EN    EN  
 EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
3.5.2011 
SEC(2011) 540 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
Accompanying the document 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 
Our life insurance, our na tural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 
{COM(2011) 244 final} 
{SEC(2011) 541 final}  
 
EN 1   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Introduction................................................................................................................ .. 3 
2. Procedural issues and consultation............................................................................... 4 3. Problem definition........................................................................................................ 6 3.1. Where does Europe stand in 2010?.............................................................................. 6 3.1.1. Status and trends in bi odiversity in the EU.................................................................. 6 
3.1.2. The international dimension......................................................................................... 7 3.2. Why is biodiversity loss a problem? ............................................................................ 7 3.2.1. Consequences of biodiversity loss ............................................................................... 7 3.2.2. Who is affected?........................................................................................................ ... 8 
3.3. Causes of biodiversity loss in the EU .......................................................................... 9 3.4. Why did we fail the 2010 target? ............................................................................... 11 3.4.1. Insufficient integration acro ss other sectoral policies................................................ 11 
3.4.2. Incomplete implementation of exis ting legislation and policy gaps.......................... 12 
3.4.3. Funding shortcomings................................................................................................ 15 3.4.4. Inadequate framework and governance structure ...................................................... 16 3.4.5. Limited awareness about biodiversity........................................................................ 16 3.5. Where will we be in 2020 compared to the new headline target? ............................. 17 3.5.1. Recent trends in the state and pressures of biodiversity ............................................ 17 3.5.2. Consequences of existing policies and legislation..................................................... 18 3.5.3. Meeting the 2020 headline target............................................................................... 19 3.6. Why should the EU get involved? ............................................................................. 20 4. Objectives of the EU Biodiversity strategy................................................................ 21 4.1. General objectives...................................................................................................... 21  
4.2. Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 22  
5. Options for the targets................................................................................................ 25 5.1. T1 - Fully implement the Birds and Habitats Directives ........................................... 25 5.2. T2 - Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services........................................... 26 5.3. T3 - Increase the contribution of agricu lture and forestry to maintaining and 
enhancing biodiversity ............................................................................................... 28 
 
EN 2   EN 5.4. T4 - Ensure the sustainable use of fisheries resources............................................... 33 
5.5. T5 - Combat invasive alien species............................................................................ 34 5.6. T6 – Help avert global biodiversity loss .................................................................... 35 5.7. Additional considerations in  the choice of targets ..................................................... 36 
5.8. The nature of the targets............................................................................................. 37 6. Scoping of measures to achieve the targets................................................................ 37 6.1. Measures for Nature Conservation............................................................................. 38 6.2. Measures for Maintaining and restor ing ecosystems and their services.................... 41 
6.3. Measures for Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry................................................... 43 6.4. Measures for Sustainable Use of Fisheries Resources............................................... 48 6.5. Measures for Invasive Alien Species (IAS)............................................................... 50 6.6. Measures for the EU Contribution to  Averting Global Biodiversity Loss................. 51 
7. Analysis of the impact of retained measures.............................................................. 55 7.1. Impacts of Nature Conser vation related measures..................................................... 56 
7.2. Impacts of Ecosystem Restoration and Green Infrastructure..................................... 57 7.3. Impacts of Agricultural and Forestry related measures ............................................. 61 7.4. Impacts of Fisheries-related measures ....................................................................... 64 7.5. Impacts of Invasive Alien Species related measures ................................................. 66 
7.6. Impacts of measures related to steppi ng up the EU contribution to averting global 
biodiversity loss ......................................................................................................... 67 
7.7. Comparison of options ............................................................................................... 70 8. Cross-cutting issues on Funding and Governance ..................................................... 74 8.1. Funding ................................................................................................................... ... 74 
8.1.1. Existing funding instruments ..................................................................................... 74 8.1.2. Financing options in the EU 2020 Biodiversity strategy ........................................... 75 8.2. Governance ................................................................................................................ 78 
9. Monitoring, review, communi cation and way forward.............................................. 79 
9.1. Monitoring................................................................................................................ .. 79 
9.2. Reporting and review ................................................................................................. 81 9.3. Communication and awareness raising...................................................................... 81 9.4. Next steps................................................................................................................ ... 81 
 
EN 3   EN 1. INTRODUCTION  
Until now, EU Biodiversity Policy was driven by the target set by the EU Heads of State and 
Government in 2001 to halt biodiversity loss  within the EU by 2010. The EU Biodiversity 
Action Plan1 (BAP) was put in place in 2006 to accelerate progr ess towards this target. 
However, there is compelling evidence that the status and conditions of biodiversity and 
ecosystems in the EU, and the services th ey provide, continue to deteriorate2 3 4, and that the 
EU has missed its target5. This is because different pressu res (changes in land use, pollution, 
overexploitation, invasive species,  climate change, et c) continue to have a high impact on 
biodiversity, in spite of signi ficant action carried out within  the framework of the BAP. 
The EU is called upon to develop a new vision and headline target for the post-2010 period. 
On 15 March 2010, the Environment Council agreed  a new vision and target reflecting the 
most ambitious option set out in a Commission Communica tion in January 20106. The Spring 
European Council subsequently  endorsed the vision and targ et on 26 March, noting that 
"There is an urgent need to reverse contin uing trends of biodive rsity loss and ecosystem 
degradation."  
VISION 
By 2050, European Union biodiversity and the eco system services it provides – its natural 
capital – are protected, valued and appropriately restored for bi odiversity's intrinsic value and 
for their essential contribution to human we llbeing and economic prosperity, and so that 
catastrophic changes caused by the loss of biodiversity are avoided 
 
HEADLINE TARGET 
Halting the loss of biodiv ersity and the degradation of ecosy stem services in the EU by 2020, 
and restoring them in so far as feasible, while  stepping up the EU contribution to averting global 
biodiversity loss 
The 2020 target is more ambitious than the 2010 target in that it not only stresses the need to halt biodiversity loss but also highlights the valu e of ecosystem services, the need to restore 
them, and the EU's contribution to global biodiversity.  
In addition, the global Strate gic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-20 20 adopted at the tenth meeting 
of the Conference of the Part ies of the Convention on Global Biodiversity in 2010 (CBD 
COP-10) includes a 2050 vision, a 2020 mission, 5 strategic goals and 20 targets. Parties, 
including the European Union, must develop na tional and regional target s that contribute to 
reaching the global targets and report thereon to  the CBD COP-11 in 2012. Parties also need 
to develop or update biodiversity strategies  and action plans to ensure implementation.  
                                                
 
1 COM(2006) 216 final "Halting Biodiversity loss by 2010 – and beyond: sustaining ecosystems services 
for human well being" 
2 COM (2008) 864 on a "Mid-term assessment of implementing the EC Biodiversity Action Plan" 
3 http://biodiversity-chm.eea.europa.e u/information/i ndicator/F1090245995   
4 http://www.eea.europa.eu/publicati ons/eu-2010-biodiversity-baseline/  
5 COM(2010)548 final http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/bap_2010.htm  
6 COM (2010) 4 final "Options for an EU vision and target for biodiversity beyond 2010" 
 
EN 4   EN To deliver on the 2020 headline target, the Council called on the Commission to develop a 
biodiversity strategy with targets and to iden tify the necessary, feasible and cost-effective 
measures for reaching them, as soon as possibl e after CBD COP10, taking into account its 
results7. 
By developing this strategy, the Commission ther efore delivers on the very clear mandate 
provided by the Council and EU international obligations. 
The Council also recognised the importance of identifying a clear biodiversity baseline  of the 
state of biodiversity and ecosystems in Europe . The resulting baseline , finalised in October 
2010, sets out the current state of biodiversit y in the EU and indicators to measure and 
monitor progress and achievement from 2011 to 2020 (see Annex 1 for details)8. 
The focus of this Impact Assessment report is on identifying targets that, if met, would mean 
that Europe is making a signifi cant contribution towards reachi ng the 2020 headline target. It 
also sets out potential measures to meet th e targets. However, whilst demonstrating the 
feasibility of the 2020 headline ta rget, the exact measures will be  fleshed out in subsequent 
initiatives and their accompa nying Impact Assessments. 
Finally, the 2020 Biodiversity Strate gy will contribute to at least three of the targets in the 
Europe 2020 Strategy9, namely climate change, innovation and employment, in particular 
through the resource efficiency flagship. More over, the largely overlap ping time-horizon with 
that of the coming EU budget period (2014-2020) and implementa tion of other policies such 
as the Climate Change 20/20/20 initiative offe rs ideal opportunities fo r better integrated 
implementation. 
2. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION  
EU institutions, Member States, civil society and the public at large have all been consulted 
on the long-term vision and 2020 headline target to underpin it, and continuing with the 2020 
strategy itself. Annex 2 provides details abou t the actors and institutions consulted and a 
summary of their views. Annex 3 includes a list of underlying studies conducted by the 
Commission and lists several European research projects10 helping to fill knowledge gaps. 
All institutions of the European Union made  their positions on the EU 2020 biodiversity 
policy known during the course of 2010 (see Annex 2 for details).  
As part of the consultation process, the Comm ission ran a public Inte rnet consultation, which 
received 2905 responses11 of which 64% originated from citizens, 12% from NGOs and 6% 
from private business. The views of the differe nt stakeholders are re ported where relevant 
under each target. 
Successive drafts of the Impact Assessment re port (IAR) were circulated and discussed in 
meetings of the Commission's Biodiversity In ter-service Coordinati on Group and an Inter-
service Impact Assessment Steer ing Group, from October 2010. The Impact Assessment 
Board  (IAB) discussed a first draft of the report on 12 January 2011 and requested a re-
submission of the draft IAR, based on whic h a final opinion was issued on 24 February 2011. 
                                                 
7 Council Conclusions on Biodiversity post-2010, 15 March 2010. 
8 http://www.eea.europa.eu/publicati ons/eu-2010-biodiversity-baseline/  
9 COM (2010) 2020. 
10 Past and ongoing research projects in the field of biodiversity supported under the last three consecutive 
research framework programmes (FP5, FP6 and FP 7) can be accessed via the website of the BIOTA 
cluster "Understanding Biodiversity": http://www.edinburgh.ceh.ac.uk/biota  
11 Full report: http://www.acceptance.ec. europa.eu/environment/consultatio ns/pdf/biodecline_results.pdf  
 
EN 5   EN The draft IAR was significantly restructured to address both sets of comments from the IAB. 
The following changes, in particular, were implemented: 
– a re-organisation of the repor t, and the addition of explan atory graphs to better link 
the identified problems (and their drivers) with the proposed targ ets (objectives) and 
options/measures; 
– a clearer presentation of the problems, with the addition of  more details on the 2010 
baseline, on the reasons for failing the 2010 target, a discussion on the effectiveness 
of existing policies, and the development of a qualitative 2020 baseline scenario; 
– a better justification of the selection of the targets, with explicit links to the problems 
identified, and an analysis of alternatives . Further clarification was provided after the 
IAB final opinion on the relation between th e respective targets on the Habitats and 
the Birds directives, and on the definition and value added of the agriculture and 
forest targets; 
– a more systematic discussion of potential alternatives for measures available to 
achieve the targets, including funding options , also highlighting measures with the 
potential to achieve early and significant results. Fo llowing the IAB final opinion, 
these aspects were further strengthened. It  was also clarified that the range of 
alternative options was restricted as the le vel of ambition had already been set at the 
level of the target, and was also determined by the Council's conclusions and the 
outcome of the CBD COP10 discussions; 
– a more detailed presentation of stak eholder views on the potential measures; 
– a clearer analysis of the impacts of the proposed options/measures, with a better 
distinction between impacts within the EU and global impacts, and a discussion of 
distributional aspects. Follo wing the IAB final opinion, more  details on distributional 
impacts across Member States and on subsidiarity were added; 
– a clarification of ove rall costs and potential financial issues, with more details of 
financing solutions to reach each of th e targets in the cross-cutting section on 
financing; 
– the addition of a new section on the comparis on of the proposed measures in terms of 
contributions to the main objectives, and in terms of the key costs and benefits; 
– the addition in the 'next steps' section of a timetable summarising foreseen initiatives, 
including those stemming from the Bi odiversity Strategy Communication, and 
expected new information. Further details on planned work and associated impact 
assessments were included after the IAB final opinion.  
Annex 3 includes a list of studies conducted for the Commission  to support this Impact 
Assessment and the Strategy and lists several European research projects12 which have 
made an important contribution to filli ng the knowledge and understanding gaps. 
                                                 
12 Past and ongoing research projects in the field of biodiversity supported under the last three consecutive 
research framework programmes (FP5, FP6 and FP 7) can be accessed via the website of the BIOTA 
cluster "Understanding Biodiversity": http://www.edinburgh.ceh.ac.uk/biota  
 
EN 6   EN 3. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
The 2010 assessment of implementation of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan13 (hereafter 
referred to as the 'BAP assessment') at both EU  and Member State levels, together with the 
EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline14 (hereafter referred to as 'the Baseline') show that in spite of 
past EU commitments and wide-ranging action that  resulted in significant progress in certain 
areas, the EU has missed its 2010 target  of halting biodiversity loss.  
3.1. Where does Europe stand in 2010?  
3.1.1.  Status and trends in bi odiversity in the EU 
Although it is not possible to a ssess biodiversity loss through a single indicator measuring the 
aggregated distance to the target , the 2010 EU biodiversity baseline15 provides quantitative 
and qualitative information on the extent to wh ich the 2010 target has been missed for specific 
elements of biodiversity. Up to 25% of an imal species, including  mammals, amphibians, 
reptiles, birds and butterflies f ace the risk of extinction. 65% of  the habitats and 52% of the 
species covered by the Habitats Directive are still considered to be in an unfavourable 
conservation status. On average only 17% of ha bitats are in favourable  conservation status, 
going down to 5% when looking specifically at grasslands and 7% for agro-ecosystems. 
Other sources of evidence are that since 1990, the European Union’s common farmland birds 
have declined by 20–25 % a nd, during the same period, co mmon bird populations have 
decreased by around 10 %. However, there are signs that the decline has levelled off since the 
mid-1990s. In addition, since 1990, Europe’s grassla nd butterflies have de clined dramatically 
(nearly 70 %) and this reduction shows no sign yet of levelling off. 
The latest Corine Land Cover inventory shows a continued expansion of artificial surfaces 
and abandoned land at the expense of extensiv e agricultural land, gr asslands and wetlands 
across Europe. The loss of wetla nds has slowed down to 3% in the last 16 years, but Europe 
had already lost half its wetlands before 1990. 
Most of the ecosystem services in the EU are assessed to be de graded or mixed (degraded in 
some regions, enhanced in others) – i.e. no l onger able to deliver the optimal quality and 
quantity of basic services such  as crop pollination, clean air a nd water, and control of floods 
or erosion. However, there are some excep tions, such as timber production, and climate 
regulation in forests16. 
The EU 2010 biodiversity baseline also provides an  assessment of the state of biodiversity per 
biogeographical region, showing so me geographical disparity acro ss Europe: in the Atlantic 
and Pannonian regions, more th an 50% of habitats are asse ssed as 'unfavourable-bad', 
exceeding the percentage in the other biog eographical regions. Other examples of 
geographical disparity are th at the percentage of loss of agricu ltural land to artificial surfaces 
bewteen 1990 and 2000 has been more signifi cant in the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, 
western Portugal, the eastern coast of Spain and Sardinia, than in the re st of Europe. Another 
                                                 
13 Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. The 2010 Assessment of 
Implementing the EU Biodiversity Action Plan, COM(2010)548 final.  
14 http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications /eu-2010-biodiversity-baseline/-  published 2010. 
15 European Environment Agency, 2010. EU 2010 Biodiversity baseline. EEA Technical report No 
12/2010. 
16 http://www.rubicode.net 
 
EN 7   EN example is the utilisation rate of forests17, which in 2005 was relatively stable at around 60%, 
but higher than 80% in Belgium, Czech republic, and Sweden. 
Overall, although there has been some improveme nts over the past years,  it can be concluded 
that the target of halting biodiversity loss in the EU by 2010 has been missed by a significant 
extent, as demonstrated by the still high proporti on of species at risk of extinction, and of 
habitats in poor conservation status. More de tails on the EU 2010 biodiversity baseline are 
given in annex I.  
3.1.2.  The international dimension 
The global situation is even more alarming as pressures on biodiversity continue to intensify, 
as shown by the Third Global Biodiv ersity Outlook published in May 201018. Between 12% 
and 55% of selected vertebrate, invertebrate and plant groups ar e threatened w ith extinction. 
The rate of tropical deforestation decreased by nearly 20% between 2000 and 2010 but is still 
very high, with 13 million ha lost every year. 20% of the world’s tropical coral reefs are 
already lost and an additional 50% is at risk. Only 0.7% of oceans are protected.  
The international community has also failed to achieve the gl obal target agreed in 2002 of 
significantly reducing biodive rsity loss worldwide by 2010.  
3.2. Why is biodiversity loss a problem? 
3.2.1.  Consequences of biodiversity loss 
Loss of biodiversity and ecosystems has soci al, environmental and economic consequences, 
which are summarised briefly below. 
There are strong ethical and moral arguments in  favour of protecting biodiversity in its own 
right, for its intrinsic value, independent of its  instrumental value to humans. In addition, 
biodiversity loss has economic costs that are onl y now starting to be fully appreciated. Figure 
1 illustrates the different categories. The TEEB study19 proposes that flows of ecosystem 
services be seen as the 'dividend' that soci ety receives from natural capital. The sustained 
provision of these flows in the future require s that stocks of natu ral capital, including 
biodiversity and ecosystems, are maintained.  
Ecosystems provide a number of services that contri bute directly  and indirect ly to human 
well-being. There are four main types of ecosyst em services: provisionin g services (e.g. food, 
water, fuel); regulating servic es (e.g. flood and disease contro l); supporting/habitat services 
(e.g. nutrient cycling); a nd cultural services (e. g. recreation). These serv ices are of benefit 
locally, nationally or globally. 
In general, the loss of ecosystems is equivalent  to losing an important "natural" structural 
system whereas the loss of biodiversity is eq uivalent to losing a vital component of that 
structure. The former has direct human, social and economic costs whereas the latter is often 
more subtle – it makes ecosystems less st able and more vulnerable to collapse. 
                                                 
17 ratio of annual felling to net annual increment in growing stock (SEBI indicator 17) 
18 http://gbo3.cbd.int/  
19 http://www.teebweb.org  
 
EN 8   EN 
 
Figure 1 . Costs of inaction with respect to biodiversity and ecosystem service loss 
Source: OECD, Paying for Biodiversity: Enhancing the Co st-Effectiveness of Payments  for Ecosystem Services 
(PES), 2010, Paris. 
These economic impacts are, of course, asso ciated with impacts on jobs. Some jobs are 
directly concerned with the conser vation and management of biodiversity  (e.g. in land 
management, protection of sites and species, provision of advice,  and scientific research and 
monitoring activities). More num erous are jobs dependent on the provisioning, regulating and 
cultural services that biodiversity plays a role in deliv ering. Other social c onsequences include 
health, territorial cohesion, a nd social inclusion impacts. 
3.2.2.  Who is affected? 
Biodiversity loss and the degrad ation of ecosystem services have an impact on society at 
large. Depending on the spatial scale of ecosystem  services (see figure 2), it can affect people 
in the neighbourhood of ecosystems, as well as lo cal authorities and busin esses, or affect EU 
citizens as a whole, or may even global cons equences. For example the loss of riparian 
wetlands could include the following impacts: re duced flood control servi ces, with impacts on 
residents in the floodplain, loca l planning authorities, constr uction industry and insurances, 
lower water purification, with impacts on re sidents and the water supply sector; reduced 
recreational and amenity services with mostly local impacts; but also lower carbon storage, 
with global climate impacts.  
Some business sectors are partic ularly affected, as they depe nd on biodiversity and ecosystem 
services, either directly or i ndirectly, including fisheries, fo restry (wood products), agriculture 
(dependent on services such as pollination,  biological control, soil formation, water 
availability and genetic diversity), water s upply, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, chemicals, 
agro-food, and growing parts of the tourism sector.  
Lower income groups tend to be more dependent  on ecosystem services , and vulnerable to 
their loss, but this holds more strongly at global than at EU level. 
 
EN 9   EN 
Figure 2 : Spatial scales of ecosystem services 
3.3. Causes of biodiversity loss in the EU 
Biodiversity loss in the EU is the result of a combination of direct pressures and underlying 
socio-economic drivers. Most of the pressures on biodivers ity stem from human-induced 
disturbance to ecosystems with  underlying causes of economic a nd market failures. The 2010 
EU biodiversity baseline documents the impact of these key pressures on biodiversity in the 
EU20. In particular, Europe's biodiversity  remains under severe threat from: 
• Habitat loss due to land use change and fragmentation, including through conversion of 
grassland into arable land, land abandonmen t, urban sprawl, an d rapidly expanding 
transport infrastruture and energy networks; 70 % of species are threatened by the loss of 
their habitats, in particular farmland birds have declined by 20 to 25% since 1990; The EU 
is one of the most fragmented regions in the world, with fragmentation of 30% of EU-27 
land moderately high to very high due to urban sprawl and infras tructure development 
related to transport and energy. Fragmentatio n affects the connectiv ity and health of 
ecosystems and their ability to provide services. 
• Pollution. 26% of species are thre atened by pesticides and fertili sers such as nitrates and 
phosphates (IUCN). 
• Overexploitation of forests21, oceans, rivers and soils; 30% of species are threatened by 
overexploitation; 88% of stocks are fi shed beyond maximum sustainable yield. 
                                                 
20 European Environment Agency, 2010. EU 2010 Biodiversity baseline. EEA Technical report No 
12/2010. 
21 Whilst wood harvesting in the EU is largely sustaina ble, dead wood (which is a key indicator for forest 
biodiversity and the conservation value of a forest) remains well below optimal levels from a 
biodiversity perspective in most  European countries (EEA, 2009). 
 
EN 10   EN • Invasive alien species. 22% of  species are threatened by i nvasive alien species. Some 
recent extinctions have been caused by the introduction of alien species e.g. Gasterosteus 
crenobiontus, extinct  since the 1960s.  
• Climate change. Shifts in habitats and species  distribution due to climate change are being 
observed. Climate change interacts a nd often exacerbates other threats. 
These pressures are either constant or increasi ng in intensity. In part icular, invasive alien 
species remain a threat, and are predicted to carry on increasing exponentially22. Climate 
change impacts are only beginn ing to emerge, and degraded ecosystems have a reduced 
capacity to respond to future changes. 
At global level, pressures are similar. For exam ple, Invasive Alien Sp ecies (IAS) have been 
identified as a key factor in 54% of all know n species extinctions doc umented in the IUCN 
Red List database and the only factor in 20% of extin ctions. Global fisheries are 
overexploited: they are estimated to contribute USD 225 billion to USD 240 billion to the world economy annually but if fi shing practices were more sust ainable that amount would be 
up to USD 36 billion higher. The cumulative economic loss to the global economy over the 
last three decades is estimated to be in the order of USD 2 tr illion. There is also enormous 
waste: by-catch (unused catch) amounts to 38 million tonnes/year or 40% of total catch. 
These pressures are underpinned by indirect drivers that relate to demographic and 
cultural/lifestyle choices, institu tional drivers, market failures, economic structure, size and 
growth, and trade.  
Figure 3 below shows the drivers, pressures, st ates, impacts and curren t responses related to 
biodiversity loss broadly
23. Clearly, the exact mechanisms whereby biodiversity is lost differ 
according to biome, geography, climate, type of pressure (i.e. over-exploitation of wildlife as 
opposed to habitat conversion),  economic context in the bi odiversity host country, trade 
patterns, type of governance st ructure, and other factors. 
Direct pressures on biodiversity also influence ecosystem services. As an illustration, impacts 
of IAS on ecosystems can lead to reduced eco system services, whether provisioning (fish 
catch and aquaculture, crops , wood and livestock producti on, and water provision), or 
regulating (water retention, erosion and water quality control), with consequences on human 
well-being. IAS can also have an  impact on the resistance of ecosy stems to wild fires, and on 
the growth and structur e of woodlands and forests (e.g. due to non-native diseases and pests 
such as Pinewood nematode).The proposed m easures would reduce economic damages of 
IAS linked to decreased provision ing of food and water, impede d water regulation leading to 
local flooding (e.g. Japanese knotweed), and ne gative impacts on erosion control, water 
quality IAS also have the poten tial to modify all identified supporting processes (e.g. primary 
production, soil and sediment formation and nutrien t cycling) via, for example, changing their 
physical environment (e.g. by dominating the ha bitat) and modifying ecosystem food webs 
and species dynamics. 
Although this is not the case for IAS, some po licies have already be en put in place as a 
response to negative impacts on biodiversity. These have howev er not been sufficient as 
described in the following section. 
                                                 
22 IEEP, 2010. Assessment to support continued development of the EU strategy to combat invasive alien 
species. Final report. 
23 Study on understanding the causes of biodiversity loss and the policy assessmen t framework, 2009, Ecorys  
 
EN 11   EN 
 
Figure 3: Causes of biodiversity loss in the EU  
3.4. Why did we fail the 2010 target? 
The reasons for failing to achieve  the EU 2010 target are many a nd complex and are set out in 
numerous assessments24 and summarised in a rece nt Commission Communication25. The most 
significant reasons are summarised  under the headings below.  
3.4.1.  Insufficient integration ac ross other sectoral policies 
Article 11 of the Lisbon Treaty re quires that environmental pr otection requirements, including 
biodiversity, are embedded and fully taken into consideration in all other sectoral policies. 
This is all the more important for those sector s that have significant im pacts on biodiversity. 
This is particularly the case for agriculture an d forestry, since 72% of land in the EU is used 
for farming (43%) and forestry (29%)26, but also for fisheries, regional development, 
transport, climate change, energy, trade and de velopment. While progress has been made in 
integrating biodiversity concerns in the above policy areas, the st ate of biodiversity in Europe 
leads to the conclusion that this integration has not been sufficient to deliver on the 2010 
target. 
                                                 
24 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/bap_2008.htm  and 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/bap_2010/4%20EC_Knowledge_B
ase_Assessment_BAP_final.pdf   
25 COM (2010) 4 final. 
26 Eurostat, 2010. Land Use/Cover Area frame Survey (LUCAS). 
 
EN 12   EN In particular, habitats associated with su stainable agricultural practices show a worse 
conservation status than non-agri cultural habitats, with only 7% showing favourable status 
compared to 17% on average for all types of habitats. The Common Agricultural Policy  
(CAP) has been reformed on several occasions in the past. The introduction of decoupled 
direct payments in particular aimed to remove  the CAP-driven incentive to intensify, and the 
introduction of cross compliance aimed to ensure  that farmers in receipt of CAP payments 
complied with a baseline of environmental rule s. The creation of a S econd pillar of the CAP 
(Rural Development) established the possibi lity for farmers to ge t financial support on 
specific measures aimed at impr oving the state of the environment, including the biodiversity 
status of farmland. In this respect, the mid- term review of the sixth Environment Action 
Programme27 recognised that, in the agricultural sect or, there have been fundamental reforms 
over the last 15 years that have moved towards seeing farmers as stewards of nature. As the 
recent communication on the CAP reform highli ghted, however, there is still scope for 
agricultural policy to contribut e to enhancing the sustaina ble management of natural 
resources, including biodiversity. A study looking  at decoupling in the CAP reform concluded 
that impacts had been small to negative on biodiversity and nature conservation28. Although 
agri-environmental measures have been show n to have positive impacts on biodiversity 
overall29, specific schemes are not always cost-effective and existing literature on the impacts 
of agri-environmental measures has reached mixed conclusions30. 
In spite of the 2002 reform of the Common Fisheries Policy  (CFP), overfishing has not been 
addressed. 88% of EU stocks are still fished  beyond maximum sustainable yield. The average 
size of fish has been steadily declining over the last 20 years. In general, gaps in indicators 
and data have made it difficult to quantify the efficiency of integration in different policy 
areas. 
The situation is even less clear as regards th e global impact of EU policies. A key challenge 
includes enhancing our understand ing of the impact of EU consumption on biodiversity loss.  
Additionally, the timeline of the EU biodiversity target and the fact that the development and 
implementation of the BAP were not synchronis ed with EU budgetary cycles hampered the 
harmonisation of priorities acro ss sectors and led to lack of ownership and insufficient 
contribution to biodiversity policy implementation. 
3.4.2.  Incomplete implementation of exi sting legislation and policy gaps 
Implementation gaps 
EU Nature conservation polic y is largely driven by the Birds and the Habitats Directives , 
which aim to ensure the favourable conservation status of selected species and habitats of 
Community importance listed in the Directive. Ensuring full im plementation, especially the 
effective functioning of the Natura 2000 network of  protected areas is critical to the success of 
biodiversity policy in the EU. The designation of Natura 2000 terrestri al sites is nearly 
                                                 
27 COM(2007) 225 final, 30.4.2007 
28 Brady, M. (2010) Impact of CAP reform on the environment: some regional results. Paper presented to 
OECD Workshop on the Disaggregated Impacts of CAP Reform 1011 March 2010, Paris, France. 
Accessed via: http://www.agrifood.se/F iles/AgriFood_WP20103.pdf   
29 ENCA, 2010. Delivering biodiversity objectives through agri-environment measures of the CAP: 
evidence of success and scale of future needs. Position Statement 6-2010 
30 Kleijn, D, R. A. Baquero, Y. Clough, M. Díaz, J. De  Esteban, F. Fernández, D. Gabriel, F. Herzog, A. 
Holzschuh, R. Jöhl, E. Knop, A. Kruess, E. J. P. Marshall, I. Steffan-Dewenter, T. Tscharntke, J. 
Verhulst1, T. M. West, J. L. Yel. (2006) Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment schemes in 
five European countries. Ecology Letters Vol. 9 Issue 3. 243-254 . 
 
EN 13   EN completed, with 18% of EU territory covered, i.e. beyond the 2020 global target of having at 
least 17% of terrestrial and inland water cons erved through protected areas. However, more 
efforts are needed for the marine sites31, for which the global target  is 10% of coastal and 
marine areas designated. It has been demonstr ated that targeted conservation actions for 
Annex I bird species under the Birds Direc tive have made a significant difference in 
protecting many of Europe's most thre atened birds from further decline32. The 2009 Habitats 
Directive health check has al so confirmed that conservati on action has resulted in some 
larger, emblematic species such as the wolf, Eu rasian lynx, beaver and otter beginning to re-
colonize parts of their traditional range. 
However, although there has been substantial progress, the BAP 2010 report identified that 
implementation of the Habitats and Birds direc tives had been too slow to deliver the full 
biodiversity benefits expected. Major impl ementation gaps include the insufficient 
designation in marine areas as well as the lack of management plans in the NATURA 2000 
sites. The fact that the network is still not comp lete can be partly expl ained by fact that there 
continues to be misinter pretation of the directives and fear s of severe restrictions and socio-
economic impacts. Nature protection has still to  be fully integrated into national planning 
policies.  
A number of other environmental policies will he lp stem biodiversity lo ss, but have not taken 
full effect yet. For example, the Water Framework Directive  requires freshw ater bodies to 
be of good ecological status, but the d eadline for implementation is 2015. The Marine 
Strategic Framework Directive  has also only recently been adopted. 
Aquaculture33 in the EU has to comply with the le vel of environmental protection requested 
by the comprehensive horizontal EU environm ental legal framework. More specifically, 
intensive fish farming is listed in Annex II of th e EIA Directive, and as such may be subject to 
an environment impact assessment, prior to the start of its operations, if the Member States 
decides so. In addition, Regula tion (EC) No 708/2007 concerning th e use of alien and locally 
absent species in aquaculture aims to create a framework gove rning aquacultural practices to 
protect the aquatic environment from the risks associated with the use of non-native species. 
In 2009, the Commission adopted a Communicat ion on the sustaina ble development of 
European aquaculture34 to promote the sustainable growth  of Aquaculture in the EU through 
the use of environmentally-friendly production me thods. Some of the acti ons included in the 
Aquaculture Strategy are aimed to  achieve a better implementation of the EU legislation, in 
particular, to facilitate the implementation of th e environmental legislation such as to develop 
guidance documents on aquaculture activities and Natura 2000 or to ensure a proper implementation of the Water Framework Directiv e. The results of a recent study indicate that 
the EU regulatory response to manage the environmental impacts of aquaculture
35 is adequate. 
Nevertheless, the implementation of these instru ments will need to be closely monitored to 
evaluate any future policy or implementation needs. 
                                                 
31 EEA-ETC/BD, 2010. 
32 Paul F. Donald, Fiona J. Sanderson,1 Ian J. Burfield, Stijn M. Bierman, Richard D. Gregory, Zoltan 
Waliczky International Conservation Policy Delivers Benefits for Birds in Europe Science, 2007 
33 aquaculture impacts on biodiversity through: the use wild fish populations to produce fishmeal and fish 
oil for aqua feed; spread of diseases and parasite s among fish populations; interactions and competition 
between escaped farmed species and wild fish populations; nutrient enrichment; uncontrolled spreading 
of non-indigenous species; chemical pollution and habitat change or destruction 
34 COM(2009)162. 
35 Draft Final report of the study "Impacts and pre ssures by aquaculture activities: evaluation, relation 
with good environmental status and assessment of the EU responses" 
 
EN 14   EN Factors hampering implementation include l ack of funding and inadequate governance 
structure. These points are further developed below.  
Implementation across Member States 
Existing policies have been implemented at different rates across Member States, as 
illustrated by Figure 4. 
 01 0 000 0002 0 000 0003 0 000 0004 0 000 0005 0 000 0006 0 000 0007 0 000 0008 0 000 000
1995 1 996 199 7 1 998 199 9  2 000 200 1 2 002 200 3 2 004 200 5 2 006 200 7 2008 200 9Cumulated ha
Romania
Bul garia
Sl ovenia 
Sl ovakia
Poland 
Malta 
Lithuani a
Latv ia
Hungary 
Est onia
Czech  Repu blic
Cypru s
United Kingdom
Sweden
Portugal 
Ne the rla nds
Luxem bourg
Italy
Ireland
Greece
France
Finland
Sp ain
Denmar k
German y
Belgium 
Austria 
 
Figure 4:  Cumulative surface area of sites designated by the Habitats Directiv e over time (SCIs) 
Source : Natura 2000 EUNIS database 
More generally, the 2010 BAP assessment summa rises the current state of progress for 
objectives and measures set out in the 2006 BAP. The 27 country profiles36 provide a detailed 
account of developments at national level, al lowing some elements of comparison, although a 
full benchmarking across countri es is not meaningful based on currently available data. 
Legislative gaps 
In addition, some of the pressures presented ab ove have not been sufficiently addressed and 
contributed to the failure to meet the 2010 ta rget. For example, although plant and animal 
regimes have proven effective to protect the EU against the entry, establishment and spread of 
many diseases and harmful organisms that ar e common elsewhere in the world, existing 
legislation is however not sufficient to tackle the full range of threats, in particular from 
pathways such as IAS introduced as pets, aquarium and te rrarium species, ornamental plants, 
live bait and live food (see Annex 13 for a detailed review). 
Furthermore, less than a dozen MS  have legislation to protect soil ecosystems, which are 
therefore largely unprotected in the EU. This had significant consequences for below and 
above ground biodiversity and hindered the achievement of the 2010 headline target. 
                                                 
36 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/bap_2010.htm  
 
EN 15   EN 3.4.3.  Funding shortcomings 
In the EU 
Insufficient funding has been an important hu rdle preventing effective implementation of 
existing policy instruments aime d at halting biodiversity loss37.  
Firstly, the available information on financin g needs and opportunities for protected areas 
alone indicates that the current level of support is not satisfactory38. Management of Natura 
sites is estimated to require a pproximately 5.8 billion Euros a year, but currently only 1 billion 
a year is allocated39 40. This situation is very much linked to the fact that Member States are 
far behind with drawing up management pl ans or identifying the specific needs for 
intervention. Funding would al so be needed to conserve  biodiversity in the wider 
environment, beyond Natura sites. Secondly, th e exact amount spent on biodiversity remains 
difficult to assess, the collection expenditure data  being in most cases in adequate to identify 
biodiversity-related funding both at Member States and Community level. The lack of an 
agreed methodology to determ ine how much Community funding has been used by the 
Member States for nature and biodiversit y remains a problem to be addressed.  
Thirdly, whereas funding opportuniti es for the protection and sust ainable use of biodiversity 
do exist under different EU financing instrument s (see Annex 4), their uptake has been limited 
under the current EU financing framework for 2007-2013. There are various reasons for this, 
including: 
• lack of clear targetin g of funds for biodiversity, which reduce their 
effectiveness for biodiversity goals; 
• the fact that most EU funds are mana ged at the national level according to 
sectoral priorities, which do not always  include biodiversity conservation as a 
primary concern; 
• lack of coherence and coordination in securi ng total funding needs; 
• weaker evidence base for most financial planning due to the slow development 
of Natura 2000 management plans or e quivalent instruments, and therefore 
lack of concrete data on the impacts of funding; 
• limited absorption capacity in some Memb er States due to human resource and 
other constraints in applying for EU funding is another factor (Kettunen et al.,  
2009; WWF 2009). The share of the Eur opean Agricultural Fund for Rural 
Development (EAFRD) allocated to th e protection of Natura 2000 sites was 
0.62%, although Natura 2000 agriculture and forest sites are also financed 
under agri-environmental schemes; 
• high administrative burden in some cases; 
                                                 
37 Withana, S., Baldock, D., Farmer, A., Pallemaer ts, M., Hjerp, P., Watkins, E., Armstrong, J., 
Medarova-Bergstrom, K., Gantioler, S. 2010. Strategic Orientations of EU Environmental Policy under 
the Sixth Environment Action Programme and Impli cations for the Future. Report for the IBGE-BIM, 
IEEP, London. 
38 It is up to MS to decide how they allocate the available funds, taking account of the EU strategic 
objectives but also their own priorities. 
39 COM(2004)0431 final on Financing Natura 2000: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/index_en.htm  
40 TEEB 2009. 
 
EN 16   EN • maximum funding rates, for example in  the rural development regulations41, 
that are insufficient to create the required incentives. 
Finally, the current provisions re lating to the EU budget do not allo w for the contin uity that is 
often needed to enable biodiversity relate d projects to succeed. This would require, for 
instance, a longer timeframe than is current ly allowed under EU financing rules, and 
especially for projects funded th rough external funding mechanisms. 
At global level 
Over the period 2002 to 2008, the EU provided over USD 1 billion for global biodiversity 
annually. EU Member States contributed signi ficantly to the recent replenishment of the 
Global Environment Facility, fo r which USD 1.2 billion is earmarked for biodiversity for the 
period July 2010 to June 2014. This represents  a 28% increase compared to the last 
replenishment. However, biodiversity is also a rela tively low priority for EU external aid, as it 
gets less than 1/50th of EU and Member States’ tota l annual development aid budgets. 
There is a global consensus that, even with a more efficient use of existing resources, the 
currently available financial resources fo r the achievement of global biodiversity 
commitments are still insufficient. The TEEB report for policy makers indicates that the 
world community is investing 60% to 75% of wh at would be needed to effectively manage 
the existing protected area network.  
3.4.4.  Inadequate framework and governance structure 
The BAP has proven to be a useful tool to raise awareness of biodiversity issues and to foster 
action across sectors. However, it presents lim itations that have contributed to the overall 
failure to reach the 2010 target. Its effectiveness was hindered by the lack of prioritisation42 
amongst its 160 actions and the absence of a clear governance structure, leading to uncertainties as to the distribution of res ponsibility for actions among different actors and 
levels of governance. The fact that the overall ta rget was not translated into a limited number 
of targets meant that it was difficult to  judge whether actions were sufficient. 
Adequately monitoring progress towards the 2010 target of halting biodiversity loss was 
difficult because of it was not underpinned by a baseline.. Taken together, the governance and 
monitoring shortcomings of the BAP hampered its effective implementation and therefore its 
ability to tackle the challenge of biodiversity loss.  
3.4.5.  Limited awareness about biodiversity 
A further factor contributing to the failure to address biodiversity loss in the EU is the low 
overall awareness about the importance of biodiversity and the implications of its loss for individuals, sectors and society at large. Annex 5 summarises the results of recent surveys of 
EU citizens' and business leaders' attitudes towards biodiversity. More information and 
awareness-raising is needed to reduce the indi rect drivers of biodive rsity loss and stimulate 
the lasting changes, for instance in lifestyle choices and business decisions, that required to 
reverse the current situati on in Europe and the world. 
                                                
 
41 The rural development regulation however allows for derogating from these maximum rates provided 
that the Member State justifies it. 
42
 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/bap_2010/4%20EC_Know
ledge_Base_Assessment_BAP_final.pdf  
 
EN 17   EN 3.5. Where will we be in 2020 compared to the new headline target? 
3.5.1.  Recent trends in the state and pressures of biodiversity 
The 2010 EU biodiversity baseline is the first comprehensive assessment of the state of 
biodiversity in the EU and one of the most co mplete set of facts and figures of different 
biodiversity and ecosystem compon ents in the world, whilst also directly policy relevant, and 
helping to summarise complex and often disparate sets of scientif ic data in a simple and clear 
manner. Given that biodiversity is by definition difficult to repr esent in aggregat ed terms, the 
focus is on specific components of biodiversity.  
Looking backwards, there is often a lack of data on evolution over time, in particular for the 
data of habitats and species in favourable c onservation status: the first assessment of 
conservation status was based on data report ed by Member States in 2007, and the next 
reporting exercise is due in 2013. The few indicators for which there are some elements of 
time trends – e.g. red list species, Corine Land Cover, farmland birds – show that although the 
rate of deterioration had decrease d, biodiversity loss is still ongoing. 
Projections of biodiversity loss were developed based on  the Mean Species Abundance 
(MSA) indicator, which calculate s the mean species abundance of the original species 
compared to the natural or low-impacted st ate. Although it has significant limitations, 
including the inability to d eal with changing species com position (e.g. extinction, invasion), 
MSA can provide indications on the key process of homogenisation, at di fferent scales from 
national to global, and can also be seen as a measure of driver intensity. The projections for 
the EU based on a 2007 baseline show c ontinuing decline beyond 2020 (figure 5). 
MSA-Biodiversity in Europe
OECD baseline (2007)
0%20%40%60%80%
1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060Western Europe Central Europe EU 
Figure 5: Projections biodiversity change in Europe based on the Mean Species Abundance indicator 
Source: PBL 
There is no suggestion that the drivers and pressures identified above will stop putting 
pressure on biodiversity and ecosy stems in the absence of furthe r action. The indications tend 
to be that they would conti nue (overexploitation, po llution, habitat loss) or even get worse 
 
EN 18   EN (climate change, IAS). This is in particular  the case of IAS, given the ongoing increase in 
trade, which is an important pathway of introduction. 
Globally, the evidence is the same: with curr ent policies and current effort the loss of 
biodiversity and ecosystems will continue. A r ecent study estimated that 75 percent of the 
planet’s coral reefs would be at risk of deat h or extreme damage within 20 years, and 95 
percent of the world’s reefs would be at risk by 2050, unless carbon emissions are cut 
drastically43. Projections based on MSA s how that global biodiversity is expected to decrease 
by 10 percent points (pp) from about 70% in 2000, to about 60% in 2050 on average44. 
3.5.2.  Consequences of existing policies and legislation 
Annex 6 broadly summarises the major polic ies having direct significant impacts on 
biodiversity. The most relevant ar e reviewed here in more detail. 
With most of the Natura 2000 netw ork now in place, the next pe riod of implementation of the 
Habitats and Birds Directives will be critical  to making the network fully coherent and 
operational through effective management of the si tes. This will require significant financial 
investments, related to land acquisition, habita t restoration, development of management 
plans, monitoring of the state of  species and habitats, ensuring connectivity between sites, as 
well as ongoing management costs of sites. Gi ven the current poor conservation status of 
many habitats, and implementation experience to  date, unless some element of dynamism is 
provided, in particular through in creased funding, implementation is  likely to be again very 
slow in the next 10 years, and management me asures are unlikely to be effective enough to 
reach the 2020 headline target. In a business as usual scenario, it is expected that the conservation status of species and habitats in EU would remain similar or worst than in the 
2009 heath check, i.e. overall, only 17% of both habitats and species in favourable conservation status. 
In addition, simply designating protected areas is not sufficient to halt biodiversity loss. 
Whilst the focus of protected areas tend to be on protecting emblematic habitats and species, 
wider biodiversity, and more common less charisma tic habitats and species also need to be 
protected as they provide valuable services to society. Biodiversity concerns also need to be further integrated into othe r policies, and although the Co mmon Agricultural Policy and 
Common Fisheries Policy provide  some assistance through f unding incentives, those should 
be enhanced to provide ade quate levels of public goods. 
Regarding the Common Agricultural Policy, given the present conser vation status of agro-
ecosystems, and according to the 2010 baseline repor t, agriculture is still a significant driver 
of habitat loss and degradation. In order to meet the biodivers ity targets by 2020, the reformed 
CAP should seek to ensure that  agriculture enhances its pr ovision of public goods, notably 
farmland biodiversity. 
Regarding fisheries , the situation is un likely to improve by 2020 unless the CFP reform 
directly tackles the problem of overfishing. The recently adopted Marine Strategy 
Framework  Directive  should drive improvements in the stat us of marine ecosystems, since it 
requires that good environmental status (GES) - for which one of the descriptors relates to 
biodiversity - is achieved by 2020. Key deadlines incl ude an initial assessme nt of the status of 
marine waters, and characteristics of GES a nd environmental targets for 2020 in 2012. The 
gap should be filled through measures to be taken in 2015.  
                                                
 
43 World Resources Institute, 2011. Reefs at Risk Revisited. 
44 Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2010. Rethinking Global Biodiversity Strategies. 
 
