Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the EU campaign to conserve biodiversity: position and contribution of civil society
Date: 2006-05-18
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU policy, biodiversity, environmental policy, public awareness campaign

C 195/96

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.8.2006

6.4.2.3
A particularly robust system is needed to monitor
the results of development aid programmes in the field of civil
society. The EESC could play a major role in such a system.

6.4.2.4
The planning of development aid programmes must
be tailored to the practical needs of civil society. Development
aid aimed at the creation of new civil society institutions could
make extensive use of EESC technical support.

6.4.2.5
After the Forum on the Western Balkans to be orga-
nised by the EESC, a permanent management working group
could be set up by the EESC Contact Group and representatives
of organised civil society in the Western Balkans. This group
would help civil society organisations shape their strategies and
operational agenda, and would supply best practice and know-

how to bolster civil society in the EU Member States and the
countries of the Western Balkans.

In the EU's Financial Perspective for 2007-2013 the
6.4.2.6
‘territorial cooperation’ objective must give consideration to the
financial means earmarked to assist third countries. Financing
mechanisms for third countries must be simplified, without of
course sacrificing existing transparency, and be strengthened in
neighbourhood policies. The experience of programmes such
as CADSES must be put to use and propagated.

6.4.2.7 While planning development aid programmes for
civil society, the EU must take into account the development
programmes of other international organisations. Cooperation
with the programmes and special services of the UN should be
deepened and extended to operational level.

Brussels, 17 May 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the EU campaign to conserve biodi-
versity: position and contribution of civil society

(2006/C 195/24)

In a letter dated 13 September 2005, the Austrian presidency, acting under Article 262 of the EC Treaty,
asked the European Economic and Social Committee to draw up an exploratory opinion on the: EU
campaign to conserve biodiversity: position and contribution of civil society.

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 26 April 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Ribbe.

At its 427th plenary session, held on 17 and 18 May 2006 (meeting of 18 May), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 125 votes to none, with four abstentions:

1. Summary of the Committee's conclusions and recom-

mendations

The EESC welcomes the commitment of all the Euro-
1.4
pean institutions and, as contracting parties to the Convention
on Biological Diversity, of the EU Member States not only to
halt but also to reverse this decline.

Biodiversity is the foundation and guarantee of life on
1.1
our planet. Economic self-interest alone dictates that humanity
must strive to keep ecosystems stable. We also owe a debt of
responsibility to the natural world to maintain species diversity.
Protecting biodiversity is not some ‘luxury’ to be indulged in or
dispensed with at will.

Humanity itself is the greatest beneficiary of biodiversity;
1.2
yet it is humanity that is, at the moment, the main cause of its
decline.

1.3
As the EESC sees it, biodiversity in Europe remains
under extreme threat. EU action to date has not been enough
to halt the decline of the past few decades.

That said, however, the EESC laments the huge gulf that
1.5
has grown up between ideal and reality: public authorities have
so far failed to make the contribution to conserving biodiversity
that might have been expected of them. In fact, in this field, it
is their duty to be role models; instead, planning decisions and
support schemes are often instrumental in imperilling biodiver-
sity still further. Moreover, in the 2007-2013 funding period,
particular savings are to be made in precisely those EU policy
areas that are of key importance for biodiversity protection.

18.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/97

1.6
Biodiversity loss is an insidious process that has been
going on for many years. As fewer and fewer people have any
direct connection with the natural environment, there is rela-
tively little sense of personal concern — and thus relatively
little political pressure for change. This must not set policy-
makers' minds at ease, however. On the contrary, it is essential
to draw up counterstrategies.

1.7
Just as civil society needs to be better informed of the
background to — and indeed the point of — biodiversity
conservation, so also there is a need to train and educate local,
regional and national officials and public employees, since
many are wholly unaware of the issues at stake and often have
no motivation to act.

1.8
The EESC feels that a campaign to conserve biodiversity
of the kind being considered by the EU presidency is a useful
step and an opportunity for civil society both to have practical
input and — something that is particularly important — to
help raise awareness of
involved. However, a
campaign of this kind cannot make up for the existing short-
comings that the EU itself has identified. Nor must it under any
circumstances convey the impression that the problems are
solely or chiefly the result of inadequate commitment on the
part of civil society.

the issues

1.9 More overtly positive, practical examples and prototype
projects are needed. There must be more action to raise aware-
ness of the intrinsic and practical value of landscapes and of
biodiversity in general. Commitment is also needed by public
role models. It is, after all, a question of preserving the very
foundations of human existence.

