Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on "The situation of nature and nature conservation in Europe"
Date: 2001-05-30
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: common agricultural policy, environmental protection, protection of animal life, protection of plant life

C 221/130

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.8.2001

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘The situation of nature and nature
conservation in Europe’

(2001/C 221/22)

On 3 July 2000 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 23(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
decided to draw up an opinion on: The situation of nature and nature conservation in Europe.

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 11 May 2001. The rapporteur
was Mr Ribbe.

At its 382nd plenary session, held on 30 and 31 May 2001 (meeting of 30 May), the Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by a unanimous vote.

1. Aim and structure of the opinion

In drawing up this opinion, the Committee wishes to
1.1.
make its contribution to the debate currently taking place in
the EU on the situation of nature, the landscape, and nature
conservation in Europe, in general, and on the incorporation
of nature conservation into other policy areas, in particular.

Part 2 of

1.2.
this document draws attention to the
importance of Europe’s natural heritage and the need for the
EU to coordinate nature conservation at a general level. Part 3
looks at the way in which the EU directives on this matter
have been implemented. Part 4 — the key part of the opinion
— examines the coherence of the policy pursued. It analyses
whether greater importance is now being attached to nature
conservation in the various fields of EU policy than was the
case in past years, and examines where improvements are
urgently required. The observations made in this opinion focus
on policy areas in which the EU brings a decisive influence to
bear.

land, earth-removal, agriculture and forestry,

1.3.
There is no doubt that a great variety of measures have
an effect on nature e.g. building development, recreational
the
use of
development of transport and infrastructure, the building of
canals and the damming and diversion of waterways, to name
but a few. In this opinion the Committee focuses its attention,
in particular, on the CAP, through which the EU brings a
considerable influence to bear on the way in which land is
utilised and consequently on the state of nature conservation.
The incorporation of nature conservation into agriculture is of
key importance, since 44 % of the EU’s surface area and large
parts of the NATURA 2000 areas are used for agricultural
purposes.

2.

Initial situation as regards nature conservation in
Europe

represent a remarkable natural heritage. The continent of
Europe owes its appeal and fascination to its great variety of
different types of landscape and animal and plant species. The
preservation of this natural heritage has become a key task for
politicians, administrations and the general public.

2.1.1.
Nature conservation is, however, not just an end in
itself. Nature plays a vital role in our lives and in the economy;
it provides an important resource for economic activities and is
a prerequisite for a variety of sporting, leisure and recreational
activities, health care and also some forms of medical treat-
ment.

2.2.
The great diversity of animal and plant species has
arisen as a result of the different conditions to be found in
nature and the corresponding uses which have been made of
these natural conditions. Many species and habitats therefore
depend directly on how land is managed. Many of the species
which now require a higher level of protection came into
existence only as a result of what we now regard as the
‘extensive’ agricultural production methods used over the last
few centuries. ‘Europe’, however, is much too varied to enable
us to speak of comparable and transferable conditions in
respect of nature and the landscape. As a consequence, nature
conservation requirements also differ to a considerable extent:
nature conservation conditions and problems in the vast
forests of Scandinavia differ from those in the Scottish
Highlands, the Alps, the arid Spanish Extremadura or the
Member States or regions (1) in which intensive agriculture is
frequently practised.

2.3.
Preservation of nature and natural diversity is, above
all, a task for the individual Member States, regions and local
authorities. Every member of the public, too, is called upon to
help preserve nature and the environment. The many positive
examples of measures which have already been taken by
private individuals, nature conservation organisations and
farmers, show that many people have an affinity with the
conservation of nature and the landscape. This is a classic case

2.1.
heritage. The various cultural and natural

Europe does not have just an outstanding cultural
landscapes also

(1) e.g. Brittany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, north-west

Germany, south-east England, the Po valley, etc.

7.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/131

of a task requiring a bottom-up approach but which needs,
however, to be backed up by political measures. A coordinated
commitment at EU level, too, is therefore not only advisable
but also absolutely necessary. Nature conservation in Europe
cannot be successful in the absence of top-level coordination
by the EU.

2.3.1.
This coordination is necessary, on the one hand,
because many species are not tied to one single regional
habitat but may migrate over thousands of kilometres between
their summer and winter quarters. Nature knows no bound-
aries. Many species, such as migratory cranes, can only be
successfully preserved if they are protected not only in their
in northern
breeding grounds and summer quarters, e.g.
Europe, but also in their winter quarters, e.g.
in Spain.
Furthermore, migratory species — just like human beings
moving on foot or by car — require not only resting places
but also corridors for their journeys between their winter and
summer quarters. Europe also provides winter quarters for
Asian migratory birds which breed in the wide open expanses
of Siberia, and breeding grounds for migratory birds which
overwinter in Africa. Species diversity in areas outside Europe
therefore often plays a decisive role in nature conservation in
Europe.

