OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Conservation International Europe

CI-E

Conservation International Europe is a global non-profit protecting nature for the benefit of humanity.

Lobbying Activity

Conservation International urges high-integrity standards for nature credits

30 Sept 2025
Topic — The European Commission is consulting on a roadmap for biodiversity and nature credits.
Message — The organization calls for science-based nature credits that complement public funding. They demand that the framework safeguards Indigenous Peoples' rights and eliminates discrimination against nature-based carbon removals.123
Why — Formalized markets would increase investment confidence and distribute restoration costs through unitized credits.4
Impact — Fossil fuel companies lose access to these specific markets due to strict eligibility exclusions.5
Read full response

Response to An EU strategy for fisheries external action

15 Sept 2025

Conservation International (CI) works around the world in more than 30 countries to protect marine ecosystems and promote sustainable livelihoods of communities who rely on those ecosystems. Unfortunately, distant-water fleets (DWF) from the EU, China, and Taiwan, among others, operate in the waters of coastal resource-owning States, often without communities knowing who is fishing, what is being caught, or the terms of agreements. These situations often undermine the economic, social, and cultural rights of coastal communities and small-scale fisheries, as well as fueling illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing and other harmful practices. For example, over the past 3 years, CI led a body of work in Liberia (see source in attachment) that showed that DWF are having direct and indirect negative impacts on coastal communities and small-scale fisheries (SSF). The Chinese-flagged industrial trawl fleet are fishing for the many of the same fishery resources as the SSF, so despite the fact that Liberia has a 6 nautical mile inshore exclusion zone, they are being outcompeted by targeting the same stocks. In addition, while catches from the DWF are being landed in Liberia, these fish are not making it into rural markets, so as cold storage facilities in urban areas may be full, rural markets are seeing a reduction in availability of fish combined with increased prices, further destabilizing food security. In Peru, between 2020 and 2024, six deceased and 64 seriously injured individuals arrived at Peruvian portsmost transported by the hospital vessel Zhe Pu Yuan 98, which supports the Chinese DWF fleet. With over 450 active Chinese industrial vessels fishing for JFS in the region, and no requirement from the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO) to report crew transfers between vessels, identifying the fishers location proved difficult. In this fishery, fish are more traceable than people. DWF vessels often avoid port calls to escape inspections. While Peru has strengthened its port controls under the Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA) to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, the Chinese fleet continues to exploit loopholes and lobby against stricter regulations. Peru, once the leading harvester of JFS in the region, now sees its artisanal fleet competing with heavily subsidized Chinese industrial vessels. This David-and-Goliath scenario highlights deep equity (see source in attachment) issues between coastal states and distant-water powers. To remedy and prevent these types of harms, the EU should model policies closely on global best practices on improving transparency such as the Global Charter for Fisheries Transparency to ensure legal, sustainable, and ethical fisheries. The EU is a key global fisheries* actor, and as such, its External Fisheries Action Strategy must prioritize transparency and equity. EU fleets operating abroad should set the highest standards, and EU partnerships with coastal States must strengthen, not weaken, coastal community livelihoods and sustainable ocean protection. Specific recommendations include: Ensure EU vessels comply with international and regional obligations outside Europe; Make vessel operations visible, disclose infractions, and enforce sanctions; Support coastal State governments in building open monitoring and reporting systems; Require disclosure of beneficial ownership of EU vessels; share this ownership information with partner countries and the public; grant fishing access only to scientifically proven sustainable stocks; publish terms of access, financial contributions, and vessel lists; and involve civil society and artisanal fishers in design, monitoring, and evaluation. Transparency is the foundation for fair fisheries access, strong enforcement, and sustainability. Tools such as the Global Charter for Fisheries Transparency provide no-cost to low-cost measures to support transparency. CI remains ready to share additio
Read full response

Response to EU emissions trading system for maritime, aviation and stationary installations, and market stability reserve - review

