The good news is that this is by no means a hostile network, and I'm pretty sure most of the Europeans will know at least one of its 'members': national parks, nature reserves... Natura 2000 is a EU-wide network of nature protection areas, established under Habitats Directive and Birds Directive. Obviously, nature conservationists are not very good at marketing: while almost everyone knows, for example, a certain junk food 'restaurant' and is supposedly loving it, the brand of the most precious nature sites in Europe is unknown and many of those who do know it don't really like it as the name has a certain aura of legal restrictions. But the feeling I get, when I hear 'Natura 2000' is that of natural uniqueness: though they go under the same name, each of the sites is unique, and each of them is a gem of nature.
My attitude towards the Natura 2000 sites stems from some personal experiences with several of such sites throughout my life.
Kemeri National Park had just been established (and, as Latvia had not yet joined EU, it was not yet given the name Natura 2000) and I was just becoming an ornithologist: Kemeri National Park was two years old and I was 15, when between my primary school graduation exams me and my younger brother were doing fieldwork for the breeding bird atlas of the territory. The national park contains spectacular diversity of habitats: from floodplain black alder forests to dry coastal pine forests, from sea coast to raised bogs and marshes, lakes, rivers and urban parks... All this made a lasting impression on me and Kemeri National Park is still one of my favourite Natura 2000 sites in Latvia.
What started as a voluntary fieldwork in Kemeri made me into a 'bird atlas specialist', secured me my first job in Latvian Ornithological Society and eventually lead me to being the CEO of the organisation. Along the way were jobs in Gauja National Park and Slitere National Park, so similar in their names, so different in their history and appearance.
Gauja National Park has always been about giving people the opportunity to enjoy nature and conservation of not only natural but also cultural heritage. The national park is full of tourist attractions (both, sites and events), perhaps the most notable of them being 'The Golden Autumn in Sigulda', when the small town of Sigulda is flooded by tourists wishing to see, well... lots and lots of trees with yellow leaves.
On the other hand Slitere National Park was originally a strict nature reserve: a site of near-natural forests and mires and home for many rare and protected plant and animal species, some of which are found almost nowhere else. Since times immemorial (i.e., I don't remember since when) Slitere National Park is also the place where first year biology students take their field course to get to know and learn to study the plant and animal communities in the various habitats found in the area.
But if your image of Natura 2000 sites is one of restrictions and untouched nature you should think about the Natura 2000 site I do the main part of my Hoopoe studies: protected landscape area 'Adazi'. Adazi is not only a Natura 2000 site but also the largest military training area in the Baltic States. Here the military activities not only co-exist but have actually formed many of the natural values for protection of which the Natura 2000 site was designated: large areas of heath and dune habitats.
Kristine, an environmental officer working in the Adazi military base, once told me: "If any of my colleagues object nature conservation here, I explain them that without this being an area for nature protection we would probably not have it as a military training area either." She might be right: this large 'free' territory so close to Riga might be a delicious bite for real estate developers, and indeed part of the former military training area has been claimed by private land owners. But now the territory is double-protected being not only an internationally important military training area but also a nature protection area of EU importance.
By the way, the forests on the periphery of the military training area are used not only for tactical military training but also as excellent sites for berry and mushroom picking. Not only locals but also people from afar visit the area during the summer and autumn to supplement their menus and sometimes their household economies with the treats of the forest.
I cannot claim having much and in-depth knowledge of Natura 2000 sites (at least compering to some of my colleagues), but, as you can see, I do have a first-hand experience of Natura 2000 network not only being important for conservation of species and habitats but also giving people jobs (it gave me mine), positive emotions to tourists and profit to local businesses (think autumns in Sigluda), being a tool and a classroom for informal and formal education (biology students in Slitere National Park) a source of healthy food and household income (berry-pickers in Adazi) and even serving the needs of military defence. And the full spectrum of the benefits provided by Natura 2000 sites is much more than that. Even if we are ignorant of the name we all benefit one way or another from this 'secret' network.
One might ask: If people know the sites and the values they provide, is it really a problem that so many don't know the 'brand' Natura 2000 and the fact that the network is based on two laws of EU (the Birds and Habitats directives)? I think it is very similar to knowing that milk comes from cows not from cartons in shops. As long as everything is OK with cows, we drink milk, it benefits our health and knowledge of cows is just what makes us slightly smarter than the ones who have never bothered thinking about where the milk comes from. But if government (a hypothetical one) decides to ban dairy farming, this knowledge might be valuable to realise how this decision will affect our habits of drinking milk and maybe try to fight the decision of the hypothetical government. Therefore, yes, it is worth knowing where Natura 2000 comes from and what it really means, and I can say that from my personal experience: I must admit that in 2003 I was one of the 32% voting against Latvia joining EU, something I wouldn't have done had I realised the connection between the milk and the cows.
