1. ASSESSMENT ISSUES An EU Perspective Ladislav Miko Director, Protecting the Natural Environment, DG Environment, European Commission

2. EU BIODIVERSITY POLICY The 2006 Communication COM(2006)216 – 22 May 2006: –Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010 and Beyond: Sustaining Ecosystem Services for Human Well-being A firm and unambiguous political commitment from the Barroso Commission to prioritise biodiversity Acknowledges intrinsic, but stresses utilitarian, arguments for biodiversity

3. EU BIODIVERSITY POLICY Promoting a wider concept EU biodiversity policy has, in the past, had a species and habitats focus –Birds Directive, Habitats Directive Communication promotes focus on ecosystem services (cf MEA) The premise: –that biodiversity (at genetic, species and ecosystem levels) underpins the flow of ecosystem services – and that these services in turn underpin prosperity and well-being

4. EU BIODIVERSITY POLICY The Commissions proposals Recommends action in 4 key policy areas: –Biodiversity in EU –EU and global biodiversity –Biodiversity and climate change –The Knowledge base Identifies 10 priority objectives, 4 key supporting measures Lays down EU Action Plan to 2010 and Beyond –targets and actions relating to each objective and supporting measure Calls for EU debate on a longer-term vision as a frame for policy

5. EU BIODIVERSITY POLICY Monitoring, evaluation, reporting Communication makes specific provisions: –Reports to end 2008, to end 2010, and to end 2013 –Reports will provide evaluation of progress towards the targets to include: Qualitative assessment of extent to which targets achieved Quantitative data relating to set of headline indicators –Explicit link to broader EU policy cycle: Reports to inform EU policies and budgets for post-2013 period

6. EU BIODIVERSITY POLICY Implications for ecosystem assessments EAs should contribute to qualitative and quantitative evaluation as defined in COM –synergy with work on indicators is vital EAs should inform on DPSIR –state of EU ecosystems, balance of natural capital, flows of ecosystem services (S) –drivers, pressures, impacts on EU ecosystems (DPI) –effectiveness of EU action plan in delivering targets (R) EAs should provide scenarios to inform debate on a longer-term vision, future policy developments

7. ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENTS What do we understand them to be? Maps showing patterns of ecosystem change over time: –at various scales –within various administrative regions or zones Linked ecosystem accounts which reflect –changes in stocks (natural capital – including biodiversity) –changes in actual and potential flows of ecosystem services A framework within which to integrate quantitative indicator information A means to more cost-effective monitoring, reporting and evaluation A tool to promote greater internalisation of environmental costs

8. ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENTS Some issues requiring further study Development and interpretation of ecosystem assessments requires better understanding of: –the link between biodiversity (composition, structure, function) and the flow of ecosystem services –the link between biodiversity and ecosystem resilience – eg. to climate change –ecosystem thresholds or tipping points –marginal costs of damages to stocks and flows

9. ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENTS An EU Ecosystem Assessment 2011/2012 Could provide coherent framework for final evaluation of the EU Action Plan to 2010 and Beyond Could powerfully inform post-2013 EU policy (eg. CAP) and budget Could be a powerful tool to build political demand and will to prioritise biodiversity and ecosystem services