إعداد استعراض منتصف المدة لاستراتيجية التنوع البيولوجي في الاتحاد الأوروبي
بشأن استعراض منتصف المدة لاستراتيجية التنوع البيولوجي للاتحاد الأوروبي.
واللجنة المعنية بالبيئة والصحة العامة وسلامة الأغذية.
المقرر: مارك ديميسماكر.
بشأن استعراض منتصف المدة لاستراتيجية التنوع البيولوجي للاتحاد الأوروبي.
البرلمان الأوروبي،
- مع مراعاة تقرير اللجنة المؤرخ 2 أكتوبر 2018 بعنوان "استعراض منتصف المدة لاستراتيجية التنوع البيولوجي للاتحاد الأوروبي حتى 2020" (كوم (2018) 0478)،
- مع مراعاة تقرير اللجنة المؤرخ 20 مايو 2018 بعنوان "حالة الطبيعة في الاتحاد الأوروبي: تقرير عن حالة واتجاهات أنواع الموائل والأنواع التي تغطيها توجيهات الطيور والموائل للفترة 2007-2018 على النحو المطلوب المادة 17 من توجيه الموائل والمادة 12 من توجيه الطيور "(كوم (2018) 0219)،
- مع مراعاة "تقرير عن مشاورة عامة مفتوحة من" فحص اللياقة البدنية "على توجيهات الطيور والموائل" (1)،
- وبالنظر إلى مسح يوروباروميتر الذي نشر في أكتوبر 2018 بشأن مواقف الناس في أوروبا نحو التنوع البيولوجي ('يوروباروميتر خاص 436')،
- مع مراعاة تقرير الوكالة األوروبية للبيئة بعنوان "البيئة األوروبية - الدولة والتوقعات 2018") "2018" (،
- مع مراعاة رسالة اللجنة المؤرخة 7 فبراير 2017 بشأن نهج الاتحاد الأوروبي لمكافحة الاتجار بالأحياء البرية (كوم (2017) 0064)،
- وبالنظر إلى التقرير النهائي لفريق خبراء هورايزون 2020 بشأن الحلول القائمة على الطبيعة وإعادة إحياء المدن بعنوان "نحو أجندة سياسات البحث والابتكار في الاتحاد الأوروبي للحلول القائمة على الطبيعة وإعادة إحياء المدن" التي نشرت في عام 2018،
- مع مراعاة مرفق التمويل الرأسمالي الطبيعي، الذي يشكل جزءا من أداة ليف المالية للتدابير البيئية والمناخية،
- مع مراعاة مشاورة اللجنة بشأن مبادرة الاتحاد الأوروبي في المستقبل تحت شعار "لا خسارة صافية للتنوع البيولوجي وخدمات النظم الإيكولوجية"،
- مع مراعاة نتائج المؤتمر الثاني عشر للأطراف (كوب 12) لاتفاقية الأمم المتحدة للتنوع البيولوجي (كبد)، ولا سيما: استعراض منتصف المدة للتقدم المحرز في تنفيذ خطة العمل الاستراتيجية للتنوع البيولوجي 2018-2020، بما في ذلك الطبعة الرابعة من نشرة التوقعات العالمية للتنوع البيولوجي، بهدف تحقيق أهداف أيشي للتنوع البيولوجي؛ والتدابير الرامية إلى تحسين التنفيذ،
- مع مراعاة المقرر 10/34 لمؤتمر الأطراف بشأن التنوع البيولوجي، الذي يؤكد أهمية التنوع البيولوجي الزراعي في تحقيق الأمن الغذائي والتغذية، ولا سيما في مواجهة تغير المناخ والموارد الطبيعية المحدودة، على النحو المعترف به في إعلان روما الصادر عن مؤتمر القمة العالمي لعام 2009 بشأن الأمن الغذائي،
- مع مراعاة الاستنتاجات التي خلص إليها اجتماع مجلس البيئة في 12 حزيران / يونيه 2017، ولا سيما تعهد الاتحاد الأوروبي والدول الأعضاء فيه بزيادة الموارد بهدف تحقيق التزامات حيدر أباد، وذلك بمضاعفة مجموع تدفقات الموارد المالية المتصلة بالتنوع البيولوجي بحلول عام 2018 .
- مع مراعاة تقرير أمانة الاتفاقية المتعلقة بالتنوع البيولوجي ومنظمة الصحة العالمية المعنون "ربط الأولويات العالمية: التنوع البيولوجي والصحة البشرية - حالة استعراض المعرفة"، الذي نشر في عام 2018،
- وبالنظر إلى الاقتراح الداعي إلى تقديم قرار في الدورة التاسعة والستين للجمعية العامة للأمم المتحدة للموافقة على خطة التنمية لما بعد عام 2018 بعنوان "تحويل عالمنا: خطة التنمية المستدامة لعام 2030"
- بالنظر إلى التقارير المتعلقة باقتصاديات النظم الإيكولوجية والتنوع البيولوجي (تيب)، وهي مبادرة عالمية تهدف إلى "جعل قيم الطبيعة مرئية"،
- مع مراعاة اتفاقية الاتجار الدولي بأنواع الحيوانات والنباتات البرية المهددة بالانقراض (سيتس) واتفاقية الأنواع المهاجرة (كمس)
- بالنظر إلى القائمة الحمراء للاتحاد الدولي لحفظ الطبيعة (إيون) للأنواع الحيوانية المهددة بالانقراض،
- مع مراعاة لائحة الاتحاد الأوروبي رقم 1143/2017 الصادرة عن البرلمان الأوروبي والمجلس بتاريخ 22 أكتوبر 2017 بشأن منع وإدارة إدخال وانتشار الأنواع الغريبة الغازية (2)،
- مع مراعاة الاتفاقية الدولية للمنظمة البحرية الدولية لمراقبة وإدارة مياه صابورة السفن ورواسبها،
- مع مراعاة السياسة الزراعية المشتركة بعد عام 2018، وعلى وجه الخصوص اللائحة رقم 1307/2018 التي تضع قواعد للمدفوعات المباشرة للمزارعين في إطار خطط الدعم في إطار السياسة الزراعية المشتركة (3) واللوائح التنظيمية (الاتحاد الأوروبي) لا 1305/2018 بشأن دعم التنمية الريفية من قبل الصندوق الزراعي الأوروبي للتنمية الريفية (إيفرد) (4)،
- مع مراعاة اللائحة التنظيمية للاتحاد الأوروبي رقم 1380/2018 الصادرة عن البرلمان الأوروبي والمجلس بتاريخ 11 ديسمبر 2018 بشأن السياسة المشتركة لمصايد الأسماك المعدلة للوائح المجلس الأوروبي رقم 1954/2003 و إيك رقم 1224/2009 وإلغاء لائحة المجلس الأوروبي رقم 2371/2002 و (إيك) رقم 639/2004 ومقرر المجلس 2004/585 / إيك (5)،
- مع مراعاة الإطار المالي المتعدد السنوات للفترة 2017-2020،
- بالنظر إلى قرارها المؤرخ 20 أبريل 2018 بشأن التأمين على الحياة، رأسمالنا الطبيعي: استراتيجية التنوع البيولوجي للاتحاد الأوروبي حتى عام 2020 (6)،
- مع مراعاة قرارها المؤرخ 12 ديسمبر 2018 بشأن البنية التحتية الخضراء - تعزيز رأس المال الطبيعي في أوروبا (7)،
