Special  Report Is the ERDF effective  
in funding projects  
that directly promote 
biodiversity under the EU 
biodiversity strategy to 
2020?EN 2014  NO 12
EUROPEAN
COURT
OF AUDITORS
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS  
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi  
1615 Luxembourg  
LUXEMBOURG
Tel. +352 4398-1
E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu  
Internet: http://eca.europa.eu
Twitter: @EUAuditorsECA  
Youtube: EUAuditorsECA
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet ( http://europa.eu ).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014
ISBN 978-92-872-0718-0
doi:10.2865/41174
© European Union, 2014
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Permission to use or reproduce pictures 2, 3, 4, 5 and 13 should be sought directly from the copyright holder.
Printed in Luxembourg
EN 2014  NO 12
Special  Report Is the ERDF effective 
in funding projects 
that directly promote 
biodiversity under the EU 
biodiversity strategy to 
2020?
(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)
02
 Contents
Paragraph
 Glossary
I – VIII Executive summary
1 – 12 Introduction
1 – 2 General significance of biodiversity
3 – 5 The EU strategy for halting biodiversity loss
6 – 8 EU policy and legislation
9 – 12 ERDF co‑financing of projects promoting biodiversity
13 – 17 Audit scope and objectives
18 – 40 Observations
18 – 25 Have Member States taken advantage of the available ERDF funding for directly promoting 
biodiversity? 
19 – 25 ERDF funding opportunities have not been exploited to their full potential
26 – 40 Are ERDF co ‑financed projects that directly promote biodiversity effective in halting biodiversity 
loss?
27 – 28 The projects are in line with biodiversity priorities at national and EU level but ERDF expenditure for 
biodiversity is not well defined
29 – 31 One third of the projects audited focused on the preparation of protection measures …
32 – 36 … and benefits for biodiversity from investments were not assessed
37 – 40 Project sustainability is based on local commitment and relies on future public financing
03 Contents
41 – 45 Conclusions and recommendations
41 Overall conclusion
42 Allocation and use of ERDF funding
43 – 45 Achievements of ERDF projects in halting biodiversity loss
 Annex I — Targets and actions of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020
 Annex II  —  Allocation of ERDF funds to promote biodiversity and nature protection (including 
Natura 2000)
 Annex III — Sample of projects audited
 Annex IV —  Opportunities for the biodiversity strategy offered by various EU funds within the 
2007–13 financial framework as indicated by the Commission
 Reply  of the Commission
04
 Glossary
Beneficiary : Public or private legal person receiving EU support for projects directly promoting biodiversity.
Ecosystem services : Vital goods and services provided by intact biodiversity such as food, water supply and air 
purification.
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) : Financial instrument designed to promote economic and social 
cohesion between the regions of the EU. The ERDF’s contributions are mainly implemented through operational 
programmes involving a large number of projects. The ERDF is one of the Structural Funds.
Managing authority : A national, regional or local public authority or a public or private body designated by the 
Member State to manage an operational programme.
Natura 2000 : The largest ecological network of special protected conservation areas in the world, comprising 
nearly 26 000 sites and covering almost 18 % of the total EU terrestrial environment as well as substantial marine 
areas. Natura 2000 is a key element of the EU strategy to halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services by 
2020.
Operational programme : A Commission‑approved programme of investments by a Member State receiving 
Structural Funds, which takes the form of a coherent set of multiannual priorities and measures involving a large 
number of projects.
Programming period : The multiannual framework within which the Structural Funds expenditure is planned and 
implemented.
Shared management : Framework within which the budget for the Structural Funds is implemented jointly by 
the Member States and the Commission. While implementation tasks are delegated to the Member States, the 
Commission retains overall responsibility for implementing the budget.
Structural Funds : EU funds composed of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European 
Social Fund (ESF). Together with the Cohesion Fund, their activities for the 2007–13 programming period is worth 
308 billion euro (in 2004 prices) to support regional growth and stimulate job creation.
05
 Executive   
summary
I
Biodiversity, i.e. variability among living organisms 
and their ecological complexes, is valued as the 
world’s natural capital. The loss of biodiversity has 
substantial economic and health effects, e.g. in terms 
of polluted water and air, floods, erosion or the spread 
of disease.
II
Protecting biodiversity is a key environmental priority 
for the EU. Following the failure to halt biodiversity 
loss in Europe by 2010, the Council endorsed the ‘EU 
biodiversity strategy to 2020’ in June 2011. The time 
horizon for the main goal of halting biodiversity loss in 
the EU was moved from 2010 until 2020.
III
Several EU instruments provide funding for biodiver ‑
sity conservation, which has also been applied to the 
Natura 2000 network, the cornerstone of biodiversity 
conservation in the EU.
IV
The Court’s audit focused on the European Regional 
Development Fund’s (ERDF’s) effectiveness in fund ‑
ing projects directly promoting biodiversity. The 
Court first examined the extent to which Member 
States took advantage of the available ERDF funding 
and then assessed the performance of 32 sampled 
projects.
V
The Court concluded that available ERDF financ ‑
ing opportunities have not been exploited to their 
full potential by the Member States. Although ERDF 
co‑funded projects in the field of biodiversity match 
Member State and EU priorities for halting biodiver ‑
sity loss, efforts must be made to monitor their actual 
contribution and ensure that their effects will last. 
Many activities concerned the preparation of protec ‑
tion and management plans, which now need to be 
implemented in order to achieve tangible results.VI
In view of strengthening the use of the ERDF for bio ‑
diversity, the Court recommends that the Commission 
should:
(a) support Member States in setting biodiversity 
restoration priorities in operational programmes;
(b) assess the complementarity of the actions to pro ‑
mote biodiversity identified by the Member States 
in the operational programmes with projects 
financed by other EU funds; and
(c) monitor the actual implementation of operational 
programmes in view of an early and proactive 
identification of difficulties.
The Member States should collaborate with the Com ‑
mission in achieving this.
VII
The Commission should also:
(a) support Member States in following up prepara ‑
tory projects with a view to an active protection 
policy, especially regarding the effective imple ‑
mentation of specific protection and management 
plans for habitats and species;
(b) require provision in operational programmes 
for procedures to evaluate the environmental 
changes in habitats and species following the 
interventions;
(c) advise Member States in applying ERDF rules in 
interaction with other EU funds.
VIII
In addition, the Commission should make sure that 
an accurate record of direct and indirect EU spending 
on biodiversity (including Natura 2000) is maintained, 
and the Member States should facilitate this by provid ‑
ing the necessary data.
06
 Introduction
General significance of 
biodiversity
01 
The Convention on Biological Diversity 
(CBD)1 defines biodiversity as variabil ‑
ity among living organisms from all 
sources including terrestrial, marine 
and other aquatic ecosystems and the 
ecological complexes of which they 
are part. The CBD recognises several 
major threats to biodiversity such as 
loss and fragmentation of habitat2, 
overexploitation of forests, oceans, riv ‑
ers, lakes and soils, pollution, climate 
change and incoming species that 
compete with native flora and fauna.
02 
Biodiversity is valued as the world’s 
natural capital, which provides vital 
goods and services, such as food,   
water and air purification that under ‑
pin economic prosperity, social 
well‑being and quality of life3. A loss 
of biodiversity gives rise to substantial 
economic and welfare losses, e.g. in 
terms of polluted water and air, floods, 
erosion and the spread of disease4.
The EU strategy for 
halting biodiversity loss
03 
Protecting biodiversity is a key envir ‑
onmental priority for the EU, which is 
expressed through an EU strategy for 
biodiversity and a variety of relevant 
EU policies and legislation. Between 
2001 and 2010, the EU tried to achieve 
the objective of halting biodiversity 
loss and restoring habitats and natural 
ecosystems. In 2010, the Commission concluded 
that this objective had not been 
achieved. The reasons for failing to 
achieve the EU 2010 target are multiple 
and complex 5. Conservation assess ‑
ments of habitats and species showed 
that the overall situation had contin ‑
ued to deteriorate6.
04 
In June 2011, the Council endorsed the 
‘EU biodiversity strategy to 2020’, pre ‑
sented by the Commission7. It also en ‑
couraged Member States to integrate 
the new strategy into their national 
plans, programmes and/or strategies. 
The European Parliament welcomed 
and supported this strategy8.
05 
The EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 
sets six overall targets9, comprising 20 
actions (see Figure 1  and Annex I ).1 Worldwide, nearly 200 parties 
are committed to the CBD 
which was promoted by the 
United Nations Environment 
Programme and entered into 
force in 1993.
2 Habitat refers to the areas in 
which organisms live. Habitats 
are usually classified as 
terrestrial, freshwater or 
marine. Studies reveal that 
urbanisation, deforestation 
and agricultural expansion 
have dramatically accelerated 
habitat loss.
3 See European Commission , 
Monitoring the impact of EU 
biodiversity policy , September 
2010, p. 2.
4 See European Commission, 
Ecosystem goods and services , 
September 2009, p. 2.
5 The Commission indicates 
among the most significant 
reasons: insufficient 
integration across other 
sectoral policies; incomplete 
implementation of existing 
legislation and policy gaps; 
funding shortcomings; 
inadequate framework and 
governance structure; and 
limited awareness about 
biodiversity (see SEC(2011) 540 
final of 3 May 2011).
6 See, for example, EU 2010 
biodiversity baseline , European 
Environment Agency, 2010 
(http://www.eea.europa.eu/
publications/
eu‑2010 ‑biodiversity‑baseline ).
7 COM(2011) 244 final of 
3 May 2011 ‘Our life insurance, 
our natural capital: an EU 
biodiversity strategy to 2020’.
8 European Parliament 
Resolution of 20 April 2012 on 
our life insurance, our natural 
capital: an EU biodiversity 
strategy to 2020.
9 The indicative targets are set 
at EU level and are not 
supposed to be translated into 
explicit and differentiated 
national targets (see title 5.8 of 
SEC(2011) 540 final, 
accompanying the document 
under footnote 7).
07 Introduction Figure 1Targets of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020
Source:  European Commission.1.
Enhanc e implemen tation
of na ture legisla tionEU biodiv ersit y stra tegy
SIX TARGET S
ACTIONS5. 
Comba t alien in vasive
species6.
Contribut e to averting
global biodiv ersit y loss4.
Sustainable
ﬁsheries2. 
Rest ore ec osyst ems and
establish gr een infr astrutur e 3.
Sustainable agric ultur e
and f orestr yHalt the loss of biodiv ersit y and ec osyst em ser vices in the EU and r estore them insofar as f easible , and st ep up the EU’ s contribution
to averting global biodiv ersit y loss A 2020 headline tar getEuropean Union biodiv ersit y and the ec osyst em ser vices it pr ovides — its na tural capital — 
are protected, valued and appr opria tely r estoredA 2050 vision
08 Introduction
EU policy and legislation
06 
Biodiversity is a cross‑cutting, interdis ‑
ciplinary issue, connected to numerous 
policies which have their own EU fund ‑
ing sources: the European Agricultural 
Guarantee Fund (EAGF), the European 
Agricultural Fund for Rural Develop ‑
ment (EAFRD), the European Fisheries 
Fund (EFF), the European Regional De ‑
velopment Fund (ERDF), the Cohesion 
Fund (CF), the Financial Instrument 
for the Environment (LIFE) and the 
research framework programmes. The 
term ‘integrated funding’ refers to the 
parallel nature of these various sources 
of financing.
07 
The legislation relevant to biodiversity 
has many components in different 
layers:
(a) several international environmen ‑
tal agreements related to bio ‑
diversity to which the EU and/or 
its Member States are contracting 
parties, e.g. the CBD which entered 
into force on 29 December 1993 
and is the first international agree ‑
ment to address all aspects of 
biodiversity (see paragraph 1);
(b) a number of EU directives (e.g. the 
birds and habitats directives10; the 
water framework directive11; the 
marine strategy framework direct ‑
ive12; specific directives covering 
the issue of environmental assess ‑
ment13; and specific regulations 
related to the various EU funds;
(c) various national laws.08 
Figure 2  gives an overview of EU 
policy and legislation which have an 
impact on biodiversity.
