1. DEVELOPMENT OF POST 2010 EU BIODIVERSITY VISION AND TARGET(S)
CGBN: Co-ordination Group
for Biodiversity and Nature
5th meeting - 02/06/09
DEVELOPMENT OF POST 2010 EU BIODIVERSITY VISION AND TARGET(S)
Agenda item 2.A

2. Environment Council conclusions (March 2009)
“INVITES the Commission to provide an analysis of the status and trends of biodiversity within the EU before the end of 2009 and UNDERLINES the need to establish, by mid-2010 at the latest, a vision and targets beyond 2010 for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity within the EU, building on and contributing to deliberations at global level on a vision for biodiversity beyond 2010”;

3. Timeline towards the new EU Biodiversity policy

4. Proposed Commission input
probably a Communication to
review what has been achieved in relation to current biodiversity 2010 target,
analyse the current situation,
underline new and emerging challenges
propose a new post 2010 vision and target(s).
Will have regard to the ongoing international biodiversity processes.

5. Need to consider why failure to halt biodiversity loss by 2010
Slow/Inadequate implementation of existing legal and policy provisions
Legal/policy gaps and articulation
Slow or inefficient mainstreaming of biodiversity (and ecosystem services) into other policies
Other important obstacles to meeting the target (e.g. poor communication, knowledge etc)

6. Relevant emerging developments since adoption of the 2010 target
Enlargement of EU, enriched biodiversity, Cohesion pressures
Significant increased growth and prosperity in Member States but recent financial/economic crisis
important shift in awareness about the link between ecosystems and human wellbeing (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment)
initiative on the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB) (and links to poverty eradication)
growing recognition of the interconnectedness of climate change, biodiversity and ecosystems

7. Athens conference: Launching of debate on the post 2010 EU biodiversity policy
high-level stakeholder conference organised by Commission (April 2009) - first real opportunity to discuss key challenges and potential responses with stakeholders
"Message from Athens" is based on
inputs received before and during the conference
output from the 'High-level working group on the 2010 biodiversity target and post-2010 target(s)' (March 2009, Bonn, Germany)
conclusions from the meeting of G8 environment ministers held in Syracuse (22-24 April 2009, Syracuse, Italy).
Not a binding, negotiated text but rather aims to reflect the main issues raised by stakeholders and to give policy makers an idea of priorities for future action.

8. Priorities for EU action for biodiversity post 2010 (as identified in the Message of Athens)
A vision of why biodiversity matters
A better understanding of where we are and what we need to do
A fully functional network of protected areas
Biodiversity outside protected areas
Biodiversity and climate change
Protecting Global biodiversity
Integration of biodiversity into other policy areas
Funding

9. Possible elements for new EU Biodiversity vision
A new vision should set out a desired outcome for EU biodiversity that inspires, energizes and helps create an image of future success.
It may have a medium to long-term perspective (up to 2050 or beyond).
It would need to recognise:
the importance of halting and reversing the current loss
the intrinsic values of biodiversity as part of our natural heritage
"why biodiversity matters": healthy ecosystems deliver tangible benefits that underpin our economic, social and cultural well-being
the importance of biodiversity for human wellbeing and quality of life
enhancing the potential for nature' and natural processes to flourish, especially in the face of climate change

10. One possible working title for the Vision
"Biodiversity in the EU is restored and enhanced for its intrinsic value, the wellbeing and enjoyment of people, and to ensure nature's vital services (in a changing climate) and the economic prosperity that this brings"

11. Headline target: Option 1
Accept that biodiversity loss is unattainable for the foreseeable future in the EU – and set a more pragmatic, less ambitious target 'to significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss' – within a reasonable timeframe (e.g. 2020)
PROS: aligns EU more closely with current and probably future global agenda; more attainable and easier to demonstrate success;
CONS: lacks ambition; moving backwards rather than forwards in policy terms; may already have achieved this target; given large sale historic destruction of biodiversity in EU this will be seen to be not good enough

12. Headline target: Option 2
Maintain the existing target of halting biodiversity loss and extend the deadline (e.g. to 2020)
PROS: recognises the reality that takes longer to achieve; maintains high level of ambition; provides consistency and continuity of policy;
CONS: does not build on the momentum for progress and change; target too narrowly defined and does not capture importance of ecosystem services and is difficult to communicate to relevant actors

13. Headline target: Option 3
Maintain the existing biodiversity target, extend the deadline (to 2020) and broaden the focus to place strong emphasis on the critical role of 'ecosystem services
PROS: provides new impetus that recognises that existing target good, needs more time and has to be broadened out to make more relevant to other sectors etc. Also gives greater recognition of both intrinsic and utilitarian values of biodivsity
CONS: as biodiversity and ecosystem services are complementary and not entirely synonymous risk of undermining work on biodiversity with undue focus on ecosystem services; latter is still poorly defined and may not have necessary baselines

14. Headline target: Option 4
Call for a more ambitious target for the recovery/restoration of nature/biodiversity in the EU (and contributing to global goals) (by 2020), emphasising the restoration of ecosystem services
PROS: recognises the need to reverse the historic damage to biodiversity in EU; by increasing the level of ambition it could lift overall performance; it is expressed in positive terms and thus is easier to communicate, addresses threats that are perceived as real and urgent to the public
CONS: maybe more of a vision that a target; would be difficult to define the end point; given failure to halt biodiversity may be difficult to make operational in short/medium term

15. Translating the vision and targets into measurable sub-targets
Will need to be underpinned by a series of (SMART) sub-targets.
These may be based on
the drivers of biodiversity loss (habitat loss and degradation, over-exploitation, invasive species, pollution, climate change).
an ecosystem perspective or focus
and/or be expressed as a set of sectoral policy sub-targets.
EEA led SEBI project an important imput
limited timeframe to adopt a new EU vision and target for biodiversity & not expected that there will be agreement reached on sectoral policy sub-targets beforehand.
final 2010 assessment of EU Biodiversity Action Plan will provide a much stronger underpinning for a new operational strategy and plan to deliver on the new vision and target(s)

16. Next steps
The post 2010 EU biodiversity vision and target(s) will be discussed with Nature Directors at the Prague meeting of June 2008
By 24 June Member State written feedback and input is invited in relation to initial exchange of views on vision and target(s)
Further discussion with MS within framework of CGBN at next meeting of 16 October 2009 and other meetings during the Swedish Presidency