EN 19   EN The Water Framework Directive  also has a key role to play in biodiversity protection and 
ecosystem restoration. If adequa tely implemented, a significant amount of restor ation of water 
related ecosystems is likely to take place, as the basic requirement is to reach good ecological 
status for freshwater bodies by 2015. 
As regards climate change , achieving the '2 degrees' climate target is absolutely essential to 
avert global biodiversity loss. The EU has already developed and is implementing elaborate 
climate change policies and strategies to enab le the EU to meet its targets for 2020 and 
beyond. Although it is too early to determine wh ether they will be sufficient, specific 
measures are in place to ensure that climat e concerns are appropriately reflected in all 
Community policies, and reduce th e EU's vulnerability to climat e change impacts. Finally, the 
potential impact of the EU's biofuels  policy on biodiversity will be addressed as part of the 
implementation of the renewable energy dir ective, in particular through the work on 
sustainability criteria. However, failure to agre e on a future global climate agreement after the 
Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period's e xpiry would constitute an important gap and 
would risk jeopardising the achieve ment of the biodiversity goals.  
As regards pollution , the EU has extensive legislation in place to tackle industrial, transport, 
domestic and agricultural pollution. Legisla tion covering chemicals and pesticides is 
particularly important in this context. While there has been a steady d ecline in the emissions 
of substances like nitrogen and phosphorous, wh ich lead to eutrophication of ecosystems, 
enhanced implementation of all pollution related legislative instruments is needed.  
The evolution of soil biodiversity will depend to a signifi cant extent on the outcome of current 
discussions on the Commission proposal for a Soil Framework Directive, still under 
discussion. Without filling the legislative gap, re aching the 2020 biodiversity headline target 
and vision is unlikely. 
Finally, there is curren tly no dedicated policy on invasive alien species , and current 
predictions are that the already rising trend of damage to habitats and species will carry on 
increasing exponentially45. Due to the expansion of trade and mobility and increasing 
environmental disturbances, threats from non-indigenous species are increasing at an 
accelerated pace. Europe’s maritime and land borders have already been breached by more than 11,000 alien species, ar ound 10% of which are known to have an economic or 
environmental impact. According to expertis e available, over 1000 species would require 
proactive management. Compared to other OE CD countries (e.g. U.S., Canada, Australia, 
New Zealand), the EU is currently poorly equi pped to tackle the challenge, and there is a 
serious risk that under a business as usual scenario, the EU would not reach the 2020 EU 
headline target, nor the global target for IAS. 
3.5.3.  Meeting the 2020 headline target  
Business as usual scenario 
Overall, given the current st ate of biodiversity and ecosyst em services, the continuing 
pressures, the policy gaps and the slow im plementation in key policies, although some 
improvements are expected, in realistic terms, a business as usual scenario is unlikely to see 
sufficient improvement to ensure that biodiversity loss is halted by 2020. 
New elements of the 2020 headline target 
                                                
 
45 IEEP, 2010. Assessment to support continued development of the EU Strategy to combat invasive alien 
species. Final report to the European Commission. 
 
EN 20   EN In addition, the 2020 headline target includ es new components: the conservation and 
restoration of ecosystem services and the contribution to global biodiversity. The BAP 
included elements of ecosystem conservation,  but not specifically services. Whilst the 
Environmental Liability Directive refers indirectly to the notion of services, the explicit focus 
on ecosystem services is a new policy area. Wi th ecosystem services, the focus is more on 
flows of benefits to society than on conser vation of biodiversity pe r se. Although there is 
some evidence that high diversity of species might  be correlated to ecos ystem services, it is 
generally recognised that the re lationship is not straightforwar d, and that a fo cus on increasing 
species diversity may not always lead to high le vels of services. For example, research shows 
that ecosystems in non-biodiversity-rich ar eas also provide high levels of services46. Without 
a specific focus on these services, they are unlikel y to be adequately maintained or restored. 
These new elements bring additional risks a nd uncertainties for policy achievement by 2020 
Given the current poor state of ecosystem services  in the EU, and the lack of explicit focus on 
ecosystem services of current policy, it is unlikel y that there would be widespread restoration 
of ecosystem services under a business as usual scenario, although some amount of 
restoration is expected under the Hab itats Directive, the WFD and the MSFD. 
Unequal burden across Member States 
Biodiversity is not evenly spread  and trends differ from one Me mber State to another. There 
are also differences in implementation of existin g legislation as shown by the state of progress 
by Member States in designating sufficient protected areas to provide for Habitats Directive 
annex I habitats and annex II species. Therefor e the burden of tackling the challenge will be 
spread unequally.  
3.6. Why should the EU get involved? 
The legal basis for action 
The legal underpinning for the development of  biodiversity policy in the EU is found in 
Articles 191 and 192 (ex 174 and ex 175 TEC respect ively) of the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union, which requires a high level of protection and improvement of the 
quality of the environment in the European Union.  
The protection of nature was among the first po licy areas developed under EU environmental 
legislation, as far back as 1979, in recognition of the fact that  the protection of species and 
habitats has transboundary c onsiderations, as well as im portant implications for the 
achievement of other EU policy objectives and th e sustainability of many economic sectors in 
the EU. EU action in the area of biodiversity and nature protection is also important in 
ensuring a level playing field in the EU a nd avoiding the distortion of competition in the 
internal market. As such, the principle of EU involveme nt in managing biodiversity is now 
well established.  
Promoting solidarity 
There is also a case for EU action to conserve  biodiversity and promot e its sustainable use 
based on the “solidarity principle”, since biodi versity is unevenly di stributed among Member 
States: there is a higher proportion of natural ar eas, and better preserved ecosystems in some 
countries than others. It can be argued that acc ess to biodiversity and its benefits should be 
open to all Member States. This justifies the need for some effort sharing and co-ordinated effort at Community level for protecting biodiversity.  
                                                
 
46 Naturally at your service - Why it pays  to invest in nature (RSPB) 2009. 
 
EN 21   EN Subsidiarity 
The principle of subsidiarity in this case mean s that actions may need to vary from Member 
State to Member State and within Member St ates from region to region. The challenge in 
those areas is in ensuring integration and c oherent and co-ordinated programming. Actions 
proposed in this paper are those where the EU has most value-added and leverage. However, 
it is clear that without parallel  action at Member State level, they will not be  sufficient to 
deliver the target of halting biodiversity loss. In practice,  success in delivering the 2020 
headline target will depend on a mixture of EU and national, regional or local measures, in line with the principle of subsidiarity.  
Delivering on global commitments 
In the context of the 10
th Conference of the Parties to  the UN Convention on Biological 
Diversity (CBD COP10) in October 2010, the EU and its 27 Member States have agreed a 
Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 with  a new 2020 global mission or headline target 
requiring them to take effective and urgent action to halt the loss of biodiversity in order to 
ensure that, by 2020, ecosystems are resilient and continue to provid e essential services, 
thereby securing the planet’s variety of li fe, and contributing to  human well-being, and 
poverty eradication. They have also committed to 20 global targets for biodiversity to be 
attained by 2020 at the latest. 
Specifically, Target 17 of the Strategic Plan requires that "by 2015, each  Party has developed, 
adopted as a policy instrument, and commenced implementing an effective, participatory and 
updated national biodiversity strategy and action plan".  
4. OBJECTIVES OF THE EU BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY  
This section describes the general and specifi c objectives underpinning the targets proposed 
as part of the strategy, as required by the Council. Based on the problem definition, identification of drivers, and im plementation and policy gaps, a se t of targets is  proposed, as a 
response to the Council conclu sions, and to the EU commit ment to the Nagoya strategic 
action plan.  
4.1. General objectives 
The general objective is the EU 2020 biodive rsity headline target , which has three 
components: to halt biodiversity loss and th e degradation of ecosy stem services by 2020, 
restore them as far as feasible, and step up th e EU contribution to averting biodiversity loss. 
Achieving the 2020 headline target is  also seen as an intermedia ry step towards attaining the 
objective set out in the 2050 vision, and a means of  meeting the EU commitment to the global 
2020 biodiversity targets.  
Halting biodiversity loss and ecosystem servi ces degradation involves stopping or preventing 
the long-term or permanent qualitative or quan titative reduction in comp onents of biodiversity 
(genes, species and habitats/ecosystems) and their potential to provide goods and services. 
Biodiversity loss needs to be understood agains t general characteris tics such as variety, 
quantity and quality or distribution, rather than  at the level of each individual organism. 
The restoration of ecosystems and their services is understood as actively assisting the 
recovery of an ecosystem that has been de graded, damaged, or dest royed, although natural 
regeneration may suffice in cases of low degrad ation. The objective should be the return of an 
ecosystem to its original community structure,  natural complement of species, and natural 
functions to ensure the continue d provision of services in the long term, alt hough in cases of 
extreme degradation, the focus on specific services may be justified. 
 
EN 22   EN Stepping up the EU contribution to  averting global biodiversity loss is essential to ensuring 
that the EU delivers on its global biodiver sity commitments, in particular the 2020 
biodiversity targets and mission under the CBD.  
4.2. Specific objectives 
The strategy should contribute to  meeting the general objectives  outlined above. This requires 
addressing the drivers and pre ssures of biodiversity loss, an d the implementation and policy 
gaps identified in the problem analysis, whilst  also taking into acc ount the Nagoya strategic 
action plan targets. In doing so, it needs to be recognised that some of the drivers and 
pressures are expected to be ad dressed through other policies, a nd so this strategy focuses on 
the key areas which require additional action. 
In addition, targets should be selected on  the basis of two fu rther factors: their overall 
potential to deliver early and significant results  and to seize opportunities provided by 
ongoing or upcoming reform processes  in relevant policy areas. 
Both state-based and effort-based targets are need ed so that effects can be perceived within a 
politically relevant time frame (e.g. 5, 10 years) while generati ng positive results in the longer 
term. Targets should be focused on key drivers that , unless tackled, risk le ading to irreversible 
loss of biodiversity or very  high restoration costs.  
For some areas, the policy framework was assesse d to be adequate or in early stages of 
implementation, and therefore no dedicated target was set: 
• For the time being, no specific measures are proposed to tackle the root causes of climate 
change  as these are being developed as part of  Climate policy. However, adaptation to 
climate change is an essential element of the Biodiversity Strategy, and some selected 
targets are expected to contribute significantly to related EU climate objectives.  
• Regarding pollution , there is still a case for further action in certain areas, such as 
phosphates and certain atmospheric pollutants to  further limit emissions of acidifying and 
eutrophying pollutants and ozone precursors.  As these are under consideration by the 
Commission, no new measures are propos ed for inclusion in the strategy. 
• For similar reasons, no specific measures are proposed on soil, pending a conclusion of 
current discussions on the Comm ission proposal for a Soil Framework Directive. However, 
some measures such as those related to rest oration and green infras tructure will have a 
positive impact on soil ecosystems. 
• No target was proposed for aquaculture  as the EU regulatory response was assessed to be 
adequate, although implementation will need to be closely monitored. 
The Water Framework Directive (WFD ) is expected to deliver good environmental status 
of water ecosystems by 2015. An ongoing fitness check  of water-related policy will lead to a 
Blueprint initiative in  2012. The situation will need to be reviewed after 2012.  
The policy gap analysis in section 3.5, however , showed that given the slow implementation 
of the Habitats and Birds directives , additional measures are needed to reach their full 
potential. Also, more integration of biodiversity concerns are needed in sectoral policies such 
as the CAP and the CFP , which are currently undergoing a reform. 
In conclusion specific objectives need to focus on the three areas where opportunities for 
improving implementation or integration are greatest, namely the Nature Directives, 
 
EN 23   EN agricultural policy and fi sheries policy. In addition, two ot her objectives should focus on areas 
where there is at present no specific policy fr amework, including ecosystem services outside 
Natura 2000, and invasive alien species. Fina lly, the international dimension of the 2020 
objectives, and the recent commit ments in Nagoya warrant an a dditional specific objective 
focusing on the EU contribution to global biodiversity. 
The selected specific objectives directly relate to the problems and causes of biodiversity loss 
identified. Each objective is linked to specific pr oblems and drivers, with different degrees of 
intensity, as illustrated in Figure 6. 
Figure 6 illustrates that the first two sp ecific objectives focus directly on the problems  (loss 
of species, habitats and ecosystem services),  while the ones on agriculture and forestry, 
fisheries and IAS focus more on the causes of biodiversity loss . It also illustrates that 
although not the specific focus of individual targets, pollution and climate change are 
addressed by some of the selected targets. This is also illustrated in the context of the DPSIR 
framework in figure 7. 
Taken together, the specific objectives address the three dimensions of the EU 2020 
biodiversity headline target . The first two focus on protecting and restoring biodiversity 
and associated ecosystem services both within and outside the Natura 2000 network. Whilst 
protecting species and habitats of European  Community Importance remains a priority, 
ecosystems outside protected areas provide essential, valuable services that need to be 
protected and restored. Addressing the key pressures on biodiversity  with the following 
three objectives is a necessary condition to c onservation and restorati on. The sixth objective 
reflects the third dimensi on of the headline target: the global contribution . 
 
Figure 6: relation of specific objectives to problems and causes of biodiversity loss 
 
EN 24   EN 
 
Indirect drivers are best  addressed across targets in relation to specific pressures, rather than 
in isolation. For example, the use of incentive-based mechanisms  should contribute to 
correcting market failures associated with th e degradation and loss  of biodiversity and 
ecosystems and will be included within each target. Similarly, other drivers such as cultural/lifestyle-related, trade-related drivers of biodiversity loss, and lack of awareness will be addressed in the biodiversity strategy through the other targets. Institutional drivers  will 
be addressed through the governance as pects of the strategy (see figure 7). 
In addition, many indirect soci o-economic drivers of biodiversit y loss are also drivers for 
other environmental issues . The EU's flagship initiative on a resource efficient Europe, in 
preparation as part of the EU  2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, will 
contribute to reducing some key indirect drivers, such as demand for natural resources and 
ecosystem services. The initiative aims at putting in place a roadmap including actions to foster sustainable supply of resources (those being commodities, raw materials, minerals, but also natural resources and their services), boosting overall resource efficiency. 
DRIVERS
Economic factors
- Externalities/underpricing 
- Economic growth
- Trade patterns
Demographic factors
- Population growth
- Cultural/lifestyle choices
Institutional factors
- Lack of prioritised sub-targets
- Implementation and enforcement failure
-Inadequate governance structure
- Lack of awareness/informationPRESSURES
Land use change
and fragmentation 
Pollution
Overexploitation of natural 
resources (forests, soil, 
oceans, freshwater, )
Climate Change
Invasive Alien Species
STATE
Loss of land and marine-based 
spe cie s
Loss and degradation of land and 
marine based habitats and 
ecos ys tems
IMPACTS
Reduced well-being due to degraded 
ecos ys tem s ervices
- regulating services
- provisioning services
- cultural services
- supporting servicesRESPONSES
Existing policies:
WFD, MSFD, CAP
CFP
Nature directives
Soil strategy
Pollution legislation,
Climate change policies
ST1 - Nature 
Conservation 
ST2 - 
Ecosystem 
services ST3 - 
Agriculture & 
forestry 
ST5 - 
IAS ST4 - 
FisheriesGovernance aspects 
of the Biodiversity 
StrategyMarket-based 
instruments in 
measures to reach 
sub-targets
Awareness-raising measures to reach sub-targets
 
Figure 7: Links between the problem elements and the targ ets and measures based on the DPSIR framework 
 
EN 25   EN 5. OPTIONS FOR THE TARGETS  
This section describes what alternatives were  considered for the operational targets and 
justifies the final selection. The nature of the target  (indicative or binding), once implemented, 
is also described, as well as possible future  adjustments needed as the knowledge base 
evolves. The selected targets a nd links to general and specific objectives are outlined in Table 
1. 
5.1. T1 - Fully implement the Birds and Habitats Directives 
Link with EU objectives and global targets 
Full implementation of the Nature directives is key to halting biodiversity loss. This specific 
objective is linked with two gl obal 2020 biodiversity targets: 
• By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habita ts, including forests, is at least halved and 
where feasible brought close to zero, and de gradation and fragmentation is significantly 
reduced (Global Target 5); 
• By 2020, the extinction of known threatened  species has been prevented and their 
conservation status, particularly of those most  in decline, has been improved and sustained 
(Global Target 12). 
Discarded options 
Some options originally considered for this ta rget included: a reduction in the percentage of 
unknown assessments for the conservation state of  habitats and species; a percentage of 
Natura 2000 sites with a Management Plan; or a blending of improved conservation status for 
habitats and species protected under the Nature legislation and additional species and habitats 
covered under national legislation.  These were not retained on the basis of further assessment 
and input received from stakehol ders and Member States, namely: while valuable to address 
current information gaps, an incr ease in the knowledge of the state of species would be too 
limiting as a target and may not necessarily translate into an improved state; the Nature 
legislation does not require that all Natura 2000 sites have a formal management plan and 
while being a key tool, the fact of having such a plan would not  guarantee an improvement in 
the conservation status of protect ed habitats and species; finally, blending obligations arising 
from the Nature legislation and additional species and habitats covered under national 
legislation would render monitoring overly comple x; additional national obligations would be 
better addressed through nationa l biodiversity strategies. A target pertaining to the 
improvement of the state of conservation was pr eferred, as having a more direct link with the 
relevant global targets.  
Alternative options considered 
The Birds Directive covers all bird species and related habitats, and requires that all birds 
species reach good status. The latest 2004 asse ssment for 25 EU member  States concluded 
that 52% of species are secure. The Habitats Di rective covers other species and habitat types, 
and requires that each habitat type and each spec ies in the different biogeographical regions 
reaches favourable conservation status. The a ssessment methodology is described in Annex 8. 
The 2009 health check concluded that 17% of  habitats and species are in favourable 
conservation status. Whilst sites protected unde r both directives are in cluded in the Natura 
2000 network, the definition of the status of sp ecies and habitats is different under each 
Directive, and therefore the targ et must contain objectives that are differentiated according to 
the different requirements. 
 
EN 26   EN Three options were therefore considered for this target: 
• Option 1: achieve favourable conservation stat us for all species and habitats under the 
Habitats directive and good st atus for all bird species under the Birds directive.  
• Option 2: achieve a realistic proportion of species and habita ts in good conservation status 
under the habitats directive, and in good status under th e birds directive 
• Option 3: achieve favourable conservation status or significant improvement in 
conservation status, and achieve  good status or significant im provement in the status of 
bird populations. 
Whilst it can be argued that all Member States have the obligation to achieve the goals of 
option 1, as soon as possible, the Directives do not contain specific deadlines. Moreover, 
since species and habitat types covered by the Ha bitat Directive were selected because they 
are already rare or threaten ed, achieving favourable conser vation status is not easily 
attainable. It implies not only ensuring that pop ulations of species an d area of habitat are 
favourable but also that their overall range is favourable. Therefore, option 1 was assessed to 
be only attainable in the medium to long term  for many species and habitats. 
Option 3 was preferred to option 2, as a realistic recovery targ et for 2020 based on favourable 
conservation status alone would be rather low,  and it would hide all the improvements that 
can and should be made in the other categor ies of the assessments, for example from 
unfavourable-inadequate to favourable, as progre ss is made towards favourable conservation 
status. Taking into account these improvement s is important as they represent the restoration 
efforts that are needed to achieve the overall 2020 biodiv ersity headline target. Option 3 
would therefore represent a more sensitive indicator of progress made to not only halt the loss 
but also restore biodiversity in the EU.  
Level of ambition 
An analysis was carried out to  assess the level of improvement s in conservation status that 
could be expected if the ade quate conservation measures were  undertaken to improve certain 
parameters (habitat area for species, population and future prospects for species and future 
prospects and structure & functi ons for the habitat types), whic h underpin the assessment of 
conservation status. This analysis concluded th at a realistic target could focus on a 25% 
increase in favourable or improving conservation status for species and 33% for habitat types 
(see annex 8 for details of the analysis). This  would also be in lin e with Global Target 12. 
A separate assessment was carried out for birds as the Birds Directive has a different focus. 
The approach is based on an assessment of risk  of extinction of different species. If the 
necessary conservation measures are put in pl ace, it is considered feasible to achieve a 
significant measurable improvement from the curre nt level of 52% of bi rd species populations 
having secure/good status to a maximum level of 80% of bird species either being secure or 
showing improving population status by 2020. The figures were translated in terms of 
percentage of improvement and rounded in  the final formulation of the target. 
Nature of the target 
This target is indicative, and may be reviewed  in 2014, when the outcome of the next 'Article 
17' report will provide an update on trends in conservation status of habitats and species. 
5.2. T2 - Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services 
Link with EU objectives and global targets 
 
EN 27   EN Halting the degradation of ecosystems and their se rvices requires that there is no further net 
loss overall compared to the 2010 biodiversity ba seline. The council conclusions request in 
addition that ecosystem services are restored as far as feasible. As a Party to the CBD, the EU 
has also committed to two related global 2020 targets requiring that: 
• ecosystems that provide essential services, including services related to water, and 
contribute to health, livelihoods and wellbei ng, are restored and safeguarded (Global 
Target 14) 
• ecosystem resilience and the contribution of  biodiversity to carbon stocks have been 
enhanced, through conservation and restoration,  including restoration of at least 15% of 
degraded ecosystems, thereby contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation and 
to combating desertification (Global Target 15).  
Alternative options considered 
Ensuring that restoration of ecosystems leads to  enhanced ecosystem services requires that 
attention is paid to integrating ecosystems in the wider landscape, as location and connectivity 
will influence the level of ecosystem services . Spatial planning is therefore an important 
dimension, which can be delivere d through the establishment of  green infrastructure. This 
would pursue the aim of strengthening and rest oring the good functioning of ecosystems and 
associated services, increase resilience and reduce vulnerability to climate change and natural disasters as well as increase spatial and functi onal connectivity between existing natural areas, 
while taking care to ensure that these solu tions are well adapted to local and regional 
conditions. 
Three options were considered: 
• Option 1 – establishment of green infrastructure. 
• Option 2 – restoration of degraded ecosystems. 
• Option 3 – establishment of green infrastructure  and restoration of degraded ecosystems.  
With option 1, the focus would be on spatial inte gration of ecosystem services. This has the 
appropriate qualitative focus but risks not be ing concrete enough in te rms of desired output 
for restoration, especially as the concept of green infrastruc ture is still being developed. 
Option 2 would focus on ecosystems only, as a proxy for ecosystem services. This has the 
merit of being more easily quantif ied than ecosystem services. However there is a risk that the 
focus on restoration will be mainly on restoratio n area, without due cons ideration to the type 
and level of services restored. Elements such as connectivity and integration in the landscape 
may not be taken into consideration, and oppo rtunities for benefits from multiple services 
may be lost. Option 3 is the preferred option as it combines the two elements above and has the merit of combining a concrete focus on outco me with the appropriate qualitative elements 
on ecosystem services linked to green infrastructure. 
Level of ambition 
An additional consideration is the quantified level of the EU target compared to the global 
target. Restoration of at least 15% of degraded ecosystems is the minimum level of ambition as any less would put the EU in non compliance with the CBD obligations. However, a higher 
figure (for example 30%) merits being considered  for a number of reasons. Firstly, the EU has 
adopted a more ambitious headline target than  the one agreed globally, and the EU's 2050 
 
EN 28   EN vision requires that ecosystem services are ap propriately restored. S econdly, the EU is the 
most fragmented continent in the world and a sign ificant amount of restor ation is expected to 
take place under existing legislation. Thirdly a higher percentage  of restoration is likely to be 
cost-beneficial, in particular given the climate change mitigation and adaptation benefits of many ecosystems. However, there is curren tly not sufficient evidence of how much 
restoration would take place under existing EU policy, whether additional efforts would be 
needed to reach 30%, and what their costs and benefits would be, to take a fully informed 
decision. Therefore, the chosen level is initially the minimu m compliance with respect to 
international commitments. 
While there was some a discussion with Member  States on different options before the CBD-
COP 10 in Nagoya, the adoption of  relevant targets in the Strategic Plan of the CBD which 
were sufficiently clear and quantified allow the Commission to focus on these elements. 
Nature of the target 
This target is indicative, and the level of ambition should be reviewed in 2014, when it should 
be clearer how much restoration is likely to  take place under the WFD and the MSFD, and 
progress has been made on the cost s and benefits of further action. 
5.3. T3 - Increase the contribution of agricul ture and forestry to maintaining and 
enhancing biodiversity  
Link with EU objectives and global targets 
Addressing key drivers of biodiversity loss is essential to reach EU objectives. One of the 
2020 global biodiversity targets re quires that areas unde r agriculture, aquacu lture and forestry 
are managed sustainably, ensuring conservati on of biodiversity (Global Target 7). As 
explained in section 4.2, no EU target  is dedicated to aquaculture. 
Agriculture 
Discarded options 
Initial options considered for the agriculture target included: a percentage of CAP funds 
earmarked for biodiversity, a percentage of agri cultural area under orga nic farming or a 
percentage of high nature valu e farmland that should be mainta ined. These were not retained 
on the basis of further assessment and input rece ived from stakeholders  and Member States, 
namely: earmarking of CAP funds would not ha ve been possible without pre-empting the 
discussions on the CAP reform; while the envi ronmental benefits of organic farming are 
recognised
47, it was felt on the one hand that l eaving conventional farming unaddressed would 
be problematic given its dominant share in ag ricultural area and, on the other hand that other 
types of farming also provide benefits for biodiversity. As regards the High Nature Value 
farmland, the problem of the lack of a common  definition of NHV fa rmland or HNV farming 
at EU level was raised. A target  based on the area of  agriculture land that  is under measures 
that have to deliver an improvement in th e state of biodiversit y was thus preferred. 
Alternative options considered and level of ambition 
The recent communication on ‘The CAP towards 2020’48 highlights that ‘the active 
management of natural resources by farming is an  important tool to combat biodiversity loss 
                                                 
47 See for example 'Organic farming shows limited benefit to wildlife'. Science Daily . 6 May 2010, 
showing a 12% increase in biodiversity in organic farms, but lower yields; and 
http://www.newscientist.com/ar ticle/dn6496-organic-farming-boosts-biodiversity-.html   
48 COM(2010)672 final. 
 
EN 29   EN and contributes to mitigating and adapting to climate change’. Targeted financial rewards for 
agri-environmental ecosystem services are needed  to provide better incentives to farmers to 
engage in activities that cont ribute to conserving and restorin g biodiversity on their lands.  
This requires an increase in the proportion of  utilised agricultural area (UAA) under which 
biodiversity supportive practices and the deli very of public goods from agriculture are 
rewarded. 
The proportion of UAA likely to be covered depends  on the type of agro -ecosystems targeted. 
High Nature Value (HNV) areas49 are particularly important as evidence shows that HNV 
areas are critical to conserving biodiversity. For example, it has been shown that the diversity 
of farmland birds was statistically hi gher in HNV areas than outside HNV areas50. 
Maintaining these areas requires income support as these farming systems are under threat due to low farm incomes. Agro-ecosystems outside HNV areas  also provide valuable ecosystem services, such as carbon sequestratio n, soil erosion control, and water regulation. 
This includes other types of extensiv e agriculture, including non HNV Natura 2000 
agricultural land, and grassla nds, but also more intensive agricultural areas. 
The target should therefore focus on the extent of agricultural areas covered by biodiversity-
related measures, as well as the effectiveness of  the measures in enhanc ing biodiversity. Three 
options were considered, depending on whet her biodiversity-measures would target: 
• Option 1 – extensive agricultu ral areas including HNV areas, Natura 2000 and grasslands 
(40 to 50% of UAA) 
• Option 2 – a proportion of agricu ltural area across gr asslands, arable land and permanent 
crops including both extensive and intens ive agriculture (at least 60% of UAA) 
• Option 3 – all agricultura l land (100% of UAA)  
Annex 7 provides the analysis of the extent of  agricultural area likely to be covered under 
each of the options . Option 1 would reflect th e high importance of extensive agricultural 
areas including HNV, Natura 2000 and grassland ar eas in maintaining bi odiversity, but would 
leave out important benefits that more intensive agro-ecosystems could also provide. On the contrary, option 2 would recognise that inte nsive arable land also  provides restoration 
opportunities through the use of meas ures that allow the land to re st and recover; such as set 
aside, or other landscape and management m easures. A realistic proportion of agricultural 
area covered under option 2 could be about 60 % of UAA (see annex 7), or more, depending 
on the extent to which the options consider ed in the recent communication on ‘The CAP 
towards 2020’, are taken forward in the CAP refo rm. It would ensure the contribution of the 
different types of farmland areas that can provide ecosystem services and biodiversity 
                                                
 
49 High Nature Value farmland comprises the areas in  the rural landscapes where farming supports high 
biodiversity in terms of species and habitats, of  which three main categories can be distinguished: 
farmland with a high proportion of semi-natural vegetation; farmland with a mosaic of low intensity 
agriculture and natural and structural elements, such as field margins, hedgerows, stone walls, patches 
of woodland or scrub, and small rivers; farmland supporting rare species or a high proportion of European or World populations. Pedroli B, Van Doorn A, De Blust G, Paracchini ML, Wascher D & 
Bunce F (Eds. 2007). Europe’s living landscapes. Essa ys on exploring our identity in the countryside. 
LANDSCAPE EUROPE / KNNV, Chapter 2.). 
50 Analysis of spatial and temporal variations of High Nature Value farmland and links with changes in 
bird populations: a study on France (Philippe Pointe reau, Aggeliki Doxa, Frédéric Coulon, Frédéric 
Jiguet, Maria Luisa Paracchini), JRC Scientific  & Technical Reports, EUR 24299 EN - 2010 
 
EN 30   EN benefits, covering a significan t proportion of agricultural land overall, whilst leaving some 
flexibility as to the proportion covered by each sub-category. 
Under option 3, all agricu ltural land would be covered by bi odiversity-related measures and 
deliver substantial benefits from agro-ecosyst ems and the services they provide. However, a 
substantial financial effort would be needed under the first and second pillar of the CAP, going well beyond a redistribution of  resources within the CAP. For the second pillar, this 
would require a higher expenditure by Member States due to co-financing requirements, 
which may seriously hamper the achievement of this target. 
The target was formulated against the background of option 2. It is based on the rationale that 
biodiversity-related measures are needed on all types of agricultural land, covering grasslands, 
arable land and permanent crops and that the ar ea under such measures is to be maximised to 
ensure a measurable improvement in the status of species and habitats. This approach offers 
the best guarantee to deliver on biodiversity objectives without requi ring a disproportionate 
financial effort as would have been the case under Option 3. Opti on 2 has been translated into 
the following target: "Maximis ing areas under agriculture acro ss grasslands, arable land and 
permanent crops that are covered by biodiversit y-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 compar ed to the EU 2010 Baseline, thus contributing 
to enhance sustainable manageme nt" . To ensure that this ta rget contributes to achieving 
Target 1 and Target 2, the improvement in the st atus of species and habitats should match the 
level of ambition of Target 1 for species and ha bitats of European interest, and the level of 
ambition of Target 2 for othe r species and habitats. Simila rly, the improvement in the 
provision of ecosystem services should be evaluate d in light of the level of ambition of Target 
2. Until a baseline is defined for ecosystems se rvices, the ecosystem (or habitat) should be 
taken as a proxy. 
Nature of the target 
This target is indicative, but woul d need to be translated in concrete terms in the design of the 
CAP reform, to deliver on the 2020 biodiversity target. The situation should be reviewed in 
2014, once the CAP reform package has been adopte d, and also in light of the take up of the 
proposed measures by farmers, and any updated data on areas covered by the different types 
of ecosystems.  
Forests 
Discarded options 
Initial options considered for th e forests target included: a pe rcentage of undisturbed forests 
that needed to be maintained as such; a percentage of fore sts under certification; a reduction 
in the percentage of fragmentation within fore sts. These were not retained on the basis of 
further assessment and input received from stak eholders and Member States, namely: too few 
Member States have undisturbed forests; fore st certification's potential was recognised, in 
particular for third countries  (albeit with some caveats
51), but it was pointed out that some of 
the existing Forest Manageme nt Plans in the EU include more stringent environmental 
                                                 
51 According to recent research th e Forest Stewardship Council ( FSC) certification scheme has not 
reduced deforestation, as originally intended (Marx,  A., Cuypers, D. (2010) Forest certification as a 
global environmental governance to ol: what is the macro-effectiven ess of the Forest Stewardship 
Council? Regulation & Governance. 4:408-434.) 
 
EN 31   EN requirements than those retained in certifica tion schemes; while forest fragmentation was 
recognised as a key threat it was raised that it is  often beyond the remit of influence of forest 
holders. A target related to the percentage of  forests that have a management plan or 
equivalent instrument that contributes to th e improvement of the st ate of biodiversity was 
preferred.  
Alternative options considered and level of ambition 
Maintaining and enhancing biodiversity is identifie d as a substantial element of the EU Forest 
Strategy and the 2006 Forest Action Plan, in the context of Sustainable Forest Management 
(SFM) and the multifunctional role of forests52. The Forest Strategy indicates that appropriate 
measures should be integrated in the forest programmes or equivalent  instruments of the 
Member States. 
In addition, the Ministerial Conference on the Pr otection of Forest in Europe (MCPFE, now 
Forest Europe process) in its Resolution H2 ag reed that forest management should be based 
on periodically updated plans or pr ogrammes at local, regional or national levels as well as for 
ownership units, when appropriate . According to the data provi ded by Member States in the 
context of Forest Europe, 23 Member States ha ve more than 60% of the forest area under a 
management plan or equivalent instrument. Ma nagement plans or equivalent documents in 
line with sustainable forest management (SFM ), with a better integr ation of biodiversity 
considerations than at pres ent, are important elements  to maintain and foster a sound approach 
towards the implementation of multiple, long -term sustainability goals. They would 
contribute to the long term EU bi odiversity objectives are reached. 
The target should focus on incr easing the number of forests covered by a management plan 
that includes biodiversity aspects, and on ensuring that a sufficient enhancement of 
biodiversity and ecosystem services is achieved.  
Two options were considered, requesting that by 2020:  
• Option 1 - All publicly owned forests EU ha ve a management plan or equivalent 
instrument in line with SFM 
• Option 2 - All publicly owned forests and all forests receiving EU funds under the Rural 
Development Policy have a management plan or  equivalent instrument in line with SFM 
The proportion between areas of publicly and privately owned forests in the EU is 
approximately 40 % and 60 % respectively. Many of the publicly owned forests already have 
management plans or equivalent instruments, but  not all include biodiversity related aspects. 
Option 1 implies that public authorities refl ect in their own management plans the 
biodiversity-related commitments they have ag reed to in the context of Forest Europe. 
Therefore it would not be a ne w requirement but rather the crystallization of an existing 
agreement . However it would not have any be aring on privately owned forests. 
Option 2 would, in addition, take advantag e of the opportunities embedded in rural 
development policy and the LIFE + program to provide leverage for a wider application of 
Management Plans and equivalent  instruments in privately owne d forests. It would therefore 
provide added value to Member States  action and ensure that adequate incentive s are 
provided by rewarding forest management practices  that deliver benefits from biodiversity 
and ecosystem services. The wider use of  management plans would also provide additional 
                                                 
52 COM(2006)302. 
 
EN 32   EN benefits  as it could serve as a basis for the identified needs53 of better integrating forestry into 
rural development, and improving the evaluation of forestry measures with respect to the 
broader aims of rural development policy, th ereby allowing a better evaluation of the 
effectiveness of the use of public funds. 
An alternative option requiring th at all forests in the EU have a management plan would fully 
reflect the recommendation of Resolution H2  of MCPFE which applies to all forests 
irrespective of their ownershi p, and maximise benefits fr om forest biod iversity and 
ecosystems services. However, apart from the in fluence of rural development funding, the EU 
has limited leverage over private forest decisi on-making, which is within  the remit of Member 
States. Therefore this option for a target was not retained, to take into account subsidiarity 
considerations. 
Option 2 is therefore the preferred option. An additional issue is the administrative level of 
management plans , as resolution H2 allows some flexibility. Whilst management plans at 
national or regional level would lower the admini strative burden, they would be unlikely to 
adequately deliver on the biodiversity targets. The adoption of management plans should be at 
the holding level to be effective, given that fo rest management decisions are taken by forest 
holders, depending on local conditions (climate, so lid, species etc.), whilst relying on national 
forest management regulations and on principl es agreed within the framework of Forest 
Europe. Many Member States have adopted guid elines for the management of forests for 
biodiversity conservation, which would faci litate the task of forest holders. 
To reduce the administrative burden  for very small holdings, the target for private holdings 
could be restricted to holdings above a cer tain size. The decision on the size under which 
funding under the EU Rural Development Policy would not be conditional upon the development of a Forest Management Plan coul d be decided by the Member States or regions 
taking into account subsidiarity  considerations. 
The management plans would need to contribute to a measurable improvement of the status of 
species and habitats dependent on or affected by forestry, as well as in the provision of 
ecosystem services, compared to the current stat e. The  improvement in the status of species 
and habitats, is to be measured against the st ate of biodiversity as de scribed in the EU 2010 
Baseline, and should match the level of ambiti on of Target 1 for species and habitats of 
European importance, and the le vel of ambition of Target 2 fo r other species and habitats. 
Similarly, the improvement in the provision of eco system services should be measured against 
the EU 2010 Baseline and evaluated in light of the level of ambition of Target 2. Until a baseline is defined for ecosystem services, th e ecosystem (or habitat) should be taken as a 
proxy. 
Although an intermediary target was considered , given that the CAP re form would only enter 
into force shortly before 2015, any mid-term ta rget would only evaluate the output of past 
policies.  
Nature of the target 
This target is indicative. It could however be translated in more concrete terms if retained in 
the design of the CAP reform, and the formulation of the Rural Development Policy post-2013. The situation should be reviewed in 2014, once the CAP reform package has been adopted, and also in light of the take up of management plan s, and their effectiveness in 
conserving and enhancing forest biod iversity and ecosystem services. 
                                                
 
53 Reporting on the implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy – COM (2005)84 final. 
 
EN 33   EN 5.4. T4 - Ensure the sustainable use of fisheries resources 
Link with EU objectives and global targets 
Overfishing is an important driv er of biodiversity loss. The fish eries target adopted in Nagoya 
as part of the CBD Strategic Plan is aimed at  ensuring that "By 2020 all fish and invertebrate 
stocks and aquatic plants are managed and harvested sustainably, legally and applying 
ecosystem based approaches, so that overfishing  is avoided, recovery plans and measures are 
in place for all depleted species, fisheries have  no significant adverse impacts on threatened 
species and vulnerable ecosystems and the impacts of fisheries on stocks, species and ecosystems are within safe ecologi cal limits" (Global Target 6).  
Alternative options considered 
In Johannesburg, in 2002, the European Union committed to maintain or restore stocks to 
levels that can produce MSY, achieving these goal s for depleted stocks on an urgent basis, 
and where possible not later than 2015
54. 
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)55 establishes European Marine Regions 
on the basis of geographical and environmental criteria, with the objective of achieving or 
maintaining Good Environmental Status for all marine waters, including its marine 
biodiversity by 2020 based on criteria including fish stock health. The recently adopted 
Commission progress report on th e Integrated Maritime Policy56 consolidates the Marine 
Strategy Framework Directive as  its environmental pillar.  
Based on the above, this target needs be centred  on two main dimensions: restoring stocks to 
MSY and ensuring that adverse impacts of fi sheries on marine ecosystems are minimised. 
This was clearly supported by stakeholders a nd Member States given the commitments made 
in Johannesburg and Nagoya.  
Two main options were considered on MSY, in  line with the main environmental options 
considered in the ongoing reform of the Common Fisheries Policy:  
• Option 1 – achieving environmental sustainabil ity, with MSY in mixed fisheries based on 
the most commercially valuable species.  
• Option 2 – achieving environmental sustainabil ity, with MSY in mixed fisheries focusing 
on the most vulnerable species.  
The focus of MSY in mixed fisheries is impor tant because the level of effort cannot be 
adapted to different species. If the level of effort is aimed at achieving MSY for the most 
valuable species, it may be higher than what would be needed to achieve MSY for other joint 
species, that could then be overe xploited. On the other hand, if th e level of effort is aimed at 
achieving MSY for the most vulnerable species, it  may be lower than what would be needed 
to achieve MSY for other join t species, that would then be  underexploited, with economic 
consequences. Therefore, a compromise is need ed on the choice of the criteria to set the MSY 
levels: the most vulnerable or the most valuable . Option 2 is preferred to  option 1, as more in 
line with the EU 2020 biodiversity headlin e target, and the Nagoya commitments. 
                                                 
54 World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, 2002. 
55 Directive 2008/56/EC. 
56 COM (2009) 540 final. 
 
EN 34   EN Level of ambition 
The level of ambition here is linked to timing. Tw o options were considered, also in line with 
the CFP reform options currently considered: 
• Achieve MSY for all stocks within a fl exible time horizon, not later than 2020 
• Achieve MSY for all stocks by 2015 
Given the Johannesburg commitments, the prefe rred option is to achieve MSY for all stocks 
by 2015. Decisions will however ne ed to be taken for each individual stock, based on specific 
circumstances. This might involve the use of  proxy measures and precautionary approaches 
for stocks for which there is not sufficient data  availability. Finally the target should also 
reflect the requirements of the MSFD. Beyond quantitative objectives  in terms of mortality or 
biomass, objectives should be set on the stat us within stocks, having regard notably to 
population age and size dist ribution, in line w ith Commission Decision 2010/477/EU on 
criteria and methodological sta ndards on good environmental status . The latter also requires a 
long-term commitment to monitor all trophic le vels of marine organisms and the physical 
forces that influence their communities. In the longer term, therefore, suitable metrics for fisheries management approaches addressing a ra nge of ecosystem interactions would need to 
be developed. 
Nature of the target 
Although indicative at this  stage, this target would need to be translated in the legal 
framework of the CFP reform to ensure that the objectives are reached . The situation would 
need to be reviewed in 2014, once the pack age of the CFP reform has been adopted. 
5.5. T5 - Combat invasive alien species  
Link with EU objectives and global targets 
This specific objective also focuses on one of the key drivers of biod iversity loss and is 
directly related to the globa l 2020 biodiversity target: 'By 2020, invasive alien species and 
pathways are identified and prioritized, priority  species are controlled or eradicated, and 
measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent their introduction and establishment' 
(Global Target 17). 
Alternative options considered 
The global target reflects that efforts have to be two-fold to reduce th e impact of invasive 
alien species on native biodiversity : it involves on the one hand t ackling the spread  of already 
introduced invasive alien speci es, and on the other hand, prev enting the introduction of new 
invasive species (by focusing on pathways). Tw o options were considered with respect to 
tackling the spread of already introduced IAS. 
• Option 1 – Applying the 2020 global target for IA S as it stands, implying a prioritisation of 
species to be tackled.  
• Option 2 – Adjusting the 2020 global target for IAS to broaden the scop e of species to be 
tackled (by deleti ng ‘prioritised’). 
In option 1, species posing th e most significant biodivers ity, economic and social/health 
threats would be prioritised (e.g. establishment of a “black- list” of species prohibited from 
import and sale in Europe) in view of future measures. This option would have the advantage 
 
EN 35   EN of limiting action to key, most damaging sp ecies at EU level, while foreseeing the 
identification and tackling of nationally or loca lly damaging species at Member State level. 
The response to the IAS challenge would theref ore be proportionate, reconciling the need for 
action while ensuring that implementati on costs are kept to the minimum. 
In option 2, the objective would be to leave th e question of prioritisation of species more 
open, in view of possibly more inclusive list s of tackled species. Indeed, Europe does not 
have a particularly good r ecord in managing IAS, with only 34  species successf ully eradicated 
from one or more regions. This may plead for broader coverage, at leas t in a first phase of 
implementation, also for awareness raising reasons . The fact that a sign ificant proportion of 
alien species in Europe are native elsewhere on the continent may al so justify a more open 
framework, possibly going beyond most damagi ng species at EU level. While this may 
present advantages, Option 2 would present on e important shortcoming: the number of 
species covered would be both higher than in Option 1, which would increase implementation 
costs, and the method to be used to include species on any registers/lists would be more 
difficult to establish, which would create uncerta inty. Option 1 was therefore preferred, which 
is also more in line with the global target. 
Nature of the target 
This target is indicative, although it should be u nderlined that the EU has committed to it as a 
CBD party. It will need to be reviewed after the Strategy on invasive alien species has been 
adopted, which is foreseen in 2012, and may be tr anslated into a regulatory framework, if this 
is the option retained at that time. 
5.6. T6 – Help avert global biodiversity loss 
Link with EU objectives and global targets 
The EU derives benefits from a healthy global biodiversity and also bears a certain degree of 
responsibility for global biodivers ity loss. All Parties to the CB D, including the EU, have their 
share of responsibility for delivering on the objec tives of the Convention, and need to take the 
necessary measures to ensure the achieveme nt of the vision, mission and targets of the 
recently adopted Strategic Plan 2011-2020.  
The selected target therefore mirrors the third dimension of the EU headline target .  
Discarded options 
Other options originally considered for th e target on global biodiversity included: a 
percentage of earmarking of development aid for biodiversity, a percentage of reduction of 
EU's ecological footprint, a percentage of Ma rine Protected Areas es tablished in areas beyond 
national jurisdiction. These were not retained on the basis of further assessment and input 
received from stakeholders and Member States , namely: earmarking of external aid would not 
have been possible without pre-empting the ongoing discussions on resource mobilisation; the ecological footprint and the mari ne protected areas while importa nt aspects were considered 
too limited to capture the entire contribution that  the EU can have to the protection of global 
biodiversity. A more general formulation reflecting the word ing of the EU biodiversity 
headline target was preferred. 
Nature of the target 
The target is again indicative, although repr esenting an international EU commitment, and 
will need to be reviewed in  2014 or earlier, in particular  following COP-11 negotiations on 
financing targets and the adoption of a legislative proposal on ABS. 
 
