EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 6.9.2022 SWD(2022) 284 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT



EVALUATION

Of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 {SWD(2022) 285 final}







Table of Contents 1.INTRODUCTION 1.1.Purpose of this evaluation 1.2.Scope of the evaluation 2.BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE 2.1.Description of the initiative and its objectives 2.2.Intervention logic 2.3.Baseline 3.IMPLEMENTATION AND STATE OF PLAY 3.1.State of play on implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 4.METHODOLOGY 4.1.Evaluation questions 4.2.Process 4.3.Limitations – robustness of findings 5.ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 5.1.Effectiveness

5.1.1Progress to the targets 5.1.2Major achievements and challenges, and underlying factors 5.2.Efficiency 5.2.1.Cost-effectiveness and socio-economic impacts 5.2.2.The Strategy as an instrument 5.2.3.Socio-economic impacts 5.3.Relevance 5.3.1.Strategy relevance to biodiversity and wider needs 5.3.2.Flexibility to adapt to emerging issues 5.4.Coherence 5.5.EU Added Value 6.CONCLUSIONS 6.1.Findings 6.2.Lessons learnt for the future Annex 1 – Procedural information Annex 2 – Synopsis report of stakeholder consultations Annex 3 – Methods and Analytical models used in preparing the evaluation Annex 4 – Overview of costs – benefits identified in the evaluation ANNEX 5 – Operational Targets and Actions of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 ANNEX 6 – BUSINESS-AS-USUAL SCENARIO WITHOUT THE STRATEGY

ANNEX 7 – MAIN OUTPUTS OF THE EU BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY TO 2020 ANNEX 8 – KEY INSIGHTS FROM THE CASE STUDIES IN 10 MEMBER STATES



ABBREVIATIONS/GLOSSARY AECM Agri-environment-climate measures B@B EU Business and Biodiversity Platform BEST Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Territories of European Overseas BISE Biodiversity Information System for Europe CAP Common Agricultural Policy CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CFP Common Fisheries Policy CGBN Coordination Group for Biodiversity and Nature CIF Common Implementation Framework CMEF Common Monitoring and Assessment Framework EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development EASIN European Alien Species Information Network ECA European Court of Auditors EDF European Development Fund EEA European Environment Agency EFA Ecological Focus Areas EMFF European Maritime and Fisheries Fund EP European Parliament ESPG Environmentally sensitive permanent grassland EU European Union FLEGT Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade FTE Full-time equivalent (jobs) GAEC Good agricultural and environmental conditions GES Good Environmental Status IAS Invasive alien species ILO International Labour Organisation IPBES Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services KIP – INCA Knowledge Innovation Project on Natural Capital Accounting in the EU MAES Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services MPA Marine Protected Areas MSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy or Action Plan NCA Natural Capital Accounting NGO Non-Governmental Organisation OPC Online Public Consultation PAF Prioritised Action Framework PES Payments for ecosystem services RDP Rural Development Programme RPF Restoration Prioritisation Framework SDGs Sustainable Development Goals SEBI Streamlined European Biodiversity Indicators SFM Sustainable Forest Management SOER State of the Environment and Outlook Report TAC Total Allowable Catch TSD Trade and Sustainable Development WFD Water Framework Directive



1. INTRODUCTION This is an evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 , which provided the EU biodiversity policy framework for 2011-20. It was guided by the EU 2050 vision for biodiversity and the EU 2020 headline biodiversity target, endorsed by the EU Heads of State and Government in 2010 . 1.1.1.1. Purpose of this evaluation This evaluation examines the performance of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 in line with Better Regulation Guidelines . Its purpose is to provide lessons that will help improve the design and implementation of EU biodiversity policies beyond 2020. At the end of 2019, the Commission published a communication on the European Green Deal ̶ Europe’s new sustainable growth strategy. The Green Deal reset the EU’s commitment and laid out an ambitious agenda for tackling the ecological and climate crises in the EU, as well as to show leadership by example at global level . As part of this agenda and the political mandate that arose from it – to urgently strengthen the EU framework for biodiversity action – in May 2020 the Commission published an EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 . Work on this new strategy took place in parallel with the evaluation of the preceding policy period. Section 6.3 of this report highlights lessons from the previous policy period that have been reflected in the design of the Strategy for 2030, as well as in key initiatives for its implementation. The findings from this evaluation have further informed, or will inform, the development of measures announced in the Strategy for 2030, such as a proposal for legally binding EU nature restoration targets, an enhanced EU biodiversity governance framework and measures to increase the effectiveness of EU external action to support global biodiversity. 1.2.1.2. Scope of the evaluation This evaluation covers the full scope of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, including implementation of its six operational targets, 20 actions and horizontal measures in 2011-20. It also assesses the extent to which they have delivered the EU 2020 headline biodiversity target: to halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU, and to help avert global biodiversity loss.

The evaluation applies five criteria to assess the Strategy: effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value. It takes stock of achievements in implementing the Strategy at the EU level and in the Member States (EU-27+UK ), depending on the level(s) at which each specific biodiversity action was to be implemented. It reflects on the factors that have enabled progress, as well as implementation challenges and the likely underlying causes. It reviews available evidence of significant environmental, social and economic impacts of implementation vis-à-vis those forecast in the 2011 impact assessment , and considers whether the Strategy has been a suitable instrument to help the EU and its Member States to deliver on the 2020 headline target. The evaluation covers other EU legal and policy initiatives in several ways: -Some biodiversity targets and actions aimed to support the implementation of existing EU legislation. The Strategy included concrete targets and actions to support, for example, the implementation of the EU Birds and Habitats Directives (Target 1) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Target 4). In such cases, the evaluation aimed to cover the extent to which the Strategy’s actions have succeeded in providing the intended support. In reality, it was very difficult to distinguish what part of the progress is the result of the legislation itself, or the Strategy. The evaluation attempts to provide at least a qualitative assessment of the likely contribution of the Strategy, and also highlights the views of key actors in this respect. - Some biodiversity targets and actions aimed to influence other EU policies. The evaluation has considered the extent to which the desired change has taken place, and how it has been implemented (as well as the overall consistency between the policies). Examples include: – Target 3, which sought to increase the contribution of the Common Agricultural Policy to biodiversity in the 2014-20 reform

– Target 4, which sought to include concrete targets in the Common Fisheries Policy to achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield and healthy stocks

– Target 6, which sought to improve the impact of EU trade agreements on biodiversity. -Some biodiversity targets and actions aimed to adopt new policies and legislation, for example the EU Green Infrastructure Strategy (Target 2) and the EU Regulation on Invasive Alien Species (Target 5). The evaluation of implementation takes account of whether these instruments have been adopted. Some of the above instruments have been subject to separate evaluations or implementation reviews. Where this has been the case, the results have been taken into account in this report. The assessment of coherence also takes into consideration other policy initiatives that do not directly fall under the Strategy’s scope. 2. BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE 1.3.2.1. Description of the initiative and its objectives Biodiversity – the variety of life on Earth – and the benefits provided by healthy ecosystems to people, have been in steep decline in recent decades, both in the EU and globally. Recognising the urgent need to halt and reverse this trend, in 2010 EU leaders endorsed a 2050 vision and a 2020 headline target for biodiversity . To deliver the headline target, in 2011 the Commission adopted the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, setting six operational targets supported by 20 time-bound actions. Table 1 below summarises the structure of the Strategy. The full definitions of targets, actions and sub‑actions are presented in Annex 5. Table 1. Structure of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 2050 vision By 2050, European Union biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides - its natural capital - are protected, valued and appropriately restored for biodiversity's intrinsic value and for their essential contribution to human wellbeing and economic prosperity, and so that catastrophic changes caused by the loss of biodiversity are avoided. EU 2020 headline biodiversity target 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. Target 1: Fully implement the EU nature legislation (the Birds and Habitats Directives) Action 1: Complete the establishment of the Natura 2000 network and ensure good management Action 2: Ensure adequate financing of Natura 2000 sites Action 3: Increase stakeholder awareness and involvement and improve enforcement Action 4: Improve and streamline monitoring and reporting Target 2: Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services Action 5: Improve knowledge of ecosystems and their services in the EU Action 6: Set priorities to restore 15% of degraded ecosystems and promote the use of green infrastructure Action 7: Biodiversity-proof EU-funded programmes and measures, and ensure no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services Target 3: Increase the contribution of agriculture and forestry to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity Action 8: Enhance direct payments for environmental public goods in the EU Common Agricultural Policy Action 9: Better target rural development to biodiversity conservation Action 10: Conserve Europe’s agricultural genetic diversity Action 11: Encourage forest holders to protect and enhance forest biodiversity Action 12: Integrate biodiversity measures in forest management plans Target 4: Ensure the sustainable use of fisheries resources Action 13: Improve the management of fished stocks Action 14: Eliminate adverse impacts on fish stocks, species, habitats and ecosystems and support the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive Target 5: Combat invasive alien species Action 15: Strengthen the EU plant and animal health regimes Action 16: Establish a dedicated instrument on invasive alien species Target 6: Help avert global biodiversity loss Action 17: Reduce indirect drivers of biodiversity loss Action 18: Mobilise additional resources for global biodiversity conservation Action 19: Biodiversity-proof EU development cooperation Action 20: Regulate access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their use Horizontal measures: ·Mobilise resources for biodiversity, ·Strengthen partnerships with stakeholders in key sectors of business and society, ·Improve governance with the establishment of a Common Implementation Framework. The Strategy brought together existing commitments under EU legislation and policies along with new ones, presenting them as a coherent package. It formed an integral part of the Europe 2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and the 7th Environmental Action Programme . It was designed to support the implementation of EU environmental legislation and strengthen synergies with a range of EU policies including on the environment, climate, agriculture, rural development, fisheries, regional development, research, trade and development cooperation. Furthermore, as parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the EU and its Member States are required to prepare a national biodiversity strategy and action plan (NBSAP) or equivalent instrument, and to ensure that biodiversity is mainstreamed into all sectors whose activities can have an impact on biodiversity. The EU is – along with all the EU Member States – a full party to the CBD. The Strategy is therefore to be considered as the EU level‑ NBSAP implementing the EU’s global commitments under the CBD and its global Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-20, including the Aichi targets .

