EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 16.12.2008 
SEC(2008) 3044 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying document to the 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSI ON TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EU ROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMI TTEE OF THE REGIONS 
 
A MID-TERM ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTING  
THE EC BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN 
  
CONSOLIDATED PROFILE 
  
 
{COM(2008) 864 final} 
{SEC(2008) 3042} {SEC(2008) 3043} {SEC(2008) 3045} 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... ... 4 
POLICY AREA 1: Biodiversity in the EU .................................................................................. 5 
Objective 1. To safeguard the EU's mo st important habitats and species.................................. 5 
Objective 2. To conserve and restore biodive rsity and ecosystem services in the wider 
EU countryside................................................................................................................. ........ 21 
Objective 3. To conserve and restore biodive rsity and ecosystem services in the wider 
EU marine environment. ......................................................................................................... . 35 
Objective 4. To reinforce compatibility of regional and territorial development with 
biodiversity in the EU. ........................................................................................................ ..... 48 
Objective 5. To substantially reduce the impact on EU biodivers ity of invasive alien species 
and alien genotypes. ........................................................................................................... ...... 54 
POLICY AREA 2: The EU and global biodiversity .................................................................. 58 
Objective 6. To substantially strengthen e ffectiveness of international governance for 
biodiversity and ecosystem services. ....................................................................................... 58 
Objective 7. To substantially strengthen suppor t for biodiversity and ecosystem services in 
EU external assistance......................................................................................................... ..... 63 
Objective 8. To substantially reduce the impact of international trade on global biodiversity 
and ecosystem services......................................................................................................... .... 71 
POLICY AREA 3: Biodiversity and climate change ................................................................ 76 
Objective 9. To support biodiversity adaptation to climate change......................................... 76 
POLICY AREA 4: The knowledge base .................................................................................... 81 
Objective 10. To substantially strengthen the knowledge base for cons ervation and sustainable 
use of biodiversity, in the EU and globally.............................................................................. 81 
 
EN 3   EN B. THE FOUR KEY SUPPORTING MEASURES .................................................................... 88 
Supporting Measure 1. Ensuring adequate financing............................................................... 88 
Supporting Measure 2. Strengthening EU decision–making for biodiversity ......................... 95 
Supporting Measure 3. Build ing partnerships.......................................................................... 99 
Supporting Measure 4. Building public edu cation, awareness and participation .................. 103 
C. MONITORING, EVALUATION AND REVIEW ................................................................ 106 
ANNUAL REPORTING, INDI CATORS, MONITORING.................................................. 106 
EVALUATION AND REVIEW............................................................................................ 111 
 
EN 4   EN INTRODUCTION 
This consolidated profile presents a compar ative factual assessment of progress at both 
Community and Member States levels in the implementation of the EC Biodiversity Action 
Plan. It is intended to complement the info rmation given in the Co mmunication, providing a 
more detailed analysis, and presenting key comparative data underp inning the assessment. 
It is based on information collected for the c ountry profiles as well as the Community level 
assessment and is organised according to the f our main policy areas, ten objectives and four 
supporting measures set out in the Biodiversity Action Plan. 
Contextual information, drawn from the 2006 Biodiversity Communication, is presented at 
the outset for each objective and supporting measur e. This is then followed by a progress 
assessment. As it has not been possible to assess progress by Me mber States at the level of 
individual actions, a comparison between the Community level implementation and that at the 
level of Member States has been made at the le vel of targets set out in the Biodiversity Action 
Plan. 
More detailed information for the targets can be found in the country profiles as well as in the 
table summarising progress at Community level. 
The emphasis has been on using o fficial sources of information. In addition to the responses 
to a questionnaire sent to Member States the Commission has availed of  different databases 
and information systems, such as the Natura  2000 database and assessments of Community 
funded programmes (e.g. LIFE, Rural and Regional Development programmes). 
Information compiled within the framework of the European Environment Agency led project 
on Streamlining of European Biodiversity Indica tors (SEBI 2010) has also been used where 
this is directly linked to indi vidual targets of the Biodiversity Action Plan. However, there is a 
separate report providing a summary for each of 26 indicators under the SEBI 2010 project. 
It should be noted that some data, including those relating to allocations of  funds to nature and 
biodiversity under different Commu nity programmes are prelimin ary and will require further 
evaluation. 
 
EN 5   EN POLICY AREA 1: Biodiversity in the EU 
Objective 1. To safeguard the EU's most important habitats and species. 
Headline Target: Biodiversity loss of most important habitats and sp ecies halted by 2010, 
[these habitats and species showi ng substantial recovery by 2013] 
A. Context  
Action to safeguard the EU’s most important habitats and species is critical to halting 
biodiversity loss by 2010 as we ll as to fostering its recover y. The basis for EU action in 
this regard is mainly provided by the Birds1 and the Habitats2 Directives (the ‘nature 
directives’). Special attention needs to be af forded to the creation and protection of 
Natura 2000, a network of sites of highest nature value. This network needs to be actively completed on land and extended to  the marine environment and requires 
greater commitment from Member States to pr opose, designate, protect and effectively 
manage Natura 2000 sites. There is also a need  to strengthen coherence, connectivity and 
resilience of the network, in cluding through support to national, regional and local 
protected areas. The use of species action  plans for the recovery of the EU’s most 
threatened species needs to be extended. Comp arable measures for habitats and species 
are required in those EU outermost regions  not covered by the nature directives
3. 
B. Progress assessment  
Target 1.1 Natura 2000 network establishe d, safeguarded, designated and under effective 
conservation management by 2010, 2012 in marine  
Establishment of Natura 2000 
There has been significant progress in the esta blishment of Natura 2000. Since adoption of the 
2006 Biodiversity Communication in May 2006 a to tal of 823 additional areas have proposed 
for protection under the Habitats Directive, w ith a combined surface area of approximately 
97 000 km². Commission Decisions of 13 November 2007, 25 January 2008 and 28 March 
2008, which also include many earlier proposals of  the Member States, have added 4 744 
Sites of Community Importance covering a tota l surface area of approximately 109 000 km². 
This updated and extended the lists of protected  sites for the Atlantic, Continental, Boreal, 
Macaronesian and Mediterranean biogeographica l regions and provided a first list for the 
Pannonian region, thus extending the network for the first time to new Member States (EU-
10). By the end of 2008 there will be a sec ond updating round of the lists of Sites of 
Community Importance (SCIs). 
                                                 
1 Directive 79/409/EC, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p.1. 
2 Directive 92/43/EEC, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p.7. 
3 i.e. measures taken voluntarily and at national initiative for French Guiana, Reunion, Guadeloupe, 
Martinique. 
 
EN 6   EN By June 2008 there were 21 612 Sites of Co mmunity Importance and Special Areas of 
Conservation (SACs) under the Habitats Dire ctive covering 655 968 km². There were 5 004 
Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the Bird s Directive covering 517 896 km². The overall 
Natura 2000 network now comprises more th an 25 000 sites, covering around 17 % of the 
total area of the European Union4. These increases are mainly due to Natura 2000 sites being 
proposed and designated in the 10 new countries that joined th e EU in 2004 as well as in 
Bulgaria and Romania since their accession in 2007. However, it also includes significant 
additional proposals and designations by EU15 Me mber States, particularly under the Birds 
Directive (See Figure 1). A NATURA barometer is updated twice yearly by the European 
Topic Centre for Biodiversity of the Eur opean Environment Agency, providing summary 
statistics for Natura 2000 sites for each Memb er State based on officially supplied data. 
Figure 1: Cumulative surface area of sites (A) prop osed for the Habitats Directive and (B) designated 
under the Birds Directive over time (Source is European Topic Centre for Biodiversity). 
Cumulative surface area of sites designated for the Habitats directive over time
050 000100 000150 000200 000250 000300 000350 000400 000450 000500 000550 000600 000650 000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007100 x haRomania
Bulgaria
Slovakia
Slovenia
Poland
Malta
Latvia
Lithuanie
Hungary
Estonia
Czech
Republic
Cyprus
United
Kingdom
Sweden
Portugal
Netherland
Luxembourg
Italy
Ireland
Greece
France
Finland
Spain
Denmark
Germany
 
                                                 
4 The figure is based on spatial data and is subject to change over time. 
 
EN 7   EN Cumulative surface area of sites designated for the Birds directive over time
0100 000200 000300 000400 000500 000
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007100 X haRomania
Bulgaria
Slovakia
Slovenia
Poland
Malta
Latvia
Lithuanie
Hungary
Estonia
Czech Republic
Cyprus
United Kingdom
Sweden
Portugal
Netherland
Luxembourg
Italy
Ireland
Greece
France
Finland
Spain
Denmark
Germany
Belgium
Austria
 
The situation regarding the mari ne establishment of Natura 2000 is less advanced than for 
terrestrial areas. This is especi ally the case for the offshore mari ne environment. To facilitate 
progress the Commission published in 2007 a guide  on establishing Natura 2000 in the marine 
environment to assist Member States in th e selection of marine Natura 2000 sites by 20085. 
There have been meetings of a marine expert group to assess the state of play with marine 
Natura 2000 designations and to specify the assessment process and the implementation of 
fisheries measures. All coastal Member States are now working to identify further suitable 
marine Natura 2000 sites. This includes internal  consultations, research  and studies, some of 
which are supported by LIFE projects. Progress is slow and only a few Member States (e.g. 
SW, UK) proposed additional offshore sites in 2008. At least 6 Member States have indicated 
that they will propose sites in early 2009. The Commission has prepared non-binding 
guidance on introducting measures  for marine Natura 2000 site s under the Common Fisheries 
Policy (CFP), complementing the earlier marine Natura 2000 guidelines. A seminar for site 
selection for Atlantic Biogeographical sea regi on is scheduled for March 2009. Seminars for 
other regions will follow later . Completeness of Natura 2000 network. 
The Commission has continued to assess the completeness of  the Natura 2000 network for 
different Member States as well as of thei r legal transposition of the Birds and Habitats 
Directives. On the basis of checking the nationa l measures transposing the Birds and Habitats 
Directive in EU-25, the Commission has initiate d non-conformity cases where gaps have been 
detected6. The Commission has also con tinued to pursue case s of bad application of the nature 
                                                 
5 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/index_en.htm  
6 As regards the Birds Directive, infringement procedures related to non-conformity issues are ongoing 
against 16 Members States (AT, IE, ES, DK, UK, EL, IT, LU, CZ, EE, HU, LT, LV, PL, SK, BG). As 
regards the Habitats Directive infringement procedur es related to non-conformity issues are ongoing 
against 17 Member States (AT, DE, UK, FR, IE, ES, DK, NL, EL, LU, CZ, EE, MT, PL, SI, SK, BG). 
 
EN 8   EN directives in 20077. A summary of existing important ca se law on the nature directives 
provided by the EU Court of Justice has been published8. 
As of June 2008, 8 Member States had designated more than 15 % of their terrestrial territory 
as SCIs: Slovenia (31.4 %); Bu lgaria (29.6 %); Spain (23.4 %);  Portugal (17.4 %); Estonia 
(16.8 %); Greece (16.4 %); Luxembourg (15.4 %); a nd Hungary (15.0 %). As regards SPAs, 4 
Member States had designated more than 15 % of  their terrestrial terr itory: Slovakia (25.1 %); 
Slovenia (23 %); Bulgaria (20.4%) and Spain (19.1 %). 
At EU level, around 12.2 % of the terrestrial territory is now protec ted under the Habitats 
Directive. As regards determining the comp leteness of the Natura 2000 network there are 
ongoing technical evaluations to assess whether each  habitat type and species of the Habitats 
Directive occurring in a Member State is suffi cient represented within  the network. By June 
2008, 21 of the EU-27 Member States were c onsidered to have reached a sufficient 
representation of site coverage for more than 80 % of the terrestrial species and habitats of 
Community interest under the Habitats Directive within their territory. The new Member States are generally doi ng well (See Figure 2). 
Areas designated under the Birds Directive now cover around 10 % of the terrestrial territory. 
There is no agreed methodology in place to dete rmine the completeness of the SPA network 
for different Member States. In the absence of this, and where Member States have not 
prepared comprehensive national reviews of  areas qualifying fo r SPA designation the 
Commission continues to use the listings of Important Bird Areas in Europe, prepared by 
BirdLife International, to assess progress in designating SPAs. This  approach has been 
consistently endorsed by the EU Court of Jus tice in the relevant case law on designation under 
the Birds Directive. 
                                                
 
7 There were important rulings of the EU Court of  Justice against Greece, Ireland and Spain for their 
failures to comply with the Birds Directive, especially in relation to completing the designation of 
Special Protection Areas. A first assessment of SPA designation for EU-10+2 completed and legal 
action taken when necessary; infringement cases agai nst 19 Member States (FIN, ES, IE, EL, PT, DE, 
AT, UK, PL, SL, SK, MT, LT, LV, HU, CY, CZ, RO, BG) on the basis that the list of areas classified 
as SPAs is not sufficient. Infringement cases open against 4 Member States (IE, AT, UK, PL) on the 
basis that the list of pSCIs transmitted is not exhaustive. 
8 Nature and Biodiversity Cases - Rulin g of the European Court of Justice. 
 
EN 9   EN 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
DK NL IT BE FI DE GR SE LU ES UK BG MT FR LV A T PT IE HU EE RO SI SK LT CZ CY PL
 
Figure 2: Level of sufficiency of representation of different habitat types and species in Member States' 
proposed site networks under the Habitats Directive (Source is Europe an Topic Centre for Biodiversity). 
Management and protection of Natura 2000 sites 
As the selection, proposal and designation of Na tura 2000 sites is now at  an advanced stage 
attention needs to increasingly focus on the protection and manageme nt of the network. 
Although not explicitly mentioned as an obligation under the Habitats Directive9 management 
plans are recognised by most Member States as  a valuable tool to assist with the positive 
management of Natura 2000 sites. Thirteen out of the 27 EU member states have indicated 
that they have completed/agreed management plans and 5 indicated that they do not have 
completed management plans for Nature 20 00 sites. Information on completed/agreed 
management plans was not available for 9 EU member states. Based on available information, 
at least 5 312 Natura 2000 areas have comple ted or agreed management plans (Figure 3). 
                                                 
9 Article 6(1) of the Habitats Directive requires Me mber States to establish the necessary conservation 
measures for special areas of conservation involving, if need be, appropriate management plans 
specifically designed for the sites or integrated into other development plans. 
 
EN 10   EN 
 
Figure 3: Number of Natura 2000 sites in different Member States wi th a completed management plan 
(Source: response to Memb er State questionnaire). 
Furthermore, a total of 3 250 Natura 2000 sites in the EU have management plans under 
development (Figure 4). Seventeen EU member st ates have indicated that they are preparing 
management plans for Natura 2000 sites. Three have indicated that th ey do not have plans 
under development. No information was available on this for 7 countries. 
 
Figure 4: Number of Natura 2000 sites in diff erent Member States with a management plan in 
preparation (Source: response to Member State questionnaire). 
In order to assist the protection and positiv e management of Natura 2000 sites and in 
recognition of potential conflicts with certain  socio-economic sectors the Commission is 
developing guidance documents for Natura 20 00 in estuaries and coastal zones, for non-
energy extractive industries and for wind energy  and nature conservation. Ad hoc working 
groups have been created to assist the Commissi on in this process. Th ese include experts of 
Member States, industry and non governmental or ganisations. Such guidance is additional to 
the published Commission guidelin es on managing Natura 2000 under Article 6, which have 
 
EN 11   EN also been complemented by guidance on compensato ry measures to offset loss or damage to 
Natura 2000 sites10. 
Also with regard to pro-active measures a new EU network of practitioners called 
'GreenForce', dealing with nature conservation and forestry policies and laws in the Member 
States, has been set up to facilitate communicat ion and the sharing of experience on practical 
implementation, compliance and enforcement11. Its June 2008 meeting focused on 'A 
Transparent and Participative Way of Putting Natura 2000 Management Plans into Practice'. 
The Commission has also launched a contra ct to overview the approach towards SAC 
designation, establishment of conservation obj ectives and management instruments being 
applied by different Member States. A new c ontract for Natura 2000 to overview economic 
and social benefits, dealing w ith conflicts, best practice at the Local/Site levels, and its 
relationship with other initiatives which serve to protect biodiversity is foreseen for the end of 
2008. 
LIFE Financing for Natura 2000 
LIFE continues to be a strategically im portant fund to support the development of 
demonstration and best practice projects for ma nagement and restoration of Natura 2000 sites 
throughout the Member States. Between 2000 and 2006 EUR 436 532 507was spent over 434 
projects (Figure 5). Furthermor e, the period from 2000 onwards ha s a more stable budget (see 
SEBI indicator No. 25) (although there was no call in 2001) though app lications were not 
equally successful, so not all allocations were used. The allocation of LIFE+ for nature and 
biodiversity related projects for 2007 (EUR  187 000 000) shows an increase in EU 
expenditure, though a decision on pr oject proposals is not finalised. It should be noted that the 
amounts indicated represent the EU contribution to the projects, not th e total cost of the 
projects in question as LIFE covers 50% to 75% of the tota l costs, depending on the target 
species and/or habitats and biodiversity aims of the project in question. Based on experiences 
in different Member States a wide range of  best practice publications, relevant to the 
management of Natura 2000 sites have now been produced12.  
                                                 
10 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm  
11 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/greenforce/index_en.htm  
12 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm  
 
EN 12   EN 010203040506070
AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
ES
FR
FI
GR
HU
IR
IT
LUX
LT
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
UKNumber of projects
Total EU funding (billion EUR)
 
Figure 5: Comparison of EU funding per Member St ate and number of projects funded by LIFE 2000-
2006. 
Comprehensive opportunities to co-fund Natu ra 2000 costs have been provided in each 
appropriate EC funding regulati on for 2007-2013. Guidelines & tr aining have been provided 
under an EC contract provided to assist Member States in  applying these funds. An 
Information Technology Tool on financing Natura 2000 has been developed to assist potential 
beneficiaries on how individual measures for Natura 2000 might be funded by the different 
major EU sources. Concerns have been expres sed about poor uptake of funding opportunities 
in different Member States . The Commission is currently  checking relevant funding 
programmes submitted by Member States (See also A 2.1.1, A 3.4.1, A 4.1.1 and B.1.1.1). A 
new Commission study contract aims to furt her support linkages be tween financing and 
management of Natura 2000. Th is will update and refine co st estimates of Natura 2000 
financial needs, provide documented examples  of good practice where EU funds have been 
used in a successful and innova tive way and develop a methodol ogy to identify and evaluate 
different socio-economic benefits. 
Target 1.2 Sufficiency, coherence, connectiv ity and resilience of the protected areas 
network in the EU substantially enhanced by 2010 [and further enhanced by 2013]  
Natura 2000 sites do not exist in isolation from the surrounding landscape. Corridors and 
connectivity, as recognised under Article 10 of the Habitats Dire ctive are important especially 
in the light of the pressures that will be asso ciated with climate change. First guidelines on 
how to manage landscape featur es of major importance for wild  flora and fauna have been 
prepared with a view to identifying ways of supporting the ecological c oherence of the Natura 
network13. 
                                                 
13 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/n ature/ecosystems/index_en.htm  
 
EN 13   EN Target 1.3 Good conservation status of sp ecies achieved (Article  17, Red Data Book, 
Atlases, Common bird mon itoring, ex-situ conservation)  
Conservation status assessment and red data lists 
The first major 'health check' of the conservation status of species and habitats of Community 
interest under Article 17 of the Habitats Directiv e is underway. On the basis of national 
reports received in 2007/early 2008 the Commission, with support of the European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity of the European Environment Ag ency will complete an EU 
level assessment by mid-2009. An overview of th e national assessments is already available
14. 
A national summary of the Article  17 reports has also been prepared for each Member State15. 
A first examination of the data reveals that the ma jority of the species of  European interest are 
in an unfavourable status. There is considerab le variation in the results of the status 
assessment between Member States. Latvia has the highest percentage (49 %) of species 
under favourable conservation condi tions (green), with Spain th e lowest percentage (12 %). 
Slovenia has 50 % species currently inadequate ly conserved (amber) the highest of any 
Member State with Sweden and Cyprus reporti ng on 8 % of species currently inadequately 
conserved. The highest percentage of species in unfavourable conditions (red) is reported by 
Sweden at 42 % with Estonia reporting only 1 % of species curren tly in unfavourable 
conditions. However, there are still signifi cant gaps in knowledge , resulting in unknown 
assessments. This reflects a lack of knowledge for many species, for example in the structure 
and function of their required habi tats. This is especially the case for marine species. Trend 
information was not supplied for most assessments , so it is not possible to determine if their 
status is getting better or worse. 
                                                 
14 http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17  
15 can be viewed on the CIRCA-Reporting at http://circa.europa.eu/P ublic/irc/env/monnat/library  
 
EN 14   EN Conservation Status - species by country
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
AT BE CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT SE SI SK UKXX
U2
U1
FV
 
Figure 6: Preliminary conservation status assessment per country for species of Community interest. FV = 
favourable; U1 = unfavourable inadequate; U2 = unfavourable bad; XX = unknown status (Source 
European Topic Centre for Biodiversity). 
Likewise, there is significant variation in the conservation status of habitats of European 
interest in different Member Stat es. The greatest percentage of habitats determined to be in a 
favourable condition (green) is in Italy (60 %), with the lowest at 1 % by Spain. The 
percentage of habitat that is conserved in an inadequate condition (amber) ranges from 55 % 
in the Netherlands to 10 % in Denmark. Belgium and the Czech Republic have the highest percentage of habitats in unfavourable c onditions (red) at 79 % of habitat types. 
In each biogeographic region (te rrestrial part), be tween 40 and 60 % of heaths, scrubs and 
rocky habitats are in favourable status. Bogs, freshwater habitats, grasslands and dunes are 
mainly in unfavourable status and between 20 and 30 % of species are in unfavourable bad 
status. As for species there are still signifi cant gaps in knowle dge, resulting in unknown 
assessments and as trend information was not supplied for most assessments, it is not possible to determine if their status is getting better or worse. 
While not encouraging these preliminary resu lts, based on assessment for the period up to 
2006, are not surprising. The decline and destruc tion of species and habitats, which has been 
ongoing for many decades and cannot be reverted within a few years. A range of animal 
species, once at the brink of extin ction like for example the Otter Lutra lutra , the Beaver 
Castor fiber  or the European bison Bison bonasus  are doing very well again and have – due to 
their protection and active conservation measur es – increasing populations. For others, the 
decline has been stopped, implementation of ma nagement/restoration measures are about to 
start and will hopefully show first signs of recovery in the next assessment of 2013/2015. 
The next step of the current assessment is to  carry out the EU-level  (biogeographic level) 
assessment of conservation status . Draft results are envisaged to be finalised in late 2008 
following the input of the public consultation on the draft results. This exercise will help 
identify the extent to which additional meas ures for the management and restoration of 
 
EN 15   EN species populations and habitats are needed and will be key input to any review of species and 
habitat types of EU conservation concern. 
Conservation status - Habitats by Country
0%20%40%60%80%100%
AT BE CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT SE SI SK UKXX
U2
U1
FV
 
Figure 7: Preliminary conservation status assessm ent per country for habitat types of Community 
interest. FV = favourable; U1 = unfavourable inadeq uate; U2 = unfavourable bad; XX = unknown status 
(Source European Topic Ce ntre for Biodiversity). 
Following up the Article 17 conservation status assessment exercise, the Commission has also 
started a new initiative in st reamlining reporting under the Birds and the Habitats Directive. 
The intention is to have better data availabl e in order to assess, among other things, the 
effectiveness of the nature di rectives. An Expert Group on reporting has been established. 
This will deal not only with a review of the Article 17 exercise but also aims to initiate a 
similar status and trends assessment for bird species as well as improving the dataflow on Natura 2000. 
Red data lists are also being prepared and update d at EU and Member State levels. A red data 
list for mammals was published in 2007 providing the first comprehensive assessment at the 
European scale
16. This shows that nearly one in six (15 %) of Europe's mammal species are 
threatened, and a further 9 % are close to qualif ying for threatened status. The Iberian lynx is 
now the most threatened w ildcat species in the world17. The Commission is financially 
supporting the development of European red data lists are to be prepared for other taxonomic 
groups: amphibians and reptiles  (ready early 2009), dragonflie s, butterflies & saproxylic 
beetles (ready end 2009), molluscs and vascular plants (selected families) (ready end 2010). 
European red data lists for birds have been  produced by BirdLife International in both 1994 
and 2004, allowing for changes in threat status of species to be compared. This shows that the 
overall condition of Europe's birds has deteriorat ed over the last decade. For the assessed bird 
species on the IUCN Red List, extinction risk  throughout European regions is increasing 
                                                 
16 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/ema/index.htm  
17 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/nat2000newsl/nat21_en.pdf  
 
EN 16   EN (Figure 8). However, in  August 2007 the journal Science  published an analysis showing that 
the Birds Directive has made a significant diffe rence in protecting many of Europe's most 
threatened birds from further decline18. 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). 
0.860.870.880.890.90
1994 2004
YearRed List Index o f
species survivaln = 522 spp
 
Figure 8: Red List Index (RLI) showing changes in co nservation status and increa sed extinction risk of 
European bird species between 1994 and 2004 (Source: bird conservation  status assessments of BirdLife 
International; summar ised by SEBI 02). 
Many countries in the EU have red data lists. 26 out of 27 Me mber States have red lists 
mainly for mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles,  fishes and vascular plants. A significant 
number of these countries are in the process of updating their red list as well  as developing 
red lists for some species. 
Conservation action for species 
Species action plans continue to be developed as a practical tool  to help target conservation 
action, as evidence by the success of earli er plans for 47 threatened bird species19. The 
Community continues to support the developm ent of action plans for threatened birds 
involving the update of existing plans ( Acrocephalus paludic ola, Marmaronetta 
anguistirostris, Aquila adalberti ) and the preparation of new bird action plans ( Coracias 
garullus, Chersophilus dupon ti, Neophron percnopterus ). Seven new management plans for 
huntable bird species were finalised in 200720, as well as an internat ional action plan for Saker 
                                                 
18 International Conservation Policy Delivers Benefits for Birds in Europe by  Paul F. Donald, Fiona 
J. Sanderson, Ian J. Burfield, Stijn M. Bi erman, Richard D. Gregory, Zoltan Waliczky 
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5839/810  
19 http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/nature/conservation/wild birds/action_plans/docs/  
action_plans_review.pdf  
20 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/hunting/managt_plans_en.htm  
 
EN 17   EN Falcon (Falco cherrug)21. Draft criteria have been prepared  for selecting non-bird species for 
action plans. A first set of action plans is envisaged to be prepared in 2009. 
Action plans appear to be also used by many Member States. A to tal of 13 EU member states 
have indicated that they have such plans (F igure 9). These countries are Austria, Czech 
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Fran ce, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, 
Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. However, it is ge nerally difficult to determine the number of 
actions plans per species from available info rmation. Fourteen EU member states have 
indicated that they do not have species action plans. 
More than half of EU member states (23) have  plans or programmes for ex-situ conservation. 
Only four member countries i ndicated that they do not have ex-situ conserva tion plans or 
programmes. For most of these countries, ex-situ conservation is referred to in the NBSAP as submitted to the CBD Secretariat. New possibiliti es for EU financing of 'ex-situ' conservation 
actions under LIFE+ when justified for species  conservation linked to delivery of the EU 
biodiversity action plan. 
 
