The European Biodiversity conference
European Biodiversity: the private sector offer
Remark: Please note that the PPs presentation are available on ELO website: www.elo.org
1. Opening of the conference
1. Véronique Mathieu (VM)- MEP :
VM stressed the need to react against the loss of biodiversity. She estimated it is essential
therefore essential to adopt a common approach to respect and preserve biodiversity. This is
something we absolutely can not allow ourselves to overlook. She explained that private
initiative is also an essential element in the fight against the wasting of natural resources. She
encouraged all the participants to promote partnerships between all stakeholders and all levels
of decision making process.
2. Thierry de l’Escaille (TdE) – ELO
TdE opened the conference by underlining the central role played by biodiversity in all
human activities. He then emphasised the valuable contribution landowners and land
managers can make to preserving biodiversity, enhancing it, or at least halting its loss. As
explained in the Rise Foundation Task Force, theses actors are important as “public goods
providers”. TdE further detailed this point by saying that sustainable rural activities are also
necessary in mitigating negative impacts of other human activities. In this context, TdE
recalled that ELO was one of the first organisations to sign the “Countdown 2010” (at the
time signed by the former Commissioner for Agriculture, Franz Fischler). ELO very actively
supports the strategy of the European Commission to halt the loss of biodiversity.
3. Julia Marton-Lefevre (JML) - IUCN
As an introduction, JML pointed out that biodiversity is the infrastructure upon which all life
on the planet is based. To illustrate how dramatic the situation is today in terms of species
extinction, she compared the red list established by IUCN to a “health check”. The diagnosis
is very bad. This list gives the percentage of species classified in different categories: least
concern, near threatened, vulnerable, endangered, critically endangered, extinct in the wild,
extinct. The percentages of the different categories are very alarming.
JML developed the different partnerships maintained by IUCN with businesses, landowners
and farmers. As she explained, theses partnerships are the key to find common solutions,
halting the loss of biodiversity being a common issue. A very useful tool in this context is the
TEEB report (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity), which details the economic
aspects of biodiversity and ecosystems services. Finally as a final comment, JML recalled the
intertwined relation which ties the biodiversity issue to Climate Change.
2. First Session: the EU voluntary and regulatory framework: what are the
policy needs for biodiversity?
Co-chair: Ladislav Miko (LM) - Director responsible for Biodiversity in DG Environment
and Corrado Pirzio-Biroli (CPB) - RISE Foundation
4. Mairead McGuinness (MMG), MEP, the Politics of Biodiversity
As said in the title of her presentation, MMG spoke “politically” about biodiversity. She
started by giving a few facts and figures about the Irish knowledge of biodiversity: 51% of
Irish people have never heard of biodiversity, 26% have heard of it but don’t know what it is,
73% feel not well informed on the topic and 94% have never heard of the Natura 2000
network. These facts and figures underline the lack of understanding from the public on the
issue of biodiversity. According to MMG, this lack may be part of the explanation of our
failure to meet the 2010 target. She asked herself and the audience: what are the other reasons
which can explain this failure? Is it because we have set too ambitious and therefore
unrealistic targets? Is it because we follow a too project-based approach?
MMG then addressed the question of public goods in agriculture. In her view, providing
public goods could be a way for farmers and ecosystems managers to re-gain control over
their land. She underlined that agriculture is not the only activity which doesn’t include (yet)
public goods in its accountancy. Indeed, she noted market failures (the inability of markets to
include public goods) in all policies. In other words, we don’t pay the right price. Within our
current economic model, the price doesn’t take into account the environmental and
biodiversity costs and benefits.
On the issues of Climate Change, the CAP reform, the biodiversity loss and the budgetary
pressures, MMG said they all very tightly connected. In this context, she underlined the need
of working together to tackle these different, but still very closely linked issues.
CPB made a brief comment on MMG’s intervention. He agreed that, since biodiversity is a
very complex issue, policy makers won’t be able to find solutions if people don’t understand
it. We can’t create policy without people knowing what it is about.
5. Martijn Quinn (MQ) – Deputy head of cabinet of Stavros Dimas - The message
from Athens: future challenges and priorities for EU Biodiversity
MQ started his presentation by pointing out two global challenges of equal magnitude:
Climate Change and the loss of biodiversity. The main difference between these two
environmental problems, he said, is that the effects of Climate Change can be reversed, while
the extinction of species can’t. Another difference is the extent to which both issues are
complex: the loss of biodiversity is far more complex than Climate Change, he said.
