EU seeks to steer CAP money to biodiversity protection

The Greens in the European Parliament complained that the strategy offers "few concrete commitments" to achieve the goal of halting biodiversity loss by 2020, and argued that the strategy's sub-targets are "inconsistent with the overall goals".

Dutch Green MEP Bas Eickhout said that "the strategy could and should have been a detailed policy blueprint for meeting the EU's revised goal of halting biodiversity loss by 2020. Instead it is distinguished by unambitious sub-targets and a lack of concrete commitments to fulfil the goal of halting biodiversity loss".

French Green MEP Sandrine Bélier stressed that "the real test of the Commission's commitment to halting biodiversity loss will now be the proposals it presents this year across different policy areas. The next EU budgetary cycle will also be crucial, and the EU should ensure all its programmes contribute to biodiversity protection rather than loss".

"The commitment to ensure that direct payments under the CAP are linked to biodiversity protection is a welcome development to this end. Any EU funding must be conditional on consistency with and full implementation of EU biodiversity and water legislation in the regions concerned," she said.

EU farmers' lobby Copa-Cogeca agreed that the new biodiversity goals can only be achieved in partnership with farmers, but warned that they risk making farmers uncompetitive.

"As the market is not rewarding farmers efforts for halting biodiversity loss, financial support is needed to enable farmers to proceed in a way which is positive for biodiversity without endangering their viability, profitability and competitiveness. In addition, vocational training and advisory services are needed to provide farmers with the necessary skills," the group said in a statement.

Copa-Cogeca secretary-general Pekka Pesonen underlined that "farmers are fully aware of their responsibility to preserve the genetic diversity of animals and plants used for production as they are an inherent part of biodiversity and contribute to the conservation of valuable habitats".

"Maintaining genetic diversity including plant varieties not yet used for agricultural production will become even more important in the context of climate change. Agriculture and forest management should be allowed to respond to increasing demands for bio-energy and biomaterials whilst contributing to the implementation of the new EU biodiversity strategy," Pesonen said.

Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE), an NGO, welcomed the strategy but stressed that "measurable targets are urgently needed in the areas of agriculture and forestry if the strategy is to succeed".

Friedrich Wulf, biodiversity campaigner at FoEE, said that "agriculture and forestry are the biggest land users in Europe, and how that land is used is crucial in preventing further biodiversity loss. Without clear and measurable targets to ensure these areas are sustainable, species depletion will continue, undermining the whole EU biodiversity strategy and further threatening global biodiversity".

FoEE therefore urges EU-27 environment ministers "to fill this gap at their next meeting (17 June)," set measurable targets for biodiversity protection and "sow strong support for the greening of the Common Agricultural Policy".

The European Environmental Bureau (EEB), an NGO, said the Commission's new strategy lacked ambition, in particular regarding improving the status of European protected species and habitats and the upgrade of agricultural and fisheries practice.

The green group says that while Europe consumes more than its fair share of the world's resources, "restoring biodiversity and ecosystems would be a difficult undertaking without policy developments in other areas".

"Today, biodiversity doesn't simply mean the protection of rare plants and species; it's about protecting a system people rely on to live. The costs of replacing nature's free services would be devastating," said EEB biodiversity policy officer Sarolta Tripolszky.

The EEB's Vera Coealho, commenting on the strategy's fisheries targets, said that "it is disappointing to see DG Environment backtracking on international commitments and extending the deadline for achieving healthy stocks to 2020 rather than 2015. The focus on a single-species approach to fisheries management, based on outdated Maximum Sustainable Yield principles, does not bode well for the health of the wider marine ecosystem".

Alberto Arroyo, conservation policy coordinator at WWF, said that "the EU's new biodiversity strategy is an important signal of good intentions but it does not have the real power to stop biodiversity loss".

"The fundamental solutions to protect nature will not be found in this strategy but rather in the upcoming legislative reforms that will be decided soon, such as the EU Financial Framework, Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy and overseas development cooperation strategy due at the end of this year," Arroyo said. 

"In order to save biodiversity, the EU must show commitment to protecting nature within each of these reforms," he added.

The EU Group of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) believes that the EU must establish an effective legal and financial framework if the targets proposed in the strategy are to be met, especially in relation to the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

The president of the IFOAM EU Group, Christopher Stopes, said that "biodiversity on farm land can be saved and restored by ambitiously re-shaping the CAP towards the promotion of truly sustainable farming and food systems including targeted support for landscape elements that host a diverse flora and fauna".

Marco Schlüter, director of the IFOAM EU Group, called on the EU institutions to help halt biodiversity loss and develop research priorities for the next EU framework programme.