EN 36   EN General objectives Specific 
objectives Operational targets 
Fully implement 
the Birds and 
Habitats 
Directives T1 - To halt the deterioration in the st atus of all species and habitats covered 
by EU nature legislation and achie ve 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 Direct ive show an improved conservation 
status; and (ii) 50  % more species assessments  under the Birds Directive 
show a secure or  improved status. 
Increase the 
contribution of 
agriculture and 
forestry to 
maintaining and 
enhancing 
biodiversity* T3a - By 2020, maximise areas under agriculture across grasslands, arable 
land and permanent crops that are cove red by biodiversity-related measures 
under the CAP so as to ensure the cons ervation of biodiversity and to bring 
about a measurable improveme nt (*) in the conservati on status of species and 
habitats that depend on or are affected by agriculture and in the provision of 
ecosystem services as compared to the EU 2010 Baseline, thus contributing 
to enhance sustainable management. 
T3b - By 2020, Forest Management Plans or equivalent inst ruments, in line 
with Sustainable Fore st Management (SFM57), 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 re gions and communicated in their Rural 
Development Programmes) that re ceive funding under the EU Rural 
Development Programme, so as to bri ng a measurable improvement (*) in 
the conservation status of species and ha bitats that depend on or are affected 
by forestry and in the provision of related ecosystem services as compared to 
the EU 2010 Baseline. 
(*) For both targets, improvement is to  be measured against the quantified 
enhancement targets for the conservation st atus 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. 
Ensure the sustainable use of 
fisheries resources T4 - Achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) by 2015. Achieve a 
population age and size distribution indicative of a healthy stock, through 
fisheries management with no significa nt 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 Halting the loss of 
biodiversity and the 
degradation of 
ecosystem services in 
the EU by 2020 
Combat invasive 
alien species T5 - By 2020, invasive alien species and their pathways are identified and 
prioritised, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and pathways are 
managed to prevent the introduction and establishment of new IAS. 
Restoring ecosystem services in so far as 
feasible Maintain and 
restore 
ecosystems and 
their services T2 - By 2020, ecosystems and their serv ices are maintained and enhanced by 
establishing green infrastructure and re storating at least 15% of degraded 
ecosystems. 
Stepping up the EU contribution to 
averting global 
biodiversity loss Help avert global 
biodiversity loss T6 - By 2020, the EU has stepped up its contribution to averting global 
biodiversity loss. 
Table 1: General and specific objectives and operational targets 
5.7. Additional considerations in the choice of targets 
The relationship between the diffe rent targets was also an impor tant consideration. There is 
no clear-cut division between the six targets and many are mutually supportive or inter-
dependent. For instance, the eff ectiveness of actions undertaken in the context of pressure-
                                                 
57 As defined in SEC(2006) 748 
 
EN 37   EN based targets, such as those focusing on agricu lture and forestry, fisheries and invasive alien 
species, will contribute to the delivery of impact based targ ets on restoration or nature 
conservation. Similarly, measures undertaken under the global target focus on indirect drivers 
of biodiversity loss and as such should bring positive benefits also within the EU, thereby 
contributing towards the achievement of all targets.  
An additional consideration was the potential of the targets to contribute towards the 
achievement of other EU priority objectives. For example, activities carried out under the 
fisheries target, and targets 1, 2 and 5 woul d contribute to achieving the objective of good 
environmental status of marine waters in the EU by 2020 as required under the Marine 
Strategy Framework Directive. Inve sting in green infrastructure to restore ecosystem services 
will contribute to adapting to and mitigating climate change. Finally, more sustainable agriculture, forestry and fisheries will also co ntribute to several environmental objectives and 
to three objectives of the EU  2020 Strategy (innovation, climat e change and poverty targets) 
and its resource efficient flagship initiative. 
Finally, the targets were selected so that EU meeting its 2020 headline target will contribute 
to the achievement of global objectives. Annex 9 shows how the global targets will be 
reflected in the EU strategy, and Annex 10 re flects an analysis of whether or not new 
measures are needed at EU leve l to achieve the global targets. 
5.8. The nature of the targets 
As described in more detail unde r the respective secti ons, all targets are a nd most will remain 
indicative, unless they are taken up in parall el or forthcoming legislative initiatives.  
All targets are proposed at EU level. Although co nsequences will vary at  Member State level, 
given the different situations regarding th e state of biodiversity and the level of 
implementation of existing legislation, it is not intended that the EU target will be translated 
into explicit and differentiated nati onal targets. For some new targ ets, such as restoration, part 
of the proposed measures is a process for implementation at national level.  
Some new information is expected in the next  few years, as highlighted in section 8.2 on 
reporting and review. In addition, targets may need to be re-a djusted after adoption of the 
ongoing main policy reforms and ot her relevant initiatives planned in the near future. A 
general review is therefore proposed in 2014, wh en the proposed targets will need to be 
reviewed, and possibly adjusted if justified by new information. Therefore no intermediate 
targets have been proposed at this stage, except for the fisheries target, where there is a clear 
international commitment for a milestone by 2015.  
6. S
COPING OF MEASURES TO ACHIEVE THE TARGETS  
The Council Conclusions requested that the biodiversity strategy in clude the necessary, 
feasible and cost-effective measures and actio ns for reaching the selected targets. These 
should be integrated into releva nt internal and external EU s ectoral policies; build on existing 
EU policies and legislation and commitments made at international level; and aim to 
incorporate the value of biodive rsity and ecosystem services.  
The following section presents a discussion of po ssible measures that could be considered to 
reach the selected targets.  
Measures seek to address the factors which hi ndered the achievement of the 2010 biodiversity 
target, in particular insufficient integration in to sectoral and national policies, implementation 
and legislative gaps, lack of adequate funding, lack of awareness, and inadequate governance 
 
EN 38   EN structure (including lack of baseline and knowledge). The empha sis on the different categories 
varies across targets, de pending on their relevance. 
Possible alternatives for measures are discussed in the text focusing on the broad categories of 
action described above. The range of alternatives  is however often constrained by the selected 
target for which an orientation and level of ambition have already been chosen, and also in some cases by the EU commitment to achieve the CBD Strategic Plan targets. Given the parallel or forthcoming relevant impact asse ssments, it would not be proportionate to carry 
out a detailed analysis of alternatives for each individual measure. The analysis focuses 
instead on the broad categories of action. Thes e could be implemented separately, or more 
often as a combination, to achieve the target s. Stakeholder views ar e also included, and a 
possible prioritisation of  measures discussed. 
This scoping exercise therefore leads to the de sign of broad areas of action to reach specific 
targets but often also contributing to other ta rgets, which would be further elaborated in 
forthcoming impact assessments. It is importa nt to underline however that the identified 
measures would not be sufficient on their ow n to reach each relevant target. Full 
implementation of existing EU legislation, as well as action at national, regional and local 
level, in areas of national comp etence would also be required.  
6.1. Measures for Nature Conservation 
Whilst the establishment of the Natura 2000 network is at an advanced stage, implementation 
has been slow, in particular regarding the sele ction of marine areas and the development of 
site management plans. 
The Nature Directives have however shown their effectiveness for conservation, thus 
measures under this target should focus on speeding up the completion of the Natura 2000 Network, and on making the network fully operati onal through the effective management and 
restoration of the sites – movi ng from 'non-deterioration' to effective management and 
restoration, in order to maintain  and improve the conservation st atus of species and habitats 
covered by the Nature directiv es. Measures focusing on the mana gement of Natura 2000 sites 
would have an impact on the implementation of  both the Habitats and the Birds directive 
since all sites covered by these di rectives are part of the network. 
Better implementation and enforcement 
The Habitats Directive promotes the develo pment of management plans or equivalent 
instruments for the sites, as a strategic tool  to help achieve cons ervation objectives and 
coordinate management and restoration actions. However, to improve the overall coherence of 
implementation measures at biogeographical le vel, an extended biogeographical process is 
needed that would also facilitate priority-s etting and strengthen trans-boundary co-operation 
and information sharing across the network.  
In addition, better law enforcement will be essential to achieve th e target, given that there are 
well-documented cases of inadequate implementation and enforcement
58. Some Member 
States have also experienced de lays in transposing the Birds and Habitats Directives into 
national law, in designating Natu ra 2000 sites, and in establis hing conservation measures for 
                                                 
58 http://eu-information-service.rs-con sulting.com/Policy%20Department%20C%20-
%20Citizens'%20Rights%20and%20Constitutional%20Affairs/5.%20Petitions/National%20Implement
ation%20of%20the%20'Habitats'%20Directive.pdf  
 
EN 39   EN designated sites. This require s specific action, including better  training, inspection capacity, 
guidance and where needed legal action. 
Better knowledge base 
To address the problem of the lack of a clear baseline, suffi cient knowledge is needed to 
measure progress in a consistent and comparable way, while at the same time minimising the administrative burden on Member States. New complementary tools are needed, including a 
reporting system for birds, and a dedicated ICT t ool within BISE to ensure wider availability 
and more efficient use of data.  
Communication and awareness raising 
The active support and involvement of  all relevant stakeholders wi ll be essential to achieving 
this target. Targeted initiatives to raise publ ic awareness, support and participation and 
communication on the multiple ecosystem benefits arising from effective management of Natura 2000 would also contribut e to the global biodiversity target that by 2020, at the latest, 
people are aware of the steps they can ta ke to conserve and use it sustainably.  
Financing options 
Options for the financial support of the effec tive management of Natura 2000, and to address 
the issue of the current low uptake will be considered by the Commission, and, without pre-
empting the outcome of the ne gotiations on the next Multi-an nual Financial Framework, may 
include: 
• enhancing integration in key sectoral funds to ensure a sufficient level of prioritized 
delivery in line with Natura 2000 needs  
• strengthening and adapting the LIFE instrume nt, combined with e nhanced integration  
• developing a dedicated financi ng instrument for Natura 2000 
The likelihood of future success would be greatly enhanced if  the funding of Natura 2000 was 
put on a more strategic planning basis, covering the period of the next funding cycle. Article 8 
of the Habitats Directive already foresees the need to develop " a prioritized action 
framework ". This would be made possible on the basi s of Member States establishing national 
or regional Natura 2000 prio ritised action frameworks for the next financing period. 
Complementing the EU co-finan cing framework with innovative  instruments (e.g. innovative 
financial approaches, market based instruments) will also be considered. 
Stakeholder views 
Measures for the improvement of knowledge conservation status we re considered as 
important by the Business sector. Adequate f unding and management were considered one of 
the most important to take for Nature C onservation by the Agricultural sector and NGOs. 
Prioritising measures 
A package of measures that would include a combination of increased and better use of 
existing instruments (e.g. connectivity and integr ation measures, management plans, measures 
for better enforcement), with new approaches de signed to address the ob stacles which slowed 
down implementation in the period up to 2010: an improved governance  structure through a 
bio-geographical region process and a new streamlined approach  to monitoring and reporting, 
as well as dedicated initiatives to improve f unding and communication is deemed necessary to 
 
EN 40   EN reach the target. Although some of these initiatives such as a new bio-geographical process 
and a new impulse to funding approaches have a potential to deliver early and significant 
results compared to others, measures that woul d deliver in the longer term, such as improved 
communication, and new monitoring and reporti ng systems are instrume ntal in reaching the 
target and should not be ignored.  
TARGET 1: FULLY IMPLEMEMENT THE BIRD S 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 th e Birds Directive show a secure 
or improved status.  
Action 1: Complete the establishment of the Na tura 2000 network and en sure good management  
1a) Member States and the Commission will ensure that the phase to establish Natura 2000, including in 
the marine environment, is complete by 2012.  
1b) Member States and the Commission will furthe r integrate species and habitats protection and 
management requirements into key land and water use policies, both within and beyond Natura 2000 
areas.  
1c) Member States will ensure that management plans or equivalent instruments which set out 
conservation and restoration measures are developed and implemented in a timely manner for all 
Natura 2000 sites. 
1d) The Commission, together with Member States, will establish by 2012 a process to promote the 
sharing of experience, good practice and cross-border collaboration on the management of Natura 2000, within the biogeographical frameworks set out by the Directive. 
Action 2: Ensure adequate financing of Natura 2000 sites 
2) The Commission and Member Stat es to provide the necessary fund s and incentives fo r Natura 2000, 
including through EU funding instruments, under the next multiannual financial framework. The 
Commission will set out its views in 2011 on how Natura 2000 will be financed under the next multi-
annual financial framework.  
Action 3. Increase stakeh older awareness and involv ementand improve enforcement 
3a) The Commission, together with Member States, will develop and launch a major communication 
campaign on Natura 2000 by 2013.  
3b) The Commission and Member states will improve cooperation with key sectors and continue to 
develop guidance documents to improve their understanding of the requirements of the EU nature 
legislation and its value in promoting economic development.  
3c) The Commission and Member States will facilitate  law enforcement of the nature directives by 
providing specific training programmes on Natura 2000 for judges and public prosecutors, and by 
developing better compliance promotion capacities.  
Action 4: Improve and streamline monitoring and reporting  
4a) The Commission, together with Member States , will develop by 2012 a new EU bird reporting 
system, further develop the reporting system under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive and improve 
the flow, accessibility and relevance of Natura 2000 data.  
4b) The Commission will establish a dedicated ICT tool as part of the Biodiversity Information System 
for Europe to improve the availability and better use of data by 2012. 
 
EN 41   EN 6.2. Measures for Maintaining and restori ng ecosystems and their services 
Whereas the Council conclusions require the re storation of ecosystem services, the Nagoya 
target focuses on restoration of ecosystems. A key issue is whether policies for restoring 
ecosystem services should be different from those focusing on biodiversity and ecosystems. 
The link between biodiversity and ecosystem serv ices is not well understood. An analysis of a 
number of restoration projects showed that rest oration resulted in the increased provision of 
biodiversity and ecosystem services by 44% and 25% respectively, and that there is a positive relation between the two, suggesting that rest oration focused mainly on improving services 
should also have as a primary aim to restore biodiversity.
59 However, other evidence shows 
that maximising species diversity does not always  lead to high levels of ecosystem services60. 
Better knowledge base 
Better knowledge of ecosystems services and how th ey are linked to biodiversity is therefore 
needed, and also of their values and their distri bution in the EU, with a view to integrate them 
into systems of accounting and reporting to increase their visibility. Implications for the 
location and scale of restorat ion need to be explored.  
Restoration and Green Infrastructure 
To ensure that restorat ion provides significant be nefits in a cost-effective way, a prioritisation 
framework should also be devel oped that defines the scale of the restoration target and the 
criteria on which prioritisation should be based, which could include: relevance for 
biodiversity; extent of degrad ation of ecosystems; the provis ion of key ecosystem services 
and cost-benefit ratio s of restoration. 
Key to enhancing ecosystem services is improving ecosystem resilience and habitat 
connectivity, through the developmen t of planning tools such as integrated spatial planning 
that includes the establishment of green infras tructure, which requires action at Member State 
level. There is a wealth of initiatives at local , regional or national levels in Member States 
(see Annex 12) but so far they have been carried out in an isolated way. A green infrastructure 
initiative would help to foster  synergies between planned effort s as well as promote further 
investments, thereby providing added value  to Member States action. The main options 
include: 
• Integration  of green infrastructure in other EU policies that influence land use and its 
spatial patterns; 
• Promotion of the concept of green infrastruc ture and integrated spatial planning through 
communication activities , including training, citizen participation and capacity building 
for relevant authorities; 
• Encouraging implementation of green infrastr ucture through a range of possible funding 
sources, including: EU funds (for  example structural funds fo r investments into local GI 
projects); innovative financial instruments to  encourage investments from the private 
sector; public private partnerships. 
                                                 
59 Nellemann, C., E. Corcoran (eds) 2010. Dead Planet, Living Planet. Biodiversity and ecosystem 
restoration for sustainable development. A rapid response assessment. UNEP, GRID-Arendal. 
60 R. Naidoo, A. Balmford, R. Costanza, B. Fisher, R.  E . Green, B. Lehne r, T. R. Malcolm , and T. H. 
Ricketts, 2008 Global mapping of ecosyste m services and conservation priorities. PNAS  105(28), pp 
9495–9500. 
 
EN 42   EN No net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services 
Beyond the toolbox needed to establish green infr astructure, there may al so be a need for a 
wider no-net-loss approach to ensure no furthe r loss or degradation of ecosystems and their 
services overall. Whereas compensation for displ aced habitats is a legal requirement of the 
Habitats directive, and also of the Environment Liability Directive (ELD)61 in the case of 
damage to Natura 2000 and biodiversity, there is no requirement for systematic compensation 
outside Natura 2000, which leads to net losses. Th ere is a need for, on  the one hand, a clear 
hierarchical framework whereby degradation is avoided as far as possible, and on the other 
hand, where degradation cannot be avoided, a requirement for compensation. Options, which 
are not necessarily mutually exclusive, include: 
• A clear decision-making framework, to ensure  degradation is avoided wherever possible 
before compensation is envisaged. Avoiding damages to biodiversity and ecosystems is 
already included in the Environmental Im pact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic 
Environmental Assessment (SEA) directives , and these elements could be further 
strengthened. There should be better guidance  on how to apply this in practice in light of 
biodiversity objectives, similar to current practi ce for climate change. To avoid damages to 
biodiversity, the Commission will develop a me thodology for the assessment of the impact 
of EU investments by 2014. 
• An overall non-binding framework at EU level providing guidance and exchanges of best 
practices for Member States who have adopted vol untary or mandatory biodiversity offset 
policies. This could involve for example guida nce on the scale at which no net loss should 
be measured, on the equivalency methodology and the time scale for compensation, and 
using a prioritisation framework to ensu re overall no net loss at EU level. 
• An EU level legal framework  for no net loss of ecosystems, which could make some of 
the above elements mandatory.  
These options will be reviewed and further anal ysed in the context of a Commission initiative 
on the no net loss of ecosystems outside Natura  2000, and the services they provide, by 2015. 
Stakeholder views 
In the consultation for the strategy, stakeholde rs had the following opinion on measures: the 
agricultural sector advocated for maintaining and increasing the resilience of ecosystems and their services, increasing biodiversity in urban areas, as well as mitigating adverse effects from transport and energy infrastructure. The business sector viewed ensuring connectivity between protected areas, systematic compensati on of biodiversity loss, promoting integrated 
spatial planning, using market-based financing mechanisms and biodiversity provisions in 
impact assessment tools, as the most important measures to take. Finally, the major NGOs found ensuring connectivity, restoring ecosystems a nd their resiliency and integrated spatial 
planning as the most important steps to take. 
Prioritising measures 
                                                
 
61 ELD requires that, in the event of an incident (or an imminent threat of an incident), any environmental 
damage caused to water, land and nature should be remediated so that the a ffected environment returns 
to its baseline. See discussions on methodology for evaluating compensation needs at 
http://www.envliability.eu/   
 
EN 43   EN All these options are clearly new policy meas ures since there are currently no policies 
specifically focusing on ecosystem services, an d no strategic framework for no-net-loss and 
restoration. Several of these options would br ing significant results in a reasonable time 
frame, in particular green infrastructure, and a no-net-loss initiative. However, the knowledge 
base needs to be further deve loped before concrete proposals can be put forward. Options will 
therefore be further refined and analysed in the foreseen initiatives on green infrastructure and 
no net loss. 
TARGET 2: MAINTAIN AND RESTORE ECOSYSTEMS AND THEIR SERVICES  
By 2020, ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by establishing green infrastructure and 
restorating at least 15% of degraded ecosystems. 
Action 5: Improve knowledge of ecosy stems and their services in the EU 
5) Member States, with the assistance of the Co mmission, will map and assess the state of ecosystems 
and their services in their national territory by 2014,  assess the economic value of such services, and 
promote the integration of these values into accounting and reporting systems at EU and national 
level by 2020 
Action 6: Set priorities to restore and promote the use of green infrastructure  
6a) By 2014, Member States, with the assistance of the Commission, will develop a strategic framework 
to set priorities for ecosystem restoration at sub-national, national and EU level. 
6b) The Commission will develop a Green Infrastructure Strategy by 2012 to promote the deployment of 
green infrastructure in the EU in urban and rural areas, including through in centives to encourage up-
front investments in green infrastructure projects and the maintenance of ecosystem services, for example through better ta rgeted use of EU funding streams and Public Private Partnerships.  
Action 7: Ensure no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services 
7a) In collaboration with the Member States, the Commission will develop a methodology for assessing 
the impact of EU funded projects, plans and programmes on biodiversity by 2014. 
7b) The Commission will carry out further work with a view to proposing by 2015 an initiative to ensure 
there is no net loss of ecosystems and their se rvices (e.g. through compensation or offsetting 
schemes).
 
6.3. Measures for Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry 
Agriculture 
Land to be covered under the Agriculture target include agro-ecosystems within HNV and 
Natura 2000 areas, and more generally permanent grasslands within or outside these areas, as 
well as intensive arable land which could prov ide biodiversity benefits through green cover, 
crop rotation or ecological set-aside. This could be achieved through direct payments 
rewarding generic environmental provisions,  or under the second p illar, through agri-
environmental payments rewarding more targeted  actions that are bene ficial to biodiversity. 
Improving the first pillar 
The current orientation of the Commission for th e CAP reform is the enhanced provision of 
environmental public goods as one  of the objectives of the first pillar, with part of the direct 
payments  that could take the form of simple, ge neralized, non-contractua l and annual actions 
to reward agricultural practices with a posit ive impact for biodiversity (e.g. permanent 
pasture, green cover, crop rotation, ecological set-aside). In addition, the possibility of including the requirements of  current NATURA 2000 areas and e nhancing certain elements of 
 
EN 44   EN GAEC standards should be analysed62. Discussions on which elements should be mandatory 
or optional, and on their additio nality is ongoing. Including under cross-compliance actions 
required under the Water Framework Directive  once it has been implemented and the 
operational obligations for farmers have been identified, would al so ensure that benefits are 
delivered for water ecosystems. These elements for cross-compliance should ensure a minimum level of provision of public goods in the form of ecosystem services. 
Covering some of the above elements, for example Natura 2000 and HNV areas, under the 
second pillar could be considered as an alte rnative. However, to maximise biodiversity 
benefits, agri-environmental schemes should be used as a complement to baseline actions  
under the first pillar with broad environmental requirements for all areas, to target more 
precise requirements from specific ecosystems, habitats or species. There is growing evidence 
and recognition that a combinati on of direct payments and well targeted agri-environmental 
schemes is an effective strategy for delivering biodiversity benefits
63 64. 
Improving the second pillar 
In terms of payments under the second pillar, although there is ample evidence that past 
schemes have had a positive impact on biodiver sity, there is also recognition that the 
effectiveness of the schemes could be increased65. Options for an improved Rural 
Development scheme include 66: 
• a more outcome oriented approach , to better focus the policy on EU priorities and 
increase the effectiveness of agri-environmen t measures in delivering environmental public 
goods, with possible quantified biodiversity targets . 
• mechanisms to facilitate the collaboration of farmers , to contribute inter alia to the 
establishment of green infrastructure, with  the aim of ensuring connectivity between 
landscape features and habitats  and increasing the scale of connectivity and restoration, 
also with a view to enhancing ecosystem serv ices and resilience against climate change. 
The ongoing assessment of the CAP reform consid ers three main options, from an adjustment 
scenario, which would assume a continuation of  the current process with further gradual 
changes to the current policy framework, to a refocus scenario moving to support only from 
rural development measures, focused solely  around environmental and climate change 
objectives, through an integratio n scenario integrating envir onmental, economic and social 
objectives under both pillars of  the CAP. The combination of the above proposed measures 
would correspond to the latter middle scenario. 
                                                 
62 COM(2010) 672 final 
63 FAO (2010). Relevance of OECD agri-environmental measures for remuneration of positive 
externalities/payments for ecosystem services.stake holder consultation, Rome, 27-28 September 2010. 
https:// www.fao.org/docrep/013/al921e/al921e00.pdf  
64 ENCA IG, 2011 Response to the Commission's consultation for Impact Assessment on the reform of 
the CAP towards 2020. 
65 See FAO (2010). Relevance of OECD agri-environmental measures for remuneration of positive 
externalities/payments for ecosystem services.stakeholder consultation, Rome, and ENCA, 2010. 
Delivering biodiversity objectives through agri-env ironment measures of the CAP: evidence of success 
and scale of future needs.  Position Statement 6-2010. 
66 Cooper, T., Hart, K. and Baldock, D. (2009) The Provision of Public Goods Through Agriculture in the 
European Union, Report Prepared for DG Agricultu re and Rural Development, Contract No 30-CE-
0233091/00-28, Institute for European Environmental Policy: London. 
 
EN 45   EN Measures for genetic diversity 
Finally, the CBD strategic plan target 15, which requires that 'by 2020, the genetic diversity of 
cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and of wild relatives, including other 
socio-economically as well as culturally valuable species, is maintained, and strategies have been developed and implemented for minimi zing genetic erosion and safeguarding their 
genetic diversity' must be implemented through  specific measures. Th ese could for example 
include developing a specific Commission strategy for the conservation of genetic diversity 
which could inter alia build on the revision of the propagating material regimes and new 
actions in the context of the Evaluation of Regulatio n 870/2004 on the conservation, 
characterisation, collection and utilisati on of genetic resources in agriculture. 
Measures outside the CAP 
In addition to funding from the CAP, funding to fa rmers from the private sector could also be 
envisaged. Private companies could for example se t up contracts directly with land owners to 
deliver ecosystem services which benefit them, such as the case of Vittel, who is providing incentives to farmers in the Vittel catchment to  voluntarily change their management practices 
to reduce water pollution. Although these initiatives s hould be encourage d, they are unlikely 
to form the bulk of funding sources for de livering public benefits from agriculture. 
Stakeholder views 
In the consultation, farmers found that funding for agri-environme ntal measures and including 
voluntary monitoring measures within the CAP were amongst the most important steps to 
take. The business sector found that the most  important measures we re reducing intensive 
farming, increasing the area of organic farm ing and including more explicit biodiversity 
objectives and voluntary monitoring measures w ithin the CAP. Finally, the NGOs highlighted 
preserving and expanding high nature value ar eas, increasing funding for agri-environment 
measures, integrating the target within the re formed CAP and including obligatory monitoring 
and reporting requirements as important measures. 
Prioritising measures 
Although cross-compliance and agri-environment al measures to in crease environmental 
public goods are not new elements within the CAP, the greening of direct payments, and the 
more effective targeting of rural development measures could deliver early and very 
significant results for biodivers ity and ecosystem services. 
Forests 
Given the focus of the target, measures should aim explicitly at increasing the extent of both 
publicly and privately owned forests covered by a Management Plan or equivalent instrument 
that applies Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) and includes biodiversity aspects, to 
ensure a measurable improvement in the stat us of species and habitats dependent on and 
affected by forestry and in the provision of ecosystem services. 
Financing options 
Incentives to achieve that objective and prepar e the management plans could be provided for 
privately owned forests through rural deve lopment measures and the LIFE+ programme. 
However, publicly owned forest s are not eligible for paymen ts under the CAP,  although they 
can receive support for non-productive investme nts. Other incentives should therefore be 
sought through innovative financi ng mechanisms for both private a nd public forests, to attract 
 
EN 46   EN funding from the private sector in support of  ecosystem services, which are non-marketed 
goods, provided by forests. 
Contents of management plans 
To ensure that management plans adequately protect and enhance biodiversity and ecosystem 
services, in line with SFM and pursuant to Resolution H2 – General Guidelines of the 
Conservation of the Biodiversity of European  Forests, Member States should require a 
specific set of measures to be included in th e management plans, drawing from a prescribed 
list of individual measures, which may be adapted to fit local conditions. 
Stakeholder views 
The Confederation of European Forest Owners (CEPF) indicated that active management of 
forest ecosystems was necessary to  secure their sustaina bility in the long r un, and that existing 
instruments should be evaluated and better coor dinated in support of the new biodiversity 
targets, before considering new ones. They sugge sted that the availability and accessibility of 
financial mechanisms should be seen as a prerequisite for a successful implementation, and that rewarding measures for promoting partne rships and the involvement by people with a 
direct connection to nature would also be be neficial. In the context of the consultation on 
Green Paper on forests, forest industry said th at SFM should be formally recognized, and that 
more financial support for the fo rest sector and payment for ecos ystem services (PES) and full 
application and formalisation of existing MC PFE commitments and reporting system based 
on criteria and indicators could be useful. 
Prioritising measures 
The use of management plans is not new. Howe ver, the active support of Member States and 
the Commission, as well as the use of the EU Rural development instruments as an incentive 
to promote the adoption and use of management plans, combined with the requirement that specific biodiversity-related measures are includ ed, where appropriate, in these plans, would 
provide a new impetus to ensure an adequate level of protection and enhancement of forest 
biodiversity and ecosystem services. 
TARGET 3: INCREASE THE CONTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY TO MAINTAINING AND ENHANCING 
BIODIVERSITY  
3A) Agriculture: By 2020, maximise areas under agriculture across grasslands, arable land and permanent crops 
that are covered by biodiversity-related measures under th e 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 eco system services as compared  to the EU 2010 Baseline, 
thus contributing to enhance sustainable management..  
3B) Forests: By 2020, Forest Management Plans or equivalent instruments, in line with Sustainable Forest 
Management (SFM)67, are in place for all forests that are publicly owned and for forest holdings above a certain 
size(**) (to be defined by the Mem ber States or regions and communic ated in their Rural Development 
Programmes) that receive funding under the EU Rural Devel opment 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. 
(*) For both targets, 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. 
                                                 
67 As defined in SEC(2006) 748. 
 
EN 47   EN Action 8: Enhance direct payments  for environmental public goods under the EU Common Agricultural 
Policy 
8a) The Commission will propose that CAP direct pa yments will reward the delivery of environmental 
public goods that go beyond cross-compliance (e.g. permanent pasture, green cover, crop rotation, 
ecological set-aside, Natura 2000). 
8b) The Commission will propose to improve and simplify the GAEC (Good Agricultural and 
Environmental Conditions) cross-compliance standard s and consider including the Water Framework 
Directive within the scope of cross-compliance once the Directive has been implemented and the 
operational obligations for farmers have been identified in order to improve the state of aquatic ecosystems in rural areas. 
Action 9: Better target Rural Develo pment to biodiversity conservation 
9a) The Commission and Member States will integrate quantified biodiversity targets into Rural 
Development strategies and programmes, tailoring action to regional and local needs.  
9b) The Commission and Member States will establish mechanisms to facilitate collaboration among 
farmers and foresters to achieve continuity of landscape features, protection of genetic resources and other cooperation mechanisms  to protect biodiversity. 
Action 10: Conserve Europe's agricultural genetic diversity 
10) The Commission and Member States will encourage the uptake of agri-environmental measures to 
support genetic diversity in agriculture and explore the scope for developing a strategy for the 
conservation of genetic diversity. 
Action 11: Encourage forest holders to pr otect and enhance forest biodiversity  
11a) Member States and the Commission will encourage the adoption of Management Plans,
68 including 
through use of rural development measures69 and the LIFE+ programme. 
11b) Member States and the Commission will foster i nnovative mechanisms (e.g. Payments for Ecosystem 
Services) to finance the maintenance and restoratio n of ecosystem services provided by multifunctional 
forests. 
Action 12: Integrate Biodiversity measures in management plans 
12) Member States will ensure that forest management plans or equivalent instruments include as many of 
the following measures as possible: 
– maintain aoptimal levels of deadwood, taking into account regional variations such as fire risk or 
potential insect outbreaks; 
– preserve wilderness areas; 
– ecosystem-based measures to increase the resilience of forests against fires as part of forest fire 
prevention schemes, in line with activities carried out in the European Forest Fire Information 
System (EFFIS); 
– specific measures developed for Natura 2000 forest sites  
– ensuring that afforestation is carried out in a ccordance with the Pan-Euro pean Operational Level 
Guidelines for SFM70, in particular as regards the dive rsity of species, and climate change 
adaptation needs.  
                                                                                                                                                         
68 SFM requires wider use of management plans or equivalent instruments. 23 Member States already 
have more than 60% of their forested areas under such plans. 
69 These measures are currently set out in articles 42-49 of Council Regulation 1698(2005). 
70 http://www.foresteurope.org/  
 
EN 48   EN 6.4. Measures for Sustainable Use of Fisheries Resources 
Implementing MSY 
The current approach adopted by the Commission in 200671 to implement the concept of 
MSY is in principle appropriate: for stocks th at are not yet covered by multi-annual plans, 
fishing mortality should be reduced  in equal steps until the 2014 fishing year to the level that 
would achieve MSY (F MSY), and stocks should be exploited at F MSY in 2015 and thereafter72. 
A significant number of stocks are now under multi-annual plans. However, MSY is currently 
only applied to a limited number of them. More  long-term management plans are therefore 
needed which include time-limited objectives on  MSY, based on the most vulnerable stocks 
for mixed fisheries, to avoid the risk of thei r over-exploitation. The rigorous application of 
MSY will be a major contributor to achieving st ocks that maintain their productive capacity 
and that are healthy both in  terms of size/abunda nce, distribution and population condition. 
Multi-annual management plans do not include methods and rules for adjusting annual Total 
Allowable Catches (TACs) and fi shing effort restrictions. Opti ons for adapting fishing effort 
to reach MSY are explored in the im pact assessment of the CFP reform. 
Eliminating adverse impacts 
In addition, to reach the target, impacts fr om unwanted discards and by-catches and from 
fishing gear on marine ecosystems need to be  addressed. Although a reduction of the fishing 
pressure to MSY levels contribut es largely to reduction of nega tive impacts, specific measures 
may be required in some cases to gradually elim inate discards and to avoid the by-catch of 
unwanted species. The CFP reform impact asse ssment considers options from a move to 
catch quotas  (implying inter alia t echnical measures), to a discard ban . To adequately 
address the biodiversity impacts of by-catch, specific measures su ch as threshold levels and 
move-on rules would be needed, partic ularly for deep-sea fisheries.  
The upcoming reform of the CFP also needs to cater for measures and mechanisms to 
contribute, within the remit of Common Fisheries Policy, to the objectives of the Habitats and 
Birds Directives and the Marine Strategy Fr amework Directive. Th is could be through a 
regulatory approach , for example fishing bans in mari ne protected areas, or through the 
provision of financial incentives  in the frame of the future financial instruments for fisheries 
and maritime policy. 
Better knowledge 
For non-assessed stocks, data collection efforts should be increased significantly, and some 
proxy assessment and management methods could be required, in partic ular the use of the 
precautionary approach, as recognized in th e impact assessment of the CFP reform.  
Finally, eliminating the impact of fisher ies on marine ecosystems would require the 
development in the longer term of an adequate  ecosystem approach. Sc ientists are therefore 
increasingly promoting the development of ot her concepts, such as for instance Ecological 
                                                 
71 COM(2006)360 final. 
72 Fishing mortality (F) is higher than the level at which fishing produces MSY, MSY being the maximum 
long term average yield that can be  produced by a stock on a continuing basis. A stock is overfished 
when stock biomass (B) has fallen to a level below that which can produce MSY. So there are two 
aspects that managers must monitor to determine the status of a fishery: the level of F in relation to F at 
MSY (FMSY), and the level of B in relation to B at MSY (BMSY).  
 
EN 49   EN Maximum Sustainable Yield (EMSY)73, whereby the concept of adapting fishing efforts to 
ensure the sustainability of fish  populations is extended to the sustainability and resilience of 
ecosystems. Such approaches would need to be developed as soon as possi ble so that their use 
could be envisaged to protect harvested stocks, non-harvested species and ecosystems more 
effectively. 
Stakeholder views  
In response to the consultation on the CFP reform, the fisheries sector shared the objective to 
gradually reach exploitation rates matching with  MSY by 2015. On management tools to limit 
fishing mortality rates most of the contributions consider catch and effort limits as relevant, 
depending mainly on the types of fisheries they w ould be applied to. They were also in favour 
of the implementation of multi-annual plans supporting a fisheries approach, some suggesting ecosystemic multi-annual plans. Harvest Control Rules in these multi-annual plans should reflect strictly results made av ailable through the scientific a dvisory process for major stocks, 
group of stocks or fisheries. There was wide support for regional implementation of the IMP including fisheries at sea-basin level with a regional forum where all aspects are being 
discussed. A large majority favoured a CFP a ligned with the MSFD a nd other environmental 
legislation, as well as the ecosystem approach. Most contribution raised the problem of data 
availability and quality and it was suggested to step up the investments in research and data 
collection, the creation of incen tives for fishermen to provide good data, and some propose a 
new EU structure to ensure better coordinati on of resources. Many called for multidisciplinary 
research and advice in an ecosystem context, integrating it with the MSFD. Many contributions expressed a need for continuati on of public funding for the fishery sector.  
As part of the biodiversity strategy consu ltation, the business sector saw changing the 
monitoring and control system, minimizing nega tive impacts of fishing and including more 
explicit biodiversity objectives and voluntary monitoring measures in the CFP as the most 
important measures. 
The major NGOs wished to ensure consistenc y with the Marine Strategy Framework, have 
ambitious goals to reach the MSY by 2015, prom ote long-term management plans, expand 
marine protected areas and include more explicit  biodiversity objectives in the CFP as well as 
obligatory monitoring measures. 
Prioritising measures 
The commitment of the Commission to MSY is  not new. The new element of the proposed 
measures are that they are time-bound, and fo cusing explicit on the treatment of mixed 
fisheries. The additional measures proposed to reduce discards and by-catch such as closed 
areas and gear or effort restrictions are new,  and have the potential  to deliver early and 
significant results, as demonstrated through thei r implementation in California, the northeast 
United States, and northwest Australia
74. Financial incentives to implement environmental 
obligations under the Habitats Di rective and MSFD would also be  likely to yield early and 
positive results. 
                                                 
73 'EMSY is the yield an ecosystem can sustain withou t shifting to an undesired state' in: Zabel, R.W.., 
C.J. Harvey, S.L. Katz, T.P. Good and P.S. Levin, 2003. Ecological maximum sustainable yield, 
American Scientist  (21) pp150-157. 
74 Worm, B. et al, 2009. Rebuilding Global Fisheries, Science  325(5940): 578-585. 
 
EN 50   EN TARGET 4: ENSURE THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF FISHERIES RESOURCES  
Achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY ) by 2015. Achieve a population age a nd size distributio n 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.  
Action 13: Improve the management of fished stocks 
13a) The Commission and Member States will maintain and restore fish stocks to levels that can produce 
MSY in all areas in which EU fi sh fleets operate, including areas  regulated by Regional Fisheries 
Management Organisations, and the waters of third countries with which the EU has concluded Fisheries Partnership Agreements. 
13b) The Commission and Member States will develop under the CFP long-term management plans with 
harvest control rules based on the MSY approach. These plans should be designed to respond to specific time-related targets, and be based on scientific advice and sustainability principles. 
13c) The Commission and Member States will significantly step up their work to collect data to support 
implementation of MSY. Once this objective is attained, scientific advice will be sought to 
incorporate ecological co nsiderations in the definition of MSY by 2020. 
Action 14: Eliminate adverse impacts on fish stocks, species, habitats and ecosystems 
14a) The EU will design measures to gradually elimin ate discards, to avoid the by-catch of unwanted 
species and to  preserve vulnerable marine eco systems in accordance with EU legislation and 
international obligations. 
14b) The Commission and Member States will support the implementation of the Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive including through financial incentives through the future financial instruments 
for fisheries and maritime Policy for marine protected areas (including Natura 2000 areas and those established by international or regional agreements ). This could include restoring marine ecosystems, 
adapting fishing activities and promoting the involvement of the sector in alternative activities, such 
as eco-tourism, monitoring and managing marine biodiversity, and combating marine litter. 
6.5. Measures for Invasive Alien Species (IAS) 
Prevention measures 
Regarding prevention of IAS damage, there are two main options which could potentially be 
complementary: 
• Integration  of biodiversity concerns animal and plant health regimes, by introducing new 
provisions and extending the sc ope of the legislation in th e foreseen 2012 review, through 
the following potential elements: 
– Including diseases affecting native animals into animal health regime 
– Including invasive plants with economi c impact only in plant health regime 
– Including invasive plants of wider envir onmental impact in plant health regime 
• A dedicated legal instrument  on IAS, which could include the following elements: 
– A black list approach, preventing import and trade of  priority IAS 
– Preventing the intentional release of IAS into the natural environment 
– Preventing the unintentional release of IA S into the natural environment, by 
controlling priority pathwa ys (e.g. ballast water) 
Control measures 
 
EN 51   EN Additional options include an early warning and rapid respons e (if prevention fails), for 
example through a surveillance and mandatory notification and rapid response system  at 
the EU-level, as well as measures for containment, management and restoration  (if 
prevention and early warning and rapid response fail), which might involve mandatory control 
actions for selected species. This could onl y be established through a new dedicated 
legislative instrument for IAS, as pr oposed by the European Commission in its 
Communication of December 200875, and supported by the Comm ittee of Regions and the 
Economic and Social Committee in June 2009, and subsequently by the Council.  
Stakeholder views 
The agricultural sector viewed preventing the introduction and establishing an early warning 
and rapid response system as the most important measures to take, as did the business sector. 
NGOs supported the measures suggested. 
Prioritising measures 
Given the currently high negative impacts of IA S and the predicted expone ntial increase, this 
is one of the areas where very  significant results are expect ed. Measures on prevention and 
early warning and rapid response in particular would be very cost-effective as they would 
avoid the higher cost of dealing with full scale damage of introduced IAS. 
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 introductio n and establishment of new IAS.  
Action 15: Strengthen the EU Plant and Animal Health Regimes 
15) The Commission will integrate additional biodiversity concerns into the Plant and Animal Health 
regimes by 2012. 
Action 16: Establish a dedicated instrument on Invasive Alien Species 
16) The Commission will fill policy gaps in combating IAS by developing a dedicated legislative 
instrument by 2012.  
6.6. Measures for the EU Contribution to Averting Global Biodiversity Loss 
The EU can make a significant contribution to averting biodiversity loss by focusing its 
efforts and development aid in a more targeted  way to address some of the key underlying 
drivers of global biodiv ersity loss: unsustainable consum ption and production patterns, the 
lack of financial, human a nd technical resources, and the unregulated access to genetic 
resources and inequitable sharing of the benefi ts derived from the use of genetic resources. 
The rapid industrialisation and urbanisation of Eu rope led to the degradation and loss of much 
of the continent's biodiversity. As a result, Europe is now heavily reliant on certain ecosystem goods and services from other countries and co ntinents. The European Environment Agency 
fourth Environment State and Outlook report
76 (SOER 2010), shows that global demands are 
accelerating. These mounting demands on natural capital for resources to feed, clothe, house 
and transport people are exerting increased pr essure to ecosystems, economies and social 
cohesion in Europe and elsewhere.  SOER 2010 concludes that in order to shift to a resource-
                                                 
75 http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/nature/invasivealien/docs/1_EN_ACT_part1_v6.pdf  
76 The European Environment state and outlook 2010 report, EEA, 30 November 2010 (see 
http://www.eea.europa.eu/pre ssroom/newsreleases/butterf lies-or-business-europe-can ) 
 
EN 52   EN efficient green economy, all environmental resour ces, including biodiver sity, should be fully 
considered in production, consumption and globa l trade decisions, and regulators, businesses 
and citizens need to work together and find innova tive ways to use resour ces more efficiently.  
Reducing indirect driv ers of biodiversity loss 
The development of a flagship initiative on a re source efficient Europe as part of the EU 2020 
Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive gr owth, and within it the 2012 review of the EU 
Sustainable Consumption and Production and Su stainable Industrial Policy (SCP/SIP) Action 
Plan, represent useful opportunities for addre ssing biodiversity impacts of unsustainable 
consumption and production patterns. Measures  undertaken under this target would aim 
specifically at reducing nega tive impacts of EU consump tion and production patterns on 
biodiversity beyond EU borders, but also by extens ion within the EU itself, contributing to 
broader sustainable consumption and producti on and resource efficiency objectives. The 
Council has specifically advoc ated reducing the EU ecol ogical footprint on global 
biodiversity through work undertaken on resour ce efficiency as part of the EU 2020 
Strategy77. 
Although more information and data on the impact s of trade flows on global biodiversity is 
needed, some commodities have been shown to  have significant negative impacts. Studies 
point out that a number of commo dities (like soybeans, fish and crustaceans, bovine meat, 
cotton and palm oil78) may have significant negative im pacts on global diversity. Similar 
exercises are being carried out at Member State level79. A better understanding of links 
between trade and illegal loggi ng and recognition of the magnitude of the problem led the EU 
to adopt the Forest Law Enforcement Gove rnance and Trade Action Plan (FLEGT), under 
which Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPA ) are being concluded with timber producing 
countries. This approach of measures aiming to reduce biodiversity impacts of EU 
consumption patterns  might be considered for other se ctors and commodities. However, the 
potential environmental, economic and soci al impacts in source countries of any 
corresponding new policy instruments under cons ideration would need to be assessed. The 
close involvement of private sect or actors (producers, traders,  retailers) in the eventual 
development of such measures will also be esse ntial given their pivotal role in greening the 
respective supply chains. A nu mber of approaches could be considered including: 
• measures focusing on demand (changing consumption patterns through for 
example, eco-labelling, and green procurement); 
• measures focusing on supply (including for example sustainability criteria, or 
banning placing on the market of illegally logged timber).  
Impacts of EU consumption in source countries can also be in fluenced through trade policies. 
Trade impacts on biodiversity  should be systematically revi ewed in trade agreements, on the 
basis of tried and tested methodologies, both ex ante and ex post. In that respect, the recent 
Trade 2020 Communication states that impact a ssessments and evaluations should be more 
                                                 
77 Council (Environment) conclusions of March 2010 (preambular para i), 15 October 2010 (para 19). 
78 http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/natres/studies.htm  
79 As part of the UK Global Influence initiative, the UK government and the Joint Nature Conservation 
Committee (JNCC) have engaged in a process to identif y the commodities that ha ve a higher impact on 
ecosystems and biodiversity as well as quantify UK international trade and investment flows; identify 
key partner countries, potential ecosystem impacts arising from the flow in goods and investments, and 
policy options for government and UK business to encourage sustainable use of global ecosystems. 
 
