by Richard Lindsay
The EHF is a group of NGO networks that provide input and advice to European Union DG Environment, particularly relating to the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives and the establishment of the Natura 2000 network. The EHF meets with DG Environment twice a year after the Habitats Committee meetings and provides a co-ordinated means of communication between DG Environment and European nature conservation NGOs. IMCG is a member of the EHF.
The volume of information flowing from EHF activities is fast becoming overwhelming. This is something of a problem for an organisation such as IMCG where we have no full-time (or even part-time) staff that can devote time to reading all this material, never mind then acting upon it. On the other hand, what the current position suggests is that (a) there is a great deal of environmental activity within the European Union, and (b) that the EHF is playing an increasingly influential role within this activity. Consequently it seems fairly evident that it is worthwhile devoting time to ensuring that this information is disseminated to IMCG members in some way, and that IMCG plays an active part in EHF activities.
Now is not the time to pull together a comprehensive summary of all that has been happening. I will endeavour to do this for the next IMCG Newsletter. However, there are certain issues that will not wait, and these issues really need direct action by IMCG members to prevent a set of valuable EU-related opportunities from being lost.
There has been a long-running debate (some would say battle) about the funding process for environmental works within the European Union, specifically in relation to funding for the Natura 2000 Network. Explicit funding for this network has until now been available through the LIFE financial instrument, and many IMCG members have benefited from this. Proposals for future EU funding have involved an instrument imaginatively called LIFE+, but there have been real concerns that this would have a very small budget because it has been argued that most environmental funding should be achieved through wise and appropriate use of other funding instruments such as Structural Funds, Agriculture Funds, and Regional Development Funds. This is excellent in theory as the available funds are so much larger than anything available through LIFE, but we all know what is likely to happen in reality…
Consequently it was a real success, partly thanks to EHF lobbying, when the 1st reading (partial agreement) of the new LIFE+ Regulation made clear that this successor to LIFE would in fact have a substantial budget – a total of €9.54 billion, which is four times larger than the European Commission had proposed. This sum is not assured, however, until the whole EU Budget is agreed. Frustratingly, this extraordinary progress may now be completely undermined by my own Prime Minister, Tony Blair, because the UK presidency has decided to play hard over the EU budget. One of the casualties of this ‘strong leadership’ stance is that not only might we loose the increase, we might find that even the European Commission’s tiny €2.19 billion proposal is cut. This would be a disaster for Natura 2000 funding, particularly as an RSPB study has indicated that €9.2 billion is needed just to co-finance habitats and species actions under LIFE+.
Consequently, here is Action 1 for IMCG members:
Write to/lobby your Finance Minister to request that this area of the EU budget is not cut. In addition, you should copy this to your Environment Minister to ensure that they know what is in danger of happening at the EU level (many don’t know what their Finance Minister is negotiating in relation to LIFE+). Your letter could mention: LIFE+ is the EU’s only dedicated environmental budget; Finance Ministers should heed the EU Parliament’s decision to increase the LIFE+ budget, particularly in the light of the RSPB study estimates; LIFE+ is currently only 0.2% of the EU budget, and should be raised to 1% as proposed by the EU Parliament; such action will significantly help the EU to meet its targets for halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010, will improve citizens’ quality of life, and bring economic opportunities to remote or economically-depressed areas.
The second concern relates to what is now called the ‘Biodiversity Road Map’, which is a commitment made by the European Council of Ministers to halting the loss of Europe’s biodiversity by 2010. The process has now entered a consultation phase, and comments are invited during the next 8 weeks.
Consequently Action 2 for IMCG members involves going to the following web-sites: http://europa.eu.int/ omm/environment/consultations_en.htm
Relevant DG Environment Press Release:
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/1569
and ensuring that you make your comments known to the European Commission. Try to do this within the next 4 weeks.
Furthermore, at EHF we discussed the issue of Bird 'Flu, and it was agreed that EHF Member Organisations would take their lead from Birdlife, who have a constantly-updated website:
http://www.birdlife.org/action/science/species/avian_flu/index.html
IMCG members might like to keep an eye on this, given the prevalence of waterfowl flyways that rely on peatland systems. The European Commission's main bird flu websites are:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/dyna/influenza/index.cfm
and
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/food/dyna/press_rel/press_rel_ah_diseases_en.cfm
Finally, the issue of ‘Favourable Conservation Status’ (FCS) is being subject to considerable scrutiny because Member States are preparing to establish their first 6-year reporting cycle on progress within the Habitats Directive. This has focused minds wonderfully on a number of hitherto rather ill-defined terms and concepts relating to FCS. The proposal is that FCS be measured using ‘Favourable Reference Values’ (FRVs), which are a set of criteria that are meant to be measurable against defined targets. There is neither time nor room to go into the detail of these here, but be warned that I am likely to be contacting some of you about FRVs with a view to trying to ensure that FRVs for mires and peatlands are appropriate.
Furthermore, the EHF is looking for examples of best-practice monitoring for listed habitats (species are already quite well covered) that can be highlighted as a ‘shadow-monitoring’ exercise to demonstrate to Member States what can be done if the right approach is adopted. Consequently I am also likely to be in touch with some of you for examples of best-practice peatland monitoring that can be used for measuring progress against FCS/FRV targets. Equally, if you believe you have an excellent system, please contact me, don’t wait for me to contact you.
r.lindsay@uel.ac.uk