# C_2014271EN.01004501.xml

| 19.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/45

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions — Multilevel governance in promoting the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and implementing the international Aichi Targets

2014/C 271/09

| Rapporteur | Kadri Tillemann (EE/EPP)
  Chair of Keila Rural Municipality Council |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document | Letter from the European Commission Vice-President of 13 December 2013 |

Rapporteur

Rapporteur

Kadri Tillemann (EE/EPP)

Chair of Keila Rural Municipality Council

Reference document

Reference document

Letter from the European Commission Vice-President of 13 December 2013

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

A.   
  Multilevel biodiversity governance in implementing the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and CBD Decision X/22

Multilevel biodiversity governance in implementing the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and CBD Decision X/22

| 1. | acknowledges that in March 2011 EU leaders committed to the EU 2020 headline target of ‘halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and restoring them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss’. The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, as adopted by the European Commission in May 2011 (1), and endorsed by the Council (2), includes 6 main targets, and 20 actions to help the EU to reach its 2020 biodiversity target; |
| --- | --- |

1.

acknowledges that in March 2011 EU leaders committed to the EU 2020 headline target of ‘halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and restoring them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss’. The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, as adopted by the European Commission in May 2011 (1), and endorsed by the Council (2), includes 6 main targets, and 20 actions to help the EU to reach its 2020 biodiversity target;

1

2

| 2. | acknowledges that the EU strategy has a global mandate. It translates the global targets and commitments which the EU made at the 10th Conference of the Parties (COP 10) of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2010, namely the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 (Decision X/2), including the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets for 2020 (3); |
| --- | --- |

2.

acknowledges that the EU strategy has a global mandate. It translates the global targets and commitments which the EU made at the 10th Conference of the Parties (COP 10) of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2010, namely the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 (Decision X/2), including the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets for 2020 (3);

3

| 3. | points out that biodiversity loss is a global problem, with serious environmental, health and socioeconomic consequences, and affects people’s quality of life. It is a phenomenon that has many causes, not least human activity; |
| --- | --- |

3.

points out that biodiversity loss is a global problem, with serious environmental, health and socioeconomic consequences, and affects people’s quality of life. It is a phenomenon that has many causes, not least human activity;

| 4. | draws attention to the fact that local and regional authorities (LRAs) (4) have a critical role to play in implementing EU and international biodiversity objectives on the ground, and thereby to assist national governments in preventing further biodiversity loss. As a result of ongoing decentralisation in many Member States, LRAs have increasing responsibility for the implementation of biodiversity-related policies; |
| --- | --- |

4.

draws attention to the fact that local and regional authorities (LRAs) (4) have a critical role to play in implementing EU and international biodiversity objectives on the ground, and thereby to assist national governments in preventing further biodiversity loss. As a result of ongoing decentralisation in many Member States, LRAs have increasing responsibility for the implementation of biodiversity-related policies;

4

| 5. | stresses the importance of applying the principles of the CoR White Paper on multilevel governance and the Charter for Multilevel Governance (MLG) in Europe adopted by the CoR in April 2014 (5) when implementing the EU Biodiversity Strategy and Aichi Targets. The CoR considers multilevel governance to mean coordinated action by the EU, Member States and LRAs, based on partnership in all phases of the policy cycle, from drafting to implementing EU policies. The governance of biodiversity and ecosystem services implies coherent policy tools and mandates across all levels of government; |
| --- | --- |

5.

stresses the importance of applying the principles of the CoR White Paper on multilevel governance and the Charter for Multilevel Governance (MLG) in Europe adopted by the CoR in April 2014 (5) when implementing the EU Biodiversity Strategy and Aichi Targets. The CoR considers multilevel governance to mean coordinated action by the EU, Member States and LRAs, based on partnership in all phases of the policy cycle, from drafting to implementing EU policies. The governance of biodiversity and ecosystem services implies coherent policy tools and mandates across all levels of government;

5

| 6. | calls on the European Commission to prepare an assessment of the Member States about the multilevel governance of biodiversity and identifying the active role of regional and local governments in such governance. The same document should identify areas whose biodiversity may be threatened by the absence of a governance model linking up the Member States, regional and local governments and the relevant economic and social stakeholders and provide suggestions to deal with these threats; |
| --- | --- |

6.

calls on the European Commission to prepare an assessment of the Member States about the multilevel governance of biodiversity and identifying the active role of regional and local governments in such governance. The same document should identify areas whose biodiversity may be threatened by the absence of a governance model linking up the Member States, regional and local governments and the relevant economic and social stakeholders and provide suggestions to deal with these threats;

| 7. | welcomes in this regard that the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 states that ‘the shared EU and CBD targets need to be pursued through a mix of sub-national, national, and EU-level action’ and that the European Commission seeks to build effective long-lasting partnerships with ‘stakeholders involved in spatial planning and land use management in implementing biodiversity strategies at all levels’; |
| --- | --- |

7.

welcomes in this regard that the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 states that ‘the shared EU and CBD targets need to be pursued through a mix of sub-national, national, and EU-level action’ and that the European Commission seeks to build effective long-lasting partnerships with ‘stakeholders involved in spatial planning and land use management in implementing biodiversity strategies at all levels’;

| 8. | underlines the importance of CBD Decision X/22 (6), which includes the ‘Plan of Action on Sub-national Governments, Cities and other Local Authorities for Biodiversity (2011-2020)’ and of the CBD Decision XI/8(A) (7). The CoR considers Decision CBD X/22 unique in the sense that it presents the most advanced ‘multilevel governance’ decision of a Multilateral Environment Agreement (MEA); |
| --- | --- |

8.

