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 - SEBI 2010 biodiversity indicators {COM(2008) 864 final} {SEC(2008) 3042} {SEC(2008) 3043} {SEC(2008) 3044}
Date: 2008-12-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, biodiversity, environmental protection, management of resources, natural resources, project evaluation, sustainable development

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 16.12.2008 
SEC(2008) 3045 
Vol. 1 

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 

SEBI 2010 BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS 

{COM(2008) 864 final} 
{SEC(2008) 3042} 
{SEC(2008) 3043} 
{SEC(2008) 3044} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Streamlining European 2010 Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) fact sheets ............................... 4 

FOCAL AREA: STATUS AND TRENDS OF THE COMPONENTS OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY .... 5 

European Headline Indicator: Trends in abundance and distribution of selected species ..................... 5 
01. Abundance and distribution of selected species .......................................................................... 5 

European Headline Indicator: Change in status of threatened and/or protected species....................... 9 
02. Red List Index for European species ........................................................................................... 9 
03. Species of European Interest..................................................................................................... 12 

European Headline Indicator: Trends in extent of selected biomes, ecosystems and habitats............ 15 
04. Ecosystem coverage .................................................................................................................. 15 
05. Habitats of European Interest .................................................................................................... 19 

European Headline Indicator: Trends in genetic diversity of domesticated animals, cultivated plants, 
fish species and trees of major socioeconomic importance.................................................................. 22 
06. Livestock genetic diversity.......................................................................................................... 22 

European Headline Indicator: Coverage of protected areas ................................................................. 25 
07. Nationally designated protected areas....................................................................................... 25 
08. Sites designated under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives ................................................... 27 

FOCAL AREA: THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY ................................................................................... 31 

European Headline Indicator: Nitrogen Deposition ............................................................................... 31 
09. Critical load exceedance for nitrogen......................................................................................... 31 

European Headline Indicator: Trends in invasive alien species............................................................ 34 
10. Invasive alien species in Europe................................................................................................ 34 

European Headline Indicator: Impact of climate change on biodiversity .............................................. 39 
11. Occurrence of temperature-sensitive species............................................................................ 39 

FOCAL AREA: ECOSYSTEM INTEGRITY AND ECOSYSTEM GOODS AND SERVICES............... 40 

European Headline Indicator: Marine Trophic Index............................................................................. 40 
12. Marine Trophic Index of European seas .................................................................................... 40 

European Headline Indicator: Connectivity/ Fragmentation of ecosystems.......................................... 43 
13. Fragmentation of natural and semi-natural areas ...................................................................... 43 
14. Fragmentation of river systems .................................................................................................. 44 

European Headline Indicator: Water quality in aquatic ecosystems ..................................................... 45 
15. Nutrients in transitional, coastal and marine waters................................................................... 45 
16. Freshwater quality ...................................................................................................................... 48 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
FOCAL AREA: SUSTAINABLE USE................................................................................................... 53 

European Headline Indicator: Area of forest, agriculture, fishery and aquaculture ecosystems under 
sustainable management ...................................................................................................................... 53 
17. Forest: growing stock, increment and fellings ............................................................................ 53 
18. Forest: deadwood....................................................................................................................... 58 
19. Agriculture: nitrogen balance...................................................................................................... 61 
20. Agriculture: area under management practices potentially supporting biodiversity................... 63 
21. Fisheries: European commercial fish stocks.............................................................................. 68 
22. Aquaculture: effluent water quality from finfish farms ................................................................ 71 

European Headline Indicator: Ecological Footprint and biocapacity of European countries ................ 75 
23. Ecological Footprint of European countries ............................................................................... 75 

FOCAL AREA: STATUS OF ACCESS AND BENEFITS SHARING................................................... 78 

European Headline Indicator: Percentage of European patent applications for inventions based on 
genetic resources .................................................................................................................................. 78 
24. Patent applications based on genetic resources........................................................................ 78 

FOCAL AREA: STATUS OF RESOURCE TRANSFERS AND USE .................................................. 79 

European Headline Indicator: Funding to biodiversity........................................................................... 79 
25. Financing Biodiversity Management .......................................................................................... 79 

FOCAL AREA: PUBLIC OPINION ....................................................................................................... 81 

European Headline Indicator: Public Awareness and Participation ...................................................... 81 
26. Public Awareness....................................................................................................................... 81 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
Streamlining European 2010 Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) fact sheets 

This annex contains 26 “fact sheets” for the SEBI 2010 biodiversity indicators. The SEBI 2010 process 
was initiated in 2005 to select a set of indicators to measure and help achieve progress towards the 
European  target  to halt  biodiversity  loss  by  2010.  SEBI  2010  institutional  partners are  the European 
Environment  Agency  (and  its  European  Topic  Centre  on  Biological  Diversity),  ECNC  (European 
Centre  for  Nature  Conservation),  UNEP-WCMC  (World  Conservation  Monitoring  Centre),  DG 
Environment of the European Commission, the PEBLDS Joint Secretariat, and the Czech Republic (as 
lead country for the Kiev Resolution action plan on biodiversity indicators).  

The SEBI 2010 process has to a large extent been made possible by the contributions of more than 
120 experts from across the pan-European region and from international NGOs and IGOs. 

A history of the SEBI 2010 process as well as technical specifications of the indicators can be found in 
EEA  Technical  report  11/2007  “Halting  the  loss  of  biodiversity  by  2010:  proposal  for  a  first  set  of 
indicators to monitor progress in Europe” (http://reports.eea.europa.eu/technical_report_2007_11/en). 
Readers  are  encouraged  to  consult  this  publication  if  they  need  detailed  information  on  the 
methodology for each indicator. 

Data  are  currently  available  for  22  of  the  26  indicators.  The  fact  sheets  in  this  annex  contain  a 
summary assessment of the latest data available for each indicator. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
FOCAL AREA: STATUS AND TRENDS OF THE COMPONENTS OF BIOLOGICAL 
DIVERSITY 

European  Headline  Indicator:  Trends  in  abundance  and  distribution  of  selected 
species 

01. Abundance and distribution of selected species 

Key Policy Question: 

Which  species  are  being  reduced  in  abundance  and  distribution  in 
Europe? 

Key message  

Overall,  Europe’s  common  birds  have  declined by  around  15%  since  1980. Common  farmland birds 
have  declined  most  severely,  by  more  than  40%,  but  common  forest  birds  have  also  declined,  by 
around  10%.  Declines  have  levelled  off  since  the  late  1990ies.  Europe’s  grassland  butterflies  have 
declined dramatically, by 60% since 1990, and this decline shows no sign yet of levelling off. 

Common birds in Europe, population index (1980 = 100) 

120

100

80

60

40

Farmland birds

Forest birds

All common birds

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Source:  EBCC/RSPB/BirdLife/Statistics Netherlands  

Notes: 

1) Common farmland bird species (n=33), common forest bird species (n=28) and all common bird species (this line includes 
the farmland and forest birds, as well as a host of other common species that are not primarily associated with either of these 
habitats)  (n=124).  Country  coverage  (i.e.  reflecting  the  availability  of  high-quality  monitoring  data  from  annually-operated 
common  bird  monitoring  schemes,  employing  generic  survey  methods  and  producing  reliable  national  trends):  Ireland,  UK, 
Netherlands,  Denmark,  Austria,  Switzerland,  Germany,  Belgium,  Sweden,  Finland,  Norway,  Estonia,  Latvia,  Poland,  Czech 
Republic, Hungary, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy.  

2) In analysing this indicator, it should be underlined that the methodology for calculating the farmland bird index has recently 
changed. The new index presents a much sharper drop around the years 1995 and 1996. While the new index is recognised as 
integrating better expertise in terms of species selection, further investigation is necessary to explore what is behind this drop. In 
addition, the influence of both the inclusion  of new species and new Member States in the selection, and the starting  year of 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
monitoring schemes in some countries should be further investigated. In any case, the trend from 1996 onwards is consistent 
with the previous methodology and shows a fairly stable level of the index. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
Grassland butterflies, Population index (1990 = 100) 

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

2005

Source: De Vlinderstichting/Butterfly Conservation Europe 

Note: 

For  this  graph  data  for  grassland  butterfly  species  from  Butterfly  Monitoring  Schemes  in  nine  countries  were  used:  Belgium  - 
Flanders  (1991-2004),  Estonia  (since  2004),  Finland  (since  1999),  France  (since  2005),  France  -  Doubs  region  (2001-2004), 
Germany (since 2005), Germany - Nordrhein Westfalen (since 2001), Germany - Pfalz region (Maculinea nausithous only, 1989-
2002), Jersey (since 2004), Portugal (since 1998), Spain - Catalunya (since 1994), The Netherlands (since 1990), and United 
Kingdom (since 1976). 

