A practitioner`s view on recreational angling and Natura 2000

Natura 2000 is a network of core breeding and resting sites for rare and threatened species, and some rare natural habitat types. Stretching over 18 % of the EU’s land area and 6 % of its marine territory, it is the largest... [ view full abstract ]

Natura 2000 is a network of core breeding and resting sites for rare and threatened species, and some rare natural habitat types. Stretching over 18 % of the EU’s land area and 6 % of its marine territory, it is the largest coordinated network of protected areas in the world. Natura 2000 is not a system of strict nature reserves from which all human activities would be excluded. Indeed, most of the land remains privately owned and the initial approach to conservation and sustainable use is to center on people working with nature rather than against it. Starting 2016 the Federal State of Lower Saxony was forced by the EU to accelerate the designation of about 280 Natura 2000 network areas including conservation aims, valuable species and habitats, and the formulation of individual management plans by the end of 2018. Designation of nature reserves is not necessarily needed for this process but was preferred by nature conservation authorities. As a consequence of this pressure, the supreme nature conservation authority published a standardized guideline for nature reserve regulations aiming to facilitate and fasten this process. This standardized guideline includes the possibility to strongly restrict all forms of land use, particularly with respect to angling, hunting and all forms of agriculture and is now used by many regional nature conservation authorities to designate regulations in protected areas. For example, shoreline access for anglers can be strongly limited and night-fishing and prebaiting of fish is prohibited in order to not disturb rare mammals like otters (Lutra lutra), a range of nesting birds and bats or destroy rare habitats. Multifaceted conflicts arose as a consequence of this practice because restrictions are often not well grounded and anglers claim a missing connection between restrictions and nature protection goals. These unresolved conflicts take place at different levels. Umbrella organisations of anglers, hunters and agriculturists federalised at the state level aiming to eliminate standardized guidelines for reserve regulations. At the local level, individual reserve regulations are intensively discussed by angling clubs, farmers and hunters. Whereas local nature protection authorities claim a transparent process of participation, most land users often feel overlooked and powerless to influence or prevent restrictions. We present three examples of conflicts between anglers and nature protection authorities with respect to Natura 2000. In a first case local conflict resolution was possible on the basis of transparent discussions whereas in a second case anglers and fishermen filed a complaint against reserve regulations at the court for administrative issues. Finally, one example shows how umbrella organisations of anglers and other land users fraternised to influence politics at the state level. From our practitioner`s perspective angling and aims of Natura 2000 are generally compatible. Conflicts arise when restrictions aim to ban angling activities, in all cases without evidence of angling-induced disturbances of wildlife or protection proposes, and when threatened species already developed positively under the presence of angling activities. Conflicts can be solved through transparent processes of participation, fact based reserve regulations and minimisation of restrictions.