Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee 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}
Date: 2008-12-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, biodiversity, environmental protection, management of resources, natural resources, project evaluation, sustainable development

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 16.12.2008 
SEC(2008) 3044 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE 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 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 4 

POLICY AREA 1: Biodiversity in the EU .................................................................................. 5 

Objective 1. To safeguard the EU's most important habitats and species.................................. 5 

Objective 2. To conserve and restore biodiversity and ecosystem services in the wider 
EU countryside......................................................................................................................... 21 

Objective 3. To conserve and restore biodiversity 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 biodiversity of invasive alien species 
and alien genotypes. ................................................................................................................. 54 

POLICY AREA 2: The EU and global biodiversity.................................................................. 58 

Objective 6. To substantially strengthen effectiveness of international governance for 
biodiversity and ecosystem services. ....................................................................................... 58 

Objective 7. To substantially strengthen support 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 conservation and sustainable 
use of biodiversity, in the EU and globally.............................................................................. 81 

EN 

2 

   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. Building partnerships.......................................................................... 99 

Supporting Measure 4. Building public education, awareness and participation .................. 103 

C. MONITORING, EVALUATION AND REVIEW ................................................................ 106 

ANNUAL REPORTING, INDICATORS, MONITORING.................................................. 106 

EVALUATION AND REVIEW............................................................................................ 111 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
INTRODUCTION 

This  consolidated  profile  presents  a  comparative  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 information given in the Communication, providing a 
more detailed analysis, and presenting key comparative data underpinning the assessment. 

It is based on information collected for the country profiles as well as the Community level 
assessment and is organised according to the four 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  measure.  This  is  then  followed  by  a  progress 
assessment. As it has not been  possible to assess progress by Member 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 level 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 official 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 Indicators (SEBI 2010) has also been used where 
this is directly linked to individual 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 Community programmes are preliminary and will require further 
evaluation. 

EN 

4 

   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  species  halted  by  2010, 
[these habitats and species showing 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 well as to fostering its recovery. 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  afforded  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 propose, designate, protect and effectively 
manage Natura 2000 sites. There is also a need to strengthen coherence, connectivity and 
resilience  of  the  network,  including  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. Comparable measures for habitats and species 
are required in those EU outermost regions not covered by the nature directives3. 

B. 

Progress assessment 

Target 1.1 
conservation management by 2010, 2012 in marine 

Natura 2000 network established, safeguarded, designated and under effective 

Establishment of Natura 2000 

There has been significant progress in the establishment of Natura 2000. Since adoption of the 
2006 Biodiversity Communication in May 2006 a total of 823 additional areas have proposed 
for  protection  under  the  Habitats  Directive,  with  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 total surface area of approximately 109 000 km². 
This  updated  and  extended  the  lists  of  protected  sites  for  the  Atlantic,  Continental,  Boreal, 
Macaronesian  and  Mediterranean  biogeographical  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  second  updating  round  of  the  lists  of  Sites  of 
Community Importance (SCIs). 

1 
2 
3 

Directive 79/409/EC, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p.1. 
Directive 92/43/EEC, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p.7. 
i.e.  measures  taken  voluntarily  and  at  national  initiative  for  French  Guiana,  Reunion,  Guadeloupe, 
Martinique. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
By  June  2008  there  were  21 612  Sites  of  Community  Importance  and  Special  Areas  of 
Conservation (SACs) under the Habitats Directive covering 655 968 km². There were 5 004 
Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the Birds Directive covering 517 896 km². The overall 
Natura  2000  network  now  comprises  more  than  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  the  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  Member  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  European  Environment  Agency,  providing  summary 
statistics for Natura 2000 sites for each Member State based on officially supplied data. 

Figure 1: Cumulative surface area of sites (A) proposed 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

650 000

600 000

550 000

500 000

450 000

400 000

350 000

300 000

250 000

200 000

150 000

100 000

50 000

a
h
x

0
0
1

0
1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Romania

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 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Cumulative surface area of sites designated for the Birds directive over time

500 000

400 000

a
h
X
0
0
1

300 000

200 000

100 000

Romania

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

0
1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

The  situation  regarding  the  marine  establishment  of  Natura  2000  is  less  advanced  than  for 
terrestrial areas. This is especially the case for the offshore marine environment. To facilitate 
progress the Commission published in 2007 a guide on establishing Natura 2000 in the marine 
environment to assist Member States in the 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 sites under the Common Fisheries 
Policy  (CFP),  complementing  the  earlier  marine Natura  2000  guidelines.  A  seminar  for  site 
selection for Atlantic Biogeographical sea region 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  their  legal  transposition  of  the  Birds  and  Habitats 
Directives. On the basis of checking the national measures transposing the Birds and Habitats 
Directive in EU-25, the Commission has initiated non-conformity cases where gaps have been 
detected6. The Commission has also continued to pursue cases of bad application of the nature 

5 
6 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/index_en.htm 
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  procedures  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 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
directives  in  20077.  A  summary  of  existing  important  case  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 %);  Bulgaria  (29.6 %);  Spain  (23.4 %);  Portugal  (17.4 %);  Estonia 
(16.8 %); Greece (16.4 %); Luxembourg (15.4 %); and Hungary (15.0 %). As regards SPAs, 4 
Member States had designated more than 15 % of their terrestrial territory: Slovakia (25.1 %); 
Slovenia (23 %); Bulgaria (20.4%) and Spain (19.1 %). 

At  EU  level,  around  12.2 %  of  the  terrestrial  territory  is  now  protected  under  the  Habitats 
Directive.  As  regards  determining  the  completeness  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 sufficient represented within the network. By June 
2008,  21  of  the  EU-27  Member  States  were  considered  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 doing 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 determine 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  for  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 Justice in the relevant case law on designation under 
the Birds Directive. 

7 

8 

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 against 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. 
Nature and Biodiversity Cases - Ruling of the European Court of Justice. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

DK NL IT BE FI DE GR SE LU ES UK BG MT FR LV AT 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 European Topic Centre for Biodiversity). 

Management and protection of Natura 2000 sites 

As the selection, proposal and designation of Natura 2000 sites is now at an advanced stage 
attention  needs  to  increasingly  focus  on  the  protection  and  management  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  2000  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 completed or agreed management plans (Figure 3). 

9 

Article  6(1)  of  the  Habitats  Directive  requires  Member  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 

9 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 3: Number of Natura 2000 sites in different Member States with a completed management plan 
(Source: response to Member State questionnaire). 

Furthermore,  a  total  of  3 250  Natura  2000  sites  in  the  EU  have  management  plans  under 
development (Figure 4). Seventeen EU member states have indicated that they are preparing 
management  plans  for  Natura  2000  sites.  Three  have  indicated  that  they  do  not  have  plans 
under development. No information was available on this for 7 countries. 

Figure 4: Number of Natura 2000 sites in different Member States with a management plan in 
preparation (Source: response to Member State questionnaire). 

In  order  to  assist  the  protection  and  positive  management  of  Natura  2000  sites  and  in 
recognition  of  potential  conflicts  with  certain  socio-economic  sectors  the  Commission  is 
developing  guidance  documents  for  Natura  2000  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 Commission in this process. These include experts of 
Member States, industry and non governmental organisations. Such guidance is additional to 
the published Commission guidelines on managing Natura 2000 under Article 6, which have 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
also been complemented by guidance on compensatory 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 communication 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  contract  to  overview  the  approach  towards  SAC 
designation,  establishment  of  conservation  objectives  and  management  instruments  being 
applied by different Member States. A new contract for Natura 2000 to overview economic 
and  social  benefits,  dealing  with  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  important  fund  to  support  the  development  of 
demonstration and best practice projects for management and restoration of Natura 2000 sites 
throughout the Member States. Between 2000 and 2006 EUR 436 532 507was spent over 434 
projects (Figure 5). Furthermore, the period from 2000 onwards has a more stable budget (see 
SEBI  indicator  No.  25)  (although  there  was  no  call  in  2001)  though  applications  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 project proposals is not finalised. It should be noted that the 
amounts  indicated  represent  the  EU  contribution  to  the  projects,  not  the  total  cost  of  the 
projects  in  question  as  LIFE  covers  50%  to  75%  of  the  total  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 
11 
12 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/greenforce/index_en.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Number of projects

Total EU funding (billion EUR)

T
A

E
B

G
B

Y
C

Z
C

E
D

K
D

E
E

S
E

R
F

FI

R
G

U
H

R

I

T

I

X
U
L

T
L

V
L

MT

L
N

L
P

T
P

O
R

E
S

SI

K
S

K
U

Figure 5: Comparison of EU funding per Member State and number of projects funded by LIFE 2000-
2006. 

Comprehensive  opportunities  to  co-fund  Natura  2000  costs  have  been  provided  in  each 
appropriate EC funding regulation for 2007-2013. Guidelines & training 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 expressed 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  further  support  linkages  between  financing  and 
management  of  Natura  2000.  This  will  update  and  refine  cost  estimates  of  Natura  2000 
financial  needs,  provide  documented  examples  of  good  practice  where  EU  funds  have  been 
used in a successful and innovative way and develop a methodology to identify and evaluate 
different socio-economic benefits. 

Target 1.2 
network in the EU substantially enhanced by 2010 [and further enhanced by 2013] 

Sufficiency,  coherence,  connectivity  and  resilience  of  the  protected  areas 

Natura  2000  sites  do  not  exist  in  isolation  from  the  surrounding  landscape.  Corridors  and 
connectivity, as recognised under Article 10 of the Habitats Directive are important especially 
in  the  light  of  the  pressures  that  will  be  associated  with  climate  change.  First  guidelines  on 
how  to  manage  landscape  features  of  major  importance  for  wild  flora  and  fauna  have  been 
prepared with a view to identifying ways of supporting the ecological coherence of the Natura 
network13. 

13 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/index_en.htm 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Target 1.3 
Atlases, Common bird monitoring, ex-situ conservation) 

Good  conservation  status  of  species  achieved  (Article  17,  Red  Data  Book, 

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  Directive  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 by mid-2009. An overview of the national assessments is already available14. 
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 majority of the species of European interest are 
in  an  unfavourable  status.  There  is  considerable  variation  in  the  results  of  the  status 
assessment  between  Member  States.  Latvia  has  the  highest  percentage  (49 %)  of  species 
under  favourable  conservation  conditions  (green),  with  Spain  the  lowest  percentage  (12 %). 
Slovenia  has  50 %  species  currently  inadequately  conserved  (amber)  the  highest  of  any 
Member  State  with  Sweden  and  Cyprus  reporting  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  currently  in  unfavourable 
conditions.  However,  there  are  still  significant  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 habitats. 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 
15 

http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17 
can be viewed on the CIRCA-Reporting at http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Conservation Status - species by country

XX
U2
U1
FV

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

AT BE CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT SE SI SK UK

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 States. 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 conditions (red) at 79 % of habitat types. 

In  each  biogeographic  region  (terrestrial  part),  between  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  significant  gaps  in  knowledge,  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  results,  based  on  assessment  for  the  period  up  to 
2006, are not surprising. The decline and destruction 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  extinction  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  measures  –  increasing  populations.  For  others,  the 
decline  has  been  stopped,  implementation  of  management/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  measures  for  the  management  and  restoration  of 

EN 

14 

   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

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

XX
U2
U1
FV

AT BE CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT SE SI SK UK

Figure 7: Preliminary conservation status assessment per country for habitat types of Community 
interest. FV = favourable; U1 = unfavourable inadequate; U2 = unfavourable bad; XX = unknown status 
(Source European Topic Centre for Biodiversity). 

Following up the Article 17 conservation status assessment exercise, the Commission has also 
started a new initiative in streamlining reporting under the Birds and the Habitats Directive. 
The  intention  is  to  have  better  data  available  in  order  to  assess,  among  other  things,  the 
effectiveness  of  the  nature  directives.  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 updated at EU and Member State levels. A red data 
list for mammals was published in 2007 providing the first comprehensive assessment at the 
European scale16. This shows that nearly one in six (15 %) of Europe's mammal species are 
threatened, and a further 9 % are close to qualifying for threatened status. The Iberian lynx is 
now  the  most  threatened  wildcat  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),  dragonflies,  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 deteriorated over the last decade. For the assessed bird 
species  on  the  IUCN  Red  List,  extinction  risk  throughout  European  regions  is  increasing 

16 
17 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/ema/index.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/nat2000newsl/nat21_en.pdf 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
(Figure 8). However, in August 2007 the journal Science published an analysis showing that 
the  Birds  Directive  has  made  a  significant  difference  in  protecting  many  of  Europe's  most 
threatened  birds  from  further  decline18.  The  groundbreaking  paper  shows  that  the  Birds 
Directive  has  clearly  helped  those  species  considered  to  be  most  at  risk,  partly  through  the 
designation of Special Protection Areas (SPAs). 

n = 522 spp

f

o
x
e
d
n

I

i

t
s
L
d
e
R

l

a
v

i

v
r
u
s

i

s
e
c
e
p
s

0.90

0.89

0.88

0.87

0.86

1994

2004

Year

Figure 8: Red List Index (RLI) showing changes in conservation status and increased extinction risk of 
European bird species between 1994 and 2004 (Source: bird conservation status assessments of BirdLife 
International; summarised by SEBI 02). 

Many  countries  in  the  EU  have  red  data  lists.  26  out  of  27  Member  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  earlier  plans  for  47  threatened  bird  species19.  The 
Community  continues  to  support  the  development  of  action  plans  for  threatened  birds 
(Acrocephalus  paludicola,  Marmaronetta 
involving 
anguistirostris,  Aquila  adalberti)  and  the  preparation  of  new  bird  action  plans  (Coracias 
garullus,  Chersophilus  duponti,  Neophron  percnopterus).  Seven  new  management  plans  for 
huntable bird species were finalised in 200720, as well as an international action plan for Saker 

the  update  of  existing  plans 

18 

19 

20 

International  Conservation  Policy  Delivers  Benefits  for  Birds  in  Europe  by  Paul  F.  Donald,  Fiona 
J. Sanderson, 
Ian  J.  Burfield,  Stijn  M.  Bierman,  Richard  D.  Gregory,  Zoltan  Waliczky 
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5839/810 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/action_plans/docs/ 
action_plans_review.pdf 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/hunting/managt_plans_en.htm 

EN 

16 

   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 total of 13 EU member states 
have  indicated  that  they  have  such  plans  (Figure 9).  These  countries  are  Austria,  Czech 
Republic,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Lithuania, 
Slovenia,  Spain  and  Sweden.  However,  it  is  generally  difficult  to  determine  the  number  of 
actions  plans  per  species  from  available  information.  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  indicated  that  they  do  not  have  ex-situ  conservation  plans  or 
programmes. For most of these countries, ex-situ conservation is referred to in the NBSAP as 
submitted to the CBD Secretariat. New possibilities 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 action 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  bird  species,  for  example  raptors  in  Malta. 
According  to  information  from  Member  States,  a  total  of  16  EU  countries  have  national 
indicators  derived  from  common  bird  monitoring  schemes.  11  EU  member  states  do  not 
appear to have national indicators derived from common bird monitoring schemes. 

As  birds  are  considered  to  be  highly  representative  of  biodiversity  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, forest and particularly 
farmland  birds  have  declined.  The  initial  steep  decline  of  farmland  birds  is  associated  with 
large-scale 
increasing  agricultural  specialisation  and 

in  some  areas,  and 

intensity 

21 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/action_plans/index_en.htm 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
marginalisation and land abandonment in others. The falling trend 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 agricultural intensification in the 
eastern  regions,  combined  with  further  land  abandonment  throughout  Europe,  could  lead  to 
further decline. 

Common Birds, population Index (1980=100)

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

farmland
forest
other

year 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Figure 10: Common birds population index (Source: European Bird Census Committee, Birdlife 
International, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Statistics Netherlands – see also SEBI 01). 

Over the past decade, grassland butterflies have suffered even bigger declines than birds, with 
a reduction of grassland butterfly abundance by almost 50%, with little sign of improvement.  

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

2005

Figure  11:  Trends  in  grassland  butterfly  species  from  Butterfly  Monitoring  Schemes  in  nine  countries 
(Source:  De  Vlinderstichting/Butterfly  Conservation  Europe  –  see  SEBI  2010  indicator  01  for  further 
details) 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
The  Commission  has  provided  guidance  for  the  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 relevant 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 promoting 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 apply the nature directives since their accession 
on  1  January  2007.  Assessments  of  their  progress  are  being  incorporated  into  overall 
evaluations for Member States. Bulgaria had submitted part of its national Special Protection 
Areas (SPAs) and potential Sites of Community Importance (pSCIs) 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  majority  of  valued  sites  and  species  are  moving  towards  a 
favourable conservation status by 2013. 

An  ERA-NET  NET  BIOME  Community-funded  network  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  the  Macaronesian  Region,  with  a  network  of 
Natura 2000 sites at an advanced 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  implementation  of  the  scheme  should  be  based  on 
local  commitment  and  shared  financing.  The  importance  of  conservation  at  species  level 
outside  protected  areas  should  be  highlighted  and  priority  should  be  given  to  globally 
threatened species. The elaboration of restoration or management plans is only a first step in 
the process that has to be followed by effective implementation. Networking among existing 

22 
23 

24 
25 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/guidance/index_en.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/hunting/guide_en.htm,  available  in  23 
EU languages. 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/index_en.htm 
http://www.reunion2008.eu/pages/en/en-home.html 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
national  parks  and  other  protected  areas  in  order  to  harmonise  monitoring,  exchange  best 
practices and share data is very valuable. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
Objective 2. To conserve and restore biodiversity and ecosystem services in 
the wider EU countryside. 

Headline target: In wider countryside (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 the EU territory, conserves genes, species and 
habitats. However, in recent decades, intensification and specialisation, and at the same 
time  marginalisation  and  under-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  measures  and  payments  for  areas  with 
handicaps  and  provides  for  a  set  of  measures  in  support  of  sustainable  forest 
management.  Increasing  use  of  agri-environmental  measures,  organic  farming  and  the 
support  of  Less  Favoured  Areas  (LFA)  and  other  pro-biodiversity  instruments  (e.g. 
cross-compliance,  single  farm  payment  (decoupling)  and  modulation)  have  favoured 
farmland biodiversity. 

Key actions of the Objective include optimising the use of available measures under the 
reformed CAP, notably to prevent intensification or abandonment of High Nature Value 
farmland,  woodland  and  forest  and  supporting  their  restoration;  implementing  the 
Forest  Action  Plan  including  measures  to  prevent  and  combat  forest  fires;  advancing 
implementation  of  key  environmental  framework  directives  and  thematic  strategies 
which reduce pressures on biodiversity, notably by improving the quality of freshwater 
and  of  soils,  and  by  reducing  diffuse  pollutant  pressures  (e.g.  airborne  acidifying  and 
eutrophicating substances, nitrates from farm sources, pesticides). 

