EN    EN  
 EUROPEAN  
COMMISSION 
Brussels, 20.5.2015  
COM(2015) 219 final 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO  THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 
The State of Nature in the European Union 
Report on the status of and trends for habitat types and species covered by the Birds 
and Habitats Directives for the 2007-2012 period 
as required under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive and Article 12 of the Birds 
Directive   
 
2 1. I NTRODUCTION  
1.1.  BACKGROUND  
Europeans live in one of the most densely populated regions of the world that has a long 
history of land use. This has had a profound im pact on nature, resulting in the creation of 
diverse cultural landscapes that are home to a rich fauna and flora. However, developments, 
particularly during the 20th centu ry, have also resulted in the large-scale destruction of 
nature. Between 1900 and the mid-1980s Europe ha d already lost two thirds of its wetlands1, 
and almost three-quarters of its sand dunes and heaths, through a combination of land-use 
change, infrastructure developments, pollution and urban expansion. 
This loss of natural capital is a major con cern. We depend on nature for the food, energy, raw 
materials, air and water that make life possibl e. In addition, nature is a central economic 
driver, contributing to our economy in ways that  we are only just star ting to fully comprehend  
and providing services th at are crucial for sustaining and crea ting jobs and growth. It is also a 
source of inspiration, knowledge a nd recreation, and an integral pa rt of our cultural heritage. 
The Birds2 and the Habitats3 Directives are the main legisl ative instruments for ensuring 
conservation and the sustainable use of nature  in the EU, particularly through the Natura 
2000 network of areas of high biodiversity value. The directives are key elements of the EU 
Biodiversity Strategy, which aims to ach ieve the EU headline target of ‘ halting the loss of 
biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem se rvices in the EU by  2020 and restoring them 
in so far as feasible’.  They are also central to delivering EU global commitments under the 
Convention on Biological Diversity, c oncluded in Nagoya in October 2010. 
1.2.  WHY THIS REPORT ? 
Good quality knowledge on the status of and trends  for habitats and species protected by the 
directives underpins the effective implementation of the directives. This report fulfils a legal 
requirement for the Commission to periodica lly assess progress in implementing the 
directives on the basis of monito ring and reporting by Member States. 
This report describes the key results for the 2007-12 reporting period, and represents an 
unprecedented level of collaboration between th e Member States and European institutions. 
A unique database4 on EU nature, which includes over 17  000 data-sets and assessments of 
individual species and habitats, forms the basis for this report. It contains information on the 
status of about 450 wild bird specie s, 231 habitat types and more than 1  200 other species of 
Community interest. While this is only one component of the ex tent of biodiversity in the 
EU, it is a very important sample, reflecting the threats and pressure s facing biodiversity 
across the Member States. 
Thanks to more streamlined reporting, it is pos sible for the first time to present and assess 
results under both directives togeth er, as well as taki ng a closer look at the contribution of 
Natura 2000 to the status of, and trends for,  nature. This report is a short summary of 
                                                            
1 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Eur opean Parliament ‘Wise use and conservation of wetlands’ - 
COM(1995) 189 final, 29.05.1995.  
2 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of th e Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds. 
3 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. 
4 Downloadable from the EEA’s Biodi versity Data Centre (http://www.eea .europa.eu/themes/biodiversity/dc) 
 
3 comprehensive and detailed information, and bui lds on the extensive analyses carried out by 
the European Environmental Agency (EEA)5, which also provides further methodological 
details.  
The results of this assessment will provide vital insight and knowledge to underpin any 
further actions needed to achieve the objectives  of the Birds and Habitats Directives and 
optimise their contribution to realising the obj ectives of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 
2020. 
It is important to note that, when looking at how the status of certain habitats and species has 
changed, most were already in a critical state wh en listed in the directives, which implied that 
considerable time and effort would be necessary  to ensure their recovery. There are also 
limitations due to a time-series of only two re porting periods under the Habitats Directive. 
 