Figure 9: Number of EU Member States (MS) with Red Data Lists, Common Bird Monitoring Schemes 
(CBM), indicators derived from CBM, species acti on plans and with plans for ex-situ conservation. 
All 27 EU member states have Common Bird Monitoring Schemes and programmes as shown 
in Figure 9. Some countries monitor single bi rd species, for exampl e raptors in Malta. 
According to information from Member States , a total of 16 EU co untries have national 
indicators derived from common bird monito ring schemes. 11 EU member states do not 
appear to have national indicators derive d from common bird monitoring schemes. 
As birds are considered to be highly repres entative of biodiversit y and the integrity of 
ecosystems the common bird monitoring scheme  has been used to develop a biodiversity 
index of common birds (Figure 10). Of the more common bird species, fo rest and particularly 
farmland birds have declined. Th e initial steep decline of farm land birds is associated with 
increasing agricultural specialisation and in tensity in some areas, and large-scale 
                                                 
21 http://ec.europa.eu/environmen t/nature/conservation/wildbirds/action_plans/index_en.htm  
 
EN 18   EN marginalisation and land abandonm ent in others. The falling tren d has levelled off since the 
late 1980s, partly because of stabilising inputs of nutrient and pesticides in the EU-15 and 
partly because of drastically lower inputs in EU-10 as a result of political reforms and the 
resulting economic crisis in the agricultural sector. Renewed agri cultural intensification in the 
eastern regions, combined with further land abandonment throughout Europe, could lead to 
further decline. 
Common Birds, popul ation Index (1980=100)
020406080100120140160
year 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002farmland
forest
other
 
Figure 10: Common birds population index (Source: European Bird Census Committee, Birdlife 
International, Royal Society for the Protection of  Birds, Statistics Netherla nds – see also SEBI 01). 
Over the past decade, grassland butterflies have suffered even bi gger declines than birds, with 
a reduction of grassland butterfly abundance by almost 50%, w ith little sign of improvement.  
020406080100120
1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005
 
Figure 11: Trends in grassland butterfly species from  Butterfly Monitoring Sc hemes in nine countries 
(Source: De Vlinderstichting/Butt erfly Conservation Europe – see S EBI 2010 indicator 01 for further 
details) 
 
EN 19   EN The Commission has provided guidance for th e protection of species under the nature 
directives. A guide on the strict protection of  animal species listed in Annex IV of the 
Habitats Directive also covers the releva nt derogation provisions of the Directive22. The guide 
on sustainable hunting under the Birds Directive23 has been updated to take account of recent 
case-law from the European Court of Justice.  The Commission has prepared EU guidelines 
for management plans for large carnivores pr omoting best practice and providing guidance on 
population level management planning24. 
Target 1.4 All above targets applied for Acceeding Countries from date of accession  
Bulgaria and Romania have been required to a pply the nature directiv es since their accession 
on 1 January 2007. Assessments of their progr ess are being incorporated into overall 
evaluations for Member States. Bulgaria had su bmitted part of its national Special Protection 
Areas (SPAs) and potential Site s of Community Importance (pSC Is) lists by the start of 2008. 
Romania had submitted the pSCIs list in mid- 2007 and its list of SPAs in December 2007. 
The level of designation of both SPAs is being evaluated in 2008. A biogeographic seminar to 
assess the pSCI for the 5 biogeographic regions  concerned by these new Member States took 
place in June 2008. 
Target A.1.5: For those EU Outermost Regions not covered by the nature directives, the aim 
is to ensure that valued biodiversity sites and species are not in a worsening conservation 
status by 2010 and that the ma jority of valued sites and species are moving towards a 
favourable conservation status by 2013.  
An ERA-NET NET BIOME Community-funded netw ork for biodiversity in the outermost 
regions was launched in September 2006. 
The islands of the Canaries, Azores and Madeira all fall within the scope of protection of the 
Birds and Habitats Directive, contributing th e Macaronesian Region , with a network of 
Natura 2000 sites at an advan ced state of development.  
A European Conference on Biodiversity and Climate Change in the Outermost Regions was 
held in La Réunion, from 7 to 11 July 200825. This conference brought together for the first 
time representatives of all Outermost Regions (ORs) and Overseas Countries and Territories 
(OCTs). The participants agreed that there is a need for EU member states and the European 
Commission, together with OCTs and ORs, to establish a voluntary scheme for the protection 
of species and habitats, inspired  by the Natura 2000 approach. This scheme should be flexible, 
adapted to the local situation, balance conservation and development needs and take existing 
mechanisms and tools into account. The implem entation of the scheme should be based on 
local commitment and shared financing. The im portance of conservation at species level 
outside protected areas should be highlighted and priority should be given to globally 
threatened species. The elaboratio n of restoration or management plans is only a first step in 
the process that has to be followed by effec tive implementation. Networking among existing 
                                                 
22 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/guidance/index_en.htm  
23 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/hunting/guide_en.htm , available in 23 
EU languages. 
24 http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/nature/conservation/spec ies/carnivores/index_en.htm  
25 http://www.reunion2008.eu /pages/en/en-home.html  
 
EN 20   EN national parks and other protected areas in or der to harmonise monitoring, exchange best 
practices and share data  is very valuable. 
 
EN 21   EN Objective 2. To conserve and restore bi odiversity and ecosystem services in 
the wider EU countryside. 
Headline target: In wider country side (terrestrial, freshwater, brackish water outside Natura 
2000 network), biodiversity loss halted by 2010 and showing substantial recovery by 2013 
A. Context  
Agriculture, in managing a large part of th e EU territory, conserves genes, species and 
habitats. However, in recent decades, intensif ication and specialisation, and at the same 
time marginalisation and und er-utilisation of land have  resulted in significant 
biodiversity loss. The Common Agricultural  Policy (CAP), together with broader 
developmental dynamics of the agricultural  sector, was one of the drivers for these 
processes, but has since 1992 been adapted to  better integrate biodiversity needs. The 
new Rural Development Regulation26 provides inter alia  for enhanced support for 
Natura 2000, maintains agri-environment me asures and payments for areas with 
handicaps and provides for a set of measu res in support of sustainable forest 
management. Increasing use of agri-environm ental measures, organic farming and the 
support of Less Favoured Areas (LFA) and other pro-biodiversity instruments (e.g. 
cross-compliance, single farm payment (d ecoupling) and modulation) have favoured 
farmland biodiversity. 
Key actions of the Objective include optimisi ng the use of available measures under the 
reformed CAP, notably to prevent intensific ation or abandonment of High Nature Value 
farmland, woodland and forest and supportin g their restoration; implementing the 
Forest Action Plan including measures to p revent and combat forest fires; advancing 
implementation of key environmental fram ework directives and thematic strategies 
which reduce pressures on biodiversity, nota bly by improving the quality of freshwater 
and of soils, and by reducing diffuse polluta nt pressures (e.g. airborne acidifying and 
eutrophicating substances, nitrates from farm sources, pesticides). 
B. Progress assessment  
AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPM ENT POLICY, FOREST POLICY 
Target A2.1 Member States have optimised use of opportunities under agricultural, rural 
development and forest policy to benefit biodi versity 2007-2013  
Rural Development Programmes 
Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) funded under Pillar 2 of the CAP by the European 
                                                 
26 Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p.1. 
 
EN 22   EN Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)27 provide the principal means of 
supporting biodiversity protection, management and restoration measures in agricultural and 
forest habitats. The rural development policy gi ves the Member States possibilities to support 
measures aiming at preserving biodiversity: und er Axis 1, measures on training, information 
and advisory services; under Axis 2, land management and non-productive investment 
measures and under Axis 3, conservation and m easures for the conservation and upgrading of 
the natural heritage allowing the support for the drawing-up of manageme nt plans related to 
Natura 2000 sites (e.g. depending on implem entation by the Member State). The most 
important measures are primarily the ones ava ilable under Axis 2 of the EAFRD, with a 44% 
(approximately EUR 39.6 billion) sh are of total EAFRD for 2007-2013.  
The proportion of Pillar 2 spending that is allo cated to Axis 2 measures (of which Natura 
2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC, Agri-environment payments, Forest-environment payments, Forest Natura payments are the most important ones that benefit biodiversity) provides a broad indication of the degree to which Members States are 
using RDPs to support biodiversity. An analysis of EAFRD expenditure in all approved RDPs 
indicates that the budgetary emphasis placed on e nvironmental measures varies considerably, 
with Finland, Ireland, the UK, Aust ria and Sweden giving a partic ularly high priority to Axis 
2 measures. Furthermore, there does not seem  to be any clear relationship between the 
allocation of spending on Axis 2 measures a nd the proportion of Natura 2000 habitats and 
other habitats of High Natural Value in Member  States. In particular Romania, Bulgaria, 
Latvia, Hungary, Poland and Greece have large areas of semi-natural farmland and forest 
habitat but less than 35% of th eir RDP budget allocated to Axis 2 measures. In some of these 
countries, such as Romania, Bulg aria and Latvia, this may reflect  the greater priority given to 
addressing socio-economic needs, although such a conclusion is bound up with considerations 
of the cost of delivery of positive results for biodiversity (e.g. the cost is likely to be higher in the EU-15 than amongst the new Member States).  
The allocations for each of th e above mentioned four measur es are therefore provided in 
(Table 1) in terms of their pe rcentage of EAFRD expenditure. 
 EAFRD 
total 
(million €) % for 
Axis 2 EAFRD Axis 2 
(million €) Agri-
environment 
schemes 
(% of total 
EAFRD) Natura 
2000 
payments – 
agriculture 
(% of total 
EAFRD) Natura 
2000 
payments 
–  
forest 
(% of total 
EAFRD) Forest-
environment 
(% of total 
EAFRD) 
Austria 3 911 72.31 2 829 46.04 0.05 0.06 0.19
Belgium -
Flanders 225 25 56 22.48 0.58 - -
Belgium - 
Wallonia 194 48.46 94 37.64 1.55  -
Bulgaria 2 609 24.43 637 13.68 - - -
Czech republic 2 816 55.2 0 1 554 30.16 1.71 0.35 0.45
Cyprus 163 43.42 71 24.3 - - 0.31
Denmark 445 63.34 282 46.03 - - 0.57
                                                 
27 Council Regulation 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European 
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, OJ L 277, 21.10.200. 
 
EN 23   EN Estonia 715 37.44 268 23.61 0.97 3.52 -
Finland Aland 
region 17 67.21 12 42.26 - - -
Finland 
mainland 2 062 73.40 1 514 31.53 - - -
France - 
Hexagone 5 727 53.77 3 080 15.77 - - -
France -Corse 83 60.96 51 11.02 - - 0.07
France - 
Guadeloupe 138 15.03 21 9.74 - - -
France - 
Guyane 74 10.09 8 2.22 - - -
France - 
Martinique  100 16.24 16 6.60 - - -
France - 
Reunion 319 16.34 52 4.25 - - -
Germany 8 113 40.39 3 276 25.13 1.29 0.18 0.35
Greece 3 707 34.97 1 29 7 18.19 0. 16 0.2 -
Hungary 3 806 32.85 1 250 22.96 1.01 - 1.80
Italy 8 292 43.28 3 589 23.11 0.10 0.05 0.27
Ireland 2 340 79.57 1 862 49.11 9.43 - -
Latvia 1 041 28.05 292 12.3 0.99 1.7 -
Lithuania 1 743 37.84 660 16.75 0.34 1.17 0.46
Luxemburg 90 58.87 53 29.74 - - 0.18
Malta 77 26.12 20 10.99 - - -
Netherlands 487 29.74 145 22.32 - - -
Poland 13 230 33.54 4 437 13.93 - - -
Portugal 
Mainland 3 468 41.76 1 448 10.20 - - 0.33
Portugal 
Azores 274 41.9 115 15.67 0.36 0.36 0.07
Portugal 
Madeira  175 29.96 52 6.2 - 0.02 -
Romania 8 023 23.44 1 881 9.85 - - -
Slovakia 1 969 50 985 13.62 0.14 0.29 1.01
Slovenia 900 52.22 470 27.13 - - -
Spain  7 214 38.56 2 782 14.26 0.14 - 0.70)
Sweden 1 826 69.06 1 261 53.83 - - -
UK* 4 441 72.80 3 233 52.77 - - 0.72
Total EUR  90 868   43.65 39 650 22.32 0.52 0.12 0.29
Table 1: Allocation, as at 9 October 2008, of EA FRD resources in Member States, for the period 2007-
201328 
- Empty boxes mean that Members States did not use the relevant measure of the RDP. 
                                                 
28 Figures may be subject to change over time as MSs introduce modifications to their RDPs. 
 
EN 24   EN Source : European Commission 
Of these four measures, agri-environment payments, account for the majority of EAFRD 
expenditure, with approximately 22% of RD P expenditure (approximately EUR 20.3 billion 
of EAFRD fund) across all Member States. But,  there is considerable variation in the 
proportion spent amongst the Memb ers States. Sweden allocates  the greatest proportion of 
RDP expenditure to this measure (53.8%), with Austria, Belgium (Wallonia region), 
Denmark, Finland, Ireland and the UK each alloca ting in excess of 30% of expenditure. At 
the other extreme, 11 Member States allocate less than 20% of their RDP budgets to the agri-
environment measure, including Member States with large areas of Natura 2000 and other 
areas of High Natural Value farmland, such as Bulgaria, Portugal, Greece, Spain and 
Romania. 
In some cases the EAFRD and required co-fi nancing expenditure is supplemented with 
additional national payments. In most cases th is does not increase th e proportion of spending 
on agri-environment measures substantially (or any other of the measur es described here). 
However, in other cases, additional nationa l financing does significantly increase agri-
environment spending e.g. in France (from 15.8 % to 25.1% of total public expenditure) and 
Cyprus (24.3% to 28.4%). 
Budget allocations for the other three Axis 2 measures that may provide substantial 
biodiversity benefits are small in  all Member States and absent in many. Of particular concern 
is that allocations for dedicated Natura 2000 measures (agric ulture and forest ) are very low, 
0.64% of total EAFRD expenditure, approximately EUR 577 million. These measures were included in the rural development regulation in  order to support conservation management on 
Natura sites and the implementation of  the Water Framework Directive (WFD)
29. In total, the 
measure for Natura 2000 payments for agricultural land will be used in only 14 Member States, with an allocated expenditure of EUR 470 million
30. Ireland is the onl y country that 
allocates a substantial proportion (9.4%) of its  budget to such Natura measures. Only 10 
Member States are expected to use Natura 2000  payments for forests with an allocation of 
approximately EUR 108 million. The most public money allocated to this measure is in Estonia, which plans to spend EUR 25 million of EAFRD resources, about 3.52% of its RDP 
budget. 
The reason for the low allocations for dedicated Natura measures is probably because many 
countries have already established systems fo r managing Natura 2000 sites that are already 
supported by established agri-environment sc hemes (e.g. UK). Another important reason is 
the fact that in many Member States uptake of Natura measures is constrained by a lack of 
management plans for Natura 2000 sites. Some of the Member States concerned have used the possibility to support the drawing up of th e management plans under axis 3 (measure 
"conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage"). 
                                                
 
29 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a 
framework for Community action in the field of water policy. 
30 In absence of implementing rules for WFD payments under article 38 of Reg. 1698/2005, the MSs can 
only use this measure for Natura 2000 support. Theref ore, these resources should  only be dedicated to 
Natura 2000 sites. 
 
EN 25   EN Less favoured areas 
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 habita ts and other high na ture value farmland. 
Approximately EUR 12.6 billion will be spent on the LFA measure among all approved rural 
development programmes. France,  Finland and the German region of Bayern allocates 30%, 
other mountainous areas such as Austria, Scot land, Wales, Ireland and the Italian region of 
Trento dedicate 20% or more in  excess their RDP budget to LFAs. 
Non productive investments measures  for agriculture and forestry areas 
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 
used to provide one-off capital grants, e.g. for habitat restoration works. Spending on these amounts to some EUR 463 million of EAFR D funds for non-productive agricultural 
investments (with high allocations in the UK,  parts of Italy and Denmark) and EUR 809 
million of EAFRD funds for non-productive forestry  investments (with significant allocations 
in several countries including parts of Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK).  
Agricultural cross-compliance  
Beneficiaries of CAP payments must comply wi th a range of requirements and standards, or 
risk reductions in or cancel lations of their payment
31. There are two sets of requirements that 
must be complied with under cross-complian ce. Firstly, the ‘Statutory Management 
Requirements’ (SMR), which are derived from 19 items of EU legislation in the areas of the 
environment, public health and animal health and welfare, including requirements related to 
the Birds and Habitats Directives. Secondly, th e standards that set the framework for Good 
Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC)32. This framework directs Member States 
to introduce standards to address soil erosi on, soil structure, soil organic matter and the 
minimum maintenance of habitats.  
There are four important types of GAEC mini mum maintenance measure that may provide 
significant biodiversity benefits (minimum livestock stocking rates and appropriate 
management regimes, protection of permanen t pasture, retention of landscape features, 
others). The SMR and GAEC sta ndards provide a broad baseline coverage, mandatory for all 
farmers receiving direct payments and most of  the area-related rural development payments. 
Beyond cross-compliance and other standards, the agri-environmental measures reward 
farmers for the voluntary provision of environm ental benefits, aiming at e.g. the management 
or enhancement of habitats.  
                                                 
31 As set out by Council Regulation 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for 
direct support schemes for farmers, OJ L 270, 21.10.2003 and by Council Regulation (EC) No 
1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund 
for Rural Development (EAFRD). Under the Rural Development policy, for beneficiaries of agri-
environment measures, cross-compliance includes additi onal requirements related to fertiliser and plant 
protection products use identified in the programme pursuant to art.39 of Regulation (EC) 
N°1698/2005. 
32 listed in Annex IV of Regulation 1782/2003. 
 
EN 26   EN The GAEC standards on maintenance of mi nimum livestock rates and appropriate 
management regimes and on protection of perman ent pasture are important to maintain the 
ecological value of grasslands. The standard on retention of landscape features, such as 
hedgerows, ponds and trees, can provide important habitat components (e.g. breeding sites) and help to maintain ecological connectiv ity. Other GAEC standards include ones like 
measures to avoid cultivati on close to watercourses (e.g.  Austria and the UK), avoid 
cultivation, fertiliser and pes ticide applications close to he dgerows (e.g. the UK), maintain 
crop diversity and provide for a minimum envi ronmental surface (e.g. France), retain buffer 
strips along water bodies (Finla nd) and retain stone walls on terraced slop es (Malta). 
An evaluation study on the application of cro ss compliance was carried out between July 
2006 and June 2007, the report of which can be found on the following website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eva l/reports/cross_compliance/index_en.htm
  
As part of the health check of the 2003 CAP reform33, the Commission has proposed to 
strengthen the standard on landscape features under GAEC aimed at the promotion of 
biodiversity. This will contribu te to retaining the environmental benefits of set-aside which 
the Commission proposes to abolish. 
High nature value farmland and forest area 
High Nature Value farmland provide habitat for a wide range of species. They are however 
under threat from intensification and la nd abandonment. Promoting conservation and 
sustainable farming practices in these areas is  crucial for biodiversit y. Area of High Nature 
Value (HNV) farmland is one of 35 environmen tal indicators for agriculture developed by 
EEA under the steering of the Commission in  the framework of the IRENA operation34. In 
this regard, a map of High Nature Value farmland has been updated by the European 
Environment Agency and th e Joint Research Centre35. In parallel, th e Commission has 
contracted a study on an HNV indicator for rura l development evaluation as well as a report 
providing guidance to the Member States on th e application of the HNV impact indicator36. 
These will be used as biodiversity-related  indicators in the context of the Common 
Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF) for rural development. This will ascertain the 
extent to which measures under the rural de velopment policy are delivering biodiversity 
benefits. 
                                                 
33 COM(2008)306. 
34 Publication in September 2006 of a Communication on agri-environment indicators (COM(2006(508)) 
based on IRENA work. 
35 For more details, see http://reports.eea.europa.eu/state_of_envi ronment_report_2007 _1/en/chapter4.pdf  
36 For more details, see http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysi s/external/evaluation/index_en.htm  
 
EN 27   EN 
 
Figure 12: High nature value farmland areas 
Agricultural genetic diversity 
Rural Development Article 39 (1)-(4) of Re gulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of 
Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibil ity to promote agri-e nvironment measures 
which may support the rearing of "farm animals of  local breeds indigenous to the area and in 
danger of being lost to farmi ng", and the preservation of "pla nt genetic resources naturally 
adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion". Article 39(5) 
of Regulation 1698/2005, and Article 28 of Regulation 1974/2006 may also support the 
conservation of genetic resources in operations  not covered by the above-mentioned measures 
supporting the preservation of endangered animal and plant genetic resources. 
The Community programme on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation 
of genetic resources in agriculture37 promotes genetic divers ity in agriculture. The 
Community Programme has given rise to 17 ac tions, involving 179 partners located in 25 
Member States and 12 non EU countries, and a total EU co-funding of EUR 8.9 million. 59% 
of the actions concern plant, 12% tree and 29%  animal species. The actions started in 2007 
and have a maximum duration of 4 years38. 
                                                 
37 Regulation (EC) No 870/2004. 
38 For more details, see http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/biodiv/genres/index_en.htm  
 
EN 28   EN Preparation of Commission Dire ctives on the acceptance and marketing of landraces and 
varieties which are naturally adapted to the lo cal and regional condit ions and threatened by 
genetic erosion covering seed of  agricultural plant species, ve getables, vegetable propagating 
and planting material other than seeds a nd fodder plant seed mixtures and adapting 
Community zootechnical legislati on with view to protect anim al genetic resources are going 
on. 
According to the 3rd National Reports to the CBD, most  Member States have developed 
targets to conserve genetic diversity and several states, such as Austria, Belgium and Germany have incorporated such targets in th eir national BAPs. Moreover, there are a wide 
range of activities underway that contribute to the EU BAP targ et as surveys and preparation 
of inventories of plant and animal breeds etc ., establishment of seed and germplasm banks, 
and support for the breeding of native, traditiona l and rare breeds of plants and livestock. The 
use of traditional lives tock breed is of ten supported through RDP meas ures (e.g. in Bulgaria, 
Estonia, Ireland, Romania and Sweden).  
Afforestation / deforestation policies and biodiversity 
Five Member States out of the 27 indicated that  they have national or sub-national strategies 
regulating afforestation and defo restation plans (i.e. Belgium,  Denmark, Hungary, Lithuania 
and the UK). Most countries indicated that a fforestation and deforest ation activities were 
regulated in some way, usually involving a requ irement for some form of authorisation after 
completion of a Strategic Environmental A ssessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact 
Assessment (EIA). Deforestation ac tivities appear to be regulated in most countries, but some 
do not appear to control afforest ation activities (though in  some case this may be because it is 
not a significant issue in the Member State). 
 
EN 29   EN ENVIRONMENT POLICY 
Target 2.2 Risks to soil biodiversity in the EU substantially reduced by 2013  
Soil protection and biodiversity 
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia and the Ne therlands indicated in their questionnaire on 
actions being taken that they have developed soil  biodiversity indicators and several others are 
developing them, though little in formation is provided on the scope  and type of indicators that 
have been developed or how they will be used. 
Several Member States (including Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland, 
Spain and Sweden) indicated that they have iden tified areas where soil bi odiversity is at risk. 
In most cases there is no deta iled information provided on the factors being taken into account 
in the risk assessments. In many cases the assess ments appear to focus on erosion risks and/or 
desertification, whilst other risks are taken into account in others (e.g. acidification or 
contamination in Sweden). 
Target 2.3 Substantial progress made toward s 'good ecological status' of freshwaters by 
2010 and further substantia l progress made by 2013  
Ecological status of freshwaters 
The principal measures for improving aquatic en vironment is the Water Framework Directive 
(WFD), which aims to establish a framework to protect inland surface waters, transitional 
waters, coastal waters and gr oundwater in order to  prevent the deteri oration of aquatic 
ecosystems and protect and enhance the status of aquatic ecosyste ms. The key aim is to put in 
place measures to achieve the ‘good status ’ of all waters by December 2015. River Basin 
Management Plans and the program me of environmental measures for each river basin district 
must be in place by 22 December 2009. 
According to the overview done  by the European Commission’ s WFD Scoreboard, as of 20 
April 2008, most states had met the reporting requirement s: communication on the legal 
instruments that transpose the WFD submitted to  the European Commission except of Italy 
and Luxembourg; reports for the inter-calibration of sites sent by all Member States; River 
Basin District Reports (Article  3 reports) provided except for Spain; River Ba sin District 
Analysis Reports (Article 5 reports) provi ded; monitoring report (Article 8 Report) 
obligations met except for Greece and Malta.  Commission assessment in March 2007 of 
transposition procedures and the adequacy of  reports did reveal a number of significant 
shortcomings, especially regarding the legal trans position of the Directive. 
 
EN 30   EN Target 2.4 Principal pollutant pressures on  terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity 
substantially reduced by 2010, and again by 2013  
Reduction of pollution impacts on biodiversity 
The Commission adopted a package to improve the EU policy on industrial emissions on 
21 December 2007. This includes a Proposal for a Directive on industrial emissions that recasts seven existing Directives (IPPC Directiv e, the Large Combustion Plants Directive, the 
Waste Incineration Directive, the Solvents Emis sions Directive and 3 Di rectives on Titanium 
Dioxide) related to industrial emissions into a si ngle clear and coherent legislative instrument. 
The IPPC Directive (2008/1/EC) requires installations falling unde r its scope to operate in 
accordance with permits including emission limit values based on the best available techniques (BAT), designed to prevent and, wher e that is not practicab le, generally to reduce 
emissions and the impact to the environment as a whole. The prevention or reduction of emissions to air, water and soil should theref ore be dealt with in the environmental permits 
issued in accordance with the IPPC Directive. The key deadline  for the full implementation of 
the Directive was 30/10/2007. 
EPER is the European Pollutant Emission Regi ster, the first European-wide register of 
industrial emissions into air and water. Accordi ng to the EPER Decision, Member States have 
to produce a triennial report, whic h covers the emissions of 50 pollu tants to be included if the 
threshold values indicated in Annex A1 of  the EPER Decision are exceeded. From 2007 
reporting will be made according to Regulation 2006/166/EC concerning the establishment of 
a European Pollutant Release and Tran sfer Registers that replaces EPER. 
The Waste Incineration Directive (2000/76/EC) requires the Commission to report on the 
application of the Directive, in particular for new plants and on the progress achieved in 
emission control techniques and experience  in waste management. The Commission's 
Communication 'Towards on improved policy on industrial emissions' summarises this report. 
The 4
th Implementation Report on Urban Waste Wa ter Directive (91/271/EEC) was published 
on 22 March 2007 linked to the Communication “Tow ards Sustainable Water Management in 
the European Union”. The Executive Summary presents the overall picture in the EU, whilst a more detailed report presents the status of implementation in each Member State. 
(http://ec.europa.eu/e nvironment/water/water-
urbanwaste/implementation/implementationreports_en.htm ) 
The Commission adopted a 'Common Implemen tation Strategy for the Water Framework 
Directive' in 2006 as the progress and work programme for 2007-2009 for the implementation 
of the Water Framework Direc tive (2000/60/EC). Agreement in 2nd reading was achieved in 
June 2008 for a Daughter Directive under the Water Framework Directive setting environmental quality standards for 41 dangerous chemical substances (i ncluding 33 priority 
substances and 8 other pollutants) that pose a pa rticular risk to animal and plant life in the 
aquatic environment and to human health. Public ation of the new Directive is foreseen in 
early 2009. 
A study to complement the pr iority list of endocrine di sruptors with a focus on Low 
Production Volume Chemicals (LPVC) was completed end of December 2006. The third 
 
EN 31   EN implementation report of the Community Strategy  for Endocrine Disrupters was published in 
November 2007 (SEC (2007) 1635). 
REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical substances) 
(EC 1907/2006) entered into force on 1 June 2007. The Regulation will result in assessing 
risks to human health and the environment of ca. 30 000 chemical  substances being currently 
used in the EU. A Framework Di rective on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides was proposed to 
reduce the risks to human health and the enviro nment from the use of pesticides. This new 
proposal is accompanied by a revision of existing legislation regarding the placing of plant 
protection products on the market and by two additional legislative proposals: one on the 
environmental protection requirements to be met by new pesticide ap plication equipment 
placed on the market and the other one on the collection of statisti cs on plant protection 
products. The legislative adoption procedure of  the Framework Directive has started in 2006 
and should be terminated in 2009. 
N-Balance per Ha of agricultural land
-104090140190240290340390440
1985
198719891991 1993
199519971999
200120032005Kg per HaAT
BE
CH
CZ
DE
DK
ES
FI
FR
GR
HU
IE
IS
IT
LU
NL
NO
PL
PT
SE
SK
TR
UK
 
Figure 13: N-balance per ha  of agricultural land 
Source: OECD, 200839 
A nutrient balance describes th e difference between all nutri ent inputs and outputs on 
agricultural land. A positive balance or surplus reflects inputs that are, in excess of crop and forage needs, and can result in the loss of nut rients to water bodies, decreasing their quality 
                                                
 
39 OECD (2008), Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD countries since 1990, Paris, 
France, www.oecd.org/tad/ env/indicators . 
 
