Europe is not doing enough to prepare itself for an uncertain future for the continent’s water sources, according to a report published by the Lords Select Committee today.

The report, An Indispensable Resource: EU Freshwater Policy, is timely, as the UK continues to suffer the worst drought since 1976, and areas throughout Europe are feeling the effects of a signfiicant lack of rain.

In it, the Committee calls for urgent action to safeguard the quality and long-term availability of the UK’s water sources, and recommends that all EU Member States should be required to develop national water scarcity and drought management plans. It warns that the UK Government’s current schedule for reforming water abstraction regulations fails to respond to the urgency of the situation; despite acknowledging that 10% of rivers are already abstracted to an extent that may damage water ecosystems, the government has set the target of the mid to late 2020s to begin reforming the regime. The Committee warns that this may be too late.

Other recommendations in the report include a push for the government and European Commission to strongly promote catchment level governance in the Blueprint for Europe’s water resources, due to be published later this year. This will require a much greater emphasis on engaging local stakeholders – such as river trusts, farmers and anglers – in decisions relating to river catchment issues, in order to reconnect people with the value of water. Already, the UK government has expressed support for a number of ‘catchment management’ pilot schemes, and Defra has a launched a ‘Love your River’ campaign aimed at raising awareness of the importance of healthy river systems.

The report also contains a warning for the government that where other solutions to water scarcity have failed, the potentially unpopular choice to raise water prices may have to be taken. As Chair of the Committee, Lord Carter of Coles says “Governments…need to act decisively, and grasp the nettle of allowing the cost of water to rise”. However, he suggests that commitment by the government to a programme of publc and stakeholder engagment will help ease the introduction of this necessary price rise, as people gain a better understanding of what they are paying extra for.

The report is the outcome of an inquiry by the Committee into EU Freshwater Policy.

Yesterday’s meeting of the Cross Party House of Common’s Agroecology Group discussed the potential for soil management practices to influence the future of farming in the UK. The session was chaired by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer and co- hosted by the Food Ethics Council.

Professor Mark Kibblewhite, Chair of Soil Science at Cranfield University, kicked off the session by scene setting the romantic attachment we have with soils – the smell of light rain on dry earth on a warm summer’s evening and then the reality that this smell is the result of a chemical secreted by soil organisms. He then went on to explain how the biological engine of the earth (the soil biology) utilising carbon as its fuel source drives key ecosystem functioning. But this vital resource is under threat with 25% of soils globally showing signs of significant degradation while the increasing pressure of food production and climate change will shrink these soil resources further. Soil contains some 2,500 gigatonnes of carbon which is 3 times that of the biogenic carbon in the atmosphere and yet currently the Government has no published soil strategy in place and is part of a minority group that is blocking the proposed European Soil Framework Directive. Professor Kibblewhite called on the UK Government to work progressively to adopt the EU framework and positively influence Europe in the interests of our own food security. He also identified the progressive sealing of soils through urbanisation as a major threat. The recently published much condensed draft National Planning Policy Framework makes little specific mention of the protection of soils for the delivery of food and other ecosystem services.

Dr Charlie Clutterbuck of the Food Ethics Council discussed the decline in the study and practice of agricultural sciences in the UK and the disconnect between consumer and supply.

Peter Melchett of the Soil Association drew the formal meeting to a close discussing the need to further our research base and understanding of soil processes in relation to management techniques. This is so that soil scientists can provide practical advice for land managers and not assume that this knowledge is built in to the system. He highlighted that the treatment of soils post war has been input driven and that now was the time to look at alternatives. He heavily supported the need for EU-level soil framework legislation.

This meeting was attended by MPs, NGOs and agronomic advisers along with Dr Kathryn Allton, Executive Officer and Mr Dick Thompson, Governance Trustee, of the British Society of Soil Science.

Blog post by Dr Kathryn Allton, Executive Officer, British Society of Soil Science

Voting in two resolutions last week, MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) called for the European Commission to introduce a Seventh Environmental Action Programme and for higher political priority to go to preserving and restoring damaged ecosystems.