2.3.2.
The need for general EU-wide coordination also
arises because, even though there are animal and plant species
which are not common to the whole of Europe, they still form
part of Europe’s heritage. To put it another way, the protection
of these species is in the interests not only of a given nation
but also of Europe as a whole, just as it is also generally
accepted that particular, national cultural monuments should
be protected at EU level. One example of such a species of
animal is Europe’s largest bird capable of flight, namely the
Great Bustard (Otis tarda); the last remaining birds of this
species are to be found above all in the Iberian peninsula —
the c. 15 000 birds living in Spain and the 200-300 birds
living in Portugal account for approximately half of the total
world population. Further examples are: the brown bear, the
wolf, the lynx, the bison and a large number of bats and even
insects (for example butterflies, such as the Marsh Fritillary (1)
and the Dusky Large Blue (2), and the Alpine Sawyer Beetle (3)).
In order to protect these species, special measures are required
which frequently involve the maintenance of traditional forms
of agriculture that are not viable in today’s competitive
environment.

2.4.
There has been a drastic and rapid decline in the
diversity of animal and plant species over the last few years.
The suddenness of the decline is particularly worrying: within
the space of a few years or decades a number of species have
already become extinct, others face grave threats of extinction
and yet others are endangered or potentially endangered. Only
a small number of species have been able to adjust to the
changed conditions of cultivation and are thriving. Generally
speaking, however, the state of nature and nature conservation

in Europe is a matter of considerable concern. Some spectacu-
lar successes in stabilising the numbers of particular species
(e.g. birds of prey in central Europe) cannot hide the fact that
the measures introduced in the last few years have regrettably
been only partially effective and have been unable to intrinsi-
cally halt the overall decline, let alone reverse it. In its second
report on the state of the environment in Europe (1999), the
European Environment Agency (EEA) pointed out that wild
species in Europe continued to be seriously endangered and
the number of species in decline was increasing, that in many
countries up to 50 % of the known species of vertebrates were
threatened and that over a third of bird species in Europe were
declining in number.

2.5.
The causes of this phenomenon are very varied. The
main threat today is clearly the reduction or disappearance of
animal and plant species’ habitats. In the past, direct per-
secution of particular species (bears, wolves and lynx) was
more widespread than it is today; direct persecution does,
however, remain a problem in some respects. Suitable habitats
are being lost for a number of reasons: building developments,
changes in agriculture and forestry practices,
the use of
pollutants and the fragmentation of wide areas of countryside
as a result of, for example, the construction of roads and
tourist infrastructure (in particular in coastal areas); this loss of
suitable habitats has not yet been halted. On the contrary, land
continues to be built on, wetlands continue to be drained, dry
habitats continue to be irrigated and oligotrophic habitats
continue to be eutrophicated or hypertrophicated. Responsi-
bility for this lies not only with local and national bodies but
also with the EU and its agricultural and structural policies,
which focus too one-sidedly on production and growth,
thereby bringing about and — in many cases — continuing to
bring about these damaging changes. A number of EU Member
States have in the meantime introduced measures to tackle this
situation but these measures have failed to reverse the overall
negative trends.

Fisheries policy constitutes a problem which,

2.5.1.
if
anything, has been underestimated so far. Large fishing fleets
are responding to the steadily growing economic pressure by
using ever more effective fishing methods. Endangered species
of marine turtles or marine mammals, e.g. seals such as the
monk seal (Monachus monachus), small whales and dolphins,
are frequently caught in trawl nets. Sustainable, traditional
fishing methods, such as tuna fishing by rod and line, as
practised by Spanish fishermen, are, however,
finding it
difficult to survive economically (4). The use of bodies of
standing and running water for fish-farming is also a potential
source of conflict in cases where they provide a habitat for
fish-eating species (such as otters) or may suffer damage as a
result of, for example: eutrophication caused by feed and
fertilizer (and also by household sewage and industrial efflu-
ent); the introduction of calcium; stocking with alien species;
and construction of ponds.

(1) Euphydryas (syn. Hyprdryas), aurinia.
(2) Maculinea nausithous.
(3) Rosalia alpina.

(4) It is important to inform the public on this matter. The flesh of
tuna caught by rod and line is white, whilst that of tuna caught
by trawling is red. Consumers can make their contribution to
nature conservation through their choice of product.

C 221/132

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.8.2001

2.5.2.
Dramatic losses of species and therefore of genetic
resources are not, however, confined to the wild; they are also
occurring amongst farm animals and plant varieties. Many
long-established regional breeds of domestic animals have
already disappeared or are threatened with extinction. The
situation in respect of varieties of cereals and vegetables
which are now rare is equally problematic. This is a nature
conservation issue to which neither state nor private nature-
conservation bodies have given sufficient thought so far.
Although a rethink is starting to take place in this area and a
number of measures have been taken in the context of agri-
environmental programmes, much remains to be done. It
has, nonetheless, been demonstrated that, for example, the
marketing of old breeds of domestic animals (such as the
Schwäbisch-Hall pig and the Iberian domestic pig) may be
economically viable.

