EN Official Journal of the European Union C 211/47

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on a new impetus for halting biodiversity loss

(2009/C 211/06)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

— notes the failure of policies to stem the erosion of biodiversity in Europe by 2010, which requires a proactive strategy which must be reflected in a systemic approach and supported over the long-term, well beyond 2010. This strategy must fully involve local and regional authorities, with Member States providing them with the necessary legal and financial means;

— calls on the European Union, the Member States and local and regional authorities to set up a strict system of eco-conditionality for grants and funding. It urges the Commission to encourage the Member States both to review their systems of taxation and to make national promotional funds more supportive for biodiversity;

— considers that the Natura 2000 network sites need to be consolidated in most countries and calls on the Member States to assume their responsibilities for marine areas and groundwater in this regard. Tailored management plans for Natura 2000 sites involving local and regional authorities and owners of private land and resources need to be drawn up and implemented;

— considers that an ‘environmental framework’ as a genuine natural infrastructure needs to be urgently created and calls for action to ensure that all measures taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions do not have a damaging effect on biological diversity. Furthermore, it believes that only at European level a strategy for combating invasive species can hope to be effective;

— considers that a biodiversity conservation strategy can only be successful if it is embraced by the general public and encourages local and regional authorities to get involved and be assisted in setting up high quality awareness-raising and training programmes.

Rapporteur : Mr René Souchon (FR/PES), President of Auvergne Regional Council

Reference Documents

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — A mid-term assessment of implementing the EC Biodiversity Action Plan

COM(2008) 864 final

and the

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Towards an EU Strategy on Invasive Species

COM(2008) 789 final

I. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1. notes that — according to the opinion of scientists and researchers — plant and animal species are disappearing at a far faster rate than has ever been witnessed since life began;

2. notes the seminal importance of biodiversity for the survival of mankind, particularly through ecosystem systems, for both future and current generations, but also for the present generation;

3. highlights as of now the impact of climate change on the development and distribution of living species;

4. points out that man is incapable of living in a purely mineral environment, and therefore concludes that changes in or the erosion of biodiversity will have a dramatic impact on mankind;

5. notes already the negative social and economic effects of the loss of biodiversity and declining ecosystems;

6. points out that the major causes for the erosion of biodiversity include the increasingly artificial state of soils, the fragmentation of natural areas, and the development of populations of exotic plant and animal species, more intensive agriculture, climate change and various forms of pollution;

7. notes that biodiversity must be managed and conserved at local and regional level if it is to be safeguarded worldwide, and recognises that, if this is to be achieved, it is important to bring together all local stakeholders involved in protecting biodiversity: especially businesses, organisations, owners and administrators of rural areas, scientists, political decision-makers, local and regional authorities;

General comments and role of local and regional authorities

8. believes that the consequences for mankind of the loss of biodiversity can, like the consequences of climate change, be extremely serious;

9. notes the failure of policies to stem the erosion of biodiversity in Europe by 2010, due to the clear gap between the promises made and the action actually taken and the measures employed;

10. notes, however, the success of certain individual measures, such as the plans to safeguard certain species of animals and plants (Egyptian vulture, otter, Brent goose (Branta Bernicula)) and environments (Rhineland alluvial forests, the Thames), the management plans applied in a number of labelled areas;

11. believes that there is an urgent need to give a new impetus to strategies and programmes, e.g. as part of the implementation by all Member States of the European Landscape Convention, which seek to achieve or contribute to the sustainable conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services in order that the means employed may produce tangible results;

12. to this end, believes that it is necessary to get local and regional authorities closely involved in both the formulation and the implementation of such programmes and, accordingly, to provide them with the legal and financial means which are commensurate with their responsibilities in the context of sustainability;

13. notes that the way in which different societies behave towards the environment and their natural resources (use or exploitation of resources, land occupation, land use) is above all shaped by how nature is perceived in their cultural traditions; the Committee calls on the EU to work towards developing a new cultural vision for biological diversity which embraces, as part of a general framework, both an ethical approach, highlighting the intrinsic value of nature, the heritage of mankind, and a more utilitarian approach, which focuses on the services provided by ecosystems;