1.4.2.2. Intervention logic The problem the Strategy aimed to solve is the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, both in the EU and globally. A target to halt biodiversity loss by 2010 had been set by the EU Heads of State and Government already in 2001, and an EU Biodiversity Action Plan had been in place since 2006 to accelerate progress towards it. However, despite significant action carried out, the EU missed the 2010 target: the status and condition of biodiversity and ecosystems in the EU, and the essential services they provide continued to deteriorate in 2010, driven by changes in land use, pollution, overexploitation, invasive alien species and climate change . The most significant reasons for failure to tackle these drivers were found to be insufficient integration of biodiversity-related objectives across other sectoral policies, incomplete and uneven implementation of existing legislation and policy gaps, as well as shortcomings in funding for biodiversity in the EU . The impact assessment for the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2020 further identified a range of indirect drivers related to demographic and cultural/lifestyle choices, institutional drivers, market failures, economic structure, size and growth, and trade. The intervention logic of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, outlined in the Commission’s impact assessment accompanying the Strategy, was based on the analysis of the trends and causes of continuing biodiversity decline in the EU and globally, a business-as-usual scenario until 2020, and the assessment of several policy options for EU action, and their potential impacts. The intervention logic presents the problem, the objectives (targets) of the Strategy, the action to be taken by the Commission, Member State authorities and other actors to implement it, and the expected results (outputs, outcomes and impacts). The intervention logic illustrated in Figure 1 below draws on the 2010 impact assessment underpinning the Strategy, and indicates links to the evaluation criteria. Figure 1. Intervention logic of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (based on 2010 impact assessment) 1.5.2.3. Baseline Due to the complexity and wide range of direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss, it was not possible to establish a clear baseline. Two earlier studies were used as a starting point to measure progress to the 2020 biodiversity targets. In 2010, the European Environment Agency published a comprehensive assessment report on the state and trends of biodiversity in 2010 (called the “2010 EU biodiversity baseline” ) using a number of indicators. This assessment provides the starting point to measure and monitor changes in biodiversity status and trends in key drivers of biodiversity loss from 2011 to 2020. The EEA report revealed that in 2010, only 17% of the assessments of habitats and species protected under the Nature Directives were 'favourable', while 65% of habitats assessments and 52% of species assessments were 'unfavourable' (with the number being as low as just 5% for grasslands). Since 1990, common farmland birds had declined by 20–25%, all common bird populations by around 10% and grassland butterflies by nearly 60%, showing no sign of levelling off.

Corine Land Cover inventories showed continued expansion of artificial surfaces at the expense of grasslands, wetlands and cultivated land. The serious and continuing loss of Europe's biodiversity resulted in a decline in the ability of ecosystems to sustain their natural production capacity and perform regulating functions, such as crop pollination, clean air and water provisioning, and the control of floods or erosion. An increase in provisioning services, such as timber, was also noted. The EEA assessment was subsequently updated in 2015 and 2020. In 2011, a business-as-usual scenario was developed as part of the impact assessment underpinning the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 . It described how the state of biodiversity, and pressures on it, would likely develop in the absence of an EU Biodiversity Strategy. It made a qualitative projection of the likely level of implementation and consequences of existing policy and legislation. Overall, the impact assessment suggested that without an EU Biodiversity Strategy to provide the framework for significant additional (i) policy and legislative reforms, (ii) measures to strengthen the implementation of existing legislation and (iii) biodiversity measures, the EU would not attain the 2020 biodiversity headline target. Ecosystem degradation driven by land-use changes, overexploitation, pollution, habitat loss, climate change and invasion by alien species would likely continue or worsen. It predicted that mean species abundance would continue to decline in Europe, from approximately 40% in 2010 to approximately 37% in 2050. The support study for this evaluation revisited and introduced minor retrospective changes to the ‘business as usual’ scenario, reflecting new information and actual developments of EU policies and legislation (insofar as they were not considered to be a result of the Strategy). More detail on the assumptions of the ‘business as usual’ scenario is provided in Annex 6. This scenario was used as a reference point for the purposes of the evaluation support study, while recognising its limitations: (i) interactions between biodiversity and other EU legislation and policies are complex; (ii) there are uncertainties about the evolution and impacts of wider indirect drivers (for example those related to lifestyle choices, institutional drivers, market failures, economic growth, or trade), and (iii) it is difficult to assess whether and how key policies would have developed or would have been implemented in the absence of the Strategy. The business-as-usual scenario is a useful point of reference for the evaluation, but the limitations outlined above mean that it does not amount to a comprehensive established counterfactual. The evaluation therefore uses progress towards the 2020 biodiversity targets as the most important measure of the Strategy’s effectiveness. 3. IMPLEMENTATION AND STATE OF PLAY Since its adoption in May 2011 and until its target date in 2020, the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 provided the EU framework for action on biodiversity, in a coordinated manner with the Member States and in line with the global Aichi biodiversity targets. In 2015, the Commission undertook a mid-term review of the implementation of the Strategy . It drew on the monitoring framework with indicators and assessed progress and trends for each target. It concluded that the EU was not on track to deliver for all but one of its biodiversity targets (Target 5, for which both actions had been implemented according to schedule). Biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystem services had continued in the EU and globally, driven by habitat loss, pollution, over-exploitation, invasive alien species and climate change, with serious implications for the capacity of ecosystems to meet human needs in the future. The mid-term review considered factors that had impeded implementation, highlighting in particular insufficient financing and mainstreaming of biodiversity objectives into other policies, as well as insufficient integration of the value of biodiversity and ecosystem services in policy and investment decisions. At the same time, the review pointed to many examples of successful implementation on the ground, which indicated that - with sufficient effort and adequate financing - it is possible to reverse the trend of biodiversity loss. Efforts were stepped up following the 2015 mid-term review, guided by an EU Roadmap for enhanced implementation that the Commission drew up in 2016, in cooperation with Member State authorities and stakeholders in the Coordination Group for Biodiversity and Nature .