B. 

Progress assessment 

AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY, FOREST POLICY 

Target A2.1  Member  States  have  optimised  use  of  opportunities  under  agricultural,  rural 
development and forest policy to benefit biodiversity 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 

21 

   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 gives the Member States possibilities to support 
measures aiming at preserving biodiversity: under 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 measures for the conservation and upgrading of 
the natural heritage allowing the support for the drawing-up of management plans related to 
Natura  2000  sites  (e.g.  depending  on  implementation  by  the  Member  State).  The  most 
important measures are primarily the ones available under Axis 2 of the EAFRD, with a 44% 
(approximately EUR 39.6 billion) share of total EAFRD for 2007-2013.  

The  proportion  of  Pillar  2  spending  that  is  allocated  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 environmental measures varies considerably, 
with Finland, Ireland, the UK, Austria and Sweden giving a particularly 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  and  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 their RDP budget allocated to Axis 2 measures. In some of these 
countries, such as Romania, Bulgaria 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  the  above  mentioned  four  measures  are  therefore  provided  in 
(Table 1) in terms of their percentage of EAFRD expenditure. 

EAFRD 
total 
(million €) 

% for 
Axis 2 

EAFRD Axis 2 
(million €) 

3 911  72.31 

2 829 

Austria 

Belgium -
Flanders 

Belgium - 
Wallonia 

Bulgaria 

225 

25 

194 

48.46 

2 609 

24.43 

Czech republic 

2 816 

55.20 

Cyprus 

Denmark 

163 

445 

43.42 

63.34 

Agri-
environment 
schemes 
(% of total 
EAFRD) 

Natura 
2000 
payments – 
agriculture 
(% of total 
EAFRD) 

46.04 

22.48 

37.64 

13.68 

30.16 

24.3 

46.03 

0.05 

0.58 

1.55 

- 

1.71 

- 

- 

Natura 
2000 
payments 
–  
forest 
(% of total 
EAFRD) 
0.06 

- 

- 

0.35 

- 

- 

Forest-
environment 
(% of total 
EAFRD) 

0.19

-

-

-

0.45

0.31

0.57

56 

94 

637 

1 554 

71 

282 

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 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
715 

37.44 

17 

67.21 

268 

12 

23.61 

42.26 

2 062 

73.40 

1 514 

31.53 

Estonia 

Finland  Aland 
region 

Finland 
mainland 

France - 
Hexagone 

5 727 

53.77 

3 080 

France -Corse 

83 

60.96 

France - 
Guadeloupe 

France - 
Guyane 

France - 
Martinique  

France - 
Reunion 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Italy 

Ireland 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxemburg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Mainland 

Portugal 
Azores 

Portugal 
Madeira  

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK* 

138 

15.03 

74 

10.09 

100 

16.24 

319 

16.34 

8 113 

40.39 

3 707 

34.97 

3 806 

32.85 

8 292 

43.28 

2 340 

79.57 

1 041 

28.05 

1 743 

37.84 

90 

77 

58.87 

26.12 

487 

29.74 

13 230 

33.54 

3 468 

41.76 

274 

41.9 

175 

29.96 

8 023 

23.44 

1 969 

50 

900 

52.22 

 7 214 

38.56 

1 826 

69.06 

4 441 

72.80 

51 

21 

8 

16 

52 

3 276 

1 297 

1 250 

3 589 

1 862 

292 

660 

53 

20 

145 

4 437 

1 448 

115 

52 

1 881 

985 

470 

2 782 

1 261 

3 233 

Total EUR 

 90 868  

 43.65 

39 650 

0.97 

3.52 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1.29 

0.16 

1.01 

0.10 

9.43 

0.99 

0.34 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0.18 

0.2 

- 

0.05 

- 

1.7 

1.17 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

15.77 

11.02 

9.74 

2.22 

6.60 

4.25 

25.13 

18.19 

22.96 

23.11 

49.11 

12.3 

16.75 

29.74 

10.99 

22.32 

13.93 

10.20 

15.67 

0.36 

0.36 

6.2 

9.85 

13.62 

27.13 

14.26 

53.83 

52.77 

22.32 

- 

- 

0.14 

- 

0.14 

- 

- 

0.02 

- 

0.29 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0.52 

0.12 

-

-

-

-

0.07

-

-

-

-

0.35

-

1.80

0.27

-

-

0.46

0.18

-

-

-

0.33

0.07

-

-

1.01

-

0.70)

-

0.72

0.29

Table  1:  Allocation,  as  at  9  October  2008,  of  EAFRD  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 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Source: European Commission 

Of  these  four  measures,  agri-environment  payments,  account  for  the  majority  of  EAFRD 
expenditure, with approximately 22% of RDP expenditure (approximately EUR 20.3 billion 
of  EAFRD  fund)  across  all  Member  States.  But,  there  is  considerable  variation  in  the 
proportion  spent  amongst  the  Members  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  allocating  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-financing  expenditure  is  supplemented  with 
additional national payments. In most cases this does not increase the proportion of spending 
on  agri-environment  measures  substantially  (or  any  other  of  the  measures  described  here). 
However,  in  other  cases,  additional  national  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 (agriculture 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  million30.  Ireland  is  the  only  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  for  managing  Natura  2000  sites  that  are  already 
supported  by  established  agri-environment  schemes  (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  the  management  plans  under  axis  3  (measure 
"conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage"). 

29 

30 

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. 
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. Therefore, these resources should only be dedicated to 
Natura 2000 sites. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Less favoured areas 

In  addition  to  the  measures  described  above,  the  less  favoured  area  (LFA)  measure  may 
provide some biodiversity benefits where it supports traditional low intensity farming systems 
that  maintain  certain  semi-natural  habitats  and  other  high  nature  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,  Scotland,  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  EAFRD  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 with a range of requirements and standards, or 
risk reductions in or cancellations of their payment31. There are two sets of requirements that 
must  be  complied  with  under  cross-compliance.  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,  the  standards  that  set  the  framework  for  Good 
Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC)32. This framework directs Member States 
to  introduce  standards  to  address  soil  erosion,  soil  structure,  soil  organic  matter  and  the 
minimum maintenance of habitats.  

There  are  four  important  types  of  GAEC  minimum  maintenance  measure  that  may  provide 
significant  biodiversity  benefits  (minimum 
livestock  stocking  rates  and  appropriate 
management  regimes,  protection  of  permanent  pasture,  retention  of  landscape  features, 
others). The SMR and GAEC standards 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 environmental benefits, aiming at e.g. the management 
or enhancement of habitats.  

31 

32 

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 additional requirements related to fertiliser and plant 
protection  products  use  identified  in  the  programme  pursuant  to  art.39  of  Regulation  (EC) 
N°1698/2005. 
listed in Annex IV of Regulation 1782/2003. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  GAEC  standards  on  maintenance  of  minimum  livestock  rates  and  appropriate 
management  regimes  and  on  protection  of  permanent  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  connectivity.  Other  GAEC  standards  include  ones  like 
measures  to  avoid  cultivation  close  to  watercourses  (e.g.  Austria  and  the  UK),  avoid 
cultivation,  fertiliser  and  pesticide  applications  close  to  hedgerows  (e.g.  the  UK),  maintain 
crop diversity and provide for a minimum environmental surface (e.g. France), retain buffer 
strips along water bodies (Finland) and retain stone walls on terraced slopes (Malta). 

An  evaluation  study  on  the  application  of  cross  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/eval/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  contribute  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  land  abandonment.  Promoting  conservation  and 
sustainable  farming  practices  in  these  areas  is  crucial  for  biodiversity.  Area  of  High  Nature 
Value  (HNV)  farmland  is  one  of  35  environmental  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  the  Joint  Research  Centre35.  In  parallel,  the  Commission  has 
contracted a study on an HNV indicator for rural development evaluation as well as a report 
providing guidance to the Member States on the 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  development  policy  are  delivering  biodiversity 
benefits. 

33 
34 

35 
36 

COM(2008)306. 
Publication in September 2006 of a Communication on agri-environment indicators (COM(2006(508)) 
based on IRENA work. 
For more details, see http://reports.eea.europa.eu/state_of_environment_report_2007_1/en/chapter4.pdf 
For more details, see http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/evaluation/index_en.htm 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 12: High nature value farmland areas 

Agricultural genetic diversity 

Rural  Development  Article  39  (1)-(4)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1698/2005,  and  Article  27  of 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1974/2006  offer  the  possibility  to  promote  agri-environment  measures 
which may support the rearing of "farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in 
danger  of  being  lost  to  farming",  and  the  preservation  of  "plant  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  diversity  in  agriculture.  The 
Community  Programme  has  given  rise  to  17  actions,  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 
38 

Regulation (EC) No 870/2004. 
For more details, see http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/biodiv/genres/index_en.htm 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Preparation  of  Commission  Directives  on  the  acceptance  and  marketing  of  landraces  and 
varieties  which  are  naturally  adapted  to  the  local  and  regional  conditions  and  threatened  by 
genetic erosion covering seed of agricultural plant species, vegetables, vegetable propagating 
and  planting  material  other  than  seeds  and  fodder  plant  seed  mixtures  and  adapting 
Community zootechnical legislation with view to protect animal 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 their national BAPs. Moreover, there are a wide 
range of activities underway that contribute to the EU BAP target 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, traditional and rare breeds of plants and livestock. The 
use of traditional livestock breed is often supported through RDP measures (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 deforestation plans (i.e. Belgium, Denmark, Hungary, Lithuania 
and  the  UK).  Most  countries  indicated  that  afforestation  and  deforestation  activities  were 
regulated in some way, usually involving a requirement for some form of authorisation after 
completion  of  a  Strategic  Environmental  Assessment  (SEA)  and  Environmental  Impact 
Assessment (EIA). Deforestation activities appear to be regulated in most countries, but some 
do not appear to control afforestation activities (though in some case this may be because it is 
not a significant issue in the Member State). 

EN 

28 

   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 Netherlands indicated in their questionnaire on 
actions being taken that they have developed soil biodiversity indicators and several others are 
developing them, though little information 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 identified areas where soil biodiversity is at risk. 
In most cases there is no detailed information provided on the factors being taken into account 
in the risk assessments. In many cases the assessments 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 
2010 and further substantial progress made by 2013 

Substantial  progress  made  towards  'good  ecological  status'  of  freshwaters  by 

Ecological status of freshwaters 

The principal measures for improving aquatic environment is the Water Framework Directive 
(WFD),  which  aims  to  establish  a  framework  to  protect  inland  surface  waters,  transitional 
waters,  coastal  waters  and  groundwater  in  order  to  prevent  the  deterioration  of  aquatic 
ecosystems and protect and enhance the status of aquatic ecosystems. 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 programme 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  requirements:  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  Basin  District 
Analysis  Reports  (Article  5  reports)  provided;  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 transposition of the Directive. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
Target 2.4 
Principal  pollutant  pressures  on 
substantially reduced by 2010, and again by 2013 

terrestrial  and  freshwater  biodiversity 

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 Directive, the Large Combustion Plants Directive, the 
Waste Incineration Directive, the Solvents Emissions Directive and 3 Directives on Titanium 
Dioxide) related to industrial emissions into a single clear and coherent legislative instrument. 

The  IPPC  Directive  (2008/1/EC)  requires  installations  falling  under  its  scope  to  operate  in 
accordance  with  permits  including  emission  limit  values  based  on  the  best  available 
techniques (BAT), designed to prevent and, where that is not practicable, 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  therefore  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  Register,  the  first  European-wide  register  of 
industrial emissions into air and water. According to the EPER Decision, Member States have 
to produce a triennial report, which covers the emissions of 50 pollutants 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 Transfer 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 4th Implementation Report on Urban Waste Water Directive (91/271/EEC) was published 
on 22 March 2007 linked to the Communication “Towards 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/environment/water/water-
urbanwaste/implementation/implementationreports_en.htm) 

The  Commission  adopted  a  'Common  Implementation  Strategy  for  the  Water  Framework 
Directive' in 2006 as the progress and work programme for 2007-2009 for the implementation 
of the Water Framework Directive (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 (including 33 priority 
substances  and  8  other  pollutants)  that  pose  a  particular  risk  to  animal  and  plant  life  in  the 
aquatic  environment  and  to  human  health.  Publication  of  the  new  Directive  is  foreseen  in 
early 2009. 

A  study  to  complement  the  priority  list  of  endocrine  disruptors  with  a  focus  on  Low 
Production  Volume  Chemicals  (LPVC)  was  completed  end  of  December  2006.  The  third 

EN 

30 

   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 Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides was proposed to 
reduce  the  risks  to  human  health  and  the  environment  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  application  equipment 
placed  on  the  market  and  the  other  one  on  the  collection  of  statistics  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

440

390

340

290

240

190

140

90

40

a
H
r
e
p
g
K

A T

B E

CH

CZ

DE

DK

ES

FI

FR

GR

HU

IE

IS

IT

LU

NL

NO

P L

P T

SE

SK

TR

UK

-10

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Figure 13: N-balance per ha of agricultural land 

Source: OECD, 200839 

A  nutrient  balance  describes  the  difference  between  all  nutrient  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 nutrients 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 

31 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
and  promoting  eutrophication.  Surplus  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 reducing 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,  important  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 
Directive40  (NEC  Directive)  was  therefore  established  to  reduce  emissions  of  the  four 
pollutants responsible for these threats, namely sulphur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), 
ammonia  (NH3)  and  non-methane  volatile  organic  compounds  (NMVOC).  The  NEC 
Directive sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of each of 
these  pollutants,  which  must  be  complied  with  by  2010.  Although,  the  Directive  allows 
Member  States  to  decide  how  to  comply,  they  are  obliged  to  provide  annual  reports  with 
emissions inventories and projections to 2010, and to draw up programmes for the progressive 
reduction  of  their  emissions  to  meet  the  2010  ceilings.  A  Communication  preparing  a 
legislative proposal has been worked out for a revision of the NEC Directive in order to lay 
down national emission ceilings for 2020 achievable with cost-effective measures at national 
level on top of recent Commission policy proposals for industrial installations, new emission 
standards for heavy duty vehicles, the Climate 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 objectives of the Thematic Strategy 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  background  documentation  prepared  for  the 
revision of the NECD see http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/iam_nec_dir.htm) 

Emission projections provided by the Member States 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  and  measures.  Finally,  the  ‘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 used 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 ceilings. 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 SOx, NH3 and NMVOC emission ceilings. This especially 
refers to the EU-12 Member States, although some of them expect increases in their emissions 
due to future economic development. 

40 

41 

Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national 
emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants. 
AEA Technology (2007). Evaluation of national plans submitted in 2006 under the National Emission 
(DG  Environment)  service  contract 
Ceilings  Directive  2001/81/EC.  European  Commission 
070501/2006/453041/MAR/C5. AEA/ED05435, September 2007. 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pdf/nec_report.pdf 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
Table 2: Comparison of Member States emission ceilings with Member States current emissions 
and WM projections 2010 

Member State 

Austria1 
Belgium 
Bulgaria1 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic1 
Denmark1 
Estonia1 
Finland1 
France 
Germany 
Greece2 
Hungary3 
Ireland 
Italy1 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg23 
Malta 
Netherlands1 
Poland1 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 

NOx  
Difference from 
NECD 
% 

2006* 
+54 
+37 

2010 
+25 
+10 

-6 
-31 

-3 

+27 

-85 

+4 
+40 
+25 

-9 

-7 
+47 

+20 
-38 
-79 

+27 
+7 

+29 

-7 
+6 
-45 
-50 
+4 
+38 
+15 

NA 
-21 

-6 

+6 

-55 

-13 
+27 
+5 

0 

0 
+34 

+6 
-30 
0 

+22 
+12 

+6 

NA 
-3 
-43 
-13 
+8 
+30 
+4 

SOx 

NH3 

NMVOC 

2006* 
-48 
+29 

+7 
-10 

-21 

2010 
-52 
-10 

NA 
-15 

-25 

-162 

-176 

-29 

-59 
+17 
+7 

+2 

-101 
+30 

+0.5 
-2961 
-238 

-33 
+27 

+22 

-12 
+16 
-10 
-25 
-51 
+34 
-71 

-24 

-13 
-9 
-13 

0 

-43 
-27 

-26 
-1920 
0 

-74 
+37 

+24 

NA 
-20 
-25 
-77 
-55 
-77 
-103 

2006* 
-3 
-1 

-89 
-71 

-19 

+13 

-210 

+14 
-5 
+11 

+1 

-18 
-6 

+1 
-202 
-140 

-27 
-329 

+5 

-44 
-28 
-12 
-46 
-7 
+16 
-10 

2010 
-8 
-5 

NA 
-100 

-19 

-5 

-229 

0 
-7 
+10 

0 

-29 
-14 

-1 
-193 
0 

-27 
+21 

-2 

NA 
-30 
-3 
-62 
-4 
+5 
-14 

2006* 
-3 
+7 

-19 
-30 

-22 

+29 

-35 

+1 
+22 
+26 

+10 

+13 
+9 

+8 
-109 
-18 

+10 
-216 

-4 

+9 
+42 
-75 
-79 
+3 
-102 
-24 

2010 
-6 
-8 

NA 
-43 

-32 

+7 

-20 

0 
+1 
-1 

0 

0 
0 

-23 
-123 
0 

-25 
-422 

-14 

+13 
+7 
-50 
-63 
-8 
+21 
-32 

-2 

+5 

+8 

+5 

-39 

-32 

-44 

+23 

+27 

+13 

+10 

UK 
EU2534 
-5 
Note: Calculated percentages are based on the difference 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 targets will not be achieved by 2010, according to emission projections 'with measures' (WM). 
Projections used for Hungary are based 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 NH3 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 NH3 without Greece and Luxembourg. 
Source: EEA, based on Member States' data submissions in the framework of the NEC Directive 

+13 

-49 

-5 

-7 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
  
Target 2.5 
and minimise biodiversity loss and optimised biodiversity 

Flood risk management plans in place and designed in such a way as to prevent 

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  2013).  The  implementation  of  the  Directive  is 
supported  by  an  expert  working  group  established  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  sustainable  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  addressed,  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  developed  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  considered  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  modification  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 

34 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Objective 3. To conserve and restore biodiversity 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 substantial 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  reformed  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  habitats.  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 
marine environment 

Substantial  progress  achieved  by  2010  towards  'good  ecological  status'  of  the 

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  criteria  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  coordinate  action  in  shared 
marine regions or sub-regions, across administrative and political boundaries. Each Member 
State, in close cooperation with the relevant other 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  assessment  of  the  state  of  the  environment,  a 
definition  of  'good  environmental  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 specific to the marine environment. A further 18% have a strategy or 
plan in development. A total of 27% do not have a dedicated national strategy for the marine 

43 
44 
45 

COM(2001) 135. 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:164:0019:0040:EN:PDF 
For more information on EU marine policy see 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/marine/index_en.htm. 

