Brussels, 13/12/2013 (Agence Europe) - In Brussels on Friday 13 December, EU environment ministers were unanimous in endorsing the objective of the draft regulation presented by the European Commission on 9 September this year to prevent and manage the introduction and spread of invasive alien species into the EU (see EUROPE 10917). Opinions differed considerably, however, over how this should be achieved.
The greatest division between the delegations was over how appropriate it is to limit the number of species to be managed as a matter of priority. There were also other concerns, however, relating to the cost-effectiveness of measures, the funding of measures required, the necessary taking into account of the bio-geographical specificities, and the lack of derogations in the text that some delegations are nonetheless keen on for species that are said to be invasive in some countries of the EU but native and useful in others (the zebra mussel, for example, is useful in the Netherlands for water purification but undesirable in Ireland).
Guided by a questionnaire, the ministers had been invited to state, on one hand, whether the list of invasive alien species should be limited in number to 50 priority species and whether there should be a mechanism to identify and prioritise the species to be listed. Also, they were asked whether the regulation should include provisions allowing and fostering action against invasive alien species at the level of the EU bio-geographic regions.
Summarising the content of the policy debate, Valentinos Mazuronis, the Lithuanian minister who chaired the Environment Council for the last time before passing the baton on to the Greek Presidency, cited three trends: - all accepted the idea that an effective system is needed to contain and manage the proliferation of invasive alien species, given their impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services and the damage that such species cause for health and the economy; - many acknowledged that the principle of a list must be reviewed; - and regional cooperation is recognised as a major element allowing the scourge of alien species to be effectively countered.
After the Greek delegation had announced on behalf of the future Presidency of the EU Council that it was ready to move forward in presenting a new text to serve as a basis for continuing discussion by taking into consideration “all the difficulties that such a text may generate”, the outgoing president, Mazuronis, was able to give assurance that he would work towards that in concert with the incoming president. The future Greek Presidency hopes to achieve a political agreement in July.
Speaking on behalf of the European Commission, Janez Potocnik, Environment Commissioner, said he was highly “encouraged” by the generally positive welcome to the Commission's proposal. “A ceiling of 50 priority species is a problem for many. We are ready for alternatives to establish priorities. However, it is different for species that are indigenous in some EU countries but harmful aliens in others. It is an upstream problem: most of these cases could be managed with national measures and introductory action. We can improve the clarity of our work and step up regional cooperation”, he said (our translation throughout). The commissioner, moreover, said member states should not open up the “Pandora's box” of derogations. He conceded that the cost-effectiveness ratio is important and underlined that a single regulatory framework at European level will allow cost reductions compared to the costs that the member states should bear if they were to deal with the problem on their own. “The European Commission will reflect on ways to help you through the rural development fund, the Horizon 2020 programme, and the cohesion funds but a regulation is not accompanied by a financial envelope”, he said. He then went on to state that the review of EU strategy for biodiversity will be in 2015 and that one must be up to the challenge of the Nagoya Protocol.
During the debate, there were many ministers who called for clear, transparent and objective criteria for establishing priorities, and the impact on biodiversity on the economy and health. Feasibility, also, was often cited as one of the criteria to be retained.
Delegations in favour of a limited list are more often than not in favour in order to avoid too much of an administrative burden (the Netherlands, Romania, Germany, Bulgaria, and also Finland albeit with flexibility, and Malta, which is not against as long as it is regularly reviewed). The countries opposed to a limited list of priorities (Italy, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg, Croatia, Lithuania, Poland, France, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia and Slovakia) considered on the whole that arbitrary limitation would be detrimental to the effectiveness of the fight against alien species and would therefore be counter-productive. Estonia hopes the list will solely be for species that come from outside the EU, and that could have a harmful impact.
Slovakia and Cyprus called for European funding and Austria deplored the lack of clarity in the text on the subject of funding. (AN/transl.jl)