EN 32   EN and promoting eutrophication. Su rplus nitrogen can also be lost to air as ammonia and 
greenhouse gases. 
All European countries exhibit a nitrogen surplus, though overall agricultural nitrogen 
surpluses declined (Figure 13), potentially redu cing the environmental pressures on soil, water 
and air. The adoption of nutrient management plans and environmental farm plans has had a 
key role in this reduction. It is, however, im portant not only to consider rates of surplus 
decline, but the absolute value too. Belgium and the Netherlands, for example, show significant decreases; however, nutrient surpluses in these two countries currently remain 
much higher than the average across all countries.  
Acidification, eutrophication and ground-level ozone  exposure are the most  significant threats 
to biodiversity in Europe resulting from air pollution. The National Emission Ceilings Directive
40 (NEC Directive) was therefore estab lished to reduce emissions of the four 
pollutants responsible for these thre ats, namely sulphur oxides (SO x), nitrogen oxides (NO x), 
ammonia (NH 3) and non-methane volatile organi c compounds (NMVOC). The NEC 
Directive sets ceilings for each Member State fo r emissions within their boundaries of each of 
these pollutants, which must be complie d with by 2010. Although, the Directive allows 
Member States to decide how to comply, they  are obliged to provide  annual reports with 
emissions inventories an d projections to 2010, and to draw up programmes for the progressive 
reduction of their emissions to meet th e 2010 ceilings. A Commu nication preparing a 
legislative proposal has been worked out for a re vision of the NEC Dire ctive in order to lay 
down national emission ceilings for 2020 achievable with cost-effective m easures at national 
level on top of recent Commission policy proposal s for industrial installations, new emission 
standards for heavy duty vehicles, the Climat e action and renewable energy package and the 
recent IMO agreement, which all together already will reduce emissions significantly, but not sufficiently to meet all the obj ectives of the Thematic Strate gy on Air Pollution. The proposal 
will also include a provision to monitor the effects on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems 
within all types of Natura 2000 sites. (For b ackground documentation prepared for the 
revision of the NECD see  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/a ir/pollutants/iam_nec_dir.htm
) 
Emission projections provided by the Member Stat es can be based on three different scenarios 
(AEA Technology, 200741). The 'with measures' scenario takes into account all currently 
implemented and adopted policies and measures. The second scenario, ‘with additional measures’, considers all planned policies an d measures. Finally, th e ‘without measures’ 
scenario (often referred to as ‘business as usual’), should exclude all policies and measures 
implemented, adopted or planned after the chosen base-line year for the projection. Data based on the ‘with measures’ scenario have been us ed for the analysis in this report. The latest 
emission data and projections from  Member States (Table 2) show that some Member States 
have already succeeded in keeping their emissions  below their agreed cei lings. It is expected 
that the majority of Member States will reduce their emissions of all four pollutants and are expected to comply  with their 2010 SO
x, NH 3 and NMVOC emission ceili ngs. This especially 
refers to the EU-12 Member States, although some of them expect increa ses in their emissions 
due to future economic development. 
                                                 
40 Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national 
emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants. 
41 AEA Technology (2007). Evaluation of national plans submitted in 2006 under the National Emission 
Ceilings Directive 2001/81/EC. European Commission (DG  Environment) service contract 
070501/2006/453041/MAR/C5. AEA/ED05435, September 2007.  
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pdf/nec_report.pdf  
 
EN 33   EN Table 2: Comparison of Member States emission  ceilings with Member States current emissions 
and WM projections 2010 
NO x  
Difference from 
NECD 
% SO x NH 3 NMVOC Member State 
2006* 2010 2006* 2010 2006* 2010 2006* 2010 
Austria1 +54 +25 -48 -52 -3 -8 -3 -6 
Belgium +37 +10 +29 -10 -1 -5 +7 -8 
Bulgaria1 -6 NA +7 NA -89 NA -19 NA 
Cyprus -31 -21 -10 -15 -71 -100 -30 -43 
Czech Republic1 -3 -6 -21 -25 -19 -19 -22 -32 
Denmark1 +27 +6 -162 -176 +13 -5 +29 +7 
Estonia1 -85 -55 -29 -24 -210 -229 -35 -20 
Finland1 +4 -13 -59 -13 +14 0 +1 0 
France +40 +27 +17 -9 -5 -7 +22 +1 
Germany +25 +5 +7 -13 +11 +10 +26 -1 
Greece2 -9 0 +2 0 +1 0 +10 0 
Hungary3 -7 0 -101 -43 -18 -29 +13 0 
Ireland +47 +34 +30 -27 -6 -14 +9 0 
Italy1 +20 +6 +0.5 -26 +1 -1 +8 -23 
Latvia -38 -30 -2961 -1920 -202 -193 -109 -123 
Lithuania -79 0 -238 0 -140 0 -18 0 
Luxembourg23 +27 +22 -33 -74 -27 -27 +10 -25 
Malta +7 +12 +27 +37 -329 +21 -216 -422 
Netherlands1 +29 +6 +22 +24 +5 -2 -4 -14 
Poland1 -7 NA -12 NA -44 NA +9 +13 
Portugal +6 -3 +16 -20 -28 -30 +42 +7 
Romania -45 -43 -10 -25 -12 -3 -75 -50 
Slovakia -50 -13 -25 -77 -46 -62 -79 -63 
Slovenia +4 +8 -51 -55 -7 -4 +3 -8 
Spain +38 +30 +34 -77 +16 +5 -102 +21 
Sweden +15 +4 -71 -103 -10 -14 -24 -32 
UK +27 +10 +13 -44 +5 -2 -32 -49 
EU2534 +23 +8 +5 -39 -5 -7 +13 -5 
Note: Calculated percentages are based on the di fference between a Member States' most recent emissions/its projections for 2010 
and its NECD Ceilings in relation to its emissions/projections. Positive and red marked  percentage values indicate that current  
emissions are above ceilings or that target s will not be achieved by 2010, according to  emission projections 'with measures' (W M). 
Projections used for Hungary are base d on the 'without measures' scenario as no other data were available. 
NA = no information available/provided 
* or other most recent year available 
1 Most recent data from 2005 
2 Most recent NH 3 data from 2000 
3 Most recent data from 2004 
4 Based on NECD Report 2006, EEA. EU25 without Luxembourg as emissions have not been reported at the time of evaluation. 
EU25 NH 3 without Greece and Luxembourg. 
Source:  EEA, based on Member States' data submissi ons in the framework of the NEC Directive  
  
 
EN 34   EN Target 2.5 Flood risk management plans in pla ce and designed in such  a way as to prevent 
and minimise biodiversity loss and optimised biodiversity  
Flood Risk Directive42 as basic legal measure has been adopted in 2007. The first milestone 
will be the preliminary flood risk assessment (for  2011), to be followed by the preparation of 
flood hazard maps and flood risk maps (for 2 013). The implementation of the Directive is 
supported by an expert working group establis hed and information exchange on different 
topics in relation to implementation of this Directive is going on with thematic workshops organised. Issues addressed in 2008 are sust ainable land use planning and flood risk 
management as well as on flood mapping Within the first topic the issue of working with 
natural processes is also addr essed, and in the second topic the issue of mapping potential 
adverse consequences for the environment will be considered. 
Flood risk management plans are to be develo ped by 2015 for each river basin also in line 
with the implementation of Water Framework Directive. Certain aspects of flood risk 
management are also foreseen to be consider ed in the first river basin management plans 
currently in preparation to be established by December 2009. As prevention of pollution as a 
result of floods, as well as hydromorphology and the need to assessing better environmental 
options before undertaking a new modifica tion to a water body, which could hinder the 
achievement of the WFD objectives  of the water body in question. 
                                                
 
42 Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23.10.2007 on the assessment 
and management of flood risks. 
 
EN 35   EN Objective 3. To conserve and restore bi odiversity and ecosystem services in 
the wider EU marine environment. 
Headline target: In wider marine environment (outside Natura 2000 network), biodiversity 
loss halted by 2010 and showing s ubstantial recovery by 2013 
A. Context  
EU fisheries and aquaculture have had damaging impacts both on commercially 
harvested fish stocks, and on non–target species and habitats. While recent years have 
seen progress in integrating biodiversity into  fisheries policy, it is too soon to judge 
effectiveness. However, the reform ed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)43, when fully 
implemented, will reduce fishing pressure, improve the status of harvested stocks and better protect non–target species and habi tats. The adaption of Marine Strategy 
Directive (2008/56/EC) and different regulations , strategies on water pollutants has 
strengthened the conservation of marine environment.  
B. Progress assessment
 
Target 3.1 Substantial progress achieved by 2010 towards 'good ecological status' of the 
marine environment  
Good marine and coastal ecological status 
One of the key actions under this  BAP target is to establish environmental targets for each 
marine region. The Marine Strategy Directive establishes European Marine Regions on the 
basis of geographical and environmental crit eria and has expanded the scope of water 
protection to all marine areas, with the objective of good environmental status for all marine 
waters, and an obligation for Member States to  cooperate and coordina te action in shared 
marine regions or sub-regions, across admini strative and political boundaries. Each Member 
State, in close cooperation with the relevant ot her Member States and third countries within a 
Marine Region, will be required to develop Marine Strategies for its marine waters44. 
The Marine Strategies will contain a detailed a ssessment of the state of the environment, a 
definition of 'good environmenta l status' at regional level and the establishment of clear 
environmental targets and monitoring programmes45. 
Only 5 out of the 27 Member Sates are non-coastal (Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, 
Luxemburg and Slovakia). Currently, 37% of coastal Member States have a dedicated 
national plan or strategy specifi c to the marine environment. A further 18% have a strategy or 
plan in development. A total of 27% do not ha ve a dedicated national strategy for the marine 
                                                 
43 COM(2001) 135. 
44 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:164:0019:0040:EN:PDF  
45 For more information on EU marine policy see  
http://ec.europa.eu/environmen t/water/marine/index_en.htm . 
 
EN 36   EN environment. In this latter group, however, several Member States do incorporate marine 
environmental measures into other relevant documents. Germany, for example, includes in 
their National Biodiversity Strategy the aims to achieve ‘good ecological status and chemical 
quality status’ in coastal waters by 2015 a nd good quality in marine waters by 2021. In other 
Member States, objectives for the marine enviro nment have been incorporated into legislative 
documents, such as Romania’s Environmental Protection Law and Water Law and Denmark’s 
Marine Environmental Act. Many Member Stat es include measures to prevent and reduce 
negative impacts on the marine  environment caused by fish ing activities through their 
European Fisheries Fund (EFF) Operatio nal Programmes for the period 2007-2013 (see 
Target A3.4). 
All of the coastal Member States are cont racting parties to various regional and/or 
international conventions that contain furthe r obligations aiming the protection of coastal 
and/or marine environment, like the Mediterra nean Action Plan (MAP, 1975), the first-ever 
Regional Seas Programme under UNEP's umbrella; the Action Plan for the Protection of the 
Marine Environment and the Sustainable De velopment of the Coastal Areas of the 
Mediterranean (MAP Phase II, 1995) that re placed MAP of 1975; the Barcelona Convention 
on the protection of biological diversity; the Stra tegic Action Plan for Protection of Biological 
Diversity in the Mediterranean Region (S AP BIO) adopted by UNEP-MAP in 2003; the 
Helsinki Convention (1992) under which the Bal tic Sea Action Plan was adopted in 2007; the 
OSPAR Convention (1992) on the pr otection of the marine environment of the North-East 
Atlantic; the Bucharest Conve ntion (1992) on the Protection of the Black Sea Against 
Pollution which adopted the Black Sea Biodive rsity and Landscape Conservation Protocol 
(BSBLCP) in 2002, including the ma in objective “to ha lt losses of curren tly known threatened 
species and destruction of their habitats by 2010 arising from human activities in the BSBLCP 
area and to prevent appearance of new th reatened species by human activities”. 
A range of marine and coastal species (Annex II) and habitat types (Annex I) are protected 
under the Habitats Directive, some of whic h require protection under Natura 2000. The first 
conservation status assessment undertaken in accordance with Article 17 of the Habitats 
Directive indicates that there ar e marine features in an unfavourable conservation status in 
almost all Member States. This assessment is to be completed in the first half of 2009. 
 
EN 37   EN Coastal zone policy 
Action A3.1.5 of the Biodiversity  Action Plan requires implemen tation and review of the EU 
Integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) Recommendation46. An independent evaluation 
of ICZM in Europe was undertaken in 2006 (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/evaluation_iczm_report.pdf
). Up to 2006, nine 
coastal Member States (41% of 22 with a coastli ne) have an ICZM strategy or equivalent that 
has been adopted and a further five Member States (23%) have one in development. The 
remaining eight countries have no strategy for ICZM (Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, 
Italy, Lithuania, Latvia and Sw eden). The European Commissi on launched a contract in 2008 
to support the exchange of experiences a nd best practices in coastal management. 
 
Figure 14: Member States with ICZM Strategy or Equivalent47 
Target 3.2 Principal pollutant pressures on ma rine biodiversity substantially reduced by 
2010  
The European Commission ha s issued a communication (COM/2006/0863)  presenting the 
current state of Community acti on in terms of prepar edness and response to  marine pollution, 
and indicating how the Commission intends to con tinue to fully promote its activities to in 
this field. 
                                                 
46 Integrated Coastal Zone Management: A Strategy for Europe (COM (200) 547). 
47 Source: Evaluation of ICZM in Europe (2006). 
 
EN 38   EN The European Union established the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)  
(1406/2002/EC)  to strengthen its role in the field of maritime safety and pollution by ships. 
This Agency provides technical and scientific  assistance to Commissi on and Member States 
on related matters and fulfils task s on responses to oil pollution. 
The EU Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC ) was adopted in 1976. In 2006 a new Bathing 
Water Directive (2006/7/EC) was adopted and will  repeal the earlier Di rective by 2014 at the 
latest. Both Directives are currently in appl ication. Bathing waters covered by the Directive 
are either coastal or inland waters, and must be explicitly authorised (or not prohibited) and traditionally utilised by a large number of peopl e. Swimming pools and waters for therapeutic 
purposes are not covered. To ensure good bathi ng water quality, the EU has set limits for 
microbiological parameters. Member State authorit ies must test the bathing waters and then 
classified into categories. A ccording to the ‘Quality of Ba thing Water: 2007 Bathing Season 
Summary Report’
48, 95.2% of coastal bathing waters met the mandatory compliance standards 
across the EU. This represents an overall signi ficant improvement over the past decade. The 
coastal Member States meeting or exceedin g the 2007 EU average for minimum compliance 
standards were the Netherlands, Latvia, Fi nland, Greece, Spain, Cyprus, Belgium, Ireland, 
UK, France, and Malta. The remaining coastal Me mber States were below the average. The 
Report also indicated that 86.1% of coastal bathing waters comp lied with the more stringent 
guideline standards across the EU. The coasta l Member States meeting or exceeding the 2007 
EU average for guideline compliance standards were Cyprus, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Malta, Spain and Portugal. The remaining coas tal Member States were below the average. 
Other directives and Community strategies on di fferent sources of pollutants include measures 
taken to promote the protection of coastal and marine environm ent together with regulations 
on terrestrial areas (see Objective 2 Target A2). 
Target 3.3 Ecosystem approach to the prot ection of the seas in place and implying 
fisheries management measures no later than 2016  
Through the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) and National Fisheries Oper ational Programmes 
for period 2007-2013, the Biodiversity Action Plan seeks to implement actions beneficial to 
marine biodiversity. Target A3.3. requires the in troduction of fisheries management measures 
in line with the requirements of the Marine Strategy Direc tive at a regional level by 2017. 
Based on information available (Fisheries Oper ational Programmes, etc.) it was not possible 
to estimate if an ecosystem approach to fish eries management was in place for twelve (44%) 
countries, and a further five (19%) countries ha d fisheries plans that do not incorporate an 
ecosystem approach (Austria – non coastal; Bulgaria; Denmark; France and Poland). The remaining ten countries either  already incorporat e ecosystem based approaches in their 
fisheries management measures (8 Member Stat es, 30%) or have draft plans in development 
(2 Member States, 7%). 
The Commission's Communication of  April 2008 to the Council and the European Parliament 
emphasized the need to integrate the ecosystem  approach into the Common Fisheries Policy
49. 
                                                 
48 http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/water/water-bathing/r eport2008/en_summary.pdf  
49 COM(2008)0187 on the role of the CFP in implementing an ecosystem approach to marine 
management. 
 
EN 39   EN Target 3.4 Substantially enhanced funding pr ovided to environmentally-friendly fisheries 
management from 2007 onwards  
The European Fisheries Fund50 (EFF, 2007-2013) is designed to secure a sustainable 
European fishing and aquaculture industry. A ssistance under the EFF shall aim to: support the 
Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) so as to ensure  exploitation of living aquatic resources and 
support aquaculture in order to provide sustainability in econo mic, environmental and social 
terms; promote a sustainable balance between resources and the fishing capacity of the 
Community fishing fleet; promote a sustainable development of in land fishing; and foster the 
protection and enhancement of the environment and natural resources where related to the 
fisheries sector. 
Under the EFF, each Member State is required to  adopt a national strategic plan and submit it 
with the Operational Programme document. The Operational Programme (OP) is the single 
document drawn up by the Member State 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 for the Community fishing fleet; Axis 2 is for measures relating to aquaculture, inland fishing, processing and marketing of fish ery and aquaculture products; Axis 3 is for 
measures of common interest (e.g. collective act ions, protection and development of aquatic 
fauna and flora; fishing ports; development of ne w markets; etc); and Axis 4 is for measures 
for sustainable development of fisheries ar eas. Within these Axes are objectives and 
measures, some of which promote environmentally -friendly fisheries. For example, measures 
under Axis 1 might include objectives for improv ement of selectivity, reducing the impact of 
fishing on non-commercial species, reducing the overall fishing capaci ty, and reducing the 
impact of fishing on ecosystems and the sea bottom. 
Table 3: EFF breakdown by prio rity Axis for the 19 adopted Operational Progr ammes (Source DG 
MARE, June 2008). 
Priority axis funding (€, current prices)   
Country Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3 Ax is 4 Axis 5 Grand Total 
Austria - 5 164 318 50 000 - 45 000 5 259 318 
Bulgaria 8 000 970 36 004 371 20 002 426 12 001 456 4 000 485 80 009 708 
Cyprus 2 200 000 3 250 000 12 924 418 1 000 000 350 000 19 724 418 
Czech Rep - 11 926 937 13 824 404 - 1 355 334 27 106 675 
Denmark 21 365 342 47 149 524 46 015 266 12 461 279 6 683 758 133 675 169 
Estonia 15 264 531 24 583 929 21 209 664 19 281 513 4 228 402 84 568 039 
Finland 3 445 000 16 990 000 14 783 827 3 606 000 624 000 39 448 827 
France 59 621 494 63 029 212 85 049 416 5 699 644 2 653 318 216 053 084 
Germany 8 145 000 57 560 225 68 687 844 19 438 000 2 034 348 155 865 417 
Greece 77 272 459 59 689 538 32 320 240 33 300 000 5 250 000 207 832 237 
Italy 161 250 284 106 085 713 106 085 713 16 973 714 33 947 430 424 342 854 
Latvia 20 860 942 46 128 750 24 153 000 28 911 476 4 961 395 125 015 563 
Lithuania 13 667 647 22 431 005 9 249 241 6 693 770 2 671 745 54 713 408 
Netherlands 16 913 233 7 379 398 16 903 461 4 987 125 2 395 200 48 578 417 
Portugal 53 065 134 78 058 495 90 026 920 17 403 406 7 931 294 246 485 249 
                                                 
50 Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006. 
 
EN 40   EN Romania 9 975 000 105 000 000 30 000 000 75 000 000 10 739 207 230 714 207 
Slovakia - 10 467 810 2 536 292 - 684 426 13 688 528 
Spain 403 067 965 344 241 335 316 510 945 49 336 048 18 734 619 1 131 890 912 
Sweden 13 666 201 10 932 961 19 132 681 8 199 720 2 733 240 54 664 803 
Grand Total 887 781 202 1 056 073 521 929 465 758 314 293 151 112 023 201 3 299 636 833 
 
As information on funding was provided by EFF Ax is rather than BAP Objective, it is not 
feasible to give exact figure s on funds allocated to biodiversity and Natura 2000 purposes. In 
the 2007-2013 period the EFF may pr ovide opportunities to support biodiversity conservation 
and sustainable use of natural resources. Th is can be done by the implementation of many 
different types of operations included in 4 of the 5 Priority Axes defined by regulation 
1198/2006. However, in every OP these operations  are grouped together with many other 
measures belonging to the same Axis and not linked to biodiversity and Natura 2000. The 
financial information provided by the EFF OP s does not include the amount allocated to 
measures or operations. The only available info rmation concerns the total allocation of the 
EFF plus the national public contribution fo r each Priority Axis, and the total annual 
commitment of the EFF in the operational programme. 
However, it appears that the majority of Me mber States (63%) have  Operational Programmes 
that incorporate environmentally-fri endly fisheries approved by the EC.  
Target 3.5 Stock levels maintained or re stored to levels that can produce maximum 
sustainable yield, where po ssible no later than 2015  
Restoration programmes for diadromous species  
Diadromous fishes are species that use both marine and freshw ater habitats during their life 
cycle. These include certain spec ies of salmon, trout, sturgeon, a nd eels. Because of their vast 
migration distances, conservation measures of these species need to cover both targeted 
fishing for the species and river management issues like dam construction and fish passes. 
Currently, 44% of Member States have a mana gement plan for at least one diadromous 
species. A total of 19% did not have any manage ment plans, although in the case of some 
countries there might not be any natural hab itats for diadromous species. Austria, for 
example, does not have any diadromous species . Their trout restoration programme is for 
riverine trout species ( Salmo trutta fario ). Cyprus also does not ha ve any management plans 
for diadromous species as they have no inland fi sheries or river with constant water flow. The 
Iron Gate bars Great sturgeon to  reach Hungarian rivers, so th ey do not have any management 
plans for diadromous species either. In the cas e of 37% of the Member  States, it was unclear 
whether there were any management plans for diadromous species. The Czech Republic, for 
example, has an ongoing project for the reintroduction of At lantic salmon ( Salmo salar ), but 
there is no data of an associated management plan. 
A total of 33% of Member States have a mana gement plan for salmon. This includes national 
obligations under regional management plans.  The Baltic Sea Regional Advisory Council 
(BSRAC) recently published recommendations fo r a renewal of the Salmon Action Plan 
started by the IBSFC in 1997. Not all stocks  are managed through regional cooperation. In 
Ireland, salmon are managed under advice from a National Salmon Commission and a 
 
EN 41   EN detailed system for the management of stocks  is administered through the Wild Salmon and 
Sea Trout tagging scheme. In the case of 45% of the Member States it is unclear whether they 
have a management plan for salmon. 
According to available information, only Finl and and the United Kin gdom appear to have 
management plans for diadromous species of trout. A total of 37% of Member States did not have management plans for trout and for th e remaining 56% the situation is unclear.  
Bulgaria, Germany and France all have management plans for sturgeon. A further 33% of 
Member States do not have any management plans for sturgeon and for the remaining 56% 
the situation is unclear. Romania, for exampl e, banned sturgeon fishi ng for ten years starting 
from April 2006 and has forbidde n trading of wild sturgeon caught in Romania. However, 
there is no information on whet her they have a management plan for restoring sturgeon 
populations. 
According to the EU re gulation on eel protection
51 Member States are obliged to identify and 
define individual river basins (including maritim e waters) within their national territory that 
constitute natural habitats for the European eel (Anguilla anguilla) , prepare Eel Management 
Plans for each eel river basin to reduce anthropoge nic mortalities, with a view to bringing the 
eel population up to at least 40% of  the size that is estimated to be there had there been no 
human influence. The Plan must also include an  intended time scale to achieve this. Member 
States are exempt from preparing such a plan if they do not have any natural habitats for 
European eel. Eel Management Plans have to be submitted for approval to the European Commission no later than 31 December 2008 and ha ve to be implemented by 1 July 2009. So 
far, only Belgium has adopted a Management Plan  for eels. A total of 44% of Member States 
do not have an approved eel management pla n, including Member States where it is under 
preparation (e.g. Sweden and Denm ark) It is unclear whether the remaining 52% had any Eel 
Management Plans active or under development. 
Other species of diadromous fish w ith management plans include houting ( Coregonus 
oxyrhynchus ) in Denmark and whitefish ( Coregonus sp. ) in Finland. 
Common Fisheries Policy in the Maritime Policy  
The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) shall contri bute to improve the balance between fishing 
capacity and available resources. The aim of th e CFP is to secure the future of the EU 
fisheries sector by ensuring sust ainable fisheries. Member Stat es have agreed a series of 
multi-annual guidance programmes (MAGP), ai med at reducing the EU fishing fleet's 
capacity to levels more in line with the opport unities to catch fish. Th ese programmes operate 
by setting targets for each Member State for their individual fishing fleets. The exact measures set out in the programmes for reducti ons in fleet capacity have become more and 
more complex with each programme and include targets related to tota l tonnage and engine 
power and for the reduction of fishing effort fo r individual specific fisheries as well. Quotas 
are set yearly for each fleet, on the species and sea region they are allowed to fish.  
                                                
 
51 Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 on establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of 
European eel. 
 
EN 42   EN In 2004, when data were first available for all 27 Member States (excluding those without a 
coastline), total EU fishing capacity was 92054 vessels, falling by 5.7% to 86733 in 2006, and 
in terms of Tonnage, 2101108 tonnes in 2004 falling by 6.9% to 1955629 tonnes in 2006. The country with the greatest fishing capacity is Spain (in 1999, 2004 and 2006; 480209 tonnes in 
2006) and Slovenia has the least (in 2004 and 20 06 when it was 1070 tonnes). Thirteen (59%) 
countries have a decommissioning scheme in place (CY; DK; EE; EL; ES; FR; IT; LT; LV; 
NL; RO; SE; UK). For the remainder the status is  either unknown (not ve rified for this study, 
BE; DE; MT; PT) or no commissioning scheme exists (BG; FI; IE; PL). Fishing capacity measured in terms of the number of vessels, tonnage (see Figure 15) and fishing power has 
fallen in all countries except Ireland. Al though Ireland does no t have a general 
decommissioning scheme in place, it has been re ducing capacity in certain sectors, notably 
whitefish. 
Percentage change in Fishing Capacity-Tonnage
-60-50-40-30-20-100102030
BE CY DE DK EE EL ES FI FR IE IT LT LV MT NL PL PT SE SI UK EU-
27
CountryPercent Change% change 99-06
% change 04-06
Note: The follow ing Member States do not 
have a coastline and 
have not been 
included in this 
analysis: AT, CZ, HU, 
LU, and SK
Source: EU Fleet Statistics: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng-en
 
Figure 15: Changes in fishing capacity between 1999-2006 and 2004-2006 time scale.  
The latest available information on fishing vessels decommissioned with public aid during 
2006 and 2007 is given below.  
Table 4 
Fishing vessels decommissioned with  public aid during 2006 and 2007
Source: Community Fishing Fleet Register 16 May 2008  
  2006 2007 
MS Vessels GT kW Vessels GT kW 
BE 9 2.224 6.038       
BG             
DK 40 4.513 12.582       
DE             
 
EN 43   EN Fishing vessels decommissioned with  public aid during 2006 and 2007
Source: Community Fishing Fleet Register 16 May 2008  
  2006 2007 
MS Vessels GT kW Vessels GT kW 
EE 17 1.779 4.691 12 937 2.245 
IE 14 1.732 5.745       
EL 227 1.105 8.286 195 1.518 8.140 
ES 132 13.686 32.860 73 2.759 9.993 
FR 84 6.149 22.888       
IT 117 5.583 20.938 202 10.318 41.264 
CY 5 200 1.209       
LV 28 1.205 2.781 17 950 2.228 
LT       11 1.173 1.893 
MT 3 90 679       
NL 1 29 118       
PL 84 2.469 9.118 24 741 2.565 
PT 22 705 3.114 11 646 2.639 
RO             
SI             
FI 2 264 789       
SE 3 242 1.145 17 472 2.429 
UK             
Total 788 41.974 132.980 562 19.513 73.396 
 
Technical workshops on Marine protected areas  appropriateness as management tool for 
management of fisheries activities were ca rried out by the Commissi on and supported by 
Community experts. Measures are being introduced to protect sensitive habitats (e.g. deep sea 
coral reefs) and may result in  no-take areas. A C ouncil Regulation concerning management 
measures for the sustainable e xploitation of fisheries in the Mediterranean has been adopted, 
chapter III of which include s fishing on protected areas. 
EU has a list of vessels engaged in illegal, unreported and unre gulated fisheries in the North 
East Atlantic52. A Communication on "a new strategy fo r the Community to prevent, deter 
and eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing"53, as well as a proposal for 
Council Regulation Establishing a Community system  to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, 
                                                 
52 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1262/2006 of 23 August 2006, amending Council Regulation (EC) 
No 51/2006. 
53 COM(2007)601. 
 
EN 44   EN unreported and unregulated fishing54 have been adopted by the Commission in October 2007. 
On 29 September 2008, the Council adopted the Regulation establishing a Community system to 
prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing . A stakeholder consultation ha s recently been launch on 
the reform of the CFP control system. The Commission has adopted on 14 November 2008 a 
proposal for a Council Regulation on the reform  of the control system of the Common 
Fisheries Policy (CFP). It is designed to strengt hen the current regulatory framework in order 
to ensure a level playing fiel d and to develop a culture of compliance within the fisheries 
sector across the European Union (COM(2008) 721 final) . 
 
Figure 16: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 200655 
Many commercial fish stocks in European waters  remain to be assessed. In the NE Atlantic, 
the percentage (of catch in weight to the to tal catch) of un-assessed stocks range from a 
minimum of 3% (W. Scotland and West of Ireland) to a maximum of 34 % (Irish Sea and Iberian Peninsula). There is a general trend from North to South of an in crease in percentage 
of un-assessed stocks. In the Mediterranean region, the percentage is higher ranging from 
23% in the Adriatic Sea to 70% for tuna and tu na like species for the entire Mediterranean. In 
the Black Sea no stock is assessed. 
                                                
 
54 COM(2007)602. 
55 Note: The chart shows the proportion of assessed stocks which are overfished (red) and stocks within 
safe biological limits (blue). Number in circle is the number of stocks assessed within the given region. 
The size of the circles is scaled proportional to the magnitude of the regional catch. Data source: GFCM 
and ICES. 
 
EN 45   EN As shown on Figure 16, 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea) are ou tside safe biological limits 
(SBL) of the assessed commercial stocks in th e NE Atlantic. For the other areas in the NE 
Atlantic the percentages of st ocks outside safe biological lim its vary between 25% and 55%. 
In the Mediterranean the percentage of stocks  outside SBL ranges from 44% to 73%, with the 
Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition. 
Target 3.6 Impact of fisheries on non-targ et species and habita ts progressively and 
substantially reduced from 2006 onwards  
Action plans and conservation status for marine species and habitats  
A total of 86%of coastal Member States have action plans for marine species that are not the 
target of specific fisheries. These include cetac eans, seals, seabirds, fish, corals, turtles and 
molluscs. Some of the action plans are develo ped and adopted as obligatory measures under a 
regional or multi-national conven tion. For example, Contracting Parties to the Barcelona 
Convention (including: Cyprus, France, Greece , Italy, Malta, Slovenia and Spain) adopted 
several regional action plans in  the context of the Mediterra nean Action Plan concerning 
species such as monk seal, cetac eans, marine turtles, birds in  Annex II of the SPA protocol 
and cartilaginous fishes. Other action plans are a dopted as Member State national, rather than 
regional, initiatives. The UK, for example, ha s adopted action plans for a range of marine 
species — from the mollusc Native Oyster ( Ostrea edulis ) to grouped action plan for baleen 
whales — under their overall Biodiversity Action Plan. 
Only Ireland has indicated that it has an ac tion plan for non-target cetacean species under 
development. It is not clear whether the rema ining 9% of coastal Member States have any 
action plans for non-target marine species. 
Almost all of the Member States (95%) have  monitoring programmes for non-target marine 
species. These monitoring programmes are undert aken in relation to national and regional 
initiatives. HELCOM, to which Denmark, Est onia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Poland, and Sweden are parties, unanim ously adopted Recommendation 27-28/2: 
Conservation of Seals in the Baltic Sea Area as well as Reco mmendation 17/2: Protection of 
Harbour Porpoises in the Balt ic Sea Area. A requirement of  both of these Recommendations 
is monitoring of populations and re porting on results of implementation. 
Many Member States also have their own m onitoring programmes, incorporating government 
bodies, research institutions a nd NGOs. Cyprus, for example, monitors and reports on both 
Green turtles ( Chelonia mydas ) and Loggerhead turtles ( Caretta caretta ) in a programme 
carried out by the Society for the Protection of Turtles and the local Department of 
Environmental Protection in conjunction with  international research institutions.  
Marine Habitats are also extensively mon itored. 82% of coastal Member States have 
monitoring programmes for non-target marine hab itats. It was not clear whether the remaining 
18% of Member States do or not. 
A Community Action Plan for Sharks was opene d for consultation until 15 February 2008, an 
impact assessment of the Shark Action Plan is be ing undertaken with a view to its adoption by 
in early 2009. The Commission is gathering inform ation and scientific advice with a view to 
completing a Community plan of action for redu cing seabird by-catch in  the context of FAO 
by the end of 2009. 
 
