COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020
Date: 2022-09-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU strategy, biodiversity, climate change, environmental cooperation, environmental law, environmental protection, exploitation of the seas, land use, sustainable development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 6.9.2022  SWD(2022) 284 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  Of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 {SWD(2022) 285 final}  
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 4 

1.1.  Purpose of this evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 4 
1.2.  Scope of the evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 4 

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE ......................................................................................... 6 

2.1.  Description of the initiative and its objectives ...................................................................................... 6 
2.2.  Intervention logic .................................................................................................................................. 7 
2.3.  Baseline ................................................................................................................................................10 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION AND STATE OF PLAY ..............................................................................12 

3.1.  State of play on implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 ..........................................13 

4.  METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................19 

4.1.  Evaluation questions ............................................................................................................................19 
4.2.  Process .................................................................................................................................................20 
4.3.  Limitations – robustness of findings ....................................................................................................22 

5.  ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ......................................................................24 

5.1.  Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................................24 
5.1.1  Progress to the targets .......................................................................................................................24 
5.1.2  Major achievements and challenges, and underlying factors ............................................................39 
5.2.  Efficiency .............................................................................................................................................46 
5.2.1.  Cost-effectiveness and socio-economic impacts ................................................................................46 
5.2.2.  The Strategy as an instrument ............................................................................................................51 
5.2.3.  Socio-economic impacts.....................................................................................................................53 
5.3.  Relevance .............................................................................................................................................58 
5.3.1.  Strategy relevance to biodiversity and wider needs ...........................................................................58 
5.3.2.  Flexibility to adapt to emerging issues ..............................................................................................61 
5.4.  Coherence ............................................................................................................................................63 
5.5.  EU Added Value ..................................................................................................................................67 

6.  CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................71 

6.1.  Findings................................................................................................................................................71 
6.2.  Lessons learnt for the future .................................................................................................................76 

ANNEX 1 – PROCEDURAL INFORMATION .......................................................................................81 

ANNEX 2 – SYNOPSIS REPORT OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS....................................86 

ANNEX 3 – METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED IN PREPARING THE 

EVALUATION.................................................................................................................................103 

ANNEX 4 – OVERVIEW OF COSTS – BENEFITS IDENTIFIED IN THE EVALUATION ..........124 

ANNEX 5 – OPERATIONAL TARGETS AND ACTIONS OF THE EU BIODIVERSITY 

STRATEGY TO 2020 ......................................................................................................................131 

ANNEX 6 – BUSINESS-AS-USUAL SCENARIO WITHOUT THE STRATEGY .............................136 

ANNEX 7 – MAIN OUTPUTS OF THE EU BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY TO 2020 ......................141 

ANNEX 8 – KEY INSIGHTS FROM THE CASE STUDIES IN 10 MEMBER STATES .................152 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ABBREVIATIONS/GLOSSARY 

AECM 
B@B 
BEST 
BISE 
CAP 
CBD 
CFP 
CGBN 
CIF 
CMEF 
EAFRD 
EASIN 
ECA 
EDF 
EEA 
EFA 
EMFF 
EP 
ESPG 
EU 
FLEGT 
FTE 
GAEC 
GES 
IAS 
ILO 
IPBES 

Agri-environment-climate measures  
EU Business and Biodiversity Platform 
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Territories of European Overseas  
Biodiversity Information System for Europe 
Common Agricultural Policy 
Convention on Biological Diversity 
Common Fisheries Policy 
Coordination Group for Biodiversity and Nature 
Common Implementation Framework 
Common Monitoring and Assessment Framework  
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 
European Alien Species Information Network 
European Court of Auditors 
European Development Fund 
European Environment Agency 
Ecological Focus Areas 
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 
European Parliament 
Environmentally sensitive permanent grassland 
European Union  
Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade 
Full-time equivalent (jobs) 
Good agricultural and environmental conditions  
Good Environmental Status 
Invasive alien species 
International Labour Organisation 
Intergovernmental  Science-Policy  Platform  on  Biodiversity  and  Ecosystem 
Services 

KIP – INCA  Knowledge Innovation Project on Natural Capital Accounting in the EU 
Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services 
MAES 
Marine Protected Areas 
MPA 
Marine Strategy Framework Directive 
MSFD 
Maximum Sustainable Yield  
MSY 
National Biodiversity Strategy or Action Plan 
NBSAP 
Natural Capital Accounting 
NCA 
Non-Governmental Organisation 
NGO 
Online Public Consultation 
OPC 
Prioritised Action Framework 
PAF 
Payments for ecosystem services 
PES 

2 

 
 
 
RDP 
RPF 
SDGs 
SEBI 
SFM 
SOER 
TAC 
TSD 
WFD 

Rural Development Programme 
Restoration Prioritisation Framework 
Sustainable Development Goals 
Streamlined European Biodiversity Indicators 
Sustainable Forest Management  
State of the Environment and Outlook Report 
Total Allowable Catch 
Trade and Sustainable Development 
Water Framework Directive  

3 

 
 
 
 
 
1.  1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This is an evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to  20201, which provided the EU 
biodiversity  policy  framework  for  2011-20.  It  was  guided  by  the  EU  2050  vision  for 
biodiversity and the EU 2020 headline biodiversity target, endorsed by the EU Heads of 
State and Government in 20102.  

1.1.  1.1.  Purpose of this evaluation 

This  evaluation  examines  the  performance  of  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  to  2020  in 
line with  Better Regulation Guidelines3.  Its  purpose is  to  provide lessons that will help 
improve the design and implementation of EU biodiversity policies beyond 2020.  

At the end of 2019, the Commission published a communication on the European Green 
Deal4   ̶  Europe’s  new  sustainable  growth  strategy.  The  Green  Deal  reset  the  EU’s 
commitment  and  laid  out  an  ambitious  agenda  for  tackling  the  ecological  and  climate 
crises in the EU, as well as to show leadership by example at global level5.  

As  part  of  this  agenda  and  the  political  mandate  that  arose  from  it  –  to  urgently 
strengthen  the  EU  framework  for  biodiversity  action  –  in  May  2020  the  Commission 
published an EU Biodiversity Strategy for 20306. Work on this new strategy took place 
in parallel with the evaluation of the preceding policy period.  

Section  6.3  of  this  report  highlights  lessons  from  the  previous  policy  period  that  have 
been reflected in the design of the Strategy for 2030, as well as in key initiatives for its 
implementation.  

The findings from this evaluation have further informed, or will inform, the development 
of measures announced in the Strategy for 2030, such as a proposal for legally binding 
EU  nature  restoration  targets,  an  enhanced  EU  biodiversity  governance  framework  and 
measures  to  increase  the  effectiveness  of  EU  external  action  to  support  global 
biodiversity.  

1.2.  1.2.  Scope of the evaluation 

This evaluation covers the full scope of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, including 
implementation of its six operational targets, 20 actions and horizontal measures in 2011-
20.  It  also  assesses  the  extent  to  which  they  have  delivered  the  EU  2020  headline 
biodiversity target: to halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in 
the EU, and to help avert global biodiversity loss.  

The  evaluation  applies  five  criteria  to  assess  the  Strategy:  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
coherence, relevance and EU added value.  

It  takes stock of achievements in  implementing the Strategy  at  the EU level  and in the 
Member  States  (EU-27+UK7),  depending  on  the  level(s)  at  which  each  specific 
biodiversity action was to be implemented.  

It reflects on the factors that have enabled progress, as well as implementation challenges 
and  the  likely  underlying  causes.  It  reviews  available  evidence  of  significant 

1 Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 (COM/2011/244 final). 
2 Biodiversity: Post-2010 EU and global vision and targets - Council Conclusions of 15 March 2010.  
3 European Commission Better Regulation Guidelines. 
4 The European Green Deal (COM/2019/640 final). 
5  Including  in  the  negotiations  on  a  new  global  biodiversity  framework,  to  be  agreed  at  the  15th  Conference  of  the  Parties  to  the 
Convention on Biological Diversity in December 2022. 
6  EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives (COM/2020/380 final). 
7 At the time the Strategy was implemented, the UK was a member of the EU. 

4 

 
 
                                                           
environmental, social and economic impacts of implementation vis-à-vis those forecast in 
the  2011  impact  assessment8,  and  considers  whether  the  Strategy  has  been  a  suitable 
instrument to help the EU and its Member States to deliver on the 2020 headline target. 

The evaluation covers other EU legal and policy initiatives in several ways:  

-  Some biodiversity targets and actions aimed to support the implementation of 
existing EU legislation. The Strategy included concrete targets and actions to 
support, for example, the implementation of the EU Birds and Habitats Directives 
(Target 1) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Target 4). In such cases, 
the evaluation aimed to cover the extent to which the Strategy’s actions have 
succeeded in providing the intended support.  

In reality, it was very difficult to distinguish what part of the progress is the result of 
the legislation itself, or the Strategy. The evaluation attempts to provide at least a 
qualitative assessment of the likely contribution of the Strategy, and also highlights 
the views of key actors in this respect. 

- Some biodiversity targets and actions aimed to influence other EU policies. The 
evaluation has considered the extent to which the desired change has taken place, and 
how it has been implemented (as well as the overall consistency between the policies). 
Examples include: 

– Target 3, which sought to increase the contribution of the Common Agricultural Policy 
to biodiversity in the 2014-20 reform 
– Target 4, which sought to include concrete targets in the Common Fisheries Policy to 
achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield and healthy stocks 
– Target 6, which sought to improve the impact of EU trade agreements on biodiversity.  

-  Some  biodiversity  targets  and  actions  aimed  to  adopt  new  policies  and 
legislation, for example the EU Green Infrastructure Strategy (Target 2) and the EU 
Regulation  on  Invasive  Alien Species (Target  5). The evaluation  of implementation 
takes account of whether these instruments have been adopted. 

Some  of  the  above  instruments  have  been  subject  to  separate  evaluations  or 
implementation reviews. Where this has been the case, the results have been taken into 
account  in  this  report.  The  assessment  of  coherence  also  takes  into  consideration  other 
policy initiatives that do not directly fall under the Strategy’s scope. 

8 Commission Staff Working Paper: Impact Assessment accompanying the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (SEC/2011/540 final). 

5 

 
 
                                                           
2.  2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE 

1.3.  2.1.  Description of the initiative and its objectives 

Biodiversity  –  the  variety  of  life  on  Earth  –  and  the  benefits  provided  by  healthy 
ecosystems to people, have been in steep decline in recent decades, both in the EU and 
globally. Recognising the urgent need to halt and reverse this trend, in 2010 EU leaders 
endorsed a 2050 vision and a 2020 headline target for biodiversity9.  

To  deliver  the  headline  target,  in  2011  the  Commission  adopted  the  EU  Biodiversity 
Strategy  to  2020,  setting  six  operational  targets  supported  by  20  time-bound  actions. 
Table  1  below  summarises  the  structure  of  the  Strategy.  The  full  definitions  of  targets, 
actions and sub-actions are presented in Annex 5.  

Table 1. Structure of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 

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

EU 2020 headline biodiversity 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. 

Target 1: Fully implement the EU nature legislation (the Birds and Habitats Directives) 

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

Action 2: Ensure adequate financing of Natura 2000 sites 

Action 3: Increase stakeholder awareness and involvement and improve enforcement 

Action 4: Improve and streamline monitoring and reporting 

Target 2: Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services 

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

Action 6: Set priorities to restore 15% of degraded ecosystems and promote the use of green 
infrastructure 

Action 7: Biodiversity-proof EU-funded programmes and measures, and ensure no net loss of 
biodiversity and ecosystem services 

Target 3: Increase the contribution of agriculture and forestry to maintaining and enhancing 
biodiversity 

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

Action 9: Better target rural development to biodiversity conservation 

Action 10: Conserve Europe’s agricultural genetic diversity 

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

Action 12: Integrate biodiversity measures in forest management plans 

Target 4: Ensure the sustainable use of fisheries resources 

Action 13: Improve the management of fished stocks 

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

9 Biodiversity: Post-2010 EU and global vision and targets - Council Conclusions of 15 March 2010. 

6 

 
 
                                                           
the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

Target 5: Combat invasive alien species 

Action 15: Strengthen the EU plant and animal health regimes 

Action 16: Establish a dedicated instrument on invasive alien species 

Target 6: Help avert global biodiversity loss 

Action 17: Reduce indirect drivers of biodiversity loss 

Action 18: Mobilise additional resources for global biodiversity conservation 

Action 19: Biodiversity-proof EU development cooperation 

Action 20: Regulate access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising 
from their use 

Horizontal measures:  

  Mobilise resources for biodiversity, 
  Strengthen partnerships with stakeholders in key sectors of business and society, 
 

Improve governance with the establishment of a Common Implementation Framework. 

The  Strategy  brought  together  existing  commitments  under  EU  legislation  and  policies 
along with new ones, presenting them as a coherent package. It formed an integral part of 
the  Europe  2020  Strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth10  and  the  7th 
Environmental Action Programme11.  

It  was  designed  to  support  the  implementation  of  EU  environmental  legislation12  and 
strengthen synergies with a range of EU policies including on the environment, climate, 
agriculture,  rural  development,  fisheries,  regional  development,  research,  trade  and 
development cooperation. 

Furthermore, as parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the EU and its 
Member  States  are  required  to  prepare  a  national  biodiversity  strategy  and  action  plan 
(NBSAP) or equivalent instrument, and to ensure that biodiversity is mainstreamed into 
all sectors whose activities can have an impact on biodiversity.  

The EU is – along with all the EU Member States – a full party to the CBD. The Strategy 
is  therefore  to  be  considered  as  the  EU  level-  NBSAP  implementing  the  EU’s  global 
commitments  under  the  CBD  and  its  global  Strategic  Plan  for  Biodiversity  2011-20, 
including the Aichi targets13. 

10 Europe 2020: a European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (COM/2010/2020). 
11 Environmental Action Programme to 2020: Living well, within the limits of our planet (Decision No 1386/2013/EU).  
12 In particular the EU Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC), EU Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC), EU Water Framework 
Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC) and the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC). The EU Regulation on 
Invasive Alien Species (Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014) was adopted in 2014 in implementation of Target 5. 
13 The Aichi targets are set out in the Global Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. The 15th Conference of the Parties to the CBD 
is expected to adopt a post-2020 global biodiversity framework in December 2022. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
1.4.  2.2. 

Intervention logic  

The  problem  the  Strategy  aimed  to  solve  is  the  loss  of  biodiversity  and  ecosystem 
services, both in the EU and globally.  

A  target  to  halt  biodiversity  loss  by  2010  had  been  set  by  the  EU  Heads  of  State  and 
Government  already  in  2001,  and  an  EU  Biodiversity  Action  Plan14  had  been  in  place 
since 2006 to accelerate progress towards it.  

However, despite significant action carried out, the EU missed the 2010 target: the status 
and condition of biodiversity and ecosystems in the EU, and the essential services they 
provide  continued  to  deteriorate  in  2010,  driven  by  changes  in  land  use,  pollution, 
overexploitation, invasive alien species and climate change15.  

The  most  significant  reasons  for  failure  to  tackle  these  drivers  were  found  to  be 
insufficient  integration  of  biodiversity-related  objectives  across  other  sectoral  policies, 
incomplete and uneven implementation of existing legislation and policy gaps, as well as 
shortcomings in funding for biodiversity in the EU16.  
The  impact  assessment  for  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  for  202017  further  identified  a 
range  of  indirect  drivers  related  to  demographic  and  cultural/lifestyle  choices, 
institutional drivers, market failures, economic structure, size and growth, and trade. 

The  intervention  logic  of  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  to  2020,  outlined  in  the 
Commission’s impact assessment accompanying the Strategy, was based on the analysis 
of  the  trends  and  causes  of  continuing  biodiversity  decline  in  the  EU  and  globally,  a 
business-as-usual  scenario  until  2020,  and  the  assessment  of  several  policy  options  for 
EU action, and their potential impacts.  

The intervention logic presents the problem, the objectives (targets) of the Strategy, the 
action  to  be  taken  by  the  Commission,  Member  State  authorities  and  other  actors  to 
implement it, and the expected results (outputs, outcomes and impacts).  

The  intervention  logic  illustrated  in  Figure  1  below  draws  on  the  2010  impact 
assessment underpinning the Strategy, and indicates links to the evaluation criteria. 

14 Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond – sustaining ecosystem services for human wellbeing (COM/2006/216 final). 
15 EEA (2010). EU 2010 biodiversity baseline (European Environment Agency Technical report No 12/2010). 
16 2010 Assessment of implementing the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (COM/2010/548 final).  
17 Commission Staff Working Paper: Impact Assessment accompanying the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (SEC/2011/540 final). 

8 

 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 1. Intervention logic of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (based on 2010 impact assessment)  

 
 
 
1.5.  2.3.  Baseline 

Due to the complexity and wide range of direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss, it 
was not possible to establish a clear baseline. Two earlier studies were used as a starting 
point to measure progress to the 2020 biodiversity targets. 

In  2010,  the  European  Environment  Agency  published  a  comprehensive  assessment 
report on the state and trends of biodiversity in 2010 (called the “2010 EU biodiversity 
baseline”18) using a number of indicators. This assessment provides the starting point to 
measure  and  monitor  changes  in  biodiversity  status  and  trends  in  key  drivers  of 
biodiversity loss from 2011 to 2020.  

The  EEA  report  revealed  that  in  2010,  only  17%  of  the  assessments  of  habitats  and 
species protected under the Nature Directives19 were 'favourable', while 65% of habitats 
assessments and 52% of species assessments were 'unfavourable' (with the number being 
as low as just 5% for grasslands). Since 1990, common farmland birds had declined by 
20–25%, all common bird populations by around 10% and grassland butterflies by nearly 
60%, showing no sign of levelling off.  
Corine Land Cover inventories20 showed continued expansion of artificial surfaces at the 
expense of grasslands, wetlands and cultivated land. The serious and continuing loss of 
Europe's  biodiversity  resulted  in  a  decline  in  the  ability  of  ecosystems  to  sustain  their 
natural  production  capacity  and  perform  regulating  functions,  such  as  crop  pollination, 
clean  air  and  water  provisioning,  and  the  control  of  floods  or  erosion.  An  increase  in 
provisioning  services,  such  as  timber,  was  also  noted.  The  EEA  assessment  was 
subsequently updated in 2015 and 2020. 

In  2011,  a  business-as-usual  scenario  was  developed  as  part  of  the  impact  assessment 
underpinning  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  to  202021.  It  described  how  the  state  of 
biodiversity,  and  pressures  on  it,  would  likely  develop  in  the  absence  of  an  EU 
Biodiversity  Strategy.  It  made  a  qualitative  projection  of  the  likely  level  of 
implementation and consequences of existing policy and legislation.  

Overall,  the  impact  assessment  suggested  that  without  an  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  to 
provide  the  framework  for  significant  additional  (i)  policy  and  legislative  reforms,  (ii) 
measures  to  strengthen  the  implementation  of  existing  legislation  and  (iii)  biodiversity 
measures, the EU would not attain the 2020 biodiversity headline target.  

Ecosystem  degradation  driven  by  land-use  changes,  overexploitation,  pollution,  habitat 
loss,  climate  change  and  invasion  by  alien  species  would  likely  continue  or  worsen.  It 
predicted  that  mean  species  abundance  would  continue  to  decline  in  Europe,  from 
approximately 40% in 2010 to approximately 37% in 2050.  
The  support  study  for  this  evaluation22  revisited  and  introduced  minor  retrospective 
changes  to  the  ‘business  as  usual’  scenario,  reflecting  new  information  and  actual 
developments of EU policies and legislation (insofar as they were not considered to be a 
result of the Strategy). More detail on the assumptions of the ‘business as usual’ scenario 
is provided in Annex 6.  

18 EEA (2010). EU 2010 biodiversity baseline (European Environment Agency Technical report No 12/2010). 
19 EU Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC) and EU Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC). 
20 https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover  
21 Commission Staff Working Paper: Impact Assessment accompanying the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (SEC/2011/540 final). 
22 Trinomics B.V. (2021). Support to the evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Final study report.  

 
 
 
 
                                                           
This  scenario  was  used  as  a  reference  point  for  the  purposes  of  the  evaluation  support 
study, while recognising its limitations:  

(i) interactions between biodiversity and other EU legislation and policies are complex;  

(ii) there are uncertainties about the evolution and impacts of wider indirect drivers (for 
example those related to lifestyle choices, institutional drivers, market failures, economic 
growth, or trade), and  

(iii) it is difficult to assess whether and how key policies would have developed or would 
have been implemented in the absence of the Strategy.  

The business-as-usual  scenario is  a useful point of reference  for the  evaluation, but  the 
limitations outlined above mean that it does not amount to a comprehensive established 
counterfactual.  The  evaluation  therefore  uses  progress  towards  the  2020  biodiversity 
targets as the most important measure of the Strategy’s effectiveness.  

11 

 
 
 
 
3.  3. 

IMPLEMENTATION AND STATE OF PLAY   

Since  its  adoption  in  May  2011  and  until  its  target  date  in  2020,  the  EU  Biodiversity 
Strategy to 2020 provided the EU framework for action on biodiversity, in a coordinated 
manner with the Member States and in line with the global Aichi biodiversity targets.  

In  2015,  the  Commission  undertook  a  mid-term  review  of  the  implementation  of  the 
Strategy23. It drew on the monitoring framework with indicators24 and assessed progress 
and trends for each target.  

It  concluded  that  the  EU  was  not  on  track  to  deliver  for  all  but  one  of  its  biodiversity 
targets (Target 5, for which both actions had been implemented according to schedule).  

Biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystem services had continued in the EU and 
globally,  driven  by  habitat  loss,  pollution,  over-exploitation,  invasive  alien  species  and 
climate change, with serious implications for the capacity of ecosystems to meet human 
needs in the future.  

The mid-term review considered factors that had impeded implementation, highlighting 
in  particular  insufficient  financing  and  mainstreaming  of  biodiversity  objectives  into 
other  policies,  as  well  as  insufficient  integration  of  the  value  of  biodiversity  and 
ecosystem services in policy and investment decisions.  

At the same time, the review pointed to many examples of successful implementation on 
the  ground,  which  indicated  that  -  with  sufficient  effort  and  adequate  financing  -  it  is 
possible to reverse the trend of biodiversity loss.  

Efforts were stepped up following the 2015 mid-term review, guided by an EU Roadmap 
for  enhanced  implementation25  that  the  Commission  drew  up  in  2016,  in  cooperation 
with  Member  State  authorities  and  stakeholders  in  the  Coordination  Group  for 
Biodiversity and Nature26.  

This  roadmap  included  measures  to  step  up  implementation  of  existing  actions  and 
introduced  new  actions  where  needed  (e.g.  a  new  EU  Pollinators  Initiative27).  It  was 
created  and  implemented  in  synergy  with  the  Action  plan  for  nature,  people  and  the 
economy28,  which  aimed  to  tackle  implementation  and  enforcement  weaknesses 
identified in the fitness check on EU nature legislation29.  

The latest assessments of the state of biodiversity in the EU in 2020 indicate that, despite 
increased  efforts,  the  targets  have  not  been  achieved,  as  further  specified  in  the  next 
sections: only 15% of habitat assessments under the Habitats Directive show good status 
(a  further  deterioration  since  2010),  and  many  pressures  on  ecosystems  are  stable  or 
increasing,  exacerbated  by  the  growing  impacts  of  climate  change  and  invasive  alien 
species.  

At the same time, progress made in certain areas show that a persistent implementation 
effort  can  be  effective.  These  include  pollution  reduction,  air  and  water  quality, 
increasing  the  share  of  organic  farming,  the  expansion  of  forests,  species  assessments 
under the Habitats Directive showing favourable status or positive trends, and a number 
of marine fish stocks reaching sustainable levels. 

23 Mid-term review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (COM/2015/478 final). 
24  As  outlined  in  the  EU  2010  baseline  revision  (European  Environment  Agency  Technical  report  No  9/2019)  and  including  the 
Streamlined European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010) as well as data available from reporting under relevant EU legislation. 
25 EU Roadmap for enhanced implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (2016). 
26 The Coordination Group on Biodiversity and Nature was the main Commission Expert Group with Member States and stakeholders 
coordinating the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. 
27 EU Pollinators Initiative (COM/2018/395 final). 
28 Action Plan for nature, people and the economy (COM/2017/198 final). 
29 Fitness check of the EU Nature Directives (SWD/2016/472 final). 

12 

 
 
                                                           
The EU-level findings resonate with global assessments. In 2018 the Intergovernmental 
Science-Policy  Platform  on  Biodiversity  and  Ecosystem  Services  (IPBES)   published  a 
Regional  assessment  report  on  biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services  for  Europe  and 
Central  Asia30  and,  in  2019,  a  Global  assessment  of  biodiversity  and  ecosystem 
services31.  

These comprehensive assessments confirmed the continuing decline of biodiversity and 
nature's  contributions  to  people,  warning  that  the  achievement  of  the  Sustainable 
Development  Goals  by  2030  would  not  be  possible  unless  this  trend  is  reversed. 
Biodiversity loss was recognised as one of the most critical global environmental threats 
alongside climate change — and the two are inextricably linked.  

1.6.  3.1.  State  of  play  on 
Biodiversity Strategy to 2020  

implementation  of 

the  EU 

The Strategy’s implementation period finished at the end of 2020. Annex 7 provides an 
overview of the main outputs delivered under each target and action between 2011 and 
2020.  When  assessing  implementation  of  the  targets,  progress  to  each  target  has  been 
scored using five categories, as follows:  

Table  2.  Assessment  categories  for  scoring  implementation  of  the  EU  biodiversity 
targets 

Assessment category  

Definition  

No progress 

Limited progress 

Moderate progress 

Significant progress 

Fully implemented 

The  EU  and  the  Member  States  have  not 
implemented  the  actions  and  they  have  not 
made progress to the target.  

the  Member  States  have 
The  EU  and 
implemented  few  actions.  Progress  has  been 
largely insufficient to achieve the target. 

the  Member  States  have 
The  EU  and 
implemented  a  number  of  actions.  There  is 
moderate progress towards the target. 

the  Member  State  have 
The  EU  and 
implemented  the  majority  of  the  actions. 
They have gone a long way to achieving the 
target, but some gaps remain. 

The EU  and the Member State have adopted 
and 
implemented  all  actions.  This  has 
resulted  in  the  adequate  delivery  on  the 
target. 

Some of the biodiversity targets were not fully SMART32 (see list of actions in Annex 5), 
which has implications for measuring and scoring the degree of their delivery.  

30  Regional  Assessment  Report  on  Biodiversity  and  Ecosystem  Services  for  Europe  and  Central  Asia  of  the  Intergovernmental 
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2018). 
31 Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019).  
32 Specific, Measurable, Accepted, Realistic, Timely. 

13 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Within  most  targets,  implementation  progress  varied  for  the  actions.  A  detailed 
assessment  of  each  individual  action  has  been  provided  in  the  final  report  of  the  study 
supporting this evaluation33.  

The  overall  assessment  of  progress  towards  each  target  is  presented  in  Table  3  below. 
Scores have been assigned separately on two aspects for each target (except the headline 
target, which has no actions):  

(i) progress in implementing the actions  

(ii)  progress  in  delivering  on  the  target  (i.e.  achieving  biodiversity  impacts  on  the 
ground). 

Table 3. Assessment of the implementation of the EU biodiversity targets to 2020 

Target 

EU  2020  headline  biodiversity 
target:  halt and reverse the loss of 
biodiversity and the degradation of 
ecosystem  services  in  the  EU  by 
2020,  and  help  to  avert  global 
biodiversity loss. 

Score and comments 

Progress to target: LIMITED 

The  loss  of  biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services  has  continued  in  the  EU  and 
globally. There have been positive examples of pressure reduction, restoration and 
sustainable  management  of  ecosystems  that  demonstrate  the  feasibility  of  halting 
and reversing biodiversity loss.  

species  over-exploitation, 

However, their scale has been too small to reverse degradation. The main pressures 
on  EU  biodiversity  have  been  unsustainable  agricultural  and  forestry  activities, 
urbanisation, 
species,  hydro-
morphological alterations, energy infrastructure, pollution and climate change34. In 
2020, the potential of EU ecosystems to deliver benefits to people was the same or 
lower than it was in 2010, while human demand for services continued to increase, 
resulting in a growing deficit35.  

invasive 

alien 

Globally, biodiversity has been declining faster than at any time in human history, 
and  direct  and  indirect  drivers  of  change36  have  accelerated  during  the  past 
decades.  Together  with  climate  change,  biodiversity  loss  increases  the  risk  of 
irreversible  changes  and  undermines  economic  development  and  the  resilience  of 
societies in the face of new challenges.  

Progress on implementing the actions: MODERATE to SIGNIFICANT 

The  majority  of  the  actions  under  Target  1  were  partly  or  fully  implemented. 
Member  States  have  made  good  progress  in  designating  Natura  2000  sites.  The 
terrestrial  network  is  almost  complete,  and  the  marine  network  has  increased 
almost 3-fold since 2010. Actions under the Strategy have supported good practice 
exchange, enforcement and policy integration, as well as awareness raising on the 
importance  of  Natura  2000.  Reporting  under  the  Nature  Directives  has  been 
streamlined and integrated in the State of Nature reports. 

However, key  actions were not fully implemented.  Gaps remain especially in the 
marine  Natura  2000  network,  the  management  of  Natura  2000  sites,  and  in 
ensuring sufficient financing. In 2017-19, following the fitness check on the Nature 
Directives,  the  Commission  adopted  and  implemented  an  Action  Plan  to  tackle  a 
number of the identified gaps and weaknesses37. 

Progress to target: LIMITED to MODERATE 

Despite  local  improvements  following  conservation  actions,  overall  only  15%  of 
habitat  assessments  under  the  Habitats  Directive  show  good  status  (down  from 

Target  1:  Fully  implement  EU 
Nature Legislation  

To  halt  the  deterioration  in  the 
status  of  all  species  and  habitats 
covered  by  EU  nature  legislation 
and  achieve  a  significant  and 
measurable  improvement  in  their 
status  so  that,  by  2020,  compared 
to current assessments:  

•  100%  more  habitat  assessments 
and 50% more species assessments 
under  the  Habitats  Directive  show 
an  improved  conservation  status; 
and  

•  50%  more  species  assessments 
under  the  Birds  Directive  show  a 

33 Trinomics B.V. (2021) Support to the evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Final study report. 
34 EEA (2020). State of Nature in the EU 2020 (European Environment Agency Report No 10/2020). 
35  European  Commission  (2020).  Mapping  and  assessment  of  ecosystems  and  their  services:  an  EU  Ecosystem  Assessment  and 
Summary for Policy-Makers. 
36 The IPBES Global Assessment identified five main direct drivers of biodiversity loss globally, namely: changes in land and sea use; 
direct exploitation of organisms; climate change; pollution; and invasion of alien species. Indirect drivers are underpinned by societal 
values and behaviours, and include production and consumption patterns, human population dynamics and trends, trade, technological 
innovations and local through global governance. 
37 EU action plan for nature, people and the economy (2017-19) (SWD/2017/139 final). 

14 

 
 
 
                                                           
secure or improved status. 

17%  in  the  2010  biodiversity  baseline),  and  most  habitat  assessments  show  poor 
(45%) or bad (36%) conservation status at EU level38.  

On  the  positive  side,  the  proportion  of  species  assessments  under  the  Habitats 
Directive that show favourable status or improving trends has increased from 17% 
to 27%39. However, less than half (47%) of all species assessments under the Birds 
Directive showed good status in the 2013-18 reporting period, an actual decrease 
of 5% from the 2008-12 reporting period. 

The  achievement  of  favourable  conservation  status  has  been  hindered  by 
management  deficiencies  such  as  a  lack  of  adequate  conservation  objectives  and 
measures  for  many  sites,  conflicting  land  management  objectives  and  funding 
constraints  (funding has  increased  but  remains  clearly  insufficient).  Many  Natura 
2000 sites continue to suffer from anthropogenic pressures and fragmentation. 

Target  2:  Maintain  and  restore 
ecosystems and their services 

Progress  in  implementing  the  actions  has  been  uneven,  ranging  from 
LIMITED to SIGNIFICANT 

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

3a: 

Target 
contribution  of 
maintaining 
biodiversity 

Increase 
agriculture 

the 
to 
enhancing 

and 

By  2020,  maximise  areas  under 
agriculture 
grasslands, 
across 
arable  land  and  permanent  crops 
that  are  covered  by  biodiversity-
related measures under the CAP, to 

The  initiative  on  the  Mapping  and  Assessment  of  Ecosystem  Services  (MAES)40 
has developed one of the most advanced regional ecosystem assessment schemes, 
with  the  engagement  of  all  Member  States.  With  the  publication  of  the  EU 
ecosystem assessment41, it has helped to build a significant knowledge base on EU 
ecosystems  and  the  services  they  provide.  The  Commission  supported  the 
development of an integrated natural capital accounting system for ecosystems and 
their  services  and  associated  datasets  via  the  Knowledge  Innovation  Project  on 
ecosystem services and Natural Capital Accounting (KIP INCA)42.  

The EU Green Infrastructure Strategy (2013) has encouraged investment in green 
infrastructure  and  mobilised  funding  from  EU  instruments.  The  Commission 
to  Member  States  on  developing  Restoration 
further  provided  guidance 
Prioritisation  Frameworks  to  advance  towards  the  15%  restoration  target. 
However,  only  a  few  Member  States  have  presented  such  frameworks  and 
restoration progress has been slow and uneven.  

A  methodological  framework  was  developed  for  biodiversity-proofing  the  EU 
budget43, however, its use in the national programming of EU funds has remained 
limited.  The  Commission  has  developed  guidance  on  integrating  ecosystems  and 
their  services44  into  decision-making;  however,  no  initiative  was  undertaken  to 
enshrine the No Net Loss approach45 in a dedicated EU policy instrument.  

Progress to target: LIMITED 

Pressures  on  ecosystems  continue  and  affect  their  capacity  to  deliver  essential 
benefits to people46. Studies indicate that restoration activities have taken place in 
all Member States, but significantly below what would have been required to reach 
the target of restoring 15% of degraded ecosystems47. 

Progress in implementing the actions: MODERATE 

(CAP) 

revised  Common  Agricultural  Policy 

The 
included 
strengthened  biodiversity  provisions  for  mandatory  cross-compliance,  greening 
obligations  and  a  ban  on  ploughing  up  environmentally  sensitive  permanent 
grasslands,  as  well  as  biodiversity  support  measures  under  Pillar  II  (Rural 
Development). The effectiveness of measures has been influenced by the variety of 
implementation  choices  made  by  the  Member  States.  The  available  indicators  do 
not point to particular EU level improvements48.  

for  2014-20 

38 EEA (2020). State of Nature in the EU 2020 (EEA Report No 10/2020). 
39 Calculated against the 2010 situation, the target of a 50% increase would mean 35% of species assessments showing a secure or 
improved  status  by  2020.  Note  that, for  consistency  across  the  reporting under  the  Birds and  Habitats  Directives,  the  term  “good” 
status was used in the State of Nature Report 2020. 
40 Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem Services (MAES). 
41  European  Commission  (2020).  Mapping  and  assessment  of  ecosystems  and  their  services:  an  EU  Ecosystem  Assessment  and 
Summary for Policy-Makers. 
42 Natural Capital Accounting.  
43 Common Framework and Guidance Documents for Biodiversity proofing of the EU budget. 
44 European Commission (2019). EU Guidance on integrating ecosystems and their services into decision-making (2019). Summary 
for Policymakers in Government and Industry. 
45 No Net Loss. 
46 European Commission (2020). Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services: an EU Ecosystem Assessment 2020 and 
Summary for Policy-Makers. 
47  Eftec  et al.  (2017)  Technical  support  in  relation to  the  promotion  of  ecosystem  restoration in  the  context  of  the  EU biodiversity 
strategy to 2020. Final report. 
48 Evaluation of the impacts of the CAP on biodiversity, soil and water (natural resources) (SWD/2021/424 final). 

15 

 
 
                                                           
the 

conservation 

ensure 
of 
biodiversity  and  bring  about  a 
measurable  improvement  in  (i)  the 
conservation  status  of  species  and 
habitats  that  depend  on  or  are 
affected  by  agriculture  and  (ii)  the 
provision  of  ecosystem  services, 
compared  to  the  EU2010 baseline. 
This  will  help  improve  sustainable 
management. 

3b: 

Target 
contribution 
maintaining 
biodiversity 

Increase 

forestry 

the 
to 
enhancing 

of 
and 

By  2020,  Forest  Management 
Plans or equivalent instruments, in 
line  with 
Sustainable  Forest 
Management  (SFM),  are  in  place 
for  all  forests  that  are  publicly 
forest  holdings 
owned  and 
above a  certain  size  (to  be defined 
by  the  Member  States  or  regions 
and  communicated  in  their  Rural 
Development  Programmes) 
that 
receive  funding  under  EU  rural 
development policy.  

for 

in 

improvement 

The  objective  is  to  bring  about  a 
measurable 
the 
conservation  status  of  species  and 
habitats  that  depend  on  or  are 
affected  by  forestry,  and  in  the 
provision  of  related  ecosystem 
services, compared to the EU 2010 
baseline. 

Target  4:  Ensure 
fisheries 
marine ecosystems 

and 

sustainable 
support  healthy 

and 

Achieve maximum sustainable yield 
(MSY)  by  2015.  Achieve  a 
size 
age 
population 
distribution  indicative  of  a  healthy 
stock, 
fisheries 
management  with  no  significant 
adverse  impacts  on  other  stocks, 
species  and  ecosystems,  in  support 
of  achieving  good  environmental 

through 

Progress to target: LIMITED 

Agri-environmental and climate measures have shown some positive local impacts 
on  biodiversity.  These  impacts  have  been  limited  by  a  relatively  low  uptake  in 
many Member States. The impact of greening measures at EU-level has also been 
limited due to insufficient coverage and a preference for low-impact measures. The 
Target did not explicitly tackle pressures from intensive agricultural practices, nor 
from land abandonment. Biodiversity continues to decline in agricultural habitats, 
and to a lesser extent in forests,  as shown by a number of biodiversity indicators 
(e.g.  the  conservation  status  of  habitats  and  species    targeted  by  the  Nature 
Directives,  and  population  trends  in  grassland  butterflies  and  common  farmland 
birds).  

More  than  45%  of  Annex I  assessments  of  agricultural  habitats  were  assessed  as 
bad  in  the  last  reporting  period  (2013-18)49.  Over  the  last  few  decades,  these 
declines have been primarily due to the effects of two trends:  

–  on  the  one  hand,  intensive  cultivation  techniques  on  most  grasslands  and 
croplands, involving high fertiliser and pesticide use, crop specialisation, increases 
in field size and losses of non-farmed habitats and landscape features; 

–  on  the  other  hand,  substantial  agricultural  abandonment  or  conversion    of 
semi-natural habitats, such as semi-natural grasslands50.   

Progress in implementing the actions: MODERATE 

Forest  Management  Plans  have  been  used  as  a  tool  by  forest  owners  throughout 
Europe,  yet  data  to  assess  their  effectiveness  and  the  inclusion  of  biodiversity-
relevant measures remain scarce. Significant portions of EU forests are not covered 
by management plans. Some innovative finance mechanisms such as payments for 
ecosystem services (PES) have been implemented, mostly at local level.  

CAP measures to support forest biodiversity have had varying degrees of uptake in 
the  Member  States.  Investment 
including  some 
biodiversity aspects, was included in more than two-thirds of the programmes and 
represented  20%  of  total public expenditure  planned  for  forestry  measures  at  EU 
level.  

improving  resilience, 

in 

However,  payments  for  voluntary  management  commitments  going  beyond  legal 
obligations and for compensation for Natura 2000 related restrictions had a limited 
uptake. The support measure for managing environment and climate services and 
forest  conservation  has  been  programmed  and  allocated  funding  in  just  25  rural 
development  programmes  in  Member  States,  representing  only  4%  of  the  total 
forestry measures.  

Budgets and uptake have been far below the scale of implementation required for 
Member  States  to  meet  their  legal  obligations  under  the  Habitats  and  Birds 
Directives51. 

Progress to target: LIMITED 

Assessments  reveal  that,  while  31%  of  forest  habitats  assessed  have  a  bad 
conservation  status,  32%  of  forest  bird  species  show  an  improving  trend,  40%  a 
stable trend and 16% a deteriorating trend52. 

Progress in delivering the actions: MODERATE 

Under  the  reformed  Common  Fisheries  Policy,  important  developments  in  the 
conservation  and  management  of  marine  biological  resources  have  been  made  in 
setting  Total  Allowable  Catches  (TACs)  and  quotas,  multi-annual  plans,  landing 
obligation  and  discard  plans,  technical  and  other  conservation  measures  for 
commercial  fish  stocks  and  fisheries  exploiting  those  stocks.  The  EU  plays  an 
active  role  in  many  Regional  Fisheries  Management  Organisations  aimed  at 
ensuring the sustainable management of fisheries resources53. However, significant 
challenges remain. Data gaps on the status and trends of marine ecosystems hinder 
the design of effective measures.  

49 EEA (2020). State of Nature in the EU 2020 (European Environment Agency Report No 10/2020). 
50  Alliance  Environnement  (2020).  Study  on  the  evaluation  of  the  impacts  of  the  CAP  on  habitats,  landscapes,  biodiversity.  Final 
Report. 
51 Evaluation concerning the forestry measures under rural development (SWD/2019/389 final). 
52 EEA (2020). State of Nature in the EU 2020 (European Environment Agency Report No 10/2020). 
53  Regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs). 

16 

 
 
                                                           
status  by  2020,  as  required  under 
the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 
Directive. 

Progress to target: LIMITED 

Despite some progress and recovery in a number of fish stocks, others continue to 
be  outside  safe  biological  limits  and/or  are  overfished.  In  addition  to  fisheries, 
further  pressures  from  land  and  sea  use,  pollution,  invasive  alien  species  and 
climate  change  need  to  be  addressed  for  marine  ecosystems  to  achieve  good 
environmental status.  

Target  5:  Combat  invasive  alien 
species 

Target  6:  Help  avert  global 
biodiversity loss 

Progress in delivering the actions: FULLY IMPLEMENTED 

The adoption of the Invasive Alien Species (IAS) Regulation and the strengthening 
of  the  EU  plant  and  animal  health  regimes  have  been  important  first  steps  to 
combatting IAS in the EU. In October 2021, the Commission published its report 
on the application of the IAS Regulation54, primarily based on reports submitted by 
Member States for 2015-18.  

Given  that  the  deadlines  for  implementing  the  various  obligations  of  the  IAS 
Regulation  applied  gradually  since  the  adoption  of  the  first  list  of  invasive  alien 
species of Union concern in July 2016 (and subsequent updates), it is premature to 
draw conclusions on most aspects of the IAS Regulation. 

Progress to target: LIMITED 
Implementation on the ground is still in its early stages and its full impact is yet to 
be  realised.  Invasive  alien  species  remain  a  persistent  and  growing  threat  across 
EU ecosystems. By 2020, 66 IAS had been prioritised for concerted action at EU 
level  and  efforts  to  control  or  eradicate  them  had  been  initiated  by  the  Member 
States.  

Action  on  the  management  of  pathways  has  on  the  other  hand  been  delayed 
significantly,  with  most  Member  States  not  having  adopted  the  required  action 
plans by 2020.  

The review of the application of the Regulation in the Member States indicates that 
despite the very short period of full implementation, restrictions, prevention, early 
detection,  rapid  eradication  and  management  of  widely  spread  species  deliver 
benefits.  