14. notes that the conservation of biological diversity and ecosystem services (protection against soil erosion, water purification) requires a proactive strategy which must be reflected in a systemic approach (i.e. a coordinated approach which brings together a number of active inter-related elements) and supported over the long-term or well beyond 2010. This strategy must fully involve local and regional authorities;

15. urges that the conservation of biological diversity be treated as a consideration which unifies land use planning and management policy well beyond 2010, in both rural and urban areas;

16. calls for the incorporation of the conservation of biodiversity as a key aspect within European policies, strategies and programmes well beyond 2010. A cross-cutting theme integrated with others, it should be viewed as a guiding principle which ensures the necessary coordination between the various spatial planning and land use policies, requiring close cooperation between the different Commission DGs and the firm involvement of local and regional authorities;

17. welcomes the robust method adopted by the Member States and by the Commission, which has produced a mid-term report analysing the state of biodiversity and the implementation of national action plans; this method is founded on a self-assessment of the projects implemented by the Member States, which the Commission has compiled into an overall consistent vision;

18. welcomes the European Parliament's resolution, 2008/2210(INI), adopted unanimously on 3 February 2009, which recognises the need for a European network of nature areas, known as wilderness areas, i.e. areas which have been changed little by human activity, and congratulates the Czech presidency on holding a ‘Conference on Wilderness and Large Natural Habitat Areas in Europe’ on 27 and 28 May 2009;

19. notes that, according to the principle of subsidiarity, the sustainable conservation of biological diversity and ecosystem services requires both measures at local level as well as a global recognition due to the functioning of ecosystems which surpasses administrative borders and that the services provided to the population are particularly dependent on;

20. urges the Member States to strictly enforce the provisions of the SEA (Strategic Environmental Assessment, Directive 2001/42/CE) and of the EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment, Directive 85/337/EC) as well as the Natura 2000 procedures so as to minimise the pressures on nature areas and on biological diversity;

21. considers that a strategy for the conservation of biological diversity must be ambitious if it is to achieve the objective of stemming the erosion of biological diversity. It must comprise economic and financial chapters, and provide incentives for local and regional authorities and landowners. The strategies to be followed must be designed and implemented at all the different levels of the various natural systems to ensure they are consistent and applied by everybody;

22. calls on the European Union, the Member States and the local and regional authorities to set up a strict system of eco-conditionality for grants and funding, based on clear indicators such as those being developed within the framework of SEBI2010, which take account of biodiversity and its interaction with other areas;

23. urges the Commission to encourage the Member States both to review their systems of taxation and to adapt national promotional funds for supporting business and communities to make them more biodiversity-friendly, e.g. by lowering the VAT rates on organic farm produce or produce sourced from Natura 2000 sites. It would be particularly desirable to:

23.1 on the one hand, lower or even abolish certain taxes as well as subsidies which encourage action that has an adverse effect on biodiversity, in order to achieve an internal compatibility with laws and national codes promoting biodiversity;

23.2 on the other hand, increase subsidies and widen the scope of tax breaks which encourage action that stimulates biodiversity;

24. calls on the Commission to highlight the requirements to conserve biodiversity and the related ecosystem services, alongside criteria for health and the wellbeing of inhabitants, in the discussions underway at European level on the revision of the criteria used to calculate GDP (which measures only financial flow and not the importance of stored capital); for example, the costs of work caused by pollution, be it accidental or otherwise, should be deductible, and not included in the tax base, as is currently the case;

25. calls for the sustained continuation, well beyond 2010, of the action taken to stem the erosion of biodiversity;

26. considers that the response to the current economic crisis, which involves comprehensive restructuring measures, requires biological diversity parameters to be fully integrated. The importance of this environmental issue must be better taken into account at all levels of regional administration, and, above all, across all areas of economic activity as well;

Biodiversity in the European Union

27. stresses the strong need for energetic and coordinated action at European level, replicated at all levels, particularly regional level, to ensure it is as close as possible to the citizen;

28. stresses the originality and strength of the Natura 2000 approach, based on close cooperation between scientists and politicians, and which is geared towards the sustainable use of natural resources. It welcomes the designated sites, which cover approximately 20 % of Europe's territory;

