European ECO-Forum web-site

European ECO-Forum Delegation Joint Statement
on Follow up of the Kyiv Biodiversity Resolution

3rd Intergovernmental Conference “Biodiversity in Europe”, Madrid, 19 January 2004

NGOs participating in the Conference welcome the proposals prepared by the Governments of the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and Norway; the Council of Europe, the European Environment Agency, and the United Nations Environment Programme; the European Centre for Nature Conservation, the World Conservation Union-IUCN, and the Central and Eastern European Working Group for the Enhancement of Biodiversity (CEEWEB) to achieve the targets set out in the Kyiv Biodiversity Resolution (STRA CO (2004) 3). We strongly believe that all targets may only be achieved with active participation of different stakeholders in biodiversity conservation policy development and implementation. That is why we urge Governments and international organisations to make steps toward real implementation of the “Participatory Democracy” principles in the spirit of the Aarhus Convention.

Starting from the First Intergovernmental Conference “Biodiversity in Europe” (Riga, 2000) European ECO-Forum as a broad ad hoc environmental NGOs coalition of the Pan-European region, continues to appeal to Governments and international organisations to incorporate into the PEBLDS Action Plans measures and activities insuring real public participation in decision making and active NGO involvement in implementation of different actions and programmes. Despite of the Aarhus Ministerial Conference we face different attempts to limit public participation to public awareness programmes only, and to conceive “public hearings” as a self-sufficient tool of public participation, neglecting socio-economical mechanisms of involvement of different stakeholders in biodiversity conservation policy development and implementation.

At the same time we have promising examples of effective common work of national governments and intergovernmental bodies with non-governmental organizations, like, for example “Public evaluation of environmental policy development in Ukraine”. This was done by a broad group of Ukrainian NGOs during preparation to Kyiv-2003 Ministerial Conference. As another excellent example of real public participation in the planning and implementation of biodiversity conservation activities we could refer to the current GEF/UNEP - WWF project “Development of the Ecological Network for long-term conservation of biodiversity in the Central Asia Eco-Regions”. In this project regional and majority of national coordinators presenting not governmental agencies, but NGOs. Ministries and Inter-State Commission on Sustainable Development for Central Asia accepted this distribution of responsibilities.

That is why we urge all participants of the Third Intergovernmental Conference “Biodiversity in Europe” to provide sufficient space and resources for active civil society involvement in PEBLDS activity to achieve all nine key targets of the Kyiv Biodiversity Resolution.

Forests and biodiversity:

For the theme ‘Ecosystem approach’ we suggest:

  • to develop clear and measurable criteria of sustainable forest management, which are accepted and implemented by all stakeholders;
  • to implement voluntary third party credible certification schemes that take into consideration relevant forest biodiversity criteria and that would be audited, taking into consideration indigenous and local community rights and interests;
  • to develop in cooperation with the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe common guidelines for community forest management that will insure real control of local authorities over forest industries activities.

For the theme ‘Protected forest areas’ we suggest to enlarge analysis of European networks of protected forest areas by analysis of management practices regarding conservation goals. This analysis should be done with active involvement of NGOs and other relevant stakeholders being widely discussed among them. Governments should make urgent actions to include intact, ancient and old growth forests into European networks of protected forest areas.

Agriculture and biodiversity:

In order to ensure synergy between different PEBLDS actions we suggest promoting creation of ecological corridors in agricultural lands through cooperation of environmental and agricultural ministries and local authorities and farmers. The network of environmentally sensitive areas, which is being developed by EU, should integrate this network in the PEEN. The current revision of the CAP must consider the objectives spelled out in the EU Biodiversity Strategy in a more coherent fashion.

Pan European Ecological Network:

While enhancing the institutional support for implementing the PEEN Kyiv targets, we propose evaluation of implementation of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans regarding creation of national ecological networks.

We propose to include between Activity “Pilot project to enhance the integration of conservation, management and sustainable use of biodiversity into sectoral policies…” and Activity “Develop guidelines and pilot projects for ecological networks and spatial and regional planning…” an extra Activity:
“Summarize experience, harmonize existent methodologies and develop common guidelines for identification, assessment of biodiversity value and status determination of core areas, buffer zones and restoration areas”.
Co-ordination: Interested governments, Council of Europe, UNEP, IUCN, ECNC, ECO-Forum and CEEWEB.

Invasive Alien Species:

We need to emphasize that information and awareness raising should particularly address two sectors:

  • The decision makers and law enforcement authorities; and
  • Groups that are linked to movement of biota, including cultured species.

Financing Biodiversity:

We support development of partnerships with the finance and business sectors, but strongly believe that public participation in decision-making should be a key element in any investment activity. That is why we suggest incorporating public participation and public monitoring and evaluation into all proposed activity from its inception to implementation. With this we want to ensure that programs are not implemented because of financial interests, but for protecting nature, following the guidelines of CBD.

Biodiversity Monitoring and Indicators:

There is strong need to set up a number of simplified biodiversity indicators, which must be understandable and appropriate for use at the level of local communities.

The indicators should be accepted widely in Europe, including the EU and used to assess nature conservation efforts, including implementation of CBD, the EU Biodiversity Strategy, and Natura 2000 Network, but also other sectoral policies, among others agriculture and transport policies. The developed and agreed indicators should be used for monitoring the progress towards the 2010 target.

Public Participation and Awareness:

We support efforts of UNEP and CEEWEB regarding public participation and awareness, but it needs to emphasize that in proposed action plan (STRA-CO (2004) 3 g) public participation in biodiversity conservation is substituted by public awareness. This needs to be changed.

The core set of indicators of public participation at all stages of PEBLDS development - from planning and decision-making up to implementation should be agreed upon by 2006.

We suggest:

  • to create group of experts consisting of the lead country and interested PEBLDS Council parties (members and observers) and NGO representatives;
  • to organise meeting of experts to start active development of set of indicators;
  • to propose to the PEBLDS Council a set of indicators of public participation in PEBLDS development;
  • to develop guidelines on monitoring of public participation in biodiversity conservation policy development and implementation on regional, national and local levels, based on national and international experience and best practice;
  • to publish the agreed set of indicators and guidelines for it implementation;
  • to use the agreed set of indicators to evaluate level of public participation in different PEBLDS actions and programmes and to prepare relevant proposals for the PEBLDS Council;
  • to publish annual public participation barometer results using the indicators.

We also see a strong need for development a synergy between PEBLDS and other initiatives of the Environment for Europe process. Thus, regarding public awareness, we suggest to cooperate with the UNECE Strategy for Education for Sustainable Development to ensure inclusion of biodiversity aspects in education for sustainable development at all levels. Today's draft of the UNECE Strategy for Education for Sustainable Development contains just two references on biodiversity conservation.

[top]

Back to the Documentation Centre


Developed by BIOTICA Ecological Society

Hosted by the Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (E-LAW)