Rapporti verbatim tad-dibattiti

L-Erbgħa, 6 ta' Ottubru 2010 - Brussell

12. Il-kontribut tal-bijodiversità u tal-ekosistemi biex jintlaħqu l-Għanijiet ta' Żvilupp tal-Millennju - Konferenza dwar id-Diversità Bijoloġika - Nagoya 2010 (dibattitu)

  Πρόεδρος. - Το επόμενο σημείο είναι η κοινή συζήτηση σχετικά με

- Προφορική ερώτηση προς το Συμβούλιο σχετικά με τους βασικούς στόχους για τη Διάσκεψη των Συμβαλλομένων Μερών στη Σύμβαση για τη βιοποικιλότητα στη Nagoya, 18-29 Οκτωβρίου 2010 του Jo Leinen εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής Περιβάλλοντος, Δημόσιας Υγείας και Ασφάλειας των Τροφίμων (O-0111/2010 - B7-0467/2010)

- Προφορική ερώτηση προς την Επιτροπή σχετικά με τους βασικούς στόχους για τη Διάσκεψη των Συμβαλλομένων Μερών στη Σύμβαση για τη βιοποικιλότητα στη Nagoya, 18-29 Οκτωβρίου 2010 του Jo Leinen εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής Περιβάλλοντος, Δημόσιας Υγείας και Ασφάλειας των Τροφίμων (O-0112/2010 - B7-0468/2010)

- Προφορική ερώτηση προς το Συμβούλιο σχετικά με τη συμβολή της βιοποικιλότητας και των υπηρεσιών οικοσυστήματος στην ανάπτυξη και την επίτευξη των Αναπτυξιακών Στόχων της Χιλιετίας της Michèle Striffler εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπή Ανάπτυξης (O-0107/2010 - B7-0464/2010)

- Προφορική ερώτηση προς την Επιτροπή σχετικά με τη συμβολή της βιοποικιλότητας και των υπηρεσιών οικοσυστήματος στην ανάπτυξη και την επίτευξη των Αναπτυξιακών Στόχων της Χιλιετίας της Michèle Striffler εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπή Ανάπτυξης (O-0108/2010 - B7-0465/2010)

  Karin Kadenbach, im Namen d. Verf. − Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, werte Damen und Herren! Vor einigen Tagen habe ich mit einer Gruppe Journalisten zusammengesessen, und wir haben uns über die Themen unterhalten, die mir in diesem Herbst besonders am Herzen liegen. Und eines davon ist ganz richtig die Artenvielfalt. Wie Sie wissen, findet in Nagoya bald die Artenvielfaltkonferenz statt, und ich habe die Ehre und Freude, mich als Mitglied der Parlamentarierdelegation und als Mitverfasserin der abzustimmenden Entschließung in Nagoya für die Biodiversität einzusetzen. Ich saß also mit den Journalisten zusammen, und man hat mich gefragt, warum wir uns zum Beispiel den Luxus leisten, den Biber zu retten. In meiner Heimat Niederösterreich ist es gelungen, eine vom Aussterben bedrohte Art zu retten, und sie hat sich reichlich Lebensraum genommen, was der Liebe der Bauern und der Förster dem Biber gegenüber nicht wirklich zuträglich war.

Während sich die Europäische Union und viele Behörden in den Mitgliedstaaten sehr intensiv und engagiert und unterstützt von NGO für den Artenschutz einsetzen, zeigte dieses Gespräch einmal mehr, dass für viele Menschen der Schutz und der Erhalt der Artenvielfalt eine Art Luxus ist. Die Menschen fragen sich, ob wir denn in der EU keine anderen Sorgen haben, als ein paar bedrohte Orchideen oder Tierarten zu retten. Es sei doch egal – so hört man oft – ob im Zoo 500 oder nur 499 unterschiedliche Tiere zu bestaunen sind. Für die Menschen, meine Damen und Herren, hat das Thema Artenschutz und Artenvielfalt also kaum Priorität. Und seien wir ehrlich: Das Thema Artenvielfalt ist auch auf der politischen Agenda bei Weitem nicht so prioritär wie Themen wie Wirtschaftswachstum oder Sicherheit. Das sollte es aber sein, denn wir verkennen die Tragweite dieses Themas.

Beim Thema Artenschutz, und das ist mein Punkt, geht es nicht um eine Art Wohltätigkeitsveranstaltung für ein paar arme Viecherln, auf die man dann halt verzichten muss. Das Thema Artenschutz – und verstehen Sie mich nicht falsch – ist eine Frage der Liebe zu Fauna und Flora. Aber es ist vor allem eine Frage der Sicherheit, eine Frage der Arbeitsmarktpolitik, eine Frage der Migrationspolitik. Denn was in der Diskussion um die Artenvielfalt gern vergessen wird, ist die Rolle der Tiere und Pflanzen, die sie in unserem Ökosystem einnehmen. Sie sind sogenannte Dienstleister der Natur, die unser Ökosystem am Laufen halten. Den vielen verschiedenen Arten und ihrem Zusammenspiel ist es zu verdanken, dass Küsten befestigt bleiben, Lawinen nicht abgehen und Gewässer sich selbst reinigen. Mit lebenswichtigen Gütern und Dienstleistungen wie Nahrungsbereitstellung, Kohlenstoffbindung sowie Wasserregulierung, die die Grundlage für wirtschaftlichen Wohlstand, soziales Wohlbefinden und Lebensqualität bilden, sei hier ein wesentliches Element der nachhaltigen Entwicklung genannt. Sterben die Arten aus, wird das natürliche Gleichgewicht gestört und damit ein gefährlicher Dominoeffekt ausgelöst. Die Dienstleistungen der Tiere und Pflanzen müssten teuer ersetzt werden. Verschiedene Regionen und Lebensräume könnten nach und nach nicht mehr bewohnt und nicht mehr nutzbar gemacht werden. Das kann zur Folge haben, dass diese Lebensräume nicht mehr die wertvollen Güter und Dienstleistungen des Ökosystems zur Verfügung stellen können. Aber nicht nur das. Weitere mögliche Folgen wie Arbeitslosigkeit, Unsicherheit oder auch Abwanderung wären unser aller Schrecken.

Der Schutz der Arten ist damit ganz klar ein politikfeldübergreifendes Thema. Zuletzt hat das auch der Entwicklungsausschuss unterstrichen, der sich bei der Erstellung der Position des Europäischen Parlaments sehr intensiv eingebracht hat. Ich möchte noch ein paar Zahlen nennen: Wie Wissenschaftler schätzen, würde das Ersetzen der natürlichen Dienstleistungen sowie die Behebung der Folgen wie Arbeitslosigkeit und Abwanderung 7 % des weltweiten Bruttoprodukts kosten. Das verwundert wenig, hört man andere Zahlen. Laut der jüngsten Studie der Europäischen Kommission sind 25 % der europäischen Tierarten vom Aussterben bedroht. Dieselbe Studie sagt auch, dass die Ökosysteme an den europäischen Küsten immer weiter zerstört werden. Bei einigen Regionen mit einer großen Artenvielfalt ist die Entwicklung ebenfalls rückläufig. Dagegen haben künstlich angelegte Flächen wie Industriegebiete, Wohnsiedlungen oder die Verkehrsinfrastruktur seit dem Jahr 1990 um 8 % zugenommen.

Meine Damen und Herren, wie Sie wissen, herrscht zwischen den Akteuren, die in Nagoya verhandeln werden, nicht immer Einigkeit darüber, was bei der Konferenz erreicht werden soll. Die entwickelten Staaten wollen starke Ziele, die NGO wollen ambitionierte Ziele, und die Wirtschaft, wenig überraschend, begnügt sich mit realistischen Zielen. Meine Meinung ist: Die EU muss in Nagoya die Messlatte hoch anlegen und wie auch hier in Europa darauf einwirken, dass die Business Community stärker in die Pflicht zu nehmen ist, vor allem diejenigen Sektoren und Industriezweige, die in besonders großem Ausmaß biologische Ressourcen nutzen. Die EU kann sich entscheiden, ob sie ein gutes oder ein schlechtes Beispiel sein will.

Meine Damen und Herren, wir haben heuer das Jahr der Artenvielfalt, es ist bereits Oktober, und diese Nachricht hat viele Europäerinnen und Europäer noch nicht erreicht. Lassen Sie uns gemeinsam dafür sorgen, dass Artenvielfalt den Stellenwert bekommt, den sie verdient und den sie braucht, um ihre Ökodienstleistungen auch in Zukunft bieten zu können! Lassen Sie mich noch ein vielzitiertes Indianersprichwort bemühen: Erst wenn der letzte Baum gerodet, der letzte Fluss vergiftet, der letzte Fisch gefangen ist, werdet Ihr merken, dass man Geld nicht essen kann.

  Gay Mitchell, deputising for the author. − Madam President, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate.

Last week I chaired Parliament’s delegation to the UN summit on progress towards the Millennium Development Goals. For the duration of the summit and at each side event, I was gripped by the enthusiasm of my colleagues, governments, international organisations and the people on the ground who are committed to achieving the ambitious targets set in 2000. Some progress has been made and there is much we can be proud of, but much more needs to be done.

Access to education is rapidly improving. Enrolment in education has reached 76% in Sub-Saharan Africa and 94% in North Africa. Access to drinking water is increasing. By 2015, 86% of those living in the developing world will be able to access clean drinking water – up from 71% in 1990. Targets for accessing drinking water have already been met in four regions – Northern Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, East Asia and South-Eastern Asia. Access to energy is increasing. There is near universal access to electricity in North Africa.