- مع مراعاة قرارها المؤرخ 28 نيسان / أبريل 2018 بشأن "استراتيجية جديدة للاتحاد الأوروبي للغابات: للغابات والقطاع القائم على الغابات" (8)،
- مع مراعاة دراسة دائرة البحوث البرلمانية الأوروبية في أبريل 2018 بعنوان "صون التنوع البيولوجي - سياسة الاتحاد الأوروبي والاتفاقات الدولية"
- فيما يتعلق بتقرير أوروبا الحرجية المعنون "حالة الغابات في أوروبا 2018" (9)،
- بالنظر إلى الدراسة التي أجرتها إدارة السياسة العامة المعنية بحقوق المواطنين والشؤون الدستورية لعام 2009 بشأن التشريعات والممارسات الوطنية فيما يتعلق بتنفيذ توجيه المجلس 92/43 / إيك المؤرخ 21 أيار / مايو 1992 بشأن حفظ الموائل الطبيعية والبرية والحيوانات والنباتات، ولا سيما المادة 6،
- مع مراعاة رأي لجنة الأقاليم، الذي اعتمد في الجلسة العامة 115 المعقودة في 3 و 4 كانون الأول / ديسمبر 2018، والمعنون "المساهمة في التحقق من اللياقة في توجيهات الاتحاد الأوروبي بشأن الطيور والموائل"
- مع مراعاة المادة 52 من نظامها الداخلي،
- مع مراعاة تقرير اللجنة المعنية بالبيئة والصحة العامة وسلامة الأغذية ورأي لجنة التنمية (A8-0003 / 2018)،
ألف - تذكر بأن التنوع البيولوجي يشمل التنوع الفريد للنظم الإيكولوجية والموائل والأنواع والجينات على الأرض، التي يعتمد عليها البشر اعتمادا كبيرا؛
باء - في حين أن التنوع البيولوجي له قيمة جوهرية لا بد من حمايتها لصالح الأجيال المقبلة؛ في حين يوفر التنوع البيولوجي أيضا فوائد لصحة الإنسان ويساهم بقيمة اجتماعية واقتصادية هائلة، وفي حين أن تكلفة الفرصة الاجتماعية - الاقتصادية لفقدان الهدف الرئيسي للتنوع البيولوجي تقدر ب 50 بليون يورو سنويا؛
جيم - في حين تؤدي الزراعة دورا رئيسيا في تحقيق أهداف التنوع البيولوجي؛ في حين أن الحاجة إلى إنتاج غذائي يتسم بالكفاءة - لإطعام سكان العالم الذين يتزايدون بسرعة - وأهداف سياسة الطاقة التي تدعو إلى زيادة استخدام الكتلة الحيوية كمصدر للطاقة تولد مطالب كبيرة للصناعة الزراعية؛
دال - في حين تسهم القطاعات الزراعية والحرجية في الحفاظ على التنوع البيولوجي في سياق تطبيق التشريعات القائمة؛
هاء - في حين أن تنوع الأنواع والأصناف النباتية التي تزرعها المزارع الصغيرة والمتوسطة الحجم والمزارع الأسرية تقليديا يكتسي أهمية كبيرة من حيث الاستجابة للاحتياجات والاستخدامات المختلفة في المجتمعات الريفية والحد من قابلية المحاصيل للظروف الجوية والآفات والأمراض الضارة .
واو - في حين أن زراعة الأراضي المستدامة والمسؤولة وتربية المواشي تسهم إسهاما أساسيا في الحفاظ على التنوع البيولوجي؛
زاي - في حين أن التنوع البيولوجي يتعرض لضغوط شديدة في جميع أنحاء العالم، مما يؤدي إلى تغييرات لا رجعة فيها تضر بالطبيعة والمجتمع والاقتصاد تأثيرا عميقا؛
حاء - في حين أن الهدف 11 من أهداف أيشي يدعو إلى حماية ما لا يقل عن 17 في المائة من مناطق المياه البرية والداخلية من خلال نظم تدار بفعالية في المناطق المحمية؛ في حين أن نسبة المناطق الإيكولوجية الأوروبية التي تبلغ 17 في المائة من أراضيها داخل المناطق المحمية تقل كثيرا عندما تستثنى المناطق المحمية وحدها من ناتورا 2000؛
أولا - في حين أن استعادة النظم الإيكولوجية يمكن أن يكون لها أثر إيجابي على التخفيف من تغير المناخ والتكيف معه؛
في حين أن ما لا يقل عن 8 من كل 10 مواطنين في الاتحاد الأوروبي يعتبرون تأثير فقدان التنوع البيولوجي خطرا، بينما شارك 552 470 مواطن في المشاورة العامة حول فحص اللياقة البدنية للتوجيهات الطبيعية، وهي أكبر استجابة من أي وقت مضى لأي مشاورة للجنة. في حين أن، وفقا لمسح يوروباروميتر، المواطنين يرغبون في الحصول على مزيد من المعلومات حول فقدان التنوع البيولوجي ومعظم الناس ليسوا على دراية ناتورا 2000؛
ك. في حين أن أعدادا كبيرة من المواطنين الملتزمين الذين يتصرفون بمبادرة منهم أو بصفتهم أعضاء في مجموعات العمل المحلية أو الإقليمية يتخذون تدابير محلية وإقليمية لتعزيز التنوع البيولوجي وبالتالي تحقيق نتائج إيجابية في إطار زمني قصير نسبيا؛
في حين أن 65٪ من مواطني الاتحاد الأوروبي يعيشون على بعد 5 كم من موقع ناتورا 2000، و 98٪ يعيشون ضمن 20 كم، مما يشير إلى أن هذه المواقع لديها القدرة على المساعدة في زيادة الوعي بالتنوع البيولوجي وتقديم خدمات النظم الإيكولوجية التي تساهم في تحقيق الرفاهية، ووجود نسبة كبيرة من سكان الاتحاد الأوروبي؛
م. في حين أن سياسات التنوع البيولوجي يجب أن تمتثل امتثالا تاما لمبدأ التبعية، بحيث تحترم تماما الاختلافات الإقليمية في المناظر الطبيعية والموائل؛
ن - مع مراعاة أهمية التنوع البيولوجي في المناطق الخارجية والبلدان والأقاليم في الخارج، التي تمثل احتياطيات فريدة من أنواع النباتات والحيوانات المتوطنة؛ بينما لا تطبق توجيهات الطيور والموائل في بعض هذه المناطق؛
1 - ترحب باستعراض منتصف المدة لاستراتيجية التنوع البيولوجي، وتقرير "حالة الطبيعة" و "تقرير عام 2018"؛ وتشدد على الأهمية الاستراتيجية لهذه التقارير لتحقيق أهداف التنوع البيولوجي للاتحاد الأوروبي؛
2 - تعرب عن بالغ قلقها إزاء استمرار فقدان التنوع البيولوجي؛ وتلاحظ أن أهداف عام 2020 لن تتحقق بدون بذل جهود إضافية وكبيرة ومستمرة؛ يلاحظ في الوقت نفسه أن الأدلة العلمية أثبتت أن طبيعة أوروبا ستكون في حالة أسوأ بكثير من دون التأثير الإيجابي لتوجيهات الاتحاد الأوروبي بشأن الطيور والموائل، وأن الجهود المستهدفة والممولة تمويلا مناسبا تحقق نتائج إيجابية حقا؛ بيد أنه يشدد على أنه لا تزال هناك إمكانات كبيرة للتحسين؛