EN 53   EN embedded in trade policy making, including th rough carrying out impact assessments on all 
new trade initiatives with a pot entially signifi cant economic, social or environmental impact 
on the EU and its trading partners, and through th e more systematic use of ex post evaluations 
of trade agreements. 
Increasing the efficient use of resources also requires settin g adequate accounting tools and 
market signals  so that biodiversity values are ta ken into account when making economic 
decisions. Possible approaches include: 
• positive incentives  for the maintenance and enhancement of biodiversity and 
ecosystem services through market-based instruments, such as biodiversity off-
sets or payments for ecosystem services; 
• removing incentives  for those EU activities having a negative impact  on 
biodiversity. The G-20 Heads of State recently committed to phasing out and 
rationalising inefficient fossil fuel subsidies over the medium term while 
providing targeted support fo r the poorest, while in the EU, harmful subsidies 
are likely to come under increased sc rutiny in the context of budgetary 
constraints. The TEEB study concluded th at the G20 initiativ e needed to be 
extended to other subsidies with dire ct and important harmful effects on 
ecosystems and biodiversity. Priority areas for reform include the removal of capacity- or effort-enhancing subsidies fo r fisheries and the continued reform 
of agricultural subsidies inducing uns ustainable production. Additional and 
prioritised reform efforts are needed in  other sectors too, in cluding fossil fuels, 
transport subsidies; and water subsidie s that result in unsustainable water 
consumption. 
Increasing funding and assistance for global biodiversity 
Some of the most important biomes are found in  a single country or re gion, yet the benefits 
are shared globally. The EU therefore has an in terest in ensuring that biodiversity beyond its 
borders is conserved and sustainably used, a nd has already committed under the CBD to assist 
partner countries in conservi ng their biodiversit y. Specifically, at CBD COP10, the EU 
committed to a process aimed at adopting targets for biodiversity resource mobilisation  at 
COP11 in 2012. The global funding baseline is to be determined according to a set of agreed 
indicators to estimate the aggregated annual financial flows of biodi versity-related funding 
from a broad range of sources, public and privat e. Parties are required to submit information 
related to these indicators by 30 June 2011.  
The agreed process also puts onus on developi ng countries, requiring that they carry out 
valuation of biodiversity, identify and report fu nding needs, gaps and priorities and develop 
country-specific resource mobilisation strategies  for biodiversity. The EU should support 
developing countries in this process to ensure effectivenes s of funding, as well as through 
coordinating the implementation of biodiversity  projects with key donors, according with 
CBD guidelines. 
'Biodiversity proofing' EU development cooperation 
The Commission will also seek to use more systematically strategic environmental 
assessments , including in relation to budget and sectoral  aid, to improve the effectiveness of 
 
EN 54   EN its own development cooperation support for bi odiversity, in line with the 2005 European 
Consensus and CBD guidelines80.  
Better access to and sharing of be nefits from genetic resources 
Finally, the EU ratification of the Nagoya Prot ocol on Access to Gene tic Resources and the 
Fair and Equitable Sharing of Bene fits Arising from their Utilization81 will likely require the 
development of new EU policies or laws. The most efficient and effective way of 
implementing the Nagoya Protocol in the EU will be identified over the course of 2011 by means of an impact assessment and a public consultation. Aspects that will need to be considered include: tools/ frameworks for cooperation with countries providing genetic 
resources; how to enhance transparency and information about access and benefit-sharing in 
research and development; how to enable companies to properly address access and benefit-sharing prior to the marketing of products based on genetic resources and associated 
traditional knowledge. The results of this exercise will be set out in a Commission 
Communication and potential regulatory proposals , to be adopted by the College in 2012 in 
view of adopting legislation by 2015, as required by the global target. 
Stakeholder views 
The agricultural sector saw ensuring that biodi versity considerations are reflected in EU's 
dialogue with third c ountries and promoting synergie s between climate change and 
biodiversity agendas as important measures. The business sector viewed reducing negative 
impacts in trade, production and consumption, ensuring that biodiversity considerations are 
reflected in EU's dialogue with third countri es and possible international payments for 
ecosystem services and enhance synergies betwee n climate change and biodiversity objectives 
as important measures to take. Finally, the NGOs supported the measures suggested. 
Prioritising measures 
Transposing the ABS protocol is an EU commitment and is expected to deliver significant 
results within a relatively short period of time. Setting in place a process to deliver on the EU commitment to agree a funding target  before 2012 is also a priority. 
TARGET 6: HELP AVERT GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY LOSS  
By 2020, the EU has stepped up its contribution to averting global biodiversity loss.  
Action 17: Reduce indirect drivers of biodiversity loss  
17a) Under the EU Flagship on resource efficiency, the EU will take measures (which may include demand 
and/or supply side measures) to reduce the biodiversity impacts of EU consumption patterns, particularly for resources that have sign ificant negative effects on biodiversity.  
17b) The Commission will enhance the contribution of trade policy to conserving biodiversity and address 
potential negative impacts by systematically includ ing it as part of trade negotiations and dialogues 
with third countries, by identifying and evaluating potential impacts on biodiversity resulting from the 
liberalisation of trade and invest ment through ex-ante Trade Sustainability Impact Assessments and 
ex-post evaluations, and seek to include in all new trade agreements a chapter on sustainable 
                                                 
80 The Commission Staff Working Paper "Sector Approach in the Environment and Natural Resources" 
could provide useful background in this respect. It guides donors and partner countries in the 
development and implementation of a sector approach  in the Environment, contributing to harmonising 
the EU approach while promoting the sustainable and responsible management of the sector in developing countries.  
81 On 11 February 2011, the Commission submitted a proposal to the Council for a Council decision on 
the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Nagoya Protocol. 
 
EN 55   EN development providing for substantial environmental provisions of importance in the trade context 
including on biodiversity goals. 
17c) The Commission will work with Member States and key stakeholders to provide the right market 
signals for biodiversity conservation, including work to reform, phase out and eliminate harmful 
subsidies at both EU and Member State level, an d to provide positive incentives for biodiversity 
conservation and sustainable use.  
Action 18: Mobilise additional resources for global biodivers ity conservation 
18a) The Commission and Member States will contribute their fair share to international efforts to 
significantly increase resources for global biodiversity as part of the international process aimed at 
estimating biodiversity funding needs and adopting resource mobilisation targets for biodiversity at 
CBD COP11 in 201282. 
18b) The Commission will improve the effectiveness of EU  funding for global biodiversity inter alia by 
supporting natural capital assessments in recipient countries and the development and/or updating of 
National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans, and by improving coordination within the EU and 
with key non-EU donors in implementing biodiversity assistance/project. 
Action 19: 'Biodiversity proof' EU development cooperation 
19) The Commission will continue to systematically screen its development cooperation action to 
minimise any negative impacts on biodiversity, and undertake Strategic Environmental Assessments and/or Environmental Impact Assessments for actions likely to have significant effects on biodiversity 
Action 20: Regulate access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from 
their use 
20) The Commission will propose legislation to implement the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic 
Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of  Benefits Arising from their Utilization in the 
European Union so that the EU can ratify the Protocol  as soon as possible and by 2015 at the latest, as 
required by the global target. 
7. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF RETAINED MEASURES  
This section explores the likely impacts of the proposed packages of measures associated with 
each target against environmental, economic and social criteria, differe ntiating by type of 
measure when appropriate.  
Environmental criteria are disaggregated in the three main objectiv es of the 2020 headline 
target: halting biodiversity loss,  ecosystem restoration and th e EU contribution to averting 
global biodiversity. Economic impacts are disaggre gated into direct economic impacts at the 
EU, national or local level, and on specific bus inesses/economic actors, with a highlight on 
issues of administrative burden where relevant. Social impact s focus mainly on employment 
and health, cultural aspects, as well as social  inclusion. Additional sections are included on 
distributional effects and the intern ational dimension when relevant. 
Given the strategic level of the options, the im pacts are mostly assessed in a qualitative way, 
with orders of magnitude of quantitative impacts where possi ble, bearing in mind that 
measures linked to ongoing or forthcoming Commi ssion initiatives will be the subject of a 
more detailed and quantitati ve analysis in the accompa nying impact assessments, as 
highlighted in the analysis for each target. Wher e there are no aggregated  figures of costs and 
benefits, examples of specific cases, usually at project level, where co sts and benefits have 
                                                                                                                                                         
82 As set out in COP10 Decision X/3. 
 
EN 56   EN been estimated are also given for illustrative purposes (see in particular Annex 11)83. The 
level of analysis is also related on the am ount of knowledge and data available, which 
depends on the state of progress of related policy initiatives. 
7.1. Impacts of Nature Conservation related measures 
Environmental impacts 
The measures proposed would increase the bene fits of Natura 2000 sites (see Annex 11) by 
improving the effectiveness of management bot h at site level, and in terms of overall 
coherence of the network. Preparation and deli very of management plans or equivalent 
instruments will ensure adequate management and restoration of sites to maintain or improve 
the status of species and habitats protected under the Nature directives. A new mechanism to 
promote the sharing of expertise and best pr actice on the management of Natura 2000 at the 
biogeographical level will help ensure that the necessary conservation measures are established. Combined with strategic action on financing needs, and awareness raising and 
training, this brings additional biodiversity benefits. Streamlined monitoring and reporting, 
including a new EU bird reporting system, is ne eded to improve information on the status and 
trends of species and habitats  of European Importance, whic h is essential for measuring 
progress, and the overall achievement of the target. Effects on restoration will also significantly contribute to T2. 
Economic impacts 
Whilst the full costs of implementing the Nature  directives will need to be matched with 
funding if the target is to be met, the costs di rectly linked to the 2020 biodiversity strategy are 
those related to promoting new approaches fo r stepping up the implementation, and are likely 
to be a small proportion of th e overall costs of managing the Natura 2000 network, currently 
estimated at €5.8 billion per year for the achieve ment of favourable conservation status, which 
is equivalent to €62/ha/year. It is estimated for example that the EU level coordination of a 
biogeographical process aimed at promoting th e effective management of the Natura 2000 
network will cost €350,000 for each of the next 3 years. Actions to improve enforcement such 
as better training, inspection capacity, and gui dance will also entail specific costs. 
Management measures that lead to enhanced biodiversity and ecosystem services could create 
limited economic benefits for some activities linked to e.g. eco-tourism, local natural and traditional products. 
Some of the measures such as a Communicatio n campaign and the new bird reporting system 
will also carry additional financial costs. An EU level campaign to strengthen recognition of the multiple ecosystem benefits that derive from  the effective management of the Natura 2000 
network is estimated to cost  €350.000 for each of 4 years. EU  level co-ordination for the 
development of the new bird reporting syst em by Member States and leading bird 
conservation organisations is  estimated to cost €400,000. 
Whilst these investments are necessary to step up the slow implementation of the Nature 
directives and reach the target, they will be compensated to some extent by the positive effects of the cost-effective streamlined monitoring and reporting system. 
Social impacts 
                                                
 
83 Unless otherwise specified, illustrative exam ples are taken from the TEEB reports ( www.teebweb.org ) , 
and Eftec, 2010. Report for the European Commission DG Environment son the of costs and benefits 
for biodiversity conservation. 
 
EN 57   EN Several studies have shown the positive effects of protected areas in generating growth and 
employment in rural areas. For example, in Sp ain, it was shown that in the National park of 
Sierra Nevada84, the index of ageing was lower for the municipality in the protected areas 
(60.09) compared to other mountain areas n on protected (66.31). In addition, the yearly 
average increase for the period 1991-2001 in gross income was higher (6.73) in protected areas than in non protected mountain areas (5.0 7), and the regional average (4.50). Some of 
the proposed measures would cont ribute to and increase these be nefits, in particular those 
related to completing the designation of mari ne areas, and the adequate management and 
restoration of sites. 
It should however be noted that biodiversity protection is often accompanied by restricted 
access to resources and can lead to a decrease in economic output as measured by market values and negative local impacts on jobs and la nd value, at least in the short term. Finding 
alternative sources of local income to compen sate for use restricti ons is challenging but 
essential for the long-term success of any protected area scheme. These may include 
conservation easements, payments for ecosystem services and promotion of tourism and other 
sustainable activities (e.g. producti on of certified local products). 
Distributional effects 
Member States which have designated a larger share of their territory as Natura 2000 areas 
(e.g. Slovenia) and which are biodiversity-rich  (e.g. Spain) will face more impacts, for 
example on the design and implementation of management plans, but will benefit more from measures foreseen under the target or under related targets (e.g. T2 and T3).  
International impacts 
Measures to protect and enhanc e of Natura 2000 sites will al so have a global impact since 
some habitats/ecosystems provide global serv ices (e.g. forests, grasslands, and wetlands 
provide carbon storage benefits). Completion an d management of the ne twork will therefore 
also contribute to the globa l target through reduced clim ate change impacts on global 
biodiversity. 
7.2. Impacts of Ecosystem Restorat ion and Green Infrastructure 
Environmental impacts 
Measures related to green infrastructure and no net loss would provide be nefits to society in 
terms of maintained and enhanced ecosystems and related services, which are currently undermined by ecosystem degradation. The latter include life-supporting cycles such as water 
and carbon cycles, or the provision of clean air. Some of these services would have positive 
feedback effects for biodiversity conservation;  for example water filtering and flood control 
services, which would reduce pressure from polluti on and lead to better adaptation to climate.  
More specifically, green infrastructure will increase resilience and reduce vulnerability to 
climate change, within and outside the Natura  2000 network, in the context of higher flood 
and forest fire risks, water sc arcity, and droughts. It will ge nerate investments in natural 
capital, contributing directly  to the target of at least 15% of restoration. 
The main environmental impact of no net loss policy would be that there is no further loss of 
ecosystems and ecosystem services overall and that the overall headline target of halting biodiversity loss is met. As an example, the current situation in France is  that out of 60,000 ha 
                                                
 
84 Sunyer, C. (Ed.). 2009. Eco-emprendedores: Retos para la puesta en valor de los espacios protegidos. 
TERRA centro para la política ambiental. Madrid. 
 
EN 58   EN lost to urban sprawling and infrastructure ever y year (equivalent to one French department 
every 10 years), only 3,000 ha are compensated for. 
Economic impacts 
The costs and benefits of establis hing green infrastructu re and restoration projects to reach the 
target - beyond those likely to take place in a business as usual scenario (through Natura 2000, WFD and MSFD) - have not yet been estimated at  EU level. Evidence at local or national 
level in EU Member States suggests that benef its for society of rest oration and GI projects 
exceed costs in many instances (see Annex 11) . A French assessment produced calculated 
reference values for ecosystems, ranging from €600 per ha/per year fo r pastureland to €2000 
per ha/per year for some types of forest (€950/year for temperate forestry)
85. Global reviews 
of restoration projects86 showed costs ranging between se veral hundreds to thousands of 
dollars per hectare (grasslands, ra ngelands and forests) to seve ral tens of thousands (inland 
waters) to millions of dollars per hectare (coral  reefs) (see Figure 8), a nd cost-benefit ratios in 
the range of 3 to 7587. Whilst not all projects ar e likely to be cost-effec tive, there are likely to 
be many opportunities for restoration with high cost-benefit ratios given the state of 
degradation of ecosystems in the EU. For certain  ecosystem services, like recreation, or water 
purification, benefits will depend on location a nd access. This will need to be taken into 
account in the proposed prioritisation framewor k for the restoration of ecosystems and their 
services in the EU. 
Green infrastructure and no net loss initiatives will also provi de new investment opportunities 
to businesses. As an illustration, sustainability -related global business opportunities in natural 
resources (including energy, forestry, food and ag riculture, water and metals)” are estimated 
to be in the range of US$ 2-6 trillion by 2050 (at constant 2008 prices). About half of this is 
“additional investments in the en ergy sector related to reduc ing carbon emissions”. Markets 
for biodiversity and ecosystem services are gr owing. Payments for Ecosystem Services for 
water-related ecosystem services and watershe d management account for only US$5 billion in 
2008, but are expected to total more than 30 billion by 2050.88 
Both green infrastructure and no net loss initiatives, and the 'biodiversity-positive' investments 
they entail have an importan t innovation potential, including fo r example man-made elements 
(such as green roofs, porous pavement, rain  absorbing gardens, eco-ducts for wildlife 
crossings), innovative planning approaches, the design and application of urban elements 
enhancing biodiversity, all comb inations of technologies enha ncing ecosystem services, or 
finally the development of new organizati on methods, products, services and system 
innovations to better protect ecosystems.  
Green infrastructure would also reduce fragmentat ion and the social costs of traffic accidents 
caused by wildlife, including material damage, hum an injuries and human fatalities. This has 
been estimated to reach €42 million per year in  Switzerland. In Spain, the annual economic 
cost of material damage resulting from accidents with wild boar and roe deer was estimated to 
                                                 
85 Chevassus-au-Louis - 2009. An economic appr oach to biodiversity and eocsystem services; 
Contribution to public decision-making. Centre d'analyses stratégiques report. 
86 Chapter 9 in The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in National and International Policy 
Making . An output of TEEB, edited by Patric k ten Brink. Earthscan, London. 
87 Nellemann, C.E. Corocran (eds) 2010. Dead Planet, Living Planet – Biodiversity and ecosystem 
restoration for sustainable development. A ra pid response Assessment. UNEP, GRID-Arendal. 
88 PricewaterhouseCoopers in TEEB for business report, 2010. 
 
EN 59   EN €862,17989. In France, where management plans have  allowed a certain recovery of wild 
board population and the fragmentation of forest s has significantly increased, the number of 
road collision involving wild boards and othe r game animals have increased and the total 
costs derived from these colli sions is estimated at €150 million, of which 96 million only for 
wild boards, according to the Office National Interministériel  de la Sécurité Routière .  
Some of the economic benefits from green infrastr ucture also stem from the fact that in many 
instances, for example for climate change adaptation or mitigation of extreme events, solutions based on maintaining or enhancing ecosystem-based services are more cost-effective than hard engineering solutions. Well-ta rgeted investments in green infrastructure - 
such as restoring natural flood plains in orde r to increase flood protec tion rather than having 
to build expensive dykes - make sound economic sense
90. Green infrastructure can also make 
a cost-effective contribution to reducing energy demands.  
The experience of not net loss policies in some  countries provides useful estimates. The US 
National Mitigation Banking Association estim ates that USD 3,8 billion/year are spent on 
compensation, including 65% on restoration, 15 % on protection, and 20% on the creation of 
wetlands91. The market for US wetland credits is cu rrently estimated at USD 1.1 to 1.8 billion 
annually92. Several Australian states have intr oduced similar schemes. The Bushbroker 
scheme in Victoria has so far facilitated mo re than AUD 4 million in trade. Overall, global 
revenues from regulated biodiversity offset tr ansactions are already worth $ 3.4 billion per 
year and could grow to $ 10 billion by 202093.  
Assessing and mapping ecosystems and their servic es, as well as devel oping a prioritisation 
approach will generate some costs, but are a ne cessary step to achieve the above benefits. As 
an example, the costs for the ongoing UK Nati onal Ecosystem Assessment are currently at 
around £1.2M for the whole project, which covers  new analytical work on a framework but 
relies on existing data. 
Social impacts 
Green infrastructure and a prioritised restor ation framework would provide multiple social 
benefits. For example, restoring ecosystems such  as watershed forests, barrier beaches, or 
riparian and coastal wetlands reduces exposur e of human communities to natural disasters, 
such as landslides, flooding, storms and wave surges.  
Green infrastructure in urban areas, such as developing and maintaini ng green spaces, yard 
and park trees, street trees, gr een roof tops, vertical  gardens in cities have positive impacts on 
health and quality of life. These include mitiga ting urban heat islands by cooling the air and 
shading buildings and surfaces, aesth etical and psychological benefits94, improvement of 
                                                 
89 http://www.iene.info/cost-341/SotA-COST341ER0318.pdf.;http://www.iene.info/cost-
341/COST%20341-handbook.pdf  
90 TEEB issues update on climate change 
91 Le Monde, 14 May 2009, "Une nouvelle arme pour  lutter contre la destruction de la nature". 
92 Madsen, B., Carroll, N. and Moore Brands, K. 2010, State of Biodiversity Markets report: Offset and 
Compensation Programs Worldwide. 
http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.co m/documents/acrobat/sbdmr.pdf  
93 Ecosystem Marketplace, 2008. 
94 Fuller RA, Irvine KN, Devine-Wright P, Warren PH, Gaston KJ. 2007. Psychological benefits of 
greenspace increase with biodivers ity. Biology Letters. 3: 390–394. 
 
EN 60   EN water quality, filtering air pollutants and improvement of air quality results from the capture 
of pollutants such as PM1095, O3, SO 2 and NOx. 
As access to green spaces is unequally distri buted across socio-economic groups, with poorer 
social groups having, in general, lower access, and given that green space could have positive 
influence on health conditions such as obesity, mental health, circulatory disease and asthma, 
more equal access to green space could also help  reducing health inequalities between socio-
economic groups96. 
It has also been argued that green spaces can also  have positive impacts in terms of increasing 
social activity, improving commun ity cohesion, developing local  attachment and lowering 
crime levels, particularly in deprived communities97. 
Finally, restoration and green infrastructure would provide new job opportunities. It is 
estimated that 20,000 jobs in Fr ance are contributing to knowl edge, management, protection 
and restoration of biodiversit y, projected to rise to 40,000  by 2020 as a result of newly 
established biodiversity priorities. Large companies are now recr uiting "biodiversity 
specialists", for example experts on " Trame Verte et Bleue " employed by Autoroutes du Sud 
de la France98. It is foreseen that in France, 10,000 jobs  will be created in the near future in 
the sector of ecosystem maintenance and restoration ( génie écologique )99. These new jobs 
opportunities could have an important role in the reinsertion of low qualification workforce100. 
Although specific restoration projects involve one-off employment opportunities, they usually 
also require action on maintenance and conser vation with more permanent impacts on jobs. 
Restoration and green infrastruc ture also provide new recreati onal opportunities, and can lead 
to local development and regeneration in rural areas. For example in Belgium, a project to 
recreate grasslands for flood control also led af ter a number of years to development of agro- 
and eco-tourism (see Annex 11). In the UK, the cr eation of the National Forest increased the 
number of local jobs by 4.1% and local regene ration using green infras tructure attracted £96 
million of investment101. The Glasgow Green Renewal project  stimulated the development of 
500-750 new residential properties,  enhanced average house prices and the total value of 
property transactions by net £3 million–£4.5 m illion, increased yield in council tax by 47% 
and increased the value of the land from £100,000 to £300,000 per ha102. 
                                                 
95 Human health benefits for the local population of new planting in a 10km per 10km area of East 
London, was assessed in terms of reduced premature mortality and respiratory hospital admissions 
through reduced PM10 air levels (Tiwary, A., et al., Environmental Pollution, 2009). PM10 capture was 
estimated to be 0.009 t ha-1 yr-1, averting 2 deaths and 2 hospital admissions per year. There would be 
additional impacts from other pollutants, and resp iratory symptoms that do not require hospital 
admissions. A recent study looked at  asthma prevalence in 4-5-year  old children in New York and 
found that the presence of street trees was associated  with a 29% reduction in asthma (Lovasi, G.S. et 
al, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 200 8). These results do not include indirect health 
impacts through recreation, spor t, and increased well-being. 
96 Sustainable Development Commission (2010). Sustainable development: the key to tackling health 
inequalities. Sustainable Development Commission, London. 
97 Forest Research (2010). Benefits of green infrastr ucture. Report by Forest Research. Forest Research, 
Farnham. 
98 Le gouvernement français veut faire de la biodiversité un gisement d'emploi – Le Monde, 6 July 2010. 
99 Ecotech Study 2012 (Boston Consulting Group for the French Env Ministry). 
100 Humanité et biodiversité - Manifeste pour une nouvelle alliance, Ligue Roc, Descartes & Cie, 2009. 
101 CESR (2004). Much more than tr ees 2: measuring the social and economic impact of The National 
Forest. Staffordshire University Centre for Economic and Social Regeneration (CESR). 
102 GEN Consulting (2006). Glasgow Green renewal benef its analysis. A report to  Glasgow City Council. 
November 2006. 
 
EN 61   EN Distributional effects 
The main stakeholders affected would be pr ivate businesses concerned by new investment 
opportunities, or by requirements for compensa tion for displaced hab itats (including the 
transport and energy sector), as  well as planning authorities. 
Member States that already have started putting in place some elements of green 
infrastructure (e.g. Netherlands, France, Czech Re public and Slovakia), or have some form of 
no-net-loss policy (e.g. France, Germany), will requi re relatively fewer efforts to implement 
the measures needed to reach the target, co mpared to Member States who haven't.  
International impacts 
As for measures to reach T1, measures targe ting restoration and comp ensation for displaced 
habitats would provide global benefits gi ven the global servic es provided by some 
ecosystems, and would also contribute to th e global target through reduced climate change 
impacts on global biodiversity. 
Foreseen additional analysis 
Additional analysis will be car ried out in the context of th e foreseen initiatives on green 
infrastructure by 2012, the stra tegic restoration pr ioritisation framework by 2014, and the no 
net loss initiative by 2015. The impact assessme nt report accompanying the 'blueprint to 
safeguard EU waters' initiative scheduled for 2012 will provide additional relevant analysis. 
Figure 8: Summary of cost ranges of restoration efforts  
7.3. Impacts of Agricultural and Forestry related measures 
Environmental impacts 
 
EN 62   EN Greening the first pillar of the CAP to ensure that direct payments reward benefits from 
biodiversity-supporting farming systems in a larg er surface of agricult ural land in the EU 
(possibly including permanent grassland, land under ecological set aside and Natura 2000 
areas) would have direct benefits  in terms of increased area of extensive agro-ecosystems, 
improved status of corresponding species and ha bitats, and the services they provide.  
Changes in the second pillar aimed at increasing environmental performance and ensuring 
that environmental measures are more closely tailo red to the specific needs of areas such as 
Natura 2000 and HNV areas would have direct impact s in terms of maintenance and restoration of 
agro-ecosystems, and the many services they provide in rural areas and for society at large. 
Facilitating the collaboration of farmers to achie ve connectivity of landscape features for 
biodiversity and climate change adaptation w ill greatly boost the establishment of Green 
infrastructure and will contribute to deliver on the EU objectives for restoration. In addition, 
these measures would have a positive impact on a number of drivers for biodiversity loss and 
reduce the overexploitati on of resources such as soil, wate r, on pollution through less energy-
intensive agriculture and reduced use of fertilisers and pesticides. This could considerably reduce the pressure on High Nature Value farmla nd, which for instance in France decreased 
by almost 70% from 1970 to 2000. 
Full implementation of the Water Framework Directiv e would also lead to benefits in terms of 
protecting and restoring water- related ecosystems and the services they provide, and would 
also contribute to progress towards Good Ec ological Status. Once the Directive has been 
implemented and the operational obligations for farmers have been identified, inclusion under 
cross compliance would add to ensuring compliance. 
The increased use/preservation of traditional crops, in addition to positive impacts on genetic 
diversity, would have a positiv e impact on climate adaptati on through maintaining a more 
diverse genetic stock, and may also increas e resistance to invasive alien species. 
For forestry, the measures proposed would ensure  that a larger proportion of forests is under 
management plans or equivalent instrument s that include biodiversity objectives. The 
improvement in management practices induced  by plans would maintain and increase the 
many services provided by forests in the EU, including carbon storage, erosion prevention, 
pollution control and water purification. 
Economic impacts 
At EU level, costs relating to greening the firs t pillar and introducing changes in the second 
pillar are not likely to increase the ov erall budget but rath er involve a redi stribution of CAP 
funds towards encouraging more biodiversit y-supporting farming systems. The proposed 
measures would also allow for a higher diversif ication of the agricultural sector, adding value 
to rural products and services  associated with specific na tural or landscape elements.  
Rebalancing direct payments would increase efficiency in the use of EU funds. A more 
outcome oriented approach and mechanisms to foster collaboration between farmers in Pillar 2 would also increase efficiency. Both sources  of funding would contribute in part to the 
overall costs of maintaining Natura 2000 in  agricultural and forested lands, and if 
appropriately targeted HNV areas. The overall cost of Natura 2000 management has been 
estimated at around € 5.8 billion per year, whilst managing sustainably the European 
 
EN 63   EN countryside for multiple environmental object ives could cost up to  16 billion per year103 (with 
some overlap with the previous figure), including  costs at both EU and Member States level. 
For forestry, management plans would increase  the competitiveness of the sector, through: a 
more sustainable raw material s upply, particularly in light of emerging threats and challenges; 
a better inventory of current conditions of  forest resources; and better planned and 
coordinated measures for achieving multifunctional objectives. They could also encourage a diversification of the sector, through including new activities in the management planning. 
For example, in Spain, mushroom harvesting has been estimated to represent between 6 to 10% of the value of timber, without taking in to account its recreational value generated by 
this activity (Martínez Peña, 2003; Aldea, 2009). The Estimate of the recreational value of 
forests in Germany is 2.4 billion USD fo r occasional visitors (Elsasser, 1999)
104. 
Developing management plans or adapting them  to include biodiversity objectives would 
increase administrative costs. The average co st of developing a management plan for a 
duration of 10 years is in the order of 10 to 60€/ha depending on the size of the area, which 
compares favourably to payments for sustaina ble use of forestry la nd, under EAFRD (Axis 2, 
Art 36), which range from 150 to 700 €/ha for a fforestation, and from 40 to 200 €/ha for 
forest environment annual payment and Natura 2000. The restriction of th e target to forest 
holders above a certain size would also avoid a comparatively higher administrative costs for 
small forest holders. 
Social impacts 
CAP support to maintaining and enhance biodiversit y in rural areas would contribute to rural 
development in less favoured areas, notably in HNV and Natura 2000 areas. The enhancement 
of recreational ecosystem servi ces would lead to job creation through the increase of rural 
activities such as eco-tourism, including in forest s, as called for in the European Forest Sector 
Outlook Study report105.  
Engaging and incentivizing farmers and forest hol ders for the delivery of the biodiversity 
objectives will allow them to pull forces with non governmental organisations and will 
highlight the public contribution of semi-subsistence farmers, small family farmers and organic farmers, which are often a crucial basi s for the social fabric of many regions. This 
will make extensive and low input rural ar eas more dynamic and more attractive to young 
farmers thus decelerating depopulation in  rural areas and land abandonment. 
Distributional effects 
The proposed measures would bring about a mo re equitable distribution of direct aids 
amongst farmers. A recent report on farm viab ility showed that pilla r one payments in the 
current CAP are disfavouring small-scale, lo w-intensive farming, whilst favouring high 
intensity farms
106. Whilst direct ‘green’ payments under pillar 1 are likely to favour large 
holdings, if they take the form of flat rates pe r ha, measures under pillar 2 tend to favour small 
                                                 
103 Based on IEEP, 2010, Costing the environmental needs related to Rural Land Management, Draft Final 
Report for DG Environment. This is however likely to be an overestimate - there may be some double 
counting across different objective and efficiencies that can be achieved with a programming approach. 
104 Manuel pour la création de marchés de la biodiversité- OECD report 2005- http://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/docserver/downloa d/fulltext/9704142e.pdf?expires =1290348679&id=0000&accname=ocid
194935&checksum=6A586087A7AFE7DD8CDE55F66FFD6996  
105 http://www.u nece.org/timber/efsos/  
106 LEI 2010. Farm viability in the European Union: assessment of the impact of changes in farm 
payments, http://www.lei.dlo.nl/publicaties/PDF/2010/2010-011.pdf  
 
EN 64   EN farmers as they tend to reward specific featur es found in smaller scale farming. An additional 
payment under pillar 1 specifi cally targeting small farmer s could also be envisaged. 
Measures under this target are also likely to have a comparatively higher positive impact in 
Member States with a high proportion of UAA under extensive agro-ecosystems and HNV 
areas, including new Member States. 
International impacts 
Agro-ecosystems such as grasslands and p eatland, and forest ecosystems provide global 
climate change mitigation benefits. In addition, measures for the preservation of agricultural 
genetic diversity would also have international spillovers as they would contribute to a more 
diverse gene pool, with benefits for climate ch ange adaptation. A more  sustainable production 
of agricultural and forest products would al so benefit exports to EU trading partners. 
Foreseen additional analysis 
A more detail assessment of the environmenta l, economic and social impacts of different 
options to change the Common Agriculture Polic y, including most of the measures proposed 
under this target, will be deve loped in the context of the Impact Assessment that will 
accompany the upcoming Commission proposals for regulatory instruments to reform the CAP.  
7.4. Impacts of Fisheries-related measures 
Environmental impacts 
The combination of measures proposed, if  implemented properly, should reduce fishing 
pressure on stocks and lead in the long run to increased and more sustai nable levels of fish 
populations. The positive impact on rebuilding depl eted stocks of measur es such as closed 
areas and gear or effort restrictions have be en demonstrated in California, the northeast 
United States, and northwest Australia
107. In addition, technical me asures to progressively 
eliminate discards and to avoid by-catch, and targeted support for better implementation of Natura 2000 and MSFD obligations should yield additional benefits for marine biodiversity 
and ecosystem goods and services, thereby also  contributing to the first two targets.  
Economic impacts 
Ensuring sustainable use of the fish resources is  a clear prerequisite for the viability of the 
fisheries sector, as shown by the costs of overfis hing in the Baltic and North Sea fisheries (see 
Annex 11).
 In addition to ensuring that stocks would not collapse, improving sustainability 
would allow the development of larger fish st ocks, leading to more fishing possibilities at 
lower cost and with a higher unit value. Ther e would however be negative economic impacts 
in the short run, linked to lower initial catches, and reduction of the size of the fleet. In the 
long run, however, the implementation of MSY-ba sed management practices is expected to 
improve revenues for fishermen and significantly  reduce the needs for government subsidies 
to the fishing industry. 
The measures proposed would also  increase efficiency of public funding. On top of the direct 
aid from the European Fisheries Fund and sim ilar national schemes, the industry benefits 
from a number of indirect subs idies, the most important of which is the overall exemption 
from fuel taxes. Unlike other industries, fishin g also benefits from free access to the natural 
resources it exploits and does not have to contribute to the pub lic management costs 
                                                 
107 Worm, B. et al, 2009. Rebuilding Global Fisheries, Science  325(5940): 578-585. 
 
EN 65   EN associated with its activities, e.g. control and safety at sea. Estimates from several Member 
States have shown that the cost of fishing to  the public budgets (including public management 
costs such as safety measures or monitoring) actually exceeds the total catch value.108 
As regards the distribution of th e economic costs incurred by this policy measure, most of the 
direct implementation burden would fall to the Regional Fisheries Management Organisations 
(RFMOs), and the fishing industry itself. Most of the costs would likely be concentrated in 
one-off restructuring costs spread out over a few years.  
Fisheries measures aiming at eliminating adverse impacts of fishing on other species, habitats 
and ecosystems may in most, if not all, cases  imply higher management costs that include 
acquisition of additional information, planning and consultative decision-making processes involving a broader range of stakeholders/inte rest groups, and additional monitoring, control 
and surveillance. According to the FAO, highe r management costs due to ecosystem-based 
approaches would often be out-weighed by the long-term benefits
109 for society. These 
measures could also have a positive impact on recreational activities. As part of a study on 
economic losses linked to overfishing, it was c oncluded that countrie s are also missing 
economic opportunities by not promoting alternat ive uses of the sector, such as whale 
watching and other marine  recreational activities110. 
Social impacts 
The need to increase the down-sizing percentage  in the short term due to the switch to MSY-
based management practices would have a ne gative short term social impact, which would 
need to be integrated in an existing trend, for which local communities are starting to adapt, to 
some extent. Further support via sound re-emp loyment policies and pot ential short term 
financial support to the industry may be needed in  the short term. This impact should also be 
contrasted with the very high nega tive effect on employment of a collapse in fish stocks (see 
for example the Newfoundland example in Annex 11). 
Distributional impacts 
The main social costs in the short term of th is policy measure would be borne by the fishing 
sector, concentrated in the Member States w ith the largest amount of full-term equivalent 
employment in the fisheries sector, namely Spain, Greece and Italy. The long term social 
benefits of the policy measure,  on the other hand, would be felt  across societ y as a whole 
(sustainable fish stocks, enhanced marine ecosystems) and across all EU Member States.  
International dimension 
Through reducing fishing effort and adverse impacts on marine ecosystems, measures will 
also contribute to more sust ainable global fisheries and enha nced global marine biodiversity. 
More sustainable fisheries pr oducts would also benefit expor ts to EU trading partners. 
Foreseen additional analysis 
                                                 
108 Green Paper: Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. COM(2009) 163 final. 
109 Fisheries Management - 2. The Ecosystem Appro ach to Fisheries FAO Technical Guidelines For 
Responsible Fisheries Suppl. 2, FAO, Rome 2003. 
110 Cisneros-Montemayor, A.M. and U.R. Sumaila. 2010. A global estimate of benefits from ecosystem-
based marine recreation: Potential impacts and implications for management. Journal of Bioeconomics. 
DOI: 10.1007/s10818-010-9092-7. 
 
EN 66   EN A more detailed assessment of the environmen tal, economic and social impacts of these 
measures is developed in the Impact Assessm ent reports of the Commission proposals for the 
reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. 
7.5. Impacts of Invasive Alien Species related measures 
Environmental impacts 
The measures proposed would lead to bette r control of IAS al ready introduced, limit 
associated damage, and avoid new damage  by controlling pathways for new IAS. 
In addition, as IAS work as additional pressures on ecosystem s, the proposed measures would 
have strong synergy effects with measures under other targets, for example also contributing 
to reducing pressures on overexp loited natural resources, and Natura 2000 sites, as well as 
increasing the probability of success of restora tion measures. Control for introduction of new 
species would also contribute to reducing potential  costs associated with climate changes, as 
new species could become more invasive due to changing climate conditions (e.g. Pacific 
oyster). 
Economic impacts 
The total documented monetary impacts of IAS in Europe have been estimated to amount to 
more than € 12 billion a year over the last 20 ye ars, of which € 9.6 billion can be attributed to 
IAS damage (e.g. to agriculture , fisheries and aquaculture, fo restry and health sectors111). This 
is generally considered as an underestimate as a far greater number of IAS cause negative 
socio-economic effects than are not documented in monetary terms. On the other hand, the 
design of measures would need to take into account some positive impacts of IAS, e.g. American mink providing fur, the pacific oyste r for oyster farming, and the potential role of 
some IAS for biofuel production. 
Although the final full cost-benefit analysis of the measures propos ed will only be available in 
conjunction with the detailed impact asse ssment that will accompany the proposal for a 
dedicated legislative instrument , early estimates provide a good indication of the magnitude of 
the damage caused and of the costs of inaction. A significant part of the €9.6 billion/year damage costs would be avoided, and these bene fits would significantly outweigh the costs of 
the measures needed (€ 40 million–190 million / year). This is without taking into account additional benefits which have not been mone tarised, including to biodiversity, human health 
and preservation of natural heritage. Several stud ies have shown that the costs of controlling 
invasive alien species are usually lower than  the expected damage costs (see Annex 11)
112. 
Social impacts 
The proposed measures would deliv er significant social benefits  in terms of reduced health 
impacts. Almost 30 of the total of 125 studied IAS can negativel y affect human health either 
by functioning as disease vectors or causing allergies. The negative impacts are also 
confirmed by data on the costs of human epidemic diseases. 
                                                 
111 IAS can also damage infrastructure due to burrowing (e.g. musk rat) or via their root systems (many 
plants), or by blocking drainages or disrupting e.g. water purification plants (e.g. zebra mussel). 
112 For example, McConnachie et al. ( 2003) review 10 benefit-cost studies  of successful biological control 
programs, where the benefit-cost ratios of terrestrial weeds range from 1.9:1 to 24:1. Van Wilgen et al. 
(2004) estimate the costs and benefits of biocontrol of six invasive weed species in South Africa, with 
benefit-cost ratios ranging from 8:1 for red Sesbania to 709:1 for jointed cactus. 
 
EN 67   EN There are also negative employment conseque nces to damage from IAS. For example the 
collapse of the Black Sea fishing industry due to  the introduction of the comb jellyfish led to 
150,000 jobs being lost. In Canada , outbreaks of the mountain pi ne beetle on forests were 
foreseen to lead to the closure of 16 major sawmills unless addressed. Furthermore, the economic impacts of IAS on local livelihoods are likely to cause broader socio-economic 
impacts in affected communities. 
In addition, there are a number of IAS with de monstrated negative effect s on cultural services, 
caused by the reduction of recreational use and/or  tourism, because of  decreased aesthetic 
value, nuisance to humans and/or recreational activities, and impacts on human health. In a 
number of cases, IAS are also reported to nega tively affect broader cu ltural values, such as 
those related to landscapes with high cultura l significance, or populations of charismatic 
and/or locally important species. For exampl e, Cypress forests in the Mediterranean are 
known to suffer from invasions of  ink disease and cypress cancer. 
Distributional impacts 
The current distribution of cost s and benefits of IAS action is  extremely uneven. Most costs 
associated with IAS control and lost producti on, ecosystem services and amenities are met by 
stakeholders on the ground, with a major part of  the burden falling on local authorities. The 
beneficiaries of activities provi ding pathways for IAS introduction/spread usually have few or 
no economic incentives to minimise such risks. 
In addition, IAS species may have a social value as pets, ga me species and ornamental plants 
and animals. The growing trade in such species is indeed a key driver of the introduction of 
IAS in the EU, and will need to be a ddressed in the forthcoming IAS strategy. 
International dimension 
The proposed measures will comply with the WTO-SPS-agreement
113 and their impact on 
trade will be analogous to the imp act of the animal and plant hea lth regimes. The extent of the 
impact will also depend on the level of ambition chosen. Whilst new measures may place restrictions on some traded commodities, in general the new measures would increase the 
entry requirements, thus requir ing further border in spections. It is ho wever important to 
consider that several EU key trading partners  already have ambitious IAS policies in place, 
and cooperation with these count ries may actually improve trade relations and contribute to 
smoother trade flows. 
Foreseen additional analysis 
More detailed analysis of the impacts will be  set out in the impact assessment accompanying 
the proposal for the Commission strategy on Invasive Alien Species foreseen in 2012. 
7.6. Impacts of measures related  to stepping up the EU contribution to averting 
global biodiversity loss 
Environmental impacts 
Some measures related to EU consumption and production, although targeted at reducing 
impacts in source countries, would also have  a positive impact in the EU through reduced 
demand for products that are also produced in the EU. 
Increased resource mobilisation,  along with measures for more sustainable production and 
consumption patterns in the EU would improve  biodiversity in de veloping countries. 
                                                
 
113 http://www.wto.org/english/tr atop_e/sps_e/spsagr_e.htm   
 
EN 68   EN Environmental benefits from protecting global biodiversity have been widely documented, for 
example through the Millennium Ecosystem Asse ssment, and would also deliver significant 
benefits in tackling other environmental challenges.  
Regarding climate change, 45% of Green Ca rbon (carbon bound throu gh photosynthesis in 
ecosystems) is stored in terrestrial ecosy stems and a further 55% is bound in marine 
ecosystems.114 Carbon uptake of tropical forest ecosyste ms alone is estimated equivalent to 
approximately 15% of the total global anthropogenic carbon emissions115.  
Biodiversity conservation can also play a crucial role in tackling the global water crisis and 
ensuring that the provision of high quality freshw ater continues to be provided in developing 
countries. For instance continued dest ruction of the Mau forest ecosystem116, considered to be 
the single most important water catchment in Rift Valley and western Kenya, has been identified as a driver that will contribute to  aggravating the water crisis in the country.  
Parties to the Nagoya Protocol on ABS will encourage users and providers of genetic 
resources to direct benefits arising from th e utilisation of genetic resources towards the 
conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. The use of ge netic resources from 
non-EU countries by EU researchers and compan ies is expected to result in significant 
environmental benefits outside of the EU. 
Economic impacts 
The associated costs for the EU of the CBD agreement to substantially increase financial 
resources for biodiversity from all sources by 2020 will be clearer when the financing targets 
are agreed at COP-11 in 2012. The current ODA spending on bi odiversity issues was USD 
3,395 million in 2008
117. The necessary international financ ial flows advanced by developing 
countries during COP-10 negotiations for reac hing the CBD targets by 2020 ranged from 
USD 30 billion to 200 billion. These estimates were presented by developing country Parties 
to the Convention but it remained unclear whethe r these were annual targets or targets for the 
10 year period, and these proposals have not be en substantiated. The existing estimates of 
global financing needs of USD 4-45 billion per annum for expanding global protected area 
network and 290 billion USD per annum for a fully comprehensive global conservation 
programme outside protected areas118, are not fully reliable and need to be updated. A 
proportion of the funding would have to be co ntributed as public funding from the EU but 
other sources of funding, including innovative financing mechanism, private sector funding 
and increased domestic funding in developing co untries will also need  to be explored.  
These potential costs need to be  weighed against the economic be nefits that the preservation 
and enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem se rvices will provide in  developing countries, 
which are often higher than the costs as de monstrated by many studies (see Annex 11). For 
example, initial measures to rehabilitate the Mau forest ecosystem above  have been estimated 
to be in the range of USD 81 million over three years while the value of the goods and services provided by the Mau forests exceed these costs by far. Conversely, ongoing forest 
                                                
 
114 UNEP – Blue Carbon – The role of healthy ecosystems in binding carbon.  
115 UNEP – The Natural Fix – The role of ecosystems in climate change mitigation. 
116 Rehabilitation of the Mau Forest Ecosystem - Executive Summary - 
http://www.unep.org/roa/kcp/Mau/ Docs/MAU_Executive_Summary.pdf  
117 Global Monitoring Report 2010 – Innovative Financing for Biodiversity. 
118 Global Canopy Programme, 2010. The little biodiversity finance book. A guide to proactive investment 
in natural capital 
 
EN 69   EN conversion in Sulawesi, Indonesia is expected to reduce pollination serv ices and thus coffee 
yields by up to 18% and net revenues per ha  by up to 14% over the next two decades119. 
The EU will also benefit from maintained an d enhanced global biodiversity as some of its 
services, such as climate mitigation, are global in nature. The preservation or enhancement of global terrestrial and marine ecosystems and of their potential to contribute to mitigating anthropogenic carbon emissions can be a cost-effi cient way to contribute to achieving the 
objectives of the UNFCCC. For instance global i nvestments in protecte d areas in 2003 were 
estimated to be in the range of 6 billion US $ while the value of th e carbon stored by the 
current system of terrestrial protected areas al one is estimated to lie somewhere between USD 
1,142 and 7,992 billion
120. EU companies will also benefit fr om protected or increased genetic 
diversity for new cosmetics and medication. Between 25-50% of the pharmaceutical industry benefits, estimated at USD 640 billion a year , are derived from bi odiversity and genetic 
resources. So is a significant proportion of the natural cosmetics market value, estimated at 
USD 7 billion in 2008. At the same time, the colle ction and sale of medicinal plants provide 
opportunities for revenue generation for rural co mmunities. The global market for medicinal 
plants is estimated to generate  billions of USD in revenues. 
The Nagoya Protocol on ABS obliges Parties to provide legal certainty, clarity and 
transparency of their domestic access and benefit-sharing frameworks. Ratification and 
implementation of the Nagoya Protocol by the EU and its Member Stat es will result in 
significantly improved access of European re searchers and companies to genes and 
biochemical compounds contained in genetic material  that are of significant value for research 
and development in a range of industries (pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, botanical medicines, crop protection, plan t and animal breeding, health care and cosmetics). It will 
however also impose a cost, since part of the bene fits will be directed to developing countries. 
Social impacts 
Biodiversity protection in develo ping countries is closely linke d to poverty alleviation. Many 
social groups directly and indi rectly depend on well functioning ecosystems, in some cases, 
more so that in Europe due to their direct contact and link with th e natural resources. The 
natural environment also plays a vital role in  shaping the cultural identity of nations and 
peoples. For India the TEEB study estimated that 352 million rural poor depend directly on 
ecosystem services. An estimated 500 million people live close to coral waters and directly depend on coral reefs for their food and livelihoods
121. Ensuring the provision of these 
services would have a measurable impact on the global objective of  poverty eradication122.  
Higher vulnerability to natural disasters as a result of ecosystem destruction can have 
devastating effects for societie s in developing countries. With  regard to the 2010 flood event 
in Pakistan IUCN Pakistan has suggested th at better flood-plain ma nagement could have 
helped to reduce the impacts of the flood including the number of casualties123. The literature 
                                                 