This roadmap included measures to step up implementation of existing actions and introduced new actions where needed (e.g. a new EU Pollinators Initiative ). It was created and implemented in synergy with the Action plan for nature, people and the economy , which aimed to tackle implementation and enforcement weaknesses identified in the fitness check on EU nature legislation . The latest assessments of the state of biodiversity in the EU in 2020 indicate that, despite increased efforts, the targets have not been achieved, as further specified in the next sections: only 15% of habitat assessments under the Habitats Directive show good status (a further deterioration since 2010), and many pressures on ecosystems are stable or increasing, exacerbated by the growing impacts of climate change and invasive alien species. At the same time, progress made in certain areas show that a persistent implementation effort can be effective. These include pollution reduction, air and water quality, increasing the share of organic farming, the expansion of forests, species assessments under the Habitats Directive showing favourable status or positive trends, and a number of marine fish stocks reaching sustainable levels. The EU-level findings resonate with global assessments. In 2018 the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) published a Regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia and, in 2019, a Global assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services . These comprehensive assessments confirmed the continuing decline of biodiversity and nature's contributions to people, warning that the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 would not be possible unless this trend is reversed. Biodiversity loss was recognised as one of the most critical global environmental threats alongside climate change — and the two are inextricably linked. 1.6.3.1. State of play on implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 The Strategy’s implementation period finished at the end of 2020. Annex 7 provides an overview of the main outputs delivered under each target and action between 2011 and 2020. When assessing implementation of the targets, progress to each target has been scored using five categories, as follows: Table 2. Assessment categories for scoring implementation of the EU biodiversity targets Assessment category Definition No progress The EU and the Member States have not implemented the actions and they have not made progress to the target. Limited progress The EU and the Member States have implemented few actions. Progress has been largely insufficient to achieve the target. Moderate progress The EU and the Member States have implemented a number of actions. There is moderate progress towards the target. Significant progress The EU and the Member State have implemented the majority of the actions. They have gone a long way to achieving the target, but some gaps remain. Fully implemented The EU and the Member State have adopted and implemented all actions. This has resulted in the adequate delivery on the target. Some of the biodiversity targets were not fully SMART (see list of actions in Annex 5), which has implications for measuring and scoring the degree of their delivery. Within most targets, implementation progress varied for the actions. A detailed assessment of each individual action has been provided in the final report of the study supporting this evaluation . The overall assessment of progress towards each target is presented in Table 3 below. Scores have been assigned separately on two aspects for each target (except the headline target, which has no actions): (i) progress in implementing the actions (ii) progress in delivering on the target (i.e. achieving biodiversity impacts on the ground). Table 3. Assessment of the implementation of the EU biodiversity targets to 2020 Target Score and comments EU 2020 headline biodiversity target: halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and help to avert global biodiversity loss. Progress to target: LIMITED The loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services has continued in the EU and globally. There have been positive examples of pressure reduction, restoration and sustainable management of ecosystems that demonstrate the feasibility of halting and reversing biodiversity loss. However, their scale has been too small to reverse degradation. The main pressures on EU biodiversity have been unsustainable agricultural and forestry activities, urbanisation, species over-exploitation, invasive alien species, hydro-morphological alterations, energy infrastructure, pollution and climate change . In 2020, the potential of EU ecosystems to deliver benefits to people was the same or lower than it was in 2010, while human demand for services continued to increase, resulting in a growing deficit . Globally, biodiversity has been declining faster than at any time in human history, and direct and indirect drivers of change have accelerated during the past decades. Together with climate change, biodiversity loss increases the risk of irreversible changes and undermines economic development and the resilience of societies in the face of new challenges. Target 1: Fully implement EU Nature Legislation 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: • 100% more habitat assessments and 50% more species assessments under the Habitats Directive show an improved conservation status; and • 50% more species assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure or improved status. Progress on implementing the actions: MODERATE to SIGNIFICANT The majority of the actions under Target 1 were partly or fully implemented. Member States have made good progress in designating Natura 2000 sites. The terrestrial network is almost complete, and the marine network has increased almost 3-fold since 2010. Actions under the Strategy have supported good practice exchange, enforcement and policy integration, as well as awareness raising on the importance of Natura 2000. Reporting under the Nature Directives has been streamlined and integrated in the State of Nature reports. However, key actions were not fully implemented. Gaps remain especially in the marine Natura 2000 network, the management of Natura 2000 sites, and in ensuring sufficient financing. In 2017-19, following the fitness check on the Nature Directives, the Commission adopted and implemented an Action Plan to tackle a number of the identified gaps and weaknesses . Progress to target: LIMITED to MODERATE Despite local improvements following conservation actions, overall only 15% of habitat assessments under the Habitats Directive show good status (down from 17% in the 2010 biodiversity baseline), and most habitat assessments show poor (45%) or bad (36%) conservation status at EU level . On the positive side, the proportion of species assessments under the Habitats Directive that show favourable status or improving trends has increased from 17% to 27% . However, less than half (47%) of all species assessments under the Birds Directive showed good status in the 2013-18 reporting period, an actual decrease of 5% from the 2008-12 reporting period. The achievement of favourable conservation status has been hindered by management deficiencies such as a lack of adequate conservation objectives and measures for many sites, conflicting land management objectives and funding constraints (funding has increased but remains clearly insufficient). Many Natura 2000 sites continue to suffer from anthropogenic pressures and fragmentation. Target 2: Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services By 2020, ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by establishing green infrastructure and restoring at least 15% of degraded ecosystems Progress in implementing the actions has been uneven, ranging from LIMITED to SIGNIFICANT The initiative on the Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem Services (MAES) has developed one of the most advanced regional ecosystem assessment schemes, with the engagement of all Member States. With the publication of the EU ecosystem assessment , it has helped to build a significant knowledge base on EU ecosystems and the services they provide. The Commission supported the development of an integrated natural capital accounting system for ecosystems and their services and associated datasets via the Knowledge Innovation Project on ecosystem services and Natural Capital Accounting (KIP INCA) . The EU Green Infrastructure Strategy (2013) has encouraged investment in green infrastructure and mobilised funding from EU instruments. The Commission further provided guidance to Member States on developing Restoration Prioritisation Frameworks to advance towards the 15% restoration target. However, only a few Member States have presented such frameworks and restoration progress has been slow and uneven. A methodological framework was developed for biodiversity-proofing the EU budget , however, its use in the national programming of EU funds has remained limited. The Commission has developed guidance on integrating ecosystems and their services into decision-making; however, no initiative was undertaken to enshrine the No Net Loss approach in a dedicated EU policy instrument. Progress to target: LIMITED Pressures on ecosystems continue and affect their capacity to deliver essential benefits to people . Studies indicate that restoration activities have taken place in all Member States, but significantly below what would have been required to reach the target of restoring 15% of degraded ecosystems . Target 3a: Increase the contribution of agriculture to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity By 2020, maximise areas under agriculture across grasslands, arable land and permanent crops that are covered by biodiversity-related measures under the CAP, to ensure the conservation of biodiversity and bring about a measurable improvement in (i) the conservation status of species and habitats that depend on or are affected by agriculture and (ii) the provision of ecosystem services, compared to the EU2010 baseline. This will help improve sustainable management. Progress in implementing the actions: MODERATE The revised Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for 2014-20 included strengthened biodiversity provisions for mandatory cross-compliance, greening obligations and a ban on ploughing up environmentally sensitive permanent grasslands, as well as biodiversity support measures under Pillar II (Rural Development). The effectiveness of measures has been influenced by the variety of implementation choices made by the Member States. The available indicators do not point to particular EU level improvements . Progress to target: LIMITED Agri-environmental and climate measures have shown some positive local impacts on biodiversity. These impacts have been limited by a relatively low uptake in many Member States. The impact of greening measures at EU-level has also been limited due to insufficient coverage and a preference for low-impact measures. The Target did not explicitly tackle pressures from intensive agricultural practices, nor from land abandonment. Biodiversity continues to decline in agricultural habitats, and to a lesser extent in forests, as shown by a number of biodiversity indicators (e.g. the conservation status of habitats and species targeted by the Nature Directives, and population trends in grassland butterflies and common farmland birds). More than 45% of Annex I assessments of agricultural habitats were assessed as bad in the last reporting period (2013-18) . Over the last few decades, these declines have been primarily due to the effects of two trends: – on the one hand, intensive cultivation techniques on most grasslands and croplands, involving high fertiliser and pesticide use, crop specialisation, increases in field size and losses of non-farmed habitats and landscape features; – on the other hand, substantial agricultural abandonment or conversion of semi‑natural habitats, such as semi-natural grasslands . Target 3b: Increase the contribution of forestry to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity By 2020, Forest Management Plans or equivalent instruments, in line with Sustainable Forest Management (SFM), are in place for all forests that are publicly owned and for forest holdings above a certain size (to be defined by the Member States or regions and communicated in their Rural Development Programmes) that receive funding under EU rural development policy. The objective is to bring about a measurable improvement in the conservation status of species and habitats that depend on or are affected by forestry, and in the provision of related ecosystem services, compared to the EU 2010 baseline. Progress in implementing the actions: MODERATE Forest Management Plans have been used as a tool by forest owners throughout Europe, yet data to assess their effectiveness and the inclusion of biodiversity-relevant measures remain scarce. Significant portions of EU forests are not covered by management plans. Some innovative finance mechanisms such as payments for ecosystem services (PES) have been implemented, mostly at local level. CAP measures to support forest biodiversity have had varying degrees of uptake in the Member States. Investment in improving resilience, including some biodiversity aspects, was included in more than two-thirds of the programmes and represented 20% of total public expenditure planned for forestry measures at EU level. However, payments for voluntary management commitments going beyond legal obligations and for compensation for Natura 2000 related restrictions had a limited uptake. The support measure for managing environment and climate services and forest conservation has been programmed and allocated funding in just 25 rural development programmes in Member States, representing only 4% of the total forestry measures. Budgets and uptake have been far below the scale of implementation required for Member States to meet their legal obligations under the Habitats and Birds Directives . Progress to target: LIMITED Assessments reveal that, while 31% of forest habitats assessed have a bad conservation status, 32% of forest bird species show an improving trend, 40% a stable trend and 16% a deteriorating trend . Target 4: Ensure sustainable fisheries and support healthy marine ecosystems 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. Progress in delivering the actions: MODERATE Under the reformed Common Fisheries Policy, important developments in the conservation and management of marine biological resources have been made in setting Total Allowable Catches (TACs) and quotas, multi-annual plans, landing obligation and discard plans, technical and other conservation measures for commercial fish stocks and fisheries exploiting those stocks. The EU plays an active role in many Regional Fisheries Management Organisations aimed at ensuring the sustainable management of fisheries resources . However, significant challenges remain. Data gaps on the status and trends of marine ecosystems hinder the design of effective measures. Progress to target: LIMITED Despite some progress and recovery in a number of fish stocks, others continue to be outside safe biological limits and/or are overfished. In addition to fisheries, further pressures from land and sea use, pollution, invasive alien species and climate change need to be addressed for marine ecosystems to achieve good environmental status. Target 5: Combat invasive alien species Progress in delivering the actions: FULLY IMPLEMENTED The adoption of the Invasive Alien Species (IAS) Regulation and the strengthening of the EU plant and animal health regimes have been important first steps to combatting IAS in the EU. In October 2021, the Commission published its report on the application of the IAS Regulation , primarily based on reports submitted by Member States for 2015-18. Given that the deadlines for implementing the various obligations of the IAS Regulation applied gradually since the adoption of the first list of invasive alien species of Union concern in July 2016 (and subsequent updates), it is premature to draw conclusions on most aspects of the IAS Regulation. Progress to target: LIMITED Implementation on the ground is still in its early stages and its full impact is yet to be realised. Invasive alien species remain a persistent and growing threat across EU ecosystems. By 2020, 66 IAS had been prioritised for concerted action at EU level and efforts to control or eradicate them had been initiated by the Member States. Action on the management of pathways has on the other hand been delayed significantly, with most Member States not having adopted the required action plans by 2020. The review of the application of the Regulation in the Member States indicates that despite the very short period of full implementation, restrictions, prevention, early detection, rapid eradication and management of widely spread species deliver benefits. However, the EU list is a priority list to which species can only be added once scientific evidence of impact is available, which means that it cannot include all IAS. In addition, Most Member States have not yet implemented the action plans to address the priority pathways. Target 6: Help avert global biodiversity loss Progress in delivering the actions: LIMITED TO MODERATE International financial flows from the EU and its Member States for global biodiversity have been significant since the Strategy was published. EU initiatives such as BEST have increased the efficiency and access to funding for actions related to biodiversity and sustainable ecosystem management. However, information gaps on (international) biodiversity funding limits the tracking of its effectiveness and efficiency. Limited progress has been made on identifying and eliminating subsidies that are harmful for biodiversity . The EU has taken measures to tackle illegal trade, for example as part of the implementation of the FLEGT Action Plan and the EU Action plan against wildlife trafficking . Biodiversity-related provisions have been systematically included in the Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) chapters of EU trade agreements. However, detailed assessment of the biodiversity impacts of trade – and the monitoring and enforcement of these (non-binding) provisions – remain a challenge. There is a clear need to reinforce integrated EU external action for biodiversity and sustainable development, better connect biodiversity targets with the SDGs and ensure coherence with internal EU policy developments. Progress to target: LIMITED Biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services are deteriorating worldwide . Horizontal measures: Governance Progress assessment: MODERATE A Common Implementation Framework (CIF) structure of Expert Groups was set up in 2012, with the Coordination Group for Biodiversity and Nature (CGBN) at its core, in order to support a coordinated and streamlined implementation of the Strategy. A coherent framework was developed for monitoring, assessing and reporting on progress in implementation. The SEBI indicators set supported the measurement and reporting on progress to the 2020 EU biodiversity targets as well as to the global Convention on Biological Diversity. Progress was assessed in the Commission’s report on the Mid‑term review of the Strategy in 2015, followed by the Council Conclusions and EP Resolution in response to the mid-term review. In order to step up implementation, the Commission, together with Member States and EU stakeholders at the CGBN, developed in 2016 an EU Roadmap for enhanced implementation of the Strategy. However, the Strategy as an instrument was not sufficient to ensure appropriate political commitment, adequate funding, biodiversity mainstreaming and actions to be taken at each level. The stakeholder consultations showed appreciation of the governance arrangements that had enabled regular information to stakeholders on EU level activities, but also frustration with insufficient engagement of key sector actors in implementation. Horizontal measures: Partnerships Progress assessment: MODERATE There are many examples of partnership-building activities across targets, with many actions focused on information-sharing and collaboration. The EU B@B platform has facilitated front-running businesses to exchange experience and cooperate on developing tools to assess their impacts and dependencies on biodiversity . Stakeholder platforms have been set up to discuss and develop solutions such as the EU platform on large carnivores . The Natura 2000 Biogeographical Process was launched in 2011 to help Member States and key stakeholders manage Natura 2000 as a coherent network . Nevertheless, just under half of the OPC respondents consider that the Strategy helped to ensure cooperation and learning among Member States (50% ‘fully’ or ‘partially’ and 50% ‘poorly’ or ‘not at all’) or between the EU and third countries (39% ‘fully’ or ‘partially’). Horizontal measures: Financing Progress assessment: MODERATE Significant action has been taken to integrate biodiversity support measures in EU funding instruments in the 2014-20 budget. Biodiversity support measures under the CAP, or the use of European Territorial Cooperation Programmes have driven green infrastructure policies, as well as the increase in funding for global biodiversity in line with the resource mobilisation commitment by the EU and its Member States. However, lack of funding has continued to be a major impediment to implementation success across targets. The lack of legally binding provisions, and the absence of a dedicated financing instrument have been identified by stakeholders as major challenges for funding mobilisation.

