to the EEB's Actions for Nature conference!

The EU's target of halting biodiversity loss by 2020 remains a serious challenge. Europe's biodiversity continues to be dangerously eroded through habitat loss, pollution, over-exploitation of resources, invasive alien species and climate change.

But it doesn't have to be this way. Targeted, well-crafted and well-enforced policies can start to turn this around.

Throughout the day speakers will give short presentations on issues such as the enforcement and implementation of EU nature laws, addressing pressures on biodiversity from agriculture, fisheries and energy, and methods for scaling up financing to manage and restore Natura 2000 sites.

Each session will include a moderated debate with panellists from NGOs, the European Commission, Member States, and the private sector.

You can take part in the debate by using the hashtag #Act4Nature.

After the conference, please join us in Atrium 5 for a cocktail. 9:00 Registration

9:30 Welcome by Jeremy Wates, EEB Secretary General & Roby Biwer, CoR member and rapporteur on the Nature Directives Fitness Check Keynote speech by Daniel Calleja Crespo, Director General, DG ENV

10:00 Session 1: Better enforcement of EU environmental laws

11:15 Session 2: Better implementation and management of Natura 2000

12:30 Lunch

13:30 Session 3: Scaling up financing for Natura 2000 management and restoration

15:00 Coffee break

15:30 Session 4: Addressing pressures on biodiversity from agriculture

16:45 Session 5: Addressing pressures from fisheries and energy on marine biodiversity

17:45 Wrap-up by Pieter de Pous, EEB EU Policy Director Closing remarks by Humberto Delgado Rosa, Natural Capital Director, DG ENV

18:00 Cocktail (Atrium 5) In this session speakers and panellists will exchange views on what measures are needed to close the enforcement gap that undermines the effectiveness of EU environmental legislation, particularly the EU’s Nature Directives. Reported breaches of these two Directives reveal the significant differences in the ways the laws are being enforced in different Member States.

The study1 supporting the Commission’s Nature Directives Fitness Check concluded that “a compliance deficit remains” and that “continued enforcement action” is required to “ensure that the expected results of the Nature Directives are fully achieved”. The Fitness Check research also pointed out that better information on implementation at EU level is essential as the focus on enforcement moves towards addressing where the laws’ protection measures have been badly applied.

The follow up to the Nature Directives Fitness Check is an opportunity for the European Commission to propose new measures to address this persistent problem both through targeted and horizontal measures. And the Commission enjoys a high level of political support for such proposals. At the December 2015 Environment Council, Member States called on the Commission to “improve procedures and to take urgent actions to prevent, detect and sanction breaches of the Birds and Habitats Directives”. And in its report on the Mid-term review of the EU’s Biodiversity Strategy the European Parliament stressed that compliance with, and enforcement of, EU legislation must be improved by, for example, the use of proportionate, effective and dissuasive penalties. MEPs also called on the Commission and Member States to develop new tools for detecting illegal activities within Natura 2000 sites.

1) Milieu, IEEP and ICF, Evaluation Study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives, March 2016.

How an Access to Justice Directive could make a difference Siim Vahtrus, Chairman & Biodiversity Team Leader Justice & Environment

Environmental Crime Directive: ENEC findings & recommendations Alistair Taylor, Senior Policy Officer, Nature Directives RSPB (on behalf of the European Network against Environmental Crime)

The use of satellite imagery and remote sensing for better enforcement Jan Henke, Managing Director Global Risk Assessment Services GmbH (GRAS)

Anne Brosnan, Deputy Director (Chief Prosecutor) Legal Services Environment Agency, UK European network of Prosecutors for the Environment (ENPE)

Daniel Calleja Crespo, Director General, DG Environment, European Commission

Ratislav Rybanic, Director General Directorate of Nature Protection & Landscape Development Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic While progress on the establishment of the marine component of the Natura 2000 network has been slow, the Commission regards the terrestrial Natura 2000 network as largely complete. Nevertheless, effective and full implementation continues to be a challenge and remains crucial to achieving the legislation’s objectives. Site designation – even if supported by conservation measures – is most of the time not enough to halt the decline of habitats and species. Beyond ensuring adequate legal protection, Member States should adopt adequate site management measures which cover all significant types of threats to nature. Specific conservation objectives must be set at site, national and biogeographic levels in order to guide the development and implementation of management plans or other management instruments for all Natura 2000 sites.

The study supporting the Commission’s Nature Directives Fitness Check suggests that while implementation has improved, full and effective implementation is not yet the norm. Far too many Natura 2000 sites across Europe are not effectively protected and lack a management plan or equivalent planning instruments. While implementation remains primarily a competence and duty of the Member States and their national administrations, the Commission still has an instrumental role to play in improving implementation and promoting adequate enforcement.

In this session, speakers from NGOs will recommend the best practices they believe should be adopted more broadly and clarify exactly what better implementation and management of Natura 2000, i.e. ‘full implementation’, would look like.

What is full BHD implementation? Lessons from the Danube & Mediterranean regions Irene Lucius, Regional Conservation Director, WWF-Danube Carpathian Programme

Species protection & derogations: What we can learn from the Dutch approach Harm Dotinga, Senior Lawyer BirdLife Netherlands (Vogelbescherming)

IUCN tools: opportunities for enhancing implementation Alberto Arroyo, Senior Policy Manager IUCN

Els Martens, Policy Coordinator Flemish Agency for Nature and Forests

Nicola Notaro, Head of Unit, Nature Unit, DG Environment, European Commission

Rob Van der Meer, Director of Public Affairs Heidelberg Cement Achieving the objectives of the Nature Directives and the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy requires securing adequate financing and ensuring efficient use of financial resources. One funding requirement that stands out is the need for adequate financing to fully implement the Natura 2000 network. While the main responsibility for financing Natura 2000 lies with the Member States, the Habitats Directive foresees EU co-financing for the management and restoration of Natura 2000 sites.