However,  the  EU  list  is  a  priority  list  to  which  species  can  only  be  added  once 
scientific  evidence  of  impact  is  available,  which  means  that  it  cannot  include  all 
IAS. In addition, Most Member States have not yet implemented the action plans 
to address the priority pathways. 

Progress in delivering the actions: LIMITED TO MODERATE 

International  financial  flows  from  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  for  global 
biodiversity have been significant since the Strategy was published. EU initiatives 
such  as  BEST  have  increased  the  efficiency  and  access  to  funding  for  actions 
related 
to  biodiversity  and  sustainable  ecosystem  management.  However, 
information  gaps  on  (international)  biodiversity  funding  limits  the  tracking  of  its 
effectiveness  and  efficiency.  Limited  progress  has  been  made  on  identifying  and 
eliminating subsidies that are harmful for biodiversity55.  

The  EU  has  taken  measures  to  tackle  illegal  trade,  for  example  as  part  of  the 
implementation of the FLEGT Action Plan and the EU Action plan against wildlife 
trafficking56. Biodiversity-related provisions have been systematically included in 
the Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) chapters of EU trade agreements. 
However,  detailed  assessment  of  the  biodiversity  impacts  of  trade  –  and  the 
monitoring  and  enforcement  of  these  (non-binding)  provisions  –  remain  a 
challenge.  There  is  a  clear  need  to  reinforce  integrated  EU  external  action  for 
biodiversity  and sustainable development, better connect biodiversity targets  with 
the SDGs and ensure coherence with internal EU policy developments.  

54 Commission report on the review of the application of the IAS Regulation (COM/2021/628 final). 
55 Many definitions of environmentally harmful subsidies exist depending on a particular context. For example, one such definition 
was proposed in the 'Study Supporting the phasing out of environmentally harmful subsidies' (IEEP, 2012), drawing on the definition 
of  a  ‘subsidy’  by  the  Organisation  for  Economic  Cooperation  and  Development  (OECD):  “a  result  of  a  government  action  that 
confers  an  advantage  on  consumers  or  producers,  in  order  to  supplement  their  income  or  lower  their  costs,  but  in  doing  so, 
discriminates against sound environmental practices”.  
56 EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking (COM/2016/87 final). 

17 

 
 
 
                                                           
Progress to target: LIMITED 

Biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services are deteriorating worldwide57.  

Horizontal measures: Governance  Progress assessment: MODERATE 

A Common Implementation Framework (CIF) structure of Expert Groups was set 
up in 2012, with the Coordination Group for Biodiversity and Nature (CGBN) at 
its  core,  in  order  to  support  a  coordinated  and  streamlined  implementation of  the 
Strategy.  A  coherent  framework  was  developed  for  monitoring,  assessing  and 
reporting on progress in implementation. The SEBI indicators set58 supported the 
measurement and reporting on progress to the 2020 EU biodiversity targets as well 
as to the global Convention on Biological Diversity. Progress was assessed in the 
Commission’s  report  on  the Mid-term  review  of  the  Strategy59  in 2015,  followed 
by  the  Council  Conclusions60  and  EP  Resolution61  in  response  to  the  mid-term 
review.  In  order  to  step  up  implementation,  the  Commission,  together  with 
Member  States  and  EU  stakeholders  at  the  CGBN,  developed  in  2016  an  EU 
Roadmap for enhanced implementation of the Strategy.  

However,  the  Strategy  as  an  instrument  was  not  sufficient  to  ensure  appropriate 
political commitment, adequate funding, biodiversity mainstreaming and actions to 
be  taken  at  each  level.  The  stakeholder  consultations  showed  appreciation  of  the 
governance arrangements that had enabled  regular information to stakeholders on 
EU level activities, but also frustration with insufficient engagement of key sector 
actors in implementation.  

Horizontal 
Partnerships 

measures: 

Progress assessment: MODERATE 

There  are  many  examples  of  partnership-building  activities  across  targets,  with 
many  actions  focused  on  information-sharing  and  collaboration.  The  EU  B@B 
platform  has  facilitated  front-running  businesses  to  exchange  experience  and 
cooperate  on  developing  tools  to  assess  their  impacts  and  dependencies  on 
biodiversity62.  Stakeholder  platforms  have  been  set  up  to  discuss  and  develop 
solutions  such  as  the  EU  platform  on  large  carnivores63.  The  Natura  2000 
Biogeographical  Process  was  launched  in  2011  to  help  Member  States  and  key 
stakeholders manage Natura 2000 as a coherent network64.  

Nevertheless,  just  under  half  of  the  OPC  respondents  consider  that  the  Strategy 
helped to  ensure  cooperation  and  learning  among  Member  States  (50%  ‘fully’  or 
‘partially’ and 50% ‘poorly’ or ‘not at all’) or between the EU and third countries 
(39% ‘fully’ or ‘partially’). 

Horizontal measures: Financing 

Progress assessment: MODERATE 

Significant action has been taken to integrate biodiversity support measures in EU 
funding  instruments  in  the  2014-20  budget.  Biodiversity  support  measures  under 
the CAP, or the use of European Territorial Cooperation Programmes have driven 
green  infrastructure  policies,  as  well  as  the  increase  in  funding  for  global 
biodiversity in line with the resource mobilisation commitment by the EU and its 
Member States.  

However,  lack  of  funding  has  continued  to  be  a  major  impediment  to 
implementation success across targets. The lack of legally binding provisions, and 
the  absence  of  a  dedicated  financing  instrument  have  been  identified  by 
stakeholders as major challenges for funding mobilisation. 

57  Global  Assessment  Report  on  Biodiversity  and  Ecosystem  Services  of  the  Intergovernmental  Science-Policy  Platform  on 
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019). 
58 Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators (European Environment Agency 2020).  
59 Mid-term review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (COM/2015/478 final). 
60 Environmental Council Conclusions on the mid-term review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 
61 EP Resolution on the mid-term review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (A8-0003/2016). 
62 EU Business @ Biodiversity Platform. 
63 EU Platform on co-existence between people and large carnivores. 
64 Natura 2000 biogeographical process. 

18 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
4.  4.  METHODOLOGY 

This  evaluation  uses  the  standard  policy  evaluation  criteria  and  follows  a  well-defined 
methodology  in  accordance  with  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines65.  The  evaluation 
criteria were further operationalised through evaluation questions. 

1.7.  4.1.  Evaluation questions 

This evaluation aims to answer the following evaluation questions:   

Effectiveness: 
  To what extent have the actions defined under the strategy been implemented at the 

EU level and in the Member States?  

  To what extent is the EU Biodiversity Strategy on track to achieve the six operational 
biodiversity targets and the headline target by 2020, and to progress towards the 2050 
vision?  

  To  what  extent  has  the  strategy  been  successful  in  addressing  the  main  drivers  of 

biodiversity loss?  

  What  have  been  success  factors  and  have  successful  approaches  been  shared  and 

replicated?  

  What have been possible gaps or challenges that have hindered progress towards the 

targets?  

  To  what  extent  have  stakeholders  been  actively  engaged  in  the  strategy’s 

implementation and how have they been affected?  

Efficiency 
  To what extent has the strategy been cost-effective?  
  What factors could have improved cost-effectiveness by strengthening delivery of the 
targets while minimising unnecessary costs and avoiding administrative burden?  

  How timely and efficient is the process for reporting and monitoring?  
  Was  the  Strategy  the  most  appropriate  instrument  to  achieve  the  EU  biodiversity 

targets to 2020? 

  What significant positive and/or negative long-term and/or short-term socio-economic 

impacts has the Strategy implementation had? 

  What have the main socio-economic impacts been, within the EU and globally, of any 

identified failure to achieve the EU biodiversity targets? 

Coherence 
  To what extent has the EU Biodiversity Strategy been coherent with the Europe 2020 

Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth?  

  Does the strategy support other EU environmental policy objectives, for example, in 
relation  to  clean  air  and  water,  the  marine  environment,  the  transition  to  a  circular 
economy,  sustainable  production  and  consumption,  soil  protection,  land  use  and 
management, waste management, the sustainable use of resources and climate policy? 
What are the synergies or overlaps?  

  To what extent are the biodiversity targets coherent with and mainstreamed into other 
EU  policies,  in  particular  on  agriculture,  fisheries,  regional  and  urban  development, 

65 European Commission Better Regulation Guidelines. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
energy,  climate  change,  research  and  innovation  as  well  as  trade  and  development 
cooperation?  

  To what extent is the strategy aligned with the EU’s international commitments under 
the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Sustainable Development Goals and the 
United Nations Convention on Climate Change? 

Relevance 
  To what  extent do the objectives and targets of the strategy (still) correspond to the 

needs of the EU with regard to biodiversity?  

  Has the strategy been flexible enough to respond to new or emerging issues?  
  How  relevant  is  the  strategy  for  the  different  stakeholders  and  to  EU  citizens  in 

particular?  

EU added value 
  What  is  the  added  value  resulting  from  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  compared  to 

what is likely to have been achieved by the Member States in its absence?  

  How do Member States' targets and implementation add up or compare to the targets 

at EU-level? 

1.8.  4.2.  Process 

In  line  with  standard  practice  for  Commission  evaluations,  after  adoption  of  the 
Roadmap66,  an  evaluation  matrix  was  developed,  breaking  the  above  evaluation 
questions further to allow for their analysis, identifying the success criteria and indicators 
against  which  the  assessment  was  performed,  and  clarifying  sources  of  data  and 
evidence. The evaluation matrix set the framework for the evaluation work.  

The  Commission  used  an  external  contractor  to  support  the  evaluation  by  summarising 
evidence and analysing the evaluation questions. Answers were provided on the basis of 
evidence gathered from a wide range of qualitative and quantitative sources including:  

  Review  of  literature,  datasets  and  indicators:  Numerous  literature  sources  were 
studied,  the  majority  of  which  were  academic  studies,  Commission  impact 
assessments, evaluations and fitness checks and reviews of relevant EU policies and 
legislation; Member States and Commission implementation reports on relevant EU 
legislation; reports by the European Court of Auditors; publications by the European 
Environment  Agency  (EEA),  the  Commission’s  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC), 
position  papers  by  stakeholders  as  well  as  independent  studies,  policy  documents, 
and projects funded by the EU; as well as national policies, publications and reports, 
including the EU and Member States’ 5th and 6th National Reports to the Convention 
on Biological Diversity. Key sources of evidence included the European Environment 
– State and Outlook Report67; the State of Nature in the EU68 (EEA 2020); the EU 6th 
National  Report  to  the  CBD  (2020)69;  the  first  EU  Ecosystem  Assessment  (JRC 
2020)70 and the Streamlined European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI)71. 

66 Roadmap for the evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020.  
67 EEA (2020). The European environment — state and outlook 2020 (SOER) (European Environment Agency 2020). 
68 EEA (2020). State of Nature in the EU (European Environment Agency Report No 10/2020). 
69 EU 6th National Report to the CBD. 
70  European  Commission  (2020).  Mapping  and  assessment  of  ecosystems  and  their  services:  an  EU  Ecosystem  Assessment  and 
Summary for Policy-Makers (Publications Office of the EU, 2020). 
71 Streamlined European Biodiversity Indicators SEBI. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Box. 1 The Streamlined European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI) 

The set of SEBI indicators was a key source of EU level evidence for the evaluation, 
building on current monitoring and available data. Each indicator provides a message 
on an individual aspect  of the state of biodiversity, pressures on it and responses to 
help conserve biodiversity and halt its loss. Together, they provide the big picture and 
have been used in the mid-term review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and 
the 6th EU Report to the CBD, among others.  

The  SEBI  indicators  included:  Abundance  and  distribution  of  selected  European 
species  (SEBI  001),  Species  of  European  interest  (SEBI  003),  Ecosystem  coverage 
(SEBI 004), Habitats of European coverage (SEBI 005), Livestock genetic diversity 
(SEBI 006), Nationally  designated terrestrial protected areas in  Europe (SEBI 007), 
Natura  2000  sites  designated  under  the  Habitats  and  Birds  Directives  (SEBI  008), 
Impact  of  climate  change  on  bird  populations  (SEBI  011),  Forest:  growing  stock, 
increment  and  fellings  (SEBI  017),  Forest:  deadwood  (SEBI  018),  Agriculture: 
nitrogen  balance  (SEBI  019),  Agriculture:  area  under  management  practices 
potentially  supporting  biodiversity  (SEBI  020),  Ecological  footprint  of  European 
countries (SEBI 023), Public awareness of biodiversity in Europe (SEBI 026). 

Annex  3  provides  an  overview  of  the  indicators  used  to  inform  the  assessment  of 
each evaluation question. 

  Online  public  consultation  was  carried  out  through  an  online  survey.  The 
questionnaire  was  available  in  23  EU  languages  on  the  EU  Survey  portal  for  12 
weeks  between  January  and  April  2021.  The  consultation  was  part  of  a  joint 
consultation that included three distinct but inter-linked EU topics: i) the evaluation 
of  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  to  2020,  ii)  the  implementation  review  of  the 
Invasive  Alien  Species  Regulation  (also  relevant  to  Target  5)  and  iii)  the 
development  of  binding  EU  restoration  targets  (an  initiative  that  also  draws  on 
experience with the implementation of Target 2). The joint survey received a total of 
111,842 responses. Annex 2 provides an overview of the responses to the evaluation 
questionnaire.  

  Targeted consultations including: 

o  Interviews with  EU-level  organisations:  a total  of 30 interviews were conducted 
with  representatives  of  EU-level  umbrella  organisations  selected  to  represent  a 
wide  spectrum  of  interests  across  environmental,  agriculture,  forestry,  fisheries, 
business,  research  and  other  domains,  as  well  as  to  gather  perspectives  and 
additional evidence about the implementation of the Strategy. 

o  Online  survey  and  interviews  with  Member  States’  authorities  and  key 
stakeholders in order to gather views and evidence of implementation approaches, 
successes  and  failures.  These  case  studies  took  place  in  ten  selected  Member 
States.  As  a  first  step,  an  online  survey  was  sent  out  to  expert  stakeholders.  A 
total of 64 stakeholders provided a response. These were followed by interviews 
with  up  to  five  representatives  of  key  authorities  and  stakeholder  organisations 
per Member State, in order to explore the respondent’s experiences in successes 
and failures of implementation of specific targets, and the underlying factors. 

o  Discussions  with  Commission  Services  at  the  Inter-service  group  on  the 
evaluation  of  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  to  2020,  and  online  meetings  with 

21 

 
 
 
individual  services  where  necessary  to  further  discuss  specific  aspects  (see  also 
Annex 1). 

Annex  2  provides  a  synopsis  report  on  the  consultation  activities  carried  out  for  this 
evaluation.  Annex  8  provides  a  summary  of  key  findings  on  implementation  successes 
and challenges, derived from consultations in the 10 case study Member States. 

1.9.  4.3.  Limitations – robustness of findings 

Biodiversity  knowledge  has  increased  significantly  over  the  past  years  in  the 
EU, among  other  reasons  because  of reporting  under  environmental 
legislation, 
strengthened  monitoring,  research  under  Horizon  2020 as  well  as the  mapping  and 
assessment of ecosystems and their services that has advanced in all EU Member States. 
At  the  global  level, the  Intergovernmental  Science-Policy  Platform  on  Biodiversity  and 
Ecosystem  Services  (IPBES) has provided the  first  global, peer reviewed assessment of 
biodiversity and ecosystem services, including of the main direct and indirect drivers of 
transformative 
loss, impacts  on  human  wellbeing  as  well  as  pathways 
change. Advances  in  the economics  of  biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services,  natural 
capital 
the 
Strategy’s publication. Experience  gained  in  the  Member  States  offers  insights  into 
implementation  successes  and  challenges,  and  the  factors  behind  them.  Research  and 
innovation  projects  under  Horizon  2020  have  contributed  to  improved  knowledge  and 
understanding in many areas such as biodiversity decline (including on indirect drivers of 
biodiversity  loss,  for  example  related  to  food  systems),  nature-based  solutions,  valuing 
and restoring ecosystem services.    

been  made 

accounting 

valuation 

since 

have 

also 

and 

for 

These  and  further sources,  complemented  with  evidence  and  views  provided  by 
stakeholders,  form  a  good  evidence  basis for  drawing  conclusions  and  lessons  learned 
from the implementation of the individual biodiversity targets.  

At  the  same  time,  significant  evidence  and  knowledge  gaps  persist,  and  they  have 
posed limitations to the evaluation analysis, for example in relation to: (i) the condition 
and  trends  of  some  ecosystems  and  their  services,  in  particular  in  the  marine 
environment;  (ii)  comprehensive  cost-benefit  data  for  the  entire  EU  (rather  than 
individual  projects)  for  most  targets;  (iii)  comprehensive  EU  level  information  on  the 
national  implementation  of  the  biodiversity  actions  and  progress  to  the  targets  in  the 
Member States, beyond reporting obligations under existing EU legislation. 

While the Strategy itself had a non-binding nature, some of its targets and actions aimed 
to support the implementation of existing EU legislation. For example, Target 1 was to 
ensure  the  implementation  of  the  EU  Nature  Directives,  and  success  is  measured  by 
progress  to  the  achievement  of  favourable  conservation  status:  an  objective  already 
embedded in Nature Legislation. Similarly, an action under Target 4 aimed to support the 
implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. In such cases, it has proven 
very  difficult  to  distinguish  what  part  of  progress  has  been  the  result  of  the 
implementation of the legislation itself, or from the Strategy’s actions.  

Similarly, some biodiversity targets and actions aimed to influence EU policies in other 
areas  (such  as  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy,  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy,  or  EU 
trade policy) rendering clear attribution of impacts to the Strategy challenging (as further 
discussed in Section 2.1).  

This meant that, even when evidence on biodiversity outcomes and impacts was strong, it 
was often difficult to attribute them with a degree of certainty to the Strategy (rather than 

22 

 
 
 
to the impact of other legislation or EU policies). In response, extra efforts were made in 
discussions with stakeholders to explore the possible impact of the implementation of the 
Strategy in the case study countries. 

Overall, efforts to triangulate multiple sources of evidence and the views of interviewed 
authorities  and  stakeholders  are  considered  to  lead  to  robust  findings  in  terms  of 
evidence. Where such triangulation was not possible, the evaluation analysis refers to the 
nature of the  evidence used and  flags uncertainties, for example related to inconclusive 
data,  unclear  causality  or  when  statements  reflect  the  views  expressed  by  stakeholder 
groups representing a specific interest.  

Part  of  the  Strategy’s  actions  concern  implementation  at  the  Member  State  level,  while 
others were for the Commission to implement, in consultation or in cooperation with the 
Member States.  More robust data on operational  implementation  at  the Member States’ 
level  is  available for those actions that are linked to  legislative instruments  and include 
reporting  obligations,  for  example  on  the  designation  of  Natura  2000  sites  or  on  the 
conservation status of protected habitats and species. There are gaps in EU level data on 
the  national  implementation  of  voluntary  actions  where  there  has  been  no  reporting 
obligation  or  mechanism,  such  as  on  restoration  or  the  deployment  of  Green 
Infrastructure.  Some  data  has  been  reported  by  individual  Member  States  or  collected 
with  the  help  of  studies.  There  is  also  evidence  of  implementation  activities  provided 
during the public consultations, LIFE projects implementation, as well as implementation 
success  stories  (as  well  as  challenges)  identified  by  the  support  study  by  means  of  a 
survey of national implementation of selected targets in ten Member States.  

An overview of the main outputs at the EU level is provided in Annex 7. While there is 
no comprehensive overview of implementation at the national level, Annex 8 provides a 
wealth  of  examples  and  stakeholder  views,  based  on  targeted  surveys  in  10  Member 
States. 

23 

 
 
5.  5. 

ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

1.10.  5.1.  Effectiveness 

5.1.1  Progress to the targets  

Evaluation question 1: To what extent has the Strategy worked as expected? 

This question covers the following interlinked questions of the evaluation Roadmap: 

To what extent: 

  have the actions defined under the Strategy been implemented at the EU level and in 

the Member States?  

 

is  the  Strategy  on  track  to  achieve  the  six  operational  biodiversity  targets  and  the 
headline target by 2020, and to progress towards the 2050 vision?  

  has the strategy been successful in addressing the main drivers of biodiversity loss?  

Overall  response:  None  of  the  six  targets  of  the  Strategy  have  been  fully  achieved, 
despite  numerous  actions  being  undertaken.  Progress  towards  the  headline  target  has 
been limited, as illustrated by data on the status of EU habitats and species (see details 
under Target 1 below), on the condition of EU ecosystems and their services (see details 
under Target 2 below) and on global biodiversity and ecosystem services (as evidenced 
in  the  IPBES  global  assessment of  ecosystems  and their services). The  main drivers of 
biodiversity loss continue in the EU and globally. 

This insufficient progress is partly due to insufficient implementation of the actions, and 
partly due to the scope and formulation of the actions that were not always sufficient to 
deliver  some  of  the  targets.  The  limitations  of  the  Strategy  as  an  instrument  to  ensure 
implementation  are  further  discussed  in  section  2.2.  At  the  same  time,  significant  local 
efforts and successes need to be acknowledged, even if their scale has been too small to 
achieve the targets across the EU.  

What is the issue? 

The  delivery  of  the  20  actions  was  envisaged  to  result  in  the  achievement  of  the  six 
operational targets set out in the Strategy, which, in turn, should have enabled the EU to 
deliver on its headline target to halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity by 2020, and to 
help avert global biodiversity loss.  

What are the findings? 

Progress  towards  the  headline  target  has  been  limited.  Biodiversity  loss  and  the 
degradation of ecosystem services in the EU have continued since 2010, and a number of 
direct  and  indirect  drivers  of  loss  have  accelerated,  including  the  increasing  impacts  of 
climate change and invasive alien species72,73. Ecosystems’ potential to deliver a range of 
services in the EU is stable or decreasing, while demand for these services is increasing, 
resulting  in  a  deficit  of  services  and  further  pressures  on  ecosystems74.  Globally, 
biodiversity has been declining faster than at any time in human history, and direct and 

72 EEA (2020). The European environment — state and outlook 2020 (SOER) (European Environment Agency 2020). 
73 EEA (2020). State of Nature in the EU (European Environment Agency Report No 10/2020).  
74    European  Commission  (2020).  Mapping  and  assessment  of  ecosystems  and  their  services:  an  EU  Ecosystem  Assessment  and 
Summary for Policy-Makers (Publications Office of the EU, 2020). 

24 

 
 
                                                           
indirect  drivers  of  change75  have  accelerated  during  the  past  decades.  Together  with 
climate  change,  biodiversity  loss  increases  the  risk  of  irreversible  changes  and 
undermines  economic  development  and  the  resilience  of  societies  in  the  face  of  new 
challenges. 

This  overall  insufficient  progress  should  not  conceal  significant  local  achievements. 
Evidence  of  conservation  efforts  and  many  success  examples  are  highlighted  in  the 
analysis  of  individual  targets  below,  as  well  as  in  Annex  8.  However,  major  drivers  of 
biodiversity loss have remained in place, and the scale of individual actions has not been 
sufficient to counteract these drivers, and to achieve the targets across the EU.  

As  reported  in  more  detail  below,  limited  progress  has  been  made  to  most  of  the 
operational (thematic) targets of the Strategy, despite numerous actions undertaken. It 
is important to note that the level of implementation of the actions within each target has 
varied  significantly.  Of  the  twenty  actions,  several  are  considered  completed,  such  as 
actions  4  and  16,  whereas  other  actions  have  shown  limited  progress.  Given  the 
biodiversity  status  and  trends,  these  targets  and  actions  have  not  collectively  led  to  the 
halting of biodiversity loss. 

In some cases, insufficient progress to the thematic targets – and therefore to the headline 
target  -  can  be  tracked  down  to  failures  to  fully  implement  some  of  the  actions.  For 
example, gaps in the designation of the marine Natura 2000 network, in the adoption of 
management  objectives  for  Natura  2000  sites  and  in  the  enforcement  of  protection 
regimes  have  negatively  affected  progress  to  Target  1.  Few  Member  States  have 
developed  green  infrastructure  strategies  and  frameworks  to  set  restoration  priorities 
under Target 2. Forest management plans did not systematically integrate comprehensive 
biodiversity  measures  in  line  with  Target  3B.  The  EU  and  the  Member  States  did  not 
undertake sufficient steps to consumption patterns driving global biodiversity loss, as set 
out  under Target  6. Underlying causes of non-implementation  have been  highlighted in 
the analysis of each target below. 

In other cases, the actions set in the Strategy have been undertaken but this has not been 
sufficient  to  achieve  the  thematic  targets,  indicating  weaknesses  in  the  scope  and 
formulation of some of the targets and of the corresponding actions. For example, Target 
2  aimed  to  restore  15%  or  ecosystems  in  the  EU,  however  the  actions  stopped  short  of 
prescribing  the  necessary  implementation  efforts,  and  focussed  on  the  adoption  of  EU 
strategies and national prioritisation frameworks instead. In addition, the Strategy did not 
provide  an  instrument  to  oblige  actors  in  the  Member  States  to  implement  restoration 
activities.  Restoration  on  the  ground  was  insufficient  even  in  those  few  Member  States 
that did develop such frameworks. Actions under Target 3A were formulated in a generic 
way leaving room for interpretation of the level of enhancement needed, and for Member 
States’ choices to set their level of uptake. The actions under Target 5 were implemented, 
yet the EU has not made sufficient progress in combatting invasive alien species, at least 
partly because setting up the EU legal framework, its transposition in the Member States 
and commencing implementation required significant time before implementation could 
start  on  the  ground.  Further  reflections  on  the  Strategy  as  an  instrument  are  provided 
under section 5.2. They have informed the design of the biodiversity targets and actions 
to 2030, as well as work on the development of binding EU nature restoration targets. 

75 Direct drivers of loss are: changes in land and sea use; direct exploitation of organisms; climate change; pollution; and invasion of 
alien  species.  Indirect drivers  include  wider  factors  such as production  and consumption patterns,  human  population  dynamics  and 
trends, trade, technological innovations and local through global governance. 

25 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Stakeholder views on implementation 

About  half  or  the  respondents  to  the  Open  Public  Consultation  considered  that  the  EU 
had  “partially”  achieved  the  headline  biodiversity  target  (48%).  Stakeholders  who 
considered  that  the  headline  target  had  been  ‘fully’  achieved  largely  belonged  to  the 
forestry sector (53%, with all but one being respondents from the Polish forestry sector), 
whereas  those  who  responded  ‘poorly’  belonged  mostly  to  environment  (23%),  forestry 
(20%)  and  culture  (19%)  organisations.  Performance  was  best-rated  under  Targets  1 
and  3,  with  30%  of  respondents  saying  that  Target  1  was  fully  achieved,  and  22%  of 
respondents considering that Target 3 was fully achieved (again, predominantly answers 
from forestry sector stakeholders). 

Progress to Target 1. Fully implement the Birds and Habitats Directives 

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

Progress to Target 1 has been uneven, with a broad set of actions implemented fully or 
partly,  and  some  significant  results  visible  on  the  ground.  However,  as  illustrated  in 
Figure 2 below, Target  1 was not achieved. The Strategy aimed to increase by 50% the 
number  of  species  assessments  that  show  a  secure  or  better  conservation  status,  and  by 
100% the number of habitats assessments showing a secure or better conservation status.   

Figure 2 Progress towards Target 1 as percentage of assessments carried out: 

Note:  Each  bar  shows  the  percentage  of  assessments  showing  good  status  or  improving. 
“Baseline” (dark green) is the percentage of assessments with good status or improving in 2010. 
“Final  2020”  is  the  situation  in  2020,  based  on  the  latest  reporting  period  under  the  Nature 
Directives (2013-18). The grey lines represent the expected mid-term progress (by 2015), and the 
red lines mark the 2020 target.  
Source: State of nature in the EU 2020 (COM/2020/635 final). 

The State of Nature in the EU Report 202076 (based on the results of the Member States 
Reporting  under  the  Nature  Directives  for  2013-18)  reveals  that  an  estimated  47%  of 
European wild bird species assessments show good population status: a decrease of 5% 

76 Commission Report on the State of Nature in the EU 2020 (COM/2020/635 final). 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
since the last reporting period (2007-12), and 30% of breeding populations exhibit short-
term decreasing trends. For species, there was only a 2% gap to the 50% target increase. 
The majority of habitat assessments show a ‘poor’ (45%) or ‘bad’ (36%) status, with only 
15% of habitat types assessments showing ‘good’ status (a 2% decrease since 2010). For 
habitats  not  in  good  status,  only  9%  of  assessments  show  improving  trends  between 
reporting periods, 34% are stable, and 36% are continuing to deteriorate77. Some positive 
trends  are  noted:  an  average,  6%  of  national  or  regional  assessments  for  habitats  and 
species  (other  than  birds)  show  improvement.  The  status  of  emblematic  species  has 
improved  thanks  to  conservation  actions,  often  with  support  from  the  EU  LIFE 
Programme (e.g. the recovery of populations of Lynx pardinus and the Cantabrian brown 
bear in Spain; the brown bear and the wolf in Italy; the chamois and griffon vultures in 
Bulgaria,  the  common  crane,  white-tailed  eagle  and  osprey  in  the  Netherlands)78. 
However,  the  majority  of  species  within  the  scope  of  the  Habitats  Directive  remain  in 
‘poor’  or  ‘bad’  status  (63%  of  assessments),  with  a  slightly  increasing  short-term  trend 
for those in  ‘good’ status  (27% of assessments in  2013-18 against 23% in  2007-12 and 
17%  in  2010).  Another  remaining  challenge  is  protection  outside  Natura  2000  sites. 
Monitoring has improved, however gaps remain in data on status and trends, particularly 
pertinent  for  marine  species  and  habitats.  The  trends  of  21%  of  habitats  and  31%  of 
species are unknown79.  

The Member States have progressed significantly with the designation of the Natura 2000 
network. The terrestrial network is almost complete and covered about 18% of the EU’s 
land area by 2020. With this extent, the EU has achieved Aichi biodiversity target 1180. 
The marine network has increased significantly, from about 3% of the EU’s sea area in 
2010 to more than 9% in 2020 for EU-27+UK (and about 8% for EU-27).  

However,  many  Natura  2000  sites  continue  to  suffer  from  anthropogenic  pressures  and 
fragmentation.  The  most  commonly  reported  pressures  on  habitats  and  species  are 
grouped as activities relating to agriculture, urbanization and forestry. For surface water 
habitats, the predominant factors for not achieving good ecological status under the Water 
Framework  Directive  (WFD)  include  hydromorphological  pressures,  diffuse  pollution 
and over-abstraction81.  

Management  deficiencies,  such  as  delays  in  the  setting  of  adequate  conservation 
objectives and measures for Natura 2000 sites, as well as constraints related to funding, 
knowledge,  stakeholder  engagement,  policy  integration  and  human  resources  have 
hindered  the  achievement  of  favourable  conservation  status82.  A  special  report  of  the 
European Court of Auditors concluded that more efforts are needed in the management, 
financing and monitoring of Natura 2000 network to achieve its full potential83. 

In evaluating progress to Target 1, it is important to note that it aims to support the full 
implementation  of  existing  legislation.  The  actions  set  out  in  the  Strategy  aimed  to 
increase  stakeholder  engagement,  strengthen  links  with  other  policy  areas,  raise 
awareness  and  provide  guidance  on  different  implementation  aspects.  These  actions  as 
well  as  the  Action  Plan  for  nature,  people  and  the  economy  have  supported 

77 EEA (2020). State of Nature in the EU (European Environment Agency Report No 10/2020).  
78 See Annex 8. 
79 Commission Report on the State of Nature in the EU 2020 (COM/2020/635 final). 
80  Aichi biodiversity  target 11  of the Convention  on Biological  Diversity′s  strategic  plan  2011-2020  requires the conservation  of at 
least 17% of terrestrial and inland water and 10% of coastal and marine areas. 
81 Fitness check of the EU Water Legislation (SWD/2019/439 final). 
82 Fitness check of the EU Nature Directives (SWD/2016/472 final). 
83 ECA (2017). More efforts needed to implement the Natura 2000 network to its full potential (European Court of Auditors Special 
Report No 1/2017) 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
implementation, good practice exchange, enforcement and policy integration, as well as 
awareness  raising84 on the importance and benefits  from  Natura 2000. Partnerships and 
networks  have  been  developed  to  share  information  and  experiences  among  actors, 
manage and enhance Natura 2000 as an ecological network, as set out in Action 3 of the 
Strategy.  However,  it  is  a  challenge  to  separate  with  a  high  degree  of  certainty  the 
impacts  of  the  actions  undertaken  as  part  of  the  Strategy’s  Target  1,  on  the  one  hand, 
from  other  implementation  and  enforcement  actions  that  would  have  taken  place  under 
the Nature Directives in the absence of the Strategy, on the other.  

Progress to Target 2. Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services 

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

Limited  progress  has  been  made  to  Target  2,  and  implementation  of  the  related 
actions has been uneven.  

As part of Action 5, the EU initiative on the mapping and assessment of ecosystems and 
their  services  (MAES)  developed  one  of  the  most  advanced  regional  ecosystem 
assessment  schemes,  with  the  engagement  of  all  EU  Member  States85.  It  has  helped  to 
build a significant knowledge base on EU ecosystems and the services they provide, with 
the  publication  in  2020  of  the  first  EU  ecosystem  assessment86.  Nevertheless,  there  are 
still significant gaps in knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystems, underlining the need 
for  a  robust  biodiversity  observation  network  and  more  consistent  ecosystem  condition 
reporting.  

The Commission  supported the development  of an integrated natural  capital  accounting 
system  for  ecosystems  and  their  services  and  associated  datasets  via  the  Knowledge 
Innovation Project on ecosystem services and Natural Capital Accounting87. Biophysical 
and  monetary  assessments  of  ecosystem  services  have  stimulated  projects  aiming  to 
improve  the  conservation  status  of  ecosystems  and  the  development  of  national  natural 
capital accounts88. 

The  EU  ecosystem  assessment  revealed  that  the  main  pressures  on  ecosystems  are 
broadly  similar  to  those  for  species  and  habitats,  and  exhibit  different  trends. 
Atmospheric  emissions  of  air  pollutants  and  critical  loads  of  Nitrogen  and  Sulphur  are 
decreasing, but their absolute values remain too high. The impacts of climate change on 
ecosystems  are increasing.  Invasive alien species of Union concern are observed across 
all  ecosystem  types,  but  their  impact  is  particularly  high  in  urban  ecosystems  and  in 
grasslands. The combination of pressures on ecosystems from human activities, and their 
interactions  with  climate  change  and  the  spread  of  invasive  alien  species,  are  posing 
serious threats. Pressures from overfishing activities and marine pollution are still high. 

84  Eurobarometer  survey:  Attitudes  of  European  citizens  on  the  issue  of  Biodiversity  (European  Commission,  2019)  and  earlier 
surveys (2015, 2013 and 2010). 
85 Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services (MAES). 
86 An EU ecosystem assessment (JRC, 2020). 
87 Natural Capital Accounting.  
88 See Annex 8 Section 2.2. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 3. Impacts and trends of pressures on the main ecosystem types in the EU. 

The  EU  ecosystem  assessment  further  indicated  that  societal  demand  for  several 
ecosystem  services  that  were  assessed  has  continued  to  increase  since  2010,  while  the 
potential  of  ecosystems  to  provide  these  services  has  declined  within  the  same  period, 
resulting  in  a  deficit89  and  increasing  the  risk  of  increased  pressures  and  further 
ecosystem deterioration.  

As  part  of  Action  6,  and  in  order  to  support  the  restoration  of  degraded  ecosystems,  in 
2014,  the  Commission  provided  guidance  to  the  Member  States  on  the  development  of 
Restoration Prioritisation Frameworks90. Very few Member States formally submitted 
such  frameworks91.  Data  on  ecosystem  restoration  efforts  in  the  EU  is  incomplete. 
Restoration activity is taking place – often in response to relevant EU legislation, such as 
the  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD)  and  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive 
(MSFD).  Wetlands  and  freshwater  ecosystems  have  often  been  declared  as  restoration 
priorities.  Restoration  projects  with  support  from  the  EU  LIFE  Programme  have  been 
instrumental  for  many  local  and  regional  conservation  successes.  They  have  also 
demonstrated the added value and effectiveness of transnational conservation approaches, 
particularly  in  relation  to  restoring  fish  migration  routes  and  coherent  site  networks  for 
migratory  birds92.  Annex  8  to  this  report  provides  a  wealth  of  further  examples  of 
restoration initiatives identified in the national implementation surveys.  

There  is  no  comprehensive  overview  of  restoration  undertaken  in  the  Member  States. 
Estimates  in  studies  suggest  that  restoration  activity  has  been  significantly  below  what 
would have been required to reach the target of restoring 15%  of degraded ecosystems: 
between 2,850 km2 and 5,700 km2 of habitat restoration is occurring annually in the EU, 
whereas the restoration needs of Annex I habitats alone (i.e. assessments reported in ′not 
good′  condition)  are  estimated  to  concern  an  area  of  between  167,000  km2  to  263,000 
km93.  

As  part  of  the  implementation  of  Action  6,  the  EU  published  a  Strategy  on  Green 
Infrastructure  in  201394.  Few  national  green  infrastructure  strategies  have  been 

89  European  Commission  (2020).  Mapping  and  assessment  of  ecosystems  and  their  services:  an  EU  Ecosystem  Assessment  and 
Summary for Policy-Makers (Publications Office of the EU, 2020). 
90  European  Commission  (2014).  Guidance  to  the  Member  States  in  relation  to  the  development  and  application  of  a  strategic 
Restoration Prioritisation Framework. 
91 Germany, the Netherlands and the region of Flanders (BE). 
92 EASME (2020). Bringing nature back through LIFE. Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises. 
93  Eftec  et al.  (2017)  Technical  support  in  relation to  the  promotion  of  ecosystem  restoration in  the  context  of  the  EU biodiversity 

strategy to 2020. Final report. 

94 EU Green Infrastructure Strategy (COM/2013/249 final).  

29 

 
 
                                                           
developed  in  response  to  the  EU  Green  Infrastructure  Strategy.  However,  significant 
development of Green Infrastructure is taking place in some Member States (Germany), 
and  objectives  or  requirements  related  to  green  infrastructure  are  included  in  broader 
biodiversity  and  nature  conservation  policies  and  legislation.  There  is  also  evidence  of 
implementation  of  local,  national  and  transnational  green  infrastructure  initiatives,  if 
often only at a small-scale95.  

Progress to Target 3. Increase the contribution of agriculture and forestry to 
maintain and enhance biodiversity 

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  EU2010  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. 

Progress  towards Target 3A has been limited. The available CAP  Common  Monitoring 
and  Evaluation  Framework  (CMEF)  indicators  do  not  point  to  particular  EU  level 
improvements96.  

Habitats and species related to agroecosystems, including populations of farmland birds 
and grassland butterflies, have continued to decline since 2010. These reductions are on 
top of earlier decreases.  

The common birds index shows a certain levelling of the rate of decline of common birds 
in  more  recent  years.  The  EU's  population  of  all  common  bird  species  is  estimated  to 
have  declined  by  4%  but  it  is  showing  signs  of  recovery  in  recent  years.  This  is 
particularly  the  case  for  common  forest  birds  whose  population  is  estimated  to  have 
increased by 9% between 2000 and 2019, whereas the population  of common farmland 
birds is in decline (-17% since 2000). 

Figure 4 Common bird index (EU aggregate). Source: Eurostat (2022)97 

95 Review of progress on implementation of the EU Green Infrastructure Strategy (COM/2019/236 final). 
96 Evaluation of the impacts of the CAP on biodiversity, soil and water (natural resources) (SWD/2021/424 final). 
97 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/t2020_rn130/default/table?lang=en  

30 

 
 
 
                                                           
Figure  5  Grassland  butterfly  index  (EU  aggregate)  .  Source:  EEA,  BCE,  Eurostat 
(2021)98 

Evidence  provided  in  the  targeted  consultations  as  well  as  individual  studies  in  the 
Member  States  indicate  significant  declines  in  butterfly  and  farmland  bird  populations, 
loss of high nature value farmland as well as exceeded nitrogen loads in over half the area 
of sensitive ecosystems99. 

The  Commission’s  report  on  the  evaluation  of  the  impacts  of  the  CAP  on  biodiversity 
concluded  that  the  extent  of  uptake  and  the  biodiversity  impact  of  CAP  measures,  in 
interaction with other biodiversity-related instruments, are highly dependent on Member 
States’ implementation choices and the priority given to measures to support biodiversity 
in agroecosystems, or to counteract negative impacts on biodiversity from agriculture.In 
conclusion,  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy  has  provided  options  for  enhanced 
biodiversity support measures, in line with the action set out in the Strategy. Their uptake 
has  depended  on  the  choices  made  by  the  Member  States  and  regions,  and  has  been 
overall too  low to achieve the quantified target  3A. For example, many  Member States 
have  settled  for  minimum  standards  under  CAP  Pillar  I.  Some  of  the  most  beneficial 
measures  for  biodiversity  under  Pillar  II,  such  as  Natura  2000  support,  have  been 
infrequently used100. A special report of the European Court of Auditors concluded that 
the  CAP  support  had  not  halted  the  decline  of  biodiversity  on  farmland,  despite  some 
instruments  having  the  potential  to  achieve  positive  biodiversity  outcomes101.  The 
Commission’s proposals for the future CAP102 took stock of the strengths and weaknesses 
of the CAP instruments and included an enhanced conditionality, advisory services, eco-
schemes in Pillar I and Pillar II measures. 

Following the mid-term  review of the Strategy in 2015, as part of its  efforts to  step up 
implementation and address identified gaps, the Commission published in 2018 a new EU 
Pollinators Initiative103. The aim was to provide a coherent EU framework for actions to 
tackle the decline of wild pollinators. In 2021, the Commission published a report on the 
the 
review  of 

implementation104.  It  showed  good  progress 

initiative’s 

the 

in 

98 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/sdg_15_61/default/line?lang=en  
99 Umweltbundesamt (2018) Überschreitung der Belastungsgrenzen für Eutrophierung.  
100 Evaluation of the impacts of the CAP on biodiversity, soil and water (natural resources) (SWD/2021/424 final). 
101 ECA (2020). Biodiversity on farmland: CAP contribution has not halted the decline (European Court of Auditors Special Report 
No 13/2020). 
102 Proposal for a Regulation establishing rules on support for CAP strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under CAP and 
financed by the EAGF and by the EAFRD (COM/2018/392 final). 
103 EU Pollinators Initiative (COM/2018/395 final) 
104 Progress in the implementation of the EU Pollinators Initiative (COM/2021/261 final). 

31 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
implementation  of  the  actions,  but  also  major  challenges  in  tackling  the  drivers  of 
pollinator decline, particularly habitat loss in farming landscapes and pesticides, as well 
as  the  growing  importance  of  drivers  such  as  climate  change  and  environmental 
pollutants.  The  Commission  will  revise  the  Pollinators  Initiative  in  the  second  half  of 
2022, in order to strengthen EU action to resolve the identified challenges. 

Target 3B Sustainable forestry 

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. 

Progress  towards  Target  3B  has  been  limited.  It  is  estimated  that  by  2020,  75%  of 
Europe’s forests were covered by a management  plan, while 25 out  of the 30 countries 
reporting  to  Forest  Europe  have  issued  a  national  report  on  sustainable  forest 
management  (SFM)105.  The  degree  to  which  such  SFMs  include  biodiversity  measures 
with beneficial impacts is unknown at the EU level, with the most recent study indicating 
that  biodiversity  measures  included  in  such  plans  are  often  deemed  ‘unsatisfactory’  in 
relation to protecting forests and biodiversity from negative effects106.  

