Within BISE, the Biodiversity data centre (BDC) provides access to data and information on species, habitat types and sites of interest in Europe and to related products for biodiversity indicators and assessments. Priority is given to policy-relevant data and information for European and national institutions, professionals, researchers and the public. This includes the data supporting the assessments from Article 12 and Article 17 reporting under the nature directives, which is a unique dataset in the world. Also with the assistance of the European Environment Agency, the European Commission has developed a which makes it possible to explore Natura 2000 sites in every part of the EU at the press of a button. The public viewer is an interactive and user-friendly tool that allows the user to travel seamlessly through the Natura 2000 sites over different types of backgrounds (street maps, satellite imagery, bio-geographical regions, Corine Land Cover, etc.) and to quickly locate sites and related information on species and habitats of interest. The tool is intended to help raise awareness of Natura 2000 amongst the general public as well as provide a useful instrument for developers, land use planners, landowners, government authorities, NGOs, researchers and educationalists, amongst others.

The Biodiversity Information System for Europe (BISE) is a single entry point for published data and information supporting the implementation and monitoring of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy. Bringing together data on biodiversity and ecosystem services, it links to related policies, environmental data centres, assessments and research findings from various sources. It is being developed to strengthen the knowledge base and to support decision-making on biodiversity. BISE has integrated within its structure the European Biodiversity Clearing House Mechanism in support of the Convention on Biological Diversity. BISE is a partnership between the European Commission and the European Environment Agency. BISE also contributes to the further development of monitoring of progress and streamlining of reporting at international level. For instance, the European Environment Agency (EEA) has developed a target crosslinking tool that allows countries to interconnect national, EU and global biodiversity targets and indicators to facilitate reporting. This tool has been made available to its 28 Member States and 28 African countries.

4b) The Commission will create a dedicated ICT tool as part of the Biodiversity Information System for Europe to improve the availability and use of data by 2012.

After receipt of the national reports, the EEA and its Topic Centre on Biological Diversity produced national summaries with overview statistics for each Member State, a web tool to view easily the assessments of Member States as well as the EU-biogeographic assessments by species and habitats under Art.17. , and a paper setting out the method on how to assess progress towards Target 1 of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy. The final report on the State of Nature in the EU and related data are available on the web for further analysis.

For the first time, reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive and Article 12 of the Birds Directive have been streamlined and aligned. Article 12 requires Member States to report about the progress made with the implementation of the Birds Directive. In 2011, the Commission in agreement with Member States has revised the reporting procedure and frequency in order to focus the reporting obligations on data that inform about the status and trend of bird populations.

4a) The Commission, together with Member States, will develop by 2012 a new EU bird reporting system, further develop the reporting system under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive and improve the flow, accessibility and relevance of Natura 2000 data

Meanwhile, the Commission has continued to pursue cases of non-compliance with EU nature legislation, including through infringement procedures, with a focus on systemic failures. These include the insufficient designation of SCIs and SPAs (especially in the marine environment), the designation of SACs, as well as the non-respect of provisions in the legislation regarding the species protection, the non-deterioration of Natura 2000 sites and the permitting procedures for plans and projects which might negatively affect the integrity of the sites.

Coordinated action at EU level has also been launched, in cooperation with the Council of Europe, to address illegal trapping, killing and trade of birds, which also specifies actions on monitoring and data collection.

3c) The Commission and Member States will facilitate enforcement of the nature directives by providing specific training programmes on Natura 2000 for judges and public prosecutors, and by developing better compliance promotion capacities

The Commission is also in the process of developing sector-specific guidance in the following policy areas: non-energy extractive industries, wind farm development, ports and estuaries, inland waterway transport, aquaculture. The overall objective of these guidance documents is to establish a better understanding of how to apply the Article 6 procedure to developments plans and projects in each of these sectors and to provide further advice on how to carry out an Appropriate Assessment in particular. A Guidance document promoting integration of Natura 2000 in agriculture "Farming for Natura 2000" (2014) has been prepared and another one on forests is currently being finalised.

A set of pilot actions on large carnivores has also been carried out and will be available on the large carnivores' webpage of DG ENV.

An EU Platform on Coexistence between People and Large Carnivores has been established in 2014 to support a constructive dialogue between stakeholders and promote a peaceful coexistence of human activity with large carnivores in Europe. As part of the EU Large Carnivore Initiative, a set of documents describing key actions for four species of large carnivores in Europe, including at the population level, have been finalised and published on the large carnivores' webpage of DG ENV.

A series of guidance documents promoting integration of Natura 2000 in different sectors have been prepared including Farming for Natura 2000, Aquaculture and Natura 2000, Inland waterway transport and Natura 2000, the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives in estuaries and coastal zones, Integrating biodiversity and nature into port development, Wind energy developments and Natura 2000, Non-energy mineral extraction and Natura 2000 and Climate change and Natura 2000 and on managing fisheries impacts within Natura 2000 sites. The Commission is also in the process of finalising sector-specific guidance on forests, on energy transmission facilities and on hydropower, which are all expected to be finalised during 2015. All these guidance documents were or are developed in cooperation with representatives of the sectors concerned. An update of the Article 6 interpretation guidance is also being prepared.

3b) The Commission and Member States will improve cooperation with key sectors and continue to develop guidance documents to improve their understanding of the requirements of EU nature legislation and its value in promoting economic development.

In order to enhance public awareness about biodiversity and Natura 2000, the European Commission has launched a new award designed to celebrate and promote best practices for nature conservation in Europe. The European Natura 2000 Award aims to bring the success of the Natura 2000 network to the public’s attention and to demonstrate its importance for protecting biodiversity across Europe. The initiative rewards excellence in the management and promotion of the network and its objectives. Natura 2000 works to assure the long-term survival of Europe’s most valuable and threatened species and habitats, and is the centrepiece of the EU’s nature and biodiversity policy. In its first year, 2014, the Natura 2000 Award attracted considerable interest from Natura 2000 site managers and others working with the Natura 2000 network, with 163 applications received from 26 Member States, distributed across the 5 Award categories (conservation, communication, socio economic benefits, reconciling interests, networking and cross-border cooperation). In 2015, an additional category, the “European Citizens’ Award” was added, for which the public was able to vote directly online.

A 2010 Eurobarometer survey showed that citizens' awareness of the threats and challenges for biodiversity and Natura 2000 was not very high. According to the 2013 EU Flash Eurobarometer on Attitudes towards biodiversity, more than two thirds (74 %) of EU citizens had heard of biodiversity but less than half knew the meaning of the word. This, however, is still 10 % more than in 2007. This shows that while EU citizens are gradually becoming more aware, greater communication efforts and activities focused on biodiversity are needed. In 2015, a Eurobarometer on biodiversity will provide an overview of current public attitudes to biodiversity.

With regard to the Programme for the Environment and Climate Action LIFE, which is the only relevant fund under the direct Commission management, the multiannual work programme for 2014-17 was agreed in February 2014 and is now operational. The allocation for the priority area "Nature and Biodiversity" during this period was agreed at approximately 611 million EUR (whereas the commitment for the whole period 2014-2020 is approximately 1.27 billion EUR). A new category of projects, i.e. "integrated projects" have been included in the programme pursuant to the LIFE 2014-2020 Regulation. These projects will be carried out on a larger geographical scale and will be aimed at implementation of plans and programmes. In the priority area "Nature and Biodiversity", PAFs are considered as relevant plans to frame Integrated Projects to be implemented.

Programming of marine and fisheries OPs is not advanced enough to provide estimations on allocations at this stage. However, the Regulation establishing the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) stipulates that where appropriate the specific needs of Natura 2000 areas should be integrated into the EMFF OPs. According to the Regulation, dedicated support in accordance with PAFs is also envisaged for the management, restoration and monitoring of coastal and marine Natura 2000 sites.

As regards rural development programmes (RDPs) developed to implement the priorities of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) as of 13 February 2015 the Commission had approved 27 out of 118 RDPs. Restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry, with a focus on biodiversity, including Natura 2000 areas is one of the priorities of the RDPs (priority no. 4). Member States are also required to reserve a minimum of 30 % of the total contribution from the EAFRD to each RDP for measures supporting investments related to the environment and climate. The most relevant measures from the nature perspective are agri-environment payments and Natura 2000 payments. Payments to areas facing natural constraints and investments in physical assets are also generally relevant for financing nature protection. Due to the fact that not all RDPs have been adopted yet and bearing in mind that the methodology for calculation of the contribution of individual measures to preserving biodiversity is still being discussed between relevant Commission services it is not possible to provide specific figures on allocations from the EAFRD to Natura 2000.

With regard to funds managed under the shared management principle by the EU the Member States, as of 16 February 2015 266 cohesion policy (out of 387 operational programmes - OPs) have been adopted by the Commission. As the programming process was ongoing at the time of drafting this report, it was not possible to precisely indicate how much funding has been allocated to nature and biodiversity. However, the draft OPs and those already adopted by the Commission indicate that the allocations for categories of expenditure related to nature and biodiversity have increased.

As regards resource allocated to financing Natura 2000 in individual EU funding streams it has to be noted that the majority of the EU funds operate according to a programming process with shared management of funds between the EU and the Member States. This means that decisions on funding priorities are taken at national and regional level in discussion with the European Commission. Then the Commission entrusts the Member States with implementing programmes at national or regional levels following certain rules.. Only the LIFE programme is directly managed by the Commission. From LIFE+ 2010-2013, co-financing for nature and biodiversity has increased to about € 548 million.

