Concerning external relations, the strategy stated that the Commission would ‘enhance the contribution of trade policy to conserving biodiversity (…) and seek to include in all new trade agreements a chapter on sustainable development providing for substantial environmental provisions of importance in the trade context, including on biodiversity goals’. No later than the final plenary session of the European Parliament, MEPs of all political stripes made ironic observations about the incompatibility of the ‘Mercosur’ agreement with these objectives, particularly as regards forest protection (see EUROPE 12510/13).
Finally, the 2011 strategy announced legislation to implement the Nagoya protocol. On this, it kept its word: the Commission adopted its decision in April 2014, bringing the number of ratifications to 50 and thus allowing the protocol to enter into force. The Parliament and Council adopted a regulation, which was subsequently added to by a Commission implementing act.
In May 2015, the Commission published an assessment report on the application of the ‘Birds’ and ‘Habitats’ directives. Of the bird population, 32% were still considered to be under threat, in decline or substantially depleted. As regards the species covered by the ‘Habitats’ directive, their state of conservation was described as unfavourable in 60% of cases. A worse situation was particularly obvious in aquatic environments (watercourses, lakes, wetlands). The state of conservation of habitats was even worse than for the species: 77% unfavourable; this figure has not improved since 2009. For species, a slight improvement was detected. As for marine systems, the threats that were considered the most dangerous were the use of living resources (fishing and fish farming) and pollution.
Overall, if trends do not dramatically change, the targets set in 2011 could not be met in 2020. To sum up the situation, the only (relative) improvements could be attributed to the Natura 2000 network and the Community funding under the LIFE programme. The member states’ own initiatives in the framework of the strategy had no decisive effect on the other ecosystems. In particular, their application of the existing European legislation was not beyond reproach.
Today, you have to read as far as page 17 of the new Strategy on biodiversity, dated 20 May, to read the following: ‘over the last 30 years, the EU has put in place a solid legislative framework to protect and restore its natural capital (see EUROPE 12491/2). However, recent evaluations show that although legislation is fit for purpose, implementation on the ground is lagging behind. This is having dramatic consequences on biodiversity and comes with a substantial economic cost. Full implementation and enforcement of EU environmental legislation is therefore a part of this tragedy, for which political support and financial and human resources will need to be prioritised’. The ‘von der Leyen’ Commission furthermore noted the absence of a global governance framework to steer the biodiversity commitments, whatever the level of these.
What the Commission is saying about the member states with its legendary tact and diplomacy was expressed somewhat more directly at the European Parliament on 5 June, when the strategy for 2020 was called a resounding failure (see EUROPE 12500/12). On the same day, furthermore, the Court of Auditors of the EU published its report on the contribution of the agricultural sector to biodiversity, which was most damning about the effectiveness of the ‘greening’ of the common agriculture policy (CAP) (see EUROPE about 12500/13).
Yet the most important players in an effective biodiversity of European lands are neither ecologists nor park keepers, but farmers. The new strategy provides for the restoration of downgraded ecosystems, a drastic reduction in the use of pesticides, with 25% of agricultural land being eligible to be labelled ‘organic’ and 10% being high diversity. And this time, it contains ‘legally binding EU nature restoration targets’ proposed from 2021 onwards. Astonishingly (!), the new strategy on biodiversity got a mixed reception at the ‘Agriculture’ Council of 8 June, due to its impact on the CAP (see EUROPE 12501/9).
We can also anticipate a battle royal over the protection of the marine ecosystems, which many NGOs consider to be undermined by the current common fisheries policy (see EUROPE 12501/12), while one MEP openly asked whether the Commission’s new plan for the conservation of fish resources and the protection of marine ecosystems means that it would rather help the fish than the fishermen (see EUROPE 12505/20).
Incidentally, due to its ambitious (compulsory restoration of 30% of land and marine ecosystems by 2030) and comprehensive nature (it also covers energy, entrepreneurship, finance and education, amongst others), it has gone down well with the MEPs (see EUROPE 12500/12). But a few days later, the members of the committee on the environment of the European Parliament were told that the national energy and climate plans (NECPs) are very weak on biodiversity; this information was transmitted by the Commission itself (see EUROPE 12507/17).
With national parliaments that are not exactly obsessed by biodiversity and governments that are either too unimaginative or not bold enough in this field, with enormous pressure from all sides, if the Commission wishes to succeed this time, it can count only on the European Parliament, organised civil society, young people and certain media. Because unlike shareholders, promoters, champions of the agricultural industry, shipbuilders, merchants and the ludicrous mob refusing to see a problem, insects, birds, fish and mammals can’t vote. Why would you alienate your actual voters for the benefit of creatures that will never be part of the electorate?
Renaud Denuit