2.6.
Long over a hundred years ago the differences in types
of habitat and species prompted the division of Europe into
specific biogeographical regions and the detailed examination
of what types of habitat or species were of particular (Euro-
pean)
importance in these regions and therefore required
special protection. On the basis of earlier scientific work,
Article 1c) of the flora/fauna/habitat Directive divided Europe
into a number of biogeographical regions.

in particular,

Since the early 1970s the Member States, the Com-
2.7.
mission and,
its Directorate-General for the
Environment, have been endeavouring to tackle the critical
situation facing nature conservation not only by drawing up
(and implementing) Directives but also by formulating special
strategies (1) and incorporating nature conservation into other
policy areas.

3. Nature conservation legislation in Europe and its

implementation

3.1.
Two key nature conservation Directives have been
adopted at EU level in the last few decades: the Directive on
the conservation of wild birds (79/409/EEC) was adopted in
1979 and the flora/fauna/habitat Directive (92/43/EEC) was
adopted in 1992. These two Directives have established vital
prerequisites for the conservation of endangered types of
habitat and species of animals and plants which are of
European importance. One of the aims is to establish a
European network of conservation areas of particular import-
ance (NATURA 2000). Both of these Directives are therefore
vital for the implementation of the 1992 Rio Convention on
Biological Diversity, which was signed by the Member States
and the EU.

3.2.
The Committee would stress that the Directive on the
conservation of wild birds and the fauna/flora/habitat Directive
are vital pieces of legislation (2). It is quite clear that the
decimation of animal and plant populations repeatedly cata-

(1) Community strategy for the maintenance of biological diversity

(COM(98) 42).

logued by national nature conservation authorities and the EU
institutions and lamented by those working in the field of
nature conservation cannot be put down to an inadequate
legal framework.

Implementation at national

3.3.
level of the abovemen-
tioned Directives is, however, frequently unsatisfactory and
sometimes inadequate, as regards both the notification of
NATURA-2000 areas and also the administration of areas
which are or are to be protected.

3.4.
In its opinion on the overall appraisal of the 5th EU
Environmental Action Programme (EAP)(3), the Committee
pointed out that:
‘The failure of Member States to apply
environmental legislation which they have adopted themselves
in the Council of Ministers, or their application of it only
under pressure (when taken to court by the EU), is damaging
to the environment and impossible to explain to the public at
large when an attempt is being made — supposedly — to alert
the public to environmental issues.’ The opinion goes on to
mention, as ‘key examples’ of such environmental legislation,
the two important nature conservation directives, namely
the Directive on the conservation of wild birds and the
flora/fauna/habitat Directive.

Designation of protected areas

3.5.
The Committee criticises the Member States for drag-
ging their heals over the notification and designation of
conservation areas. The fact that 22 years after the adoption
the
the Directive on the conservation of wild birds,
of
Commission still has to resort to arguing with the Member
States over the correct implementation and application of this
Directive represents a very sad chapter in the history of
European nature conservation. The Commission is still obliged
to observe that in several Member States the areas classified as
special conservation areas ‘are still too few in number or cover
too small an area’ (even though the procedure for notifying
protected areas should have been completed by 1981). There-
‘the Commission’s present strategy revolves around
fore,
initiating general
than
infringement proceedings,
infringement proceedings on a site by site basis’ (4). Both the
legal and technical implementation of the flora/fauna/habitat
Directive by the Member States has left and continues to leave
very much to be desired. The timetable decided upon under
the Directive by national environment ministers for setting up
the necessary network of conservation areas under the title
‘NATURA 2000’
is in complete chaos, thereby having a
profoundly detrimental effect on the real issue, namely the
maintenance and safeguarding of important habitats and the
conservation of rare animal and plant species.

rather

3.5.1.
Very considerable differences do, however, exist
between the individual Member States in this respect. A
number of countries have already, albeit belatedly, met a major
part of their commitments and, to a large extent, completed
the notification process with regard to their conservation areas.
Other Member States have, on the other hand, particularly
distinguished themselves in a negative sense although, in the
case of these countries too, progress has fortunately been
made in recent weeks and months.

(2) It should, however, be pointed out that the two Directives do not
always pay adequate attention to their actual purpose, namely to
promote preventive nature conservation.

(3) OJ C 204, 18.7.2000, point 3.4.1.6.
(4) See the 17th annual report on monitoring the application of

Community law (1999) (COM(2000) 92 final), p. 75.

