Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:50:57.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 5 - Conclusions, Lessons Learnt and Implications for the Future

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2023

By
Graham Tucker
Edited by
Graham Tucker
Graham Tucker
Affiliation:
Nature Conservation Consulting
Get access

Summary

The chapter briefly describes the evolution of EU environmental policy, before primarily focusing on the Birds Directive and Habitats Directive (i.e. the Nature Directives), in particular their objectives and key measures for habitats and species. These comprise two key pillars of measures: 1) general species protection; 2) the creation of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas as well as their protection from developments (through appropriate assessments) and the establishment of their necessary conservation measures. The main sources of funding for the Nature Directives and broader nature conservation are identified. Other supporting EU environmental policies and legislation are outlined, including in relation to environmental impact assessments, strategic environmental assessments, the Environmental Liability Directive, the Water Framework Directive, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and other maritime policy instruments, air pollution, the Invasive Alien Species Regulation, and the Common Agricultural Policy. A summary is provided of the EU Biodiversity Strategies of 1998, and for 2010, 2020 (with a list of the targets and related actions) and 2030.

Keywords

Biodiversitynature conservationenvironmental policyenvironmental legislationEuropean UnionBirds DirectiveHabitats DirectiveNatura 2000protected areasBiodiversity Strategy
Type
Chapter
Information
Nature Conservation in Europe
Approaches and Lessons
 , pp. 106 - 141
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AEWA (1999) Resolution 1.14 Phasing out of lead shot in wetlands. First meeting of the parties to the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA), 6–9 November 1999. Cape Town, South Africa.Google Scholar
Alliance Environnement (2017) Evaluation study of the forestry measures under Rural Development. Brussels: Alliance Environnement. Report to DG Agriculture, European Commission.Google Scholar
Alliance Environnement (2019) Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on habitats, landscapes, biodiversity. Brussels: Alliance Environnement. Report to DG Agriculture, European Commission.Google Scholar
Alliance Environnement & Thünen-Institut (2017) Evaluation study of the payment for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment. Brussels: Alliance Environnement. Report to DG Agriculture, European Commission.Google Scholar
Andreotti, A., Guberti, V., Nardelli, R. et al. (2018) Economic assessment of wild bird mortality induced by the use of lead gunshot in European wetlands. Science of the Total Environment, 610, 1505–1513.Google Scholar
Barnes, M. D., Glew, L., Wyborn, C. & Craigie, I. D. (2018) Prevent perverse outcomes from global protected area policy. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2, 759–762.Google Scholar
Barov, B. & Derhé, M. (2011) Review of the implementation of species action plans for threatened birds in the European Union 2004–2010. Brussels: BirdLife International report for the European Commission.Google Scholar
Batáry, P., Dicks, L. V., Kleijn, D. & Sutherland, W. J. (2015) The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology, 29, 1006–1016.Google Scholar
Bengtsson, J., Ahnström, J. & Weibull, A-C. (2005) The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42 (2), 261–269.Google Scholar
Benton, T. G., Vickery, J. A. & Wilson, J. D. (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18, 182–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billeter, R., Liira, J., Bailey, D. et al. (2008) Indicators for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: a pan‐European study. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45, 141–150.Google Scholar
BirdLife International (2004) Birds in Europe: Population Estimates, Trends and Conservation Status. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International.Google Scholar
BirdLife International (2013) Designating Special Protection Areas in the European Union. http://datazone.birdlife.org/sowb/casestudy/designating-special-protection-areas-in-the-european-unionGoogle Scholar
