EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES  
Brussels, 16.12.2008 
SEC(2008) 3045 Vol. 1 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying document to the 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSI ON TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EU ROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMI TTEE OF THE REGIONS 
 
A MID-TERM ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTING  
THE EC BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN 
  
SEBI 2010 BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS 
 
 
{COM(2008) 864 final} 
{SEC(2008) 3042} {SEC(2008) 3043} {SEC(2008) 3044} 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Streamlining European 2010 Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010)  fact sheets ............................... 4  
FOCAL AREA: STATUS AND TRENDS OF THE COMPONENTS OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY .... 5  
European Headline Indicator: Trends in abundan ce and distribution of  selected species ..................... 5  
01. Abundance and distributi on of selected species.......................................................................... 5  
European Headline Indicator: Ch ange in status of threatened a nd/or protect ed species....................... 9  
02. Red List Index for European species ........................................................................................ ... 9 
03. Species of Eu ropean In terest............................................................................................... ...... 12  
European Headline Indicator: Tren ds in extent of selected biom es, ecosystems and habitats............ 15  
04. Ecosystem coverage......................................................................................................... ......... 15  
05. Habitats of European In terest .............................................................................................. ...... 19  
European Headline Indicator: Trends in genetic dive rsity of domesticated ani mals, cultivated plants, 
fish species and trees of majo r socioeconomic importance.................................................................. 22  
06. Livestock genet ic diversity................................................................................................ .......... 22  
European Headline Indicator: Cove rage of protec ted areas................................................................. 25  
07. Nationally designat ed protected areas...................................................................................... .2 5 
08. Sites designated under the EU Habitats and Bird s Direct ives................................................... 27  
FOCAL AREA: THREATS TO BIODIV ERSITY ................................................................................... 31  
European Headline Indicato r: Nitrogen Deposition ............................................................................... 31 
09. Critical load exce edance for nitrogen...................................................................................... ... 31 
European Headline Indicator: Trends  in invasive a lien spec ies............................................................ 34  
10. Invasive alien species in Europe........................................................................................... ..... 34  
European Headline Indicator: Impact of  climate change on biodiversity .............................................. 39  
11. Occurrence of temperat ure-sensitive species............................................................................ 39  
FOCAL AREA: ECOSYSTEM INTEGRITY AN D ECOSYSTEM GOODS AND SERVICES............... 40  
European Headline Indicator:  Marine Tr ophic I ndex............................................................................. 4 0 
12. Marine Trophic Index  of Europea n seas .................................................................................... 40  
European Headline Indicator: Connecti vity/ Fragmentation of ecosystems.......................................... 43  
13. Fragmentation of natural  and semi-natur al areas ...................................................................... 43  
14. Fragmentation of  river systems............................................................................................. ..... 44  
European Headline Indicator: Wate r quality in aquatic  ecosys tems ..................................................... 45  
15. Nutrients in transitional, coastal and mari ne waters................................................................... 45  
16. Freshwat er qua lity ......................................................................................................... ............. 48  
 
EN 3   EN FOCAL AREA: SUST AINABLE USE................................................................................................... 5 3 
European Headline Indicator: Area of forest, agric ulture, fishery and aquaculture ecosystems under 
sustainable management ......................................................................................................... ............. 53  
17. Forest: growing stock,  increment and  fellings............................................................................ 53  
18. Fores t: deadwood........................................................................................................... ............ 58  
19. Agriculture:  nitrogen balance.............................................................................................. ........ 61  
20. Agriculture: area under management practices potentially  supporting biodiversity................... 63  
21. Fisheries: European co mmercial fish stocks.............................................................................. 68  
22. Aquaculture: effluent water quality from finf ish farms ................................................................ 71  
European Headline Indicator: Ecol ogical Footprint and biocapaci ty of European countries ................ 75  
23. Ecological Footprint of European countries ............................................................................... 75  
FOCAL AREA: STATUS OF ACC ESS AND BENEFITS  SHARING................................................... 78  
European Headline Indicator: Percentage of Europ ean patent applications for inventions based on 
genetic reso urces .............................................................................................................. .................... 78  
24. Patent applications ba sed on genetic resources........................................................................ 78  
FOCAL AREA: STATUS OF RESO URCE TRANSFERS  AND USE .................................................. 79  
European Headline Indicator:  Funding to bi odiversity........................................................................... 79 
25. Financing Biodive rsity Management .......................................................................................... 79 
FOCAL AREA: PUBL IC OPINION ..................................................................................................... .. 81 
European Headline Indicator: Public  Awareness and Pa rticipat ion ...................................................... 81  
26. Public Awareness........................................................................................................... ............ 81  
 
EN 4   EN Streamlining European 2010 Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 201 0) fact sheets  
This annex contains 26 “fact sheets” for the SEBI  2010 biodiversity indicato rs. The SEBI 2010 process 
was initiated in 2005 to select a set of indicato rs to measure and help achieve progress towards the 
European target to halt biodiversity loss by 2010.  SEBI 2010 institutional partners are the European 
Environment Agency (and its European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity), ECNC (European 
Centre for Nature Conservation), UNEP-WCMC (World Conservation Monitoring Centre), DG 
Environment of the European Commission, the PEBLDS  Joint Secretariat, and th e Czech Republic (as 
lead country for the Kiev Resolution action plan on biodiversity indicators).  
The SEBI 2010 process has to a larg e extent been made possible by t he contributions of more than 
120 experts from across the pan-European region and from international NGOs and IGOs. 
A history of the SEBI 2010 process as well as technical specifications of  the indicators can be found in 
EEA Technical report 11/2007 “Halting the loss of bi odiversity by 2010: proposal for a first set of 
indicators to monitor progress in Europe” ( http://reports.eea.europa.eu /technical_report_2007_11/en ). 
Readers are encouraged to consult this public ation if they need detailed information on the 
methodology for each indicator. 
Data are currently available for 22 of the 26 i ndicators. The fact sheets in this annex contain a 
summary assessment of the latest data available for each indicator. 
 
EN 5   EN FOCAL AREA: STATUS AND TRENDS OF  THE COMPONENTS OF BIOLOGICAL 
DIVERSITY 
European Headline Indicator: Trends in abundance and distribution of selected 
species 
01. Abundance and distribution of selected species 
Key Policy Question: Which species are being reduced in abundance and distribution in 
Europe? 
 
Key message  
 
Overall, Europe’s common birds have declined by around 15% since 1980. Common farmland birds 
have declined most severely, by more than 40%, but  common forest birds have also declined, by 
around 10%. Declines have levelled off since the late 1990ies. Europe’s grassland butterflies have 
declined dramatically, by 60% since 1990, and this  decline shows no sign yet of levelling off. 
 
Common birds in Europe, population index (1980 = 100) 
406080100120
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Farmland birds
Forest birds
All common birds
 
Source: EBCC/RSPB/BirdLife/Statistics Netherlands  
Notes: 1) Common farmland bird species (n=33), common forest bird s pecies (n=28) and all common bird species (this line includes 
the farmland and forest birds, as well as a host of other common species that are not primarily associated with either of these  
habitats) (n=124). Country coverage (i.e. reflecting the availability of high-qu ality monitoring data from annually-operated 
common bird monitoring schemes, employin g generic survey methods and producing reliable national trends): Ireland, UK, 
Netherlands, Denmark, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Belgiu m, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Czech 
Republic, Hungary, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy.  
2) In analysing this indicator, it should be underlined that the methodology for calculating the farmland bird index has recent ly 
changed. The new index presents a much sharper drop around t he years 1995 and 1996. While the new index is recognised as 
integrating better expertise in terms of species selection, furt her investigation is necessary to  explore what is behind this d rop. In 
addition, the influence of both the inclusion of new species and new Member States in the selection, and the starting year of 
 
EN 6   EN monitoring schemes in some countries shoul d be further investigated. In any case, the trend from 1996 onwards is consistent 
with the previous methodology and show s a fairly stable level of the index. 
 
