COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Annexes to the IMPACT ASSESSMENT  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Annexes to the IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2011-05-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, biodiversity, climate change, deforestation, ecosystem, environmental impact, environmental protection, forest conservation, sustainable development

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

3.5.2011 
SEC(2011) 540 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

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

Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 

{COM(2011) 244 final} 
{SEC(2011) 541 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

Procedural issues and consultation............................................................................... 4 

Problem definition........................................................................................................ 6 

3.1.  Where does Europe stand in 2010?.............................................................................. 6 

3.1.1.  Status and trends in biodiversity in the EU.................................................................. 6 

3.1.2.  The international dimension......................................................................................... 7 

3.2.  Why is biodiversity loss a problem? ............................................................................ 7 

3.2.1.  Consequences of biodiversity loss ............................................................................... 7 

3.2.2.  Who is affected?........................................................................................................... 8 

3.3. 

Causes of biodiversity loss in the EU .......................................................................... 9 

3.4.  Why did we fail the 2010 target? ............................................................................... 11 

3.4.1. 

Insufficient integration across other sectoral policies................................................ 11 

3.4.2. 

Incomplete implementation of existing legislation and policy gaps.......................... 12 

3.4.3.  Funding shortcomings................................................................................................ 15 

3.4.4. 

Inadequate framework and governance structure ...................................................... 16 

3.4.5.  Limited awareness about biodiversity........................................................................ 16 

3.5.  Where will we be in 2020 compared to the new headline target? ............................. 17 

3.5.1.  Recent trends in the state and pressures of biodiversity ............................................ 17 

3.5.2.  Consequences of existing policies and legislation ..................................................... 18 

3.5.3.  Meeting the 2020 headline target............................................................................... 19 

3.6.  Why should the EU get involved? ............................................................................. 20 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

Objectives of the EU Biodiversity strategy................................................................ 21 

General objectives...................................................................................................... 21 

Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 22 

Options for the targets................................................................................................ 25 

T1 - Fully implement the Birds and Habitats Directives ........................................... 25 

T2 - Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services........................................... 26 

T3 - Increase the contribution of agriculture and forestry to maintaining and 
enhancing biodiversity ............................................................................................... 28 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
5.4. 

5.5. 

5.6. 

5.7. 

5.8. 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

6.4. 

6.5. 

6.6. 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

7.3. 

7.4. 

7.5. 

7.6. 

T4 - Ensure the sustainable use of fisheries resources............................................... 33 

T5 - Combat invasive alien species............................................................................ 34 

T6 – Help avert global biodiversity loss .................................................................... 35 

Additional considerations in the choice of targets ..................................................... 36 

The nature of the targets............................................................................................. 37 

Scoping of measures to achieve the targets................................................................ 37 

Measures for Nature Conservation............................................................................. 38 

Measures for Maintaining and restoring ecosystems and their services .................... 41 

Measures for Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry................................................... 43 

Measures for Sustainable Use of Fisheries Resources............................................... 48 

Measures for Invasive Alien Species (IAS) ............................................................... 50 

Measures for the EU Contribution to Averting Global Biodiversity Loss................. 51 

Analysis of the impact of retained measures.............................................................. 55 

Impacts of Nature Conservation related measures..................................................... 56 

Impacts of Ecosystem Restoration and Green Infrastructure..................................... 57 

Impacts of Agricultural and Forestry related measures ............................................. 61 

Impacts of Fisheries-related measures ....................................................................... 64 

Impacts of Invasive Alien Species related measures ................................................. 66 

Impacts of measures related to stepping up the EU contribution to averting global 
biodiversity loss ......................................................................................................... 67 

7.7. 

Comparison of options ............................................................................................... 70 

8. 

Cross-cutting issues on Funding and Governance ..................................................... 74 

8.1. 

Funding ...................................................................................................................... 74 

8.1.1.  Existing funding instruments ..................................................................................... 74 

8.1.2.  Financing options in the EU 2020 Biodiversity strategy ........................................... 75 

8.2. 

Governance ................................................................................................................ 78 

9. 

9.1. 

9.2. 

9.3. 

9.4. 

Monitoring, review, communication and way forward.............................................. 79 

Monitoring.................................................................................................................. 79 

Reporting and review ................................................................................................. 81 

Communication and awareness raising...................................................................... 81 

Next steps ................................................................................................................... 81 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Until now, EU Biodiversity Policy was driven by the target set by the EU Heads of State and 
Government  in  2001  to  halt  biodiversity  loss  within  the  EU  by  2010.  The  EU  Biodiversity 
Action  Plan1  (BAP)  was  put  in  place  in  2006  to  accelerate  progress  towards  this  target. 
However,  there  is  compelling  evidence  that  the  status  and  conditions  of  biodiversity  and 
ecosystems in the EU, and the services they provide, continue to deteriorate2 3 4, and that the 
EU has missed its target5. This is because different pressures (changes in land use, pollution, 
overexploitation,  invasive  species,  climate  change,  etc)  continue  to  have  a  high  impact  on 
biodiversity, in spite of significant action carried out within the framework of the BAP. 

The EU is called upon to develop a new vision and headline target for the post-2010 period. 
On  15  March  2010,  the  Environment  Council  agreed  a  new  vision  and  target  reflecting  the 
most ambitious option set out in a Commission Communication in January 20106. The Spring 
European  Council  subsequently  endorsed  the  vision  and  target  on  26  March,  noting  that 
"There  is  an  urgent  need  to  reverse  continuing  trends  of  biodiversity  loss  and  ecosystem 
degradation." 

VISION 

By  2050,  European  Union  biodiversity  and  the  ecosystem  services  it  provides  –  its  natural 
capital – are protected, valued and appropriately restored for biodiversity's intrinsic value and 
for  their  essential  contribution  to  human  wellbeing  and  economic  prosperity,  and  so  that 
catastrophic changes caused by the loss of biodiversity are avoided 

HEADLINE TARGET 

Halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, 
and restoring them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global 
biodiversity loss 

The 2020 target is more ambitious than the 2010 target in that it not only stresses the need to 
halt biodiversity loss but also highlights the value of ecosystem services, the need to restore 
them, and the EU's contribution to global biodiversity.  

In addition, the global Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 adopted at the tenth meeting 
of  the  Conference  of  the  Parties  of  the  Convention  on  Global  Biodiversity  in  2010  (CBD 
COP-10)  includes  a  2050  vision,  a  2020  mission,  5  strategic  goals  and  20  targets.  Parties, 
including the European Union, must develop national and regional targets  that  contribute  to 
reaching the global targets and report thereon to the CBD COP-11 in 2012. Parties also need 
to develop or update biodiversity strategies and action plans to ensure implementation.  

1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

COM(2006) 216 final "Halting Biodiversity loss by 2010 – and beyond: sustaining ecosystems services 
for human well being" 
COM (2008) 864 on a "Mid-term assessment of implementing the EC Biodiversity Action Plan" 
http://biodiversity-chm.eea.europa.eu/information/indicator/F1090245995  
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eu-2010-biodiversity-baseline/ 
COM(2010)548 final http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/bap_2010.htm 
COM (2010) 4 final "Options for an EU vision and target for biodiversity beyond 2010" 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
To  deliver  on  the  2020  headline  target,  the  Council  called  on  the  Commission  to  develop  a 
biodiversity  strategy  with  targets  and  to  identify  the  necessary,  feasible  and  cost-effective 
measures  for  reaching  them,  as  soon  as  possible  after  CBD  COP10,  taking  into  account  its 
results7. 

By  developing  this  strategy,  the  Commission  therefore  delivers  on  the  very  clear  mandate 
provided by the Council and EU international obligations. 

The Council also recognised the importance of identifying a clear biodiversity baseline of the 
state  of  biodiversity  and  ecosystems  in  Europe.  The  resulting  baseline,  finalised  in  October 
2010,  sets  out  the  current  state  of  biodiversity  in  the  EU  and  indicators  to  measure  and 
monitor progress and achievement from 2011 to 2020 (see Annex 1 for details)8. 

The focus of this Impact Assessment report is on identifying targets that, if met, would mean 
that Europe is making a significant contribution towards reaching the 2020 headline target. It 
also  sets  out  potential  measures  to  meet  the  targets.  However,  whilst  demonstrating  the 
feasibility of the  2020 headline target, the exact  measures will be fleshed out in subsequent 
initiatives and their accompanying Impact Assessments. 

Finally,  the  2020  Biodiversity  Strategy  will  contribute  to  at  least  three  of  the  targets  in  the 
Europe  2020  Strategy9,  namely  climate  change,  innovation  and  employment,  in  particular 
through the resource efficiency flagship. Moreover, the largely overlapping time-horizon with 
that of the coming EU budget period (2014-2020) and implementation of other policies such 
as  the  Climate  Change  20/20/20  initiative  offers  ideal  opportunities  for  better  integrated 
implementation. 

2. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION 

EU institutions, Member States, civil society and the public at large have all been consulted 
on the long-term vision and 2020 headline target to underpin it, and continuing with the 2020 
strategy  itself.  Annex  2  provides  details  about  the  actors  and  institutions  consulted  and  a 
summary  of  their  views.  Annex  3  includes  a  list  of  underlying  studies  conducted  by  the 
Commission and lists several European research projects10 helping to fill knowledge gaps. 

All  institutions  of  the  European  Union  made  their  positions  on  the  EU  2020  biodiversity 
policy known during the course of 2010 (see Annex 2 for details).  

As part of the consultation process, the Commission ran a public Internet consultation, which 
received 2905 responses11 of which 64% originated from citizens, 12% from NGOs and 6% 
from  private  business.  The  views  of  the  different  stakeholders  are  reported  where  relevant 
under each target. 

Successive  drafts  of  the  Impact  Assessment  report  (IAR)  were  circulated  and  discussed  in 
meetings  of  the  Commission's  Biodiversity  Inter-service  Coordination  Group  and  an  Inter-
service  Impact  Assessment  Steering  Group,  from  October  2010.  The  Impact  Assessment 
Board  (IAB)  discussed  a  first  draft  of  the  report  on  12  January  2011  and  requested  a  re-
submission of the draft IAR, based on which a final opinion was issued on 24 February 2011. 

7 
8 
9 
10 

11 

Council Conclusions on Biodiversity post-2010, 15 March 2010. 
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eu-2010-biodiversity-baseline/ 
COM (2010) 2020. 
Past and ongoing research projects in the field of biodiversity supported under the last three consecutive 
research  framework  programmes  (FP5,  FP6  and  FP7)  can  be  accessed  via  the  website  of  the  BIOTA 
cluster "Understanding Biodiversity": http://www.edinburgh.ceh.ac.uk/biota 
Full report: http://www.acceptance.ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/pdf/biodecline_results.pdf 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The draft IAR was significantly restructured to address both sets of comments from the IAB. 
The following changes, in particular, were implemented: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

a re-organisation of the report, and the addition of explanatory graphs to better link 
the identified problems (and their drivers) with the proposed targets (objectives) and 
options/measures; 

a clearer presentation of the problems, with the addition of more details on the 2010 
baseline, on the reasons for failing the 2010 target, a discussion on the effectiveness 
of existing policies, and the development of a qualitative 2020 baseline scenario; 

a better justification of the selection of the targets, with explicit links to the problems 
identified, and an analysis of alternatives. Further clarification was provided after the 
IAB final opinion on the relation between the respective targets on the Habitats and 
the  Birds  directives,  and  on  the  definition  and  value  added  of  the  agriculture  and 
forest targets; 

a  more  systematic  discussion  of  potential  alternatives  for  measures  available  to 
achieve  the  targets,  including  funding  options,  also  highlighting  measures  with  the 
potential  to  achieve  early  and  significant  results.  Following  the  IAB  final  opinion, 
these  aspects  were  further  strengthened.  It  was  also  clarified  that  the  range  of 
alternative options was restricted as the level of ambition had already been set at the 
level  of  the  target,  and  was  also  determined  by  the  Council's  conclusions  and  the 
outcome of the CBD COP10 discussions; 

a more detailed presentation of stakeholder views on the potential measures; 

a  clearer  analysis  of  the  impacts  of  the  proposed  options/measures,  with  a  better 
distinction  between  impacts  within  the  EU  and  global  impacts,  and  a  discussion  of 
distributional aspects. Following the IAB final opinion, more details on distributional 
impacts across Member States and on subsidiarity were added; 

a  clarification  of  overall  costs  and  potential  financial  issues,  with  more  details  of 
financing  solutions  to  reach  each  of  the  targets  in  the  cross-cutting  section  on 
financing; 

the addition of a new section on the comparison of the proposed measures in terms of 
contributions to the main objectives, and in terms of the key costs and benefits; 

the addition in the 'next steps' section of a timetable summarising foreseen initiatives, 
including  those  stemming  from  the  Biodiversity  Strategy  Communication,  and 
expected  new  information.  Further  details  on  planned  work  and  associated  impact 
assessments were included after the IAB final opinion.  

Annex  3  includes  a  list  of  studies  conducted  for  the  Commission  to  support  this  Impact 
Assessment  and  the  Strategy  and  lists  several  European  research  projects12  which  have 
made an important contribution to filling the knowledge and understanding gaps. 

12 

Past and ongoing research projects in the field of biodiversity supported under the last three consecutive 
research  framework  programmes  (FP5,  FP6  and  FP7)  can  be  accessed  via  the  website  of  the  BIOTA 
cluster "Understanding Biodiversity": http://www.edinburgh.ceh.ac.uk/biota 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
PROBLEM DEFINITION 

3. 
The  2010  assessment  of  implementation  of  the  EU  Biodiversity  Action  Plan13  (hereafter 
referred to as the 'BAP assessment') at both EU and Member State levels, together with the 
EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline14 (hereafter referred to as 'the Baseline') show that in spite of 
past EU commitments and wide-ranging action that resulted in significant progress in certain 
areas, the EU has missed its 2010 target of halting biodiversity loss.  

3.1.  Where does Europe stand in 2010?  

3.1.1. 

Status and trends in biodiversity in the EU 

Although it is not possible to assess biodiversity loss through a single indicator measuring the 
aggregated  distance  to  the  target,  the  2010  EU  biodiversity  baseline15  provides  quantitative 
and qualitative information on the extent to which the 2010 target has been missed for specific 
elements  of  biodiversity.  Up  to  25%  of  animal  species,  including  mammals,  amphibians, 
reptiles, birds and butterflies face the risk of extinction. 65% of the habitats and 52% of the 
species  covered  by  the  Habitats  Directive  are  still  considered  to  be  in  an  unfavourable 
conservation  status.  On  average  only  17%  of  habitats  are  in  favourable  conservation  status, 
going down to 5% when looking specifically at grasslands and 7% for agro-ecosystems. 

Other sources of evidence are that since 1990, the European Union’s common farmland birds 
have  declined  by  20–25  %  and,  during  the  same  period,  common  bird  populations  have 
decreased by around 10 %. However, there are signs that the decline has levelled off since the 
mid-1990s. In addition, since 1990, Europe’s grassland butterflies have declined dramatically 
(nearly 70 %) and this reduction shows no sign yet of levelling off. 

The  latest  Corine  Land  Cover  inventory  shows  a  continued  expansion  of  artificial  surfaces 
and  abandoned  land  at  the  expense  of  extensive  agricultural  land,  grasslands  and  wetlands 
across Europe. The loss of wetlands has slowed down to 3% in the last 16 years, but Europe 
had already lost half its wetlands before 1990. 

Most of the ecosystem services in the EU are assessed to be degraded or mixed (degraded in 
some  regions,  enhanced  in  others)  –  i.e.  no  longer  able  to  deliver  the  optimal  quality  and 
quantity of basic services such as crop pollination, clean air and water, and control of floods 
or  erosion.  However,  there  are  some  exceptions,  such  as  timber  production,  and  climate 
regulation in forests16. 

The EU 2010 biodiversity baseline also provides an assessment of the state of biodiversity per 
biogeographical region, showing some geographical disparity across Europe: in the Atlantic 
and  Pannonian  regions,  more  than  50%  of  habitats  are  assessed  as  'unfavourable-bad', 
exceeding  the  percentage  in  the  other  biogeographical  regions.  Other  examples  of 
geographical disparity are that the percentage of loss of agricultural land to artificial surfaces 
bewteen  1990  and  2000  has  been  more  significant  in  the  Netherlands,  Germany,  Belgium, 
western Portugal, the eastern coast of Spain and Sardinia, than in the rest of Europe. Another 

13 

14 
15 

16 

Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament.  The  2010  Assessment  of 
Implementing the EU Biodiversity Action Plan, COM(2010)548 final.  
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eu-2010-biodiversity-baseline/- published 2010. 
European  Environment  Agency,  2010.  EU  2010  Biodiversity  baseline.  EEA  Technical  report  No 
12/2010. 
http://www.rubicode.net 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
example is the utilisation rate of forests17, which in 2005 was relatively stable at around 60%, 
but higher than 80% in Belgium, Czech republic, and Sweden. 

Overall, although there has been some improvements over the past years, it can be concluded 
that the target of halting biodiversity loss in the EU by 2010 has been missed by a significant 
extent,  as  demonstrated  by  the  still  high  proportion  of  species  at  risk  of  extinction,  and  of 
habitats  in  poor  conservation  status.  More  details  on  the  EU  2010  biodiversity  baseline  are 
given in annex I.  

3.1.2.  The international dimension 

The global situation is even more alarming as pressures on biodiversity continue to intensify, 
as shown by the Third Global Biodiversity Outlook published in May 201018. Between 12% 
and 55% of selected vertebrate, invertebrate and plant groups are threatened with extinction. 
The rate of tropical deforestation decreased by nearly 20% between 2000 and 2010 but is still 
very  high,  with  13  million  ha  lost  every  year.  20%  of  the  world’s  tropical  coral  reefs  are 
already lost and an additional 50% is at risk. Only 0.7% of oceans are protected.  

The  international  community  has  also  failed  to  achieve  the  global  target  agreed  in  2002  of 
significantly reducing biodiversity loss worldwide by 2010.  

3.2.  Why is biodiversity loss a problem? 

3.2.1.  Consequences of biodiversity loss 

Loss  of  biodiversity  and  ecosystems  has  social,  environmental  and  economic  consequences, 
which are summarised briefly below. 

There are strong ethical and moral arguments in favour of protecting biodiversity in its own 
right,  for  its  intrinsic  value,  independent  of  its  instrumental  value  to  humans.  In  addition, 
biodiversity loss has economic costs that are only now starting to be fully appreciated. Figure 
1  illustrates  the  different  categories.  The  TEEB  study19  proposes  that  flows  of  ecosystem 
services  be  seen  as  the  'dividend'  that  society  receives  from  natural  capital.  The  sustained 
provision  of  these  flows  in  the  future  requires  that  stocks  of  natural  capital,  including 
biodiversity and ecosystems, are maintained.  

Ecosystems  provide  a  number  of  services  that  contribute  directly  and  indirectly  to  human 
well-being. There are four main types of ecosystem services: provisioning services (e.g. food, 
water,  fuel);  regulating  services  (e.g.  flood  and  disease  control);  supporting/habitat  services 
(e.g.  nutrient  cycling);  and  cultural  services  (e.g.  recreation).  These  services  are  of  benefit 
locally, nationally or globally. 

In  general,  the  loss  of  ecosystems  is  equivalent  to  losing  an  important  "natural"  structural 
system  whereas  the  loss  of  biodiversity  is  equivalent  to  losing  a  vital  component  of  that 
structure. The former has direct human, social and economic costs whereas the latter is often 
more subtle – it makes ecosystems less stable and more vulnerable to collapse. 

17 
18 
19 

ratio of annual felling to net annual increment in growing stock (SEBI indicator 17) 
http://gbo3.cbd.int/ 
http://www.teebweb.org 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 1. Costs of inaction with respect to biodiversity and ecosystem service loss 

Source: OECD, Paying for Biodiversity: Enhancing the Cost-Effectiveness of Payments for Ecosystem Services 
(PES), 2010, Paris. 

These  economic  impacts  are,  of  course,  associated  with  impacts  on  jobs.  Some  jobs  are 
directly  concerned  with  the  conservation  and  management  of  biodiversity  (e.g.  in  land 
management, protection of sites and species, provision of advice, and scientific research and 
monitoring activities). More numerous are jobs dependent on the provisioning, regulating and 
cultural services that biodiversity plays a role in delivering. Other social consequences include 
health, territorial cohesion, and social inclusion impacts. 

3.2.2.  Who is affected? 

Biodiversity  loss  and  the  degradation  of  ecosystem  services  have  an  impact  on  society  at 
large. Depending on the spatial scale of ecosystem services (see figure 2), it can affect people 
in the neighbourhood of ecosystems, as well as local authorities and businesses, or affect EU 
citizens  as  a  whole,  or  may  even  global  consequences.  For  example  the  loss  of  riparian 
wetlands could include the following impacts: reduced flood control services, with impacts on 
residents  in  the  floodplain,  local  planning  authorities,  construction  industry  and  insurances, 
lower  water  purification,  with  impacts  on  residents  and  the  water  supply  sector;  reduced 
recreational  and  amenity  services  with  mostly  local  impacts;  but  also  lower  carbon  storage, 
with global climate impacts.  

Some business sectors are particularly affected, as they depend on biodiversity and ecosystem 
services, either directly or indirectly, including fisheries, forestry (wood products), agriculture 
(dependent  on  services  such  as  pollination,  biological  control,  soil  formation,  water 
availability  and  genetic  diversity),  water  supply,  pharmaceuticals  and  cosmetics,  chemicals, 
agro-food, and growing parts of the tourism sector.  

Lower  income  groups  tend  to  be  more  dependent  on  ecosystem  services,  and  vulnerable  to 
their loss, but this holds more strongly at global than at EU level. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
Figure 2: Spatial scales of ecosystem services 

3.3. 

Causes of biodiversity loss in the EU 

Biodiversity loss in the EU is the result of a combination of direct pressures and underlying 
socio-economic  drivers.  Most  of  the  pressures  on  biodiversity  stem  from  human-induced 
disturbance to ecosystems with underlying causes of economic and market failures. The 2010 
EU biodiversity baseline documents the impact of these key pressures on biodiversity in the 
EU20. In particular, Europe's biodiversity remains under severe threat from: 

•  Habitat  loss  due  to  land  use  change  and  fragmentation,  including  through  conversion  of 
grassland  into  arable  land,  land  abandonment,  urban  sprawl,  and  rapidly  expanding 
transport infrastruture and energy networks; 70% of species are threatened by the loss of 
their habitats, in particular farmland birds have declined by 20 to 25% since 1990; The EU 
is one of the most fragmented regions in the world, with fragmentation of 30% of EU-27 
land  moderately  high  to  very  high  due  to  urban  sprawl  and  infrastructure  development 
related  to  transport  and  energy.  Fragmentation  affects  the  connectivity  and  health  of 
ecosystems and their ability to provide services. 

•  Pollution. 26% of species are threatened  by  pesticides  and  fertilisers  such as nitrates  and 

phosphates (IUCN). 

•  Overexploitation  of  forests21,  oceans,  rivers  and  soils;  30%  of  species  are  threatened  by 

overexploitation; 88% of stocks are fished beyond maximum sustainable yield. 

20 

21 

European  Environment  Agency,  2010.  EU  2010  Biodiversity  baseline.  EEA  Technical  report  No 
12/2010. 
Whilst wood harvesting in the EU is largely sustainable, dead wood (which is a key indicator for forest 
biodiversity  and  the  conservation  value  of  a  forest)  remains  well  below  optimal  levels  from  a 
biodiversity perspective in most European countries (EEA, 2009). 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Invasive  alien  species.  22%  of  species  are  threatened  by  invasive  alien  species.  Some 
recent extinctions have been caused by the introduction of alien species e.g. Gasterosteus 
crenobiontus, extinct since the 1960s.  

•  Climate change. Shifts in habitats and species distribution due to climate change are being 

observed. Climate change interacts and often exacerbates other threats. 

These  pressures  are  either  constant  or  increasing  in  intensity.  In  particular,  invasive  alien 
species  remain  a  threat,  and  are  predicted  to  carry  on  increasing  exponentially22.  Climate 
change  impacts  are  only  beginning  to  emerge,  and  degraded  ecosystems  have  a  reduced 
capacity to respond to future changes. 

At global level, pressures are similar. For example, Invasive Alien Species (IAS) have been 
identified as a key factor in 54% of all known species extinctions documented in the IUCN 
Red  List  database  and  the  only  factor  in  20%  of  extinctions.  Global  fisheries  are 
overexploited:  they  are  estimated  to  contribute  USD  225  billion  to  USD  240  billion  to  the 
world economy annually but if fishing practices were more sustainable that amount would be 
up to USD 36 billion higher. The cumulative economic loss to the global economy over the 
last  three  decades  is  estimated  to  be  in  the  order  of  USD  2  trillion.  There  is  also  enormous 
waste: by-catch (unused catch) amounts to 38 million tonnes/year or 40% of total catch. 

These  pressures  are  underpinned  by  indirect  drivers  that  relate  to  demographic  and 
cultural/lifestyle  choices,  institutional  drivers,  market  failures,  economic  structure,  size  and 
growth, and trade.  

Figure 3 below shows the drivers, pressures, states, impacts and current responses related to 
biodiversity loss broadly23. Clearly, the exact mechanisms whereby biodiversity is lost differ 
according to biome, geography, climate, type of pressure (i.e. over-exploitation of wildlife as 
opposed  to  habitat  conversion),  economic  context  in  the  biodiversity  host  country,  trade 
patterns, type of governance structure, and other factors. 

Direct pressures on biodiversity also influence ecosystem services. As an illustration, impacts 
of  IAS  on  ecosystems  can  lead  to  reduced  ecosystem  services,  whether  provisioning  (fish 
catch  and  aquaculture,  crops,  wood  and  livestock  production,  and  water  provision),  or 
regulating (water retention, erosion and water quality control), with consequences on human 
well-being. IAS can also have an impact on the resistance of ecosystems to wild fires, and on 
the growth and structure of woodlands and forests (e.g. due to non-native diseases and pests 
such  as  Pinewood  nematode).The  proposed  measures  would  reduce  economic  damages  of 
IAS linked to decreased provisioning of food and water, impeded water regulation leading to 
local  flooding  (e.g.  Japanese  knotweed),  and  negative  impacts  on  erosion  control,  water 
quality IAS also have the potential to modify all identified supporting processes (e.g. primary 
production, soil and sediment formation and nutrient cycling) via, for example, changing their 
physical  environment  (e.g.  by  dominating  the  habitat)  and  modifying  ecosystem  food  webs 
and species dynamics. 

Although  this  is  not  the  case  for  IAS,  some  policies  have  already  been  put  in  place  as  a 
response  to  negative  impacts  on  biodiversity.  These  have  however  not  been  sufficient  as 
described in the following section. 

22 

23 

IEEP, 2010. Assessment to support continued development of the EU strategy to combat invasive alien 
species. Final report. 
Study on understanding the causes of biodiversity loss and the policy assessment framework, 2009, Ecorys 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 3: Causes of biodiversity loss in the EU 

3.4.  Why did we fail the 2010 target? 

The reasons for failing to achieve the EU 2010 target are many and complex and are set out in 
numerous assessments24 and summarised in a recent Commission Communication25. The most 
significant reasons are summarised under the headings below.  

3.4.1. 

Insufficient integration across other sectoral policies 

Article 11 of the Lisbon Treaty requires that environmental protection requirements, including 
biodiversity,  are  embedded  and  fully  taken  into  consideration  in  all  other  sectoral  policies. 
This is all the more important for those sectors that have significant impacts on biodiversity. 
This is particularly the case for agriculture and forestry, since 72% of land in the EU is used 
for  farming  (43%)  and  forestry  (29%)26,  but  also  for  fisheries,  regional  development, 
transport, climate change, energy, trade and development. While progress has been made in 
integrating biodiversity concerns in the above policy areas, the state of biodiversity in Europe 
leads  to  the  conclusion  that  this  integration  has  not  been  sufficient  to  deliver  on  the  2010 
target. 

24 

25 
26 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/bap_2008.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/bap_2010/4%20EC_Knowledge_B
ase_Assessment_BAP_final.pdf  
COM (2010) 4 final. 
Eurostat, 2010. Land Use/Cover Area frame Survey (LUCAS). 

and 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
In  particular,  habitats  associated  with  sustainable  agricultural  practices  show  a  worse 
conservation  status  than  non-agricultural  habitats,  with  only  7%  showing  favourable  status 
compared  to  17%  on  average  for  all  types  of  habitats.  The  Common  Agricultural  Policy 
(CAP)  has  been  reformed  on  several  occasions  in  the  past.  The  introduction  of  decoupled 
direct payments in particular aimed to remove the CAP-driven incentive to intensify, and the 
introduction  of  cross  compliance  aimed  to  ensure  that  farmers  in  receipt  of  CAP  payments 
complied with a baseline of environmental rules. The creation of a Second pillar of the CAP 
(Rural  Development)  established  the  possibility  for  farmers  to  get  financial  support  on 
specific measures aimed at improving the state of the environment, including the biodiversity 
status  of  farmland.  In  this  respect,  the  mid-term  review  of  the  sixth  Environment  Action 
Programme27 recognised that, in the agricultural sector, there have been fundamental reforms 
over the last 15 years that have moved towards seeing farmers as stewards of nature. As the 
recent  communication  on  the  CAP  reform  highlighted,  however,  there  is  still  scope  for 
agricultural  policy  to  contribute  to  enhancing  the  sustainable  management  of  natural 
resources, including biodiversity. A study looking at decoupling in the CAP reform concluded 
that impacts had been small to negative on biodiversity and nature conservation28. Although 
agri-environmental  measures  have  been  shown  to  have  positive  impacts  on  biodiversity 
overall29, specific schemes are not always cost-effective and existing literature on the impacts 
of agri-environmental measures has reached mixed conclusions30. 

In spite of the 2002 reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), overfishing has not been 
addressed. 88% of EU stocks are still fished beyond maximum sustainable yield. The average 
size of fish has been steadily declining over the last 20 years. In general, gaps in indicators 
and  data  have  made  it  difficult  to  quantify  the  efficiency  of  integration  in  different  policy 
areas. 

The situation is even less clear as regards the global impact of EU policies. A key challenge 
includes enhancing our understanding of the impact of EU consumption on biodiversity loss.  

Additionally, the timeline of the EU biodiversity target and the fact that the development and 
implementation  of  the  BAP  were  not  synchronised  with  EU  budgetary  cycles  hampered  the 
harmonisation  of  priorities  across  sectors  and  led  to  lack  of  ownership  and  insufficient 
contribution to biodiversity policy implementation. 

3.4.2. 

Incomplete implementation of existing legislation and policy gaps 

Implementation gaps 

EU Nature conservation policy is largely driven by the Birds and the Habitats Directives, 
which  aim  to  ensure  the  favourable  conservation  status  of  selected  species  and  habitats  of 
Community  importance  listed  in  the  Directive.  Ensuring  full  implementation,  especially  the 
effective functioning of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas is critical to the success of 
biodiversity  policy  in  the  EU.  The  designation  of  Natura  2000  terrestrial  sites  is  nearly 

27 
28 

29 

30 

COM(2007) 225 final, 30.4.2007 
Brady, M. (2010) Impact of CAP reform on the environment: some regional results. Paper presented to 
OECD  Workshop  on  the  Disaggregated  Impacts  of  CAP  Reform  10(cid:31)11  March  2010,  Paris,  France. 
Accessed via: http://www.agrifood.se/Files/AgriFood_WP20103.pdf  
ENCA,  2010.  Delivering  biodiversity  objectives  through  agri-environment  measures  of  the  CAP: 
evidence of success and scale of future needs. Position Statement 6-2010 
Kleijn, D, R. A. Baquero, Y. Clough, M. Díaz, J. De Esteban, F. Fernández, D. Gabriel, F. Herzog, A. 
Holzschuh,  R.  Jöhl,  E.  Knop,  A.  Kruess,  E.  J.  P.  Marshall,  I.  Steffan-Dewenter,  T.  Tscharntke,  J. 
Verhulst1, T. M. West, J. L. Yel. (2006) Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment schemes  in 
five European countries. Ecology Letters Vol. 9 Issue 3. 243-254 . 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
completed, with 18% of EU territory covered, i.e. beyond the 2020 global target of having at 
least 17% of terrestrial and inland water conserved through protected areas. However, more 
efforts  are  needed  for  the  marine  sites31,  for  which  the  global  target  is  10%  of  coastal  and 
marine  areas  designated.  It  has  been  demonstrated  that  targeted  conservation  actions  for 
Annex  I  bird  species  under  the  Birds  Directive  have  made  a  significant  difference  in 
protecting many of Europe's most threatened birds from further decline32. The 2009 Habitats 
Directive  health  check  has  also  confirmed  that  conservation  action  has  resulted  in  some 
larger, emblematic species such as the wolf, Eurasian lynx, beaver and otter beginning to re-
colonize parts of their traditional range. 

However,  although  there  has  been  substantial  progress,  the  BAP  2010  report  identified  that 
implementation  of  the  Habitats  and  Birds  directives  had  been  too  slow  to  deliver  the  full 
biodiversity  benefits  expected.  Major 
insufficient 
designation in marine areas as well as the lack of management plans in the NATURA 2000 
sites. The fact that the network is still not complete can be partly explained by fact that there 
continues to be misinterpretation of the directives and fears of severe restrictions and socio-
economic  impacts.  Nature  protection  has  still  to  be  fully  integrated  into  national  planning 
policies.  

implementation  gaps 

include 

the 

A number of other environmental policies will help stem biodiversity loss, but have not taken 
full effect yet. For example, the Water Framework Directive requires freshwater bodies to 
be  of  good  ecological  status,  but  the  deadline  for  implementation  is  2015.  The  Marine 
Strategic Framework Directive has also only recently been adopted. 
Aquaculture33 in the EU has to comply with the level of environmental protection requested 
by  the  comprehensive  horizontal  EU  environmental  legal  framework.  More  specifically, 
intensive fish farming is listed in Annex II of the EIA Directive, and as such may be subject to 
an environment impact assessment, prior to the start of its operations, if the Member States 
decides so. In addition, Regulation (EC) No 708/2007 concerning the use of alien and locally 
absent species in aquaculture aims to create a framework governing aquacultural practices to 
protect the aquatic environment from the risks associated with the use of non-native species. 
In  2009,  the  Commission  adopted  a  Communication  on  the  sustainable  development  of 
European aquaculture34 to promote the sustainable growth of Aquaculture in the EU through 
the use of environmentally-friendly production methods. Some of the actions included in the 
Aquaculture Strategy are aimed to achieve a better implementation of the EU legislation, in 
particular, to facilitate the implementation of the environmental legislation such as to develop 
guidance  documents  on  aquaculture  activities  and  Natura  2000  or  to  ensure  a  proper 
implementation of the Water Framework Directive. The results of a recent study indicate that 
the EU regulatory response to manage the environmental impacts of aquaculture35 is adequate. 
Nevertheless,  the  implementation  of  these  instruments  will  need  to  be  closely  monitored  to 
evaluate any future policy or implementation needs. 

31 
32 

33 

34 
35 

EEA-ETC/BD, 2010. 
Paul  F.  Donald,  Fiona  J.  Sanderson,1  Ian  J.  Burfield,  Stijn  M.  Bierman,  Richard  D.  Gregory,  Zoltan 
Waliczky International Conservation Policy Delivers Benefits for Birds in Europe Science, 2007 
aquaculture impacts on biodiversity through: the use wild fish populations to produce fishmeal and fish 
oil for aqua feed; spread of diseases and parasites among fish populations; interactions and competition 
between escaped farmed species and wild fish populations; nutrient enrichment; uncontrolled spreading 
of non-indigenous species; chemical pollution and habitat change or destruction 
COM(2009)162. 
Draft  Final  report  of  the  study  "Impacts  and  pressures  by  aquaculture  activities:  evaluation,  relation 
with good environmental status and assessment of the EU responses" 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Factors  hampering  implementation  include  lack  of  funding  and  inadequate  governance 
structure. These points are further developed below.  

Implementation across Member States 

Existing  policies  have  been  implemented  at  different  rates  across  Member  States,  as 
illustrated by Figure 4. 

Cumul at ed ha

80 000 000

70 000 000

60 000 000

50 000 000

40 000 000

30 000 000

20 000 000

10 000 000

Ro ma nia

Bulg a ria

Slo v ak ia

Slo v enia 
Pola nd 
Malt a 

Lithua nia

La tv ia

Hungary 

E sto nia

Czec h Re p ub lic

Cyp rus

Unite d King dom

Swede n

Por tug a l 

Ne the rla nds

Lux em b ourg

Ita ly

Ire land

Gree ce

France

Finland

Spa in

De nma r k

Ge rm an y

Belg ium 
Aust ria 

0

1995 

1996

1997

1998

1999 

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Figure 4: 
Source: Natura 2000 EUNIS database 

Cumulative surface area of sites designated by the Habitats Directive over time (SCIs) 

More  generally,  the  2010  BAP  assessment  summarises  the  current  state  of  progress  for 
objectives and measures set out in the 2006 BAP. The 27 country profiles36 provide a detailed 
account of developments at national level, allowing some elements of comparison, although a 
full benchmarking across countries is not meaningful based on currently available data. 

Legislative gaps 

In addition, some of the pressures presented above have not been sufficiently addressed and 
contributed  to  the  failure  to  meet  the  2010  target.  For  example,  although  plant  and  animal 
regimes have proven effective to protect the EU against the entry, establishment and spread of 
many  diseases  and  harmful  organisms  that  are  common  elsewhere  in  the  world,  existing 
legislation  is  however  not  sufficient  to  tackle  the  full  range  of  threats,  in  particular  from 
pathways such as IAS introduced as pets, aquarium and terrarium species, ornamental plants, 
live bait and live food (see Annex 13 for a detailed review). 

Furthermore,  less  than  a  dozen  MS  have  legislation  to  protect  soil  ecosystems,  which  are 
therefore  largely  unprotected  in  the  EU.  This  had  significant  consequences  for  below  and 
above ground biodiversity and hindered the achievement of the 2010 headline target. 

36 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/bap_2010.htm 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
3.4.3.  Funding shortcomings 

In the EU 

Insufficient  funding  has  been  an  important  hurdle  preventing  effective  implementation  of 
existing policy instruments aimed at halting biodiversity loss37.  

Firstly,  the  available  information  on  financing  needs  and  opportunities  for  protected  areas 
alone indicates that the current level of support is not satisfactory38. Management of Natura 
sites is estimated to require approximately 5.8 billion Euros a year, but currently only 1 billion 
a year is allocated39 40. This situation is very much linked to the fact that Member States are 
far  behind  with  drawing  up  management  plans  or  identifying  the  specific  needs  for 
intervention.  Funding  would  also  be  needed  to  conserve  biodiversity  in  the  wider 
environment, beyond Natura sites. Secondly, the exact amount spent on biodiversity remains 
difficult to assess, the collection expenditure data being in most cases inadequate to identify 
biodiversity-related  funding  both  at  Member  States  and  Community  level.  The  lack  of  an 
agreed  methodology  to  determine  how  much  Community  funding  has  been  used  by  the 
Member States for nature and biodiversity remains a problem to be addressed.  

Thirdly, whereas funding opportunities for the protection and sustainable use of biodiversity 
do exist under different EU financing instruments (see Annex 4), their uptake has been limited 
under the current EU financing framework for 2007-2013. There are various reasons for this, 
including: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

lack  of  clear  targeting  of  funds  for  biodiversity,  which  reduce  their 
effectiveness for biodiversity goals; 

the  fact  that  most  EU  funds  are  managed  at  the  national  level  according  to 
sectoral priorities, which do not always include biodiversity conservation as a 
primary concern; 

lack of coherence and coordination in securing total funding needs; 

weaker evidence base for most financial planning due to the slow development 
of  Natura  2000  management  plans  or  equivalent  instruments,  and  therefore 
lack of concrete data on the impacts of funding; 

limited absorption capacity in some Member States due to human resource and 
other constraints in applying for EU funding is another factor (Kettunen et al., 
2009;  WWF  2009).  The  share  of  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural 
Development  (EAFRD)  allocated  to  the  protection  of  Natura  2000  sites  was 
0.62%,  although  Natura  2000  agriculture  and  forest  sites  are  also  financed 
under agri-environmental schemes; 

• 

high administrative burden in some cases; 

37 

38 

39 

40 

Withana,  S.,  Baldock,  D.,  Farmer,  A.,  Pallemaerts,  M.,  Hjerp,  P.,  Watkins,  E.,  Armstrong,  J., 
Medarova-Bergstrom, K., Gantioler, S. 2010. Strategic Orientations of EU Environmental Policy under 
the Sixth Environment Action Programme and Implications for the Future. Report for the IBGE-BIM, 
IEEP, London. 
It  is  up  to  MS  to  decide  how  they  allocate  the  available  funds,  taking  account  of  the  EU  strategic 
objectives but also their own priorities. 
COM(2004)0431 final on Financing Natura 2000: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/index_en.htm 
TEEB 2009. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

maximum  funding  rates,  for  example  in  the  rural  development  regulations41, 
that are insufficient to create the required incentives. 

Finally, the current provisions relating to the EU budget do not allow for the continuity that is 
often  needed  to  enable  biodiversity  related  projects  to  succeed.  This  would  require,  for 
instance,  a  longer  timeframe  than  is  currently  allowed  under  EU  financing  rules,  and 
especially for projects funded through external funding mechanisms. 

At global level 

Over  the  period  2002  to  2008,  the  EU  provided  over  USD  1  billion  for  global  biodiversity 
annually.  EU  Member  States  contributed  significantly  to  the  recent  replenishment  of  the 
Global Environment Facility, for which USD 1.2 billion is earmarked for biodiversity for the 
period  July  2010  to  June  2014.  This  represents  a  28%  increase  compared  to  the  last 
replenishment. However, biodiversity is also a relatively low priority for EU external aid, as it 
gets less than 1/50th of EU and Member States’ total annual development aid budgets. 

There  is  a  global  consensus  that,  even  with  a  more  efficient  use  of  existing  resources,  the 
currently  available  financial  resources  for 
the  achievement  of  global  biodiversity 
commitments  are  still  insufficient.  The  TEEB  report  for  policy  makers  indicates  that  the 
world  community  is  investing  60%  to  75%  of  what  would  be  needed  to  effectively  manage 
the existing protected area network.  

3.4.4. 

Inadequate framework and governance structure 

The BAP has proven to be a useful tool to raise awareness of biodiversity issues and to foster 
action  across  sectors.  However,  it  presents  limitations  that  have  contributed  to  the  overall 
failure to reach the 2010 target. Its effectiveness was hindered by the lack of prioritisation42 
amongst  its  160  actions  and  the  absence  of  a  clear  governance  structure,  leading  to 
uncertainties  as  to  the  distribution  of  responsibility  for  actions  among  different  actors  and 
levels of governance. The fact that the overall target was not translated into a limited number 
of targets meant that it was difficult to judge whether actions were sufficient. 

Adequately  monitoring  progress  towards  the  2010  target  of  halting  biodiversity  loss  was 
difficult because of it was not underpinned by a baseline.. Taken together, the governance and 
monitoring shortcomings of the BAP hampered its effective implementation and therefore its 
ability to tackle the challenge of biodiversity loss.  

3.4.5.  Limited awareness about biodiversity 

A  further  factor  contributing  to  the  failure  to  address  biodiversity  loss  in  the  EU  is  the  low 
overall  awareness  about  the  importance  of  biodiversity  and  the  implications  of  its  loss  for 
individuals, sectors and society at large. Annex 5 summarises the results of recent surveys of 
EU  citizens'  and  business  leaders'  attitudes  towards  biodiversity.  More  information  and 
awareness-raising  is  needed  to  reduce  the  indirect  drivers  of  biodiversity  loss  and  stimulate 
the  lasting  changes,  for  instance in  lifestyle  choices  and  business  decisions,  that  required  to 
reverse the current situation in Europe and the world. 

41 

42

EN 

The rural development regulation however allows for derogating from these maximum rates provided 
that the Member State justifies it. 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/bap_2010/4%20EC_Know

ledge_Base_Assessment_BAP_final.pdf 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
3.5.  Where will we be in 2020 compared to the new headline target? 

3.5.1.  Recent trends in the state and pressures of biodiversity 

The  2010  EU  biodiversity  baseline  is  the  first  comprehensive  assessment  of  the  state  of 
biodiversity  in  the  EU  and  one  of  the  most  complete  set  of  facts  and  figures  of  different 
biodiversity and ecosystem components in the world, whilst also directly policy relevant, and 
helping to summarise complex and often disparate sets of scientific data in a simple and clear 
manner. Given that biodiversity is by definition difficult to represent in aggregated terms, the 
focus is on specific components of biodiversity.  

Looking backwards, there is often a lack of data on evolution over time, in particular for the 
data  of  habitats  and  species  in  favourable  conservation  status:  the  first  assessment  of 
conservation  status  was  based  on  data  reported  by  Member  States  in  2007,  and  the  next 
reporting  exercise  is  due  in  2013.  The  few  indicators  for  which  there  are  some  elements  of 
time trends – e.g. red list species, Corine Land Cover, farmland birds – show that although the 
rate of deterioration had decreased, biodiversity loss is still ongoing. 

Projections  of  biodiversity  loss  were  developed  based  on  the  Mean  Species  Abundance 
(MSA)  indicator,  which  calculates  the  mean  species  abundance  of  the  original  species 
compared  to  the  natural  or  low-impacted  state.  Although  it  has  significant  limitations, 
including the inability to deal with changing species composition (e.g. extinction, invasion), 
MSA can provide indications on the key process of homogenisation, at different scales from 
national to global, and can also be seen as a measure of driver intensity. The projections for 
the EU based on a 2007 baseline show continuing decline beyond 2020 (figure 5). 

MSA-Biodiversity in Europe
OECD baseline (2007)

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

1960

1980

2000

2020

2040

2060

Western Europe

Central Europe

EU

Figure 5: Projections biodiversity change in Europe based on the Mean Species Abundance indicator 
Source: PBL 

There  is  no  suggestion  that  the  drivers  and  pressures  identified  above  will  stop  putting 
pressure on biodiversity and ecosystems in the absence of further action. The indications tend 
to  be  that  they  would  continue  (overexploitation,  pollution,  habitat  loss)  or  even  get  worse 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
(climate  change,  IAS).  This  is  in  particular  the  case  of  IAS,  given  the  ongoing  increase  in 
trade, which is an important pathway of introduction. 

Globally,  the  evidence  is  the  same:  with  current  policies  and  current  effort  the  loss  of 
biodiversity  and  ecosystems  will  continue.  A  recent  study  estimated  that  75  percent  of  the 
planet’s  coral  reefs  would  be  at  risk  of  death  or  extreme  damage  within  20  years,  and  95 
percent  of  the  world’s  reefs  would  be  at  risk  by  2050,  unless  carbon  emissions  are  cut 
drastically43. Projections based on MSA show that global biodiversity is expected to decrease 
by 10 percent points (pp) from about 70% in 2000, to about 60% in 2050 on average44. 

3.5.2.  Consequences of existing policies and legislation 

Annex  6  broadly  summarises  the  major  policies  having  direct  significant  impacts  on 
biodiversity. The most relevant are reviewed here in more detail. 

With most of the Natura 2000 network now in place, the next period of implementation of the 
Habitats  and  Birds  Directives  will  be  critical  to  making  the  network  fully  coherent  and 
operational through effective management of the sites. This will require significant financial 
investments,  related  to  land  acquisition,  habitat  restoration,  development  of  management 
plans, monitoring of the state of species and habitats, ensuring connectivity between sites, as 
well  as  ongoing  management  costs  of  sites.  Given  the  current  poor  conservation  status  of 
many habitats, and implementation experience to date, unless some element of dynamism is 
provided,  in  particular  through  increased  funding,  implementation  is  likely  to  be  again  very 
slow in the next 10 years, and management measures are unlikely to be effective enough to 
reach  the  2020  headline  target.  In  a  business  as  usual  scenario,  it  is  expected  that  the 
conservation status of species and habitats in EU would remain similar or worst than in the 
2009  heath  check,  i.e.  overall,  only  17%  of  both  habitats  and  species  in  favourable 
conservation status. 

In  addition,  simply  designating  protected  areas  is  not  sufficient  to  halt  biodiversity  loss. 
Whilst the focus of protected areas tend to be on protecting emblematic habitats and species, 
wider  biodiversity,  and  more  common  less  charismatic  habitats  and  species  also  need  to  be 
protected as they provide valuable services to society. Biodiversity concerns also need to be 
further  integrated  into  other  policies,  and  although  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy  and 
Common Fisheries Policy provide some assistance through funding incentives, those should 
be enhanced to provide adequate levels of public goods. 

Regarding the Common Agricultural Policy, given the present conservation status of agro-
ecosystems, and according to the 2010 baseline report, agriculture is still a significant driver 
of habitat loss and degradation. In order to meet the biodiversity targets by 2020, the reformed 
CAP  should  seek  to  ensure  that  agriculture  enhances  its  provision  of  public  goods,  notably 
farmland biodiversity. 

Regarding  fisheries,  the  situation  is  unlikely  to  improve  by  2020  unless  the  CFP  reform 
directly  tackles  the  problem  of  overfishing.  The  recently  adopted  Marine  Strategy 
Framework Directive should drive improvements in the status of marine ecosystems, since it 
requires  that  good  environmental  status  (GES)  -  for  which  one  of  the  descriptors  relates  to 
biodiversity - is achieved by 2020. Key deadlines include an initial assessment of the status of 
marine  waters,  and  characteristics  of  GES  and  environmental  targets  for  2020  in  2012.  The 
gap should be filled through measures to be taken in 2015.  

43 
44 

World Resources Institute, 2011. Reefs at Risk Revisited. 
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2010. Rethinking Global Biodiversity Strategies. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Water Framework Directive also has a key role to play in biodiversity protection and 
ecosystem restoration. If adequately implemented, a significant amount of restoration of water 
related ecosystems is likely to take place, as the basic requirement is to reach good ecological 
status for freshwater bodies by 2015. 

As regards climate change, achieving the '2 degrees' climate target is absolutely essential to 
avert global biodiversity loss. The EU has already developed and is implementing elaborate 
climate  change  policies  and  strategies  to  enable  the  EU  to  meet  its  targets  for  2020  and 
beyond.  Although  it  is  too  early  to  determine  whether  they  will  be  sufficient,  specific 
measures  are  in  place  to  ensure  that  climate  concerns  are  appropriately  reflected  in  all 
Community policies, and reduce the EU's vulnerability to climate change impacts. Finally, the 
potential impact of the EU's biofuels policy on biodiversity will be addressed as part of the 
implementation  of  the  renewable  energy  directive,  in  particular  through  the  work  on 
sustainability criteria. However, failure to agree on a future global climate agreement after the 
Kyoto  Protocol's  first  commitment  period's  expiry  would  constitute  an  important  gap  and 
would risk jeopardising the achievement of the biodiversity goals.  

As regards pollution, the EU has extensive legislation in place to tackle industrial, transport, 
domestic  and  agricultural  pollution.  Legislation  covering  chemicals  and  pesticides  is 
particularly important in this context. While there has been a steady decline in the emissions 
of  substances  like  nitrogen  and  phosphorous,  which  lead  to  eutrophication  of  ecosystems, 
enhanced implementation of all pollution related legislative instruments is needed.  

The evolution of soil biodiversity will depend to a significant extent on the outcome of current 
discussions  on  the  Commission  proposal  for  a  Soil  Framework  Directive,  still  under 
discussion. Without filling the legislative gap, reaching the 2020 biodiversity headline target 
and vision is unlikely. 

Finally,  there  is  currently  no  dedicated  policy  on  invasive  alien  species,  and  current 
predictions  are  that  the  already  rising  trend  of  damage  to  habitats  and  species  will  carry  on 
increasing  exponentially45.  Due  to  the  expansion  of  trade  and  mobility  and  increasing 
environmental  disturbances,  threats  from  non-indigenous  species  are  increasing  at  an 
accelerated  pace.  Europe’s  maritime  and  land  borders  have  already  been  breached  by  more 
than  11,000  alien  species,  around  10%  of  which  are  known  to  have  an  economic  or 
environmental  impact.  According  to  expertise  available,  over  1000  species  would  require 
proactive  management.  Compared  to  other  OECD  countries  (e.g.  U.S.,  Canada,  Australia, 
New  Zealand),  the  EU  is  currently  poorly  equipped  to  tackle  the  challenge,  and  there  is  a 
serious  risk  that  under  a  business  as  usual  scenario,  the  EU  would  not  reach  the  2020  EU 
headline target, nor the global target for IAS. 

3.5.3.  Meeting the 2020 headline target  

Business as usual scenario 

Overall,  given  the  current  state  of  biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services,  the  continuing 
pressures,  the  policy  gaps  and  the  slow  implementation  in  key  policies,  although  some 
improvements are expected, in realistic terms, a business as usual scenario is unlikely to see 
sufficient improvement to ensure that biodiversity loss is halted by 2020. 

