EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 8.10.2010 
SEC(2010) 1165 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
UPDATE OF SEBI 2010 BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS 
 
Accompanying document to the 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO  THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 
 
THE 2010 ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTI NG THE EU BIODIVERSITY ACTION 
PLAN 
COM(2010) 548 
 SEC(2010) 1163  SEC(2010) 1164 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Streamlining European 2010 Biodiversity In dicators (SEBI 2010)  fact sheets............3 
2. Headline indicator: trends in abundance and distribution of selected species..............4 
3. Headline indicator: trends in  extent of selected biomes, ecosystems and habitats.......7 
4. Headline indicator: Coverage of protected areas........................................................11 5. Headline indicator: water qual ity in aquatic ecosystems............................................13 
6. Headline indicator: Ecologica l Footprint and biocapacity of European countries .....17 
7. Headline indicator: public awar eness and participation .............................................20 
 
EN 3   EN 1. STREAMLINING EUROPEAN 2010  BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS (SEBI  2010)  
FACT SHEETS  
This accompanying document contains the 2010 update of six fact sheets” of the SEBI 
2010 biodiversity indicators.  
The SEBI 2010 process was initiated in 2005 to  provide a streamlined set of biodiversity 
indicators for Europe, ensuring consis tency between nationa l and international 
biodiversity indicators sets an d help achieve progress towards the European target to halt 
biodiversity loss by 2010. SEBI 2010 institutiona l 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 the Czech Republic (as l ead country for the Kiev Re solution action plan on 
biodiversity indicators).  
The SEBI 2010 process has to a large extent been made po ssible by the contributions of 
more than 120 experts from across the pan-Euro pean 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 biodiversity by 2010: 
proposal for a first set of indicator s to monitor progress in Europe” 
(http://reports.eea.europa.eu/technical_report_2007_11/en ). Readers are encouraged to 
consult this publication if th ey need detailed information on the methodology for each 
indicator. 
The SEBI assessment report 2009 concluded that the 2010 target to halt  biodiversity loss 
in Europe would not be met (EEA Report/n°4/2009). 
Based on the best available sources of information, including the set of SEBI 2010 
indicators, the European Environment Agency (EEA) has published the EU 2010 
biodiversity baseline in June 2010 to s upport post-2010 policy development. The EU 
2010 biodiversity baseline provides the latest information on th e state of biodiversity and 
ecosystem services within the EU. It is available from the Biodiversity Information 
System for Europe (BISE)1, the single entry point for data and information on 
biodiversity and ecosystems in the EU, also launched in June 2010.  
                                                 
1 http://www.biodiversity.europa.eu/  
 
EN 4   EN 2. HEADLINE INDICATOR : TRENDS IN ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED 
SPECIES  
2.1. 01 Abundance and distributio n of selected species 
Key policy question: Have declines in common species in Europe been halted? 
Key message:  
Overall, populations of comm on birds in the European Union countries reduced by around 
10 % since 1990. Common farmland and forest bird s declined by some 20-25 %. Falls have 
levelled off since the late 1990s. Europe’s gra ssland butterflies have declined dramatically 
(almost 70 %) since 1990 and this reducti on shows no sign yet of levelling off.  
Trends in the common bird indicato rs for the European Union, base = 1990 
(numbers in brackets show the number of species in each indicator) 
Common bird indicators
6065707580859095100105
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007All common species (136 species) Common farmland species (36 species)
Common forest species (29 species) 
Note: How to read the graph:  since 1990 the number of common farmland and forest birds 
have declined by around 20 %. 
Source:  Eurostat, 2010 (env_bio2) - EBCC/RSPB/B irdLife/Statistics  Netherlands.  
Geographical coverage: Belgium, Bulgaria Finland, Netherlands, Portugal, Republic of 
Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Italy, Latvia, Spain, Norway, United Kingdom, France, Denmark, Pola nd, Germany, Estonia, Hungary. 
For common farmland bird species, n=36; for common forest bird species, n=29; for all 
common bird species (this line includes the farmland and forest  birds as well as other 
common species that are not pr imarily associated with either of these habitats), n=136.  
 
