Summary: Speech by EU Commissioner Dimas: "Global Challenges,European Solutions" (Brussels: 1 June 2006)
Speech by Stavros Dimas, Member of the European Commission, Responsible for Environment: "Global Challenges: European Solutions", Green Week, Global Partnership session
Ladies and Gentlemen
I have always argued that a successful environmental policy needs clear and ambitious targets. And with biodiversity Europe actually has two 2010 targets. One for halting the loss of biodiversity within our own borders. And the other as a part of the global effort to significantly slow down the rate of global biodiversity loss.
This may be confusing to the non-initiated but it is really just a reflection of the fact that Europe is different. A high population density and thousands of years of cultivation mean that Europe's nature has been substantially modified by man. More species can be found in ten square kilometres of the Amazonian basin than in the whole of Europe. And at the same time our approach to nature protection is one of the most advanced in the world.
This is why we were able to set ourselves the target of halting biodiversity loss. But it is also clear that if we care about the biodiversity of the planet then we need to look outside our borders.
Against this background, what I want to do today is to look at the scale of the global challenge, look at why this matter and conclude by asking what we, as Europeans, can do about it.
There can be no doubt that the planet's nature is in crisis. The scientific evidence is clear and its findings are terrifying. The global rate of extinction is at least 100 times the natural rate. One in eight of all bird species, one quarter of all mammals and one third of all amphibians are endangered. But as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment concluded, the pressures on nature are still increasing, and the rate of biodiversity loss is - if anything - accelerating.
Business as usual is simply not an option - most importantly because our prosperity and our quality of life are underpinned by healthy ecosystems. Perhaps the most important message of the Millennium Assessment was that ecosystem services are the life-support system upon which our well-being depends.
One reason why we need to take action is because many EU policies - such as trade, agriculture, fisheries and development aid - can have a major impact on biodiversity in third countries.
But we should also be clear that it is in our own self-interest to actively support the global effort. Our high intensity consumerism means that Europe's environmental footprint is over two times the size of our continent. In simple terms this means that we are relying on the eco-system services of the rest of the planet to meet our needs. It also makes common sense to invest in protecting these services.
Global biodiversity is important for Europeans in many essential but often unseen ways. It is the source of the genetic resources that provide over 25% of our medicines and that support our pharmaceutical industries. Natural forests help regulate our climate. Our imports of food, timber and other raw materials are the natural resources of other countries.
A final reason why Europeans should work to stop global biodiversity loss is because the destruction of nature undermines our own efforts to promote international development. In developing countries it is the poorest who rely most heavily on nature - for food, for firewood and for their livelihoods.
If sustainably harvested, natural resources - such as timber and fish - can provide the basis for long term economic growth. It is therefore encouraging that experts such as the World Bank - and I am very pleased that Mr Warren Evans has agreed to be on today's panel - recognise that sustainable economic development requires sustainable environmental development.
The 1992 Earth Conference in Rio was the world's wake-up call to biodiversity loss. But progress since then has been mixed. Important steps forward have certainly been made. The scientific situation is now clear. We know the rates and reasons for bio-diversity loss. We are aware of the negative consequences that arise from the destruction of our ecosystems. And with the Convention on Biodiversity and the GEF we have an institutional framework that is placing biodiversity on the global political agenda and is developing the tools that can improve the situation.
But despite these advances eco-system destruction is continuing almost unabated. The tragedy is that while we know what needs to be done we still are having difficulties making it happen. Our priority must be to move from words and conferences and towards decisive actions.
The fundamental problem is that the political and economic case for protecting nature is not yet understood outside the "environmental" community. This is particularly true in developing countries - which often have the richest biodiversity - but where the interest in protecting nature is often low and the capacity to deliver on Europe's first and most immediate contribution to meeting global challenge will be getting our own house in order. Europe is a small continent with many nations and it is through necessity that we have had to develop an international response to nature protection. Nature does not respect lines on the map and in some ways the EU can be seen as model of how a cross-border approach can work in practice.
With the 1979 Birds Directive and the 1992 Habitats Directive - the EU has established a network of protected areas that covers Europe's most important habitats, and taken action for our most threatened species. We have called this network NATURA 2000, and it 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 that consists of "living landscapes" and - as long as they respect the ecological integrity of the site - farming, fishing, forestry and hunting can all continue.
But on the global level there is a need for a step change if the signatories of the CBD are to move from passing resolutions to actually implementing them. I can identify three sets of actions that will help us along this road.
First, we need to make it economically interesting to protect bio-diversity. Appealing to nature's intrinsic value is not going to be enough on its own. Countries such as Costa Rica provide an example to us all on how this can be done. But further measures are needed:
Developed countries need to increase the amounts of development funding for biodiversity projects. This is a direction the EU is moving in - other major donors need to follow suit.
We need to harness the process of trade liberalization in order to remove environmentally damaging subsidies in sectors such as agriculture and fisheries.
We should use our economic expertise to give non-environmental policy makers a clearer idea of the real value of environmental goods and services. And here I am pleased to announce that I intend to host a major conference on "Green Accounting" at the beginning of next year. This conference will to bring together policy makers, academics and NGOs and will look at ways of measuring environmental impacts and using these measurements as a basis for decision making.
We should also explore innovative approaches. One example is exploring the economic link between stopping climate change and stopping deforestation. If done correctly this could be a real win-win approach.
Second, we need to make sure that the international institutions dealing with biodiversity are working well. This means continuing the work to strengthen the CBD. And I would like to repeat the call that I made earlier in the week for a strong World Environment Organisation that is on a par with bodies such as the World Trade Organisation, the International Labour Organisation and the Bretton Woods institutions. If we are to address global environmental problems then we need the tools to do the job.
And finally, we need to be much better at communicating the key messages that biodiversity loss is happening and that it matters to us all. Politicians will not act until there are votes in it and businesses are most likely to act when there is profit in it. Information is the key because once our citizens are better informed about what biodiversity loss actually means - economically, environmentally and ethically - they
Ladies and Gentlemen
Nature is disappearing before our eyes and the risk of missing the 2010 target is all too real. But this should be a reason for greater urgency and not a council of despair.
And perhaps the greatest source of optimism that we can turn the current situation around is the fact that peoples attitudes are changing. Not so long ago marsh lands were called swamps and farmers were given subsidies draining them. Now they are called wetlands and treasured for their biodiversity and regulation functions. Consumers are increasingly demanding sustainably harvested products. And the popular membership of nature NGOs is often many times greater than political parties.
Getting this message into the mainstream is why we chose biodiversity as the theme of this Green Week. And if we all take up this message once Green Week has concluded I am convinced that we will see this happen sooner rather than later.
Thank you.
| Top |
European Union Member States
Alerts by email
Email this page
Print this page