ERDF co‑financing of 
projects promoting 
biodiversity
09 
According to the Commission’s data, 
Member States allocated 2,8 bil ‑
lion  euro in the 2007–13 programming 
period to the direct promotion of bio ‑
diversity and nature protection under 
the ERDF, including Natura 200014 (see 
Annex II ).
10 
Despite not being directly targeted 
at the promotion of biodiversity, 
other ERDF projects may also support 
biodiversity, e.g. projects in the area 
of tourism15, complementary measures 
included in infrastructure projects as 
compensation for damage caused to 
the environment and projects dedi ‑
cated to wastewater treatment16.10 Directive 2009/147/EC of the 
European Parliament and of 
the Council of 
30 November 2009 on the 
conservation of wild birds 
(codified version) (OJ L 20, 
26.1.2010, p. 7) and Council 
Directive 92/43/EEC of 
21 May 1992 on the 
conservation of natural 
habitats and of wild fauna and 
flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7).
11 Directive 2000/60/EC of the 
European Parliament and of 
the Council of 
23 October 2000 establishing 
a framework for Community 
action in the field of water 
policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, 
p. 1).
12 Directive 2008/56/EC of the 
European Parliament and of 
the Council of 17 June 2008 
establishing a framework for 
Community action in the field 
of marine environmental 
policy (OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, 
p. 19).
13 Council Directive 85/337/EEC 
of 27 June 1985 on the 
assessment of the effects of 
certain public and private 
projects on the environment 
(OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40) and 
Directive 2001/42/EC of the 
European Parliament and of 
the Council of 27 June 2001 on 
the assessment of the effects 
of certain plans and 
programmes on the 
environment (OJ L 197, 
21.7.2001, p. 30).
14 This figure is based on 
a breakdown of Structural 
Funds financial allocation (as 
at 31.12.2012) made according 
to a list of 86 categories 
provided in Annex II of 
Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 1828/2006 of 
8 December 2006 setting rules 
for the implementation of 
Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1083/2006 (OJ L 371, 
27.12.2006, p. 1). Article 11 
provides that Member States 
have to establish an indicative 
breakdown by category of the 
planned use of the funds.
15 Actions in the area of tourism 
include the promotion of 
natural assets and the 
protection and development 
of the natural heritage. See the 
Court’s Special Report 
No 6/2011 ‘Were ERDF 
co‑financed tourism projects 
effective?’ ( http://eca.europa.
eu).
09 Introduction Figure 2EU policy and legislation having an impact on biodiversity
Source:  European Commission.Biodiv ersit yCommon
agricultural
policy
BIRDS
directive
SOIL
draft
directive
BIODIVERSITY
UN
conventionCLIMATE
CHANGE
policiesMARINE
directiveWATER
framew ork
directiveHABITATS
directive
Resear chLIFE +Regional
policyCommon
ﬁsheries
policy 
11 
The Commission bears overall respon ‑
sibility for implementing the budget. 
Co‑financed biodiversity projects 
are part of operational programmes, 
implemented by the Member States 
under shared management arrange ‑
ments. In particular:
(a) the Commission negotiates and 
approves operational programmes 
proposed by Member States, and 
allocates EU funding;
(b) the Member States manage the 
operational programmes, im ‑
plementing them by selecting 
projects, and then overseeing and 
assessing these projects;(c) the Commission assesses national 
management and control systems, 
monitors the implementation of 
programmes, commits the EU 
financial contributions and pays 
them on the basis of approved 
expenditure.
12 
The Commission is also required to 
provide strategic direction by identify ‑
ing factors contributing towards the 
success or failure of the implementa ‑
tion of operational programmes and 
by identifying good practice17.16 See the Court’s Special Report 
No 3/2009 ‘The effectiveness 
of structural measures 
spending on waste water 
treatment for the 1994–
99 and 2000–06 programme 
periods’ ( http://eca.europa.eu ).
17 See Article 49 of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 
of 11 July 2006 laying down 
general provisions on the 
European Regional 
Development Fund, the 
European Social Fund and the 
Cohesion Fund and repealing 
Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 
(OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 25).
10
 Audit  scope  and   
objectives
13 
The main objective of the audit was 
to assess whether the ERDF has been 
effective in funding projects directly 
promoting biodiversity as part of the 
EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. The 
Court assessed whether:
(a) Member States took advantage 
of the available ERDF funding for 
directly promoting biodiversity;
(b) ERDF co‑financed projects directly 
promoting biodiversity were effec ‑
tive in halting biodiversity loss.
14 
The initial phase of the audit was 
based on a review of documents and 
interviews at the Commission. Two 
directorates‑general were visited:
(a) DG Regional and Urban Policy, 
which is responsible for the part of 
the EU budget which co‑finances 
biodiversity projects under the 
regional development policy. As 
part of its programme appraisal 
process, it consults other DGs, in 
particular DG Environment;
(b) DG Environment, which is respon ‑
sible for EU environmental policy.
15 
A survey of Member States that made 
little or no use of the ERDF for funding 
projects directly promoting biodiver ‑
sity was also carried out. Twenty op ‑
erational programmes were selected in 
10 Member States and questionnaires 
were sent to the managing authorities 
concerned. Seventeen replies were 
received.16 
The second phase of the audit was 
carried out in five selected Member 
States: the Czech Republic, Spain, 
France, Poland and Romania. These 
Member States accounted for 68 % of 
total ERDF allocations for the direct 
promotion of biodiversity during the 
2007–13 programming period.
17 
Thirty ‑two projects (a mixture of 
completed and ongoing projects) were 
selected from the financially most 
significant operational programmes in 
the Member States concerned, tak ‑
ing account of the projects’ stage of 
completion and also of the low rate of 
implementation of allocated funding 
for biodiversity in some operational 
programmes (see list of projects in 
Annex III ).
11
 Observations
Have Member States 
taken advantage of the 
available ERDF funding 
for directly promoting 
biodiversity?
18 
The Court examined the level of al ‑
location and use by Member States 
of ERDF funding to projects directly 
promoting biodiversity.
ERDF funding opportunities 
have not been exploited to 
their full potential
19 
The Commission analysed the ERDF 
and other EU funds in view of their 
potential for supporting the targets of 
the EU biodiversity strategy within the 
2007–13 multiannual financial frame ‑
work (see Annex IV ). In early 2013, the 
Commission drew up new criteria for 
better tracking biodiversity‑related 
expenditure under all relevant EU 
instruments, including the ERDF18.20 
The ERDF mainly offers funding 
possibilities for Target 1 (fully imple ‑
ment the legislation for nature (birds 
and habitats directives)) and Target 2 
(maintain and restore ecosystems and 
their services) of the strategy. Nearly 
all other EU funds may contribute to 
these targets as well. This is mainly 
explained by the cross‑cutting nature 
of these two targets, affecting EU ag ‑
riculture, cohesion, environment and 
research policies (see Annex IV ). In an 
attempt to introduce greater clarity for 
beneficiaries, national project selec ‑
tion bodies sometimes distinguished 
between the ERDF and other EU 
instruments19.
21 
While adhering to the EU strategic 
guidelines on cohesion, it is up to the 
Member States to set financing pri ‑
orities according to their own needs. 
Many Member States allocated little or 
no direct ERDF funding to biodiversity 
during the 2007–13 programming pe ‑
riod: 12 Member States allocated less 
than 0,2 % of their cohesion resources 
to measures directly dedicated to bio ‑
diversity (see Table 1  and Annex II ).18 For 2014, the first year of the 
current multiannual financial 
framework, the Commission 
extrapolated from historical 
data that an amount of 
11 billion euro (of which 1,7 
billion from the ERDF) could 
be committed to financing 
biodiversity (see Statement of 
estimates of the European 
Commission for the financial 
year 2014 (preparation of the 
2014 draft budget), political 
presentation, SEC(2013) 370, 
June 2013). This amount 
includes in addition to direct 
funds for biodiversity (see 
paragraph 9) all other funds 
which could have an indirect 
link to biodiversity.
19 For example by introducing 
a financial threshold as 
a criterion for determining 
which EU fund should finance 
which biodiversity projects 
(e.g. bigger projects under the 
ERDF and smaller projects 
under the EAFRD), or by 
limiting the access to the ERDF 
to public bodies.Table 1Allocation of ERDF funds to projects directly promoting biodiversity, by Member 
State (2007–13 programming period)
Percentage of total ERDF resources dedicated to 
direct promotion of biodiversityNumber of Member States Percentage (%) of Member States
More than 2 % 2 7
Between 1 % and 2 % 4 15
Between 0,2 % and 1 % 9 33
Less than 0,2 %  
among which 0 %12 
645 
22
Total 27 100
12 Observations
22 
Following the failure to halt biodiver ‑
sity loss by 2010, the Commission and 
the Member States were urged by 
the European Parliament to increase 
efforts in this field. As a result, in the 
middle of the 2007–13 programming 
period, the Commission encouraged 
managing authorities to realign exist ‑
ing operational programmes to invest 
more in biodiversity and other sustain ‑
able growth objectives20.
23 
However, adjustments to established 
operational programmes were very 
limited. Only one Member State mark ‑
edly increased the ERDF allocation for 
biodiversity, and this was the result of 
a good response to calls for proposals 
for projects specifically to promote 
biodiversity. Two other Member States, 
out of the 21 that had allocated funds 
for biodiversity, saw only limited in ‑
creases and 11 maintained their origi ‑
nal ERDF allocations. In seven Member 
States, ERDF biodiversity funds were 
even reduced (see Annex II ). National 
authorities explained these reductions 
by reference to various implementa ‑
tion problems, e.g. low responsiveness 
to calls for projects, a lack of prepara ‑
tion for Natura 2000 tasks, difficulties 
in finding an adequate demarcation 
line in relation to other funds.24 
Not only did many Member States allo ‑
cate little or no ERDF funding directly 
to biodiversity, but for those which did 
allocate funding, the financial uptake 
was below the average for all cohesion 
policy funding. Since the beginning of 
the 2007–13 programming period, the 
financial uptake for biodiversity pro ‑
jects remained slow, despite the fact 
that, in 2011, the Commission called 
for the situation to be rectified (see 
Table 2 ). Regarding Natura 2000, the 
Commission has given a variety of rea ‑
sons for this unsatisfactory situ  ation21, 
which are outlined in Box 1 .
25 
In 60 % of the replies to the survey car ‑
ried out by the Court to ascertain why 
the ERDF was little used as a source of 
financing for directly promoting bio ‑
diver  sity (see paragraph 15) the reason 
given was that the coverage of needs 
by other EU and/or national funding 
sources was sufficient. In 30 % of the 
replies, doubts were expressed as to 
whether the ERDF was an adequate 
instrument for funding biodiversity 
(because of a lack of compatibility with 
regional objectives or limited effects 
with regard to regional objectives).20 COM(2011) 17 final of 
26 January  2011 ‘Regional 
policy contributing to 
Sustainable Growth in Europe 
2020’.
21 European Commission, 
Investing in Natura 2000: For 
nature and people , 2011, p. 21.
13 Observations
Specific reasons for unsatisfactory use of EU funds in connection with Natura 2000, 
as identified by the Commission
1.  Competition between different policy goals: Member State administrations often fail to include invest ‑
ments for Natura 2000 among priorities, probably due to a lack of understanding of how this can contrib ‑
ute to overall regional development objectives.
2.  Insufficient consultation: the authorities responsible for Natura 2000 are often not sufficiently consulted or 
involved when it comes to drawing up operational programmes and deciding on the allocation of money 
under different sectoral funds.
