap on emission allowances. Annex I lists categories of activities to which this Directive applies. In Malta, only emissions of CO2 from the two power plants fall within the scope of the Directive.

The Effort Sharing Decision (Decision 406/2009/EC) establishes binding annual greenhouse gas emission targets for sectors not covered by the EU ETS. Malta is bound to limit GHG emissions from these sectors to a maximum of +5% of 2005 levels by 2020.

The Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) calls for the need for Member States to set targets for raising the share of renewable energy in their energy consumption. These targets, which reflect Member States' different starting points and potential for increasing renewable production, range from 10% in Malta to 49% in Sweden.

While climate policies targeting the reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions would contribute to deceleration of climate change, targets for renewable energy may increase the demands of renewable energy installations. Such installations may conflict with the conservation of protected areas. Such conflicts are further exacerbated in a small island State like Malta where land resource is limited and already subject to conflicting uses.

TRANSPORT SECTOR

EU Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (transposed locally through S.L. 499.30) target the reduction of discharges of ship-generated waste and cargo residues into the sea. Within this context, the port or terminal operator shall ensure that adequate authorised port reception facilities are available to meet the needs of ships normally using the port or terminal in question. The Regulations also call for the preparation of a waste management plan with respect to the provision and use of port reception facilities. Implementation of this Directive would work towards water quality improvement and hence contribute to the objectives of the Nature Directives.


EU Ship Source Pollution Directive 2005/35/EC relates to ship-source pollution and the introduction of penalties for infringements. The purpose of this Directive is to incorporate international standards for ship-source pollution into Community law and to ensure that persons responsible for discharges are subject to adequate penalties as referred to in Article 8, in order to improve maritime safety and to enhance protection of the marine environment from pollution by ships. Implementation of this Directive would work towards water quality improvement and hence contribute to the objectives of the Nature Directives.

WATER MANAGEMENT SECTOR

The harmonising of any measures identified under the River Basin Management Plan with those identified under the Nature Directives positively affects policy creation and implementation. Monitoring programmes implemented under the WFD, for instance, can greatly inform the management of sites and mitigation of significant stressors under respective Natura 2000 management plans.

C.6- To what extent do they support the EU internal market and the creation of a level

playing field for economic operators?

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.

Answer:

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.


Answer:


Noting that the cost of implementing the Nature Directives is considerable, EU funding is deemed very important for such implementation. Indeed, Malta has used various funding programmes for nature protection, including ERDF (Marine monitoring programme - marine waters around Filfla), EAFRD (Natura 2000 management plans); LIFE (management of selected sites; identification of marine SACs and SPAs); Interreg (Mediterranean parks), amongst others. Moreover, various other funding programmes are currently being considered for the implementation of other aspects (e.g. EMFF).

Currently there are 4 ongoing projects under the LIFE+ programme, which are helping to meet obligations:

LIFE+ Malta Seabird Project (LIFE10/NAT/MT/000090): Creating an inventory of marine IBAs for Puffinus yelkouan (Yelkouan Shearwater), Calonectris diomedea (Scopoli’s Shearwater) and Hydrobates pelagicus (European Storm petrel) in Malta. This shall assist Malta to afford further protection to seabirds, by protecting areas they use out at sea. (Web-link: https://maltaseabirdproject.wordpress.com/)

LIFE+ MIGRATE (LIFE11NAT/MT1070): Conservation status and potential sites of community interest (pSCI’s) for Tursiops truncatus and Caretta caretta in Malta. This shall assist Malta in affording further protection to these marine species. (Web-link: http://lifeprojectmigrate.com/)

LIFE+ BAHAR (LIFE12NAT/MT000845): Life+ Benthic Habitat Research for marine Natura 2000 site designation. This shall assist Malta to address insufficiency regarding the designation of marine sites with the aim to protect certain marine habitats. (Web-link http://lifebahar.org.mt/)

LIFE+ SAVING BUSKETT (LIFE12NAT/MT/000182): Soil stabilisation measures to protect Annex I habitats in Buskett - Girgenti Natura 2000 site, MALTA. This will assist Malta in affording further protection to this Natura 2000 site. (Web-link: http://lifesavingbuskett.org.mt/)

Further to this, Malta used EAFRD funds from Measure 323 for the ‘Natura 2000 Management Planning for Malta and Gozo’. The aim of this project was to draw up management plans and legislative frameworks for all terrestrial Natura 2000 sites in the Maltese Islands. It ensures that there is the direct involvement of all stakeholders; that management plans / legislative frameworks are in place for all Natura 2000 sites in the Maltese Islands; and that the public’s awareness about these sites is significantly increased.