2. S TATUS ASSESSMENTS — HOW THEY ARE DONE  
2.1. A SSESSING THE CONSERVATION STATUS OF HABITATS AND SPECIES (HABITATS DIRECTIVE ) 
Measures taken under the Ha bitats Directive aim ‘ to maintain or restore, at favourable 
conservation status, natural habitats and sp ecies of wild fauna and flora of Community 
interest’.  The directive defines the term ‘conservati on status’ according to several parameters: 
range, population, habitat area, suitable habita t for species, structure and functions of 
habitats, and future prospects. These form the basis for data collecti on. For each habitat and 
species, each of these paramete rs is assessed as favourable,6 inadequate7 or bad8 (or unknown) 
according to an agreed evaluation matrix, leading to an overall conservation status 
assessment in 4 classes. For habitats and species with an unfavourable status, 4 types of status 
trends have been identified (Table 1).  
 
Conservation Status Class Colour   Conservation Status Trend 
(period 2007-2012)   Colour 
Favourable   Improving  
Unfavourable - inadequate   Stable  
Unfavourable - bad   Deteriorating  
Unknown   Unknown  
Table 1 — Colour codes for conservation stat us classes & trends for habitats and species  
 
To allow for meaningful comparison between Me mber States, Europe is divided into nine 
biogeographic terrestrial and five  marine regions sharing sim ilar ecological conditions (Map 
1). Member States, whose terr itory involves more than one biogeographical region, have 
                                                            
5 EEA report No 2/2015 — State of nature in the EU: Re sults from reporting under the nature directives 2007-2012. 
6 A habitat type or species is prospering (in both quality and qua ntity) and has good prospects to do so in the future as well. 
7 A change in management is required to return the habitat type  or species to favourable status but there is no danger of extinc tion in the 
foreseeable future. 
8 The status of a habitat type or species is far from good or even in serious danger of becoming extinct (at least regionally).  
 
4 submitted a separate assessment for each biogeographic region for each species and habitat 
type occurring in their territory. 
 
 
Map 1 — EU27 biogeographic and marine regions for the 2007-12 reporting period9 
 
In addition to the assessments made by Member States, data have been aggregated and 
assessed at EU biogeographic le vel by the EEA and its European  Topic Centre on Biological 
Diversity (ETC-BD). 
 
2.2. A SSESSING THE POPULATION STATUS OF AND TRENDS FOR BIRD SPECIES (BIRDS DIRECTIVE ) 
With respect to the Birds Directive, which aims to protect all species of naturally occurring 
wild birds in the EU, Member States have fo r the first time provided data on population size 
and trends in their national territory. The population status wa s assessed at EU level only. 
The status classes used for birds are based on th e scientific criteria developed to determine 
risks of extinction that were used to estab lish Species Red Lists by the International Union 
for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). For th e population trend of non-secure species that 
refers to the period 2001-201210, 4 types of population trends have been identified (Table 2). 
                                                            
9 The report refers to EU27 as it relates to the time before the accession of Croatia  
10 A 12 year trend period was agreed with Member States as 6 year s would be too short a period to detect meaningful population tr ends. 
 
5  
EU Population Status Class Colour  Population Trend11 Colour 
Secure   Increasing  
Near threatened, dec lining or depleted   Stable  
 Fluctuating  Threatened (i.e. vulnerable, 
endangered, critically endangered, regionally extinct)   Declining  
Unknown or not evaluated   Unknown  
Table 2 — Colour codes for EU-population status  classes & population trends for bird species 
 
2.3.  USING TRENDS  
The EU-level analysis is based on an aggregation of data submitted by Member States. This 
means that many positive developments achieved on a local, regional or even national level 
may no longer be visible on this larger scale. Also, a change from one 
conservation/population status cla ss to the next requires a significant change in one or more 
of the individual parameters/criteria, which is di fficult to achieve over a period as short as six 
years. As a result, changes over time (either improvements or deteriorations) that are not 
strong enough to trigger a chan ge from one status class to another may go unnoticed if only 
the actual status information is  displayed. For this reason, in a ddition to status information, 
the report provides information on the conservati on status trends for the Habitats Directive 
features over the period 2007 to  2012 and on the population trends  for birds over the period 
2001 to 2012. In section 6 on Natura 2000 also l ong-term population trends for birds (1980-
2012) are presented.  
3. C ONSERVATION STATUS AND TRENDS  
3.1.  DATA COMPLETENESS AND QUALITY  
There has been a major improvement in the av ailability, quality and standardisation of 
information under the Habitats Directive si nce the last reporting period. The number of 
‘unknown ’ EU-level assessments has been halved (from 18  % to 7  % for habitats and from 
31 % to 17  % for non-bird species). Knowledge of bird populations and trends has also 
significantly improved over the past decade, a llowing for much better and more targeted 
conservation action. 
However, the level of conformity  and the quality of data in na tional reports va ries and could 
be improved still further through targeted mo nitoring programmes. Marine habitats and 
species remain the least known and their moni toring requires significant additional effort. 
Ensuring greater coherence in this area with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive should 
improve this situation. 
                                                            
