The Council adopted conclusions on international\nbiodiversity beyond 2010.
\nAlarmed by the increasing rate of biodiversity loss\nand the deterioration of ecosystem functions and services due to\nanthropogenic pressure, and the threat this poses to economic\nprosperity, social welfare and human well-being, the Council\nunderlines the importance of maintaining biodiversity and avoiding\nirreversible damage to ecosystems and their functions, both for\nethical reasons, respecting the recognition of the intrinsic\nvalue of biodiversity, and to secure social and economic\nstability, mitigate and adapt to climate change, and reach the\nMillennium Development Goals.
\nFor the EU to actively participate in the\ndeliberations at global level on a vision and on targets for\nbiodiversity beyond 2010, the Council stresses the need to\nestablish a vision and targets beyond 2010 for the conservation and\nsustainable use of biodiversity within the EU.
\nThe Council highlights the importance of\nre-energising the political momentum to strengthen efforts\nto protect biodiversity and implement the Convention on Biological\nDiversity (CBD) through, inter alia, the adoption of a revised and\nambitious Strategic Plan for the Convention at COP 10. The Council\nunderlines the need for the EU to agree on ambitious negotiating\npositions in preparing for the tenth meeting of the Conference of\nthe Parties to the CBD in Nagoya, Japan, October 2010.
\nThe Council emphasises that a long-term global vision\nfor the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity should\ntake account of the links between biodiversity, ecosystem functions\nand services, climate change, desertification, economic prosperity,\nfood security, health, long-term human well-being and the\neradication of poverty. It recognises the key importance of\ntargeted research to enhance our understanding of and generate the\nnecessary scientific knowledge base for how biodiversity should be\nmanaged to provide goods and services sustainably.
\nThe Member States and the Commission are invited\nto:
\n\n· \nassess the value of ecological assets and seize\nthe opportunity to invest in the natural capital;
\n\n· \npromote research and capacity development for\nthe sustainable use of agro-biodiversity;
\n\n· \nimplement and further strengthen the\nInternational Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and\nAgriculture (ITPGRFA);
\n\n· \nenhance innovative financing, and engage in a\nglobal discussion on the need and possible modalities for\ninnovative systems for payments of ecosystem services (financing of\necosystem services).
\nThe Council also acknowledges the need:
\n\n· \nfor targeted and strengthened actions to\neffectively reverse the loss of forest cover and the loss of forest\nbiodiversity;
\n\n· \nto actively promote the establishment in 2010 of\nan efficient and independent mechanism, building on and\ncomplementing existing bodies and processes, to improve and\nstrengthen the science-policy interface on biodiversity and\necosystem services;
\n\n· \nto reverse the loss of freshwater, marine and\ncoastal biodiversity, and accelerate the implementation of the 2012\ntarget on the establishment of a global and coherent representative\nnetwork of marine protected areas.
\nConsequently, the Council agrees to pursue the\nfollowing key strategic principles in the deliberations on\nthe CBD Strategic Plan and the development of a vision and targets\nbeyond 2010:
\nThe Strategic Plan should:
\n\n· \nprovide an effective framework for implementing\nthe CBD and contribute to a coherent and coordinated approach to\nthe implementation of biodiversity-related frameworks and\nagreements and at the international, regional and national\nlevels;
\n\n· \ninclude a long-term (e.g. 2050) global vision\ncomplemented by a short-/medium-term (e.g. 2020) mission, including\nstrategic, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-bound targets\nbased on best-available scientific evidence, building on existing\nCBD and other relevant biodiversity-related targets;
\n\n· \nfacilitate the adoption of appropriate targets\nfor sectors, ecosystems and pressures, complemented by actions\ndesigned to achieve substantial, measurable and cost-effective\nprogress at all levels;
\n\n· \nbe accompanied by clear and operational\nindicators to monitor progress in implementation, building on the\nexisting framework and recognising the urgent need to improve the\nmonitoring and evaluation systems for biodiversity and to provide a\nmore complete set of indicators;
\n\n· \nfacilitate adaptation to local conditions,\nparticipatory approaches and effective communication strategies,\nenable institutional learning evolving from sound management and\nscientific studies, and allow for future revisions of targets and\nindicators based on best available scientific knowledge and\nevidence.
\nThe long-term global vision and the\nshort-/medium-term mission for biodiversity should:
\n\n· \nbe fully endorsed at the highest political\nlevel, in order to be recognised as a common vision for all\nbiodiversity-related processes;
\n\n· \ncommunicate the urgency and scale of the problem\nand necessary responses in a way that is understandable to a wide\naudience, encourages commitments of civil society at large and\nfosters collective action;
\n\n· \nidentify and address indirect and direct drivers\nof biodiversity loss, reflect the full range of values of\nbiodiversity and ecosystem functions, goods and services, and\nencourage sustainable use of ecosystem goods and services as well\nas better integration of the true economic value of biodiversity\nand ecosystem services into policy frameworks, economic planning\nand national accounting;
\n\n· \nprovide a comprehensive framework for relevant\nsectoral and cross-sectoral policies, programmes and strategies as\nwell as in planning processes, and wherever feasible, address\ndrivers, pressures and responses to the loss of biodiversity and\necosystem services as well as incentives for sustainable\nuse.
