REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL THE MID-TERM REVIEW OF THE EU BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY TO 2020
Date: 2015-10-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, biodiversity, common agricultural policy, common fisheries policy, ecosystem, environmental impact, environmental protection, sustainable development, sustainable forest management, utilised agricultural area

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 2.10.2015  
COM(2015) 478 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

THE MID-TERM REVIEW OF THE EU BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY TO 2020 

{SWD(2015) 187 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

THE MID-TERM REVIEW OF THE EU BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY TO 2020 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Biodiversity — the unique variety of life on our planet — underpins our economy and well-being. It 
provides us with clean air and water, food, materials and medicines, health and recreation; it supports 
pollination and soil fertility, regulates climate and protects us from extreme weather. 

However, human-induced changes to ecosystems and the extinction of species have been more rapid 
in the past 50 years than at any time in human history.1 Biodiversity loss is one of the core planetary 
boundaries2 that have already been crossed by humanity. Together with climate change, this increases 
the risk of irreversible changes and undermines economic development and the resilience of societies 
in  the  face  of  new  challenges.  The  World  Economic  Forum  listed  ‘biodiversity  loss  and  ecosystem 
collapse’ among the top 10 global risks in 2015.3   

The EU 2010 biodiversity baseline4 indicated that up to 25 % of European animal species were facing 
extinction,  and  65 %  of  habitats  of  EU  importance  were  in  an  unfavourable  conservation  status, 
mainly due to human activities. Basic ecosystem services have continued deteriorating. 

As a response, in 2011, the European Commission adopted an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020,5 with 
the headline target set by EU Heads of State and Government to ‘halt the loss of biodiversity and 
ecosystem services by 2020, to restore ecosystems in so far as is feasible, and to step up the EU 
contribution to averting global biodiversity loss’. The strategy is an integral part of the Europe 2020 
strategy6  and  the  7th  Environmental  Action  Programme.7  It  implements  EU  commitments  under  the 
Convention on Biological Diversity. The strategy is built around six targets, each supported by a set of 
actions. 

The  present  mid-term  review  takes  stock  of  progress  in  implementing  the  EU  biodiversity  strategy 
against  the  2010  baseline.  It  aims  to  inform  decision-makers  of  areas  in  which  increased  efforts  are 
needed to meet the EU biodiversity objectives by 2020. 

1 http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253.full. 
2 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855.full. 
3 http://www.weforum.org/reports/global-risks-report-2015. 
4 http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eu-2010-biodiversity-baseline. 
5 COM(2011)244 final. 
6 COM(2010) 2020 final. 
7 Decision No 1386/2013/EU. 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Box 1. The socio-economic costs of not delivering on the EU biodiversity targets 

The opportunity cost of not reaching the 2020 EU biodiversity headline target has been estimated at up 
to EUR 50 billion a year.8 One in six jobs in the EU depends to some extent on nature.9 The value of 
insect  pollination  services  alone  has  been  estimated  at  EUR 15 billion  a  year  in  the  EU.  At  around 
EUR 5.8 billion, the annual costs of maintaining the EU Natura 2000 network are but a fraction of the 
economic benefits generated by the network through services such as carbon storage, flood mitigation, 
water  purification,  pollination  and  fish  protection,  together  worth  EUR 200-300 billion  annually. 
Restoring  ecosystems  and  green  infrastructure  can  improve  air  and  water  quality  and  flood  control, 
reduce  noise,  encourage  recreation  and  promote  opportunities  for  green  businesses.  Among  agri-
environmental  practices  that  support  biodiversity,  organic  farming  is  a  sector  with  positive 
employment  trends  that  attracts  younger  workers,  provides  10-20 %  more  jobs  per  land  area  than 
conventional  farms,  and  creates  added  value  for  agricultural  products.  Maintaining  healthy  marine 
habitats and sustainable fish stocks is essential for the long-term viability of the fishing sector. There 
is  an  important  economic  dimension  to  combating invasive  alien  species,  which  cause  damage  of  at 
least  EUR 12 billion  a  year  to  EU  sectors.  Policy  inaction  and  failure  to  halt  the  loss  of  global 
biodiversity  could  result  in  annual  losses  in  ecosystem  services  equivalent  to  7 %  of  world  GDP,10 
with the greatest impacts being felt by the poorest nations and the rural poor.11  

Box 2. Note on methodology 

The assessment of progress in the mid-term review takes account of the way that the different targets 
are  defined.  The  headline  target  is  formulated  in  terms  of  the  desired  state  of  biodiversity  and 
ecosystem services in the EU by 2020. Progress towards this target at the point of the mid-term review 
has been assessed in terms of both status and trends. The six operational targets have both policy-
related and status-related elements. The assessment under each of these targets presents: (i) where we 
stand at mid-term; (ii) what action has been implemented; and (iii) gaps and further efforts needed to 
reach the target by 2020. 