The Seventh Environmental Action Programme (7th EAP) will be Europe’s next flagship environmental policy. The sixth EAP is due to expire in July this year. MEPs have called for the 7th EAP to mainstream climate change and other environmental objectives across all policy areas, whilst also reflecting the need for binding targets for greater energy efficiency. The EAP should also lead to an overall reduction in waste generation, along with ambitious prevention, re-use and recycling targets for waste.

In addition, MEPs have called for the 7th EAP to incorporate targets to ensure the sustainable use of land and to address emerging threats to human and animal health, such as nanomaterials, endocrine disruptors and the combined effects of chemicals in the environment. MEPs also urge Member States to implement fully and effectively existing rules on water. MEPs also used the resolution to encourage the European Commission to introduce sustainability criteria for biofuels and biomass.

MEPs sitting on the Environment Committee of the European Parliament voted on a second resolution to call for more ambitious targets to restore damaged and degraded ecosystems, whilst also highlighting the economic damage caused by biodiversity loss. The loss of biodiversity, they stated, ‘leads to devastating economic costs to society which until now have not been sufficiently integrated into economic and other policies’. Reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and Common Fisheries Policy, along with reforms to the Multi-Annual Financial Framework (MFF) – the EU budget from 2014-2020- are necessary to tackle this, they state.

For example, payments under the CAP should be underpinned by cross-compliance measures that contribute to the preservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services. In addition, at least 1% of the total MFF should be devoted to environmental protection. The Common Fisheries Policy should guarantee an ecosystem approach to fisheries management.

The Environment Committee calls for the target to restore at least 15% of degraded ecosystems by 2020, agreed at the UN’s 10th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Nagoya, in 2010, to be seen only as a ‘minimum’, with the EU going beyond this to tackle environmental degradation. In addition, the MEPs call for detailed EU and national level plans to be developed to phase out all environmentally harmful subsidies by 2020.

The Institute of European Environmental Policy (IEEP) is recruiting for a permanent, full-time Biodiversity Policy Analyst, to be based in the Institute’s office in Brussels. The post-holder will work as part of a small team to inform the development of biodiversity policy and related matters by the European Commission, including the development of an ecosystem approach to policy-making.

Key tasks will include:

- Drafting reports led by yourself or others, which typically will focus on policy issues, at a European or national level;- Undertaking literature reviews, the analysis of quantitative and qualitative data, interviews, workshops and case studies;
-Assisting with, and in some cases leading the preparation of tenders and funding proposals;
-Playing a role in project development, management and administration;
-Providing regular briefing notes on developments in EU biodiversity policy and their implications;
-Working with colleagues to develop robust policy positions on behalf of the Institute;
-Promoting policy messages to wider audiences, beyond immediate client groups or sponsors, inter alia through contributing to the Institute’s communication, outreach and training activities. This will involve presentations to conferences and workshops;

For more about the role and for details of how to apply (closing date Monday 5th March) see the IEEP website.

Over the past 40 years the EU has set up a relatively comprehensive and dense body of environmental legislation which, although far from perfect, is certainly a success story. Times are changing and increasing complexity of inter-linkages between policies on climate change, biodiversity and natural resources, coupled with financial and political volatility mean EU policy is likely to move in a new direction in the coming decade. That is the suggestion made by the recent report produced by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) and commissioned by the All Party Parliamentary Environment Group (APPEG). Here are some of the key areas of EU environmental policy that the IEEP has identified as being high on the agenda over the next few years.

Climate Change and Energy

Despite being among some of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the world, EU member states are also among the most active in seeking to address the issue. The Kyoto Protocol commits the EU-15 to reducing average GHG emissions by 8 per cent below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. In 2009 the EU implemented the 20-20-20 target, which aims to reduce GHG emission by 20 per cent, increase the share of renewable energy by 20 per cent and reduce energy consumption by 20 per cent, all by the year 2020. Progress towards these targets is mixed with the steady rise in the share of renewable energy sources in stark contrast to the energy saving estimates. A number of studies have demonstrated that more ambitious climate mitigation polices are needed in Europe which could modernise the EU economy and infrastructure, create jobs and enhance competitiveness in fast growing global markets for low-carbon goods and services.

