REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE The state of nature in the European Union Report on the status and trends in 2013 - 2018 of species and habitat types protected by the Birds and Habitats Directives
Date: 2020-10-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, biodiversity, biotope, bird, environmental monitoring, protected area, protected species, protection of animal life

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.10.2020  COM(2020) 635 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE The state of nature in the European Union   Report on the status and trends in 2013 - 2018 of species and habitat types protected by the Birds and Habitats Directives    
 
 
1. Introduction 

The EU’s Birds1 and Habitats2 Directives (the ‘nature directives’), which are the basis of the 
Natura 2000 network of protected areas, form a cornerstone of EU biodiversity policy. They 
seek to ensure the conservation of species and habitat types of EU importance, protecting all 
wild birds (over 460 species), representative and threatened habitats (233 types, from marine 
seagrass beds to  alpine grasslands) and almost  1 400 additional  species, from tiny plants  to 
mammals,  including  many  iconic  wildlife  species.  They  require  the  Member  States  to 
maintain and restore the favourable conservation status of these species and habitats. 

To  enable  the  Commission  to  gauge  progress  towards  the  nature  directives’  goals,  the 
Member States are required to report to it every 6 years as required under  Article 12 of the 
Birds  Directive  and  Article  17  of  the  Habitats  Directive,  in  particular  on  the  conservation 
status and trends of the habitats and species they protect. This composite report, the third EU 
conservation  status  assessment  under  the  directives,  is  the  result  of  the  largest  and  most 
extensive data-gathering and reporting exercise carried out on the state of nature in Europe. It 
documents the status and trends of habitats and species in 2013-2018, as reported by the 28 
Member  States3,  providing  an  up-to-date  overview  of  the  health  of  the  EU’s  nature.  It 
assesses changes over time, key pressures and the contribution of the Natura 2000 network to 
the conservation of protected species and habitats. The analysis is underpinned by a detailed 
technical assessment by the European Environment Agency4.  

2. Status and trends of habitats and species in the EU 

Member  States  submit  data  in  a  harmonised  format,  so  that  they  can  be  fed  into  databases 
used for aggregated EU-level assessments by the European Environment Agency. 

For birds, the assessment is performed at the level of the EU. Protected species and habitat 
types  covered  by  the  Habitats  Directive  are  assessed  at  the  level  of  nine  terrestrial 
‘biogeographical’ regions5 and five marine regions6. For clear and consistent communication, 
the  results  are  presented  using  traffic-light  colour  coding  (green-amber-red),  to  denote 

1   Directive  2009/147/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  30  November  2009  on  the 

conservation of wild birds (OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7). 

2   Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and 

flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7). 

3   This  report  still  includes  data  from  the  United  Kingdom,  which  left  the  EU  in  January  2020.  For  the  first 
time, it includes data from Croatia, which joined the EU in July 2013. Romania was the only Member State 
that did not provide a report for birds. 

4   State  of  nature  in  the  EU  —  results  from  reporting  under  the  nature  directives  2013-2018,  European  
Environmental Agency; available together with additional online materials, including summaries by Member 
State, at:  
https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/biodiversity/state-of-nature-in-the-eu/state-of-nature-2020 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/rep_habitats/index_en.htm  

5   Alpine, Boreal, Mediterranean, Atlantic, Continental, Pannonian, Black Sea, Macaronesian, Steppic. 
6   Atlantic, Baltic, Black Sea, Macaronesian, Mediterranean. 

1 

 
 
                                                            
 
‘good’,  ‘poor’  and  ‘bad’  status7.  All  statistics  on  overall  status  and  trends  are  based  on  the 
number of EU-level assessments for single habitats and species. 

While this aggregation of national reporting data is necessary for assessments at the level of 
the  EU  and  the  biogeographical  regions,  it  may  conceal  positive  developments  at  lower 
(i.e. local, regional or national) levels. 

2.1 Birds 

The  Birds  Directive  protects  all  naturally  occurring  wild  bird  species  in  the  European 
territory of the Member States (over 460 species). In its Annex I, it lists 197 (sub)species that 
require special habitat conservation measures, including the designation of special protection 
areas (SPAs). Annex II lists 86 (sub)species that may be hunted under national legislation. 

Birds — population status at EU level 

Figure 1: EU population status of bird species 

Note: The total number of assessments is 463 (one assessment per species). 

The EU-level assessment indicates that 47% of all bird species have a good population status, 
down  by  5 percentage points (pp) from  52%  in  20158.  The  proportion of  species with  poor 
and  bad  status  has  increased  from  32%  to  39%,  while  the  status  of  14%  is  still  unknown 
(compared with 16% in 2015) due to a lack of reliable data. 

7   See the EEA report for further details on the assessment methods under the Birds and Habitats Directives. 
8   State  of  nature  in  the  EU  —  results  from  reporting  under  the  nature  directives  2007–2012,  EEA  (2015), 

Technical report No 2/2015, ISSN 1725-2237, Publications Office of the European Union, 2015. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
Birds — population trends at EU level 

Figure 2a: Short-term (12-year) breeding bird 
population trends at EU level 

Figure 2b: Long-term (38-year) breeding bird 
population trends at EU level 

Note:  Statistics  based  on  465  short-term  and  467  long-term  EU  breeding  population  trends.  Includes  trends  for  a  limited 
number of subspecies and biogeographical populations. 

