[Pollinator] Biodiversity matters - speech from EU

[Kimberly Winter]

(A motivating speech by Stavros Dimas [pollinators are mentioned in the 
"these are front page examples" paragraph]):

Stavros Dimas
Member of the European Commission, Responsible for Environment

Stopping the loss of biodiversity by 2010:
Why nature matters. Why we are losing it. And what we in Europe can do about 
it

Green Week Conference
Brussels, 30 May 2006

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am delighted to have the chance to open this year’s Green Week and I am 
honoured to share the stage with so many distinguished guests. Their 
presence here is a clear proof of the critical importance of the subject we 
will be discussing over the next four days.

There can be no doubt that stopping the loss of biodiversity and limiting 
climate change are the two most important challenges facing the planet. And 
while climate change takes up much of the media attention, in one 
fundamental way biodiversity loss is an even more serious threat. This is 
because the degradation of ecosystems often reaches a point of no return – 
and because extinction is forever.

The reasons for biodiversity loss are well known: destruction of habitats, 
pollution, over-exploitation, invasive alien species and, most recently, 
climate change. The compound effect of these forces is terrifying. The 
global rate of extinction is at least 100 times the natural rate, and an 
estimated 34,000 plant and 5,200 animal species face extinction. This means 
one in eight of all bird species, one quarter of all mammals and one third 
of all amphibians are endangered. Scientists are not exaggerating when they 
refer to the 6th great planetary extinction. The last was 65 million years 
ago and saw the departure of the dinosaurs.

This situation explains why, in 2001, the European Union’s leaders set the 
goal of not only slowing down but actually halting the loss of biodiversity 
in the EU by 2010. They also joined 130 other world leaders in 2002 to set 
the global goal of significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by 
2010.

The Commission’s response to this challenge is the Communication and Action 
Plan that we adopted last week. The Communication is a firm and unambiguous 
political commitment from the Barroso Commission to prioritise biodiversity 
and it is a recognition that existing efforts need to be stepped up. I will 
present some of the key elements later – but probably the most important 
aspect of the Communication is that it clearly spells out why biodiversity 
matters.

There are two fundamental reasons why preserving our natural environment is 
essential. Each on its own is a compelling reason for action. Taken together 
they mean that protecting biodiversity must be placed at the top of our 
political agenda.

The first is that nature has an intrinsic value. Nature is a part of our 
culture, our history - and even our religions. We have a moral obligation to 
be careful stewards of the planet. And because ecosystem degradation is 
often irreversible and species loss is always so, when we destroy nature we 
are depriving future generations of options for their survival and 
development. This is not only irresponsible behaviour – it is also 
unethical.

The second reason is that nature is the foundation for our quality of life. 
We must be honest and accept that there is a widely held – and entirely 
wrong – perception that nature protection comes at the cost of economic 
development. Correcting this myth is the main theme of the Commission’s 
Communication. Its key messages are that our prosperity is underpinned by 
healthy ecosystems and that ecosystems - both in the EU and worldwide - are 
far from healthy. They are, in fact, in dangerous decline.

This is also the message of the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. This 
UN document is the product of thousands of scientists worldwide and at its 
core is the concept of 'ecosystem services.' These services include:

the provision of goods – food, fibre, fuel and medicines;
the regulation of the air we breathe and the quality of our waters;
soil fertility, pollination and other essential support services; and
cultural benefits – from aesthetic enjoyment to spiritual solace.

These ecosystem services are the life-support system upon which our 
well-being depends. We take these goods and services so much for granted 
that we can only see how important they are when they are gone. And yet, the 
Millennium Assessment concludes that two-thirds of these services are in 
decline.

There is no shortage of examples of what biodiversity loss means in 
practice:

The collapse of the Newfoundland cod industry - which was caused by 
over-fishing – led to the loss of thousands of jobs, the devastation of the 
local community and the financial costs ran into billions of Canadian 
dollars.

