Desenvolvimento da política de biodiversidade da UE.
Em poucas palavras.
Hoje, o nosso compromisso para com a biodiversidade e as questões que precisamos ter como prioridade são definidos na Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE para 2020. Mas estamos empenhados em proteger a inestimável biodiversidade da UE desde 1998.
Na prática.
A estratégia da UE em matéria de biodiversidade para 2020 foi adotada em 3 de maio de 2011. O objetivo é impedir a perda de biodiversidade e de serviços ecossistémicos na UE até 2020.
A nossa estratégia resulta de dois compromissos assumidos pelos líderes europeus em 2010 e também está em consonância com os compromissos assumidos pela UE na Convenção Internacional sobre a Diversidade Biológica.
Descubra como e por que a estratégia surgiu e quem ajudou a desenvolvê-la. Aqui você também pode encontrar links para os documentos oficiais e as opiniões das várias instituições que ajudaram a desenvolver essa política.
Uma breve história
19 de Janeiro de 2010: Numa comunicação, a Comissão definiu opções possíveis para uma visão da UE e um objectivo para a biodiversidade para além de 2010. Propõe uma visão de longo prazo (2050) para a biodiversidade, com quatro opções para uma meta de médio prazo (2020).
Nossa meta para 2020? Para travar a perda de biodiversidade e a degradação dos serviços ecossistémicos na UE até 2020, restaurá-los na medida do possível, reforçando simultaneamente a contribuição da UE para evitar a perda global de biodiversidade.
Nossa visão para 2050? Nossa biodiversidade e os serviços ecossistêmicos que ela fornece - seu capital natural - são protegidos, valorizados e apropriadamente restaurados por seu valor intrínseco e contribuição essencial para o bem-estar humano e a prosperidade econômica e para que mudanças catastróficas causadas pela perda de biodiversidade sejam evitadas.

Preparação da revisão intercalar da estratégia para a biodiversidade da ue
sobre a revisão intercalar da Estratégia da Biodiversidade da UE.
Comissão do Ambiente, da Saúde Pública e da Segurança Alimentar.
Relator: Mark Demesmaeker
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 Horizon 2020 sobre soluções baseadas na natureza e cidades em vias de reabilitação intitulado «Rumo a uma agenda da UE em matéria de investigação e inovação para soluções baseadas na natureza e cidades que reavaliem», 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",
- Tendo em conta os resultados da 12ª Conferência das Partes (COP 12) da Convenção das Nações Unidas sobre a Diversidade Biológica (CDB), em especial: a revisão intercalar dos progressos na implementação do plano de acção estratégico para a biodiversidade 2011-2020, incluindo: a quarta edição do Global Diversity Outlook, com vistas a atingir as Metas de Biodiversidade de Aichi; e medidas para melhorar a implementação,
- Tendo em conta a Decisão X / 34 da COP 10 sobre biodiversidade, que salienta a importância da biodiversidade agrícola para a segurança alimentar e nutricional, especialmente face às alterações climáticas e aos recursos naturais limitados, como reconhecido pela Declaração de Roma da Cimeira Mundial de 2009; em Segurança Alimentar,
- Tendo em conta as conclusões do Conselho do Ambiente de 12 de junho de 2014, em particular o compromisso da UE e dos seus Estados-Membros de aumentar os recursos com vista a alcançar os compromissos de Hyderabad, duplicando os fluxos totais de recursos financeiros relacionados com a biodiversidade até 2015 ;
- Tendo em conta o relatório do secretariado da CDB e da Organização Mundial de Saúde (OMS) intitulado "Conectando prioridades globais: biodiversidade e saúde humana - uma análise do estado do conhecimento", publicado em 2015,
- Tendo em conta a proposta de resolução apresentada na 69.ª sessão da Assembleia-Geral das Nações Unidas para aprovação da agenda de desenvolvimento pós-2015, intitulada "Transformar o nosso mundo: a Agenda 2030 para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável",
- Tendo em conta os relatórios sobre a Economia dos Ecossistemas e da Biodiversidade (TEEB), uma iniciativa mundial destinada a "tornar visíveis os valores da natureza",
- Tendo em conta a Convenção sobre o Comércio Internacional das Espécies da Fauna e da Flora Selvagens Ameaçadas de Extinção (CITES) e a Convenção sobre Espécies Migratórias (CMS),
- Tendo em conta a lista vermelha da União Internacional para a Conservação da Natureza (IUCN) de espécies animais ameaçadas de extinção,
- Tendo em conta o Regulamento (UE) n. º 1143/2014 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 22 de outubro de 2014, relativo à prevenção e gestão da introdução e propagação de espécies exóticas invasoras (2),
- Tendo em conta a Convenção Internacional para o Controlo e Gestão das Águas de Lastro e Sedimentos dos Organismos Marítimos Internacionais,
- Tendo em conta a Política Agrícola Comum após 2013 e, em particular, o Regulamento (UE) n. º 1307/2013 que estabelece regras aplicáveis aos pagamentos diretos aos agricultores ao abrigo de regimes de apoio no âmbito da política agrícola comum (3) e ao Regulamento (UE) N. o 1305/2013, relativo ao apoio ao desenvolvimento rural pelo Fundo Europeu Agrícola de Desenvolvimento Rural (FEADER) (4),
- Tendo em conta o Regulamento (UE) n. º 1380/2013 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 11 de dezembro de 2013, relativo à política comum das pescas, que altera os Regulamentos (CE) n. º 1954/2003 e (CE) n. º 1224/2009 do Conselho e revoga Regulamentos (CE) n. o 2371/2002 e (CE) n. o 639/2004 do Conselho e Decisão 2004/585 / CE do Conselho (5),
- Tendo em conta o Quadro Financeiro Plurianual (QFP) 2014-2020,
- Tendo em conta a sua resolução, de 20 de abril de 2012, sobre o nosso seguro de vida, o nosso capital natural: uma estratégia da UE em matéria de biodiversidade para 2020 (6),
- Tendo em conta a sua resolução, de 12 de dezembro de 2013, sobre as infraestruturas verdes - reforçar o capital natural da Europa (7),
- Tendo em conta a sua resolução, de 28 de abril de 2015, sobre "Uma nova estratégia florestal da UE: para as florestas e o setor florestal" (8),
- Tendo em conta o estudo do Serviço de Estudos do Parlamento Europeu, de abril de 2015, intitulado «Salvaguardar a diversidade biológica - política da UE e acordos internacionais»,
- ter em conta o relatório Forest Europe intitulado "Situação das Florestas da Europa em 2015" (9),
- Tendo em conta o estudo do seu Departamento Temático dos Direitos dos Cidadãos e Assuntos Constitucionais de 2009 sobre legislação e práticas nacionais relativas à aplicação da Directiva 92/43 / CEE do Conselho, de 21 de Maio de 1992, relativa à preservação dos habitats naturais e dos animais selvagens fauna e flora, nomeadamente o artigo 6.
- Tendo em conta o parecer do Comité das Regiões, adotado na 115.a reunião plenária de 3 e 4 de dezembro de 2015, intitulada «Contribuição para o teste de aptidão das Diretivas Aves e Habitats da UE»,
Tendo em conta o artigo 52º do seu Regimento,
- Tendo em conta o relatório da Comissão do Ambiente, da Saúde Pública e da Segurança Alimentar e o parecer da Comissão do Desenvolvimento (A8-0003 / 2016),
A. Recordando que a biodiversidade engloba a variedade única de ecossistemas, habitats, espécies e genes na Terra, dos quais os seres humanos são fortemente dependentes;
B. Considerando que a biodiversidade tem um valor intrínseco esmagador que deve ser protegido em benefício das gerações futuras; Considerando que a biodiversidade também traz benefícios para a saúde humana e contribui para um enorme valor social e económico, e que o custo de oportunidade socioeconómico da ausência do objetivo global da biodiversidade é estimado em 50 mil milhões de euros por ano;
C. Considerando que a agricultura desempenha um papel importante na consecução dos objetivos em matéria de biodiversidade; Considerando que a necessidade de uma produção alimentar eficiente - para alimentar uma população mundial em rápido crescimento - e os objetivos da política energética que exigem uma maior utilização da biomassa como fonte de energia estão a fazer exigências significativas ao setor agrícola;
D. Considerando que os setores agrícola e florestal contribuem para preservar a biodiversidade no contexto da aplicação da legislação existente;
E. Considerando que a diversidade de espécies e variedades de plantas tradicionalmente cultivadas por pequenas e médias explorações agrícolas e agrícolas familiares é de enorme importância, tanto para responder às diferentes necessidades e utilizações das comunidades rurais, como para reduzir a vulnerabilidade das culturas às condições climáticas, pragas e doenças adversas; ;
F. Considerando que o cultivo sustentável e responsável da terra e a pecuária constituem um contributo essencial para a preservação da biodiversidade;
G. Considerando que a biodiversidade está sob grande pressão em todo o mundo, o que está a provocar mudanças irreversíveis profundamente prejudiciais para a natureza, a sociedade e a economia;
H. Considerando que o objetivo 11 de Aichi prevê a proteção de pelo menos 17% das zonas terrestres e de águas interiores através de sistemas de gestão eficaz de áreas protegidas; Considerando que a proporção de eco-regiões europeias com 17% do seu território dentro das áreas protegidas é muito reduzida quando as áreas protegidas exclusivamente pela rede Natura 2000 são excluídas;
I. Considerando que a restauração dos ecossistemas pode ter um impacto positivo tanto na mitigação como na adaptação às alterações climáticas;
J. Considerando que pelo menos 8 em cada 10 cidadãos da UE consideram o impacto da perda de biodiversidade grave e que 552.470 cidadãos participaram na consulta pública sobre o exame de qualidade das Diretivas Natureza, a maior resposta de sempre a qualquer consulta da Comissão; Considerando que, de acordo com o inquérito Eurobarómetro, os cidadãos desejam receber mais informações sobre a perda de biodiversidade e a maioria das pessoas não conhece a Natura 2000;
K. Considerando que um número considerável de cidadãos empenhados, quer por sua própria iniciativa, quer enquanto membros de grupos de ação locais ou regionais, tomam medidas locais e regionais para promover a biodiversidade, obtendo assim resultados positivos num prazo relativamente curto;
L. Considerando que 65% dos cidadãos da UE vivem num raio de 5 km de um sítio Natura 2000 e 98% vivem num raio de 20 km, sugerindo que estes sítios têm potencial para aumentar a sensibilização para a biodiversidade e prestar serviços ecossistémicos que contribuam para o bem-estar sendo uma grande parte da população da UE;
M. Considerando que as políticas em matéria de biodiversidade devem respeitar plenamente o princípio da subsidiariedade, de modo a que as diferenças regionais nas paisagens e nos habitats sejam plenamente respeitadas;
N. Considerando a importância da biodiversidade nas regiões ultraperiféricas e nos países e territórios ultramarinos, que representam reservas únicas de espécies endémicas de flora e fauna; considerando que as Directivas Aves e Habitats não são, no entanto, aplicadas em algumas destas regiões;
1. Congratula-se com a revisão intercalar da estratégia em matéria de biodiversidade e com os relatórios "State of Nature" e "SOER 2015"; salienta a importância estratégica destes relatórios para alcançar os objetivos da UE em matéria de biodiversidade;
2. Manifesta a sua séria preocupação com a perda contínua de biodiversidade; observa que os objetivos para 2020 não serão alcançados sem esforços adicionais, substanciais e contínuos; observa, ao mesmo tempo, que as provas científicas demonstraram que a natureza da Europa se encontraria num estado muito pior sem o impacto positivo das Diretivas Aves e Habitats da UE e que os esforços direcionados e financiados de forma adequada produzem resultados positivos; salienta, no entanto, que ainda existe um grande potencial de melhoria;