7.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/133

the Structural Funds,

The Commission has made it clear that payments
3.5.2.
under
including Regulation (EC)
No 1257/1999 on support for rural development, can only be
made if the number of notifications is sufficient to ensure, to a
large extent, that projects (co-) financed by the EU do not have
a detrimental effect on potential areas of importance to flora,
fauna and habitat. This clarification has proved to be extremely
effective. Despite the fact that the freezing of payments —
whatever political interpretation one may wish to place on this
— has so far not been carried out comprehensively, it has
stimulated the notification of areas (1). In this context the
Committee draws attention to the fact that payments made
under Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999, for example, represent
an important source of income for farmers. It is therefore all
the more important to complete the notification of conser-
vation areas rapidly so that farmers do not have to suffer
financially because of the authorities’ failure to act.

There is a wide variety of reasons for the delays in
3.6.
implementing the EU Directives. One of the reasons is local
opposition to the designation and establishment of the areas
from rival parties competing for the use of the land. Local
authorities fear that the development of housing or industrial
estates will be restricted; transport-planners envisage problems
in deciding where routes are to run; farmers — who are also
facing growing pressure from housing developments and their
consequences (building of estates, roads, leisure centres, etc.)
— feel that restrictions are being placed on their use of land
and on their future plans.

The conflict between nature conservation and agri-
3.6.1.
culture, in particular, has over the last few years been a major
factor in causing delays in the notification of conservation
areas. Such conflicts arise as a result of a lack of understanding
of the multi-stage procedure specified in the habitat Directive,
namely: a preselection process involving the Member State
and based on purely scientific criteria; an equally scientific
selection process involving the Commission; and only then the
actual designation of the area. The lack of public involvement,
in some cases, in the initial phase (the preselection based on
scientific criteria) has been seen by the parties concerned to
show that decisions are being taken over the heads of the
owners and users of the land concerned. It is essential to learn
from this and make sure that extensive consultations are held
at an earlier stage, without waiting until areas are designated
and management plans discussed. By failing to consult and
making designations that are sometimes incomprehensible (2),

(1) The ESC would point out in this context that under EU law the
Commission must not release funds which could have a damaging
effect on the environment. Potential threats to or the destruction
of areas which could form part of the NATURA 2000 network
fall into this category.

(2) For example, part of a motorway has been notified as a flora,
fauna and habitat conservation area, and in Austria a conservation
area has been designated for the roller (species of bird — Coracias
garrulus) despite the fact that no rollers live in this area — they
are to be found in a directly adjacent habitat.

nature conservation officials make no friends for themselves.
On the contrary, opposition grows and nature conservation
acquires a negative public image.

3.6.2.
Owners and users of land have in many cases up to
now not been adequately informed about the consequences of
the designation of areas for the NATURA 2000 network. This
lack of involvement and the consequent uncertainty about the
implications for the further use and management of the land
has led to opposition. This opposition should be minimised
by ensuring that following the conclusion of phase I and the
selection of ‘special areas of conservation’, farmers receive
financial compensation in respect of the nature conservation
provisions desired by society, as set out in the flora/fauna/habi-
tat Directive. In its capacity as the forum for dialogue between
organised civil society, the Committee regards this measure as
being of decisive importance in ensuring greater acceptance of
nature conservation.

Administration of conservation areas

3.7. With the — albeit sluggish — extension of conser-
vation areas,
the focus is gradually shifting towards the
administration of these areas in accordance with Article 6 of
the flora/fauna/habitat Directive (establishment of conser-
vation measures, measures to avoid the deterioration of natural
habitats, assessment of plans or projects to determine whether
they are compatible with the conservation objectives set
for the respective sites, plans and projects having adverse
implications for conservation sites to be implemented only
under strict conditions). Here, too, potential conflicts should
be resolved, wherever possible, through dialogue with the
parties involved, on the basis of existing EU nature conser-
vation laws, and management plans, when required, should be
drawn up by agreement. The ESC draws attention to the fact
that much fuller account can be taken of economic interests
under the flora/fauna/habitat Directive (Article 6) than under
the conservation of wild birds Directive.

Recommendations concerning the implementation of the EU nature
conservation directives (3)

The ESC considers that

implementation problems
3.8.
must, under no circumstances, lead to the directives being
called into question, having some of their provisions deleted
or not being fully implemented.

3.9.
The Committee calls upon the Member States to
comply at long last with their obligation under Directive
92/43/EEC to incorporate the Directive into national law (cf.,
for example, the case of Germany) and to submit complete
national lists of suitable areas, selected according to technical
criteria (4). Not until this has been done will the Commission
be able to draw up a list of areas of Community importance,

(3) Cf. in this context the report adopted by the European Parliament
on 17.1.2001, which takes a critical look at the implementation
of the Directive on the conservation of wild birds and the
flora/fauna/habitat Directive.