11 Short-term trend period: 2001- 2012, long-term period: 1980-2012 
 
6 3.2.  ALL BIRD SPECIES  
The status of more than half  of all the wild bird species  assessed is secure. About 15  % are 
near threatened, declining or depleted and another 17  % of the species are threatened (Figure 
1). The short-term population trends of the bird species indicate that only 4  % are non-secure 
but increasing, while 6  % are non-secure and stable, and further 20  % are non-secure and 
decreasing (Figure 2). 
 
 
Figure 1 — Bird population status  Figure 2 — Bird population status with short-
term population trends added for non-secure birds  
 
Some bird species appear to be benefiting fro m targeted conservation measures aimed at 
adapting land-use practices, especially in Natu ra 2000 sites. For instance, agri-environmental 
and land management programmes successfully implemented in Spain, Portugal, Austria, 
Hungary and Germany have helped th e recovery of the Great Bustard Otis tarda, a species 
dependent on open landscapes (grassland, steppes and undisturbed cultivated areas), which is 
declining elsewhere in Europe.  Despite suffering a marked popul ation decline in some EU 
countries,  the White-backed Woodpecker Dendrocopos leucotos,  which is heavily dependent 
on old and dead deciduous trees, has increase d in Finland, where it  has benefited from 
changing forest management practices in Natura  2000 sites. Several spec ies of birds of prey, 
including the Carpathian Basin populat ions of the Eastern Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca , 
have increased as a result of measures, such  as protection of nesting sites and habitat 
management. 
 

 
7 3.3. SPECIES OF COMMUNITY INTEREST (HABITATS DIRECTIVE ) 
About 23  % of EU-level species assessments indicate a favourable status, while 60  % are 
unfavourable, of which 18  % are unfavourable-bad. In relation to status trends the 60% of 
assessments recorded as unfavourable are composed of 4  % that are improving, 20  % that are 
stable, 22  % that are dete riorating and 14  % without a known trend (Figures 3 and 4). 
 
 
Figure 3 — Conservation status of species Figure 4 — Conservation status of species with 
trends for those assessed as unfavourable  
 
The highest proportions of favourable assessmen ts for the terrestrial biogeographic regions 
were reported for the Black Sea (32  %) and Alpine regions (31  %), while the Boreal and 
Atlantic regions show the highest propor tion of unfavourable-bad assessments (29  % and 
32 % respectively). Although there is  a smaller number of species assessments in the marine 
regions, the proportion of unknown assessments  is much higher for these (up to 88  % in the 
Macaronesian region). The Baltic Sea region shows the worst status, with 60  % of the 
assessments being unfavourable-bad, followed by the Black Sea Region (33  %). 
Vascular plants and amphibians show the highe st level of favourable assessments with 29  % 
and 28  % respectively (Figure 5). Many of the bad status/deteriorating trends are found in 
species associated with aquatic environments such as rivers, lakes and wetlands. This 
corresponds with the finding that freshwater habi tats mostly have an unfavourable-inadequate 
conservation status. They are being threat ened by human-induced changes to hydrologic 

 
8 functioning, loss of connectivit y, canalisation, removal of se diment, and eutrophication and 
pollution. 
Many species associated with freshwater habitats , such as migratory fi sh, are declining to a 
worrying extent. Yet large-scale partnership projects for migrator y fish, such as for the Asp  
Aspius aspius  in Sweden and the Allis Shad  Alosa alosa  in Germany, have succeeded in 
strengthening populations by restoring wate r courses and removing migration barriers 
through the construction of fish-p asses. In Austria, dismantling obstacles to fish migration in 
the Upper Danube River has improved migr ation opportunities for the Danube Salmon Hucho 
hucho  and other endangered fish species.  
 