EN 5   EN Grassland butterflies, population index (1990 = 100) 
Butterfly Conservation Europe / Statistics Netherlands
020406080100120140
1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 
Source:  De Vlinderstichting/Butterfly Conservati on Europe/ Statistics  Netherlands, 2010.  
Note:  How to read the graph: since 1990, grassla nd butterflies have dec lined by almost 70 %. 
For this graph, the data used for grassland but terfly species were from Butterfly Monitoring 
Schemes in fifteen countries: Belgium – Flande rs (since 1991); Estonia (since 2004); Finland 
(since 1999); France (since 2005); France – Doubs regi on (2001–2004); Germany (since 
2005); Germany – Nordrhein Westfalen (s ince 2001); Germany – Pfalz region ( Phengaris 
nausithous  only, since 1989); Ireland (since 2007); Je rsey (since 2004); Lithuania (since 
2009); Portugal (1998-2006); Slovenia (since  2007); Spain – Cata lunya (since 1994); 
Switzerland – Aargau (since 1998); the Nether lands (since 1990);Ukraine – Transcarpathia 
(since 1990) and the United Kingdom (since 1976). 
Assessment:  For some populations of European comm on birds, downward trends appear to 
have slowly levelled off but it needs to be bor ne in mind that significant losses had already 
happened by 1990.  
Of the more common bird species, farmland birds have declined. The initial steep decline of 
farmland birds was associated with increasing ag ricultural specialisation and intensity in some 
areas, and large-scale marginalisation and land abandonment in others. The falling trend has levelled off since the late 1990s, partly because of  stabilising inputs of nutrients and pesticides 
and the introduction of set-aside in the EU-15, and partly because  of drastically  lower nutrient 
inputs in the EU-10 as a result of political reforms and th e resulting economic crisis in the 
agricultural sector. An increas e in agricultural production in eastern Europe, if linked to 
higher inputs of nutrients and pesticides, co mbined with further land abandonment in some 
parts of Europe and the abolition of se t-aside, may lead to a new decline.  
Conservation measures adopted under the EU Birds Directive have proven effective in the 
recovery of threatened  bird populations (Donald et al., 200 7) but not in the case of more 
widespread birds species, where different r ecovery mechanisms are now required. Well-
designed agri-environment measures have been shown to reverse bi rd declines at local levels. 
The recent loss of set-aside areas under agricultu ral policy may result in greater pressures on 
many farmland bird species. 
The challenge now is to deploy the Birds Direc tive conservation measures  or others widely 
enough to help populations recover at national a nd European scales. Trends in species in 
 
EN 6   EN Europe are also driven by pre ssures outside Europe, e.g. for migratory bird species, and a 
comprehensive response would need to be effective beyond European territory. 
Grassland butterflies are declin ing severely; their populations have declined by almost 70%, 
indicating a dramatic loss of grassland biodiversity.  
The main driver behind the decline of grassla nd butterflies is the change in rural land use: 
agricultural intensification where the land is re latively flat and easy to  cultivate, abandonment 
in mountains and wet areas, mainly in Eastern and Southern Europe. Agricultural 
intensification leads to uniform, almost ster ile grasslands, where the management is so 
intensive that grasslan d butterflies can only survive in trad itional farmed low input systems 
(High Nature Value Farmland) as well as nature  reserves, and marginal land such as road 
verges and amenity areas.  
Notes:  An increase in the population index mean s that there are more species with 
populations increased than species with populati ons decreased: it does not necessarily mean 
that the population of al l species has increased. It can be due to expansion of some species 
(typically, generalists) at the expe nse of other species (t ypically, specialists).  It must also be 
noted that populations fluc tuate on a yearly basis. 
In the absence of the informa tion on abundance, information on th e distribution of species can 
help assess species status. However, at a European level, this type of information is still weak 
for other groups of species.  
Geographical coverage 
Birds 
 
