COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT UPDATE OF SEBI 2010 BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS  Accompanying document to the  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  THE 2010 ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTING THE EU BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN
Date: 2010-10-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, biodiversity, climate change, deforestation, degradation of the environment, ecosystem, environmental impact, environmental protection, forest conservation, sustainable development

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 8.10.2010 
SEC(2010) 1165 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

UPDATE OF SEBI 2010 BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS 

Accompanying document to the 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 

THE 2010 ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTING THE EU BIODIVERSITY ACTION 
PLAN 

COM(2010) 548 
 SEC(2010) 1163 
 SEC(2010) 1164 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Streamlining European 2010 Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) fact sheets............3 

Headline indicator: trends in abundance and distribution of selected species..............4 

Headline indicator: trends in extent of selected biomes, ecosystems and habitats.......7 

Headline indicator: Coverage of protected areas........................................................11 

Headline indicator: water quality in aquatic ecosystems............................................13 

Headline indicator: Ecological Footprint and biocapacity of European countries .....17 

Headline indicator: public awareness and participation .............................................20 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

STREAMLINING  EUROPEAN  2010  BIODIVERSITY  INDICATORS  (SEBI  2010) 
FACT SHEETS 

This  accompanying  document  contains  the  2010 update  of  six  fact  sheets”  of  the  SEBI 
2010 biodiversity indicators.  

The SEBI 2010 process was initiated in 2005 to provide a streamlined set of biodiversity 
indicators  for  Europe,  ensuring  consistency  between  national  and 
international 
biodiversity indicators sets 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 
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. 

to  monitor  progress 

indicators 

set  of 

for  a 

first 

The SEBI assessment report 2009 concluded that the 2010 target to halt biodiversity loss 
in Europe would not be met (EEA Report/n°4/2009). 

Based  on  the  best  available  sources  of  information,  including  the  set  of  SEBI  2010 
indicators,  the  European  Environment  Agency  (EEA)  has  published  the  EU  2010 
biodiversity  baseline  in  June  2010  to  support  post-2010  policy  development.  The  EU 
2010 biodiversity baseline provides the latest information on the state of biodiversity and 
ecosystem  services  within  the  EU.  It  is  available  from  the  Biodiversity  Information 
System  for  Europe  (BISE)1,  the  single  entry  point  for  data  and  information  on 
biodiversity and ecosystems in the EU, also launched in June 2010.  

1 

http://www.biodiversity.europa.eu/ 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

HEADLINE  INDICATOR:  TRENDS  IN  ABUNDANCE  AND  DISTRIBUTION  OF  SELECTED 
SPECIES  

2.1. 

01 Abundance and distribution of selected species 

Key policy question: Have declines in common species in Europe been halted? 

Key message:  

Overall,  populations  of  common  birds  in  the  European  Union  countries  reduced  by  around 
10 % since 1990. Common farmland and forest birds declined by some 20-25 %. Falls have 
levelled  off  since  the  late  1990s.  Europe’s  grassland  butterflies  have  declined  dramatically 
(almost 70 %) since 1990 and this reduction shows no sign yet of levelling off. 

Trends in the common bird indicators for the European Union, base = 1990 
(numbers in brackets show the number of species in each indicator) 

Common bird indicators

105

100

95

90

85

80

75

70

65

60

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

All common species (136 species)
Common forest species (29 species)

Common farmland species (36 species)

Note: How to read the graph: since 1990 the number of common farmland and forest birds 
have declined by around 20 %. 

Source: Eurostat, 2010 (env_bio2) - EBCC/RSPB/BirdLife/Statistics Netherlands.  

Geographical  coverage:  Belgium,  Bulgaria  Finland,  Netherlands,  Portugal,  Republic  of 
Ireland,  Sweden,  Switzerland,  Czech  Republic,  Italy,  Latvia,  Spain,  Norway,  United 
Kingdom, France, Denmark, Poland, Germany, Estonia, Hungary. 

For  common  farmland  bird  species,  n=36;  for  common  forest  bird  species,  n=29;  for  all 
common  bird  species  (this  line  includes  the  farmland  and  forest  birds  as  well  as  other 
common species that are not primarily associated with either of these habitats), n=136. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
Grassland butterflies, population index (1990 = 100) 

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
1990

B utterfly C o nservatio n Euro pe / Statistics Netherlands

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

Source: De Vlinderstichting/Butterfly Conservation Europe/ Statistics Netherlands, 2010.  

