IES Policy Forum

Sonja Gantioler, Policy Analyst at IEEP, opened the policy forum with a short introduction outlining the importance of biodiversity policy. She stressed that biodiversity will increasingly feature in the headlines of the future similar to climate change today. Subsequently, Ms Gantolier gave the floor to Anne Teller, Administrator at DG Environment, who presented the Commission’s work on assessing the progress achieved with regard to the 2006 Action Plan on biodiversity. Furthermore, she highlighted some key priorities for action in the immediate future and referred to the Commission’s efforts to define its vision and targets for the time period after 2010. In 2001 EU Heads of State and Government committed to “to halt the decline of biodiversity in the EU by 2010” and at the international level they agreed on year later “to significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss globally by 2010”. In 2006 the Commission launched its Action Plan that includes over 150 concrete measures to reach the 2010 target. Most of these actions have to be implemented jointly by the EU and Member States. Hence, they require a great degree of cooperation between the different levels of governance. Under the Action Plan, the Commission is required to report on the progress made. In 2008 it presented a mid-term assessment from which it became clear that the EU is unlikely to meet its 2010 target. Nevertheless, significant progress has been made. However, most progress is EU internal with regard to Natura 2000 sites and similar measures but consumption patterns have not changed. This means that many problems have been exported outside the EU. Ms Teller stressed that biodiversity conservation measures are not about ‘blocking’ but rather about changing the ways of doing things.

After discussing the mid-term assessment report, Ms Teller moved to presenting the set of priorities that the EU has set itself. Internally, the EU aims to complete and manage effectively its Natura 2000 network, draft its first comprehensive status assessment of species and habitats of European conservation concern, press for improved measurement of effectiveness of integration, put in place an effective strategy to tackle invasive species, and launch action in support of biodiversity and ecosystem services in European overseas entities. Concerning global biodiversity, the EU’s key priorities are taking full advantage of the UN International Year on Biodiversity in 2010, ensuring that environmental assessments (SEA/EIA) are carried out systematically, further strengthening the integration and mainstreaming of biodiversity into EU external assistance, enhancing research on the impact of EU consumption of food and non-food commodities on biodiversity. With regard to the interrelation between climate change and biodiversity, the Commission strives to strengthen the link between the two policy areas and to follow up on its Communication on deforestation. Supporting measures for biodiversity policy also receive a significant amount of attention in the Commission’s prioritization, namely improving the understanding of the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity, strengthening the science policy interface, better engagement of the business community, and informing better and engaging the public in biodiversity conservation.

Ms Teller concluded her presentation with an outlook on the EU’s work on finding and agreeing a common vision and target for the period after 2010. The draft conclusions for the 2009 Spring European Council “invite the Commission to provide an analysis of the status and trends of biodiversity within the EU before the end of 2009 and underlines the need to establish, by mid-2010 at the latest, a vision and targets beyond 2010 for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity within the EU”. According to Ms Teller, the new target should aim to be specific, measurable, ambitious, realistic, time-bound and be developed on the basis of robust scientific evidence. Healthy ecosystems and ecosystem services should be ensured through an 'ecosystem approach'. Ms Teller stressed that the current biodiversity target of ‘halting the loss’ is not very accessible. The new political message should be more positively worded such as 'maintaining the value of nature's benefits‘. Furthermore, she underlined the need for close co-operation between the EU and its Member States. According to Ms Teller, a new strategy should include the following elements: Analysis of the current states, trends and pressures on EU biodiversity; Analysis of the elements of current biodiversity policy that work and why; Examination of why integration fails and how this crucial goal can be attained; Looking at the EU global footprint and the sustainability of European consumption patterns; Strengthening the linkages between biodiversity and climate change; Determining how ecosystem goods and services can be factored into decision making processes; Developing ways to better involve and engage people with nature. To conclude, Ms Teller posed three questions that could guided considerations about future EU biodiversity policy. She suggested that the EU should ask itself about its priorities for and how to effectively contribute to new EU vision and targets for biodiversity post 2010. Furthermore, she proposed to ponder how to ensure an alignment between the global and the EU debate. And she asked what governance structure and process would be best to ensure effective policy integration.

Sebastian Winkler, Head of Countdown 2010, elaborated on the drivers of biodiversity loss. The rapidly growing impacts of climate change are becoming a driver that is as significant as land-use change and other habitat transformation. Mr Winkler stressed that the current global biodiversity target is not measurable because it does not refer to a baseline. “Significant reduction” of the rate of biodiversity loss cannot be measured. It is up to interpretation and unclear. A target like for the CO2 emission reduction in the climate change area, which contains a baseline of 1990, would be more tangible and measurable. Furthermore, the target fails to set priorities. Biodiversity is a very broad topic. Prioritisation would help focusing efforts. Additionally, Mr Winkler underlined that the EU target is negatively phrased. It is not a positive message, which would appeal to the public. This makes communication and awareness raising efforts difficult. As a solution, Mr Winkler suggested a number of priority objectives for the EU. These are: Safeguarding the EU's most important habitats and species; Protecting biodiversity and ecosystem services in the wider EU countryside and marine environment; Improving compatibility of regional and territorial development with biodiversity in the EU; Reducing the impact of invasive alien species and alien genotypes; Improving international governance and EU external assistance; Reducing the impact of international trade; Supporting biodiversity adaptation to climate change; Strengthening the knowledge base for conservation and sustainable use; Ensuring adequate financing; Strengthening EU decision–making; And building partnerships, public education, awareness and participation. For the short term, Mr Winkler proposed a set of actions that, according to him, could help achieve biodiversity policy targets by 2010. He advocated the completion of the negotiations on Access and Benefit Sharing, the protection of traditional knowledge, the appropriate financing of the implementation of the CBD, the financing of Global Environment Facility, the continuation of efforts to mainstream biodiversity, the consolidation of the Protected Areas Systems, the consolidation of sustainable forest management, the valuation of the conservation of natural ecosystems, the definition of adaptation and mitigation strategies to climate change, and the optimization of global environmental governance. Mr Winkler concluded his presentation with a call for the promotion of a green economy that properly values natural resources, is sustainable and that isn’t growth at any environmental cost.

In the ensuing discussion, participants pointed out that despite biodiversity featuring high in the lists of priorities of EU Presidencies, not many concrete actions have been implemented. Biodiversity appears to not being taken serious by many governments. It was criticized that there is still a lack of coordination between agricultural and biodiversity policy at the Member State level. Two elements were identified to make biodiversity policy more successful. One is the strengthening of the policy framework for biodiversity and the second is the integration of biodiversity concerns into other policy areas. Given the importance and scope of biodiversity policy, the UN Convention on Biodiversity should be a framework convention, which it is not at the moment. Moreover, participants identified the local level as crucial player in biodiversity. The interplay between climate change and biodiversity regimes was discussed. It was pointed out that, since the climate change negotiations are already very complex and difficult in themselves, it is uncertain how many biodiversity concerns can be taken into account. Under the Swedish EU Presidency there will be a discussion on climate change and biodiversity. Participants agreed that negotiations of post-2010 biodiversity targets will most likely be influenced by climate change because it appears that climate change negotiations will not be finalised at the Copenhagen meeting but rather continued and then overshadow discussions on biodiversity. .