However, although progress has clearly been made, there is so much more that needs to be done. It was put to us by an Assistant Secretary of the United Nations that we really do need ‘a dash to the finish’ over the next five years. One billion children live in poverty, 1.4 million children die each year from lack of access to safe drinking water, and 2.2 million children die each year because they have not been immunised by vaccines that are so easily accessible in the developed world and which we have had for over 30 years.

Goal 7 of the Millennium Development Goals is to ensure environmental sustainability. Within this goal, there are several sub-targets. Target 7b is perhaps the most encompassing: ‘reduce biodiversity loss, achieving, by 2010, a significant reduction in the rate of loss’. The indicators of biodiversity include, inter alia, the proportion of land area covered by forest, CO2 emissions, the proportion of total water resources used, consumption of ozone-depleting substances, and the proportion of fish stocks within safe biological limits. The reduction in biodiversity loss is therefore a key component of the Millennium Development Goals.

Seventy percent of the world’s poor live in rural areas and depend directly on biodiversity for their survival and well-being. The urban poor also rely on biodiversity for ecosystem services, such as the maintenance of air and water quality and the breakdown of waste. There can be little doubt that biodiversity and climate change will affect the world’s poor first. It will affect countries like Tuvalu in the Polynesian islands – a country that is merely four and a half metres above sea level – and the Maldives, where President Nasheed held an underwater cabinet meeting this year to highlight the fact that by the end of the century his country could indeed be under water.

I am calling on the Member States and the Commission to give new impetus to the global climate change alliance and its support facility in order to increase developing countries’ capacity-building and knowledge base on the expected impacts of biodiversity loss and to effectively integrate it into development plans and budgets.

I have also highlighted the fact that programmes aimed at the protection of biodiversity and poverty reduction must address the priorities of the poor and put more emphasis on locally-based environmental management, ensure access to biodiversity resources, land reform, and acknowledgement of customary tenure.

By 2050 there will be two billion more people on the face of the earth and 90% of these will be born into what is now the developing world. If we allow abject poverty to continue in those countries, there will be massive migration from south to north and inequality could well be the cause of a world conflagration.

Many of us did not believe we would see the Berlin Wall come down in our lifetime. Now we take it for granted that the former Soviet-dominated countries are our EU partners. The wall of poverty between north and south can also come down and we can make a world that is better and safer – a place where we can have new partners and an environment safe for us all.

IN THE CHAIR: DIANA WALLIS
Vice-President

  Joke Schauvliege, Fungerend voorzitter van de Raad. − Voorzitter, geachte Parlementsleden, eerst en vooral bedankt om mij de kans te geven om hier vandaag het woord te voeren over dit zeer belangrijke onderwerp, namelijk biodiversiteit. In de conclusies van 15 maart 2010 met de titel "Biodiversiteit: Post-2010. Visie en doelen voor de EU en de wereld en internationale regeling voor toegang en batenverdeling" heeft de Raad benadrukt dat de biodiversiteit in stand moet worden gehouden en dat moet worden voorkomen dat ecosystemen en hun functies onomkeerbare schade wordt toegebracht, onder meer ook om de sociale en economische stabiliteit te beschermen en de millenniumdoelstellingen voor ontwikkeling te verwezenlijken.

De Raad heeft eraan herinnerd dat biodiversiteit een centrale rol speelt in de wereldwijde strijd tegen honger en voor voedselzekerheid, alsook dat zij essentieel bijdraagt tot het scheppen van welvaart en het terugdringen van armoede. Veel meer dan in de EU is in de meeste ontwikkelingslanden de bescherming van de ecosystemen nauw verbonden met werkgelegenheid, inkomen en bestaansmiddelen.

Met het oog op de tiende conferentie van de partijen bij het biodiversiteitsverdrag wil de EU met een realistische, ambitieuze aanpak actief en constructief bijdragen tot een wereldwijde consensus over de maatregelen die na 2010 voor de biodiversiteit moeten worden genomen. Het gaat onder meer over maatregelen die na 2010 een visie moeten kunnen ontwikkelen op het strategisch plan, dat bijvoorbeeld een tijdshorizon kan hebben naar 2020, een visie die een tijdshorizon kan hebben naar 2050, een visie op de secundaire doelstellingen en de belangrijke mijlpalen, gekoppeld aan meetbare indicatoren, en ten slotte een visie op de invoering van passende voorzieningen, voor toezicht, evaluatie en follow-up.

De bijeenkomst op hoog niveau van de Algemene Vergadering van de Verenigde Naties van twee weken geleden op 22 september in New York was een goede gelegenheid om de internationale gemeenschap op te roepen de kritieke toestand van de biodiversiteit in de hele wereld onder ogen te zien en ook om de noodzaak te benadrukken om de basis van het leven op aarde in het belang van de mensheid en de toekomstige generaties veilig te stellen en op alle niveaus passende initiatieven te nemen.

Wat de technische ondersteuning van de minst ontwikkelde landen betreft, meent de Raad dat de uitwerking en de overdracht van beste praktijken en technologieën van wezenlijk belang zijn in de strijd tegen biodiversiteitsverlies, klimaatverandering en woestijnvorming. Het is belangrijk om tot een gecoördineerd optreden te komen en de middelen op een bevredigende, kosteneffectieve wijze te benutten.

Wat de financiering betreft, is de Raad van oordeel dat de instelling van een doeltreffend beleidskader voor na 2010 en de invoering van een nieuw strategisch plan voor biodiversiteit een passende inzet van middelen uit alle mogelijke bronnen zal vergen, zowel publieke als particuliere financiering, waaronder nieuwe financieringsvormen en de financiering van maatregelen in het kader van de bestrijding van de klimaatverandering. Bovendien vindt de Raad dat moet worden overwogen om voor biodiversiteit ook financiële middelen vrij te maken door subsidies die de biodiversiteit schaden, te wijzigen, te schrappen of te heroriënteren. Het integreren van biodiversiteit in de activiteiten van de bedrijfswereld en in ander sectoraal beleid blijft een noodzaak en een prioritaire doelstelling.

Reeds in zijn conclusies van 5 december 2006 heeft de Raad er in antwoord op de boodschap van Parijs over biodiversiteit op gewezen dat biodiversiteit en de instandhouding van ecosysteemdiensten moet worden opgenomen in de beleidsdialoog met partnerlanden en partnerregio's. Daarbij moeten zij worden aangespoord om de behoeften verder in kaart te brengen en er bij voorrang aandacht aan te schenken in nationale en regionale ontwikkelingsstrategieën en -plannen. De Raad blijft ervan overtuigd dat de integratie van ecosysteemdiensten en biodiversiteit in de programma's voor ontwikkelingssamenwerking en financiële steun in aansluiting daarop, de enige weg is om tot duurzame resultaten te komen.

Hoewel er een duidelijk verband is tussen het Verdrag van Aarhus betreffende toegang tot informatie, inspraak bij besluitvorming en toegang tot de rechter inzake milieuaangelegenheden enerzijds, en biodiversiteit anderzijds, moet men er rekening mee houden dat dit verdrag is opgesteld in het kader van de Economische commissie voor Europa van de Verenigde Naties. Hoewel dat verdrag openstaat voor toetreding door landen die geen lid zijn van die commissie, zijn onze ontwikkelingspartners op dit ogenblik geen partij bij dit verdrag.

Ik dank u voor uw belangstelling en ik kijk uit naar jullie debat, en ik ben ervan overtuigd dat het heel wat nieuwe elementen zal aanreiken.

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, the European Union’s strategic objectives for Nagoya are set out in the Council conclusions of 22 December 2009 and 15 March 2010 and will be further elaborated and refined by the Environmental Council on 14 October 2010. Three issues stand out in particular as priorities for the European Union.

The first is the adoption of the new strategic plan for the Convention for the period 2011-2020. It should reflect the best available scientific knowledge about the state of biodiversity and provide an effective framework of implementation that is sufficiently ambitious to trigger step-up action by all the parties to the Convention. This is vital if we are to prevent further species extinctions and enable biodiversity to continue providing the essential goods and services that we all depend on, and especially the poor.

The second strategic priority for the European Union is to conclude negotiations on the Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing, as a key contribution to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity beyond 2010 and in line with the commitment taken by all the parties at COP 8 in 2006. This is an expectation widely shared by developing country parties to the Convention, many of which see it as their top priority.

The third is to ensure that adequate resources are mobilised to enable the implementation of the post-2010 biodiversity policy framework, including the new Strategy Plan. The EU as a whole is committed, as part of its 2020 biodiversity target adopted earlier this year, to step up its contribution to averting global biodiversity loss, but I think we can also be pretty proud of what we are actually doing. Over the period 2002-2008, the European Union provided over USD 1 billion, approximately EUR 740 million, for global biodiversity annually, largely through the Thematic Programme on Environment and Natural Resources under the Development Cooperation Instrument, but also the EDF, both of which include adequate provisions for biodiversity.

Member States have also contributed significantly to the recent replenishment of the Global Environmental Facility, for which USD 1.2 billion is earmarked for biodiversity. This represents a 28% increase compared to the last replenishment, and the new EUR 1 billion MDG initiative announced by President Barroso at the UN General Assembly in New York last month can clearly also benefit biodiversity.

The Commission is currently updating its own biodiversity-related development cooperation figures, using the same methodology as it has used to account for climate-related funding, and we are of course encouraging Member States to do the same so that we can present a consolidated figure in Nagoya.

We also need to look at other ways of how we can contribute to enhancing implementation of the Convention on Biodiversity and help developing country parties deliver on their commitments under the Convention, in particular the new post-2010 Strategic Plan that will be adopted in Nagoya. We intend to explore ways and means to do this, together with our partners in Nagoya.