Note: How to read the graph: since 1990, grassland butterflies have declined by almost 70 %. 
For this graph, the data used for grassland butterfly species were from Butterfly Monitoring 
Schemes in fifteen countries: Belgium – Flanders (since 1991); 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  (Phengaris 
nausithous  only,  since  1989);  Ireland  (since  2007);  Jersey  (since  2004);  Lithuania  (since 
2009);  Portugal  (1998-2006);  Slovenia  (since  2007);  Spain  –  Catalunya  (since  1994); 
Switzerland  –  Aargau  (since  1998);  the  Netherlands  (since  1990);Ukraine  –  Transcarpathia 
(since 1990) and the United Kingdom (since 1976). 

Assessment:  For  some  populations  of  European  common  birds,  downward  trends  appear  to 
have slowly levelled off but it needs to be borne in mind that significant losses had already 
happened by 1990.  

Of the more common bird species, 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 1990s, partly because of stabilising inputs of nutrients and pesticides 
and the introduction of set-aside in the EU-15, and partly because of drastically lower nutrient 
inputs  in  the  EU-10  as  a  result  of  political  reforms  and  the  resulting  economic  crisis  in  the 
agricultural  sector.  An  increase  in  agricultural  production  in  eastern  Europe,  if  linked  to 
higher  inputs  of  nutrients  and  pesticides,  combined  with  further  land  abandonment  in  some 
parts of Europe and the 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  threatened  bird  populations  (Donald  et  al., 2007)  but  not  in  the  case  of  more 
widespread  birds  species,  where  different  recovery mechanisms  are  now  required.  Well-
designed agri-environment measures have been shown to reverse bird declines at local levels. 
The recent loss of set-aside areas under agricultural policy may result in greater pressures on 
many farmland bird species. 

The  challenge  now  is  to  deploy  the  Birds  Directive  conservation  measures  or  others  widely 
enough  to  help  populations  recover  at  national  and  European  scales.  Trends  in  species  in 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
Europe  are  also  driven  by  pressures  outside  Europe,  e.g.  for  migratory  bird  species,  and  a 
comprehensive response would need to be effective beyond European territory. 

Grassland butterflies are declining severely; their populations have declined by almost 70%, 
indicating a dramatic loss of grassland biodiversity.  

The  main  driver  behind  the  decline  of  grassland  butterflies  is  the  change  in  rural  land  use: 
agricultural intensification where the land is relatively flat and easy to cultivate, abandonment 
in  mountains  and  wet  areas,  mainly  in  Eastern  and  Southern  Europe.  Agricultural 
intensification  leads  to  uniform,  almost  sterile  grasslands,  where  the  management  is  so 
intensive  that  grassland  butterflies  can  only  survive  in  traditional  farmed  low  input  systems 
(High  Nature  Value  Farmland)  as  well  as  nature  reserves,  and  marginal  land  such  as  road 
verges and amenity areas.  

Notes:  An  increase  in  the  population  index  means  that  there  are  more  species  with 
populations increased than species with populations decreased: it does not necessarily mean 
that  the  population  of  all  species  has  increased.  It  can  be  due  to  expansion  of  some  species 
(typically, generalists) at the expense of other species (typically, specialists). It must also be 
noted that populations fluctuate on a yearly basis. 

In the absence of the information on abundance, information on the distribution of species can 
help assess species status. However, at a European level, this type of information is still weak 
for other groups of species.  

Geographical coverage 
Birds 

Butterflies 

Web links: 

•  European Bird Census Council (EBCC): www.ebcc.info/ 

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

Sources  and  references:  Donald,  P.  F.;  Sanderson,  F.  J.;  Burfield,  I.  J.;  Bierman,  S.  M.; 
Gregory, R. D.; and Waliczky, Z., 2007. 'International Conservation Policy Delivers Benefits 
for Birds in Europe'. Science 317: 810. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
3. 

HEADLINE  INDICATOR:  TRENDS  IN  EXTENT  OF  SELECTED  BIOMES,  ECOSYSTEMS 
AND HABITATS 

3.1. 

04. Ecosystem coverage 

Key policy question: Which changes are occurring in the distribution of Europe's ecosystems 
and habitats? 