In this context, MQ recalled the Athens conference on Biodiversity, and the resulting
“Message from Athens”. This message identified 8 areas for action, an important of which
was the need to show why biodiversity matters. MQ gave the answer to that question:
biodiversity matters because of the ecosystems services it provides. We rely on ecosystems,
i.e. our well-being relies on it. MQ added that many other things depend on biodiversity such
as our policy goals, the Millennium Development Goals (eliminating poverty), climate
change, etc. Thus, as he explained, if we want to address the issue of food security for
example, we need the address the issue of biodiversity.
MQ described the “communication” as one of the main obstacles to finding the best solutions
for biodiversity. In other words, he said that there is a very strong need for more information
in this matter, especially in urban areas, where populations feel totally disconnected with
nature. In this context, he also underlined the importance of the Natura 2000 network, which
he described as the “jewel in the crown”. However, he said, it needs to be properly funded and
implemented. Today, the network covers approximately 17% of all EU territory but he said
that we shouldn’t forget to look outside theses areas.
MQ also underlined the need to analyse our consumption patterns and to look at the funding
issue.
6. Börje Alriksson (BA) – Swedish presidency, Ministry for the Environment – A common
responsibility for society
To illustrate the necessity for stakeholders to get together to tackle this issue, BA shared with
the audience a personal story. His family survived thanks to biodiversity outputs.
He pointed out that the biodiversity issue had been a core issue throughout the Swedish
Presidency. To confirm this point he recalled two high-level conferences: in Strömstad in
September and in Abisko (Sweden) in October. The purpose of the first one was to follow up
the Message from Athens and the aim of the second one was to put forward the key role of the
private sector.
Regarding the topic of the session: “what are the policy needs for biodiversity”, BA said that
he thinks the voluntary work should be supportive of the regulatory framework. More
generally, he emphasised the fact that there is need for a strong policy direction in order to
halt the biodiversity loss.
BA then addressed the question of the role of agriculture and forestry in this context.
Landowners and Land managers are the key actors to achieve the protection of biodiversity.
7. Patrick Ten Brink (PTB)- IEEP- The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
Initiative (TEEB)
PTB introduced himself as one of the 50 authors and reviewers of the TEEB report. This
report aims at conducting a study in line with the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate
Change, biodiversity being as important as Climate Change. The report exists in different
versions, according to whom it is directed to (businesses, policy makers, local authorities,
citizens). The main issue put forward in this report is the lack of valuation for biodiversity.
PTB said that because there is insufficient evidence on biodiversity, the latter is not integrated
in economics, policy/decision making nor in national accounts. Furthermore, he said that there
isn’t enough political will or public awareness to integrate it in our economic model. To
summarise this idea, PTB said that we are losing something we can’t even measure. He
illustrated this by giving the example of the fish stock, which in 2050 is likely to be almost
empty! But what is at risk, he added, is not only the fish, the red list and the species, it is also
our jobs and our industry. One very urgent issue to be addressed is the coral reef for example,
which brings to our whole world priceless benefits. PTB highly recommended that this issue
should be taken seriously in Copenhagen.
One way to assess what is left is to set up “Natural capital accounts”, i.e. stock of species.
Decision makers need to be able to measure biodiversity in order to take action. Going back to
the case of the fisheries, PTB asked what we could do about it. He suggested using the system
of “protected areas”, which are important biomass producers and therefore part of the
solution. But theses areas, as he said, need to be better designated and there needs to be a
better integration of EU funds. On the market issue, PTB said that we should pay for what we
use, since large sectors of the economy depend on ecosystems but don’t include them in their
cost analysis.
As a conclusion PTB, suggested a vision (see slide “conclusion” of the power point
presentation). He repeated that we are losing our natural capital without being able to measure
this loss. We need to halt the latter and be aware of what we are losing. To meet these two
targets, he said, policy makers need to collaborate with all stakeholders (industry, citizens…)
CPB, as the co-chairman, briefly commented on this presentation by saying that it was indeed
important to raise the issue of the financing of environmental/ecosystems services. This would
inevitably result in dealing with environmental markets and fiscal shifts.