 
Figure 5 — Conservation status of and trends for species per taxonomic group  
 
 
3.4.  HABITAT TYPES  
The conservation status of and tr ends for habitats are worse than for species. This is probably 
due to a more established tradition of conser vation action for species, and the less complex 
nature and shorter response time for sp ecies to recover. Across the EU, 16  % of habitat-
assessments are favourable, while more than three quarters are unfavourable, of which 30  % 
are unfavourable-bad. In relati on to status trends, the 77  % assessed as unfavourable are 
composed of 4  % that show improvement, 33  % that are stable, 30  % that indicate further 
deteriorations and 10  % with an unknown tre nd (Figures 6 and 7). 
 

 
9   
Figure 6 — Conservation status of habitats  Figure 7 — Conservation status of & trends 
for habitats in unfavourable status  
 
While the Atlantic and Boreal biogeographi c regions show the highest proportion of 
unfavourable-bad assessments (both 51  %), these two regions also have the highest 
proportion of improving situations (11  % and 10  % respectively). For example, while the 
status of coastal lagoons is sti ll unfavourable-bad in the Atlant ic region of Denmark, targeted 
action under LIFE projects and agri-environmen tal schemes has helped to restore some 
coastal lagoons and surrounding coastal meadows. In  Latvia, part of the Boreal region, there 
has been an expansion of, and overall positive trend for, dry sand heaths. These are mostly 
protected in Natura 2000 and have benefi ted from LIFE projects and an innovative 
partnership with the managers of military tr aining sites. The successful restoration of 
Mediterranean salt meadows in Slovenia, by en suring traditional activities in saltpans and 
other management measures, has led to an impr ovement in the conservation status of this 
habitat type. 
 3.5.
 PROGRESS TOWARDS TARGET 1 OF THE BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY  
The primary aim of the EU Biodiversity Strategy  is to halt the loss of biodiversity and the 
degradation of ecosystem servi ces in the EU by 2020 and restore them in so far as feasible. 
Target 1 of the Strategy sets measurable go als for improving the conservation status of 
habitats and species protected by the nature directives. Using the 2009 report drawn up under 
the Habitats Directive and the ‘Birds in the EU’ status assessment of 200412 as benchmarks, 
the following goals were set: 
                                                            
12 BirdLife International (2004) Birds in the European Union: a st atus assessment. Wageningen, The Netherlands: BirdLife Internati onal. 

 
10 • 100  % more habitat assessments (34  %) and 50  % more species assessments (25,5  %) 
under the Habitats Directive in a favourable  or improved conservation status; and  
• 50 % more species assessments (78  %) under the Birds Directiv e with a secure or 
improved status.  
These targets were based on an optimal but achievable scenario that assumed full 
implementation by Member States of measures under the directives to improve conservation 
status. 
Figure 8 illustrates progress toward achieving the set targets. However, in comparing the 
assessments for different periods, it is essential to ensure as fa r as possible that the changes 
observed are genuine and not simp ly a product of better data  availability or different 
methodology13. The key points are: 
• There has been no significant change in stat us for habitat types so far. Assessments 
previously determined as favourable remain  so. No additional habitats  achieved 
favourable conservation status (16  %). 4  % are now assessed as unfavourable but 
improving,  30 % are still deteriorating and 42  % have not changed since 200614. 
• The changes between the reporting periods for species are harder to assess. Improvements 
in data and methodology have significantly influenced the assessments in addition to any 
real changes in status itself. If th is is factored in, it appears that 22  % of species, rather 
than 17  %, are likely to have had a favourable st atus in 2007.. Taking this into account, it 
can be concluded that the actual improvement  in favourable assessments for species has 
been very small (1-2  % more than in 2007). Figure 8 therefore also shows a ‘backcast’ 
target — showing what the real target woul d have been had these species been assessed 
as favourable in 2007. When consid ering all species assessments, 5  % are unfavourable 
but improving, 22  % are still deteriorating and 33  % have not changed since 2006. 
• The proportion of bird species assessments  with a ‘secure’ status remains 52  % (as in 
2004). When considering all bird assessments, 8.5  % are non-secure but increasing, 2  % 
are non-secure and stable and 20  % show further declines. 
The overall trend for habitats appears to be br oadly similar to the one for species. Those that 
are already favourable/secure remain stable or  are improving further. A small proportion of 
unfavourable/non-secure assessments is im proving, but a larger proportion of those 
previously determined as unfavourable continues to deteriorate. Unless there is a significant 
improvement in trends it will not be possible to achieve target 1 by 2020.  
                                                            