3 - تؤكد أن تدمير الموائل هو أهم عامل يدفع فقدان التنوع البيولوجي، وهو أولوية خاصة عندما يتعلق الأمر بمعالجة هذه الخسارة، أي عن طريق الحد من التدهور والتجزؤ؛
4- يشدد على أن فقدان التنوع البيولوجي لا يشير إلى الأنواع والموائل فحسب، بل يشير أيضا إلى التنوع الجيني؛ وتدعو اللجنة إلى وضع استراتيجية لحفظ التنوع الجيني؛
5 - تشدد على الدور الحيوي للتنوع البيولوجي في أهداف التنمية المستدامة، ولا سيما الأهداف 14 ("حفظ المحيطات والبحار والموارد البحرية واستخدامها على نحو مستدام") و 15 ("حماية النظم الإيكولوجية الأرضية واستعادتها وتعزيز استخدامها على نحو مستدام ، وإدارة الغابات على نحو مستدام، ومكافحة التصحر، ووقف تدهور الأراضي وعكس اتجاهه ووقف فقدان التنوع البيولوجي ')؛ ويشير إلى أن الاتحاد الأوروبي لديه التنوع البيولوجي لا يصدق، وخاصة بفضل المناطق الخارجية، ولكن أيضا إلى البلدان والأقاليم في الخارج المرتبطة به؛ لذلك، يدعو الاتحاد الأوروبي إلى أن يظل ملتزما التزاما قويا بمواصلة تعزيز اتفاقية التنوع البيولوجي وضمان تنفيذها بفعالية؛
6 - تلاحظ أن تجزئة الموائل وتدهورها وتدميرها نتيجة لتغير استخدام الأراضي وتغير المناخ وأنماط الاستهلاك غير المستدامة واستخدام البحار هي بعض الضغوط الرئيسية والسائقين المسببين لفقدان التنوع البيولوجي في الاتحاد الأوروبي وخارج حدوده؛ على الحاجة إلى تحديد ووضع مؤشرات تقيس بشكل قاطع وعلمي حالة التنوع البيولوجي في منطقة أو منطقة معينة، وتدعم الاستخدام الرشيد والمستدام للموارد داخل الاتحاد الأوروبي وعلى الصعيد العالمي، بما في ذلك في البلدان النامية، و ، على وجه الخصوص، الاتحاد الأوروبي على تعزيز التزامه الدولي بالتنوع البيولوجي على نحو أفضل بتغير المناخ واستراتيجيات أوروبا 2020؛ ويشدد على أن الاقتصاد الأكثر كفاءة في استخدام الموارد وتخفيض الاستهلاك المفرط يمكنان الاتحاد الأوروبي من تقليل اعتماده على الموارد الطبيعية، ولا سيما من خارج أوروبا؛ وتذكر أيضا بأن النهج القائمة على النظم الإيكولوجية للتخفيف من آثار تغير المناخ والتكيف معه يمكن أن توفر بدائل فعالة من حيث التكلفة للحلول التكنولوجية، في حين أن التقدم في العديد من العلوم التطبيقية يعتمد على توافر الأصول الطبيعية وتنوعها على المدى الطويل؛
7 - تشدد على الأهمية الحاسمة لزيادة الإرادة السياسية على أعلى المستويات لحماية التنوع البيولوجي ووقف فقدان التنوع البيولوجي؛ أن تنفيذ التشريعات القائمة والإنفاذ وزيادة إدماج حماية التنوع البيولوجي في مجالات السياسات الأخرى أمر أساسي؛ ويدعو بصفة خاصة السلطات الإقليمية والمحلية في الدول الأعضاء إلى تقديم معلومات عن التنوع البيولوجي وزيادة الوعي به؛
8 - تشجب حقيقة أن حوالي ربع الأنواع البرية في أوروبا معرضة لخطر الانقراض والعديد من النظم الإيكولوجية قد تدهورت، مما أدى إلى أضرار اجتماعية واقتصادية شديدة بالنسبة للاتحاد الأوروبي؛
9 - تشدد على أن الطبيعة والتنمية الاقتصادية لا يستبعد أحدهما الآخر؛ مقتنعة بضرورة إدماج الطبيعة بصورة أكمل في المجتمع، بما في ذلك الاقتصاد والمؤسسات الخاصة، من أجل توليد نمو اقتصادي مستدام واتخاذ تدابير استباقية لحماية البيئة واستعادتها وتحسين إدارتها؛ على وجه الخصوص، أن الالتزام بتخفيض استغلال الموارد يجب أن يكون أساسيا في دمج الأهداف البيئية والاقتصادية؛
10 - تشدد على أن خسارة التنوع البيولوجي لها تكاليف اقتصادية مدمرة بالنسبة للمجتمع، والتي لم تدمج حتى الآن في السياسات الاقتصادية وغيرها من السياسات بما فيه الكفاية؛ ترى أن من الأهمية بمكان الاعتراف بأن الاستثمار في التنوع البيولوجي ضروري من وجهة نظر اجتماعية - اقتصادية؛ وتلاحظ أن واحدة من ست وظائف في الاتحاد الأوروبي تعتمد إلى حد ما على الطبيعة والتنوع البيولوجي؛ وتشدد على أن التنوع البيولوجي ينطوي على إمكانيات كبيرة لخلق مهارات وفرص عمل وفرص تجارية جديدة؛ ويرحب بأساليب قياس القيمة الاقتصادية للتنوع البيولوجي؛ أن هذه الصكوك يمكن أن ترفع مستوى الوعي وتحسن استخدام الموارد المتاحة وتؤدي إلى اتخاذ قرارات أفضل؛
11 - تدعو اللجنة إلى تعزيز الدور الذي يؤديه التنوع البيولوجي والنظم الإيكولوجية في الشؤون الاقتصادية، بغية الانتقال إلى الاقتصاد الأخضر، على أن تعزز اللجنة التدابير المتخذة لدعم تخضير الفصل الدراسي الأوروبي؛ وتشدد على أن التنوع البيولوجي مسؤولية اجتماعية شاملة لا يمكن أن تستند فقط إلى الإنفاق العام؛
12 - ترى أن القيمة الاقتصادية للتنوع البيولوجي ينبغي أن تنعكس في مؤشرات تسترشد بها عملية صنع القرار، دون أن تؤدي إلى سلعة التنوع البيولوجي وتتجاوز الناتج المحلي الإجمالي؛ مقتنعة بأن ذلك سيعود بالفائدة على السعي لتحقيق أهداف التنمية المستدامة؛ في هذا الصدد، إلى إدراج قيم التنوع البيولوجي في النظم المحاسبية الوطنية بصورة منهجية كجزء من عملية رصد أهداف التنمية المستدامة؛
13 - تشدد على أن الاتحاد الأوروبي والدول الأعضاء فيه أخفق في تحقيق أهداف استراتيجية التنوع البيولوجي لعام 2018؛ يدعو اللجنة، نظرا لعدم إحراز تقدم نحو تحقيق أهداف التنوع البيولوجي لعام 2020، إلى تزويد البرلمان بتقريرين يقدمان كل سنتين تفاصيل عن حالة اللعب وأسباب عدم الإنجاز واستراتيجية ضمان المستقبل الالتزام؛
استعراض منتصف المدة لاستراتيجية التنوع البيولوجي.