2. The Committee opinion: main features and background

2.1
In a letter dated 13 September 2005, the Austrian presi-
dency asked the EESC to draft an exploratory opinion on the
EU campaign to conserve biodiversity: position and contribution of
civil society. In terms of both content and policy, an opinion of
this kind could, as the letter points out, be helpful to the
Council and the Commission as they pursue the objective of
halting biodiversity decline by 2010 (1).

The letter proposes that the EESC might consider the

2.2
following aspects:

— the causes of biodiversity loss;

— whether the measures taken so far by the Council and the

Commission to achieve this goal are sufficient;

— whether the various EU policies are coherent;

— what other measures have to be taken by the Commission

and the Member States;

— what consequences this will have in relation to the Lisbon

and sustainable development strategies; and

— what contribution can be made by civil society.

2.3
The Austrian presidency's request no doubt stems from
the point made in the letter itself, namely that: ‘current data from
various research bodies and institutes, including Eurostat, show that,

despite efforts made so far, biodiversity both in Europe and across the
world is in steady decline, with no reversal of the trend at present in
sight. In its communications as part of the EU sustainability strategy
review process, the European Commission also assumes a negative
trend in this area.’

2.4
The EESC thanks the presidency for approaching it on
this key issue. It will now consider the issues involved, respond
to each in turn and explore some ideas
for a possible
campaign.

3. General comments

Biodiversity is the foundation of

3.1
life on our planet.
Without it, humanity would be doomed: plants, which convert
sunlight into biomass, form the basis of the earth's energy and
substance flows that are the very fabric of people's day-to-day
lives as they breathe, eat and work. And human life and activity
would also be impossible without those species that make use
of and convert our waste ‘products’.

3.2
It follows, then, that biodiversity is not something that
society can ‘indulge in’ whenever it considers it important to
do so but which can be dispensed with when other apparent
priorities need to be set. Biodiversity is an absolute necessity.

In the 2003 environment policy review (2), the Commission
3.3
‘Biodiversity
explains what is at stake in the biodiversity issue:
reflects the complexity, balance and status of the various ecosystems.
Not only does biodiversity perform essential life support functions but
it also provides the basis for important economic, recreational and
cultural activities.’

3.4
The literal translation of biodiversity is ‘variety of life’
but the term can be used on a number of different levels. It can
be used to mean the genetic diversity within a particular popu-
lation, and also the degree of species diversity within a particu-
lar habitat.

3.5
As intelligent beings, humans are the main beneficiaries
of biodiversity. No other living species makes use of — or
draws advantage from — so many other species than human-
kind. Yet humanity is now also the main destroyer of biodiver-
sity. The distinction we make between ‘useful’ and ‘harmful’
species is purely economic and anthropocentric. Such distinc-
tions are not found in the natural world, which knows only
balanced relationships that
that are largely self-regulating.
Biodiversity is one of the key indicators of sustainability.

Any uncontrolled shifts

in these balances pose a
3.6
problem for those with a stake in maintaining stability. Human
activity — wide in its range and largely economic in its focus
— impacts and influences ecological balances. This has been
the case for thousands of years and,
in earlier times, some
activities — extensive land-use practices, for instance — often
even spawned new and, in turn, largely stable systems. Today,
however, human impact on biodiversity has grown to unprece-
dented levels. Humanity has created a wealth of possibilities for
itself, with the result that species composition is no longer just
altered slightly but is, in many cases, completely destroyed.

(1) See decision of the Gothenburg European Council, 15 and 16 June

2001.

(2) COM(2003) 745/2.

C 195/98

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.8.2006

Point of departure and causes of biodiversity loss

3.7
In its letter to the EESC (see point 2.3 above), the presi-
dency outlined in clear and unmistakeable terms the current
state of play in the field of biodiversity conservation.
Its
analysis ties in with, among other things, the United Nations
Environment Programme report on biological diversity which
states that biodiversity across the world is declining faster than
ever before.

