Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Options for an EU vision and target for biodiversity beyond 2010
Date: 2010-01-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, biodiversity, degradation of the environment, ecosystem, environmental impact, environmental protection, sustainable development

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 19.1.2010 
COM(2010) 4 final 

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

Options for an EU vision and target for biodiversity beyond 2010 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Biodiversity – the variety of ecosystems, species and genes – is the world’s natural capital. It 
is  integral  to  sustainable  development  by  providing  vital  goods  and  services,  such  as  food, 
carbon sequestration, and seas and water regulation that underpin economic prosperity, social 
well-being and quality of life. Together with climate change, loss of biodiversity is the most 
critical global environmental threat and gives rise to substantial economic and welfare losses. 

In  2001,  the  EU  set  itself  the  target  to  halt  biodiversity  loss  in  the  EU  by  2010.  In  2002,  it 
signed  up  to  a  global  target  of  significantly  reducing  biodiversity  loss  worldwide  by  2010. 
Efforts  to  tackle  biodiversity  loss  were  subsequently  stepped  up,  and  an  EU  Biodiversity 
Action Plan (BAP) was adopted by the Commission in 2006 to accelerate progress1. 

Despite the efforts to date, however, there are clear indications that the EU will not achieve its 
target2. 

At its March 2009 meeting on the environment, the Council called for a new EU vision and 
target  for  biodiversity,  building  on  and  contributing  to  the  international  deliberations  on  a 
global vision for biodiversity beyond 2010 as part of an updated strategic plan to be adopted 
by  the  end  of  2010  to  implement  the  United  Nations  Convention  on  Biological  Diversity 
(CBD). 

Consultations with stakeholders on development of a post-2010 biodiversity policy have been 
held  in  recent  months.  At  EU  level,  the  high-level  stakeholder  conference  organised  by  the 
Commission  in  Athens  on  26  and  27  April  2009  was  a  milestone.  The  resultant  ‘Message 
from Athens’ underlines the need for a post-2010 target. 

This Communication is a first step towards this objective. It presents options for development 
of  a  post-2010  EU  vision  and  target.  It  aims  to  facilitate  further  informed  debate  by 
identifying  the  issues  at  stake  and  laying  out  the  work  that  is  needed  to  be  able  to  set  and 
realise  ambitious  EU  goals.  Based  on  this  debate,  and  further  work  to  provide  the  evidence 
necessary  to  underpin  the  choice  among  different  levels  of  ambition  for  an  EU  target,  the 
Commission will present an EU biodiversity strategy by the end of the year. 

2. 

THE CASE FOR BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION 

Biodiversity status and trends in Europe and globally 

2.1. 
Several  authoritative  reports3  confirm  that  global  biodiversity  remains  under  severe  threat, 
with  losses  occurring  at  100  to  1 000  times  the  normal  rate.  More  than  a  third  of  species 
assessed  are  facing  extinction  and  an  estimated  60%  of  the  Earth’s  ecosystems  have  been 
degraded in the last 50 years, with consequences for the ecosystems services that depend on 
them.  Marine  biodiversity  is  also  under  pressure,  and  approximately  90%  of  the  planet’s 
biomass  lives  in  the  ocean.  Habitat  destruction,  fragmentation  and  degradation  caused  by 
land-use  change,  over-exploitation,  unsustainable  practices  (e.g.  overfishing),  invasive 
species,  ocean  acidification,  pollution  and,  increasingly,  climate  change  are  the  strongest 
pressures  on  biodiversity.  The  current  rate  of  population  growth  and  growing  per  capita 
consumption  together  with  insufficiently  developed  market  structures  and  institutions  to 

1 
2 
3 

COM(2006) 216. 
COM(2008) 864. 
‘Growing within limits’, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, October 2009; ‘Millennium 
Ecosystem Assessment’, 2005; ‘IUCN Red List’, November 2009. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
allocate natural resources optimally are driving biodiversity loss, with resources being used up 
faster than they can be replaced. 

There  is  mounting  evidence  that  the  status  of  many  ecosystems  is  reaching  or  has  already 
reached  the  point  of  no  return4.  In  the  same  way  that  a  2 degree  rise  in  global  temperature 
above pre-industrial levels would lead to catastrophic climatic change, the loss of biodiversity 
beyond  certain  limits  would  have  far-reaching  consequences  for  the  very  functioning  of  the 
planet. These limits are still being defined, but it is already clear to the scientific community 
that the current rate of biodiversity loss puts the future well-being of citizens in the EU and 
worldwide at risk. 