EN 7   EN Grassland butterflies, Population index (1990 = 100) 
 
020406080100120
1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005
 
Source: De Vlinderstichting/Butterfly Conservation Europe 
Note: For this graph data for grassland butterfly species from Butterf ly Monitoring Schemes in nine c ountries were used: Belgium - 
Flanders (1991-2004), Estonia (since 2004), Finland (since 1999) , France (since 2005), France - Doubs region (2001-2004), 
Germany (since 2005), Germany - Nordrhein Westfalen (since  2001), Germany - Pfalz region (Maculinea nausithous only, 1989-
2002), Jersey (since 2004), Portugal (since 1998), Spain - Cata lunya (since 1994), The Netherlands (since 1990), and United 
Kingdom (since 1976).
 
Assessment 
 Of the more common bird species, forest and part icularly farmland birds have declined. The initial 
steep decline of farmland birds was associated with in creasing agricultural specialisation and intensity 
in some areas, and large-scale marginalisation and land abandonment in others. The falling trend has 
levelled off since the late 1990ies, partly because of stabilising inputs of nutrients and pesticides and 
the introduction of set-aside in the EU15, and partly because of drastically lower inputs in the EU10 as 
a result of political reforms and the resulting economic  crisis in the agricultural sector. An increase in 
agricultural production if linked to higher inputs of  nutrients and pesticides in the east, combined with 
further land abandonment in some parts of Europe an d the proposed abolition of set-aside may lead to 
a new decline.  
 Conservation measures adopted under the EU Birds Dire ctive have proven effective in the recovery of 
rare bird populations (Donald et al.  2007), but not in the case of widespread birds, where different 
recovery mechanisms are now required. Well-desig ned agri-environment measures have been shown 
to reverse bird declines at local levels. The cha llenge now is to deploy them widely enough to help 
populations recover at national and European scales. 
Over the past decade, grassland butterflies have suffered even bigger declines than birds, with a 
reduction of grassland butterfly abundance by almost 50%, with little sign of improvement.  
 
Notes:   
An increase means that there are more species whose populations have increased than species 
whose populations have decreased: it does not ne cessarily mean that the overall population has 
increased. It can be due to expansion of some s pecies (typically generalists) at the expense of 
other species (typica lly specialists).  
 
EN 8   EN  
Geographical coverage 
Birds 
 
Butterflies 
 
 
Web links 
 
EBCC : European Bird Census Council : www.ebcc.info/  
Butterfly Conservation Europe: www.bc-europe.org/  
 Sources and references  
 Europe's environment - The fourth assessment (2007) 
Halting the loss of biodiversity by 20 10: proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe (EEA 
Technical Report 11/2007). 
Donald, P.F. et al. 2007. International Conservation Polic y Delivers Benefits for Birds in Europe. Science 317, 
810. 
 Version 26 November 2008 
 
EN 9   EN European Headline Indicator: Change in status of threatened and/or protected species 
02. Red List Index for European species 
Key Policy Question: Does the conservation status of European birds change? 
 
Key message 
 
The overall conservation status of Europe's birds generally has deteriorated over the last decade. 
While some species have improved in status ow ing to conservation action, many more have 
deteriorated owing to worsening threats and/or declining populations. 
 
Red List Index (RLI) for European birds b ased on pan-European extinction risk 1994-2004 
0.850.900.95
1994 2004
YearRed List Index of 
species survival
 
Source: BirdLife International. 
Note: n = 522 species 
 
 
Assessment 
 
Extinction risk overall is increasing for European bi rd species. In the figure above, for example, the 
decrease from a value of 0.89 to 0.87 reflects t he balance between 19 species improving in status 
during 1994–2004, but 51 species deteriorating in status. 
All European groups of countries show a consiste nt decline, except possibly the Caucasus. EU25 
shows a continuing decline, from a starting point that  was already lower than that in other sub-regions, 
indicating that species in the EU25 are more threatened overall. 
 
 
EN 10   EN Red List Indices (RLIs) for birds in the EU25, EFTA4, E Europe, Caucasus and SE Europe 
during 1994-2004, based on their extinction risk at Pan-European level 
0.86000.87000.88000.89000.90000.91000.92000.93000.9400
1994 2004 1994 2004 1994 2004 1994 2004 1994 2004EU25 (n = 460) EFTA4 (n = 317) Caucasus (n =
313)E Europe (n =
397)SE Europe (n =
390)
 
Source: BirdLife International 
Note: n = 522 species Country groupings: EU 25 (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland,  France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the 
Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Cypr us, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia); E FTA (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Swit zerland); Caucasus (A rmenia, Azerbaijan, 
Georgia); Eastern Europe (Belarus, Republic of Moldova, Ru ssian Federation, Ukraine); SE Europe (Albania, Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedoni a, Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey).
 
 
Notes: 
 
1. The IUCN Red List categorises species as Exti nct, Extinct in the Wild, Critically Endangered, 
Endangered, Vulnerable, Near Th reatened, Least Concern, Data Deficient and Not Evaluated. 
The RLI is calculated from the number of species that moved between categories between 
assessments owing to genuine improvement or deterioration in status. If for more species the 
extinction risk has increased instead of decre ased the RLI goes down. Extinction risk for this 
indicator is assessed at the European level, i.e.  the risk that a species goes extinct in Europe 
(even if the species may survive in other regions of the world). 
2. Decreasing RLI values means that the rate of biodiversity loss is increasing. No change in RLI 
values means that the expected rate of spec ies extinctions is unchanged (it does not mean 
that biodiversity loss has stopped, or that t he biodiversity will remain unchanged). Increasing 
RLI values means that there is a decrease in t he expected future rate of species extinctions 
(i.e. a reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss). 
3. To date, the Red List Index has only been calcul ated for bird species at European level, so the 
information in the current indicator is limited to European birds. 
 
Geographical coverage 
 
 
 
EN 11   EN Weblink 
IUCN Red List: www.redlist.org  
 
Sources and references 
Europe's environment - The fourth assessment (2007) 
Halting the loss of biodiversity by 20 10: proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe (EEA 
Technical Report 11/2007). 
IUCN (2003) Guidelines for application of IUCN Red List Cr iteria at regional levels: Version 3.0. IUCN Species 
Survival Commission. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom 
Butchart, S. H. M., Akçakaya, H. R., Chanson, J., Baillie, J. E. M., Collen, B., Quader, S., Turner, W. R., Amin, R., 
Stuart, S. N., Hilton-Taylor, C. and Mace, G. M. (2007) Improv ements to the Red List Inde x. Public Lib. Sci. One 
2(1): e140. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0000140 
 
Version 26 November 2008  
 
EN 12   EN 03. Species of European Interest  
Key Policy Question: What is the conservation status of  species of Community interest?  
 
Key message  
 Around half of the species of Community interest (t hose species which, within the territory of the 
European Union are listed in An nexes II, IV and V of the Habitats  Directive) have an unfavourable 
conservation status. The situation may even be wo rse, since there are still significant gaps in 
knowledge, especially for marine species. 
 
 
Conservation Status – Species by Biogeographical Region 
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Alpine Atlantic Boreal Continental Macaronesian MediterraneanPannonic Marine
AtlanticMarine Baltic Marine
Macaron.Marine
Mediterr.EU
1196 786 545 1436 185 1152 460 123 19 56 117 6075Unfavourable - Bad
Unfavourable - Inadequate
Not Assessed
Unknown
Favourable
 
Numbers below the bars refer to the cumulated num ber of species assessments made by Member States. 
Source: Data provided by 25 EU Member  States (EU27 except Bulgaria and Romania which will be included in the next 
reporting phase in 2013) through their reports under Ar ticle 17 of the Habitats Directive. March 2008. 
How to read the graph: In the alpine region, around 30 % of species are in favourable status and less than 20 % are in 
unfavourable-bad status.   
 
 
EN 13   EN Conservation Status – Species by Taxonomic Group 
 
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Mammals Reptiles Amphibians Fish Arthropods Molluscs Vascular plants Non-vascular
plantsOthers
1537 377 490 629 1008 242 1336 415 41Unfavourable - Bad
Unfavourable - Inadequate
Not Assessed
Unknown
Favourable
 
Numbers below the bars refer to the cumulated num ber of species assessments made by Member States. 
 
Source: Data provided by 25 EU Member  States (EU27 except Bulgaria and Romania which will be included in the next 
reporting phase in 2013) through their reports under Ar ticle 17 of the Habitats Directive. March 2008. 
 