3.  Slow development of Natura 2000 management plans: slow progress in site designation has significantly 
delayed the establishment and adoption of management plans for Natura 2000 which are necessary in 
order to facilitate investment in Natura 2000.
4.  Lack of capacity and know‑how for accessing EU funds: although knowledge about EU funds is growing, 
conservation organisations and authorities still find it difficult to get the necessary support for developing 
stand‑alone conservation projects.
5.  High administrative burden: the administrative capacity needed to develop projects and obtain funds can 
be significant, particularly where no pre‑financing arrangements exist.Box 1 Table 2 Financial uptake for biodiversity projects compared to the average for all cohesion 
funding
Financial uptake for biodiversity projects (%) Average for all cohesion policy funding (%)
End of 2010 18 27
End of 2011 56 71
End of 2012 75 85
NB: Financial uptake is calculated as the amount actually committed in a Member State to biodiversity projects at a given time as a percentage 
of the budget initially allocated. The Commission does not have payment data for individual categories of expenditure.
14 Observations
Are ERDF co ‑financed 
projects that directly 
promote biodiversity 
effective in halting  
biodiversity loss?
26 
The Court audited the sampled pro ‑
jects’ effectiveness in halting biodiver ‑
sity loss by assessing whether they:
(a) were aligned with biodiversity 
priorities at Member State and EU 
level;
(b) had brought tangible results and 
met their targets;
(c) were likely to have sustainable 
effects, i.e. the benefits were likely 
to continue after EU support had 
ended.The projects are in line with 
biodiversity priorities at 
national and EU level but 
ERDF expenditure for bio ‑
diver  sity is not well defined
27 
The projects audited were in line with 
national and EU biodiversity priorities. 
They were selected by the national 
authorities on the basis of the priori ‑
ties of the operational programmes 
concerned. Apart from preparation 
and awareness actions, projects mainly 
concerned habitat and fauna protec ‑
tion (see example in Box 2 ).
 Example of projects in line with national and EU biodiversity priorities
In Andalusia (Spain), three projects concerned the 
ecological restoration of river banks (ERDF: 15,0 mil ‑
lion euro). These projects were consistent with the 
description set out in the Andalusia operational 
programme under the corresponding priority. 
Restoring degraded ecosystems is a key element in 
the EU biodiversity strategy. The projects included 
the recovery of pre‑existing vegetation, reforesta ‑
tion with indigenous species, the rehabilitation of 
water areas through pools and weirs and the con ‑
struction of footpaths with several footbridges.Box 2
Source:  ECA.
Picture 1 — River bank restoration in Seville 
15 Observations
28 
In the same way that some ERDF 
projects may have support for bio ‑
diversity as a secondary rather than 
primary objective (see paragraph 10), 
about half of the projects audited had 
a secondary objective relating to other 
issues, such as anti‑flooding actions, 
recreation and limiting visitor access. 
This shows the difficulty for the Mem ‑
ber States to attribute ERDF expendi ‑
ture to the correct priority themes and 
for the Commission to clearly identify 
ERDF expenditure on biodiversity. 
In one case, biodiversity was not the 
main component of the project, which 
should have been co‑financed under 
another priority theme of the opera ‑
tional programme (see Box 3 ).
Project which should have been co‑financed under a priority theme other than 
biodiversity
In Andalusia (Spain), one project concerned the restoration of a castle (ERDF: 3,1 million euro). Only minor 
elements (about 10 % of total cost) involved the promotion of biodiversity (e.g. removal of alien invasive plant 
species in the surrounding area). Due to its predominant cultural heritage component, the project would fit 
better under the programme’s ‘Protection and preservation of the cultural heritage’ priority theme.Box 3
© Ministry of Agriculture and Environment, Spain.
Picture 2 — Restoration of a castle 
16 Observations
One third of the projects 
audited focused on the prep ‑
aration of protection meas ‑
ures …
29 
Eleven of the 32 projects audited 
(34,4 % in number and 39,6 % in value) 
were mainly devoted to different sorts 
of preparatory work, meaning that it 
will still take some time before ac ‑
tions are launched according to these 
protection plans and tangible effects 
are felt in terms of halting biodiversity 
loss. On average, about one third of the 
total allocation for biodiversity in the 
operational programmes selected was 
dedicated to preparatory measures 
such as:
(a) building information systems, 
carrying out inventory surveys, 
mapping, establishing a baseline 
situation for the biodiversity for 
the areas in question and draft ‑
ing specific protection plans (see 
example in Box 4 );
(b) awareness campaigns, information 
and educational measures.
Cartographic tools for the Danube Delta
The purpose of two projects (Romania) carried out by the University of Bucharest (ERDF: 5,8 million euro) 
and the Danube Delta National Institute for Research and Development (ERDF: 0,8 million euro) was to make 
inventories of underwater or terrestrial habitats and species, and to create digital maps to assist the Danube 
Delta’s management in taking appropriate action.
Equipment was bought, software produced, the sea floor and the terrestrial area were scanned and digital 
cartographic mapping and practical management applications were produced (e.g. models for the reconstruc ‑
tion of habitats or for the flooding regime).
However, the new integrated management plan for the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve had yet not been 
drafted. The lack of a proper land register makes overall planning for land protection measures difficult. The 
ERDF supports this activity through a new project running from June 2013 up to the end of 2015.Box 4 
© University of Bucharest.
Pictures 3 and 4 — Sonar instruments used for marine cartography
17 Observations
30 
While various protection plans had 
been defined, their preparation had 
proved difficult, and several had still 
not been adopted by the national 
authorities at the time of the audit (see 
examples in Box 5 ).
Examples of protection plans facing production and implementation difficulties
The ‘Implementation of Natura 2000 sites’ project (Czech Republic) (ERDF: 4,3 million euro), to be completed 
in January 2015, has strategic importance: it mainly entails carrying out inventory and geodetic surveys 
needed to prepare protection plans for 303 out of 1075 Natura 2000 sites and set up a monitoring framework 
for these sites. The setting ‑up and start of the project were difficult and lengthy due to continuous uncer ‑
tainties regarding the project’s scope and detailed targets (list of sites covered and types of work needed). 
Two and a half years passed between the project application in November 2008 and the grant decision in 
April 2011. The grant decision was amended twice, in November 2011 and December 2012, and a third change 
was planned for late 2013.
The ‘National programme for the protection of Capercaillie’ project (Poland) (ERDF: 0,2 million euro) con ‑
cerned the monitoring, between July 2009 and December 2011, of the national capercaillie22 population and 
its habitats, and the production of a national protection programme. More than 1 year later, in March 2013, the 
General Directorate for Environmental Protection (GDEP) refused to accept the draft programme, criticising it 
as inadequate, and concluded that the protection programme needed to be completely redesigned.
In Poland, problems were noted not only for the capercaillie protection programme, but also for programmes 
covering other species. By May 2013, 10 other EU ‑supported species protection programmes had been sub ‑
mitted to the GDEP for acceptance (e.g. wolf, bear, otter), but none of them have yet been approved.Box 5
22 The capercaille ( Tetrao urogallus ) is listed in Annex I of Council Directive 79/409/EEC. It requires undertaking special habitat conservation 
measures in order to ensure the species’ survival. The total population of capercaille in Poland was estimated in 2012 at 500–600 individuals. 
© Polish Society for Bird Protection.
Picture 5 — Capercaillie ( Tetrao urogallus )
18 Observations Box 631 
Three of the eleven projects were 
dedicated to awareness, information 
and educational measures (see exam ‑
ple in Box 6 ). Nearly half of all projects 
audited included such measures. When 
drawing up the EU biodiversity strat ‑
egy to 2020, the Commission conclud ‑
ed that awareness of diversity was low 
in the EU. However, the effect of such 
measures on the understanding and 
knowledge of biodiversity among the 
target population was not assessed at 
national level.
Example of an awareness and information project
The ‘Improvement of biodiversity in the maritime sector through awareness and information’ project in the 
Danube Delta (Romania) (ERDF: 2,8 million euro) includes the construction of a visitor centre, the creation of 
four tourist trails with information boards, seminars, information sessions, guides to species and birds, bro ‑
chures, an album, press conferences and the creation of a website.
At the time of the audit, the construction of the visitor centre was behind schedule due to contested tender ‑
ing procedures. All of the four planned educational tourist trails were finished and open to the public.
However, next to the project site, on the Sulina beach, tourist facilities have been set up on a Natura 2000 site 
protected under the EU birds and habitats directives. A permit was issued to develop these tourism facilities 
even though an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site had not been carried out beforehand23. 
This assessment is a key conditional requirement of Natura 2000 to ensure that activities will not adversely 
affect the integrity of the site.  
23 Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC.
Source:  ECA.
Pictures 6 and 7 — Information boards along an educational aquatic tourist trail
19 Observations
… and benefits for biodiver ‑
sity from investments were 
not assessed
32 
Of the 32 audited projects, 21 entailed 
investments dedicated to promote 
biodiversity. The investments had 
generally been set up as required via 
supply and works contracts, and were 
operated for the intended purposes. 
Investment project objectives mainly 
concerned habitat protection and 
recovery (lakes, rivers, coast, forest, 
bio‑corridors, etc.) (see Box 7  and  
Box 8 ) or animal protection.33 
In almost all cases, only physical 
output24 indicators were used by the 
responsible authorities to monitor pro ‑
ject success, e.g. the number and type 
of plantations set in a restored area, 
hectares of reforestation, length of the 
coastal stretch where there had been 
an intervention and the number of 
species protected. The effectiveness of 
the projects was not analysed further 
by Member State authorities; the grant 
decisions established neither result25 
indicators nor monitoring provisions 
to assess the development of habi ‑
tats and species. The absence of such 
analysis undermines any assessment 
of the effectiveness of these projects 
and, therefore, the possibility to dem ‑
onstrate tangible results in terms of 
the conservation of biodiversity.24 ‘Output’ refers to what is 
produced or accomplished 
with the resources allocated to 
an intervention.
25 ‘Results’ relate to changes in 
relation to objectives. Box 7Example of a project targeted at habitat protection and restoration
In the Nord/Pas‑de‑Calais region (France), the 
‘Opération Grand Site des Deux Caps’ was 
co‑financed by two ERDF projects (ERDF: 2,8 
and 0,6 million euro) during the 2007–13 pro ‑
gramming period. The operation began in 2000 
with a number of studies. The aim was to obtain 
a ‘Grand Site de France’26 label by restoring and 
preserving the natural quality of the site for the 
long term, alongside a 23 ‑km stretch of Chan ‑
nel coast, providing solutions and facilities for 
channelling the flow of tourists (access, car parks, 
and special protection), establishing a structure ‑
based maintenance and management policy and 
promoting the development of local towns and 
villages.
Source:  ECA.
Picture 8 — Protection measures at the ‘Cap Blanc Nez’ 
26 The ‘Grand Site de France’ label is awarded to recognised sites with remarkable natural features and a large number of visitors. It is issued 
subject to the implementation of a site preservation and management project based on the principles of sustainable development.
20 Observations
Example of a project targeted at animal protectionBox 8
Source:  ECA.
Picture 9 — ‘Close to natural’ fish crossing used  
mainly by slower species
One co‑financed project (Czech Republic) involved the construction of two fish crossings on the right bank of 
the Elbe River at the Lovosice weir (ERDF: 0,9 million euro). The goal of the project was to remove a barrier to 
fish passage caused by the old weir built in 1919.
One of the fish crossings is a ‘close to natural’ riparian channel with a boulder finish and the other is an artificial 
fish crossing located in the dividing pillar.
Picture 10 — Artificial fish crossing used mainly by faster fish species
Source:  ECA.
21 Observations
34 
In Spain, the Ministry of the Environ ‑
ment had published a guideline which 
regarded monitoring as a key element. 
