—

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.

—

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.

—

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.

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).

4.3.1

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.

4.4.1

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.

4.5.1

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.

4.6.1

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.