EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/150

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Options for an EU vision and target for biodiversity beyond 2010’

COM(2010) 4 final

2011/C 48/26

Rapporteur: Mr RIBBE

On 19 January 2010, the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the:

‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Options for an EU vision and target for biodiversity beyond 2010’

COM(2010) 4 final.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 July 2010.

At its 465th plenary session of 15 and 16 September 2010 (meeting of 15 September) the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 112 votes to 11 with 11 abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1 In the Committee's view it would have been preferable if a communication with this content had never had to be written, and politicians had implemented their 2001 promise to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and to ensure that lost habitats were restored. This goal has not been achieved, however.

1.2 The EESC sees two major shortcomings. For one thing, the maintenance of biodiversity has not been the focus of political action, and at the same time it is clear that, while society is generally favourable to nature conservation, there is nonetheless a serious lack of understanding of ecological processes. These two shortcomings are connected, and they both need to be addressed by the new approach to biodiversity.

1.3 Another question is whether the terms used by a specialist policy-makers and associations are generally understood. ‘Biodiversity’, ‘species’ and ‘ecosystem services’ are concepts which have little meaning or interest for the majority.

1.4 The EESC supports the ambitious targets drawn up in Option 4 of the Commission communication, which has also been adopted by the Council of Environment Ministers and by the European Council. More effort is needed if they are to succeed in the future, and it should be determined in advance what funding and what political changes will be required (1).

1.5 The Committee therefore calls on the Commission and the European Council not to dress up old objectives with new data but finally to draw up a binding plan of action for all Commission departments, with a clear timetable and interim objectives as well as sufficient funding, and also to provide guidelines as to the changes needed at Member State level.

1.6 The maintenance of biodiversity is not a task which falls solely within the ambit of environmental policy. It is also a long-term economic issue, and the ministers for economic and financial affairs should therefore finally address this issue.

1.7 In view of the frightening lack of knowledge of ecological processes in society, action is needed to develop policy on education concerning the natural environment.

1.8 The budget reform and the reorientation of the common agricultural and fisheries policy, the Structural Funds and other relevant policy areas will be an appropriate test for the seriousness of EU policy on protecting biodiversity.

1.9 The current content of the new EU 2020 strategy does not do justice to the challenges of maintaining biodiversity. The new approach to biodiversity must fill these gaps and in due course become an integral part of this strategy.

1.10 The EESC considers the following areas of action to be particularly important at EU level: — changes to agricultural and fisheries policy, — securing and developing the Natura 2000 network, — establishment and development of ‘green infrastructure’ through a TEN biodiversity network, — integration of biodiversity into all other EU policy areas, — education campaign at EU level.

1.11 It is necessary to find new ways of reconciling agriculture and species conservation once again. There have been positive developments in some Member States, which should be assessed and massively developed. Farmers must be offered incentives for providing the relevant services.

1.12 The EESC expects the EU to prepare thoroughly for the Tenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity and to make a significant contribution to the new Strategic Plan for the Convention on Biological Diversity beyond 2010.

2. The Commission communication

2.1 The drafting of the Commission communication in this form was necessary because the EU has not achieved one of its key environmental objectives of the past decade: in Gothenburg in 2001 the European Council - as part of the sustainability strategy - set the objective of halting the loss of biodiversity in the EU by 2010 and restoring lost habitats. Despite the EU Biodiversity Action Plan adopted in 2006 and despite undeniable progress in establishing the NATURA 2000 network, this target has not been met.

2.2 The Commission communication currently under consideration is the first step towards achieving this objective. The communication presents options for development of a post-2010 EU vision and targets.

2.3 The communication describes, emphasises and commends in detail the arguments for protection of biodiversity. In particular, it contains an overall estimate of the economic costs/losses arising from the loss of biodiversity – and thus of ecosystem services. These are estimated in the TEEB report (Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity at around EUR 50 billion(!) annually. Accordingly, the cumulative loss of prosperity by 2050 can be estimated at 7 % of GNP(!).

2.4 The Commission makes it clear that protecting diversity, like climate change, is a long-term task. The biodiversity vision to be developed is therefore intended to be long-term (up to 2050), but the EU - like the international level - it is to set its own (intermediate) objective for 2020.

2.5 Political decision-makers are offered four options, of varying levels of ambition, for the ‘2020 headline target’. — Option 1: Significantly reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU by 2020; — Option 2: Halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU by 2020; — Option 3: Halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU by 2020 and restore them insofar as possible; — Option 4: Halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU by 2020 and restore them insofar as possible, and step up the EU's contribution to averting global biodiversity loss.

3. General comments on existing EU biodiversity policy

3.1 An assessment of the EU's existing biodiversity policy is sobering.

3.2 Around ten years ago it was promised that the loss of biodiversity would be halted within a decade and efforts made to restore habitats and natural systems.

3.3 Statements were then made almost annually, either by departments of the Commission, commissioners or the European Environment Agency, that more efforts were needed in addition to the measures already undertaken in order to achieve the objective set; these efforts were never forthcoming, however.

