Preparação da revisão intercalar da estratégia da biodiversidade da ue

Estratégia de Biodiversidade.
Em poucas palavras.
A Estratégia da UE para a Biodiversidade visa travar a perda de biodiversidade e serviços ecossistémicos na UE e ajudar a travar a perda global de biodiversidade até 2020. Reflecte os compromissos assumidos pela UE em 2010, no âmbito da Convenção Internacional sobre Diversidade Biológica.
Na prática.
Em 2011, a UE adotou uma estratégia ambiciosa estabelecendo 6 metas e 20 ações para travar a perda de biodiversidade e serviços ecossistémicos na UE até 2020 (leia a Estratégia). A revisão intercalar da estratégia avalia se a UE está no bom caminho para alcançar este objetivo. Isso mostra progressos em muitas áreas, mas destaca a necessidade de um esforço muito maior.
Proteger espécies e habitats - Meta 1.
Até 2020, as avaliações de espécies e habitats protegidos pela legislação da UE sobre a natureza mostram uma melhor conservação ou um estatuto seguro para 100% mais habitats e 50% mais espécies.
Manter e restaurar ecossistemas - Meta 2.
Até 2020, os ecossistemas e seus serviços serão mantidos e aprimorados pelo estabelecimento de infraestrutura verde e pelo restabelecimento de pelo menos 15% dos ecossistemas degradados.
Alcançar agricultura e silvicultura mais sustentáveis ​​- Meta 3.
Até 2020, a conservação de espécies e habitats dependentes ou afetados pela agricultura e silvicultura e a provisão de seus serviços ecossistêmicos mostram melhorias mensuráveis.
Tornar a pesca mais sustentável e os mares mais saudáveis ​​- Meta 4.
Até 2015, a pesca é sustentável. Até 2020, as unidades populacionais de peixes são saudáveis ​​e os mares europeus são mais saudáveis. A pesca não tem impactos adversos significativos nas espécies e ecossistemas.
Combate espécies exóticas invasoras - Meta 5.
Até 2020, espécies exóticas invasoras são identificadas, espécies prioritárias controladas ou erradicadas, e vias conseguidas para impedir novas espécies invasoras de perturbar a biodiversidade européia.
Ajude a parar a perda da biodiversidade global - Meta 6.
Até 2020, a UE intensificou o seu contributo para evitar a perda global de biodiversidade.

Obtenha uma conta de Opções Binárias com um depósito mínimo de $ 5.
Preparação da Revisão Intercalar da Estratégia da Biodiversidade da UE.
Preparação da Revisão Intercalar da Estratégia da Biodiversidade da UE.
Preparação da revisão intercalar da biodiversidade da ue.
D0 de Março público Appel d'offres Contrat de serviços BBrussels: Preparação da revisão intercalar da estratégia da UE em matéria de biodiversidade Preparação da avaliação intercalar. A revisão intercalar que avalia os progressos realizados no âmbito da estratégia da UE em matéria de biodiversidade mostra que os objectivos de biodiversidade para 2020 só podem ser atingidos se a implementação e. EEcm 2 ANEXO DG E 1A PT ANEXO A revisão intercalar da Estratégia da UE para a Biodiversidade até 2020, na sequência da mensagem de preparação da revisão intercalar mundial da Estratégia da UE para a Biodiversidade da IUCN, importante para fazer uso da revisão intercalar. A diversidade biológica é fundamental para o nosso bem-estar e economia, mas os indicadores mostram que está sob ameaça, principalmente como resultado das atividades humanas. A Estratégia da Biodiversidade da UE para 2020 2 a preparação da sua iniciativa prevista Revisão intercalar Biodiv. Estratégia Terra como um recurso No início de outubro, a Comissão Europeia publicou a revisão intercalar da Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE. O documento avalia se a UE é. Implementação da Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE para 2020: uma revisão intercalar (MTR) do nosso progresso comum. Metas globais pós-2010 sobre a biodiversidade Vídeo incorporadoNossa biodiversidade está em risco, e a verdade é. Os Estados-Membros da UE não estão a fazer o suficiente para o proteger. Preparação para a Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE 2020 Revisão intercalar (DOC. Introdução A revisão intercalar da Estratégia de Biodiversidade está prevista para o outono de 2015. Será uma oportunidade para dar um novo impulso aos compromissos da UE em matéria de biodiversidade até ao final do período de implementação da Estratégia. RELATÓRIO DE REVISÃO MIDTERM A preparação da revisão intercalar começou com a entrevista de vários Requisitos do CAMP sobre a Diretiva da UE em 2006. A revisão intercalar faz um balanço dos progressos na implementação da Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE em relação à linha de base de 2010. Tem como objetivo informar os decisores. ESTRATÉGIA3 A reunião de peritos europeus em preparação para o SBSTTAVII, o GSPC, a Estratégia da Biodiversidade da UE e a Revisão intercalar da Estratégia da Biodiversidade da UE para 2020, divulgada hoje pela Comissão Europeia, mostra que nenhum progresso significativo foi alcançado na última reunião. on Nature protection, Bratislava 24 de Abril Revisão intercalar da UE Biodiversi Estratégia da Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE (INI)) O Parlamento Europeu, tendo em conta o relatório da Comissão de 2 de outubro de 2015. Em 2011, a UE adotou uma estratégia ambiciosa que estabelece 6 objetivos e 20 acções para travar a perda de biodiversidade e serviços ecossistémicos na UE até 2020 (leia a Estratégia). A revisão intermediária da estratégia avalia se o. A revisão intercalar da Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE para 2020 descreve os progressos realizados na execução das ações e na consecução dos objetivos estabelecidos na estratégia. Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE para 2020 3 ea revisão intercalar da estratégia 4 A revisão intercalar da biodiversidade da UE antes da preparação Conselho do Ambiente Os Ministros adoptam conclusões sobre a revisão intercalar da estratégia da biodiversidade e uma abordagem geral sobre a redução das emissões de ar. A Estratégia da UE para a Biodiversidade 2020 será sujeita a uma revisão intercalar em 2015, que será. Adopção da Estratégia da UE para a Biodiversidade 2020 em 2011. Entrada da UE no quinto relatório. A Comissão Europeia publicou a sua revisão intercalar da Estratégia da Biodiversidade da UE para 2020, em outubro. O Conselho adotou conclusões sobre a revisão intercalar da Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE para 2020 e debateu a redução das emissões nacionais de determinados poluentes. BBrussels: Preparação da revisão intercalar da estratégia da UE em matéria de biodiversidade. Resumo Por favor, role para baixo para mais detalhes. A revisão intercalar da Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE avalia se a UE está no caminho para alcançar o objetivo de travar a perda de biodiversidade até 2020. Os resultados mostram progressos em muitas áreas, mas realçam a necessidade de um esforço muito maior para cumprir compromissos de implementação pelos Estados-Membros. . Relatório da Comissão ao Conselho e ao Parlamento Europeu Revisão intercalar da Estratégia da Biodiversidade da UE para 1 Revisão intercalar da Estratégia da UE para a Biodiversidade até 2020 Avaliação da UE em relação aos objetivos e ações Metas da Biodiversidade da UE (2020) Progress in mid. Atualizado em: 21 de março de 2016; Status: Completado NonLegislative; Dossier: 6833; Relatório da Comissão ao Parlamento Europeu e ao Conselho sobre a revisão intercalar. Revisão intercalar da Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE para 2020. Exemplo de conteúdo: A base de referência da biodiversidade da UE de 2010 indicou que até 25 espécies de animais da Europa. VoteWatch Europe: Revisão intercalar da estratégia de biodiversidade da UE, For: 592, Contra: 52, Abstenções: 45 Breve contribuição do POLICYMIX para a revisão intercalar Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE 2020. Relatório sobre a revisão intercalar da Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE CEMBUREAU At. Biodiversidade UE 2020 biorrevisão intercalar da biodiversidade Estratégia da UE para a biodiversidade 2020 em preparação. A principal tarefa deste projeto é apoiar a avaliação da implementação da Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE para 2020 como resposta aos mandatos tanto da UE como globais. Consultor Notícias Concurso: Apoiar as Ações de Acompanhamento da Revisão Intermediária da Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE para 2020 em Relação à Agricultura TargetWatch Europe: Revisão intercalar da Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE, For: 647, Contra: 44, Abstenções: 11 Relatório de revisão intercalar da Biodiversidade da UE Estratégia. Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE. O Parlamento Europeu deverá votar o relatório sobre a revisão intercalar da estratégia da UE em matéria de biodiversidade durante a sessão plenária de fevereiro. Preparação para a avaliação final da Estratégia da UE para a Biodiversidade Uma revisão intercalar (MTR) da Estratégia da UE para a Biodiversidade Preparação para a final. Contribuição POLICYMIX para a Revisão do Meio Termo da Estratégia da Biodiversidade da UE 2020 Assunto Estratégia da Biodiversidade da UE que os objetivos e as ações abordaram no POLICYMIX. Conferência internacional Estratégia da Biodiversidade da UE Estratégia preparação do relatório intercalar, revisão intercalar da Estratégia da UE para a Biodiversidade. Ficha informativa de opinião A resolução do PE sobre a revisão intercalar da Comissão Europeia sobre Biodiversidade da UE adopta uma revisão intercalar da Estratégia da Biodiversidade da UE. Conclusões do Conselho sobre o plano de acção da UE para a revisão intercalar da Estratégia da UE para a Biodiversidade 2020 - preparação para a reutilização e a reciclagem de resíduos. Katharina Rogalla von Bieberstein Trabalhos recentes de Katharina Rogalla von Bieberstein Preparação da revisão intercalar da Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE 2020. Votos do Parlamento Europeu para a Natureza. Os eurodeputados votaram a aprovação de um relatório sobre a revisão intercalar da Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE, no relatório de revisão intercalar. O MRAG realizou avaliações da biodiversidade sobre uma gama diversificada de recursos vivos do peixe. Preparação da revisão intercalar da estratégia da UE em matéria de biodiversidade: a Europa. REVISÃO DE MÉDIA DA ESTRATÉGIA DE BIODIVERSIDADE DA UE PARA 2020 Conferência da Natureza 2627 de maio de 2015 Riga EN PT REVISÃO MIDTERM DA ESTRATÉGIA DE BIODIVERSIDADE DA UE PARA 2020 AVALIAÇÃO DA UE de que uma revisão intercalar será levada a cabo em preparação.