EN 

35 

   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 and good quality in marine waters by 2021. In other 
Member States, objectives for the marine environment have been incorporated into legislative 
documents, such as Romania’s Environmental Protection Law and Water Law and Denmark’s 
Marine  Environmental  Act.  Many  Member  States  include  measures  to  prevent  and  reduce 
negative  impacts  on  the  marine  environment  caused  by  fishing  activities  through  their 
European  Fisheries  Fund  (EFF)  Operational  Programmes  for  the  period  2007-2013  (see 
Target A3.4). 

All  of  the  coastal  Member  States  are  contracting  parties  to  various  regional  and/or 
international  conventions  that  contain  further  obligations  aiming  the  protection  of  coastal 
and/or  marine  environment,  like  the  Mediterranean  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  Development  of  the  Coastal  Areas  of  the 
Mediterranean (MAP Phase II, 1995) that replaced MAP of 1975; the Barcelona Convention 
on the protection of biological diversity; the Strategic Action Plan for Protection of Biological 
Diversity  in  the  Mediterranean  Region  (SAP  BIO)  adopted  by  UNEP-MAP  in  2003;  the 
Helsinki Convention (1992) under which the Baltic Sea Action Plan was adopted in 2007; the 
OSPAR  Convention  (1992)  on  the  protection  of  the  marine  environment  of  the  North-East 
Atlantic;  the  Bucharest  Convention  (1992)  on  the  Protection  of  the  Black  Sea  Against 
Pollution  which  adopted  the  Black  Sea  Biodiversity  and  Landscape  Conservation  Protocol 
(BSBLCP) in 2002, including the main objective “to halt losses of currently known threatened 
species and destruction of their habitats by 2010 arising from human activities in the BSBLCP 
area and to prevent appearance of new threatened 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 which require protection under Natura 2000. The first 
conservation  status  assessment  undertaken  in  accordance  with  Article  17  of  the  Habitats 
Directive  indicates  that  there  are  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 

36 

   EN 

 
Coastal zone policy 

in 

ICZM 

Europe 

Action A3.1.5 of the Biodiversity Action Plan requires implementation and review of the EU 
Integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) Recommendation46. An independent evaluation 
2006 
of 
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/evaluation_iczm_report.pdf).  Up  to  2006,  nine 
coastal Member States (41% of 22 with a coastline) 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 Sweden). The European Commission launched a contract in 2008 
to support the exchange of experiences and best practices in coastal management. 

undertaken 

was 

in 

Figure 14: Member States with ICZM Strategy or Equivalent47 

Target 3.2 
2010 

Principal  pollutant  pressures  on  marine  biodiversity  substantially  reduced  by 

The  European  Commission  has  issued  a  communication  (COM/2006/0863)  presenting  the 
current state of Community action in terms of preparedness and response to marine pollution, 
and  indicating  how  the  Commission  intends  to  continue  to  fully  promote  its  activities  to  in 
this field. 

46 
47 

Integrated Coastal Zone Management: A Strategy for Europe (COM (200) 547). 
Source: Evaluation of ICZM in Europe (2006). 

EN 

37 

   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 Commission and Member States 
on related matters and fulfils tasks 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 Directive by 2014 at the 
latest. Both Directives are currently in application. 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 people. Swimming pools and waters for therapeutic 
purposes  are  not  covered.  To  ensure  good  bathing  water  quality,  the  EU  has  set  limits  for 
microbiological  parameters.  Member  State  authorities  must  test  the  bathing  waters  and  then 
classified into categories. According to the ‘Quality of Bathing 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 significant improvement over the past decade. The 
coastal Member States meeting or exceeding the 2007 EU average for minimum compliance 
standards  were  the  Netherlands,  Latvia,  Finland,  Greece,  Spain,  Cyprus,  Belgium,  Ireland, 
UK, France, and Malta. The remaining coastal Member States were below the average. The 
Report also indicated that 86.1% of coastal bathing waters complied with the more stringent 
guideline standards across the EU. The coastal 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 coastal Member States were below the average. 

Other directives and Community strategies on different sources of pollutants include measures 
taken to promote the protection of coastal and marine environment together with regulations 
on terrestrial areas (see Objective 2 Target A2). 

Target 3.3 
fisheries management measures no later than 2016 

Ecosystem  approach  to  the  protection  of  the  seas  in  place  and  implying 

Through the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) and National Fisheries Operational Programmes 
for period 2007-2013, the Biodiversity Action Plan seeks to implement actions beneficial to 
marine biodiversity. Target A3.3. requires the introduction of fisheries management measures 
in  line  with  the  requirements  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Directive  at  a  regional  level  by  2017. 
Based on information available (Fisheries Operational Programmes, etc.) it was not possible 
to estimate if an ecosystem approach to fisheries management was in place for twelve (44%) 
countries,  and  a  further  five  (19%)  countries  had  fisheries  plans  that  do  not  incorporate  an 
ecosystem  approach  (Austria  –  non  coastal;  Bulgaria;  Denmark;  France  and  Poland).  The 
remaining  ten  countries  either  already  incorporate  ecosystem  based  approaches  in  their 
fisheries management measures (8 Member States, 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 Policy49. 

48 
49 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf 
COM(2008)0187  on  the  role  of  the  CFP  in  implementing  an  ecosystem  approach  to  marine 
management. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Target 3.4 
management from 2007 onwards 

Substantially enhanced funding provided to environmentally-friendly fisheries 

The  European  Fisheries  Fund50  (EFF,  2007-2013)  is  designed  to  secure  a  sustainable 
European fishing and aquaculture industry. Assistance under the EFF shall aim to: support the 
Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) so as to ensure exploitation of living aquatic resources and 
support aquaculture in order to provide sustainability in economic, environmental and social 
terms;  promote  a  sustainable  balance  between  resources  and  the  fishing  capacity  of  the 
Community fishing fleet; promote a sustainable development of inland 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  fishery  and  aquaculture  products;  Axis  3  is  for 
measures of common interest (e.g. collective actions, protection and development of aquatic 
fauna and flora; fishing ports; development of new markets; etc); and Axis 4 is for measures 
for  sustainable  development  of  fisheries  areas.  Within  these  Axes  are  objectives  and 
measures, some of which promote environmentally-friendly fisheries. For example, measures 
under Axis 1 might include objectives for improvement of selectivity, reducing the impact of 
fishing  on  non-commercial  species,  reducing  the  overall  fishing  capacity,  and  reducing  the 
impact of fishing on ecosystems and the sea bottom. 

Table  3:  EFF  breakdown  by  priority  Axis  for  the  19  adopted  Operational  Programmes  (Source  DG 
MARE, June 2008). 

Priority axis funding (€, current prices) 

Country 

Austria 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Axis 1 

Axis 2 

- 

5 164 318 

Axis 3 

50 000 

Axis 4 

- 

Axis 5 

45 000 

8 000 970 

36 004 371 

20 002 426 

12 001 456 

4 000 485 

2 200 000 

3 250 000 

12 924 418 

1 000 000 

350 000 

Grand Total 

5 259 318 

80 009 708 

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 

Finland 

France 

15 264 531 

24 583 929 

21 209 664 

19 281 513 

4 228 402 

3 445 000 

16 990 000 

14 783 827 

3 606 000 

624 000 

84 568 039 

39 448 827 

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 

Italy 

Latvia 

77 272 459 

59 689 538 

32 320 240 

33 300 000 

5 250 000 

207 832 237 

161 250 284 

106 085 713 

106 085 713 

16 973 714 

33 947 430 

424 342 854 

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 

Netherlands 

16 913 233 

7 379 398 

16 903 461 

4 987 125 

2 395 200 

54 713 408 

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 

39 

   EN 

 
  
                                                 
Romania 

Slovakia 

Spain 

Sweden 

9 975 000 

105 000 000 

30 000 000 

75 000 000 

10 739 207 

230 714 207 

- 

10 467 810 

2 536 292 

- 

684 426 

13 688 528 

403 067 965 

344 241 335 

316 510 945 

49 336 048 

18 734 619 

1 131 890 912 

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  Axis  rather  than  BAP  Objective,  it  is  not 
feasible to give exact figures on funds allocated to biodiversity and Natura 2000 purposes. In 
the 2007-2013 period the EFF may provide opportunities to support biodiversity conservation 
and  sustainable  use  of  natural  resources.  This  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  OPs  does  not  include  the  amount  allocated  to 
measures  or  operations.  The  only  available  information  concerns  the  total  allocation  of  the 
EFF  plus  the  national  public  contribution  for  each  Priority  Axis,  and  the  total  annual 
commitment of the EFF in the operational programme. 

However, it appears that the majority of Member States (63%) have Operational Programmes 
that incorporate environmentally-friendly fisheries approved by the EC.  

Target 3.5 
sustainable yield, where possible no later than 2015 

Stock  levels  maintained  or  restored  to  levels  that  can  produce  maximum 

Restoration programmes for diadromous species 

Diadromous fishes are species that use both marine and freshwater habitats during their life 
cycle. These include certain species of salmon, trout, sturgeon, and 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  management  plan  for  at  least  one  diadromous 
species.  A  total  of  19%  did  not  have  any  management  plans,  although  in  the  case  of  some 
countries  there  might  not  be  any  natural  habitats  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 have any management plans 
for diadromous species as they have no inland fisheries or river with constant water flow. The 
Iron Gate bars Great sturgeon to reach Hungarian rivers, so they do not have any management 
plans for diadromous species either. In the case 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 Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), but 
there is no data of an associated management plan. 

A total of 33% of Member States have a management plan for salmon. This includes national 
obligations  under  regional  management  plans.  The  Baltic  Sea  Regional  Advisory  Council 
(BSRAC)  recently  published  recommendations  for  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 

40 

   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  Finland  and  the  United  Kingdom  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 the 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 example, banned sturgeon fishing for ten years starting 
from  April  2006  and  has  forbidden  trading  of  wild  sturgeon  caught  in  Romania.  However, 
there  is  no  information  on  whether  they  have  a  management  plan  for  restoring  sturgeon 
populations. 

According to the EU regulation on eel protection51 Member States are obliged to identify and 
define individual river basins (including maritime 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 anthropogenic 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 have 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  plan,  including  Member  States  where  it  is  under 
preparation (e.g. Sweden and Denmark) It is unclear whether the remaining 52% had any Eel 
Management Plans active or under development. 

Other  species  of  diadromous  fish  with  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 contribute to improve the balance between fishing 
capacity  and  available  resources.  The  aim  of  the  CFP  is  to  secure  the  future  of  the  EU 
fisheries  sector  by  ensuring  sustainable  fisheries.  Member  States  have  agreed  a  series  of 
multi-annual  guidance  programmes  (MAGP),  aimed  at  reducing  the  EU  fishing  fleet's 
capacity to levels more in line with the opportunities to catch fish. These programmes operate 
by  setting  targets  for  each  Member  State  for  their  individual  fishing  fleets.  The  exact 
measures  set  out  in  the  programmes  for  reductions  in  fleet  capacity  have  become  more  and 
more complex with each programme and include targets related to total tonnage and engine 
power and for the reduction of fishing effort for 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 

41 

   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 2006 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 verified 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.  Although  Ireland  does  not  have  a  general 
decommissioning  scheme  in  place,  it  has  been  reducing  capacity  in  certain  sectors,  notably 
whitefish. 

Percentage change in Fishing Capacity-Tonnage

e
g
n
a
h
C

t
n
e
c
r
e
P

30

20

10

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

% 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

BE CY DE DK EE EL ES FI FR IE IT LT LV MT NL PL PT SE SI UK EU-
27

Source: EU Fleet Statistics: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng-en

Country

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 

BG 

DK 

DE 

9 

2.224 

6.038 

40 

4.513 

12.582 

EN 

42 

   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 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

FI 

SE 

UK 

17 

14 

227 

132 

84 

117 

5 

28 

3 

1 

84 

22 

2 

3 

1.779 

1.732 

1.105 

13.686 

6.149 

5.583 

200 

1.205 

90 

29 

2.469 

705 

4.691 

5.745 

8.286 

32.860 

22.888 

20.938 

1.209 

2.781 

679 

118 

9.118 

3.114 

12 

937 

2.245 

195 

73 

1.518 

2.759 

8.140 

9.993 

202 

10.318 

41.264 

17 

11 

24 

11 

950 

1.173 

2.228 

1.893 

741 

646 

2.565 

2.639 

264 

242 

789 

1.145 

17 

472 

2.429 

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  carried  out  by  the  Commission  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  Council  Regulation  concerning  management 
measures for the sustainable exploitation of fisheries in the Mediterranean has been adopted, 
chapter III of which includes fishing on protected areas. 

EU has a list of vessels engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries in the North 
East  Atlantic52.  A  Communication  on  "a  new  strategy  for  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 

53 

Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  1262/2006  of  23  August  2006,  amending  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
No 51/2006. 
COM(2007)601. 

EN 

43 

   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 has 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 strengthen the current regulatory framework in order 
to  ensure  a  level  playing  field  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  total  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 increase 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 tuna like species for the entire Mediterranean. In 
the Black Sea no stock is assessed. 

54 
55 

COM(2007)602. 
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 

44 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
As shown on Figure 16, 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea) are outside safe biological limits 
(SBL)  of  the  assessed  commercial  stocks  in  the  NE  Atlantic.  For  the  other  areas  in  the  NE 
Atlantic the percentages of stocks outside safe biological limits 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 
substantially reduced from 2006 onwards 

Impact  of  fisheries  on  non-target  species  and  habitats  progressively  and 

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  cetaceans,  seals,  seabirds,  fish,  corals,  turtles  and 
molluscs. Some of the action plans are developed and adopted as obligatory measures under a 
regional  or  multi-national  convention.  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  Mediterranean  Action  Plan  concerning 
species such as monk seal,  cetaceans, marine turtles, birds in Annex II of the SPA protocol 
and cartilaginous fishes. Other action plans are adopted as Member State national, rather than 
regional,  initiatives.  The  UK,  for  example,  has  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  action  plan  for  non-target  cetacean  species  under 
development.  It  is  not  clear  whether  the  remaining  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  undertaken  in  relation  to  national  and  regional 
initiatives.  HELCOM,  to  which  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  Germany,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Poland,  and  Sweden  are  parties,  unanimously  adopted  Recommendation  27-28/2: 
Conservation of Seals in the Baltic Sea Area as well as Recommendation 17/2: Protection of 
Harbour Porpoises in the Baltic Sea Area. A requirement of both of these Recommendations 
is monitoring of populations and reporting on results of implementation. 

Many Member States also have their own monitoring programmes, incorporating government 
bodies,  research  institutions  and  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  monitored.  82%  of  coastal  Member  States  have 
monitoring programmes for non-target marine habitats. It was not clear whether the remaining 
18% of Member States do or not. 

A Community Action Plan for Sharks was opened for consultation until 15 February 2008, an 
impact assessment of the Shark Action Plan is being undertaken with a view to its adoption by 
in early 2009. The Commission is gathering information and scientific advice with a view to 
completing a Community plan of action for reducing seabird by-catch in the context of FAO 
by the end of 2009. 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
Aquaculture planning and biodiversity  

Priority  Axis  2  of  the  European  Fisheries  Fund  (EFF)  relates  to  promoting  production  of 
environmentally friendly aquaculture. The OPs of 55% of Member States describe plans for 
aquaculture that take account of biodiversity and have been adopted (AT; BG; CY; CZ; DK; 
EE;  EL;  ES;  FI;  FR;  IT;  LT;  LV;  PT;  RO)  whilst  a  further  4%  have  a  draft  operational 
programme relating to biodiversity 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  eliminating  discards  in 
European  fisheries56,  for  which  the  European  Parliament  expressed  broad  support  in  its 
plenary  session  of  31  January  2008.  The  Communication  proposes  the  adoption  of  a 
progressive  fishery-  by-  fishery  discard  ban  and  the  setting  of  standards  for  maximum 
acceptable by-catch.  In  this  Communication the Commission announced to propose specific 
legislation  as  from  2008  and  a  sequence  and  plan  for  implementation.  Legislation 
implementing  fisheries  restrictive  areas  to  protect  vulnerable  deep-sea  habitats  in  the 
Mediterranean  and  in  the  North  East  Atlantic  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  devices  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 December 2007. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance 
document  for  Member  States  on  how  to  request  for  fisheries  management  measures  for 
marine 
CFP 
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf)  

N2000 

under 

sites 

the 

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 February 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  support  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  individual  stocks,  the 
integration  of  environmental  data,  and  the  shift  towards  an  ecosystem-based  approach.  The 
new Data Collection Regulation (DCR) includes the obligation for Member States to collect 
environmental  data.  The  collection  of  basic  scientific  information  will  support  periodic 
assessments  of  the  progress  of  the  CFP  in  integrating  biodiversity  protection  requirements. 
The new DCR also includes access to and use of detailed data, in particular, access to satellite 
monitoring (VMS) data will provide detailed information at a high level of resolution required 

56 

COM(2007)136. 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
                                                 
for  effective  spatial  planning.  This  will  play  a  major  role  in  enabling  effective  action  to 
protect vulnerable marine habitats both under the Habitats Directive, and in fulfilment of the 
EU's  international  commitments.  In  August  2008  the  Commission  adopted  technical 
implementing  rules  (COM  665/2008).  In  addition  the  Commission  has  recently  proposed 
detailed  implementing  rules  concerning  the  Commission's  financial  contribution  to  the  Data 
Collection  National  programmes.  A  European  Monitoring  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, including biodiversity. 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
Objective 4.  To  reinforce  compatibility  of  regional  and  territorial 
development with biodiversity in the EU. 

Headline  target:  Regional  and  territorial  development  benefiting  biodiversity,  and  negative 
impacts  on  biodiversity  prevented  and  minimised  or,  where  unavoidable,  adequately 
compensated for 

A. 

Context 

Member  States  have  the  opportunity  to  support  nature  conservation  and  biodiversity 
through programmes integrated into their development strategies and co-financed from 
the Structural Funds (the European Regional Development Fund and European Social 
Fund) and the Cohesion Fund) with national co-finance. The nature directives57 and the 
Environmental  Impact  Assessment  (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  early  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  better  reconcile  conservation  and  development 
needs by ensuring consideration of impacts much earlier in the planning process. 

B. 