3.4 And then last year it was finally admitted that the objective was not being achieved - which came as no surprise to the EESC. The Committee had already warned in various opinions that, in its view, the policy measures adopted were entirely inadequate (2).

3.5 The fact that the EU has not achieved its biodiversity objective is not attributable either to a lack of understanding of what needs to be done or to a lack of willingness on the part of civil society to take the necessary steps. Basically it is because the world of politics places short-term economic interests above the long-term effects of ecosystem services. The fact that our economic system is unsustainable, based on overuse of natural resources, is also reflected in biodiversity.

3.6 The EESC is therefore pleased to note that the Commission looks in detail at the TEEB report and thus develops important arguments on the economic importance of biodiversity. The Committee would sound a warning, however, against placing the main emphasis on valuing biodiversity in monetary terms, since: — there are many important reasons for preserving biodiversity which cannot and should not be assigned a monetary value, such as the rights of nature, the idea of creation, the cultural importance of diversity or simple identification with nature; — on no account should the need to preserve an individual species be based on a calculation of its economic value

3.7 The EESC is concerned that the TEEB Report might risk a similar fate to the Stern Review on climate change, whose warnings about the long-term economic effects of climate change have also been largely ignored in political circles. It is significant that the ministers for financial and economic affairs have not even begun to address the TEEB Report.

3.8 Against this background, the EESC considers that recycling the old 2001 objectives and rescheduling the original 2010 target for 2020 while setting out new goals for 2050, however important long-term goals may be, is not the right way to proceed. Rather, the existing policies and instruments must be evaluated, and improved measures which are more effective on the ground finally need to be drawn up and implemented. The new EU biodiversity strategy 2020 therefore needs not only specific, quantified final and interim targets but also in particular specific and binding implementation plans with clear allocation of responsibility. There should also be sufficient funding provision.

4. General remarks on the communication

4.1 The EESC understands the purpose of the Commission's communication to be to launch a new debate among the EU's policy-makers and to send out a clear signal to society, leading in turn to a clear programme of work for the relevant departments. The Committee endorses this approach.

4.2 It welcomes the resolution of the Council of EU environment ministers of 15 March 2010, which essentially supports Option 4. It would sound a warning, however, against – as in 2001 – turning to the agenda without really drawing conclusions. This new objective would then risk the same fate as the 2001 objective.

4.3 The Committee does not consider it sufficient that ‘only’ the Environment Council is looking at this issue and calls for it to be dealt with in the other relevant Council configurations. The Commission communication makes it very clear that, alongside the environmental and ethical dimensions, the loss of biodiversity also has an economic dimension. The EESC therefore expects the ministers for economic and financial affairs, in particular, also to look at the problem, and that the financial resources will be calculated that will need to be allocated to budgets and the other necessary economic and political changes identified.

4.4 The Committee is particularly disappointed that the European Council, in contrast to 2001, did not send out any real signal. In the new EU 2020 Strategy, which ostensibly sets out to promote a ‘green Europe’, the terms ‘biodiversity’, ‘habitats’, ‘protection of the natural environment’, ‘protection of species’ and ‘protection of the diversity of genetic resources’ do not occur even once. ‘Biodiversity’ occurs only twice, and then only in passing, under the heading of resource-efficiency. Even in the Conclusions of the European Council of March 2010 this central issue is not given its own chapter. The decision of the Council of environment ministers of 15 March is merely confirmed in connection with climate-policy issues.

4.5 Clearly, the importance of biodiversity maintenance has still not come to the forefront of political discussion and action. This is a disastrous and unacceptable signal to send the European public which already exhibits a significant lack of understanding and willingness to act.

4.6 The new approach to biodiversity must define responsibilities more clearly, e.g. the relationship between the EU, the Member States, the regions and local authorities, and between the business world, associations and society, but also within the Commission's departments.

4.7 The EESC shares the view of the European Commission that biodiversity is a cross-cutting, interdisciplinary task. For this very reason the new biodiversity strategy must 1) made a binding part of the EU 2020 Strategy and 2) be discussed by all Commission departments, taken seriously and followed up with the necessary vigour, for example also by the agriculture, energy and transport departments. With the adoption of the EU 2020 Strategy, including an integrated biodiversity approach, all Commission departments must undertake to contribute to its implementation. This includes assessing their support programmes and regulations for compliance with the requirements of protection of the natural environment, and adapting them accordingly.

4.8 The EESC therefore expects the Commission to publish during the autumn of 2010 a detailed list of those policy areas in which there are shortcomings in the integration of biodiversity targets, referred to only very vaguely in the communication,. It should also be established why the 2006 biodiversity strategy, which after all included around 160 measures of various kinds, was not successful.

4.9 The new biodiversity approach developed on this basis should make it clear what instruments and political changes are needed in order to remedy the shortcomings analysed.

4.10 The forthcoming budget reform and the reorientation of the common agricultural and fisheries policies and Structural Funds will therefore to some extent be a test of the EU's biodiversity policy, in terms of both its integration into other policy areas, which has been advocated for years, and the necessary funding (EU expenditure on maintenance of biodiversity amounts to 0.1 % of the budget. On the other hand, there are many kinds of expenditure which have a negative impact on biodiversity).