Tree  species  diversity  and  forest  area  have  been  steadily  increasing  in  the  EU,  while 
common forest  bird  species remain in  stable conditions  overall.  Deadwood volumes are 
increasing  but  remain  below  desirable  threshold  levels  for  biodiversity.  A  significant 
majority  of  Annex  1  forest  habitat  assessments  show  ‘bad’  or  ‘poor’  status  in  the  EU 
(85%)107. The area indicator shows that bad or poor condition is reported in 21.1% of the 
Annex  1  forest  habitats‘  area108,  good  condition  is  reported  in  nearly  half  of  the  area 
(49.5%), and in almost one-third of the area (29.4%), the condition is unknown109. 

Defoliation rates show increasing trends, indicating poor tree health, which corresponds 
to  an  increase  in  various  pressures  on  forest  ecosystems110.  Since  2010,  the  following 
pressure  indicators  have  shown  a  significant  upward  trend:  tree  cover  loss;    water 
scarcity; warming and extreme droughts (and subsequent impacts on forest productivity). 
A number of pathways such as conversion of natural forests to plantations, intensification 
of forest management or harvesting of stumps and roots are  a major challenge which can 

105 Forest Europe (2020). State of Europe’s Forests 2020. 
106 European Committee of the Regions (2018) Sustainable Forest Management in the Regions.  
107 Commission Report on the State of Nature in the EU 2020 (COM/2020/635 final). 
108https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/biodiversity/state-of-nature-in-the-eu/article-17-national-summary-dashboards/condition-of-
habitat  
109 Where ‘unknown’ can mean both ‘no information’ or ‘information is available, but no capacity to decide if condition is good’. 
110  European  Commission  (2020).  Mapping  and  assessment  of  ecosystems  and  their  services:  an  EU  Ecosystem  Assessment  and 
Summary for Policy-Makers (Publications Office of the EU, 2020). 

32 

 
 
                                                           
exacerbate  forest  pressures  and  biodiversity  impacts,  including  when  woody  biomass  is 
used  as  a  source  of  renewable  energy111.  On  the  other  hand,  biodiversity-friendly 
practices    such  as  afforestation  and  reforestation  measures  that  respect  ecological 
principles favourable to biodiversity, agroforestry and other forms of mixed farming can 
have a positive biodiversity impact.  

The EU Forest Strategy (2013) aimed to ensure that all EU forests are managed according 
to  sustainable  forest  management  (SFM)  principles  by  2020,  with  objective,  ambitious 
and demonstrable SFM criteria to be developed in cooperation with Member States and 
stakeholders.  A  2018  progress  report  concluded  that  the  Strategy  had  made  significant 
progress  towards  its  2020  objectives,  but  that  implementing  the  EU  biodiversity 
objectives  has  remained  a  major  challenge112.  The  2019  implementation  progress 
assessment  noted  the  lack  of  an  overview  of  the  status  of  forest  management  plans 
throughout  Europe,  as  well  as  the  lack  of  an  analysis  of  the  extent  of  biodiversity 
measures included in such plans113.  

An  analysis  of  the  implementation  challenges  of  Natura  2000  in  forests  concluded  that 
the  designation  of  protected  areas  in  forests  has  met  substantial  policy  challenges  and 
management  conflicts  with  sector  stakeholders,  and  there  is  still  a  significant  need  to 
strengthen 
instruments  for  forest  management  for 
biodiversity,  including  compensation  payments  in  Natura  2000114.  The  new  EU  Forest 
Strategy  for  2030  took  account  of  these  findings  and  set  out  strengthened  measures  to 
protect and enhance forest ecosystems115. 

incentive-based  conservation 

CAP  forestry  measures  are  a  key  instrument  to  encourage  mainstreaming  of  SFM  in 
forest planning (being a funding prerequisite for forests above a certain size). However, 
an evaluation of the CAP forestry measures concluded that it was difficult to assess the 
support  provided  by  the  forest  measures  to  forest  management  plans116,  due  to  the 
differences  between  Member  States  in  their  approach  to  such  plans  and  the  lack  of 
information  on  implementation.  Evidence  is  scarce  on  the  biodiversity  impacts  of  the 
CAP  forest  measures  and  the  afforestation  and  agroforestry  elements  of  the  ecological 
focus areas in forest areas. These measures are infrequently used by Member States. EFA 
measures are only targeted at very few high biodiversity areas. Their likely impact may 
be locally significant but overall limited117. 

The 2012 Prioritised Action Frameworks (PAF) of the Member States did not generally 
specify  forest  conservation  measures  beyond  Natura  2000,  which  could  inform  CAP 
funding  scheme  requirements.  Both  a  comparison  of  the  2014  PAFs  and  Rural 
Development  Programmes  (RDPs),  and  the  evaluation  of  the  CAP  forest  measures 
concluded that CAP forest measures are not widely used to improve forest biodiversity or 
are not clearly linked to the conservation of the habitat types and species of Community 
interest identified in the PAFs.  

Most of the Member States have programmed investments improving the resilience and 
environmental value of forest ecosystems, including some biodiversity support measures. 
Interviewed  forest  sector  stakeholders  have  noted  little  evidence  of  payments  for 

111 European Commission (2021) The use of woody biomass for energy purposes in the EU. (Joint Research Centre Science for Policy 
Report). 
112 Progress in the implementation of the EU Forest Strategy  (COM/2018/811 final). 
113 EFI et al. (2019) Study on progress in implementing the EU Forest Strategy. Final Report. 
114 EFI et al. (2017) Natura 2000 and forests: Assessing the state of implementation and effectiveness. Final Report 
115 New EU Forest Strategy for 2030 (COM/2021/572 final). 
116 Alliance Environnement and EFI (2017). Evaluation study of the forestry measures under Rural Development. Final Report. 
117 Evaluation of the impacts of the CAP on biodiversity, soil and water (natural resources) (SWD/2021/424 final). 

33 

 
 
                                                           
ecosystem  services  or  other  innovative  mechanisms  deployed  at  any  significant  scale 
(input from forest stakeholders from the targeted consultations in the Member States). 

Target 4 Ensure the sustainable use of fisheries resources 

Achieve  Maximum  Sustainable  Yield  (MSY)  by  2015118.    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. 

Target  4  has  shown  limited  progress  overall,  however  significant  progress  has  been 
made  in  relation  to  fisheries  in  the  Northeast  Atlantic  where  41%  of  assessed  shellfish 
and commercial fish stocks have been brought within safe biological limits. The number 
of  Total  Allowable  Catch  (TAC)  quotas  set  in  line  with  the  MSY  has  significantly 
increased  in  recent  times,  from  5  TACs  in  2009  to  62  in  2020119.  Multiannual 
Management  Plans  include  fisheries  measures  for  the  conservation  of  certain  species. 
Reference to the legal basis under the CFP allows the Member States to adopt measures 
for the conservation of habitats and species through regionalisation120. Ambitious actions 
and emergency measures have shown success, e.g. in the recovery of the Northern hake 
and the Northern seabass.  

The latest data indicate a reduction in the overall exploitation rate and an increase in the 
biomass  of stocks in  the NE Atlantic in  the period 2013-20. Nevertheless,  many  stocks 
remain  overfished  and/or  outside  safe  biological  limits.  The  objective  of  the  CFP  to 
ensure that all stocks are fished at or below FMSY in 2020 has not been achieved, due in 
particular to continued overfishing in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea121,122, where 
annual fishing mortality estimates are around twice FMSY for the entire time series (2013-
2019)123. 

The  2017  recast  Data  Collection  Framework124  and  the  multiannual  programme  for  the 
collection, management and use of data added a requirement on data to assess the impacts 
of  EU  fisheries  on  marine  ecosystems  in  the  EU  and  in  non-EU  waters  (e.g.  incidental 
bycatch of all birds, mammals and reptiles and fish protected under Union legislation and 
international  agreements).  Member  States  implemented  pilot  studies  to  test  different 
methodologies,  and  this  has  become  part  of  regular  sampling  programmes  since  2022. 
This  information  feeds  into  the  assessments  and  reporting  under  the  Marine  Strategy 
Framework Directive (MSFD). 

The  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  has  supported  investments  in  on-board 
equipment that limits or eliminates the physical and biological impacts of fishing on the 
ecosystem or the sea bed as well as catches of protected mammals and birds, eliminates 
discards and deals with unwanted catches to be landed. The new EU Technical Measures 
Regulation125  completed  the  framework  for  conservation  measures  outside  Natura  2000 

118 This target date was postponed to 2020 in the reformed Common Fisheries Policy Regulation No 1380/2013 adopted in 2013. 
119  STECF,  (2020)  Monitoring  the  performance  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (STECF-Adhoc-20-01),  Scientific,  Technical  and 
Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). 
120 Study on regionalisation of Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). 
121 EEA (2019) Marine messages II (European Environment Agency Report No 17/2019). 
122 Review of the status of the marine environment in the European Union. Towards clean, healthy and productive oceans and seas  - 
part 2 (SWD/2020/61 final). 
123  STECF  reports  on  the  monitoring  of  the  performance  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic 

Committee for Fisheries). 

124 EU Regulation (EU) 2017/1004 and Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1251. 
125 EU Technical Measures Regulation ((EU) 2019/1241). 

34 

 
 
                                                           
sites  and  other  marine  protected  areas  (MPA).  The  first  report  on  its  implementation126 
noted that, only 2 years after the entry into force of the regulation, some Member States 
have already started to develop additional fisheries measures to protect sensitive species 
and habitats at both the national and regional levels.  

Targeted  consultations  of  stakeholders  in  the  Member  States  have  also  highlighted 
successful  examples  of  technical  and  other  innovations  for  sustainable  fisheries  with 
fewer discards, the closing of some marine Natura 2000 sites for damaging fishing gear 
or to avoid incidental  catches of marine mammals. They have also reported on increasing 
engagement of fisheries stakeholders in biodiversity conservation efforts, in particular in 
the  removal  of  marine  litter  and  the  recovery  of  lost  fishing  gear,  reducing  the  risk  of  
“ghost”  fishing,  ocean  floor  erosion  and  vectors  of  invasive  alien  species.  However, 
bottom-disturbing fisheries, incidental catches of other species in fisheries and continued 
over-fishing  of  some  fish  stocks  –  including  such  shared  with  third  countries  -    are 
identified  as  key  challenges.  They  continue  to  severely  impact  some  protected  species 
such  as  the  harbour  porpoise,  long-lived  sturgeon,  shark  and  ray  species,  benthic 
organisms  and  habitats  (such  as  Posidonia  seagrass  meadows)  (evidence  from  case 
studies in Spain, Italy, the Netherlands)127. 

Target  4 also  aims  to  support the achievement  of Good Environmental Status (GES) as 
required  under  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  (MSFD).  In  2020,  the 
Commission  concluded  that  despite  data  inconsistencies128  and  missing  reports  from 
several Member States129, evidence indicated that progress to reaching GES had not been 
enough130. Difficulties in defining threshold values131, inadequate alignment between MS 
programmes of measures and identified pressures were (inter alia) noted as hindrances to 
achieving  GES132.  Nearly  all  of  Europe’s  marine  area  (93%)  is  under  various  pressures 
from human activities and there is hardly any part of this area that is not affected by at 
least two such pressures. Comprehensive data on EU level trends of seafloor integrity is 
currently lacking, with estimates that approximately 35% of the European shelf area has 
been disturbed by unsustainable fishing practices133. Bottom trawling is a key pressure on 
the  seafloor  particularly  within  the  demersal  zone,  although  data  indicates  that  such 
activities may be decreasing in some regions.  

Further pressures on the marine environment exist that are beyond the immediate scope 
of  Target  4,  such  as  other  seafloor  damaging  activities  e.g.  related  to  the  extraction  of 
marine minerals, pollution, invasive alien species and underwater noise. These pressures 
are being exacerbated by the increasing impacts of climate change and the acidification 
on  oceans.  Marine  litter  is  present  in  all marine  ecosystems.  The  trends  and  impacts  of 
marine underwater noise are largely unassessed currently, yet various measures under the 
MSFD are currently in place to assess and mitigate underwater noise emissions134.  

126 European Commission (2021). Implementation of the Technical Measures Regulation (COM/2021/583 final). 
127 See Annex 8, section 2. 
128 Between what is reported electronically and static text reports in MSFD reporting by MS. 
129  Member  States’  programmes  of  measures  reports  as  part  of  Article  18  of  the  MSFD  were  not  submitted  by  Bulgaria,  Cyprus, 
Greece,  Italy,  Malta, and  Portugal at  the  time  of  the publication  of  the Commission’s  Report  on  the implementation  of  the  Marine 
Strategy Framework Directive (COM/2020/ 259 final).  
130 Review of the status of the marine environment in the European Union. Towards clean, healthy and productive oceans and seas - 
part 2 (SWD/2020/61 final).  
131 A range of values that allows for an assessment of the quality level achieved for a particular criterion, thereby contributing to the 
assessment of the extent to which good environmental status is being achieved. 
132 Review of the status of the marine environment in the European Union. Towards clean, healthy and productive oceans and seas - 
part 2 (SWD/2020/61 final). 
133 EEA (2020) Multiple pressures and their combined effects in Europe's seas. (European Environment Agency Briefing 18/2020). 
134 Review of the status of the marine environment in the European Union. Towards clean, healthy and productive oceans and seas - 
part 2 (SWD/2020/61 final). 

35 

 
 
                                                           
Target 5 Combat invasive alien species 

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

Significant progress was made in implementing the actions under Target 5 with the 
adoption of the Regulation on Invasive Alien Species (IAS) in 2014135. A list of IAS of 
Union concern was adopted in 2016, and updated in 2017 and 2019, reaching a total of 66 
species136. Furthermore, revised Regulations on Plant Health and on Animal Health have 
also been introduced. 

By  the  date  of  this  evaluation,  most  progress  has  related  to  processes  and  outputs.  Full 
implementation  of  the  IAS  Regulation  only  began  in  July  2019,  36  months  after  the 
adoption of the first Union list. On 13 October 2021, the Commission published its report 
on  the  review  of  the  application  of  the  IAS  Regulation137,  primarily  based  on  reports 
submitted  by  the  Member  States  for  the  period  2015-18.  While  it  is  premature  to  draw 
conclusions  on  most  implementation  aspects  of  the  Regulation,  the  report  already 
identified some significant achievements, including: 

 

Information  on  the  IAS  occurring  in  Europe  is  now  centralised  and  more  complete 
than ever.  

  Mechanisms and platforms are in place to support reporting and early warning of new 

detections138.  

  Most Member States have set up a surveillance system and carry out official controls 

for IAS on the Union List.  

  There  are  indications  that  restrictions  (e.g.  removal  of  species  from  trade),  early 
detection, rapid eradication and management of spread species deliver benefits.  

  The  number  of  early-detection  notifications  and  of  management  measures  taken 
indicates that the listed IAS of Union concern are relevant to most Member States.  
  The IAS Regulation has led to increased awareness of the problem of invasive alien 

species, including among the general public.  

  Most  Member  States  have  identified  priority  pathways  relevant  to  them.  Due  to 
different  methodologies,  the  identified  pathways  vary  substantially.  Two  pathways 
were  prioritised  by  most  Member  States:  ‘Escape  from  confinement:  escape  of  pet, 
aquarium and terrarium species’ and ‘Escape from confinement: horticulture’. 

The  Regulation  has  encouraged  coordinated  action  between  countries139,140,  while  the 
European  Alien  Species  Information  Network  (EASIN)141  has  facilitated  access  to 
harmonised scientific information and on the distribution of around 14 000 alien species 
throughout  Europe142, 
sharing  and  citizen 
involvement143,144,145.  

increased  knowledge 

leading 

to 

135 EU Regulation on Invasive Alien Species (Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014). 
136 See list of Invasive Alien Species of Union concern here. 
137 Commission Report on the review of the application of the Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 (COM/2021/628 final). 
138 EASIN Notification System (Notsys). 
139  Council  of  Europe  (2019)  13th  meeting  of  the  Bern  Convention  Group  of  Experts  on  Invasive  Alien  Species  -  Review  of  the 
Reports Submitted by Parties on Progress in the Implementation of the European Strategy on Invasive Alien Species and on the use of 
Bern Convention Codes of Conduct and Guidelines on IAS.  
140  Genovesi  et  al.  (2015).  EU  adopts  innovative  legislation  on  invasive  species:  a  step  towards  a  global  response  to  biological 
invasions? 
141 https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/  
142  Magliozzi  (2020).  Assessing  invasive  alien  species  in  European  catchments:  Distribution  and  impacts. Science  of  the  Total 
Environment, 732. 
143 Best practices in citizen science for environmental monitoring (SWD/2020/149 final). 
144 EASIN citizen science. 

36 

 
 
 
                                                           
At  the  same  time,  the  review  of  the  application  of  the  IAS  Regulation  identified 
challenges encountered by the Member States, including: 

  Continuing  increase  in  newly  introduced  alien  species  many  of  which  are  likely  to 

become invasive.  

  Species can only be added to the Union list once sufficient evidence is available, and 
this  may  be  hindered  by  their  economic  considerations,  reducing  the  impact  of  the 
IAS Regulation.  

  Listing species not yet present in the EU has a strong preventive effect but evidence 
necessary to complete a risk assessment is lacking, combined with uncertainties about 
the dynamics of biological communities and the effects of climate change.  

  There is scope for improvement of the coverage of surveillance systems and official 

control structures in many Member States.  

  There are knowledge gaps related to the implications of climate change and to novel 

methods for IAS management, in particular at pathway level. 

  Uncertainty over the exact limits between the native and alien range of some species 

in the EU is a major obstacle to regional cooperation.  

Despite clear progress in implementing the actions of the Strategy, IAS continue to exert 
significant  pressure  on  EU  biodiversity  and  ecosystems,  both  terrestrial  and  aquatic146. 
IAS  of  Union  concern  impact  Atlantic  and  Continental  regions  disproportionately,  but 
high  potential  impacts  occur  across  all  ecosystems  and  biogeographic  regions. 
Implementation has started in all Member States, but Target 5 has not been achieved by 
the Target date 2020. 

Target 6 Help avert global biodiversity loss 

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

Progress  to  Target  6  has  been  limited.  Biodiversity  and  ecosystem  functions  and 
services  are  deteriorating  worldwide,  as  evidenced  by  the  IPBES  Global  assessment  of 
biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services.  The  natural  capital  stock  per  person  worldwide  is 
estimated  to  have  declined  by  40%  between  1992-14,  with  global  biodiversity  decline 
occurring  faster  now  than  at  any  time  in  human  history147.  The  EU's  (EU27+  UK) 
ecological footprint per person has been steadily falling since 2010, but this is largely due 
to  a  reduction  in  the  carbon  footprint.  The  EU  still  remains  in  a  significant  ecological 
deficit compared to its biocapacity, with over-extraction of resources within the EU or in 
other  regions  through  the  import  and  export  of  goods,  or  through  the  exploitation  of 
global commons148.  

145 EU academy MOOC: “Have you seen an alien?”. 
146 EEA (2020). The European environment — state and outlook 2020 (SOER) (European Environment Agency 2020). 
147 Dasgupta et al., (2021) The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review. 
148 EEA (2021) Indicator Assessment - Ecological footprint of European countries. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
Figure  6.  EU-27  +  UK  Ecological  footprint,  biocapacity  and  ecological  deficit  per 
person 

Source:  EEA  (2020)  SEBI  Indicator  Assessment-  Ecological  footprint  of  European 
countries.  Note: Black line= ecological  footprint per person; red line= biocapacity per 
person; pink area= deficit 

Positive developments are noted in relation to some of the actions set out under Target 6. 
International financial flows from the EU and its Member States for global biodiversity 
have  been  significant  since  the  Strategy  was  published.  The  Hyderabad  commitment  to 
double  financial  resources  for  biodiversity  to  developing  countries  was  achieved  or 
exceeded  by  a  number  of  Member  States.  The  Bonn  Challenge149  launched  in  2011 
mobilised national commitments to restore 150 million ha of degraded forests globally by 
2020. However, limited progress has been made on identifying and eliminating subsidies 
that are harmful for biodiversity. Several Member States have published studies, reviews 
and  catalogues  of  such  subsidies,  but  initiatives  to  reduce  or  eliminate  them  are  at  an 
early stage of development. 

The EU has taken measures to  tackle illegal  trade, for  example in  timber as part of the 
implementation of the FLEGT Action Plan, and in wildlife as part of the EU Action plan 
against  wildlife  trafficking.  Biodiversity-related  provisions  have  been  systematically 
included  in  the  Trade  and  Sustainable  Development  chapters  of  EU  trade  agreements. 
However, detailed assessment of the biodiversity impacts of trade  – and the monitoring 
and  enforcement  of  these  (non-binding)  provisions  –  remain  a  challenge.  There  is 
evidence  of  limited  progress  in  developing  market  signals  to  avert  biodiversity  loss150, 
while  comprehensive  indicators  and  robust  methods  to  substantiate  trade  impacts  on 
biodiversity are still lacking151.  

EU external action has supported the implementation of the global Strategic Framework 
for Biodiversity 2011-2020, but it has not been able to curb global biodiversity loss which 
continues at unprecedented rate. There is a clear need to reinforce an integrated approach 
to  biodiversity  and  development  cooperation  in  the  EU’s  external  action,  better 
connecting biodiversity targets with the SDGs, and ensuring coherence with internal EU 
policy developments. 

149 Restore our Future Bonn Challenge (2020) The Bonn Challenge. 
150  Commission  Report  on  the  application  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  978/2012  applying  a  Scheme  of  Generalised  Tariff  Preferences 
(COM/2018/665 final).  
151  Kuik  et  al.  (2018)  Trade  Liberalisation and Biodiversity:  Scoping  Study:  Methodologies  and  Indicators to  Assess  the  Impact  of 
Trade Liberalisation on Biodiversity (Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services). Final Report. 

38 

 
 
 
                                                           
5.1.2  Major achievements and challenges, and underlying factors 

  Evaluation  question  2:  “What  have  been  success  factors  and  have  successful 

approaches been shared and replicated?” 

  Evaluation  Question  3:  “What  have  been  possible  gaps  or  challenges  that  have 

hindered progress towards the targets?” 

  Evaluation question 4: “To what extent have stakeholders been actively engaged in 

the strategy’s implementation and how have they been affected?” 

Overall response: Despite limited progress to the Headline Target, the implementation 
of the Strategy has  been associated with  a range of positive achievements and impacts, 
such  as  improvements  in  knowledge,  successful  local  protection  and  restoration, 
increased biodiversity support opportunities in key EU policy instruments, as well as the 
adoption of a legal instrument to combat invasive alien species. A range of factors that 
can  enable  or  hinder  progress  have  also  been  identified,  such  as  in  relation  to  funding, 
coherence of objectives and the mainstreaming of biodiversity in other policy areas, the 
nature  of  the  Strategy  as  an  instrument,  monitoring  of  biodiversity  (beyond  reporting 
under  existing  legislation),  and  of  implementation  efforts  (including  the  tracking  of 
funding). Contrasting views from stakeholders on the effectiveness of their engagement 
in  the  implementation  of  the  Strategy  were  identified  in  literature,  and  throughout  the 
consultation activities carried out as part of the evaluation support study. 

What is the issue? 

The  implementation  of  the  Strategy  has  been  associated  with  a  range  of  positive 
achievements as well as challenges to implementation. Many of these achievements and 
positive  biodiversity  trends  are  often  localised  and  would  need  to  be  significantly  up-
scaled  to  measurably  impact  the  overall  negative  trends  in  biodiversity.  Furthermore, 
while some achievements are directly related to the Strategy implementation, attributing 
others  directly  to  the  Strategy  remains  challenging.  This  is  largely  due  to  the  fact  that 
many of the targets and actions of the Strategy or rely upon the implementation of other 
policies and legislation. Furthermore, the non-binding nature of the Strategy means that 
there  were  no  reporting  obligations  and  mechanisms  linked  to  it  (beyond  those 
established under related legislation). 

What are the findings? 

Major achievements 

There  is  significant  evidence  of  successful  protection  and  restoration  actions  on  the 
ground,  including  a  significant  increase  of  species’  assessments  under  the  Habitats 
Directive that show favourable conservation status; the restoration of degraded vulnerable 
habitats and the return of many emblematic species, as well as the deployment of nature-
based solutions and green infrastructure152. While projects financed to date often do not 
have the critical mass to reverse the heavy trends of biodiversity loss153, such successful 
actions have demonstrated the feasibility of biodiversity protection and restoration, as 
well as the benefits arising from healthy nature.  

The Natura 2000 network has been significantly developed and is almost complete on 
land. Greater Natura 2000 coverage positively correlates with the conservation status of 

152 For example restoration activities under LIFE projects (see brochure Bringing nature back through LIFE).  
153  Stepping  and Meijer  (2018).  The  Challenges  of  Assessing  the  Effectiveness  of Biodiversity-Related  Development  Aid.  Tropical 
Conservation Science Volume 11: 1–11. 

39 

 
 
 
                                                           
habitats and species154. Under Target 1 of the Strategy, the Commission and the Member 
States  have  launched  important  processes  that  have  supported  implementation  of  the 
Nature  Directives.  For  instance,  the  biogeographical  cooperation  process155  has 
supported  the  sharing  of  experience  and  good  practice,  and  cross-border  action  among 
authorities  and  stakeholders  on  the  management  of  Natura  2000.   Guidance  has  been 
developed to improve understanding of the requirements of EU nature legislation and to 
support authorities and stakeholders in its implementation and in ensuring compliance. In 
2017, the Commission developed an Action plan for nature, people and the economy to 
tackle  the  main  shortcomings  identified  in  the  fitness  check  of  the  Nature  Directives. 
Many of its elements built on actions already undertaken under Target 1. 
The  EU  Green  Infrastructure  Strategy156  has  encouraged  the  inclusion  of  green 
infrastructure  measures  in  various  national  biodiversity  strategies  and  plans  and  policy 
documents,  such  as  on  the  sustainable  development  of  coastal  areas,  climate  change 
adaptation strategies, and EU urban policy157. It has also helped to mobilise support for 
green  infrastructure  under  EU  funding  instruments.  Increased  political  momentum  and 
actions  by  cities  to  create  green  infrastructure  have  been  noted  in  some  Member  States 
(as highlighted for example in the Germany case study, see Annex 8).  

The biodiversity targets have also stimulated the development of a range of instruments 
and  measures  in  other  policy  areas,  with  a  significant  potential  to  support 
biodiversity in the Member States, such as (i) Agri-environment-climate measures,  and 
some Pillar I greening measures that support biodiversity (albeit with limited uptake), (ii) 
support  for  forest  management  plans  including  biodiversity  measures158,  as  well  as  (iii) 
measures  under  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  with  direct  positive  impact  on  marine 
biodiversity,  such  as  the  establishment  of  TACs,  the  implementation  of  closures  to 
protect  spawning  and  the  implementation  of  technical  measures  to  improve  fishing 
selectivity.. 

A major achievement of the Strategy has been the development of a dedicated legislative 
instrument  on  invasive  alien  species:  the  EU  IAS  Regulation,  to  ensure  coordinated 
action  across  the  EU  on  invasive  species  included  on  the  Union  List.  While 
implementation  is  in  its  early stages, some  achievements have already been reported as 
highlighted under section 5.1.1. 

The EU and its Member States’ have increased their financial contributions to  the 
conservation  and  sustainable  use  of  global  biodiversity  in  line  with  the  EU’s  global 
commitments on resource mobilisation under the Convention on Biological Diversity159.  

A  key  benefit  and  achievement  of  the  Strategy  is  the  formation  and  support  to 
partnerships  with  a  wide  variety  of 
the 
Business@Biodiversity  platform  has  helped  businesses  to  develop  tools  to  assess  their 
impacts  and  dependencies  on  biodiversity  and 
integrate  biodiversity 
considerations within businesses decision-making. The BEST initiative (Biodiversity and 
Ecosystem Services in Territories of European overseas) has increased access to funding 
for  biodiversity  actions  in  the  EU  Outermost  Regions  and  Overseas  Countries  and 
Territories through a small-grant scheme involving local stakeholders. 

stakeholders.  For 

to  better 

instance, 

154  Tucker  et  al.  (2019)  Study  on  identifying  the  drivers  of  successful  implementation  of  the  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives.  Final 
Report (IEEP 2019). 
155 Natura 2000 Seminars.  
156 EU Green Infrastructure Strategy (COM/2013/249 final). 
157 Review of progress on the implementation of the EU Green Infrastructure Strategy (COM/2019/236 final). 
158 NEPCon (2018). Study on Implementing Sustainable Forest Management According to the EU Biodiversity Strategy and the EU 
Bioeconomy Strategy. 
159 European Commission (2019). Investing in Sustainable Development - The EU at the forefront in implementing the Addis Ababa 
Action Agenda. 

40 

 
 
                                                           
The  implementation  of  the  Strategy  has  resulted  in  significant  improvements  of  the 
knowledge base on ecosystems and their services, in particular via the initiative on the 
Mapping  and  assessment  of  ecosystems  and  their  services,  with  the  involvement  of 
national  authorities  and  the  science  and  research  community  in  all  Member  States.  The 
methodological  framework  developed  under  MAES  was  applied  in  the  first  EU-wide 
assessment of ecosystems and their services published by the Commission at the end of 
2020. Member States have also developed initiatives to ingrain stakeholder involvement 
within  the  development  of  knowledge  platforms  and  the  collection  of  monitoring  data 
(e.g.  on  IAS,  or  on  pollinators),  thus  supporting  both  data  collection  and  awareness 
raising.  

Despite these successes, the Strategy has overall failed to deliver on the headline target 
to halt and reverse biodiversity loss in the EU and globally. It is therefore crucial to 
understand what underlying factors have driven success and failure.  

Factors for success or failure  

Challenges  to  the  achievement  of  the  Nature  Directives  have  been  highlighted  in  the 
fitness check of the Nature Directives (2016)160 and included in particular: the availability 
and  targeting  of  funding,  knowledge  gaps,  insufficient  stakeholder  engagement,  and 
human  resource  constraints,  as  well  as  weaknesses  in  the  management  of  Natura  2000 
sites  and  competing  objectives  with  other  sectoral  policies.  These  findings  concern  the 
evaluation  of  the  EU  Nature  Legislation  rather  than  the  Strategy,  however  these  same 
challenges are valid in relation to the achievement of Target 1. At the same time, many of 
the  Strategy’s  actions  designed  to  support  the  implementation  of  the  EU  Nature 
Directives were aimed at tackling these same challenges. 

Resources  for  implementation.  Funding  for  biodiversity  has  increased  since  2010  but,  
while there are differences between different EU funding instruments, overall it remains 
clearly insufficient. The Strategy did not specify the needs and set no target on financing 
for biodiversity in the EU, which was a major setback in securing the resources needed 
for implementation. Insufficient funding has been a key barrier to restoration161, and was 
also  commonly  cited  by  stakeholders  and  authorities  in  the  Member  States’  case 
studies162.  In  addition  to  inadequate  finance,  tracking  expenditure  on  biodiversity  has 
been challenging in some areas163. Information gaps on funding limited the assessment of 
its effectiveness and efficiency, for example in relation to Target 2, Target 3 and Target 
6.  The  lack  of  a  comprehensive  overview  of  harmful  subsidies  has  also  hindered 
efforts  for  the  removal  of  such  funding  in  public  and  private  financing,  ultimately 
exacerbating  not  only  biodiversity  loss  but  also  other  forms  of  environmental 
degradation164. The EU has initiated some reforms to shift away from harmful subsidies 
to support for more sustainable practices, for example in relation to fisheries. 

Policy  integration.  Mainstreaming  and  prioritising  biodiversity  objectives  in  other  EU 
policies  is  essential,  considering  the  complex  interactions  between  biodiversity,  the 
provision of ecosystem services, the impacts of land, water and sea use and management 
and  the  potential  of  nature-based  solutions  to  contribute  to  wider  environmental  and 
socio-economic  objectives.  While  policy  integration  was  supported  by  several  Targets 

160 Fitness check of the EU Nature Directives (SWD/2016/472 final). 
161 Cortina‐Segarra et al. (2021) Barriers to ecological restoration in Europe: expert perspectives. Restoration Ecology. 
162 See Annex 8. 
163 Langhout, W. (2019). The EU Biodiversity Strategy: progress report 2011-2018. Langhout Ecologisch Advies.  
164  European  Habitats  Forum  (2019)  position  paper  on  The  implementation  of  the  EU  2020  Biodiversity  Strategy  and 
recommendations for the post 2020 Biodiversity Strategy. 

41 

 
 
                                                           
and increased under the Strategy, it has remained insufficient. This has posed challenges 
to  tackling  pressures,  accessing  funding  for  biodiversity  and  identifying  synergies  with 
other  areas,  including  opportunities  to  deploy  nature-based  solutions.  Approaches  and 
uptake  of  biodiversity  measures  have  been  uneven  across  the  Member  States  in  the 
implementation  of  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy,  forest  management  plans  and  the 
Common  Fisheries  Policy.  Many  direct  and  indirect  pressures  and  drivers  of 
biodiversity  loss  have  persisted  or  increased,  with  a  significant  proportion  of  these 
accelerating  in  recent  times.  In  relation  to  EU  Free  Trade  Agreements,  impacts  on 
biodiversity  are  often  assessed  through  Sustainability  Impact  Assessments  (SIA),  yet 
details on the means of the assessment are often not specified and left to be determined 
by individual SIA coordinators.  Last  but  not  least,  biodiversity loss and climate change 
are closely linked, yet the potential for synergies between improving ecosystem resilience 
and nature based solutions, on the one hand, and climate mitigation and adaptation, on the 
other, has not been sufficiently used. 

Knowledge is essential for evidence-based decision-making on biodiversity (both public 
and  private),  robust  policy  development,  implementation  and  monitoring.  Gaps  in  data 
and monitoring or lack of access to data (including on pressures and on their impacts on 
biodiversity)  have  hindered  progress  in  the  implementation  of  the  Strategy.  Knowledge 
needs have been recognised and the Strategy encouraged the development and application 
of  common  methodologies  for  the  mapping  and  assessment  of  ecosystems  and  their 
services, as well as approaches to better reflect the value of biodiversity and ecosystem 
services  in  decision-making165.  Nevertheless,  significant  gaps  in  knowledge  have 
remained  underlining  the  need  for  a  robust  biodiversity  observation  network  and  more 
consistent ecosystem condition reporting. 

The  choice  of  policy  instrument.  The  voluntary  nature  of  the  Strategy  has  been 
commonly  cited  by  stakeholders  and  environmental  organisations  as  a  key  reason  for 
limited  action  and  progress  on  the  biodiversity  agenda  throughout  Europe.  While  some 
targets  aimed  to  support  the  implementation  of  existing  legal  obligations,  or  the 
development  of  new  legislation,  others  relied  entirely  on  a  voluntary  approach.  This  is 
particularly the case in relation to restoration efforts that have lagged far behind the 15% 
ambition set in Target 2. The absence of Restoration Prioritisation Frameworks (RPF) has 
weakened  strategic  planning,  financing,  implementation  and  monitoring  of  restoration 
activities.  Such  frameworks  had  been  requested  on  a  voluntary  basis.  In  2014,  the 
Commission  provided  guidance  to  the  Member  States  on  their  development  in  order  to 
improve the quality, scale and consistency of ecosystem restoration, whilst also defining 
areas  of  intervention  which  can  be  used  to  target  EU  funds.  However,  RPF  were 
developed by only very few Member States.   

Clearly formulated, measurable targets. Many of the Strategy’s targets and actions were 
not measurable or specific enough to guide implementation and enable the monitoring of 
results.  For  example,  challenges  to  restoration  have  arisen  from  the  ambiguity  of  the 
15%  restoration  target166:  the  ecosystems  it  referred  to167,  what  restoration  activities 
comprise, or how to measure the achievement of the objective168. The absence of baseline 
to define ‘degraded’ ecosystems was also mentioned by authorities and stakeholders. 

165 European Commission (2019). Guidance on integrating ecosystems and their services into decision-making (2019). Summary for 
Policymakers in Government and Industry. 
166 European Habitats Forum (2011) Detailed Response to the EU Biodiversity Strategy. 
167 Tucker et al. (2013) Estimation of the financing needs to implement Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. (IEEP 2013). 
168 ECA (2020). Biodiversity on farmland: CAP contribution has not halted the decline. (European Court of Auditors Special Report 
No 13/2020). 

42 

 
 
                                                           
Governance  and  clear  responsibilities  for 
implementation,  co-ordination  and 
cooperation  between  relevant  stakeholders.  While  engagement  of  a  range  of  actors  in 
implementation has increased, and some structures for stakeholder engagement have been 
set  up  at  the  EU  level  and  in  the  Member  States,  it  is  still  considered  insufficient169. 
Cross-border  cooperation  is  often  found  to  encounter  communication  issues  due  to 
language barriers, a lack of administrative structures in place, and a lack of clear policy 
direction by Member States to guide cross-border issues170. 

Last  but  not  least,  political  priority  given  to  biodiversity  protection  and  restoration, 
especially  vis-à-vis  other  policy  objectives,  is  essential  for  successful  implementation. 
Insufficient awareness of the value of biodiversity and policy support for the Strategy in 
the period of its implementation has been often noted as a key barrier in literature 171 and 
in the targeted consultations of stakeholders172.  

Views of stakeholders  

Political  will  and  leadership  for  biodiversity  policy  were  mentioned  repeatedly  by 
authorities  and  environment  organisations  in  the  targeted  consultations  in  the  Member 
States. Stable and predictable national policy and legal frameworks, and a fair playing 
field,  were  seen  as  crucial  by  authorities,  civil  society  organisations  and  sector 
stakeholders  (in  particular  fisheries).  A  key  barrier  to  achieving  the  Headline  Target, 
and  indeed  subsequent  Targets,  of  the  Strategy  noted  by  multiple  stakeholders, 
predominantly  from  environmental  organisations,  is  the  lack  of  legally  binding 
legislation to incentivise Member States and stakeholders into action. Respondents to the 
consultations  across  policy  areas  and  sectors  consistently  referred  to  insufficient 
financing,  mainstreaming  and  stakeholder  engagement  for  implementation.  While 
funding was considered difficult to obtain for some priority initiatives, some case studies 
have  revealed  that  available  funding  for  nature  and  biodiversity  measures  was  not 
always  used,  or  in  some  cases  transferred  to  other  priorities.  Authorities  and 
environmental  organisations  have  pointed  to  the  need  to  raise  awareness  and 
understanding of the importance of natural capital and nature-related financial risk, in 
order  to  encourage  greater  private  sector  engagement.  Private  sector  engagement  has 
been  regarded  as  a  significant  untapped  potential  to  reduce  pressures  and  mobilise 
funding for biodiversity. 

In relation to Target 1, stakeholders and authorities in the Member States have provided 
evidence  of  both  successful  implementation  and  of  major  gaps  or  conflicts  of  interests. 
Key  factors  of  failure  cited  include  insufficient  funding  and  human  resources  for 
implementation, the division of competences for conservation and for the management of 
natural resources, weak enforcement (regional government authorities and environment 
NGOs);  governance  deficits:  low  engagement  of  key  stakeholders  in  the  management 
planning  of  Natura  2000  sites,  unresolved  land  use  conflicts,  administrative  burden 
created  by  biodiversity  provisions  and  insufficient  compensation  for  land  owners  and 
users for incomes forgone (agriculture, forestry and fisheries stakeholders, environment 
NGOs),  knowledge  gaps  and  low  biodiversity  awareness  (national  and  regional 
authorities, and environment NGOs)173. 

169 ECA (2017) More efforts needed to implement the Natura 2000 network to its full potential (ECA Special Report No 1/2017). 
170 WUR et al. (2017). Natura 2000 and Spatial Planning. Final Report 
171  Fisher  et  al.,  (2019)  What  is hampering  the  effectiveness  of  existing  approaches  that aim  to  restore  biodiversity  and  ecosystem 
function and services? (An EKLIPSE expert working group report). 
172 See Annex 2 and Annex 8. 
173 See Annex 8, Section 2. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
In  relation  to  Target  2,  factors  mentioned  by  stakeholders  include:  (i)  knowledge  to 
enable  restoration  planning  (national  and  regional  authorities  and  experts),  (ii) 
stakeholder engagement which is key to set restoration priorities and measures, identify 
potential  conflicts  and  how  to  resolve  them  (sector  stakeholders,  environmental  NGOs, 
authorities),  (iii)  binding  restoration  requirements  to  ensure  that  action  is  undertaken 
(environmental  NGOs),  (iv)  human  and  financial  resources  for  restoration,  lacking  in 
particular  outside  of  protected  areas  and  often  deprioritised  for  biodiversity  in  the 
context for budget cuts (national and regional administrations). 

including  (i) 

In  relation  to  Target  3A,  stakeholders  have  brought  up  a  range  of  factors  affecting 
farmer’s  uptake  of  biodiversity  measures, 
insufficient  nationally 
programmed  measures  and  non-activation  by  the  Regions  of  the  Natura  2000  support 
measures  (farmers’  associations  and  environmental  NGOs);  (ii)  insufficient  funds  to 
incentivise sustainable land and forest management (stakeholders across the board); (iii) 
increased complexity in accessing compensation for restrictions in Natura 2000 sites, too 
low  premium  ceilings,  heavy  administration  and  unclear  rules  creating  difficulties 
especially for small farmers who often make the highest contribution to the protection of 
biodiversity (agriculture and forestry sector stakeholders, regional authorities). In some 
countries, environmental NGOs and sector stakeholders have raised concerns about the 
efficiency  and  transparency  of  spending.  Experts  from  government  and  environmental 
NGOs have stated that conservation projects have been most successful and sustainable 
when planned at the landscape scale together with land users, and when they have also 
addressed the causes of species decline.  

In  relation  to  Target  3B,  stakeholders  have  highlighted  insufficient  collaboration  and 
conflicting objectives between biodiversity conservation and forestry sector, with forestry 
stakeholders criticising the lack of engagement in the definition of protection measures. 
In  Lithuania,  NGOs  have  provided  examples  of  Natura  2000  payments  under  RDP 
conditional  on  foresters’  signing  contracts  that  would  commit  them  to  biodiversity 
protection measures exceeding the period of compensation.  

In  relation  to  Target  4,  fisheries  stakeholders  have  expressed  frustration  about  being 
insufficiently  engaged  in  the  definition  of  actions  to  preserve  marine  biodiversity,  and 
about  their  efforts  and  positive  contributions  being  insufficiently  recognised.  Another 
concern  has  been  that  rules  and  restrictions  to  preserve  marine  biodiversity  have  not 
applied  to  all  actors,  for  example  third-country  fleets,  small-scale  fishing  boats  (below 
12 meters  in length overall), and sectors other than fishing such as tourism, transport or 
extractive  activities,  diminishing  the  results  of  efforts  undertaken  to  introduce  more 
sustainable fishing practices (inputs from fisheries associations in Spain and Italy). 

