EU Biodiversity and Private Land Conservation

N° 188 Pantone 390 CMYK 24 / 0 / 98 / 8 JULY-AUGUST 2020 - BIMONTHLY - EN European Landowners’ Organization Pantone 364 CMYK 73 / 9 / 94 / 39 EU Biodiversity and Private Land Conservation © Shutterstock CountrySide 188 Editorial Thierry de l’ESCAILLE, Secretary General Contents 3 ELO reflections on the proposed EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 White Smoke “Bringing nature back into our lives” White smoke has at least emerged from the Justus Lipsius 6 Intergroup “Biodiversity, Hunting, building. After a long period of political trench warfare, a Countryside” first annual conference deal on not just the European budget, but also the COVID-19 recovery package has been reached. While I am happy to see 7 LIFE programme ‘Land Is For Ever’ - resolution at least, the fact that we needed a public health policy recommendations crisis to make the discussions fluid does not bode well for the European project in the long run. Depending on one’s 10 23rd Friends of the Countryside political-economic view, the long-awaited arrival of debt- General Assembly – Online financed deficit spending is either the start of a negative trend, or the next step in the very long walk to federalism. 12 UMECAH Canary Houbara Bustard. For land managers and the CAP, there are upsides and A conservation strategy for the island of downsides. While we regret to see the continuation of overall Fuerteventura budget cuts of around 12%, we can take some small comfort in the fact that the cuts did not go deeper. Quite how these 13 eNatura2000 application – to better cuts will square with the increased political ambitions of the connect between land managers ‘Farm to Fork’ and ‘Green Deal’ – both of which will require significant investment to realize – is unclear. The good news Land Mobility project - to promote is that capping is once again voluntary to the Member States initiatives and innovative concepts but if chosen is also taking into account social costs; the bad surrounding land mobility news is that the genuine farmer should still be defined at national level but without being discriminatory; while we ob- 14 Renewal of the YFCS vision at a time of ject to the serious distortions this will cause to cross-border crisis farm management, it is good to see that the EU has main- tained its support for farms of all sizes. 15 Fostering inclusion through the on-farm employment of people with mild intel- Unfortunately, to reach an overall deal, cuts have been made lectual disability to funds for research and innovation as well as the climate 2 transition – vital tools if we are to deliver a sustainable fu- ture and live up to our international commitments. 16 Publication in "Ecology and Society", Vol. 25, No. 3, Art. 2 Diary dates © Shutterstock CountrySide 188 © Shutterstock ELO reflections on the proposed EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 “Bringing nature back into our lives” ELO welcomes with great interest the new strategy of the European Commission. We recognise the intention of inclusiveness with all stakeholders and, when working alongside the institutions to halt the loss of biodiversity, we believe that no sustainable solution leading to reintroduce biodiversity could be achieved without landowners and efficient land management. To put biodiversity on the path to recov- ers should be considered prime partners decade, despite an increase of the global ery by 2030, the EU Commission proposed in ensuring the success of any biodiver- budget and an increase of land surface for to step up the protection and restoration sity targets. Indeed, this transforma- nature conservation, biodiversity contin- of nature by improving and widening the tive change can only occur if, as a start- ues to decline. This is why we call for fo- network of protected areas and by devel- ing point, it is understood that biodiver- cussing at European level on the real prob- oping an ambitious EU Nature Restoration sity and nature encompass a wide variety lems that remain the most pressing ones. 3 Plan. As privileged observers and custo- of land types, users, and management Protecting and restoring nature in the Eu- dians of Europe’s nature, landowners are strategies under different socio-econom- ropean Union particularly impacted by the progressive ic circumstances in the European Union. disappearance of numerous species and Geographical differences and climate con- As the EU Commission believes that biodi- habitats in the area where they are living straints, but also legal, economic, and so- versity fares better in protected areas and and working. Like every citizen, and even cial differences between Member States the current network of legally protected before reaching its climax in the public are realities which must be recognised areas is too small, the network should be opinion, many land managers were con- before adopting any new EU biodiversity widened. At least 30% of the