Member States reported population trends for both breeding and wintering bird populations9 
for the short and the long term, i.e. for the past 12 years (2007-2018) and the past 38 years 
(1980-2018). 

The data indicate that: 

 

 

 

 

almost  a  third  (30%)  of  all  assessed  breeding  bird  species  are  on  a  downward 
short-term trend (the same percentage as in 2015); 

short-term breeding trends show 5% fewer species with increasing populations than in 
2015  and  a  7%  increase  in  species  with  stable  or  fluctuating  trends;  ‘unknown’ 
assessments fell by 2%; 

slightly  more  long-term  breeding  trends  are  on  the  way  down  than  on  the  rise  (the 
opposite  was  true  in  2008-2012);  however,  the  proportion  of  ‘unknown’  long-term 
breeding trends dropped by 10 pp, from 30% to 20%; and 

for  the  91  wintering  population  trends,  the  short-term  situation  is  similar  to  that  in 
2015  (45% increasing, 29%  decreasing);  54% of  long-term  trends  are  on the  up and 
13% going down (the proportion of the former has thus dropped by 9 pp, while that of 
the latter is almost the same). 

9   For details see EEA report; 

https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/biodiversity/state-of-nature-in-the-eu/state-of-nature-2020 

3 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
Status and trends of birds according to their listing in the Birds Directive 

Figure 3a: EU population status of Annex I and II, 
non-Annex I/II and all bird species 

Figure 3b: EU short-term breeding population 
trends for Annex I and II, non-Annex I/II and 
all bird species 

Note: The total number of assessments is 505. 

Note: The total number of assessments is 465. 

Analysis  of  the  status  and  trends  of  species  in  Annexes I  and II  to  the  Birds  Directive 
indicates that: 

 

 

 

the proportion of Annex I species with secure status decreased by 8 pp (from 48% to 
40%) from 2015, while the proportion of those with poor and bad status increased by 
6 pp (from 38% to 44%). This suggests that the status of several Annex I species has 
deteriorated,  despite  the  special  habitat  conservation  measures  required  under  the 
Directive.  The  fact  that  the  status  of  16%  of  Annex  I  species  is  still  unknown  is  of 
particular concern and underlines the need for improved monitoring systems for these 
species in the Member States; 

the proportion of Annex II (huntable) species with a good status was 9 pp lower (down 
from  55%  to  46%)  than  in  2015,  while  the  proportion  with  poor  and  bad  status 
increased by 9 pp (from 39% to 48%); and 

as regards short-term population trends for breeding birds, Annex II species show by 
far  the  highest  rate  of  downward  trends  –  about  46%,  i.e. twice  the  proportion  for 
Annex I species (23%). 

2.2 Habitat types 

Of  the  233  habitat  types  listed  in  Annex  I  to  the  Habitats  Directive,  224  are  terrestrial  and 
nine  are  purely  marine.  The  reported  area  for  the  former  accounts  for  almost  a  third  of  the 
terrestrial  area  of  the  EU-28,  equivalent  to  1.3 million km2.  The  area  for  the  latter  covers 
0.4 million km2 of EU waters. 

4 

 
 
 
 
The range of habitats is very wide. Some cover large areas, while others occur only in very 
small  patches.  Forest  habitat  types  are  the  most  numerous  group  in  Annex I  (35%  of  all 
types),  followed  by  natural  and  semi-natural  grasslands  (14%).  Groups  such  as  temperate 
heath  and  scrub,  sclerophyllous  scrub,  bogs,  mires  and  fens,  and  rocky  habitats  each 
constitute only about 5% of the habitat types listed.  

Conservation status of habitats 

Figure 4a: Conservation status of 
habitats at EU level 

Figure 4b: Conservation status per habitat group at EU 
level 

Note: Statistics based on number of EU habitat 
assessments (818). 

Note:  The  number  of  assessments  per  group 
in 
parentheses.  Marine  habitats  are  part  of  the  ‘coastal  habitats’  group. 
The total number of assessments is 818. 

indicated 

is 

The conservation status of habitats did not improve over the reporting period. Only 15% of 
the habitat assessments show good conservation status, compared with 16% in 2015. The vast 
majority indicate unfavourable status (45% poor and 36% bad, compared with 47% and 30% 
in 2015). While the level of poor status assessments has decreased by 2 pp and the level of 
bad  ones  increased  by  6 pp,  most  of  the  changes  do  not  reflect  actual  deterioration  on  the 
ground, but improvements in assessment methods at EU or Member State level.   

Of  the  nine  reported  habitat  groups,  coastal  habitats  (which  include  marine  habitat  types) 
have  the  lowest  proportion  of  ‘good  status’  assessments.  Dunes,  bogs,  mires  and  fens  are 
most frequently assessed as  having  bad status  (over 50%). Grasslands, which include some 
very  species-rich  habitats,  are  also  among  those  with  the  highest  proportion  of  ‘bad  status’ 
assessments (49%). Grasslands that require active management are in a particularly bad state. 

Gaps in knowledge for the nine marine habitats continue to be a problem. The conservation 
status of around 26% of Member States’ marine habitats remains unknown (compared with 
4% for terrestrial habitats). 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Trends in conservation status of habitats 

Figure 5a: Conservation status trends of habitats 
with unfavourable (i.e. not good) or unknown 
status at EU level 

Figure  5b:  Conservation  status  trends  of  habitats  with 
unfavourable  (i.e.  not  good)  or  unknown  status  per  habitat 
group at EU level 

Note:  Conservation  status  trends  are  based  on  EU  habitat 
assessments (698). 