The  mid-term  review  draws  on  the  best  available  information  from  a  wide  range  of  sources 
summarised in the accompanying Staff Working Document.12 Trends in status of habitats and species 
of  EU  importance  are  based  on  data  reported  under  the  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives  (period  2007-
2012 vs 2001-200613). 

8 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/economics_policy/pdf/report_sept2011.pdf. 
9 http://www.teebweb.org/. 
10 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/biodiversity/pdf/ieep_alterra_report.pdf. 
11 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/pdf/teeb_report.pdf. 
12 SWD(2015) 187. 
13 COM(2015) 219 final. 

3

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.  SUMMARY OF PROGRESS SINCE 2011 

Headline target: Halt the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services 
in  the  EU  by  2020,  and  restore  them  in  so  far  as  feasible,  while  stepping  up  the  EU 
contribution to averting global biodiversity loss. 

Overall,  as  compared  with  the  EU  2010  biodiversity  baseline, 
biodiversity  loss  and  the  degradation  of  ecosystem  services  in  the  EU 
have continued, as confirmed by the 2015 European environment — state 
and outlook report.14 This is consistent with global trends and has serious 
implications for the capacity of biodiversity to meet human needs in the 
future.  While  many  local  successes  demonstrate  that  action  on  the 
ground delivers positive outcomes, these  examples need to be scaled up 
to have a measurable impact on the overall negative trends.  

No significant overall 
progress (much stronger 
efforts are needed to 
meet the target by its 
deadline) 

Since  the  last  reporting  period,  the  number  of  species  and  habitats  of  EU  importance  with 
secure/favourable  or  improved  conservation  status  has  increased  slightly.  Populations  of  some 
common  birds  appear  to  be  stabilising  but  other  species  linked  to  fragile  freshwater,  coastal  and 
agricultural ecosystems continue to decline; 70 % of EU species are threatened by habitat loss. While 
some  ecosystem  services  (in  particular  provisioning)  are  increasing,  others  such  as  pollination  are 
decreasing. 

The  key  threats  to  biodiversity  —  habitat  loss  (in  particular  through  urban  sprawl,  agricultural 
intensification,  land  abandonment,  and  intensively  managed  forests),  pollution,  over-exploitation  (in 
particular fisheries), invasive alien species and climate change — continue to exert pressure causing 
loss  of  species  and  habitats  and  resulting  in  ecosystem  degradation  and  weakening  ecosystem 
resilience.15 The EU-28 footprint is still over twice its biocapacity16 and this compounds pressures on 
biodiversity outside Europe. 

Since the launch of the strategy, progress has been made in establishing policy frameworks, improving 
the  knowledge  base  and  setting  up  partnerships.  These  initiatives  will  need  to  be  translated  into 
concrete  actions  at  national,  regional  and  local  levels  if  we  are  to  see  sustained  improvements  in 
biodiversity on the ground. Progress towards the headline target will also depend on the setting and 
achievement  of  objectives  in  policy  areas  not  directly  targeted  by  the  strategy,  notably  climate,  air, 
chemicals, water, and soil protection. 

There is ample evidence of major efforts by stakeholders that have resulted in positive local trends in 
biodiversity. These examples send an important message that targeted action on the ground can bring 
very  positive  results.  They  provide  models  for  guiding  implementation  in  the  second  half  of  the 
strategy. 

14 http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer. 
15 http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/europe/biodiversity. 
16 SEBI 023, EEA, 2015. 

4

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.1.  Target  1:  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  with  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  latest  report  on  the  state  of  nature  in  the  EU17  shows  that  the 
number  of  species  and  habitats  in  secure/favourable  or  improved 
conservation  status  has  increased  slightly  since  the  2010  baseline. 
in 
However,  many  habitats  and  species 
unfavourable  status  remain  so,  and  some  are  deteriorating  further. 
While much has been achieved since 2011 in carrying out the actions 
under  this  target,  the  most  important  challenges  remain  the 
completion of the Natura 2000 marine network, ensuring the effective 
management of Natura 2000 sites, and securing the necessary finance 
to support the Natura 2000 network.  

that  were  already 

Progress towards the 
target but at an 
insufficient rate 
(increased efforts are 
needed to meet the target 
by its deadline) 

Figure 1 — Progress towards Target 1: percentage of secure/favourable or improving assessments for 
birds (Birds Directive) and for habitats and species of Community interest (Habitats Directive) 

Source: EEA 2015 

As  indicated  in  Figure  1  above,  more  species  and  habitats  covered  by  EU  nature  legislation  show  a 
secure/favourable or improving conservation status since the 2010 baseline. Some emblematic species, 
such  as  the  Eastern  Imperial  Eagle,  show  recovery  as  a  result  of  targeted  conservation  measures 
supported  by  dedicated  financing.  However,  the  status  of  many  other  species  and  habitats  remains 
unfavourable, with some declining trends. 

