Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission: Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020’ COM(2011) 244 final
Date: 2011-10-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU environmental policy, biodiversity, climate change, ecosystem, environmental impact, environmental protection, sustainable development








C_2012024EN.01011101.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/111





Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission: Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020’
COM(2011) 244 final
2012/C 24/24
Rapporteur: Mr RIBBE

On 3 May 2011, the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the:

Communication from the Commission: Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020

COM(2011) 244 final.
The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 6 October 2011. The rapporteur was Mr RIBBE.
At its 475th plenary session of 26 and 27 October 2011 (meeting of 26 October 2011) the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 120 votes to 5 with 6 abstentions.
1.   Summary of the EESC's conclusions and recommendations







1.1


In this, its fourth opinion on biodiversity policy in only four years the EESC again welcomes the fact that the Commission makes it clear that much more needs to be done if the objectives set by the European Council are to be met.










1.2


The EESC is, however, critical of the fact that the Commission does not really analyse the reasons why requirements which have been known for years and which have always been welcomed by the Committee - e.g. the 160 actions of the 2006 Biodiversity Action Plan - have been inadequately implemented, if at all. An analysis of the reasons for the non-implementation or failure of the comprehensive programme of actions contained in the 2006 Biodiversity Action Plan is particularly important because only on that basis will it be possible to draw up new, more promising actions and strategies.










1.3


The strategy now submitted contains nothing substantially new. The problem cannot be tackled by submitting a new strategy paper which contains old, well known proposals. When it comes to maintaining biodiversity there is no shortage of laws, directives, programmes, model projects, political declarations or recommendations, but there is a lack of implementation and concerted action at all political levels.










1.4


Politicians have not yet found the strength or the will to implement measures which have been acknowledged to be necessary for years, although the communication repeatedly makes the point that society and the economy will benefit equally from a stringent biodiversity policy. Not even the EU's central nature conservation directives have been fully implemented by the Member States – 19 or even 32 years after their entry into force.










1.5


The EESC does recognise that there have been partial successes in maintaining biodiversity. But this should not blind us to the fact that, overall, biodiversity is declining dramatically. The EU is thus faced with the challenge of developing an implementation-orientated strategy.










1.6


Unfortunately it is not clear how the lack of political will can be remedied. In this sense the biodiversity strategy now submitted does not represent real progress. The debates on the communication which have so far taken place in the Council of Ministers show that we are still a long way from integrating biodiversity policy into other policy areas.










1.7


It is therefore of the greatest importance that the forthcoming political reform processes (e.g. fisheries, agricultural, transport, energy and cohesion policy) be closely linked to the biodiversity strategy. But the EESC believes that there are still major shortcomings in this respect. This also applies to the plans submitted for the 2014-2020 financial perspective, which do not appear to the EESC to be suitable for ensuring sufficient financial resources. The Commission must take its own biodiversity strategy more seriously!










1.8


During the drafting of this opinion parallels were drawn on this point with the debt and euro zone crisis. If the EU Member States do not take their own principles and criteria seriously, whether they are nature conservation rules or the stability criteria for monetary union laid down in the Maastricht Treaty, it is hardly surprising if a) political problems occur and b) people lose confidence in politicians.










1.9


There is a clear need for information and knowledge about biodiversity and its complex interactions with development and employment as well as for the identification and support of success stories.










1.10


The Commission is urged finally to submit the list of environmentally harmful subsidies which it promised as early as 2006.




2.   Key elements of and background to the Commission's Communication







2.1


In 2001 the Gothenburg European Council adopted the EU sustainability strategy which also formulated a clear objective for biodiversity policy: Protect and restore habitats and natural systems and halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010
 (1).










2.2


In March 2010 the heads of state and government of the EU acknowledged that they had not achieved their objective. They therefore came out in favour of a new objective, proposed by the Commission in its Communication on Options for an EU vision and target for biodiversity beyond 2010
 (2). It focuses on 2020 and entails: Halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU, and restoring them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss.










2.3


The Council instructed the Commission to draft a new strategy to achieve this objective, which is submitted with the communication.