\nThe Committee on the Environment, Public Health and\nFood Safety adopted the own-initiative report drawn up by Esther de\nLANGE (EPP, NL) on the implementation of EU legislation aiming at\nthe conservation of biodiversity. It is deeply concerned\nabout the very fast pace of human-induced biodiversity loss which,\nif it continues as in the last decades, will leave us with an\nirreversibly damaged nature by 2050, and underlines that\nfunctioning ecosystems are a prerequisite for our subsistence.\nMembers cite the fact that the health check of species and habitat\ntypes protected under the Habitats Directive shows that a majority\nof species have an unfavourable conservation status, that the\nextinction rate is disturbingly high - according to certain\nestimates the biodiversity rate has fallen by 30% in the last 40\nyears - and that the drivers of excessive biodiversity loss show no\nevidence of declining. The committee is also deeply concerned about\nthe absence of any sense of urgency in halting the loss of\nbiodiversity in the international political agenda. .Members call\nfor improved biodiversity governance in internal as well as in\nexternal relations.
\nThe EU and biodiversity:\nMembers deeply regret that the EU's objective, as agreed to at the\nGothenburg Summit in 2001, to halt biodiversity loss by 2010 has\nnot been met and shares the concern expressed by many petitioners\nto the European Parliament. They also welcome the conclusions on\nbiodiversity of the Environment Council of 15 March 2010, including\nthe new headline target of halting the loss of biodiversity in the\nEU by 2020. Given the global character of biodiversity and\necosystem services and their crucial role for sustainable\ndevelopment, reducing poverty and improving health, the committee\nis convinced that the future EU strategy must also step up EU\ninternational efforts to avert biodiversity loss, as studies\nsuch as The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) have\ndelivered sufficient evidence that doing this is cost effective and\nfeasible, and thereby contribute more effectively to achieving the\nMillennium Development Goals by 2015. Members also stress the need\nfor a common EU policy to tackle the problem of invasive alien\nspecies.
\nNatura 2000: the\ncommittee remains concerned, despite the positive results achieved\nby some Member States in the conservation status of several\nspecies, about the full implementation of Natura 2000 legislation.\nIt urges Member States to give higher priority to the\nimplementation of Natura 2000. It is dismayed at the failure of\nMember States to respect the deadlines laid down in the Directives.\nMembers also express concern about the lack of progress in the\nestablishment of the Natura 2000 network in the marine environment\nand ask for an acceleration of the necessary procedures, calling on\nthe Commission to adopt a model network of marine protected areas\n(MPAs) making it possible to reconcile preserving the environment\nand practising sustainable fishing.
\nThe report takes note of a certain unavoidable degree\nof subsidiarity in EU environmental legislation, but is concerned\nthat this degree of flexibility can lead to abuses by Member States\nwhen implementing it. It regrets the striking differences between\nMember States regarding, for example, the 'external effect' of\nNatura 2000 sites, block exemptions for certain 'existing\nactivities' or the application of the precautionary principle. It\ncalls for inquiries into whether the Member States in question are\nnot applying the rules in such a way as to hamper the effective\nachievement of the intended biodiversity goals. Members also\nexpress concern about the lack of cross-border cooperation, which\ncan lead to identical areas being approached differently.\n
\nIntegration into other policy areas: the committee is convinced\nthat the Natura 2000 land and marine network is not the only EU\ninstrument for biodiversity conservation, but that a more integral\napproach is needed for the EU biodiversity policy to be successful.\nIt calls on the Commission to ensure a further mainstreaming of\nbiodiversity into other EU policy areas - such as agriculture,\nforestry, fisheries, regional policy and cohesion, energy,\nindustry, transport tourism, development cooperation, research and\ninnovation - in a mutually reinforcing way and to make the EU's\nsectoral and budgetary policies more consistent. Members stress the\ngreat opportunities that exist, particularly in the common\nagricultural policy, regional policy and the common fisheries\npolicy, to give biodiversity a higher priority, and discuss the\nrole that the CAP and fisheries policy could play in achieving the\nEU's biodiversity objective.
\nEconomic value of biodiversity: Members recognise the considerable job potential\nthat is linked to activities connected to tackling the loss of\nbiodiversity and to the development of a sustainable economy and\ngreen infrastructure, which by their nature would imply local jobs\n(which cannot be relocated to third countries), thus contributing\nconsiderably to the EU's 2020 Strategy. They draw particular\nattention to the development of eco- and agri-tourism, whereby\nrecreation and conservation are mutually reinforcing. The committee\nrecognises that rising levels of materials production, trade, and\nconsumption are an important driving force behind biodiversity\nloss, and therefore calls for measures to develop resource\nefficiency and sustainable consumption and production\npolicies.