New elements of the 2020 headline target 

45 

IEEP, 2010. Assessment to support continued development of the EU Strategy to combat invasive alien 
species. Final report to the European Commission. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  addition,  the  2020  headline  target  includes  new  components:  the  conservation  and 
restoration  of  ecosystem  services  and  the  contribution  to  global  biodiversity.  The  BAP 
included  elements  of  ecosystem  conservation,  but  not  specifically  services.  Whilst  the 
Environmental Liability Directive refers indirectly to the notion of services, the explicit focus 
on  ecosystem  services  is  a  new  policy  area.  With  ecosystem  services,  the  focus  is  more  on 
flows  of  benefits  to  society  than  on  conservation  of  biodiversity  per  se.  Although  there  is 
some evidence that high diversity of species might be correlated to ecosystem services, it is 
generally recognised that the relationship is not straightforward, and that a focus on increasing 
species diversity may not always lead to high levels of services. For example, research shows 
that ecosystems in non-biodiversity-rich areas also provide high levels of services46. Without 
a specific focus on these services, they are unlikely to be adequately maintained or restored. 
These new elements bring additional risks and uncertainties for policy achievement by 2020 
Given the current poor state of ecosystem services in the EU, and the lack of explicit focus on 
ecosystem services of current policy, it is unlikely that there would be widespread restoration 
of  ecosystem  services  under  a  business  as  usual  scenario,  although  some  amount  of 
restoration is expected under the Habitats Directive, the WFD and the MSFD. 

Unequal burden across Member States 

Biodiversity is not evenly spread and trends differ from one Member State to another. There 
are also differences in implementation of existing legislation as shown by the state of progress 
by Member States in designating sufficient protected areas to provide for Habitats Directive 
annex I habitats and annex II species. Therefore the burden of tackling the challenge will be 
spread unequally.  

3.6.  Why should the EU get involved? 

The legal basis for action 

The  legal  underpinning  for  the  development  of  biodiversity  policy  in  the  EU  is  found  in 
Articles 191 and 192 (ex 174 and ex 175 TEC respectively) of the Treaty on the Functioning 
of  the  European  Union,  which  requires  a  high  level  of  protection  and  improvement  of  the 
quality of the environment in the European Union.  

The protection of nature was among the first policy areas developed under EU environmental 
legislation,  as  far  back  as  1979, in  recognition  of  the  fact  that  the  protection  of  species  and 
habitats  has  transboundary  considerations,  as  well  as  important  implications  for  the 
achievement of other EU policy objectives and the sustainability of many economic sectors in 
the  EU.  EU  action  in  the  area  of  biodiversity  and  nature  protection  is  also  important  in 
ensuring  a  level  playing  field  in  the  EU  and  avoiding  the  distortion  of  competition  in  the 
internal  market.  As  such,  the  principle  of  EU  involvement  in  managing  biodiversity  is  now 
well established.  

Promoting solidarity 

There  is  also  a  case  for  EU  action  to  conserve  biodiversity  and  promote  its  sustainable  use 
based on the “solidarity principle”, since biodiversity is unevenly distributed among Member 
States: there is a higher proportion of natural areas, and better preserved ecosystems in some 
countries than others. It  can  be argued that access to biodiversity and its benefits should be 
open  to  all  Member  States.  This  justifies  the  need  for  some  effort  sharing  and  co-ordinated 
effort at Community level for protecting biodiversity.  

46 

Naturally at your service - Why it pays to invest in nature (RSPB) 2009. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Subsidiarity 

The principle of subsidiarity in this case means that actions may need to vary from Member 
State  to  Member  State  and  within  Member  States  from  region  to  region.  The  challenge  in 
those  areas  is  in  ensuring  integration  and  coherent  and  co-ordinated  programming.  Actions 
proposed in this paper are those where the EU has most value-added and leverage. However, 
it  is  clear  that  without  parallel  action  at  Member  State  level,  they  will  not  be  sufficient  to 
deliver  the  target  of  halting  biodiversity  loss.  In  practice,  success  in  delivering  the  2020 
headline target will depend on a  mixture  of  EU and  national,  regional or  local measures, in 
line with the principle of subsidiarity.  

Delivering on global commitments 
In  the  context  of  the  10th  Conference  of  the  Parties  to  the  UN  Convention  on  Biological 
Diversity  (CBD  COP10)  in  October  2010,  the  EU  and  its  27  Member  States  have  agreed  a 
Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 with a new 2020 global mission or headline target 
requiring them to take effective and urgent action to halt the loss of biodiversity in order to 
ensure  that,  by  2020,  ecosystems  are  resilient  and  continue  to  provide  essential  services, 
thereby  securing  the  planet’s  variety  of  life,  and  contributing  to  human  well-being,  and 
poverty  eradication.  They  have  also  committed  to  20  global  targets  for  biodiversity  to  be 
attained by 2020 at the latest. 

Specifically, Target 17 of the Strategic Plan requires that "by 2015, each Party has developed, 
adopted as a policy instrument, and commenced implementing an effective, participatory and 
updated national biodiversity strategy and action plan".  

4. 

OBJECTIVES OF THE EU BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY 

This section describes the general and specific objectives underpinning the targets proposed 
as  part  of  the  strategy,  as  required  by  the  Council.  Based  on  the  problem  definition, 
identification of drivers, and implementation and policy gaps, a set of targets is proposed, as a 
response  to  the  Council  conclusions,  and  to  the  EU  commitment  to  the  Nagoya  strategic 
action plan.  

4.1. 

General objectives 

The  general  objective  is  the  EU  2020  biodiversity  headline  target,  which  has  three 
components:  to  halt  biodiversity  loss  and  the  degradation  of  ecosystem  services  by  2020, 
restore them as far as feasible, and step up the EU contribution to averting biodiversity loss. 
Achieving the 2020 headline target is also seen as an intermediary step towards attaining the 
objective set out in the 2050 vision, and a means of meeting the EU commitment to the global 
2020 biodiversity targets.  

Halting biodiversity loss and ecosystem services degradation involves stopping or preventing 
the long-term or permanent qualitative or quantitative reduction in components of biodiversity 
(genes,  species  and  habitats/ecosystems)  and  their  potential  to  provide  goods  and  services. 
Biodiversity  loss  needs  to  be  understood  against  general  characteristics  such  as  variety, 
quantity and quality or distribution, rather than at the level of each individual organism. 

The  restoration  of  ecosystems  and  their  services  is  understood  as  actively  assisting  the 
recovery  of  an  ecosystem  that  has  been  degraded,  damaged,  or  destroyed,  although  natural 
regeneration may suffice in cases of low degradation. The objective should be the return of an 
ecosystem  to  its  original  community  structure,  natural  complement  of  species,  and  natural 
functions to ensure the continued provision of services in the long term, although in cases of 
extreme degradation, the focus on specific services may be justified. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
Stepping up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss is essential to ensuring 
that  the  EU  delivers  on  its  global  biodiversity  commitments,  in  particular  the  2020 
biodiversity targets and mission under the CBD.  

4.2. 

Specific objectives 

The strategy should contribute to meeting the general objectives outlined above. This requires 
addressing the drivers and pressures of biodiversity loss, and the implementation and policy 
gaps identified in the problem analysis, whilst also taking into account the Nagoya strategic 
action  plan  targets.  In  doing  so,  it  needs  to  be  recognised  that  some  of  the  drivers  and 
pressures are expected to be addressed through other policies, and so this strategy focuses on 
the key areas which require additional action. 

In  addition,  targets  should  be  selected  on  the  basis  of  two  further  factors:  their  overall 
potential  to  deliver  early  and  significant  results  and  to  seize  opportunities  provided  by 
ongoing or upcoming reform processes in relevant policy areas. 

Both state-based and effort-based targets are needed so that effects can be perceived within a 
politically relevant time frame (e.g. 5, 10 years) while generating positive results in the longer 
term. Targets should be focused on key drivers that, unless tackled, risk leading to irreversible 
loss of biodiversity or very high restoration costs.  

For  some  areas,  the  policy  framework  was  assessed  to  be  adequate  or  in  early  stages  of 
implementation, and therefore no dedicated target was set: 

•  For the time being, no specific measures are proposed to tackle the root causes of climate 
change  as  these  are  being  developed  as  part  of  Climate  policy.  However,  adaptation  to 
climate  change  is  an  essential  element  of  the  Biodiversity  Strategy,  and  some  selected 
targets are expected to contribute significantly to related EU climate objectives.  

•  Regarding  pollution,  there  is  still  a  case  for  further  action  in  certain  areas,  such  as 
phosphates and certain atmospheric pollutants to further limit emissions of acidifying and 
eutrophying  pollutants  and  ozone  precursors.  As  these  are  under  consideration  by  the 
Commission, no new measures are proposed for inclusion in the strategy. 

•  For  similar  reasons,  no  specific  measures  are  proposed  on  soil,  pending  a  conclusion  of 
current discussions on the Commission proposal for a Soil Framework Directive. However, 
some  measures  such  as  those  related  to  restoration  and  green  infrastructure  will  have  a 
positive impact on soil ecosystems. 

•  No target was proposed for aquaculture as the EU regulatory response was assessed to be 

adequate, although implementation will need to be closely monitored. 

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) is expected to deliver good environmental status 
of water ecosystems by 2015. An ongoing fitness check of water-related policy will lead to a 
Blueprint initiative in 2012. The situation will need to be reviewed after 2012.  

The policy gap analysis in section 3.5, however, showed that given the slow implementation 
of  the  Habitats  and  Birds  directives,  additional  measures  are  needed  to  reach  their  full 
potential. Also, more integration of biodiversity concerns are needed in sectoral policies such 
as the CAP and the CFP, which are currently undergoing a reform. 

In  conclusion  specific  objectives  need  to  focus  on  the  three  areas  where  opportunities  for 
improving  implementation  or  integration  are  greatest,  namely  the  Nature  Directives, 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
agricultural policy and fisheries policy. In addition, two other objectives should focus on areas 
where there is at present no specific policy framework, including ecosystem services outside 
Natura  2000,  and  invasive  alien  species.  Finally,  the  international  dimension  of  the  2020 
objectives,  and  the  recent  commitments  in  Nagoya  warrant  an  additional  specific  objective 
focusing on the EU contribution to global biodiversity. 

The selected specific objectives directly relate to the problems and causes of biodiversity loss 
identified. Each objective is linked to specific problems and drivers, with different degrees of 
intensity, as illustrated in Figure 6. 
Figure 6 illustrates that the first two specific objectives focus directly on the problems (loss 
of  species,  habitats  and  ecosystem  services),  while  the  ones  on  agriculture  and  forestry, 
fisheries  and  IAS  focus  more  on  the  causes  of  biodiversity  loss.  It  also  illustrates  that 
although  not  the  specific  focus  of  individual  targets,  pollution  and  climate  change  are 
addressed by some of the selected targets. This is also illustrated in the context of the DPSIR 
framework in figure 7. 

Taken  together,  the  specific  objectives  address  the  three  dimensions  of  the  EU  2020 
biodiversity  headline  target.  The  first  two  focus  on  protecting  and  restoring  biodiversity 
and associated ecosystem services both within and outside the Natura 2000 network. Whilst 
protecting  species  and  habitats  of  European  Community  Importance  remains  a  priority, 
ecosystems  outside  protected  areas  provide  essential,  valuable  services  that  need  to  be 
protected  and  restored.  Addressing  the  key  pressures  on  biodiversity  with  the  following 
three objectives is a necessary condition to conservation and restoration. The sixth objective 
reflects the third dimension of the headline target: the global contribution. 

Figure 6: relation of specific objectives to problems and causes of biodiversity loss 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
Indirect drivers are best addressed across targets in relation to specific pressures, rather than 
in  isolation.  For  example,  the  use  of  incentive-based  mechanisms  should  contribute  to 
correcting  market  failures  associated  with  the  degradation  and  loss  of  biodiversity  and 
ecosystems  and  will  be  included  within  each  target.  Similarly,  other  drivers  such  as 
cultural/lifestyle-related, trade-related drivers of biodiversity loss, and lack of awareness will 
be addressed in the biodiversity strategy through the other targets. Institutional drivers will 
be addressed through the governance aspects of the strategy (see figure 7). 

In  addition,  many  indirect  socio-economic  drivers  of  biodiversity  loss  are  also  drivers  for 
other  environmental  issues.  The  EU's  flagship  initiative  on  a  resource  efficient  Europe,  in 
preparation as part of the EU 2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, will 
contribute  to  reducing  some  key  indirect  drivers,  such  as  demand  for  natural  resources  and 
ecosystem  services.  The  initiative  aims  at  putting  in  place  a  roadmap  including  actions  to 
foster sustainable supply of resources (those being commodities, raw materials, minerals, but 
also natural resources and their services), boosting overall resource efficiency. 

Governance aspects 
of the Biodiversity 
Strategy

RESPONSES
Existing policies:
WFD, MSFD, CAP
CFP
Nature directives
Soil strategy
Pollution legislation,
Climate change policies

DRIVERS
Economic factors
- Externalities/underpricing 
- Economic growth
- Trade patterns
Demographic factors
- Population growth
- Cultural/lifestyle choices
Institutional factors
- Lack of prioritised sub-targets
- Implementation and enforcement failure
-Inadequate governance structure
- Lack of awareness/information

ST3 - 
Agriculture & 
forestry 

ST4 - 
Fisheries

ST5 - 
IAS 

Market-based 
instruments in 
measures to reach 
sub-targets

Awareness-raising measures 
to reach sub-targets

PRESSURES
Land use change
and fragmentation 
Pollution
Overexploitation of natural 
resources (forests, soil, 
oceans, freshwater, )
Climate Change
Invasive Alien Species

ST1 - Nature 
Conservation 

IMPACTS
Reduced well-being due to degraded 
ecosystem services
- regulating services
- provisioning services
- cultural services
- supporting services

STATE
Loss of land and marine-based 
species
Loss and degradation of land and 
marine based habitats and 
ecosystems

ST2 - 
Ecosystem 
services 

Figure 7: Links between the problem elements and the targets and measures based on the DPSIR framework 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
 
5. 

OPTIONS FOR THE TARGETS 

This  section  describes  what  alternatives  were  considered  for  the  operational  targets  and 
justifies the final selection. The nature of the target (indicative or binding), once implemented, 
is  also  described,  as  well  as  possible  future  adjustments  needed  as  the  knowledge  base 
evolves. The selected targets and links to general and specific objectives are outlined in Table 
1. 

5.1. 

T1 - Fully implement the Birds and Habitats Directives 

Link with EU objectives and global targets 

Full implementation of the Nature directives is key to halting biodiversity loss. This specific 
objective is linked with two global 2020 biodiversity targets: 

•  By  2020,  the  rate  of  loss  of  all  natural  habitats,  including  forests,  is  at  least  halved  and 
where  feasible  brought  close  to  zero,  and  degradation  and  fragmentation  is  significantly 
reduced (Global Target 5); 

•  By  2020,  the  extinction  of  known  threatened  species  has  been  prevented  and  their 
conservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained 
(Global Target 12). 

Discarded options 

Some options originally considered for this target included: a reduction in the percentage of 
unknown  assessments  for  the  conservation  state  of  habitats  and  species;  a  percentage  of 
Natura 2000 sites with a Management Plan; or a blending of improved conservation status for 
habitats and species protected under the Nature legislation and additional species and habitats 
covered under national legislation. These were not retained on the basis of further assessment 
and input received from stakeholders and Member States, namely: while valuable to address 
current information gaps, an increase in the knowledge of the state of species would be  too 
limiting  as  a  target  and  may  not  necessarily  translate  into  an  improved  state;  the  Nature 
legislation  does  not  require  that  all  Natura  2000  sites  have  a  formal  management  plan  and 
while being a key tool, the fact of having such a plan would not guarantee an improvement in 
the conservation status of protected habitats and species; finally, blending obligations arising 
from  the  Nature  legislation  and  additional  species  and  habitats  covered  under  national 
legislation would render monitoring overly complex; additional national obligations would be 
better  addressed  through  national  biodiversity  strategies.  A  target  pertaining  to  the 
improvement of the state of conservation was preferred, as having a more direct link with the 
relevant global targets.  

Alternative options considered 

The  Birds  Directive  covers  all  bird  species  and  related  habitats,  and  requires  that  all  birds 
species  reach  good  status.  The  latest  2004  assessment  for  25  EU  member  States  concluded 
that 52% of species are secure. The Habitats Directive covers other species and habitat types, 
and requires that each habitat type and each species in the different biogeographical regions 
reaches favourable conservation status. The assessment methodology is described in Annex 8. 
The  2009  health  check  concluded  that  17%  of  habitats  and  species  are  in  favourable 
conservation  status.  Whilst  sites  protected  under  both  directives  are  included  in  the  Natura 
2000  network,  the  definition  of  the  status  of  species  and  habitats  is  different  under  each 
Directive, and therefore the target must contain objectives that are differentiated according to 
the different requirements. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
Three options were therefore considered for this target: 

•  Option  1:  achieve  favourable  conservation  status  for  all  species  and  habitats  under  the 

Habitats directive and good status for all bird species under the Birds directive.  

•  Option 2: achieve a realistic proportion of species and habitats in good conservation status 

under the habitats directive, and in good status under the birds directive 

•  Option  3:  achieve  favourable  conservation  status  or  significant  improvement  in 
conservation  status,  and  achieve  good  status  or  significant  improvement  in  the  status  of 
bird populations. 

Whilst  it  can  be  argued  that  all  Member  States  have  the  obligation  to  achieve  the  goals  of 
option  1,  as  soon  as  possible,  the  Directives  do  not  contain  specific  deadlines.  Moreover, 
since species and habitat types covered by the Habitat Directive were selected because they 
are  already  rare  or  threatened,  achieving  favourable  conservation  status  is  not  easily 
attainable.  It  implies  not  only  ensuring  that  populations  of  species  and  area  of  habitat  are 
favourable but also that their overall range is favourable. Therefore, option 1 was assessed to 
be only attainable in the medium to long term for many species and habitats. 

Option 3 was preferred to option 2, as a realistic recovery target for 2020 based on favourable 
conservation  status  alone  would  be  rather  low,  and  it  would  hide  all  the  improvements  that 
can  and  should  be  made  in  the  other  categories  of  the  assessments,  for  example  from 
unfavourable-inadequate to favourable, as progress is made towards favourable conservation 
status. Taking into account these improvements is important as they represent the restoration 
efforts  that  are  needed  to  achieve  the  overall  2020  biodiversity  headline  target.  Option  3 
would therefore represent a more sensitive indicator of progress made to not only halt the loss 
but also restore biodiversity in the EU.  

Level of ambition 

An  analysis  was  carried  out  to  assess  the  level  of  improvements  in  conservation  status  that 
could be expected if the adequate conservation measures were undertaken to improve certain 
parameters  (habitat  area  for  species,  population  and  future  prospects  for  species  and  future 
prospects and structure & functions for the habitat types), which underpin the assessment of 
conservation  status.  This  analysis  concluded  that  a  realistic  target  could  focus  on  a  25% 
increase in favourable or improving conservation status for species and 33% for habitat types 
(see annex 8 for details of the analysis). This would also be in line with Global Target 12. 

A separate assessment was carried out for birds as the Birds Directive has a different focus. 
The  approach  is  based  on  an  assessment  of  risk  of  extinction  of  different  species.  If  the 
necessary  conservation  measures  are  put  in  place,  it  is  considered  feasible  to  achieve  a 
significant measurable improvement from the current level of 52% of bird species populations 
having secure/good status to a maximum level of 80% of bird species either being secure or 
showing  improving  population  status  by  2020.  The  figures  were  translated  in  terms  of 
percentage of improvement and rounded in the final formulation of the target. 

Nature of the target 

This target is indicative, and may be reviewed in 2014, when the outcome of the next 'Article 
17' report will provide an update on trends in conservation status of habitats and species. 

5.2. 

T2 - Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services 

Link with EU objectives and global targets 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
Halting the degradation of ecosystems and their services requires that there is no further net 
loss  overall  compared  to  the  2010  biodiversity  baseline.  The  council  conclusions  request  in 
addition that ecosystem services are restored as far as feasible. As a Party to the CBD, the EU 
has also committed to two related global 2020 targets requiring that: 

•  ecosystems  that  provide  essential  services,  including  services  related  to  water,  and 
contribute  to  health,  livelihoods  and  wellbeing,  are  restored  and  safeguarded  (Global 
Target 14) 

•  ecosystem  resilience  and  the  contribution  of  biodiversity  to  carbon  stocks  have  been 
enhanced,  through  conservation  and  restoration,  including  restoration  of  at  least  15%  of 
degraded ecosystems, thereby contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation and 
to combating desertification (Global Target 15).  

Alternative options considered 

Ensuring  that  restoration  of  ecosystems  leads  to  enhanced  ecosystem  services  requires  that 
attention is paid to integrating ecosystems in the wider landscape, as location and connectivity 
will  influence  the  level  of  ecosystem  services.  Spatial  planning  is  therefore  an  important 
dimension,  which  can  be  delivered  through  the  establishment  of  green  infrastructure.  This 
would pursue the aim of strengthening and restoring the good functioning of ecosystems and 
associated services, increase resilience and reduce vulnerability to climate change and natural 
disasters as well as increase spatial and functional connectivity between existing natural areas, 
while  taking  care  to  ensure  that  these  solutions  are  well  adapted  to  local  and  regional 
conditions. 

Three options were considered: 

•  Option 1 – establishment of green infrastructure. 

•  Option 2 – restoration of degraded ecosystems. 

•  Option 3 – establishment of green infrastructure and restoration of degraded ecosystems.  

With option 1, the focus would be on spatial integration of ecosystem services. This has the 
appropriate  qualitative  focus  but  risks  not  being  concrete  enough  in  terms  of  desired  output 
for  restoration,  especially  as  the  concept  of  green  infrastructure  is  still  being  developed. 
Option  2  would  focus  on  ecosystems  only,  as  a  proxy  for  ecosystem  services.  This  has  the 
merit of being more easily quantified than ecosystem services. However there is a risk that the 
focus on restoration will be mainly on restoration area, without due consideration to the type 
and level of services restored. Elements such as connectivity and integration in the landscape 
may  not  be  taken  into  consideration,  and  opportunities  for  benefits  from  multiple  services 
may be lost. Option 3 is the preferred option as it combines the two elements above and has 
the merit of combining a concrete focus on outcome with the appropriate qualitative elements 
on ecosystem services linked to green infrastructure. 

Level of ambition 

An  additional  consideration  is  the  quantified  level  of  the  EU  target  compared  to  the  global 
target. Restoration of at least 15% of degraded ecosystems is the minimum level of ambition 
as any less would put the EU in non compliance with the CBD obligations. However, a higher 
figure (for example 30%) merits being considered for a number of reasons. Firstly, the EU has 
adopted  a  more  ambitious  headline  target  than  the  one  agreed  globally,  and  the  EU's  2050 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
vision  requires  that  ecosystem  services  are  appropriately  restored.  Secondly,  the  EU  is  the 
most fragmented continent in the world and a significant amount of restoration is expected to 
take place under existing legislation. Thirdly a higher percentage of restoration is likely to be 
cost-beneficial,  in  particular  given  the  climate  change  mitigation  and  adaptation  benefits  of 
many  ecosystems.  However,  there  is  currently  not  sufficient  evidence  of  how  much 
restoration  would  take  place  under  existing  EU  policy,  whether  additional  efforts  would  be 
needed  to  reach  30%,  and  what  their  costs  and  benefits  would  be,  to  take  a  fully  informed 
decision.  Therefore,  the  chosen  level  is  initially  the  minimum  compliance  with  respect  to 
international commitments. 

While there was some a discussion with Member States on different options before the CBD-
COP 10 in Nagoya, the adoption of relevant targets in the Strategic Plan of the CBD which 
were sufficiently clear and quantified allow the Commission to focus on these elements. 

Nature of the target 

This target is indicative, and the level of ambition should be reviewed in 2014, when it should 
be clearer how much restoration is likely  to take place under the WFD and the MSFD, and 
progress has been made on the costs and benefits of further action. 

5.3. 

T3  -  Increase  the  contribution  of  agriculture  and  forestry  to  maintaining  and 
enhancing biodiversity  

Link with EU objectives and global targets 

Addressing  key  drivers  of  biodiversity  loss  is  essential  to  reach  EU  objectives.  One  of  the 
2020 global biodiversity targets requires that areas under agriculture, aquaculture and forestry 
are  managed  sustainably,  ensuring  conservation  of  biodiversity  (Global  Target  7).  As 
explained in section 4.2, no EU target is dedicated to aquaculture. 

Agriculture 

Discarded options 

Initial  options  considered  for  the  agriculture  target  included:  a  percentage  of  CAP  funds 
earmarked  for  biodiversity,  a  percentage  of  agricultural  area  under  organic  farming  or  a 
percentage of high nature value farmland that should be maintained. These were not retained 
on the basis of further assessment and input received from stakeholders and Member States, 
namely:  earmarking  of  CAP  funds  would  not  have  been  possible  without  pre-empting  the 
discussions  on  the  CAP  reform;  while  the  environmental  benefits  of  organic  farming  are 
recognised47, it was felt on the one hand that leaving conventional farming unaddressed would 
be problematic given its dominant share in agricultural area and, on the other hand that other 
types  of  farming  also  provide  benefits  for  biodiversity.  As  regards  the  High  Nature  Value 
farmland, the problem of the lack of a common definition of NHV farmland or HNV farming 
at EU level was raised. A target based on the area of agriculture land that is under measures 
that have to deliver an improvement in the state of biodiversity was thus preferred. 

Alternative options considered and level of ambition 
The  recent  communication  on  ‘The  CAP  towards  2020’48  highlights  that  ‘the  active 
management of natural resources by farming is an important tool to combat biodiversity loss 

47 

48 

EN 

See  for  example  'Organic  farming  shows  limited  benefit  to  wildlife'.  Science  Daily.  6  May  2010, 
lower  yields;  and 
showing  a  12% 
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6496-organic-farming-boosts-biodiversity-.html  
COM(2010)672 final. 

in  biodiversity 

farms,  but 

in  organic 

increase 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
and contributes to mitigating and adapting to climate change’. Targeted financial rewards for 
agri-environmental  ecosystem  services  are  needed  to  provide  better  incentives  to  farmers  to 
engage in activities that contribute to conserving and restoring biodiversity on their lands.  

This  requires  an  increase  in  the  proportion  of  utilised  agricultural  area  (UAA)  under  which 
biodiversity  supportive  practices  and  the  delivery  of  public  goods  from  agriculture  are 
rewarded. 

The proportion of UAA likely to be covered depends on the type of agro-ecosystems targeted. 
High  Nature  Value  (HNV)  areas49  are  particularly  important  as  evidence  shows  that  HNV 
areas are critical to conserving biodiversity. For example, it has been shown that the diversity 
of  farmland  birds  was  statistically  higher  in  HNV  areas  than  outside  HNV  areas50. 
Maintaining  these  areas  requires  income  support  as  these  farming  systems  are  under  threat 
due  to  low  farm  incomes.  Agro-ecosystems  outside  HNV  areas    also  provide  valuable 
ecosystem services, such as carbon sequestration, soil erosion control, and water regulation. 
This  includes  other  types  of  extensive  agriculture,  including  non  HNV  Natura  2000 
agricultural land, and grasslands, but also more intensive agricultural areas. 

The target should therefore focus on the extent of agricultural areas covered by biodiversity-
related measures, as well as the effectiveness of the measures in enhancing biodiversity. Three 
options were considered, depending on whether biodiversity-measures would target: 

•  Option 1 – extensive agricultural areas including HNV areas, Natura 2000 and grasslands 

(40 to 50% of UAA) 

•  Option 2 – a proportion of agricultural area across grasslands, arable land and permanent 

crops including both extensive and intensive agriculture (at least 60% of UAA) 

•  Option 3 – all agricultural land (100% of UAA)  

Annex  7  provides  the  analysis  of  the  extent  of  agricultural  area  likely  to  be  covered  under 
each  of  the  options  .  Option  1  would  reflect  the  high  importance  of  extensive  agricultural 
areas including HNV, Natura 2000 and grassland areas in maintaining biodiversity, but would 
leave out important benefits that more intensive agro-ecosystems could also provide. On the 
contrary,  option  2  would  recognise  that  intensive  arable  land  also  provides  restoration 
opportunities through the use of measures that allow the land to rest and recover; such as set 
aside,  or  other  landscape  and  management  measures.  A  realistic  proportion  of  agricultural 
area covered under option 2 could be about 60% of UAA (see annex 7), or more, depending 
on  the  extent  to  which  the  options  considered  in  the  recent  communication  on  ‘The  CAP 
towards 2020’, are taken forward in the CAP reform. It would ensure the contribution of the 
different  types  of  farmland  areas  that  can  provide  ecosystem  services  and  biodiversity 

49 

50 

High Nature Value farmland comprises the areas in the rural landscapes where farming supports high 
biodiversity  in  terms  of  species  and  habitats,  of  which  three  main  categories  can  be  distinguished: 
farmland  with  a  high  proportion  of  semi-natural  vegetation;  farmland  with  a  mosaic  of  low  intensity 
agriculture and natural and structural elements, such as field margins, hedgerows, stone walls, patches 
of  woodland  or  scrub,  and  small  rivers;  farmland  supporting  rare  species  or  a  high  proportion  of 
European or World populations. Pedroli B, Van Doorn A, De Blust G, Paracchini ML, Wascher D & 
Bunce F (Eds. 2007). Europe’s living landscapes. Essays on exploring our identity in the countryside. 
LANDSCAPE EUROPE / KNNV, Chapter 2.). 
Analysis of spatial and temporal variations of High Nature Value farmland and links with changes in 
bird  populations:  a  study  on  France  (Philippe  Pointereau,  Aggeliki  Doxa,  Frédéric  Coulon,  Frédéric 
Jiguet, Maria Luisa Paracchini), JRC Scientific & Technical Reports, EUR 24299 EN - 2010 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
                                                 
benefits,  covering  a  significant  proportion  of  agricultural  land  overall,  whilst  leaving  some 
flexibility as to the proportion covered by each sub-category. 

Under option 3, all agricultural land would be covered by biodiversity-related measures and 
deliver substantial benefits from agro-ecosystems and the services they provide. However, a 
substantial  financial  effort  would  be  needed  under  the  first  and  second  pillar  of  the  CAP, 
going  well  beyond  a  redistribution  of  resources  within  the  CAP.  For  the  second  pillar,  this 
would  require  a  higher  expenditure  by  Member  States  due  to  co-financing  requirements, 
which may seriously hamper the achievement of this target. 

The target was formulated against the background of option 2. It is based on the rationale that 
biodiversity-related measures are needed on all types of agricultural land, covering grasslands, 
arable land and permanent crops and that the area under such measures is to be maximised to 
ensure a measurable improvement in the status of species and habitats. This approach offers 
the  best  guarantee  to  deliver  on  biodiversity  objectives  without  requiring  a  disproportionate 
financial effort as would have been the case under Option 3. Option 2 has been translated into 
the following target: "Maximising areas under agriculture across grasslands, arable land and 
permanent  crops  that  are  covered  by  biodiversity-related  measures  under  the  CAP  so  as  to 
ensure the conservation of biodiversity and to bring about a measurable improvement in the 
conservation status of species and habitats that depend on or are affected by agriculture and in 
the provision of ecosystem services as compared to the EU 2010 Baseline, thus contributing 
to  enhance  sustainable  management"  .  To  ensure  that  this  target  contributes  to  achieving 
Target 1 and Target 2, the improvement in the status of species and habitats should match the 
level of ambition of Target 1 for species and habitats of  European  interest,  and the  level of 
ambition  of  Target  2  for  other  species  and  habitats.  Similarly,  the  improvement  in  the 
provision of ecosystem services should be evaluated in light of the level of ambition of Target 
2.  Until  a  baseline  is  defined  for  ecosystems  services,  the  ecosystem  (or  habitat)  should  be 
taken as a proxy. 

Nature of the target 

This target is indicative, but would need to be translated in concrete terms in the design of the 
CAP reform, to deliver on the 2020 biodiversity target. The situation should be reviewed in 
2014, once the CAP reform package has been adopted, and also in light of the take up of the 
proposed measures by farmers, and any updated data on areas covered by the different types 
of ecosystems.  

Forests 

Discarded options 

Initial options considered for the forests target included: a percentage of undisturbed forests 
that needed to be maintained as such; a percentage of forests under certification; a reduction 
in  the  percentage  of  fragmentation  within  forests.  These  were  not  retained  on  the  basis  of 
further assessment and input received from stakeholders and Member States, namely: too few 
Member  States  have  undisturbed  forests;  forest  certification's  potential  was  recognised,  in 
particular for third countries (albeit with some caveats51), but it was pointed out that some of 
the  existing  Forest  Management  Plans  in  the  EU  include  more  stringent  environmental 

51 

According  to  recent  research  the  Forest  Stewardship  Council  (FSC)  certification  scheme  has  not 
reduced  deforestation,  as  originally  intended  (Marx,  A.,  Cuypers,  D.  (2010)  Forest  certification  as  a 
global  environmental  governance  tool:  what  is  the  macro-effectiveness  of  the  Forest  Stewardship 
Council? Regulation & Governance. 4:408-434.) 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
                                                 
requirements  than  those  retained  in  certification  schemes;  while  forest  fragmentation  was 
recognised as a key threat it was raised that it is often beyond the remit of influence of forest 
holders.  A  target  related  to  the  percentage  of  forests  that  have  a  management  plan  or 
equivalent  instrument  that  contributes  to  the  improvement  of  the  state  of  biodiversity  was 
preferred.  

Alternative options considered and level of ambition 

Maintaining and enhancing biodiversity is identified as a substantial element of the EU Forest 
Strategy and the 2006 Forest Action Plan, in the context of Sustainable Forest Management 
(SFM) and the multifunctional role of forests52. The Forest Strategy indicates that appropriate 
measures  should  be  integrated  in  the  forest  programmes  or  equivalent  instruments  of  the 
Member States. 

In addition, the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forest in Europe (MCPFE, now 
Forest Europe process) in its Resolution H2 agreed that forest management should be based 
on periodically updated plans or programmes at local, regional or national levels as well as for 
ownership units, when appropriate. According to the data provided by Member States in the 
context of Forest Europe, 23 Member States have more than 60% of the forest area under a 
management  plan  or  equivalent  instrument.  Management  plans  or  equivalent  documents  in 
line  with  sustainable  forest  management  (SFM),  with  a  better  integration  of  biodiversity 
considerations than at present, are important elements to maintain and foster a sound approach 
towards  the  implementation  of  multiple,  long-term  sustainability  goals.  They  would 
contribute to the long term EU biodiversity objectives are reached. 

The target should focus on increasing the number of forests covered by a management plan 
that  includes  biodiversity  aspects,  and  on  ensuring  that  a  sufficient  enhancement  of 
biodiversity and ecosystem services is achieved.  

Two options were considered, requesting that by 2020:  

•  Option  1  -  All  publicly  owned  forests  EU  have  a  management  plan  or  equivalent 

instrument in line with SFM 

•  Option 2 - All publicly owned forests and all forests receiving EU funds under the Rural 
Development Policy have a management plan or equivalent instrument in line with SFM 

The  proportion  between  areas  of  publicly  and  privately  owned  forests  in  the  EU  is 
approximately 40 % and 60 % respectively. Many of the publicly owned forests already have 
management plans or equivalent instruments, but not all include biodiversity related aspects. 
Option  1  implies  that  public  authorities  reflect  in  their  own  management  plans  the 
biodiversity-related  commitments  they  have  agreed  to  in  the  context  of  Forest  Europe. 
Therefore  it  would  not  be  a  new  requirement  but  rather  the  crystallization  of  an  existing 
agreement. However it would not have any bearing on privately owned forests. 

Option  2  would,  in  addition,  take  advantage  of  the  opportunities  embedded  in  rural 
development  policy  and  the  LIFE  +  program  to  provide  leverage  for  a  wider  application  of 
Management Plans and equivalent instruments in privately owned forests. It would therefore 
provide  added  value  to  Member  States  action  and  ensure  that  adequate  incentives  are 
provided by rewarding forest management practices that deliver benefits from biodiversity 
and ecosystem services. The wider use of management plans would also provide additional 

52 

COM(2006)302. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
                                                 
benefits as it could serve as a basis for the identified needs53 of better integrating forestry into 
rural  development,  and  improving  the  evaluation  of  forestry  measures  with  respect  to  the 
broader  aims  of  rural  development  policy,  thereby  allowing  a  better  evaluation  of  the 
effectiveness of the use of public funds. 

An alternative option requiring that all forests in the EU have a management plan would fully 
reflect  the  recommendation  of  Resolution  H2  of  MCPFE  which  applies  to  all  forests 
irrespective  of  their  ownership,  and  maximise  benefits  from  forest  biodiversity  and 
ecosystems services. However, apart from the influence of rural development funding, the EU 
has limited leverage over private forest decision-making, which is within the remit of Member 
States. Therefore this option for a target  was not retained, to take into account subsidiarity 
considerations. 

Option 2 is therefore the preferred option. An additional issue is the administrative level of 
management  plans,  as  resolution  H2  allows  some  flexibility.  Whilst  management  plans  at 
national or regional level would lower the administrative burden, they would be unlikely to 
adequately deliver on the biodiversity targets. The adoption of management plans should be at 
the holding level to be effective, given that forest management decisions are taken by forest 
holders, depending on local conditions (climate, solid, species etc.), whilst relying on national 
forest  management  regulations  and  on  principles  agreed  within  the  framework  of  Forest 
Europe.  Many  Member  States  have  adopted  guidelines  for  the  management  of  forests  for 
biodiversity conservation, which would facilitate the task of forest holders. 

To reduce the administrative burden for very small holdings, the target for private holdings 
could  be  restricted  to  holdings  above  a  certain  size.  The  decision  on  the  size  under  which 
funding  under  the  EU  Rural  Development  Policy  would  not  be  conditional  upon  the 
development of a Forest Management Plan could be decided by the Member States or regions 
taking into account subsidiarity considerations. 

The management plans would need to contribute to a measurable improvement of the status of 
species  and  habitats  dependent  on  or  affected  by  forestry,  as  well  as  in  the  provision  of 
ecosystem services, compared to the current state. The  improvement in the status of species 
and habitats, is to be measured against the state of biodiversity as described in the EU 2010 
Baseline,  and  should  match  the  level  of  ambition  of  Target  1  for  species  and  habitats  of 
European  importance,  and  the  level  of  ambition  of  Target  2  for  other  species  and  habitats. 
Similarly, the improvement in the provision of ecosystem services should be measured against 
the  EU  2010  Baseline  and  evaluated  in  light  of  the  level  of  ambition  of  Target  2.  Until  a 
baseline  is  defined  for  ecosystem  services,  the  ecosystem  (or  habitat)  should  be  taken  as  a 
proxy. 

Although an intermediary target was considered, given that the CAP reform would only enter 
into  force  shortly  before  2015,  any  mid-term  target  would  only  evaluate  the  output  of  past 
policies.  

Nature of the target 

This target is indicative. It could however be translated in more concrete terms if retained in 
the  design  of  the  CAP  reform,  and  the  formulation  of  the  Rural  Development  Policy  post-
2013.  The  situation  should  be  reviewed  in  2014,  once  the  CAP  reform  package  has  been 
adopted,  and  also  in  light  of  the  take  up  of  management  plans,  and  their  effectiveness  in 
conserving and enhancing forest biodiversity and ecosystem services. 

53 

Reporting on the implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy – COM (2005)84 final. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5.4. 

T4 - Ensure the sustainable use of fisheries resources 

Link with EU objectives and global targets 

Overfishing is an important driver of biodiversity loss. The fisheries target adopted in Nagoya 
as part of the CBD Strategic Plan is aimed at ensuring that "By 2020 all fish and invertebrate 
stocks  and  aquatic  plants  are  managed  and  harvested  sustainably,  legally  and  applying 
ecosystem based approaches, so that overfishing is avoided, recovery plans and measures are 
in place for all depleted species, fisheries have no significant adverse impacts on threatened 
species  and  vulnerable  ecosystems  and  the  impacts  of  fisheries  on  stocks,  species  and 
ecosystems are within safe ecological limits" (Global Target 6).  

Alternative options considered 

In  Johannesburg,  in  2002,  the  European  Union  committed  to  maintain  or  restore  stocks  to 
levels  that  can  produce  MSY,  achieving  these  goals  for  depleted  stocks  on  an  urgent  basis, 
and where possible not later than 201554. 
The  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  (MSFD)55  establishes  European  Marine  Regions 
on  the  basis  of  geographical  and  environmental  criteria,  with  the  objective  of  achieving  or 
maintaining  Good  Environmental  Status  for  all  marine  waters,  including  its  marine 
biodiversity  by  2020  based  on  criteria  including  fish  stock  health.  The  recently  adopted 
Commission  progress  report  on  the  Integrated  Maritime  Policy56  consolidates  the  Marine 
Strategy Framework Directive as its environmental pillar.  

Based on the above, this target needs be centred on two main dimensions: restoring stocks to 
MSY  and  ensuring  that  adverse  impacts  of  fisheries  on  marine  ecosystems  are  minimised. 
This was clearly supported by stakeholders and Member States given the commitments made 
in Johannesburg and Nagoya.  

Two  main  options  were  considered  on  MSY,  in  line  with  the  main  environmental  options 
considered in the ongoing reform of the Common Fisheries Policy:  

•  Option 1 – achieving environmental sustainability, with MSY in mixed fisheries based on 

the most commercially valuable species.  

•  Option 2 – achieving environmental sustainability, with MSY in mixed fisheries focusing 

on the most vulnerable species.  

The  focus  of  MSY  in  mixed  fisheries  is  important  because  the  level  of  effort  cannot  be 
adapted  to  different  species.  If  the  level  of  effort  is  aimed  at  achieving  MSY  for  the  most 
valuable species, it may be higher than what would be needed to achieve MSY for other joint 
species, that could then be overexploited. On the other hand, if the level of effort is aimed at 
achieving MSY for the most vulnerable species, it may be lower than what would be needed 
to  achieve  MSY  for  other  joint  species,  that  would  then  be  underexploited,  with  economic 
consequences. Therefore, a compromise is needed on the choice of the criteria to set the MSY 
levels: the most vulnerable or the most valuable. Option 2 is preferred to option 1, as more in 
line with the EU 2020 biodiversity headline target, and the Nagoya commitments. 

54 
55 
56 

World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, 2002. 
Directive 2008/56/EC. 
COM (2009) 540 final. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Level of ambition 

The level of ambition here is linked to timing. Two options were considered, also in line with 
the CFP reform options currently considered: 

•  Achieve MSY for all stocks within a flexible time horizon, not later than 2020 

•  Achieve MSY for all stocks by 2015 

Given the Johannesburg commitments, the preferred option is to achieve MSY for all stocks 
by 2015. Decisions will however need to be taken for each individual stock, based on specific 
circumstances.  This  might  involve  the  use  of  proxy  measures  and  precautionary  approaches 
for  stocks  for  which  there  is  not  sufficient  data  availability.  Finally  the  target  should  also 
reflect the requirements of the MSFD. Beyond quantitative objectives in terms of mortality or 
biomass,  objectives  should  be  set  on  the  status  within  stocks,  having  regard  notably  to 
population  age  and  size  distribution,  in  line  with  Commission  Decision  2010/477/EU  on 
criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status. The latter also requires a 
long-term  commitment  to  monitor  all  trophic  levels  of  marine  organisms  and  the  physical 
forces  that  influence  their  communities.  In  the  longer  term,  therefore,  suitable  metrics  for 
fisheries management approaches addressing a range of ecosystem interactions would need to 
be developed. 

Nature of the target 

Although  indicative  at  this  stage,  this  target  would  need  to  be  translated  in  the  legal 
framework of the CFP reform to ensure that the objectives are reached. The situation would 
need to be reviewed in 2014, once the package of the CFP reform has been adopted. 

5.5. 

T5 - Combat invasive alien species  

Link with EU objectives and global targets 

This  specific  objective  also  focuses  on  one  of  the  key  drivers  of  biodiversity  loss  and  is 
directly  related  to  the  global  2020  biodiversity  target:  'By  2020,  invasive  alien  species  and 
pathways  are  identified  and  prioritized,  priority  species  are  controlled  or  eradicated,  and 
measures  are  in  place  to  manage  pathways  to  prevent  their  introduction  and  establishment' 
(Global Target 17). 

Alternative options considered 

The  global  target  reflects  that  efforts  have  to  be  two-fold  to  reduce  the  impact  of  invasive 
alien species on native biodiversity: it involves on the one hand tackling the spread of already 
introduced invasive alien species, and on the other hand, preventing the introduction of new 
invasive  species  (by  focusing  on  pathways).  Two  options  were  considered  with  respect  to 
tackling the spread of already introduced IAS. 

•  Option 1 – Applying the 2020 global target for IAS as it stands, implying a prioritisation of 

species to be tackled.  

•  Option 2 – Adjusting the 2020 global target for IAS to broaden the scope of species to be 

tackled (by deleting ‘prioritised’). 

In  option  1,  species  posing  the  most  significant  biodiversity,  economic  and  social/health 
threats  would  be  prioritised  (e.g.  establishment of  a  “black-  list”  of  species  prohibited  from 
import and sale in Europe) in view of future measures. This option would have the advantage 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
of  limiting  action  to  key,  most  damaging  species  at  EU  level,  while  foreseeing  the 
identification  and  tackling  of  nationally  or  locally  damaging  species  at  Member  State  level. 
The response to the IAS challenge would therefore be proportionate, reconciling the need for 
action while ensuring that implementation costs are kept to the minimum. 

In  option  2,  the  objective  would  be  to  leave  the  question  of  prioritisation  of  species  more 
open,  in  view  of  possibly  more  inclusive  lists  of  tackled  species.  Indeed,  Europe  does  not 
have a particularly good record in managing IAS, with only 34 species successfully eradicated 
from  one  or  more  regions.  This  may  plead  for broader  coverage,  at  least  in  a  first  phase  of 
implementation, also for awareness raising reasons. The fact that a significant proportion of 
alien  species  in  Europe  are  native  elsewhere  on  the  continent  may  also  justify  a  more  open 
framework,  possibly  going  beyond  most  damaging  species  at  EU  level.  While  this  may 
present  advantages,  Option  2  would  present  one  important  shortcoming:  the  number  of 
species covered would be both higher than in Option 1, which would increase implementation 
costs,  and  the  method  to  be  used  to  include  species  on  any  registers/lists  would  be  more 
difficult to establish, which would create uncertainty. Option 1 was therefore preferred, which 
is also more in line with the global target. 

Nature of the target 

This target is indicative, although it should be underlined that the EU has committed to it as a 
CBD party. It will need to be reviewed after the Strategy on invasive alien species has been 
adopted, which is foreseen in 2012, and may be translated into a regulatory framework, if this 
is the option retained at that time. 

5.6. 

T6 – Help avert global biodiversity loss 

Link with EU objectives and global targets 

The EU derives benefits from a healthy global biodiversity and also bears a certain degree of 
responsibility for global biodiversity loss. All Parties to the CBD, including the EU, have their 
share of responsibility for delivering on the objectives of the Convention, and need to take the 
necessary  measures  to  ensure  the  achievement  of  the  vision,  mission  and  targets  of  the 
recently adopted Strategic Plan 2011-2020.  

The selected target therefore mirrors the third dimension of the EU headline target.  

Discarded options 

Other  options  originally  considered  for  the  target  on  global  biodiversity  included:  a 
percentage  of  earmarking  of  development  aid  for  biodiversity,  a  percentage  of  reduction  of 
EU's ecological footprint, a percentage of Marine Protected Areas established in areas beyond 
national  jurisdiction.  These  were  not  retained  on  the  basis  of  further  assessment  and  input 
received from stakeholders and Member States, namely: earmarking of external aid would not 
have been possible without pre-empting the ongoing discussions on resource mobilisation; the 
ecological footprint and the marine protected areas while important aspects were considered 
too limited to capture the entire contribution that the EU can have to the protection of global 
biodiversity.  A  more  general  formulation  reflecting  the  wording  of  the  EU  biodiversity 
headline target was preferred. 

Nature of the target 

The  target  is  again  indicative,  although  representing  an  international  EU  commitment,  and 
will need to be reviewed in 2014 or earlier, in particular following  COP-11 negotiations on 
financing targets and the adoption of a legislative proposal on ABS. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
General objectives 

Specific 
objectives 

Operational targets 

Halting  the  loss  of 
biodiversity  and  the 
of 
degradation 
ecosystem services in 
the EU by 2020 

implement 
and 

Fully 
the  Birds 
Habitats 
Directives 

T1 - To halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats covered 
by  EU  nature  legislation  and  achieve  a  significant  and  measurable 
improvement  in  their  status  so  that,  by  2020,  compared  to  current 
assessments:  (i)  100 %  more  habitat  assessments  and  50 %  more  species 
assessments  under  the  Habitats  Directive  show  an  improved  conservation 
status;  and  (ii)  50 %  more  species  assessments  under  the  Birds  Directive 
show a secure or improved status. 

the 
of 
and 
to 
and 

Increase 
contribution 
agriculture 
forestry 
maintaining 
enhancing 
biodiversity* 

T3a  -  By  2020,  maximise  areas  under  agriculture  across  grasslands,  arable 
land and permanent crops that are covered by biodiversity-related measures 
under the CAP so as to ensure the conservation of biodiversity and to bring 
about a measurable improvement (*) in the conservation status of species and 
habitats that depend on or are affected by agriculture and in the provision of 
ecosystem services as compared to the EU 2010 Baseline, thus contributing 
to enhance sustainable management. 

T3b - By 2020, Forest Management Plans or equivalent instruments, in line 
with Sustainable Forest Management (SFM57), are in place for all forests that 
are  publicly  owned  and  for  forest  holdings  above  a  certain  size  (**)  (to  be 
defined  by  the  Member  States  or  regions  and  communicated  in  their  Rural 
Development  Programmes)  that  receive  funding  under  the  EU  Rural 
Development  Programme,  so  as  to  bring  a  measurable  improvement  (*)  in 
the conservation status of species and habitats that depend on or are affected 
by forestry and in the provision of related ecosystem services as compared to 
the EU 2010 Baseline. 

(*)  For  both  targets,  improvement  is  to  be  measured  against  the  quantified 
enhancement targets for the conservation status of species and habitats of EU 
interest in Target 1 and the restoration of degraded ecosystems under Target 
2. 

(**)  For  smaller  forest  holdings,  Member  States  may  provide  additional 
incentives  to  encourage  the  adoption  of  Management  Plans  or  equivalent 
instruments that are in line with SFM. 

Ensure 
the 
sustainable  use  of 
fisheries resources 

T4  -  Achieve  Maximum  Sustainable  Yield  (MSY)  by  2015.  Achieve  a 
population  age  and  size  distribution  indicative  of  a  healthy  stock,  through 
fisheries  management  with  no  significant  adverse  impacts  on  other  stocks, 
species and ecosystems, in support of achieving Good Environmental Status 
by 2020 as required under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

Combat 
alien species 

invasive 

T5  -  By  2020,  invasive  alien  species  and  their  pathways  are  identified  and 
prioritised,  priority  species  are  controlled  or  eradicated,  and  pathways  are 
managed to prevent the introduction and establishment of new IAS. 

Restoring  ecosystem 
services  in  so  far  as 
feasible 

Maintain 
restore 
ecosystems 
their services 

and 

and 

T2 - By 2020, ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by 
establishing  green  infrastructure  and  restorating  at  least  15%  of  degraded 
ecosystems. 

Stepping  up  the  EU 
to 
contribution 
averting 
global 
biodiversity loss 

Help  avert  global 
biodiversity loss 

T6  -  By  2020,  the  EU  has  stepped  up  its  contribution  to  averting  global 
biodiversity loss. 

Table 1: General and specific objectives and operational targets 

5.7. 

Additional considerations in the choice of targets 

The  relationship  between  the  different  targets  was  also  an  important consideration. There is 
no  clear-cut  division  between  the  six  targets  and  many  are  mutually  supportive  or  inter-
dependent.  For  instance,  the  effectiveness  of  actions  undertaken  in  the  context  of  pressure-

57 

As defined in SEC(2006) 748 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
                                                 
based targets, such as those focusing on agriculture and forestry, fisheries and invasive alien 
species,  will  contribute  to  the  delivery  of  impact  based  targets  on  restoration  or  nature 
conservation. Similarly, measures undertaken under the global target focus on indirect drivers 
of  biodiversity  loss  and  as  such  should  bring  positive  benefits  also  within  the  EU,  thereby 
contributing towards the achievement of all targets.  

An  additional  consideration  was  the  potential  of  the  targets  to  contribute  towards  the 
achievement  of  other  EU  priority  objectives.  For  example,  activities  carried  out  under  the 
fisheries  target,  and  targets  1,  2  and  5  would  contribute  to  achieving  the  objective  of  good 
environmental  status  of  marine  waters  in  the  EU  by  2020  as  required  under  the  Marine 
Strategy Framework Directive. Investing in green infrastructure to restore ecosystem services 
will  contribute  to  adapting  to  and  mitigating  climate  change.  Finally,  more  sustainable 
agriculture, forestry and fisheries will also contribute to several environmental objectives and 
to three objectives of the EU 2020 Strategy (innovation, climate change and poverty targets) 
and its resource efficient flagship initiative. 