In  Europe,  conservation  assessments  of  species  and  habitats  show  that,  despite  some 
successes, the overall situation has continued to deteriorate. The first large-scale assessment 
of  Europe’s  most  vulnerable  habitats  and  species  protected  under  the  Habitats  Directive 
showed that only 17% had a favourable conservation status, as required under the Directive. 
Grasslands,  wetlands,  estuary  and  coastal  habitats  are  at  greatest  risk5.  The  rate  of  loss  of 
marine biodiversity is also alarming. In the case of ecosystem services in the EU, there is, for 
instance, evidence that the carbon storage capacity of certain soils in arable land, which are 
heavily  dependent  on  soil  biodiversity,  is  decreasing6.  Appropriate  forms  of  land  and 
maritime management are needed to maintain and enhance ecosystems that provide ecosystem 
services to society at large. Important marine and coastal ecosystems services such as those 
provided by salt marshlands may also be lost with the disappearance of coastal wetlands. 

2.2. 

Implications of biodiversity loss 

As well as having intrinsic value, biodiversity delivers 'value' through ecosystem services, for 
example through the provision of food and water, by offering natural protection from floods 
and storms, and by regulating the climate. 

The  environmental  implications  of  biodiversity  loss  range  from  micro-level  changes  to  the 
collapse  of  entire  ecosystems  and  services,  which  could  eventually  impact  our  future 
prosperity. Although the role of biodiversity in maintaining ecosystem functioning is not fully 
understood, scientific evidence shows that ecosystems characterized by high species diversity 
are  more  productive,  more  stable  and  resilient,  less  vulnerable  to  external  stresses  and 
pressures and they contribute to a higher overall ecosystem functionality7. Since nature is both 
the most effective climate regulator and the largest carbon sink, biodiversity loss jeopardises 
climate  objectives.  Strong  and  resilient  ecosystems  are  our  life  insurance  against  climate 
change, providing a ‘natural fix’ for mitigating and adapting to its consequences8. 

There  are  also  economic  costs  associated  with  biodiversity  loss  and  ecosystem  degradation 
that,  until  recently,  have  been  largely  overlooked.  The  annual  loss  of  ecosystem  services  is 
estimated  equivalent  to  €50  billion,  while  by  2050  the  cumulated  welfare  losses  were 
estimated  equivalent  to  7%  of  GDP9.  Biodiversity  is  not  only  valuable  in  its  own  right,  but 
also  the  source  of  ecosystem  services  that  provide  valuable  inputs  to  the  economy  that  are 
often not recognised by markets. Proper valuation of ecosystem services is therefore essential. 

4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

9 

‘A safe operating space for humanity’, Nature, 23 September 2009. 
COM(2009) 358. 
CLIMSOIL: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/review_en.htm. 
‘Biodiversity and ecosystem functionality’, Nature, 12 July 2007. 
‘Convenient solutions to an inconvenient truth: ecosystem-based approaches to climate change’, World 
Bank,  2009;  ‘TEEB  Climate  Issues  Update’,  September  2009;  ‘The  Natural  Fix?  The  role  of 
ecosystems in climate mitigation’, UNEP, June 2009. 
COM(2009) 400. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
This is also a key interim finding of an international study on ‘The Economics of Ecosystems 
and Biodiversity’ (TEEB)10.  

Also,  since  biodiversity  provides  many  of  the  same  services  as  man-made  technological 
solutions, often at significantly lower cost, protecting and restoring biodiversity provide some 
cost-effective opportunities for climate change mitigation or climate change adaptation11. As 
natural resources are inputs to a wide range of economic activities, restoring their status and 
enhancing  their  use  may  raise  productivity  or  develop  new  sources  of  growth,  through  eco-
innovation process. 