14 - تدعو اللجنة والدول الأعضاء، على سبيل الاستعجال، إلى إيلاء أولوية عليا لتحقيق أهداف عام 2020؛ ويدعو إلى اتباع نهج متعدد أصحاب المصلحة، ويشدد على الدور الحيوي للجهات الفاعلة الوطنية والإقليمية والمحلية، وعلى مشاركتها الكاملة في هذه العملية؛ وتشدد على أن التمويل وزيادة الوعي العام والتفهم والدعم لحماية التنوع البيولوجي ضرورية أيضا؛ ترى أن وجود سياسة إعلامية جيدة ومشاركة جميع الجهات الفاعلة المعنية في وقت مبكر، بما في ذلك الجهات الفاعلة الاجتماعية والاقتصادية، أمر أساسي لتحقيق هذه الأهداف؛
15 - يدعو الاتحاد الأوروبي إلى خفض بصمة التنوع البيولوجي في جميع أنحاء العالم، تمشيا مع مبدأ اتساق السياسات من أجل التنمية، وإدراجه ضمن الحدود الإيكولوجية للنظم الإيكولوجية عن طريق إحراز تقدم في تحقيق الأهداف الرئيسية للتنوع البيولوجي والوفاء بالالتزامات المتعلقة بحماية التنوع البيولوجي . يدعو أيضا الاتحاد الأوروبي إلى مساعدة البلدان النامية في جهودها الرامية إلى حفظ التنوع البيولوجي وضمان استخدامها المستدام؛
16 - تعرب عن استيائها للتقدم البطيء الذي أحرزته الدول الأعضاء في تنفيذ التشريعات البيئية للاتحاد الأوروبي؛ ويبرز الحاجة إلى مزيد من المعلومات عن حالة التنفيذ في الدول الأعضاء؛
17 - تشدد على أن التنفيذ الكامل والإنفاذ والتمويل الكافي للتوجيهات المتعلقة بالطبيعة هو شرط مسبق حيوي لضمان نجاح الاستراتيجية ككل وتحقيق هدفها الرئيسي؛ وتدعو، في ضوء ضيق الوقت المتاح، إلى أن تبذل كل الأطراف المعنية قصارى جهدها لتحقيق ذلك وتوليد دعم واسع النطاق؛
18 - يحث زعماء الاتحاد الأوروبي على الاستماع إلى نصف مليون مواطن دعوا إلى تأييد قوانيننا لحماية الطبيعة القوية وتنفيذها على نحو أفضل؛
19 - تدعو اللجنة إلى تحسين المبادئ التوجيهية التي من شأنها أن تيسر التنفيذ الكامل وإنفاذ التوجيهات وفقا لقانون السوابق القضائية القائم؛ وتدعو اللجنة إلى إعطاء أولوية أعلى للحوار مع الدول الأعضاء وجميع أصحاب المصلحة المعنيين، بما في ذلك الجهات الفاعلة الاجتماعية والاقتصادية، من أجل تشجيع تبادل أفضل الممارسات؛
20 - تعترف بأن أحد الفوائد الرئيسية لتوجيهات الطبيعة هو مدى مساعدتها على ضمان تكافؤ الفرص في جميع أنحاء الاتحاد الأوروبي من خلال توفير معيار أساسي لحماية البيئة يجب أن تفي به جميع الدول الأعضاء، وفقا لمتطلبات مشتركة والمعايير ومبدأ الاعتراف المتبادل داخل السوق الواحدة؛
21 - تلاحظ أن 58 في المائة فقط من مواقع ناتورا 2000 كانت لديها خطط إدارية في عام 2018؛ تشعر بالقلق إزاء اختلاف مستويات التنفيذ؛ وتحث الدول الأعضاء على استكمال تعيين مواقع ناتورا 2000 الأرضية والبحرية، ووضع خطط للإدارة، بالتشاور مع جميع أصحاب المصلحة؛
22 - تؤكد أنه في حين أن إدارة مواقع ناتورا 2000 في الاتحاد الأوروبي تكلف ما لا يقل عن 5.8 بليون يورو، فإنها تحقق منافع بيئية واجتماعية واقتصادية تبلغ قيمتها 200 بليون يورو إلى 300 بليون يورو سنويا؛ ويدعو الدول الأعضاء إلى ضمان إدارة مواقع ناتورا 2000 بشفافية؛
23 - يعترف بالمساهمة الحيوية التي ستلعبها المناطق المحمية البحرية المنشأة في إطار شبكة ناتورا 2000 في تحقيق وضع بيئي جيد بموجب التوجيه الإطاري للاستراتيجية البحرية، وفي تحقيق الهدف العالمي المتمثل في حماية 10 في المائة من المناطق الساحلية والبحرية، على النحو المحدد في الهدف 11 من أهداف أيشي للتنوع البيولوجي بحلول عام 2020؛ وتأسف لأن هذا الهدف لا يزال بعيد المنال؛
24 - تدعو اللجنة والدول الأعضاء إلى زيادة جمع البيانات ورصد الموائل والأنواع، ولا سيما حيث توجد ثغرات كبيرة، من أجل تقييم التقدم المحرز في تحقيق هذه الأهداف؛
25 - تعرب عن قلقها لعدم وجود معلومات مفصلة عن التمويل والتمويل الفعليين لحفظ الطبيعة من جانب كل دولة عضو؛ تعتبر هذه فجوة كبيرة في معرفتنا؛ وتدعو اللجنة والدول الأعضاء إلى تحديد وتصنيف بنود الميزانية الوطنية ذات الصلة دون إبطاء؛
26 - تكرر تأكيد دعواتها السابقة إلى مشاركة الاتحاد الأوروبي في تمويل إدارة مواقع ناتورا 2000، التي ينبغي أن تكون مكملة لصناديق التنمية الريفية والهيكلية وصيد الأسماك، والأموال التي تتيحها الدول الأعضاء؛
27 - تحث اللجنة والدول الأعضاء على مواصلة إنفاذ توجيهات الطبيعة بضمير؛ وتشدد على ضرورة تحسين الامتثال لتشريعات الاتحاد الأوروبي وإنفاذها، على سبيل المثال، باستخدام عقوبات متناسبة وفعالة ورادعة؛
28 - تدعو، في هذا السياق، إلى بذل جهود إضافية لوقف جميع أعمال القتل غير المشروع، ومحاصرة الطيور وتداولها، وحل النزاعات المحلية الناتجة؛ وتدعو اللجنة والدول الأعضاء إلى استحداث أدوات جديدة للكشف عن الأنشطة غير المشروعة في مواقع ناتورا 2000؛
29 - يدعو اللجنة إلى تقديم اقتراح محدد بشأن إنشاء شبكة عبر أوروبا للبنية التحتية الخضراء بحلول عام 2017؛ وتشجع على القيام، بالاقتران مع الدول الأعضاء، بوضع استراتيجية لممرات الحياة البرية الأوروبية للأنواع المستهدفة؛
30 - تهيب بالدول الأعضاء التي لم تقم بعد بوضع وتنفيذ أطر لترتيب أولويات استعادة النظم الإيكولوجية أن تفعل ذلك على الفور؛
31 - يدعو الدول الأعضاء إلى إعطاء الأولوية لاستعادة 15 في المائة من النظم الإيكولوجية المتدهورة بحلول عام 2020، واستخدام الاعتمادات المتاحة في إطار هذا الإطار؛ وتطلب إلى اللجنة أن تقدم مبادئ توجيهية بشأن كيفية استخدام هذه الاعتمادات لاستعادة النظم الإيكولوجية المتدهورة ولحماية التنوع البيولوجي بوجه عام؛
32 - توجه الانتباه إلى أهمية الزراعة والحراجة لبلوغ هذا الهدف، وإلى الحاجة إلى حلول مستدامة للزراعة والغابات؛
33 - تعترف بالأثر السلبي لتلوث الهواء على التنوع البيولوجي وخدمات النظم الإيكولوجية، مع استخدام الأحمال الحرجة للنيتروجين المغذي والحمضية كمؤشر للضغط على النظم الإيكولوجية الطبيعية وتنوع الأنواع؛
34 - تدعو اللجنة والدول الأعضاء إلى الاستثمار في التنوع البيولوجي من أجل دعم قدرة الشركات على الابتكار، ولا سيما في مجال الهندسة الإيكولوجية؛
35 - تلاحظ أن إدراج حفظ الطبيعة في مجالات أخرى من مجالات السياسات لا يزال ذا أهمية قصوى، وتشدد على الدور الحاسم للزراعة والحراجة في هذا الصدد؛
36- تشدد على أن الحفاظ على التنوع البيولوجي أمر أساسي لإنتاج الأغذية والأعلاف، وبالتالي فهو في مصلحة المزارعين. يسلط الضوء على أهمية نهج أصحاب المصلحة المتعددين الذي ينطوي أيضا بنشاط على إشراك المزارعين ومشغلي الغابات وتشجيعهم على التصدي لهذه التحديات بصورة مشتركة؛
37 - يشير إلى أن للسياسة الزراعية المشتركة بالفعل أدوات لاستعادة التنوع البيولوجي والحفاظ عليه وتعزيزه، مثل مجالات التركيز الإيكولوجي؛ إلى أن استعادة النظم الإيكولوجية المتعلقة بالزراعة والحراجة، بما في ذلك في مناطق ناتورا 2000، والمحافظة عليها وتعزيزها، يبرز كأحد الأولويات الرئيسية الست للتنمية الريفية في الاتحاد الأوروبي؛
38 - تلاحظ مع الأسف أنه لم يحدث بعد تحسن ملموس في حالة التنوع البيولوجي في الزراعة، ولكنها تدرك أنه ما زال من السابق لأوانه قياس الفعالية الحقيقية لبرنامج المساعدة الإنمائية الذي تم إصلاحه؛ ويرحب بخطط اللجنة لتقييم التقدم المحرز في تنفيذ عملية النداءات الموحدة، ويحث اللجنة والدول الأعضاء على رصد وتقييم تدابير تحسين البيئة، بما في ذلك تقييم مرونة الدول الأعضاء، وتدابير التنمية الريفية ذات الصلة، سياق عملية النداء الموحد؛ ويدعو اللجنة إلى مراعاة النتائج التي توصلت إليها في استعراض منتصف المدة لعملية النداءات الموحدة؛