13 See the EEA report No 2/2015 — State of nature in the EU: Re sults from reporting under the nature directives 2007-2012 for more  
details. 
14 Including those that remained ‘unknown’  
 
11  
Figure 8 — Progress towards Target 1 of the Biodiversity Strategy (‘unknown’ situations are not shown) 
 
4.  P RESSURES AND THREATS  
To understand better the factor s influencing status and tre nds, Member States provided 
structured information on pressures and threats,15 i.e. the underlying causes impacting on 
species and habitats. For terrestrial systems (Figure 9), ‘agriculture’  and human-induced  
‘modifications of natural conditions’  are the greatest problems identified for all three groups 
(birds, other species and habitats). As regards ‘ agriculture ’, the modification of cultivation 
practices, grazing by livestock (including the abandonment of pastoral systems/lack of 
grazing), fertilisation and pestic ides are the most frequently me ntioned pressures and threats. 
In relation to ‘ modifications of natural conditions ’, human-induced changes in hydrological 
and water-body conditions, modification of hy drographic functioning, reduction of habitat 
connectivity and water abstraction from groundwater are the most frequently  reported factors. 
This assessment is consistent with that done under the Water Framework Directive, where 
                                                            
15  Member States had to rank each reported threat/pressure in  terms of its significance as ‘high’, ‘medium’ or ‘low’. 

 
12 agriculture and hydromorphology we re identified as the main pressures affecting water 
bodies.16  
 
Figure 9 — Frequency (%) of high ranked level 1 pressures and threats (together) — 
Terrestrial 
 
As regards marine systems, ‘ use of living resources ’ (primarily fishing and harvesting of 
aquatic resources but also — to a lesser extent — aquaculture) and ‘ pollution ’ are the main 
reported pressures and threats (Figure 10). 
‘Modification of nat ural conditions’ (dredging, modification of hydrologic regime and 
coastline management) and ‘ disturbances due to human activities ’ as well as the impact of 
climate change on marine birds ar e also reported as significant. 
 
                                                            
16  See Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Water Resources CO M(2012) 673 and Commission Communi cation on the Water Framework 
Directive and the Floods Directive: Actions towards the ‘good status’ of EU water and to reduce flood risks COM(2015) 120. 

 
13  
 
Figure 10 — Frequency (%) of high ranked level 1 pressures and threats (together) — Marine  
 
5. A N ECOSYSTEM PERSPECTIVE  
An analysis of the conservation status of and trends for habitats and species has been made 
according to their affinity to the ecosystems  listed in the typology developed under the EU 
‘Mapping & Assessment of Ecosystems a nd their Services’ (MAES) initiative17. Figure 11 
shows the conservation status a nd trends of habitats and species by type of ecosystem. 
 
5.1. T ERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS  
The conservation status of and trends for hab itats and species vary considerably between 
terrestrial ecosystems. Grassla nds and wetlands have the highest proportion of habitats with 
an unfavourable-bad and deteri orating status. This is also  supported by the findings on 
pressures and threats, which have  highlighted that these systems are particularly affected by 
agriculture and hydrol ogical changes. 
 
