1 Biodiversity and Natura 2000 – Ethical issues and dilemmas Jozef Keulartz Introduction The single most important legal tool to stop the decline of biodiversity in the EU is Natura 2000, which aims at creating a coherent network to protect the most valuable nature areas in the EU. Natura 2000 is, without doubt, one of the most ambitious supranational initiatives for nature conservation worldwide and forms the cornerstone of the EU nature conservation policies. However, the implementation of Natura 2000 is hampered by conflicting interests, by different types of knowledge and expertise, and by different perceptions or visions of nature. In this lecture, the focus will be on different and often diverging moral intuitions and ethical principles as source of possible conflicts over Natura 2000. 1. The emergence of a new paradigm in nature conservation Natura 2000 was established under the Habitats Directive. This directive protects over 1.000 animals and plant species and over 200 habitat types (e.g., special types of forests, meadows, and wetlands), which are of European importance. The directive states that land-use plans and projects should be subject to an assessment of their implications for species and habitats of European importance. The directive further states that “if, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected.” In Holland, there were some controversial cases of legal restrictions on land-use plans. The most famous one was about the European Hamster (Cricetus cricetus), also known as the Black-bellied Hamster or Common Hamster. This animal delayed the construction of an industrial zone in the province of Limburg (near the German border). There were 7000 jobs at stake, and the municipality of Heerlen had already invested 70 million Euro’s for land acquisition and infrastructure. Construction could start only after compensatory measures were taken. Other examples include the Desmoulin's Whorl Snail (Vertigo moulinsiana) that has delayed the construction of a new highway (A73); the Dutch Tundra Vole (Microtus oeconomus arenicola) that threatened to prevent the construction of a pavilion in Friesland; and the Sand Lizard (Lacerta agilis) that has brought activities in the harbor of IJmuiden to a standstill. 1 These controversies are, however, certainly not the only ones that occurred during the implementation of Natura 2000. To reach a more complete understanding of the implementation problems and pitfalls, I will first of all sketch the new paradigm in nature conservation that forms the context in which Natura 2000 emerged. 1 Recent evaluations of compensation measures show that there is a tension between the policy and the performance in practice. Because it is difficult, expensive and time-consuming to find and acquire a suitable location for compensation measures, in many cases compensation was not correctly applied, not executed at all, and sometimes not even embedded in spatial plans. Recently, an alternative for this problematic policy came up with the creation of new environmental markets where one can purchase ‘habitat credits’ or ‘species credits’ from organizations that compensate for a company’s damage to nature areas like wetlands or to the habitat of endangered species by restoring or enhancing an area or habitat of similar function and value some place else.