EN 46   EN Aquaculture planning and biodiversity  
Priority Axis 2 of the European Fisheries Fu nd (EFF) relates to pr omoting production of 
environmentally friendly aquaculture. The OPs of  55% of Member States describe plans for 
aquaculture that take account of  biodiversity and ha ve been adopted (AT; BG; CY; CZ; DK; 
EE; EL; ES; FI; FR; IT; LT; LV; PT; RO) whils t a further 4% have a draft operational 
programme relating to biodivers ity and aquaculture (UK).  
The Simplified technical measures through the New Technical Measures Regulation proposed 
in 2008 aims to improve selectivity of fishing gear. A multi-annual recovery Plan for Bluefin 
tuna in the Eastern Atlantic  and Mediterranean was adopted . In March 2007 the Commission 
adopted a Communication on reducing unwanted catches and eliminat ing discards in 
European fisheries56, for which the European Parliame nt expressed broad support in its 
plenary session of 31 January 2008. The Communication proposes the adoption of a 
progressive fishery- by- fish ery discard ban and the setti ng of standards for maximum 
acceptable by-catch. In this Communication the Commission announced to propose specific 
legislation as from 2008 a nd a sequence and plan for implementation. Legislation 
implementing fisheries restrictive areas to pr otect vulnerable deep-sea habitats in the 
Mediterranean and in the North East Atlant ic is included in the 2008 TAC and Quota 
Regulation. Council Regulation 1967/2006 of 21 December 2006 concerning management 
measures for the sustainable exploitation of  fisheries in the Mediterranean includes 
prohibition of fishing with devi ces impacting sensitive habitats (e.g. sea grasses) in areas 
known to host such habitats. 
Protection measures for four Irish SACs included as an amendment to 2008 TAC & QUOTA 
Regulation adopted in Decembe r 2007. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance 
document for Member States on how to reques t for fisheries management measures for 
marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/envir onment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf
)  
The Commission is responding to Member States  requests regarding fisheries management 
measures for Natura 2000 sites. A new request from Spain for the marine Natura 2000 site 'El 
Cachucho' has been submitted. 
Study and expert workshops have been carried  out with STECF and ICES to identify 
improved indicators for reporting on impact of fishing on marine ecosystem (report released 
in July 2007). The Council adopted on 25 Fe bruary 2008 the Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 
concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and 
use of data in the fisheries sector and suppor t for scientific advice  regarding the Common 
Fisheries Policy (CFP). This new framework also introduces provisions to meet new 
developments following the 2002 Reform of the CFP, in particular the move towards fisheries- or fleet-based management as opposed to managing in dividual stocks, the 
integration of environmental data, and the sh ift towards an ecosystem-based approach. The 
new Data Collection Regulation (DCR) includes th e obligation for Member States to collect 
environmental data. The collection of basic sc ientific information will support periodic 
assessments of the progress of the CFP in inte grating biodiversity pr otection requirements. 
The new DCR also includes access to and use of de tailed data, in particular, access to satellite 
monitoring (VMS) data will provid e detailed information at a high level of resolution required 
                                                
 
56 COM(2007)136. 
 
EN 47   EN for effective spatial planning. This will play a major role in enabling effective action to 
protect vulnerable marine habita ts both under the Habitats Direct ive, and in fulfilment of the 
EU's international commitments. In A ugust 2008 the Commission adopted technical 
implementing rules (COM 665/2008). In a ddition the Commission ha s recently proposed 
detailed implementing rules concerning the Co mmission's financial contribution to the Data 
Collection National programmes. A European M onitoring and Data Network for the Seas 
(EMODNET), to be established in the context of the new Integrated Maritime Policy, will monitor indicators on the natural state of the seas, incl uding biodiversity. 
 
EN 48   EN Objective 4. To reinfo rce compatibility of reg ional and territorial 
development with biodiversity in the EU. 
Headline target: Regional and territorial d evelopment benefiting biodiversity, and negative 
impacts on biodiversity prevented and mini mised or, where unavoidable, adequately 
compensated for 
A. Context  
Member States have the opportunity to su pport nature conservation and biodiversity 
through programmes integrated into their de velopment strategies and co-financed from 
the Structural Funds (the European Region al Development Fund and European Social 
Fund) and the Cohesion Fund) with nati onal co-finance. The nature directives57 and the 
Environmental Impact A ssessment (EIA) Directive58 require the consideration of 
potential impacts of certain regional and territorial developments. This includes 
consideration of alternatives and the design  of measures to prevent and reduce negative 
impacts. Careful assessments carried out ea rly in the decision-making process have 
proven helpful. However, it is often done too late or is of poor quality. The recent 
introduction of strategic environmental assessments (SEA)59, which apply to certain 
plans and programmes, should help bett er reconcile conservation and development 
needs by ensuring consideration of impact s much earlier in the planning process. 
B. Progress assessment  
REGIONAL POLICY, SPATIAL PLANNING  
Target 4.1 Cohesion and structural funds c ontributing to sustaina ble development and 
making (directly or indirectly) a positive contribution to biodiversity, and negative impacts on 
biodiversity prevented or minimised or, wher e unavoidable, adequately compensated for  
Cohesion and structural funds contributin g to nature conservation and biodiversity 
In relation to EU Cohesion policy the Community Strategic Guidelines and the relevant fund 
regulations include clea r references to the importance of  nature protection in developing 
infrastructure and in rela tion to economic diversific ation. Moreover, the 2007-2013 
programming period of the Cohesion Policy  addresses directly the preservation of 
biodiversity. Under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund 
(CF), each Member State is required to adopt a national development plan and submit it with 
the Operational Programmes referring to sect oral (horizontal) and re gional programmes. The 
Operational Programme (OP) is the single document drawn up by the Member State and 
approved by European Commissi on. Based on the selection cr iteria developed for each 
                                                 
57 Directive 79/409/EC, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p.1 an d Directive 92/43/EEC, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p.7. 
58 Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC, OJ L 073, 14.3.1997, p.5. 
59 Directive 2001/42/EC, OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p.30. 
 
EN 49   EN measure it is the Member States' responsibilit y to award projects excep t for Major Projects 
that have to be approved by the European Commission. 
An initial assessment of the European Re gional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund 
operational programmes for 2007-2013 reveals that Me mber States have made allocations to 
several categories of spending related to the protection of biodiversit y and management of 
natural resources. The most rele vant category is the “Promoti on of biodiversity and nature 
protection” (cat. No. 51) for which EUR 2 719 million60 has been allocated. Also highly 
relevant is the "protection of natural asse ts" (cat. No. 55) for which EUR 1 146 million is 
allocated. The "protection and development of na tural heritage" (cat. No. 56) with a total of 
EUR 1 376 million, in the framework of tourism will also include some spending and thus 
indirect impact on natu re and biodiversity.  
All but three Member States have allocate d some funding for na ture and biodiversity 
protection, although as a proportion of  the overall allocations this varies considerable between 
countries. As it is shown on Table 5, only five Me mber States intend to use more than 2% of 
their allocated funds for bi odiversity related categori es (cat. No. 51 and 55).  
Country Nature conservation in regional policy 
(million EUR) 
on categories No. 51+55 Nature conservation in regional policy 
(% of ERDF) 
on categories No. 51+55 
Austria 0 0.00 
Belgium 16 0.80 
Bulgaria 99 1.50 
Cyprus 0 0.00 
Czech Republic 673 2.60 
Denmark 6 1.20 
Estonia 34 1.00 
Finland 5 0.30 
France 224 1.70 
Germany 108 0.40 
Greece 202 1.00 
Hungary 289 1.20 
Ireland 0 0.00 
Italy 171 0.70 
Latvia 26 0.60 
Lithuania 166 2.50 
Luxemburg 0 0.00 
Malta 21 2.50 
Netherlands 8 0.40 
Poland 208 0.30 
Portugal 167 0.80 
Romania 236 1.20 
Slovakia 30 0.30 
Slovenia 90 2.20 
Spain 750 2.20 
Sweden 9 0.50 
United Kingdom 29 0.30 
Table 5: ERDF expenditure promoting nature cons ervation and biodiversity (cat. No. 51 and 55);  
Source:  DG Environment, Unit Cohesion Policy and Environmental Impact Assessments 
                                                 
60 Only EU contribution calculated, no national and/or private co-financing is included, state of July 2008. 
 
EN 50   EN According to the Operational Programmes (OP) of the Member Sates, the interventions 
planned cover a wide range of  activities as for example: 
– Preparation and implementation of Natura 200 0 management plans; scientific studies, 
inventories, mapping; 
– Training and institutional capacity building of  the Natura 2000 bodies and protected areas 
management authorities; 
– Protection of biological diversity both at the leve l of habitats and at the level of protection 
of endangered plant and animal species; im provements of the habitats of endangered 
species. Conservation of biological diversity. Ke eping genetic diversity  of flora and fauna; 
– Restoration of animals'  migration corridors; 
– Improvement of abilities of the ecosystems  and species to adapt to the increasing 
fragmentation of the landscape; 
– Prevention of importation; regulation and liqui dation of the populations of invasive plant 
and animal species; 
– Forest-planting measures; 
– Research on integrated manageme nt of invasive alien species; 
– Reducing impact of infrastructure on spec ies affected by fragmentation of space 
(infrastructures to overcome barriers on rive rs and motorways, correction/adaptation of 
electric lines); 
– Awareness- raising activities, information and education on nature pr otection and nature-
friendly behaviour. 
There are Member States, like the Czech Re public and Hungary primarily promoting the 
active, direct protectio n of natural assets thorough activi ties like habitat reconstruction, 
reduction of adverse impacts of infrastructura l elements, etc. Others, like Bulgaria and 
Romania give more emphasise on the implem entation of Natura 2000 network, or on the 
widening of knowledge-base and promoting the access to information on protected species just like Lithuania and Spain. 
Biodiversity benefits can also be expected from  measures in the urban context such as brown 
field rehabilitation, the re-establishment of green areas and open space, and, more directly, 
from landscape conservation measures where they accompany major infrastructure projects to compensate for biodiversity losses. 
The operational programmes co-f inanced by ESF offer a wide  range of other funding 
opportunities but they need to be identified and proactively by the interested parties at 
national levels. Many operational programmes c ontributing towards the achievement of the 
Convergence objective allow the use of the t echnical assistance to support measures that 
indirectly promote Natura 2000 or biodiversity activities. This is fo r instance th e case in 
Germany, France, Italy, Bulgaria , Romania or Malta wh ere technical assist ance (either the OP 
on technical assistance or direc tly the technica l assistance of the OP ) allow funding activities 
in relation to the implementation of the environmental measures like environmental 
 
EN 51   EN monitoring, development of GIS,  evaluation activities, reinforcem ent of capacity building and 
assistance to prepare Natura 2000 management plans. 
Though there has been no agreement at Community  level on specific biodiversity indicators 
as part of the core Structural Funds indi cators adopted for the programming period 2007-
2013, some Member States set adequate indicators  in each of their OP s and this experience 
should be extended to other c ountries. This way informatio n on changes in nature and 
biodiversity and effectiveness of  the activities carried out will  be provided by Member States 
financing such projects. There are cases of best practice proj ects that promote biodiversity 
protection in territoria l planning but there are no available systematic overview of such 
actions yet. There is a need to build on the existing good practic e cases demonstrating 
beneficial impacts for biodivers ity from the Cohesion policy. 
The effective use of the ESF funds for the pur pose of nature and biodiversity protection as 
well as the amounts really used would need to be followed in the Annual Reports and to be discussed in the Natura 2000 ENEA working group. 
Compared to the national programmes, the op erational programmes contributing toward the 
achievement of the European Territorial C ooperation (ETC) objective (formerly INTERREG) 
includes a wide variety of cross-border cooperati on actions within transnational partnerships. 
It appears to have higher allocations for specific action in favour of biodiversity and/or Natura 
2000, representing on average 5.6% of  the ETC 2007-2013 programmes budget. 
Approximately EUR 2 500 million is allocated on measures covering a wide variety of 
environment related activities  a ca. EUR 500 million of which is for measures under category 
51. 
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA ) and Environmental Impact Assessment 
(EIA) of programmes and project that might have an impact on nature, biodiversity 
Biodiversity considerations are also integrated into the regional development investments. 
Programmes and plans operated under the Cohesion policy have  to undergo a mandatory 
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) whic h is essential in helping avoid negative 
impacts on environment and biodiversity. Experien ce with application of SEA to Structural 
Funds for 2007-2013 is progressing. This will need to be evalua ted to determine if specific 
guidelines are needed as regards its effectiv eness for biodiversity protection. Two studies on 
the application of the SEA and EIA Directives  have been launched in 2008 and will include 
examination of the relationship between these di rectives and the EU Biodiversity Action Plan 
and the Habitats Directive. The Fina l reports are expected in early 2009. 
In general, the SEA of the regional program mes did not contain specific recommendations 
concerning biodiversity. In many of the majo r projects of OPs on transport or large 
infrastructures and other Trans-European Ne tworks (TEN) projects were likely to cross 
Natura 2000 areas. In some cases (e.g. Czech  Republic and Hungary) the SEA had identified 
possible negative impacts of concrete pr ojects on NATURA 2000 sites and formulated 
recommendations to avoid or minimize them. The Authorities removed these projects from 
the list of possible projects of the OP. In a few OPs however, clauses conditioning the funding 
to the respect of nature protection legislat ion with the focus on Natura 2000 sites were 
introduced. This is the case in Poland (co-fina nce of projects having negative impact on the 
potential Natura 2000 sites shall not be eligible), Bulgaria (c o-financing of projects having 
 
EN 52   EN negative impact on potential Na tura 2000 sites will not be perm itted) or Italy (management 
plans for Natura 2000 sites have to be in place before any co-fi nancing is granted). 
In line with the provisions laid down by the SEA Directive, the adaptation process of OPs 
included the participation of civil society. The Authority responsible for the certain 
programme was obliged either to take the co mments expressed during the public consultation 
into consideration or to provi de satisfactory explanation on th e rejection of the proposal. In 
practice, even if the timeframe of the consultati ons were not always suffi cient to allow a large 
public participation, the SEA pro cess was proved to involve the majority of NGOs interested 
in the programme. 
Evaluations of Major Projects for the period 200 7-2013 will begin as soon as the projects will 
be submitted to the Commission (around mid -2008). EIA includes a description of the 
aspects of the environment likely to be signi ficantly affected by the project, including fauna, 
flora, and landscape. The EIA provides also for an outline of the main alternatives studied by 
the developer and an indication of the main  raisons for his choice, taking into account 
environmental effects. Environment Director ate-General of the European Commission will 
verify that the EIA takes duly into account im pact on nature and biodiversity (including eco-
systems) and the measures foreseen to avoid, minimise and compensate. 
Target 4.2 Negative impacts of territorial plans (within each Member State) on 
biodiversity prevented or minimise d and positive benefits optimised  
As explained above, two studies on the applicat ion of the EIA and SEA Directives have been 
launched in 2008 and will include examination of  the relationship between these directives 
and the EU Biodiversity Action Plan and the Habitats Directive. Final reports are expected in early 2009.  
For more information on the progress pl ease see text Objective 1, Target 1.1. 
Target 4.3 Ecological cohere nce and functioning strength ened through spatial planning
 
A new initiative "Territorial Agenda for the Eu ropean Union" has been adopted in May 2007, 
which provides background for planning and implementation of European ecological 
networks, especially stressing  its role for oppor tunities for sustainable development in 
marginal areas and preservation of trad itional cultural landscapes of Europe. 
Target 4.4 Significant increase in proportion of  tourism which is ecologically sustainable  
The European Commission itself has no r eady initiative or guidance document on 
ecologically sustainable tourism, bu t in 2006 it launched the pilot project EDEN  "European 
Destinations of Excellence" which in 2008 focu ssed on protected areas. In addition, several 
(Member States have developed partnerships  (see Table 6), and signed agreements or 
established labelling systems with stakeholde rs concerned with the tourism sector. The 
European Commission is aiming to establish a European Business a nd Biodiversity (B@B) 
Platform that may include the tourism sector. 
 
EN 53   EN Table 6: Member States with national initiatives ai med at promoting partnership for biodiversity, by 
sector (See also Supporting Measure 3).  
Source: Member States' country report, up to 20 June 2008  
Target 4.5 All above outcomes achieved also in Outermost Regions   
Allocations of regional funds in chapter Objective 4, Target A4.1. include expenditure for 
Outermost Regions as well. 
For more information on the progress please see Objective 1, Target A1.5.  
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY Target 4.6 All Strategic Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact 
Assessments have taken full acc ount of biodiversity concerns  
For information on the progress please see text Objective 1, Target 1.1. Country Finance Tourism Mining Farming SMEs Other Others
Austria
BelgiumBulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Republic state administrations, NGOs , professional associations
Denmark Education
Estonia
Finland
France Energy firms, Infrastructure firms and Commercial groups 
German
y Sports
Greece
Hungar y
IrelandItal
y
Latvia Municipalities
Lithuania Public information company
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom 
 
EN 54   EN Objective 5. To substantially reduce the impact on EU biodiversity of 
invasive alien species and alien genotypes. 
Headline target: Negative impacts on EU biodive rsity of IAS and alien genotypes prevented 
or minimised from 2010 onwards 
A. Context  
Invasive alien species were identified in the 6th EAP as a priority for action. While 
support has been given to some localised eradication programmes via LIFE funding, the 
Community has still to develop a comprehensive strategy to address this issue. Work on 
this is currently ongoing, but there are still significant polic y and legal gaps at national 
and Community level to tackle this rapidly ev olving threat to biod iversity in Europe. At 
present overall efficiency of Community responses to deal with IAS is low and biodiversity-rich areas (e.g. EU overseas enti ties) do not receive appropriate attention. 
The multitude of existing EU legislation pa rtially covering diff erent aspects of IAS 
makes co-ordinated implementation difficult . Policy consistency between most Member 
States is low or non-existent. Scientific sc enarios illustrate a dramatic increase in 
biological invasions (see also SEBI indicator number 10 annexed). 
B. Progress assessment (Synth esis of EU-level actions)
 
Target 5.1 Impact of IAS on biodiversity in  the EU and alien ge notypes prevented or 
minimised from 2010 onwards  
Strategies to reduce impacts from invasive alien species  
Invasive alien species (IAS) are non-native species th at are deliberately or unintentionally 
introduced by human action outside  their natural habitats where they then establish, 
proliferate and spread in ways that cause damage to bi ological diversity, economy and human 
health. Overall IAS are currently considered to be the second most important threat to 
biodiversity at a global level. The main pathwa ys for IAS introduction are associated directly 
or indirectly with trade. Rapid growth in  trading and transport activities expand the 
opportunities for IAS introductio n and environmental pressures such as rising CO 2 
concentrations, warmer temperatures, greate r nitrogen deposition, altered disturbances 
regimes and increased habitat fragmentati on may facilitate further invasions.  
The EU Biodiversity Action Plan includes a spec ific objective and several actions for IAS and 
alien species. Importantly, it encourages Member States to develop and national strategies on 
invasive alien species (by 2007) and to fully  implement them by 2010. Table 7 sets out a 
summary of each Member States’ progress with this action. 
 
EN 55   EN Table 7:  Summary of Member States' progress with preparation of national strategies to reduce impacts from Invasive 
Alien Species (IAS)   
♣: planned ♣♣: under development  ♣♣♣ : completed  - : no details/not applicable 
Member State IAS Strategy Action Plan IAS addressed 
within Biodiversity 
Strategy Other Policies/Strategies 
addressing IAS 
Austria - ♣♣♣  ♣♣♣  - 
Belgium - ♣♣♣1 ♣♣♣1 - 
Bulgaria - - - - 
Cyprus - ♣♣♣2 - - 
Czech Republic ♣ - ♣♣♣  ♣♣♣  
Denmark ♣♣ - - - 
Estonia - - ♣ - 
Finland ♣♣ - ♣♣♣  - 
France - ♣ ♣♣♣  ♣♣ 
Germany ♣♣♣3 - ♣♣♣  - 
Greece - - - - 
Hungary ♣ - ♣♣♣  ♣♣♣  
Ireland ♣♣♣  - - - 
Italy - - - - 
Latvia - - - ♣ 
Lithuania - ♣♣♣  ♣♣♣  - 
Luxembourg ♣ - - - 
Malta ♣ - - - 
Netherlands ♣♣♣  - - - 
Poland ♣ - - - 
Portugal - - ♣♣♣  - 
Romania - - - - 
Slovakia - - ♣♣♣  - 
Slovenia - ♣♣ - - 
Spain ♣ ♣♣♣  - - 
Sweden ♣♣ - - - 
United Kingdom ♣♣♣  - - - 
Notes:  The Action Plan column indicates countries that stated in the Member States questionnaire that an Action Plan had been develop ed. 
1) Belgium has produced regional Action Plans and included target s regarding invasive alien species in its federal biodiversity  strategy. 2) An 
Action Plan addressing invasive alien species  in the Mediterranean sea ha s been developed. 3) Subnati onal IAS strategies have b een implemented 
by Germany.  
Source: Member States questionnaires; Miller, C., Kettunen, M. & Shine, C.  2006. Scope options for EU action on invasive alien species (IAS). 
Report to the European Commissi on, Institute for European E nvironmental Policy, Brussels.  
 
Out of the 27 states, only three are known to have to have currently completed an IAS 
strategy at a national or federa l level (i.e. the United Kingdom,  the Netherlands and Ireland), 
whilst Germany has developed subnational strate gies. A further three countries (Denmark, 
Finland and Sweden) are currently working on th e development of national strategies, and six 
are planning to do so. Four count ries indicated that they have completed action plans rather 
than strategies (although the plan for Cyprus only covers marine species).  
This leaves 14 countries that ha ve not or are not producing stra tegies or plans (or have not 
provided information on their progress). Howeve r, several countries ha ve at least included 
objectives addressing IAS in th eir national biodiversity strate gy. Austria, Lithuania, Spain, 
 
EN 56   EN Belgium (at the regional level) and Cyprus (for  the Mediterranean sea)  have completed action 
plans focusing on IAS.  
Existing EU legislation and policy already provid es part of the solution to the problems linked 
invasive species. However, at present there are no mechanisms to support harmonisation or 
consistency of approaches between neighbouri ng countries or countri es in the same sub-
region. There are no formal requirements for ri sk analysis for intent ional introduc tion of non-
native species that may affect biodiversity a nd accidental and negligent introductions remain 
largely unregulated both Member State and Community level. No unified system exists to 
monitor and control IAS and their effects on Eu ropean biodiversity. This means that actions 
undertaken by one Member States may be negated by the non-action of the neighbouring 
countries. 
Work is ongoing to develop an EU Framework in I nvasive Species in 2 steps. The first step is 
a Communication "Towards an EU Strategy on Inva sive Species" foreseen to be adopted in 
December 2008. This Communication identifies po licy options to tackle IS. An ongoing study 
for the Commission assessing environmental, ec onomic, and social impacts of IAS, assists 
with the development of this policy. A Counc il Regulation dealing specifically with alien 
species in aquaculture was agreed on 11 June 200761 and a new permit system will enter into 
force for this sector no later than 1 January 2009. 
Early warning system  
An effective early warning and information system (EWIS) is an integral part of the policy 
options suggested in the upcom ing Commission Communication.  
The EEA has commissioned a feasibility study  on an European wide Early Warning and 
Information System (EWIS). Such a system w ould be based on existing activities including 
the Alien Species Inventory for Europe delivered by DAISIE see http://www.europe-
aliens.org/index.jsp ; NOBANIS (North European and Baltic Network on IAS; scientific 
online journals including "Aqua tic Invasions" an d "Biorisk". 
Target 5.2 Impact of alien genotypes on biodi versity in the EU si gnificantly reduced by 
2010 [and again by 2013]  
Biosafety measures to reduce impacts from alien genotypes   
All Member States have ratified the Cartagen a Protocol on Biosafet y, and have adopted/ 
implemented relevant Community Regulations  and Directives referring to genetically 
modified organisms (GMOs), though to vary ing degrees. This includes Regulation 1946/2003 
on transboundary movements62, which transposes the provisions of the Protocol into 
Community law. In addition, some Member States  have implemented stricter provisions than 
the Community law requires. Only a limited numb er of Member States (e.g. Italy, Denmark or 
Czech Republic) have adopted relevant legislati on on the coexistence of genetically modified 
                                                 
61 Council Regulation 708/2007. 
62 Council Regulation 1946/2003 http://eur-lex.europa.eu . 
 
EN 57   EN crops with conventional and organic farming. However, the majority are already in the 
process of developing related provisions. 
Data Sources: 
A5.1.2  
Member States questionnaires Miller, C., Kettunen, M. & Shine, C. 2006. Scope options for EU action on invasive alien species  (IAS) Final 
report for the European Commission. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels, Belgium. 
DG Environment website on IAS, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/index_en.htm
 
Hulme E., 2007. Biological invasions in Europe: drivers, pressures, states, impacts and responses . Issues in 
Environmental Science and Technology No 25. Biodiversity under Threat. The Royal Society of Chemistry, 
Cambridge, UK 
 
EN 58   EN POLICY AREA 2: The EU and global biodiversity  
Objective 6. To substantially streng then effectiveness of international 
governance for biodiversity and ecosystem services. 
A. Context  
The EU is committed to achieve the target  agreed by the Convention on Biological 
Diversity (CBD) and the World Summit on su stainable Development 'to significantly 
reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010'. The key internat ional agreement to 
promote progress towards this target is th e CBD. The EU plays an active role in 
international biodiversity governance. Im plementation of th e CBD needs to be 
substantially reinforced. The EU also active ly implements a range of other biodiversity–
related international agreements such as the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species, the 
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species n (CITES, see objective 8), and promotes synergies between these. 
B. Progress assessment  
Target 6.1 International governance for biod iversity substantially more effective in 
delivering positive biodiversity outcomes by 2010  
Implementation of the CBD at the EU level 
All EU Member States and the European Community are a Party to the CBD and are 
implementing the CBD and related MEAs in thei r countries through a wi de range of policies 
and measures.  
Nearly all Member States (24) have prepared  National Biodiversity St rategy and Action Plans 
(NBSAP) as required by the CBD. The 2002 Communication and EC Biodiversity Action 
Plan subject to this report can be consider ed as the revised NBSAP for the EC. Detailed 
information on activities undertaken to impl ement the CBD can be found in the National 
Reports to the CBD. The EC and most Member St ates (23) have submitted their third national 
reports as well as a number of thematic reports to the CBD.  
From the information received by the Member Stat es, it is impossible to  asses the level of 
direct financial contributions to national biodi versity conservation activities (as a percentage 
of GDP). The available information shows that substantial funding for na tional biodiversity in 
the EU is released through a range of Europea n, national and subnational programmes, 
ranging from dedicated nature pr otection schemes to rural development measures. It is not 
possible to state whether fina ncial support has incr eased since adoption of the EC-BAP.  
 
EN 59   EN Implementation of the CBD at the regional and global level. 
Since the adoption of the BAP, the EU has c ontinued to promote implementation of the UN 
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and to strengthen its effectiveness. These efforts 
culminated at the Ninth Conference of the Part ies to the CBD (COP9) which took place in 
Bonn, Germany in May 2008. COP9 adopted a numb er of landmark decisions that greatly 
advance global biodiversity politics on a range of  critical issues and thereby help achieve the 
global target of substantia lly reducing current rates of  biodiversity loss by 2010. These 
decisions are largely in line with the EU obj ectives outlined in Conclusions of the EU 
Environment Council adopted in June 2007 a nd March 2008. Implementation of important 
CBD Programmes of work such as on fore st biodiversity and protected areas was 
strengthened. COP9 also reached an agreement on biofuels, which, for the first time at global 
level, establishes that the production and use of bi ofuels should be sustainable in relation to 
biodiversity. A major step forward has been take n to reach the target of establishing a global 
network of marine protected ar eas by 2012. The Conference adopted  scientific criteria for the 
identification of marine areas in need of protection. Importan tly the Conference also agreed 
that, in support of the United Nations General Asse mbly, work will be done  to identify marine 
areas that meet the criteria and to provide guidance for the assessment of environmental 
impacts of activities undertaken in the high  seas. On biodiversity and climate change 
governments agreed on a process which will feed biodiversity concerns into the ongoing climate negotiations under the United Nati ons Framework Convention on Climate Change 
(UNFCCC). The Conference also adopted a d ecision severely limiting any activity with 
regard to ocean fertilization. Major progress was reached in the ongoing negotiations of an 
international regime on access to genetic resour ces and the fair and equitable sharing of 
benefits arising from their us e (ABS). COP9 adopted a detail ed roadmap for finalising this 
negotiation by the tenth Conferen ce of the Parties in  2010. Another breakthrough concerns the 
development of an internationa l science-policy platform on bi odiversity, ecosystem services 
and human well-being which should be in pl ace by 2010. Implementation of these decisions 
will require continued political attention and efforts. 
Another indicator demonstrati ng the EU's commitment to s upport implementation of the CBD 
are the level of financial contribution to the biodiversity-related Conven tions as well as the 
level of biodiversity-related bilateral and multilateral aid. For this last element, see objective 7. 
The European Community and Member Stat es have provided significant financial 
contributions to both the core  and voluntary budgets of the CBD, its Cartagena Protocol on 
Biosafety and other biodiversity -related Multilateral Environmen tal Agreements as well as to 
non-governmental and other international orga nisations supporting implementation of the 
CBD and achievement of the 2010 target. For example, the 28 CBD Parties from the EU collectively provided in 2007 around 54% of the contributions to the trust funds of the CBD 
in 2007 of the CBD (191 Parties). 
 