Transport

Emissions from transport are a major source of the EU’s GHG emissions, in 2010 it accounted for more than a fifth of GHG emissions from the EU. Increasing demand has offset potential gains from improvements in the energy efficiency of new vehicles. Further impacts of transport include problems with poor air quality, noise and transport infrastructure also puts huge pressure on Europe’s ecosystems and biodiversity. Currently there is a major effort to promote the use of biofuels and accelerate the process of electrifying road vehicles, however, many challenges exist in ensuring that these alternative fuels and energy sources are sustainable and are in fact low carbon.

Water

The EU environmental policies regarding water pollution have improved freshwater quality for many of its member states, including the UK. There are, however, growing problems in relation to water quantity, in particular in the south of Europe. EU water policy provides a comprehensive legislative framework that aims to address issues related to water quality as well as water demand and availability. 2012 will be an important year for EU water policy with the current “fitness-check” being undertaken by the Commission.

Biodiversity

Despite the establishment of a European network of protected areas (Natura 2000) and wide ranging regulatory framework, biodiversity continues to decline. 2010 targets of halting biodiversity loss within the EU were not met, mainly due to continuing increases in key pressures such as intensification of agriculture and habitat fragmentation. Over the last few years there has been increasing recognition of the economic value of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the policy process. A new EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 was produced in 2011 which sets out six main targets relating to: full implementation of the birds and habitats Directives, maintaining and restoring ecosystems and their services, increasing the contribution of agriculture and forestry to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity, ensuring the sustainable use of fisheries resources, combating invasive alien species and helping to avert global biodiversity loss.

Earlier today the All Party Parliamentary Environment Group (APPEG) launched a report, produced by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), entitled “The future for EU Environmental Policy: Challenges and Opportunities”.

The independent report considers environmental challenges facing the EU and the priorities for future development of EU environmental policy.

A call for specific biodiversity goals to be integrated into the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was abandoned at the insistence of Germany during a meeting of environment ministers in Brussels today (19 December).

In its proposal for a biodiversity strategy to 2020, the European Commission had listed several types of biodiversity concerns that should be dealt with under the CAP. But several member states objected to this, saying it prejudged the outcome of ongoing talks among agriculture ministers to reform the CAP.

The Polish presidency of the Council of Ministers put forward a proposal changing the list to theoretical “examples,” but this was still not acceptable to Germany. After several hours of discussion, Germany succeeded in having the entire paragraph on biodiversity objectives for the CAP deleted in the final version approved by ministers. Germany’s environment ministry was under strict orders from its agriculture ministry not to accept any list of possible biodiversity requirements for CAP, according to a source involved in the discussions.

Campaign group BirdLife Europe said the deletion was symptomatic of an overall fear by environment ministers of clashing with ongoing discussions in other Council meetings. The UK was able to water down language on funding for the environmental funding programme Life, saying it prejudges ongoing discussions over the multiannual financial framework. Language on fisheries was also made vaguer.

Ariel Brunner, head of European policy at BirdLife, said the decision was a worrying sign that environmental goals would not be taken seriously in upcoming discussions on agriculture, fisheries and budget reform. “Looking at environment ministers compromising for hours on the protection of what should be the core of their political mandate – biodiversity – is a dangerous preview of the fate of biodiversity left completely in the hands of agriculture ministers,” she said.

Janez Potočnik, the European commissioner for the environment, issued a statement condemning the deletion of the list, adding that the Commission would continue to push for biodiversity objectives to be made part of the CAP during the reform discussions.

Original text from: http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2011/december/reference-to-cap-in-biodiversity-conclusions-deleted-/73015.aspx

The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has announced a review of the implementation of the EU Birds and Habitats Directives in the UK. Following the announcement of the review by the Chancellor in his Autumn Statement to the House of Commons, Defra have released details of the scope of the consultation, which will publish conclusions by the date of the 2012 budget, in March.

The purpose of the review is to assess: ‘the Habitats and Wild Bird Directives as currently implemented in England by the Habitats Regulations and Offshore Marine Conservation Regulations, focussing in particular on those obligations that affect the authorisation process for proposed development, with a view to reducing the burdens on businesses while maintaining the integrity of the purpose of the directives.’

The Habitats and Birds Directives are therefore presented as barriers to economic growth. Two of the areas of focus for the review include:
- Whether the approach taken by competent authorities is appropriate, particularly in relation to risk, or whether the requirements of the legislation are applied too or insufficiently rigorously; and whether competent authorities and statutory conservation advisers could explore more creative solutions; and
- Whether NE and JNCC’s approach to the provision of advice to competent authorities is appropriate, or takes an excessively or insufficiently precautionary approach.