Biodiversity loss is not a new challenge to poverty alleviation, as already mentioned. The 2010 Biodiversity Target was incorporated into MDG 7 already in 2002 and the EU itself has explicitly underscored the important linkages between biodiversity and development on many occasions. Just last month in his statement during the High-Level Event on Biodiversity at the United Nations General Assembly, President Barroso remarked that our ability to end poverty and hunger and improve child and maternal health depends on the long-term availability of fresh water, food, medicine and raw materials that nature provides.

This is also recalled in the 2010 MDG report, in the EU policy framework to assist developing countries in addressing food security challenges, and in the Commission’s Policy Coherence for Development work programme 2010-2013, which includes a specific target for biodiversity and accompanying indicators as part of the operational framework to enhance the coherence of EU policies with development objectives.

What is perhaps new is the increasing knowledge and awareness about economics of biodiversity loss and the extent to which this undermines prospects for alleviating poverty in the long term. The international study of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) shows how costly biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation is to our economies, including the economies in developing countries. So it is not any more a moral question, it is actually a question of our quality of life, and yet the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems is not seen as a development priority.

It is hoped that TEEB will go some way towards changing this situation so that more of our developing country partners give higher priority to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use in their development strategies but, even where it is not a focus of action in country and regional support strategies, European development policy nevertheless requires that environment and sustainable management of natural resources be treated as a cross-cutting issue to be integrated into all development activities. Both the Development Cooperation Instrument and the European Development Fund include provisions for addressing biodiversity.

To conclude, with regard to mechanisms for ensuring the right of access to information and public participation in decision-making related to biodiversity, the EU fully supports the draft COP 10 decision on the Strategic Plan, which urges parties and other governments to enable broad and effective participation in the full implementation of the objectives of the Convention and Strategic Plan. We also believe that the Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing should oblige contracting parties to establish domestic frameworks that allow indigenous and local communities to take prior and informed decisions on whether or not to give access to their traditional knowledge.

I would endorse everything said by the authors of the questions and I am truly grateful for their valuable contributions.

  Esther de Lange, namens de PPE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, meneer de commissaris, mevrouw de Raadsvertegenwoordiger, het belangrijkste wat wij morgen in onze resolutie van u gaan vragen, dat zijn ambitieuze, maar realistische doelstellingen in Nagoya. Als we het slim aanpakken, dan spreken we daar maatregelen af die niet alleen biodiversiteit waarborgen, maar ook de effecten van klimaatverandering tegengaan, de millenniumdoelstellingen helpen realiseren - daar is al het een en ander over gezegd - en zorgen voor groene banen, ook in de Europese Unie. Vier vliegen in één klap, dat noem ik value for money.

Maar om dit te bereiken, moet de Europese Unie wel met één stem spreken. Wat dat betreft, moet ik u eerlijk zeggen, zakt de moed mij toch een beetje in de schoenen. Ik hoor veel verwijzingen naar Raadsuitspraken van voorafgaande jaren, raadsuitspraken van maart van dit jaar, en ik hoor weinig concreets. Ik mag toch hopen dat de gedachten in de Commissie en ook bij de Raad inmiddels verder gevorderd zijn dan de algemeenheden van 15 maart. We zullen het zien op 14 oktober; ik hoop er in elk geval op. Ik hoop ook dat we leren van onze fouten in het verleden. Dat we niet weer naar een internationale top trekken met een mandaat vol vaagheden en algemeenheden en dat we niet weer al onze tijd daar als Europese Unie in onderling overleg doorbrengen om te kijken hoe we nu weer moeten reageren op ontwikkelingen, waardoor we geen tijd meer hebben om die leidersrol te spelen waartoe Karin Kadenbach onder andere al heeft opgeroepen.

Het laatste punt waarop ik wil wijzen is de mainstreaming van biodiversiteit in andere beleidsvelden. Net zoals we als Europees Parlement in het recente verslag over biodiversiteit in de Europese Unie hebben gevraagd om die coherentie op het gebied van milieu en andere beleidsvelden, moeten we ook internationaal biodiversiteit mainstreamen. Biodiversiteit is niet alleen een kwestie van milieu of van millenniumdoelstellingen, maar ook op andere terreinen, zoals de WTO, moeten niet-handelsoverwegingen, zoals biodiversiteit, veel hoger op de agenda. Commissaris, ik weet dat u biodiversiteit een warm hart toedraagt. Ik hoop dat u deze boodschap over internationale mainstreaming ook doorgeeft naar uw andere internationale collega's.

  Michael Cashman, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, I was also at the UN with Mr Mitchell and represented the Parliament on the issue of the MDGs. I want to congratulate the Commission on what they are doing, but I want to inform the House that we in the EU lead internationally on these issues – on biodiversity, on climate change and, indeed, on the MDGs’ poverty alleviation – but, interestingly, at the UN we are only given observer status. That must change, as we lead the world on these issues.

We have the Year of Biodiversity, but I would suggest that every year should be the year of biodiversity. Our citizens – maybe in the visitors’ gallery, maybe watching at home – will ask what this has got to do with them. Without public awareness and the raising of awareness, nothing will change. They must realise that the tin of tomatoes that they pick up in the supermarket would not be there if it were not for biodiversity. We need a 360 degree awareness of what this means. As Mr Mitchell brilliantly put it, this wall of poverty – and, may I add, deprivation – must come down.

We talk of policy coherence in this House, but let me just refer to some of these issues: without policy coherence on access to energy in the developing world, deforestation, climate change, food security, the reform of the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy, land grab, natural resources and access to water, we will never protect biodiversity and we will never end the suffering of the world’s poor.

  Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, as we discuss the European position at the Nagoya summit, outside this House a hunt is being undertaken: a relentless hunt for resources, a hunt for oil and gas, minerals, timber, food and water, a hunt for resources that are all provided by nature.

In this hunt, Chinese investors want to construct a highway through the Serengeti National Park to exploit the resources of Central Africa. There are Saudi investors putting billions of dollars on the table to build 6 000 kilometres of roads through the rainforests of the Congo to start huge palm-oil plants.

We all want to stop the loss of biodiversity, but in the real world this hunt for resources is frustrating our goals. That is reality. Therefore, the only way to stop the loss of biodiversity is by radically changing our behaviour.

We need biodiversity for food, shelter, medicines, clean air, water, and so on and so forth. We simply cannot survive without it. We are reaching a tipping point at which damage is irreversible and, even worse, accelerating. That is the sense of urgency of the Nagoya summit and that is the sense of urgency I expect from the ministers and commissioners who attend.

Unfortunately, political declarations and resolutions will not be sufficient to reach this sense of urgency. We need much more pressure. For that reason I have started an online campaign, along with many colleagues from all over the world. I want all of the people to have their voice heard on this issue; because people care about this. Go through Facebook to stop biodiversity loss and support this campaign. I will, together with many colleagues, present the thousands of signatures to the decision-makers in Nagoya, to let them know that people depend on their perseverance and persistence to make Nagoya a success.

  Sandrine Bélier, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, Madame la représentante du Conseil, chers collègues, les engagements pris en 1992 à Rio et en 2002 à Johannesburg n'ont pas été respectés. Nos stratégies de lutte contre la perte de la biodiversité sont un échec et nous connaissons les causes de cet échec.

Le climat change, la biodiversité s'appauvrit, l'humanité doit se résoudre à s'adapter toujours plus vite et toujours plus difficilement. À Nagoya, à quelques semaines de Cancún, l'Union européenne a l'opportunité d'impulser l'adaptation de notre modèle de développement économique pour faire face aux enjeux du XXIe siècle.

Dérèglement climatique, lutte contre la perte de la biodiversité et lutte contre la pauvreté: ces trois enjeux et les réponses pour y faire face sont intimement liés. Nous avons la responsabilité de porter et d'amorcer un nouveau modèle de développement plus juste, plus équitable et plus durable.

Alors parlons clair et concrètement. La résolution du Parlement identifie trois enjeux clés, qui soulèvent aujourd'hui plusieurs questions sur la position de la Commission et du Conseil.

Le premier enjeu est bien sûr de commencer à protéger et à restaurer la biodiversité. Cela suppose un financement adéquat, la suppression de toutes les aides publiques néfastes pour la biodiversité et un budget dédié que nous proposons de multiplier par dix. Mais l'Union européenne est-elle prête à engager 0,3 % de son PIB dans sa politique de lutte contre la perte de la biodiversité et à convaincre les pays de l'OCDE de faire de même?

Le deuxième enjeu: le coût de la perte de biodiversité pour la société, commence à peine à être évalué. Il représenterait environ 1 % du PIB mondial, mais cette évaluation ne prend pas en considération la valeur sociale, culturelle, morale et scientifique de la biodiversité.

L'Union européenne est-elle résolue à refuser la monétarisation du vivant? Est-elle déterminée à défendre le patrimoine commun de l'humanité et à réaffirmer que la nature n'a pas de prix et qu'elle n'est pas à vendre?

Enfin, troisième enjeu, stopper le pillage des ressources génétiques par des entreprises et industries. Une solution: une réglementation de l'accès aux ressources génétiques qui intègre notamment pleinement les droits des communautés indigènes et locales.

L'Union européenne aura encore une responsabilité particulière dans ces négociations. À ce titre, est-elle déterminée, d'une part, à défendre le principe de non-brevetabilité du vivant et, d'autre part, à soutenir le remboursement de la dette écologique aux pays du Sud en soutenant la rétroactivité du système qui sera adopté?