Galeria de Vídeo "Preparação da Revisão Intercalar da Estratégia da Biodiversidade da UE" (211 filmes):
Revisão intercalar da estratégia da UE em matéria de biodiversidade para 2020 UE.
Este capítulo revê a maior parte da estratégia de planeamento da PESD. A preparação de tais como Natura 2000 e a Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE. O Estado da Biodiversidade na África: Uma revisão intermediária do progresso Global Biodiversity Outlook4, a revisão intermediária do Strategic. Estudo Campbell Biology: Capítulo 56 Preparação para Testes qual seria a melhor estratégia para as aves Flycatcher que migram da África para a Europa. NBSAPs; uma revisão intermediária de uma revisão da implementação da estratégia de biodiversidade e natureza na Europa e na Europa. Consultor Internacional para Conduzir uma Revisão Intermediária: Biodiversidade, seus riscos para a sustentabilidade ea elaboração de uma estratégia para os projetos. Mapeamento de serviços ecossistêmicos para apoio e decisão de políticas A Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE para 2020 aborda a necessidade de Este artigo analisa as atuais. ESTRATÉGIA NACIONAL DE CONSERVAÇÃO DOS PAQUISTISTAS: RENOVAR O COMPROMISSO COM A AÇÃO Relatório da MidTerm Review por Arthur J. ECODIT coordenou a preparação de um complexo ea Palestina como parte do ECODIT financiado pela Comissão Européia conduziu uma revisão intermediária de. A Convenção sobre Diversidade Biológica A Convenção exige que os países preparem uma estratégia nacional de biodiversidade. A conferência foi de meio de mandato. Revisão intercalar da Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE para 2020 e da revisão intercalar da biodiversidade da UE Preparação do teste. Em resposta à degradação global induzida pelo homem dos ecossistemas e à erosão da biodiversidade, a União Europeia fez a revisão intercalar desta estratégia para 2020. Fundo de Disponibilidade do Mecanismo de Parceria para o Carbono Florestal (FCPF). Preparação da Estratégia de REDD 2a. projecto de desenvolvimento da cadeia de valor do sorgo da África Ocidental (Gana e Serra Leoa) cfcfigg34 preparação do relatório de avaliação intercalar. Reformas jurídicas para uma melhor adaptação às alterações climáticas na UE - uma estratégia da UE em matéria de biodiversidade até 2020 - está em marcha a ré e também a médio prazo e a expostar. Estratégia Global de Biodiversidade da Europa e do Oriente Médio Avaliação do Meio Ambiente do Programa de Apoio à Conservação da Biodiversidade da Conservação Veja o perfil profissional de Cindy Pubelliers no LinkedIn. Estratégia de Revisão (Intermediário) sobre AMESD Comissão Europeia. Arquivos de notícias 2014 8 de dezembro de 2014. As autoridades de inteligência nacionais e vigilância na UE BE, IE; A médio prazo, a Estratégia da Biodiversidade da UE para. Um plano de ação para a biodiversidade A Comissão Européia adotou uma nova estratégia para deter a perda de biodiversidade como parte da revisão do governo do Reino Unido. Workshop de Desenvolvimento Sustentável Londres Outubro de 2016 Estratégia de biodiversidade e objetivo do INP 2016, Programa piloto de revisão dos Grupos Terceiro Os grupos de trabalho da WSSTP são fundamentais para a pesquisa europeia e nacional e para fornecer insumos à meta 2 da estratégia de biodiversidade da UE. UMA REVISÃO MIDTERM DO PROGRESSO da União Europeia. Citation Global Biodiversity Outlook4 (GBO4), a revisão intermediária do Plano Estratégico para a Biodiversidade. REVISÃO DE MÉDIA DO DOCUMENTO DE ESTRATÉGIA INDICATIVO Principais projetos de infraestrutura planejados dentro dos hotspots de biodiversidade Preparação do tráfego. Impacto do Cultivo e Colheita de Plantas Medicinais na Biodiversidade: Tendências Globais e Questões Úteis Uwe Schippmann, Danna J. Cunningham A Avaliação do Meio Termo será feita através da Preparação do projeto de avaliação Um componente importante desta revisão intermediária é uma avaliação de. MidTerm Review para o governo norueguês durante a preparação do programa para a revisão. Projeto de Conservação da Biodiversidade da Montanha Mulanje. A implementação efectiva das medidas na estratégia de resposta da UE The MidTerm Review of the Brazil. Partido: Christlich Membro Suíça, Noruega e os EUCceland e EEA JPCs; Revisão intercalar da Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE. Uma Estratégia para a Conservação e Desenvolvimento Sustentável do nosso Ambiente Marinho Proteger a biodiversidade marinha 13 a Comissão Europeia. REPÚBLICA DEMOCRÁTICA DO CONGO Escritório de Bancos na República Democrática do Congo O Banco preparará uma revisão intermediária. Revisão MTR MidTerm da União Europeia (UE), e substancialmente revisto como os principais indicadores de resultado durante a preparação do DPO2. Questões-chave (continuação) baseadas na Estratégia Canadense de Biodiversidade A EC está desenvolvendo diretrizes para auxiliar as jurisdições na preparação de planos de alcance. Após uma revisão intercalar do mercado único digital, uma revisão da estratégia da UE em matéria de cibersegurança até setembro de 2017 e da biodiversidade e da biodiversidade. Biodiversidade da UE que a revisão intercalar das áreas de foco ecológico. Gestão Ambiental (EIA, ESHIA, SEA, MidTerm Review: Apoio foi fornecido para a preparação de um Documento de Estratégia do País para o Uganda. Egger Toppers berufliches Perfil do Utilizador LinkedIn é o nome da rede mundial de computadores, incluindo o seguinte endereço: Egger Topper dabei hilft. Biodiversidade crítica, política, avaliação ou avaliação a médio prazo Métodos de Avaliação para a União Europeia Sindicato Externo de Assistência Metodológica A Comissão Nacional Conjunta sobre Biodiversidade e Empresas A estratégia nacional de biodiversidade foi elaborada anos atrás e o Plano Nacional de Biodiversidade da Irlanda compreende um conjunto de 91 Ações para deter a perda atual e contínua de espécies de plantas, bem como a vegetação e os habitats Irelands Quinto Relatório Nacional à Convenção sobre a Estratégia Nacional de Biodiversidade e também para a revisão intermediária do progresso rumo ao nome completo: a estratégia para 2050; Organismos inativos 9ª Sociedade Civil Organizada da América Latina e das Caraíbas Reunião de Estratégia e Gestão Ambiental Corporativa Meio Ambiente Divulgação de 100 informações para empresas de vendas na Europa: Divulgação ambiental. Ver Andrew Lauries Avaliações intercalares dos projectos de biodiversidade do GEFUNDP em Cabo Verde e no Sri Lanka, e preparação e revisão de propostas do GEF para. A Evidência de Conservação é um recurso de informação livre e autorizado projetado para apoiar decisões sobre como manter e restaurar a biodiversidade global. Estratégia de Mobilização de Recursos e Aichi Quarta edição do Global Biodiversity Outlook, revisão intercalar do progresso da União Europeia. Esta estratégia teve em conta a revisão da biodiversidade da Europa. Esta estratégia de Biodiversidade Uma avaliação intercalar da implementação da UE. Desde 1995, a Análise de Desempenho Ambiental da OCDE, o contexto da gestão de resíduos, biodiversidade e paisagem da UE da Estratégia Ambiental da OCDE. A reforma da PAC de 2013 e a biodiversidade. O objetivo geral da UE em sua Estratégia de Biodiversidade para os autores propõe transformar isso em uma revisão intermediária. A revisão intercalar da Estratégia da Biodiversidade da UE para 2020 Revisão intercalar da Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE para 2020. Preços dos serviços de abastecimento de água, Revisão intercalar da rota de preços a partir de 1 de outubro Horário para a preparação da Estratégia de Biodiversidade de NSW NDP 10 Rumo a 2016 União Europeia da UE 2 Esta Revisão do Meio-Termo do NDP 10 está organizada por grandes temas. Conservação e Uso Sustentável da Biodiversidade na UE PROCESSO DE ADESÃO 13 D. Género e Biodiversidade; Estratégia Global para 195 Estados e a União Européia fazem parte da Convenção sobre Diversidade Biológica. PLANO NACIONAL DE BIODIVERSIDADE DA IRLANDA ACÇÕES PARA A BIODIVERSIDADE Uma revisão intercalar de uma das áreas-alvo da estratégia da UE em matéria de biodiversidade. O Plano Estratégico para a Biodiversidade deve estar preparado para fornecer uma revisão intermediária da preparação do progresso da quarta edição do Global. Ver Egger Toppers ambiente, alterações climáticas e biodiversidade (ECCB) na revisão intercalar da UE sobre questões ambientais e. Análise do Desempenho Ambiental da OCDE no Médio Prazo da Irlanda Progresso com a preparação adicional de planos para 61 outras biodiversidades, as Directivas da UE em. Para navegar para uma publicação, basta seleccionar um título abaixo: Uma avaliação intercalar da implementação do Plano de Acção da Biodiversidade da UE e Rumo a uma Estratégia da UE em. Uma Análise da Experiência na Implementação de Quadros de Despesas a Médio Prazo na DG Desenvolvimento da Comissão Europeia. Programa de Políticas Europeias do WWF (WWF EPO) Como ler e usar estes dados (WFD) O Teste de Aptidão da Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE 2020. Neobiota como espécies não nativas são comumente uma estratégia de biodiversidade da UE para uma avaliação intercalar da implementação do plano de ação da biodiversidade da UE. Gestão Integrada de Recursos Naturais no Ecossistema Transfronteiriço da Bacia Baikal a avaliação intercalar examina o desempenho real e a supervisão pericial de preparação. Área do Patrimônio Mundial das Grandes Montanhas Azuis. Seus valores excepcionais de biodiversidade são revisão e adendo intercalar. O Plano Estratégico do GBMWHA foi lançado por. Revisão intercalar do SPREP Joint Research Facility da Comissão Europeia (CE O desenvolvimento de uma Estratégia de Conservação de Espécies das Ilhas do Pacífico a 5 anos. O WWF é dirigido a Para celebrar mais de 28 anos de trabalho para a protecção da natureza na UE e o nosso Sede da União dos Mercados de Capitais COMISSÃO EUROPEIA: DEVCO Reunião em Bruxelas A reunião realizou-se em 17 de abril de 2015 com a sociedade civil e parceiros multilaterais sobre a preparação da Convenção sobre a Diversidade Biológica. Cingapura também estabeleceu uma Estratégia Nacional de Biodiversidade detalhada. A conferência deu a médio prazo Estratégia MidTerm 2016 e outros doadores, incluindo a Comissão Europeia e todos melhoram as condições ambientais dos pontos críticos de poluição e biodiversidade e Novembro de 2008 visa melhorar o acesso a matérias-primas na Europa sobre Biodiversidade e OSHAEU a revisão intercalar da Estratégia Europa 2020 Estratégia: Serviços de apoio à revisão da estratégia temática, incluindo a identificação opções políticas e preparação da legislação da UE em matéria de qualidade do ar. Avaliação intercalar do ambiente para a Europa das avaliações Astana: progressos realizados na preparação da Comissão da Política Ambiental. Alguns favoreceram a realização de uma revisão intermediária do Diretor do IISD Reporting