(4) The ESC made an identical demand in its opinion on the
liability — OJ

Commission’s White Paper on environmental
C 268, 19.9.2000.

C 221/134

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.8.2001

thereby making it possible, as provided for under the Directive,
for the Member States to designate these areas as special areas
of conservation by 2004 at the latest. In this context, the
Committee welcomes the fact
the Commission has
initiated infringement proceedings against a number of Mem-
ber States, and it calls upon the Commission to rigorously
pursue this course. The Committee also urges the Member
States concerned to comply at long last with their obligation
under
the conservation of wild birds
(79/409/EEC) (1) to take adequate steps to designate European
bird conservation areas.

the Directive for

that

3.10.
The Committee urges the Commission and the Mem-
ber States to provide more information. To quote an example,
Article 6 of the flora/fauna/habitat Directive is not designed to
impede all forms of economic activity and land use in and
around NATURA-2000 areas. The intention is rather to ensure
that such activities are sustainable and do not jeopardise the
conservation goals to be attained through the designation
exercise. Targeted information — linked to existing initiatives,
such as the NATURA-2000 Newsletter of the Commission and
the interpretation document in respect of Article 6 of the
flora/fauna/habitat Directive — may counter the fears of the
parties concerned. It needs to be made clear that a nature
conservation policy is not just an end in itself but also has a
positive economic and social function within the context of
sustainable development, e.g. by creating new jobs. There are
many projects, such as those supported under the LIFE
Regulation, which demonstrate that, rather than representing
an impediment, the flora/fauna/habitat Directive frequently
has a positive knock-on effect. These positive examples need
to be publicised more widely. It is important that nature
conservation is a pleasurable experience and encourages
people working in the countryside (primarily farmers) to
commit themselves, for nature conservation is a field in which
decisions are taken at local level. It is vital in this context
that in the future and the long-term, too, appropriate aid
instruments are made available for nature conservation in the
EU and tailored to fit in with nature conservation requirements.
This is particularly important for the post-Agenda 2000 era,
including the LIFE IV financial instrument (which has to be
confirmed beforehand) and,
its LIFE-Nature
component, which should cover a much longer period and
have much more funding than under LIFE III.

in particular,

3.11.
Cooperation between land-owners and land-users,
nature conservationists, consumers and tourists, should there-
fore be promoted in order to involve these parties more
effectively, on a joint basis,
in nature conservation in the
NATURA-2000 areas and to strengthen their motivation.
Environmental education and training should also include
more about nature conservation matters. In European bird
reserves in particular, there are a large number of excellent
projects with regard to environmental education and sustain-
able tourism.

(1) Nature conservation associations,

in particular BirdLife Inter-
national, have identified ‘Important Bird Areas’
(IBA), which
present the appropriate technical characteristics and which have
been used by the European Court of Justice, too, as a reference in
several cases.

4.

Incorporation of nature conservation into agri-
culture

Introduction

This part of

the opinion examines the extent

to
4.1.
which nature conservation is incorporated into the Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP). The Committee makes a number of
recommendations for improving the incorporation of nature
conservation into the CAP with due regard to: two own-
initiative Committee opinions from 1999 on the agri-environ-
mental priorities for the multi-function agriculture of Agenda
2000 and the European agricultural model (2); the Communi-
cation from the Commission on guidelines for sustainable
agriculture (3); and special report No 14/00 of the European
Court of Auditors on the greening of the CAP. In making
its recommendations, the Committee distinguishes between
accompanying measures and rural development (second pillar
of the CAP) and ‘traditional agriculture’ (first pillar of the CAP).

4.2.
In addition to other threats, the European Environment
Agency (EEA) recognises that nature conservation faces a
major threat from particular present-day forms of intensive
farming. In its second report on the state of the environment
in Europe, issued in 1999, the EEA pointed out that the main
reason for this threat to nature conservation was to be found
in the loss of habitat due to changed land-use, brought about,
in particular, by intensive agriculture, that the threat to species
diversity caused by human activity had intensified and that
an environment-friendly agricultural sector had hardly been
brought any nearer.

4.3.
There is no doubting the fact that agriculture which is
productive in the agro-economic sense represents a serious
firstly,
threat to natural diversity. The threat is two-fold:
intensively-farmed areas are lost as habitats for most of the
threatened animal species, and at the same time, the continued
use of extensively-farmed areas — which are valuable in terms
of nature conservation — becomes increasingly less attractive
in economic terms. From a nature conservation perspective,
both the intensification of agricultural production and the
abandonment of extensive farming therefore represent a
problem.