Key message: 

Artificial  surfaces  (housing  and  industrial  areas  and  infrastructure)  as  well  as  woodland  are 
increasing  whilst  agricultural  land,  semi-natural  and  natural  habitats  decrease.  The  overall 
statistics  hide  more  detailed  transition  patterns.  Urban  sprawl,  for  example,  accelerates, 
mainly  at  the  expense  of  agricultural  land.  Wetlands  are  mainly  changing  into  forest;  other 
(semi-)natural areas primarily give way to agriculture. 

Land cover change between 1990 and 2006: area change for major habitat classes 

Artificial surfaces

Coastal ecosystems

Rivers & Lakes

Wetlands

Forests

Heath & Scrubs

Grasslands

Agro ecosystems

-2.7%

0.0%

1

0.6%

-1.2%

-0.9%

7.9%

4.4%

5.9%

Note: How to read the graph: from 1990 to 2006, artificial areas (housing and industrial areas 
and infrastructure) increased by nearly 8 %, whereas wetlands decreased by nearly 3 %. 

Source: EEA, 2010 – EU27 except Greece, Finland, United Kingdom and Sweden 

Assessment:  The  latest  Corine  Land  Cover  (CLC)  inventory  (2006)  indicates  in  the  period 
1990-2006 a continued expansion of artificial surfaces (e.g. urban sprawl, infrastructures) and 
abandoned land at the expense of agricultural land, grasslands and wetlands across Europe. In 
the years 2000-2006 annual land uptake by urban areas doubled compared to previous period 
(1990-2000) and, as in the previous period, was mainly at the expense of agriculture (76%). 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
Changes in land cover between 1990 and 2000 and 2000 and 2006: previous status of 
newly urban areas 

Changes 1990-2000

0%

0%

5%

1%

1%

9%

Artificial surfaces

Arable land & permanent crops

Pastures & mosaic farmland

49%

Forests and transitional woodland shrub

Natural grassland, heathland,
sclerophylous vegetation

Open space with little or no vegetation

Wetlands

Water bodies

35%

14%

29%

Changes 2000-2006

0%

1%

0%

1%

8%

47%

Artificial surfaces

Arable land & permanent crops

Pastures & mosaic farmland

Forests and transitional woodland
shrub

Natural grassland, heathland,
sclerophylous vegetation

Open space with little or no vegetation

Wetlands

Water bodies

Note: Based on Corine Land Cover data. 

Sources: EEA 2010, LEAC (Land and Ecosystems Accounts) 

How  to  read  the  graph:  between  2000  and  2006,  47 %  of  new  urban  lands  were  formerly 
arable land and permanent crops. 

The annual increase in forest area in EU was around 0.5% between 1990 and 2000 and around 
0.1%  between  2000  and  2006.  However,  this  increase  is  not  uniformly  distributed.  In 
addition, the spatial forest pattern is changing locally due to different dynamics such as loss of 
forest areas, fragmentation of forest cover and therefore loss of connectivity. 

Heaths  and  scrubs  area  increased  because  transitional  woodland  included  in  this  category 
increased by 12%. During the same period, heaths and scrub sensu stricto decreased by 3%, 
which is associated with biodiversity decline. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
Conversion of wetlands into other classes, in the periods 1990–2000 and 2000-2006 

Changes 1990-2000

12%

2%

7%

79%

Changes 2000-2006

4%

4%

Artificial surfaces

Agricultural areas

Forest and semi natural areas

Water bodies

39%

Artificial surfaces

Agricultural areas

Forest and semi natural areas

Water bodies

53%

Note: Based on Corine Land Cover data. 

Sources: EEA 2010, LEAC (Land and Ecosystems Accounts) 

How  to  read  the  graph:  of  wetland  area  converted  to  other  land  uses  between  2000  and 
2006, 39 % became agricultural. 

Natural  grasslands  are  still  being  turned  into  arable  land  and  built  up  areas.  The  loss  of 
wetlands has slowed down (nearly 3% lost in the last 16 years) but Europe had already lost 
more than half of its wetlands before 1990. Increase of water bodies is mainly due to creation 
of dams. 

Agricultural areas are decreasing mainly due to urban sprawl, driven mainly by the sprawl of 
industrial  and  commercial  sites,  transport  networks  and  infrastructures.  In  many  places, 
agriculture  has  been  marginalised  as  an  economic  activity,  often  with  resulting  land 
abandonment.  Extensive  agricultural  land  is  being  converted  predominantly  into  forest  and 
other forms of more intensive agriculture.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
Geographical coverage 

Corine Land Cover v.2000 

Corine Land Cover v.2006 

Web links: 

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

Sources and references: EEA 2010, Corine Land Cover  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
4. 