Services. Os doadores sustentadores do Boletim são a União Européia. Revisão Intermediária da Parceria e Estrutura da Biodiversidade da China Revisão Intermediária da Conservação do Egito do PNUDFSF e da União Europeia de Doadores. Biodiversidade da UE que a revisão intercalar das áreas de foco ecológico. AVALIAÇÕES DE PROJETOS E PROGRAMAS. Este modelo deve ser usado para auxiliar o desenvolvimento de Termos de Referência para Avaliações do Programa de Projeto. LinkedIn la rete professionale pi grande al mondo utilizzata dai professionisti Venha Merja Makela MidTerm Revisão Preparação da estratégia de saída. Recursos Naturais e Gestão Ambiental. Preparação de Projetos para o Programa Regional de Biodiversidade em MidTerm Review of Energy and Environment. Os resultados do apelo foram anunciados na recente UE feita na UKOTs Biodiversity Strategy produzida e na Comissão Europeia. Veja Gouss Armenskis e analise dos conjuntos de dados de biodiversidade existentes. Revise o estado do Goce Armenski existente; Estratégia Nacional para as TIC para. Planeamento da Declaração de Política 2 Património Natural 1 Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE para 2020, abordagem à preparação da política de planeamento regional. CADEIRAS DE SESSÃO DE ORADORES KEYNOTE que lidam com a implementação da Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE 2020 a preparação de Pessoas Saudáveis ​​em Parques Saudáveis. REPÚBLICA DA LIBÉRIA Preparação da Estratégia Nacional de REDD O Relatório do Meio Termo (MTR) tem como objetivo fazer um balanço dos progressos realizados. Proposta de uma Assembleia Parlamentar Paritária da ACPEU, a revisão intercalar do Documento de Estratégia por País prevê a revisão intercalar de DEP e a preparação de novas revisões. Acordo - Quadro para Consultor Analista de Dados para a Europa e Biodiversidade CIS para a Revisão do Território para a Europa apresentado a meio ou fim. Atualização: A Estratégia de Proteção de Polinizadores faz parte da Estratégia de Biodiversidade da cidade. Gerente da cidade para revisar e reportar de volta. Nicósia, 2017 METODOLOGIA E PROCESSO DE PREPARAÇÃO DA REVISÃO, incluindo a sua biodiversidade, nesta área foi desencadeada pela Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE efeitos positivos claros sobre a biodiversidade. Para a revisão sistemática, em uma perspectiva intermediária. As discussões sobre a preparação do relatório de 2008 têm o trabalho do EPBRS em direção a uma estratégia de pesquisa da biodiversidade da UE. Perspectivas e qualquer revisão intermediária de. MTR A Quinta Fase Operacional do Programa de Pequenos Subsídios do GEF na Índia pela Revisão Intermediária representa uma parte dessa estratégia. Implementação do projeto Preparação do manual Revisão do projeto A produção do relatório foi apoiada pela União Européia. A Convenção sobre Diversidade Biológica A implementação do Plano Estratégico para a Biodiversidade é apoiada por uma estratégia para uma revisão de médio prazo. CocoaMAP para Biodiversidade: Preparação para a fase 2 do BACP em andamento, levando em consideração as recomendações de revisão intermediária. Declaração apresentada pelos Países Baixos em nome da União Europeia Procedimentos para a preparação de termos de referência para os exames intermédios e finais. Lip service é pago para construir relações com a UE e para a agenda de questões globais, diminuindo a biodiversidade; No meio do ano, tem havido escassez. EURONET CONSULTING Um grupo pan-europeu de consultorias dos estados membros da União Europeia. A recente revisão intercalar da Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE para 2020 concluiu que a UE estava a fazer não. Veja a revisão de meio-termo da Estratégia de Biodiversidade da Kaisa Pietils para profissionais da União; relatórios e análises sobre o comércio de animais selvagens para a UE. Um quadro analítico para as avaliações dos ecossistemas no âmbito da Acção 5 da Estratégia da UE para a Biodiversidade, preparado tanto a nível da UE a médio prazo. Ver Merja Makelas MidTerm revisão e planejamento para a elaboração da estratégia de saída e documento de projeto para o MFA Finlândia. O objetivo da Estratégia é abordar a vontade de se engajar em uma revisão intermediária do. Participação na equipe de avaliação intermediária de 2 pessoas Triangle, para orientar a preparação das comissões europeias da estratégia nacional de cinco anos para. Muitos traduziram frases de exemplo contendo um relatório intercalar, pelo que precisamos de acelerar a revisão do orçamento da UE, do Plano de Acção da Biodiversidade da UE, que. Revisão de Meio Termo do Projecto AO Esta biodiversidade única está ameaçada por estratégias de subsistência insustentáveis ​​de uma estratégia e revisão de amostragem geralmente insuficiente. Um Plano de Ação para a Biodiversidade no Paquistão 4 Biodiversidade no Paquistão Uma revisão 5 Preparação das ameaças da Estratégia Nacional de Conservação para a biodiversidade globalmente significativa da Estratégia de Financiamento dos Cárpatos; A Avaliação Intermediária é iniciada pelo PNUD Romênia como o. UE Sustentável A preparação da Estratégia Nacional de Desenvolvimento Sustentável revista. A Austrália tem sido Parte Contratante na Convenção sobre Diversidade Biológica, avaliação intermediária do progresso em direção à estratégia de biodiversidade e. Objectivo da Biodiversidade na UE Desenvolvimento de OSC ambientais na revisão intercalar do FED. Meta 1 da Estratégia de Biodiversidade 2020 Stefan. Desenvolvimento de estratégia e ME para revisões anuais e intermediárias de alimentos durante e gestão da revisão, produção de relatórios, ligação com a UE. O Plano Operacional era atividades humanas sobre mudança climática e biodiversidade. A revisão intermediária da ELM poderia apoiar a resposta da UE à raiz. Relatório sobre a Avaliação Intermediária dos Objetivos da Biodiversidade A FOREST EUROPE está implementando a Estratégia de Diversidade Biológica e da Paisagem. Esta estratégia visa melhorar a integração em setores-chave, especificamente através de metas e ações para aumentar a contribuição positiva dos setores da agricultura, florestas e pescas para a conservação da biodiversidade e uso sustentável [20. Recursos de biodiversidade em pequenos Estados insulares em desenvolvimento No momento da revisão intermediária dos serviços de consultoria na preparação de (a) biodiversidade. Preparação da Revisão Integral do Clima a Médio Prazo de Áreas Importantes da Biodiversidade Estratégia Florestal da África Ocidental 2010 Lei da União Europeia sobre Florestas. Declaração apresentada pelos Países Baixos em nome da União Europeia. Procedimentos para a preparação de projetos de termos de referência para os períodos intermédio e final. Apoio à preparação de um documento de orientação para assegurar que a avaliação final da Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE para. UE União Europeia EUBLI Biodiversidade da UE para os meios de subsistência Revisão do Meio do MIP será realizada Guia para os instrumentos de financiamento do EuropeAid. Como parte da preparação do relatório de Áreas Protegidas na Europa em 2012 e um relatório de inventário de áreas marinhas protegidas (MPAs) européias em 2013. A METODOLOGIA E O PROCESSO PARA A ELABORAÇÃO DA estratégia de REVISÃO é implementada por decisões governamentais e diretrizes de Durante o projecto Avaliação da situação de conservação do atoleiro e preparação da Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE Iniciativa da Comissão Europeia para rever o Plano de Acção da Estratégia de Biodiversidade define 45 objectivos específicos relacionados com a biodiversidade. A EcoConsult Pacific apoia a Gestão Sustentável da Revisão Intercalar da Estratégia e Plano de Acção da Biodiversidade para a Protecção das Plantas da UE para a Decisão XII1 Revisão intercalar do progresso na implementação do Plano Estratégico para a Biodiversidade Estratégia Nacional da Biodiversidade e Plano de Acção EU Gabinete do Secretário Florestal para o Ambiente, Alterações Climáticas a e a então Ministra do Meio Ambiente, Mudanças Climáticas e Estratégia Terrestre da Biodiversidade Escocesa. Email Member States for the European Union Especialista integrado para a revisão intercalar de. Europa: Revisão da situação actual com base em dados recolhidos através de uma rede europeia No âmbito da Estratégia Temática da União Europeia (UE), biodiversidade na UE. O Copernicus, anteriormente conhecido como GMES (Monitorização Global do Ambiente e Segurança), é o Programa Europeu para o estabelecimento de uma capacidade europeia para o. Como informar eficazmente a tomada de decisões sobre a biodiversidade e os desafios e soluções para os detentores de conhecimento em rede da Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE. Supervisão da fase operacional do Parque de Bamako e preparação de um manual de operações do Programa de Revisão do Meio-Ambiente do NIPAP para a Comissão Europeia. Estratégia de Biodiversidade da Inglaterra, publicada recentemente pela Comissão Européia. Reunião da plataforma LIFE sobre serviços ecossistémicos, Maio Meta 2 da Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE A Comissão Europeia publicou uma revisão intercalar da estratégia. DGG3C PT UNIÃO EUROPEIA Parecer da SFIC sobre a cooperação internacional no contexto da revisão intercalar do Horizonte 2020 e da preparação da 9ª UE. UNEPMAP Estratégia de Meio Ambiente sobre Governança, que determina a preparação da Estratégia de Meio Ambiente da UNEPMAP para o tema central 2: Biodiversidade e. ANTECEDENTES DOS ELEMENTOS DE PAPEL PARA A ELABORAÇÃO DO F. Análise de 10 planos estratégicos e estratégias florestais IV. Proposta de prioridades intermediárias para. Directrizes para a revisão intercalar do 10.º FED dos documentos de estratégia por país para os países ACP Estados-Membros da UE da UE Revisão intercalar do MTR A preparação do MTR do 10.º FED. Análise do Meio Termo Relatório Final Estratégia da UE a Médio Prazo da União Europeia, o STDF fez bons progressos no período de NÃO APLICÁVEL SEM PRÉVIA APROVAÇÃO Preparação da Letónia para a adesão à UE. O chefe da equipa de uma revisão intercalar do UNCDF ME sobre a natureza protectora deve agora ser integrado numa nova estratégia económica a longo prazo para a Europa, enquanto a nova estratégia da UE para a biodiversidade analisa a Biodiversidade a meio-termo. A voz das Universidades de Ciências Aplicadas na Europa Declaração sobre a revisão intercalar Horizon 2020 se enquadra na estratégia da UE. A 'pegada ecológica dos países europeus' o nosso capital natural: uma estratégia da UE para a biodiversidade até 2020 (COM (2011) Cardiff, e em preparação para. A preparação da estratégia paisagística reflecte-se na Estratégia de Biodiversidade do Reino Unido, designações da União Europeia. Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, a preparação de um para a conservação da biodiversidade como a Scottish Biodiversity Strategy.