Finally, the targets were selected so that EU meeting its 2020 headline target will contribute 
to  the  achievement  of  global  objectives.  Annex  9  shows  how  the  global  targets  will  be 
reflected  in  the  EU  strategy,  and  Annex  10  reflects  an  analysis  of  whether  or  not  new 
measures are needed at EU level to achieve the global targets. 

5.8. 

The nature of the targets 

As described in more detail under the respective sections, all targets are and most will remain 
indicative, unless they are taken up in parallel or forthcoming legislative initiatives.  

All targets are proposed at EU level. Although consequences will vary at Member State level, 
given  the  different  situations  regarding  the  state  of  biodiversity  and  the  level  of 
implementation of existing legislation, it is not intended that the EU target will be translated 
into explicit and differentiated national targets. For some new targets, such as restoration, part 
of the proposed measures is a process for implementation at national level.  

Some  new  information  is  expected  in  the  next  few  years,  as  highlighted  in  section  8.2  on 
reporting  and  review.  In  addition,  targets  may  need  to  be  re-adjusted  after  adoption  of  the 
ongoing  main  policy  reforms  and  other  relevant  initiatives  planned  in  the  near  future.  A 
general  review  is  therefore  proposed  in  2014,  when  the  proposed  targets  will  need  to  be 
reviewed,  and  possibly  adjusted  if  justified  by  new  information.  Therefore  no  intermediate 
targets have been proposed at this stage, except for the fisheries target, where there is a clear 
international commitment for a milestone by 2015.  

6. 

SCOPING OF MEASURES TO ACHIEVE THE TARGETS 

The  Council  Conclusions  requested  that  the  biodiversity  strategy  include  the  necessary, 
feasible  and  cost-effective  measures  and  actions  for  reaching  the  selected  targets.  These 
should be integrated into relevant internal and external EU sectoral policies; build on existing 
EU  policies  and  legislation  and  commitments  made  at  international  level;  and  aim  to 
incorporate the value of biodiversity and ecosystem services.  

The following section presents a discussion of possible measures that could be considered to 
reach the selected targets.  

Measures seek to address the factors which hindered the achievement of the 2010 biodiversity 
target, in particular insufficient integration into sectoral and national policies, implementation 
and legislative gaps, lack of adequate funding, lack of awareness, and inadequate governance 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
structure (including lack of baseline and knowledge). The emphasis on the different categories 
varies across targets, depending on their relevance. 

Possible alternatives for measures are discussed in the text focusing on the broad categories of 
action described above. The range of alternatives is however often constrained by the selected 
target  for  which  an  orientation  and  level  of  ambition  have  already  been  chosen,  and  also  in 
some  cases  by  the  EU  commitment  to  achieve  the  CBD  Strategic  Plan  targets.  Given  the 
parallel  or  forthcoming  relevant  impact  assessments,  it  would  not  be  proportionate  to  carry 
out  a  detailed  analysis  of  alternatives  for  each  individual  measure.  The  analysis  focuses 
instead  on  the  broad  categories  of  action.  These  could  be  implemented  separately,  or  more 
often  as  a  combination,  to  achieve  the  targets.  Stakeholder  views  are  also  included,  and  a 
possible prioritisation of measures discussed. 

This scoping exercise therefore leads to the design of broad areas of action to reach specific 
targets  but  often  also  contributing  to  other  targets,  which  would  be  further  elaborated  in 
forthcoming  impact  assessments.  It  is  important  to  underline  however  that  the  identified 
measures  would  not  be  sufficient  on  their  own  to  reach  each  relevant  target.  Full 
implementation  of  existing  EU  legislation,  as  well  as  action  at  national,  regional  and  local 
level, in areas of national competence would also be required.  

6.1.  Measures for Nature Conservation 

Whilst the establishment of the Natura 2000 network is at an advanced stage, implementation 
has been slow,  in  particular  regarding the  selection of marine areas and the development of 
site management plans. 

The  Nature  Directives  have  however  shown  their  effectiveness  for  conservation,  thus 
measures  under  this  target  should  focus  on  speeding  up  the  completion  of  the  Natura  2000 
Network, and on making the network fully operational through the effective management and 
restoration  of  the  sites  –  moving  from  'non-deterioration'  to  effective  management  and 
restoration, in order to maintain and improve the conservation status of species and habitats 
covered by the Nature directives. Measures focusing on the management of Natura 2000 sites 
would  have  an  impact  on  the  implementation  of  both  the  Habitats  and  the  Birds  directive 
since all sites covered by these directives are part of the network. 

Better implementation and enforcement 

The  Habitats  Directive  promotes  the  development  of  management  plans  or  equivalent 
instruments  for  the  sites,  as  a  strategic  tool  to  help  achieve  conservation  objectives  and 
coordinate management and restoration actions. However, to improve the overall coherence of 
implementation  measures  at  biogeographical  level,  an  extended  biogeographical  process  is 
needed that would also facilitate priority-setting and  strengthen trans-boundary co-operation 
and information sharing across the network.  

In addition, better law enforcement will be essential to achieve the target, given that there are 
well-documented  cases  of  inadequate  implementation  and  enforcement58.  Some  Member 
States  have  also  experienced  delays  in  transposing  the  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives  into 
national law, in designating Natura 2000 sites, and in establishing conservation measures for 

58 

http://eu-information-service.rs-consulting.com/Policy%20Department%20C%20-
%20Citizens'%20Rights%20and%20Constitutional%20Affairs/5.%20Petitions/National%20Implement
ation%20of%20the%20'Habitats'%20Directive.pdf 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
                                                 
designated  sites.  This  requires  specific  action,  including  better  training,  inspection  capacity, 
guidance and where needed legal action. 

Better knowledge base 

To  address  the  problem  of  the  lack  of  a  clear  baseline,  sufficient  knowledge  is  needed  to 
measure progress in a consistent and comparable way, while at the same time minimising the 
administrative burden on Member States. New complementary tools are needed, including a 
reporting system for birds, and a dedicated ICT tool within BISE to ensure wider availability 
and more efficient use of data.  

Communication and awareness raising 

The active support and involvement of all relevant stakeholders will be essential to achieving 
this  target.  Targeted  initiatives  to  raise  public  awareness,  support  and  participation  and 
communication  on  the  multiple  ecosystem  benefits  arising  from  effective  management  of 
Natura 2000 would also contribute to the global biodiversity target that by 2020, at the latest, 
people are aware of the steps they can take to conserve and use it sustainably. 

Financing options 

Options for the financial support of the effective management of Natura 2000, and to address 
the issue of the current low uptake will be considered by the Commission, and, without pre-
empting the outcome of the negotiations on the next Multi-annual Financial Framework, may 
include: 

•  enhancing  integration  in  key  sectoral  funds  to  ensure  a  sufficient  level  of  prioritized 

delivery in line with Natura 2000 needs  

•  strengthening and adapting the LIFE instrument, combined with enhanced integration  

•  developing a dedicated financing instrument for Natura 2000 

The likelihood of future success would be greatly enhanced if the funding of Natura 2000 was 
put on a more strategic planning basis, covering the period of the next funding cycle. Article 8 
of  the  Habitats  Directive  already  foresees  the  need  to  develop  "a  prioritized  action 
framework". This would be made possible on the basis of Member States establishing national 
or regional Natura 2000 prioritised action frameworks for the next financing period. 

Complementing the EU co-financing framework with innovative instruments (e.g. innovative 
financial approaches, market based instruments) will also be considered. 

Stakeholder views 

Measures  for  the  improvement  of  knowledge  conservation  status  were  considered  as 
important by the Business sector. Adequate funding and management were considered one of 
the most important to take for Nature Conservation by the Agricultural sector and NGOs. 

Prioritising measures 

A  package  of  measures  that  would  include  a  combination  of  increased  and  better  use  of 
existing instruments (e.g. connectivity and integration measures, management plans, measures 
for better enforcement), with new approaches designed to address the obstacles which slowed 
down implementation in the period up to 2010: an improved governance structure through a 
bio-geographical region process and a new streamlined approach to monitoring and reporting, 
as well as dedicated initiatives to improve funding and communication is deemed necessary to 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
reach  the  target.  Although  some  of  these  initiatives  such  as a  new  bio-geographical  process 
and  a  new  impulse  to  funding  approaches  have  a  potential  to  deliver  early  and  significant 
results compared to others, measures that would deliver in the longer term, such as improved 
communication,  and  new  monitoring  and  reporting systems are instrumental in reaching the 
target and should not be ignored.  

TARGET 1: FULLY IMPLEMEMENT THE BIRDS AND HABITATS DIRECTIVES 

To halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats covered by EU nature legislation and achieve a 
significant and measurable improvement in their status so that, by 2020, compared to current assessments: (i) 
100 %  more  habitat  assessments  and  50 %  more  species  assessments  under  the  Habitats  Directive  show  an 
improved conservation status; and (ii) 50 % more species assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure 
or improved status. 

Action 1: Complete the establishment of the Natura 2000 network and ensure good management  

1a) 

1b) 

1c) 

1d) 

Member States and the Commission will ensure that the phase to establish Natura 2000, including in 
the marine environment, is complete by 2012.  

Member  States  and  the  Commission  will  further  integrate  species  and  habitats  protection  and 
management requirements into key land and water use policies, both within and beyond Natura 2000 
areas.  

Member  States  will  ensure  that  management  plans  or  equivalent  instruments  which  set  out 
conservation  and  restoration  measures  are  developed  and  implemented  in  a  timely  manner  for  all 
Natura 2000 sites. 

The  Commission,  together  with  Member  States,  will  establish  by  2012  a  process  to  promote  the 
sharing  of  experience,  good  practice  and  cross-border  collaboration  on  the  management  of  Natura 
2000, within the biogeographical frameworks set out by the Directive. 

Action 2: Ensure adequate financing of Natura 2000 sites 

2) 

The Commission and Member States to provide the necessary funds and incentives for Natura 2000, 
including  through  EU  funding  instruments,  under  the  next  multiannual  financial  framework.  The 
Commission will set out its views in 2011 on how Natura 2000 will be financed under the next multi-
annual financial framework.  

Action 3. Increase stakeholder awareness and involvementand improve enforcement 

3a) 

3b) 

3c) 

The  Commission,  together  with  Member  States,  will  develop  and  launch  a  major  communication 
campaign on Natura 2000 by 2013.  

The  Commission  and  Member  states  will  improve  cooperation  with  key  sectors  and  continue  to 
develop  guidance  documents  to  improve  their  understanding  of  the  requirements  of  the  EU  nature 
legislation and its value in promoting economic development.  

The  Commission  and  Member  States  will  facilitate  law  enforcement  of  the  nature  directives  by 
providing  specific  training  programmes  on  Natura  2000  for  judges  and  public  prosecutors,  and  by 
developing better compliance promotion capacities.  

Action 4: Improve and streamline monitoring and reporting  

4a) 

4b) 

The  Commission,  together  with  Member  States,  will  develop  by  2012  a  new  EU  bird  reporting 
system, further develop the reporting system under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive and improve 
the flow, accessibility and relevance of Natura 2000 data.  

The Commission will establish a dedicated ICT tool as part of the Biodiversity Information System 
for Europe to improve the availability and better use of data by 2012. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
6.2.  Measures for Maintaining and restoring ecosystems and their services 

Whereas  the  Council  conclusions  require  the  restoration  of  ecosystem  services,  the  Nagoya 
target  focuses  on  restoration  of  ecosystems.  A  key  issue  is  whether  policies  for  restoring 
ecosystem services should be  different from those focusing on biodiversity and ecosystems. 
The link between biodiversity and ecosystem services is not well understood. An analysis of a 
number of restoration projects showed that restoration resulted in the increased provision of 
biodiversity and ecosystem services by 44% and 25% respectively, and that there is a positive 
relation  between  the  two,  suggesting  that  restoration  focused  mainly  on  improving  services 
should also have as a primary aim to restore biodiversity.59 However, other evidence shows 
that maximising species diversity does not always lead to high levels of ecosystem services60. 

Better knowledge base 

Better knowledge of ecosystems services and how they are linked to biodiversity is therefore 
needed, and also of their values and their distribution in the EU, with a view to integrate them 
into  systems  of  accounting  and  reporting  to  increase  their  visibility.  Implications  for  the 
location and scale of restoration need to be explored.  

Restoration and Green Infrastructure 

To ensure that restoration provides significant benefits in a cost-effective way, a prioritisation 
framework  should  also  be  developed  that  defines  the  scale  of  the  restoration  target  and  the 
criteria  on  which  prioritisation  should  be  based,  which  could  include:  relevance  for 
biodiversity;  extent  of  degradation  of  ecosystems;  the  provision  of  key  ecosystem  services 
and cost-benefit ratios of restoration. 

Key  to  enhancing  ecosystem  services  is  improving  ecosystem  resilience  and  habitat 
connectivity,  through  the  development  of  planning  tools  such  as  integrated  spatial  planning 
that includes the establishment of green infrastructure, which requires action at Member State 
level.  There  is  a  wealth  of  initiatives  at  local,  regional  or  national  levels  in  Member  States 
(see Annex 12) but so far they have been carried out in an isolated way. A green infrastructure 
initiative  would  help  to  foster  synergies  between  planned  efforts  as  well  as  promote  further 
investments,  thereby  providing  added  value  to  Member  States  action.  The  main  options 
include: 

•  Integration  of  green  infrastructure  in  other  EU  policies  that  influence  land  use  and  its 

spatial patterns; 

•  Promotion  of  the  concept  of  green  infrastructure  and  integrated  spatial  planning  through 
communication  activities,  including  training,  citizen  participation  and  capacity  building 
for relevant authorities; 

•  Encouraging  implementation  of  green  infrastructure  through  a  range  of  possible  funding 
sources,  including:  EU  funds  (for  example  structural  funds  for  investments  into  local  GI 
projects);  innovative  financial  instruments  to  encourage  investments  from  the  private 
sector; public private partnerships. 

59 

60 

Nellemann,  C.,  E.  Corcoran  (eds)  2010.  Dead  Planet,  Living  Planet.  Biodiversity  and  ecosystem 
restoration for sustainable development. A rapid response assessment. UNEP, GRID-Arendal. 
R.  Naidoo,  A.  Balmford,  R.  Costanza,  B.  Fisher,  R.  E.  Green,  B.  Lehner,  T.  R.  Malcolm,  and  T.  H. 
Ricketts,  2008  Global  mapping  of  ecosystem  services  and  conservation  priorities.  PNAS  105(28),  pp 
9495–9500. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
                                                 
No net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services 

Beyond the toolbox needed to establish green infrastructure, there may also be a need for a 
wider no-net-loss approach to ensure no further loss or degradation of ecosystems and their 
services  overall.  Whereas  compensation  for  displaced  habitats  is  a  legal  requirement  of  the 
Habitats  directive,  and  also  of  the  Environment  Liability  Directive  (ELD)61  in  the  case  of 
damage to Natura 2000 and biodiversity, there is no requirement for systematic compensation 
outside Natura 2000, which leads to net losses. There is a need for, on the one hand, a clear 
hierarchical  framework  whereby  degradation  is  avoided  as  far  as  possible,  and  on  the  other 
hand, where degradation cannot be avoided, a requirement for compensation. Options, which 
are not necessarily mutually exclusive, include: 

in 

included 

•  A  clear  decision-making  framework,  to  ensure  degradation  is  avoided  wherever  possible 
before  compensation  is  envisaged.  Avoiding  damages  to  biodiversity  and  ecosystems  is 
already 
the  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  (EIA)  and  Strategic 
Environmental  Assessment  (SEA)  directives,  and  these  elements  could  be  further 
strengthened. There should be better guidance on how to apply this in practice in light of 
biodiversity objectives, similar to current practice for climate change. To avoid damages to 
biodiversity, the Commission will develop a methodology for the assessment of the impact 
of EU investments by 2014. 

•  An overall non-binding framework at EU level providing guidance and exchanges of best 
practices for Member States who have adopted voluntary or mandatory biodiversity offset 
policies. This could involve for example guidance on the scale at which no net loss should 
be  measured,  on  the  equivalency  methodology  and  the  time  scale  for  compensation,  and 
using a prioritisation framework to ensure overall no net loss at EU level. 

•  An EU level legal framework for no net loss of ecosystems, which could make some of 

the above elements mandatory.  

These options will be reviewed and further analysed in the context of a Commission initiative 
on the no net loss of ecosystems outside Natura 2000, and the services they provide, by 2015. 

Stakeholder views 

In the consultation for the strategy, stakeholders had the following opinion on measures: the 
agricultural sector advocated for maintaining and increasing the resilience of ecosystems and 
their  services,  increasing  biodiversity  in  urban  areas,  as  well  as  mitigating  adverse  effects 
from  transport  and  energy  infrastructure.  The  business  sector  viewed  ensuring  connectivity 
between protected areas, systematic compensation of biodiversity loss, promoting integrated 
spatial  planning,  using  market-based  financing  mechanisms  and  biodiversity  provisions  in 
impact  assessment  tools,  as  the  most  important  measures  to  take.  Finally,  the  major  NGOs 
found ensuring  connectivity,  restoring  ecosystems and their resiliency and integrated spatial 
planning as the most important steps to take. 

Prioritising measures 

61 

ELD requires that, in the event of an incident (or an imminent threat of an incident), any environmental 
damage caused to water, land and nature should be remediated so that the affected environment returns 
to 
for  evaluating  compensation  needs  at 
http://www.envliability.eu/  

its  baseline.  See  discussions  on  methodology 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
                                                 
All  these  options  are  clearly  new  policy  measures  since  there  are  currently  no  policies 
specifically  focusing  on ecosystem  services, and no strategic framework for no-net-loss and 
restoration.  Several  of  these  options  would  bring  significant  results  in  a  reasonable  time 
frame, in particular green infrastructure, and a no-net-loss initiative. However, the knowledge 
base needs to be further developed before concrete proposals can be put forward. Options will 
therefore be further refined and analysed in the foreseen initiatives on green infrastructure and 
no net loss. 

TARGET 2: MAINTAIN AND RESTORE ECOSYSTEMS AND THEIR SERVICES 

By 2020, ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by establishing green infrastructure and 
restorating at least 15% of degraded ecosystems. 

Action 5: Improve knowledge of ecosystems and their services in the EU 

5) 

Member States, with the assistance of the Commission, will map and assess the state of ecosystems 
and their services in their national territory by 2014, assess the economic value of such services, and 
promote  the  integration  of  these  values  into  accounting  and  reporting  systems  at  EU  and  national 
level by 2020 

Action 6: Set priorities to restore and promote the use of green infrastructure  

6a) 

6b) 

By 2014, Member States, with the assistance of the Commission, will develop a strategic framework 
to set priorities for ecosystem restoration at sub-national, national and EU level. 

The Commission will develop a Green Infrastructure Strategy by 2012 to promote the deployment of 
green infrastructure in the EU in urban and rural areas, including through incentives to encourage up-
front  investments  in  green  infrastructure  projects  and  the  maintenance  of  ecosystem  services,  for 
example through better targeted use of EU funding streams and Public Private Partnerships.  

Action 7: Ensure no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services 

7a) 

7b) 

In collaboration with the Member States, the Commission will develop a methodology for assessing 
the impact of EU funded projects, plans and programmes on biodiversity by 2014. 

The Commission will carry out further work with a view to proposing by 2015 an initiative to ensure 
there  is  no  net  loss  of  ecosystems  and  their  services  (e.g.  through  compensation  or  offsetting 
schemes). 

6.3.  Measures for Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry 

Agriculture 

Land  to  be  covered  under  the  Agriculture  target  include  agro-ecosystems  within  HNV  and 
Natura 2000 areas, and more generally permanent grasslands within or outside these areas, as 
well as intensive arable land which could provide biodiversity benefits through green cover, 
crop  rotation  or  ecological  set-aside.  This  could  be  achieved  through  direct  payments 
rewarding  generic  environmental  provisions,  or  under  the  second  pillar,  through  agri-
environmental payments rewarding more targeted actions that are beneficial to biodiversity. 

Improving the first pillar 

The current orientation of the Commission for the CAP reform is the enhanced provision of 
environmental public goods as one of the objectives of the first pillar, with part of the direct 
payments that could take the form of simple, generalized, non-contractual and annual actions 
to  reward  agricultural  practices  with  a  positive  impact  for  biodiversity  (e.g.  permanent 
pasture,  green  cover,  crop  rotation,  ecological  set-aside).  In  addition,  the  possibility  of 
including the requirements of current NATURA 2000 areas and enhancing certain elements of 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
GAEC standards should be analysed62. Discussions on which elements should be mandatory 
or optional, and on their additionality is ongoing. Including under cross-compliance actions 
required  under  the  Water  Framework  Directive  once  it  has  been  implemented  and  the 
operational obligations for farmers have been identified, would also ensure that benefits are 
delivered  for  water  ecosystems.  These  elements  for  cross-compliance  should  ensure  a 
minimum level of provision of public goods in the form of ecosystem services. 

Covering  some  of  the  above  elements,  for  example  Natura  2000  and  HNV  areas,  under  the 
second  pillar  could  be  considered  as  an  alternative.  However,  to  maximise  biodiversity 
benefits,  agri-environmental  schemes  should  be  used  as  a  complement  to  baseline  actions 
under  the  first  pillar  with  broad  environmental  requirements  for  all  areas,  to  target  more 
precise requirements from specific ecosystems, habitats or species. There is growing evidence 
and recognition that  a combination of direct payments and well targeted agri-environmental 
schemes is an effective strategy for delivering biodiversity benefits63 64. 

Improving the second pillar 

In  terms  of  payments  under  the  second  pillar,  although  there  is  ample  evidence  that  past 
schemes  have  had  a  positive  impact  on  biodiversity,  there  is  also  recognition  that  the 
effectiveness  of  the  schemes  could  be  increased65.  Options  for  an  improved  Rural 
Development scheme include 66: 

•  a  more  outcome  oriented  approach,  to  better  focus  the  policy  on  EU  priorities  and 
increase the effectiveness of agri-environment measures in delivering environmental public 
goods, with possible quantified biodiversity targets. 

•  mechanisms  to  facilitate  the  collaboration  of  farmers,  to  contribute  inter  alia  to  the 
establishment  of  green  infrastructure,  with  the  aim  of  ensuring  connectivity  between 
landscape  features  and  habitats  and  increasing  the  scale  of  connectivity  and  restoration, 
also with a view to enhancing ecosystem services and resilience against climate change. 

The ongoing assessment of the CAP reform considers three main options, from an adjustment 
scenario,  which  would  assume  a  continuation  of  the  current  process  with  further  gradual 
changes to the current policy framework, to a refocus scenario moving to support only from 
rural  development  measures,  focused  solely  around  environmental  and  climate  change 
objectives,  through  an  integration  scenario  integrating  environmental,  economic  and  social 
objectives under  both pillars  of the CAP. The combination of the above proposed measures 
would correspond to the latter middle scenario. 

62 
63 

64 

65 

66 

COM(2010) 672 final 
FAO  (2010).  Relevance  of  OECD  agri-environmental  measures  for  remuneration  of  positive 
externalities/payments for ecosystem services.stakeholder consultation, Rome, 27-28 September 2010. 
https:// www.fao.org/docrep/013/al921e/al921e00.pdf 
ENCA IG, 2011  Response  to  the  Commission's  consultation  for  Impact  Assessment  on  the  reform  of 
the CAP towards 2020. 
See  FAO  (2010).  Relevance  of  OECD  agri-environmental  measures  for  remuneration  of  positive 
externalities/payments  for  ecosystem  services.stakeholder  consultation,  Rome,  and  ENCA,  2010. 
Delivering biodiversity objectives through agri-environment measures of the CAP: evidence of success 
and scale of future needs. Position Statement 6-2010. 
Cooper, T., Hart, K. and Baldock, D. (2009) The Provision of Public Goods Through Agriculture in the 
European  Union,  Report  Prepared  for  DG  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development,  Contract  No  30-CE-
0233091/00-28, Institute for European Environmental Policy: London. 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Measures for genetic diversity 

Finally, the CBD strategic plan target 15, which requires that 'by 2020, the genetic diversity of 
cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and of wild relatives, including other 
socio-economically as well as culturally valuable species, is maintained, and strategies have 
been  developed  and  implemented  for  minimizing  genetic  erosion  and  safeguarding  their 
genetic diversity' must be implemented through specific measures. These could for example 
include  developing  a  specific  Commission  strategy  for  the  conservation  of  genetic  diversity 
which  could  inter  alia  build  on  the  revision  of  the  propagating  material  regimes  and  new 
actions  in  the  context  of  the  Evaluation  of  Regulation  870/2004  on  the  conservation, 
characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture. 

Measures outside the CAP 

In addition to funding from the CAP, funding to farmers from the private sector could also be 
envisaged. Private companies could for example set up contracts directly with land owners to 
deliver ecosystem services  which benefit them,  such as  the  case  of Vittel,  who  is providing 
incentives to farmers in the Vittel catchment to voluntarily change their management practices 
to reduce water pollution. Although these initiatives should be encouraged, they are unlikely 
to form the bulk of funding sources for delivering public benefits from agriculture. 

Stakeholder views 

In the consultation, farmers found that funding for agri-environmental measures and including 
voluntary  monitoring  measures  within  the  CAP  were  amongst  the  most  important  steps  to 
take.  The  business  sector  found  that  the  most  important  measures  were  reducing  intensive 
farming,  increasing  the  area  of  organic  farming  and  including  more  explicit  biodiversity 
objectives and voluntary monitoring measures within the CAP. Finally, the NGOs highlighted 
preserving  and  expanding  high  nature  value  areas,  increasing  funding  for  agri-environment 
measures, integrating the target within the reformed CAP and including obligatory monitoring 
and reporting requirements as important measures. 

Prioritising measures 

Although  cross-compliance  and  agri-environmental  measures  to  increase  environmental 
public goods are not new elements within the CAP, the greening of direct payments, and the 
more  effective  targeting  of  rural  development  measures  could  deliver  early  and  very 
significant results for biodiversity and ecosystem services. 

Forests 

Given the focus of the target, measures should aim explicitly at increasing the extent of both 
publicly and privately owned forests covered by a Management Plan or equivalent instrument 
that  applies  Sustainable  Forest  Management  (SFM)  and  includes  biodiversity  aspects,  to 
ensure  a  measurable  improvement  in  the  status  of  species  and  habitats  dependent  on  and 
affected by forestry and in the provision of ecosystem services. 

Financing options 

Incentives to achieve that objective and prepare the management plans could be provided for 
privately  owned  forests  through  rural  development  measures  and  the  LIFE+  programme. 
However, publicly owned forests are not eligible for payments under the CAP, although they 
can  receive  support  for  non-productive  investments.  Other  incentives  should  therefore  be 
sought through innovative financing mechanisms for both private and public forests, to attract 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
funding  from  the  private  sector  in  support  of  ecosystem  services,  which  are  non-marketed 
goods, provided by forests. 

Contents of management plans 

To ensure that management plans adequately protect and enhance biodiversity and ecosystem 
services,  in  line  with  SFM  and  pursuant  to  Resolution  H2  –  General  Guidelines  of  the 
Conservation  of  the  Biodiversity  of  European  Forests,  Member  States  should  require  a 
specific set of measures to be included in the management plans, drawing from a prescribed 
list of individual measures, which may be adapted to fit local conditions. 

Stakeholder views 

The Confederation of European Forest Owners (CEPF) indicated that active management of 
forest ecosystems was necessary to secure their sustainability in the long run, and that existing 
instruments  should  be  evaluated  and  better  coordinated  in  support  of  the  new  biodiversity 
targets, before considering new ones. They suggested that the availability and accessibility of 
financial  mechanisms  should  be  seen  as  a  prerequisite  for  a  successful  implementation,  and 
that  rewarding  measures  for  promoting  partnerships  and  the  involvement  by  people  with  a 
direct  connection  to  nature  would  also  be  beneficial.  In  the  context  of  the  consultation  on 
Green Paper on forests, forest industry said that SFM should be formally recognized, and that 
more financial support for the forest sector and payment for ecosystem services (PES) and full 
application  and  formalisation  of  existing  MCPFE  commitments  and  reporting  system  based 
on criteria and indicators could be useful. 

Prioritising measures 

The use of management plans is not new. However, the active support of Member States and 
the Commission, as well as the use of the EU Rural development instruments as an incentive 
to  promote  the  adoption  and  use  of  management  plans,  combined  with  the  requirement  that 
specific biodiversity-related measures are included, where appropriate, in these plans, would 
provide a new  impetus  to ensure  an adequate  level  of protection and enhancement  of  forest 
biodiversity and ecosystem services. 
TARGET 3: INCREASE THE CONTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY TO MAINTAINING AND ENHANCING 
BIODIVERSITY 
3A) Agriculture: By 2020, maximise areas under agriculture across grasslands, arable land and permanent crops 
that are covered by biodiversity-related measures under the CAP so as to ensure the conservation of biodiversity 
and to bring about a measurable improvement(*) in the conservation status of species and habitats that depend on 
or are affected by agriculture and in the provision of ecosystem services as compared to the EU 2010 Baseline, 
thus contributing to enhance sustainable management..  

3B)  Forests:  By  2020,  Forest  Management  Plans  or  equivalent  instruments,  in  line  with  Sustainable  Forest 
Management (SFM)67, are in place for all forests that are publicly owned and for forest holdings above a certain 
size(**)  (to  be  defined  by  the  Member  States  or  regions  and  communicated  in  their  Rural  Development 
Programmes) that receive funding under the EU Rural Development Policy, so as to bring about a measurable 
improvement(*) in the conservation status of species and habitats that depend on or are affected by forestry and in 
the provision of related ecosystem services as compared to the EU 2010 Baseline. 

(*)  For  both  targets,  improvement  is  to  be  measured  against  the  quantified  enhancement  targets  for  the 
conservation status of species and habitats of EU interest in Target 1 and the restoration of degraded ecosystems 
under target 2. 

(**) For smaller forest holdings, Member States may provide additional incentives to encourage the adoption of 
Management Plans or equivalent instruments that are in line with SFM. 

67 

As defined in SEC(2006) 748. 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Action  8:  Enhance  direct  payments  for  environmental  public  goods  under  the  EU  Common  Agricultural 
Policy 

8a) 

8b) 

The  Commission  will  propose  that  CAP  direct  payments  will  reward  the  delivery  of  environmental 
public  goods  that  go  beyond  cross-compliance  (e.g.  permanent  pasture,  green  cover,  crop  rotation, 
ecological set-aside, Natura 2000). 

The  Commission  will  propose  to  improve  and  simplify  the  GAEC  (Good  Agricultural  and 
Environmental  Conditions)  cross-compliance  standards  and  consider  including  the  Water  Framework 
Directive  within  the  scope  of  cross-compliance  once  the  Directive  has  been  implemented  and  the 
operational  obligations  for  farmers  have  been  identified  in  order  to  improve  the  state  of  aquatic 
ecosystems in rural areas. 

Action 9: Better target Rural Development to biodiversity conservation 

9a) 

9b) 

The  Commission  and  Member  States  will  integrate  quantified  biodiversity  targets  into  Rural 
Development strategies and programmes, tailoring action to regional and local needs.  

The  Commission  and  Member  States  will  establish  mechanisms  to  facilitate  collaboration  among 
farmers  and  foresters  to  achieve  continuity  of  landscape  features,  protection  of  genetic  resources  and 
other cooperation mechanisms to protect biodiversity. 

Action 10: Conserve Europe's agricultural genetic diversity 

10) 

The  Commission  and  Member  States  will  encourage  the  uptake  of  agri-environmental  measures  to 
support  genetic  diversity  in  agriculture  and  explore  the  scope  for  developing  a  strategy  for  the 
conservation of genetic diversity. 

Action 11: Encourage forest holders to protect and enhance forest biodiversity  

11a) 

11b) 

Member  States  and  the  Commission  will  encourage  the  adoption  of  Management  Plans,68  including 
through use of rural development measures69 and the LIFE+ programme. 

Member States and the Commission will foster innovative mechanisms (e.g. Payments for Ecosystem 
Services) to finance the maintenance and restoration of ecosystem services provided by multifunctional 
forests. 

Action 12: Integrate Biodiversity measures in management plans 

12) 

Member States will ensure that forest management plans or equivalent instruments include as many of 
the following measures as possible: 
– 

maintain aoptimal levels of deadwood, taking into account regional variations such as fire risk or 
potential insect outbreaks; 
preserve wilderness areas; 
ecosystem-based measures to increase the resilience of forests against fires as part of forest fire 
prevention  schemes,  in  line with  activities carried  out  in the  European Forest  Fire Information 
System (EFFIS); 
specific measures developed for Natura 2000 forest sites  
ensuring that afforestation is carried out in accordance with the Pan-European Operational Level 
Guidelines  for  SFM70,  in  particular  as  regards  the  diversity  of  species,  and  climate  change 
adaptation needs. 

– 
– 

– 
– 

68 

69 
70 

SFM  requires  wider  use  of  management  plans  or  equivalent  instruments.  23  Member  States  already 
have more than 60% of their forested areas under such plans. 
These measures are currently set out in articles 42-49 of Council Regulation 1698(2005). 
http://www.foresteurope.org/ 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
6.4.  Measures for Sustainable Use of Fisheries Resources 

Implementing MSY 
The  current  approach  adopted  by  the  Commission  in  200671  to  implement  the  concept  of 
MSY  is  in  principle  appropriate:  for  stocks  that  are  not  yet  covered  by  multi-annual  plans, 
fishing mortality should be reduced in equal steps until the 2014 fishing year to the level that 
would achieve MSY (FMSY), and stocks should be exploited at FMSY in 2015 and thereafter72. 
A significant number of stocks are now under multi-annual plans. However, MSY is currently 
only  applied  to  a  limited  number  of  them.  More  long-term  management  plans  are  therefore 
needed which include time-limited objectives on MSY, based on the most vulnerable stocks 
for  mixed  fisheries,  to  avoid  the  risk  of  their  over-exploitation.  The  rigorous  application  of 
MSY will be a major contributor to achieving stocks that maintain their productive capacity 
and that are healthy both in terms of size/abundance, distribution and population condition. 

Multi-annual management plans do not include methods and rules for adjusting annual Total 
Allowable Catches (TACs) and fishing effort restrictions. Options for adapting fishing effort 
to reach MSY are explored in the impact assessment of the CFP reform. 

Eliminating adverse impacts 

In  addition,  to  reach  the  target,  impacts  from  unwanted  discards  and  by-catches  and  from 
fishing gear on marine ecosystems need to be addressed. Although a reduction of the fishing 
pressure to MSY levels contributes largely to reduction of negative impacts, specific measures 
may  be  required  in  some  cases  to  gradually  eliminate  discards  and  to  avoid  the  by-catch  of 
unwanted  species.  The  CFP  reform  impact  assessment  considers  options  from  a  move  to 
catch  quotas  (implying  inter  alia  technical  measures),  to  a  discard  ban.  To  adequately 
address the biodiversity impacts  of by-catch, specific measures such as threshold levels and 
move-on rules would be needed, particularly for deep-sea fisheries.  

The  upcoming  reform  of  the  CFP  also  needs  to  cater  for  measures  and  mechanisms  to 
contribute, within the remit of Common Fisheries Policy, to the objectives of the Habitats and 
Birds  Directives  and  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive.  This  could  be  through  a 
regulatory  approach,  for  example  fishing  bans  in  marine  protected  areas,  or  through  the 
provision of financial incentives in the frame of the future financial instruments for fisheries 
and maritime policy. 

Better knowledge 

For  non-assessed  stocks,  data  collection  efforts  should  be  increased  significantly,  and  some 
proxy  assessment  and  management  methods  could  be  required,  in  particular  the  use  of  the 
precautionary approach, as recognized in the impact assessment of the CFP reform.  

Finally,  eliminating  the  impact  of  fisheries  on  marine  ecosystems  would  require  the 
development in the longer term of an adequate ecosystem approach. Scientists are therefore 
increasingly  promoting  the  development  of  other  concepts,  such  as  for  instance  Ecological 

71 
72 

COM(2006)360 final. 
Fishing mortality (F) is higher than the level at which fishing produces MSY, MSY being the maximum 
long term average yield that can be produced by a stock on a continuing basis. A stock is overfished 
when  stock  biomass  (B)  has  fallen  to  a  level  below  that  which  can  produce  MSY.  So  there  are  two 
aspects that managers must monitor to determine the status of a fishery: the level of F in relation to F at 
MSY (FMSY), and the level of B in relation to B at MSY (BMSY).  

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Maximum  Sustainable  Yield  (EMSY)73,  whereby  the  concept  of  adapting  fishing  efforts  to 
ensure the sustainability of fish populations is extended to the sustainability and resilience of 
ecosystems. Such approaches would need to be developed as soon as possible so that their use 
could  be  envisaged  to  protect  harvested  stocks,  non-harvested  species  and  ecosystems  more 
effectively. 

Stakeholder views 

In response to the consultation on the CFP reform, the fisheries sector shared the objective to 
gradually reach exploitation rates matching with MSY by 2015. On management tools to limit 
fishing mortality rates most of the contributions consider catch and effort limits as relevant, 
depending mainly on the types of fisheries they would be applied to. They were also in favour 
of the implementation of multi-annual plans supporting a fisheries approach, some suggesting 
ecosystemic  multi-annual  plans.  Harvest  Control  Rules  in  these  multi-annual  plans  should 
reflect strictly results made available through the scientific advisory process for major stocks, 
group of stocks or fisheries. There was wide support for regional implementation of the IMP 
including  fisheries  at  sea-basin  level  with  a  regional  forum  where  all  aspects  are  being 
discussed. A large majority favoured a CFP aligned with the MSFD and other environmental 
legislation, as well as the ecosystem approach. Most contribution raised the problem of data 
availability and quality and it was suggested to step up the investments in research and data 
collection, the creation of incentives for fishermen to provide good data, and some propose a 
new EU structure to ensure better coordination of resources. Many called for multidisciplinary 
research  and  advice  in  an  ecosystem  context,  integrating  it  with  the  MSFD.  Many 
contributions expressed a need for continuation of public funding for the fishery sector.  

As  part  of  the  biodiversity  strategy  consultation,  the  business  sector  saw  changing  the 
monitoring  and  control  system,  minimizing  negative  impacts  of  fishing  and  including  more 
explicit  biodiversity  objectives  and  voluntary  monitoring  measures  in  the  CFP  as  the  most 
important measures. 

The  major  NGOs  wished  to  ensure  consistency  with  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework,  have 
ambitious  goals  to  reach  the  MSY  by  2015,  promote  long-term  management  plans,  expand 
marine protected areas and include more explicit biodiversity objectives in the CFP as well as 
obligatory monitoring measures. 

Prioritising measures 

The commitment of the Commission to MSY is not new. The new element of the proposed 
measures  are  that  they  are  time-bound,  and  focusing  explicit  on  the  treatment  of  mixed 
fisheries.  The  additional  measures  proposed  to  reduce  discards  and  by-catch  such  as  closed 
areas  and  gear  or  effort  restrictions  are  new,  and  have  the  potential  to  deliver  early  and 
significant results, as demonstrated through their implementation in California, the northeast 
United  States,  and  northwest  Australia74.  Financial  incentives  to  implement  environmental 
obligations  under  the  Habitats  Directive  and  MSFD  would  also  be  likely  to  yield  early  and 
positive results. 

73 

74 

'EMSY  is  the  yield  an  ecosystem  can  sustain  without  shifting  to  an  undesired  state'  in:  Zabel,  R.W.., 
C.J.  Harvey,  S.L.  Katz,  T.P.  Good  and  P.S.  Levin,  2003.  Ecological  maximum  sustainable  yield, 
American Scientist (21) pp150-157. 
Worm, B. et al, 2009. Rebuilding Global Fisheries, Science 325(5940): 578-585. 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
                                                 
TARGET 4: ENSURE THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF FISHERIES RESOURCES 
Achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) by 2015. Achieve a population age and size distribution indicative of 
a healthy stock through fisheries management with no significant adverse impacts on other stocks, species and 
ecosystems, in support of achieving Good Environmental Status by 2020 as required under the Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive. 

Action 13: Improve the management of fished stocks 

13a) 

13b) 

13c) 

The Commission and Member States will maintain and restore fish stocks to levels that can produce 
MSY  in  all  areas  in  which  EU  fish  fleets  operate,  including  areas  regulated  by  Regional  Fisheries 
Management  Organisations,  and  the  waters  of  third  countries  with  which  the  EU  has  concluded 
Fisheries Partnership Agreements. 

The Commission and Member States will develop under the CFP long-term management plans with 
harvest  control  rules  based  on  the  MSY  approach.  These  plans  should  be  designed  to  respond  to 
specific time-related targets, and be based on scientific advice and sustainability principles. 

The  Commission  and  Member  States  will  significantly  step  up  their work  to  collect  data  to  support 
implementation  of  MSY.  Once  this  objective  is  attained,  scientific  advice  will  be  sought  to 
incorporate ecological considerations in the definition of MSY by 2020. 

Action 14: Eliminate adverse impacts on fish stocks, species, habitats and ecosystems 

14a) 

14b) 

The  EU  will  design  measures  to  gradually  eliminate  discards,  to  avoid  the  by-catch  of  unwanted 
species  and  to    preserve  vulnerable  marine  ecosystems  in  accordance  with  EU  legislation  and 
international obligations. 

The  Commission  and  Member  States  will  support  the  implementation  of  the  Marine  Strategy 
Framework Directive including through financial incentives through the future financial instruments 
for fisheries and maritime Policy for marine protected areas (including Natura 2000 areas and those 
established by international or regional agreements). This could include restoring marine ecosystems, 
adapting fishing activities and promoting the involvement of the sector in alternative activities, such 
as eco-tourism, monitoring and managing marine biodiversity, and combating marine litter. 

6.5.  Measures for Invasive Alien Species (IAS) 

Prevention measures 

Regarding prevention of IAS damage, there are two main options which could potentially be 
complementary: 

•  Integration of biodiversity concerns animal and plant health regimes, by introducing new 
provisions and extending the scope of the legislation in the foreseen 2012 review, through 
the following potential elements: 

–  Including diseases affecting native animals into animal health regime 

–  Including invasive plants with economic impact only in plant health regime 

–  Including invasive plants of wider environmental impact in plant health regime 

•  A dedicated legal instrument on IAS, which could include the following elements: 

–  A black list approach, preventing import and trade of priority IAS 

–  Preventing the intentional release of IAS into the natural environment 

–  Preventing  the  unintentional  release  of  IAS  into  the  natural  environment,  by 

controlling priority pathways (e.g. ballast water) 

Control measures 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
Additional  options  include  an  early  warning  and  rapid  response  (if  prevention  fails),  for 
example through a surveillance and mandatory notification and rapid response system at 
the  EU-level,  as  well  as  measures  for  containment,  management  and  restoration  (if 
prevention and early warning and rapid response fail), which might involve mandatory control 
actions  for  selected  species.  This  could  only  be  established  through  a  new  dedicated 
legislative 
its 
Communication  of  December  200875,  and  supported  by  the  Committee  of  Regions  and  the 
Economic and Social Committee in June 2009, and subsequently by the Council.  

instrument  for  IAS,  as  proposed  by 

the  European  Commission 

in 

Stakeholder views 

The agricultural sector viewed preventing the introduction and establishing an early warning 
and rapid response system as the most important measures to take, as did the business sector. 
NGOs supported the measures suggested. 

Prioritising measures 

Given the currently high negative impacts of IAS and the predicted exponential increase, this 
is  one  of  the  areas  where  very  significant  results  are  expected.  Measures  on  prevention  and 
early  warning  and  rapid  response  in  particular  would  be  very  cost-effective  as  they  would 
avoid the higher cost of dealing with full scale damage of introduced IAS. 

TARGET 5: COMBAT INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES 
By  2020,  Invasive  Alien  Species  (IAS)  and  their  pathways  are  identified  and  prioritised,  priority  species  are 
controlled or eradicated, and pathways are managed to prevent the introduction and establishment of new IAS.  

Action 15: Strengthen the EU Plant and Animal Health Regimes 

15) 

The  Commission  will  integrate  additional  biodiversity  concerns  into  the  Plant  and  Animal  Health 
regimes by 2012. 

Action 16: Establish a dedicated instrument on Invasive Alien Species 

16) 

The  Commission  will  fill  policy  gaps  in  combating  IAS  by  developing  a  dedicated  legislative 
instrument by 2012. 

6.6.  Measures for the EU Contribution to Averting Global Biodiversity Loss 

The  EU  can  make  a  significant  contribution  to  averting  biodiversity  loss  by  focusing  its 
efforts  and  development  aid  in  a  more  targeted  way  to  address  some  of  the  key  underlying 
drivers  of  global  biodiversity  loss:  unsustainable  consumption  and  production  patterns,  the 
lack  of  financial,  human  and  technical  resources,  and  the  unregulated  access  to  genetic 
resources and inequitable sharing of the benefits derived from the use of genetic resources. 

The rapid industrialisation and urbanisation of Europe led to the degradation and loss of much 
of the continent's biodiversity. As a result, Europe is now heavily reliant on certain ecosystem 
goods and services from other countries and continents. The European Environment Agency 
fourth Environment State and Outlook report76 (SOER 2010), shows that global demands are 
accelerating. These mounting demands on natural capital for resources to feed, clothe, house 
and  transport  people  are  exerting  increased  pressure  to  ecosystems,  economies  and  social 
cohesion in Europe and elsewhere. SOER 2010 concludes that in order to shift to a resource-

75 
76 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/docs/1_EN_ACT_part1_v6.pdf 
The  European  Environment  state  and  outlook  2010  report,  EEA,  30  November  2010  (see 
http://www.eea.europa.eu/pressroom/newsreleases/butterflies-or-business-europe-can) 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
                                                 
efficient green economy, all environmental resources, including biodiversity, should be fully 
considered in production, consumption and global trade decisions, and regulators, businesses 
and citizens need to work together and find innovative ways to use resources more efficiently.  

Reducing indirect drivers of biodiversity loss 

The development of a flagship initiative on a resource efficient Europe as part of the EU 2020 
Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, and within it the 2012 review of the EU 
Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy (SCP/SIP) Action 
Plan,  represent  useful  opportunities  for  addressing  biodiversity  impacts  of  unsustainable 
consumption  and  production  patterns.  Measures  undertaken  under  this  target  would  aim 
specifically  at  reducing  negative  impacts  of  EU  consumption  and  production  patterns  on 
biodiversity  beyond  EU  borders,  but  also  by  extension  within  the  EU  itself,  contributing  to 
broader  sustainable  consumption  and  production  and  resource  efficiency  objectives.  The 
Council  has  specifically  advocated  reducing  the  EU  ecological  footprint  on  global 
biodiversity  through  work  undertaken  on  resource  efficiency  as  part  of  the  EU  2020 
Strategy77. 

Although more information and data on the impacts of trade flows on global biodiversity is 
needed,  some  commodities  have  been  shown  to  have  significant  negative  impacts.  Studies 
point  out  that  a  number  of  commodities  (like  soybeans,  fish  and  crustaceans,  bovine  meat, 
cotton  and  palm  oil78)  may  have  significant  negative  impacts  on  global  diversity.  Similar 
exercises  are  being  carried  out  at  Member  State  level79.  A  better  understanding  of  links 
between trade and illegal logging and recognition of the magnitude of the problem led the EU 
to  adopt  the  Forest  Law  Enforcement  Governance  and  Trade  Action  Plan  (FLEGT),  under 
which Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPA) are being concluded with timber producing 
countries.  This  approach  of  measures  aiming  to  reduce  biodiversity  impacts  of  EU 
consumption patterns might be considered for other sectors and commodities. However, the 
potential  environmental,  economic  and  social 
in  source  countries  of  any 
corresponding  new  policy  instruments  under  consideration  would  need  to  be  assessed.  The 
close  involvement  of  private  sector  actors  (producers,  traders,  retailers)  in  the  eventual 
development of such measures will also be essential given their pivotal role in greening the 
respective supply chains. A number of approaches could be considered including: 

impacts 

• 

• 

measures  focusing  on  demand  (changing  consumption  patterns  through  for 
example, eco-labelling, and green procurement); 

measures focusing  on supply  (including for example sustainability  criteria, or 
banning placing on the market of illegally logged timber).  

Impacts of EU consumption in source countries can also be influenced through trade policies. 
Trade impacts on biodiversity should be systematically reviewed in trade agreements, on the 
basis of tried and tested methodologies, both ex ante and ex post. In that respect, the recent 
Trade  2020  Communication  states  that  impact  assessments  and  evaluations  should  be  more 

77 
78 
79 

Council (Environment) conclusions of March 2010 (preambular para i), 15 October 2010 (para 19). 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/natres/studies.htm 
As part of the UK Global Influence initiative, the UK government and the Joint Nature Conservation 
Committee (JNCC) have engaged in a process to identify the commodities that have a higher impact on 
ecosystems and biodiversity as well as quantify UK international trade and investment flows; identify 
key partner countries, potential ecosystem impacts arising from the flow in goods and investments, and 
policy options for government and UK business to encourage sustainable use of global ecosystems. 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
                                                 
embedded in trade policy making, including through carrying out impact assessments on all 
new trade initiatives with a potentially significant economic, social or environmental impact 
on the EU and its trading partners, and through the more systematic use of ex post evaluations 
of trade agreements. 

Increasing  the  efficient  use  of  resources  also  requires  setting  adequate  accounting  tools  and 
market  signals  so  that  biodiversity  values  are  taken  into  account  when  making  economic 
decisions. Possible approaches include: 

• 

• 

positive  incentives  for  the  maintenance  and  enhancement  of  biodiversity  and 
ecosystem services through market-based instruments, such as biodiversity off-
sets or payments for ecosystem services; 

removing  incentives  for  those  EU  activities  having  a  negative  impact  on 
biodiversity. The G-20 Heads of State recently committed to phasing out and 
rationalising  inefficient  fossil  fuel  subsidies  over  the  medium  term  while 
providing targeted support for the poorest, while in the EU, harmful subsidies 
are  likely  to  come  under  increased  scrutiny  in  the  context  of  budgetary 
constraints.  The  TEEB  study  concluded  that  the  G20  initiative  needed  to  be 
extended  to  other  subsidies  with  direct  and  important  harmful  effects  on 
ecosystems  and  biodiversity.  Priority  areas  for  reform  include  the  removal  of 
capacity-  or  effort-enhancing  subsidies  for  fisheries  and  the  continued  reform 
of  agricultural  subsidies  inducing  unsustainable  production.  Additional  and 
prioritised reform efforts are needed in other sectors too, including fossil fuels, 
transport  subsidies;  and  water  subsidies  that  result  in  unsustainable  water 
consumption. 

Increasing funding and assistance for global biodiversity 

Some of the most important biomes are found in a single country or region, yet the benefits 
are shared globally. The EU therefore has an interest in ensuring that biodiversity beyond its 
borders is conserved and sustainably used, and has already committed under the CBD to assist 
partner  countries  in  conserving  their  biodiversity.  Specifically,  at  CBD  COP10,  the  EU 
committed to a process aimed at adopting targets for biodiversity resource mobilisation at 
COP11 in 2012. The global funding baseline is to be determined according to a set of agreed 
indicators  to  estimate  the  aggregated  annual  financial  flows  of  biodiversity-related  funding 
from a broad range of sources, public and private. Parties are required to submit information 
related to these indicators by 30 June 2011.  

The  agreed  process  also  puts  onus  on  developing  countries,  requiring  that  they  carry  out 
valuation of biodiversity, identify and report funding needs, gaps and priorities and develop 
country-specific  resource  mobilisation  strategies  for  biodiversity.  The  EU  should  support 
developing  countries  in  this  process  to  ensure  effectiveness  of  funding,  as  well  as  through 
coordinating  the  implementation  of  biodiversity  projects  with  key  donors,  according  with 
CBD guidelines. 

'Biodiversity proofing' EU development cooperation 

The  Commission  will  also  seek  to  use  more  systematically  strategic  environmental 
assessments, including in relation to budget and sectoral aid, to improve the effectiveness of 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
its  own  development  cooperation  support  for  biodiversity,  in  line  with  the  2005  European 
Consensus and CBD guidelines80.  

Better access to and sharing of benefits from genetic resources 

Finally, the EU ratification of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the 
Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization81 will likely require the 
development  of  new  EU  policies  or  laws.  The  most  efficient  and  effective  way  of 
implementing  the  Nagoya  Protocol  in  the  EU  will  be  identified  over  the  course  of  2011  by 
means  of  an  impact  assessment  and  a  public  consultation.  Aspects  that  will  need  to  be 
considered  include:  tools/  frameworks  for  cooperation  with  countries  providing  genetic 
resources; how to enhance transparency and information about access and benefit-sharing in 
research and development; how to enable companies to properly address access and benefit-
sharing  prior  to  the  marketing  of  products  based  on  genetic  resources  and  associated 
traditional  knowledge.  The  results  of  this  exercise  will  be  set  out  in  a  Commission 
Communication and potential regulatory proposals, to be adopted by the College in 2012 in 
view of adopting legislation by 2015, as required by the global target. 