3. Salienta que a destruição dos habitats é o factor mais importante que conduz à perda de biodiversidade e é uma prioridade particular quando se trata de fazer face a esta perda, ou seja, através da redução da degradação e fragmentação;
4. Salienta que a perda de biodiversidade se refere não só a espécies e habitats, mas também à diversidade genética; insta a Comissão a desenvolver uma estratégia para a conservação da diversidade genética;
5. Sublinha o papel crítico da biodiversidade nos Objectivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável (ODS), em particular os Objectivos 14 ("Conservar e utilizar de forma sustentável os oceanos, os mares e os recursos marinhos") e 15 ("Proteger, restaurar e promover a utilização sustentável dos ecossistemas terrestres"). gerir de forma sustentável as florestas, combater a desertificação e travar e reverter a degradação da terra e travar a perda de biodiversidade ”); recorda que a UE possui uma biodiversidade incrível, em particular graças às suas regiões ultraperiféricas, mas também aos países e territórios ultramarinos a ela associados; insta, por conseguinte, a UE a continuar fortemente empenhada em reforçar ainda mais a Convenção sobre a Diversidade Biológica e garantir que esta seja efetivamente aplicada;
6. Observa que a fragmentação, degradação e destruição dos habitats em resultado das alterações do uso do solo, alterações climáticas, padrões de consumo insustentáveis e utilização dos mares são algumas das principais pressões e determinantes da perda de biodiversidade na UE e para além das suas fronteiras; salienta, por conseguinte, a necessidade de identificar e estabelecer indicadores que medem inequivocamente e cientificamente o estado da biodiversidade numa determinada região ou região e apoiar a utilização racional e sustentável dos recursos tanto a nível da UE como a nível mundial, incluindo nos países em desenvolvimento; insta, em particular, a UE a ancorar melhor os seus compromissos internacionais em matéria de biodiversidade às suas alterações climáticas e às estratégias Europa 2020; salienta que uma economia mais eficiente em termos de recursos e uma redução do consumo excessivo poderiam permitir à UE reduzir a sua dependência dos recursos naturais, em particular de fora da Europa; recorda também que as abordagens baseadas nos ecossistemas para a mitigação e adaptação às alterações climáticas podem fornecer alternativas rentáveis às soluções tecnológicas, ao passo que o progresso em muitas ciências aplicadas depende da disponibilidade a longo prazo e da diversidade dos ativos naturais;
7. Salienta a importância crucial do aumento da vontade política ao mais alto nível para salvaguardar a biodiversidade e travar a perda de biodiversidade; considera essencial a aplicação da legislação em vigor, a aplicação da legislação e a integração da proteção da biodiversidade noutros domínios políticos; solicita, em particular, às autoridades regionais e locais dos Estados-Membros que prestem informações e sensibilizem para a biodiversidade;
8. Lamenta o facto de, na Europa, cerca de um quarto das espécies selvagens estarem em risco de extinção e muitos ecossistemas se degradarem, dando origem a graves danos sociais e económicos para a UE;
9. Salienta que a natureza e o desenvolvimento económico não são mutuamente exclusivos; está convicto da necessidade de incorporar mais profundamente a natureza na sociedade, incluindo a economia e as empresas privadas, a fim de gerar crescimento económico sustentável e tomar medidas proativas para proteger, restaurar e gerir melhor o ambiente; considera, em particular, que o compromisso de reduzir a exploração dos recursos deve ter um papel central na fusão dos objetivos ambientais e económicos;
10. Salienta que a perda de biodiversidade tem custos económicos devastadores para a sociedade, que até agora não foram suficientemente integrados nas políticas económicas e outras políticas; considera fundamental reconhecer que o investimento na biodiversidade é essencial do ponto de vista socioeconómico; observa que um em cada seis postos de trabalho na UE depende, em certa medida, da natureza e da biodiversidade; salienta que a biodiversidade tem um potencial significativo para criar novas competências, empregos e oportunidades de negócio; acolhe favoravelmente métodos para medir o valor económico da biodiversidade; considera que estes instrumentos podem aumentar a consciencialização, melhorar a utilização dos recursos disponíveis e resultar em melhores tomadas de decisão;
11. Insta a Comissão a reforçar o papel que a biodiversidade e os ecossistemas desempenham nos assuntos económicos, com vista a avançar para uma economia verde, exorta a Comissão a intensificar as medidas tomadas em apoio da ecologização do Semestre Europeu; salienta que a biodiversidade é uma responsabilidade social global que não pode basear-se unicamente na despesa pública;
12. Considera que o valor económico da biodiversidade deve reflectir-se em indicadores que orientam a tomada de decisões, sem levar à mercantilização da biodiversidade e que vão para além do PIB; está convencido de que isso irá beneficiar a busca dos ODS; solicita, neste contexto, a integração sistemática dos valores da biodiversidade nos sistemas contabilísticos nacionais como parte do processo de acompanhamento dos ODS;
13. Salienta que a UE e os seus Estados-Membros não cumpriram os objectivos da Estratégia em matéria de Biodiversidade para 2010; insta a Comissão, tendo em conta a falta de progressos na consecução dos objetivos de biodiversidade para 2020, a fornecer ao Parlamento relatórios bienais nos quais o Conselho e a Comissão elaborem o ponto da situação, as razões da não realização e a estratégia para garantir futuras conformidade;
Revisão intercalar da Estratégia de Biodiversidade.
14. Insta a Comissão e os Estados-Membros, com caráter de urgência, a darem maior prioridade à realização dos objetivos para 2020; apela a uma abordagem multilateral e salienta o papel vital dos intervenientes nacionais, regionais e locais e a sua plena participação neste processo; salienta que o financiamento e uma maior sensibilização e compreensão do público, bem como o apoio à proteção da biodiversidade, são também essenciais; considera que uma boa política de informação e o envolvimento precoce de todos os intervenientes em causa, incluindo os agentes socioeconómicos, são, por conseguinte, essenciais para alcançar estes objectivos;
15. Solicita à UE que reduza a sua pegada de biodiversidade a nível mundial, em consonância com o princípio da coerência das políticas de desenvolvimento, e que atinja os limites ecológicos dos ecossistemas, progredindo na consecução dos grandes objectivos em matéria de biodiversidade e cumprindo os compromissos em matéria de protecção da biodiversidade; ; insta igualmente a UE a ajudar os países em desenvolvimento nos seus esforços para conservar a biodiversidade e assegurar a sua utilização sustentável;
16. Deplora os lentos progressos realizados pelos Estados-Membros na aplicação da legislação ambiental da UE; salienta a necessidade de mais informações sobre o estado da implementação nos Estados-Membros;
17. Salienta que a plena aplicação, execução e financiamento adequado das directivas relativas à natureza constituem uma condição essencial para assegurar o sucesso da estratégia no seu todo e cumprir o seu objectivo principal; solicita, tendo em conta o pouco tempo disponível, que todas as partes envolvidas envidem todos os esforços para o conseguir e para gerar um amplo apoio;
18. Insta os líderes da UE a ouvirem o meio milhão de cidadãos que pediram que as nossas fortes leis de protecção da natureza sejam defendidas e melhor implementadas;
19. Insta a Comissão a melhorar as orientações, que deverão facilitar a plena aplicação e execução das directivas, em conformidade com a jurisprudência existente; exorta a Comissão a dar maior prioridade ao diálogo com os Estados-Membros e todas as partes interessadas, incluindo os agentes socioeconómicos, a fim de incentivar o intercâmbio de boas práticas;
20. Reconhece que um dos principais benefícios das directivas relativas à natureza é a medida em que contribuem para assegurar condições equitativas em toda a UE, proporcionando um nível básico de protecção ambiental que todos os Estados-Membros devem cumprir, em conformidade com os requisitos de normas e o princípio do reconhecimento mútuo no mercado único;
21. Observa que, em 2012, apenas 58% dos locais da rede Natura 2000 dispunham de planos de gestão; está preocupado com os níveis divergentes de implementação; insta os Estados-Membros a concluírem a designação de sítios Natura 2000 terrestres e marinhos e elaborarem planos de gestão, em consulta com todas as partes interessadas;
22. Salienta que, embora a gestão dos sítios da rede Natura 2000 em toda a UE custe um mínimo de 5,8 mil milhões de euros, trazem benefícios ambientais e socioeconómicos no valor de 200 a 300 mil milhões de euros por ano; insta os Estados-Membros a garantir que os sítios da rede Natura 2000 sejam geridos de forma transparente;
23. Reconhece a contribuição vital que as zonas marinhas protegidas criadas no âmbito da rede Natura 2000 desempenharão para alcançar um bom estado ambiental ao abrigo da Directiva-Quadro Estratégia Marinha e para cumprir a meta global de 10% de zonas costeiras e marinhas protegidas, conforme estabelecido em Aichi Biodiversity Target 11, até 2020; lamenta que esta meta esteja ainda longe de ser alcançada;
24. Exorta a Comissão e os Estados-Membros a aumentarem a recolha de dados e a monitorização de habitats e espécies, em particular quando existam grandes lacunas, a fim de avaliar os progressos alcançados na consecução destes objectivos;
25. Manifesta a sua preocupação pelo facto de ainda não existirem informações detalhadas sobre o financiamento e financiamento reais da conservação da natureza por cada Estado-Membro; considera que esta é uma lacuna significativa no nosso conhecimento; solicita à Comissão e aos Estados-Membros que identifiquem e compilem as respetivas rubricas orçamentais nacionais sem demora;
26. Reitera os seus anteriores pedidos de cofinanciamento da UE para a gestão dos sítios da rede Natura 2000, que devem ser complementares dos fundos de desenvolvimento rural, estruturais e das pescas, bem como aos fundos disponibilizados pelos Estados-Membros;
27. Insta a Comissão e os Estados-Membros a continuarem a aplicar as directivas relativas à natureza de forma consciente; salienta que o cumprimento ea aplicação da legislação da UE devem ser melhorados através, por exemplo, da aplicação de sanções proporcionadas, eficazes e dissuasivas;
28. Solicita, neste contexto, esforços suplementares para travar todas as mortes, armadilhas e tráfico ilícitos de aves e resolver os conflitos locais daí resultantes; insta a Comissão e os Estados-Membros a desenvolverem novos instrumentos para a detecção de atividades ilegais nos sítios da rede Natura 2000;
29. Solicita à Comissão que apresente uma proposta específica para o desenvolvimento de uma rede transeuropeia de infraestruturas ecológicas (RTE-G) até 2017; encoraja o desenvolvimento conjunto, em conjunto com os Estados-Membros, de uma estratégia para os corredores europeus de fauna selvagem para espécies-alvo;
30. Solicita aos Estados-Membros que ainda não o fizeram que desenvolvam e implementem imediatamente quadros de priorização de restauro dos ecossistemas;