8 Jul 2025

Conservation International Europe welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the call for evidence on the revision of the EU Emissions Trading System 1. As a scientific organization working on the frontlines of climate change and dedicated to protecting and restoring nature for people, we support policies that reflect the scientific consensus on climate change and keeping the 1.5C target alive. To achieve this goal we must 1) rapidly decarbonize; 2) conserve the remaining natural areas, in particular areas of irrecoverable carbon; 3) restore nature, including through Natural Climate Solutions (NCS) and Nature-based Solutions (NbS); 4) in particular from 2050 onward expand the use of negative emissions technologies (NET). We cannot be selective on these points. Failure to advance all four not only makes the 1.5C target mathematically impossible to meet according to the remaining carbon budget, it also puts at risk irreversible tipping points before 2050 and puts 2C and perhaps 2.5C of warming out of reach. In this context the ETS is a crucial tool that can drive action on all four points if care is taken to only include carbon units such as credits in a manner aligned with the scientific consensus and latest IPCC report. First and foremost, mitigation deterrence must be avoided by preserving the integrity of the EU ETS cap and trajectory. Carbon credits may be included if they do not weaken the ETS goal of reducing gross emissions. This can be achieved by increasing the speed at which MSR and the ETS can adapt to ensure an ambitious decline in the gross emissions cap. The Commission should make it clear that this flexibility will make it so that any integration of carbon credits will compliment, not substitute emission reductions. The Commission should take actions that clearly communicate a trajectory for guaranteed increasing prices under the ETS so that the sectors covered have clear signals that enable them to make the investments necessary. If carbon credits are to be permitted in the ETS then care must be taken to ensure integrity. Methodologies recognized under the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market Core Carbon Principles assessments are a good starting point. Despite a focus on the inclusion of credits from Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), according to the IPCC Climate Mitigation Report, the second most effective climate mitigation option is reduced conversion of forests and other ecosystems. Along those same lines, the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) stated: "Today, avoiding emissions is just as important if not more so as removing them." The climate impacts of removing one tonne of CO2 from the atmosphere is not equal and opposite to preventing that tonne of CO2 from being emitted in the first place. When scientists consider the complex interactions with emission sinks, they find different, less successful, climate outcomes from removing CO2 than avoiding its emission in the first place (sources attached). Funding emissions avoidance projects through carbon markets has benefits beyond carbon, which many technological removals projects dont have, such as biodiversity, food security and security benefits. In relation to the inclusion of CDR, both through NCS (point 3) and NET (point 4), the scientific consensus and IPCC report should guide policy makers. We remind that the latest IPCC report states that all forms of CDR have risks, with those from NCS having established mitigation measures. The attached paper, Considering durability in carbon dioxide removal strategies for climate change mitigation has suggestions relevant to the ETS. In particular that no CDR method (NCS or NET) meets all criteria for readiness and scalability, sustainability and durability, and argues for a complementary approach towards the deployment of different CDR methods. The ETS can be a tool to encourage the development of both essential NCS and NET while maintaining pressure to decarbonize.
Read full response