In relation to  Target  5,  authorities and experts in  the Member States  have highlighted 
insufficient  practical  tools  and  expertise  on  the  control  and  eradication  of  IAS  and 
insufficient awareness and communication to citizens on the need to combat IAS. Adding 
some  IAS  on  the  Union  list  is  problematic  due  to  economic  considerations,  e.g. 
controlling  the  Japanese  knotweed  would  require  drastic  solutions  in  sectorial 
regulations  (e.g.  the  management  of  aggregates  and  soil  movements,  etc.),  and  the 
control of IAS that are pets is even more complex, including for ethical reasons (inputs 
from regional and local authorities, NGOs, research organisations). Regional authorities 
have reported operational  difficulties in  combatting  invasive alien species especially in 
marine  areas  in  the  Mediterranean  region,  given  the  nature  of  the  problem,  due  to 
current climate change trend and different forms of pollution. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In relation to Target 6, authorities in the Member States have pointed to advances and 
national  programmes  to  address  sustainable  consumption  are  expected  to  have  some 
positive  effects  in  the  future  if  they  are  backed  with  human  and  financial  resources. 
However,  these  initiatives  are  in  their  infancy  and  there  is  currently  no  strategic 
integrated  approach  to  tackling  the  key  drivers  of  biodiversity  loss  (inputs  from 
authorities and NGOs in Germany, Italy, Spain). 

Open text responses to the OPC survey highlighted the benefits for habitats and species 
stemming from the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives and other forms 
of  nature  protection  (EU  citizens  and  NGOs);  increased  awareness  (EU  citizens, 
business)  and  bottom-up  conservation  approaches  giving  preference  to  regional/local 
rather  than  EU  biodiversity  measures  (EU  citizens,  business,  NGO,  public  authority). 
Other  achievements  mentioned  included  increased  funding  for  protection  (EU  citizens, 
NGO);  improved  agri-environment  payments  (EU  citizen  and  business);  and  the 
Regulation on Invasive Alien Species (EU and non-EU citizen). Key reasons for failure 
noted in open text responses were the lack of integrated, holistic approaches to halting 
biodiversity loss and conflicts in the management of biodiversity (EU citizens, academic) 
as  well  as  diverging  economic  interests  amongst  actors  in  implementing  biodiversity-
related measures (EU citizens, academic).  

The formulation of the Strategy itself was regarded as a reason for failure particularly 
regarding  the  ‘lack  of  enforceability’  due  to  the  non-binding  nature  of  targets  and 
actions (EU citizens, academic/research institution), and poor definition of  some of  the 
targets (EU citizens). Lack of enforcement was also noted by several respondents. 

As part of the OPC, respondents were asked to reflect on the extent to which the Strategy 
governance  had  ensured  effective  engagement  of  stakeholders  in  the  design  and 
implementation of EU biodiversity policy. Most respondents considered that it had either 
‘partially’  or  ‘poorly’  engaged  stakeholders  in  implementation,  in  particular  at 
national/regional  levels,  and  in  particular  stakeholders  in  the  forestry,  agriculture  and 
fisheries sectors. Stakeholders noted that the governance of the Strategy has contributed 
significantly  to  access  of  information  on  the  state  of  biodiversity,  improved  awareness 
and  engagement  of  various  stakeholders,  yet  it  has  not  achieved  cooperation  and 
coordinated action across policy areas.  

Quotes from stakeholder contributions: 
 “the Strategy is an important anchor point but not central because it is not a legislative 
tool.” (Environmental non-governmental organisation.) 
“There  is  a  disconnect  between  the  strategy  and  local  action.  …  To  strengthen 
biodiversity  work  on  the  ground,  the  local  governments  should  have  a  role  both  in  the 
implementation and have a say in the developments.” (Local government authority.) 

Reasons for failure to reach biodiversity targets from German perspective (excerpt from 
the  Germany  case  study):  “The  lack  of  legally  binding  targets  in  the  EU  Biodiversity 
Strategy  to  2020  meant  that  the  Länder  were  not  obliged  to  engage  and  commit 
resources.  Legally  binding  targets  are  crucial  to  ensure  implementation.  Without  a 
legally  binding  component  they  are  considered  optional  and  are  unlikely  to  receive 
political  attention  and 
(Environmental  non-governmental 
funding.” 
organisation.) 

sufficient 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quotes from stakeholder contributions:  “...[the Coordination Group on Biodiversity and 
Nature174] was extremely useful for coordination amongst ourselves (NGOs) but in terms 
of breaking silos and reaching out to other administrations, that did not really happen. 
Even  when  the  Commission  were  making  presentations,  DG  Environment  and  DG 
Agriculture spoke separately. Having a proper governance mechanisms with a whole of 
government  approach  could  be  something  to  take  to  2030.”  (Environmental  non-
governmental organization.) 
…”[the  Business@Biodiversity  platform  has  led  to]  businesses  becoming  more 
coordinated and active.” (Business association.) 

1.11.  5.2.  Efficiency 

5.2.1.  Cost-effectiveness and socio-economic impacts 

  Evaluation  question  5:  To  what  extent  has  the  Strategy  been  cost-effective?  What 
factors  could  have  improved  cost-effectiveness  by  strengthening  delivery  of  the 
targets while minimising unnecessary costs and avoiding administrative burden?  

Overall response: There are significant variations of magnitude in the estimates of the 
costs and benefits of implementation of the Strategy. Evidence and example of the costs 
of individual initiatives have been presented in the targeted consultations in the Member 
States.  It  is  not  possible,  based  on  available  evidence,  to  estimate  the  total  spending 
needs,  actual  spending  across  all  targets,  the  potential  benefits  from  their  full 
implementation as well as the costs incurred for stakeholders - or indeed to separate the 
actual costs and benefits incurred by the Strategy from those incurred by other policies.  

Nevertheless, evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the benefits flowing from healthy 
ecosystems  far  exceed  the  costs  related  to  their  protection,  restoration  and  sustainable 
management, across all biodiversity targets. Better understanding of these benefits and of 
approaches to tap into synergies with other policy objectives (for example, by deploying 
nature-based solutions) could have helped to mobilise further financing as well as boost 
wider  policy  objectives.  Tracking  of  financing  and  its  effectiveness  has  been  a  major 
challenge to implementation. 

What is the issue? 

Cost-effectiveness refers to the relationship between the resources used to deliver on the 
targets of the Strategy (or burdens and costs, including opportunity costs) and the benefits 
generated  by  their  implementation.  The  relevant  sub-questions  for  examining  the  cost-
effectiveness  of  the  components  of  the  Strategy  are  (1)  What  are  the  costs  incurred  in 
delivering the Strategy? (2) What are the benefits produced by the Strategy and how do 
they compare to the costs? (3) How timely and efficient is the process for reporting and 
monitoring? and (4) Are there any factors that could have improved cost-effectiveness? 

Several  of  the  Strategy’s  targets  and  actions  aim  to  stimulate  the  implementation  of 
existing  legislation.  The  exact  effect  of  the  Strategy  on  the  implementation  of  these 
commitments cannot be estimated independently from the legal implementation. In these 
cases,  the  actual  costs  and  benefits  that  arose  solely  from  the  implementation  of  the 
Strategy  cannot  be  estimated.  Therefore,  the  analysis  of  whether  the  Strategy  has  been 
cost-effective  considers  the  cost-effectiveness  of  specific  measures,  and  the  extent  to 

174 The Coordination Group for Biodiversity and Nature was the Commission’s core expert group for the coordinated implementation 
of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2020. It brought together the Commission, Member States’ nature and biodiversity authorities as 
well as EU level stakeholders and the European Environment Agency. 

46 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
which  such  measures  were  implemented  to  give  rise  to  actual  costs  and  benefits.  The 
analysis  also  presents  evidence,  where  available,  about  the  Strategy’s  influence  on  the 
emergence of these costs and benefits. 

What are the findings? 

In relation to Target 1,  there are significant variances of magnitude in the estimates of 
the  costs  and  benefits  of  implementation  of  the  Nature  Directives.  The  evidence 
overwhelmingly  indicates  that,  independently  of  the  level  of  their  implementation,  the 
benefits  far  exceed  the  costs.  Earlier  studies175  have  estimated  the  direct  costs  of 
maintaining the Natura 2000 network to be at least  EUR 5.8 billion per year across the 
EU (including UK – excluding Croatia) for 2011, while acknowledging data challenges in 
this  area.  The  benefits  generated  by  the  Natura  2000  network  range  from  various 
ecosystem  services  to  rural  development  benefits  and  have  been  estimated  in  the  range 
between  EUR  200  and  EUR  300  billion  per  year  across  the  EU176.  An  ongoing  study 
based  on  the  national  Prioritised  Action  Frameworks  (PAF)  estimates  the  EU  and 
national  funding  allocations  to  actions  and  sub-measures  for  Natura  2000  in  EU-27 
during the period 2014 – 2020 at around EUR 25.5 billion177, or an estimated EUR 3.65 
billion annually on average. This indicates that the financing needs of the network were 
probably  not  covered  by  the  realised  funding.  The  LIFE  Nature  and  Biodiversity  sub-
programme under the EU multi-annual financial framework 2014-20 was set at EUR 1.2 
billion,  while  also  helping  to  mobilise  national  and  other  co-funding.  For  example, 
between 2014 to 2018, 24 LIFE Nature Integrated Projects had a cumulative mobilisation 
target of nearly EUR 1.4 billion.  

Authorities in the Member States consulted for this evaluation have given indications that 
the Strategy prompted additional action at Member State level to expand the Natura 2000 
network. While it can be inferred that the Strategy contributed to these investments, the 
outcome is unverifiable and the exact amount cannot be estimated.  

In  2017,  a  European  Court  of  Auditors’  report  on  the  implementation  of  Natura  2000 
noted  that  the  EU’s  approach  to  financing  the  Natura  2000  network  has  been  to  use 
existing EU funds, which is the competence of the Member States. The report referred to 
deficiencies  in  reliable  information  on  the  costs  of  the  network  and  its  financing  needs 
from the EU budget, on actual EU funding up to 2013 and (planned) allocations for 2014-
20,  and  on  the  conservation  results  from  the  support  measures  under  EU  funds  for  the 
Natura 2000 network.  

In relation to Target 2, the specific actions largely aimed at addressing information gaps 
in relation to ecosystem services and developing strategic frameworks. It is not possible, 
based on available evidence, to establish the causal link from these actions to impacts on 
the ground.  

Action  5  (Mapping  and  assessment  of  ecosystems  and  their  services)  has  generated 
minimal costs for research, mapping and assessment.  

The one-off costs of the restoration and maintenance of 15% of degraded ecosystems has 
been  estimated  at  around  EUR  9.6  billion.  The  additional  costs  for  maintaining  all 
restored ecosystems in good condition were estimated at EUR 618 million to EUR 1,660 
million  per  year.  Restoration  activity  has  been  significantly  below  what  would  be 
required to fulfil Target 2, and the realised total expenditure during the 2010-2020 period 

175 Gantioler et al. (2010). Costs and Socio-Economic Benefits associated with the Natura 2000 Network. Final report. 
176  P.  ten  Brink  et  al.  (2011)  Estimating  the  Overall  Economic  Value  of  the  Benefits  provided by  the  Natura 2000  Network.  Final 
Report. 
177 N2K Group and IEEP, (in prep.) Strengthening investments in Natura 2000 and improving synergies with EU funding instruments. 

47 

 
 
                                                           
is significantly lower. The total actual costs of Target 2 implementation activities in 2016 
have  been  estimated  at  between  EUR  4.8  million  and  EUR  33.1  million;  however,  this 
estimation  is  highly  uncertain.  Green  infrastructure  investments  have  received  around 
EUR 915 million per year by public EU funds between 2014 and 2020178. 

The overall benefits cannot be easily monetised due to a lack of systematically collated 
evidence  on  the  restoration  activity  undertaken  under  Target  2  in  the  EU,  but  the  total 
economic  activity  associated  with  ecosystem  restoration  has  been  estimated  to  be 
between EUR 11.5 and EUR 79.5 million. Although these estimates are highly uncertain, 
they  indicate  that  restoration  activity  generates  higher  benefits  than  costs.  The  cost-
effectiveness  of  restoration  is  contextual  as  it  depends  on  factors  such  as  the  type  of 
ecosystem  being  restored,  competing  uses  of  the  site  (land  or  marine  area),  restoration 
approaches  and  the  value  of  ecosystem  services  such  as  crop  pollination,  carbon 
sequestration, outdoor recreation and flood protection.  

In  relation  to  Target  3A,  the  analysis  focuses  on  support  under  the  Common 
Agricultural Policy (CAP) since all target  actions are implemented under the CAP. The 
CAP 2014-2020 provided a range of instruments to support biodiversity.  

According  to  the  evaluation  of  the  CAP  impacts  on  biodiversity,  it  is  difficult  to  draw 
conclusions on the contribution of the CAP instruments and measures to the conservation 
and  restoration  of  biodiversity  and  landscapes.  This  is  due  to  uncertainties  in  particular 
regarding  the  indirect  effects  of  direct  payments,  as  well  as  the  impacts  of  measures 
which depends on the scale of their coverage and their proper implementation.  

Nevertheless, available evidence indicates that some CAP instruments and measures (in 
particular the AECM, the Natura 2000  measure,  and the ESPG greening measure) have 
made significant contributions to  the conservation, and to a lesser extent restoration, of 
semi-natural  farmland  habitats  and  their  species.  However,  payment  rates  were  not 
always sufficient to motivate farmers to commit to these measures. Greater benefits could 
have been secured from the available budget, had Member States allocated more of this 
funding to measures which deliver benefits for biodiversity most effectively, such as the 
AECM and Natura 2000 support measures, rather than to other measures such as areas of 
natural constraints179.  

CAP  measures  have  not  sufficiently  counteracted  the  pressures  on  biodiversity  from 
agriculture and there is room for improvement regarding the design of policy measures to 
ensure more effective, efficient and coherent outcomes.  

The  main  costs  associated  with  the  implementation  of  Target  3B  refer  to  the 
development,  update  and  implementation  of  management  plans  for  forests.  The  cost  of 
developing and implementing Forest Management Plans as well as the benefits they have 
generated could not be found in the literature and the case studies in the Member States. 
Funding for forestry-related actions was mostly realised through the Rural Development 
Programmes (RDPs). In addition, the Natural Capital Financing Facility leveraged up to 
EUR  150  million  for  forestry  projects  on  payments  for  ecosystem  services,  green 
infrastructure,  innovative  pro-biodiversity  and  adaptation  investment,  and  biodiversity 
offsets180.  However,  EEA  (2016)  indicated  that  payments  for  forest  ecosystem  services 
have contributed only a minor amount to the income of forest owners181. 

178 Trinomics et al., (2016) Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure. Final Report. 
179 Evaluation of the impacts of the CAP on biodiversity, soil and water (natural resources) (SWD/2021/424 final). 
180 EFI et al. (2019) Study on progress in the implementation of the EU Forest Strategy. Final report. 
181 EEA (2016) European forest ecosystems: state and trends (European Environment Agency Report No 5/2016). 

48 

 
 
                                                           
In relation to Target 4, the efficiency question refers mostly to the cost-effectiveness of 
achieving biodiversity-related objectives of the CFP and MSFD, on the results of which 
there is no concrete quantitative evidence in literature. While a comprehensive overview 
of the costs and benefits of actions related to Target 4 is not present throughout literature, 
the EMFF Annual Implementation Reports give a rather comprehensive overview of the 
support  measures  directly  and  indirectly  benefitting  marine  biodiversity.  Funding 
allocated  to  biodiversity  through  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  (EMFF)  is 
estimated  at  around  EUR  199  million  in  2015,  EUR  134  million  in  2016,  EUR  136 
million  in  2017,    EUR  90  million  in  2018,  and  EUR  128  million  in  2019.  In  2020, 
Member  States  committed  a  total  of  EUR  1,637  million  of  EMFF  funding  to  measures 
that  potentially  contribute  to  the  protection  and  restoration  of  biodiversity182.  This 
includes  funding  directed  to  measures  for  the  protection  and  restoration  of  marine 
biodiversity. When including broader measures which have the potential to contribute to 
biodiversity, the figures are significantly higher. EU and international studies have shown 
that  investments  in  protection  of  fisheries  and  marine  biodiversity  can  generate  high 
economic returns in enhanced yields, higher quality fish products, and tourism.  

In addition to the important role of the EMFF in supporting the Member States to reach 
Good Environmental Status, funding has also been available from the LIFE Programme, 
research and structural funds. The EU LIFE Programme has supported the identification 
and  designation  of  marine  Natura  2000  sites,  spatial  planning,  stakeholder  engagement 
and trialling of limited habitat restoration techniques. However, there have been very few 
projects and  – mostly local - success stories in marine habitat restoration. This is related 
to  the  lack  of  viable  and  tested  restoration  methods  for  most  marine  habitats,  and  data 
gaps that make it difficult to determine what measures may be necessary. The number of 
projects dealing with marine habitat conservation has been increasing recently. 

In relation to Target 5, the costs that arise from the Invasive Alien Species Regulation 
were estimated in the accompanying  Impact Assessment to be around  EUR 1.43 billion 
per year183. Most Member States were not able to give estimates of the costs incurred, in 
their  implementation  reports  under  Article  24  of  the  IAS  Regulation.  Costs  for  IAS 
management  are  rarely  attributed  to  exclusively  IAS-related  projects,  but  are  often 
integrated  with  other  objectives  and  procedures.  The  costs  of  tackling  IAS  through 
regulation  include  costs  to  the  EU  and  national  governments  of  the  intervention  itself, 
direct  costs  to  affected  parties  in  responding  to  the  regulation,  and  indirect  costs 
(opportunity costs) to those whose activities might be impeded by the intervention.  

The  benefits  of  tackling  IAS  can  be  presented  as  avoided  cost  of  damage  from  IAS  to 
ecosystems,  human  health,  infrastructure  and  agricultural  losses.  These  damages  were 
estimated  to  cost  the  EU  at  least  EUR  12  billion  per  year  in  2009184.  The  figure  is 
considered to be an underestimate , as it refers to a previous decade situation, and the IAS 
problem  has  since  then  steadily  grown.  Evidence  suggests  that  the  net  benefits  from 
controlling IAS will be increasing as the Regulation implementation advances. 

It is notable that the cost-effectiveness of preventative measures and early intervention far 
exceed the cost-effectiveness  of  IAS  management  once an invasive species  has become 

182 European Commission (2020). FAME SU, EMFF implementation report 2019. 
183  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  the  Proposal  for  a  Council  and  European  Parliament  Regulation  on  the  prevention  and 
management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (SWD/2013/321 final). 
184 Kettunen et al. (2009) Technical support to EU strategy on invasive species (IAS) - Assessment of the impacts of IAS in Europe 
and the EU. (IEEP, 2009). 

49 

 
 
                                                           
established185. As such, the boost to IAS preparedness and the additional expenditure by 
Member States  in  response to  the  IAS  Regulation  is  likely to  be a highly  cost-effective 
expenditure. The Commission’s report on the application of the IAS Regulation186 noted 
that the cost estimates by the Member States of complying with the IAS Regulation over 
the  period  2015-18  ranged  from  EUR  17,000  to  EUR  40  million  per  Member  State  for 
measures such as management, awareness-raising and in some cases also  personnel and 
other costs. Since these estimates do not cover the same cost categories and have various 
limitations,  comparisons  are  not  meaningful.  Most  Member  States  considered  that 
reported costs are an underestimation. Member States were mostly unable to quantify the 
overall costs, since implementation activities are carried out by public bodies as part of 
their  existing  work  or  capacity  (e.g.  for  official  controls  and  surveillance  systems).  In 
addition,  some activities are undertaken by many  different  players at  national, regional, 
and local levels, making it difficult to collate all the costs. There are knowledge gaps in 
methods to document the costs and benefits of addressing IAS. 

In  relation  to  Target  6,  financing  from  the  Commission,  Member  States  and  private 
sources for global biodiversity has increased significantly since 2010. Between 2011 and 
2015,  the  EU  has  invested  more  than  EUR  1  billion  in  biodiversity-related  projects 
outside of its borders and had earmarked EUR 1 billion more for the period 2014-2020. 
The  EU  has  spent  around  EUR    340  million  on  projects  implementing  wildlife 
trafficking-related  actions  in  countries  in  Africa,  Asia,  and  South  America.  However, 
estimates  of  the  scale  of  benefit  delivered  from  this  expenditure,  and  the  scale  of 
attribution  to  the  Strategy,  are  not  possible  based  on  available  evidence.  Evidence  on 
cost-benefit analysis of implementing of the Nagoya Protocol is not available. The High-
Level Panel on Resource Mobilization estimated that the resources required for building 
and  developing  capacity  for  the  Nagoya  Protocol  (one-off  investments  over  2013  to 
2020) without any recurring costs, for 197 countries, ranges between US$55 million and 
US$313  million  (EUR    49.55  million  to  EUR    282.000  million).  It  is  not  possible  to 
estimate  the  benefits  for  the  EU-27  resulting  from  this  international  biodiversity  action 
but  scientific  literature  indicates  that  the  global  value  of  crop  pollination,  water 
purification,  flood  protection  and  carbon  sequestration  reach  up  to  US$125-140  trillion 
(EUR 108-121 trillion). The global cost of inaction has been estimated at around US$4-
20 trillion (EUR 3.5-17.5 trillion) per year in ecosystem services from 1997 to 2011.   

Stakeholder views 

Further examples of costs187 and benefits188 are presented in the summary of the targeted 
consultations in the Member States. Only a small minority of the respondents in the OPC 
considered  that  funding  for  any  of  the  targets  had  been  fully  sufficient.  Funding  for 
Target  1  was  deemed  fully  or  partially  sufficient  by  just  over  half  of  the  respondents 
(51%) while most respondents considered that funding was poorly or not at all sufficient 
for  Target  5.  Industry,  health  and  culture  sector  representatives  provided  the  greatest 
share of responses identifying funding as ‘fully’ sufficient to support the implementation 
of Target 2. The tourism, leisure and education sections provided the greatest proportion 
of ‘poorly’ responses. 

185  Arthur,  Summerson,  &  Mazur  (2015)  A  comparison  of  the  costs  and  effectiveness  of  prevention,  eradication,  containment  and 
asset  protection  of  invasive  marine  pest  incursions  ABARES  report  to  client  prepared  for  the  Biosecurity  Animal  Division  of  the 
Department of Agriculture, Canberra, June. 
186 Commission report on the Review of the application of the IAS Regulation (COM/2021/628 final). 
187 See Annex 8, section 3.1. 
188 See Annex 8, section 3.2. 

50 

 
 
 
                                                           
5.2.2.  The Strategy as an instrument 

Evaluation question 6: Was the Strategy the most appropriate instrument to achieve the 
EU biodiversity targets to 2020?  

Evaluation  question  7:  How  timely  and  efficient  was  the  process  for  reporting  and 
monitoring?  

Overall  response:  The  Strategy  has  had  an  important  role  in  providing  a  coherent, 
strategic  EU  level  framework  giving  rise  to  political  commitment,  setting  common 
targets,  actions  and  mechanisms  for  their  coordinated  implementation  and  progress 
tracking, and providing links with other relevant EU policies and legislation. At the same 
time,  the  Strategy  constituted  a  largely  voluntary  framework  within  which  a  range  of 
instruments, from voluntary to binding ones, needed to work together to ensure delivery.  

The  review  of  implementation  experience  highlighted  areas  within  this  wider  strategic 
framework where voluntary mechanisms and incentives had worked well either on their 
own  or  in  support  of  existing  EU  legislation,  as  well  as  instances  in  which  reliance  on 
voluntary  instruments  alone  had  not  been  sufficient  to  ensure  delivery.  The  evaluation 
indicates that voluntary instruments have played an important role in certain contexts, but 
a reliance on voluntary instruments alone has been a significant cause of the failures in 
effectiveness  and  cost-effectiveness  of  the  Strategy’s  targets.  For  the  operationalisation 
of  the  biodiversity  targets,  the  Strategy  could  have  benefited  from  a  different 
combination of regulatory and market-based instruments.   

What is the issue? 

A number of potential policy instruments could be considered to achieve the EU headline 
target – namely i) regulatory instruments; ii) market-based and financing instruments, and 
iii)  voluntary  instruments189.  This  question  examined  whether  alternative  policy  tools 
would have had the potential to better deliver the targets in a cost-effective manner. The 
objective  is  to  assess  whether  a  different  policy  mix  could  have  improved  the 
implementation of the Strategy.  

What are the findings? 

The  broad  scope  of  biodiversity  policy  implies  the  need  for  a  range  of  different 
instruments, from voluntary to legislative, that are tailored to ensure delivery of specific 
targets,  while  also  being  complementary  so  that  together,  they  can  lead  to  the 
achievement of the overarching biodiversity objective.  

case  of 

cooperation  between 

Implementation  experience  highlighted  areas  of  this  wider  strategic  framework  within 
which  voluntary  mechanisms  and  incentives  resulted  in  significant  action  by 
supporting motivated stakeholders to engage in biodiversity efforts. This is for example 
the 
the  EU 
Business@Biodiversity  Platform,  through  which  the  Commission  facilitates  experience 
exchange  and  the  development  of  tools  to  measure  companies’  dependences  on  natural 
capital, and to improve their biodiversity impacts. Another example is the development of 
green infrastructure in EU regions and cities that had already set for themselves ambitious 
biodiversity objectives.  In such cases, there was  already high motivation  among  certain 
actors to  undertake measures in  support of biodiversity, and the Commission  facilitated 
these measures by providing strategic guidance, technical support, funding opportunities 
and platforms for exchange. 

front-running  businesses 

in 

189 EEA (2005) Market-based instruments for environmental policy in Europe (European Environment Agency Technical Report No 
8/2005).  

51 

 
 
                                                           
In  other  instances,  voluntary  instruments  worked  very  well  in  support  of  the 
implementation  and  enforcement  of  EU  legislation  in  the  Member  States.  For  example, 
the  Commission  provided  guidance  on  Natura  2000  management  that  helped  actors  in 
different  sectors  in  ensuring  compliance  with  the  legal  obligations.  Another  example  is 
the  biogeographical  cooperation  process  facilitated  by  the  Commission,  which  brought 
together  Natura  2000  managers  and  stakeholders  at  the  level  of  the  biogeographical 
regions to discuss common challenges and work on common solutions.  

However,  reliance  on  voluntary  instruments  alone  was  clearly  not  sufficient  to  ensure 
delivery in  some areas.  This  was the case in  particular when urgent,  strategic  and large 
scale  action  was  needed,  such  as  in  the  case  of  one  of  the  most  important  biodiversity 
targets  to  reverse  biodiversity  loss:  Target  2  to  restore  at  least  15%  of  degraded 
ecosystems  in  the  EU.  Voluntary  guidance  and  invitation  by  the  Commission  were  not 
followed by the necessary scale of action at the national and local levels, and there was 
no  reporting  obligation  or  mechanism  to  enable  progress  tracking  or  enforcement.  The 
lack  of  EU  legislation  also  presented  a  challenge  to  mainstreaming,  in  particular  to 
securing funding for restoration from EU funding instruments in other policy areas. 

Legislative and regulatory instruments are the main tool for environmental policy and 
have  been  widely  used  at  EU  level.  According  to  the  EEA  Report  on  the  State  of  the 
Environment and Outlook (SOER 2020), there are significantly fewer binding targets for 
biodiversity  than  for  other  environment  areas,  such  as  climate  change,  air  pollution, 
waste, and chemicals. When biodiversity policy objectives and targets are not met (as has 
been  the  case  for  several  consecutive  biodiversity  policy  instruments),  there  has  been  a 
tendency to reiterate them, and extend the timeframe for their achievement. SOER 2020 
points  to  six  key  areas  for  bold  action,  one  of  which  is  the  development  of  systemic 
policy frameworks with  binding targets  to  mobilise and  guide actions across  actors and 
levels. The lack of legislative teeth of many of the Strategy’s actions has been one of the 
major drivers of its limited implementation.  
It was a clear conclusion of the evaluation support study190 that the reliance on voluntary 
instruments  in  key  areas  had  been  a  significant  cause  of  the  Strategy’s  failures  in 
effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The EP Resolution of January 2020 also called upon 
the  Commission  to  “move  away  from  voluntary  commitments  and  to  propose  an 
ambitious  and  inclusive  Strategy  that  sets  legally  (and,  consequently,  enforceable) 
binding targets for the EU and its Member States". 

Regular progress monitoring and reporting took place under EU legislation, in particular 
the  EU  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives,  which  has  served  as  a  basis  to  track  progress 
towards several operational targets and the headline target. The SEBI indicators updated 
by  the  EEA,  and  the  Member  States’  national  reports  to  the  Convention  on  Biological 
Diversity have provided valuable information for the mid-term review of the Strategy, as 
well as for its final  evaluation. Monitoring and reporting under relevant  EU policies, in 
particular the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy, have also 
provided information on progress to Target 3 and Target 4. Some voluntary reporting has 
also occurred, for example on national progress in implementing the EU MAES initiative. 
However,  the  voluntary  nature  of  the  Strategy  has  impacted  the  data  and  evidence 
available  at  EU  level,  in  particular  in  relation  to  restoration  efforts,  as  no  reporting 
obligation was set by the Strategy on the Member States. 

190 Trinomics B.V. (2021) Support to the evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Final study report. 

52 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Views of stakeholders 

Several literature sources as well as consulted stakeholders considered the non-binding 
nature  of  the  targets  and  actions  as  an  important  shortcoming  of  the  Strategy.  Several 
stakeholders – in particular environmental non-government organisations and citizens - 
mentioned  in  the  targeted  consultations  and  in  the  OPC  that  regulatory  instruments 
should  have  had  a  greater  role  in  the  targets  of  the  Strategy,  as  they  would  increase 
compliance  and  would  have  better  reflected  the  urgency  of  tackling  biodiversity  loss. 
Sector  stakeholders further stressed that adequate financing  and incentives were key to 
motivate,  compensate  and  reward  farmers,  land  owners  and  fishers  for  biodiversity 
measures and for the provision of ecosystem services. 

5.2.3.  Socio-economic impacts 

Evaluation  question  8.1:  What  significant  positive  and/or  negative  long-term  and/or 
short-term socio-economic impacts has the Strategy implementation had? 

Evaluation question 8.2:  What  have the main socio-economic impacts  been, within the 
EU and globally, of any identified failure to achieve the EU biodiversity targets? 

Overall  response:  Implementation  of  the  Strategy  has  created  significant  business  and 
income opportunities through direct jobs in nature protection, restoration and sustainable 
use, as well as further benefits related to ecosystem services such as the provisioning of 
clean air and water, climate regulation, carbon sequestration, disaster risk reduction and 
mental  and  physical  health  benefits  from  interacting  with  nature.  The  Strategy 
to 
implementation  has 
implementation  of  the  actions,  administrative  burden  as  well  as  opportunity  costs  of 
foregone activities.  

incurred  costs  for  stakeholders  related 

in  some  cases 

The Strategy has not fully achieved any of its Targets. This means not only that the full 
benefits of the Strategy’s targets and actions have not materialised, but also that natural 
capital  and  ecosystem  services  have  further  deteriorated  due  to  worsening  ecosystem 
degradation  and  biodiversity  loss.  The  socio-economic  implications  of  this  failure  to 
achieve the Strategy’s targets is significant although it cannot be estimated precisely. For 
instance,  a  study  estimated  that  the  failure  of  meeting  the  objectives  of  the  Nature 
Directives can cost up to EUR 10.5 billion to EUR 15.7 billion per year in 2018 prices191. 
Other socio-economic impacts, such as health impacts, social vulnerability, deterioration 
of quality of life and safety, including increased disaster risks, can also emerge due to the 
failure  to  protect  biodiversity  and  the  resulting  degradation  of  ecosystems  and  their 
services.  

Human  induced  biodiversity  loss  is  one  of  the  main  drivers  of  outbreaks  of  infectious 
diseases192  that  can  have  a  profound  negative  impact  on  the  global  population  and  the 
economy,  as  became  evident  in  the  recent  Covid-19  pandemic.  Biodiversity  loss  also 
undermines efforts to mitigate climate change and adapt to its inevitable impacts.  

What is the issue? 

Conservation  activities  can  often  have  short-term  and  long-term  positive193  socio-
economic  impacts,  generating  income  and  jobs  in  the  conservation  sector  as  well  as 

191 COWI, Eunomia, Consulting Ltd (2019). Study: The costs of not implementing EU environmental law. Final Report. 
192 Loh et al. (2015). “Targeting Transmission Pathways for Emerging Zoonotic Disease Surveillance and Control”, Vector-borne and 
Zoonotic Diseases, Vol. 15/7. 
193 Acknowledging that short-term impacts can include negative socio-economic effects such as displacement or limitation of fishery 
activities following the designation of marine protected areas.  

53 

 
 
 
                                                           
income in other sectors, such as tourism and recreation. They can also incur costs for the 
implementation  of  conservation  measures,  create  administrative  burden  as  well  as 
opportunity costs related to limitations on certain economic activities. At the same time, 
failure to halt and reverse biodiversity loss comes at an enormous environmental, social 
and economic cost to society as well as risks to present and future generations. 

What are the findings? 
In  relation  to  Target  1,  the  fitness  check  of  the  Nature  Directives194  and  a  range  of 
studies195,196,197 indicated that the flexible system198 of protection of Natura 2000 has had 
a  positive  impact  and  a  potential  to  generate  business  opportunities  and  incomes  from 
sustainable  socio-economic  activities.  Moreover,  studies  have  shown  that  the  effect  of 
access to nature on life satisfaction is of similar magnitude to that of income199. National 
parks  can  generate  substantial  employment  both  within  the  park  and  indirectly  in  the 
tourism  sector  in  the  broader  region200.  Some  negative  socio-economic  impacts  have 
resulted from restrictions on socio-economic activities especially in Natura 2000 sites201. 
Overall,  the  evidence  suggests  that  despite  some  negative  socio-economic  impacts,  the 
costs  of  implementation  are  reasonable  and  the  total  costs  are  outweighed  by  the  total 
benefits, although they do impact some stakeholders more than others.  

In  relation  to  Target  2,  restoration  and  the  deployment  of  green  infrastructure  have 
contributed  to  a  range  of  socio-economic  benefits  linked  to  improved  air  and  water 
quality,  flood  control,  noise  reduction,  recreation  and  social  opportunities,  and  health. 
The restoration of forest, wetlands and other ecosystems has brought millions of euros in 
savings  across  the  EU  due  to  lower  water  retention  and  purification  costs202,203.  Urban 
green  infrastructure  can  generate  multiple  benefits  in  the  form  of  enhanced  health  and 
well-being204. According to some estimates, 110,000 direct  full-time jobs each  year can 
be supported by investment needed to achieve Target 2 (restoration of 15% of degraded 
ecosystems)205. Additional investments in restoration in the range of EUR 506 million to 
EUR 1,750 million per year would likely result in 15,000 to 50,000 full-time jobs206.  

However, very little of the required investment  has materialised  and thus  most of these 
jobs were not created. The data available on the actual level of implementation does not 
allow  for  an  analysis  of  the  exact  job  creation  and  positive  or  negative  socio-economic 
impacts of the implementation of Target 2. Nevertheless, there is ample evidence in the 
literature of the costs and benefits of ecosystem restoration projects, as well as from the 
deployment of green infrastructure.  

In  relation  to  Target  3,  socio-economic  benefits  mainly  relate  to  employment  and 
income generation through sustainable agricultural  and forestry practices. The CAP  has 
provided payments to farmers and foresters to encourage sustainable practices and protect 

194 Milieu, IEEP, ICF (2016). Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives, Final Report. 
195 Mutafoglu et al., (2016). Natura 2000 and Jobs. Scoping Study. 
196 GHK (2011). Evaluating the Potential for Green Jobs in the next Multi-annual Financial Framework. Final Report. 
197  BIO  Intelligence  (2011).  Estimating  the  economic  value  of  the  benefits  provided  by  the  tourism/recreation  and  Employment 
supported by Natura 2000. Final Report. 
198  This  refers  to  allowing  socio-economic  activities  to  take  place  within  designated  Natura  2000  sites,  provided  they  can  be 
implemented in harmony with the site biodiversity objectives. 
199 Methorst et al. (2021). The importance of species diversity for human well-being in Europe. Ecological Economics, 181, 106917. 
200 Nunes et al., (2011) The Social Dimension of Biodiversity Policy. Final Report. 
201 See Annex 8. 
202 EEA (2016) European forest ecosystems: state and trends (European Environment Agency Report No 5/2016). 
203  Siuta  and  Nedelciu  (2016).  Socio-Economic  Benefits  of  Wetland  Restoration  in  Central  and  Eastern  Europe.  (CEEweb  for 
Biodiversity, 2016). 
204  EEA  (2019)  Healthy  environment,  healthy  lives:  how  the  environment  influences  health  and  well-being  in  Europe  (European 
Environment Agency Report No 21/2019). 
205  ICF  (2012).  The  EU  biodiversity  objectives  and  the  labour  market:  benefits  and  identification  of  skill  gaps  in  the  current 
workforce. Final Report. 
206 Eftec (2017). Promotion of ecosystem restoration in the context of the EU biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Final Report 

54 

 
 
                                                           
or  restore  species  and/or  habitats  through  agri-environment-climate  and  other  rural 
development measures. According to a study undertaken for the European Commission, 
investing  EUR  1  billion  per  year  in  agri-environment  measures  could  create  6,600 
additional  jobs  (FTE).  Income  generation  in  organic  agriculture  is  still  quite  limited 
compared  to  conventional  agricultural  and  forestry  practices;  however,  there  is  a  clear 
upward  trend,  which  is  expected  to  continue  increasing207  driven  by  more  ambitious 
policy targets set for 2030, and increasing demand.  

The evaluation of the CAP impacts on biodiversity concluded that the measures with the 
greatest benefits  for biodiversity and soil are also  those with the greatest  administrative 
cost,  due  to  the  complexity  of  some  management  practices  requiring  support. 
Administrations  and farmers found support for organic farming less difficult  to  manage 
than AECM.  The  administrative costs associated with  verifications of cross-compliance 
and  greening  measures  were  significant  but  necessary,  and  they  were  included  in  the 
general management system of the CAP. Controllability of soil-related GAECs has been 
a  major  concern  for  administrations  because  of  the  high  associated  costs  and  financial 
risks  for  farmers  in  case  of  non-compliance.  Some  Member  States  increased  the 
administrative complexity for themselves by deciding to give farmers EFA options which 
were already covered by cross-compliance standards (GAEC). 

Data on the direct socio-economic impacts of Target 3B and the accompanying actions is 
limited. Developing and implementing Forest Management Plans directly creates jobs for 
forest engineers, forest technicians and foresters, but this benefit is marginal compared to 
the indirect socio-economic benefits for wider society derived from sustainably managed, 
healthy forests in terms of services such as climate regulation, flood control and nature-
based recreation, as well as tourism opportunities and forest products208. An estimate of 
the direct socio-economic impact of the Strategy cannot be provided based on available 
evidence.  

A  few  studies  have  looked  at  the  possible  negative  socio-economic  impacts  due  to  the 
implementation of Target 3A and 3B and their accompanying actions, mostly related to 
conflicts  between  biodiversity-related  measures,  and  farmland  use  and  income.  Crop 
diversification  under  CAP  greening  limits  farmers’  ability  to  choose  which  crops  to 
produce that may lead to lower farm income. The permanent grassland ratio requirement 
could  potentially  also  lower  farmers’  income,  while  some  protected  species  whose 
numbers have been increasing can cause crop losses.  

In  relation  to  Target  4,  fisheries  play  a  crucial  role  for  employment  and  economic 
activity in several EU regions – in some European coastal communities the fishing sector 
accounts for as many as half the local jobs209. Restoring fish populations and maintaining 
marine ecosystems can have substantial socio-economic benefits in income and jobs due 
to  both  increasing  fish  harvest  and  generating  locally  more  tourism  and  recreation 
opportunities.  Healthier  fish  stocks  result  in  better  economic  performance  of  the  EU 
fleet210.  The  total  socio-economic  benefits  of  marine  protected  areas  go  beyond  food 
provision,  and include tourism, coastal security, climate mitigation and research. MPAs 
in  southern  Europe  generate  an  estimated  EUR  640,000  per  MPA  in  income  from 
services  to  non-resident  recreational  users211.  The  possible  negative  socio-economic 
impacts  due  to  the  implementation  of  Target  4  and  its  accompanying  actions  have  not 
been  comprehensively  examined  by  the  relevant  literature.  The  OPC  as  well  as  survey 

207 Eurostat (2020) Organic operators by status of the registration process (from 2012 onwards). Database.  
208 Vallecillo et al. (2019) How ecosystem services are changing: an accounting application at the EU level. 
209 EC (n.d.) Oceans and fisheries facts and figures - Employment.  
210 Towards more sustainable fishing in the EU: state of play and orientations for 2021 (COM/2020/248 final). 
211 Russi et al. (2016) Socio-Economic Benefits of the EU Marine Protected Areas. (IEEP 2016). Final Report. 

55 

 
 
                                                           
and interviews in the case study Member States  have indicated socio-economic impacts 
that mainly relate to  MPAs and fishing-related restrictions, which give rise to  short run 
opportunity costs. However, it should be noted that the costs and benefits of MPAs vary 
significantly depending on the context of their implementation212.   

In  relation  to  Target  5,  there  is  little  literature  evidence  on  the  actual  direct  socio-
economic  consequences  from  tackling  IAS  in  Europe,  in  terms  of  income  and 
employment  generation, due to  the  early stages of implementation  and reporting on the 
IAS  Regulation.  Employment  opportunities  for  the  removal  of  invasive  species  and 
administration  positions  have  been  estimated  to  be  between  520  and  2,520  FTE  staff 
annually. Socio-economic impacts are duly considered when deciding whether to include 
an IAS in the Union list. There are cases where IAS may represent a valuable resource for 
local  communities.  Targeting  these  species  may  result  in  loss  of  jobs  and  income  for  a 
certain  stakeholder  group.  For  example,  the  invasive  red  swamp  crayfish  Procambarus 
clarkii  in  Spain  negatively  impacts  agriculture  while  it  contributes  to  the  income  of 
several  hundred local  fishermen213. The American  mink  Neovison  vison  was introduced 
for fur farming and continues to be of economic importance in the fur industry in several 
Member  States.  The  species  was  considered  for  inclusion  in  the  Union  list  but 
continuation of the fur farming would be possible under Article 9 authorisation system. 
The resulting administrative burden though was deemed too high and the species was not 
listed.  The  water  hyacinth  Eichhornia  crassipes  was  a  popular  aquatic  plant  providing 
significant  annual  revenues  to  the  horticultural  sector  mostly  in  Northern  Europe.  The 
decision  to  list  the  species  was  based  on  the  estimation  that    future  invasions  ,  related 
management  costs  and  costs  to  impairment  of  activities  such  as  water  transportation, 
water  quality  and  fisheries  would  be  much  more  significant  than  the  income  losses  for 
horticultural trade or other known uses. 

The review of the application of the IAS Regulation noted that the Union list is a priority 
list,  to  which  species  can  be  added  only  once  sufficient  evidence  is  available.  
Uncertainty about potential impacts or the economic significance of certain species may 
hinder their inclusion in the Union list, thus reducing the impact of the IAS Regulation. 
Costs  are  borne  by  economic  sectors  that  have  to  adapt  their  activities  (e.g.  pet  and 
horticultural  traders  who  must  stop  trading  IAS  of  Union  concern,  and  zoos  that  must 
take  measures  to  ensure  that  specimens  do  not  escape  and  do  not  reproduce).  Some 
stakeholders  (for  instance  those  trading  alien  species)  argue  that  the  Union  list  already 
includes too many species and that the implementation burden is too heavy.  