In order to help the Member States to better understand the opportunities for financing nature protection in the next MFF the Commission published the "Guidance handbook on financing Natura 2000". The handbook presents all relevant EU funds and their potential for financing nature and biodiversity together with examples of best practice in this area. In addition, the Commission together with the national authorities organised financing seminars in 24 Member States. The seminars have been successful in identifying the most important needs for financing nature protection and discussing ways of allocating resources to this purpose.

In 2012 the Commission developed a format and methodology for the PAFs and invited the Member States to submit their PAFs in time to influence the process of adopting the programmes for EU funds. The large majority of Member States submitted their PAFs in 2013 and early 2014. The PAFs have been instrumental in ensuring the best possible integration of investment in nature in the programmes for relevant EU funds. On the national level, the PAFs also contributed to integration of Natura 2000 into planning of other policies (agriculture, forestry, fisheries, cohesion etc.) and to a wider discussion, with different stakeholders, on the choice of priorities and measures as well as the means of their implementation and financing.

In response to this commitment the Commission issued a staff working paper in December 2011 "Financing Natura 2000: Delivering benefits for nature and people" which presented an evaluation of the effectiveness of the so called "integration approach" to EU co-financing of Natura 2000 as well as an early overview of the opportunities for financing nature protection in the next multi-annual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020, such as Partnership Agreements and Operational Programmes. The paper provided as well an updated estimate of Natura 2000 costs and underlined the benefits offered by the network. The document also stressed the importance of developing prioritised action frameworks (PAFs) pursuant to Article 8 of the Habitats Directive as tools for streamlined and comprehensive planning of investments necessary for management of the network.

2) The Commission and Member States will provide the necessary funds and incentives for Natura 2000, including through EU funding instruments, under the next multiannual financial framework. The Commission will set out its views in 2011 on how Natura 2000 will be financed under the next multi-annual financial framework.

Major progress has been made in establishing the Natura 2000 Biogeographical Process in 2011, which aims at improving and strengthening the implementation of Natura 2000 through enhanced cooperation and networking on practical habitat management and restoration. Seminars have been organised from 2012 onwards in the Boreal, Atlantic, Alpine and Mediterranean regions, as well as the organisation of a Marine seminar in 2015. Future development includes the launch of the process in the Continental, Pannonian, Black Sea, Steppic and Macaronesian regions, and follow-up activities in the Boreal, Atlantic, Alpine and Mediterranean regions in 2015, as well as working on establishing biogeographical level conservation and restoration objectives as well as on favourable reference values. Detailed information on all events is available on the Natura 2000 Communication Platform: .

1d) The Commission, together with Member States, will establish by 2012 a process to promote the sharing of experience, good practice and cross-border collaboration on the management of Natura 2000, within the biogeographical frameworks set out in the Habitats Directive.

Member States were also asked in their reporting to evaluate the impact of the conservation measures. Results suggest that conservation measures, which in some sites have only started recently, might achieve their goals only in the middle to long term.

As the responsibility for managing Natura 2000 sites lies with the countries and regions concerned, Member States are required to draw up the necessary conservation measures designed for each site, including restoration measures. Member States were asked to report on conservation measures implemented for each species and habitat type. Measures related to ‘Spatial planning’ (such as establish protected areas, legal protection of habitats and species), dominate the reported conservation measures. Further significant categories include measures related to wetland, freshwater and coastal habitats (e.g. "Restoring/improving the hydrological regime"), agriculture (e.g. "maintaining grasslands and other open habitats") as well as forests and wooded habitats.

Although not obligatory under the nature directives, management plans are strongly recommended by the European Commission, and are even obligatory under national legislation in some countries (e.g. Denmark, France, Netherlands and a number of German Länder). In 2012, the total number of sites with plans under the Habitats Directive for the EU-27 was 9271, with an additional 4229 plans under preparation. For birds, about 30% of Special Protection Areas have management plans with a further 25% in preparation. Overall, in 2012 across the entire Natura 2000 network, 58% of sites either had management plans or such plans were being developed. At Member State level the situation is diverse ranging from Slovenia with 100% of sites under comprehensive management plans to others that have no plans at all.

1c) Member States will ensure that management plans or equivalent instruments which set out conservation and restoration measures are developed and implemented in a timely manner for all Natura 2000 sites.

The integration of nature protection considerations in the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was strengthened through their reform (see also Targets 3 and 4).

At EU level, species action plans have been developed for species covered by the Habitats Directive as well as under the Bird Directive for a number of bird species (including updating older action plans). Action to tackle illegal killing of birds at EU level has been enhanced, namely by developing an EU roadmap for eliminating illegal practices. Since 2011, the Commission has also developed additional guidance on integrating species and habitats protection and management requirements into key sectors (see action 3b).

1b) Member States and the Commission will further integrate species and habitats protection and management requirements into key land and water use policies, both within and beyond Natura 2000 areas.

The focus is now turning to the development and implementation of species action plans and Natura 2000 site management plans (see action 1c).

Most member States are behind schedule in designating within 6 years under national law their Sites of Community Importance (SCI) as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and establishing management plans or equivalent instruments with clear conservation and restoration objectives and measures (see also action 1c). This step is crucial in order to put in place all necessary measures and ensure full legal protection. Important delays and gaps occurred in many Member States and several had not designated any SACs by the end of 2012. An overview of the state of play for Natura 2000 site designations under the Birds and Habitats Directives, in terms of area and number of sites, is provided in the barometer, which provides a breakdown by Member State and differentiates between terrestrial and marine sites. Updated information about remaining insufficiencies for each Member State, as regards sites to be proposed under the Habitats Directive, can be found online.

During the last months of 2014 alone, several Member States submitted substantial updates to their marine Natura 2000 network: Spain proposed 14 new marine sites of Community importance (SCIs) and designated 45 new marine Special Protection Areas (SPAs), altogether covering an area of more than 60.000 km2; Ireland has proposed 6 new marine SCIs, covering 3.300 km2; Bulgaria has proposed 3 new marine SCIs covering 1.800 km2; and Lithuania added 1 marine SPA, covering 320 km2.. However, the network remains substantially incomplete in most marine regions, especially offshore.

To support the implementation of the Habitats Directive, the European Union is divided into nine terrestrial and five marine biogeographic regions sharing similar ecological conditions. The nine terrestrial regions are the Alpine, Atlantic, Black Sea, Boreal, Continental, Macaronesian, Mediterranean, Pannonian, Steppic regions; the five marine ones are the Marine Atlantic, Marine Baltic, Marine Black Sea, Marine Macaronesian and Marine Mediterranean regions.

Within the legal framework provided by the Birds and Habitats Directives, the EU has built up a vast network of more than 27 000 protected areas throughout its Member States, encompassing nine biogeographical regions and five marine regions. Known as Natura 2000, the network covers an area of 1.292.000 km2, which is 18% of the EU’s land area and equivalent to the combined area of France, Germany and Italy. As concerns the designation of Natura 2000 sites in Europe, the establishment of Natura 2000 on land is largely complete and since 2011the marine surface area covered by Natura 2000 has increased by 50%, covering more than 4% of European seas.

1a) Member States and the Commission will ensure that the phase to establish Natura 2000, including in the marine environment, is largely complete by 2012.

Due to the complexity of working in the marine environment and the relative lack of data as compared to terrestrial species and habitats, conservation status and trends vary considerably and assessment results are less conclusive. The main pressures are the impact of fisheries by-catch and marine pollution. Measures aimed at better and more sensitive management of sites and prohibiting damaging activities are being developed and can translate into rapid improvements. In Ireland for example, the recent positive trend in conservation status of the alga Maerl Lithothamnium coralloides is linked to the protection regime of the Habitats Directive. Some threatened seabirds have also benefited from conservation measures in the Natura network: The Roseate Tern Sterna dougalli population has significantly increased in the EU thanks to the protection and management of breeding sites, including the control of predators.

In conclusion, the overall trend for habitats and species is that those that are already favourable/secure remain stable or are improving further. A small proportion of unfavourable/non-secure assessments is improving, and a larger proportion of those previously determined as unfavourable continues to deteriorate.

Some bird species appear to be benefiting from targeted conservation measures aimed at adapting land-use practices, especially in Natura 2000 sites. For instance, agri-environmental and land management programmes successfully implemented in Spain, Portugal, Austria, Hungary and Germany have helped the recovery of the Great Bustard Otis tarda, a species dependent on open landscapes (grassland, steppes and undisturbed cultivated areas), which is declining elsewhere in Europe. Despite suffering a marked population decline in some EU countries, the White-backed Woodpecker Dendrocopos leucotos, which is heavily dependent on old and dead deciduous trees, has increased in Finland, where it has benefited from changing forest management practices in Natura 2000 sites. However, among the 17% of the bird species, which are still threatened and the 15% which are near threatened, declining, or depleted, are many common farmland species like the Skylark, Alauda arvensis and the Black Tailed Godwit, Limosa limosa.

For birds, the proportion of bird species assessments with a ‘secure’ status remains the same as in 2004 (52%) and 8.5% are non-secure but improving. Therefore, approximately 61 % of species are in the target condition. This means that a further 17 % of species need to become secure or improving by 2020 to reach the birds’ component of Target 1 (i.e. 78 %).