17 COM(2015) 219 final. 

5

 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  Natura  2000  network  has  been  largely  completed  for  terrestrial  and  inland  water  habitats, 
covering about 18 % of the land surface. The marine network coverage has increased to 6 %, still well 
below the 10 % global target. 

Member  States  have  progressed  at  different  rates  in  developing  and  implementing  action  plans  for 
species  and  Natura  2000  site  management  plans.  In  2012,  only  58 %  of  Natura  2000  sites  had 
management plans, or had such plans in development.18 The Natura 2000 biogeographical process has 
encouraged cooperation between Member States on habitat management and restoration, and financing 
opportunities  for  Natura  2000  sites  have  increased.19  A  full  assessment  of  the  integration  of  Natura 
2000  in  the  new  multiannual  financial  framework  will  only  be  possible  once  all  programmes  have 
been approved. 

Guidance  has  been  developed  on  use  of  wind  energy,  port  development  and  dredging,  extractive 
industries,  agriculture,  aquaculture,  forests  and  energy  infrastructure  in  the  context  of  Natura  2000 
sites.20  

Training  was  organised  for  judges  and  prosecutors  on  the  enforcement  of  key  provisions  of  nature 
legislation. Major improvements have been seen in the monitoring and reporting of biodiversity data, 
and in streamlining the reporting requirements under the two nature directives. 

Communication  and  awareness  raising  have  been  stepped  up  with  the  launch  of  the  Natura  2000 
communication platform, an annual Natura 2000 award scheme and national campaigns. 

The  Commission  is  undertaking  a  fitness  check  of  the  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives21  as  part  of  its 
regulatory  fitness  and  performance  programme.  This  will  be  a  comprehensive  and  evidence-based 
analysis of whether the legislation and its implementation are proportionate to the set objectives and 
are delivering as intended. The results will be presented in the first half of 2016.   

While it will take time for the positive effects of many of these actions to become apparent, it is clear 
that significantly more efforts and investment will be needed in the remaining period up to 2020, so as 
to complete Natura 2000 in marine areas to achieve the 10 % global target, ensure that all Natura 2000 
sites  are  managed  effectively,  and  establish  adequate  financial  and  administrative  conditions  to 
achieve  conservation  objectives  and  allow  the  potential  of  ecosystem  services  to  deliver  within  and 
beyond the territories of Natura 2000. 

18 http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-nature-in-the-eu. 
19 SEC(2011) 1573 final. 
20 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm. 
21 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/index_en.htm. 

6

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.2.  Target  2:  By  2020,  ecosystems  and  their  services  are  maintained  and 
enhanced by establishing green infrastructure and restoring at least 15 % of 
degraded ecosystems. 

Progress  has  been  made  on  policy  and  knowledge  improvement 
actions under this target, and some restoration activities have taken 
place in Member States. However, this has not yet halted the trend 
of  degradation  of  ecosystems  and  services.  National  and  regional 
frameworks  to  promote  restoration  and  green  infrastructure  need 
to be developed and implemented. A lot remains to be done to halt 
the loss of ordinary biodiversity outside the Natura 2000 network. 

Progress towards the 
target but at an 
insufficient rate 
(increased efforts are 
needed to meet the target 
by its deadline) 

Figure 2 — Trends in pressures on ecosystems 

Ecosystem type 

Habitat changes Climate change 

Exploitation 

Invasive species 

Pollution and 
nutrient 
enrichment 

Urban 

Cropland  

Grassland 

Woodland and forest 

Heathland, shrub and sparsely 
vegetated land 

Wetlands  

Freshwater (rivers and lakes) 

(cid:202) 

(cid:202) 

(cid:202) 

(cid:204) 

(cid:198) 

(cid:198) 

(cid:198) 

(cid:199) 

(cid:199) 

(cid:199) 

(cid:199) 

(cid:199) 

(cid:199) 

(cid:199) 

Marine (transitional and 
marine waters, combined)* 
*NB: results for marine ecosystem are preliminary. 

(cid:199) 

(cid:202) 

(cid:202) 

(cid:202) 

(cid:202) 

(cid:198) 

(cid:198) 

(cid:198) 

(cid:198) 

(cid:202) 

(cid:202) 

(cid:202) 

(cid:202) 

(cid:198) 

(cid:202) 

(cid:202) 

(cid:202) 

(cid:202) 

(cid:199) 

(cid:199) 

(cid:199) 

(cid:202) 

(cid:202) 

(cid:204) 

(cid:204) 

(cid:202) 

Key: 

Projected future trends in pressure  

(cid:204) 
Decreasing 

(cid:198) 
Continuing 

(cid:202) 
Increasing 

(cid:199) 
Very rapid 
increase 

Observed impact on biodiversity to date 

Low 

Moderate 

High 

Very high 

Source: EEA 201522 

Recent  analysis23  confirms  increasing  trends  for  some  provisioning  services  (e.g.  timber  production) 
and  decreasing  trends  for  services  directly  related  to  biodiversity  (e.g.  pollination)  for  the  period 
between  2000-2010.  As  illustrated  in  Figure  2,  some  major  pressures  on  ecosystems  are  decreasing 

22 EEA Technical Report 6/2015. 
23 JRC Report 2015, Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. 

7

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
(e.g.  atmospheric  deposition  of  sulphur);  however,  other  threats  to  ecosystems  and  their  services 
persist and many are increasing, thereby slowing overall progress towards the target. 