\nFinancing: whilst taking note of the Commission's estimates in\n2004 for the annual cost of managing the Natura 2000 network at EUR\n6.1 billion, Members point out that according to the TEEB report,\nthe return on biodiversity conservation investment is up to a\nhundred times more. They deplore the fact that no additional\nsources of funding for the implementation of the NATURA 2000\ndirectives have been made available by the Commission, and that a\nclear breakdown of the actual amounts being spent per annum on\nbiodiversity conservation in the EU is lacking. Member States and\nthe Commission must cooperate to provide a clearer picture. The\ncommittee believes that the Community should take greater\nresponsibility for safeguarding natural values in the Natura 2000\nnetwork, particularly in the context of funding. It welcomes the\nincrease in spending for LIFE+ (+ 8% in the 2011 draft budget), but\nunderlines that this instrument continues to represent only a very\nsmall part of the EU budget (0.2%). The report notes, moreover,\nthat EU-funded conservation measures are not always continued once\nCommunity financing stops. It expects that budgetary constraints\nwill make it more necessary than ever to achieve high added value\nand increased effectiveness of European spending, including\nbiodiversity spending. Members therefore underline the need to gain\ngreater insight into the effectiveness of biodiversity spending and\ncall on the Commission to provide examples of good practice in\nterms of effectiveness and added value. They add that public\nspending alone will not suffice to reach the EU headline target and\nunderline the importance of corporate responsibility to also take\ninto account biodiversity. They call on the Commission to look into\nmeans of implementing policies that encourage positive investments\nand discourage investment which impacts on biodiversity, in both\nthe public and private sectors.
\nInternational aspects:\nthe report expresses concern about the failure to realise or even\napproach the global target to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss\nby 2010 and the implications of the continuous biodiversity loss\nfor the MDGs. It calls on the Commission and Member States to\nsupport the mainstreaming of biodiversity into global processes\nsuch as the MDGs. Members urge the Commission to support the\ncreation of an intergovernmental platform for policies in\nthe field of biodiversity and ecosystem services science, under the\nauspices of the United Nations Environment Programme, and to help\ncreate that platform. They want to see the mainstreaming of\nenvironmental sustainability in relations with third countries '\nalongside respect for social rights and guarantees regarding the\nprotection and participation of local communities in\ndecision-making processes, with particular regard to soil use and\nforest protection and to continue the 'Green Diplomacy'. Lastly,\nthe committee insists that, in international trade agreements,\nsustainability of the products being traded is a key element, and\nunderlines the need to incorporate 'non-trade concerns', including\nproduction methods and respect for biodiversity, in any future WTO\nagreement.
\nThe European Parliament adopted a resolution on the\nimplementation of EU legislation aiming at the conservation of\nbiodiversity. It is deeply concerned about the very fast pace of\nhuman-induced biodiversity loss which, if it continues as in the\nlast decades, will leave us with an irreversibly damaged nature by\n2050, and underlines that functioning ecosystems are a prerequisite\nfor our subsistence. Members cite the fact that the health check of\nspecies and habitat types protected under the Habitats Directive\nshows that a majority of species have an unfavourable conservation\nstatus, that the extinction rate is disturbingly high - according\nto certain estimates the biodiversity rate has fallen by 30% in the\nlast 40 years - and that the drivers of excessive biodiversity loss\nshow no evidence of declining. They underline that ongoing studies,\nsuch as the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) study,\nestimate that the welfare loss from biodiversity loss is currently\naround EUR 50 billion per year (just under 1% of GDP), rising to\nEUR 14 trillion or 7% of estimated GDP per year in 2050. Parliament\nis also deeply concerned about the absence of any sense of urgency\nin halting the loss of biodiversity in the international political\nagenda. .Members call for improved biodiversity governance in\ninternal as well as in external relations.
\nThe EU and biodiversity:\nMembers deeply regret that the EU's objective, as agreed to at the\nGothenburg Summit in 2001, to halt biodiversity loss by 2010 has\nnot been met and shares the concern expressed by many petitioners\nto the European Parliament. They welcome the conclusions on\nbiodiversity of the Environment Council of 15 March 2010, including\nthe new headline target of halting the loss of biodiversity in the\nEU by 2020. Given the global character of biodiversity and\necosystem services and their crucial role for sustainable\ndevelopment, reducing poverty and improving health, the Parliament\nis convinced that the future EU strategy must also step up\nEU international efforts to avert biodiversity loss, as studies\nsuch as have delivered sufficient evidence that doing this is cost\neffective and feasible, and thereby contribute more effectively to\nachieving the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. Members also\nstress the need for a common EU policy to tackle the problem of\ninvasive alien species.
\nNatura 2000: despite the\npositive results achieved by some Member States in the conservation\nstatus of several species, Parliament remains concerned about the\nfull implementation of Natura 2000 legislation. It urges Member\nStates to give higher priority to the implementation of\nNatura 2000. It is dismayed at the failure of Member States to\nrespect the deadlines laid down in the Directives. Members also\nexpress concern about the lack of progress in the establishment of\nthe Natura 2000 network in the marine environment and ask for an\nacceleration of the necessary procedures, calling on the Commission\nto adopt a model network of marine protected areas (MPAs) making it\npossible to reconcile preserving the environment and practising\nsustainable fishing.