Response to The European Oceans Pact

17 Feb 2025

Conservation International welcomes the Commission's initiative to establish a European Ocean Pact which should outline a coherent framework to achieve resilient marine ecosystems and the EUs climate and biodiversity goals in a just manner. With this in mind, and to avoid duplication, Conservation International supports the Blue Manifesto which will be shared with the European Commission by Seas at Risk and which has been endorsed by over 140 organisations. In addition, Conservation International is sharing its document "International policy framework for blue carbon ecosystems: Recommendations to align actions across international policy processes for the conservation and restoration of coastal blue carbon ecosystems". Coastal blue carbon ecosystems, including mangroves, seagrasses and tidal marshes, are some of the most carbon-rich ecosystems on Earth, and are vital to mitigating the impacts of climate change. They are also critical for coastal biodiversity, food security, livelihoods and human well-being, in addition to climate adaptation protecting millions of people globally from the impacts of storms, coastal flooding and erosion. However, these ecosystems are threatened half of global mangrove forests have already been lost and once these ecosystems are degraded or destroyed, their carbon stores are released as carbon dioxide, contributing to climate change. The effects of climate change further threaten coastal ecosystems through the impacts of sea level rise, extreme weather events, and ocean acidification. Addressing these threats is essential to successful conservation and restoration of blue carbon ecosystems. This policy framework, developed by Conservation Interntional and IUCN, provides an overview of the intersections and opportunities for blue carbon ecosystem conservation and restoration in the relevant international policy processes. It includes recommendations for Parties to support synergies across international policy processes to enhance ambition for blue carbon action, accelerate national-level implementation, and streamline reporting efforts, and provides examples of specific actions Parties can take to achieve these goals, including within upcoming policy windows of opportunity in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) and National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAP) revision cycles. It also identifies entry points for blue carbon action within each policy process (Annex 1), and a list of resources to support Parties in implementing this framework (Annex 2). Conservation International has published dozens of articles and peer-reviewed research in the past two years that is relevant to the Oceans Pact is available to provide information packages and briefings at your convenience.
Read full response

Conservation International urges empirical risk accounting for carbon farming

22 Mar 2023
Topic — This consultation seeks feedback on a new EU framework for certifying carbon removals.
Message — The organization requests that the Commission replace the assumption of total carbon loss with empirical evidence. They argue the current proposal creates an artificial bias against nature-based solutions.12
Why — This would allow projects to monetize climate benefits without facing an inequitable double-standard.3
Impact — Flawed accounting creates perverse incentives for harvesting wood, harming forest ecosystems and climate goals.4
Read full response

Meeting with Suvi Leinonen (Cabinet of Commissioner Jutta Urpilainen) and Stichting BirdLife Europe and

5 Oct 2022 · Biodiversity and forests. Financing.

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

13 Oct 2021 · Biodiversity action and interlinkages between climate and biodiversity agendas

Meeting with Diana Montero Melis (Cabinet of Commissioner Jutta Urpilainen)

13 Sept 2021 · biodiversity

Response to Delegated act framing the programming of the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI)

31 May 2021

Conservation International (CI) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the NDICI's financial programming as laid out in the draft delegated regulation supplementing the regulation establishing the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe, and its annex. Regarding the indicative financial allocations (Article 2): while the annex of the draft delegated regulation lays out the specific objectives and priority areas of cooperation for all the common areas of cooperation, the draft delegated regulation only specifies financial allocation for three sub-regions: West Africa, East and Central Africa, Southern Africa and Indian Ocean. We recommend developing a more consistent delegated regulation that lays out both the financial allocations and the corresponding specific objectives and priority areas of cooperation for all the common areas of cooperation. Regarding the thematic targets for the geographic regions (Article 3): only two thematic targets have been retained in the draft delegated regulation, while the provisional agreement on the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe regulation reached in March 2021 includes other targets on priorities that must be mainstreamed throughout the Global Europe Instrument, including its geographical pillar. The delegated regulation should recall the gender, climate, human development and social inclusion targets of the basic regulation, to ensure that the specific objectives and priority areas of cooperation for all the common areas of cooperation are consistent with these targets. In line with article 48 of the provisional agreement on the regulation, the delegated regulation should reflect the importance of tackling climate change in line with the EU commitments to implement the Paris Agreement and the SDGs, in particular by mentioning the target of 30% expenditures supporting climate objectives. It is crucial to ensure delivery on European Green Deal climate objectives in geographic programmes, which require improved mainstreaming of climate and environmental objectives. Also in line with art. 48, we recommend recalling in the delegated regulation the contribution of the Global Europe instrument to the overarching biodiversity target spanning across the Multiannual Financial Framework – 7.5% of annual spending to be dedicated to biodiversity objectives from 2024, and 10% from 2026 – to make sure it starts contributing as early as possible to this objective, including through its geographical pillar. This is essential to ensure the implementation of the future Global Biodiversity Framework, not only on the EU territory but also in partner countries. Furthermore, we recommend recalling in the delegated regulation that particular attention should be given to climate and biodiversity mainstreaming across all NDICI programmes and to actions that create co-benefits and meet multiple objectives, including for climate, biodiversity, and the environment - as it is also laid out in the basic regulation. In line with this, we recommend increasing finance for adaptation, prioritising approaches which protect and restore nature with full participation of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. Adaptation needs are growing, and the EU has an obligation to achieve a balance between mitigation and adaptation finance under the Paris Agreement. The Global Europe instrument has an important role to play in delivering on this, considering that the EU and its member states have been insufficiently contributing to adaptation finance so far. Regarding the specific objectives and priority areas of cooperation drawn from the common areas of cooperation (Annex), we are pleased to provide additional feedback for the sub-regions where CI operates in the attached contribution.
Read full response