BirdLife International (2015) European Red List of Birds. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
BirdLife International (2021) European Red List of Birds. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
Blicharska, M., Orlikowska, E. H., Roberge, J. M. & Grodzinska-Jurczak, M. (2016) Contribution of social science to large scale biodiversity conservation: A review of research about the Natura 2000 network. Biological Conservation, 199, 110–122.Google Scholar
Born, C.-H., Cliquet, A., Schoukens, H., Misonne, D. & Van Hoorick, G. (eds.) (2015) The Habitats Directive in its EU Environmental Law Context – European Nature’s Best Hope? London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bouwma, I. M., van Apeldoorn, R., Çil, A. et al. (2010) Natura 2000 – Addressing conflicts and promoting benefits. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Alterra.Google Scholar
Bowyer, C., Tucker, G., Underwood, E. et al. (2020) Potential impacts of bioenergy developments on habitats and species protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives. Brussels: Institute for European Environmental Policy, Arcadis, BirdLife International, NIRAS, Stella Consulting and Ecosystems Ltd. Report to the European Commission.Google Scholar
Brochet, A. L., Van den Bossche, W., Jbour, S. et al. (2016) Preliminary assessment of the scope and scale of illegal killing and taking of birds in the Mediterranean. Bird Conservation International, 26, 1–28.Google Scholar
Brochet, A. L., Van Den Bossche, W., Jones, V. R. et al. (2017) Illegal killing and taking of birds in Europe outside the Mediterranean: assessing the scope and scale of a complex issue. Bird Conservation International, 29, 10–40.Google Scholar
Campagnaro, T., Sitzia, T., Bridgewater, P., Evans, D. & Ellis, E. C. (2019) Half Earth or whole Earth: what can Natura 2000 teach us? BioScience, 69, 117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carboneras, C., Genovesi, P., Vilà, M. et al. (2018) A prioritised list of invasive alien species to assist the effective implementation of EU legislation. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55, 539–547.Google Scholar
Cardoso, P. (2012) Habitats Directive species lists: urgent need of revision. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 5, 169–174.Google Scholar
Clutten, R. & Tafur, I. (2012) Are imperative reasons imperilling the Habitats Directive? An assessment of Article 6(4) and the IROPI exception. In The Habitats Directive - a Developer’s Obstacle Course?, (ed.) Jones, G., pp. 167–182. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Crofts, R. (2014) The European Natura 2000 protected area approach: a practitioner’s perspective. Parks, 20, 79–90.Google Scholar
Crofts, R., Dudley, N., Mahon, C. et al. (2014) Putting Nature on the Map: A Report and Recommendations on the Use of the IUCN System of Protected Area Categorisation in the UK. IUCN National Committee UK.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, P. (2021) The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review. London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
Deinet, S., Ieronymidou, C., McRae, L. et al. (2013) Wildlife Comeback in Europe. The Recovery of Selected Mammal and Bird Species. London: Zoological Society of London.Google Scholar
Dodd, A., Hardiman, A., Jennings, K. & Williams, G. (2010) Protected areas and climate change – reflections from a practitioner’s perspective. Utrecht Law Review, 6, 141–150.Google Scholar
Dolman, S., Baulch, S., Evans, P. G., Read, F. & Ritter, F. (2016) Towards an EU action plan on cetacean bycatch. Marine Policy, 72, 67–75.Google Scholar
Donald, P. F., Sanderson, F. J., Burfield, I. J., Bierman, S. M., Gregory, R. D. & Waliczky, Z. (2007) International conservation policy delivers benefits for birds in Europe. Science, 317, 810–813.Google Scholar
Dudley, N. (ed.) (2008) Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. IUCN.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ECA (2009) The sustainability and the Commission’s management of the LIFE-Nature projects. Luxembourg: European Court of Auditors.Google Scholar
ECA (2011) Is Agri-Environment Support Well Designed and Managed? Luxembourg: European Court of Auditors. Special report 7/2011.Google Scholar
ECA (2014) Is the ERDF effective in funding projects that directly promote biodiversity under the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020? Luxembourg: European Court of Auditors.Google Scholar