‘The rich biodiversity of

3.8
As early as 1998, the EU had noted in its biodiversity
strategy (3) that the situation in Europe was a matter of grave
concern:
the European Union has been
to slow changes over the centuries, due to the impact of
subject
human activities. The scale of this impact has accelerated dramatically
in the last few decades. The Assessment by UNEP confirms that in
some European countries up to 24 % of species of certain groups such
as butterflies, birds and mammals are now nationally extinct.’

The 2001 Gothenburg strategy for sustainable develop-
3.9
ment (4) states:
‘The loss of biodiversity in Europe has accelerated
dramatically in recent decades’. The EESC points out that today's
species extinction rate is between a hundred and a thousand
times higher than the natural rate; a quite recent study drawn
up by the University of Utrecht even starts from the assump-
tion that the present rate of extinction is between one thousand
and ten thousand times higher than the natural rate.

The causes of biodiversity decline are many and varied.
3.10
Broadly speaking, biodiversity is lost when fauna and flora
habitats are destroyed or substantively altered. The causes are,
essentially: the fragmentation of natural habitats as a result of
infrastructure and urbanisation; the input of nutrients; the fact
that habitats are being built over; mass tourism; and water and
air pollution.

Agriculture in Europe has a particular, almost dual role
3.11
to play in this process. Historically, extensive and highly varied
farming practices did, in the first instance, help boost biodiver-
sity. However, many of these extensive practices have long
ceased to be economical, and have therefore been replaced by
more intensive uses that have a greater impact on the natural
processes. This has a twofold effect on biodiversity. Not only
does intensive farming play a major role in biodiversity decline,
but valuable biotopes are also lost through land being aban-
doned or, on sites that were formerly farmed extensively or in
a near-natural way, being allowed to fall permanently fallow or
undergoing a change of use. Depending on how it is practised,
therefore, agriculture either benefits or harms biodiversity.

3.12
Other key causes of biodiversity loss are: plant succes-
sion; the shift in the competitive balance (caused, among other
things, by nutrient inputs); the afforestation of unwooded areas;
the introduction of foreign species; and overfishing.

(3) Cf COM(1998) 42 final.
(4) COM(2001) 264 final.

3.12.1
New and hitherto less important causes may also
make the situation much worse in the future. In its recent
report (5), the European Environment Agency cites predicted
in the future, even
climate change as a huge and perhaps,
predominant threat resulting in irreversible biodiversity shifts.

3.12.2
The use of green genetic technology is another
potential new danger to biodiversity in Europe. The commer-
cial cultivation of genetically modified plants could, researchers
believe, have a major impact on the surrounding flora — and
thus also on butterflies and bees. These are the findings of a
three-year study commissioned by the British government and
involving over 150 researchers (6). The EESC calls upon the
Commission to provide strong support for research activities in
this area.

impact of

this biodiversity loss. Pollinator insects,

A specific example may be used to illustrate the poten-
3.13
tial
for
instance, are clearly in numerical and — according to the FAO
–worldwide decline. The pollination systems of
flowering
plants have evolved and, at the same time, adapted to changes
in pollinator insects, which, in turn, have developed more effi-
cient nectar and pollen collection mechanisms. For pollinated
plants, this has helped make for improved seed production and
dispersal. Cross-pollination by insects boosts genetic diversity
and results in more resistant seed and a higher-quality yield.
Between 70 % and 95 % of pollinator insects are classed as
hymenopterans (‘membrane-winged’), a genus to which the
domestic honeybee also belongs. The decline in the pollinator
insect population may have a devastating impact, not least
economically.

Given the wealth of studies and statements on the
3.14
dramatic decline in biodiversity,
the Committee need not
concern itself in this opinion with delving deeper into the indi-
the issue. All
let alone raising awareness of
vidual causes,
policymakers should be fully alive to the problem. There is no
lack of pertinent data on the subject.

3.15
The EESC is pleased that all the EU institutions consis-
tently express their commitment to maintaining biodiversity.
Yet despite political commitments and policy statements of
every kind, despite the signing of the Convention on Biological
Diversity, which has been ratified by all 25 EU Member States
and by the EU, and despite sensible nature protection provi-
sions adopted at EU level — including the 1979 Birds Direc-
tive (7) and the 1992 directive on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive) (8) —
biodiversity continues to decline.

(5) The European Environment – State and outlook 2005, EEA, November

2005.