Assessment 
 
Unfavourable status is most frequently reported fo r the species in the marine Baltic region and the 
continental region (over 80 and 60%, respectively). The variation amongst species groups is limited, 
but amphibians appear to be most threatened, mo re than 60% having an unfavourable conservation 
status. Trend information was not available in most cases 
 
Note 
These graphs are bas ed on assessments of species listed on Annexes II, IV  and V of the Directive. 
Member States were required to assess each species in each biogeographical zone in which it exists 
in the country. The graphs therefore have multiple assessments of the same species in each column; 
e.g. 8 countries made assessments of otter ( Lutra lutra ) in the Atlantic biogeographical zone. In both 
graphs, the EU column is the total of all assessments in the other columns.  
Recovery to favourable conservati on status will take a considerable time for many species. The next 
evaluation in six years will aid assessme nt of the efficiency of the Directive.  
 
 
EN 14   EN Geographical coverage 
 
 
Web links About Species of European Interest
 
http://ec.europa.eu/environmen t/nature/legislat ion/habitatsdire ctive/index_en.htm   
 
About Biogeographical Regions  
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ nature/natura2000/site s_hab/biogeog_regio ns/index_en.htm   
 
About conservation status assessment  
http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/nature/knowledge/rep_ habitats/index_en.htm#csa  
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc /env/monnat/library?l=/habi tats_reporting/reporting_2001-
2007/internet_consultation/dra ft_consultation /_EN_1.0_&a=d   
 
Version 26 November 2008 
 
EN 15   EN European Headline Indicator: Trends in extent of selected biomes, ecosystems and 
habitats 
04. Ecosystem coverage 
 
Key Policy Question: Which changes in  distribution of Europe's ecosystems and habitats 
occur? 
 
Key message  
 
Built-up areas, infrastructure and woodland are increa sing whilst agricultural land, semi-natural and 
natural habitats decrease. The overall statistics hi de more detailed transition patterns. Wetlands, for 
example, are mainly substituted by forest; other (semi-)natural areas give primarily way to agriculture. 
  
Land cover change: % net formation 1990-2000 (number of hectares in brackets) 
-4 -2 0 2 4 6Constructed, industrial, artificial habitats (779362)Inland surface w ater (99513)Woodland and forest (603421)Marine habitats (-6580)Grassland (-223555)Cultivated, agriculture, horticulture (-801538)inland unvegetated or sparsely vegetated (-42197)Coastal habitats (-3231)heathland, scrub and tundra (-298108)Mire, bog and fen habitats (-107044)
% change
 
Source: EEA 
Note: Based on Corine and LEAC (Land and Ecosystems Accounts) 
 
 
EN 16   EN Assessment 
The figure above shows land cover changes be tween 1990 and 2000. A large part of West and 
Central Europe has effectively become urban in char acter, with massive sprawl around the existing 
urban centres in much of lowland Europe, and along the coasts. In many places agriculture has been 
marginalised as an economic activity, often with resulting land abandonment. Elsewhere new areas 
may be taken into production, but on average the lo ss caused by land abandonment outweighs this.  
Forest cover in general has increased, about 8 000–9 000 km2
 per year since 1990. This expansion 
has primarily happened in the EU and EFTA, mainly due to decreasing grazing pressure and 
spontaneous re-growth, and afforestation on abandoned agricultural land.  
 
Source: Europe's environment - The fourth assessment (2007).  
 
  
 
Consumption of land cover (1990) by urban sprawl and sprawl of economic sites and 
infrastructures by 2000 (hectares) 
4651 70
346251864905966743262465
7721
5479
Artificial areas
Arable land & permanent crops
Pastures & mosaics
Forested land
Semi-natural vegetation
Open spaces/ bare soils
Wetlands
Water bodies
 
Source 
EEA, LEAC Note 
Based on Corine Land Cover. Between 1990 and 2000, 977569 hectares were "consumed" by urban sprawl 
and sprawl of economic sites and infrastructures. The pi e chart shows the share of land classes in this 
consumption. 
 
 
EN 17   EN Consumption of agricultural land cover (1990) by 2000 (% of surface consumed) 
0%
27%
31%38%4%0% Urban land management
Urban residential spraw l
Spraw l of economic sites and
infrastructures
Withdraw al of farming
Water bodies creation andmanagement
Changes of Land Cover due tonatural and multiple causes
 
Source 
EEA, LEAC 
Note 
Based on Corine Land Cover.  
 
Conversion of wetlands into other classes, 1990-2000  
Artificial surfaces
2%
Water bodies
12%
Forest and semi 
natural areas
79%Agricultural areas
7%
Artificial surfaces
Agricultural areas
Forest and semi natural areas
Water bodies
 
Source: EEA 
 
 
Note: Corine land cover classes used in the figures above comprise the following: 
1. Artificial surfaces 
1.1. Urban fabric 
1.2. Industrial, commercial and transport 
1.3. Mine, dump and construction sites 
1.4. Artificial, non-agricultural vegetated areas 2. Agricultural areas 
2.1. Arable land 
 
EN 18   EN 2.2. Permanent crops 
2.3. Pastures 3. Forests and semi-natural areas 
3.1. Forests 3.2. Shrub and/or herbaceous  vegetation associations 
3.3. Open spaces with little or no vegetation 4. Wetlands 
4.1. Inland wetlands 4.2. Coastal wetlands 
5. Water bodies 
5.1. Inland waters 
5.2. Marine waters 
 
Geographical coverage 
 
 
Weblink 
 
Corine Land Cover: http://reports .eea.europa. eu/COR0-landcover/en   
 Version 26 November 2008 
 
EN 19   EN 05. Habitats of European Interest 
Key Policy Question: What is the conservation status of  habitats of Community interest?  
 
Key message  
 Between 40 and 80 % of habitats of Community interest (i .e. those habitats which, within the territory 
of the European Union are listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive) have an unfavourable 
conservation status. That means their range and qualit y are in decline or do not meet the specified 
quality criteria. There are still significant gaps in knowledge, especially for marine habitats.  
 
Conservation Status – Habitats by Biogeographical Region 
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Alpine Atlantic Boreal Continental Macaronesian MediterraneanPannonic Marine
AtlanticMarine Baltic Marine
Macaron.Marine
Mediterr.EU
496 518 307 642 49 520 127 34 23 6 34 2756Unfavourable - Bad
Unfavourable - Inadequate
Not Assessed
Unknown
Favourable
 
Numbers below the bars refer to the cumulated number of habitat assessments made by Member States. 
Source: Data provided by 25 EU Member  States (EU27 except Bulgaria and Romania which will be included in the next 
reporting phase in 2013) through their reports under Ar ticle 17 of the Habitats Directive. March 2008. 
  
 
EN 20   EN Conservation Status by main type of habitats 
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Coastal Dunes Forests Bogs, mires
& fensFreshwater Grasslands Heath &
scrubSclerophilus
scrubRocky
habitatsEU
351 257 577 273 361 414 134 115 274 2756Unfavourable - Bad
Unfavourable - Inadequate
Not Assessed
Unknown
Favourable
 Numbers below the bars refer to the cumulated number of habitat assessments made by Member States. 
Source: Data provided by 25 EU Member  States (EU27 except Bulgaria and Romania which will be included in the next 
reporting phase in 2013) through their reports under Ar ticle 17 of the Habitats Directive. March 2008. 
 
 
Assessment 
 
Between 40 and 60 % of habitats of terrestrial Alpine region and marine Macaronesian region are in a 
favourable status. In other regions (Atlantic, continental, Macaronesian and Pannonian) around 70 % 
of habitats listed on Annex I of the Directive ar e in unfavourable status. Around 70 % of the bogs, 
freshwater habitats, grasslands and dunes are in unfavourable status. Trend information was not 
available in most cases.  
 Note:  
These graphs are based on Member State's assessments of habitats listed in Annex I of the Directive. 
Member States were required to assess each habitat in each biogeographical zone in which it exists in the country. The graphs therefore have multiple assessments of the same habitats in each column; 
e.g. 9 countries made assessments for habitat 1130  in the Atlantic biogeographical zone. In both 
graphs, the EU column is the total of all assessments in the other columns. Please note that during the 
drafting of this report, real biogeographical asse ssments (based on MS data) were developed, but 
were not finalised in time for this report. For many habitats, recovery to favourable conservation status 
will take a considerable time; the next evaluation in six years will aid assessment  of the efficiency of 
the Directive.
 