The development of a Marine Monitoring Strategy for Malta and a Monitoring Programme targeting MSFD monitoring requirements was funded through the ERDF. The ERDF monitoring programme was used for the development of a monitoring programme for seabed habitats and species included in the Habitats and Birds Directive. Moreover, through such funding the Monitoring Strategy for Inland Surface, Transitional and Coastal Waters was also carried out together with Bathymetric Mapping of the Maltese coastal waters and marine territory within 1 nautical mile from the baseline coast.

Malta’s Partnership Agreement (PA) with the European Commission was launched on 4 November 2014. This PA is the overarching framework that sets out an assessment of the national development needs and defines the priorities for the optimal use of the European Structural and Investment Funds that will help Malta achieve its socio-economic goals as well as contribute towards the agreed Europe 2020 targets over the 2014-2020 programming period.

Malta’s Operational Programme I, Fostering a competitive and sustainable economy to meet our


challenges, which is financed through ERDF and CF, will also support measures aimed at protecting the natural and cultural environment. In this respect, interventions aiming to address the national challenges of biodiversity loss, including adaptation to climate change and conservation of species in natural sites, including the conservation of Natura 2000 sites, as well as actions in line with Malta’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2012-2020 will be supported under Priority Axis 5 of the Operational Programme.

The EMFF Operational Programme for Malta covering the 2014 – 2020 funding period will also support the protection of the marine environment and biodiversity under Union Priority 6 of the Operational Programme. Moreover, as outlined under Funding Priority 2 of the Partnership Agreement, the EAFRD Operational Programme shall offer a number of opportunities for financing projects concerning the preservation and protection of Malta’s natural resources.

Through the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NSBSAP), investment will be directed towards a number of key areas in line with the Europe 2020 targets, which will continue to enhance environmental sustainability, social well-being and a healthy society whilst fostering competitiveness through economic development and job creation. The NBSAP also requires the drawing of a national biodiversity financial plan, which is also required by the CBD under the resource mobilisation agenda. For Malta, the UNDP BIOFIN (biodiversity Finance Initiative) approach is being used to assist in the development of such a plan.

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).

Answer: Reference is made to earlier replies.

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.

Answer: Reference is made to 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 to8, and whether there are gaps or inconsistencies between the

8 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).


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.

Answer:

BIRDS DIRECTIVE

Whilst the Birds Directive is coherent with several international instruments, such as the Bern Convention and the Convention on Migratory Species, the fact that the scope of the Directive is limited to wild birds naturally occurring within the territory of the EU may be a limitation.

HABITATS DIRECTIVE

International and global commitments on nature and biodiversity are defined in key legal texts of the biodiversity-related Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs). These are adopted texts and are generally only reviewed with respect to amendments to Annexes and Appendices on species listing. The main instruments for assessing the adequacy of commitments via target setting and progress towards the achievement of such targets is generally done via the adoption of key Strategic Plans. Implementation is guided via the adoption of Decisions or Resolutions by bodies to the Conventions essentially the Conference or Meeting of the Parties that represent the Parties to that global instrument. These Decisions and Resolutions are deemed crucial in order to keep the Conventions up-to-date with what is required in terms of implementation and also with respect to the nature of actions to take and what to prioritise, also in view to emerging issues.

The legal texts of the Directives adequately address the main key constituents of such MEAs vis-à-vis:

the legal protection of species and their habitats (however focusing only on those of EU Community Importance);

in situ protection, conservation and restoration of species and their habitats;

the identification and monitoring of threats/activities having adverse effects on species and their habitats, and implementation of threat mitigation measures; and

the establishment and management of protected areas.

One could possibly also consider the importance of coherence between the EU Biodiversity Strategy with for instance the Global Biodiversity Strategic Plan 2011-2020 adopted under the Convention on Biological Diversity framework, and whether the Nature Directives may be strengthened through a process that is similar to the adoption of Decisions and Resolutions as done by MEAs.

When considering the Habitats Directive, this is not completely aligned with the obligations arising from various MEAs, such as the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention), the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean under the UNEP/MAP Barcelona Convention - this is since there are inconsistencies both in the provisions and in the lists of species covered by the various instruments.

