Annexes to COM(2010)4 - Options for an EU vision and target for biodiversity beyond 2010 - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2010)4 - Options for an EU vision and target for biodiversity beyond 2010. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2010)4  |
| date | January 19, 2010 |
All four options require establishment of a scientific baseline on the state of biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe. This is essential in order to be able to measure progress. The baseline will not consist of a single number, but will be based on the current status of the main attributes of biodiversity: conservation of species and habitats, ecosystems and the most critical ecosystem services. Similarly, ‘halting the loss’ of biodiversity is not interpreted in absolute terms, but means keeping key attributes above the baseline. There is already knowledge available for setting a clear and reliable baseline, but further work is needed to translate this knowledge into specific, measureable and policy responsive indicators.
Research also needs to be stepped up to fill key knowledge gaps. These relate to the economics of biodiversity and ecosystem services, development and fine-tuning of indicators to allow measurability and defining how much pressure biodiversity can withstand before its loss becomes irreversible – with potentially catastrophic consequences. If established in 2010, an Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) would contribute greatly to these efforts, but action at EU level is also necessary. Ongoing work on all these issues needs to be intensified and completed.
Finally, although conservation must remain a key pillar of EU biodiversity policy, any new target must factor in the role of ecosystems and ecosystem services. The importance of ecosystem services is already recognised in the current policy and is for instance an important element of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, as a part of the EU Integrated Maritime Policy [16], but this has not yet sufficiently been turned into specific measures. It is important to identify and assess key ecosystem services and to factor them in to the future target. The level of ambition required by the target set will determine the degree to which they will be factored in, ranging from maintenance to full restoration.
(Option 1) Significantly reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU by 2020
This option would imply political acceptance that halting biodiversity loss in the EU is unattainable for the foreseeable future, and, therefore, setting a less ambitious target of 'significantly reducing' the rate of biodiversity loss by 2020. The aim would be to slow, rather than stop, biodiversity loss. The implication is that biodiversity would not necessarily be kept above the baseline. The extended time-frame would allow more time for action already implemented or being implemented to take effect, making it easier to demonstrate success. New knowledge and developments that have emerged since the 2010 target was set could be factored in to measures taken to achieve the target.
(Option 2) Halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU by 2020
This option would entail keeping the current target, but postponing achievement to a later date. Like option 1, this would allow more time for actions already implemented or being implemented to take effect and for new knowledge and developments to be factored in. The aim would be the same as that of the 2010 target: to halt the loss of biodiversity, but also of ecosystem services in the EU. Achievement of the target would lead to recovery of certain ecosystems and of the services they support.
(Option 3) Halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU by 2020 and restore them insofar as possible
This option would involve maintaining the existing biodiversity target and extending the deadline to 2020, while broadening its scope to encompass the need to ensure that key ecosystem services provided by biodiversity in the EU are sufficiently delivered and requiring restoration of ecosystems where they are failing to provide the services needed. Production of a first list and mapping of ecosystem services of EU importance by the end of 2010 will also help to define the scope of the maintenance and restoration efforts needed to achieve the objective.
Restoration objectives could be set based on the requirement to attain favourable conservation status for species and habitats as defined in the Habitats Directive. The current status of species and habitats as assessed by recent reporting under the Habitats Directive could serve as a benchmark.
This option recognises the scientific imperative of halting further biodiversity loss and factors in the significance of ecosystems of strategic importance to the EU.
(Option 4) Halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU by 2020 and restore them insofar as possible, and step up the EU's contribution to averting global biodiversity loss
This option goes further than option 3: it recognises that it is in the EU’s interest to take action to address biodiversity loss not only within the EU, but also beyond its borders. Recognising that most of the world’s biodiversity is found outside the EU, tackling biodiversity loss within the EU alone will not be sufficient to avert severe consequences of continued loss on a global scale. This option calls for stepping up EU action to address the global biodiversity crisis.
This may entail measures aimed at further reducing the impact of EU consumption patterns on biodiversity elsewhere in the world and enhancing efforts to protect biodiversity in other countries, including through specific instruments.
4. Next steps
The setting of a post-2010 vision and target is not an end in itself. It marks the beginning of a process to put a new EU biodiversity strategy in place by the time the current target runs out.
There is no easy way to tackle biodiversity loss effectively. An evidence-based, integrated approach is needed that focuses on addressing the main pressures exerted on biodiversity and ecosystem services by specific sectors – land-use change, over-exploitation, invasive species, pollution and climate change. Sub-targets will need to be devised for each kind of pressure, sector or ecosystem, combined with cost-effective action at the appropriate level of intervention to deliver the desired results.
One thing is already clear: equitable policy solutions tailored to each specific situation will need to be considered. In other words, action and implementation will be needed at multiple levels: international, EU, national and sub-national. The approach taken in the EU BAP to share responsibility for implementation between all sectors and establish partnerships with Member States remains fully relevant. This will require an effective governance framework involving all actors concerned at different levels.
The Commission will continue its work in the course of 2010, including through further stakeholder consultations, to establish the evidence base necessary to further define the new EU policy framework. This will also contribute to the EU's strategy and objectives for negotiating the future international biodiversity framework.
[1] COM(2006) 216.
[2] COM(2008) 864.
[3] ‘Growing within limits’, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, October 2009; ‘Millennium Ecosystem Assessment’, 2005; ‘IUCN Red List’, November 2009.
[4] ‘A safe operating space for humanity’, Nature, 23 September 2009.
[5] COM(2009) 358.
[6] CLIMSOIL: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/review_en.htm.
[7] ‘Biodiversity and ecosystem functionality’, Nature, 12 July 2007.
[8] ‘Convenient solutions to an inconvenient truth: ecosystem-based approaches to climate change’, World Bank, 2009; ‘TEEB Climate Issues Update’, September 2009; ‘The Natural Fix? The role of ecosystems in climate mitigation’, UNEP, June 2009.
[9] COM(2009) 400.
[10] ‘TEEB Interim Report’, May 2008; ‘TEEB for Policy-Makers’, November 2009:
- http://www.teebweb.org.
[11] For instance, investments from restoring tropical forests show very high returns: typical costs stand around 3 500 $/ha, whereas conservative estimates of annual benefits from public goods and services of these ecosystems, from carbon capture to flood and erosion control, fall in the range of 7 000 $/ha.
[12] Directive 2000/60/EC.
[13] Directive 2008/56/EC.
[14] ‘Green infrastructure’ is an interconnected network of natural areas, including agricultural land, greenways, wetlands, parks, forest reserves, native plant communities and marine areas that naturally regulate storm flows, temperatures, flood risk and water, air and ecosystem quality.
[15] The EU’s ecological footprint is 4.7 global hectares per person, or double the EU’s biological capacity, according to the EU footprint indicator.
[16] COM(2009)540 final, 15.10.2009.
--------------------------------------------------