  Nirj Deva, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, biodiversity is not some abstract word that is used by abstruse scientists to look after some environmental peculiarity. Biodiversity is the very core of our survival on this planet as a human race.

Take, for example, a recent calculation done by Dr Pavan Sukhdev about the loss of biodiversity and the value of that loss. His findings show that deforestation alone – the loss of the Earth’s lung, which changes carbon dioxide to oxygen and which enables us to breathe – is costing USD 4.5 trillion every year. Every year we are losing in replacement costs 4.5 trillion US dollars’ worth of oxygen manufacturing process. That is about the size of the New York Stock Exchange.

If every year we lost an asset with the value of the New York Stock Exchange, I am sure everybody in this room would be up and running around, but because it is biodiversity nobody seems to care. That is an enormous amount of funding that would be required to replace the loss of oxygen that we cut down by cutting these trees.

Take the collapse of the Newfoundland cod fisheries in the 1990s. It has cost CAD 2 billion in replacement costs. If we lose – as we are doing – some of the pharmaceutical genetic material which comes from biodiversity, we will be losing about 640 billion dollars’ worth of raw materials. This is a very serious issue and we need serious people making serious decisions.

  Kartika Tamara Liotard, namens de GUE/NGL-Fractie. – Voorzitter, over twee weken gaan we met zijn allen naar Nagoya, Japan, om over biodiversiteit te praten. Ik ben benieuwd of onze gastheer ons daar blauwvintonijn of walvis gaat voorschotelen. Maar de grote discussie daar zal opnieuw gaan over de vraag of we eerst met geld moeten komen dan wel of we eerst over doelstellingen praten. Ontwikkelingslanden zien liever eerst geld op tafel en de EU wil liever eerst over doelstellingen praten.

Duidelijk is echter dat we hoe dan ook het verlies aan biodiversiteit een halt moeten toeroepen. Als we niet handelen zullen de geschatte kosten in 2050 meer dan 4.000 miljard dollar zijn. Niet handelen is dus geen optie, en daarom stoort het mij dat onder andere de nieuwe Nederlandse regering een miljard euro wil bezuinigen op ontwikkelingshulp, een van de meest noodzakelijke financiële middelen om biodiversiteitsverlies in ontwikkelingslanden tegen te gaan.

Als de EU in Nagoya echt iets wil bereiken, dan moet ze het voortouw nemen en zelf goed beleid ontwikkelen op landbouw- en visserijgebied en niet pas na Nagoya met voorstellen hierover komen. Bij de hervorming van het landbouwbeleid moeten we verder kijken dan alleen maar duurzaam landbouwbeleid en moeten we een sterke vuist maken. Ik roep de Commissie dan ook op om wat er in Nagoya wordt afgesproken in meetbare, controleerbare voorstellen om te zetten en een langetermijnvisie te ontwikkelen, zodat we in 2011 niet weer moeten zeggen dat we het biodiversiteitverlies geen halt hebben kunnen toeroepen.

  Anna Rosbach, for EFD-Gruppen. – Fru formand! Biodiversitet er alle tings sammenhæng – ganske enkelt. Og derfor skal vi på konferencen i Nagoya kæmpe for at bevare den. Men da vi stadig fælder skove, tager nyt land under plov og dæmmer floder op, er der åbenbart en mangel på viden om og evne til at indføje habitater og økosystemer i de nationale staters lovgivninger. Alt fra moderne landbrug, fiskeri, bybebyggelse, vejnet og transport til en mangfoldig industri har negativ indflydelse på klodens biodiversitet. Det maritime liv har det skidt. Over 60 % af alle fisk og skaldyr, der spises i EU, fanges uden for EU. Vi har overfisket, og bestandene har svært ved at restituere sig. Østersøen har en historisk høj forureningsgrad. I Sverige frarådes gravide kvinder at spise lokalt fangede fisk. EU-landene har dog taget skridt hen imod at forbedre forholdene for naturen, men hvor står resten af verden? Og hvad kan vi gøre for, at andre verdensdele kommer videre i deres udvikling? Verdens biodiversitet vil gå til som følge af menneskeskabte aktiviteter – hvad enten der sker global opvarmning eller ej. Men vi skal ikke stille urealistiske krav her. Biodiversiteten er bedst tjent med, at vi forbliver realistiske. Derfor er det på høje tid, at vi finder praktiske, realistiske løsninger for bevarelsen af sund jord, et sundt plante- og dyreliv samt sunde vandmiljøer.

  Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (NI). - Aş vrea să încep prin a sublinia faptul că este imperios necesar ca Uniunea Europeană să adopte o poziţie clară şi unitară în problema biodiversităţii, cu ocazia COP10 de la Nagoya. Lipsa unei asemenea poziţii ferme şi coerente ar duce la un alt deznodământ ruşinos, ca acela de la CITES, din martie 2010. De aceea, aş dori ca recomandările Comisiei ENVI să fie acceptate fără rezerve, ele constituind poate cel mai bun ghid pentru formularea unei poziţii oficiale a Uniunii Europene pe care reprezentanţii noştri să o poată susţine fără ezitări la Nagoya luna aceasta.

Dincolo de aceste considerente, nu trebuie să uităm că este în joc nu numai credibilitatea Uniunii Europene, ca partener lucid şi responsabil în luarea deciziilor internaţionale, ci, mai ales, soarta viitorului planetei.

  Richard Seeber (PPE). - Frau Präsidentin! Lassen Sie mich mit einem Detail beginnen. Der von mir sehr geschätzte Kommissar Potočnik nennt Zahlen in Dollar, rechnet sie zwar dann in Euro um. Kollege Deva nennt auch Dollarzahlen. Ich habe es nicht im Detail, aber es zeigt uns eigentlich, dass die Debatte über die Biodiversität offensichtlich noch nicht in Europa angekommen ist. Offensichtlich sind wir noch nicht fähig, uns hier in Europa eine eigene Meinung dazu zu bilden, und ich glaube, es wäre schon gut, wenn wir hier diese Debatte in dem Sinne ernst nehmen, dass wir auch in Zahlen übersetzen, Wir haben hier nämlich eine totale Elitedebatte, die abgehoben ist, glaube ich, von dem, was wirklich zu Hause bei unseren Bürgerinnen und Bürgern passiert. Und solange wir es nicht schaffen, diese Debatte zu Hause in die Haushalte zu bringen, glaube ich, sind wir auch verloren, hier politisches Gewicht zu bekommen. Das heißt: Ich glaube, die Kommunikationsstrategie, die wir jetzt wählen sollten, ist einfach die, dass wir das Thema wie gesagt an die Menschen heranbringen und mit diesem Wissen, wie die Menschen reagieren, dann auch unsere konkreten Ziele festlegen.

Der Herr Kommissar hat sehr konkrete Ziele genannt. Ich hoffe, er wird sie auch dort in Nagoya umsetzen, und ich hoffe auch, die Gemeinschaft wird mit einer Stimme sprechen. Das ist immer die große Herausforderung bei diesen internationalen Konferenzen.

Ich glaube auch, dass Geld allein nicht genug ist. Viele Kollegen fordern, die Mittel aufzustocken. Das mag ein Weg sein, aber das ist nicht genug, wenn wir hier zum Erfolg kommen wollen. Zweitens, wie gesagt, die Kommunikationsstrategie ändern, und drittens, die Daten verbessern, die wir haben. Offensichtlich fehlt da sehr viel noch an Datenmaterial, und ich glaube, hier könnte die Gemeinschaft mit ihrem Forschungsproblem konkret noch einiges tun.

Und Sie wissen, mein Lieblingsthema ist das Wasser. Wir haben beispielsweise, wenn wir jetzt die neue Fischereipolitik auf den Weg bringen, einen großen Nachholbedarf, was zu schützende Arten anlangt. Die Fischereiminister werden wahrscheinlich wieder überhöhte Fangquoten beschließen, und die Biodiversität ist wieder ein Randthema. Darum glaube ich, wir haben jetzt konkret zu Hause einen Anlass, hier unsere Zusagen wirklich ernst zu nehmen. Und wir werden sehen, wie die Vorschläge dann ausfallen.

  Κρίτων Αρσένης (S&D). - Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, εκπρόσωποι του Συμβουλίου, πράγματι συζητάμε σε αυτή την αίθουσα με θέρμη για τους στόχους και την υλοποίηση νέων στόχων για την βιοποικιλότητα. Όμως, αυτή τη στιγμή, ενώ εμείς συζητάμε, οι διαπραγματεύσεις κινδυνεύουν με πλήρη κατάρρευση, και τώρα ευθυνόμαστε εμείς, ευθύνεται η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Για αυτό το λόγο, θέλω να απευθυνθώ στο Συμβούλιο και να το παρακαλέσω να αλλάξει τη στάση του.

Θα πρέπει να προχωρήσουμε, να "ξεμπλοκάρουμε" τις διαπραγματεύσεις για το Πρωτόκολλο ABS, για την πρόσβαση και το μοίρασμα των ωφελειών στη γενετική πληροφορία. Πράγματι, αν δεν το κάνουμε, όχι μόνο διατηρούμε μια κατάσταση που ευνοεί τη βιοπειρατεία και αποτελεί έγκλημα αυτή τη στιγμή απέναντι στις τοπικές κοινωνίες και τους γενετικούς πόρους, αλλά θα χαθεί τελείως μία ακόμη ευκαιρία για το περιβάλλον, θα καταρρεύσουν οι διαπραγματεύσεις, και θα έχουμε μία δεύτερη Κοπεγχάγη.