The Government intends to examine other European Member States for examples of best practice in implementing the Directives and where the UK could learn from others’ experience in terms of applying the Directives whilst avoiding excessive burdens to business.

Wildlife and Countryside Link, of which the BES is a member, are in the process of establishing a taskforce to feed into the Review, with the aim of reporting by January 2012.

Intensive farming methods have simplified landscapes across Europe, leading to a loss of biodiversity. A recent study has investigated the effects of intensive farming on plants, beetles and birds in Western European regions and found that plants and birds are particularly affected.

In recent decades, changes in agricultural practices have transformed the structure of landscapes across Europe, particularly in the West. Intensification of agriculture has simplified a previously complex landscape, which has been accompanied by a loss of biodiversity in European farmlands. Agricultural intensification (AI) affects biodiversity at all levels of the landscape, from field and farm levels, through to the regional scale.

In this study, the diversity of plants, ground beetles (carabids) and breeding birds was measured at local and regional levels in cereal crop fields in eight European countries: Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Sweden. The total diversity of species at field, farm and regional scales was estimated from the average diversity within communities and from the average diversity between different communities at all three scales.

AI was estimated from fertiliser and pesticide inputs, tillage operations and mechanical weed control used by farmers in the study areas. Based on this information, AI was divided into low, medium and high levels in each region and the impact of AI on biodiversity in the landscape was assessed.

For all regions studied at all three scales (field, farm and regional), AI was linked to reduced diversity of plants and birds, but not ground beetles. This suggests the impact of AI on biodiversity is not uniform and some groups of species are more affected than others. In addition, how mobile the different groups of species are, plays an important role in the pattern of diversity found across the landscape.

• High levels of AI affected plants at all scales: plants are not mobile and the more simplified the landscape became (with associated loss of diverse habitats), the greater the loss of plant diversity.
• High levels of AI especially affected birds at the farm and region scale. However, with low levels of AI, the diversity of birds was increased. Less intensive agricultural management of fields (e.g. less weed control), maintaining a diversity of field margins (such as hedgerows and woodland) and providing semi-natural habitats in arable landscapes are all important for bird diversity.
• Ground beetle diversity found within fields probably benefitted from having various types of field margins and near-by semi-natural areas, which would supply habitats for new recruits of beetles to the fields.

Although the level of intensive agriculture practised locally by farmers affected species diversity at the field scale, biodiversity (especially of birds and ground beetles) found among different communities at the farm scale was more important in terms of regional biodiversity. Therefore, different local farming practices significantly affect the pattern of the landscape structure and the biodiversity found in agricultural landscapes.

Understanding the detailed impacts of AI on different groups of species at field, farm and regional scales is important for the development of effective agri-environmental schemes. Resources can be targeted at areas where high levels of diversity occur and would be affected by a further simplification of the landscape structure through high intensity farming methods.

Source: Flohre, A., Fischer, C., Aavik, T. et al. (2011) Agricultural intensification and biodiversity partitioning in European landscapes comparing plants, carabids, and birds. Ecological Applications. 21: 1772-1781.

[Taken from Science for Environment Policy]

On 12th October, the European Commission has presented a draft reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for the period after 2013. This draft aims to strengthen the competitiveness, sustainability and permanence of agriculture throughout the EU in order to secure for European citizens a healthy and high-quality source of food, preserve the environment and develop rural areas.

‘The European Commission is proposing a new partnership between Europe and its farmers in order to meet the challenges of food security, sustainable use of natural resources and growth. The next decades will be crucial for laying the foundations of a strong agricultural sector that can cope with climate change and international competition while meeting the expectations of the citizen. Europe needs its farmers. Farmers need Europe’s support. The Common Agricultural Policy is what feeds us, it’s the future of more than half of our territory’, said Dacian Cioloş, Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development.

The reformed CAP will make it possible to promote innovation, strengthen both the economic and ecological competitiveness of the agricultural sector, combat climate change, and sustain employment and growth. It will thus make a decisive contribution to the Europe 2020 strategy.

[Credit: Society of Biology 'Science Policy News']