Note:  The  number  of  assessments  is  indicated  in  parentheses.  The  total 
number of assessments is 698. 

The status of 81% of the listed habitats is assessed as ‘poor’ or ‘bad’ at EU level. Only 9% of 
them show improving trends, while 36% show continuing deterioration. Deteriorating trends 
are  observed  in  at  least  25%  of  all  assessments  across  habitat  groups,  except  for  rocky 
habitats  (15%).  Bogs,  mires  and  fens,  grasslands  and  dune  habitats  have  the  highest 
proportion of deteriorating trends (over 50% for each group). For grassland habitats, mainly 
hay meadows10, Molinia meadows11 and several types of semi-natural dry grasslands12 show 
a  deteriorating  conservation  status  trend,  illustrating their  dependence  on  extensive farming 
practices that are still in decline across the EU. Forest habitats show the highest proportion of 
improving trends among the assessments (13%). 

2.3 Species other than birds 

Annexes II, IV and  V to  the Habitats Directive list  1 389 species  of European  interest13. In 
some  larger  taxonomic  groups  such  as  molluscs,  arthropods  and  vascular  plants,  the 
proportion  of  species  covered  by  the  annexes  is  very  low.  The  best-represented  groups  are 
vertebrates,  with  85%  of  amphibians,  70%  of  reptiles,  64%  of  mammals  and  39%  of 
freshwater  fish  species  listed.  Many  unlisted  species,  including  many  of  the  more  common 

10  Habitat types of this group include lowland hay meadows (6510) and mountain hay meadows (6520) 
11  Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) (6410) 
12  Habitat types of this group include semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates 

(Festuco-Brometalia) (6210) and Nordic alvar and precambrian calcareous flatrocks (6280) 

13   Annex II: species requiring designation of SACs (Natura 2000 sites);  

Annex IV: strictly protected species;  
Annex V: species whose taking in the wild and exploitation may be subject to management measures. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
species,  benefit  from  measures  under  the  Directive,  including  the  protection  of  Annex I 
habitat types. 

Conservation status of species 

Figure 6a: Conservation status of species at EU 
level  

Figure 6b: Conservation status per species group at EU 
level 

Note:  Statistics  based  on  number  of  EU  species 
assessments (2 825).  

Note:  The  number  of  assessments  per  group  is  indicated  in 
parentheses. The total number of assessments is 2 825. 

Over  a  quarter  (27%)  of  species  assessments  indicate  good  conservation  status,  compared 
with 23% in 2015. 63% show poor or bad status, which is similar to the 2015 figure (60%). 
The number of ‘unknown’ assessments dropped from the last reporting period (from 17% to 
10%),  but  remains  significantly  higher  than  for  habitats  (4%).  At  Member  State  level,  the 
status  of  the  majority  of  marine  species  (59%)  is  unknown,  compared  with  only  8%  of 
terrestrial species, suggesting that insufficient resources are devoted to monitoring them. 

The  species  groups  with  the  highest  proportion  in  good  status  at  EU  level  are  reptiles  and 
vascular  plants  (36%  and  40%  respectively).  Around  30%  of  mollusc  and  fish  species 
received a ‘bad status’ assessment. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Trends in conservation status of species 

Figure  7a:  Conservation  status  trends  of 
species  with  unfavourable  (i.e.  not-good)  or 
unknown status at EU level 

Figure  7b:  Conservation  status  trends  of  species  with 
unfavourable  (i.e.  not-good)  or  unknown  status  at  EU 
level, per group 

Note:  Conservation  status  trends  are  based  on  EU 
species assessments (2 049). 

Note:  The  number  of  assessments  is  indicated  in  parentheses.  The 
total number of assessments is 2 049. 

Of the 2 049 species assessed as having poor or bad conservation status at EU level, 35% are 
on a downward and 6% on an upward trend. The trend is unknown for another 31%. Except 
for mammals, fish and non-vascular plants (10%, 9% and 6% respectively), the proportion of 
species assessed as having poor or bad status, but with improving trends, remains below 5%. 
While fish show more upward trends than other species groups, they also show (together with 
amphibians) the highest proportion of deteriorating trends (close to 50%). Strong downward 
trends  are  reported  for  other  species  groups,  e.g. grassland  habitat  specialists  such  as  the 
marsh fritillary butterfly (Euphydryas aurinia) and the Jurinea cyanoides thistle. 

3. Evolution in status and trends 

3.1 Progress towards target 1 of the biodiversity strategy to 2020 

On  the  basis  of  the  information  provided  by  Member  States  for  this  assessment,  we 
determined  the  extent  to  which  target  1  of  the  biodiversity  strategy  to  202014  had  been 
achieved.  The  target  was  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 (as compared with 2010 assessments) there would be: 

14   Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  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). 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
  100%  more  habitats  assessments  with  a  favourable  or  improving  conservation  status 

(i.e. 34% of the total); 

  50%  more  species  assessments  under  the  Habitats  Directive  with  a  favourable  or 

improving conservation status (35%); and 

  50% more species assessments under the Birds Directive with a secure or improving 

population status (78%). 

Figure 8: Progress towards target 1 (in % of assessments)  

Note: Each bar represents the percentage of assessments with good status or improving. 