2.4


In it the Commission underlines the need finally to act - with facts which have been known for years:






—


Biodiversity loss is described, alongside climate change, as the most critical global environmental threat; the Commission adds that the two are inextricably linked;










—


Species extinction is occurring at an unparalleled rate: species are currently being lost 100 to 1 000 times faster than the natural rate;










—


In the EU, only 17 % of habitats and species and 11 % of key ecosystems protected under EU legislation are in a favourable state (3)
 (4);










—


The few benefits of the measures introduced since 2001 have been outweighed by continued and growing pressures on Europe's biodiversity: land-use change, over-exploitation of biodiversity and its components, the spread of invasive alien species, pollution and climate change have either remained constant or are increasing;










—


The fact that biodiversity's economic value is not reflected in decision-making is also taking a heavy toll on biodiversity.














2.5


Greater attention is paid in the communication than in previous EU papers to the economic aspects of biodiversity loss, and this is illustrated by the increasing use of the concept of ‘ecosystem services’. Reference is again made to the TEEB study (5) and the point is made that insect pollination is estimated to be worth EUR 15 billion to the EU every year. From this it is deduced that the continued decline in bees and other pollinators could have serious consequences for Europe's farmers.










2.6


Part 3 of the communication sets out a framework for action for the next decade, with six targets:






—


Target 1: Fully implement the Birds and Habitats Directives;










—


Target 2: Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services;










—


Target 3: Increase the contribution of agriculture and forestry to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity;










—


Target 4: Ensure the sustainable use of fisheries resources;










—


Target 5: Combat invasive alien species; and










—


Target 6: Help avert global biodiversity loss.














2.7


Each target has actions designed to tackle the associated challenges. A total of 37 actions are described.










2.8


The communication repeatedly states that biodiversity policy needs to be more effectively integrated into other areas of EU policy, such as agricultural and fisheries policy.










2.9


There is a need for funding in two areas in particular: completing the Natura 2000 network and implementing global commitments (6).










2.10


It is also pointed out that the reform of harmful subsidies (…) will also benefit biodiversity.




3.   General comments







3.1


The EESC issued opinions on biodiversity policy in February 2007, July 2009 and September 2010.










3.2


The EESC notes that the areas, targets and actions listed in the current draft strategy were a key component of the 2006 action plan.










3.3


The strategy now submitted contains nothing substantially new. It does, however, once again show which approaches are absolutely essential and which are the most urgent and the most promising ones. The strategy is to a large extent a ‘copy-paste’ of old, well-known facts, proposals and measures. The issues are all sufficiently understood. There is no need to consider again what needs to be done, only to ask why it is not being done and how we can act in a focused way. But the strategy so far provides no answer to this key question.










3.4


The Commission paper is therefore extremely unsatisfactory. The EESC therefore calls for a greater emphasis on implementation in the biodiversity strategy 2020.










3.5


The EESC would like to reiterate what it said in 2007.






—


Maintaining biodiversity is an essential, key task which does not only represent an ethical and moral obligation. There are also economic reasons why it is necessary to act more quickly and more effectively.










—


Species decline in Europe is the result of millions of individual value judgements which have been taken in recent decades; the absolutely overriding majority of these decisions have been taken in accordance with existing laws.










—


Biodiversity continues to decline. What has been missing up to now is the political will to effectively implement the measures which have long been acknowledged to be necessary.










—


The reasons which lie behind this situation are rightly identified by the Commission as governance failures and the failure of conventional economics to recognise the economic values of natural capital and ecosystem services.










—


These elements, together with the fact that the ethical and moral reasons for maintaining biodiversity tend to be treated as matters of secondary importance in planning and political appraisal processes, have brought about the current critical development of the situation.










—


The EESC welcomed the 2006 action plan and recognised the advisability of the some 160(!) measures which it set out; most of these, however, were even then by no means new and had been on the agenda for years. The EESC regrets that the lack of a strategic debate over the question raised in the Committee's exploratory opinion of 18 May 2006 (7) as to how to explain the tremendous discrepancies between the action which should be taken, the action which has been announced and what actually happens in reality in respect of maintaining biodiversity is almost completely disregarded in the Commission's communication and action plan.










—


The EESC endorses the concept of the ‘global responsibility’ of the EU.














3.6


These key points of the opinion adopted in plenary session in 2007 are as relevant today as they were then. The EESC deeply regrets that nothing has really changed decisively in the intervening years.










3.7


The Commission communication contains no analysis of the reasons for the non-implementation or failure of the comprehensive programme of actions contained in the 2006 Biodiversity Action Plan. A thorough analysis of the failure is needed because only on that basis will it be possible to draw up new, more promising actions and strategies. The problem cannot be tackled by submitting a new strategy paper which contains old, well known proposals.