Assessment 

Of  the  more  common  bird  species,  forest  and  particularly  farmland  birds  have  declined.  The  initial 
steep decline of farmland birds was associated with increasing agricultural specialisation and intensity 
in some areas, and large-scale marginalisation and land abandonment in others. The falling trend has 
levelled off since the late 1990ies, partly because of stabilising inputs of nutrients and pesticides and 
the introduction of set-aside in the EU15, and partly because of drastically lower inputs in the EU10 as 
a result of political reforms and the resulting economic crisis in the agricultural sector. An increase in 
agricultural production if linked to higher inputs of nutrients and pesticides in the east, combined with 
further land abandonment in some parts of Europe and the proposed abolition of set-aside may lead to 
a new decline.  

Conservation measures adopted under the EU Birds Directive have proven effective in the recovery of 
rare  bird  populations  (Donald  et  al. 2007),  but  not  in  the  case  of  widespread  birds,  where  different 
recovery mechanisms are now required. Well-designed agri-environment measures have been shown 
to  reverse  bird  declines  at  local  levels.  The  challenge  now  is  to  deploy  them  widely  enough  to  help 
populations recover at national and European scales. 

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.  

Notes:  

An increase means that there are more species whose populations have increased than species 
whose populations have decreased: it does not necessarily mean that the overall population has 
increased.  It  can  be  due  to  expansion  of  some  species  (typically  generalists)  at  the  expense  of 
other species (typically specialists).  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Geographical coverage 

Birds 

Butterflies 

Web links 

EBCC: European Bird Census Council: www.ebcc.info/ 

Butterfly Conservation Europe: www.bc-europe.org/ 

Sources and references  

Europe's environment - The fourth assessment (2007) 

Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe (EEA 
Technical Report 11/2007). 

Donald,  P.F.  et  al.  2007.  International  Conservation  Policy  Delivers  Benefits  for  Birds  in  Europe.  Science  317, 
810. 

Version 26 November 2008 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Headline Indicator: Change in status of threatened and/or protected species 

02. Red List Index for European species 

Key Policy Question: 

Does the conservation status of European birds change? 

Key message 

The  overall  conservation  status  of  Europe's  birds  generally  has  deteriorated  over  the  last  decade. 
While  some  species  have  improved  in  status  owing  to  conservation  action,  many  more  have 
deteriorated owing to worsening threats and/or declining populations. 

Red List Index (RLI) for European birds based on pan-European extinction risk 1994-2004 

f
o

x
e
d
n
I

i

t
s
L
d
e
R

l

i

a
v
v
r
u
s

i

s
e
c
e
p
s

0.95

0.90

0.85

1994

2004

Year

Source:  BirdLife International. 

Note: n = 522 species 

Assessment 

Extinction  risk  overall  is  increasing  for  European  bird  species.  In  the  figure  above,  for  example,  the 
decrease  from  a  value  of  0.89  to  0.87  reflects  the  balance  between  19  species  improving  in  status 
during 1994–2004, but 51 species deteriorating in status. 

All  European  groups  of  countries  show  a  consistent  decline,  except  possibly  the  Caucasus.  EU25 
shows a continuing decline, from a starting point that was already lower than that in other sub-regions, 
indicating that species in the EU25 are more threatened overall. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Red List Indices (RLIs) for birds in the EU25, EFTA4, E Europe, Caucasus and SE Europe 
during 1994-2004, based on their extinction risk at Pan-European level 

0.9400
0.9300
0.9200
0.9100

0.9000
0.8900
0.8800
0.8700
0.8600

1994

2004

1994

2004

1994

2004

1994

2004

1994

2004

EU25 (n = 460) EFTA4 (n = 317) Caucasus (n =

313)

E Europe (n =
397)

SE Europe (n =
390)

Source: BirdLife International 

Note: n = 522 species 

Country  groupings:  EU  25  (Austria,  Belgium,  Denmark,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Ireland,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  the 
Netherlands,  Portugal,  Spain,  Sweden,  the  United  Kingdom,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Hungary,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Malta,  Poland,  Slovakia,  Slovenia);  EFTA  (Iceland,  Liechtenstein,  Norway,  Switzerland);  Caucasus  (Armenia,  Azerbaijan, 
Georgia);  Eastern  Europe  (Belarus,  Republic  of  Moldova,  Russian  Federation,  Ukraine);  SE  Europe  (Albania,  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina, Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey). 

Notes: 

1.  The IUCN Red List categorises species as Extinct, Extinct in the Wild, Critically Endangered, 

Endangered, Vulnerable, Near Threatened, Least Concern, Data Deficient and Not Evaluated. 
The RLI is calculated from the number of species that moved between categories between 
assessments owing to genuine improvement or deterioration in status. If for more species the 
extinction risk has increased instead of decreased the RLI goes down. Extinction risk for this 
indicator is assessed at the European level, i.e. the risk that a species goes extinct in Europe 
(even if the species may survive in other regions of the world). 

2.  Decreasing RLI values means that the rate of biodiversity loss is increasing. No change in RLI 
values means that the expected rate of species extinctions is unchanged (it does not mean 
that biodiversity loss has stopped, or that the biodiversity will remain unchanged). Increasing 
RLI values means that there is a decrease in the expected future rate of species extinctions 
(i.e. a reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss). 

3.  To date, the Red List Index has only been calculated for bird species at European level, so the 

information in the current indicator is limited to European birds. 

Geographical coverage 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Weblink 

IUCN Red List: www.redlist.org 

Sources and references 

Europe's environment - The fourth assessment (2007) 

Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe (EEA 
Technical Report 11/2007). 

IUCN  (2003)  Guidelines  for  application  of  IUCN  Red  List  Criteria  at  regional  levels:  Version  3.0.  IUCN  Species 
Survival Commission. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom 

Butchart, S. H. M., Akçakaya, H. R., Chanson, J., Baillie, J. E. M., Collen, B., Quader, S., Turner, W. R., Amin, R., 
Stuart, S. N., Hilton-Taylor, C. and Mace, G. M. (2007) Improvements to the Red List Index. Public Lib. Sci. One 
2(1): e140. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000140 

Version 26 November 2008 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
03. Species of European Interest  

Key Policy Question: 

What is the conservation status of species of Community interest?  

Key message  

Around  half  of  the  species  of  Community  interest  (those  species  which,  within  the  territory  of  the 
European  Union  are  listed  in  Annexes  II,  IV  and  V  of  the  Habitats  Directive)  have  an  unfavourable 
conservation  status.  The  situation  may  even  be  worse,  since  there  are  still  significant  gaps  in 
knowledge, especially for marine species. 

Conservation Status – Species by Biogeographical Region 

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Unfavourable - Bad
Unfavourable - Inadequate
Not Assessed
Unknown
Favourable

Alpine

Atlantic

Boreal

ContinentalMacaronesianMediterranean Pannonic

Marine
Atlantic

Marine Baltic Marine

Macaron.

Marine
Mediterr.

EU

1196

786

545

1436

185

1152

460

123

19

56

117

6075

Numbers below the bars refer to the cumulated number of species assessments made by Member States. 

Source:  Data  provided  by  25  EU  Member  States  (EU27  except  Bulgaria  and  Romania  which  will  be  included  in  the  next 
reporting phase in 2013) through their reports under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. March 2008. 

How to read the graph: In the alpine region, around 30 % of species are in favourable status and less than 20 % are in 
unfavourable-bad status.  

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Conservation Status – Species by Taxonomic Group 

Unfavourable - Bad

Unfavourable - Inadequate

Not Assessed

Unknown

Favourable

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Mammals

Reptiles

Amphibians

1537

377

490

Fish

629

Arthropods

Molluscs

Vascular plants Non-vascular

Others

1008

242

1336

plants

415

41

Numbers below the bars refer to the cumulated number of species assessments made by Member States. 

Source:  Data  provided  by  25  EU  Member  States  (EU27  except  Bulgaria  and  Romania  which  will  be  included  in  the  next 
reporting phase in 2013) through their reports under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. March 2008. 