 
 
EN 21   EN Geographical coverage 
 
 
Web links 
About Habitats of European Interest  
http://ec.europa.eu/environmen t/nature/legislat ion/habitatsdire ctive/index_en.htm   
 
About Biogeographical Regions  
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ nature/natura2000/site s_hab/biogeog_regio ns/index_en.htm   
 
About conservation status assessment  
http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/nature/knowledge/rep_ habitats/index_en.htm#csa  
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc /env/monnat/library?l=/habi tats_reporting/reporting_2001-
2007/internet_consultation/dra ft_consultation /_EN_1.0_&a=d   
 
Version 26 November 2008 
 
EN 22   EN European Headline Indicator: Trends in genetic diversity of domesticated animals, 
cultivated plants, fish species and trees of major socioeconomic importance 
06. Livestock genetic diversity 
Key Policy Question: Does the variety of European livestock breeds change? 
 Key message  
 
In several countries, native breeds, although gene rally well adapted to local circumstances and 
resources, remain in critically low populations, being replaced by a few and widespread highly 
productive breeds, introduced for the purpose. A small percentage of native breeds populations and a 
high percentage of native breeds that are endangered i ndicates a potential loss of biodiversity. Even if 
data are available for only a few countries, these sh ow that many native cattl e breeds are endangered. 
The situation is problematic also for sheep. Overall, the situation is stable but negative. 
 
 
Cattle genetic diversity in selected countries 
0102030405060708090100
1995 2000 2005 1995 2000 2005 1995 2000 2005 2001 2004 1995 2000 2005
France Germany Greece Netherlands Poland% of Cattle
Populationconsisting ofnative breeds
% of NativeCattle BreedsEndangered
 
Source 
ETC/BD and BRG Paris (Bureau des Ressources Génétiques) 
 
 
 
EN 23   EN Sheep genetic diversity in selected countries 
0102030405060708090100
1996 2000 2005 1997 2000 2005 1995 2000 2005 2001 2004 1995 2000 2005France Germany Greece Netherlands Poland% of Sheep
Populationconsisting ofnative breeds
% of Native
Sheep Breeds
Endangered 
 
Source 
ETC/BD and BRG Paris (Bureau des Ressources Génétiques) 
 
 
Assessment 
 
The situation of endangered breeds is highly variab le across countries and between cattle and sheep. 
In Germany and France which have implemented br eed conservation strategies and programmes, the 
situation of endangered cattle breeds is slightly im proving while it tends to worsen for sheep. In 
Poland, where conservation strategies ar e more recent, the situation fluctuates. 
Cattle breeds are in a critical a nd stable situation in Netherlands and in Greece Animal breeds 
constitute a pool of genetic resources of considerable potential value in a changing society and  
environment. An increase in the proportion of introduced (non native) breeds shows a trend towards a 
homogenisation of the genetic pool across Europe an countries, with widespread use of the same 
highly productive breeds. Generally this happens at  the expense of native br eeds populations which 
have their own genetic characteristic s, more specific to a country, and  which contribute to the overall 
genetic diversity across Europe. Thus, both the wi despread use of the same highly productive 
introduced breeds and the decline of some native br eeds represent a risk to  the livestock genetic 
diversity. 
While old native breeds may be less productive than highly specialised breeds, they are generally very 
well adapted to local circumstances and resources and may increase resilience in the long term.  
Breeds with a low population are in general more vulnerable than those with a high population. The 
main response to loss of breed genetic divers ity is specific conservation programmes for native 
breeds. 
In the case of native breeds, the objective of all conservation programmes should be to increase the 
breeding female populations or  at least to stabilise them. 
Setting a target for the percentage of a country’s cattle or sheep population that should consist of 
native species, is to some extent a societal choi ce. However, as regards the endangerment of native 
breeds, the target should be zero, if loss  of genetic diversity is to be halted.  
This indicator should be interpreted with care at this stage: 
- there is still no agreement among countries on t he definition of “native breeds” / “non-native”. 
The figures provided are those reported by indivi dual countries, based on their own definitions. This 
obviously determines the patterns seen in the graph. 
 
EN 24   EN - Where native breeds go from endangered to extinc t, this can reduce the proportion of native 
breeds that is endangered, therefore th is needs to be interpreted with care. 
At EU level, the Community programme on the cons ervation, characterisation, collection and utilisation 
of genetic resour ces in agriculture (http://ec. europa.eu/agriculture/envir/index _en.htm), established by 
Council Regulation (EC) No 870/2004, co-funds acti ons for conserving genetic resources, increasing 
the use of under-utilised species and varieties in agriculture, and for improving the coordination of 
actions in the field of international undertakings on genetic resources. The budget allocated to this 
programme amounts to EUR 10 million.  
The Community programme complements the acti ons co-funded by the new Rural Development 
Council Regulation (EC) No  1698/2005 [Article 39(5)] 
(http://ec.europa.eu/agricultur e/rurdev/leg/index_en.htm)  which gives opportunities to the Member 
States for promoting actions in fa vour of the conservation of genetic  resources in agriculture and the 
Framework Programmes of the European Community for Research and Technology Development. 
 
Geographical coverage 
 
 
Web links 
Bureau des Ressources Génétiques : http://www.brg.prd.fr/  
FAO : http://www.fao.org/biodiversity/geneticresources/en/ 
http://ec.europa.eu/agricultu re/envir/index_en.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/agricultu re/rurdev/leg/ index_en.htm 
Sources and references  
ETC/BD and BRG Paris  
Version 26 November 2008
 
 
EN 25   EN European Headline Indicator: Coverage of protected areas 
07. Nationally designated protected areas 
Key Policy Question: What is the progress with the national designation of protected areas 
as a tool for biodiversity conservation? 
 
Key message  
The total area of nationally-designated protected areas in Europe
1 has increased over time. The total 
area of nationally de signated sites in 39 Europ ean countries was ar ound 1 million square  kilometres in 
2007. In EECCA countries, the total area of nationally  designated sites is at least 1.8 million square 
kilometres (30 % of sites have no size information).  
This quantitative information needs to be compleme nted by a qualitative assessment of the efficiency 
and the representativeness of the network of des ignated areas including good management practices. 
 
 
Growth of the nationally designated protected areas in 39 EEA countries 
0200 000400 000600 000800 0001 000 0001 200 000
1895 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005Area, km2
010 00020 00030 00040 00050 00060 00070 00080 000
Number of sites
 
Source: CDDA (Common Database  on Designated Areas) v7, 2007 
 
 
                                                 
1 A “Nationally designated area” is an area designated by  a national designation instrument based on national 
legislation. If a country has included in his legislation the sites designated under the EU Birds and Habitats directive, 
the Natura 2000 sites of this country is included in the figure.  
 
EN 26   EN Assessment 
 
In 39 countries, on average 16 % of the terrestria l area has been designated as a national protected 
area. 
The growth in nationally designat ed areas in 39 EEA countries has bee n exponential, and it has been 
levelling off in recent years. A prec ise assessment of trends over time is much more difficult to make 
for EECCA countries (source: WDPA December  2007 for EECCA countries (except Kyrgyzstan, 
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan)) because of gaps in t he data. These countries contain around 18000 sites 
covering in total 1.8 million square kilometres. Ho wever, for more than 2 thirds of the sites no 
designation date is known, and for a third of  the sites no size information is known. 
Countries have national legislation that enables them to establish various types of protected areas. For 
nationally-designated protected areas, the total ar ea protected in Europe continues to increase.  
On one hand it is difficult to know exactly how far th ese areas contribute to halt the loss of biodiversity 
without any specific information on site managemen t and quality. On the other hand, other indicators 
can show how much pressure on biodiversity outside those areas increases through growing urbanisation and transport infrastructures for instance. 
Therefore, the expansion of protected areas and t heir role in protecting biodiversity have to be 
considered and assessed within the wider environment. 
 