4.11 In this connection the EESC points to the decisive role of agriculture in the maintenance of biodiversity. A large proportion of biodiversity has arisen in connection with traditional forms of agriculture which today - for mainly economic reasons - have no basis, however.

4.12 It is therefore necessary to find new ways of reconciling agriculture and species conservation once again. There have been positive developments in some Member States, which should be assessed and massively developed. Farmers must be offered incentives for providing the relevant services (3).

4.13 The protection of marine biodiversity is taking on particular significance. The level of awareness of marine ecology issues is low in most EU countries and pressure on governments and the institutions responsible for protecting the marine environment relatively weak. The effectiveness of current systems for protecting marine resources needs to be assessed and efforts made to give their protection higher priority in educational programmes and in the management of the economy.

4.14 The EESC expects the EU to prepare thoroughly for the Tenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity and to make a significant contribution to the new Strategic Plan for the Convention on Biological Diversity beyond 2010.

5. Specific comments

5.1 The existing laws, regulations and measures are clearly insufficient to ensure biodiversity, or to put it another way: the loss of biodiversity is not occurring as a result of permanent breaches of existing laws but – to a great extent – within the framework of these laws. Acting in a way which preserves the environment often proves to be a competitive disadvantage. Although the economic relevance of biodiversity is being increasingly discussed in specialist circles, its importance is still not fully accepted or recognised. The EESC expects the Commission and the Council to pay special attention to this situation and to develop a way of addressing it. The internalisation of external costs, often advocated but still embryonic, could help.

5.2 Biodiversity maintenance must play a greater role, particularly in the CAP. With the 2013 reform of agricultural policy, biodiversity maintenance criteria must play a major part in the CAP, in order to resolve the current conflict between economic production and nature conservation.

5.3 The concept of ‘green infrastructure’ put forward in the Commission communication should be vigorously developed. What is needed in order to achieve the biodiversity targets is not only a system of individual protected areas, of the kind currently being developed with the NATURA 2000 network, but also a linear European system of linked biotopes or, in EU terms, a trans-European nature network, which could include: — corridors for terrestrial migratory species like the wolf, lynx, bear and wildcat, e.g. of a linear kind for forest-dwelling species; — linking water margin and wetland biotopes in implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), which would be helpful for species tied to water margins and wetlands (open land structure); but also — field margins, headland, copses, species-rich grasslands (lowland meadows), avenues for open-land species (linking with agricultural support).

5.4 A TEN-Nature of this kind would serve to link the NATURA 2000 areas and implement the WFD, and would also partially be a reaction to climate change. It would also give terrestrial animal species the opportunity to react to climate change by migration. But, just as importantly, a network of this kind would also facilitate exchange between hitherto isolated populations of a given species, an essential condition for ensuring their survival.

5.5 In order to maintain and further develop the Natura 2000 areas, at present the core of EU biodiversity policy, the EU must finally develop sufficient support facilities for the development and safeguarding of these areas.

5.6 The Commission rightly points to the unequal distribution of biodiversity. There are regions which still have a high level of biodiversity as well as others in which it has been massively cut back, particularly through human intervention. But this should not lead us to mistaken conclusions: political measures, including funding, must not be concentrated exclusively on biodiversity hotspots. Regions with low levels of biodiversity are in particular need of a broad range of policy instruments for maintaining and restoring ecosystem services. On the other hand, Member States which still have a high level of protection or potential must not be ‘punished’ but rather rewarded.

5.7 Efforts to maintain biodiversity are not only needed across the board. The EU's new biodiversity approach should also stress the positive link between protection of species and the climate and therefore place particular emphasis on protecting and developing marshland, wetland and grassland areas and on improving sustainable forest ecosystems. The policy on the use of biomass for energy purposes should not run counter to this approach. In order to prevent this, sustainability criteria should be introduced, which should also be applied in other areas (e.g. animal feed).

5.8 The EESC reiterates how important it will be to develop a genuine awareness of the problem of biodiversity maintenance in society and in business. We are still a long way from this despite all the existing programmes and despite the work of environmental organisations.

5.9 The very terminology used in specialised policies needs to be re-examined. What does the average citizen understand by ‘biodiversity’? Do concepts like ‘species’ or ‘ecosystem services’ mean anything to him? Many surveys point to a frightening ignorance of ecological processes. Clearly, maintaining the natural environment is not just a matter for environment ministers; there is also a role for education policy in disseminating the necessary basic knowledge.

Brussels, 15 September 2010. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Mario SEPI

(1) OJ C 277, 17.11.2009, p. 62, points 1.4 and 1.5.

(2) OJ C 195, 18.8.2006, p. 88 and p. 96, OJ C 161, 13.9.2007, p. 53, OJ C 97, 28.04.2007, point 1.3., p. 6-11.

(3) OJ C 354, 28.12.2010, p. 35.