The Commission and Member States have taken important steps to improve the knowledge base. The 
mapping  and  assessment  of  ecosystems  and  their  services,  when  completed  by  the  2020  target,  will 
allow  public  decision-makers  and  private-sector  stakeholders  to  capture  the  value  of  the  EU’s 
ecosystem  wealth  and  associated  socio-economic  benefits  in  their  planning  decisions.  The  Joint 
Research Centre report provides a  solid baseline against which progress will be tracked, with a first 
update expected in 2016. 

The EU green infrastructure strategy24 promotes the integration of green infrastructure solutions into 
other EU policies and financing instruments. The Commission has also published a study25 to support 
Member  States  in  prioritising  the  restoration  of  degraded  ecosystems.  Although  there  are  few 
comprehensive  restoration  strategies  at  national  and  sub-national  levels,  some  restoration  is  taking 
place  —  often  in  response  to  EU  legislation  such  as  the  Water  Framework  Directive,  the  Marine 
Strategy Framework Directive, and the Birds and Habitats Directives. 

Over  the  coming  years,  increased  efforts  will  be  needed  to  complete  and  implement  national 
restoration  prioritisation  frameworks.  Further  investments,  coupled  with  capacity  building  and  the 
integration  of  green  infrastructure  into  national  and  sub-national  planning  frameworks,  will  be 
important drivers to maintain and restore ecosystems and their services. A lot remains to be done in 
relation to halting the loss of ordinary biodiversity in the 80 % of the EU territory falling outside of 
Natura 2000, which will require consideration of the most suitable approach  to ensure no net loss of 
biodiversity and ecosystem services. 

2.3.  Target 3: Increase the contribution of agriculture and forestry to maintaining 

and enhancing biodiversity. 

2.3.1.  Target  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. 

(*)  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. 

24 COM(2013) 249 final. 
25 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/RPF.pdf. 

8

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  continuing  decline  in  the  status  of  species  and  habitats  of  EU 
importance  associated  with  agriculture  indicates  that  greater  efforts 
need  to  be  made  to  conserve  and  enhance  biodiversity  in  these  areas. 
The common agricultural policy (CAP) has an essential role to play in 
this process in interaction with relevant environmental policies.26  

The  CAP  reform  for  2014-2020  provides  a  range  of  instruments  that 
can  contribute  to  supporting  biodiversity.  If  the  target  is  to  be 
achieved,  these  opportunities  need  now  to  be  taken  up  by  Member 
States  on  a  sufficient  scale.  Local  examples  demonstrate  successful 
sustainable  agricultural  practices.  If  implemented  more  broadly,  they 
could put the EU back on track to achieve the target by 2020. 

No significant overall 
progress (much stronger 
efforts are needed to 
meet the target by its 
deadline) 

Figure 3 — Changes (2007-2012 vs 2001-2006) in conservation status for habitats of Community interest 
associated with agricultural ecosystems (grassland and cropland) 

Source: EEA 2015 

The 2015 European environment — state and outlook report identifies intensification in agricultural 
practices and land abandonment, along with urban sprawl and grey infrastructure, as key pressures on 
biodiversity. The 2015 report The State of Nature in the European Union also points to agriculture and 
human-induced  modifications  of  natural  conditions  as  the  most  prominent  pressures  on  terrestrial 
ecosystems in the period 2007-2012, with 20 % of the pressure stemming from agriculture alone. As 
illustrated  in  Figure  3,  there  has  been  no  measurable  improvement  in  the  status  of  the  majority  of 
agriculture-related  species  and  habitats  covered  by  EU  nature  legislation  since  the  last  reporting 
period. Grasslands and wetlands have the highest proportion of habitats in ‘unfavourable — bad’ or 
‘deteriorating’ status. While populations of common bird species have started stabilising since 2010, 
farmland  birds  have  continued  declining.  Pollination  services  are  in  steep  decline27  with  multiple 

26 Many EU policies and legal texts have impacts (direct and indirect) on the state of biodiversity in rural areas. 

Target 3A focuses on the contribution of the common agricultural policy. 
27 JRC Report 2015, Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. 

9

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
pressures on wild bees.28 Grassland butterflies are declining severely and there is no sign of levelling 
off. 