39 - تهيب بالدول الأعضاء أن تستفيد على نحو أفضل من أدوات سياسة النداءات الموحدة والتماسك القائمة لمساعدة مشغلي المزارعين والغابات على تحقيق أهداف التنوع البيولوجي؛
ويبرز الحاجة إلى تعزيز الاستخدام المستدام للموارد الوراثية النباتية والأصناف الزراعية التقليدية، إلى جانب الحلول المستدامة للزراعة والغابات؛
40- تشدد على ضرورة أن يكون التعليم للجميع من حيث المبدأ مجالات لحماية وتعزيز العمليات الزراعية الإيكولوجية مثل التلقيح وحفظ التربة؛ يطلب من اللجنة نشر بيانات عن عدد الدول الأعضاء التي سمحت باستخدام مبيدات الآفات والأسمدة في هذه الاتفاقات منذ بدء نفاذ اللائحة التنظيمية للاتحاد الأوروبي رقم 1307/2018؛
41 - تطلب إلى اللجنة، تحقيقا للشفافية، أن تعلن علنا المبررات التي تقدمها الدول الأعضاء لاختيارها لتدابير التخضير؛
42 - تصر على أن تقوم اللجنة والدول الأعضاء بضمان إعادة توجيه الموارد المالية في إطار عملية النداءات الموحدة من دعم الأنشطة الضارة بيئيا لتمويل الممارسات الزراعية المستدامة والحفاظ على التنوع البيولوجي المتصل؛
43- تشدد على ضرورة حماية التنوع البيولوجي الزراعي في البلدان النامية من أجل تحقيق الأمن الغذائي؛ يدعو اللجنة إلى الاستثمار في الإيكولوجيا الزراعية في البلدان النامية، تمشيا مع توصيات المقرر الخاص للأمم المتحدة المعني بالحق في الغذاء؛
44 - تدعو اللجنة إلى تعزيز الإدارة المستدامة للغابات في العالم عن طريق ضمان العمليات الإيكولوجية والتنوع البيولوجي للغابات والإنتاجية واحترام حقوق السكان الأصليين في الحفاظ على الموارد الحرجية؛ تدعو اللجنة بالإضافة إلى ذلك إلى حظر تدمير الغابات الطبيعية وحماية الأنواع المهددة بالانقراض وحظر مبيدات الآفات السامة وزرع الأشجار المعدلة وراثيا؛
45 - تدعو اللجنة إلى أن تأخذ في اعتبارها، كجزء من استراتيجيتها لدعم التنوع البيولوجي، للغابات المدارية، نظرا لتركيزها على النظم الإيكولوجية والموائل والأنواع الضعيفة المعرضة للخطر بصفة خاصة، ودورها الحيوي في تحقيق التوازن البيئي والمناخ، والوظائف الاجتماعية والثقافية للسكان الأصليين؛
46 - تدعو الدول الأعضاء إلى وضع وتنفيذ خطط لإدارة الغابات بهدف تحسين حالة حفظ موائل الغابات وأنواعها وتحسين توافر المعلومات؛ وتطلب إلى اللجنة وضع معايير ومعايير لجمع المعلومات عن التنوع البيولوجي للغابات، بغية ضمان الاتساق وقابلية المقارنة؛
47- توجه الانتباه إلى التهديد المحتمل للتنوع البيولوجي الناجم عن الطلب المتزايد على الوقود الزراعي والضغط المتزايد على البلدان النامية على إنتاجها من خلال تحويل وتدهور الموائل والنظم الإيكولوجية مثل الأراضي الرطبة والغابات؛
48- يحث على أن تشكل معايير الاستدامة الاجتماعية والبيئية لإنتاج الكتلة الأحيائية جزءا متماسكا من الإطار الذي حدده توجيه الطاقة المتجددة (ريد)؛ ترى أنه من الأهمية بمكان وضع معايير للاستدامة لجميع القطاعات التي يمكن فيها استخدام الكتلة الأحيائية إلى جانب معايير الإدارة المستدامة للغابات لضمان ألا تساهم الطاقة الحيوية في تغير المناخ أو أن تصبح محركا إضافيا للاستيلاء على الأراضي وانعدام الأمن الغذائي؛
49 - تلاحظ مع القلق أن 90 في المائة من زيت النخيل المستهلك في العالم ينتج في إندونيسيا وماليزيا على حساب غابات الخث التي يتم حرقها لإفساح المجال أمام مزارع السنط الكبيرة والنخيل؛ يشير إلى أن إندونيسيا، وفقا لدراسة أجراها البنك الدولي، أصبحت ثالث أكبر مصدر للبث من غازات الدفيئة، وذلك تحديدا بسبب حرائق الغابات؛
50 - تدعو اللجنة والدول الأعضاء إلى تنفيذ سياسة مصايد الأسماك المشتركة التي تم إصلاحها بشكل صحيح وفوري، وتطبيق إدارة مصائد الأسماك القائمة على النظم الإيكولوجية من أجل تحقيق الهدف المتمثل في تحقيق أقصى قدر ممكن من الغلة المستدامة عن طريق جملة أمور منها تعزيز أساليب الصيد المستدامة والمبتكرة؛ وتشدد على أهمية الحد من التلوث من أجل حماية أمور منها التنوع البيولوجي البحري والمخزونات، ودعم النمو الاقتصادي عن طريق الاقتصاد الأزرق؛
51 - تشدد على الأهمية الأساسية للنظم الإيكولوجية والموارد البحرية كأساس للتنمية المستدامة للبلدان الساحلية؛ ويدعو الدول الأعضاء إلى تنفيذ الالتزامات السابقة بالكامل والعمل مع الحكومات على الصعد العالمي والإقليمي والوطني من أجل تحقيق زيادة كبيرة في الطموح والعمل من أجل تحقيق مصائد مستدامة منصفة واقتصادية وبيئية؛
52 - يدعو اللجنة والدول الأعضاء إلى ضمان قيام الاتحاد الأوروبي بدور قيادي في تأمين اتفاق بموجب اتفاقية الأمم المتحدة لقانون البحار بشأن حفظ التنوع البيولوجي البحري واستخدامه على نحو مستدام خارج نطاق ولاية الدول .
53 - تدعو اللجنة إلى العمل مع الدول الأعضاء والبلدان الثالثة لتحسين تنفيذ لائحة المجلس رقم 1005/2008 بشأن الصيد غير المشروع وغير المبلغ عنه وغير المنظم؛
54 - تدعو اللجنة والدول الأعضاء إلى تحسين النوعية البيئية لبحار الاتحاد الأوروبي عن طريق تنفيذ مشاريع تسعى إلى خفض التلوث الكيميائي والفيزيائي والميكروبيولوجي عن طريق الاستفادة القصوى من استدامة حركة الملاحة البحرية وحماية التنوع البيولوجي، وهو أمر محتم للخطر؛ وتلاحظ في هذا الصدد أن 12.7 مليون طن من البلاستيك (5 في المائة من مجموع الإنتاج) ينتهي بها المطاف في المحيطات كل عام من خلال شبكات المجاري والمجاري المائية ومدفن النفايات على طول السواحل، الأمر الذي يعطل البيئة والتنوع البيولوجي لكوكب الأرض بأكمله؛
55 - يحث اللجنة على أن تضع، دون تأخير ووفقا للمادة 4 من اللائحة رقم 1143/2017، قائمة دقيقة وشاملة بالأنواع الغريبة الغازية التي تهم الاتحاد، على أساس أن هذه القائمة لا ينبغي أن يقتصر على عدد محدد من الأنواع وينبغي أن يشمل إجراءات تنفيذ كاملة ومتماسكة - مدعومة بالموارد المناسبة - تهدف إلى تحقيق الأهداف؛ وتشدد على أهمية تحديث هذه القائمة بانتظام وإجراء تقييمات إضافية للمخاطر فيما يتعلق بالأنواع، بحيث يمكن للتشريع المتعلق بالأنواع الغريبة الغازية أن يكون أداة قوية؛
56 - تدعو جميع الدول الأعضاء إلى التصديق على اتفاقية المنظمة البحرية الدولية لإدارة مياە الصابورة بهدف منع انتشار الأنواع الغريبة الغازية من خلال النقل البحري والبحري للمياه والمساهمة في تنفيذ الهدف وتحقيقه؛
57 - تهيب بالدول الأعضاء أن ترصد واردات الأنواع الغريبة إلى أراضيها وأن تقدم إليها تقارير منتظمة إلى اللجنة وغيرها من الدول الأعضاء؛ وتدعو إلى فرض قيود أكبر على الواردات والحيازة الخاصة للأنواع المهددة بالانقراض، بما في ذلك الرئيسيات والزواحف والبرمائيات؛
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 2018 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 2018;
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 2017-2020, 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 2018 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 2017 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 2017’, 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 2018. The EU responded by drawing up a new strategy in 2018. 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 2018, 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 2018’ and ‘The State of Nature’ reports. The international perspective of the Global Biodiversity Outlook Report 2017 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 2018; 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 - 52018DC0478 - 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 52018DC0478.