Grassland, wetlands and dune habitats are of particular concern; the proportion of assessments which are unfavourable and deteriorating is particularly high for bogs, mires and fens, all associated with wetlands, coastal and agricultural ecosystems. The main threats to habitats identified are certain agricultural practices (including modification of cultivation practices, over-grazing, abandonment of pastoral systems, fertilisation and pesticides), and human-induced modifications of natural conditions, mostly related to hydrological changes.

The assessments of habitat types show that 16.4% of assessments are favourable and 4.4% have improved, while 30% are still deteriorating since 2006. This means that about 20 % reached the target condition, while the 2020 target is 34%. On the whole, habitat types show a worse conservation status and trend than species. It is widely recognised that restoration of habitats can often take a long time from the implementation of measures to the achievement of tangible improvement in biodiversity.

Largely thanks to conservation measures undertaken with the support of EU LIFE projects, some species are showing signs of improvement. The Large Copper butterfly, Lycaena dispar, is improving across the Continental region thanks to targeted conservation measures. The European Bison, Bison bonasus, in the Alpine region, the Grey Seal, Halichoerus grypus, in the marine Baltic region and the Mediterranean Horseshoebat, Rhinolophus Euryale, in the Mediterranean region are also improving. Several species of birds of prey, including the Carpathian Basin populations of the Eastern Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca, have increased as a result of measures, such as protection of nesting sites and habitat management.

In 2007-12 the percentage of species assessments either in favourable (23%) or improved (4%) status was of 27 % while the 2020 target is 34.5%. However, 22% are still deteriorating and 14% are without a known trend.

The Habitats Directive protects over 1200 rare, threatened or endemic species of wild animals (except birds) and plants – often collectively referred to as 'species of European importance'. The directive also protects some 230 natural and semi-natural habitat types. The Bird Directive covers all bird species that are naturally present in the EU. In total this amounts to around 450 species, ranging from familiar garden birds to much rarer migratory species that spend an important part of their annual cycle in the EU.

The Birds and Habitats Directives do not contain specific deadlines for achieving favourable or good conservation status. However, Target 1 of the Strategy sets measurable goals to be achieved by 2020. These goals were based on an ambitious but achievable scenario that assumed full implementation by Member States of measures under the directives to improve conservation status, supported by common actions at EU level. Using the 2009 report drawn up under the Habitats Directive and the 'Birds in the EU' status assessment of 2004 as benchmarks, the assessment of progress under Target 1 is drawn mainly from the Report on the State of Nature in the EU, which was adopted by the Commission on 20 May 2015 and provides the most comprehensive assessment to date.

Socio-economic benefits of reaching this target: Socio-economic benefits of reaching this target: the EU Natura 2000 network delivers economic benefits of the range of 200-300 billion EUR per year through the provision of ecosystem services such as carbon storage, flood mitigation, water purification, pollination and fish protection. A range of local socio-economic activities and almost 4.5 million jobs depend on the ecosystems that Natura 2000 protects. These benefits outweigh significantly the costs of managing and protecting Natura 2000, which are estimated at around €5.8 billion/year - a tiny fraction of the network's worth to society. For example, the full implementation of Natura 2000 in Spain is expected to result in a GDP increase between 0.1 - 0.26%, and to generate over 12,000 new jobs.

To halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats covered by EU nature legislation and achieve a significant and measurable improvement in their status so that, by 2020, compared to current assessments: (i) 100% more habitat assessments and 50% more species assessments under the Habitats Directive show an improved conservation status; and (ii) 50% more species assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure or improved status.

Global biodiversity loss is still a big concern. Europe is committed to reduce indirect drivers of biodiversity loss. The ecological footprint for the EU-28 countries increased rapidly during the 1960s and 70s, and has remained relatively constant since the 1980s. The region’s total biocapacity, however, has changed very little since 1961. The EU-28 region’s footprint in 2010 was over twice the size of its biocapacity as it was in 2000 (Source: SEBI026, EEA). Given that this ratio has hardly changed since the mid-seventies, it is very unlikely that any improvement will be made by 2020.

Figure 8 shows the cumulative number of marine Non-Indigenous Species (NIS). Analysis is made at Pan-European level and shown per decade. The most recent period covers 2011 to 2014.

Invasive alien species represent an increasing threat to biodiversity with about 12 000 alien species that have been found in the environment of the EU, 10-15 % of them becoming invasive. Their number is steadily rising, in particular in marine and estuarine systems.

Some 30 % of species are threatened by overexploitation of forests, oceans, rivers, lakes and soils. Pollution from pesticides and fertilisers, such as nitrates and phosphates, is threatening 26 % of species. Agricultural nitrogen balance is generally declining but is still high in some countries, particularly in lowland Western Europe. It is estimated that some 50-80 % of the total nitrogen load in freshwater originates from farming, contributing to biodiversity loss in freshwater ecosystems and coastal waters. In particular, half of the geographical range of natural and semi-natural habitats across the European Union was exposed to atmospheric nitrogen deposits above the critical load in 2004.

Habitat fragmentation, degradation and destruction due to land-use change, climate change and use of the seas are some of the main pressures and drivers causing biodiversity loss. Natural grasslands are still being turned into arable land and built-up areas; extensive agricultural land is being converted into forms of more intensive agriculture and, mainly as a result of abandonment, into forest. These are a major concern. They are leading to the loss of farming practices that support biodiversity and 70 % of EU species (dragonflies, butterflies, mammals, amphibians, reptiles) are threatened by the loss of their habitat. Fragmentation due to urban sprawl and infrastructure development — nearly 30 % of the EU land mass shows signs of moderately high to very high fragmentation — severely affects ecosystem connectivity and their health and ability to provide services.

For the periods 1950-2010, the majority of ecosystem services show either a degraded or mixed (i.e. degraded in some regions, enhanced in other) status across Europe. However, there are some positive exceptions such as timber production and climate regulation in forests (Source: EU2010 Baseline, EEA). A recent analysis confirms increasing trends between 2000 and 2010 for some provisioning services but decreasing of services directly related to biodiversity. Between 2000 and 2010, increasing extent of forests resulted in positive influences on erosion control, carbon storage, water retention, air quality regulation and recreation. But, pollination is the most degraded for Woodland and forest, Heathland and shrub, and grasslands. (Source: Maes et al, 2015).

The long-term well-being of Europe’s economies and societies is underpinned by its natural capital. Its genetic resources, species and ecosystems provide essential goods and services. These include fertile soils, multi-functional forests and productive seas, fresh water and air, biomass for multiple uses and ecosystem-based climate mitigation and adaptation. Unfortunately, many of Europe’s ecosystems are now being degraded and their ability to deliver these valuable services is being reduced. One issue alone — insect pollination, which is being heavily degraded in Europe — has an estimated economic value of EUR 15 billion a year in the EU. This presents an important problem that differs from the case of economic and human capital. The value of natural capital to our economies and societies, and the interdependencies of nature with other societal objectives, is often not reflected in private and public decisions, indicators, or accounting systems and economic signals in our market economies.

Since 1990, common bird populations have decreased by around 11%; more recently and as compared to the EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline, populations have been stabilised. However, the decline of common farmland birds, which was more pronounced at nearly 30% since 1990, is not reversed yet and populations are still declining as compared to the EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline.

The European Red List of Threatened Species published by IUCN on 3 June 2015 shows that 7.5% of all European marine fish species are threatened with extinction in European waters. While some fishes are recovering, marine management has been less successful for many other commercial species. 40.4% of European sharks, rays and chimaeras face an elevated risk of extinction. The population trend for 68.4% of the species is unknown, while 8.4% of the populations are declining, 21.5% are considered stable and 1.7% are increasing. The report, financed by the European Commission, is the first ever complete assessment of marine fishes native to Europe, assessing all of the 1,220 species present in the Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, Baltic Sea, North Sea, and the Northeast Atlantic Ocean, including many highly exploited species that support large commercial, recreational, and artisanal fisheries. Most of these species are not covered by the nature legislation. The highest number of threatened species can be found in the Mediterranean Sea, the western coast of the Iberian Peninsula and the Macaronesian islands. The report identified overfishing as the main threat to marine fishes in Europe, both in targeted fisheries and as by-catch. Other major threats include coastal development, energy production and mining, pollution and climate change.

The overview of the latest results of the IUCN Red List assessments, show that freshwater species - molluscs (55%) and freshwater fish (43%) - are the groups with the highest proportion of threatened species, together with marine mammals (43%), followed by amphibians (22%), reptiles (21%) and birds (18%).

For the marine habitats, the Atlantic and Baltic region have shown a particularly high proportion of unfavourable assessments (71.4% and 42.9% respectively).

In the marine environment, the highest share of unfavourable-bad species assessments is in the Baltic Sea (60%) but the number of species assessed was rather low compared to terrestrial and the share of unknown assessments is also very high (ranging from 33% to 88%). There are only a few habitat types covered by the Habitats Directive. The two regions reporting favourable habitat assessments are the Macaronesian (33.3%) and the Black Sea regions (14.3%). However, the share of unknown assessments is still far higher than for terrestrial regions.

The proportion of assessments which are unfavourable and deteriorating is particularly high for bogs, mires and fens, but also dune habitats and grassland, all associated with wetlands, coastal and agricultural ecosystems.