Assessment 

Unfavourable  status  is  most  frequently  reported  for  the  species  in  the  marine  Baltic  region  and  the 
continental region (over 80 and 60%, respectively).  The variation amongst species groups is limited, 
but amphibians appear to be most threatened, more than 60% having an unfavourable conservation 
status. Trend information was not available in most cases 

Note 

These graphs are based on assessments of species listed on Annexes II, IV and V of the Directive. 
Member States were required to assess each species in each biogeographical zone in which it exists 
in the country. The graphs therefore have multiple assessments of the same species in each column; 
e.g. 8 countries made assessments of otter (Lutra lutra) in the Atlantic biogeographical zone. In both 
graphs, the EU column is the total of all assessments in the other columns.  

Recovery to favourable conservation status will take a considerable time for many species. The next 
evaluation in six years will aid assessment of the efficiency of the Directive. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Geographical coverage 

Web links 

About Species of European Interest 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm  

About Biogeographical Regions 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/sites_hab/biogeog_regions/index_en.htm  

About conservation status assessment 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/rep_habitats/index_en.htm#csa 

http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-
2007/internet_consultation/draft_consultation/_EN_1.0_&a=d  

Version 26 November 2008 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
European  Headline  Indicator:  Trends  in  extent  of  selected  biomes,  ecosystems  and 
habitats 

04. Ecosystem coverage 

Key Policy Question: 

Which  changes  in  distribution  of  Europe's  ecosystems  and  habitats 
occur? 

Key message  

Built-up  areas,  infrastructure  and  woodland  are  increasing  whilst  agricultural  land,  semi-natural  and 
natural  habitats  decrease.  The  overall  statistics  hide  more  detailed  transition  patterns.  Wetlands,  for 
example, are mainly substituted by forest; other (semi-)natural areas give primarily way to agriculture. 

Land cover change: % net formation 1990-2000 (number of hectares in brackets) 

Mire, bog and fen habitats (-107044)

heathland, scrub and tundra (-298108)

Coastal habitats (-3231)

inland unvegetated or sparsely vegetated (-42197)

Cultivated, agriculture, horticulture (-801538)

Grassland (-223555)

Marine habitats (-6580)

Woodland and forest (603421)

Inland surface w ater (99513)

Constructed, industrial, artificial habitats (779362)

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

% change

Source: EEA 

Note: Based on Corine and LEAC (Land and Ecosystems Accounts) 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assessment 

The  figure  above  shows  land  cover  changes  between  1990  and  2000.  A  large  part  of  West  and 
Central  Europe  has  effectively  become  urban  in  character,  with  massive  sprawl  around  the  existing 
urban centres in much of lowland Europe, and along the coasts. In many places agriculture has been 
marginalised  as  an  economic  activity,  often  with  resulting  land  abandonment.  Elsewhere  new  areas 
may be taken into production, but on average the loss caused by land abandonment outweighs this.  
Forest cover in general has increased, about 8 000–9 000 km2
 per year since 1990. This expansion 
has  primarily  happened  in  the  EU  and  EFTA,  mainly  due  to  decreasing  grazing  pressure  and 
spontaneous re-growth, and afforestation on abandoned agricultural land.  

Source: Europe's environment - The fourth assessment (2007). 

Consumption of land cover (1990) by urban sprawl and sprawl of economic sites and 
infrastructures by 2000 (hectares) 

2465

4326

59667

7721

5479

86490

465170

Artificial areas

Arable land & permanent crops

Pastures & mosaics

Forested land

Semi-natural vegetation

Open spaces/ bare soils

Wetlands

Water bodies

346251

Source 

EEA, LEAC 

Note 

Based on Corine Land Cover. Between 1990 and 2000, 977569 hectares were "consumed" by urban sprawl 
and  sprawl  of  economic  sites  and  infrastructures.  The  pie  chart  shows  the  share  of  land  classes  in  this 
consumption. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Consumption of agricultural land cover (1990) by 2000 (% of surface consumed) 

0%

0%

4%

Urban land management

27%

Urban residential spraw l

Spraw l of economic sites and
infrastructures

Withdraw al of farming

Water bodies creation and
management

Changes of Land Cover due to
natural and multiple causes

38%

31%

Source 

EEA, LEAC 

Note 

Based on Corine Land Cover.  

Conversion of wetlands into other classes, 1990-2000 

Artificial surfaces
2%

Agricultural areas
7%

Water bodies
12%

Artificial surfaces

Agricultural areas

Forest and semi natural areas
Water bodies

Forest and semi 
natural areas
79%

Source: EEA 

Note: Corine land cover classes used in the figures above comprise the following: 

1. Artificial surfaces 

1.1. Urban fabric 

1.2. Industrial, commercial and transport 

1.3. Mine, dump and construction sites 

1.4. Artificial, non-agricultural vegetated areas 

2. Agricultural areas 

2.1. Arable land 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2. Permanent crops 

2.3. Pastures 

3. Forests and semi-natural areas 

3.1. Forests 

3.2. Shrub and/or herbaceous vegetation associations 

3.3. Open spaces with little or no vegetation 

4. Wetlands 

4.1. Inland wetlands 

4.2. Coastal wetlands 

5. Water bodies 

5.1. Inland waters 

5.2. Marine waters 

Geographical coverage 

Weblink 

Corine Land Cover: http://reports.eea.europa.eu/COR0-landcover/en  

Version 26 November 2008 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
05. Habitats of European Interest 

Key Policy Question: 

What is the conservation status of habitats of Community interest?  

Key message  

Between 40 and 80 % of habitats of Community interest (i.e. those habitats which, within the territory 
of  the  European  Union  are  listed  in  Annex  I  of  the  Habitats  Directive)  have  an  unfavourable 
conservation  status.  That  means  their  range  and  quality  are  in  decline  or  do  not  meet  the  specified 
quality criteria. There are still significant gaps in knowledge, especially for marine habitats.  

Conservation Status – Habitats by Biogeographical Region 

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Unfavourable - Bad
Unfavourable - Inadequate
Not Assessed
Unknown
Favourable

Alpine

Atlantic

Boreal

ContinentalMacaronesianMediterranean Pannonic

Marine
Atlantic

Marine Baltic Marine

Macaron.

Marine
Mediterr.

EU

496

518

307

642

49

520

127

34

23

6

34

2756

Numbers below the bars refer to the cumulated number of habitat assessments made by Member States. 

Source:  Data  provided  by  25  EU  Member  States  (EU27  except  Bulgaria  and  Romania  which  will  be  included  in  the  next 
reporting phase in 2013) through their reports under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. March 2008. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Conservation Status by main type of habitats 

Unfavourable - Bad
Unfavourable - Inadequate
Not Assessed
Unknown
Favourable

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Coastal

Dunes

Forests Bogs, mires

Freshwater Grasslands Heath &

351

257

577

& fens

273

361

414

scrub

134

Sclerophilus
scrub

Rocky
habitats

EU

115

274

2756

 Numbers below the bars refer to the cumulated number of habitat assessments made by Member States. 

Source:  Data  provided  by  25  EU  Member  States  (EU27  except  Bulgaria  and  Romania  which  will  be  included  in  the  next 
reporting phase in 2013) through their reports under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. March 2008. 

Assessment 

Between 40 and 60 % of habitats of terrestrial Alpine region and marine Macaronesian region are in a 
favourable status. In other regions (Atlantic, continental, Macaronesian and Pannonian) around 70 % 
of  habitats  listed  on  Annex  I  of  the  Directive  are  in  unfavourable  status.  Around  70  %  of  the  bogs, 
freshwater  habitats,  grasslands  and  dunes  are  in  unfavourable  status.  Trend  information  was  not 
available in most cases.  

Note:  

These graphs are based on Member State's assessments of habitats listed in Annex I of the Directive. 
Member States were required to assess each habitat in each biogeographical zone in which it exists in 
the  country.  The  graphs  therefore  have  multiple  assessments  of  the  same  habitats  in  each  column; 
e.g.  9  countries  made  assessments  for  habitat  1130  in  the  Atlantic  biogeographical  zone.  In  both 
graphs, the EU column is the total of all assessments in the other columns. Please note that during the 
drafting  of  this  report,  real  biogeographical  assessments  (based  on  MS  data)  were  developed,  but 
were not finalised in time for this report. For many habitats, recovery to favourable conservation status 
will take a considerable time; the next evaluation in six years will aid assessment of the efficiency of 
the Directive. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Geographical coverage 

Web links 

About Habitats of European Interest 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm  

About Biogeographical Regions 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/sites_hab/biogeog_regions/index_en.htm  

About conservation status assessment 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/rep_habitats/index_en.htm#csa 

http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-
2007/internet_consultation/draft_consultation/_EN_1.0_&a=d  

Version 26 November 2008 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
European  Headline  Indicator:  Trends  in  genetic  diversity  of  domesticated  animals, 
cultivated plants, fish species and trees of major socioeconomic importance 

06. Livestock genetic diversity 

Key Policy Question: 

Does the variety of European livestock breeds change? 