\nThe resolution takes note of a certain unavoidable\ndegree of subsidiarity in EU environmental legislation, but is\nconcerned that this degree of flexibility can lead to abuses by\nMember States when implementing it. It regrets the striking\ndifferences between Member States regarding, for example, the\n'external effect' of Natura 2000 sites, block exemptions for\ncertain 'existing activities' or the application of the\nprecautionary principle. It calls for inquiries into whether the\nMember States in question are not applying the rules in such a way\nas to hamper the effective achievement of the intended biodiversity\ngoals. Members also express concern about the lack of cross-border\ncooperation, which can lead to identical areas being approached\ndifferently.
\nIntegration into other policy areas: Parliament is convinced that the Natura 2000\nland and marine network is not the only EU instrument for\nbiodiversity conservation, but that a more integral approach is\nneeded for the EU biodiversity policy to be successful. It calls on\nthe Commission to ensure a further mainstreaming of\nbiodiversity into other EU policy areas - such as agriculture,\nforestry, fisheries, regional policy and cohesion, energy,\nindustry, transport tourism, development cooperation, research and\ninnovation - in a mutually reinforcing way and to make the\nEU's sectoral and budgetary policies more consistent. Members\nstress the great opportunities that exist, particularly in the\ncommon agricultural policy, regional policy and the common\nfisheries policy, to give biodiversity a higher priority, and\ndiscuss the role that the CAP and fisheries policy could play in\nachieving the EU's biodiversity objective.
\nEconomic value of biodiversity: Members recognise the considerable job potential\nthat is linked to activities connected to tackling the loss of\nbiodiversity and to the development of a sustainable economy and\ngreen infrastructure, which by their nature would imply local jobs\n(which cannot be relocated to third countries), thus contributing\nconsiderably to the EU's 2020 Strategy. They draw particular\nattention to the development of eco- and agri-tourism, whereby\nrecreation and conservation are mutually reinforcing. Parliament\nrecognises that rising levels of materials production, trade, and\nconsumption are an important driving force behind biodiversity\nloss, and therefore calls for measures to develop resource\nefficiency and sustainable consumption and production\npolicies.
\nFinancing: whilst\ntaking note of the Commission's estimates in 2004 for the annual\ncost of managing the Natura 2000 network at EUR 6.1 billion,\nMembers point out that according to the TEEB report, the return on\nbiodiversity conservation investment is up to a hundred times more.\nThey deplore the fact that no additional sources of funding for the\nimplementation of the NATURA 2000 directives have been made\navailable by the Commission, and that a clear breakdown of the\nactual amounts being spent per annum on biodiversity conservation\nin the EU is lacking. Member States and the Commission must\ncooperate to provide a clearer picture. Parliament believes that\nthe Community should take greater responsibility for safeguarding\nnatural values in the Natura 2000 network, particularly in the\ncontext of funding. It welcomes the increase in spending for LIFE+\n(+ 8% in the 2011 draft budget), but underlines that this\ninstrument continues to represent only a very small part of the EU\nbudget (0.2%). It notes, moreover, that EU-funded conservation\nmeasures are not always continued once Community financing stops.\nIt expects that budgetary constraints will make it more necessary\nthan ever to achieve high added value and increased effectiveness\nof European spending, including biodiversity spending. Members\ntherefore underline the need to gain greater insight into the\neffectiveness of biodiversity spending and call on the Commission\nto provide examples of good practice in terms of effectiveness and\nadded value. They add that public spending alone will not suffice\nto reach the EU headline target and underline the importance of\ncorporate responsibility to also take into account biodiversity.\nThey call on the Commission to look into means of implementing\npolicies that encourage positive investments and discourage\ninvestment which impacts on biodiversity, in both the public and\nprivate sectors.
\nInternational aspects:\nParliament expresses concern about the failure to realise or even\napproach the global target to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss\nby 2010 and the implications of the continuous biodiversity loss\nfor the MDGs. It calls on the Commission and Member States to\nsupport the mainstreaming of biodiversity into global\nprocesses such as the MDGs. Members urge the Commission to\nsupport the creation of an intergovernmental\nplatform for policies in the field of biodiversity and\necosystem services science, under the auspices of the United\nNations Environment Programme, and to help create that platform.\nThey want to see the mainstreaming of environmental sustainability\nin relations with third countries ' alongside respect for social\nrights and guarantees regarding the protection and participation of\nlocal communities in decision-making processes, with particular\nregard to soil use and forest protection and to continue the 'Green\nDiplomacy'. Parliament insists that, in international trade\nagreements, sustainability of the products being traded is a key\nelement, and underlines the need to incorporate 'non-trade\nconcerns', including production methods and respect for\nbiodiversity, in any future WTO agreement.
\nLastly, Members strongly regret the disappointing\noutcome of the CITES conference, where the main elements of the EU\nmandate were not realised, such as the protection of marine species\nof high commercial interest.