Butterflies 
 
Web links:  
• European Bird Census Council (EBCC): www.ebcc.info/  
• Butterfly Conservation Europe: www.bc-europe.org/  
Sources and references:  Donald, P. F.; Sanderson, F. J.; Burfield, I. J.; Bierman, S. M.; 
Gregory, R. D.; and Waliczky, Z., 2007. 'Internati onal Conservation Policy Delivers Benefits 
for Birds in Europe'. Science 317: 810. 
 
EN 7   EN 3. HEADLINE INDICATOR : TRENDS IN EXTENT OF SELECTED BIOMES , ECOSYSTEMS 
AND HABITATS  
3.1. 04. Ecosystem coverage 
Key policy question:  Which changes are occurring in the distribution of Europe's ecosystems 
and habitats? 
Key message: 
Artificial surfaces (housing and industrial area s and infrastructure) as well as woodland are 
increasing whilst agricultural land, semi-natural  and natural habitats decrease. The overall 
statistics hide more detailed transition pa tterns. Urban sprawl, for example, accelerates, 
mainly at the expense of agri cultural land. Wetlands are mainly changing into forest; other 
(semi-)natural areas primarily give way to agriculture. 
Land cover change between 1990 and 2006: area change for major habitat classes 
-0.9%-1.2%5.9%0.6%-2.7%4.4%0.0%7.9%
1Artificial surfaces
Coastal ecosystems
Rivers & Lakes
Wetlands
Forests
Heath & Scrubs
Grasslands
Agro ecosystems
 
Note:  How to read the graph: from 1990 to 2006, artificial areas (housing and industrial areas 
and infrastructure) increased by nearly 8 %, whereas wetlands decreased by nearly 3 %. 
Source : EEA, 2010 – EU27 except Greece, Finl and, United Kingdom and Sweden 
Assessment:  The latest Corine Land Cover (CLC) i nventory (2006) indicat es in the period 
1990-2006 a continued expansion of artificial surfaces (e.g. urban sprawl, infrastructures) and 
abandoned land at the expense of agricultural la nd, grasslands and wetlands across Europe. In 
the years 2000-2006 annual land uptake by urban ar eas doubled compared to previous period 
(1990-2000) and, as in the previous  period, was mainly at the e xpense of agriculture (76%). 
 
EN 8   EN Changes in land cover between 1990 and 2000 and 2000 and 2006: previous status of 
newly urban areas 
Changes 1990-2000
49%
35%9%5% 1%0%
0%1%
Artificial surfaces
Arable land & permanent crops
Pastures & mosaic farmland
Forests and transitional woodland shrub
Natural grassland, heathland,
sclerophylous vegetation
Open space with little or no vegetation
Wetlands
Water bodies
 
Changes 2000-2006
47%
29%14%8%1%0%
0%
1%
Artificial surfaces
Arable land & permanent crops
Pastures & mosaic farmland
Forests and transitional woodland
shrub
Natural grassland, heathland,sclerophylous vegetation
Open space with little or no vegetation
Wetlands
Water bodies
 
Note:  Based on Corine Land Cover data. 
Sources:  EEA 2010, LEAC (Land and Ecosystems Accounts) 
How to read the graph:  between 2000 and 2006, 47 % of new urban lands were formerly 
arable land and permanent crops. 
The annual increase in forest area in EU was around 0.5% between 1990 and 2000 and around 
0.1% between 2000 and 2006. However, this incr ease is not uniformly distributed. In 
addition, the spatial forest pattern is changing lo cally due to different dynamics such as loss of 
forest areas, fragmentation of forest cover and therefore loss of connectivity. 
Heaths and scrubs area increased because tr ansitional woodland included in this category 
increased by 12%. During the same period, heaths and scrub sensu stricto decreased by 3%, 
which is associated with biodiversity decline. 
 
