Posted on June, 29 2011

Brussels, Belgium– Responding to the European Commission proposal on the long-term EU Budget (2014-2020) presented today, Tony Long, Director of WWF’s European Policy Office said:
 
“The Commission's proposal on the future EU Budget falls short of moving boldly towards a green economy[ 1]. European leaders have committed themselves over the last decade to achieving ambitious energy, climate, biodiversity and other environmental targets by 2020[2]. This budget framework, which coincides exactly with these 2020 environmental target dates, holds out the promise of some minor environmental advances but is largely business as usual for Europe. This will mean we will almost certainly fail to achieve the transition to the new smart, sustainable and inclusive economy we were promised in the EU 2020 strategy."

“The Commission must come out with a more visionary approach in the regulations of each EU fund – to be presented in autumn. Mandatory requirements need to be included to guarantee that EU funded activities contribute to achieving EU climate and biodiversity targets by 2020 and not undermining them.”
 
Andreas Baumüller, Biodiversity Policy Officer at WWF’s European Policy Office added:

“If the EU wants to halt its biodiversity loss by 2020 and get economic benefits from the environment, biodiversity needs to be included as a transversal issue to be mainstreamed in the EU budget. What we see now is a limited increase of the tiny amount of LIFE+ funding for the environment that won't be enough to solve biodiversity challenges and get the six billion euro per year needed to protect the European biodiversity network, Natura 2000. Only budget regulations that include national financing plans for Natura 2000 will provide the necessary financial guarantees for our natural capital".
 
In response to the proposal on the EU Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), Matthias Meissner, Coordinator of the WWF CAP Team, said:

“The Commission's proposal on CAP is still risky. Devoting 30% of direct payments (pillar 1) to the environment is a positive step although the devil will be in the details to avoid mere window dressing. Failing to clearly state that rural development (pillar 2) will not be sacrificed to maintain direct payments for farmers (pillar 1), still puts environmental protection at risk. The Commission needs to propose strong targeted agri-environmental measures in the second pillar to restore the environment.”
 
On the external dimension of the EU budget, Sally Nicholson, EU Development and External Relations Policy Officer at WWF’s European Policy Office said:

"We are pleased to see an increase of funds, but the critical question is: will this money be used to promote sustainable development in poor countries through the Millennium Development Goals and fulfill global climate and biodiversity finance commitments made by the EU? The risk is that it could be devoted instead to foreign policy purposes to defend the EU’s own interests.”
 
________________________________________
[1]UNEP: an economy based on sustainable development that results in improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities: http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/
[2] Agreed European targets on climate, energy savings, renewable energies, biodiversity, freshwater by 2020.