\nThe Council adopted conclusions on international\nbiodiversity beyond 2010.
\nAlarmed by the increasing rate of biodiversity loss\nand the deterioration of ecosystem functions and services due to\nanthropogenic pressure, and the threat this poses to economic\nprosperity, social welfare and human well-being, the Council\nunderlines the importance of maintaining biodiversity and avoiding\nirreversible damage to ecosystems and their functions, both for\nethical reasons, respecting the recognition of the intrinsic\nvalue of biodiversity, and to secure social and economic\nstability, mitigate and adapt to climate change, and reach the\nMillennium Development Goals.
\nFor the EU to actively participate in the\ndeliberations at global level on a vision and on targets for\nbiodiversity beyond 2010, the Council stresses the need to\nestablish a vision and targets beyond 2010 for the conservation and\nsustainable use of biodiversity within the EU.
\nThe Council highlights the importance of\nre-energising the political momentum to strengthen efforts\nto protect biodiversity and implement the Convention on Biological\nDiversity (CBD) through, inter alia, the adoption of a revised and\nambitious Strategic Plan for the Convention at COP 10. The Council\nunderlines the need for the EU to agree on ambitious negotiating\npositions in preparing for the tenth meeting of the Conference of\nthe Parties to the CBD in Nagoya, Japan, October 2010.
\nThe Council emphasises that a long-term global vision\nfor the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity should\ntake account of the links between biodiversity, ecosystem functions\nand services, climate change, desertification, economic prosperity,\nfood security, health, long-term human well-being and the\neradication of poverty. It recognises the key importance of\ntargeted research to enhance our understanding of and generate the\nnecessary scientific knowledge base for how biodiversity should be\nmanaged to provide goods and services sustainably.
\nThe Member States and the Commission are invited\nto:
\n\n· \nassess the value of ecological assets and seize\nthe opportunity to invest in the natural capital;
\n\n· \npromote research and capacity development for\nthe sustainable use of agro-biodiversity;
\n\n· \nimplement and further strengthen the\nInternational Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and\nAgriculture (ITPGRFA);
\n\n· \nenhance innovative financing, and engage in a\nglobal discussion on the need and possible modalities for\ninnovative systems for payments of ecosystem services (financing of\necosystem services).
\nThe Council also acknowledges the need:
\n\n· \nfor targeted and strengthened actions to\neffectively reverse the loss of forest cover and the loss of forest\nbiodiversity;
\n\n· \nto actively promote the establishment in 2010 of\nan efficient and independent mechanism, building on and\ncomplementing existing bodies and processes, to improve and\nstrengthen the science-policy interface on biodiversity and\necosystem services;
\n\n· \nto reverse the loss of freshwater, marine and\ncoastal biodiversity, and accelerate the implementation of the 2012\ntarget on the establishment of a global and coherent representative\nnetwork of marine protected areas.
\nConsequently, the Council agrees to pursue the\nfollowing key strategic principles in the deliberations on\nthe CBD Strategic Plan and the development of a vision and targets\nbeyond 2010:
\nThe Strategic Plan should:
\n\n· \nprovide an effective framework for implementing\nthe CBD and contribute to a coherent and coordinated approach to\nthe implementation of biodiversity-related frameworks and\nagreements and at the international, regional and national\nlevels;
\n\n· \ninclude a long-term (e.g. 2050) global vision\ncomplemented by a short-/medium-term (e.g. 2020) mission, including\nstrategic, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-bound targets\nbased on best-available scientific evidence, building on existing\nCBD and other relevant biodiversity-related targets;
\n\n· \nfacilitate the adoption of appropriate targets\nfor sectors, ecosystems and pressures, complemented by actions\ndesigned to achieve substantial, measurable and cost-effective\nprogress at all levels;
\n\n· \nbe accompanied by clear and operational\nindicators to monitor progress in implementation, building on the\nexisting framework and recognising the urgent need to improve the\nmonitoring and evaluation systems for biodiversity and to provide a\nmore complete set of indicators;
\n\n· \nfacilitate adaptation to local conditions,\nparticipatory approaches and effective communication strategies,\nenable institutional learning evolving from sound management and\nscientific studies, and allow for future revisions of targets and\nindicators based on best available scientific knowledge and\nevidence.
\nThe long-term global vision and the\nshort-/medium-term mission for biodiversity should:
\n\n· \nbe fully endorsed at the highest political\nlevel, in order to be recognised as a common vision for all\nbiodiversity-related processes;
\n\n· \ncommunicate the urgency and scale of the problem\nand necessary responses in a way that is understandable to a wide\naudience, encourages commitments of civil society at large and\nfosters collective action;
\n\n· \nidentify and address indirect and direct drivers\nof biodiversity loss, reflect the full range of values of\nbiodiversity and ecosystem functions, goods and services, and\nencourage sustainable use of ecosystem goods and services as well\nas better integration of the true economic value of biodiversity\nand ecosystem services into policy frameworks, economic planning\nand national accounting;
\n\n· \nprovide a comprehensive framework for relevant\nsectoral and cross-sectoral policies, programmes and strategies as\nwell as in planning processes, and wherever feasible, address\ndrivers, pressures and responses to the loss of biodiversity and\necosystem services as well as incentives for sustainable\nuse.