Progress assessment 

REGIONAL POLICY, SPATIAL PLANNING  

Target 4.1 
Cohesion  and  structural  funds  contributing  to  sustainable  development  and 
making (directly or indirectly) a positive contribution to biodiversity, and negative impacts on 
biodiversity prevented or minimised or, where unavoidable, adequately compensated for 

Cohesion and structural funds contributing to nature conservation and biodiversity 

In relation to EU Cohesion policy the Community Strategic Guidelines and the relevant fund 
regulations  include  clear  references  to  the  importance  of  nature  protection  in  developing 
infrastructure  and  in  relation  to  economic  diversification.  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 sectoral (horizontal) and regional programmes. The 
Operational  Programme  (OP)  is  the  single  document  drawn  up  by  the  Member  State  and 
approved  by  European  Commission.  Based  on  the  selection  criteria  developed  for  each 

57 
58 
59 

Directive 79/409/EC, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p.1 and Directive 92/43/EEC, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p.7. 
Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC, OJ L 073, 14.3.1997, p.5. 
Directive 2001/42/EC, OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p.30. 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
                                                 
measure  it  is  the  Member  States'  responsibility  to  award  projects  except  for  Major  Projects 
that have to be approved by the European Commission. 

An  initial  assessment  of  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  and  Cohesion  Fund 
operational programmes for 2007-2013 reveals that Member States have made allocations to 
several  categories  of  spending  related  to  the  protection  of  biodiversity  and  management  of 
natural  resources.  The  most  relevant  category  is  the  “Promotion  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  assets"  (cat.  No.  55)  for  which  EUR 1  146  million  is 
allocated. The "protection and development of natural 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 nature and biodiversity.  

All  but  three  Member  States  have  allocated  some  funding  for  nature  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 Member States intend to use more than 2% of 
their allocated funds for biodiversity related categories (cat. No. 51 and 55).  

Country 

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxemburg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 

Nature conservation in regional policy 
(million EUR) 
on categories No. 51+55 

Nature conservation in regional policy 
(% of ERDF) 
on categories No. 51+55 

0 
16 
99 
0 
673 
6 
34 
5 
224 
108 
202 
289 
0 
171 
26 
166 
0 
21 
8 
208 
167 
236 
30 
90 
750 
9 
29 

0.00 
0.80 
1.50 
0.00 
2.60 
1.20 
1.00 
0.30 
1.70 
0.40 
1.00 
1.20 
0.00 
0.70 
0.60 
2.50 
0.00 
2.50 
0.40 
0.30 
0.80 
1.20 
0.30 
2.20 
2.20 
0.50 
0.30 

Table  5:  ERDF  expenditure  promoting  nature  conservation  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 

49 

   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  2000  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 level of habitats and at the level of protection 
of  endangered  plant  and  animal  species;  improvements  of  the  habitats  of  endangered 
species. Conservation of biological diversity. Keeping 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 liquidation of the populations of invasive plant 

and animal species; 

–  Forest-planting measures; 

–  Research on integrated management of invasive alien species; 

–  Reducing  impact  of  infrastructure  on  species  affected  by  fragmentation  of  space 
(infrastructures  to  overcome  barriers  on  rivers  and  motorways,  correction/adaptation  of 
electric lines); 

–  Awareness- raising activities, information and education on nature protection and nature-

friendly behaviour. 

There  are  Member  States,  like  the  Czech  Republic  and  Hungary  primarily  promoting  the 
active,  direct  protection  of  natural  assets  thorough  activities  like  habitat  reconstruction, 
reduction  of  adverse  impacts  of  infrastructural  elements,  etc.  Others,  like  Bulgaria  and 
Romania  give  more  emphasise  on  the  implementation  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-financed  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  contributing  towards  the  achievement  of  the 
Convergence  objective  allow  the  use  of  the  technical  assistance  to  support  measures  that 
indirectly  promote  Natura  2000  or  biodiversity  activities.  This  is  for  instance  the  case  in 
Germany, France, Italy, Bulgaria, Romania or Malta where technical assistance (either the OP 
on technical assistance or directly the technical assistance of the OP) allow funding activities 
in  relation  to  the  implementation  of  the  environmental  measures  like  environmental 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
monitoring, development of GIS, evaluation activities, reinforcement 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  indicators  adopted  for  the  programming  period  2007-
2013,  some  Member  States  set  adequate  indicators in each of their OPs and this experience 
should  be  extended  to  other  countries.  This  way  information  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  projects  that  promote  biodiversity 
protection  in  territorial  planning  but  there  are  no  available  systematic  overview  of  such 
actions  yet.  There  is  a  need  to  build  on  the  existing  good  practice  cases  demonstrating 
beneficial impacts for biodiversity from the Cohesion policy. 

The  effective  use  of  the  ESF  funds  for  the  purpose  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  operational  programmes  contributing  toward  the 
achievement of the European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) objective (formerly INTERREG) 
includes a wide variety of cross-border cooperation 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)  which  is  essential  in  helping  avoid  negative 
impacts  on  environment  and  biodiversity.  Experience  with  application  of  SEA  to  Structural 
Funds  for  2007-2013  is  progressing.  This  will  need  to  be  evaluated  to  determine  if  specific 
guidelines are needed as regards its effectiveness 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 directives and the EU Biodiversity Action Plan 
and the Habitats Directive. The Final reports are expected in early 2009. 

In  general,  the  SEA  of  the  regional  programmes  did  not  contain  specific  recommendations 
concerning  biodiversity.  In  many  of  the  major  projects  of  OPs  on  transport  or  large 
infrastructures  and  other  Trans-European  Networks  (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  projects  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  legislation  with  the  focus  on  Natura  2000  sites  were 
introduced. This is the case in Poland (co-finance of projects having negative impact on the 
potential  Natura  2000  sites  shall  not  be  eligible),  Bulgaria  (co-financing  of  projects  having 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
negative  impact  on  potential  Natura  2000  sites  will  not  be  permitted)  or  Italy  (management 
plans for Natura 2000 sites have to be in place before any co-financing 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 comments expressed during the public consultation 
into  consideration  or  to  provide  satisfactory  explanation  on  the  rejection  of  the  proposal.  In 
practice, even if the timeframe of the consultations were not always sufficient to allow a large 
public participation, the SEA process was proved to involve the majority of NGOs interested 
in the programme. 

Evaluations of Major Projects for the period 2007-2013 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 significantly 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  Directorate-General  of  the  European  Commission  will 
verify that the EIA takes duly into account impact on nature and biodiversity (including eco-
systems) and the measures foreseen to avoid, minimise and compensate. 

Target 4.2 
biodiversity prevented or minimised and positive benefits optimised 

Negative  impacts  of  territorial  plans  (within  each  Member  State)  on 

As explained above, two studies on the application 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 please see text Objective 1, Target 1.1. 

Target 4.3 

Ecological coherence and functioning strengthened through spatial planning 

A new initiative "Territorial Agenda for the European Union" has been adopted in May 2007, 
which  provides  background  for  planning  and  implementation  of  European  ecological 
networks,  especially  stressing  its  role  for  opportunities  for  sustainable  development  in 
marginal areas and preservation of traditional cultural landscapes of Europe. 

Target 4.4 

Significant increase in proportion of tourism which is ecologically sustainable 

The  European  Commission  itself  has  no  ready  initiative  or  guidance  document  on 
ecologically sustainable tourism, but in 2006 it launched the pilot project EDEN "European 
Destinations  of  Excellence"  which  in  2008  focussed  on  protected  areas.  In  addition,  several 
(Member  States  have  developed  partnerships  (see  Table  6),  and  signed  agreements  or 
established  labelling  systems  with  stakeholders  concerned  with  the  tourism  sector.  The 
European  Commission  is  aiming  to  establish  a  European  Business  and  Biodiversity  (B@B) 
Platform that may include the tourism sector. 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
Country

Finance

Tourism

Mining

Farming

SMEs

Other

Others

Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom 

state administrations, NGOs, professional associations
Education

Energy firms, Infrastructure firms and Commercial groups 
Sports

Municipalities
Public information company

Table  6:  Member  States  with  national  initiatives  aimed  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 
Assessments have taken full account of biodiversity concerns 

All  Strategic  Environmental  Assessments  and  Environmental 

Impact 

For information on the progress please see text Objective 1, Target 1.1. 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
 
Objective 5.  To  substantially  reduce  the  impact  on  EU  biodiversity  of 
invasive alien species and alien genotypes. 

Headline target: Negative impacts on EU biodiversity 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 policy and legal gaps at national 
and Community level to tackle this rapidly evolving threat to biodiversity in Europe. At 
present  overall  efficiency  of  Community  responses  to  deal  with  IAS  is  low  and 
biodiversity-rich  areas  (e.g.  EU  overseas  entities)  do  not  receive  appropriate  attention. 
The  multitude  of  existing  EU  legislation  partially  covering  different  aspects  of  IAS 
makes co-ordinated implementation difficult. Policy consistency between most Member 
States  is  low  or  non-existent.  Scientific  scenarios  illustrate  a  dramatic  increase  in 
biological invasions (see also SEBI indicator number 10 annexed). 

B. 

Progress assessment (Synthesis of EU-level actions) 

Target 5.1 
minimised from 2010 onwards 

Impact  of  IAS  on  biodiversity  in  the  EU  and  alien  genotypes  prevented  or 

Strategies to reduce impacts from invasive alien species 

Invasive  alien  species  (IAS)  are  non-native  species  that  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 biological 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 pathways for IAS introduction are associated directly 
or  indirectly  with  trade.  Rapid  growth  in  trading  and  transport  activities  expand  the 
opportunities  for  IAS  introduction  and  environmental  pressures  such  as  rising  CO2 
concentrations,  warmer  temperatures,  greater  nitrogen  deposition,  altered  disturbances 
regimes and increased habitat fragmentation may facilitate further invasions.  

The EU Biodiversity Action Plan includes a specific 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 

54 

   EN 

 
Table 7: Summary of Member States' progress with preparation of national strategies to reduce impacts from Invasive 
Alien Species (IAS)  

♣: planned 

Member State 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

 
♣♣: under development

♣♣♣: completed

 

- : no details/not applicable 

IAS Strategy 

Action Plan 

IAS addressed 
within Biodiversity 
Strategy 

Other Policies/Strategies 
addressing IAS 

- 

- 

- 

- 

♣ 

♣♣ 

- 

♣♣ 

- 

♣♣♣3 

- 

♣ 

♣♣♣ 

- 

- 

- 

♣ 

♣ 

♣♣♣ 

♣ 

- 

- 

- 

- 

♣ 

♣♣ 

♣♣♣ 

♣♣♣ 

♣♣♣1 

- 

♣♣♣2 

- 

- 

- 

- 

♣ 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

♣♣♣ 

♣♣♣1 

- 

- 

♣♣♣ 

- 

♣ 

♣♣♣ 

♣♣♣ 

♣♣♣ 

- 

♣♣♣ 

- 

- 

- 

♣♣♣ 

♣♣♣ 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

♣♣ 

♣♣♣ 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

♣♣♣ 

- 

♣♣♣ 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

♣♣♣ 

- 

- 

- 

♣♣ 

- 

- 

♣♣♣ 

- 

- 

♣ 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Notes:  The  Action  Plan  column  indicates  countries  that  stated  in  the  Member  States  questionnaire  that  an  Action  Plan  had  been  developed. 
1) Belgium has produced regional Action Plans and included targets regarding invasive alien species in its federal biodiversity strategy. 2) An 
Action Plan addressing invasive alien species in the Mediterranean sea has been developed. 3) Subnational IAS strategies have been 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 Commission, Institute for European Environmental Policy, Brussels. 

Out  of  the  27  states,  only  three  are  known  to  have  to  have  currently  completed  an  IAS 
strategy at a national or federal level (i.e. the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Ireland), 
whilst  Germany  has  developed  subnational  strategies.  A  further  three  countries  (Denmark, 
Finland and Sweden) are currently working on the development of national strategies, and six 
are planning to do so. Four countries indicated that they have completed action plans rather 
than strategies (although the plan for Cyprus only covers marine species).  

This  leaves  14  countries  that  have  not  or  are  not  producing  strategies  or  plans  (or  have  not 
provided  information  on  their  progress).  However,  several  countries  have  at  least  included 
objectives  addressing  IAS  in  their  national  biodiversity  strategy.  Austria,  Lithuania,  Spain, 

EN 

55 

   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 provides 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  neighbouring  countries  or  countries  in  the  same  sub-
region. There are no formal requirements for risk analysis for intentional introduction of non-
native species that may affect biodiversity and 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 European 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 Invasive Species in 2 steps. The first step is 
a Communication "Towards an EU Strategy on Invasive Species" foreseen to be adopted in 
December 2008. This Communication identifies policy options to tackle IS. An ongoing study 
for  the  Commission  assessing  environmental,  economic,  and  social  impacts  of  IAS,  assists 
with  the  development  of  this  policy.  A  Council  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 upcoming Commission Communication.  

The  EEA  has  commissioned  a  feasibility  study  on  an  European  wide  Early  Warning  and 
Information  System (EWIS). Such a system  would 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 "Aquatic Invasions" and "Biorisk". 

Target 5.2 
2010 [and again by 2013] 

Impact  of  alien  genotypes  on  biodiversity  in  the  EU  significantly  reduced  by 

Biosafety measures to reduce impacts from alien genotypes  

All  Member  States  have  ratified  the  Cartagena  Protocol  on  Biosafety,  and  have  adopted/ 
implemented  relevant  Community  Regulations  and  Directives  referring  to  genetically 
modified organisms (GMOs), though to varying 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 number of Member States (e.g. Italy, Denmark or 
Czech Republic) have adopted relevant legislation on the coexistence of genetically modified 

61 
62 

Council Regulation 708/2007. 
Council Regulation 1946/2003 http://eur-lex.europa.eu. 

EN 

56 

   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 

57 

   EN 

 
POLICY AREA 2: The EU and global biodiversity 

Objective 6.  To  substantially  strengthen  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  sustainable  Development  'to  significantly 
reduce  the  rate  of  biodiversity  loss  by  2010'.  The  key  international  agreement  to 
promote  progress  towards  this  target  is  the  CBD.  The  EU  plays  an  active  role  in 
international  biodiversity  governance.  Implementation  of  the  CBD  needs  to  be 
substantially reinforced. The EU also actively 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 
delivering positive biodiversity outcomes by 2010 

International  governance  for  biodiversity  substantially  more  effective  in 

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 their countries through a wide range of policies 
and measures.  

Nearly all Member States (24) have prepared National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans 
(NBSAP)  as  required  by  the  CBD.  The  2002  Communication  and  EC  Biodiversity  Action 
Plan  subject  to  this  report  can  be  considered  as  the  revised  NBSAP  for  the  EC.  Detailed 
information  on  activities  undertaken  to  implement  the  CBD  can  be  found  in  the  National 
Reports to the CBD. The EC and most Member States (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  States,  it  is  impossible  to  asses  the  level  of 
direct financial contributions to national biodiversity conservation activities (as a percentage 
of GDP). The available information shows that substantial funding for national biodiversity in 
the  EU  is  released  through  a  range  of  European,  national  and  subnational  programmes, 
ranging  from  dedicated  nature  protection  schemes  to  rural  development  measures.  It  is  not 
possible to state whether financial support has increased since adoption of the EC-BAP.  

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
Implementation of the CBD at the regional and global level. 

Since the adoption of the BAP, the EU has continued 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  Parties  to  the  CBD  (COP9)  which  took  place  in 
Bonn,  Germany  in  May  2008.  COP9  adopted  a  number  of  landmark  decisions  that  greatly 
advance global biodiversity politics on a range of critical issues and thereby help achieve the 
global  target  of  substantially  reducing  current  rates  of  biodiversity  loss  by  2010.  These 
decisions  are  largely  in  line  with  the  EU  objectives  outlined  in  Conclusions  of  the  EU 
Environment  Council  adopted  in  June  2007  and  March  2008.  Implementation  of  important 
CBD  Programmes  of  work  such  as  on  forest  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 biofuels should be sustainable in relation to 
biodiversity. A major step forward has been taken to reach the target of establishing a global 
network of marine protected areas by 2012. The Conference adopted scientific criteria for the 
identification  of  marine areas in need of protection. Importantly the Conference also agreed 
that, in support of the United Nations General Assembly, 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  Nations  Framework  Convention  on  Climate  Change 
(UNFCCC).  The  Conference  also  adopted  a  decision  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  resources  and  the  fair  and  equitable  sharing  of 
benefits  arising  from  their  use  (ABS).  COP9  adopted  a  detailed  roadmap  for  finalising  this 
negotiation by the tenth Conference of the Parties in 2010. Another breakthrough concerns the 
development  of  an  international  science-policy  platform  on  biodiversity,  ecosystem  services 
and human well-being which should be in place by 2010. Implementation of these decisions 
will require continued political attention and efforts. 

Another indicator demonstrating the EU's commitment to support implementation of the CBD 
are  the  level  of  financial  contribution  to  the  biodiversity-related  Conventions  as  well  as  the 
level  of  biodiversity-related  bilateral  and  multilateral  aid.  For  this  last  element,  see 
objective 7. 

The  European  Community  and  Member  States  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 Environmental Agreements as well as to 
non-governmental  and  other  international  organisations  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 

59 

   EN 

 
Contributions to CBD core (pledges) and voluntary trust funds (contributions) 2007 (in USD)

Member State

BY

BG

BE

BI

BZ

VB

BH

Contributions per trust fund (*)

3000

10702

33844

67250

51000

31694

30037
37380
594

55847
13277
36880

90514
112643
1791
4110
19283
75657
1264
55163

6399
25107
420
18638
635392 210855
912731 302889
18533
4406
12239
514742 170817
525
839
2693
371
59095
13120
16435
2098
1783
2867

AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DK
EE
FI
FR
DE
EL
HR
IE
IT
LV
LT
LU
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SK
SI
ES
SE
UK
18244
EC
56644
Total EU
Total Budget 9012377 2373107 1978915 307764 788722 375647 290532
19
%EU

1581
2529
8114
1475
175078
48576
49525
6322
5374
8640
88118 1236598 128610 226978 306747
265537
34898
105161
645613 214264
54877
204018

22806
4056837 1330297 1630979 230534 583276 329553

28843
70690
72977

144217
247164

38400

91222

75

74

82

88

56

45

Total

120551
150023
2385

25682
132458
1684
118347
846247
1266620
74380
17683
116369
688559
2106
3368
10807
1846
272573
61696
65960
8420
7157
11507
2252588
168902
1074784
711308
8218120
15127064
54

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 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 
BG: General Trust Fund to the Cartagena Protocol 
BE: General Trust Fund for additional voluntary contributions in support of activities under the CBD 
BZ:  General  Trust  Fund  for  additional  voluntary  contributions  to  facilitate  the  participation  of  parties  in  the  process  of  the  CBD 
BH:  Special  Voluntary  Trust  Fund  for  additional  voluntary  contributions  in  support  of  approved  activities  under  the  Cartagena  Protocol 
BI:  Special  Voluntary  Trust  Fund  for  additional  voluntary  contributions  to  facilitate  the  participation  of  parties  in  the  process  of  the 
Cartagena Protocol 
VB: General trust Fund for voluntary contributions to facilitate the participation of indigenous and local communities in the work of the CBD 

They  also  provided  substantial  contributions  to  Secretariats  of  the  other  biodiversity-related 
conventions (Ramsar, CMS, AEWA, World Heritage Convention), which they are party to, as 
well  as  to  the  UNEP  Environment  Fund.  All  Member  States  contributed  a  total  of 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
CHF 1 258 867.00 in 2007 and CHF 1 508 384.00 in 2008 to the Ramsar secretariat. 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  contributed  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  Environment  Fund.  In  2007,  they  made  a  total 
contribution of USD 49 053 442.00 to fund the UNEP Programme of Work. 