An issue of concern is that the reporting formats of the different MEAs are not similar, and vary from those required under the Nature Directives, leading to duplication of work and/or effort. Similarly, the degrees and criteria for granting permits leading to derogations under the Birds Directive, derogations under the Habitats Directive, exemptions under the SPA/BD (Protocol of the Barcelona Convention) and exceptions under the Bern Conventions are different (though locally such


derogations/exemptions/exceptions are streamlined with the more stringent approach being applied).

When considering the CITES Convention as implemented in the EU through Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (, the majority of the species listed under Annex IV of the Habitats Directive are not traded and thus are not regulated through the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations. Nevertheless, there are a few Annex IV species which have been included under Annex B of the mentioned Regulations, such as Acipenser naccarii (Annex B), the European population of Ursus arctos (Annex B) and certain Greek and Spanish populations of Canis lupis (Annex B). In this respect, there might be issues of concern, such as when considering the heavy demand for caviar, with trade being allowed under the Trade Regulations but sale being prohibited under the Habitats Directive.

44

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).

Answer:

BIRDS DIRECTIVE

The main added value of the Birds Directive is that of a driver of national policy initiatives, and basic harmonisation of national approaches to conservation of wild birds and their habitats.

HABITATS DIRECTIVE

Through the implementation of the Habitats Directive, Malta has succeeded in significantly increasing general public awareness and appreciation on themes concerning the conservation of species and habitats, as can be observed from the results of the Eurobarometer (reference is made to R.4), amongst others. An increased interest in scientific studying and monitoring of the ecological situation of the Maltese Islands is at least partly a result of the administration and implementation of the Habitats Directive, leading to more cooperation and interest when considering the attainment and sharing of scientific knowledge and expertise in the area of natural sciences. Additionally, regional and international cooperation have also contributed to the exchange and sharing of data and good practice between different Member States. Regional cooperation and harmonisation was especially improved when considering the specific conservation targets that are to be reached (amongst others the attainment/maintenance of a favourable conservation status of habitats and species). Moreover, the designation and subsequent management of Natura 2000 sites has improved the sustainable use of natural resources by stakeholders, widening the overall social benefits.

For further details refer to replies provided for Questions S4, Y1 and Y6.

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).

Answer:

45


Refer to earlier sections.

In the absence of the Nature Directives, there would have likely been a proliferation of disjointed national or regional protection regimes driven by extremely varied national priorities and bio-geographic circumstances, as opposed to a common science-based approach. This would have probably resulted in several international or regional-level commitments not being met.

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?

Answer:

BIRDS DIRECTIVE

Yes.

HABITATS DIRECTIVE

Yes. Selected issues require continued integration between different Member States, such as:

Conservation, protection and management of migratory species, including both marine and terrestrial species in view that such species are not restricted to humanly devised geopolitical boundaries;

Issues concerning pressures and threats for species shared between neighbouring countries, both within the EU and non-EU states;

Provision of funding;

Re-introduction/reinforcement of species, particularly for species requiring the mutual support and collaboration of Member States;

Issues concerning natural expansion of selected species due to various reasons, such as climate change;

The control and eradication of invasive alien species, particularly those requiring collaboration between Member States;

The setting up of common criteria aimed at reducing regional (European/Mediterranean) or global biodiversity loss, and the implementation of relevant Multilateral Environmental Agreements, where such common criteria, goals and objectives would lead to a more wise concerted approach between different Member States;

The sharing of data across EU Member States, also in relation to pressures, with a view to identify common/transboundary issues which may require concerted management efforts.

46

Annex 1: Objectives of the Directives

Overall

objective

To contribute to ensuring biodiversity through conservation of Europe's most valuable

and threatened habitats and species, especially within Natura 2000 Birds Directive Habitats Directive

Strategic

Objectives

Art. 2: Maintain the population of all

species of naturally occurring wild birds

in the EU at a level which corresponds

in particular 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.

Art 2: Maintain or restore natural habitats

and species of Community interest at a

favourable conservation status (FCS), taking

into account economic, social and cultural

requirements and regional and local

characteristics.

Specific

Objectives

Art. 3: Preserve, maintain or re-establish

a sufficient diversity and area of

habitats’ for birds, primarily by creating

protected areas, managing habitats

both inside and outside protected

areas, re-establishing destroyed

biotopes and creating new ones.

Art. 5: Establish a general system of

protection for all birds.