COM(2018) 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 2018. 3.
The EU 2018 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 2018, 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 2018 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 2007-2018 vs 2001-2006 13 ).
2. Summary of progress since 2018.
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 2018 biodiversity baseline, biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU have continued , as confirmed by the 2018 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 2018 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 2018 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 2018.
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 2018 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 2018, 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 2018.
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 2018 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 2000-2018. 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 2018.
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 2018 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 2017-2020 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 (2007-2018 vs 2001-2006) in conservation status for habitats of Community interest associated with agricultural ecosystems (grassland and cropland)
Source: EEA 2018.
The 2018 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 2018 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 2007-2018, 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 2018, 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 2017-2020 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 2018 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 2018 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 (2007-2018 vs 2001-2006) in conservation status for habitats of Community interest associated with woodland and forest ecosystem at EU-27 level 31.
Source: EEA 2018.
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 2018, 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 2018*. 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 2017, aims to ensure MSY exploitation rates for all stocks by 2018 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 2018.
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 2018. 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 2018 , 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 2018.
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 2018 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 2018.
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 2017. New legislation has been adopted to regulate compliance measures, and an additional implementing act is being prepared.
The 2018 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 2018, 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 2018 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 2018 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 2017.
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.
معدل الضريبة على خيارات الأسهم قصيرة الأجل.
Canada forex leverage.
Preparation of the mid-term review of the eu biodiversity strategy.
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. 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. Basic ecosystem services have continued deteriorating. Mid-term strategy is an integral part of the Europe strategy 6 and preparation 7 th Environmental Action Programme. The strategy is built around six targets, each supported by a set of actions. The present mid-term review takes stock preparation progress in implementing the EU biodiversity strategy against the baseline. It aims to inform decision-makers of areas in which increased efforts are needed to meet the EU biodiversity objectives by The socio-economic costs of not delivering on the EU biodiversity targets. Restoring ecosystems and green infrastructure can improve air and water quality and flood control, reduce noise, encourage recreation and promote opportunities for green businesses. Maintaining healthy marine habitats and sustainable fish stocks is essential for the long-term viability of the fishing sector. 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 the the EU by 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: The mid-term review draws on the best available information from a wide range of sources summarised in the accompanying Staff Working Document. Summary of progress since Halt the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU byand restore them in so far as the, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss. Overall, as compared with the EU biodiversity baseline, biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU have continuedas confirmed by the European environment — state and outlook report. While many local successes demonstrate the action on the ground delivers positive outcomes, these examples need to be scaled up to the a measurable impact on the overall negative trends. 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 forestspollution, over-exploitation in particular fisheries the alien species and climate change — continue to exert pressure causing loss of species and habitats and resulting in ecosystem degradation and weakening ecosystem resilience. 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 mid-term objectives in policy areas not directly the 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. 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, bycompared preparation current assessments: However, many habitats and species that were already strategy unfavourable status remain so, and some are deteriorating further. While much has been achieved since in carrying out the actions under this target, the most important challenges remain the completion of the Natura marine network, ensuring the effective management of Natura sites, review securing the necessary finance to support the Natura network. Figure 1 — Progress towards Target 1: 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. Member States have progressed at different rates in developing and implementing action plans for species and Natura site management plans. Guidance has been developed on use of wind energy, port development and dredging, extractive biodiversity, agriculture, aquaculture, forests and energy infrastructure in the context of Natura sites. 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 strategy awareness raising have been stepped up with the launch of the Natura communication platform, an annual Natura 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 Progress has been made on review and knowledge improvement actions under this target, the some restoration activities have taken place in Member States. However, biodiversity has not yet halted the trend of degradation of ecosystems and services. Mid-term and regional frameworks to promote restoration and green infrastructure need to be developed and implemented. A lot remains to review done to halt the loss of ordinary biodiversity outside the Natura network. Figure strategy — Trends in pressures on ecosystems. Heathland, shrub and sparsely vegetated land. Observed impact on biodiversity to date. Recent analysis 23 confirms increasing trends for some provisioning services e. As illustrated in Figure 2, some major pressures on ecosystems are decreasing e. The Commission and Member States have taken important steps to improve the knowledge base. The Joint Research Centre report provides a solid baseline against which progress will be tracked, with a first update expected in 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 the national restoration prioritisation frameworks. Further investments, coupled with the 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. Increase the contribution of agriculture preparation forestry to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity. Target 3A — Agriculture: 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 CAP reform for provides a range of instruments that can contribute to supporting biodiversity. Biodiversity 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 the by Figure 3 preparation Changes vs in conservation status for habitats of Community interest associated with agricultural ecosystems grassland and cropland. The 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. As illustrated mid-term 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. While populations of common bird species have started stabilising sincefarmland birds have continued declining. Pollination services are in steep decline 27 with multiple pressures on wild bees. 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 Preparation sites. Such successes carry an important message on the achievability of the biodiversity target, but would need to be spread wider to achieve measurable results at EU level. The CAP reform for 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 biodiversity rural development programmes, collaboration mechanisms among farmers and foresters, and a greater focus on advising farmers on water and pesticide use but biodiversity on biodiversity, including the obligations under the Birds and Habitats Directives. Based on programmes adopted at the time of finalising this report, Understanding the reasons for disparity in take-up among Member States will be critical for further progress towards the target. Target 3B — Forests: EU forest area has increased as compared with the EU biodiversity baseline. However, the conservation status of forest habitats and species covered by EU nature legislation shows no significant signs the improvement. EU-level data on the status of forest habitats outside Natura is limited. Forest management plans or mid-term instruments can play an important positive role in achieving the target, but their potential remains largely unused. Figure 4 preparation Change vs in conservation status for habitats of Community interest associated with woodland and forest ecosystem at EU level 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. 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 mid-term covered by some form of management plan but there nevertheless remain significant variations strategy the Member States. The take-up of the 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. 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 byas required strategy the Marine Strategy Framework Directive MSFD. 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. 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. Fishing mortality has significantly decreased for a number of stocks in the Baltic strategy the greater North Sea. Climate change and acidification compound the negative impacts of overfishing, pollution and marine litter, habitat destruction and invasive alien species. In support of reducing the adverse impact of review on non-target species and ecosystems, the new common fisheries policy aims — through the gradual introduction of a landing obligation by — 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 byalong with improved monitoring, broadening the knowledge base and coordination of marine biodiversity information. Strategy on experience and expanding research networks will be a key task. ByInvasive 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 the fast-growing threat to biodiversity. The IAS Regulation 36 entered into force in Work is under way to propose the first list of invasive alien species of Union concern. If this list is adopted by the end ofthe EU can be considered to be on track with the actions envisaged under Target 5. The next critical step for mid-term 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. 