While overall trends continue to be a cause for serious concern, there are many local improvements as 
a  direct  result  of  good  agricultural  practices  and  biodiversity  measures  under  the  CAP,  in  particular 
under  the  agri-environment  measures  and  in  Natura  2000  sites.  Such  successes  carry  an  important 
message  on  the  achievability  of  the  2020  biodiversity  target,  but  would  need  to  be  spread  wider  to 
achieve measurable results at EU level. 

The  CAP  reform  for  2014-2020  includes  various  instruments  that  can  contribute  to  support 
biodiversity.  Cross-compliance  represents  the  basic  layer  of  environmental  requirements  and 
obligations to be met by farmers. Direct payments reward the delivery of environmental public goods. 
One  of  the  three  greening  practices  under  the  first  pillar  —  ecological  focus  areas  —  specifically 
targets  biodiversity.  Finally,  the  Rural  Development  Regulation29  provides  national  and  regional 
authorities with a wide range of biodiversity-favourable options to choose from. These options include 
a sub-priority on the restoration, preservation and enhancement of ecosystems, a target for biodiversity 
output in rural development programmes, collaboration mechanisms among farmers and foresters, and 
a greater focus on advising farmers on water and pesticide use but also on biodiversity, including the 
obligations under the Birds and Habitats Directives. 

The  reformed  CAP  gives  Member  States’  national  and  regional  authorities  the  flexibility  to  decide 
how  and  to  what  extent  they  take  up  these  opportunities.  Member  States’  rural  development 
programmes  and choices related to ecological focus areas  will be carefully monitored and evaluated 
with  respect  to  biodiversity  protection.  Based  on  programmes  adopted  at  the  time  of  finalising  this 
report,  19.1 %30  of  total  agricultural  land  is  under  management  contracts  supporting  biodiversity 
and/or landscapes, with very large disparities among Member States and regions. Understanding the 
reasons for disparity in take-up among Member States will be critical for further progress towards the 
2020 target. 

28 European Red List of Wild Bees (2015). 
29 Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council. 
30  The  73  rural  development  programmes  (of  118  in  total)  adopted  by  23.08.2015  cover  three  quarters  of  the 

budget and three quarters of utilised agricultural area. 

10

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.3.2.  Target 3B — Forests: By 2020, Forest Management Plans or equivalent 
instruments, in line with Sustainable Forest Management (SFM), 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.  

(*)  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 

EU  forest  area  has  increased  as  compared  with  the  EU  2010 
biodiversity  baseline.  However,  the  conservation  status  of  forest 
habitats  and  species  covered  by  EU  nature  legislation  shows  no 
significant signs of improvement. EU-level data on the status of forest 
habitats outside Natura 2000 is limited. 

Forest  management  plans  or  equivalent  instruments  can  play  an 
important  positive  role  in  achieving  the  target,  but  their  potential 
remains largely unused. 

No significant overall 
progress (much stronger 
efforts are needed to 
meet the target by its 
deadline) 

Favourable conservation status assessments of forest habitats of European importance have decreased 
from  nearly  17 %  to  about  15 %  in  the  latest  assessment.  The  vast  majority  of  assessments  remain 
unfavourable (80 %) but results vary considerably across Europe’s biogeographical regions, with the 
highest proportion of favourable assessments being found in the Mediterranean region. 

11

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4 — Change (2007-2012 vs 2001-2006) in conservation status for habitats of Community interest 
associated with woodland and forest ecosystem at EU-27 level31 

Source: EEA 2015 

The  EU  forest  strategy32  highlights  the  economic,  social  and  environmental  importance  of  Europe’s 
forest  ecosystems  and  sets  the  guiding  principles  of  sustainable  forest  management,  resource 
efficiency and global forest responsibility. The Commission is also developing criteria and indicators 
for sustainable forest management. Securing adequate funding for biodiversity-favourable measures in 
forested  areas  remains  a  challenge.  During  the  period  2007  to  2013,  a  total  of  EUR 5.4 billion  was 
allocated  to  forests  under  rural  development  programmes  whereas  the  annual  cost  of  managing  the 
Natura 2000 network (of which over half is forest) is around EUR 5.8 billion. 

Forest  management  plans  or  equivalent  instruments  could  play  a  key  role  in  achieving  Target  3B, 
including  in  private  forests.  Overall,  a  large  share  of  EU  forests  is  covered  by  some  form  of 
management plan but there nevertheless remain significant variations across the Member States. The 
take-up of some of the measures identified in the EU biodiversity strategy has been limited. Improving 
EU-level  information  on  forest  status  will  allow  a  more  precise  assessment  of  the  situation  and  the 
design of appropriate policy responses to meet the target. 

31 The graph refers to EU-27 as it relates to the time before the accession of Croatia. 
32 COM(2013) 659 final. 

12

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.4.  Target  4:  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 
(MSFD). 

* The reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) which entered into force in 2014, aims 
to ensure MSY exploitation rates for all stocks by 2015 where possible, and at the latest 
by 2020. 