There  was  limited  progress  from  the  2010  baseline  towards  the  2020  targets,  except  in  the 
case  of  non-bird  species,  where  the  target  was  almost  reached.  Continued  deterioration  for 
some habitats and species outweighs the improvements. The data reported in 2019 show that 
the proportion of species and habitats with deteriorating trends has even grown slightly: for 
birds from 20% to 23%, for non-bird species from 22% to 26% and for habitats from 30% to 
32%. 

The 2020 target of favourable or improving assessments for 34% of habitat assessments has 
not  been  met  (the  shortfall  is  12 pp).  However,  the  proportion  of  species  other  than  birds 
whose  status  is  assessed  as  favourable  or  improving  almost  reached  the  2020  sub-target  of 
35% (shortfall 2 pp). Bird population trends present a mixed picture, with an increase in the 
number  of  secure  and  improving  species  between  2010  and  2015,  but  some  deterioration 
(-3 pp) from 2015 to 2020, leaving a gap of over 20 pp from the 78% target. Target 1 of the 
biodiversity strategy to 2020 was therefore not reached.   

3.2 Improvements in the Member States 

‘Conservation  status’  is  known  to  change  slowly  and  is  therefore  not  a  very  sensitive 
short-term indicator for improvements. Also, EU-level assessments can hide improvements in 

9 

 
 
 
 
individual  Member  States.  Therefore,  country-level  positive  and  stabilising  trends  (where  a 
trend  genuinely  changes  from  declining  in  the  previous  reporting  period  to  stable  in  the 
current one) are positive developments that should be taken into account and analysed on top 
of positive changes in status.    

On  average,  6%  of  the  Member  States’  national/regional  habitat  assessments  show 
improvements, most frequently for forests and freshwater habitats (10% of all assessments in 
the group), heath & scrubs (7%), bogs, mires and fens, and dune habitats (6%). An example 
of an improving coastal habitat are the Baltic coastal meadows in Finland. 

Similarly, an average of 6% of all national/regional assessments for species other than birds 
show  improvements.  The  largest  number  of  improvements  is  for  mammals  (9%  of  all 
recorded  mammal  assessments  show  improvements),  followed  by  fish  (8%)  and  vascular 
plants (5%). Examples for mammals include beavers (Castor fiber), grey seals (Halichoerus 
grypus) and harbour seals (Phoca vitulina). 

For  birds,  improvement  at  national  level  is  defined  differently,  as  there  is  no  national 
assessment  of  conservation  status  and  status  trend.  Therefore,  a  positive  short-term 
population  trend  or  a  stabilisation  after  a  negative  long-term  trend  in  the  previous  national 
report  is  considered  an  improvement.  In  total,  there  are  2  148  Member  States’  reports 
showing improvements according to the criteria above. Globally this corresponds to 397 bird 
(sub)species  which  improve  in  at  least  one  Member  State  in  at  least  one  reported  season. 
Around  44%  of  all  birds  with  improving  trends  are  migratory  waterbirds15.  Many  of  these 
species  are  also  categorized  as  marine  species  according  to  the  EU  Marine  Strategy 
Framework  Directive  and  make  up  33  %  of  all  improvements.  Farmland  and  forest  bird 
species account for about 9% each. Examples of improving bird species are white-tailed eagle 
(Haliaeetus  albicilla),  crane  (Grus  grus),  red  kite  (Milvus  milvus)  and  great  white  egret 
(Ardea alba). 

3.3 Progress on data quality 

Assessing  progress  on  conservation  status  requires  appropriate  monitoring  systems  to  be  in 
place  in  all  Member  States.  In  many  cases,  however,  the  reported  information  comes  from 
partial  surveys  carried  out  for  other  purposes.  In  other  cases,  Member  States  do  not  have 
suitable  data  and  rely  on  expert  opinion.  For  Habitats  Directive  habitats  and  species,  over 
40% of the reported information comes from partial surveys and over 20% is based on expert 
judgment only. For bird data, over 30% of the information is from partial surveys and over 
15%  based  on  expert  judgment.  This  reporting  round  shows  that  limitations  due  to  poor  or 
incomplete data still exist (albeit to widely varying degrees between Member States and on a 
smaller scale than in 2015). Nevertheless, the data presented here are a milestone in assessing 
the state of nature in the EU and provide a strong basis for improving reporting, assessment 
and implementation to be able to achieve the aims of the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030. 

15   covered by the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA ) 

10 

 
                                                            
4. Pressures and responses 

4.1 Pressures 

Europe is one of the most densely populated regions in the world. Human activity has shaped 
its  landscapes  over  centuries  and  contributed  much  to  its  biodiversity,  e.g. semi-natural 
habitats  such  as  extensive  hay  meadows  and  semi-natural  dry  grasslands.  However,  human 
activity has also caused deterioration and decline for many native species and habitat types — 
particularly (and much faster) in the past 100 years.  

Member States reported on the main causes of species loss and habitat degradation for each 
species  and  habitat.  Overall,  they  provided  67 000  records  using  a  list  of  203  individual 
pressures from 15 categories (from ’A-Agriculture’ to ‘X-Other’). 