Meeting with Eglantine Cujo (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and WWF European Policy Programme and

7 May 2021 · Discussion about Commission's legislative proposal on deforestation and forest degradation

Meeting with Andrea Beltramello (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis), Caroline Boeshertz (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis) and

7 May 2021 · Deforestation

Meeting with Diana Montero Melis (Cabinet of Commissioner Jutta Urpilainen) and WWF European Policy Programme and

30 Apr 2021 · upcoming regulation on deforestation

Meeting with Diana Montero Melis (Cabinet of Commissioner Jutta Urpilainen) and ClientEarth AISBL and Wildlife Conservation Society European Union office

29 Apr 2021 · Forest Partnerships

Meeting with Jorge Pinto Antunes (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski) and WWF European Policy Programme and

29 Apr 2021 · Deforestation and forest degradation.

Meeting with Florika Fink-Hooijer (Director-General Environment)

2 Dec 2020 · Deforestation legislation

Response to Sustainable corporate governance

8 Oct 2020

Conservation International (CI) welcomes the initiative of the Commission to ensure that sustainability is further embedded into the corporate governance, as well as the opportunity to provide feedback on the inception impact assessment. Several companies are already working towards improving the sustainability of their supply chains – however, an EU regulation is needed to ensure a level playing field, as well as increased transparency and streamlined reporting processes. CI also supports harmonization at the EU level, as several member states have already put in place or are working towards putting in place due diligence frameworks, whether cross-sectoral or on specific sectors/issues. Companies need to have certainty on the requirements they are expected to fulfill, and these should be streamlined at the level of the EU market to avoid unnecessary administrative burden, ensure equal treatment and allow for transparency and comparability. CI supports the Commission’s approach to address all dimensions of sustainability in its initiative, including climate change and other environmental, social and human rights risks and impacts. This is the right approach to fully mobilise the private sector to contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. The Commission should consider a broad coverage of companies falling in the scope of the legislation, irrespective of their status, size, turnover and sector – all companies based in, operating and/or offering products/services within the EU should comply with the obligations of the legislation. Specific technical and financial support could be envisaged for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) to comply with the legislation, as well as additional guidance to facilitate the implementation of certain sectors, especially when these are exposed to high risks. CI supports the due diligence approach laid out in the inception impact assessment, which should cover the following obligations for company: identify, assess, mitigate risks and monitor and report on the process, as well as the consultation of relevant parties (including indigenous peoples and local communities where applicable) at each stage of the process, in accordance with existing international due diligence standards. The legislation should also set robust criteria/performance standards – as regards climate and environment, we encourage a broad coverage of risks (i.e. climate change, biodiversity loss, air, soil and water pollution), based on existing definitions and frameworks. Companies should be liable for adverse impacts in their global supply chains. The legislation should also enable the provision of remedy in cases of adverse impacts – including financial or non-financial compensation. Overall, the legislation should lay out a hierarchy/sequencing between a set of mitigation measures, to make sure it does not entail systematic ceasing of relationships with suppliers operating in high risk environments, but rather facilitates engagement to shift business practices and drive supply chain transformation. Finally, robust enforcement mechanisms should be put in place to ensure compliance with the obligations set by the legislation, as well as access to remedy. This includes in particular an effective, deterrent and proportionate penalty regime, as well as transparency and public disclosure on the implementation and enforcement of the due diligence obligations. As supporting measures of the due diligence obligations, the Commission should consider increasing dedicated financial and technical support to improve the traceability of supply chains, and facilitate the availability and access to quality data.
Read full response