underlines the importance of CBD Decision X/22 (6), which includes the ‘Plan of Action on Sub-national Governments, Cities and other Local Authorities for Biodiversity (2011-2020)’ and of the CBD Decision XI/8(A) (7). The CoR considers Decision CBD X/22 unique in the sense that it presents the most advanced ‘multilevel governance’ decision of a Multilateral Environment Agreement (MEA);

6

7

| 9. | reminds that the CoR Opinion preparing for CBD COP 10 (8) and the CoR’s delegation to the COP 10 strongly supported the adoption of the CBD Decision X/22; moreover, the CoR, in the Memorandum of Understanding signed with UNEP in 2012 agreed to promote the implementation of this CBD Decision; |
| --- | --- |

9.

reminds that the CoR Opinion preparing for CBD COP 10 (8) and the CoR’s delegation to the COP 10 strongly supported the adoption of the CBD Decision X/22; moreover, the CoR, in the Memorandum of Understanding signed with UNEP in 2012 agreed to promote the implementation of this CBD Decision;

8

| 10. | calls on the Member States to implement the commitments they made in CBD Decision X/22 to improve their governance mechanisms and legal and voluntary instruments in order to engage with and support LRAs in local and regional biodiversity actions, whilst taking into account the mission, objectives and indicative list of actions under CBD Decision X/22 and the targets and actions of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020; |
| --- | --- |

10.

calls on the Member States to implement the commitments they made in CBD Decision X/22 to improve their governance mechanisms and legal and voluntary instruments in order to engage with and support LRAs in local and regional biodiversity actions, whilst taking into account the mission, objectives and indicative list of actions under CBD Decision X/22 and the targets and actions of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020;

| 11. | welcomes the reference made by the Council, in its conclusions of 12 June 2014, on the COP 12 of the CBD in October 2014 (9), to the role local and regional authorities play in advancing implementation of the CBD Strategic Plan to 2020 and in achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets; and calls on the Council, in its future conclusions on COPs of the CBD to reflect the multilevel governance approach by increasing its recognition of local and regional authorities as governmental stakeholders in distinction to other non-governmental stakeholders within the CBD process; |
| --- | --- |

11.

welcomes the reference made by the Council, in its conclusions of 12 June 2014, on the COP 12 of the CBD in October 2014 (9), to the role local and regional authorities play in advancing implementation of the CBD Strategic Plan to 2020 and in achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets; and calls on the Council, in its future conclusions on COPs of the CBD to reflect the multilevel governance approach by increasing its recognition of local and regional authorities as governmental stakeholders in distinction to other non-governmental stakeholders within the CBD process;

9

| 12. | seeks to share its experiences of multilevel governance on biodiversity and the implementation of CBD Decision X/22 with LRAs from other world regions by accompanying the EU delegation to CBD COP 12 as an observer in October 2014, thereby building on the CoR’s participation in COP 10 and its Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the UNEP, in order to ensure that the voice of EU LRAs is appropriately represented; |
| --- | --- |

12.

seeks to share its experiences of multilevel governance on biodiversity and the implementation of CBD Decision X/22 with LRAs from other world regions by accompanying the EU delegation to CBD COP 12 as an observer in October 2014, thereby building on the CoR’s participation in COP 10 and its Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the UNEP, in order to ensure that the voice of EU LRAs is appropriately represented;

B.   
  The role of European LRAs and necessary support from Members States in the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and the Aichi Targets

The role of European LRAs and necessary support from Members States in the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and the Aichi Targets

| 13. | draws attention to the fact that it has commissioned a study on the ‘Multilevel governance of our natural capital’ (10) to support this opinion and analyse cooperation between Member States and their LRAs, innovative LRA action, and current best practices, as well as to provide more detailed practical suggestions for improving multilevel governance; |
| --- | --- |

13.

draws attention to the fact that it has commissioned a study on the ‘Multilevel governance of our natural capital’ (10) to support this opinion and analyse cooperation between Member States and their LRAs, innovative LRA action, and current best practices, as well as to provide more detailed practical suggestions for improving multilevel governance;

10

| 14. | encourages LRAs to lead by example and strongly welcomes the strategies, actions and innovative approaches that several LRAs have undertaken to protect and manage their biodiversity and ecosystems in a sustainable way; also welcomes the good initiatives that some Member States are already undertaking to support their LRAs. All these actions inspire the following policy recommendations; |
| --- | --- |

14.

encourages LRAs to lead by example and strongly welcomes the strategies, actions and innovative approaches that several LRAs have undertaken to protect and manage their biodiversity and ecosystems in a sustainable way; also welcomes the good initiatives that some Member States are already undertaking to support their LRAs. All these actions inspire the following policy recommendations;

Involvement in national strategies and governance

Involvement in national strategies and governance

| 15. | calls on Member States to ensure or improve LRA involvement in setting up, reviewing and implementing National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), by including, for instance, national associations of LRAs in national biodiversity commissions/steering committees; |
| --- | --- |

15.

calls on Member States to ensure or improve LRA involvement in setting up, reviewing and implementing National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), by including, for instance, national associations of LRAs in national biodiversity commissions/steering committees;

| 16. | encourages Member States to further develop, in cooperation with their national associations of LRAs, guidance documents, capacity-building initiatives and practical advice services for regional and local biodiversity strategies, action plans and measures; |
| --- | --- |

16.

encourages Member States to further develop, in cooperation with their national associations of LRAs, guidance documents, capacity-building initiatives and practical advice services for regional and local biodiversity strategies, action plans and measures;

| 17. | strongly encourages regional authorities to develop Regional Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (RBSAPs), and cities and municipalities to draw up Local Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (LBSAPs) and acknowledges initiatives already taken in this area. These can provide both a comprehensive vision and a practical framework for the sustainable management of biodiversity at sub-national levels, taking into account the biodiversity targets defined at national, European, and CBD level; |
| --- | --- |