However, it was not applied to the 
co‑financed project examined by the 
Court (see Box 9 ).35 
The absence of result indicators and 
monitoring also precludes assessing 
regional and/or local achievements. 
Furthermore, in the audited projects 
there was little attempt to assess ef ‑
fectiveness by taking into account the 
most relevant external factors. Indeed, 
many factors (e.g. impact of nearby 
infrastructures and activities) — pos ‑
sibly outside the scope or control of 
an individual project — may cause 
changes in the overall situation of 
regional habitats and fauna.Box 9A guideline for evaluation existed, but it was not applied
In Spain, according to a Ministry of Environment guideline on the environmental recovery of dunes, the fol ‑
lowing elements should be monitored in the years after project completion: general development of the sys ‑
tem, dune profile, establishment and development of vegetation, appearance of new species, development of 
invasive species, effectiveness of protective measures.
However, more than 3 years after the completion of the ‘Recovery of the dune system and of the beach access 
of Isla Canela’ project (Spain) (ERDF: 0,9 million euro), the effect of the protection measures had not been as ‑
sessed. There was no attempt to establish, for example, a list of the fauna and flora which resulted from the 
project.
The project included the restoration of the dune area by placing wicker piles to capture sand, the plantation 
of indigenous species, the enclosure of the restored area and the construction of raised wooden walkways for 
crossing the dunes. The stretch of beach recovered is 1 300 metres long.
Pictures 11 and 12 — Recovery of the dune system
Source:  ECA.
22 Observations
36 
One positive exception was a study 
carried out in Poland which stressed 
that protection measures were coun ‑
terbalanced by external factors (see 
Box 10 ).Box 10Example of external factors which limit the effectiveness of protection measures
One project (Poland) involved the restoration and preservation of an optimal habitat for the black grouse 
(ERDF: 0,6 million euro). Similar forerunner projects had also been carried out. A wide range of measures was 
supported by the project, e.g. removal of bushes and shrubs, cutting rushes, removal of metal mesh fences, 
culling predators, land purchases and the communication and dissemination of information.
A study carried out in connection with the project showed that the number of male black grouse continued to 
decrease significantly. The main reasons identified to explain why the decrease in the black grouse population 
could not be stopped despite active habitat protection measures in the region were:
‑ adverse climate change: low reproduction rates were linked to rainy springs and summers, especially in 
June when most black grouse hatch (black grouse chicks’ thermoregulation does not work in their first 
3 weeks of life);
‑ increased pressure from predators (e.g. foxes, raccoons and martens), explained by mass vaccinations for 
rabies and significantly reduced hunting of foxes due to the decline in fur prices.
Picture 13 — Black grouse (males)
© Polish Society for Bird Protection.
23 Observations
Project sustainability is 
based on local commitment 
and relies on future public 
financing
37 
Project benefits should continue after 
the period of EU support has ended. 
For this, projects must fulfil certain 
criteria: they should mainly be embed ‑
ded in local structures, thus ensuring 
high ownership by stakeholders, and 
in a general climate of financial and 
economic crisis, necessary financial 
resources should be available to main ‑
tain their results.
38 
Regarding inventories, protection 
or management plans which often 
constituted the outputs delivered 
by the projects (see paragraph 29), 
benefits did not materialise after the 
end of the projects, as these plans 
were still awaiting acceptance and 
implementation. Lasting benefits can 
only be expected in the event of actual 
implementation. Regarding awareness, 
information and educational activi ‑
ties, one positive aspect is that several 
projects had long‑standing websites 
providing relevant information.39 
The Court found that project invest ‑
ments such as buildings, machinery, 
equipment and plantations were gen ‑
erally well maintained even after the 
projects had ended. One important 
aspect of this is that sustainability was 
generally considered right from the 
outset of the project selection pro ‑
cess. Moreover, project contracts have 
a clause requiring that investments be 
used and maintained for the agreed 
purposes for a number of years after 
the projects have ended, failing which 
the grant must be paid back. In one 
case, 2 years after the work had been 
completed, the question of respon ‑
sibility for maintenance had still not 
been resolved.
40 
The Court found a high degree of 
commitment within nature organisa ‑
tions, environmental agencies or park 
authorities in charge of projects, which 
were supported by a local policy that 
aimed to promote a positive image 
as an ecotourism region. As projects 
were not revenue‑generating and 
private resources not attracted, con ‑
tinued public financing was generally 
required. If further funding was not 
forthcoming, the sustainability of the 
whole undertaking to stop biodiversity 
loss would be at risk (see example in 
Box 11 ).
24 Observations Box 11Example of a project facing risks to sustainability
The main objective of the ‘Improvements in the situation of bison in the Vanatori Neamt Natural Park’ project 
(Romania) (ERDF: 0,2 million euro) was to create a viable bison population living wild in the northern Carpathi ‑
an mountains. With the acquisition of 10 bison, the total number of bison in the park increased to 28. Sup ‑
port infrastructure was built to facilitate the animals’ adaptation to the wild. Feeding supplies were provided 
during the winter season, as was regular veterinary treatment. Observation platforms and information points 
were constructed under another ERDF project (ERDF: 0,2  million  euro).
Project sustainability would be achieved if the bison managed to live and reproduce in the wild. One risk 
was genetic: all the bison came from a small surviving core group and there was little variety in their genetic 
make ‑up. As a result, the bison were susceptible to disease, had a shorter life span, higher juvenile mortality 
and reproduced less often.
The park’s management plan envisages further support for and monitoring of the reintroduction of bison 
in the wild. However, there is no indication in the plan as to how financial resources are to be provided and 
allocated. Future financing is also uncertain as the park’s management plan has not been approved by the 
Ministry of Environment.
The bison project also attracted other international donors such as the World Bank. Further fund ‑raising from 
other international donors would require coordination with EU support.
Pictures 14 and 15 — Bison in acclimatisation park
Source:  ECA.
25
 Conclusions and 
recommendations
Overall conclusion
41 
Available ERDF financing opportuni ‑
ties have not been exploited to their 
full potential by the Member States. 
Although the ERDF co‑financed pro ‑
jects that directly promote biodiversity 
match Member State and EU priorities 
for halting biodiversity loss, efforts 
must be made to monitor their actual 
contribution and ensure that their 
effects will last. Many activities con ‑
cerned the preparation of protection 
and management plans, which need 
to be implemented in order to achieve 
tangible results.
Allocation and use of 
ERDF funding
42 
Member States did not always view the 
ERDF as an adequate instrument for 
promoting biodiversity, and its poten ‑
tial as a source of financing for Natu ‑
ra 2000 was not sufficiently recognised 
(paragraphs 19 to 25).Recommendation 1
The Commission should:
(a) support Member States in setting 
biodiversity restoration priorities 
in operational programmes;
(b) assess the complementarity of the 
actions to promote biodiversity 
identified by the Member States 
in the operational programmes 
with projects financed by other EU 
funds;
(c) monitor the actual implementa ‑
tion of operational programmes 
in view of an early and proactive 
identification of difficulties.
The Member States should collaborate 
with the Commission in achieving this.
Achievements of ERDF 
projects in halting bio ‑
diver  sity loss
43 
Projects co‑financed by the ERDF were 
generally in line with national and EU 
biodiversity priorities. However, it is 
sometimes difficult to clearly identify 
ERDF expenditure on biodiversity 
(paragraphs 27 and 28).
26 Conclusions and recommendations
44 
A third of the audited projects deal 
with the preparation of future invest ‑
ments and activities with a view to 
promoting biodiversity (preparatory 
work and public awareness measures). 
This means that tangible results would 
not be immediate. Actual protection 
measures were carried out in two 
thirds of the projects audited. Yet, 
no results indicators or monitoring 
systems have been put in place by 
Member State authorities to assess the 
development of habitats and species. 
The absence of such analysis under ‑
mines any assessment of the effective ‑
ness of these projects and, therefore, 
the possibility to demonstrate tangible 
results in terms of the conservation of 
biodiversity (paragraphs 29 to 36).
45 
Physical project outputs were gener ‑
ally well maintained and a high degree 
of commitment from project pro ‑
moters was noted. Nevertheless, the 
sustainability of the projects’ effects 
depend on continued public funding 
(paragraphs 37 to 40).Recommendation 2
The Commission should:
(a) support Member States in follow ‑
ing up preparatory projects with 
a view to an active protection 
policy, especially regarding the ef ‑
fective implementation of specific 
protection and management plans 
for habitats and species;
(b) require provision in operational 
programmes for procedures 
to evaluate the environmental 
changes in habitats and species 
following the interventions;
(c) advise Member States in apply ‑
ing ERDF rules in interaction with 
other EU funds.
In addition, the Commission should 
make sure that an accurate record of 
direct and indirect EU spending on 
biodiversity (including Natura 2000) 
is maintained, and the Member States 
should facilitate this by providing the 
necessary data.
This Report was adopted by Chamber II, headed by Mr Henri GRETHEN, Member 
of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 4 June 2014.
