Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The german economicinterest in investing in the environment
Germany is a top net payer country inthe EU, with a net contribution of EUR11.9 billion in 2010.1 In the period 2007-2013, Germany received EUR 9.08 billionof agriculture funds2 and EUR 26.4 billionfrom the Cohesion Policy. These EUpayments are of high importance toGerman farmers, and as far as Structuraland Cohesion Funds are concerned,especially for the less economicallydeveloped regions in Eastern Germany.
The position of the German governmenttowards the EU budget is largelycharacterised by the desire to improve itsnet payer position, i.e. limit the overall sizeof the EU budget and thus Germany’spayments and ensure a high share of EUsubsidies for German regions and farmers.The current German government so faropposes the European Commission’s idea
of increasing own resources for the EUbudget through taxes. Due to its size,economic and political influence Germanyplays a key role in any EU budget debate,with the government normally seekingcoalitions with other like-minded andinfluential Member States, notably the othernet-paying countries. The awareness forenvironmental issues is relatively high inGermany, including the willingness to spendpublic money on the environment, alsooutside Germany. The current public debtcrisis in the EU and Germany’s role in it willclearly limit the availability of German publicfunds for the environment. At the sametime, it is an opportunity for a debate on themost efficient and wise use of taxpayers’money and for the phasing out ofenvironmentally harmful subsidies. TheGerman government, the EnvironmentCommittee of the Federal Parliament andthe Chamber of the Regions have called fora significant increase of the budget availableto the EU-LIFE Programme in 2014-2020.
facts
1 The terrestrial Natura 2000 networkcovers 15.4% of the total area of Germany.3
2 According to a study by the GermanAgency for Nature Conservation, 14German National Parks are visitedannually by around 51 million people,generating an income equivalent of70,000 people (EUR 2.1 billion).4
3 The study on The Economics ofEcosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) co-financed by the German governmentestimated that by 2050 the loss ofbiological diversity would cost the world7% of global GDP. In the EU costs areexpected at about EUR 1.1 trillion.5
4 Japanese Knotweed, an invasive alienspecies, erodes river banks andembankments and is estimated tocost the German economy EUR 32million EUR per year.6
member state funding sheetGERMANY | 2012
ON THE ROAD TO RECOVERY? BIRDLIFE ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS
ON THE EU 2020 BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY
GERMANY
Natura 2000 coverage in Germany
Comparison of costs andbenefits of investing in natureconservation in Germany and available EU funding for Natura 20007,8,9
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
3
Nationalpark Bayerischer Wald1
Nationalpark Berchtesgaden2
Nationalpark Eifel3
Nationalpark Hainich4
Nationalpark Hamburgisches Wattenmeer5
Nationalpark Harz6
Nationalpark Jasmund7
Nationalpark Kellerwald-Edersee8
Nationalpark Müritz9
Nationalpark Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer10
10
Nationalpark Sächsische Schweiz1111
Nationalpark Schleswig-HolsteinischesWattenmeer
12
12
Nationalpark Unteres Odertal13
13
Nationalpark VorpommerscheBoddenlandschaft
14
14
“Sustainable Development of Floodplains”INTERREG IIIB Programme
15
15
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Million EUR/year
Available EU
funding for Natura
2000 in Germ
any
(2007-2013)
Financial needs
of Germ
an
Natura 2000
Net economic benefit
of nature income of
14 Germ
an
national parks
36
620
2,100
HOW EU SUBSIDIES AREWASTED ON ENVIRONMENTALLYHARMFUL ACTIVITIES
In Germany more than 100 hectares ofland are being built over, sealed orfragmented every day throughinfrastructure and other development.This is one of the key drivers for the lossof biodiversity and ecosystem services.The government’s own target of reducingthis figure to 30 hectares by 2020 canonly be achieved through significantpolicy changes, including the re-directionof EU subsidies.
EU Structural and Cohesions Funds areoften used to co-finance the creation ofnew industrial and commercial zones, inparticular in Eastern Germany, while therehabilitation of existing waste land isneglected. According to the GermanFederal Ministry of Economy andTechnology, almost 20% of all publicinfrastructure subsidies between 1991and 2006, were used for the creation ofnew zones, while only 3% were spent onrecycling of already sealed land.10 Tomake things worse, there are severalexamples where such projects have notdelivered any significant socio-economicbenefits; often hundreds of hectares ofland are being sealed, attracting only fewcompanies, while huge areas stay empty.