119 Priess, J. Mimler, M. Klein, A.M., Scharze, S., Tscharntke, T. And Steffan-Dewenter, I. 2007. Linking 
deforestation scenarios to pollination services and economic returns in coff ee agroforetry systems. 
Ecological Applications 17(2); 407-471. 
120 UNEP WCMC - Carbon Storage in Pr otected Areas – Technical Report. 
121 TEEB Climate Issues Update (September 2009). 
122 http://www.teebweb.org/LinkClick.aspx?file ticket=bYhDohL_TuM%3d&tabid=924&mid=1813  
123 http://iucn.org/about/union/secretariat/offices /asia/asia_where_work/pakistan/?5854/Floods-in-
Pakistan--Interview-Partners-Available  and http://news.dawn.com/wps/w cm/connect/dawn-content-
library/dawn/news/sci-tech/04-as ia-floods-ecosystem-damage-qs-05  
 
EN 70   EN provides many examples of how natural ecosyst ems as for example coastal mangroves, coral 
reefs, floodplains and forest help commun ities to mitigate the im pacts of disasters124. 
Biodiversity loss also has important health impact s. Biodiversity loss has likely facilitated the 
emergence and spread of infectious diseases. In  tropical forests, deforestation increases the 
risk of some infectious diseases, for exampl e, by tending to favour those mosquito species 
that are better vectors for malaria, and thos e snail species that are better hosts for 
schistosomiasis125. Biodiversity loss also wipes out  important nutritional resources, 
compromising efforts to enhance community health126.  
In addition, the majority  of the world's population still depe nds on the use of medicinal plants 
for primary health care. The WHO estimates th at in some Asian and African countries, 80% 
of the population depend on traditional medicine for primary health care127. 
The Nagoya Protocol on ABS also addresses access to and benefit-sh aring for traditional 
knowledge associated with genetic resources of  indigenous and local communities. Benefits 
from its implementation are therefore expected to contribute positively to the livelihoods of 
often marginalised indigenous and lo cal communities in non-EU countries. 
Distributional impacts 
The highest donors (DE, FR, IT) are likely to increase their contributions proportionally, 
although some Member States that are not tradi tionally donors could cons ider starting making 
contributions. 
Foreseen additional analysis 
Impacts related to Access and Benefit Sharing will be set out in more detail in the legislative 
proposal foreseen by 2015. The work to estimat e funding needs for EU's contribution to CBD 
targets in the run up to COP-11 will also provide  further information on the financial impact 
of this target. 
7.7. Comparison of options 
Expected contributions to the main policy objectives 
Table 2 summarises qualitatively the expected contributions to the main policy objectives of 
the main proposed measure headings under each target. 
As measures are not designed as policy alternativ es, but rather as main  areas for action, since 
the main options in terms of orientations and le vels of ambition have already been considered 
at the level of the target, table 2 serves to illustrate the complementarity between measures, 
where relevant, and synergies across targets. Within each heading, chapter 6 has scoped what 
the main alternatives are, and for most ar eas, forthcoming or parallel ongoing impact 
assessments will determine what individual measure for each area of action is more cost-effective.  
In T1, the main measure headings proposed ar e interlinked, e.g. adequa te funding sources are 
necessary to complete and manage the Na tura 2000 network. In T2, better knowledge is 
necessary to implement GI and no net loss.  Whilst GI would have positive impacts on 
restoration of ecosystem services, it may not be very effective in ensuring that there is a gain 
                                                
 
124 http://assets.panda.org/downloads/natural_security_final.pdf  
125 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091203132157.htm . 
126 http://www.cohabnet.org/news/Na goya-summit-must-recognise-the-health-value-of-biodiversity.htm  
127 http://www.who.in t/mediacentre/factsheets/fs134/en/  
 
EN 71   EN overall when taking into account ongoing degrad ation of ecosystems through pressures which 
are not addressed by other targets. Thus, a no net loss policy framework could be introduced 
subsequently, once better knowledge is availabl e and the experience of GI is evaluated. 
In T3, for agriculture, the first two actions are clearly complementary, whereas the third 
action could be taken independently. For forests,  the two options are lin ked and would need to 
be taken together. 
The column on synergies also illustrates th at the first two targets are linked and 
complementary by directly contributing to the first two objective, whereas the two sectoral 
targets (T3 and T4) as well as T5 directly cont ribute to T1 and T2. T6 is potentially linked to 
most EU targets through the sustainable consumption and production measures which may also have a positive impact in the EU. 
 Halting biodiversity 
loss and ecosystem services degradation  Restoration of 
ecosystem services  EU contribution to 
averting global biodiversity loss Synergies with 
other targets 
T1 –Fully implement the birds 
and habitats directives ++ + + T2, T3 &T4 
Completion & Management of N2k ++ +  T2&T4 
Funding  ++ +  T2, T3 &T4 
Communication + +   
Monitoring and reporting + +   
T2 - Maintain and restore 
ecosystems and their services ++ ++ + T1, T3 &T4 
Better knowledge  + +   
Restoration & Green Infrastructure (GI) + ++ + T1, T3 &T4 
No net loss ++ + + T1 
T3 – Increase the contribution of 
agriculture and forestry to 
maintaining and enhancing 
biodiversity ++ + + T1& T2 
AGRI - Greening direct payments  ++ +  T1& T2 
AGRI - Better targeted RD + ++  T1& T2 
AGRI - Genetic diversity +  +  
FOREST – Measures targeting forest holders ++ +  T1& T2 
FOREST – Biodiversity measures ++ +  T1& T2 
T4 - Ensure the sustainable use 
of fisheries resources ++ ++ + T1& T2 
Fish stocks management  ++ + +  
Impacts on other species & habitats ++ ++  T1& T2 
T5 – Combat Invasive Alien 
Species ++ +  T1, T2, T3, T4 & 
T6 
Integration into existing regimes  + +  T1, T2, T3, T4, T6 
Dedicated instrument on IAS ++ +  T1, T2, T3, T4, T6 
T6 – Help Avert global 
biodiversity loss +  ++ T1, T2, T3 & T4 
Addressing indirect drivers +  + T1, T2, T3 & T4 
Resource mobilisation   ++  
Biodiversity proofing   ++  
 
EN 72   EN Genetic resources   ++  
Table 2 : contribution of packages of measures  per target to main policy objectives 
Key costs and benefits of reaching the targets 
Table 3 provides a summary of the key costs and benefits of reaching the targets, in a 
quantitative way every time this is possi ble, and qualitatively otherwise.  
  Environmental Economic Social 
+ Increased biodiversity and 
ecosystem services from Natura 
2000 sites, better resilience to 
stressors such as climate change. 
Synergies with WFD and MSFD. Increased social benefits from 
ecosystem services. Limited private 
business opportunities in Natura 
2000 sites, e.g. linked to eco-
tourism, local natural and 
traditional products Increased employment in rural 
areas in the medium term 
T1 
-  Fraction of total management costs 
of €5.8 billion per year Possible short term job losses due 
to restricted access to resources 
 
 + Maintained and enhanced 
ecosystems and services, such as 
clean air and water, carbon storage 
and natural disaster control. 
Increased ecosystem resilience and 
reduced vulnerability to climate 
change. Synergies with WFD and 
MSFD. Increased benefits from ecosystem 
services. No aggregated estimates 
of benefits, but project-based 
evidence of benefit-cost ratios in 
the range of 3 to 75. New 
investment opportunities for 
businesses and innovation 
potential. Climate mitigation 
benefits. Multiple social benefits, both in 
urban and rural areas, such as 
positive impacts on health and 
quality of life, aesthetical and 
psychological benefits, reduced 
exposure to natural disasters, new 
job opportunities in restoration and 
conservation T2 
- 
 Costs in the order of several 
billions per year, but GI costs could 
substitute for more costly grey 
infrastructure investment.  
 
 + Maintaining and enhancing agro-
ecosystems and forest ecosystems 
and their services, including carbon 
storage, erosion prevention, 
pollution control and water 
purification. Synergies with WFD. New possibilities created for 
agricultural sector diversification; 
improving farmers income in 
natura 2000 and HNV areas; 
increased competitiveness and 
diversification of the forestry 
sector. Contribution to rural development 
in less favoured areas; new jobs  
T3 - 
 Costs related to funding from pillar 
1 and pillar 2 measures, which 
would partly contribute to costs of 
managing Natura 2000 and HNV 
areas. Likely not to be net costs but 
a change of spending priorities in 
the CAP. Forest management plans 
administrative costs compensated 
by funding from rural development   
 
+ Increased and more sustainable 
levels of fish populations, 
maintained and enhanced marine 
ecosystems & services. Synergies 
with MSFD. Positive long-run impact on 
fisheries income. Conservation of 
UK marine habitats had a positive 
benefit cost ratio between 6.7 and 
38.9. Increased efficiency of public 
spending Prevent negative effect on 
employment in case of a collapse in 
fish stocks. 
T4 
- 
 Negative short term impacts on 
fisheries income. Higher 
management costs to avoid adverse 
impacts on ecosystems  Short term social cost of scaling 
down of fleet in the fishing sector 
 
EN 73   EN  
+ Reduced pressure on species and 
habitats from IAS. Strong synergy 
effects with other targets to achieve 
e.g. ecosystem restoration. Reduced economic damage. Rough 
estimates show bene fits in terms of 
avoided damage costs of €1-9 
billion / year Reduced adverse impacts on human 
health, avoided negative 
employment consequences, 
enhanced cultural services and 
recreational activities. T5 
-  €40 million–190 million / year.  
 
+ Improved global biodiversity 
especially in developing countries, 
Increased ecosystem services such 
as carbon storage, water provision, 
purification and retention. Some 
improvements also in the EU. Economic benefits from 
biodiversity & ecos ystem services, 
e.g. climate mitigation, increased 
crop yields through pollination in 
developing countries. Genetic 
diversity benefits  EU & developing 
countries (cosmetics & 
medication). ABS protocol 
provides legal certain ty of access to 
resources for EU companies. Poverty alleviation,  e.g. in India 
approximately 352 million rural 
poor depend directly on ecosystem 
services. Decreased risk of social 
impacts of natural disasters. Health 
benefits. Improved livelihood of indigenous communities through 
sharing of traditional knowledge 
benefits T6 
- 
 EU contribution to financing global 
biodiversity to increase by 2020; 
cost of ABS protocol to EU 
industry  
Table 3: Key costs and benefits of reaching targets  
Who will bear the costs? 
Although full quantification of the cumulative impacts of the proposed measures is not 
possible at this stage, it is possible to provi de an indication of who will primarily bear the 
costs. This varies across targets. 
For T1, although the intention is to increase private inve stments in Natura 2000, the 
expectation is that the bulk of the costs woul d be covered by public so urces both at EU and 
national level. For T2, the initial steps in  terms of setting up pr ocesses and knowledge 
gathering will also bear primarily on the public  authorities. In terms of implementation 
measures for green infrastructure, but also meas ures relating to no net loss, the infrastructure 
sector, mainly energy and transport, and busine sses more generally, will bear a part of the 
costs. Sectors who will gain are mainly those depending on biodiversity and ecosystem 
services for their activities (e .g. eco-tourism, water companies) or entrepreneurs seeking to 
invest in natural capital. Their investment  might be encouraged through public private 
partnerships, or the use of other innovative financial instruments. 
Regarding T3, again most of the funding is li kely to come from public funds, although for 
forestry specific measures proposed should en courage funding from the private sector. The 
situation is similar for fisheries (T4). For T5 , costs will be mainly borne by the sectors 
affected by the expanded measures to control intentional and unintentional introductions and 
movement of IAS into and within the EU (e.g. horticulture, forestry, pets and aquarium trade 
sector, marine transport). Regarding T6, funding is  likely to be from public authorities for a 
significant share, although privat e funding will also need to be stepped up through innovative 
financing instruments. The ABS pr otocol will also have signific ant costs on the private sector, 
mainly on pharmaceutical/cosmetic companies, but  will also provide legal certainty and 
predictability of thei r access to resources. 
Overall, from this initial qualitative analysis, a large part of the costs are likely to be borne by 
public authorities, with the largest share from th e private sector for IAS, ecosystem restoration 
and GI, and the global target (ABS). For othe r targets, although main ly publicly funded, the 
objective would be to attrac t private funding through innovativ e financial instruments. 
 
EN 74   EN Prioritisation of action 
In terms of new initiatives, T2 on ecosystem re storation and green infr astructure and T5 on 
invasive species are th e most innovative, as th ey kick start policy ac tion in areas which are 
currently not part of the biodiversity policy fr amework at EU level. Both targets have good 
potential for delivering significant and early results. Howe ver, improved implementation and 
integration in sectors is also ke y to reaching the overall objectives. 
In practice, a combination of the proposed measures will be need ed to deliver in 2020. 
However, within each target, some actions can be  prioritised, as discussed in chapter 6, and in 
some cases would need to be taken as a seque nce. For example, the achievement of several 
targets, including ecosystem restoration and fish eries rely on better knowledge, and early data 
gathering would be a priority. Actions that prev ent higher costs in the future should also be a 
priority, such as prevention and early warning for IAS, or a no net loss policy framework, 
since restoration is usually more costly than c onservation. Finally, timing is also dictated by 
parallel sectoral policy developments , such as the CAP and CFP reform. 
8. CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES ON FUNDING AND GOVERNANCE  
8.1. Funding 
EU and national public sources currently account for the majo rity of funding in support of 
biodiversity objectives, largely because biodiversity is consid ered a public good. The share of 
private biodiversity funding is co mparatively low, but will need to be significantly stepped up 
if the EU and global targ ets are to be met.  
8.1.1.  Existing funding instruments 
The following section outlines the main existin g funding streams and those likely to become 
available to support actions and meas ures carried out under the strategy.  
EU funding 
The current approach to financing envi ronmental objectives, including nature and 
biodiversity, from EU funds is based for the mo st part on integration. In theory, this means 
that environmental objectives should be adequate ly addressed in all EU  policies and necessary 
funding dedicated for this purpose through re lated financial instruments. The 2007–2013 
Mutiannual Financial Framework offers opportunities for co-f inancing of biodiversity and 
Natura 2000, among others under the LIFE+ instru ment, the European Agricultural Fund for 
Rural Development (EAFRD), the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), the European Fisheries Fund (EFF), the Structur al Funds (European Regional Development Fund 
(ERDF) and European Social Fund (ESF)) and the Cohesion Fund, and the 7
th Framework 
Programme for Research (Annex 4 includes a short analysis of current biodiversity 
expenditure under these instruments). 
National funding 
It is not possible to assess the level of direct financial contri butions to national biodiversity 
conservation activities from the information receive d from the Member States in the scope of 
the 2010 BAP assessment. However, as already indicated, EU funding made available to 
Member States which could be used for bi odiversity purposes is not fully availed of. 
As for national funding for biodiversity, 24 Me mber States have national programmes in 
place that identify long-term goa ls and the allocation of fundi ng (both EU and national co-
funding). Overall figures appear to be relatively low. For example, in France, expenses for 
 
EN 75   EN biodiversity and landscape cons ervation account for only 4.2% of the total environmental 
protection budget. The Biodivers ity Action Plan 2010 assessment  report provides information 
on the range of situations across Member States128. 
Global funding 
Estimates of the current level of global funding  for biodiversity and ecosystem services are 
wide-ranging. For instance, the TEEB report for Policy Makers estimates that biodiversity 
financing from different international sour ces and funds amounts to around USD 4–USD 5 
billion a year. Another source estimates the ra nge to be between US D 36-38 billion annually 
if one takes into account all funding sources , including traditional non-market mechanisms, 
innovative forms of finance, user fees, etc129. Official Development Assistance (ODA) from 
high-income countries provides up to USD 3.5 billio n/year, mostly in the form of country-to-
country bilateral aid, with the rest as mu ltilateral aid managed by the Global Environment 
Facility (GEF), other UN agencies, the Intern ational Development Agency and multilateral 
development banks. The percentage spent on  biodiversity conservation has remained 
consistently low over the past 15 years (2.4% to 2.8% of total bilate ral ODA). Funding from 
non-profit organizations (mainly channelled th rough international conservation NGOs, private 
and business foundations) for international biodive rsity protection contributes more than USD 
1 billion/year, but relevant in formation and data are fragmentary. Market-based sources of 
income have grown quickly in the last 20 year s and have the potential to contribute between 
USD 1–2 billion annually (Gutman and Davidson, 2007). These  include international tourism, 
especially ecotourism, and markets for enviro nmentally friendly products such as organic, 
certified and fair trade products. 
8.1.2.  Financing options in the EU  2020 Biodiversity strategy 
As insufficient funding was a key f actor in the failure to meet the 2010 EU target, it will be 
important to ensure adequate and effectiv e funding for the implementation of the 2020 
biodiversity strategy.  
The review of the costs of th e measures proposed in the Stra tegy indicates that funding needs 
will differ according to the targets and measures  proposed. In some cases, more funds will be 
required to implement measures needed to achieve  a given target, in particular for example for 
the restoration of ecosystems and the global ta rget. In others, the focus will be more on 
redistributing existing resources and/or ensu ring they are taken up to their full extent 
(agriculture and forestry, fisher ies targets). The combination of  funding sources is also likely 
to vary depending on the target. Various funding st reams at different leve ls will come into 
play. 
EU funding 
At the EU level in particular, and without pr e-empting the outcome of the negotiations on the 
next Multi-annual Financial Fr amework, opportunities offered in  the framework of ongoing or 
upcoming policy reforms (e.g. CAP, CFP, Cohesion Policy), new policy initiatives (e.g. the Resource Efficiency flagship initiative) a nd the coming Multiannual Financial Framework 
should be seized in support of the strate gy. Research funding under the eighth framework 
programme will contribute to closing iden tified knowledge gaps and supporting policy. 
                                                
 
128
 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/bap_2010/4%20EC_Know
ledge_Base_Assessment_BAP_final.pdf   
129 Global Canopy Programme, The Little Biodiversity Finance Book, 2010. 
 
EN 76   EN Finally, it will be important to maximise synergies between finance for biodiversity and 
climate change related activ ities, since these can ofte n be mutually supportive. 
The Commission may envisage  a Common Strategic Framew ork (CSF) to set out the 
priorities of five important EU funds (E AFRD, ERDF, ESF, Cohesion Fund, and the EFF), 
and their contributions to achieving the objec tives of Europe 2020, with a view to better 
complementarity at EU level. Given that in the current context efforts to ensure 
complementarity are essentially made at national and regional level, an  adequate integration 
of biodiversity and nature cons ervation objectives in this framework could help funds work 
together at sub-regional level and to support integrated project s. Member States concerned 
would need to develop good strate gies to make the best use of the funds available in line with 
the EU biodiversity and EU2020 priorities. Life+ could also be used as a catalyser to fund 
integrated projects that woul d attract funding from other sour ces. This would contribute to 
addressing some of the factors behind low uptake of current fina ncing availabilities. 
EU funding is an option consid ered in all targets. Two speci fic funding-related initiatives, 
stand out in particular. The firs t concerns the need for adequate  financing for the Natura 2000 
network, which is essential for its full implementation. This may entail that Member States develop multi-annual planning for Natura 2000, consistent with th e prioritized action 
frameworks required under the Habitats Di rective. The second responds to the COP10 
commitment to substantially in crease financial res ources from all sources for the effective 
implementation of the Nagoya outcomes. These commitments will need to be met through 
dedicated additional funding for biodiversity and well designed synergies with other relevant 
funding sources, such as climate change (e .g. REDD+, Green Clim ate Fund). Other EU 
funding instruments would be used to reach other targets: e.g. Structural funds and CAP funds 
for the Restoration and Green Infrastructure Ta rget, CAP funds and Life + for the Agriculture 
and Forestry targets, the new Fish eries fund for the Fisheries target. 
Contribution of the European Outermost Regions (ORs) and Overseas Countries and 
Territories (OCTs) to the achievement of the targets 
ORs and OCTs are home to ex ceptional biodiversity and more endemic species than on the 
whole of continental Europe. G uyane alone hosts the largest pr otected area and only tropical 
forest in the EU. These territori es can greatly contribute to th e achievement of the biodiversity 
headline target and vision. However, due to loca l conditions and specificities, the biodiversity 
of ORs and OCTs is more much vulnerable to ce rtain pressures such as invasive species and 
climate change. This will need to be recognised and addressed as part of the Strategy, 
including through adequate future funding.  
National funding 
Sufficient funding will also be needed at national level. The reform of harmful subsidies, as 
highlighted in the 2020 Strategy, would offer op portunities to redirect funds towards positive 
incentives, which could include more sustainable and biodiversity friendly activities. This 
would be in line with the global target of the CBD Strategic Pl an requiring that incentives, 
including subsidies, harmful to biodiversity are eliminated, phased out or reformed in order to 
minimize or avoid negative impacts. 
Private funding 
Although there has been limited us e of market-based instrument s or other innovative financial 
instruments in the field of biodiversity thus far, this appears to be a promising future source of 
biodiversity funding (see annex 14). It is also clear that the biodiversity challenge cannot be 
 
EN 77   EN addressed without such innovative tools, sinc e public funding alone wi ll not be sufficient, 
especially in light of  budgetary constraints as a result of the current economic situation.  
Transnational and international  Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) for global public 
goods (e.g. carbon sequestration through the proposed REDD scheme under UNFCCC) are 
amongst the most prominent recent proposals fo r environmental financing schemes: others 
include environmental taxes and public-priva te partnerships that  link businesses, NGOs, 
public bodies and communities. To date, PES in the EU have mainly involved public funding 
– for example agri-environmental and forest-environment measures within the CAP. PES are also options to be considered for the Fisher ies Target, and for the Restoration and Green 
Infrastructure Target. The privat e sector could be better enga ged in PES, pot entially through 
public-private partnerships.  
Lessons learnt from existing habitat banking sche mes in the United States and other countries, 
as well as pilot experiences in certain EU Member States (such as the UK, Germany and 
France), and other options to attract private pa rtners into biodiversity conservation will need 
to be considered. A Commission study has shown th at market incentives can stimulate private 
investment in biodiversity conservation and th e potential and feasibility of habitat banking 
schemes at EU level is worth e xploring in the context of discu ssions on restoration and 'no net 
loss' approaches
130. Biodiversity offsets, and possibly ha bitat banking, could be considered in 
the Restoration and Green Infrastructure Target in the context of a possible initiative on no net 
loss of ecosystems and their services. 
Examples of innovative financial instruments include green investment as part of the 
Corporate Social Responsibility  strategy of companies and banks , or investments by insurance 
companies in the restoration of natural flood plai ns to prevent damage from natural disasters. 
Public contributions, in particular EU fundi ng, can play a supporting role in the design of 
Public Private Partnerships to attract more investment from businesses in nature and the 
services it provides. Instruments to attract such  investment can take the form of guarantee 
schemes, risk-sharing instruments, equity funds  or a combination of grants for technical 
assistance with other financial instruments. Th e opportunity to use thes e to implement specific 
targets are under discussion with  the European Investment Bank. 
However, this will depend on businesses being aware of the importance of biodiversity for 
them and for the sustainability of their activities. The EU Business and Biodiversity 
Platform131, which aims at providing support to bus inesses that activel y engage in the 
conservation and sustainable use of biodivers ity and prove that there are huge market 
opportunities for the businesses that take the lead on that challenge, is an ideal platform for 
exploring further the potential  win-win opportunities of priv ate sector investment in 
biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. Pricewater houseCoopers estimated that 
sustainability-related global business opportunities  in natural resources are significant (USD 
2-6 trillion by 2050)132. 
Annexes 14 summarises the main financing mechanisms that can be envisaged for 
biodiversity, including both tr aditional and innovative financi ng instruments. Some of these 
mechanisms could be used in the EU to fund the costs of the measures in each sub-target, as a 
complement to the main EU funding sources, as discussed in chapter 6. 
                                                 
130 EFTEC/IEEP – The use of market-based instruments for biodiversity protection- the case of habitat 
banking (2009). 
131 http://www.business-biodiversity.eu  
132 PricewaterhouseCoopers in TEEB for business report, 2010. 
 
EN 78   EN Global funding 
An estimation of funding needs, a baseline for aggregated financial flows of biodiversity-
related funding from a broad range of sources, public and private will be identified in the 
course of 2011/2012 and subsequently presented to  the 11th meeting of the Conference of the 
Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversit y. It is already clear, however, that more 
funding will be needed, and that public funding will not be sufficient to cover the costs of reaching the 2020 biodiversity global target. Al though the reliability of the global financing 
needs are currently uncertain, w ith some estimates of up to USD 300-400 billion per annum, it 
is clear that private funding and the use of in novative financing instruments will need to be 
stepped up to meet these costs, at global, bu t also at EU and national level. The private 
sector's financial involvement in maintaining and enhancing biodiversity can also make sound 
economic sense
133. 
8.2. Governance 
As previously pointed out, the policy framework put in place to reach the 2010 target lacked a 
clear governance structure. This resulted in an unclear distribu tion of tasks, which in turn 
made it difficult to hold different actors to account for their responsibilities. 
The consultation process followed in preparing the St rategy to date has involved a wide 
range of government, institutional, private and non-governmental actors. While the inputs 
received have been important in shaping the Strategy, achiev ing its objectives will require 
their continued involvement in  the implementation phase. Ind eed, in the public consultation 
on the 2020 EU biodiversity strategy, the involve ment of all stakeholders and the full 
engagement of all actors concerned were highli ghted as key conditions to halting biodiversity 
loss. It is therefore proposed that a clear gove rnance scheme is established for the Strategy.  
In terms of institutional input , the scheme established for the EU 2020 Strategy for smart, 
sustainable and inclusive growth can be looked to as a source of inspiration. In practice, this 
would mean that, following the adoption of the Commission Communi cation on the Strategy, 
the Parliament would be invite d to adopt a Resoluti on, the Council to adopt Conclusions, and 
the European Economic and Social Committe e and Committee of the Regions to adopt 
Opinions pertaining to the Strategy, its overall approach and the targets set out in it. EU 
institutions and Member States would then ne ed to deliver on the relevant EU-wide targets 
and identify the level of ambiti on each needs to contribute to the wider EU effort, considering 
that the burden of tackling the challenge is spread unequally. 
Each Member State would also need to inco rporate these targets – complemented with 
corresponding national targets as necessary - into its own National Biodiversity Strategy 
and Action Plan  as required under the CBD, taking into account bot h the EU targets and the 
global targets set out in the St rategic Plan 2011-2020, the majority  of which are reflected in 
varying degrees in the proposed EU targets (see Annex 9).  
Action will be needed at all administrative le vels. Environment depart ments within National 
authorities are already engaged in the deve lopment and implementation of Biodiversity 
National Plans, but there is a need to activel y involve other governmental departments.  
The role of local and regional authorities  will also be crucial in implementing the 
Strategy134. They have an especially important role in monitori ng and assessing biodiversity 
                                                 
133 TEEB for businesses, July 2010.  
134 The Committee of the Regions organised a specific consultation for local and regional authorities 
entitled "Assessment of Territorial Impacts of the EU  Post 2010 Biodiversity Strategy", which ran from 
 
EN 79   EN and ecosystems, integrating biodiversity concer ns into spatial planning, designating protected 
areas and ecological corridors, ensuring connectivity, putting in place incentives (positive and negative) for the private sector to be be tter engaged in biodiversity conservation, and 
enhancing public awareness and engagement in efforts to conserve th e natural environment. 
In this respect, regional a nd local authorities should be equipped with adequate human, 
financial and technical means, commensurate to th eir responsibility and to the task of helping 
to stem biodiversity loss.  
Progress towards reaching the EU 2020 biodiversity  targets could be assessed as part of a 
dialogue between Member States and the Commission, in the form of a common biodiversity 
implementation strategy  involving key actors, sectors and in stitutions as necessary, inspired 
by the successful approach of the WFD. This would also enable the consistency of national 
targets with the EU targets to be assessed. Th ese are common goals to be pursued through a 
mix of national and EU level action The Co mmission will support and complement these 
national efforts by enforcing environmental legi slation, filling the pol icy gaps by proposing 
new initiatives, providing guide lines, funding, and fostering the exchange of best practice.  
It is also clear that private sector engagement , including businesses an d banks, will be vital 
to achieving the targets. For that purpose the Commission will continue to work intensively on the Business and Biodiversity Platform. Simila rly, the participation of  civil society should 
be promoted and facilitated at all levels of implementation.  
9. M
ONITORING , REVIEW , COMMUNICATION AND WAY FORWARD  
9.1. Monitoring 
The lack of a clear baseline against which pr ogress could be monitored and measured in the 
EU contributed to the failure to meet the 2010 biodiversity target. Si gnificant progress has 
since been made to improve  data and knowledge about bi odiversity. A common framework 
for evaluating progress towards the 2020 headline target is now  in place through the Baseline 
developed by the European Environment Agen cy and its European Topic Centre on 
Biological Diversity. The Streamlining Eur opean 2010 Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010)135 
and the Europe Corine Land Cover update are integral parts of th e Baseline. All this 
information is publicly made available thr ough the Biodiversity Information System for 
Europe (BISE), the single entry point for biodiversity information in Europe136. 
The work to develop the EU 2010 Biodivers ity Baseline has shown that, although knowledge 
has significantly improved, there are still gaps th at are relevant to bi odiversity policy making, 
implementation and evaluation which need  to be filled in the years to come137. Data gathering, 
analysis and validation have not followed a comp rehensive approach. This might be due to the 
complexity of biodiversity, which cannot be reduced to a single va riable but requires 
development of a set of inter-re lated indicators. For instance, establishing the state of soil 
biodiversity and assessing the risks of soil bi odiversity loss requires the development of 
                                                                                                                                                         
9 September to 25 October 2010. The responses received indicate that many local and regional 
authorities in the EU consider they will play a centr al role in the delivery of biodiversity targets. 
135 Streamlining European 2010 Biodiversity Indicators process (SEBI 2010) is a partnership led by the 
European Environment Agency involving country representatives and experts from across the EU under which a set of 26 biodiversity indicators was agreed.
  
136 http://biodiversity.europa.eu   
137 It does not, at this stage, differ entiate the scale of gaps: some areas, topics and issues may require much 
more effort than others. Nor does it prioritise ho w the gaps should be addressed, for example via 
research activities, indicator and reporting framewo rks, monitoring initiatives and so on (cf. EEA 
Technical Report n°12/2010 'EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline', 2010). 
 
EN 80   EN reliable indicators so th at long-term monitoring programmes can be set up138. In addition, 
reporting by Member States under the Birds and Ha bitats Directives has been uneven, as have 
biodiversity monitoring and research efforts,  which remain underfunded. More integrated 
research is needed, especia lly on the links between biodiv ersity, ecosystem functioning, 
ecosystem services and natural capital. Di scussions on the next Research Framework 
Programme provide an opportuni ty to address these gaps. 
Increased capacity for indicator development a nd data collection and management, as well as 
better integrated and harmonise d biodiversity-relevant indicato rs in Community policy and 
Member States, regions and the Eu ropean level, especially Eurost at should be sought. Several 
initiatives are already under way to help collec t, harmonise and provide access to data needed 
for integrated policy-relevant assessments . These include the Shared Environmental 
Information System (SEIS), the Inspire Direc tive, the Global Monitori ng for Environment and 
Security (GMES) as an integral part of th e recently adopted Digital Agenda for Europe139. 
The LUCAS surveys implemented by Eurostat will be a useful source of information for land cover, land use and agro-envir onmental issues. Specific ad hoc modules on biodiversity issues 
are foreseen to be added to future LUCAS surveys after 2012. 
The Commission, together with other partners, will continue to address knowledge gaps, in 
particular on the links between biodiversit y, ecosystems and thei r services, should be 
developed and supported with appropriate resources.  
At the global level, the EU is supporting effort s to establish an Intergovernmental science 
policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which would have a role 
similar to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 
The adoption of an EU 2020 Biodiversity Stra tegy with a limited number of targets will 
require the consecutive development of a logi cal framework to monitor trends and assess 
progress on the measures and targets in a co herent way, based on clear baseline and a 
streamlined set of agreed indi cators. Annex 15 summarises the available indicators that could 
be used to monitor the specific targets. Additional indicators ma y be needed to assess progress 
towards outcome-oriented targ ets and process of implementa tion of the EU Strategy (e.g. 
enabling monitoring and data collection of other relevant policies to follow-up on efforts and 
impacts of their measures). Indicators to be co nsidered include SEBI indicators, Eurostat's 
Sustainable Development Indicat ors and Agro-Environmental Indi cators, and other initiatives. 
The development of more coherent and consis tent assessment, monitoring and information 
schemes would bring significant benefits and e fficiency gains by eliminating duplication of 
costs and efforts by different le vels of government (EU, Member  State, regional and global 
level). Such schemes would also generate cost e fficiencies for biodivers ity-related industries, 
which are all interested  in a common, reliable information system to plan more efficiently 
their future investments and identify appropria te development sites, and benefit scientific 
research. Finally, it would reduce the costs of  regulation, planning a nd decision-making and 
allow for informed policy-making, and therefore be tter targeted and less costly measures. At 
EU level, improving synergies between data co llected under the CAP, CF P or regional policy 
and under dedicated biodiversity-related legisl ation, and devising join t monitoring systems 
would stimulate further mutual supp ortiveness between these policies. 
                                                
 
138 See the Executive Summary of the Soil Biodiversity Report, pp. 10-11. 
139 See http://eur-lex.europa. eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?ur i=CELEX:52010DC0 245(01):EN:NOT)  and 
more specifically 'eEnvironment' under the priority area on 'eGovernment' (2.7.4). 
 
EN 81   EN In the short term, the establishment of common principles and approaches for the 
development of more integrated monitoring schemes would impose costs on government. In order to minimize the administrative burden,  the Commission, in consultation with the 
Member States, will develop, in time to provide information for the mid-term review of the 
Strategy, a set of indicators building on SEBI 2010 that also takes into account and is streamlined to the extent possible with the framework to be adopted under the CBD at the 
next Conference of the Parties.  
9.2. Reporting and review 
To ensure that the EU remains on track toward s reaching its 2020 headline target, the Strategy 
will need to be reviewed so th at eventual gaps and shortcomings in implementation can be 
spotted and addressed in good time. A mid-term review of the Strategy  will be completed in 
early 2014 at the latest, following the fo rthcoming CAP and CFP policy reforms and 
agreement on the next Multiannual Financial Fram ework. This review should be informed by: 
the Biodiversity Baseline, which will be period ically updated, taking into account the next 
streamlined conservation status assessment under the Habitats and Birds Directives; reporting 
and evaluations carried out under the Water Fr amework Directive and the Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive, and other relevant processes at EU and Member State level. A final 
assessment of the Strategy should be carried out in 2020. 
In order to minimize the admi nistrative burden, the Commissi on, in consultation with the 
Member States, will develop, in  time for the mid-term review, a reporting system  that also 
takes into account and is streamlined and aligned  with the review and reporting obligations 
under the CBD wherever possible. The 10
th Conference of the Partie s to the CBD in October 
2010 set a deadline of 31 March 2014 for the next national reports under the Convention140. 
9.3. Communication and awareness raising 
Insufficient awareness and political  will was highlighted as one of the factors that contributed 
to the failure to reach the EU 2010 biodivers ity target. In recent years, communication and 
raise awareness raising efforts were stepped up, especially during the 201 0 International Year 
of Biodiversity. The Commission launched a majo r biodiversity awareness raising campaign 
for this purpose in early 2010. However, it is  clear that this is an ongoing challenge 
underpinning the achievement of all other targ ets, and cannot be ach ieved through a single 
activity or measure, but rather needs to be pursued as a cross- cutting issue at all levels of 
government and in all relevant sectors to be  effective. For instance, among the measures 
proposed under T5 involves a co mmunication campaign on Natura 2000 to be carried out by 
the Commission. Similar actions will need to be envisaged and regularly carried out to 
increase public understanding  of the role that individuals, businesses, public authorities and 
other actors can play in cons erving biodiversity and restori ng ecosystems, and the benefits 
they derive from it.  
9.4. Next steps 
The 2020 Biodiversity Strategy Communication defines the biodiversity priorities  for the 
next ten years, sets the agenda for achievi ng the 2020 headline target and outlines actions to 
be taken in order to ensure full implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives, maintain 
                                                 
140 Parties should submit their fifth national reports to  the CBD Secretariat by 31 March 2014. The reports 
are expected to focus inter alia on the implementation of the Strategic Plan 2011-2020 and progress 
toward the 2020 targets, using indicators where possible and feasible, and provide an update on status 
and trends of and threats to biodiversity , using national biodiversity indicators. 
 
EN 82   EN and enhance ecosystems and the services they provide, ensure the further contribution of 
agriculture and forestry to maintaining and enha ncing biodiversity, ensu re the sustainable use 
of fisheries resources, reduce the impact of inva sive alien species on EU  biodiversity and step 
up the EU contribution to global biodiversity.  
On the basis of these priorities and the acti ons presented, the Commission will come forward 
with concrete proposals and initiatives  to deliver on the different components of the 
Strategy, some of which are already announced in the Strategy (see table 4). Ongoing policy 
reform processes, including those of the CAP, CFP and Cohesion Policy, provide timely 
opportunities to enhance synergies and maximise  coherence with the biodiversity strategy 
targets and measures. Efforts were made to align the options for targets and measures  
discussed in this report with the options discussed in the parallel sectoral impact 
assessments  to ensure consistency. The eviden ce necessary to further underpin and 
operationalise proposed orientations  and measures will be provide d in this context, including 
through further stakeholder consultations. 
Expected date  Planned initiative(s) Planned IA Milestones & New knowledge 
expected 
2011 - Commission's proposal on CAP reform  
- Commission's proposal on the new Multiannual 
Financial Framework (MFF) 
- Commission's proposal on CFP reform IA 
 
 
IA - Fitness check of water-related 
policies 
- UNFCCC COP-17 
2012 - Blueprint to safeguard EU waters 
- Commission initiative on green infrastructure 
(green paper) 
- Communication campaign on Natura 2000 
- Commission proposal on Access and Benefit 
Sharing 
- Revision of the Plant and Animal Health regimes 
- Commission proposal on In vasive Alien Species 
- New MFF agreed; Financial regulation in place  IA 
 
 
 
IA 
 
IA 
IA 
 - CBD COP-11 negotiations on 
financial targets 
- Completion of the Natura 
2000 network 
- Initial assessment of the status 
or marine waters, and 
characteristics of Good 
Environmental Status 
- UNFCCC COP-18 […] 
2014 - Strategic restoration prioritisation framework  
- Review of the 2020 Biodiversity targets  - Ecosystem services mapped 
and assessed 
- Updated assessment of 
conservation status under the 
Nature Directives 
- Update of the EU biodiversity 
baseline 
- CBD COP-12 
2015 - Commission initiative on no net loss of 
ecosystems and ecosystem services 
 IA 
(proportionate to 
type of 
initiative) - MSY achieved for all fish 
stocks 
- Good Ecological Status 
required under the WFD 
Table 4 : Planned initiatives linked with the biodiversity st rategy, associated planned IA, and new knowledge 
expected 
The 2014 review of the Strategy will coincide with new information on the state of 
biodiversity in different types of ecosystem s, progress of implementation of relevant 
legislation, and the start of the practical implementation of the re formed CAP and CFP. It will 
be an opportunity to review the targets and adapt them  if warranted by this new 
information. The Commission may consider fu rther and complementary steps reflecting 
relevant developments and emerging priorities at national, EU and global level. In particular, 
the finalisation of the new Multiannual Fina ncial Framework and decisions about the 
modalities of the future Community instrume nts to be completed by 2012, developments 
 
EN 83   EN arising from the CBD on global biodiversity financing by 2012 and re levant decisions under 
the UN Framework Convention on Combati ng Climate Change (e.g. REDD and LULUCF) 
will need to be factored into th e implementation of the Strategy.  
Due to the long lead-in times fo r biodiversity policy changes to be reflected in improvements 
on the ground, taking action today is essential to ensure that the structural changes needed for 
the ecological recapitalisation which the Strategy is seeking to achieve will be completed in due time to respond to the 2020 challenge. 
 
EN 84   EN Glossary  
Biodiversity : The variability among living organisms from all sources including terrestrial 
(above and below ground), marine and other aqua tic ecosystems and the ecological complexes 
of which they are part. This concept covers th e diversity of genes, species and ecosystems.  
Biodiversity loss : The long-term or permanent qualitative or quantitative reduction in 
components of biodiversity and th eir potential to provide goods a nd services, to be measured 
at global, regional and national levels. 
Biogeographical region/level : Geographical regions in wh ich animals and plant having 
similar or shared characteristics are ty pically found together. Europe features 13 
biogeographical regions: 9 land  (Alpine, Atlantic, Black Sea, Boreal, Continental, 
Macaronesian, Mediterranean, Pannonian, Steppic) , and 4 marine regions (Atlantic, Baltic, 
Macaronesian, Mediterranean). 
Connectivity : the extent to which ecosystems and natural areas are linked together in 
fragmented landscapes.  
Conservation status : The status of habitats and species  in terms of such parameters as 
distribution, structure and func tions, population size, age struct ure, mortality and reproduction 
rates. The Habitats and Birds Directives define  four categories of c onservation status: 1) 
favourable; 2) unfavourable-inadequate;  3) unfavourable-bad; 4) unknown.  
Corine Land Cover inventories : regular reports on the state of  the European environmental 
landscape based on interpretation of satellite images.  
Drivers of biodiversity loss : Factors (natural or human-induced) that lead to changes in the 
status of biodiversity. Drivers can be direct (e.g. land-use cha nge, overexploitation, pollution) 
or indirect (e.g. lifestyle choices, population growth). 
Ecological Maximum Sustainable Yield  (EMSY) is the yield an ecosystem can sustain 
without shifting to an  undesired state. 
Ecosystem : A dynamic complex of plant, animal a nd micro-organism communities and their 
non-living environment interact ing as a functional unit. 
Ecosystem services : The direct and indirect contribu tions of ecosystems to human well-
being. They can be categorised in four main  types: provisioning services (e.g. food, water, 
fuel); regulating services (e.g.  flood and disease control); s upporting/habitat services (e.g. 
nutrient cycling); and cultural  services (e.g. recreation). 
Ecosystem restoration : The return of an ecosystem to its original community structure, 
natural complement of speci es, and natural functions. 
Fragmentation : the division of an ecosyste m or habitat into distinct parts. Fragmentation can 
result from infrastructure development, such as  roads and railways, or natural occurrences like 
forest fires. 
Green infrastructure : A spatial intervention that has on e or several environmental aims, 
among which to ensure the maintenance and re storation of ecosystem functioning, enhance 
ecosystem services, facilitate habitat connectivity and promot e species resilience. Green 
 
EN 85   EN infrastructure can mobilise an array of prac tices and innovative solu tions that use natural 
systems to enhance overall environmental qualit y and the provision of ecosystem services.  
High Nature Value (HNV) areas : farmland/forested areas char acterised by high biodiversity. 
HNV farming and forestry are generally low-inpu t systems, usually based on extensive rather 
than intensive agricultural practices. 
IUCN Red List : A list established and maintained by the International Union for the 
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) that classifies  evaluated species for which there is enough 
data into 7 categories: extinct, extinct in the wild, critically endangered, endangered, 
vulnerable, near threatened, least concern. It is widely used as an indicator of biodiversity 
trends.  
Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) : the maximum long-term average yield that can be 
produced by a fish stock on a continuing basis.  
Pressures : Habitat loss, overexploitation of natural resources, the introduction and spread of 
invasive species, pollution and climate change  are the five key pressures on biodiversity  
Resilience : The ability of an ecosystem  to buffer and adapt to changes as well as recover after 
being disturbed.  
Restoration: Actively assisting the rec overy of an ecosystem that has been degraded, 
damaged, or destroyed, although natural regenerati on may suffice in cases of low degradation. 
The objective should be the return of an ecosystem  to its original community structure, natural 
complement of species, and natural functions to ensure the continued pr ovision of services in 
the long term. 
 