Figure 9: Distribution of level-1 pressure categories among habitats, non-bird species and birds  

The most frequently reported pressures for both habitats and species stem from  agriculture, 
which  reflects  the  relative  scale  of  agricultural  land-use  and  changes  in  farming  practices 
(intensification  and  abandonment  of  extensive  agriculture).  Extensive  agricultural 

11 

 
 
 
 
management creates and maintains semi-natural habitats with diverse fauna and flora. Since 
the 1950s, however,  more intensive and  specialised farming has  contributed increasingly to 
ongoing biodiversity loss. Grasslands, freshwater habitats, heaths and scrubs, and bogs, mires 
and fens have been most severely affected. Semi-natural habitats depending on agriculture16, 
such  as  grasslands,  are  particularly  threatened  and  their  conservation  status  is  significantly 
worse than for other habitat types that do not depend on agriculture (45% are assessed as bad, 
as  compared  with  31%  for  other  habitats).  Compared  to  2015,  assessments  of  agricultural 
habitats show an overall deterioration in conservation status: good status decreased from 14% 
to 12% and bad status increased from 39% to 45%. Only 8% of agricultural habitats show an 
improving  trend,  whereas  45%  are  deteriorating.  Many  species  of  birds,  reptiles,  molluscs, 
amphibians,  arthropods  and  vascular  plants  are  also  impacted  and  farmland  biodiversity 
continuous to decline. 

Overall, across categories, the modification of hydrological regimes (including multipurpose 
changes  under  category  ‘K-Modification  of  water  regimes’  and  hydrological  changes 
attributed to other categories, e.g. A-Agriculture) is the second most frequently reported type 
of pressure, followed by urbanisation and pollution: 

  pressures  relating  to  modifications  of  the  water  regime  stem  from  multiple  sources. 
For  example,  agricultural  drainage  activities  and  hydropower  installations  make  up 
14%  and  13%  of  all  hydrology-related  pressures.  Unsurprisingly,  pressures  in  this 
category are particularly relevant for freshwater habitats and fish species, but also for 
carbon-rich ecosystems such as bogs, mires and fens; 

  key pressures relating to urbanisation include sports, tourism and leisure activities, and 
particularly affect marine/coastal habitats. The conversion of natural and semi-natural 
land to housing, settlement or recreational areas mainly affects grassland habitats and 
forests; and 

  pollution  is  a  key  pressure  for  many  habitats  and  species,  and  agricultural  activities 
account  for  almost  half  (48%)  of  the  pressures  relating  to  pollution,  followed  by 
mixed-source  pollution  (28%,  as  reported  under  category  ‘J-Pollution’)  and 
urbanisation (21%). 

There are differences in the relative impact of pressure categories across habitats and species 
groups: 

 

forestry  activities  are  the  second  largest  pressure  category  reported  for  species, 
affecting 
in  particular  arthropods,  mammals  and  non-vascular  plants.  Many 
forest-dependent species are reported to be affected by the removal of dead, dying and 
old trees (including salvage logging), forest management reducing old-growth forests 
and clear-cutting. Forestry is also the dominant group of pressures reported for most 
of  the  Annex  I  forest  types  which  show  a  deterioration  in  conservation  status 

16   Halada, L., Evans, D., Romão, C. and Petersen, J. E., 2011, 'Which habitats of European importance depend 

on agricultural practices?', Biodiversity and Conservation, 20(11) 2 365–2 378. 

12 

 
                                                            
compared to 2015: good status decreased from 16% to 14% and assessments revealing 
a bad status increased from 27% to 31%. 

 

species exploitation is the biggest pressure for wintering and passage birds; it involves 
illegal  shooting  or  killing,  hunting  and  incidental  killing.  Recent  research  in  26 
European countries has calculated an annual hunting take of at least 52 million birds17. 
Other  species  affected  by  exploitation  include  fish,  mammals  and  reptiles.  Fish  are 
among  the  most  affected  groups  due  to  marine18  and  freshwater  harvesting.  The 
impact on mammals is twofold:  

o 

large terrestrial mammals such as the wolf (Canis lupus), Eurasian lynx (Lynx 
lynx) and Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra) are mostly exposed to illegal killing; 

o  small cetaceans such as the short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) 
and harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) are mainly impacted by bycatch in 
fishing gear and other effects of marine harvesting activities  such  as reduction 
of  prey  populations  and  disturbance  of  species;    marine  mammals    are  also 
often impacted by pollution from various sources, the operation of shipping and 
ferry  lanes  (due  to  underwater  noise  and  ship-strikes)  as  well  as  by  military 
operations (through collisions with vessels, disturbance by military sonar). 

  hydropower  installations  are  the  single  most  important  source  of  energy-related 
pressures  for  migratory  and  freshwater  fish.  While  pressures  from  wind,  wave  and 
tidal  power  present  risks  to  many  species,  birds  are  also  especially  vulnerable  to 
electricity  and  communication  transmission  infrastructures.  The  expansion  of 
renewable energy is a key EU policy to help address climate change (which itself is 
putting significant and growing pressure on biodiversity), but inappropriately designed 
and  located  developments  can  lead  to  additional  pressures  on  protected  species  and 
habitat types; 

 

invasive alien species (IAS) represent a major and growing threat to native European 
flora  and  fauna.  Their  impact  has  increased  significantly  since  the  last  reporting 
period. ‘Invasive species of Union concern’19 account for around 20% of the pressures 
reported in this category, while many more impacts are reported from IAS that are not 
yet listed as species of Union concern. IAS affect habitats more than species, but are 
also known to have a direct impact on certain bird, amphibian, fish and vascular plant 
species;  

 

even  though  climate  change  was  not  reported  as  a  particularly  relevant  pressure  in 
2013-2018, future scenarios20 predict that it will have a dramatic effect on European 

17   Hirschfeld, A. et al., 2019, ‘Bird-hunting in Europe: an analysis of bag figures and the potential impact on 

the conservation of threatened species’, British Birds: 153-166. 