Results of the assessments of habitats' conservation status indicate that in total, 16% of the habitat assessments are favourable and 4% are improving and 33% are unfavourable but stable. However, a further 30% are still deteriorating, which is a serious cause for concern. Only 7% of the assessments are unknown.

On the positive side, 6% of assessments for mammal species are unfavourable but improving and only 12% show a deteriorating trend. Some species like the Otter, Lutra lutra, are showing signs of improvement. In the Atlantic region, it has made a steady recovery over the last 20 years thanks to a decrease in certain waterborne pollutants such as PCBs and mercury, protection from hunting and improvements in aquatic habitats.

Only 16% of the fish species protected under the Habitats Directive are assessed as having a favourable status, while over a quarter of vascular plants are considered favourable. Looking at the conservation status trends, fish molluscs and amphibians appear to have a particularly high proportion of species with a deteriorating trend. These species are depending on aquatic environments, such as rivers, lakes and wetlands, which mostly have an unfavourable-inadequate conservation status. The main identified threats are human-induced changes to hydrologic functioning, loss of connectivity, canalisation, removed of sediment, and eutrophication and pollution.

The proportion of assessments which are unfavourable and deteriorating is particularly high for fish, molluscs and amphibians, all associated with wetlands and freshwater (rivers, lakes).

Compared to the findings as illustrated in the EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline, the most recent assessment of conservation status of species of Community interest shows that overall 23% of species assessments are favourable and 4% are improving, 20% are stable 22% are deteriorating and 14% are without a known trend.

Halt the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and restore them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss.

Europe is also home to a considerable diversity of species: there are 260 species of mammals (of which 40 are marine mammals), 500 species of fish, 500 of breeding birds, 150 of reptiles, 84 of amphibians and 90 000 species of insects, including 10 000 of butterflies and moths, 30 000 of beetles and 20 000 species of vascular plants. These figures do not include the EU’s Outermost Regions and Europe’s Overseas Countries and Territories, which host more than twice the number of species present in continental Europe...

The main ecosystems in Europe are forest and woodland (covering 41 % of the territory), cropland (25 %), and grassland (19 %). Freshwater ecosystems (open water and wetlands) cover only less than 5% of EU28 area but hold a higher number of species per unit area than land or sea, and provide a number of key ecosystem services.

The EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline provides a reference point against which to assess changes in biodiversity over time. The 2010 baseline suggested that, although species extinction in the EU is not occurring nearly as rapidly as in other regions and continents, the percentage of species threatened with extinction is a matter of concern.

The countries of the EU are extremely diverse in terms of their climate, geology and topography and centuries of diverse farming and forestry traditions have shaped a wealth of multifunctional landscapes and contributed significantly to Europe’s biodiversity and cultural diversity However, developments, particularly during the 20th century, have also resulted in large-scale destruction of Europe's natural heritage, including the loss of two thirds of its wetlands, and of almost three-quarters of its sand dunes and heaths, through a combination of land-use change, over-exploitation of biodiversity, infrastructure developments, pollution, the spread of invasive alien species and climate change.

The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 foresees that a mid-term review will be undertaken to take stock of progress under the strategy targets and actions, drawing on the best set of information sources. Identifying gaps in implementation is necessary in order to inform decision-makers of areas in which increased efforts are needed to ensure that the EU meets its biodiversity commitments by 2020.

The preliminary results from the 2015 Biodiversity Eurobarometer survey indicate that three out of four Europeans "agree totally" that it is important to stop biodiversity loss because it is our responsibility to look after nature., which gives a clear public support to pursue the implementation of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy.

The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 is an integral part of the Europe 2020 Strategy, and in particular the resource efficient Europe flagship initiative, and contributes to the implementation of the 7th Environmental Action Programme. The Strategy is a crucial instrument to secure and sustain the natural resource base which our economy needs to thrive, and is therefore fully relevant in the context of the circular economy debate. The Strategy is also designed to deliver on the EU international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity. It is linked to policy objectives which are a prerequisite for delivery on the EU Biodiversity Strategy, notably related to climate policies, legislation in the field of air and chemicals, the Water Framework Directive, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, and the EU Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection.

Recognising this challenge, in 2011, the Commission adopted the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 with the headline target set by EU Heads of State and Government in 2010 to 'halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services by 2020, to restore ecosystems in so far as is feasible, and to step up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss’. The strategy is built around six operational targets addressing the implementation of EU nature legislation as well as the main pressures on biodiversity in the EU and beyond, with 20 associated supporting actions over the period 2011-2020. The EU Strategy also emphasises the need to take full account of the economic and social benefits provided by nature contribution and to integrate these benefits into reporting and accounting systems.

The window of opportunity for halting and reversing biodiversity loss is rapidly closing. Human-induced impacts and pressures on biodiversity such as land clearing for farming, logging and settlement, introduction of invasive species, carbon emissions that drive climate change and ocean acidification, and toxins that alter and poison ecosystems are exacerbated by world population growth, rising per capita consumption and economic inequity.

The World Economic Forum listed 'biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse' among the top 10 risks in the Global Risks Perception Survey 2014. Scientists further identify biodiversity loss and climate change as the two core planetary boundaries that have already been crossed by humanity. Together with climate change - another major global challenge - it increases the risk of irreversible changes, undermining economic development and societies' resilience in the face of new challenges. Furthermore, the risk of extensive global biodiversity loss could increase if action is not taken to limit climate change to below 2°C. The most recent scientific research into species extinction rates concludes that even when the most conservative estimates are applied, species are found to be disappearing about 100 times faster than the 'normal' rate between mass extinctions, known as the background rate. It also finds that this is mainly the result of human activity and confirms that if current rates of extinction continue unchecked, the social and economic consequences for humanity will be enormous. For the EU, the opportunity cost of not reaching the 2020 EU biodiversity headline target of halting the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services by 2020 has been estimated at 50 billion EUR per year. In addition to undermining these economic benefits, loss of biodiversity means that ecosystems and societies that rely upon them are more fragile and less resilient in the face of challenges such as climate change, pollution and habitat destruction. For example, economic losses from natural disasters, such as floods and droughts, amounted to around €100 billion in the period 2002-2014 in the EU and caused over 80,000 deaths, and are likely to increase due to demographic trends and the impacts of climate change. In many situations, healthy wetland and forest ecosystems can provide effective and cost-efficient protection against extreme weather events.

Biodiversity – the variety of life on the planet – underpins our economy and wellbeing. It is our life insurance and our natural capital. It delivers a wide range of essential benefits to human society such as food, materials, clean water, clean air and medicines as well as protecting us from the consequences of extreme weather events and mitigating the impacts of climate change. Up to 50% of our prescription medicines use naturally occurring substances from plants. The value of insect pollination services alone has been estimated at €15 billion per year in the EU. One in six jobs in the EU depends to some extent on nature and biodiversity.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 2.10.2015 SWD(2015) 187 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EU ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING THE EU BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY TO 2020 Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council The Mid-Term Review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 {COM(2015) 478 final}



MID-TERM REVIEW OF THE EU BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY to 2020 EU Assessment of Progress in implementing the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 PART 3/3 Table of Contents of PART 3/3 Target 4 – Ensure the sustainable use of fisheries resources and good environmental status PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS Target 5 – Combat Invasive Alien Species PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS Target 6 – Help avert global biodiversity loss PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS IV. Horizontal Measures Mobilising resources to support biodiversity

Partnerships for Biodiversity Building on the biodiversity knowledge Annex I: 'Dashboard'

