The European Biodiversity conference
European Biodiversity: the private sector offer
Remark: Please note that the PPs presentation are available on ELO website: www.elo.org
1. Opening of the conference
1. Véronique Mathieu (VM)- MEP :
VM stressed the need to react against the loss of biodiversity. She estimated it is essential therefore essential to adopt a common approach to respect and preserve biodiversity. This is something we absolutely can not allow ourselves to overlook. She explained that private initiative is also an essential element in the fight against the wasting of natural resources. She encouraged all the participants to promote partnerships between all stakeholders and all levels of decision making process.
2. Thierry de l’Escaille(TdE) – ELO
TdE opened the conference by underlining the central role played by biodiversity in all human activities. He then emphasised the valuable contribution landowners and land managers can make to preserving biodiversity, enhancing it, or at least halting its loss. As explained in the Rise Foundation Task Force, theses actors are important as “public goods providers”. TdE further detailed this point by saying that sustainable rural activities are also necessary in mitigating negative impacts of other human activities. In this context, TdE recalled that ELO was one of the first organisations to sign the “Countdown 2010” (at the time signed by the former Commissioner for Agriculture, Franz Fischler). ELO very actively supports the strategy of the European Commission to halt the loss of biodiversity.
3. Julia Marton-Lefevre (JML) - IUCN
As an introduction, JML pointed out that biodiversity is the infrastructure upon which all life on the planet is based. To illustrate how dramatic the situation is today in terms of species extinction, she compared the red list established by IUCN to a “health check”. The diagnosis is very bad. This list gives the percentage of species classified in different categories: least concern, near threatened, vulnerable, endangered, critically endangered, extinct in the wild, extinct. The percentages of the different categories are very alarming.
JML developed the different partnerships maintained by IUCN with businesses, landowners and farmers. As she explained, theses partnerships are the key to find common solutions, halting the loss of biodiversity being a common issue. A very useful tool in this context is the TEEB report (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity), which details the economic aspects of biodiversity and ecosystems services. Finally as a final comment, JML recalled the intertwined relation which ties the biodiversity issue to Climate Change.
2. First Session: the EU voluntary and regulatory framework: what are the policy needs for biodiversity?
Co-chair: Ladislav Miko (LM) - Director responsible for Biodiversity in DG Environment and Corrado Pirzio-Biroli (CPB) - RISE Foundation
4. Mairead McGuinness (MMG), MEP, the Politics of Biodiversity
As said in the title of her presentation, MMG spoke “politically” about biodiversity. She started by giving a few facts and figures about the Irish knowledge of biodiversity: 51% of Irish people have never heard of biodiversity, 26% have heard of it but don’t know what it is, 73% feel not well informed on the topic and 94% have never heard of the Natura 2000 network. These facts and figures underline the lack of understanding from the public on the issue of biodiversity. According to MMG, this lack may be part of the explanation of our failure to meet the 2010 target. She asked herself and the audience: what are the other reasons which can explain this failure? Is it because we have set too ambitious and therefore unrealistic targets? Is it because we follow a too project-based approach?
MMG then addressed the question of public goods in agriculture. In her view, providing public goods could be a way for farmers and ecosystems managers to re-gain control over their land. She underlined that agriculture is not the only activity which doesn’t include (yet) public goods in its accountancy. Indeed, she noted market failures (the inability of markets to include public goods) in all policies. In other words, we don’t pay the right price. Within our current economic model, the price doesn’t take into account the environmental and biodiversity costs and benefits.
On the issues of Climate Change, the CAP reform, the biodiversity loss and the budgetary pressures, MMG said they all very tightly connected. In this context, she underlined the need of working together to tackle these different, but still very closely linked issues.
CPB made a brief comment on MMG’s intervention. He agreed that, since biodiversity is a very complex issue, policy makers won’t be able to find solutions if people don’t understand it. We can’t create policy without people knowing what it is about.
5. Martijn Quinn (MQ) – Deputy head of cabinet of Stavros Dimas - The message from Athens: future challenges and priorities for EU Biodiversity
MQ started his presentation by pointing out two global challenges of equal magnitude: Climate Change and the loss of biodiversity. The main difference between these two environmental problems, he said, is that the effects of Climate Change can be reversed, while the extinction of species can’t. Another difference is the extent to which both issues are complex: the loss of biodiversity is far more complex than Climate Change, he said.
In this context, MQ recalled the Athens conference on Biodiversity, and the resulting “Message from Athens”. This message identified 8 areas for action, an important of which was the need to show why biodiversity matters. MQ gave the answer to that question: biodiversity matters because of the ecosystems services it provides. We rely on ecosystems, i.e. our well-being relies on it. MQ added that many other things depend on biodiversity such as our policy goals, the Millennium Development Goals (eliminating poverty), climate change, etc. Thus, as he explained, if we want to address the issue of food security for example, we need the address the issue of biodiversity.
MQ described the “communication” as one of the main obstacles to finding the best solutions for biodiversity. In other words, he said that there is a very strong need for more information in this matter, especially in urban areas, where populations feel totally disconnected with nature. In this context, he also underlined the importance of the Natura 2000 network, which he described as the “jewel in the crown”. However, he said, it needs to be properly funded and implemented. Today, the network covers approximately 17% of all EU territory but he said that we shouldn’t forget to look outside theses areas.
MQ also underlined the need to analyse our consumption patterns and to look at the funding issue.