29. considers, however, that the network of SAC (Special Area of Conservation, Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC) and SPA (Special Protection Area, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC) sites needs to be consolidated in most countries: the poor quality of the scientific reference data undermines any efforts to assess the extent to which such Natura 2000 land sites meet the criteria of the Habitats and Birds Directives. Furthermore, it calls on the Member States to assume their responsibilities with regard to marine areas and groundwater,

30. emphasises the particular importance of estuarine ecosystems which are key habitats for the biological diversity of both marine and freshwater-based ecosystems, and urges that they be given greater attention by means of a compulsory integrated management plan, at least for those belonging to the NATURA 2000-network;

31. stresses the need to focus intensely on the quality of soils and their diversity; soil is the earth's only environmental compartment through which all flows of materials and energy pass; such flows are an integral part of the dynamics of every ecosystem and, accordingly, of all species. The Directive's section on biological diversity, which is in the process of being developed, should therefore be substantially strengthened;

32. calls for particular attention to be paid to the preservation of the level and quality of the water table, which is of such importance for both the biological quality and diversity of soils (especially for agriculture) and for the supply of drinking water to local populations;

33. calls for working relations to be strengthened between experts, irrespective of whether they are members of scientific bodies or other nature organisations and political decision-makers; if they are to be effective in meeting the target of biodiversity conservation, the decisions and successful implementation of programmes depend as much on the skills of scientific experts as on the competence of those who have local political responsibilities;

34. considers that the Natura 2000 sites will only be able to fully contribute to the sustainable conservation of biological diversity if a specially tailored natural heritage management plan involving local and regional authorities and owners of private land and resources is drawn up and implemented; the fact that probably as much as a half of all species and over three-quarters of European conservation habitats have an unfavourable conservation status bears witness to the urgent need to manage such sites;

35. considers that the Natura 2000 network and all of the wilderness areas must be fully incorporated into the biodiversity conservation spatial strategies implemented by the Member States and by local and regional authorities;

36. calls for the urgent creation of an ‘environmental framework’ a genuine natural infrastructure ensuring working links between Natura 2000 sites and wilderness areas as a matter of priority, as well as in urban areas and peri-urban agricultural areas, by mobilising the various local and regional authorities, including the regions. Existing and future linear land use developments (motorways, rail lines) should respect this environmental infrastructure so as to prevent the fragmentation of such natural areas and should be incorporated into the new Common Agricultural Policy;

37. notes that, given the very nature of biological diversity, the biodiversity of Natura 2000 sites is subjected to substantial pressure from neighbouring areas and considers that the management and utilisation of areas adjacent to Natura 2000 sites should ensure that a sustainable contribution is made to conserving the biological diversity and ecosystem services on these sites;

38. stresses the need to review in depth and strengthen policies in the area of fisheries (CFP) and agriculture (CAP) and to initiate a policy for forests introducing biological diversity and eco-conditionality requirements for all aid;

39. believes that Appendix I of Directive 2001/1/EC on the prevention and reduction of pollution should also include all aquaculture activity in both freshwater and marine environments, particularly where they are intensive;

40. suggests reviewing the criteria used to define indications of geographical origin (IGO): the cultural practices concerned must embrace the requirements of biodiversity and its evolution;

41. welcomes the decision of the Council of the European Union of 2 March 2009 on the application of the precautionary principle for genetically modified organisms (Charter of Florence, signed on 4 February 2005), and calls for its stringent application with the maximum possible transparency, in accordance with the Aarhus Convention (signed on 25 June 1998);

42. voices concern at the probable consequences of energy crop cultivation, such as the large surface areas needed for biofuel crops, which will increase the incentive to cultivate areas of fallow-land and wilderness areas, for instance through the lifting of the requirement in August 2008 to set aside land and which will contribute to the deforestation of the countries of southern Europe. The CoR proposes that the Commission set up a means of assessing the impact of biofuel crops on biodiversity, the environment and ecosystems;