17.

strongly encourages regional authorities to develop Regional Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (RBSAPs), and cities and municipalities to draw up Local Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (LBSAPs) and acknowledges initiatives already taken in this area. These can provide both a comprehensive vision and a practical framework for the sustainable management of biodiversity at sub-national levels, taking into account the biodiversity targets defined at national, European, and CBD level;

| 18. | encourages Member States to support, for example in cooperation with national associations of LRAs, forging links between their LRAs to strengthen biodiversity management, and to create or financially support national awards/recognition schemes, which promote biodiversity actions undertaken by LRAs; |
| --- | --- |

18.

encourages Member States to support, for example in cooperation with national associations of LRAs, forging links between their LRAs to strengthen biodiversity management, and to create or financially support national awards/recognition schemes, which promote biodiversity actions undertaken by LRAs;

| 19. | encourages LRA to take a comprehensive approach to biodiversity across their administrative departments, and to carry out capacity building within their administrations, whilst making best use of administrative capacity building projects, training packages or guidance provided for LRA at national, European, or international level; also encourages LRA to strengthen their collaboration on biodiversity in LRA associations, networks or platforms at national, EU and international levels, as an important means to pool together resources and experiences to tackle common challenges and to provide joint policy advice to a Member State, the EU and the CBD; |
| --- | --- |

19.

encourages LRA to take a comprehensive approach to biodiversity across their administrative departments, and to carry out capacity building within their administrations, whilst making best use of administrative capacity building projects, training packages or guidance provided for LRA at national, European, or international level; also encourages LRA to strengthen their collaboration on biodiversity in LRA associations, networks or platforms at national, EU and international levels, as an important means to pool together resources and experiences to tackle common challenges and to provide joint policy advice to a Member State, the EU and the CBD;

| 20. | calls on Member States to improve coordination with their LRAs when preparing national positions and follow-up pertaining to the Common Implementation Framework of the EU Biodiversity Strategy or in the context of the national CBD-related (reporting) activities; |
| --- | --- |

20.

calls on Member States to improve coordination with their LRAs when preparing national positions and follow-up pertaining to the Common Implementation Framework of the EU Biodiversity Strategy or in the context of the national CBD-related (reporting) activities;

| 21. | calls on the Member States to draw up jointly compatible indicators in agreement with local and regional authorities, enabling comparison of conditions and trends in the areas covered by biodiversity strategies at different levels; |
| --- | --- |

21.

calls on the Member States to draw up jointly compatible indicators in agreement with local and regional authorities, enabling comparison of conditions and trends in the areas covered by biodiversity strategies at different levels;

Strengthening implementation of the EU Nature legislation

Strengthening implementation of the EU Nature legislation

| 22. | reiterates the need for Member States and LRA to cooperate effectively and rapidly in order to finalise the establishment of Natura 2000 management plans or equivalent instruments which set out the conservation and restoration measures necessary to achieve target 1 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy; |
| --- | --- |

22.

reiterates the need for Member States and LRA to cooperate effectively and rapidly in order to finalise the establishment of Natura 2000 management plans or equivalent instruments which set out the conservation and restoration measures necessary to achieve target 1 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy;

Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services

Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services

| 23. | expects collective action to be taken by Member States and LRA’s to reach the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy’s second target of restoring at least 15 % of degraded ecosystems by 2020, to halt biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystems and to restore them throughout Europe, not only in Natura 2000 sites; |
| --- | --- |

23.

expects collective action to be taken by Member States and LRA’s to reach the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy’s second target of restoring at least 15 % of degraded ecosystems by 2020, to halt biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystems and to restore them throughout Europe, not only in Natura 2000 sites;

| 24. | reiterates its call (11) for LRAs to apply the principle of ‘no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services’ to urban and regional planning, the authorisation of housing, industry, agriculture, fisheries, forestry, recreation, tourism, energy or transport infrastructure and financial assistance, by ensuring compensation/offset measures for any remaining unavoidable negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services; |
| --- | --- |

24.

reiterates its call (11) for LRAs to apply the principle of ‘no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services’ to urban and regional planning, the authorisation of housing, industry, agriculture, fisheries, forestry, recreation, tourism, energy or transport infrastructure and financial assistance, by ensuring compensation/offset measures for any remaining unavoidable negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services;

11

| 25. | stresses that the prevention of ecosystem degradation and the restoration of degraded ecosystem functionalities must be absolute priorities because measures to manage the consequences of ecological imbalances caused by human activity are always more costly, lengthy and, above all, uncertain in their outcomes; |
| --- | --- |

25.

stresses that the prevention of ecosystem degradation and the restoration of degraded ecosystem functionalities must be absolute priorities because measures to manage the consequences of ecological imbalances caused by human activity are always more costly, lengthy and, above all, uncertain in their outcomes;

| 26. | stresses the importance of national, regional and local TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) studies on the value of ecosystem services and the need to apply this approach to local projects in order to demonstrate the socioeconomic benefits, for instance, of nationally, regionally and locally protected areas as well as the need to incorporate the value of natural capital in national, regional and local planning, accounting/reporting and budgeting practices in support of Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy; |
| --- | --- |

26.