31. Insta os Estados-Membros a darem prioridade ao objetivo de recuperar 15% dos ecossistemas degradados até 2020 e a utilizar as dotações disponíveis no quadro do QFP para esse efeito; insta a Comissão a apresentar orientações sobre a forma de utilizar essas dotações para restaurar ecossistemas degradados e para a proteção da biodiversidade em geral;
32. Chama a atenção para a importância da agricultura e da silvicultura para atingir este objectivo e para a necessidade de soluções sustentáveis para a agricultura e a silvicultura;
33. Reconhece o impacto adverso da poluição atmosférica na biodiversidade e nos serviços ecossistémicos, sendo utilizadas cargas críticas para o azoto e a acidez dos nutrientes como indicador de pressão sobre os ecossistemas naturais e a diversidade de espécies;
34. Insta a Comissão e os Estados-Membros a investirem na biodiversidade, a fim de apoiar a capacidade de inovação das empresas, em especial no domínio da engenharia ecológica;
35. Observa que a incorporação da conservação da natureza noutras áreas políticas continua a ser da maior importância, e salienta o papel crucial da agricultura e da silvicultura neste contexto;
36. Salienta que a preservação da biodiversidade é fundamental para a produção de géneros alimentícios e alimentos para animais e, por conseguinte, é do interesse de agricultores; realça a importância de uma abordagem multilateral que envolva e incentive ativamente os agricultores e os operadores florestais a enfrentar estes desafios em conjunto;
37. Recorda que a Política Agrícola Comum (PAC) já dispõe de instrumentos para restaurar, preservar e melhorar a biodiversidade, como as Áreas de Foco Ecológico (EFAs); salienta que restaurar, preservar e melhorar os ecossistemas relacionados com a agricultura e a silvicultura, incluindo nas zonas da rede Natura 2000, é salientado como uma das seis prioridades-chave para o desenvolvimento rural na UE;
38. Constata com pesar que ainda não se registou uma melhoria mensurável do estado da biodiversidade na agricultura, mas reconhece que ainda é muito cedo para avaliar a eficácia real da PAC reformada; congratula-se com os planos da Comissão para avaliar os progressos realizados na aplicação da PAC e insta a Comissão e os Estados-Membros a monitorizar, avaliar e, se necessário, melhorar a eficácia das medidas de ecologização - incluindo a avaliação da flexibilidade dos Estados-Membros - e medidas de desenvolvimento rural pertinentes. o contexto da PAC; insta a Comissão a ter em conta as suas conclusões na revisão intercalar da PAC;
39. Solicita aos Estados-Membros que utilizem melhor os instrumentos existentes da política agrícola comum e da política de coesão para ajudar os agricultores e os operadores florestais a atingir os objetivos em matéria de biodiversidade;
destaca a necessidade de promover a utilização sustentável dos recursos fitogenéticos e das variedades agrícolas tradicionais, juntamente com soluções sustentáveis para a agricultura e a silvicultura;
40. Salienta que os AGE devem, em princípio, ser áreas de proteção e promoção de processos agroecológicos, como a polinização e a conservação do solo; solicita à Comissão que publique dados sobre quantos Estados-Membros têm permitido a utilização de pesticidas e fertilizantes nestas AAE desde a entrada em vigor do Regulamento (UE) n. º 1307/2013;
41. Exorta a Comissão, a bem da transparência, a tornar públicas as justificações dadas pelos Estados-Membros para a escolha das medidas de ecologização;
42. Insiste em que a Comissão e os Estados-Membros assegurem que os recursos financeiros no âmbito da PAC sejam reorientados de modo a subsidiar atividades prejudiciais para o ambiente, a financiar práticas agrícolas sustentáveis e a manter a biodiversidade conectada;
43. Salienta a necessidade de proteger a biodiversidade agrícola nos países em desenvolvimento, a fim de garantir a segurança alimentar; exorta, por conseguinte, a Comissão a investir na agroecologia nos países em desenvolvimento, em consonância com as recomendações do relator especial da ONU sobre o direito à alimentação;
44. Exorta a Comissão a promover a gestão sustentável das florestas mundiais, garantindo os processos ecológicos e a biodiversidade e a produtividade das florestas e respeitando os direitos dos povos indígenas a fim de sustentar os recursos florestais; solicita, além disso, à Comissão que proíba a destruição das florestas naturais, proteja as espécies ameaçadas e proíba os pesticidas tóxicos e o plantio de árvores geneticamente modificadas;
45. Exorta a Comissão a ter mais em conta, no âmbito da sua estratégia de apoio à biodiversidade, as florestas tropicais, dada a sua concentração de ecossistemas, habitats e espécies vulneráveis particularmente ameaçadas, o seu papel vital para o equilíbrio ambiental eo clima, e função social e cultural das populações nativas;
46. Solicita aos Estados-Membros que desenvolvam e apliquem planos de gestão florestal com o objectivo de melhorar o estado de conservação dos habitats e espécies florestais e melhorar a disponibilidade da informação; solicita à Comissão que elabore critérios e normas para a recolha de informações sobre a biodiversidade florestal, com vista a assegurar a coerência e a comparabilidade;
47. Chama a atenção para a ameaça potencial para a biodiversidade representada pela crescente procura de agrocombustíveis e pela pressão cada vez mais intensa sobre os países em desenvolvimento para a sua produção, através da conversão e degradação de habitats e ecossistemas, como zonas húmidas e florestas;
48. Solicita que os critérios de sustentabilidade social e ambiental para a produção de biomassa constituam uma parte coerente do quadro estabelecido pela Diretiva Energias Renováveis (RED); considera crucial desenvolver padrões de sustentabilidade para todos os setores nos quais a biomassa pode ser usada, juntamente com critérios de manejo florestal sustentável para garantir que a bioenergia não contribua para a mudança climática ou torne-se um fator adicional de apropriação de terras e insegurança alimentar;
49. Observa com preocupação que 90% do óleo de palma consumido no mundo é produzido na Indonésia e na Malásia à custa das florestas de turfa, que são queimadas para dar lugar a grandes plantações de acácia e palmeiras; aponta para o facto de, segundo um estudo realizado pelo Banco Mundial, a Indonésia se ter tornado no terceiro maior emissor de gases com efeito de estufa, precisamente devido a incêndios florestais;
50. Insta a Comissão e os Estados-Membros a aplicarem a Política Comum das Pescas reformada de forma correcta e rápida, aplicando uma gestão das pescas baseada nos ecossistemas, a fim de alcançar o objectivo de rendimento máximo sustentável, nomeadamente promovendo métodos de captura sustentáveis e inovadores; salienta a importância de reduzir a poluição a fim de salvaguardar, inter alia, a biodiversidade e as unidades populacionais marinhas, e apoiar o crescimento económico através da economia azul;
51. Salienta a importância fundamental dos ecossistemas e recursos marinhos enquanto base para o desenvolvimento sustentável dos países costeiros; apela aos Estados-Membros para que implementem plenamente os compromissos anteriores e trabalhem com os governos aos níveis global, regional e nacional para realizar um aumento significativo da ambição e acção com vista a alcançar uma pesca equitativa e económica e ecologicamente sustentável;
52. Solicita à Comissão e aos Estados-Membros que assegurem que a UE desempenhe um papel de liderança na obtenção de um acordo ao abrigo da Convenção das Nações Unidas sobre o Direito do Mar (UNCLOS) relativo à conservação e utilização sustentável da biodiversidade marinha para além da jurisdição dos Estados; ;
53. Exorta a Comissão a colaborar com os Estados-Membros e com países terceiros para melhorar a aplicação do Regulamento (CE) n. º 1005/2008 do Conselho relativo à pesca ilegal, não declarada e não regulamentada (INN);
54. Solicita à Comissão e aos Estados-Membros que melhorem a qualidade ambiental dos mares da UE, através da realização de projectos destinados a reduzir a poluição química, física e microbiológica, optimizando a sustentabilidade do tráfego marítimo e protegendo a biodiversidade, que está inevitavelmente ameaçada; notes, in this connection, that 12.7 million tonnes of plastic (5 % of total production) end up in the oceans each year through sewer systems, waterways and landfills along coasts, which disrupts the environment and the biodiversity of the entire planet;
55. Urges the Commission to establish, without delay and in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014, an accurate and comprehensive list of invasive alien species which are of concern to the Union, on the understanding that such a list should not be limited to a fixed number of species and should include complete and coherent implementation actions – underpinned by appropriate resources – aimed at achieving the targets; stresses the importance of regularly updating this list and carrying out additional risk assessments for species, so that the legislation on invasive alien species can act as a powerful lever;
56. Calls on all Member States to ratify the International Maritime Organisation Ballast Water Management Convention with a view to preventing the spread of invasive alien species through maritime and inland water transport and contributing to the implementation and achievement of the target;
57. Calls on the Member States to monitor imports of exotic species into their territory and to report regularly on them to the Commission and other Member States; calls for greater restrictions on imports and private possession of endangered species, including primates, reptiles and amphibians;
58. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to phase out environmentally harmful subsidies by 2020, ensuring that evaluations of such subsidies are completed by 2016 and that reporting requirements are incorporated into relevant EU sectoral policy areas; urges the Commission and the Member States to fully endorse and facilitate the transition to a circular economy;
59. Urges the remaining Member States to ratify the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation ahead of COP-MOP 2 in December 2016;
60. Recalls that, at the global level, the EU makes a significant contribution to the fight against biodiversity loss and that, with its Member States, it is the main donor of funds for biodiversity conservation and the biggest contributor of official development assistance for biodiversity;
61. Welcomes the Commission's B4Life flagship project for 2014-2020, but believes that the EU must step up its contribution to averting global biodiversity loss, and calls for the EU and its Member States to deliver on their Hyderabad commitments to double total biodiversity-related funding flows to developing countries by 2015 and to maintain this level until at least 2020;
62. Stresses that wildlife crime and habitat loss pose a direct and prevalent threat to global biodiversity; recognises that the omission of wildlife trafficking and the lack of action relating to EU involvement in CITES are a serious gap in the EU Biodiversity Strategy; underlines the urgent need for coordinated action to combat the illegal wildlife trade; calls on the Commission to submit an ambitious action plan for combating illegal trafficking in wild animals and plants, and in products derived from them, and calls for similar measures to be taken to tackle deforestation and forest degradation;
Fitness check of the Nature Directives.