(6) See the scientific magazine Nature, 22.3.2005.
(7) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
(8) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

18.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/99

3.16
At the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development
(WSSD) in Johannesburg, the parties committed themselves to
significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. The
EU has gone even further by committing itself to halting biodi-
versity decline by 2010 (9).

Biodiversity conservation is

3.17
recognised as a
sensible, necessary, yet highly complex task in which all poli-
tical levels (from the EU down to local authorities) must work
together with civil society to provide an example for society to
follow.

thus

Biodiversity loss: political and social background

3.18
One burning question is, unfortunately, all too seldom
asked, yet urgently requires an answer: what are the political
reasons that allowed biodiversity to decline — sometimes to a
dramatic extent — over decades without any adequate political
action being taken or enforced to counter the trend?

in the first

3.19
There many different reasons for this. One difficulty is
undoubtedly that biodiversity loss is a very slow, insidious and
thus,
instance, virtually imperceptible process
(begging, in fact, a ready comparison with climate change). No
single ‘measure’ can be blamed for the emergence of
the
problem, just as no single ‘countermeasure’ can be brought to
bear to resolve it. The biodiversity loss we are witnessing at the
moment is the product of millions of actions and decisions
over the last number of years and decades, each of which —
individually — has had a seemingly insignificant or merely
marginal impact.

It

therefore,

is extremely difficult,

3.20
to successfully
caution against — or indeed block — upcoming decisions on
the grounds of preserving biodiversity, especially in the face of
contentions by the relevant public authorities that the impact
on the particular part of the natural environment in question is
being offset by compensation or substitution measures else-
where (although this all too frequently is not successful).

3.21
Another probable reason is that, in a development that
has taken place over a relatively short space of time, fewer and
fewer people have any direct experience and perception of the
importance of biodiversity and countryside areas, and the
changes that are taking place there. We are witnessing a
process of alienation from nature, which starts as fewer and
fewer people know or recognise the value — both practical (10)
and intrinsic (11) — of countryside areas.

(9) See paragraph 31, presidency conclusions, Gothenburg European

Council.

(10) The practical value – the economic value – of countryside areas
goes far beyond their importance as farming or forestry ‘production
sites’. Tourism and locally based recreation are a good case in
point. Tourism is underpinned by species-rich, diverse landscapes
of generally recognised beauty.

(11) The intrinsic value of the countryside has two facets. On the one
‘nature’ has a unique value that must be recognised and
hand,
protected, not
frittered away by one-sided technological and
economic exploitation. On the other hand, the countryside is also
of value as a place where people can seek physical and, above all,
spiritual regeneration and find their proper place in the natural
order.

3.22 Most people (and indeed most policymakers) are, in all
likelihood, not fully aware of the importance and relevance of
the real task of protecting biodiversity (including the major
ethical and moral responsibility involved.). They ‘consume’ the
countryside and admire its beauty. They enjoy its sights, spend
their leisure time there, play sports, take holidays. Yet they
have little idea any longer of how the biotic elements of coun-
tryside areas, the individual species of fauna and flora, interact
with and through each other and thus play a part both in
making the landscape what it is and in ensuring its stability.
Equally, they have little inkling of the tremendous importance
of this fragile stability as the backbone of our way of life and of
our economic system. For broad swathes of society, nature is
something that is experienced sporadically, sometimes more on
television than in the open countryside,
in films that focus
more on the beauties of Africa, the Galapagos Islands or other
far-flung places, but hardly ever address the problems facing
Europe's own natural heritage.

find,

It is no accident, therefore, that nature conservation
3.23
that Europeans are
surprise,
organisations
frequently more willing to support campaigns to save the
elephant or conserve the Siberian tiger than to protect the local
field hamster.

to their

Biodiversity loss is something that

3.24
is talked about,
reported on and discussed in political tracts. Yet people have
no direct experience of the adverse impact involved. In some
cases, they have no personal experience whatsoever of what is
actually being lost ‘out there’ in the countryside. As we know,
people are prepared to commit only to causes they genuinely
know and care about, causes from which they expect in some
way to derive benefit.