  
 EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 3.5.2011 
SEC(2011) 540 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
Annexes to the IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
Accompanying the document 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 
Our life insurance, our na tural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 
{COM(2011) 244 final} 
{SEC(2011) 541 final}  
 
EN 1   EN ANNEXES   
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................ ......... 1 
Annex 1 – EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline ................................................................................ 2 Annex 2 – Consultation and expertise up to th e adoption of the post-2010 EU biodiversity 
target......................................................................................................................... .... 4 
Annex 3 – Studies carried out by th e Commission, Research Projects...................................... 9 
Annex 4 – Main EU funding instruments that c ontribute to financi ng EU biodiversity ......... 11 
Annex 5 –Awareness about biodiversity.................................................................................. 18 Annex 6 – Policy baseline...................................................................................................... .. 20 
Annex 7 –justification for the agriculture targ et options ......................................................... 33 
Annex 8 – Justification of  feasibility of the nature conservation target................................... 37 
Annex 9 – Proposed targets in relation to policy priorities as highlighted at Commission, 
Council and global level ............................................................................................ 41 
Annex 10 – Global 2020 targets and meas ures required to achieve them ............................... 43 
Annex 11 – Supporting evidence for some proposed measures............................................... 50 Annex 12 – Examples of good practice on restora tion and green infrastructure in the EU..... 56 
Annex 13 – Synthesis of existing tools under ke y EU instruments addressing Invasive Alien 
Species ....................................................................................................................... 5 9 
Annex 14 – Market based instruments and poten tial financing mechanisms for biodiversity 
conservation ............................................................................................................... 62 
Annex 15 – Mapping between EU post- 2010 targets and SEBI indicators ............................. 68 
 
EN 2   EN ANNEX 1 – EU 2010  BIODIVERSITY BASELINE  

 
EN 3   EN 
 
 
EN 4   EN ANNEX 2 – CONSULTATION AND EXPERTISE UP TO THE ADOPTION OF THE POST -2010  EU 
BIODIVERSITY TARGET  
Towards an EU vision and a new target for biodiversity  
Since the completion of the mid-term assessment of the BAP1, all the European institutions 
and many Member States, organisations and st akeholders have pronounced themselves on the 
2010 biodiversity targets and the need to look beyond 2010.  
High Level Conclusions 
In April 2009, G8 Environment Ministers  adopted the "Carta di Siracusa" on Biodiversity, 
which proposes a "common path toward the post-2010 framework on biodi versity". This was 
subsequently endorsed by G8 Leaders  at their Summit in l'Aquila, Italy in July 2009, who 
underlined "the necessity to establish a vision and an ambitious and achievable common 
framework for biodiversity bey ond 2010, making use of the sy nergies between climate change 
and biodiversity policies."   
European institutions 
The Council has expressed its views on the way forward on biodiversity after 2010 in 
different sets of Conclusions. In its March 2009  Conclusions the Environment Council  
"UNDERLINES the need to establish, by mid- 2010 at the latest, a vision and targets beyond 
2010 for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity within th e EU, building on and 
contributing to deliberations at global level on a vision for biodiversity beyond 2010" . The 
June 2009  Council  reiterated this request. A dditionally, in its Conclusions2 on 'A mid-term 
assessment of implementing the EU Biodiversity Action Plan and Towards an EU Strategy on 
Invasive Alien Species' the Environment Council  expressed its deep c oncern that the EU is 
unlikely to meet its 2010 target of halting biodi versity decline. It further stressed that 
biodiversity loss is extremely worrying on account  of both its important intrinsic value and 
because it results in a decline in ecosystem fu nctions that are essential in providing vital 
services which underpin long-term sustaina ble development, and on which a healthy 
environment, food security a nd human livelihoods, particular ly for the world's poorest, 
depend. The Council also called for greater syne rgies between measures  for climate change 
mitigation and adaptation and for combating land degradation and desertification and the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems, in order to fully exploit and 
maximise co-benefits. The European Council  stressed in its Conclusion of December 2009
3 
the urgent need for action and significant ad ditional efforts to, among others, reverse the 
current loss of biodiversity and natural resour ces in order to reach the goal of sustainable 
development. 
The European Parliament Intergroup on  Climate Change and Biodiversity  hosted in 
2009 a high-level intern ational conference 'The 2010 Biodiversity Challenge: Will the EU 
reach it? What future after 2010?'  on the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). The conference 
discussed the BAP mid-term review, and focuse d on defining future targ ets and the post-2010 
vision. The participants acknowledg ed that some progress had been  made in certain areas, but 
                                                 
1 COM (2008) 864 final. 
2 (ST/11412/09) of 25 June 2009. 
3 EUCO 6/09; 10/11 December 2009. 
 
EN 5   EN that more still has to be done to halt biodiver sity loss. The need for better integration of 
biodiversity into other policy sectors, the lack of adequa te funding and the economic 
dimension of biodiversity and ecosy stem services was stressed.  
The opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee4 on the BAP Mid-term 
assessment gave specific recommendations on a post-2010 EU biodive rsity policy, pointing 
out that mainstreaming of biodiversity consider ations has not yet been achieved, and that the 
economic value of biodiversity has not yet been  taken into account when defining policies. 
The Committee of the Regions5 adopted a specific opinion on a new impetus for halting 
biodiversity loss, in which it notes  the failure of policies to stem  the erosion of biodiversity in 
Europe by 2010. It suggests that a proactive strategy is require d, reflected in a systemic 
approach and supported over the long-term, we ll beyond 2010. The Opinion stresses that this 
strategy must fully involve lo cal and regional authorities. 
The Commission  has engaged in a broad and long cons ultation within its services, using the 
Biodiversity  Inter-service Coordination Group to exchange views and collect information 
on the progress to target, on the options fo r a new post-2010 biodiversity target for the 
adoption of the Communication on options fo r a post 2010 target and vision, and on the way 
towards a new EU biodiversity strategy. Regular meetings were hold and the BISCG has been 
convened 5 times in the space of one year.  
• Stakeholder and Member State consultations 
The German CBD Presidency organised a high-level stakeholder event entitled 'High-level 
working group on the future of global targets for biodiversity'  (9-10 March 2009, Bonn). 
The Commission organised the Biodiversity Protection – Beyond 2010  Conference  (April 
2009, Athens), which resulted in the adoption of "The Message from Athens", an eight-point 
plan for future action to confront the ongoing gl obal biodiversity crisis. As regards the post-
2010 vision and target, this inter alia called upon the EU institutions and Member States to 
develop a clear target on biodiversity6. 
• The Commission has used the opportuni ty offered by meetings of the EC Coordination 
Group for Biodiversity and Nature (CGBN)  and EU Nature Directors  to consult EU 
Member States, environmental NGOs and biodiv ersity user groups (a griculture, forests, 
business, fisheries sectors, etc.) on their views on a post-2010 biodiversity vision and 
target. 
European institutions 
Already in March 2009, the Envi ronment Council underlined the need to establish, by mid-
2010 at the latest, a vision and targets beyond 2010 for the conservation and sustainable use 
of biodiversity within the EU, building on and c ontributing to deliberatio ns at global level on 
a vision for biodiversity beyond 2010.7 
                                                 
4 Opinion (Nat/436) adopted on 15 July 2009.  
5 Opinion CoR 22/2009  adopted on 18 June 2009.  
6 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/n ature/biodiversity/conference/   
7 7065/09 conclusions adopted by the Council (Environment); 3 March 2009. 
 
EN 6   EN One year later, on 15 March 2010, the  Environment Council8 agreed  on: 
- a long-term vision  that by 2050 European Union biodiversity  and the ecosystem services it 
provides – its natural capital – are protecte d, 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; 
- a headline target of halti ng the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem 
services in the EU by 2020, and restoring them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU 
contribution to averting global biodiversity loss, for the above vision to be achieved. 
It also outlined the EU's stance concerning biodiv ersity protection at global level. In addition, 
the conclusions call for reinforced mainstreami ng of biodiversity object ives in cross-cutting 
EU policies and in the Strategy fo r Growth and Jobs (EU 2020 Strategy9) that was in 
preparation at the time, in order to maximi se coherence and mutual  supportiveness at the 
highest political level. Finall y, it called upon the Commission in co-operation with Member 
States to develop an EU post-2010 Biodiversity Strategy proposing targets and also 
identifying the necessary, feasible and cost-eff ective measures and actions for reaching them, 
and to adopt the Strategy as soon as possible af ter the tenth meeting of the Conference of the 
Parties to the Convention on Biological Dive rsity in October 2010, Nagoya (CBD COP 10).  
The Spring European Council  in its Conclusions of 25/26 March 201010 stressed the urgent 
need to reverse continuing tre nds of biodiversity loss and ecos ystem degradation and the EU 
Heads of State and Government committed themselves to the long term biodiversity 2050 
vision and the 2020 target  set out in the Council's conclusions of 15 March 2010. 
The European Parliament in its 21 September11 Resolution expressed its concerns that the 
EU 2010 biodiversity target to significantly redu ce the rate of biodiversity loss has not been 
met and stressed the urgency and importance of halting the loss of biodiversity. It called for 
ensuring a further mainstreaming of biodivers ity into other EU policy areas, making the 
European Union's sectoral and budgetary policie s more consistent; im proving the integration 
of biodiversity criteria in d ecision-making processes at local and regional level in matters 
concerning land use and territori al policy, increasing the budget for research dedicated to 
biodiversity, ensuring synergies between actions  taken for climate change and biodiversity, 
adopting measures to develop resource effi ciency and sustainable consumption and 
production and improving the implementation of EU legislation. The EP adopted a further 
resolution on 7 October12 stressing that the decisions to be taken needed to build on the 
recommendations of the study on 'The Ec onomics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity'13; and 
underlining that more regard should be gi ven to investigating and approving market 
instruments, to help en sure adequate financial resources for biodiversity. 
                                                 
8 7536/10 conclusions adopted by the Council (Environment); 15 March 2010. 
9 COM (2010) 2020 on "EUROPE 2020 – A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth". 
10 The EUCO 7/10 conclusions of the European Council (25/26 March). 
11 PE441.267v02-00 - European Parliament Resolution on the implementation of EU legislation aiming at 
the conservation of biodiversity. 
12 P7_TA(2010)0353 European Parliament resolution on the EU strategic objectives for the 10th Meeting 
of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), to be held in Nagoya (Japan) from 18 to 29 October 2010. 
13 www.teebweb.org   
 
EN 7   EN The Committee of the Regions in its June 2010 Opinion14 expressed its concern about the 
serious consequences of increasing loss of bi odiversity; welcomed the EU 2050 biodiversity 
vision and the new target for 2020 adopted by the Council and supported the call of the Council upon the European Commission to submit an EU 2020 Biodiversity  Strategy, taking 
account of the results of the CBD COP 10. It  highlighted that the EU 2020 Biodiversity 
Strategy should focus on a limited set of five to  six targets including ag riculture, fisheries and 
marine environments, land use and habitat de struction and fragment ation. Additionally, it 
stressed that there was a need for a significan t increase of the financial means within post 
2013 EU budgets to meet the targets and to impr ove the integrated model to fund biodiversity 
and Natura 2000; and highlighted the role of loca l and regional authorities in promoting a EU 
2020 Biodiversity Strategy. 
The European Economic and Social Committee  in its September 2010 Opinion
15 expressed 
its concerns about the impacts of further loss of  biodiversity, called to bring biodiversity 
higher on political agenda and stressed the need  for enhanced integration, without which no 
biodiversity targets can be achieved. More spec ifically, EESC explici tly urged to introduce 
changes to the agricultural and fisheries policie s, to secure and develop further the Natura 
2000 network, called for the estab lishment and development of "g reen infrastructure" through 
a TEN biodiversity network and for stronger inte gration of biodiversity  into all other EU 
policy areas as well as educa tion campaigns at EU level. 
• Stakeholder and Member States consultations 
There have been intensive discussions with various internal and external experts and 
stakeholders. The 2020 EU Biodiversity Strategy has been developed in a close co-operation 
with Commission services c oncerned and also other groups  outside EU institutions. 
Specifically, the Commission organised seve ral stakeholder meetings (3 June 2010, 3 
September 2010) and ran a public Internet c onsultation between 23 August and 22 October, 
which received 2905 responses. Over 80% of re spondents felt that EU biodiversity policy 
measures did not have the necessary buy-in from  other sectors. Close to 80% of respondents 
also said that the objectives of economic de velopment were prioritized over biodiversity 
concerns, that the economic valu e of biodiversity for other sect ors is underestimated and that 
the political will to tackle the issue has been insufficient. 
Member States and other major constituencies we re consulted at the meetings of the Nature 
Directors and the Co-ordination Group for Bi odiversity and Nature. Additional ad hoc 
meetings with Member States ' experts were also held. 
Almost 80% of the respondents answered that the future actions to halt biodiversity loss 
should include measures and actions that go bey ond nature conservation and most felt that in 
order to reach the EU's 2020 biodi versity target, existing EU envi ronmental legislation is not 
sufficient and that additional measures focusi ng on other sectors are re quired. On the sub- 
target on agriculture and forestry – over 80% of respondents felt that the reformed Common 
Agricultural Policy should include more explic it biodiversity conserva tion objectives. On the 
target on fisheries, close to 80%  of respondents felt that in orde r to contribute  to a better 
conservation of biodiversity, the reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) should include 
                                                 
14 ENVE-V-003 Opinion of the Committee of the Region s on "EU and International Biodiversity Policy 
beyond 2010". 
15 NAT/411 – CESE 1178/2010 Opinion on Biodiversity beyond 2010. 
 
EN 8   EN more explicit biodiversity conservation values. On the target on nature conservation over 80% 
felt that it should focus on an improved conser vation status of species and habitats of 
community interests. On the target on Green infrastructure, almost 90% felt that the measures should focus on mitigating the adverse effects of  transport and energy infrastructure, and 
almost 80% said that focus should also be on ecosystem restoration co ntributing to climate 
change mitigation and adaptati on and natural disaster risk reduction. On the target on EU 
contribution to global biodiversit y, most respondents also agreed  with the proposed measures, 
especially (>80%) on ensuring that biodiversity c oncerns are systematically reflected in the 
EU's dialogue with third countries and on re ducing the negative impacts of EU's production 
and consumption pattern s on global biodiversity. 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cons ultations/pdf/biode cline_results.pdf
 provides a full report 
of the internet  consultation. 
 
EN 9   EN ANNEX 3 – STUDIES CARRIED OUT BY THE COMMISSION , RESEARCH PROJECTS  
The Commission has gathered a significant amount of information to support the development 
of a vision and target post 2010. Hereafter are listed the most relevant studies and scientific 
findings which have provided a crucial input to substantially strengthen the necessary 
knowledge base: 
• Reports on the progress made in the impl ementation of the Biodiversity Action Plan16 
• The UNEP's Millennium Ecosystem Assessment17, 
• The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity (TEEB)18, 
• Assessing biodiversity in Europe – the 2010 report19, 
• The EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline20, 
• The 3rd edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook21, the flagship publication of the 
Convention on Biological Diversity, which summarizes the latest data on status and trends 
of biodiversity and draws conclusions fo r the future strategy of the Convention. 
Studies  
• Commission Assessment of the Conservati on Status of Habitat Types and Species22 
• Studies on the "Value of Bi odiversity, the assessment of the Cost of Policy Inaction 
(COPI), and on the driver s of biodiversity loss"23 
• Study on the "Costs Benefits Assessment of measurement/monitoring systems of progress 
towards an EU post 2010 biodiversity target"  
• Study on "Policy Options for a Future EU Biodiversity Strategy"  
• Study "Soil biodiversity: functions, th reats and tools for policy makers"24 
• Literature study on the impacts of biodiversity changes on human health25 
                                                 
16 Available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/index_en.htm   
17 Mace, G. et al. Biodiversity in Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Current State and Trends (eds 
Hassan, H., Scholes, R. & Ash, N.) Ch. 4, 79–115 (Island Press, 2005). 
18 http://www.teebweb.org/   
19 EEA Report No. 5/2010 http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/a ssessing-biodivers ity-in-europe-84  
20 http://www.eea.europa.eu/publicati ons/eu-2010-biodiversity-baseline/   
21 http://gbo3.cbd.int/   
22 COM(2009)358 final on the "Conservation Status of Habitat Types and Species as required under 
Article 17 of the Habitats Directive". 
23 Available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/biodiversity/index.htm   
24 Available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/biodiversity.htm . 
 
EN 10   EN • Study on "The Social Dimens ion of Biodiversity Policy" 26 
• Study on "The use of market-based instrument s for biodiversity protection – the case of 
habitat banking"27 
• Technical support to EU Strategy on invasive alien species (IAS)28  
• Assessment of reasons for 2010 target failure29 
• Assessment of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan  as a tool for impl ementing biodiversity 
policy30 
• Impact Assessment accompanying the Commi ssion Communication on invasive species31 
• The assessments for the compilation of the latest European Red Data Lists 32 
Research Projects  
• DAISIE33 – Delivering Alien Invasive Sp ecies Inventories for Europe 
• MACIS34 – Minimisation of and Adaptation to Cl imate Change Impacts on Biodiversity  
• ALARM35 – Assessing Large scale Risks for bi odiversity with Tested methods 
• ALTER-Net36 – A Long-Term Biodiversity, Ecosystem and Awareness Research Network 
• MARBEF37 – Marine Biodiversity and Ecosyste m Functioning EU Network of Excellence 
• RUBICODE38 - Rationalising Biodiversity Cons ervation in Dynamic Ecosystems 
• PRESS39 - PEER Research on EcoSystem Services 
                                                                                                                                                         
25 Zaghi, D., Calaciura, B., Spinelli, O., Basili, M., and R. Romi (2010). Comunità Ambiente Srl, report 
for the European Commission (Directorat e General Environment), Contract 07-
0307/2009/533527/ETU/B3. July 2010 (forthcoming). 
26 Nunes, P.A.L.D., Ding, H., Ghermandi, A., Rayment,  M., Varma, A., Pieterse , M. Lago, M., Görlach, 
B., Kapthengst, T. and P. ten Brink (2010). Final Report to the contract No. ENV.G.1/FRA/2006/0073 
– 2nd, Contract: 070307/2009/550766/ETU/F1, pages vii-179, Italy, Venice 2010 (forthcoming). 
27 Available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/ pdf/eftec_habitat_technical_report.pdf   
28 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/index_en.htm   
29 Assessment report to Service contract 07.0307/2008/513998/SER/B2  
30 Assessment report to Service contract nr 09/543261/B2 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/bap_2010/4%20EC_Knowledge_B
ase_Assessment_BAP_final.pdf   
31 COM(2008)789 final EU strategy on invasive species. 
32 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist/index_en.htm   
33 http://www.europe-aliens.org/   
34 http://www.macis-project.net/   
35 http://www.alarmproject.net/alarm/   
36 http://www.alter-net.info   
37 http://www.marbef.org   
38 www.rubicode.net  
39 http://www.peer.eu/projects/press/   
 
EN 11   EN ANNEX 4 – MAIN EU FUNDING INSTRUMENTS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO FINANCING EU 
BIODIVERSITY  
The single instrument of the European Union directly targeted at supporting environment 
related projects across Europe is LIFE+, a part of which is used to support the development of 
nature, biodiversity and especially Natura 2000 (LIFE+ Nature and LIFE+ Biodiversity). 
Among others, LIFE+ supports biodiversity m onitoring, the development of demonstration 
and best practice projects for management and re storation of Natura 2000 sites and facilitate 
projects outside Natura 2000, aimed at contribut ing to the progress towards achieving the EU 
biodiversity target. Despite the importance of LIFE+ as regards the only EU funding 
dedicated to biodiversity and nature, the LIFE  programme amounts to less than 0.1 % of the 
EU budget in any recent year.  
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), through the European Agricultural Fund for 
Rural Development (EAFRD)40 provides approximately EUR 53.5 billion per year in 
funding for the agricultural and forestry sector, with a breakdown of EUR 42.7 billion (80%) for direct aids and market interventions (Pillar 1) and EUR 10.9 billion (20%) for rural 
development (Pillar 2). Support for biodiversi ty protection, management and restoration 
measures in agricultural and forest habitats  is principally funded under Pillar 2. The most 
important measures for biodiversity are primaril y those available under Axis 2 of the EAFRD, 
which are aimed at improving the environment and the countryside. These include Natura 2000 payments, Agri-environment payments and Forest-environment payments, Planned allocations under Axis 2 for the period 2007-2013 amount to 44% (approximately EUR 42.7 billion) of total EAFRD f unding. Of these three measures, agri-environment payments 
account for the majority of EAFRD expend iture with approxima tely 23% of Rural 
Development Programme expenditure (roughly EUR 22.2 billion of the EAFRD across all 
Member States). But there is considerable  variation in the proportion spent amongst the 
Members States. Budget allocations for the ot her two Axis 2 measures that may provide 
substantial biodiversity benefits  are small in all Member St ates and absent in many. In 
particular, allocations for dedi cated Natura 2000 measures (agr iculture and forest) are very 
low, 0.62% of total EAFRD expenditure, or ap proximately EUR 590 million. However, quite 
a few Member States have chosen to finance Natura 2000 management essentially or solely 
via agri-environment. 
In addition to the measures described above, the less favoured area (LFA) measure may 
provide some biodiversity benefits where it supp orts traditional low intensity farming systems 
that maintain certain semi-natural habitats and other high nature value farmland, as well as High Nature Value (HNV) farming. Two other measures under Axis 2 may also provide 
important biodiversity benefits: the non-productive  investment measures for agriculture and 
for forests. These measures are sometimes us ed to provide one-off capital grants, e.g. for 
habitat restoration works. In addition, under ax is 1, support for training, advisory services and 
environmental investments, and under axis 3, support for the conservation and upgrading of 
the rural heritage have a role to play in the preservation of biodiversity. Othe r pro-biodiversity 
instruments that may favour farmland biodivers ity are cross-compliance, the decoupling of 
single farm payments and modulation. 
                                                
 
40 Council Regulation 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European 
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, OJ L 277, 21.10.2005. 
 
EN 12   EN The European Agricultural Guarantee Fund  (EAGF) finances direct payments necessary 
to maintain farmers on land, therefore cont ributing to preventing land abandonment. In 
addition, it gives the possibility of financing agri-environmenta l measures under article 68 of 
horizontal regulation and agri-environmen tal measures under the Common market 
organisation for fruit and vegetables. 
The European Fisheries Fund41 (EFF) is designed to secure a sustainable European fishing 
and aquaculture industry. Assistance under the EFF shall aim to: support the Common 
Fisheries Policy (CFP) so as to ensure expl oitation of living aquatic  resources and support 
aquaculture in order to provide sustainability  in economic, environmental and social terms; 
promote a sustainable balance between resource s and the fishing capacity of the Community 
fishing fleet; promote a sustaina ble development of inland fishi ng; and foster the protection 
and enhancement of the environment and natura l resources where related to the fisheries 
sector. Under the EFF, each Member State was re quired to adopt a national strategic plan and 
submit it with the Operational Programme documen t. The Operational Programme (OP) is the 
single document drawn up by the Member Stat e and approved by the Commission containing 
a set of ‘Priority Axes’ to be achieved with the aid of the EFF. Axis 1 is for measures for the 
adaptation of the Community fishing fleet to ensu re it is in balance with available resources; 
Axis 2 is for measures relating to aquacultu re, inland fishing, processing and marketing of 
fishery and aquaculture products  and requires the inclusion of  aqua-environmental measures; 
Axis 3 is for measures of common intere st (e.g. collective actions, protection and 
development of aquatic fauna and flora; fishi ng ports; development of new markets etc.); and 
Axis 4 is for actions that suppor t the sustainable deve lopment of fisheries areas. Due to the 
structure of data collection on funding under EFF, it is not possibl e to give exact figures on 
EFF funds allocated to biodive rsity and Natura 2000 purposes. The only available information 
concerns the total allocation of the EFF plus th e national public contribut ion for each Priority 
Axis, and the total annual commitment of  the EFF in the operational programme. 
In relation to EU Cohesion Polic y, the Community Strategic Guide lines and the relevant fund 
regulations include clear refere nces to the importance of na ture protection in developing 
infrastructure and in relati on to economic diversificati on. The 2007-2013 programming period 
of the Cohesion Policy addresses directly the preservation of biodiversity under the European 
Regional Development Fund (ERDF), European Social Fund  (ESF) and Cohesion Fund  
(CF). A few categories of the European Regi onal Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion 
Fund (CF) spending are related to  the protection of biodiversity and management of natural 
resources42. The most relevant category is No. 51 th e “Promotion of biodiversity and nature 
protection” (for which EUR 2 689 million has been  allocated). Also highly relevant are the 
category No. 55 ("promotion of natural assets",  for which EUR 1 137 million is allocated) and 
the category No. 56 ("protection and development of  natural heritage", w ith a total of € 1 406 
million) both of which might have some indire ct, positive impact on our natural heritage.  
It is the Member States' responsibility to sele ct and implement the pr ogrammes and projects 
co-funded by the Cohesion Policy, along the st rategy and priorities set in the National 
Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) and th e their National Development Plans and the 
relevant Operational Programmes (OPs). All bu t two Member States have allocated some 
funding for nature and biodiversity protectio n, although as a proportion of the overall 
allocations this varies considerably between  countries. As it is shown in the 2010 BAP 
                                                 
41 Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006. 
42 See OJ L45 15/02/2007 and Commission Regulatio n EC n° 1828/2006 of 8 December 2006. 
 
EN 13   EN assessment, seven Member States intend to use more than 2% of their allocated funds for 
biodiversity related categories. Nonetheless, other categories can have indirect benefits on 
biodiversity such as "Management and distribu tion of water" (No. 45), "Water treatment" 
(No. 46), "Air quality" (No. 47) , "Integrated prevention and pollution control" (No. 48), 
"Rehabilitation of industr ial sites and contaminated land" (No. 50) or "Promotion of clean 
urban transport" (No. 52). For instance waste water treatment projects may contribute to 
preserve biodiversity in rivers and seas while  natural risk prevention developments may also 
protect biodiversity through projects such as rest oration of natural floodplains.  
The European Social Fund  (ESF) promotes employment and better prepared workforce and 
companies to face new challenges such as biodi versity protection. It is difficult to track 
accurately spending for nature protection under th e ESF, however impacts can be positive just 
like in Spain where spending has been made  to improve and adapt labour force and 
companies to new environmental challenges a nd to promote nature conservation into the 
private sector management. Additional supp ort to the regional de velopment funds are 
provided by European Territorial Cooperation schemes contributing to bi- or multilateral 
projects. 
0,0010,0020,0030,0040,0050,0060,0070,0080,0090,00100,00
%Total environment related expenditure
from rural development funds(% of total EAFRD)
Nature conservation in regional policy(% of E RDF)on categories No. 51+55
 
The comparison of allocation on direct an d indirect measures for Natura 2000 and 
biodiversity from rural and re gional development funds (state  of October 2008; source: 2008 
BAP assessment). 
EU Research Framework Programmes  (FP)  also provide financial s upport for biodiversity-
related research across. Thus far under the Environment Theme of the 7th Framework 
Programme (2007-2013), EUR 109.5 million have been  allocated to projects aimed at the 
conservation and sustainable management of natural and man-made resources and 
biodiversity (sub-activity 6.2.1), out of a total budget of EUR 780.5 million. Also under the 
Environment theme, further financial resources have been allocated to  biodiversity topics 
under sub-activity 6.2.2 (Management of ma rine environments) and 6.4.2 (Forecasting 
methods and assessment tools for sustainable deve lopment taking into account different scales 
of observation). 
 
EN 14   EN The Environment and Natural Resources Thematic Programme (ENRTP)  is targeted at 
helping developing countries and partner organi sations to address environmental and natural 
resource management issues. Concerning EU financing for global bi odiversity, the total 
amount allocated to biodivers ity specific projects for th e period 2007-2010 under the ENRTP 
was almost EUR 70 million, while approxi mately EUR 110 million was committed for 
biodiversity related activities – equivalent to about EUR 44 million when using an adjustment 
factor to avoid overestimation, as biodivers ity conservation is onl y a secondary objective43. 
This would represent a total amount of EUR 114 million for the period. 
                                                 
43 The OECD DAC developed the so called "Rio markers" to help determining whether aid activities 
contribute to the objectives of the three Conventions – including the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Activities receive a principal scor e (score “2”) where the CBD is the principal 
objectives, and a significant score (s core “1”) where CBD is an impor tant, but not principal objective. 
To avoid overestimation of the financial support for meeting the obligations of the CBD, EuropeAid proposes to apply a fixed adjustment factor to account for activities that are only partially relevant to the 
objectives of the CBD – that is, to consider 40% of the allocated budget if bi odiversity conservation is 
only a secondary objective. 
 
EN 15   EN Target 
Funding 
instrument Agriculture and Forestry  Fisheries Invasive Alien Species Nature Conservation Restoration Global biodiversity 
EU funding Main 
instruments Budget Main 
instruments Budget Main 
instruments Budget Main 
instruments Budget Main 
instruments Budget Main 
instruments Budget 
 Common Agricultural Policy – 
European Agricultural Fund for 
Rural Development 
2007-2013 Common 
Fisheries 
Policy – 
European Fisheries 
Fund Due to the 
structure of 
data 
collection on funding under 
EFF, it is not 
possible to give exact figures on 
EFF funds 
allocated to biodiversity 
and Natura 
2000 purposes LIFE+ Less than 
0.1% of total 
EU budget 
per year; out of which ca. 
EUR 119.5 
million p.a. for LIFE+ Nature and 
LIFE+ 
Biodiversity EAFRD Pillar 
2 Axis 2: 
Natura 2000 
payments payments + 
agri- and 
forest-environment payments 0.62% of total 
EAFRD for 
2007-2013  
+ 44% of 
total EAFRD 
= EUR 42.7 
billion LIFE+ Less than 
0.1% of total 
EU budget 
per year; out of which ca. 
EUR 119.5 
million p.a. for LIFE+ Nature and 
LIFE+ 
Biodiversity 
Environment and Natural 
Resources Thematic 
Programme 
2007-2010 
 Pillar 2 Axis 
1: measures 
on training, 
information and advisory 
services n.a. European 
Social Fund  n.a.   LIFE+ Less than 
0.1% of total 
EU budget 
per year; out of which ca. 
EUR 119.5 
million p.a. for LIFE+ 
Nature and 
LIFE+ Biodiversity Pillar 2 Axis 
2: land 
management 
and non-productive 
investment 
measures (especially 
Natura 2000 
payments, agri- and 
forest-
environment payments) 44% of total 
EAFRD 
= EUR 42.7 
billion Biodiversity EUR 70 
million 
 
EN 16   EN Target 
Funding 
instrument Agriculture and Forestry  Fisheries Invasive Alien Species Nature Conservation Restoration Global biodiversity 
 Pillar 2 Axis 
2: land 
management 
and non-productive 
investment 
measures (especially 
Natura 2000 
payments, agri- and forest-
environment 
payments) 44% of total 
EAFRD 
= EUR 42.7 
billion     EFF 
protection 
and 
development of aquatic 
fauna and 
flora n.a.   Projects with 
likely benefits 
to 
biodiversity EUR 44 
million
44 
 Pillar 2 Axis 
3: measures for the 
conservation 
and upgrading of 
natural 
heritage n.a.     
European Regional 
Development Fund and 
Cohesion Fund 
2007-2013   Geographic instruments (EDF, 
DCI, ENPI) 
2007-2009 
       Promotion of 
biodiversity and nature 
protection EUR 2689 
million   Programmes 
with a focus on 
biodiversity  EUR 133 
million 
       Promotion of 
natural assets  EUR 1137 
million   Programmes 
with likely 
benefits to biodiversity EUR 100 
million
45 
       Protection EUR 1406     
                                                 
44 Equivalent to the EUR 110 million spent on projects that might deliver biodiversity benefits, using the so called "Rio markers " developed by OECD DAC. 
45 Equivalent to the EUR 255 million spent on projects that might deliver biodiversity benefits, using the so called "Rio markers " developed by OECD DAC. 
 
EN 17   EN Target 
Funding 
instrument Agriculture and Forestry  Fisheries Invasive Alien Species Nature Conservation Restoration Global biodiversity 
and 
development 
of natural 
heritage  million 
n.a. – data/information not available or the categorisation system of the funding instrument does not allow breakdown of alloca tions 
Inclusion of the same funding stream in different cells does not refer to additional funding but indicates the relevance of fun ding for the target in question.  
 
EN 18   EN ANNEX 5 –AWARENESS ABOUT BIODIVERSITY  
Public awareness about biodiversity loss is on  the increase. This has led to changes in 
consumer preferences and purchasing decisions. Businesses, too, have begun to recognise the 
threats posed by biodiversity loss to their activitie s. Nonetheless, from available statistics it is 
clear that awareness remains in sufficient and the urgency of th e problem is largely unnoticed 
by the wider public.  
A recent Eurobarometer survey shows that most Europeans still do not feel well informed 
about biodiversity. The new "Attitu des towards biodiversity" surv ey reveals that only 38% of 
Europeans know the meaning of the term, alth ough another 28% have h eard of it but do not 
know its meaning. A majority feel that biodivers ity loss is a serious is sue, although they do 
not think they will be  personally affected by the declin e, with only 17% of respondents 
agreeing that they are already touched by it. Wh en asked about the most important threats to 
biodiversity, 27% prioritised pollution, with another 26% blaming man-made disasters. The 
main reason cited by citizens for their lack of actions to stop biod iversity loss was low 
awareness of what can be done. 
Another survey of CEOs and their attitudes to biodiversity loss revealed that of the 1100 
CEOs surveyed, only 27% expressed concern about  the impacts of biodiversity loss on their 
business growth prospects46. Those expressing concern were  more numerous in industries 
characterized by large direct impacts on biodive rsity and in developing regions (Figure 1).  
 
The same survey assessed the annual reports and sustainability re port of the top 100 
companies in the world by revenue. Figures 2 and 3 show that very few companies actively 
consider biodiversity as a stra tegic issue or discuss ways of  reducing the impacts of their 
activities on biodiversity. Not surprisingly, comp anies in sectors sometim es characterized by 
high impacts or dependency on biodiversity and ecosystem services (i.e. oil and gas, utilities, chemicals, big pharmaceutical companies and f ood retailers) are more likely to identify 
biodiversity as a key strategic issue (19% versus 9% overall) and are also more likely to 
report actions to reduce impacts on biodi versity (36% vers us 24% overall). 
                                                
 
46 PwC survey 2009. 
 
EN 19   EN Reporting by business on biodiversity and ecosystems-
Top 100 Companies  Annual reports
2% 4%
12%
82%Identify biodiversity as a key strategic issue
Discuss approach to reduce impact on
biodiversity
Passing mention of biodiversity orecosystems
No mention of biodiv ersity or ecosystems
 
Reporting by business on biodiversity and ecosystems- 
Top 100 Companies sustainability reports
9%
15%
23%42%11%
Identify biodiversity as a key strategic issue
Discuss approach to reduce impact on
biodiversity
Passing mention of biodiversity orecosystems
No mention of biodiv ersity or ecosystems
Do not produce a sustainability report
 
 
EN 20   EN ANNEX 6 – POLICY BASELINE  
 General overview of the likely impacts of different  policies on reaching the 2020 EU biodiversity target 47  
A. Contribution to achieving the 2020 EU biodiversity target  B. Contribution to reducing main pressures on biodiversity 
1. Halting biodiversity loss Key EU policy 
area relevant 
for 
biodiversity 
a. Protected 
area/ species b. Other land 
/ fresh water c. Marine 
environment 2. Halting 
degradation 
of ecosystem 
services (ES) 3. Restoration 
of 
biodiversity 
& ecosystem 
services 4. 
Counteracti
ng 
increased 
loss of 
biodiversity 
at global 
level 
Over-exploitation 
Fragmentation 
Climate change 
Invasive species 
Pollution 
+++ ++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ ++ +++ + Biodiversity 
policies 
Birds (1979) & 
Habitats (1992) Directives 
Biodiversity 
Action Plan (2006) 
 
 
  +: C o r e  o f  E U  
biodiversity policy is the 
Natura 2000 
network of protected areas, 
species and 
habitats, based on strong legal 
basis in Habitats 
and Birds Directives 
 +: Connectivity 
is promoted within the nature 
directives 
(Article 10 of the Habitats 
Directive) 
  
 
 +: Natura 2000 
marine species and sites +: By protecting 
species and habitats and 
managing sites, 
nature directives highly 
contribute to 
maintenance of ES  +: Aims to 
achieve favourable 
conservation 
status; nature conservational 
objectives 
through proper management. 
 
  +: Protection 
of EU bio-diversity 
contributes 
global biodiversity 
through the 
protection of migratory 
species and ES 
and provides an example for 
other countries 
as it is the biggest 
network of 
protected areas +: directly 
addressed in the BAP, Favourable 
Conservation 
Status 
 
 
  
 +: directly 
addressed in the BAP, 
Favourable 
Conservation Status, 
connectivity 
under Habitats Directive 
 
  +: directly 
addressed in the BAP 
 
  
 
  +: directly 
addressed in the BAP, LIFE 
projects 
  
 
  +: measures to 
protect biodiversity 
contributing to 
reduction of pollution 
 
  
 
                                                 
47 The policy baseline was produced based on the study "Policy Options for a Future EU Biodiversity Strategy" and further develop ed based on the 2010 BAP report and 
inputs received throughout the discussions with members of the Biodiversity In ter-service Coordination Group. The table is stru ctured in alphabetical order, biodiversity 
policy upfront. 
 
EN 21   EN A. Contribution to achieving the 2020 EU biodiversity target  B. Contribution to reducing main pressures on biodiversity 
1. Halting biodiversity loss Key EU policy 
area relevant 
for 
biodiversity 
a. Protected 
area/ species b. Other land 
/ fresh water c. Marine 
environment 2. Halting 
degradation 
of ecosystem 
services (ES) 3. Restoration 
of 
biodiversity 
& ecosystem 
services 4. 
Counteracti
ng 
increased 
loss of 
biodiversity 
at global 
level 
Over-exploitation 
Fragmentation 
Climate change 
Invasive species 
Pollution 
 
 
   
 
  
 
  
 
   
 
   
 
  
 
  
 
 +: LIFE+ 
Biodiversity 
finances projects  
 
   
 
  
 
+: LIFE+ Nature 
funding targeted 
directly at 
protection and restoration of 
Natura 2000 
species, habitats and sites, which 
also contributes 
to ES restoration in the world; 
Initiative to 
develop 'Natura 2000-like' networks 
(BEST) in 
Outermost Regions and 
Overseas 
Territories   
 
   
 
  
 
  
 
   
 
   
 
  
 
  
 
 +: Projects that 
prevent or 
mitigate  
 
   
 
  
 
  
 
   
 
   
 
  
 
  
 
   
 
   
 
  
 
  
 
 +: Projects 
that prevent or 
mitigate 
 
EN 22   EN A. Contribution to achieving the 2020 EU biodiversity target  B. Contribution to reducing main pressures on biodiversity 
1. Halting biodiversity loss Key EU policy 
area relevant 
for 
biodiversity 
a. Protected 
area/ species b. Other land 
/ fresh water c. Marine 
environment 2. Halting 
degradation 
of ecosystem 
services (ES) 3. Restoration 
of 
biodiversity 
& ecosystem 
services 4. 
Counteracti
ng 
increased 
loss of 
biodiversity 
at global 
level 
Over-exploitation 
Fragmentation 
Climate change 
Invasive species 
Pollution 
 
 
LIFE+ delivering 
biodiversity 
benefits in the wider landscape (outside Natura 
2000 areas) and 
contributing to biodiversity 
objectives  
+: Projects that 
prevent or mitigate over-exploitation can be funded by 
LIFE+  fragmentation 
can be funded 
by LIFE+  
 
+: Projects that 
prevent or mitigate climate change 
can be funded by 
LIFE+ 
  
+: Projects that 
prevent the introduction or establishment 
of IAS can be 
funded by LIFE+ 
 pollution can 
be funded by 
LIFE+ 
 
+++/--- ++/--- ++ +++/-- ++/--- -- -- +/-- -- -- +/-- Agriculture and 
Forestry policies 
CAP 
EU Forestry 
Strategy (1998); 
EU-Forestry 
Action Plan (FAP) for 2007-2011  
Forest Focus 
Regulation 
Framework 
Directive on the 
Sustainable use of +: Some 
agricultural and forestry 
measures in the 
CAP can contribute 
significantly to 
biodiversity (e.g. Natura 2000 
payments, HNV 
farming, Less Favourable 
Areas, organic 
farming)  
Various 
commitments in +: Agri- and 
forest-environment 
schemes; Cross- 
compliance; organic farming 
-: Intensification 
with high input agriculture; 
marginalisation; 
land abandonment, 
monocultures. 
Use of invasive species, 
homogenous age +: Cross-
compliance can bring a 
reduction of 
nutrients in river effluent to 
sea 
-: 
Intensification 
can lead to 
increased use of nutrients +: Appropriate 
management contributes to 
creation and 
maintenance of ES, public goods 
(e.g. food 
supply, soil functioning, 
timber, flood 
prevention, pollination). 
Forest Focus co-
financing forest fires prevention 
activities and 
studies on forest +: Some agri-
environment measures and 
forest 
environment measures highly 
contribute to 
restoration and delivery of ES 
-: competition 
for land, trade offs,  
 +: Some 
positive measures can 
be replicated in 
other parts of the world. 
Natural and 
semi-natural forests are the 
most 
biodiversity rich 
ecosystems in 
Europe. 
 -: intensive 
agricultural management +: hedgerows, 
pastures, set-aside areas etc. 
elements 
creating connectivity, 
conversion of 
arable land into grassland and 
forest. 
 -: conversion of 
natural, semi-
natural land into -: intensive 
livestock, energy grass, non-
permanent soil 
cover 
+: rural development can be used to 
combat IAS and 
protect genetic resources and 
species/varietie
s under threat of extinction 
 +:support for 
organic farming, 
integrated 
production, nutrient 
management 
-: use of 
chemicals as 
well as fuel for 
cultivation purposes  
 
EN 23   EN A. Contribution to achieving the 2020 EU biodiversity target  B. Contribution to reducing main pressures on biodiversity 
1. Halting biodiversity loss Key EU policy 
area relevant 
for 
biodiversity 
a. Protected 
area/ species b. Other land 
/ fresh water c. Marine 
environment 2. Halting 
degradation 
of ecosystem 
services (ES) 3. Restoration 
of 
biodiversity 
& ecosystem 
services 4. 
Counteracti
ng 
increased 
loss of 
biodiversity 
at global 
level 
Over-exploitation 
Fragmentation 
Climate change 
Invasive species 
Pollution 
Pesticides 
 the Forest 
Europe to protect 
biodiversity in forests 
-: Land 
abandonment 
and unsustainable 
agricultural 
practices can be very harmful to. 
Insufficient 
integration of biodiversity 
aspects in the 
management of forests structure of 
forests biodiversity 
-: Both 
intensification and land abandonment 
may decrease 
provision of ES, for example 
through 
damaging ES or leading to 
imbalanced 
provisioning of multiple ES -: competition 
for land, 
intensification, increasing demand for 
food supply 
and production  arable land, 
+ + + + + + 0 0 ++ 0 +++ Air policies  
Air Quality FWD, 
CAFÉ, NECD, 
VES, IPPC, LCP, Waste Incineration 
Directive, 
Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution +: local 
reduction of N-deposition in 
protected areas  
 +: general 
reduction of deposition on 
land 
 +: general 
reduction of deposition on 
sea 
 +: general 
improvement of air quality good 
for all services  +: general 
improvement of air quality good 
for restoration 
initiatives  +: general 
improvement of air quality 
good for global 
biodiversity  Not using natural 
resources No spatial 
dimension +: reduction of 
emissions,  No major 
disturbance or activity that 
may lead to 
new introduction +: all tools 
aimed at reducing 
pollution from 
different sources 
Consumption / + + + + 0 + + 0 + 0 ++ 
 
EN 24   EN A. Contribution to achieving the 2020 EU biodiversity target  B. Contribution to reducing main pressures on biodiversity 
1. Halting biodiversity loss Key EU policy 
area relevant 
for 
biodiversity 
a. Protected 
area/ species b. Other land 
/ fresh water c. Marine 
environment 2. Halting 
degradation 
of ecosystem 
services (ES) 3. Restoration 
of 
biodiversity 
& ecosystem 
services 4. 
Counteracti
ng 
increased 
loss of 
biodiversity 
at global 
level 
Over-exploitation 
Fragmentation 
Climate change 
Invasive species 
Pollution 
Production 
policies  
IPP, EMAS, 
Ecolabel, ETAP, GPP, ERP, 
SICP/SIP action 
plan 
Environmental 
Liability Directive  +: indirect effect 
might come from 
demand for labelled products  +: indirect effect 
may be expected 
through demand for / supply of eco-products   
 +: indirect 
effect on 
marine biodiversity may be 
expected 
through demand for / 
supply of 
sustainable fisheries   +: indirect effect 
via eco-market 
on increase of multiple services in forestry, agri- 
& aqua-culture  +: eco-labels,  
certification of 
products and materials (e.g. forest, timber, 
fish and food) 
reduces ecological 
footprint   
 +: sustainability 
criteria No necessary 
spatial 
dimension +: sustainable 
production 
methods; reducing negative impacts of consumption, 
lower input 
demand No inclusion of 
IAS criteria +: long-term 
sustainability 
++ ++ ++ +++ ++ ++ + ++ +++ + +++ Climate Change 
policies 
EU 20/20/20 
climate change 
target 
White paper on 
adaptation to 
climate change (COM (2009) 
0147) 
 Reducing 
Emissions from 
Deforestation and Forest Degradation +: general slow 
down of climate 
change  +: general slow 
down of climate 
change  
 +: general slow 
down of 
climate change  
 +: general slow 
down of climate 
change 
Improve the 
resilience of 
ecosystems through 
adaptation 
measures  
 +: general slow 
down of climate 
change and restoration of 
ecosystem 
services through adaptation and 
mitigation 
measures  
 +: general 
slow down of 
climate change; REDD 
funding to stop 
deforestation in biodiversity 
hotspots  +: REDD +: building on 
ecosystem-
based solutions, creating Green 
Infrastructure Main objective of 
the package +: Mitigation 
measures which 
will lead to lower migration 
of IAS +: increased 
use of 
alternative energy 
sources, ETS 
 
EN 25   EN A. Contribution to achieving the 2020 EU biodiversity target  B. Contribution to reducing main pressures on biodiversity 
1. Halting biodiversity loss Key EU policy 
area relevant 
for 
biodiversity 
a. Protected 
area/ species b. Other land 
/ fresh water c. Marine 
environment 2. Halting 
degradation 
of ecosystem 
services (ES) 3. Restoration 
of 
biodiversity 
& ecosystem 
services 4. 
Counteracti
ng 
increased 
loss of 
biodiversity 
at global 
level 
Over-exploitation 
Fragmentation 
Climate change 
Invasive species 
Pollution 
(REDD) 
Climate Change 
Programme (ICCP), European Emission Trading 
Scheme (ETS); 
UN Framework 
Convention on 
Climate Change 
(UNFCCC) 
+/- +/- + - - +/- 0/- - +++ -- +++ Energy policies 
EU Biomass 
Action Plan (up to 
2010) 
 Directive on the 
promotion of the 
use of energy from renewable sources +: wind and solar 
energies 
contribute to GHGs emission 
reductions that 
lower pressure of climate change 
Sustainability 
criteria for biofuels that 
include 
restrictions on areas where raw 
material for 
biofuel production can 
be grown in +: more use of 
renewable 
resources lowers pressures from 
grey energy 
-: increase 
demand on land 
to produce 
biomass and biofuels likely to 
lead to 
intensification of agriculture  +: Off-shore 
wing energy 
contributes to reducing GHGs 
emissions. In 
general, wind energy does 
not represent a 
serious threat to wildlife, but 
poorly 
designed wind farms can pose 
a potential 
threat to vulnerable 
species and -: large areas 
devoted to 
energy-crops monocultures 
have low level 
of other services -: potential 
competition with 
biofuel plantations +: reduction of 
GHGs 
emissions and lower the 
pressure of 
climate change,  
-: direct and 
indirect land use changes 
due to 
increased EU biomass 
demand, with 
potential negative - : possible 
overexploitation of 
soil and water by energy plantations -: potential 
competition for 
land, conversion of semi-natural 
land into energy 
crop production/tree 
plantation +: increased share 
of renewables, 
lower demand due to increased 
energy efficiency 
-:unsustainable 
practices of 
biomass 
production can in some cases lead to 
deforestation or 
soil carbon depletion -: use of non 
native species 
as energy crops/trees +: Increased 
use of 
renewable energy 
decrease 
pollutants 
 
