Biodiversity in Europe has been falling since 2010, the base year for the EU's biodiversity strategy. Therefore we must urgently follow up on the midterm review of the EU's biodiversity targets and get to work.
Many local successes show us that the Natura2000 Network delivers very positive outcomes. A number of species and habitats are no longer directly threatened. More than half of bird species in the EU are now considered to be 'secure' and wintering birds have even increased their populations.
The birds and habitats directives prove effective for conservation and create high biodiversity value - where they are implemented. This has been confirmed by a range of sources, including the Commission itself and civil society.
552.470 citizens participated in the public consultation on the fitness check for the nature directives. This is the largest response ever to any European Commission consultation.
It is therefore unbelievable that the Commission cannot for once rule out a revision of the birds and habitats directives (despite Parliament, Council and the Committee of Regions clearly outlining their positions). The worst thing we can do is to create uncertainty about the political intentions and gamble with nature.
Whenever I had the chance in environment committee meetings, I have personally asked both European Commission First Vice-President Frans Timmermans and environment Commissioner Karmenu Vella whether they could give us this guarantee.
Their persistent reluctance is almost embarrassing. Stalling on publishing the results of the fitness check of the birds and habitats directives will simply further delay the EU in reaching its 2020 biodiversity targets.
The Nature2000 Network is, despite good results, far from completed. A number of member states are lagging behind when it comes to the designation of Natura2000 sites and drawing management plans, particularly in the marine environment.
Several member states have also retained from developing and implementing ecosystem restoration frameworks and forest management plans (this is urgent, as 80 per cent of EU forest types are in unfavourable status).
It is crucial that the Commission effectively responds to any breaches in the EU nature directives, and that penalties for violations are proportionate to the breach and consequences. When the college is aware of a serious breach, such as the Polish government increasing logging in the Białowieża Forest
National Park by six times over the limit set out in the birds and habitats directive, they should act.
EU environment law is not subject to coherent and effective environmental inspections and surveillance to detect and prevent breaches. The Commission needs to come forward with a legislative proposal for environmental inspections without further delay.
The access to justice needs to be strengthened as well as regards to the Aarhus Convention. We need, for example, environmental NGOs to be able to take breaches of the nature directives to trial. Then we would not need to wait for the Commission to start infringement procedures.