Nature protection (biodiversity) policy

Editor's note 3Jul14: Sources D142-3 and D242-4.

The main formal actor in biodiversity policy has been the Heraklion General Directorate of Forests. Prior to 1996 the General Directorate was supervised by the (centralised) Forest Service and since then by the General Secretary of the Region. The General Directorate has been beneficiary and project manager for two LIFE projects implemented in the Asteroussia mountains. As project manager the Forest Service collaborated with the Museum of Natural History of Heraklion, EKBY (Hellenic Centre for Biotopes/Wetland Centre) as well as local independent scientists.

Law 1650/1986 foresees the creation of participative management bodies for protected areas, through presidential decree prepared by the Ministry of Environment. No such management body exists in Asteroussia or Messara. This lack is the result of bottom-up pressure (i.e. from local actors towards the Ministry of Environment) and from lack of top-down enforcement of the birds and habitat directives by the Greek government. As a result, biodiversity protection is implemented through horizontal environmental policy rendering the relevant licensing authorities (the prefectural/regional Department of Environment) the most important formal actor. Although biodiversity protection is an area of priority for EU regional aid, the Crete OP had not financed any related projects until 2011. Nevertheless, provisions were included in the 2007-2013 OP rendering the regional management authority a non-active policy actor.

The permanent local population of livestock breeders are the main informal actor in biodiversity policy. Local perception of the NATURA2000 network has tended to be negative, if not hostile. One of the main species under protection, the bearded vulture (Gypaetus barbatus), has traditionally been perceived as a threat to local free grazing flocks and cases of poisoning of were common until the late 1990s. Although local government (municipalities) are not formally involved in the policy they adopted a “quiet” attitude favouring non-implementation of habitat management and protection measures, reflecting the general attitude of the population. Environmental groups (from Messara and Heraklion) are also active in the area and much work has been carried out with regard to awareness-raising.

A most important factor in shifting attitudes towards biodiversity policy in general has been the perceived threat of renewable energy deployment in the area, primarily wind turbines. The scale of projects which have received licenses involve large-scale land-use change drastically affecting the Asteroussia rangelands. The informal actors described above have been extremely active in organising opposition to such project development. In this context, biodiversity policy and mobilisation of the relevant instruments and actors are seen as a way to safeguard traditional activities and cancel proposed developments, on the basis of the threat they pose to bearded vulture.

The main biodiversity policy instrument is the inclusion of Asteroussia in the NATURA2000 network in its current form, as both a Special Protection Area (birds) and a site of community importance (habitats). The main species under protection are the bearded vulture, the local palm tree (Phoenix theofrastii) and the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), rendering the largest part of the study site an important wildlife habitat .

Policy implementation in the study site suffers from chronic inabilities of the public administration to integrate biodiversity legislation and wider concerns in the policy process. EU financing through the LIFE Programme found its way to the area via the mediation of EKBY and the Forest Service, implementing two multi-annual scientific projects. The projects included monitoring of the status of the vulture and its habitat, the study and proposal of management measures and also small scale infrastructure to improve feeding of the bird and accessibility by visitors (mountain paths etc.). The projects focused on scientific management of the site with the aim of conservation, while proposing a variety of social and economic measures and wider projects. Proposed management measures are comprehensive and directly recognize free grazing as the main activity within the habitat and tackle the complex connections between the vulture’s population and grazing in the area. Part of the project included extensive rangeland management proposals.

However, further integration of proposed policy measures, has remained elusive since the completion of the projects. Formal policy instruments such as biodiversity monitoring, the issuing of a presidential decree specifying land-uses, activities and management and protection measures remain unimplemented. In this case, while scientific information and proposals for management measures have been prepared and are well in the public sphere, the lack of a presidential decree (formal institutional instrument) and designation of a management body (formal actor) signifies a general non-implementation of biodiversity policy at the local level. Poor policy implementation means that direct biodiversity policy impacts and effectiveness are extremely difficult to establish. Nevertheless, unofficial accounts point to a significant drop in poaching and poisoning of the bearded vulture as well as an increase in its population.

• < Prev
• Next >