EN 9   EN Conversion of wetlands into other classes, in the periods 1990–2000 and 2000-2006  
Changes 1990-2000
2%7%
79%12%
Artificial surfaces
Agricultural areas
Forest and semi natural areas
Water bodies
 
Changes 2000-2006
4%
39%
53%4%
Artificial surfaces
Agricultural areas
Forest and semi natural areas
Water bodies
 
Note:  Based on Corine Land Cover data. 
Sources:  EEA 2010, LEAC (Land and Ecosystems Accounts) 
How to read the graph:  of wetland area converted to other land uses between 2000 and 
2006, 39 % became agricultural. 
Natural grasslands are still being turned into  arable land and built up areas. The loss of 
wetlands has slowed down (nearly 3% lost in the last 16 years)  but Europe had already lost 
more than half of its wetlands before 1990. Incr ease of water bodies is mainly due to creation 
of dams. 
Agricultural areas are decreasing mainly due to urban sprawl, driven mainly by the sprawl of 
industrial and commercial site s, transport networks and infrastructures. In many places, 
agriculture has been marginalised as an economic activity, often with resulting land abandonment. Extensive agricultural land is bei ng converted predominantly into forest and 
other forms of more in tensive agriculture.  
 
EN 10   EN Geographical coverage 
Corine Land Cover v.2000 
 
Corine Land Cover v.2006 
 
Web links:  
Corine Land Cover http://reports.eea.eur opa.eu/COR0-landcover/en  
Sources and references:  EEA 2010, Corine Land Cover  
 
EN 11   EN 4. HEADLINE INDICATOR : COVERAGE OF PROTECTED AREAS  
4.1. 07. Nationally designated protected areas 
Key Policy Question: What is the progress with the nationa l designation of protected areas as 
a tool for biodiversity conservation? 
Key message : The total area of nationally-designated protected areas in Europe2 has 
increased over time. The total area of nationally designated site s in 39 European countries was 
more than 1 million square kilometres in 2009. In EECCA countries, the area of nationally 
designated sites is at least 1.5 million square ki lometres. 1.2 million square kilometres can be 
added to this area, the information about th e year of the designation is missing, however, 3.  
This quantitative information needs to be co mplemented by a qualitative assessment of the 
efficiency and the representa tiveness of the network of designated areas including good 
management practices. 
Growth of the nationally designated pr otected areas and site number in 39 EEA 
countries 
Growth of nationnally designated  protected areas in 39 EEA countries
020000040000060000080000010000001200000
1895 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005Number of sites
0100002000030000400005000060000700008000090000100000Area (km²)
Cumulated Sites Number
Cumulated Sites Area (km²)
 
Note:  Overlap may exist due to multiple designati ons for a same site. The average of overlap 
is around 14 % at European level At country leve l the average varies from 46 % of overlap for 
Germany, 34 % for Estonia and less that in 5 % in Turkey. 
Source:  CDDA (Common Database  on Designated Areas) v8, 2009. 
How to read : the graph: In 1995 there was more than  40 000 of nationally designated sites 
within the 39 countries. More than 6 00 000 km2 were under national designations. 
                                                 
2 A “Nationally designated area” is an area design ated by a national designation instrument based on 
national legislation. If a country has included in its legislation the sites designated under the EU Birds 
and Habitats directive, the Natura 2000 sites of this country are included in the figure. 
3 For 39 countries, there is 37 000 sqm2 of additio nal designated areas but without any information of 
designation year. For the EECCA countries, for 25 % of sites included in the database, no size 
information is available. 
 