Benefits  include  the  avoided  adverse  impacts  on  biodiversity,  human  health  (e.g.  skin 
burns caused by the giant hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum) and the economy (e.g. 
damage  to  infrastructure),  as  a  result  of  preventing  new  introductions  and  of  managing 
existing  populations  of  IAS  of  Union  concern.  Damage  and  management  costs  tend  to 
increase substantially over time, however there are no comprehensive estimates of these 
benefits in monetary terms. Studies214 confirm the statement in the impact assessment for 
the  IAS  Regulation215  that  the  cost  of  addressing  IAS  as  early  as  possible  is  clearly 
outweighed by the costs of delayed action or inaction.  

212 ICF, IEEP and PML, (2018) Study on the economic benefits of MPAs. Final Report 
213 EEA (2012) The impacts of invasive alien species in Europe (European Environment Agency Technical report No 16/2012).  
214  See  Cuthbert  R.N.  et  al.  ‘Global  economics  of  aquatic  invasive  alien  species’  Science  of  the  Total  Environment  775  (2021); 
Ahmed D.A. et al. ‘Managing biological invasions: the cost of inaction’, Biological invasions (2021) In review.. 
215  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  the  Proposal  for  a  Council  and  European  Parliament  Regulation  on  the  prevention  and 
management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (SWD/2013/321 final). 

56 

 
 
                                                           
In  relation  to  Target  6,  healthy  ecosystems  are  of  vital  importance  for  sustainable 
development  and  poverty  eradication.  About  40%  of  the  total  world  employment  is 
sustained  by  sectors  that  are  directly  or  heavily  dependent  on  ecosystem  services216. 
Ecosystem  degradation  damages  human  health  and  well-being  and  economic  activity, 
increasing the vulnerability of farmers, fishermen, and rural communities who depend on 
natural capital. It also undermines global efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change 
and  to  achieve  the  sustainable  development  goals.  The  reduction  of  indirect  drivers  of 
biodiversity  loss,  mainly  related  to  the  mitigation  of  the  ecological  footprint  of  the 
European  production  and  consumption  patterns,  is  likely  to  entail  opportunity  costs  on 
certain economic activities, in particular in the short run, but also bring long-term benefits 
from the preservation and enhancement of natural capital. The mobilization of additional 
resources  for  global  biodiversity  has  created  jobs  and  income  for  companies  and 
organizations  outside  of  the  EU,  including  in  restoration,  sustainable  management  and 
protection  activities,  in  fighting  wildlife  crime  and  in  tackling  illegal,  unreported  and 
unregulated  fishing.  However,  the  job  and  growth  impacts  of  biodiversity-related 
development  cooperation  and  international  partnerships  have  not  been  comprehensively 
estimated in the literature. A more integrated approach in EU external action in support of 
global biodiversity could have resulted in further synergies and socio-economic benefits 
by connecting biodiversity conservation and sustainable development objectives. Finally, 
while  the  Nagoya  Protocol  aimed  to  contribute  to  a  more  equitable  access  to  and  the 
benefit-sharing of genetic resources, its effectiveness has been disputed by a number of 
third countries.  

Views of stakeholders 

Asked about whether they had identified significant positive or negative impacts from the 
implementation of the Strategy on their sector, field of activity or living area, almost half 
of  all  respondents  to  the  OPC  identified  significant  impacts  since  2011  (48%),  with 
almost  equal  numbers  of  respondents  identifying  positive  (58%)  or  negative  (42%). 
Environment  and  forestry  sector  stakeholders  provided  the  largest  proportion  of  ‘yes-
positive’  responses  within  their  groups,  whereas  the  majority  of  industry  stakeholders 
responded that they had not identified any significant impacts. 

The targeted consultations in the Member States have provided a wealth of examples of 
benefits from the Strategy’s implementation217, and indicated that failure to achieve the 
biodiversity targets is linked to negative socio-economic consequences. At the same time, 
a number of stakeholders have pointed out adverse socio-economic impacts, in particular 
economic  difficulties  as  a  consequence  from  nature  protection  restrictions  and 
requirements  that  are  not  (sufficiently)  backed  by  social  and  economic  measures  to 
support good practices (NGOs, associations of fishing enterprises, farmers and foresters 
across the Member States). The return of some emblematic species has been linked with 
damage  to  stock  by  wolves,  or  flooding  of  agricultural  land  by  beaver  (farmers 
associations and regional authorities in Spain, Greece, Italy). However, compensations 
for damage has reduced tensions between farmers and carnivores for example in Greece. 
Limitations  imposed  in  implementation  of  the  IAS  regulation  affects  private  animal 
holders, zoos (listed species can be kept until natural death but cannot be bred), animal 
shelters  (danger  that  the  regulation  will  cause  shelters  to  lack  placement  options), 
hunters,  and  gardeners,  as  well  as  horticultural  and  pet  trade  businesses.  Elimination 
rather than prevention measures can be in conflict with animal welfare. 

216 ILO (2018) World Employment and Social Outlook 2018: Greening with jobs. 
217 See Annex 8, sub-section 3.2. 

57 

 
 
 
                                                           
1.12.  5.3.  Relevance 

5.3.1.  Strategy relevance to biodiversity and wider needs  

Evaluation question 9: To what extent did the targets of the Strategy correspond to the 
needs of the EU with regard to biodiversity over the period 2011 to 2020? 

Evaluation  question  10:  How  relevant  was  the  Strategy  for  addressing  the  needs  and 
interests of different stakeholders and for EU citizens? 

Overall  response:  The  Strategy  and  its  targets  were  widely  recognised  by  experts  and 
stakeholders  as  being  relevant  to  the  EU’s  needs  with  respect  to  biodiversity,  as 
evidenced  by  the  literature  review,  stakeholder  interviews  and  national  case  studies. 
However,  the  Strategy’s  targets  and  actions  were  not  comprehensive  in  addressing  all 
drivers of biodiversity loss, and they relied on implementation of wider EU policy.  The 
overall needs of the EU with respect to biodiversity have not changed since the Strategy 
was  published.  EU  citizens,  businesses  and  employees  depend  on  biodiversity  and 
ecosystem  services.  The  socio-economic  value  of  services  such  as  pollination,  erosion 
protection or climate mitigation is  increasingly understood. Some issues have  grown in 
prominence, such as the decline of pollinators or the links between biodiversity loss and 
climate  change,  but  these  issues  to  a  large  extent  still  fit  with  the  overall  framework 
provided by the Strategy and its targets to protect and restore biodiversity.  

Green  infrastructure  and  nature-based  solutions  offer  opportunities  for  innovation  and 
sustainable  development.  The  importance  of  access  to  nature  for  physical  and  mental 
health  has  also  become  more  evident  during  the  lockdowns  to  contain  the  spread  of 
Covid-19  in  the  course  of  2020  and  2021.  Lower  income  groups  tend  to  be  more 
dependent on ecosystem services, and vulnerable to their loss, especially globally. There 
is also significant evidence on the links between ecosystem disturbance and destruction, 
on the one hand, and the risk of emergence of new zoonotic diseases, such as Covid-19, 
Ebola, avian influenza and Zika. Last but not least, healthy and resilient ecosystems are 
essential  to  remove  and  store  carbon  away  from  the  atmosphere,  and  to  adapt  to  the 
inevitable impacts of climate change. 

In summary, the relevance of the Strategy has been upheld and in fact increased with the 
increasing  awareness  and  recognition  of  the  links  between  biodiversity,  health,  food 
security  and  climate  change,  and  with  the  renewed  environmental  ambition  of  the 
European Green Deal. 

What is the issue? 

Biodiversity is  essential to protect  and restore for its own intrinsic value, as well as for 
the  range  of  benefits  that  support  human  existence,  well-being  and  prosperity.  This 
section  considers  the  extent  to  which  the  2020  biodiversity  targets  and  related  actions 
corresponded  to  these  needs.  (Note:  trade-offs  and  conflicts  between  biodiversity  needs 
and other objectives are flagged under “cost-effectiveness”.)  

There is a strong (though not comprehensive) evidence base on biodiversity needs in the 
EU.  The  2010  Biodiversity  Baseline218,  as  well  as  the  Impact  Assessment219  for  the 
Strategy provided detailed evidence of the status and trends in biodiversity.  The Impact 
Assessment  articulated  the  links  between  these  needs  and  the  Strategy’s  targets.  It  also 
emphasised that halting the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services is  important  for 
EU citizens and the economy, identified a range of different stakeholder groups affected 

218 EEA (2010). EU 2010 biodiversity baseline (European Environment Agency Technical report No 12/2010). 
219 European Commission (2011). Impact Assessment accompanying the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (SEC/2011/540 final). 

58 

 
 
                                                           
by the Strategy, and recognised the important role of different stakeholders, sectors and 
groups in implementation.  

What are the findings? 

The Strategy and its targets were widely recognised by experts and stakeholders as being 
relevant  to  the  EU’s  needs  with  respect  to  biodiversity,  as  evidenced  by  the  literature 
review,  stakeholder  interviews  and  national  case  studies.  The  headline  target  at  the  EU 
level has had a very high political relevance. It describes the ultimate destination of the 
broad  range  of  efforts,  brings  together  the  narrative,  sets  the  common  level  of  political 
ambition  and  demonstrates  its  alignment  with,  and  relevance  for,  global  targets  on 
biodiversity, climate and sustainable development.  

However, the six targets and the actions within them were not considered comprehensive. 
For example, Target 1 was criticised for being focused on European protected areas only 
(Natura  2000)  and  not  targeting  national  protected  areas.  Target  2  did  not  explicitly 
address all ecosystem types and the range of pressures relevant to each ecosystem type. 
Target 3 was focused on the positive contribution of agriculture but not on reducing key 
pressures  in  agroecosystems,  such  as  pollution  with  pesticides  and  fertilisers  and  land 
use intensification. Target 4 did not comprehensively address the range of pressures in 
the  marine  environment  which  include  among  others  pollution,  marine  litter,  climate 
change, acidification, underwater noise, and the extraction of mineral resources. Target 5 
provided a broad framework for tackling  IAS  in a coordinated manner  at  the EU level; 
however its scope is limited to species that are included on the Union list, and it does 
not comprehensively cover all paths of introduction. Target 6, while fully relevant to the 
main area of EU action  for  global biodiversity, remained at  a very  general  level in  the 
definition of the actions.  

The EU ecosystem assessment provided evidence of a growing societal demand for key 
ecosystem services that depend on healthy ecosystems. However, many of these services 
are  stable  or  declining,  resulting  in  a  deficit.  Lower  income  groups  tend  to  be  more 
dependent  on  ecosystem  services,  and  vulnerable  to  their  loss,  especially  globally.  The 
socio-economic  value  of  services  such  as  pollination,  erosion  protection  or  climate 
mitigation  is  increasingly  understood,  and  the  EU  Green  infrastructure  strategy  has 
highlighted the role of innovative nature-based solutions for tackling a range of societal 
challenges.  The  importance  of  access  to  nature  for  physical  and  mental  health  has 
become ever more evident during the lockdowns to contain the spread of Covid-19 in the 
course  of  2020  and  2021.  Tackling  ecosystem  degradation  and  illegal  wildlife  trade  is 
necessary to curb the risk of emergence of new zoonotic diseases with the potential to 
result  in  a  catastrophic  outbreak  of  pandemic  proportions  as  seen  with  influenza  in  the 
past, and SARS-CoV2 today, further considering herein that around three quarter of new 
infectious  diseases  globally  result  from  direct  animal-human  interactions.  Last  but  not 
least,  healthy  and  resilient  ecosystems  are  essential  to  remove  and  store  carbon  away 
from the atmosphere, and to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change. There is 
strong evidence that the protection of natural capital is essential for prosperity and socio-
economic  development220  and  growing  recognition  of  this  interdependence.  However, 
despite this growing recognition, awareness of the contribution of biodiversity to meeting 
socio-economic development demands needs to be further increased, and the knowledge 

220  Global  Assessment  Report  on  Biodiversity  and  Ecosystem  Services  of  the  Intergovernmental  Science-Policy  Platform  on 
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019), SOER 2020, Dasgupta Review. 

59 

 
 
                                                           
accumulated  on  the  value  of  ecosystems  and  their  services  needs  to  be  further 
systematically integrated into policy and investment decisions221. 

Box 2. Links between biodiversity, climate and food security 
(highlights from the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030) 

“The  biodiversity  crisis  and  the  climate  crisis  are  intrinsically  linked.  Climate  change 
accelerates the destruction of the natural world through droughts, flooding and wildfires, 
while the loss and unsustainable use of nature are in turn key drivers of climate change. 
But  just  as  the  crises  are  linked,  so  are  the  solutions. Nature  regulates  the  climate,  and 
nature-based  solutions,  such  as  protecting  and  restoring wetlands,  peatlands  and coastal 
ecosystems, or  sustainably  managing  marine  areas,  forests,  grasslands  and  agricultural 
soils, will be essential for emission reduction and climate adaptation. Planting trees and 
deploying green infrastructure will help us to cool urban areas and mitigate the impact of 
natural disasters. 

“Biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse are one of the biggest threats facing humanity 
in  the  next  decade.  They also  threaten  the  foundations  of  our  economy  and the costs  of 
inaction are high and are anticipated to  increase.  The world  lost an estimated EUR  3.5-
18.5  trillion  per  year  in  ecosystem  services  from  1997  to  2011  owing  to  land-cover 
change,  and  an  estimated  EUR  5.5-10.5  trillion  per  year  from  land  degradation. 
Specifically,  biodiversity  loss  results  in  reduced  crop  yields  and  fish  catches,  increased 
economic losses from flooding and other disasters, and the loss of potential new sources 
of medicine. 

“Biodiversity loss threatens our food systems, putting our food security  and nutrition at 
risk.  […].  For  instance,  more  than  75%  of  global  food  crop  types  rely  on  animal 
pollination. 

This recognition of these links is reflected in the renewed environmental ambition of the 
European  Green  Deal  which  provided  a  mandate  for  strengthened  EU  action  on 
biodiversity,  in  a  holistic  framework  that  also  tackles  food  security,  health  and  climate 
change issues, and in the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. 

Stakeholder views 

The OPC survey responses as well as the EU and national stakeholder interviews carried 
out in the context of this evaluation, revealed broad agreement that the Strategy and its 
targets  were  overall  relevant  to  biodiversity  needs  in  the  EU.  Stakeholders  and 
authorities indicated issues that could have been given greater prominence such as links 
with  climate  change;  cultural  heritage  and  landscapes;  the  role  of  sectors  other  than 
agriculture, forestry and fisheries; further pressures on biodiversity; as well as actions to 
tackle consumer demand and encourage green investments. The Strategy and its targets 
were  criticised  by  environment  organisations  as  insufficiently  ambitious,  due  to  their 
non-binding nature and inability to address wider challenges identified at the time of the 
Strategy. Stakeholder consultations revealed criticism of  insufficient emphasis given to 
some  ecosystems  (e.g.  freshwater)  in  the  Strategy,  while  targets  deal  explicitly  with 
agriculture and forest ecosystems222.  

221  Guidance  on  integrating  ecosystems  and  their  services  into  decision-making  (SWD(2019)  305  final)  and  Summary  for 

Policymakers in Government and Industry. 

222 European Habitats Forum (2019) position paper The implementation of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy and recommendations 
for the post 2020 Biodiversity Strategy; AlterNet & EKLIPSE (2019) Key messages ALTER-NET & EKLIPSE conference The EU 
Biodiversity Strategy Beyond 2020. 

60 

 
 
 
                                                           
Consultation submissions by stakeholder groups representing farming, forestry, fisheries 
and industry (e.g. public consultation to support the Strategy, consultation on evaluation 
roadmap, consultations relevant to specific targets such as the Nature Directives’ fitness 
check)  suggested  that  they  saw  themselves  as  partners  in  delivering  the  Strategy  and 
relevant targets.  Interviews with EU and national stakeholders confirmed the relevance 
of  the  Strategy  to  a  range  of  stakeholder  needs.  However,  some  groups  representing 
farming, forestry, fishing and business interests felt they had not been properly engaged, 
their  efforts  had  not  been  fully  recognised,  and  that  the  Strategy  had  taken  too  little 
account of business needs alongside those of biodiversity.  

The highest  rated aspect of  the Strategy’s governance was  ensuring the  contribution of 
research  and  knowledge  to  the  implementation  and  monitoring  of  biodiversity  targets, 
public  access  to  information  on  the  state  of  biodiversity  and  on  the  key  drivers  of 
biodiversity  loss  in  the  EU,  regular  progress  review  and  strengthening  of  efforts  and 
accountability. The framework was deemed to have worked the least well in coordinating 
efforts at all levels (sub-national, national, EU and global).  

A high share of respondents (73%) considered that the Strategy’s monitoring framework 
was fully or partially adequate to track progress towards Target 1. The performance of the 
monitoring  framework  in  relation  to  Target  4  and  Target  6  was  assessed  rather  poorly. 
Key  drawbacks  noted  by  stakeholders  in  open  text  included  the  lack  of  systematic, 
comprehensive  monitoring  frameworks  (EU  citizens,  NGOS),  the  lack  of  standardised 
monitoring  approaches  and  general  lack  of  information  disseminated  between  relevant 
actors. 

5.3.2.  Flexibility to adapt to emerging issues 

Evaluation question 11: “Has the Strategy been flexible enough to respond to new 
or emerging issues?” 

Overall response: The main challenges affecting biodiversity for the EU remain as they 
were  when  the  Strategy  was  published.  These  challenges  have  yet  to  be  adequately 
addressed.  While  the  strategy  framework  has  been  broad  enough  to  cover  the  range  of 
biodiversity needs, some issues have risen in prominence since 2011. Following the mid-
term  review  of  the  Strategy  in  2015,  and  the  calls  made  in  the  subsequent  Council 
Conclusions and EP resolution, a number of these emerging issues were reflected in the 
EU Roadmap for enhanced implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. In 
addition,  the  2016  fitness  check  of  the  EU  Nature  Directives  revealed  gaps  in 
implementation and enforcement. To address these weaknesses, the Commission adopted 
and  implemented  a  comprehensive  Action  plan  for  nature,  people  and  the  economy 
(2017-2019).  Thus,  there  has  been  significant  flexibility  to  adapt  and  take  into  account 
issues that have emerged in the course of the Strategy’s implementation and assessment. 

What is the issue? 

The  Strategy  was  designed  to  address  the  biodiversity  needs  and  issues  as  defined  in 
2011. This part explores (1) whether new needs arose (or became more prominent) during 
the  decade  of  its  implementation  and  (2)  whether  the  Strategy’s  design  allowed  it  to 
adequately respond to such issues. 

What are the findings? 

The  main  challenges  affecting  biodiversity  in  the  EU  remain  as  they  were  when  the 
Strategy  was  published  (and  have  yet  to  be  adequately  addressed).  While  the  Strategy 
framework  of  targets  was  formulated  in  a  broad  enough  way  to  cover  the  range  of 

61 

 
 
biodiversity  needs,  some  specific  issues  have  become  apparent  or  risen  in  prominence 
since  2011.  These  include,  for  example,  the  decline  of  pollinators,  the  links  between 
biodiversity  and  climate  change,  biodiversity  and  health,  as  well  as  technological 
developments with potentially major impacts on biodiversity, such as deep sea mining for 
rare minerals or synthetic biology.  

The Strategy’s broad scope was determined by the headline target to address the decline 
of biodiversity and ecosystems. While the six operational targets focused on priorities and 
guided  actions  and  resources,  they  did  not  preclude  additional  actions,  as  evidenced  by 
new actions that have taken place since 2011. The mid-term review in 2015 provided an 
opportunity to tackle issues of increased importance, some of which were reflected in the 
Roadmap  for  enhanced  implementation  of  the  Strategy  agreed  with  the  Member  States 
and stakeholders in 2016. For example, a new EU pollinators initiative was published in 
2018 that laid out strategic objectives and actions to address the decline in pollinators in 
the EU and to contribute to global conservation efforts. It can be therefore concluded that 
the Strategy provided a framework that was broad and flexible enough to adapt to new or 
emerging needs for biodiversity.  

Views of stakeholders 

Overall,  respondents  across  the  Member  States  considered  the  Strategy  relevant  to 
biodiversity  needs.  However,  biodiversity  needs  themselves  have  often  remained  low  in 
the  ranking  of  priorities  for  policy  and  investment  decisions  (inputs  to  targeted  survey 
from research entities, regional authorities, NGOs). The evaluation suggests that a range 
of  factors  exist  that  affect  ownership  at  different  levels  and  for  different  types  of 
stakeholders,  including  insufficient  awareness  of  the  value  of  biodiversity  and 
underestimation  of  the  socio-economic  consequences  of  biodiversity  loss  at  all  levels, 
from the national  programming  of  EU funds and other policy, planning and investment 
decisions through to local uptake of biodiversity measures. The consultations have also 
revealed  mixed  appreciation  by  stakeholders  of  their  engagement  in  the  design  and 
implementation of biodiversity measures, which is likely to have affected their feeling of 
ownership  of  the  policy.  Stakeholders  in  the  agriculture,  forestry  and  fisheries  sectors 
have often referred to unresolved conflicting land and sea use interests and to insufficient 
support,  compensation  or  incentives  for  biodiversity  measures.  The  choice  of  policy 
instrument  has  also  meant  that  some  stakeholders  may  not  have  felt  concerned  by  an 
obligation to deliver. 

Two-thirds of respondents to the OPC assessed the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 as 
having fully or partially responded to the main biodiversity needs and issues in the EU. A 
number  of  stakeholders  added  an  open  statement  that  further  integration  and 
coordination  is  needed  with  agriculture  (42%),  land  use  (21%)  and  energy  (21%) 
policies.  Far  from  being  inflexible,  the  Strategy  was  criticised  by  environmental  NGOs 
and experts for being too broad and lacking specificity and precisely defined obligations. 
Areas considered by different stakeholders to need stronger emphasis include: adapting 
to  the  impacts  of  climate  change  on  ecosystems  and  species,  the  promotion  of  good 
practices (in farming, forestry, sustainable fishing), more focus on vulnerable ecosystems 
(e.g. coastal, freshwater) and on pressures from sectors such as renewable energy, more 
attention to traditional management systems, improvement of biodiversity governance at 
all levels, education and youth involvement, fair distribution of the costs and benefits of 
biodiversity  conservation  and  green  taxation.  (Survey  inputs  from  forest,  agroecology, 
farmers and ranchers associations, regional authorities and environmental NGOs).  

62 

 
 
 
1.13.  5.4.  Coherence 

5.4.1. Coherence with EU environmental and other policies 

Evaluation question 12: To what extent was the Strategy coherent with the Europe 2020 
Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth? 

Evaluation question 13: To what extent did the Strategy support other EU environmental 
policy  objectives,  for  example,  in  relation  to  clean  air  and  water,  the  marine 
environment,  the  transition  to  a  circular  economy,  sustainable  production  and 
consumption, soil protection, sustainable land use and management, waste management, 
and the sustainable use of resources? What are the synergies or overlaps? 

Evaluation  question  14:  To  what  extent  are  the  biodiversity  targets  coherent  with  and 
mainstreamed  into  other  EU  policies,  in  particular  on  agriculture,  forestry,  fisheries, 
regional  and  urban  development,  infrastructure  (in  particular  transport,  energy  and 
environmental  infrastructure,  ports,  and  mining),  tourism,  climate  mitigation  and 
adaptation, research and innovation as well as trade and development cooperation? 

Overall  response:  The  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  2020  targets  had  the  potential  to 
contribute  in  many  ways  to  the  2020  Strategy  for  sustainable  growth  and  wider  EU 
policies  for  the  environment  and  other  key  areas.  While  cross-references  are  found  in 
most policy documents, they do not always make explicit how these synergies would be 
realised  or  what  measures  would  be  taken  to  mitigate  conflicts  and  trade-offs.  Overall, 
the EU Biodiversity Strategy and other environmental objectives were closely linked and 
mutually  supportive.  Failures  to  make  sufficient  progress  on  other  EU  environmental 
policy  objectives,  for  example  on  air  quality,  ecological  status  of  water  and  marine 
ecosystems,  the  reduction  of  pollution  and  waste  or  environmental  crime  caused 
significant  pressures  on  biodiversity  and  hindered  the  achievement  of  the  EU 
Biodiversity Strategy headline target.   

What is the issue? 

Halting and reversing biodiversity is a cross-cutting issue addressing which requires that 
(1) synergies between sector policies and the Strategy are recognised and promoted; and 
(2) potential conflicts or negative impacts are identified and addressed. This part of the 
evaluation assessed the extent to which the Strategy did not contradict other interventions 
with  similar  or  different  objectives  at  the  EU  and  national  levels  (=either  neutral  or 
complementary);  the  extent  to  which  other  policies  included  safeguards  to  prevent 
negative  impacts  on  the  achievement  of  the  Strategy’s  objectives  (=safeguarded  or 
proofed);  and  the  extent  to  which  the  Strategy  incorporated  aspects  of  other  strategic 
objectives, and created synergies (= mainstreamed). 

What are the findings? 

There is good evidence to assess the potential for synergies with the 2020 Strategy and 
EU environmental policies, but less evidence on the Strategy’s concrete contribution to 
sustainable growth, in particular in view of its limited implementation and in the absence 
of a system to monitor or report such impacts. Examples provided by stakeholders in the 
context  of  the  case  studies  in  the  Member  States  were  used  to  complement  the 
assessment of coherence by illustrating synergies as well as policy conflicts. 

In relation to coherence with the Europe 2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable and 
inclusive  growth:  The  two  strategies  referred  to  each  other  but  they  did  not  make 
explicit how the joint priorities could be realised, and therefore did not provide sufficient 
incentives  for  synergies.  The  Europe  2020  Strategy  included  few  policy  drivers  on 
biodiversity, and the flagship policies did not mainstream biodiversity. Although the EU 

63 

 
 
Biodiversity  Strategy  to  2020  identified  several  needs  that  are  clearly  related  to  the 
flagship  initiatives,  including  biodiversity-related  skills  and  jobs,  digital  infrastructure 
and tools, innovation, and trade agreements, these were not reflected in the priorities set 
by the flagship initiatives. In practice, the policy instruments and funding streams of the 
Europe  2020  strategy  were  used  in  some  ways  to  advance  biodiversity  objectives.  The 
headline indicators presented in the 2019 edition of the Indicators to support the Europe 
2020  Strategy223  made  no  reference  to  biodiversity,  ecosystem  services,  or  resource 
efficiency.  

The Biodiversity Strategy targets depended on the implementation of EU environmental 
legislation  and  legislation  in  other  policy  areas.  Failure  to  implement,  enforce,  and 
monitor the environmental legislation fully has been a significant factor in the failure to 
fully  achieve  the  Biodiversity  Strategy  targets.  It  is  more  difficult  to  draw  conclusions 
with  respect  to  how  much  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  contributed  to  achieving  these 
environmental  objectives,  because  of  the  evidence  gap  with  respect  to  the  amount  of 
ecosystem  restoration  undertaken  as  a  result  from  the  Strategy,  and  the  outcomes  of 
further actions such as on sustainable consumption or harmful subsidies.  

In  relation  to  coherence  with  other  EU  policies,  the  evidence  gap  is  moderate.  The 
evidence  base  on  the  other  policy  objectives  and  implementation  is  good.  Evidence  of 
biodiversity mainstreaming in the implementation of EU policies, and situations of policy 
incoherence, are specific to national or local contexts and sectors, and are drawn from the 
national  case  studies  and  examples.  There  has  been  progress  on  mainstreaming  at  the 
level  of policy objectives  and instruments  at  the EU level,  including better biodiversity 
proofing  of  EU  funds,  but  gaps  remain  at  the  implementation  level  where  many  of  the 
key decisions are made at the Member State level or at regional levels of governance, and 
uptake  varies  significantly.  Cases  of  incoherence  have  been  identified  between  EU 
policy-driven  and  funded  projects  for  economic  sectors,  and  the  conservation  of 
biodiversity, ecosystem services, and ecosystem restoration. 

The  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  included  targets  and  actions  directly  aimed  at 
biodiversity mainstreaming in the EU policies on agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, 
and  the  coherence  of  these  policies  with  the  biodiversity  objective  has  improved  since 
2011.  The  evaluation  indicates  that  integration  with  sectoral  policies  has  been  the 
strongest  at  the  level  of  broad  policy  objectives;  that  biodiversity-proofing  has  been 
insufficient resulting in support measures that still encourage unsustainable land and sea 
use practices; that biodiversity support measures in other policies have remained optional 
and  uptake  has  often  been  insufficient,  or  that  preference  has  been  given  to  measures 
with  low  biodiversity  benefit.  Nature-based  solutions  that  provide  benefits  for 
biodiversity as well as solutions to wider environmental and socio-economic challenges 
have not been taken up sufficiently.  

Some  aspects  of  implementation  have  improved,  but  there  are  still  elements  of 
incoherence  and  even  conflicts,  as  well  as  a  failure  to  use  measures  to  their  fullest 
potential to  create synergies  (including inadequate funding and reach of  measures). All 
three  sectors  have  significant  pressures  on  biodiversity224,  but  they  have  a  key  role  to 
play in moving towards sustainable use that is compatible with biodiversity conservation.  

-  The  Common  Agricultural  Policy  (CAP)  is  coherent  with  the  EU  Biodiversity 
Strategy  2020  at  the  level  of  policy  objectives  and  instruments,  with  evidence  that 
biodiversity  has  been  mainstreamed  to  a  certain  extent  in  the  policy  instruments 

223 Smarter, greener, more inclusive? Indicators to support the Europe 2020 strategy. 
224 As described in this report’s section on Effectiveness. In the marine realm, although there has been improvement in commercial 
fish stocks towards MSY, other protected species groups are declining. 

64 

 
 
                                                           
addressed  by  the  Strategy.  However,  the  absence  of  a  strategic  framework  which 
required Member States to give greater priority to biodiversity has left them able to 
prioritise other objectives and measures. Failures to maximise synergies were mostly 
related  to  national  implementation  choices  and  inadequate  uptake  of  the  most 
effective  options  for  biodiversity,  failure  of  CAP  planning  process  to  adequately 
identify the needs for biodiversity225, and failure to allocate sufficient funding to meet 
needs of biodiversity conservation in agriculture226. Examples of positive coherence 
with  the  CAP  include  targeted  agri-environment-climate  measures  (AECM)  with 
benefits for biodiversity. CAP forest measures were generally coherent but with very 
limited  scope,  and  Member  States  have  programmed  the  measures  for  biodiversity 
objectives mainly through targeted investments addressing also improved resilience. 
The evaluation of the impacts of the CAP on biodiversity, soil and water concluded 
that, had Member States made different implementation choices and had they always 
used the most effective and efficient measures, the CAP could be delivering greater 
synergies with the EU’s biodiversity strategy to 2020 - and the implementation of the 
Birds and Habitats Directives. 

-  The  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP)  reform  in  2013  increased  coherence  of  the 
policy with the Biodiversity Strategy by applying the ecosystem-based approach that 
aims  to  ensure  that  negative  impacts  of  fishing  activities  are  minimised,  and  that 
aquaculture and fisheries avoid degradation of the marine environment. The CFP also 
included  measures  specifically  contributing  to  Good  Environmental  Status  (GES) 
under the MSFD and a toolbox of measures contributing to biodiversity conservation, 
as  well  as  the  regulation  of  fishing  activities  and  their  impact  on  the  marine 
environment.  However,  the  review  of  the  implementation  of  the  Marine  Strategy 
Framework  Directive227  identified  as  one  of  the  critical  areas  for  improvement 
coherence  in  the  operational  objectives  of  key  EU  policies  (such  as  the  common 
fisheries  policy  and  the  common  agricultural  policy).  It  pointed  to  the  need  for 
sectors such as fisheries, energy, transport, agriculture and climate to further integrate 
measures for the achievement of GES of marine ecosystems. Data from the Member 
States to assess the impacts of EU fisheries on marine ecosystems in the EU and non-
EU  waters  (e.g.  incidental  by-catch  of  all  birds,  mammals  and  reptiles  and  fish 
protected under Union legislation and international agreements) is not systematically 
reaching the MSFD assessments and reporting. 

-  Economic development sectors (transport, energy (including renewable energy), 
mining, tourism and EU funding for regional and urban development:In general, 
the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  did  not  include  targets  and  actions  directly  aimed  at 
these  sectors  but  it  did  programme  actions  to  improve  Natura  2000  protection  and 
governance in relation to them (such as guidance documents, training for judges and 
public  prosecutors,  green  infrastructure  planning,  improved  methods  for  assessing 
impact  of  EU  funded  projects,  plans  and  programmes  on  biodiversity).    The  EU 
Bioeconomy  Strategy  sets  out  a  framework  for  improving  our  understanding  of 
environmental boundaries of the EU bioeconomy and for addressing its pressures on 
ecosystems.  

One  of  the  investment  priorities  of  the  ERDF  and  Cohesion  Fund  (2014-20)  was 
“protecting  and  restoring  biodiversity  and  soil  and  promoting  ecosystem  services, 

225 Ecorys, IEEP and WUR (2016) Mapping and analysis of the implementation of the CAP. Final Report. 
226  N2K  Group  (2016)  Integration  of  Natura  2000  and  biodiversity  into  EU  funding  (EAFRD,  ERDF,  CF,  ESF):  Analysis  of  a 
selection of programmes approved for 2014-20, Brussels: The N2K Group. 
227 Review of the implementation of the MSFD (COM/2020/259 final).  

65 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
including through Natura 2000, and green infrastructure”228. Nineteen Member States 
(EU-28 including the UK) programmed Cohesion Policy funds under this priority.  

As  some  of  the  above  sectors  receive  significant  EU  funding,  the  biodiversity 
proofing  of  EU  funding  was  also  an  important  relevant  action.  However,  the 
methodology  for  biodiversity  proofing  was  not  consistently  applied  at  the  national 
level.  Many  sectoral  policies  continue  to  drive  biodiversity  decline  rather  than 
incentivising synergies,  and examples  of policy incoherence were  found in  the case 
studies229. 

Strengthened  biodiversity  proofing  will  help  to  strengthen  the  connection  between 
biodiversity policies and sectoral ones (both at the EU and Member State levels) for 
example, in line with the Do No Significant Harm principle. Awareness needs to be 
built  of  nature-based  solutions  to  a  range  of  societal  changes  -  such  as  ecosystem 
restoration for long-term carbon storage, water purification and regulation by healthy 
ecosystems,  local  climate  adaptation,  soil  improvement  and  integrated  pest  control. 
Resolving  potential  trade-offs  while  building  on  potential  synergies  between 
biodiversity  and  other  policy  objectives  requires  transparent  dialogue,  input  from 
science  and  a  long-term,  holistic  approach.  Moreover,  systematic  application  of  the 
Energy Efficiency First principle across all sectors, and notably in energy and water, 
can bring significant cross-sectoral benefits and indirectly help to reduce pressures on 
biodiversity. 

Views of stakeholders 

The OPC responses to the question on the contribution of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 
the  objectives  of  other  EU  policies  revealed  very  mixed  views.  The  strongest  positive 
responses  were  given  for  coherence  with  the  policy  areas  of  climate  action,  the  CAP, 
energy policy, the forest strategy, regional policy, and water policy. There were stronger 
positive  responses  in  relation  to  contributions  of  the  Strategy  to  the  air  quality  and 
climate  action  objectives.  This  may  be  influenced  by  the  large  proportion  of  responses 
received  from  the  Polish  forestry  sector,  as  these  are  environmental  objectives  widely 
associated  with  forests.  The  targeted  consultations  in  the  Member  States  provided 
numerous examples of policy coherence as well as incoherent policy instruments at the 
national and regional levels230.  

5.4.2.  Coherence  with  EU  global  commitments  on  biodiversity,  climate, 
Sustainable Development 

Evaluation  question  15:  To  what  extent  is  the  Strategy  aligned  with  the  EU’s 
international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Sustainable 
Development Goals, and the United Nations Framework on Climate Change? 

Overall  response:  the  Strategy  has  been  designed  to  implement  the  EU’s  international 
commitments under the CBD, and it is largely coherent with the SDGs and the UNFCC. 

What is the issue? 

The EU policy framework for biodiversity, which also implement the EU’s commitments 
under  the  Convention  on  Biodiversity,  needs  to  ensure  links  with  sustainable 

228Article 5(6)(d) of Regulation 1301/2013 on the ERDF and Article 4(c)(iii) of Regulation 1300/2013 on the Cohesion Fund. 
229 Trinomics B.V. (2021) Support to the evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Final study report, Appendix C. 
230 See Annex 8, section 4. 

66 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
development  and  climate  objectives,  in  line  with  global  efforts  to  strengthen  links 
between the global frameworks on biodiversity, sustainable development and climate. 

What are the findings? 

The EU Biodiversity Strategy was designed to implement the EU’s commitments under 
the Convention on Biological Diversity. The 2020 Aichi biodiversity targets, set to guide 
global biodiversity efforts in the period 2011-2020, were integrated across the different 
EU targets and actions. The 5th and 6th National Reports to the CBD provide analysis of 
progress by the EU and the Member States towards the Aichi targets.  

The  Strategy  is  also  generally  in  line  with  the  2030  Agenda  for  Sustainable 
Development. The most relevant SDGs to the Strategy’s targets and actions are SDG 14 
and SDG 15 on life under water and on land, as well as SDG 12 and SDG 13. While the 
Strategy  directly  relates  to  only  a  minority  of  the  17  SDGs,  the  SDGs  themselves  are 
interconnected. Natural capital is at the foundation of societal wellbeing and prosperity, 
and  the  achievement  of  the  SDGs  in  relation  to  water,  climate  and  life  on  land  and 
underwater is a precondition for the achievement of all other SDGs. A more integrated, 
coherent  approach  to  support  biodiversity  and  sustainable  development  in  EU  external 
action could have brought even more synergies and benefits.  

The Strategy makes  numerous references to  the  links between biodiversity and climate 
action,  recognising  both  the  importance  of  mitigating  climate  change  in  efforts  to  halt 
biodiversity loss, and the role of ecosystems in climate change mitigation and adaptation. 
It  states  that  the  EU  will  promote  enhanced  cooperation  between  the  CBD,  Climate 
Change  and  Desertification  Conventions  to  yield  mutual  benefits.  Synergies  are 
identified  with  respect  to  Target  2  (ecosystem  restoration)  and  3b  (forest  management) 
but  are  also  relevant  to  other  targets  (including  1,  3a  and  6).  Coherence  with  climate 
change policy is discussed in the answer to evaluation questions 12 and 13. Overall, the 
Strategy  is  coherent  with  international  climate  commitments,  but  it  is  less  clear  how 
potential synergies are being maximised. 

1.14.  5.5.  EU Added Value 

Evaluation  question  16:  What  is  the  added  value  resulting  from  the  EU  Biodiversity 
Strategy compared to  what  is  likely to  have been achieved by the  Member States in  its 
absence? 

Evaluation  question  17:  How  do  Member  States'  targets  add  up  or  compare  to  the 
targets at EU level? 

Overall  response:  The  structure  of  the  Strategy  provided  a  framework  for  coordinated 
and  coherent  action  on  biodiversity  and  its  targets  likely  boosted  biodiversity  ambition 
for  many  Member  States.  This  created  an  added  value  at  EU  level,  however  the  value 
was lower than it would have been with stronger governance arrangements and financing 
instruments, driving greater implementation.  

What is the issue?  

The  purpose  of  the  Strategy  builds  upon  several  components  of  potential  EU  added 
value,  including  setting  a  high  level  of  ambition  for  biodiversity  across  the  EU  and  a 
common framework for action, providing  additional and innovative interventions at the 
EU  level;  transboundary  features  of  biodiversity  (no  aspects  of  biodiversity  inherently 
coincide  with  national  borders);  information  sharing  between  EU  Member  States; 

67 

 
 
 
  
coordinated action; policy  coherence at  EU level;  governance and enforcement through 
infringement procedures and  financing through the allocation of additional  resources  at 
Member State and EU level. 

What are the findings? 

There  is  clear  evidence  of  new  and  innovative  outputs  from  the  Strategy’s 
implementation,  but  little  evidence  of  their  impact.  A  large  array  of  specific  outcomes 
have occurred as a direct result of the Strategy, such as the IAS Regulation, and tools for 
strengthened biogeographical regional cooperation, monitoring and reporting systems in 
support  of  the  implementation  of  the  Nature  Directives.  Action  5  of  the  Strategy 
produced  a  methodological  framework  for  the  Mapping  and  Assessment  of  Ecosystem 
Services.  Target  2  raised  the  profile  of  green  infrastructure  in  the  EU  including  the 
development of a green infrastructure strategy, among other initiatives. Across Targets, 
most progress  that is  clearly  attributable to  the Strategy relates to establishing strategic 
EU  level  policy  frameworks,  coordination  of  implementation,  communication  and 
information  sharing,  and  new  tools  and  measures  designed  to  increase  the  knowledge 
base to inform decision-making.  These are significant and valuable developments.  

Attribution of the Strategy’s outcomes in support of the Nature Directives Natura 2000 
can only be made for additional action that the Strategy inspired, for which evidence was 
limited in literature and not highlighted in consultation. One area of additional outcome 
is related to communications, fostering cooperation and providing training for judges and 
public  prosecutors  in  relation  to  the  Natura  2000  network,  which  have  increased 
awareness of Natura 2000, supported enforcement and informed decision-making. 

Several  examples  of  transboundary  cooperation  exist  that  have  links  to  the  Strategy, 
such as support for biogeographical cooperation, guidance for strategic EU level  Green 
and Blue infrastructure, coordinated action at the EU level to tackle the threat if invasive 
alien  species,  links  with  global  commitments  under  the  Convention  on  Biological 
Diversity,  as  well  as  cooperation  with  the  Council  of  Europe  to  tackle  illegal  trapping, 
killing and trade of birds. However, the European Court of Auditors 2017 report into the 
Natura  2000  network  noted  insufficient  structures  in  place  to  ensure  cross-border 
cooperation  and  in  particular  habitat  connectivity  of  the  Natura  2000  network231.  Also, 
despite much discussion and work in relation to green infrastructure, some stakeholders 
in EU-level organisations noted the insufficient EU investment in green infrastructure. 

Many  working  groups  and  events  have  been  convened  to  provide  knowledge  sharing 
between  Member  States,  and  can  be  attributed  to  the  Strategy  and  its  Common 
Implementation Framework. For example, through the IAS Regulation, networks such as 
EASIN  have  increased  knowledge-sharing  and  cooperation  between  stakeholders, 
encouraging  coordinated  action  between  countries  which  share  invasive  alien  species, 
and facilitated harmonised monitoring of invasive alien species throughout Europe232,233, 
and  leading  to  increased  citizen  involvement234.  The  EU  MAES  initiative  has  brought 
national  experts,  the  research  community  and  stakeholders  together  to  work  on 
improving  the  knowledge  base  on  ecosystems  and  their  services  and  to  help  integrate 
ecosystem-based approaches in other EU policy areas.  

231 ECA (2017). More efforts needed to implement the Natura 2000 network to its full potential (European Court of Auditors Special 

Report No 1/2017) 

232  Magliozzi  (2020)  Assessing  invasive  alien  species  in  European  catchments:  Distribution  and  impacts. Science  of  the  Total 
Environment, 732. 
233 Tsiamis K et al. (2017); Pergl et al. (2020); Tsiamis et al. (2017, 2019, 2021), Cardoso et al. (2021). 
234 https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/easin/CitizenScience/BecomeACitizen 

68 

 
 
 
                                                           
Evidence  suggests  that  funding  decisions  related  to  the  Strategy  have  facilitated  the 
implementation  of  biodiversity  projects  and  initiatives.  Such  linkages  could  have  been 
further  strengthened,  for  example  if  Restoration  Prioritisation  Frameworks  had  been 
developed by all Member States under Target 2. A clear understanding of biodiversity-
related  expenditure  from  EU  and  Member  State  sources  is  a  key  challenge  being 
addressed  in  ongoing  efforts  by  the  Commission,  while  challenges  in  attribution  of 
outcomes to the Strategy is a recurrent theme in this analysis.   