stresses the importance of national, regional and local TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) studies on the value of ecosystem services and the need to apply this approach to local projects in order to demonstrate the socioeconomic benefits, for instance, of nationally, regionally and locally protected areas as well as the need to incorporate the value of natural capital in national, regional and local planning, accounting/reporting and budgeting practices in support of Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy;

| 27. | considers that although the economic evaluation of ecosystem services could help decide between conflicting objectives in the context of certain cost-benefit studies, it has its methodological and ethical difficulties. Therefore the CoR supports alternative and flexible ways to evaluate costs of biodiversity loss, including the ones referred to in its Opinion CDR4577-2013_00_00_TRA_AC; |
| --- | --- |

27.

considers that although the economic evaluation of ecosystem services could help decide between conflicting objectives in the context of certain cost-benefit studies, it has its methodological and ethical difficulties. Therefore the CoR supports alternative and flexible ways to evaluate costs of biodiversity loss, including the ones referred to in its Opinion CDR4577-2013_00_00_TRA_AC;

| 28. | sees a need to provide support for LRA efforts to improve the state of knowledge about biodiversity, ecosystems and their services and their GIS mapping, using scales that are suitable for local/regional planning and ecosystem status monitoring, whilst taking these needs into account in the Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services in Europe (MAES); and to support LRAs in managing the spatial environmental data in an INSPIRE compliant way to facilitate data exchange and also connect green infrastructure across borders; |
| --- | --- |

28.

sees a need to provide support for LRA efforts to improve the state of knowledge about biodiversity, ecosystems and their services and their GIS mapping, using scales that are suitable for local/regional planning and ecosystem status monitoring, whilst taking these needs into account in the Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services in Europe (MAES); and to support LRAs in managing the spatial environmental data in an INSPIRE compliant way to facilitate data exchange and also connect green infrastructure across borders;

| 29. | points out the need to launch portals for online and up-to-date biodiversity information to serve as a key reference point for LRA and the interested public, with regular review and maintenance and welcomes the setup of the EU-wide MAES Digital Atlas; |
| --- | --- |

29.

points out the need to launch portals for online and up-to-date biodiversity information to serve as a key reference point for LRA and the interested public, with regular review and maintenance and welcomes the setup of the EU-wide MAES Digital Atlas;

| 30. | points out that urbanisation is a challenge as well as an opportunity to maintain and manage ecosystem services. It is clearly necessary to consider the interconnectedness of drivers and impacts as well as the inflows and outflows that link cities to ecosystems inside and outside their territories. Urban regions should be urged and supported to take more responsibility to promote and develop methods to integrate the natural environment and human needs and well-being. Also stresses the importance of landscape as an expression of man’s relationship with his surroundings and his responsibility for taking care of the landscape, which will have a major impact on biodiversity. Underlines the importance of the European Landscape Convention of 2000 and emphasises the value of seeking synergies with the Biodiversity Strategy; |
| --- | --- |

30.

points out that urbanisation is a challenge as well as an opportunity to maintain and manage ecosystem services. It is clearly necessary to consider the interconnectedness of drivers and impacts as well as the inflows and outflows that link cities to ecosystems inside and outside their territories. Urban regions should be urged and supported to take more responsibility to promote and develop methods to integrate the natural environment and human needs and well-being. Also stresses the importance of landscape as an expression of man’s relationship with his surroundings and his responsibility for taking care of the landscape, which will have a major impact on biodiversity. Underlines the importance of the European Landscape Convention of 2000 and emphasises the value of seeking synergies with the Biodiversity Strategy;

| 31. | draws attention to the economic perspective of the development of ecosystem services — living within the limits of healthy ecosystems and reinforcing their value will naturally support the most important aspects of a green economy: sustainable economic progress; reduced pollution and resource efficiency. In order to take advantage of the ecosystem management benefits of a green economy, its processes should be built into the decision-making processes of all governance levels (i.e. local, regional, national and global) to support the rationalisation of resource use; |
| --- | --- |

31.

draws attention to the economic perspective of the development of ecosystem services — living within the limits of healthy ecosystems and reinforcing their value will naturally support the most important aspects of a green economy: sustainable economic progress; reduced pollution and resource efficiency. In order to take advantage of the ecosystem management benefits of a green economy, its processes should be built into the decision-making processes of all governance levels (i.e. local, regional, national and global) to support the rationalisation of resource use;

| 32. | emphasises the potential of green infrastructure as an integrated, multifunctional local and regional level tool for implementing the principles of multi-level governance in biodiversity management and protection and improving regions’ ecosystem services, thereby contributing to the Territorial Agenda of the Europe 2020 Strategy by strengthening territorial cohesion and identity; |
| --- | --- |

32.

emphasises the potential of green infrastructure as an integrated, multifunctional local and regional level tool for implementing the principles of multi-level governance in biodiversity management and protection and improving regions’ ecosystem services, thereby contributing to the Territorial Agenda of the Europe 2020 Strategy by strengthening territorial cohesion and identity;

Implementing green infrastructure

Implementing green infrastructure

| 33. | reiterates its call (12) for LRAs to deploy, maintain and monitor rural and urban green infrastructure (GI), in particular through their territorial urban planning and spatial planning responsibilities, land-use regulations, planning authorisation procedures, building standards, regulations and codes; |
| --- | --- |

33.

reiterates its call (12) for LRAs to deploy, maintain and monitor rural and urban green infrastructure (GI), in particular through their territorial urban planning and spatial planning responsibilities, land-use regulations, planning authorisation procedures, building standards, regulations and codes;

12

| 34. | calls on Member States to support local and regional GI management and planning initiatives by providing them with the necessary resources, clear guidance and direction, including the designation of national green infrastructure/ecological networks, and provisions in national spatial planning laws/policy for LRAs to consider the provision of GI in their spatial and territorial and urban planning system; |
| --- | --- |

34.