4. METHODOLOGY This evaluation uses the standard policy evaluation criteria and follows a well-defined methodology in accordance with the Better Regulation Guidelines . The evaluation criteria were further operationalised through evaluation questions. 1.7.4.1. Evaluation questions This evaluation aims to answer the following evaluation questions: Effectiveness: ·To what extent have the actions defined under the strategy been implemented at the EU level and in the Member States? ·To what extent is the EU Biodiversity Strategy on track to achieve the six operational biodiversity targets and the headline target by 2020, and to progress towards the 2050 vision? ·To what extent has the strategy been successful in addressing the main drivers of biodiversity loss? ·What have been success factors and have successful approaches been shared and replicated? ·What have been possible gaps or challenges that have hindered progress towards the targets? ·To what extent have stakeholders been actively engaged in the strategy’s implementation and how have they been affected? Efficiency ·To what extent has the strategy been cost-effective? ·What factors could have improved cost-effectiveness by strengthening delivery of the targets while minimising unnecessary costs and avoiding administrative burden? ·How timely and efficient is the process for reporting and monitoring? ·Was the Strategy the most appropriate instrument to achieve the EU biodiversity targets to 2020? ·What significant positive and/or negative long-term and/or short-term socio-economic impacts has the Strategy implementation had?

·What have the main socio-economic impacts been, within the EU and globally, of any identified failure to achieve the EU biodiversity targets? Coherence ·To what extent has the EU Biodiversity Strategy been coherent with the Europe 2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth? ·Does the strategy support other EU environmental policy objectives, for example, in relation to clean air and water, the marine environment, the transition to a circular economy, sustainable production and consumption, soil protection, land use and management, waste management, the sustainable use of resources and climate policy? What are the synergies or overlaps? ·To what extent are the biodiversity targets coherent with and mainstreamed into other EU policies, in particular on agriculture, fisheries, regional and urban development, energy, climate change, research and innovation as well as trade and development cooperation? ·To what extent is the strategy aligned with the EU’s international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Sustainable Development Goals and the United Nations Convention on Climate Change? Relevance ·To what extent do the objectives and targets of the strategy (still) correspond to the needs of the EU with regard to biodiversity? ·Has the strategy been flexible enough to respond to new or emerging issues? ·How relevant is the strategy for the different stakeholders and to EU citizens in particular? EU added value ·What is the added value resulting from the EU Biodiversity Strategy compared to what is likely to have been achieved by the Member States in its absence? ·How do Member States' targets and implementation add up or compare to the targets at EU‑level? 1.8.4.2. Process In line with standard practice for Commission evaluations, after adoption of the Roadmap , an evaluation matrix was developed, breaking the above evaluation questions further to allow for their analysis, identifying the success criteria and indicators against which the assessment was performed, and clarifying sources of data and evidence. The evaluation matrix set the framework for the evaluation work. The Commission used an external contractor to support the evaluation by summarising evidence and analysing the evaluation questions. Answers were provided on the basis of evidence gathered from a wide range of qualitative and quantitative sources including:

·Review of literature, datasets and indicators: Numerous literature sources were studied, the majority of which were academic studies, Commission impact assessments, evaluations and fitness checks and reviews of relevant EU policies and legislation; Member States and Commission implementation reports on relevant EU legislation; reports by the European Court of Auditors; publications by the European Environment Agency (EEA), the Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), position papers by stakeholders as well as independent studies, policy documents, and projects funded by the EU; as well as national policies, publications and reports, including the EU and Member States’ 5th and 6th National Reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Key sources of evidence included the European Environment – State and Outlook Report ; the State of Nature in the EU (EEA 2020); the EU 6th National Report to the CBD (2020) ; the first EU Ecosystem Assessment (JRC 2020) and the Streamlined European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI) . Box. 1 The Streamlined European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI) The set of SEBI indicators was a key source of EU level evidence for the evaluation, building on current monitoring and available data. Each indicator provides a message on an individual aspect of the state of biodiversity, pressures on it and responses to help conserve biodiversity and halt its loss. Together, they provide the big picture and have been used in the mid-term review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and the 6th EU Report to the CBD, among others. The SEBI indicators included: Abundance and distribution of selected European species (SEBI 001), Species of European interest (SEBI 003), Ecosystem coverage (SEBI 004), Habitats of European coverage (SEBI 005), Livestock genetic diversity (SEBI 006), Nationally designated terrestrial protected areas in Europe (SEBI 007), Natura 2000 sites designated under the Habitats and Birds Directives (SEBI 008), Impact of climate change on bird populations (SEBI 011), Forest: growing stock, increment and fellings (SEBI 017), Forest: deadwood (SEBI 018), Agriculture: nitrogen balance (SEBI 019), Agriculture: area under management practices potentially supporting biodiversity (SEBI 020), Ecological footprint of European countries (SEBI 023), Public awareness of biodiversity in Europe (SEBI 026). Annex 3 provides an overview of the indicators used to inform the assessment of each evaluation question. ·Online public consultation was carried out through an online survey. The questionnaire was available in 23 EU languages on the EU Survey portal for 12 weeks between January and April 2021. The consultation was part of a joint consultation that included three distinct but inter-linked EU topics: i) the evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, ii) the implementation review of the Invasive Alien Species Regulation (also relevant to Target 5) and iii) the development of binding EU restoration targets (an initiative that also draws on experience with the implementation of Target 2). The joint survey received a total of 111,842 responses. Annex 2 provides an overview of the responses to the evaluation questionnaire. ·Targeted consultations including: oInterviews with EU-level organisations: a total of 30 interviews were conducted with representatives of EU-level umbrella organisations selected to represent a wide spectrum of interests across environmental, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, business, research and other domains, as well as to gather perspectives and additional evidence about the implementation of the Strategy. oOnline survey and interviews with Member States’ authorities and key stakeholders in order to gather views and evidence of implementation approaches, successes and failures. These case studies took place in ten selected Member States. As a first step, an online survey was sent out to expert stakeholders. A total of 64 stakeholders provided a response. These were followed by interviews with up to five representatives of key authorities and stakeholder organisations per Member State, in order to explore the respondent’s experiences in successes and failures of implementation of specific targets, and the underlying factors. oDiscussions with Commission Services at the Inter-service group on the evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, and online meetings with individual services where necessary to further discuss specific aspects (see also Annex 1). Annex 2 provides a synopsis report on the consultation activities carried out for this evaluation. Annex 8 provides a summary of key findings on implementation successes and challenges, derived from consultations in the 10 case study Member States. 1.9.4.3. Limitations – robustness of findings Biodiversity knowledge has increased significantly over the past years in the EU, among other reasons because of reporting under environmental legislation, strengthened monitoring, research under Horizon 2020 as well as the mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services that has advanced in all EU Member States. At the global level, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has provided the first global, peer reviewed assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services, including of the main direct and indirect drivers of loss, impacts on human wellbeing as well as pathways for transformative change. Advances in the economics of biodiversity and ecosystem services, natural capital accounting and valuation have also been made since the Strategy’s publication. Experience gained in the Member States offers insights into implementation successes and challenges, and the factors behind them. Research and innovation projects under Horizon 2020 have contributed to improved knowledge and understanding in many areas such as biodiversity decline (including on indirect drivers of biodiversity loss, for example related to food systems), nature-based solutions, valuing and restoring ecosystem services. These and further sources, complemented with evidence and views provided by stakeholders, form a good evidence basis for drawing conclusions and lessons learned from the implementation of the individual biodiversity targets. At the same time, significant evidence and knowledge gaps persist, and they have posed limitations to the evaluation analysis, for example in relation to: (i) the condition and trends of some ecosystems and their services, in particular in the marine environment; (ii) comprehensive cost-benefit data for the entire EU (rather than individual projects) for most targets; (iii) comprehensive EU level information on the national implementation of the biodiversity actions and progress to the targets in the Member States, beyond reporting obligations under existing EU legislation. While the Strategy itself had a non-binding nature, some of its targets and actions aimed to support the implementation of existing EU legislation. For example, Target 1 was to ensure the implementation of the EU Nature Directives, and success is measured by progress to the achievement of favourable conservation status: an objective already embedded in Nature Legislation. Similarly, an action under Target 4 aimed to support the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. In such cases, it has proven very difficult to distinguish what part of progress has been the result of the implementation of the legislation itself, or from the Strategy’s actions. Similarly, some biodiversity targets and actions aimed to influence EU policies in other areas (such as the Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy, or EU trade policy) rendering clear attribution of impacts to the Strategy challenging (as further discussed in Section 2.1). This meant that, even when evidence on biodiversity outcomes and impacts was strong, it was often difficult to attribute them with a degree of certainty to the Strategy (rather than to the impact of other legislation or EU policies). In response, extra efforts were made in discussions with stakeholders to explore the possible impact of the implementation of the Strategy in the case study countries. Overall, efforts to triangulate multiple sources of evidence and the views of interviewed authorities and stakeholders are considered to lead to robust findings in terms of evidence. Where such triangulation was not possible, the evaluation analysis refers to the nature of the evidence used and flags uncertainties, for example related to inconclusive data, unclear causality or when statements reflect the views expressed by stakeholder groups representing a specific interest. Part of the Strategy’s actions concern implementation at the Member State level, while others were for the Commission to implement, in consultation or in cooperation with the Member States. More robust data on operational implementation at the Member States’ level is available for those actions that are linked to legislative instruments and include reporting obligations, for example on the designation of Natura 2000 sites or on the conservation status of protected habitats and species. There are gaps in EU level data on the national implementation of voluntary actions where there has been no reporting obligation or mechanism, such as on restoration or the deployment of Green Infrastructure. Some data has been reported by individual Member States or collected with the help of studies. There is also evidence of implementation activities provided during the public consultations, LIFE projects implementation, as well as implementation success stories (as well as challenges) identified by the support study by means of a survey of national implementation of selected targets in ten Member States.

An overview of the main outputs at the EU level is provided in Annex 7. While there is no comprehensive overview of implementation at the national level, Annex 8 provides a wealth of examples and stakeholder views, based on targeted surveys in 10 Member States. 5. ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 1.10.5.1. Effectiveness 5.1.1Progress to the targets Evaluation question 1: To what extent has the Strategy worked as expected? This question covers the following interlinked questions of the evaluation Roadmap: To what extent: ·have the actions defined under the Strategy been implemented at the EU level and in the Member States? ·is the Strategy on track to achieve the six operational biodiversity targets and the headline target by 2020, and to progress towards the 2050 vision? ·has the strategy been successful in addressing the main drivers of biodiversity loss? Overall response: None of the six targets of the Strategy have been fully achieved, despite numerous actions being undertaken. Progress towards the headline target has been limited, as illustrated by data on the status of EU habitats and species (see details under Target 1 below), on the condition of EU ecosystems and their services (see details under Target 2 below) and on global biodiversity and ecosystem services (as evidenced in the IPBES global assessment of ecosystems and their services). The main drivers of biodiversity loss continue in the EU and globally. This insufficient progress is partly due to insufficient implementation of the actions, and partly due to the scope and formulation of the actions that were not always sufficient to deliver some of the targets. The limitations of the Strategy as an instrument to ensure implementation are further discussed in section 2.2. At the same time, significant local efforts and successes need to be acknowledged, even if their scale has been too small to achieve the targets across the EU. What is the issue? The delivery of the 20 actions was envisaged to result in the achievement of the six operational targets set out in the Strategy, which, in turn, should have enabled the EU to deliver on its headline target to halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity by 2020, and to help avert global biodiversity loss. What are the findings? Progress towards the headline target has been limited. Biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU have continued since 2010, and a number of direct and indirect drivers of loss have accelerated, including the increasing impacts of climate change and invasive alien species , . Ecosystems’ potential to deliver a range of services in the EU is stable or decreasing, while demand for these services is increasing, resulting in a deficit of services and further pressures on ecosystems . Globally, biodiversity has been declining faster than at any time in human history, and direct and indirect drivers of change have accelerated during the past decades. Together with climate change, biodiversity loss increases the risk of irreversible changes and undermines economic development and the resilience of societies in the face of new challenges. This overall insufficient progress should not conceal significant local achievements. Evidence of conservation efforts and many success examples are highlighted in the analysis of individual targets below, as well as in Annex 8. However, major drivers of biodiversity loss have remained in place, and the scale of individual actions has not been sufficient to counteract these drivers, and to achieve the targets across the EU. As reported in more detail below, limited progress has been made to most of the operational (thematic) targets of the Strategy, despite numerous actions undertaken. It is important to note that the level of implementation of the actions within each target has varied significantly. Of the twenty actions, several are considered completed, such as actions 4 and 16, whereas other actions have shown limited progress. Given the biodiversity status and trends, these targets and actions have not collectively led to the halting of biodiversity loss. In some cases, insufficient progress to the thematic targets – and therefore to the headline target - can be tracked down to failures to fully implement some of the actions. For example, gaps in the designation of the marine Natura 2000 network, in the adoption of management objectives for Natura 2000 sites and in the enforcement of protection regimes have negatively affected progress to Target 1. Few Member States have developed green infrastructure strategies and frameworks to set restoration priorities under Target 2. Forest management plans did not systematically integrate comprehensive biodiversity measures in line with Target 3B. The EU and the Member States did not undertake sufficient steps to consumption patterns driving global biodiversity loss, as set out under Target 6. Underlying causes of non-implementation have been highlighted in the analysis of each target below. In other cases, the actions set in the Strategy have been undertaken but this has not been sufficient to achieve the thematic targets, indicating weaknesses in the scope and formulation of some of the targets and of the corresponding actions. For example, Target 2 aimed to restore 15% or ecosystems in the EU, however the actions stopped short of prescribing the necessary implementation efforts, and focussed on the adoption of EU strategies and national prioritisation frameworks instead. In addition, the Strategy did not provide an instrument to oblige actors in the Member States to implement restoration activities. Restoration on the ground was insufficient even in those few Member States that did develop such frameworks. Actions under Target 3A were formulated in a generic way leaving room for interpretation of the level of enhancement needed, and for Member States’ choices to set their level of uptake. The actions under Target 5 were implemented, yet the EU has not made sufficient progress in combatting invasive alien species, at least partly because setting up the EU legal framework, its transposition in the Member States and commencing implementation required significant time before implementation could start on the ground. Further reflections on the Strategy as an instrument are provided under section 5.2. They have informed the design of the biodiversity targets and actions to 2030, as well as work on the development of binding EU nature restoration targets.