18   The Habitats Directive hardly covers marine fish (limited to several species of anadromous fish). 
19   Regulation  (EU)  No  1143/2014  on  the  prevention  and  management  of  the  introduction  and  spread  of 

invasive alien species contains a list of IAS of Union concern (OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 35). 

20   See  for  example:  IPBES  (2018),  The  IPBES  regional  assessment  report  on  biodiversity  and  ecosystem 
services  for  Europe  and  Central  Asia,  Rounsevell,  M.  et  al.  Secretariat  of  the  Intergovernmental 
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 892 pages. 

13 

 
                                                            
plants  and  animals  and  lead  to  accelerated  biodiversity  loss  and  desertification  in 
many  areas.  The  most  frequently  reported  pressures  relating  to  climate  change  were 
droughts  and  decreases  in  precipitation;  these  accounted  for  5%  of  all  reported 
pressures affecting amphibians. 

4.2 Responses (conservation measures) 

In parallel to the reporting on pressures, Member States reported whether or not the majority 
of the measures needed for a species or a habitat of EU importance that require Natura 2000 
site  designation  were  taken.  Such  measures  aim  to  maintain  or  to  restore  good  status  for 
species  and  habitats,  and  involve  specific  action  on  the  ground  to  mitigate  and  remove  the 
impact  of  past  and  present  pressures.  Member  States  are  required  to  take  the  necessary 
conservation measures for Natura 2000 sites.  

Their national reports indicate that: 

  most measures are applied both within and outside the Natura 2000 network; 

 

 

for around 60% of Member States’ habitats the necessary measures were reported as 
being taken, mainly to maintain the current status or to restore the habitats’ structure 
and functions; only 4% of the reported measures taken are to increase the habitat area;  

conservation  measures  to  keep  agricultural  areas  in  suitable  ecological  condition, 
thereby responding to pressures from farming, are by far the most common; 

Figure 10: Implementation status of habitat conservation measures (in % of all habitat type assessment 
made by Member States)  

 

the situation is similar for  species. Around 40% of the reports for birds and 50% of 
those for species other than birds indicate that measures were taken. The biggest part 
of  the  measures  taken  for  non-bird  species  aims  to  maintain  their  current  status. 
Restoration measures play a less prominent role. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 11: Implementation status of species conservation measures (in % of all species assessments made 
by Member States for species that require site designation)          

In spite of Member States’ measures, conservation status and trends did not improve over the 
reporting  period;  in  fact,  for  many  species  and  habitat  types  (including  those  for  which 
Natura 2000 designation is a key conservation delivery mechanism) they deteriorated further. 
It  is  therefore  clear  (and  confirmed  by  the  reports)  that  Member  States  failed  to  take  the 
necessary  conservation  measures  (at  least  to  the  extent  required)  and  in  some  cases  even 
adequately to identify them.   

Analysis  of  the  effectiveness  of  measures  shows  a  positive  correlation  between  measures 
taken  and  good  conservation  status  for  most  habitats  and  species  groups.  Furthermore, 
proactive  restoration  measures  (e.g.  to  restore  structure  and  functions)  do  lead  to 
improvements. 

4.3 Restoration needs for habitats 

For  a  habitat  type,  ‘good  conservation  status’  means  that  its  natural  range,  the  extent  of  its 
area, and its structure and functions are all sufficiently large and in good condition; also, its 
future prospects are positive. In this context, ‘restoration’ refers to: 

1. 

improving the condition (i.e. quality) of existing areas of the habitat through targeted 
conservation measures; and 

2.  ensuring  sufficient  surface  area  through  habitat  (re)creation  (i.e. creating  additional 
areas of a habitat, such as restoring wetland habitat from formerly drained agricultural 
land or extending the area of native protected woodland habitats). 

An assessment of restoration  requirements for  Annex I  habitat  types shows that  needs vary 
significantly between habitat groups and biogeographical regions. 

15 

 
 
 
 
Figure 12: Proportions of area covered by Annex I habitat groups that need to be improved, as reported 
by Member States 

Note: The United Kingdom and habitat 8310 (natural caves) were excluded from the calculations. 

Some key findings of the assessment are that: 

 

 

the  area  of  protected  habitats  in  need  of  improvement  is  estimated  to  be  on  average 
about 215 000 km2 (or 5% of EU-2721 territory). Forests have the greatest need, with 
about 19.5% (about 100 000 km2) requiring improvement, followed by coastal habitats 
with 16% (about 46 000 km2), grasslands with 13.5% (about 33 000 km2), freshwater 
habitats  with  10.5%  (about  13 500  km2)  and  bogs,  mires  and  fens  with  9%  (about 
10 900 km2); 

at  least  11 000 km2  of  Annex  I  habitats  need  to  be  (re)created  to  add  to  the  existing 
area in order to ensure the long-term viability of all habitat types. The habitat groups 
with the largest areas for (re)creation are forests (4 600 km2), grasslands (1 900 km2), 
bogs,  mires  and  fens  (1 700  km2),  and  coastal  habitats  (1 400  km2).  Overall,  this 
applies to 1-1.5% of the total existing area of these habitat groups; 

