European Economic and Social Committee
REQUEST TO DRAW UP AN OWN-INITIATIVE OPINION
Requesting body:
NAT
Budget Group meeting:
Bureau meeting:
Subject:
1.
EU biodiversity policy
Background and objectives of the own-initiative opinion (Rule 29(2))
In 2001 the heads of state or government of the EU pledged to halt loss of biodiversity by 2010 and to
ensure the recovery of lost habitats. That objective was not met. In 2010, they then pledged to reach it
by 2020. However, an interim report published by the European Commission some weeks ago on the
biodiversity strategy has already concluded that the new deadline is likely to be missed too. So far
biodiversity policy seems to have failed lamentably.
Under the REFIT programme, the European Commission is considering reviewing and "opening up"
both the key nature protection Directives (the 1979 Birds Directive and the 1992 Habitats Directive).
A broad civil society movement submitted 500 000 (!) signatures opposing this idea, on the grounds
that it is not the Directives which are the problem, but rather the failure to implement them properly.
Initial results of a technical assessment of the Directives requested by the European Commission
confirm the validity of this argument, namely that the problem is failure to implement the Directives
rather than their legal basis.
In the last few days, ten environment ministers, together with European Parliament rapporteurs, have
sent a letter to Karmenu Vella, Commissioner for the Environment, warning against any dilution of
nature protection legislation. The Committee of the Regions is drawing up an opinion on this subject.
Only the EESC has not yet planned to address the matter.
2.
Previous EESC work on the subject
On the other hand, the EESC has made very important contributions to the discussion of biodiversity
in many earlier opinions, including NAT/261, 268, 296, 307, 334, 424, 436, 471 and 488. Our
initiatives on green infrastructure in Europe should also be mentioned here: the EESC even organised
its own exhibition on this subject.
But it has been a long time since the EESC has done any work on the classic topic of biodiversity
policy in the broader political context. We should not wait until the point at which we can only offer a
"reactive" response in the context of a legislative process.
EESC-2015-06478-02-00-TCD-TRA (DE) 1/3
EN
We should therefore draw up an own-initiative opinion to:



3.
analyse the state of play with (inadequate) implementation of the biodiversity strategy (referring
to the Commission's interim report) and formulate civil society recommendations;
express our views on the social and political discussion about the REFIT process (all the EU
institutions except the EESC have now stated their position);
discuss the important issue of financing for nature protection/NATURA 2000, also in the light of
CAP greening and the imminent drawing up of the medium-term financial plan (2021-2028). N.B.
Only 20% of funding needed has been provided to date.
Compliance of request with the Committee's political priorities and/or links with
current European political developments of particular importance
See the work programme of the NAT section presented by our president, Brendan Burns.
The subject is also relevant to the work of the Sustainable Development Observatory, since it likewise
concerns implementation of the SDGs under the UN's 2030 Agenda.
4.
Arrangements for involving civil society organisations in the preparation of the opinion
The matter is already being keenly discussed by civil society players (see above). But there is also a
controversial debate ongoing about the greening of the CAP.
5.
Planned or envisaged institutional follow-up
The first priority is for the EESC to at least get involved in the debate and be listened to (as always
happened in the past).
By reflecting on the future financing of biodiversity policy, we will contribute at an early stage to the
discussion that is soon to start about the 2021-2028 financial plan.
6.
Expected impact and potential added value of the opinion in the context of EU decisionand policy-making
See above.
7.
Clear interest for civil society
See above.
EESC-2015-06478-02-00-TCD-TRA (DE) 2/3
8.
Planned or envisaged communication activities to promote the own-initiative opinion or
information report
Possible hearing at the EESC to be discussed.
9.
Financial estimates
Financial estimates:
– Cost centre:
– Participants:
... Members (Item 1004)
 1st study group meeting (1/2 day)
 2nd study group meeting (1/2 day)
 hearing (1/2 day)
 2 individual meetings
... delegates (Item 1008)
... experts (Item 1422): decision to be taken by the
Groups
... other guest participants (Item 2542)
– Interpreting (Item 2548): total cost
Cost per slot x number of slots x number of interpreters
 1st study group meeting (1/2 day): Type of
interpreting + Interpretation DG or local
 2nd study group meeting (1/2 day): Type of
interpreting + Interpretation DG or local
 hearing (1/2 day): Type of interpreting +
Interpretation DG or local
– Room hire (Item 2000)
– Technical infrastructure (Article 214)
– Vehicle hire (Article 216)
– Mission expenses (Article 162) (... AD+ ... AST)
– Representation expenses (Item 2546)
– Expenses for water, coffee, etc. (Item 2540)
– Miscellaneous meeting expenditure (Item 2542)
– Communication (Item 2600)
– Other (please specify)
TOTAL
_____________
EESC-2015-06478-02-00-TCD-TRA (DE) 3/3
€
… Other
(… € x .. Slots x .. Int.) =
(… € x .. Slots x .. Int.) =
(… € x .. Slots x .. Int.) =