Annexes to COM(2010)548 - 2010 assessment of implementing the EU biodiversity action plan - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2010)548 - 2010 assessment of implementing the EU biodiversity action plan. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2010)548  |
| date | October 8, 2010 |
In spite of continued intensive efforts from the EU to strengthen international commitments to biodiversity, the global target to significantly reduce rate of biodiversity loss globally by 2010 has not been reached[22], as evidenced by the new Millennium Development Goals Report and Third Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO3), released in 2010, and published with the contribution of the global Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (BIP) supported by the EC.
Other highlights
- G8 . In April 2009, under the Italian Presidency of the G8 and strong leadership from EU Members of the G8 and the Commission, the ambitious “ Siracusa Carta ” on Biodiversity, which sets out priority actions at global level, was adopted. The G8 l'Aquila Summit statement also commits G8 members to, inter alia, "strengthen and broaden international, regional, national and local activities to conserve biodiversity".
- EU Council conclusions on global biodiversity . In December 2009, Council Conclusions on international biodiversity beyond 2010 were adopted, highlighting – inter alia – the climate change-biodiversity link and "recommending the development and use of ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and mitigation".
- Environment and Natural Resources Thematic Programme (ENRTP) . The 2010 EC Annual Action Programme foresees EUR 1 million to support the Secretariat of the UN CBD in implementing CBD COP 10 decisions and a further EUR 1 million to support the implementation of the CBD Work Programme on Protected Areas with a focus on marine protected areas.
- The Intra ACP 10th EDF : The 2010 EC Annual Action Programme foresees EUR 20 million to improve the long-term conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in Africa, Caribbean and Pacific regions and reduce the poverty of populations surrounding Protected Areas (PAs).
7. To substantially strengthen support for biodiversity and ecosystem services in EU external assistance.
The 2008 BAP assessment indicated that average annual external assistance of EU Member States for biodiversity amounted to about EUR 740 million in the period 2003-2006, representing 48% of all biodiversity-related development assistance. This figure is being updated for the 2007-2009 period. The Commission will update its own contribution ahead of CoP10.
In the portfolio of external actions managed by the European Commission, for 2007-2009 the total commitments for biodiversity related activities were approximately EUR 325 million.
Other highlights
- Global Environment Facility (GEF) . There has been a 34% increase of the overall envelope for the 4th replenishment of the GEF in spring 2010. This has translated into a 28% increase of the biodiversity envelope. This owes much to additional efforts from a number of EU Member States.
- Environmental Impact Assessment . A recent review of environmental assessment regimes of bilateral and multilateral development agencies,[23] showed that while all the development agencies of the EU Member States that were analysed considered environmental assessment in their procedures to a certain extent, their application methods and stringency differed from country to country.
- ENRTP . The mid-term review of ENRTP concluded that the programme was highly relevant to its objectives, which include the protection of biodiversity. The review also called for better integration of the work achieved under the ENRTP in the main geographic programmes. The second phase of the ENRTP will run from 2011 to 2013 and an increase in funding for biodiversity is proposed.
- Biodiversity training of EU staff . Training for EU delegation staff and headquarters country desks has been initiated to contribute to intensifying outreach activities on biodiversity with third countries.
8. To substantially reduce the impact of international trade on global biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Illegal trade of endangered species is a major pressure on biodiversity. The EU plays a leading role within the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and supported the adoption of important decisions at the 15th Conference of the Parties of the Convention in Doha in March 2010. However, the Parties failed in relation to the conservation of marine species – including on the emblematic case of blue fin tuna.
The EU has remained fully engaged in the process of the negotiations on the international regime on Access and Benefit Sharing of genetic resources (ABS) with a view to its adoption by CBD CoP10 in October 2010.
Other highlights
- Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) . The first Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) was ratified with Ghana in November 2009. Negotiations on FLEGT VPAs are ongoing with Malaysia, Indonesia, Liberia and the Central African Republic. Agreements are being finalised with Cameroon and Congo-Brazzaville.
- Illegal logging . The Regulation laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber product on the Market, aiming at eliminating illegal timber in the EU market, was endorsed by the European Parliament in July 2010 and is expected to be adopted by the end of 2010.
- Sustainability Impact Assessments (SIAs) . Ensuring that recommendations made in SIAs of trade agreements are acted upon has remained a priority.
C. POLICY AREA 3: Biodiversity and climate change
Objective
9. To support biodiversity adaptation to climate change.
The EU has continued to highlight the important inter-linkages between biodiversity and climate change, and this is increasingly being reflected in policy development. Council Conclusions from December 2009 and March 2010 explicitly recognised the fact that, when it comes to helping countries adapt to climate change, biodiversity provides many of the same services as man-made technological solutions, often at significantly lower cost. Protecting and restoring biodiversity therefore provide some cost-effective opportunities for climate change mitigation or adaptation. The December 2009 Conclusions include a recommendation that ecosystem-based approaches for the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change be developed and used.