\nThe Committee on the Environment, Public Health and\nFood Safety adopted the own-initiative report drawn up by Esther de\nLANGE (EPP, NL) on the implementation of EU legislation aiming at\nthe conservation of biodiversity. It is deeply concerned\nabout the very fast pace of human-induced biodiversity loss which,\nif it continues as in the last decades, will leave us with an\nirreversibly damaged nature by 2050, and underlines that\nfunctioning ecosystems are a prerequisite for our subsistence.\nMembers cite the fact that the health check of species and habitat\ntypes protected under the Habitats Directive shows that a majority\nof species have an unfavourable conservation status, that the\nextinction rate is disturbingly high - according to certain\nestimates the biodiversity rate has fallen by 30% in the last 40\nyears - and that the drivers of excessive biodiversity loss show no\nevidence of declining. The committee is also deeply concerned about\nthe absence of any sense of urgency in halting the loss of\nbiodiversity in the international political agenda. .Members call\nfor improved biodiversity governance in internal as well as in\nexternal relations.
\nThe EU and biodiversity:\nMembers deeply regret that the EU's objective, as agreed to at the\nGothenburg Summit in 2001, to halt biodiversity loss by 2010 has\nnot been met and shares the concern expressed by many petitioners\nto the European Parliament. They also welcome the conclusions on\nbiodiversity of the Environment Council of 15 March 2010, including\nthe new headline target of halting the loss of biodiversity in the\nEU by 2020. Given the global character of biodiversity and\necosystem services and their crucial role for sustainable\ndevelopment, reducing poverty and improving health, the committee\nis convinced that the future EU strategy must also step up EU\ninternational efforts to avert biodiversity loss, as studies\nsuch as The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) have\ndelivered sufficient evidence that doing this is cost effective and\nfeasible, and thereby contribute more effectively to achieving the\nMillennium Development Goals by 2015. Members also stress the need\nfor a common EU policy to tackle the problem of invasive alien\nspecies.
\nNatura 2000: the\ncommittee remains concerned, despite the positive results achieved\nby some Member States in the conservation status of several\nspecies, about the full implementation of Natura 2000 legislation.\nIt urges Member States to give higher priority to the\nimplementation of Natura 2000. It is dismayed at the failure of\nMember States to respect the deadlines laid down in the Directives.\nMembers also express concern about the lack of progress in the\nestablishment of the Natura 2000 network in the marine environment\nand ask for an acceleration of the necessary procedures, calling on\nthe Commission to adopt a model network of marine protected areas\n(MPAs) making it possible to reconcile preserving the environment\nand practising sustainable fishing.
\nThe report takes note of a certain unavoidable degree\nof subsidiarity in EU environmental legislation, but is concerned\nthat this degree of flexibility can lead to abuses by Member States\nwhen implementing it. It regrets the striking differences between\nMember States regarding, for example, the 'external effect' of\nNatura 2000 sites, block exemptions for certain 'existing\nactivities' or the application of the precautionary principle. It\ncalls for inquiries into whether the Member States in question are\nnot applying the rules in such a way as to hamper the effective\nachievement of the intended biodiversity goals. Members also\nexpress concern about the lack of cross-border cooperation, which\ncan lead to identical areas being approached differently.\n
\nIntegration into other policy areas: the committee is convinced\nthat the Natura 2000 land and marine network is not the only EU\ninstrument for biodiversity conservation, but that a more integral\napproach is needed for the EU biodiversity policy to be successful.\nIt calls on the Commission to ensure a further mainstreaming of\nbiodiversity into other EU policy areas - such as agriculture,\nforestry, fisheries, regional policy and cohesion, energy,\nindustry, transport tourism, development cooperation, research and\ninnovation - in a mutually reinforcing way and to make the EU's\nsectoral and budgetary policies more consistent. Members stress the\ngreat opportunities that exist, particularly in the common\nagricultural policy, regional policy and the common fisheries\npolicy, to give biodiversity a higher priority, and discuss the\nrole that the CAP and fisheries policy could play in achieving the\nEU's biodiversity objective.
\nEconomic value of biodiversity: Members recognise the considerable job potential\nthat is linked to activities connected to tackling the loss of\nbiodiversity and to the development of a sustainable economy and\ngreen infrastructure, which by their nature would imply local jobs\n(which cannot be relocated to third countries), thus contributing\nconsiderably to the EU's 2020 Strategy. They draw particular\nattention to the development of eco- and agri-tourism, whereby\nrecreation and conservation are mutually reinforcing. The committee\nrecognises that rising levels of materials production, trade, and\nconsumption are an important driving force behind biodiversity\nloss, and therefore calls for measures to develop resource\nefficiency and sustainable consumption and production\npolicies.