Finally, biodiversity and ecosystem services make a crucial contribution to human well-being. 
They secure the livelihoods of millions all round the world and are essential to reduce poverty 
and  achieve  the  millennium  development  goals.  Biodiversity  is  also  a  food  resource-base. 
Genetic  diversity,  in  particular,  acts  as  a  buffer  against  crop  losses  caused  by  pests  and 
diseases and against climate change, thereby safeguarding food security. In the EU, decline in 
the  viability  of  farming  practices  favourable  to  biodiversity  led  to  the  loss  of  some  critical 
ecosystem  services  in  rural  areas  and  of  fertile  agricultural  land,  with  land  abandonment 
causing  economic  and  social  losses  in  rural  communities  in  particular.  In  the  marine 
environment  the  situation  is  similar  for  some  fishing  communities  that  have  been  severely 
affected  by  the  depletion  of  fish  stocks.  These  jobs  are  at  risk  if  ecosystems  continue  to 
degrade. Coastal ecosystems help reduce the vulnerability of coastal communities to extreme 
weather events, mitigate coastal erosion, provide healthy habitats for fish stocks, and have a 
significant capacity to store carbon dioxide. 

2.3. 

Achievements and shortcomings of the current policy 

Biodiversity is a key environmental priority of the EU and its objectives are integrated in the 
EU  Sustainable  Development  Strategy.  The  EU  2010  target  was  the  prime  catalyst  for 
development of the Biodiversity Action Plan in 2006 and the increased efforts to implement 
fully  the  EU  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives  which,  together,  form  the  backbone  of  the  EU 
nature  conservation  legislation.  The  EU’s  Natura  2000  network,  which  covers  17%  of  the 
EU's  territory  and  is  the  largest  network  of  protected  areas  in  the  world,  is  a  success  story. 
The ecosystem approach is at the basis of the Water Framework Directive12 and the Marine 
Strategy  Framework  Directive13,  which  aim  at  achieving  good  status  of  ecosystems,  having 
regard  to  cumulative  pressures.  Other  benefits  have  and  will  continue  to  come  from 
implementation of legislation focusing on reducing certain pollutants and of other legislation 
that benefits biodiversity, efforts to better reflect biodiversity concerns in other policy areas, 
such as the common fisheries policy since the 2002 reform, and greater financial opportunities 
in favour of biodiversity under various EU policies, including the common agricultural policy 
(CAP). 

Efforts have also been made to reduce the impact of production and consumption patterns on 
biodiversity both within and outside the EU. For example, the Sustainable Consumption and 
Production  Action  Plan  aims  at  harnessing  internal  market  forces,  whereas  the  Forest  Law 
Enforcement Governance and Trade Action Plan (FLEGT) and the proposed regulation laying 

10 

11 

12 
13 

‘TEEB Interim Report’, May 2008; ‘TEEB for Policy-Makers’, November 2009: 
http://www.teebweb.org. 
For  instance,  investments  from  restoring  tropical  forests  show  very  high  returns:  typical  costs  stand 
around 3 500 $/ha, whereas conservative estimates of annual benefits from public goods and services of 
these ecosystems, from carbon capture to flood and erosion control, fall in the range of 7 000 $/ha. 
Directive 2000/60/EC. 
Directive 2008/56/EC. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market seek to 
put a stop to the erosion of natural capital stock. 

Yet,  despite  these  achievements,  several  factors  have  prevented  the  EU  from  achieving  its 
2010 target and need to be addressed in the biodiversity policy for the period beyond 2010. 

First, there are still implementation gaps in establishment of the Natura 2000 network, which 
is not set to be complete on land until 2010 and at sea until 2012. Targeted measures under the 
EU nature conservation legislation have proved capable of reversing the decline in threatened 
species and habitats, but there have been delays and problems with implementation, including 
insufficient resources allocated to this effort. 

Second,  major  policy  gaps  remain  to  be  addressed.  In  particular,  the  policies  on  soils  and 
invasive  species  require  further  development,  as  they  are  crucial  to  addressing  biodiversity 
loss.  So  far,  at  EU  level,  related  requirements  of  cross-compliance  have  been  established 
under  the  common  agricultural  policy.  Nor  does  the  current  policy  sufficiently  address 
ecosystem services. These will not be sustained by biodiversity conservation measures alone: 
high  levels  of  species  and  habitat  conservation  are  just  one,  key,  component,  but  many 
services  are  provided  outside  protected  areas.  As  a  step  towards  filling  this  gap,  the 
Commission  will  complete  a  first  set  of  biophysical  maps  of  ecosystem  services  and  the 
European  Environment  Agency  (EEA)  will  finalise  its  ongoing  work  on  auditing  and 
measuring ecosystem services by the end of 2010.  