ANNEXII: Indicative list of research projects 67 Annex III: Indicative list of development cooperation projects 77 Target 4 – Ensure the sustainable use of fisheries resources and good environmental status Achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) by 2015*. Achieve a population age and size distribution indicative of a healthy stock, through fisheries management with no significant adverse impacts on other stocks, species and ecosystems, in support of achieving Good Environmental Status by 2020, as required under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. * The reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) which entered into force in 2014 aims to ensure maximum sustainable yield (MSY) exploitation rates for all stocks by 2015 where possible and at the latest by 2020. Socio-economic benefits of reaching this target: Maintaining healthy fisheries has important implications for fishing economies. E.g., the Eastern stock of adult bluefin tuna had fallen by 80% since the early 1970s. This is also reflected by evidence from a recent Spanish report on the "Evaluation of Ecosystem Services Applied to Fisheries Management", stating that kg prices of Tuna have risen significantly: 1-2 € / kg in the mid-eighties to more than 10 € / kg in recent years. Bluefin tuna is showing signs of recovery for the first time in decades due to the implementation of a long-term recovery plan, which has allowed to increase catch quotas. This recovery has already translated into real economic benefits through better fishing prospects in 2015. With respect to high seas fisheries, nearly 10 million tonnes of fish are caught annually on the high seas, constituting just over 12% of the global annual average marine fisheries catch of 80 million tonnes. The landed value of this catch is estimated at about US$16 billion annually, which makes up about 15% of the total global marine landed value of around US$109 billion. The World Bank estimates that mismanagement of fisheries represents an annual loss of US$50 billion to the global economy, in large part to the detriment of developing countries. The gain from sustainably managing global fisheries is estimated at total net present value of US$ 125 billion by 2020, even though the full benefits of rebuilding fish stocks would not be realized for several decades. The long-term (2013 – 2050) gain in resource rent is estimated to have a net present value of US $1,076.5 billion, yielding a long-term benefit-to-cost ratio of 4.3. WWF's report "Reviving The Ocean Economy The Case For Action – 2015" conservatively estimates that the annual “gross marine product” (GMP) – equivalent to a country’s annual gross domestic product – is at least US$2.5 trillion; the total “asset” base of the ocean is at least US$24 trillion. The results illustrate the economic case for ocean conservation in stark terms. The economic benefits generated by the marine Natura 2000 network have been estimated at approximately 1.5 billion EUR per year in 2011 across the EU, and could increase to 3.2 billion EUR if the marine Natura 2000 coverage doubled. Important progress has been made in the context of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) since 2002 (linked in particular to the introduction of long-term management plans for several stocks) and since the adoption of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in 2008, in particular in the northern waters where most stocks (for which total allowable catches (TACs) are in place) are managed under the MSY and the precautionary approach. However in the Mediterranean and the Black Seas 90% of assessed stocks remain overexploited. EU policy aims to restore and maintain stocks above levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield (MSY) by achieving MSY exploitation rates by 2015 where possible and — on a progressive incremental basis — at the latest by 2020 for all stocks. It also aims to achieve good environmental status of Europe’s seas by 2020, as required by the MSFD. Fishing at sustainable levels, improving the management of fish stocks and decreasing fisheries impacts on the ecosystem are considered as key aspects to reach the good environmental status target. Therefore the most recent reform of the CFP, effective as of January 2014 and the implementation of which is well underway, will also play a crucial role in supporting the objectives and targets of the MSFD. The environmental objectives of the new CFP are: to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield, while applying the precautionary approach. (This objective has been translated into a management target for the level of fishing pressure, namely that the maximum sustainable yield exploitation rate shall be achieved by 2015 where possible and at the latest by 2020 for all stocks.) to implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management The MSFD (2008) overall objective is to reach Good Environmental Status (GES) of the marine environment by 2020. For its descriptor D3 on commercial fish stocks, this means "Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock". Concretely this means: Level of pressure of the fishing activity Reproductive capacity of the stock Population age and size distribution PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS

13a) The Commission and Member States will maintain and restore fish stocks to levels that can produce MSY in all areas in which EU fish fleets operate, including areas regulated by Regional Fisheries Management Organisations, and the waters of third countries with which the EU has concluded Fisheries Partnership Agreements. Overfishing has been reduced in the European Atlantic waters, the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. For the stocks with MSY assessments, overfishing has gone down from 94% of the stocks in 2003, to 63% in 2009 and to 41% in 2012. An increasing proportion of the stocks have been assessed. The number of stocks that, according to available estimates, are fished at levels corresponding to MSY has gone up from only 2 in 2003, to 13 in 2009 and to 26 in 2015. In the North East Atlantic 62 stocks have estimates of Fmsy (Fishing mortality consistent with achieving MSY), of those, 32 were found not to exceed Fmsy in 2015. In the Mediterranean for the most recent assessment of 15 stocks among the demersal and small pelagic stocks, 13 are currently being exploited at rates not consistent with achieving MSY (overfishing is occurring) and 2 stocks were not assessed due to data deficiencies or poor model fits. In the Black Sea, seven of the most recent stock assessments are considered to be of sufficient quality to provide analytical estimates of recent exploitation rates and stock status in relation to proposed biological reference points. Of the seven carried out, six where found to be exceeding MSY. However, with the emphasis of the new CFP on achieving MSY for all commercial stocks, more significant reduction of overfishing also in these European waters is expected. The EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy and the new common fisheries policy aim to promote the sustainability of all stocks where the EU fleet operates, including those within external waters, such as the exclusive economic zones of other countries (accessed through bilateral fisheries agreements), or the high seas managed by regional fisheries management organisations. 13b) The Commission and Member States will develop and implement under the CFP long-term management plans by fixing fishing opportunities such as quotas in line with scientific advice with harvest control rules based on the MSY approach. These plans should be designed to respond to specific time-related targets and be based on scientific advice and sustainability principles. As of April 2015 there are a total of 12 multiannual fisheries plans in place for EU waters (8 within the north-east Atlantic; 2 in the Mediterranean and 2 in the Baltic Sea). Agreement of plans has been hindered in the past by a dispute between the European Council and the European Parliament, however in 2013 a task force was appointed and in April 2014 it produced an agreement on how to proceed with approving multi annual plans. The new multi annual plan for the Baltic is the first since the agreement to be approved by the European Parliament in April 2015 and three more multi annual plans are expected to follow in the coming years. These multi-stock or mixed fisheries plans will replace the 12 single-stock plans, making further progress in relation to long-term management strategies in the harvesting of commercial stocks. 13c) The Commission and Member States will significantly step up their work to collect data to support implementation of MSY. Once this objective is attained, scientific advice will be sought to incorporate ecological considerations in the definition of MSY by 2020. The number of stocks with full MSY assessments (in the Atlantic, North Sea and Black Sea) increased from 34 in 2005 to 46 in 2014. Significant progress has been made in the number of stocks with quantitative advice from almost 100 in 2003 to over 120 in 2014, bringing down the number of data-poor stocks to less than 10 % of the total (in 2013). There are, however, data gaps, particularly in the Mediterranean and the Black Seas. The JRC is engaged in the Assessment for All (a4a) initiative aimed at providing a comprehensive and versatile tool to assess all fish stocks harvested in European waters under the remit of the Common Fisheries Policy. The model fills the gap of conventional stock assessment methods that are not able to cope with such large numbers of stocks such as the (300+ stocks) covered by the Data Collection Framework.

14a) The EU will design measures to gradually eliminate discards, to avoid the by-catch of unwanted species and to preserve vulnerable marine resources and marine ecosystems in accordance with EU legislation and international obligations. Fisheries have been identified as one of the main pressures on marine species and habitats. In support of reducing the adverse impact of fishing on non-target species and marine ecosystems, the new Common Fisheries Policy includes a specific landing obligation to eliminate discards, aiming to reduce bycatch of non-target species. The landing obligation will be implemented fishery by fishery, either through multi annual plans, or specific discards plans. This change in regime serves as a driver for more selectivity, and provides more reliable catch data. Already in 2004 a Council Regulation laid down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans. To reduce seabird bycatch the Commission has also developed an ‘Action plan for reducing incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gears’. However, the most recent review of information carried out by ICES in 2014 concluded that better quality data on bycatch rates and fishing effort from more fisheries is required from Member States. . 14b) The Commission and Member States will support the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, including through providing financial incentives through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund Regulation (EU) N° 508/2014 for marine protected areas (including Natura 2000 areas and those established by international or regional agreements). This could include restoring marine ecosystems, adapting fishing activities and promoting the involvement of the sector in alternative activities, such as eco-tourism, monitoring and managing marine biodiversity, and combating marine litter. The new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund provides funding opportunities for various actions that can support the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, e.g. projects limiting the adverse effect of fisheries on marine ecosystems, projects supporting MS efforts to increase Natura 2000 coverage and improve site management, projects improving marine knowledge etc. The operative programmes submitted by Member States are currently being adopted by the Commission. The main goal of the MSFD is to achieve GES of EU marine waters by 2020. The type of indicators that can be used to assess the implementation of the MSFD includes the EEA status of marine fish stocks indicator (core set indicator CSI032), which provides information on both the status of the stocks in relation to GES, and the availability of information to assess the stocks The text box titled "Relation between Maximum Sustainable Yield and Good Environmental Status" shows how this indicator is related to MSY. Most European landings of commercial fish and shellfish stocks come from the North-East Atlantic Ocean and Baltic Sea (86%) (see Figure 2 ). Approximately 60% of European landings come from stocks that are assessed - i.e. that have Good Environmental Status assessment information - although this is variable for the two analysed GES criteria on fishing mortality (F) and spawning stock biomass (SSB). There is, however, a clear trend from north to south, with most of the landings coming from assessed stocks in the north (more than 90% in the Baltic sea) and less than 10% of the landings in some of the southern (Mediterranean and Black sea) regions. Currently, most of the assessed commercial stocks in European waters (58 %) are not in GES, with 19 % of the stocks exploited sustainably, 11 % with their reproductive capacity intact, and only 12 % considered in GES (i.e. fulfilling both F and SSB MSY criteria for GES) (core set indicator CSI032). These percentages vary considerably between regional seas. In North East Atlantic and Baltic waters, 22 % of the regionally assessed stocks are not in GES, 24 % are exploited sustainably, 25 % have their reproductive capacity intact, and 29 % are in GES. The situation is worse in the Mediterranean and Black Sea, with 84 % of the regionally assessed stocks not in GES and 16 % exploited sustainably. Estimates for status of reproductive capacity are not available for these stocks. Hence, no stocks can be considered in GES in these regional seas.