Significant  progress  has  been  made  in  setting  the  policy  framework 
for  sustainable  fisheries  under  the  reformed  EU  common  fisheries 
policy, and for achieving good environmental status under the MSFD. 
The  Commission  is  promoting  improvements  in  oceans  governance 
for  more  sustainable  management  of  marine  resources.  However, 
policy  implementation  has  been  uneven  across  the  EU  and  major 
challenges  remain  to  ensure  that  the  objectives  are  achieved 
according  to  schedule.  Just  over  50 %  of  MSY-assessed  stocks  were 
fished sustainably in 2013. 

As  a  result  of  multiple  pressures,  marine  species  and  ecosystems 
continue declining across Europe’s seas. 

Progress towards the 
target but at an 
insufficient rate 
(increased efforts are 
needed to meet the target 
by its deadline) 

The reformed common fisheries policy provides a sound policy framework for sustainable fisheries, 
and implementation is advancing. Harvesting levels are at or approaching maximum sustainable yield 
for an increasing number of commercial stocks. Progress has been noteworthy in the northern waters 
where most stocks subject to catch limits are assessed (up to 90 % in the Baltic) and the majority are 
managed under the maximum sustainable yield. However, in the Mediterranean and Black Seas, less 
than  10 %  of  landings  come  from  assessed  stocks  and  around  90 %  of  assessed  stocks  remain 
overexploited.33 

Fishing mortality has significantly decreased for a number of stocks in the Baltic and the greater North 
Sea.34  This  is  evidence  that  they  are  responding  positively  to  the  implementation  of  long-term 
management plans and fishing practices respecting the MSY objective. 

Marine biodiversity across Europe’s regional seas continues to decline. Having good quality, reliable 
and comprehensive data on the marine environment is a challenge in itself, with 80 % of species and 
habitats under the MSFD categorised as unknown (commercial fish stocks being a positive exception). 
Only  4 %  of  habitats  are  documented  as  being  in  good  environmental  status.  Climate  change  and 
acidification  compound  the  negative  impacts  of  overfishing,  pollution  and  marine  litter,  habitat 
destruction and invasive alien species.35 

33 COM(2015) 239 final. 
34JRC (2015) Monitoring the performance of the common fisheries policy — STECF-15-04. 
35 EEA Report No 2/2015. 

13

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  support of  reducing  the  adverse  impact  of  fishing  on  non-target  species  and  ecosystems,  the  new 
common fisheries policy aims — through the gradual introduction of a landing obligation by 2019 — 
to eliminate discarding. This will require strengthened monitoring at Member State level in order to 
lead to practices that are cleaner, more selective and which avoid by-catch, and to improve by-catch 
data. 

Continued efforts at the national level to implement management plans and monitor the enforcement 
of  rules  will  be  paramount  in  addressing  pressures  on  marine  biodiversity  by  2020,  along  with 
improved  monitoring,  broadening  the  knowledge  base  and  coordination  of  marine  biodiversity 
information. Building on experience and expanding research networks will be a key task. 

2.5.  Target  5:  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. 

Invasive alien species are a fast-growing threat to biodiversity. The 
IAS  Regulation36  entered  into  force  in  2015.  Work  is  under  way  to 
propose  the  first  list  of  invasive  alien  species  of  Union  concern.  If 
this list is adopted by the end of 2015, the EU can be considered to 
be on track with the actions envisaged under Target 5. 

The next critical step for achieving the target will be implementation 
by  Member  States.  Ratification  of  the  Ballast  Water  Convention, 
crucial  for  addressing  marine  invasive  alien  species,  is  slow-going 
with only 7 Member State ratifications to date.  

On track to achieve target 
(if we continue on our 
current trajectory we 
expect to achieve the 
target by 2020) 

Currently, there are more than 11 000 alien species in the European environment and 10-15 % of them 
are causing problems. In the seas around Europe, more than 80 % of non-indigenous species have been 
introduced since 1950 (see Figure 5). 

36 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014. 

14

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 5 — Rate of introduction of marine non-indigenous species37 

Source: EEA 2015 

The new IAS Regulation provides a framework to prevent and manage the introduction and spread of 
invasive alien species in the EU. The European Alien Species Information Network38 is being set up to 
assist Member States in its implementation. Work is under way with Member States to finalise the first 
list of invasive alien species of Union concern based on species’ risk assessments, including potential 
economic threats. A  scanning exercise to prioritise future risk assessments will support a preventive 
approach.  The  Commission's  2013  proposals  on  plant39  and  animal40  health  also  aim  to  support 
biodiversity protection.   

The  swift  adoption  of  the  first  list  of  invasive  alien  species  of  Union  concern  and  effective 
implementation  by  the  Member  States  will  be  decisive  for  continued  progress  towards  this  target. 
Progress on related policies will be crucial, in particular the ratification and enforcement of the Ballast 
Water Convention and the application of the animal health regime for wildlife diseases.  

