Who does the Natura Network benefit?
Pilar Martínez Rodríguez
Lawyer
Reproduction of the article published in American Broadcasting Company on 16 August 2019
The report ”Economic Benefits of the Natura 2000 Network in Spain”The study, carried out by the company Tragsatec, under the supervision of the Ministry for the Ecological Transition, shows the implementation of the Natura Network across a vast national territory and omits the harm it causes to important sectors of activity and thousands of citizens.
The report indicates that the Natura Network comprises 1,863 sites, 27 per cent of the territory, 14 million hectares of land and more than 7 million hectares of marine areas; a striking difference compared with the contribution of the most advanced countries in the European Union. Most of this area is privately owned and there are no budget allocations to compensate the holders of property and rights.
The benefit attributed by the report to the Natura Network is obtained at the expense of the private property of those who have interests in these territories: for we are faced with an expropriation without just compensation, a confiscation. If the cost of compensating those who are deprived of their property were included in the benefit calculations, the net balance of the implementation of the Natura Network in Spain would be negative.
It is excruciating to see the inclusion as a benefit of ethereal concepts such as supposed “spiritual”, “aesthetic” or “inspirational” services, while ignoring the reality of the stunted development and progress expectations of rural Spanish citizens, as a consequence of the disproportionate declaration of protected areas without any compensation.
The report states that the economic benefits of the Natura 2000 network in Spain are 40 times greater than the costs of managing and protecting it, and that investing in it is “an excellent option from an economic and social point of view.” The truth is that there are no genuine economic memos in the decrees approving the plans, but merely enumerations of aid and subsidies for various purposes in those territories, with no provision to compensate the holders of consolidated rights. The losses are perfectly quantifiable, as the declaration of a protected area entails a declaration of public utility for the purposes of expropriation of the affected goods and rights, as well as rights of first refusal and buy-back in favour of the Administration, which results in an immediate loss of value of the goods.
These regulations impose restrictions on activities such as livestock farming, agriculture, hunting, mining, power lines, telecommunications installations, urban development, photography, filming, advertising, the use of airspace or scientific research. Surprising restrictions are imposed, such as the use of umbrellas, the breed of dogs that may roam the territory, and the maintenance of pastures, arable land or forest. Many tracts of land end up barren or overrun by predators such as wolves, which ravage livestock calves, rendering livestock farming unsustainable. If the principle that “polluter pays” applies, isn't it only fair that the contributor should receive something in return?
Such a principle is not applied in Spain. The European Union's preservation funds are distributed among the conservation community, constituting an important instrument for political influence and vote-winning, and a means of intervening in property rights, since any activity in these territories must be authorised by the environmental authority and takes precedence over others.
The report's enthusiasm should be replaced with a degree of caution, as studies by reputable scientists and technicians conclude that many plans lack genuine participation processes, reports on the prior state of conservation, assessments of the suitability of the measures they approve or their outcomes; there is even no justification for the existence of the species they are meant to protect.
The report cites the co-financing principle of the Natura 2000 Network, with each State having to decide which funds to allocate. For the 2014–2020 period, the needs are estimated at €1,526,972,890 per year. Starting from the constitutional principle of solidarity, together with the obligation of public authorities to promote conditions favourable to economic and social progress and to a more equitable distribution of income, the compensation of private individuals, whose property and rights are deprived for the benefit of the common good, should be included as the primary cost of conservation. Until this happens, the Ministry's list of benefits is not credible.