4.1. 

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  Europe2  has 
increased over time. The total area of nationally designated sites in 39 European countries was 
more  than  1  million  square  kilometres  in  2009.  In  EECCA  countries,  the  area  of  nationally 
designated sites is at least 1.5 million square kilometres. 1.2 million square kilometres can be 
added to this area, the information about the year of the designation is missing, however, 3.  

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 and site number in 39 EEA 
countries 

Growth of nationnally designated  protected areas in 39 EEA countries

Area (km²)

1200000

1000000

800000

600000

400000

200000

0
1895

Cumulated Sites Number

Cumulated Sites Area (km²)

Number of sites

100000

90000

80000

70000

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0

1905

1915

1925

1935

1945

1955

1965

1975

1985

1995

2005

Note: Overlap may exist due to multiple designations for a same site. The average of overlap 
is around 14 % at European level At country level the average varies from 46 % of overlap for 
Germany, 34 % for Estonia and less that in 5 % in Turkey. 

Source: CDDA (Common Database on Designated Areas) v8, 2009. 

How to read: the graph: In 1995 there was more than 40 000 of nationally designated sites 
within the 39 countries. More than 600 000 km2 were under national designations. 

2 

3 

A  “Nationally  designated  area”  is  an  area  designated  by  a  national  designation  instrument  based  on 
national legislation. If a country has included in its legislation the sites designated under the EU Birds 
and Habitats directive, the Natura 2000 sites of this country are included in the figure. 
For  39  countries,  there  is  37 000  sqm2  of  additional  designated  areas  but  without  any  information  of 
designation  year.  For  the  EECCA  countries,  for  25  %  of  sites  included  in  the  database,  no  size 
information is available. 

EN 

11 

   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 because of gaps in the data. These countries contain 
around 18000 sites covering in total 2.6 million square kilometres. However, for more than 2 
thirds of the sites no designation date is known, and one fourth 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 the 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  and  with  the  climate  change 
perspective. 

Geographical coverage 

Web links: 

About Nationally designated areas: 

•  European  dataset:  http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/nationally-designated-

areas-national-cdda-4  

•  Global dataset: http://www.wdpa.org/ 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
5. 

HEADLINE INDICATOR: WATER QUALITY IN AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS 

5.1. 

16. Freshwater quality 

Key Policy Question: What is the status of freshwater quality in Europe? 

Key message: Pollution of rivers with organic matter and ammonium is decreasing as are the 
levels  of  other  anthropogenic  nutrients 
lakes  and 
groundwater). This reduces stress on freshwater biodiversity and improves ecological status. 

in  freshwater  generally  (rivers, 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) and total ammonium concentrations in rivers 
between 1992 and 2007 

BOD5 
[mg O2/l]
4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

Total 
ammonium 
[µg N/l]

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

BOD5 (1640)

Total ammonium (2272)

Source: Waterbase Version 9  
How to read the graph: Between 1992 and 2007, BOD5 decreased from 4 to 2 mg O2/l and 
Ammonium from 700 to 300 µg N/l 

Note: Criterion for selection series: consistent time series (1992-2007) after interpolation of 
one or two year missing concentrations and extrapolation of one year missing concentrations 
in the beginning or the end of series on station level. 

Number of river monitoring stations included in analysis noted in brackets. BOD5 data from 
Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  France,  Hungary,  Ireland, 
Luxembourg,  the  Former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia,  Slovakia,  Slovenia,  Spain  and 
United Kingdom. BOD7 data from Finland, Estonia, Latvia (1996-2001) and Lithuania (1996-
2007).  BOD7  data  were  recalculated  into  BOD5  data.  Total  ammonium  data  from  Albania, 
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  the  Former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia,  Norway, 
Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom4. 

Concentrations of nitrate and orthophosphate in rivers and total phosphorus in lakes in 
the period 1992-2007 

mg N/l

3

mg P/l

0.18

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Nitrate (1281)

Orthophosphate (830)

Total phosphorus lakes (332)

Note:  Total  number  of  stations  in  parenthesis.  Concentrations  are  expressed  as  weighted 
means  of  annual  mean  concentrations  for  rivers  and  lakes.  Only  stations  with  time  series 
consisting of a minimum of seven years are included.  