 
                                                            
17 http://biodiversity.europa.eu/maes   

 
14  
 
 
Figure 11 — Conservations status (CS) of and t rends for habitats per ecosystem type (MAES) 
(Number of assessments in brackets)  
 
Whereas the situation relating to these two ecosystems is unfavourable across all 
biogeographic regions, case studies show that improvement is possib le if appropriate, 
targeted measures are taken. 
• Grasslands 
Natural and semi-natural grasslands are among the most species-rich ecosystems in the EU. 
Formerly characterised by extensive management systems, they have undergone a major 
decline in area in recent decades. About 49  % of EU assessments for the 45 grassland habitat 
types of Community interest are unf avourable-bad. Moreover, almost 50  % of grassland-
related birds are declining and the conserva tion status of other species is mostly 
unfavourable. 
The current pressures on grasslands include inte nsification of use, uns ympathetic cultivation 
practices, conversion to other land-use and abandonment. In Lithuania, two thirds of 
evaluations of grassland habitat types show de teriorating trends, while all of those in the 
United Kingdom have an unfavourable-bad c onservation status. Likewise, widespread 
grassland-dependent birds such as the Corncrake Crex crex  and Lapwing Vanellus vanellus  
are in major decline in the EU. 

 
15 Nonetheless, where appropriate EU and national m easures have been put in place, it has been 
possible to reverse negative trends. In Estoni a for instance, large areas of semi-natural 
grasslands have been restor ed with EU support under the Eu ropean Agricultural Fund for 
Rural Development, the European Regional Development Fund and the LIFE instrument. 
This has made the adaptation of mowing prac tices on existing meadow s possible as well as 
the re-establishment of exte nsive management measures fo r abandoned meadows. Initially 
piloted in Natura 2000 sites, this has been applied more widely to the sustainable 
management of meadows. 
• Wetlands 
Wetlands, including mires, bogs and fens, are among the most threatened ecosystems in 
Europe, having been subject to major losses in  recent decades. While they only comprise 
about 2  % of the EU’s territory, and 4.3  % of the Natura 2000 area, they are highly important 
for a wide variety of species. Most wetla nd habitat types are protected in the EU.  
The conservation status assessments show that 51  % of habitats relate d to wetlands have 
unfavourable bad status. Human-induced change s in hydrology (such as drainage) are by far 
the most significant pressure. In Ireland for in stance, all ‘bogs, mires and fens’ habitat types 
have an unfavourable conserva tion status and bogs continue to deteriorate due to peat 
extraction and drainage. As a consequence of la rge-scale wetland deterioration across the EU, 
populations of some species th at are highly dependent on we tlands, such as the Eurasian 
Curlew Numenius arquata or the European Fire-bellied Toad Bombina bombina , are 
declining.  However, these trends can be reverse d. In Belgium for instance, nearly all 
evaluations of types of wetland ha bitats show a stable or impr oving trend thanks to numerous 
large-scale projects and continuous efforts in Natura 2000 sites. 
Wetland-dependent species such as the Bittern Botaurus stellaris  have shown significant 
recovery of populations when subj ect to conservation measures targ eted at their habitats. This 
has also been the case in the United Kingdo m, with support from the LIFE programme. 
 
5.2. M ARINE ECOSYSTEMS  
Conservation status and trends  also vary considerably for marine ecosystems (Figure 11). 
However, due to the comparatively low number of marine features covered by the Habitats 
Directive and the high leve l of ‘unknowns’, the results are less conclusive. 
61 % of bird species associated with marine ecosystems are secure. About one quarter is 
threatened, underlining the impact of threats su ch as predation and disturbance at colonies, 
fisheries by-catch and marine pollution. 
Due to the complexity of working in the marine  environment and the rela tive lack of data, the 
protection of marine featur es and establishing the Natura 2000 network (particularly 
offshore) have made less progress. Measures aimed at better and more sensitive management 
of sites and prohibiting damaging activities can, however, translate into rapid improvements. 
In Ireland for example, the recent positive tre nd in conservation status of the alga Maerl 
Lithothamnium coralloides  is linked to the protection regime of the Habitats Directive. Some 
threatened seabirds have also benefited from conservation measures in the Natura network: 
 
16 The Roseate Tern Sterna dougalli  population has significantly in creased in the EU thanks to 
the protection and management of breeding si tes, including the cont rol of predators. 
 