4.4.
The Committee thinks that a positive relationship
between agriculture and nature conservation is important if
nature conservation and biological diversity (also in respect of
breeds and types of productive animals) are to continue to
prosper in Europe. Outside the natural landscapes which have
not been influenced by man (there are now only extremely few
areas of this type left in Europe), biotope diversity in the man-
made landscapes of Europe has been created by, and continues
to be created by, a number of particular extensive forms of
agricultural and forestry land-use. The continued use and
development of particular extensive agricultural and forestry

(2) Both opinions are set out in OJ C 368, 20.12.1999.
(3) COM(1999) 22 final.

7.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/135

production methods (seen today in terms of the inputs used)
is therefore a vital prerequisite for maintaining and exerting a
positive influence on species diversity. A coordinated and
appropriate nature conservation policy may help to maintain
such extensive forms of production. Nature conservation and
environmental protection can also bring economic benefits;
working in tandem with regional policy, ecological develop-
ment may provide new jobs and promote regional economic
development.

The CAP must provide new incentives in this respect
4.5.
and must help to ensure that nature conservation concerns are
discussed with the agricultural sector and that
financial
compensation is paid. Seen in this light, nature conservation
and environmentally-compatible agricultural production may
even become a new source of income, as society pays farmers
for those services which it demands of them. In order to
further this positive contribution by agriculture to nature
conservation and at the same time avoid any negative impact
on nature, wherever possible, there is a need for a general
economic framework which ensures that it is more profitable
to preserve nature and the environment than it is to harm
them. The more financially worthwhile it is to protect nature
and the countryside, the more the land-owners and users
concerned will find it acceptable.

The CAP has so far, however, been geared to an
4.6.
agricultural sector focused on optimum performance and
rationalisation. Environmental considerations have frequently
been neglected, just as social questions have (e.g. the question
of how many farmers society actually needs). Under such
circumstances, a species-rich, diverse landscape came to be
regarded as a locational disadvantage for agriculture. There is
a need to reverse this situation in a manner beneficial to
farmers.
If society wants agricultural production to take
account of nature conservation, it must also be prepared to
pay for services which go beyond the social obligations
land and also beyond the
attendant upon ownership of
observance of statutory requirements in respect of
‘good
business practice’. Possible solutions are for consumers to be
prepared to pay a higher price for products or for farmers
to be compensated from public funds for the additional
expenditure incurred in using methods which are more in tune
with the environment and nature. At all events, it is essential
that in future environmental diversity and diversity of land-
scape be regarded as constituting a locational advantage for
farmers. This could herald a move away from subsidies towards
the remuneration of services of benefit to society (such as the
maintenance of biotopes, man-made landscapes,
landscape
features, etc.). Such a move was envisaged by EC Commissioner
MacSharry in the run-up to the 1992 reform of agriculture but
has still not been rigorously pursued.

grassland areas are declining and the remaining areas are being
farmed more intensively. Germany used to have 57 different
types of grassland used for pasture, comprising different mixes
of plant species; there are now only six such pasture grassland
types remaining, a factor which is having devastating conse-
quences for nature conservation. Changes are taking place at
the same time in arable farming. Birds species which nest in
open arable lands and meadows are now systematically being
placed on the Red List of Threatened Species or at least being
included in the associated early-warning list. In other EU
Member States, too, such as the UK, birds which were formerly
commonly found on farmland, such as skylarks, partridges,
yellowhammers and corn buntings have seen their numbers
fall by up to 80 % since the 1970s (1).

There are, on the other hand, examples of

4.6.2.
the
positive effects of extensive farming, such as the use of the
‘Dehesas’ (pasture) in the Extremadura (Spain) and in Portugal.
The coordinated mix of extensive arable farming, extensive
pastural farming and the economic exploitation of the cork
oak and the holm oak represents, in conjunction with the
historic practice of transhumance (the driving of livestock
from the arid south to the summer pastures in the north of
Spain), a form of land-use which has brought clear benefits to
particular species inhabiting these man-made landscapes.
Agriculture in this regions is, however, experiencing consider-
able difficulties in economic terms.

4.7.
The conflict between economic viability, on the one
hand, and environmental requirements, on the other hand, has
not yet been resolved. The fact that the WTO has so far failed
to introduce environmental standards which are applicable
worldwide makes it that much more difficult to resolve the
conflict at EU level, although since the successful conclusion
of the GATT Uruguay Round, it has been recognised that
‘green box’ measures deserve to be promoted. EU farmers find
it difficult, on the one hand, to accept tougher environmental
standards whilst, on the other hand, having to compete with
producers in countries where climatic conditions are better
and where environmental protection and nature conservation
are alien concepts.