The structure of the Strategy as an instrument, including a lack of reporting obligations or 
of  legal  consequence  if  Member  States  failed  to  deliver  on  outcomes,  is  likely  to  have 
impeded the added value that it might have produced.  

Views of stakeholders 

Targeted  consultations  of  stakeholders  in  most  Member  State  case  studies  identified 
support for the Strategy in influencing the ambition of national implementation through 
leadership  and  frameworks,  and  in  providing  a  transboundary  dimension,  although 
stakeholder views on the added value of the Strategy were mixed. A number of Member 
States had no biodiversity-related strategy nor targets in place prior to the EU Strategy, 
and  biodiversity  knowledge  was  insufficient.  In  these  Member  States,  the  Strategy  has 
been  seen  to  have  raised  the  ambition  of  national  biodiversity  objectives,  helped  to  set 
deadlines  for  their  achievement,  as  well  as  to  attract  funding  for  biodiversity  from  EU 
instruments,  and  to  generate  investments  in  large  biodiversity  projects.  It  has  also 
encouraged a more coherent approach and cross-border cooperation on biodiversity in 
the  EU.  (Environmental  NGOs,  association  of  farmers  and  ranchers,  regional 
authorities, association of fishing enterprises,). The added value of the EU Strategy was 
seen  as  lower  by  respondents  in  the  context  of  countries  which  already  had  a 
comprehensive biodiversity strategy in place, such as Germany (public authorities), but 
it was recognised that the Strategy was useful to keep the topic on the national agenda 
and to  push  for  delivery. Some experts have questioned the added value  of  Target  1 in 
comparison to what would have happened in implementation of the Nature Directives. 

The  Strategy  is  seen  as  adding  value  in  integrating  biodiversity  objectives  in  different 
sectors, however, biodiversity conservation is still considered as a separate policy area 
(regional authorities, environmental NGOs, sector forest associations). The added value 
of  the  Strategy  has  been  further  reduced  by  its  ambiguity  on  some  targets  and  by 
governance  weaknesses,  in  particular  gaps  in  defining  the  responsibilities  for 
implementation  (Environmental  authorities,  research  organisations,  NGOs  in  Spain, 
Italy,  Greece,  Germany,  Lithuania,  Bulgaria).  Some  stakeholders  considered  that  the 
Strategy  did  not  provide  for  sound  implementation  instruments,  and  that  better  results 
would  have  been  achieved  in  the  agricultural,  forestry  and  aquaculture  sectors  by 
providing  more  dedicated  funding  from  EU  instruments  to  compensate  and  incentivise 
biodiversity  measures  (farmers,  fisheries,  forestry  associations);  or  by  setting  the 
biodiversity  targets  and  measures  directly  in  other  policy  instruments  (regional 
authorities). 

It is notable that while fairly evenly split, the majority of respondents to the OPC thought 
that  cooperation  and  learning  with  third  countries  and  Member  States  was  achieved 
poorly or  not  at  all  through the Strategy. There was prevalence in  the opinion that the 
Strategy  had  provided  a  good  overarching  framework  for  intervention  in  relation  to 
biodiversity,  with  (as  one  example)  an  interviewee  from  an  international  organisation 
arguing  that  through  the  Strategy,  Member  States  knew  where  to  focus  to  address  the 
main  drivers  of  biodiversity  loss.  Feedback  from  consultation  supports  the  idea  that 
governance  mechanisms  associated  with  the  Strategy  were  weak  and  that  the  lack  of 

69 

 
 
in  delivering  on  outcomes  reflect 

progress 
to 
implementation.  These  themes  were  frequently  raised  in  case  study  development  and 
through interviews with EU organisation representatives.  

insufficient  budget  allocated 

A  greater  proportion  of  respondents  to  the  OPC  stated  across  all  Targets  that  funding 
‘poorly’ supported the implementation of the Strategy. Case studies undertaken as part 
of the stakeholder consultations on the evaluation identified strong stakeholder support 
for  a  specific  financing  instrument  to  reduce  conflicts  in  the  destination  of  economic 
resources  and  strengthened  the  effectiveness  of  the  Strategy235,  a  finding  also  made  in 
other studies236.  

Quotes from the consultations: 

“The moment the BDS was there, it started to influence action. Not to say there are no 
improvements  necessary,  but  there  is  no  region  in  the  world  with  a  similar  level 
integrated strategy that links to sectoral strategies, like it.” (EU level NGO.) 

“I  think  the  governance  mechanisms  for  ensuring  the  targets  were  being  met  were 
lacking.  […]there  was  no  dedicated  budget.  There  was  a  very  slow  implementation  by 
Member States, and there were no requirements specifically on Member States to spend 
money  on  managing  besides  achieving  the  conservation  objectives.  There  was  a  long 
discussion about  green infrastructure which did  not  result in  investing in strategic and 
connected physical restored network of biodiversity areas.” (EU level NGO.) 

235 See Annex 8. 
236  Kettunen  et  al.  (2017)  Integration  approach  to  EU  biodiversity  financing:  evaluation  of  results  and  analysis  of  options  for  the 
future. Final report. (IEEP 2017). 

70 

 
 
                                                           
6.  6. 

CONCLUSIONS 

1.15.  6.1.  Findings 

6.1.1. Effectiveness 

Overall,  the  EU  has  fallen  short  of  achieving  the  headline  target  to  halt  and  reverse 
biodiversity  loss  in  the  EU,  and  to  contribute  to  averting  global  biodiversity  loss. 
Biodiversity  and  the  benefits  it  provides  have  continued  to  degrade  in  the  EU  and 
globally. Insufficient progress has been made to all but one of the six operational targets. 
While a number of actions have been fully or almost fully implemented, many of them 
concerned the development of policy and strategic frameworks and knowledge. Others, in 
particular  those  involving  the  implementation  of  conservation  and  restoration  measures 
on the ground, or tackling key drivers of biodiversity loss, have lagged behind.  

Positive achievements associated with the implementation of the Strategy include: 

(i)  some  local  biodiversity  improvements  on  the  ground  as  a  result  of  protection  and 
restoration actions, and a significant increase of species assessments under the Habitats 
Directive showing favourable conservation status or improving trends; 

(ii)  progress  in  the  designation  of  Natura  2000  areas  and  increased  transboundary 
cooperation between authorities and stakeholders;  

(iii) improved knowledge on ecosystems and their services;  

(iv)  green  infrastructure  developed  at  the  local  and  regional  levels  in  many  Member 
States, providing cost-effective nature-based solutions for disaster risk reduction, health 
and  recreation,  and  other  benefits,  while  also  improving  ecological  connectivity  and 
biodiversity habitats; 

(iv)  inclusion  of  biodiversity  objectives  and  biodiversity  support  measures  in  EU 
programmes for agriculture, fisheries, regional development and research and innovation, 
and increased access to EU funding for biodiversity in the Member States;  

(v) new EU legislation on invasive alien species as a basis for coordinated actions across 
the Member States to prevent and control invasions;  

(vi) increased EU and Member States’ financial contributions to global biodiversity, and 
examples  of  integrated  approaches  in  external  action  promoting  biodiversity  and 
sustainable development; 

(vii) strengthened partnerships such as the EU Business@Biodiversity platform; 

(viii) significant improvements in the knowledge base via the mapping and assessment of 
ecosystems and their services, strengthened biodiversity monitoring and Member States’ 
initiatives to involve stakeholders in knowledge development. 

Factors that have influenced effectiveness:  

  The  level  of  political  priority  given  to  biodiversity  protection  and  restoration, 
especially vis-à-vis other policy objectives and in the context of budgetary constraints 
and  competing  demands,  has  had  a  major  impact  on  the  implementation  of  the 
Strategy  at  all  levels.  This,  in  turn,  has  been  influenced  by  understanding  of  the 
importance of biodiversity and of the synergies between biodiversity protection and 
restoration, on the one hand, and wider environmental and socio-economic objectives 
on the other.  

71 

 
 
  Effective  mainstreaming  of  biodiversity  objectives  and  support  measures  in  key 
policy  areas  has  been  of  major  importance  for  tackling  key  drivers  of  biodiversity 
loss.  Insufficient  integration  has  been  cited  by  actors  across  the  board,  often  in 
relation  to  conflicting  objectives  and  measures  that  encourage  practices  harmful  to 
biodiversity, and to  biodiversity measures of low or no positive biodiversity impact 
favoured in the programming of EU funds.  

  The  choice  of  instrument  has  played  an  important  role.  Legal  requirements,  for 
example those set  by the Nature Directives, have helped to  ensure enforceability of 
the  Strategy’s  targets  and  measures.  Clear  definition  of  nature  and  biodiversity 
financing needs, for example in the national Prioritisation Action Frameworks, have 
helped  the  integration  of  biodiversity  support  measures  in  the  programming  of  EU 
funding instruments in a number of Member States. Conversely, biodiversity targets 
of voluntary nature were not systematically prioritised for support in the design and 
implementation  of  EU  funding  instruments.  Vaguely  formulated  targets  without 
commonly agreed definitions, for example on restoring 15% of degraded ecosystems, 
or  on  eliminating  harmful  subsidies,  presented  an  obstacle  to  coherent  strategic 
implementation by Member States. There were few mechanisms to track progress or 
ensure the implementation of those targets that were largely voluntary.  

  Tackling  the  drivers  of  biodiversity  loss  is  essential  to  reverse  the  negative  trends. 
There were no clearly set actions to address the indirect drivers of loss as well as key 
direct  pressures  such  as  land  use  change,  pollution  or  unsustainable  maritime 
activities beyond overfishing. 

  Adequate financial and human resources for implementation and enforcement  of 
biodiversity  policy  and  legislation.  For  example,  it  has  been  estimated  that,  as  of 
2011,  almost  EUR  6  billion  /  year  were  necessary  only  for  the  direct  management 
costs  of  the  Natura  2000  network,  while  an  assessment  of  the  PAFs  indicates  that 
total spending (beyond direct management of Natura 2000) has been in the range of 
EUR  25.5  billion  in  the  period  2014-2020,  i.e.  significantly  below  the  estimated 
needs.  Insufficient  administrative  capacities,  combined  with  difficulties  for  some 
stakeholders to access support for conservation and restoration measures, have been 
cited by interviewees across the board as major obstacles for implementation. 

  Transparency,  cooperation  and  dialogue  between  authorities  and  stakeholders 
across policy areas to exchange experience, raise awareness on biodiversity, identify 
common issues, including potential conflicting objectives, develop common solutions 
for biodiversity and ensure acceptance, ownership and engagement in implementation 
among actors in other policy areas and economic sectors, as well as support among 
EU citizens. 

  Knowledge  and  capacity  to  support  the  monitoring  of  progress,  the  design  and 
implementation  of  biodiversity  conservation  and  restoration  measures,  and  the 
deployment  of  nature-based  solutions  that  benefit  biodiversity,  climate  change 
mitigation  and  adaptation,  and  wider  socio-economic  objectives.  Cooperation  and 
dialogue  between  policy-makers  and  science  and  research  stakeholders  is  essential 
for evidence-based policy-making. 

6.1.2. Efficiency  

Overall, the Strategy had the potential to give rise to economic benefits far exceeding the 
costs  incurred  from  the  full  implementation  of  its  targets  and  actions  (both  in  terms  of 

72 

 
 
 
conservation  spending  and  administrative  and  opportunity  costs).  Implementation  has 
supported  the  creation  of  economic  value,  employment  and  quality  of  life  linked  to 
ecosystem services and the preservation of natural capital. However, the full potential of 
such benefits has not been realised, due to limited implementation.  

Factors that have influenced efficiency:  

  Knowledge  on  biodiversity,  ecosystem  services  and  nature-based  solutions  has 
enabled  the  development  of  higher-impact  conservation  measures  as  well  as 
integrated  solutions  providing  a  wider  range  of  benefits  (such  as  urban  greening 
measures  that  create  biodiversity  habitat,  help  climate  adaptation,  reduce  flood  risk 
and  provide  recreation  opportunities).  Remaining  gaps  in  knowledge  especially  in 
relation  to  certain  ecosystem  types  (such  as  marine  ecosystems)  and  ecosystem 
services (such as their dependency on ecosystem health) are making it more difficult 
to design well-targeted biodiversity measures. 

  Stakeholder  engagement  has  helped  to  identify  and  minimise  potential  negative 
impacts  of  conservation  measures  on  specific  stakeholders  (for  example  due  to 
opportunity  costs).  Partnerships  and  cooperation  mechanisms  have  also  supported 
experience  exchange  and  learning  from  good  examples.  Mechanisms  to  minimise 
socio-economic impacts of biodiversity measures and develop alternative sustainable 
use solutions for affected economic stakeholders. 

  Investment in prevention and early intervention to tackle pressures on biodiversity 
has increased the effectiveness of spending, for example in the case of invasive alien 
species (as controlling established invasions can be very costly and less effective). 
  Coherence  of  biodiversity  and  other  policy  objectives  and  measures:  support  for 
economic activities that damage biodiversity, for example such that result in land use 
intensification and the over-extraction of natural resources, have reduced the impact 
of  biodiversity  conservation  actions.  Increasing  coherence  with  internal  EU  policies 
can further reinforce EU external action to curb global biodiversity loss. 

  Access to well-targeted funding is a major driver of delivery of biodiversity benefits. 
Since  funding  was  generally  insufficient  for  protection  and  restoration,  or  in  some 
cases it was not well-targeted (e.g. support for measures with low positive impact on 
biodiversity),  or  it  entailed  major  administrative  burden  and  risk  compared  with 
support  for  alternative  management  practices,  many  of  these  benefits  were  not 
realised.  Comprehensive  and  transparent  monitoring  of  biodiversity  expenditures 
across  all  key  policy  areas  is  also  needed  to  keep  track  of  implementation  and  of 
impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services 

  Clear and predictable policy framework, and a fair playing field  for stakeholders. 
The efficiency of measures has been hampered by uneven implementation, different 
rules and interpretation (linked also to flexibility for choices at the national level) and 
in  some  cases,  low  predictability  of  biodiversity  measures  arising  from  the  non-
binding nature of the Strategy’s targets.  
Insufficient implementation has hampered the achievement of the full potential of the 
Strategy  to  deliver  a  range  of  socio-economic  and  environmental  benefits  from 
healthy ecosystems. 

 

6.1.3. Relevance 

The  Strategy  was  underpinned  by  strong  evidence  on  the  decline  of  biodiversity  and 
ecosystem services, and its targets are widely recognised by experts and stakeholders as 
relevant  to  the EU’s needs with  respect  to  biodiversity. However, the Strategy’s targets 
and actions were not comprehensive in addressing all drivers of biodiversity loss, such as 

73 

 
 
 
land  use  intensification  in  agriculture,  or  pressures  on  marine  ecosystems  arising  from 
other economic activities beside fisheries.  

The  overall  needs  of  the  EU  with  respect  to  biodiversity  have  not  changed  since  the 
Strategy was  published. Some issues  have grown in  prominence, such as  the decline of 
pollinators,  the  links  between  biodiversity  loss  and  climate  change,  and  between 
biodiversity  and  health.  These  issues  to  a  large  extent  fit  with  the  overall  framework 
provided  by  the  Strategy  but  they  have  been  addressed  to  a  different  degree  within  its 
scope.  

The Strategy is relevant to EU citizens and the economy overall, as well as to the needs 
of a wide range of stakeholder groups. However, some stakeholders  considered that the 
Strategy put too little emphasis on business. 

Factors that have influenced the relevance of the Strategy include:  
  The  broad  and  flexible  implementation  framework  of  the  Strategy,  which  has 
enabled  a  mid-term  review  and  additional  action  to  be  undertaken,  once  issues  of 
increased  importance  have  been  identified,  such  as  pollinator  decline,  alongside 
existing commitments.  

  Evidence-based  target  setting  has  enabled  better  targeting  of  efforts  to  address 
biodiversity  needs.  However,  the  targets  and  actions  could  have  addressed  more 
explicitly  the  range  of  pressures  that  are  relevant  for  specific  ecosystems,  such  as 
pesticide pollution in agroecosystems.  

  Engagement  of  stakeholders  in  the  design  of  conservation  measures  -  where  it 
happened  -  has  helped  to  take  account  of  their  needs,  and  of  knowledge  held  by 
different groups, thus increasing the Strategy’s relevance for these groups and helping 
to  identify  and  tackle  potential  problems  early  on.  Resolving  significant  potential 
trade-offs, while building on significant potential synergies between biodiversity and 
other  policy  objectives,  requires  transparent  dialogue,  as  well  as  input  from  science 
and a long-term, holistic approach. 

6.1.4. Coherence 

The  Strategy  contributed  to  the  Europe  2020  Strategy  objectives  through  training,  job 
creation,  building  the  knowledge  base  using  digital  tools,  promoting  innovation  (for 
example  for  green  infrastructure),  and  citizen  engagement  and  awareness  raising 
linked  with  other 
the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy 
activities.  Overall, 
environmental objectives and instruments, and they are mutually supportive.  

is  closely 

The EU Biodiversity Strategy included targets and actions directly aimed at biodiversity 
mainstreaming  in  the  EU  policies  on  agriculture,  forestry,  and  fisheries,  and  the 
coherence  of  these  policies  with  the  biodiversity  objective  has  improved  since  2011. 
There  has  been  progress  on  biodiversity  mainstreaming  especially  at  the  level  of  broad 
policy objectives and instruments at the EU level, as well as frameworks for biodiversity 
proofing  of  EU  funding  instruments.  Some  aspects  of  incoherence  have  remained, 
including significant pressures on biodiversity, as well as limited uptake in the Member 
States  of  biodiversity  support  measures  available  under  the  EU  agriculture,  rural 
development, regional development, fisheries and other policies.  

Factors that have influenced coherence:  
  Measures  to  reward  practices  favourable  to  biodiversity,  and  to  compensate  for 
incomes lost due to limitations on certain activities in protected areas. Strengthened 
biodiversity  proofing  of  EU  funding  for  biodiversity  has  helped  to  increase 
mainstreaming  and  coherence.  However,  despite  coherent  broad  policy  objectives, 

74 

 
 
 
there  have  been  insufficient  mechanisms  to  realise  joint  priorities,  and  insufficient 
incentives for seeking synergies. There are still significant pressures on biodiversity 
from economic activities, and investments that promote increasing pressures (such as 
intensification) rather than incentivising synergies. 

  Long-term  and  holistic  planning  approaches  have  been  important  to  ensure  the 
preservation  and  regeneration  of  natural  capital  for  the  benefit  of  biodiversity  and 
socio-economic  development,  and  to  develop  win-win  solutions,  such  as  nature-
based  solutions  to  tackle  wider  environmental  and  socio-economic  challenges.  A 
strategic  long-term  planning  approach  has  also  been  difficult  due  to  different 
timelines of the Strategy and key relevant EU policies and budget cycles. 

  Enforcement  of  environmental  legislation  has  been  crucial,  and  this  has  been 
supported  to  some  extent  in  other  policies,  e.g.  by  cross-compliance  under  CAP 
direct  payments,  or  CFP  delegated  acts  restricting  or  banning  fishing  activities  in 
marine protected areas. 
In some cases, insufficient monitoring frameworks, mechanisms and capacities to 
track  biodiversity  financing  and  to  biodiversity-proof  interventions  under  EU 
funding  instruments  (failures  of  tracking  and  proofing)  that  have  resulted  in 
continued conflicts of policy objectives. 

 

6.1.5. EU added value 

innovative  outputs  from 

is  clear  evidence  of  new  and 

There 
the  Strategy’s 
implementation  as  well  as  benefits  from  increased  cooperation,  coordination  and 
experience exchange at the EU level. The Strategy have also facilitated access to funding 
for  biodiversity  from  EU  instruments.  It  has  had  helped  to  ensure  higher  ambition  of 
biodiversity  objectives  and  attract  funding  under  EU  instruments.  It’s  added  value  is 
lower  in  this  regard  in  Member  States  that  have  long-standing  established  national 
biodiversity  policy  frameworks,  although  authorities  and  stakeholders  in  these  Member 
States have also recognised the Strategy’s value in increasing the visibility of biodiversity 
challenges  and  needs  on  the  EU  policy  agenda,  and  in  providing  a  coherent  EU  level 
framework for cooperation in tackling these challenges. 

Factors that have influenced EU value added include:  

  The  establishment  of  mechanisms  to  facilitate  transboundary  cooperation  and 
coordinated  implementation,  exchange  and  learning,  setting  common  best 
practice frameworks across the EU. 

  Leveraging financing for biodiversity and support for innovative approaches. 
  The  non-binding  nature  of  the  Strategy  has  been  considered  as  a  weakness 
reducing its added value, as it has made it difficult to ensure coherent and even 
implementation, and reporting to the EU level. 

  The  lack  of  dedicated  EU  financing  instruments  associated  with  the  Strategy 
have  also  been  seen  as  a  factor  that  has  decreased  its  added  value,  although 
stakeholders  and  authorities  have  noted  that  it  has  increased  availability  of 
funding for biodiversity under other EU instruments, such as the EAFRD, EMFF, 
research and cohesion policy funds. 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
1.16.  6.2.  Lessons learnt and follow-up 

The EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030237 was adopted in May 2020. It responded to the 
high  environmental  ambition  set  by  the  European  Green  Deal238,  and  drew  on 
implementation experience239, exchanges with stakeholders and emerging findings from 
the  evaluation.  The  following  section  summarises  how  key  lessons  derived  from  the 
evaluation of the strategy to 2020 have been reflected in the design of the new strategy, 
as well as in related follow-up actions. 

Lesson 1. Effective implementation requires specific, measurable targets with clear 
definitions, set timelines and assigned responsibilities for implementation. 

Clear,  quantified  and  time-limited  targets,  including  such  set  in  key  relevant  EU 
instruments  like  the  common  fisheries  policy,  have  helped  to  steer  and  accelerate 
progress to the 2020 EU biodiversity objectives.  

time-bound  actions  and  clearly 

Response - The strategy for 2030 lays out a comprehensive framework of measurable and 
time-bound commitments,  with  clearly indicated  responsibilities,  to  protect,  restore and 
sustainably manage biodiversity in the EU and support global biodiversity. It further sets 
related 
their 
implementation.  This  includes  enabling  measures  to  boost  implementation  and  the 
necessary  societal  transformation,  as  well  as  a  detailed  agenda  for  external  actions  in 
support  of  global  biodiversity.  Its  flagship  initiative,  a  Commission  proposal  for  a  new 
EU  Regulation  on  nature  restoration240,  aims  to  set  concrete  EU  targets  to  restore 
degraded ecosystems.  

the  responsibilities  for 

indicates 

Lesson  2.  Well-designed  measures  for  biodiversity  protection,  restoration  and 
sustainable use can bring wider environmental and socio-economic benefits. 

Evidence  reviewed  in  the  course  of  the  evaluation  indicates  that  the  benefits  flowing 
from healthy ecosystems far exceed the costs related to their protection, restoration and 
sustainable  management,  across  all  biodiversity  targets.  Better  understanding  of  these 
benefits and of approaches to tap into synergies between policy objectives - for example, 
by deploying nature-based solutions - could have helped to mobilise more financing and 
support,  while  contributing  to  wider  policy  objectives.  There  is  also  a  clear  need  to 
strengthen  links  between  EU  action  for  global  biodiversity  and  for  sustainable 
development to achieve the SDGs. 

Response  –  the  strategy  for  2030  puts  a  strong  emphasis  on  the  potential  for  synergies 
between  protecting  and  restoring  biodiversity  and  wider  environmental,  social  and 
economic  objectives.  The  Commission’s  proposal  for  a  new  regulation  on  nature 
restoration  aims  to  deliver  benefits  for  biodiversity,  climate  mitigation  and  adaptation, 
disaster risk reduction, health and the provision of a range of further ecosystem services 
such  as  pollination  and  erosion  protection.  Furthermore,  the  Covid-19  pandemic  raised 
awareness  of  the  links  between  biodiversity  and  health,  including  the  importance  of 
access  to  nature  for  mental  and  physical  health.  The  strategy  envisages  actions  to 
strengthen these synergies, for example in the greening of urban ecosystems. It also aims 
to  significantly  reinforce  an  integrated  approach  to  biodiversity  and  sustainable 

237 EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: bringing nature back into our lives (COM(2020) 380 final). 
238 European Green Deal (COM(2019) 640 final). 
239 Such as the Mid-term Review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (COM/2015/478 final), the State of Nature in the EU (EEA 
Report No 10/2020), the European environment — state and outlook 2020 (SOER 2020) and the EU Ecosystem Assessment. 
240  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  nature  restoration  (COM/2022/304 

final). 

76 

 
 
                                                           
development  in  EU  external  action,  as  well  as  increasing  coherence  with  internal  EU 
policy developments. 

Lesson  3.  Action  to  halt  and  reverse  biodiversity  loss  needs  to  cover  the  range  of 
pressures on all main ecosystem types. 

The  evaluation  found  that  the  2020  biodiversity  targets  and  actions  were  not 
comprehensive  in  addressing  all  drivers  of  biodiversity  loss  across  the  range  of 
ecosystem  types,  including  key  pressures  such  as  land  use  changes,  pollution  or 
unsustainable maritime activities beyond overfishing. 

Response  –  the  strategy  for  2030  outlines  a  plan  to  restore  and  sustainably  manage 
Europe’s ecosystems. For each ecosystem type, it sets targets and measures to minimise 
key pressures on biodiversity, and these have been mirrored in related policy initiatives, 
including  the  EU  Farm  to  Fork  Strategy,  the  EU  Soil  Strategy,  the  EU  Forest  Strategy 
and the EU Bioeconomy Strategy. They have also been taken into account in designing 
EU  programmes  and  funding  instruments  under  the  2021-27  multi-annual  financial 
framework, which aims to ensure that EU investments ‘do no significant harm’, in line 
with the European Green Deal. 

Lesson  4.  A  mixture  of  policy  instruments  is  needed  to  deliver  the  biodiversity 
commitments. 

The  evaluation  found  that  the  Strategy  had  played  an  important  role  in  providing  a 
coherent and strategic EU level framework of targets to foster political commitment and 
coordinated  implementation.  Within  it,  some  voluntary  mechanisms  and  incentives 
worked  well,  either  on  their  own  or  in  support  of  existing  EU  legislation.  However, 
voluntary  instruments  alone  did  not  succeed  in  ensuring  sufficient  progress  to  the 
biodiversity targets. The evaluation revealed that a lack of specific binding targets often 
led to a failure to ensure appropriate action at different levels of governance, in particular 
for ecosystem restoration. 

Response – the strategy for 2030 provides a coherent EU policy framework within which 
a  range  of  policy  instruments  will  help  deliver  its  commitments.  These  include  new 
legislation (where binding obligations are considered necessary – notably a Commission 
proposal for a Regulation on nature restoration), strengthened partnerships, guidance and 
financing,  and  voluntary  instruments  to  incentivise  economic  actors  and  other 
stakeholders to act as required.  

Lesson  5.  A  substantial  increase  in  funding  for  biodiversity  is  necessary,  with  a 
robust tracking system. 

The 2020 Strategy resulted in a significant increase in funding for biodiversity. However, 
it did not define clear biodiversity funding needs and targets, and was unable to ensure 
that  the  necessary  funding  was  committed  for  all  the  action  to  be  taken  under  the 
Strategy.  

Response – the strategy for 2030 set out to meet the implementation funding needs from 
private  and  public  funding  at  national  and  EU  level.  It  indicates  the  scale  of  funding 
needed  for  its  implementation  and  sets  out  measures  to  meet  the  funding  needs,  from 
private  and  public  sources,  at  both  EU  and  national  level.  This  is  matched  by  an 
increased funding ambition for biodiversity in the EU budget for 2021-27, which aims to 
invest 7.5% of the EU budget in support of biodiversity in 2024, and 10% in 2026 and 
2027.  Biodiversity  objectives  and  measures  are 
integrated  across  EU  funding 
instruments,  including  in  the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility.  Developing  binding 
restoration  obligations  will  strengthen  the  legal  basis  for  mobilising  funding  for 

77 

 
 
restoration measures. Improved tracking methodologies for EU funding programmes are 
under development. 

Public  funding  is  essential  to  tackle  the  challenges  of  biodiversity  loss,  but  private 
finance will also be necessary. As set out in the Strategy to Financing the Transition to a 
Sustainable  Economy,  a  clear  and  robust  EU  sustainable  finance  framework  can  help 
channel  private  finance  to  support  the  transition  to  sustainability,  including  the  EU 
biodiversity objectives. 

Lesson 6. EU programmes and instruments should be biodiversity-proof to ensure 
no significant harm. 
A methodological framework was developed for biodiversity-proofing the EU budget241. 
However,  its  use  in  the  national  programming  of  EU  funds  has  remained  limited.  The 
evaluation  indicates  that  integration  with  sectoral  policies  has  been  the  strongest  at  the 
level  of  broad  policy  objectives.  However,  the  methodology  for  biodiversity  proofing 
was  not  consistently  applied  at  the  national  level  to  eliminate  support  measures  that 
encourage unsustainable land and sea use practices. 

Response  –  biodiversity-proofing  frameworks  are  being  improved  and  applied  across 
specific sectors. The Commission has developed checklists of criteria to ensure that EU 
investments do no significant harm to biodiversity in line with the do no significant harm 
principle,  for  example  in  the  context  of  the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility242. 
Strengthened  biodiversity  proofing  will  help  to  minimise  pressures  on  biodiversity  and 
increase  the  contribution  of  sectoral  policies  to  biodiversity  objectives,  both  at  the  EU 
level and in the EU countries.  

Lesson  7.  A  robust  biodiversity  governance  framework  is  needed  to  ensure 
responsibility for implementation, enforcement, monitoring and review, stakeholder 
engagement and evidence from research and science-based policy-making. 

Biodiversity governance was strengthened under the Strategy to 2020, yet the evaluation 
found  weaknesses  when  it  came  to  establishing  a  “whole  of  government  approach”, 
mobilising broad ownership and accountability for the delivery of the Strategy, ensuring 
adequate capacity and funding, as well as effective progress reporting and review. 

Response – under the strategy for 2030, an enhanced governance framework is being set 
up  including  a  transparent  progress-tracking  mechanism  with  public  tools  to  monitor 
implementation  of  the  actions  and  the  delivery  of  the  targets,  and  to  enable  regular 
progress reporting and review. In this new governance framework, research and science 
will be better connected with political decision-making through a new Science Service, 
funded  by  Horizon  Europe,  and  a  new  Knowledge  Centre  for  Biodiversity243.  The 
monitoring  and  review  mechanism  will  be  further  developed  and  aligned  with  other 
monitoring  frameworks  under  EU  legislation  and  policies,  as  well  as  the  post-2020 
global biodiversity framework. Coordination among EU and national actors, stakeholder 
engagement and the science-policy interface have been strengthened with the launch of 
the EU Biodiversity Platform244.  

Lesson  8.  Knowledge,  awareness,  capacities  and  skills  are  crucial  for  supporting 
action on biodiversity across all parts of society, sectors and levels. 

241 Common Framework and Guidance Documents for Biodiversity proofing of the EU budget. 
242 Commission Notice: Technical guidance on the application of ‘do no significant harm’ under the Recovery and Resilience Facility 
Regulation (2021/C 58/01). 
243 Knowledge Centre for Biodiversity. 
244 Commission Expert Group EU Biodiversity Platform. 

78 

 
 
                                                           
The  strategy  to  2020  has  helped  to  significantly  improve  the  knowledge  base  on 
biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services.  Nevertheless,  there  are  still  significant  gaps  in 
knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystems, underlining the need for a robust biodiversity 
observation network and more consistent ecosystem condition reporting. Further effort is 
also  needed  to  ensure  that  available  knowledge  reaches  decision-makers  and  that  it 
informs policy decisions and the design of policy tools.  

Response  –  the  strategy  for  2030  sets  out  actions  to  strengthen  biodiversity  monitoring 
and ecosystem  condition  assessment for a more robust knowledge base for biodiversity 
policy,  and  ensure  this  knowledge  is  available,  taken  up  and  used  in  designing  and 
implementing  biodiversity  measures.  Such  actions  include  for  example  a  Commission 
proposal  on  new  modules  for  European  environmental  economic  accounts245,  the 
integrated  forest  monitoring  system  envisaged  in  the  EU  Forest  Strategy  for  2030,  and 
Horizon Europe projects to strengthen biodiversity monitoring246.  

The Knowledge Centre for Biodiversity will play a key role in this process. A range of 
initiatives  will aim to ensure that actors across the board develop  the knowledge, skills 
and attitudes to contribute to the green agenda, such as the Council Recommendation on 
Learning  for  Environmental  Sustainability  and  the  new  European  sustainability 
competence framework247. 

Lesson  9.  Biodiversity  loss  and  climate  change  are  interlinked  and  need  to  be 
tackled together. 

Nature  regulates  the  climate,  and  nature-based  solutions,  such  as  protecting  and 
restoring wetlands,  peatlands  and coastal  ecosystems, or  sustainably  managing  marine 
areas, forests, grasslands and agricultural soils, are essential for emission reduction and 
climate  adaptation.  The  evaluation  concluded  that  the  potential  for  deploying  nature 
based  solutions  has  not  been  sufficiently  used  to  achieve  synergies  between  improved 
ecosystem resilience and climate mitigation and adaptation. 

Response – the strategy for 2030 sets out measures to support solutions that address both 
biodiversity and climate mitigation/adaptation, including the proposal for a regulation on 
nature restoration. Such solutions have also been integrated in key EU climate policy and 
legislative initiatives, including the EU Climate Adaptation Strategy, the revision of the 
Land  Use,  Land  Use  Change  and  Forestry  Regulation  and  the  Renewable  Energy 
Directive. 

As  outlined  above,  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  to  2020  did  not  succeed  in  putting  in 
place a robust governance framework that could ensure urgent implementation efforts at 
scale,  sufficient  financing  commitment  as  well  as  ownership  and  responsibility  by  all 
actors for delivering the biodiversity targets.  

The  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  for  2030  responds  to  these  weaknesses.  It  provides  a 
comprehensive  EU  framework  with  concrete,  time-bound  and  measurable  targets  and  a 
strong focus on win-win solutions for biodiversity, health, climate and development, as 
well  as  a  range  of  policy  instruments  to  ensure  their  delivery,  with  clearly  assigned 
responsibility for implementation. Lessons learnt from the evaluation have also fed into 
key initiatives under the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, in particular the EU proposal 
for  binding  EU  nature  restoration  targets,  the  new  EU  biodiversity  governance 

245 Commission proposal amending Regulation (EU) No 691/2011 as regards introducing new environmental economic 

accounts modules (COM/2022/329 final). 

246 https://europabon.org/, https://www.biodiversa.org/ 
247 https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-topics/green-education/learning-for-environmental-sustainability  

79 

 
 
 
                                                           
framework,  EU  guidance  documents  on  different  aspects  of  implementation  as  well  as 
the programming of EU funding instruments. 

One  of  the  flagship  initiatives  of  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  for  2030  is  a 
Commission  proposal  for  binding  EU  nature  restoration  targets.  The  impact 
assessment  of  this  proposal  has  systematically  built  on  emerging  findings  from  this 
evaluation, such as:  

-  positive  experiences  in  habitat  restoration  and  the  deployment  of  green 
infrastructure  which  demonstrate  the  feasibility  of  restoration,  as  well  as  the 
potential for major synergies with climate objectives; 

- 

- 

- 

insights  on  the  need  for  a  robust  governance  framework  that  (i)  sets  clear 
quantified targets and obligations to ensure coherent and urgent restoration effort 
at  scale  across  the  EU,  and  (ii)  ensures  sufficient  resources  for  implementation 
from a range of sources, and for tracking its effectiveness and efficiency, 

evidence on restoration approaches, costs as well as the socio-economic benefits 
from restoring ecosystems;  

the  need  for  comprehensive  ecosystem  monitoring  to  build  the  knowledge  and 
evidence base for policy implementation. 

80 

 
 
 
ANNEX 1 – PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1)  Lead DGs and internal references  

This evaluation is led by DG Environment. It was included as item PLAN/2017/1319 in DECIDE. 

2)  Organisation and timing 

An Inter-service Group to steer and provide input for the evaluation was set up in June 2018, with 
representatives  from  the  Directorate  Generals  ENV;  AGRI;  BUDG;  CLIMA;  DEVCO  (INTPA); 
ECFIN; ECHO; EMPL;  ENER; ESTAT; FPI;  GROW; JRC-Ispra MARE; NEAR; REGIO; RTD; 
SANTE; SJ; TRADE; and SG, as well as EASME, EEA and the EEAS. In view of the close links, 
the same group provided steer on the EU’s Sixth National Report to the Convention on Biological 
Diversity (6NR). 

The group met 5 times during the evaluation process.  

Table 4 ISG meeting dates and topics of discussion  

DATE 
01/06/2018 
11/09/2018 

26/06/2019 
June-Sept 2020 

22 March 2021 
5 May 2021 

TOPICS OF DISCUSSION 
1st ISG meeting: discussion of overall process, draft roadmap  
2nd  ISG  meeting:  presentation  of  public  feedback  on  roadmap,  discussion  of 
technical specifications for support study, 6NR 
3rd ISG meeting: external support study inception report, consultation strategy; 6NR 
Written  consultation  on 
interim  deliverables,  draft  stakeholder  consultation 
questionnaire 
4th ISG meeting: discussion of external draft final report 
5th ISG meeting: external final report and discussion of draft SWD 

3)  Exceptions to the better regulation guidelines 

No exceptions were made to the Better Regulation Guidelines248 during this evaluation.  

4)  Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

a.  Upstream meeting 

An  upstream  meeting  was  held  with  the  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  on  15  July  2019,  with  the 
following conclusions: 

RSB Upstream comments 
Use existing monitoring/indicator 
framework as much as possible, i.e., 
as used in the impact assessment, mid-
term evaluation, etc. 

Be clear on whether the focus is on 
evaluating the effectiveness of the 
Strategy or what is happening to 
biodiversity in the EU 
Evaluate actual 
measures/implementation rather than 
slogans such as “avoid x” 
Investigate why the necessary actions 
are not being taken, i.e., which 
incentives were not aligned 

Reflection in text 
The evaluation of the Strategy uses the monitoring / indicator 
framework and the 2010 biodiversity baseline developed to assess 
progress in the Strategy’s implementation (updated in 2015 and 
used for the mid-term evaluation and for the 6th National Report of 
the EU to the Convention on Biological Diversity) as explained in 
the “methodology” section. 
Section 1.2 of the introduction specifies that the evaluation covers 
both the effectiveness of the Strategy (delivery of the operational 
targets) and what is happening to biodiversity in the EU (delivery 
of the headline biodiversity target). 
The report reflects on implementation on the ground including 
actual measures undertaken (see also Annex 7 and Annex 8) and 
impact on the ground. 
Drivers of both success and failure are assessed both via the 
evidence review and in discussions with authorities in the Member 
States and stakeholders. 

248 European Commission Better Regulation Guidelines. 

81 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Discuss the follow-up of the mid-term 
evaluation. Was anything changed 
based on its findings? 
Use the public consultation to find out 
whether awareness in the various 
stakeholder groups has increased. 

When analysing the consultation 
results, do not aggregate the responses 
of different stakeholder groups. 
Instead of doing a statistical analysis, 
describe which group of stakeholders 
thought what on each issue. 

Be cautious in the use of the term 
“counterfactual”. Views of experts on 
what would have happened in the 
absence of the Strategy do not form a 
counterfactual. A point of comparison 
could be where the EU hoped to be in 
2020. Use clear benchmarks for 
measuring success. 

Be honest what the real expectations 
were regarding the Strategy. Do not 
focus on justifying past actions. Were 
the objectives too ambitious? 

Investigate whether the right measures 
were chosen and prioritised. 
Evaluation should reveal the main 
constraints to making progress. 

Reports from the European Court of 
Auditors can be key input into 
evaluation. If you disagree with a 
finding of the Court, be clear why. 

Follow-up to the 2015 mid-term review is highlighted in section 
2.1 (EU Roadmap for enhanced implementation in synergy with 
the Action plan for nature, people and the economy). 
The public consultation included a question to self-assess 
respondents’ degree of familiarity with the targets of the EU 
Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. The Commission also monitors 
attitudes of Europeans citizens on the issue of biodiversity via 
Eurobarometer surveys, the latest of which was published in May 
2019.  
The consultation report highlights differences where they could be 
identified in the views of different stakeholder groups. In 
particular, it notes a campaign by NGOs linked to the development 
of EU restoration targets (which provides identical responses) and 
a likely coordinated, but less aligned, action of forestry sector 
stakeholders in Poland which accounted for most of the responses 
to the evaluation survey of the wider consultation. 
The report describes a “business-as-usual” scenario (i.e. the likely 
development of the problem in the absence of the Strategy) that 
was developed in the impact assessment in 2011, with some fine-
tuning. However, it acknowledges that this does not amount to a 
counterfactual, establishing which is complicated by interactions 
with existing and new EU legislation and policies (and the 
difficulties in separating the impacts of those, or gauging the 
extent to which they were influenced by the Strategy), as well as 
uncertainties related to wider indirect drivers.  
The evaluation therefore considers progress towards each of the 
2020 biodiversity targets, against the 2010 biodiversity baseline as 
a starting point.  
The evaluation points to the high level of ambition for biodiversity 
action that was set by the Heads of State in 2011, in view of the 
urgent need to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. However, it 
recognises that the success of the targets was determined not only 
by their own level of ambition and technical feasibility, but also by 
political priority and support given to this ambition at the EU and 
Member States’ level, and by the level of acceptance by a range of 
actors. This is discussed in section 6. 
This is reflected in the report to the extent possible, for each of the 
targets (e.g.  especially in the assessment of relevance). 
The evaluation report reflects on the factors of both success and 
failure to progress towards the targets. The main constraints are 
presented in the conclusions (section 6). 
Findings from reports to the European Court of Auditors are 
reflected in relevant sections of the report. 

On 14 January 2021, an upstream support meeting was held with the Regulatory Scrutiny Board on 
a different but related file: developing an impact assessment for EU nature restoration targets. The 
RSB advised the Commission to make clear a logical link between the findings and lessons learned 
from the evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, and the needs / impact assessment for 
EU restoration targets. This link has been highlighted in the responses to the evaluation questions, 
as well as in the chapters on the conclusions and lessons learnt. 

On 18 May 2021, the Commission submitted to the RSB its draft Staff Working Document on the 
evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. On 9 June 2021, the RSB provided preliminary 
comments and questions that were responded in written by the Commission on 12 June 2021, and 
discussed at the RSB meeting on 15 June 2021. The Board gave a positive opinion on 18 June 2021 

82 

 
 
 
but  considered  that  the  report  should  further  improve  on  a  number  of  aspects.  The  RSB 
recommendations, and the way they have been reflected in the revised report, are presented below. 

b.  Changes resulting from the RSB opinion 

To  address  the  weaknesses  of  the  evaluation  identified  by  the  RSB,  the  following  changes  were 
introduced to the SWD: 

RSB comments 

Reflection in text 

Given the overall limited progress achieved on key targets and the 
identified implementation issues, the evaluation should reflect on what a 
horizontal strategy framework can realistically achieve and what it 
cannot. It should analyse how it could have better steered and interacted 
with the legal (possibly enforceable) acquis on biodiversity at sector and 
Member State level.  