Για αυτό, παρακαλώ θερμά το Συμβούλιο να εξετάσει ουσιαστικά αυτό το θέμα. Θα πρέπει να αλλάξουμε στάση, πριν συμβεί να είναι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, για πρώτη φορά, που θα οδηγήσει σε κατάρρευση περιβαλλοντικές διαπραγματεύσεις.

  Chris Davies (ALDE). - Madam President, the challenge we face in reversing the loss of unique species of life becomes depressingly apparent as this debate continues. A lot is going to be said at the biodiversity conference about the need to put in place the correct measures but if all we end up with is a pious declaration we will achieve very little.

I hope we can put in place a set of targets and the financial support mechanisms – no doubt linked to access to biological resources – to make them worth something. I hope we can ensure that procedures are put in place to assess and confirm compliance, and I hope that we can put in place arrangements for frequent review of the targets and for improvements to be made to the procedures as time progresses.

It is quite clear that this conference cannot possibly halt the loss of biodiversity; the pace is simply too rapid. However, if we can at least put in place the mechanisms and the structure that can eventually slow and perhaps one day reverse that loss, then it will be judged a success.

  Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE). - Voorzitter, ik wil allereerst commissaris Potočnik hartelijk bedanken voor zijn inzet voor het behoud van biodiversiteit. We weten dat zijn hart op de goede plek zit en dat hij er hard voor vecht. In die zin ziet het er goed uit qua Europese inzet voor Nagoya. We moeten echter nog doelstellingen afspreken, doelstellingen op deelgebieden, zoals visserij, landbouw, bosbouw. Op al die gebieden verwachten we nog ambitieuze doelstellingen, ook van Europa.

Maar wat nog belangrijker is, is dat wij uiteindelijk, als wij terugkomen uit Nagoya, dat moeten vertalen in Europees beleid. Het komende jaar gaan we ons landbouwbeleid herzien. We gaan ons visserijbeleid herzien. Van de commissaris weet ik dat hij zich ook daar inzet om de term biodiversiteit duidelijk terug te zien in dat beleid. Maar de Raad is stil. Daarom de vraag aan de voorzitter, mevrouw Schauvliege, wat gaat de Raad straks doen? We kunnen wel mooie beloftes doen in Nagoya, maar wat gaan we straks doen met ons eigen visserijbeleid en ons eigen landbouwbeleid? Dan pas wordt het echt belangrijk, anders blijven het in Nagoya alleen maar lege woorden.

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). - Voorzitter, morgen stemmen wij over de ontwerpresolutie voor de Nagoya-conferentie en ik wil graag met deze interventie aandacht vragen voor amendement 1. Dat amendement is door collega De Lange en mij ingediend namens onze beide fracties. In het amendement bekrachtigen wij het beginsel dat levensvormen en levensprocessen niet octrooieerbaar mogen zijn. Daarom vragen we in het amendement om een kwekersvrijstelling waardoor plantenrassen vrij kunnen worden doorontwikkeld.

Zonder een dergelijke vrijstelling lopen we het risico dat alleen bedrijven met het meeste geld en met de grootste portefeuille aan patenten, overleven. Zíj zullen dan bepalen welke soorten op de markt komen en dat komt de biodiversiteit zeker niet ten goede. Dus ik vraag met klem aandacht voor uw steun voor amendement 1 morgen bij de stemming.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). - Signora Presidente, onorevole colleghi, dal 18 al 29 ottobre prossimi si terrà in Giappone il COP 10 sulla biodiversità e per il Parlamento è importante sapere cosa intende proporre il Consiglio al fine di tutelare e garantire la biodiversità.

Da una ricerca risulta che su 4.000 piante esaminate, ben il 22 percento è stato classificato come minacciato. Ciò significa che una pianta su cinque rischia di scomparire e – altro dato preoccupante – scompariranno anche molte piante ancora oggi neppure scoperte. La stessa cosa la si può dire per molte specie animali. Con loro rischiano di scomparire dei principi attivi, per quanto riguarda le piante, fondamentali per l'industria, che studia nuovi preparati magari utili a combattere malattie oggi incurabili. Per quanto riguarda gli animali, con la loro scomparsa si perdono delle caratteristiche importanti per il nostro pianeta.

Il Parlamento europeo ha approvato recentemente, lo scorso settembre, la normativa dell'Unione su questo tema con un voto chiaro, che non può non impegnare sulla stessa linea anche il Consiglio. Non dimentichiamo che la lotta alla povertà, e quindi alla fame, la si fa anche conservando la ricchezza di un patrimonio naturale, di una flora e di una fauna inestimabili, una ricchezza che non ci possiamo permettere di perdere e dobbiamo fare di tutto per poterla conservare.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE). - Signora Presidente, nel 2002 i rappresentanti dei governi di tutto il mondo si sono impegnati a ridurre in maniera significativa la perdita della biodiversità entro il 2010. Questo obiettivo, nonostante sia stato ripreso e ribadito in diverse sedi internazionali, non è stato purtroppo raggiunto.

Il ritmo di questa perdita sul pianeta si è accelerato di almeno 100 volte rispetto ai cicli naturali e negli ultimi cinquant'anni ha raggiunto livelli che non hanno precedenti. In Europa un mammifero su sei è a rischio di estinzione e quando una specie scompare, può creare un effetto domino nei confronti di tutte le altre. Negli ultimi trent'anni è stato perso almeno il 30 percento di tutte le specie animali e vegetali del pianeta.

Senza target ambiziosi da adottare immediatamente, la perdita della biodiversità – è già stato detto più volte – da oggi al 2050 costerà all'Europa 1.100 miliardi di euro, come dichiara anche il WWF. Così, come sottolineato nell'interrogazione della collega, onorevole Striffler, la salvaguardia della biodiversità rappresenta un importante elemento degli Obiettivi di sviluppo del Millennio e della Strategia europea 2020.

Favorire la biodiversità equivale ad aumentare le frecce del nostro arco nella lotta contro la povertà estrema e contro la fame, attuando politiche di sostenibilità ambientale che mantengono il nostro pianeta ricco e fecondo. Abbiamo bisogno di una nuova visione strategica e di nuovi traguardi che tengano conto della costante perdita di specie e che rispecchino l'importanza che attribuiamo a questo problema.

  Edite Estrela (S&D). - Quando falamos de preservação da biodiversidade, estamos também a falar do combate às alterações climáticas, de segurança alimentar, de saúde pública, de combate à pobreza, de realização dos objectivos do milénio, de desenvolvimento sustentado do planeta, ou seja, do nosso futuro colectivo.

A União Europeia, já aqui foi dito, tem de falar a uma só voz em Nagoya e fazer tudo para obter bons resultados. É preciso vontade política para salvar as espécies da fauna e da flora mais ameaçadas. Também já aqui foi dito por vários colegas que os custos da perda da biodiversidade são da ordem dos 50 mil milhões de euros por ano, ou seja, mais ou menos 1% do produto interno bruto, mas também foi dito, e há estudos que provam que, em 2050, esses custos podem ascender a 7% do produto interno bruto, mas o retorno do investimento na preservação da biodiversidade é 100 vezes superior.

A biodiversidade é fundamental para a atenuação e a adaptação às alterações climáticas tendo em conta, por exemplo, o papel dos ecossistemas terrestres e marinhos enquanto importantes sumidouros de carbono, e por isso, esperamos que, da Conferência, saiam bons resultados. É isso que os cidadãos esperam, e também para que sejam eles próprios sensibilizados para este desafios que todos nós temos de enfrentar.

  Paul Nuttall (EFD). - Madam President, ‘biodiversity’ is a word I often hear bandied about by Eurocrats, MEPs and lobbyists out here in Brussels. But I wonder if anybody in here can actually define what it really means, because I bet my bottom dollar that none of you can.

Oddly enough, I think it does matter that you understand what you are talking about if you are making laws for the whole of the EU.

But what does the conveniently vague and ambiguous term ‘biodiversity’ actually mean? Because the truth of the matter is that there is no correct number of species, whether it is on a Cumbrian farm or a Liverpool suburb or even in a Cheshire forest, and I defy the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety to come up with a proper definition or stop using such ragbag words.

And, may I ask, where is the boundary of the biodiverse area? Is it ever applied to offshore marine environments? And if so, why are you so keen to build monstrous wind farms that are detrimental to wildlife and do not even work!

Let us be frank, you have not got a clue. There is no clear thinking, no coherent policy and no logic to what you are proposing. If you are going to preach, which is what you are doing, look in the mirror first, sort your own house out and let us start with the disaster which is the common fisheries policy.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Chris Davies (ALDE). - Madam President, I wonder if the honourable Member would agree that we are losing unique forms of life on this planet each and every day and that there is a need for international action to try and counter that? I did not hear anything in his remarks that suggested that he did agree with that but I invite him to explain his position to the House.

  Paul Nuttall (EFD). - Madam President, let us put a few facts in order. If you want examples of species which are disappearing, there are a lot of dodgy statistics out there – take polar bears as an example. People constantly say that the polar bear population has fallen. Yet the polar bear population is actually bigger now than it was in the 1940s.