3.25
Daily experience shows therefore, that, as an issue,
biodiversity enjoys broad recognition but it is also increasingly
far outside the ambit of most people's own experience. Values
arise because people care about what they represent. For many
people, biodiversity appears to have no direct bearing on their
lives and, in consequence, they increasingly feel that its protec-
tion is not something for which they are in any sense person-
ally responsible. That, they feel, is a job for the state.

the world, biodiversity

conservation will
3.26
Across
to which political decision-makers
depend on the extent
succeed in rekindling a sense of ‘personal concern’. It must be
brought home to people that just because something can be
done does not necessarily mean that it should be done. People
must again come to recognise that sacrifices do have to be
made to protect the natural environment but that such sacri-
fices are a source of enrichment to us. That goal should be an
integral part of any EU campaign on biodiversity loss.

And as what

3.27
is described above does seem a true
reflection of what is actually going on, situations arise time and
again in which universal commitment to conserving biodiver-
sity is taken as read, yet questions are still asked as to:

— whether the environment really needs protection just where

that new bypass road is scheduled to be built;

C 195/100

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.8.2006

— whether

the presence of a species enjoying European
protection under the Habitats Directive should be a valid
reason for blocking, say, the building of a trading estate;

— and whether nature conservation really does have to cost

(so much) money.

perspective, at the same time cutting the key budgetary appro-
priations to the ‘old’ Member States in this area by more than
30 % (13). The heads of state or government of the EU Member
States have thus themselves laid the groundwork for a policy
that cannot match their own ambitions. The policy itself sets a
bad example.

It does not end there. When the economy is, osten-
3.28
sibly, going through a bad patch, nature conservation is not
seen as the very foundation of life and economic activity but is,
instead, turned into a scapegoat and accused of holding back
one key development or another that is deemed ‘good’ for the
economy. It should, incidentally, also be noted that arguments
used in this debate frequently follow a highly contradictory line
of reasoning. People are indignant if a road they personally
consider important cannot be built because of nature conserva-
tion rules. Yet they are more than willing to cite landscape
conservation as grounds to block road building in areas they
use for holidays or recreation.

3.29
As things stand, nature is seen as a ‘freely available,
common resource’ which can be shaped and influenced more
or less at will to suit the economic requirements of an indust-
rially based and increasingly urbanised society with its high
leisure requirements. And, against that backdrop, policymakers
wrongly promote the idea that compensation and substitution
measures are enough to satisfy the needs of biodiversity protec-
tion.

Impact of the measures introduced by the Council and the Commis-
sion to date

the impact of

As the current position shows,

3.30
the
measures introduced by the Council and the Commission to
date has been wholly inadequate. That said, the Commission's
approach to protecting the habitats of European animals and
plants — exemplified in the 1979 Birds Directive and the 1992
Habitats Directive — was and remains both right and sensible.
The critical problem lies in the political will to implement and
enforce the measures, as the Commission itself recognises:
‘Implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives has been
difficult. Infringements relating to the two Directives account for over
instances where the European Commission has taken
a quarter of
legal action.’ (12)

3.31
responsibility:

In this regard, the EESC sees two different levels of

The first is the political

level where awareness is
3.31.1
distinctly lacking. The EESC simply cannot understand,
for
instance, why Member States should adopt nature conservation
directives in the Council only to fail to implement them — or
to do so in a wholly inadequate way — on the ground. The
EESC considers this completely unacceptable. Policymakers
themselves are creating a huge credibility gap by failing even to
enforce nature conservation measures.

3.31.2
There is also no credibility in a policy that claims to
want to halt biodiversity decline by 2010, while policymakers,
full in the knowledge this costs money, are, under the financial

(12) COM(2003) 745/2 and also, using the

selfsame wording,

COM(2004) 17.

3.31.3
That said, however, Member States — the second tier
of responsibility — must not lay the blame for the failure of
their own policy at the door of those who ‘use’ the natural
environment. The EESC has, in a number of opinions, consid-
ered the failure to implement the directives that are so impor-
tant for maintaining biodiversity. It can but repeat that until
such times as measures to protect or improve biodiversity
dovetail with, for instance, the (understandable) economic inter-
ests of land users, then compensation must be forthcoming —
losses. An even better
at
option would be to provide incentives for appropriate action
on biodiversity. A key stumbling block is the continued uncer-
tainty — following the European Council's decision of 16
the financing of Natura 2000
December 2005 — about
measures in the upcoming EU funding period. Any political
commitment to maintain and develop biodiversity, however
well meaning, is worthless unless the economic conditions are
right.

to offset potential

financial

least

3.32
Basically, therefore, the EU's approach will remain inef-
fectual unless the Natura 2000 financing issue is resolved along
the lines advocated both by the EESC and by the European
Parliament
(i.e. a separate, adequate budgetary heading for
Natura 2000 compensation). No public information campaign
— however well intentioned — will be able to change that.