43. notes that species, ecosystems and flows of related materials span administrative borders, particularly national borders, and therefore draws attention to the existence of Natura 2000 sites which are divided by a national border; accordingly, it suggests creating, at European level, a cross-border spatial status or label (Crossborder Natura 2000, nature reserve or regional park) in order to ensure the consistent management of biodiversity and the ecosystem concerned;

44. considers that a biodiversity conservation strategy can only be successful if it is embraced by the general public, from the ordinary citizen to key economic players and political leaders in the regions. This will require a high quality awareness-raising and training programme, which will employ not only state of the art communication methods (internet) but also school curricula; local and regional authorities, and particularly the regions, who are closest to the citizens, must be encouraged to get involved and be assisted in this role;

45. recommends rewarding best practices which promote biological diversity and its evolution;

Invasive species in particular

46. welcomes the fact that the Commission has given significant consideration to the problem of exotic species that have become invasive, and which represent a serious danger to local biodiversity;

47. repeats its recommendation (CoR 159/2006 final) to seek urgent action to tackle invasive species through a clear and proactive strategy, with the participation of local and regional authorities; believes it is vital to draw up an ad hoc directive;

48. considers that only a European level strategy for combating invasive species can hope to be effective; this implies the firm and coordinated participation of every Member State, particularly in terms of drafting legislation, and their local and regional authorities, particularly in terms of formulating measures to combat such species; considers, in fact, that the regional level is best placed to take effective action to monitor, prevent and eliminate invasive species;

49. notes the lack of specially adapted legislation, despite the existence of specific texts in other fields at European level, which is the appropriate level for controlling the introduction of exotic animal and plant species;

50. regrets the variety and differences in national level measures and regulations which severely hampers the effectiveness of strategies to combat invasive exotic species and calls on the Member States to draft the legislation needed to develop a coordinated and overall approach;

51. believes there is an urgent need to introduce strict measures to control imports of species which are non-indigenous to Europe or, at the very least, voluntary imports; equally, it draws attention to the reasons which govern or underlie the relevant decisions and calls for high levels of ethical vigilance;

The EU and global biodiversity

52. acknowledges the particular responsibility of the European Union vis-à-vis global biodiversity, in the light of both its history and its trade relations and, accordingly, recognises its duty to lead by example in this field;

53. draws particular attention to the significant risks inherent in opening up the markets to the distribution of potentially invasive natural or genetically modified species; therefore, urges the inclusion of biodiversity conservation requirements in all international trade agreements;

54. calls on the Member States to assume their full responsibilities with regard to their land and marine nature areas located beyond Europe, particularly those areas which are especially abundant in living organisms and have original ecosystems, irrespective of how distant they may be;

55. urges support for international cooperation between regions aimed at backing action, especially economic or educational campaigns, which promote the sustainable conservation of biodiversity at a level enabling the regions to both encourage and support their implementation;

56. stresses the importance of setting up an international panel of experts in the field of biodiversity based to a large degree on existing bodies such as the European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity, IUCN or the IPBES (under construction);

Biodiversity and climate change

57. notes the determining influence of climatic conditions on species and ecosystems and, therefore, on biodiversity, which — for example in the case of ecologically unstable systems — makes it necessary to take into account a system-based approach rather than a species-based approach. Investing in a natural environment might lead for instance to the development of new ecosystems;

58. calls for action to ensure that all measures taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions do not have a damaging effect on biological diversity;

59. believes there is a need to bring centres of production, especially food production, closer to the consumer in order to, on the one hand, lower the energy costs generated by long-distance transport and, on the other hand, improve the alimentary self-sufficiency and independence of individual countries;

60. noting, at the same time, the way in which species contribute to the flow of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO2, across the planet, calls for the inclusion in all biodiversity conservation programmes of a commitment to curb greenhouse gas emissions, for example by conserving habitat types that reduce CO2 and increase O2, such as forest habitats or humid zones (marshlands, peat bogs);

61. notes the renewed interest in forests, which are once again being considered as sources of renewable energy, and stresses the need to ensure that this does not lead to new practices (mono-cultivation, with short rotation cycles) which may harm biodiversity;