I agree that species are disappearing, but I do not believe that the European Union – which is fundamentally undemocratic, the British people have never had a say on it – is the forum to decide this matter. It should be done in nation states.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). - Tisztelt Potočnik biztos úr! Én óvnám a kollégákat attól, hogy mi azt higgyük, hogy az Európai Unió teljesíteni tudta célkitűzését. Helyes, hogy Nagoyában mi élére akarunk állni a biodiverzitás megőrzésének, de az Európai Unió sem tudta megállítani a biodiverzitás csökkenését. Ezért legyünk óvatosak, és nézzük meg, hogy mik a mi saját feladataink. És Potočnik biztos úr, aki egy szlovén farmercsaládból származik – én egy magyar farmercsaládból származom –, fölhívnám a figyelmet, hogy egy nagy ellentmondás van a biodiverzitás és az agrárszabályozás között. Egyrészről támogatjuk a gazdákat, hogy mesterséges odúkat tegyenek ki a madaraknak, másrészt a legelőtámogatásnál megszabjuk, hogy a fák, bokrok aránya csak egyharmad lehet, és a gazdáknak ki kell vágni, ha ennél több a fa. Vagyis csökkentjük a madarak és más állatok élőhelyét, vagyis a közös agrárpolitika jövőjénél összhangba kell hozni a biodiverzitást és az agrártámogatásokat. Teljesen egyetértek a jelentéssel, hogy meg kell határozni a környezetvédelmi javak értékét, többek között a biodiverzitás piaci értékét, amit szerfölött nehéz megállapítani, de nagyon fontos hogy a gazdákat ezért a jövőben ösztönözzük, díjazzuk, mert a piac nem teszi meg.

  Corina Creţu (S&D). - Asigurarea durabilităţii mediului este unul dintre Obiectivele de dezvoltare ale mileniului, cu implicaţii directe şi dramatice asupra vieţii oamenilor. Poluarea şi exploatarea iraţională a terenurilor agricole, a pădurilor şi a resurselor de apă determină schimbări climatice care pun în pericol resursele naturale ale planetei.

Aş vrea să mă refer la una dintre ameninţările cele mai dramatice, care este reprezentată de accesul tot mai dificil la sursele de apă, omenirea confruntându-se cu perspectiva sumbră ca, în anul 2050, circa 45% din populaţia mondială să fie ameninţată de penuria de apă.

Din păcate, de-abia anul acesta Adunarea Generală a ONU a declarat atât dreptul la apă potabilă, curată şi de calitate, cât şi dreptul la instalaţii sanitare, ca fiind drepturi elementare ale omului, indispensabile pentru a se bucura de viaţă; dar acest lucru survine în contextul în care, deja, mai mult de un sfert din populaţia planetei nu are acces la apă potabilă şi la instalaţii sanitare corespunzătoare. Rata îmbolnăvirilor şi a mortalităţii cauzate de apa improprie consumului rămâne, în aceste condiţii, îngrijorător de ridicată, în special în rândul copiilor. De aceea, consider că Uniunea Europeană trebuie să determine la Conferinţa de la Nagoya un răspuns mult mai prompt şi mai precis la aceste probleme ale lumii a treia care acutizează sărăcia şi lipsa de perspective.

Cred că responsabilitatea istorică a ţărilor dezvoltate pentru starea materială şi ecologică a planetei ar trebui să reprezinte un argument în plus pentru politici care să contracareze actuala tendinţă de încurajare a exploatării nedurabile a resurselor naturale în ţările în curs de dezvoltare, dependente de exportul de materii prime.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). - Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, il 18 ottobre si aprirà in Giappone la decima Conferenza internazionale sulla biodiversità, alla quale l'Unione europea si presenta senza aver centrato l'obiettivo fissato nel 2001, cioè quello di arrestare entro il 2010 la perdita di biodiversità.

Recenti studi dimostrano che il patrimonio naturale è gravemente minacciato, in particolare le aree marine dei paesi del Mediterraneo. L'Unione europea ha avviato importanti azioni per la lotta al cambiamento climatico, ma deve impegnarsi di più per proteggere la biodiversità: un impegno per un aumento degli stanziamenti per il programma Natura 2000 e un'azione più incisiva della Commissione per esercitare i poteri di controllo previsti dal Trattato.

Quali iniziative per ridurre il ritardo nell'applicazione delle direttive Natura 2000?

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D). - Dacă ne gândim la consecinţele de mediu, dar şi sociale sau financiare ale distrugerii biodiversităţii, nu avem voie să subestimăm importanţa viitoarei conferinţe de la Nagoya.

Catastrofa ecologică petrecută în Ungaria, care a ucis patru oameni, a lovit şapte localităţi şi a afectat ecosistemele mai multor râuri, ameninţând să atingă Dunărea şi Delta Dunării în România, ne oferă un fundal trist pentru discuţia de astăzi, dar şi un îndemn serios la acţiuni mai ferme pentru protejarea mediului şi a biodiversităţii. Este momentul să readucem în discuţie interzicerea folosirii substanţelor periculoase în minerit, pentru a pune capăt acestor tragedii.

Rezoluţia Comisiei de mediu pe tema biodiversităţii conţine multe elemente importante, dar aş vrea să punctez câteva, pe care le consider esenţiale.

În primul rând, principalul obiectiv al negocierilor ar trebui să fie adoptarea unor ţinte ambiţioase şi concrete, care să fie relevante pentru mai multe domenii şi sectoare de activitate: de la construcţii şi transporturi până la silvicultură şi agricultură.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). - Ako člen Výboru pre životné prostredie som hlboko znepokojený výsledkami posledných štúdií, ktoré prinášajú alarmujúce štatistiky v oblasti straty biodiverzity v Európskej únii.

Naliehavosť tohto problému vyžaduje zintenzívnenie úsilia na úrovni Európskej únie a členských štátov, preto považujem za nevyhnutné, aby Komisia a členské štáty jednotne vystupovali na konferencii, ktorá sa bude konať koncom októbra v japonskom Nagoi, a zvýšili tak účinnosť svojich postupov a dosahovanie merateľných realistických a časovo záväzných cieľov. Rád by som taktiež zdôraznil potrebu cieleného informovania súkromného sektoru o hospodárskych výhodách boja za ochranu biodiverzity a o návratnosti investícií do jej ochrany. Strata biodiverzity totiž už teraz znižuje úroveň blahobytu občanov a spôsobuje hospodárstvu miliardové škody, ktoré sa do roku 2050 majú vyšplhať do výšky niekoľkých biliónov.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). - Europa poate fi împărţită în nouă regiuni biogeografice distincte, pe baza similarităţilor climatice, de topografie, geologie şi vegetaţie.

Regiunea Dunării este una din primele 20 de ecoregiuni din lume. Biodiversitatea în această regiune este extrem de bogată. Aici trăiesc 2000 de specii de plante şi 5000 de specii de animale. Din 1991, Delta Dunării face parte din patrimoniul mondial al UNESCO, iar spaţiul danubian cuprinde mai multe zone speciale de protecţie şi zone speciale de conservare în cadrul NATURA 2000.

Întrucât Dunărea şi Delta Dunării constituie un ecosistem unic şi fragil, care adăposteşte specii de plante rare, ameninţate din cauza poluării, considerăm că este important ca, uneori, Comisia Europeană să îmbunătăţească capacitatea de previzionare şi de răspuns în caz de inundaţii, secetă gravă şi poluare accidentală.

Uniunea Europeană a adoptat mai multe măsuri pentru a proteja diversitatea, biodiversitatea. Natura nu este doar o importantă parte a moştenirii europene, nu aduce doar beneficii economice, dar furnizează, de asemenea, multe servicii valoroase, precum purificarea apei, controlul împotriva inundaţiilor, prevenirea eroziunii solului, polenizarea recoltelor şi activităţi de recreare.

Exploatarea terenurilor, procesul accelerat de urbanizare şi dezvoltarea infrastructurii de transport au afectat grav habitatul natural şi, de exemplu, schemele de drenaj pe scară largă au redus o parte importantă a zonelor inundate natural.

  Charles Goerens (ALDE). - Madame la Présidente, les conférences successives sur la protection de la biodiversité, plutôt que d'apporter des solutions, servent au mieux à tenir à jour le piètre bilan en la matière. Question d'argent ou de responsabilité? Je dirais les deux.

La forêt qui abrite la majeure partie des espèces est menacée, entre autres, par la corruption et l'indifférence. La corruption, dont se rendent responsables tant les dirigeants des pays en développement que ceux qui profitent de la malgouvernance, n'explique que partiellement l'échec dans ce domaine. Quant à l'indifférence, rappelons que nos habitudes de consommation ne sont, elles, pas non plus neutres à cet égard.

Comment être plus responsable? Faute de temps, je citerai un exemple: la certification forestière. Des modèles sont en place. La Commission peut-elle me dire si, de son point de vue, les restrictions à l'importation ainsi que la mise en place des deux systèmes de certification forestière contribuent à limiter les dégâts en la matière? Existe-t-il une évaluation? Si oui, pourriez-vous nous faire part de ses principales conclusions?

  Isabella Lövin (Verts/ALE). - Madam President, if the EU is to have any credibility in Nagoya, it has not only to propose strategic plans but also to act on its present policies at home.

The compromise proposal the Commission is presently preparing to allow a continuation of the exportation of the acutely endangered European eel, a CITES Appendix II species although it clearly qualifies for CITES Appendix I, is nothing other than a shame. The European eel stock, one common stock, has declined by 40% since 2007.

If the EU is to have any credibility at all at Nagoya or in the next CITES meeting, there can be no other option than the implementation of a total export and import ban on eels. It should not listen to a small fishing sector that wants to export baby glass eels – threatened glass eels – to Japan for the present price of EUR 600 a kilo.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). - Antes de qualquer consideração de ordem económica, a preservação da biodiversidade constitui um imperativo ético e uma condição essencial para o futuro da própria espécie humana.