4.8.
Under Agenda 2000 the Commission and the EU
ministers stressed the need to improve the competitiveness of
EU agriculture on the world market and to maintain the
multifunctional character of EU agriculture. The term ‘Euro-
is now employed. The EU Com-
pean agricultural model’
mission uses this term to mean an agricultural sector which
not only provides high-quality products but also upholds rich
cultural traditions, maintains the beauty of the landscape,
works in harmony with nature and the environment, safe-
guards employment and creates new jobs, whilst at the same
time also being able to compete on the world market without
receiving large subsidies.

4.6.1.
The changes brought about by current agricultural
policy are reflected in the changing face of the man-made
landscape. It is not just in Germany that, for example, the use
of grasslands, which are important for nature conservation, is
becoming increasingly less attractive in economic terms.
Traditional pastural agriculture is disappearing more and more,

4.9.
In its own-initiative opinion on a policy to consolidate
the European agricultural model (2), the Committee emphati-
cally reaffirmed the need to safeguard the multifunctional

(1) cf. The State of the UK’s Birds 2000: RSPB, BTO and WWT, 2001.
(2) OJ C 368, 20.12.1999, point 7.2.

C 221/136

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.8.2001

character of agriculture, whilst, at the same time, raising
the question of ‘how, against the background of increasing
competition, a multifunctional agricultural sector can continue
to provide the various services .... It is likely that, apart from
some exceptions and cases of particularly favourable market
situations, EU farms will continue to be unable to match world
market prices for agricultural products on a sustained basis ...’.

Accompanying measures and the second pillar of the CAP

As long as world-market conditions tend to hinder
4.10.
the widespread adoption of farming practices which are in line
with the goals of nature conservation, special policy measures
will be required to counteract the negative trends. Regulation
(EEC) No 2078/92 on the agricultural environment ushered
in the first systematic establishment of agri-environmental
programmes in the EU Member States which are co-financed
by the EU. Overall, c. 17 % of agricultural land in the EU is
affected and influenced by these agri-environmental pro-
grammes (which implies that some 83 % of agricultural land
is not affected or influenced); there are vast differences between
the individual Member States as regards the impact of these
programmes on agricultural land and their effectiveness in
promoting nature conservation (1).

4.11.
In an evaluation of the programmes established under
Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 (2), the Commission reached a
number of conclusions in respect of the measures taken; inter
alia, it concluded that these measures:

— had a very positive impact on the development of ‘green’
agriculture, which it regards as a key environmental
objective;

— had met with too little acceptance and consequently had
too small an impact in intensively-farmed regions; and

— had not brought about an extensification of livestock

farming.

4.12.
These views are reaffirmed by the European Court of
Auditors in its Special Report on ‘Greening the CAP’ (3). It
should be pointed out that many national governments are
failing to take advantage of the opportunities open to them to
improve nature conservation, and are even failing to take
advantage of measures co-funded by the EU. The European
Court of Auditors notes (4) in this respect that only Ireland has
made use of the possibility of establishing ‘ecological reserves’
with land withdrawn from production under the early retire-
ment provisions; in the EU a total of only 54 hectares has been
used under this scheme for the establishment of new nature-
conservation areas.

(1) In Austria, for example, just under 70 % of agricultural land is
affected by the agri-environmental programmes, whereas the
corresponding figures for intensively-farmed regions, such as
Belgium and the Netherlands, are 1,7 % and 1,9 % respectively —
figures which are well below the average.

(2) Working document of DG VI (VI/7655/98) on the evaluation of

the agri-environmental programmes.

(3) OJ C 353, 8.12.2000.
(4) see point 32 of the report.

4.13.
On a general note, however, it should be pointed out
that the agri-environmental measures have failed to fully
compensate for the economic discrepancies between forms
of production which are desirable for promoting nature
conservation and forms of production which are desirable for
meeting market-economy objectives. The reasons for the low
level of success are due, inter alia, to: the inadequate level of
funding for the programmes; the inadequate financial incen-
tives; farmers not knowing whether the programmes are long-
term, and therefore sustainable; and the fact that other support
measures outside the scope of the accompanying measures
offer greater financial incentives to farm land more intensively.

4.14.
The Agenda 2000 decisions brought a number of
further improvements and established rural development as
the CAP. As an example of such
the second pillar of
improvements, funding for agri-environmental measures was
further increased under Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on
support for rural development. It does, however, have to be
recognised that the second pillar of the CAP accounts for only
some 10 % of expenditure on agriculture and that expenditure
on agri-environmental measures amounts to just half of this
10 %;
in other words, only 5 % of overall expenditure
under the CAP is devoted to classical agri-environmental
programmes. The major part of CAP funding therefore con-
tinues to be allotted to first pillar measures. Farmers are given
no incentives at all or totally inadequate incentives to continue
to work extensively-farmed areas or to keep in place hedges or
other landscape features. They are therefore not given adequate
economic motivation to gear their production methods to
nature conservation requirements.