‘in the mid-term review of

One measure to conserve biodiversity announced in
3.33
the sustainability strategy was,
the
Common Agricultural Policy, [to] improve the agri-environmental
measures so that they provide a transparent system of direct payments
for environmental services’. As the Committee notes with regret,
this is yet another important and worthwhile undertaking that
has not been met. The result has been counterproductive. The
main responsibility for this failure lay not so much with the
Commission as with the Member States, particularly their
stance on funding.

Are the various EU policies coherent enough?

The EESC does not feel that the various EU policy
3.34
areas are, as yet, coordinated in such a way as to be able to
halt biodiversity loss. On the contrary, EU policies continue to
pose risks that cannot be offset by the modest nature protec-
tion measures that are in place. Even the ongoing action
programmes (14) are doing nothing to change that, and the
thematic strategies that are currently in the pipeline do not
seem set to make any decisive difference either (15).

(13) Rural development – see heading 2 of the Financial Perspective

2007-2013.

(14) On organic farming, for instance.
(15) The Committee is currently working on separate opinions on the

individual strategies; reference will be made to them here.

18.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/101

3.35
Aside from agricultural policy, which the Committee
has already considered in other opinions, one particular project
— part of the trans-European transport networks — is a good
case in point. The Danube — 2 880 km long and cutting
across ten European countries — can undoubtedly be seen as
the European river par excellence. The Danube is a lifeline along
which countless natural havens that are to be included in the
Natura-2000 network have been preserved. Yet the EU says
that some 1 400 km (i.e. half) of the river — for the most part
the remaining free-flowing sections,
in Germany (Straubing-
Vilshofen), for instance, or in Austria (near Heinburg and in the
Wachau), as well as large sections in Hungary and virtually the
entire tract in Bulgaria and Romania — are shipping bottle-
necks that need to be removed. A policy such as this ultimately
leads to confrontation between economic growth and nature
conservation, and in fact provokes and orchestrates those very
conflicts which policymakers — by dint of the sustainable
development and biodiversity strategies and thus as part of a
coherent policy — are supposed to be resolving.

The EESC's point here about an insufficiently coherent
3.36
policy is, moreover, true not only in those sectors traditionally
seen as potentially hazardous to nature protection and biodi-
versity conservation — such as the transport or infrastructure
policy touched on above or over-intensive farming, forestry
and fishing — but also in policy areas which, at first glance,
appear to have no direct connection with biodiversity at all.

3.36.1 Measures introduced to combat BSE are a case in
point. These include a broadly definitive ban on animal
carcasses being left or dumped on the land (16), obliging
farmers, at great expense, to take the bodies of dead animals to
rendering facilities.

In areas of Europe with still-intact populations of
3.36.2
wild carrion-eaters, such as vultures, wolves or bears, this poses
major problems for species protection. In Asturia, for example,
in the 1990s and right up to 2003, around 3 000 bodies of
domestic animals were, on average, delivered to rendering facil-
ities each year. In 2004, as a result of consistent application of
the relevant EU regulation, that figure rose to around 20 000.

that Asturia

This means,

3.36.3
(area:
therefore,
10 604 km2) is ‘short’ of some 17 000 animal carcasses, which
had, until then, been a major source of food for vultures, bears,
wolves and many other carrion-eaters. Taking 200 kg per
animal as a benchmark, this represents a total protein biomass
of 3 400 tonnes (17).
the
remains
November 2002 Spanish royal decree allowing carrion-eaters
to be fed the carcasses or by-products of certain animals will

to be seen whether

It

(16) This is allowed only under conditions so complicated that they are

hardly ever applied

(17) Let us give just a cursory glance at the impact of this. For many
years, the Spanish nature protection organisation FAPAS has been
monitoring griffon vultures in Valle delle Trubia. Until 2003, it was
normal to have ten pairs, which usually produced some eight or
nine young. Griffon vultures never produce more than one chick.
In 2004, however, the number of fledglings was down to four.
Bear conservationists are also reporting many young bears being
found dead for lack of food.

make any difference to this situation. No other EU Member
State has introduced a national provision of this kind.