Enhance integration of Biodiversity 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  and  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  Heiligendamm  Heads  of  States  and  Governments 
acknowledged  the  Potsdam  Initiative  and  committed  to  enhancing  their  efforts  for  the 
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.  

The EU promotes maximising co-benefits between biodiversity and climate change mitigation 
and adaptation measures in negotiations of both UN-FCCC and the CBD.  

Promote improved Oceans Governance 

On  top  of  efforts  in  the  CBD  (see  above),  the  EU  continues  to  promote  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, the Council reached political agreement on two 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 strengthen international action in the 
UN,  Regional  Fisheries  Management  Organisations  (RFMOs)  and  relevant  international 
conventions  to  protect  vulnerable  marine  habitats.  The  second  regulation  aims  at  improving 
the fight against Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing. The measures will only 
allow  access  to  the  EU  market  of  fisheries  products  that  have  been  certified  as  legal  by  the 
flag state or the exporting state concerned. A European 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 also approved a new regulation 
on fishing authorisations for EU vessels fishing outside EU waters, which will ensure the EU 
has  a  single  coherent  framework  for  dealing  with  all  EU  vessels  which  operate  away  from 
home,  whether  under  Fisheries  Partnership  Agreements,  in  waters  managed  by  Regional 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
Fisheries Organisations, or under private agreements with third countries. 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
Objective 7.  To  substantially  strengthen  support  for  biodiversity  and 
ecosystem services in EU external assistance. 

A. 

Context 

The enhanced funding earmarked for biodiversity and the strengthening of measures to 
mainstream  biodiversity  in  development  assistance  has  been  included  in  the  new 
European  Consensus  on  Development  Cooperation.  Nature  conservation  is  specifically 
mentioned  as  an  area  that  can  be  supported  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  and  Development  Cooperation  Ministers 
welcomed  the  "Message  from  Paris  -  Integrating  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  biodiversity  projects.  The 
Biodiversity Action Plan aims at enhancing 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 challenge 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  biodiversity  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  projects  funded  in  the  context  of  development 
cooperation from 2000-2006. Preliminary results demonstrate that for all geographical regions 
combined  disbursements  for  biodiversity  in  this  period  amounted  to  about  EUR 50 
million/year  with  considerable  annual  fluctuations.  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  trend  analysis  at  this  stage  would  therefore  not  provide  a 

63 
64 
65 

REGULATION (EC) No 1638/2006. 
COM (2005) 134 final. 
COM (2005) 311 final. 

EN 

63 

   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  biodiversity  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 Environment and Natural Resources (ENRTP). 
Furthermore,  some  other  headings  of  ENRTP  are  strongly  linked  to  biodiversity.  A  total  of 
EUR 72  million  is  earmarked  for  the  promotion  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 earmarked for climate change and biodiversity 
projects  for  countries  covered  by  the  European  Neighbourhood  and  Partnership  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 approximately 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  actions  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  which  the  allocation  remains  stable  in  absolute 
terms. The inclusion of new themes and sectors 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  protected  areas,  forest  management  etc.)  were 
allocated  approximately  EUR  276  millions  (EUR  55  millions  yearly).  This  figure  reaches 
EUR  382  millions  taking  into  account  programmes  for  which  biodiversity  is  a  significant 
objective (EUR 76.5 million yearly).  

The  European  Development  Found  financed  the  biggest  share  of  projects  directly  related  to 
biodiversity, with about EUR 25 millions yearly. Most important programmes in that region 
concerned  Central  African  forests/savannas  (ECOFAC  Programme,  EUR  38.5  millions; 
CURESS  in  Chad,  EUR  7  millions;  DRC  projects  EUR  8.7  millions),  Indian  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 

64 

   EN 

 
FLEGT), and support to the ASEAN centre for biodiversity (EUR 6 millions).  

In  Central  America,  the  Honduras  &  Ecuador  programmes  on  forest  (EUR  59  millions  and 
EUR 17 millions respectively) were the most important projects. In the Neighbourhood, two 
projects focused mainly on biodiversity, 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  focus  on  biodiversity  (EUR  55  millions  yearly). 
Central African region, Ethiopia and 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 objective is biodiversity were respectively EUR 
9.6  million  (25.8  millions  including  FLEGT  support  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 significant objective on biodiversity – which is a 
sign of a better integration of this issue in other sectors.  

The  first  estimates  indicate  that  funding  for  specific  biodiversity,  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 programmes 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  allocation)  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  would  benefit  from  an  important  support  in 
forest/river basin management (respectively EUR 69 & 28 millions). EUR 18 millions have 
also been allocated to natural resources management in Brazil.  

In Asia, on the contrary, a significant decrease is expected – mainly due to the fact that the 
former  period  included  an  important  commitment  (EUR  30  millions)  in  China.  Other 
environment  programmes  nevertheless  exist,  with  potential  positive  impacts  on  biodiversity 
preservation, such as the  'Rural  development and natural resource  management’ programme 
in Pakistan, or the SWITCH-Asia programme on sustainable production and consumption. In 
Bangladesh EUR 7.5 millions have been allocated to integrated 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 exists as important funds have been reserved for 
environment issues in that region.  

It has to be underlined that the allocation of funds to biodiversity in Strategy Papers/Indicative 
Programmes is still hampered by several obstacles – as explained under part relative to target 

EN 

65 

   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), which took place after the adoption of the EU 
Action Plan, the first estimates realised by the 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 projects and activities is still 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  through  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 biodiversity. However, very 
few  Member  States  have  dedicated  funds  allowing  a  specific  earmarking  for  biodiversity. 
Exceptions  include  for  example  the  UK's  Darwin  Initiative,  or  Sweden's  international 
programme  for  biodiversity,  the  Swedish  International  Biodiversity  Programme  SwedBio. 
The  following  graph  has  been  produced  using  figures  from  the  2008  OECD  publication 
'Statistics  on  biodiversity-related  Aid'.  Biodiversity-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  derived  from  the  Creditor  Reporting  System 
database Organisation for Economic Cooperation 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  figures  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 

66 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Biodiversity-Related Aid by EU 2003/06 (Source: OECD DAC)

200

Million €

100

0

AT

BE DE DK

EL

ES

FIN FR IRL

IT

LUX NL

PT SW UK

EC

Country

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  biodiversity-related  aid  of  all  OECD  DAC 
members68. 

Biodiversity-related Aid 2003/06 (OECD DAC)

Non-EU Aid
52%

EU Aid
48%

Figure 18: Biodiversity-Related Aid 2003/06 

These  funds  amount  to  around  1/50th  of  Community  and  Member  States’  total  annual 

67 
68 

Counted on 1.56 USD/EUR changing rate. 
Data from OECD-DAC 'Statistics on biodiversity related aid.  
See http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/26/24/40756129.pdf  

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
development aid budgets which indicates that biodiversity-related funding has increased since 
adoption of the Biodiversity Action Plan. 

Member States are also important donors to the Global Environment Facility. 

to 

the 

latest 

report  of  GEF 

EU Member States strongly advocated a substantial replenishment of GEF. At the conclusion 
of the negotiations for the fourth 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 
(document 
2007-2010.  According 
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 activities in the area of biological diversity 
(including  biosafety).  The  total  GEF  allocation  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,  bilateral  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  biodiversity  resources.  In  addition,  23  project 
preparation  grants  were  approved  in  the  reporting  period  amounting  to  approximately  $4.3 
million. 

the  CBD 

to 

Enhanced  earmarked  and  mainstreamed  development  assistance  funds  available  for 
biodiversity in Overseas countries and territories 

As  regards  the  EC,  the  programming  for  OCTs  is  under  way.  A  Country  Environmental 
Profile  has  been  prepared  which  identified  the  importance  of  biodiversity  in these countries 
and territories.  

In  France,  following  the  'Grenelle  de  l'Environnement'  meetings,  the  French  Government 
launched a specific biodiversity programme dealing with overseas regions. In the Netherlands, 
a specific support related to biodiversity is provided to the Dutch Caribbean Nature Alliance 
through the new multi-year programme for the Netherlands Antilles launched in 2002.  

The Commission and several EU Member States participated in, and actively contributed to, 
the European Conference on Biodiversity and Climate 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  currently  the  available  funds  for  environmental 
protection are still considered not sufficiently allocated to biodiversity. 

EU 

Target 7.2 
'mainstream'  external  development  assistance  delivering  enhanced 
biodiversity and related livelihoods benefits, and negative impacts on biodiversity prevented 
or minimised, from 2006 onwards. 

Mainstream  biodiversity  into  bilateral  development  cooperation  programmes  through 
the preparation and implementation of Country and Regional Environmental Profiles 

Significant  progress  in  mainstreaming  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 

68 

   EN 

 
countries  (CEP)  and  regions  (REP)  covered  under  EC  external  cooperation,  as  a  way  to 
inform  the  elaboration  of  response  strategies  having  due  regard  of  the  environmental 
dimension  along  side  with  political  and  socio-economic  considerations.  This  is  a  clear 
progress  with  respect  to  the  previous  EC  programming  exercise  where  only  a  few  country 
strategies  relied  on  environmental  profiles  to  underpin  the  country  analysis.  In  preparing 
CEPs  and  REPs  systematic  attention  has  been  directed  to  the  critical  links  between 
environmental  degradation  and  development  efforts,  as  well  as  the  commitments  and  needs 
stemming from participation of individual partner countries to key multilateral environmental 
agreements - among which the CBD.  

Findings  and  recommendations  formulated  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  agriculture),  protect 
biodiversity  and  carry  out  environmental  assessments  (EIA/SEA)  in  relation  to  sensitive 
cooperation  sectors,  however,  this  has  not  frequently  led  to  earmarking  financial  provisions 
for  environmental  mainstreaming  purposes  in  National/Regional  Indicative  Programmes. 
Additional efforts are therefore required to ensure a more coherent and systematic uptake of 
environmental considerations within individual country/regional strategies and programming 
documents.  

The  Commission  is  preparing  a  Communication  to  be  presented  in  early  2009  on  the 
Integration  of  Cross-Cutting  Issues  in  Development  Cooperation  in  which  an  operational 
strategy  to  achieve  further  progress  in  environmental  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 Papers is still hampered 
by  several  obstacles.  First,  it  is  almost  impossible  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  funding  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 their priorities) and the weakness 
of environment ministries result 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 legislation 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 making good progress in applying SEA69. However, it remains unclear 
to  what  extent  countries  ensure  that  SEAs  are  systematically  carried  out  on  relevant 
development strategies, programmes and projects. 

A  review  of  environmental  assessment  regimes  of  bilateral  and  multilateral  development 
agencies by the Canadian International Development 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 

69 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Working  Party  on  Environmental  and  Development  Assistance70,  found  that  all  the 
development agencies of the EU Member States that were analysed (EU-15 countries with the 
exception of Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal, and Greece) consider environmental assessment in 
there procedures to a certain extent. However, their application methods and stringency differ 
from country to country. Some have already implemented structured and stringent processes; 
others  only  provide  guidance  documents  and  recommendations.  Overall,  it  remains  unclear 
how systematically environmental impact assessment (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 few Country Strategy Papers include references 
to  undertaking  EIA  and  SEA  in  relation  to  environmentally  sensitive  cooperation  sectors. 
Alongside with more traditional project-level EIA, 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 specified in the new legal basis 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  environmentally  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 

70 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
Objective 8.  To  substantially  reduce  the  impact  of  international  trade  on 
global biodiversity and ecosystem services. 

A. 

Context 

The “Ecological Footprint of EU countries”, which directly measures the extent to which 
Europe’s  resource  use  can  be  replicated  globally,  is  increasing  while  the  EU's 
biocapacity has decreased. The resulting ecological deficit means that biological resource 
use and waste emission is about 2.5 times greater than the biological capacity available 
within Europe, showing that Europe cannot sustainably meet its consumption demands 
from within its own borders. On top of improving international governance (objective 6) 
and enhancing development cooperation (objective 7), it is important to enhance mutual 
supportiveness  of  trade  and  biodiversity  measures.  The  EU  has  promoted  the 
integration  of  the  environmental  dimension  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.  Some  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 
2013] 

Impact on biodiversity of EU trade significantly reduced by 2010 [and again by 

Enhancing  co-benefits  between  biodiversity,  trade  agreements,  WTO  and  Fisheries 
Partnership Agreements (A.8.1.1, 8.1.2 and 8.1.7) 

As  part  of  its  trade-related  Sustainability  Impact  Assessment  (SIA)  Programme,  the 
Commission is in the process of conducting SIAs for all its planned regional and bilateral free 
trade and partnership agreements, be they in Asia, Africa or Latin-America. 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  conducted  for  the  planned  EC-Mercosur  Free  Trade 
Agreement.  This  will  cover  case  studies  in  relation  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  the  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  (paragraphs  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  been  achieved  in  WTO's  Committee  on  Trade  and 
Environment. 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
The  Commission  is  at  the  final  stage  of  renegotiating  the  new  Fisheries  Partnership 
Agreements  which  will  allow  to  support  the  sectoral  fisheries  policy  of  the  third  countries 
with  a  view  of  establishing  a  sustainable  and  responsible  fisheries  policy  in  their  waters.  In 
2007, the fisheries partnership agreements 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 Commission negotiated a new fisheries protocol 
(1st  August  2008  to  31  July  2012)  with  Mauritania.  The  current  Fisheries  Partnership 
Agreements  in  force  (as  from  1.03.2008)  are:  Cap  Verde,  Comoros,  Ivory  Coast,  Gabon, 
Guinea  Bissau,  Greenland,  Kiribati,  Madagascar,  Mozambique,  Morocco,  Mauritania, 
Micronesia,  Solomon,  Sao  Tomé,  Seychelles.  In  2008  the  Commission  will  renegotiate  the 
agreement with Guinea Conakry and Mauritius as these are the only two remaining countries 
that do not yet benefit from a FPA. 

Promoting  implementation  of  the  Bonn  Guidelines  on  Access  and  Benefit  Sharing 
(ABS), the negotiations of an international 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 specific efforts to raise the awareness of 
–  and  promote  implementation  of  the  Bonn  Guidelines.  The  EU  contributed  to  successful 
adoption of the standard Material Transfer Agreement under the FAO International Treaty in 
June  2006.  The  EU  has  been  a  major  player  and  contributor  to  the  negotiations  of  an 
International Regime on Access and Benefit Sharing 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  majority  of  funds  allowing  the  organisation  of 
expert  -  and  negotiating  ABS  working  group  meetings  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 notifications to the CBD Secretariat and participated 
constructively  to  these  CBD  ABS  negotiations.  At  the  CBD  COP9  in  Bonn  in  May  2008, 
major progress was reached as a detailed roadmap for finalising this negotiation by the tenth 
Conference of the Parties in 2010 was adopted. 

The European Commission and several Member States are raising awareness of Article 8j of 
the CBD and relevant parts of the Bonn Guidelines, and some Member States with indigenous 
communities  (e.g.  Sweden  and  Finland)  undertook  major  regulatory  and  other  measures 
protecting  traditional  knowledge  of  the  indigenous  and  local  communities.  Traditional 
knowledge  is  recognised  as  part  of  biodiversity  related  research.  The  EC  and  the  Member 
States provided financial support to enable representatives of indigenous groups to participate 
as  observers  in  the  meetings  of  the  Convention  on  Biological  Diversity  including  the 
international ABS negotiations. The EC and Member States also push for advancing work on 
the  protection  of  traditional  knowledge  in  the  World  Intellectual  Property  Organization  and 
for  recognition  of  the  UN  Declaration  on  the  Rights  of  Indigenous  People  adopted  on 
13 September 2007 in relevant fora. 

Support  the  implementation  of  the  Convention  on  International  Trade  in  endangered 
Species (CITES) (A. 8.1.4 and 8.1.8) 

Regular meetings by the EU Scientific Review Group (SRG) meeting were held and several 
positive  and  negative  opinions  were  established  for  imports  into  the  EU  of  specific  CITES 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
species of certain countries. These were followed up where necessary with consultation by the 
Commission  with  Range  States.  SRG  negative  opinions  were  published  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  identifying  a  set  of  actions  for  the  effective 
enforcement  of  the  EC  CITES  Regulations.  The  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  countries  and  called  upon  Member  States  to  reinforce  efforts  to 
combat  illegal  trade.  The  CITES  Secretariat  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  for  and  participated  in  the  14th  Conference  of  the  Parties 
(COP14)  of  CITES,  which  took  place  in  the  Hague  in  June  2007.  CITES  COP14  adopted 
some important  decisions  such as on ivory  trade and the  CITES Strategic Plan, which were 
supported by the EU. Parties also added Brazilwood to CITES control, but did not adopt EU 
proposals for listing additional tree species under CITES Appendices. 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 ramin of non-sustainable source. 

According  to  the  figures  available  from  CITES  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  reported  during  that  2003-2007  is  724.  Member  States 
reported  a  total  of  108,140  seizures  during  the  2003/2004  and  2005/2006  reporting  cycles. 
Between the 2003/2004 and 2005/2006 reporting cycles an increase was reported from 37,287 
seizures  in  2003/2004  to  70,853  seizures  in  2005/2006  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 

73 

   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  financial  contributions  to  the  CITES  Trusts  Funds, 
amounting  to  a  total  of  USD 2 015 572  in  2006.  Eight  Member  States  and  the  European 
Commission also provided financial contributions to developing 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  conducted  for  CITES  authorities  in  Cambodia  and 
Vietnam  and  financial  assistance  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 particular of wood products (A. 8.1.4 and 8.1.5) 

The  European  Commission  and  Member  States  have  engaged  in  a  wide  range  of  measures 
supporting  the  sustainable  production  and  consumption.  These  range  from  specific  public 
procurement  measures  to  promoting  forest  certification.  On  16  July  2008  the  Commission 
presented a series of proposals 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 policies at EU and national 
level  already  foster  resource  efficient  and  eco-friendly  products  and  raise  consumer 
awareness. The proposals complement these policy instruments and provide measures where 
gaps exist. These proposals are an integral part of the European Union's renewed Sustainable 
Development  Strategy  (EU  SDS)  which  reinforces  the  EU's  long-standing  commitment  to 
meet  the  challenges  of  sustainable  development  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 sustainable industrial policy and a proposal to 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
 
set  ambitious  targets  for  green  public  procurement  linked  to  common  green  procurement 
criteria71. 

