1. Discussion on Final Draft Document Karin Zaunberger European Commission DG ENV B2 4th Meeting of the EU Ad Hoc Expert Working Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change Brussels 15 July 2009

2. CONTENT Introduction of the Draft Strategy Paper on Biodiversity and Ecosystems, Ecosystem Services and Climate Change sent for consultation 19 June Comments received Open questions

3. Strategy Paper (1) Being developed by the Working Group  Member State representatives, Commission Staff, scientists and civil society Information & Recommendations taking into account most recent scientific findings Not a negotiated text Disclaimer  “The document does not necessarily represent the official, formal position of any of the partners. Hence, the views expressed in the document do not necessarily represent the views of the European Commission”

4. Strategy Paper (2) Open constructive collaboration process Discussion during the meetings Intersession work by the voluntary drafting team

5. Consultation Draft has been sent for consultation to Working Group Members, copy to CGNB Members on 19 June Consultation inside DG ENV Presentation to other fora:  ENCA adaptation group, Vilm 23-24 June  EIONET workshop, Copenhagen 30 June – 1 July  Experts Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change under the Bern Convention, Strasbourg 2-3 July

6. Result of consultation Many comments were received THANK YOU !  Demonstrates high interest in the topic Orally during the meetings In writing until Friday 10 July: BE, CZ, DE (UBA), HU, SE, UK, IRL, FIN, NL EEA, EEA topic centres CC and Biodiversity, Bern Convention, ENCA, EBCD, EEB, RSPB, WWF, CEEWEB Written comments often representing joint replies

7. General Remarks Document of excellent quality Document is timely and has the right message Valuable input for discussion in biodiversity and climate change policies Sensible holistic approach Document too long Some repetitions remain Reverse the structure background first and recommendations at the end

8. Final Draft Document Attempt to include as many comments as possible Not possible to include all comments Overall agreement in terms of contents Sometimes conflicting views  With regards to language style  Overall structure of the document

9. Document revision Content Title  Status of the document Language style  « political reality » versus « scientific reality » Structure  « Logical » versus « proactive »

10. Document Revision – content (1) Additional Information boxes  Examples for Ecosystem-based Approaches (Box 1)  « Ecosystem-based adaptation creates benefits for people » (source; The Nature Conservancy, publication May 2009) (Box 2)  « Synergies Between Mitigation and Adaptation » (source: Closing the Gaps, report by the Commission on Climate Change and Development, 2009) (Box 6)

11. Document Revision – Content (2) Additional Figure 4: Carbon in natural ecosystems (source UNEP report The Natural Fix?, June 2009) In section 1.6: included reference to PINC (Proactive Investment in Natural Capital) References to Bern Convention Recommendation 135 (2008) on Biodiversity and Climate Change References to “Green Infrastructure”

12. Document Revision – Content (3) Adaptation and Mitigation remains dealt with together as one of the advantages of ecosystem-based approaches is that they often contribute to both Current item 2.2.2 is about « obstacles for the achievement of climate change policies » not about the risk posed by them

13. Document Revision – Title revised title: “Towards a Strategy on Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Climate Change” added subtitle: A discussion paper prepared by the EU Ad Hoc Expert Working Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change Rationale: To avoid ambiguity about the document created by the term « strategy paper » The term « Biodiversity » includes « ecosystems », therefore no need to say « Biodiversity & ecosystems, ecosystem services … »

14. Document Revision - Language Comments varied  Requesting stronger language  Requesting more neutral language Attempt to avoid “mastering language”, but maintaining the strong messages Action Boxes renamed into « Suggestion Boxes »

15. Document Revision - Structure More « Proactive structure »  Resulted from the intense discussion during the last working group meeting  Allowed direct link to outcome of the Athens Conference More « Logical structure »  1) description of the "scientific problem" (biodiversity loss, climate change), 2) description of the "policy problem" (lack of integration) 3) description of the benefits of policy- integration 4) suggestions of the way forward  Reverse sections 1 and 2 ?

16. Document Revision – planned Final editing Include a glossary Include a table of contents Possible Annexes:  selected case studies from the ENCA workshop (2 page summaries)  Press Release of the UNEP report (4 pages)

17. Structuring the discussion First: structure  Proactive or logical ? Second : language and title  Do you agree with the suggested title ?  Do you agree with the proposed language ? Third : contents  are there any outstanding questions ? Forth : next steps  Input for Strömstad ?  And then ?

18. Working with nature The floor is yours