 For the Court of Auditors
 Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA  
 President

27
 Annexes
Targets and actions of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020
Target 1: Fully implement the birds and habitats directives
Action 1 Complete the establishment of the Natura 2000 network and ensure good management
Action 2 Ensure adequate financing of Natura 2000 sites
Action 3 Increase stakeholder awareness and involvement and improve enforcement
Action 4 Improve and streamline monitoring and reporting
Target 2: Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services
Action 5 Improve knowledge of ecosystems and their services in the EU
Action 6 Set priorities to restore and promote the use of green infrastructure
Action 7 Ensure no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services
Target 3: Increase the contribution by agriculture and forestry to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity
Action 8 Enhance direct payments for environmental public goods in the EU’s common agricultural policy
Action 9 Improve the targeting of rural development on biodiversity conservation
Action 10 Conserve the EU’s agricultural genetic diversity
Ac tion 11 Encourage forest holders to protect and enhance forest biodiversity
Action 12 Integrate biodiversity measures into forest management plans
Target 4: Ensure the sustainable use of fisheries resources
Action 13 Improve the management of fish stocks
Action 14 Eliminate adverse impacts on fish stocks, species, habitats and ecosystems
Target 5: Combat invasive alien species
Action 15 Strengthen EU plant and animal health regimes
Action 16 Establish a dedicated instrument for invasive alien species
Target 6: Help avert global biodiversity loss
Action 17 Reduce indirect drivers of biodiversity loss
Action 18 Mobilise additional resources for global biodiversity conservation
Action 19 Make EU development cooperation ‘biodiversity-proof’
Action 20 Regulate access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their useAnnex I
28 Annexes
Allocation of ERDF funds to promote biodiversity and nature protection  
(including Natura 2000) (in euro)
CountryPlanned ERDF funds in OPs at 31.12.2010 Planned ERDF funds in OPs at 31.12.2012 Reallocation for biodiversity 
between 31.12.2010 and 31.12.2012ERDF funds allocated to  
biodiversity projects selectedImplementation rate
Allocated to 
biodiversity (‘000)
(a)Total cohesion
funding (‘000)
(b)%
( = a/b)Allocated to  
biodiversity (‘000)
(c)Total cohesion 
funding (‘000)
(d)%
( = c/d)(‘000)
(e = (c – a))%
(f = (c/a)(‘000)
( g)%
(h = g/c)
Belgium 1 054 2 063,501 0,05 1 054 2 063 501 0,05 0 0 1 141 108,3
Bulgaria 80 787 6 673 628 1,21 80 787 6 673 628 1,21 0 0 104 121 128,9
Czech Republic 605 921 26 302 604 2,30 605 921 26 539  650 2,28 0 0 248 286 41,0
Denmark 0 509 577 0,00 0 509 577 0,00 0 0 0 0
Germany 50 620 25 488  616 0,20 52 614 25 488 230 0,21 (+) 1 994 (+) 3,9 49 886 94,8
Estonia 21 730 3 403 460 0,64 21 730 3 403 460 0,64 0 0 18 159 83,6
Ireland 0 750 725 0,00 0 750 725 0,00 0 0 0 0
Greece 179 763 20 210 261 0,89 145 702 20 210 261 0,72 (–) 34  061 (–) 18,9 154 907 106,3
Spain 706 437 34 657 734 2,04 824 574 34 650 749 2,38 (+) 118 137 (+) 16,7 634 901 7 7, 0
France 175 954 13 449 221 1,31 166 084 13 449 221 1,23 (–) 9  870 (–) 5,6 151 359 91,1
Italy 57 133 27 965 315 0,20 43 143 27 955 874 0,15 (–) 13  990 (–) 24,5 15 298 35,5
Cyprus 0 514 624 0,00 0 612 435 0,00 0 0 0 0
Latvia 26 000 4 530 448 0,57 26 000 4 530 448 0,57 0 0 9 296 35,8
Lithuania 71 850 6 775 493 1,06 71 850 6 775 493 1,06 0 0 62 159 86,5
Luxembourg 0 50 487 0,00 0 50 487 0,00 0 0 0 0
Hungary 125 800 24 921 149 0,50 125 800 24 921 149 0,50 0 0 94 333 75,0
Malta 1 700 840  123 0,20 100 840  123 0,01 (–) 1  600 (–) 94,1 0 0
Netherlands 4 195 1 660 003 0,25 4 195 1 660 003 0,25 0 0 630 15,0
Austria 0 1 204 479 0,00 0 1 204 479 0,00 0 0 0 0
Poland 135 078 65 221 853 0,21 113 430 67 185 549 0,17 (–) 21  648 (–) 16,0 102 506 90,4
Portugal 46 973 21 411 561 0,22 55 076 21 411 561 0,26 (+) 8 103 (+) 17 ,3 50 739 92,1
Romania 171 989 19 213  037 0,90 171 989 19 213  037 0,90 0 0 115 903 67, 4
Slovenia 49 555 4 101 049 1,21 49 555 4 101 049 1,21 0 0 1 250 2,5
Slovakia 30 454 11 360 620 0,27 30 454 11 498 331 0,26 0 0 32 519 106,8
Finland 1 933 1 595 966 0,12 552 1 595 966 0,03 (–) 1  381 (–) 71,4 184 33,3
Sweden 0 1 626 092 0,00 0 1 626 092 0,00 0 0 0 0
United Kingdom 1 570 9 890 937 0,02 70 9 890 937 0,00 (–) 1  500 (–) 95,5 0 0
Cross-border 168 780 7 829 418 2,16 175 219 7 905 148 2,22 (+) 6 439 (+) 3,8 216 176 123,4
Total 2 715  276 344  221  981 0,79 2 765  899 346  717  163 0,80 (+) 50 623 (+) 1,9 2 063  753 74,6
Source:  European Court of Auditors based on Commission statistics.Annex II
29 Annexes
Allocation of ERDF funds to promote biodiversity and nature protection  
(including Natura 2000) (in euro)
CountryPlanned ERDF funds in OPs at 31.12.2010 Planned ERDF funds in OPs at 31.12.2012 Reallocation for biodiversity 
between 31.12.2010 and 31.12.2012ERDF funds allocated to  
biodiversity projects selectedImplementation rate
Allocated to 
biodiversity (‘000)
(a)Total cohesion
funding (‘000)
(b)%
( = a/b)Allocated to  
biodiversity (‘000)
(c)Total cohesion 
funding (‘000)
(d)%
( = c/d)(‘000)
(e = (c – a))%
(f = (c/a)(‘000)
( g)%
(h = g/c)
Belgium 1 054 2 063,501 0,05 1 054 2 063 501 0,05 0 0 1 141 108,3
Bulgaria 80 787 6 673 628 1,21 80 787 6 673 628 1,21 0 0 104 121 128,9
Czech Republic 605 921 26 302 604 2,30 605 921 26 539  650 2,28 0 0 248 286 41,0
Denmark 0 509 577 0,00 0 509 577 0,00 0 0 0 0
Germany 50 620 25 488  616 0,20 52 614 25 488 230 0,21 (+) 1 994 (+) 3,9 49 886 94,8
Estonia 21 730 3 403 460 0,64 21 730 3 403 460 0,64 0 0 18 159 83,6
Ireland 0 750 725 0,00 0 750 725 0,00 0 0 0 0
Greece 179 763 20 210 261 0,89 145 702 20 210 261 0,72 (–) 34  061 (–) 18,9 154 907 106,3
Spain 706 437 34 657 734 2,04 824 574 34 650 749 2,38 (+) 118 137 (+) 16,7 634 901 7 7, 0
France 175 954 13 449 221 1,31 166 084 13 449 221 1,23 (–) 9  870 (–) 5,6 151 359 91,1
Italy 57 133 27 965 315 0,20 43 143 27 955 874 0,15 (–) 13  990 (–) 24,5 15 298 35,5
Cyprus 0 514 624 0,00 0 612 435 0,00 0 0 0 0
Latvia 26 000 4 530 448 0,57 26 000 4 530 448 0,57 0 0 9 296 35,8
Lithuania 71 850 6 775 493 1,06 71 850 6 775 493 1,06 0 0 62 159 86,5
Luxembourg 0 50 487 0,00 0 50 487 0,00 0 0 0 0
Hungary 125 800 24 921 149 0,50 125 800 24 921 149 0,50 0 0 94 333 75,0
Malta 1 700 840  123 0,20 100 840  123 0,01 (–) 1  600 (–) 94,1 0 0
Netherlands 4 195 1 660 003 0,25 4 195 1 660 003 0,25 0 0 630 15,0
Austria 0 1 204 479 0,00 0 1 204 479 0,00 0 0 0 0
Poland 135 078 65 221 853 0,21 113 430 67 185 549 0,17 (–) 21  648 (–) 16,0 102 506 90,4
Portugal 46 973 21 411 561 0,22 55 076 21 411 561 0,26 (+) 8 103 (+) 17 ,3 50 739 92,1
Romania 171 989 19 213  037 0,90 171 989 19 213  037 0,90 0 0 115 903 67, 4
Slovenia 49 555 4 101 049 1,21 49 555 4 101 049 1,21 0 0 1 250 2,5
Slovakia 30 454 11 360 620 0,27 30 454 11 498 331 0,26 0 0 32 519 106,8
Finland 1 933 1 595 966 0,12 552 1 595 966 0,03 (–) 1  381 (–) 71,4 184 33,3
Sweden 0 1 626 092 0,00 0 1 626 092 0,00 0 0 0 0
United Kingdom 1 570 9 890 937 0,02 70 9 890 937 0,00 (–) 1  500 (–) 95,5 0 0
Cross-border 168 780 7 829 418 2,16 175 219 7 905 148 2,22 (+) 6 439 (+) 3,8 216 176 123,4
Total 2 715  276 344  221  981 0,79 2 765  899 346  717  163 0,80 (+) 50 623 (+) 1,9 2 063  753 74,6
Source:  European Court of Auditors based on Commission statistics.
30 Annexes
Sample of projects audited
Country/region Project titleEU contribution
(million euro)Main measuresProject type
A, B or C1Completion 
date2Project complet -
ed at the time of 
the audit visit
Czech Republic
(OP Environment)Implementation of Natura 2000 sites managed by the Agency for nature protection and landscape 
conservation4,3Determination of protection status of Natura 2000 sites; set up a system of inventory surveys and 
monitoring frameworkB(Forecast: 
January 2015)No
Reconstruction of the Vlasim station for handicapped animals 1,9 Renovation of station for handicapped animals and construction of additional premises C February 2012 Yes
Territorial system of ecological stability of Chotesov municipality 0,5 Creation of biodiversity area and two habitat/wildlife, green corridors C November 2011 Yes
Lake Propast 1,4 Renovation of water reservoir, anti-flood measures, new vegetation C June 2011 Yes
Dolni Brezany Municipal Park 1,2 Creation of a park including landscaping, establishment of lawns, planting of new trees and bushes C June 2010 Yes
Fish crossings Lovosice–Pistany 0,9 Construction of two fish crossings C September 2010 Yes
Spain
(OP Andalusia)Restoration along the river Guadaira in Seville 9,2 Recovery and landscape renewal of right bank of river C December 2009 Yes
Restoration along the river Guadalquivir in Seville 5,0 Recovery and landscape renewal of left bank of river C October 2009 Yes
Restoration of dune system and beach access of Isla Canela 0,9 Restoration of dune area along a 1 300-metre stretch of beach C May 2009 Yes
Artificial provision of sand for the beach area of Mazagon 1,6 Providing sand for a 600-metre stretch of beach to compensate for a lack of sediment C June 2009 Yes
Recovery of the castle of Sancti-Petri 3,1 Repairs for the conservation of the castle C October 2010 Yes
Habitats recovery by the naturalisation of pine forests 1,9 Cutting branches and bushes, thinning of pines, removal of eucalyptus and pruning C November 2011 Yes
Restoration along the river Guadiana in the province of Huelva 0,8 Treatment of existing vegetation, plantation of indigenous species, creation of wetlands C June 2009 Yes
France
(OP Nord/Pas-de-Calais)A dragon! in my garden? (Two phases) 0,3 Restoration of habitats, information CJune 2013 (end of 
second phase)No
Opération Grand Site des deux Caps (phase 1) 2,8 Ecological relandscaping, restoration of green areas C December 2012 Yes
Opération Grand Site des deux Caps (phase 2) 0,6 Salaries for staff in charge of restoration works C December 2012 Yes
Restoration and/or implementation of sustainable management systems for threatened natural habitats 0,4 Restoration of landscape, awareness-raising and communication C December 2011 Yes
Landscape protection of coastal heritage and wetlands 1,5 Land purchase C May 2012 Yes
Landscape protection of the ‘Fort Vert’ site 1,5 Land purchase C November 2009 Yes
1 Project types:
A = Awareness ‑raising and education measures.
B = Building up information and plans.
C = Concrete protection measures.
2 In 18 projects, original completion dates were not met. Five projects were delayed by more than 6 months, two because of difficulties  
in purchasing land and three because of procurement procedure problems (two cases with a delay of more than a year).Annex III
31 Annexes
Sample of projects audited
Country/region Project titleEU contribution
(million euro)Main measuresProject type
A, B or C1Completion 
date2Project complet -
ed at the time of 
the audit visit
Czech Republic
(OP Environment)Implementation of Natura 2000 sites managed by the Agency for nature protection and landscape 
conservation4,3Determination of protection status of Natura 2000 sites; set up a system of inventory surveys and 
monitoring frameworkB(Forecast: 
January 2015)No
Reconstruction of the Vlasim station for handicapped animals 1,9 Renovation of station for handicapped animals and construction of additional premises C February 2012 Yes
Territorial system of ecological stability of Chotesov municipality 0,5 Creation of biodiversity area and two habitat/wildlife, green corridors C November 2011 Yes
Lake Propast 1,4 Renovation of water reservoir, anti-flood measures, new vegetation C June 2011 Yes
Dolni Brezany Municipal Park 1,2 Creation of a park including landscaping, establishment of lawns, planting of new trees and bushes C June 2010 Yes
Fish crossings Lovosice–Pistany 0,9 Construction of two fish crossings C September 2010 Yes
Spain
(OP Andalusia)Restoration along the river Guadaira in Seville 9,2 Recovery and landscape renewal of right bank of river C December 2009 Yes
Restoration along the river Guadalquivir in Seville 5,0 Recovery and landscape renewal of left bank of river C October 2009 Yes
Restoration of dune system and beach access of Isla Canela 0,9 Restoration of dune area along a 1 300-metre stretch of beach C May 2009 Yes
Artificial provision of sand for the beach area of Mazagon 1,6 Providing sand for a 600-metre stretch of beach to compensate for a lack of sediment C June 2009 Yes
Recovery of the castle of Sancti-Petri 3,1 Repairs for the conservation of the castle C October 2010 Yes
Habitats recovery by the naturalisation of pine forests 1,9 Cutting branches and bushes, thinning of pines, removal of eucalyptus and pruning C November 2011 Yes
Restoration along the river Guadiana in the province of Huelva 0,8 Treatment of existing vegetation, plantation of indigenous species, creation of wetlands C June 2009 Yes
France
(OP Nord/Pas-de-Calais)A dragon! in my garden? (Two phases) 0,3 Restoration of habitats, information CJune 2013 (end of 
second phase)No
Opération Grand Site des deux Caps (phase 1) 2,8 Ecological relandscaping, restoration of green areas C December 2012 Yes
Opération Grand Site des deux Caps (phase 2) 0,6 Salaries for staff in charge of restoration works C December 2012 Yes
Restoration and/or implementation of sustainable management systems for threatened natural habitats 0,4 Restoration of landscape, awareness-raising and communication C December 2011 Yes
Landscape protection of coastal heritage and wetlands 1,5 Land purchase C May 2012 Yes
Landscape protection of the ‘Fort Vert’ site 1,5 Land purchase C November 2009 Yes
1 Project types:
A = Awareness ‑raising and education measures.