Stakeholder views on implementation About half or the respondents to the Open Public Consultation considered that the EU had “partially” achieved the headline biodiversity target (48%). Stakeholders who considered that the headline target had been ‘fully’ achieved largely belonged to the forestry sector (53%, with all but one being respondents from the Polish forestry sector), whereas those who responded ‘poorly’ belonged mostly to environment (23%), forestry (20%) and culture (19%) organisations. Performance was best-rated under Targets 1 and 3, with 30% of respondents saying that Target 1 was fully achieved, and 22% of respondents considering that Target 3 was fully achieved (again, predominantly answers from forestry sector stakeholders). Progress to Target 1. Fully implement the Birds and Habitats Directives 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. Progress to Target 1 has been uneven, with a broad set of actions implemented fully or partly, and some significant results visible on the ground. However, as illustrated in Figure 2 below, Target 1 was not achieved. The Strategy aimed to increase by 50% the number of species assessments that show a secure or better conservation status, and by 100% the number of habitats assessments showing a secure or better conservation status. Figure 2 Progress towards Target 1 as percentage of assessments carried out: Note: Each bar shows the percentage of assessments showing good status or improving. “Baseline” (dark green) is the percentage of assessments with good status or improving in 2010. “Final 2020” is the situation in 2020, based on the latest reporting period under the Nature Directives (2013-18). The grey lines represent the expected mid-term progress (by 2015), and the red lines mark the 2020 target. Source: State of nature in the EU 2020 (COM/2020/635 final). The State of Nature in the EU Report 2020 (based on the results of the Member States Reporting under the Nature Directives for 2013-18) reveals that an estimated 47% of European wild bird species assessments show good population status: a decrease of 5% since the last reporting period (2007-12), and 30% of breeding populations exhibit short-term decreasing trends. For species, there was only a 2% gap to the 50% target increase. The majority of habitat assessments show a ‘poor’ (45%) or ‘bad’ (36%) status, with only 15% of habitat types assessments showing ‘good’ status (a 2% decrease since 2010). For habitats not in good status, only 9% of assessments show improving trends between reporting periods, 34% are stable, and 36% are continuing to deteriorate . Some positive trends are noted: an average, 6% of national or regional assessments for habitats and species (other than birds) show improvement. The status of emblematic species has improved thanks to conservation actions, often with support from the EU LIFE Programme (e.g. the recovery of populations of Lynx pardinus and the Cantabrian brown bear in Spain; the brown bear and the wolf in Italy; the chamois and griffon vultures in Bulgaria, the common crane, white-tailed eagle and osprey in the Netherlands) . However, the majority of species within the scope of the Habitats Directive remain in ‘poor’ or ‘bad’ status (63% of assessments), with a slightly increasing short-term trend for those in ‘good’ status (27% of assessments in 2013-18 against 23% in 2007-12 and 17% in 2010). Another remaining challenge is protection outside Natura 2000 sites. Monitoring has improved, however gaps remain in data on status and trends, particularly pertinent for marine species and habitats. The trends of 21% of habitats and 31% of species are unknown . The Member States have progressed significantly with the designation of the Natura 2000 network. The terrestrial network is almost complete and covered about 18% of the EU’s land area by 2020. With this extent, the EU has achieved Aichi biodiversity target 11 . The marine network has increased significantly, from about 3% of the EU’s sea area in 2010 to more than 9% in 2020 for EU-27+UK (and about 8% for EU-27). However, many Natura 2000 sites continue to suffer from anthropogenic pressures and fragmentation. The most commonly reported pressures on habitats and species are grouped as activities relating to agriculture, urbanization and forestry. For surface water habitats, the predominant factors for not achieving good ecological status under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) include hydromorphological pressures, diffuse pollution and over-abstraction .

Management deficiencies, such as delays in the setting of adequate conservation objectives and measures for Natura 2000 sites, as well as constraints related to funding, knowledge, stakeholder engagement, policy integration and human resources have hindered the achievement of favourable conservation status . A special report of the European Court of Auditors concluded that more efforts are needed in the management, financing and monitoring of Natura 2000 network to achieve its full potential . In evaluating progress to Target 1, it is important to note that it aims to support the full implementation of existing legislation. The actions set out in the Strategy aimed to increase stakeholder engagement, strengthen links with other policy areas, raise awareness and provide guidance on different implementation aspects. These actions as well as the Action Plan for nature, people and the economy have supported implementation, good practice exchange, enforcement and policy integration, as well as awareness raising on the importance and benefits from Natura 2000. Partnerships and networks have been developed to share information and experiences among actors, manage and enhance Natura 2000 as an ecological network, as set out in Action 3 of the Strategy. However, it is a challenge to separate with a high degree of certainty the impacts of the actions undertaken as part of the Strategy’s Target 1, on the one hand, from other implementation and enforcement actions that would have taken place under the Nature Directives in the absence of the Strategy, on the other. Progress to Target 2. Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services By 2020, ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by establishing green infrastructure and restoring at least 15% of degraded ecosystems. Limited progress has been made to Target 2, and implementation of the related actions has been uneven. As part of Action 5, the EU initiative on the mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services (MAES) developed one of the most advanced regional ecosystem assessment schemes, with the engagement of all EU Member States . It has helped to build a significant knowledge base on EU ecosystems and the services they provide, with the publication in 2020 of the first EU ecosystem assessment . Nevertheless, there are still significant gaps in knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystems, underlining the need for a robust biodiversity observation network and more consistent ecosystem condition reporting. The Commission supported the development of an integrated natural capital accounting system for ecosystems and their services and associated datasets via the Knowledge Innovation Project on ecosystem services and Natural Capital Accounting . Biophysical and monetary assessments of ecosystem services have stimulated projects aiming to improve the conservation status of ecosystems and the development of national natural capital accounts . The EU ecosystem assessment revealed that the main pressures on ecosystems are broadly similar to those for species and habitats, and exhibit different trends. Atmospheric emissions of air pollutants and critical loads of Nitrogen and Sulphur are decreasing, but their absolute values remain too high. The impacts of climate change on ecosystems are increasing. Invasive alien species of Union concern are observed across all ecosystem types, but their impact is particularly high in urban ecosystems and in grasslands. The combination of pressures on ecosystems from human activities, and their interactions with climate change and the spread of invasive alien species, are posing serious threats. Pressures from overfishing activities and marine pollution are still high. Figure 3. Impacts and trends of pressures on the main ecosystem types in the EU. The EU ecosystem assessment further indicated that societal demand for several ecosystem services that were assessed has continued to increase since 2010, while the potential of ecosystems to provide these services has declined within the same period, resulting in a deficit and increasing the risk of increased pressures and further ecosystem deterioration. As part of Action 6, and in order to support the restoration of degraded ecosystems, in 2014, the Commission provided guidance to the Member States on the development of Restoration Prioritisation Frameworks . Very few Member States formally submitted such frameworks . Data on ecosystem restoration efforts in the EU is incomplete. Restoration activity is taking place – often in response to relevant EU legislation, such as the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). Wetlands and freshwater ecosystems have often been declared as restoration priorities. Restoration projects with support from the EU LIFE Programme have been instrumental for many local and regional conservation successes. They have also demonstrated the added value and effectiveness of transnational conservation approaches, particularly in relation to restoring fish migration routes and coherent site networks for migratory birds . Annex 8 to this report provides a wealth of further examples of restoration initiatives identified in the national implementation surveys. There is no comprehensive overview of restoration undertaken in the Member States. Estimates in studies suggest that restoration activity has been significantly below what would have been required to reach the target of restoring 15% of degraded ecosystems: between 2,850 km2 and 5,700 km2 of habitat restoration is occurring annually in the EU, whereas the restoration needs of Annex I habitats alone (i.e. assessments reported in ′not good′ condition) are estimated to concern an area of between 167,000 km2 to 263,000 km . As part of the implementation of Action 6, the EU published a Strategy on Green Infrastructure in 2013 . Few national green infrastructure strategies have been developed in response to the EU Green Infrastructure Strategy. However, significant development of Green Infrastructure is taking place in some Member States (Germany), and objectives or requirements related to green infrastructure are included in broader biodiversity and nature conservation policies and legislation. There is also evidence of implementation of local, national and transnational green infrastructure initiatives, if often only at a small-scale .