ECA (2017a) Greening: a more complex income support scheme, not yet environmentally effective. Luxembourg: European Court of Auditors. Special report 21/2017.Google Scholar
ECA (2017b) More efforts needed to implement the Natura 2000 network to its full potential. Brussels: European Court of Auditors. Special Report No 1/2017.Google Scholar
ECA (2020) Marine environment: EU protection is wide but not deep. Luxembourg: European Court of Auditors.Google Scholar
EEA (2011) Landscape fragmentation in Europe. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.Google Scholar
EEA (2012) Protected areas in Europe – an overview. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.Google Scholar
EEA (2015) State of nature in the EU. Results from reporting under the nature directives 2007–2012. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.Google Scholar
EEA (2018) European waters. Assessment of status and pressures 2018. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.Google Scholar
EEA (2019a) The European environment – state and outlook 2020. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.Google Scholar
EEA (2019b) Marine messages II Navigating the course towards clean, healthy and productive seas through implementation of an ecosystem‑based approach. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.Google Scholar
EEA (2020) State of nature in the EU. Results from reporting under the nature directives 2013–2018. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.Google Scholar
eftec, ECNC, UAntwerp & CEEWEB (2017) Promotion of ecosystem restoration in the context of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. London: Economics for the Environment Consultancy Ltd (eftec). Report to European Commission, DG Environment.Google Scholar
ENEC (2016) Legal recommendations to eliminate killing and taking of birds. Madrid: SEO/Birdlife, for the European Network Against Environmental Crime.Google Scholar
Ernst & Young & Biotope (2017) Study on biodiversity financing and tracking biodiversity-related expenditures in the EU budget. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
European Commission (2006) Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010 – and beyond. Sustaining ecosystem services for human well-being. COM(2006) 216 final.Google Scholar
European Commission (2011) Financing Natura 2000. Investing in Natura 2000: delivering benefits for nature and people. SEC(2011)1573 final.Google Scholar
European Commission (2012) Action Plan for reducing incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gears. COM/2012/0665 final.Google Scholar
European Commission (2013) Green Infrastructure (GI) – Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital. COM(2013) 249 final.Google Scholar
European Commission (2016) Fitness Check of the EU Nature Legislation (Birds and Habitats Directives). SWD(2016) 472 final.Google Scholar
European Commission (2017) An Action Plan for Nature, People and the Economy. COM(2017) 198 final.Google Scholar
European Commission (2018) Assessing Member States’ programmes of measures under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. COM/2018/562 final.Google Scholar
European Commission (2019a) FITNESS CHECK of the Water Framework Directive, Groundwater Directive, Environmental Quality Standards Directive and Floods Directive. SWD (2019) 439.Google Scholar
European Commission (2019b) Review of progress on implementation of the EU green infrastructure strategy. COM (2019) 236 final.Google Scholar
European Commission (2019c) Evaluation of the Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. SWD(2019) 413 final.Google Scholar
European Commission (2020a) Report on the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC). COM(2020) 259 final.Google Scholar
European Commission (2020b) EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Bringing nature back into our lives. COM(2020) 380 final.Google Scholar
European Commission (2020c) A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system. COM(2020) 381 final.Google Scholar
European Commission (2020d) Draft Technical Note on Criteria and Guidance for Protected Areas Designations. Note to NADEG, October 2020.Google Scholar
European Commission (2021a) On an Action Plan for the Development of Organic Production. SWD(2021) 65 final.Google Scholar
European Commission (2021b) New EU Forest Strategy for 2030. COM(2021) 572 final.Google Scholar