3.8


Although the Commission has for years been attempting to place greater emphasis on the economic arguments for maintaining biodiversity, the results have been meagre. The EESC, which once described biodiversity policy as a long-term economic issue, which the ministers for economic and financial affairs should therefore finally address
 (8), welcomes the fact that an attempt has been made to highlight the economic consequences of failed biodiversity policy. But biodiversity policy has not so far been integrated into the EU's economic and financial policy. The new strategy needs to suggest ways of remedying this.










3.9


And on the other hand the EESC would like to highlight a potential danger of the increasing emphasis on economic issues. The danger that protection of biodiversity might in future focus mainly on areas which offer, or appear to offer, a short-term economic payback. The Commission should therefore consider how one should deal with species and habitats whose economic value cannot be directly calculated. It would be difficult to estimate the value of large mammals like the wolf, the bear or the lynx for example in euros and cents; the same is true of the common frog, the grasshopper, the white stork or thousands of other species. At the same time species whose economic value cannot be overestimated are left completely out of the political debate: where are the conservation programmes for bacteria, fungi or earthworms, the decomposers without which the decomposition of organic substances would not be possible?










3.10


The strategy focuses strongly on agriculture and forestry as well as on fisheries policy. In one sense this is justified, as a) they affect biodiversity and b) they are policies which affect extensive areas and can be influenced by the EU. On the other hand, however, there is too little emphasis on other kinds of pressure on biodiversity such as transport and urbanisation.










3.11


The Commission is no doubt correct to point out in the draft strategy that the reform of harmful subsidies (…) will also benefit biodiversity. Only: it should finally produce the list of harmful subsidies. It promised to do this in 2006 and still has not done so.










3.12


The EESC welcomes the Commission's announcement that all expenditure will in future be checked for its biodiversity compatibility and that a ‘no net loss’ initiative will ensure no further damage to biodiversity.




4.   Comments on the specific targets







4.1


The EESC would like to show, by looking at the six individual targets and a few actions, why it considers the newly submitted biodiversity strategy to be lacking in ambition from a technical point of view. The reason for the Commission's reticence in the formulation of the actions is probably political. The extremely tough negotiations in the Environment Council on the individual actions show that biodiversity is still not integrated into other policy areas.










4.2


Target 1:






4.2.1


The 1979 Birds Directive and the 1992 Habitat Directive are of key importance for European nature conservation. Nature conservation in Europe has no chance if these are not fully implemented. However, the fact that Target 1 of the new biodiversity strategy is entitled 
Fully implement the birds and habitats directives
 could be seen as a most unfortunate signal. The EESC regards the fact that these directives have still not been fully implemented 19 or even 32 years after their adoption as the greatest problem facing biodiversity policy in Europe. This provides convincing proof that, when it comes to maintaining biodiversity, it is the political will which is missing rather than legal bases or strategies. There is clearly a role for the European Court of Justice here, as even good strategies cannot compensate for the apparent lack of political will.










4.2.2


The EESC's disappointment at the slow implementation of these directives is all the keener, given that most of the practical actions with successful outcomes were associated directly or indirectly with these nature conservation directives. Now and again the question is raised in political circles as to whether these directives and their objectives are still relevant, to which the EESC responds with a clear and unambiguous ‘yes!’. The Committee sees no chance of achieving the new targets without rapid and complete implementation of the existing directives.










4.2.3


During the drafting of this opinion parallels were drawn on this point with the debt and euro zone crisis. If the EU Member States do not take their own principles and criteria seriously, whether they are nature conservation rules or the stability criteria for monetary union laid down in the Maastricht Treaty, it is hardly surprising if a) political problems occur and b) people lose confidence in politicians.










4.2.4


Among the actions listed for the achievement of this target, Ensure adequate financing of Natura 2000 sites is described as a priority. The EESC agrees but cannot find anything in the draft financial perspective for 2014-2020 to suggest that the substantial improvements needed are likely to be achieved in the new financing period. A premium for the management of Natura 2000 areas, e.g. by agriculture, would be a positive signal, but unfortunately the CAP reform makes no provision for this.