Meeting with Diana Montero Melis (Cabinet of Commissioner Jutta Urpilainen), Renaud Savignat (Cabinet of Commissioner Jutta Urpilainen) and

23 Sept 2020 · Making the European Green Deal work for International Partnerships

Meeting with Anthony Agotha (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans), Damyana Stoynova (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans), Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and

9 Sept 2020 · The Green Deal implemetation with view to external relations

Meeting with Diana Montero Melis (Cabinet of Commissioner Jutta Urpilainen) and WWF European Policy Programme and

26 Mar 2020 · international dimension of the European Green Deal

Response to Minimising the risk of deforestation and forest degradation associated with products placed on the EU market

2 Mar 2020

Conservation International (CI) welcomes the inception impact assessment of regulatory and non-regulatory options for additional demand side measures to minimize the risk that products linked to deforestation are placed on the EU market and to develop a definition of deforestation-free supply chains. Deforestation is a major driver of climate change and biodiversity loss and is associated to the violation of rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. As mentioned in the roadmap, “Were the EU not to act, the problem of deforestation and forest degradation related to EU consumption would persist.” Inaction is not an option and should be explicitly ruled out. Non-regulatory measures cannot be considered as a substitute for regulatory measures – CI invites the Commission to swiftly put in place a comprehensive framework, including robust regulatory measures. Regarding the objective and policy options: the EU should ensure (and not only promote) as the norm that supply chains linked to the EU market are free from deforestation, forest degradation and conversion/degradation of natural ecosystems and comply with international standards and obligations on human rights, including the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. Consumers should not bear the burden of making the choice to drive the sustainability of supply chains, all the more since they have no means to do so. Voluntary commitments have failed so far to eliminate deforestation from agriculture supply chain (Forest 500 2019 annual report). It is therefore necessary to focus the impact assessment on regulatory measures, in particular mandatory due diligence for companies. This legislation should be combined with similar requirements to ensure that EU financial institutions do not finance activities in breach with the above criteria. The assessment of partnership agreements should provide a better understanding on how to operationalise such agreements, as prioritised by the 2019 communication. Partnership agreements are a crucial tool to involve producer countries and transfer targeted resources to improve governance, support smallholders and strengthen the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. As regards preliminary assessment of expected impacts: the inception impact assessment does not put the same weight on the likely quantified costs and benefits. Benefits/opportunities should be more clearly assessed as of the inception phase of the IA, as well as the costs of inaction. Likely economic benefits can include: significant reduction of material risks for companies – e.g. operational blockages, reputational, financial and legal risks; improved livelihoods of farmers; increased tax incomes for governments facing illegal activities in relation to deforestation. Likely social benefits can include the elimination of child labour, as highlighted by several companies, especially in the cocoa sector, which have been calling for an EU due diligence regulation. Likely benefits as regards fundamental rights can include the improvement of Indigenous Peoples and local communities’ rights, through improved governance, land tenure and inclusive decision-making. This is crucially related to potential environmental benefits: at least a quarter of the global land area is traditionally owned or managed by Indigenous Peoples, of which 35% is formally protected, and degradation on these lands have in average been less severe or avoided (IPBES 2019 Global Assessment). Finally, likely benefits on simplification and administrative burden can include providing a level playing field for companies and simplifying procedures through a harmonised EU framework. Regarding the consultation of citizens and stakeholders: CI strongly encourages the European Commission to ensure a broad consultation with third countries, including those particularly impacted by deforestation, with a specific attention given to indigenous peoples and local communities.
Read full response