The network of marine protected areas (MPAs) is growing, made up of both Natura 2000 sites and other designations. Data on Natura 2000 sites is given by the Natura 2000 Barometer and the European Environment Agency is working on a new MPA indicator. Figure 4 - Sites added to the Natura 2000 network during the reporting period (2007-12) (a) SPA (b) SCI and proposed SCI Note: a site may be both SPAs & SCIsSource: Natura 2000 database & associated spatial files for end 2012. Sites shown are those where SCI or SPA date is between 01/01/2007 and 31/12/2012 The marine component of Natura 2000 grew slowly at first, partly due to lack of knowledge and partly as it was not until 2005 that it was agreed that the two nature directives apply offshore (EC 2007). By 2014 Natura 2000 covered some four percent of the EU marine areas within 200 nautical miles of the coast. The MS reported 1 573 marine SCI with an area of 177 325 km2, Although not shown by the Article 17 reports, it is clear from Map 4.2 that only in the Atlantic are there significant areas offshore (i.e. more than 12 nautical miles from the coast). As with the Natura 2000 network as a whole, the area and number of marine sites has grown significantly over time. However, unlike the terrestrial sites, the majority of growth has taken place over this reporting period with the marine area of SCI and SPA sites increasing by 12.7 and 6.7 million ha, respectively, over the Article 17 and 12 reporting periods. This represents a massive 163.5 % and 113.2 % increase in total area relative to 2006 for SCI and 2007 for SPAs, respectively. The United Kingdom (with 7.3 million ha) and France (with 4.2 million ha), rank 1st and 2nd highest in total marine site area, followed by Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden, which also have sizeable marine areas. In 2012, there were 7725 MPA sites covering 338 600km2. The Natura 2000 network covers 4 % of European waters and other protected areas account for 1.9 %, making a total of 5.9 % of European waters as marine protected areas. Currently only three regional seas (Western Mediterranean and Greater North Sea — including Kattegat & English Channel and Baltic Sea) have MPA coverage above 10 %. The EEA has calculated that another 230 000 km2 will be required to have protected area status, and effective area-based conservation measures in place to achieve Aichi Biodiversity Target 11, i.e. for there to be ‘10 % cover of both coastal and marine/offshore marine protected sites.’ In addition to MPA’s Member States can uses the EMFF to protect and restore marine biodiversity and ecosystems, through initiatives such as the collection of waste by fishermen from the sea such as the removal of lost fishing gear and marine litter in the framework of sustainable fishing activities. In the context of the preparation of the Circular Economy Strategy, the Commission will examine how marine litter can be prevented efficiently through improved waste, in particular plastic waste, management, increased recycling, avoidance of single use products and product eco-design (e.g. to minimise release of microplastics in the marine environment) In terms of the MSFD's objective of achieving GES, available information on EU marine biodiversity is scarce. 80% of habitats and species under the MSFD are categorised as unknown, and only 4% have achieved the target of good status. Observations show that many marine species across all Europe's regional seas continue to experience a decrease in population size as well as a loss of distribution range and habitat. Effects of climate change, in particular acidification, add to the cumulative impacts of overfishing, pollution, habitat destruction and invasive alien species. Marine biodiversity monitoring remains a major need to be addressed both at national and regional level to improve marine knowledge. Developing marine biodiversity indicators and ensuring funding for monitoring are therefore among the key challenges for the successful implementation of MSFD. The mapping of seabed related ecosystem services will be displayed on the European atlas of the seas in 2015. Compilation of the geospatial knowledge of the distribution seabed habitats covers 98% of the adjacent EU seas. In parallel, a matrix of the ecosystem services provided by each habitat was compiled based on published information. This is an expert-based presence-only matrix with services harmonized to CICES v. 4.3. Results of the analysis highlight the importance of continental shelves and slopes as well as oceanic elevations like seamounts, ridges and island flanks.

Target 5 – Combat Invasive Alien Species By 2020, Invasive Alien Species and their pathways are identified and prioritised, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and pathways are managed to prevent the introduction and establishment of new IAS. Socio-economic benefits of reaching this target: Invasive Alien Species are causing damage to the EU economy estimated at least 12 billion Euros annually. It is estimated that 10-15% of the alien species present cause damage which is borne by society at large as well as by businesses, including primary producers and landowners. The most affected sectors include agriculture, fisheries and aquaculture, forestry and health. Reaching the target would significantly reduce these costs. For example, Zebra mussels can cause economic damage by blocking pipes, vents or holes for the passage of water: a major macrofoulant of power generating plants, industrial and municipal water systems. The yellow-legged hornet is a highly effective predator of native bees and other beneficial insects, causing damage to pollinators and apiculture. Killer shrimp can quickly dominate the invaded habitats directly affecting fisheries quality with consequent impacts on recreational use of water bodies. Invasive alien species have become one of the fastest growing threats to biodiversity in Europe, affecting human life and health as carriers of diseases or as allergens, and also causing significant damage to agriculture, forestry, fisheries, etc. to the value of at least EUR 12 billion a year in the EU. Scenarios have shown that the increasing global movement of people and goods contributes to an increasing amount of IAS in Europe in the future. Furthermore, the impact of climate change could potentially provide for new opportunities for IAS to spread and proliferate. The pressure of IAS is expected to be steadily increasing over the next decade if significant actions are not implemented (GBO-4). To adequately address this problem, Europe has been developing a number of tools over the years. For example, in 2003 the Bern Convention adopted the European Strategy on IAS (Genovesi & Shine 2004), on the basis of which the European Union (EU) has been working to develop a dedicated policy and legislation on the issue. This work eventually resulted in the adoption of the EU Regulation No 1143/2014, which entered into force on 1st January 2015 (herewith referred to as the EU Regulation on IAS). Priority species Regarding the number of alien species in Europe, the European Alien Species information Network - EASIN - catalogue includes 11,372 species with the status of alien to Europe. The number of invasive alien species is constantly increasing in Europe, with a rate of 76% in the 1970-2007 period. According to a recent IUCN assessment of more than 9000 fauna and flora species encompassing all taxonomic groups (animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, chromista and protozoa) and environments (marine, terrestrial, freshwater), 20 % of them are threatened at European level and 19 % of these threatened species (229 animals, 124 plants and 1 fungus) are specifically affected by IAS. Plants account for 35% of the total number of species particularly affected by invasive alien species,, followed by freshwater fish, molluscs and arthropods (see Figure 6).

Invasive alien species can also be the cause of habitat degradation or complete replacement/loss - with the local extinction of impacted species as in the case of the red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) in areas of expansion of the American grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) (Bertolino et al. 2014) - that reached 19% of the impact outcomes. This “threatened” seabird has been recently object of a LIFE project aimed at the removal of black rats (Rattus rattus) from the island of Montecristo, where the shearwater nests with an estimated population of 400-750 pairs (3-10% of the known world population at the time). In this case the successful eradication of black rats allowed 93-95% of pairs to successfully fledge juveniles over two years. As a result, the number of breeding pairs is expected to increase over the next ten years, with an expansion of the breeding colonies in the Tuscan Archipelago. Latest findings on the 2015 State of Europe´s seas report on the impact of invasive alien species on the environmental status of marine waters show that invasive species are on the rise, hitting particularly hard the Mediterranean Sea through, for example, competition from invasive species like Caulerpa racemosa and Caulerpa taxifolia, which overgrows corals like Cladora caespitose. Pollution and overfishing facilitated the invasion of the alien combjelly Mnemiopsis leidyi and its significant impact on the Black sea and Sea of Azov ecosystems in the late 1980s, which led to fisheries collapse. But its predation by another alien combjelly species, Beroe ovata, which arrived in 1999, has meant that the Black Sea ecosystem shows signs of recovery. As shown in Figure 7 , the current rate of introductions of NIS is unprecedented. Approximately 323 new species have been registered in European seas since 2000, although there are important regional differences. The Mediterranean is the European sea with the largest number of NIS. 63 % of these species are invertebrates – mostly crustaceans and molluscs. 25 % are primary producers such as marine plants and algae, while 12 % are vertebrates – mostly fish. Source: EEA (2015) Trends in marine non-indigenous species ( http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/trends-in-marine-alien-species-mas-2/assessment ) Priority pathways According to the State of Europe´s seas report, available information shows that the main pathway of non-indigenous species introduction in European seas is shipping (51 %), followed by the Suez Canal (37 %), aquaculture-related activities (17 %), the aquarium trade (3 %), and inland canals (2 %). Large scale biodiversity patterns are modified causing entire shifts to the novel habitats, with substantially modified ecosystem functions.

Source: Katsanevakis et al. (2013) Temporal trends in the numbers of new recorded marine aliens in Europe in relation to the pathways of introduction. Some species (n = 103) that were linked to more than one pathways were given a value of 1/k for each of the k associated pathways so that the overall contribution of each species to the total number of new aliens per decade was always 1. Source: Katsanevakis et al. (2015) European Alien Species Information Network (EASIN): supporting European policies and scientific research Trends of new introductions ( Figure 9 ) are valuable indicators for assessing the effectiveness of management measures, as the outcome of targeted measures for a specific pathway should be reflected in a decreasing trend. Box 3: Important remaining gap: the EU ratification of the Ballast Water Management Convention Since the introduction of steel-hulled vessels around 120 years ago, water has been used as ballast to stabilize vessels at sea. Ballast water is pumped in to maintain safe operating conditions throughout a voyage. While ballast water is essential for safe and efficient modern shipping operations, it may pose serious ecological, economic and health problems due to the multitude of marine species carried in ships’ ballast water. As global response, the (BWM Convention) was adopted by consensus on 13 February 2004. The Commission has ‘strongly recommended' the ratification of the Convention and has participated in the development of interim measures to reduce the risk of non-indigenous species being introduced through the discharge of ship's ballast water in the four Regional Seas Organisations (HELCOM, the OSPAR Commission, REMPEC/Barcelona Convention and the Black Sea Commission). As of 10 April 2015, 7 EU Member States have ratified the Convention: Croatia, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden. PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS ² 15) The Commission will integrate additional biodiversity concerns into the Plant and Animal Health regimes by 2012. Animal health - Emerging infectious diseases play an important role in causing species to become extinct. . It is under the competence of the Member States to prevent or control wildlife diseases including those affecting the biodiversity. However, in the future, the new Animal Health Regulation will, following an appropriate risk assessment, provide for a possibility to take actions also at the EU level for animal diseases that affect wildlife and pose a threat to biodiversity. Wildlife diseases have been included in the Commission proposal for a new Animal Health Regulation and diseases of wild plants are being addressed through the plant health regime. Box 4: An example of emerging infectious disease threatening wildlife The cytric fungus Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans has already caused rapid declines in the European fire salamander populations, and research further confirms that the fungus is particularly lethal for Salamandridae family, with 41 out of 44 of the Western Palearctic salamanders rapidly dying after being exposed to B. salamandrivorans. The detection of the B. salamandrivorans’ DNA suggests that the fungus is long-term endemic to Asia, with a recent incursion to Europe, where the fungus has caused severe outbreaks in Belgium and the Netherlands. The cause behind the introduction of the fungus is suggested to be pet trade in Asian salamanders and newts, as they are traded in large numbers annually.