EN 60   EN Contributions per trust fund (*) Total
Member State BY BG BE BI BZ VB BH
AT 90514 30037 120551
BE 112643 37380 150023
BG 1791 594 2385
CY 4110
CZ 19283 6399 25682DK 75657 25107 31694 132458
EE 1264 420 1684
FI 55163 18638 10702 33844 118347
FR 635392 210855 846247
DE 912731 302889 51000 1266620EL 55847 18533 74380
HR 13277 4406 17683
IE 36880 12239 67250 116369
IT 514742 170817 3000 688559
LV 1581 525 2106LT 2529 839 3368
LU 8114 2693 10807
MT 1475 371 1846
NL 175078 59095 38400 272573
PL 48576 13120 61696PT 49525 16435 65960
RO 6322 2098 8420
SK 5374 1783 7157
SI 8640 2867 11507
ES 265537 88118 1236598 128610 226978 306747 2252588SE 105161 34898 28843 168902
UK 645613 214264 144217 70690 1074784
EC 204018 54877 247164 91222 72977 22806 18244 711308Total EU 4056837 1330297 1630979 230534 583276 329553 56644 8218120
Total Budget 9012377 2373107 1978915 307764 788722 375647 290532 15127064
% E U 4 5 5 6 8 27 57 48 81 9 5 4Contributions to CBD core (pledges) and voluntary trust funds (contributions) 2007 (in USD)
 
Table 8: Contributions to CBD core (pledges) and voluntary trust funds (contributions) 2007 (in USD)  
Source: CBD Secretariat 2007, Document UNEP/CBD/COP/Bur/ 2008/1/4: Report on Activities of the Secretariat on the 
implementation of the work programme of the convention and its protocol 
(*) BY: General Trust Fund to the Conve ntion on Biological Diversity (CBD)  
BG: General Trust Fund to the Cartagena Protocol  
BE: General Trust Fund for additio nal voluntary contributions in support of activities under the CBD  
BZ: General Trust Fund for additional voluntar y contributions to facilitate the particip ation of parties in the process of the CBD 
BH: Special Voluntary Trust Fund for additi onal voluntary contributions in support of approved activities under the Cartagena P rotocol 
BI: Special Voluntary Trust Fund for additiona l voluntary contributions to facilitate th e participation of parties in the proce ss of the 
Cartagena Protocol  VB: General trust Fund for voluntary contributions to facilitate the participation of indigenous and local communities in the w ork of the CBD 
They also provided substantial contributions to  Secretariats of the other biodiversity-related 
conventions (Ramsar, CMS, AEWA, World Herita ge Convention), which they are party to, as 
well as to the UNEP Environment Fund. All Member States contributed a total of 
 
EN 61   EN CHF 1 258 867.00 in 2007 and CHF 1 508 384.00 in 2008 to the Ramsar secr etariat. Twenty-
six Member States and the EC are parties to  the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) and 
contributed a total of EUR 1 354 240.00 to the CMS secretariat in 2007. Twenty-one Member 
States and the EC are parties to the African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA) and in 2006 they contributed a total of EUR 528 779.00 to the Secretariat. All Member States are 
parties to the World Heritage Convention and they contribute d a total amount of 
USD 1 128 951.00 to the World Heritage Fund in 2006. Member States also provide 
substantial contributions to the UNEP E nvironment Fund. In 2007, they made a total 
contribution of USD 49 053 442.00 to f und the UNEP Programme of Work. 
Enhance integration of Biodiv ersity into global processes 
The 2010 target has been included in the Millennium Development Goals.  
Biodiversity has also made it on top of the G8 agenda. In 2007, G8 Environment Ministers 
launched the so-called Potsdam Initiative which contains specific actions to achieve the 2010 
biodiversity target. These were reinforced a nd further developed at the G8 Environment 
Ministers meeting in Kobe, Japan in May 2008, which adopted the 'Kobe Call for Action for 
Biodiversity'. At the G8 Summit in Heil igendamm Heads of States and Governments 
acknowledged the Potsdam Initiative and committed to enhancing their efforts for the 
conservation and sustainabl e use of biodiversity.  
The EU promotes maximising co-benefits between biodiversity and climate change mitigation 
and adaptation measures in negotiati ons of both UN-FCCC and the CBD.  
Promote improved Oceans Governance 
On top of efforts in the CBD (see above), th e EU continues to pr omote initiatives to 
strengthen international action in the UN, Regional Fisheries Management Organisations 
(RFMOs) and relevant international conventions to protect vulnerable marine habitats. It 
actively participated in the UNCLOS process that led to the adoption in December 2006 of 
Resolution 61/105 of the UN General Assembly on Sustainable Fisheries, for the protection of 
vulnerable deep-sea ecosystems in the high seas. Little progress has been made in efforts to 
negotiate international rules under the UN General Assembly (UNGA) to guide and facilitate 
the establishment of marine  protected areas in areas  beyond national jurisdiction. 
Nevertheless, in June 2008, th e Council reached poli tical agreement on tw o draft regulations 
presented by the Commission in October 2007. One regulation is to protect fragile deep-water 
ecosystems from bottom trawling in the high seas, in line with recommendations issued by the 
UNGA. The EU will continue to promote initiatives to strengthe n international action in the 
UN, Regional Fisheries Manage ment Organisations (RFMOs) and relevant international 
conventions to protect vulnerable marine habi tats. The second regulation aims at improving 
the fight against Illegal, Unreported and Unre gulated (IUU) fishing. The measures will only 
allow access to the EU market of fisheries pro ducts that have been ce rtified as legal by the 
flag state or the exporting state concerned. A Eur opean black list of vessels and states will be 
set up as will deterrent sanctions against IUU fishing in EU waters and against EU operators engaged in IUU fishing anywhere  in the world. The Council al so approved a new regulation 
on fishing authorisations for EU vessels fishi ng outside EU waters, which will ensure the EU 
has a single coherent framework for dealing wi th all EU vessels which operate away from 
home, whether under Fisheries Partnership Ag reements, in waters managed by Regional 
 
EN 62   EN Fisheries Organisations, or under privat e agreements with third countries. 
 
EN 63   EN Objective 7. To substantially stren gthen support for biodiversity and 
ecosystem services in EU  external assistance. 
A. Context  
The enhanced funding earmarked for biodiversi ty and the strengthening of measures to 
mainstream biodiversity in development as sistance has been included in the new 
European Consensus on Development Coopera tion. Nature conservation is specifically 
mentioned as an area that can be suppo rted by the European Neighbourhood and 
Partnership Instrument (ENPI)63. The Commission’s Communication on Policy 
Coherence for Development64 specifies: “The EU should enhance funding earmarked for 
biodiversity and strengthen measures to mainstream biodiversity in development 
assistance.” This ambition is carried forward in the new EU Development Policy65 (the 
European Consensus on Development Cooperation). 
The EU Council of both Environment a nd Development Cooperation Ministers 
welcomed the "Message from Paris - In tegrating biodiversity into European 
development cooperation" adopted at a Conference on Biodiversity in European 
Development Cooperation. Member States are important donors to biodiversity 
including the Global Environment Facility which supports biodiv ersity projects. The 
Biodiversity Action Plan aims at enhancin g earmarked development cooperation funds 
for biodiversity as well as better mainstreaming of biodiversity into Community and Member States’ development aid budgets. This remains a major challe nge largely due to 
the low priority often given to biodiversity by partner countries in the face of other 
compelling needs. 
B. Progress assessment
 
Target 7.1 Financial resources flowing annually  to projects directly benefiting biodiversity 
has substantially increased in real terms (for period 2006-2010 compared with period 2000-
2005; [and again for period 2011-2013]  
Adequate funds earmarked for biod iversity in European Community  projects and 
programmes in developing countries (A7.1.1 & 7.1.2 & 7.1.5) 
In 2007, the European Commission's Directorate General for Development carried out a data 
collection exercise on all environmental proj ects funded in the context of development 
cooperation from 2000-2006. Preliminary results de monstrate that for all geographical regions 
combined disbursements for biodiversity in  this period amounted to about EUR 50 
million/year with considerable annual fluctu ations. Both commitments and disbursements 
tended to be concentrated in certain years as they were linked to a certain extent to the 
different programming cycles. A tr end analysis at this stage would therefore not provide a 
                                                 
63 REGULATION (EC) No 1638/2006.  
64 COM (2005) 134 final. 
65 COM (2005) 311 final. 
 
EN 64   EN reliable insight. This figure includes all 286 projects which have been marked as being 
relevant for biodiversity. These data include  projects funded from the Environment and 
tropical forests budget line as well as projects funded from the geographical instruments. As 
for commitments during the period 2002-2006, a recent exercise laid by The European 
Commission's EuropeAid co-operation office shows similar figures, with an average 
commitment per year of EUR 107 million for bi odiversity and forests issues (thematic and 
geographic instruments together). 
Thematic instruments 
A total of EUR 30.6 million has been allocated to biodiversity for the four years period 2007-
2010 under the EC Thematic Programme for Envi ronment and Natural Resources (ENRTP). 
Furthermore, some other headings of ENRTP ar e strongly linked to biodiversity. A total of 
EUR 72 million is earmarked for the promo tion of Sustainable Forest Management 
(additionally, EUR 34 million is available for implementation of the initiative on Forest Law 
Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT)). EUR 6.4 million is earmarked for fisheries & 
marine/coastal resources. EUR 12,3 million is earm arked for climate change and biodiversity 
projects for countries covered by the Eur opean Neighbourhood and Pa rtnership Instrument 
(ENPI). In total, approximately EUR 150 millions  will be available for biodiversity related 
matters under 2007-2010 ENRTP. This represents an annual average of EUR 37.5 millions.  
During the former period (2000-2006) the amount  allocated for biodiversity and forests 
projects under the Thematic  budget lines (Environment, Tropical Forest etc.) was 
approximately the same, with a total of appr oximately 265 M€ on seven years, representing 
an annual average of EUR 37.3 million. The Life 3rd Countries programme added 
approximately EUR 8.5 millions to external ac tions in biodiversity during this period. The 
yearly amount allocated for biodiversity & forests therefore reached EUR 38.5 millions on 
average.  
As for the thematic instruments  for environment, the conclusion is that the global increase in 
budget (from EUR 323 million for 7 years (2000 -2006) to EUR 470 million for 4 years (2007-
2010)) has not benefited to biodiversity, for whic h the allocation remains stable in absolute 
terms. The inclusion of new themes and sector s in the thematic programme (energy, climate 
change adaptation) explains this stability.  
Geographical instruments  
During the former period (2002-2006) , programmes whose main objective is biodiversity 
management and conservation (support to protect ed areas, forest management etc.) were 
allocated approximately EUR 276 millions (EUR  55 millions yearly). This figure reaches 
EUR 382 millions taking into account programme s for which biodiversity is a significant 
objective (EUR 76.5 million yearly).  
The European Development Found financed the bi ggest share of projects  directly related to 
biodiversity, with about EUR 25 millions yearly . Most important programmes in that region 
concerned Central African forests/sava nnas (ECOFAC Programme, EUR 38.5 millions; 
CURESS in Chad, EUR 7 millions; DRC project s EUR 8.7 millions), I ndian Ocean coastal 
zones (EUR 18 millions); Monitoring of illegal  killing of elephants (pan-African, EUR 10 
millions). Two programmes in OCTs accounted for about EUR 9 millions.  
In Asia, main programmes concerned China (EUR 30 millions), Indonesia (15 millions, 
 
EN 65   EN FLEGT), and support to the ASEAN centre for biodiversity (EUR 6 millions).  
In Central America, the Honduras & Ecuado r programmes on forest (EUR 59 millions and 
EUR 17 millions respectively) were the most  important projects. In the Neighbourhood, two 
projects focused mainly on biodiversit y, accounting for about EUR 3 millions.  
For the 2007-2010 period , the actual previsions shows that more than EUR 220 millions 
would be allocated to programmes with a focu s on biodiversity (EUR 55 millions yearly). 
Central African region, Ethiopia an d Malawi in Africa, Honduras, Bolivia and Brazil in Latin 
America represent the main areas on which the EC would intervene in the coming years.  
For 2007 & 2008, first years of the programming exercise following the Communication, the 
committed amounts for projects whose main obj ective is biodiversity were respectively EUR 
9.6 million (25.8 millions including FLEGT s upport projects) and EUR 44.5 millions (51.5 
including FLEGT support projects). For these two years, EUR 121 millions have also been 
committed for projects with components or sign ificant objective on biodiversity – which is a 
sign of a better integration of this issue in other sectors.  
The first estimates indicate th at funding for specific biodivers ity, protected areas & forest 
management projects under the EDF  will increase in real terms in the ACP countries  between 
the 2002-2006 and 2007-2010 periods (from EUR 25  millions yearly to EUR 36 millions). 
This increase will concern mainly Africa, while commitments are expected to decrease in the 
Caribbean and Pacific regions. Several rural development progr ammes in ACP countries also 
propose to include a biodiversity component. At least 20 countries have identified biodiversity 
or natural resources management in one or the other sectors of  their national strategies. The 
10th EDF intra-ACP program (global alloca tion) has allocated EUR 20 millions for 
biodiversity.  
However, the global increase under EDF should be  put in perspective,  as the annual EDF 
allocation has been approximately doubled between 9th & 10th EDF.  
In Latin America , a slight increase is foreseen in real terms (from EUR 16.5 millions yearly to 
18.75), as two countries, Bolivia and Honduras w ould benefit from an important support in 
forest/river basin management (respectively EUR 69 & 28 millions). EUR 18 millions have also been allocated to natural re sources management in Brazil.  
In Asia
, on the contrary, a significant decrease is e xpected – mainly due to the fact that the 
former period included an important commitment (EUR 30 millions) in China. Other environment programmes nevertheless exist, w ith potential positive impacts on biodiversity 
preservation, such as the 'Rural developmen t and natural resource management’ programme 
in Pakistan, or the SWITCH-Asia programme on sustainable producti on and consumption. In 
Bangladesh EUR 7.5 millions have b een allocated to in tegrated natural resources management 
in Sundarbans. Environment is also included in the India, China, Bangladesh, Bhutan and 
Central Asia Strategy Papers, thus not focusing specifically on biodiversity.  
In the Neighbourhood
 countries, there is so far not enough  visibility to know the trends as 
regards biodiversity – even if the potential exis ts as important funds have been reserved for 
environment issues in that region.  
It has to be underlined that th e allocation of funds to biodiversity in St rategy Papers/Indicative 
Programmes is still hampered by several obstacles  – as explained under part  relative to target 
 
EN 66   EN 7.2.  
For the programming cycle of 2007-2010 for ENPI (European Neighbourhood and 
Partnership Instrument) and of 2007-2010 for DCI (Development Cooperation Instrument) 
and the European Development Fund (EDF), wh ich took place after the adoption of the EU 
Action Plan, the first estimates realised by th e Commission indicate that funding for specific 
biodiversity or protected areas projects will slightly increase in real terms in the ACP region, 
but decrease in Asia. 
As a conclusion, Funds allocated to biodiversity will remain at the same level in real 
terms within the Thematic Instrument. On Geographical instruments (EDF, DCI, 
ENPI), expected trends show so  far a stability in real terms , with regional variation as a 
slight increase is expected in Africa and Latin  America, and a decrease in Asia. Nevertheless 
figures for 2007-2010 period are still provisional at that stage, as some strategy papers are still 
in preparation and the identification of proj ects and activities is s till on-going. Following the 
on-coming mid-term review of strategy papers, some modifications of funding for biodiversity might also occur. 
Adequate funds earmarked for biodiversity in Member States
 projects and programmes 
in developing countries including throug h a substantial 4th GEF replenishment. (A. 
7.1.2 and 7.1.4) 
The EU and its Member States are major donors in  the fields of biodive rsity. However, very 
few Member States have dedicated funds allo wing a specific earmarking for biodiversity. 
Exceptions include for example the UK's Darw in Initiative, or Sweden's international 
programme for biodiversity, the Swedish Inte rnational Biodiversity Programme SwedBio. 
The following graph has been produced usin g figures from the 2008  OECD publication 
'Statistics on biodiversity-related Aid'. Biodivers ity-related aid is defined as activities that 
promote at least one of the three objectives  of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the 
conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or 
genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic 
resources. Biodiversity spending data are de rived from the Creditor Reporting System 
database Organisation for Economic Cooperati on and Development (OECD) where members 
of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC ) and multilateral donors , a forum of major 
bilateral donors, report their aid activities66. Data for this assessment are available for EU15 
countries only. The figures are only capturing bilateral aid, aid to GEF, UNEP and other 
multilateral organisations is not included. The fi gures represent the yearly funds in million 
Euros as an average of the assessed 4 year period. 
                                                 
66 Available online at www.oecd.org/dac/stats/crs . 
 
EN 67   EN 0100200
Million €
AT BE DE DK EL ES FIN FR IRL IT LUX NL PT SW UK EC
CountryBiodiversity-Related Aid by EU 2003/06 (Source: OECD DAC)
 
Figure 17: Biodiversity-Related Aid by EU 2003/0667 
Yearly external assistance for biodiversity from the EU totalled around EUR 1500 million 
during 2003-2006, representing 48% of the total bi odiversity-related aid of all OECD DAC 
members68. 
Biodiversity-related Aid 2003/06 (OECD DAC)
EU Aid
48% Non-EU Aid
52%
 
Figure 18: Biodiversity-Related Aid 2003/06 
These funds amount to around 1/50th of Comm unity and Member States’ total annual 
                                                 
67 Counted on 1.56 USD/EUR changing rate. 
68 Data from OECD-DAC 'Statistics on biodiversity related aid.  
See http://www.oecd.org/dat aoecd/26/24/40756129.pdf   
 
EN 68   EN development aid budgets which indicates that bi odiversity-related funding  has increased since 
adoption of the Biodiversity Action Plan. 
Member States are also important donor s to the Global Envi ronment Facility. 
EU Member States strongly advocated a substa ntial replenishm ent of GEF. At the conclusion 
of the negotiations for the four th replenishment of the GEF Trust Fund in June 2006, 31 donor 
countries agreed to replenish the Trust Fund with 3.13 billion dollars for the four year period 2007-2010. According to the latest repor t of GEF to the CBD (document 
UNEP/CBD/COP/9/9 of 2 May 2008), from 1/1/2006 to 31/12/2007, GEF approved 54 full-
size, 19 medium-size projects, and two enabling ac tivities in the area of biological diversity 
(including biosafety). The total GEF allocatio n during this period was approximately $ 306 
million. An additional $1536 million was leveraged in co-financing for the projects from 
partners that included the GEF Agencies, b ilateral agencies, recipient countries, and the 
private sector. In addition to the biodiversity portfolio, fourteen multi-focal area projects were partially supported with $ 42 million of biod iversity resources. In addition, 23 project 
preparation grants were approved in the re porting period amounting to approximately $4.3 
million. 
Enhanced earmarked and mainstreamed de velopment assistance funds available for 
biodiversity in Overseas countries and territories 
As regards the EC, the programming for OC Ts is under way. A Country Environmental 
Profile has been prepared whic h identified the importa nce of biodiversity in these countries 
and territories.  
In France, following the 'Grenelle de l'Envi ronnement' meetings, the French Government 
launched a specific biodiversity programme dea ling with overseas regions. In the Netherlands, 
a specific support related to biodiversity is prov ided to the Dutch Cari bbean Nature Alliance 
through the new multi-year programme for th e Netherlands Antilles launched in 2002.  
The Commission and several EU Member States participated in, and actively contributed to, 
the European Conference on Biodiversity and C limate Change in Outermost Regions held in 
La Réunion on 7-11 July 2008. This conference brought together for the first time 
representatives of all OR  and OCTs and stressed inter alia  the need for earmarked additional 
funding for biodiversity conservation as curren tly the available funds for environmental 
protection are still considered not su fficiently allocated to biodiversity. 
Target 7.2 EU 'mainstream' external de velopment assistance delivering enhanced 
biodiversity and related livelihoods benefits, and negative im pacts on biodiversity prevented 
or minimised, from 2006 onwards.  
Mainstream biodiversity into bilateral de velopment cooperation programmes through 
the preparation and implementation of Co untry and Regional Environmental Profiles 
Significant progress in mainst reaming environment and biodiversity concerns in EC 
development cooperation strategies  has been made over the last few years, however there is a 
need to make further progress particularly to  ensure that commitments and recommendations 
are coherently translated into action. Environmental Profiles have been established for most 
 
EN 69   EN countries (CEP) and regions (REP) covered unde r EC external cooperation, as a way to 
inform the elaboration of response strategi es having due regard of the environmental 
dimension along side with political and soci o-economic considerations. This is a clear 
progress with respect to the previous EC programming exercise wh ere only a few country 
strategies relied on environmen tal profiles to underpin the c ountry analysis. In preparing 
CEPs and REPs systematic attention has been  directed to the critical links between 
environmental degradation and development effo rts, as well as the commitments and needs 
stemming from participation of individual partne r countries to key multilateral environmental 
agreements - among which the CBD.  
Findings and recommendations fo rmulated therein have been taken further in the country 
analysis and response strategies, leading in most  cases to general references to the need to 
support sustainable use of natural resources (in energy water and ag riculture), protect 
biodiversity and carry out environmental asse ssments (EIA/SEA) in relation to sensitive 
cooperation sectors, however, this has not freque ntly led to earmarking financial provisions 
for environmental mainstreaming purposes in  National/Regional Indicative Programmes. 
Additional efforts are ther efore required to ensure a more c oherent and systematic uptake of 
environmental considerations wi thin individual country/regiona l strategies and programming 
documents.  
The Commission is preparing a Communication to be pres ented in early 2009 on the 
Integration of Cross-Cutting Issues in Deve lopment Cooperation in which an operational 
strategy to achieve further progress in envi ronmental integration will be set out (in a 
Commission Staff Working Paper annexed to the Communication). 
However the allocation of  funds to biodiversity in Country Strategy Pape rs is still hampered 
by several obstacles. First, it is almost im possible under the current financial rules for 
geographic allocations to earmark funds for any sector before the programming. Second, 
partner countries have to allocate at least 75 % of the available fundi ng to 2 focal sectors: 
environment is very seldom selected as one of  these sectors. Finally, and it is linked to the 
latter, the ownership principle (partner countries decide on th eir priorities) and the weakness 
of environment ministries resu lt in environment being often low on the national development 
agenda. 
Prevent negative impacts from cooperation projects on biodiversity through ex-ante 
SEAs and EIAs (A. 7.2.2)  
According to the OECD DAC, a growing number of  countries have legisl ation or regulations 
that prescribe the application of strategic environmental assessment (SEA), and many more 
are introducing it as one  of their policy tools. Also many development co-operation agencies 
and their partners are maki ng good progress in applying SEA69. However, it remains unclear 
to what extent countries ensure that SEAs  are systematically car ried out on relevant 
development strategies, programmes and projects. 
A review of environmental assessment regimes of bilateral and multilateral development 
agencies by the Canadian International Develo pment Agency (CIDA), on behalf of the DAC 
                                                 
69 OECD, DAC High Level Meeting 21 May 3008, Policy Statement on Strategic Environmental 
Assessment, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/55/40909638.pdf . 
 
EN 70   EN Working Party on Environmental and Development Assistance70, found that all the 
development agencies of the EU Member States that were analysed (E U-15 countries with the 
exception of Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal, and Greece) consider environmental assessment in there procedures to a certain ex tent. However, their applicati on methods and stringency differ 
from country to country. Some have already im plemented structured a nd stringent processes; 
others only provide guidance documents and r ecommendations. Overall, it remains unclear 
how systematically environmental impact asse ssment (EIA) for development projects funded 
by Member States is carried out, and to what extent it prevents and mitigates negative impacts on biodiversity. 
As regards the European Community, quite a fe w Country Strategy Papers include references 
to undertaking EIA and SEA in relation to en vironmentally sensitiv e cooperation sectors. 
Alongside with more traditional project-level EI A, a significant number of SEA are underway 
or actively planned as part of EC-supported sector wide programmes in areas such as 
transport and infrastructure , sugar sector reform, regional development planning. A 
requirement to carry out SEA and EIA is specif ied in the new legal ba sis for EC development 
cooperation financed under the EU budget (DCI Regulation, art 22(4)). 
There is a need fir further progress in ensuring  that environmental assessments (SEA/EIA) are 
systematically carried out in relation to e nvironmentally sensitive aid operations funded by 
Member States and the EC, to prevent and minimize negative impacts on biodiversity and 
enhance environmental benefits wherever possible. 
                                                
 
70 Canadian International Development Agency,  
http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/CIDAWEB/ acdicida.nsf/En/REN-218131217-PEH . 
 
EN 71   EN Objective 8. To substantially reduce th e impact of international trade on 
global biodiversity and ecosystem services. 
A. Context  
The “Ecological Footprint of EU countries”, wh ich directly measures the extent to which 
Europe’s resource use can be replicated gl obally, is increasing while the EU's 
biocapacity has decreased. The resulting ecologi cal deficit means that biological resource 
use and waste emission is about 2.5 times grea ter than the biologic al capacity available 
within Europe, showing that Europe cannot sustainably meet its consumption demands 
from within its own borders. On top of impr oving international governance (objective 6) 
and enhancing development cooperation (objecti ve 7), it is important to enhance mutual 
supportiveness of trade and biodiversit y measures. The EU has promoted the 
integration of the environmental dimensio n into international trade (for instance 
through its work on trade–related sustainability impact assessments) and in global efforts to curb unsustainable production and consumption patterns — but, with few 
concrete results for biodiversity to date. So me progress has been achieved on wildlife 
trade through active engagement in the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species (CITES). More Substantial progress has been made in promoting forest law enforcement, governance and trade (FLEGT). 
B. Progress assessment
 
Target 8.1 Impact on biodive rsity of EU trade significantly reduced by 2010 [and again by 
2013]  
Enhancing co-benefits betw een biodiversity, trade agr eements, WTO and Fisheries 
Partnership Agreements (A.8.1.1, 8.1.2 and 8.1.7) 
As part of its trade-related Sustainabili ty Impact Assessment (SIA) Programme, the 
Commission is in the process of conducting SIAs for all its planne d regional and bilateral free 
trade and partnership agreements, be they in Asia, Africa or Latin-Ame rica. These studies will 
include an assessment of potential impacts on biodiversity (e.g. as a result of trade 
liberalisation in biofuels) and will identify possible preventive or mitigation measures. A case in point is the SIA that is being conduc ted for the planned EC-Mercosur Free Trade 
Agreement. This will cover case studies in rela tion to the effects of trade liberalisation in 
agricultural products and biofuels. In all cases,  a key challenge will be to ensure that the 
recommendations made in these studies inform th e negotiations, i.e. that they are translated 
into concrete policy measures, be they trade or non-trade related. 
The EU is promoting in the negotiations of  the WTO's Doha Development Agenda the 
objective of sustainable development (paragraph s 6 and 51 of the Doha Declaration) and 
enhancing the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment (notably paragraphs 28 and 
31). However, little progress has so far b een achieved in WTO's Committee on Trade and 
Environment. 
 
EN 72   EN The Commission is at the final stage of renegotiating the new Fi sheries Partnership 
Agreements which will allow to support the sect oral fisheries policy of the third countries 
with a view of establishing a sustainable and re sponsible fisheries polic y in their waters. In 
2007, the fisheries partnership ag reements with Ivory Coast, Madagascar and Guinea Bissau 
were successfully renegotiated. In March 2007 the mid-term modification of the FPA with 
Seychelles was finalised. In March 2008, the Co mmission negotiated a new fisheries protocol 
(1st August 2008 to 31 July 2012) with Maurit ania. The current Fisheries Partnership 
Agreements in force (as from 1.03.2008) are: Cap Verde, Comoros, Ivory Coast, Gabon, 
Guinea Bissau, Greenland, Kiribati, Madagas car, Mozambique, Morocco, Mauritania, 
Micronesia, Solomon, Sao Tomé , Seychelles. In 2008 the Commission will renegotiate the 
agreement with Guinea Conakry and Mauritius as thes e are the only two remaining countries 
that do not yet benefit from a FPA. 
Promoting implementation of the Bonn Gu idelines on Access and Benefit Sharing 
(ABS), the negotiations of an internationa l ABS regime and the prior informed consent 
when commercially using traditional knowledge (A. 8.1.3 and 8.1.9 
The Commission and many Member States engaged sp ecific efforts to raise the awareness of 
– and promote implementation of the Bonn Guid elines. The EU contributed to successful 
adoption of the standard  Material Transfer Agreement unde r the FAO Interna tional Treaty in 
June 2006. The EU has been a major player and contributor to th e negotiations of an 
International Regime on Access and Benefit Sh aring under the CBD. The mandate adopted at 
the 7th Conference of the Parties of the CBD  has been amended by the Eighth and Ninth 
Conferences of the Parties in March 2006 and May 2008 respectively. The Commission and 
several Member States have provided the majo rity of funds allowing the organisation of 
expert - and negotiating ABS working group m eetings of the CBD. In line with the EU 
objectives outlined in Conclusions of the EU Environment Council adopted in June 2007 and 
March 2008, the EU provided a series of notificat ions to the CBD Secret ariat and participated 
constructively to these CBD ABS negotiations. At the CBD  COP9 in Bonn in May 2008, 
major progress was reached as a detailed roadma p for finalising this negotiation by the tenth 
Conference of the Parties in 2010 was adopted. 
The European Commission and several Member Stat es are raising awareness of Article 8j of 
the CBD and relevant parts of the Bonn Guidelin es, and some Member St ates with indigenous 
communities (e.g. Sweden and Finland) undert ook major regulatory and other measures 
protecting traditional knowledge of the in digenous and local communities. Traditional 
knowledge is recognised as part of biodiversit y related research. The EC and the Member 
States provided financial support to enable repr esentatives of indigenous groups to participate 
as observers in the meetings of the Conve ntion on Biological Diversity including the 
international ABS negotiations. The EC and Memb er States also push fo r advancing work on 
the protection of traditional knowledge in the World Intellectual Property Organization and 
for recognition of the UN D eclaration on the Rights of Indigenous People adopted on 
13 September 2007 in relevant fora. 
Support the implementation of the Conventi on on International Trade in endangered 
Species (CITES) (A. 8.1.4 and 8.1.8) 
Regular meetings by the EU Sc ientific Review Group (SRG) m eeting were held and several 
positive and negative opinions were established for imports into the EU of specific CITES 
 
EN 73   EN species of certain countries. These were follo wed up where necessary with consultation by the 
Commission with Range States. SRG negativ e opinions were publis hed in Commission 
Suspension Regulations. Reviews and studies were undertaken to assist the SRG.  
A Commission study of the enforcement of the EC CITES Regulations in EU-25 was 
finalised in December 2006. As  a result of the study the Commission adopted on 13th June 
2007 a Recommendation to the Member States iden tifying a set of actions for the effective 
enforcement of the EC CITES Regulations. Th e recommendations were formally sent to 
Member States (autumn 2007) and replies are awaited for follow up action. In its December 2006 conclusions, the Council also underlined the importance of effective implementation of 
the CITES Convention and EC CITES Regulations , it stressed the need  for capacity-building 
on CITES in developing countri es and called upon Member States  to reinforce efforts to 
combat illegal trade. The CITES Secretaria t has prepared proposals to implement CoP 
decisions and capacity buildings programmes to be considered in the framework of ENRTP. 
A Study on Effectiveness of EU regulations has been finalised and the Commission is 
currently considering its follow-up. 
The EU has actively prepared fo r and participated in the 14
th Conference of the Parties 
(COP14) of CITES, which took place in the Hague in Ju ne 2007. CITES COP14 adopted 
some important decisions such as on ivory tr ade and the CITES Strategic Plan, which were 
supported by the EU. Parties also added Brazilw ood to CITES control, but did not adopt EU 
proposals for listing additional tr ee species under CITES Appendi ces. CoP agreed however on 
further development of these and new proposals for CoP15 (2010). Import restrictions into the EU are in place for mahogany and ra min of non-sustainable source. 
According to the figures available from CI TES biennial reports, a total of 106,754 import 
documents were issued from 2003 to 2006 for the Member States. The number of import applications that were denied and reporte d during that 2003-2007 is  724. Member States 
reported a total of 108,140 seizures duri ng the 2003/2004 and 2005/2006 reporting cycles. 
Between the 2003/2004 and 2005/2006 reporting cycl es an increase was reported from 37,287 
seizures in 2003/2004 to 70,853 seizures in 20 05/2006 representing a net change of 31% 
(change in the number of seizures expressed as a percentage of total trade for the two 
reporting periods). 
 