6.  THE ROLE OF NATURA 2000 
The Natura 2000 network, comprising Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the Birds 
Directive and Special Areas of Conservation18 (SACs) under the Habita ts Directive, embraces 
areas of high biodiversity value.  It now covers more than 18  % of the EU’s land and 4  % of 
Europe’s seas. It is the main instrument of the nature directives for creating a 
good/favourable status for species and habitats. In the current reporting period, the number of 
sites increased by 9.3  % (SACs) and 12.1  % (SPAs), while the area covered by the network 
increased by 41.2  % (SACs) and 28.9  % (SPAs). Most of these increases relate to Bulgaria 
and Romania joining the EU in 2007, and to  the marine component of the network. 
While there has also been impor tant progress in designating SACs by some Member States 
and further work on management plans, the full potential of the network has still to be realised. This is because the necessary conserva tion measures for the sites have not yet been 
fully introduced, e.g. only 50
 % of sites were reported as having comprehensive management 
plans. It also appears that investment has been  insufficient to achieve this objective in some 
Member States19 and that the opportunities offe red by, for example, the Common 
Agricultural Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy and the EU Regional Policy have not been 
fully realised.  
6.1.
 CONTRIBUTION OF THE NETWORK TO CONSERVATION STATUS (HABITATS DIRECTIVE ) 
The network covers, to a varying degree, the ha bitat types listed in Annex I and species listed 
in Annex II of the directive, for which SACs are designated. In  order to correlate Natura 2000 
coverage with status and tre nds, assessments have been divi ded into three groups based on 
the extent to which the habitat types and spec ies are represented in Natura 2000, i.e. cover 
above 75  % (high), 35-75  % (medium) and below 35  % (low) (see Figure 12). 
 
                                                            
18  Sites under the Habitats Directive are proposed by the Member  States and initially known as ‘Sites of Community Importance’ ( SCIs) 
before being formally desi gnated as SACs — data in this report refer to both. 
19  Financing Natura 2000 — Investing in Na tura 2000: Delivering benefits for nature and people, SEC(2011) 1573 final, 12.12.2011 . 
 
17  
 
 Figure 12 — Trends in the conservation status of Annex I habitats assessed by MS as 
unfavourable (for habitats with more than 75
 %, 35-75  % and less than 35  % of their area 
covered by Natura 2000) 
 
The overall conservation status of habitats a nd species cannot be attr ibuted to Natura 2000 
coverage. However, for both habitats and spec ies with unfavourable status, the trend in 
conservation status20 is closely associated with Na tura 2000 coverage. The proportion of 
assessments with a deteriorating status is higher in situations of low coverage (0-35  %) than 
where there is high (75-100  %) coverage. By contrast, those with relatively higher Natura 
2000 cover are more likely to show stable assessments. This underl ines the crucia l role of the 
network in stabilising conservation status. 
An interesting example can be found in Poland, where 80-90  % of the threatened calcareous 
grassland habitat type 6210 is covered by the network. This ha bitat was often abandoned or 
poorly managed in the past. It ha s recently witnessed an  improvement in status thanks to the 
implementation of conservation measures in Na tura 2000 sites that included removing shrubs, 
mowing and in some cases extensive grazing. Th ese actions, largely funded by the European 
Regional Development Fund, have led to a gradua l increase in the area of this grassland 
habitat as well as reduced fragmentation. This in  turn has helped the recovery of the endemic 
spotted souslik Spermophilus suslicus , the population of which is almost entirely located in 
Natura 2000 sites . It is a clear example of how human activities, also with an economic 
purpose, if implemented sustainably can be bene ficial for the conservation of habitats and 
species.  
 
6.2.  TRENDS FOR SPECIES DEPENDENT ON THE SPA  NETWORK (BIRDS DIRECTIVE ) 
A higher proportion of Annex I bird species, wh ich have the designatio n of SPAs as a key 
measure, show increasing breeding population tre nds (Figure 13) compared with species that 
are not included in this Annex. This suggests that targeted conservation action for these 
                                                            
20 and also short-term population trend for species. 