calls on Member States to support local and regional GI management and planning initiatives by providing them with the necessary resources, clear guidance and direction, including the designation of national green infrastructure/ecological networks, and provisions in national spatial planning laws/policy for LRAs to consider the provision of GI in their spatial and territorial and urban planning system;

| 35. | stresses that for the effective implementation of GI there is a vital need for the MS and LRA to maintain and develop the existing and establishment of new cooperation schemes for LRA for cross-border cooperation at the macro-regional and pan-European scales, and for decentralised development cooperation to strengthen and capitalise on joint and integrated biodiversity protection and management efforts; |
| --- | --- |

35.

stresses that for the effective implementation of GI there is a vital need for the MS and LRA to maintain and develop the existing and establishment of new cooperation schemes for LRA for cross-border cooperation at the macro-regional and pan-European scales, and for decentralised development cooperation to strengthen and capitalise on joint and integrated biodiversity protection and management efforts;

Involving the wider public, stakeholders and partners

Involving the wider public, stakeholders and partners

| 36. | draws attention to the fact that local communities often have knowledge based on traditional or personal experience regarding the ability of natural resources to provide for their communities and livelihoods. This capacity can facilitate the maintenance and restoration of ecosystem services if adequately supported and effectively integrated into the design and planning of biodiversity policy; encourages Member States to develop national initiatives that aim at supporting self-sustaining local community partnerships that contribute to achieving national biodiversity objectives; |
| --- | --- |

36.

draws attention to the fact that local communities often have knowledge based on traditional or personal experience regarding the ability of natural resources to provide for their communities and livelihoods. This capacity can facilitate the maintenance and restoration of ecosystem services if adequately supported and effectively integrated into the design and planning of biodiversity policy; encourages Member States to develop national initiatives that aim at supporting self-sustaining local community partnerships that contribute to achieving national biodiversity objectives;

| 37. | underlines the significant role of local and regional authorities in communicating, educating and raising public awareness (CEPA activities). The wider public is relatively unfamiliar with biodiversity policy objectives. However, it is essential for the citizens and the wider stakeholder groups to be aware of the stakes at play. The CoR sees the promotion of citizen science as an important method of involving and educating people and using local knowledge effectively; also encourages Member States to assist LRAs in their CEPA activities by for example an adequate national Clearing House Mechanism (CHM). |
| --- | --- |

37.

underlines the significant role of local and regional authorities in communicating, educating and raising public awareness (CEPA activities). The wider public is relatively unfamiliar with biodiversity policy objectives. However, it is essential for the citizens and the wider stakeholder groups to be aware of the stakes at play. The CoR sees the promotion of citizen science as an important method of involving and educating people and using local knowledge effectively; also encourages Member States to assist LRAs in their CEPA activities by for example an adequate national Clearing House Mechanism (CHM).

| 38. | points out the need for LRA to sustain and further increase their efforts to raise awareness amongst all stakeholders and the public on biodiversity objectives and — to do so — implement or advance targeted awareness-raising programmes; |
| --- | --- |

38.

points out the need for LRA to sustain and further increase their efforts to raise awareness amongst all stakeholders and the public on biodiversity objectives and — to do so — implement or advance targeted awareness-raising programmes;

| 39. | encourages LRAs to support and formalise new multi-stakeholder partnerships with private companies, civil society including environmental NGOs and the research community; creating local/regional cooperation with these partners with a view to making efficient use of national or EU funding (e.g. Horizon 2020); and promoting voluntary commitments of key sectors such as agriculture, tourism and outdoor sports associations or business; |
| --- | --- |

39.

encourages LRAs to support and formalise new multi-stakeholder partnerships with private companies, civil society including environmental NGOs and the research community; creating local/regional cooperation with these partners with a view to making efficient use of national or EU funding (e.g. Horizon 2020); and promoting voluntary commitments of key sectors such as agriculture, tourism and outdoor sports associations or business;

| 40. | emphasises a need for all governance levels concerned to ensure successful and comprehensive stakeholder involvement in biodiversity policy planning and implementation processes since this is likely to deliver good social outcomes, such as a better common understanding of stakeholder values, increased trust and learning; this includes effective participatory procedures, e.g. in the designation of nature conservation areas; |
| --- | --- |

40.

emphasises a need for all governance levels concerned to ensure successful and comprehensive stakeholder involvement in biodiversity policy planning and implementation processes since this is likely to deliver good social outcomes, such as a better common understanding of stakeholder values, increased trust and learning; this includes effective participatory procedures, e.g. in the designation of nature conservation areas;

Combating invasive alien species

Combating invasive alien species

| 41. | expects the future Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (13) to help local and regional authorities to address this serious danger to local biodiversity, ecosystem services as well as human health and economies. In the context of an EU legal framework on invasive alien species and guided by national legislation and programs and cross-border initiatives, regional and local authorities are best placed to take effective action to monitor, prevent, eradicate, contain and control these species and to provide support and local knowledge to find the necessary balance between the socioeconomic and environmental interests concerned and to improve public understanding of the problem; |
| --- | --- |

41.

expects the future Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (13) to help local and regional authorities to address this serious danger to local biodiversity, ecosystem services as well as human health and economies. In the context of an EU legal framework on invasive alien species and guided by national legislation and programs and cross-border initiatives, regional and local authorities are best placed to take effective action to monitor, prevent, eradicate, contain and control these species and to provide support and local knowledge to find the necessary balance between the socioeconomic and environmental interests concerned and to improve public understanding of the problem;

13

Mainstreaming and funding biodiversity

Mainstreaming and funding biodiversity

| 42. | notes that biodiversity is an inter-sectorial issue. For effective policy implementation, biodiversity conservation should be mainstreamed into the agenda of various sectors of national, regional and local governance (spatial and urban planning, landscape, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, climate change, health, transportation, housing, land use, etc.), in line with the suggestions of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and CBD Aichi Targets; |
| --- | --- |