Ladislav Miko (LM) also reacted after the first session. He said that we needed to find new
ways to engage the public and the policy makers on biodiversity. He also pointed out that the
time for discussion was over, and that action was now urgently needed. The issues dealt with
in the first session of the conference have already been raised over and over again. He added
that we need to simplify the message for the public to understand it, bearing in mind that
simplifying also has an impact on policy outcomes. As he explained, simplifying the message
could lead to “distorted effects”, i.e. people would only focus on the “simplified message”. He
also said that, we need to understand the long-term dimension of biodiversity. In other words,
no matter what kind of policy we put in place, biodiversity won’t respond to it immediately.
With the current political cycles (elections,…), it is very hard to “sell” biodiversity, in the
political sense of the word. This is why, as LM said, we need to make it attractive to
politicians. Finally, before giving the floor to the speakers of the second session, LM
underlined two important concepts: green infrastructure and natural capital.
A series of questions were addressed to the different speakers. The last intervention was from
PTB, the last speaker of the first session who ask the audience what they thought would be
the best policy instruments to halt the biodiversity loss. One reaction from the audience
concerned GDP and its current inability to reflect all aspects of well-being, i.e. not only the
monetary aspects. It was suggested that we should promote the “greening” of GDP.
A. Baumüller from WWF raised the issue of the EU-Budget (only 0.1% of which is currently
being allocated to biodiversity). He suggested that the next EU-Budget would give a good
indication of whether the EU is truly committed to do more for biodiversity.
As a conclusion to this round of questions, CPB said that as long as Member States want to
keep their contribution to the EU-Budget under 1% of their GDP, it would be very difficult
for biodiversity to be better funded. He said that the solution to this problem is to work on the
communication side by better informing the public and the national governments.
Because of schedule constraints, there was a slight change of plan. Instead of moving on to
the second session, the awarding of the Belleuropa Prize by Guiseppe Natta took place at this
stage. TdE explained briefly the purpose of this prize : it aims at recognising and rewarding
landowners who have put forward the best land management practices in terms of
sustainability, third generation agriculture, improvements in biodiversity,…
The winner of the prize was Prof. Dr. Eberhard Hamer and Dipl.Ing.Dieter Schwarzburg,
owners of the estate “Forstbetrieb Morsleben” He was recognised as an exemplary owner
because of the work he has done on his property, located in the former iron curtain zone. The
jury decided to recognize his efforts with his project “Renaturation of a former iron curtain”,
aimed at recovering and managing damaged natural habitat. The soils of the owner’s land had
been poisoned and destroyed but thanks to his work, they are now flourishing. He “renaturalised” this area in a way that allows for diversification to take place. He planted a few
millions of trees. Today, his land is a biodiversity sanctuary.
3. Second Session: Managing biodiversity, the offer of the private sector
Co-chair: François Wakenhut (FW), European Commission, head of unit, nature
conservation and biodiversity. Thierry de l’Escaille (TdE), European Landowners’
Organization.
To open this second session, FW suggested moving away from the macro perspective, and
going back to the field.
6. Christoph Künast (CK) – ECPA- Agriculture and Biodiversity
CK started his presentation by reminding the audience of the fact that agriculture represents
far more than food production. In other words, sustainable agriculture provides environmental
services in addition to food. He also underlined the intrinsic link between biodiversity and
agriculture. CK structured his presentation around three important aspects: the dynamics of
landscapes, birds and the private initiatives.
Dynamics:
By showing a series of photographs to the audience, his aim was to raise their awareness
about the influence biodiversity has on agriculture and vice-versa. CK insisted on the fact that
all types of agriculture influence biodiversity. In other words, no type of agriculture is
ecologically indifferent. His clear message behind this was that biodiversity is not a static
concept (see definition given in 1992 at the Rio Conference). He also underlined our
incapacity to give biodiversity a value. One of the reasons for that, he said, is that we can only
measure what has been discovered. We can only measure the “species that have been in the
hands of science”. In this context, he pointed out that, from all the known species, birds were
a very good indicator to measure biodiversity.
Birds:
CK explained that the first reason why birds represent such a good indicator is because there
is a lot of information available about them. The second reason is because they reflect change.
Since birds respond to environmental challenges by adapting themselves to new situations,
they are a very good indicator of change. This is also why their protection lies in the heart of
nature conservation. CK then pointed out that the trends the birds populations follow are very
complex. Not all of them are declining (see graphs in presentation “Trends in Farmland Bird
Populations in Europe)
Private initiatives:
As announced, the third part of CK’s presentation dealt with private initiatives, and more
specifically success stories resulting from fruitful collaborations between private actors. One
example is the case of the “Plant Protection Industry” which has made a lot of efforts to
determine how toxic components affect birds.