Other highlights
- White Paper on Adaptation to Climate Change [24]. Adopted in 2009, the White Paper emphasises the importance of maintaining and restoring ecosystem integrity and the development of a "green infrastructure".
- Copenhagen Accord . Further to the Copenhagen Accord under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in December 2009, and in particular provisions on financial assistance from industrialised countries, the Commission is exploring options to enhance biodiversity co-benefits.
- Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) . Based on the Communication on deforestation from 2008, the EU calls for halting global forest cover loss by 2030 at the latest and reducing gross tropical deforestation by at least 50% by 2020 from current levels. The key tool to deliver on this objective, which would entail major climate/biodiversity co-benefits, is REDD. Achieving an agreement on REDD by the UNFCCC CoP in December 2010 in Cancún is a core EU objective.
- The European Commission's Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA) is providing support inter alia for adaptation measures in Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States. Several projects are focused on ecosystem-based approaches such as wetland and coastal ecosystem restoration.
D. POLICY AREA 4: THE KNOWLEDGE BASE
Objective
10. To substantially strengthen the knowledge base for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, in the EU and globally.
Considerable progress has been achieved over the past two years in enhancing the knowledge base on biodiversity and ecosystem services, both in the EU and, more recently, at global level.
Other highlights
- EU Biodiversity Baseline . In June 2010, the EEA presented the EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline and related indicators (SEBI) on the state of biodiversity and ecosystem services within the EU and at global level.
- Biodiversity Information System for Europe (BISE) . In June 2010, the Commission and the EEA launched BISE. This constitutes the first web portal as a single entry point for all data and information on biodiversity in the EU.
- Framework Programmes and the European Research Area : new knowledge, understanding and capacity to inform policy and management have been developed in innovative research work on soil, marine, terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity.
- IPBES . At global level, the international community came to an agreement in June 2010 to establish an Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) to replicate the success of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The EU had been the initiator and main proponent of the establishment of IPBES.
- TEEB . As part of the Potsdam initiative agreed by the G8 in 2007, the study on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) was launched with a view to making the economic case for biodiversity protection. The Commission has been a core TEEB funder from the outset. Many further TEEB deliverables have been published since 2008 – including in particular TEEB for Decision Makers and TEEB for Businesses respectively in 2009 and 2010. The finalisation of all TEEB reports is planned for October 2010[25].
E. THE FOUR KEY SUPPORTING MEASURES
1. Ensuring adequate financing.
The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (especially under Axis 2) remains the most important Community funding source for Natura 2000 and biodiversity in the EU. Additionally, the European Regional Development Fund and the European Fisheries Fund are significant source of Community funding. Establishing an agreed methodology to determine how much Community funding has been used by the Member States for nature and biodiversity remains a problem, making it difficult to obtain fully reliable figures, and needs to be addressed.
Only 20% of the total financing needs for managing protected areas including the Natura 2000 network in Europe are being met[26]. In 2004, it was estimated that the management of Natura 2000 would require an investment of € 6.1 billion annually for the EU-25[27]. An updated assessment based on information provided by Member States broadly supports this earlier estimate. The EC has therefore engaged in an exercise with Member States to assess the economic and social benefits, as well as the current spending and the actual need to finance Natura 2000. For that purpose, an Information Technology Tool has been developed.
Estimates for broader biodiversity needs – beyond Natura 2000 – are being developed as part of the 2020 EU Biodiversity Strategy.
Other highlights
- Natura 2000 – Site Management Plans . The insufficient development of such tools continues to be a limitation to ensuring adequate financing of the Natura 2000 network.
- LIFE+ . The dedicated funding to nature and biodiversity from LIFE+ is of a smaller scale than other EU funding streams, but the approximately € 836 million that is to be spent between 2007-2013 are directly aimed at benefiting nature and biodiversity.
2. Strengthening EU decision–making and implementation.
Implementation gaps were previously identified by the Commission as one of the likely causes of the failure of the EU to reach its 2010 biodiversity target. The Commission has been actively addressing key implementation gaps.
Other highlights
- Environmental law . In 2008, a Communication on implementing European Community Environmental Law[28] was adopted with the aim of showing how EU environmental law could be better implemented through a diverse combination of innovative tools.
- European Network of Environmental Authorities (ENEA) . In 2009, ENEA (set up by the Commission and consisting of Members States’ experts dealing with Structural Funds programmes) established a dedicated working group for biodiversity.
- BAP reporting . Despite the non-binding nature of the BAP and the voluntary character of the reporting requirements therein, Member States have made a considerable effort to provide the Commission with comprehensive and updated information.
3. Building partnerships.
Establishing partnerships with Member States, other institutions and stakeholders has been highlighted recurrently at national and EU level as one of the requirements for successful biodiversity policy.
Other highlights
- EU Business & Biodiversity Platform . The Commission launched the Platform in June 2010 to help businesses identify business risks and opportunities linked to biodiversity. The aim is now to build synergies with similar initiatives at national level.
- European Investment Bank (EIB) Group . In 2010, the Commission has engaged in establishing a partnership with the EIB Group towards the development of innovative financial instruments for biodiversity.
4. Building public education, awareness and participation.
The EU has continued its efforts to raise public awareness of the importance of biodiversity and make the case for biodiversity conservation.
Other highlights
- Eurobarometer . The Commission carried out a Eurobarometer opinion poll on biodiversity in 2010[29]. Two thirds of EU citizens were familiar with the term biodiversity. However, only 38% said they knew the meaning of the term and 8 out of 10 respondents had never heard about Natura 2000.
- EU Biodiversity Campaign . A major campaign was launched in January 2010[30] to harness public support for action to halt biodiversity loss.
- Green Week . Green Week 2010 was entirely devoted to biodiversity with a view to further sensitising and involving stakeholders.
F. MONITORING
In addition to the major developments highlighted above (EU Biodiversity Baseline, BISE), research and monitoring efforts have been intensified in order to fill key knowledge gaps and unknown parameters on the state of biodiversity.
Other highlights
- Knowledge gap analysis . The EEA is about to publish such an analysis, in particular as regards indicators for ecosystems and ecosystem services.
- Biosoil . In 2009, the EU completed this demonstration project to monitor forest soil biodiversity, co-funded under the Forest Focus Regulation[31].
- Natura 2000 viewer. In 2010, the EC launched an interactive tool enabling people to locate Natura 2000 sites and access related information: the Natura 2000 viewer.
- Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES). The initiative with its Initial Operation starting in 2011 will provide earth observation data and derived information products to support the monitoring of both marine and terrestrial environment.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite important progress in delivery of the BAP, the overall goal of halting biodiversity loss in the EU by the end 2010 has not been achieved, nor has the global target.
While still insufficient, significant progress has been made over the last two years on:
- the further selection and more effective protection of Natura 2000 sites;
- improving the knowledge base;
- establishing further linkages between biodiversity and climate change and emphasising co-benefits as a result of integrated approaches.
The findings of this report also confirm the failures identified in the Commission Communication on Options for a post 2010 policy[32]. More progress needs to be made on:
- the integration of biodiversity considerations into other sectoral policies;
- making available the necessary funding;
- filling existing policy gaps.
The Commission is working on the future EU biodiversity policy framework. The findings of this 2010 BAP assessment will provide valuable input to this work. Action and implementation continue to 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. What is also clear is that the shortcomings of BAP implementation to date and its failure to achieve the 2010 biodiversity target will need to be reflected upon, to ensure successful delivery of the 2020 target at EU and global levels.
[1] COM(2006) 216
[2] COM(2008) 864 final
[3] COM(2010) 4 final
[4] EUCO 7/10 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/113591.pdf
[5] COM(2010) 2020
[6] Web: http://biodiversity.europa.eu/countries_and_networks
[7] http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eu-2010-biodiversity-baseline/
[8] http://www.rubicode.net
[9] http://gbo3.cbd.int/
[10] Global Footprint Network 2010
[11] Directives 2008/62/EC and 2009/145/EC
[12] Directive 2009/28/EC
[13] Directive 2000/60/EC
[14] COM(2010) 66 final
[15] COM(2009)163
[16] SEC(2009) 1343
[17] http://www.surf-nature.eu/index.php?id=2
[18] COM(2010) 110 and SEC(2010) 360 final
[19] ‘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.
[20] COM(2010) 4 final
[21] COM(2008) 789 final
[22] GBO3
[23] Environmental Assessment Summary Sheets: Bilateral and Multilateral Development Agencies, Canadian International Development Agency on behalf of the DAC Working Party on Environmental and Development Assistance http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/acdi-cida.nsf/en/REN-218131217-PEH
[24] COM(2009) 147 final
[25] TEEB. www.teebweb.org
[26] TEEB 2009.
[27] COM(2004) 431
[28] COM(2008) 2876
[29] Flash Eurobarometer Series No. 290 http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_290_en.pdf
[30] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/campaign/index.htm
[31] ./BCDbcde?“ð I M e f © 01Utœ?ÐýI
h
”
–
–
—
+óâóÙóÐó¿ó¿ó¿ó³óªóž•ó‰óvó•óvójó•ó\óvóh#-?hªHxH*[pic]mHnHu[pic]h#-?hØpqmHnHu[pic]$jh#-?hªHx0J%U[pic]mHnHu[pic]h@8gh@8gmHnHu[pic]h@8gmHRegulation (EC) No 2152/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 concerning monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community (Forest Focus).
[32] COM(2010) 4