B = Building up information and plans.
C = Concrete protection measures.
2 In 18 projects, original completion dates were not met. Five projects were delayed by more than 6 months, two because of difficulties  
in purchasing land and three because of procurement procedure problems (two cases with a delay of more than a year).
32 Annexes
Country/region Project titleEU contribution
(million euro)Main measuresProject type
A, B or C1Completion 
date2Project complet -
ed at the time of 
the audit visit
Poland
(OP Infrastructure and 
Environment)Wildlife conservation in environmentally protected areas by concentrating tourism flows 0,3Works for land use (e.g. levelling of land, demolition of existing buildings) and construction of tourism 
infrastructureC May 2012 Yes
Active protection of black grouse in the Natura 2000 special bird protection area in Knyszynska Primeval 
Forest0,6 Preservation of optimal habitat for black grouse C December 2011 Yes
National programme for the protection of capercaillie 0,2Preparation of the national programme (Monitoring of the quality of biotope in the habitats of caper -
caillie and their national population B December 2011 Yes
Preparation of protection action plans for Natura 2000 areas in Poland 5,8 Preparation of protection plans for 406 Natura 2000 sites B(Forecast: 
April  2014)No
Ecointerventions — increase of public involvement in the protection of Natura 2000 areas 0,1 Preparation of educational materials, website, training, study visits A February 2011 Yes
Closer to nature — identification and training of local environmental officers 0,2 Publication of educational and information materials, website A March 2012 Yes
Romania
(OP Environment)Digital cartographic support used for management plan and strategy preparation 0,8 Production of high-resolution digital map of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve B October 2012 Yes
Improvement of biodiversity in maritime sector through awareness and information 2,8 Construction of visitor centre, tourist trails, information points A(Forecast: 
December 2015)No
Integrated information system — support for improving ecosystem preservation 3,6Implementation of integrated information system for Administration of Danube Delta Biosphere 
ReserveB November 2011 Yes
Management measures for marine SCI ROSSCI0066 5,8 Inventory of underwater habitats and species and mapping of marine site B October 2013 No
Measures for management of Species of Community Interests within Vanatori Neamt Natural Park 0,2 Inventory of species, visitor centre, information points, education trail B May 2011 Yes
Improvement of bison status in Vanatori Neamt Natural Park 0,2 Infrastructure for bison and dissemination activities C May 2013 No
Project RO-NT3 ‘Common approach to biodiversity in Secu Natural Reservation and Vanatori Neamt Natural 
Park (Project RO-NT3)’0,2 Inventory of animals and creation of a database B May 2013 No
1 Project types:
A = Awareness ‑raising and education measures.
B = Building up information and plans.
C = Concrete protection measures.
2 In 18 projects, original completion dates were not met. Five projects were delayed by more than 6 months, two because  
of difficulties in purchasing land and three because of procurement procedure problems (two cases with a delay of more than a year).Annex III
33 Annexes
Country/region Project titleEU contribution
(million euro)Main measuresProject type
A, B or C1Completion 
date2Project complet -
ed at the time of 
the audit visit
Poland
(OP Infrastructure and 
Environment)Wildlife conservation in environmentally protected areas by concentrating tourism flows 0,3Works for land use (e.g. levelling of land, demolition of existing buildings) and construction of tourism 
infrastructureC May 2012 Yes
Active protection of black grouse in the Natura 2000 special bird protection area in Knyszynska Primeval 
Forest0,6 Preservation of optimal habitat for black grouse C December 2011 Yes
National programme for the protection of capercaillie 0,2Preparation of the national programme (Monitoring of the quality of biotope in the habitats of caper -
caillie and their national population B December 2011 Yes
Preparation of protection action plans for Natura 2000 areas in Poland 5,8 Preparation of protection plans for 406 Natura 2000 sites B(Forecast: 
April  2014)No
Ecointerventions — increase of public involvement in the protection of Natura 2000 areas 0,1 Preparation of educational materials, website, training, study visits A February 2011 Yes
Closer to nature — identification and training of local environmental officers 0,2 Publication of educational and information materials, website A March 2012 Yes
Romania
(OP Environment)Digital cartographic support used for management plan and strategy preparation 0,8 Production of high-resolution digital map of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve B October 2012 Yes
Improvement of biodiversity in maritime sector through awareness and information 2,8 Construction of visitor centre, tourist trails, information points A(Forecast: 
December 2015)No
Integrated information system — support for improving ecosystem preservation 3,6Implementation of integrated information system for Administration of Danube Delta Biosphere 
ReserveB November 2011 Yes
Management measures for marine SCI ROSSCI0066 5,8 Inventory of underwater habitats and species and mapping of marine site B October 2013 No
Measures for management of Species of Community Interests within Vanatori Neamt Natural Park 0,2 Inventory of species, visitor centre, information points, education trail B May 2011 Yes
Improvement of bison status in Vanatori Neamt Natural Park 0,2 Infrastructure for bison and dissemination activities C May 2013 No
Project RO-NT3 ‘Common approach to biodiversity in Secu Natural Reservation and Vanatori Neamt Natural 
Park (Project RO-NT3)’0,2 Inventory of animals and creation of a database B May 2013 No
1 Project types:
A = Awareness ‑raising and education measures.
B = Building up information and plans.
C = Concrete protection measures.
2 In 18 projects, original completion dates were not met. Five projects were delayed by more than 6 months, two because  
of difficulties in purchasing land and three because of procurement procedure problems (two cases with a delay of more than a year).
34 Annexes Annex IVOpportunities for biodiversity strategy offered by various EU funds within the 2007–
13 financial framework as indicated by the Commission
EU PolicyMain measures  
for biodiversity  
(direct and indirect)Budget 
2007–13
(million 
euro)Main relevant 
target of 
biodiversity 
strategyMain beneficiaries
Common agricultural policyBiodiversity protection, management 
and restoration measures in agricul -
tural and forest habitats
Natura 2000 payments; agri-envir -
onmental and forest environmental 
payments
Support for training, advisory services, 
conservation and upgrading of rural 
heritage42 700Target 3:
Agriculture and 
Forestry
Target 1:
Nature conservation
Target 2:
RestorationRegular, conditional payments to farm -
ers and forest owners
Other beneficiaries of specific objec -
tives in rural areas (e.g. diversification 
of the rural economy)
Common fisheries policyAqua-environmental actions
Protection of aquatic fauna and flora
Protection of coastal environmentNo dataTarget 4:
FisheriesEligible for funding: coastal communi -
ties, producer organisations and other 
beneficiaries in marine areas
Cohesion policyPromotion of biodiversity and nature 
protection
Promotion of natural assets
Protection and development of natural 
heritage
Help the labour force and companies to 
adapt to new environmental challenges 
and promote nature conservation in 
private-sector management5 232Target 1:
Nature conservation
Target 2:
RestorationAll kinds of beneficiaries
Financial focus on regions lagging 
behind and other regions with a view 
to increasing regional competitiveness 
and employment
Co-financing of one-off investments/
infrastructure
Environment policy (LIFE+)Innovative, best practice, demonstra -
tion projects and measures120Target 1:
Nature conservation
Target 2:
Restoration
Target 5:
Invasive alien speciesEligible for funding: a wide range 
of public and private bodies and 
individuals
Programme management by the 
Commission
No routine environmental spending
Research policyConservation and sustainable man -
agement of natural and man-made 
resources and biodiversity
Management of marine environments
Forecasting methods and assessment 
tools for sustainable development110Target 1:
Nature conservation
Target 2:
RestorationEligible for funding: public organisa -
tions and private companies carrying 
out research activities
External policySupport for meeting the obligations 
of the international Convention on 
Biological Biodiversity (CBD)114Target 6:
Global biodiversityEligible for funding: developing 
countries and partner organisations, as 
well as international organisations and 
EU agencies
Source:  European Commission Staff Working Paper SEC(2011) 540 final of 3.5.2011.
35
While, in the 2014–20 programming period, bio ‑
diversity is not a priority under the thematic con ‑
centration set out in the ERDF regulation (Article 4), 
the Commission has published a specific guidance 
document for the managing authorities (‘The guide 
to multi ‑benefit cohesion policy investments in 
nature and green infrastructure’) in order to sup ‑
port the authorities in this work.
In the context of the EU biodiversity strategy to 
2020, Action 5 foresees that Member States, with 
the assistance of the Commission, will map and 
assess the state of their ecosystems and their eco ‑
system services by 2014. The Commission services 
(DG Environment and the Joint Research Centre 
(JRC)) together with the European Environment 
Agency produced two reports which the Member 
States can use in carrying out this work.
Action 6(a) of the same strategy also foresees that, 
by 2014, the Member States — with the assistance 
of the Commission — will develop a strategic 
framework for the prioritisation of restoration activ ‑
ities at the EU, national and sub ‑national levels. The 
Commission has published two consultancy reports 
on this matter, including one estimating the costs 
of reaching the target of restoring 15 % of degraded 
ecosystems by 2020, and has provided recommen ‑
dations to the Member States.
The Commission intends to publish guidelines on 
biodiversity proofing which will support Member 
States in identifying opportunities within the ERDF 
amongst other possibilities.
VI (b)
The Commission accepts the recommendation. 
The partnership agreements negotiated between 
the Commission and each Member State provide 
an important instrument for ensuring complemen ‑
tarity across the different EU funds. The ERDF and 
rural development programmes will be screened 
during internal interservice consultations with 
a view to maximise the complementarity between 
the ERDF and the EAFRD. For all the aspects related 
to Natura 2000, this screening is based upon the 
prioritised action frameworks (PAFs).Executive  summary
IV
The Commission is grateful for the Court’s assess ‑
ment which provides insights which will be very 
useful during the implementation of the next gen ‑
eration of programmes. 
The Commission recalls that the objective of the 
ERDF is the reduction of economic, social and 
territorial disparities. While the fund may support 
biodiversity objectives, amongst other objectives, it 
is not designed as a dedicated tool for the promo ‑
tion of biodiversity.
V
The Commission expects that the introduction of 
specific objectives and result indicators for opera ‑
tional programmes in the new programming period 
(2014–20), covering biodiversity where relevant, will 
improve the monitoring and reporting capacity.
Preparatory work, including that financed by the 
ERDF, is a prerequisite to good project implementa ‑
tion. It provides the foundation for future interven ‑
tions (and the delivery of the biodiversity benefits). 
It is to be expected that these actions will be sup ‑
ported by the ERDF, but other EU funds (such as the 
EAFRD) and national resources could also be used 
to implement the projects.
VI (a)
The Commission accepts the recommendation. 
The Commission has accordingly begun to support 
Member States in setting their biodiversity restora ‑
tion priorities in relevant operational programmes. 