42.

notes that biodiversity is an inter-sectorial issue. For effective policy implementation, biodiversity conservation should be mainstreamed into the agenda of various sectors of national, regional and local governance (spatial and urban planning, landscape, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, climate change, health, transportation, housing, land use, etc.), in line with the suggestions of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and CBD Aichi Targets;

| 43. | draws attention to the special need for the authorities at all governance levels to acknowledge and address the issue of agricultural biodiversity due to the significant biodiversity potential of species, breeds/varieties and genetic resources of agricultural interest and of the agro-ecosystem in general; |
| --- | --- |

43.

draws attention to the special need for the authorities at all governance levels to acknowledge and address the issue of agricultural biodiversity due to the significant biodiversity potential of species, breeds/varieties and genetic resources of agricultural interest and of the agro-ecosystem in general;

| 44. | calls on LRAs and Member States, as required by the EU Biodiversity Strategy, to better target funding from the EARDF for biodiversity conservation, including the integration of quantified biodiversity targets into regional rural development programmes and the coherent localisation of and budget allocation for agri-environmental measures. To this end, it would be particularly useful to promote biodiversity-related Community-Led Local Development Initiatives (e.g. farmers and foresters to achieve continuity of landscape features, protection of genetic resources); |
| --- | --- |

44.

calls on LRAs and Member States, as required by the EU Biodiversity Strategy, to better target funding from the EARDF for biodiversity conservation, including the integration of quantified biodiversity targets into regional rural development programmes and the coherent localisation of and budget allocation for agri-environmental measures. To this end, it would be particularly useful to promote biodiversity-related Community-Led Local Development Initiatives (e.g. farmers and foresters to achieve continuity of landscape features, protection of genetic resources);

| 45. | encourages Member States and LRAs to ensure the optimal use of financing opportunities offered by the ERDF, as for the first time biodiversity and ecosystems are included in the objectives, thereby providing additional sources of funding green infrastructure deployment; |
| --- | --- |

45.

encourages Member States and LRAs to ensure the optimal use of financing opportunities offered by the ERDF, as for the first time biodiversity and ecosystems are included in the objectives, thereby providing additional sources of funding green infrastructure deployment;

| 46. | stresses the importance of the LIFE Programme for LRA’s biodiversity and green infrastructure projects and urges LIFE national contact points to closely cooperate with LRAs, and with LIFE regional contact points, in preparing LIFE applications; also wishes to see the new funding category of LIFE integrated projects to step up support for regional-scale projects and mobilise support by other EU, national and private funds; (14) |
| --- | --- |

46.

stresses the importance of the LIFE Programme for LRA’s biodiversity and green infrastructure projects and urges LIFE national contact points to closely cooperate with LRAs, and with LIFE regional contact points, in preparing LIFE applications; also wishes to see the new funding category of LIFE integrated projects to step up support for regional-scale projects and mobilise support by other EU, national and private funds; (14)

14

| 47. | encourages LRAs, with support from their Member States, to explore innovative means of funding, including, for instance, private/business foundations or foundations under public law, regional/national lotteries, public-private partnerships, carbon sink forestry/peatland restoration projects, tax incentives, payments for ecosystem service (PES), voluntary labelling/certification; or local enterprise partnerships; the incomes collected for issuing spatial planning and construction permits should be directly designated for local and regional biodiversity-related initiatives; |
| --- | --- |

47.

encourages LRAs, with support from their Member States, to explore innovative means of funding, including, for instance, private/business foundations or foundations under public law, regional/national lotteries, public-private partnerships, carbon sink forestry/peatland restoration projects, tax incentives, payments for ecosystem service (PES), voluntary labelling/certification; or local enterprise partnerships; the incomes collected for issuing spatial planning and construction permits should be directly designated for local and regional biodiversity-related initiatives;

| 48. | encourages local authorities to take effective action at all levels of financial support to stop subsidies and tax relief that harm biodiversity; |
| --- | --- |

48.

encourages local authorities to take effective action at all levels of financial support to stop subsidies and tax relief that harm biodiversity;

| 49. | underlines the importance of the national co-funding of EU projects to enable LRAs to apply for co-financed EU biodiversity-related projects in order to improve their ability to take advantage of the opportunities to finance site-adapted biodiversity and GI solutions under the operational programmes of the EU funds, and to invest in the necessary cross-sector capacity building, co-financing and networking; also recognises the importance of national funding programmes that fund LRA’s (pilot) actions which contribute to national biodiversity objectives; |
| --- | --- |

49.

underlines the importance of the national co-funding of EU projects to enable LRAs to apply for co-financed EU biodiversity-related projects in order to improve their ability to take advantage of the opportunities to finance site-adapted biodiversity and GI solutions under the operational programmes of the EU funds, and to invest in the necessary cross-sector capacity building, co-financing and networking; also recognises the importance of national funding programmes that fund LRA’s (pilot) actions which contribute to national biodiversity objectives;

| C. | Elements for consideration by the European Commission in its mid-term review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 |
| --- | --- |

C.