Antes de Nagoya, a União Europeia deve retirar ilações do seu falhanço neste domínio e deve corrigir o rumo, se o que pretende são resultados práticos mais do que repetidas e inconsequentes declarações de intenções. Entre outros aspectos, terá que proceder a uma profunda alteração das suas políticas sectoriais. Há que travar e inverter a redução da diversidade de espécies e variedades cultivadas, a erosão da base genética de que depende a alimentação, promover a utilização de variedades agrícolas específicas de determinadas regiões, combater a homogeneização da produção agrícola, os modelos intensivos de cariz portador, o abandono da produção de pequena e média escala que decorrem das actuais políticas agrícolas e comerciais. São apenas alguns exemplos. A biodiversidade constitui, e o conjunto de equilíbrios ambientais que dela dependem, um património do nosso planeta, um bem comum que não poderá, em circunstância nenhuma, ser objecto de apropriação privada, um bem comum que não tem preço e cujo usufruto e fruição, com justiça e equidade, deverá ser assegurado a todos.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). - Frau Präsidentin! 2010 ist das Internationale Jahr der biologischen Vielfalt. Auf europäischer Ebene gibt es bereits hervorragende Instrumente zum Schutz der biologischen Vielfalt. Ich denke da an das Schutzgebietsnetz Natura 2000 oder die Habitat-Richtlinie. Allerdings ist jede Idee nur so gut wie ihre Umsetzung, und diese erfolgt in vielen Mitgliedstaaten leider mehr als unzureichend.

Als Mitglieder des Petitionsausschusses werden wir immer wieder auf gravierende Missstände in ausgewiesenen Natura-2000-Gebieten aufmerksam gemacht. Die Mitgliedstaaten und die Kommission müssen auf der anstehenden Konferenz in Japan gemeinsam eine führende Rolle übernehmen. Jedoch wird uns dies irgendwann niemand mehr abkaufen. Wir müssen den Worten auch sichtbare Taten folgen lassen!

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). - Bioįvairovė – sudėtingas ir kompleksinis klausimas, aišku, svarbus tiek Europos Sąjungoje, tiek visame pasaulyje. Bet jis iššaukia kitą klausimą: kaip suderinti aplinkosaugą ir ekonominį augimą? Turbūt tai visa apimantis ir daugiausia galvos skausmo reikalaujantis klausimas.

Žinoma, kad bioįvairovės nykimas labiausiai susijęs su dažnai nepamatuota žmogaus ūkine veikla. Visada galima sakyti, kad aplinkosauginiai reikalavimai trukdo konkurencingumui, nes Europos Sąjungos standartai yra aukšti, o kitų šalių – ne, ir čia atsiranda tam tikrų problemų ir surasti balansą, aišku, sunku. Bet visgi tam tikrų prevencinių instrumentų galėtų būti. Aš kalbu apie Europos Sąjungoje vykdomą veiklą ir tai veiklai pagrįsti naudojamas analizes.

Svarbu, kad tos analizės, poveikio aplinkai vertinimas būtų kokybiški ir nepriklausomi. Žinoma, realistiškai žiūrint bus sunku susitarti Nagojoje, bet aš visgi linkiu Europos Sąjungai ir Komisijos nariui daug sėkmės.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D). - Congratulo-me com este debate com o Conselho e a Comissão onde podemos discutir os planos e os principais objectivos estratégicos da União Europeia para travar a perda da biodiversidade, isto em vésperas da Conferência das Partes na Convenção sobre a Diversidade Biológica.

Espero que seja levada a esta conferência uma posição forte e coerente da União Europeia com ideias relativas às medidas concretas que serão tomadas com vista a garantir o contributo da protecção da biodiversidade para o desenvolvimento sustentável. Lembro que a conservação da biodiversidade é fundamental para a qualidade dos ecossistemas, tem efeitos directos em funções essenciais como a produção de alimentos ou a disponibilidade de água, evita o deslizamento de terras e inundações.

Finalmente, gostaria que as respostas políticas para assegurar a integração da biodiversidade em actividades de sectores económicos como a agricultura, o sector florestal, o sector das pescas e o sector do turismo, tivessem a coragem e a ambição de proteger este património incalculável mas extremamente frágil, como é o caso da minha região, os Açores, de outros interesses externos cegos que o podem ameaçar.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE). - Señora Presidenta, esta semana hemos tenido una magnífica noticia, que es el descubrimiento de más de veinte mil nuevas especies en el mar. Y de esto se va a encargar la Conferencia de Nagoya, para que no solo se mantenga la existencia de estas nuevas especies, sino que se puedan descubrir todavía muchas más y no desaparezcan antes de que las conozcamos.

Pero la credibilidad de la Unión Europea –Comisión, Consejo y Estados miembros– no se va a jugar solo en Nagoya; también se va a jugar, sobre todo, un mes después, en París, en la reunión de la ICAT, donde se va a decidir el futuro de una especie altamente amenazada en el mar como es el atún rojo.

Y es esa coherencia la que creo que es importante exigir, porque el discurso de la Comisión en términos de mantenimiento de la biodiversidad es bueno, es muy bueno, pero tiene que ser coherente cuando se aplica también a las políticas sectoriales, por ejemplo, en temas de política pesquera.

Será importante y fundamental observar cómo la coherencia que vamos a ver y esperamos ver —esa exigencia de Nagoya— se mantiene después en París cuando, de una forma definitiva, entendamos que proteger el atún rojo no significa solamente proteger un animal, sino también un modo de vida, una cultura y, sobre todo, una forma de ver el mundo que tiene que ver con la humanidad.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). - Madam President, this has been a very interesting debate because we now conclude that biodiversity loss is a problem for the developed world and in the developing world. Gay Mitchell spoke very eloquently about the difficulties for the developing world when erosion of biodiversity occurs. He also spoke positively about where improvements have been made. In order to guarantee food security for the world, we need sustainable agriculture in a sustainable environment.

I think another colleague mentioned that we have perhaps failed to communicate outside our own ranks, to those who are managing farms and ecosystems, about how important biodiversity is. We have failed to pay for it in the price we pay for our goods. As has been said, we have to put a market value on biodiversity if we are serious about reversing the loss.

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, first of all, after hearing everything that the honourable Members of Parliament have said, I should say thank you because I think that the messages and the awareness which they are sharing, not only with me but I hope sharing with the whole European public, are more than clear.

I should start by saying that we should hide nothing. We have failed in delivering 2010 biodiversity targets and we are responsible for that and we should do better.

There are basically two lines on which we should and can act. One is our European line, the other is the international Nagoya line, about which you had more to say. But soon, after Nagoya, we will also come with the proposal for the European Union strategy on how to deal with this serious question and then of course many of the matters which you today underlined will have to be addressed. It will have to include a baseline, which we currently, finally, have. It will have to have measurable targets, not a lot but a few that are the closest to something we would like to achieve: the best proxies for what we would like to pursue. Why a few? Because this has to be fundamentally understood, so that we can share the understanding of biodiversity.

We have done quite a lot in Europe up to now. I am very cautious when we talk about implementation of Natura 2000. I think that Natura 2000 will still give some advantages in the future but, when we talk about our strategy, I think we have to be ambitious, as we are when we talk about when we are going out, when we talk about international appearances.

Many of you mentioned financing. I am not underestimating the question of financing, but do not fix your debate only on financing. It is much more than just financing and much more than just fresh money for biodiversity. It is about environmentally harmful subsidies. It is also about private financing. It is about many of the things which you in this House have adopted.

Illegal logging is a typical example of how we can really help, and finance even, the countries which are exporting timber, also in Europe. I think it is extremely important that we understand that.

As some of you mentioned, it is truly and fundamentally a moral and ethical question but, for those who do not understand that, it is becoming more than obvious that it is an issue of our quality of life and an issue of our economic success. It is important that this is understood too, because this was a turning point in the climate change debate, if you remember.

I think it is important also that governments, not only in Europe, also our partners around the world, understand very well how important it is that they also engage their priorities in following the things that we are discussing in this House today.

The next question which I would like to mention is access and benefit-sharing (ABS). For me, after sitting in New York discussing with practically all our partners, ABS will be an important, if not the breakthrough, issue in Nagoya. So we should do our utmost to ensure there is a breakthrough there. Of course, you can make a difference, but it is not only about you and, after all the discussions which we have had with the Member States recently, I can confirm that there is a strong willingness on the part of the Member States to have a breakthrough on that point.

The next question is something which we will also need to discuss in the future, and how to deal with it is also closely connected with answering some other questions. You know that there were two Rio Conventions. One was for climate change, the other was for biodiversity and there was also the separate issue of deforestation, an important one.

Increasingly they are separate and they are developing in parallel; we are increasingly understanding that we should start to reconnect them. Many of the issues about mitigation and adaption in climate change have to do with biodiversity. Red Plus is as much for climate change as for dealing with biodiversity. So let us also prioritise the questions of biodiversity when we set the priorities on how we will use the money which is committed to Red Plus activities. And, when we talk about Millennium Development Goals, it is the same story. I met and talked with Helen Clark in New York about how we can cooperate better between the Commission and the UNDP in the future to ensure that these issues are more interconnected.

The next issue which some of you underlined, and which I think is the basis of all the issues, is the integration of biodiversity, the mainstreaming of biodiversity in other policies. I fully share the view that if we want to talk about the CAP, the fisheries policy, cohesion and other policies, we have to take that angle into account, too. When we talk about the common agricultural policy – which will soon be on your table, you will soon be discussing it – I think we should develop more the concept of the public good. I believe that farmers should be partially repaid for what they do for us: they are providing food and we are grateful for that, but we should also be grateful to them for keeping up biodiversity. This is an important debate which lies ahead of us.