Plant health – Contrary to the animal health regime, the Council Directive 2000/29/EC has already been addressing pests affecting natural ecosystems, in particular forests. An analysis by a group of scientists showed that from 276 species addressed through the EU plant health regime, 37 (or 13%) may have an important ecological impact. Species addressed under plant health invertebrates pathogens total Ecological impact may be important 20 17 37 Ecological impact cannot be excluded 54 27 81 Ecological impact very unlikely 31 84 115 Not alien to Europe 14 9 23 Widely spread 15 5 20 Total 134 142 276 16) The Commission will fill policy gaps in combating IAS by developing a dedicated legislative instrument by 2012. The EU adopted a regulation on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species, which entered into force on 1 January 2015. The objective of the Regulation is to establish a framework for action to prevent, minimise and mitigate the adverse impacts of invasive species on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Furthermore, it will seek to limit social and economic damage. This will be achieved through measures to ensure coordinated action on invasive alien species of Union concern, focusing resources on priority species and on increasing preventive measures, in accordance with the approach of the Convention and with the EU’s plant and animal health regimes. The core of the Regulation will be the list of IAS of Union concern. For those species, the Regulation provides for measures preventing the intentional introduction of invasive alien species into the EU and their intentional release into the environment; measures preventing the unintentional introduction into the EU and release into the environment (pathway management); requirements to set up a system of surveillance to support early detection and rapid eradication; and requirements to manage the species that are established in EU Member States. The next step in the implementation of the EU IAS policy will be the adoption of the first list of IAS of Union concern. Beyond the list, the regulation is providing for emergency measures and for IAS of regional and of MS concern. The regime will be underpinned by an information support mechanism: the European Alien Species Information Network (EASIN). This network was launched in 2012 by the European Commission to assist the implementation of European policies on biological invasions. Building on the very relevant outcomes of the EU research project DAISIE (Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe), the North European and Baltic Network on Invasive Alien Species (NOBANIS) and AquaNIS (Aquatic Non-Indigenous Species, including the Baltic Sea Alien Species Database), EASIN aims to enable easy access to data and information on alien species across Europe, for the terrestrial, freshwater and marine environments. At the core of EASIN, there is an inventory of all known alien and cryptogenic species in Europe (the EASIN Catalogue), which includes relevant information, such as taxonomic classification, pathways of introduction, year and country of first introduction. The EASIN datasets have been used for pan-European or regional assessments of pathways and gateways of alien invasions. In support of the new EU Regulation on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species in Europe, a notification system for a European Early Warning and Rapid Response System is being developed within EASIN. Target 6 – Help avert global biodiversity loss By 2020, the EU has stepped up its contribution to averting global biodiversity loss. Socio-economic benefits of reaching this target: Biodiversity and ecosystem services form the fundamental natural capital of humanity. Balmford et al (2002) estimated that the failure to protect biodiversity leads to the loss of natural services worth US$140 billion a year. Policy inaction resulting in failure to halt the loss of biodiversity could result in annual losses in ecosystem services worth $14 trillion per annum by 2050, equivalent to 7% of world GDP. This is especially important for the livelihoods and development potential of the poorest and most vulnerable people, who are highly dependent on biodiversity and ecosystem services - ‘the GDP of the poor’. A TEEB assessment suggested that ecosystem services contributed 10% of GDP in India, 16% in Indonesia and 21% in Brazil . As a percentage of the income of rural poor households however, these figures were 47% of GDP in India, 75% in Indonesia and 89% in Brazil. Biodiversity-based industries such as tourism and fisheries account for more than half the gross domestic product of small island developing states. Coral reefs alone provide an estimated $375 billion annual return in goods and services. Many island species on land and sea are found nowhere else on Earth. Legacies of a unique evolutionary heritage, they hold the promise of future discoveries -- from medicines and foods to biofuels. According to the International Resource Panel, the ecosystem services provided by tropical forests - whether in terms of storing carbon, supporting the world’s richest reservoir of terrestrial biodiversity, regulating water flows, reducing soil erosion, or providing a source of nutrition, timber and valuable genetic resources - are estimated to be worth an average of US$ 6,120 per hectare per year. The EU is fully committed to helping combat biodiversity loss across the globe and to fulfilling its global commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The European Union adopted the that also provides the EU implementing measures of its commitment taken under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity to agree to the global Strategic Plan for Biodiversity to 2020. In 2010 the CBD Conference of the Parties adopted the , including the twenty . This Strategic Plan constitutes the relevant overarching framework for all biodiversity-related conventions, and should contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and future Sustainable Development Goals. The EU 2020 biodiversity strategy responds to this mandate, setting the EU on the right track with a view to meeting its own biodiversity objectives and its global commitments. In international cooperation and development, the EU recently launched a new flagship initiative, called "Biodiversity for Life" (B4Life). B4Life is an umbrella framework to ensure better coherence and coordination of EU external actions in the area of biodiversity, natural capital and ecosystems. The purpose of B4Life is to highlight the strong linkages between healthy ecosystems and sustainable livelihoods in view of contributing to poverty eradication. It aims at tackling biodiversity loss by promoting good governance of natural resources, securing ecosystem services for food security and supporting innovative ways to manage natural capital in the context of green economy. Besides, B4Life also seeks to enhance policy commitment and resources mobilisation to address the wildlife crisis. Wildlife crime, including illegal trade of endangered species, has a major impact on biodiversity, but also represents a real threat to national security and economic development of many African countries. Unprecedented poaching levels and sophisticated smuggling capabilities are indicative of organised criminal activity. On the other hand, unsustainable use of important natural resources, such as bushmeat, fuel wood or arable land, is increasing the long-term poverty and is leading to biodiversity loss. Therefore, all the financial instruments of international cooperation are explored synergistically for reducing this pressure on ecosystems and species that finance the instability and preclude any human development. The EU has been working at global level through the UN system, with a view to reflect and mainstream the objective of averting global biodiversity loss in the proposed Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for the post -2015 period. Thanks to efforts from the EU and other Parties, biological diversity and ecosystems feature prominently in the proposal of a set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals that the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals agreed to be forwarded to the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly. In particular, there are two goals directly related to biodiversity and ecosystems throughout the proposed SDGs: Goal 14 on oceans and coasts, and Goal 15 on terrestrial biodiversity. Furthermore, Goal 12 on sustainable consumption and production is also very relevant to CBD Strategic Plan 2011-2020. Language referring to biodiversity and ecosystems and/or natural resources is also included in many other goals, including Goal 2 on food security, Goal 6 on water and sanitation, and Goal 11 on cities and human settlements. Other goals which include “sustainability” considerations are also of relevance, as is Goal 17 on means of implementation. One of the most important achievements is the inclusion in Goal 15 of target 15.9 “by 2020, integrate ecosystems and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes and poverty reduction strategies, and accounts.” This target is key as it makes a strong linkage between biodiversity, sustainable development and poverty eradication. Next steps will involve safeguarding a strong environmental dimension in the international Post-2015 negotiations and to ensure that biodiversity-related objectives are preserved. The Commission has started an internal reflection on how to implement and bring forward these objectives in the EU and internationally. Since 2010, significant progress has been made in terms of resource mobilisation for biodiversity and regulation of access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization. But Europe's demand for natural resources generated by our present patterns of producing and consuming goods and services remains unsustainable and is causing direct and indirect pressures on biodiversity. Since the 1960s the EU’s total biocapacity has changed very little and Europe’s ecological deficit is considerable: the EU-28 region’s ecological footprint is still twice the size of its biocapacity. As the graph below demonstrates, Europe’s own ecosystems do not have the capacity to meet the total demand of ecological goods and services, also known as natural resource-based products. This can have negative consequences for the environment and in particular for biodiversity, both within and outside Europe, such as degradation of ecological assets, loss of biodiversity and of ecosystem services, ecosystem collapse and depletion of natural reserves. Besides Europe, North America, Asia-Pacific and the Middle East/Central Asia regions also have ecological deficits. Note: Nations can operate with ecological deficits in different ways: import products and use the biocapacity of other nations; consume their own stocks of ecological capital; or exploit the global commons. Some nations overdraw their biocapacity in order to export goods, whilst importing additional biocapacity from other nations. However, all nations cannot be net importers, and nations relying on competition for scarce imports will be increasingly at risk.

