How Much Biodiversity does Natura 2000 Cover

Maes et al. (2013) argue that amendments to the Annexes of the Habitats Directive “would divert attention and resources and risks being counterproductive,” that other species would also benefit from the conservation measures for the species listed on the Annexes and that priority should focus on funding and implementing management. This argumentation very well illustrates the inertia of European administrative processes, such as the Habitats Directive. A time span of 20 years has apparently not been sufficient to implement a properly managed reserve network, whereas during the same time, major changes in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) led to rapid land use changes threatening biodiversity (e.g., Eggers et al. 2009). We are concerned that with the current species lists and only 7 years left, it will be virtually impossible to halt biodiversity loss on the territory of the EU by 2020. It is probably never “the right time” (Maes et al. 2013) to change any European directive, simply due to the protracted and complex European legislation processes. However, we believe that regular amendments and a stronger link of the Annexes to Red Lists will assure that the Habitats Directive becomes an adaptive tool and hence independent of such protracted administrative processes. Contrary to the argument of diverted resources put forward by Maes et al. (2013), we believe that only via the mechanisms embedded in the Habitats Directive itself, we can ensure conservation of threatened species which are not listed on the annexes. Local administrations are fully occupied with implementing Natura 2000, with only few resources left to protect unlisted species, even if they are highly endangered. It is, thus, rather optimistic to rely