To summarise his message, CK made a few concluding remarks, the last one of which asked
the following question: “How much change is acceptable and how much conservation is
needed?”.
7. Gareth Morgan (GM) – RSPB - Answer from birdlife
GM acknowledged the link between agriculture and the environment/biodiversity. He
underlined the delicacy of the balance between nature and human activity. He noted that the
sate of affairs of European farmland species was alarming, even depressing, since the
populations are inexorably declining. In terms of bird populations, it is clear, he said, that we
have not yet achieved a concerted recovery of farmland birds. In this context, he undermined
a prejudice that puts all the responsibility of this “not yet achieved recovery” on the CAP. To
confirm this point, he referred to an ELO publication “Agriculture and Biodiversity”, which
identifies 6 factors responsible for declining farmland bird populations.
GM then asked the question of what would be the measures we could take to incentivise
farmers to take the necessary action to restore the populations of farmland birds. He
underlined the important contribution of policy-makers in this matter, without overshadowing
the fact that policies may also have negative impacts on farming and wildlife. In his opinion,
an important part of the solution would be provided by agri-environmental schemes. In other
words, by implementing a set of policies which allow farmers to be rewarded (to be paid) for
providing “public goods”.
As a conclusion, GM suggested that we should focus our attention on the next EU-Budget
and the future CAP reform. He also added that there is an urgent need for efficient agrienvironmental schemes. Finally, he said that the challenges today are being worsened by the
Climate crisis, which enhances the risks of species extinction.
8. Alain-Dominique Quintart (ADQ) – Syngenta – Best private practice in agriculture,
pollinator.
ADQ started his presentation by briefly presenting Syngenta. He emphasised the role of
Syngenta in providing farmers with innovative and sustainable techniques that increase their
productivity. Syngenta provides solutions that respect the limits set by nature. One of the
solution lies in making agriculture sustainable, i.e. increasing its productivity. As he
explained, low productivity in agriculture result in using more land, which in the long run, is
unsustainable. In other words, intensive agriculture can be (to a certain extend) compatible
with nature.
A typical example of best practice in this context is Syngenta’s pollinator project. As he
pointed out, the pollinators are going through very difficult times at the moment, since several
species are not far from extinction, mainly because of a lack of food. Syngenta’s strategy in
this context has therefore been to create habitats for these species in order for them to survive.
This strategy has resulted in increased populations and the recovery of nearly extinguished
species.
Another example of Syngenta’s good practices is its work with individual farms to increase
biodiversity. He pointed out that the link between agriculture and nature conservation or
wildlife is not always obvious although the role of agriculture in increasing biodiversity is
crucial. This is why ADQ said that we urgently need a change of mind in this field. To initiate
this change, Syngenta has set up a training programme for farmers to help them measure
biodiversity.
As a conclusion, ADQ said that the private sector is as much part of the solutions as all the
other stakeholders and that Syngenta is committed to halting the loss of biodiversity by
putting forward the important role of farming.
A series of questioned were raised by participants. In response to that GM underlined a
specific policy problem. He noted that we need to give farmers the necessary incentives to
encourage them to take action, but we have to be careful not to crush them under too much
bureaucracy. So we need to find the right balance to incentivise them without stopping from
doing anything.
FW welcomed the fact that more and more focus is given to environmental and ecosystems
services. He said that it contributes to bringing different actors together. Other reactions from
the audience concerned the issue of land abandonment for example and the question of the
appropriate level at which the funding should be decided upon. MG said that, although it
wouldn’t be impossible to deal with it at the national level, the funding would be dealt with in
a more efficient way at EU-level. VM concluded this round of questions by saying that the
citizens need to develop the feeling that biodiversity belongs to them too. Without that, she
said, we won’t be able to make people understand that the responsibility lies in all of us, not
only in the hands of policy makers, NGOs…
4. Third Session: the engagement of the private sector in favour of biodiversity
conservation
Chair: Jeff McNeely (JM) – IUCN Senior Scientific Advisor
- Christian Vershueren (CV) – ACE – A voluntary commitment to protect biodiversity and
high-conservation values in forests: the case of beverage cartons.
CV started his presentation by explaining the link between beverage cartons and biodiversity.