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 strategy is being the up to assist Member States in its implementation. A scanning exercise to prioritise biodiversity risk assessments will support a preventive approach. The Commission's 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. Bythe EU has stepped up its contribution to averting global biodiversity loss. The EU mid-term 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 the biodiversity. On the current trajectory, existing efforts may not be sufficient to meet the Aichi Biodiversity Targets by the deadlines. The EU is the largest contributor to biodiversity-related official development assistance and has more than doubled funding between and 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 New legislation has been adopted to regulate compliance measures, and an additional implementing act is being prepared. The EU Timber Regulation aims to stop the circulation of illegally logged wood on the EU the. 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 footprint is over twice the size of its biocapacity. Figure 6 — Ecological footprint per region of the world. All recent Review 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 biodiversity tackling illicit trafficking in wildlife. 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 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 and maintaining them untilas 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. Insufficient financing was a major factor in the failure to reach the 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 review. 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. EU financing instruments are key in delivering on international biodiversity commitments, in the through the Development and Cooperation Instrument and the European Development Fund, as well as under the Partnership Instrument. There has been considerable progress preparation 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. 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 the 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 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 preparation 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 The 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 preparation the EU biodiversity strategy shows that the 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 biodiversity 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 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 review 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 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 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 network for the marine strategy, ensuring effective management of Natura sites and implementing the Invasive Alien Species Regulation, and considering the most suitable approach for recognizing our natural capital throughout the EU. 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. This site uses cookies to improve your browsing experience. Would you like to keep them? Access to European Union law. Use "" for exact matches. نود أن نسمع منك. Languages and formats available. Language 1 Bulgarian bg Spanish es Czech cs Danish da German de Estonian et Greek el English en French fr Croatian hr Italian it Latvian lv Lithuanian lt Hungarian hu Maltese mt Dutch nl Polish pl Portuguese pt Romanian ro Slovak sk Slovenian sl Finnish fi Swedish sv Language 2 Please choose Bulgarian bg Spanish es Czech cs Danish da German de Estonian et Greek el English en French fr Croatian hr Italian it Latvian lv Lithuanian lt Hungarian hu Maltese mt Dutch nl Polish pl Portuguese pt Romanian ro Slovak sk Slovenian sl Finnish fi Swedish sv Language 3 Please choose Bulgarian bg Spanish es Czech cs Danish da German de Estonian et Greek el English en French fr Croatian hr Italian it Latvian lv Lithuanian lt Hungarian hu Maltese mt Dutch nl Polish pl Portuguese pt Romanian ro Slovak sk Slovenian sl Finnish fi Swedish sv. Introduction Biodiversity — the unique variety of life on our planet — underpins our economy and well-being. Note on methodology The assessment of progress in the mid-term review takes account of the way that the different targets are defined. Summary of progress since Headline target: EEA 22 Recent biodiversity 23 confirms increasing trends for some provisioning services e. Figure 3 — Changes vs in conservation status for habitats of Community interest associated with agricultural ecosystems grassland and cropland Source: EEA The 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. Figure 4 — Change vs in conservation status for habitats of Community interest associated with woodland and forest ecosystem at EU level 31 Source: EEA The new IAS Regulation provides a framework to prevent and manage the introduction and spread of invasive alien species in the EU. Figure 6 — Ecological footprint per region of the world Source: EEA Review 42 All recent EU free trade agreements have provisions on the implementation of multilateral environmental agreements. Financing Insufficient financing was a major factor in the failure to reach the biodiversity target. Partnerships There has been considerable progress in establishing partnerships and engaging stakeholders and civil society. Strengthening the knowledge base The knowledge and evidence strategy 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 mid-term the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Conclusion Review mid-term review assessing progress under the EU biodiversity strategy shows that the biodiversity targets can only be reached if implementation and enforcement efforts become considerably bolder and more ambitious. Target 3A focuses on the contribution of the common agricultural policy. Other sites managed by the Publications Office EU Bookshop EU Open Data Portal Ted Whoiswho CORDIS N-Lex EU law and publications. Direct access Official Journal EU law and related documents National mid-term Preparatory acts More Practical information FAQ Help Contact EuroVoc. My EUR-Lex Preferences My recent searches My items My RSS feeds. About this website Legal notice Biodiversity Top. Pollution and nutrient enrichment. Freshwater rivers and lakes. Projected future trends in pressure.
Ulrike Muller 1 Feb 2018 plenary speech on EU biodiversity strategy.
3 thoughts on “Preparation of the mid-term review of the eu biodiversity strategy”
When I first visited Boston I immediately knew that it was my favorite city of all the ones I had ever been to, and the vibrancy and energy I experienced there are unparalleled.
She will be hurting and I have enormous empathy for her I have to use.
For the Brits, coaching, even practicing, was, well, unsporting.
publictenders.
Section I: Contracting authority.
I.1) Name, addresses and contact point(s)
European Commission, Directorate-General for the Environment, SRD.2 — Finance.
Tel: +32 22960008.
The above mentioned contact point(s)
The above mentioned contact point(s)
The above mentioned contact point(s)
I.2) Type of the contracting authority.
European institution/agency or international organisation.
I.3) Main activity.
I.4) Contract award on behalf of other contracting authorities.
The contracting authority is purchasing on behalf of other contracting authorities: no.
Section II: Object of the contract.
II.1) Description.
II.1.1) Title attributed to the contract by the contracting authority:
Preparation of the mid-term review of the EU biodiversity strategy.
II.1.2) Type of contract and location of works, place of delivery or of performance.
Service category No 12: Architectural services; engineering services and integrated engineering services; urban planning and landscape engineering services; related scientific and technical consulting services; technical testing and analysis services.
Main site or location of works, place of delivery or of performance: 'Extra muros'.
II.1.3) Information about a public contract, a framework agreement or a dynamic purchasing system (DPS)
The notice involves a public contract.
II.1.4) Information on framework agreement.
II.1.5) Short description of the contract or purchase(s)
The objective of the contract is to support the Commission in its reporting activities on progress in implementing the EU 2020 biodiversity strategy and in reaching its 2020 biodiversity targets.
II.1.6) Common procurement vocabulary (CPV)
II.1.7) Information about Government Procurement Agreement (GPA)
The contract is covered by the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA): yes.
This contract is divided into lots: no.
II.1.9) Information about variants.
Variants will be accepted: no.
II.2) Quantity or scope of the contract.
II.2.1) Total quantity or scope:
'Single contract' of 3 years (total 36 months). The price range is fixed between 250 000 EUR and 300 000 EUR excluding VAT (including fees, travel and all other costs).
Estimated value excluding VAT:
Range: between 250 000 and 300 000 EUR.
II.2.2) Information about options.
II.2.3) Information about renewals.
This contract is subject to renewal: no.
II.3) Duration of the contract or time limit for completion.
Duration in months: 36 (from the award of the contract)
Section III: Legal, economic, financial and technical information.
III.1) Conditions relating to the contract.
III.1.1) Deposits and guarantees required:
III.1.2) Main financing conditions and payment arrangements and/or reference to the relevant provisions governing them:
Please refer to tender documents. See Article 1.4 of the model contract.
III.1.3) Legal form to be taken by the group of economic operators to whom the contract is to be awarded:
Please refer to tender documents. See points 1.3 and 1.4 of the tender specifications.
III.1.4) Other particular conditions.
The performance of the contract is subject to particular conditions: no.
III.2) Conditions for participation.
III.2.1) Personal situation of economic operators, including requirements relating to enrolment on professional or trade registers.
Information and formalities necessary for evaluating if the requirements are met: Please refer to the tender documents. See points 1.1 and 1.6 of the tender specifications.
III.2.2) Economic and financial ability.
Information and formalities necessary for evaluating if the requirements are met: Please refer to the tender documents. See point 2.3.1 of the tender specifications.
III.2.3) Technical capacity.
Information and formalities necessary for evaluating if the requirements are met:
Please refer to the tender documents. See point 2.3.2 of the tender specifications.
III.2.4) Information about reserved contracts.
III.3) Conditions specific to services contracts.
III.3.1) Information about a particular profession.
Execution of the service is reserved to a particular profession: no.
III.3.2) Staff responsible for the execution of the service.
Legal persons should indicate the names and professional qualifications of the staff responsible for the execution of the service: yes.
Section IV: Procedure.
IV.1) Type of procedure.
IV.1.1) Type of procedure.
IV.1.2) Limitations on the number of operators who will be invited to tender or to participate.
IV.1.3) Reduction of the number of operators during the negotiation or dialogue.
IV.2) Award criteria.
IV.2.1) Award criteria.