A reflection on the Strategy as an instrument (Section 
5.3) has been strengthened in line with the RSB 
comments, providing also examples of how effective 
different policy instruments (under the Strategy or 
under related EU legislation and policies) have been in 
different contexts, and how they have interacted with 
each other. 

[The evaluation] should discuss the appropriateness, scale and relevance of 
[the Strategy’s] actions to achieve the targets. It should also reflect on 
whether the scope and scale of the operational targets are still sufficient to 
comply with the headline target in a rapidly evolving context. It could 
explore whether EU biodiversity policy sufficiently stepped up its political 
and policy profile, including in the climate debate. 

Reflections on the appropriateness, scale and relevance 
of the Strategy’s actions have been added in the 
analysis of effectiveness (Section 5.1) focussing in 
particular on instances where progress in implementing 
the actions has not resulted in similar progress in 
achieving the targets. Reflection on the relevance of 
the scope and scale of the operational targets, and on 
the political priority given to the Strategy, has been 
added to the analysis of relevance (Section 5.3). 

The report should explain how the evaluation and the lessons learnt 
contribute to the 2030 Strategy and other initiatives, given that the 2030 
Strategy was published in May 2020. 

Section 6.2 provides a summary of how emerging 
insights and lessons learnt from the evaluation have 
been integrated in the design of the EU Biodiversity 
for 2030 and in key initiatives for its implementation.  

The report should better identify the scope of the 2020 Strategy, clearly 
indicating the covered legal instruments and actions, and the links with 
other policy areas. 

It should assess more thoroughly the drivers for the lack of implementation 
(including at Member State level such as the enforcement and compliance 
aspects and accountability) across the various ecosystems, sectors and 
stakeholders. It should highlight more the difficulties of mainstreaming of 
biodiversity across the various policy areas, and identify more clearly the 
factors that could help to promote common policy ownership. 

The requested clarifications on the Strategy’s scope 
and intervention logic have been made in Section 2. 
Background to the initiative. The way the Strategy 
interacts with other legal instruments and EU policies, 
and the related difficulties in separating the impact of 
the Strategy from the impacts of the existing EU 
policies (in its absence), has been described in more 
detail in Section 1.2 Scope of the evaluation, and 
Section 4.3. Limitations – robustness of findings and 
in the analyses of the evaluation questions in relation 
to targets 1, 3 and 4. 

Further reflection on the drivers of successful – or 
weak - implementation has been added in the 
evaluation of effectiveness (Section 5.1). 
Mainstreaming aspects are discussed in more detail in 
relation to Targets 1, 3 and 4 (but not exclusively).  

The targeted surveys and interviews in the Member 
States have been designed to gain insights especially 
into the drivers of success and failure from national 
implementation. The revised report now includes a 
detailed summary of these findings (new Annex 8), 
with examples integrated in the relevant parts of the 
main text. 

The analysis in the stakeholder consultation should be completed, 
including the targeted stakeholder consultation.  

The analysis of the stakeholder consultation has been 
completed adding further detail on the range of 

83 

 
 
The stakeholder analysis should differentiate between the views of the 
different stakeholder groups. It should inform the report across its various 
sections.  

Some more technical comments have been sent directly to the author DG. 

consultation activities (Annex 2) as well as a 
comprehensive summary of insights from the national 
level consultations (new Annex 8). 

The analysis of the open public consultation (Annex 2) 
now also differentiates between the different 
stakeholder views. The new Annex 8 clearly indicates 
the views of different stakeholder groups. References 
to these views have been integrated in a systematic 
manner to relevant sections throughout the report. 

A variety of improvements have been made on style 
and formatting taking into account the comments 
received.  

5)  Evidence, sources and quality  

The  most  important  sources  of  evidence  used  in  the  evaluation  include  a  review  of  relevant 
literature  and  other  documents,  an  online  public  consultation  and  a  series  of  targeted  interviews 
with Member States authorities and stakeholders at the EU level and in 10 selected Member States. 
Literature  review  covered  notably  reports  of  the  EEA,  the  Commission  and  where  relevant,  the 
European Court of Auditors. These include for example the State of Nature in the EU  2020 (EEA 
report drawing on Member States’ reporting under the Nature Directives), the State of the European 
Environment  and  Outlook  Report  2020  (EEA,  2019),  the  first  EU  Ecosystem  Assessment  (JRC, 
2020), the EU and Member States’ 6th National Reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity 
(2019-2020),  fitness  checks  and  evaluations  of  key  relevant  EU  legislation  and  policies. 
Furthermore,  official  national  documents  (such  as  biodiversity  strategies  and  restoration 
frameworks) were reviewed in ten Member States which were selected for an in-depth evaluation of 
specific  targets.  Peer-reviewed  scientific  data  and  studies  as  well  as  biodiversity  projects  were 
further collected and analysed to complement evidence as needed.  

The  evaluation  was  supported  by  an  external  study  that  considered  the  delivery  of  the  headline 
target as well as the individual operational targets and actions against each evaluation criterion in 
line with Better Regulation and presented its findings in an evaluation study report249. The technical 
specifications  for  the  study  and  all  deliverables  were  discussed  with  the  Inter-service  Steering 
Group for the evaluation of the Strategy, and comments were reflected in the final specifications. 

The  external  evaluation  study  is  comprehensive  and  provides  a  good  evidence  base  for  the 
evaluation.  It  acknowledges  major  limitations  and  explains  how  they  have  been  addressed.  For 
example,  there  is  no  comprehensive  EU  level  overview  of  implementation  efforts  in  the  Member 
States  in  relation  to  restoration,  green  infrastructure  development,  forest  management  plans  and 
other areas in  which no  reporting obligations exist. The study approach has been to  draw lessons 
from national implementation in selected case study Member States. Furthermore, there have been 
very significant difficulties in attributing impacts on the ground to the EU Biodiversity Strategy and 
distinguishing these from impacts due to the implementation of EU legislation and policies that the 
Strategy  aimed  to  support  or  influence  (such  as  the  EU  Nature  Directives,  the  EU  Common 
Agricultural  Policy  and  the  EU  Common  Fisheries  Policy).  The  survey  has  aimed  to  obtain 
information from stakeholders involved in implementation, in order to gain insights on the extent to 
which the Strategy’s integrated approach and specific actions have helped. Findings systematically 
indicate  whether  they  draw  on  official  documents,  evidence  from  research  or  views  expressed  by 
different stakeholders (also indicating the background and interest groups). 

249 Trinomics B.V. (2021) Support to the evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Final study report. 

84 

 
 
                                                           
The final report of the study was discussed at two consecutive meetings of the Inter-service steering 
group on the evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2020, in addition to written comments 
provided by the services. The final report of the external support study has been published.  

Stakeholder consultation and targeted data collection were an important element of the exercise (see 
Annex 2).  

85 

 
 
 
ANNEX 2 – SYNOPSIS REPORT OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS  

1.  Introduction 

This  Annex  provides  an  overview  of  the  consultation  activities  carried  out  in  line  with  the 
consultation  strategy  for  this  evaluation,  as  well  as  the  responses  and  results  received.  The 
objectives  of  the  consultations  were  to  collect  insights  on  how  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  to 
2020 had been implemented, its main achievements and failures, success factors and obstacles; how 
it  had  interacted  with  other  policies;  and  how  stakeholders  had  been  engaged,  or  impacted  in 
positive  or  negative  ways,  with  the  ultimate  goal  of  integrating  these  findings  into  the  Strategy’s 
evaluation.  Furthermore,  consultations  helped  to  explore  preliminary  evaluation  findings  with  a 
range of stakeholders holding different perspectives.  

The  main  stakeholder  groups  identified  for  the  consultations  were:  national  and  sub-national 
authorities in charge of implementing the  EU nature legislation, EU and national biodiversity and 
other key relevant policies (especially for targeted consultations in the ten Member States selected 
for  case  studies),  socioeconomic  actors,  in  particular  EU,  national  and  sub-national  umbrella 
organisations of stakeholders in key sectors (such as agri-food, forestry, fisheries, hunting, tourism, 
health,  industry,  business  and  finance)  that  have  been  involved  in  the  Strategy,  or  have  been 
affected  by  its  implementation,  international  organisations  engaged  in  EU  and  global  biodiversity 
and related policy areas (climate, sustainable development), non-governmental organisations active 
in conservation, wider environmental and social issues or animal welfare, research and academia as 
well as the citizens. 

The main consultation activities were: 

  Feedback on the Evaluation Roadmap was received in the period 20 June – 18 July 2018 

  A stakeholder conference to discuss preliminary evidence to be taken into account and identify 
key issues and stakeholder concerns to address in the evaluation (Brussels, 24 June 2019). The 
conference report is published on the webpage of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. 

  Targeted EU-level stakeholder interviews conducted between October 2020 and March 2021; 

  Case studies on the implementation of the Strategy in 10 EU Member States, including more in-
depth surveys on selected biodiversity targets. The related consultation activity included written 
surveys and targeted interviews with a small number of national  level stakeholders, conducted 
between November 2020 and March 2021.  

  An online public consultation (OPC) open for feedback to all interested stakeholders as well as 

individual citizens, which ran from January 2021 until early April 2021. 

In  addition  to  these  consultation  activities  as  part  the  evaluation  exercise,  discussions  on  the 
implementation of various aspects of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 continued with Member 
States and stakeholders at the Coordination Group for Biodiversity and Nature. 

86 

 
 
 
 
2.  Outcomes of the consultation activities 
2.1. Feedback on the evaluation Roadmap 

The Roadmap for the evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 was published on 20 June 
2018  and  remained  open  for  public  feedback  until  21  July  2018.  A  total  of  16  responses  were 
submitted,  mostly  by  business  and  stakeholder  organisations  (5)  and  NGOs  (4),  as  well  as  2 
citizens,  a  public  authority,  a  research  institution  and  an  international  conservation  organization. 
Most responses provided a combination of recommendations for the evaluation study approach and 
for the post-2020 biodiversity policy framework.  

The main recommendations for the evaluation scope and approach are summarised below: 

-  Apply an evidence-based evaluation approach (robust data and monitoring) 
-  Engage sector stakeholders, use non-technical language in the consultations 
-  Seek to identify underlying causes of failure and wider contexts and factors 
-  Assess  policy  coherence  with  other  policies  such  as  agriculture,  marine  and  fisheries,  trade, 

forestry, as well as trade-offs between biodiversity targets and other policy objectives.  

-  Reflect on the global biodiversity impacts of EU consumption. 
These recommendations have been taken up in the evaluation scope and approach.  

The main recommendations for post-2020 are summarised below: 

-  Use the evaluation findings to inform the EU as well as the global post-2020 debates 
-  Formulate  ambitious  and  measurable  post-2020  objectives  as  well  as  new  tools  for 

implementation. 

-  Strengthen links between biodiversity goals, climate and the Sustainable Development Goals. 
-  Reflect biodiversity objectives and needs in the Multiannual Financial Framework 
-  Step up biodiversity governance. 
-  Support research into the links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and food. 

These points have been taken into account in the design of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. 

2.2.Public Consultation 

A joint consultation was open for public feedback over a period of 12 weeks, from January to April 
2021. The survey (in addition to a common section on the background of the respondents) consisted 
of three distinct questionnaires on interrelated EU biodiversity policy initiatives: 

1. Evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 
2. Review of the application of the EU Regulation on Invasive Alien Species 
3. Development of binding EU nature restoration targets 

The  consultation  on  these  initiatives  was  carried  out  in  one  joint  survey  due  to  their  clear 
interconnections and in  order to reduce the risk of confusion or consultation fatigue. Respondents 
could choose to answer only one, two or all three surveys. Most questions were multiple-choice and 
included one or more ‘opt-out’ responses, as well as an opportunity for the respondent to expand on 
their  answers  in  an  open  text  response  box.  An  open  question  was  asked  near  the  end  of  the 
questionnaire, to allow respondents to provide further feedback, information, links or files.  

87 

 
 
This  analysis  focuses  on  Part  1  (evaluation)  covering  15  questions,  of  which  12  were  multiple 
choice. The analysis also provides a concise overview of the responses to part 2 (IAS application 
review), which is relevant to the evaluation of Target 5 or the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020.  

  Distribution of responses 

A total of 111,842 respondents filled in the questionnaire, among which a large number answered as 
part of campaigns. The majority of the responses were part of an NGO campaign “#RestoreNature” 
which targeted the questionnaire on developing EU binding nature restoration targets. Beside this, 
7,510 individual responses remained that formed the majority of contributions on the evaluation of 
the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. These filtered responses are analysed in this report. 

  Overview of geographical spread of responses and stakeholder categories 

Out  of  the  7,510  respondents,  the  majority  originated  from  Poland  (6,710;  89%),  followed  by 
Germany (251; 3%), Belgium (82; 1%) and France (70; 1%). The types and main area of activity of 
the respondents are presented in figure II-1 and figure II-2 below: 

Fig. II-1. Type of respondents to the survey 

II-2 Area of activity of respondents 

Notably, 83% of trade unions (24) and 82% of companies/businesses (616) selected forestry. The 
fact  that  a  very  high  share  of  the  respondents  originated  from  Poland,  and  those  were  primarily 
active in  the field  of forestry, is  important  to  take into account  while analysing the results of this 
OPC. Firstly, even in the absence of a formally announced campaign, it suggests that stakeholders 
from this sector and Member State did communicate more intensively and mobilised in some form 
to respond, showing particular interest in the topic of the consultation. Secondly, the resulting high 
share  of  respondents  from  this  sector  means  that  their  views  were  represented  to  a  higher  degree 
than other interest groups in each answer. 

1.1.1. Overview of survey results: Evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 

88 

 
 
 
There  was  no  requirement  to  respond  to  all  questions.  The  percentage  of  respondents  who  have 
given  a  specific  answer  to  each  question  is  based  upon  the  total  number  of  responses  to  this 
question, and not on the total number of respondents in the survey. This applies also to open text 
responses. The sections below present for each question: 

1)  An overview of all quantitative responses;  

2)  An overview of quantitative responses in selected questions; 

3)  A breakdown of key diverging responses (where applicable) per sectoral stakeholder type.  

4)  Campaign responses are separately analysed at the end of this chapter of the report.  

Question 1. The 2020 Biodiversity Strategy set six targets, which together should have enabled the EU to 
halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. How familiar are you with these targets? 

Very 
familiar 

Moderatel
y familiar 

Slightly 
familiar 

Not  at  all 
familiar 

Target 1. Fully implement the EU Birds and Habitats 
Directives 

42% 

39% 

14% 

Target  2.  Maintain  and  restore  ecosystems  and  their 
services 

39% 

41% 

16% 

Target  3.  Increase  the  contribution  of  agriculture  and 
forestry to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity 

48% 

34% 

13% 

Target  4.  Ensure  the  sustainable  use  of  fisheries 
resources and marine ecosystems 

Target 5. Combat invasive alien species 

Target 6. Help avert global biodiversity loss  

25% 

37% 

32% 

22% 

39% 

42% 

36% 

18% 

21% 

5% 

4% 

4% 

17% 

6% 

5% 

Overall, participants Most respondents indicated that they are fairly familiar with the six targets of 
the  Strategy,  with  82%  answering  “moderately  familiar”  or  “very  familiar”  for  Targets  1  and  3. 
Target 4 was markedly the least familiar to respondents. 

Question  2.  To  what  extent  has  the  EU  met  the  objective  of  halting  biodiversity  loss  and  the 
degradation  of  ecosystem  services  in  the  EU  by  2020,  and  restoring  them  as  far  as  feasible? 

89 

 
 
  
 
Almost half of the respondents to this question assessed the EU as having partially met the headline 
biodiversity target  (1,995;  48%).  The majority  of respondents  (2,583;  62%) had a rather positive 
view  answering  either  “partially”  or  “fully”  to  this  question,  compared  to  32%  (1,305)  who 
answered  “poorly”  or  “not  at  all”.  Stakeholders  who  answered  ‘fully’  largely  belonged  to  the 
forestry sector (310; 53%, with 309 of respondents from the Polish forestry sector), whereas those 
who  responded  ‘poorly’  belonged  mostly  to  environment  (252;  23%),  forestry  (224;  20%)  and 
culture (208; 19%).  

Question 3. To what extent has the EU achieved the following targets? 

1,033 

(30%) 

the  best 
Performance  was 
rated  under  Targets  1  and  3, 
with 
of 
that 
respondents 
Target  1  was  fully  achieved, 
and 
of 
respondents  considering  that 
Target  3  was  fully  achieved. 
Target 1 scored best in terms 
of  combined  “fully”  and 
“partially”  responses  (80%), 
followed  by  Target  2  (66%)  and  Target  3  (65%).  Target  4  was  the  only  one  for  which  more 
respondents answered “poorly” or “not at all” (1,217; 53%) than “partially” or “fully”. Target 4 was 
also the one with the highest share of “I do not know/no answer” (1,234). 

saying 

(22%) 

764 

The table below presents the predominant response given by respondents in several main fields:  

Main area 

Target 1 

Target 2 

Target 3 

Target 4 

Target 5 

Target 6 

Agriculture 

Partially (48%)  Partially (46%)  Partially (40%)  Poorly (41%) 

Partially (41%)  Partially (36%) 

Culture 

Partially (47%)  Partially (44%)  Partially (36%)  Poorly (41%) 

Partially (43%)  Poorly (38%) 

Education 

Partially (43%)  Poorly (43%) 

Poorly (38%) 

Poorly (45%) 

Partially (46%)  Poorly (43%) 

Environment 

Partially (52%)  Poorly (42%) 

Poorly (35%) 

Poorly (48%) 

Poorly (44%) 

Poorly (44%) 

Forestry 

Industry 

Partially (53%)  Partially (63%)  Partially (56%)  Partially (44%)  Partially (48%)  Partially (49%) 

Partially (50%)  Partially (48%)  Partially (43%)  Poorly (44%) 

Poorly (43%) 

Partially (42%) 

Question 3a. Please highlight significant achievements and/or success factors  

A  total  of  55  open  text  responses  were  received.  They  highlighted  the  benefits  for  habitats  and 
species stemming from the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives and other forms of 
nature protection (11: 9 EU citizens, 2 NGOs); increased awareness (6: 5 EU citizens, 1 business 
association) and bottom-up conservation approaches giving preference to regional/local rather than 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
EU  biodiversity  measures  (8:  4  EU  citizens,  2  company/business  organization,  1  NGO,  1  public 
authority,  with  six  of  the  responses  originating  from  Poland  forestry).  Other  achievements 
mentioned  included  increased  funding  for  protection  (3:  2  EU  citizens,  1  NGO);  improved  agri-
environment payments (2: EU citizen and company/business organization); and the Regulation on 
Invasive Alien Species (2: EU and non-EU citizen). 

Question 3b. Please highlight significant gaps and/or reasons for failure 

A  key  reason  for  failure  noted  by  stakeholders  in  open  text  responses  was  the  lack  of  integrated, 
holistic approaches to halting biodiversity loss. 12 respondents noted conflicts in the management 
of biodiversity and contrasting approaches between MS and EU/international decision making (4: 3 
EU citizens, 1 academic/  research institution) and diverging  economic interests amongst  actors in 
implementing  biodiversity-related  measures  (5:  4  EU  citizens,  1  academic/  research  institutions). 
The  formulation  of  the  Strategy  itself  was  regarded  as  a  reason  for  failure  in  7  open  responses, 
particularly  regarding:  the  ‘lack  of  enforceability’  due  to  the  non-binding  nature  of  targets  and 
actions (5: 4 EU citizens, 1 academic/research institution), and poor definition of the targets (2 EU 
citizens).  Lack  of  enforcement  was  noted  by  3  stakeholders  (1  EU  citizen,  1  NGO,  1 
company/business organisation).  

Question 4. Have you identified, since 2011, significant impacts on your sector, field of activity or 
living area that have resulted from the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020? 

More  respondents  identified  significant  impacts 
(1,558; 48%) than those who didn’t (1,071; 33%). 
Within  the  identified  significant  impacts,  most 
were  positive  (908;  58%),  but  there  was  also  a 
significant  share  of  identified  negative  impacts 
(650;  42%).  As  shown  in  the  figure  below, 
environment  and  forestry  sector  stakeholders 
provided  the  largest  proportion  of  ‘yes-positive’ 
responses  within 
the 
majority  of  industry  stakeholders  (48;  55%) 
responded  that  they  had  not  identified  any 

their  groups,  whereas 

significant impacts.  

Question 5. Has funding for  biodiversity been sufficient  to  support the implementation  of  the EU 
2020 biodiversity targets? 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
Note: The answers “I do not know/no opinion” are not included in the percentages. 

Only  a small  minority of the  respondents  considered that funding  for  any  of the targets  had been 
fully sufficient. Funding for Target 1 was deemed fully or partially sufficient by just over half of the 
respondents (1,395; 51%) while most respondents considered that funding was poorly or not at all 
sufficient for Target 5. Question 5 received the most “I do not know/no opinion” responses. 

Industry,  health  and  culture  sector  representatives  provided  the  greatest  share  of  responses 
identifying  funding  as  ‘fully’  sufficient  to  support  the  implementation  of  Target  2.  The  tourism, 
leisure  and  education  sections  provided  the  greatest  proportion  of  ‘poorly’  responses.  The  figure 
below shows the distribution of responses among representatives of different fields of activity (only 
showing the key sectors from which more than 50 representatives responded). 

Question 5. Has funding for  biodiversity been sufficient  to  support the implementation  of  the EU 
2020 biodiversity targets? 

92 

 
 
 
 
Question 6. To what extent have the EU biodiversity targets to 2020 been integrated in the design 
and implementation of the following EU policies? 

Note: The responses “I do not know/no opinion” are not included in the percentages. 

The Forest Strategy was the EU policy area for which the highest share of respondents believed that 
the EU biodiversity targets to 2020 had been fully integrated in its design and implementation (531; 
20%). This result represents the views of the high number of respondents to the questionnaire from 
the forestry sector (37% of respondents were from forestry sector, of which 25% stated ‘fully’, 42% 
‘partially’, 18% ‘poorly’, 7% ‘not at all’ and the remaining answered ‘I don’t know/no opinion’).  

Air  quality  was  the  best  rated  EU  policy  in  terms  of  full  and  partial  integration  of  the  EU 
biodiversity  targets  to  2020  (1,520;  60%),  followed  by  Research  and  Innovation  (1,265;  60%), 
Education and training (1,324; 58%) and Climate action (1,450; 57%). The EU policy area with the 
highest share of respondents believing that it has not aligned itself at all with the EU biodiversity 
targets to 2020 was Banking and finance (360; 22%). The area with the highest combined share of 

93 

 
 
“not at all” and “poorly” responses was Marine policy (884; 59%). Marine policy was also the area 
where most respondents  did not know or had no opinion on the question (1,378; 48% of the total 
number of respondents to this sub-question). 

Question 7. To what extent has the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 contributed to the objectives of 
the following EU policies? 

Note: The answers “I do not know/no opinion” are not included in the percentages. 

The Forest Strategy was the EU policy with the highest share of respondents believing that the EU 
Biodiversity  Strategy  to  2020  had  fully  contributed  to  its  objectives  (393;  15%)  (see  note  to  the 
previous  question  on  the  share  of  forest  sector  representatives).  Education  and  training  was  the 
policy  with  the  highest  share  of  respondents  whom  believed  that  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  to 
2020 had fully or partially  contributed to  its objectives (1,194;  54%), closely followed by several 
policies for which this share reached 53%  (Air quality, Climate action, the Common Agricultural 
Policy, the Forest Strategy, and Investment).  

The  EU  policy  area  with  the  highest  share  of  respondents  believing  that  the  EU  Biodiversity 
Strategy to 2020 had not contributed at all to its objectives was Trade (282; 16%), and the area with 
the highest combined share of “not at all” and “poorly” responses was Public health (1,352; 66%). 
Again, Marine policy was the area where most respondents did not know or had no opinion on the 
question (1,378; 50% of the total number of respondents to this sub-question). 

94 

 
 
Question  8.  To  what  extent  has  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  to  2020  responded  to  the  main 
biodiversity needs and issues in the EU? 

Two-thirds  of  the  respondents  to  this  question  assessed  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  to  2020  as 
having  fully  or  partially  responded  to  the  main  biodiversity  needs  and  issues  in  the  EU  (2,329; 
65%). A number of stakeholders added an open statement that further integration and coordination 
is needed with agriculture (42%), land use (21%) and energy (21%) policies.  

Question 9. To what extent has the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 helped to ensure 

Note: The answers “I do not know/no opinion” are not included in the percentages. 

The  contribution  of  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  to  2020  to  a  strategic  approach  to  biodiversity 
protection and restoration across the EU was acknowledged by the highest number of respondents, 
with a combined share of 57% of respondents believing it had fully or partially contributed. The EU 
Strategy’s  contribution  to  ensuring  a  high-level  political  commitment  to  protect  and  restore 
biodiversity  was  also  well-rated,  with  53%  of  respondents  believing  that  it  had  at  least  partially 
contributed. Its contribution to cooperation and learning on biodiversity between the EU and third 
countries  was  rated  the  lowest,  with  61%  of  respondents  arguing  the  Strategy  had  contributed 
poorly or not at all. 

Question 10. Should any aspects of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 have been dealt with at 
national or local level, rather than at the EU level? 

Three-quarters  of  the  respondents  to  this  question  considered  that  some  aspects  of  the  EU 
Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 should have been dealt with at the national or local level, rather than 
at  the  EU  level.  Some  respondents  noted  in  open  text  that  taking  into  account  national  and  local 
level biodiversity characteristics and local knowledge is key to robust policies.  

Analysed by main areas of activity, representatives from the following sectors responded ‘yes’ by 
more than 75%: forestry (2006; 96%), culture (400; 76%), agriculture (273; 85%), civil protection 
(32;  78%),  fisheries  and  aquaculture  (23;  82%),  food  (29;  76%)  industry  (92;  76%),  mining  (11; 
85%), tourism and leisure (60; 75%) and waste management (15; 79%).  

95 

 
 
 
Question  11.  The  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  to  2020  established  a  common  implementation 
framework to track progress in reaching the targets and ensure coordinated implementation at all 
levels. To which extent has this framework ensured: 

Note: The answers “I do not know/no opinion” are not included in the percentages. 

The-highest rated aspect of the Strategy’s governance was ensuring the contribution of research and 
knowledge to the implementation and monitoring of biodiversity targets, with 57% of respondents 
(1,400)  responding  in  “fully”  and  “partially”.  Public  access  to  information  on  the  state  of 
biodiversity  and  on  the  key  drivers  of  biodiversity  loss  in  the  EU,  regular  progress  review  and 
strengthening  of  efforts  if  needed  and  accountability  by  the  main  actors,  sectors  and  institutions 
responsible  for  its  implementation  all  ranked  above  50%.  The  framework  was  deemed  to  have 
worked  the  least  well  in  coordinating  efforts  at  all  levels  (sub-national,  national,  EU  and  global), 
with  15%  of  respondents  (509)  believing  it  had  not  ensured  such  coordination  at  all,  and  41%  of 
respondents  (903)  stating  that  it  had  done  poorly.  The  percentage  of  “I  do  not  know/no  opinion” 
replies was relatively high, varying between 15% and 20%.  

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question  12.  To  which  extent  has  the  monitoring  framework  for  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  to 
2020 enabled the tracking of progress in reaching the targets? 

Note: The answers “I do not know/no opinion” are not included in the percentages. 

The highest share of respondents (1,716; 73%) considered that the monitoring framework was fully 
or partially adequate to track progress towards Target 1, with 22% saying the framework had fully 
enabled the tracking of progress. The highest proportion of answers the monitoring framework had 
enabled the tracking of progress poorly, or at all, related to Target 4 and Target 6. Target 4 received 
the highest share of “I do not know/no opinion” replies (1,234; 43% of the total replies to this sub-
question).  Key  hindrances  to  monitoring  noted  by  stakeholders  in  open  text  included  the  lack  of 
systematic, comprehensive monitoring frameworks (7 EU citizens, 3 NGOS, 1 business, 1 “other”), 
the lack of standardised monitoring approaches (3 EU citizens, 2 company/business organisation, 1 
NGO)  and  general  lack  of  coordination/  information  disseminated  between  relevant  actors  (4  EU 
citizens, 1 “other”). 

Question 13. Other comments 

A  number  of  key  themes  emerged  from  a  randomised  selection  of  responses  provided  in  this 
section. These included: perceived lack of ambition of the Strategy and/or the non-binding nature of 
its  targets  and  actions  as  key  barriers  (citizens,  company/business  organisations),  the  need  for 
greater  enforcement  of  legislation  (EU  citizens,  academic/research  institute,  NGOs)  and  greater 
knowledge sharing practices (EU citizens). In addition, papers uploaded to the survey referred to: 

- 

In  relation  to  Target  6:  acknowledgment  of  EU  efforts  to  prioritise  biodiversity  investments  in 
development  cooperation;  criticism  for  failures  to  reduce  the  impacts  of  EU  consumption  on 
biodiversity  and  forests  outside  of  the  EU  and  the  lack  of  compliance  measures  for  trade  and 
sustainable  development  in  Free  Trade  Agreements  (in  contrast  to  the  other  FTA  chapters);  and 
pointing  to  the  need  for  engagement  and  support  of  Indigenous  Peoples  and  local  communities, 
and for more investment in biodiversity under the Neighbourhood, Development and International 

97 

 
 
- 

Cooperation  Instrument.  Gaps  in  the  Strategy  are  highlighted  in  relation  to  links  with  health 
policy, illegal and unsustainable wildlife trade, global oceans and fisheries.  
In relation to Target 4: criticism of the Strategy’s failure to protect species and habitats in marine 
ecosystems,  obstacles  to  achieving  Targets  1  and  4  related  to  commercial  fishing,  dredging, 
construction,  shipping  and  boat  traffic,  and  challenges  in  coordination  between  the  Common 
Fisheries Policy, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Water Framework Directive.  

2. Analysis of campaigns 

During  the  analysis  of  the  OPC  responses,  one  major  campaign  was  identified.  It  consisted  of 
104,333 identical responses in Section III of the survey (consultation on legally binding EU nature 
restoration  targets),  and  was  jointly  organised  by  BirdLife,  EEB,  and  WWF  EPO.  The  pre-filled 
responses were available on http://www.restorenature.eu/. These responses were not included in the 
analysis of this report, as they concerned another section of the survey and not this evaluation.  

A set of 38 identical open text responses was located in Section I of the survey, indicating another 
coordinated action. These responses are highlighted in the table below. 

Table B. Campaign responses identified 

OPC 
Question 

Response 

3A 

3B 

4 

8 

11 

12 

13 

The  successes  in  protecting  biodiversity  in  the  area  are  not  due  to  the  EU 
biodiversity  strategy,  but  to  initiatives  of  the  regions  and  member  states  that 
formulate corresponding goals with a bottom-up approach. 

The  static  approach  of  the  biodiversity  strategy  contradicts  the  dynamic 
development  of  biodiversity  at  the  local  /  regional  level;  Climate  change  not 
taken into account; there is no partnership approach with owners / managers. 

The  EU  biodiversity  strategy  follows  a  top-down  approach,  which  neither 
appreciates the experiences and the achievements of forest and land owners nor 
supports them in a sustainable way. 

The strategy is unsuitable for responding to the challenges of biodiversity. The 
top-down  approach  is  counterproductive,  it  does  not  take  regional  specificities 
into account. 

In practice, public access to information is interpreted in a very one-sided way. 
Forest  owners  are  not  seen  as  partners  in  protecting  biodiversity.  Activities  to 
protect biodiversity are not implemented as strictly in all sectors as in the forest. 

Target  1,  2,  3  and  5:  All  of  these  targets  are  documented  through  legislation 
(Natura  2000,  WFD,  IAS  Regulation,  EUTR)  and  through  regular  monitoring 
and reporting. Target 6: The EU has no competences to regulate third countries 
to protect biodiversity . 

The  successful  protection  of  biodiversity  can  only  take  place  at  the  local  and 
regional  level.  Bottom-up  and  voluntary  approaches  in  partnership  with  forest 

98 

 
 
owners are more successful and sustainable. 

The  EU's  approach  leads  to  a  loss  of  acceptance  among  forest  owners. 
Sustainably and multifunctionally managed forests must no longer be misused as 
“green washers” for other sectors. 

2.3.Targeted consultations of EU-level stakeholders  

Approach 

Twenty-four targeted interviews were conducted with EU-level umbrella organisations. The 
interview protocol was designed and executed after a rigorous literature review.  

  Step 1: Questionnaire development 

Only open questions were used in the interview questionnaires. The interviews followed the 
evaluation questions, with additional specific questions tailored to the interviewee’s background.  

  Step 2: Stakeholder selection 

A preliminary list of stakeholders was prepared among EU and international institutions, Member 
States’ representatives, industry and environmental NGOs and academic institutions, and finalised 
in consultation with the Commission. The list included 10 NGOs, 5 business associations and 4 
research organisations. The project team pre-contacted the invited organisations and introduced the 
expected topics to be covered in the interview, in order to enable them to inform their networks and 
prepare. Following this first informal exchange, a formal invitation was sent to the organisation by 
email. Lastly, an interview questionnaire and contact details of the interviewer were shared.  

  Step 3: Organization and facilitation of interviews 

Due to the restrictions introduced in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, all interviews took place 
remotely, using online teleconferencing. In addition, and to ensure a high response rate, written 
responses to the questions were also accommodated.  

Analysis 

The interview minutes, written feedback and additional evidence and studies provided by the 
interviewees has been synthesised and analysed in the final report of the support study, and has 
been used in the preparation of the evaluation report.  

2.4.Targeted consultations in ten selected Member States 

As  part  of  the  support  study  for  the  evaluation  of  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  to  2020,  the 
contractor  carried  out  a  literature  review,  written  survey  and  sixty-five  targeted  interviews  with 
national and regional level actors in ten EU Member States. 

The  aim  of  this  consultation  was  to  gain  insights  from  successes,  challenges  and  stakeholders’ 
experiences  in  national  implementation.  Interviewees  included  experts  in  central  and  regional 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
authorities,  sector  stakeholder  associations,  NGOs  and  academic/research  representatives.  In  each 
Member State, the interviews focussed in more detail on the implementation of 2-3 targets.  

Annex 8 presents key insights extracted from these targeted consultations. (A detailed record of the 
contributions from these consultations is presented in Appendix C of the external evaluation report.)  

100 

 
 
ANNEX  3  –  METHODS  AND  ANALYTICAL  MODELS  USED  IN  PREPARING  THE 
EVALUATION  

This evaluation uses the standard policy evaluation criteria and follows a well-
defined methodology in accordance with the Better Regulation Guidelines250. The 
evaluation criteria were further operationalised through evaluation questions that 
guided this evaluation, taking account of the cross-cutting nature of the strategy and 
its very broad scope. The evaluation matrix below provides an overview of the 
questions and sub-questions considered in the evaluation in relation to the entire 
strategy or its individual elements, as well as the indicators used and the main tools 
used to derive the necessary information and analysis. 

No modelling was considered necessary in this evaluation. 

250 European Commission Better Regulation Guidelines. 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Relevant sub-
questions 

Effectiveness 

Relevant Biodiversity Strategy Component  

Indicators 

Tools to derive information 

Evaluation question 1: To what extent has the Biodiversity Strategy worked as expected?  

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

Target 1: Fully implement Birds and Habitats Directives  
– To halt the deterioration in the status of all species and 
habitats covered by EU nature legislation and achieve a 
significant and measurable improvement in their status so 
that, by 2020, compared to current assessments: (i) 100 % 
more habitat assessments and 50 % more species 
assessments under the Habitats Directive show an 
improved conservation status; and (ii) 50 % more species 
assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure or 
improved status 

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

1.1 To what extent 
is the EU 
Biodiversity 
Strategy on track to 
achieve the six 
operational 
biodiversity targets 
and the headline 
target by 2020, and 
to progress towards 
the 2050 vision?  

Summary of below indicators 

Evidence collection and review from literature 
(Main documents: EU 6NR to CBD, SOER 2020, SON 
2020, IPBES 2019, IPBES 2020) 

SEBI 03: Conservation status of species of European interest 
SEBI 08: terrestrial SCIs and marine SCIs; -SEBI 13: Fragmentation of 
natural and semi-natural areas 
Protected Connected (ProtConn) indicator of terrestrial PA 
connectivity 
Ecoregion Coverage Statistics 
Species facing risk of extinction  

Evidence collection and review from literature 
Stakeholder consultations (OPC, EU level stakeholder 
interviews, case studies in the Member States) 
EU 6NR to CBD, SOER 2020, SON 2020 

SEBI 05: Conservations status and trends for habitats 
CSI14: Land take 
EEA CSI 054: Landscape fragmentation pressure from urban and 
transport infrastructure expansion -  
EEA SEBI 013: Fragmentation of natural and semi-natural areas  
Share of forest area  
Proportion of EU surface waters in good ecological status  
(SEBI 16: Freshwater quality)  

Uptake of EU level guidance (Green Infrastructure, proofing, NNL). 
(MAES barometer) 

Evidence collection and review from literature 
Targeted survey in the Member States  
(Most relevant: NL, BG, DE, SK and RO)   
MAES reports including Ecosystem Assessment. SON 
2020, SOER 2020. 

102 

 
 
  
 
Relevant sub-
questions 

Relevant Biodiversity Strategy Component  

Indicators 

Tools to derive information 

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 
EU2010 Baseline, thus contributing to enhance 
sustainable management 

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 or receive funding under the EU Rural 
Development Policy, in line with Sustainable Forest 
Management (SFM) so as to bring about a measurable 
improvement* in the conservation status of forest 
ecosystems and species and in the provision of related 
ecosystem services as compared to the EU 2010 Baseline 

SEBI 01: Abundance and distribution of selected species  
Area under organic farming  
Gross nutrient balance on agricultural land  
SEBI 019: Agriculture: nitrogen balance  
Indicator: Estimated soil erosion by water 
SEBI 3: Selected a) forest species and b) agricultural species  
SEBI 5: Selected a) forest habitats and b) agricultural habitats  

Evidence collection and review from literature, 
triangulation with: 
Interviews with experts and informed stakeholders 
Targeted survey / questionnaire in the case studies (e.g. 
"How effectively is the CAP being used to maximise 
biodiversity conservation in agricultural areas?".)  
(Most relevant: BG, DE, ES, GR, SK and RO).  
(Relevant documents: evaluation of CAP Greening; 
Study of CAP impacts on biodiversity, soil and water; 
State of Nature 2020; ECA reports; EU-wide ecosystem 
assessment - Agroecosystems.) 

SEBI 3: Selected a) forest species and b) agricultural species  
SEBI 5: Selected a) forest habitats and b) agricultural habitats  
SEBI 1: Forest bird index  
SEBI 18: Forest deadwood  
Grassland butterflies – population index (BCE) 
% publicly owned forests with FMPs or equivalent, and forest holdings 
above a certain size** 

Evidence collection and review from literature 
Follow-up surveys/interviews 
Case study (most relevant: LT)  
(CAP impacts on biodiversity, soil and water; State of 
Nature 2020; ECA reports; EU-wide ecosystem 
assessment – Agroecosystems).   

Target 4:To ensure the sustainable use of fisheries 
resources: 
Achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) by 2015. 
Achieve a population age and size distribution indicative 
of a healthy stock, through fisheries management with no 
significant adverse impacts on other stocks, species and 
ecosystems, in support of achieving Good Environmental 
Status by 2020, as required under the Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive 

Estimated trends in fish stock biomass Assessed fish stocks exceeding 
fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield (Fmsy)  
CSI 032: Status of marine fisheries stocks  
SEBI 03 Conservation status of species of European interest related to 
marine ecosystems 
SEBI 05 Conservation status of habitats of European interest related to 
marine ecosystems 
SEBI 21 Fisheries: European commercial fish stocks 
Attainment of MSY  

Evidence collection and review from literature 
Follow-up surveys/interviews.  
(Most relevant case studies: BG, LT, ES, IT and RO).  
 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) Mediterranean and Black Sea 
assessment 

103 

 
 
Relevant sub-
questions 

Relevant Biodiversity Strategy Component  

Indicators 

Tools to derive information 

Target 5: To control invasive alien species (IAS): 
By 2020, invasive alien species and their pathways are 
identified and prioritised, priority species controlled or 
eradicated, and pathways are managed to prevent the 
introduction and establishment of new IAS. 

SEBI 10: Invasive alien species in Europe 
List of IAS of Union concern  
List of IAS of Union concern 
Pathways, management measures  

Member States’ implementation measures (reporting) 
EASIN. 

Target 6: To help avert global biodiversity loss: By 2020, 
the EU has stepped up its contribution to averting global 
biodiversity loss. 

Action 1: Complete the establishment of the Natura 2000 
Network, and ensure good management (sub 1: Establish 
Natura 2000, complete by 2012, Sub 1b: Further integrate 
species and habitat protection and management 
requirements into key land and water use policies with 
and beyond Natura 2000, 1c: Management Plans in place 
for N2000, 1d: cross border collaboration N2000) 

SEBI 23: Ecological footprint, biocapacity, reserve or deficit in EU-28  
Resource mobilisation (EU + MS) 

TSD chapters in Free Trade Agreements 
Harmful subsidies studies (proofing methodologies) 

Natura 2000 coverage – Natura 2000 barometer 
Does biophysical data directly address 'completeness'?   

Management objectives and measures 
Cross-border collaboration (biogeographic regional process) 

Evidence collection and review from literature 
Interviews / survey questions (most relevant case studies: 
BG, DE, GR, FI, and IT) 
Upcoming review of the application of the IAS 
Regulation (mid-2021) 

Evidence collection and review from literature 
Follow-up interviews and surveys in the case studies (all 
Member States are relevant).  
Member States’ and EU 6NR to CBD (2020) and EU 
Financial Reporting to CBD (2020) 

Evidence collection and review from literature 

Action 2: Ensure adequate financing of N2000 

Total financing needs (PAFs) 
Total expenditure on N2000 over time, data on management cost 

 (PAFs,  biodiversity  spending  under  EU  instruments, 
national budgets) 

Evidence collection and review from literature 

Action 3: Increase stakeholder awareness and 
involvement and improve enforcement.  3a: 
communication campaign by 2013, 3b: improved 
cooperation with key sectors and guidance documents 
developed, 3c: enforcement of Nature Directives through 
training on N2000 for judges and public prosecutors 

SEBI 26: Familiarity with the term biodiversity / Awareness of the 
Natura 2000 network / Eurobarometer surveys of Europeans’ attitudes 
to the Environment (2010, 2013, 2015, 2019) 
Communications campaigns 
Guidance documents for key sectors  
Training of judges and public prosecutors  

Action 4: Improve and streamline monitoring and 
reporting (4a: by 2012 new EU bird reporting system, 4b: 
by 2012 dedicated IC tool) 

Art. 12 and Art. 17 reports (EEA),  
Streamlined reporting 

Views from targeted interviews on adequacy of funding 

Evidence collection and review from literature 
Review of communications campaigns (Natura 2000 
awards, Natura 2000 day etc.) 
Views from targeted interviews with key sectors on 
whether and how they have been engaged. 
Eurobarometer surveys, AP for nature, people and the 
economy 

Evidence collection and review from literature 
Case studies: survey questions and interviews on 
monitoring and reporting 
EEA State of Nature 2020, Member States reporting  

1.2 To what extent 
have the actions 
defined under the 
strategy been 
implemented at the 
EU level and in the 
Member States? 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
Relevant sub-
questions 

Relevant Biodiversity Strategy Component  

Indicators 

Tools to derive information 

Action 5: Map and assess ecosystems and their services 
in the EU; promote the integration of their value into 
accounting and reporting systems across Europe 

MAES methodological framework - indicators 
SEBI 4: Ecosystem coverage  
MAES Barometer 

Action 6: Restore ecosystems, maintain their services and 
promote the use of green infrastructure. 6a:develop 
strategic framework to set ecosystem restoration 
priorities, 6b: EC develop GI Strategy by 2012 to 
promote deployment of GI. 