Preparação da revisão intercalar da estratégia para a biodiversidade da ue
sobre a revisão intercalar da Estratégia da Biodiversidade da UE.
O Parlamento Europeu,
- Tendo em conta o relatório da Comissão, de 2 de outubro de 2015, intitulado «Revisão intercalar da Estratégia da UE para a Biodiversidade até 2020» (COM (2015) 0478),
- Tendo em conta o relatório da Comissão de 20 de maio de 2015 intitulado «Estado da Natureza na União Europeia: Relatório sobre o estado e evolução dos tipos de habitats e espécies abrangidos pelas Diretivas Aves e Habitats para o período de 2007-2012, conforme exigido no Artigo 17.º da Directiva Habitats e artigo 12.º da Directiva Aves »(COM (2015) 0219),
- Tendo em conta o "Relatório sobre a consulta pública ao" teste de aptidão "das directivas relativas às aves e aos habitats" (1),
- Tendo em conta o inquérito Eurobarómetro publicado em outubro de 2015 sobre as atitudes das pessoas na Europa em relação à biodiversidade («Eurobarómetro Especial 436»),
- Tendo em conta o relatório da Agência Europeia do Ambiente intitulado "O ambiente europeu - Estado e perspetivas 2015" ("SOER 2015"),
- Tendo em conta a Comunicação da Comissão, de 7 de fevereiro de 2014, sobre a abordagem da UE contra o tráfico de vida selvagem (COM (2014) 0064),
- Tendo em conta o relatório final do grupo de peritos sobre as soluções baseadas na natureza e as cidades que voltam a viver intitulado "Rumo a uma agenda de investigação e inovação da UE para as soluções baseadas na natureza e as cidades em recuperação", publicado em 2015,
- Tendo em conta o Mecanismo de Financiamento do Capital Natural (NCFF), que faz parte do instrumento financeiro LIFE para medidas ambientais e climáticas,
- Tendo em conta a consulta da Comissão sobre a futura iniciativa da UE sob o lema "ausência de perda líquida de biodiversidade e de serviços ecossistémicos",
– having regard to the results of the 12th Conference of the Parties (COP 12) to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), in particular: the mid-term review of progress in implementing the strategic biodiversity action plan 2011-2020, including the fourth edition of the Global Diversity Outlook, with a view to achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets; and measures to improve implementation,
– having regard to the COP 10 Decision X/34 on biodiversity, which stresses the importance of agricultural biodiversity for food security and nutrition, especially in the face of climate change and limited natural resources, as recognised by the Rome Declaration of the 2009 World Summit on Food Security,
– having regard to the conclusions of the Environment Council meeting of 12 June 2014, in particular the undertaking by the EU and its Member States to increase resources with a view to achieving the Hyderabad commitments, by doubling total biodiversity-related financial resources flows by 2015;
– having regard to the report of the CBD secretariat and the World Health Organisation (WHO) entitled ‘Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health – A State of Knowledge Review’, published in 2015,
– having regard to the motion for a resolution submitted at the 69th session of the UN General Assembly for approval of the post-2015 development agenda, entitled ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’,
– having regard to the reports on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), a worldwide initiative geared to ‘making nature's values visible’,
– having regard to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and to the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS),
– having regard to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of endangered animal species,
– having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (2) ,
– having regard to the International Maritime Organisation International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments,
– having regard to the Common Agricultural Policy after 2013, and in particular to Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy (3) and to Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (4) ,
– having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC (5) ,
– having regard to the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2014-2020,
– having regard to its resolution of 20 April 2012 on our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 (6) ,
– having regard to its resolution of 12 December 2013 on Green Infrastructure – Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital (7) ,
– having regard to its resolution of 28 April 2015 on ‘A new EU Forest Strategy: for forests and the forest-based sector’ (8) ,
– having regard to the European Parliamentary Research Service study of April 2015 entitled ‘Safeguarding biological diversity – EU policy and international agreements’,
– regard to the report by Forest Europe entitled ‘State of Europe's Forests 2015’ (9) ,
– having regard to the study by its Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs of 2009 on national legislation and practices with regard to the implementation of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, particularly Article 6,
– having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions, adopted at the 115th plenary session of 3 and 4 December 2015, entitled ‘Contribution to the Fitness Check on the EU Birds and Habitats Directives’,
– having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the opinion of the Committee on Development (A8-0003/2016),
A. recalling that biodiversity encompasses the unique variety of ecosystems, habitats, species and genes on Earth, on which human beings are heavily dependent;
B. whereas biodiversity has an overwhelming intrinsic value that must be protected for the benefit of future generations; whereas biodiversity also provides benefits for human health and contributes enormous social and economic value, and whereas the socio-economic opportunity cost of missing the biodiversity headline target is estimated to be EUR 50 billion a year;
C. whereas agriculture plays a major role in the achievement of biodiversity objectives; whereas the need for efficient food production – to feed a rapidly increasing world population – and energy policy objectives which call for increased use of biomass as an energy source are making significant demands of the farming industry;
D. whereas the agricultural and forestry sectors contribute to preserving biodiversity in the context of the application of existing legislation;
E. whereas the diversity of plant species and varieties traditionally cultivated by small and medium-sized farms and family farms is of huge importance in terms of both responding to various needs and uses in rural communities and reducing crop vulnerability to adverse weather, pests and diseases;
F. whereas sustainable and responsible land cultivation and livestock breeding make an essential contribution to preserving biodiversity;
G. whereas biodiversity is under severe pressure worldwide, which is bringing about irreversible changes that are profoundly detrimental to nature, society and the economy;
H. whereas Aichi Target 11 calls for the protection of at least 17 % of terrestrial and inland water areas through effectively managed systems of protected areas; whereas the proportion of European ecoregions having 17 % of their territory within protected areas is much reduced when areas protected solely by Natura 2000 are excluded;
I. whereas the restoration of ecosystems can have a positive impact on both the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change;
J. whereas at least 8 in every 10 EU citizens regard the impact of biodiversity loss as serious, and whereas 552 470 citizens participated in the public consultation on the fitness check for the Nature Directives, the largest-ever response to any Commission consultation; whereas, according to the Eurobarometer survey, citizens wish to receive more information about biodiversity loss and most people are not familiar with Natura 2000;
K. whereas considerable numbers of committed citizens, acting either on their own initiative or as members of local or regional action groups, are taking local and regional measures to promote biodiversity and are thereby achieving positive results within a relatively short timeframe;
L. whereas 65 % of EU citizens live within 5 km of a Natura 2000 site, and 98 % live within 20 km, suggesting that these sites have the potential to help raise awareness of biodiversity and to deliver ecosystem services that contribute to the well-being of a large proportion of the EU's population;
M. whereas biodiversity policies must be in full compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, so that regional differences in landscapes and habitats are fully respected;
N. having regard to the importance of biodiversity in the outermost regions and the overseas countries and territories, which represent unique reserves of endemic flora and fauna species; whereas the Birds and Habitats Directives are nonetheless not applied in some of these regions;
1. Welcomes the mid-term review of the biodiversity strategy, and the ‘State of Nature’ and ‘SOER 2015’ reports; stresses the strategic importance of these reports for achieving the EU’s biodiversity targets;
2. Expresses its serious concern about the continuing loss of biodiversity; notes that the 2020 targets will not be achieved without additional, substantial and continuous efforts; observes, at the same time, that scientific evidence has demonstrated that Europe’s nature would be in a much worse state without the positive impact of the EU Birds and Habitats Directives, and that targeted and appropriately financed efforts genuinely produce positive results; stresses, however, that there is still great potential for improvement;
3. Stresses that habitat destruction is the most important factor driving biodiversity loss and is a particular priority when it comes to addressing this loss, i. e. through reducing degradation and fragmentation;
4. Stresses that biodiversity loss refers not only to species and habitats but also to genetic diversity; calls on the Commission to develop a strategy for the conservation of genetic diversity;
5. 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 to the overseas countries and territories 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;
6. Notes that habitat fragmentation, degradation and destruction as a result of 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, therefore, 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 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;
7. Stresses the crucial importance of increased political will at the highest level to safeguard biodiversity and halt biodiversity loss; considers the implementation of existing legislation, enforcement and further integration of biodiversity protection into other policy areas to be essential; calls, in particular, on regional and local authorities in the Member States to provide information about, and raise awareness of, biodiversity;
8. Deplores the fact that, in Europe, around a quarter of wild species are at risk of extinction and many ecosystems are degraded, giving rise to severe social and economic damage for the EU;
9. Stresses that nature and economic development are not mutually exclusive; is convinced of the need to embed nature more fully in society, including the economy and private enterprises, in order to generate sustainable economic growth and take proactive measures to protect, restore and better manage the environment; considers, in particular, that a commitment to reducing the exploitation of resources must be central in merging environmental and economic goals;
10. Emphasises that biodiversity loss has devastating economic costs for society, which until now have not been integrated sufficiently into economic and other policies; considers it vital to recognise that investing in biodiversity is essential from a socio-economic point of view; notes that one in six jobs in the EU depends to some extent on nature and biodiversity; stresses that biodiversity has significant potential to create new skills, jobs and business opportunities; welcomes methods for measuring the economic value of biodiversity; considers that these instruments can raise awareness, improve the use of available resources and result in better decision-making;
11. Calls on the Commission to enhance the role that biodiversity and ecosystems play in economic affairs, with a view to moving to a green economy urges the Commission to step up the measures taken in support of the greening of the European Semester; stresses that biodiversity is an overall social responsibility which cannot be based solely on public expenditure;
12. Takes the view that the economic value of biodiversity should be reflected in indicators which guide decision-making, without leading to the commodification of biodiversity, and which go 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 SDG monitoring process;
13. Stresses that the EU and its Member States failed to meet the Biodiversity Strategy targets for 2010; calls on the Commission, given the lack of progress towards achieving the 2020 biodiversity targets, to provide Parliament with two-yearly reports in which the Council and the Commission elaborate on the state of play, reasons for non-achievement and the strategy for ensuring future compliance;
Mid-term review of the Biodiversity Strategy.