Moreover,  while  EU  regulations  contribute  to  ensuring  that  the  environmental  impacts  of 
infrastructure  development  and  spatial  planning  at  EU  level  are  minimised,  further  benefits 
could be reaped from better coordination, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, with 
the  development  of  and  investment  in  ‘green  infrastructure’14  in  the  83%  of  EU  territory 
falling outside the Natura 2000 network. Such an approach would call for the restoration of 
ecosystems  insofar  as  possible  to  strengthen  their  resilience  and  sustain  key  services  they 
provide, while also achieving conservation objectives and enabling Member States to adapt to 
climate change. The Commission is promoting and supporting exchanges of best practice as a 
basis for an EU strategy on green infrastructure to be developed after 2010. 

Third,  although  a  great  deal  of  information  has  been  gathered  since  the  2010  target  was 
adopted, significant knowledge and data gaps remain at all levels – Member State, EU and 
global. Data gathering, analysis and validation have not followed a comprehensive approach 
due  to  the  complexity  of  biodiversity,  which  cannot  be  reduced  to  a  single  variable  but 
requires  development  of  a  set  of  inter-related  indicators.  In  addition,  reporting  by  Member 
States  under  the  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives  has  been  uneven,  as  have  biodiversity 
monitoring efforts.  

Work is now gathering pace to develop a baseline and related indicators within the EU and at 
global level. A set of European indicators are being developed which, together with the data 
gathered  for  implementation  of  the  Habitats  Directive,  which  are  likely  to  be  the  most 
advanced in the world. In June 2010, the EEA will finalise the first EU biodiversity baseline, 
launch a Biodiversity Information System for Europe (BISE) and produce a strategic plan to 
fill  the  gaps,  in  particular  indicators  for  ecosystems  and  ecosystem  services.  In  the  marine 
environment, many ecosystems and habitats are poorly understood, species un-described, and 
knowledge  of  marine  genetic  resources  is  in  its  infancy.  The  Marine  Strategy  Framework 

14 

‘Green  infrastructure’  is  an  interconnected  network  of  natural  areas,  including  agricultural  land, 
greenways,  wetlands,  parks,  forest  reserves,  native  plant  communities  and  marine  areas  that  naturally 
regulate storm flows, temperatures, flood risk and water, air and ecosystem quality. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Directive  will  lead  to  a  better  assessment  and  monitoring  of  changes  in  coastal  and  marine 
ecosystems,  including those  resulting  from climate change and impacts on biodiversity, and 
should  benefit  from  efforts  such  as  the  European  Marine  Observation  and  Data  Network 
(EMODNET) and Maritime Spatial Planning. 

At  global  level,  the  EU  is  supporting  efforts  to  establish  an  Intergovernmental  Platform  on 
Biodiversity  and  Ecosystem  Services 
the 
InterGovernmental  Panel  on  Climate  Change  (IPCC).  It  should  build  strong  consensus  by 
validating  the  existing  scientific  evidence  and  contribute  to  mainstreaming  and  integrating 
biodiversity and ecosystem services into policy making processes to ensure long-term human 
wellbeing. A decision on whether or not to establish IPBES is expected in spring 2010. 

the  success  of 

replicate 

(IPBES) 

to 

Fourth,  integration  of  biodiversity  concerns  into  other  policies  must  be  improved.  The 
evolution  of  biodiversity  is  a  good  indicator  of  the  environmental  friendliness  of  human 
activity and society. Action to address problems in other policy areas has sometimes proved 
incompatible  with  biodiversity  objectives  and  even  had  perverse  effects.  The  benefits  that 
resilient  ecosystems  provide  are  often  overlooked.  More  needs  to  be  done  to  engage  other 
sectors systematically in formulating responses to the biodiversity challenge, underpinned by 
clear  indicators  to  measure  progress.  Policies  for  biodiversity  and  other  policies  must  be 
coherent and mutually reinforce each other. 

Addressing  the  problems  identified  in  the  Green  Paper  on  reform  of  the  common  fisheries 
policy  is  a  priority  in  order  to  deliver  an  ecologically  sustainable  policy  in  2012  based  on 
scientific advice and effectively tackling overcapacity, and to better contribute to biodiversity 
targets. Strengthening rural development policy with a view to developing ecosystem services 
by preserving and enhancing farming and forestry with a high nature value in the context of 
the  CAP  is  essential.  It  will  also  be  important  to  optimise  use  of  the  Structural  Funds, 
enhancing complementarities and synergies between various strands of Community and other 
co-financing mechanisms to promote biodiversity objectives across all regions in the EU. 