European Commission (2022a) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on nature restoration. 2022/0195 (COD).Google Scholar
European Commission (2022b) Criteria and guidance for protected areas designations. SWD(2022) 23 final.Google Scholar
Evans, A. D., Armstrong-Brown, S. & Grice, P. V. (2002) Science into policy: the role of research and development in the evolution of a ‘smart’ agri-environment scheme. Aspects of Applied Biology, 67, 253–264.Google Scholar
Evans, D. (2012) Building the European Union’s Natura 2000 network. Nature Conservation, 1, 11–26.Google Scholar
Fagerli, H., Tsyro, S., Jonson, J. E. et al. (2020) Transboundary particulate matter, photo-oxidants, acidifying and eutrophying components. Oslo: Norwegian Meteorological Institute, EMEP Status Report 2020.Google Scholar
Fisher, I., Ashpole, J., Scallan, D., Proud, T. & Carboneras, C. (compilers) (2018) International Single Species Action Plan for the conservation of the European Turtle-dove Streptopelia turtur (2018 to 2028). Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Forest Europe (2020) State of Europe’s Forests 2020. Bratislava: Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe – Forest Europe Liaison Unit.Google Scholar
Gabriel, D., Sait, S. M., Kunin, W. E. & Benton, T. G. (2013) Food production vs. biodiversity: comparing organic and conventional agriculture. Journal of Applied Ecology, 50, 355–364.Google Scholar
Geitzenauer, M., Blondet, M., De Koning, J. et al. (2017) The challenge of financing the implementation of Natura 2000–Empirical evidence from six European Union Member States. Forest Policy and Economics, 82, 3–13.Google Scholar
Gerritsen, E., Klimmek, H. & Whiteoak, K. (2020) Management effectiveness in the EU’s Natura 2000 network of protected areas. Copenhagen: EEA. Report by IEEP, UNEP-WCMC & Trinomics.Google Scholar
Hajdu, K. & Kiss, V. (2009) Clear View: Regional synthesis report on the biodiversity challenges in Pan-Europe. Budapest: CEEweb for Biodiversity.Google Scholar
HELCOM (2018) State of the Baltic Sea – second HELCOM holistic assessment 2011–2016. Helsinki: Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission, Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No 155.Google Scholar
Hilty, J., Worboys, G. L., Keeley, A. et al. (2020) Guidelines for conserving connectivity through ecological networks and corridors. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 30.Google Scholar
Hirschfeld, A. & Attard, G. (2017) Vogeljagd in Europa–Analyse von Abschusszahlen und Auswirkungen der Jagd auf den Erhalt bedrohter Arten. Berichte zum Vogelschutz, 53, 15–42.Google Scholar
Hochkirch, A., Schmitt, T., Beninde, J. et al. (2013) Europe needs a new vision for a Natura 2020 network. Conservation Letters, 6, 462–467.Google Scholar
Hodgson, J. A., Kunin, W. E., Thomas, C. D., Benton, T. G. & Gabriel, D. (2010) Comparing organic farming and land sparing: optimizing yield and butterfly populations at a landscape scale. Ecology Letters, 13, 1358–1367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, J. A., Moilanen, A., Wintle, B. A. & Thomas, C. D. (2011) Habitat area, quality and connectivity: striking the balance for efficient conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48, 148–152.Google Scholar
Hodgson, J. A., Thomas, C. D., Wintle, B. A. & Moilanen, A. (2009) Climate change, connectivity and conservation decision making: back to basics. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46, 964–969.Google Scholar
ICES (2010) EC Request on Cetacean Bycatch Regulation 812/2004, Item 3, October 2010. www.ascobans.org/en/document/ices-2010-general-advice-ec-request-cetacean-bycatch-regulation-8122004Google Scholar
IEEP & Alterra (2010) Reflecting environmental land use needs into EU policy: preserving and enhancing the environmental benefits of “land services”: soil sealing, biodiversity corridors, intensification / marginalisation of land use and permanent grassland. London: Institute for European Environmental Policy. Report to the European Commission.Google Scholar
IPBES (2018) The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia, eds. Rounsevell, M., Fischer, M., Torre-Marin Rando, A. & Mader, A.. Bonn, Germany: Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem services.Google Scholar