EN 12   EN Assessment:  In 39 countries, on average 16 % of the terrestrial area has been designated as a 
national protected area. 
The growth in nationally designated areas in 39 EEA countries has been exponential, and it 
has been levelling off in recent years. A precise  assessment of trends over time is much more 
difficult to make for EECCA countries because of  gaps in the data. These countries contain 
around 18000 sites covering in tota l 2.6 million square kilometres. However, for more than 2 
thirds of the sites no designati on date is known, and one fourth of the sites no size information 
is known. 
Countries have national legislati on that enables them to estab lish various types of protected 
areas.  
For nationally-designated protecte d areas, the total area protec ted in Europe continues to 
increase.  
On the one hand it is difficult to know exactly how far these areas contribute to halt the loss of 
biodiversity without any specific information on site management and quality. On the other 
hand, other indicators can show how much pr essure on biodiversity outside those areas 
increases through growing urbanisation and transport infrastructures for instance. 
Therefore, the expansion of prot ected areas and their role in pr otecting biodiversity have to be 
considered and assessed within the wider environment and with the climate change 
perspective. 
Geographical coverage 
 
Web links:  
About Nationally de signated areas: 
• European dataset: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and- maps/data/nationally-designated-
areas-national-cdda-4   
• Global dataset: http://www.wdpa.org/  
 
EN 13   EN 5. HEADLINE INDICATOR : WATER QUALITY IN AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS  
5.1. 16. Freshwater quality 
Key Policy Question: What is the status of fres hwater quality in Europe? 
Key message: Pollution of rivers with organic matter and ammonium is decreasing as are the 
levels of other anthropogenic nutrients in  freshwater generally (rivers, lakes and 
groundwater). This reduces stress on freshwater  biodiversity and improves ecological status. 
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) and tota l ammonium concentrations in rivers 
between 1992 and 2007 
00.511.522.533.544.5
1992199319941995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007BOD5 
[mg O2/l]
0100200300400500600700800900Total 
ammonium 
[µg N/l]
BOD5 (1640) Total ammonium (2272)
 
Source:  Waterbase Version 9  
How to read the graph:  Between 1992 and 2007, BOD5 decreased from 4 to 2 mg O2/l and 
Ammonium from 700 to 300 µg N/l 
Note:  Criterion for selection series: consistent ti me series (1992-2007) after interpolation of 
one or two year missing concentrations and ex trapolation of one year missing concentrations 
in the beginning or the end of series on station level. 
Number of river monitoring stations included in analysis noted in brackets. BOD5 data from 
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Re public, Denmark, France, Hungary, Ireland, 
Luxembourg, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and United Kingdom. BOD7 data from Finland, Estonia, Latvia (1996- 2001) and Lithuania (1996-
2007). BOD7 data were recalculated into BOD5 data. Total ammonium data from Albania, 
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estoni a, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, 
 
EN 14   EN Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Former  Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Norway, 
Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom4. 
Concentrations of nitrate and orthophosphate in rivers and total phosphorus in lakes in 
the period 1992-2007 
00.511.522.53
199219931994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 200220032004200520062007mg N/l
00.020.040.060.080.10.120.140.160.18mg P/l
Nitrate (1281) Orthophosphate (830) Total phosphorus lakes (332) 
Note:  Total number of stations in parenthesis. Concentrations are ex pressed as weighted 
means of annual mean concentrations for rivers and lakes. Only stations with time series 
consisting of a minimum of seven years are included.  
Nitrate in rivers (* = total oxidized nitrogen ): Austria (144), Belgiu m (10), Bulgaria (80) 
Czech Republic (69), Denmark* (39), Estonia (51), Finland* (52), France (177), Germany 
(123), Hungary* (87), Lithuania (26), Luxembou rg (3), Norway (10), Poland (101), Slovakia 
(48), Slovenia (14), Spain (128), Sweden* (113), Switzerland (6). 
Orthophosphate in rivers: Austria (115), Belgium (8), Bulgaria (59), Denmark (41), Estonia 
(51), Finland (46), France (156), Germany (109 ), Lithuania (26), Luxembourg (1), Norway 
(10), Slovakia (6), Slovenia (14), Spain (69), Sweden (113), Switzerland (6).  
Total phosphorus in lakes: Austria (5), Denm ark (20), Estonia (2), Finland (130), Hungary 
(9), Ireland (8), Lithuania (3), Latvia (3),  Slovenia (2), Sweden (140), Switzerland (10). 
Source:  Waterbase (version 9).  
Assessment:  Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and to tal ammonium concentration have 
decreased in European rivers over the period 1992-2007, corresponding to the general 
                                                 
