Memorandum submitted by English Nature
BACKGROUND
1. English Nature is the statutory body
responsible for advising both central and local Government on
nature conservation and for promoting the wildlife and natural
features of England. In fulfilling its duties, English Nature:
— advises Ministers on the development
and implementation of policies for nature conservation;
— advises Ministers on other policies
affecting nature conservation;
— identifies, notifies and safeguards
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs);
— establishes, maintains and manages
National Nature Reserves;
— provides guidance and advice on the
principles and practice of nature conservation to a wide constituency;
— commissions and supports research
and other projects relevant to nature conservation.
2. Through the Joint Nature Conservation
Committee, English Nature works with sister organisations in Scotland,
Wales, and Northern Ireland to advise Government on UK and international
nature conservation issues. English Nature is a member of the
European Environment Advisory Councils, a Europe wide network
of organisations who give scientifically-derived environmental
advice to Governments.
CARDIFF INTEGRATION
STRATEGY
3. English Nature strongly supports the
concept of integrating environmental considerations into policies
and procedures of the EU. We believe that environmental considerations,
especially those relating to the conservation of biodiversity
and the protection of natural resources, should be the cornerstone
of all EU sectoral policies. The integration concept that the
EU is currently adopting mirrors English Nature's philosophy for
achieving nature conservation. As part of our strategy we have
adopted a systematic approach to understanding, anticipating and
influencing strategic change in key economic sectors. This analysis
enables us to identify the policy and programme changes needed
within the key economic sectors in order to deliver nationally
important nature conservation targets. For England, we have identified
the most important 11 sectors for nature conservation as:
— domestic, commercial and industrial
development of land;
— minerals and aggregates;
— rural and coastal recreation;
4. Of the integration strategies that the
Commission is currently developing we have followed agriculture
most closely. The agriculture industry dominates land use in the
EU and is the most important sector for the achievement of biodiversity
goals. The current draft of the strategy to be presented to the
Helsinki summit, "Council Strategy on Environmental Integration
and Sustainable Development in the CAP" is a more developed
document than the first paper prepared as part of this process,
the Commission's 1999 paper "Directions toward sustainable
agriculture". It does attempt to be more specific in terms
of objectives for the environmental impact of agriculture and
defines a set of "principles" including basic minimum
environmental standards that all farmers should observe and positive
payments for delivering environmental services that go beyond
these. It also argues for monitoring via regular indicator based
reports and associated review.
5. However, the strategy falls short of
commitments to develop or implement these principles. The current
environmental measures in Agenda 2000 are not enough. Too few
funds have been allocated to rural development measures, including
agri-environment, to make this component credible as the "second
pillar" of the CAP. A much more radical approach is needed,
starting with a full environmental assessment of effects of agriculture
policy followed by radical change of the CAP including a new vision
of sustainable agriculture in Europe.
6. We advocate that there should be a large
reduction in perverse CAP subsidies and a redirection of resources
into funding of agri-environment measures. This could be achieved
by progressive implementation of the modulation provision in Agenda
2000. Faster progress could be achieved by reopening the debate
in Europe of the need to make subsidy payments degressive and
to redirect the savings.
7. We support the concept of "milestones"
as suggested by the Finnish Presidency. Such an approach could
include process objectives, for example relating to the percentage
of EU and/or national budgets that are allocated to agri-environment
measures. English Nature would advocate that all Member States
should devote at least 10 per cent of the CAP budget to agri-environment
measures by 2005; with other significant increases thereafter.
At the EU level we should aim for 25 per cent of the farmed area
covered by support payments to be under agri-environment agreements
by 2005. There needs to be a very significant shift in support,
away from perverse subsidies and into supporting environmental
benefits. Observance of responsible environmental standards by
farmers is also essential. Milestones could also be linked to
indicators of change in the farmed landscape. There is a growing
body of literature on this in organisations such as the OECD and
others. We propose the development of a framework for sustainable
development indicators at the European level to which national
sustainablilty indicators of the type currently under development
by MAFF as part of the Government's quality of life indicators
could integrate. Biodiversity is a key test of sustainable development.
The UK Government has recognised this by identifying trends in
farmland birds' numbers as a key component of its headline quality
of life indicators. We commend this approach across the EU. The
Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) commissioned a brief
review of indicator development work across Europe from the Institute
of European Environmental Policy. Their report is included at
Annex A. [1]
8. Fundamental to achieving the desired
level of integration is close communication and collaboration
between the Commission's Directorates General responsible for
environment and agriculture and other key sectors such as Fisheries
and Regional Policy. In the UK English Nature has developed constructive
working relationships with MAFF and we were invited to comment
on their response to the EU draft agriculture strategy. We would
recommend the inclusion of the UK statutory countryside agencies
in the preparation of UK positions to be taken within the EU on
environmental integration, to ensure they reflect the research,
policy and practical experience that exists within the agencies.