Stakeholder views 

The  agricultural  sector  saw  ensuring  that  biodiversity  considerations  are  reflected  in  EU's 
dialogue  with  third  countries  and  promoting  synergies  between  climate  change  and 
biodiversity  agendas  as  important  measures.  The  business  sector  viewed  reducing  negative 
impacts  in  trade,  production  and  consumption,  ensuring  that  biodiversity  considerations  are 
reflected  in  EU's  dialogue  with  third  countries  and  possible  international  payments  for 
ecosystem services and enhance synergies between climate change and biodiversity objectives 
as important measures to take. Finally, the NGOs supported the measures suggested. 

Prioritising measures 

Transposing  the  ABS  protocol  is  an  EU  commitment  and  is  expected  to  deliver  significant 
results within a relatively short period of time. Setting in place a process to deliver on the EU 
commitment to agree a funding target before 2012 is also a priority. 

TARGET 6: HELP AVERT GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY LOSS 

By 2020, the EU has stepped up its contribution to averting global biodiversity loss.  

Action 17: Reduce indirect drivers of biodiversity loss  

17a) 

17b) 

80 

81 

Under the EU Flagship on resource efficiency, the EU will take measures (which may include demand 
and/or  supply  side  measures)  to  reduce  the  biodiversity  impacts  of  EU  consumption  patterns, 
particularly for resources that have significant negative effects on biodiversity.  

The Commission will enhance the contribution of trade policy to conserving biodiversity and address 
potential  negative  impacts  by  systematically  including  it  as  part  of  trade  negotiations  and  dialogues 
with third countries, by identifying and evaluating potential impacts on biodiversity resulting from the 
liberalisation  of  trade  and  investment  through  ex-ante  Trade  Sustainability  Impact  Assessments  and 
ex-post  evaluations,  and  seek  to  include  in  all  new  trade  agreements  a  chapter  on  sustainable 

The  Commission  Staff  Working  Paper  "Sector  Approach  in  the  Environment  and  Natural  Resources" 
could  provide  useful  background  in  this  respect.  It  guides  donors  and  partner  countries  in  the 
development and implementation of a sector approach in the Environment, contributing to harmonising 
the  EU  approach  while  promoting  the  sustainable  and  responsible  management  of  the  sector  in 
developing countries.  
On 11 February 2011, the Commission submitted a proposal to the Council for a Council decision on 
the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Nagoya Protocol. 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
                                                 
development  providing  for  substantial  environmental  provisions  of  importance  in  the  trade  context 
including on biodiversity goals. 

17c) 

The  Commission  will  work  with  Member  States  and  key  stakeholders  to  provide  the  right  market 
signals  for  biodiversity  conservation,  including  work  to  reform,  phase  out  and  eliminate  harmful 
subsidies  at  both  EU  and  Member  State  level,  and  to  provide  positive  incentives  for  biodiversity 
conservation and sustainable use.  

Action 18: Mobilise additional resources for global biodiversity conservation 

18a) 

18b) 

The  Commission  and  Member  States  will  contribute  their  fair  share  to  international  efforts  to 
significantly  increase  resources  for  global  biodiversity  as  part  of  the  international  process  aimed  at 
estimating  biodiversity  funding  needs  and  adopting  resource  mobilisation  targets  for  biodiversity  at 
CBD COP11 in 201282. 

The  Commission  will  improve  the  effectiveness  of  EU  funding  for  global  biodiversity  inter  alia  by 
supporting natural capital assessments in recipient countries and the development and/or updating of 
National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans, and by improving coordination within the EU and 
with key non-EU donors in implementing biodiversity assistance/project. 

Action 19: 'Biodiversity proof' EU development cooperation 

19) 

The  Commission  will  continue  to  systematically  screen  its  development  cooperation  action  to 
minimise any negative impacts on biodiversity, and undertake Strategic Environmental Assessments 
and/or Environmental Impact Assessments for actions likely to have significant effects on biodiversity 
Action 20: Regulate access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from 
their use 

20) 

The  Commission  will  propose  legislation  to  implement  the  Nagoya  Protocol  on  Access  to  Genetic 
Resources  and  the  Fair  and  Equitable  Sharing  of  Benefits  Arising  from  their  Utilization  in  the 
European Union so that the EU can ratify the Protocol as soon as possible and by 2015 at the latest, as 
required by the global target. 

7. 

ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF RETAINED MEASURES 

This section explores the likely impacts of the proposed packages of measures associated with 
each  target  against  environmental,  economic  and  social  criteria,  differentiating  by  type  of 
measure when appropriate.  

Environmental  criteria  are  disaggregated  in  the  three  main  objectives  of  the  2020  headline 
target:  halting  biodiversity  loss,  ecosystem  restoration  and  the  EU  contribution  to  averting 
global biodiversity. Economic impacts are disaggregated into direct economic impacts at the 
EU,  national  or  local  level,  and  on  specific  businesses/economic  actors,  with  a  highlight  on 
issues of administrative burden where relevant. Social impacts focus mainly on employment 
and  health,  cultural  aspects,  as  well  as  social  inclusion.  Additional  sections  are  included  on 
distributional effects and the international dimension when relevant. 

Given the strategic level of the options, the impacts are mostly assessed in a qualitative way, 
with  orders  of  magnitude  of  quantitative  impacts  where  possible,  bearing  in  mind  that 
measures  linked  to  ongoing  or  forthcoming  Commission  initiatives  will  be  the  subject  of  a 
more  detailed  and  quantitative  analysis  in  the  accompanying  impact  assessments,  as 
highlighted in the analysis for each target. Where there are no aggregated figures of costs and 
benefits,  examples  of  specific  cases,  usually  at  project  level,  where  costs  and  benefits  have 

82 

As set out in COP10 Decision X/3. 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
been  estimated  are  also  given  for  illustrative  purposes  (see  in  particular  Annex  11)83.  The 
level  of  analysis  is  also  related  on  the  amount  of  knowledge  and  data  available,  which 
depends on the state of progress of related policy initiatives. 

7.1. 

Impacts of Nature Conservation related measures 

Environmental impacts 

The measures proposed would increase the benefits of Natura 2000 sites (see Annex 11) by 
improving  the  effectiveness  of  management  both  at  site  level,  and  in  terms  of  overall 
coherence  of  the  network.  Preparation  and  delivery  of  management  plans  or  equivalent 
instruments will ensure adequate management and restoration of sites to maintain or improve 
the status of species and habitats protected under the Nature directives. A new mechanism to 
promote the sharing of expertise and best practice on the management of Natura 2000 at the 
biogeographical  level  will  help  ensure  that  the  necessary  conservation  measures  are 
established.  Combined  with  strategic  action  on  financing  needs,  and  awareness  raising  and 
training,  this  brings  additional  biodiversity  benefits.  Streamlined  monitoring  and  reporting, 
including a new EU bird reporting system, is needed to improve information on the status and 
trends  of  species  and  habitats  of  European  Importance,  which  is  essential  for  measuring 
progress,  and  the  overall  achievement  of  the  target.  Effects  on  restoration  will  also 
significantly contribute to T2. 

Economic impacts 

Whilst  the  full  costs  of  implementing  the  Nature  directives  will  need  to  be  matched  with 
funding if the target is to be met, the costs directly linked to the 2020 biodiversity strategy are 
those related to promoting new approaches for stepping up the implementation, and are likely 
to be a small proportion of the overall costs of managing the Natura 2000 network, currently 
estimated at €5.8 billion per year for the achieve ment of favourable conservation status, which 
is equivalent to €62/ha/year. It is estimated  for example that  the EU level coordination of a 
biogeographical  process  aimed  at  promoting  the  effective  management  of  the  Natura  2000 
network will cost €350,000 for each of the next 3  years. Actions to improve enforcement such 
as better training, inspection capacity, and guidance will also entail specific costs. 

Management measures that lead to enhanced biodiversity and ecosystem services could create 
limited  economic  benefits  for  some  activities  linked  to  e.g.  eco-tourism,  local  natural  and 
traditional products. 

Some of the measures such as a Communication campaign and the new bird reporting system 
will also carry additional financial costs. An EU level campaign to strengthen recognition of 
the multiple ecosystem benefits that derive from the effective management of the Natura 2000 
network  is  estimated  to  cost  €350.000  for  each  of  4  years.  EU   level  co-ordination  for  the 
development  of  the  new  bird  reporting  system  by  Member  States  and  leading  bird 
conservation organisations is estimated to cost €400,000. 

Whilst  these  investments  are  necessary  to  step  up  the  slow  implementation  of  the  Nature 
directives  and  reach  the  target,  they  will  be  compensated  to  some  extent  by  the  positive 
effects of the cost-effective streamlined monitoring and reporting system. 

Social impacts 

83 

Unless otherwise specified, illustrative examples are taken from the TEEB reports (www.teebweb.org) , 
and Eftec, 2010. Report for the European Commission DG Environment son the of costs and benefits 
for biodiversity conservation. 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Several  studies  have  shown  the  positive  effects of  protected  areas  in  generating  growth  and 
employment in rural areas. For example, in Spain, it was shown that in the National park of 
Sierra  Nevada84,  the  index  of  ageing  was  lower  for  the  municipality  in  the  protected  areas 
(60.09)  compared  to  other  mountain  areas  non  protected  (66.31).  In  addition,  the  yearly 
average  increase  for  the  period  1991-2001  in  gross  income  was  higher  (6.73)  in  protected 
areas than in non protected mountain areas (5.07), and the regional average (4.50). Some of 
the  proposed  measures  would  contribute  to  and  increase  these  benefits,  in  particular  those 
related  to  completing  the  designation  of  marine  areas,  and  the  adequate  management  and 
restoration of sites. 

It  should  however  be  noted  that  biodiversity  protection  is  often  accompanied  by  restricted 
access  to  resources  and  can  lead  to  a  decrease  in  economic  output  as  measured  by  market 
values and negative local impacts on jobs and land value, at least in the short term. Finding 
alternative  sources  of  local  income  to  compensate  for  use  restrictions  is  challenging  but 
essential  for  the  long-term  success  of  any  protected  area  scheme.  These  may  include 
conservation easements, payments for ecosystem services and promotion of tourism and other 
sustainable activities (e.g. production of certified local products). 

Distributional effects 

Member  States  which  have  designated  a  larger  share  of  their  territory  as  Natura  2000  areas 
(e.g.  Slovenia)  and  which  are  biodiversity-rich  (e.g.  Spain)  will  face  more  impacts,  for 
example on the design and implementation of management plans, but will benefit more from 
measures foreseen under the target or under related targets (e.g. T2 and T3).  

International impacts 

Measures  to  protect  and  enhance  of  Natura  2000  sites  will  also  have  a  global  impact  since 
some  habitats/ecosystems  provide  global  services  (e.g.  forests,  grasslands,  and  wetlands 
provide carbon storage benefits). Completion and management of the network will therefore 
also  contribute  to  the  global  target  through  reduced  climate  change  impacts  on  global 
biodiversity. 

7.2. 

Impacts of Ecosystem Restoration and Green Infrastructure 

Environmental impacts 

Measures related to green infrastructure and no net loss would provide benefits to society in 
terms  of  maintained  and  enhanced  ecosystems  and  related  services,  which  are  currently 
undermined by ecosystem degradation. The latter include life-supporting cycles such as water 
and carbon cycles, or the provision of clean air. Some of these services would have positive 
feedback effects for biodiversity conservation; for example water filtering and flood control 
services, which would reduce pressure from pollution and lead to better adaptation to climate.  

More  specifically,  green  infrastructure  will  increase  resilience  and  reduce  vulnerability  to 
climate  change,  within  and  outside  the  Natura  2000  network,  in  the  context  of  higher  flood 
and  forest  fire  risks,  water  scarcity,  and  droughts.  It  will  generate  investments  in  natural 
capital, contributing directly to the target of at least 15% of restoration. 

The main environmental impact of no net loss policy would be that there is no further loss of 
ecosystems  and  ecosystem  services  overall  and  that  the  overall  headline  target  of  halting 
biodiversity loss is met. As an example, the current situation in France is that out of 60,000 ha 

84 

Sunyer, C. (Ed.). 2009. Eco-emprendedores: Retos para la puesta en valor de los espacios protegidos. 
TERRA centro para la política ambiental. Madrid. 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
                                                 
lost  to  urban  sprawling  and  infrastructure  every  year  (equivalent  to  one  French  department 
every 10 years), only 3,000 ha are compensated for. 

Economic impacts 

The costs and benefits of establishing green infrastructure and restoration projects to reach the 
target - beyond those likely to take place in a business as usual scenario (through Natura 2000, 
WFD  and  MSFD)  -  have  not  yet  been  estimated  at  EU  level.  Evidence  at  local  or  national 
level  in  EU  Member  States  suggests  that  benefits  for  society  of  restoration  and  GI  projects 
exceed  costs  in  many  instances  (see  Annex  11).  A  French  assessment  produced  calculated 
reference values for ecosystems, ranging from €600 per ha/per year fo r pastureland to €2000 
per ha/per year for some types of forest (€950/year for temperate forestry) 85. Global reviews 
of  restoration  projects86  showed  costs  ranging  between  several  hundreds  to  thousands  of 
dollars  per  hectare  (grasslands,  rangelands  and  forests)  to  several  tens  of  thousands  (inland 
waters) to millions of dollars per hectare (coral reefs) (see Figure 8), and cost-benefit ratios in 
the range of 3 to 7587. Whilst not all projects are likely to be cost-effective, there are likely to 
be  many  opportunities  for  restoration  with  high  cost-benefit  ratios  given  the  state  of 
degradation of ecosystems in the EU. For certain ecosystem services, like recreation, or water 
purification,  benefits  will  depend  on  location  and  access.  This  will  need  to  be  taken  into 
account in the proposed prioritisation framework for the restoration of ecosystems and their 
services in the EU. 

Green infrastructure and no net loss initiatives will also provide new investment opportunities 
to businesses. As an illustration, sustainability-related global business opportunities in natural 
resources (including energy, forestry, food and agriculture, water and metals)” are estimated 
to be in the range of US$ 2-6 trillion by 2050 (at constant 2008 prices). About half of this is 
“additional investments in the energy sector related to reducing carbon emissions”. Markets 
for  biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services  are  growing.  Payments  for  Ecosystem  Services  for 
water-related ecosystem services and watershed management account for only US$5 billion in 
2008, but are expected to total more than 30 billion by 2050.88 

Both green infrastructure and no net loss initiatives, and the 'biodiversity-positive' investments 
they entail have an important innovation potential, including for example man-made elements 
(such  as  green  roofs,  porous  pavement,  rain  absorbing  gardens,  eco-ducts  for  wildlife 
crossings),  innovative  planning  approaches,  the  design  and  application  of  urban  elements 
enhancing  biodiversity,  all  combinations  of  technologies  enhancing  ecosystem  services,  or 
finally  the  development  of  new  organization  methods,  products,  services  and  system 
innovations to better protect ecosystems.  

Green infrastructure would also reduce fragmentation and the social costs of traffic accidents 
caused by wildlife, including material damage, human injuries and human fatalities. This has 
been estimated to reach €42 million per year in  Switzerland. In Spain, the annual economic 
cost of material damage resulting from accidents with wild boar and roe deer was estimated to 

85 

86 

87 

88 

Chevassus-au-Louis  -  2009.  An  economic  approach  to  biodiversity  and  eocsystem  services; 
Contribution to public decision-making. Centre d'analyses stratégiques report. 
Chapter  9  in  The  Economics  of  Ecosystems  and  Biodiversity  in  National  and  International  Policy 
Making. An output of TEEB, edited by Patrick ten Brink. Earthscan, London. 
Nellemann,  C.E.  Corocran  (eds)  2010.  Dead  Planet,  Living  Planet  –  Biodiversity  and  ecosystem 
restoration for sustainable development. A rapid response Assessment. UNEP, GRID-Arendal. 
PricewaterhouseCoopers in TEEB for business report, 2010. 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
                                                 
€862,179 89.  In  France,  where  management  plans  have  allowed  a  certain  recovery  of  wild 
board population and the fragmentation of forests has significantly increased, the number of 
road  collision  involving  wild  boards  and  other  game  animals  have  increased  and  the  total 
costs derived from these collisions is estimated at €150 million, of which 96 million only for 
wild boards, according to the Office National Interministériel de la Sécurité Routière.  

Some of the economic benefits from green infrastructure also stem from the fact that in many 
instances,  for  example  for  climate  change  adaptation  or  mitigation  of  extreme  events, 
solutions  based  on  maintaining  or  enhancing  ecosystem-based  services  are  more  cost-
effective than hard engineering solutions. Well-targeted investments in green infrastructure - 
such as restoring natural flood plains in order to increase flood protection rather than having 
to build expensive dykes - make sound economic sense90. Green infrastructure can also make 
a cost-effective contribution to reducing energy demands.  

The experience of not net loss policies in some countries provides useful estimates. The US 
National  Mitigation  Banking  Association  estimates  that  USD  3,8  billion/year  are  spent  on 
compensation, including 65% on restoration, 15% on protection, and 20% on the creation of 
wetlands91. The market for US wetland credits is currently estimated at USD 1.1 to 1.8 billion 
annually92.  Several  Australian  states  have  introduced  similar  schemes.  The  Bushbroker 
scheme  in  Victoria  has  so  far  facilitated  more  than  AUD  4  million  in  trade.  Overall,  global 
revenues  from  regulated  biodiversity  offset  transactions  are  already  worth  $  3.4  billion  per 
year and could grow to $ 10 billion by 202093.  

Assessing and mapping ecosystems and their services, as well as developing a prioritisation 
approach will generate some costs, but are a necessary step to achieve the above benefits. As 
an  example,  the  costs  for  the  ongoing  UK  National  Ecosystem  Assessment  are  currently  at 
around £1.2M for the whole project, which covers new analytical work on a framework but 
relies on existing data. 

Social impacts 

Green  infrastructure  and  a  prioritised  restoration  framework  would  provide  multiple  social 
benefits.  For  example,  restoring  ecosystems  such  as  watershed  forests,  barrier  beaches,  or 
riparian  and  coastal  wetlands  reduces  exposure  of  human  communities  to  natural  disasters, 
such as landslides, flooding, storms and wave surges.  

Green  infrastructure  in  urban  areas,  such  as  developing  and  maintaining  green  spaces,  yard 
and park trees, street trees, green roof tops, vertical gardens in cities have positive impacts on 
health and quality of life. These include mitigating urban heat islands by cooling the air and 
shading  buildings  and  surfaces,  aesthetical  and  psychological  benefits94,  improvement  of 

89 

90 

91 
92 

93 
94 

http://www.iene.info/cost-341/SotA-COST341ER0318.pdf.;http://www.iene.info/cost-
341/COST%20341-handbook.pdf 
TEEB issues update on climate change 
Le Monde, 14 May 2009, "Une nouvelle arme pour lutter contre la destruction de la nature". 
Madsen, B., Carroll, N. and Moore Brands, K. 2010, State of Biodiversity Markets report: Offset and 
Compensation Programs Worldwide. 
http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/acrobat/sbdmr.pdf 
Ecosystem Marketplace, 2008. 
Fuller  RA,  Irvine  KN,  Devine-Wright  P,  Warren  PH,  Gaston  KJ.  2007.  Psychological  benefits  of 
greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters. 3: 390–394. 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
                                                 
water quality, filtering air pollutants and improvement of air quality results from the capture 
of pollutants such as PM1095, O3, SO2 and NOx. 
As access to green spaces is unequally distributed across socio-economic groups, with poorer 
social groups having, in general, lower access, and given that green space could have positive 
influence on health conditions such as obesity, mental health, circulatory disease and asthma, 
more equal access to green space could also help reducing health inequalities between socio-
economic groups96. 

It has also been argued that green spaces can also have positive impacts in terms of increasing 
social  activity,  improving  community  cohesion,  developing  local  attachment  and  lowering 
crime levels, particularly in deprived communities97. 

Finally,  restoration  and  green  infrastructure  would  provide  new  job  opportunities.  It  is 
estimated that 20,000 jobs in France are contributing to knowledge, management, protection 
and  restoration  of  biodiversity,  projected  to  rise  to  40,000  by  2020  as  a  result  of  newly 
established  biodiversity  priorities.  Large  companies  are  now  recruiting  "biodiversity 
specialists", for example experts on "Trame Verte et Bleue" employed by Autoroutes du Sud 
de la France98. It is foreseen that in France, 10,000 jobs will be created in the near future in 
the  sector  of  ecosystem  maintenance  and  restoration  (génie  écologique)99.  These  new  jobs 
opportunities could have an important role in the reinsertion of low qualification workforce100. 
Although specific restoration projects involve one-off employment opportunities, they usually 
also require action on maintenance and conservation with more permanent impacts on jobs. 

Restoration and green infrastructure also provide new recreational opportunities, and can lead 
to  local  development  and  regeneration  in  rural  areas.  For  example  in  Belgium,  a  project  to 
recreate grasslands for flood control also led after a number of years to development of agro- 
and eco-tourism (see Annex 11). In the UK, the creation of the National Forest increased the 
number of local jobs by 4.1% and local regeneration using green infrastructure attracted £96 
million of investment101. The Glasgow Green Renewal project stimulated the development of 
500-750  new  residential  properties,  enhanced  average  house  prices  and  the  total  value  of 
property  transactions  by  net  £3  million–£4.5  million,  increased  yield in  council  tax  by  47% 
and increased the value of the land from £100,000 to £300,000 per ha102. 

95 

96 

97 

98 
99 
100 
101 

102 

Human  health  benefits  for  the  local  population  of  new  planting  in  a  10km  per  10km  area  of  East 
London,  was  assessed  in  terms  of  reduced  premature  mortality  and  respiratory  hospital  admissions 
through reduced PM10 air levels (Tiwary, A., et al., Environmental Pollution, 2009). PM10 capture was 
estimated to be 0.009 t ha-1 yr-1, averting 2 deaths and 2 hospital admissions per year. There would be 
additional  impacts  from  other  pollutants,  and  respiratory  symptoms  that  do  not  require  hospital 
admissions.  A  recent  study  looked  at  asthma  prevalence  in  4-5-year  old  children  in  New  York  and 
found that the presence of street trees was associated with a 29% reduction in asthma (Lovasi, G.S. et 
al, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2008). These results do not include indirect health 
impacts through recreation, sport, and increased well-being. 
Sustainable  Development  Commission  (2010).  Sustainable  development:  the  key  to  tackling  health 
inequalities. Sustainable Development Commission, London. 
Forest Research (2010). Benefits of green infrastructure. Report by Forest Research. Forest Research, 
Farnham. 
Le gouvernement français veut faire de la biodiversité un gisement d'emploi – Le Monde, 6 July 2010. 
Ecotech Study 2012 (Boston Consulting Group for the French Env Ministry). 
Humanité et biodiversité - Manifeste pour une nouvelle alliance, Ligue Roc, Descartes & Cie, 2009. 
CESR  (2004).  Much  more  than  trees  2:  measuring  the  social  and  economic  impact  of  The  National 
Forest. Staffordshire University Centre for Economic and Social Regeneration (CESR). 
GEN Consulting (2006). Glasgow Green renewal benefits analysis. A report to Glasgow City Council. 
November 2006. 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Distributional effects 

The  main  stakeholders  affected  would  be  private  businesses  concerned  by  new  investment 
opportunities,  or  by  requirements  for  compensation  for  displaced  habitats  (including  the 
transport and energy sector), as well as planning authorities. 

Member  States  that  already  have  started  putting  in  place  some  elements  of  green 
infrastructure (e.g. Netherlands, France, Czech Republic and Slovakia), or have some form of 
no-net-loss policy (e.g. France, Germany), will require relatively fewer efforts to implement 
the measures needed to reach the target, compared to Member States who haven't.  

International impacts 

As for measures to reach T1, measures targeting restoration and compensation for displaced 
habitats  would  provide  global  benefits  given  the  global  services  provided  by  some 
ecosystems,  and  would  also  contribute  to  the  global  target  through  reduced  climate  change 
impacts on global biodiversity. 

Foreseen additional analysis 

Additional  analysis  will  be  carried  out  in  the  context  of  the  foreseen  initiatives  on  green 
infrastructure by 2012, the strategic restoration prioritisation framework by 2014, and the no 
net  loss  initiative  by  2015.  The  impact  assessment  report  accompanying  the  'blueprint  to 
safeguard EU waters' initiative scheduled for 2012 will provide additional relevant analysis. 

Figure 8: Summary of cost ranges of restoration efforts 

7.3. 

Impacts of Agricultural and Forestry related measures 

Environmental impacts 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
Greening  the  first  pillar  of  the  CAP  to  ensure  that  direct  payments  reward  benefits  from 
biodiversity-supporting  farming  systems  in  a  larger  surface  of  agricultural  land  in  the  EU 
(possibly  including  permanent  grassland,  land  under  ecological  set  aside  and  Natura  2000 
areas)  would  have  direct  benefits  in  terms  of  increased  area  of  extensive  agro-ecosystems, 
improved status of corresponding species and habitats, and the services they provide.  

Changes  in  the  second  pillar  aimed  at  increasing  environmental  performance  and  ensuring 
that  environmental  measures  are  more  closely  tailored  to  the  specific  needs  of  areas  such  as 
Natura 2000 and HNV areas would have direct impacts in terms of maintenance and restoration of 
agro-ecosystems,  and  the  many  services  they  provide  in  rural  areas  and  for  society  at  large. 
Facilitating  the  collaboration  of  farmers  to  achieve  connectivity  of  landscape  features  for 
biodiversity  and  climate  change  adaptation  will  greatly  boost  the  establishment  of  Green 
infrastructure  and  will  contribute  to  deliver  on  the  EU  objectives  for  restoration.  In  addition, 
these measures would have a positive impact on a number of drivers for biodiversity loss and 
reduce the overexploitation of resources such as soil, water, on pollution through less energy-
intensive  agriculture  and  reduced  use  of  fertilisers  and  pesticides.  This  could  considerably 
reduce the pressure on High Nature Value farmland, which for instance in France decreased 
by almost 70% from 1970 to 2000. 

Full implementation of the Water Framework Directive would also lead to benefits in terms of 
protecting  and  restoring  water-related  ecosystems  and  the  services  they  provide,  and  would 
also  contribute  to  progress  towards  Good  Ecological  Status.  Once  the  Directive  has  been 
implemented and the operational obligations for farmers have been identified, inclusion under 
cross compliance would add to ensuring compliance. 

The increased use/preservation of traditional crops, in addition to positive impacts on genetic 
diversity,  would  have  a  positive  impact  on  climate  adaptation  through  maintaining  a  more 
diverse genetic stock, and may also increase resistance to invasive alien species. 

For forestry, the measures proposed would ensure that a larger proportion of forests is under 
management  plans  or  equivalent  instruments  that  include  biodiversity  objectives.  The 
improvement  in  management  practices  induced  by  plans  would  maintain  and  increase  the 
many  services  provided  by  forests  in  the  EU,  including  carbon  storage,  erosion  prevention, 
pollution control and water purification. 

Economic impacts 

At EU level, costs relating to greening the first pillar and introducing changes in the second 
pillar are not likely to increase the overall budget but rather involve a redistribution of CAP 
funds  towards  encouraging  more  biodiversity-supporting  farming  systems.  The  proposed 
measures would also allow for a higher diversification of the agricultural sector, adding value 
to rural products and services associated with specific natural or landscape elements.  

Rebalancing  direct  payments  would  increase  efficiency  in  the  use  of  EU  funds.  A  more 
outcome oriented approach and mechanisms to foster collaboration between farmers in Pillar 
2  would  also  increase  efficiency.  Both  sources  of  funding  would  contribute  in  part  to  the 
overall  costs  of  maintaining  Natura  2000  in  agricultural  and  forested  lands,  and  if 
appropriately  targeted  HNV  areas. The  overall  cost  of  Natura  2000  management  has been 
estimated  at  around  €  5.8  billion  per  year,  whilst  managing  sustainably  the  European 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
countryside for multiple environmental objectives could cost up to 16 billion per year103 (with 
some overlap with the previous figure), including costs at both EU and Member States level. 

For forestry, management plans would increase the competitiveness of the sector, through: a 
more sustainable raw material supply, particularly in light of emerging threats and challenges; 
a  better  inventory  of  current  conditions  of  forest  resources;  and  better  planned  and 
coordinated measures for achieving multifunctional objectives. They could also encourage a 
diversification  of  the  sector,  through  including  new  activities  in  the  management  planning. 
For  example,  in  Spain,  mushroom  harvesting  has  been  estimated  to  represent  between  6  to 
10%  of  the  value  of  timber,  without  taking  into  account  its  recreational  value  generated  by 
this  activity  (Martínez  Peña,  2003;  Aldea,  2009).  The  Estimate  of  the  recreational  value  of 
forests in Germany is 2.4 billion USD for occasional visitors (Elsasser, 1999)104. 

Developing  management  plans  or  adapting  them  to  include  biodiversity  objectives  would 
increase  administrative  costs.  The  average  cost  of  developing  a  management  plan  for  a 
duration of 10 years is in the order of 10 to 60€/ha depending  on the size of the area, which 
compares favourably to payments for sustainable use of forestry land, under EAFRD (Axis 2, 
Art  36),  which  range  from  150  to  700  €/ha  for  a fforestation,  and  from  40  to  200  €/ha  for 
forest  environment  annual  payment  and  Natura  2000.  The  restriction  of  the  target  to  forest 
holders above a certain size would also avoid a comparatively higher administrative costs for 
small forest holders. 

Social impacts 

CAP support to maintaining and enhance biodiversity in rural areas would contribute to rural 
development in less favoured areas, notably in HNV and Natura 2000 areas. The enhancement 
of  recreational  ecosystem  services  would  lead  to  job  creation  through  the  increase  of  rural 
activities such as eco-tourism, including in forests, as called for in the European Forest Sector 
Outlook Study report105.  

Engaging  and  incentivizing  farmers  and  forest  holders  for  the  delivery  of  the  biodiversity 
objectives  will  allow  them  to  pull  forces  with  non  governmental  organisations  and  will 
highlight  the  public  contribution  of  semi-subsistence  farmers,  small  family  farmers  and 
organic  farmers,  which  are  often  a  crucial  basis  for  the  social  fabric  of  many  regions.  This 
will  make  extensive  and  low  input  rural  areas  more  dynamic  and  more  attractive  to  young 
farmers thus decelerating depopulation in rural areas and land abandonment. 

Distributional effects 

The  proposed  measures  would  bring  about  a  more  equitable  distribution  of  direct  aids 
amongst  farmers.  A  recent  report  on  farm  viability  showed  that  pillar  one  payments  in  the 
current  CAP  are  disfavouring  small-scale,  low-intensive  farming,  whilst  favouring  high 
intensity  farms106.  Whilst  direct  ‘green’  payments  under  pillar  1  are  likely  to  favour  large 
holdings, if they take the form of flat rates per ha, measures under pillar 2 tend to favour small 

103 

104 

105 
106 

Based on IEEP, 2010, Costing the environmental needs related to Rural Land Management, Draft Final 
Report for DG Environment. This is however likely to be an overestimate - there may be some double 
counting across different objective and efficiencies that can be achieved with a programming approach. 
Manuel  pour  la  création  de  marchés  de  la  biodiversité-  OECD  report  2005-  http://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/docserver/download/fulltext/9704142e.pdf?expires=1290348679&id=0000&accname=ocid
194935&checksum=6A586087A7AFE7DD8CDE55F66FFD6996 
http://www.unece.org/timber/efsos/ 
LEI  2010.  Farm  viability  in  the  European  Union:  assessment  of  the  impact  of  changes  in  farm 
payments, http://www.lei.dlo.nl/publicaties/PDF/2010/2010-011.pdf 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
                                                 
farmers as they tend to reward specific features found in smaller scale farming. An additional 
payment under pillar 1 specifically targeting small farmers could also be envisaged. 

Measures under this target are also likely to have a comparatively higher positive impact in 
Member  States  with  a  high  proportion  of  UAA  under  extensive  agro-ecosystems  and  HNV 
areas, including new Member States. 

International impacts 

Agro-ecosystems  such  as  grasslands  and  peatland,  and  forest  ecosystems  provide  global 
climate change mitigation benefits. In addition, measures for the preservation of agricultural 
genetic diversity would also have international spillovers as they would contribute to a more 
diverse gene pool, with benefits for climate change adaptation. A more sustainable production 
of agricultural and forest products would also benefit exports to EU trading partners. 

Foreseen additional analysis 

A  more  detail  assessment  of  the  environmental,  economic  and  social  impacts  of  different 
options to change the Common Agriculture Policy, including most of the measures proposed 
under  this  target,  will  be  developed  in  the  context  of  the  Impact  Assessment  that  will 
accompany  the  upcoming  Commission  proposals  for  regulatory  instruments  to  reform  the 
CAP. 

7.4. 

Impacts of Fisheries-related measures 

Environmental impacts 

The  combination  of  measures  proposed,  if  implemented  properly,  should  reduce  fishing 
pressure on stocks and lead in the long run to increased  and  more  sustainable levels of fish 
populations.  The  positive  impact  on  rebuilding  depleted  stocks  of  measures  such  as  closed 
areas  and  gear  or  effort  restrictions  have  been  demonstrated  in  California,  the  northeast 
United  States,  and  northwest  Australia107.  In  addition,  technical  measures  to  progressively 
eliminate  discards  and  to  avoid  by-catch,  and  targeted  support  for  better  implementation  of 
Natura  2000  and  MSFD  obligations  should  yield  additional  benefits  for  marine  biodiversity 
and ecosystem goods and services, thereby also contributing to the first two targets.  

Economic impacts 

Ensuring  sustainable  use  of  the  fish  resources  is  a  clear  prerequisite  for  the  viability  of  the 
fisheries sector, as shown by the costs of overfishing in the Baltic and North Sea fisheries (see 
Annex  11).  In  addition  to  ensuring  that  stocks  would  not  collapse,  improving  sustainability 
would  allow  the  development  of  larger  fish  stocks,  leading  to  more  fishing  possibilities  at 
lower cost and with a higher unit value. There would however be negative economic impacts 
in the short run, linked to lower initial catches, and reduction of the size of the fleet. In the 
long  run,  however,  the  implementation  of  MSY-based  management  practices  is  expected  to 
improve revenues for fishermen and significantly reduce the needs for government subsidies 
to the fishing industry. 

The measures proposed would also increase efficiency of public funding. On top of the direct 
aid  from  the  European  Fisheries  Fund  and  similar  national  schemes,  the  industry  benefits 
from  a  number  of  indirect  subsidies,  the  most  important  of  which  is  the  overall  exemption 
from fuel taxes. Unlike other industries, fishing also benefits from free access to the natural 
resources  it  exploits  and  does  not  have  to  contribute  to  the  public  management  costs 

107 

Worm, B. et al, 2009. Rebuilding Global Fisheries, Science 325(5940): 578-585. 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
                                                 
associated  with  its  activities,  e.g.  control  and  safety  at  sea.  Estimates  from  several  Member 
States have shown that the cost of fishing to the public budgets (including public management 
costs such as safety measures or monitoring) actually exceeds the total catch value.108 

As regards the distribution of the economic costs incurred by this policy measure, most of the 
direct implementation burden would fall to the Regional Fisheries Management Organisations 
(RFMOs),  and  the  fishing  industry  itself.  Most  of  the  costs  would  likely  be  concentrated  in 
one-off restructuring costs spread out over a few years.  

Fisheries measures aiming at eliminating adverse impacts of fishing on other species, habitats 
and  ecosystems  may  in  most,  if  not  all,  cases  imply  higher  management  costs  that  include 
acquisition  of  additional  information,  planning  and  consultative  decision-making  processes 
involving a broader range of stakeholders/interest groups, and additional monitoring, control 
and  surveillance.  According  to  the  FAO,  higher  management  costs  due  to  ecosystem-based 
approaches  would  often  be  out-weighed  by  the  long-term  benefits109  for  society.  These 
measures  could  also  have  a  positive  impact  on  recreational  activities.  As  part  of  a  study  on 
economic  losses  linked  to  overfishing,  it  was  concluded  that  countries  are  also  missing 
economic  opportunities  by  not  promoting  alternative  uses  of  the  sector,  such  as  whale 
watching and other marine recreational activities110. 

Social impacts 

The need to increase the down-sizing percentage in the short term due to the switch to MSY-
based  management  practices  would  have  a  negative  short  term  social  impact,  which  would 
need to be integrated in an existing trend, for which local communities are starting to adapt, to 
some  extent.  Further  support  via  sound  re-employment  policies  and  potential  short  term 
financial support to the industry may be needed in the short term. This impact should also be 
contrasted with the very high negative effect on employment of a collapse in fish stocks (see 
for example the Newfoundland example in Annex 11). 

Distributional impacts 

The main social costs in the short term of this policy measure would be borne by the fishing 
sector,  concentrated  in  the  Member  States  with  the  largest  amount  of  full-term  equivalent 
employment  in  the  fisheries  sector,  namely  Spain,  Greece  and  Italy.  The  long  term  social 
benefits  of  the  policy  measure,  on  the  other  hand,  would  be  felt  across  society  as  a  whole 
(sustainable fish stocks, enhanced marine ecosystems) and across all EU Member States. 

International dimension 

Through  reducing  fishing  effort  and  adverse  impacts  on  marine  ecosystems,  measures  will 
also contribute to more sustainable global fisheries and enhanced global marine biodiversity. 
More sustainable fisheries products would also benefit exports to EU trading partners. 

Foreseen additional analysis 

108 
109 

110 

Green Paper: Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. COM(2009) 163 final. 
Fisheries  Management  -  2.  The  Ecosystem  Approach  to  Fisheries  FAO  Technical  Guidelines  For 
Responsible Fisheries Suppl. 2, FAO, Rome 2003. 
Cisneros-Montemayor,  A.M.  and  U.R.  Sumaila.  2010.  A  global  estimate  of  benefits  from  ecosystem-
based marine recreation: Potential impacts and implications for management. Journal of Bioeconomics. 
DOI: 10.1007/s10818-010-9092-7. 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
                                                 
A  more  detailed  assessment  of  the  environmental,  economic  and  social  impacts  of  these 
measures is developed in the Impact Assessment reports of the Commission proposals for the 
reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. 

7.5. 

Impacts of Invasive Alien Species related measures 

Environmental impacts 

The  measures  proposed  would  lead  to  better  control  of  IAS  already  introduced,  limit 
associated damage, and avoid new damage by controlling pathways for new IAS. 

In addition, as IAS work as additional pressures on ecosystems, the proposed measures would 
have strong synergy effects with measures under other targets, for example also contributing 
to  reducing  pressures  on  overexploited  natural  resources,  and  Natura  2000  sites,  as  well  as 
increasing the probability of success of restoration measures. Control for introduction of new 
species would also contribute to reducing potential costs associated with climate changes, as 
new  species  could  become  more  invasive  due  to  changing  climate  conditions  (e.g.  Pacific 
oyster). 

Economic impacts 

The total documented monetary impacts of IAS in Europe have been estimated to amount to 
more than € 12 billion a year over the last 20 ye ars, of which € 9.6 billion can be attributed to 
IAS damage (e.g. to agriculture, fisheries and aquaculture, forestry and health sectors111). This 
is  generally  considered  as  an  underestimate  as  a  far  greater  number  of  IAS  cause  negative 
socio-economic  effects  than  are  not  documented  in  monetary  terms.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
design  of  measures  would  need  to  take  into  account  some  positive  impacts  of  IAS,  e.g. 
American mink providing fur, the pacific oyster for oyster farming, and the potential role of 
some IAS for biofuel production. 

Although the final full cost-benefit analysis of the measures proposed will only be available in 
conjunction  with  the  detailed  impact  assessment  that  will  accompany  the  proposal  for  a 
dedicated legislative instrument, early estimates provide a good indication of the magnitude of 
the  damage  caused  and  of  the  costs  of  inaction.  A  significant  part  of  the  €9.6  billion/year 
damage costs would be avoided, and these benefits would significantly outweigh the costs of 
the  measures  needed  (€  40  million–190  million  /  year).  This  is  without  taking  into  account 
additional benefits which have not been monetarised, including to biodiversity, human health 
and preservation of natural heritage. Several studies have shown that the costs of controlling 
invasive alien species are usually lower than the expected damage costs (see Annex 11)112. 

Social impacts 

The  proposed  measures  would  deliver  significant  social  benefits  in  terms  of  reduced  health 
impacts. Almost 30 of the total of 125 studied IAS can negatively affect human health either 
by  functioning  as  disease  vectors  or  causing  allergies.  The  negative  impacts  are  also 
confirmed by data on the costs of human epidemic diseases. 

111 

112 

IAS  can  also  damage  infrastructure  due  to  burrowing  (e.g.  musk  rat)  or  via  their  root  systems  (many 
plants), or by blocking drainages or disrupting e.g. water purification plants (e.g. zebra mussel). 
For example, McConnachie et al. (2003) review 10 benefit-cost studies of successful biological control 
programs, where the benefit-cost ratios of terrestrial weeds range from 1.9:1 to 24:1. Van Wilgen et al. 
(2004) estimate the costs and benefits of biocontrol of six invasive weed species in South Africa, with 
benefit-cost ratios ranging from 8:1 for red Sesbania to 709:1 for jointed cactus. 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
                                                 
There  are  also  negative  employment  consequences  to  damage  from  IAS.  For  example  the 
collapse of the Black Sea fishing industry due to the introduction of the comb jellyfish led to 
150,000  jobs  being  lost.  In  Canada,  outbreaks  of  the  mountain  pine  beetle  on  forests  were 
foreseen  to  lead  to  the  closure  of  16  major  sawmills  unless  addressed.  Furthermore,  the 
economic  impacts  of  IAS  on  local  livelihoods  are  likely  to  cause  broader  socio-economic 
impacts in affected communities. 

In addition, there are a number of IAS with demonstrated negative effects on cultural services, 
caused  by  the  reduction  of  recreational  use  and/or  tourism,  because  of  decreased  aesthetic 
value,  nuisance  to  humans  and/or  recreational activities,  and  impacts  on  human  health.  In  a 
number  of  cases,  IAS  are  also  reported  to  negatively  affect  broader  cultural  values,  such  as 
those  related  to  landscapes  with  high  cultural  significance,  or  populations  of  charismatic 
and/or  locally  important  species.  For  example,  Cypress  forests  in  the  Mediterranean  are 
known to suffer from invasions of ink disease and cypress cancer. 

Distributional impacts 

The current distribution of costs and benefits of IAS action is extremely uneven. Most costs 
associated with IAS control and lost production, ecosystem services and amenities are met by 
stakeholders on the ground, with a major part of the burden falling on local authorities. The 
beneficiaries of activities providing pathways for IAS introduction/spread usually have few or 
no economic incentives to minimise such risks. 

In addition, IAS species may have a social value as pets, game species and ornamental plants 
and animals. The growing trade in such species is indeed a key driver of the introduction of 
IAS in the EU, and will need to be addressed in the forthcoming IAS strategy. 

International dimension 
The  proposed  measures  will  comply  with  the  WTO-SPS-agreement113  and  their  impact  on 
trade will be analogous to the impact of the animal and plant health regimes. The extent of the 
impact  will  also  depend  on  the  level  of  ambition  chosen.  Whilst  new  measures  may  place 
restrictions  on  some  traded  commodities,  in  general  the  new  measures  would  increase  the 
entry  requirements,  thus  requiring  further  border  inspections.  It  is  however  important  to 
consider  that  several  EU  key  trading  partners  already  have  ambitious  IAS  policies  in  place, 
and cooperation with these countries may actually improve trade relations and contribute to 
smoother trade flows. 

Foreseen additional analysis 

More detailed analysis of the impacts will be set out in the impact assessment accompanying 
the proposal for the Commission strategy on Invasive Alien Species foreseen in 2012. 

7.6. 

Impacts  of  measures  related  to  stepping  up  the  EU  contribution  to  averting 
global biodiversity loss 

Environmental impacts 

Some  measures  related  to  EU  consumption  and  production,  although  targeted  at  reducing 
impacts  in  source  countries,  would  also  have  a  positive  impact  in  the  EU  through  reduced 
demand for products that are also produced in the EU. 

Increased  resource  mobilisation,  along  with  measures  for  more  sustainable  production  and 
consumption  patterns  in  the  EU  would  improve  biodiversity  in  developing  countries. 

113 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/spsagr_e.htm  

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Environmental benefits from protecting global biodiversity have been widely documented, for 
example through the  Millennium  Ecosystem  Assessment, and would also deliver significant 
benefits in tackling other environmental challenges.  

Regarding  climate  change,  45%  of  Green  Carbon  (carbon  bound  through  photosynthesis  in 
ecosystems)  is  stored  in  terrestrial  ecosystems  and  a  further  55%  is  bound  in  marine 
ecosystems.114  Carbon  uptake  of  tropical  forest  ecosystems  alone  is  estimated  equivalent  to 
approximately 15% of the total global anthropogenic carbon emissions115.  

Biodiversity conservation can also play a crucial role in tackling the global water crisis and 
ensuring that the provision of high quality freshwater continues to be provided in developing 
countries. For instance continued destruction of the Mau forest ecosystem116, considered to be 
the  single  most  important  water  catchment  in  Rift  Valley  and  western  Kenya,  has  been 
identified as a driver that will contribute to aggravating the water crisis in the country.  

Parties  to  the  Nagoya  Protocol  on  ABS  will  encourage  users  and  providers  of  genetic 
resources  to  direct  benefits  arising  from  the  utilisation  of  genetic  resources  towards  the 
conservation  and  sustainable  use  of  biological  diversity.  The  use  of  genetic  resources  from 
non-EU  countries  by  EU  researchers  and  companies  is  expected  to  result  in  significant 
environmental benefits outside of the EU. 

Economic impacts 

The  associated  costs  for  the  EU  of  the  CBD  agreement  to  substantially  increase  financial 
resources for biodiversity from all sources by 2020 will be clearer when the financing targets 
are  agreed  at  COP-11  in  2012.  The  current  ODA  spending  on  biodiversity  issues  was  USD 
3,395 million in 2008117. The necessary international financial flows advanced by developing 
countries  during  COP-10  negotiations  for  reaching  the  CBD  targets  by  2020  ranged  from 
USD 30 billion to 200 billion. These estimates were presented by developing country Parties 
to the Convention but it remained unclear whether these were annual targets or targets for the 
10  year  period,  and  these  proposals  have  not  been  substantiated.  The  existing  estimates  of 
global  financing  needs  of  USD  4-45  billion  per  annum  for  expanding  global  protected  area 
network  and  290  billion  USD  per  annum  for  a  fully  comprehensive  global  conservation 
programme  outside  protected  areas118,  are  not  fully  reliable  and  need  to  be  updated.  A 
proportion  of  the  funding  would  have  to  be  contributed  as  public  funding  from  the  EU  but 
other  sources  of  funding,  including  innovative  financing  mechanism,  private  sector  funding 
and increased domestic funding in developing countries will also need to be explored.  

These potential costs need to be weighed against the economic benefits that the preservation 
and enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services will provide in developing countries, 
which are often higher than the costs as demonstrated by many studies (see Annex 11). For 
example, initial measures to rehabilitate the Mau forest ecosystem above have been estimated 
to  be  in  the  range  of  USD  81  million  over  three  years  while  the  value  of  the  goods  and 
services  provided  by  the  Mau  forests  exceed  these  costs  by  far.  Conversely,  ongoing  forest 

114 
115 
116 

117 
118 

EN 

UNEP – Blue Carbon – The role of healthy ecosystems in binding carbon.  
UNEP – The Natural Fix – The role of ecosystems in climate change mitigation. 
Rehabilitation 
http://www.unep.org/roa/kcp/Mau/Docs/MAU_Executive_Summary.pdf 
Global Monitoring Report 2010 – Innovative Financing for Biodiversity. 
Global Canopy Programme, 2010. The little biodiversity finance book. A guide to proactive investment 
in natural capital 

the  Mau 

Ecosystem 

Executive 

Summary 

Forest 

of 

- 

- 

68 

   EN 

 
                                                 
conversion in Sulawesi, Indonesia is expected to reduce pollination services and thus coffee 
yields by up to 18% and net revenues per ha by up to 14% over the next two decades119. 

The  EU  will  also  benefit  from  maintained  and  enhanced  global  biodiversity  as  some  of  its 
services, such as climate mitigation, are global in nature. The preservation or enhancement of 
global  terrestrial  and  marine  ecosystems  and  of  their  potential  to  contribute  to  mitigating 
anthropogenic  carbon  emissions  can  be  a  cost-efficient  way  to  contribute  to  achieving  the 
objectives of the UNFCCC. For instance global investments in protected areas in 2003 were 
estimated  to  be  in  the  range  of  6  billion  US$  while  the  value  of  the  carbon  stored  by  the 
current system of terrestrial protected areas alone is estimated to lie somewhere between USD 
1,142 and 7,992 billion120. EU companies will also benefit from protected or increased genetic 
diversity for new cosmetics and medication. Between 25-50% of the pharmaceutical industry 
benefits,  estimated  at  USD  640  billion  a  year,  are  derived  from  biodiversity  and  genetic 
resources.  So  is  a  significant  proportion  of  the  natural  cosmetics  market  value,  estimated  at 
USD 7 billion in 2008. At the same time, the collection and sale of medicinal plants provide 
opportunities for revenue generation for rural communities. The global market for medicinal 
plants is estimated to generate billions of USD in revenues. 

The  Nagoya  Protocol  on  ABS  obliges  Parties  to  provide  legal  certainty,  clarity  and 
transparency  of  their  domestic  access  and  benefit-sharing  frameworks.  Ratification  and 
implementation  of  the  Nagoya  Protocol  by  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  will  result  in 
significantly  improved  access  of  European  researchers  and  companies  to  genes  and 
biochemical compounds contained in genetic material that are of significant value for research 
and  development  in  a  range  of  industries  (pharmaceuticals,  biotechnology,  botanical 
medicines,  crop  protection,  plant  and  animal  breeding,  healthcare  and  cosmetics).  It  will 
however also impose a cost, since part of the benefits will be directed to developing countries. 

Social impacts 

Biodiversity protection in developing countries is closely linked to poverty alleviation. Many 
social groups directly and indirectly depend on well functioning ecosystems, in some cases, 
more  so  that  in  Europe  due  to  their  direct  contact  and  link  with  the  natural  resources.  The 
natural  environment  also  plays  a  vital  role  in  shaping  the  cultural  identity  of  nations  and 
peoples. For India the TEEB study estimated that 352 million rural poor depend directly on 
ecosystem  services.  An  estimated  500  million  people  live  close  to  coral  waters  and  directly 
depend  on  coral  reefs  for  their  food  and  livelihoods121.  Ensuring  the  provision  of  these 
services would have a measurable impact on the global objective of poverty eradication122.  

Higher  vulnerability  to  natural  disasters  as  a  result  of  ecosystem  destruction  can  have 
devastating effects for societies in developing countries. With regard to the 2010 flood event 
in  Pakistan  IUCN  Pakistan  has  suggested  that  better  flood-plain  management  could  have 
helped to reduce the impacts of the flood including the number of casualties123. The literature 

119 

120 
121 
122 
123 

Priess, J. Mimler, M. Klein, A.M., Scharze, S., Tscharntke, T. And Steffan-Dewenter, I. 2007. Linking 
deforestation  scenarios  to  pollination  services  and  economic  returns  in  coffee  agroforetry  systems. 
Ecological Applications 17(2); 407-471. 
UNEP WCMC - Carbon Storage in Protected Areas – Technical Report. 
TEEB Climate Issues Update (September 2009). 
http://www.teebweb.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=bYhDohL_TuM%3d&tabid=924&mid=1813 
http://iucn.org/about/union/secretariat/offices/asia/asia_where_work/pakistan/?5854/Floods-in-
Pakistan--Interview-Partners-Available  and  http://news.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-
library/dawn/news/sci-tech/04-asia-floods-ecosystem-damage-qs-05 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
                                                 
provides many examples of how natural ecosystems as for example coastal mangroves, coral 
reefs, floodplains and forest help communities to mitigate the impacts of disasters124. 

Biodiversity loss also has important health impacts. Biodiversity loss has likely facilitated the 
emergence  and  spread  of  infectious  diseases.  In  tropical  forests,  deforestation  increases  the 
risk  of  some  infectious  diseases,  for  example,  by  tending  to  favour  those  mosquito  species 
that  are  better  vectors  for  malaria,  and  those  snail  species  that  are  better  hosts  for 
schistosomiasis125.  Biodiversity 
important  nutritional  resources, 
loss  also  wipes  out 
compromising efforts to enhance community health126.  

In addition, the majority of the world's population still depends on the use of medicinal plants 
for primary health care. The WHO estimates that in some Asian and African countries, 80% 
of the population depend on traditional medicine for primary health care127. 

The  Nagoya  Protocol  on  ABS  also  addresses  access  to  and  benefit-sharing  for  traditional 
knowledge associated with genetic resources of indigenous and local communities.  Benefits 
from  its  implementation  are  therefore  expected to  contribute positively to  the livelihoods of 
often marginalised indigenous and local communities in non-EU countries. 