\nFinancing: whilst taking note of the Commission's estimates in\n2004 for the annual cost of managing the Natura 2000 network at EUR\n6.1 billion, Members point out that according to the TEEB report,\nthe return on biodiversity conservation investment is up to a\nhundred times more. They deplore the fact that no additional\nsources of funding for the implementation of the NATURA 2000\ndirectives have been made available by the Commission, and that a\nclear breakdown of the actual amounts being spent per annum on\nbiodiversity conservation in the EU is lacking. Member States and\nthe Commission must cooperate to provide a clearer picture. The\ncommittee believes that the Community should take greater\nresponsibility for safeguarding natural values in the Natura 2000\nnetwork, particularly in the context of funding. It welcomes the\nincrease in spending for LIFE+ (+ 8% in the 2011 draft budget), but\nunderlines that this instrument continues to represent only a very\nsmall part of the EU budget (0.2%). The report notes, moreover,\nthat EU-funded conservation measures are not always continued once\nCommunity financing stops. It expects that budgetary constraints\nwill make it more necessary than ever to achieve high added value\nand increased effectiveness of European spending, including\nbiodiversity spending. Members therefore underline the need to gain\ngreater insight into the effectiveness of biodiversity spending and\ncall on the Commission to provide examples of good practice in\nterms of effectiveness and added value. They add that public\nspending alone will not suffice to reach the EU headline target and\nunderline the importance of corporate responsibility to also take\ninto account biodiversity. They call on the Commission to look into\nmeans of implementing policies that encourage positive investments\nand discourage investment which impacts on biodiversity, in both\nthe public and private sectors.
\nInternational aspects:\nthe report expresses concern about the failure to realise or even\napproach the global target to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss\nby 2010 and the implications of the continuous biodiversity loss\nfor the MDGs. It calls on the Commission and Member States to\nsupport the mainstreaming of biodiversity into global processes\nsuch as the MDGs. Members urge the Commission to support the\ncreation of an intergovernmental platform for policies in\nthe field of biodiversity and ecosystem services science, under the\nauspices of the United Nations Environment Programme, and to help\ncreate that platform. They want to see the mainstreaming of\nenvironmental sustainability in relations with third countries '\nalongside respect for social rights and guarantees regarding the\nprotection and participation of local communities in\ndecision-making processes, with particular regard to soil use and\nforest protection and to continue the 'Green Diplomacy'. Lastly,\nthe committee insists that, in international trade agreements,\nsustainability of the products being traded is a key element, and\nunderlines the need to incorporate 'non-trade concerns', including\nproduction methods and respect for biodiversity, in any future WTO\nagreement.
\nThe European Parliament adopted a resolution on the\nimplementation of EU legislation aiming at the conservation of\nbiodiversity. It is deeply concerned about the very fast pace of\nhuman-induced biodiversity loss which, if it continues as in the\nlast decades, will leave us with an irreversibly damaged nature by\n2050, and underlines that functioning ecosystems are a prerequisite\nfor our subsistence. Members cite the fact that the health check of\nspecies and habitat types protected under the Habitats Directive\nshows that a majority of species have an unfavourable conservation\nstatus, that the extinction rate is disturbingly high - according\nto certain estimates the biodiversity rate has fallen by 30% in the\nlast 40 years - and that the drivers of excessive biodiversity loss\nshow no evidence of declining. They underline that ongoing studies,\nsuch as the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) study,\nestimate that the welfare loss from biodiversity loss is currently\naround EUR 50 billion per year (just under 1% of GDP), rising to\nEUR 14 trillion or 7% of estimated GDP per year in 2050. Parliament\nis also deeply concerned about the absence of any sense of urgency\nin halting the loss of biodiversity in the international political\nagenda. .Members call for improved biodiversity governance in\ninternal as well as in external relations.
\nThe EU and biodiversity:\nMembers deeply regret that the EU's objective, as agreed to at the\nGothenburg Summit in 2001, to halt biodiversity loss by 2010 has\nnot been met and shares the concern expressed by many petitioners\nto the European Parliament. They welcome the conclusions on\nbiodiversity of the Environment Council of 15 March 2010, including\nthe new headline target of halting the loss of biodiversity in the\nEU by 2020. Given the global character of biodiversity and\necosystem services and their crucial role for sustainable\ndevelopment, reducing poverty and improving health, the Parliament\nis convinced that the future EU strategy must also step up\nEU international efforts to avert biodiversity loss, as studies\nsuch as have delivered sufficient evidence that doing this is cost\neffective and feasible, and thereby contribute more effectively to\nachieving the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. Members also\nstress the need for a common EU policy to tackle the problem of\ninvasive alien species.
\nNatura 2000: despite the\npositive results achieved by some Member States in the conservation\nstatus of several species, Parliament remains concerned about the\nfull implementation of Natura 2000 legislation. It urges Member\nStates to give higher priority to the implementation of\nNatura 2000. It is dismayed at the failure of Member States to\nrespect the deadlines laid down in the Directives. Members also\nexpress concern about the lack of progress in the establishment of\nthe Natura 2000 network in the marine environment and ask for an\nacceleration of the necessary procedures, calling on the Commission\nto adopt a model network of marine protected areas (MPAs) making it\npossible to reconcile preserving the environment and practising\nsustainable fishing.