Geographical coverage 
 
 
Web links 
About Nationally designated areas  
European dataset http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/dat aservice/metadetails.asp?id=1017   
Global dataset   
http://www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/index.htm?http:// www.unep- wcmc.org/wdpa/download.cfm~summary_tab   
 
Version 26 November 2008 
 
EN 27   EN 08. Sites designated under the EU Habitats and Birds 
Directives 
Key Policy Question: Have countries proposed sufficient sites under the Habitats and Birds 
Directives? 
 Key message   
By mid 2008, the level of sufficiency in designating Natura 2000 sites is high for most EU-27 countries 
(21 countries have sufficiency above 80%) and the new Member States (EU 10+2) are doing well 
given their recent accession.  
The proposals are evaluated as sufficient or not in terms of representat iveness of species and 
habitats. To reach the full sufficiency, Member States may have to make additional proposals. 
At EU level, around 10 % of the terrestrial territo ry is designated under the Birds directive and around 
13 % under the Habitats directive. 
  
State of progress by Member State in reaching sufficiency  
for the Habitats directive Annex I habitats and Annex II species  
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
DK NL IT BE FI DE GR SE LU ES UK BG MT FR LV AT PT IE HU EE RO SI SK LT CZ CY PL 
Source:  DG ENV, marine area excluded, June 2008 
How to read the graph: Sites proposed by Denmark are sufficient to cover habitats and species of  the directive present in 
Denmark. Sites proposed by Czech Republic only cover 60 % of  species and habitats from th e directive present in Czech 
Republic. Czech Republic must make additional propos als of sites to reach 100 % of sufficiency. 
 
 
 
EN 28   EN Assessment 
 The evaluation of sufficiency is based on the range of each species and habitat in the full territory of 
each Member State (MS) and within the si tes proposed by each Member State. The 
representativeness is assessed by experts during scientific seminars led by the European 
Commission. Only terrestrial habitats and specie s are evaluated because marine areas are still under 
consideration. If the assessment is insufficient, prop osed sites must be enlarged or new sites must be 
proposed to include a bigger proportion of  species population or habitat area. 
At biogeographical level, Macaronesian and black s ea regions are complete but other regions need 
additional proposals through the Member States. 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
State of progress by Biogeographical region in reaching sufficiency  
for the Habitats directive Annex I habitats and Annex II species  
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Macaronesian
Black Sea
Mediterranean
Boreal
Alpine
Atlantic
Steppic
Pannonian
Continental
 
Source:  DG ENV, marine area excluded, June 2007 
How to read the graph: Sites proposed within the Atlantic region are insufficient to cover habitats and species of the directiv e 
present in this region. Member States of this region must make additional proposal of site s to reach 100 % of sufficiency. 
 
 
 
EN 29   EN Cumulative surface area of sites designated for the Habitats directive over time 
050,000100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,000450,000500,000550,000600,000650,000
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 June
2008100 x haRomania
Bulgaria
Slovenia
Slovakia
Poland
Ma l ta
Lithuania
Latvia
Hungary
Estonia
Czech Republic
Cyprus
United Kingdom
Sweden
Portugal
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Italy
Ireland
Greece
France
Finland
Spain
Denmark
Germany
Belgium
Austria 
Source:  DG ENV, SCIs database & SPAs database, all EU27, June 2008 
 
Cumulative surface area of sites designated for the Birds directive over time 
0100 000200 000300 000400 000500 000
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 June 2008100 X haRomania
Bulgaria
Slovakia
Slovenia
Poland
Malta
Latvia
Lithuanie
Hungary
Estonia
Czech Republic
Cyprus
United Kingdom
Sweden
Portugal
Netherland
Luxembourg
Italy
Ireland
Greece
France
Finland
Spain
Denmark
Germany
Belgium
Austria
 
Source:  DG ENV, SCIs database & SPAs database, all EU27, June 2008  
 
Assessment 
 
 
EN 30   EN There was a steady increase in the cumulative area of the Natura 2000 network over the past years. 
Sites of Community Importance increased in covera ge from 45 to more than 65 million hectares and 
Special Protected Areas increase d from approximately 29 million he ctares to 50 million hectares. 
These increases are mainly due to the 10 new countries joining the EU in 2004 and Bulgaria and 
Romania in 2007, but also due to new designations of protected areas by Member States particularly 
under the Birds Directive.  
As of June 2008, eight Member States had desig nated more than 15 % of their territory as SCIs: 
Slovenia (31.4 %); Bulgaria (26.5 %); Spain (23.64 %); Portugal (17.4 %); Estonia (16.8 %); Greece 
(16.4 %); Luxembourg (15.4); and Hungary (15.0 %). As SPAs, onl y four Member States had 
designated more than 15 % of their territory: Slovak ia (25.1 %); Slovenia (23 %), Bulgaria (20.4%) and 
Spain (19.1 %). 
 
Geographical coverage 
 
 
Web links  About Sites of Community Import ance and Special Protected Areas
 
http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/nature/natura2000/si tes_hab/index_en.htm   
http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/nature/natura2000/si tes_birds/index_en.htm   
 About Biogeographical Regions
 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ nature/natura2000/site s_hab/biogeog_regio ns/index_en.htm   
 
Version 26 November 2008 
 
EN 31   EN FOCAL AREA: THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY 
European Headline Indicator: Nitrogen Deposition 
09. Critical load exceedance for nitrogen 
Key Policy Question: Where in Europe does atmospheric nitrogen deposition threaten 
biodiversity?  
 Key message  
 
Eutrophying nitrogen emissions and deposition nitrogen compounds have decreased since 1990 but 
relatively little compared to sulphur emissions. With sulphur emissions declining, nitrogen is now the 
principal acidifying component in our air. Agricult ure and transport are the main sources of nitrogen 
pollution (EEA, 2007). Critical load exceedance is still significant.
2 
 
Total emissions of acidifying substances (sulphur, nitrogen) and of nitrogen in the EEA-32 for 
1990- 2004 
 
Source: EEA/ETC ACC 
 
Assessment 
 
Across the EU-25, the proportion of (semi-)natur al ecosystem areas subject to nutrient nitrogen 
deposition beyond their critical load was approxim ately 47% in 2004 (CCE/EMEP, 2007). Ecosystem 
types in use by European countries for critical load calculations are forests, marine & coastal habitats, 
littoral zones, mire, bog & fen habitats, grasslands & tall forb habitats, heathland, scrub & tundra 
                                                 
2 The critical load of nutrient nitrogen is defined as ‘the highest deposition of nitrogen as NOx and/or NHy below which 
harmful effects in ecosystem structure and function do not occur according to present knowledge’ (ICP M&M, 2004). 
 
EN 32   EN habitats, inland un-vegetated or sparsely vegetated habitats, agricultural habitats, inland and surface 
water habitats (for details see CCE, 2007). The height  of the exceedance of critical loads varies 
significantly across Europe. 
 
Exceedance of critical loads of nutrient nitrogen for the most sensitive ecosystems in each 50 
x 50 km grid cell 
 
Source: Critical loads by CCE and depositi on data by EMEP/MSCW (figure from EEA, 2007). 
Note: 2004 EMEP deposition data. Eq ha-1 a-1 = N equivalence per  ha per year. The CCE does not use this kind of (5-
)percentile maps anymore for the critical load and critical load exceedance calculations. The average accumulated exceedance 
(AAE) is now used (see CCE, 2007). The 2008 update  of EEA CSI 005 will also use this approach.  
 
Notes: The nitrogen critical load indicator has been deve loped within the Coordination Centre for Effects 
(CCE). The CCE is the Data Ce ntre of the International Cooperative Programme on Modelling and 
Mapping of Critical Levels and Loads and Air Pollut ion Effects, Risks and Tr ends (ICP Modelling and 
Mapping, ICP M&M). CCE supports the work of the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air 
Pollution (LRTAP) of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). The indicator is 
also part of the EEA’s core set indicator (CSI) 005 ‘Exposure of ecosystem s to acidification, 
eutrophication and ozone’. CSI 005 is in the process of being updated in close cooperation with the 
CCE. 
 