4.2.5


Only 17 % of habitats and species and 11 % of key ecosystems protected under EU legislation are in a favourable state. The EESC asks the Commission to confirm whether the objective of having 100 % more habitat assessments and 50 % more species assessments under the Habitats Directive show an improved conservation status by 2020 will actually be sufficient to halt biodiversity loss. The Committee interprets the wording to mean that the Commission would be satisfied if by 2020 34 % of legally protected habitats and species were in a favourable state (and presumably 2/3 in an unfavourable state).














4.3


Target 2:






4.3.1



Target 2 is entitled 
Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services
, a promise made by the heads of state and government as early as 2001. By 2020, improvements are to be made, inter alia by establishing green infrastructure and restoring at least 15 % of degraded ecosystems (9).










4.3.2


The EESC stresses that land use conflicts have escalated dramatically in the past decades, in all areas (e.g. agriculture and forestry, energy extraction, transport, urbanisation). Clearly, restoring degraded ecosystems under current conditions will exacerbate land use conflicts, as land users will perceive nature conservation as an additional competitor for land. The EESC calls for the implementing strategy announced for 2012 to suggest ways of solving these conflicts.














4.4


Target 3:






4.4.1



Target 3, 
Increase the contribution of agriculture and forestry to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity
, has been the subject of discussion for years, without producing any solution to the problem. The EESC has repeatedly pointed out that farmers and foresters have a high level of affinity with nature and biotope conservation. Many model projects show that positive results can be achieved from working together in partnership.










4.4.2


Farmers are willing to meet the challenge assigned to them by society of practising ‘multifunctional’ rather than purely production-orientated agriculture. But they are faced with tasks which cost money but bring none in, as producer prices do not take account of the expected additional contribution of agriculture.










4.4.3


The common agricultural policy therefore needs to be adapted in order to solve this dilemma. The Committee would refer to its relevant past opinions and it will continue to monitor the forthcoming CAP reform intensively from this perspective too.










4.4.4


Financing methods outside the EU agricultural budget should also be looked at in order to provide the necessary incentive.














4.5


Target 4:






4.5.1



Target 4, 
Ensure the sustainable use of fisheries resources
, addresses EU fisheries policy directly. The interests of commercial fisheries and the protection of biodiversity come into conflict again and again. It is therefore no wonder that the targets laid down for agriculture and fisheries (e.g. Action 13: Improve the management of fished stocks) remain very general and contain hardly any quantifiable nature conservation objectives. The EESC welcomes the target of maintaining and restoring by 2015 (and not only 2020) fish stocks to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield, although it must be recognised that this is an objective for fisheries rather than nature conservation policy. And yet the discussions in the Council have shown that there is significant opposition even to such relatively non-binding wording. For the EESC this shows that biodiversity policy continues to be assigned lower priority than production methods which have long since been recognised as unsustainable. The Committee will closely monitor the progress of the negotiations on reform of fisheries policy.














4.6


Targets 5 and 6:






4.6.1


The Committee has already commented on Target 5, 
Combat invasive alien species
, in an opinion (10). This problem is not new and it too still awaits a solution, as does Target 6, 
Help avert global biodiversity loss
. On this issue the Committee notes that many of the announcements and promises on global biodiversity maintenance are clearly not being implemented. The Yasuni National Park in Ecuador is a case where the global community promised financial support in return for the abandonment of an oil extraction project. The promised level of funding was not forthcoming, however, with the result that oil extraction is now to go ahead, to the detriment of the rain forest.










4.6.2


The EESC calls on the Commission, the Council, and the European Parliament to make it clear how much money will be made available for ‘global biodiversity policy’ in the new 2014-2020 financing period. This is not clear from the existing documents. So far the EU and the Member States have devoted less than 0.004 % of their economic output to global biodiversity maintenance and development actions. The problems, which are in fact likely to increase as a result of global competition for land, cannot be solved in this way.









Brussels, 26 October 2011.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Staffan NILSSON




(1)  COM(2001) 264 final, 15.4.2001, p. 14.

(2)  COM(2010) 4 final.

(3)  http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eu-2010-biodiversity-baseline/.

(4)  No information is given on unprotected habitats and species, although they are of course also important for biodiversity.

(5)  The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), see: http://teebweb.org.

(6)  See COP 10 conference in Nagoya 2010.

(7)  OJ C 195, 18.8.2006, p. 96.

(8)  OJ C 48, 15.2.2011, p. 150, point 1.6.

(9)  This target corresponds to the relevant objective of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

(10)  OJ C 306, 16.12.2009, p. 42.