Progress to Target 3. Increase the contribution of agriculture and forestry to maintain and enhance biodiversity By 2020, maximise areas under agriculture across grasslands, arable land and permanent crops that are covered by biodiversity-related measures under the CAP so as to ensure the conservation of biodiversity and to bring about a measurable improvement(*) in the conservation status of species and habitats that depend on or are affected by agriculture and in the provision of ecosystem services as compared to the EU2010 Baseline, thus contributing to enhance sustainable management.

(*) Improvement is to be measured against the quantified enhancement targets for the conservation status of species and habitats of EU interest in Target 1 and the restoration of degraded ecosystems under target 2. Progress towards Target 3A has been limited. The available CAP Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF) indicators do not point to particular EU level improvements . Habitats and species related to agroecosystems, including populations of farmland birds and grassland butterflies, have continued to decline since 2010. These reductions are on top of earlier decreases. The common birds index shows a certain levelling of the rate of decline of common birds in more recent years. The EU's population of all common bird species is estimated to have declined by 4% but it is showing signs of recovery in recent years. This is particularly the case for common forest birds whose population is estimated to have increased by 9% between 2000 and 2019, whereas the population of common farmland birds is in decline (‑17% since 2000). Figure 4 Common bird index (EU aggregate). Source: Eurostat (2022) Figure 5 Grassland butterfly index (EU aggregate) . Source: EEA, BCE, Eurostat (2021) Evidence provided in the targeted consultations as well as individual studies in the Member States indicate significant declines in butterfly and farmland bird populations, loss of high nature value farmland as well as exceeded nitrogen loads in over half the area of sensitive ecosystems . The Commission’s report on the evaluation of the impacts of the CAP on biodiversity concluded that the extent of uptake and the biodiversity impact of CAP measures, in interaction with other biodiversity-related instruments, are highly dependent on Member States’ implementation choices and the priority given to measures to support biodiversity in agroecosystems, or to counteract negative impacts on biodiversity from agriculture.In conclusion, the Common Agricultural Policy has provided options for enhanced biodiversity support measures, in line with the action set out in the Strategy. Their uptake has depended on the choices made by the Member States and regions, and has been overall too low to achieve the quantified target 3A. For example, many Member States have settled for minimum standards under CAP Pillar I. Some of the most beneficial measures for biodiversity under Pillar II, such as Natura 2000 support, have been infrequently used . A special report of the European Court of Auditors concluded that the CAP support had not halted the decline of biodiversity on farmland, despite some instruments having the potential to achieve positive biodiversity outcomes . The Commission’s proposals for the future CAP took stock of the strengths and weaknesses of the CAP instruments and included an enhanced conditionality, advisory services, eco-schemes in Pillar I and Pillar II measures. Following the mid-term review of the Strategy in 2015, as part of its efforts to step up implementation and address identified gaps, the Commission published in 2018 a new EU Pollinators Initiative . The aim was to provide a coherent EU framework for actions to tackle the decline of wild pollinators. In 2021, the Commission published a report on the review of the initiative’s implementation . It showed good progress in the implementation of the actions, but also major challenges in tackling the drivers of pollinator decline, particularly habitat loss in farming landscapes and pesticides, as well as the growing importance of drivers such as climate change and environmental pollutants. The Commission will revise the Pollinators Initiative in the second half of 2022, in order to strengthen EU action to resolve the identified challenges. Target 3B Sustainable forestry By 2020, Forest Management Plans or equivalent instruments, in line with Sustainable Forest Management (SFM), are in place for all forests that are publicly owned and for forest holdings above a certain size** (to be defined by the Member States or regions and communicated in their Rural Development Programmes) that receive funding under the EU Rural Development Policy so as to bring about a measurable improvement(*) in the conservation status of species and habitats that depend on or are affected by forestry and in the provision of related ecosystem services as compared to the EU 2010 Baseline. (*) Improvement is to be measured against the quantified enhancement targets for the conservation status of species and habitats of EU interest in Target 1 and the restoration of degraded ecosystems under target 2. (**) For smaller forest holdings, Member States may provide additional incentives to encourage the adoption of Management Plans or equivalent instruments that are in line with SFM. Progress towards Target 3B has been limited. It is estimated that by 2020, 75% of Europe’s forests were covered by a management plan, while 25 out of the 30 countries reporting to Forest Europe have issued a national report on sustainable forest management (SFM) . The degree to which such SFMs include biodiversity measures with beneficial impacts is unknown at the EU level, with the most recent study indicating that biodiversity measures included in such plans are often deemed ‘unsatisfactory’ in relation to protecting forests and biodiversity from negative effects . Tree species diversity and forest area have been steadily increasing in the EU, while common forest bird species remain in stable conditions overall. Deadwood volumes are increasing but remain below desirable threshold levels for biodiversity. A significant majority of Annex 1 forest habitat assessments show ‘bad’ or ‘poor’ status in the EU (85%) . The area indicator shows that bad or poor condition is reported in 21.1% of the Annex 1 forest habitats‘ area , good condition is reported in nearly half of the area (49.5%), and in almost one-third of the area (29.4%), the condition is unknown . Defoliation rates show increasing trends, indicating poor tree health, which corresponds to an increase in various pressures on forest ecosystems . Since 2010, the following pressure indicators have shown a significant upward trend: tree cover loss; water scarcity; warming and extreme droughts (and subsequent impacts on forest productivity). A number of pathways such as conversion of natural forests to plantations, intensification of forest management or harvesting of stumps and roots are a major challenge which can exacerbate forest pressures and biodiversity impacts, including when woody biomass is used as a source of renewable energy . On the other hand, biodiversity-friendly practices such as afforestation and reforestation measures that respect ecological principles favourable to biodiversity, agroforestry and other forms of mixed farming can have a positive biodiversity impact.