Elements for consideration by the European Commission in its mid-term review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020

| 50. | believes that the European Commission mid-term review should take into account any changes which have occurred between the strategy’s launch in 2011 and the mid-term review in 2015, in particular the new financial framework and the 2014-2020 EU funds and that many of the strategy’s actions are due to be implemented before the mid-term review. In this regard, the CoR strongly supports the Council’s view that the European Commission should recommend further actions (15), contributing to enhance the effectiveness of the second stage of the strategy’s implementation, in order to ensure that the headline target of the strategy is achieved by 2020; |
| --- | --- |

50.

believes that the European Commission mid-term review should take into account any changes which have occurred between the strategy’s launch in 2011 and the mid-term review in 2015, in particular the new financial framework and the 2014-2020 EU funds and that many of the strategy’s actions are due to be implemented before the mid-term review. In this regard, the CoR strongly supports the Council’s view that the European Commission should recommend further actions (15), contributing to enhance the effectiveness of the second stage of the strategy’s implementation, in order to ensure that the headline target of the strategy is achieved by 2020;

15

| 51. | agrees with the European Parliament that a crucial test of the EU’s commitment to achieving the biodiversity targets will be the final delivery of the new 2014-2020 EU funds on this target. The inadequate degree to which biodiversity protection was integrated into other EU policies caused the failure of the first EU strategy in 2010 (16). A methodology for tracking biodiversity-related expenditure across the EU budget, similar to the one being developed for climate-related expenditure, is needed for this purpose; |
| --- | --- |

51.

agrees with the European Parliament that a crucial test of the EU’s commitment to achieving the biodiversity targets will be the final delivery of the new 2014-2020 EU funds on this target. The inadequate degree to which biodiversity protection was integrated into other EU policies caused the failure of the first EU strategy in 2010 (16). A methodology for tracking biodiversity-related expenditure across the EU budget, similar to the one being developed for climate-related expenditure, is needed for this purpose;

16

| 52. | stresses the importance of greening as a central pillar of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), in order to achieve biodiversity targets. It is essential that the CAP mid-term review takes more clearer steps in ensuring that greening leads to genuine environmental improvements, including biodiversity in rural areas all over Europe; |
| --- | --- |

52.

stresses the importance of greening as a central pillar of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), in order to achieve biodiversity targets. It is essential that the CAP mid-term review takes more clearer steps in ensuring that greening leads to genuine environmental improvements, including biodiversity in rural areas all over Europe;

| 53. | believes in the great potential of GI as an effective tool to halt biodiversity loss and avoid habitat fragmentation and therefore expects the review of the strategy to indicate key elements for consideration in the European Commission’s progress report on GI, due by the end of 2017 and, in particular, to foresee in 2018 a proposal for EU legislation on TEN-G, a Trans-European Green Infrastructure (as part of the EU budget post 2020), reiterating its previous recommendations in this regard; |
| --- | --- |

53.

believes in the great potential of GI as an effective tool to halt biodiversity loss and avoid habitat fragmentation and therefore expects the review of the strategy to indicate key elements for consideration in the European Commission’s progress report on GI, due by the end of 2017 and, in particular, to foresee in 2018 a proposal for EU legislation on TEN-G, a Trans-European Green Infrastructure (as part of the EU budget post 2020), reiterating its previous recommendations in this regard;

| 54. | refers to its call (17) for the European Commission to incorporate into EU legislation the objective of preventing any net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, taking into account the work carried out by the European Commission on action 7b of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy; |
| --- | --- |

54.

refers to its call (17) for the European Commission to incorporate into EU legislation the objective of preventing any net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, taking into account the work carried out by the European Commission on action 7b of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy;

17

| 55. | invites the European Commission to set up an EU commitment/award scheme for biodiversity achievements by cities and regions and a platform for exchange to give European local and regional authorities credit for their successful and significant contribution to the achievement of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. The CoR recognises in this regard the new Natura 2000 Award, which is however addressed to a wide range of stakeholders; |
| --- | --- |

55.

invites the European Commission to set up an EU commitment/award scheme for biodiversity achievements by cities and regions and a platform for exchange to give European local and regional authorities credit for their successful and significant contribution to the achievement of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. The CoR recognises in this regard the new Natura 2000 Award, which is however addressed to a wide range of stakeholders;

| 56. | calls for BISE (Biodiversity Information System for Europe) to increase the availability of more localised, high resolution data of ecosystem services and of other monitoring data, by including also data collected by regional biodiversity observatories, and city-based aggregated data (such as assessments of EU cities based on for example the City Biodiversity Index/Singapore Index), in order to promote data and information sharing between cities and regions, more regionally differentiated guidance in EU policy, and in order to facilitate reporting on improvements at the regional/local level throughout Europe; |
| --- | --- |

56.

calls for BISE (Biodiversity Information System for Europe) to increase the availability of more localised, high resolution data of ecosystem services and of other monitoring data, by including also data collected by regional biodiversity observatories, and city-based aggregated data (such as assessments of EU cities based on for example the City Biodiversity Index/Singapore Index), in order to promote data and information sharing between cities and regions, more regionally differentiated guidance in EU policy, and in order to facilitate reporting on improvements at the regional/local level throughout Europe;

| 57. | points out the need to effectively continue the EU’s dialogue and cooperation with key partners in candidate and potential candidate countries to help them to develop or adjust their policies to meet the 2020 biodiversity targets. EU LRAs could provide the support that non-EU LRAs require in order to be able to contribute to achieving EU and global biodiversity goals by sharing their knowledge and best practices and through the relevant CoR Joint Consultative Committees and Working Groups, as well as ARLEM and CORLEAP; The CoR calls in this regard upon the European Commission to promote decentralised development cooperation between EU LRA and LRA in developing countries within its new created EU Biodiversity for Life (B4Life) facility; |
| --- | --- |

57.