EN 74   EN 
 
Figure 19: Number of seizures reported during the 2003 /4 CITES reporting cycle. (Note: This chart is 
based on information received from Member States up to  20 June 2008 and may be subject to change. 
Source: Country Profiles) 
All Member States paid their annual financ ial contributions to the CITES Trusts Funds, 
amounting to a total of USD 2 015 572 in 200 6. Eight Member States and the European 
Commission also provided financ ial contributions to developi ng countries for CITES related 
activities. These contributions  range from financial support provided to Tanzania to 
implement CITES-related conservation projects, financial support to developing countries for 
participation in the CITES Conference of the Parties (COP) to supporting activities such as 
CITES training workshops that were conduct ed for CITES authorities in Cambodia and 
Vietnam and financial assistan ce provided to the Great Apes Survival Project (GRASP) as 
well as support to an ITTO-CITES project on capacity building on the implementation of 
CITES listed timber species. 
Support the sustainable consumption, in part icular of wood products (A. 8.1.4 and 8.1.5) 
The European Commission and Member States ha ve engaged in a wide range of measures 
supporting the sustainable production and consum ption. These range from specific public 
procurement measures to promoting forest ce rtification. On 16 July 2008 the Commission 
presented a series of proposal s on sustainable consumption and production that will contribute 
to improving the environmental performance of products and increase the demand for more 
sustainable goods and production technologies. The proposals also seek to encourage EU 
industry to take advantage of opportunities to innovate. A range of polic ies at EU and national 
level already foster resour ce efficient and eco-friendly products and raise consumer 
awareness. The proposals complement these po licy instruments and provide measures where 
gaps exist. These proposals are an integral pa rt of the European Uni on's renewed Sustainable 
Development Strategy (EU SDS) which reinfor ces the EU's long-standing commitment to 
meet the challenges of sustainable developmen t and builds on initiatives  and instruments at 
EU and international level such as the United Nations. The building blocks of the European 
Union's policy on sustainable consumption and production include inter alia an Action plan 
on sustainable production and consumption and su stainable industrial policy and a proposal to 
 
EN 75   EN set ambitious targets for green public procurement linked to common green procurement 
criteria71. 
As for external cooperation, the EC launche d in 2008 the SWITCH programme (EUR 90 
millions), focusing on sustainable consumption and production in Asia. For the first call for 
proposal, two projects focused on wood products and transformation industry. 
Combat illegal logging (A. 8.1.6) 
Significant progress has been made in implem enting the European Union (EU) Action Plan 
for Forest Law Enforcement Governance a nd Trade (FLEGT) adopted in 2003. Though the 
ultimate goal of the Action Plan is to encourag e sustainable management of forests, ensuring 
legality of forest operations is considered a vital first step. The Plan  focuses on governance 
reforms and capacity building, to ensure timber e xported to the EU comes only from legal 
sources. It includes ideas for acti on in areas such as public proc urement and the private sector. 
A key element of the Action Plan is a voluntary scheme to ensure that only legally harvested 
timber is imported into the EU from countries agreeing to take part in this scheme. The 
Council adopted a Regulation in December 2005, allowing for the control of the entry of timber to the EU from countries entering in to bilateral FLEGT Voluntary Partnership 
Agreements (VPA) with the EU. Once agreed, the VPAs will include commitments and action 
from both parties to halt trade in illegal timber , notably with a license scheme to verify the 
legality of timber. The agreements will also promote better enforcement of forest law and 
promote an inclusive approach involvi ng civil society and the private sector. 
In accordance with the FLEGT Regulation a FLEGT Committee has been established. The 
Committee is comprised of Member States repr esentatives and assists the Commission in the 
implementation of the FLEGT Regulation. Deta iled rules for the implementation of the 
FLEGT Regulation within the EU ar e under discussion in the Committee. 
The European Commission has been given a mandate from the Council of Ministers to 
conduct negotiations in view of concludi ng such FLEGT VPAs. While the European 
Commission is leading in these negotiations, seve ral EU Member States play a key role in 
supporting the negotiations and the future implementation. Negotiations are currently 
underway with Malaysia, Indone sia, Cameroon and Congo Brazzavil le and the first VPA has 
been signed with Ghana in September 2008. The Commission works to start negotiations with 
several other countries. To complement F LEGT VPAs, the Commission has also proposed a 
Regulation on the Placing of the Mark et of Timber and Timber Products
72). Funding for 
FLEGT-related projects has been provided through development cooperation instruments 
managed by the Commission and Member States. An increasing number of EU Member 
States are adopting green public procurement po licies requiring timber and timber products to 
be from legal and sustainable sources. Countries  implementing such policies include Belgium, 
Denmark, France, Germany and the UK. These policies are expected to have an important influence on the EU market – in many of th em FLEGT licenses will be accepted as reliable 
proof of legality. A number of EU private sector timber trade federations have made 
commitments through Codes of Conduct to eliminate illegally harvested timber from their supply chains and several major banks have put in place policies to en sure clients are not 
associated with illegal logging activities.  
                                                
 
71 Commission Communication COM(2008) 400/2 on 'Public procurement for a better environment'. 
72 COM(2008) 644/3. 
 
EN 76   EN POLICY AREA 3: Biodiversity and climate change 
Objective 9. To support biodiversit y adaptation to climate change. 
Headline target: Potential for damaging impacts, related to climate change, on EU 
biodiversity substant ially reduced by 2013 
A. Context  
There is broad scientific and political cons ensus that we have entered a period of 
unavoidable and unprecedented climate change. Im pacts on biodiversity in the EU are 
already measurable. Climate change has the pote ntial, over a period of  a few decades, to 
undermine our efforts for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Biodiversity and climate change are linked.  Issues of biodiversity loss and climate 
change cannot be addressed effectively unless this link between people, biodiversity and 
climate is recognized. A failure to do so comp romises the efficiency of measures in both 
fields. While this adds a layer of complexity, it also opens the way to synergies to encourage measures beneficial for both halt ing biodiversity loss and combating climate 
change.  
Substantial cuts in global greenhouse gas em issions are required to mitigate the longer–
term threat to biodiversity. We must honour our Kyoto commitments and more 
ambitious global emissions targets post–2012 are needed in order to limit the increase in 
global annual mean tempera ture to no more than 2
oC above pre–industrial levels. 
Conservation and sustainable use of biodivers ity can help limit atmospheric greenhouse 
gas concentrations because forests, peat lands  and other habitats store carbon. Healthy 
ecosystems are essential in any adaptation and mitigation strategy. Biodiversity and 
ecosystems play a dual role with regards to ad aptation to climate ch ange: 1) Adaptation 
measures are necessary to allow biodiversity and ecosystems to adapt. 2) Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity contri bute adaptation to climate change by 
enhancing the resilience of ecosystems . In addition policies will also be needed to help 
biodiversity adapt to changing temperatu re and water regimes. This requires in 
particular securing coherence of the Natura 2000 network. Care must also be taken to prevent, minimise and offset any potential damages to biodiversity arising from climate 
change adaptation and mitigation measures. 
B. Progress assessment (Synth esis of EU-level actions)
 
Target 9.1 % reduction in greenhou se gas emissions achieved by 2010  
Progress on Kyoto targets  
The EU BAP recognises the vita l importance of helping to re duce the impacts of climate 
change by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions  in accordance with the EU’s agreed 
 
EN 77   EN Kyoto target and burden sharing agreements w ith Member States. However, progress with 
GHG emission reductions has been mixed. The la test EEA inventory of GHG emissions by 
Member States indicates that as a whole EU -27 emissions have decreased by 7.7% compared 
to 1990 (with a 0.3% decrease between 2005 a nd 2006). Several states, especially new 
Member States (i.e. Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, 
Romania and Slovakia) have substantially reduced  their emissions and are already well within 
their individual Kyoto target s. [Spreadsheet Climate Change  V1.3]. Furthermore, although 
emissions are increasing in most of these countr ies, projections indicate that all of the EU-12 
are expected to easily achieve their Kyoto targ ets in 2010. This will be achieved with existing 
measures in all of the EU-12 other than Slovenia, where additional measures and the use of carbon sinks and Kyoto mechanisms will be required. 
Progress in the EU-15, which has a collective Kyoto target of reducing emissions by 8% has 
been much slower. Across the EU-15 as a whole, 2006 emissions were only 2.7% below 
baseline levels and these trends suggest that it will not meet its Kyoto target without addition 
measures and external credits. Several of th e EU-15 Member States have seen substantial 
increases in emissions compared to baseline  levels, including Austri a, Finland, Greece, 
Ireland and especially Portugal a nd Spain. Only three Member St ates are projected to meet 
their Kyoto targets with existing measures , namely Germany, Sweden and the United 
Kingdom. However, if the remaining EU-15 impl ement existing and additional measures fully 
and quickly and make use of carbon sinks an d Kyoto mechanisms, then all but three are 
expected to meet their targets. Projections sugge st that Italy will just miss it target, and that 
emissions will be 2% above the target level in Denmark and 14.2% above the target in Spain. 
NB. The data and text included in the individua l Member State profiles and summaries were 
based on the 2005 emissions data and are ther efore not consistent  with this account. 
Target 9.2 Global annual mean surface temper ature increase limited to not more than 2°C 
above pre-industrial levels  
Action to meet the target of limiting global c limate change to 2°C is a top EU political 
priority. Current projections indicate that the Community will reach its Kyoto target of 
reducing its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 8% by 2012 compared to base year levels if 
Member States put in place and implement as soon as possible their additional policies and measures. As part of comprehensive package of measures to establish a new climate and 
energy policy for EU the Commission has put fo rward legislative proposals for achieving at 
least 20% emission reduction in the EU by 2020 compared to 1990 levels. This target will be 
extended to 30% if there is an international agreement
73. 
A Commission Communicat ion on deforestation74 proposes that, within the framework of the 
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change nego tiations on the future climate regime, the 
EU calls for halting global forest cover loss by 2030 at the latest and reducing gross tropical 
deforestation by at least 50% by 2020 from current  levels. This objectiv e would provide major 
climate change and biodiversity benefits by 2020. 
                                                 
73 COM(2007) 2 final. 
74 COM(2008) 645. 
 
EN 78   EN Target 9.3 Climate change adaptation or mitigation measure from 2006 onwards 
delivering biodiversity benefits, and any ne gative impacts on biodiversity prevented or 
minimised, from 2006 onwards.  
Measures to reduce climate change mitigation impacts on biodiversity – EU Task Force, 
White Paper  
Following its 2007 Green Paper75 the Commission is produci ng a White Paper on climate 
change adaptation to be adopted in spring 2009. This shall emphasise the importance of preserving ecosystem integrity and boosting its resilience to rapidly changing and degrading 
conditions as healthy ecosystems are an essen tial part of any climat e change adaptation 
strategy. Biodiversity and ecosystems are recognise d as cross-cutting i ssue. There will be a 
need to care to ensure that adaptation and mitigation measures are not detrimental to biodiversity. Rendering ecosystems, social and economic systems more resistant will only be 
possible by working with nature, technology  and individuals. This means relying on a 
combination of three assets: Human capital gree n infrastructure and grey infrastructure.  
In this sense the White Paper may propose to build  a "green infrastructure ", an interconnected 
network of natural areas, incl uding some agricultural land, wetlands, forests, marine areas. 
This would help ensure vital ecosystem serv ices such as the regulation of stormwater, 
temperatures, flooding risk, water, air and ecosystem quality. 
Renewables  
Guidelines on relevant renewa ble energies focusing on win d, hydro & tidal barrages have 
been or are being prepared. 
RTD  
Research is being undertaken in most Member  States on the existing and likely impacts of 
climate change on biodiversity and ecosystems. Several national and in ternational research 
programmes have developed model-based projecti ons of impacts on various taxa groups (e.g. 
birds). However, there is no indication that any country has yet produced a comprehensive 
climate change risk assessment for habitats and species of Community interest. A Commission study contract investig ates biodiversity and climate change in relation to the 
Natura 2000 network and is due for completi on in autumn 2009. Other projects funded under 
the Community RTD programmes and INTERREG IIIB  aim to provide a better understanding 
of the
 large scale environmental risks to biodiversity from climate change. The MACIS 
project supported by RTD FP6 (see http://www.macis-project.net/links.html ) will deliver (in 
November 2008) a detailed report on adaptation and mitigation meas ures in different and their 
impact on biodiversity. However, more work is n ecessary in particular with a view to better 
understand the link between biodiversity and clim ate and with a view to positive feedbacks 
that may work in our favour but also improvi ng the understanding of the capacity of species 
and ecosystems to adapt to climate change. 
Adaptation strategies on national and regional level 
                                                 
75 COM(2007) 354 final. 
 
EN 79   EN The degree to which Member States' climate cha nge adaptation strategies include biodiversity 
considerations is unclear. No Member State has clearly stated that it has developed a 
biodiversity adaptation action pl an with defined actions, time tables and res ponsibilities, 
although some have stated they in clude actions within their nati onal biodiversity action plans. 
Nevertheless, sometimes climate change progr ammes already include nature conservation 
issues (e.g. climate change programme in Bavaria). 
Target 9.4 Resilience of EU biodiversity to climate change substantially strengthened by 
2010  
Adaptation measures to increase biod iversity resilience to climate change  
Climate change adaptation measures were no t addressed in the questionnaire that was 
distributed to Member States. Furthermore, a lthough some information is provided on climate 
change adaptation in the regular national re ports to the CBD and UN Framework Convention 
on Climate Change, these mostly date back to 2005 and are thus rather out of date. 
Nevertheless, from the information that is avai lable and the response fr om Member States to 
the draft country summaries, there appears to be  little evidence that significant adaptation 
biodiversity measures are being planned or im plemented in most countries. Some Member 
States have developed adaptati on strategies, such as in Fi nland, which produced a National 
Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change at the end of 2004. However, the degree to which 
such strategies include biodivers ity considerations is unclear fr om the information available to 
this review. No Member State ha s clearly stated that it has de veloped a biodiversity adaptation 
action plan with defined actions , time tables and responsibili ties (although some have stated 
they include actions within their nationa l BAP). For example, the UK Biodiversity 
Partnership has produced guidance on building th e capacity for biodiversity climate change 
adaptation ( Conserving biodiversity in a changing climate , Defra 2007). However, it does not 
contain a programme of actions and it is not cl ear whether it will be supported by the statutory 
adaptation programme that is being developed for England and Wales. 
Furthermore most of the measures that are pr omoted as being to increase biodiversity 
resilience appear to be actions that are alrea dy being taken, or are pl anned, to meet existing 
conservation needs (e.g. the protection and manage ment of sites). For example, the EU BAP 
and several Member States refer to the establ ishment of ecological ne tworks as being an 
important measure to increase resilience (by ove rcoming habitat fragmentation) and to help 
species to move in response to climate change. However, there is little evidence of substantial 
implementation of such initiatives in most c ountries other than the Netherlands where it 
receives a high level of governmental support. 
It is clear that a substantial amount of research is underway in most Member States on the 
existing and likely impacts of climate change on biodiversity and ecosystems. Several national and international res earch programmes have for example developed model-based 
projections of impacts on various  taxa groups (e.g. birds). Howe ver, there was no indication 
that any country has yet produced a comprehe nsive climate change risk assessment for 
habitats and species of community in terest, as required under the EU BAP. 
Data sources: 
A9.1.1  
 
EN 80   EN 2006 emissions: EEA (2008) Annual European Community greenhouse gas inventory 1990–2006 and inventory 
report 2008. Submission to the UNFCCC Secretariat .  
http://reports.eea.europa.eu/technical_report_2008_6/en  
Projections: EEA (2007) Greenhouse gas emission trends and projections in Europe 2007 . 
http://reports.eea.europa.e u/eea_report_2007_5/en  
EEA data are based on EU Member States greenhouse gas inventories and projections. 
A9.4.1 & 9.4.3  
National Reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity 
National Reports to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change  
 
EN 81   EN POLICY AREA 4: The knowledge base 
Objective 10. To substantially st rengthen the knowledge base for 
conservation and sustainable use of bi odiversity, in the EU and globally. 
A. Context  
The 6th Framework Programme76, complemented by Member States’ research funding, 
has helped strengthen a European approach to  biodiversity, land use and climate change 
research and improve scientific  support to policy for the EU  and its partner regions, in 
particular those of th e developing world. 
However, much more is needed to fill crit ical knowledge gaps. A helpful assessment of 
research needs has been produced by the Eu ropean Platform for Biodiversity Research 
Strategy. The 7th Framework Programme (FP7)77 provides opportunity to address these 
needs through cooperation, new infrastructures and capacity building. 
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) has played a key role in bringing to 
political and public attention the current state and trends of biodiversity and ecosystem 
services globally and we need to ensure th at this is regularly reviewed and updated. 
B. Progress assessment  
Target 10.1 Research findings on biodiversity and ecosystem services has substantially 
advanced our ability to ensure conservati on and sustainable use by 2010 [and again by 2013]  
Strengthen research on biodiversity 
The European Community's research Framewor k Programmes (FP), together with Member 
States’ research investments, are helping strengthened a European approach to biodiversity, land use and climate change research  and improving scientific support to policy for the EU 
and its partner regions, including those of the developing world. Research undertaken under 
the Community's 6
th Framework Programme (FP6) from 2002-2006 to investigate pressures 
on biodiversity (e.g. ALARM, MA CIS, COCONUT, DAISIE) is already feeding into the 
development of EU biodiversity policy. A list  of the type of proj ects funded under FP5, FP6 
and FP7 is given below 
Based on available information it appears that at least 14 Member States have a dedicated 
national or sub national programme that supports  biodiversity research (Belgium, Bulgaria, 
Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, France,  Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, 
Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom), 7 Member States do not have a dedicated 
                                                 
76 Decision No 1513/2002/EC, OJ L 232, 29.8.2002, p.1. 
77 COM (2005) 119 final. 
 
EN 82   EN programme (Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania) and 6 did not 
provide information (Italy, Malta, Po land, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia). 
Financial resources to European and National biodiversity research 
Research is essential to help achieve the objec tives of the EC Biodiversity Action Plan. In 
addition to the efforts at EC level, the Member States should be encourag ed to allocate more 
resources to biodiversity res earch, including through the EC  Research and Development 
Framework Programmes, in view of substan tially strengthening the knowledge base for 
conservation and sustainable us e of biodiversity. Community financial support allocated to 
biodiversity projects in the context of environmental rese arch under FP5 (1998-2002) was of 
EUR 58 597 500 allocated to 39 projects, and of EUR 77 480 500 for 20 larger projects – plus 
EUR 78 608 847 for 13 projects focusing on eco systems under FP6 (2002-2006). There have 
been 2 calls for proposals in the first 2 years of FP 7, 8 successful proposals (HUNT, 
SOILSERVICE, HighARCS, LiveDiverse, PALM S, SCALES and EBONE) as well as the 
LIFEWATCH support are expected  to be funded with a Comm unity contribution of EUR 23 
122 421. This period corresponds with half of the duration of the earlier  FPs, but the funding 
profile over the duration of  FP7 is expected to rise quite st eeply towards the end. FPs are also 
providing support to other initiatives that focus on ecosystems and also address biodiversity to 
a greater or lesser extent. For example, progra mmes that support research infrastructure or 
encourage the mobility of researchers have been active in this field. Most notably, the FP7 "LifeWatch", an e-science and technology infrastructure for biodiversity data and 
observatories, will be funded by EC for EUR 5 000 000 for the preparatory phase (2008-
2010) through the "infrastructure" budget and th e Member states will add further EUR 4.6 
million. Another example is BiodivERsA, an ERA- Net in biodiversity research, which is co-
funded by EC (EUR 2 837 440) and the Member States (EUR 20 million).  
23 Member States provide annua l contributions to DIVERSITAS , an international programme 
of biodiversity science, which is proposing an integrated research framework to the 
international scientific commun ity. The Programme is a partners hip of inter-governmental and 
non-governmental organisations formed to promote,  facilitate and catalys e scientific research 
on biodiversity – its origin, composition, ecosy stem function, maintenance and conservation. 
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) 
As part of the Potsdam initiative agreed by G8 in 2007, a study on "The Economics of 
Ecosystems and Biodiversity" (TEEB) has been jointly initiated by the European Commission 
and Germany in collaboration with the Europe an Environment Agency. Under the lead of 
Indian economist, Pavan Sukhdev, the first resu lts of this assessment of the global economic 
benefit of biological diversity, th e costs of the loss of biodiversity and the failure to take 
protective measures versus the costs of effect ive conservation have been presented at CBD 
COP9 in May 2008. A second phase of this study will further develop a methodological 
framework for valuation of the services prov ided by ecosystems, as a contribution to the 
Millennium Development Goals. 
The European Community is also engaged in  the global strategy for follow-up to the UN 
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and is committed to develop  a sub-global assessment 
(SGA) for the European region, using the EURECA project launched by the European 
Environment Agency, and the outcomes of the study on the valuation of  ecosystem services. 
 
EN 83   EN According to the FP7 road map c overing the research priorities for the next calls, there will be 
a call for research proposals that will adapt and apply concepts and methods of the 
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, integratin g all-taxa biodiversit y inventories on key 
ecosystems, to assess conditions of European  ecosystem services. This will be properly 
integrated with the work and results of the EEA 's EURECA project. Research effort will be 
focused over the course of FP7 on making human us e of biodiversity sustai nable. As part of 
this, research support will be provided to fo llow up TEEB, with work on economic, social and 
environmental costs and benefits of c onservation and use of biodiversity. Other 
recommendations for research in this direction will be taken into consideration, including those identified by the European Platform fo r Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS). Six 
Member States (Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary) have 
indicated that they have plans to follow up on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 10 
Member States do not (Austria, Bulgaria, De nmark, Estonia, Irela nd, Latvia, Netherlands, 
Romania, Sweden, UK) while the other Member  States did not respond to this aspect. 
Science-policy interface 
The European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS), an informal science-
policy interface whose main aim is  to identify the knowledge gaps that hinder the creation or 
application of policy, or that ma ke it difficult to manage ecosy stems effectively, has been very 
active. The EPBRS, which is used to channel th e message that the Member States must share 
the burden of financing biodivers ity research, has contributed to  the European consultation on 
an international mechanism for scientific advice on biodiversity (IMoSEB). 
Furthermore, at CBD COP9 in May 2008 the EU and its Member States have supported 
UNEP's proposal for establishi ng an Intergovernmental Pl atform on Biodiversity and 
Ecosystems Services (IPBES), to strengthen independent scientific advice to global policy 
making. The European Community is examining how  to contribute to the establishment of an 
EU mechanism for independen t, authoritative research-b ased advice to inform 
implementation and further EC policy developm ent. Subject to funding being found from 
existing financial resources, the European Community is examining how to contribute to the 
establishment of an EU mechanism for independent, authoritative research-based advice to inform implementation and further EC policy development. 
Twelve countries (Austria, Belgium, Cypr us, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Hungary, 
Ireland, Latvia, Slovenia, Sweden, UK) have a dedicated national or sub-national mechanism 
to ensure biodiversity outcomes are reflec ted in policy development and implementation. 
However, the countries that have developed thes e for a are not necessarily  the same than those 
that have research programmes for biodiversity. Six countries (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany, 
Greece, Lithuania, Spain) do not have a forum including a number of countries that have 
research programmes fo r biodiversity, and 9 countries did not  respond to this aspect of the 
questionnaire (Estonia, Finland, Italy, Luxe mbourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, 
Slovakia). 
Understanding the links between biodiversity, ec osystem services, climate change and human 
well-being presents one of the greatest scientific challenges facing mankind. To tackle this 
challenge successfully the key ro le of biodiversity and ecosystem s with regards to adaptation 
to and mitigation of climate change must be further explored and promoted
. This requires 
further strengthening (under FP7 and national research programmes) of the European 
Research Area, its international dimension, re search infrastructures, the science–policy 
 
EN 84   EN interface, monitoring and data in teroperability for biodiversity. This should exploit emerging 
information and communication technologies. 
Adequate financial resources should be pr ovided to support and promote an improved 
knowledge base for biodiversity and ecosystem s, and efficient scie nce-policy interface on 
biodiversity, ecosystem serv ices and human well-being. 
Table 9: Examples of projects funded under FP5, FP6 and FP778 
BIODIVERSITY PROJECTS FUND ED UNDER FP5, FP6 AND FP7 
 FP5      
FP Acronym Full title Contract  No Instrument EC part 
FP5 TRANSPLANT Extinction risks and the re-introduction of 
plant species in a fragmented Europe EVK2-CT-
1999- 00004   € 1.606.590
FP5 CASCADE Securing gene conservation, adaptive 
breeding potential and utilisation of a model 
multipurpose tree species ( Castanea Sativa 
mill.) in a dynamic environment EVK2-CT-
1999- 00006   € 1.688.261
FP5 METABIRD Viability of bird metapopulations EVK2-CT-
1999- 00017   € 1.055.600
FP5 MIDI-CHIP Design and testing of dna microarrays to 
monitor microbial diversity with adequate 
biodiversity indexes, using cyanobacteria in freshwater as a model system EVK2-CT-
1999- 00026   € 1.861.775
FP5 FOSSILVA Dynamics of forest trees biodiversity: linking 
genetic, palaeogenetic and plant historical 
approaches EVK2-CT-
1999- 00036   € 1.580.561
FP5 PLANT 
DISPERSAL Dynamics of plant dispersal-related traits in 
fragmented European habitats: consequences 
for species survival and landscape management EVK2-CT-
1999- 00037   € 1.178.180
FP5 BIOSTRESS Biodiversity in herbaceous semi-natural 
ecosystems under stress by global change 
components EVK2-CT-
1999- 00040   € 1.439.369
FP5 Biodiversity 
Assessment Biodiversity assessment tools EVK2-CT-
1999- 00041   € 2.299.649
FP5 BIOMAN Biodiversity and human impact in shallow 
lakes EVK2-CT-
1999- 00046   € 1.742.468
FP5 Fauna Europaea Fauna Europaea EVR1-CT-
1999- 20001   € 3.235.029
FP5 ENHSIN European natural history specimen 
information network HPRI-CT-
1999- 40010   € 200.000 
FP5 Coast Bird 
Diversity Maintaining migratory coastal bird diversity : 
management through behaviour-based 
predictive population modelling  EVK2-CT-
2000- 00066   € 1.041.564
FP5 BABE Beekeeping and bi odiversity in Europe EVK2-CT-
2000- 00068   € 983.070 
                                                 
78 For further information please see the website  on research of the European Commission 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/themes/themes_en.htm   
 