The EU Forest Strategy (2013) aimed to ensure that all EU forests are managed according to sustainable forest management (SFM) principles by 2020, with objective, ambitious and demonstrable SFM criteria to be developed in cooperation with Member States and stakeholders. A 2018 progress report concluded that the Strategy had made significant progress towards its 2020 objectives, but that implementing the EU biodiversity objectives has remained a major challenge . The 2019 implementation progress assessment noted the lack of an overview of the status of forest management plans throughout Europe, as well as the lack of an analysis of the extent of biodiversity measures included in such plans . An analysis of the implementation challenges of Natura 2000 in forests concluded that the designation of protected areas in forests has met substantial policy challenges and management conflicts with sector stakeholders, and there is still a significant need to strengthen incentive-based conservation instruments for forest management for biodiversity, including compensation payments in Natura 2000 . The new EU Forest Strategy for 2030 took account of these findings and set out strengthened measures to protect and enhance forest ecosystems . CAP forestry measures are a key instrument to encourage mainstreaming of SFM in forest planning (being a funding prerequisite for forests above a certain size). However, an evaluation of the CAP forestry measures concluded that it was difficult to assess the support provided by the forest measures to forest management plans , due to the differences between Member States in their approach to such plans and the lack of information on implementation. Evidence is scarce on the biodiversity impacts of the CAP forest measures and the afforestation and agroforestry elements of the ecological focus areas in forest areas. These measures are infrequently used by Member States. EFA measures are only targeted at very few high biodiversity areas. Their likely impact may be locally significant but overall limited . The 2012 Prioritised Action Frameworks (PAF) of the Member States did not generally specify forest conservation measures beyond Natura 2000, which could inform CAP funding scheme requirements. Both a comparison of the 2014 PAFs and Rural Development Programmes (RDPs), and the evaluation of the CAP forest measures concluded that CAP forest measures are not widely used to improve forest biodiversity or are not clearly linked to the conservation of the habitat types and species of Community interest identified in the PAFs. Most of the Member States have programmed investments improving the resilience and environmental value of forest ecosystems, including some biodiversity support measures. Interviewed forest sector stakeholders have noted little evidence of payments for ecosystem services or other innovative mechanisms deployed at any significant scale (input from forest stakeholders from the targeted consultations in the Member States). Target 4 Ensure the sustainable use of fisheries resources 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. Target 4 has shown limited progress overall, however significant progress has been made in relation to fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic where 41% of assessed shellfish and commercial fish stocks have been brought within safe biological limits. The number of Total Allowable Catch (TAC) quotas set in line with the MSY has significantly increased in recent times, from 5 TACs in 2009 to 62 in 2020 . Multiannual Management Plans include fisheries measures for the conservation of certain species. Reference to the legal basis under the CFP allows the Member States to adopt measures for the conservation of habitats and species through regionalisation . Ambitious actions and emergency measures have shown success, e.g. in the recovery of the Northern hake and the Northern seabass. The latest data indicate a reduction in the overall exploitation rate and an increase in the biomass of stocks in the NE Atlantic in the period 2013-20. Nevertheless, many stocks remain overfished and/or outside safe biological limits. The objective of the CFP to ensure that all stocks are fished at or below FMSY in 2020 has not been achieved, due in particular to continued overfishing in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea , , where annual fishing mortality estimates are around twice FMSY for the entire time series (2013-2019) . The 2017 recast Data Collection Framework and the multiannual programme for the collection, management and use of data added a requirement on data to assess the impacts of EU fisheries on marine ecosystems in the EU and in non-EU waters (e.g. incidental bycatch of all birds, mammals and reptiles and fish protected under Union legislation and international agreements). Member States implemented pilot studies to test different methodologies, and this has become part of regular sampling programmes since 2022. This information feeds into the assessments and reporting under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund has supported investments in on-board equipment that limits or eliminates the physical and biological impacts of fishing on the ecosystem or the sea bed as well as catches of protected mammals and birds, eliminates discards and deals with unwanted catches to be landed. The new EU Technical Measures Regulation completed the framework for conservation measures outside Natura 2000 sites and other marine protected areas (MPA). The first report on its implementation noted that, only 2 years after the entry into force of the regulation, some Member States have already started to develop additional fisheries measures to protect sensitive species and habitats at both the national and regional levels. Targeted consultations of stakeholders in the Member States have also highlighted successful examples of technical and other innovations for sustainable fisheries with fewer discards, the closing of some marine Natura 2000 sites for damaging fishing gear or to avoid incidental catches of marine mammals. They have also reported on increasing engagement of fisheries stakeholders in biodiversity conservation efforts, in particular in the removal of marine litter and the recovery of lost fishing gear, reducing the risk of “ghost” fishing, ocean floor erosion and vectors of invasive alien species. However, bottom-disturbing fisheries, incidental catches of other species in fisheries and continued over-fishing of some fish stocks – including such shared with third countries - are identified as key challenges. They continue to severely impact some protected species such as the harbour porpoise, long-lived sturgeon, shark and ray species, benthic organisms and habitats (such as Posidonia seagrass meadows) (evidence from case studies in Spain, Italy, the Netherlands) . Target 4 also aims to support the achievement of Good Environmental Status (GES) as required under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). In 2020, the Commission concluded that despite data inconsistencies and missing reports from several Member States , evidence indicated that progress to reaching GES had not been enough . Difficulties in defining threshold values , inadequate alignment between MS programmes of measures and identified pressures were (inter alia) noted as hindrances to achieving GES . Nearly all of Europe’s marine area (93%) is under various pressures from human activities and there is hardly any part of this area that is not affected by at least two such pressures. Comprehensive data on EU level trends of seafloor integrity is currently lacking, with estimates that approximately 35% of the European shelf area has been disturbed by unsustainable fishing practices . Bottom trawling is a key pressure on the seafloor particularly within the demersal zone, although data indicates that such activities may be decreasing in some regions. Further pressures on the marine environment exist that are beyond the immediate scope of Target 4, such as other seafloor damaging activities e.g. related to the extraction of marine minerals, pollution, invasive alien species and underwater noise. These pressures are being exacerbated by the increasing impacts of climate change and the acidification on oceans. Marine litter is present in all marine ecosystems. The trends and impacts of marine underwater noise are largely unassessed currently, yet various measures under the MSFD are currently in place to assess and mitigate underwater noise emissions . Target 5 Combat invasive alien species By 2020, Invasive alien species (IAS) 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. Significant progress was made in implementing the actions under Target 5 with the adoption of the Regulation on Invasive Alien Species (IAS) in 2014 . A list of IAS of Union concern was adopted in 2016, and updated in 2017 and 2019, reaching a total of 66 species . Furthermore, revised Regulations on Plant Health and on Animal Health have also been introduced. By the date of this evaluation, most progress has related to processes and outputs. Full implementation of the IAS Regulation only began in July 2019, 36 months after the adoption of the first Union list. On 13 October 2021, the Commission published its report on the review of the application of the IAS Regulation , primarily based on reports submitted by the Member States for the period 2015-18. While it is premature to draw conclusions on most implementation aspects of the Regulation, the report already identified some significant achievements, including: ·Information on the IAS occurring in Europe is now centralised and more complete than ever. ·Mechanisms and platforms are in place to support reporting and early warning of new detections .

·Most Member States have set up a surveillance system and carry out official controls for IAS on the Union List. ·There are indications that restrictions (e.g. removal of species from trade), early detection, rapid eradication and management of spread species deliver benefits. ·The number of early-detection notifications and of management measures taken indicates that the listed IAS of Union concern are relevant to most Member States. ·The IAS Regulation has led to increased awareness of the problem of invasive alien species, including among the general public. ·Most Member States have identified priority pathways relevant to them. Due to different methodologies, the identified pathways vary substantially. Two pathways were prioritised by most Member States: ‘Escape from confinement: escape of pet, aquarium and terrarium species’ and ‘Escape from confinement: horticulture’. The Regulation has encouraged coordinated action between countries , , while the European Alien Species Information Network (EASIN) has facilitated access to harmonised scientific information and on the distribution of around 14 000 alien species throughout Europe , leading to increased knowledge sharing and citizen involvement , , . At the same time, the review of the application of the IAS Regulation identified challenges encountered by the Member States, including: ·Continuing increase in newly introduced alien species many of which are likely to become invasive. ·Species can only be added to the Union list once sufficient evidence is available, and this may be hindered by their economic considerations, reducing the impact of the IAS Regulation. ·Listing species not yet present in the EU has a strong preventive effect but evidence necessary to complete a risk assessment is lacking, combined with uncertainties about the dynamics of biological communities and the effects of climate change. ·There is scope for improvement of the coverage of surveillance systems and official control structures in many Member States. ·There are knowledge gaps related to the implications of climate change and to novel methods for IAS management, in particular at pathway level. ·Uncertainty over the exact limits between the native and alien range of some species in the EU is a major obstacle to regional cooperation. Despite clear progress in implementing the actions of the Strategy, IAS continue to exert significant pressure on EU biodiversity and ecosystems, both terrestrial and aquatic . IAS of Union concern impact Atlantic and Continental regions disproportionately, but high potential impacts occur across all ecosystems and biogeographic regions. Implementation has started in all Member States, but Target 5 has not been achieved by the Target date 2020. Target 6 Help avert global biodiversity loss By 2020, the EU has stepped up its contribution to averting global biodiversity loss.

Progress to Target 6 has been limited. Biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services are deteriorating worldwide, as evidenced by the IPBES Global assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services. The natural capital stock per person worldwide is estimated to have declined by 40% between 1992-14, with global biodiversity decline occurring faster now than at any time in human history . The EU's (EU27+ UK) ecological footprint per person has been steadily falling since 2010, but this is largely due to a reduction in the carbon footprint. The EU still remains in a significant ecological deficit compared to its biocapacity, with over-extraction of resources within the EU or in other regions through the import and export of goods, or through the exploitation of global commons . Figure 6. EU-27 + UK Ecological footprint, biocapacity and ecological deficit per person Source: EEA (2020) SEBI Indicator Assessment- Ecological footprint of European countries. Note: Black line= ecological footprint per person; red line= biocapacity per person; pink area= deficit Positive developments are noted in relation to some of the actions set out under Target 6. International financial flows from the EU and its Member States for global biodiversity have been significant since the Strategy was published. The Hyderabad commitment to double financial resources for biodiversity to developing countries was achieved or exceeded by a number of Member States. The Bonn Challenge launched in 2011 mobilised national commitments to restore 150 million ha of degraded forests globally by 2020. However, limited progress has been made on identifying and eliminating subsidies that are harmful for biodiversity. Several Member States have published studies, reviews and catalogues of such subsidies, but initiatives to reduce or eliminate them are at an early stage of development. The EU has taken measures to tackle illegal trade, for example in timber as part of the implementation of the FLEGT Action Plan, and in wildlife as part of the EU Action plan against wildlife trafficking. Biodiversity-related provisions have been systematically included in the Trade and Sustainable Development chapters of EU trade agreements. However, detailed assessment of the biodiversity impacts of trade – and the monitoring and enforcement of these (non-binding) provisions – remain a challenge. There is evidence of limited progress in developing market signals to avert biodiversity loss , while comprehensive indicators and robust methods to substantiate trade impacts on biodiversity are still lacking . EU external action has supported the implementation of the global Strategic Framework for Biodiversity 2011-2020, but it has not been able to curb global biodiversity loss which continues at unprecedented rate. There is a clear need to reinforce an integrated approach to biodiversity and development cooperation in the EU’s external action, better connecting biodiversity targets with the SDGs, and ensuring coherence with internal EU policy developments. 5.1.2Major achievements and challenges, and underlying factors ·Evaluation question 2: “What have been success factors and have successful approaches been shared and replicated?” ·Evaluation Question 3: “What have been possible gaps or challenges that have hindered progress towards the targets?” ·Evaluation question 4: “To what extent have stakeholders been actively engaged in the strategy’s implementation and how have they been affected?” Overall response: Despite limited progress to the Headline Target, the implementation of the Strategy has been associated with a range of positive achievements and impacts, such as improvements in knowledge, successful local protection and restoration, increased biodiversity support opportunities in key EU policy instruments, as well as the adoption of a legal instrument to combat invasive alien species. A range of factors that can enable or hinder progress have also been identified, such as in relation to funding, coherence of objectives and the mainstreaming of biodiv