The destruction of New Orleans would have been much less severe if 
protective coastal wetlands had not been destroyed.

The impact of the Asian tsunami would have been significantly reduced if 
coastal mangroves were not so fragmented.

These are the front page examples. And there are many more cases that are 
less grand in scale and less sudden in their occurrence ... but, when taken 
together, represent a major drain on our economies. They range from depleted 
fish stocks to declining soil fertility - from pollinator collapses to the 
spread of invasive species which clog industrial systems. And with genetic 
resources we simply don’t know the potential importance of what is being 
lost. Restoring these ecosystem services, even in those cases where this is 
possible, is a lengthy and costly process.

Nature underpins our economies. Studies from the UK have shown that economic 
activities based on the natural environment contribute €100 billion every 
year to the English economy. In Wales an estimated 1 in 6 of the workforce 
depends on the environment for employment. And in Scotland nearly as many 
people are employed in natural heritage activities as are employed in 
biotechnology, call centres and electronics combined. The same is true in 
other European countries and in the rest of the world. In Costa Rica 
eco-tourism is now the most important sector in the economy overtaking 
coffee and bananas.

China is a country of superlatives and economic competition with China is 
often given as a reason why we cannot afford high levels of environmental 
protection. But when you look more closely at the reality in China it 
provides a case study of the enormous costs of inaction.

Twenty years of unchecked growth means that some 20% of land is affected by 
soil erosion. 75% of lakes and almost all coastal waters are classified as 
polluted. 90% of grasslands are degraded. Deforestation is so acute that the 
government has banned logging in natural forests ... which is improving the 
situation in China but has had the effect of sucking in timber resources 
from its neighbours

China is beginning to address these issues but the costs are enormous. The 
damages caused by water and air pollution have been calculated as €42 
billion a year. The annual damages caused by desertification are €33 
billion. The “Green Great Wall” reforestation project which aims to protect 
Beijing from dust and pollution will cost €6 billion. Taken together these 
costs represent 8% of China’s GDP.

Biodiversity loss is my loss and your loss. It is a drain on our economies 
and it reduces the quality of our lives. It is clear that ecosystem health 
is fundamental to any sustainable strategy for economic development.

We know the scale of the problem. We know why biodiversity loss is such a 
threat. And this leads on to the key question that we will be looking at 
over the next four days: what can Europe do to prevent the current levels of 
destruction and meet its 2010 targets?

There is in fact a long history of action from our Member States to protect 
their natural heritage. But by the 1970s it had become apparent that, just 
as nature does not respect national borders, we would need to take 
international action in order to protect our nature. The 1979 Birds 
Directive was followed in 1992 by the Habitats Directive – and with these 
two instruments we have established a network of protected areas that covers 
Europe’s most important habitats, and taken action for our most threatened 
species.

This legislation was a massive step forwards. Prior to the Habitats 
Directive there was a patchwork of unconnected areas with different 
standards of protection. This made it impossible to understand the problems 
facing Europe’s biodiversity let alone begin to address them. And by taking 
a cross border approach we are now able to protect entire ecosystems which 
rarely end at national borders.

We have called this network NATURA 2000, and it covers some 18% of the 
territory of the 15 countries that were Member States before the last 
enlargement. It is currently being extended to the 10 new Member States and 
also to the marine environment. The area covered is already greater than 
Germany and when completed will be greater than France. NATURA 2000 will be 
the EU’s largest territorial entity – larger than any member state.

NATURA 2000 is the cornerstone of our policy to protect Europe’s 
biodiversity. It sets a model for nature protection – science-driven, 
legally enforceable and based upon ecosystems as the basic unit. But it is 
also a very flexible system and I would like to use this opportunity to 
correct one of the common misconceptions about Natura 2000 – which is that 
once a site is designated all economic activities have to stop. This is 
simply not true. Europe’s countryside is typified by an active relationship 
between man and nature and the NATURA network consists of living landscapes. 
Farming, fishing, forestry and hunting can all continue. And even major 
development projects can be carried out on the proviso that that there are 
no alternatives, that they in the “overriding public interest” and if 
compensatory measures are taken.