HOW EU FUNDS CAN BE INVESTEDINTO FUTURE BENEFITS
The EU’s INTERREG IIIB Programme forFlood Prevention and Water Managementco-funded the project “SustainableDevelopment of Floodplains” (2003 –2008, EUR 32 million)11 along the Germanand Dutch sections of the river Rhine. Theproject encompassed twelve practical pilotprojects relocating dikes, creating newpolders and side channels and developingnew areas of nature. With thisprogramme, floodplains were developedthat will deliver multiple benefits, such asflood protection, biodiversity, agricultureand recreation. The work was carried outin close cooperation with environmentalNGOs, including NABU (BirdLife Partner inGermany) and other stakeholders. Itprovides a very good example of how EUfunds can be invested in sustainabledevelopment with benefits for nature,society and the economy.
Download the report at: www.birdlife.org/eubiodiversityreport2012
ON THE ROAD TO RECOVERY? BIRDLIFE ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS
ON THE EU 2020 BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY
GERMANY
1 European Commission (2011). EU budget 2010-Financial Report.2 European Commission (2009). Commission Decision. Fixing the
annual breakdown by Member State of the amount for Communitysupport to rural development for the period from 1 January 2007to 31 December 2013.
3 European Commission (2011). Natura 2000 Barometer.4 Job, H., et al. (2009). Regionalökonomische Effekte des Tourismus
in deutschen Nationalparken. Bundesamt für Naturschutz. Bonn.5 European Commission (2008). The Cost of Policy Inaction (COPI):
The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity targets. Brussels.6 Convention on Biological Diversity (2005). The ecological and socio-
economic impacts of invasive alien species inland water ecosystems(UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/10/INF/4).
7 Job, H., et al. (2009). Regionalökonomische Effekte des Tourismusin deutschen Nationalparken. Bundesamt für Naturschutz. Bonn.
8 Gantioler, S., et al. (2010). Costs and Socio-Economic Benefitsassociated with the Natura 2000 Network. Final report to theEuropean Commission. Institute for European EnvironmentalPolicy / GHK / Ecologic. Brussels.
9 Kettunen, M., et al. (2011). Assessment of the Natura 2000co‐financing arrangements of the EU financing instrument. Aproject for the European Commission – final report. Institute forEuropean Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels.
10 German Federal Environment Agency (UBA): UmweltschädlicheSubventionen in Deutschland. 2008.
11 European Centre for River Restoration. Sustainable Developmentof Floodplains. www.ecrr.org/sdfproject/sdfproject.htm
BIRDLIFE RECOMMENDATIONS - HOW TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE
> The EU Budget should redirect funds towards rewarding the delivery of publicgoods. EU funds can be used to support local products and handicrafts thatare linked to German cultural heritage and natural landscape.
> EU investment should be adequately channeled towards energy efficiencyand improved water management.
> Sustainable tourism, that respects the natural environment promotestraditional activities, including traditional products, increases productivityand all together preserve the environment and landscape.
> Germany should ensure that EU funding is spent in a quality way that leadsto a sustainable economy that benefits German society.
EU policy
1 Increase the total budget of the EU’senvironmental fund “LIFE” from 0,23%to 1% of the total EU Budget (circa 1.5billion EUR per year);
2 Balance the two pillars of the CommonAgricultural Policy (CAP) and ensure50% of its total budget delivers towardsthe Rural Development Programme;
3 Ensure the EU Budget delivers 20% ofclimate action, especially throughclimate mitigation under cohesion policy;
4 Establish a tracking system thatdocuments specific positive andnegative effects of EU funds for climateand biodiversity.
National planning & programming
1 Establish clear earmarking of EU fundsfor the financing of the Natura 2000network, based on national or regionalpriority action frameworks;
2 Ensure sufficient funding is available forwell targeted and well designed agri-environment schemes and otherenvironmental measures under ruraldevelopment;
3 Finance Green Infrastructure andprojects on energy efficiency underregional development;
4 Involve all relevant actors, includingenvironmental NGOs, during nationalplanning and implementation of Europeanfunds (including partnership contracts).
Stichting BirdLife Europe Avenue de la Toison d’Or 67 | B-1060 Brussels | BelgiumT: +32 (0)2 280 08 30 F: +32 (0)2 230 38 02 E: [email protected]://europe.birdlife.org
ContactBruna Campos [email protected]
Nature And BiodiversityConservation Union(NaturschutzbundDeutschland, NABU)www.nabu.de