In the framework of the shared management of 
the Structural Funds, the Member States propose 
objectives and select investment priorities accord ‑
ing to their specific needs which are the subject of 
negotiation with the Commission. They are linked to 
result and output indicators. On the adoption of the 
programme they select and implement projects. Reply  of the  
Commission
Reply of the Commission 36
Where biodiversity objectives are clearly set, spe ‑
cific output and result indicators and evaluation 
procedures are required.
VII (c)
The Commission accepts the recommendation and 
has already begun the requested actions. With 
respect to Article 13 of the common provisions 
Regu  lation (EU) No 1303/2013, the Commission 
will publish guidance for beneficiaries which will 
include information on how to exploit comple ‑
mentarities of European Structural and Invest ‑
ment Funds (ESI) with other EU instruments. The 
guide mentioned above also includes a section on 
complementarities.
The Commission regularly exchanges information 
and advises Member States on the use of different 
funds for biodiversity, e.g. through the Coordination 
Group on Nature and Biodiversity and the European 
Network of Environmental Authorities Working 
Group.
VIII
The Commission accepts the recommendation 
and is taking the requested actions. The 2014–20 
implementation acts define the revised categorisa ‑
tion system to provide information on investments 
made in the framework of cohesion policy. Within 
the limits of this information system, the Commis ‑
sion has set up an internal ‘biodiversity tracking’ 
mechanism which will allow for a record of direct 
and indirect spending on biodiversity under the 
ERDF and Cohesion Fund. The reliability of the data 
will depend on the quality of the data provided by 
the Member States.
In line with the EU commitments on mainstream ‑
ing biodiversity and international commitments 
under the Convention on Biological Diversity, the 
Commission is working on more effective tracking 
of biodiversity expenditure. A dedicated section 
on biodiversity tracking will be incorporated in the 
2015 programme statements and the Commission is 
currently improving the methodology for biodiver ‑
sity tracking in the EU budget.VI (c)
Member States are primarily responsible for pro ‑
gramme implementation under shared manage ‑
ment. Therefore, the Commission considers that this 
recommendation should be addressed to pro ‑
gramme authorities. Under the relevant legal provi ‑
sions, the programme monitoring committee, in 
which the Commission participates as an observer, 
plays the primary role in monitoring progress and 
addressing implementation difficulties. Through its 
examination of the annual implementation reports 
and annual review meetings, the Commission will 
monitor the performance of programmes and iden ‑
tify any obstacles to effective implementation. The 
performance framework is an additional tool for this 
purpose.
Monitoring and evaluation requirements will be 
clearer in 2014–20 with the annual reporting of pro ‑
ject selection and spending by theme, the defini ‑
tion of specific result, common output and specific 
output indicators and impact evaluations. 
Operational programmes will include common indi ‑
cators and may include programme ‑specific indica ‑
tors (such as on biodiversity where relevant), which 
are used by managing and implementing authori ‑
ties to monitor the delivery of the programmes and 
inform the Commission as appropriate. From 2016 
the Commission will therefore receive annual data 
and implementation reports that provide a better 
insight on progress and performance.
VII (a)
The Commission accepts the recommendation. In 
response to this recommendation, in the frame ‑
work of the European Network of Environmental 
Authorities and Managing Authorities (ENEA ‑MA), 
the Commission will highlight the need to properly 
follow ‑up the preparatory measures by more spe ‑
cific conservation measures.
VII (b)
The Commission agrees with this recommendation. 
The regulations for the 2014–20 period, adopted in 
December 2013, establish an obligation to Mem ‑
ber States to evaluate the impact of each priority 
axis at least once during the programming period. 
The nature of such evaluations will depend on the 
specific objectives set in the yet to be adopted 
programmes. 
Reply of the Commission 37
12
In early 2011 the Commission adopted a com ‑
munication on ‘Regional policy contributing to 
sustain  able growth in Europe 2020’ which includes 
strategic direction, advice and good practices on 
ecosystem services and biodiversity. As a follow ‑up, 
two guidance which were fully or partially linked 
with biodiversity (‘The guide to multi ‑benefit 
cohesion policy investments in nature and green 
infrastructure’ and ‘Guide on connecting smart and 
sustainable growth through smart specialisation’, 
respectively) were published in 2012 and 2013.
Furthermore, the common provisions Regulation 
(EU) No 1303/2013 allows the Commission to offer 
Member States assistance for project preparation 
and appraisal for the 2014–20 period (see Art ‑
icle 58 on technical assistance at the initiative of the 
Commission). 
Observations
19
The Commission developed during 2012 and early 
2013 initial guidelines to track biodiversity ‑related 
expenditure under all relevant instruments, includ ‑
ing the ERDF.
20
The ERDF also offers funding possibilities for Tar ‑
get 5 (invasive alien species).
Common reply to observations 22  
to 24
The Commission encouraged Member States to 
further consider the support to ecosystems and 
bio diver  sity also in view of the then future pro ‑
grammes to be prepared for 2014–20.
In order to support Member States and their author ‑
ities in the uptake of the funding, the Commission 
set up a specific working group on biodiversity 
within the European Network of Environmental 
Authorities and Managing Authorities (ENEA ‑MA) 
and also published the guide mentioned above. 
Several events ensured dedicated work with Mem ‑
ber States in this area (Council working groups).Introduction
06
‘Integrated funding’ refers to mainstreaming invest ‑
ments in nature and biodiversity into major EU 
funding instruments (as opposed to the creation of 
a dedicated fund). As a consequence, funding for 
nature and biodiversity has to be in line with the 
overall objectives of these instruments (e.g. regional 
development, jobs and growth, development of 
rural areas, etc.). Only LIFE provides dedicated 
financing for nature and biodiversity.
09
For 2007–13, the Commission considers that a fur ‑
ther 0,8  billion  euro under the heading ‘tourism’ 
(promotion of natural assets) also contributes to 
biodiversity objectives1. 
10
Overall, the Commission estimates that the indir ‑
ect ERDF contribution to biodiversity objectives 
amounts to EUR 13.2 billion (allocated decided 
amounts for the 2007–13 programming period), 
taking into account the following categories of 
expenditure: 44 (management of household and 
industrial waste), 46 (water treatment (waste 
water)), 48 (integrated prevention and pollution 
control), 49 (mitigation and adaption to climate 
change), 50 (rehabilitation of industrial sites and 
contaminated land), 53 (risk prevention), 54 (other 
measures to preserve the environment and prevent 
risks), 56 (protection and development of natural 
heritage), using a 40 % discount factor for all these 
categories. Further details on the methodology 
are available in the EU report to the Convention on 
Biological Diversity2. 
1 http://www.cbd.int/financial/oda/European%20commission ‑
preliminary ‑reporting ‑framework ‑2014 ‑en.xlsx
2 http://www.cbd.int/financial/oda/European%20commission ‑
preliminary ‑reporting ‑framework ‑2014 ‑en.xlsx
Reply of the Commission 38
Box 1 
1. The Commission has been persuading the Member 
States to include nature and biodiversity among 
their investment priorities. The Commission has 
published a number of guides on this subject (e.g. 
‘The economic benefits of the Natura 2000 network’ , 
‘Handbook on financing Natura 2000’). The Commis ‑
sion has also promoted good practice and organ ‑
ised a series of seminars in the Member States on 
financing Natura 2000.
2. The Commission has promoted the inclusive 
and transparent preparation of operational pro ‑
grammes. The Natura 2000 financing seminars in 
the Member States aimed, among others, at increas ‑
ing the stakeholders’ engagement in the prepara ‑
tion of relevant operational programmes.
3. Progress on the adoption of management plans and 
other management measures has not been as fast 
as initially expected, although recently some Mem ‑
ber States have shown considerable progress in this 
area (e.g. France, Hungary and Poland).
4. Member States can make use of their technical as ‑
sistance in order to build capacities among their 
socioeconomic and civil society partners. In this re ‑
spect, the inclusion of these partners in the 2014–20 
programmes has been reinforced, not least with the 
adoption of a code of conduct.
5. In the context of the legislative challenge to renew 
and improve the performance of EU spending pro ‑
grammes, cross‑ cutting all European policies and 
engaging work from all the European institutions 
and the Member States, the Commission has sought 
to ease access to EU funding for its citizens and busi ‑
nesses. However, administrative measures are nec ‑
essary to make sure that projects are carried out in 
line with an operational programme’s priorities and 
eligibility rules. Technical assistance is available to 
improve the administrative capacity of potential 
beneficiaries.25
The Commission takes the view that investments in 
biodiversity and nature are intrinsically in line with 
ERDF priorities such as creating growth and jobs, 
tackling climate change and reducing social exclu ‑
sion. The Commission published in June 2013 guide ‑
lines on how investments in biodiversity can deliver 
multiple socioeconomic benefits and facilitate 
integrated regional development, e.g. ‘The guide to 
multi ‑benefit cohesion policy investments in nature 
and green infrastructure’.
28
The Commission has launched a contract to 
improve the initial methodology for tracking 
biodiversity ‑related expenses. A workshop is fore ‑
seen to inform Member States and stakeholders on 
the Commission’s tracking methodology and share 
good practices.
The categorisation system is an information system 
tool and does not determine eligibility. Article 37.d) 
of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 on com ‑
mon provisions for the ERDF, Cohesion Fund and 
ESF (period 2007–13) established the system and 
made clear that the categorisation was indicative. 
Integrated projects are a particular challenge to 
capture accurately in such an information system. 
29
Preparatory measures are often a necessary precon ‑
dition for on ‑site conservation, green infrastructure 
and restoration measures. In the 2014–20 opera ‑
tional programmes, the Member States should 
prioritise on ‑site conservation, green infrastructure 
and restoration work based on previous prepara ‑
tory studies.
Box 4 — Third paragraph
The absence of a proper land register in the coun ‑
try is a serious obstacle to territorial planning and 
development in many sectors, including environ ‑
ment. The Commission and the Romanian authori ‑
ties agreed to consider it as one of the main funding 
priorities for the 2014–20 programming period.
Reply of the Commission 39
31
The Commission agrees that programme impact 
evaluations of programme activities should take 
place. Evaluating project impacts could also be 
considered good practice, though the costs of 
project ‑level evaluation may be disproportionately 
high. Hence, the regulations for the period 2014–20 
establish an obligation to Member States to evalu ‑
ate the impact of each priority axis at least once 
during the programming period. 
Box 6 — Third paragraph
The Commission has identified a breach of EU 
legislation with regard to national developments on 
the Sulina beach and has opened an infringement 
procedure (Case 2010/4024, letter of formal notice 
sent to Romania on 7.5.2010).
33
Effective monitoring of the impact of investment 
in biodiversity requires appropriate indicators and 
statistics. Such indicators should be agreed at the 
stage of project design. In many projects designed 
to promote biodiversity, it is to be expected that 
there will be a time lag between the measures 
being taken and evidence of a positive response in 
terms of biodiversity. The right physical and hydro ‑
logical conditions can be created but the establish ‑
ment of healthy ecosystems and rich biodiversity 
takes time. Project ‑specific indicators of success 
should be developed and agreed at the project 
design stage. In many cases, measurable positive 
impacts on biodiversity may not be seen until sev ‑
eral years after the formal end of the project. 
Consequently, producing result indicators for 
monitoring and assessing impacts on biodiversity 
is a challenging task. It requires comprehensive 
data collection and broadening of our knowledge 
base. Support for actions — such as mapping and 
assessing the ecosystem and their service under the 
EU 2020 biodiversity strategy — will lead to a better 
understanding of the current state of biodiversity, 
setting constructive conservation/restoration tar ‑
gets, and good monitoring and evaluation. Box 5 — First paragraph
Under shared management a Member State is 
responsible for the preparation, selection and 
implementation of projects below EUR 50 million. 