EN 26   EN A. Contribution to achieving the 2020 EU biodiversity target  B. Contribution to reducing main pressures on biodiversity 
1. Halting biodiversity loss Key EU policy 
area relevant 
for 
biodiversity 
a. Protected 
area/ species b. Other land 
/ fresh water c. Marine 
environment 2. Halting 
degradation 
of ecosystem 
services (ES) 3. Restoration 
of 
biodiversity 
& ecosystem 
services 4. 
Counteracti
ng 
increased 
loss of 
biodiversity 
at global 
level 
Over-exploitation 
Fragmentation 
Climate change 
Invasive species 
Pollution 
order for those 
biofuels to be 
counted towards the 2020 targets and to benefit 
from financial 
support 
- potential 
conversion of 
natural/semi-natural land to 
biofuel 
plantations, biofuel 
plantation 
monocultures having less 
biodiversity habitats. consequences 
for biodversity 
in third countries 
+ +/- +/- +/-- - -- - 0 + -- - External relations  
Thematic 
Programme for Environment and 
Natural Resources 
(ENRTP), 
European 
Neighbourhood 
and Partnership Instrument (ENPI), 
Development +: CBD, other 
biodiversity-
targeted 
programmes and funding 
-: -: international 
trade can drive habitat loss in 
third countries +: biodiversity-
targeted 
programmes and 
funding 
-: -: international 
trade can drive 
overexploitation of resources in 
third countries +: biodiversity-
targeted 
programmes 
and funding 
-: -: 
international 
trade can drive overexploitatio
n of resources +: biodiversity-
targeted 
programmes and 
funding 
-: -: international 
trade can drive 
overexploitation of ecosystems in 
third countries +: biodiversity-
targeted 
programmes and 
funding 
-: -: international 
trade can drive 
overexploitation of ecosystems in 
third countries +: OCTs and 
ORs, 
Voluntary 
Partnership Agreements 
(VPA) under 
FLEGT  +: CITES, 
certification 
criteria 
 -: international 
trade can drive 
overexploitation of resources in third  +: FLEGT, 
biodiversity 
targeted 
programmes -: increased 
introduction of 
IAS through 
increased trade  -: increased 
pollution 
through 
increased trade and transport 
 
EN 27   EN A. Contribution to achieving the 2020 EU biodiversity target  B. Contribution to reducing main pressures on biodiversity 
1. Halting biodiversity loss Key EU policy 
area relevant 
for 
biodiversity 
a. Protected 
area/ species b. Other land 
/ fresh water c. Marine 
environment 2. Halting 
degradation 
of ecosystem 
services (ES) 3. Restoration 
of 
biodiversity 
& ecosystem 
services 4. 
Counteracti
ng 
increased 
loss of 
biodiversity 
at global 
level 
Over-exploitation 
Fragmentation 
Climate change 
Invasive species 
Pollution 
Cooperation and 
Economic 
Cooperation Instrument (DCECI),  
European 
Development Fund (EDF) 
Millennium 
Development Goals (MDG) 
Global 
Environment Facility (GEF)  
CITES 
EU Forest Law 
Enforcement, 
Governance and 
Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan 
Trade and other bi- 
or multilateral agreements  in third 
countries countries 
Fisheries and +/--  - +++/--- +++/--- ++/--- ++ +/-- - 0 --- ++ 
 
EN 28   EN A. Contribution to achieving the 2020 EU biodiversity target  B. Contribution to reducing main pressures on biodiversity 
1. Halting biodiversity loss Key EU policy 
area relevant 
for 
biodiversity 
a. Protected 
area/ species b. Other land 
/ fresh water c. Marine 
environment 2. Halting 
degradation 
of ecosystem 
services (ES) 3. Restoration 
of 
biodiversity 
& ecosystem 
services 4. 
Counteracti
ng 
increased 
loss of 
biodiversity 
at global 
level 
Over-exploitation 
Fragmentation 
Climate change 
Invasive species 
Pollution 
Marine policies  
CFP, Marine 
Strategy FWD (2008) , Integrated Coastal Zone 
Management, 
Illegal fishing 
(IUU) +: extensive fish 
farming methods 
in protected areas, management and 
restoration plans 
for targeted species  
-: overfishing, 
intensive fishing destructive 
fishing practices, 
and unsustainable 
fish farming 
methods, overnutrification  -: intensive fish 
farming, use of 
invasive species, overnutrification +: Total 
Allowable 
Catch (TAC) & Quota Regulation, 
Maximum 
Sustainable Yield of fish 
stocks, 
Community Action Plan for 
Sharks, 
combating Illegal, 
Unreported and 
Unregulated fishing 
-: Overfishing, 
harmful methods, by-
catch  +: TAC & Quota 
-: Other uses of 
marine ecosystem (recreation) 
degraded +: ecosystems 
based approach 
of Marine Strategy Framework 
Directive 
 -: Intensive 
overfishing and 
destructive fishing practices 
destroying 
marine ecosystems +: covering all 
EU seas and 
fleet 
 -: EU / MS 
subsidies & 
lack of control on EU fleet 
enables fishing 
in grounds of developing 
countries +: MSY, Good 
Environmental 
Status 
 -: overfishing, by-
catch, discard -: degradation of 
sea bed, 
destructive practices No direct 
mitigation and/or 
adaptation actions -: Introduction 
and dispersal of 
IAS +: MSY 
leading to 
reduction of fleet and fishing 
activities 
+++ +++ 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 +++ - 
 Plant and Animal 
Health policies 
Plant health 
directive, animal 
health legislation 
(various directives and regulations) +: Both regimes 
are under review 
and the possibility of 
expanding their +: Both regimes 
are under review 
and the possibility of 
expanding their Marine 
environment 
outside the scope See first 2 
columns: 
reducing the impact of 
invasive alien Scope on 
prevention and 
eradication Scope on EU Scope on health 
and safety Scope on health 
and safety Scope on health 
and safety +: the review of 
the Plant Health 
Regime to consider the 
inclusion of all  
 
EN 29   EN A. Contribution to achieving the 2020 EU biodiversity target  B. Contribution to reducing main pressures on biodiversity 
1. Halting biodiversity loss Key EU policy 
area relevant 
for 
biodiversity 
a. Protected 
area/ species b. Other land 
/ fresh water c. Marine 
environment 2. Halting 
degradation 
of ecosystem 
services (ES) 3. Restoration 
of 
biodiversity 
& ecosystem 
services 4. 
Counteracti
ng 
increased 
loss of 
biodiversity 
at global 
level 
Over-exploitation 
Fragmentation 
Climate change 
Invasive species 
Pollution 
scope to include 
pest and diseases 
of wild species is under consideration; 
for the plant 
health regime, the possibility of 
including all 
invasive alien plants causing 
damage to the 
wider environment is 
being considered 
-: Control 
measures may 
cause direct 
damage to protected areas 
(e.g. tree felling 
against pinewood nematode) 
-: Control 
measures may cause indirect 
damage to 
protected areas (e.g. spreading pesticides) scope to include 
pest and diseases 
of wild species is under consideration 
+: If plant health 
regime considers the inclusion of 
all invasive alien 
plants causing damage to the 
wider 
environment, this means that also 
aquatic plants 
would be included 
-: Control 
measures may cause direct 
and/or indirect 
damage to other lands or fresh 
water (e.g. 
spreading pesticides) species will also 
be beneficial for 
the ecosystem services, control measures may 
also affect 
ecosystem services invasive alien 
plants causing 
damage to the wider environment 
 
 
EN 30   EN A. Contribution to achieving the 2020 EU biodiversity target  B. Contribution to reducing main pressures on biodiversity 
1. Halting biodiversity loss Key EU policy 
area relevant 
for 
biodiversity 
a. Protected 
area/ species b. Other land 
/ fresh water c. Marine 
environment 2. Halting 
degradation 
of ecosystem 
services (ES) 3. Restoration 
of 
biodiversity 
& ecosystem 
services 4. 
Counteracti
ng 
increased 
loss of 
biodiversity 
at global 
level 
Over-exploitation 
Fragmentation 
Climate change 
Invasive species 
Pollution 
++/-- +/-- +/- +/-- ++/-- + 0 --- +/- +/--- ++/-- Regional 
development  
EU Regional 
Policy (ERDF, ESF, CF) +: investments 
directly benefiting 
biodiversity, 
compliance with regulations,  
-: fragmentation, 
competition for land, natural area 
clearing for 
infrastructure +: contributions 
to environmental quality, 
investments in 
waste water treatment 
-: grey 
infrastructure & urban 
development, 
habitat destruction  -: development 
of ports and seashore 
investments 
putting at risk nature and 
biodiversity 
+: programmes 
and projects on 
integrated 
coastal management, 
coastal 
protection +: 
environmental quality 
improvement, in 
particular for water bodies  
-: land for urban 
sprawl/ grey infrastructure +: environ-
mental quality improvement 
facilitates ESS, 
investment in Green 
Infrastructure, 
investments in rehabilitation of 
contaminated 
land, floodplains… 
-: land for urban / 
infrastructure +: territorial 
cohesion, making EU 
businesses 
competitive thus reducing 
import rates  +: ecosystem 
based approaches 
 
-: grey 
infrastructure, 
strong spatial 
dimension, without built-in 
biodiversity 
criteria +: energy 
efficiency, isolation, 
renewable energy 
investments 
 
-: no criterion to 
ensure no negative impact on climate 
change +: 
projects/measures to reduce 
IAS in some 
programmes 
 
-:  +: investments 
in technologies 
reducing 
pollution (BAT) 
 
-: development 
of 
infrastructure 
and facilities increasing 
pollution 
++ + 0 + 0 ++ ++ +++ 0 0 +++ EIA/SEA  
+: aim to avoid 
destruction; 
mitigation and 
compensation measures +: all major plans 
and projects 
covered  +: aim to avoid 
destruction; 
mitigation and 
compensation measures  +: assessments 
applied in 
Outermost 
Regions and Overseas 
Territories 
 +: aim to avoid 
destruction; 
mitigation and 
compensation measures +: aim to avoid 
destruction; 
mitigation and 
compensation measures Climate change 
not sufficiently 
addressed by 
EIA/SEA IAS not 
addressed by 
EIA/SEA +: complex 
assessment of 
all 
environmental impacts 
Transport/ +/--- --- 0/- --- -- --- 0 --- -- -- - 
 
EN 31   EN A. Contribution to achieving the 2020 EU biodiversity target  B. Contribution to reducing main pressures on biodiversity 
1. Halting biodiversity loss Key EU policy 
area relevant 
for 
biodiversity 
a. Protected 
area/ species b. Other land 
/ fresh water c. Marine 
environment 2. Halting 
degradation 
of ecosystem 
services (ES) 3. Restoration 
of 
biodiversity 
& ecosystem 
services 4. 
Counteracti
ng 
increased 
loss of 
biodiversity 
at global 
level 
Over-exploitation 
Fragmentation 
Climate change 
Invasive species 
Pollution 
Infrastructure and 
Energy Trans 
European Networks  
TEN-T, TEN-E,  +: application of 
best practices 
minimising or eliminating negative impacts 
 
-: fragmentation, 
habitat loss, 
destruction of 
populations of protected species 
and habitats both 
during construction and 
functioning +: new 
technology with 
lower pollution and noise levels, sustainable 
transport 
initiative  
-: expected 
increase in total 
transport volume, development of 
new transport 
infrastructures destroying 
habitats, no 
impact assessment on 
nature 
conservation criteria  -: conversion 
and 
urbanisation due to new infrastructures +: new 
technology with 
lower pollution and noise levels  
-: expected 
increase in total 
transport volume, 
contribution to 
main pressures on biodiversity 
(pollution, 
climate change etc.) +: compensation 
measures 
 -: degradation, 
conversion, 
destruction -: 
fragmentation 
and habitat loss adding up to the already 
fragmented EU No direct policy 
measures on 
natural resources -: conversion, 
habitat loss, 
fragmentation, -: degraded 
ecosystems having 
lower mitigation and adaptation capabilities, 
increased traffic, 
higher fuel demand -: IAS 
spreading along 
linear infrastructures; increased 
transport 
raising risk of IAS 
introduction -: increased 
pollution 
+++ +++ + +++ ++ + + + ++ ++ +++ Water policies  
Water Framework 
Directive, Flood 
risk management , Groundwater, 
Urban Wastewater 
Treatment Directive, Nitrates Directive, +: improving 
ecological status of water and soil  
 +: improving 
ecological status of water and soil  
 
 +: in the long 
run improved ecological 
status in 
marine systems  
 +: regulating 
and cultural services 
improving 
(recreational, sport fishing) +: enhances 
restoration projects, 
ecosystem based 
approaches e.g. for flood risk 
management  +: 
Improvement 
of the quality 
of river basins 
shared with third countries, 
.  +: good ecological 
status of water bodies +: river basin 
management +: flood risk 
prevention through Green 
Infrastructure +: good 
ecological status +: quality of 
both inland and ground 
water 
 
EN 32   EN A. Contribution to achieving the 2020 EU biodiversity target  B. Contribution to reducing main pressures on biodiversity 
1. Halting biodiversity loss Key EU policy 
area relevant 
for 
biodiversity 
a. Protected 
area/ species b. Other land 
/ fresh water c. Marine 
environment 2. Halting 
degradation 
of ecosystem 
services (ES) 3. Restoration 
of 
biodiversity 
& ecosystem 
services 4. 
Counteracti
ng 
increased 
loss of 
biodiversity 
at global 
level 
Over-exploitation 
Fragmentation 
Climate change 
Invasive species 
Pollution 
Environmental 
Quality Standards 
Directive   
 
+++, ++, + = relevant; most, many and some positive results expected (policy present and effective); 
-, --, --- = relevant; generally negative results expected (policy not present, or in-effective);  
+/- = relevant; positive and negative results may vary across Europe; across policy tools; across species or habitats; or servi ces; 
0 = not relevant or not of significant importance 
 
EN 33   EN ANNEX 7 –ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL AREA POTENTIALLY COVERED BY BIODIVERSITY -
RELATED MEASURES  
1. Rationale :  
The aim is to estimate the area covered by the components of agricultur al land that are likely 
to deliver the highest benefits if targeted by adequate measur es. Grasslands and Natura 2000 
have been highlighted as likely targets for pa yments in the communication on the future CAP 
reform. High Nature Value (HNV) is not explici tly highlighted, but would be covered by agri-
environmental measures, as it is alrea dy done at present to some extent.  
In addition, a proportion of more intensive arable  land can also deliver biodiversity benefits 
through the use of complementar y measures such as set-asid e and crop-rotation, which were 
also highlighted as possible elements of the gr eening component of the first pillar in the new 
CAP. 
Currently 22% of the Utilised Agricultural Area (UAA) is cove red by some type of agri-
environment contract. It can be assumed that about 15% of the UAA can be associated with 
biodiversity targets. 
2. Data sources: 
Eurostat produces official statistics on the us e of utilised agricultural areas. The latest data 
(2007) for EU-27 are: 60% of  UAA under arable land, 33% under grassland, and 6% under 
permanent crops. 
Corine Land Cover (CLC) data are also a usef ul source of information, but do not correlate 
exactly with official statistics . Areas that are too small to be  visible through remote sensing 
are not measured. In addition, some categorie s of agricultural land are classified in 
“heterogeneous” classes, making it difficult to estimate its components separately (arable, 
permanent crops and grasslands). 
For example according to CLC data, grasslands  represent only 22.5% of UAA. Comparing to 
official statistics, this means that about 10% of UAA as grassland are not directly measured, 
either because they are hidden in heterogeneous CLC agricultural categories48 (i.e. complex 
cultivation patterns) or because they are em bedded in other non-agricultural classes (i.e. 
forests). In addition, in some countries, natural vegetation such as moors and heathland, 
transitional woodland-shrub, sclero phyllous vegetation are included in UAA official statistics. 
This is for example the case of Scotland. Th e CLC estimates of grasslands based on 'UAA 
like' categories are therefore clearly an underestimate. 
                                                 
48 Gallego, J. and Bamps, C., 2008. Using CORINE land cover and the point survey LUCAS for area 
estimation, International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation  10:467–475. 
 
EN 34   EN 3. Analysis based on HNV, N2000 and grassland areas 
  % of EU 
UAA 
HNV 26
Grasslands 33
Natura 2000 10
 - Nat 2000/HNV overlap 7.1
 - Grasslands/HNV overlap 16.5
+ grasslands/HNV/Natura2000 
overlap 3.1
  48.5
Explanation of categories: 
• HNV area in total EU UAA 
Estimation from the Commission's Joint Research  Centre (JRC) based on CLC categories that 
can be related to UAA ('UAA-like'  categories), covering EU-24. 
• Grasslands in total EU UAA 
Official Eurostat statistics (2007, EU-27) 
• Natura 2000 area in total EU UAA 
JRC estimation based on 'UAA-like' CLC categories, for EU-24. 
• Overlap between HNV and Natura 2000 areas: 
According to JRC estimations based on CLC data, 71% of Natura 2000 agricultural area 
(based on CLC categories that can be linked to UAA) is HNV. Applied to 10% of UAA 
covered by Natura 2000, this represents 7.1% of total UAA 
• Overlap between HNV and Grassland areas: 
According to JRC estimations, half  of grasslands is HNV. Applie d to 33% of grasslands, this 
represents 16.5% of total UAA. 
• Overlap between HNV, grasslands and Natura 2000 
This area has been substracted twice in the a bove two categories, and needs to be added in 
compensation. According to JRC estimations, based on 'UAA-like' CLC categories, this 
represents 3.1% of total UAA. 
2. Analysis based on disaggregation of arab le land, permanent crops and grassland in 
total HNV, Natura 2000 and grassland. 
 
EN 35   EN According to JRC estimation of  'UAA-like' CLC categories, the disaggregation of HNV, 
Natura 2000 and grassland areas is as follo ws (without overlaps between categories): 
 % total 
UAA 
Arable 4.1
Permanent crops 0.83
Grassland 22.5+7
Heterogeneous agricultural 
areas  11.92
Total  46.35
Included in these categories are: 
• Arable land 
This is the proportion of CLC cat egories that can be directly related to arable land in UAA 
(Non-irrigated arable land, Perman ently irrigated land, Rice fields) 
• Permanent crops 
This is the proportion of CLC cat egories that can be directly related to permanent crops in 
UAA (Vineyards, Fruit trees and be rry plantations, Olive groves) 
• Grassland 
This is the proportion of CLC cat egories that can be directly  related to grassland in UAA 
(Pastures and Natural grasslands). However, when comparing to official statistics, it is clear 
that this is an underestimate of grasslands, and that 10.5% is contained in heterogeneous 
areas. Assuming that the Heterogeneous agricu ltural areas in HNV a nd Natura 2000 already 
counted below include 1/3 of gr asslands, 7% of grassland ou tside HNV and Natura 2000 still 
need to be added. 
• Heterogeneous agricultural areas 
This includes the following categories, which are either in HNV and Natura 2000: annual 
crops associated with permanent crops + co mplex cultivation pattern + land principally 
occupied by agriculture with significant area s of natural vegetation + agroforestry areas. 
These categories represent different proportions of a mix of arable land, permanent crops and 
grassland, which is not possi ble to allocate precisely. 
Conclusion 
Based on these two different methods, it can be concluded that a plausible proportion of area 
covered by HNV, Natura 2000 and Grasslands  would be between 45 and 50% of UAA. 
Including a higher proportion than this under biodiversity-related meas ures in the new CAP 
reform would involve targeting more intensiv e arable and permanent crop land, for example 
through set-aside and crop rotation measures. Covering an additional 10 to 15% of UAA 
 
EN 36   EN under more intensive agricultural land would imp ly a realistic proportion of about 60% of 
UAA under biodiversity-related measures. 
 
EN 37   EN ANNEX 8 – JUSTIFICATION OF FEASIBILITY OF THE NATURE CONSERVATION TARGET  
"To halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats covered by EU nature 
legislation and achieve a signific ant 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 Direc tive show an improved conservation status; and 
(ii) 50% more species assessm ents under the Birds Directive show a secure or improved 
status " 
1. Habitat types and species under the Habitats Directive 
Background  
The Habitats Directive target uses the first conservation status asse ssment under Article 17 of 
the Directive for habitat types and species of Community importance. This EU level assessment was published in 2009 based on national reports provided by the Member States. The assessment will be repeated every 6 years, with a next round of na tional reports foreseen 
in 2013.  
The European Environment Agency, with the support of the European Topic Centre for 
Biodiversity, helped develop th is sub target using data from the 2009 assessment. The 
feasibility assessment relates to the conservati on status (defined as favourable, unfavourable –
inadequate, unfavourable-bad, unknown) for e ach habitat type and each species in each 
biogeographical region and looks at four parameters for bot h habitat types and species that 
underpin the Article 17 conservation status assessments
49. A species or habitat type is 
considered to have a favourable conservation st atus only if either all four parameters are 
positive or three are positive and one "unknown".  
Feasibility  
The assessment is based on the assumption th at if adequate conservation management 
measures are carried out certain parameters (h abitat area for species, population and future 
prospects for species and future prospects and st ructure & functions for the habitat types) will 
improve. Range is not considered likely to ch ange significantly over the relatively short 
period of time up to 2020.  
Improvements in only one or two parameters ar e considered most lik ely during the period up 
to 2020. Signs of potential improvement within si ngle parameters are also included in the 
assessments to make the target more sensit ive to trends and im provements that do not 
necessarily trigger a change in  overall status. Based on these assumptions and using the EU-
assessment database the calculations of what c ould be considered as realistic improvements 
were made. This analysis used 2240 assessments  for species and 701 assessments for habitats 
at the biogeographical level. 
                                                 
49 For species the parameters are population, habitats  for the species, range and future prospects. For 
habitat types the parameters are area covered by the habitat type, specific structures & functions as well 
as typical species, range, and future prospects. 
 
EN 38   EN For species, using ‘population’, ‘habitat for the sp ecies’ and ‘future prospects’ as parameters 
most likely to change between assessments, it was estimated that the maximum attainable 
improvement is 
– 7 % from unfavourable-inadequate (U1) to favourable (FV) and 
– 4 % from unfavourable-bad (U2) to unfavourable-inadequate (U1). 
For habitats, using the parameters ‘habitat area’,  'structure & functions' and 'future prospects', 
the estimated maximum improvement is 
– 13 % from unfavourable-inadequate (U1) to favourable (FV) and 
– 11 % from unfavourable-bad (U2) to unfavourable-inadequate (U1). 
The other level of the assessment looks at th e potential for improvement within selected 
parameters. To assess potential improvement w ithin U1 and U2 assessments trend data under 
the parameter ‘population’ for sp ecies and ‘area of habitat’ fo r habitats were used. It was 
ensured that assessments were  not double-counted w ith the ‘traffic ligh t’ assessment above. 
As a result of this analysis, about 2% mo re species assessments  show potential for 
improvement (within a conservation status category). The equivalent figure for habitats is less 
than 1 %. 
Conclusion  
When the above mentioned figures are aggregat ed (FV, + potential improvement from amber 
(U1) to green (FV) + potential improvement from red (U2) to amber (U1) + improvement 
within selected parameters) the maximum potentia l figure that might be used in a target is 
30% for species and 42% for hab itats. This includes attaining favourable conservation status, 
improvements in a category of conservation stat us, and clear signs of improvement that might 
be detected by 2020. As these represent an abso lute maximum, slightly reduced figures are 
used to make sure reaching the target will be realistic. The proposed targets are 25% in 
favourable or improving conservation status for species and 33% for habitat types.  
Presentation of the target  
The target is presented as a pe rcentage of improvement, i.e. from 17% to 25 % for species and 
from 17% to 33% for habitat types. With some rounding this tran slates into a 50% 
improvement for species and a 100% (i.e. doub ling of) improvement for habitat types. 
2. Bird species under the Birds Directive 
Background  
All bird species are protected under the Birds Directive. Previous assessments of their 
conservation status, prepared by BirdLife Intern ational, have been based on an analysis of 
extinction risk of each species and a determination of species of European conservation 
concern (SPECs). The latest 2004 assessment for the EU 25 Member States concluded that 
52% of species are secure, alt hough the situation appears to vary  between differe nt categories 
of species, with migratory and farmland bird speci es of particular concern. Four categories of 
bird species covered by the Birds Directive can be  considered in the context of setting targets 
 
EN 39   EN for the period up to 2020. It has already been de monstrated that target ed conservation actions 
for Annex I bird species under the Directive have resulted in  improvements in conservation 
status for different species. In August 2007 the journal Science published an analysis showing 
that the Birds Directive has made a significant difference in protecting many of Europe's most 
threatened birds from further decline50. The groundbreaking paper shows that the Birds 
Directive has clearly helped thos e species considered to be mo st at risk, pa rtly through the 
designation of Special Pr otection Areas (SPAs). 
1. Globally threatened species 
60% of these 40 species are already stable or in creasing in the EU, which represents important 
progress, given that most of them were declining and in very poor condition in the 1980s and 
1990s. This is largely down to conservation ac tion inspired by EU Species Action Plans and 
often funded by EU projects, part icularly the LIFE financial in strument. This has halted the 
decline of many species (e.g. Lesse r Kestrel, Great Bustard) and led to dramatic increases in 
others (e.g. White-headed Duck, Imperial Eagle). This recovery can be continued for the other 
40% of species that are currently s till declining or have unknown trends.  
2. Annex I species 
Likewise, 76% of these species are already stable  or increasing in the EU. Due to the size of 
the species pool, and the fact th at some of these species cannot be conserved solely through 
Special Protection Areas as they  also need other 'special c onservation measures', e.g. at 
landscape scale, they will require a suite of conservation measures over the coming decade to 
achieve significant improveme nts in conservation status. 
3. Migrant species 
Improvements in conservation status are clea rly feasible for many species but there are 
particular challenges for dec lining long-distance migrants. T ackling the problems facing these 
species will require in ternational collaboration with count ries outside the EU, within the 
framework of the African Eurasian Waterbird Agreement and other mechanisms. 
4. Farmland species 
Thanks to a large amount of re search there is now a good scientific u nderstanding of why 
most farmland bird species are declining. C onservation measures have been developed, 
trialled and rolled out solutions developed th at can be deployed through agri-environment 
schemes to reverse their declines (a nd benefit other biodiversity).  
                                                 
50 Paul F. Donald, Fiona J. Sanderson,1 Ian J. Burfield,2 Stijn M. Bierman, Richard D. Gregory, Zoltan 
Waliczky International Conservation Policy Delivers Benefits for Birds in Europe Science, 2007. 
 
EN 40   EN 
 
The above graph shows what can be achieved by implementi ng targeted conservation 
measures: a near-trebling of the farmland bi rd population at the Royal Society for the 
Protection of Birds (RSPB) Hope Farm in less than a decade51. This is not a special case, but a 
regular arable farm that the RSPB bought to de monstrate that it is perfectly possible for 
modern farming methods and wildlife to co -exist, producing food cost-effectively and 
benefiting biodiversity. The farm is  not organic and applies fertil iser, pesticide, etc. in the 
same way as other modern farms. It just makes full use of agri-environmental scheme 
measures.  
Feasibility  
Therefore, on the basis of current knowledge, if the necessary conservation measures are put 
in place it is considered feasible to achieve a significant measurable improvement from the 
current level of 52% of bird  species populations having secure/good status to a maximum 
level of 80% of bird species either being s ecure or showing improvi ng population status by 
2020. This formulation implies that all those species currently in good status should be 
maintained there, whilst about 50% of thos e not in a good status should show signs of 
improvement (positive trends) by  2020 – some of these may even  recover sufficiently to be 
restored to a good status by that  time. Obviously, the possibility  remains that some other EU 
bird species continue to decline or remain in  a less good status. This is probably inevitable, 
especially for long distant migrants that only  spend part of their annual cycle in the EU, 
owing to the scale of the challenges facing them. 
Presentation of the target  
The target is presented as a percentage of improvement, i.e. from 52% to 80% for bird 
species. With some rounding this translates in to a 50% improvement of population status of 
bird species
                                                 
51 Case study by RSPB http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/farming/hopefarm/index.aspx  
 
EN 41   EN ANNEX 9 – PROPOSED TARGETS IN RELATION TO PO LICY PRIORITIES AS HIGHLIGHTED AT COMMISSION , COUNCIL AND GLOBAL LEVEL  
 Link to COM (2010)4 Link to Council Conclusions Link to global targets 
in the revised 
Strategic Plan for 
Biodiversity 2011-2020 
T1- Nature 
Conservation 
related target "In Europe, conservation assessments of species and habitats 
show that, despite some successe s, the overall situation has 
continued to deteriorate." 
"Early estimates show that only 20% of the total financing needs 
for managing protected areas in Europe are being met ." CC March 2010 
" Reaffirming that protected areas and ecological networks are a 
cornerstone of efforts to preserve biodiversity, stresses the need to 
fully implement the Birds and Habitats Directives, to speed up the 
completion of the Natura 2000 Network, both on land and at sea, 
and to put in place adequate finance, taking into account also that 
biodiversity is unevenly spread throughout the EU, and effective 
management and restoration measures ;" This would be linked to 
T1, T5 , T11 (in 
particular), T12 
T2- Restoration 
and Green Infrastructure 
related target "Appropriate forms of land and maritime management are needed 
to maintain and enhance ecosystems that provide ecosystem 
services to society at large
" 
"while EU regulations contribute to ensuring that the 
environmental impacts of infrastructure development and spatial 
planning at EU level are minimi sed, further benefits could be 
reaped from better coordination, in accordance with the 
subsidiarity principle, with the development of and investment in 
‘green infrastructure’ in the 83% of EU territory falling outside the Natura 2000 network.."  CC Dec 2009 
"Highlights the mitigation and adaptation potential of resilient 
wetlands, oceans, forests, pea tlands and grasslands and other 
ecosystems " 
CC March 2010 "Emphasizes the contribution of Green Infrastructure" to climate 
adaptation and mitigation objectives, to prevent habitat 
fragmentation, to increase connectivity and to maintain species evolution processes " " Calls on the Commission to further develop 
this process " This would be linked to 
T2, T5, T6, T7, T11, 
T10, T14, T5 (in 
particular) 
T3- Agriculture 
and forestry related target "Strengthening rural developme nt policy with a view to 
developing ecosystem services by preserving and enhancing 
farming and forestry with a high nature value in the context of 
the CAP "  CC December 2009 
"Acknowledges that agrobiodiversity is an important element with 
significant potential for improving food security and climate This would be linked to 
the achievement of targets T3, T4, T7 (in 
particular), T8, T13, 
 
EN 42   EN  Link to COM (2010)4 Link to Council Conclusions Link to global targets 
in the revised 
Strategic Plan for 
Biodiversity 2011-2020 
  change mitigation and adaptation " T14, T15 
T4- Fisheries 
related target "Addressing the problems identified in the Green Paper on reform 
of the common fisheries policy is a priority in order to deliver an 
ecologically sustainable policy in 2012 based on scientific advice and effectively tackling overcapac ity, and to better contribute to 
biodiversity targets."  CC December 2009 
"Acknowledges the need for a growing world population to 
sustainably use marine resources and stresses the urgent need to 
reverse the loss of freshwater, marine and coastal biodiversity " This would be linked to 
T3, T4, T6 (in 
particular), T10 
T5- Invasive Alien 
Species related 
target COM(2008) 789 final 
"Halting  the loss of biodiversity in the EU will not be possible 
without tackling IS in a comprehensive manner. The ecological, 
economic and social consequences of IS in the EU are significant 
and require a coordinated response. […] 
The Commission will examine the possibility of setting up an 
Early Warning and Information System based on a regularly 
updated inventory combined with effective response mechanisms which it considers would be an important step forward ". CC June 2009 
" Recalls the urgent need for an EU strategy on invasive alien 
species " 
" Calls for an effective Strategy which should fill the existing gaps 
at EU level and establish a comprehensive EU IAS framework in a proportionate and cost-effective manner including by providing for 
new, dedicated legislative elements and, where necessary, 
amending or incorporating existing provisions"  
 This would be linked to 
target T9 
T6- Global 
contribution related 
target  "Further integration is a priority in external policy and in other 
policies closely interlinked with biodiversity. In addition to 
stepping up efforts to reduce the negative impact of these policies 
on biodiversity in the EU and globally, more awareness is needed 
about the implications of biodiversity loss for the long-term 
sustainability of activities resulting from these policies, as well as 
the economic benefits they can harness from healthy ecosystems ." CC Dec 2009 
"Stresses the need to take measures  to reduce the EU's ecological 
footprint " 
CC March 2010 
"Promote all necessary measures to protect biodiversity in third 
countries " This would be linked to 
T2, T3, T4, T16, T18 , 
T20 
 
EN 43   EN ANNEX 10 – GLOBAL 2020  TARGETS AND MEASURES REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THEM52 
2020 Global target (agreed at CBD COP10) Current action(s) within the EU EU co ntribution towards achieving the 2020 global 
target 
Target 1: By 2020, at the latest, people are aware of the 
values of biodiversity  and the steps they can take to 
conserve and use it sustainably. Efforts to step up communication and raise awareness 
about biodiversity were st epped up in recent years, 
especially during the 2010 International Year of 
Biodiversity. The Commission launched a major 
biodiversity awareness raising campaign for this purpose in early 2010. This is an ongoing challenge underpinning the 
achievement of all other targets, and cannot be achieved through a single activity or measure but rather needs to be 
pursued as a cross-cutting issue at all levels of 
government and in all relevant sectors to be effective. 
Therefore, it is to be integrated as a cross-cutting issue in 
the EU biodiversity strategy. Additionally, for example 
among the measures proposed under target 1 involves a 
communication campaign on Natura 2000 to be carried 
out by the Commission. 
Further actions will be required at all levels of 
government and in all relevant sectors.  
Target 2 : By 2020, at the latest, biodiversity values have 
been integrated  into national and local development and 
poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and 
are being incorporated into national accounting, as 
appropriate, and re porting systems.  
 Based on the Treaty, environm ent policy objectives are to 
be achieved through policy integration. Thus, several EU policies take partial account of biodiversity concerns and 
provide opportunities to invest in actions promoting 
biodiversity (see Policy Baseline). The current work of the Commission to develop the Green Infrastructure concept 
and subsequently put it in place is especially focusing on 
development and spatial planning based on a strategic, ecosystem-based approach. 
The integration of biodiversity values into national and 
regional development policies and national accounting  The selection of the 6 targets of the EU biodiversity 
strategy is partly designed to enable better integration within the EU. 
Target 2 will contribute to incorporating biodiversity 
values into accounting and repo rting systems. Target 6 of 
the EU biodiversity strategy is expected to contribute 
partially towards achieving this target by assisting 
developing country partners with biodiversity integration into development planning and undertaking work on 
valuation. However, additional measures beyond the 
scope of the EU strategy will be required to achieve this 
                                                 
52 For more on EU action, please see Annex on Policy Baseline. 
 
EN 44   EN 2020 Global target (agreed at CBD COP10) Current action(s) within the EU EU co ntribution towards achieving the 2020 global 
target 
systems is a key recommendation from the TEEB study.  
In addition to taking action to implement this target within 
the EU, the EU can also contri bute to the achievement of 
this target at global level by providing assistance to third 
countries in carrying out work on valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem services and enhancing the integration of 
biodiversity in national development and poverty reduction 
strategies.   target at EU level.  
Target 3 : By 2020, at the latest, incentives, including 
subsidies harmful to biodiversity are eliminated, 
phased out or reformed  in order to minimize or avoid 
negative impacts, and positive incentives for the 
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity are 
developed and applied, consistent and in harmony with the Convention and other relevant international obligations, 
taking into account national socio-economic conditions.  In its Europe 2020 Strategy, the EU recognised the 
negative effects on the environment of different existing 
subsidies and called upon the Me mber States to phase out 
environmentally harmful subsidies, limiting exceptions to 
people with social needs. This exercise will need to be 
followed and strengthened with the development and implementation of the flagship initiative on Resource 
Efficiency.  
The ongoing reforms of the main EU policies (e.g. CAP, 
CFP and Regional Development) provide an excellent 
opportunity for further integration to achieve that no EU 
funds counteract biodiversity objectives. Ensuring that biodiversity concerns are ad equately reflected in these 
initiatives will be key to achieving this CBD target. Targets 3 and 4 of the EU biodiversity strategy are 
expected to promote positive incentives for biodiversity 
conservation and sustainable use.  
 
Biodiversity concerns (impacts, benefits) should also be 
integrated into the EU's subsidy reform agenda.  
 
Target 4 : By 2020, at the latest, Governments, business 
and stakeholders  at all levels have taken steps to achieve 
or have implemented plans for sustainable production 
and consumption  and have kept the impacts of use of 
natural resources well within safe ecological limits . The EU has put considerable effort towards promoting 
sustainable consumption and production patterns over the past decades. Numerous initiatives have been taken both at 
EU and national levels, such as the Sustainable Production 
and Consumption and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan (SCP/SIP), EMAS or Eco-labelling. The Europe 2020 
Strategy aims at achieving, among others, sustainable 
growth and identifies resource efficiency as one of its Several targets in the EU biodiversity strategy will 
require planning aimed at improving resource use and minimising negative impacts on biodiversity, most 
specifically T3, T4 and T6, and as such are expected to 
contribute towards the achievement of this target. 
Biodiversity concerns (impacts, benefits) should also be 
integrated into the EU's Re source Efficiency Flagship 
 
EN 45   EN 2020 Global target (agreed at CBD COP10) Current action(s) within the EU EU co ntribution towards achieving the 2020 global 
target 
flagship initiatives.  initiative. 
Target 5 : By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats, 
including forests, is at least halved  and where feasible 
brought close to zero , and degradation and 
fragmentation is si gnificantly reduced . The EU takes numerous actions on this field both inside 
and outside the EU. Most notably, the creation and management of the Natura 2000 network in EU territories 
and marine areas and through dedicated development 
projects in third countries, or the promotion of Natura 2000-like protected networks in Overseas Territories. All targets in the EU biodivers ity strategy are expected to 
contribute towards achieving this target  
Target 6 : By 2020, all fish and invertebrate stocks and 
aquatic plants are managed and harvested sustainably, 
legally and applying ecosystem based approaches , so 
that overfishing is avoided, recovery plans and measures 
are in place for all depleted species, fisheries have no significant adverse impacts on threatened species and 
vulnerable ecosystems and the impacts of fisheries on 
stocks, species and ecosystems are within safe ecological limits. The EU committed in 2002 to maintain or restore fish 
stocks to levels that can produce Maximum Sustainable 
Yield (MSY) not later than 2020. The Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive sets th e objective to achieve good 
environmental status by 2020. The Common Fisheries Policy should be designed to  assist these processes.  Target 4 is expected to contribute directly towards 
achieving this target, and target 1 and target 5 would 
contribute indirectly.  
Target 7 : By 2020, areas under agriculture, aquaculture 
and forestry are managed sustainably,  ensuring 
conservation of biodiversity.  The Common Agriculture Policy and the Common 
Fisheries Policy are providing the major frame for actions 
to achieve sustainable ag riculture, forestry and 
aquaculture. 
Additionally, there are targeted tools promoted by the EU, 
like certification (e.g. FSC, MSC) , that contribute to global 
target. Targets 3 and 4 are expect ed to contribute towards 
achieving this target.  
Additional measures focusing on aquaculture may be 
required given the lack of a coherent and consistent 
aquaculture policy for the EU. 
Target 8 : By 2020, pollution , including from excess 
nutrients, has been brought to levels that are not 
detrimental to ecosystem function and biodiversity. The EU already has an extensive pollution-related aquis  
covering a wide range of pollutants (nitrates, pesticides, 
air, chemicals, industrial emissions, waste, etc.) NO 
Target 9 : By 2020, invasive alien species and pathways 
are identified and prioritized , priority species are 
controlled or eradicated , and measures are in place to The EU is currently poorly equipped to tackle the 
challenge of invasive alien species as it currently lacks an 
EU framework. However, some existing tools if better Target 5 is expected to contribute directly towards 
achieving this target. 
 
EN 46   EN 2020 Global target (agreed at CBD COP10) Current action(s) within the EU EU co ntribution towards achieving the 2020 global 
target 
manage pathways to prevent their introduction and 
establishment.  fitted (e.g. Plant and Animal Health Regime) may 
contribute. Unless action is taken there is a serious risk that the EU will not reach the 2020 global target. 
Target 10 : By 2015, the multiple anthropogenic 
pressures on coral reefs , and other vulnerable ecosystems 
impacted  by climate change or ocean acidification are 
minimized , so as to maintain their integrity and 
functioning.  The EU has been leading the efforts to combat climate 
change and ocean acidifica tion, and has decided to 
increase its contribution to protect vulnerable marine 
ecosystems by establishing a "Voluntary scheme for 
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Territories of 
European Overseas" (BEST) to promote conservation and 
sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services in 
European overseas entities inspired by the experience with EU nature conservation.  
EU climate commitments are ex pected to highly contribute 
to mitigate climate change. NO 
Target 11 : By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial 
and inland water, and 10 per cent of coastal and 
marine areas , especially areas of pa rticular importance for 
biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved 
through  effectively and equitably managed, ecologically 
representative and well connected systems of protected 
areas  and other effective area-based conservation 
measures, and integrated into the wider landscape and 
seascapes.  
 At present, the Natura 2000 protected areas network 
covers almost 18% of EU territory and designation of 
marine sites is in well underway. In this sense, the EU has 
already partially achieved this target. However, it is clear that further efforts will be needed to reach the 10% coastal 
and marine target, as well as the qualitative dimension of 
the global target.  
 
 Target 1 in particular, as well as targets 3 and 4 of the EU 
biodiversity strategy are ex pected to contribute towards 
achieving this target. 
 
Target 12 : By 2020, the extinction of known threatened 
species has been prevented  and their conservation 
status , particularly of those most in decline, has been 
improved and sustained . The objective of the EU nature conservation policy is 
explicitly the achieving of favourable conservation status of species and habitats covered by the pieces of legislation. 
Additionally, there are other EU policies, the 
implementation of which improves the status of species, All targets in the EU biodivers ity strategy are expected to 
contribute towards achieving this target. 
However, additional action at national and local level will 
also be needed. 
 
EN 47   EN 2020 Global target (agreed at CBD COP10) Current action(s) within the EU EU co ntribution towards achieving the 2020 global 
target 
such as the Water Framework Directive (obligation to 
achieve good ecological status ) or the Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive (obligation to achieve good 
environmental status). The EC support improving 
knowledge on species through promoting monitoring, research as well as the assessment f species' threatenedness 
(Red Lists).  
Target 13 : By 2020, the genetic diversity  of cultivated 
plants and farmed and domesti cated animals and of wild 
relatives, including other socio-economically as well as 
culturally valuable species, is maintained, and strategies 
have been developed and implemented  for minimizing 
genetic erosion and safeguarding their genetic diversity. Action to conserve genetic diversity in the EU is carried 
out at EU and Member State level, including through the 
2nd Community programme on the conservation, 
characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture 2006-2011 which aims inter alia at 
reinforcing the Community's efforts to conserve and 
document plant, animal and microbial genetic resources and eliminating duplication of effort. Additionally, EU 
funds (especially the EAFRD, but also the EU research 
framework programme) provide opportunities to protect genetic diversity especially that of local breeds or 
varieties. In addition to existing measures, a specific action will be 
included under target 3 to support genetic diversity in 
agriculture. 
 
Target 14 : By 2020, ecosystems that provide essential 
services , including services related to water, and 
contribute to health, livelihoods and well-being, are 
restored and safeguarded , taking into account the needs 
of women, indigenous and local communities, and the poor and vulnerable. Though there is no EU policy dedicated to the protection 
and enhancement of ecosystem services, there are several policies having an influence on delivering on this target, 
and work has been started to enable policy making to build 
on ecosystem services (e.g. TEEB, Green Infrastructure, mapping of ecosystem services). Target 2 is directly aimed at improving ecosystem 
services, whereas targets 1, 3, 4 and five are expected to contribute. 
Additional actions will be needed to be taken at national, 
regional and local level. 
Target 15 : By 2020, ecosystem resilience and the 
contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks has been 
enhanced, through conservation and restoration, including 
restoration of at least 15 per cent of degraded 
ecosystems , thereby contributing to climate change 
mitigation and adaptation and to combating desertification.   
Achieving the status based objectives of EU policies (e.g. 
favourable conservation status under the Habitats 
Directive, good ecological status under the Water Framework Directive or good environmental status under 
the Marine Strategy Framework Directive) requires Targets 2 and 1 in particular, as well as targets 3 and 4 of 
the EU biodiversity strategy will contribute towards 
achieving this target. 
However, there is a need to enhance the use of 
ecosystem-based approaches to climate change mitigation 
 
EN 48   EN 2020 Global target (agreed at CBD COP10) Current action(s) within the EU EU co ntribution towards achieving the 2020 global 
target 
restoration. 
The very strong involvement of the EU in Reducing 
Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation 
(REDD) in developing countries yield a significant 
improvement of the contributi on of natural carbon storage 
in ecosystems in developing countries thus combating 
global biodiversity loss.  and adaptation to maximise biodiversity benefits. 
Target 16 : By 2015, the Nagoya Protocol on Access to 
Genetic Resources and the Fa ir and Equitable Sharing 
of Benefits Arising from their Utilization  is in force and 
operational , consistent with national legislation.  There is no EU legislation in place.  The EU w ill need to trans pose into European legislation 
the obligations and provisions of the Nagoya Protocol. 
New EU legislation is likely to be developed in 2012 with 
a view to implementing this target. 
Target 17 : By 2015, each Party has developed, adopted as 
a policy instrument, and has commenced implementing an 
effective, participatory and updated national biodiversity 
strategy and action plan .  
 The 2006 EU Biodiversity Action Plan is no longer 
adequate for ensuring delivery on the 2020 biodiversity 
targets.  The 2020 biodiversity strategy will itself fulfil this target 
for the EU.  
Member States, as individual Parties to the CBD, will 
also be required to develop or review and update/revise their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans.  
Target 18 : By 2020, the traditional knowledge, 
innovations and practices of indigenous and local 
communities relevant for the conservation and sustainable 
use of biodiversity, and their customary use of biological 
resources, are respected, subject to national legislation 
and relevant international obligations, and fully 
integrated and reflected in the implementation  of the 
Convention with the full and effective participation of 
indigenous and local communities, at all relevant levels . Traditional knowledge falls under the exclusive 
competence of the Member States. NO 
Target 19 : By 2020, knowledge, the science base and 
technologies  relating to biodiversity, its values, 
functioning, status and trends, and the consequences of its The EU is supporting biodivers ity-related research through 
its research framework programmes and is strongly 
supporting the establishment of the Inter-governmental To be integrated as a cross-cutting issue in the EU 
biodiversity strategy. 
 