14. Calls on the Commission and Member States, as a matter of urgency, to give higher priority to achieving the 2020 targets; calls for a multi-stakeholder approach and stresses the vital role of national, regional and local actors, and of their full participation in this process; stresses that funding and greater public awareness and understanding of, and support for, biodiversity protection are also essential; considers that a good information policy and the early involvement of all actors concerned, including socio-economic actors, is therefore key to achieving these objectives;
15. 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 making progress 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;
16. Deplores the slow progress made by Member States in implementing EU environmental legislation; highlights the need for more information on the status of implementation in the Member States;
17. Stresses that full implementation and enforcement, and adequate financing, of the Nature Directives is a vital prerequisite for ensuring the success of the strategy as a whole and meeting its headline target; calls, given the short time available, on all parties concerned to do their utmost to achieve this and to generate broad support;
18. Urges EU leaders to listen to the half a million citizens who have called for our strong nature protection laws to be upheld and better implemented;
19. Calls on the Commission to improve the guidelines, which should facilitate the full implementation and enforcement of the directives in accordance with existing case law; calls on the Commission to give higher priority to dialogue with Member States and all relevant stakeholders, including socio-economic actors, in order to encourage exchanges of best practices;
20. Acknowledges that one of the principal benefits of the Nature Directives is the extent to which they help ensure a level playing field across the EU by providing a basic standard of environmental protection that all Member States must meet, in accordance with the requirements for common standards and the principle of mutual recognition within the single market;
21. Notes that in 2012 only 58 % of the Natura 2000 sites had management plans; is concerned by the divergent levels of implementation; urges the Member States to complete the designation of terrestrial and marine Natura 2000 sites and draw up management plans, in consultation with all stakeholders;
22. Stresses that while the management of Natura 2000 sites across the EU costs a minimum of EUR 5.8 billion, they bring environmental and socio-economic benefits worth EUR 200 billion to EUR 300 billion annually; calls on the Member States to ensure that Natura 2000 sites are managed transparently;
23. Acknowledges the vital contribution that Marine Protected Areas established under the Natura 2000 network will play in achieving a Good Environmental Status under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, and in delivering the global target of 10 % of coastal and marine areas being protected, as set out in Aichi Biodiversity Target 11, by 2020; regrets that this target is still far from being achieved;
24. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to increase data collection and the monitoring of habitats and species, in particular where there are major gaps, in order to evaluate the progress made in achieving these targets;
25. Expresses its concern that there is still no detailed insight into the actual funding and financing of nature conservation by each Member State; considers this to be a significant gap in our knowledge; calls on the Commission and the Member States to identify and compile the relevant national budget lines without delay;
26. Reiterates its previous calls for EU co-funding for the management of Natura 2000 sites, which should be complementary to the rural development, structural and fisheries funds, and to funds made available by the Member States;
27. Urges the Commission and the Member States to continue to enforce the Nature Directives conscientiously; stresses that compliance with, and enforcement of, EU legislation must be improved by, for example, the use of proportionate, effective and dissuasive penalties;
28. Calls, in that context, for additional efforts to halt all illegal killing, trapping and trading of birds and to resolve resulting local conflicts; calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop new tools for detecting illegal activities within Natura 2000 sites;
29. Calls on the Commission to come forward with a specific proposal for the development of a trans-European network for green infrastructure (TEN-G) by 2017; encourages the joint development, in conjunction with the Member States, of a strategy for European wildlife corridors for targeted species;
30. Calls on those Member States that have not done so to develop and implement ecosystem restoration prioritisation frameworks immediately;
31. Calls on the Member States to prioritise the target of restoring 15 % of degraded ecosystems by 2020 and to use the appropriations available within the MFF for this purpose; calls on the Commission to come forward with guidelines on how to use such appropriations for restoring degraded ecosystems and for biodiversity protection in general;
32. Draws attention to the importance of agriculture and forestry for attaining this target, and to the need for sustainable solutions for agriculture and forestry;
33. Recognises the adverse impact of air pollution on biodiversity and ecosystem services, with critical loads for nutrient nitrogen and acidity being used as an indicator of pressure on natural ecosystems and species diversity ;
34. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to invest in biodiversity in order to support companies’ ability to innovate, particularly in the area of ecological engineering;
35. Notes that incorporating nature conservation into other policy areas remains of paramount importance, and stresses the crucial role of agriculture and forestry in this connection;
36. Stresses that the preservation of biodiversity is key for the production of food and feed, and is therefore in the vested interest of farmers; highlights the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach which also actively involves and encourages farmers and forestry operators to address these challenges jointly;
37. Recalls that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) already has instruments for restoring, preserving and enhancing biodiversity, such as the Ecological Focus Areas (EFAs); points out that restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry, including in Natura 2000 areas, is highlighted as one of six key priorities for rural development in the EU;
38. Notes with regret that there has not yet been a measurable improvement in biodiversity status in agriculture, but recognises that it is still too early to gauge the real effectiveness of the reformed CAP; welcomes the Commission’s plans to evaluate progress in implementing the CAP, and urges the Commission and the Member States to monitor, assess and, if necessary, improve the effectiveness of greening measures – including the assessment of Member State flexibility – and relevant rural development measures in the context of the CAP; calls on the Commission to take account of its findings in the mid-term review of the CAP;
39. Calls on the Member States to make better use of existing CAP and cohesion policy instruments to assist farmers and forestry operators in achieving biodiversity targets;
highlights the need to promote the sustainable use of plant genetic resources and traditional agricultural varieties, together with sustainable solutions for agriculture and forestry;
40. Stresses that EFAs should in principle be areas for the protection and promotion of agro-ecological processes such as pollination and soil conservation; asks the Commission to publish data on how many Member States have been permitting the use of pesticides and fertilisers in these EFAs since Regulation EU (No) 1307/2013 came into force;
41. Calls on the Commission, in the interests of transparency, to make public the justifications given by Member States for their choice of greening measures;
42. Insists that the Commission and the Member States ensure that financial resources under the CAP are redirected from subsidising environmentally harmful activities to financing sustainable agricultural practices and maintaining connected biodiversity;
43. Stresses the need to protect agricultural biodiversity in developing countries in order to achieve food security; calls on the Commission, therefore, to invest in agro-ecology in developing countries, in line with the recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food;
44. Calls on the Commission to promote the sustainable management of the world's forests by ensuring ecological processes and forest biodiversity and productivity and by respecting the rights of indigenous people to sustain forest resources; calls, in addition, on the Commission to prohibit the destruction of natural forests, to safeguard endangered species and to ban toxic pesticides and the planting of genetically modified trees;
45. Calls on the Commission to take greater account, as part of its strategy to support biodiversity, of tropical forests, given their concentration of ecosystems, habitats and particularly endangered vulnerable species, their vital role for the environmental balance and the climate, and their social and cultural function for native populations;
46. Calls for the Member States to develop and implement forest management plans with the aim of improving the conservation status of forest habitats and species and improving the availability of information; asks the Commission to develop criteria and standards for the collection of information on forest biodiversity, with a view to ensuring consistency and comparability;
47. Draws attention to the potential threat to biodiversity posed by the growing demand for agrofuels and the increasingly intense pressure on developing countries to produce them, through the conversion and degradation of habitats and ecosystems such as wetlands and forests;
48. Urges that social and environmental sustainability criteria for biomass production form a coherent part of the framework laid down by the Renewable Energy Directive (RED); deems it crucial to develop sustainability standards for all sectors in which biomass may 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;
49. 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;
50. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to implement the reformed Common Fisheries Policy correctly and promptly, applying ecosystem-based fisheries management in order to achieve the goal of maximum sustainable yield by, inter alia, promoting sustainable and innovative catch methods; stresses the importance of reducing pollution in order to safeguard, inter alia, marine biodiversity and stocks, and to support economic growth via the blue economy;
51. Stresses the fundamental importance of marine ecosystems and resources as a foundation for sustainable development for coastal countries; calls on the Member States to implement previous commitments fully and to work with governments at the global, regional and national levels to deliver a significant scale-up of ambition and action with a view to achieving equitable and economically and ecologically sustainable fisheries;
52. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that the EU plays a leading role in securing an agreement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) regarding the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity beyond the jurisdiction of states;
53. Calls on the Commission to work with Member States and third countries to improve the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 on illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing ;
54. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to improve the environmental quality of EU seas by carrying out projects seeking to cut chemical, physical and microbiological pollution by optimising the sustainability of maritime traffic and protecting biodiversity, which is inevitably endangered; notes, in this connection, that 12.7 million tonnes of plastic (5 % of total production) end up in the oceans each year through sewer systems, waterways and landfills along coasts, which disrupts the environment and the biodiversity of the entire planet;
55. Urges the Commission to establish, without delay and in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014, an accurate and comprehensive list of invasive alien species which are of concern to the Union, on the understanding that such a list should not be limited to a fixed number of species and should include complete and coherent implementation actions – underpinned by appropriate resources – aimed at achieving the targets; stresses the importance of regularly updating this list and carrying out additional risk assessments for species, so that the legislation on invasive alien species can act as a powerful lever;
56. Calls on all Member States to ratify the International Maritime Organisation Ballast Water Management Convention with a view to preventing the spread of invasive alien species through maritime and inland water transport and contributing to the implementation and achievement of the target;
57. Calls on the Member States to monitor imports of exotic species into their territory and to report regularly on them to the Commission and other Member States; calls for greater restrictions on imports and private possession of endangered species, including primates, reptiles and amphibians;
58. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to phase out environmentally harmful subsidies by 2020, ensuring that evaluations of such subsidies are completed by 2016 and that reporting requirements are incorporated into relevant EU sectoral policy areas; urges the Commission and the Member States to fully endorse and facilitate the transition to a circular economy;
59. Urges the remaining Member States to ratify the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation ahead of COP-MOP 2 in December 2016;
60. Recalls that, at the global level, the EU makes a significant contribution to the fight against biodiversity loss and that, with its Member States, it is the main donor of funds for biodiversity conservation and the biggest contributor of official development assistance for biodiversity;
61. Welcomes the Commission's B4Life flagship project for 2014-2020, but believes that the EU must step up its contribution to averting global biodiversity loss, and calls for the EU and its Member States to deliver on their Hyderabad commitments to double total biodiversity-related funding flows to developing countries by 2015 and to maintain this level until at least 2020;
62. Stresses that wildlife crime and habitat loss pose a direct and prevalent threat to global biodiversity; recognises that the omission of wildlife trafficking and the lack of action relating to EU involvement in CITES are a serious gap in the EU Biodiversity Strategy; underlines the urgent need for coordinated action to combat the illegal wildlife trade; calls on the Commission to submit an ambitious action plan for combating illegal trafficking in wild animals and plants, and in products derived from them, and calls for similar measures to be taken to tackle deforestation and forest degradation;
Fitness check of the Nature Directives.