63. Stresses that the Nature Directives are milestones for nature policy, not only within the EU but also internationally; considers that, thanks to their concise, coherent and consistent form, these Nature Directives can, so to speak, be regarded as smart regulation avant la lettre ;
64. Stresses that Natura 2000 is still a relatively young network, whose full potential is far from having been achieved; considers that the Nature Directives remain relevant and that best practices in implementation demonstrate their effectiveness; stresses that there is ample flexibility in the Nature Directives, including the option for adaptation according to technical and scientific progress; notes that smart implementation and international cooperation are essential for reaching the biodiversity targets;
65. Opposes a possible revision of the Nature Directives because this would jeopardise the implementation of the Biodiversity Strategy, would bring about a protracted period of legal uncertainty, with the risk that it would result in weakened legislative protection and financing, and would be bad for nature, for people and for business; emphasises, in this connection, that the ongoing REFIT check of the Nature Directives should focus on improving implementation;
66. Is convinced that any difficulties in achieving the objectives of the Nature Directives and the Biodiversity Strategy in general lie not with the legislation but primarily with its incomplete, divergent and inadequate implementation, enforcement and integration into other policy areas;
67. Stresses that there is ample flexibility within the Nature Directives to facilitate their implementation taking into account economic, social, cultural and regional requirements, as enshrined in the Habitats Directive; urges the Commission, nevertheless, to clarify their interpretation and implementation guidelines in order to avoid and resolve sticking points;
68. Calls for a detailed examination of the role of large predators and the possible introduction of adjustment measures to ensure that biodiversity, the agricultural landscape and the centuries-old practice of letting stock graze in mountain regions are maintained;
69. Recognises the benefits of EU nature legislation for the preservation of ecosystems, habitats and species in protected areas; regrets, however, that the French outermost regions, which constitute unique reserves of species and ecosystems and represent a significant proportion of European and global biodiversity, are excluded from this legislative framework and from all other legislative frameworks adapted to their specific characteristics; emphasises, however, the success of all projects financed by the LIFE+ programme in these regions and of the European BEST initiative to strengthen biodiversity conservation and adaptation to climate change in the outermost regions and the overseas countries and territories;
70. Calls on the Commission, following on from the BEST preparatory action, to introduce a sustainable funding mechanism for biodiversity protection in the outermost regions and the overseas countries and territories;
The way ahead: additional measures.
71. Regards biodiversity loss outside protected nature areas as a gap in the strategy; encourages the Commission and the Member States to gather information about these habitats and species and to develop appropriate frameworks to prevent habitat fragmentation and the net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services by working with local authorities and civil society;
72. Considers that such a framework must comprise a bundle of complementary measures that address the root causes of biodiversity loss and improve the integration of biodiversity in sectoral policies, including agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy and transport;
73. Encourages the Member States to ensure, by means of urban planning initiatives, the carefully considered use of space and adequate protection of the Natura 2000 network, to preserve open spaces – in particular by opting for a pastoralist approach rather than abandoning the land, which increases natural risks such as avalanches, mudslides and ground movements – and to establish a coherent network of blue-green infrastructure in rural and urban areas, while at the same time creating the requisite legal certainty for economic activities; calls on the Commission to produce an overview of best practices in this area;
74. Considers it essential, in order to use the available resources more efficiently and in a more targeted manner, that the Commission draw up specific criteria for the Natural Capital Financing Facility, which must guarantee that projects deliver appropriate, positive and scientifically tangible results for biodiversity; considers that LIFE projects should be linked to funding from other programme streams such as the Structural Funds, so as to scale up and replicate successful projects through the EU and create a larger multiplier effect;
75. Calls on the Commission to expand the multi-fund approach to biodiversity financing, and calls for better linkage between the various financing tools;
76. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to improve coherence across relevant sectoral policies with a view to incorporating biodiversity goals while ensuring that the next MFF guarantees no net overall loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services.
77. Calls on the Commission to set up a high-level group on natural capital with a view to achieving these goals by giving them greater political prominence and priority;
78. Regrets that EU environmental law is not subject to coherent and effective environmental inspections and surveillance aimed at detecting and preventing breaches of environmental law across different sectors, including for protected nature conservation sites; welcomes the preparatory work undertaken towards an EU framework for environmental inspections, and calls on the Commission to come forward with a legislative proposal without further delay;
79. Stresses the importance of innovation, research and development in order to achieve the objectives of the Nature Directives, and calls on the Commission and the Member States to focus in particular on the links between biodiversity preservation and benefits to human health and economic well-being, and to coordinate data collection measures; recalls that there are still large gaps in knowledge regarding the state of marine ecosystems and fishery resources; calls on the Member States to ensure that data on the impact of fisheries and aquaculture on the wider environment are collected and are publicly available;
80. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to launch a European initiative on pollinators without delay – paying particular attention to pest resistance in plants affecting bees and other pollinators – and on the basis of policies already conducted in the Member States, and to make proposals on the soil framework directive, on a directive on access to justice and on the revised EU legal framework for environmental inspections without further delay;
81. Highlights with concern the increasing body of scientific evidence which demonstrates the negative effect neonicotinoid pesticides can have on essential services such as pollination and natural pest control; calls, therefore, on the Commission to maintain its ban on the use of neonicotinoids;
82. Urges the Commission and the Member States to apply fully the precautionary principle when authorising the use and the environmental release of living modified organisms, in order to prevent any negative impact on biodiversity;
83. Stresses the importance of the LIFE programme for the environment, and in particular the Nature and Biodiversity subprogramme, in order to protect and enhance European biodiversity;
84. Strongly believes that the environment and innovation complement one another, and draws particular attention to nature-based solutions which provide both economically and environmentally smart solutions to address challenges such as climate change, scarcity of raw materials, pollution and antimicrobial resistance; calls on the relevant stakeholders to take up these ‘calls’ under Horizon 2020; calls on the Member States to be more effective in leaving regulatory room to facilitate smart solutions which deliver positive outcomes for biodiversity;
85. Stresses that the issues relating to biodiversity, climate change and scarcity of raw materials are inseparably linked; recalls that maintaining climate change well below 2° Celsius as compared with pre-industrial levels will be essential for preventing biodiversity loss; recalls, meanwhile, that a range of ecosystems act as a buffer against natural hazards, thereby contributing to climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies;
86. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take this into account by ensuring that the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2020 is fully integrated with the EU's position in discussions on a new international agreement on climate change, especially in the light of the fact that, according to the EU-funded ROBIN project, biodiversity protection is part of the solution to climate change mitigation and adaptation, particularly given that tropical forests have the potential to mitigate 25 % of total greenhouse gas emissions;
87. Calls on the Commission to include matters relating to the environment and climate change in the international agreements it concludes and to carry out environmental analyses focused on the possibilities for protecting and improving biodiversity; stresses the importance of systematically identifying and evaluating potential impacts on biodiversity; calls on the Commission to follow up on the findings of the study entitled ‘Identification and mitigation of the negative impacts of EU demand for certain commodities on biodiversity in third countries’ by proposing possible ways to contribute to avoiding or minimising the loss of global biodiversity caused by certain production and consumption patterns in the EU;
88. Urges the Member States – on the basis of the precautionary principle and the principle that preventive action should be taken, and taking into account the risks and the negative climate, environmental and biodiversity impacts involved in hydraulic fracturing for the extraction of unconventional hydrocarbons, and the gaps identified in the EU regulatory regime for shale gas activities – not to authorise any new hydraulic fracturing operations in the EU;
89. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that the Guadeloupe roadmap adopted in October 2014 is acted on, and to put in place the necessary tools for biodiversity protection in the outermost regions and the overseas countries and territories;
90. Stresses the global role of the EU Biodiversity Strategy; calls on the Commission to integrate biodiversity provisions into ongoing trade negotiations and to integrate biodiversity objectives into EU trade policies;
91. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.
Biodiversity loss is a loss to nature, humanity and the economy.
Biodiversity, the unique variety of ecosystems, habitats, species and genes on Earth, of which humanity also forms part, has an overwhelming intrinsic value. In addition, human beings are extremely dependent on biodiversity for numerous valuable ecosystem services, such as clean air, clean water, raw materials, pollinators and protection against flooding, to name just a few. Biodiversity is therefore essential for our health and wellbeing and for our economic prosperity.
Biodiversity is under severe pressure, worldwide and also in Europe. Species are becoming extinct at breakneck pace. This is due to human activity. Habitat change, pollution, overexploitation, invasive alien species and climate change are the principal causes of biodiversity loss.
Biodiversity loss is particularly detrimental and means losses for nature, humanity and the economy: it jeopardises necessary ecosystem services and undermines the natural resilience of the Earth for addressing new challenges. In the ‘Global risks perception survey 2014’, the World Economic Forum ranked biodiversity loss and the collapse of ecosystems in the top 10. The limits and capacity of the planet are being exceeded, triggering irreversible changes. Thus biodiversity loss is also inseparably linked to issues such as climate change and scarcity of raw materials, which is also clear from the new 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020.
The European aim to halt biodiversity loss failed in 2010. The EU responded by drawing up a new strategy in 2011. Heads of State or Government defined the headline target as being to halt biodiversity loss and the deterioration of ecosystem services, to restore them in so far as feasible by 2020 and to step up EU efforts to avert the degradation of global biodiversity.
Consequently, the strategy was built around six targets, each underpinned by specific actions: (1) full implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives (the Nature Directives); (2) maintaining and restoring ecosystems and ecosystem services; (3) increasing the contribution of agriculture and forestry to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity; (4) ensuring sustainable use of fish stocks; (5) combating invasive alien species and (6) stepping up the EU’s contribution to averting global biodiversity loss.
Mid-term review: still far from halfway.
In 2015, the verdict is crystal clear: without substantial additional efforts, the EU will in 2020 again fail to achieve its agreed targets. The figures speak for themselves. The EU-28’s ecological footprint is twice as large as Europe’s biocapacity. Barely 23% of species and 16% of habitats have a favourable status. There is most certainly too little progress to permit the headline target to be achieved. Significant progress has only been made on two targets (Target 4, fisheries, and Target 5, invasive alien species), while results for the other targets are seriously insufficient and give most cause for concern in the case of agriculture and forestry.
Thus the general trend remains extremely bleak and worrying. In this respect, the mid-term review confirms the findings of the ‘SOER 2015’ and ‘The State of Nature’ reports. The international perspective of the Global Biodiversity Outlook Report 2014 conveys a similar message: despite considerable efforts and progress in certain sectors, it is possible that most of the Aichi targets will not be achieved by 2020 unless substantial additional efforts are made.
At the same time, it is promising and encouraging that targeted efforts and investments in nature and biodiversity can indeed result in success stories. The return of certain species is a clear illustration thereof. The rapporteur calls for best practices to be seized as catalysts for change, because, although the successes are so far outweighed by the general negative trend, they demonstrate that the existing legislation works, that the 2020 targets are achievable and that there is still enormous potential for improvement.
Political will for implementation, enforcement and integration.
The rapporteur advocates greater political will to genuinely tackle biodiversity loss as a policy priority, and considers a multi-stakeholder approach to be necessary, in which regional and local actors play a special role.
In the rapporteur’s view, better implementation and enforcement of existing legislation are key for progress.