Justice and Environment, CEEweb for Biodiversity, ClientEarth & European Environmental Bureau (2017) Making Natura 2000 Impact Assessments Truly Appropriate: NGO proposal for an Action Plan. www.clientearth.org/latest/documents/making-natura-2000-impact-assessments-truly-appropriate-ngo-proposal-for-an-action-plan/Google Scholar
Kati, V., Hovardas, T., Dieterich, M., Ibisch, P. L., Mihok, B. & Selva, N. (2015) The challenge of implementing the European network of protected areas Natura 2000. Conservation Biology, 29, 260–270.Google Scholar
Kettunen, M., Illes, A., Rayment, M. et al. (2017) Integration approach to EU biodiversity financing: evaluation of results and analysis of options for the future. Brussels/London: Institute for European Policy. Final report for the European Commission.Google Scholar
Kettunen, M., Terry, A., Tucker, G. M. & Jones, A. (2007) Guidance on the maintenance of landscape connectivity features of major importance for wild flora and fauna. Guidance on the implementation of Article 3 of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) and Article 10 of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). Brussels/London: Institute for European Environmental Policy. Report to the European Commission.Google Scholar
Koleček, J., Schleuning, M., Burfield, I. J. et al. (2014) Birds protected by national legislation show improved population trends in Eastern Europe. Biological Conservation, 172, 109–116.Google Scholar
Koschová, M., Rivas-Salvador, J. & Reif, J. (2018) Continent-wide test of the efficiency of the European Union’s conservation legislation in delivering population benefits for bird species. Ecological Indicators, 85, 563–569.Google Scholar
Kukkala, A. S., Santangeli, A., Butchart, S. H. M. et al. (2016) Coverage of vertebrate species distributions by Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas and Special Protection Areas in the European Union. Biological Conservation, 202, 1–9.Google Scholar
Langhout, W. (2019) The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Progress report 2011–2018. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Langhout Ecologisch Advies. Report to Birdlife Europe and Central Asia.Google Scholar
Langhout, W. & Brunner, A. L. (2017) The best idea Europe has ever had? Natura 2000 – the largest network of protected areas in the world. The George Wright Forum, 34, 86–95.Google Scholar
Lastra-Bravo, X. B., Hubbard, C., Garrod, G. & Tolón-Becerra, A. (2015) What drives farmers’ participation in EU agri-environmental schemes?: Results from a qualitative meta-analysis. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 1–9.Google Scholar
Lawton, J. H., Brotherton, P. N. M., Brown, V. K. et al. (2010) Making Space for Nature: a Review of England’s Wildlife Sites and Ecological Network. London: DEFRA.Google Scholar
Liberg, O., Suutarinen, J., Åkesson, M. et al. (2020) Poaching-related disappearance rate of wolves in Sweden was positively related to population size and negatively to legal culling. Biological Conservation, 234 , 108456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, H. & Dearden, P. (2005) Rethinking protected area categories and the new paradigm. Environmental Conservation, 32 (1), 1–10.Google Scholar
Lormee, H., Barbraud, C., Peach, W. et al. (2020) Assessing the sustainability of harvest of the European Turtle-dove along the European western flyway. Bird Conservation International, 30, 506–521.Google Scholar
Maes, D., Collins, S., Munguira, M. L. et al. (2013) Not the right time to amend the annexes of the European Habitats Directive. Conservation Letters, 6, 468–469.Google Scholar
Maes, J., Teller, A., Erhard, M. et al. (2020) Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and Their Services: An EU ecosystem assessment. Ispra, Italy: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
Maiorano, L., Amori, G., Montemaggiori, A. et al. (2015) On how much biodiversity is covered in Europe by national protected areas and by the Natura 2000 network: insights from terrestrial vertebrates. Conservation Biology, 29, 986–995.Google Scholar
Mateo, R. (2009) Lead poisoning in wild birds in Europe and the regulations adopted by different countries. In Ingestion of Lead from Spent Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and Humans, eds. Watson, R. T., Fuller, M., Pokras, M. & Hunt, W. G., pp. 71–98. Boise, Idaho, USA: The Peregrine Fund.Google Scholar
Medarova-Bergstrom, K., Kettunen, M., Rayment, M., Skinner, I. & Tucker, G. (2014) Common Framework for Biodiversity-Proofing of the EU Budget: General guidance. London: Institute for European Environmental Policy. Report to the European Commission.Google Scholar