First pillar of the CAP

The greater part of funding under the Guarantee
4.15.
Section of the EAGGF (i.e. approximately 90 % of the funding)
continues to be used to finance market regulation measures
under the first pillar of the CAP; here it should be borne in
mind that under the co-financing arrangements Member States
have to provide substantial sums for rural development
measures (second pillar).

Not all agricultural crops are covered by market
4.16.
regulations. Direct payments are made to producers of wheat
and silage maize, for example, but not in respect of areas
under clover or grasslands. The fact that particular crops are
given preferential treatment over others has consequences for
the landscape, which in turn also affect nature conservation.
These payments should be scrapped and could be replaced, for
example, by per hectare premiums.

4.17.
The Committee deplores the fact that a number of
proposals which were made by the Commission in the course
of the debate on Agenda 2000 and which could have, directly
or indirectly, promoted farming methods in tune with nature
conservation, were, in the end, not accepted by the Member
States. These proposals included the Commission’s plan to

7.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/137

scrap the silage maize premium. Also, the fact that the linkage
of compensatory payments to the fulfilment of environmental
requirements is only to be optional may well be criticised,
since it means that those Member States which introduce
cross compliance would place their farmers at a competitive
disadvantage.

Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 of 17 May 1999 sets
4.18.
out EU rules for direct payments under the CAP. Under
Article 3 of this Regulation, Member States are to ‘take the
environmental measures they consider to be important in view
of the situation of the agricultural land … or the production
…’ in respect of which direct payments are made. The aim is
to give more weight to environmental aspects in connection
with the common organisation of the markets (cross com-
pliance). It would be useful if the Commission were to indicate,
as soon as possible in a communication to the European
Parliament, the Council and the ESC/CoR, how the individual
Member States have responded. Furthermore, it would also be
desirable for the implementing regulation currently under
discussion to be adopted and brought into force as soon as
possible.

Recommendations for improving the incorporation of nature conser-
vation into agriculture

4.19.
The Committee underlines the fact that the oppor-
tunities provided by the forthcoming WTO negotiations,
eastward enlargement of the EU and the mid-term review
should be used to introduce a new agricultural policy which is
more in tune with conservation of the environment and
nature. The Committee intends to draw up an own-initiative
opinion on this issue.

4.20.
The Committee recommends that in the long term all
EU financial instruments should provide an incentive to meet
the objectives of the nature conservation Directives, or, at the
very least, should not undermine these objectives.

4.21.
Financial incentives to promote an agricultural sector
which pays sufficient heed to nature conservation are at
present inadequate in many cases. As long as general world-
wide conditions do not permit the whole of the agricultural
sector to comply with nature conservation objectives, agri-
environmental aid should be increased to a level where all
farmers in the EU are prompted to switch to ‘green’ production
methods. The CAP financial instruments should be geared
towards the results-oriented promotion of environmental and

Brussels, 30 May 2001.

socio-cultural interests (biodiversity, positive impact on jobs).
To this end, indicators will need to be formulated to gauge
the successes of agricultural policy. A consensus between
organisations representing farmers, environmental associ-
ations and the social partners needs to be achieved. The
integrated nature conservation blueprints which the EU should
help develop will therefore need to be implemented with the
aid of appropriate nature conservation budgets and agri-
environmental programmes. The financial arrangements will
need to be discussed at a later stage.

There is generally a low take-up rate for agri-
4.22.
environmental measures in highly-productive,
intensively-
farmed regions. It is particularly in these regions that species
diversity is under serious threat. The Committee therefore
recommends, as a matter of urgency, that a review be carried
out of aid provisions funded under the first pillar to determine
whether they are in line with environmental protection and
nature conservation. This review, too, should be carried out as
soon as possible so that any conclusions as regards the
amending of the agricultural policy can be drawn before the
accession to the EU of the CEEC and the WTO negotiations.

4.23.
The Member States should set an example to their
citizens and, in particular, to land-owners, who are expected
to show a commitment to nature conservation. Only if the
state tailors the management of the areas under its control to
the requirements of nature or turns such areas into nature
conservation areas, can landowners (such as district authorities,
insurance companies, churches and royal families) be expected
to follow suit.

4.24.
In this context the Committee would point out that
the applicant states still have considerable natural potential,
which may be threatened by the adoption of the current
agricultural policy legislation. The Committee therefore calls
upon the Commission to carry out an immediate review of the
likely consequences for nature and the environment of the
adoption of the CAP by the applicant states and to submit its
findings forthwith. There must be no transitional period for
the adoption of EU nature conservation Directives.

In the Committee’s view, interested parties and organ-
4.25.
ised civil society in both the EU Member States and in the
applicant states must be consulted much more closely in order
to increase the acceptability of political decisions which
promote nature conservation. Action should also be taken to
meet the general public’s demand not only to be informed but
also to be actively involved in decision-making processes.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS