중간 검토 eu 생물 다양성 전략

생물 다양성 전략.
간단히 말해서.
EU의 생물 다양성 전략은 EU의 생물 다양성과 생태계 서비스의 손실을 막고 2020 년까지 세계 생물 다양성의 손실을 막는 것을 목표로합니다. 이는 생물 다양성에 관한 국제 협약 (International Convention on Biological Diversity) 내에서 2010 년에 EU가 취한 약속을 반영합니다.
실제로.
2011 년에 EU는 2020 년까지 EU에서 생물 다양성 및 생태계 서비스의 손실을 막기위한 6 가지 목표와 20 가지 조치를 설정하는 야심 찬 전략을 채택했습니다 (전략 읽기 참조). 전략의 중기 검토는 EU가이 목표를 달성하기에 궤도에 있는지 여부를 평가합니다. 그것은 많은 분야에서 진보를 보여 주지만 훨씬 더 많은 노력이 필요하다는 것을 강조합니다.
종과 서식지 보호 - 목표 1.
2020 년까지 EU 자연 법에 의해 보호받는 서식지와 서식지에 대한 평가는 서식지를 100 % 이상, 종의 수를 50 % 이상 확보하고보다 나은 보전을 보입니다.
생태계 유지 및 복원 - 목표 2.
2020 년까지 생태계와 그 서비스는 녹색 인프라를 확립하고 생태계의 약 15 %를 복원함으로써 유지되고 향상됩니다.
보다 지속 가능한 농업 및 임업 달성 - 목표 3.
2020 년까지 농업 및 임업에 의존하거나 영향을받는 종 및 서식지의 보전과 생태계 서비스의 제공은 측정 가능한 개선을 보여줍니다.
낚시를보다 지속 가능하고 더 건강한 바다로 - 목표 4.
2015 년까지 낚시는 지속 가능합니다. 2020 년까지 어류의 건강은 건강 해지고 유럽의 해수는 건강 해집니다. 어업은 종과 생태계에 심각한 악영향을 끼치 지 않습니다.
전투 침입 외계 종 - 목표 5.
2020 년까지 침입 성 외래종이 확인되고, 우선 종의 통제 또는 근절되고, 경로가 관리되어 새로운 침입 종의 유럽 생물 다양성 파괴를 방지합니다.
세계 생물 다양성의 손실을 막는데 도움이됩니다 - 목표 6.
2020 년까지 EU는 세계적인 생물 다양성 손실을 막기 위해 기여를 강화했다.

중기 검토 동 생물 다양성 전략
EU의 생물 다양성 전략에 대한 중간 검토
환경, 보건 및 식품 안전위원회.
Rapporteur : Mark Demesmaeker.
EU의 생물 다양성 전략에 대한 중간 검토
유럽 ​​의회,
- 2015 년 EU 생물 다양성 전략의 중기 검토 (COM (2015) 0478)라는 제목의 2015 년 10 월 2 일자위원회 보고서와 관련하여,
- 2015 년 5 월 20 일 집행위원회 보고서에서 '유럽 연합의 자연 상태 : 2007 년에서 2012 년까지의 조류 및 서식지 지침이 적용되는 서식지 유형 및 종의 상태 및 추세에 관한 보고서 서식지 지침 17 조 및 조류 지침 12 조 (COM (2015) 0219),
- '조류 및 서식지 지침'(1)에 대한 '체력 검사'의 공개 공개 상담 보고서
- 2015 년 10 월에 발표 된 Eurobarometer 설문 조사와 관련하여 유럽의 생물 다양성에 대한 태도 ( 'Eurobarometer 436')
- 유럽 환경청 (European Environment - state and Outlook 2015) ( 'SOER 2015')이라는 보고서를 고려할 때,
- 2014 년 2 월 7 일 EU의 야생 동물 매매 접근법에 대한위원회 통신 (COM (2014) 0064)을 고려하면,
2015 년에 발표 된 Nature-Based Solutions 및 Re-Naturing Cities의 전문가 그룹 인 Horizon의 최종 보고서에 대해 2015 년에 발표 된 'Nature-Based Solutions 및 Re-Naturing Cities를위한 EU 연구 및 혁신 정책 의제'
- 환경 및 기후 측정을위한 라이프 (LIFE) 금융 수단의 일부를 구성하는 자연 자본 금융 시설 (NCFF)
- '생물 다양성 및 생태계 서비스의 순 손실 없음'이라는 모토하에 미래의 EU 이니셔티브에 관한위원회의 자문과 관련하여,
- 유엔 생물 다양성 협약 (CBD)에 대한 당사국 총회 (COP 12)의 결과를 고려하여 특히 다음을 포함하여 전략적 생물 다양성 실천 계획을 실행하는 중장기 검토 세계 다양성 전망의 네 번째 판, 아이치 현의 생물 다양성 목표를 달성하기위한 전망; 구현 개선을위한 조치,
- 2009 년 세계 정상 회의 로마 선언에 의해 인정 된 바와 같이 기후 변화와 제한된 천연 자원에 직면하여 식량 안보와 영양을위한 농업 생물 다양성의 중요성을 강조하는 생물 다양성에 관한 COP 10 결정 X / 34 식품 보안,
- 2014 년 6 월 12 일 환경 협의회의 결론, 특히 2015 년까지 생물 다양성 관련 재원의 2 배를 증가시켜 하이데라바드 공약을 달성하기 위해 EU 및 회원국이 자원을 늘릴 것을 약속 함. ;
- 2015 년에 출판 된 CBD 사무국과 세계 보건기구 (WHO)의 보고서 "생물 다양성과 인간 건강 - 지식 검토 국가"
- 유엔 총회 69 차 회기에서 2015 년 이후의 개발 의제 승인을 위해 제출 된 결의안, 즉 '우리의 세계를 변화시킨다 : 2030 년의 지속 가능한 개발을위한 의제'
- '자연의 가치를 가시화'하기위한 세계적인 이니셔티브 인 생태계 및 생물 다양성의 경제에 관한 보고서 (TEEB)
야생 동식물 및 야생 동식물의 국제 교역에 관한 협약 (CITES) 및 철새 보호 협약 (CMS)을 고려할 때,
- 국제 자연 보전 연맹 (IUCN)의 멸종 위기에 처한 동물 종에 관한 레드리스트,
- 2014 년 10 월 22 일 유럽 의회와 유럽 평의회의 규정 (EU) No 1143/2014를 고려하여 침입 성 외래종 (2)의 도입 및 확산 방지 및 관리
- 국제 해사기구 선박 평형 수 및 퇴적물의 관리 및 관리에 관한 국제 협약과 관련하여,
- 2013 년 이후의 공통 농업 정책, 특히 농업 정책 (3) 및 규제 (EU)의 틀 내에서 지원 계획에 따라 농부들에게 직접 지급하는 규칙을 제정하는 Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 농촌 개발을위한 유럽 농업 기금 (EAFRD)의 농촌 개발 지원에 관한 1305/2013 (4),
- 유럽 의회 및 2013 년 12 월 11 일 평의회 (EU) No 1380/2013을 공동 수산 정책에 관한 것으로, 이사회 규정 (EC) No 1954/2003 및 (EC) No 1224/2009를 개정하고 폐지 이사회 규정 (EC) No 2371/2002 및 (EC) No 639/2004 및 이사회 결정 2004 / 585 / EC (5)
- 2014-2020 년 MFF (Multiannual Financial Framework)와 관련하여,
- 생명 보험에 대한 2012 년 4 월 20 일 결의안, 우리 자연 자본 : 2020 년 EU 생물 다양성 전략 (6),
- 녹색 인프라에 대한 2013 년 12 월 12 일 결의안을 고려함 - 유럽의 자연 자본 강화 (7),
- 2015 년 4 월 28 일 결의안 '새로운 EU 산림 전략 : 산림과 산림 기반 부문을위한'(8),
- 2015 년 4 월의 유럽 의회 연구 서비스 (European Parliamentary Research Service) 연구에서 '생물 다양성 보호 - EU 정책 및 국제 협약'
- 포레스트 유럽 (Forest Europe)의 '2015 년 유럽의 숲의 상태 (State of Europe Forests 2015)'보고서
- 1992 년 5 월 21 일 자연 서식지 및 야생의 보존에 관한 이사회 지침 92 / 43 / EEC의 시행과 관련하여 2009 년 시민 권리 및 헌법 사무국 정책 부서의 국가 입법 및 관행에 관한 연구 동물 군과 식물 군, 특히 제 6 조,
- 2015 년 12 월 3 일과 4 일 제 115 차 본회의에서 채택 된 지역위원회 회의 의견을 존중하여 'EU 새와 서식지 지침에 대한 적합성 체크 기여도'
- 절차 규칙의 규칙 제 52 조를 고려하면,
- 환경, 공중 보건 및 식품 안전위원회의 보고서 및 개발위원회 (A8-0003 / 2016)의 의견을 고려할 때,
A. 생물 다양성은 인간이 많이 의존하는 지구상의 생태계, 서식지, 종 및 유전자의 독특한 다양성을 포함한다.
B. 생물 다양성은 미래 세대의 이익을 위해 보호되어야하는 압도적 인 본질적인 가치를 지니고있다. 생물 다양성은 인류 건강에 이익을 가져다주고 엄청난 사회적 경제적 가치를 창출하는 반면, 생물 다양성 목표 표적을 놓치는 사회 경제적 기회 비용은 연간 500 억 유로로 추정됩니다.
C. 농업은 생물 다양성 목표의 달성에 중요한 역할을한다. 급속하게 증가하는 세계 인구를 먹이기위한 효율적인 식량 생산과 에너지 원으로서의 바이오 매스의 사용 증가를 요구하는 에너지 정책 목표에 대한 필요성은 농업 산업에 상당한 요구를하고있다.
농업 및 임업 분야는 기존 법령의 적용과 관련하여 생물 다양성을 보전하는데 기여한다.
E. 중소 규모 농장과 가족 농장에서 전통적으로 재배 된 식물 종과 품종의 다양성은 농촌 지역의 다양한 필요와 용도에 대응하고 악천후, 해충 및 질병에 대한 작물의 취약성을 줄이는 데 매우 중요합니다 ;
F. 지속 가능하고 책임있는 토지 경작과 축산 사육은 생물 다양성 보존에 필수적인 기여를한다.
G. 생물 다양성은 전 세계적으로 심각한 압력을 받고 있으며 자연과 사회와 경제에 심각한 해를 끼치는 돌이킬 수없는 변화를 가져오고있다.
아이치 엑스 타깃 11은 보호 지역의 효과적인 관리 시스템을 통해 육상 및 내륙 수계의 적어도 17 %의 보호를 요구하고있다. 보호 지역 내에서 영토의 17 %를 차지하는 유럽 생태 지역의 비율은 Natura 2000에 의해서만 보호되는 지역이 제외 될 때 훨씬 감소합니다.
I. 생태계의 복원은 기후 변화의 완화와 적응에 긍정적 인 영향을 줄 수있다.
모든 EU 회원국 10 명 중 8 명은 생물 다양성 손실의 영향을 심각하다고 간주하고 552,470 명의 시민은 모든위원회 협의에 대한 가장 큰 응답 인 자연 지령에 대한 적합성 점검에 대한 공개 협의에 참여했다. Eurobarometer 조사에 따르면, 시민들은 생물 다양성 손실에 대한 더 많은 정보를 받기를 원하며 대부분의 사람들은 Natura 2000에 익숙하지 않다.
K. 상당한 수의 헌신적 인 시민들이 자신들의 주도하에 또는 지역 또는 지역 행동 단체의 구성원으로서 행동하는 반면, 생물 다양성을 촉진하기위한 지역적 및 지역적 조치를 취하고 있으며 따라서 상대적으로 짧은 기간 내에 긍정적 인 결과를 달성한다.
L. 반면 EU 시민의 65 %는 Natura 2000 사이트에서 5km 이내에 살고 있으며 98 %는 20km 이내에 살고있어이 사이트는 생물 다양성에 대한 인식을 제고하고 친환경 제품 개발에 기여하는 생태계 서비스를 제공 할 수있는 잠재력이 있음을 시사합니다. EU 인구의 상당 부분을 차지하고있다.
생물 다양성 정책은 보충 성의 원칙을 완전히 준수해야하므로 풍경과 서식지의 지역적 차이를 충분히 존중해야한다.
N. 고유의 식물상과 동물 군의 고유 한 보유를 나타내는 최 외곽 지역과 해외 국가 및 영토에서 생물 다양성의 중요성을 고려하여; 그럼에도 불구하고 조류 및 서식지 지시는이 지역 중 일부에서는 적용되지 않는다.
1. 생물 다양성 전략의 중기 검토와 '자연 상태'및 'SOER 2015'보고를 환영합니다. EU의 생물 다양성 목표를 달성하기위한 보고서의 전략적 중요성을 강조합니다.
2. 생물 다양성의 지속적인 상실에 대한 심각한 우려를 표명한다. 2020 년 목표는 추가적이고 실질적이며 지속적인 노력 없이는 달성되지 못할 것이라고 언급했다. EU의 새와 서식지 지시의 긍정적 인 영향없이 유럽의 본성이 훨씬 더 나쁜 상태에 있다는 과학적 증거가 나타 났으며 목표를 설정하고 적절히 자금을 조달 한 노력이 진실로 긍정적 인 결과를 산출한다는 것을 과학적 증거가 보여 주었다. 그러나 개선의 여지가 여전히 크다는 점을 강조한다.
3. 파괴를 초래하는 스트레스는 생물 다양성 손실을 유발하는 가장 중요한 요소이며, 이러한 손실을 해결하는 데 특히 우선 순위가있다. 즉, 분해 및 분열을 줄이는 것이다.
4. 생물 다양성 손실은 종과 서식지뿐만 아니라 유전 적 다양성을 의미한다고 강조한다. 위원회는 유전 적 다양성 보전을위한 전략을 개발할 것을 촉구 함.
5. 지속 가능한 개발 목표 (SDGs), 특히 목표 14 ( '해양, 해양 및 해양 자원을 보존하고 지속 가능하게 사용') 및 15 ( '육상 생태계의 지속 가능한 이용의 보호, 복원 및 증진 사막화 방지, 토지 황폐화 방지 및 생물 다양성 상실 방지 '); EU는 특히 그 최 외곽 지역뿐만 아니라 그와 관련된 해외 국가 및 영토 덕분에 놀라운 생물 다양성을 가지고 있다고 회상합니다. 따라서 EU는 생물 다양성 협약을 더욱 강화하고 효과적으로 이행되도록하기 위해 강력히 헌신해야한다.
6. 토지 이용 변화, 기후 변화, 지속 불가능한 소비 패턴 및 해양 이용의 결과로 인한 서식지의 파편화, 파괴 및 파괴는 유럽 연합과 그 국경을 넘어서는 생물 다양성 손실을 야기하는 주요 압력과 동인 중 일부이다. 따라서 주어진 지역이나 지역에서 생물 다양성의 상태를 명확하고 과학적으로 측정하고 개발 도상국을 포함하여 EU와 세계 수준에서 자원의 합리적이고 지속적인 사용을 지원하기위한 지표를 확인하고 확립 할 필요성을 강조한다. 특히 유럽 연합이 기후 변화 및 유럽 2020 전략에 대한 국제 생물 다양성 약속을보다 잘 확고히 할 것을 촉구한다. 보다 자원 효율적인 경제와 과소 소비 감소가 EU가 천연 자원에 대한 의존, 특히 외부 유럽으로부터의 의존을 줄일 수 있다고 강조했다. 기후 변화 완화 및 적응에 대한 생태계 기반 접근법은 기술 솔루션에 대한 비용 효율적인 대안을 제공 할 수 있으며, 많은 응용 과학의 진보는 자연 자산의 장기적 가용성 및 다양성에 달려 있다는 점도 상기시킨다.
7. 생물 다양성을 보호하고 생물 다양성 손실을 막기 위해 최고 수준의 정치적 의지가 증가한다는 결정적인 중요성을 강조한다. 현행법의 시행, 생물 다양성 보호의 집행 및 추가적인 통합을 필수적으로 고려해야한다. 특히 회원국의 지역 및 지방 당국이 생물 다양성에 관한 정보를 제공하고 생물 다양성에 대한 인식을 제고 할 것을 촉구한다.
8. 유럽에서는 야생 종의 약 4 분의 1이 멸종 ​​위험에 처해 있으며 많은 생태계가 악화되어 EU에 심각한 사회적 경제적 손실을 초래한다는 사실을 밝힙니다.
9. 자연과 경제 발전이 상호 배타적이지 않다는 것을 강조한다. 지속 가능한 경제 성장을 창출하고 환경을 보호, 복원 및 관리하기위한 적극적인 조치를 취하기 위해 경제 및 민간 기업을 포함한 사회에 자연을보다 완벽하게 포함시킬 필요성을 확신합니다. 특히 자원 개발을 줄이기위한 노력은 환경 적 및 경제적 목표의 병합에서 중심이되어야한다고 생각한다.
10. 생물 다양성 손실은 지금까지 경제 및 기타 정책에 충분히 통합되지 못했던 사회에 치명적인 경제적 비용을 가지고 있음을 강조한다. 생물 다양성에 대한 투자는 사회 경제적 관점에서 필수적이라는 점을 인식하는 것이 중요하다고 생각합니다. EU의 일자리 6 건 중 1 건은 자연과 생물 다양성에 어느 정도 달려있다. 생물 다양성은 새로운 기술, 일자리 및 비즈니스 기회를 창출 할 수있는 상당한 잠재력을 가지고 있다고 강조합니다. 생물 다양성의 경제적 가치를 측정하는 방법을 환영합니다. 이 도구들은 인식을 높이고, 사용 가능한 자원의 사용을 개선하며 더 나은 의사 결정을 내릴 수 있다고 생각합니다.
11. 녹색 경제로의 이동을 고려하여 생물 다양성과 생태계가 경제 활동에서 수행하는 역할을 강화하기 위해 집행위원회에 유럽 심의회의 녹화를 지원하기위한 조치를 강화할 것을 촉구한다. 생물 다양성은 공공 지출에 전적으로 의존 할 수없는 전반적인 사회적 책임이라고 강조한다.
12. 생물 다양성의 경제적 가치가 생물 다양성의 상품화로 이어지지 않고 의사 결정을 인도하는 지표에 반영되어야하며 GDP를 넘어서는 관점을 취한다. 이것이 SDGs의 추구에 도움이 될 것이라고 확신한다. 이와 관련하여 SDG 모니터링 프로세스의 일환으로 생물 다양성 가치를 국가 회계 시스템에 체계적으로 통합해야한다.
13. EU와 회원국들이 2010 년 생물 다양성 전략 목표를 달성하지 못했다는 스트레스; 위원회는 2020 년 생물 다양성 목표를 달성하기위한 진전이 없다는 점을 감안하여 의회에위원회와위원회가 연극 상태, 비 성취 이유 및 미래 확보 전략에 대해 정교화 한 2 년 보고서를 의회에 제공하도록 요청 함. 응낙;
생물 다양성 전략의 중기 검토.
14. 2020 년 목표 달성에 우선 순위를 부여하기 위해위원회 및 회원국에 긴급 사안으로 촉구한다. 다중 이해 관계자 접근법을 요구하고 국가적, 지역적 및 지역적 행위자의 중요한 역할과이 과정에 대한 완전한 참여를 강조한다. 생물 다양성 보호에 대한 대중의 인식과 이해 및 지원이 필수적이라고 강조했다. 좋은 정보 정책과 사회 경제적 행위자를 포함한 모든 관계자의 조기 참여가 이러한 목표를 달성하는 데 핵심적인 요소라고 생각합니다.
15. EU가 개발을위한 정책 일관성의 원칙에 따라 전 세계적으로 생물 다양성 발자국을 줄이고 생물 다양성 표제 목표를 달성하고 생물 다양성 보호에 대한 약속을 이행함으로써 생태계의 생태적 한계 내에서 가져올 것을 촉구한다. ; 또한 EU가 개발 도상국들이 생물 다양성을 보전하고 지속 가능한 이용을 보장하려는 노력을 지원할 것을 촉구한다.
16. 회원국들이 EU 환경 법규를 이행하는데있어 느린 진전을 보완한다. 회원국의 이행 현황에 대한 더 많은 정보 필요성을 강조한다.
17. 자연 지령의 완전한 이행 및 집행, 적절한 자금 조달은 전략의 성공을 보장하고 표제 목표를 달성하기위한 필수 조건이다. 관심있는 모든 당사자들이 가능한 짧은 시간에이 문제를 해결하고 폭 넓은지지를 이끌어 내기 위해 최선을 다할 것을 촉구한다.
18. EU 지도자들에게 강력한 자연 보호법을지지하고 더 잘 이행 할 것을 촉구 한 50 만 시민들의 말을 들으라고 촉구한다.
19. 기존의 판례법에 따라 지침의 완전한 이행 및 집행을 촉진해야하는 지침을 개선하기 위해위원회에 요청한다. 위원회는 모범 사례 교환을 장려하기 위해 회원국 및 사회 경제적 행위자를 포함한 모든 관련 이해 관계자와의 대화에 우선 순위를 부여 할 것을 촉구 함.
20. 자연 지령의 주요 이점 중 하나는 모든 회원국이 충족해야하는 환경 보호의 기본 기준을 제공함으로써 EU 전역의 평준화 분야를 보장하는 데 도움이되는 범위인지를 인정한다. 단일 시장 내에서 상호 인정의 원칙 및 원칙;
21. 2012 년 Natura 2000 사이트의 58 %만이 관리 계획을 가지고 있었다는 점에 유의하십시오. 발산 수준에 따라 달라진다. 회원국들에게 모든 이해 당사자들과의 협의하에 육상 및 해양 Natura 2000 사이트의 지정을 완료하고 관리 계획을 작성하도록 촉구한다.
22. EU 전체에서 Natura 2000 사이트를 관리하는 데 최소 58 억 유로의 비용이 들지만 연간 2,000 억 유로의 환경 및 사회 경제적 이익이 매년 3,000 억 유로에 이른다는 점을 강조합니다. Natura 2000 사이트가 투명하게 관리되도록 회원국에 요청합니다.
23. Natura 2000 네트워크 아래에 설립 된 해양 보호 지역이 해양 전략 기본 지침에 따라 양호한 환경 상태를 달성하고 해안 및 해양 지역의 10 %에 대한 전세계 목표를 설정함에 따라 중요한 공헌을한다는 것을 인정한다. 2020 년까지, 아이치 생물 다양성 목표 11에서; 이 목표는 아직도 달성되지 못했다는 것을 유감스럽게 생각합니다.
24. 이러한 목표를 달성함에있어 진전을 평가하기 위해위원회와 회원국에 데이터 수집 및 서식지 및 종의 모니터링, 특히 큰 격차가있는 곳의 모니터링을 강화할 것을 촉구한다.
25. 각 회원국의 실제 자연 재원 조달 및 자금 조달에 대한 상세한 통찰력이 아직 없다는 우려를 표명한다. 이것이 우리의 지식에서 중요한 차이라고 생각합니다. 지체없이 관련 국가 예산 라인을 확인하고 집계 할 것을위원회와 회원국에 촉구한다.
26. 농촌 개발, 구조 및 수산 자금 및 회원국이 이용할 수있는 자금에 보완적인 Natura 2000 부지 관리를위한 EU 공동 기금에 대한 이전 요청을 반복한다.
27. 집행위원회와 회원국들이 자연 지침을 계속해서 양심적으로 집행하도록 촉구한다. 예를 들어, 비례적이고 효과적이며 강제적 인 처벌을 사용함으로써 EU 법령의 준수 및 집행이 개선되어야한다는 점을 강조한다.
28. 그러한 맥락에서 조류의 불법적 인 살상, 덫 및 거래를 중단하고 결과적으로 발생하는 지역 분쟁을 해결하기위한 추가적인 노력을 촉구한다. 위원회와 회원국에 Natura 2000 사이트 내의 불법 활동을 탐지하기위한 새로운 도구를 개발할 것을 촉구한다.
29.위원회는 2017 년까지 친환경 인프라 (TEN-G)를위한 유럽 간 횡단 네트워크 개발을위한 구체적인 제안을 발표 할 것을 요청한다. 회원국들과 함께 표적 종에 대한 유럽 야생 동물 회랑 전략의 공동 개발을 장려한다.
30. 생태계 복원 우선 순위 체계를 즉각적으로 개발하고 이행하기 위해 그렇게하지 않은 회원국들을 요청한다.
31. 회원국을 대상으로 2020 년까지 생태계 파괴의 15 %를 복원하려는 목표에 우선 순위를 부여하고, MFF 내에서이 목적을 위해 예산을 사용할 것을 요구한다. 위원회는 퇴화 된 생태계 복원 및 생물 다양성 보호를 위해 그러한 세출을 사용하는 방법에 관한 지침을 제출할 것을 촉구한다.
32.이 목표를 달성하기위한 농업과 임업의 중요성과 농업과 임업을위한 지속 가능한 해결책의 필요성에 주목한다.
33. 자연 생태계 및 종 다양성에 대한 압력의 지표로 사용되는 양분 질소 및 산성도에 대한 중대한 부하로 생물 다양성 및 생태계 서비스에 대기 오염이 미치는 악영향을 인식한다.
34. 특히 생태 공학 분야에서 기업의 혁신 역량을 지원하기 위해위원회와 회원국에 생물 다양성에 투자 할 것을 촉구한다.
35. 자연 보호를 다른 정책 분야에 통합하는 것은 여전히 ​​중요하며, 이와 관련하여 농업과 임업의 결정적인 역할을 강조한다.
36. 생물 다양성의 보전은 식량과 사료의 생산을위한 핵심 요소이므로 농부들의 이익에 부합한다. 농부와 임업 운영자가 공동으로 이러한 문제를 해결하기 위해 적극적으로 참여하고 장려하는 다중 이해 당사자 접근법의 중요성을 강조합니다.
37. 공통 농업 정책 (Common Agricultural Policy : CAP)은 생태 집중 구역 (Ecological Focus Areas, EFA)과 같은 생물 다양성을 복원, 보전 및 강화하기위한 수단을 이미 가지고 있음을 회상한다. Natura 2000 지역을 포함하여 농업 및 임업과 관련된 생태계를 복원, 보존 및 향상시키는 것이 EU의 농촌 개발을위한 6 가지 주요 우선 순위 중 하나로 강조된다.
38. 아직 농업에서 생물 다양성 상태가 측정 가능한 개선을 보이지는 않았지만 개혁 된 CAP의 진정한 효과를 측정하기에는 아직 시기상조라고 인정한 것은 유감이다. 위원회의 이행 진전 상황을 평가하는위원회의 계획을 환영하며, 회원국의 유연성에 대한 평가를 포함한 녹색 조치의 효과 성을 모니터링, 평가 및 필요시 개선하도록위원회와 회원국에 촉구한다. CAP 문맥; 위원회는 중기 CAP 검토에서 그 결과를 고려해야 함.
39. 회원국들에게 농부와 임업 운영자가 생물 다양성 목표를 달성하도록 돕기 위해 기존의 CAP 및 응집력 정책 도구를보다 잘 활용할 것을 요구한다.
농업 및 임업을위한 지속 가능한 해결책과 함께 식물 유전자 원 및 전통 농업 품종의 지속 가능한 이용을 촉진 할 필요성을 강조한다.
40. EFA는 원칙적으로 수분 및 토양 보전과 같은 농업 생태적 과정의 보호 및 촉진을위한 영역이어야 함을 강조한다. Regulation EU (No) 1307/2013이 발효 된 이래 얼마나 많은 회원국들이이 EFA에 살충제 및 비료 사용을 허용했는지에 관한 자료를위원회에 공개 할 것을 요청합니다.
41.위원회는 투명성을 위해 회원국들이 자국의 녹색 조치를 선택하는 것에 대한 정당성을 공개하도록 요청한다.
42. 집행위원회와 회원국은 보호 지역의 재원이 환경에 유해한 보조금에서 지속 가능한 농업 관행의 재정 지원과 연결된 생물 다양성 유지에 이르기까지 방향을 바꾼다는 것을 보장한다.
43. 식량 확보를 위해 개발 도상국의 농업 생물 다양성을 보호 할 필요성을 강조한다. 따라서위원회는 식량권에 관한 유엔 특별 보고관의 권고에 따라 개발 도상국의 농업 생태계에 투자 할 것을 촉구했다.
44. 생태적 과정과 산림 생물 다양성과 생산성을 보장하고 토착민들의 산림 자원을 유지할 권리를 존중함으로써 세계 산림의 지속 가능한 관리를 촉진하기 위해위원회를 요청한다. 위원회는 자연림 파괴를 금지하고, 멸종 위기에 놓인 생물 종을 보호하고 유독성 살충제를 금지하고 유전자 변형 나무를 심는 것을 요구한다.
45.위원회는 생물 다양성을 지원하는 전략의 일환으로, 생태계, 서식지 및 특히 위험에 처한 취약 종의 집중, 환경 균형과 기후에 대한 그들의 중요한 역할과 그들의 열대 우림에 대한 더 큰 고려를 요청한다. 토착민을위한 사회 및 문화적 기능;
46. ​​회원국들이 산림 서식지와 종의 보전 상태를 개선하고 정보의 이용 가능성을 향상시키기위한 목적으로 산림 경영 계획을 개발하고 이행 할 것을 요구한다. 집행위원회에 일관성과 비교 가능성을 보장하기 위해 산림 생물 다양성에 관한 정보 수집을위한 기준과 표준을 개발할 것을 요청합니다.
47. 습지와 숲과 같은 서식지와 생태계의 전환과 파괴를 통해 농업 연료에 대한 수요 증가와 개발 도상국에 대한 점점 더 강렬한 압력으로 인해 생물 다양성에 대한 잠재적 위협에 주목한다.
48. 바이오 매스 생산을위한 사회적 및 환경 적 지속 가능성 기준이 신 재생 에너지 지침 (RED)에 의해 정해진 기본 틀의 일관된 부분을 구성하도록 촉구한다. 바이오 에너지가 기후 변화에 기여하지 않거나 토지 횡령 및 식량 불안정의 추가 동인이되지 않도록 지속 가능한 산림 관리 기준과 함께 바이오 매스를 사용할 수있는 모든 부문의 지속 가능성 기준을 개발하는 것이 중요하다고 생각합니다.
49. 전세계에서 소비 된 야자 기름의 90 %가 큰 아카시아 나무와 기름 야자 나무 농장을 만들기 위해 타 버린 이탄 숲을 희생하여 인도네시아와 말레이시아에서 생산된다는 우려가있다. 세계 은행에 의해 수행 된 연구에 따르면, 인도네시아는 산불로 인해서 온실 가스의 3 번째로 큰 배출원이되었다는 사실을 지적한다.
50.위원회와 회원국에 개혁 된 공동 어업 정책을 정확하고 신속하게 이행하고 지속 가능하고 혁신적인 어획 방법을 촉진함으로써 최대 지속 가능한 수확량 목표를 달성하기 위해 생태계 기반 어업 관리를 적용 할 것을 촉구한다. 특히 해양 생물 다양성과 주식을 보호하고 청정 경제를 통한 경제 성장을 지원하기 위해 공해를 줄이는 것이 중요 함을 강조한다.
51. 연안국의 지속 가능한 발전을위한 기반으로서 해양 생태계와 자원의 근본적인 중요성을 강조한다. 회원국에 대해 전의 약속을 완전히 이행하고 공평하고 경제적이며 생태 학적으로 지속 가능한 수산업을 달성하기위한 목적으로 세계, 지역 및 국가 차원의 정부와 협력하여 야심 차와 행동을 크게 확대하도록 촉구한다.
52. EU가 UN 관할권 밖의 해양 생물 다양성의 보전과 지속 가능한 이용에 관한 유엔 해양법 협약 (UNCLOS)에 의거 한 협약을 확보하는 데 선도적 인 역할을하도록위원회와 회원국에 요청 함. ;
53. 불법, 보고되지 않고 규제되지 않은 (IUU) 어업에 대한 이사회 규정 (EC) No 1005/2008의 이행을 개선하기 위해 회원국 및 제 3 국과 협력하기 위해 집행위원회에 전화;
54. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to improve the environmental quality of EU seas by carrying out projects seeking to cut chemical, physical and microbiological pollution by optimising the sustainability of maritime traffic and protecting biodiversity, which is inevitably endangered; notes, in this connection, that 12.7 million tonnes of plastic (5 % of total production) end up in the oceans each year through sewer systems, waterways and landfills along coasts, which disrupts the environment and the biodiversity of the entire planet;
55. Urges the Commission to establish, without delay and in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014, an accurate and comprehensive list of invasive alien species which are of concern to the Union, on the understanding that such a list should not be limited to a fixed number of species and should include complete and coherent implementation actions – underpinned by appropriate resources – aimed at achieving the targets; stresses the importance of regularly updating this list and carrying out additional risk assessments for species, so that the legislation on invasive alien species can act as a powerful lever;
56. Calls on all Member States to ratify the International Maritime Organisation Ballast Water Management Convention with a view to preventing the spread of invasive alien species through maritime and inland water transport and contributing to the implementation and achievement of the target;
57. Calls on the Member States to monitor imports of exotic species into their territory and to report regularly on them to the Commission and other Member States; calls for greater restrictions on imports and private possession of endangered species, including primates, reptiles and amphibians;
58. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to phase out environmentally harmful subsidies by 2020, ensuring that evaluations of such subsidies are completed by 2016 and that reporting requirements are incorporated into relevant EU sectoral policy areas; urges the Commission and the Member States to fully endorse and facilitate the transition to a circular economy;
59. Urges the remaining Member States to ratify the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation ahead of COP-MOP 2 in December 2016;
60. Recalls that, at the global level, the EU makes a significant contribution to the fight against biodiversity loss and that, with its Member States, it is the main donor of funds for biodiversity conservation and the biggest contributor of official development assistance for biodiversity;
61. Welcomes the Commission's B4Life flagship project for 2014-2020, but believes that the EU must step up its contribution to averting global biodiversity loss, and calls for the EU and its Member States to deliver on their Hyderabad commitments to double total biodiversity-related funding flows to developing countries by 2015 and to maintain this level until at least 2020;
62. Stresses that wildlife crime and habitat loss pose a direct and prevalent threat to global biodiversity; recognises that the omission of wildlife trafficking and the lack of action relating to EU involvement in CITES are a serious gap in the EU Biodiversity Strategy; underlines the urgent need for coordinated action to combat the illegal wildlife trade; calls on the Commission to submit an ambitious action plan for combating illegal trafficking in wild animals and plants, and in products derived from them, and calls for similar measures to be taken to tackle deforestation and forest degradation;
Fitness check of the Nature Directives.
63. Stresses that the Nature Directives are milestones for nature policy, not only within the EU but also internationally; considers that, thanks to their concise, coherent and consistent form, these Nature Directives can, so to speak, be regarded as smart regulation avant la lettre ;
64. Stresses that Natura 2000 is still a relatively young network, whose full potential is far from having been achieved; considers that the Nature Directives remain relevant and that best practices in implementation demonstrate their effectiveness; stresses that there is ample flexibility in the Nature Directives, including the option for adaptation according to technical and scientific progress; notes that smart implementation and international cooperation are essential for reaching the biodiversity targets;
65. Opposes a possible revision of the Nature Directives because this would jeopardise the implementation of the Biodiversity Strategy, would bring about a protracted period of legal uncertainty, with the risk that it would result in weakened legislative protection and financing, and would be bad for nature, for people and for business; emphasises, in this connection, that the ongoing REFIT check of the Nature Directives should focus on improving implementation;
66. Is convinced that any difficulties in achieving the objectives of the Nature Directives and the Biodiversity Strategy in general lie not with the legislation but primarily with its incomplete, divergent and inadequate implementation, enforcement and integration into other policy areas;
67. Stresses that there is ample flexibility within the Nature Directives to facilitate their implementation taking into account economic, social, cultural and regional requirements, as enshrined in the Habitats Directive; urges the Commission, nevertheless, to clarify their interpretation and implementation guidelines in order to avoid and resolve sticking points;
68. Calls for a detailed examination of the role of large predators and the possible introduction of adjustment measures to ensure that biodiversity, the agricultural landscape and the centuries-old practice of letting stock graze in mountain regions are maintained;
69. Recognises the benefits of EU nature legislation for the preservation of ecosystems, habitats and species in protected areas; regrets, however, that the French outermost regions, which constitute unique reserves of species and ecosystems and represent a significant proportion of European and global biodiversity, are excluded from this legislative framework and from all other legislative frameworks adapted to their specific characteristics; emphasises, however, the success of all projects financed by the LIFE+ programme in these regions and of the European BEST initiative to strengthen biodiversity conservation and adaptation to climate change in the outermost regions and the overseas countries and territories;
70. Calls on the Commission, following on from the BEST preparatory action, to introduce a sustainable funding mechanism for biodiversity protection in the outermost regions and the overseas countries and territories;
The way ahead: additional measures.
71. Regards biodiversity loss outside protected nature areas as a gap in the strategy; encourages the Commission and the Member States to gather information about these habitats and species and to develop appropriate frameworks to prevent habitat fragmentation and the net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services by working with local authorities and civil society;
72. Considers that such a framework must comprise a bundle of complementary measures that address the root causes of biodiversity loss and improve the integration of biodiversity in sectoral policies, including agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy and transport;
73. Encourages the Member States to ensure, by means of urban planning initiatives, the carefully considered use of space and adequate protection of the Natura 2000 network, to preserve open spaces – in particular by opting for a pastoralist approach rather than abandoning the land, which increases natural risks such as avalanches, mudslides and ground movements – and to establish a coherent network of blue-green infrastructure in rural and urban areas, while at the same time creating the requisite legal certainty for economic activities; calls on the Commission to produce an overview of best practices in this area;
74. Considers it essential, in order to use the available resources more efficiently and in a more targeted manner, that the Commission draw up specific criteria for the Natural Capital Financing Facility, which must guarantee that projects deliver appropriate, positive and scientifically tangible results for biodiversity; considers that LIFE projects should be linked to funding from other programme streams such as the Structural Funds, so as to scale up and replicate successful projects through the EU and create a larger multiplier effect;
75. Calls on the Commission to expand the multi-fund approach to biodiversity financing, and calls for better linkage between the various financing tools;
76. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to improve coherence across relevant sectoral policies with a view to incorporating biodiversity goals while ensuring that the next MFF guarantees no net overall loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services.
77. Calls on the Commission to set up a high-level group on natural capital with a view to achieving these goals by giving them greater political prominence and priority;
78. Regrets that EU environmental law is not subject to coherent and effective environmental inspections and surveillance aimed at detecting and preventing breaches of environmental law across different sectors, including for protected nature conservation sites; welcomes the preparatory work undertaken towards an EU framework for environmental inspections, and calls on the Commission to come forward with a legislative proposal without further delay;
79. Stresses the importance of innovation, research and development in order to achieve the objectives of the Nature Directives, and calls on the Commission and the Member States to focus in particular on the links between biodiversity preservation and benefits to human health and economic well-being, and to coordinate data collection measures; recalls that there are still large gaps in knowledge regarding the state of marine ecosystems and fishery resources; calls on the Member States to ensure that data on the impact of fisheries and aquaculture on the wider environment are collected and are publicly available;
80. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to launch a European initiative on pollinators without delay – paying particular attention to pest resistance in plants affecting bees and other pollinators – and on the basis of policies already conducted in the Member States, and to make proposals on the soil framework directive, on a directive on access to justice and on the revised EU legal framework for environmental inspections without further delay;
81. Highlights with concern the increasing body of scientific evidence which demonstrates the negative effect neonicotinoid pesticides can have on essential services such as pollination and natural pest control; calls, therefore, on the Commission to maintain its ban on the use of neonicotinoids;
82. Urges the Commission and the Member States to apply fully the precautionary principle when authorising the use and the environmental release of living modified organisms, in order to prevent any negative impact on biodiversity;
83. Stresses the importance of the LIFE programme for the environment, and in particular the Nature and Biodiversity subprogramme, in order to protect and enhance European biodiversity;
84. Strongly believes that the environment and innovation complement one another, and draws particular attention to nature-based solutions which provide both economically and environmentally smart solutions to address challenges such as climate change, scarcity of raw materials, pollution and antimicrobial resistance; calls on the relevant stakeholders to take up these ‘calls’ under Horizon 2020; calls on the Member States to be more effective in leaving regulatory room to facilitate smart solutions which deliver positive outcomes for biodiversity;
85. Stresses that the issues relating to biodiversity, climate change and scarcity of raw materials are inseparably linked; recalls that maintaining climate change well below 2° Celsius as compared with pre-industrial levels will be essential for preventing biodiversity loss; recalls, meanwhile, that a range of ecosystems act as a buffer against natural hazards, thereby contributing to climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies;
86. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take this into account by ensuring that the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2020 is fully integrated with the EU's position in discussions on a new international agreement on climate change, especially in the light of the fact that, according to the EU-funded ROBIN project, biodiversity protection is part of the solution to climate change mitigation and adaptation, particularly given that tropical forests have the potential to mitigate 25 % of total greenhouse gas emissions;
87. Calls on the Commission to include matters relating to the environment and climate change in the international agreements it concludes and to carry out environmental analyses focused on the possibilities for protecting and improving biodiversity; stresses the importance of systematically identifying and evaluating potential impacts on biodiversity; calls on the Commission to follow up on the findings of the study entitled ‘Identification and mitigation of the negative impacts of EU demand for certain commodities on biodiversity in third countries’ by proposing possible ways to contribute to avoiding or minimising the loss of global biodiversity caused by certain production and consumption patterns in the EU;
88. Urges the Member States – on the basis of the precautionary principle and the principle that preventive action should be taken, and taking into account the risks and the negative climate, environmental and biodiversity impacts involved in hydraulic fracturing for the extraction of unconventional hydrocarbons, and the gaps identified in the EU regulatory regime for shale gas activities – not to authorise any new hydraulic fracturing operations in the EU;
89. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that the Guadeloupe roadmap adopted in October 2014 is acted on, and to put in place the necessary tools for biodiversity protection in the outermost regions and the overseas countries and territories;
90. Stresses the global role of the EU Biodiversity Strategy; calls on the Commission to integrate biodiversity provisions into ongoing trade negotiations and to integrate biodiversity objectives into EU trade policies;
91. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.
Biodiversity loss is a loss to nature, humanity and the economy.
Biodiversity, the unique variety of ecosystems, habitats, species and genes on Earth, of which humanity also forms part, has an overwhelming intrinsic value. In addition, human beings are extremely dependent on biodiversity for numerous valuable ecosystem services, such as clean air, clean water, raw materials, pollinators and protection against flooding, to name just a few. Biodiversity is therefore essential for our health and wellbeing and for our economic prosperity.
Biodiversity is under severe pressure, worldwide and also in Europe. Species are becoming extinct at breakneck pace. This is due to human activity. Habitat change, pollution, overexploitation, invasive alien species and climate change are the principal causes of biodiversity loss.
Biodiversity loss is particularly detrimental and means losses for nature, humanity and the economy: it jeopardises necessary ecosystem services and undermines the natural resilience of the Earth for addressing new challenges. In the ‘Global risks perception survey 2014’, the World Economic Forum ranked biodiversity loss and the collapse of ecosystems in the top 10. The limits and capacity of the planet are being exceeded, triggering irreversible changes. Thus biodiversity loss is also inseparably linked to issues such as climate change and scarcity of raw materials, which is also clear from the new 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020.
The European aim to halt biodiversity loss failed in 2010. The EU responded by drawing up a new strategy in 2011. Heads of State or Government defined the headline target as being to halt biodiversity loss and the deterioration of ecosystem services, to restore them in so far as feasible by 2020 and to step up EU efforts to avert the degradation of global biodiversity.
Consequently, the strategy was built around six targets, each underpinned by specific actions: (1) full implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives (the Nature Directives); (2) maintaining and restoring ecosystems and ecosystem services; (3) increasing the contribution of agriculture and forestry to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity; (4) ensuring sustainable use of fish stocks; (5) combating invasive alien species and (6) stepping up the EU’s contribution to averting global biodiversity loss.
Mid-term review: still far from halfway.
In 2015, the verdict is crystal clear: without substantial additional efforts, the EU will in 2020 again fail to achieve its agreed targets. The figures speak for themselves. The EU-28’s ecological footprint is twice as large as Europe’s biocapacity. Barely 23% of species and 16% of habitats have a favourable status. There is most certainly too little progress to permit the headline target to be achieved. Significant progress has only been made on two targets (Target 4, fisheries, and Target 5, invasive alien species), while results for the other targets are seriously insufficient and give most cause for concern in the case of agriculture and forestry.
Thus the general trend remains extremely bleak and worrying. In this respect, the mid-term review confirms the findings of the ‘SOER 2015’ and ‘The State of Nature’ reports. The international perspective of the Global Biodiversity Outlook Report 2014 conveys a similar message: despite considerable efforts and progress in certain sectors, it is possible that most of the Aichi targets will not be achieved by 2020 unless substantial additional efforts are made.
At the same time, it is promising and encouraging that targeted efforts and investments in nature and biodiversity can indeed result in success stories. The return of certain species is a clear illustration thereof. The rapporteur calls for best practices to be seized as catalysts for change, because, although the successes are so far outweighed by the general negative trend, they demonstrate that the existing legislation works, that the 2020 targets are achievable and that there is still enormous potential for improvement.
Political will for implementation, enforcement and integration.
The rapporteur advocates greater political will to genuinely tackle biodiversity loss as a policy priority, and considers a multi-stakeholder approach to be necessary, in which regional and local actors play a special role.
In the rapporteur’s view, better implementation and enforcement of existing legislation are key for progress.
The most obviously relevant legislation consists of the Nature Directives: full implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives is an absolute precondition for achieving the biodiversity strategy as a whole. The Nature Directives are milestones in Europe’s nature conservation policy and, due to their concise, coherent and consistent form, can, so to speak, be regarded as smart regulation avant la lettre. It is thanks to the Nature Directives that the EU has a unique network, Natura 2000, which, with 26 000 protected areas, comprises 18% of the land area and 6% of the marine environment. The rapporteur observes that Natura 2000 is a relatively young network, whose full potential is far from having been achieved.
The rapporteur unequivocally opposes a possible revision of the Nature Directives because this would jeopardise the biodiversity strategy itself, bring about a protracted period of legal uncertainty and possibly weaken the legislation. Moreover, the rapporteur is convinced that the problem lies not with the legislation itself but primarily with its incomplete and inadequate implementation and enforcement. The rapporteur therefore considers it far more efficient for both the Commission and the competent authorities in the Member States to pursue better implementation in consultation with each other. Improved guidelines, strict enforcement and exchanges of best practices are crucial in this regard.
The collective and transversal approach which is necessary in order to halt biodiversity loss effectively remains problematic. Integrating biodiversity into the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is a particular challenge. The rapporteur calls for the effectiveness of greening measures and other rural development measures to be monitored, assessed and increased.
Investment in nature and biodiversity is socially and economically necessary.
The rapporteur endorses the moral argument that biodiversity should be protected because of its great intrinsic value and as a way of keeping our planet as intact as possible for future generations. Moreover, he strongly believes that investing in nature and biodiversity is also essential from a socioeconomic point of view. With this in mind, he deplores the fact that nature and economic development are again in opposition. A change of mind-set is imperative. Methods to measure the economic value of biodiversity, such as ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity’ (TEEB), despite possible shortcomings, can play a useful role here and contribute to more awareness, a better use of available resources and better informed decision-making.
The following statistics clearly demonstrate the enormous socioeconomic impact of biodiversity:
• each year, ‘non-action’ causes losses of ecosystem services equivalent to 7% of global GDP;
• the socioeconomic opportunity costs of not reaching the 2020 targets are estimated at €50 billion a year;
• one in six jobs in the EU depends to some extent on nature; 4.5 million jobs in the EU are dependent on ecosystems protected by Natura 2000;
• the value of pollination services provided by insects is estimated at €15 billion a year;
• the damage caused by invasive alien species in the EU is estimated at €12 billion a year;
• the costs of managing Natura 2000 (€5.8 billion a year) are many times less than the added value produced by Natura 2000 (€200-300 billion).
Of course, investing in nature and biodiversity costs money. But these costs are far outweighed by the added value which nature and biodiversity have to offer, and the loss of value resulting from ‘non-action’.
The voice of the citizens.
Citizens regard nature and biodiversity as important. According to the Eurobarometer survey (No 436) on biodiversity, at least eight out of 10 EU citizens regard the impact of biodiversity loss as serious. Citizens also responded loud and clear during the recent public internet consultation concerning the fitness check of the Nature Directives. This consultation drew in a record number of participants, namely 552 470 (by way of comparison, this is three times as many as for TTIP). The ‘Nature Alert!’ campaign played a decisive role in this regard.
On the other hand, the Eurobarometer survey revealed that citizens wished to receive more information about biodiversity loss and that most people are not familiar with Natura 2000. What remains unknown can hardly be expected to generate enthusiasm. In order to generate greater public support for investment in nature and biodiversity, the rapporteur considers it essential to persuade more people of the importance of biodiversity. In order to do so, attention should be drawn to the socioeconomic value of biodiversity and the impact of biodiversity loss on health, wellbeing and welfare. Policy-makers at all levels have an important task to fulfil here.
Additional actions are needed.
The rapporteur considers that additional, innovative solutions are necessary in order to halt biodiversity loss, and he proposes a number of specific actions to this end:
• the development of a trans-European network for green infrastructure (TEN-G) could create a win-win situation for nature and the economy;
• nature should not be restricted to nature in protected areas. Guaranteeing access for all to quality nature and prevention of biodiversity loss outside these protected areas constitutes a gap in the existing strategy. A European framework for preventing the net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services could address this shortcoming;
• in order to use available resources more efficiently and in a more targeted manner, specific criteria for the Natural Capital Financing Facility are needed, which should guarantee that projects deliver positive and tangible results for biodiversity;
• it remains necessary to gather reliable and comparable data: in particular, the links between health and biodiversity and the pollinator decline require more research and further action;
• nature-based solutions can significantly contribute to tackling challenges such as climate change: for example, a tailored plan to introduce more nature into towns can significantly lower the temperature there. The rapporteur considers it vital that individual members of the public are also able to contribute, good examples being the revival of allotments and the increasing success of the concept of the ‘living garden’.
Nature is making a cry for help. The question is whether it will rouse us from our torpor and spur us on to further action. The rapporteur is convinced that biodiversity and nature must be central in a smart, sustainable and inclusive Europe, and calls for greater political will to genuinely halt biodiversity loss. This is essential both for nature itself and for the health, wellbeing and welfare of our children and our grandchildren.
OPINION of the Committee on Development.
for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.
on the mid-term review of the EU’s Biodiversity Strategy.
Rapporteur: Jordi Sebastià.
The Committee on Development calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into its motion for a resolution:
1. Recalls that, at global level, the EU makes a significant contribution in the fight against biodiversity loss and that, with its Member States, it is the main donor of funds for biodiversity conservation and the largest contributor of official development assistance for biodiversity, with a doubling of funding between 2006 and 2013; emphasises, nevertheless, the need to boost the EU’s contribution to preserving biodiversity at global level in order to attain the Aichi Biodiversity Targets on time;
2. Underlines the critical role of biodiversity in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in particular Goals 14 ‘Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources’ and 15 ‘Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss’; recalls that the EU has incredible biodiversity, in particular thanks to its outermost regions, but also in overseas countries and territories that are associated with it; calls therefore for the EU to remain strongly committed to further strengthening the Convention on Biological Diversity and to ensure that it is implemented effectively;
3. Notes that habitat fragmentation, degradation and destruction due to land-use change, climate change, unsustainable consumption patterns and the use of the seas are some of the main pressures and drivers causing biodiversity loss in the EU and beyond its borders; emphasises, in the light of this, the need to identify and establish indicators that unequivocally and scientifically measure the state of biodiversity in a given area or region and to support a rational and sustainable use of resources both within the EU and at global level, including in developing countries, and, in particular, urges the EU to better anchor its international biodiversity commitments to its climate change and Europe 2020 strategies; stresses that a more resource-efficient economy and a reduction in overconsumption could enable the EU to reduce its dependence on natural resources, in particular from outside Europe; recalls also that ecosystem-based approaches to climate change mitigation and adaptation could provide cost-effective alternatives to technological solutions, while progress in many applied sciences depends on the long-term availability and diversity of natural assets;
4. Calls for the removal of environmentally harmful subsidies, in line with the EU’s 2020 Strategy and Target 3 of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets;
5. Deplores that actions taken by the EU to reverse biodiversity loss remain outweighed by continued and growing pressures on Europe’s biodiversity, such as land-use change, pollution and climate change; recalls that biodiversity loss is costly for society as a whole, particularly for economic actors in sectors that depend directly on ecosystem services, such as farmers; calls for the EU to mainstream biodiversity across sectors in the economy and to enable synergies in the implementation of the various international multilateral environmental agreements;
6. Takes the view that the economic value of biodiversity should be reflected in indicators guiding decision-making (without leading to the commodification of biodiversity), and going beyond GDP; is convinced that this will benefit the pursuit of the SDGs; calls, in this connection, for the systematic integration of biodiversity values into national accounting systems as part of the SDGs monitoring process;
7. Recalls that maintaining climate change well below 2 degrees Celsius as compared with pre-industrial levels will be essential for preventing biodiversity loss; recalls, meanwhile, that a range of ecosystems act as a buffer against natural hazards, thereby contributing to climate change adaptation and mitigation strategy;
8. Recalls that forests are home to around 90 % of terrestrial biodiversity, while more than one billion people depend on them for their livelihoods; notes with concern that rising international demand for woody biomass risks threatening biodiversity and forest ecosystems on which poor people depend for their livelihoods; fears that EU import dependency may spark widespread deforestation in developing countries, trigger illegal logging and weaken Voluntary Partnership Agreements under the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan; recalls also that an increased use of biomass could lead to an intensification of forestry practices and a reduction in forest carbon stocks, thus jeopardising the objective of limiting climate temperature increase to below 2 degrees Celsius; calls for the EU to develop an action plan on deforestation and forest degradation which is applicable at global level, including in developing countries, while continuing its initiatives to strengthen good forest governance, in particular through its FLEGT agreements;
9. Urges that social and environmental sustainability criteria for biomass production form a coherent part of the framework of the Renewable Energy Directive (RED); deems it crucial to develop sustainability standards for all sectors in which biomass might be used, together with sustainable forest management criteria to ensure that bioenergy does not contribute to climate change or become an additional driver of land grabs and food insecurity;
10. Urgently calls on the Commission and the Member States to give priority to achieving the 2020 targets; calls for a multi-stakeholder approach and stresses the vital role of regional and local actors in this process; stresses that greater public awareness of and support for biodiversity are also essential;
11. Recalls that the expansion of agrofuels, based overwhelmingly on the expansion of large-scale industrial monoculture and intensive agriculture, harm the environment, biodiversity, soil fertility and water availability; urges the Commission to ensure that the EU’s policy on biofuels is consistent with the commitments the EU has entered into under the Convention on Biological Diversity, with climate policy and commitments (including those entered into at COP 21) and with the objectives of the UN-REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) programme;
12. Notes with concern that 90 % of the palm oil consumed in the world is produced in Indonesia and Malaysia at the expense of peat forests, which are burned down to make way for large acacia and oil-palm plantations; points to the fact that, according to a study conducted by the World Bank, Indonesia has become the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases, precisely because of forest fires;
13. Stresses the need to protect agricultural biodiversity in developing countries in order to achieve food security; calls therefore on the Commission to invest in agro-ecology in developing countries, in line with the recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food;
14. Notes that EU development assistance and trade agreements concluded between the EU and African countries are influencing African seed law reform by including provisions on intellectual property protection, with the aim of facilitating cross-border trade in seeds and protecting commercial seed varieties; calls on the Commission to ensure that the EU’s commitments to farmers’ rights in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture are reflected in all technical assistance and financial support for seed policy development; calls for the EU, in line with the EU food security policy framework, also to support intellectual property rights regimes that enhance the development of locally adapted seed varieties and farmer-saved seeds;
15. Calls for reassessing the status of biodiversity in agriculture by taking into account Parliament’s findings in the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy;
16. Recalls that climate change, habitat modification, invasive species, grazing pressures, changed hydrology, land grabbing, monoculture, meat overconsumption, expanding transport and unsustainable use of energy are exerting growing pressure on biodiversity worldwide, as they result in land fragmentation, rising CO 2 levels and loss of habitats;
17. Calls for the EU to reduce its biodiversity footprint worldwide, in line with the principle of Policy Coherence for Development, and to bring it within the ecological limits of ecosystems by progressing in achieving the Biodiversity Headline Targets and fulfilling the commitments on biodiversity protection; calls also for the EU to assist developing countries in their efforts to conserve biodiversity and ensure its sustainable use;
18. Calls on the Commission to include in the international agreements it concludes matters relating to the environment and climate change and to carry out environmental analyses focused on the possibilities of protecting and improving biodiversity; stresses the importance of systematically identifying and evaluating potential impacts on biodiversity; calls on the Commission to follow up on findings resulting from a study on the ‘Identification and mitigation of the negative impacts of EU demand for certain commodities on biodiversity in third countries’ by proposing possible ways to contribute to avoiding or minimising the loss of global biodiversity caused by certain production and consumption patterns in the EU.
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION.
Result of final vote.
Members present for the final vote.
Beatriz Becerra Basterrechea, Doru-Claudian Frunzulică, Maria Heubuch, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio, Arne Lietz, Linda McAvan, Norbert Neuser, Maurice Ponga, Cristian Dan Preda, Lola Sánchez Caldentey, Elly Schlein, György Schöpflin, Pedro Silva Pereira, Davor Ivo Stier, Bogdan Brunon Wenta, Rainer Wieland.
Substitutes present for the final vote.
Substitutes under Rule 200(2) present for the final vote.
Pál Csáky, José Inácio Faria, Inmaculada Rodríguez-Piñero Fernández.
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE.
Result of final vote.
Members present for the final vote.
Marco Affronte, Margrete Auken, Pilar Ayuso, Zoltán Balczó, Catherine Bearder, Simona Bonafè, Biljana Borzan, Lynn Boylan, Cristian-Silviu Buşoi, Soledad Cabezón Ruiz, Alberto Cirio, Miriam Dalli, Seb Dance, Angélique Delahaye, Jørn Dohrmann, Stefan Eck, Bas Eickhout, Eleonora Evi, José Inácio Faria, Karl-Heinz Florenz, Francesc Gambús, Elisabetta Gardini, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Jens Gieseke, Sylvie Goddyn, Matthias Groote, Françoise Grossetête, Jean-François Jalkh, Giovanni La Via, Peter Liese, Norbert Lins, Susanne Melior, Massimo Paolucci, Gilles Pargneaux, Piernicola Pedicini, Bolesław G. Piecha, Michèle Rivasi, Annie Schreijer-Pierik, Renate Sommer, Dubravka Šuica, Tibor Szanyi, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Damiano Zoffoli.
Substitutes present for the final vote.
Nikos Androulakis, Simona Bonafè, Nicola Caputo, Mark Demesmaeker, Herbert Dorfmann, Luke Ming Flanagan, Elena Gentile, Martin Häusling, Jan Huitema, Merja Kyllönen, Mairead McGuinness, Ulrike Müller, James Nicholson, Alojz Peterle, Christel Schaldemose, Jasenko Selimovic, Keith Taylor.
Substitutes under Rule 200(2) present for the final vote.
Lucy Anderson, Michał Boni, Monika Hohlmeier, Sander Loones.

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law.
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website.
EUROPA EU law and publications EUR-Lex EUR-Lex - 52015DC0478 - EN Home Official Journal Direct access to the Official Journal Legally binding print editions Special edition EU law and related documents Treaties EU Legislation Consolidated acts EFTA documents EU Preparatory acts EU case law International agreements National law N-Lex National transposition measures National case-law JURE Legislative procedures Search in legislative procedures Recently published More Directories Institutions and bodies Summaries of EU Legislation EuroVoc ELI register.
Document 52015DC0478.
COM(2015) 478 final.
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL.
THE MID-TERM REVIEW OF THE EU BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY TO 2020.
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL.
THE MID-TERM REVIEW OF THE EU BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY TO 2020.
Biodiversity — the unique variety of life on our planet — underpins our economy and well-being. It provides us with clean air and water, food, materials and medicines, health and recreation; it supports pollination and soil fertility, regulates climate and protects us from extreme weather.
However, human-induced changes to ecosystems and the extinction of species have been more rapid in the past 50 years than at any time in human history. 1 Biodiversity loss is one of the core planetary boundaries 2 that have already been crossed by humanity. Together with climate change, this increases the risk of irreversible changes and undermines economic development and the resilience of societies in the face of new challenges. The World Economic Forum listed ‘biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse’ among the top 10 global risks in 2015. 3.
The EU 2010 biodiversity baseline 4 indicated that up to 25 % of European animal species were facing extinction, and 65 % of habitats of EU importance were in an unfavourable conservation status, mainly due to human activities. Basic ecosystem services have continued deteriorating.
As a response, in 2011, the European Commission adopted an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020, 5 with the headline target set by EU Heads of State and Government to ‘halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services by 2020, to restore ecosystems in so far as is feasible, and to step up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss’. The strategy is an integral part of the Europe 2020 strategy 6 and the 7 th Environmental Action Programme. 7 It implements EU commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity. The strategy is built around six targets, each supported by a set of actions.
The present mid-term review takes stock of progress in implementing the EU biodiversity strategy against the 2010 baseline. It aims to inform decision-makers of areas in which increased efforts are needed to meet the EU biodiversity objectives by 2020.
Box 1. The socio-economic costs of not delivering on the EU biodiversity targets.
The opportunity cost of not reaching the 2020 EU biodiversity headline target has been estimated at up to EUR 50 billion a year. 8 One in six jobs in the EU depends to some extent on nature. 9 The value of insect pollination services alone has been estimated at EUR 15 billion a year in the EU. At around EUR 5.8 billion, the annual costs of maintaining the EU Natura 2000 network are but a fraction of the economic benefits generated by the network through services such as carbon storage, flood mitigation, water purification, pollination and fish protection, together worth EUR 200-300 billion annually. Restoring ecosystems and green infrastructure can improve air and water quality and flood control, reduce noise, encourage recreation and promote opportunities for green businesses. Among agri-environmental practices that support biodiversity, organic farming is a sector with positive employment trends that attracts younger workers, provides 10-20 % more jobs per land area than conventional farms , and creates added value for agricultural products . Maintaining healthy marine habitats and sustainable fish stocks is essential for the long-term viability of the fishing sector. There is an important economic dimension to combating invasive alien species, which cause damage of at least EUR 12 billion a year to EU sectors. Policy inaction and failure to halt the loss of global biodiversity could result in annual losses in ecosystem services equivalent to 7 % of world GDP, 10 with the greatest impacts being felt by the poorest nations and the rural poor. 11.
Box 2. Note on methodology.
The assessment of progress in the mid-term review takes account of the way that the different targets are defined. The headline target is formulated in terms of the desired state of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU by 2020. Progress towards this target at the point of the mid-term review has been assessed in terms of both status and trends. The six operational targets have both policy-related and status-related elements. The assessment under each of these targets presents: (i) where we stand at mid-term; (ii) what action has been implemented; and (iii) gaps and further efforts needed to reach the target by 2020.
The mid-term review draws on the best available information from a wide range of sources summarised in the accompanying Staff Working Document. 12 Trends in status of habitats and species of EU importance are based on data reported under the Birds and Habitats Directives (period 2007-2012 vs 2001-2006 13 ).
2. Summary of progress since 2011.
Headline target: Halt the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and restore them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss.
Overall, as compared with the EU 2010 biodiversity baseline, biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU have continued , as confirmed by the 2015 European environment — state and outlook report . 14 This is consistent with global trends and has serious implications for the capacity of biodiversity to meet human needs in the future. While many local successes demonstrate that action on the ground delivers positive outcomes, these examples need to be scaled up to have a measurable impact on the overall negative trends.
Since the last reporting period, the number of species and habitats of EU importance with secure/favourable or improved conservation status has increased slightly. Populations of some common birds appear to be stabilising but other species linked to fragile freshwater, coastal and agricultural ecosystems continue to decline; 70 % of EU species are threatened by habitat loss. While some ecosystem services (in particular provisioning) are increasing, others such as pollination are decreasing.
The key threats to biodiversity — habitat loss (in particular through urban sprawl, agricultural intensification, land abandonment, and intensively managed forests), pollution, over-exploitation (in particular fisheries), invasive alien species and climate change — continue to exert pressure causing loss of species and habitats and resulting in ecosystem degradation and weakening ecosystem resilience. 15 The EU-28 footprint is still over twice its biocapacity 16 and this compounds pressures on biodiversity outside Europe.
Since the launch of the strategy, progress has been made in establishing policy frameworks, improving the knowledge base and setting up partnerships. These initiatives will need to be translated into concrete actions at national, regional and local levels if we are to see sustained improvements in biodiversity on the ground. Progress towards the headline target will also depend on the setting and achievement of objectives in policy areas not directly targeted by the strategy, notably climate, air, chemicals, water, and soil protection.
There is ample evidence of major efforts by stakeholders that have resulted in positive local trends in biodiversity. These examples send an important message that targeted action on the ground can bring very positive results. They provide models for guiding implementation in the second half of the strategy.
2.1. Target 1: Halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats covered by EU nature legislation and achieve a significant and measurable improvement in their status so that, by 2020, compared with current assessments: (i) 100 % more habitat assessments and 50 % more species assessments under the Habitats Directive show an improved conservation status; and (ii) 50 % more species assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure or improved status.
The latest report on the state of nature in the EU 17 shows that the number of species and habitats in secure / favourable or improved conservation status has increased slightly since the 2010 baseline. However, many habitats and species that were already in unfavourable status remain so, and some are deteriorating further. While much has been achieved since 2011 in carrying out the actions under this target, the most important challenges remain the completion of the Natura 2000 marine network, ensuring the effective management of Natura 2000 sites, and securing the necessary finance to support the Natura 2000 network .
Figure 1 — Progress towards Target 1: percentage of secure/favourable or improving assessments for birds (Birds Directive) and for habitats and species of Community interest (Habitats Directive)
Source: EEA 2015.
As indicated in Figure 1 above, more species and habitats covered by EU nature legislation show a secure/favourable or improving conservation status since the 2010 baseline. Some emblematic species, such as the Eastern Imperial Eagle, show recovery as a result of targeted conservation measures supported by dedicated financing. However, the status of many other species and habitats remains unfavourable, with some declining trends.
The Natura 2000 network has been largely completed for terrestrial and inland water habitats, covering about 18 % of the land surface. The marine network coverage has increased to 6 %, still well below the 10 % global target.
Member States have progressed at different rates in developing and implementing action plans for species and Natura 2000 site management plans. In 2012, only 58 % of Natura 2000 sites had management plans, or had such plans in development. 18 The Natura 2000 biogeographical process has encouraged cooperation between Member States on habitat management and restoration, and financing opportunities for Natura 2000 sites have increased. 19 A full assessment of the integration of Natura 2000 in the new multiannual financial framework will only be possible once all programmes have been approved.
Guidance has been developed on use of wind energy, port development and dredging, extractive industries, agriculture, aquaculture, forests and energy infrastructure in the context of Natura 2000 sites. 20.
Training was organised for judges and prosecutors on the enforcement of key provisions of nature legislation. Major improvements have been seen in the monitoring and reporting of biodiversity data, and in streamlining the reporting requirements under the two nature directives .
Communication and awareness raising have been stepped up with the launch of the Natura 2000 communication platform, an annual Natura 2000 award scheme and national campaigns.
The Commission is undertaking a fitness check of the Birds and Habitats Directives 21 as part of its regulatory fitness and performance programme. This will be a comprehensive and evidence-based analysis of whether the legislation and its implementation are proportionate to the set objectives and are delivering as intended. The results will be presented in the first half of 2016.
While it will take time for the positive effects of many of these actions to become apparent, it is clear that significantly more efforts and investment will be needed in the remaining period up to 2020, so as to complete Natura 2000 in marine areas to achieve the 10 % global target, ensure that all Natura 2000 sites are managed effectively, and establish adequate financial and administrative conditions to achieve conservation objectives and allow the potential of ecosystem services to deliver within and beyond the territories of Natura 2000.
2.2. Target 2: By 2020, ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by establishing green infrastructure and restoring at least 15 % of degraded ecosystems.
Progress has been made on policy and knowledge improvement actions under this target, and some restoration activities have taken place in Member States. However, this has not yet halted the trend of degradation of ecosystems and services. National and regional frameworks to promote restoration and green infrastructure need to be developed and implemented. A lot remains to be done to halt the loss of ordinary biodiversity outside the Natura 2000 network.
Figure 2 — Trends in pressures on ecosystems.
Pollution and nutrient enrichment.
Woodland and forest.
Heathland, shrub and sparsely vegetated land.
Freshwater (rivers and lakes)
Marine (transitional and marine waters, combined)*
*NB: results for marine ecosystem are preliminary.
Projected future trends in pressure.
Very rapid increase.
Observed impact on biodiversity to date.
Source: EEA 2015 22.
Recent analysis 23 confirms increasing trends for some provisioning services (e. g. timber production) and decreasing trends for services directly related to biodiversity (e. g. pollination) for the period between 2000-2010. As illustrated in Figure 2, some major pressures on ecosystems are decreasing (e. g. atmospheric deposition of sulphur); however, other threats to ecosystems and their services persist and many are increasing, thereby slowing overall progress towards the target.
The Commission and Member States have taken important steps to improve the knowledge base. The mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services, when completed by the 2020 target, will allow public decision-makers and private-sector stakeholders to capture the value of the EU’s ecosystem wealth and associated socio-economic benefits in their planning decisions. The Joint Research Centre report provides a solid baseline against which progress will be tracked, with a first update expected in 2016.
The EU green infrastructure strategy 24 promotes the integration of green infrastructure solutions into other EU policies and financing instruments. The Commission has also published a study 25 to support Member States in prioritising the restoration of degraded ecosystems. Although there are few comprehensive restoration strategies at national and sub-national levels, some restoration is taking place — often in response to EU legislation such as the Water Framework Directive, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, and the Birds and Habitats Directives.
Over the coming years, increased efforts will be needed to complete and implement national restoration prioritisation frameworks. Further investments, coupled with capacity building and the integration of green infrastructure into national and sub-national planning frameworks, will be important drivers to maintain and restore ecosystems and their services. A lot remains to be done in relation to halting the loss of ordinary biodiversity in the 80 % of the EU territory falling outside of Natura 2000, which will require consideration of the most suitable approach to ensure no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services.
2.3. Target 3: Increase the contribution of agriculture and forestry to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity.
2.3.1. Target 3A — Agriculture: By 2020, maximise areas under agriculture across grasslands, arable land and permanent crops that are covered by biodiversity-related measures under the CAP so as to ensure the conservation of biodiversity and to bring about a measurable improvement* in the conservation status of species and habitats that depend on or are affected by agriculture and in the provision of ecosystem services as compared to the EU 2010 Baseline, thus contributing to enhance sustainable management.
(*) Improvement is to be measured against the quantified enhancement targets for the conservation status of species and habitats of EU interest in Target 1 and the restoration of degraded ecosystems under Target 2.
The continuing decline in the status of species and habitats of EU importance associated with agriculture indicates that greater efforts need to be made to conserve and enhance biodiversity in these areas. The common agricultural policy (CAP) has an essential role to play in this process in interaction with relevant environmental policies. 26.
The CAP reform for 2014-2020 provides a range of instruments that can contribute to supporting biodiversity. If the target is to be achieved, these opportunities need now to be taken up by Member States on a sufficient scale. Local examples demonstrate successful sustainable agricultural practices. If implemented more broadly, they could put the EU back on track to achieve the target by 2020.
Figure 3 — Changes (2007-2012 vs 2001-2006) in conservation status for habitats of Community interest associated with agricultural ecosystems (grassland and cropland)
Source: EEA 2015.
The 2015 European environment — state and outlook report identifies intensification in agricultural practices and land abandonment, along with urban sprawl and grey infrastructure, as key pressures on biodiversity. The 2015 report The State of Nature in the European Union also points to agriculture and human-induced modifications of natural conditions as the most prominent pressures on terrestrial ecosystems in the period 2007-2012, with 20 % of the pressure stemming from agriculture alone. As illustrated in Figure 3, there has been no measurable improvement in the status of the majority of agriculture-related species and habitats covered by EU nature legislation since the last reporting period. Grasslands and wetlands have the highest proportion of habitats in ‘ unfavourable — bad’ or ‘deteriorating’ status. While populations of common bird species have started stabilising since 2010, farmland birds have continued declining. Pollination services are in steep decline 27 with multiple pressures on wild bees. 28 Grassland butterflies are declining severely and there is no sign of levelling off.
While overall trends continue to be a cause for serious concern, there are many local improvements as a direct result of good agricultural practices and biodiversity measures under the CAP, in particular under the agri-environment measures and in Natura 2000 sites. Such successes carry an important message on the achievability of the 2020 biodiversity target, but would need to be spread wider to achieve measurable results at EU level.
The CAP reform for 2014-2020 includes various instruments that can contribute to support biodiversity. Cross-compliance represents the basic layer of environmental requirements and obligations to be met by farmers. Direct payments reward the delivery of environmental public goods. One of the three greening practices under the first pillar — ecological focus areas — specifically targets biodiversity. Finally, the Rural Development Regulation 29 provides national and regional authorities with a wide range of biodiversity-favourable options to choose from. These options include a sub-priority on the restoration, preservation and enhancement of ecosystems, a target for biodiversity output in rural development programmes, collaboration mechanisms among farmers and foresters, and a greater focus on advising farmers on water and pesticide use but also on biodiversity, including the obligations under the Birds and Habitats Directives.
The reformed CAP gives Member States’ national and regional authorities the flexibility to decide how and to what extent they take up these opportunities. Member States’ rural development programmes and choices related to ecological focus areas will be carefully monitored and evaluated with respect to biodiversity protection. Based on programmes adopted at the time of finalising this report, 19.1 % 30 of total agricultural land is under management contracts supporting biodiversity and/or landscapes, with very large disparities among Member States and regions. Understanding the reasons for disparity in take-up among Member States will be critical for further progress towards the 2020 target.
2.3.2. Target 3B — Forests: By 2020, Forest Management Plans or equivalent instruments, in line with Sustainable Forest Management (SFM), are in place for all forests that are publicly owned and for forest holdings above a certain size** (to be defined by the Member States or regions and communicated in their Rural Development Programmes) that receive funding under the EU Rural Development Policy so as to bring about a measurable improvement* in the conservation status of species and habitats that depend on or are affected by forestry and in the provision of related ecosystem services as compared to the EU 2010 Baseline.
(*) Improvement is to be measured against the quantified enhancement targets for the conservation status of species and habitats of EU interest in Target 1 and the restoration of degraded ecosystems under Target 2.
(**) For smaller forest holdings, Member States may provide additional incentives to encourage the adoption of Management Plans or equivalent instruments that are in line with SFM.
EU forest area has increased as compared with the EU 2010 biodiversity baseline. However, the conservation status of forest habitats and species covered by EU nature legislation shows no significant signs of improvement. EU-level data on the status of forest habitats outside Natura 2000 is limited.
Forest management plans or equivalent instruments can play an important positive role in achieving the target, but their potential remains largely unused.
Favourable conservation status assessments of forest habitats of European importance have decreased from nearly 17 % to about 15 % in the latest assessment. The vast majority of assessments remain unfavourable (80 %) but results vary considerably across Europe’s biogeographical regions, with the highest proportion of favourable assessments being found in the Mediterranean region.
Figure 4 — Change (2007-2012 vs 2001-2006) in conservation status for habitats of Community interest associated with woodland and forest ecosystem at EU-27 level 31.
Source: EEA 2015.
The EU forest strategy 32 highlights the economic, social and environmental importance of Europe’s forest ecosystems and sets the guiding principles of sustainable forest management, resource efficiency and global forest responsibility. The Commission is also developing criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management. Securing adequate funding for biodiversity-favourable measures in forested areas remains a challenge. During the period 2007 to 2013, a total of EUR 5.4 billion was allocated to forests under rural development programmes whereas the annual cost of managing the Natura 2000 network (of which over half is forest) is around EUR 5.8 billion.
Forest management plans or equivalent instruments could play a key role in achieving Target 3B, including in private forests. Overall, a large share of EU forests is covered by some form of management plan but there nevertheless remain significant variations across the Member States. The take-up of some of the measures identified in the EU biodiversity strategy has been limited. Improving EU-level information on forest status will allow a more precise assessment of the situation and the design of appropriate policy responses to meet the target.
2.4. Target 4: Achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) by 2015*. Achieve a population age and size distribution indicative of a healthy stock, through fisheries management with no significant adverse impacts on other stocks, species and ecosystems, in support of achieving Good Environmental Status by 2020, as required under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD).
* The reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) which entered into force in 2014, aims to ensure MSY exploitation rates for all stocks by 2015 where possible, and at the latest by 2020.
Significant progress has been made in setting the policy framework for sustainable fisheries under the reformed EU common fisheries policy, and for achieving good environmental status under the MSFD. The Commission is promoting improvements in oceans governance for more sustainable management of marine resources. However, policy implementation has been uneven across the EU and major challenges remain to ensure that the objectives are achieved according to schedule. Just over 50 % of MSY-assessed stocks were fished sustainably in 2013.
As a result of multiple pressures, marine species and ecosystems continue declining across Europe’s seas.
The reformed common fisheries policy provides a sound policy framework for sustainable fisheries, and implementation is advancing. Harvesting levels are at or approaching maximum sustainable yield for an increasing number of commercial stocks. Progress has been noteworthy in the northern waters where most stocks subject to catch limits are assessed (up to 90 % in the Baltic) and the majority are managed under the maximum sustainable yield. However, in the Mediterranean and Black Seas, less than 10 % of landings come from assessed stocks and around 90 % of assessed stocks remain overexploited. 33.
Fishing mortality has significantly decreased for a number of stocks in the Baltic and the greater North Sea. 34 This is evidence that they are responding positively to the implementation of long-term management plans and fishing practices respecting the MSY objective.
Marine biodiversity across Europe’s regional seas continues to decline. Having good quality, reliable and comprehensive data on the marine environment is a challenge in itself, with 80 % of species and habitats under the MSFD categorised as unknown (commercial fish stocks being a positive exception). Only 4 % of habitats are documented as being in good environmental status. Climate change and acidification compound the negative impacts of overfishing, pollution and marine litter, habitat destruction and invasive alien species. 35.
In support of reducing the adverse impact of fishing on non-target species and ecosystems, the new common fisheries policy aims — through the gradual introduction of a landing obligation by 2019 — to eliminate discarding. This will require strengthened monitoring at Member State level in order to lead to practices that are cleaner, more selective and which avoid by-catch, and to improve by-catch data.
Continued efforts at the national level to implement management plans and monitor the enforcement of rules will be paramount in addressing pressures on marine biodiversity by 2020, along with improved monitoring, broadening the knowledge base and coordination of marine biodiversity information. Building on experience and expanding research networks will be a key task.
2.5. Target 5: By 2020, Invasive Alien Species (IAS) and their pathways are identified and prioritised, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and pathways are managed to prevent the introduction and establishment of new IAS.
Invasive alien species are a fast-growing threat to biodiversity. The IAS Regulation 36 entered into force in 2015. Work is under way to propose the first list of invasive alien species of Union concern . If this list is adopted by the end of 2015 , the EU can be considered to be on track with the actions envisaged under Target 5.
The next critical step for achieving the target will be implementation by Member States. Ratification of the Ballast Water Convention, crucial for addressing marine invasive alien species, is slow-going with only 7 Member State ratifications to date.
Currently, there are more than 11 000 alien species in the European environment and 10-15 % of them are causing problems . In the seas around Europe, more than 80 % of non-indigenous species have been introduced since 1950 (see Figure 5 ).
Figure 5 — Rate of introduction of marine non-indigenous species 37.
Source: EEA 2015.
The new IAS Regulation provides a framework to prevent and manage the introduction and spread of invasive alien species in the EU. The European Alien Species Information Network 38 is being set up to assist Member States in its implementation. Work is under way with Member States to finalise the first list of invasive alien species of Union concern based on species’ risk assessments, including potential economic threats. A scanning exercise to prioritise future risk assessments will support a preventive approach. The Commission's 2013 proposals on plant 39 and animal 40 health also aim to support biodiversity protection.
The swift adoption of the first list of invasive alien species of Union concern and effective implementation by the Member States will be decisive for continued progress towards this target. Progress on related policies will be crucial, in particular the ratification and enforcement of the Ballast Water Convention and the application of the animal health regime for wildlife diseases.
2.6. Target 6: By 2020, the EU has stepped up its contribution to averting global biodiversity loss.
The EU remains by far the largest financial donor and has made progress in increasing resources for global biodiversity. The EU has taken initial steps to reduce indirect drivers of global biodiversity loss, including wildlife trade, and to integrate biodiversity into its trade agreements. However, progress is insufficient in reducing the impacts of EU consumption patterns on global biodiversity. On the current trajectory, existing efforts may not be sufficient to meet the Aichi Biodiversity Targets by the deadlines. 41.
The EU is the largest contributor to biodiversity-related official development assistance and has more than doubled funding between 2006 and 2013.
In order to regulate access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilisation, the EU ratified the Nagoya Protocol in 2014. New legislation has been adopted to regulate compliance measures, and an additional implementing act is being prepared.
The 2013 EU Timber Regulation aims to stop the circulation of illegally logged wood on the EU market. The EU Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Plan encourages trade in legal timber. There is a growing consumer preference for products from sustainably managed forests. Some progress has also been made on palm oil, but too little action has been taken regarding other commodities and the EU-28 footprint is over twice the size of its biocapacity.
Figure 6 — Ecological footprint per region of the world.
Source: EEA (SEBI) 42.
All recent EU free trade agreements have provisions on the implementation of multilateral environmental agreements. The EU has also supported global efforts against wildlife trafficking, 43 including promoting progress towards the adoption of a comprehensive UN General Assembly Resolution on tackling illicit trafficking in wildlife. On 8 July 2015, the EU officially became a Party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
Actions to biodiversity-proof EU development cooperation have been addressed through the mainstreaming of environment and climate change. A compulsory environmental screening for any new development cooperation action addresses potential impacts on protected or vulnerable areas, ecosystem services, the introduction of alien species, and the use of fertilisers, pesticides or other chemicals. Programming has paid special attention to the potential for biodiversity protection and improvement.
The EU and its Member States have played an active role in shaping the global 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Implementing these commitments in the EU and supporting their achievement on a global scale will help to advance towards meeting this target. Reaching the international target of doubling biodiversity-related funding flows to developing countries by 2015 and maintaining them until 2020, as well as increasing the effectiveness of funding, will require continued commitment, better prioritisation and coordination with other donors. Achieving EU objectives will require further action to address the EU ecological footprint, and the effective implementation of recently adopted policy and legislation, with particular focus on compliance under the Nagoya Protocol. More efforts are also needed to implement provisions on biodiversity in recent trade agreements, to further integrate biodiversity objectives into EU trade policies and to encourage initiatives to promote sustainable trade.
3. Horizontal measures.
Insufficient financing was a major factor in the failure to reach the 2010 biodiversity target. Biodiversity aspects have been integrated to various degrees into European structural and investment funds, notably the common agricultural policy, cohesion policy funds and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. A robust analysis of the allocations to biodiversity will only be possible once all rural development and operational programmes are adopted. The LIFE programme remains a small but highly effective funding source for nature and biodiversity. It will also support innovative financing through the recently launched Natural Capital Financing Facility.
The Commission has developed a process to track biodiversity-related expenditure in the EU budget in order to estimate more accurately the integration of biodiversity in programming. 44 A methodology has also been developed to ‘biodiversity-proof’ the EU budget, to ensure that spending has no negative impacts but supports biodiversity objectives.
EU financing instruments are key in delivering on international biodiversity commitments, in particular through the Development and Cooperation Instrument and the European Development Fund, as well as under the Partnership Instrument. EU efforts to enhance resource mobilisation from these external instruments are enshrined in the ‘Biodiversity for Life’ flagship initiative (B4Life) launched in 2014.
There has been considerable progress in establishing partnerships and engaging stakeholders and civil society. The re-launched EU Business and Biodiversity Platform supports the active involvement of businesses in the strategy implementation. The Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Territories of European Overseas (BEST) preparatory action contributes to the transition towards swift and easy access to funding for biodiversity protection and sustainable use of ecosystem services. The EU has also supported the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity initiative, both within the EU and in developing countries, and has encouraged synergies between the Convention on Biological Diversity and other conventions.
3.3. Strengthening the knowledge base.
The knowledge and evidence base for EU biodiversity policy has been improved through streamlined reporting under the nature directives, and the mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services, recognised internationally as the most advanced regional assessment scheme under the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Research and innovation framework programmes have an important role in the assessment of ecosystem services, in synergy with other EU funds. Horizon 2020 supports integrated assessments and science-policy interfaces with a focus on nature-based solutions. Cohesion policy funding for research and innovation is another source of support. However, major gaps in data and knowledge remain, in particular concerning the marine environment, the assessment of ecosystem health and links to ecosystem services and resilience. The integration of — and open access to — data from biodiversity monitoring and reporting under relevant EU legislation (such as agriculture, fisheries, and regional policy) needs to be strengthened as a priority for the remainder of the implementation period. EU external instruments have resulted in the creation of regional observatories in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries for better informing the decision-makers in natural resource management.
The mid-term review assessing progress under the EU biodiversity strategy shows that the 2020 biodiversity targets can only be reached if implementation and enforcement efforts become considerably bolder and more ambitious. At the current rate of implementation, biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystem services will continue throughout the EU and globally, with significant implications for the capacity of biodiversity to meet human needs in the future.
Progress has been made in establishing important policy frameworks: the new common fisheries policy, the Invasive Alien Species and Timber Regulations, and the introduction of biodiversity provisions in bilateral trade agreements, to name just a few. The reformed common agricultural policy provides opportunities for enhanced integration of biodiversity concerns but the extent of take-up by Member States will be decisive for success. The Commission has supported and complemented efforts made by Member States, regional and local authorities and stakeholders in enforcing environmental legislation, addressing policy gaps, providing guidelines, funding, promoting partnerships and fostering research and the exchange of best practice. There is a wealth of positive experience that can be a model for advancing towards the EU biodiversity targets in the remaining period until 2020.
It is now urgent to intensify the implementation of measures across all targets and to ensure that the principles included in the policy frameworks are fully reflected on the ground. Achieving the 2020 biodiversity objectives will require strong partnerships and the full engagement and efforts from key actors at all levels, in particular with respect to completing the Natura 2000 network for the marine environment, ensuring effective management of Natura 2000 sites and implementing the Invasive Alien Species Regulation, and considering the most suitable approach for recognizing our natural capital throughout the EU.
Achieving this target will also require more effective integration with a wide range of policies, by setting coherent priorities underpinned by adequate funding — in particular in the sectors of agriculture and forestry which together account for 80% of land use in the EU, as well as marine, fisheries and regional development. EU financing instruments can assist in the process. Achieving biodiversity objectives will also contribute to the growth and jobs agenda, food and water security, and to quality of life, as well as to the implementation of sustainable development goals globally and in the EU.

EU Biodiversity Strategy mid-term review: successes at a local level, now action needs to be scaled up.
The Headline Target of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 is: Halt the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and restore them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss. Achieving this target would help to maintain and restore nature’s capacity to clean the air and water, to pollinate crops and to limit the impacts of catastrophes such as flooding. The economic cost of not halting the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services by 2020 could add up to €50 billion per year.
However, a mid-term review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, published this month, shows that so far no significant progress towards the Headline Target has been made.
Progress has been made on some of the EU Biodiversity Strategy targets. For example, implementation of Target 5 (Help combat invasive alien species) is on track, provided a list of alien invasive species of Union concern, which is currently being developed, is adopted by the end of 2015. Progress has also been made towards implementation of Target 1 (Fully implement the Birds and Habitats Directives), Target 2 (Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services), Target 4 (Ensure the sustainable use of fisheries resources and achieve good environmental status), and Target 6 (Help avert global biodiversity loss). However, progress towards these targets is happening at an insufficient rate.
Many habitats and species that were already in unfavourable status in 2010 remain so, and some are deteriorating further; ecosystems and their services continue to be degraded; marine species and ecosystems have continued to decline across Europe’s seas; and there has been insufficient progress in reducing the impacts of EU consumption patterns on global biodiversity.
Furthermore, there has been no significant progress towards Targets 3a and 3b (Increase the contribution of agriculture and forestry to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity). The Common Agricultural Policy reform for 2014-20 provides a range of instruments that can contribute to supporting biodiversity. If these opportunities are widely implemented, it could help put the EU back on track to achieve Target 3a. Whilst EU forest area has increased as compared with the EU 2010 biodiversity baseline, the conservation status of forest habitats and species covered by EU nature legislation shows no signs of improvement. The potential of forest management plans remains largely under utilised.
Since 2010, the network of Natura 2000 sites has progressed and is largely completed for terrestrial and inland water habitats. Now finances need to be secured to fully support the Natura 2000 network. Although the coverage of the marine network increased in 2014, the network is still not complete and marine mammals are one of the groups with the highest proportion of threatened species. Completion of this network would therefore contribute towards achieving Target 1. Halting the loss of biodiversity beyond the Natura 2000 network also remains a priority.
Overall, a central conclusion of the mid-term review is that there have been successes at a local level, now action needs to be scaled up. A range of EU policies and initiatives are in place or under development, but greater effort is also required from the Member States to fully implement these EU policies.
최근 게시물.
Post categories.
Other News (37) Eurosite News (109) Eurosite Highlights (17) Brussels News (108)
뉴스 레터.
This website is financed by the European Union. The website reflects Eurosite’s view only, and the donors are not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.
Slider and header images copyright Saxifraga and VanellusVanellus.
Every effort has been made to credit photographers. If you see a photo that has not been properly credited please contact us at infoeurosite. org.
About Eurosite.
Eurosite is working to create a Europe where nature is cared for, protected, restored and valued by all. We do this by providing practitioners with opportunities to network and exchange experience on practical nature management.
We are a network of natural site managers bringing together non-governmental as well as governmental organisations, and individuals committed to our vision. Nature knows no boundaries: we believe the future protection and conservation of Europe's nature will only be achieved through international cooperation.