Milieu, IEEP & ICF (2016) Evaluation study to support the fitness check of the Birds and Habitats Directives. Brussels: Milieu Ltd, Institute for European Environmental Policy and the ICF International.Google Scholar
Mitchell, D., Puymartin, A., Vulcano, A. & Campos, B. (2021) Off the Hook? Reducing Seabird Bycatch in the EU. BirdLife International.Google Scholar
NABU (2015) The future of EU financing for nature and biodiversity. Berlin: Naturschutzbund Deutschland. www.nabu.de/imperia/md/content/nabude/europa/150527-nabu-eu-nature-financing_discussion-paper.pdfGoogle Scholar
N2K Group (2016) Integration of Natura 2000 and biodiversity into EU funding (EAFRD, ERDF, CF, ESF): Analysis of a selection of programmes approved for 2014–2020. Brussels: The N2K Group.Google Scholar
OSPAR (2017) OSPAR intermediate assessment 2017. London: OSPAR Commission.Google Scholar
Pain, D. J., Mateo, R. & Green, R. E. (2019) Effects of lead from ammunition on birds and other wildlife: a review and update. Ambio, 48, 935–953.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, A. (2003) Turning ideas on their head: the new paradigm for protected areas. The George Wright Forum, 20, 8–32.Google Scholar
Prip, C. (2013) Terminal Evaluation of the UNEP project Supporting the Implementation of the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS). United Nations Environment Programme.Google Scholar
Rayment, M., Arroyo, A., Baldock, D. et al. (2018) Valuing biodiversity and reversing its decline by 2030. Brussels: Institute for European Environmental Policy. Think 2030 Policy Paper.Google Scholar
Rogan, E., Read, A. J. & Berggren, P. (2021) Empty promises: The European Union is failing to protect dolphins and porpoises from fisheries by‐catch. Fish and Fisheries, 22, 865–869.Google Scholar
Sanderson, F. J., Pople, R. G., Ieronymidou, C. et al. (2015) Assessing the performance of EU nature legislation in protecting target bird species in an era of climate change. Conservation Letters, 9, 172–180.Google Scholar
Seufert, V. & Ramankutty, N. (2017) Many shades of gray – The context-dependent performance of organic agriculture. Science Advances, 3 (3), e1602638.Google Scholar
Sibille, S., Griffin, C. & Scallan, D. (2020) Europe’s Huntable Birds: A Review of Status and Conservation Priorities. Brussels: European Federation for Hunting and Conservation.Google Scholar
Sotirov, M. (ed.) (2017) Natura 2000 and forests: Assessing the state of implementation and effectiveness. Joensuu, Finland: European Forest Institute.Google Scholar
Stroud, D. A., Pain, D. J. & Green, R. (2021) Evidence of widespread illegal hunting of waterfowl in England despite partial regulation of the use of lead shotgun ammunition. Conservation Evidence Journal, 18, 18–24.Google Scholar
Sundseth, K. & Roth, P. (2013) Study on Evaluating and Improving the Article 6.3 Permit Procedure for Natura 2000 Sites. Brussels: Ecosystems Ltd.Google Scholar
Tarzia, M. & Campos, B. (2014) Marine Natura 2000 progress assessment. BirdLife International.Google Scholar
TEEB (2011) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in National and International Policy Making, ed. ten Brink, P.. London and Washington, DC: Earthscan.Google Scholar
ten Brink, P., Badura, T., Bassi, S. et al. (2011) Estimating the Overall Economic Value of the Benefits provided by the Natura 2000 Network. Brussels: Institute for European Environmental Policy/GHK/Ecologic. Final Report to the European Commission.Google Scholar
Trinomics BV, IEEP, UNEP-WCMC, IUCN, Denkstatt & ENT. (2022) Support to the Evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, and Follow-Up. Final evaluation report to DG Environment. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
Trochet, A. & Schmeller, D. S. (2013) Effectiveness of the Natura 2000 network to cover threatened species. Nature Conservation, 4, 35–53.Google Scholar
Trouwborst, A. (2015) The Habitats Directive and climate change. Is the law climate-proof? In The Habitats Directive in Its EU Environmental Law Context – European Nature’s Best Hope?, eds. Born, C.-H., Cliquet, A., Schoukens, H., Misonne, D. & Van Hoorick, G., pp. 301–324. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tuck, S. L., Winqvist, C., Mota, F., Ahnström, J., Turnbull, L. A. & Bengtsson, J. (2014) Land-use intensity and the effects of organic farming on biodiversity: a hierarchical meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51, 746–755.Google Scholar