Nitrate  in  rivers  (*  =  total  oxidized  nitrogen):  Austria  (144),  Belgium  (10),  Bulgaria  (80) 
Czech  Republic  (69),  Denmark*  (39),  Estonia  (51),  Finland*  (52),  France  (177),  Germany 
(123), Hungary* (87), Lithuania (26), Luxembourg (3), Norway (10), Poland (101), Slovakia 
(48), Slovenia (14), Spain (128), Sweden* (113), Switzerland (6). 

Orthophosphate in rivers: Austria (115),  Belgium (8), Bulgaria  (59),  Denmark (41), Estonia 
(51),  Finland  (46),  France  (156),  Germany  (109),  Lithuania  (26),  Luxembourg  (1),  Norway 
(10), Slovakia (6), Slovenia (14), Spain (69), Sweden (113), Switzerland (6).  

Total  phosphorus  in  lakes:  Austria  (5),  Denmark  (20),  Estonia  (2),  Finland  (130),  Hungary 
(9), Ireland (8), Lithuania (3), Latvia (3), Slovenia (2), Sweden (140), Switzerland (10). 

Source: Waterbase (version 9).  

Assessment: Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and total ammonium concentration have 
decreased  in  European  rivers  over  the  period  1992-2007,  corresponding  to  the  general 

4 

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

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
improvement  in  wastewater  treatment.  BOD  and  ammonium  concentrations  are  generally 
highest in eastern, southern and south-eastern European rivers. The largest declines in BOD 
are  evident  in  the  rivers  of  Western  Europe,  while  the  biggest  drops  of  ammonium  are 
apparent in eastern European countries.  

Concentrations of BOD and ammonium are key indicators of the organic matter and oxygen 
content  of  water  bodies.  They  normally  increase  as  a  result  of  organic  pollution  due  to 
discharges  from  waste  water  treatment  plants,  industrial  effluent  and  agricultural  run-off. 
Severe organic pollution may lead to rapid de-oxygenation of river water along with increased 
ammonium levels and the consequent disappearance of fish and aquatic invertebrates. 

The most important sources of organic waste load are household waste water, discharges from 
industries  such  as  paper  production  or  food  processing  and  occasional  silage  or  slurry 
effluents  from  agriculture.  Increased  industrial  and  agricultural  production,  coupled  with  a 
greater percentage of the population being connected to sewerage systems, initially resulted in 
increased discharge of organic waste into surface water across 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. 

Nutrient levels in freshwaters are decreasing. The average nitrate concentration in European 
rivers has decreased since 1992, from 2.5 to 2.1 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 there has also been a 15 % reduction of the average concentration in lakes.  

Agriculture  is  the  largest  contributor  of  nitrogen  pollution.  Due  to  the  EU  Nitrate  Directive 
and national measures the nitrogen pollution from agriculture has, however, been reduced in 
some  regions  during  the  last  10-15  years.  European  air  emissions  of  nitrogen  oxides  have 
gone down by one third over the last 15 years and the deposition of nitrogen on inland surface 
waters has also declined.  

Phosphorus concentrations in European rivers and lakes generally decreased during the last 15 
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 fall in phosphorus concentrations in 
many  European  lakes.  The  decrease  is  due  to  nutrient  removal  measures  introduced  by 
national  and  European  legislation  particularly  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive. 
As  treatment  of  urban  wastewater  has  improved  and  many  waste  water  outlets  have  been 
diverted  away  from  lakes,  point  source  pollution  is  gradually  becoming  less  important. 
Agricultural inputs of phosphorus are still significant and need increased attention to achieve 
a  good  status  in  lakes  and  rivers.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  consumption  of 
phosphorus in agriculture has been steadily decreasing since the late 1980s.  

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
Geographical coverage 

Total ammonium concentrations 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) 

Concentrations of nitrate 

Concentrations of phosphorus 

Web links: 

EEA Core Set indicators: 
http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007131940/IAssessment1116505
271445/view_content and 
http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007131957/IAssessment1116497
150363/view_content 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
6. 

HEADLINE INDICATOR: ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY OF EUROPEAN 
COUNTRIES 

6.1. 