GLOBAL ASSESSMENT
OF THE
FIFTH ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION PLAN
9. English Nature made input to the Global
Assessment of the Fifth Environmental Action Plan (5EAP) both
directly to the European Commission and through our membership
of the European wide network of European Environmental Advisory
Councils (EEACs). English Nature was instrumental in setting up
a Focal Point Information Service to facilitate the collaboration
of EEAC Councils from EU Member States and accession countries,
enabling their combined inputs to processes such as the Global
Assessment. English Nature made further input to the Global Assessment
through our Chairman, Baroness Young of Old Scone, who is a member
of the European Consultative Forum on the Environment and Sustainable
Development. The forum provides advice to the Commission on environmental
issues and held a workshop on the Global Assessment to which Baroness
Young presented our views on agriculture. In 1998, the Annual
meeting of the European Environmental Advisory Councils, held
in Helsinki, considered the theme of environmental integration
and included representatives from the EU Environment Directorate-General.
The statement of the conclusions of the meeting addressing integration
in agriculture, transport and tourism are included at Annex B.
[2]The
EEAC's are supporting the European Consultative Forum, Finish
National Council on Sustainable Development and the Commission's
Environment Directorate in organising the "Sustainability
21—Transforming Markets" conference to be held in Helsinki
at the beginning of November this year. We hope this conference
will help raise the profile of the integration agenda in advance
of the important Helsinki European Council meeting.
10. Overall we concluded that, whilst the
5EAP has undoubtedly contributed in various ways to integration
of environmental issues into other sectors, progress toward its
goals has been too slow. Simultaneously other drivers of policy
change have taken shape and, by and large achieved greater prominence
at national, European and global levels. For example, the production
of national Biodiversity Action Plans as a response to the UN
Convention on Biological Diversity, and the role of Agenda 21
in promoting sustainability principles at the local level.
11. We recommended to the Commission that
a Sixth Environmental Action Plan would be desirable, but that
it should form the environmental strand of a broader Community
Sustainable Development Strategy, putting environmental integration
at the core along with social and economic considerations. Clear
environmental targets and biodiversity tests of sustainability
are needed for the 11 sectors identified in paragraph three of
this evidence. We noted that fisheries was in need of direct inclusion
in a new 6EAP, and urgently required action as a result of its
significant impact on environmental issues including the ability
to reach conservation goals for marine areas as set out in the
Habitats Directive. It was not a sector covered by 5EAP.
12. A new 6EAP, in seeking to further the
Cardiff integration process, should set clear goals and targets
for environmental improvements in key sectors. The Environment
Directorate should take a strong lead in promoting the action
necessary to set and achieve targets, through close partnership
working with other Directorates-General and actors. The development
of an indicator-based approach to monitoring progress must be
a key component, with biodiversity indicators used as a key test
of sustainability for each sector.
INSTITUTIONAL CHANGES
FOR IMPROVED
COORDINATION
13. The development and implementation of
a new Community Sustainable Development Strategy, must be regarded
as an over-arching responsibility of the Commission. Placing the
Sustainable Development Unit in the Commission President's office
would highlight its central role, and prevent it being seen as
only an initiative of the Environment Directorate. This would
also help secure regular periodic reviews of progress as agenda
items at European Council meetings at Heads of Government level.
14. The Amsterdam Treaty strengthens powers
of the Parliament in several policy areas including environment.
We recommend the establishment of an Environmental Audit Committee
of the European Parliament, with similar powers and remit to the
House of Commons' Committee. This would contribute to the achievement
of integration within the sectoral Directorates-General. It could
also provide a focus for parliamentary support for and scrutiny
of any new Sustainable Development Unit set up to coordinate the
development and delivery of new strategy.
15. We perceive a need to raise the level
of environmental consciousness and access to expert advice within
the European Parliament and its committee structures. The Parliament's
existing Environment Committee will, under the operation of the
co-decision procedure, have a need for more independent expert
advice on a range of environmental issues. Currently this advice
is largely provided by NGOs or the Commission. There is a need
for independent expert organisations, such as the European Environmental
Advisory Councils, to provide advice and be invited to participate
in expert committees of both the Commission and Parliament. English
Nature, with its partner Agencies and the JNCC and sister organisations
in Europe, recognise the importance of engaging in these processes.
It is essential to take the opportunity offered by the current
debate in Europe about the need for a Sustainable Development
Strategy and a Sixth Environmental Action Plan to achieve environmental
integration. Without such strengthening, environmental degradation
will continue across Europe and significant opportunities for
enhancement of the quality of life will be lost.
October 1999
1 See p 4. Back
2
See p 8. Back
| 