 
18 species, in particular the management of  SPAs, is having a positive effect on their 
populations. Annex I species and subspecies for which EU Species Action Plans had been 
developed, and which have priority for fundi ng under the LIFE programme, show an even 
higher proportion of increasing population trends. 
Approximately 35  % of Annex I species that have been  decreasing over the long term show 
increasing or stable trends in the short-term. Th is is clearly a sign of stabilisation and in some 
cases of improvement in their status. However, 45  % of those that are declining in the long 
term are also declining in the short term, sugges ting that considerable a ttention and effort is 
still required to reverse these declines. 
 
 
 
Figure 13 — Long-term (since 1980) breeding population trend (%) by Annex 
 
The Eurasian Crane Grus grus , an emblematic Annex I specie s, whose breeding, roosting and 
wintering areas receive special protection from Natura 2000, and which has been subject to 
many targeted conservation actions, has experienced a remarkable recovery in numbers and range since the Birds Direc tive entered into force at the beginning of the 1980s. 
 
7. C
ONCLUSIONS  
This is the second conservation status assessm ent under the Habitats Di rective, enabling the 
first comparative EU level assessment to be made. An added advantage is that significant 
improvements have been made in the knowledge on the status of and trends for protected 
species and habitats since the last reporti ng period. Moreover, there has been a similar 

 
19 reporting exercise under the Bird s Directive, enabling a compre hensive status and trends 
assessment of all species covere d by EU nature legislation to  be made for the first time. 
Some species and habitats covered by the legi slation are showing signs of recovery, as 
illustrated by success stories in different parts of  Europe. There are clear indications that the 
Natura 2000 network is playing a major role in stabilising ha bitats and species with an 
unfavourable status, especially  where the necessary conser vation measures have been 
implemented on an adequate scale. 
However, the overall status of species and habita ts in the EU has not changed significantly in 
the period 2007-2012, with many habitats and speci es showing an unfavourable status and a 
significant proportion of them deteriorating stil l further. Much stronge r conservation efforts 
are therefore needed to achieve the EU 2020  biodiversity Target 1. Some species groups, 
such as freshwater fish and habitats such as grasslands or wetlands, ar e of particular concern. 
Significant pressures and threats from changes in agricultural practices and continuing 
changes in hydrological conditions, as well as over-exploitation and pollution of the marine 
environment, need to be tack led to reverse these trends. 
The effective management and restoration of the Natura 2000 areas is cen tral to achieving the 
objectives of the directives. Despite progress in establishing the network, insufficient 
progress has been made in introducing cons ervation objectives and measures that fully 
respond to the needs of the protected habitats and species. Only 50  % of sites were reported as 
having comprehensive management plans by end 2012. EU funding instruments, which 
provide opportunities to support the management and restorati on of Natura 2000, were not 
sufficiently used21. 
The conservation status of species and habitats  can be improved through targeted action, as 
has been demonstrated, for example, by the LIFE Nature programme and by tailored agri-
environmental actions co-funded by the European  Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. 
The Commission is working with Member States and stakeholde rs at EU biogeographic level 
to promote the exchange of experience and goo d practice on management and restoration. 
Such improvements will continue to reap si gnificant economic benefits from the extensive 
ecosystem services provided by the Natura 2000 Network. Benefits, estimated at between 
€ 200-300 billion for terrestrial sites alone, incl ude carbon storage, mitigation of natural 
hazards, water purification, health and tourism22. These should continue to encourage further 
investment in the network.  
In the framework of REFIT (the Commissi on’s Regulatory Fitness and Performance 
programme), the Commission recently initiated a ‘fitness check’ of the na ture directives to 
assess whether these directives ar e fit for purpose. The fitness ch eck will look at a wide range 
of issues related to the effectiveness, efficien cy, coherence, relevance and EU added value of 
the legislation. This State of Nature report will  provide important input to the fitness check, 
especially as regards the effectiveness of the legislation. The results w ill also feed into the 
mid-term review of the Biodiversity Strategy. 
                                                            
21 Financing Natura 2000 — Investing in Natu ra 2000: Delivering benefits for nature a nd people, SEC(2011) 1573 final, 12.12.2011.  
22 Estimating the Overall Economic Value of the Benefits provided by the Natura 2000 Network, IEEP (Dec. 2011)