Further integration is a priority in external policy and in other policies closely interlinked with 
biodiversity. In addition to stepping up efforts to reduce the negative impact of these policies 
on biodiversity in the EU and globally15, more awareness is needed about the implications of 
biodiversity loss for the long-term sustainability of activities resulting from these policies, as 
well  as  the  economic  benefits  they  can  harness  from  healthy  ecosystems.  This  heightened 
awareness is also of crucial importance for developing countries that are directly affected by 
the effects of biodiversity loss. 

Fifth,  funding  needs  for  biodiversity  in  the  EU  must  be  properly  assessed,  also  taking  into 
account  the  welfare  benefits  that  ecosystems  deliver.  With  regard  to  Natura  2000  sites,  the 
Commission  is  carrying  out  an  assessment  of  financing  needs  for  the  management  of  such 
sites based on input from Member States to obtain an accurate picture of the magnitude and 
distribution  of  needs.  Early  estimates  show  that  only  20%  of  the  total  financing  needs  for 
managing protected areas in Europe are being met. In this regard, Member States could more 
systematically take advantage of the possibilities offered under rural development funding for 
agri-environment measures, including Member States with widespread areas of biodiversity-
rich ‘high nature value’ farmland. 

Finally, the issue of equity should be considered within the EU and at the global level. Given 
that  biodiversity  is  not  evenly  spread  and  that  trends  differ  from  one  region  to  another,  the 

15 

The EU’s ecological footprint is 4.7 global hectares per person, or double the EU’s biological capacity, 
according to the EU footprint indicator. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
burden of tackling the challenge is also spread unequally. This calls for a diversified policy 
toolbox  combining  regulation  with  market-based  instruments.  In  addition  to  the  important 
‘polluter  pays’  and  ‘full  cost-recovery’  principles  already  enshrined  in  environmental 
legislation,  equity  would  suggest  the  enhanced  application  of  payments  for  ecosystem 
services to reward those whose land provides these services from those who benefit.  

At global level, the EU is committed to securing a successful outcome in 2010 from ongoing 
negotiations  under  the  UN  CBD  on  access  to  genetic  resources  and  the  fair  and  equitable 
sharing  of  benefits  derived  from  their  use.  It  is  also  committed  to  making  a  success  of 
negotiations  on  reducing  emissions  from  deforestation  and  forest  degradation  and  including 
conservation as an essential first step towards a broader approach to valuating and rewarding 
ecosystem  services.  The  promise  of  permaculture  as  an  effective  protector  and  restorer  of 
biodiversity should be explored and enhanced. The EU also needs fully to assess the impact of 
its consumption patterns on biodiversity beyond its borders. 

3. 

OPTIONS FOR A POST-2010 EU VISION AND TARGET FOR BIODIVERSITY 

3.1. 

Towards a vision for 2050 

There is broad consensus among stakeholders on what should be the main features of the new 
EU  long-term  vision  for  biodiversity.  The  vision  should  include  a  clear  time-frame  (up  to 
2050),  reflect  the  urgency  of  the  biodiversity  crisis  and  the  intrinsic  and  tangible  values  of 
biodiversity  and  the  importance  of  the  services  it  provides.  It  should  be  understandable  and 
acceptable to the public, and should apply to the EU and global levels. 

On this basis, the following elements could be used in preparing for an EU vision for 2050 in 
order to underpin the headline target to be set and help turn the vision into reality: 

Biodiversity and ecosystem services – the world’s natural capital – are preserved, valued 
and, insofar as possible, restored for their intrinsic value and so that they can continue 
to  support  economic  prosperity  and  human  well-being  as  well  as  avert  catastrophic 
changes linked to biodiversity loss. 

Discussions are underway at global level on a target for 2020. Against this background, the 
Commission  considers  that  the  EU  should  have  a  target  and  the  options  set  out  below  take 
2020 as a non-adjustable variable to ensure the relevance of the EU target in the international 
negotiations. Ten years is also the minimum needed to design, implement and assess action in 
the  field  of  biodiversity,  where  responses  are  often  slow  and  highly  variable,  and  to  make 
measurable and realistic progress. Moreover, other policies with strong links to biodiversity 
policy are also working with 2020 as their time-frame. 