As  for  external  cooperation,  the  EC  launched  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  implementing  the  European  Union  (EU)  Action  Plan 
for  Forest  Law  Enforcement  Governance  and  Trade  (FLEGT)  adopted  in  2003.  Though  the 
ultimate goal of the Action Plan is to encourage 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  exported  to  the  EU  comes  only  from  legal 
sources. It includes ideas for action in areas such as public procurement 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  into  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 involving 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 representatives and assists the Commission in the 
implementation  of  the  FLEGT  Regulation.  Detailed  rules  for  the  implementation  of  the 
FLEGT Regulation within the EU are under discussion in the Committee. 

The  European  Commission  has  been  given  a  mandate  from  the  Council  of  Ministers  to 
conduct  negotiations  in  view  of  concluding  such  FLEGT  VPAs.  While  the  European 
Commission  is  leading  in  these  negotiations,  several  EU  Member  States  play  a  key  role  in 
supporting  the  negotiations  and  the  future  implementation.  Negotiations  are  currently 
underway with Malaysia, Indonesia, Cameroon and Congo Brazzaville and the first VPA has 
been signed with Ghana in September 2008. The Commission works to start negotiations with 
several other countries. To complement FLEGT VPAs, the Commission has also proposed a 
Regulation  on  the  Placing  of  the  Market  of  Timber  and  Timber  Products72).  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 policies 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 them 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  ensure  clients  are  not 
associated with illegal logging activities.  

71 
72 

Commission Communication COM(2008) 400/2 on 'Public procurement for a better environment'. 
COM(2008) 644/3. 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
                                                 
POLICY AREA 3: Biodiversity and climate change 

Objective 9. To support biodiversity adaptation to climate change. 

Headline  target:  Potential  for  damaging  impacts,  related  to  climate  change,  on  EU 
biodiversity substantially reduced by 2013 

A. 

Context  

There  is  broad  scientific  and  political  consensus  that  we  have  entered  a  period  of 
unavoidable and unprecedented climate change. Impacts on biodiversity in the EU are 
already measurable. Climate change has the potential, 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 compromises 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 halting biodiversity loss and combating climate 
change. 

Substantial cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions 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 temperature to no more than 2oC above pre–industrial levels. 

Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity 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 adaptation to climate change: 1) Adaptation 
measures are necessary to allow biodiversity and ecosystems to adapt. 2) Conservation 
and  sustainable  use  of  biodiversity  contribute  adaptation  to  climate  change  by 
enhancing  the  resilience  of  ecosystems.  In  addition  policies  will  also  be  needed  to  help 
biodiversity  adapt  to  changing  temperature  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 (Synthesis of EU-level actions) 

Target 9.1  % reduction in greenhouse gas emissions achieved by 2010 

Progress on Kyoto targets  

The  EU  BAP  recognises  the  vital  importance  of  helping  to  reduce  the  impacts  of  climate 
change  by  reducing  greenhouse  gas  (GHG)  emissions  in  accordance  with  the  EU’s  agreed 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
Kyoto  target  and  burden  sharing  agreements  with  Member  States.  However,  progress  with 
GHG  emission  reductions  has  been  mixed.  The  latest 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  and  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  targets.  [Spreadsheet  Climate  Change  V1.3].  Furthermore,  although 
emissions are increasing in most of these countries, projections indicate that all of the EU-12 
are expected to easily achieve their Kyoto targets 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  the  EU-15  Member  States  have  seen  substantial 
increases  in  emissions  compared  to  baseline  levels,  including  Austria,  Finland,  Greece, 
Ireland  and  especially  Portugal  and  Spain.  Only  three  Member  States  are  projected  to  meet 
their  Kyoto  targets  with  existing  measures,  namely  Germany,  Sweden  and  the  United 
Kingdom. However, if the remaining EU-15 implement existing and additional measures fully 
and  quickly  and  make  use  of  carbon  sinks  and  Kyoto  mechanisms,  then  all  but  three  are 
expected to meet their targets. Projections suggest 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 individual Member State profiles and summaries were 
based on the 2005 emissions data and are therefore not consistent with this account. 

Target 9.2 
above pre-industrial levels 

Global annual mean surface temperature increase limited to not more than 2°C 

Action  to  meet  the  target  of  limiting  global  climate  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 forward 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 agreement73. 

A Commission Communication on deforestation74 proposes that, within the framework of the 
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations 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 objective would provide major 
climate change and biodiversity benefits by 2020. 

73 
74 

COM(2007) 2 final. 
COM(2008) 645. 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Target 9.3 
Climate  change  adaptation  or  mitigation  measure  from  2006  onwards 
delivering  biodiversity  benefits,  and  any  negative  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  producing  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  essential  part  of  any  climate  change  adaptation 
strategy.  Biodiversity  and  ecosystems  are  recognised  as  cross-cutting  issue.  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 green infrastructure and grey infrastructure.   
In this sense the White Paper may propose to build a "green infrastructure", an interconnected 
network  of  natural  areas,  including  some  agricultural  land,  wetlands,  forests,  marine  areas. 
This  would  help  ensure  vital  ecosystem  services  such  as  the  regulation  of  stormwater, 
temperatures, flooding risk, water, air and ecosystem quality. 

Renewables  

Guidelines  on  relevant  renewable  energies  focusing  on  wind,  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  international  research 
programmes have developed model-based projections 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  investigates  biodiversity  and  climate  change  in  relation  to  the 
Natura 2000 network and is due for completion 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 measures in different and their 
impact on biodiversity. However, more work is necessary in particular with a view to better 
understand  the  link  between  biodiversity  and  climate  and  with  a  view  to  positive  feedbacks 
that may work in our favour but also improving 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 

78 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The degree to which Member States' climate change adaptation strategies include biodiversity 
considerations  is  unclear.  No  Member  State  has  clearly  stated  that  it  has  developed  a 
biodiversity  adaptation  action  plan  with  defined  actions,  time  tables  and  responsibilities, 
although some have stated they include actions within their national biodiversity action plans. 
Nevertheless,  sometimes  climate  change  programmes  already  include  nature  conservation 
issues (e.g. climate change programme in Bavaria). 

Target 9.4 
2010 

Resilience of EU biodiversity to climate change substantially strengthened by 

Adaptation measures to increase biodiversity resilience to climate change 

Climate  change  adaptation  measures  were  not  addressed  in  the  questionnaire  that  was 
distributed to Member States. Furthermore, although some information is provided on climate 
change adaptation in the regular national reports 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 available and the response from Member States to 
the  draft  country  summaries,  there  appears  to  be  little  evidence  that  significant  adaptation 
biodiversity  measures  are  being  planned  or  implemented  in  most  countries.  Some  Member 
States  have  developed  adaptation  strategies,  such  as  in  Finland,  which  produced  a  National 
Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change at the end of 2004. However, the degree to which 
such strategies include biodiversity considerations is unclear from the information available to 
this review. No Member State has clearly stated that it has developed a biodiversity adaptation 
action plan with defined actions, time tables and responsibilities (although some have stated 
they  include  actions  within  their  national  BAP).  For  example,  the  UK  Biodiversity 
Partnership  has  produced  guidance  on  building  the  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 clear 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  promoted  as  being  to  increase  biodiversity 
resilience appear to be actions that are already being taken, or are planned, to meet existing 
conservation needs (e.g. the protection and management of sites). For example, the EU BAP 
and  several  Member  States  refer  to  the  establishment  of  ecological  networks  as  being  an 
important  measure  to  increase  resilience  (by  overcoming  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  countries  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  research  programmes  have  for  example  developed  model-based 
projections of impacts on various taxa groups (e.g. birds). However, there was no indication 
that  any  country  has  yet  produced  a  comprehensive  climate  change  risk  assessment  for 
habitats and species of community interest, as required under the EU BAP. 

Data sources: 

A9.1.1 

EN 

79 

   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 
http://reports.eea.europa.eu/eea_report_2007_5/en 

(2007)  Greenhouse  gas  emission 

trends  and  projections 

in  Europe  2007. 

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 

80 

   EN 

 
 
POLICY AREA 4: The knowledge base 

Objective 10.  To  substantially  strengthen 
the  knowledge  base 
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, in the EU and globally. 

for 

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 the developing world. 

However, much more is needed to fill critical knowledge gaps. A helpful assessment of 
research needs has been produced by the European 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 that 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 conservation and sustainable use by 2010 [and again by 2013] 

Strengthen research on biodiversity 

The  European  Community's  research  Framework  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  6th  Framework  Programme  (FP6)  from 2002-2006  to  investigate  pressures 
on  biodiversity  (e.g.  ALARM,  MACIS,  COCONUT,  DAISIE)  is  already  feeding  into  the 
development of EU biodiversity policy. A list of the type of projects 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 
77 

Decision No 1513/2002/EC, OJ L 232, 29.8.2002, p.1. 
COM (2005) 119 final. 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
                                                 
programme  (Austria,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Greece,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Romania)  and  6  did  not 
provide information (Italy, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia). 

Financial resources to European and National biodiversity research 

Research  is  essential  to  help  achieve  the  objectives  of  the  EC  Biodiversity  Action  Plan.  In 
addition to the efforts at EC level, the Member States should be encouraged to allocate more 
resources  to  biodiversity  research,  including  through  the  EC  Research  and  Development 
Framework  Programmes,  in  view  of  substantially  strengthening  the  knowledge  base  for 
conservation  and  sustainable  use  of  biodiversity.  Community  financial  support  allocated  to 
biodiversity projects in the context of environmental research 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 ecosystems under FP6 (2002-2006). There have 
been  2  calls  for  proposals  in  the  first  2  years  of  FP7,  8  successful  proposals  (HUNT, 
SOILSERVICE,  HighARCS,  LiveDiverse,  PALMS,  SCALES  and  EBONE)  as  well  as  the 
LIFEWATCH support are expected to be funded with a Community 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 steeply 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,  programmes  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 
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  the  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).  

technology 

23 Member States provide annual contributions to DIVERSITAS, an international programme 
of  biodiversity  science,  which  is  proposing  an  integrated  research  framework  to  the 
international scientific community. The Programme is a partnership of inter-governmental and 
non-governmental organisations formed to promote, facilitate and catalyse scientific research 
on biodiversity – its origin, composition, ecosystem 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  European  Environment  Agency.  Under  the  lead  of 
Indian economist, Pavan Sukhdev, the first results of this assessment of the global economic 
benefit  of  biological  diversity,  the  costs  of  the  loss  of  biodiversity  and  the  failure  to  take 
protective  measures  versus  the  costs  of  effective  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  provided  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 

82 

   EN 

 
According to the FP7 road map covering 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,  integrating  all-taxa  biodiversity  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 use of biodiversity sustainable. As part of 
this, research support will be provided to follow up TEEB, with work on economic, social and 
environmental  costs  and  benefits  of  conservation  and  use  of  biodiversity.  Other 
recommendations  for  research  in  this  direction  will  be  taken  into  consideration,  including 
those  identified  by  the  European  Platform  for  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,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Ireland,  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 make it difficult to manage ecosystems effectively, has been very 
active. The EPBRS, which is used to channel the message that the Member States must share 
the burden of financing biodiversity 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  establishing  an  Intergovernmental  Platform  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 
inform 
implementation  and  further  EC  policy  development.  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. 

independent,  authoritative 

research-based  advice 

for 

to 

Twelve  countries  (Austria,  Belgium,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  France,  Hungary, 
Ireland, Latvia, Slovenia, Sweden, UK) have a dedicated national or sub-national mechanism 
to  ensure  biodiversity  outcomes  are  reflected  in  policy  development  and  implementation. 
However, the countries that have developed these 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  for  biodiversity,  and  9  countries  did  not  respond  to  this  aspect  of  the 
questionnaire  (Estonia,  Finland,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania, 
Slovakia). 

Understanding the links between biodiversity, ecosystem services, climate change and human 
well-being  presents  one  of  the  greatest  scientific  challenges  facing  mankind.  To  tackle  this 
challenge successfully the key role of biodiversity and ecosystems 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,  research  infrastructures,  the  science–policy 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
interface, monitoring and data interoperability for biodiversity. This should exploit emerging 
information and communication technologies. 

Adequate  financial  resources  should  be  provided  to  support  and  promote  an  improved 
knowledge  base  for  biodiversity  and  ecosystems,  and  efficient  science-policy  interface  on 
biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. 

Table 9: Examples of projects funded under FP5, FP6 and FP778 

BIODIVERSITY PROJECTS FUNDED 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 

FP5  CASCADE 

gene 

conservation, 

Securing 
adaptive 
breeding potential and utilisation of a model 
multipurpose  tree  species  (Castanea  Sativa 
mill.) in a dynamic environment 

FP5  METABIRD 

Viability of bird metapopulations 

Design  and  testing  of  dna  microarrays  to 
monitor  microbial  diversity  with  adequate 
biodiversity  indexes,  using  cyanobacteria  in 
freshwater as a model system 
Dynamics of forest trees biodiversity: linking 
genetic,  palaeogenetic  and  plant  historical 
approaches 
Dynamics  of  plant  dispersal-related  traits  in 
fragmented European habitats: consequences 
for 
landscape 
species 
management 
Biodiversity 
in  herbaceous  semi-natural 
ecosystems  under  stress  by  global  change 
components 

survival 

and 

Biodiversity assessment tools 

FP5  MIDI-CHIP 

FP5  FOSSILVA 

FP5 

PLANT 
DISPERSAL 

FP5  BIOSTRESS 

FP5 

Biodiversity 
Assessment 

FP5  BIOMAN 

Biodiversity  and  human  impact  in  shallow 
lakes 

EVK2-CT-
1999- 

FP5  Fauna Europaea 

Fauna Europaea 

FP5  ENHSIN 

FP5 

Coast 
Diversity 

Bird 

European 
natural 
information network 

history 

specimen 

Maintaining migratory coastal bird diversity : 
management 
behaviour-based 
predictive population modelling  

through 

FP5  BABE 

Beekeeping and biodiversity in Europe 

EVR1-CT-
1999- 

HPRI-CT-
1999- 

EVK2-CT-
2000- 

EVK2-CT-
2000- 

EVK2-CT-
1999- 

00006 

EVK2-CT-
1999- 

00017 

EVK2-CT-
1999- 

00026 

EVK2-CT-
1999- 

00036 

EVK2-CT-
1999- 

00037 

EVK2-CT-
1999- 

EVK2-CT-
1999- 

00040 

00041 

00046 

20001 

40010 

00066 

00068 

€ 1.606.590

€ 1.688.261

€ 1.055.600

€ 1.861.775

€ 1.580.561

€ 1.178.180

€ 1.439.369

€ 2.299.649

€ 1.742.468

€ 3.235.029

€ 200.000 

€ 1.041.564

€ 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 

84 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                 
00081 

00083 

00086 

20004 

20006 

40004 

40017 

20009 

00108 

00121 

FP5 

IMEW 

FP5  PROBASE 

Integrated  management 
wetlands 

of 

European 

Procedures  for  accounting  and  baselines  for 
projects  under  joint  implementation  and  the 
clean development mechanism 

FP5  BIOECON 

Biodiversity and economics for conservation 

FP5  REGHAB 

Reconciling 
biodiversity  

gamebird 

hunting 

and 

EVK2-CT-
2000- 

EVK2-CT-
2000- 

EVK2-CT-
2000- 

EVK2-CT-
2000- 

FP5  BIOFORUM 

European biodiversity forum - implementing 
the ecosystem approach 

EVK2-CT-
2000- 

FP5  Euro+Med 

FP5  BioCASE 

European 
plantbase  

initiative 

for 

the  euro+med 

EVR1-CT-
2000- 

Biocase  -  a  biodiversity  collection  access 
service for Europe 

EVR1-CT-
2000- 

FP5  BioPlatform 

European Platform for Biodiversity  

FP5  FRAXIGEN 

FP5  PASCALIS 

FP5  Tlinks 

FP5  MACMAN 

FP5  Giant Alien 

Ash  for  the  future:  defining  European  ash 
and 
populations 
regeneration 

conservation 

for 

Protocols 
and 
the 
conservation of aquatic life in the subsurface 

assessment 

for 

EVK2-CT-
2001- 

EVK2-CT-
2001- 

EVK2-CT-
2001- 

Trophic linkages between above- and below-
ground  organisms  as  a  key  to  successful 
restoration  of  biodiversity  on  ex-arable  land 
across EU  
Maculinea butterflies of the habitats directive 
and European red list as indicators and tools 
for habitat conservation and management 
(Heracleum 
Giant 
hogweed 
invasive 
Mantegazzianum)  a  pernicious 
weed:  developing  a  sustainable  strategy  for 
alien invasive plant management in Europe 

EVK2-CT-
2001- 

00123 

EVK2-CT-
2001- 

00126 

EVK2-CT-
2001- 

00128 

FP5  ABC 

Access  to  Belgian  collections  of  interest  for 
biodiversity research 

HPRI-CT-
2001- 

00159 

FP5  FRAP 

FP5  LACOPE 

FP5  RECIPE 

FP5  BioScene 

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 

Landscape development, biodiversity and co-
operative livestock systems in Europe 

EVK2-CT-
2002- 

Reconciling  commercial  exploitation  of  peat 
with biodiversity in peatland ecosystems 