The cartons are made out of wood (75%). In response to increasing pressures from society
towards traceability, ACE is committed to securing a sustainable source of this raw material
(wood). CV presented the commitment of the industry as being voluntary, global, recognised
by the European Commission and including different stakeholders. ACE has created a
“certification” that proves that the wood used for the beverage cartons come from “certified
forests”, i.e. well managed forests and which are not considered as having a “high
conservation value” (this shows the link with biodiversity). He noted that in this respect, most
of the raw material found in Europe came from Scandinavian forests. Thanks to a good
management, these forests have not been decreasing, on the contrary.
CV added that we shouldn’t only focus on Europe. It is important to see beyond our borders.
He said that we should support EU legislation on illegal logging. ACE already crossed the EU
borders through a global commitment:ACE works with suppliers outside the EU.
8. Geva Blackett (GB) – former Chief Executive of the Scottish countryside alliance –
the wildlife estates initiative
GB started by introducing herself. She is a board member of a national park in Scotland that
her husband manages. She then briefly described the concept of the “Wildlife Estate
initiative” (WEi). This initiative started as a pilot project in 2003 with 12 workshops held in
Member States. It gave way to the WEi in 2008 with the aim of creating a network of
exemplary estates. As she explained, these estates showcase the simple principles of good
management and conservation practices. They are rewarded by obtaining the WE label, which
has been developed to recognise and admit good management of hunting and fishing
territories. GB added that the initiative was supported by Commissioner Dimas, because it
creates synergies between conservation and sustainable land use.
She then gave a couple of facts and figures to confirm the importance of this initiative:
Scotland is covered at 98% by countryside and hunting estates account for 43% of privately
owned land.
Finally, she detailed the case of one specific estate (?????) => voir presentation
This estate operates at loss but is sustained by rich hunters. It also benefits to local
community, the local industry being tourism. People go there because of the natural beauty of
the estate, preserved thanks to good management. The estate also aims at encouraging local
children to continue in this path.
As a conclusion, GB underlined how important this initiative1 was in terms of habitats and
species preservation.
9. João Gomes Ferreira (JGF) – CE Liège – Best practice in Forestry: the cork
example
JGF took part in the conference as representative of the European Cork Federation. He started
giving detailed information about the cork forests themselves. The latter are very rich areas in
terms of biodiversity. The cork trees are harvested every 9 years.
Because these forests provide jobs for a large number of people, as well as habitat for a large
number of species, it is fair to say that they contribute to a large extent to the economic, social
and environmental sustainability of the surrounding region. Some of the most endangered
species of the world can still be found in cork forests, e.g. the Iberian Lynx, the most
endangered cat species in the world. They also play a major role in preventing forest fires. In
this context JGF pointed out that our failure to protect nature is often due to a failure to
understand its value.
JGF then detailed the industrial and economic value of the cork. As he explained, cork can be
found in a vast range of items, going from furniture to fashion and of course in the form of
cork stoppers. For the moment, cork stoppers still cover 2 thirds of the whole bottled wine
1
The initiative anticipates the new Natura 2000 biodiversity strategies
market (the other third belonging to plastic stoppers and screw tops). To give an idea of the
scale of this market, JGF gave one figure: 19 billion bottles are opened every year.
Before concluding, JGF showed part of a BBC documentary of the cork forest in Portugal.
He then warmly encouraged the audience to always buy bottles with cork stoppers, since the
cork forests and all they benefits are threatened by the growing plastic stoppers/screw tops
market. By doing that, we would be environmental friendlier consumers and we would all
contribute to preserving the biodiversity of these forests.
Bart Vercoutere (BV) – royal Haskoning Company - Natura 2000 from a threat to an
opportunity. Private initiatives prefer the second!
A series of questions from the audience were addressed to the speakers (on bio fuels, on
GMOs,..), which CPB summarised as following: he said that we should try to avoid too many
controversial debates, i.e. the objectives and the targets should be kept in mind rather than
entering into ideological debates. On the issue of bio fuels, he reminded that the core idea was
to save carbon. But does it really?, he asked.
5. Countdown 2010 Ambassador declaration, facilitator, Sebastian Winkler
Nomination of new Countdown 2010 ambassadors: Ignace Schops and Pierre Crahay
6. Conclusion/End of Conference
Veronique Mathieu closed the conference by warmly thanking all the participants to have
come and taken part in a lively debate, and all the speakers for their stimulating presentations.
She reminded the audience of the necessity to see biodiversity as part of our lives, from our
garden to the policy making arenas.