 
EN 33   EN Geographical coverage 
 
 
Web links 
RAINS/GAINS (CIAM): http://www.iiasa.ac.at/rains/  
EMEP/MSCW:   http://projects.dnmi.no/~emep/  
CCE:    http://www.mnp.nl/cce/  
 
Sources and references  
EEA (2007): Air Pollution in Europe 1990 – 2004. EEA Report No 2/2007. 
CCE/EMEP (2007 ): personal communication ; input to EEA, 2007. 
CCE (2007): Critical Loads of Nitrogen and Dyna mic Modelling. CCE Progress Report 2007. MNP Report 
500090001/2007. 
ICP M&M (2004): Manual on the methodologies and criteria for modelling critical loads and critical levels and air 
pollution effects, risks, and trends 
 http://www.oekodata.com/icpmapping/index.html  
 
Version 26 November 2008 
 
EN 34   EN European Headline Indicator: Trends in invasive alien species 
10. Invasive alien species in Europe 
Key Policy Question: Is the number of alien species in Europe increasing or decreasing? 
Which invasive alien species should be targeted by management actions? 
 Key message  
 
The cumulative number of alien species introduced has been constantly increasing since the 1900s 
(based on data from 5 Nordic countries for terrestrial and freshwater species,
3 and from all European 
regional seas (including estuarine waters). While t he increase may be slowing down or levelling off for 
terrestrial and freshwater species, this is cert ainly not the case for marine/estuarine species. 
According to experience a relatively constant pr oportion of the alien species established create a 
significant damage to native biodiversity, i.e. can be classified as invasive alien species according to 
the Convention on Biological Diversity. This increase  in the number of alien species established thus 
implies a constantly growing risk of damage to nativ e biodiversity caused by invasive alien species. 
Whilst the majority of the ca 10 000 alien specie s recorded in Europe have not (yet) been found having 
major impacts, some are highly invasive. To identify  the most problematic species to help prioritise 
monitoring, research and management actions, a list of ‘Worst invasive alien species threatening 
biodiversity in Europe’ presently comprising 163 species/species groups has been established. 
 
Assessment 
 
The data for the indicator cumulative number of alien species established in Europe comprise all 
European countries with marine/estuarine waters bu t for terrestrial and freshwater only 5 European 
countries. 
Nevertheless the indicator could be considered fair ly representative for the European area. The data 
coverage on cumulative numbers of alien species established in Europe is expected in near future to 
be expanded to more European countries. The trend in  establishment of new species indicates that 
the situation is far from under control, with impacts  on biodiversity expected to increase because of the 
growing number of species involved, and an increasing vulnerability of ecosyste ms to invasions, which 
results from other pressures such as habitat loss, degradation,  fragmentation, over-exploitation and 
climate change. Particularly worrying is the situation in marine and island ecosystems. 
 
The number of invasive alien species establishing in Europe should be minimized and management 
actions should bring down the impact of at least the worst invasive alien species to acceptable levels. 
There is however no quantitative ta rget for this indicator. The list of ‘worst invasive alien species 
threatening biodiversity’ identifies species which sh ould be a priority for more detailed monitoring, 
research and management. The 163 species/species groups on the present list, of which vascular 
plants are the biggest taxonomic group with 39 sp ecies, are judged to have a significant impact on 
native biodiversity at the genetic, species or ecosystem levels, and may also affect human health, society or the economy. The map below shows a pr eliminary estimate of the number of these worst 
invasive species in European countries. Main conclu sion of the map is that fairly high numbers of 
listed species can be found in all European countries . These country figures are only rough indications 
of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions. 
                                                 
3 While the NOBANIS database covers 13 countries, currently only data for Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and 
Finland were available to calculate the indicator. 
 
EN 35   EN  
 
There is a consensus (e.g. in t he context of the Convention on Bi ological Diversity) that the best 
strategy addressing invasive alien species would be  control of pathways of introduction to prevent 
establishment of new alien species. Prospects of er adication of established alien species are best at 
an early stage (or in limited areas such as smal l islands). An early warning system identifying 
potentially invasive alien species, including newly established ones and/or species to be expected to 
spread would be of high value in this context. This  indicator therefore will need to be complemented by 
an indicator showing European/EU and the countries ’ development and implement ation of strategies 
to manage the problem of invasive alien species. 
 
 
Cumulative number of alien species established in terrestrial environment 
0200400600800100012001400160018002000
>1900
1900-1909
1910-1919 1920-1929 1930-1939
1940-1949
1950-1959
1960-1969
1970-1979
1980-1989
1990-1999 2000-
unknown
Year of introductionNumber of speciesPrimary producers & fungi 
Invertebrates
Vertebrates
 
Source: EEA/SEBI2010; NOBANIS. 
Note: Geographic coverage: Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland. Note: The period 2000- comprises only species established up to 2006. 
 
 
EN 36   EN Cumulative number of alien species established in freshwater environment 
020406080100120140160
>1900
1900-1909 1910-1919 1920-1929
1930-1939
1940-1949
1950-1959
1960-1969
1970-1979
1980-1989
1990-1999 2000-
Year of IntroductionNumber of SpeciesPrimary producers 
Invertebrates
Vertebrates
 
Source 
EEA/SEBI2010; NOBANIS. 
Note Geographic coverage: Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland. 
Note: The period 2000- comprises only species established up to 2006. 
 
Alien species in European marine /estuarine Waters (April 2007) 
0200400600800100012001400
<1900 1900-
19091910-
19191920-
19291930-
19391940-
19491950-
19591960-
19691970-
19791980-
19891990-
19992000-
2006Number of speciesPrimary producers
Invertebrates
Vertebrates
 
Source 
SEBI 2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species, based on national  data sets (e.g. Germany, Denmark, UK) available on the 
internet; review papers (e.g. Netherlands, Turkey); NEMO dat abase for the Baltic; Black Sea database; HCMR data base for the 
Mediterranean; project reports (e.g. ALIENS); and contributi ons of experts for France, S pain, Russia during a dedicated 
workshop. 
Note: Geographic coverage: All European countries with marine/est uarine waters. Casual species are to some extent included. 
 
 
EN 37   EN Number of the listed worst invasive alien sp ecies threatening biodiversity in Europe per 
country  
 
 
Notes  
1. The threat by invasive alien species is considered one of the major global pressures on 
biodiversity (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Invasive alien species are such species which introduction and/or spread outside the natur al distribution range threaten biological diversity 
(Convention on Biological Diversity: Invasive Alien Species http://www.biodiv.org/invasive
, 
accessed August 2008). Most recent introd uctions have happened unintentionally and are 
connected to the globalization of trade, transport and tourism. Not all alien species become 
invasive, but an increasing number of alien species presents and increasing risk of an invasive 
species damaging native biodiversity. 
 
2. Based on a wide consultation of European experts on invasive alien species, a list of 'worst 
invasive alien species threatening biodiversity in  Europe' has been drawn up to document those 
invasive alien species that to date most significant ly negative impact biological diversity in Europe. 
 
EN 38   EN Geographical coverage 
Marine species 
 
 
Terrestrial and freshwater species 
 
 
Web links North European and Baltic Network on Invasive Alien Species (NOBANIS ): www.nobanis.org/
 
DAISIE (Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe): http://www.europe-aliens.org/  
 Sources and references  
EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species. http://biodiversity-chm.eea.europa.eu/information/ indicator/F109 0245995/fol36561 4/F1115192484 
 
Europe's environment - The fourth assessment (2007);  
 
Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: Proposal for a fi rst set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe (EEA 
Technical Report 11/2007);  
 
MA, 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ec osystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity 
Synthesis. World Resources In stitute, Washington, DC. 
 Version 26 November 2008 
 
EN 39   EN European Headline Indicator: Impact of climate change on biodiversity 
11. Occurrence of temperature-sensitive species 
Key Policy Question: What are the negative (and positiv e) impacts of climate change on 
biodiversity? 
 Key message 
 
n/a 
 
The SEBI 2010 process recommended an indicato r be developed that re presents abundance 
of a selected set of species that are specifically  sensitive to climate change (e.g. because they 
live in ephemeral habitats, or have limited capacity  for dispersal). The indicator that is included 
in the SEBI 2010 Technical report (Halting the loss of biodive rsity by 2010: proposal for a first 
set of indicators to monitor progress in Eu rope (EEA Technical Repor t 11/2007)) does show 
potentially negative impacts (thermophilic specie s spread and may stress existing local plant 
species) but will be replaced by an indicator that measures such impacts more directly when it 
becomes available. 
 