EN 85   EN FP5 IMEW Integrated management of European 
wetlands EVK2-CT-
2000- 00081   € 918.469 
FP5 PROBASE Procedures for accounting and baselines for 
projects under joint implementation and the clean development mechanism EVK2-CT-
2000- 00083   € 770.154 
FP5 BIOECON Biodiversity and economics for conservation EVK2-CT-
2000- 00086   € 1.530.672
FP5 REGHAB Reconciling gamebird hunting and 
biodiversity  EVK2-CT-
2000- 20004   € 301.140 
FP5 BIOFORUM European biodiversity forum - implementing 
the ecosystem approach EVK2-CT-
2000- 20006   € 509.826 
FP5 Euro+Med European initiative for the euro+med 
plantbase  EVR1-CT-
2000- 40004   € 1.195.700
FP5 BioCASE Biocase - a biodiversity collection access 
service for Europe EVR1-CT-
2000- 40017   € 1.935.494
FP5 BioPlatform European Platform for Biodiversity  EVK2-CT-
2001- 20009   € 720.797 
FP5 FRAXIGEN Ash for the future: defining European ash 
populations for conservation and 
regeneration EVK2-CT-
2001- 00108   € 1.987.537
FP5 PASCALIS Protocols for the assessment and 
conservation of aquatic life in the subsurface EVK2-CT-
2001- 00121   € 1.452.749
FP5 Tlinks Trophic linkages between above- and below-
ground organisms as a key to successful 
restoration of biodiversity on ex-arable land across EU  EVK2-CT-
2001- 00123   € 1.569.156
FP5 MACMAN Maculinea butterflies of the habitats directive 
and European red list as indicators and tools 
for habitat conservation and management EVK2-CT-
2001- 00126   € 2.988.660
FP5 Giant Alien Giant hogweed ( Heracleum 
Mantegazzianum ) a pernicious invasive 
weed: developing a sustainable strategy for 
alien invasive plant management in Europe EVK2-CT-
2001- 00128   € 1.641.229
FP5 ABC Access to Belgian collections of interest for 
biodiversity research HPRI-CT-
2001- 00159   € 325.000 
FP5 FRAP Development of a procedural framework for 
action plans to reconcile conflicts between the conservation of large vertebrates and the 
use of biological resources: fisheries and 
fish-eating vertebrates as model case EVK2-CT-
2002- 00142   € 2.490.000
FP5 LACOPE Landscape development, biodiversity and co-
operative livestock systems in Europe EVK2-CT-
2002- 00150   € 2.439.982
FP5 RECIPE Reconciling commercial exploitation of peat 
with biodiversity in peatland ecosystems EVK2-CT-
2002- 00154   € 1.505.559
FP5 BioScene Scenarios for reconciling biodiversity 
conservation with declining agricultural use 
in the mountains of Europe EVK2-CT-
2002- 00167   € 2.296.200
FP5 BIOPRESS Linking pan-European landcover change to 
pressures on biodiversity EVK2-CT-
2002- 00178   € 1.385.301
FP5 LADAMER Land degradation assessment in 
Mediterranean Europe EVK2-CT-
2002- 00179   € 831.439 
 
EN 86   EN FP5 PGR Forum European crop wild relative diversity 
assessment & conservation forum EVK2-CT-
2002- 20010   € 728.300 
FP5 CONSIDER Conservation of soil organism diversity 
under global change EVK2-CT-
2002- 20012   € 930.965 
FP5 BioHab Biohab, a framework for the coordination of 
biodiversity and habitats EVK2-CT-
2002- 20018   € 671.022 
FP5 ENBI European network for biodiversity 
information EVK2-CT-
2002- 20020   € 3.000.000
FP5 Eurocat The catalogue of life : biodiversity resource 
and e-science gateway EVR1-CT-
2002- 20011   € 2.455.000
FP5 LEDA Life history traits of the northwest European 
flora: a database EVR1-CT-
2002- 40022   € 2.104.996
 FP6      
FP Acronym Full title Contract  No Instrument EC part 
FP6 ALTER-Net A Long-term Biodiversity, Ecosystem and 
Awareness Research Network GOCE-CT-
2003 505298 NoE € 10.000.000
FP6 IntraBioDiv Tracking surrogates for intraspecific 
biodiversity: towards efficient selection 
strategies for the conservation of natural 
genetic resources using comparative mapping and modelling approaches GOCE-CT-
2003 505376 STREP € 1.800.000
FP6 SoBio Mobilising the European Social Research 
Potential in Support of Biodiversity and 
Ecosystem Management GOCE-CT-
2003 505429 CA € 460.000 
FP6 ALARM Assessing LArge-scale environmental Risks 
with tested Methods GOCE-CT-
2003 506675 IP € 12.000.000
FP6 GLOCHAMORE Global Change in Mountain Regions: An 
Integrated Assessment of Causes and 
Consequences GOCE-CT-
2003 506679 SSA € 350.000 
FP6 EUMON EUMON: EU-wide monitoring methods and 
systems of surveillance for species and habitats of Community interest GOCE-CT-
2004 006463 STREP € 1.496.238
FP6 EPRECOT Effects of precipitation change on terrestrial 
ecosystems - a workshop and networking 
activity GOCE-CT-
2005 018066 SSA € 143.100 
FP6 EDIT Toward the European Distributed Institute of 
Taxonomy GOCE-CT-
2005 018340 NoE € 11.900.000
FP6 PROBIOPRISE Creating a European platform for SMEs and 
other stakeholders to develop a research 
programme for pro-biodiversity business GOCE-CT-
2005 018356 SSA € 649.581 
FP6 BIOSCORE Biodiversity impact assessment using species 
sensitivity scores GOCE-CT-
2005 022661 STREP € 911.169 
FP6 RUBICODE Rationalising Biodiversity Conservation in 
Dynamic Ecosystems GOCE-CT-
2006 036890 CA € 1.994.285
FP6 BIOSTRAT Developing the EU Biodiversity Research 
Strategy GOCE-CT-
2006 036847 SSA € 771.000 
FP6 MACIS Minimisation of and Adaptation to Climate 
change: Impacts on biodiversity GOCE-CT-
2006 044399 STREP € 900.000 
 
EN 87   EN FP6 COCONUT Understanding effects of land use changes on 
ecosystems to halt loss of biodiversity due to 
habitat destruction, fragmentation and degradation GOCE-CT-
2006 044346 STREP € 900.000 
FP6 ALARM TTC Assessing LArge-scale environmental Risks 
with tested Methods GOCE-CT-
2006 046002 Top up € 798.051 
FP6 BiodivERsA An ERA-Net in biodiversity research   517836 ERA-NET €2 837 440 
FP6 ECOCHANGE Challenges in assessing and forecasting 
biodiversity and ecosystem changes in 
Europe GOCE-CT-
2006 036866 IP € 6.999.998
FP6 EVOLTREE EVOLution of TREEs as drivers of terrestrial 
biodiversity GOCE-CT-
2004 016322 NoE € 14.300.000
FP6 MarBEF Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem 
Functioning GOCE-CT-
2002 505446 NoE € 8.707.000
FP6 DAISIE Delivering Alien Invasive Species 
Inventories for Europe GOCE-CT-
2003 511202 STREP € 2.400.000
 FP7      
FP Acronym Full title Contract  No Instrument EC part 
FP7 LiveDiverse Sustainable Livelihoods and Biodiversity in 
Riparian Areas in Developing Countries   211392 CP-SICA € 2.418.160
FP7 SOILSERVICE Conflicting demands of land use, soil 
biodiversity and the sustainable delivery of 
ecosystem goods and services in Europe   211779 CP-FP € 3.475.774
FP7 PALMS Palm harvest impacts in tropical forests   212631 CP-FP € 3.145.880
FP7 HUNT Hunting for Sustainability   212160 CP-SICA € 2.929.304
FP7 HighARCS Highland aquatic resources conservation and 
sustainable development   213015 CP-SICA € 1.455.676
FP7 EBONE European Biodiversity Observation Network; 
a project to design and test a biodiversity 
observation system integrated in time and 
space   212322 CP-FP € 2.701.987
FP7 SCALES Securing the Conservation of biodiversity 
across Administrative Levels and spatial, temporal, and Ecological Scales   226852 CP-IP € 6.995.640
FP7 LIFEWATCH e-science and technology infrastructure for 
biodiversity data and observatories Capacities 
Programme     € 5.000.000
 
EN 88   EN B. THE FOUR KEY SUPPORTING MEASURES 
Supporting Measure 1. Ensuring adequate financing  
A. Context  
Adequate financing, both for Natura 2000 and for biodiversity outside Natura 2000, is 
essential. The new Financial Perspectives for 2007–2013 open opportunities for co-financing of biodiversity and Natura 2000 u nder the European Agricultural Fund for 
Rural Development (EAFRD), the Cohe sion and Structural Funds, Life+
 and the 7th 
Framework Programme. 
Agriculture, in managing a large part of th e EU territory, conserves genes, species and 
habitats. Increasing use of agr i–environment measures, organ ic farming and the support 
of Less Favoured Areas has favoured fa rmland biodiversity. The 2003 CAP reform 
promotes these and other pro–biodivers ity measures. Measures under market and 
income policy, including mandatory cros s–compliance, the single farm payment 
(decoupling) and modulation, should provide benefits to biodiversity. 
The new Rural Development Regulation provid es inter alia for enhanced support for 
Natura 2000, maintains agri–environmental me asures and payments  for areas with 
handicaps and provides for a set of measu res in support of sustainable forest 
management (some tailored to enhance ecol ogical value) such as forest–environment 
payments. Realisation of the full benefit of th ese measures as allocation to the different 
measures depend on implementation by Member States.  
B. Progress assessment  
Rural and regional development funds providi ng benefit for biodiversity and Natura 2000  
The bases of “adequate finances” are the costs indicated in the National Biodiversity 
Strategies and Action Plans (N BSAP's) of the member states  which include the estimated 
financial needs for the implementation of th e Convention on Biologica l Diversity (CBD). 
However, in most cases the bases of the estim ations are hard to track and thus not quite 
comparable. Moreover, the “adequate finances” is extremely difficult to calculate as it 
depends on a great number of (envi ronmental) variables. More ove r in this sec tion the funding 
not targeted for the implementation of the Ha bitats Directive is considered. Thus, the 
information with regards to spending under va rious Multilateral Environmental Agreements, 
spending in biodiversity re lated research and bilateral assistance is used. 
Financing for the Natura 2000 network originates  primarily from meas ures under Axis 2 of 
the Rural Development Programmes of each Member State/Region, as outlined by the 
Council Regulation (EC) No. 1698/2005, on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rura l Development (EAFRD). 
The measures referred to aim to improve the environment and the countryside. These include 
agri-environment payments, support for non-pr oductive investments, Natura 2000 payments 
 
EN 89   EN for the sustainable use of agricultural land and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC, 
forest-environment payments and Natura 2000 paym ents for the sustainable use of forests. It 
is the Member States' responsibility to decide on the allocation for the different measures in 
their Rural Development Programmes. 
Analysing the allocations of the different Member States on different measures for 
agricultural land we can conclude that agri-e nvironment measure is the most important for 
Natura 2000 implementation. Several Member States have chosen not to use Natura 2000 payments and have allocations exclusively for agri-environment measures (e.g. United 
Kingdom, the Netherlands, Malta, Luxembourg, Sl ovenia, Portugal, France). Some Member 
States decided to use Natura 2000 agricultura l payments combined with agri-environment 
measures (e.g. Austria, Hungary, Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania). 
As for forestry land, nearly the same amount of Member States has Natura 2000 forestry 
payment combined with forest-environmen t measures (e.g. Austria, Czech Republic, 
Slovakia) as those allocating only for forest-environment m easures (e.g. the Netherlands, 
Portugal, Cyprus, France). 
(For further information s ee Objective 2, Target A2.1.) 
A couple of categories of the European Regi onal Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion 
Fund (CF) spending are related to the protectio n of biodiversity and management of natural 
resources. The most relevant category is N o. 51 the “Promotion of biodiversity and nature 
protection” (for which EUR 2 719 million has been allocated). Also highly relevant is the 
category No. 55 as it covers the "protection of natural assets" (for which EUR 1 146 million is 
allocated). The category No. 56 is the "protectio n and development of natural heritage" (with 
a total of EUR 1 376 million) that also might have some indirect, positive impact on our 
natural heritage. It was the Member States' responsibility to decide on the allocation of 
development funds and to adopt it through their National Development Plans and the 
Operational Programmes (OPs) giving more detail ed information on measures to be taken and 
projects to be financed. Though all OPs ar e approved by the European Commission up to 
now, the fact that structure of OPs does not  have follow the categories the Community 
Strategic Guidelines, any comprehensive asse ssment is complicated by the fact that the 
categories of funding for most financial in struments do not allow for a breakdown of 
allocation for Natura 2000 and biodiversity. Additional support to the regional development funds were provided by INTER REG and now by European Terr itorial Cooperation schemes 
contributing to bi- or multilateral projects. 
(For further information s ee Objective 4, Target A4.1.) 
Comparing rural and regional development expend iture of Member States we can conclude 
that unfortunately, there are qu ite a few Member States that  have low allocations both on 
Natura 2000 payments (agricultural and fore stry land together) and on direct nature 
conservational categories (see  Figure 20) (e.g. Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Luxemburg, 
Malta), whereas there are some Member States that give emphasise to the target from both 
financial instruments (e.g. Czech Republic, France,  Spain, Lithuania). Interestingly, there are 
countries that have high allocation on Natu ra 2000 payments but quite low from regional 
development funds (e.g. Germany, Estonia and Ireland).  
 
EN 90   EN 0,001,002,003,004,005,006,007,008,009,0010,00
AT
BEBU
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
ES
FI
FR
GR
HU
IR
IT
LI
LT
LU
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
S
SI
SK
UK%NATURA 2000 payments
agricultural + forestry(% of E AFRD)
Nature conservation in regional policy(% of  ERDF)on category No. 51
  
Figure 20: The comparison of allocation on direct mea sures for Natura 2000 an d biodiversity from rural 
and regional development funds (state of October 2008).  
As comparing the expenditure on a wider range of rural and regional development measures 
that promote Natura 2000 and biod iversity it is to be seen that some countries have higher 
allocations on the target on this scale. Agri -environmental, forest-environmental and both 
Natura 2000 payments (agricultural and forestry  land) were taken into account of the rural 
development expenditure and categories No. 51 and 55 of the regional development fund for 
this analysis (see Table 5). We  can conclude that there are some Member States with low 
allocations from wide-ranged rural and regiona l development funds (e.g. Luxemburg, Poland, 
Slovakia) but they are not automatically the same as those of direct measures. Only a few countries have high allocations from both funds when taking indirect measures into account 
(e.g. Belgium, Czech Republic) from which only th e latter one has high allocations on direct 
measures as well. A change in countries spe nding more from one of the funds but not from 
the other is also to be seen (e.g. Aust ria, Malta, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom). 
 
EN 91   EN 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  ERDF)
on categories No. 51+55
 
Figure 21: The comparison of allocati on on direct and indirect measures for Natura 2000 and biodiversity 
from rural and regional development funds (state of October 2008).  
As the financial information provided by the European Fisheries Fund Operational 
Programmes does not include the am ount allocated to certain measur es or operations, it is not 
possible to separate Natura  2000 and biodiversity rela ted expenditure from other 
environmental measures. The only available info rmation concerns the total allocation of the 
EFF plus the national public contribution fo r each Priority Axis, and the total annual 
commitment of the EFF in the operational programme. 
The estimation of the overall Natura 2000 cost s date back to 2003 and indicate EUR 6 100 
million per year. The calculation is based is on  a questionnaire survey answered by only 8 
Member States and data extrapolated to EU  25. As the 2007 EU enlargement took place the 
Commission has launched a project  with a clear aim to provide  up-to-date and more accurate 
data on the financial needs for Natura 2000 network. The project wa s commenced in 2007 and 
presumes to provide results by the end of 2008. The effort is made to develop a comprehensive and understandable format of questi onnaire that will be circulated within the 
Member States. Analysis and final conclusions drawn from the data obtained are likely to be 
available in spring 2009. 
Nature conservation projects and Research
 
Major instrument of the European Commission to support environment related projects across 
Europe is LIFE funds a part of which is used to support the development of nature, 
biodiversity and especially Natura 2000. LI FE+ took into force for the 2007-2013 EU budget 
period with an increased allocation for 2007 (EUR 187 million). The decision on 2007 project 
proposals has not been made. The share of the y early LIFE Nature expenditure and allocation 
on nature and biodiversity related project s from LIFE+ is seen in Table 10. 
(For more information see Objective 1, Target A1.1.) 
 
EN 92   EN   2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 20071 
Austria 7.79 1.60 6.02 7.84 6.77 3.39 1.88 
Belgium 2.97 5.30 14.71 2.00 15.67 14.22 2.06 
Bulgaria 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.15 
Cyprus 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.02 0.00 0.00 1.07 
Czech 
Republic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 1.00 1.98 
Denmark 2.81 6.41 0.00 5.37 14.06 4.39 2.46 
Estonia 1.55 1.53 1.00 1.55 0.00 0.00 1.66 
Finland 5.45 6.19 6.39 1.15 2.39 3.65 3.58 
France 7.74 1.20 7.91 11.03 3.93 3.72 8.75 
Germany 12.71 9.19 10.77 6.01 15.70 7.58 11.64 
Greece 3.86 9.43 4.24 2.99 1.36 0.00 3.40 
Hungary 0.32 3.17 0.90 5.02 2.08 6.23 2.50 
Ireland 0.92 4.39 2.25 4.67 1.89 0.00 1.57 
Italy 12.61 4.35 11.24 14.35 3.22 4.76 8.80 
Latvia 1.47 4.39 3.94 3.00 2.25 1.16 1.34 
Lithuania 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.14 0.00 1.38 
Luxemburg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.64 0.00 1.09 
Malta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 1.15 
Netherlands 1.70 1.82 0.00 6.47 2.73 13.06 3.21 
Poland 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 5.92 2.28 4.74 
Portugal 3.09 3.84 5.64 2.40 0.00 5.46 2.80 
Romania 1.30 0.98 0.98 1.45 3.75 1.10 4.35 
Slovakia 0.00 0.00 1.47 0.33 2.62 2.48 1.53 * 
Slovenia 1.02 1.13 1.36 1.71 0.00 3.29 2.15 
Spain 16.90 15.90 15.42 12.69 4.74 16.99 10.71 
Sweden 2.45 5.06 2.87 1.38 2.99 0.54 4.11 
United 
Kingdom 13.34 14.14 2.90 5.12 4.16 4.03 7.95 
Table 10: The allocation of LIFE Nature and LIFE + expenditure between Memb er States (% of total 
yearly budget) 
1 indicative allocation for Me mber States for LIFE+  
* Note that Slovakia did not receive 100% of its allocatio n, as it only got one LIFE+ Nature project with an EC 
contribution of 2.288.839 €  Source: DG Environment, E4 
Framework Programmes (FP) are aimed to provide  financial background for research carried 
out across Europe in different fi elds, a part of which is allo cated to biodive rsity projects. 
Community contribution to e nvironmental research was EUR 58.59 million for FP5 period 
(1993-1999), EUR 77.48 million for FP6 period ( 2000-2006) and there has been positive 
decision made on 9 biodiversity related projects in the frame of FP7 (period 2007-2013) with 
a total Community contri bution of EUR 29.62 million. 
Based on the Member States responses and data available it is hard to estimate the Member 
States' national expenditure on bi odiversity related projects and research excluding the part of 
national public contribution to projects run from  any type of European funds. The highest 
spending for biodiversity research is done by Sweden, followed by the United Kingdom and 
then Belgium and Malta equally. Interestingly, in some cases the indicated spending is not in 
correlation with the size or economic strength of  the Member State, e.g. Malta is ranking as 
 
EN 93   EN third spending more money on research as France  or the Netherlands. (For further information 
see Objective 10, Target A10.1.) 
Supporting implementation of Multilateral E nvironmental Agreements and Bilateral 
Assistance  
The Commission will, by the end of 2008, draft a Communication on the Integration of Cross-
Cutting Issues in Development Cooperation. As part of this process, the Commission is 
preparing a strategy (staff work ing paper) on the integration of environment in development 
cooperation. For further informa tion see Objective 7., Target A7.3. 
Data on 2007 expenditure is available from a ll Member States for the following Multilateral 
Environmental Agreements: Convention on Biologi cal Diversity (CBD), Ramsar Convention, 
Convention on Migratory Species, AEWA (A frican-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement), 
UNESCO World Heritage Convention (WHC) and UNEP Programme of Work (PoW).  
The most resources were sp ent on CBD related work (E UR 2 730 922), while the least 
significant for AEWA (EUR 546 901). With rega rds to CBD Italy has allocated the most 
resources (EUR 1 052 267), and Estonia the l east (EUR 871). Biodivers ity-related aid is 
defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the CBD: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or 
genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic 
resources. The total alloca tion for external assistance is EUR 201.47 million to which 
Denmark is the biggest contributor EUR 47.1 m illion and Ireland has no fi nance indicated for 
this purpose. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow 
exact quantification of aid activities’ contri bution to the objectives. Thus, the figures are 
approximate. Biodiversity spending data are derived from the OECD Creditor Reporting 
System database where members of the Deve lopment Assistance Committee and multilateral 
donors report their aid activities. (Data are available online at www.oecd.org/dac/stats/crs
) 
Germany spent the most on Ramsar (EUR 205 790) and the three Baltic St ates spent the least 
(each EUR 599). Estonia has not indicated any spending for CMS while the UK mobilised the 
most resources (EUR 265 576). With regard s to AEWA Austria, Luxembourg, Malta and 
Poland has not indicated spending, while France , Germany and the UK allocations were the 
highest (EUR 96.213). For WHC Germany used th e most resources (183.023 EUR) and Malta 
the least (42 EUR).  
UNEP PoW received the most contribution from  the Netherlands (EUR 7 084 269) and from 
Bulgaria the least (EUR 4 962). (For further information see Objective 7, Target A7.2.) 
 
EN 94   EN  
Percentage of total EU expenditure for Life Nature Project
0.072%0.077%0.096% 0.096%
0.058%
0.052%0.055%
0.038%0.052%
0.051%0.082%0.077%0.074%
0.066%0.066%
0.000%0.020%0.040%0.060%0.080%0.100%0.120%
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Percentage
Figure 22: Percentage of total EU expenditure for Life Nature Project 
 
EN 95   EN Supporting Measure 2. Strengthening EU  decision–making for biodiversity 
A. Context  
Strengthening EU decision-making in volves improving coordination and 
complementarity between Community and Memb er States, notably through an efficient 
governance structure; ensuring  existing and new policies and budgets (including those 
developed under Lisbon Strategy National Reform Programmes) take due account of 
biodiversity needs; taking account of envi ronmental costs (incl uding loss of natural 
capital and ecosystem services) in decision –making; improving coherence at national 
level between various plans and programmes affecting biodiversity; and ensuring decision–making at regional and local level is consistent with high–level commitments 
for biodiversity. 
B. Progress assessment
 
Target 2.1 EU vision on biodiversity and ecosy stem services agreed and providing policy 
framework by 2010  
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) 
As part of the Potsdam initiative agreed by G8 in 2007, a study on The Economics of 
Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) has been jointly initiated by the European Commission 
and Germany in collaboration with the Europe an Environment Agency. The first results of 
this assessment of the global ec onomic benefit of biological dive rsity, the costs of the loss of 
biodiversity and the failure to  take protective measures versus the costs of effective 
conservation have been presen ted at CBD COP9 in May 2008. 
The Commission is also supporting  the development of  a sub-global assessment (SGA) for 
Europe, in the context of UNEP´s Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Follow-up Strategy. 
According to the FP7 road map c overing the research priorities for the next calls, there will be 
a call for research proposals that will adapt and apply concepts and methods of the 
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, integratin g all-taxa biodiversit y inventories on key 
ecosystems, to assess conditions of European  ecosystem services. This will be properly 
integrated with the work and results of the EEA 's EURECA project. Research effort will be 
focused over the course of FP7 on making human us e of biodiversity sustai nable. As part of 
this, research support will be provided to fo llow up TEEB, with work on economic, social and 
environmental costs and benefits of c onservation and use of biodiversity. Other 
recommendations for research in this direction will be taken into consideration, including those identified by the European Platform fo r Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS). 
Six Member States (Belgium, Cyprus, Czech  Republic, France, Germany, Hungary) have 
plans to follow up the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 10 Member States do not (Austria, 
Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Latvia, Netherlands, Romania, Sweden, UK) while the 
other Member States did not  respond to this aspect. 
 
EN 96   EN Target 2.2 New policies benef it biodiversity and ecosystem services, and their negative 
impact on biodiversity and ecosystem servi ces prevented or minimised, from 2006 onwards  
An assessment by the Commission in January 2006 showed that two thirds of the Member 
States refer to biodiversity or  nature protection in their Na tional Reform Programmes. Some 
of them consider biodiversity a particularly crucial resource due to the important economic 
contribution from nature tourism. However, a further assessment in December 2006 showed 
that while on biodiversity important progre ss is reported by many countries, additional 
integrated policy efforts are needed.  
As part of its policy on Bette r the Commission is screening all new legislative and policy 
proposals for potential significant impacts on biod iversity. The impact assessment guidelines, 
used by the Commission include  biodiversity concerns. 
Target 2.3 Biodiversity needs have been be tter integrated, as necessary, [into post-2013 
Financial Perspectives and a ny mid-term review of FP 2007-2013]  
The mid term review of the EC 6th Environment Action Programme carried out in 2007 
confirmed that biodiversity is one of the f our priority areas. The 2007 Environment Policy 
Review showed that the year 2007 was a turning point in EU environment policy. The main 
commitments under the 6th Environment Acti on Programme have been delivered and 
environment issues were firmly at the top of the political agenda. But there are also reasons 
for concern. While the policy framework is in  place, implementation of EU environment 
legislation by Member States is often slow or incomplete. Furthermore, the EU needs to 
prepare for the major environmental challenges ahead: defining a long-term strategic vision 
for sustainable consumption and production, adapta tion to the inevitable climatic changes, and 
the protection of biodive rsity. The accompanying Commission Staff Working Paper  provides 
more factual details, including some  key indicators of trends in the different priority areas of 
the 6th Environment Action Programme, as well as an overview of 2007 environment policy 
initiatives in all 27 Member States.  
Target 2.4 Complementarity of EC and Member  States biodiversity strategies and action 
plans substantially enhanced by 2010  
Alignment of national biodivers ity strategies with EU (B2.2) 
Ten Member States (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Finland, 
Netherlands, Sweden, Slovenia a nd UK) have environmental pol icy or strategy created or 
updated in light of the Communication 'Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond', four are currently developing it (Greece, Spai n, Ireland, Malta), seve n have not (Cyprus, 
France, Hungary, Lithuania, La tvia, Poland, Portugal) and si x failed to respond to this 
question (Bulgaria, Estonia, Ital y, Luxembourg, Romania, Slovakia). 
EU governance structure 
There have been discussions on improving the go vernance structure for implementation of EU 
nature and biodiversity policy, wi th particular regard to delivery of the EU Biodiversity 
Action Plan. This has led to the creation of a new Co-ordination Group on Biodiversity and 
 
EN 97   EN Nature, involving the competent authorities of the Member States, different Commission 
services and representative s of key stakeholder groups. 
Target 2.5 Effective integration of Na tura 2000, rural development, river basin 
management and other territorial plans and pr ogrammes in support of biodiversity achieved 
by 2010  
Nearly all Member States e ffectively use Rural Development Programmes in support of 
biodiversity, only Italy and Spain did not respond to this question. It appears that nearly all 
Member States integrate effectively Natu ra 2000 plans and programmes in support of 
biodiversity except Romania, Spain and Swede n, which did not respond to this question.  
Fourteen Member States (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, 
Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal, Roma nia, Spain, Sweden, UK) effectively integrate 
River Basin Management plan s and programmes in support of biodiversity, one does not 
(Bulgaria) and 11 did not respond to this question (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, 
Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Malt a, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia). 
The Commission has included biodiversity con cerns and targets in its assessment of the 
National Strategies submitted by Member States in the context of the EC Cohesion policy (Structural and Cohesion funds ) for the financing period  2007-2013. Rural Development 
programmes are also being monitored and assessed. 
The Commission has started an initiative aimed at developing new concepts for the 
integration of the Natura 2000 ne twork into the broade r countryside. Under this activity a new 
spatial vision for a green structure of the European Union will be elaborated, ensuring sustainable management of natural resources,  adaptation to accelerated climate change and 
the maintenance of biodiversity. 
Target 2.6 Substantial improvements in comp liance with environmen tal regulations by 
2010 [and again by 20132]  
The Commission continues to closely monito r the implementation of environmental 
legislation and to take the necessary action to en sure that Member States comply with it. For 
examples general conformity studies for all EU  25 MS have been carried out for both Birds 
and Habitats Directive and where gaps in tr ansposition appear the Co mmission has initiated 
non-conformity cases. As regards the Birds Direc tive, infringement procedures related to non-
conformity issues are ongoing against 15 Members States79. As regards the Habitats Directive 
infringement procedures related to non-confor mity issues are ongoing against 16 Member 
States80. 
The European Commission has started a consultation  exercise on its initiative to reform the 
control system of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Continued failure of the control policy 
would have serious consequences for the future  of fisheries resources and on conservation 
efforts. In February 2008, the Commission has therefore launched a pu blic consultation on 
how CFP control should be improved and strengthe ned to make it fit to deliver the core goals 
                                                 
79 AT, IE, ES, DK, UK, EL, IT, CZ, EE, HU, LT, LV, PL, SK, RO. 
80 (AT, DE, UK, FR, IE, ES, DK, NL, EL, CZ, EE, MT, PL, SI, SK, HU). 
 
EN 98   EN of the Common Fisheries Policy, namely, a genui nely sustainable Europ ean fishing industry. 
A meeting with stakeholders will be held by the end of April 2008. The consultation exercise 
will lead to a proposal for a new Council regulati on in October. This will replace the existing 
one which dates back to 1993. 
The Joint Deployment Plan (JDP) was launched in March this year by the Commission. This 
major EU control campaign wi ll be coordinated by the Community Fisheries Control Agency 
(CFCA)  and marks the EU's determina tion to ensure that the fifteen-year recovery plan for the 
blue fin tuna, agreed within the Internationa l Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic 
Tuna ( ICCAT ) in November 2006, is fully  respected. The JDP brings  together the resources 
of the seven main Member States involved in the fishery and will cover all stages in the 
market chain, including controls at sea, onshore and at fattening farms. 
 