23. Ecological Footprint of European countries 

Key policy question: Are Europeans using more than their share of the world’s resources? 
Key  message:  The  Ecological  Footprint  for  pan-Europe5  has  been  increasing  almost 
constantly  since  1961,  while  Europe’s  biocapacity6  has  decreased.  This  results  in  an  ever 
larger deficit, with negative consequences for the environment within and outside Europe.  

Ecological Footprint, biocapacity and reserve or deficit (2006) 

n
o
s
r
e
p
r
e
p
s
e
r
a
t
c
e
h

l

a
b
o
G

l

European Union

Footprint Per Capita

Biocapacity Per Capita

Reserve/Deficit

1961

1971

1981

1991

2001

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

(1)

(2)

(3)

5 

6 

For  this  analysis,  data  from  all  European  countries  were  used,  except  for  nations  that  were  excluded 
because of insufficient population (Cyprus, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Malta) and nations 
for which data are lacking (Andorra, Monaco, San Marino). 
The  capacity  of  ecosystems  to  produce  useful  biological  materials  and  to  absorb  waste  materials 
generated by humans, using current management schemes and extraction technologies. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Pan-European Nations

Footprint Per Capita

Biocapacity Per Capita

Reserve/Deficit

1961

1971

1981

1991

2001

n
o
s
r
e
p

r
e
p
s
e
r
a
t
c
e
h

l
a
b
o
G

l

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

(1)

(2)

(3)

* Note, a dotted line is included for years w ith source data inconsistencies.

How to read the graph: from 1961 to 2006, Europe’s Ecological Footprint increased from 3 
to 4 ha/person. 

Assessment: Europe’s ecological deficit is considerable. Overall biological resource use and 
waste emission is more than twice the biological capacity available within Europe, showing 
that  the  continent  cannot  sustainably  meet  its  consumption  demands  from  within  its  own 
borders.  The  average  per  capita  Ecological  Footprint  in  the  European  Union  has  increased 
more than 50 percent since 1961, while per capita biocapacity has decreased by 13 percent, 
thus  increasing  the  ecological  deficit.  Pan-European  nations,  as  a  whole,  have  seen  a 
fluctuating  per  capita  Ecological  Footprint,  though  in  2006  the  Footprint  was  more  than  a 
quarter larger than in 1961. A clear trend can be seen in Pan-European biocapacity, however, 
with  a  steady  per  capita  decline  as  populations  increase  and  resources  are  stretched  among 
more consumers. 

A regional or national ecological deficit means that the region is either importing biocapacity 
through trade or liquidating regional ecological assets. Evidently, a global ecological deficit 
cannot  be  compensated  through  trade  and  therefore  corresponds  to  liquidation  of  natural 
capital. 

In a world that is already in ecological overshoot, Europe’s ecological deficit contributes to 
the diminishing amount of renewable natural resources available in the future, adds to overall 
waste  accumulation  and  puts  regional  and  global  ecosystems  at  greater  risk  of  degradation. 
Further  work  should  examine  in  more  detail  the  linkages  between  the  Ecological  Footprint 
and biodiversity.  

The  figure  below  shows  that  Europe  is  not  the  only  region  where  the  Ecological  Footprint 
(shown  as  per  person  Footprint  times  population  size)  exceeds  the  biocapacity  (per  person 
biocapacity shown as green dotted line). Europe beyond the EU actually has a biocapacity that 
is  slightly  larger  than  its  Footprint.  North  America,  the  EU-25  and  the  remaining  European 
nations have a per person Footprint that is significantly larger than that in any other continent. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Ecological Footprint variation per region (2006) 

Ecological Footprint by region, 2006

North America

Latin America and the Caribbean

Europe

Oceania

Asia

Africa

Biocapacity available per capita

13 

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

t
n
i
r
p
t
o
o
F

l
a
c
i

g
o

l

o
c
E

)
n
o
s
r
e
p
r
e
p
s
e
r
a
t
c
e
h

l
a
b
o

l

g
(

Population in millions

Source: Global Footprint Network, National Footprint Accounts 2009  

How  to  read  the  graph:  the  EU  has  487  million  citizens,  and  a  biocapacity  of  two  global 
hectares  per  person.  The  Ecological  Footprint  however,  is  4.5  hectares  per  EU  citizen.  The 
Footprint  is  the  area  used  to  support  a  defined  population's  consumption  including  the  area 
needed  to  produce  the  materials  consumed  and  to  absorb  the  waste.  The  deficit  is  the 
difference between the biocapacity and Ecological Footprint of a region or country. The 2009 
National  Footprint  Accounts  contain  a  number  of  revisions  from  the  2008  edition.  The 
methodological  changes  reflect  new  source  data  from  the  United  Nations,  new  source  data 
organization,  and  improved  calculations  in  grazing  land,  forest  land,  and  fishing  grounds 
Footprint and biocapacity data.  