EN 49   EN 2020 Global target (agreed at CBD COP10) Current action(s) within the EU EU co ntribution towards achieving the 2020 global 
target 
loss, are improved, widely shared and transferred, and 
applied . Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). 
Once in place, this Platform will help build strong consensus on scientific ev idence that would secure 
knowledge based sound policy making. This is addressed 
in the monitoring section.  
Target 20 : By 2020, at the latest, the mobilization of 
financial resources  for effectively implementing the 
Strategic Plan 2011-2020 from all sources and in 
accordance with the consolidated and agreed process in 
the Strategy for Resource Mo bilization should increase 
substantially from the current levels . This target will be 
subject to changes contingent to resources needs 
assessments to be developed and reported by Parties. There are funding streams within the EU established to 
contribute to biodiversity, both within the EU in an 
integrated approach and globally through dedicated aid or 
support (see especially An nex on main EU funding 
instruments). 
 Target 6 is expected to contribute towards achieving this 
target. Efforts will need to be stepped up in the lead to 
COP-11 to establish EU funding targets by 2012, as 
agreed in COP-10 in Nagoya. 
 
EN 50   EN ANNEX 11 – SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR SOME PROPOSED MEASURES  
1. Supporting evidence for the na ture protection measures 
– Natura 2000 in Scotland (Environment Group, 2004): The estimates were developed based 
on information from seven representative ca se study areas, extrapolated over the total 
number of Natura 2000 sites in the area. The cost estimates includes direct costs 
(management and policy) and opportunity costs.  The benefits arising from both use values 
(e.g. recreational use) and non-use values we re measured using contingent valuation 
questionnaire surveys (willingness to pay). Fina lly, a cost benefit analysis was carried out 
to estimate the net benefits of  Natura 2000 in Scotland. The be nefit-cost ratios are strongly 
positive (about 7:1 for protection overall, and 12 :1 for the incremental value of the Natura 
2000 designation), and there are additional values not assessed (social, cultural, educational, research, environmental services and health values: all likely to be positive, though possibly partly included in the non-use responses). The broad result that non-use 
values from local and international popula tions could justify Natura 2000 costs and 
opportunity costs seems robust. 
– Natura 2000 in the Netherlands (Kuik et  al, 2006): A 2006 assessment by the Dutch 
Institute for Environmental Studies of the be nefits associated w ith Natura 2000 in the 
Netherlands has provided the estim ated value of different benef its associated with Natura 
2000 sites, calculated as an average of € / ha / year benefits from different key Natura 2000 
ecosystems. Based on these average values, benefits provided by Natura 2000 in the 
Netherlands were estimated to be around € 4000 / ha / year. Recreation and tourism as well 
as wider ecosystem functions were important components of this value. Non-use benefits 
were also important. The provisioning service of raw materials was of  lesser importance in 
the Netherlands. The authors extrapolated th e gross welfare benefits of all Natura 2000 
areas in the Netherlands (1.1 million ha), de riving an estimate of around € 4.5 billion / 
year. 
– Large Blue butterfly conserva tion in Germany (Watzold et al 2008). This study considers 
optimal conservation levels of Large Blue butterflies (protected by the EU Habitats 
Directive) via payments to conserve speci fic times and sequences of mowing regimes on 
which the species depends. Costs include oppo rtunity costs and compensation payments 
needed; Benefits are based on an ecological mo del to determine the ecological effects of 
alternative mowing regimes, coupled with co ntingent valuation. The results show that 
conservation is cost-effective up to maximum level assessed 
2. Supporting evidence for restoration a nd green infrastructure measures 
– Lower Danube Green Corridor (WWF, 2000). Th e 2236 km2 corridor (Bulgaria, Romania, 
Moldova and Ukraine) has made significant improvements to water quality; increased 
biodiversity; lowered risks fr om flooding; and improved lo cal livelihoods. The flood in 
2005 caused an estimated €396 million worth of damage. The cost of the restoration has been estimated at €183 billion. The estimated va lue of the ecosystem se rvices provided is 
€500ha/yr and additional future earnings are estimated at €85.6 million per year. 
– River Elbe floodplain restora tion (Meyerhoff and Dehnhardt, 2007). The context of this 
study is restoration along Rive r Elbe (Germany) through dike shifting, reducing agriculture 
 
EN 51   EN impact and constructing fish ladders. This comb ines a partial a cost benefit analysis based 
on CV study, avoidance costs,  engineering costs and la nd opportunity costs, and a 
statistical model of nitrogen retention as a re sult of reduced water runoff velocities in two 
areas, then scaled up to whol e restoration area. Recreation and flood protection benefits, 
carbon benefits and/or methane disbenefits were  not valued and could be significant, which 
would strengthen conclusions. 8 scenarios were considered, with BCRs ranging from 2.5 to 
4.1. Separate sensitivity scenarios still pr oduced a positive NPV, providing robust support 
for the conclusion that NPVs are positive. 
– Skjern river restoration in Denmark (Dubgaard, 2004). This study focused on the 
restoration of the Skjern river from a cha nnelled river to a meande ring course, with the 
creation of outflows from the river to the Fjord with the intention of forming a delta of app. 
220 ha in time, the creation of a lake of approximately 160 ha, pe rmitting periodical floods 
on land within the proj ect area. This would involve the tr ansfer of 1,550 ha of arable land 
to extensive grazing. An ex-post CBA which uses value transfer, market prices and 
replacement costs to value costs and benefits, showed that up to at least 5% social discounting, the project appears to have a posi tive net present value. The net present value 
was of DDK 228 million at 3% disco unt rate, and 67 million at 5%.  
– Blackwater Estuary, UK (Luisetti et al., 2008). This study focused on an estuary of 5,500 
hectares with open water, mudflats and sa ltmarshes, and the costs and benefits of 
maintaining flood defences with sea-level rise  and coastal squeeze of intertidal wetlands. 
Benefits were estimated through a production f unction for fish (bass) and sediment burial 
estimates from simultaneous fisheries and biogeochemistry studies, carbon calculations 
taking into account methane and nitrous oxide em issions, market prices for coastal defence 
work (costs avoided) and fish  production function; three carb on price estimates, and finally 
stated preference for “co mposite environmental benefit”. Re sults show that with constant 
discount rate, the highest NPV is the Deep  Green scenario (£106m over 25 years, £192m 
over 100 years) but with declining discount rate s the Extended Deep Green scenario looks 
better over longer horiz ons. Overall, the study shows that  managed realignment can be 
cost-beneficial if accoun t is taken of non-marketed benefits, in particular for conservation 
and recreation. 
– National Forest, UK (eftec, 2010). Large regene ration area including some former landfill 
sites, quarries, other post-industri al brownfield sites, in the context of a long-term project 
to create woodlands and priority open habita ts on 33% of The National Forest land area. 
The study estimated £178m of costs based on actual and predicted expenditures for 
achieving the objectives, compared to £1,623m of  benefits, largely fr om recreation, with 
lesser contributions from carbon, biodiversity a nd aesthetic values in particular. Results 
indicate a Net Present Value of £1.44bn, and a Cost Benefit ratio of 9.1:1. 
– Agro-ecosystem of Sint-Truiden, Belgium (T urkelboom, 2010). A series of actions were 
undertaken primarily to protect the village  from soil erosion and mud floods, including 
almost 20 hectares of grassed waterways, 150 hectares of grassed buffer strips, 40 earthen 
dams (retention ponds) and 150 ha of conservation tillage in the catchm ent. The total cost 
of the control measures is low (€126/ha/20 years) . This figure is low if one compares to the 
saving of the damage and clea n-up costs caused by muddy floods  in the study  area (€54 
/ha/year) and all the secondary  benefits, which included improvement of downstream water 
quality; reduction in downstream dredging costs; reduced psyc hological stress to 
inhabitants who were frequently  threatened by muddy floods ; increase in biodiversity 
 
EN 52   EN (birds and mammals); and enhanced landscap e quality due to the new green and blue 
corridors through the landscape.  Local entrepreneurs responde d to bikers and hikers 
exploring the area by transforming traditional fa rms into bed-&-breakfast facilities, and by 
promoting agro- and eco-tourism. 
3. Supporting evidence for agri-fo restry related measures 
– A study on restoring land to increase forage for bumblebees in intensively farmed 
landscapes in UK (Pywell et al. 2006) shows cl ear benefits from pollination services for 
semi-natural ecosystems and a wide range of  agricultural and horti cultural crops, and many 
garden plants. 
– An assessment of costs and benefits of w ild goose conservation in Scotland (Macmillan et 
al., 2004) demonstrates that wild goose numbers  have risen rapidly over the past 30 years 
which cause some damage in crops. Farmer s receive compensation for putting in place 
conservation schemes (feeding and buffer areas for geese on farmland). The study 
estimated the willingness to pay of the genera l public for goose conservation measures and 
the costs of goose damage to agriculture. Th e resulting cost-benefit ratio was of 700:1 for 
measures allowing a 10% increase in endange red species, and 113:1 for measures allowing 
a 10% increase in all species. The study conc luded that goose conser vation measures were 
good value for money for taxpayers. 
– The assessment “Agriculture-forest conversion in Wales” (Bateman et al, 2005) looks at 
costs and benefits of establishing multi-pur pose woodland on agricultu re land. Net benefits 
in the latter areas re ach as high as £200/ha /year in 1990 prices. Over all the analysis shows 
that there are substantial areas  of Wales which would yield si gnificant net social benefits 
from conversion out of agriculture and into multi-purpose woodland. 
4. Supporting evidence for fish eries related measures 
– Several studies showed that overfishing has significant economic impacts. Cod fishing in 
the Baltic in 2002 represented a cost of US$ 128.6 million comp ared with what could have 
been harvested with sustainable yields. Sim ilarly, the North Sea cod fishery lost US$ 195.3 
(WWF-Germany, 2002). Economic and social c onsequences of failing to apply Maximum 
Sustainable Yield (MSY) was also drama tically demonstrated in the case of 
Newfoundland, Canada after the collapse of Nort h Atlantic cod stocks in the early 1990s. 
The sector provided between 80 and 100% of income in some communities, and 20% of 
the population was employed in the fishery. The collapse resulted in over 40,000 people losing their jobs, including 10,000 fishermen.  
– Ecosystem-based fisheries management has re sulted in highly successful fish stock 
rebuilding efforts in Californi a, the northeast United States  and northwest Australia. 
Efforts have involved experimentation with clos ed areas, gear and e ffort restrictions, and 
new approaches to catch allocation and enforcement. 
– Marine conservation zones in the UK (Defra 2009): The study looks at costs to government 
for implementing and maintaining the marine c onservation network as well as the costs to 
business from restrictions on activity and bene fits from the conservation zones (including 
food and raw materials; nutrient cycling; climate regul ation; sea defence; cognitive values 
(research spending) and expenditure (educa tion) with specific marine focus. The 
conclusion is that active conservation of the UK marine habitat has a positive net present 
 
EN 53   EN value. Establishment of a ne twork of marine conservati on zones (MCZs) throughout UK 
waters has a Benefit Cost Ratio of betw een 6.7 and 38.9. Sensitivity testing shows that 
even given the uncertainty in the estimates it is rather unlikely that the BCR could be 
below 1. 
– Restricting damaging fishi ng practices (Homarus Ltd, 2007). The study considers a 
proposed conservation zone of  60 square nautical miles centred on Lyme Regis, UK. 
Within this area, scallop dredging would be st opped, but more sustainable forms of fishing 
would be allowed (e.g. dive ca tching of scallops, crustacean  potting and fixed netting of 
skates and rays), as would recreational use. The results suggest that benefits from other 
uses are at least double benefits from scall op dredging. This provides good evidence that 
protection would be bene ficial, given that the environmen tal benefits of protection are 
unknown but certainly positive. 
5. Supporting evidence for measures rel ated to Invasive Alien Species 
– McConnachie et al. (2003) revi ew 10 benefit-cost studies of  successful biological control 
programs, including four insect pests, four te rrestrial weeds, and two aquatic weeds. For 
terrestrials, the benefit-cost ratios range from 1.9:1 to 24:1. 
– Van Wilgen et al. (2004) estimat e the costs and benefits of bi ocontrol of six invasive weed 
species in South Africa, where biocontrol ha s been practiced since 1910. They estimate 
benefit-cost ratios ranging from 8:1 for red Sesbania  to 709:1 for jointed cactus. 
6. Supporting evidence for measures related  to achieving the global target 
– Conservation in Sumatran oil palm plantati ons - Bateman et al (2009), Bateman et al 
(2008). This study looked at costs of possibl e conservation measures within palm oil 
plantations in Sumatra, which would contribu te to sustaining tiger populations and other 
species in surrounding land. This is comp ared to potential price premium for 
‘conservation-grade’ palm oil. The analysis show s a ‘win-win’ situation in that the optimal 
areas for biodiversity are also the areas w ith least opportunity cost. The smallest 
conservation area scheme requires only the lowest (15%) price premium to generate a small yet positive net benefit for the plantation; larger schemes are not viable at the lower price premium level. The results suggest th at a reorganization of  conservation efforts 
incorporating the strategies underpinning recent conservation-grade and Fairtrade 
production movements would provide an economi c incentive for a majority of plantations 
to see conservation as an econom ically beneficial undertaking. 
– Coral mining in Indonesia and Sri Lanka - Ohman and Cesar, 2000. This study examines 
the socio-economic effects of coral mini ng for lime production in Lombok, Indonesia and 
Sri Lanka. Extraction of corals has a detrimenta l effect on the reef ecosystem and recovery 
is slow. Tourism is an important industr y in Lombok and is gr owing rapidly. Other 
activities include fishing and mangrove forestr y. The study compares cost-benefit analyses 
of two sites of coral mining. The analyses pr oduces different values  which reflects the 
biological differences in fisheries in the two areas as well as the production differences in 
lime from coral. Both studies suggest net economic losses from coral mining once the ecosystem service impacts are taken into account. 
–
 Mangrove conservation, Southern Thailand - Sa thirathai and Barbier,  2001 – This study 
reviews the case of conservation of mangroves in Southern Thailand versus conversion to 
 
EN 54   EN shrimp farms, when water and flood protec tion services are take n into account. The study 
compares costs and benefits of three different  land-use options for mangroves in Southern 
Thailand, and concludes that th e value of conserving mangroves in Surat Thani Province is 
higher than that of converting mangroves to shrimp farms. 
References 
Bateman, I.J., Lovett, A.A., & Brainard, J.S. 2005. Applied Environmental Economics: A GIS 
Approach to Cost-Benefit Analysis  Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. 
Bateman, IJ, Fisher, B, Glew, DW and Watk inson, A, 2008. Making Tigers Pay: Marketing 
Conservation Of The Sumatran Tiger Thro ugh ‘Tiger Friendly’ Oil Palm Production, 
CSERGE Working Paper ECM 08-06 
Bateman, IJ, Coombes, E, Fisher, B, Fitzherbert, E, Glew, D and Naidoo, R, 2009. Saving 
Sumatra’s species: Combining economics and eco logy to define an efficient and self-
sustaining program for inducing conservation wi thin oil palm plantations, CSERGE Working 
Paper EDM 09-03Defra 2009, Marine and coastal acce ss bill impact assessment: 
Introduction to the House of Commons , Defra, London. 
Dubgaard, A. 2004, Cost-benefit analysis of we tland restoration, Journal of Water and Land 
Development 8, 87-102 
Eftec, 2010, Flood and coastal erosion risk manage ment: Economic valuation of 
environmental effects - Annex 1 , Defra. 
Environmental Group, 2004. An Economic Assessmen t of the Costs and Benefits of Natura 
2000. Sites in Scotland, Scottish Executive Research Report 2004/05 
Homarus Ltd, 2007. Estimate of Economic Valu es of Activities in Proposed Conservation 
Zone in Lyme Bay Report to the Wildlife Trusts 
Kuik, O., Brander, L. & Schaafsma, M. 2006. Globale Batenraming van Natura 2000 
gebieden.  
Luisetti, T., Turner, K., & Bateman, I. 2008. An ecosystem services approach to assess 
managed realignment coastal policy in England . CSERGE Working Paper ECM 08-04 
Macmillan, D., Hanley, N., & Daw, M. 2004. Costs and benefits of wild goose conservation 
in Scotland. Biological Conservation , 119: 475-485  
McConnachie, A.J., M.P. de Wit, M.P. Hill, and M.J. Byrne. 2003. Economic Evaluation of 
the Successful Biological Control of Azolla filiculoides in South Africa. Biological Control  
28(1): 25–32.  
Meyerhoff, J. & Dehnhardt, A. 2007. The Euro pean water framework directive and economic 
valuation of wetlands: The restorati on of floodplains along the river Elbe. European 
 
EN 55   EN Environment , 17, (1) 18-36 available from: 
http://www.scopus.com/scopus/inward/r ecord.url?eid=2-s2.0-33947531665&partnerID=40   
Ohman, M. C. & Cesar, H. S. J. 2000. "C osts and Benefits of Coral Mining," In Collected 
Essays on the Economics of coral Reefs , H. S. J. Cesar, ed., Kalmar, Sweden: CORDIO, pp. 
85-93. 
Pywell R.F., Warman E.A., Hulmes L., Hulmes S., Nuttall P., Sparks T.H., Critchley C.N.R. 
& Sherwood A., 2006. Effectiveness of new ag ri-environment schemes in providing foraging 
resources for bumblebees in in tensively farmed landscapes. Biological Conservation , 129, 
192-206 
Sathirathai, S. & Barbier, E.B. 2001. Valuing mangrove cons ervation in Southern Thailand. 
Contemporary Economic Policy , 19, (2) 109-122 
Turkelboom, F. (2010) TEEBcase 'Changed agro-management to prevent muddy floods, 
Belgium, available at: TEEBweb.org. 
van Wilgen, B.W., M.P. de Wit, H.J. Anderson, D.C. Le Maitre, I.M. Kotze, S. Ndala, B. 
Brown, and M.B. Rapholo. 2004. Costs and Benefits of Biological Control of Invasive Alien 
Plants: Case Studies from South Africa. South African Journal of Science  100(1/2): 113–122. 
WWF-Germany, 2002. The economics of a tragedy at sea: Costs of overfi shing of cod from 
the North Sea and the Baltic. (2002 converted to US$, rate from 31.12.2002, http://fxtop.com/de/cnvhisto.php3).
 
EN 56   EN ANNEX 12 – EXAMPLES OF GOOD PRACTICE ON RESTORATION AND GREEN 
INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE EU 
1. STRENGTHENING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES  
France: Réseau pollinisateurs - pollination 
Given that 35% of the food resources of Fr ance depend on pollinators, France is creating 250 
km of pollinator corridors along side of highways.  The aim is to extend this exercise to 12.000 
km of highways in the next years. 
Austria: Vienna - Rax-Schneeberg-Schneealp en massif – drinking water purification 
The per capita consumption of water in Vienna is 150 litres per day. About 95% of annual 
water supplies come from springs in the Ra x, Schneeberg, Schneealpe mountains and from 
the Hochschwab mountain massif. The Vienna C ity Constitution put Vi enna’s water and the 
forests surrounding the springs under protection or ders provide for pure drinking water at any 
time. Vienna established water protection ar eas and preservation areas were proclaimed 
around the supply sources. In 1965, for instan ce, the whole Rax-Schneeberg-Schneealpen 
massif was declared a water protection area. Th e Forestry Office of the City of Vienna 
administers a total area of appr oximately 32,000 hectares of forest, mountain pastures and 
meadows in the Rax and Schneeberg area as well as in the Hoch schwab massif, enabling it to 
coordinate the use of all country area, tourism, hunting and fishing activities with the requirements of spring protection.  
Ireland: Anne Valley – local solutions for waste water purification 
In Anne Valley, Ireland, an integrated cons tructed wetland (ICW) was created instead of 
installing a traditional treatment plant. Not only  the wetland is more efficient in clearing 
mostly livestock wastewater than a comparable  traditional sewage plant, it also offers 
multiple benefits for the ecosystem services the wetland provides: water purification, fresh 
water, climate regulation and carbon sequestration, flood contro l, recreational aspects, soil 
formation and nutrient cycling - and it provides a suitable habita t for wetland flora and fauna. 
Farmers are quoted that they are only keeping th eir farming business due to the installation of 
this wetland, and the aesthetical value of the ar ea has considerably increased. Capital costs for 
1750 population equivalents were 770,000 EUR + 165,000 EUR for scientific monitoring of 
the project over three years. This sum include s costs for tourism facilities of 220.000 EUR, 
and maintenance costs are lower than for a traditional plant. This favourably compares to estimated costs of 1.530.000 EUR for an equivalent  traditional plant. Financing stems from 
LIFE and INTERREG III A programmes + local funding sources. 
Denmark: Copenhagen - Green r oofs for climate regulation and provision of habitats 
The City of Copenhagen has set out four require ments for green roofs. Buildings with green 
roofs should be able to meet at least two of the following effects: 
Absorb 50-80% of the precipitation that falls on the roof, provide a cooling and insulating 
effect of the building and reduce reflection, he lp make the city green er, reducing the urban 
heat island effect, counteracting the increased  temperatures in the city. They will also 
 
EN 57   EN contribute to a visual and aesthetic architectur al variation that has a positive effect on the 
quality of life and double the roof life of th e roofing membrane by pr otecting it against UV 
rays. 
Similar policies take place in Germany (Osnab rück), Switzerland (Basel - where 10% of 
buildings have a green roof), Copenhagen, wher e there are mandatory green roof objectives. 
2. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION /ADAPTATION  
Belgium: Dijle River – prevent flooding by grassland protection 
LIFE funding enabled Natuurpunt, a Flemish NGO,  to acquire land alo ng the banks of the 
Dijle, in Leuven, and to remove obstacles to flooding, such as poplars and maize crops. 
Before the implementation of the project actio ns, flooding would regularly affect areas of 
Leuven, including the famous University campus . However, since the completion of the 
project, the city has not experienced flooding for several years. The dual conservation and 
flood management benefits of the project means that it has been a win- win situation. It has 
also proven to be a cheaper al ternative to constructing a large dam near the city, even taking 
account of the cost of buying the land.  
Hungary: Tisza- HU- flood management 
From September 2005 onwards, the Hungarian Tisza River Floodplain is conserved and 
restored through Integrated Floodplain Ma nagement. The project is managed by the 
UNDP/Global Environment Facility and will main stream biodiversity conservation within 
floodplain management across the Tisza River Floodplain. The project will significantly 
improve management of 1,600 km2 through activitie s within pilot areas, while moderately 
influencing an estimated area of 9,400 km2 (about 20% of the Grea t Hungarian Plain) 
applying supportive policy environment and institu tional capacity building at the local level. 
In addition, Hungary is planning to use farmland to hold up to a billion cubic meters of water 
to prevent flooding elsewhere. The Hungarian g overnment will create a dozen reservoirs on 
farmland near the Tisza that will be allowed to flood during emergencies. Two is operational 
since end of 2006 and up to 12 by 2020. 
Netherlands: Rhine Delta Project - flood and coastal management 
Due to anticipated climatic changes the Rhine delta river branches have to accommodate ever-
higher extreme discharges. Until r ecently it was standard policy to raise the crest levels of the 
dikes to maintain the required level of flood  protection. This cent uries’ old policy was 
abandoned in 2000 in favour of ‘Room for the Rive r’. In the new policy, river cross sections 
are widened by situating the dikes further away  from the river, or by lowering the river 
forelands. This will result in lower flood levels. By the year 2015 the rive r should be able to 
safely discharge 16,000 m3/s. 
Improvement of overall environmental conditions : In giving ‘Room for the River’ care should 
be taken not to affect valuable features of landscape, nature and cultural history. More space 
can also be found by enlarging the river channel within the dikes. In the process, one should 
aim at a balance between present and foreseeable  future spatial requirements, keeping an open 
eye for every opportunity to enhance safety as well as the master landscaping and the 
improvement of overall environmental conditions.  
 
EN 58   EN 3. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR BIODIVERSITY AND CONNECTIVITY  
France- Trame Verte et Bleue  
Within its Grenelle de l'Environnement proce ss, France has passed a new law to create a 
green and blue infrastructure across the country – known as la  Trame Verte et Bleue (TVB) 
by 2012 which will become an indispensable elemen t of all future spatial planning policies. 
The legislation is being tested through a series  of pilot projects in 45 regional national parks 
across France. The green infrastructure network will be founded on scientific data and include 
protected areas and other areas in  order to ensure the connectiv ity and global functionality of 
biodiversity across the country. The blue infrastructure networ k will have an equivalent 
structure for fresh water bodies a nd their associated ecosystems.  
Czech Republic and Slovakia- "ecocenters"   
These countries have developed so called "Terr itorial system of ecological stability, which 
consists of so called "ecocente rs" and interactive elements (eco-corridors) at three levels 
(local, regional, supra-regional).  
The Netherlands - Building up a National Ecological Network 
The Dutch government decided in 1990, follow ing a multi-year research programme, to 
develop a National Ecological Network that coul d provide the long-term basis for ecological 
sustainability throughout the country. Given th e scale of the initiative, establishing the 
network is a long-term enterprise w ith full implementation scheduled for 2018. 
The National Ecological Network as originally ad opted in 1990 was an “oversized” indicative 
map of core areas, nature development areas and co rridors. It is the task of the 12 provinces to 
delineate the precise boundaries  of the network. This is being done using 132 habitat and 
landscape types for which minimum aggregate total areas have been fixed at national level. 
The final network is intended to cover about  730,000 hectares, or 17.5 per cent of the Dutch 
countryside.  
 
EN 59   EN ANNEX 13 – SYNTHESIS OF EXISTING TOOLS UNDER KEY EU INSTRUMENTS ADDRESSING INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES  
ACTIVITY ANIMAL HEALTH 
INSTRUMENTS PLANT HEALTH 
DIRECTIVE WILDLIFE 
TRADE 
REGULATION AQUACULTURE 
REGULATION HABITATS 
AND BIRDS 
DIRECTIVES WATER 
FRAMEWORK 
DIRECTIVE MARINE 
STRATEGY 
FRAMEWORK 
DIRECTIVE COMMENTS 
Scope/coverage         
Taxonomic coverage  Animal pathogens 
& diseases  
Wild bird imports 
(avian flu) Animals, plants, 
pathogens to the extent 
these are ‘harmful 
organisms’ (pests of plants or plant products) ‘Species’ Aquatic 
organisms/GMOs  ‘Species’ Not limited. ‘Species ’ AQR not applicable to pet-
shops, garden centres or aquaria.  
Impact coverage  Health of farmed & 
wild animals (Current) direct impacts 
on plants  
 Ecological (wild 
native species) Biodiversity & 
ecosystem functions Natural habitats, 
wild native species Ecological (inland, 
transitional, coastal waters) Ecological 
impact (marine waters)  
Risk assessment & decision-making procedures         
Decision level COM  MS initiate proposals: 
adopted at COM level COM MS 
COM oversight if 
transboundary  MS  MS MS  
Listing mechanism Black (open) Black (open) Black (open) White (closed): 
exemptions for 
long-used species  Variable, mainly 
black N/A N/A  
Adaptable to 
biogeographic/areas? 9 (zonation) 9(‘protected zones’) No 9(explicit) Depends on 
interpretation of 
‘territory’ 9(river basins) 9 (marine 
regions) WFD/MSFD both based on 
ecosystem approach. 
Formal risk assessment?  9 EFSA 9 EFSA No 9(non-routine 
movements) 9 (impacts to 
Natura 2000 sites) N/A N/A  
Prevention          
 
EN 60   EN ACTIVITY ANIMAL HEALTH 
INSTRUMENTS PLANT HEALTH 
DIRECTIVE WILDLIFE 
TRADE 
REGULATION AQUACULTURE 
REGULATION HABITATS 
AND BIRDS 
DIRECTIVES WATER 
FRAMEWORK 
DIRECTIVE MARINE 
STRATEGY 
FRAMEWORK 
DIRECTIVE COMMENTS 
Import 9 9  
 
 9 (9) N/A N/A N/A AQR references EU fish health 
legislation applicable to imports 
Intra-EU movement/ 
holding 9 9 BUT  not possible for 
HO once established or 
common in part of EU, 
unless protected zone  9(not used) 9(‘closed’ 
facilities) N/A If needed If needed Unclear for MS (Single Mkt, 
holding in captivity)  
Introduction to wild  N/A N/A (movement focus) N/A 9(‘open’ facilities) 9 If needed If needed Renewable Energy Directive: 
biofuel plantation to avoid ecol. 
impacts 
Unintentional 
introductions: 
commodities/transport 9 9 N/A 9(‘non-target 
organisms’) N/A If needed 9(ballast water)  
Unintentional: corridors 
and natural spread N/A Under consideration N/A (Implicit) N/A If needed If needed  
Early warning & rapid response        NOBANIS 
Surveillance & monitoring  9(being strengthened) 9 (under review) N/A 9 (2 years min.) Yes, monitoring 
is required for 
Annex.species Big MS variations  9 (specific 
descriptor) WFD and MSFD: EU guidance 
in progress 
Reporting & information 
exchange 9 9(under review) N/A 9 Yes, Article 17-
reports (6 yrs-
intervals) N/A N/A  
Contingency planning 9(being strengthened) 9 (under review) N/A 9 (MS) N/A N/A N/A  
Fast track decisions for 
emergency action  9  9  N/A 9 (MS) N/A If needed If needed  
 
EN 61   EN ACTIVITY ANIMAL HEALTH 
INSTRUMENTS PLANT HEALTH 
DIRECTIVE WILDLIFE 
TRADE 
REGULATION AQUACULTURE 
REGULATION HABITATS 
AND BIRDS 
DIRECTIVES WATER 
FRAMEWORK 
DIRECTIVE MARINE 
STRATEGY 
FRAMEWORK 
DIRECTIVE COMMENTS 
EU co-financing? 9  9 (under review) N/A No 9(but mechanism 
not fast)    
Control and management         
Long-term management No No N/A 9 9 (N2000/ 
protected species)  9 (good 
ecol.status) 9 (good env 
status)  
Ecological restoration No No N/A 9 (remediation) 9 (N2000/ 
protected species)  9 (good 
ecol.status) 9 (good env 
status)  
Cross-cutting instruments 
& infrastructure support          
Funding (variable scope) 9 (Solidarity) 9 (Solidarity) 9 (Occasional, 
contract 
services) N/A LIFE+ 
(management, 
awareness raising, 
etc.) 
Contract services    Opportunities under EAFRD, 
INTERREG, RTD framework 
programmes, contract services, 
etc.  
Responsibility & cost 
recovery Under development Under development  9 Env.Liability    
Capacity building 9 9 9      
Research  9 9 9 (Occasional) (9) RTD (limited) 
 9 9  
Shine, C., Kettunen, M. Genovesi, P., Essl, F. Gollasch, S., Rab itsch, W., Scalera, R., Starfinger , U. and ten brink, P. 2010. Assessment to support continued development of the EU 
Strategy to combat invasive alien species. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels, Belgium. 
 
EN 62   EN ANNEX 14 – MARKET BASED INSTRUMENTS AND POTENTIAL FINANCING MECHANISMS FOR 
BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION  
Market-based instruments (MBI) aim at interna lising the external cost s of consumption and 
production activities on the environment, includ ing biodiversity. If we ll designed, they can 
contribute to reaching the objective of halting bi odiversity loss at a lower cost than command 
and control instruments. Potential economic in struments for the management of biodiversity 
and ecosystem services include: 
• taxes, fees and charges; 
• subsidies; 
• tradable permits; 
• certification schemes a nd (eco-)labelling; 
• liability and 
• off-setting, compensation schemes. 
Economic instruments have been used in the EU  to protect biodiversity, whether at local, 
national or EU leve l. A Commission study1 analysed over 200 examples of the application of 
market based instruments for the preservation of biodiversity in EU  Member States. The 
majority of countries use MBI for biodiversity c onservation. In the majo rity of cases, MBIs 
are applied in the field of habitat and ecosystem  conservation. However,  practices vary across 
the EU. For example, subsidies are most comm only used in Northern and Western Europe, 
whereas in Central and Eastern Europe, taxes and charges appear to be more common though 
this varies (e.g. taxes are widely used in Poland but subsidies are more common in the Czech Republic). 
Tradable permits for the moment are mainly restricted to fishing and hunting permits. There 
are however a number of pilot projects (mai nly in the UK, the Netherlands, France and 
Germany) to explore in what circumstances tradable permits for habitat areas (so called 
“Habitat banking”) could be implemented. 
At EU level, instruments such as Payments for Ecosystem Services
531 have also been used 
extensively in farming and forestry, where ag ri-environment and forest-environment measures 
reward agricultural and forest practices th at favour biodiversity and certain ecosystem 
services. 
Lessons learnt through implementation in the EU so far are that well-d esigned and credibly 
implemented MBIs seem to be able to delive r biodiversity objectives cost-efficiently. Many 
examples of MBIs show that they work best not as a substitute to regulatory approaches, but 
complementary to them. It will  often be desirable to use so me combination of MBIs and 
                                                 
53 A Payment for Ecosystem services is defined as “a voluntary transaction whereby a well-defined 
ecosystem service, or a land-use likel y to secure that service, is being bought by at least one buyer from 
at least one provider, if, and only if, the pr ovider secures the provision of the service“. 
 
EN 63   EN regulatory approaches to achieve the desired ai ms. In general, MBIs like taxes, fees and 
charges can be seen as approaches that are us eful to limit damage to existing biodiversity 
while MBIs offering subsidies/support (e.g. ag ri-environmental measures) and eco-labelling 
or other certification schemes can foster the provision of 'new ' biodiversity or the 
enhancement of its quality. MBIs can also act as a way of conserving the quality of 
biodiversity whilst generating income, enha ncing the acceptance of stakeholders; the 
generated income can then be used to fund biodiversity management needs. 
The use of MBIs is more suitable in some ar eas of application, than  others. There may be 
some limitations in terms of public acceptance. For example, although individual tradable 
quotas have been successfully used to manage  fisheries in New Zeal and, Canada, the United 
States and Iceland, its implementation may enc ounter more difficulties in the EU. Or the 
structure of the externality itself may make th e use of MBI more complex, for example in the 
case of invasive alien species. Greening agricult ure is an area where MBIs have been used 
with success and where there is scope for building on existing experience, as well as new instruments to provide stronger and more consistent incentives . The use of habitat banking 
has also been used with some success for example in the United States and Australia. Pilot initiatives in EU Member States  will also provide some lessons  on whether this could be used 
more extensively in the EU. 
Many MBIs can also generate f unding for biodiversity objectiv es. Other innovative financial 
instruments (such as green investing, and other instruments described in the table below) have 
so far been used to a limited extent in th e EU, but are undergoing a dynamic development and 
should also be considered as part  of the packages of measures. 
 
EN 64   EN Table: Traditional and innovative financing instruments for biodiversity conservation 
    Geographic area  Applicability to Biodiversity target Weaknesses/needs for improved 
performance  
Source of 
funds Available Instruments L/R Nat EU/
Int AG
RI/F
ORE
ST FIS
H IAS NAT
URE RES
TOR GLO
BAL 
    
Private Protected areas entrance and use 
fees X      x  x   
core component of PA funding better calculation of prices 
introduce ecological sustainability when 
extractive/harvesting uses 
Private Tourism-related incomes X X X x x  x x  can recover resource costs 
can capture WTP from the visitors diversification of tourism markets 
rural/local development 
can be used to manage demand investments to improve facilities 
expertise to provide and market these services 
calculation of prices and charges 
Private Markets for sustainable rural/local 
products X X   x   x x  can promote and communicate the value of the resource can assist in branding of a protected area 
work in combination with  local/rural development 
moneys are distributed to local communities certification is a top-up investment needed for certification 
developing markets/marketing 
Private Innovative goodwill fundraising 
instruments (Internet based, etc) X X X x x  x x  
very innovative source of funds that seek to reach global ‘small’ contributors 
additionality is key need for making it policy specific and 
targeting 
mainstream the instruments in policy need for new creative ideas and 
marketing 
Private Green lotteries X X X x x  x x  new tool to mobilise funds 
appeal to consumers and wider public works better when associated with biodiversity of 
high value need for publicity and marketing 
PrivateP
ublic Non-profit organisation (NGOs, 
foundations, trusts and charities) funding  
X X X x x x x x x important source of funds overall, provided at habitat level or species leve l, can help in mobilising 
actors to donate need to sustain and increase donor and 
public interest in biodiversity increase interaction with donors/public 
develop new approaches and marketing 
Private/
Public (International) Markets for all 
type of ecosystem services (PES) and green markets 
  X X x x x x x x 
use has increased recently opportunity to generate revenues for services and not only extractive use 
can provide compensation to landowners  need for developing design guidelines, 
supportive policy and legislative frameworks 
improved methodologies for establishing 
the biophysical links, set prices, monitor delivery of services 
 
EN 65   EN     Geographic area  Applicability to Biodiversity target Weaknesses/needs for improved 
performance  
Private/
Public Bio-prospecting   X X      x  immediate link with biodiversity and protected 
areas 
can develop significant potential and mobilise 
additional funds R&D and administrative costs 
need for highly specialised knowledge 
need to work toge ther with access and 
benefit sharing (ABS) 
Private Public Private Partnerships (PPP) & business-public-NGO 
partnerships 
X X X x   x x x can evolve in the context of business CSR 
measure included in the menu of many 
international financing efforts (Climate Change, 
poverty, etc) experiences exist 
flexibility and adaptability can be applied tendency to ‘move on’ 
local/regional implementation can be 
more stable 
Private Business voluntary standards   X X    x    can be developed for protected area and sustainable 
practices although not really bringing actual money they can contribute to sustainable management of protected 
area and local development not all business can follow, as standards 
are costly even for those who introduce/are leaders 
Private Businesses’ goodwill investments (like Corporate Social Responsibility - CSR) 
X X X    x x x 
potential for increasing corporate support/sponsoring  Need to sustain and increase interest in 
biodiversity, increase interaction with private sector, develop new approaches 
and marketing  
Private Venture capital and portfolio 
(green) investments   X X x   x x  
Potential for mobilising corporate funds in a sustainable way; sponsoring protected areas and species; can support envi ronmental business from 
SMEs near the protected area  High administrative costs; may generate 
low returns and loose support from capital/investors; Providing for corporate 
tax relief associated with these 
mechanisms may further support their uptake 
Public/P
rivate Biodiversity cap-and-trade 
schemes and market-based 
instruments (MBI) (e.g. off-sets, habitat banking) 
    X    x x x 
Instrument that can help in but mostly around 
protected area; can mobilise significant funds; can 
create markets for biodiversity and their services Costs for administration; implementation 
at global level and 
registration/monitoring; further work on equivalency methods and their 
application may be needed 
Public/P
rivate Carbon emission permits (use part 
of the auctions)   X X    x  x Can provide complementary funds for protected areas; some synergies can strengthen between climate change adaptation and ecosystem financing 
needs Competition for the distribution of the 
resources coming from actions/permits between different environmental 
purposes 
Public Government budgetary allocations X X X x x x x x x 
Core component of protected area funding, but are 
not enough on their own Some evidence of protected area funding 
decline; resources often driven to / compete with other priorities, strengthening policy integration and 
mainstreaming protected area is needed 
Public Earmarking public revenues   X X x x x x x x Can potentially provide sufficient resources that 
will go to protected area and biodiversity conservation Quite difficult to achieve: if resources 
earmarked for environmental purposes there is competition between different 
 
EN 66   EN     Geographic area  Applicability to Biodiversity target Weaknesses/needs for improved 
performance  
environmental goals/policies 
Public Environment-related taxes 
(national or international)   X X x x x x x x Taxing (or increase taxation) to international trade; some products are related to nature (timber, etc); 
others (aviation, shipping) are of environmental 
nature but already can be accepted.  Competition about the distribution of 
revenues between different 
environmental causes 
Public Environmental tax reform   X X x x  x x x Reforming taxation of international currency 
transactions can bring important resources for 
environmental purposes (climate and biodiversity)  Political will is needed for 
environmental tax reform; 
internationally this require more efforts 
Public Reforming subsidies (rural 
development, fisheries, etc)   X X x x  x x x Can help provide subsidies for land owners and users of protected area that will allow sustainable use of the resource, or even will allow to 
implement protected area management Better calculation of prices/subsidies, 
design of subsidies to be more green, but quite difficult to achieve consensus and 
harmonised approach at global level 
Public Benefit-sharing and revenue-
sharing x X      x  x Integral component of protected area funding; potential to offset local opportunity costs; increase availability of local funds; tapping into 
development sources; im proving benefit sharing Need for design and communication 
with local/national authorities; monitoring of its implementation to 
demonstrate benefits 
Public Reforms in the international 
monetary system     X      x  Reforming taxation of international currency transactions can bring important resources for environmental purposes (climate and biodiversity)  Political will is needed for agreeing the 
introduction of such taxes internationally 
Public Bilateral and/or multilateral aid 
(and GEF)     X      x  
Core component of protected area funding; source of direct budgetary support to protected area Some evidence of funding decline; 
Major reorientation to poverty reduction 
and sustainable development may drive resources to other priorities; 
strengthening integration and 
mainstreaming of protected area is needed 
Public Debt-for-nature swaps   X X      x  
can provide large and secure amounts for protected areas or specific sites; funding biodiversity through 
SD and poverty reduction instrument in decline, due to difficulties 
in persuading donors/government to 
release large amounts of funds 
difficulties in persuading agencies to invest large amounts for the future 
Public Development bank s and agencies   X X      x  
Big number of agencies, lots of funds, but no 
increase there  biodiversity prioritie s mixed with other 
environmental objectives/MDG 
bureaucracy; increased  spending on 
start-up but not so much on reoccurring 
costs  
Public Long-term ODA commitments 
through a Green Development Mechanism (GDM) 
X X X      x  help transfers from devel oped/developing countries 
to less developed countries, GDM can Implement MDG and assist local needs too need for developing guidelines, 
legislative frameworks at global level, need for improved methodologies for 
establishing the biophysical links, set 
 
EN 67   EN     Geographic area  Applicability to Biodiversity target Weaknesses/needs for improved 
performance  
prices, monitor delivery of services, 
evaluate the efficiency of transfers 
Abbreviations: Private (Pri), Public (Pub), Local (L), Regional (R), National; (Nat), International (Int), Small and medium siz ed businesses (SME). 
Adapted from TEEB (2011), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in National an d International Policy Making. Edited by P atrick ten Brink. Earthscan, London.. 
Source: Compilation of information within Emerton et al. (2005); UNEP/CBD/WP-PA/1/3 (2005); Bräuer et al.(2006) 
 
EN 68   EN ANNEX 15 – MAPPING BETWEEN EU POST -2010  TARGETS AND SEBI  INDICATORS  
EU post-2010 strategy (Potentially) relevant SEBI indicators 
Vision 2050 By 2050 EU biodiversity and the ecosystem 
services it provides – its natural capital – are protected, valued and ap propriately restored 
for biodiversity’s intrinsic value and for their 
essential contribution to human well-being and economic prosperity, and so that 
catastrophic changes caused by the loss of 
biodiversity are avoided.  
Headline 
target 2020 Halting the loss of biodiversity and the 
degradation of ecosystem services in the EU 
by 2020, and restoring them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU 
contribution to averting global biodiversity 
loss. IUCN Barometer of Life for EU (tbd?) 
Targets  Baseline Potential Indicators 
Target 1 Nature Conservation  SEBI 1. Abundance & distribution of selected 
species (birds, butterflies) 
SEBI 2. Red List Index for European species 
(mammals – marine & terrestrial, birds, 
amphibians, reptiles, dragonflies, butterflies) 
SEBI 3. Conservation status of species of 
Community interest (in EU, per biogeographical region, per MS) 
SEBI 5. Conservation status of habitats of 
Community interest (in EU, per biogeographical region, per MS) 
SEBI 7. Nationally designated protected areas 
SEBI 8. Sites designated under the EU 
Habitats and Birds Directives (Natura 2000 
sites) 
SEBI 11. Impact of climatic change on bird 
populations 
Target 2 Restoration and Green Infrastructure  SEBI 4rev. Land cover changes 
SEBI 13. Fragmentation of natural and semi-
natural areas 
SEBI 14. Fragmentation of river systems 
(when available) 
SEBI 16. Freshwater quality 
 
EN 69   EN EU post-2010 strategy (Potentially) relevant SEBI indicators 
Agriculture and agro-ecosystems  SEBI 1. Abundance and distribution of 
selected species (farmland birds, grassland butterflies) 
SEBI 3rev. Conservation status of species of 
Community interest in agro-ecosystems  
SEBI 4 rev: Land cover changes in agriculture 
SEBI 5rev: Conservation status of habitats of 
Community interest in agro-ecosystems 
SEBI 6. Livestock genetic diversity  
SEBI 9: Critical load exceedance for nitrogen 
SEBI 19. Agriculture: nitrogen balance per ha 
of agricultural land in OECD countries 
SEBI 20. Agriculture: area under management 
practices potentially supporting biodiversity (distribution of High Nature Value Farmland & 
share of total UAA occupied by organic 
farming) Target 3 
 
Forest SEBI 1. Abundance and distribution of 
selected species (woodland birds) 
SEBI 3rev. Conservation status of species of 
Community interest in forest ecosystems  
SEBI 4 rev: Land cover changes in forest SEBI 5rev: Conservation status of habitats of 
Community interest in forest ecosystems 
SEBI 17. Forest: growing stock, increment and 
fellings 
SEBI 18. Forest: deadwood 
Target 4 Fish and fisheries  SEBI 12. Marine Trophic Index of European 
seas 
SEBI 15. Nutrients in transitional, coastal and 
marine waters 
SEBI 21. Fisheries: European commercial fish 
stocks (proportion of stocks within and outside 
safe biological limits) - To be replaced by 
Mean Sustainable Yield according to Marine Framework Directive 
SEBI 22. Aquaculture: effluent water quality 
from finfish farms  
 
EN 70   EN EU post-2010 strategy (Potentially) relevant SEBI indicators 
Target 5 Invasive Alien Species  SEBI 10. Invasive alien species in Europe 
 
Target 6 Contribution to global biodiversity  SEBI 23. Ecological Footprint of European 
countries 
SEBI 24. Patent applications based on genetic 
resources 
SEBI 25. Financing biodiversity management 
SEBI 26. Public awareness