EN 99   EN Supporting Measure 3. Building partnerships  
A. Context  
This supporting measure involves build ing progressive partnerships between 
government, academia, conservation practition ers, landowners and users, private sector, 
finance sector, educational sect or and the media to frame so lutions. It involves building 
on existing provisions (e.g. under the CAP and CFP) and the development of new 
partnerships, including outside the EU. 
B. Progress assessment  
Target 3.1 Key stakeholder groups actively en gaged in conservation of biodiversity from 
2006 in each Member State  
Work on developing an EU Business & Biodiversity  initiative has involve d consultations with 
businesses, NGOs and Member States. Business  and Biodiversity was one of environmental 
priorities of the Portuguese Pr esidency during the second half of 2007 and a major conference 
on this subject, organised by the Presidency, took place in Lisbon on 12-13 November 2007 
(see http://countdown2010.net/ business). The Message from Lisbon, a consensus document 
from over 400 conference participants, half of  them representing businesses, stressed the 
importance of engaging business in meeti ng the 2010 target, under lined the need for 
concerted action at the EU level. Building on  the experience of the Lisbon conference the 
Commission intends to establish and put in to operation an EU Business and Biodiversity  
technical support platform.  
An ongoing EU funded pilot study establishing biodiversity technical assistance units in three 
selected new Member States (Bulgaria, Hungary & Poland) aims to facilitate the creation of a new 
pro-biodiversity investment markets for businesses, especially small and medium enterprises 
(SMEs) and the banking sector, with a view to helping prepare bankable projects for future 
investment loans.  
In 2008 the Commission has launched some initiatives aiming at the development and 
rewarding of Partnerships in the context of the management of the Natura 2000 network. The 
first initiative includes the establishmen t of a web-based 'Natura 2000 communication 
platform'. This will allow di fferent socio-economic sectors to  become actively involved on 
their own initiative in the exchange of good practice and the preparation of  sector-specific 
guidance and recommendations fo r good conduct. The second initiative is the development of 
a 'Natura 2000 Partner Reward Scheme'. This will reward individuals, organizations and 
public institutions that show particular merit in promoting the management of and the 
communication on Natura 2000. Both initiatives are well under way, and the launch of the 
instruments is expected in 2009.  
The Commission services have invited specific sectors to cooperate with the Commission to 
produce guidance for practitioners on how to address problems associated with Natura 2000 
sites. The stakeholders interested in non-energy  extractive industries, the representatives of 
ports and coastal management bodies with a special interest in estuaries and coastal zone 
 
EN 100   EN management, and representatives of wind energy  industry are participat ing in working groups 
which will produce guidance documents for thes e topics in 2009. Member State, NGOs and 
other stakeholders are also i nvolved in these initiatives.  
National partnerships for bi odiversity including privat e sector involvement (B3.1) :  
Amongst the actions identified in the Biodive rsity Action Plan, s upporting measure 3.1.6 
requires that Member States facilitate bus iness and biodiversity partnerships from 2006 
onwards. The BAP Member State Questionnaire specifically addresse d this action point. 
Twenty Member States (74%) indi cated that they had national initiatives aimed at promoting 
partnerships for biodiversity. The distribution of  partnerships by busines s sector is indicated 
in Table 6, introduced under Target 4.4. The most  common partnerships re lated to the farming 
and tourism sectors (13 of the 20 countries in each case). Three Member States (Spain, 
Romania and Sweden) do not yet have initiativ es promoting biodiversity partnerships, whilst 
no information was provided by four Member States (Italy, Luxembourg, Malta and Portugal 
(national initiative known to have been launched) . Of the high number of Member States with 
partnership initiatives, to  date 48% have developed at leas t some sectoral guidance documents 
relating to biodiversity. Only 4% have not, but nearly half  (48%) did not supply this 
information. (Figure 23 and Figure 25) In contrast only 19% ha ve developed national or sub-
national recognition or award schemes that pr omote business engagement with biodiversity 
(Belgium; Cyprus; Latvia; Slovenia; United Ki ngdom), 33% have no such scheme and 48% 
failed to provide this information (Figure 26). 
The number of partnership initiatives related to Natura 2000 was substantially less than those 
for biodiversity as a whole and in 48% of cases the information was not known (AT; EE; EL; ES; FI; IE; IT; LU; LV; MT; PL; PT; SI). Five Member States indicated that they did not 
have initiatives to promote partnership with Natura 2000 (CY; CZ; DK; RO; SE), and to date 
only nine Member States do have such initia tives (BE; BG; DE; FR; HU; LT; NL; SK; UK) 
(Figure 24). 
Data Source: Country Profiles a nd Member state Questionnaires. 
The Commission will also promote greater e ngagement of the hunting community in the 
implementation of the Birds directive and the Habitats Directives and to further engage the community of wildlife recreati onal users in conservation and management of Natura 2000, 
including the angling comm unity, with particular at tention to the beneficial consequences that 
these activities bring for Natura 2000. 
 
EN 101   EN Target 3.1 Key stakeholder groups actively engaged in conservation of biodiversity from 
2006 in each Member State  
  Member States with national initiatives aimed at promoting 
partnership for biodiversity
15%
11%
74%No information 
provided  
No 
Yes
Note: This chart is based on information 
received from Member States up to 20 June 
2008 and may be subject to 
change. Source: Country Profiles  
 
Figure 23: Distribution of Member States as regards national partnerships for biodiversity including 
private sector involvement (B3.1)  
(based on information received from  the Member States up to 20 J une, 2008. Source: Country Profile) 
  
Member States with national initiatives aimed at promoting 
partnership with Natura 2000
48%
19%33%
No information 
provided 
No 
Yes
Note: This chart is based on information 
received from Member States up to 20 June 
2008 and may be subject to 
change. Source: Country Profiles  
 
Figure 24: Distribution of Member States as regards national partnerships with Natura 2000 
(based on information received from  the Member States up to 20 J une, 2008. Source: Country Profile)  
 
EN 102   EN Member States with sectoral  guidance documents relating
to biodiversity
48%
4%48%No information  
provided 
 No 
Yes 
Note: This chart is based on information  
received from Member States up to 20 June 
2008 and may be subject to change.  
 
Source: Country 
Profiles
 
Figure 25: Distribution of Member States as regards sectoral guidance documents related to biodiversity
(based on information received from  the Member States up to 20 J une, 2008. Source: Country Profile)  
 Member States with national or subnational award schemes that
promote business engagement with biodiversity  
48%
33%19%
No information 
provided  
No 
Yes
Note: This chart is based on information 
received from Member States up to 20 June 
2008 and may be subject to 
change. Source: Country Profiles  
 
Figure 26: Distribution of Member States as regards national or subnational award schemes that promote 
business engagement with biodiversity  
(based on information received from  the Member States up to 20 J une, 2008. Source: Country Profile)  
 
EN 103   EN Supporting Measure 4. Building pub lic education, awareness and 
participation 
A. Context  
The 2010 target of halting biodiversity loss can on ly be met if all sectors of society – from 
public authorities and industry to private landowners and individual members of the 
general public - are actively in volved. First step for the gen eral public is information and 
understanding of biodiversity and our depend ence on its ecosystems' goods and services, 
and next steps are awareness raising about the threats to biodiversity and what the 
public can do to contribute to halting the loss. 
B. Progress assessment  
Target 4.1 10 million Europeans actively e ngaged in biodiversity conservation by 2010, 
[15 million by 2013]  
National/Sub-national public aw areness campaigns/initiatives 
A Flash Eurobarometer81 opinion poll on the attitudes of  Europeans towards the issue of 
biodiversity, based on a survey  of over 25,000 people in all Member States, was published in 
January 2008. 
Whilst a majority of Europeans have heard of the term biodiversity (6 5%) only 35% of people 
know what the term means, let alone understa nd what the threats and challenges to its 
conservation are. Differences in the level of aw areness vary across Europe, and countries that 
have a poor knowledge of biodiversity (60% of people or more having never heard of 
biodiversity) include The Czech Republic, Cypr us, Denmark, Greece, and Slovakia (See SEBI 
indicator 26 annexed). This may extend from th e general public to pol icy makers. Awareness 
raising was considered to be a key issue that needed to be addressed as a matter of some 
urgency in the Czech Republic in an as sessment by UNEP-WCMC in 2000 due to the 
reported lack of awareness of biodiversit y conservation issues among decision-makers. 
                                                 
81 Flash Eurobarometer 219: The Attitudes of Europeans towards the Issue of Biodiversity, 
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/flash_arch_en.htm  
 
EN 104   EN  
111623 23 2528 28 2935 3538 4042 44 44 444649 50 52 5156 576568737884
020406080100
AT
DE
BG
EE
FR
PL
SE
FI
EU27
IT
ES
UK
HU
BE
LV
PT
LU
SI
NL
IE
LT
RO
MT
EL
DK
SK
CZ
CYNever heard of it Familiarity with the term “biodiversity”, by country
Q1. Are you aware of the term "biodiversity"?
%, Base: all respondents, by country8984
77 77 7573 72 71
656261 6058 56 56 55 545149 48 48
42 41
3531
2421
1574
71
41
37
34
3141
33
35
24
28
28
18
24
15
31
28
25
2322
19
18
14
1717
6
6
615
14
36
40
41
41
31
37
30
39
33
32
40
32
41
24
26
27
26
26
29
24
26
18
15
18
15
9 020406080100
AT
DE
BG
EE
FR
PL
SE
FI
EU27
IT
ES
UK
HU
BE
LV
PT
LU
SI
NL
IE
LT
RO
MT
EL
DK
SK
CZ
CYHeard of it Heard of it and knows what it means Heard of it but does not know what it means
 
Figure 27 (source: Flash Eurobaromet er 219: "Attitudes of Eu ropeans towards the i ssue of biodiversity", 
The Gallup Organization) 
Most EU citizens are also unawa re of the Natura 2000 network and 80 % have never heard of 
it; only 6% know what Natura 2000 means. 
 
19 2044535761 616670 70 71 7073767880 8183 83 8286 8890 89 9094 9693
020406080100
BG
FI
EE
SI
PLEL
PT
AT
CZ
SE
CY
HU
SK
FR
LT
EU27
BE
LU
MT
ES
DK
LV
DE
NL
RO
IE
UK
ITNever heard of itAwa ren ess of th e Natu ra 2000 n et work
Q8. Ha ve you hea rd of the Na tura 2000 network?
%, Base: all respondents, by country80 80
56
46443937
3230 29 29 2925 2520 18 18 17 16 1613 1299 95 4 345
29
20
20
15
1516
10
7
5
86
5
7
6
6
10
8
54
4
3
3
4
2
1
1
135
51
36
26
29
24
21
21
23
24
21
23
19
18
14
12
8
9
11
12
9
8
6
6
7
4
3
2020406080100
BG
FI
EE
SI
PL
EL
PT
AT
CZ
SE
CY
HU
SK
FR
LT
EU27
BE
LU
MT
ES
DK
LV
DE
NL
RO
IE
UK
ITHeard of it Heard of it and knows what it means Heard of it but does not know what it means
 
Figure 28 (source: Flash Eurobaromet er 219: "Attitudes of Eu ropeans towards the i ssue of biodiversity", 
The Gallup Organization) 
 
EN 105   EN Even though few EU citizens feel well informed about biodiversity, over two thirds consider 
the loss of biodiversity a serious problem, when  the issue is explained to them. Over two 
thirds of EU citizens are personally maki ng efforts to help preserve biodiversity. 
The BAP requires Member States to develop and implement a communications campaign in 
partnership with the Commission to support the implementation of  the Action Plan and raise 
awareness about biodiversity. Information av ailable in individual Country Summaries 
indicates a range of approaches  to raising public awareness from educational activities 
through to policy initiatives. Fo r example, the Action Plan for Biodiversity and Nature 
Protection in Denmark 2004-2009 incl udes such provisions, and refere nce is also made to the 
Aarhus Convention, indicated under Action B4.1.3 in the Action Plan.  
Belgium’s and Slovenia’s National Biodiversity St rategies include an objective to involve the 
community in the strategy through communicati on, education, public awareness and training. 
Others are in the process of preparing plans: According to the Third National Report to the 
Convention of Biological Diversity, Greece is preparing a communication, education and 
public awareness (CEPA) strategy relating to the commitments to the Aarhus Convention. 
A scoping study for an EU wide Communicati ons Campaign aimed at creating awareness 
about and support for the 2010 target and the long-term protection of biodiversity was 
published in March 2008. Recommendations from  this study, including campaign objectives, 
key messages, target audience, framework and components of a co mmunications campaign, 
fed into the 2008 call for proposals of the In formation & Communication component of the 
LIFE+ financial instrument. Under this heading pr iority is being given to proposals relating to 
the protection of nature and biodiversity. A common visual identity for communication 
campaigns on nature and biodiversity will be  developed and the Commission is also 
considering priority ac tions at EU level.  
The Commission has produced an informativ e guide and related posters on the EU 
Biodiversity Action Plan. A book celebrating the Natura 2000 ne twork was launched in May 
2008, describing 80 of the finest Natura 2000 sites. Information material on Natura 2000 is being updated and translated and new material  produced, to improve outreach to create 
awareness, understanding and supp ort for the key legislation, th e Nature Direc tives, and the 
Natura 2000 network. EU suppor t for the Countdown 2010 Initia tive will continue in 2008 
and 2009 to assist a range of ac tivities includin g events under EU Pres idencies, with regions 
and local authorities and with  the European Parliament.  
 
EN 106   EN C. MONITORING, EVALUATION AND REVIEW 
ANNUAL REPORTING, INDI CATORS, MONITORING 
A. Context  
There has been continuing progress with the pan-European initiative for Streamlining 
European 2010 Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI  2010), aimed at assessing, reporting on 
and communicating progress towards the 2010 target in Europe. Using a common 
methodological framework, endorsed with in the framework of the Convention on 
Biological Diversity, a set of 26 pan-European biodiversity i ndicators has been selected 
with the financial support of the Europe an Commission, the European Environment 
Agency, and UNEP. 
The Farmland bird index was selected as a structural indicator in 2004, as a headline 
sustainable development indicator in 2005 a nd as agri-environmental indicator in 2006. 
Work is in progress to develop coordinated monitoring approaches and tools, and to 
streamline and modernise the reporting tasks under the Habitats82 and Birds83 
directives, including the dataflow on the Natura 2000 network.  
B. Progress assessment  
Target 1.1 Annual, Mid-Term and Final Repor ts submitted in timely fashion to Council 
and Parliament  
The Commission published its first report on progr ess in implementation of the Action Plan, 
starting with the period from adoption of this Communication to end 2007 in December 2007. 
The second report (to end 2008) includes a conc ise mid–term evaluation of progress towards 
the 2010 targets based on the headline set of SEBI 2010 indicators, and assessment of 
progress in implementation at Community and Me mber States level and will be submitted to 
Council and Parliament. 
The EC and EEA together with the Secretariat of the Conven tion on Biological Diversity and 
UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Center  (WCMC) are actively involved in the 
improvement of the alignment and synchron isation of biodiversity  reporting based on a 
streamlined set of indicators (e.g. 4th Convention on Biological Diversity National Report – 
4NR, 3rd Global Biodiversity Outlook - GBO3, globa l Biodiversity Indica tor Partnership - 
BIP). This includes the development of th e European Common Database on Designated 
Areas- the so called ECDDA, wher e efforts are being joined with the Council of Europe in 
sharing procedures for the information included. 
                                                 
82 Council Directive of 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, 
OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. 
83 Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. 
 
EN 107   EN Target 1.2 Indicators in place a nd informing policy-decisions by 2010  
Using the common methodological framework for goals, targets and indi cators endorsed by 
COP decision VII/30, a set of 26 pan-European biodiversity indi cators has been selected with 
the financial support of the European Commi ssion, the European Environment Agency, and 
UNEP (see Annex 4) and is fully docu mented in the EEA Technical Report84 on Streamlining 
European biodiversity indicators (SEBI) 2010 of October 2007. This provides the ba sis - to be 
complemented by other sets of indicators, esp ecially those designed to  assess progress in 
policy sectors - for a first European indicato r-based assessment of progress towards the 2010 
biodiversity target to be published by the EEA in  the first half of 2009. It  will be part of the 
European contribution to the 4th Convention on Biological Dive rsity National Report (4NR) 
according to the guidelines endor sed by COP decision VIII/14. 
Based on available information, more than half of Member States (16) already have national 
biodiversity indicators; some countries (Belgi um, the Netherlands, and the UK) have aligned 
their indicators to the SEBI framework. Thirteen  Member States have some indicators that 
correspond with the SEBI indi cator framework, with gaps mainly on invasive species, 
occurrence of temperature-sensitive species, sust ainable use, threats to  biodiversity, resource 
transfer, access and benefit-sharing and public aw areness. It is very encouraging that the 
development of national indicato rs aligned to the SEBI indicat or framework is underway in 
the Member States. 
Two regional capacity-building workshops have  been organised for 6 countries of South 
Eastern Europe and 12 countri es of the ECCA region. An  international workshop on 
biodiversity indicators was organised back -to-back to SBSTTA 12 in July 2007 in 
collaboration with the UNEP-WCMC globa l Biodiversity Indi cator Partnership. 
Further refinement and improvement of the SEBI 2010 indicators is ongoing, including with 
regard to the impact of climate change on biodiversity, interlinkage s and communications. 
Response indicators have been collected by th e European Commission in 2008 to support the 
assessment of progress in meeting, or contributi ng to, the relevant objectives and targets of 
the Biodiversity Action Plan. Indicators used in the context of "The Economics of Ecosystems 
and Biodiversity" (TEEB), such as the Mean Sp ecies abundance and other indicators such as 
the Net Landscape Ecological Potential may be  evaluated for their inclusion in other 
assessment reports or the SEBI 2010 set.  
Following Council's request of 2003 to develop an ‘EU Biodi versity indicator’, possible 
options (e.g. birds, butterflies, Red List Inde x, Living Planet Index) have been evaluated by 
the European Topic Centre on Biological Divers ity last year. On this basis and depending on 
the outcomes of the nearly finalized INDI-link85 project, a proposal of options with strengths 
and weaknesses, and costs of production will be provided by the European Environment 
Agency for further discussion. This will also contribute to 'Beyond GDP' initiative launched 
last year, which will lead to the adoption of  a Communication later in 2008, and includes the 
development of an environment composite indicat or or index as top-level indicator for the 
environment to complement GDP in policy debate. 
                                                 
84 EEA Technical report n° 11/2007, See http://reports. eea.europa.eu/technica l_report_2007_11/en  
85 Va čkář David (April 2008) – Conceptual basis for the development of a Biodiversity Index (BDI) and 
Biodiversity Accounts (BDA). Environment Centre Charles University, Prague. 
 
EN 108   EN SEBI 2010 is also contributing to the update, improvement and review of the section on 
natural resources of the next Sustainable Development Monito ring Report to be published by 
Eurostat in 2009. 
In 2008, SEBI 2010 has been selected by Red Life, a Spanish Journal, as one of the ten best 
ideas to save nature. 
Towards a shared information system for biodiversity 
In January 2008, the European Commission ha s adopted a Communication towards a Shared 
Environmental Information System (SEIS)86. SEIS is a collaborative initiative of the 
European Commission and the European Environment Agency (EEA) to establish together with the Member States an integrated and sh ared EU-wide environmental information system, 
based on technologies such as the internet and satellite systems. It is closely linked to 
INSPIRE, the environmental geographic data and services portal (see http://www.inspire-
geoportal.eu/ ) and the ‘Global Monitoring for Envi ronment and Security’ (GMES), which 
represents a concerted effort to  bring data and information provi ders together with users, so 
they can better understand each other and make environmental and security-related 
information available to the people who need it through enhanced or new services  
(http://www.gmes.info/ ). 
In this framework, the European Commission is currently working on a SEIS legislative 
proposal, which will provide a legal basis for the new electronic reporting mechanism, focusing especially on information and data currently reported under Community 
environmental law. This proposal would provi de an opportunity for streamlining reporting 
provisions under the nature directives (e.g.  synchronicity, alignment of content and 
procedures). The streamlining and modernisation of the reporting tasks un der the Habitats and 
Birds directives is being discussed in an Expert Group on Reporting, set up in 2008. 
To promote and facilitate access to biodiversity-related inform ation sources world-wide, the 
EEA is hosting the European Community Bi odiversity Clearing House Mechanism and 
developing links with nationa l mechanism (Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, 
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary , Latvia, Netherlands , Poland, Romania, 
Slovenia, Sweden, UK), existing networks and re levant databases. Discussions are currently 
taking place on the building up of a regional network on biodivers ity information as a tool to 
dialogue with the civil society, major groups and stakeholders. 
Based on available information, 17 Member Stat es (Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, 
France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Portuga l, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, UK) are 
members of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), which is an international 
organisation working to make the world's biodive rsity data accessible anywhere in the world. 
GBIF's members include countries and inte rnational organisations  who have signed a 
Memorandum of Understanding th at they will share biodiversity  data and cont ribute to the 
development of increasingly effective mechanis ms for making those data available via the 
Internet. 
                                                
 
86 See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/seis/index.htm  
 
EN 109   EN Target 1.3 Monitoring providing adequate data flow for implementati on of indicator set, 
for reporting on favourable conservation status, an d for broader assessment of effectiveness of 
the Action Plan by 2010  
The first major 'health check' of the conservation status of species and habitats of Community 
interest under Article 17 of the Habitats Directiv e is underway. On the basis of national 
reports received in 2007/early 2008 the Commission, with support of the European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity of the European  Environment Agency, will complete an EU 
level assessment (as part of the Commissi on's composite report by mid-2009), enabling a 
judgment to be made at community level and at  Biographic region level of the effectiveness 
of implementation to date. This information will a llow to identify future priorities for specific 
actions, targeting resources for example on species and habitat identified as particularly threatened. It will also convers ely permit an objective assessment  to the case for continuing 
high levels of protection status for species which are shown to be  in a very abundant situation. 
An overview on the national asse ssments is already available
87. A national summary of the 
Article 17 reports has also been prepared for each Member State88. 
Based on available information it appears that numerous biodiversity monitoring programmes 
and schemes have been developed in the 27 Me mber States, some of them long-standing ones 
and others have been established more recen tly. These programmes cover a wide range of 
biomes and species. The schemes have a heavy bias towards monitoring population trends in 
various species groups, including breeding birds,  meadow birds, waterbirds, non-nocturnal 
mammals, bats, amphibians, reptiles, butterf lies, dragonflies, liche ns, mushrooms (macro-
fungi), vascular plants and ve getation types as well as terres trial, marine and freshwater 
biomes (for more details see the EUMON, th e EU-wide monitoring methods and systems of 
surveillance for species and habitats of Community interest http://eumon.ckff.si/ ). Funding for 
biodiversity monitoring, which substantially la gs behind investments made by countries in 
other environmental issues, needs to be substantially increased to allow for comprehensive future assessments.  
As birds are considered to be highly repres entative of biodiversit y and the integrity of 
ecosystems, a pan-European Common Bird M onitoring Scheme (PECBM) has been set up to 
produce a common bird indicator (cf. SEBI 01). This harmonised scheme currently covers 18 
Member States even if bird monitoring sche mes and programmes exist in all 27 EU Member 
States as shown in Error! Reference source not found.  on Common bird index of 
consolidated profile on objective 1. 
Many datasets on species are managed by NGOs (including research or ganisations) rather 
than national administrations. Th ere is a need to improve access to these data sets and avoid 
overlap in efforts. The initia tive 'The Conservation Commons' , started amongst conservation 
NGOs to support open access to, and in particular the fair use of, data and information related 
to the conservation of biodiversity  is hosted at UNEP-WCMC (see 
www.conservationcommons.org
). Discussions are taking place with the European Community 
for possible co-operation. 
To support harmonisation of monitoring methods for European habitats and species, the 
Commission is exploring the feasibility to establish a platform for the exchange of 
                                                 
87 http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17  
88 can be viewed on the CIRCA-Reporting at http://circa.europa.eu/P ublic/irc/env/monnat/library  
 
EN 110   EN information and of good practices within the EU Expert Group on Reporting. The work of the 
group involves the standardisati on, synchronisation and modernisa tion of dataflow (use of IT-
tools) as well as proposals for the presentation of these data & their analysis via the internet in 
order to be available and releva nt to a wide range of users. 
Finally, modern monitoring technologies are be ing developed based on earth observations. As 
part of its contributi on to the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), the 
European Community is funding under FP7 the European Biodiversity Observation Network 
(EBONE), a project to design and test a biodi versity observation system integrated in time 
and space. It is the European contribution to  the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity 
Observation Network (GEO BON), which is  promoting coherence in biodiversity 
observations with regard to data architecture,  scales and standards, observatory network 
planning and strategic planning for its implementation. By fac ilitating and linking efforts of 
countries, international organizations, and i ndividuals, GEO BON will contribute to support 
the Convention on Biological Diversity. Future work invol ves the integration, cross-
calibration and validation of fi eld data and remote sensing observations for the collection, 
management, sharing, and analysis of data on the status and trends of th e world’s biodiversity 
http://earthobservati ons.org/cop_bi_geobon.shtml . 
The Commission is working with EEA, ESTA T, JRC and DG RTD on strengthening the 
knowledge base for biodiversity within the framework of the Shared Environmental 
Information System (SEIS) on developing a co mmon approach for the establishment of a 
Europe wide biodiversity data centre and assessment facility to inform biodiversity policy. This will be undertaken jointly with Member States.
 
 
EN 111   EN EVALUATION AND REVIEW 
A. Context   
The Commission has undertaken in its 2006 Communication on halting the loss of 
biodiversity by 2010 and beyond89 to provide annual reporting to assess delivery of the 
EU biodiversity action plan and to determine progress towards meeting the 2010 target. A first progress evaluation, covered the peri od up to the end of 2007 and focusing on 
action at Community level, was finalised in January 2008
90.  
However, as most of the actions in the EU  Biodiversity Action Plan are addressed at 
both EC and Member States levels, the obj ectives and targets cannot be effectively 
delivered without Community and national le vel co-operation and commitment. In this 
regard the second 'mid-term' report, covering the period up the end of 2008, aims to evaluate progress at both Community and Mem ber State level. Als o, it represents the 
last real stock-taking opport unity before 2010 and should provide a platform to revisit 
the issue of biodiversity protection at the highest political level by 2010.  
The report is factual, highlight ing any significant gaps in de livery. It may also identify 
any essential adjustments to actions to meet  the 2010 target. It is supported by more 
detailed evaluations of progress at EC and Member State levels as well as an indicator 
based assessment of progress by the EEA . 
B. Progress assessment
 
Target 1.4 Action Plan adjusted as n ecessary in 2010, [new plan adopted in 2013]  
This report is a response of the commitment of the European Commission to provide annual 
assessment to 2010 on progress in delivery of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan. It covers the 
period from adoption of the Biodiversity Comm unication up to end of  2008 and focuses on 
Community level and Member States action. 
Preparation of the report has i nvolved consultations within the European Commission in the 
framework of the Interdepartmental Biodivers ity Co-ordination Group for the necessary 
updated assessment of Community level action fo r each of the actions of the Biodiversity 
Action Plan. 
There have also been discussions with Member States both within the framework of meetings 
of the Nature Directors and of  the Coordination Group for Bi odiversity and Nature. At the 
Lisbon Nature Directors meeting in Nove mber 2007 a mechanism for Member State 
information inputs to the preparation of the mi d-term report was agreed, aimed at reducing the 
reporting burden to a minimum by making use of all relevant available information sources. 
Consistent with this agreement the Commission  prepared a questionnaire for each Member 
State to complete for the limited number of key issues which would otherwise not be covered 
                                                 
89 COM (2006) 216 Final. 
90 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/rep_biodiv_ap/index_en.htm . 
 
EN 112   EN by the report. This was sent to Member St ates in January 2008. To gether with existing 
information and databases the responses were to be used to prepare c ountry summary profiles, 
to be sent to Member States for validation.  
There have been significant delays in responses  to the Questionnaire an d 6 Member States did 
not provided any responses91. Based on available information the Commission has compiled 
country profiles for all Member States, with th e assistance of a consultancy contract. The 
detailed information that underpins these coun try summaries is ava ilable on the CIRCA web 
site, to which Member States have access. The country profiles have been sent to the Member 
States for verification. These profiles repres ent an important first assessment of national 
action to address the concerns of the Biodiversity Action Plan. 
The State of the Environment perspective is supported  by the 26 SEBI 2010 biodiversity 
indicator fact sheets  provided by the EEA. 
The mid-term Report from the Commission to the Council and European Parliament, 
comprises the Communication, which is summary te xt of progress at EC and Member States 
levels in relation to objectives and targets;  an updated assessment at  Community level for 
each action of the BAP; a summary Country Profile s for each Member Stat e; an indicator fact 
sheets from the European Environment Agency  led project on Streamlining of European 
Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI); a synthesis consolidated repor t, combining for different 
objectives and targets the summaries for Commun ity and Member State level assessments, the 
relevant indicators and any key messag es in support of  the Communication. 
On the basis of the combined country and Co mmunity assessments the Commission will also 
identify key comparative information for the production of a SCOREBOARD to 
communicate progress in relati on to key elements of the Biodiversity Action Plan. 
The fourth annual report (to end 2010) will evaluate the extent  to which the EU has met its 
2010 commitments. This will involve  qualitative assessment of the extent to which Action 
Plan actions have been implemented and ta rgets achieved, including consideration of 
underlying assumptions and possible missing actions . The evaluation will also be informed by 
quantitative data relating to a set of  headline biodiver sity indicators. 
The seventh annual report (to end 2013) will provide a similar ev aluation, addres sing also all 
post–2010 targets in the Action Plan. 
These evaluations also drawn on the ongoing  study on the economic s of ecosystems and 
biodiversity (TEEB) and the Millennium Ecosyste m Assessment will inform final evaluation 
of the 6th EAP, review of sectoral policie s and budgets during the 2007–2013 period, and 
policies and budgets for the post–2013 period. 
                                                 
91 Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Slovakia.