The 2020 headline target should be effective at securing progress towards turning the vision 
into  reality;  it  should  be  measurable,  achievable  and  cost-effective  and  should  contribute  to 
meeting the EU’s international commitments on biodiversity. 

Some of these criteria are inversely correlated. For instance, a low target might be more likely 
to be achieved, but is less likely to avoid reaching biodiversity ‘tipping points’. These factors 
need to be weighed against each other to assess the overall suitability of the options proposed 
and decide the best target. 

3.2. 

Levels of ambition 

Four levels of ambition for a 2020 headline target are presented below in increasing order. 

Option 1. 
in the EU by 2020 

Significantly reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Option 2. 

Halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU by 2020 

Option 3. 
restore them insofar as possible 

Halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU by 2020 and 

Halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU by 2020 and 
Option 4. 
restore  them  insofar  as  possible,  and  step  up  the  EU's  contribution  to  averting  global 
biodiversity loss 

The  four  levels  of  ambition  will  bring  different  benefits  and  costs  and  will  require  the 
development  of  more  or  less  stringent  policy  actions  and  instruments.  They  build  upon  a 
common policy baseline that includes existing EU nature conservation and other biodiversity-
related  legislation  plus  legislation  in  other  relevant  policy  areas,  in  particular  climate  and 
energy,  the  existing  CAP  and  the  reform  of  the  CFP.  It  should  be  a  priority  to  seize  all 
opportunities  to  make  progress  towards  biodiversity  policy  goals  while  at  the  same  time 
delivering  cost-effective  climate  change  mitigation  and  adaptation.  Since  addressing  certain 
pressures impacting biodiversity in the EU also requires international cooperation, also it will 
be important to deliver on existing international commitments, in particular under multilateral 
environmental agreements such as the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), the Ramsar 
Convention  on  Wetlands  and  the  African-Eurasian  Migratory  Waterbirds  Agreement,  and 
make further progress on the establishment of marine protected areas at international level. 

All four options require establishment of a scientific baseline on the state of biodiversity and 
ecosystem services in Europe. This is essential in order to be able to measure progress. The 
baseline will not consist of a single number, but will be based on the current status of the main 
attributes  of  biodiversity:  conservation  of  species  and  habitats,  ecosystems  and  the  most 
critical  ecosystem  services.  Similarly,  ‘halting  the  loss’  of  biodiversity  is  not  interpreted  in 
absolute  terms,  but  means  keeping  key  attributes  above  the  baseline.  There  is  already 
knowledge  available  for  setting  a  clear  and  reliable  baseline,  but  further  work  is  needed  to 
translate this knowledge into specific, measureable and policy responsive indicators. 

Research  also  needs  to  be  stepped  up  to  fill  key  knowledge  gaps.  These  relate  to  the 
economics of biodiversity and ecosystem services, development and fine-tuning of indicators 
to allow measurability and defining how much pressure biodiversity can withstand before its 
loss becomes irreversible – with potentially catastrophic consequences. If established in 2010, 
an  Intergovernmental  Platform  on  Biodiversity  and  Ecosystem  Services  (IPBES)  would 
contribute greatly to these efforts, but action at EU level is also necessary. Ongoing work on 
all these issues needs to be intensified and completed. 

Finally,  although  conservation  must  remain  a  key  pillar  of  EU  biodiversity  policy,  any  new 
target  must  factor  in  the  role  of  ecosystems  and  ecosystem  services.  The  importance  of 
ecosystem services is already recognised in the current policy and is for instance an important 
element of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, as a part of the EU Integrated Maritime 
Policy16, but this has not yet sufficiently been turned into specific measures. It is important to 
identify and assess key ecosystem services and to factor them in to the future target. The level 
of ambition required by the target set will determine the degree to which they will be factored 
in, ranging from maintenance to full restoration. 

16 

COM(2009)540 final, 15.10.2009.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(Option 1) 
in the EU by 2020 

Significantly reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services 

This  option  would  imply  political  acceptance  that  halting  biodiversity  loss  in  the  EU  is 
unattainable  for  the  foreseeable  future,  and,  therefore,  setting  a  less  ambitious  target  of 
'significantly reducing' the rate of biodiversity loss by 2020. The aim would be to slow, rather 
than stop, biodiversity loss. The implication is that biodiversity would not necessarily be kept 
above  the  baseline.  The  extended  time-frame  would  allow  more  time  for  action  already 
implemented  or  being  implemented  to  take  effect,  making  it  easier  to  demonstrate  success. 
New knowledge and developments that have emerged since the 2010 target was set could be 
factored in to measures taken to achieve the target.  