EVK2-CT-
2002- 

00150 

00154 

for 

Scenarios 
biodiversity 
conservation  with  declining  agricultural  use 
in the mountains of Europe 

reconciling 

EVK2-CT-
2002- 

00167 

FP5  BIOPRESS 

Linking  pan-European  landcover  change  to 
pressures on biodiversity 

EVK2-CT-
2002- 

FP5  LADAMER 

Land 
degradation 
Mediterranean Europe 

assessment 

in 

EVK2-CT-
2002- 

00178 

00179 

€ 918.469 

€ 770.154 

€ 1.530.672

€ 301.140 

€ 509.826 

€ 1.195.700

€ 1.935.494

€ 720.797 

€ 1.987.537

€ 1.452.749

€ 1.569.156

€ 2.988.660

€ 1.641.229

€ 325.000 

€ 2.490.000

€ 2.439.982

€ 1.505.559

€ 2.296.200

€ 1.385.301

€ 831.439 

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
FP5  PGR Forum 

European  crop  wild 
assessment & conservation forum 

relative  diversity 

EVK2-CT-
2002- 

FP5  CONSIDER 

Conservation  of  soil  organism  diversity 
under global change 

EVK2-CT-
2002- 

Biohab, a framework for the coordination of 
biodiversity and habitats 

EVK2-CT-
2002- 

European 
information 

network 

for 

biodiversity 

EVK2-CT-
2002- 

The  catalogue  of  life  :  biodiversity  resource 
and e-science gateway 

EVR1-CT-
2002- 

Life history traits of the northwest European 
flora: a database 

EVR1-CT-
2002- 

FP5  BioHab 

FP5  ENBI 

FP5  Eurocat 

FP5  LEDA 

  FP6 

20010 

20012 

20018 

20020 

20011 

40022 

€ 728.300 

€ 930.965 

€ 671.022 

€ 3.000.000

€ 2.455.000

€ 2.104.996

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 

FP6  SoBio 

FP6  ALARM 

FP6  GLOCHAMORE 

FP6  EUMON 

FP6  EPRECOT 

FP6  EDIT 

FP6  PROBIOPRISE 

FP6  BIOSCORE 

for 

surrogates 

towards  efficient 

intraspecific 
Tracking 
biodiversity: 
selection 
strategies  for  the  conservation  of  natural 
genetic resources using comparative mapping 
and modelling approaches 
Mobilising  the  European  Social  Research 
Potential  in  Support  of  Biodiversity  and 
Ecosystem Management 

GOCE-CT-
2003 

GOCE-CT-
2003 

Assessing  LArge-scale  environmental  Risks 
with tested Methods 

GOCE-CT-
2003 

Global  Change  in  Mountain  Regions:  An 
Integrated  Assessment  of  Causes  and 
Consequences 
EUMON:  EU-wide  monitoring  methods  and 
systems  of  surveillance  for  species  and 
habitats of Community interest 
Effects  of  precipitation  change  on  terrestrial 
ecosystems  -  a  workshop  and  networking 
activity 

GOCE-CT-
2003 

GOCE-CT-
2004 

GOCE-CT-
2005 

Toward the European Distributed Institute of 
Taxonomy 

GOCE-CT-
2005 

Creating a European platform for SMEs and 
other  stakeholders  to  develop  a  research 
programme for pro-biodiversity business 

GOCE-CT-
2005 

Biodiversity impact assessment using species 
sensitivity scores 

GOCE-CT-
2005 

505376 

STREP 

€ 1.800.000

505429 

CA 

€ 460.000 

506675 

IP 

€ 12.000.000

506679 

SSA 

€ 350.000 

006463 

STREP 

€ 1.496.238

018066 

SSA 

€ 143.100 

018340 

NoE 

€ 11.900.000

018356 

SSA 

€ 649.581 

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 

86 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
FP6  COCONUT 

Understanding effects of land use changes on 
ecosystems to halt loss of biodiversity due to 
habitat 
and 
degradation 

fragmentation 

destruction, 

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 

Challenges 
biodiversity  and  ecosystem  changes 
Europe 

in  assessing  and  forecasting 
in 

GOCE-CT-
2006 

EVOLution of TREEs as drivers of terrestrial 
biodiversity 

GOCE-CT-
2004 

Marine  Biodiversity 
Functioning 

Delivering 
Inventories for Europe 

Alien 

and 

Ecosystem 

Invasive 

Species 

GOCE-CT-
2002 

GOCE-CT-
2003 

036866 

IP 

€ 6.999.998

016322 

NoE 

€ 14.300.000

505446 

NoE 

€ 8.707.000

511202 

STREP 

€ 2.400.000

FP6  ECOCHANGE 

FP6  EVOLTREE 

FP6  MarBEF 

FP6  DAISIE 

  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 

FP7  EBONE 

FP7  SCALES 

Highland aquatic resources conservation and 
sustainable development 

European Biodiversity Observation Network; 
a  project  to  design  and  test  a  biodiversity 
observation  system  integrated  in  time  and 
space 
Securing  the  Conservation  of  biodiversity 
across  Administrative  Levels  and  spatial, 
temporal, and Ecological Scales 

213015  CP-SICA 

€ 1.455.676

212322 

CP-FP 

€ 2.701.987

226852 

CP-IP 

€ 6.995.640

FP7  LIFEWATCH 

e-science  and  technology  infrastructure  for 
biodiversity data and observatories 

Capacities 
Programme 

€ 5.000.000

EN 

87 

   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  under  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for 
Rural  Development  (EAFRD),  the  Cohesion  and  Structural  Funds,  Life+  and  the  7th 
Framework Programme. 

Agriculture, in managing a large part of the EU territory, conserves genes, species and 
habitats. Increasing use of agri–environment measures, organic farming and the support 
of  Less  Favoured  Areas  has  favoured  farmland  biodiversity.  The  2003  CAP  reform 
promotes  these  and  other  pro–biodiversity  measures.  Measures  under  market  and 
income  policy,  including  mandatory  cross–compliance,  the  single  farm  payment 
(decoupling) and modulation, should provide benefits to biodiversity. 

The  new  Rural  Development  Regulation  provides  inter  alia  for  enhanced  support  for 
Natura  2000,  maintains  agri–environmental  measures  and  payments  for  areas  with 
handicaps  and  provides  for  a  set  of  measures  in  support  of  sustainable  forest 
management  (some  tailored  to  enhance  ecological  value)  such  as  forest–environment 
payments. Realisation of the full benefit of these measures as allocation to the different 
measures depend on implementation by Member States.  

B. 

Progress assessment  

Rural and regional development funds providing benefit for biodiversity and Natura 2000 

The  bases  of  “adequate  finances”  are  the  costs  indicated  in  the  National  Biodiversity 
Strategies  and  Action  Plans  (NBSAP's)  of  the  member  states  which  include  the  estimated 
financial  needs  for  the  implementation  of  the  Convention  on  Biological  Diversity  (CBD). 
However,  in  most  cases  the  bases  of  the  estimations  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 (environmental) variables. More over in this section the funding 
not  targeted  for  the  implementation  of  the  Habitats  Directive  is  considered.  Thus,  the 
information with regards to spending under various Multilateral Environmental Agreements, 
spending in biodiversity related research and bilateral assistance is used. 

Financing  for  the  Natura  2000  network  originates  primarily  from  measures  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 Rural Development (EAFRD). 

The measures referred to aim to improve the environment and the countryside. These include 
agri-environment  payments,  support  for  non-productive  investments,  Natura  2000  payments 

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
for  the  sustainable  use  of  agricultural  land  and  payments  linked  to  Directive  2000/60/EC, 
forest-environment payments and Natura 2000 payments 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-environment  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, Slovenia, Portugal, France). Some Member 
States  decided  to  use  Natura  2000  agricultural  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-environment  measures  (e.g.  Austria,  Czech  Republic, 
Slovakia)  as  those  allocating  only  for  forest-environment  measures  (e.g.  the  Netherlands, 
Portugal, Cyprus, France). 

(For further information see Objective 2, Target A2.1.) 

A couple of categories of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion 
Fund (CF) spending are related to the protection of biodiversity and management of natural 
resources.  The  most  relevant  category  is  No.  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 "protection 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 detailed information on measures to be taken and 
projects  to  be  financed.  Though  all  OPs  are  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  assessment  is  complicated  by  the  fact  that  the 
categories  of  funding  for  most  financial  instruments  do  not  allow  for  a  breakdown  of 
allocation for Natura 2000 and biodiversity. Additional support to the regional development 
funds were provided by INTERREG and now by European Territorial Cooperation schemes 
contributing to bi- or multilateral projects. 

(For further information see Objective 4, Target A4.1.) 

Comparing  rural  and  regional  development  expenditure  of  Member  States  we  can  conclude 
that  unfortunately,  there  are  quite  a  few  Member  States  that  have  low  allocations  both  on 
Natura  2000  payments  (agricultural  and  forestry  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  Natura  2000  payments  but  quite  low  from  regional 
development funds (e.g. Germany, Estonia and Ireland).  

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
NATURA 2000 payments
agricultural + forestry
(% of EAFRD)

Nature conservation in regional policy
(% of ERDF)
on category No. 51

10,00

9,00

8,00

7,00

6,00

%

5,00

4,00

3,00

2,00

1,00

0,00

T
A

E
B

U
B

Y
C

Z
C

E
D

K
D

E
E

I

S F
E

R
F

R
G

U
H

R

I

T

I

I
L

T
L

U
L

T
M

L
N

L
P

T
P

I

O S S
R

K
S

K
U

Figure 20: The comparison of allocation on direct measures for Natura 2000 and 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  biodiversity  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 regional 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 the latter one has high allocations on direct 
measures as well. A change in countries spending more from one of the funds but not from 
the other is also to be seen (e.g. Austria, Malta, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom). 

EN 

90 

   EN 

 
  
Total environment related expenditure
from rural development funds
(% of total EAFRD)

Nature conservation in regional policy
(% of ERDF)
on categories No. 51+55

100,00

90,00

80,00

70,00

60,00

%

50,00

40,00

30,00

20,00

10,00

0,00

Figure 21: The comparison of allocation 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 amount allocated to certain measures or operations, it is not 
possible 
to  separate  Natura  2000  and  biodiversity  related  expenditure  from  other 
environmental measures. The only available information concerns the total allocation of the 
EFF  plus  the  national  public  contribution  for  each  Priority  Axis,  and  the  total  annual 
commitment of the EFF in the operational programme. 

The  estimation  of  the  overall  Natura  2000  costs  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 was 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 questionnaire 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. LIFE+ 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 yearly LIFE Nature expenditure and allocation 
on nature and biodiversity related projects from LIFE+ is seen in Table 10. 

(For more information see Objective 1, Target A1.1.) 

EN 

91 

   EN 

 
 
Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Cyprus 
Czech 
Republic 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxemburg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
United 
Kingdom 

2000 
7.79 
2.97 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 

2.81 
1.55 
5.45 
7.74 
12.71 
3.86 
0.32 
0.92 
12.61 
1.47 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
1.70 
0.00 
3.09 
1.30 
0.00 
1.02 
16.90 
2.45 

13.34 

2002 
1.60 
5.30 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 

6.41 
1.53 
6.19 
1.20 
9.19 
9.43 
3.17 
4.39 
4.35 
4.39 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
1.82 
0.00 
3.84 
0.98 
0.00 
1.13 
15.90 
5.06 

14.14 

2003 
6.02 
14.71 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 

0.00 
1.00 
6.39 
7.91 
10.77 
4.24 
0.90 
2.25 
11.24 
3.94 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
5.64 
0.98 
1.47 
1.36 
15.42 
2.87 

2.90 

2004 
7.84 
2.00 
0.00 
2.02 

0.54 

5.37 
1.55 
1.15 
11.03 
6.01 
2.99 
5.02 
4.67 
14.35 
3.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
6.47 
0.90 
2.40 
1.45 
0.33 
1.71 
12.69 
1.38 

5.12 

2005 
6.77 
15.67 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 

14.06 
0.00 
2.39 
3.93 
15.70 
1.36 
2.08 
1.89 
3.22 
2.25 
2.14 
1.64 
0.00 
2.73 
5.92 
0.00 
3.75 
2.62 
0.00 
4.74 
2.99 

4.16 

2006 
3.39 
14.22 
0.00 
0.00 

1.00 

4.39 
0.00 
3.65 
3.72 
7.58 
0.00 
6.23 
0.00 
4.76 
1.16 
0.00 
0.00 
0.66 
13.06 
2.28 
5.46 
1.10 
2.48 
3.29 
16.99 
0.54 

4.03 

20071 
1.88 
2.06 
2.15 
1.07 

1.98 

2.46 
1.66 
3.58 
8.75 
11.64 
3.40 
2.50 
1.57 
8.80 
1.34 
1.38 
1.09 
1.15 
3.21 
4.74 
2.80 
4.35 
1.53* 
2.15 
10.71 
4.11 

7.95 

Table  10:  The  allocation  of  LIFE  Nature  and  LIFE+  expenditure  between  Member  States  (%  of  total 
yearly budget) 

1 indicative allocation for Member States for LIFE+   
* Note that Slovakia did not receive 100% of its allocation, 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  fields,  a  part  of  which  is  allocated  to  biodiversity  projects. 
Community  contribution  to  environmental  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 contribution 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 biodiversity 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 

92 

   EN 

 
  
 
third spending more money on research as France or the Netherlands. (For further information 
see Objective 10, Target A10.1.) 

Supporting 
Assistance 

implementation  of  Multilateral  Environmental  Agreements  and  Bilateral 

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 working paper) on the integration of environment in development 
cooperation. For further information see Objective 7., Target A7.3. 

Data on 2007 expenditure is available from all Member States for the following Multilateral 
Environmental Agreements: Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Ramsar Convention, 
Convention  on  Migratory  Species,  AEWA  (African-Eurasian  Waterbird  Agreement), 
UNESCO World Heritage Convention (WHC) and UNEP Programme of Work (PoW).  

The  most  resources  were  spent  on  CBD  related  work  (EUR  2  730  922),  while  the  least 
significant  for  AEWA  (EUR  546  901).  With  regards  to  CBD  Italy  has  allocated  the  most 
resources  (EUR  1  052  267),  and  Estonia  the  least  (EUR  871).  Biodiversity-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  allocation  for  external  assistance  is  EUR  201.47  million  to  which 
Denmark is the biggest contributor EUR 47.1 million and Ireland has no finance indicated for 
this purpose. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow 
exact  quantification  of  aid  activities’  contribution  to  the  objectives.  Thus,  the  figures  are 
approximate.  Biodiversity  spending  data  are  derived  from  the  OECD  Creditor  Reporting 
System database where members of the Development 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 States 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  regards  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 the 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 

93 

   EN 

 
Percentage of total EU expenditure for Life Nature Project

0.072%

0.051%

0.052%

0.055%

0.058%

0.052%

0.038%

0.096%

0.096%

0.077%

0.082%

0.077%

0.074%

0.066%

0.066%

Percentage

0.120%

0.100%

0.080%

0.060%

0.040%

0.020%

0.000%

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 22: Percentage of total EU expenditure for Life Nature Project 

EN 

94 

   EN 

 
 
Supporting Measure 2. Strengthening EU decision–making for biodiversity 

A. 

Context  

involves 

improving 

decision-making 

Strengthening  EU 
and 
complementarity between Community and Member 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  environmental  costs  (including  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. 

coordination 

B. 

Progress assessment 

Target 2.1 
framework by 2010 

EU vision on biodiversity and ecosystem services agreed and providing policy 

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  European  Environment  Agency.  The  first  results  of 
this assessment of the global economic benefit of biological diversity, the costs of the loss of 
biodiversity  and  the  failure  to  take  protective  measures  versus  the  costs  of  effective 
conservation have been presented 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 covering 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,  integrating  all-taxa  biodiversity  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 use of biodiversity sustainable. As part of 
this, research support will be provided to follow up TEEB, with work on economic, social and 
environmental  costs  and  benefits  of  conservation  and  use  of  biodiversity.  Other 
recommendations  for  research  in  this  direction  will  be  taken  into  consideration,  including 
those identified by the European Platform for 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 

95 

   EN 

 
Target 2.2 
impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services prevented or minimised, from 2006 onwards 

New  policies  benefit  biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services,  and  their  negative 

An  assessment  by  the  Commission  in  January  2006  showed  that  two  thirds  of  the  Member 
States refer to biodiversity or nature protection in their National 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  progress  is  reported  by  many  countries,  additional 
integrated policy efforts are needed.  

As  part  of  its  policy  on  Better  the  Commission  is  screening  all  new  legislative  and  policy 
proposals for potential significant impacts on biodiversity. The impact assessment guidelines, 
used by the Commission include biodiversity concerns. 

Target 2.3 
Financial Perspectives and any mid-term review of FP 2007-2013] 

Biodiversity  needs  have  been  better  integrated,  as  necessary,  [into  post-2013 

The  mid  term  review  of  the  EC  6th  Environment  Action  Programme  carried  out  in  2007 
confirmed  that  biodiversity  is  one  of  the  four  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  Action  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, adaptation to the inevitable climatic changes, and 
the protection of biodiversity. 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 
plans substantially enhanced by 2010 

Complementarity of EC and Member States biodiversity strategies and action 

Alignment of national biodiversity strategies with EU (B2.2) 

Ten  Member  States  (Austria,  Belgium,  Czech  Republic,  Germany,  Denmark,  Finland, 
Netherlands,  Sweden,  Slovenia  and  UK)  have  environmental  policy  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,  Spain,  Ireland,  Malta),  seven  have  not  (Cyprus, 
France,  Hungary,  Lithuania,  Latvia,  Poland,  Portugal)  and  six  failed  to  respond  to  this 
question (Bulgaria, Estonia, Italy, Luxembourg, Romania, Slovakia). 

EU governance structure 

There have been discussions on improving the governance structure for implementation of EU 
nature  and  biodiversity  policy,  with  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 

96 

   EN 

 
Nature,  involving  the  competent  authorities  of  the  Member  States,  different  Commission 
services and representatives of key stakeholder groups. 

Effective 

Target 2.5 
integration  of  Natura  2000,  rural  development,  river  basin 
management  and  other  territorial  plans  and  programmes  in  support  of  biodiversity  achieved 
by 2010 

Nearly  all  Member  States  effectively  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  Natura  2000  plans  and  programmes  in  support  of 
biodiversity except Romania, Spain and Sweden, which did not respond to this question.  

Fourteen  Member  States  (Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Finland,  Germany,  Greece,  Ireland, 
Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, UK) effectively integrate 
River  Basin  Management  plans  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, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia). 

The  Commission  has  included  biodiversity  concerns  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 network into the broader 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 
2010 [and again by 20132] 

Substantial  improvements  in  compliance  with  environmental  regulations  by 

The  Commission  continues  to  closely  monitor  the  implementation  of  environmental 
legislation and to take the necessary action to ensure 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 transposition appear the Commission has initiated 
non-conformity cases. As regards the Birds Directive, infringement procedures related to non-
conformity issues are ongoing against 15 Members States79. As regards the Habitats Directive 
infringement  procedures  related  to  non-conformity  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  public  consultation  on 
how CFP control should be improved and strengthened to make it fit to deliver the core goals 

79 
80 

AT, IE, ES, DK, UK, EL, IT, CZ, EE, HU, LT, LV, PL, SK, RO. 
(AT, DE, UK, FR, IE, ES, DK, NL, EL, CZ, EE, MT, PL, SI, SK, HU). 

EN 

97 

   EN 

 
                                                 
of the Common Fisheries Policy, namely, a genuinely sustainable European 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 regulation 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 will be coordinated by the Community Fisheries Control Agency 
(CFCA) and marks the EU's determination to ensure that the fifteen-year recovery plan for the 
blue  fin  tuna,  agreed  within  the  International  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 

98 

   EN 

 
Supporting Measure 3. Building partnerships 

A. 