Art. 7: Ensure hunting does not

jeopardize conservation efforts and

complies with the principles of wise use

and ecologically balanced control of

the species concerned.

Art 4: Establish Natura 2000 – a coherent

network of special areas of conservation

(SACs) hosting habitats listed in Annex I)

and habitats of species listed in Annex II),

sufficient to achieve their FCS across their

natural range, and SPAs designated under

the Birds Directive.

Art. 6: Ensure SCIs and SACs are subject to

site management and protection.

Art 10: Maintain/develop major landscape

features important for fauna and flora

Art. 12-13: ensure strict protection of species

listed in Annex IV.

Art. 14: ensure the taking of species listed in

Annex V is in accordance with the

maintenance of FCS.

Art. 22: Consider the desirability of

reintroducing species listed in Annex IV that

are native to their territory.

Measures/

Operations

objectives

Site Protection system

Art. 4:

4(1): Designate Special Protection

Areas (SPAs) for threatened species

listed in Annex I and for regularly

occurring migratory species not listed in

Annex I, with a particular attention to

the protection of wetlands and

particularly to wetlands of international

importance.

4(3): Ensure that SPAs form a coherent

whole.

4(4): [Obligations under Art 6(2), (3) and

(4) of Habitats Directive replaced

obligations under first sentence of 4(4)].

Outside SPAs, strive to avoid pollution or

deterioration of habitats.

Species protection system

Art. 5 (a-e): Prohibit certain actions

relating to the taking, killing and

deliberate significant disturbance of

wild birds, particularly during the

breading and rearing periods.

Art. 6: Prohibit the sale of wild birds

except of species listed in Annex III/A and, subject to consultation with the

Commission, those listed in Annex III/B.

Site Protection system

Arts. 4 & 5: Select Sites of Community

Importance (SCIs) and SACs, in relation to

scientific criteria in Annex III.

Art. 6(1): Establish necessary conservation

measures for SACs.

Art. 6(2): [Take appropriate steps to?]Avoid

the deterioration of habitats and significant

disturbance of species in Natura 2000 sites.

Plans or projects

Art. 6(3/4): Ensure, through an ‘appropriate

assessment’ of all plans or projects likely to

have a significant effect on a Natura 2000

site, that those adversely affecting the

integrity of the site are prohibited unless

there are imperative reasons of overriding

public interest.

Art. 6(4): When plans or projects adversely

affecting the integrity of a site are

nevertheless carried out for overriding

reasons, ensure that all compensatory

measures necessary are taken to ensure

the overall coherence of Natura 2000.

Financing

Art. 8: Identify required financing to

achieve favourable conservation status of

47

Art. 7: Regulate hunting of species listed

in Annex II and prohibit hunting in the

breeding and rearing seasons and, in

the case of migratory birds, on their

return to breeding grounds.

Art. 8: Prohibit the use of all means of

large-scale or non-selective capture or

killing of birds, or methods capable of

causing the local disappearance of

species, especially those listed in Annex

IV.

Art 9: Provide for a system of

derogation from protection of species

provisions under specified conditions

Research

Art. 10: Encourage research into

relevant subjects, especially those listed

in Annex V.

Non-native species

Art 11: Ensure introductions of non-

native species do not prejudice local

flora and fauna.

Reporting

Art 12: report each 3 years on

implementation

priority habitats and species, for the

Commission to review and adopt a

framework of aid measures.

Landscape features

Art 10: Where necessary, encourage the

management of landscape features to

improve the ecological coherence of the

Natura 2000 network.

Surveillance

Art. 11: Undertake surveillance of the

conservation status of habitats and species

of Community interest.

Species protection system

Art 12 & 13: Establish systems of strict

protection for animal species and plant

speces of Annex IV prohibiting specified

activities.

Art. 14: Take measures to ensure that

taking/ exploitation Annex V species is

compatible with their maintenance at FCS

Art. 15: Prohibit indiscriminate means of

capture/killing as listed in Annex VI.

Art. 16: Provide for a system of derogation

from protection of species provisions under

specified conditions

Reporting

Art 17: report on implementation each 6

years, including on conservation measures

for sites and results of surveillance.

Research

Art. 18: undertake research to support the

objectives of the Directive.

Non-native species

Art. 22: ensure that introductions of non-

native species do not prejudice native

habitats and species.

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.

evidence gathering questionnaire for the fitness check of...

Documents