Tucker, G. M., Allen, B., Conway, M. et al. (2014) Policy Options for an EU No Net Loss Initiative. London/Brussels: Institute for European Environmental Policy. Report to the European Commission.Google Scholar
Tucker, G. M., Dickie, I., McNeil, D. et al. (2016) Supporting the Elaboration of the Impact Assessment for a Future EU Initiative on No Net Loss of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. London: Institute for European Environmental Policy. Report to the European Commission.Google Scholar
Tucker, G. M. & Heath, M. F. (1994) Birds in Europe: Their Conservation Status. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International.Google Scholar
Tucker, G. M., Quétier, F. & Wende, W. (2020) Guidance on achieving no net loss or net gain of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Brussels: Institute for European Environmental Policy. Report to the European Commission.Google Scholar
Tucker, G., Stuart, T., Naumann, S., Stein, U., Landgrebe-Trinkunaite, R. & Knol, O. (2019) Study on identifying the drivers of successful implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives. Brussels: Institute for European Environmental Policy. Report to the European Commission.Google Scholar
Tuomisto, H. L., Hodge, I. D., Riordan, P. & Macdonald, D. W. (2012) Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts?–A meta-analysis of European research. Journal of Environmental Management, 112, 309–320.Google Scholar
UNEP-MAP (2018) Mediterranean 2017 quality status report. United Nations Environment Programme.Google Scholar
UNEP-WCMC (2019) User Manual for the World Database on Protected Areas and world database on other effective area-based conservation measures: 1.6. Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC.Google Scholar
van der Sluis, T., Foppen, R., Gillings, S. et al. (2016) How much biodiversity is in Natura 2000? The “umbrella effect” of the European Natura 2000 protected area network. Wageningen, the Netherlands: Alterra. Report for the European Commission.Google Scholar
Venter, O., Fuller, R. A., Segan, D. B. et al. (2014) Targeting global protected area expansion for imperilled biodiversity. PLoS Biol, 12, e1001891.Google Scholar
Venter, O., Magrach, A., Outram, N. et al. (2018) Bias in protected‐area location and its effects on long‐term aspirations of biodiversity conventions. Conservation Biology, 32, 127–134.Google Scholar
Verschuuren, J. (2015) Connectivity: is Natura 2000 only an ecological network on paper? In The Habitats Directive in its EU Environmental Law Context – European Nature’s Best Hope?, eds. Born, C.-H., Cliquet, A., Schoukens, H., Misonne, D. & Van Hoorick, G., pp. 285–302. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Visconti, P., Butchart, S. H., Brooks, T. M. et al. (2019). Protected area targets post-2020. Science, 364, 239–241.Google Scholar
Wätzold, F., Mewes, M., van Apeldoorn, R. et al. (2010) Cost-effectiveness of managing Natura 2000 sites: an exploratory study for Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Poland. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19, 2053–2069.Google Scholar
Wende, W., Tucker, G. M., Quétier, F., Rayment, M. & Darbi, M. (eds.) (2018) Biodiversity Offsets – European Perspectives on No Net Loss of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Winkel, G., Blondet, M., Borrass, L. et al. (2015) The implementation of Natura 2000 in forests: A trans- and interdisciplinary assessment of challenges and choices. Environmental Science & Policy, 52, 23–32.Google Scholar
Winqvist, C., Ahnström, J. & Bengtsson, J. (2012) Effects of organic farming on biodiversity and ecosystem services: taking landscape complexity into account. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1249, 191–203.Google Scholar
Woollhead, J., Petersen, A. & Normander, B. (2020) Vurdering af danske beskyttede havområder efter international standard [Assessment of Danish MPAs according to international standards] (Summary in English). Copenhagen: IUCN Conservation Planning Specialist Group Europe and Zoologisk Have København.Google Scholar
Žydelis, R., Small, C. & French, G. (2013) The incidental catch of seabirds in gillnet fisheries: a global review. Biological Conservation, 162, 76–88.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×