What other measures might have to be taken by the Commission and
the Member States

In its

3.37
the
Commission itself recognises the need, as a matter of priority,
to:

review for 2003 (18),

environment policy

— move towards a more sustainable agricultural policy;

— green the Common Fisheries Policy;

— better protect soils and the marine environment;

— improve implementation in the field of nature protection;

— better highlight trends in the biodiversity area; and

— strengthen biodiversity protection at international level.

In its 2007 policy strategy, the Commission has also
3.38
announced a review of the habitats and birds directives ‘to
adapt them to new scientific knowledge’ (19). The EESC would be
very pleased if the Commission were to make known, as soon
as possible, the nature of this new scientific knowledge and to
in the EESC's
make clear how extensive the review, which,
view, could only lead to an improvement in European nature
conservation will be.

The EESC is convinced of the need to boost habitat
3.39
protection and make the requisite funding available to that end.
The directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of
wild fauna and flora and the birds directive have not yet done
enough to safeguard species and habitats that require protec-
tion across Europe. A further — and in the EESC's view crucial
— difficulty, however,
is the stance now taken in some
Member States, a stance that permeates down even as far as the
local level, namely that when it comes to the natural environ-
ment, anything that does not have European protected status
but is perhaps protected only at national
is somehow
‘second-class’. The attitude is that if the EU does not provide
funding, then we do nothing either. Biodiversity protection
outside specifically designated reserves is in an even more
parlous state: here publicly funded activities are now virtually
nonexistent. Yet the task of protecting biodiversity cannot be
restricted to just a few designated areas.

level

Such a stance and viewpoint demonstrate all

too
3.40
clearly, however, that most members of the public — not to
mention most policymakers — still fail to understand that in
nature everything is interlinked, hence the need to protect
biodiversity in particular. Public bodies in particular are also
called upon to lead by example. They must demonstrate to the
public that conserving biodiversity is important to them and
that they are ready to take appropriate action in their own
areas, even if, in the short term, economically ‘more effective’
options may be available.

(18) COM(2003) 745/2.
(19) COM(2006) 122.

C 195/102

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.8.2006

3.41
The UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Develop-
ment (2005-2015) should therefore be used as a launch pad
for a broad-based campaign designed to halt and reverse the
noticeable fall-off in knowledge and experience of biodiversity.
A large-scale, positive campaign is needed to make clear that
nature is not a luxury that societies can allow themselves in
periods of economic prosperity, to be dispensed with when the
economy takes a downturn. Biodiversity must again be
conveyed to society as an economic, cultural and spiritual
asset. Nature conservation must be presented as something
positive (and what can be more positive than maintaining the
very basis of life itself?) Nature conservation should be some-
thing to be enjoyed; it should be fun, rather than seen as a
burden. It must also be made clear that the costs of any further
erosion of our natural basis for life will be much higher than
the costs of protecting that basis in the first place, and that
valuable assets are being lost
that cannot be expressed in
purely monetary terms.

3.42
The EESC is well aware that EU nature conservation
policy is restricted to tackling objectives that can only be
achieved through cross-border action. But an appropriate biodi-
versity protection policy must also be pursued at national,
regional and indeed local level, and even at the level of private
individuals. Thus, the Member States are, at the very least, just
as much called upon to act as the EU.

3.43
The EESC would therefore very much like to see the
Commission, as part of a campaign of this kind, work together
with the environmental groups and land-user associations
concerned to back — and bring to wide public attention —
prototype schemes for nature protection, designed, among
other things, to generate a Europe-wide sense of identity. The
Green Belt Europe initiative might, for instance, be a suitable
vehicle for such a scheme. This is an NGO project that also to
some extent already enjoys publicly-funded support (20) and is
designed to look after habitats that grew up ‘protected’ in the
shadow of sometimes even inhumane national borders. The
Green Belt Europe, which runs from Scandinavia to the
Balkans, is (still) Europe's longest biotope corridor.

the EESC feels that, as what

To boost biodiversity protection at an international
3.44
level,
is termed a ‘non-trade
concern’, biodiversity should become an integral part of the
trade system (inter alia of the WTO).