Key message  

In  several  countries,  native  breeds,  although  generally  well  adapted  to  local  circumstances  and 
resources,  remain  in  critically  low  populations,  being  replaced  by  a  few  and  widespread  highly 
productive breeds, introduced for the purpose. A small percentage of native breeds populations and a 
high percentage of native breeds that are endangered indicates a potential loss of biodiversity. Even if 
data are available for only a few countries, these show that many native cattle breeds are endangered. 
The situation is problematic also for sheep. Overall, the situation is stable but negative. 

Cattle genetic diversity in selected countries 

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1995 2000 2005 1995 2000 2005 1995 2000 2005 2001 2004 1995 2000 2005

France

Germany

Greece

Netherlands

Poland

Source 

ETC/BD and BRG Paris (Bureau des Ressources Génétiques) 

% of Cattle
Population
consisting of
native breeds

% of Native
Cattle Breeds
Endangered

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sheep genetic diversity in selected countries 

% of Sheep
Population
consisting of
native breeds

% of Native
Sheep Breeds
Endangered 

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1996 2000 2005 1997 2000 2005 1995 2000 2005 2001 2004 1995 2000 2005

France

Germany

Greece

Netherlands

Poland

Source 

ETC/BD and BRG Paris (Bureau des Ressources Génétiques) 

Assessment 

The situation of endangered breeds is highly variable across countries and between cattle and sheep. 
In Germany and France which have implemented breed conservation strategies and programmes, the 
situation  of  endangered  cattle  breeds  is  slightly  improving  while  it  tends  to  worsen  for  sheep.  In 
Poland, where conservation strategies are more recent, the situation fluctuates. 

Cattle  breeds  are  in  a  critical  and  stable  situation  in  Netherlands  and  in  Greece  Animal  breeds 
constitute  a  pool  of  genetic  resources  of  considerable  potential  value  in  a  changing  society  and 
environment. An increase in the proportion of introduced (non native) breeds shows a trend towards a 
homogenisation  of  the  genetic  pool  across  European  countries,  with  widespread  use  of  the  same 
highly productive breeds. Generally this happens at the expense of native breeds populations which 
have their own genetic characteristics, more specific to a country, and which contribute to the overall 
genetic  diversity  across  Europe.  Thus,  both  the  widespread  use  of  the  same  highly  productive 
introduced  breeds  and  the  decline  of  some  native  breeds  represent  a  risk  to  the  livestock  genetic 
diversity. 

While old native breeds may be less productive than highly specialised breeds, they are generally very 
well adapted to local circumstances and resources and may increase resilience in the long term.  

Breeds with a low population are in general more  vulnerable than those with a high population. The 
main  response  to  loss  of  breed  genetic  diversity  is  specific  conservation  programmes  for  native 
breeds. 

In the case of native breeds, the objective of all conservation programmes should be to increase the 
breeding female populations or at least to stabilise them. 

Setting  a  target  for  the  percentage  of  a  country’s  cattle  or  sheep  population  that  should  consist  of 
native species, is to some extent a societal choice. However, as regards the endangerment of native 
breeds, the target should be zero, if loss of genetic diversity is to be halted.  

This indicator should be interpreted with care at this stage: 

there is still no agreement among countries on the definition of “native breeds” / “non-native”. 
- 
The  figures provided  are  those reported  by  individual  countries, based on  their  own  definitions. This 
obviously determines the patterns seen in the graph. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
- 
breeds that is endangered, therefore this needs to be interpreted with care. 

Where native breeds go from endangered to extinct, this can reduce the proportion of native 

At EU level, the Community programme on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation 
of genetic resources in agriculture (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/index_en.htm), established by 
Council Regulation (EC) No 870/2004, co-funds actions for conserving genetic resources, increasing 
the  use  of  under-utilised  species  and  varieties  in  agriculture,  and  for  improving  the  coordination  of 
actions  in  the  field  of  international  undertakings  on  genetic  resources.  The  budget  allocated  to  this 
programme amounts to EUR 10 million.  

The  Community  programme  complements  the  actions  co-funded  by  the  new  Rural  Development 
39(5)] 
No 
Council 
(http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rurdev/leg/index_en.htm)  which  gives  opportunities  to  the  Member 
States for promoting actions in favour of the conservation of genetic resources in agriculture and the 
Framework Programmes of the European Community for Research and Technology Development. 

Regulation 

1698/2005 

[Article 

(EC) 

Geographical coverage 

Web links 

Bureau des Ressources Génétiques : http://www.brg.prd.fr/ 

FAO : http://www.fao.org/biodiversity/geneticresources/en/ 

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/index_en.htm 

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rurdev/leg/index_en.htm 

Sources and references  

ETC/BD and BRG Paris 

Version 26 November 2008 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
European Headline Indicator: Coverage of protected areas 

07. Nationally designated protected areas 

Key Policy Question: 

What is the progress with the national designation of protected areas 
as a tool for biodiversity conservation? 

Key message 

The total area of nationally-designated protected areas in Europe1 has increased over time. The total 
area of nationally designated sites in 39 European countries was around 1 million square kilometres in 
2007. In EECCA countries, the total area of nationally designated sites is at least 1.8 million square 
kilometres (30 % of sites have no size information).  

This quantitative information needs to be complemented by a qualitative assessment of the efficiency 
and the representativeness of the network of designated areas including good management practices. 

Growth of the nationally designated protected areas in 39 EEA countries 

1 200 000

1 000 000

800 000

2

m
k

,

a
e
r
A

600 000

400 000

200 000

0

1895

1905

1915

1925

1935

1945

1955

1965

1975

1985

1995

2005

Source: CDDA (Common Database on Designated Areas) v7, 2007 

80 000

70 000

60 000

50 000

40 000

30 000

20 000

10 000

0

s
e

t
i
s

f

o

r
e
b
m
u
N

1 

A  “Nationally  designated  area”  is  an  area  designated  by  a  national  designation  instrument  based  on  national 
legislation. If a country has included in his legislation the sites designated under the EU Birds and Habitats directive, 
the Natura 2000 sites of this country is included in the figure. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Assessment 

In 39 countries, on average 16 % of the terrestrial area has been designated as a national protected 
area. 

The growth in nationally designated areas in 39 EEA countries has been exponential, and it has been 
levelling off in recent years. A precise assessment of trends over time is much more difficult to make 
for  EECCA  countries  (source:  WDPA  December  2007  for  EECCA  countries  (except  Kyrgyzstan, 
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan)) because of gaps in the data. These countries contain around 18000 sites 
covering  in  total  1.8  million  square  kilometres.  However,  for  more  than  2  thirds  of  the  sites  no 
designation date is known, and for a third of the sites no size information is known. 

Countries have national legislation that enables them to establish various types of protected areas. For 
nationally-designated protected areas, the total area protected in Europe continues to increase.  

On one hand it is difficult to know exactly how far these areas contribute to halt the loss of biodiversity 
without any specific information on site management and quality. On the other hand, other indicators 
can  show  how  much  pressure  on  biodiversity  outside  those  areas  increases  through  growing 
urbanisation and transport infrastructures for instance. 

Therefore,  the  expansion  of  protected  areas  and  their  role  in  protecting  biodiversity  have  to  be 
considered and assessed within the wider environment. 

Geographical coverage 

Web links 

About Nationally designated areas 

European dataset http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/dataservice/metadetails.asp?id=1017  

Global dataset  
http://www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/index.htm?http://www.unep- wcmc.org/wdpa/download.cfm~summary_tab  

Version 26 November 2008 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
08. Sites designated under the EU Habitats and Birds 
Directives 

Key Policy Question: 

Have countries proposed sufficient sites under the Habitats and Birds 
Directives? 

Key message  

By mid 2008, the level of sufficiency in designating Natura 2000 sites is high for most EU-27 countries 
(21  countries  have  sufficiency  above  80%)  and  the  new  Member  States  (EU  10+2)  are  doing  well 
given their recent accession.  

The  proposals  are  evaluated  as  sufficient  or  not  in  terms  of  representativeness  of  species  and 
habitats. To reach the full sufficiency, Member States may have to make additional proposals. 