Response to EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy

17 Jan 2020

We welcome the effort of the European Commission to launch the 2030 biodiversity strategy in a swift way. However, in terms of process, the roadmap is too vague as regards public consultation of stakeholders – the European Commission must ensure that an official consultation is open for all stakeholders. About the EU position for the global negotiations, in particular the post-2020 framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity, as a priority, we must effectively protect and conserve at least 30% of both land and sea by 2030, including through protected areas and indigenous and community-led approaches. Our conservation efforts must prioritize key biodiversity areas and other critical sites for biodiversity, those which are ecologically intact and that deliver ecosystem services essential to meet global goals on climate and sustainable development. We are calling for a deal for nature and people in 2020, which will halt the loss of biodiversity and put nature on a path to recovery by 2030. Sufficient public and private financing must be redirected and mobilized for the conservation and recovery of biodiversity. This needs to be supported by economic decision-making that incorporates biodiversity, the transformation of key production sectors and activities that are detrimental to nature into sources of biodiversity finance, and a withdrawal of funding for activities that negatively impact nature. Commitment at the highest political level – and by all of society – is essential to deliver the transformative change that is required by 2030. We encourage the EU to “lead by example” through the following actions: (1) support the line set up by the Council in its recent conclusions on the preparation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework (December 2019); (2) make individual and/or joint EU voluntary commitment(s) at the United Nations General Assembly 75th session in September 2020; and (3) utilize CBD COP 15 to contribute to an effective and successful post-2020 global biodiversity framework by addressing the drivers of biodiversity loss identified by the IPBES Global Assessment 2019. This needs to be supported by a transparent implementation and accountability process which tracks actions, monitors outcomes, and ensures progress towards the global targets. This process must allow for increasing of ambition and action over time and the integration of nature into national development strategies and key economic sectors. About the second objective of the EU 2030 biodiversity strategy – putting forward EU commitments to address the main causes of biodiversity loss by 2030 – we call on the Commission to strengthen the global dimension of the biodiversity strategy. We know that nature-based solutions can provide over 30% of the action needed by 2030 to avert dangerous climate change, while ensuring long term co-benefits like adaptation to climate change, food security and clean air and water. Science shows that ecosystems like tropical forests, mangroves and peatlands have tremendous potential to deliver these nature-based solutions, but consumption patterns of major markets, like the EU, have a negative impact on these ecosystems, which are not in the EU territory. While the 2020 biodiversity strategy has a global component, it is regrettable that the related actions have very limited implementation to date. We urge the EU to effectively address its impacts on global biodiversity by: (1) putting in place regulatory and non-regulatory measures to address biodiversity loss (e.g. deforestation and forest degradation) embedded in agricultural commodities; (2) mainstreaming biodiversity objectives in its trade policy; (3) providing the right market signals, including through the elimination of harmful subsidies as well as positive incentives for biodiversity conservation, restoration and sustainable use; and (4) ‘biodiversity proofing’ EU development cooperation.
Read full response

Meeting with Andras Inotai (Cabinet of Vice-President Karmenu Vella)

1 Oct 2019 · ocean governance, marine protected areas

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of First Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and WWF European Policy Programme and