Impact on the Lisbon and sustainable development strategies

3.45
The EESC's comments in this opinion relate solely to
the Lisbon strategy. There is no need to discuss the sustainable
development strategy here, not only because the points made
in the Commission's communication on the subject (21) are so
vague and noncommittal that little can be expected from them
in terms of sound biodiversity protection, but also because the
EESC will be considering this document in a separate opinion.

If the European Council, meeting for its spring summit
3.46
in Brussels in 2005, was right in its assertion that the Lisbon
strategy is part of the sustainable development strategy, then
the Lisbon strategy should be framed in such as way that it

(20) For instance, from the German Federal Agency for Nature Conser-

vation.

(21) COM(2005) 658,13.12.2005, Review of the Sustainable Develop-

ment Strategy — ‘A platform for action’.

seeks not only to take account of environmental concerns but
also to secure the economic developments that are deemed
appropriate, while at
the same time consciously fostering
the
action in areas like biodiversity protection. However,
Lisbon strategy documents give not the slightest indication of
any approach along these lines.

3.47
The Commission should, as soon as possible, undertake
an overall assessment of the purely economic importance of
biodiversity protection in Europe. It is also vital to set out, and
bring to public notice, much more positive examples, clearly
showing that biodiversity protection and economic develop-
ment are mutually beneficial. It is also important to launch —
at last — the discussion that society needs to engage in about
practical ways of internalising external costs.

Contribution of civil society

3.48
Civil society input to conserving biodiversity is impor-
tant, and there is without doubt still major scope for further
positive action on this front. However, civil society input
cannot offset or make up for omissions or mistakes by the
public authorities. It is right to ask civil society to do more, but
that must not deflect attention away from public-authority
shortcomings.

3.49
The EESC would very much welcome a new campaign,
as mentioned by the presidency in its letter of 13 September
2005. Such a campaign should be designed to encourage moti-
vation and to foster understanding of the need to protect the
natural environment and conserve biodiversity. Education in
this field should start very early,
in nursery schools and
schools, and should also aim to make clear that we must all —
every single one of us — play our part in conserving the very
foundations of human existence. Protecting biodiversity starts
on our own doorsteps, in the way we shop, how we design our
gardens etc.

It is easier for individuals to commit to something
3.50
when they know what is at stake, feel their commitment is
wanted and valued and can see the world of politics setting an
example. A campaign of this kind could be used not only to
for
convey basic knowledge but also to win ‘ambassadors’
literary
biodiversity conservation, such as rock musicians,
figures, actors, politicians and journalists.

3.51
Non-governmental organisations and also many citi-
zens not involved in associations and groups do a great deal of
laudable work in nature conservation and species protection.
Farmers contribute through agri-environmental programmes
and voluntary initiatives. Many other groups in society are
working hard to protect biodiversity, sometimes even taking on
board tasks that should clearly devolve on the public authori-
ties. Much of the success that has been achieved in the field of
biodiversity protection would not have been possible without
this commitment. It is, in particular, thanks also to the work of
private nature conservationists and that of many nature users
that the situation is not even worse today than it actually is.
Policymakers should foster this commitment, not only finan-
cially but in other ways as well.

18.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/103

3.52
This cannot, however, just mean practical fieldwork in
the countryside itself. If policymakers really are determined to
halt biodiversity decline, then it must also be in their interests
to see demand for such a policy emerge within society. Political
pressure is also involved. There can be no doubt that the Euro-
pean public does basically agree on the need for action. Nine
out of ten people in the EU think that, on key issues, political
decision-makers should pay the same degree of attention to
environmental concerns as to economic and social factors (Atti-
tudes of Europeans towards the environment, EC Eurobarometer,
2004).

3.53
It is absolutely essential to foster public education in
order to promote understanding of policies (including expendi-
ture). Civil society can and must play its part here, but it also

needs publicly-funded support. For instance, civil society must
ensure that nature conservation is no longer decried as ‘anti-
progress’ but that appropriate answers are found to the ques-
leading — ultimately — to more and not less
tions raised,
biodiversity protection.

3.54
The Committee therefore welcomes the Countdown
2010 (22) initiative launched by a range of non-governmental
organisations and designed to incite all European governments
to take the steps that are really needed to halt biodiversity
decline by 2010 and thus to ensure that the declared political
objective is also backed up by the necessary action. The
campaign shows that, together, civil society and governments
have a long list of tasks to complete.

Brussels, 18 May 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

(22) http://www.countdown2010.net/.