37 http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/trends-in-marine-alien-species-mas-2/assessment. 
38 http://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/. 
39 COM(2013) 267. 
40 COM(2013) 260. 

15

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.6.  Target  6:  By  2020,  the  EU  has  stepped  up  its  contribution  to  averting  global 

biodiversity loss. 

The  EU  remains  by  far  the  largest  financial  donor  and  has  made 
progress in increasing resources for global biodiversity. The EU has 
taken  initial  steps  to  reduce  indirect  drivers  of  global  biodiversity 
loss,  including  wildlife  trade,  and  to  integrate  biodiversity  into  its 
trade agreements. However, progress is insufficient in reducing the 
impacts of EU consumption patterns on global biodiversity. On the 
current trajectory, existing efforts may not be sufficient to meet the 
Aichi Biodiversity Targets by the deadlines.41 

Progress towards the 
target but at an 
insufficient rate 
(increased efforts are 
needed to meet the target 
by its deadline) 

The EU is the largest contributor to biodiversity-related official development assistance and has more 
than doubled funding between 2006 and 2013. 

In order to regulate access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising 
from their utilisation, the EU ratified the Nagoya Protocol in 2014. New legislation has been adopted 
to regulate compliance measures, and an additional implementing act is being prepared. 

The  2013  EU  Timber  Regulation  aims  to  stop  the  circulation  of  illegally  logged  wood  on  the  EU 
market.  The  EU  Forest  Law  Enforcement,  Governance  and  Trade  Plan  encourages  trade  in  legal 
timber. There is a growing consumer preference for products from sustainably managed forests. Some 
progress  has  also  been  made  on  palm  oil,  but  too  little  action  has  been  taken  regarding  other 
commodities and the EU-28 footprint is over twice the size of its biocapacity. 

41 CBD Global Biodiversity Outlook 4. 

16

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 6 — Ecological footprint per region of the world 

Source: EEA (SEBI)42 

All  recent  EU  free  trade  agreements  have  provisions  on  the  implementation  of  multilateral 
environmental  agreements.  The  EU  has  also  supported  global  efforts  against  wildlife  trafficking,43 
including  promoting  progress  towards  the  adoption  of  a  comprehensive  UN  General  Assembly 
Resolution on tackling illicit trafficking in wildlife. On 8 July 2015, the EU officially became a Party 
to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. 

Actions  to  biodiversity-proof  EU  development  cooperation  have  been  addressed  through  the 
mainstreaming  of  environment  and  climate  change.  A  compulsory  environmental  screening  for  any 
new  development  cooperation  action  addresses  potential  impacts  on  protected  or  vulnerable  areas, 
ecosystem  services,  the  introduction  of  alien  species,  and  the  use  of  fertilisers,  pesticides  or  other 
chemicals.  Programming  has  paid  special  attention  to  the  potential  for  biodiversity  protection  and 
improvement. 

The  EU  and  its  Member  States  have  played  an  active  role  in  shaping  the  global  2030  Agenda  for 
Sustainable  Development.  Implementing  these  commitments  in  the  EU  and  supporting  their 
achievement  on  a  global  scale  will  help  to  advance  towards  meeting  this  target.  Reaching  the 
international target of doubling biodiversity-related funding flows to developing countries by 2015 and 
maintaining them until 2020, as well as increasing the effectiveness of funding, will require continued 
commitment,  better  prioritisation  and  coordination  with  other  donors.  Achieving  EU  objectives  will 
require  further  action  to  address  the  EU  ecological  footprint,  and  the  effective  implementation  of 
recently  adopted  policy  and  legislation,  with  particular  focus  on  compliance  under  the  Nagoya 
Protocol.  More  efforts  are  also  needed  to  implement  provisions  on  biodiversity  in  recent  trade 

42 

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/ecological-footprint-of-european-countries/ecological-

footprint-of-european-countries-2. 

43 COM(2014) 64 final. 

17

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
agreements,  to  further  integrate  biodiversity  objectives  into  EU  trade  policies  and  to  encourage 
initiatives to promote sustainable trade.   

3.  HORIZONTAL MEASURES 

3.1.  Financing 

Insufficient  financing  was  a  major  factor  in  the  failure  to  reach  the  2010  biodiversity  target. 
Biodiversity aspects have been integrated to various degrees into European structural and investment 
funds, notably the common agricultural policy, cohesion policy funds and the European Maritime and 
Fisheries Fund. A robust analysis of the allocations to biodiversity will only be possible once all rural 
development  and  operational  programmes  are  adopted.  The  LIFE  programme  remains  a  small  but 
highly effective funding source for nature and biodiversity. It will also support innovative financing 
through the recently launched Natural Capital Financing Facility. 

The Commission has developed a process to track biodiversity-related expenditure in the EU budget in 
order  to  estimate  more  accurately  the  integration  of  biodiversity  in  programming.44  A  methodology 
has also been developed to ‘biodiversity-proof’ the EU budget, to ensure that spending has no negative 
impacts but supports biodiversity objectives. 