Geographical coverage 

Web links: Global Footprint Network: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/ 

Sources and references: Global Footprint Network., 2009. National Footprint Accounts, 
2009 Edition. Available at:  
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/ecological_footprint_atlas_2009/ 

[Accessed 25 May 2010] 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7. 

HEADLINE INDICATOR: PUBLIC AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION 

7.1. 

26. Public awareness  

Key  Policy  Question:  What  is  the  level  of  public  awareness  about  biodiversity  in  Europe? 
Are people willing to take action? 

Key message: Two-thirds of EU citizens do not know the meaning of the word ‘biodiversity’, 
let alone understand what the threats and challenges to its conservation are. Most EU citizens 
have  never  heard  of  the  Natura  2000  network  (78 %).  However,  over  two-thirds  of  EU 
citizens report personally making efforts to help preserve nature. 
Assessment: Recent surveys7 showed that only about one-third of EU citizens were familiar 
with  the  term  ‘biodiversity’:  more  precisely,  38 %  of  interviewees  said  they  knew  the 
meaning of the term (a three percentage point increase compared to 2007) and that few feel 
well informed about biodiversity loss.  

Source: Gallup Organization, Flash Eurobarometer Series No. 290, 2010.  

How to read the graph: 34 % of EU citizens have never heard of biodiversity (2010).  

Two-thirds  of  EU  citizens  do  not  know  the  meaning  of  the  word  ‘biodiversity’,  let  alone 
understand the threats and challenges to its conservation. That does not mean, however, they 
are unaware of environmental matters. When the issue is explained to them, over two-thirds 
consider the loss of biodiversity a serious problem, although more so at the global rather than 
the  local  level.  The  main  threats  to  biodiversity  identified  by  Europeans  both  in  2007  and 
2010 surveys – pollution and man-made disasters – indicate that the level of understanding of 
the problem is still inadequate.  

7 

Gallup  Organization,  2007.  Flash  Eurobarometer  Series  No.  219,  Gallup  Organization,  2010.  Flash 
Eurobarometer Series No. 290. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Figure: Awareness of the Natura 2000 Network, share of respondents 

Source: Gallup Organization, Flash Eurobarometer Series No. 290, 2010.  

How to read the graph: 78 % of EU citizens have never heard of Natura 2000 (2010) 

The  survey  also  reveals  that  Europeans  are  unaware  of  what  the  EU  is  doing  to  save 
biodiversity: Only one in five has ever heard of Natura 2000, the EU’s main programme for 
biodiversity  conservation,  and  only  8  %  of  respondents  indicated  they  really  knew  what 
Natura 2000 meant (slight increase compared to the year 2007). Most EU citizens have never 
heard of the Natura 2000 network (78 %). The Natura 2000 programme needs urgent attention 
as far as communication to the public is concerned. 

If the survey is repeated at regular intervals, it will be possible to identify trends and assess 
the  effectiveness  of  existing  and  future  policies  aimed  at  raising  public  awareness  and 
participation with regards to biodiversity.  

Geographical coverage 

Web links:  

About Eurobarometer: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/flash_arch_en.htm 

Sources and references: 

Gallup  Organization,  2007.  Flash  Eurobarometer  Series  No.  219.  Attitudes  of  Europeans 
towards the issue of biodiversity. Survey conducted by Gallup Organization at the request of 
the  Directorate-General 
by  Directorate-General 
for  Environment.  Coordinated 
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_219_en.pdf 
Communication.  Available 
[Accessed 14 July 2010]. 

at: 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
Gallup  Organization,  2010.  Flash  Eurobarometer  Series  No.  290.  Attitudes  of  Europeans 
towards the issue of biodiversity. Survey conducted by Gallup Organization at the request of 
the  Directorate-General 
by  Directorate-General 
for  Environment.  Coordinated 
Communication.  Available 
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_290_en.pdf 
[Accessed 14 July 2010]. 

at: 

EN 

22 

   EN