62. insists on the fact that investments and current investments and activities in the field of renewable energy production that cause changes in habitat or have a damaging effect on biodiversity (especially mini power plants and hydroelectric power plants) should use natural resources, whilst meeting basic criteria guaranteeing the survival and continuity of the river environment's potential biodiversity. A fall in an activity's yield as a result of respecting biodiversity should never imply a right to receive public aid as compensation, since this is a fixed obligation. Firm guarantees should also be provided for the environmental corridor, represented by the flow of water and the flood plain, to ensure that communities are not cut off;

The knowledge base

63. stresses the need for access to reliable information on biodiversity, its health and on the condition of ecosystems; this knowledge must be accessible to as many people as possible;

64. stresses the importance of research in the field of natural and environmental science. To this end, an integrated network of protected areas and/or wilderness zones should be set up to create an observatory of changes in the natural world, particularly those influenced by climate change;

65. suggests developing research to improve how to gauge and analyse the real value (in cultural as well as economic terms) of biodiversity and ecosystem services; such research should bring together teams of researchers from a variety of disciplines so as to adopt a systematic approach, in order to achieve an overall vision which takes account of both natural and cultural aspects;

66. stresses the need to recognise and identify at national and regional level the major causes for the erosion of biological diversity and the related decline in ecosystem services with a view to elaborating and implementing effective conservation strategies;

67. emphasises the absolute necessity of formulating or completing a set of relevant indicators (e.g. SEBI-2010), coordinated at European level, for the operational monitoring of the health and evolution of biological diversity, and of ecosystems;

68. calls on the Member States to re-establish and reform education in the natural sciences, particularly at higher education level, and in the areas of fieldwork, and the identification of species and ecosystems;

69. calls on the Member States to include education on biodiversity within higher technical education courses and vocational training programmes (spatial planning, agriculture, infrastructure construction, economics, urban planning etc);

Key supporting measures

70. insists on the absolute need to endow local, regional and national authorities with the human, financial and technical means necessary to support programmes which are sustainable, i.e. beyond 2010, in order to ensure the conservation of biodiversity over the long-term;

71. calls for an increase in the corresponding budgetary envelopes and a simplification of the approval procedures without reducing the benefits for biological diversity, in particular LIFE+, as well as the better use of funding from FEDER, FEADER, FED to promote the conservation of biodiversity;

72. urges the strict enforcement of stringent eco-conditionality requirements when allocating financial support based on criteria which include clear and reliable indicators such as those derived from SEBI-2010;

73. urges local administration and specialists to work together in close cooperation from the very beginning of a project so as to ensure a ‘systemic’ approach (i.e. a coordinated approach which brings together a number of active inter-related elements), be they from the Commission, from the Member States or from local and regional authorities;

74. stresses the urgent need to conduct scientific research programmes, particularly in the fields of natural and environmental sciences, in order to provide the knowledge needed to achieve the objective of stemming the erosion of biodiversity and highlights the importance of focusing skills training schemes and scientific career development programmes (e.g. through European scholarships) on subjects related to biodiversity, in both the life sciences and social sciences;

75. underlines the importance of educational campaigns, in particular for pupils, students and young people generally, which seek to achieve genuine public awareness of these issues i.e. campaigns which cover all sections of society, problems and how best to manage biodiversity. Such campaigns should use as their cornerstone the close proximity of local and regional authorities to the citizen;

Monitoring

76. notes that the tangible results of a policy for conserving biodiversity should be viewed over the long term, well beyond 2010, and perhaps even 2020; accordingly, any assessment of achievements after a two-year period will ascertain only how effectively such campaigns have been implemented;

77. notes that the assessment of biodiversity should not be based solely on the number of living species but should also take full account of how they interact with one another, the complexity of the ecosystems and how they operate;

78. calls on environmental associations to be encouraged to put their knowledge to good use in the process of monitoring and reporting on changes in biodiversity and to pass this information on to the local and regional authorities;

79. calls for the establishment of a major ‘Biodiversity Observatory’ (which could form part of a beefed-up European Thematic Centre for Nature Conservation) as a continuation of the approach employed for the present mid-term assessment. It would be desirable for this observatory to be supported by observatories at national, regional and other sub-national levels.