\nThe resolution takes note of a certain unavoidable\ndegree of subsidiarity in EU environmental legislation, but is\nconcerned that this degree of flexibility can lead to abuses by\nMember States when implementing it. It regrets the striking\ndifferences between Member States regarding, for example, the\n'external effect' of Natura 2000 sites, block exemptions for\ncertain 'existing activities' or the application of the\nprecautionary principle. It calls for inquiries into whether the\nMember States in question are not applying the rules in such a way\nas to hamper the effective achievement of the intended biodiversity\ngoals. Members also express concern about the lack of cross-border\ncooperation, which can lead to identical areas being approached\ndifferently.
\nIntegration into other policy areas: Parliament is convinced that the Natura 2000\nland and marine network is not the only EU instrument for\nbiodiversity conservation, but that a more integral approach is\nneeded for the EU biodiversity policy to be successful. It calls on\nthe Commission to ensure a further mainstreaming of\nbiodiversity into other EU policy areas - such as agriculture,\nforestry, fisheries, regional policy and cohesion, energy,\nindustry, transport tourism, development cooperation, research and\ninnovation - in a mutually reinforcing way and to make the\nEU's sectoral and budgetary policies more consistent. Members\nstress the great opportunities that exist, particularly in the\ncommon agricultural policy, regional policy and the common\nfisheries policy, to give biodiversity a higher priority, and\ndiscuss the role that the CAP and fisheries policy could play in\nachieving the EU's biodiversity objective.
\nEconomic value of biodiversity: Members recognise the considerable job potential\nthat is linked to activities connected to tackling the loss of\nbiodiversity and to the development of a sustainable economy and\ngreen infrastructure, which by their nature would imply local jobs\n(which cannot be relocated to third countries), thus contributing\nconsiderably to the EU's 2020 Strategy. They draw particular\nattention to the development of eco- and agri-tourism, whereby\nrecreation and conservation are mutually reinforcing. Parliament\nrecognises that rising levels of materials production, trade, and\nconsumption are an important driving force behind biodiversity\nloss, and therefore calls for measures to develop resource\nefficiency and sustainable consumption and production\npolicies.
\nFinancing: whilst\ntaking note of the Commission's estimates in 2004 for the annual\ncost of managing the Natura 2000 network at EUR 6.1 billion,\nMembers point out that according to the TEEB report, the return on\nbiodiversity conservation investment is up to a hundred times more.\nThey deplore the fact that no additional sources of funding for the\nimplementation of the NATURA 2000 directives have been made\navailable by the Commission, and that a clear breakdown of the\nactual amounts being spent per annum on biodiversity conservation\nin the EU is lacking. Member States and the Commission must\ncooperate to provide a clearer picture. Parliament believes that\nthe Community should take greater responsibility for safeguarding\nnatural values in the Natura 2000 network, particularly in the\ncontext of funding. It welcomes the increase in spending for LIFE+\n(+ 8% in the 2011 draft budget), but underlines that this\ninstrument continues to represent only a very small part of the EU\nbudget (0.2%). It notes, moreover, that EU-funded conservation\nmeasures are not always continued once Community financing stops.\nIt expects that budgetary constraints will make it more necessary\nthan ever to achieve high added value and increased effectiveness\nof European spending, including biodiversity spending. Members\ntherefore underline the need to gain greater insight into the\neffectiveness of biodiversity spending and call on the Commission\nto provide examples of good practice in terms of effectiveness and\nadded value. They add that public spending alone will not suffice\nto reach the EU headline target and underline the importance of\ncorporate responsibility to also take into account biodiversity.\nThey call on the Commission to look into means of implementing\npolicies that encourage positive investments and discourage\ninvestment which impacts on biodiversity, in both the public and\nprivate sectors.
\nInternational aspects:\nParliament expresses concern about the failure to realise or even\napproach the global target to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss\nby 2010 and the implications of the continuous biodiversity loss\nfor the MDGs. It calls on the Commission and Member States to\nsupport the mainstreaming of biodiversity into global\nprocesses such as the MDGs. Members urge the Commission to\nsupport the creation of an intergovernmental\nplatform for policies in the field of biodiversity and\necosystem services science, under the auspices of the United\nNations Environment Programme, and to help create that platform.\nThey want to see the mainstreaming of environmental sustainability\nin relations with third countries ' alongside respect for social\nrights and guarantees regarding the protection and participation of\nlocal communities in decision-making processes, with particular\nregard to soil use and forest protection and to continue the 'Green\nDiplomacy'. Parliament insists that, in international trade\nagreements, sustainability of the products being traded is a key\nelement, and underlines the need to incorporate 'non-trade\nconcerns', including production methods and respect for\nbiodiversity, in any future WTO agreement.
\nLastly, Members strongly regret the disappointing\noutcome of the CITES conference, where the main elements of the EU\nmandate were not realised, such as the protection of marine species\nof high commercial interest.
\n