3 Jul 2019 · discussion on EU action on fighting deforestation

Response to Stepping up EU Action against Deforestation and Forest Degradation

11 Jan 2019

Conservation International (CI) welcomes the Roadmap that announces a communication on stepping up EU action on deforestation and forest degradation. CI also welcomes the recognition of the impact of EU consumption of agricultural commodities on forests in the world and the associated leverage to act. On policy tools and process: • Existing commitments from companies and governments should be regarded as incentives to step up EU action on deforestation and forest degradation. Considering the current alarming deforestation trends, as well as the conclusion of the 2018 Feasibility study on options to step up EU action against deforestation that legislative measures would have the greatest impact, the Commission should not exclude the introduction of new initiatives, including legislative measures. Many relevant stakeholders have demonstrated that they are ready for ambitious action, e.g. the Amsterdam Declarations partnership and the European Parliament. Industry leaders are ahead and visible through their commitments, but EU action would enable a level playing field and incentivize laggards within the industry to act. • The Commission should build on existing regulations to design an ambitious framework, including legislative measures. For instance, the French government’s strategy to combat imported deforestation should be used as a source of inspiration: it set up an overarching quantitative objective and related actions (including regulatory measures) along with a timeline, which have been defined through a thorough consultation process with relevant stakeholders. Drawing on this experience would ensure a good implementation and strong monitoring of the achievements. It would also be an incentive for other major consuming countries to launch similar initiatives. On scope: • The communication should have a broad scope in terms of commodities, to make sure that EU action is “future proof”: for instance, palm oil production is a well-identified risk, but other commodities that could represent a future risk due to growth in demand and impact of climate change – e.g. coffee – should also be included. • Beyond forests, the communication should also cover key ecosystems – in terms of biodiversity and carbon storage – that are at risks due to agricultural expansion. On possible actions to be included: • Partnerships with producing countries are crucial to halt deforestation on the ground, with a view to strengthen governance and land tenure, and secure the rights of local communities – i.e. smallholders – and indigenous peoples. Strong incentives should be put in place through trade agreements, but also through development funding. • Supporting public-private partnerships and multi-stakeholder platforms is essential to encourage collaboration on prioritization and investments between the EU, the civil society and the industry. • The communication must be the opportunity to effectively mainstream deforestation and forest degradation issues in other relevant policies, in particular: - Climate action: CI regrets the absence of DG CLIMA as co-lead, while the roadmap clearly underlines that forest degradation is related to climate change and that the communication will help the EU meet the Paris Agreement. The Commission should make a clear link between the biodiversity and climate agendas to design consistent policies, in particular as regards the EU long term climate strategy. - Budget: Clear incentives for producing countries should be integrated in the EU development funding; climate and environment funding should be significantly strengthened in the future external financing instruments in the Multi-annual Financial Framework. - Trade: Incentives and accountability frameworks should be systematically integrated in free trade agreements. - Finance: The communication and related actions should be reflected in the work currently undertaken on the “Action plan on financing sustainable growth”.
Read full response

Meeting with Astrid Ladefoged (Cabinet of Vice-President Karmenu Vella) and Starbucks Coffee Company

8 Mar 2017 · Sustainable Development

Meeting with Daniel Calleja Crespo (Director-General Environment)

12 Apr 2016 · Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund (CEPF), SDGs and biodiversity

Meeting with Cecile Billaux (Cabinet of Vice-President Cecilia Malmström)

25 Feb 2016 · deforestation/responsible supply chains

Meeting with Daniel Calleja Crespo (Director-General Environment)

24 Feb 2016 · EU action on deforestation, progress on FLEGT and EUTR

Meeting with Daniel Calleja Crespo (Director-General Environment)

16 Oct 2015 · CEPF Donor Council, presentation of activities. Biodiversity

Meeting with Daniel Calleja Crespo (Director-General Environment)

22 Sept 2015 · Forest Policy

Meeting with Denis Cajo (Cabinet of Vice-President Neven Mimica), Maria-Myrto Kanellopoulou (Cabinet of Vice-President Neven Mimica)

2 Jun 2015 · Climate change conference, biodiversity, deforestation

Meeting with Aurore Maillet (Cabinet of Vice-President Karmenu Vella)

8 Apr 2015 · Deforestation