4 Concentrations are expressed as the station weig hted mean of the annual mean concentrations 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 15   EN improvement in wastewater treatment. BOD and ammonium concentrations are generally 
highest in eastern, southern a nd south-eastern European rivers . The largest declines in BOD 
are evident in the rivers of Western Europe , while the biggest dr ops of ammonium are 
apparent in eastern European countries.  
Concentrations of BOD and ammonium are ke y indicators of the organic matter and oxygen 
content of water bodies. They normally increa se as a result of organic pollution due to 
discharges from waste water treatment plants, industrial effluent and agricultural run-off. 
Severe organic pollution may lead  to rapid de-oxygenation of ri ver water along with increased 
ammonium levels and the consequent disapp earance of fish and aquatic invertebrates. 
The most important sources of organic waste lo ad are household waste water, discharges from 
industries such as paper production or food pr ocessing and occasional silage or slurry 
effluents from agriculture. Increased industr ial and agricultural produ ction, coupled with a 
greater percentage of the population being connected  to sewerage systems, initially resulted in 
increased discharge of organic waste into surface  water across most European countries after 
the 1940s. Over the past 15 to 30 years, however, the biological treatment of waste water has 
increased and organic discharges have c onsequently decreased throughout Europe. 
Nutrient levels in freshwater s are decreasing. The average nitr ate concentration in European 
rivers has decreased since 1992, from 2.5 to 2.1 mg N/l, reflecting the eff ect of measures to 
reduce agricultural inputs of nitrate. Nitrate leve ls in lakes are in general much lower than in 
rivers but there has also been  a 15 % reduction of the averag e concentration in lakes.  
Agriculture is the largest cont ributor of nitrogen pollution. Due to the EU Nitrate Directive 
and national measures the nitroge n pollution from agriculture ha s, however, been reduced in 
some regions during the last 10-15 years. Euro pean air emissions of nitrogen oxides have 
gone down by one third over the last  15 years and the deposition of nitrogen on inland surface 
waters has also declined.  
Phosphorus concentrations in Eur opean rivers and lakes generall y decreased during the last 15 
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 fall in phosphor us concentrations in 
many European lakes. The decrease is due to nutrient removal measures introduced by 
national and European legislation particularly  the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. 
As treatment of urban wastewater has improve d and many waste water outlets have been 
diverted away from lakes, point source po llution is gradually be coming less important. 
Agricultural inputs of phosphorus are still signi ficant and need increased attention to achieve 
a good status in lakes and rivers. However, it should be noted that the consumption of 
phosphorus in agriculture has been stead ily decreasing since the late 1980s.  
 
EN 16   EN Geographical coverage 
Total ammonium concentrations 
 
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) 
 
Concentrations of nitrate 
 
Concentrations of phosphorus 
 
Web links:  
EEA Core Set indicators: 
http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISp ecs/ISpecification20041007131940/IAssessment1116505
271445/view_content  and  
http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISp ecs/ISpecification20041007131957/IAssessment1116497
150363/view_content  
 