Assessment 
 
 n/a  
Version 26 November 2008 
 
EN 40   EN FOCAL AREA: ECOSYSTEM INTEGR ITY AND ECOSYSTEM GOODS AND 
SERVICES 
European Headline Indicator: Marine Trophic Index 
12. Marine Trophic Index of European seas 
Key Policy Question: What is the impact of existing fisheries and maritime policies on the 
health of fish stocks in European seas? 
 Key message   
In the majority of European seas, the Marine Trop hic Index declined since the mid 1950s showing that 
predatory fishes decline to the benefit of small fi shes and invertebrates. A multispecies fishery can 
safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Tr ophic Level of the species it exploits keeps going 
down. 
 
Marine Trophic Index for selected European seas (1) 
34
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000MTIBaltic
Iceland shelf
Barents
Black sea
Celtic-Biscay shelf
Greenland sea
North sea
 
Source: www.seaaroundus.org  
 
 
EN 41   EN Marine Trophic Index for selected European seas (2) 
34
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000MTIFaroe plateau
Iberian coastal
Mediterranean
Norw egian sea
 
Source: www.seaaroundus.org   
 
Assessment 
 The decline in MTI is at different rates in different  seas, and 4 seas show no overall change in their 
MTI since 1950. More analysis of the individual fisher ies is required to assess causes of declines and 
effects in the marine ecosystem in more detail. Fi gures 1-2 above show the MTI in European seas for 
two groups of seas. Seas have been grouped accordin g to the evolution in their MTI since 1950. 
Figure 1 shows seas with strong declines in the MTI. Figure 2 shows those seas where the trend is 
more stable. It is noteworthy that the trend since 1950 is different for most seas from the trend 
considered over a short time period (since 2000).  
The levelling off since 2000 however may still mean that biodiversity has significantly been lost, 
because large declines had already happened before 1950 (e.g. the North Sea). The increase in the Barents and Norwegian sea since 1980 and the Gr eenland sea and Iceland shelf since 2000 is in any 
case a positive sign for biodiversity. It is also wo rth noting that when a country  halts the fishery of a 
species with a low Trophic Level, the MTI will go up, which distorts the message. 
For the EU, Member States will make  an integrated 'initial assessment ' of the environmental situation 
of their marine waters pursuant to the Marine St rategy Framework Directive Art. 8 by mid-2012. 
Note: 
1. Preferred fish catches consist of large, high value predatory fishes, such as tuna, cod, sea 
bass and swordfish. The intensific ation of fishing has led to the decline of these large fishes, 
which are high up in the food chain. As predator s are removed, the relative number of small 
fish and invertebrates lower in the food chain increases, and the mean trophic level (i.e. the 
mean position of the catch in the food chain) of fisheries landings, goes down. The mean 
trophic level of a species is a calculated value which reflects the species abundance balance across a trophic range from large long lived and slow growing predators to fast growing 
microscopic primary producers and is therefore a reflection of the biodiversity status of the 
system. It is derived by assigning a numerical trophic level to selected taxa, established by 
size, diet or nitrogen isotope levels. 
2. The MTI thus describes a major aspect of the complex interactions between fisheries and 
marine ecosystems and communicates a measure of species replacement induced by 
fisheries. What is most important in the MTI is  the trend, rather than the specific value. 
 
 
EN 42   EN 3. Some improvements of this indicator (calculating an MTI using commercial landings and 
existing lists of trophic level of adult fish by species as well as supplementary indicators have 
been suggested. Some of these will be explored during 2008-2009. 
4. For this assessment, data for the following European seas were used: 
• Arctic ocean 
• Baltic 
• Barents 
• Black sea 
• Celtic-Biscay shelf 
• Faroe plateau 
• Greenland sea  
• Iberian coastal 
• Iceland shelf 
• Mediterranean 
• Norwegian sea 
• North Sea 
 
Geographical coverage 
 
 
Web links Marine Trophic Index at t he Sea Around Us project: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx
  
 
Sources and references  
Pauly, D. and R. Watson. 2005. Backg round and interpretation of the ‘Mar ine Trophic Index' as a measure of 
biodiversity, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2005) 360, 415–423. 
 
Version 26 November 2008  
 
EN 43   EN European Headline Indicator: Connectivity/ Fragmentation of ecosystems 
13. Fragmentation of natural and semi-natural areas 
Key Policy Question: How fragmented are European natural and semi natural landscapes? 
 
 
Key message and smiley 
 n/a 
 
There have been methodological problems with  the indicator proposed in the SEBI 2010 
Technical report (Halting the loss of biodiversity  by 2010: proposal for a first set of indicators 
to monitor progress in Europe (EEA Technical Report 11/20 07)). The Report suggested that 
other measurements of ecosystem integrity should be proposed especially dealing with 
fragmentation / connectivity in relation to specie s. Indicators that focus on ecologically more 
relevant characteristics than 'mean habitat pat ch size’ have been developed and tested and 
will later in 2008 be calculated for natural and semi-natural areas (cf. the JRC Ispra work on 
change in spatial pattern of selected ecosystems (see http://forest.jrc.it/biodiversity/
)). 
 
Assessment   n/a 
 
Version 26 November 2008 
 
EN 44   EN 14. Fragmentation of river systems 
Key Policy Question: How fragmented are rivers in Europe, thus potentially affecting the 
fish species living in them?  
 Key message  
 
n/a 
 
This indicator is not yet available.   
Assessment   n/a 
 
Version 26 November 2008 
 
EN 45   EN European Headline Indicator: Water quality in aquatic ecosystems 
15. Nutrients in transitional, coastal and marine waters 
Key Policy Question: What is the status of transitional, marine and coastal waters in 
Europe? 
 
Key message  
 
Concentrations of oxidized nitrogen and orthophosphate in transitional, coastal and marine 
waters have to a large extent (85 and 82% of  stations respectively) remained unchanged in 
countries that have reported data. In stations  with changes, decreases were more common 
than increases.  
 
Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen con centrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the 
Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-
2005
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Open sea (97)United Kingdom (2)Sw eden (14)Norw ay (15)Netherlands (29)Germany (23)Denmark (21)Belgium (22)Open sea (1)Italy (72)Greece (6)Open sea (90)Sw eden (37)Poland (14)Lithuania (8)Germany (21)Finland (111)Estonia (3)Denmark (46)Open sea (40)United Kingdom (2)Ireland (71)North Sea Mediterranean Baltic SeaNE
Atlantic
Decrease
No trend
Increase
 
Source 
EEA Waterbase/Core Set Indicator 21 (Nutrient s in transitional, coastal and marine waters) 
Note 
For some countries the data include stations with observations  made in 2005, for some only up to 2004. The full data set is 
available via 
http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecif ication20041007132008/IAssessment1116503188454/view_content  
Countries included in the analysis: Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Irel and, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom. Bulgaria, Fr ance, Iceland, Malta, Portugal , Romania, Slovenia, Spain 
and Turkey. 
 
EN 46   EN Trends in mean winter time orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the 
Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Open sea (99)United Kingdom (2)Sweden (14)Norway (15)Netherlands (29)Germany (24)Denmark (21)Belgium (22)Open sea (1)Italy (63)Greece (6)Open sea (90)Sweden (48)Poland (12)Lithuania (8)Latv ia (1)Germany (21)Finland (118)Estonia (3)Denmark (46)Open sea (40)United Kingdom (2)Ireland (71)North Sea Mediterranean Baltic SeaNE
Atlantic
Decrease
No trend
Increase
 
Source 
EEA Waterbase/Core Set Indicator 21 (Nutrient s in transitional, coastal and marine waters) 
Note For some countries the data include stations with observati ons made in 2005, for some only up to 2004. The full data set is 
available via   
http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpec ification20041007132008/IAssessment1116503188454/view_content
 
Countries included in the analysis: Belgium, Denmark, Estonia,  Finland, Germany, Greece, Ir eland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom. Bulgaria, France, Iceland, Malta, Po rtugal, Romania, Slovenia, 
Spain and Turkey. 
 