The most economically advantageous tender in terms of the criteria stated in the specifications, in the invitation to tender or to negotiate or in the descriptive document.
IV.2.2) Information about electronic auction.
An electronic auction will be used: no.
IV.3) Administrative information.
IV.3.1) File reference number attributed by the contracting authority:
IV.3.2) Previous publication(s) concerning the same contract.
Notice number in the OJEU: 2018/S 38-059076 of 22.2.2018.
IV.3.3) Conditions for obtaining specifications and additional documents or descriptive document.
Payable documents: no.
IV.3.4) Time limit for receipt of tenders or requests to participate.
IV.3.5) Date of dispatch of invitations to tender or to participate to selected candidates.
IV.3.6) Language(s) in which tenders or requests to participate may be drawn up.
Any EU official language.
IV.3.7) Minimum time frame during which the tenderer must maintain the tender.
Duration in months: 9 (from the date stated for receipt of tender)
IV.3.8) Conditions for opening of tenders.
Date: 8.7.2018 - 10:30.
avenue de Beaulieu 5, 1160 Brussels, BELGIUM.
Persons authorised to be present at the opening of tenders: yes.
Additional information about authorised persons and opening procedure: 1 representative per tenderer (with proof of identity) may attend the opening of tenders (no expenses paid). Please inform env-tenders@ec. europa. eu of the name of the attendee in advance of the opening.
Section VI: Complementary information.
VI.1) Information about recurrence.
This is a recurrent procurement: no.
VI.2) Information about European Union funds.
The contract is related to a project and/or programme financed by European Union funds: no.
VI.3) Additional information.
In line with Article 134.1(f) of the rules of application to the Financial Regulation No 966/2018 of 25.10.2018, during the 3 years following conclusion of the original contract, the contracting authority will be able to use the exceptional negotiated procedure for additional services (without prior publication of a contract notice) consisting in the repetition of similar services (up to a maximum of 50 % of the original contract value) entrusted to the economic operator awarded the initial contract by the same contracting authority.
Tender specifications and related documents for this call can be downloaded from the e-tendering link given in Section I.1.
These tender specifications may be complemented by an addendum/corrigendum or 'Questions & answers'. In such a case, this information will be published at the latest 5 working days before the deadline for tender submission. You are therefore invited to consult the site regularly. The documents will be visible and downloadable but if you ‘register' for the call by simply adding your e-mail address and a password, you will be automatically informed of all changes that may be published (additional documents, answers to questions raised, etc.).
The Commission will not be liable should the tenderers not take notice of this additional information before submitting their bids.
Please note that this was previously published in the PIN OJ S 38-059076 of 22.2.2018 with a different budget format. The contract is no longer renewable but a 3-year contract for total amount of maximum 300 000 EUR.
VI.4) Procedures for appeal.
VI.4.1) Body responsible for appeal procedures.
rue du Fort Niedergrünewald.
VI.4.2) Lodging of appeals.
Precise information on deadline(s) for lodging appeals: Within 2 months of the notification to the plaintiff, or, in absence thereof, of the day on which it came to the knowledge. A complaint to the European Ombudsman does not have as an effect either to suspend this period or to open a new period for lodging appeals.
VI.4.3) Service from which information about the lodging of appeals may be obtained.
VI.5) Date of dispatch of this notice:
* requires a Premium subscription.
A PublicTenders search alert sends you an email before 9am each working day, highlighting any new tenders that match your search criteria.
If you haven't yet had your 2 week FREE trial, click here!
Our promise: There's no obligation to buy whatsoever and, unlike some tender services, you don't need to remember to cancel. And we don't take your credit card details up front!
Tenders by sector.
&نسخ؛ 2018 Dods Parliamentary Communications Ltd.
Preparation of the mid-term review of the eu biodiversity strategy
The European Commission has published a strategy for the EU to protect and improve the state of Europe's biodiversity and contribute to the 2020 global biodiversity targets.
3 May 2018: The European Commission has published a strategy for the EU to protect and improve the state of Europe’s biodiversity and contribute to the 2020 global biodiversity targets.
The strategy, contained in the Commission Communication titled “Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020,” is aimed at reversing biodiversity loss and speeding up the EU’s transition towards a resource-efficient and green economy. It builds on the commitments made by EU leaders in March 2018 on halting the loss of biodiversity in the EU by 2020 and protecting, valuing and restoring EU biodiversity and ecosystem services by 2050. It also is a response to the global commitments made at the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 10) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), in Nagoya, Japan, in October 2018.
The Strategy addresses the drivers of biodiversity loss in the EU, as well as global aspects of biodiversity loss, through a multi-sectoral approach. It features six priority targets: fully implementing existing EU legislation on nature protection; improving and restoring ecosystems and ecosystem services wherever possible, notably by the increased use of green infrastructure; ensuring the sustainability of agriculture and forestry activities; safeguarding and protecting EU fish stocks; controlling invasive alien species; and stepping up the EU’s contribution to concerted global action to avert biodiversity loss.
On the latter priority target, global action on biodiversity loss, the Strategy provides that the Commission will enhance the contribution of the EU’s bilateral trade policy to conserving biodiversity, and address potential negative impacts by: systematically including biodiversity as part of trade negotiations and dialogues with third countries; identifying and evaluating potential impacts on biodiversity resulting from the liberalization of trade and investment through ex-ante Trade Sustainability Impact Assessments and ex-post evaluations; and seeking to include in all new bilateral trade agreements a chapter on sustainable development providing for substantial environmental provisions of importance in the trade context, including on biodiversity goals.
In addition, the Commission is expected to: work towards reforming, phasing out and eliminating harmful subsidies at both EU and member State level, and providing positive incentives for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use; and systematically screen the EU’s development cooperation action to minimize any negative impact on biodiversity by undertaking Strategic Environmental Assessments and/or Environmental Impact Assessments for actions likely to have significant effects on biodiversity.
Furthermore, the Commission is expected to improve the effectiveness of EU funding for global biodiversity by: supporting natural capital assessments in recipient countries and the development and/or updating of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), and by improving coordination within the EU and with key non-EU donors in implementing biodiversity assistance/projects.
In addition, the Commission is expected to propose new EU legislation to implement the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (ABS), so the EU can ratify the Protocol as soon as possible. According to the strategy, the prompt ratification of the Nagoya Protocol is needed for the EU “to continue to lead international biodiversity policy,” as is the fulfillment of specific commitments relating to resource mobilization undertaken under the CBD.
Finally, the EU is also expected to support ongoing efforts to improve collaboration, synergies and the establishment of common priorities among the biodiversity-related conventions and among the Rio Conventions.
The strategy targets and actions proposed by the Commission need to be endorsed by the European Parliament and the Council of EU ministers for the environment. Following such endorsement, the strategy is expected to undergo a mid-term review in early 2017, with a view to feeding into the preparation of the EU’s fifth National Report to the CBD. [EU Press Release] [Publication: Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020]
Global Partnerships.
Actions.
related posts.
UN Biodiversity Conference Adopts 70 Decisions.
UN Biodiversity Conference Adopts 70 Decisions.
UN Biodiversity Conference Advances Discussions on Resource Mobilization, EBSAs, Synthetic Biology.
UN Biodiversity Conference Advances Discussions on.
Forests and Landscape Restoration Feature at UN Biodiversity Conference.
Forests and Landscape Restoration Feature at UN Bi.
Terrestrial Ecosystems Finance Update: GEF Council Approves Work Program and Projects, Forest Finance in Focus.
Terrestrial Ecosystems Finance Update: GEF Council.
UN Biodiversity Conference Highlights Links between Agriculture and Biodiversity.
UN Biodiversity Conference Highlights Links betwee.
UN Biodiversity Conference Focuses on Implementation of Strategic Plan, EBSAs.
UN Biodiversity Conference Focuses on Implementati.
النشرة الإخبارية.
The SDG Update compiles the news, commentary and upcoming events that are published on the SDG Knowledge Hub each day, delivering information on the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development to your inbox.
&نسخ؛ 1990-2017, IISD. Excerpts may only be used with appropriate academic citation and a link back to the corresponding article/page used.
Comments
Post a Comment