EN 17   EN 6. HEADLINE INDICATOR : ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY OF EUROPEAN 
COUNTRIES  
6.1. 23. Ecological Footprint of European countries 
Key policy question: Are Europeans using more than thei r share of the world’s resources? 
Key message: The Ecological Footprint for pan-Europe5 has been increasing almost 
constantly since 1961, while Europe’s biocapacity6 has decreased. This results in an ever 
larger deficit, with negative consequences fo r the environment within  and outside Europe.  
Ecological Footprint, biocapacit y and reserve or deficit (2006) 
European Union
(3)(2)(1)0123456
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001Global hectares per personFootprint Per Capita
Biocapacity Per Capita
Reserve/Def icit
 
                                                 
5 For this analysis, data from all European countries were used, except for nations that were excluded 
because of insufficient population (Cyprus, Icelan d, Liechtenstein, Luxem bourg and Malta) and nations 
for which data are lacking (Andorra, Monaco, San Marino). 
6 The capacity of ecosystems to produce useful bi ological materials and to absorb waste materials 
generated by humans, using current management schemes and extraction technologies. 
 
EN 18   EN Pan-European Nations
(3)(2)(1)0123456789
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001Global hectares per personFootprint Per Capita
Biocapacity Per Capita
Reserve/Deficit
* Note, a dotted line is included for years w ith source data inconsistencies.
 
How to read the graph:  from 1961 to 2006, Europe’s Ecolog ical Footprint in creased from 3 
to 4 ha/person. 
Assessment:  Europe’s ecological deficit is considerab le. Overall biological resource use and 
waste emission is more than twice the biologic al capacity available w ithin Europe, showing 
that the continent cannot sustainably meet its  consumption demands from within its own 
borders. The average per capita Ecological Foot print in the European Union has increased 
more than 50 percent since 1961, while per cap ita biocapacity has decr eased by 13 percent, 
thus increasing the ecological deficit. Pan-Eu ropean nations, as a whole, have seen a 
fluctuating per capita Ecological Footprint, though in 2006 the Footprint was more than a 
quarter larger than in 1961. A clear trend can be seen in Pan-European biocapacity, however, 
with a steady per capita declin e as populations increase and resources are stretched among 
more consumers. 
A regional or national ecological deficit means th at the region is either importing biocapacity 
through trade or liquidating regi onal ecological assets. Evidentl y, a global ecological deficit 
cannot be compensated through trade and therefore corresponds  to liquidation of natural 
capital. 
In a world that is already in ecological oversho ot, Europe’s ecological deficit contributes to 
the diminishing amount of renewable natural res ources available in the future, adds to overall 
waste accumulation and puts regional and global ecosystems at greater risk of degradation. Further work should examine in more detail the linkages between th e Ecological Footprint 
and biodiversity.  
The figure below shows that Europe is not th e only region where th e Ecological Footprint 
(shown as per person Footprint times population size) exceeds the biocapacity (per person 
biocapacity shown as green dotted line). Europe  beyond the EU actually ha s a biocapacity that 
is slightly larger than its Footprint. North America, the EU-25 and the remaining European 
nations have a per person Footprint that is signifi cantly larger than that in any other continent. 
 
EN 19   EN Ecological Footprint variation per region (2006) 
012345678910
Population in m illionsEcological Footprint 
(global hectares per person)13 
Ecological Footprint by region, 2006
North America
Latin America and the Caribbean
Europe
Oceania
Asia
Africa
Biocapacity available per capita
Source:  Global Footprint Network, Na tional Footprint Accounts 2009  
How to read the graph:  the EU has 487 million citizens, and a biocapacity of two global 
hectares per person. The Ecological Footprint ho wever, is 4.5 hectares per EU citizen. The 
Footprint is the area used to support a defi ned population's consumption including the area 
needed to produce the materials consumed and to absorb the waste. The deficit is the 
difference between the biocapacity and Ecologi cal Footprint of a re gion or country. The 2009 
National Footprint Accounts contain a numbe r of revisions from the 2008 edition. The 
methodological changes reflect new source data from the United Nations, new source data 
organization, and improved calculations in grazing land, forest land, and fishing grounds 
Footprint and biocapacity data.  
Geographical coverage  
 