points out the need to effectively continue the EU’s dialogue and cooperation with key partners in candidate and potential candidate countries to help them to develop or adjust their policies to meet the 2020 biodiversity targets. EU LRAs could provide the support that non-EU LRAs require in order to be able to contribute to achieving EU and global biodiversity goals by sharing their knowledge and best practices and through the relevant CoR Joint Consultative Committees and Working Groups, as well as ARLEM and CORLEAP; The CoR calls in this regard upon the European Commission to promote decentralised development cooperation between EU LRA and LRA in developing countries within its new created EU Biodiversity for Life (B4Life) facility;

| 58. | calls for the EU Strategy to give recognition to and ensure further support of the engagement of local authorities as key partners in the BEST initiative, which promotes the conservation and sustainable use of the unique biodiversity in the EU Outermost Regions and Overseas Countries and Territories; |
| --- | --- |

58.

calls for the EU Strategy to give recognition to and ensure further support of the engagement of local authorities as key partners in the BEST initiative, which promotes the conservation and sustainable use of the unique biodiversity in the EU Outermost Regions and Overseas Countries and Territories;

| D. | Elements for consideration by the European Commission in its future reporting to the CBD on CBD Decision X/22 |
| --- | --- |

D.

Elements for consideration by the European Commission in its future reporting to the CBD on CBD Decision X/22

| 59. | calls on the European Commission to emphasise that it attaches significant importance to CBD Decision X/22 and its implementation in Europe; |
| --- | --- |

59.

calls on the European Commission to emphasise that it attaches significant importance to CBD Decision X/22 and its implementation in Europe;

| 60. | calls on the European Commission to point out that a consensus has emerged in the EU that there is a strong need for EU institutions, Member States and LRAs to deliver a multilevel, cooperative and integrated approach towards meeting the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the related targets of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. Although substantial progress to achieve this has already been made and several good practices exist in different Member States, there is a feeling that this process of multilevel cooperation and governance is still not adequately established throughout the EU and should be further improved; |
| --- | --- |

60.

calls on the European Commission to point out that a consensus has emerged in the EU that there is a strong need for EU institutions, Member States and LRAs to deliver a multilevel, cooperative and integrated approach towards meeting the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the related targets of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. Although substantial progress to achieve this has already been made and several good practices exist in different Member States, there is a feeling that this process of multilevel cooperation and governance is still not adequately established throughout the EU and should be further improved;

| 61. | invites the European Commission to recognise in its reporting the active involvement of several EU LRA in global biodiversity activities and networks including the advisory committees set up under CBD Decision X/22; such as the Advisory Committee on Subnational Governments and the Advisory Committee on Cities and Biodiversity in the Global Partnership on Local and Subnational Action for Biodiversity; |
| --- | --- |

61.

invites the European Commission to recognise in its reporting the active involvement of several EU LRA in global biodiversity activities and networks including the advisory committees set up under CBD Decision X/22; such as the Advisory Committee on Subnational Governments and the Advisory Committee on Cities and Biodiversity in the Global Partnership on Local and Subnational Action for Biodiversity;

| 62. | recognises the European Commission’s contribution to CBD Decision X/22 through this outlook opinion and cooperation on the related CoR study, and the involvement of the CoR in the Common Implementation Framework of the EU strategy, moreover for example through support, via the LIFE and INTERREG programmes, for capacity building and good practice sharing, and new opportunities in the new Biogeographical Process and its Natura 2000 Platform; |
| --- | --- |

62.

recognises the European Commission’s contribution to CBD Decision X/22 through this outlook opinion and cooperation on the related CoR study, and the involvement of the CoR in the Common Implementation Framework of the EU strategy, moreover for example through support, via the LIFE and INTERREG programmes, for capacity building and good practice sharing, and new opportunities in the new Biogeographical Process and its Natura 2000 Platform;

| 63. | encourages the European Commission to include the specific role of LRAs in the EU’s external action in its reporting to the CBD on Decision X/22 as one of the key actions that the EC/EU intends to further emphasise in the future, with a view to exploring — in cooperation with the CoR — additional ways to support decentralised cooperation between European LRAs and LRAs in developing and EU neighbourhood countries on the sustainable management of biodiversity and ecosystems, in relation to action (g) of CBD Decision X/22. |
| --- | --- |

63.

encourages the European Commission to include the specific role of LRAs in the EU’s external action in its reporting to the CBD on Decision X/22 as one of the key actions that the EC/EU intends to further emphasise in the future, with a view to exploring — in cooperation with the CoR — additional ways to support decentralised cooperation between European LRAs and LRAs in developing and EU neighbourhood countries on the sustainable management of biodiversity and ecosystems, in relation to action (g) of CBD Decision X/22.

Brussels, 26 June 2014

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Michel LEBRUN

---

(1)  COM(2011) 244 final.

1

(2)  Environment Council Conclusions of 21 June and of 19 December 2011.

2

(3)  http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=12268.

3

(4)  The Opinion uses the term ‘local and regional authorities’, as it is used in the EU context. Within the context of the UN and CBD, where regions are understood as supra-national/world regions. this means ‘local authorities and subnational governments’.

4

(5)  CDR273-2011_FIN_AC, COR 2014-01728-00-00-RES-TRA.

5

(6)  http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=12288.

6

(7)  http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=13169.

7

(8)  CdR 112/2010 fin.

8

(9)  Environment Council Conclusions, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/envir/143185.pdf

9

(10)  Study carried out by Ecologic/ICLEI June 2014, http://cor.europa.eu/en/documentation/studies/Pages/studies-2014.aspx

10

(11)  CDR4577-2013_00_00_TRA_AC.

11

(12)  CDR4577-2013_00_00_TRA_AC.

12

(13)  European Commission proposal COM(2013) 620 final.

13

(14)  CdR 86/2012 fin

14

(15)  Environment Council Conclusions of 19 December 2011.

15

(16)  EP resolution (2011/2307(INI)).

16

(17)  CDR4577-2013_00_00_TRA_AC

17

---