According to a 2010 estimate,2 a minimum of 5.8 billion EUR per year is needed across Europe to effectively manage and restore the sites in the network - and this is likely to be a significant underestimate. Yet in the 2007-2013 EU budget – the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), financial allocations for Natura 2000 only covered an estimated 9-19% of these needs.3 This insufficient level of EU financing highlighted the need for a more ambitious 2014-2020 programming period. Unfortunately, current levels of both EU and national financing continue to be viewed as largely inadequate.

When it comes to EU biodiversity and Natura 2000 financing, to date the EU has been reliant on the integration approach – i.e. using money from other policy areas (agriculture, regional policy etc.) to make up the bulk of biodiversity funding. Given the low levels of Natura 2000 funding, this approach is increasingly being called into question. New approaches are needed to increase public and private funding for biodiversity.

2) Gantioler S. et al., Costs and Socio-Economic Benefits associated with the Natura 2000 Network. Final report to the European Commission, DG Environment. Institute for European Environmental Policy / GHK / Ecologic, Brussels 2010 3) Financing Natura 2000 Guidance Handbook

Better integration vs. a dedicated EU Nature fund: an NGO perspective Ariel Brunner, Senior Head of Policy BirdLife

Financing Natura 2000 via the CAP (Pillar 2) – challenges and options - examples from Austria Michael Proschek-Hauptmann, Managing Director, Umweltdachverband, Austria

A TEN-G proposal to scale up funding for biodiversity: pilot study for Spain Gema Rodriguez, Programme Officer for Biodiversity and Climate Change Adaptation WWF Spain

Turning wilderness into an asset to attract private investment Ilko Bosman, Enterprise Director Rewilding Europe

Frank Klingenstein, Policy officer German Federal Ministry for Environment (BMU)

Stefan Leiner, Head of Unit, Biodiversity Unit, DG Environment, European Commission

Caroline Van Leenders, Senior Process Manager Sustainable Transitions Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO), Ministry of Economics, Agriculture and Innovation When reporting to the European Commission under the Birds and Habitats Directives, Member States have identified industrial farming as one of the main causes of biodiversity decline in the EU.4 Changes in land use as well as agricultural expansion and intensification are now widely seen by the scientific community as the main reasons why farmland bird species have been in decline since the 1970s. Bees and other pollinators across Europe are also in decline. These trends suggest that many of today’s agricultural practices undermine the very natural resources farmers rely on to produce their crops.

In Europe, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has contributed to shaping our farming practices and in doing so has played a major role in the development of a socially and environmentally-harmful model of farming which negatively impacts biodiversity. The 2013 CAP reform was meant to make the policy greener and ensure that measures securing the sustainable management of natural resources would receive public money. However, unfortunately the reform went in the wrong direction in terms of the environmental delivery of the CAP as a whole and environmental integration in particular. Greening of direct payments has become anything but green at farm level and not enough Rural Development money has been allocated for targeted schemes intended to halt more biodiversity loss. In other words, we have a CAP that is green on paper, but fails to deliver in reality.

In this session we will discuss measures that could help reduce the pressure of agriculture on biodiversity and how the sector can better contribute to preserving it, including through a review of the current CAP.

4) EC, 2015, The State of Nature in the EU

Is the CAP fit for purpose? Faustine Bas-Defossez, Policy Manager for Agriculture & Bioenergy European Environmental Bureau

Time for an integrated approach to nitrogen management in the EU Natasja Oerlemans, Head of Footprint & Innovation WWF Netherlands

Proposal for an EU Pollinators Initiative Sandra Bell, Nature Campaigner, Friends of the Earth England, Wales, and Northern Ireland

Cécile Fèvre, Senior Policy Officer for Sustainable Farming Systems and Agroenvironmental Polcies French Ministry of Environment, Energy, and the Sea

Claudia Olazabal, Head of Unit, Land Use & Management Unit, DG Environment, European Commission Human activity is causing unprecedented environmental changes for coastal and marine ecosystems. The exploitation of European seas and coasts is increasing as new industries emerge and traditional ones move further off-shore. The cumulative effect of pressures such as fishing, pollution, and the loss and degradation of valuable habitat is damaging marine ecosystems. According to the European Environment Agency (EEA), across all of Europe's regional seas, marine biodiversity is in poor condition: only 7% of marine species’ assessments indicate 'favourable conservation status'.

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) introduces an ecosystem-based approach. This aims to ensure that the collective pressure of human activity on the environment does not hamper the EU’s goal of achieving good environmental status by 2020. Marine protected areas (MPAs) can effectively safeguard marine ecosystems and biodiversity. More effective management of these marine protected areas and the coherent implementation of related legislation are two significant challenges. Together with the current progress in site designation, the new Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) provides fresh opportunities for greater coherence between the CFP and the Nature Directives that have yet to be fully exploited. Maritime spatial planning is equally important in this context as it could play an important role in ensuring sustainable growth in the marine environment, for example, by ensuring that renewable energy development in coastal and marine environments is not at odds with conservation objectives.

In this session, the panel will discuss proposals to reduce pressures from fisheries and issues related to the development of energy infrastructure, including the impact of renewable energy equipment on biodiversity in the marine environment.

Making the CFP deliver for biodiversity conservation Bruna Campos, EU Marine & Fisheries Policy Officer BirdLife

Redesigning Europe’s renewable energy policies for nature and climate Sini Eräjää, EU Bioenergy Policy officer BirdLife & EEB

Valentina Mabilia, Policy Officer Maritime spatial planning unit, DG Mare, European Commission

Brian O'Riordan, Deputy Director LIFE platform