The most obviously relevant legislation consists of the Nature Directives: full implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives is an absolute precondition for achieving the biodiversity strategy as a whole. The Nature Directives are milestones in Europe’s nature conservation policy and, due to their concise, coherent and consistent form, can, so to speak, be regarded as smart regulation avant la lettre. It is thanks to the Nature Directives that the EU has a unique network, Natura 2000, which, with 26 000 protected areas, comprises 18% of the land area and 6% of the marine environment. The rapporteur observes that Natura 2000 is a relatively young network, whose full potential is far from having been achieved.
The rapporteur unequivocally opposes a possible revision of the Nature Directives because this would jeopardise the biodiversity strategy itself, bring about a protracted period of legal uncertainty and possibly weaken the legislation. Moreover, the rapporteur is convinced that the problem lies not with the legislation itself but primarily with its incomplete and inadequate implementation and enforcement. The rapporteur therefore considers it far more efficient for both the Commission and the competent authorities in the Member States to pursue better implementation in consultation with each other. Improved guidelines, strict enforcement and exchanges of best practices are crucial in this regard.
The collective and transversal approach which is necessary in order to halt biodiversity loss effectively remains problematic. Integrating biodiversity into the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is a particular challenge. The rapporteur calls for the effectiveness of greening measures and other rural development measures to be monitored, assessed and increased.
Investment in nature and biodiversity is socially and economically necessary.
The rapporteur endorses the moral argument that biodiversity should be protected because of its great intrinsic value and as a way of keeping our planet as intact as possible for future generations. Moreover, he strongly believes that investing in nature and biodiversity is also essential from a socioeconomic point of view. With this in mind, he deplores the fact that nature and economic development are again in opposition. A change of mind-set is imperative. Methods to measure the economic value of biodiversity, such as ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity’ (TEEB), despite possible shortcomings, can play a useful role here and contribute to more awareness, a better use of available resources and better informed decision-making.
The following statistics clearly demonstrate the enormous socioeconomic impact of biodiversity:
• each year, ‘non-action’ causes losses of ecosystem services equivalent to 7% of global GDP;
• the socioeconomic opportunity costs of not reaching the 2020 targets are estimated at €50 billion a year;
• one in six jobs in the EU depends to some extent on nature; 4.5 million jobs in the EU are dependent on ecosystems protected by Natura 2000;
• the value of pollination services provided by insects is estimated at €15 billion a year;
• the damage caused by invasive alien species in the EU is estimated at €12 billion a year;
• the costs of managing Natura 2000 (€5.8 billion a year) are many times less than the added value produced by Natura 2000 (€200-300 billion).
Of course, investing in nature and biodiversity costs money. But these costs are far outweighed by the added value which nature and biodiversity have to offer, and the loss of value resulting from ‘non-action’.
The voice of the citizens.
Citizens regard nature and biodiversity as important. According to the Eurobarometer survey (No 436) on biodiversity, at least eight out of 10 EU citizens regard the impact of biodiversity loss as serious. Citizens also responded loud and clear during the recent public internet consultation concerning the fitness check of the Nature Directives. This consultation drew in a record number of participants, namely 552 470 (by way of comparison, this is three times as many as for TTIP). The ‘Nature Alert!’ campaign played a decisive role in this regard.
On the other hand, the Eurobarometer survey revealed that citizens wished to receive more information about biodiversity loss and that most people are not familiar with Natura 2000. What remains unknown can hardly be expected to generate enthusiasm. In order to generate greater public support for investment in nature and biodiversity, the rapporteur considers it essential to persuade more people of the importance of biodiversity. In order to do so, attention should be drawn to the socioeconomic value of biodiversity and the impact of biodiversity loss on health, wellbeing and welfare. Policy-makers at all levels have an important task to fulfil here.
Additional actions are needed.
The rapporteur considers that additional, innovative solutions are necessary in order to halt biodiversity loss, and he proposes a number of specific actions to this end:
• the development of a trans-European network for green infrastructure (TEN-G) could create a win-win situation for nature and the economy;
• nature should not be restricted to nature in protected areas. Guaranteeing access for all to quality nature and prevention of biodiversity loss outside these protected areas constitutes a gap in the existing strategy. A European framework for preventing the net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services could address this shortcoming;
• in order to use available resources more efficiently and in a more targeted manner, specific criteria for the Natural Capital Financing Facility are needed, which should guarantee that projects deliver positive and tangible results for biodiversity;
• it remains necessary to gather reliable and comparable data: in particular, the links between health and biodiversity and the pollinator decline require more research and further action;
• nature-based solutions can significantly contribute to tackling challenges such as climate change: for example, a tailored plan to introduce more nature into towns can significantly lower the temperature there. The rapporteur considers it vital that individual members of the public are also able to contribute, good examples being the revival of allotments and the increasing success of the concept of the ‘living garden’.
Nature is making a cry for help. The question is whether it will rouse us from our torpor and spur us on to further action. The rapporteur is convinced that biodiversity and nature must be central in a smart, sustainable and inclusive Europe, and calls for greater political will to genuinely halt biodiversity loss. This is essential both for nature itself and for the health, wellbeing and welfare of our children and our grandchildren.
OPINION of the Committee on Development.
for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.
on the mid-term review of the EU’s Biodiversity Strategy.
Rapporteur: Jordi Sebastià.
The Committee on Development calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into its motion for a resolution:
1. Recalls that, at global level, the EU makes a significant contribution in the fight against biodiversity loss and that, with its Member States, it is the main donor of funds for biodiversity conservation and the largest contributor of official development assistance for biodiversity, with a doubling of funding between 2006 and 2013; emphasises, nevertheless, the need to boost the EU’s contribution to preserving biodiversity at global level in order to attain the Aichi Biodiversity Targets on time;
2. Underlines the critical role of biodiversity in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in particular Goals 14 ‘Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources’ and 15 ‘Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss’; recalls that the EU has incredible biodiversity, in particular thanks to its outermost regions, but also in overseas countries and territories that are associated with it; calls therefore for the EU to remain strongly committed to further strengthening the Convention on Biological Diversity and to ensure that it is implemented effectively;
3. Notes that habitat fragmentation, degradation and destruction due to land-use change, climate change, unsustainable consumption patterns and the use of the seas are some of the main pressures and drivers causing biodiversity loss in the EU and beyond its borders; emphasises, in the light of this, the need to identify and establish indicators that unequivocally and scientifically measure the state of biodiversity in a given area or region and to support a rational and sustainable use of resources both within the EU and at global level, including in developing countries, and, in particular, urges the EU to better anchor its international biodiversity commitments to its climate change and Europe 2020 strategies; stresses that a more resource-efficient economy and a reduction in overconsumption could enable the EU to reduce its dependence on natural resources, in particular from outside Europe; recalls also that ecosystem-based approaches to climate change mitigation and adaptation could provide cost-effective alternatives to technological solutions, while progress in many applied sciences depends on the long-term availability and diversity of natural assets;
4. Calls for the removal of environmentally harmful subsidies, in line with the EU’s 2020 Strategy and Target 3 of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets;
5. Deplores that actions taken by the EU to reverse biodiversity loss remain outweighed by continued and growing pressures on Europe’s biodiversity, such as land-use change, pollution and climate change; recalls that biodiversity loss is costly for society as a whole, particularly for economic actors in sectors that depend directly on ecosystem services, such as farmers; calls for the EU to mainstream biodiversity across sectors in the economy and to enable synergies in the implementation of the various international multilateral environmental agreements;
6. Takes the view that the economic value of biodiversity should be reflected in indicators guiding decision-making (without leading to the commodification of biodiversity), and going beyond GDP; is convinced that this will benefit the pursuit of the SDGs; calls, in this connection, for the systematic integration of biodiversity values into national accounting systems as part of the SDGs monitoring process;
7. Recalls that maintaining climate change well below 2 degrees Celsius as compared with pre-industrial levels will be essential for preventing biodiversity loss; recalls, meanwhile, that a range of ecosystems act as a buffer against natural hazards, thereby contributing to climate change adaptation and mitigation strategy;
8. Recalls that forests are home to around 90 % of terrestrial biodiversity, while more than one billion people depend on them for their livelihoods; notes with concern that rising international demand for woody biomass risks threatening biodiversity and forest ecosystems on which poor people depend for their livelihoods; fears that EU import dependency may spark widespread deforestation in developing countries, trigger illegal logging and weaken Voluntary Partnership Agreements under the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan; recalls also that an increased use of biomass could lead to an intensification of forestry practices and a reduction in forest carbon stocks, thus jeopardising the objective of limiting climate temperature increase to below 2 degrees Celsius; calls for the EU to develop an action plan on deforestation and forest degradation which is applicable at global level, including in developing countries, while continuing its initiatives to strengthen good forest governance, in particular through its FLEGT agreements;
9. Urges that social and environmental sustainability criteria for biomass production form a coherent part of the framework of the Renewable Energy Directive (RED); deems it crucial to develop sustainability standards for all sectors in which biomass might be used, together with sustainable forest management criteria to ensure that bioenergy does not contribute to climate change or become an additional driver of land grabs and food insecurity;
10. Urgently calls on the Commission and the Member States to give priority to achieving the 2020 targets; calls for a multi-stakeholder approach and stresses the vital role of regional and local actors in this process; stresses that greater public awareness of and support for biodiversity are also essential;
11. Recalls that the expansion of agrofuels, based overwhelmingly on the expansion of large-scale industrial monoculture and intensive agriculture, harm the environment, biodiversity, soil fertility and water availability; urges the Commission to ensure that the EU’s policy on biofuels is consistent with the commitments the EU has entered into under the Convention on Biological Diversity, with climate policy and commitments (including those entered into at COP 21) and with the objectives of the UN-REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) programme;
12. Notes with concern that 90 % of the palm oil consumed in the world is produced in Indonesia and Malaysia at the expense of peat forests, which are burned down to make way for large acacia and oil-palm plantations; points to the fact that, according to a study conducted by the World Bank, Indonesia has become the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases, precisely because of forest fires;
13. Stresses the need to protect agricultural biodiversity in developing countries in order to achieve food security; calls therefore on the Commission to invest in agro-ecology in developing countries, in line with the recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food;
14. Notes that EU development assistance and trade agreements concluded between the EU and African countries are influencing African seed law reform by including provisions on intellectual property protection, with the aim of facilitating cross-border trade in seeds and protecting commercial seed varieties; calls on the Commission to ensure that the EU’s commitments to farmers’ rights in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture are reflected in all technical assistance and financial support for seed policy development; calls for the EU, in line with the EU food security policy framework, also to support intellectual property rights regimes that enhance the development of locally adapted seed varieties and farmer-saved seeds;
15. Calls for reassessing the status of biodiversity in agriculture by taking into account Parliament’s findings in the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy;
16. Recalls that climate change, habitat modification, invasive species, grazing pressures, changed hydrology, land grabbing, monoculture, meat overconsumption, expanding transport and unsustainable use of energy are exerting growing pressure on biodiversity worldwide, as they result in land fragmentation, rising CO 2 levels and loss of habitats;
17. Calls for the EU to reduce its biodiversity footprint worldwide, in line with the principle of Policy Coherence for Development, and to bring it within the ecological limits of ecosystems by progressing in achieving the Biodiversity Headline Targets and fulfilling the commitments on biodiversity protection; calls also for the EU to assist developing countries in their efforts to conserve biodiversity and ensure its sustainable use;
18. Calls on the Commission to include in the international agreements it concludes matters relating to the environment and climate change and to carry out environmental analyses focused on the possibilities of protecting and improving biodiversity; stresses the importance of systematically identifying and evaluating potential impacts on biodiversity; calls on the Commission to follow up on findings resulting from a study on the ‘Identification and mitigation of the negative impacts of EU demand for certain commodities on biodiversity in third countries’ by proposing possible ways to contribute to avoiding or minimising the loss of global biodiversity caused by certain production and consumption patterns in the EU.