EU  financing  instruments  are  key  in  delivering  on  international  biodiversity  commitments,  in 
particular through the Development and Cooperation Instrument and the European Development Fund, 
as well as under the Partnership Instrument. EU efforts to enhance resource mobilisation from these 
external instruments are enshrined in the ‘Biodiversity for Life’ flagship initiative (B4Life) launched 
in 2014. 

3.2.  Partnerships 

There has been considerable progress in establishing partnerships and engaging stakeholders and civil 
society.  The re-launched  EU  Business  and  Biodiversity  Platform  supports  the  active  involvement  of 
businesses in the strategy implementation. The Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Territories of 
European  Overseas  (BEST)  preparatory  action  contributes  to  the  transition  towards  swift  and  easy 
access to funding for biodiversity protection and sustainable use of ecosystem services. The EU has 
also  supported  the  Economics  of  Ecosystems  and  Biodiversity  initiative,  both  within  the  EU  and  in 
developing countries, and has encouraged synergies between the Convention on Biological Diversity 
and other conventions. 

3.3.  Strengthening the knowledge base 

The knowledge and evidence base for EU biodiversity policy has been improved through streamlined 
reporting  under  the  nature  directives,  and  the  mapping  and  assessment  of  ecosystems  and  their 
services,  recognised  internationally  as  the  most  advanced  regional  assessment  scheme  under  the 
Intergovernmental  Platform  on  Biodiversity  and  Ecosystem  Services.  Research  and  innovation 
framework  programmes  have  an  important  role  in  the  assessment  of  ecosystem  services,  in  synergy 
with other EU funds. Horizon 2020 supports integrated assessments and science-policy interfaces with 
a  focus  on  nature-based  solutions.  Cohesion  policy  funding  for  research  and  innovation  is  another 
source of support. However, major gaps in data  and knowledge remain, in particular concerning the 

44 SEC(2015)240. 

18

 
 
 
                                                 
marine  environment,  the  assessment  of  ecosystem  health  and  links  to  ecosystem  services  and 
resilience. The integration of — and open access to — data from biodiversity monitoring and reporting 
under  relevant  EU  legislation  (such  as  agriculture,  fisheries,  and  regional  policy)  needs  to  be 
strengthened  as  a  priority  for  the  remainder  of  the  implementation  period.  EU  external  instruments 
have resulted in the creation of regional observatories in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries for 
better informing the decision-makers in natural resource management. 

4.  CONCLUSION 

The  mid-term  review  assessing  progress  under  the  EU  biodiversity  strategy  shows  that  the  2020 
biodiversity  targets  can  only  be  reached  if  implementation  and  enforcement  efforts  become 
considerably bolder and more ambitious. At the current rate of implementation, biodiversity loss and 
the degradation of ecosystem services will continue throughout the EU and globally, with significant 
implications for the capacity of biodiversity to meet human needs in the future. 

Progress  has  been  made  in  establishing  important  policy  frameworks:  the  new  common  fisheries 
policy,  the  Invasive  Alien  Species  and  Timber  Regulations,  and  the  introduction  of  biodiversity 
provisions in bilateral trade agreements, to name just a few. The reformed common agricultural policy 
provides opportunities for enhanced integration of biodiversity concerns but the extent of take-up by 
Member States will be decisive for success. The Commission has supported and complemented efforts 
made  by  Member  States,  regional  and  local  authorities  and  stakeholders  in  enforcing  environmental 
legislation,  addressing  policy  gaps,  providing  guidelines,  funding,  promoting  partnerships  and 
fostering research and the exchange of best practice. There is a wealth of positive experience that can 
be a model for advancing towards the EU biodiversity targets in the remaining period until 2020. 

It is now urgent to intensify the implementation of measures across all targets and to ensure that the 
principles  included  in  the  policy  frameworks  are  fully  reflected  on  the  ground.  Achieving  the  2020 
biodiversity objectives will require strong partnerships and the full engagement and efforts from key 
actors  at  all  levels,  in  particular  with  respect  to  completing  the  Natura  2000 network  for  the  marine 
environment,  ensuring  effective  management  of  Natura  2000  sites  and  implementing  the  Invasive 
Alien  Species  Regulation,  and  considering  the  most  suitable  approach  for  recognizing  our  natural 
capital throughout the EU.  

Achieving  this  target  will  also  require  more  effective  integration  with  a  wide  range  of  policies,  by 
setting  coherent  priorities  underpinned  by  adequate  funding  —  in  particular  in  the  sectors  of 
agriculture and forestry which together account for 80% of land use in the EU, as well as marine, 
fisheries  and  regional  development.  EU  financing  instruments  can  assist  in  the  process.  Achieving 
biodiversity objectives will also contribute to the growth and jobs agenda, food and water security, and 
to quality of life, as well as to the implementation of sustainable development goals globally and in the 
EU. 

19