Distributional impacts 

The  highest  donors  (DE,  FR,  IT)  are  likely  to  increase  their  contributions  proportionally, 
although some Member States that are not traditionally donors could consider starting making 
contributions. 

Foreseen additional analysis 

Impacts related to Access and Benefit Sharing will be set out in more detail in the legislative 
proposal foreseen by 2015. The work to estimate funding needs for EU's contribution to CBD 
targets in the run up to COP-11 will also provide further information on the financial impact 
of this target. 

7.7. 

Comparison of options 

Expected contributions to the main policy objectives 

Table 2 summarises qualitatively the expected contributions to the main policy objectives of 
the main proposed measure headings under each target. 

As measures are not designed as policy alternatives, but rather as main areas for action, since 
the main options in terms of orientations and levels of ambition have already been considered 
at the level of the target, table 2 serves to illustrate the complementarity between measures, 
where relevant, and synergies across targets. Within each heading, chapter 6 has scoped what 
the  main  alternatives  are,  and  for  most  areas,  forthcoming  or  parallel  ongoing  impact 
assessments  will  determine  what  individual  measure  for  each  area  of  action  is  more  cost-
effective.  

In T1, the main measure headings proposed are interlinked, e.g. adequate funding sources are 
necessary  to  complete  and  manage  the  Natura  2000  network.  In  T2,  better  knowledge  is 
necessary  to  implement  GI  and  no  net  loss.  Whilst  GI  would  have  positive  impacts  on 
restoration of ecosystem services, it may not be very effective in ensuring that there is a gain 

124 
125 
126 
127 

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/natural_security_final.pdf 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091203132157.htm. 
http://www.cohabnet.org/news/Nagoya-summit-must-recognise-the-health-value-of-biodiversity.htm 
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs134/en/ 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
                                                 
overall when taking into account ongoing degradation of ecosystems through pressures which 
are not addressed by other targets. Thus, a no net loss policy framework could be introduced 
subsequently, once better knowledge is available and the experience of GI is evaluated. 

In  T3,  for  agriculture,  the  first  two  actions  are  clearly  complementary,  whereas  the  third 
action could be taken independently. For forests, the two options are linked and would need to 
be taken together. 

The  column  on  synergies  also  illustrates  that  the  first  two  targets  are  linked  and 
complementary  by  directly  contributing  to  the  first  two  objective,  whereas  the  two  sectoral 
targets (T3 and T4) as well as T5 directly contribute to T1 and T2. T6 is potentially linked to 
most  EU  targets  through  the  sustainable  consumption  and  production  measures  which  may 
also have a positive impact in the EU. 

Halting  biodiversity 
loss  and  ecosystem 
services degradation  

Restoration 
ecosystem 
services 

of 

EU contribution to 
averting 
global 
biodiversity loss 

Synergies  with 
other targets 

T1 –Fully implement the birds 
and habitats directives 

Completion & Management of N2k 

Funding  

Communication 

Monitoring and reporting 

T2 - Maintain and restore 
ecosystems and their services 

Better knowledge  

Restoration & Green Infrastructure 
(GI) 
No net loss 

T3 – Increase the contribution of 
agriculture and forestry to 
maintaining and enhancing 
biodiversity 

AGRI - Greening direct payments  

AGRI - Better targeted RD 

AGRI - Genetic diversity 

FOREST – Measures targeting 
forest holders 
FOREST – Biodiversity measures 

T4 - Ensure the sustainable use 
of fisheries resources 

Fish stocks management  

Impacts on other species & habitats 

T5 – Combat Invasive Alien 
Species 

Integration into existing regimes  

Dedicated instrument on IAS 

T6 – Help Avert global 
biodiversity loss 

Addressing indirect drivers 

Resource mobilisation 

Biodiversity proofing 

++ 

++ 
++ 
+ 
+ 

++ 

+ 
+ 

++ 

++ 

++ 
+ 
+ 
++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 
++ 

++ 

+ 
++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 

++ 

+ 
++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 
++ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

+ 
++ 

+ 

+ 
+ 

+ 

T2, T3 &T4 

T2&T4 

T2, T3 &T4 

T1, T3 &T4 

T1, T3 &T4 

T1 

T1& T2 

T1& T2 

T1& T2 

T1& T2 

T1& T2 

T1& T2 

T1& T2 

T1, T2, T3, T4 & 
T6 

T1, T2, T3, T4, T6 

T1, T2, T3, T4, T6 

T1, T2, T3 & T4 

T1, T2, T3 & T4 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

+ 
++ 
++ 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Genetic resources 

++ 

Table 2: contribution of packages of measures per target to main policy objectives 

Key costs and benefits of reaching the targets 

Table  3  provides  a  summary  of  the  key  costs  and  benefits  of  reaching  the  targets,  in  a 
quantitative way every time this is possible, and qualitatively otherwise.  

Environmental 

Economic 

Social 

biodiversity 

and 
Increased 
ecosystem  services  from  Natura 
2000  sites,  better  resilience 
to 
stressors  such  as  climate  change. 
Synergies with WFD and MSFD. 

natural 

enhanced 
and 
Maintained 
ecosystems  and  services,  such  as 
clean air and water, carbon storage 
and 
control. 
Increased  ecosystem  resilience  and 
reduced  vulnerability  to  climate 
change.  Synergies  with  WFD  and 
MSFD. 

disaster 

Maintaining  and  enhancing  agro-
ecosystems  and  forest  ecosystems 
and their services, including carbon 
prevention, 
erosion 
storage, 
pollution 
and  water 
control 
purification. Synergies with WFD. 

of 

Increased  and  more  sustainable 
levels 
populations, 
fish 
maintained  and  enhanced  marine 
ecosystems  &  services.  Synergies 
with MSFD. 

T1 

T2 

+ 

- 

+ 

- 

+ 

T3 

- 

T4 

+ 

- 

social  benefits 

Increased 
from 
ecosystem services. Limited private 
business  opportunities  in  Natura 
2000  sites,  e.g.  linked  to  eco-
tourism, 
and 
traditional products 

natural 

local 

Increased  employment 
areas in the medium term 

in 

rural 

Fraction of total management costs 
of €5.8 billion per year 

Possible  short  term  job  losses  due 
to restricted access to resources 

Increased  benefits  from  ecosystem 
services.  No  aggregated  estimates 
of  benefits,  but  project-based 
evidence  of  benefit-cost  ratios  in 
to  75.  New 
the 
investment 
for 
innovation 
businesses 
potential. 
Climate  mitigation 
benefits. 

opportunities 
and 

range  of  3 

in 

Costs 
the  order  of  several 
billions per year, but GI costs could 
substitute  for  more  costly  grey 
infrastructure investment. 

created 

New  possibilities 
for 
agricultural  sector  diversification; 
improving 
in 
farmers 
natura  2000  and  HNV  areas; 
and 
increased 
diversification  of 
forestry 
sector. 

competitiveness 

income 

the 

Multiple  social  benefits,  both  in 
urban  and  rural  areas,  such  as 
impacts  on  health  and 
positive 
life,  aesthetical  and 
quality  of 
psychological  benefits, 
reduced 
exposure  to  natural  disasters,  new 
job opportunities in restoration and 
conservation 

Contribution  to  rural  development 
in less favoured areas; new jobs  

Costs related to funding from pillar 
1  and  pillar  2  measures,  which 
would  partly  contribute  to  costs  of 
managing  Natura  2000  and  HNV 
areas. Likely not to be net costs but 
a  change  of  spending  priorities  in 
the CAP. Forest management plans 
administrative  costs  compensated 
by funding from rural development  

impact 

long-run 

Positive 
on 
fisheries  income.  Conservation  of 
UK  marine  habitats  had  a  positive 
benefit  cost  ratio  between  6.7  and 
38.9. Increased efficiency of public 
spending 

negative 

Prevent 
on 
employment in case of a collapse in 
fish stocks. 

effect 

Negative  short  term  impacts  on 
Higher 
income. 
fisheries 
management costs to avoid adverse 
impacts on ecosystems  

Short  term  social  cost  of  scaling 
down of fleet in the fishing sector 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
T5 

T6 

+ 

- 

+ 

- 

Reduced  pressure  on  species  and 
habitats  from  IAS.  Strong  synergy 
effects with other targets to achieve 
e.g. ecosystem restoration. 

Reduced economic damage. Rough 
estimates show benefits in terms of 
avoided  damage  costs  of 
billion / year 

€1-9 

Reduced adverse impacts on human 
health, avoided negative 
employment consequences, 
enhanced cultural services and 
recreational activities. 

biodiversity 
global 
Improved 
especially  in  developing  countries, 
Increased  ecosystem  services  such 
as  carbon  storage,  water  provision, 
purification  and  retention.  Some 
improvements also in the EU. 

€40 million–190 million / year. 

Economic benefits from 
biodiversity & ecosystem services, 
e.g. climate mitigation, increased 
crop yields through pollination in 
developing countries. Genetic 
diversity benefits EU & developing 
countries (cosmetics & 
medication). ABS protocol 
provides legal certainty of access to 
resources for EU companies. 

EU contribution to financing global 
biodiversity  to  increase  by  2020; 
cost  of  ABS  protocol 
to  EU 
industry 

Poverty  alleviation,  e.g.  in  India 
approximately  352  million  rural 
poor  depend  directly  on  ecosystem 
services.  Decreased  risk  of  social 
impacts of natural disasters. Health 
benefits.  Improved  livelihood  of 
through 
indigenous  communities 
sharing  of  traditional  knowledge 
benefits 

Table 3: Key costs and benefits of reaching targets 

Who will bear the costs? 

Although  full  quantification  of  the  cumulative  impacts  of  the  proposed  measures  is  not 
possible  at  this  stage,  it  is  possible  to  provide  an  indication  of  who  will  primarily  bear  the 
costs. This varies across targets. 

For  T1,  although  the  intention  is  to  increase  private  investments  in  Natura  2000,  the 
expectation is that the bulk of the costs would be covered by public sources both at EU and 
national  level.  For  T2,  the  initial  steps  in  terms  of  setting  up  processes  and  knowledge 
gathering  will  also  bear  primarily  on  the  public  authorities.  In  terms  of  implementation 
measures for green infrastructure, but also measures relating to no net loss, the infrastructure 
sector,  mainly  energy  and  transport,  and  businesses  more  generally,  will  bear  a  part  of  the 
costs.  Sectors  who  will  gain  are  mainly  those  depending  on  biodiversity  and  ecosystem 
services  for  their  activities  (e.g.  eco-tourism,  water  companies)  or  entrepreneurs  seeking  to 
invest  in  natural  capital.  Their  investment  might  be  encouraged  through  public  private 
partnerships, or the use of other innovative financial instruments. 

Regarding  T3,  again  most  of  the  funding  is  likely  to  come  from  public  funds,  although  for 
forestry  specific  measures  proposed  should  encourage  funding  from  the  private  sector.  The 
situation  is  similar  for  fisheries  (T4).  For  T5,  costs  will  be  mainly  borne  by  the  sectors 
affected by the expanded measures to control intentional and unintentional introductions and 
movement of IAS into and within the EU (e.g. horticulture, forestry, pets and aquarium trade 
sector, marine transport). Regarding T6, funding is likely to be from public authorities for a 
significant share, although private funding will also need to be stepped up through innovative 
financing instruments. The ABS protocol will also have significant costs on the private sector, 
mainly  on  pharmaceutical/cosmetic  companies,  but  will  also  provide  legal  certainty  and 
predictability of their access to resources. 

Overall, from this initial qualitative analysis, a large part of the costs are likely to be borne by 
public authorities, with the largest share from the private sector for IAS, ecosystem restoration 
and GI, and the global target (ABS). For other targets, although mainly publicly funded, the 
objective would be to attract private funding through innovative financial instruments. 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Prioritisation of action 

In terms of new  initiatives, T2  on ecosystem restoration and green infrastructure  and T5  on 
invasive  species  are  the  most  innovative,  as  they  kick  start  policy  action  in  areas  which  are 
currently not  part  of  the biodiversity policy framework at EU level. Both targets have good 
potential for delivering significant and early results. However, improved implementation and 
integration in sectors is also key to reaching the overall objectives. 

In  practice,  a  combination  of  the  proposed  measures  will  be  needed  to  deliver  in  2020. 
However, within each target, some actions can be prioritised, as discussed in chapter 6, and in 
some cases would need to be taken as a sequence. For example, the achievement of several 
targets, including ecosystem restoration and fisheries rely on better knowledge, and early data 
gathering would be a priority. Actions that prevent higher costs in the future should also be a 
priority,  such  as  prevention  and  early  warning  for  IAS,  or  a  no  net  loss  policy  framework, 
since restoration is usually more costly than conservation. Finally, timing is also dictated by 
parallel sectoral policy developments, such as the CAP and CFP reform. 

8. 

CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES ON FUNDING AND GOVERNANCE 

8.1. 

Funding 

EU  and  national  public  sources  currently  account  for  the  majority  of  funding  in  support  of 
biodiversity objectives, largely because biodiversity is considered a public good. The share of 
private biodiversity funding is comparatively low, but will need to be significantly stepped up 
if the EU and global targets are to be met.  

8.1.1.  Existing funding instruments 

The following section outlines the main existing funding streams and those likely to become 
available to support actions and measures carried out under the strategy.  

EU funding 

including  nature  and 
to  financing  environmental  objectives, 
The  current  approach 
biodiversity, from EU funds  is based for the  most part  on integration. In theory,  this  means 
that environmental objectives should be adequately addressed in all EU policies and necessary 
funding  dedicated  for  this  purpose  through  related  financial  instruments.  The  2007–2013 
Mutiannual  Financial  Framework  offers  opportunities  for  co-financing  of  biodiversity  and 
Natura 2000, among others under the LIFE+ instrument, the European Agricultural Fund for 
Rural  Development  (EAFRD),  the  European  Agricultural  Guarantee  Fund  (EAGF),  the 
European Fisheries Fund (EFF), the Structural Funds (European Regional Development Fund 
(ERDF)  and  European  Social  Fund  (ESF))  and  the  Cohesion  Fund,  and  the  7th  Framework 
Programme  for  Research  (Annex  4  includes  a  short  analysis  of  current  biodiversity 
expenditure under these instruments). 

National funding 

It is not possible  to assess the level of  direct financial  contributions to  national biodiversity 
conservation activities from the information received from the Member States in the scope of 
the  2010  BAP  assessment.  However,  as  already  indicated,  EU  funding  made  available  to 
Member States which could be used for biodiversity purposes is not fully availed of. 

As  for  national  funding  for  biodiversity,  24  Member  States  have  national  programmes  in 
place  that  identify  long-term  goals  and  the  allocation  of  funding  (both  EU  and  national  co-
funding).  Overall  figures  appear  to  be  relatively  low.  For  example,  in  France,  expenses  for 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
biodiversity  and  landscape  conservation  account  for  only  4.2%  of  the  total  environmental 
protection budget. The Biodiversity Action Plan 2010 assessment report provides information 
on the range of situations across Member States128. 

Global funding 

Estimates  of  the  current  level  of  global  funding  for  biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services  are 
wide-ranging.  For  instance,  the  TEEB  report  for  Policy  Makers  estimates  that  biodiversity 
financing  from  different  international  sources  and  funds  amounts  to  around  USD  4–USD  5 
billion a year. Another source estimates the range to be between USD 36-38 billion annually 
if  one  takes  into  account  all  funding  sources,  including  traditional  non-market  mechanisms, 
innovative forms of finance, user fees, etc129. Official Development Assistance (ODA) from 
high-income countries provides up to USD 3.5 billion/year, mostly in the form of country-to-
country  bilateral  aid,  with  the  rest  as  multilateral  aid  managed  by  the  Global  Environment 
Facility  (GEF),  other  UN  agencies,  the  International  Development  Agency  and  multilateral 
development  banks.  The  percentage  spent  on  biodiversity  conservation  has  remained 
consistently low over the past 15 years (2.4% to 2.8% of total bilateral ODA). Funding from 
non-profit organizations (mainly channelled through international conservation NGOs, private 
and business foundations) for international biodiversity protection contributes more than USD 
1  billion/year,  but  relevant  information  and  data  are  fragmentary.  Market-based  sources  of 
income have grown quickly in the last 20 years and have the potential to contribute between 
USD 1–2 billion annually (Gutman and Davidson, 2007). These include international tourism, 
especially  ecotourism,  and  markets  for  environmentally  friendly  products  such  as  organic, 
certified and fair trade products. 

8.1.2.  Financing options in the EU 2020 Biodiversity strategy 

As insufficient funding was a key factor in the failure to meet the 2010 EU target, it will be 
important  to  ensure  adequate  and  effective  funding  for  the  implementation  of  the  2020 
biodiversity strategy.  

The review of the costs of the measures proposed in the Strategy indicates that funding needs 
will differ according to the targets and measures proposed. In some cases, more funds will be 
required to implement measures needed to achieve a given target, in particular for example for 
the  restoration  of  ecosystems  and  the  global  target.  In  others,  the  focus  will  be  more  on 
redistributing  existing  resources  and/or  ensuring  they  are  taken  up  to  their  full  extent 
(agriculture and forestry, fisheries targets). The combination of funding sources is also likely 
to  vary  depending  on  the  target.  Various  funding  streams  at  different  levels  will  come  into 
play. 

EU funding 

At the EU level in particular, and without pre-empting the outcome of the negotiations on the 
next Multi-annual Financial Framework, opportunities offered in the framework of ongoing or 
upcoming policy reforms (e.g. CAP, CFP, Cohesion Policy), new policy initiatives (e.g. the 
Resource  Efficiency  flagship  initiative)  and  the  coming  Multiannual  Financial  Framework 
should  be  seized  in  support  of  the  strategy.  Research  funding  under  the  eighth  framework 
programme  will  contribute  to  closing  identified  knowledge  gaps  and  supporting  policy. 

128

129 

EN 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/bap_2010/4%20EC_Know

ledge_Base_Assessment_BAP_final.pdf  
Global Canopy Programme, The Little Biodiversity Finance Book, 2010. 

75 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
Finally,  it  will  be  important  to  maximise  synergies  between  finance  for  biodiversity  and 
climate change related activities, since these can often be mutually supportive. 

The  Commission  may  envisage  a  Common  Strategic  Framework  (CSF)  to  set  out  the 
priorities  of  five  important  EU  funds  (EAFRD,  ERDF,  ESF,  Cohesion  Fund,  and  the  EFF), 
and  their  contributions  to  achieving  the  objectives  of  Europe  2020,  with  a  view  to  better 
complementarity  at  EU  level.  Given  that  in  the  current  context  efforts  to  ensure 
complementarity are essentially made at national and regional level, an adequate integration 
of  biodiversity  and  nature  conservation  objectives  in  this  framework  could  help  funds  work 
together  at  sub-regional  level  and  to  support  integrated  projects.  Member  States  concerned 
would need to develop good strategies to make the best use of the funds available in line with 
the  EU  biodiversity  and  EU2020  priorities.  Life+  could  also  be  used  as  a  catalyser  to  fund 
integrated  projects  that  would  attract  funding  from  other  sources.  This  would  contribute  to 
addressing some of the factors behind low uptake of current financing availabilities. 

EU  funding  is  an  option  considered  in  all  targets.  Two  specific  funding-related  initiatives, 
stand out in particular. The first concerns the need for adequate financing for the Natura 2000 
network,  which  is  essential  for  its  full  implementation.  This  may  entail  that  Member  States 
develop  multi-annual  planning  for  Natura  2000,  consistent  with  the  prioritized  action 
frameworks  required  under  the  Habitats  Directive.  The  second  responds  to  the  COP10 
commitment  to  substantially  increase  financial  resources  from  all  sources  for  the  effective 
implementation  of  the  Nagoya  outcomes.  These  commitments  will  need  to  be  met  through 
dedicated additional funding for biodiversity and well designed synergies with other relevant 
funding  sources,  such  as  climate  change  (e.g.  REDD+,  Green  Climate  Fund).  Other  EU 
funding instruments would be used to reach other targets: e.g. Structural funds and CAP funds 
for the Restoration and Green Infrastructure Target, CAP funds and Life + for the Agriculture 
and Forestry targets, the new Fisheries fund for the Fisheries target. 

Contribution  of  the  European  Outermost  Regions  (ORs)  and  Overseas  Countries  and 
Territories (OCTs) to the achievement of the targets 

ORs and OCTs  are home to exceptional biodiversity and more endemic species than on the 
whole of continental Europe. Guyane alone hosts the largest protected area and only tropical 
forest in the EU. These territories can greatly contribute to the achievement of the biodiversity 
headline target and vision. However, due to local conditions and specificities, the biodiversity 
of ORs and OCTs is more much vulnerable to certain pressures such as invasive species and 
climate  change.  This  will  need  to  be  recognised  and  addressed  as  part  of  the  Strategy, 
including through adequate future funding.  

National funding 

Sufficient funding will also be needed at national level. The reform of harmful subsidies, as 
highlighted in the 2020 Strategy, would offer opportunities to redirect funds towards positive 
incentives,  which  could  include  more  sustainable  and  biodiversity  friendly  activities.  This 
would  be  in  line  with  the  global  target  of  the  CBD  Strategic  Plan  requiring  that  incentives, 
including subsidies, harmful to biodiversity are eliminated, phased out or reformed in order to 
minimize or avoid negative impacts. 

Private funding 

Although there has been limited use of market-based instruments or other innovative financial 
instruments in the field of biodiversity thus far, this appears to be a promising future source of 
biodiversity funding (see annex 14). It is also clear that the biodiversity challenge cannot be 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
addressed  without  such  innovative  tools,  since  public  funding  alone  will  not  be  sufficient, 
especially in light of budgetary constraints as a result of the current economic situation.  

Transnational  and  international  Payments  for  Ecosystem  Services  (PES)  for  global  public 
goods  (e.g.  carbon  sequestration  through  the  proposed  REDD  scheme  under  UNFCCC)  are 
amongst  the  most  prominent  recent  proposals  for  environmental  financing  schemes:  others 
include  environmental  taxes  and  public-private  partnerships  that  link  businesses,  NGOs, 
public bodies and communities. To date, PES in the EU have mainly involved public funding 
– for example agri-environmental and forest-environment measures within the CAP. PES are 
also  options  to  be  considered  for  the  Fisheries  Target,  and  for  the  Restoration  and  Green 
Infrastructure Target. The private sector could be better engaged in PES, potentially through 
public-private partnerships.  

Lessons learnt from existing habitat banking schemes in the United States and other countries, 
as  well  as  pilot  experiences  in  certain  EU  Member  States  (such  as  the  UK,  Germany  and 
France), and other options to attract private partners into biodiversity conservation will need 
to be considered. A Commission study has shown that market incentives can stimulate private 
investment  in  biodiversity  conservation  and  the  potential  and  feasibility  of  habitat  banking 
schemes at EU level is worth exploring in the context of discussions on restoration and 'no net 
loss' approaches130. Biodiversity offsets, and possibly habitat banking, could be considered in 
the Restoration and Green Infrastructure Target in the context of a possible initiative on no net 
loss of ecosystems and their services. 

Examples  of  innovative  financial  instruments  include  green  investment  as  part  of  the 
Corporate Social Responsibility strategy of companies and banks, or investments by insurance 
companies in the restoration of natural flood plains to prevent damage from natural disasters. 
Public  contributions,  in  particular  EU  funding,  can  play  a  supporting  role  in  the  design  of 
Public  Private  Partnerships  to  attract  more  investment  from  businesses  in  nature  and  the 
services  it  provides.  Instruments  to  attract  such  investment  can  take  the  form  of  guarantee 
schemes,  risk-sharing  instruments,  equity  funds  or  a  combination  of  grants  for  technical 
assistance with other financial instruments. The opportunity to use these to implement specific 
targets are under discussion with the European Investment Bank. 

However,  this  will  depend  on  businesses  being  aware  of  the  importance  of  biodiversity  for 
them  and  for  the  sustainability  of  their  activities.  The  EU  Business  and  Biodiversity 
Platform131,  which  aims  at  providing  support  to  businesses  that  actively  engage  in  the 
conservation  and  sustainable  use  of  biodiversity  and  prove  that  there  are  huge  market 
opportunities for the businesses that take the lead on that challenge, is an ideal platform for 
exploring  further  the  potential  win-win  opportunities  of  private  sector  investment  in 
biodiversity  conservation  and  sustainable  use.  PricewaterhouseCoopers  estimated  that 
sustainability-related global business opportunities in natural resources are significant (USD 
2-6 trillion by 2050)132. 

Annexes  14  summarises  the  main  financing  mechanisms  that  can  be  envisaged  for 
biodiversity,  including  both  traditional  and  innovative  financing  instruments.  Some  of  these 
mechanisms could be used in the EU to fund the costs of the measures in each sub-target, as a 
complement to the main EU funding sources, as discussed in chapter 6. 

130 

131 
132 

EFTEC/IEEP  –  The  use  of  market-based  instruments  for  biodiversity  protection-  the  case  of  habitat 
banking (2009). 
http://www.business-biodiversity.eu 
PricewaterhouseCoopers in TEEB for business report, 2010. 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Global funding 

An  estimation  of  funding  needs,  a  baseline  for  aggregated  financial  flows  of  biodiversity-
related  funding  from  a  broad  range  of  sources,  public  and  private  will  be  identified  in  the 
course of 2011/2012 and subsequently presented to the 11th meeting of the Conference of the 
Parties  to  the  Convention  on  Biological  Diversity.  It  is  already  clear,  however,  that  more 
funding  will  be  needed,  and  that  public  funding  will  not  be  sufficient  to  cover  the  costs  of 
reaching the 2020 biodiversity global target. Although the reliability of the global financing 
needs are currently uncertain, with some estimates of up to USD 300-400 billion per annum, it 
is clear that private funding and the use of innovative financing instruments will need to be 
stepped  up  to  meet  these  costs,  at  global,  but  also  at  EU  and  national  level.  The  private 
sector's financial involvement in maintaining and enhancing biodiversity can also make sound 
economic sense133. 

8.2. 

Governance 

As previously pointed out, the policy framework put in place to reach the 2010 target lacked a 
clear  governance  structure.  This  resulted  in  an  unclear  distribution  of  tasks,  which  in  turn 
made it difficult to hold different actors to account for their responsibilities. 

The  consultation  process  followed  in  preparing  the  Strategy  to  date  has  involved  a  wide 
range  of  government,  institutional,  private  and  non-governmental  actors.  While  the  inputs 
received  have  been  important  in  shaping  the  Strategy,  achieving  its  objectives  will  require 
their continued  involvement  in  the  implementation  phase.  Indeed, in the public consultation 
on  the  2020  EU  biodiversity  strategy,  the  involvement  of  all  stakeholders  and  the  full 
engagement of all actors concerned were highlighted as key conditions to halting biodiversity 
loss. It is therefore proposed that a clear governance scheme is established for the Strategy.  

In terms of institutional input, the scheme established for the EU 2020 Strategy for smart, 
sustainable and inclusive growth can be looked to as a source of inspiration. In practice, this 
would mean that, following the adoption of the Commission Communication on the Strategy, 
the Parliament would be invited to adopt a Resolution, the Council to adopt Conclusions, and 
the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  Committee  of  the  Regions  to  adopt 
Opinions  pertaining  to  the  Strategy,  its  overall  approach  and  the  targets  set  out  in  it.  EU 
institutions  and  Member  States  would  then  need  to  deliver  on  the  relevant  EU-wide  targets 
and identify the level of ambition each needs to contribute to the wider EU effort, considering 
that the burden of tackling the challenge is spread unequally. 

Each  Member  State  would  also  need  to  incorporate  these  targets  –  complemented  with 
corresponding  national  targets  as  necessary  -  into  its  own  National  Biodiversity  Strategy 
and Action Plan as required under the CBD, taking into account both the EU targets and the 
global targets set out in the Strategic Plan 2011-2020, the majority of which are reflected in 
varying degrees in the proposed EU targets (see Annex 9).  

Action will be needed at all administrative levels. Environment departments within National 
authorities  are  already  engaged  in  the  development  and  implementation  of  Biodiversity 
National Plans, but there is a need to actively involve other governmental departments.  

The  role  of  local  and  regional  authorities  will  also  be  crucial  in  implementing  the 
Strategy134. They have an especially important role in monitoring and assessing biodiversity 

133 
134 

TEEB for businesses, July 2010.  
The  Committee  of  the  Regions  organised  a  specific  consultation  for  local  and  regional  authorities 
entitled "Assessment of Territorial Impacts of the EU Post 2010 Biodiversity Strategy", which ran from 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
                                                 
and ecosystems, integrating biodiversity concerns into spatial planning, designating protected 
areas and ecological corridors, ensuring connectivity, putting in place incentives (positive and 
negative)  for  the  private  sector  to  be  better  engaged  in  biodiversity  conservation,  and 
enhancing public awareness and engagement in efforts to conserve the natural environment. 
In  this  respect,  regional  and  local  authorities  should  be  equipped  with  adequate  human, 
financial and technical means, commensurate to their responsibility and to the task of helping 
to stem biodiversity loss.  
Progress towards reaching the EU 2020 biodiversity targets could be assessed as part of a 
dialogue between Member States and the Commission, in the form of a common biodiversity 
implementation strategy involving key actors, sectors and institutions as necessary, inspired 
by the successful approach of the WFD. This would also enable the consistency of national 
targets with the EU targets to be assessed. These are common goals to be pursued through a 
mix of national and EU level action The Commission will support and complement these 
national efforts by enforcing environmental legislation, filling the policy gaps by proposing 
new initiatives, providing guidelines, funding, and fostering the exchange of best practice.  
It is also clear that private sector engagement, including businesses and banks, will be vital 
to achieving the targets. For that purpose the Commission will continue to work intensively 
on the Business and Biodiversity Platform. Similarly, the participation of civil society should 
be promoted and facilitated at all levels of implementation.  

9. 

MONITORING, REVIEW, COMMUNICATION AND WAY FORWARD 

9.1.  Monitoring 

The lack of a clear baseline against which progress could be monitored and measured in the 
EU  contributed  to  the  failure  to  meet  the  2010  biodiversity  target.  Significant  progress  has 
since  been  made  to  improve  data  and  knowledge  about  biodiversity.  A  common  framework 
for evaluating progress towards the 2020 headline target is now in place through the Baseline 
developed  by  the  European  Environment  Agency  and  its  European  Topic  Centre  on 
Biological Diversity. The Streamlining European 2010 Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010)135 
and  the  Europe  Corine  Land  Cover  update  are  integral  parts  of  the  Baseline.  All  this 
information  is  publicly  made  available  through  the  Biodiversity  Information  System  for 
Europe (BISE), the single entry point for biodiversity information in Europe136. 

The work to develop the EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline has shown that, although knowledge 
has significantly improved, there are still gaps that are relevant to biodiversity policy making, 
implementation and evaluation which need to be filled in the years to come137. Data gathering, 
analysis and validation have not followed a comprehensive approach. This might be due to the 
complexity  of  biodiversity,  which  cannot  be  reduced  to  a  single  variable  but  requires 
development  of  a  set  of  inter-related  indicators.  For  instance,  establishing  the  state  of  soil 
biodiversity  and  assessing  the  risks  of  soil  biodiversity  loss  requires  the  development  of 

135 

136 
137 

9  September  to  25  October  2010.  The  responses  received  indicate  that  many  local  and  regional 
authorities in the EU consider they will play a central role in the delivery of biodiversity targets. 
Streamlining  European  2010  Biodiversity  Indicators  process  (SEBI  2010)  is  a  partnership  led  by  the 
European Environment Agency involving country representatives and experts from across the EU under 
which a set of 26 biodiversity indicators was agreed.  
http://biodiversity.europa.eu  
It does not, at this stage, differentiate the scale of gaps: some areas, topics and issues may require much 
more  effort  than  others.  Nor  does  it  prioritise  how  the  gaps  should  be  addressed,  for  example  via 
research  activities,  indicator  and  reporting  frameworks,  monitoring  initiatives  and  so  on  (cf.  EEA 
Technical Report n°12/2010 'EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline', 2010). 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
reliable  indicators  so  that  long-term  monitoring  programmes  can  be  set  up138.  In  addition, 
reporting by Member States under the Birds and Habitats Directives has been uneven, as have 
biodiversity  monitoring  and  research  efforts,  which  remain  underfunded.  More  integrated 
research  is  needed,  especially  on  the  links  between  biodiversity,  ecosystem  functioning, 
ecosystem  services  and  natural  capital.  Discussions  on  the  next  Research  Framework 
Programme provide an opportunity to address these gaps. 

Increased capacity for indicator development and data collection and management, as well as 
better  integrated  and  harmonised  biodiversity-relevant  indicators  in  Community  policy  and 
Member States, regions and the European level, especially Eurostat should be sought. Several 
initiatives are already under way to help collect, harmonise and provide access to data needed 
for  integrated  policy-relevant  assessments.  These  include  the  Shared  Environmental 
Information System (SEIS), the Inspire Directive, the Global Monitoring for Environment and 
Security  (GMES)  as  an  integral  part  of  the  recently  adopted  Digital  Agenda  for  Europe139. 
The LUCAS surveys implemented by Eurostat will be a useful source of information for land 
cover, land use and agro-environmental issues. Specific ad hoc modules on biodiversity issues 
are foreseen to be added to future LUCAS surveys after 2012. 

The  Commission,  together  with  other  partners,  will  continue  to  address  knowledge  gaps,  in 
particular  on  the  links  between  biodiversity,  ecosystems  and  their  services,  should  be 
developed and supported with appropriate resources.  

At  the  global  level,  the  EU  is  supporting  efforts  to  establish  an  Intergovernmental  science 
policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which would have a role 
similar to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 

The  adoption  of  an  EU  2020  Biodiversity  Strategy  with  a  limited  number  of  targets  will 
require  the  consecutive  development  of  a  logical  framework  to  monitor  trends  and  assess 
progress  on  the  measures  and  targets  in  a  coherent  way,  based  on  clear  baseline  and  a 
streamlined set of agreed indicators. Annex 15 summarises the available indicators that could 
be used to monitor the specific targets. Additional indicators may be needed to assess progress 
towards  outcome-oriented  targets  and  process  of  implementation  of  the  EU  Strategy  (e.g. 
enabling monitoring and data collection of other relevant policies to follow-up on efforts and 
impacts  of  their  measures).  Indicators  to  be  considered  include  SEBI  indicators,  Eurostat's 
Sustainable Development Indicators and Agro-Environmental Indicators, and other initiatives. 

The  development  of  more  coherent  and  consistent  assessment,  monitoring  and  information 
schemes  would  bring  significant  benefits  and  efficiency  gains  by  eliminating  duplication  of 
costs  and  efforts  by  different  levels  of  government  (EU,  Member  State,  regional  and  global 
level). Such schemes would also generate cost efficiencies for biodiversity-related industries, 
which  are  all  interested  in  a  common,  reliable  information  system  to  plan  more  efficiently 
their  future  investments  and  identify  appropriate  development  sites,  and  benefit  scientific 
research. Finally, it would reduce the costs of regulation, planning and decision-making and 
allow for informed policy-making, and therefore better targeted and less costly measures. At 
EU level, improving synergies between data collected under the CAP, CFP or regional policy 
and  under  dedicated  biodiversity-related  legislation,  and  devising  joint  monitoring  systems 
would stimulate further mutual supportiveness between these policies. 

138 
139 

See the Executive Summary of the Soil Biodiversity Report, pp. 10-11. 
See  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010DC0245(01):EN:NOT)  and 
more specifically 'eEnvironment' under the priority area on 'eGovernment' (2.7.4). 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  the  short  term,  the  establishment  of  common  principles  and  approaches  for  the 
development of more integrated monitoring schemes would impose costs on government. In 
order  to  minimize  the  administrative  burden,  the  Commission,  in  consultation  with  the 
Member States, will develop, in time to provide information for the mid-term review of the 
Strategy,  a  set  of  indicators  building  on  SEBI  2010  that  also  takes  into  account  and  is 
streamlined  to  the  extent  possible  with  the  framework  to  be  adopted  under  the  CBD  at  the 
next Conference of the Parties.  

9.2. 

Reporting and review 

To ensure that the EU remains on track towards reaching its 2020 headline target, the Strategy 
will  need  to  be  reviewed  so  that  eventual  gaps  and  shortcomings  in  implementation  can  be 
spotted and addressed in good time. A mid-term review of the Strategy will be completed in 
early  2014  at  the  latest,  following  the  forthcoming  CAP  and  CFP  policy  reforms  and 
agreement on the next Multiannual Financial Framework. This review should be informed by: 
the  Biodiversity  Baseline,  which  will  be  periodically  updated,  taking  into  account  the  next 
streamlined conservation status assessment under the Habitats and Birds Directives; reporting 
and  evaluations  carried  out  under  the  Water  Framework  Directive  and  the  Marine  Strategy 
Framework  Directive,  and  other  relevant  processes  at  EU  and  Member  State  level.  A  final 
assessment of the Strategy should be carried out in 2020. 

In  order  to  minimize  the  administrative  burden,  the  Commission,  in  consultation  with  the 
Member States, will develop, in time for the mid-term review, a reporting system that also 
takes into account and is streamlined and aligned with the review and reporting obligations 
under the CBD wherever possible. The 10th Conference of the Parties to the CBD in October 
2010 set a deadline of 31 March 2014 for the next national reports under the Convention140. 

9.3. 

Communication and awareness raising 

Insufficient awareness and political will was highlighted as one of the factors that contributed 
to  the  failure  to  reach the  EU  2010  biodiversity  target.  In  recent  years, communication  and 
raise awareness raising efforts were stepped up, especially during the 2010 International Year 
of Biodiversity. The Commission launched a major biodiversity awareness raising campaign 
for  this  purpose  in  early  2010.  However,  it  is  clear  that  this  is  an  ongoing  challenge 
underpinning  the  achievement  of  all  other  targets,  and  cannot  be  achieved  through  a  single 
activity  or  measure,  but  rather  needs  to  be  pursued  as  a  cross-cutting  issue  at  all  levels  of 
government  and  in  all  relevant  sectors  to  be  effective.  For  instance,  among  the  measures 
proposed under T5 involves a communication campaign on Natura 2000 to be carried out by 
the  Commission.  Similar  actions  will  need  to  be  envisaged  and  regularly  carried  out  to 
increase public understanding of the role that individuals, businesses, public authorities and 
other  actors  can  play  in  conserving  biodiversity  and  restoring  ecosystems,  and  the  benefits 
they derive from it.  

9.4. 

Next steps 

The  2020  Biodiversity  Strategy  Communication  defines  the  biodiversity  priorities  for  the 
next ten years, sets the agenda for achieving the 2020 headline target and outlines actions to 
be taken in order to ensure full implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives, maintain 

140 

Parties should submit their fifth national reports to the CBD Secretariat by 31 March 2014. The reports 
are  expected  to  focus  inter  alia  on  the  implementation  of  the  Strategic  Plan  2011-2020  and  progress 
toward the 2020 targets, using indicators where possible and feasible, and provide an update on status 
and trends of and threats to biodiversity, using national biodiversity indicators. 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
                                                 
and  enhance  ecosystems  and  the  services  they  provide,  ensure  the  further  contribution  of 
agriculture and forestry to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity, ensure the sustainable use 
of fisheries resources, reduce the impact of invasive alien species on EU biodiversity and step 
up the EU contribution to global biodiversity.  

On the basis of these priorities and the actions presented, the Commission will come forward 
with  concrete  proposals  and  initiatives  to  deliver  on  the  different  components  of  the 
Strategy, some of which are already announced in the Strategy (see table 4). Ongoing policy 
reform  processes,  including  those  of  the  CAP,  CFP  and  Cohesion  Policy,  provide  timely 
opportunities  to  enhance  synergies  and  maximise  coherence  with  the  biodiversity  strategy 
targets  and  measures.  Efforts  were  made  to  align  the  options  for  targets  and  measures 
discussed  in  this  report  with  the  options  discussed  in  the  parallel  sectoral  impact 
assessments  to  ensure  consistency.  The  evidence  necessary  to  further  underpin  and 
operationalise proposed orientations and measures will be provided in this context, including 
through further stakeholder consultations. 

Expected date  Planned initiative(s) 

Planned IA 

2011 

2012 

- Commission's proposal on CAP reform  
-  Commission's  proposal  on  the  new  Multiannual 
Financial Framework (MFF) 
- Commission's proposal on CFP reform 

- Blueprint to safeguard EU waters 
-  Commission  initiative  on  green  infrastructure 
(green paper) 
- Communication campaign on Natura 2000 
-  Commission  proposal  on  Access  and  Benefit 
Sharing 
- Revision of the Plant and Animal Health regimes 
- Commission proposal on Invasive Alien Species 
- New MFF agreed; Financial regulation in place 

IA 

IA 

IA 

IA 

IA 
IA 

2014 

- Strategic restoration prioritisation framework  
- Review of the 2020 Biodiversity targets 

2015 

-  Commission 
ecosystems and ecosystem services 

initiative  on  no  net 

loss  of 

IA 
(proportionate to 
type of 
initiative) 

Milestones  &  New  knowledge 
expected 

- Fitness check of water-related 
policies 
- UNFCCC COP-17 

- CBD COP-11 negotiations on 
financial targets 
-  Completion  of  the  Natura 
2000 network 
- Initial assessment of the status 
or  marine  waters, 
and 
Good 
of 
characteristics 
Environmental Status 
- UNFCCC COP-18 […] 

assessment 

-  Ecosystem  services  mapped 
and assessed 
-  Updated 
of 
conservation  status  under  the 
Nature Directives 
- Update of the EU biodiversity 
baseline 
- CBD COP-12 

-  MSY  achieved  for  all  fish 
stocks 
-  Good  Ecological  Status 
required under the WFD 

Table  4:  Planned  initiatives  linked  with  the  biodiversity  strategy,  associated  planned  IA,  and  new  knowledge 
expected 

The  2014  review  of  the  Strategy  will  coincide  with  new  information  on  the  state  of 
biodiversity  in  different  types  of  ecosystems,  progress  of  implementation  of  relevant 
legislation, and the start of the practical implementation of the reformed CAP and CFP. It will 
be  an  opportunity  to  review  the  targets  and  adapt  them  if  warranted  by  this  new 
information.  The  Commission  may  consider  further  and  complementary  steps  reflecting 
relevant developments and emerging priorities at national, EU and global level. In particular, 
the  finalisation  of  the  new  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  and  decisions  about  the 
modalities  of  the  future  Community  instruments  to  be  completed  by  2012,  developments 

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
arising from the CBD on global biodiversity financing by 2012 and relevant decisions under 
the  UN  Framework  Convention  on  Combating  Climate  Change  (e.g.  REDD  and  LULUCF) 
will need to be factored into the implementation of the Strategy.  

Due to the long lead-in times for biodiversity policy changes to be reflected in improvements 
on the ground, taking action today is essential to ensure that the structural changes needed for 
the ecological recapitalisation which the Strategy is seeking to achieve will be completed in 
due time to respond to the 2020 challenge. 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
Glossary 

Biodiversity:  The  variability  among  living  organisms  from  all  sources  including  terrestrial 
(above and below ground), marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes 
of which they are part. This concept covers the diversity of genes, species and ecosystems.  

Biodiversity  loss:  The  long-term  or  permanent  qualitative  or  quantitative  reduction  in 
components of biodiversity and their potential to provide goods and services, to be measured 
at global, regional and national levels. 

Biogeographical  region/level:  Geographical  regions  in  which  animals  and  plant  having 
similar  or  shared  characteristics  are 
together.  Europe  features  13 
land  (Alpine,  Atlantic,  Black  Sea,  Boreal,  Continental, 
biogeographical  regions:  9 
Macaronesian,  Mediterranean,  Pannonian,  Steppic),  and  4  marine  regions  (Atlantic,  Baltic, 
Macaronesian, Mediterranean). 

typically  found 

Connectivity:  the  extent  to  which  ecosystems  and  natural  areas  are  linked  together  in 
fragmented landscapes.  

Conservation  status:  The  status  of  habitats  and  species  in  terms  of  such  parameters  as 
distribution, structure and functions, population size, age structure, mortality and reproduction 
rates.  The  Habitats  and  Birds  Directives  define  four  categories  of  conservation  status:  1) 
favourable; 2) unfavourable-inadequate; 3) unfavourable-bad; 4) unknown.  

Corine Land Cover inventories: regular reports on the state of the European environmental 
landscape based on interpretation of satellite images.  

Drivers of biodiversity loss: Factors (natural or human-induced) that lead to changes in the 
status of biodiversity. Drivers can be direct (e.g. land-use change, overexploitation, pollution) 
or indirect (e.g. lifestyle choices, population growth). 

Ecological  Maximum  Sustainable  Yield  (EMSY)  is  the  yield  an  ecosystem  can  sustain 
without shifting to an undesired state. 

Ecosystem: A dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their 
non-living environment interacting as a functional unit. 

Ecosystem  services:  The  direct  and  indirect  contributions  of  ecosystems  to  human  well-
being.  They  can  be  categorised  in  four  main  types:  provisioning  services  (e.g.  food,  water, 
fuel);  regulating  services  (e.g.  flood  and  disease  control);  supporting/habitat  services  (e.g. 
nutrient cycling); and cultural services (e.g. recreation). 

Ecosystem  restoration:  The  return  of  an  ecosystem  to  its  original  community  structure, 
natural complement of species, and natural functions. 

Fragmentation: the division of an ecosystem or habitat into distinct parts. Fragmentation can 
result from infrastructure development, such as roads and railways, or natural occurrences like 
forest fires. 

Green  infrastructure:  A  spatial  intervention  that  has  one  or  several  environmental  aims, 
among  which  to  ensure  the  maintenance  and  restoration  of  ecosystem  functioning,  enhance 
ecosystem  services,  facilitate  habitat  connectivity  and  promote  species  resilience.  Green 

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
infrastructure  can  mobilise  an  array  of  practices  and  innovative  solutions  that  use  natural 
systems to enhance overall environmental quality and the provision of ecosystem services.  

High Nature Value (HNV) areas: farmland/forested areas characterised by high biodiversity. 
HNV farming and forestry are generally low-input systems, usually based on extensive rather 
than intensive agricultural practices. 

IUCN  Red  List:  A  list  established  and  maintained  by  the  International  Union  for  the 
Conservation  of  Nature  (IUCN)  that  classifies  evaluated  species  for  which  there  is  enough 
data  into  7  categories:  extinct,  extinct  in  the  wild,  critically  endangered,  endangered, 
vulnerable,  near  threatened,  least  concern.  It  is  widely  used  as  an  indicator  of  biodiversity 
trends.  

Maximum  Sustainable  Yield  (MSY):  the  maximum  long-term  average  yield  that  can  be 
produced by a fish stock on a continuing basis.  

Pressures: Habitat loss, overexploitation of natural resources, the introduction and spread of 
invasive species, pollution and climate change are the five key pressures on biodiversity  

Resilience: The ability of an ecosystem to buffer and adapt to changes as well as recover after 
being disturbed.  

Restoration:  Actively  assisting  the  recovery  of  an  ecosystem  that  has  been  degraded, 
damaged, or destroyed, although natural regeneration may suffice in cases of low degradation. 
The objective should be the return of an ecosystem to its original community structure, natural 
complement of species, and natural functions to ensure the continued provision of services in 
the long term. 

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 3.5.2011 
SEC(2011) 540 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

Annexes to the IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

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

Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 

{COM(2011) 244 final} 
{SEC(2011) 541 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
ANNEXES  

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................. 1 

Annex 1 – EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline ................................................................................ 2 

Annex 2 – Consultation and expertise up to the adoption of the post-2010 EU biodiversity 

target............................................................................................................................. 4 

Annex 3 – Studies carried out by the Commission, Research Projects...................................... 9 

Annex 4 – Main EU funding instruments that contribute to financing EU biodiversity ......... 11 

Annex 5 –Awareness about biodiversity.................................................................................. 18 

Annex 6 – Policy baseline........................................................................................................ 20 

Annex 7 –justification for the agriculture target options ......................................................... 33 

Annex 8 – Justification of feasibility of the nature conservation target................................... 37 

Annex 9 – Proposed targets in relation to policy priorities as highlighted at Commission, 

Council and global level ............................................................................................ 41 

Annex 10 – Global 2020 targets and measures required to achieve them ............................... 43 

Annex 11 – Supporting evidence for some proposed measures............................................... 50 

Annex 12 – Examples of good practice on restoration and green infrastructure in the EU..... 56 

Annex 13 – Synthesis of existing tools under key EU instruments addressing Invasive Alien 

Species ....................................................................................................................... 59 

Annex 14 – Market based instruments and potential financing mechanisms for biodiversity 

conservation ............................................................................................................... 62 

Annex 15 – Mapping between EU post-2010 targets and SEBI indicators ............................. 68 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 1 – EU 2010 BIODIVERSITY BASELINE 

EN 

2 

EN 

 
  
EN 

3 

EN 

 
  
 
ANNEX  2  –  CONSULTATION  AND  EXPERTISE  UP  TO  THE  ADOPTION  OF  THE  POST-2010  EU 

BIODIVERSITY TARGET 

Towards an EU vision and a new target for biodiversity 

Since the completion of the mid-term assessment of the BAP1, all the European institutions 
and many Member States, organisations and stakeholders have pronounced themselves on the 
2010 biodiversity targets and the need to look beyond 2010.  

High Level Conclusions 

In April 2009, G8 Environment Ministers adopted the "Carta di Siracusa" on Biodiversity, 
which proposes a "common path toward the post-2010 framework on biodiversity". This was 
subsequently  endorsed  by  G8  Leaders  at  their  Summit  in  l'Aquila,  Italy  in  July  2009,  who 
underlined  "the  necessity  to  establish  a  vision  and  an  ambitious  and  achievable  common 
framework for biodiversity beyond 2010, making use of the synergies between climate change 
and biodiversity policies."  

European institutions 

The  Council  has  expressed  its  views  on  the  way  forward  on  biodiversity  after  2010  in 
different  sets  of  Conclusions.  In  its  March  2009  Conclusions  the  Environment  Council 
"UNDERLINES the need to establish, by mid-2010 at the latest, a vision and targets beyond 
2010 for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity within the EU, building on and 
contributing  to  deliberations  at  global  level  on  a  vision  for  biodiversity  beyond  2010".  The 
June 2009 Council reiterated this request. Additionally, in its Conclusions2 on 'A mid-term 
assessment of implementing the EU Biodiversity Action Plan and Towards an EU Strategy on 
Invasive Alien Species' the Environment Council expressed its deep concern that the EU is 
unlikely  to  meet  its  2010  target  of  halting  biodiversity  decline.  It  further  stressed  that 
biodiversity  loss  is  extremely  worrying  on  account  of  both  its  important  intrinsic  value  and 
because  it  results  in  a  decline  in  ecosystem  functions  that  are  essential  in  providing  vital 
services  which  underpin  long-term  sustainable  development,  and  on  which  a  healthy 
environment,  food  security  and  human  livelihoods,  particularly  for  the  world's  poorest, 
depend. The Council  also  called  for  greater synergies  between  measures for climate change 
mitigation  and  adaptation  and  for  combating  land  degradation  and  desertification  and  the 
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems, in order to fully exploit and 
maximise co-benefits. The European Council stressed in its Conclusion of December 20093 
the  urgent  need  for  action  and  significant  additional  efforts  to,  among  others,  reverse  the 
current  loss  of  biodiversity  and  natural  resources  in  order  to  reach  the  goal  of  sustainable 
development. 

The  European  Parliament  Intergroup  on  Climate  Change  and  Biodiversity  hosted  in 
2009  a  high-level  international  conference  'The  2010  Biodiversity  Challenge:  Will  the  EU 
reach it? What future after 2010?' on the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). The conference 
discussed the BAP mid-term review, and focused on defining future targets and the post-2010 
vision. The participants acknowledged that some progress had been made in certain areas, but 

1 
2 
3 

COM (2008) 864 final. 
(ST/11412/09) of 25 June 2009. 
EUCO 6/09; 10/11 December 2009. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
that  more  still  has  to  be  done  to  halt  biodiversity  loss.  The  need  for  better  integration  of 
biodiversity  into  other  policy  sectors,  the  lack  of  adequate  funding  and  the  economic 
dimension of biodiversity and ecosystem services was stressed.  

The  opinion  of  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee4  on  the  BAP  Mid-term 
assessment  gave  specific  recommendations  on  a  post-2010  EU  biodiversity  policy,  pointing 
out that mainstreaming of biodiversity considerations has not yet been achieved, and that the 
economic value of biodiversity has not yet been taken into account when defining policies. 

The  Committee  of  the  Regions5  adopted  a  specific  opinion  on  a  new  impetus  for  halting 
biodiversity loss, in which it notes the failure of policies to stem the erosion of biodiversity in 
Europe  by  2010.  It  suggests  that  a  proactive  strategy  is  required,  reflected  in  a  systemic 
approach and supported over the long-term, well beyond 2010. The Opinion stresses that this 
strategy must fully involve local and regional authorities. 