(Option 2)  Halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU by 2020 

This  option  would  entail  keeping  the  current  target,  but  postponing  achievement  to  a  later 
date.  Like  option  1,  this  would  allow  more  time  for  actions  already  implemented  or  being 
implemented to take effect and for new knowledge and developments to be factored in. The 
aim would be the same as that of the 2010 target: to halt the loss of biodiversity, but also of 
ecosystem  services  in  the  EU.  Achievement  of  the  target  would  lead  to  recovery  of  certain 
ecosystems and of the services they support. 

(Option 3)  Halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU by 2020 and 
restore them insofar as possible 

This  option  would  involve  maintaining  the  existing  biodiversity  target  and  extending  the 
deadline  to  2020,  while  broadening  its  scope  to  encompass  the  need  to  ensure  that  key 
ecosystem services provided by biodiversity in the EU are sufficiently delivered and requiring 
restoration of ecosystems where they are failing to provide the services needed. Production of 
a first list and mapping of ecosystem services of EU importance by the end of 2010 will also 
help  to  define  the  scope  of  the  maintenance  and  restoration  efforts  needed  to  achieve  the 
objective. 

Restoration objectives could be set based on the requirement to attain favourable conservation 
status  for  species  and  habitats  as  defined  in  the  Habitats  Directive.  The  current  status  of 
species and habitats as assessed by recent reporting under the Habitats Directive could serve 
as a benchmark.  

This option recognises the scientific imperative of halting further biodiversity loss and factors 
in the significance of ecosystems of strategic importance to the EU. 

(Option 4)  Halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU by 2020 and 
restore  them  insofar  as  possible,  and  step  up  the  EU's  contribution  to  averting  global 
biodiversity loss 

This  option  goes  further  than  option  3:  it  recognises  that  it  is  in  the  EU’s  interest  to  take 
action  to  address  biodiversity  loss  not  only  within  the  EU,  but  also  beyond  its  borders. 
Recognising  that  most  of  the  world’s  biodiversity  is  found  outside  the  EU,  tackling 
biodiversity  loss  within  the  EU  alone  will  not  be  sufficient  to  avert  severe  consequences  of 
continued loss on a global scale. This option calls  for  stepping up EU action to address the 
global biodiversity crisis. 

This may entail measures aimed at further reducing the impact of EU consumption patterns on 
biodiversity  elsewhere  in  the  world  and  enhancing  efforts  to  protect  biodiversity  in  other 
countries, including through specific instruments. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
4. 

NEXT STEPS 

The setting of a post-2010 vision and target is not an end in itself. It marks the beginning of a 
process to put a new EU biodiversity strategy in place by the time the current target runs out. 

There  is  no  easy  way  to  tackle  biodiversity  loss  effectively.  An  evidence-based,  integrated 
approach is needed that focuses on addressing the main pressures exerted on biodiversity and 
ecosystem services by specific sectors – land-use change, over-exploitation, invasive species, 
pollution and climate change. Sub-targets will need to be devised for each kind of pressure, 
sector  or  ecosystem,  combined  with  cost-effective  action  at  the  appropriate  level  of 
intervention to deliver the desired results. 

One  thing  is  already  clear:  equitable  policy  solutions  tailored  to  each  specific  situation  will 
need to be considered. In other words, action and implementation will be needed at multiple 
levels:  international,  EU,  national  and  sub-national.  The  approach  taken  in  the  EU  BAP  to 
share  responsibility  for  implementation  between  all  sectors  and  establish  partnerships  with 
Member  States  remains  fully  relevant.  This  will  require  an  effective  governance  framework 
involving all actors concerned at different levels. 

The  Commission  will  continue  its  work  in  the  course  of  2010,  including  through  further 
stakeholder consultations, to establish the evidence base necessary to further define the new 
EU  policy  framework.  This  will  also  contribute  to  the  EU's  strategy  and  objectives  for 
negotiating the future international biodiversity framework. 

EN 

10 

   EN