At EU level, around 10 % of the terrestrial territory is designated under the Birds directive and around 
13 % under the Habitats directive. 

State of progress by Member State in reaching sufficiency  

for the Habitats directive Annex I habitats and Annex II species  

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

Source: DG ENV, marine area excluded, June 2008 

How  to  read  the  graph:  Sites  proposed  by  Denmark  are  sufficient  to  cover  habitats  and  species  of  the  directive  present  in 
Denmark.  Sites  proposed  by  Czech  Republic  only  cover  60  %  of  species  and  habitats  from  the  directive  present  in  Czech 
Republic. Czech Republic must make additional proposals of sites to reach 100 % of sufficiency. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assessment 

The evaluation of sufficiency is based on the range of each species and habitat in the full territory of 
each  Member  State  (MS)  and  within 
the  sites  proposed  by  each  Member  State.  The 
representativeness  is  assessed  by  experts  during  scientific  seminars  led  by  the  European 
Commission. Only terrestrial habitats and species are evaluated because marine areas are still under 
consideration. If the assessment is insufficient, proposed sites must be enlarged or new sites must be 
proposed to include a bigger proportion of species population or habitat area. 

At  biogeographical  level,  Macaronesian  and  black  sea  regions  are  complete  but  other  regions  need 
additional proposals through the Member States. 

State of progress by Biogeographical region in reaching sufficiency  

for the Habitats directive Annex I habitats and Annex II species  

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

i

n
a
s
e
n
o
r
a
c
a
M

a
e
S
k
c
a
B

l

n
a
e
n
a
r
r
e
t
i
d
e
M

l

a
e
r
o
B

Source: DG ENV, marine area excluded, June 2007 

i

e
n
p
A

l

c
i
t
n
a
l
t

A

i

c
p
p
e
t
S

i

n
a
n
o
n
n
a
P

l

a
t
n
e
n
i
t
n
o
C

How to read the graph: Sites proposed within the Atlantic region are insufficient to cover habitats and species of the directive 
present in this region. Member States of this region must make additional proposal of sites to reach 100 % of sufficiency. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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
1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

June
2008

Ro mania

B ulgaria

Slo venia

Slo vakia

P o land

M alta

Lithuania

Latvia

Hungary

Esto nia

Czech Republic

Cyprus

United Kingdo m

Sweden

P o rtugal

Netherlands

Luxembo urg

Italy

Ireland

Greece

France

Finland

Spain

Denmark

Germany

B elgium

A ustria

Source: DG ENV, SCIs database & SPAs database, all EU27, June 2008 

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

500 000

400 000

300 000

a
h
X
0
0
1

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

June 2008

Source: DG ENV, SCIs database & SPAs database, all EU27, June 2008  

Assessment 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
There was a steady increase in the cumulative area of the Natura 2000 network over the past years. 
Sites of Community Importance increased in coverage from 45 to more than 65 million hectares and 
Special  Protected  Areas  increased  from  approximately  29  million  hectares  to  50  million  hectares. 
These  increases  are  mainly  due  to  the  10  new  countries  joining  the  EU  in  2004  and  Bulgaria  and 
Romania in 2007, but also due to new designations of protected areas by Member States particularly 
under the Birds Directive.  

As  of  June  2008,  eight  Member  States  had  designated  more  than  15  %  of  their  territory  as  SCIs: 
Slovenia (31.4 %); Bulgaria (26.5 %); Spain (23.64 %); Portugal (17.4 %); Estonia (16.8 %); Greece 
(16.4  %);  Luxembourg  (15.4);  and  Hungary  (15.0  %).  As  SPAs,  only  four  Member  States  had 
designated more than 15 % of their territory: Slovakia (25.1 %); Slovenia (23 %), Bulgaria (20.4%) and 
Spain (19.1 %). 

Geographical coverage 

Web links 

About Sites of Community Importance and Special Protected Areas 

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

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

About Biogeographical Regions 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/sites_hab/biogeog_regions/index_en.htm  

Version 26 November 2008 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FOCAL AREA: THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY 

European Headline Indicator: Nitrogen Deposition 

09. Critical load exceedance for nitrogen 

Key Policy Question: 

Where  in  Europe  does  atmospheric  nitrogen  deposition  threaten 
biodiversity?  

Key message  

Eutrophying nitrogen emissions and deposition nitrogen compounds have decreased since 1990 but 
relatively little compared to sulphur emissions. With sulphur emissions declining, nitrogen is now the 
principal  acidifying  component  in  our  air.  Agriculture  and  transport  are  the  main  sources  of  nitrogen 
pollution (EEA, 2007). Critical load exceedance is still significant.2 

Total emissions of acidifying substances (sulphur, nitrogen) and of nitrogen in the EEA-32 for 
1990- 2004 

Source: EEA/ETC ACC 

Assessment 

Across  the  EU-25,  the  proportion  of  (semi-)natural  ecosystem  areas  subject  to  nutrient  nitrogen 
deposition beyond their critical load was approximately 47% in 2004 (CCE/EMEP, 2007). Ecosystem 
types in use by European countries for critical load calculations are forests, marine & coastal habitats, 
littoral  zones,  mire,  bog  &  fen  habitats,  grasslands  &  tall  forb  habitats,  heathland,  scrub  &  tundra 

2 

The critical load of nutrient nitrogen is defined as ‘the highest deposition of nitrogen as NOx and/or NHy below which 
harmful effects in ecosystem structure and function do not occur according to present knowledge’ (ICP M&M, 2004). 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
habitats, inland un-vegetated or sparsely vegetated habitats, agricultural habitats, inland and surface 
water  habitats  (for  details  see  CCE,  2007).  The  height  of  the  exceedance  of  critical  loads  varies 
significantly across Europe. 

Exceedance of critical loads of nutrient nitrogen for the most sensitive ecosystems in each 50 
x 50 km grid cell 

Source: Critical loads by CCE and deposition data by EMEP/MSCW (figure from EEA, 2007). 

Note:  2004  EMEP  deposition  data.  Eq  ha-1  a-1  =  N  equivalence  per  ha  per  year.  The  CCE  does  not  use  this  kind  of  (5-
)percentile maps anymore for the critical load and critical load exceedance calculations. The average accumulated exceedance 
(AAE) is now used (see CCE, 2007). The 2008 update of EEA CSI 005 will also use this approach.  

Notes: 

The  nitrogen  critical  load  indicator  has  been  developed  within  the  Coordination  Centre  for  Effects 
(CCE).  The  CCE  is  the  Data  Centre  of  the  International  Cooperative  Programme  on  Modelling  and 
Mapping of Critical Levels and Loads and Air Pollution Effects, Risks and Trends (ICP Modelling and 
Mapping,  ICP  M&M).  CCE  supports  the  work  of  the  Convention  on  Long-range  Transboundary  Air 
Pollution (LRTAP) of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). The indicator is 
also  part  of  the  EEA’s  core  set  indicator  (CSI)  005  ‘Exposure  of  ecosystems  to  acidification, 
eutrophication and ozone’. CSI 005 is  in the process of being updated in close cooperation with the 
CCE. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Geographical coverage 

Web links 

RAINS/GAINS (CIAM): 
EMEP/MSCW:  
CCE:  

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/rains/ 
http://projects.dnmi.no/~emep/ 
http://www.mnp.nl/cce/ 

Sources and references  

EEA (2007): Air Pollution in Europe 1990 – 2004. EEA Report No 2/2007. 
CCE/EMEP (2007): personal communication; input to EEA, 2007. 
CCE  (2007):  Critical  Loads  of  Nitrogen  and  Dynamic  Modelling.  CCE  Progress  Report  2007.  MNP  Report 

ICP M&M (2004): Manual on the methodologies and criteria for modelling critical loads and critical levels and air 

500090001/2007. 

pollution effects, risks, and trends 
http://www.oekodata.com/icpmapping/index.html 

Version 26 November 2008 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Headline Indicator: Trends in invasive alien species 

10. Invasive alien species in Europe 

Key Policy Question: 

Is  the  number  of  alien  species  in  Europe  increasing  or  decreasing? 
Which  invasive  alien  species  should  be  targeted  by  management 
actions? 