The Commission has engaged in a broad and long consultation within its services, using the 
Biodiversity Inter-service Coordination Group to exchange views and collect information 
on  the  progress  to  target,  on  the  options  for  a  new  post-2010  biodiversity  target  for  the 
adoption of the Communication on options for a post 2010 target and vision, and on the way 
towards a new EU biodiversity strategy. Regular meetings were hold and the BISCG has been 
convened 5 times in the space of one year.  

•  Stakeholder and Member State consultations 

The  German  CBD  Presidency  organised  a  high-level  stakeholder  event  entitled  'High-level 
working group on the future of global targets for biodiversity' (9-10 March 2009, Bonn). 

The Commission organised the Biodiversity Protection – Beyond 2010 Conference (April 
2009, Athens), which resulted in the adoption of "The Message from Athens", an eight-point 
plan for future action to confront the ongoing global biodiversity crisis. As regards the post-
2010 vision and target, this inter alia called upon  the  EU  institutions  and  Member  States  to 
develop a clear target on biodiversity6. 

•  The  Commission  has  used  the  opportunity  offered  by  meetings  of  the  EC  Coordination 
Group  for  Biodiversity  and  Nature  (CGBN)  and  EU  Nature  Directors  to  consult  EU 
Member  States,  environmental  NGOs  and  biodiversity  user  groups  (agriculture,  forests, 
business,  fisheries  sectors,  etc.)  on  their  views  on  a  post-2010  biodiversity  vision  and 
target. 

European institutions 

Already in March 2009, the Environment Council  underlined  the need to establish, by mid-
2010 at the latest, a vision and targets beyond 2010 for the conservation and sustainable use 
of biodiversity within the EU, building on and contributing to deliberations at global level on 
a vision for biodiversity beyond 2010.7 

4 
5 
6 
7 

Opinion (Nat/436) adopted on 15 July 2009.  
Opinion CoR 22/2009 adopted on 18 June 2009.  
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/conference/  
7065/09 conclusions adopted by the Council (Environment); 3 March 2009. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
One year later, on 15 March 2010, the Environment Council8 agreed on: 

- a long-term vision that by 2050 European Union biodiversity and the ecosystem services it 
provides  –  its  natural  capital  –  are  protected,  valued  and  appropriately  restored  for 
biodiversity's  intrinsic  value  and  for  their  essential  contribution  to  human  wellbeing  and 
economic prosperity, and so that catastrophic changes caused by the loss of biodiversity are 
avoided; 

-  a  headline  target  of  halting  the  loss  of  biodiversity  and  the  degradation  of  ecosystem 
services in the EU by 2020, and restoring them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU 
contribution to averting global biodiversity loss, for the above vision to be achieved. 

It also outlined the EU's stance concerning biodiversity protection at global level. In addition, 
the  conclusions  call  for  reinforced  mainstreaming  of  biodiversity  objectives  in  cross-cutting 
EU  policies  and  in  the  Strategy  for  Growth  and  Jobs  (EU  2020  Strategy9)  that  was  in 
preparation  at  the  time,  in  order  to  maximise  coherence  and  mutual  supportiveness  at  the 
highest political level. Finally, it called upon the Commission in co-operation with Member 
States  to  develop  an  EU  post-2010  Biodiversity  Strategy  proposing  targets  and  also 
identifying the necessary, feasible and cost-effective measures and actions for reaching them, 
and to adopt the Strategy as soon as possible after the tenth meeting of the Conference of the 
Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in October 2010, Nagoya (CBD COP 10).  

The Spring European Council in its Conclusions of 25/26 March 201010 stressed the urgent 
need to reverse continuing trends of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation and the EU 
Heads of State and Government committed themselves to the long term biodiversity 2050 
vision and the 2020 target set out in the Council's conclusions of 15 March 2010. 

The European Parliament in its 21 September11 Resolution expressed its concerns that the 
EU 2010 biodiversity target to significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss has not been 
met and stressed the urgency and importance of halting the loss of biodiversity. It called for 
ensuring  a  further  mainstreaming  of  biodiversity  into  other  EU  policy  areas,  making  the 
European Union's sectoral and budgetary policies more consistent; improving the integration 
of  biodiversity  criteria  in  decision-making  processes  at  local  and  regional  level  in  matters 
concerning  land  use  and  territorial  policy,  increasing  the  budget  for  research  dedicated  to 
biodiversity,  ensuring  synergies  between  actions  taken  for  climate  change  and  biodiversity, 
adopting  measures  to  develop  resource  efficiency  and  sustainable  consumption  and 
production  and  improving  the  implementation  of  EU  legislation.  The  EP  adopted  a  further 
resolution  on  7  October12  stressing  that  the  decisions  to  be  taken  needed  to  build  on  the 
recommendations  of  the  study  on  'The  Economics  of  Ecosystems  and  Biodiversity'13;  and 
underlining  that  more  regard  should  be  given  to  investigating  and  approving  market 
instruments, to help ensure adequate financial resources for biodiversity. 

8 
9 
10 
11 

12 

13 

7536/10 conclusions adopted by the Council (Environment); 15 March 2010. 
COM (2010) 2020 on "EUROPE 2020 – A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth". 
The EUCO 7/10 conclusions of the European Council (25/26 March). 
PE441.267v02-00 - European Parliament Resolution on the implementation of EU legislation aiming at 
the conservation of biodiversity. 
P7_TA(2010)0353 European Parliament resolution on the EU strategic objectives for the 10th Meeting 
of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), to be held in Nagoya 
(Japan) from 18 to 29 October 2010. 
www.teebweb.org  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  Committee  of  the  Regions  in  its  June  2010  Opinion14  expressed  its  concern  about  the 
serious consequences of increasing loss of biodiversity; welcomed the EU 2050 biodiversity 
vision  and  the  new  target  for  2020  adopted  by  the  Council  and  supported  the  call  of  the 
Council upon the European Commission to submit an EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy, taking 
account  of  the  results  of  the  CBD  COP  10.  It  highlighted  that  the  EU  2020  Biodiversity 
Strategy should focus on a limited set of five to six targets including agriculture, fisheries and 
marine  environments,  land  use  and  habitat  destruction  and  fragmentation.  Additionally,  it 
stressed  that  there  was  a  need  for  a  significant  increase  of  the  financial  means  within  post 
2013 EU budgets to meet the targets and to improve the integrated model to fund biodiversity 
and Natura 2000; and highlighted the role of local and regional authorities in promoting a EU 
2020 Biodiversity Strategy. 

The European Economic and Social Committee in its September 2010 Opinion15 expressed 
its  concerns  about  the  impacts  of  further  loss  of  biodiversity,  called  to  bring  biodiversity 
higher on political agenda and stressed the need for enhanced integration, without which no 
biodiversity  targets  can  be  achieved.  More  specifically,  EESC  explicitly  urged  to  introduce 
changes  to  the  agricultural  and  fisheries  policies,  to  secure  and  develop  further  the  Natura 
2000 network, called for the establishment and development of "green infrastructure" through 
a  TEN  biodiversity  network  and  for  stronger  integration  of  biodiversity  into  all  other  EU 
policy areas as well as education campaigns at EU level. 

•  Stakeholder and Member States consultations 

There  have  been  intensive  discussions  with  various  internal  and  external  experts  and 
stakeholders. The 2020 EU Biodiversity Strategy has been developed in a close co-operation 
with  Commission  services  concerned  and  also  other  groups  outside  EU  institutions. 
Specifically,  the  Commission  organised  several  stakeholder  meetings  (3  June  2010,  3 
September 2010) and ran a public Internet consultation between 23 August and 22 October, 
which  received  2905  responses.  Over  80%  of  respondents  felt  that  EU  biodiversity  policy 
measures did not have the necessary buy-in from other sectors. Close to 80% of respondents 
also  said  that  the  objectives  of  economic  development  were  prioritized  over  biodiversity 
concerns, that the economic value of biodiversity for other sectors is underestimated and that 
the political will to tackle the issue has been insufficient. 

Member States and other major constituencies were consulted at the meetings of the Nature 
Directors  and  the  Co-ordination  Group  for  Biodiversity  and  Nature.  Additional  ad  hoc 
meetings with Member States' experts were also held. 

Almost  80%  of  the  respondents  answered  that  the  future  actions  to  halt  biodiversity  loss 
should include measures and actions that go beyond nature conservation and most felt that in 
order to reach the EU's 2020 biodiversity target, existing EU environmental legislation is not 
sufficient  and  that  additional  measures  focusing  on  other  sectors  are  required.  On  the  sub- 
target on agriculture and forestry – over 80% of respondents felt that the reformed Common 
Agricultural Policy should include more explicit biodiversity conservation objectives. On the 
target  on  fisheries,  close  to  80%  of  respondents  felt  that  in  order  to  contribute  to  a  better 
conservation  of  biodiversity,  the  reformed  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP)  should  include 

14 

15 

ENVE-V-003 Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on "EU and International Biodiversity Policy 
beyond 2010". 
NAT/411 – CESE 1178/2010 Opinion on Biodiversity beyond 2010. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
more explicit biodiversity conservation values. On the target on nature conservation over 80% 
felt  that  it  should  focus  on  an  improved  conservation  status  of  species  and  habitats  of 
community interests. On the target on Green infrastructure, almost 90% felt that the measures 
should  focus  on  mitigating  the  adverse  effects  of  transport  and  energy  infrastructure,  and 
almost  80%  said  that  focus  should  also  be  on  ecosystem  restoration  contributing  to  climate 
change  mitigation  and  adaptation  and  natural  disaster  risk  reduction.  On  the  target  on  EU 
contribution to global biodiversity, most respondents also agreed with the proposed measures, 
especially  (>80%)  on  ensuring  that  biodiversity  concerns  are  systematically  reflected  in  the 
EU's dialogue with third countries and on reducing the negative impacts of EU's production 
and 
biodiversity. 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/pdf/biodecline_results.pdf provides a full report 
of the internet consultation. 

consumption 

patterns 

global 

on 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 3 – STUDIES CARRIED OUT BY THE COMMISSION, RESEARCH PROJECTS 

The Commission has gathered a significant amount of information to support the development 
of a vision and target post 2010. Hereafter are listed the most relevant studies and scientific 
findings  which  have  provided  a  crucial  input  to  substantially  strengthen  the  necessary 
knowledge base: 

•  Reports on the progress made in the implementation of the Biodiversity Action Plan16 

•  The UNEP's Millennium Ecosystem Assessment17, 

•  The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity (TEEB)18, 

•  Assessing biodiversity in Europe – the 2010 report19, 

•  The EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline20, 

•  The  3rd  edition  of  the  Global  Biodiversity  Outlook21,  the  flagship  publication  of  the 
Convention on Biological Diversity, which summarizes the latest data on status and trends 
of biodiversity and draws conclusions for the future strategy of the Convention. 

Studies 

•  Commission Assessment of the Conservation Status of Habitat Types and Species22 

•  Studies  on  the  "Value  of  Biodiversity,  the  assessment  of  the  Cost  of  Policy  Inaction 

(COPI), and on the drivers of biodiversity loss"23 

•  Study on the "Costs Benefits Assessment of measurement/monitoring systems of progress 

towards an EU post 2010 biodiversity target"  

•  Study on "Policy Options for a Future EU Biodiversity Strategy"  

•  Study "Soil biodiversity: functions, threats and tools for policy makers"24 

•  Literature study on the impacts of biodiversity changes on human health25 

16 
17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 
24 

Available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/index_en.htm  
Mace,  G.  et  al.  Biodiversity  in  Ecosystems  and  Human  Wellbeing:  Current  State  and  Trends  (eds 
Hassan, H., Scholes, R. & Ash, N.) Ch. 4, 79–115 (Island Press, 2005). 
http://www.teebweb.org/  
EEA Report No. 5/2010 http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/assessing-biodiversity-in-europe-84  
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eu-2010-biodiversity-baseline/  
http://gbo3.cbd.int/  
COM(2009)358  final  on  the  "Conservation  Status  of  Habitat  Types  and  Species  as  required  under 
Article 17 of the Habitats Directive". 
Available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/biodiversity/index.htm  
Available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/biodiversity.htm. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Study on "The Social Dimension of Biodiversity Policy" 26 

•  Study  on  "The  use  of  market-based  instruments  for  biodiversity  protection  –  the  case  of 

habitat banking"27 

•  Technical support to EU Strategy on invasive alien species (IAS)28  

•  Assessment of reasons for 2010 target failure29 

•  Assessment  of  the  EU  Biodiversity  Action  Plan  as  a  tool  for  implementing  biodiversity 

policy30 

•  Impact Assessment accompanying the Commission Communication on invasive species31 

•  The assessments for the compilation of the latest European Red Data Lists 32 

Research Projects 

•  DAISIE33 – Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe 

•  MACIS34 – Minimisation of and Adaptation to Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity  

•  ALARM35 – Assessing Large scale Risks for biodiversity with Tested methods 

•  ALTER-Net36 – A Long-Term Biodiversity, Ecosystem and Awareness Research Network 

•  MARBEF37 – Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning EU Network of Excellence 

•  RUBICODE38 - Rationalising Biodiversity Conservation in Dynamic Ecosystems 

•  PRESS39 - PEER Research on EcoSystem Services 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 
38 
39 

the 

(Directorate  General 

Environment),  Contract 

Zaghi, D., Calaciura, B., Spinelli, O., Basili, M., and R. Romi (2010). Comunità Ambiente Srl, report 
for 
07-
European  Commission 
0307/2009/533527/ETU/B3. July 2010 (forthcoming). 
Nunes, P.A.L.D., Ding, H., Ghermandi, A., Rayment, M., Varma, A., Pieterse, M. Lago, M., Görlach, 
B., Kapthengst, T. and P. ten Brink (2010). Final Report to the contract No. ENV.G.1/FRA/2006/0073 
– 2nd, Contract: 070307/2009/550766/ETU/F1, pages vii-179, Italy, Venice 2010 (forthcoming). 
Available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/pdf/eftec_habitat_technical_report.pdf  
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/index_en.htm  
Assessment report to Service contract 07.0307/2008/513998/SER/B2 
contract 
Assessment 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/bap_2010/4%20EC_Knowledge_B
ase_Assessment_BAP_final.pdf  
COM(2008)789 final EU strategy on invasive species. 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist/index_en.htm  
http://www.europe-aliens.org/  
http://www.macis-project.net/  
http://www.alarmproject.net/alarm/  
http://www.alter-net.info  
http://www.marbef.org  
www.rubicode.net 
http://www.peer.eu/projects/press/  

09/543261/B2 

Service 

report 

nr 

to 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
ANNEX  4  –  MAIN  EU  FUNDING  INSTRUMENTS  THAT  CONTRIBUTE  TO  FINANCING  EU 

BIODIVERSITY 

The  single  instrument  of  the  European  Union  directly  targeted  at  supporting  environment 
related projects across Europe is LIFE+, a part of which is used to support the development of 
nature,  biodiversity  and  especially  Natura  2000  (LIFE+  Nature  and  LIFE+  Biodiversity). 
Among  others,  LIFE+  supports  biodiversity  monitoring,  the  development  of  demonstration 
and best practice projects for management and restoration of Natura 2000 sites and facilitate 
projects outside Natura 2000, aimed at contributing to the progress towards achieving the EU 
biodiversity  target.  Despite  the  importance  of  LIFE+  as  regards  the  only  EU  funding 
dedicated to biodiversity and nature, the LIFE programme amounts to less than 0.1 % of the 
EU budget in any recent year.  

The  Common  Agricultural  Policy  (CAP),  through  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for 
Rural  Development  (EAFRD)40  provides  approximately  EUR  53.5  billion  per  year  in 
funding for the agricultural and forestry sector, with a breakdown of EUR 42.7 billion (80%) 
for  direct  aids  and  market  interventions  (Pillar  1)  and  EUR  10.9  billion  (20%)  for  rural 
development  (Pillar  2).  Support  for  biodiversity  protection,  management  and  restoration 
measures  in  agricultural  and  forest  habitats  is  principally  funded  under  Pillar  2.  The  most 
important measures for biodiversity are primarily those available under Axis 2 of the EAFRD, 
which  are  aimed  at  improving  the  environment  and  the  countryside.  These  include  Natura 
2000  payments,  Agri-environment  payments  and  Forest-environment  payments,  Planned 
allocations under Axis 2 for the period 2007-2013 amount to 44% (approximately EUR 42.7 
billion)  of  total  EAFRD  funding.  Of  these  three  measures,  agri-environment  payments 
account  for  the  majority  of  EAFRD  expenditure  with  approximately  23%  of  Rural 
Development  Programme  expenditure  (roughly  EUR  22.2  billion  of  the  EAFRD  across  all 
Member  States).  But  there  is  considerable  variation  in  the  proportion  spent  amongst  the 
Members  States.  Budget  allocations  for  the  other  two  Axis  2  measures  that  may  provide 
substantial  biodiversity  benefits  are  small  in  all  Member  States  and  absent  in  many.  In 
particular,  allocations  for  dedicated  Natura  2000  measures  (agriculture  and  forest)  are  very 
low, 0.62% of total EAFRD expenditure, or approximately EUR 590 million. However, quite 
a few Member States have chosen to finance Natura 2000 management essentially or solely 
via agri-environment. 

In  addition  to  the  measures  described  above,  the  less  favoured  area  (LFA)  measure  may 
provide some biodiversity benefits where it supports traditional low intensity farming systems 
that  maintain  certain  semi-natural  habitats  and  other  high  nature  value  farmland,  as  well  as 
High  Nature  Value  (HNV)  farming.  Two  other  measures  under  Axis  2  may  also  provide 
important  biodiversity  benefits:  the  non-productive  investment  measures  for  agriculture  and 
for  forests.  These  measures  are  sometimes  used  to  provide  one-off  capital  grants,  e.g.  for 
habitat restoration works. In addition, under axis 1, support for training, advisory services and 
environmental investments, and under axis 3, support for the conservation and upgrading of 
the rural heritage have a role to play in the preservation of biodiversity. Other pro-biodiversity 
instruments  that  may  favour  farmland  biodiversity  are  cross-compliance,  the  decoupling  of 
single farm payments and modulation. 

40 

Council Regulation 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European 
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, OJ L 277, 21.10.2005. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  European  Agricultural  Guarantee  Fund  (EAGF)  finances  direct  payments  necessary 
to  maintain  farmers  on  land,  therefore  contributing  to  preventing  land  abandonment.  In 
addition, it gives the possibility of financing agri-environmental measures under article 68 of 
horizontal  regulation  and  agri-environmental  measures  under 
the  Common  market 
organisation for fruit and vegetables. 

The European Fisheries Fund41 (EFF) is designed to secure a sustainable European fishing 
and  aquaculture  industry.  Assistance  under  the  EFF  shall  aim  to:  support  the  Common 
Fisheries  Policy  (CFP)  so  as  to  ensure  exploitation  of  living  aquatic  resources  and  support 
aquaculture  in  order  to  provide  sustainability  in  economic,  environmental  and  social  terms; 
promote a sustainable balance between resources and the fishing capacity of the Community 
fishing fleet; promote a sustainable development of inland fishing; and foster the protection 
and  enhancement  of  the  environment  and  natural  resources  where  related  to  the  fisheries 
sector. Under the EFF, each Member State was required to adopt a national strategic plan and 
submit it with the Operational Programme document. The Operational Programme (OP) is the 
single document drawn up by the Member State and approved by the Commission containing 
a set of ‘Priority Axes’ to be achieved with the aid of the EFF. Axis 1 is for measures for the 
adaptation of the Community fishing fleet to ensure it is in balance with available resources; 
Axis  2  is  for  measures  relating  to  aquaculture,  inland  fishing,  processing  and  marketing  of 
fishery and aquaculture products and requires the inclusion of aqua-environmental measures; 
Axis  3  is  for  measures  of  common  interest  (e.g.  collective  actions,  protection  and 
development of aquatic fauna and flora; fishing ports; development of new markets etc.); and 
Axis 4 is for  actions  that support the sustainable development of fisheries areas. Due to the 
structure of data collection on funding under EFF, it is not possible to give exact figures on 
EFF funds allocated to biodiversity and Natura 2000 purposes. The only available information 
concerns the total allocation of the EFF plus the national public contribution for each Priority 
Axis, and the total annual commitment of the EFF in the operational programme. 

In relation to EU Cohesion Policy, the Community Strategic Guidelines and the relevant fund 
regulations  include  clear  references  to  the  importance  of  nature  protection  in  developing 
infrastructure and in relation to economic diversification. The 2007-2013 programming period 
of the Cohesion Policy addresses directly the preservation of biodiversity under the European 
Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF),  European  Social  Fund  (ESF)  and  Cohesion  Fund 
(CF). A few categories of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion 
Fund (CF) spending are related to the protection of biodiversity and management of natural 
resources42. The most relevant category is No. 51 the “Promotion of biodiversity and nature 
protection”  (for  which  EUR 2 689  million  has  been  allocated).  Also  highly  relevant  are  the 
category No. 55 ("promotion of natural assets", for which EUR 1 137 million is allocated) and 
the category No. 56 ("protection and development of natural heritage", with a total of € 1 406 
million) both of which might have some indirect, positive impact on our natural heritage.  

It is the Member States' responsibility to select and implement the programmes and projects 
co-funded  by  the  Cohesion  Policy,  along  the  strategy  and  priorities  set  in  the  National 
Strategic  Reference  Framework  (NSRF)  and  the  their  National  Development  Plans  and  the 
relevant  Operational  Programmes  (OPs).  All  but  two  Member  States  have  allocated  some 
funding  for  nature  and  biodiversity  protection,  although  as  a  proportion  of  the  overall 
allocations  this  varies  considerably  between  countries.  As  it  is  shown  in  the  2010  BAP 

41 
42 

Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006. 
See OJ L45 15/02/2007 and Commission Regulation EC n° 1828/2006 of 8 December 2006. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
assessment,  seven  Member  States  intend  to  use  more  than  2%  of  their  allocated  funds  for 
biodiversity  related  categories.  Nonetheless,  other  categories  can  have  indirect  benefits  on 
biodiversity  such  as  "Management  and  distribution  of  water"  (No.  45),  "Water  treatment" 
(No.  46),  "Air  quality"  (No.  47),  "Integrated  prevention  and  pollution  control"  (No.  48), 
"Rehabilitation  of  industrial  sites  and  contaminated  land"  (No.  50)  or  "Promotion  of  clean 
urban  transport"  (No.  52).  For  instance  waste  water  treatment  projects  may  contribute  to 
preserve biodiversity in rivers and seas while natural risk prevention developments may also 
protect biodiversity through projects such as restoration of natural floodplains.  

The European Social Fund (ESF) promotes employment and better prepared workforce and 
companies  to  face  new  challenges  such  as  biodiversity  protection.  It  is  difficult  to  track 
accurately spending for nature protection under the ESF, however impacts can be positive just 
like  in  Spain  where  spending  has  been  made  to  improve  and  adapt  labour  force  and 
companies  to  new  environmental  challenges  and  to  promote  nature  conservation  into  the 
private  sector  management.  Additional  support  to  the  regional  development  funds  are 
provided  by  European  Territorial  Cooperation  schemes  contributing  to  bi-  or  multilateral 
projects. 

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

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

100,00

90,00

80,00

70,00

60,00

%

50,00

40,00

30,00

20,00

10,00

0,00

The  comparison  of  allocation  on  direct  and  indirect  measures  for  Natura  2000  and 
biodiversity from rural and regional development funds (state of October 2008; source: 2008 
BAP assessment). 

EU Research Framework Programmes (FP) also provide financial support for biodiversity-
related  research  across.  Thus  far  under  the  Environment  Theme  of  the  7th  Framework 
Programme  (2007-2013),  EUR  109.5  million  have  been  allocated  to  projects  aimed  at  the 
conservation  and  sustainable  management  of  natural  and  man-made  resources  and 
biodiversity (sub-activity 6.2.1), out of a total budget of EUR 780.5 million. Also under the 
Environment  theme,  further  financial  resources  have  been  allocated  to  biodiversity  topics 
under  sub-activity  6.2.2  (Management  of  marine  environments)  and  6.4.2  (Forecasting 
methods and assessment tools for sustainable development taking into account different scales 
of observation). 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
The Environment and Natural Resources Thematic Programme (ENRTP) is targeted at 
helping developing countries and partner organisations to address environmental and natural 
resource  management  issues.  Concerning  EU  financing  for  global  biodiversity,  the  total 
amount allocated to biodiversity specific projects for the period 2007-2010 under the ENRTP 
was  almost  EUR  70  million,  while  approximately  EUR  110  million  was  committed  for 
biodiversity related activities – equivalent to about EUR 44 million when using an adjustment 
factor  to  avoid  overestimation,  as  biodiversity  conservation  is  only  a  secondary  objective43. 
This would represent a total amount of EUR 114 million for the period. 

43 

The  OECD  DAC  developed  the  so  called  "Rio  markers"  to  help  determining  whether  aid  activities 
contribute  to  the  objectives  of  the  three  Conventions  –  including  the  UN  Convention  on  Biological 
Diversity  (CBD).  Activities  receive  a  principal  score  (score  “2”)  where  the  CBD  is  the  principal 
objectives, and a significant score (score “1”) where CBD is an important, but not principal objective. 
To  avoid  overestimation  of  the  financial  support  for  meeting  the  obligations  of  the  CBD,  EuropeAid 
proposes to apply a fixed adjustment factor to account for activities that are only partially relevant to the 
objectives of the CBD – that is, to consider 40% of the allocated budget if biodiversity conservation is 
only a secondary objective. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Target 

Agriculture and Forestry  

Fisheries 

Invasive Alien Species 

Nature Conservation 

Restoration 

Global biodiversity 

Funding 
instrument 

EU funding 

Main 
instruments 

Budget 

Main 
instruments 

Budget 

Main 
instruments 

Budget 

Main 
instruments 

Budget 

Main 
instruments 

Budget 

Main 
instruments 

Budget 

Common  Agricultural  Policy  – 
European Agricultural Fund for 
Rural Development 

2007-2013 

Common 
Fisheries 
Policy 
European 
Fisheries 
Fund 

– 

LIFE+ 

the 
of 

Due 
to 
structure 
data 
collection  on 
funding under 
EFF,  it  is  not 
to 
possible 
exact 
give 
on 
figures 
funds 
EFF 
allocated 
to 
biodiversity 
and  Natura 
2000 
purposes 

LIFE+ 

Less 
than 
0.1%  of  total 
budget 
EU 
per  year;  out 
of  which  ca. 
119.5 
EUR 
p.a. 
million 
LIFE+ 
for 
Nature 
and 
LIFE+ 
Biodiversity 

EAFRD Pillar 
2  Axis 
2: 
Natura  2000 
payments 
payments  + 
agri- 
and 
forest-
environment 
payments 

0.62% of total 
EAFRD 
for 
2007-2013  

+ 
of 
44% 
total EAFRD 

=  EUR  42.7 
billion 

Less 
than 
0.1%  of  total 
budget 
EU 
per  year;  out 
of  which  ca. 
119.5 
EUR 
p.a. 
million 
LIFE+ 
for 
Nature 
and 
LIFE+ 
Biodiversity 

and  Natural 
Thematic 

Environment 
Resources 
Programme 

2007-2010 

n.a. 

European 
Social Fund  

n.a. 

LIFE+ 

Pillar  2  Axis 
1:  measures 
training, 
on 
information 
and  advisory 
services 

44%  of  total 
EAFRD 

Biodiversity 

EUR 70 
million 

=  EUR  42.7 
billion 

Less 
than 
0.1%  of  total 
budget 
EU 
per  year;  out 
of  which  ca. 
119.5 
EUR 
p.a. 
million 
LIFE+ 
for 
Nature 
and 
LIFE+ 
Biodiversity 

Pillar  2  Axis 
2: 
land 
management 
and 
non-
productive 
investment 
measures 
(especially 
Natura  2000 
payments, 
agri- 
forest-
environment 
payments) 

and 

EN 

15 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
Target 

Agriculture and Forestry  

Fisheries 

Invasive Alien Species 

Nature Conservation 

Restoration 

Global biodiversity 

Funding 
instrument 

44%  of  total 
EAFRD 

=  EUR  42.7 
billion 

n.a. 

Pillar  2  Axis 
2: 
land 
management 
and 
non-
productive 
investment 
measures 
(especially 
Natura  2000 
payments, 
agri- 
forest-
environment 
payments) 

and 

Pillar  2  Axis 
3:  measures 
for 
the 
conservation 
and 
upgrading  of 
natural 
heritage 

n.a. 

EFF 
protection 
and 
development 
of 
fauna 
flora 

aquatic 
and 

European 
Development 
Cohesion Fund 

Regional 
and 

Fund 

2007-2013 

Promotion  of 
biodiversity 
and 
protection 

nature 

EUR 2689 
million 

Promotion  of 
natural assets  

EUR 1137 
million 

Protection 

EUR 1406 

Projects  with 
likely benefits 
to 
biodiversity 

EUR 
million44 

44 

Geographic  instruments  (EDF, 
DCI, ENPI) 

2007-2009 

Programmes 
with  a  focus 
on 
biodiversity  

Programmes 
with 
benefits 
biodiversity 

likely 
to 

EUR 
million 

133 

EUR 
million45 

100 

44 
45 

Equivalent to the EUR 110 million spent on projects that might deliver biodiversity benefits, using the so called "Rio markers" developed by OECD DAC. 
Equivalent to the EUR 255 million spent on projects that might deliver biodiversity benefits, using the so called "Rio markers" developed by OECD DAC. 

EN 

16 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Target 

Agriculture and Forestry  

Fisheries 

Invasive Alien Species 

Nature Conservation 

Restoration 

Global biodiversity 

Funding 
instrument 

n.a. – data/information not available or the categorisation system of the funding instrument does not allow breakdown of allocations 
Inclusion of the same funding stream in different cells does not refer to additional funding but indicates the relevance of funding for the target in question. 

million 

and 
development 
of 
heritage  

natural 

EN 

17 

EN 

 
  
ANNEX 5 –AWARENESS ABOUT BIODIVERSITY 

Public  awareness  about  biodiversity  loss  is  on  the  increase.  This  has  led  to  changes  in 
consumer preferences and purchasing decisions. Businesses, too, have begun to recognise the 
threats posed by biodiversity loss to their activities. Nonetheless, from available statistics it is 
clear that awareness remains insufficient and the urgency of the problem is largely unnoticed 
by the wider public.  

A  recent  Eurobarometer  survey  shows  that  most  Europeans  still  do  not  feel  well  informed 
about biodiversity. The new "Attitudes towards biodiversity" survey reveals that only 38% of 
Europeans know the meaning of the term, although another 28% have heard of it but do not 
know its meaning. A majority feel that biodiversity loss is a serious issue, although they do 
not  think  they  will  be  personally  affected  by  the  decline,  with  only  17%  of  respondents 
agreeing that they are already touched by it. When asked about the most important threats to 
biodiversity,  27%  prioritised  pollution,  with  another  26%  blaming  man-made  disasters.  The 
main  reason  cited  by  citizens  for  their  lack  of  actions  to  stop  biodiversity  loss  was  low 
awareness of what can be done. 

Another  survey  of  CEOs  and  their  attitudes  to  biodiversity  loss  revealed  that  of  the  1100 
CEOs surveyed, only 27% expressed concern about the impacts of biodiversity loss on their 
business  growth  prospects46.  Those  expressing  concern  were  more  numerous  in  industries 
characterized by large direct impacts on biodiversity and in developing regions (Figure 1). 

The  same  survey  assessed  the  annual  reports  and  sustainability  report  of  the  top  100 
companies in the world by revenue. Figures 2 and 3 show that very few companies actively 
consider  biodiversity  as  a  strategic  issue  or  discuss  ways  of  reducing  the  impacts  of  their 
activities on biodiversity. Not surprisingly, companies in sectors sometimes characterized by 
high impacts or dependency on biodiversity and ecosystem services (i.e. oil and gas, utilities, 
chemicals,  big  pharmaceutical  companies  and  food  retailers)  are  more  likely  to  identify 
biodiversity  as  a  key  strategic  issue  (19%  versus  9%  overall)  and  are  also  more  likely  to 
report actions to reduce impacts on biodiversity (36% versus 24% overall). 

46 

PwC survey 2009. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Reporting by business on biodiversity and ecosystems-
Top 100 Companies  Annual reports

2% 4%

12%

Identify biodiversity as a key strategic issue

Discuss approach to reduce impact on
biodiversity

Passing mention of biodiversity or
ecosystems

No mention of biodiversity or ecosystems

82%

Reporting by business on biodiversity and ecosystems- 
Top 100 Companies sustainability reports

11%

9%

42%

Identify biodiversity as a key strategic issue

15%

Discuss approach to reduce impact on
biodiversity

Passing mention of biodiversity or
ecosystems

No mention of biodiversity or ecosystems

23%

Do not produce a sustainability report

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX 6 – POLICY BASELINE 

General overview of the likely impacts of different policies on reaching the 2020 EU biodiversity target 47  

Key EU policy 
area 
relevant 
for 
biodiversity 

Biodiversity 
policies 

(1979)  & 
(1992) 

Birds 
Habitats 
Directives 

Biodiversity 
Action Plan (2006) 

A. Contribution to achieving the 2020 EU biodiversity target  

B. Contribution to reducing main pressures on biodiversity 

1. Halting biodiversity loss 

a.  Protected 
area/ species 

b.  Other  land 
/ fresh water 

c.  Marine 
environment 

Halting 

2. 
degradation 
of  ecosystem 
services (ES) 

3. Restoration 
of 
biodiversity 
&  ecosystem 
services 

4. 
Counteracti
ng 
increased 
loss 
of 
biodiversity 
at 
global 
level 

n
o
i
t
a
t
i
o
l
p
x
e
-
r
e
v
O

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
g
a
r
F

e
g
n
a
h
c

e
t
a
m

i
l

C

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

e
v
i
s
a
v
n
I

n
o
i
t
u
l
l
o
P

+++ 

++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

++ 

+++ 

+ 

+: Natura 2000 
marine  species 
and sites 

+:  Connectivity 
is 
promoted 
within  the  nature 
directives 
(Article 10 of the 
Habitats 
Directive) 

+:  By  protecting 
and 
species 
habitats 
and 
managing  sites, 
nature  directives 
highly 
contribute 
to 
maintenance  of 
ES  

+:  Core  of  EU 
biodiversity 
the 
policy 
is 
2000 
Natura 
of 
network 
protected  areas, 
species 
and 
based 
habitats, 
on  strong 
legal 
basis  in  Habitats 
Birds 
and 
Directives 

to 

+:  Aims 
achieve 
favourable 
conservation 
status; 
conservational 
objectives 
through 
management. 

nature 

proper 

directly 
+: 
addressed 
the 
in 
BAP,  Favourable 
Conservation 
Status 

+: 
directly 
addressed  in  the 
BAP, 
Favourable 
Conservation 
Status, 
connectivity 
under  Habitats 
Directive 

+: 
addressed 
BAP 

directly 
the 
in 

+: 
directly 
addressed in the 
BAP, 
LIFE 
projects 

+:  measures  to 
protect 
biodiversity 
contributing  to 
of 
reduction 
pollution 

the 
of 

+:  Protection 
of  EU  bio-
diversity 
contributes 
global 
biodiversity 
through 
protection 
migratory 
species  and  ES 
provides 
and 
an  example  for 
other  countries 
as 
the 
biggest 
of 
network 
protected  areas 

is 

it 

47 

EN 

The policy baseline was produced based on the study "Policy Options for a Future EU Biodiversity Strategy" and further developed based on the 2010 BAP report and 
inputs received throughout the discussions with members of the Biodiversity Inter-service Coordination Group. The table is structured in alphabetical order, biodiversity 
policy upfront. 

20 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Key EU policy 
area 
relevant 
for 
biodiversity 

A. Contribution to achieving the 2020 EU biodiversity target  

B. Contribution to reducing main pressures on biodiversity 

1. Halting biodiversity loss 

a.  Protected 
area/ species 

b.  Other  land 
/ fresh water 

c.  Marine 
environment 

Halting 

2. 
degradation 
of  ecosystem 
services (ES) 

3. Restoration 
of 
biodiversity 
&  ecosystem 
services 

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
g
a
r
F

n
o
i
t
a
t
i
o
l
p
x
e
-
r
e
v
O

4. 
Counteracti
ng 
increased 
loss 
of 
biodiversity 
at 
global 
level 

in  the  world; 
Initiative 
to 
develop 
'Natura  2000-
like'  networks 
(BEST) 
in 
Outermost 
Regions 
Overseas 
Territories  

and 

e
g
n
a
h
c

e
t
a
m

i
l

C

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

e
v
i
s
a
v
n
I

n
o
i
t
u
l
l
o
P

LIFE+ 

+: 
Biodiversity 
finances  projects 

EN 

+:  LIFE+  Nature 
funding  targeted 
at 
directly 
and 
protection 
of 
restoration 
Natura 
2000 
species,  habitats 
and  sites,  which 
also  contributes 
to ES restoration 

21 

+:  Projects  that 
prevent 
or 
mitigate 

Projects 
+: 
that  prevent  or 
mitigate 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Key EU policy 
area 
relevant 
for 
biodiversity 

LIFE+ 

Agriculture 
Forestry policies 

and 

CAP 

EU 
Strategy (1998); 

Forestry 

EU-Forestry 
Action Plan (FAP) 
for 2007-2011  

Forest 
Regulation 

Focus 

Framework 
Directive  on 
the 
Sustainable  use  of 

A. Contribution to achieving the 2020 EU biodiversity target  

B. Contribution to reducing main pressures on biodiversity 

1. Halting biodiversity loss 

a.  Protected 
area/ species 

b.  Other  land 
/ fresh water 

c.  Marine 
environment 

Halting 

2. 
degradation 
of  ecosystem 
services (ES) 

3. Restoration 
of 
biodiversity 
&  ecosystem 
services 

delivering 
biodiversity 
the 
benefits 
in 
landscape 
wider 
(outside  Natura 
2000  areas)  and 
contributing 
to 
biodiversity 
objectives 

4. 
Counteracti
ng 
increased 
loss 
of 
biodiversity 
at 
global 
level 

n
o
i
t
a
t
i
o
l
p
x
e
-
r
e
v
O

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
g
a
r
F

fragmentation 
can  be  funded 
by LIFE+ 

e
g
n
a
h
c

e
t
a
m

i
l

C

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

e
v
i
s
a
v
n
I

n
o
i
t
u
l
l
o
P

pollution  can 
be  funded  by 
LIFE+ 

that 
+:  Projects 
prevent or mitigate 
over-exploitation 
can  be  funded  by 
LIFE+  

+:  Projects 
that 
prevent or mitigate 
climate 
change 
can  be  funded  by 
LIFE+ 

+:  Projects  that 
prevent 
the 
introduction  or 
establishment 
of  IAS  can  be 
funded 
by 
LIFE+ 

+++/--- 

++/--- 

++ 

+++/-- 

++/--- 

-- 

-- 

+/-- 

-- 

-- 

+/-- 

+: 
Some 
agricultural  and 
forestry 
measures  in  the 
CAP 
can 
contribute 
significantly 
to 
biodiversity  (e.g. 
Natura 
2000 
payments,  HNV 
farming, 
Less 
Favourable 
Areas, 
farming)  

organic 

Various 
commitments 

in 

and 

+:  Agri- 
forest-
environment 
schemes;  Cross- 
compliance; 
organic farming 

-:  Intensification 
with  high  input 
agriculture; 
marginalisation; 
land 
abandonment, 
monocultures. 
Use  of  invasive 
species, 
homogenous  age 

+: 
Cross-
compliance can 
a 
bring 
of 
reduction 
nutrients 
in 
river effluent to 
sea 

-: 
Intensification 
can 
to 
lead 
increased  use 
of nutrients 

+:  Appropriate 
management 
to 
contributes 
and 
creation 
maintenance  of 
ES, public goods 
food 
(e.g. 
supply, 
soil 
functioning, 
timber, 
prevention, 
pollination). 
Forest Focus co-
financing  forest 
fires  prevention 
activities 
and 
studies  on  forest 

flood 

and 

+:  Some  agri-
environment 
measures 
forest 
environment 
measures  highly 
to 
contribute 
restoration 
and 
delivery of ES 

competition 
trade 
land, 

-: 
for 
offs,  

Some 

+: 
positive 
measures  can 
be replicated in 
other  parts  of 
world. 
the 
Natural 
and 
semi-natural 
forests  are  the 
most 
biodiversity 
rich 
ecosystems 
Europe. 

in 

-: 
intensive 
livestock,  energy 
non-
grass, 
soil 
permanent 
cover 

rural 

+: 
development 
can  be  used  to 
combat IAS and 
protect  genetic 
resources 
and 
species/varietie
s  under  threat 
of extinction 

intensive 

-: 
agricultural 
management 

hedgerows, 
+: 
pastures, 
set-
aside  areas  etc. 
elements 
creating 
connectivity, 
conversion 
of 
arable  land  into 
grassland 
and 
forest. 

-:  conversion  of 
semi-
natural, 
natural  land  into 

for 

+:support 
organic 
farming, 
integrated 
production, 
nutrient 
management 

-: 
use 
of 
as 
chemicals 
well as fuel for 
cultivation 
purposes  

EN 

EN 

22 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A. Contribution to achieving the 2020 EU biodiversity target  

B. Contribution to reducing main pressures on biodiversity 

Key EU policy 
area 
relevant 
for 
biodiversity 

1. Halting biodiversity loss 

a.  Protected 
area/ species 

b.  Other  land 
/ fresh water 

c.  Marine 
environment 

Halting 

2. 
degradation 
of  ecosystem 
services (ES) 

3. Restoration 
of 
biodiversity 
&  ecosystem 
services 

n
o
i
t
a
t
i
o
l
p
x
e
-
r
e
v
O

4. 
Counteracti
ng 
increased 
loss 
of 
biodiversity 
at 
global 
level 

-:  competition 
for 
land, 
intensification, 
increasing 
for 
demand 
food 
supply 
and production 

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
g
a
r
F

arable land, 

e
g
n
a
h
c

e
t
a
m

i
l

C

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

e
v
i
s
a
v
n
I

n
o
i
t
u
l
l
o
P

Pesticides 

the 
Forest 
Europe to protect 
biodiversity 
in 
forests 

structure 
forests 

of 

Land 

-: 
abandonment 
and 
unsustainable 
agricultural 
practices  can  be 
very  harmful  to. 
Insufficient 
integration 
biodiversity 
aspects 
the 
in 
management  of 
forests 

of 

biodiversity 

land 

Both 

-: 
intensification 
and 
abandonment 
may 
decrease 
provision  of  ES, 
for 
example 
through 
damaging  ES  or 
leading 
to 
imbalanced 
provisioning  of 
multiple ES 

Air policies  

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

0 

0 

++ 

0 

+++ 

Air  Quality  FWD, 
CAFÉ, 
NECD, 
VES,  IPPC,  LCP, 
Waste  Incineration 
Directive, 
Thematic  Strategy 
on Air Pollution 

+: 
local 
reduction  of  N-
deposition 
in 
protected areas 

+: 
reduction 
deposition 
land 

general 
of 
on 

general 
+: 
reduction 
of 
deposition  on 
sea 

+: 
general 
improvement  of 
air  quality  good 
for all services 

+: 
general 
improvement  of 
air  quality  good 
restoration 
for 
initiatives 

general 

+: 
improvement 
of  air  quality 
good for global 
biodiversity 

Not  using  natural 
resources 

No 
dimension 

spatial 

reduction  of 

+: 
emissions,  

No 
major 
disturbance  or 
that 
activity 
to 
may 
new 
introduction 

lead 

all 

tools 
at 

+: 
aimed 
reducing 
pollution  from 
different 
sources 

Consumption 

/  + 

+ 

+ 

+ 

0 

+ 

+ 

0 

+ 

0 

++ 

EN 

23 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Key EU policy 
area 
relevant 
for 
biodiversity 

Production 
policies  

EMAS, 
IPP, 
Ecolabel,  ETAP, 
ERP, 
GPP, 
SICP/SIP 
action 
plan 

Environmental 
Liability Directive  

A. Contribution to achieving the 2020 EU biodiversity target  

B. Contribution to reducing main pressures on biodiversity 

1. Halting biodiversity loss 

a.  Protected 
area/ species 

b.  Other  land 
/ fresh water 

c.  Marine 
environment 

Halting 

2. 
degradation 
of  ecosystem 
services (ES) 

3. Restoration 
of 
biodiversity 
&  ecosystem 
services 

+:  indirect  effect 
might come from 
demand 
for 
labelled products  

+:  indirect  effect 
may  be  expected 
through  demand 
for  /  supply  of 
eco-products  

+: indirect effect 
via  eco-market 
on 
increase  of 
multiple services 
in  forestry,  agri- 
& aqua-culture 

indirect 
on 

+: 
effect 
marine 
biodiversity 
may 
expected 
through 
demand  for 
supply 
sustainable 
fisheries  

be 

/ 
of 

n
o
i
t
a
t
i
o
l
p
x
e
-
r
e
v
O

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
g
a
r
F

sustainability 

+: 
criteria 

necessary 

No 
spatial 
dimension 

4. 
Counteracti
ng 
increased 
loss 
of 
biodiversity 
at 
global 
level 

+:  eco-labels, 
certification  of 
products 
and 
materials  (e.g. 
forest, 
timber, 
fish  and  food) 
reduces 
ecological 
footprint  

e
g
n
a
h
c

e
t
a
m

i
l

C

sustainable 

+: 
production 
methods;  reducing 
impacts 
negative 
consumption, 
of 
lower 
input 
demand 

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

e
v
i
s
a
v
n
I

n
o
i
t
u
l
l
o
P

No  inclusion  of 
IAS criteria 

long-term 

+: 
sustainability 

Climate  Change 
policies 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+++ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

+++ 

+ 

+++ 

EU 
climate 
target 

20/20/20 
change 

White  paper  on 
to 
adaptation 
change 
climate 
(COM 
(2009) 
0147) 

Reducing 
from 
Emissions 
Deforestation  and 
Forest Degradation 

EN 

+:  general  slow 
down  of  climate 
change  

+:  general  slow 
down  of  climate 
change 

+: general slow 
down 
of 
climate change 

+:  general  slow 
down  of  climate 
change 

the 
of 

Improve 
resilience 
ecosystems 
through 
adaptation 
measures 

+:  general  slow 
down  of  climate 
and 
change 
restoration 
of 
ecosystem 
services  through 
adaptation 
and 
mitigation 
measures 

+: 
general 
slow  down  of 
climate 
change;  REDD 
funding to stop 
deforestation 
in  biodiversity 
hotspots 

+: REDD 

Main  objective  of 
the package 

+:  building  on 
ecosystem-
based  solutions, 
creating  Green 
Infrastructure 

+:  Mitigation 
measures which 
will 
to 
lead 
lower migration 
of IAS 

increased 
of 

+: 
use 
alternative 
energy 
sources, ETS 

24 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A. Contribution to achieving the 2020 EU biodiversity target  

B. Contribution to reducing main pressures on biodiversity 

1. Halting biodiversity loss 

a.  Protected 
area/ species 

b.  Other  land 
/ fresh water 

c.  Marine 
environment 

Halting 

2. 
degradation 
of  ecosystem 
services (ES) 

3. Restoration 
of 
biodiversity 
&  ecosystem 
services 

4. 
Counteracti
ng 
increased 
loss 
of 
biodiversity 
at 
global 
level 

n
o
i
t
a
t
i
o
l
p
x
e
-
r
e
v
O

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
g
a
r
F

e
g
n
a
h
c

e
t
a
m

i
l

C

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

e
v
i
s
a
v
n
I

n
o
i
t
u
l
l
o
P

Key EU policy 
area 
relevant 
for 
biodiversity 

(REDD) 

Climate  Change 
Programme 
(ICCP),  European 
Emission  Trading 
Scheme (ETS); 

Framework 
UN 
Convention 
on 
Climate  Change 
(UNFCCC) 

Energy policies 

+/- 

+/- 

+ 

- 

- 

+/- 

0/- 

- 

+++ 

-- 

+++ 

EU 
Biomass 
Action  Plan  (up  to 
2010) 

Directive  on 
the 
promotion  of  the 
use of energy from 
renewable sources 

+: wind and solar 
energies 
contribute 
to 
GHGs  emission 
reductions 
that 
lower pressure of 
climate 
change 
Sustainability 
criteria 
biofuels 
include 
restrictions 
on 
areas  where  raw 
material 
for 
biofuel 
production 
be 

for 
that 

can 
in 

grown 

large  areas 
to 

-: 
devoted 
energy-crops 
monocultures 
have  low  level 
of other services 

-: 
potential 
competition  with 
biofuel 
plantations 

+:  more  use  of 
renewable 
resources  lowers 
from 
pressures 
grey energy 

-: 
increase 
demand  on  land 
to 
produce 
and 
biomass 
biofuels  likely  to 
lead 
to 
intensification  of 
agriculture  

+:  Off-shore 
energy 
wing 
contributes 
to 
reducing GHGs 
emissions. 
In 
general,  wind 
energy 
does 
not  represent  a 
serious 
threat 
to  wildlife,  but 
poorly 
designed  wind 
farms  can  pose 
potential 
a 
to 
threat 
vulnerable 
species 

and 

-:  use  of  non 
species 
native 
as 
energy 
crops/trees 

Increased 
of 

+: 
use 
renewable 
energy 
decrease 
pollutants 

- : 
possible 
overexploitation of 
soil  and  water  by 
energy plantations 

-: 
potential 
competition  for 
land,  conversion 
of  semi-natural 
land  into  energy 
crop 
production/tree 
plantation 

+:  increased  share 
of 
renewables, 
lower  demand  due 
increased 
to 
energy efficiency 

of 

-:unsustainable 
practices 
biomass 
production  can  in 
some cases lead to 
or 
deforestation 
soil 
carbon 
depletion 

+:  reduction  of 
GHGs 
emissions  and 
the 
lower 
pressure 
of 
climate 
change,  

-:  direct  and 
land 
indirect 
changes 
use 
due 
to 
increased  EU 
biomass 
demand,  with 
potential 
negative 

EN 

25 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Key EU policy 
area 
relevant 
for 
biodiversity 

A. Contribution to achieving the 2020 EU biodiversity target  

B. Contribution to reducing main pressures on biodiversity 

1. Halting biodiversity loss 

a.  Protected 
area/ species 

b.  Other  land 
/ fresh water 

c.  Marine 
environment 

Halting 

2. 
degradation 
of  ecosystem 
services (ES) 

3. Restoration 
of 
biodiversity 
&  ecosystem 
services 

habitats. 

those 
order  for 
biofuels 
to  be 
counted  towards 
the  2020  targets 
to  benefit 
and 
from 
financial 
support 

4. 
Counteracti
ng 
increased 
loss 
of 
biodiversity 
at 
global 
level 

consequences 
for  biodversity 
in 
third 
countries 

n
o
i
t
a
t
i
o
l
p
x
e
-
r
e
v
O

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
g
a
r
F

e
g
n
a
h
c

e
t
a
m

i
l

C

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

e
v
i
s
a
v
n
I

n
o
i
t
u
l
l
o
P

potential 
of 

to 

- 
conversion 
natural/semi-
natural 
land 
biofuel 
plantations, 
biofuel 
plantation 
monocultures 
having 
biodiversity 

less 

External relations  

+ 

+/- 

+/- 

+/-- 

- 

-- 

- 

0 

+ 

-- 

- 

Thematic 
Programme 
for 
Environment  and 
Natural  Resources 
(ENRTP), 
European 
Neighbourhood 
and 
Instrument 
(ENPI), 
Development 

Partnership 

+:  CBD,  other 
biodiversity-
targeted 
programmes  and 
funding 

-:  -:  international 
trade  can  drive 
habitat 
in 
third countries 

loss 

+:  biodiversity-
targeted 
programmes  and 
funding 

+:  biodiversity-
targeted 
programmes 
and funding 

+:  biodiversity-
targeted 
programmes  and 
funding 

+:  biodiversity-
targeted 
programmes  and 
funding 

-:  -:  international 
trade  can  drive 
overexploitation 
of  resources 
in 
third countries 

-: 

-: 
international 
trade  can  drive 
overexploitatio
n  of  resources 

-: -: international 
trade  can  drive 
overexploitation 
of ecosystems in 
third countries 

-:  -:  international 
trade  can  drive 
overexploitation 
of  ecosystems  in 
third countries 

+:  OCTs  and 
ORs, 
Voluntary 
Partnership 
Agreements 
(VPA) 
FLEGT 

under 

CITES, 

+: 
certification 
criteria 

-: 
international 
trade  can  drive 
overexploitation of 
resources  in  third 

FLEGT, 

+: 
biodiversity 
targeted 
programmes 

-: 
increased 
introduction  of 
through 
IAS 
increased trade  

increased 

-: 
pollution 
through 
increased trade 
and transport 

EN 

26 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A. Contribution to achieving the 2020 EU biodiversity target  

B. Contribution to reducing main pressures on biodiversity 

1. Halting biodiversity loss 

a.  Protected 
area/ species 

b.  Other  land 
/ fresh water 

c.  Marine 
environment 

Halting 

2. 
degradation 
of  ecosystem 
services (ES) 