Through NATURA 2000 we are addressing one of the main drivers of 
biodiversity loss – that of habitat loss. But we area also taking decisive 
action to address other key drivers: the European Union is at the forefront 
of the international fight against climate change and we have strict 
legislation against air, water and chemical pollution.

A key part of the EU approach has been to integrate biodiversity concerns 
into all aspects of environmental legislation. Our Water Framework Directive 
sets the objective of water with a ‘good ecological status’. And the 
management structure of this legislation is based on river basins – an 
ecosystem approach – rather than according to national boundaries. 
Similarly, the Commission’s recent initiative on the Marine Environment 
introduces an ‘ecosystem approach’ to the management of Europe’s seas which 
we are determined will be brought back to a ‘good environmental condition’.

And although it is more difficult, progress has also been made integrating 
biodiversity concerns into non-environment policy areas such as the Common 
Agricultural Policy where we are moving away from seeing farmers as simply 
producers of food to seeing them as guardians of nature.

Against this background the main focus of last week’s Communication is on 
accelerating implementation. The policy framework is already largely in 
place and I am convinced that, when implemented in full, we will be able to 
meet our 2010 target in the EU and contribute to the global 2010 target. The 
Communication also contains a number of innovations and I would like to 
highlight four key issues. First, the Communication proposes an EU Action 
Plan to 2010 and Beyond. This is new in three important ways:

it specifies actions targeted at delivering on our 2010 commitments, both at 
the community and at the global level;
it is addressed to both community institutions and Member States, and 
specifies the roles and responsibilities of each;
it provides a clear set of targets and indicators against which to evaluate 
our progress in 2010.
Second, the Communication announces the establishment of a new EU mechanism 
for independent, authoritative, research-based advice to inform 
implementation and help with policy development. We have here in Europe 
outstanding expertise on these issues, and it is essential that knowledge is 
translated into policy and appropriate action.

Thirdly, the Action Plan identifies areas where new policy initiatives will 
be developed. One will be will be assessing the real impact of trade on 
biodiversity and then elaborating appropriate measures. Another will be the 
development of a comprehensive EU response to the problem of alien species – 
which had previously been a gap in our policy framework. And to improve our 
own decision making we will need to find a better way of evaluating the 
costs and benefits relating to natural capital and ecosystem services.

Finally, the Communication launches an EU debate on a vision for nature and 
for future policy. What kind of nature do we want? How can we make our 
legislation more effective in protecting nature and at the same time easier 
to implement? How can the EU take a leadership role protecting biodiversity 
at the global level? This is an issue that touches every citizen and also 
our relations with the rest of the world and I believe that this could be 
one of the most vital and, indeed, vitalising, debates on the future of 
Europe.

Ladies and Gentlemen.

I began by noting that climate change and the sustainable use of 
biodiversity are of equal importance for the future of our planet. But in 
one important way they are different since stopping the loss of biodiversity 
is not yet a mainstream political priority in the way that climate change 
is.

I find this surprising since our citizens are greatly interested in nature 
and wildlife issues. Television documentaries on wildlife are hugely popular 
and nature NGOs have millions of members across Europe. But this widespread 
concern still needs to be translated into a determined and coordinated 
political effort that is equivalent to the effort the international 
community is making on climate change. It is the job of politicians – and 
not just environment ministers – to have the political vision and courage to 
lead this effort.

Improving information is the key. Once they are better informed about what 
biodiversity loss actually means - economically, environmentally and 
ethically – our citizens will demand action. This is the reason why I have 
chosen to dedicate this year’s Green Week to the subject of biodiversity. I 
would therefore like to finish by inviting you all to listen, and contribute 
during the events over the next four days – and to take away with you at the 
end of the week the message that biodiversity matters.