Key message  

The  cumulative  number  of  alien  species  introduced  has  been  constantly  increasing  since  the  1900s 
(based on data from 5 Nordic countries for terrestrial and freshwater species,3 and from all European 
regional seas (including estuarine waters). While the increase may be slowing down or levelling off for 
terrestrial  and  freshwater  species,  this  is  certainly  not  the  case  for  marine/estuarine  species. 
According  to  experience  a  relatively  constant  proportion  of  the  alien  species  established  create  a 
significant damage to native biodiversity, i.e. can be classified as invasive alien species according to 
the Convention on Biological Diversity. This increase in the number of alien species established thus 
implies a constantly growing risk of damage to native biodiversity caused by invasive alien species. 

Whilst the majority of the ca 10 000 alien species recorded in Europe have not (yet) been found having 
major  impacts,  some  are  highly  invasive.  To  identify  the  most  problematic  species  to  help  prioritise 
monitoring,  research  and  management  actions,  a  list  of  ‘Worst  invasive  alien  species  threatening 
biodiversity in Europe’ presently comprising 163 species/species groups has been established. 

Assessment 

The  data  for  the  indicator  cumulative  number  of  alien  species  established  in  Europe  comprise  all 
European  countries  with  marine/estuarine  waters  but  for  terrestrial  and  freshwater  only  5  European 
countries. 

Nevertheless the indicator could be considered fairly representative for the European area. The data 
coverage on cumulative numbers of alien species established in Europe is expected in near future to 
be  expanded  to  more  European  countries.  The  trend  in  establishment  of  new  species  indicates  that 
the situation is far from under control, with impacts on biodiversity expected to increase because of the 
growing number of species involved, and an increasing vulnerability of ecosystems to invasions, which 
results  from  other  pressures  such  as  habitat  loss,  degradation,  fragmentation,  over-exploitation  and 
climate change. Particularly worrying is the situation in marine and island ecosystems. 

The number of invasive alien species establishing in Europe should be minimized and management 
actions should bring down the impact of at least the worst invasive alien species to acceptable levels. 
There  is  however  no  quantitative  target  for  this  indicator.  The  list  of  ‘worst  invasive  alien  species 
threatening  biodiversity’  identifies  species  which  should  be  a  priority  for  more  detailed  monitoring, 
research  and  management.  The  163  species/species  groups  on  the  present  list,  of  which  vascular 
plants  are  the  biggest  taxonomic  group  with  39  species,  are  judged  to  have  a  significant  impact  on 
native  biodiversity  at  the  genetic,  species  or  ecosystem  levels,  and  may  also  affect  human  health, 
society or the economy. The map below shows a preliminary estimate of the number of these worst 
invasive  species  in  European  countries.  Main  conclusion  of  the  map  is  that  fairly  high  numbers  of 
listed species can be found in all European countries. These country figures are only rough indications 
of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions. 

3 

While  the  NOBANIS  database  covers  13  countries,  currently  only  data  for  Denmark,  Iceland,  Norway,  Sweden  and 
Finland were available to calculate the indicator. 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
There  is  a  consensus  (e.g.  in  the  context  of  the  Convention  on  Biological  Diversity)  that  the  best 
strategy  addressing  invasive  alien  species  would  be  control  of  pathways  of  introduction  to  prevent 
establishment of new alien species. Prospects of eradication of established alien species are best at 
an  early  stage  (or  in  limited  areas  such  as  small  islands).  An  early  warning  system  identifying 
potentially invasive alien species, including newly established ones and/or species to be expected to 
spread would be of high value in this context. This indicator therefore will need to be complemented by 
an indicator showing European/EU and the countries’ development and implementation of strategies 
to manage the problem of invasive alien species. 

Cumulative number of alien species established in terrestrial environment 

i

s
e
c
e
p
s

f
o

r
e
b
m
u
N

2000

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Primary producers & fungi 

Invertebrates

Vertebrates

1900-1909
>1900

1910-1919

1920-1929

1930-1939

1940-1949

1950-1959

1960-1969

1970-1979

1980-1989

1990-1999

2000-
unknown

Year of introduction

Source: EEA/SEBI2010; NOBANIS. 

Note: Geographic coverage: Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland. 

Note: The period 2000- comprises only species established up to 2006. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cumulative number of alien species established in freshwater environment 

i

s
e
c
e
p
S

f
o

r
e
b
m
u
N

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Primary producers 

Invertebrates

Vertebrates

2000-

1900-1909
>1900

1910-1919

1920-1929

1930-1939

1940-1949

1950-1959

1960-1969

1970-1979

1980-1989

1990-1999

Year of Introduction

Source 

EEA/SEBI2010; NOBANIS. 

Note Geographic coverage: Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland. 

Note: The period 2000- comprises only species established up to 2006. 

Alien species in European marine/estuarine Waters (April 2007) 

i

s
e
c
e
p
s

f
o

r
e
b
m
u
N

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Source 

Primary producers

Invertebrates

Vertebrates

<1900

1900-
1909

1910-
1919

1920-
1929

1930-
1939

1940-
1949

1950-
1959

1960-
1969

1970-
1979

1980-
1989

1990-
1999

2000-
2006

SEBI 2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species, based on national data sets (e.g. Germany, Denmark, UK) available on the 
internet; review papers (e.g. Netherlands, Turkey); NEMO database for the Baltic; Black Sea database; HCMR data base for the 
Mediterranean;  project  reports  (e.g.  ALIENS);  and  contributions  of  experts  for  France,  Spain,  Russia  during  a  dedicated 
workshop. 

Note: Geographic coverage: All European countries with marine/estuarine waters. Casual species are to some extent included. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Number of the listed worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity in Europe per 
country  

Notes 

1.  The  threat  by  invasive  alien  species  is  considered  one  of  the  major  global  pressures  on 
biodiversity  (Millennium  Ecosystem  Assessment,  2005).  Invasive  alien  species  are  such  species 
which introduction and/or spread outside the natural distribution range threaten biological diversity 
(Convention  on  Biological  Diversity:  Invasive  Alien  Species  http://www.biodiv.org/invasive, 
accessed  August  2008).  Most  recent  introductions  have  happened  unintentionally  and  are 
connected  to  the  globalization  of  trade,  transport  and  tourism.  Not  all  alien  species  become 
invasive,  but  an  increasing  number  of  alien  species  presents  and  increasing  risk  of  an  invasive 
species damaging native biodiversity. 

2.  Based  on  a  wide  consultation  of  European  experts  on  invasive  alien  species,  a  list  of  'worst 
invasive alien species threatening biodiversity in Europe' has been drawn up to document those 
invasive alien species that to date most significantly negative impact biological diversity in Europe. 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Geographical coverage 

Marine species 

Terrestrial and freshwater species 

Web links 

North European and Baltic Network on Invasive Alien Species (NOBANIS): www.nobanis.org/ 

DAISIE (Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe): http://www.europe-aliens.org/ 

Sources and references  

EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species. 

http://biodiversity-chm.eea.europa.eu/information/indicator/F1090245995/fol365614/F1115192484 

Europe's environment - The fourth assessment (2007);  

Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: Proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe (EEA 
Technical Report 11/2007);  

MA, 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity 

Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. 

Version 26 November 2008 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Headline Indicator: Impact of climate change on biodiversity 

11. Occurrence of temperature-sensitive species 

Key Policy Question: 

What  are  the  negative  (and  positive)  impacts  of  climate  change  on 
biodiversity? 

Key message 

n/a 

The SEBI 2010 process recommended an indicator be developed that represents abundance 
of a selected set of species that are specifically sensitive to climate change (e.g. because they 
live in ephemeral habitats, or have limited capacity for dispersal). The indicator that is included 
in the SEBI 2010 Technical report (Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: proposal for a first 
set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe (EEA Technical Report 11/2007)) does show 
potentially negative impacts (thermophilic species spread and may stress existing local plant 
species) but will be replaced by an indicator that measures such impacts more directly when it 
becomes available. 

Assessment 

n/a 

Version 26 November 2008 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FOCAL  AREA:  ECOSYSTEM  INTEGRITY  AND  ECOSYSTEM  GOODS  AND 
SERVICES 

European Headline Indicator: Marine Trophic Index 

12. Marine Trophic Index of European seas 

Key Policy Question: 

What  is  the  impact  of  existing  fisheries  and  maritime  policies  on  the 
health of fish stocks in European seas? 

Key message  

In the majority of European seas, the Marine Trophic Index declined since the mid 1950s showing that 
predatory  fishes  decline  to  the  benefit  of  small  fishes  and  invertebrates.  A  multispecies  fishery  can 
safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keeps going 
down. 

Marine Trophic Index for selected European seas (1) 

I

T
M

4

3

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

Source: www.seaaroundus.org 

Baltic

Iceland shelf

Barents

Black sea

Celtic-Biscay shelf

Greenland sea

North sea

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Marine Trophic Index for selected European seas (2) 

Faroe plateau

Iberian coastal

Mediterranean

Norw egian sea

I

T
M

4

3

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

Source: www.seaaroundus.org  

Assessment 

The decline in MTI is at different rates in different seas, and 4 seas show no overall change in their 
MTI since 1950. More analysis of the individual fisheries is required to assess causes of declines and 
effects in the marine ecosystem in more detail. Figures 1-2 above show the MTI in European seas for 
two  groups  of  seas.  Seas  have  been  grouped  according  to  the  evolution  in  their  MTI  since  1950. 
Figure 1 shows seas with strong declines in the MTI. Figure 2 shows those seas where the trend is 
more  stable.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  trend  since  1950  is  different  for  most  seas  from  the  trend 
considered over a short time period (since 2000).  

The  levelling  off  since  2000  however  may  still  mean  that  biodiversity  has  significantly  been  lost, 
because large declines had already happened before 1950 (e.g. the North Sea). The increase in the 
Barents and Norwegian sea since 1980 and the Greenland sea and Iceland shelf since 2000 is in any 
case a positive sign for biodiversity. It is also worth noting that when a country halts the fishery of a 
species with a low Trophic Level, the MTI will go up, which distorts the message. 

For the EU, Member States will make an integrated 'initial assessment' of the environmental situation 
of their marine waters pursuant to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive Art. 8 by mid-2012. 

Note: 

1.  Preferred  fish  catches  consist  of  large,  high  value  predatory  fishes,  such  as  tuna,  cod,  sea 
bass and swordfish. The intensification of fishing has led to the decline of these large fishes, 
which are high up in the food chain. As predators are removed, the relative number of small 
fish and invertebrates lower in the food chain increases, and the mean trophic level (i.e. the 
mean  position  of  the  catch  in  the  food  chain)  of  fisheries  landings,  goes  down.  The  mean 
trophic level of a species is a calculated value which reflects the species abundance balance 
across  a  trophic  range  from  large  long  lived  and  slow  growing  predators  to  fast  growing 
microscopic  primary  producers  and  is  therefore  a  reflection  of  the  biodiversity  status  of  the 
system.  It  is  derived  by  assigning  a  numerical  trophic  level  to  selected  taxa,  established  by 
size, diet or nitrogen isotope levels. 

2.  The  MTI  thus  describes  a  major  aspect  of  the  complex  interactions  between  fisheries  and 
marine  ecosystems  and  communicates  a  measure  of  species  replacement  induced  by 
fisheries. What is most important in the MTI is the trend, rather than the specific value. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
3.  Some  improvements  of  this  indicator  (calculating  an  MTI  using  commercial  landings  and 
existing lists of trophic level of adult fish by species as well as supplementary indicators have 
been suggested. Some of these will be explored during 2008-2009. 

4.  For this assessment, data for the following European seas were used: 

•  Arctic ocean 
•  Baltic 
•  Barents 
•  Black sea 
•  Celtic-Biscay shelf 
•  Faroe plateau 
•  Greenland sea  
Iberian coastal 
• 
• 
Iceland shelf 
•  Mediterranean 
•  Norwegian sea 
•  North Sea 

Geographical coverage 

Web links 

Marine Trophic Index at the Sea Around Us project: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx  

Sources and references  

Pauly,  D.  and  R.  Watson.  2005.  Background  and  interpretation  of  the  ‘Marine  Trophic  Index'  as  a  measure  of 
biodiversity, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2005) 360, 415–423. 

Version 26 November 2008 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
European Headline Indicator: Connectivity/ Fragmentation of ecosystems 

13. Fragmentation of natural and semi-natural areas 

Key Policy Question: 

How fragmented are European natural and semi natural landscapes? 

Key message and smiley 

n/a 

There  have  been  methodological  problems  with  the  indicator  proposed  in  the  SEBI  2010 
Technical report (Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: proposal for a first set of indicators 
to monitor progress in Europe (EEA Technical Report 11/2007)). The Report suggested that 
other  measurements  of  ecosystem  integrity  should  be  proposed  especially  dealing  with 
fragmentation  /  connectivity  in  relation  to  species.  Indicators  that focus  on  ecologically  more 
relevant  characteristics  than  'mean  habitat  patch  size’  have  been  developed  and  tested  and 
will later in 2008 be calculated for natural and semi-natural areas (cf. the JRC Ispra work on 
change in spatial pattern of selected ecosystems (see http://forest.jrc.it/biodiversity/)). 

Assessment 

n/a 

Version 26 November 2008 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
14. Fragmentation of river systems 

Key Policy Question: 

How  fragmented  are  rivers  in  Europe,  thus  potentially  affecting  the 
fish species living in them?  

Key message  

n/a 

This indicator is not yet available.  

Assessment 

n/a 

Version 26 November 2008 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Headline Indicator: Water quality in aquatic ecosystems 

15. Nutrients in transitional, coastal and marine waters 

Key Policy Question: 

What  is  the  status  of  transitional,  marine  and  coastal  waters  in 
Europe? 

Key message  

Concentrations  of  oxidized  nitrogen  and  orthophosphate  in  transitional,  coastal  and  marine 
waters  have to  a  large  extent  (85  and  82%  of  stations  respectively)  remained unchanged  in 
countries  that  have  reported  data.  In  stations  with  changes,  decreases  were  more  common 
than increases.  

Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the 
Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-
2005

E
N

c
i
t
n
a
l
t

A

Ireland (71)
United Kingdom (2)
Open sea (40)

a
e
S
c
i
t
l
a
B

n
a
e
n
a
r
r
e
t
i
d
e
M

a
e
S
h
t
r
o
N

Denmark (46)
Estonia (3)
Finland (111)
Germany (21)
Lithuania (8)
Poland (14)
Sw eden (37)
Open sea (90)

Greece (6)
Italy (72)
Open sea (1)

Belgium (22)
Denmark (21)
Germany (23)
Netherlands (29)
Norw ay (15)
Sw eden (14)
United Kingdom (2)
Open sea (97)

Decrease

No trend

Increase

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source 

EEA Waterbase/Core Set Indicator 21 (Nutrients in transitional, coastal and marine waters) 

Note 

For  some  countries  the  data  include  stations  with  observations  made  in  2005,  for  some  only  up  to  2004.  The  full  data  set  is 
available 
via 
http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132008/IAssessment1116503188454/view_content  

Countries  included  in  the  analysis:  Belgium,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  Germany,  Greece,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom. Bulgaria, France, Iceland, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain 
and Turkey. 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Trends in mean winter time orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the 
Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 

E
N

c

i
t
n
a
l
t

A

Ireland (71)
United Kingdom (2)
Open sea (40)

a
e
S

c

i
t
l
a
B

n
a
e
n
a
r
r
e
t
i
d
e
M

a
e
S
h
t
r
o
N

Denmark (46)
Estonia (3)
Finland (118)
Germany (21)
Latvia (1)
Lithuania (8)
Poland (12)
Sweden (48)
Open sea (90)

Greece (6)
Italy (63)
Open sea (1)

Belgium (22)
Denmark (21)
Germany (24)
Netherlands (29)
Norway (15)
Sweden (14)
United Kingdom (2)
Open sea (99)

Source 

Decrease

No trend

Increase

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

EEA Waterbase/Core Set Indicator 21 (Nutrients in transitional, coastal and marine waters) 

Note 

For some countries the data include stations with observations made in 2005, for some only up to 2004. The full data set is 
available via  
http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132008/IAssessment1116503188454/view_content 

Countries included in the analysis: Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Netherlands,  Norway,  Poland,  Sweden,  United  Kingdom.  Bulgaria,  France,  Iceland,  Malta,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovenia, 
Spain and Turkey. 

Assessment 

12% of stations report a decreasing trend in oxidised nitrogen concentrations, reported to the EEA in 
2005, increasing trends were found at 3% of stations, and the majority of stations (85%) indicate no 
statistically significant change.  

Decreasing  trends  in  orthophosphate  concentrations  were  found  at  11%  of  stations,  increasing 
concentrations were found at 7% of stations, and the majority of stations (82%) indicate no statistically 
significant change in orthophosphate concentration. 

Nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) enrichment can result in a chain of undesirable effects, starting with 
excessive growth of plankton algae that increases the amount of organic matter settling to the bottom. 
This accumulation may be enhanced by changes in species composition and functioning of the pelagic 
food  web,  which  leads  to  lower  grazing  by  copepods.  The  consequent  increase  in  oxygen 
consumption can lead to oxygen depletion, changes in community structure and death of the benthic 
fauna. 

For  the  EU,  the  Water  Framework  Directive  will  bring  in  better  information  on  ecological  status  of 
transitional and coastal waters. 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Geographical coverage 

Web links 

EEA 
21: 
http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132008/IAssessment1116503188454
/view_content 

CSI 

Sources and references  

Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe (EEA 
Technical Report 11/2007) and EEA Core Set Indicator 21 (Nutrients in transitional, coastal and marine waters). 

Version 26 November 2008 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
16. Freshwater quality 

Key Policy Question: 

What is the status of freshwater in Europe? 

Key message  

Pollution  of  rivers  with  organic  matter  and  ammonium  is  decreasing,  and  nutrients  in  freshwater 
(rivers,  lakes  and  groundwater)  are  decreasing.  This  reduces  stress  on  freshwater  biodiversity  and 
improves ecological status.  

Fig. 1: Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) and total ammonium concentrations in rivers 
between 1992 and 2006 

]
l
/
2
O
g
m

[
5
D
O
B

5.5

5

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

l
/

N
g
µ

[

i

m
u
n
o
m
m
a

l

a
t
o
T

   BOD5 (1806)

   Total ammonium (2247)

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Source: Waterbase Version 7 

Note 

Number of river monitoring stations included in analysis noted in brackets. BOD5 data from Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, 
Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, FYR of Macedonia, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and 
United  Kingdom.  BOD7  data  from  Finland,  Estonia,  Latvia  (1996-2001)  and  Lithuania  (1996-2005).  BOD7  data  were 
recalculated  into  BOD5  data.  Total  ammonium  data  from  Albania,  Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland, 
France,  Germany,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  FYR  of  Macedonia,  Netherlands,  Norway,  Poland, 
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom.4 

4 

Concentrations are expressed as the station weighted mean of the annual mean concentrations by countries. Stations 
with 
included.  The  number  of  available  mean 
concentrations/stations per year is different, except for Luxembourg and Norway with constant number. 

time  series  consisting  of  minimum  seven  years  are 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Assessment 

BOD  and  total  ammonium  concentration  have  decreased  in  European  rivers  in  the  period  1992  to 
2005,  corresponding  to  the  general  improvement  in  wastewater  treatment.  BOD  and  ammonium 
concentration  are  generally  highest  in  eastern,  southern  and  south-eastern  European  rivers.  The 
largest  declines  in  BOD  and  ammonium  concentration  are  evident  in  the  rivers  of  the  Western  and 
Eastern European countries, respectively.  

BOD and ammonium concentration are key indicators of organic matter and oxygen content of water 
bodies. The values of these normally increase as a  result of organic pollution caused by discharges 
from waste water treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Severe organic pollution 
may  lead  to  rapid  de-oxygenation  of  river  water,  a  high  concentration  of  ammonia  and  the 
disappearance of fish and aquatic invertebrates. 

The  most  important  sources  of  organic  waste  load  are:  household  waste  water;  industries  such  as 
paper  industries  or  food  processing  industries;  and  occasionally  silage  effluents  and  slurry  from 
agriculture. Increased industrial and agricultural production, coupled with a greater percentage of the 
population  being  connected  to  sewerage  systems,  initially  resulted  in  increases  in  the  discharge  of 
organic waste into surface water in most European countries after the 1940s. Over the past 15 to 30 
years, however, the biological treatment of waste water has increased, and organic discharges have 
consequently decreased throughout Europe. 

Fig. 2: Concentrations of nitrate in European rivers and lakes in the period 1992-2005 

)
l
/

N
g
m

(

s
r
e
v
R

i

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

)
l
/

N
g
m

(

s
e
k
a
L

Rivers (1473)

Lakes (369)

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

Source: Waterbase Version 6 

Note 

Concentrations  are  expressed  as  annual  mean  concentrations  for  groundwater,  and  station  weighted  mean  of  annual  mean 
concentrations for rivers and lakes. Only stations with time series consisting of minimum seven years are included. The number 
of stations included per country is given in parenthesis.5 

Nutrients  in  freshwater  (rivers,  lakes  and  groundwater)  are  decreasing.  The  average  nitrate 
concentration  in  European  rivers  has  decreased  approximately  10 %  since  1998  from  2.8  to  2.5  mg 
N/l, reflecting the effect of measures to reduce agricultural inputs of nitrate. Nitrate levels in lakes are 
in general much lower than in rivers, but also in lakes there has been a 15 % reduction in the average 
nitrate concentration.  

5

Nitrate in rivers//total oxidized nitrogen*: AT (145), BE (23), BG (82), CZ (70), DE (125), DK* (39), EE (53), FI* (131), 
FR  (287),  GB*  (139),  HU  (98),  LT  (64),  LU  (3),  LV  (47),  NL*  (9),  NO  (10),  PL  (104),  SE*  (113),  SI  (24),  SK  (52). 
Nitrate/total oxidized nitrogen* in lakes: DE (6), EE (5), FI (21), GB (21), HU (16), LT (8), LV (8), NL* (7) NO (92), SE* 
(181), SL (4). 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Agriculture  is  the  largest  contributor  of  nitrogen  pollution,  and  due  to  the  EU  Nitrate  Directive  and 
national measures the nitrogen pollution from agriculture has been reduced in some regions during the 
last 10-15 years, this reduced pressure is reflected in lower river and lake nitrate concentrations. Also 
the European air emissions of nitrogen oxides have been reduced by one third over the last 15 years 
and the deposition of nitrogen on inland surface waters have decreased.  

Fig. 3: Concentrations of phosphorus (OP (orthophosphate) or TP (total phosphorus)) in 
European rivers and lakes in the period 1992-2005 

)
l
/

P
g
m

(

s
r
e
v
R

i

0.250

0.200

0.150

0.100

0.050

0.000

0.050

0.040

0.030

0.020

0.010

0.000

)
l
/

P
g
m

(

s
e
k
a
L

Rivers OP (1402)

Lakes TP (469)

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Source: Waterbase Version 6 

Note 

Concentrations  are  expressed  as  annual  mean  concentrations  for  groundwater,  and  station  weighted  mean  of  annual 
mean concentrations for rivers and lakes. Only stations with time series consisting of minimum seven years are included. 
The number of stations included per country is given in parenthesis.6 

Phosphorus concentrations in European rivers and lakes generally decreased during the last 14 years, 
reflecting  the  general  improvement  in  wastewater  treatment  and  reduced  phosphate  content  of 
detergents  over  this  period.  In  many  rivers  the  reduction  started  in  the  1980s.  During  the  past  few 
decades  there  has  also  been  a  gradual  reduction  in  phosphorus  concentrations  in  many  European 
lakes.  The  decrease  is  due  to  the  measures  introduced  by  national  and  European  legislation,  in 
particular  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive,  which  involves  the  removal  of  nutrients.  As 
treatment of urban wastewater has improved and many waste water outlets have been diverted away 
from  lakes,  point  sources  pollution  is  gradually  becoming  less  important.  Agricultural  sources  of 
phosphorus are still important and need increased attention to achieve good status in lakes and rivers.  

Improvement of the status of groundwater is also important as it can be a source of nitrate in rivers 
adversely  affecting  associated  river  and  lake  water  bodies,  wetlands  and  dependent  terrestrial 
ecosystems. At the European level, annual mean nitrate concentrations in groundwater have remained 
relatively stable since the mid-1990s after an increase during the first half of the 1990s. 

6 

Orthophosphate in rivers: AT (134), BE (26), BG (64), CZ (65), DE (133), DK (40), EE (53), FI (116), FR (241), GB 
(69), HU (98), LT (64), LV (47), NO (10), PL (100), SE (113), SI (23), SK (6). 
Total phosphorus in lakes: AT (5), DE (7), DK (23), EE (5), FI (207), GB (18), HU (10), IE (7), LT (7), LV (8), NL (7), 
SE (165). 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Geographical coverage 

Total ammonium concentrations (Fig.1) 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) (Fig. 1) 

Concentrations of nitrate (Fig. 2) 

Concentrations of phosphorus (Fig. 3) 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Web links 

EEA Core Set indicators 
http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007131940/IAssessment1116505271445/view_cont
ent and   
http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007131957/IAssessment1116497150363/view_cont
ent  

Sources and references  

Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe (EEA 
Technical Report 11/2007)  

Version 26 November 2008 

EN 

52 

   EN