3. Restoration 
of 
biodiversity 
&  ecosystem 
services 

in 
countries 

third 

4. 
Counteracti
ng 
increased 
loss 
of 
biodiversity 
at 
global 
level 

n
o
i
t
a
t
i
o
l
p
x
e
-
r
e
v
O
countries 

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
g
a
r
F

e
g
n
a
h
c

e
t
a
m

i
l

C

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

e
v
i
s
a
v
n
I

n
o
i
t
u
l
l
o
P

Key EU policy 
area 
relevant 
for 
biodiversity 

and 

Cooperation 
Economic 
Cooperation 
Instrument 
(DCECI), 
European 
Development 
Fund (EDF) 

Millennium 
Development 
Goals (MDG) 

Global 
Environment 
Facility (GEF) 

CITES 

EU  Forest  Law 
Enforcement, 
Governance 
Trade 
Action Plan 

and 
(FLEGT) 

Trade and other bi- 
or 
multilateral 
agreements 

Fisheries 

and  +/-- 

 - 

+++/--- 

+++/--- 

++/--- 

++ 

+/-- 

- 

0 

--- 

++ 

EN 

27 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Key EU policy 
area 
relevant 
for 
biodiversity 

Marine policies  

Marine 
CFP, 
FWD 
Strategy 
(2008)  ,  Integrated 
Coastal 
Zone 
Management, 

Illegal 
(IUU) 

fishing 

A. Contribution to achieving the 2020 EU biodiversity target  

B. Contribution to reducing main pressures on biodiversity 

1. Halting biodiversity loss 

a.  Protected 
area/ species 

b.  Other  land 
/ fresh water 

c.  Marine 
environment 

Halting 

2. 
degradation 
of  ecosystem 
services (ES) 

3. Restoration 
of 
biodiversity 
&  ecosystem 
services 

4. 
Counteracti
ng 
increased 
loss 
of 
biodiversity 
at 
global 
level 

n
o
i
t
a
t
i
o
l
p
x
e
-
r
e
v
O

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
g
a
r
F

e
g
n
a
h
c

e
t
a
m

i
l

C

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

e
v
i
s
a
v
n
I

-:  intensive  fish 
farming,  use  of 
invasive  species, 
overnutrification 

+:  extensive  fish 
farming  methods 
in 
protected 
areas, 
management  and 
restoration  plans 
for 
targeted 
species  

-: 
overfishing, 
intensive  fishing 
destructive 
fishing  practices, 
and 
unsustainable 
fish 
methods, 
overnutrification 

farming 

+: TAC & Quota 

-:  Other  uses  of 
marine 
ecosystem 
(recreation) 
degraded 

+: 
ecosystems 
based  approach 
of 
Marine 
Strategy 
Framework 
Directive 

-: 
Intensive 
overfishing  and 
destructive 
fishing  practices 
destroying 
marine 
ecosystems 

Total 

+: 
Allowable 
Catch (TAC) & 
Quota 
Regulation, 
Maximum 
Sustainable 
Yield  of  fish 
stocks, 
Community 
Action Plan for 
Sharks, 
combating 
Illegal, 
Unreported and 
Unregulated 
fishing 

-:  Overfishing, 
harmful 
methods, 
catch  

by-

+:  covering  all 
EU  seas  and 
fleet 

+:  MSY,  Good 
Environmental 
Status 

-: degradation of 
sea 
bed, 
destructive 
practices 

No 
direct 
mitigation  and/or 
adaptation actions 

-: 
Introduction 
and dispersal of 
IAS 

-:  overfishing,  by-
catch, discard 

-:  EU 
/  MS 
subsidies  & 
lack  of  control 
on  EU 
fleet 
enables  fishing 
in  grounds  of 
developing 
countries 

n
o
i
t
u
l
l
o
P

MSY 
to 
of 
and 

+: 
leading 
reduction 
fleet 
fishing 
activities 

Plant  and  Animal 
Health policies 

+++ 

+++ 

0 

++ 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

+++ 

- 

health 
Plant 
animal 
directive, 
health 
legislation 
(various  directives 
and regulations) 

+:  Both  regimes 
are  under  review 
the 
and 
of 
possibility 
their 
expanding 

+:  Both  regimes 
are  under  review 
the 
and 
of 
possibility 
their 
expanding 

Marine 
environment 
outside 
scope 

the 

first 

2 

See 
columns: 
reducing 
impact 
invasive 

the 
of 
alien 

Scope 
prevention 
eradication 

on 
and 

Scope on EU 

Scope  on  health 
and safety 

Scope  on  health 
and safety 

Scope  on  health 
and safety 

EN 

28 

+: the review of 
the Plant Health 
to 
Regime 
consider 
the 
inclusion  of  all 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Key EU policy 
area 
relevant 
for 
biodiversity 

A. Contribution to achieving the 2020 EU biodiversity target  

B. Contribution to reducing main pressures on biodiversity 

e
g
n
a
h
c

e
t
a
m

i
l

C

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

e
v
i
s
a
v
n
I

invasive 
alien 
plants  causing 
damage  to  the 
wider 
environment 

n
o
i
t
u
l
l
o
P

1. Halting biodiversity loss 

a.  Protected 
area/ species 

b.  Other  land 
/ fresh water 

c.  Marine 
environment 

Halting 

2. 
degradation 
of  ecosystem 
services (ES) 

3. Restoration 
of 
biodiversity 
&  ecosystem 
services 

4. 
Counteracti
ng 
increased 
loss 
of 
biodiversity 
at 
global 
level 

n
o
i
t
a
t
i
o
l
p
x
e
-
r
e
v
O

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
g
a
r
F

species  will  also 
be  beneficial  for 
the 
ecosystem 
services,  control 
measures  may 
also 
affect 
ecosystem 
services 

scope  to  include 
pest  and  diseases 
of wild species is 
under 
consideration 

+:  If  plant  health 
regime  considers 
the  inclusion  of 
all  invasive  alien 
causing 
plants 
damage 
the 
to 
wider 
environment, this 
means  that  also 
plants 
aquatic 
would 
be 
included 

Control 
-: 
measures  may 
direct 
cause 
and/or 
indirect 
damage  to  other 
fresh 
lands  or 
(e.g. 
water 
spreading 
pesticides) 

scope  to  include 
pest  and  diseases 
of wild species is 
under 
consideration; 
plant 
for 
the 
health 
regime, 
the  possibility  of 
including 
all 
alien 
invasive 
causing 
plants 
damage 
the 
to 
wider 
environment 
is 
being considered 

-: 
Control 
measures  may 
direct 
cause 
to 
damage 
protected 
areas 
(e.g.  tree  felling 
against pinewood 
nematode) 

Control 
-: 
measures  may 
indirect 
cause 
damage 
to 
areas 
protected 
spreading 
(e.g. 
pesticides) 

EN 

29 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Key EU policy 
area 
relevant 
for 
biodiversity 

Regional 
development  

EU 
Policy 
ESF, CF) 

Regional 
(ERDF, 

A. Contribution to achieving the 2020 EU biodiversity target  

B. Contribution to reducing main pressures on biodiversity 

1. Halting biodiversity loss 

a.  Protected 
area/ species 

b.  Other  land 
/ fresh water 

c.  Marine 
environment 

Halting 

2. 
degradation 
of  ecosystem 
services (ES) 

3. Restoration 
of 
biodiversity 
&  ecosystem 
services 

4. 
Counteracti
ng 
increased 
loss 
of 
biodiversity 
at 
global 
level 

n
o
i
t
a
t
i
o
l
p
x
e
-
r
e
v
O

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
g
a
r
F

e
g
n
a
h
c

e
t
a
m

i
l

C

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

e
v
i
s
a
v
n
I

n
o
i
t
u
l
l
o
P

++/-- 

+/-- 

+/- 

+/-- 

++/-- 

+ 

0 

--- 

+/- 

+/--- 

++/-- 

investments 

+: 
directly 
benefiting 
biodiversity, 
compliance  with 
regulations,  

+:  contributions 
to  environmental 
quality, 
investments 
waste 
treatment 

in 
water 

-:  fragmentation, 
competition 
for 
land, natural area 
clearing 
for 
infrastructure 

-: 
grey 
infrastructure  & 
urban 
development, 
habitat 
destruction  

-:  development 
of  ports  and 
seashore 
investments 
putting  at  risk 
nature 
and 
biodiversity 

+:  programmes 
and  projects  on 
integrated 
coastal 
management, 
coastal 
protection 

+: 
environmental 
quality 
improvement,  in 
particular 
for 
water bodies  

-:  land  for  urban 
sprawl/ 
grey 
infrastructure 

environ-
quality 

+: 
mental 
improvement 
facilitates  ESS, 
investment 
in 
Green 
Infrastructure, 
investments 
in 
rehabilitation  of 
contaminated 
land, 
floodplains… 

-: land for urban / 
infrastructure 

EU 

territorial 

+: 
cohesion, 
making 
businesses 
competitive 
thus 
import rates 

reducing 

ecosystem 

+: 
based 
approaches 

energy 

+: 
efficiency, 
isolation, 
renewable  energy 
investments 

+: 
projects/measur
reduce 
es 
IAS 
in  some 
programmes 

to 

grey 

spatial 

-: 
infrastructure, 
strong 
dimension, 
without  built-in 
biodiversity 
criteria 

-:  

-:  no  criterion  to 
ensure no negative 
impact  on  climate 
change 

+:  investments 
in 
technologies 
reducing 
pollution 
(BAT) 

-: development 
of 
infrastructure 
and 
increasing 
pollution 

facilities 

EIA/SEA 

++ 

+ 

0 

+ 

0 

++ 

++ 

+++ 

0 

0 

+++ 

+:  aim  to  avoid 
destruction; 
mitigation 
compensation 
measures 

and 

+: all major plans 
and 
projects 
covered 

+:  aim  to  avoid 
destruction; 
mitigation 
compensation 
measures 

and 

+:  assessments 
applied 
in 
Outermost 
Regions 
Overseas 
Territories 

and 

+:  aim  to  avoid 
destruction; 
mitigation 
compensation 
measures 

and 

+:  aim  to  avoid 
destruction; 
mitigation 
compensation 
measures 

and 

change 
sufficiently 
by 

Climate 
not 
addressed 
EIA/SEA 

IAS 
addressed 
EIA/SEA 

not 
by 

+: 
complex 
assessment  of 
all 
environmental 
impacts 

Transport/ 

+/--- 

--- 

0/- 

--- 

-- 

--- 

0 

--- 

-- 

-- 

- 

EN 

30 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A. Contribution to achieving the 2020 EU biodiversity target  

B. Contribution to reducing main pressures on biodiversity 

Key EU policy 
area 
relevant 
for 
biodiversity 

1. Halting biodiversity loss 

a.  Protected 
area/ species 

b.  Other  land 
/ fresh water 

c.  Marine 
environment 

Halting 

2. 
degradation 
of  ecosystem 
services (ES) 

3. Restoration 
of 
biodiversity 
&  ecosystem 
services 

Infrastructure  and 
Energy 
Trans 
European 
Networks  

TEN-T, TEN-E,  

+:  application  of 
practices 
best 
minimising 
or 
eliminating 
negative impacts 

+: 
new 
technology  with 
lower  pollution 
and  noise  levels, 
sustainable 
transport 
initiative 

conversion 

-: 
and 
urbanisation 
due 
infrastructures 

to  new 

-:  fragmentation, 
loss, 
habitat 
of 
destruction 
populations 
of 
protected  species 
and  habitats  both 
during 
construction  and 
functioning 

expected 
-: 
increase  in  total 
transport volume, 
development  of 
new 
transport 
infrastructures 
destroying 
habitats, 
impact 
assessment 
nature 
conservation 
criteria  

on 

no 

+:  compensation 
measures 

degradation, 

-: 
conversion, 
destruction 

+: 
new 
technology  with 
lower  pollution 
and noise levels 

-: 
expected 
increase  in  total 
transport 
volume, 
contribution 
to 
main  pressures 
on  biodiversity 
(pollution, 
climate  change 
etc.) 

4. 
Counteracti
ng 
increased 
loss 
of 
biodiversity 
at 
global 
level 

-: 
fragmentation 
and 
habitat 
loss  adding  up 
to  the  already 
fragmented EU 

n
o
i
t
a
t
i
o
l
p
x
e
-
r
e
v
O

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
g
a
r
F

No  direct  policy 
measures 
on 
natural resources 

conversion, 
loss, 

-: 
habitat 
fragmentation, 

e
g
n
a
h
c

e
t
a
m

i
l

C

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

e
v
i
s
a
v
n
I

-: 
degraded 
ecosystems  having 
lower  mitigation 
adaptation 
and 
capabilities, 
increased 
higher 
demand 

traffic, 
fuel 

-: 
IAS 
spreading  along 
linear 
infrastructures; 
increased 
transport 
raising  risk  of 
IAS 
introduction 

n
o
i
t
u
l
l
o
P

increased 

-: 
pollution 

Water policies  

+++ 

+++ 

+ 

+++ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

+++ 

Water  Framework 
Directive, 
Flood 
risk  management  , 
Groundwater, 
Urban  Wastewater 
Treatment 
Directive,  Nitrates 
Directive, 

EN 

+: 
improving 
ecological  status 
of water and soil 

+: 
improving 
ecological  status 
of water and soil 

+:  in  the  long 
run 
improved 
ecological 
status 
in 
marine systems 

regulating 
cultural 

+: 
and 
services 
improving 
(recreational, 
sport fishing) 

enhances 

+: 
restoration 
projects, 
ecosystem  based 
approaches  e.g. 
risk 
flood 
for 
management 

+: 
Improvement 
of  the  quality 
of  river  basins 
shared 
with 
third  countries, 
.  

+:  good  ecological 
status  of  water 
bodies 

river  basin 

+: 
management 

+: 
risk 
flood 
prevention through 
Green 
Infrastructure 

good 

+: 
ecological 
status 

+:  quality  of 
inland 
both 
and 
ground 
water 

31 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A. Contribution to achieving the 2020 EU biodiversity target  

B. Contribution to reducing main pressures on biodiversity 

1. Halting biodiversity loss 

a.  Protected 
area/ species 

b.  Other  land 
/ fresh water 

c.  Marine 
environment 

Halting 

2. 
degradation 
of  ecosystem 
services (ES) 

3. Restoration 
of 
biodiversity 
&  ecosystem 
services 

4. 
Counteracti
ng 
increased 
loss 
of 
biodiversity 
at 
global 
level 

n
o
i
t
a
t
i
o
l
p
x
e
-
r
e
v
O

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
g
a
r
F

e
g
n
a
h
c

e
t
a
m

i
l

C

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

e
v
i
s
a
v
n
I

n
o
i
t
u
l
l
o
P

Key EU policy 
area 
relevant 
for 
biodiversity 

Environmental 
Quality  Standards 
Directive 

+++, ++, + = relevant; most, many and some positive results expected (policy present and effective); 

-, --, --- = relevant; generally negative results expected (policy not present, or in-effective);  

+/- = relevant; positive and negative results may vary across Europe; across policy tools; across species or habitats; or services; 

0 = not relevant or not of significant importance 

EN 

32 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  7  –ANALYSIS  OF  AGRICULTURAL  AREA  POTENTIALLY  COVERED  BY  BIODIVERSITY-

RELATED MEASURES 

1. Rationale:  

The aim is to estimate the area covered by the components of agricultural land that are likely 
to deliver the highest benefits if targeted by adequate measures. Grasslands and Natura 2000 
have been highlighted as likely targets for payments in the communication on the future CAP 
reform. High Nature Value (HNV) is not explicitly highlighted, but would be covered by agri-
environmental measures, as it is already done at present to some extent.  

In addition, a proportion of more intensive arable land can also deliver biodiversity benefits 
through the use of complementary measures such as set-aside and crop-rotation, which were 
also highlighted as possible elements of the greening component of the first pillar in the new 
CAP. 

Currently  22%  of  the  Utilised  Agricultural  Area  (UAA)  is  covered  by  some  type  of  agri-
environment contract. It can be assumed that about 15% of the UAA can be associated with 
biodiversity targets. 

2. Data sources: 

Eurostat  produces  official  statistics  on  the  use  of  utilised  agricultural  areas.  The  latest  data 
(2007) for EU-27 are: 60% of UAA under arable land, 33% under grassland, and 6% under 
permanent crops. 

Corine Land Cover (CLC) data are also a useful source of information, but do not correlate 
exactly with official statistics. Areas that are too small to be visible through remote sensing 
are  not  measured.  In  addition,  some  categories  of  agricultural  land  are  classified  in 
“heterogeneous”  classes,  making  it  difficult  to  estimate  its  components  separately  (arable, 
permanent crops and grasslands). 

For example according to CLC data, grasslands represent only 22.5% of UAA. Comparing to 
official statistics, this means that about 10% of UAA as grassland are not directly measured, 
either because  they  are  hidden in  heterogeneous CLC agricultural categories48 (i.e. complex 
cultivation  patterns)  or  because  they  are  embedded  in  other  non-agricultural  classes  (i.e. 
forests).  In  addition,  in  some  countries,  natural  vegetation  such  as  moors  and  heathland, 
transitional woodland-shrub, sclerophyllous vegetation are included in UAA official statistics. 
This  is  for  example  the  case  of  Scotland.  The  CLC  estimates  of  grasslands  based  on  'UAA 
like' categories are therefore clearly an underestimate. 

48 

Gallego,  J.  and  Bamps,  C.,  2008.  Using  CORINE  land  cover  and  the  point  survey  LUCAS  for  area 
estimation, International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 10:467–475. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. Analysis based on HNV, N2000 and grassland areas 

% of EU 
UAA 

26

33

10

7.1

16.5

3.1

48.5

HNV 

Grasslands 

Natura 2000 

 - Nat 2000/HNV overlap 

 - Grasslands/HNV overlap 

+ 
overlap 

grasslands/HNV/Natura2000 

Explanation of categories: 

• 

HNV area in total EU UAA 

Estimation from the Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) based on CLC categories that 
can be related to UAA ('UAA-like' categories), covering EU-24. 

• 

Grasslands in total EU UAA 

Official Eurostat statistics (2007, EU-27) 

• 

Natura 2000 area in total EU UAA 

JRC estimation based on 'UAA-like' CLC categories, for EU-24. 

• 

Overlap between HNV and Natura 2000 areas: 

According  to  JRC  estimations  based  on  CLC  data,  71%  of  Natura  2000  agricultural  area 
(based  on  CLC  categories  that  can  be  linked  to  UAA)  is  HNV.  Applied  to  10%  of  UAA 
covered by Natura 2000, this represents 7.1% of total UAA 

• 

Overlap between HNV and Grassland areas: 

According to JRC estimations, half of grasslands is HNV. Applied to 33% of grasslands, this 
represents 16.5% of total UAA. 

• 

Overlap between HNV, grasslands and Natura 2000 

This  area  has  been  substracted  twice  in  the  above  two  categories,  and  needs  to  be  added  in 
compensation.  According  to  JRC  estimations,  based  on  'UAA-like'  CLC  categories,  this 
represents 3.1% of total UAA. 

2.  Analysis  based  on  disaggregation  of  arable  land,  permanent  crops  and  grassland  in 
total HNV, Natura 2000 and grassland. 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
  
  
According  to  JRC  estimation  of  'UAA-like'  CLC  categories,  the  disaggregation  of  HNV, 
Natura 2000 and grassland areas is as follows (without overlaps between categories): 

total 

% 
UAA 

4.1

0.83

22.5+7

11.92

46.35

Arable 

Permanent crops 

Grassland 

Heterogeneous agricultural 
areas  

Total  

Included in these categories are: 

• 

Arable land 

This is the proportion of CLC categories that can be directly related to arable land in UAA 
(Non-irrigated arable land, Permanently irrigated land, Rice fields) 

• 

Permanent crops 

This  is  the  proportion  of  CLC  categories  that  can  be  directly  related  to  permanent  crops  in 
UAA (Vineyards, Fruit trees and berry plantations, Olive groves) 

• 

Grassland 

This  is  the  proportion  of  CLC  categories  that  can  be  directly  related  to  grassland  in  UAA 
(Pastures and Natural grasslands). However, when comparing to official statistics, it is clear 
that  this  is  an  underestimate  of  grasslands,  and  that  10.5%  is  contained  in  heterogeneous 
areas. Assuming that the Heterogeneous agricultural areas in HNV and Natura 2000 already 
counted below include 1/3 of grasslands, 7% of grassland outside HNV and Natura 2000 still 
need to be added. 

• 

Heterogeneous agricultural areas 

This  includes  the  following  categories,  which  are  either  in  HNV  and  Natura  2000:  annual 
crops  associated  with  permanent  crops  +  complex  cultivation  pattern  +  land  principally 
occupied  by  agriculture  with  significant  areas  of  natural  vegetation  +  agroforestry  areas. 
These categories represent different proportions of a mix of arable land, permanent crops and 
grassland, which is not possible to allocate precisely. 

Conclusion 

Based on these two different methods, it can be concluded that a plausible proportion of area 
covered  by  HNV,  Natura  2000  and  Grasslands  would  be  between  45  and  50%  of  UAA. 
Including a higher proportion than this under biodiversity-related measures in the new CAP 
reform would involve targeting more intensive arable and permanent crop land, for example 
through  set-aside  and  crop  rotation  measures.  Covering  an  additional  10  to  15%  of  UAA 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
under  more  intensive  agricultural  land  would  imply  a  realistic  proportion  of  about  60%  of 
UAA under biodiversity-related measures. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 8 – JUSTIFICATION OF FEASIBILITY OF THE NATURE CONSERVATION TARGET 

"To  halt  the  deterioration  in  the  status  of  all  species  and  habitats  covered  by  EU  nature 
legislation and achieve a significant and measurable improvement in their status so that, by 
2020,  compared  to  current  assessments:  (i)  100%  more  habitat  assessments  and  50%  more 
species assessments under the Habitats Directive show an improved conservation status; and 
(ii)  50%  more  species  assessments  under  the  Birds  Directive  show  a  secure  or  improved 
status " 

1. 

Habitat types and species under the Habitats Directive 

Background 

The Habitats Directive target uses the first conservation status assessment under Article 17 of 
the  Directive  for  habitat  types  and  species  of  Community  importance.  This  EU  level 
assessment was published in 2009 based on national reports provided by the Member States. 
The assessment will be repeated every 6 years, with a next round of national reports foreseen 
in 2013.  

The  European  Environment  Agency,  with  the  support  of  the  European  Topic  Centre  for 
Biodiversity,  helped  develop  this  sub  target  using  data  from  the  2009  assessment.  The 
feasibility assessment relates to the conservation status (defined as favourable, unfavourable –
inadequate,  unfavourable-bad,  unknown)  for  each  habitat  type  and  each  species  in  each 
biogeographical  region  and  looks  at  four  parameters  for  both  habitat  types  and  species  that 
underpin  the  Article  17  conservation  status  assessments49.  A  species  or  habitat  type  is 
considered  to  have  a  favourable  conservation  status  only  if  either  all  four  parameters  are 
positive or three are positive and one "unknown".  

Feasibility 

The  assessment  is  based  on  the  assumption  that  if  adequate  conservation  management 
measures  are  carried  out  certain  parameters  (habitat  area  for  species,  population  and  future 
prospects for species and future prospects and structure & functions for the habitat types) will 
improve.  Range  is  not  considered  likely  to  change  significantly  over  the  relatively  short 
period of time up to 2020.  

Improvements in only one or two parameters are considered most likely during the period up 
to  2020.  Signs  of  potential  improvement  within  single  parameters  are  also  included  in  the 
assessments  to  make  the  target  more  sensitive  to  trends  and  improvements  that  do  not 
necessarily trigger a change in overall status. Based on these assumptions and using the EU-
assessment  database  the  calculations  of  what  could  be  considered  as  realistic  improvements 
were made. This analysis used 2240 assessments for species and 701 assessments for habitats 
at the biogeographical level. 

49 

For  species  the  parameters  are  population,  habitats  for  the  species,  range  and  future  prospects.  For 
habitat types the parameters are area covered by the habitat type, specific structures & functions as well 
as typical species, range, and future prospects. 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
                                                 
For species, using ‘population’, ‘habitat for the species’ and ‘future prospects’ as parameters 
most  likely  to  change  between  assessments,  it  was  estimated  that  the  maximum  attainable 
improvement is 

–  7 % from unfavourable-inadequate (U1) to favourable (FV) and 

–  4 % from unfavourable-bad (U2) to unfavourable-inadequate (U1). 

For habitats, using the parameters ‘habitat area’, 'structure & functions' and 'future prospects', 
the estimated maximum improvement is 

–  13 % from unfavourable-inadequate (U1) to favourable (FV) and 

–  11 % from unfavourable-bad (U2) to unfavourable-inadequate (U1). 

The  other  level  of  the  assessment  looks  at  the  potential  for  improvement  within  selected 
parameters. To assess potential improvement within U1 and U2 assessments trend data under 
the  parameter  ‘population’  for  species  and  ‘area  of  habitat’  for  habitats  were  used.  It  was 
ensured  that  assessments  were  not  double-counted  with  the  ‘traffic  light’  assessment  above. 
As  a  result  of  this  analysis,  about  2%  more  species  assessments  show  potential  for 
improvement (within a conservation status category). The equivalent figure for habitats is less 
than 1 %. 

Conclusion 

When the above mentioned figures are aggregated (FV, + potential improvement from amber 
(U1)  to  green  (FV)  +  potential  improvement  from  red  (U2)  to  amber  (U1)  +  improvement 
within  selected  parameters)  the  maximum  potential  figure  that  might  be  used  in  a  target  is 
30% for species and 42% for habitats. This includes attaining favourable conservation status, 
improvements in a category of conservation status, and clear signs of improvement that might 
be  detected  by  2020.  As  these  represent  an  absolute  maximum,  slightly  reduced  figures  are 
used  to  make  sure  reaching  the  target  will  be  realistic.  The  proposed  targets  are  25%  in 
favourable or improving conservation status for species and 33% for habitat types.  

Presentation of the target 

The target is presented as a percentage of improvement, i.e. from 17% to 25 % for species and 
from  17%  to  33%  for  habitat  types.  With  some  rounding  this  translates  into  a  50% 
improvement for species and a 100% (i.e. doubling of) improvement for habitat types. 

2. 

Bird species under the Birds Directive 

Background 

All  bird  species  are  protected  under  the  Birds  Directive.  Previous  assessments  of  their 
conservation  status,  prepared  by  BirdLife  International,  have  been  based  on  an  analysis  of 
extinction  risk  of  each  species  and  a  determination  of  species  of  European  conservation 
concern  (SPECs).  The  latest  2004  assessment  for  the  EU  25  Member  States  concluded  that 
52% of species are secure, although the situation appears to vary between different categories 
of species, with migratory and farmland bird species of particular concern. Four categories of 
bird species covered by the Birds Directive can be considered in the context of setting targets 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
for the period up to 2020. It has already been demonstrated that targeted conservation actions 
for Annex I bird species under the Directive have resulted in improvements in conservation 
status for different species. In August 2007 the journal Science published an analysis showing 
that the Birds Directive has made a significant difference in protecting many of Europe's most 
threatened  birds  from  further  decline50.  The  groundbreaking  paper  shows  that  the  Birds 
Directive  has  clearly  helped  those  species  considered  to  be  most  at  risk,  partly  through  the 
designation of Special Protection Areas (SPAs). 

1. Globally threatened species 

60% of these 40 species are already stable or increasing in the EU, which represents important 
progress, given that most of them were declining and in very poor condition in the 1980s and 
1990s. This is largely down to conservation action inspired by EU Species Action Plans and 
often funded by EU projects, particularly the LIFE financial instrument. This has halted the 
decline of many species (e.g. Lesser Kestrel, Great Bustard) and led to dramatic increases in 
others (e.g. White-headed Duck, Imperial Eagle). This recovery can be continued for the other 
40% of species that are currently still declining or have unknown trends.  

2. Annex I species 

Likewise, 76% of these species are already stable or increasing in the EU. Due to the size of 
the species pool, and the fact that some of these species cannot be conserved solely through 
Special  Protection  Areas  as  they  also  need  other  'special  conservation  measures',  e.g.  at 
landscape scale, they will require a suite of conservation measures over the coming decade to 
achieve significant improvements in conservation status. 

3. Migrant species 

Improvements  in  conservation  status  are  clearly  feasible  for  many  species  but  there  are 
particular challenges for declining long-distance migrants. Tackling the problems facing these 
species  will  require  international  collaboration  with  countries  outside  the  EU,  within  the 
framework of the African Eurasian Waterbird Agreement and other mechanisms. 

4. Farmland species 

Thanks  to  a  large  amount  of  research  there  is  now  a  good  scientific  understanding  of  why 
most  farmland  bird  species  are  declining.  Conservation  measures  have  been  developed, 
trialled  and  rolled  out  solutions  developed  that  can  be  deployed  through  agri-environment 
schemes to reverse their declines (and benefit other biodiversity).  

50 

Paul F. Donald, Fiona J. Sanderson,1 Ian J. Burfield,2 Stijn M. Bierman, Richard D. Gregory, Zoltan 
Waliczky International Conservation Policy Delivers Benefits for Birds in Europe Science, 2007. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  above  graph  shows  what  can  be  achieved  by  implementing  targeted  conservation 
measures:  a  near-trebling  of  the  farmland  bird  population  at  the  Royal  Society  for  the 
Protection of Birds (RSPB) Hope Farm in less than a decade51. This is not a special case, but a 
regular  arable  farm  that  the  RSPB  bought  to  demonstrate  that  it  is  perfectly  possible  for 
modern  farming  methods  and  wildlife  to  co-exist,  producing  food  cost-effectively  and 
benefiting  biodiversity.  The  farm  is  not  organic  and  applies  fertiliser,  pesticide,  etc.  in  the 
same  way  as  other  modern  farms.  It  just  makes  full  use  of  agri-environmental  scheme 
measures.  

Feasibility 

Therefore, on the basis of current knowledge, if the necessary conservation measures are put 
in  place  it  is  considered  feasible  to  achieve  a  significant  measurable  improvement  from  the 
current  level  of  52%  of  bird  species  populations  having  secure/good  status  to  a  maximum 
level of 80% of bird species either being secure or showing improving population status by 
2020.  This  formulation  implies  that  all  those  species  currently  in  good  status  should  be 
maintained  there,  whilst  about  50%  of  those  not  in  a  good  status  should  show  signs  of 
improvement (positive trends) by 2020 – some of these may even recover sufficiently to be 
restored to a good status by that time. Obviously, the possibility remains that some other EU 
bird species continue to decline or remain in a less good status. This is probably inevitable, 
especially  for  long  distant  migrants  that  only  spend  part  of  their  annual  cycle  in  the  EU, 
owing to the scale of the challenges facing them. 

Presentation of the target 

The target is presented as a percentage of improvement, i.e. from 52% to 80% for bird 
species. With some rounding this translates into a 50% improvement of population status of 
bird species

51 

Case study by RSPB http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/farming/hopefarm/index.aspx 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 9 – PROPOSED TARGETS IN RELATION TO POLICY PRIORITIES AS HIGHLIGHTED AT COMMISSION, COUNCIL AND GLOBAL LEVEL 

Link to COM (2010)4 

Link to Council Conclusions 

Nature 

T1- 
Conservation 
related target 

"In  Europe,  conservation  assessments  of  species  and  habitats 
show  that,  despite  some  successes,  the  overall  situation  has 
continued to deteriorate." 

"Early estimates show that only 20% of the total financing needs 
for managing protected areas in Europe are being met." 

Restoration 
Green 

T2- 
and 
Infrastructure 
related target 

"Appropriate forms of land and maritime management are needed 
to  maintain  and  enhance  ecosystems  that  provide  ecosystem 
services to society at large" 

to  ensuring 

"while  EU  regulations  contribute 
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’ in the 83% of EU territory falling outside 
the Natura 2000 network.." 

that 

CC March 2010 

" Reaffirming that protected areas and ecological networks are a 
cornerstone of efforts to preserve biodiversity, stresses the need to 
fully implement the Birds and Habitats Directives, to speed up the 
completion of the Natura 2000 Network, both on land and at sea, 
and to put in place adequate finance, taking into account also that 
biodiversity  is  unevenly  spread  throughout  the  EU,  and  effective 
management and restoration measures;" 

CC Dec 2009 

"Highlights  the  mitigation  and  adaptation  potential  of  resilient 
wetlands,  oceans,  forests,  peatlands  and  grasslands  and  other 
ecosystems" 

CC March 2010 

"Emphasizes  the  contribution  of  Green  Infrastructure"  to  climate 
adaptation  and  mitigation  objectives, 
to  prevent  habitat 
fragmentation,  to  increase  connectivity  and  to  maintain  species 
evolution processes" " Calls on the Commission to further develop 
this process" 

Link to global targets 
in the revised 
Strategic Plan for 
Biodiversity 2011-2020 

This would be linked to 
T1,  T5,  T11 
(in 
particular), T12 

This would be linked to 
T2,  T5,  T6,  T7,  T11, 
T10,  T14,  T5 
(in 
particular) 

T3- 
Agriculture 
and forestry related 
target 

"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"  

CC December 2009 

"Acknowledges that agrobiodiversity is an important element with 
significant  potential  for  improving  food  security  and  climate 

This would be linked to 
the 
of 
achievement 
targets  T3,  T4,  T7  (in 
particular),  T8,  T13, 

EN 

41 

EN 

 
  
 
Link to COM (2010)4 

Link to Council Conclusions 

Link to global targets 
in the revised 
Strategic Plan for 
Biodiversity 2011-2020 

change mitigation and adaptation" 

T14, T15 

T4- 
related target 

Fisheries 

"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." 

CC December 2009 

"Acknowledges  the  need  for  a  growing  world  population  to 
sustainably  use  marine  resources  and  stresses  the  urgent  need  to 
reverse the loss of freshwater, marine and coastal biodiversity" 

T5-  Invasive  Alien 
Species 
related 
target 

COM(2008) 789 final 

CC June 2009 

"Halting  the  loss  of  biodiversity  in  the  EU  will  not  be  possible 
without  tackling  IS  in  a  comprehensive  manner.  The  ecological, 
economic and social consequences of IS in the EU are significant 
and require a coordinated response. […] 

The  Commission  will  examine  the  possibility  of  setting  up  an 
Early  Warning  and  Information  System  based  on  a  regularly 
updated  inventory  combined  with  effective  response  mechanisms 
which it considers would be an important step forward". 

"  Recalls  the  urgent  need  for  an  EU  strategy  on  invasive  alien 
species " 

" Calls for an effective Strategy which should fill the existing gaps 
at EU level and establish a comprehensive EU IAS framework in a 
proportionate and cost-effective manner including by providing for 
legislative  elements  and,  where  necessary, 
new,  dedicated 
amending or incorporating existing provisions"  

This would be linked to 
T3,  T4,  T6 
(in 
particular), T10 

This would be linked to 
target T9 

Global 
T6- 
contribution related 
target  

"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 globally, 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." 

CC Dec 2009 

"Stresses the need to take measures to reduce the EU's ecological 
footprint" 

CC March 2010 

"Promote  all  necessary  measures  to  protect  biodiversity  in  third 
countries" 

This would be linked to 
T2,  T3,  T4,  T16,  T18, 
T20 

EN 

42 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 10 – GLOBAL 2020 TARGETS AND MEASURES REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THEM

52 

2020 Global target (agreed at CBD COP10) 

Current action(s) within the EU 

Target 1: By 2020, at the latest, people are aware of the 
values  of  biodiversity  and  the  steps  they  can  take  to 
conserve and use it sustainably. 

Efforts  to  step  up  communication  and  raise  awareness 
about  biodiversity  were  stepped  up  in  recent  years, 
International  Year  of 
especially  during 
Biodiversity.  The  Commission 
launched  a  major 
biodiversity  awareness  raising  campaign  for  this  purpose 
in early 2010. 

the  2010 

EU contribution towards achieving the 2020 global 
target 

This 
the 
is  an  ongoing  challenge  underpinning 
achievement of all other targets, and cannot be achieved 
through a single activity or measure but rather needs to be 
pursued  as  a  cross-cutting 
levels  of 
government and in all relevant sectors to be effective. 

issue  at  all 

Therefore, it is to be integrated as a cross-cutting issue in 
the  EU  biodiversity  strategy.  Additionally,  for  example 
among  the  measures  proposed  under  target  1  involves  a 
communication  campaign  on  Natura  2000  to  be  carried 
out by the Commission. 

Further  actions  will  be  required  at  all 
government and in all relevant sectors. 

levels  of 

Target 2: By 2020, at the latest, biodiversity values have 
been  integrated  into  national  and  local  development  and 
poverty  reduction  strategies  and  planning  processes  and 
are  being 
into  national  accounting,  as 
incorporated 
appropriate, and reporting systems.  

Based on the Treaty, environment policy objectives are to 
be  achieved  through  policy  integration.  Thus,  several  EU 
policies  take  partial  account  of  biodiversity  concerns  and 
provide  opportunities  to  invest  in  actions  promoting 
biodiversity (see Policy Baseline). The current work of the 
Commission  to  develop  the  Green  Infrastructure  concept 
and  subsequently  put  it  in  place  is  especially  focusing  on 
development  and  spatial  planning  based  on  a  strategic, 
ecosystem-based approach. 

The  integration  of  biodiversity  values  into  national  and 
regional  development  policies  and  national  accounting 

The  selection  of  the  6  targets  of  the  EU  biodiversity 
strategy  is  partly  designed  to  enable  better  integration 
within the EU. 

Target  2  will  contribute  to  incorporating  biodiversity 
values into accounting and reporting systems. Target 6 of 
the  EU  biodiversity  strategy  is  expected  to  contribute 
partially  towards  achieving  this  target  by  assisting 
developing country partners with biodiversity integration 
into  development  planning  and  undertaking  work  on 
valuation.  However,  additional  measures  beyond  the 
scope of the EU strategy will be required to achieve this 

52 

For more on EU action, please see Annex on Policy Baseline. 

EN 

43 

EN 

 
  
 
                                                 
2020 Global target (agreed at CBD COP10) 

Current action(s) within the EU 

EU contribution towards achieving the 2020 global 
target 

systems is a key recommendation from the TEEB study.  

target at EU level. 

Target  3:  By  2020,  at  the  latest,  incentives,  including 
subsidies  harmful  to  biodiversity  are  eliminated, 
phased  out  or  reformed  in  order  to  minimize  or  avoid 
negative 
the 
conservation  and  sustainable  use  of  biodiversity  are 
developed and applied, consistent and in harmony with the 
Convention  and  other  relevant  international  obligations, 
taking into account national socio-economic conditions.  

impacts,  and  positive 

incentives 

for 

In addition to taking action to implement this target within 
the EU, the EU can also contribute to the achievement of 
this  target  at  global  level  by  providing  assistance  to  third 
countries in carrying out work on valuation of biodiversity 
and  ecosystem  services  and  enhancing  the  integration  of 
biodiversity in national development and poverty reduction 
strategies.  

In  its  Europe  2020  Strategy,  the  EU  recognised  the 
negative  effects  on  the  environment  of  different  existing 
subsidies and called upon the Member States to phase out 
environmentally  harmful  subsidies,  limiting  exceptions  to 
people  with  social  needs.  This  exercise  will  need  to  be 
followed  and  strengthened  with  the  development  and 
implementation  of  the  flagship  initiative  on  Resource 
Efficiency.  

The  ongoing  reforms  of  the  main  EU  policies  (e.g.  CAP, 
CFP  and  Regional  Development)  provide  an  excellent 
opportunity  for  further  integration  to  achieve  that  no  EU 
funds  counteract  biodiversity  objectives.  Ensuring  that 
biodiversity  concerns  are  adequately  reflected  in  these 
initiatives will be key to achieving this CBD target. 

Targets  3  and  4  of  the  EU  biodiversity  strategy  are 
expected  to  promote  positive  incentives  for  biodiversity 
conservation and sustainable use.  

Biodiversity  concerns  (impacts,  benefits)  should  also  be 
integrated into the EU's subsidy reform agenda.  

Target  4:  By  2020,  at  the  latest,  Governments,  business 
and stakeholders at all levels have taken steps to achieve 
or  have  implemented  plans  for  sustainable  production 
and  consumption  and  have  kept  the  impacts  of  use  of 
natural resources well within safe ecological limits. 

The  EU  has  put  considerable  effort  towards  promoting 
sustainable  consumption  and  production  patterns  over  the 
past decades. Numerous initiatives have been taken both at 
EU and national levels, such as the Sustainable Production 
and Consumption and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action 
Plan (SCP/SIP), EMAS or Eco-labelling. The Europe 2020 
Strategy  aims  at  achieving,  among  others,  sustainable 
growth  and  identifies  resource  efficiency  as  one  of  its 

Several  targets  in  the  EU  biodiversity  strategy  will 
require  planning  aimed  at  improving  resource  use  and 
impacts  on  biodiversity,  most 
minimising  negative 
specifically  T3,  T4  and  T6,  and  as  such  are  expected  to 
contribute towards the achievement of this target. 

Biodiversity  concerns  (impacts,  benefits)  should  also  be 
integrated  into  the  EU's  Resource  Efficiency  Flagship 

EN 

44 

EN 

 
  
 
 
2020 Global target (agreed at CBD COP10) 

Current action(s) within the EU 

EU contribution towards achieving the 2020 global 
target 

flagship initiatives.  

initiative. 

Target 5: By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats, 
including  forests,  is  at  least  halved  and  where  feasible 
brought 
and  degradation  and 
to 
fragmentation is significantly reduced. 

zero, 

close 

Target 6: By 2020, all fish and invertebrate stocks and 
aquatic plants are managed and harvested sustainably, 
legally  and  applying  ecosystem  based  approaches,  so 
that  overfishing  is  avoided,  recovery  plans  and  measures 
are  in  place  for  all  depleted  species,  fisheries  have  no 
significant  adverse  impacts  on  threatened  species  and 
vulnerable  ecosystems  and  the  impacts  of  fisheries  on 
stocks,  species  and  ecosystems  are  within  safe  ecological 
limits. 

Target 7: By 2020, areas under agriculture, aquaculture 
and 
forestry  are  managed  sustainably,  ensuring 
conservation of biodiversity. 

The  EU  takes  numerous  actions  on  this  field  both  inside 
and  outside  the  EU.  Most  notably,  the  creation  and 
management of the Natura 2000 network in EU territories 
and  marine  areas  and  through  dedicated  development 
projects  in  third  countries,  or  the  promotion  of  Natura 
2000-like protected networks in Overseas Territories. 

The  EU  committed  in  2002  to  maintain  or  restore  fish 
stocks  to  levels  that  can  produce  Maximum  Sustainable 
Yield  (MSY)  not  later  than  2020.  The  Marine  Strategy 
Framework  Directive  sets  the  objective  to  achieve  good 
environmental  status  by  2020.  The  Common  Fisheries 
Policy should be designed to assist these processes.  

All targets in the EU biodiversity strategy are expected to 
contribute towards achieving this target  

Target  4  is  expected  to  contribute  directly  towards 
achieving  this  target,  and  target  1  and  target  5  would 
contribute indirectly.  

the  Common 
The  Common  Agriculture  Policy  and 
Fisheries Policy are providing the major frame for actions 
to 
and 
achieve 
aquaculture. 

agriculture, 

sustainable 

forestry 

Additionally, there are targeted tools promoted by the EU, 
like certification (e.g. FSC, MSC), that contribute to global 
target. 

Targets  3  and  4  are  expected  to  contribute  towards 
achieving this target.  

Additional  measures  focusing  on  aquaculture  may  be 
required  given  the  lack  of  a  coherent  and  consistent 
aquaculture policy for the EU. 

Target  8:  By  2020,  pollution,  including  from  excess 
nutrients,  has  been  brought  to  levels  that  are  not 
detrimental to ecosystem function and biodiversity. 

The  EU  already  has  an  extensive  pollution-related  aquis 
covering  a  wide  range  of  pollutants  (nitrates,  pesticides, 
air, chemicals, industrial emissions, waste, etc.) 

NO 

Target 9: By 2020, invasive alien species and pathways 
are  identified  and  prioritized,  priority  species  are 
controlled  or  eradicated,  and  measures  are  in  place  to 

The  EU  is  currently  poorly  equipped  to  tackle  the 
challenge of invasive alien species as it currently lacks an 
EU  framework.  However,  some  existing  tools  if  better 

Target  5  is  expected  to  contribute  directly  towards 
achieving this target. 

EN 

45 

EN 

 
  
2020 Global target (agreed at CBD COP10) 

Current action(s) within the EU 

EU contribution towards achieving the 2020 global 
target 

manage  pathways 
establishment.  

to  prevent 

their 

introduction  and 

fitted  (e.g.  Plant  and  Animal  Health  Regime)  may 
contribute.  Unless  action  is  taken  there  is  a  serious  risk 
that the EU will not reach the 2020 global target. 

Target  10:  By  2015, 
the  multiple  anthropogenic 
pressures on coral reefs, and other vulnerable ecosystems 
impacted  by  climate  change  or  ocean  acidification  are 
minimized,  so  as 
integrity  and 
to  maintain 
functioning. 

their 

NO 

The  EU  has  been  leading  the  efforts  to  combat  climate 
change  and  ocean  acidification,  and  has  decided  to 
increase  its  contribution  to  protect  vulnerable  marine 
ecosystems  by  establishing  a  "Voluntary  scheme  for 
Biodiversity  and  Ecosystem  Services  in  Territories  of 
European Overseas" (BEST) to promote conservation and 
sustainable  use  of  biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services  in 
European overseas entities inspired by the experience with 
EU nature conservation.  

Target  11:  By  2020,  at  least  17  per  cent  of  terrestrial 
and  inland  water,  and  10  per  cent  of  coastal  and 
marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for 
biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services,  are  conserved 
through  effectively  and  equitably  managed,  ecologically 
representative  and  well  connected  systems  of  protected 
areas  and  other  effective  area-based  conservation 
measures,  and  integrated  into  the  wider  landscape  and 
seascapes.  

Target 12: By 2020, the extinction of known threatened 
species  has  been  prevented  and  their  conservation 
status,  particularly  of  those  most  in  decline,  has  been 
improved and sustained. 

EU climate commitments are expected to highly contribute 
to mitigate climate change. 

At  present,  the  Natura  2000  protected  areas  network 
covers  almost  18%  of  EU  territory  and  designation  of 
marine sites is in well underway. In this sense, the EU has 
already  partially  achieved  this  target.  However,  it  is  clear 
that further efforts will be needed to reach the 10% coastal 
and marine target, as well as the qualitative dimension of 
the global target.  

Target 1 in particular, as well as targets 3 and 4 of the EU 
biodiversity  strategy  are  expected  to  contribute  towards 
achieving this target. 

The  objective  of  the  EU  nature  conservation  policy  is 
explicitly  the  achieving  of  favourable  conservation  status 
of species and habitats covered by the pieces of legislation. 
the 
Additionally, 
implementation  of  which  improves  the  status  of  species, 

are  other  EU  policies, 

there 

All targets in the EU biodiversity strategy are expected to 
contribute towards achieving this target. 

However, additional action at national and local level will 
also be needed. 

EN 

46 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
2020 Global target (agreed at CBD COP10) 

Current action(s) within the EU 

EU contribution towards achieving the 2020 global 
target 

Target  13:  By  2020,  the  genetic  diversity  of  cultivated 
plants  and  farmed  and  domesticated  animals  and  of  wild 
relatives,  including  other  socio-economically  as  well  as 
culturally valuable species, is maintained, and strategies 
have  been  developed  and  implemented  for  minimizing 
genetic erosion and safeguarding their genetic diversity. 

such  as  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (obligation  to 
achieve  good  ecological  status)  or  the  Marine  Strategy 
to  achieve  good 
Framework  Directive 
environmental  status).  The  EC  support 
improving 
knowledge  on  species  through  promoting  monitoring, 
research as well as the assessment f species' threatenedness 
(Red Lists).  

(obligation 

Action  to  conserve  genetic  diversity  in  the  EU  is  carried 
out  at  EU  and  Member  State  level,  including  through  the 
2nd  Community  programme  on 
the  conservation, 
characterisation,  collection  and  utilisation  of  genetic 
resources in agriculture 2006-2011 which aims inter alia at 
reinforcing  the  Community's  efforts  to  conserve  and 
document  plant,  animal  and  microbial  genetic  resources 
and  eliminating  duplication  of  effort.  Additionally,  EU 
funds  (especially  the  EAFRD,  but  also  the  EU  research 
framework  programme)  provide  opportunities  to  protect 
genetic  diversity  especially  that  of  local  breeds  or 
varieties. 

In addition to existing measures, a specific action will be 
included  under  target  3  to  support  genetic  diversity  in 
agriculture. 

including  services 

Target  14:  By  2020,  ecosystems  that  provide  essential 
services, 
to  water,  and 
contribute  to  health,  livelihoods  and  well-being,  are 
restored and safeguarded, taking into account the needs 
of women, indigenous and local communities, and the poor 
and vulnerable. 

related 

Though  there  is  no  EU  policy  dedicated  to  the  protection 
and  enhancement  of  ecosystem  services,  there  are  several 
policies  having  an  influence  on  delivering  on  this  target, 
and work has been started to enable policy making to build 
on  ecosystem  services  (e.g.  TEEB,  Green  Infrastructure, 
mapping of ecosystem services). 

Target  2  is  directly  aimed  at  improving  ecosystem 
services, whereas targets 1, 3, 4 and five are expected to 
contribute. 

Additional actions will be needed to be taken at national, 
regional and local level. 

the 
Target  15:  By  2020,  ecosystem  resilience  and 
contribution  of  biodiversity  to  carbon  stocks  has  been 
enhanced, through conservation and restoration, including 
restoration  of  at  least  15  per  cent  of  degraded 
to  climate  change 
ecosystems, 
mitigation and adaptation and to combating desertification. 

thereby  contributing 

Achieving the status based objectives of EU policies (e.g. 
favourable  conservation 
the  Habitats 
the  Water 
Directive,  good  ecological  status  under 
Framework  Directive  or  good  environmental  status  under 
the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive)  requires 

status  under 

Targets 2 and 1 in particular, as well as targets 3 and 4 of 
the  EU  biodiversity  strategy  will  contribute  towards 
achieving this target. 

However,  there  is  a  need  to  enhance  the  use  of 
ecosystem-based approaches to climate change mitigation 

EN 

47 

EN 

 
  
 
  
2020 Global target (agreed at CBD COP10) 

Current action(s) within the EU 

EU contribution towards achieving the 2020 global 
target 

restoration. 

and adaptation to maximise biodiversity benefits. 

The  very  strong  involvement  of  the  EU  in  Reducing 
Emissions  from  Deforestation  and  forest  Degradation 
(REDD)  in  developing  countries  yield  a  significant 
improvement of the contribution of natural carbon storage 
in  ecosystems  in  developing  countries  thus  combating 
global biodiversity loss.  

There is no EU legislation in place.  

The EU will need to transpose into European legislation 
the  obligations  and  provisions  of  the  Nagoya  Protocol. 
New EU legislation is likely to be developed in 2012 with 
a view to implementing this target. 

The  2006  EU  Biodiversity  Action  Plan  is  no  longer 
adequate  for  ensuring  delivery  on  the  2020  biodiversity 
targets.  

The 2020 biodiversity strategy will itself fulfil this target 
for the EU.  

Member  States,  as  individual  Parties  to  the  CBD,  will 
also  be  required  to  develop  or  review  and  update/revise 
their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans.  

Traditional  knowledge 
competence of the Member States. 

falls  under 

the 

exclusive 

NO 

The EU is supporting biodiversity-related research through 
its  research  framework  programmes  and  is  strongly 
supporting  the  establishment  of  the  Inter-governmental 

To  be  integrated  as  a  cross-cutting  issue  in  the  EU 
biodiversity strategy. 

Target  16:  By  2015,  the  Nagoya  Protocol  on  Access  to 
Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing 
of Benefits Arising from their Utilization is in force and 
operational, consistent with national legislation. 

Target 17: By 2015, each Party has developed, adopted as 
a policy instrument, and has commenced implementing an 
effective, participatory and updated national biodiversity 
strategy and action plan.  

Target  18:  By  2020, 
traditional  knowledge, 
the 
innovations  and  practices  of  indigenous  and  local 
communities relevant for the conservation and sustainable 
use  of  biodiversity,  and  their  customary  use  of  biological 
resources,  are  respected,  subject  to  national  legislation 
and  relevant 
international  obligations,  and  fully 
integrated  and  reflected  in  the  implementation  of  the 
Convention  with  the  full  and  effective  participation  of 
indigenous and local communities, at all relevant levels. 

Target  19:  By  2020,  knowledge,  the  science  base  and 
technologies 
its  values, 
functioning, status and trends, and the consequences of its 

to  biodiversity, 

relating 

EN 

48 

EN 

 
  
 
2020 Global target (agreed at CBD COP10) 

Current action(s) within the EU 

EU contribution towards achieving the 2020 global 
target 

loss, are improved, widely shared and transferred, and 
applied. 

