Cases

In order to investigate the financing nature situation in several CEE countries in the light of the forming new financial framework and LIFE programme, CEEweb compiled a questionnaire. The questionnaires wished to focus on specific cases, whether they scrutinize one particular location or one particular programme from financial perspective. Furthermore, the questionnaire also wished to obtain information on the general financing and financing reporting on biodiversity and whether innovative financing mechanisms have already been used in practice. Below you can read cases from Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia on operational programmes, special cooperation between sectors, innovative mechanisms and recommendations for the future amendment of financing conservation at all levels. Based on some selected cases, a publication was compiled, which provides also some recommendations for what should be kept and what should be amended in future conservation financing.

country location main financing source additional source stakeholders financed activities good/bad
Bulgaria Bulgaria Bulgarian Enterprise for Management of Environmental Protection Activities (EMEPA) taxes from other environmental acts National Park Directorates, Regional Inspectorates for Environment and Waters, municipalities,
NGOs, etc.
establishment of the Bulgarian Natura 2000 network

maintenance of the Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre

good
Bulgaria ERDF national co-financing National Park Directorates, Nature Park Directorates, Regional Inspectorates for Environment and
Waters, municipalities, NGOs, etc.
Mapping and determination of the conservation status of habitats and species of the Habitats
Directive
good/bad
Bulgaria EAFRD Ministry of Agriculture Farmers, ministries Destructions of the habitats bad
Hungary Hungary SAPS (EAFRD) Ministry of Rural Development ministry, landowners possibility for farmers to get subsidies after the size of their land bad

Pásztó EU LIFE Ministry of Rural Development ministry, NGOs, landowners renovation, nature friendly water management, preparation of a management plan, monitoring of the area bad
Apajpuszta EU Fund: V axis of Operational Programme
Infrastructure And Environment
National sources nature conservation authorities (NPDI), national parks, NGO’s, local communities Habitat conservation and rehabilitation, Protection of non-living natural values good
Lithuania Ilgašilis EU Structural Fund United Nations Development Programme Global Environment Facility (GEF) Small Grants Programme (SGP)
Governmental Programme for Support of Environmental Protection
Administration of Sartai Regional Park; State Protected Areas Serviceunder the Ministry of Environment; tree and scrub cutting
construction of nature trailmaintenance of
appropriate water level
good
Kulaliai EU Structural Fund Governmental Programme for Support of
Environmental Protection
Administration of Salantai Regional Park; State Protected Areas Service under the Ministry of Environment; tree and scrub cutting
establishment of an information stand explaining protected values
good
Kretuonas UNDP and World Bank

DANCEE (Danish Cooperation for Environment in Eastern Europe)

EU agri-environmental payments (direct payments and Natura 2000 payments) Lithuanian Fund for Nature, Lithuanian Ornithological Society,
Aukstaitija National Park, Local Community of Reskutenai
Restoration of island meadows

Purchase of 60 sheep and 6 goats

Maintenance of meadows

good/bad
Nemunas delta UNDP and World Bank

Helsinki commission (Baltic sea regional project)

EU LIFE

EU agri-environmental payments (direct payments
and Natura 2000 payment)
Lithuanian Fund for Nature, Nemunas Delta Regional Park, local farmer,
Silute Municipality
Restoration of grasslands in 56 ha good
Poland Poland EU Rural Development Fund state budget farmers, anglers, naturalists water management infrastructure – drainage, dykes, rivers
canalisation and regulation
bad
Poland Regional Operational Programme regional sources NGO, nature conservation authorities, local communities, fire-fighters, theoretically – biodiversity conservation; bad
Poland European Union Solidarity Fund Polish state budget anglers, naturalists, Water Management Authorities “removal of flood damages”; bad
Poland EU Fund: European Fund For Regional
Development, via V axis of Operational Programme Infrastructure And Environment
state budget General and Regional Directorates of Environment Protection elaborating of “conservation measures plans” for Natura 2000 sites good/bad
Poland EU Fund: V axis of Operational Programme
Infrastructure And Environment
National Fund for Environment and Water Management nature conservation authorities, national parks, NGOs, local communities conservation measures for species and habitats, preparing
management plans and conservation action plans
good
Slovakia Pieniny National Park Operational programme “Environment”, Priority
axis 5.Conservation and revitalization of natural landscape and environment (EU funds)
state budget owners of the target sites, farmers, forest owners associations Management of the Maculinea species habitats: bush and trees

Monitoring of the Maculinea species

good
Podskalský Roháč NNR EAFRD Program of rural development in Slovakia 2007 – 2013, 2.2.2
Payments for NATURA 2000 – Forest land
Forest owners association Podskalie, Forest owners association Horný Močtenec Management of the area good