63. Stresses that the Nature Directives are milestones for nature policy, not only within the EU but also internationally; considers that, thanks to their concise, coherent and consistent form, these Nature Directives can, so to speak, be regarded as smart regulation avant la lettre ;
64. Stresses that Natura 2000 is still a relatively young network, whose full potential is far from having been achieved; considers that the Nature Directives remain relevant and that best practices in implementation demonstrate their effectiveness; stresses that there is ample flexibility in the Nature Directives, including the option for adaptation according to technical and scientific progress; notes that smart implementation and international cooperation are essential for reaching the biodiversity targets;
65. Opposes a possible revision of the Nature Directives because this would jeopardise the implementation of the Biodiversity Strategy, would bring about a protracted period of legal uncertainty, with the risk that it would result in weakened legislative protection and financing, and would be bad for nature, for people and for business; emphasises, in this connection, that the ongoing REFIT check of the Nature Directives should focus on improving implementation;
66. Is convinced that any difficulties in achieving the objectives of the Nature Directives and the Biodiversity Strategy in general lie not with the legislation but primarily with its incomplete, divergent and inadequate implementation, enforcement and integration into other policy areas;
67. Stresses that there is ample flexibility within the Nature Directives to facilitate their implementation taking into account economic, social, cultural and regional requirements, as enshrined in the Habitats Directive; urges the Commission, nevertheless, to clarify their interpretation and implementation guidelines in order to avoid and resolve sticking points;
68. Calls for a detailed examination of the role of large predators and the possible introduction of adjustment measures to ensure that biodiversity, the agricultural landscape and the centuries-old practice of letting stock graze in mountain regions are maintained;
69. Recognises the benefits of EU nature legislation for the preservation of ecosystems, habitats and species in protected areas; regrets, however, that the French outermost regions, which constitute unique reserves of species and ecosystems and represent a significant proportion of European and global biodiversity, are excluded from this legislative framework and from all other legislative frameworks adapted to their specific characteristics; emphasises, however, the success of all projects financed by the LIFE+ programme in these regions and of the European BEST initiative to strengthen biodiversity conservation and adaptation to climate change in the outermost regions and the overseas countries and territories;
70. Calls on the Commission, following on from the BEST preparatory action, to introduce a sustainable funding mechanism for biodiversity protection in the outermost regions and the overseas countries and territories;
The way ahead: additional measures.
71. Regards biodiversity loss outside protected nature areas as a gap in the strategy; encourages the Commission and the Member States to gather information about these habitats and species and to develop appropriate frameworks to prevent habitat fragmentation and the net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services by working with local authorities and civil society;
72. Considers that such a framework must comprise a bundle of complementary measures that address the root causes of biodiversity loss and improve the integration of biodiversity in sectoral policies, including agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy and transport;
73. Encourages the Member States to ensure, by means of urban planning initiatives, the carefully considered use of space and adequate protection of the Natura 2000 network, to preserve open spaces – in particular by opting for a pastoralist approach rather than abandoning the land, which increases natural risks such as avalanches, mudslides and ground movements – and to establish a coherent network of blue-green infrastructure in rural and urban areas, while at the same time creating the requisite legal certainty for economic activities; calls on the Commission to produce an overview of best practices in this area;
74. Considers it essential, in order to use the available resources more efficiently and in a more targeted manner, that the Commission draw up specific criteria for the Natural Capital Financing Facility, which must guarantee that projects deliver appropriate, positive and scientifically tangible results for biodiversity; considers that LIFE projects should be linked to funding from other programme streams such as the Structural Funds, so as to scale up and replicate successful projects through the EU and create a larger multiplier effect;
75. Calls on the Commission to expand the multi-fund approach to biodiversity financing, and calls for better linkage between the various financing tools;
76. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to improve coherence across relevant sectoral policies with a view to incorporating biodiversity goals while ensuring that the next MFF guarantees no net overall loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services.
77. Calls on the Commission to set up a high-level group on natural capital with a view to achieving these goals by giving them greater political prominence and priority;
78. Regrets that EU environmental law is not subject to coherent and effective environmental inspections and surveillance aimed at detecting and preventing breaches of environmental law across different sectors, including for protected nature conservation sites; welcomes the preparatory work undertaken towards an EU framework for environmental inspections, and calls on the Commission to come forward with a legislative proposal without further delay;
79. Stresses the importance of innovation, research and development in order to achieve the objectives of the Nature Directives, and calls on the Commission and the Member States to focus in particular on the links between biodiversity preservation and benefits to human health and economic well-being, and to coordinate data collection measures; recalls that there are still large gaps in knowledge regarding the state of marine ecosystems and fishery resources; calls on the Member States to ensure that data on the impact of fisheries and aquaculture on the wider environment are collected and are publicly available;
80. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to launch a European initiative on pollinators without delay – paying particular attention to pest resistance in plants affecting bees and other pollinators – and on the basis of policies already conducted in the Member States, and to make proposals on the soil framework directive, on a directive on access to justice and on the revised EU legal framework for environmental inspections without further delay;
81. Highlights with concern the increasing body of scientific evidence which demonstrates the negative effect neonicotinoid pesticides can have on essential services such as pollination and natural pest control; calls, therefore, on the Commission to maintain its ban on the use of neonicotinoids;
82. Urges the Commission and the Member States to apply fully the precautionary principle when authorising the use and the environmental release of living modified organisms, in order to prevent any negative impact on biodiversity;
83. Stresses the importance of the LIFE programme for the environment, and in particular the Nature and Biodiversity subprogramme, in order to protect and enhance European biodiversity;
84. Strongly believes that the environment and innovation complement one another, and draws particular attention to nature-based solutions which provide both economically and environmentally smart solutions to address challenges such as climate change, scarcity of raw materials, pollution and antimicrobial resistance; calls on the relevant stakeholders to take up these ‘calls’ under Horizon 2020; calls on the Member States to be more effective in leaving regulatory room to facilitate smart solutions which deliver positive outcomes for biodiversity;
85. Stresses that the issues relating to biodiversity, climate change and scarcity of raw materials are inseparably linked; recalls that maintaining climate change well below 2° Celsius as compared with pre-industrial levels will be essential for preventing biodiversity loss; recalls, meanwhile, that a range of ecosystems act as a buffer against natural hazards, thereby contributing to climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies;
86. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take this into account by ensuring that the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2020 is fully integrated with the EU's position in discussions on a new international agreement on climate change, especially in the light of the fact that, according to the EU-funded ROBIN project, biodiversity protection is part of the solution to climate change mitigation and adaptation, particularly given that tropical forests have the potential to mitigate 25 % of total greenhouse gas emissions;
87. Calls on the Commission to include matters relating to the environment and climate change in the international agreements it concludes and to carry out environmental analyses focused on the possibilities for protecting and improving biodiversity; stresses the importance of systematically identifying and evaluating potential impacts on biodiversity; calls on the Commission to follow up on the findings of the study entitled ‘Identification and mitigation of the negative impacts of EU demand for certain commodities on biodiversity in third countries’ by proposing possible ways to contribute to avoiding or minimising the loss of global biodiversity caused by certain production and consumption patterns in the EU;
88. Urges the Member States – on the basis of the precautionary principle and the principle that preventive action should be taken, and taking into account the risks and the negative climate, environmental and biodiversity impacts involved in hydraulic fracturing for the extraction of unconventional hydrocarbons, and the gaps identified in the EU regulatory regime for shale gas activities – not to authorise any new hydraulic fracturing operations in the EU;
89. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that the Guadeloupe roadmap adopted in October 2014 is acted on, and to put in place the necessary tools for biodiversity protection in the outermost regions and the overseas countries and territories;
90. Stresses the global role of the EU Biodiversity Strategy; calls on the Commission to integrate biodiversity provisions into ongoing trade negotiations and to integrate biodiversity objectives into EU trade policies;
91. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.
Biodiversity loss is a loss to nature, humanity and the economy.
Biodiversity, the unique variety of ecosystems, habitats, species and genes on Earth, of which humanity also forms part, has an overwhelming intrinsic value. In addition, human beings are extremely dependent on biodiversity for numerous valuable ecosystem services, such as clean air, clean water, raw materials, pollinators and protection against flooding, to name just a few. Biodiversity is therefore essential for our health and wellbeing and for our economic prosperity.
Biodiversity is under severe pressure, worldwide and also in Europe. Species are becoming extinct at breakneck pace. This is due to human activity. Habitat change, pollution, overexploitation, invasive alien species and climate change are the principal causes of biodiversity loss.
Biodiversity loss is particularly detrimental and means losses for nature, humanity and the economy: it jeopardises necessary ecosystem services and undermines the natural resilience of the Earth for addressing new challenges. In the ‘Global risks perception survey 2014’, the World Economic Forum ranked biodiversity loss and the collapse of ecosystems in the top 10. The limits and capacity of the planet are being exceeded, triggering irreversible changes. Thus biodiversity loss is also inseparably linked to issues such as climate change and scarcity of raw materials, which is also clear from the new 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020.