Context 

This  supporting  measure 
involves  building  progressive  partnerships  between 
government, academia, conservation practitioners, landowners and users, private sector, 
finance sector, educational sector and the media to frame solutions. 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 
2006 in each Member State 

Key stakeholder groups actively engaged in conservation of biodiversity from 

Work on developing an EU Business & Biodiversity initiative has involved consultations with 
businesses, NGOs and Member States. Business and Biodiversity was one of environmental 
priorities of the Portuguese Presidency 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  meeting  the  2010  target,  underlined  the  need  for 
concerted  action  at  the  EU  level.  Building  on  the  experience  of  the  Lisbon  conference  the 
Commission  intends  to  establish  and  put  into  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  establishment  of  a  web-based  'Natura  2000  communication 
platform'.  This  will  allow  different  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 for 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 

99 

   EN 

 
management, and representatives of wind energy industry are participating in working groups 
which will produce guidance documents for these topics in 2009. Member State, NGOs and 
other stakeholders are also involved in these initiatives.  

National partnerships for biodiversity including private sector involvement (B3.1):  

Amongst  the  actions  identified  in  the  Biodiversity  Action  Plan,  supporting  measure  3.1.6 
requires  that  Member  States  facilitate  business  and  biodiversity  partnerships  from  2006 
onwards.  The  BAP  Member  State  Questionnaire  specifically  addressed  this  action  point. 
Twenty Member States (74%) indicated that they had national initiatives aimed at promoting 
partnerships for biodiversity. The distribution of partnerships by business sector is indicated 
in Table 6, introduced under Target 4.4. The most common partnerships related 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 initiatives 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 least 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% have developed national or sub-
national  recognition  or  award  schemes  that  promote  business  engagement  with  biodiversity 
(Belgium; Cyprus; Latvia; Slovenia; United Kingdom), 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 initiatives (BE; BG; DE; FR; HU; LT; NL; SK; UK) 
(Figure 24). 

Data Source: Country Profiles and Member state Questionnaires. 

The  Commission  will  also  promote  greater  engagement  of  the  hunting  community  in  the 
implementation  of  the  Birds  directive  and  the  Habitats  Directives  and  to  further  engage  the 
community  of  wildlife  recreational  users  in  conservation  and  management  of  Natura  2000, 
including the angling community, with particular attention to the beneficial consequences that 
these activities bring for Natura 2000. 

EN 

100 

   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%

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 

74%

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 June, 2008. Source: Country Profile) 

Member States with national initiatives aimed at promoting 

partnership with Natura 2000

33%

19%

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  24:  Distribution  of  Member  States  as  regards  national  partnerships  with  Natura  2000 
(based on information received from the Member States up to 20 June, 2008. Source: Country Profile) 

EN 

101 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Member States with sectoral guidance documents relating

to biodiversity

48%

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. 

4%

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 June, 2008. Source: Country Profile) 

Member States with national or subnational award schemes that

promote business engagement with biodiversity 

19%

33%

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 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 June, 2008. Source: Country Profile) 

EN 

102 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting  Measure 4.  Building  public  education,  awareness  and 
participation 

A. 

Context  

The 2010 target of halting biodiversity loss can only be met if all sectors of society – from 
public  authorities  and  industry  to  private  landowners  and  individual  members  of  the 
general public - are actively involved. First step for the general public is information and 
understanding of biodiversity and our dependence 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 
[15 million by 2013] 

10  million  Europeans  actively  engaged  in  biodiversity  conservation  by  2010, 

National/Sub-national public awareness 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 (65%) only 35% of people 
know  what  the  term  means,  let  alone  understand  what  the  threats  and  challenges  to  its 
conservation are. Differences in the level of awareness 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, Cyprus, Denmark, Greece, and Slovakia (See SEBI 
indicator 26 annexed). This may extend from the general public to policy 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  assessment  by  UNEP-WCMC  in  2000  due  to  the 
reported lack of awareness of biodiversity conservation issues among decision-makers. 

81 

Flash  Eurobarometer  219:  The  Attitudes  of  Europeans 
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/flash_arch_en.htm 

towards 

the  Issue  of  Biodiversity, 

EN 

103 

   EN 

 
                                                 
100

80

60

40

20

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Familiarity with the term “biodiversity”, by country

Never heard of it

84

78

73

68

65

56 57

23

23

25

28 28 29

16

11

38 40 42

44 44 44

35

35

46 49 50 52

51

T
A

E
D

G
B

E
E

R
F

L
P

E
S

I
F

7
2
U
E

T
I

S
E

K
U

U
H

E
B

V
L

T
P

I

U S
L

L
N

E
I

T
L

O
R

T
M

L
E

K
D

K
S

Z
C

Y
C

Heard of it

Heard of it and knows what it means

Heard of it but does not know what it means

89

5
1

84

4
1

77

77

75

73

72

6
3

0
4

1
4

1
1 3
4

71

7
3

4
7

T
A

1
7

E
D

1
4

G
B

7
3

E
E

4
3

R
F

1
3

L
P

1
4

E
S

3
3

I
F

65

0
3

5
3

7
2
U
E

62

61

60 58 56

56 55

9
3

3
3

2
3

2
0 3
4

4
2

T
I

8
2

S
E

8
2

K
U

8
1

U
H

4
2

E
B

4
2

1
3

T
P

1
4

5
1

V
L

54

6
2

51

7
2

49 48 48

6
2

6
2

8
2

5
2

I

U S
L

3
2

L
N

2
2

E
I

42

4
2

8
1

O
R

41

6
2

4
1

T
M

35

8
1

7
1

L
E

31

5
1

7
1

K
D

24

8
1

21

5
1

15

9

6 6 6

K
S

Z
C

Y
C

9
2

9
1

T
L

Q1. Are you aware of the term "biodiversity"?
%, Base: all respondents, by country

Figure 27 (source: Flash Eurobarometer 219: "Attitudes of Europeans towards the issue of biodiversity", 
The Gallup Organization) 

Most EU citizens are also unaware of the Natura 2000 network and 80 % have never heard of 
it; only 6% know what Natura 2000 means. 

Awa ren ess of th e Natu ra 2000 n et work

61

61

66

70 70 71

70 73

76 78 80 81

83 83

82

57

53

44

19

20

Never heard of it
94 96

86 88 90 89

90

93

G
B

I
F

E
E

I
S

L
P

L
E

T
P

T
A

Z
C

E
S

Y
C

U
H

K
S

R
F

T
L

E
B

U
L

T
M

S
E

K
D

V
L

E
D

L
N

O
R

E
I

K
U

T
I

7
2
U
E

Heard of it

Heard of it and knows what it means

Heard of it but does not know what it means

80 80

5
3

1
5

5
4

G
B

9
2

I
F

56

6
3

0
2

E
E

46

6
2

0
2

I
S

44

9
2

5
1

L
P

39

4
2

5
1

L
E

37

1
2

6
1

T
P

32

1
2

0
1

T
A

30 29

29

29

25

25

20 18 18

17

16

16

3
2

4
2

1
2

3
2

2 8 9
1
0
7 5 8 6 5 7 6 6 1

4
1

9
1

8
1

13
3
9 8 6 6 7 4 3 2
8 5 4 4 3 3 4 2 1 1 1

12

2
1

1
1

4

9

9

9

5

Z
C

E
S

Y
C

U
H

K
S

R
F

T
L

7
2
U
E

E
B

U
L

T
M

S
E

K
D

V
L

E
D

L
N

O
R

E
I

K
U

T
I

Q8. Have you heard of the Natura 2000 network?
%, Base: all respondents, by country

Figure 28 (source: Flash Eurobarometer 219: "Attitudes of Europeans towards the issue of biodiversity", 
The Gallup Organization) 

EN 

104 

   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 making 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  available  in  individual  Country  Summaries 
indicates  a  range  of  approaches  to  raising  public  awareness  from  educational  activities 
through  to  policy  initiatives.  For  example,  the  Action  Plan  for  Biodiversity  and  Nature 
Protection in Denmark 2004-2009 includes such provisions, and reference is also made to the 
Aarhus Convention, indicated under Action B4.1.3 in the Action Plan.  

Belgium’s and Slovenia’s National Biodiversity Strategies include an objective to involve the 
community in the strategy through communication, 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  Communications  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  communications  campaign, 
fed into the 2008 call for proposals of the Information & Communication component of the 
LIFE+ financial instrument. Under this heading priority 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 actions at EU level.  

The  Commission  has  produced  an  informative  guide  and  related  posters  on  the  EU 
Biodiversity Action Plan. A book celebrating the Natura 2000 network 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 support for the key legislation, the Nature Directives, and the 
Natura  2000  network.  EU  support  for  the  Countdown  2010  Initiative  will  continue  in  2008 
and 2009 to assist a range of activities including events under EU Presidencies, with regions 
and local authorities and with the European Parliament. 

EN 

105 

   EN 

 
 
C. MONITORING, EVALUATION AND REVIEW 

ANNUAL REPORTING, INDICATORS, 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  within  the  framework  of  the  Convention  on 
Biological Diversity, a set of 26 pan-European biodiversity indicators has been selected 
with  the  financial  support  of  the  European  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 and 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 
and Parliament 

Annual,  Mid-Term  and  Final  Reports  submitted  in  timely  fashion  to  Council 

The Commission published its first report on progress 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 concise 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 Member States level and will be submitted to 
Council and Parliament. 

The EC and EEA together with the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and 
UNEP-World  Conservation  Monitoring  Center  (WCMC)  are  actively  involved  in  the 
improvement  of  the  alignment  and  synchronisation  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,  global  Biodiversity  Indicator  Partnership  - 
BIP).  This  includes  the  development  of  the  European  Common  Database  on  Designated 
Areas-  the  so  called  ECDDA,  where  efforts  are  being  joined  with  the  Council  of  Europe  in 
sharing procedures for the information included. 

82 

83 

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. 
Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. 

EN 

106 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Target 1.2 

Indicators in place and informing policy-decisions by 2010 

Using  the  common  methodological  framework  for  goals,  targets  and  indicators  endorsed  by 
COP decision VII/30, a set of 26 pan-European biodiversity indicators has been selected with 
the financial support of the European Commission, the European Environment Agency, and 
UNEP (see Annex 4) and is fully documented in the EEA Technical Report84 on Streamlining 
European biodiversity indicators (SEBI) 2010 of October 2007. This provides the basis - to be 
complemented  by  other  sets  of  indicators,  especially  those  designed  to  assess  progress  in 
policy sectors - for a first European indicator-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 Diversity National Report (4NR) 
according to the guidelines endorsed by COP decision VIII/14. 

Based on available information, more than half of Member States (16) already have national 
biodiversity indicators; some countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, and the UK) have aligned 
their  indicators  to  the  SEBI  framework.  Thirteen  Member  States  have  some  indicators  that 
correspond  with  the  SEBI  indicator  framework,  with  gaps  mainly  on  invasive  species, 
occurrence of temperature-sensitive species, sustainable use, threats to biodiversity, resource 
transfer,  access  and  benefit-sharing  and  public  awareness.  It  is  very  encouraging  that  the 
development of  national  indicators aligned to the SEBI indicator framework is  underway in 
the Member States. 

Two  regional  capacity-building  workshops  have  been  organised  for  6  countries  of  South 
Eastern  Europe  and  12  countries  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 global Biodiversity Indicator Partnership. 

Further refinement and improvement of the SEBI 2010 indicators is ongoing, including with 
regard  to  the  impact  of  climate  change  on  biodiversity,  interlinkages  and  communications. 
Response indicators have been collected by the European Commission in 2008 to support the 
assessment  of  progress  in  meeting,  or  contributing  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 Species 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  Biodiversity  indicator’,  possible 
options (e.g. birds, butterflies, Red List Index, Living Planet Index) have been evaluated by 
the European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity 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  indicator  or  index  as  top-level  indicator  for  the 
environment to complement GDP in policy debate. 

84 
85 

EEA Technical report n° 11/2007, See http://reports.eea.europa.eu/technical_report_2007_11/en 
Vačkář David (April 2008) – Conceptual basis for the development of a Biodiversity Index (BDI) and 
Biodiversity Accounts (BDA). Environment Centre Charles University, Prague. 

EN 

107 

   EN 

 
                                                 
SEBI  2010  is  also  contributing  to  the  update,  improvement  and  review  of  the  section  on 
natural resources of the next Sustainable Development Monitoring 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 has 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 shared 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  Environment  and  Security’  (GMES),  which 
represents a concerted effort to bring data and information providers 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  provide  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 under 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 information sources world-wide, the 
EEA  is  hosting  the  European  Community  Biodiversity  Clearing  House  Mechanism  and 
developing  links  with  national  mechanism  (Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Estonia, 
Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Latvia,  Netherlands,  Poland,  Romania, 
Slovenia, Sweden, UK), existing networks and relevant databases. Discussions are currently 
taking place on the building up of a regional network on biodiversity information as a tool to 
dialogue with the civil society, major groups and stakeholders. 

Based  on  available  information,  17  Member  States  (Belgium,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland, 
France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal, 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 biodiversity data accessible anywhere in the world. 
GBIF's  members  include  countries  and  international  organisations  who  have  signed  a 
Memorandum  of  Understanding  that  they  will  share  biodiversity  data  and  contribute  to  the 
development  of  increasingly  effective  mechanisms  for  making  those  data  available  via  the 
Internet. 

86 

See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/seis/index.htm 

EN 

108 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Target 1.3  Monitoring  providing  adequate  data  flow  for  implementation  of  indicator  set, 
for reporting on favourable conservation status, and 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  Directive  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  Commission'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 allow to identify future priorities for specific 
actions,  targeting  resources  for  example  on  species  and  habitat  identified  as  particularly 
threatened. It will also conversely 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  assessments  is  already  available87.  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 Member States, some of them long-standing ones 
and  others  have  been  established  more  recently.  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,  butterflies,  dragonflies,  lichens,  mushrooms  (macro-
fungi),  vascular  plants  and  vegetation  types  as  well  as  terrestrial,  marine  and  freshwater 
biomes (for more details see the EUMON, the 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  lags  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  representative  of  biodiversity  and  the  integrity  of 
ecosystems, a pan-European Common Bird Monitoring 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 schemes 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  organisations)  rather 
than national administrations. There is a need to improve access to these data sets and avoid 
overlap in efforts. The initiative 'The Conservation Commons', started amongst conservation 
NGOs to support open access to, and in particular the fair use of, data and information related 
(see 
to 
www.conservationcommons.org). Discussions are taking place with the European Community 
for possible co-operation. 

at  UNEP-WCMC 

conservation 

biodiversity 

hosted 

the 

of 

is 

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 
88 

http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17 
can be viewed on the CIRCA-Reporting at http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library 

EN 

109 

   EN 

 
                                                 
information and of good practices within the EU Expert Group on Reporting. The work of the 
group involves the standardisation, synchronisation and modernisation 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 relevant to a wide range of users. 

Finally, modern monitoring technologies are being developed based on earth observations. As 
part  of  its  contribution  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  biodiversity  observation  system  integrated  in  time 
and  space.  It  is  the  European  contribution  to  the  Group  on  Earth  Observations  Biodiversity 
Observation  Network  (GEO  BON),  which 
in  biodiversity 
observations  with  regard  to  data  architecture,  scales  and  standards,  observatory  network 
planning and strategic planning for its implementation. By facilitating and linking efforts of 
countries, international organizations, and individuals, GEO  BON will contribute to support 
the  Convention  on  Biological  Diversity.  Future  work  involves  the  integration,  cross-
calibration  and  validation  of  field  data  and  remote  sensing  observations  for  the  collection, 
management, sharing, and analysis of data on the status and trends of the world’s biodiversity 
http://earthobservations.org/cop_bi_geobon.shtml. 

is  promoting  coherence 

The  Commission  is  working  with  EEA,  ESTAT,  JRC  and  DG  RTD  on  strengthening  the 
knowledge  base  for  biodiversity  within  the  framework  of  the  Shared  Environmental 
Information  System  (SEIS)  on  developing  a  common  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 

110 

   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  period  up  to  the  end  of  2007  and  focusing  on 
action at Community level, was finalised in January 200890.  

However,  as  most  of  the  actions  in  the  EU  Biodiversity  Action  Plan  are  addressed  at 
both  EC  and  Member  States  levels,  the  objectives  and  targets  cannot  be  effectively 
delivered without Community and national level 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  Member  State  level.  Also,  it  represents  the 
last real stock-taking opportunity 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, highlighting any significant gaps in delivery. 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 necessary 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 Communication up to end of 2008 and  focuses on 
Community level and Member States action. 

Preparation of the report has involved consultations within the European Commission in the 
framework  of  the  Interdepartmental  Biodiversity  Co-ordination  Group  for  the  necessary 
updated  assessment  of  Community  level  action  for  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  Biodiversity  and  Nature.  At  the 
Lisbon  Nature  Directors  meeting  in  November  2007  a  mechanism  for  Member  State 
information inputs to the preparation of the mid-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 
90 

COM (2006) 216 Final. 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/rep_biodiv_ap/index_en.htm. 

EN 

111 

   EN 

 
                                                 
by  the  report.  This  was  sent  to  Member  States  in  January  2008.  Together  with  existing 
information and databases the responses were to be used to prepare country summary profiles, 
to be sent to Member States for validation.  

There have been significant delays in responses to the Questionnaire and 6 Member States did 
not provided any responses91. Based on available information the Commission has compiled 
country  profiles  for  all  Member  States,  with  the  assistance  of  a  consultancy  contract.  The 
detailed information that underpins these country summaries is available 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  represent  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 text 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 Profiles for each Member State; an indicator fact 
sheets  from  the  European  Environment  Agency  led  project  on  Streamlining  of  European 
Biodiversity  Indicators  (SEBI);  a  synthesis  consolidated  report,  combining  for  different 
objectives and targets the summaries for Community and Member State level assessments, the 
relevant indicators and any key messages in support of the Communication. 

On the basis of the combined country and Community assessments the Commission will also 
identify  key  comparative 
to 
communicate progress in relation to key elements of the Biodiversity Action Plan. 

the  production  of  a  SCOREBOARD 

information  for 

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  targets  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 biodiversity indicators. 

The seventh annual report (to end 2013) will provide a similar evaluation, addressing also all 
post–2010 targets in the Action Plan. 

These  evaluations  also  drawn  on  the  ongoing  study  on  the  economics  of  ecosystems  and 
biodiversity (TEEB) and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment will inform final evaluation 
of  the  6th  EAP,  review  of  sectoral  policies  and  budgets  during  the  2007–2013  period,  and 
policies and budgets for the post–2013 period. 

91 

Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Slovakia. 

EN 

112 

   EN