Panel  on  Biodiversity  and  Ecosystem  Services  (IPBES). 
Once  in  place,  this  Platform  will  help  build  strong 
that  would  secure 
consensus  on  scientific  evidence 
knowledge  based  sound  policy  making.  This  is  addressed 
in the monitoring section. 

Target  20:  By  2020,  at  the  latest,  the  mobilization  of 
financial  resources  for  effectively  implementing  the 
Strategic  Plan  2011-2020  from  all  sources  and 
in 
accordance with the consolidated and agreed process in 
the Strategy for Resource Mobilization should increase 
substantially from the current levels. This target will be 
subject 
resources  needs 
assessments to be developed and reported by Parties. 

to  changes  contingent 

to 

There  are  funding  streams  within  the  EU  established  to 
contribute  to  biodiversity,  both  within  the  EU  in  an 
integrated approach and globally through dedicated aid or 
support  (see  especially  Annex  on  main  EU  funding 
instruments). 

Target 6 is expected to contribute towards achieving this 
target.  Efforts  will  need  to  be  stepped  up  in  the  lead  to 
COP-11  to  establish  EU  funding  targets  by  2012,  as 
agreed in COP-10 in Nagoya. 

EN 

49 

EN 

 
  
 
 
ANNEX 11 – SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR SOME PROPOSED MEASURES 

1. 

Supporting evidence for the nature protection measures 

–  Natura 2000 in Scotland (Environment Group, 2004): The estimates were developed based 
on  information  from  seven  representative  case  study  areas,  extrapolated  over  the  total 
number  of  Natura  2000  sites  in  the  area.  The  cost  estimates  includes  direct  costs 
(management and policy) and opportunity costs. The benefits arising from both use values 
(e.g.  recreational  use)  and  non-use  values  were  measured  using  contingent  valuation 
questionnaire surveys (willingness to pay). Finally, a cost benefit analysis was carried out 
to estimate the net benefits of Natura 2000 in Scotland. The benefit-cost ratios are strongly 
positive (about 7:1 for protection overall, and 12:1 for the incremental value of the Natura 
2000  designation),  and  there  are  additional  values  not  assessed  (social,  cultural, 
educational,  research,  environmental  services  and  health  values:  all  likely  to  be  positive, 
though  possibly  partly  included  in  the  non-use  responses).  The  broad  result  that  non-use 
values  from  local  and  international  populations  could  justify  Natura  2000  costs  and 
opportunity costs seems robust. 

–  Natura  2000  in  the  Netherlands  (Kuik  et  al,  2006):  A  2006  assessment  by  the  Dutch 
Institute  for  Environmental  Studies  of  the  benefits  associated  with  Natura  2000  in  the 
Netherlands has provided the estimated value of different benefits associated with Natura 
2000 sites, calculated as an average of € / ha  / year benefits from different key Natura 2000 
ecosystems.  Based  on  these  average  values,  benefits  provided  by  Natura  2000  in  the 
Netherlands were estimated to be around € 4000  / ha / year. Recreation and tourism as well 
as wider ecosystem functions were important components of this value. Non-use benefits 
were also important. The provisioning service of raw materials was of lesser importance in 
the  Netherlands.  The  authors  extrapolated  the  gross  welfare  benefits  of  all  Natura  2000 
areas  in  the  Netherlands  (1.1  million  ha),  deriving  an  estimate  of  around  €  4.5  billion  / 
year. 

–  Large Blue butterfly conservation in Germany (Watzold et al 2008). This study considers 
optimal  conservation  levels  of  Large  Blue  butterflies  (protected  by  the  EU  Habitats 
Directive) via payments to conserve specific times and sequences of mowing regimes on 
which  the  species  depends.  Costs  include  opportunity  costs  and  compensation  payments 
needed; Benefits are based on an ecological model to determine the ecological effects of 
alternative  mowing  regimes,  coupled  with  contingent  valuation.  The  results  show  that 
conservation is cost-effective up to maximum level assessed 

2. 

Supporting evidence for restoration and green infrastructure measures 

–  Lower Danube Green Corridor (WWF, 2000). The 2236 km2 corridor (Bulgaria, Romania, 
Moldova  and  Ukraine)  has  made  significant  improvements  to  water  quality;  increased 
biodiversity;  lowered  risks  from  flooding;  and  improved  local  livelihoods.  The  flood  in 
2005 caused an estimated  €396  million  worth of damage. The cost of the restoration has 
been estimated at €183 billion. The estimated va lue of the ecosystem services provided is 
€500ha/yr and additional future earnings  are estimated at €85.6 million per year. 

–  River  Elbe  floodplain  restoration  (Meyerhoff  and  Dehnhardt,  2007).  The  context  of  this 
study is restoration along River Elbe (Germany) through dike shifting, reducing agriculture 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
impact and constructing fish ladders. This combines a partial a cost benefit analysis based 
on  CV  study,  avoidance  costs,  engineering  costs  and  land  opportunity  costs,  and  a 
statistical model of nitrogen retention as a result of reduced water runoff velocities in two 
areas,  then  scaled  up  to  whole  restoration  area.  Recreation  and  flood  protection  benefits, 
carbon benefits and/or methane disbenefits were not valued and could be significant, which 
would strengthen conclusions. 8 scenarios were considered, with BCRs ranging from 2.5 to 
4.1. Separate sensitivity scenarios still produced a positive NPV, providing robust support 
for the conclusion that NPVs are positive. 

–  Skjern  river  restoration  in  Denmark  (Dubgaard,  2004).  This  study  focused  on  the 
restoration  of  the  Skjern  river  from  a  channelled  river  to  a  meandering  course,  with  the 
creation of outflows from the river to the Fjord with the intention of forming a delta of app. 
220 ha in time, the creation of a lake of approximately 160 ha, permitting periodical floods 
on land within the project area. This would involve the transfer of 1,550 ha of arable land 
to  extensive  grazing.  An  ex-post  CBA  which  uses  value  transfer,  market  prices  and 
replacement  costs  to  value  costs  and  benefits,  showed  that  up  to  at  least  5%  social 
discounting, the project appears to have a positive net present value. The net present value 
was of DDK 228 million at 3% discount rate, and 67 million at 5%.  

–  Blackwater Estuary, UK (Luisetti et al., 2008). This study focused on an estuary of 5,500 
hectares  with  open  water,  mudflats  and  saltmarshes,  and  the  costs  and  benefits  of 
maintaining flood defences with sea-level rise and coastal squeeze of intertidal wetlands. 
Benefits were estimated through a production function for fish (bass) and sediment burial 
estimates  from  simultaneous  fisheries  and  biogeochemistry  studies,  carbon  calculations 
taking into account methane and nitrous oxide emissions, market prices for coastal defence 
work (costs avoided) and fish production function; three carbon price estimates, and finally 
stated preference for “composite environmental benefit”. Results show that with constant 
discount rate, the highest NPV is the Deep Green scenario (£106m over 25 years, £192m 
over 100 years) but with declining discount rates the Extended Deep Green scenario looks 
better  over  longer  horizons.  Overall,  the  study  shows  that  managed  realignment  can  be 
cost-beneficial if account is taken of non-marketed benefits, in particular for conservation 
and recreation. 

–  National Forest, UK (eftec, 2010). Large regeneration area including some former landfill 
sites, quarries, other post-industrial brownfield sites, in the context of a long-term project 
to create woodlands and priority open habitats on 33% of The National Forest land area. 
The  study  estimated  £178m  of  costs  based  on  actual  and  predicted  expenditures  for 
achieving  the  objectives,  compared  to  £1,623m  of  benefits,  largely  from  recreation,  with 
lesser  contributions  from  carbon,  biodiversity  and  aesthetic  values  in  particular.  Results 
indicate a Net Present Value of £1.44bn, and a Cost Benefit ratio of 9.1:1. 

–  Agro-ecosystem  of  Sint-Truiden,  Belgium  (Turkelboom,  2010).  A  series  of  actions  were 
undertaken  primarily  to  protect  the  village  from  soil  erosion  and  mud  floods,  including 
almost 20 hectares of grassed waterways, 150 hectares of grassed buffer strips, 40 earthen 
dams (retention ponds) and 150 ha of conservation tillage in the catchment. The total cost 
of the control measures is low (€126/ha/20 years) . This figure is low if one compares to the 
saving  of  the  damage  and  clean-up  costs  caused  by  muddy  floods  in  the  study  area  (€54 
/ha/year) and all the secondary benefits, which included improvement of downstream water 
quality;  reduction  in  downstream  dredging  costs;  reduced  psychological  stress  to 
inhabitants  who  were  frequently  threatened  by  muddy  floods;  increase  in  biodiversity 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
(birds  and  mammals);  and  enhanced  landscape  quality  due  to  the  new  green  and  blue 
corridors  through  the  landscape.  Local  entrepreneurs  responded  to  bikers  and  hikers 
exploring the area by transforming traditional farms into bed-&-breakfast facilities, and by 
promoting agro- and eco-tourism. 

3. 

Supporting evidence for agri-forestry related measures 

–  A  study  on  restoring  land  to  increase  forage  for  bumblebees  in  intensively  farmed 
landscapes  in  UK  (Pywell  et  al.  2006)  shows  clear  benefits  from  pollination  services  for 
semi-natural ecosystems and a wide range of agricultural and horticultural crops, and many 
garden plants. 

–  An assessment of costs and benefits of wild goose conservation in Scotland (Macmillan et 
al., 2004) demonstrates that wild goose numbers have risen rapidly over the past 30 years 
which  cause  some  damage  in  crops.  Farmers  receive  compensation  for  putting  in  place 
conservation  schemes  (feeding  and  buffer  areas  for  geese  on  farmland).  The  study 
estimated the willingness to pay of the general public for goose conservation measures and 
the costs of goose damage to agriculture. The resulting cost-benefit ratio was of 700:1 for 
measures allowing a 10% increase in endangered species, and 113:1 for measures allowing 
a 10% increase in all species. The study concluded that goose conservation measures were 
good value for money for taxpayers. 

–  The  assessment  “Agriculture-forest  conversion  in  Wales”  (Bateman  et  al,  2005)  looks  at 
costs and benefits of establishing multi-purpose woodland on agriculture land. Net benefits 
in the latter areas reach as high as £200/ha/year in 1990 prices. Overall the analysis shows 
that there are substantial areas of Wales which would yield significant net social benefits 
from conversion out of agriculture and into multi-purpose woodland. 

4. 

Supporting evidence for fisheries related measures 

–  Several studies showed that overfishing has significant economic impacts. Cod fishing in 
the Baltic in 2002 represented a cost of US$ 128.6 million compared with what could have 
been harvested with sustainable yields. Similarly, the North Sea cod fishery lost US$ 195.3 
(WWF-Germany, 2002). Economic and social consequences of failing to apply Maximum 
Sustainable  Yield  (MSY)  was  also  dramatically  demonstrated 
the  case  of 
Newfoundland, Canada after the collapse of North Atlantic cod stocks in the early 1990s. 
The sector provided between 80 and 100% of income in some communities, and 20% of 
the  population  was  employed  in  the  fishery.  The  collapse  resulted  in  over  40,000  people 
losing their jobs, including 10,000 fishermen.  

in 

–  Ecosystem-based  fisheries  management  has  resulted  in  highly  successful  fish  stock 
rebuilding  efforts  in  California,  the  northeast  United  States  and  northwest  Australia. 
Efforts have involved experimentation with closed areas, gear and effort restrictions, and 
new approaches to catch allocation and enforcement. 

–  Marine conservation zones in the UK (Defra 2009): The study looks at costs to government 
for implementing and maintaining the marine conservation network as well as the costs to 
business from restrictions on activity and benefits from the conservation zones (including 
food and raw materials; nutrient cycling; climate regulation; sea defence; cognitive values 
(research  spending)  and  expenditure  (education)  with  specific  marine  focus.  The 
conclusion is that active conservation of the UK marine habitat has a positive net present 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
value.  Establishment  of  a  network  of  marine  conservation  zones  (MCZs)  throughout  UK 
waters  has  a  Benefit  Cost  Ratio  of  between  6.7  and  38.9.  Sensitivity  testing  shows  that 
even  given  the  uncertainty  in  the  estimates  it  is  rather  unlikely  that  the  BCR  could  be 
below 1. 

–  Restricting  damaging  fishing  practices  (Homarus  Ltd,  2007).  The  study  considers  a 
proposed  conservation  zone  of  60  square  nautical  miles  centred  on  Lyme  Regis,  UK. 
Within this area, scallop dredging would be stopped, but more sustainable forms of fishing 
would  be  allowed  (e.g.  dive  catching  of  scallops,  crustacean  potting  and  fixed  netting  of 
skates  and  rays),  as  would  recreational  use.  The  results  suggest  that  benefits  from  other 
uses are at least double benefits from scallop dredging. This provides good evidence that 
protection  would  be  beneficial,  given  that  the  environmental  benefits  of  protection  are 
unknown but certainly positive. 

5. 

Supporting evidence for measures related to Invasive Alien Species 

–  McConnachie et al. (2003) review 10 benefit-cost studies of successful biological control 
programs,  including  four  insect  pests,  four  terrestrial  weeds,  and  two  aquatic  weeds.  For 
terrestrials, the benefit-cost ratios range from 1.9:1 to 24:1. 

–  Van Wilgen et al. (2004) estimate the costs and benefits of biocontrol of six invasive weed 
species  in  South  Africa,  where  biocontrol  has  been  practiced  since  1910.  They  estimate 
benefit-cost ratios ranging from 8:1 for red Sesbania to 709:1 for jointed cactus. 

6. 

Supporting evidence for measures related to achieving the global target 

–  Conservation  in  Sumatran  oil  palm  plantations  -  Bateman  et  al  (2009),  Bateman  et  al 
(2008).  This  study  looked  at  costs  of  possible  conservation  measures  within  palm  oil 
plantations  in  Sumatra,  which  would  contribute  to  sustaining  tiger  populations  and  other 
species  in  surrounding  land.  This  is  compared  to  potential  price  premium  for 
‘conservation-grade’ palm oil. The analysis shows a ‘win-win’ situation in that the optimal 
areas  for  biodiversity  are  also  the  areas  with  least  opportunity  cost.  The  smallest 
conservation  area  scheme  requires  only  the  lowest  (15%)  price  premium  to  generate  a 
small yet positive net benefit for the plantation; larger schemes are not viable at the lower 
price  premium  level.  The  results  suggest  that  a  reorganization  of  conservation  efforts 
incorporating 
the  strategies  underpinning  recent  conservation-grade  and  Fairtrade 
production movements would provide an economic incentive for a majority of plantations 
to see conservation as an economically beneficial undertaking. 

–  Coral mining in Indonesia and Sri Lanka - Ohman and Cesar, 2000. This study examines 
the socio-economic effects of coral mining for lime production in Lombok, Indonesia and 
Sri Lanka. Extraction of corals has a detrimental effect on the reef ecosystem and recovery 
is  slow.  Tourism  is  an  important  industry  in  Lombok  and  is  growing  rapidly.  Other 
activities include fishing and mangrove forestry. The study compares cost-benefit analyses 
of  two  sites  of  coral  mining.  The  analyses  produces  different  values  which  reflects  the 
biological differences in fisheries in the two areas as well as the production differences in 
lime  from  coral.  Both  studies  suggest  net  economic  losses  from  coral  mining  once  the 
ecosystem service impacts are taken into account. 

–  Mangrove  conservation,  Southern  Thailand  -  Sathirathai  and  Barbier,  2001  –  This  study 
reviews the case of conservation of mangroves in Southern Thailand versus conversion to 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
shrimp farms, when water and flood protection services are taken into account. The study 
compares costs and benefits of three different land-use options for mangroves in Southern 
Thailand, and concludes that the value of conserving mangroves in Surat Thani Province is 
higher than that of converting mangroves to shrimp farms. 

References 

Bateman, I.J., Lovett, A.A., & Brainard, J.S. 2005. Applied Environmental Economics: A GIS 
Approach to Cost-Benefit Analysis Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. 

Bateman, IJ, Fisher, B, Glew, DW and Watkinson, A, 2008. Making Tigers Pay: Marketing 
Conservation  Of  The  Sumatran  Tiger  Through  ‘Tiger  Friendly’  Oil  Palm  Production, 
CSERGE Working Paper ECM 08-06 

Bateman,  IJ,  Coombes,  E,  Fisher,  B,  Fitzherbert,  E,  Glew,  D  and  Naidoo,  R,  2009.  Saving 
Sumatra’s  species:  Combining  economics  and  ecology  to  define  an  efficient  and  self-
sustaining program for inducing conservation within oil palm plantations, CSERGE Working 
Paper  EDM  09-03Defra  2009,  Marine  and  coastal  access  bill  impact  assessment: 
Introduction to the House of Commons, Defra, London. 

Dubgaard, A. 2004, Cost-benefit analysis of wetland restoration, Journal of Water and Land 
Development 8, 87-102 

Eftec,  2010,  Flood  and  coastal  erosion  risk  management:  Economic  valuation  of 
environmental effects - Annex 1, Defra. 

Environmental Group, 2004. An Economic Assessment of the Costs and Benefits of Natura 
2000. Sites in Scotland, Scottish Executive Research Report 2004/05 

Homarus Ltd, 2007. Estimate of Economic Values of Activities in Proposed Conservation 
Zone in Lyme Bay Report to the Wildlife Trusts 

Kuik,  O.,  Brander,  L.  &  Schaafsma,  M.  2006.  Globale  Batenraming  van  Natura  2000 
gebieden.  

Luisetti,  T.,  Turner,  K.,  &  Bateman,  I.  2008.  An  ecosystem  services  approach  to  assess 
managed realignment coastal policy in England. CSERGE Working Paper ECM 08-04 

Macmillan, D., Hanley, N., & Daw, M. 2004. Costs and benefits of wild goose conservation 
in Scotland. Biological Conservation, 119: 475-485 

McConnachie, A.J., M.P. de Wit, M.P. Hill, and M.J. Byrne. 2003. Economic Evaluation of 
the  Successful  Biological  Control  of Azolla  filiculoides  in  South  Africa.  Biological Control 
28(1): 25–32.   

Meyerhoff, J. & Dehnhardt, A. 2007. The European water framework directive and economic 
valuation  of  wetlands:  The  restoration  of  floodplains  along  the  river  Elbe.  European 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
Environment, 
http://www.scopus.com/scopus/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-33947531665&partnerID=40  

available 

18-36 

17, 

(1) 

from: 

Ohman,  M.  C.  &  Cesar,  H.  S.  J.  2000.  "Costs  and  Benefits  of  Coral  Mining,"  In  Collected 
Essays on the Economics of coral Reefs, H. S. J. Cesar, ed., Kalmar, Sweden: CORDIO, pp. 
85-93. 

Pywell R.F., Warman E.A., Hulmes L., Hulmes S., Nuttall P., Sparks T.H., Critchley C.N.R. 
& Sherwood A., 2006. Effectiveness of new agri-environment schemes in providing foraging 
resources  for  bumblebees  in  intensively  farmed  landscapes.  Biological  Conservation,  129, 
192-206 

Sathirathai, S. & Barbier, E.B. 2001. Valuing mangrove conservation in Southern Thailand. 
Contemporary Economic Policy, 19, (2) 109-122 

Turkelboom,  F.  (2010)  TEEBcase  'Changed  agro-management  to  prevent  muddy  floods, 
Belgium, available at: TEEBweb.org. 

van  Wilgen,  B.W.,  M.P.  de  Wit,  H.J.  Anderson,  D.C.  Le  Maitre,  I.M.  Kotze,  S.  Ndala,  B. 
Brown, and M.B. Rapholo. 2004. Costs and Benefits of Biological Control of Invasive Alien 
Plants: Case Studies from South Africa. South African Journal of Science 100(1/2): 113–122. 

WWF-Germany, 2002. The economics of a tragedy at sea: Costs of overfishing of cod from 
the  North  Sea  and 
to  US$,  rate  from  31.12.2002, 
http://fxtop.com/de/cnvhisto.php3).

the  Baltic.  (2002  converted 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
ANNEX  12  –  EXAMPLES  OF  GOOD  PRACTICE  ON  RESTORATION  AND  GREEN 

INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE EU 

1. 

STRENGTHENING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 

France: Réseau pollinisateurs - pollination 

Given that 35% of the food resources of France depend on pollinators, France is creating 250 
km of pollinator corridors along side of highways. The aim is to extend this exercise to 12.000 
km of highways in the next years. 

Austria: Vienna - Rax-Schneeberg-Schneealpen massif – drinking water purification 

The  per  capita  consumption  of  water  in  Vienna  is  150  litres  per  day.  About  95%  of  annual 
water  supplies  come  from  springs  in  the  Rax,  Schneeberg,  Schneealpe  mountains  and  from 
the Hochschwab mountain massif. The Vienna City Constitution put Vienna’s water and the 
forests surrounding the springs under protection orders provide for pure drinking water at any 
time.  Vienna  established  water  protection  areas  and  preservation  areas  were  proclaimed 
around  the  supply  sources.  In  1965,  for  instance,  the  whole  Rax-Schneeberg-Schneealpen 
massif  was  declared  a  water  protection  area.  The  Forestry  Office  of  the  City  of  Vienna 
administers  a  total  area  of  approximately  32,000  hectares  of  forest,  mountain  pastures  and 
meadows in the Rax and Schneeberg area as well as in the Hochschwab massif, enabling it to 
coordinate  the  use  of  all  country  area,  tourism,  hunting  and  fishing  activities  with  the 
requirements of spring protection.  

Ireland: Anne Valley – local solutions for waste water purification 

In  Anne  Valley,  Ireland,  an  integrated  constructed  wetland  (ICW)  was  created  instead  of 
installing  a  traditional  treatment  plant.  Not  only  the  wetland  is  more  efficient  in  clearing 
mostly  livestock  wastewater  than  a  comparable  traditional  sewage  plant,  it  also  offers 
multiple  benefits  for  the  ecosystem  services  the  wetland  provides:  water  purification,  fresh 
water,  climate  regulation  and  carbon  sequestration,  flood  control,  recreational  aspects,  soil 
formation and nutrient cycling - and it provides a suitable habitat for wetland flora and fauna. 
Farmers are quoted that they are only keeping their farming business due to the installation of 
this wetland, and the aesthetical value of the area has considerably increased. Capital costs for 
1750 population equivalents were 770,000 EUR + 165,000 EUR for scientific monitoring of 
the project over three years. This sum includes  costs for  tourism facilities of 220.000 EUR, 
and  maintenance  costs  are  lower  than  for  a  traditional  plant.  This  favourably  compares  to 
estimated  costs  of  1.530.000  EUR  for  an  equivalent  traditional  plant.  Financing  stems  from 
LIFE and INTERREG III A programmes + local funding sources. 

Denmark: Copenhagen - Green roofs for climate regulation and provision of habitats 

The City of Copenhagen has set out four requirements for green roofs. Buildings with green 
roofs should be able to meet at least two of the following effects: 

Absorb  50-80%  of  the  precipitation  that  falls  on  the  roof,  provide  a  cooling  and  insulating 
effect  of  the  building  and  reduce  reflection,  help  make  the  city  greener,  reducing  the  urban 
heat  island  effect,  counteracting  the  increased  temperatures  in  the  city.  They  will  also 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
contribute  to  a  visual  and  aesthetic  architectural  variation  that  has  a  positive  effect  on  the 
quality of life and double the roof life of the roofing membrane by protecting it against UV 
rays. 

Similar  policies  take  place  in  Germany  (Osnabrück),  Switzerland  (Basel  -  where  10%  of 
buildings have a green roof), Copenhagen, where there are mandatory green roof objectives. 

2. 

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION/ADAPTATION 

Belgium: Dijle River – prevent flooding by grassland protection 

LIFE  funding  enabled  Natuurpunt,  a  Flemish  NGO,  to  acquire  land  along  the  banks  of  the 
Dijle,  in  Leuven,  and  to  remove  obstacles  to  flooding,  such  as  poplars  and  maize  crops. 
Before  the  implementation  of  the  project  actions,  flooding  would  regularly  affect  areas  of 
Leuven,  including  the  famous  University  campus.  However,  since  the  completion  of  the 
project,  the  city  has  not  experienced  flooding  for  several  years.  The  dual  conservation  and 
flood  management  benefits  of  the  project  means that  it  has  been  a  win-win  situation.  It  has 
also proven to be a cheaper alternative to constructing a large dam near the city, even taking 
account of the cost of buying the land.  

Hungary: Tisza- HU- flood management 

From  September  2005  onwards,  the  Hungarian  Tisza  River  Floodplain  is  conserved  and 
restored  through  Integrated  Floodplain  Management.  The  project  is  managed  by  the 
UNDP/Global  Environment  Facility  and  will  mainstream  biodiversity  conservation  within 
floodplain  management  across  the  Tisza  River  Floodplain.  The  project  will  significantly 
improve  management  of  1,600  km2  through  activities  within  pilot  areas,  while  moderately 
influencing  an  estimated  area  of  9,400  km2  (about  20%  of  the  Great  Hungarian  Plain) 
applying supportive policy environment and institutional capacity building at the local level. 
In addition, Hungary is planning to use farmland to hold up to a billion cubic meters of water 
to prevent flooding elsewhere. The Hungarian government will create a dozen reservoirs on 
farmland near the Tisza that will be allowed to flood during emergencies. Two is operational 
since end of 2006 and up to 12 by 2020. 

Netherlands: Rhine Delta Project - flood and coastal management 

Due to anticipated climatic changes the Rhine delta river branches have to accommodate ever-
higher extreme discharges. Until recently it was standard policy to raise the crest levels of the 
dikes  to  maintain  the  required  level  of  flood  protection.  This  centuries’  old  policy  was 
abandoned in 2000 in favour of ‘Room for the River’. In the new policy, river cross sections 
are  widened  by  situating  the  dikes  further  away  from  the  river,  or  by  lowering  the  river 
forelands. This will result in lower flood levels. By the year 2015 the river should be able to 
safely discharge 16,000 m3/s. 

Improvement of overall environmental conditions: In giving ‘Room for the River’ care should 
be taken not to affect valuable features of landscape, nature and cultural history. More space 
can also be found by enlarging the river channel within the dikes. In the process, one should 
aim at a balance between present and foreseeable future spatial requirements, keeping an open 
eye  for  every  opportunity  to  enhance  safety  as  well  as  the  master  landscaping  and  the 
improvement of overall environmental conditions.  

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
3. 

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR BIODIVERSITY AND CONNECTIVITY 

France- Trame Verte et Bleue  

Within  its  Grenelle  de  l'Environnement  process,  France  has  passed  a  new  law  to  create  a 
green and blue infrastructure across the country – known as la Trame Verte et Bleue (TVB) 
by 2012 which will become an indispensable element of all future spatial planning policies. 
The legislation is being tested through a series of pilot projects in 45 regional national parks 
across France. The green infrastructure network will be founded on scientific data and include 
protected areas and other areas in order to ensure the connectivity and global functionality of 
biodiversity  across  the  country.  The  blue  infrastructure  network  will  have  an  equivalent 
structure for fresh water bodies and their associated ecosystems.  

Czech Republic and Slovakia- "ecocenters"  

These  countries  have  developed  so  called  "Territorial  system  of  ecological  stability,  which 
consists  of  so  called  "ecocenters"  and  interactive  elements  (eco-corridors)  at  three  levels 
(local, regional, supra-regional).  

The Netherlands - Building up a National Ecological Network 

The  Dutch  government  decided  in  1990,  following  a  multi-year  research  programme,  to 
develop a National Ecological Network that could provide the long-term basis for ecological 
sustainability  throughout  the  country.  Given  the  scale  of  the  initiative,  establishing  the 
network is a long-term enterprise with full implementation scheduled for 2018. 

The National Ecological Network as originally adopted in 1990 was an “oversized” indicative 
map of core areas, nature development areas and corridors. It is the task of the 12 provinces to 
delineate  the  precise  boundaries  of  the  network.  This  is  being  done  using  132  habitat  and 
landscape types  for  which minimum aggregate total areas have been fixed at national level. 
The final network is intended to cover about 730,000 hectares, or 17.5 per cent of the Dutch 
countryside. 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 13 – SYNTHESIS OF EXISTING TOOLS UNDER KEY EU INSTRUMENTS ADDRESSING INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES  

ACTIVITY 

ANIMAL  HEALTH 
INSTRUMENTS 

PLANT 
DIRECTIVE 

HEALTH 

WILDLIFE 
TRADE 
REGULATION 

AQUACULTURE 
REGULATION 

HABITATS 
AND 
DIRECTIVES 

BIRDS 

WATER 
FRAMEWORK 
DIRECTIVE 

COMMENTS 

MARINE 
STRATEGY 
FRAMEWORK 
DIRECTIVE 

Scope/coverage 

Taxonomic coverage  

Animal pathogens 

& diseases  

Wild 
(avian flu) 

bird 

imports 

Animals, 
plants, 
pathogens  to  the  extent 
‘harmful 
these 
organisms’ 
of 
plants or plant products) 

(pests 

are 

‘Species’ 

Aquatic 
organisms/GMOs  

‘Species’ 

Not limited. 

‘Species’ 

AQR  not  applicable 
to  pet-
shops, garden centres or aquaria.  

Impact coverage  

Health  of  farmed  & 
wild animals 

(Current)  direct  impacts 
on plants  

Ecological  (wild 
native species) 

Biodiversity 
& 
ecosystem functions 

Natural  habitats, 
wild 
native 
species 

Ecological (inland, 
transitional, 
coastal waters) 

Ecological 
impact 
waters) 

(marine 

Risk assessment & decision-making procedures 

Decision level 

COM  

initiate  proposals: 

MS 
adopted at COM level 

COM 

MS 

MS  

MS 

MS 

Listing mechanism 

Black (open) 

Black (open) 

Black (open) 

COM  oversight 
transboundary  

if 

White 
exemptions 
long-used species  

(closed): 
for 

Variable,  mainly 
black 

N/A 

N/A 

Adaptable 
biogeographic/areas? 

to 

(cid:57) (zonation) 

(cid:57)(‘protected zones’) 

No 

(cid:57)(explicit) 

Depends 
on 
interpretation  of 
‘territory’ 

(cid:57)(river basins) 

(cid:57) 
regions) 

(marine 

WFD/MSFD  both  based  on 
ecosystem approach. 

Formal risk assessment?  

(cid:57) EFSA 

(cid:57) EFSA 

No 

(cid:57)(non-routine 
movements) 

(cid:57) 
to 
(impacts 
Natura 2000 sites) 

N/A 

N/A 

Prevention 

EN 

59 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ACTIVITY 

ANIMAL  HEALTH 
INSTRUMENTS 

PLANT 
DIRECTIVE 

HEALTH 

WILDLIFE 
TRADE 
REGULATION 

AQUACULTURE 
REGULATION 

HABITATS 
AND 
DIRECTIVES 

BIRDS 

WATER 
FRAMEWORK 
DIRECTIVE 

COMMENTS 

MARINE 
STRATEGY 
FRAMEWORK 
DIRECTIVE 

Import 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57)  

(cid:57) 

((cid:57)) 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

AQR  references  EU  fish  health 
legislation applicable to imports 

Intra-EU 
holding 

movement/ 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57)  BUT  not  possible  for 
HO  once  established  or 
common  in  part  of  EU, 
unless protected zone  

(cid:57)(not used) 

(cid:57)(‘closed’ 
facilities) 

N/A 

If needed 

If needed 

Unclear  for  MS  (Single  Mkt, 
holding in captivity)  

Introduction to wild  

N/A 

N/A (movement focus) 

N/A 

(cid:57)(‘open’ facilities) 

(cid:57) 

If needed 

If needed 

Renewable  Energy  Directive: 
biofuel  plantation  to  avoid  ecol. 
impacts 

Unintentional 
introductions: 
commodities/transport 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

N/A 

(cid:57)(‘non-target 
organisms’) 

N/A 

If needed 

(cid:57)(ballast water) 

Under consideration 

N/A 

(Implicit) 

N/A 

If needed 

If needed 

Unintentional: 
and natural spread 

corridors 

N/A 

Early warning & rapid response 

Surveillance & monitoring   (cid:57)(being strengthened) 

(cid:57) (under review) 

N/A 

(cid:57) (2 years min.) 

Reporting  & 
exchange 

information 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57)(under review) 

N/A 

(cid:57) 

NOBANIS 

Big MS variations   (cid:57) 

(specific 

descriptor) 

WFD  and  MSFD:  EU  guidance 
in progress 

N/A 

N/A 

Yes,  monitoring 
for 
required 
is 
Annex.species 

Yes,  Article  17-
reports 
(6  yrs-
intervals) 

Contingency planning 

(cid:57)(being strengthened) 

(cid:57) (under review) 

track  decisions  for 

Fast 
emergency action  

(cid:57)  

(cid:57)  

N/A 

N/A 

(cid:57) (MS) 

(cid:57) (MS) 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

If needed 

If needed 

EN 

60 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ACTIVITY 

ANIMAL  HEALTH 
INSTRUMENTS 

PLANT 
DIRECTIVE 

HEALTH 

WILDLIFE 
TRADE 
REGULATION 

AQUACULTURE 
REGULATION 

HABITATS 
AND 
DIRECTIVES 

BIRDS 

WATER 
FRAMEWORK 
DIRECTIVE 

COMMENTS 

MARINE 
STRATEGY 
FRAMEWORK 
DIRECTIVE 

EU co-financing? 

(cid:57)  

(cid:57) (under review) 

N/A 

No 

(cid:57)(but  mechanism 
not fast) 

Control and management 

Long-term management 

No 

Ecological restoration 

No 

Cross-cutting  instruments 
& infrastructure support  

No 

No 

N/A 

N/A 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 
(N2000/ 
protected species)  

(cid:57) 
ecol.status) 

(good 

(good 

(cid:57) 
status) 

env 

(cid:57) (remediation) 

(cid:57) 
(N2000/ 
protected species)  

(cid:57) 
ecol.status) 

(good 

(good 

(cid:57) 
status) 

env 

Funding (variable scope) 

(cid:57) (Solidarity) 

(cid:57) (Solidarity) 

(Occasional, 

(cid:57) 
contract 
services) 

N/A 

LIFE+ 
(management, 
awareness raising, 
etc.) 

Contract services  

Opportunities  under  EAFRD, 
INTERREG,  RTD  framework 
programmes,  contract  services, 
etc.  

Responsibility  & 
recovery 

Capacity building 

Research  

cost 

Under development 

Under development 

(cid:57) 

Env.Liability 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) (Occasional) 

((cid:57)) 

RTD (limited) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

Shine, C., Kettunen, M. Genovesi, P., Essl, F. Gollasch, S., Rabitsch, W., Scalera, R., Starfinger, U. and ten brink, P. 2010. Assessment to support continued development of the EU 
Strategy to combat invasive alien species. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels, Belgium. 

EN 

61 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 14 – MARKET  BASED  INSTRUMENTS  AND  POTENTIAL  FINANCING  MECHANISMS  FOR 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION 

Market-based  instruments  (MBI)  aim  at  internalising  the  external  costs  of  consumption  and 
production  activities  on  the  environment,  including  biodiversity.  If  well  designed,  they  can 
contribute to reaching the objective of halting biodiversity loss at a lower cost than command 
and control instruments. Potential economic instruments for the management of biodiversity 
and ecosystem services include: 

•  taxes, fees and charges; 

•  subsidies; 

•  tradable permits; 

•  certification schemes and (eco-)labelling; 

•  liability and 

•  off-setting, compensation schemes. 

Economic  instruments  have  been  used  in  the  EU  to  protect  biodiversity,  whether  at  local, 
national or EU level. A Commission study1 analysed over 200 examples of the application of 
market  based  instruments  for  the  preservation  of  biodiversity  in  EU  Member  States.  The 
majority of countries use MBI for biodiversity conservation. In the majority of cases, MBIs 
are applied in the field of habitat and ecosystem conservation. However, practices vary across 
the  EU.  For  example,  subsidies  are  most  commonly  used  in  Northern  and  Western  Europe, 
whereas in Central and Eastern Europe, taxes and charges appear to be more common though 
this varies (e.g. taxes are widely used in Poland but subsidies are more common in the Czech 
Republic). 

Tradable permits for the moment are mainly restricted to fishing and hunting permits. There 
are  however  a  number  of  pilot  projects  (mainly  in  the  UK,  the  Netherlands,  France  and 
Germany)  to  explore  in  what  circumstances  tradable  permits  for  habitat  areas  (so  called 
“Habitat banking”) could be implemented. 

At  EU  level,  instruments  such  as  Payments  for  Ecosystem  Services531  have  also  been  used 
extensively in farming and forestry, where agri-environment and forest-environment measures 
reward  agricultural  and  forest  practices  that  favour  biodiversity  and  certain  ecosystem 
services. 

Lessons learnt through implementation in the EU so far are that  well-designed and credibly 
implemented  MBIs seem to  be able to  deliver biodiversity objectives  cost-efficiently.  Many 
examples of MBIs show that they work best not as a substitute to regulatory approaches, but 
complementary  to  them.  It  will  often  be  desirable  to  use  some  combination  of  MBIs  and 

53 

A  Payment  for  Ecosystem  services  is  defined  as  “a  voluntary  transaction  whereby  a  well-defined 
ecosystem service, or a land-use likely to secure that service, is being bought by at least one buyer from 
at least one provider, if, and only if, the provider secures the provision of the service“. 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
                                                 
regulatory  approaches  to  achieve  the  desired  aims.  In  general,  MBIs  like  taxes,  fees  and 
charges  can  be  seen  as  approaches  that  are  useful  to  limit  damage  to  existing  biodiversity 
while  MBIs  offering  subsidies/support  (e.g.  agri-environmental  measures)  and  eco-labelling 
or  other  certification  schemes  can  foster  the  provision  of  'new'  biodiversity  or  the 
enhancement  of  its  quality.  MBIs  can  also  act  as  a  way  of  conserving  the  quality  of 
biodiversity  whilst  generating  income,  enhancing  the  acceptance  of  stakeholders;  the 
generated income can then be used to fund biodiversity management needs. 

The  use  of  MBIs  is  more  suitable  in  some  areas  of  application,  than  others.  There  may  be 
some  limitations  in  terms  of  public  acceptance.  For  example,  although  individual  tradable 
quotas have been successfully used to manage fisheries in New Zealand, Canada, the United 
States  and  Iceland,  its  implementation  may  encounter  more  difficulties  in  the  EU.  Or  the 
structure of the externality itself may make the use of MBI more complex, for example in the 
case  of  invasive  alien  species.  Greening  agriculture  is  an  area  where  MBIs  have  been  used 
with  success  and  where  there  is  scope  for  building  on  existing  experience,  as  well  as  new 
instruments  to  provide  stronger  and  more  consistent  incentives.  The  use  of  habitat  banking 
has  also  been  used  with  some  success  for  example  in  the  United  States  and  Australia.  Pilot 
initiatives in EU Member States will also provide some lessons on whether this could be used 
more extensively in the EU. 

Many MBIs can also generate funding for biodiversity objectives. Other innovative financial 
instruments (such as green investing, and other instruments described in the table below) have 
so far been used to a limited extent in the EU, but are undergoing a dynamic development and 
should also be considered as part of the packages of measures. 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
Table: Traditional and innovative financing instruments for biodiversity conservation 

Geographic area 

Source  of 
funds 

Available Instruments 

L/R  Nat 

EU/
Int 

Private 

Protected  areas  entrance  and  use 
fees 

X 

Private 

Tourism-related incomes 

X 

X 

X 

Private 

Markets for sustainable rural/local 
products 

X 

X 

Private 

Innovative  goodwill 
instruments (Internet based, etc) 

fundraising 

X 

X 

X 

Private 

Green lotteries 

X 

X 

X 

PrivateP
ublic 

Non-profit  organisation 
(NGOs, 
foundations,  trusts  and  charities) 
funding  

X 

X 

X 

Private/
Public 

(International)  Markets  for  all 
type  of  ecosystem  services  (PES) 
and green markets 

X 

X 

Applicability to Biodiversity target 
AG
RI/F
ORE
ST 

RES
TOR 

NAT
URE 

FIS
H 

IAS 

Weaknesses/needs 
performance 

for 

improved 

GLO
BAL 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

core component of PA funding 

can recover resource costs 
can capture WTP from the visitors 
diversification of tourism markets 
rural/local development 
can be used to manage demand 

can  promote  and  communicate  the  value  of  the 
resource 
can assist in branding of a protected area 
work in combination with local/rural development 
moneys are distributed to local communities 
certification is a top-up 

very  innovative  source  of  funds  that  seek  to  reach 
global ‘small’ contributors 
additionality is key 

new tool to mobilise funds 
appeal to consumers and wider public 
works  better  when  associated  with  biodiversity  of 
high value 

important  source  of  funds  overall,  provided  at 
habitat level or species level, can help in mobilising 
actors to donate 

use has increased recently 
opportunity  to  generate  revenues  for  services  and 
not only extractive use 
can provide compensation to landowners  

better calculation of prices 
introduce  ecological  sustainability  when 
extractive/harvesting uses 

investments to improve facilities 
expertise  to  provide  and  market  these 
services 
calculation of prices and charges 

investment needed for certification 
developing markets/marketing 
need  for  making  it  policy  specific  and 
targeting 
mainstream the instruments in policy 
for  new  creative 
need 
marketing 

ideas  and 

need for publicity and marketing 

need  to  sustain  and  increase  donor  and 
public interest in biodiversity 
increase interaction with donors/public 
develop new approaches and marketing 

and 

policy 

need  for  developing  design  guidelines, 
supportive 
legislative 
frameworks 
improved methodologies for establishing 
the biophysical links, set prices, monitor 
delivery of services 

EN 

64 

EN 

 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Geographic area 

Applicability to Biodiversity target 

x 

Private/
Public 

Bio-prospecting 

X 

X 

Public  Private  Partnerships  (PPP) 
& 
business-public-NGO 
partnerships 

Private 

X 

X 

X 

Private 

Business voluntary standards 

X 

X 

Businesses’  goodwill  investments 
(like 
Social 
Corporate 
Responsibility - CSR) 

Private 

X 

X 

X 

Private 

Venture  capital  and  portfolio 
(green) investments 

X 

X 

cap-and-trade 
Biodiversity 
schemes 
market-based 
instruments  (MBI)  (e.g.  off-sets, 
habitat banking) 

and 

Public/P
rivate 

X 

Public/P
rivate 

Carbon emission permits (use part 
of the auctions) 

X 

X 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

for 

improved 

Weaknesses/needs 
performance 
immediate  link  with  biodiversity  and  protected 
areas 
can  develop  significant  potential  and  mobilise 
additional funds 

in 

included 

can evolve in the context of business CSR 
measure 
the  menu  of  many 
international  financing  efforts  (Climate  Change, 
poverty, etc) 
experiences exist 
flexibility and adaptability can be applied 

can be developed for protected area and sustainable 
practices 
although not really bringing actual money they can 
contribute  to  sustainable  management  of  protected 
area and local development 

R&D and administrative costs 
need for highly specialised knowledge 
need  to  work  together  with  access  and 
benefit sharing (ABS) 

tendency to ‘move on’ 
local/regional  implementation  can  be 
more stable 

not all business can follow, as standards 
are 
those  who 
even 
introduce/are leaders 

costly 

for 

potential 
for 
support/sponsoring  

increasing 

corporate 

Need  to  sustain  and  increase  interest  in 
biodiversity,  increase  interaction  with 
private  sector,  develop  new  approaches 
and marketing  

x 

x 

x 

Potential  for  mobilising  corporate  funds  in  a 
sustainable  way;  sponsoring  protected  areas  and 
species;  can  support  environmental  business  from 
SMEs near the protected area  

Instrument  that  can  help  in  but  mostly  around 
protected  area;  can  mobilise  significant  funds;  can 
create markets for biodiversity and their services 

High  administrative  costs;  may  generate 
low  returns  and  loose  support  from 
capital/investors; Providing for corporate 
tax 
these 
mechanisms  may  further  support  their 
uptake 

associated  with 

relief 

global 

Costs for administration; implementation 
at 
and 
registration/monitoring;  further  work  on 
equivalency  methods 
their 
application may be needed 

level 

and 

x 

x 

Can  provide  complementary  funds  for  protected 
areas;  some  synergies  can  strengthen  between 
climate change adaptation and ecosystem financing 
needs 

Competition  for  the  distribution  of  the 
resources  coming  from  actions/permits 
between 
environmental 
purposes 

different 

Public 

Government budgetary allocations  X 

X 

X 

Core component of protected area funding, but are 
not enough on their own 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Some evidence of protected area funding 
decline;  resources  often  driven  to  / 
priorities, 
compete 
strengthening  policy 
integration  and 
mainstreaming protected area is needed 

other 

with 

Public 

Earmarking public revenues 

X 

X 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Can  potentially  provide  sufficient  resources  that 
will  go 
to  protected  area  and  biodiversity 
conservation 

Quite  difficult  to  achieve:  if  resources 
earmarked  for  environmental  purposes 
there  is  competition  between  different 

EN 

65 

EN 

 
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
Geographic area 

Applicability to Biodiversity target 

Weaknesses/needs 
performance 

for 

improved 

environmental goals/policies 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Public 

Environment-related 
(national or international) 

taxes 

X 

X 

Public 

Environmental tax reform 

X 

X 

Public 

Reforming 
development, fisheries, etc) 

subsidies 

(rural 

X 

X 

Public 

Benefit-sharing 
sharing 

and 

revenue-

x 

X 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Public 

Reforms 
monetary system 

in 

the 

international 

Public 

Bilateral  and/or  multilateral  aid 
(and GEF) 

X 

X 

Public 

Debt-for-nature swaps 

X 

X 

Public 

Development banks and agencies 

X 

X 

commitments 
Long-term  ODA 
through  a  Green  Development 
Mechanism (GDM) 

Public 

X 

X 

X 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Taxing (or increase taxation) to international trade; 
some  products  are  related  to  nature  (timber,  etc); 
others  (aviation,  shipping)  are  of  environmental 
nature but already can be accepted.  

taxation  of 

Reforming 
international  currency 
transactions  can  bring  important  resources  for 
environmental purposes (climate and biodiversity)  

Competition  about  the  distribution  of 
revenues 
different 
between 
environmental causes 
Political 
is 
environmental 
internationally this require more efforts 

for 
reform; 

needed 

will 

tax 

Can  help  provide  subsidies  for  land  owners  and 
users  of  protected  area  that  will  allow  sustainable 
use  of 
to 
implement protected area management 

the  resource,  or  even  will  allow 

Better  calculation  of  prices/subsidies, 
design of subsidies to be more green, but 
quite  difficult  to  achieve  consensus  and 
harmonised approach at global level 

Integral  component  of  protected  area  funding; 
potential  to  offset local  opportunity  costs;  increase 
availability 
into 
development sources; improving benefit sharing 

tapping 

funds; 

local 

of 

taxation  of 

international  currency 
Reforming 
transactions  can  bring  important  resources  for 
environmental purposes (climate and biodiversity)  

Core  component  of  protected  area  funding;  source 
of direct budgetary support to protected area 

can provide large and secure amounts for protected 
areas or specific sites; funding biodiversity through 
SD and poverty reduction 

Big  number  of  agencies,  lots  of  funds,  but  no 
increase there  

help transfers from developed/developing countries 
to  less  developed  countries,  GDM  can  Implement 
MDG and assist local needs too 

Need  for  design  and  communication 
authorities; 
local/national 
with 
monitoring  of 
to 
its 
demonstrate benefits 

implementation 

Political  will  is  needed  for  agreeing  the 
introduction of such taxes internationally 
Some  evidence  of  funding  decline; 
Major reorientation to poverty reduction 
and  sustainable  development  may  drive 
priorities; 
resources 
and 
strengthening 
mainstreaming  of  protected  area 
is 
needed 

other 
integration 

to 

instrument  in  decline,  due  to  difficulties 
to 
in  persuading  donors/government 
release large amounts of funds 
difficulties  in  persuading  agencies  to 
invest large amounts for the future 

biodiversity  priorities  mixed  with  other 
environmental objectives/MDG 
bureaucracy; 
increased  spending  on 
start-up  but  not  so  much  on  reoccurring 
costs  

for 

developing 

need 
legislative frameworks at global level, 
need  for  improved  methodologies  for 
establishing  the  biophysical  links,  set 

guidelines, 

EN 

66 

EN 

 
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Geographic area 

Applicability to Biodiversity target 

Weaknesses/needs 
performance 

for 

improved 

prices,  monitor  delivery  of  services, 
evaluate the efficiency of transfers 

Abbreviations: Private (Pri), Public (Pub), Local (L), Regional (R), National; (Nat), International (Int), Small and medium sized businesses (SME). 

Adapted from TEEB (2011), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in National and International Policy Making. Edited by Patrick ten Brink. Earthscan, London.. 

Source: Compilation of information within Emerton et al. (2005); UNEP/CBD/WP-PA/1/3 (2005); Bräuer et al.(2006) 

EN 

67 

EN 

 
  
  
  
 
ANNEX 15 – MAPPING BETWEEN EU POST-2010 TARGETS AND SEBI INDICATORS 

EU post-2010 strategy 

(Potentially) relevant SEBI indicators 

Vision 2050 

Headline 
target 2020 

By 2050 EU biodiversity and the ecosystem 
services it provides – its natural capital – are 
protected,  valued  and  appropriately  restored 
for biodiversity’s intrinsic value and for their 
essential  contribution  to  human  well-being 
and  economic  prosperity,  and  so 
that 
catastrophic  changes  caused  by  the  loss  of 
biodiversity are avoided. 

Halting  the  loss  of  biodiversity  and  the 
degradation of ecosystem services in the EU 
by  2020,  and  restoring  them  in  so  far  as 
the  EU 
feasible,  while 
contribution  to  averting  global  biodiversity 
loss. 

stepping  up 

IUCN Barometer of Life for EU (tbd?) 

Targets 

Baseline 

Potential Indicators 

Target 1 

Nature Conservation 

SEBI 1.  Abundance  & distribution of  selected 
species (birds, butterflies) 

SEBI  2.  Red  List  Index  for  European  species 
(mammals  –  marine  & 
terrestrial,  birds, 
amphibians, reptiles, dragonflies, butterflies) 

SEBI  3.  Conservation  status  of  species  of 
Community 
per 
biogeographical region, per MS) 

interest 

EU, 

(in 

SEBI  5.  Conservation  status  of  habitats  of 
Community 
per 
biogeographical region, per MS) 

interest 

EU, 

(in 

SEBI 7. Nationally designated protected areas 

SEBI  8.  Sites  designated  under 
the  EU 
Habitats  and  Birds  Directives  (Natura  2000 
sites) 

SEBI  11.  Impact  of  climatic  change  on  bird 
populations 

Target 2 

Restoration and Green Infrastructure 

SEBI 4rev. Land cover changes 

SEBI  13.  Fragmentation  of  natural  and  semi-
natural areas 

SEBI  14.  Fragmentation  of  river  systems 
(when available) 

SEBI 16. Freshwater quality 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
 
EU post-2010 strategy 

(Potentially) relevant SEBI indicators 

Target 3 

Agriculture and agro-ecosystems 

Forest 

Target 4 

Fish and fisheries 

SEBI  1.  Abundance  and  distribution  of 
selected  species  (farmland  birds,  grassland 
butterflies) 

SEBI  3rev.  Conservation  status  of  species  of 
Community interest in agro-ecosystems  

SEBI 4 rev: Land cover changes in agriculture 

SEBI  5rev:  Conservation  status  of  habitats  of 
Community interest in agro-ecosystems 

SEBI 6. Livestock genetic diversity  

SEBI 9: Critical load exceedance for nitrogen 

SEBI 19. Agriculture: nitrogen balance per  ha 
of agricultural land in OECD countries 

SEBI 20. Agriculture: area under management 
practices  potentially  supporting  biodiversity 
(distribution of High Nature Value Farmland & 
share  of  total  UAA  occupied  by  organic 
farming) 

SEBI  1.  Abundance  and  distribution  of 
selected species (woodland birds) 

SEBI  3rev.  Conservation  status  of  species  of 
Community interest in forest ecosystems  

SEBI 4 rev: Land cover changes in forest 

SEBI  5rev:  Conservation  status  of  habitats  of 
Community interest in forest ecosystems 

SEBI 17. Forest: growing stock, increment and 
fellings 

SEBI 18. Forest: deadwood 

SEBI  12.  Marine  Trophic  Index  of  European 
seas 

SEBI 15. Nutrients in transitional, coastal and 
marine waters 

SEBI 21. Fisheries: European commercial fish 
stocks (proportion of stocks within and outside 
safe  biological  limits)  -  To  be  replaced  by 
Mean  Sustainable  Yield  according  to  Marine 
Framework Directive 

SEBI  22.  Aquaculture:  effluent  water  quality 
from finfish farms 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
 
EU post-2010 strategy 

(Potentially) relevant SEBI indicators 

Target 5 

Invasive Alien Species 

SEBI 10. Invasive alien species in Europe 

Target 6 

Contribution to global biodiversity 

SEBI  23.  Ecological  Footprint  of  European 
countries 

SEBI 24.  Patent  applications  based on genetic 
resources 

SEBI 25. Financing biodiversity management 

SEBI 26. Public awareness 

EN 

70 

   EN