The Commission will take into account the Court’s 
observations during the negotiation of the 2014–
2020 Environment OP for the Czech Republic, in 
order to encourage measures to address this issue 
(avoiding delays in the approval process and fre ‑
quent modifications of the scope of projects).
Box 5 — Second paragraph
Preparation of documentation for the ‘National 
programme for the protection of Capercaillie’ was 
only one element of the project. The others were: 
monitoring of the capercaillie population in Poland, 
monitoring the conservation status of its habitat in 
39 sites and 20 expert workshops. All these compo ‑
nents of the project were delivered. The project has 
therefore contributed to improving the knowledge 
base about the capercaillie conservation status 
in Poland. The documentation prepared for the 
purpose of adoption of the national programme 
is under review by the beneficiary in the light of 
GDEP´s comments.
Box 5 — Third paragraph
The preparation and adoption of national species 
action programmes is a long process (it requires 
consultations with different authorities and stake ‑
holders at national, regional and local levels). 
Documentation prepared within the ERDF projects 
is a key component for the future programmes. 
It also improves the knowledge base about the 
species, which can be used when planning on ‑site 
conservation measures (even in the absence of 
national programmes). With the participation of 
all stakeholders, GDEP recently set up a procedure 
for the approval of particular species protection 
programmes, thus ensuring a proper sustainability 
of the biodiversity projects.
Reply of the Commission 40
40
Member States and their authorities select and 
implement the co ‑funded projects. In this frame ‑
work, they are in charge of ensuring the financial 
sustainability of the supported projects, including 
the needed links with local, regional and national 
financial means over the medium and long terms. 
For 2014–20, the possibilities to deploy financial 
instruments through cohesion policy have been 
reinforced and Member States could also use these 
new possibilities in the area of nature and biodiver ‑
sity protection.
Box 11 — Second paragraph 
Genetic variety and viability of the population were 
issues addressed by project promoters in the choice 
of bisons to be released in the park. Since the end 
of the project, five additional bisons were intro ‑
duced with own funds and three three new cubs 
were born in the wild.
Box 11 — Third paragraph
At the time of the audit, the park’s management 
plan was under approval by the Ministry of Environ ‑
ment according to the national legislation rules. 
Box 11 — Fourth paragraph 
Coordination is ensured by the managing authority 
for the Environment OP 2007–13, established under 
the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment 
and Climate Change. 
Conclusions and recommendations
41
The Commission expects that the introduction of 
specific objectives and result indicators for opera ‑
tional programmes in the new programming period 
(2014–20), covering biodiversity where relevant, will 
improve the Commission’s monitoring and report ‑
ing capacity.Common reply to paragraph 34 and 
Box 9
The analysis on the monitoring of the ERDF opera ‑
tional programmes should take into account the EU 
rules. In this respect, the monitoring of the Spanish 
programmes (with their corresponding indicators) 
has been correctly done through the annual imple ‑
mentation reports. The latter include monitoring 
at programme level (and not at project level) and 
values for indicators such as: ‘Actions developed 
in Natura 2000 areas’, ‘Rehabilitated area’, ‘Actions 
foreseen for the recovery and regeneration of the 
environment’, ‘Number of environmental projects’, 
‘Length of coast affected’ and ‘Actions for the res ‑
toration of the habitats and species in the network 
Natura’.
35
The Commission agrees with the Court that the 
absence of monitoring precludes the assessment 
of achievements. However, for the period 2014–20, 
Member States are obliged to have procedures in 
place to ensure that all operations financed by the 
programme adopt an effective system of indicators.
37
In the framework of shared management, the 
Member States and their authorities implement 
the projects and have to ensure their sustainability, 
including potential maintenance and financial sup ‑
port through local, regional or national funds.
Furthermore, the commitment of the local com ‑
munity or an environmental non ‑governmental 
organisation (NGO) to maintain a site after the 
improvements is also key in delivering a sustain ‑
able outcome. This requires that the level of 
investment (human and material in addition to 
financial) is docu  mented before the start of the 
project and that the community/NGO accepts to 
provide these investments at the end of the project 
implementation.
Reply of the Commission 41
Action 6(a) of the same strategy also foresees that, 
by 2014, the Member States — with the assistance 
of the Commission — will develop a strategic 
framework for the prioritisation of restoration activ ‑
ities at the EU, national and sub ‑national levels. The 
Commission has published two consultancy reports 
on this matter, including one estimating costs of 
reaching the target of restoring 15 % of degraded 
ecosystems by 2020, and has provided recommen ‑
dations to the Member States.
The Commission is intending to publish guidelines 
on biodiversity proofing which will support Mem ‑
ber States in identifying opportunities within the 
ERDF amongst other possibilities.
Recommendation 1 (b)
The Commission accepts the recommendation. The 
partnership agreements negotiated between the 
Commission and each Member State provide an 
important instrument for ensuring complementarity 
across the different EU funds. The operational and 
rural development programmes will be screened 
during internal interservice consultations with 
a view to maximise the complementarity between 
the ERDF and the EAFRD. For all the aspects related 
to Natura 2000, this screening is based upon the 
prioritised action frameworks (PAFs).
Recommendation 1 (c)
Member States are primarily responsible for pro ‑
gramme implementation under shared manage ‑
ment. Therefore, the Commission considers that this 
recommendation should be addressed to pro ‑
gramme authorities. Under the relevant legal provi ‑
sions, the programme monitoring committee, in 
which the Commission participates as an observer, 
plays the primary role in monitoring progress and 
addressing implementation difficulties. The Com ‑
mission will, through its examination of the annual 
implementation reports and annual review meet ‑
ings, monitor the performance of programmes and 
identify any obstacles to effective implementation. 
The performance framework is an additional tool 
for this purpose.Preparatory work, including that financed by the 
ERDF, is a prerequisite to good project implementa ‑
tion. It provides the foundation for future interven ‑
tions (and the delivery of the biodiversity benefits). 
It is to be expected that these actions will be sup ‑
ported by the ERDF, but other EU funds (such as the 
EAFRD) and national resources could also be used 
to implement the projects.
42
The Member States select their priorities for the 
use of the ERDF in accordance with their specific 
characteristics, needs and situations. In this frame ‑
work, the Commission has provided further support 
to Member States as regards the potential use of 
the ERDF for biodiversity in 2014–20 (‘The guide to 
multi ‑benefit cohesion policy investments in nature 
and green infrastructure’, ‘Handbook for financing 
Natura’, seminars in the Member States on financing 
Natura 2000) and will continue doing so, e.g. through 
forthcoming guidance on biodiversity proofing.
Recommendation 1 (a)
The Commission accepts the recommendation. The 
Commission has accordingly begun to support Mem ‑
ber States in setting their biodiversity restoration 
priorities in relevant operational programmes. In the 
framework of the shared management of the Struc ‑
tural Funds, the Member States propose objectives 
and select investment priorities according to their 
specific needs which are subject of negotiation with 
the Commission. They are linked to result and output 
indicators. On the adoption of the programme they 
select and implement projects. While, in the 2014–20 
programming period, biodiversity is not a priority 
under the thematic concentration set out in the ERDF 
regulation (Article 4), the Commission has published 
a specific guidance document for the managing 
authorities (‘The guide to multi ‑benefit cohesion pol ‑
icy investments in nature and green infrastructure’) in 
order to support the authorities in this work.
In the context of the EU biodiversity strategy to 
2020, Action 5 foresees that Member States with the 
assistance of the Commission will map and assess the 
state of their ecosystems and their ecosystem services 
by 2014. The Commission services (DG Environment 
and the Joint Research Centre (JRC)) together with the 
European Environment Agency produced two reports 
which the Member States can use in carrying out this 
work.
Reply of the Commission 42
Recommendation 2 (a)
The Commission accepts the recommendation. In 
response to this recommendation, in the frame ‑
work of the European Network of Environmental 
Authorities and Managing Authorities (ENEA ‑MA), 
the Commission will highlight the need to properly 
follow ‑up the preparatory measures by more spe ‑
cific conservation measures.
Recommendation 2 (b)
The Commission agrees with this recommendation. 
The regulations for the 2014–20 period adopted in 
December 2013 establish an obligation to Mem ‑
ber States to evaluate the impact of each priority 
axis at least once during the programming period. 
The nature of such evaluations will depend on the 
specific objectives set in the yet to be adopted pro ‑
grammes. Where biodiversity objectives are clearly 
set, output and result indicators and evaluation 
procedures are required.
Recommendation 2 (c)
The Commission accepts the recommendation and 
has already begun the requested actions. With 
respect to Article 13 of the common provisions 
Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013, the Commission 
will publish guidance for beneficiaries which will 
include information on how to exploit complemen ‑
tarities of ESI funds with other EU instruments. The 
guide mentioned above also includes a section on 
complementarities.
The Commission regularly exchanges information 
and advises Member States on the use of different 
funds for biodiversity, e.g. through the Coordination 
Group on Nature and Biodiversity and the European 
Network of Environmental Authorities Working 
Group.
The Commission accepts the recommendation 
and is taking the requested actions. The 2014–20 
implementation acts define the revised categorisa ‑
tion system to provide information on investments 
made in the framework of cohesion policy. Within 
the limits of this information system, the Commis ‑
sion has set up an internal ‘biodiversity tracking’ 
mechanism which will allow for a record of direct 
and indirect spending on biodiversity under the 
ERDF and Cohesion Fund. The reliability of the data 
will depend on the quality of the data provided by 
the Member States.Monitoring and evaluation requirements will be 
clearer in 2014–20 with the annual reporting of pro ‑
ject selection and spending by theme, the defini ‑
tion of specific result, common output and specific 
output indicators and impact evaluations. 
Operational programmes will include common indi ‑
cators and may include programme ‑specific indica ‑
tors (such as on biodiversity where relevant), which 
are used by managing and implementing authori ‑
ties to monitor the delivery of the programmes and 
inform the Commission as appropriate. From 2016 
the Commission will therefore receive annual data 
and implementation reports that provide a better 
insight on progress and performance.
43
In 2007–13, categories of expenditure contained 
a category on biodiversity and Natura 2000. For the 
2014–20 period, these two will be split into different 
categories. However, in many cases biodiversity is 
a secondary objective of an intervention (primary 
being risk prevention, pollution reduction, etc.) and 
it is normal that these interventions are categorised 
according to their primary objectives. Very often, 
projects supported by the ERDF can contribute to 
multiple objectives.
44
The principle of following through on investments 
made at a preparatory stage is understood. How ‑
ever, the investments necessary to carry out the 
actions that will deliver the biodiversity benefits 
will not come exclusively from the ERDF.
During the preparation of the 2014–20 OPs, the 
Commission has recommended in some cases that 
Member States use the ERDF in investments rather 
than studies; in terms of biodiversity this should 
accelerate and make more effective the implemen ‑
tation of protection and management plans.
45
Financial inputs are not the only way to guarantee 
long ‑term sustainability. Local communities or 
NGOs may be prepared to provide the necessary 
inputs (human and material resources) as long 
as the dimensions of these inputs are clarified in 
advance. 
Reply of the Commission 43
In line with the EU commitments on mainstream ‑
ing biodiversity and international commitments 
under the Convention on Biological Diversity, the 
Commission is working on more effective tracking 
of biodiversity expenditure. A dedicated section 
on biodiversity tracking will be incorporated in the 
2015 programme statements and the Commission is 
currently improving the methodology for biodiver ‑
sity tracking in the EU budget.


QJ‑AB‑14‑012‑EN‑C ISSN  1831 ‑0834
Protecting biodiversity is a key environmental 
priority for the EU, expressed in the EU strategy 
for biodiversity to 2020 and a variety of relevant 
EU policies and legislation. In this report, the 
Court focuses on the European Regional 
Development Fund and its role in financing and 
supporting projects directly promoting 
biodiversity.
EUROPEAN
COURT
OF AUDITORS