 

the  biogeographical  regions  with  the  greatest  need  to  improve  the  condition  of 
existing  habitat  areas  are  the  Continental,  Mediterranean,  Atlantic,  marine  Atlantic 
and Boreal regions; 

  many  of  the  Annex  I  habitats  requiring  restoration  are  particularly  carbon-rich, 
offering  significant  potential  to  store  and  sequestrate  carbon  in  the  above-  and 
below-ground biomass and in the soil. About 16% of these carbon-rich areas need to 
be  improved  (154 000 km2).  Their  restoration  and  maintenance  could  contribute 
significantly to climate change mitigation; and 

21   Calculations of restoration needs exclude the UK. 

16 

 
 
 
                                                            
  because  the  monitoring  data  are  insufficient,  the  Annex I  habitat  areas  in  need  of 
restoration  are  likely  to  be  much  greater  than  current  estimates.  Comprehensive 
mapping  of  carbon-  and  nature-rich  areas,  the  effects  of  management,  habitat 
condition  and  other  factors  is  needed  to  inform  decision-making  on  restoration 
priorities. Restoration needs for birds and other species should also be addressed, but 
data on these are currently not reported. 

5. The role of the Natura 2000 network 

The Natura 2000 network is made up of special protection areas (SPAs) classified under the 
Birds  Directive  and  special  areas  of  conservation  (SACs)  designated  under  the  Habitats 
Directive22. It represents the largest coordinated network of protected areas in the world and 
is the principal tool in the EU for maintaining/restoring the conservation status of protected 
habitats and species. 

As  of  end-2019,  Natura  2000  consisted  of  27 852  sites  with  an  area  of  1 358 125 km2.  It 
covered 17.9% of the EU’s land territory and 9.7% of its marine waters. The coverage varies 
significantly between Member States: its terrestrial coverage ranges from 8% in Denmark to 
38% in Slovenia and its marine coverage from 2% in Italy to 46% in Germany23. 

Since the last reporting period: 

 

 

 

the marine network has doubled in surface area; 

the number of designated SACs has more than doubled with 7262 new designations; 
and 

the number of sites reported to have comprehensive management plans has increased 
significantly. 

22   Under  the  Habitats  Directive,  Member  States  propose  ‘sites  of  Community  importance’  (SCIs)  that  the 
Commission then includes in biogeographical lists. Member States then have 6 years to designate the SCIs 
as SACs. 

23   These  are  the  figures  for  the  marine  areas  within  200 nautical  miles  of  the  coastline;  they  do  not  include 

Natura 2000 sites on the extended continental shelf (relevant for Ireland, Portugal and the UK). 

17 

 
 
 
                                                            
Figure 13: Cumulative surface area of Natura 2000 network in km², 1993-2019 

Note: Numbers are for EU-28 and include SPAs, SCIs, SACs and proposed SCIs (together forming the blue SCI line). In 
many cases, Natura 2000 sites are (partially or totally) both a SPA and a SAC/SCI. Due to GIS data-handling limitations, the 
Natura 2000 area was only systematically calculated after 2010. 
Source: Natura 2000 databases 

5.1 Effectiveness of Natura 2000  

Current reporting does not provide information that would allow a direct comparison of the 
conservation  status  of  species  and  habitats  inside  and  outside  Natura  2000.  Therefore,  we 
have examined other potential indicators for effectiveness, such as the link between species’ 
and habitats’ representation in the network and the proportion of them showing good status or 
improving trends. The results, based on Member State assessments, show that: 

 

species  and  habitats  are  on  average  more  likely  to  have  good  conservation  status  if 
their habitat area or population is well represented (> 75%) in the network compared 
to  those  that  are  less  well  represented.  This  is  most  obvious  for  dune  habitats  and 
forests, and for amphibians and fish; and 

  habitat types with a high representation (>75%) in Natura 2000 sites show (slightly) 
more  improvement  and  less  deterioration  than  those  that  are  less  well  represented. 
With  reported  improvement  of  over  8%,  bogs,  mires  and  fens  appear  to  have 
particularly  benefited  from  Natura  2000  coverage.  The  habitats  that  saw  the  most 
significant  improvements,  e.g. dry  Atlantic  coastal  heaths  with  Erica  vagans  and 
coastal dunes with Juniperus species, are widely protected in the network. 

18 

 
 
 
 
Figure 14: Changes in conservation status and trends for Annex I habitats within different Natura 
2000 coverage classes (<35 %, 35%-75%, >75%) 

Note: ‘Improvement’ corresponds to poor or bad assessments that improved or became good, ‘remained favourable’ to 
assessments  that  kept  their  good  status,  ‘no  change’  to  poor  or  bad  assessments  that  did  not  improve  or  deteriorate, 
‘deterioration’ to poor or bad assessments that further deteriorated or changed from good to poor or bad, and ‘unknown’ 
to assessments without a trend.  The number of assessments per group is indicated in parentheses. The total number of 
assessments is 2 970. 