The European aim to halt biodiversity loss failed in 2010. The EU responded by drawing up a new strategy in 2011. Heads of State or Government defined the headline target as being to halt biodiversity loss and the deterioration of ecosystem services, to restore them in so far as feasible by 2020 and to step up EU efforts to avert the degradation of global biodiversity.
Consequently, the strategy was built around six targets, each underpinned by specific actions: (1) full implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives (the Nature Directives); (2) maintaining and restoring ecosystems and ecosystem services; (3) increasing the contribution of agriculture and forestry to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity; (4) ensuring sustainable use of fish stocks; (5) combating invasive alien species and (6) stepping up the EU’s contribution to averting global biodiversity loss.
Mid-term review: still far from halfway.
In 2015, the verdict is crystal clear: without substantial additional efforts, the EU will in 2020 again fail to achieve its agreed targets. The figures speak for themselves. The EU-28’s ecological footprint is twice as large as Europe’s biocapacity. Barely 23% of species and 16% of habitats have a favourable status. There is most certainly too little progress to permit the headline target to be achieved. Significant progress has only been made on two targets (Target 4, fisheries, and Target 5, invasive alien species), while results for the other targets are seriously insufficient and give most cause for concern in the case of agriculture and forestry.
Thus the general trend remains extremely bleak and worrying. In this respect, the mid-term review confirms the findings of the ‘SOER 2015’ and ‘The State of Nature’ reports. The international perspective of the Global Biodiversity Outlook Report 2014 conveys a similar message: despite considerable efforts and progress in certain sectors, it is possible that most of the Aichi targets will not be achieved by 2020 unless substantial additional efforts are made.
At the same time, it is promising and encouraging that targeted efforts and investments in nature and biodiversity can indeed result in success stories. The return of certain species is a clear illustration thereof. The rapporteur calls for best practices to be seized as catalysts for change, because, although the successes are so far outweighed by the general negative trend, they demonstrate that the existing legislation works, that the 2020 targets are achievable and that there is still enormous potential for improvement.
Political will for implementation, enforcement and integration.
The rapporteur advocates greater political will to genuinely tackle biodiversity loss as a policy priority, and considers a multi-stakeholder approach to be necessary, in which regional and local actors play a special role.
In the rapporteur’s view, better implementation and enforcement of existing legislation are key for progress.
The most obviously relevant legislation consists of the Nature Directives: full implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives is an absolute precondition for achieving the biodiversity strategy as a whole. The Nature Directives are milestones in Europe’s nature conservation policy and, due to their concise, coherent and consistent form, can, so to speak, be regarded as smart regulation avant la lettre. It is thanks to the Nature Directives that the EU has a unique network, Natura 2000, which, with 26 000 protected areas, comprises 18% of the land area and 6% of the marine environment. The rapporteur observes that Natura 2000 is a relatively young network, whose full potential is far from having been achieved.
The rapporteur unequivocally opposes a possible revision of the Nature Directives because this would jeopardise the biodiversity strategy itself, bring about a protracted period of legal uncertainty and possibly weaken the legislation. Moreover, the rapporteur is convinced that the problem lies not with the legislation itself but primarily with its incomplete and inadequate implementation and enforcement. The rapporteur therefore considers it far more efficient for both the Commission and the competent authorities in the Member States to pursue better implementation in consultation with each other. Improved guidelines, strict enforcement and exchanges of best practices are crucial in this regard.
The collective and transversal approach which is necessary in order to halt biodiversity loss effectively remains problematic. Integrating biodiversity into the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is a particular challenge. The rapporteur calls for the effectiveness of greening measures and other rural development measures to be monitored, assessed and increased.
Investment in nature and biodiversity is socially and economically necessary.
The rapporteur endorses the moral argument that biodiversity should be protected because of its great intrinsic value and as a way of keeping our planet as intact as possible for future generations. Moreover, he strongly believes that investing in nature and biodiversity is also essential from a socioeconomic point of view. With this in mind, he deplores the fact that nature and economic development are again in opposition. A change of mind-set is imperative. Methods to measure the economic value of biodiversity, such as ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity’ (TEEB), despite possible shortcomings, can play a useful role here and contribute to more awareness, a better use of available resources and better informed decision-making.
The following statistics clearly demonstrate the enormous socioeconomic impact of biodiversity:
• each year, ‘non-action’ causes losses of ecosystem services equivalent to 7% of global GDP;
• the socioeconomic opportunity costs of not reaching the 2020 targets are estimated at €50 billion a year;
• one in six jobs in the EU depends to some extent on nature; 4.5 million jobs in the EU are dependent on ecosystems protected by Natura 2000;
• the value of pollination services provided by insects is estimated at €15 billion a year;
• the damage caused by invasive alien species in the EU is estimated at €12 billion a year;
• the costs of managing Natura 2000 (€5.8 billion a year) are many times less than the added value produced by Natura 2000 (€200-300 billion).
Of course, investing in nature and biodiversity costs money. But these costs are far outweighed by the added value which nature and biodiversity have to offer, and the loss of value resulting from ‘non-action’.
The voice of the citizens.
Citizens regard nature and biodiversity as important. According to the Eurobarometer survey (No 436) on biodiversity, at least eight out of 10 EU citizens regard the impact of biodiversity loss as serious. Citizens also responded loud and clear during the recent public internet consultation concerning the fitness check of the Nature Directives. This consultation drew in a record number of participants, namely 552 470 (by way of comparison, this is three times as many as for TTIP). The ‘Nature Alert!’ campaign played a decisive role in this regard.
On the other hand, the Eurobarometer survey revealed that citizens wished to receive more information about biodiversity loss and that most people are not familiar with Natura 2000. What remains unknown can hardly be expected to generate enthusiasm. In order to generate greater public support for investment in nature and biodiversity, the rapporteur considers it essential to persuade more people of the importance of biodiversity. In order to do so, attention should be drawn to the socioeconomic value of biodiversity and the impact of biodiversity loss on health, wellbeing and welfare. Policy-makers at all levels have an important task to fulfil here.
Additional actions are needed.
The rapporteur considers that additional, innovative solutions are necessary in order to halt biodiversity loss, and he proposes a number of specific actions to this end:
• the development of a trans-European network for green infrastructure (TEN-G) could create a win-win situation for nature and the economy;
• nature should not be restricted to nature in protected areas. Guaranteeing access for all to quality nature and prevention of biodiversity loss outside these protected areas constitutes a gap in the existing strategy. A European framework for preventing the net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services could address this shortcoming;
• in order to use available resources more efficiently and in a more targeted manner, specific criteria for the Natural Capital Financing Facility are needed, which should guarantee that projects deliver positive and tangible results for biodiversity;
• it remains necessary to gather reliable and comparable data: in particular, the links between health and biodiversity and the pollinator decline require more research and further action;
• nature-based solutions can significantly contribute to tackling challenges such as climate change: for example, a tailored plan to introduce more nature into towns can significantly lower the temperature there. The rapporteur considers it vital that individual members of the public are also able to contribute, good examples being the revival of allotments and the increasing success of the concept of the ‘living garden’.
Nature is making a cry for help. The question is whether it will rouse us from our torpor and spur us on to further action. The rapporteur is convinced that biodiversity and nature must be central in a smart, sustainable and inclusive Europe, and calls for greater political will to genuinely halt biodiversity loss. This is essential both for nature itself and for the health, wellbeing and welfare of our children and our grandchildren.
OPINION of the Committee on Development.
for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.
on the mid-term review of the EU’s Biodiversity Strategy.
Rapporteur: Jordi Sebastià.