Assessment 
 
12% of stations report a decreasi ng trend in oxidised nitrogen conc entrations, reported to the EEA in 
2005, increasing trends were found at  3% of stations, and the majority  of stations (85%) indicate no 
statistically significant change.  
Decreasing trends in orthophosphate concentrations were found at 11% of stations, increasing 
concentrations were found at 7% of stations, and the majority of stati ons (82%) indicate no statistically 
significant change in orthophosphate concentration. 
Nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) enrichment can result in a chain of undesirable effects, starting with 
excessive growth of plankton algae that increases th e amount of organic matter settling to the bottom. 
This accumulation may be enhanced by changes in species composition and functioning of the pelagic 
food web, which leads to lower grazing by copepods. The consequent increase in oxygen 
consumption can lead to oxygen depletion, changes in community structure and death of the benthic 
fauna. 
For the EU, the Water Framework Di rective will bring in better information on ecological status of 
transitional and coastal waters. 
 
EN 47   EN Geographical coverage 
 
 
Web links 
EEA CSI 21: 
http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpec ification2004100 7132008/IAssessm ent1116503188454
/view_content  
 
Sources and references  
Halting the loss of biodiversity by 20 10: proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe (EEA 
Technical Report 11/2007) and EEA Core Set Indicator 21 (Nutrients in transit ional, coastal and marine waters). 
 Version 26 November 2008 
 
EN 48   EN 16. Freshwater quality 
Key Policy Question: What is the status of freshwater in Europe? 
 
Key message  
 Pollution of rivers with organic matter and ammonium  is decreasing, and nutrients in freshwater 
(rivers, lakes and groundwater) are decreasing. This reduces stress on freshwater biodiversity and 
improves ecological status.  
  
Fig. 1: Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) a nd total ammonium concentrations in rivers 
between 1992 and 2006 
00.511.522.533.544.555.5
199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006BOD5 [mg O2/l ]
0100200300400500600700800900
Total ammonium  [µg N/l   BOD5 (1806)
   Total ammonium (2247)
 
Source: Waterbase Version 7 
Note Number of river monitoring stations included in analysis noted in brackets. BOD5 data from Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria,  
Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg , FYR of Macedonia, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and 
United Kingdom. BOD7 data from Finland, Estonia, Latvi a (1996-2001) and Lithuania (1996-2005). BOD7 data were 
recalculated into BOD5 data. Total ammonium data from Albania , Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, 
France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxe mbourg, FYR of Macedonia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, 
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom.
4 
 
                                                 
4 Concentrations are expressed as the st ation weighted mean of the annual mean co ncentrations by countries. Stations 
with time series consisting of  minimum seven years are included. The number of available mean 
concentrations/stations per year is  different, except for Luxembourg and Norway with constant number. 
 
EN 49   EN Assessment 
 
BOD and total ammonium concentration have decreased in European rivers in the period 1992 to 
2005, corresponding to the general improvement in  wastewater treatment. BOD and ammonium 
concentration are generally highest in eastern, southern and south-eastern European rivers. The 
largest declines in BOD and ammonium concentrat ion are evident in the rivers of the Western and 
Eastern European countries, respectively.  
BOD and ammonium concentration are key indicators of organic matter and oxygen content of water 
bodies. The values of these normally increase as a result of organic pollution caused by discharges 
from waste water treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural  run-off. Severe organic pollution 
may lead to rapid de-oxygenation of river water, a high concentration of ammonia and the 
disappearance of fish and aquatic invertebrates. 
The most important sources of organic waste load ar e: household waste water; industries such as 
paper industries or food processing industries; and occasionally silage effluents and slurry from 
agriculture. Increased industrial and agricultural pr oduction, coupled with a greater percentage of the 
population being connected to sewerage systems, init ially resulted in increases in the discharge of 
organic waste into surface water in most European countries after the 1940s. Over the past 15 to 30 
years, however, the biological treatment of wast e water has increased, and organic discharges have 
consequently decreased throughout Europe. 
 
Fig. 2: Concentrations of nitrate in European rivers and lakes in the period 1992-2005 
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004Rivers (mg N/l )
0.000.050.100.150.200.25
Lakes (mg N/l )
Rivers (1473)
Lakes (369)
 
Source: Waterbase Version 6 
Note 
Concentrations are expressed as annual mean concentrations for groundwater, and station weighted mean of annual mean 
concentrations for rivers and lakes. Only stations with time series consisting of minimum seven years are included. The number 
of stations included per country is given in parenthesis.5 
 
Nutrients in freshwater (rivers, lakes and gro undwater) are decreasing. The average nitrate 
concentration in European rivers has decreased ap proximately 10 % since 1998 from 2.8 to 2.5 mg 
N/l, reflecting the effect of measur es to reduce agricultural inputs of nitrate. Nitrate levels in lakes are 
in general much lower than in rivers, but also in lakes there has been a 15 % reduction in the average 
nitrate concentration.  
                                                 
5 Nitrate in rivers//total oxidized nitrogen*: AT (145), BE (23), BG (82), CZ (70), DE (125), DK* (39), EE (53), FI* (131), 
FR (287), GB* (139), HU (98), LT (64), LU (3), LV (47), NL* (9), NO (10), PL (104), SE* (113), SI (24), SK (52). 
Nitrate/total oxidized nitrogen* in lakes: DE (6), EE (5), FI (2 1), GB (21), HU (16), LT (8), LV (8), NL* (7) NO (92), SE* 
(181), SL (4). 
 
EN 50   EN Agriculture is the largest contributor of nitroge n pollution, and due to the EU Nitrate Directive and 
national measures the nitrogen pollution from agricult ure has been reduced in some regions during the 
last 10-15 years, this reduced pressure is reflected in lower river and lake nitrate concentrations. Also the European air emissions of nitrogen oxides have  been reduced by one third over the last 15 years 
and the deposition of nitrogen on inland surface waters have decreased.  
 
Fig. 3: Concentrations of phosphorus (OP (orthophosphate) or TP (total phosphorus)) in 
European rivers and lakes in the period 1992-2005 
0.0000.0500.1000.1500.2000.250
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004Rivers (mg P/l )
0.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.050
Lakes (mg P/l )
Rivers OP (1402)
Lakes TP (469)
 
Source: Waterbase Version 6 
Note 
Concentrations are expressed as annual mean concentrations for groundwater, and station weighted mean of annual 
mean concentrations for rivers and lakes. Only stations with time series consis ting of minimum seven years are included. 
The number of stations included per country is given in parenthesis.6 
 
Phosphorus concentrations in European rivers and lake s generally decreased duri ng the last 14 years, 
reflecting the general improvement in wastewater  treatment and reduced phosphate content of 
detergents over this period. In many rivers the reduction started in the 1980s. During the past few 
decades there has also been a gradual reduction in phosphorus concentrations in many European 
lakes. The decrease is due to the measures in troduced by national and European legislation, in 
particular the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive,  which involves the removal of nutrients. As 
treatment of urban wastewater has improved and many waste water outlet s have been diverted away 
from lakes, point sources pollution is gradually becoming less important. Agricultural sources of 
phosphorus are still important and need increased attent ion to achieve good status in lakes and rivers.  
Improvement of the status of groundwa ter is also important as it can be  a source of nitrate in rivers 
adversely affecting associated river and lake  water bodies, wetlands and dependent terrestrial 
ecosystems. At the European level, annual mean nitr ate concentrations in groundwater have remained 
relatively stable since the mid-1990s after an increase during the first half of the 1990s. 
 
                                                 
6 Orthophosphate in rivers: AT (134), BE (26), BG (64), CZ (65), DE (133), DK (40), EE (53), FI (116), FR (241), GB 
(69), HU (98), LT (64), LV (47), NO (10), PL (100), SE (113), SI (23), SK (6).  
Total phosphorus in lakes: AT (5), DE (7), DK (23), EE (5), FI (207), GB (18), HU (10), IE (7), LT (7), LV (8), NL (7), SE (165). 
 
EN 51   EN Geographical coverage 
 
Total ammonium concentrations (Fig.1) 
 
 
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) (Fig. 1) 
 
 
Concentrations of nitrate (Fig. 2) 
 
 
Concentrations of phosphorus (Fig. 3) 
 
 
 
 
 
EN 52   EN Web links 
EEA Core Set indicators  
http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpe cs/ISpecification2004 1007131940/IAssessment11 16505271445/ view_cont
ent and  
http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpe cs/ISpecification2004 1007131957/IAssessment11 16497150363/ view_cont
ent  
 
Sources and references  
Halting the loss of biodiversity by 20 10: proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe (EEA 
Technical Report 11/2007)  
 
Version 26 November 2008