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 on Monday (19 December).

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

The Polish presidency of the EU’s Council of Ministers put forward a proposal redesignating the list as 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. This leaves only a vague reference to biodiversity in the CAP in the conclusions.

BirdLife Europe, a campaign group, said the deletion was symptomatic of an overall reluctance by environment ministers to clash with discussions in other Council bodies. The UK was able to water down language on funding for Life, the EU’s environmental funding programme, arguing that it prejudged 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 forthcoming 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,” he said.

Commission concerns

Janez Potocnik, 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. Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, a Dutch Liberal MEP and the European Parliament’s rapporteur on the issue, said the deletion of language on cross-sectoral integration meant that the strategy was “now a threatened species itself”.

Sulphur limits

Ministers also discussed the Commission’s proposal to introduce stricter sulphur limits for marine fuels used in ships in northern European waters by 2015. The new limit, 0.1% rather than 1.5%, was set by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) in 2008 for all ‘sulphur-emissions control areas’ (SECAs). There are two such areas in Europe – the Baltic Sea and the North Sea and English Channel.

The Finnish and Estonian environment ministers argued that the 2015 deadline set by the IMO was not feasible because alternative fuel was not yet available in Baltic ports. “Member states should have the possibility of a transitional phase of five years,” said Ville Niinisto, Finland’s environment minister. Low-sulphur fuel not being available should be one reason for which derogation would be allowed. Keit Pentus, Estonia’s environment minister, said she had already informed the IMO that her country could not meet the deadline.

Sweden, which is also concerned about the costs and feasibility of the lower limit, took a slightly different tack. Lena Ek, Sweden’s environment minister, said her government welcomed a lower limit, but could only accept it if it was applied in 2015 in the whole EU, not just in the Northern waters. “Transport costs would be significantly lower in southern Europe than in northern Europe” if the limit was only applied in the SECAs, she said. A similar demand has been made by the European Parliament’s rapporteur on the issue, Finnish Green MEP Satu Hassi.

But many ministers said the proposal should not go further than required by the IMO agreement. Corrado Clini, Italy’s environment minister, warned that such a move would have a harmful effect on the competitiveness of Mediterranean ship-owners because that sea was shared with non-EU countries.