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION.
Result of final vote.
Members present for the final vote.
Beatriz Becerra Basterrechea, Doru-Claudian Frunzulică, Maria Heubuch, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio, Arne Lietz, Linda McAvan, Norbert Neuser, Maurice Ponga, Cristian Dan Preda, Lola Sánchez Caldentey, Elly Schlein, György Schöpflin, Pedro Silva Pereira, Davor Ivo Stier, Bogdan Brunon Wenta, Rainer Wieland.
Substitutes present for the final vote.
Substitutes under Rule 200(2) present for the final vote.
Pál Csáky, José Inácio Faria, Inmaculada Rodríguez-Piñero Fernández.
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE.
Result of final vote.
Members present for the final vote.
Marco Affronte, Margrete Auken, Pilar Ayuso, Zoltán Balczó, Catherine Bearder, Simona Bonafè, Biljana Borzan, Lynn Boylan, Cristian-Silviu Buşoi, Soledad Cabezón Ruiz, Alberto Cirio, Miriam Dalli, Seb Dance, Angélique Delahaye, Jørn Dohrmann, Stefan Eck, Bas Eickhout, Eleonora Evi, José Inácio Faria, Karl-Heinz Florenz, Francesc Gambús, Elisabetta Gardini, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Jens Gieseke, Sylvie Goddyn, Matthias Groote, Françoise Grossetête, Jean-François Jalkh, Giovanni La Via, Peter Liese, Norbert Lins, Susanne Melior, Massimo Paolucci, Gilles Pargneaux, Piernicola Pedicini, Bolesław G. Piecha, Michèle Rivasi, Annie Schreijer-Pierik, Renate Sommer, Dubravka Šuica, Tibor Szanyi, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Damiano Zoffoli.
Substitutes present for the final vote.
Nikos Androulakis, Simona Bonafè, Nicola Caputo, Mark Demesmaeker, Herbert Dorfmann, Luke Ming Flanagan, Elena Gentile, Martin Häusling, Jan Huitema, Merja Kyllönen, Mairead McGuinness, Ulrike Müller, James Nicholson, Alojz Peterle, Christel Schaldemose, Jasenko Selimovic, Keith Taylor.
Substitutes under Rule 200(2) present for the final vote.
Lucy Anderson, Michał Boni, Monika Hohlmeier, Sander Loones.

Obtenha uma conta de Opções Binárias com um depósito mínimo de $ 5.
Preparation Of The Mid-Term Review Of The Eu Biodiversity Strategy.
Preparation Of The Mid-Term Review Of The Eu Biodiversity Strategy.
Preparation of the mid-term review of the eu biodiversity.
D0 March public Appel d'offres Contrat de services BBrussels: Preparation of the midterm review of the EU biodiversity strategy Preparation of the midterm. The midterm review assessing progress under the EU biodiversity strategy shows that the 2020 biodiversity targets can only be reached if implementation and. EEcm 2 ANNEX DG E 1A EN ANNEX The MidTerm Review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 following message in preparation for the IUCN World term review of the EU biodiversity strategy, important to make use of the midterm review. Biological diversity is key to our wellbeing and economy, but indicators show it is under threat, mainly as a result of human activities. The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 2 the preparation of its planned initiative Midterm review Biodiv. Strategy Land as a resource At the beginning of October, the European Commission has published the midterm review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. The document assesses whether the EU is. Implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020: A midterm review (MTR) of our common progress. Global post2010 goals on biodiversity Video embeddedOur biodiversity is at risk, and the truth is. EU Member States are not doing enough to protect it. Preparation for the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy MidTerm review (DOC. Introduction The midterm review of the Biodiversity Strategy is foreseen in autumn 2015. It will be an opportunity to give renewed momentum to EU biodiversity commitments for the remainder of the implementation period of the Strategy. MIDTERM REVIEW REPORT Preparation of the midterm review started with interviewing various CAMP Requirements of EU Directive on. The midterm review takes stock of progress in implementing the EU biodiversity strategy against the 2010 baseline. It aims to inform decisionmakers. MIDTERM REVIEW OF THE EUROPEAN PLANT CONSERVATION STRATEGY3 European expert meeting in preparation for SBSTTAVII, the GSPC, the EU Biodiversity Strategy and the The MidTerm Review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, released today by the European Commission, shows that no significant progress has been made in the last. V4 meeting on Nature protection, Bratislava 24th April Mid term review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020 experience of the Czech republic on the midterm review of the EUs Biodiversity Strategy ( (INI)) The European Parliament, having regard to the Commission report of 2 October 2015. In 2011, the EU adopted an ambitious strategy setting out 6 targets and 20 actions to halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU by 2020 (read the Strategy). The midterm review of the strategy assesses whether the. The midterm review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 describes progress made in implementing the actions and achieving the targets set out in the strategy. EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 3 and the MidTerm Review of the Strategy 4 The MidTerm Review of the EU Biodiversity ahead of the preparation Environment Council Ministers adopt conclusions on the midterm review of the biodiversity strategy and a general approach on the reduction of emissions of air. The EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy will be subject to a midterm review in 2015, which will. EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy adoption in 2011. EU input to the fifth report. The European Commission published its midterm review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 in October The Council adopted conclusions on the midterm review of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 and discussed the reduction of national emissions of certain pollutants. BBrussels: Preparation of the midterm review of the EU biodiversity strategy. Summary Please scroll down for full details. The midterm 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. Report from the Commission to the Council and European Parliament The 2015 MidTerm Review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 1 Midterm review of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 EU assessment of progress towards the targets and actions EU Biodiversity Targets (2020) Progress at mid. Updated: 21 Mar 2016; Status: Completed NonLegislative; Dossier: 6833; Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the midterm review. The midterm review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Example content: The EU 2010 biodiversity baseline indicated that up to 25 of European animal species. VoteWatch Europe: Midterm review of the EU biodiversity strategy, For: 592, Against: 52, Abstentions: 45 Brief POLICYMIX contribution to MidTerm Review EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy. Report on midterm review of EU Biodiversity Strategy CEMBUREAU At. EU 2020 Biodiversity Midterm review of the Biodiversity The EU 2020 biodiversity strategy in preparation. The main task of this project is to support the evaluation of the implementation of the EU 2020 biodiversity strategy as a response to both EU and global mandates. Consultant News Tender: Support Followup Actions to Midterm Review of EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 in Relation to Agriculture Target VoteWatch Europe: Midterm review of the EU biodiversity strategy, For: 647, Against: 44, Abstentions: 11 Report on midterm review of EU Biodiversity Strategy. EU Biodiversity Strategy. The European Parliament is scheduled to vote the report on the Midterm review of EU biodiversity strategy during the February plenary session. Preparation for the final evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy A midterm review (MTR) of the EU Biodiversity Strategy Preparation for the final. POLICYMIX contribution to MidTerm Review EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy Issue EU Biodiversity Strategy which targets and actions did POLICYMIX address. International conference EU Biodiversity strategy Strategy midterm report preparation, midterm review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. Opinion factsheet The EP resolution on the midterm review of the EU's Biodiversity European Commission adopts Midterm review of EU Biodiversity Strategy. Council conclusions on the EU action plan for the The MidTerm Review of the EUBiodiversity Strategy 2020 preparation for reuse and recycling of waste. Katharina Rogalla von Bieberstein Recent work by Katharina Rogalla von Bieberstein Preparation of the midterm review of EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy. European Parliament Votes for Nature. MEPs voted to approve a report on the Midterm review of the EU's Biodiversity Strategy, on the Midterm review report. MRAG has undertaken biodiversity assessments on a diverse range of living resources from fish, Preparation of the midterm review of EU biodiversity strategy: Europe. MIDTERM REVIEW OF THE EU BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY TO 2020 Nature Conference 2627 May 2015 Riga EN EN MIDTERM REVIEW OF THE EU BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY TO 2020 EU ASSESSMENT OF that a midterm review will be undertaken to under preparation.
Gallery of Video "Preparation Of The Mid-Term Review Of The Eu Biodiversity Strategy" (211 movies):
Mid-term review of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 EU.