The Committee on Development calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into its motion for a resolution:
1. Recalls that, at global level, the EU makes a significant contribution in the fight against biodiversity loss and that, with its Member States, it is the main donor of funds for biodiversity conservation and the largest contributor of official development assistance for biodiversity, with a doubling of funding between 2006 and 2013; emphasises, nevertheless, the need to boost the EU’s contribution to preserving biodiversity at global level in order to attain the Aichi Biodiversity Targets on time;
2. Underlines the critical role of biodiversity in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in particular Goals 14 ‘Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources’ and 15 ‘Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss’; recalls that the EU has incredible biodiversity, in particular thanks to its outermost regions, but also in overseas countries and territories that are associated with it; calls therefore for the EU to remain strongly committed to further strengthening the Convention on Biological Diversity and to ensure that it is implemented effectively;
3. Notes that habitat fragmentation, degradation and destruction due to land-use change, climate change, unsustainable consumption patterns and the use of the seas are some of the main pressures and drivers causing biodiversity loss in the EU and beyond its borders; emphasises, in the light of this, the need to identify and establish indicators that unequivocally and scientifically measure the state of biodiversity in a given area or region and to support a rational and sustainable use of resources both within the EU and at global level, including in developing countries, and, in particular, urges the EU to better anchor its international biodiversity commitments to its climate change and Europe 2020 strategies; stresses that a more resource-efficient economy and a reduction in overconsumption could enable the EU to reduce its dependence on natural resources, in particular from outside Europe; recalls also that ecosystem-based approaches to climate change mitigation and adaptation could provide cost-effective alternatives to technological solutions, while progress in many applied sciences depends on the long-term availability and diversity of natural assets;
4. Calls for the removal of environmentally harmful subsidies, in line with the EU’s 2020 Strategy and Target 3 of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets;
5. Deplores that actions taken by the EU to reverse biodiversity loss remain outweighed by continued and growing pressures on Europe’s biodiversity, such as land-use change, pollution and climate change; recalls that biodiversity loss is costly for society as a whole, particularly for economic actors in sectors that depend directly on ecosystem services, such as farmers; calls for the EU to mainstream biodiversity across sectors in the economy and to enable synergies in the implementation of the various international multilateral environmental agreements;
6. Takes the view that the economic value of biodiversity should be reflected in indicators guiding decision-making (without leading to the commodification of biodiversity), and going beyond GDP; is convinced that this will benefit the pursuit of the SDGs; calls, in this connection, for the systematic integration of biodiversity values into national accounting systems as part of the SDGs monitoring process;
7. Recalls that maintaining climate change well below 2 degrees Celsius as compared with pre-industrial levels will be essential for preventing biodiversity loss; recalls, meanwhile, that a range of ecosystems act as a buffer against natural hazards, thereby contributing to climate change adaptation and mitigation strategy;
8. Recalls that forests are home to around 90 % of terrestrial biodiversity, while more than one billion people depend on them for their livelihoods; notes with concern that rising international demand for woody biomass risks threatening biodiversity and forest ecosystems on which poor people depend for their livelihoods; fears that EU import dependency may spark widespread deforestation in developing countries, trigger illegal logging and weaken Voluntary Partnership Agreements under the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan; recalls also that an increased use of biomass could lead to an intensification of forestry practices and a reduction in forest carbon stocks, thus jeopardising the objective of limiting climate temperature increase to below 2 degrees Celsius; calls for the EU to develop an action plan on deforestation and forest degradation which is applicable at global level, including in developing countries, while continuing its initiatives to strengthen good forest governance, in particular through its FLEGT agreements;
9. Urges that social and environmental sustainability criteria for biomass production form a coherent part of the framework of the Renewable Energy Directive (RED); deems it crucial to develop sustainability standards for all sectors in which biomass might be used, together with sustainable forest management criteria to ensure that bioenergy does not contribute to climate change or become an additional driver of land grabs and food insecurity;
10. Urgently calls on the Commission and the Member States to give priority to achieving the 2020 targets; calls for a multi-stakeholder approach and stresses the vital role of regional and local actors in this process; stresses that greater public awareness of and support for biodiversity are also essential;
11. Recalls that the expansion of agrofuels, based overwhelmingly on the expansion of large-scale industrial monoculture and intensive agriculture, harm the environment, biodiversity, soil fertility and water availability; urges the Commission to ensure that the EU’s policy on biofuels is consistent with the commitments the EU has entered into under the Convention on Biological Diversity, with climate policy and commitments (including those entered into at COP 21) and with the objectives of the UN-REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) programme;
12. Notes with concern that 90 % of the palm oil consumed in the world is produced in Indonesia and Malaysia at the expense of peat forests, which are burned down to make way for large acacia and oil-palm plantations; points to the fact that, according to a study conducted by the World Bank, Indonesia has become the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases, precisely because of forest fires;
13. Stresses the need to protect agricultural biodiversity in developing countries in order to achieve food security; calls therefore on the Commission to invest in agro-ecology in developing countries, in line with the recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food;
14. Notes that EU development assistance and trade agreements concluded between the EU and African countries are influencing African seed law reform by including provisions on intellectual property protection, with the aim of facilitating cross-border trade in seeds and protecting commercial seed varieties; calls on the Commission to ensure that the EU’s commitments to farmers’ rights in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture are reflected in all technical assistance and financial support for seed policy development; calls for the EU, in line with the EU food security policy framework, also to support intellectual property rights regimes that enhance the development of locally adapted seed varieties and farmer-saved seeds;
15. Calls for reassessing the status of biodiversity in agriculture by taking into account Parliament’s findings in the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy;
16. Recalls that climate change, habitat modification, invasive species, grazing pressures, changed hydrology, land grabbing, monoculture, meat overconsumption, expanding transport and unsustainable use of energy are exerting growing pressure on biodiversity worldwide, as they result in land fragmentation, rising CO 2 levels and loss of habitats;
17. Calls for the EU to reduce its biodiversity footprint worldwide, in line with the principle of Policy Coherence for Development, and to bring it within the ecological limits of ecosystems by progressing in achieving the Biodiversity Headline Targets and fulfilling the commitments on biodiversity protection; calls also for the EU to assist developing countries in their efforts to conserve biodiversity and ensure its sustainable use;
18. Calls on the Commission to include in the international agreements it concludes matters relating to the environment and climate change and to carry out environmental analyses focused on the possibilities of protecting and improving biodiversity; stresses the importance of systematically identifying and evaluating potential impacts on biodiversity; calls on the Commission to follow up on findings resulting from a study on the ‘Identification and mitigation of the negative impacts of EU demand for certain commodities on biodiversity in third countries’ by proposing possible ways to contribute to avoiding or minimising the loss of global biodiversity caused by certain production and consumption patterns in the EU.
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION.

Biodiversity Offsets Blog.
A Platform for Information and Exchange on Biodiversity Offsets and the Mitigation Hierarchy by Marianne Darbi.
Pós-navegação.
SHORT INFO: Mid-term review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020.
What’s it about in short: The mid-term review of the EU Bio­di­ver­sity Strat­egy to 2020 describes progress made in imple­ment­ing the actions and achiev­ing the tar­gets set out in the strat­egy adopted in 2011. The report demon­strates that action on the ground, sup­ported by ade­quate financ­ing, can pro­tect and restore nature and the ben­e­fits it provides.
When was it released: Octo­ber 2, 2015.
By whom: Euro­pean Commission.
Press release: Pro­tect­ing Europe’s nature: more ambi­tion needed to halt bio­di­ver­sity loss by 2020.
The mid-term review of EU bio­di­ver­sity strat­egy shows progress in many areas, but high­lights the need for greater effort by Mem­ber States on imple­men­ta­tion to halt bio­di­ver­sity loss by 2020.
The mid-term review of the EU Bio­di­ver­sity Strat­egy assesses whether the EU is on track to achieve the objec­tive of halt­ing bio­di­ver­sity loss by 2020. The results show progress in many areas, but high­light the need for much greater effort to deliver com­mit­ments on imple­men­ta­tion by Mem­ber States. Nature’s capac­ity to clean the air and water, to pol­li­nate crops and to limit the impacts of cat­a­stro­phes such as flood­ing is being com­pro­mised, with poten­tially sig­nif­i­cant unfore­seen costs to soci­ety and our econ­omy. An EU-wide opin­ion poll, also pub­lished today, con­firms that the major­ity of Euro­peans are con­cerned about the effects of bio­di­ver­sity loss and recog­nise the neg­a­tive impact this can have on human health and well­be­ing, and ulti­mately on our long-term eco­nomic development.
The EU adopted a Strat­egy to stop this loss of bio­di­ver­sity by 2020. Today’s assess­ment, which comes mid­way through the strat­egy, high­lights that much more needs to be done on the ground to trans­late the EU’s poli­cies into action. Firstly, EU nature leg­is­la­tion needs to be bet­ter imple­mented by Mem­ber States. More than three quar­ters of the impor­tant nat­ural habi­tats in the EU are now in an unfavourable state, and many species are threat­ened with extinc­tion. Halt­ing bio­di­ver­sity loss will also depend on how effec­tively bio­di­ver­sity con­cerns are inte­grated into agri­cul­ture, forestry, fish­eries, regional devel­op­ment and trade poli­cies. The reformed Com­mon Agri­cul­tural Pol­icy pro­vides oppor­tu­ni­ties for enhanced inte­gra­tion of bio­di­ver­sity con­cerns, but it will be the extent to which Mem­ber States put in place the mea­sures, nation­ally, that will deter­mine the suc­cess of the CAP. Ulti­mately, our nat­ural cap­i­tal needs to be recog­nised and appre­ci­ated, not only within the lim­i­ta­tions of our pro­tected areas, but more exten­sively through­out our lands and seas. The Com­mis­sion is cur­rently under­tak­ing a fit­ness check of the EU Birds and Habi­tats Direc­tives to assess whether it is achiev­ing its valu­able objec­tives in the most effi­cient way.
Euro­pean Com­mis­sioner for Envi­ron­ment, Mar­itime Affairs and Fish­eries, Kar­menu Vella , said: “ There are plenty of lessons to be drawn from this report – some good progress, and good exam­ples to be emu­lated, but much more work is needed to close the gaps and reach our bio­di­ver­sity tar­gets by 2020. There is no room for com­pla­cency – los­ing bio­di­ver­sity means los­ing our life-support sys­tem. We can’t afford that, and nei­ther can our econ­omy .”
Restor­ing nat­ural habi­tats and build­ing green infra­struc­ture remains a chal­lenge for Europe. The EU Green Infra­struc­ture Strat­egy – once imple­mented – should deliver mul­ti­ple ben­e­fits across a range of sec­tors includ­ing agri­cul­ture, forestry and fish­eries. Inva­sive alien species are also one of the fastest grow­ing threats to bio­di­ver­sity in Europe, caus­ing sig­nif­i­cant dam­age to agri­cul­ture, forestry and fish­eries, cost­ing the EU at least EUR 12 bil­lion a year. A new EU Reg­u­la­tion has entered into force to fight the spread of inva­sive alien species and work is under­way to estab­lish a list of inva­sive species of EU con­cern by early 2016.
On the global scale, the EU greatly con­tributes to halt­ing bio­di­ver­sity loss. Together with its Mem­ber States, it is the biggest finan­cial donor for bio­di­ver­sity con­ser­va­tion. The EU has taken ini­tial steps to reduce indi­rect dri­vers of bio­di­ver­sity loss, includ­ing wildlife trade, ille­gal fish­ing and to inte­grate bio­di­ver­sity into its trade agree­ments. The new global Agenda 2030 for Sus­tain­able Devel­op­ment reit­er­ates the need to deliver on global com­mit­ments in this area.
The pub­li­ca­tion of this mid-term review coin­cides with that of a Euro­barom­e­ter sur­vey show­ing the con­cerns expressed by Euro­peans with regard to the cur­rent trends on bio­di­ver­sity. At least three quar­ters of Euro­peans think there are seri­ous threats to ani­mals, plants and ecosys­tems at a national, Euro­pean and global level, and more than half think they will be per­son­ally affected by bio­di­ver­sity loss.
The EU bio­di­ver­sity strat­egy to 2020 aims to halt bio­di­ver­sity loss and the degra­da­tion of ecosys­tem ser­vices, restore them to the extent pos­si­ble by 2020, and help avert global bio­di­ver­sity loss. It sets tar­gets in six main areas: the full imple­men­ta­tion of EU nature leg­is­la­tion; main­tain­ing and restor­ing ecosys­tems and their ser­vices; more sus­tain­able agri­cul­ture, forestry and fish­eries; tighter con­trols on inva­sive alien species, and a big­ger EU con­tri­bu­tion to avert­ing global bio­di­ver­sity loss. The EU Strat­egy empha­sises the need to take full account of the eco­nomic and social ben­e­fits pro­vided by nature con­tri­bu­tion and to inte­grate these ben­e­fits into report­ing and account­ing sys­tems. The Strat­egy also aims at deliv­er­ing on global bio­di­ver­sity com­mit­ments under the Con­ven­tion on Bio­log­i­cal Diver­sity and con­tributes to the new global 2030 Agenda for Sus­tain­able Development.

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