6. Börje Alriksson (BA) – Swedish presidency, Ministry for the Environment – A common responsibility for society
To illustrate the necessity for stakeholders to get together to tackle this issue, BA shared with the audience a personal story. His family survived thanks to biodiversity outputs.
He pointed out that the biodiversity issue had been a core issue throughout the Swedish Presidency. To confirm this point he recalled two high-level conferences: in Strömstad in September and in Abisko (Sweden) in October. The purpose of the first one was to follow up the Message from Athens and the aim of the second one was to put forward the key role of the private sector.
Regarding the topic of the session: “what are the policy needs for biodiversity”, BA said that he thinks the voluntary work should be supportive of the regulatory framework. More generally, he emphasised the fact that there is need for a strong policy direction in order to halt the biodiversity loss.
BA then addressed the question of the role of agriculture and forestry in this context. Landowners and Land managers are the key actors to achieve the protection of biodiversity.
7. Patrick Ten Brink (PTB)- IEEP- The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Initiative (TEEB)
PTB introduced himself as one of the 50 authors and reviewers of the TEEB report. This report aims at conducting a study in line with the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, biodiversity being as important as Climate Change. The report exists in different versions, according to whom it is directed to (businesses, policy makers, local authorities, citizens). The main issue put forward in this report is the lack of valuation for biodiversity. PTB said that because there is insufficient evidence on biodiversity, the latter is not integrated in economics, policy/decision making nor in national accounts. Furthermore, he said that there isn’t enough political will or public awareness to integrate it in our economic model. To summarise this idea, PTB said that we are losing something we can’t even measure. He illustrated this by giving the example of the fish stock, which in 2050 is likely to be almost empty! But what is at risk, he added, is not only the fish, the red list and the species, it is also our jobs and our industry. One very urgent issue to be addressed is the coral reef for example, which brings to our whole world priceless benefits. PTB highly recommended that this issue should be taken seriously in Copenhagen.
One way to assess what is left is to set up “Natural capital accounts”, i.e. stock of species. Decision makers need to be able to measure biodiversity in order to take action. Going back to the case of the fisheries, PTB asked what we could do about it. He suggested using the system of “protected areas”, which are important biomass producers and therefore part of the solution. But theses areas, as he said, need to be better designated and there needs to be a better integration of EU funds. On the market issue, PTB said that we should pay for what we use, since large sectors of the economy depend on ecosystems but don’t include them in their cost analysis.
As a conclusion PTB, suggested a vision (see slide “conclusion” of the power point presentation). He repeated that we are losing our natural capital without being able to measure this loss. We need to halt the latter and be aware of what we are losing. To meet these two targets, he said, policy makers need to collaborate with all stakeholders (industry, citizens…)
CPB, as the co-chairman, briefly commented on this presentation by saying that it was indeed important to raise the issue of the financing of environmental/ecosystems services. This would inevitably result in dealing with environmental markets and fiscal shifts.
Ladislav Miko (LM) also reacted after the first session. He said that we needed to find new ways to engage the public and the policy makers on biodiversity. He also pointed out that the time for discussion was over, and that action was now urgently needed. The issues dealt with in the first session of the conference have already been raised over and over again. He added that we need to simplify the message for the public to understand it, bearing in mind that simplifying also has an impact on policy outcomes. As he explained, simplifying the message could lead to “distorted effects”, i.e. people would only focus on the “simplified message”. He also said that, we need to understand the long-term dimension of biodiversity. In other words, no matter what kind of policy we put in place, biodiversity won’t respond to it immediately. With the current political cycles (elections,…), it is very hard to “sell” biodiversity, in the political sense of the word. This is why, as LM said, we need to make it attractive to politicians. Finally, before giving the floor to the speakers of the second session, LM underlined two important concepts: green infrastructure and natural capital.
A series of questions were addressed to the different speakers. The last intervention was from PTB, the last speaker of the first session who ask the audience what they thought would be the best policy instruments to halt the biodiversity loss. One reaction from the audience concerned GDP and its current inability to reflect all aspects of well-being, i.e. not only the monetary aspects. It was suggested that we should promote the “greening” of GDP.
A. Baumüller from WWF raised the issue of the EU-Budget (only 0.1% of which is currently being allocated to biodiversity). He suggested that the next EU-Budget would give a good indication of whether the EU is truly committed to do more for biodiversity.
As a conclusion to this round of questions, CPB said that as long as Member States want to keep their contribution to the EU-Budget under 1% of their GDP, it would be very difficult for biodiversity to be better funded. He said that the solution to this problem is to work on the communication side by better informing the public and the national governments.
Because of schedule constraints, there was a slight change of plan. Instead of moving on to the second session, the awarding of the Belleuropa Prize by Guiseppe Natta took place at this stage. TdE explained briefly the purpose of this prize : it aims at recognising and rewarding landowners who have put forward the best land management practices in terms of sustainability, third generation agriculture, improvements in biodiversity,…
The winner of the prize was Prof. Dr. Eberhard Hamer and Dipl.Ing.Dieter Schwarzburg, owners of the estate “Forstbetrieb Morsleben” He was recognised as an exemplary owner because of the work he has done on his property, located in the former iron curtain zone. The jury decided to recognize his efforts with his project “Renaturation of a former iron curtain”, aimed at recovering and managing damaged natural habitat. The soils of the owner’s land had been poisoned and destroyed but thanks to his work, they are now flourishing. He “re-naturalised” this area in a way that allows for diversification to take place. He planted a few millions of trees. Today, his land is a biodiversity sanctuary.