Nagoya/Cancún are pretty much connected stories. It is not only about biodiversity; it is not only about climate change; it is also about the success of multilateralism and governance globally. So it is very important that we achieve success there. All your calls for us to speak with one voice are well heard. We are doing everything possible to make this true in reality and here I would like to thank the Belgian Presidency for having a very constructive stance on that.

The next thing which I would like to mention, and with this I am almost coming to an end, is a remark on euros and dollars. I took it positively but I am a bit afraid that, when we talk about biodiversity and international help, we will talk more about euros than dollars.

So, finally, we have to come away from Cancún with something which is a success, which we can consider a success and which will be connected with solutions, because there is simply too much at stake. We have responsibility, but I think it is fair to say others also have responsibility. But having Parliament firmly behind us is really helpful.

IN THE CHAIR: LÁSZLÓ TŐKÉS
Vice-President

  Joke Schauvliege, Fungerend voorzitter van de Raad. − Voorzitter, geachte Parlementsleden, ik wil iedereen bedanken die het woord heeft gevoerd om het belang van biodiversiteit te onderstrepen. Dat is een heel belangrijke boodschap die hier in het debat is meegegeven. Op heel wat aspecten die hier zijn aangestipt ben ik in de inleiding al ingegaan. Op een aantal zaken wil ik nog wat dieper ingaan.

Eerst en vooral ABS. De Raad verbindt zich ertoe - en dat is belangrijk - dit protocol tijdens de COP-10 af te ronden aangezien het een heel belangrijke bijdrage zal leveren tot de verwezenlijking van alle doelstellingen van het biodiversiteitsverdrag. De ontwikkeling en de uitvoering van het ABS-protocol moeten als een integraal onderdeel van het proces rond het biodiversiteitsverdrag worden beschouwd. In de recente besprekingen in Montreal is er reeds vooruitgang geboekt op dit gebied, maar het klopt dat voor de COP-10 nog een aantal vraagstukken moeten worden opgelost. Dit zal van alle onderhandelingspartners, en dus ook intern in de EU, de nodige flexibiliteit vragen.

Ten tweede, wat betreft de ontwerpresolutie van het Europees Parlement. In deze resolutie worden de sleutelelementen van het biodiversiteitsbeleid behandeld: de dringende noodzaak om te handelen, de economische aspecten van ecosystemen en biodiversiteit, de algemene taakstelling, visie, doelen en indicatoren voor het biodiversiteitsverdrag en het strategisch plan ervan, alsook de meer specifieke aspecten zoals ABS, synergieën tussen de drie Rio-verdragen, enzovoort. Deze elementen sporen met de standpunten die zich binnen de Raad aftekenen met het oog op de conferentie van Nagoya. De conclusies hierover zullen normaal gezien op 14 oktober door de Raad Leefmilieu worden aangenomen.

Wat betreft de vraag naar het pakket en de sectorale integratie, onder andere in landbouw en visserij, wil ik u eraan herinneren dat de Raad op 15 maart uitdrukkelijk aan de Commissie gevraagd heeft om een pakket voor te stellen. Ik heb daarnet uit de woorden van de commissaris begrepen dat daar hard aan gewerkt wordt en dat wij dat dus kunnen verwachten.

De Raad zal in de zitting van 14 oktober - volgende week dus - worden verzocht de conclusies over biodiversiteit aan te nemen. Die zullen dan als politieke leidraad dienen voor de onderhandelingen in oktober in Japan. Aan de hand van deze conclusies moeten de belangrijke thema's van de COP-10 worden bepaald, alsook het standpunt van de Raad hierover: het herziene, geactualiseerde strategisch plan van het biodiversiteitsverdrag, de onderhandelingen met het oog op het protocol inzake toegang tot genetische rijkdommen en een eerlijke en billijke verdeling van de baten die voortvloeien uit het gebruik ervan (ABS), de strategie voor het mobiliseren van middelen, met name ook via innoverende financieringsmechanismen, de sectorale integratie en de synergieën tussen de strijd tegen klimaatverandering, woestijnvorming en beleidsmaatregelen ter bevordering van biodiversiteit.

Ik wil iedereen bedanken die het belang hiervan heeft onderstreept. Ik wil ook de commissaris bedanken voor de goede samenwerking tot nu toe en ook voor de aangename samenwerking die wij wellicht nog zullen hebben in de aanloop naar en ter plaatse in Nagoya.

  Elnök. − Egy állásfoglalásra irányuló indítványt1 juttattak el hozzám, melyeket az eljárási szabályzat 115. cikkének (5) bekezdésével összhangban nyújtottak be.

A vitát lezárom.

A szavazásra csütörtökön, 2010.10.07-én kerül sor.

1 Lásd a jegyzőkönyvet.

Írásbeli nyilatkozatok (149. cikk)

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), schriftlich. – Biodiversität ist und bleibt ein wichtiges Thema für die Europäische Union. Denn Biodiversität geht Hand in Hand mit der Sicherung der europäischen Lebensmittelversorgung und steht somit für eine aussichtsreiche Zukunft für nächste Generationen. Die europäische Landwirtschaft ist sich über ihre wichtige Rolle als Förderer und Erhalter der Biodiversität bewusst. Durch CO2-Speicherung der Böden oder naturnahe Bewirtschaftung tragen unsere EU-Bäuerinnen und Bauern durch ihre Tätigkeiten aktiv zur Erhaltung der Artenvielfalt bei. Allerdings hilft alle Anstrengung nicht, wenn es zu keiner oder nur geringer Bewusstseinsbildung innerhalb der Bevölkerung kommt. Es gilt die europäischen Bürgerinnen und Bürger über die elementare Bedeutung von Biodiversität für unsere Natur, unsere Wirtschaft, unser Leben und die Zukunft unserer Kinder zu sensibilisieren und zu mobilisieren. Die Europäische Union bleibt vom Aussterben der unterschiedlichsten Arten nicht verschont. Schon heute sind unzählige Lebensarten massiv bedroht. Reagieren wir jetzt und stellen die Weichen für eine artenreiche Zukunft.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), în scris. – Aş vrea, în contextul acestei dezbateri, să subliniez rolul important al proiectului TEEB, finanţat de mai multe state europene, proiect care calculează valoarea financiară a naturii şi costurile înregistrate în urma pierderilor de biodiversitate. TEEB ne permite să conştientizăm dimensiunea provocărilor şi să pregătim deciziile viitoare în acest domeniu. Doresc să menţionez doar câteva date prezentate recent de TEEB: costurile despăduririlor se ridică la circa 4,5 trilioane de dolari anual; potrivit altor estimări, de asemenea recente, peste un sfert din biodiversitatea iniţiala a lumii a dispărut până în anul 2000, iar până în 2050 se aşteaptă o noua pierdere de peste 10%. Exemplele pot continua. În aceste condiţii, summitul din Nagoya este mai mult decât oportun. De asemenea, consider că şi această dezbatere parlamentară este deosebit de oportună pentru a ne permite, la nivel european, să ne coordonăm poziţia la apropiatul summit.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), în scris. – Acest an reprezintă un moment crucial pentru întărirea eforturilor şi angajamentelor la nivel internaţional pentru stoparea pierderii biodiversităţii. Trebuie să fructificăm acest moment, pentru stabilirea unei viziuni şi a unor obiective clare în ceea ce priveşte biodiversitatea şi conservarea durabilă a acesteia după 2010. Este necesar să definim o poziţie comună puternică şi să avem o participare activă a Uniunii Europene la viitoarele negocieri internaţionale. O viziune globală pe termen lung trebuie să ţină seama de legăturile dintre biodiversitate, serviciile ecosistemice, schimbările climatice, deşertificare, prosperitate economică, sănătate şi bunăstarea cetăţenilor. Realizarea obiectivelor şi ţintelor propuse in domeniul biodiversităţii este condiţionată de mobilizarea resurselor necesare pentru derularea adecvată a măsurilor de conservare şi utilizare durabilă a resurselor naturale. În acest sens, România susţine implicarea mai mare a sectoarelor privat şi public în găsirea de soluţii şi mecanisme inovatoare pentru finanţarea biodiversităţii.

  Pavel Poc (S&D), písemně. – Homo sapiens produkuje ze všech biologických druhů nejvíce odpadu. Průmyslové znečištění, občanský odpad, produkce CO2, hluk, světelný smog, tepelné znečištění a všechny další známé i neznámé odpadní produkty naší civilizace tvoří obrovskou ekologickou stopu. Působení naší druhové ekologické stopy nedovoluje některým dalším biologickým druhům v rámci planetárního ekosystému nadále existovat. To je podstatou dnešního poklesu biologické rozmanitosti. Biologická rozmanitost je definující podmínkou existence planetárního ekosystému v tom metastabilním stavu, který známe a který umožňuje existenci naší vlastní civilizace. Vzájemná závislost a provázanost naší existence s ostatními životními formami na planetě je opomíjena, podceňována a bagatelizována. Pokud poklesne biologická rozmanitost, poklesne tlumící kapacita planetárního ekosystému. Tento ekosystém se stane méně odolným a více náchylným ke změnám včetně změn skokových. V určité fázi se pak překlopí do jiného stavu. Je ovšem otázkou, zda tento nový stav dovolí udržení naší civilizace, případně stávajícího počtu lidí na planetě, popřípadě zda umožní samotnou existenci našeho biologického druhu.

V současné době již nejde o ochranu jednoho nebo druhého druhu živočichů, dokonce ani o ochranu kteréhokoli jednotlivého ekosystému. Jde o ochranu našeho vlastního druhu, našeho vlastního ekosystému. Bohužel se stále chováme jako pacient nemocný rakovinou. Lžeme sami sobě a neděláme opatření, která by nám mohla zachránit život.