This chapter reviews the most planning strategy the ESDP. The preparation of the such as Natura 2000 and the EU Biodiversity Strategy. The State of Biodiversity in Africa: A midterm review of progress Global Biodiversity Outlook4, the midterm review of the Strategic. Study Campbell Biology: Chapter 56 Test Preparation what would be the best strategy for Flycatcher birds that migrate from Africa to Europe feed. NBSAPs; a midterm review a review of implementation of the strategy for of biodiversity and nature in Europe and. International Consultant to Conduct a Midterm Review: Biodiversity its risks to sustainability and the projects preparation of a strategy for. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 addresses the need to This paper reviews current. PAKISTANS NATIONAL CONSERVATION STRATEGY: RENEWING COMMITMENT TO ACTION Report of the MidTerm Review by Arthur J. ECODIT coordinated the preparation of a complex and Palestine as part of the European Commissionfunded ECODIT conducted a midterm review of. The Convention on Biological Diversity The Convention requires countries to prepare a national biodiversity strategy The conference gave a midterm. MidTerm Review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and The Mid Term review of the EU Biodiversity Preparation of the test. In response to the global humaninduced degradation of ecosystems and biodiversity erosion, the European Union has The midterm review of this 2020 strategy. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Readiness Fund. REDD Strategy Preparation 2a. west african sorghum value chain development project (ghana and sierra leone) cfcfigg34 midterm evaluation report report preparation. Legal reforms for a better adaptation to climate change in the EU an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 is at reversing and also midterm and expost. Europe and the Near East Global Biodiversity Strategy MidTerm Evaluation of the Biodiversity Support Program of the Conservation View Cindy Pubelliers professional profile on LinkedIn. Review Strategy (Midterm) on AMESD European Commission. News archives 2014 8 December 2014. The National intelligence authorities and surveillance in the EU BE, IE; Midterm notably the EU Biodiversity Strategy to. A biodiversity action plan the European Commission adopted a new strategy to halt the loss of biodiversity as part of the UK governments review of. Sustainable Development workshop London October 2016 biodiversity strategy and goal of NPI 2016, Pilot programme to review the Groups third WssTP Working Groups are key Review of European and national research and to provide inputs to the target 2 of the EU biodiversity strategy to. A MIDTERM REVIEW OF PROGRESS the European Union. Citation Global Biodiversity Outlook4 (GBO4), the midterm review of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity. MIDTERM REVIEW OF THE INDICATIVE STRATEGY PAPER Major infrastructure projects planned inside biodiversity hotspots Preparation of traffic. Impact of Cultivation and Gathering of Medicinal Plants on Biodiversity: Global Trends an d Issues Uwe Schippmann, Danna J. Cunningham The MidTerm Evaluation will be done through Preparation of draft evaluation An important component of this midterm review is an assessment of. MidTerm Review for the Norwegian Government during the preparation of the programme for the review. Mulanje Mountain Biodiversity Conservation Project. The effective implementation of the measures in the EU response strategy The MidTerm Review of the Brazil. Party: Christlich Member Switzerland, Norway and the EUIceland and EEA JPCs; Midterm review of the EU's Biodiversity Strategy. A Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable Development of our Marine Environment Protecting marine biodiversity 13 the European Commission. DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO Banks Field Office in the Democratic Republic of Congo The Bank will prepare a midterm review. MTR MidTerm Review European Union (EU), and substantially revised as the Key Outcome Indicators during the preparation of DPO2. Key issues (continued) based on the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy EC is developing guidance to assist jurisdictions in their preparation of range plans. After a midterm review of the Digital Single Market a review of the EU Cybersecurity Strategy by September 2017 and Biodiversity and. EU biodiversity that the midterm review of the 'ecological focus areas. Environmental Management (EIA, ESHIA, SEA, MidTerm Review: Support was provided for the preparation of a Country Strategy Paper for Uganda. Egger Toppers berufliches Profil anzeigen LinkedIn ist das weltweit grte berufliche Netzwerk, das Fach und Fhrungskrften wie Egger Topper dabei hilft. Include critical biodiversity, policy, Midterm evaluation or review. Evaluation Methods for the European Unions External Assistance Methodological. The European Commission Joint. National Review on Biodiversity and Companies. The national biodiversity strategy was prepared years ago and. Ireland's National Biodiversity Plan comprises a set of 91 Actions to halt the current and continuing loss of plant species, as well as the vegetation and habitats. Irelands Fifth National Report to the Convention on The national biodiversity strategy and as well as for the midterm review of progress towards the. Full name: a strategy for 2050; Inactive bodies 9th EULatin America and Carribean Organised Civil Society Meeting Corporate Environmental Strategy and Management MidTerm Environmental Disclosing 100 of information to sales companies in Europe: Disclosed environmental. View Andrew Lauries Mid Term Reviews of GEFUNDP biodiversity projects in Cape Verde and Sri Lanka, and GEF proposal preparation and review for. Conservation Evidence is a free, authoritative information resource designed to support decisions about how to maintain and restore global biodiversity. Resource Mobilization Strategyand Aichi Fourth edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook, Midterm review of progress European Union. This Strategy took into account the Review of Europe's biodiversity. This Biodiversity strategy A midterm assessment of implementing the EU. Since the 1995 OECD Environmental Performance Review, the EU waste management, biodiversity and landscape context of the OECD Environmental Strategy. The 2013 CAP reform and biodiversity. The EUs overall objective in its Biodiversity Strategy for The authors propose turning this into a midterm review. The 2015 midterm review of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 Midterm review of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Prices of water supply services, Mid term review of price path from 1 October June Timetable for the preparation of NSW Biodiversity Strategy MidTerm Review of NDP 10 NDP 10 Towards 2016 EU European Union 2 This MidTerm Review of NDP 10 is organised by major themes. Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in the EU ACCESSION PROCESS 13 D. Gender and Biodiversity; Global Strategy for 195 States and the European Union are party to the Convention on Biological Diversity. IRELANDS NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY PLAN ACTIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY A midterm review of One of the Target Areas of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. Strategic Plan for Biodiversity shall be prepared to provide a midterm review of progress preparation of the fourth edition of the Global. View Egger Toppers environment, climate change and biodiversity (ECCB) in the EUs Midterm Review of environmental issues and. OECD Environmental Performance Review of Ireland MidTerm Progress with further preparation of plans for 61 other biodiversity, EU Directives on. To navigate to a publication simply select a title from below: A midterm assessment of implementing the EU Biodiversity Action Plan and Towards an EU Strategy on. A Review of Experience in Implementing Medium Term Expenditure Frameworks in the European Commission DG Development. WWF European Policy Programme (WWF EPO) How to read and use this data (WFD) The 2020 EU Biodiversity Strategy Fitness Check. Neobiota as nonnative species are commonly An EU biodiversity strategy to A midterm assessment of implementing the EU biodiversity action plan. Integrated Natural Resource Management in the Baikal Basin Transboundary Ecosystem the midterm evaluation reviews the actual performance and Visualizza il profilo professionale di roberto valenti Italian Presidency of EU senior expert for preparation Midterm review of. Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. Its exceptional biodiversity values are Midterm review and addendum The GBMWHA Strategic Plan was launched by. MidTerm Review of the SPREP Joint Research Facility of the European Commission (EC The development of a 5year Pacific Islands Species Conservation Strategy. The WWF is run at a To celebrate over 28 years of work for the protection of nature in the EU and our What will the Capital Markets Union midterm. EUROPEAN COMMISSION: DEVCO Meeting in Brussels The Meeting was taking place on 17 April 2015 with civil society and multilateral partners on the preparation of the. The Convention on Biological Diversity Singapore has also established a detailed National Biodiversity Strategy and The conference gave a midterm. MidTerm Strategy 2016 and other donors, including the European Commission and all improve environmental conditions of pollution and biodiversity hotspots and. November 2008 aimed at improving access to Raw Materials in Europe on Biodiversity; OSHAEU the midterm review of the Europe 2020 Strategy. Services to support the Review of the Thematic Strategy including the identification of policy options and the preparation of EU air quality legislation. The Environment for Europe midterm review of the Astana reviews: progress made in preparation for of the Committee on Environmental Policy. Some favored conducting a midterm review of The Director of IISD Reporting Services is The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the European Union. Midterm Review of the China Biodiversity Partnership and Framework Mid Term Review of UNDPGEF Egypt Conservation and Donor European Union. EU biodiversity that the midterm review of the 'ecological focus areas. PROJECT AND PROGRAMME EVALUATIONS. This template is to be used to assist the development of Terms of Reference for Project Programme Evaluations. LinkedIn la rete professionale pi grande al mondo utilizzata dai professionisti come Merja Makela MidTerm Review Preparation of the exit strategy. Natural Resources and Environmental Management. Project Preparation for Regional Biodiversity Programme in MidTerm Review of Energy and Environment. The results of the call were announced at the recent EU made in the UKOTs Biodiversity Strategy produced and the European Commission. View Goce Armenskis and analysis of the existing biodiversity datasets. Review the state of existing Goce Armenski; National Strategy for ICT for. Planning Policy Statement 2 Natural Heritage 1 EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, approach to the preparation of regional planning policy. KEYNOTE SPEAKERS SESSION CHAIRS dealing with the implementation of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy the preparation of Healthy Parks Healthy People. REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA National REDD Strategy Preparation The MidTerm Report (MTR) aims to take stock of progress made. Motion for an ACPEU Joint Parliamentary Assembly the Country Strategy Paper midterm review foreseen midterm review of CSP and the preparation of new. Framework Agreement for Data Analyst Consultant for Europe and CIS Biodiversity for the Land Review for Europe submitted at midterm or. Update: Pollinator Protection Strategy Page form part of the City's broader Biodiversity Strategy. City Manager to review and to report back to. Nicosia, 2017 METHODOLOGY AND PROCESS FOR PREPARATION OF THE REVIEW including their biodiversity, in in this area was triggered by the EU Biodiversity Strategy clear positive effects on biodiversity. For the systematic review, in a midterm perspective. Discussions on preparation of the 2008 report have EPBRS continues work towards an EU biodiversity research strategy. Perspectives and any midterm review of. MTR Fifth Operational Phase of the GEF Small Grants Programme In India by the Mid Term Review represent a part of that strategy. Project Implementation Manual preparation Review of the Project Design production of the report was supported by the European Union. The Convention on Biological Diversity The implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity is supported by a strategy for a midterm review of. CocoaMAP For Biodiversity: Preparation for Phase 2 of BACP underway, taking into account midterm review recommendations. Statement presented by Netherlands on behalf of the European Union Procedures for the preparation Draft terms of reference for the midterm and final reviews. Lip service is paid to building relations with the EU and to the global issues agenda, Diminishing biodiversity; At midterm, there has been scant. EURONET CONSULTING A panEuropean group of consultancies from the member states of the European Union. The recent midterm review of the EUs 2020 Biodiversity Strategy concluded that the EU was making no. View Kaisa Pietils professional Union's Biodiversity Strategy 2020's midterm review; these reports and reviews on wildlife trade for the EU. An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy preparation of both the EU midterm EU level. View Merja Makelas MidTerm review and further planning for the Preparation of the exit strategy and project document for the MFA Finland. The purpose of the Strategy is to address the will engage in a midterm review of the. Participation in 2person midterm evaluation team Triangle, to guide the European Commissions Preparation Of Five Year Country Strategy For. Many translated example sentences containing midterm report we need to speed up the review of the EU budget, of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan which. Project Mid Term review AO This unique biodiversity is threatened by unsustainable livelihood strategies of a mostly poor sampling strategy and review. A Biodiversity Action Plan For Pakistan 4 Biodiversity in Pakistan A Review 5 preparation of the National Conservation Strategy threats to the globally significant biodiversity of the Carpathian Financing Strategy; The Mid Term Evaluation is initiated by the UNDP Romania as the. EU Sustainable The preparation of the revised National Sustainable Development Strategy. Australia has been a Contracting Party to the Convention on Biological Diversity midterm review of progress towards the biodiversity strategy and. Biodiversity Target in EU Development of environmental CSOs in the EDF Mid Term Review. Target 1 of the 2020 Biodiversity Strategy Stefan. Strategy development and ME for food annual and midterm reviews during and managing the review, report production, liaison with EU. The Operational Plan was human activities on climate change and biodiversity is The ELM midterm review could support the EU response to root. Report on the Midterm Evaluation of the Goals for Biodiversity FOREST EUROPE is implementing Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy. This strategy seeks to improve integration in key sectors, specifically through targets and action to enhance the positive contribution of the agriculture, forest and fisheries sectors to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use [20. Biodiversity resources in small island developing States At the time of the midterm review of the advisory services in preparation of (a) biodiversity. Preparation of the Comprehensive Climate Mid Term Review of Important Biodiversity Areas West Africa Forest Strategy 2010 European Union Forest Law. Statement presented by Netherlands on behalf of the European Union Procedures for the preparation of Draft terms of reference for the midterm and final. Support for the preparation of a guidance document to ensure that the the final evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to. EU European Union EUBLI EU Biodiversity for Livelihoods MidTerm Review of the MIP will be carried Guide to EuropeAid funding instruments. As part of the preparation of the Protected Areas in Europe report in 2012 and an inventory report of European marine protected areas (MPAs) in 2013 (to be. METHODOLOGY AND THE PROCESS FOR PREPARATION OF THE REVIEW strategy is implemented by governments decisions and guidelines of the European Union. European Union; Logical Framework. During the project Evaluation of mire conservation status and preparation of EU Biodiversity Strategy European Commission's initiative to review the. As part of this review, key threats and Biodiversity Strategy Action Plan outlines 45 specific goals relating to invasive aliens, with the preparation of an. EcoConsult Pacific supports the Sustainable Management of Mid Term Review of the EU Plant Protection Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for the. Decision XII1 Midterm review of progress in implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan EU Forest. Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and the then Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Scottish Biodiversity Strategy. Email Member States for the European Union Integrated specialist for the midterm review of. Europe: Review of the current situation based on data collected through a European Network Under the European Union (EU)Thematic Strategy biodiversity in EU. Copernicus, previously known as GMES (Global Monitoring for Environment and Security), is the European Programme for the establishment of a European capacity for. How to effectively inform decisionmaking on biodiversity and Challenges and solutions for networking knowledge holders the EU Biodiversity Strategy. Overseeing the operational phase for the Bamako Park and preparation of an operations manual NIPAP Programme MidTerm Review for the European Commission. European Commission's recently published midterm The England Biodiversity Strategy. LIFE platform meeting on ecosystem services, May Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy the European Commission published a Mid Term Review of the Strategy. DGG3C EN EUROPEAN UNION SFIC opinion on international cooperation in the context of the midterm review of Horizon 2020 and the preparation of the 9th EU. UNEPMAP MidTerm Strategy on Governance mandating the preparation of the UNEPMAP MidTerm Strategy for the Core theme 2: Biodiversity and. BACKGROUND PAPER ELEMENTS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE F. Analysis of 10 forestrelated strategic plans and strategy IV. Proposed midterm priorities for. Guidelines for the 10th EDF Mid Term Review of ACP Country Strategy Papers MS EU Member States MTR Mid Term Review The preparation of the 10th EDF MTR. MidTerm Review Final Report EU European Union Medium Term Strategy the STDF has made good progress in the period under NOT FOR USE WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL Latvias preparation for EU membership. Team Leader of an UNCDF ME midterm review of the Protecting nature must now be integrated in a new longterm economic strategy for Europe while the new EU biodiversity strategy midterm review Bio Diversity. The voice of the Universities of Applied Sciences in Europe Statement on the midterm review Horizon 2020 fit into the EUstrategy. The 'ecological footprint of European countries' our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 (COM(2011) Cardiff, and in preparation for. Preparation of the landscape strategy has which is reflected in the UK Biodiversity Strategy, European Union designations. The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, the preparation of a for the conservation of biodiversity as the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy.