Web links: Global Footprint Network: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/  
Sources and references:  Global Footprint Network., 2009. National Footprint Accounts, 
2009 Edition . Available at:  
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php /GFN/page/ecological_ footprint_atlas_2009/  
[Accessed 25 May 2010] 
 
EN 20   EN 7. HEADLINE INDICATOR : PUBLIC AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION  
7.1. 26. Public awareness  
Key Policy Question: What is the level of public awaren ess about biodiversity in Europe? 
Are people willing to take action? 
Key message: Two-thirds of EU citizens  do not know the meaning of  the word ‘biodiversity’, 
let alone understand what the threats and challenge s to its conservation are. Most EU citizens 
have never heard of the Natura 2000 networ k (78 %). However, over two-thirds of EU 
citizens report personally making e fforts to help preserve nature. 
Assessment: Recent surveys7 showed that only about one-third of EU citizens were familiar 
with the term ‘biodiversity’: more precisely,  38 % of interviewees said they knew the 
meaning of the term (a three percentage point increase compared to 2007) and that few feel 
well informed about biodiversity loss.  
 
Source : Gallup Organization, Flash Eur obarometer Series No. 290, 2010.  
How to read the graph:  34 % of EU citizens have never heard of biodiversity (2010).  
Two-thirds of EU citizens do not know the meaning of the wo rd ‘biodiversity’, let alone 
understand the threats and challe nges to its conservation. That  does not mean, however, they 
are unaware of environmental matters. When the issue is explained to them, over two-thirds 
consider the loss of biodiversity a serious probl em, although more so at the global rather than 
the local level. The main threats to biodi versity identified by Europeans both in 2007 and 
2010 surveys – pollution and man-made disasters – indicate that the level of understanding of 
the problem is still inadequate.  
                                                 
7 Gallup Organization, 2007. Flash Eurobarometer Series No. 219, Gallup Organization, 2010. Flash 
Eurobarometer Series No. 290. 
 
EN 21   EN Figure: Awareness of the Natura 2000 Network, share of respondents 
 
Source:  Gallup Organization, Flash Eur obarometer Series No. 290, 2010.  
How to read the graph:  78 % of EU citizens have never heard of Natura 2000 (2010) 
The survey also reveals that Europeans are unaware of what the EU is doing to save 
biodiversity: Only one in five has ever hear d of Natura 2000, the EU’s main programme for 
biodiversity conservation, and only 8 % of re spondents indicated they really knew what 
Natura 2000 meant (slight increase compared to the year 2007). Most EU citizens have never heard of the Natura 2000 netw ork (78 %). The Natura 2000 progr amme needs urgent attention 
as far as communication to the public is concerned. 
If the survey is repeated at regular intervals, it will be possible to identify trends and assess 
the effectiveness of existing and future polic ies aimed at raising public awareness and 
participation with rega rds to biodiversity.  
Geographical coverage 
 
Web links:   
About Eurobarometer: http://ec.europa.e u/public_opinion/archiv es/flash_arch_en.htm  
Sources and references:  
Gallup Organization, 2007. Flash Eurobarometer Series No. 219. Attitudes of Europeans 
towards the issue of biodiversity . Survey conducted by Gallup Organization at the request of 
the Directorate-General for Environment.  Coordinated by Di rectorate-General 
Communication. Available at: http://ec.eu ropa.eu/public_opinio n/flash/fl_219_en.pdf 
[Accessed 14 July 2010]. 
 
EN 22   EN Gallup Organization, 2010. Flash Eurobarometer Series No. 290. Attitudes of Europeans 
towards the issue of biodiversity . Survey conducted by Gallup Organization at the request of 
the Directorate-General for Environment.  Coordinated by Di rectorate-General 
Communication. Available at: http://ec.eu ropa.eu/public_opinio n/flash/fl_290_en.pdf 
[Accessed 14 July 2010].