EU land and scious of the necessity of a transformative targets. Those elements have been under- 30% of the EU sea area should be protect- change towards a more nature-based land estimated in the past. This created a Eu- ed and connected with one another by the management. The imperative of making a ropean political agenda which was and still set-up of ecological corridors, to become living in low-margin land-based activities is disconnected from the difficulties that a true Trans-European Nature Network. (farming and forestry) in an era of rapid private managers face in the field. The proposed commitments are feasible technical change meant that it has taken Even if land managers contributions have in their own right, but ELO’s view is that time to realise the negative side effects of been progressively recognised at EU level, as long as quantitative targets remain the some activities. At this point of our eco- the repeated failure to achieve EU Biodi- main objective, there won’t be any sig- nomic development, landowners are of versity 2020 goals indicates that there is nificant qualitative improvement in term course ready to reshape how they manage room for improvement. In particular, land of biodiversity. ELO believes that the EU land to embrace nature-based approaches managers should be more clearly empow- Commission’s ambition to restore and in- to a higher degree and to try and restore ered and encouraged as well as having ac- crease biodiversity cannot be achieved in lost natural capital. cess to suitable tools and financing to con- a protected area only. Considering that almost 95% of Eu- tribute efficiently to this collective goal. Significant progress has been made, no- rope’s land is in private hands, landown- ELO can only regret that during the last tably in the implementation and on the CountrySide 188 communication towards land managers cial equity, proved to lead to disappoint- tion will lead to a result that is strictly op- in Natura 2000 areas. The exercise of the ing results. (…) Qualitative and effective posite to what is intended. This 10% strict “Nature Fitness Check” has been proven management plans to restore biodiversity protection should be preferably applicable to be very useful in that sense. Recently should therefore be at the centre of the EU to state-owned land and stay voluntary for through the “EU Action Plan for nature, strategy. (…) Landowners should be the private land areas. (…) This is why ELO con- people, and the economy”, the European natural and preferred partners at EU level siders it essential to reach agreement on Commission recommends that landown- to implement the right management tools detailed EU-wide criteria. This is the pre- ers and users should be consulted at eve- in order to enhance biodiversity. Voluntary requisite to succeed in defining strict pro- ry stage of the decision-making process. measures and contractual agreements tection that the Member States must im- What was true then, should remain valid have proven to be very effective. For this plement in a fair and impartial manner. (…) when implementing the new EU Biodiver- reason, ELO recommends choosing a wide range of voluntary tools for the conserva- Work with farmers with adequate incen- sity Strategy 2030. It is clear that EU na- tives to improve biodiversity ture conservation measures and especially tion of private land at EU level. Many Life+ the EU Birds and Habitats Directives’ obli- projects have such tools. (…) (…) As for many years, the ELO is still ad- gations are still a challenge to implement Strict protection is not the most effective vocating payments for ecosystems ser- for many private managers. solution vices. Unfortunately, the EU fails to adopt what would constitute a decisive set of The three pillars of sustainability: eco- “Within the 30% protected areas, 10% measures for land managers or at least nomic viability, environmental protec- should be strictly protected”. With regards explain which existing instruments would tion and social equity, remain essential to this objective, ELO does not understand allow this approach. ELO regrets that this elements for a successful implementa- why and how this measure would achieve measure is not even mentioned as an es- tion of EU nature legislation. But pursuing the desired result. If this target involves sential instrument. Farmers and forest- environmental protection without taking the total abandonment of economic inter- ers are ready to engage for biodiversity into account economic viability and so- vention, ELO believes that strict protec- but they need to understand how the sug- gested target of 10% agricultural area under high-diversity landscapes will be des- ignated and articulated with the new CAP. Will it be included in the eco-scheme archi- tecture and how will it be paid for? In paral- lel, pollinator decline must be reversed and land managers through multifunctional field margins can play an important role.

Load more