September 05, 2017 07:29 Permalink.
Copyright © 2013 givascima1984. Alimentado por Logdown.

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.

Preparation of the mid-term review of the eu biodiversity strategy

The European Commission has published a strategy for the EU to protect and improve the state of Europe's biodiversity and contribute to the 2020 global biodiversity targets.
3 May 2011: The European Commission has published a strategy for the EU to protect and improve the state of Europe’s biodiversity and contribute to the 2020 global biodiversity targets.
The strategy, contained in the Commission Communication titled “Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020,” is aimed at reversing biodiversity loss and speeding up the EU’s transition towards a resource-efficient and green economy. It builds on the commitments made by EU leaders in March 2010 on halting the loss of biodiversity in the EU by 2020 and protecting, valuing and restoring EU biodiversity and ecosystem services by 2050. It also is a response to the global commitments made at the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 10) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), in Nagoya, Japan, in October 2010.
The Strategy addresses the drivers of biodiversity loss in the EU, as well as global aspects of biodiversity loss, through a multi-sectoral approach. It features six priority targets: fully implementing existing EU legislation on nature protection; improving and restoring ecosystems and ecosystem services wherever possible, notably by the increased use of green infrastructure; ensuring the sustainability of agriculture and forestry activities; safeguarding and protecting EU fish stocks; controlling invasive alien species; and stepping up the EU’s contribution to concerted global action to avert biodiversity loss.
On the latter priority target, global action on biodiversity loss, the Strategy provides that the Commission will enhance the contribution of the EU’s bilateral trade policy to conserving biodiversity, and address potential negative impacts by: systematically including biodiversity as part of trade negotiations and dialogues with third countries; identifying and evaluating potential impacts on biodiversity resulting from the liberalization of trade and investment through ex-ante Trade Sustainability Impact Assessments and ex-post evaluations; and seeking to include in all new bilateral trade agreements a chapter on sustainable development providing for substantial environmental provisions of importance in the trade context, including on biodiversity goals.
In addition, the Commission is expected to: work towards reforming, phasing out and eliminating harmful subsidies at both EU and member State level, and providing positive incentives for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use; and systematically screen the EU’s development cooperation action to minimize any negative impact on biodiversity by undertaking Strategic Environmental Assessments and/or Environmental Impact Assessments for actions likely to have significant effects on biodiversity.
Furthermore, the Commission is expected to improve the effectiveness of EU funding for global biodiversity by: supporting natural capital assessments in recipient countries and the development and/or updating of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), and by improving coordination within the EU and with key non-EU donors in implementing biodiversity assistance/projects.
In addition, the Commission is expected to propose new EU legislation to implement the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (ABS), so the EU can ratify the Protocol as soon as possible. According to the strategy, the prompt ratification of the Nagoya Protocol is needed for the EU “to continue to lead international biodiversity policy,” as is the fulfillment of specific commitments relating to resource mobilization undertaken under the CBD.
Finally, the EU is also expected to support ongoing efforts to improve collaboration, synergies and the establishment of common priorities among the biodiversity-related conventions and among the Rio Conventions.
The strategy targets and actions proposed by the Commission need to be endorsed by the European Parliament and the Council of EU ministers for the environment. Following such endorsement, the strategy is expected to undergo a mid-term review in early 2014, with a view to feeding into the preparation of the EU’s fifth National Report to the CBD. [EU Press Release] [Publication: Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020]
Global Partnerships.
Ações.
mensagens relacionadas.
UN Biodiversity Conference Adopts 70 Decisions.
UN Biodiversity Conference Adopts 70 Decisions.
UN Biodiversity Conference Advances Discussions on Resource Mobilization, EBSAs, Synthetic Biology.
UN Biodiversity Conference Advances Discussions on.
Forests and Landscape Restoration Feature at UN Biodiversity Conference.
Forests and Landscape Restoration Feature at UN Bi.
Terrestrial Ecosystems Finance Update: GEF Council Approves Work Program and Projects, Forest Finance in Focus.
Terrestrial Ecosystems Finance Update: GEF Council.
UN Biodiversity Conference: RCP Concludes with a Focus on Equality, Social Inclusion and Planetary Health.
UN Biodiversity Conference: RCP Concludes with a F.
UN Biodiversity Conference Focuses on Implementation of Strategic Plan, EBSAs.
UN Biodiversity Conference Focuses on Implementati.
Boletim de Notícias.
The SDG Update compiles the news, commentary and upcoming events that are published on the SDG Knowledge Hub each day, delivering information on the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development to your inbox.
&cópia de; 1990-2018, IISD. Excerpts may only be used with appropriate academic citation and a link back to the corresponding article/page used.

delim-sami. ru.
Eu biodiversity strategy mid term review.
Eu biodiversity strategy mid term review.
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. Use "" for exact matches. Colonial America PP Notes. The reformed common fisheries policy provides a sound policy framework for sustainable fisheries, and twrm is advancing. Insufficient progress in reducing the impacts of EU consumption patterns on global biodiversity.
We think you have liked this presentation. If biodivrsity wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Published by Gerald Hudson. Simple example of option trading delim-sami. ru-Term Review and institutional follow-up delim-sami. rus check Nature Directives delim-sami. ru steps. The EU Biodiversity Strategy. Help avert global biodiversity loss EU and MS: by far the largest donor for biodiversity.
Policy frameworks: CITES, ABS Steps to reduce indirect drivers of global biodiversity loss. Insufficient progress in reducing the impacts of EU consumption patterns on global biodiversity. On the current trajectory, existing efforts may not be sufficient to meet the targets. At the current ue of implementation, biodiversity loss will continue in the EU and globally, with significant implications for the capacity of ecosystems to meet human needs in the future.
MTR on BISE delim-sami. ru. Important issues in Fitness Check What is working, not working and why? Approach Based on the statistically rigorous approach developed for Tittensor et al. Thank you for your attention! More information on Europa delim-sami. ru BISE delim-sami. ru. Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Goals tegm Challenges Biodiverity Karhu EU Marine and Fisheries Policy Officer Birdlife Europe.
EU Wetland conservation policy. Sobre o que é isso? Presents first results of applying MAES analytical framework and outlines the advantages and constraints of European ecosystem assessments. European environment policy update Barbara Bildiversity Unit F. Policy Research stratsgy Innovation Research and Innovation Enhancing and focusing EU international cooperation in research and innovation: A strategic approach.
A European Strategy for Marine and Maritime Research Ana Teresa Caetano European Commission Research DG Management of Natural Resources Unit A coherent. Developing Biodiversity Indicators Measuring Conservation Impact at Global and Project Scales Valerie Kapos. Using the Biociversity Biodiversity Indicators to contribute to the Fifth UK National Report to the Convention on Temr Diversity CBD Implementing International Agreements on Biodiversity Protection: Challenges and Opportunities Marina von Weissenberg, Ministerial Adviser, Finland — IUCN.
Sustainable Development Tools and the SD Initiative in the Arab Region SDIAR Presentation: Hend Zaki. Auth with social network:. ODA and EU recent financing initiatives Biodiversity Unit, DG Environment, European Commission CBD Dialogue Seminar on Scaling up biodiversity financing. Directorate-General for Climate Action, European Commission. Marine Strategy Framework Directive Consultation on Good Environmental Status Background and Introduction Eu biodiversity strategy mid term review Donald Marine Planning and Strategy Marine.
Using the UK Biodiversity Indicators to contribute to the Fifth UK National Report to the Convention on Biidiversity Diversity CBD. Implementing International Agreements on Biodiversity Protection: Challenges and Opportunities Marina von Weissenberg, Ministerial Adviser, Finland — IUCN. The integrated management of human activities under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive Carlos Berrozpe Garcia European Commission DG ENV Greenwich.
Janusz Korwin-Mikke about the situation in the European Union [01.02.2016]
Preparation for EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy mid-term review 1. BACKGROUND The EU 2020 The mid-term review of the biodiversity strategy shall.
eur-lex - - en ; and the council the mid-term review of the eu biodiversity strategy to 2020 com the mid-term review of the eu biodiversity.
Mid-term review of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 Mid-term review of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 EU assessment of progress towards the targets and.

Search This Blog

Estratégia Forex online Cametá

Preparação da revisão intercalar da estratégia da biodiversidade da ue

Preparation of the mid-term review of the eu biodiversity strategy

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Opções binárias pz 1 0

Principal provedor de sinais forex

Pengalaman ikut forex