Biodiversity in the EU overseas entities represents a unique and critical part of Europe's natural heritage. Together, they host much more biodiversity than on the European mainland (see Box). EU Outermost Regions and overseas countries and territories constitute an important part of global biodiversity for which the EU has a direct preservation responsibility. The European Union (EU) Outermost Regions (ORs) and Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) are home to an outstanding diversity of species, ecosystems and land and seascapes. These 34 regions and territories scattered worldwide host around 70 % of Europe’s species, more than 20 % of the world’s coral reefs and lagoons and are recognised as having biodiversity of global significance. This ‘natural capital’ supports the daily needs of local communities, their economies and plays a key role in both climate change mitigation and adaptation. In many places, ecosystems and their services are highly vulnerable given existing pressures. The management of these ecosystems is of the utmost importance in view of sustaining human well-being and models of development. However, much is still unknown about the natural capital in EU overseas entities. There is therefore a pressing need for an improved knowledge base. The ‘Message’ from the 2008 conference at Reunion Island underlined the critical need for establishing “long-term monitoring programmes as well as biological and socio-economic indicators adapted to the constraints specific to the ORs and OCTs”. Examples of this unique natural capital… The islands of New Caledonia (an OCT of France) have a similar number of endemic species if compared to the European Union mainland. Such diversity has led to France being included among the world’s 18 ‘mega diverse countries’- the only European country on the list. Greenland, an OCT of Denmark, has the largest terrestrial protected area on Earth (the Northeast Greenland National Park of 972 000 km2). French Guiana, an OR of France in northern South America, has one of the least disturbed areas of rain forest on Earth. Almost all European territories are located either in Biodiversity Hotspots or in High Biodiversity Wilderness Areas. PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS 17a) Under the EU flagship initiative on resource efficiency, the EU will take measures (which may include demand and/or supply side measures) to reduce the biodiversity impacts of EU consumption patterns, particularly for resources that have significant negative effects on biodiversity. The EU flagship initiative on resource efficiency is one of seven initiatives that constitute the Europe 2020 Strategy, which is the EU’s growth strategy for a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy. The strategy provides a long-term plan to integrate resource efficiency to achieve a resource-efficient low-carbon economy, which is based on sustainable growth. This involves a variety of sectors with implications to policies related to economy, energy, transport, industry, raw materials, agriculture, construction, fisheries and biodiversity. The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 is one of the key proposals under the flagship initiative. To turn the Union into a resource-efficient, green and competitive low-carbon economy is also one of the priority objectives of the 7th Environmental Action Programme (EAP), which according to its paragraph 106, shall ensure amongst others that by 2020, the impact of consumption in the Union on the environment beyond the Union’s borders is reduced. This requires assessing the environmental impact, in a global context, of the Union’s consumption of food and non-food commodities and, if appropriate, developing policy proposals to address the findings of such assessments. The development of a Union action plan on deforestation and forest degradation also needs to be considered. As illustrated by the ecological footprint, the EU's consumption and production are highly dependent on a wide range of goods imported from abroad, which increase the environmental pressures in exporting countries. Given the complexity that this issue entails, the European Commission has supported a study on the “Identification and mitigation of the negative impacts of EU demand for certain commodities on biodiversity in third countries” with the aim of gaining a better understanding of possible ways to contribute to avoiding or minimising the loss of global biodiversity which is caused by certain production and consumption patterns in the EU. The study analysed the supply chains of the five selected commodities – namely soy, beef, cotton, fish, and gold – in order to determine the areas where EU policy intervention could be most effective. EU policies – such as the CAP - have a wide ranging influence. The increasing sophistication and scale of the production and consumption systems that meet European demand for goods and services create major challenges for policymaking and businesses, as well as opportunities for innovation. Driven by a combination of economic incentives, consumer preferences, environmental standards, technological innovation, development of transport infrastructure, and liberalisation of trade, production-consumption systems for many goods and services span the globe, engaging numerous actors. The Commission is committed to promoting the sustainable production of agricultural commodities across the world. As an example, the EU has recently adopted Ecolabel criteria for rinse-off cosmetics requiring the palm oil, palm kernel oil and their derivatives in the products to be sourced from plantations that meet criteria for sustainable management. In response to global deforestation, the EU is committed to acting to halt it by 2030 at the latest and to reduce gross tropical deforestation by at least 50 % by 2020 compared to current levels. Steps taken by the EU include the Forest law enforcement, governance and trade (FLEGT) action plan, the adoption of the EU Timber Regulation (TR), support for the successful implementation of ‘Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries’ (REDD+) initiatives and conservation of key ecosystems in forested regions, in particular in protected areas.

Significant progress has been made in implementing the EU FLEGT action plan, which dates back to 2003. The action plan provides for a combination of supply and demand-side measures to exclude illegal timber from markets, improve the supply of legal timber and increase the demand for wood products from legal sources. Its ultimate goal is to encourage sustainable forest management by improving forest governance frameworks and ensuring the legality of forest operations is considered a vital first step. A key element of the FLEGT action plan is the possibility for the EU to conclude Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs). These bilateral trade agreements with timber exporting countries help to prevent illegal timber from being placed on the European market. These trade agreements promote the strengthening of forest governance in partner countries and provide for the establishment, through a multi-stakeholder process, of timber legality assurance systems to certify the legality of exports of timber and timber products into the EU. Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo (Brazzaville), Ghana, Indonesia and Liberia have ratified agreements. Negotiations are ongoing with Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Guyana, Democratic Republic of Congo (Kinshasa), Honduras, Laos, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam. To complement the FLEGT VPAs, the EU has legislation in place laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market, also known as the EU Timber Regulation (TR). The Regulation came into force on 3 March 2013. It prohibits operators in Europe from placing illegally harvested timber and products derived from illegal timber on the EU market. The European Commission is monitoring how Member States are implementing and enforcing the EU Timber Regulation. Reports on its effectiveness are being compiled by the European Commission from reports by Member States. The consolidated report will be sent to the European Parliament and the Council before December 2015. Only recently the Commission launched a public consultation process on the review of the TR. The consultation aimed to contribute to the TR 2015 review by encouraging stakeholders to share their experiences and views on the application of the TR over the first two years. The public consultation closed in the beginning of July 2015. Under the framework of the FLEGT action plan, the EU has also been promoting public procurement policies as a means to encourage trade in sustainable and verified legal timber (eleven EU Member States have adopted timber public procurement policies), and private sector initiatives (voluntary codes of conduct, procurement policies, chain-of-custody/certification initiatives, etc.). In addition, development cooperation funding has been used to support efforts of timber producing countries to strengthen their legal and policy frameworks in the forest sector and building capacity to tackle the problem of illegal logging. In addition to the above mentioned frameworks, EU’s approach on combating tropical deforestation is also being pursued within the UNFCCC negotiations and builds on international initiatives aimed at implementing REDD+ such as the REDD+ Partnership, the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, the EU REDD Facility and the UN-REDD Programme. In particular, the European Commission commits approximately EUR 25 million a year to initiatives piloting REDD+ in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The European Commission is investigating ways to stimulate private sector in addressing drivers of deforestation and further increase the effectiveness of REDD+ financing. Moreover, the EU is actively engaged in REDD+ discussions within the UNFCCC so that drivers of deforestation are adequately addressed at all levels. Finally, at operational level, the Commission supports the management and the conservation of many protected areas in tropical forest countries. These protected areas are often the last remnants of primary tropical forests that would disappear under the pressure of local and global drivers, inter alia mining, oil exploration, agro-industry, infrastructures, etc. Large forest ecosystems are protected with the support of EU investments in Africa, Asia and Latin America, with Central Africa as main region of concentration. 17b) The Commission will enhance the contribution of trade policy to conserving biodiversity and address potential negative impacts by systematically including it as part of trade negotiations and dialogues with third countries, by identifying and evaluating potential impacts on biodiversity resulting from the liberalisation of trade and investment through ex-ante Trade Sustainability Impact Assessments and ex-post evaluations, and seek to include in all new trade agreements a chapter on sustainable development providing for substantial environmental provisions of importance in the trade context including on biodiversity goals. All recent EU trade agreements with third countries include provisions aimed at strengthening the effective implementation of multilateral environmental agreements, as well as on the promotion of sustainable trade in areas such as forests and fisheries. This approach is also being followed in ongoing negotiations (e.g. Japan, USA). The Agreements with Colombia-Peru, Moldova and Georgia have specific articles on biodiversity. Ex-ante, Sustainability and ex-post impact assessments of trade agreements also cover impacts on biodiversity, in accordance with relevant Guidelines. Implementation of the trade and sustainable development provisions is, in most cases, at a relatively early stage, but as one example the EU is now the most important market for Peruvian organic products. Box 7: Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) At bilateral level, the EU has developed a well-established practice of including in its trade agreements, with both industrialised and developing countries, comprehensive provisions devoted to sustainable development. The chapters on trade and sustainable development in the free trade agreements (FTAs) the EU concluded so far (e.g. Korea, Colombia/Peru, Central America, Singapore, Georgia and Moldova) are based on the following key elements: International labour and environmental commitments: EU FTAs estab