Overall,  the  reported  information  does  not  allow  us  to  draw  firm  conclusions  as  to  the 
effectiveness  of  the  Natura  2000  network.  This  is  due  especially  to  limited  monitoring,  in 
particular  the  common  practice  of  monitoring  only  a  sample  of  Natura  2000  sites.  For  a 
satisfactory  assessment  of  the  effectiveness  of  Natura  2000-related  measures,  monitoring 
should  involve  collecting  more  data  on  areas  inside  and  outside  the  network  and  on  the 
quality of conservation management. 

Despite  some  positive  indications  of  the  network’s  contribution  to  conservation  status,  the 
available information strongly suggests that its full potential has still to be unlocked and that 
a significant implementation gap remains to be addressed. 

6. Conclusions and outlook 

This conservation status assessment constitutes the largest and most complete health check of 
nature  ever  undertaken  in  the  EU.  It  provides  a  strong  basis  on  which  to  evaluate 
implementation  of  the  nature  directives  and  a  robust  baseline  for  measuring  progress  under 
the new biodiversity strategy for 2030. 

The  assessment  shows  that  the  EU  has  not  yet  managed  to  stem  the  decline  of  protected 
habitat types and species of EU conservation concern. The key land- and water-use pressures 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
that have led to the degradation of nature still persist, resulting in a significant shortfall from 
the 2020 target of halting and measurably reversing the deterioration in the status of species 
and habitats. 

Inspiring success stories from across the Member States show what can be achieved through 
targeted  action,  often  supported  through  initiatives  under  the  EU  LIFE  programme24  or 
dedicated  agri-environment  schemes  under  the  common  agricultural  policy.  However,  such 
success is not being achieved on a sufficient scale. 

Progress  in  implementing  both  directives  over  the  last  6  years  (significant  extension  of  the 
Natura 2000  network  and  more  sites  with  management  plans)  has  not  been  sufficient  to 
improve conservation status. Establishment of a fully functional network of protected areas is 
still  incomplete,  especially  in  the  marine  environment.  Furthermore,  the  necessary 
conservation measures, based on clearly defined conservation objectives, have yet to be put 
in  place  for  many  of  the  sites.  The  requisite  investment  in  nature,  inter  alia  as  regards 
restoration  within  and  beyond  the  protected  area  network,  has  not  materialised.  Nature 
requirements have not been sufficiently incorporated into key land- and water-use policies to 
overcome the negative pressures that can arise from sectors such as agriculture and forestry. 
Fisheries  management  measures  have  still  to  be  agreed  and  put  in  place  for  many  marine 
Natura 2000 sites. In addition, climate change is a growing threat, with predictions of a steep 
rise  in  pressures  and  both  direct  and  indirect  effects  on  species  and  habitats,  such  as  from 
changes in land use and habitat location or quality. 

This assessment underlines the need for a step-change in action if we are to have any serious 
chance of putting  Europe’s biodiversity  on a path to  recovery by 2030, as  envisaged in  the 
new biodiversity strategy25. Failure to do so will mean the continued erosion not only of our 
shared natural heritage, but also of the vital services it provides, which ultimately underpin 
human health and prosperity. 

The  new  biodiversity  strategy  to  2030  provides  the  necessary  framework  for  this 
transformative  change.  Together  with  other  initiatives  under  the  Green  Deal,  it  sets  out  a 
highly  ambitious  and  practical  programme  of  action  aimed,  inter  alia,  at  expanding  the 
coverage  of  legally  protected  and  effectively  managed  areas,  while  proposing  a  plan  for 
restoring the EU’s nature. 

This nature assessment underlines the significant potential for restoring protected habitats, as 
regards both their current condition and the additional surface area that is needed to achieve 
favourable  conservation  status.  This  includes  restoring  carbon-rich  habitats  that  can  deliver 
climate  mitigation  co-benefits.  The  assessment  is  also  directly  relevant  to  measuring  the 
success  of  action  under  the  strategy  to  address  wider  key  land-  and  water-use  pressures, 

24   https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en/life  
25   Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, EU biodiversity strategy for 2030 — bringing nature 
back into our lives (COM/2020/380 final); 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0380 

20 

 
                                                            
 
particularly in  relation  to agriculture, which gave  rise  to  the highest  number of bad species 
and  habitats  assessments  across  the  Member  States.  In  combination  with  the  ‘farm  to  fork’ 
strategy26,  action  to  promote  organic farming,  reduce  the  use and  risk  of pesticides,  protect 
and restore soil ecosystems, and increase landscape features on farmland should support the 
recovery  of  species  and habitats  protected  under the  nature  directives,  including  pollinators 
and their habitats. 

The  new  biodiversity  strategy  emphasises  that  the  fight  against  biodiversity  loss  must  be 
based  on  sound  science.  Member  States  should  continue  to  improve  the  quality  and 
completeness  of  their  monitoring  systems  to  underpin  future  reporting.  Earth  observation  / 
remote  sensing,  other  technologies  and  tools  (e.g. modelling),  and  the  outcomes  from 
research/innovation  activities  and  citizen  science  could  complement  and  support  current 
monitoring  and  reporting.  This  potential  should  be  tested  and  harnessed  to  facilitate  the 
reporting bodies’ work.   

The  next  assessment  of  the  state  of  nature  in  the  EU,  planned  for  2026,  should  make  a 
significant  contribution  to  gauging  progress  towards  the  nature  targets  under  the  new 
biodiversity strategy. 

26   Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  A  ‘farm  to  fork’  strategy  for  a  fair,  healthy  and 
environmentally-friendly food system, (COM/2020/381 final); 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0381  

21