MAES EU ecosystem assessment 
Restoration prioritisation frameworks (national, regional) 
Restoration activity in the EU. 
GI Strategies, plans and investments (local to national, cross-border). 
EU financial instruments support for Green Infrastructure and 
restoration. 

Methodology for assessing the impacts of EU-funded projects, plans 
and programmes on biodiversity (biodiversity proofing) and its use 
EU level tools to encourage no net loss of ecosystems and their 
services (EU guidance).  

CAP direct payments which reward environmental public goods 
beyond cross compliance. Simplified GAEC standards. 

Action 7: Assess the impact of EU funds on biodiversity 
and investigate the opportunity of a compensation or 
offsetting scheme to ensure that there is no net loss of 
biodiversity and ecosystem services. 7a: EC to develop a 
methodology to assess impact of EU-funded projects, 
plans and programmes on biodiversity by 2014, 7b: EC 
propose by 2015 initiative to ensure no net loss of 
ecosystems and their services 
Action 8: Enhance CAP direct payments to reward 
environmental public goods such as crop rotation and 
permanent pastures; improve cross-compliance standards 
for GAEC (Good Agricultural and Environmental 
Conditions) and consider including the Water Framework 
in these standards. 8a: CAP direct payments reward the 
delivery of public environmental goods that go beyond 
cross-compliance. 8b: Improve and simplify the GAEC 
cross-compliance standards.  

Action 9: Better target Rural Development to biodiversity 
needs and develop tools to help farmers and foresters 
work together towards biodiversity conservation. 9a: 
integrate quantified biodiversity targets into Rural 
Development strategies and programmes. 9b: EC and MS 
establish mechanisms to facilitate collaboration between 
farmers and foresters 

Evidence collection and review from literature 
Case studies in the Member States  
MAES methodological framework, Ecosystem 
assessment 
KIP/INCA, Narrative and MS examples on valuation of 
ecosystem services, Natural capital accounts 

Evidence collection and review from literature 
OPC 
Interviews with EU level stakeholders, survey and 
interviews with competent authorities and stakeholders in 
the Member States (case studies) 

Evidence collection and review from literature 
Interview/survey questions on perceived needs and 
impacts.  
Biodiversity proofing framework and sector-specific 
guidance; EU guidance on integrating ecosystems and 
their services, NNL 

Evidence collection and review from literature 
Interviews/survey questions on uptake of such payments 
and the implementation of simplified GAEC.  
Evaluation of CAP impacts on biodiversity, water and 
soil, 
Evaluation of CAP direct payments, ECA reports 

Data on uptake of quantified biodiversity targets RDP 

Existence of mechanisms to facilitate collaboration between farmers 
and foresters. 

Evidence collection and review on quantified biodiversity 
targets in RDP and mechanisms available. Expert opinion 
from interviews/surveys to ascertain which mechanisms 
have aided cooperation and helped to protect 
biodiversity.  

105 

 
 
  
Relevant sub-
questions 

Relevant Biodiversity Strategy Component  

Indicators 

Tools to derive information 

SEBI: 006 Livestock genetic diversity: Evolution of native population 
sizes and endangered breeds (cattle)  
Uptake of agri-environmental measures in agriculture management 
plans 

Evidence collection and review from literature 
Interviews/surveys with MS ie. "what measures have 
been implemented within  your MS to support genetic 
diversity in agriculture?" 

Action 10: Conserve and support genetic diversity in 
Europe's agriculture 

Action 11: Encourage forest holders to protect and 
enhance forest biodiversity. 11a: MS and EC will 
encourage adoption of management plans. 11b: MS and 
EC will foster innovative mechanisms to finance the 
maintenance and restoration of ecosystem services 
provided by forests 

Action 12: Integrate biodiversity measures such as fire 
prevention and the preservation of wilderness areas in 
forest management plans 

- 

% of forests which have management plans.  Expert opinion on the 
impact of the Biodiversity Strategy in encouraging the uptake of 
management plans by forest holders. Existence of innovative finance 
mechanisms used by MS to enhance forest biodiversity.  

Evidence collection and review - predominantly on EU-
funded programmes and projects on forest biodiversity, 
Interviews/surveys with MS and actors responsible for 
forest management to ascertain the scale of inclusion of 
biodiversity measures in management plans, and to gain 
an understanding of use of innovative financing 
mechanisms 

Evidence collection and review at national level 
Interviews/surveys with MS CAs to estimate the scale of 
adoption.  

Action 13: Ensure that the management plans of the 
Common Fisheries Policy are based on scientific advice 
and sustainability principles to restore and maintain fish 
stocks to sustainable levels. 13a: Maintain and restore 
fish stocks to levels that can produce MSY in all areas 
which the EU fleet operates. 13b: Develop and 
implement management plans with harvest control rules 
based on MSY. 13c: Improved data collection on MSY, 
which are used to guide ecological considerations in the 
definition of MSY by 2020.  

Action 14: Reduce the impact of fisheries by gradually 
getting rid of discards and avoiding by-catch; make sure 
the Marine Strategy Framework Directive is consistently 
carried out with further marine protected areas; adapt 
fishing activities and get the fishing sector involved in 
alternative activities such as eco-tourism, the monitoring 
of marine biodiversity, and the fight against marine litter. 
14a: EU will design measures to eliminate discards and 
avoid by-catch in order to preserve vulnerable marine 
ecosystems. 14b: Financial incentives provided for 
fisheries and maritime policy for marine protected areas.  

MSY thresholds surpassed in each fishing zone 
Number of stocks where rate of fishing is known against MSY rate per 
fishing region 
Number of stocks fished at the MSY rate per regional fishing area  
Fish stocks depleted within European fleet operation areas. 
Data availability on MSY.  
Number of multi-annual fishing plans.  

Evidence collection and review from literature 
Interviews/surveys to understand fish stock state in MS.  
Expert opinion on the integration of scientific advice 
within CFP.  

Marine Protected Area network  
Conservation status of species in marine ecosystems  
Conservation status and trends of marine habitats  
Status assessment of natural features reported by EU MS under the 
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)  
Number of EU Red Listed Marine Fish 
Status of marine fisheries stocks  
Evidence of measures implemented to tackle discards, by-catch and 
conservation of marine ecosystems. 
Finance provided to enhance marine ecosystems.  

Evidence collection and review from literature 
Expert opinion to complement (triangulation) - 
interviews with MS competent authorities on the effect of 
measures implemented to combat adverse impacts on fish 
stocks, species, habitats and ecosystems. 
Interviews/surveys with stakeholders on financial 
incentives available for fisheries and maritime policy.  

106 

 
  
  
 
  
Relevant sub-
questions 

Relevant Biodiversity Strategy Component  

Indicators 

Tools to derive information 

Action 15: Make sure that the EU Plant and Animal 
Health legislation includes a greater concern for 
biodiversity by 2012. 

Action 16: Provide a legal framework to fight invasive 
alien species by providing a dedicated legislative 
instrument by 2012.  

Action 17: Reduce the impacts of EU consumption 
patterns on biodiversity and make sure that the EU 
initiative on resource efficiency, our trade negotiations 
and market signals all reflect this objective. 17a: the EU 
will take measures to reduce biodiversity impacts of EU 
consumption patterns. 17b: The potential negative 
impacts of trade policy on biodiversity will be identified 
and evaluated through ex-ante trade sustainability impact 
assessments and ex-post evaluations, and a chapter on 
sustainable development will be included with provisions 
of importance of trade on biodiversity goals will be 
provided. 17c: Market signals for biodiversity 
conservation will be provided by MS and the 
Commission (including harmful subsidies).  
Action 18: Target more EU funding towards global 
biodiversity and make this funding more effective. 18a: 
The Commission and MS will increase their contribution 
to global biodiversity as part of global process aimed at 
estimating biodiversity funding needs and adopting 
resource mobilisation targets. 18b: The Commission will 
improve the effectiveness of EU funding for global 
biodiversity through supporting natural capital 
assessments, National Biodiversity Strategies and Action 
Plans, improving coordination within the EU and with 
non-EU donors in implementing biodiversity 
assistance/projects.  

Action 19: Systematically screen EU action for 
development cooperation to reduce any negative impacts 
on biodiversity, and undertake SEAs and EIAs for actions 
likely to have significant effects on biodiversity 

Biodiversity provisions within EU Plant and Animal Health legislation 
since 2012 

Number of IAS of Union concern.  
Existence of a dedicated legislative instrument on IAS since 2014.  

SEBI 017: Forest, growing stock, increment and fellings  
Impact of EU decisions on species trade or status of species in trade  
Evidence of biodiversity assessments present within trade agreements, 
and the impacts of such trade policies on biodiversity.  

Evidence of MS/EU funding provided to combating biodiversity loss  
Biodiversity-related international/EU financial flows 
Projects funded under EU instruments.  

Evidence collection and review from literature 
Follow-up surveys/interviews to gain an understanding of 
the impact of this  

Evidence collection and review from literature 
Follow-up surveys/interviews to gain an understanding of 
the impact of this  

Evidence collection and review from literature on the 
impacts of EU consumption patterns, and the trends of 
these impacts. Trade agreement review- particularly on 
sustainable development chapters within. Review of 
literature on market signals and instruments within the 
EU related to biodiversity conservation. 
Interviews/targeted survey to understand the impacts of 
trade policy inclusion of sustainable development 
chapters and to uncover existence of market signals 
present within MS.  
Trade agreements, PINES data 
Expert opinion on resource impacts on biodiversity and 
existence of harmful subsidies which impact biodiversity. 

Evidence collection and review from literature 
Interviews/ targeted surveys with MS CAs to understand 
the scale of MS funding towards global biodiversity 
conservation, existence of natural capital assessments 
Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans, and 
coordination with non-EU donors. Literature review to 
review  EU funding for global biodiversity scale and 
impacts. 

Assessments of the impact of EU development cooperation on 
biodiversity.  

Evidence collection and review from literature on 
assessments screening effects of actions on biodiversity  
 Expert opinion on actions which are likely to result in 
significant impacts on biodiversity. 

107 

 
Relevant sub-
questions 

Relevant Biodiversity Strategy Component  

Indicators 

Tools to derive information 

Action 20: Make sure that the benefits of nature's genetic 
resources are shared fairly and equitably, propose 
legislation to implement the Nagoya Protocol on Access 
to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing 
of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation in the EU so 
that the EU can ratify the protocol by 2015.  

EU legislation to implement the Nagoya protocol by 2014. 

Evidence collection and review from literature,  
Targeted survey/ interviews to estimate impacts 

1.3 To what extent 
has the strategy 
been successful in 
addressing the main 
drivers of 
biodiversity loss at 
the EU and at the 
global levels? 

This evaluation question mostly relates to the headline 
target: "Headline Target: Halting the loss of biodiversity 
and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 
2020, and restoring them in so far as feasible, while 
stepping up the EU contribution to averting global 
biodiversity loss" and will be applied to the Evaluation 
Strategy as a whole.   

Landscape fragmentation pressure from urban and transport 
infrastructure expansion - EEA CSI 054 (Target 2) 
Frequency of pressures and threats on marine habitat types and species 
(Target 4) 
Artificial land cover per capita (Target 2, Action 5) 
Impact of EU decisions on species trade or status of species in trade 
(Target 6, Action 17b) 

Evaluation question 2: What have been the major achievements of the Strategy, and the causes of these achievements? 
2.1 What are the 
most significant 
achievements at the 
EU, national and 
sub-national levels? 

All Targets  

A combination of biophysical indicators from above  
List of major achievements of the Strategy, related to each Target.  

2.2 What success 
factors can be 
identified? Have 
successful 
approaches been 
shared and 
replicated? 

All Targets  

 List of factors which have led to the major achievements identified as 
part of sub question 2.1, for each target 

Evidence collection and review from literature to map 
efforts vis-à-vis the main drivers of biodiversity loss in 
the EU. Interviews/ targeted surveys to identify drivers, 
pressures and impacts which reoccur throughout MS and 
sectors. Each of these drivers, pressures and impacts will 
be required to be mapped against each target.  
 List of drivers and pressures which have impacted 
biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystem 
services, and expert opinion of the relative success of the 
strategy in addressing these issues. 

Evidence collection and review from literature 
Interviews with EU-level organisations and stakeholders 
in the Member States (case studies) to gain insights from 
implementation. 

Evidence collection and review from literature to uncover 
best practice examples of achieving targets.  
Interviews/ targeted surveys with MS and EU-level 
stakeholders to identify key success factor, per target.  
In addition to this, stakeholders will be asked to provide 
details on cooperation with other MS and sharing of best-
practice. 
OPC questions on significant contribution by sectors, 
factors of success, challenges and obstacles in relation to 
each target. 

Evaluation question 3: Where the Strategy has failed to achieve one of its objectives, what have been the contributing causes? 

108 

 
  
 
  
Relevant sub-
questions 
3.1 What 
challenges, barriers 
and root causes of 
failure have 
hindered progress 
towards the targets 
at EU level, 
including in relation 
to financing, 
knowledge and 
awareness, 
governance and 
capacity, as well as 
in relation to the 
wider socio-
economic context 
including possible 
market and 
regulatory failures 
or behavioural 
biases? 
3.2 What key gaps, 
challenges, barriers 
and root causes of 
failure have 
hindered the EU 
Member States 
from achieving the 
targets individually, 
including in relation 
to financing, 
knowledge and 
awareness, 
governance and 
capacity, as well as 
in relation to the 
wider socio-
economic context 
including possible 
market and 
regulatory failures 

Relevant Biodiversity Strategy Component  

Indicators 

Tools to derive information 

All targets 

 A combination of biophysical indicators (when applicable) could be 
used to help identify where gaps to achieving objectives exist.  

Assessment of available data to inform a reliable assessment of 
performance against the targets, and consideration of key gaps in 
knowledge that prevent a rigorous assessment of performance against 
targets. 
List of key information gaps, barriers and drivers which lead to failure 
in achieving targets at EU level.  

Evidence collection and review from literature 
Interviews with EU-level organisations and MS 
authorities (" What are the key challenges faced in 
achieving the targets established in the Biodiversity 
Strategy to 2020?") 

OPC questions on significant contribution by sectors, 
factors of success, challenges and obstacles in relation to 
each target; and on needs for further EU actions. 
Targeted interviews with EU stakeholders for specific 
examples at EU level.  

 A combination of biophysical indicators (when applicable) to be used 
to help identify where gaps to achieving Targets exist. 

As above, for MS-level applicable answers: case 

study documentation, interviews, survey  

List of key implementation gaps, information 

gaps,  barriers and drivers which lead to failure in 

achieving targets at MS level 

109 

 
 
 
  
  
 
 
Relevant sub-
questions 
or behavioural 
biases? 

Relevant Biodiversity Strategy Component  

Indicators 

Tools to derive information 

3.3 Has the Strategy 
produced any 
unintended 
consequences? 

Headline Target and all individual targets and horizontal 
measures 

- 

Evidence collection and review from literature 
For all targets, OPC questions on any significant 
positive/negative impacts on sectors resulting from the 
Strategy’s implementation, and on significant avoidable 
administrative burdens that have arisen from the 
strategy’s implementation. 
MS case studies will also be utilised to unearth further 
evidence of unintended consequences.  
Expert opinion from interviews and targeted surveys 

Evaluation question 4: To what extent have stakeholders been actively engaged in the strategy’s implementation? 

Evidence collection and review from literature 
Interviews with MS, experts and key sectoral 
stakeholders on their involvement in the Strategy's 
implementation.  
 Stakeholder sectors: 

  Civil society 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agriculture sector 

Fishing / aquaculture sector 

Forestry 

Protected area managers 

Finance sector 

Spatial planners 

Academia 

The Strategy as a whole 

Indicators for Strategic Measure 3 

Evaluation question 5: To what extent has the strategy been cost-effective? 

Efficiency 

110 

 
  
  
Relevant Biodiversity Strategy Component  

Indicators 

Tools to derive information 

Relevant sub-
questions 

5.1 What are the 
costs incurred in 
delivering the 
Strategy? 

5.2 What are the 
benefits produced 
by the Strategy and 
how do they 
compare to the 
costs? 

All Strategy and individual targets and actions 

 Estimated costs for: 

-  N2000-  management,  establishment  of  sites,  investment 

- 

- 

implementing 

costs, monitoring costs, maintenance costs 
ecosystem  restoration.  Costs  of 
the  EU 
Strategy  on  Green  Infrastructure.  Costs  of  monitoring 
ecosystem health (MAES) 
Proportion  of  budget  dedicated  to  greening  measures  under 
the 
CAP. 
Transaction  costs  associated  with  greening  measures  under 
the CAP 

-  Developing  Forest  Management  Plans  (or  equivalent)  and 
Opportunity costs of FMPs on forestry production value 
Establishing MSY in a fishery. 
Costs of measures to achieve MSY (Programmes of Measure, 
policy implementation, management measures) 

- 
- 

-  Opportunity costs of MSY in fisheries. 
- 

Prevention  and  management  of  IAS  in  the  EU  for  IAS  of 
Union concern. 
EU’s international biodiversity flows 

- 

All Strategy and individual targets and actions 

Total economic benefits compared against the costs, provided by 
N2000 areas, maintenance and enhancement of ecosystems and their 
services, CAP greening and biodiversity support measures under the 
AECM, integration of biodiversity measures in forest management 
plans and implementation, healthy fisheries and marine ecosystems, 
IAS prevention and control, and global biodiversity. 

5.3 How timely and 
efficient is the 
process for 
reporting and 
monitoring? 

All targets 

Reporting and monitoring obligations, processes and administrative 
burden. 

5.4 What factors 
could have 

All targets 

For general cost-effectiveness: List of factors that minimise funding 
needs identified in evaluation question 5.1 while improving or not 

111 

Evidence collection and review from literature on cost 
estimations of all types of costs. 
Where insufficient, interviews with authorities and 
stakeholders to identify further sources of information on 
country-specific costs.  

Evidence collection and review from literature on 
benefits (qualitative and quantitative, and where possible, 
monetised) from implementation.  
Distinction made between potential (estimated) and 
realised benefits. 
Where insufficient, interviews with Member States 
authorities and stakeholders. 
OPC questions on costs and benefits 
Evidence collection and review from literature on the 
monitoring and reporting arrangements under the 
Strategy and links to national reporting to the CBD. 
Literature review on the integration and open access of 
biodiversity monitoring and reporting data into relevant 
EU legislation (CAP, CFP, etc.). 
Interviews with EU agencies, Member States authorities 
and other stakeholders on the common implementation 
framework (CIF) and time spent on monitoring and 
reporting. Case studies to explore country specific 
reporting and monitoring requirements.   
For general cost-effectiveness: Interviews with key 
stakeholders to identify views on how to reduce costs and 

 
Relevant sub-
questions 
improved the cost-
effectiveness by 
strengthening 
delivery of the 
targets while 
minimising 
unnecessary costs 
and avoiding 
administrative 
burden? 

6.1 What types of 
alternative 
instruments could 
have been 
considered for 
implementation? 

6.2 What would 
have been the pros 
and cons of 
alternative options, 
compared to the 
selected strategy? 

7.1 What 
significant positive 
and/or negative 
socio-economic 
impacts has the 
strategy 
implementation had 
(including costs 
entailed as well as 
benefits arisen for 

Relevant Biodiversity Strategy Component  

Indicators 

Tools to derive information 

affecting the delivery of the benefits of each of the targets, identified in 
evaluation question 5.2.  

For administrative burden: List of factors which can improve the 
delivery of each of the targets while minimising monitoring and 
reporting requirements, identified in evaluation question 5.3. 

maximise benefits. Subsequent analysis to derive a list of 
factors. 
For administrative burden: Interviews with key 
stakeholders for monitoring and reporting to collect 
views on needs for improvement. 
Case studies on Member States monitoring and reporting 
of national strategies and EU targets.  

Evaluation question 6: Was the Strategy the most appropriate instrument to achieve the EU biodiversity targets to 2020? 

Targets 1-6 

 All targets 

Overview of existing instruments at EU and MS levels (strategies, 
plans, programmes, guidance documents, monitoring and assessment 
methodologies and frameworks, funding instruments, coordination 
structures) for implementation of the Nature Directives, ecosystem 
restoration, green infrastructure deployment, biodiversity-proofing EU 
budget and ensuring No Net Loss; for the integration of biodiversity 
considerations in sector policies, combatting IAS and instruments to 
support global biodiversity.  

Overview of potential alternative instruments. 

List of pros and cons for each of the alternative instruments identified 
in evaluation question 6.1 for each target separately. 

Evaluation question 7: What have been the socio-economic impacts of the strategy? 

All targets 

Overview of positive and negative socio-economic impacts per target.  

Evidence collection and review from literature on 
instruments used by MSs or non-EU countries.  
Interviews with key stakeholders related to the 
implementation of each target.  
Case studies on implementation of EU instruments in the 
Member States as well as national instruments. 
Overview of existing instruments and reflection on their 
effectiveness and alternative instruments  

Assessment of the potential benefits (including cost 
savings) offered by, as well as potential costs (including 
foregone benefits) and administrative burden that could 
arise from, alternative instruments identified in 
evaluation question 6.1 for each target separately and 
comparison of these benefits with the benefits identified 
under the currently used instruments. (Link to evaluation 
questions 5.2-5.4) 

Comparison of benefits or costs identified in evaluation 
question 5.2 complemented by a literature review to 
identify, to the extent possible, information on 
employment for each stakeholder type, aesthetic and 
amenity values of ecosystems, and health and quality of 
life impacts per target. 

OPC questions on wider positive and negative impacts of 
implementation (environmental as well as socio-
economic) 

112 

 
 
  
 
 
Relevant sub-
questions 
different 
stakeholders)? 

7.2 What have the 
main socio-
economic impacts 
been, within the EU 
and globally, of any 
identified failure to 
achieve the EU 
biodiversity 
targets? 

8.1 What needs 
were identified at 
the time the 
strategy was 
developed? 

8.2 How did the 
strategy link these 
needs to the targets 
defined?   

8.3 Were these 
links clear, logical 
and evidence 
based? 
8.4 How have the 
needs relating to 
biodiversity 
changed or evolved 
since the strategy 
was published? 

Relevant Biodiversity Strategy Component  

Indicators 

Tools to derive information 

Interviews with key stakeholders in different sectors at 
the EU level and in the Member States. 

All targets 

Overview of socio-economic impacts resulting from the failure to 
achieve aspects of each target.  

Analysis of costs of continued biodiversity degradation 
for different actors and of lost benefits derived from 
failure to progress towards the targets.  

Evaluation question 8: To what extent do the targets of the strategy (still) correspond to the current needs of the EU with regard to biodiversity? 

Relevance 

 Strategy as a whole and individual targets 

Indicators and datasets relating to habitats, species and sites of the 
Nature Directives, different ecosystem types, threats to biodiversity 
ecosystem services, and soil biodiversity, as described in the EU 2010 
Biodiversity Baseline. 
Quantitative and qualitative indicators evidencing needs. 

Analysis of the biodiversity needs set out in the EU 2010 
Biodiversity Baseline (EEA, 2010), as well as the 
Strategy documents and impact assessment.   
Quantitative indicators evidencing needs; however, much 
of the analysis will be qualitative, assessing the logical 
link between the strategy and the needs it addresses, and 
the continuing relevance of the strategy with reference to 
any changes in identified needs.  

The impact assessment accompanying the Strategy 
(2011) articulates how the Strategy sought to address the 
identified needs and hence the intervention logic for the 
strategy targets and actions. 
Qualitative judgement, drawing on analysis of the logic 
and evidence underpinning the Strategy, and 
supplemented by review of published literature and 
stakeholder interviews. 

Indicator sets updated since 2011 (e.g. SEBI, State of Nature, MAES, 
SOER), mid- term evaluation and other analyses provide evidence of 
evolving needs and major developments (new scientific evidence, 
increasing or decreasing pressures, technological advances etc.). 

Review of literature to identify major developments and  
comparative analysis, complemented by stakeholder 
interviews at the EU and Member States’ levels and OPC 
responses.  

113 

 
  
 
 
 
Relevant sub-
questions 
8.5 Do the strategy 
targets remain 
relevant to these 
changing needs? 

9.1 What new or 
emerging issues 
have been identified 
since 2010? 

9.2 Have the 
strategy targets and 
actions been 
sufficiently flexible 
to address these 
issues? 
9.3 Are there 
examples where the 
strategy and actions 
to deliver it have 
been able to 
respond to new or 
emerging issues? 
9.4 Are there 
examples where the 
strategy and actions 
to deliver it have 
been unable to 
respond to new or 
emerging issues?  

10.1 Which types of 
stakeholders and 
citizens have 
interests in the 
strategy or are 
likely to have been 
affected by it? 

Relevant Biodiversity Strategy Component  

Indicators 

Tools to derive information 

Evaluation question 9: Has the strategy been flexible enough to respond to new or emerging issues? 

Identification of new or emerging issues from literature 
review, case studies and stakeholder interviews, drawing 
on indicators and analysis in question 8 above. 

Strategy as a whole and individual targets and actions.  

New or emerging issues identified through Question 8 above. 

Qualitative analysis of flexibility of the strategy to 
address new or emerging issues, including examples and 
stages of addressing new issues. Analysis of new 
initiatives (e.g. EU Action plan for nature, people and the 
economy, EU Pollinators Initiative) and how they with 
the strategy. Desk-based analysis will be informed by 
literature review and views and examples provided by 
stakeholders. 

Evaluation question 10: How relevant is the strategy for addressing the needs and interests of different stakeholders and for EU citizens? 

Stakeholder needs with respect to biodiversity, as well as 
specific needs relevant to individual targets (e.g. farmers 
for target 3 and fishermen for target 4)  

Quantitative indicators relevant to stakeholder needs (e.g. fish stocks, 
ecosystem services) 
Qualitative analysis of needs.  

Identification of most relevant stakeholder groups (land 
owners and managers, businesses/ developers, workers, 
local communities, visitors, ecosystem service 
beneficiaries, consumers) 
Mostly qualitative analysis; online public consultation 
provides some quantitative evidence regarding 
stakeholder views.  Triangulation of stakeholder views 
with evidence from literature and desk-based analysis.  

114 

 
  
 
 
Relevant sub-
questions 

10.2 What are the 
needs and interests 
of these different 
groups? 

10.3 Does the 
strategy identify 
and seek to address 
these needs and 
interests? 

10.4 Has the 
strategy helped to 
address these needs 
and interests in 
practice? 
10.5 What are the 
views of 
stakeholders 
regarding the 
relevance of the 
strategy in 
addressing their 
needs and interests? 

11.1 Are the overall 
priorities and 
objectives in the 
two strategies 
complementary? 
11.2 Do the two 
strategies make 
explicit links to one 
another? 
11.3 Are there 
examples where the 
EU Biodiversity 
Strategy targets and 
actions have been 

Relevant Biodiversity Strategy Component  

Indicators 

Tools to derive information 

Identification of stakeholder interests through literature/ 
document review – including stakeholder position 
statements and submissions on biodiversity related issues 
Mapping of stakeholders against each target as well as 
strategy overall 
Analysis of strategy and evidence of implementation to 
examine extent to which needs are addressed (including 
Nature Directives fitness check and other evaluations). 

Analysis supplemented by evidence from case studies 
and stakeholder views. 

Evidence of strategy addressing particular stakeholder 
needs (e.g. delivering ecosystem services, contributing to 
land manager incomes) from literature review, case 
studies and stakeholder consultations 

Analysis of stakeholder views (interviews and OPC) on 
whether strategy meets their needs  

Evaluation question 11: To what extent is the EU Biodiversity Strategy coherent with the Europe 2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth? 

Coherence 

Strategy and its targets and actions overall. 

Smarter, greener, more inclusive? Indicators to support the Europe 
2020 strategy — 2019 edition 

115 

Coherence assessed with respect to EU 2020 objectives 
of Smart growth: innovation, education, digital society  
Sustainable growth: Climate, energy and mobility 
Inclusive growth: Employment and skills. Fighting 
poverty 

Mapping of Europe 2020 priorities and objectives (and 
Flagship Initiatives) and EU Biodiversity Strategy targets 
and actions to identify specific links and coherence. 

Look for and analyse examples in literature, Member 
State case studies, and stakeholder consultations. This 
takes into consideration the analysis in F8 of socio-
economic impacts and in R10 of stakeholder needs. 

 
 
 
  
 
 
Relevant Biodiversity Strategy Component  

Indicators 

Tools to derive information 

Relevant sub-
questions 
in conflict with 
those in the Europe 
2020 Strategy?  

Evaluation question 12: To what extent does the strategy support other EU environmental policy objectives, for example, in relation to clean air and water, the marine environment, the transition to a circular 
economy, sustainable production and consumption, soil protection, sustainable land use and management, waste management and the sustainable use of resources? What are the synergies or overlaps? 

12.1 What are the 
other objectives of 
EU policy? 

Quantitative EU environmental policy objectives 
Analysis of non-quantified objectives, e.g. Clean air 
(NEC), Water (WFD and MSFD), Circular economy 
Sustainable production and consumption (7EAP and 
waste legislation). Link to evaluation 13  

Linkages between each target and the EU environmental 
objectives set out in the 7EAP. 

Assessment of linkages (contribution/ potential conflict) 
between biodiversity/ ecosystems and EU environmental 
objectives (e.g. effects of forest conservation on air and 
water quality, climate)   
Evidence from literature review and from stakeholder 
consultations. Link to EQ 8 and EQ 2 

N/A 
Wider environmental indicators (e.g. in State of the European 
Environment report) are relevant, although unlikely to give specific 
evidence of the contribution of the strategy. 

12.2 To what extent 
can the EU 
Biodiversity 
Strategy targets and 
actions be expected 
to contribute to 
each of these 
objectives? 
12.3 Are there 
examples where 
actions taken under 
the Strategy have 
contributed to, or 
hindered, the 
delivery of these 
objectives? 
12.4 Are there 
examples of actions 
contributing jointly 
to biodiversity and 
other environmental 
policy objectives? 
Evaluation question 13: To what extent are the biodiversity targets coherent with, and mainstreamed into, other EU policies, in particular on agriculture, forestry, fisheries, regional and urban development, 
infrastructure (in particular transport, energy and environmental infrastructure, ports and mining), tourism, climate mitigation and adaptation, research and innovation as well as trade and development 
cooperation? 
13.1 Which targets 
and actions in the 
strategy are relevant 
to these other EU 

Literature review, stakeholder interviews and online 
consultation to identify examples of conflict and 
contribution.   
Key sources: Nature fitness check, green infrastructure 
studies, IAS studies, evaluations of CAP and fisheries 
policies, evaluations of other policies (e.g. WFD) 

Strategy and its targets and actions overall, while 
identifying where specific targets or actions contribute to 
or detract from coherence - according to their relevance 
for the sectors (link to R8 and R9)  

Map EU Biodiversity Strategy targets against EU policy 
objectives of the following: 
CAP (2007-2013 and 2014-2020) 
EU Forest Strategy & Multiannual Implementation Plan 

N/A – reference to the evidence from the effectiveness questions 

116 

 
Relevant sub-
questions 
policies? 

13.2 Are the 
biodiversity targets 
and actions 
consistent with EU 
policy objectives in 
these areas? 

13.3 Are there 
examples of 
conflicts between 
EU biodiversity 
targets and actions, 
and these other EU 
policy objectives? 
13.4 Are the 
biodiversity targets 
referenced in these 
other EU policies? 

Relevant Biodiversity Strategy Component  

Indicators 

Tools to derive information 

CFP (2007-2013 and 2014-2020) 
EU Cohesion Policy (ERDF, ESF and Cohesion Fund) 
EIA, SEA and ELD 
Water Framework Directive 
Floods Directive 
Marine Strategy Framework Directive 
Maritime Spatial Planning Directive 
Green Infrastructure strategy 
EU Energy Union Strategy 
TEN-E, Commission fracking recommendation251 
RED and REDII 
EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change 
National Emissions Ceiling Directive (NEC) 
EU Transport White Paper252, TEN-T 
Commission Raw Materials Initiative (2011) 
7th Framework Programme for Research (FP7) (2007-
2013) and Horizon 2020 (2014-2020) 
Commission communication on tourism (2010)253 
 Some of these policies have been modified or renewed 
during the EU Biodiversity Strategy implementation, so 
evaluation takes account of programming periods (e.g. 
CAP 2007-2013 and 2014-2020)   
Analysis of the targets and actions based on mapping 
Literature review and stakeholder views 

Step 1: identify types of conflicts that might occur (e.g. 
Natura 2000 holds back growth by restricting 
development) 
Step 2: look for and analyse examples of these. 
Examples identified from the literature, Member State 
case studies, and stakeholder consultations 

Analysis of policies, reviews of operational programmes, 
RDPs etc. Level at which references are made (e.g. broad 
objectives, specific measures) 

251 Commission Recommendation on minimum principles for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons (such as shale gas) using high-volume hydraulic fracturing (2014/70/EU). 
252 White Paper: Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system (COM/2011/144 final). 
253 Europe, the world's No 1 tourist destination – a new political framework for tourism in Europe (COM/2010/0352 final). 

117 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Indicators 

Tools to derive information 

Relevant Biodiversity Strategy Component  

Analysis of mainstreaming building on the evidence from 
C13.4 but also considering mainstreaming of individual 
targets or actions. Examples of conflicts identified from 
the literature, Member State case studies, and stakeholder 
consultations. 

Relevant sub-
questions 
13.5 Are the EU 
biodiversity targets 
effectively 
mainstreamed into 
these other EU 
policies, or are 
there examples of 
action in pursuit of 
other EU policies 
which conflicts 
with them?  
Evaluation question 14: To what extent is the strategy aligned with the EU’s international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity (Aichi Targets), the Sustainable Development Goals and the 
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change? 
14.1 What are the 
EU’s commitments 
under the CBD 
(Aichi targets), 
SDGs and 
UNFCCC? 
14.2 How and to 
what extent can the 
strategy be 
expected to 
contribute to these 
commitments? 
14.3 Does the 
strategy explain 
how it will 
contribute to these 
commitments? 
14.4 Are there are 
any significant gaps 
or inconsistencies 
between the 
strategy and these 
commitments? 

Analysis of literature and stakeholder views.  E.g. The 
impact assessment accompanying the Strategy (2011) 
articulates how the Strategy sought to address the 
identified needs and hence the intervention logic for the 
strategy targets and actions. 

Identification of potential gaps and inconsistencies, based 
on comparative analysis of strategy and international 
commitments, supplemented by literature review and 
stakeholder interviews.  

Overall set of targets and actions and how they link with 
international commitments, as well as the alignment of 
specific targets with international commitments  

Map the EU Biodiversity Strategy Targets to the Aichi 
Biodiversity Targets and the SDGs, to identify linkages 
and differences between them.  

Common indicators used for SDG and Biodiversity Strategy 
implementation  

Review of CBD strategy and Aichi targets, SDGs and 
UNFCC to identify commitments under each  

- 

- 

Evaluation question 15: What is the added value resulting from the EU Biodiversity Strategy compared to what is likely to have been achieved by the Member States in its absence? 

EU added value 

118 

 
 
 
Relevant sub-
questions 

15.1 In how far did 
the adoption of the 
EU Biodiversity 
Strategy to 2020 
influence the 
adoption of 
concrete 
commitments by 
Member States? 

15.2 Would the 
same target set at 
Member State level 
have been adopted 
in case of absence 
of the EU 
Biodiversity 
Strategy? 

15.3 Is there any 
evidence for 
increased ambition 
in response to the 
adoption of the EU 
Biodiversity 
Strategy? 

15.4 Is the EU 
Biodiversity 
Strategy considered 
of key importance 
for the 
implementation of 
Member States 
NBSAPs, i.e. by 
facilitating the 
mobilization of 
financial resources 
or securing political 

Relevant Biodiversity Strategy Component  

Indicators 

Tools to derive information 

Target-by-Target analysis of the influence of the 
Biodiversity Strategy on measures and/or commitments 
by Member States.   

List of measures implemented by Member States which relate to each 
target, and are attributable to the Biodiversity Strategy.  

List of commitments with tangible relevance to the Biodiversity 
Strategy, for each target.    

All targets and the headline target.   

Overview of biodiversity-related targets established, and projected to 
be established, by MS in the absence of the Biodiversity Strategy.  
Aichi global biodiversity targets. 

All targets and the headline target.   

Overview of biodiversity-related targets established by MS prior to the 
implementation of the Biodiversity Strategy.   

All targets and the headline target.   

Perceived importance of the Biodiversity Strategy in the development 
and implementation of NBSAPs.  

119 

National data on biodiversity measures and commitments 
undertaken, in relation to each target.  
Interviews and surveys with Competent Authorities to 
elicit an understanding of measures/commitments 
undertaken since the adoption of the Biodiversity 
Strategy, and the perceived influence of the Strategy on 
the adoption of the adoption of these measures and 
commitments.  
As such, data predominantly derived from the MS case 
studies throughout this study.   

National biodiversity targets, considering also obligations 
under the CBD. Interviews and surveys with competent 
authorities to elicit an understanding of influence of the 
EU Biodiversity Strategy. As such, data predominantly 
derived from the case studies throughout this study. 

Evidence from literature on increased ambition since the 
adoption of the Biodiversity Strategy. Evidence of 
attributability to the Biodiversity Strategy (or global 
framework). MS state data on biodiversity measures and 
commitments undertaken since the adoption of the 
Biodiversity Strategy.   
Interviews and surveys with Competent Authorities to 
elicit an understanding of the levels of ambition 
(primarily related to targets established, the scale of such 
targets, and their relationship with drivers/pressures) 
since the adoption of the Biodiversity Strategy.  

Literature to observe evidence of the Strategy in adding 
value to NBSAPs.  

Case studies (interviews and surveys) to reveal added 
value of the Strategy within the NBSAP process.  

 
 
 
Relevant sub-
questions 
commitment and 
public awareness? 

15.5 Would 
progress in 
implementation of 
Member States 
NBSAPs to date 
likely be the same 
in the absence of 
the EU Biodiversity 
Strategy? Why or 
why not? 

15.6 How adequate 
and effective is the 
Biodiversity 
Strategy in unifying 
divergent interests 
across the EU? 

16.1 Did Member 
States align their 
biodiversity targets 
with the EU and the 
global targets? 
16.2 In how far do 
Member State’s 
targets differ from 
the EU targets, in 
particular regarding 
the level of 
ambition? 
16.3 In how far 
have the EU targets 
been used as a 
guiding framework 
for the development 

Relevant Biodiversity Strategy Component  

Indicators 

Tools to derive information 

Headline target, and some relevance to address at a 
target/sector level. 

 Strategy as a whole. 

- 

- 

Interviews and surveys in the Member States (case 
studies). Identification of key factors which have 
improved/ negatively affected the implementation of 
NBSAP.   

Literature for commentary and evidence of success or 
otherwise. Stakeholder views from interviews and 
surveys on the impact of the Strategy in aligning 
interests. Identification of areas of interest which are not 
adequately addressed in the Strategy, potentially leading 
to negative impacts on unifying interests.  

Evaluation question 16: How do Member States’ targets add up or compare to the targets at EU level? 

All targets of the Strategy (individually).  

- 

Review of national policy documents 
Stakeholder views from interviews and surveys on the 
process of mapping their biodiversity targets.  

All targets of the Strategy (individually).  

Level of ambition of MS biodiversity-related targets, compared to EU-
level ambitions. 

Literature review to compare the levels of ambition 
between MS targets and the targets of the Strategy.  

 Strategy as a whole. 

- 

MS interviews and surveys to ascertain the impact of the 
Strategy on providing frameworks for MS-level targets.  

120 

 
  
  
Relevant sub-
questions 
of (SMART) targets 
by Member States? 

16.4 What are 
concrete actions 
that Member States 
committed to by 
2020? 

Relevant Biodiversity Strategy Component  

Indicators 

Tools to derive information 

All targets established in the Strategy (individually).  

Identification of actions that MS are committed to.  

Literature review and MS interviews/surveys to identify 
the actions MS are committed to by 2020.  

121 

 
 
 
ANNEX 4 – OVERVIEW OF COSTS – BENEFITS IDENTIFIED IN THE EVALUATION  

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses and land and resource managers 
(farmers, foresters, fisheries) 

Administrations 

Costs and benefits from the 
implementation of Target 1 

Costs include: compliance costs: 
direct management activities 
including restoration, opportunity 
costs from alternative economic 
developments of Natura 2000 areas, 
administrative burden of 
compliance with the Directives, 
damages caused by protected 
species (e.g. large carnivores). 

Benefits include: improved 
biodiversity; flow of ecosystem 
services from the protected and 
restored sites; jobs and economic 
activities linked to Natura 2000 

Note: EU-wide figures are 
estimates: the MS are not obliged 
to report costs under the Nature 
Directives. Costs and benefits are 
largely linked to the Nature 
Directives’ implementation. It was 
not possible to identify what part is 
exclusively attributable to Target 1 

Qualitative 

Unknown but likely 
low costs related to 
limited recreational 
access or activities in 
some protected areas, 
or possible 
ecosystem 
disservices.  

(Public spending is 
indicated under 
“administrations”) 

High benefits from 
ecosystem services 
such as climate 
change mitigation, 
health and recreation, 
food and water 
provision, education, 
preservation of the 
intrinsic value of 
biodiversity and its 
maintenance for 
future generations. 

Medium benefits 
from direct and 
indirect jobs and 

Quantitative / 
monetary 

Minimum value of 
benefits from a sub-
set of ecosystem 
services from 
terrestrial Natura 
2000 (climate change 
mitigation, 
recreation, food and 
water provision,) 
estimated at EUR 
200-300 billion / 
year (in 2011 for EU-
27 including UK / 
excluding Croatia). 

Natura 2000 stores 
around EUR  9.6 
billion t of carbon, 
equivalent to 35 
billion t CO2, worth 
between EUR  600 
billion and EUR  
1,130 billion. Carbon 
stocks per unit area 
of Natura 2000 are 
43% higher than 
average across the 
EU.  

Qualitative 

Opportunity costs of 
varying scale and 
depending on 
context: limitations 
on economic activity 
and resource use; 
damages caused by 
protected species; 
modified activities 
(e.g. mowing regime 
or landscape 
elements on 
farmland).  

Benefits to fisheries 
and tourism from 
Marine Protected 
Areas. 

Direct and indirect 
jobs linked to Natura 
2000: 
administration, 
monitoring, 
management and 
restoration, research, 
surveillance and 
environmental 
services. 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Approximately EUR 
2.1 billion annual 
costs (36% of total 
costs) for 
implementing the 
Natura 2000 network 
were compensation 
for opportunity costs- 
including 
compensation to 
business owners. 

Natura 2000 sites are 
estimated to support 
directly or indirectly 
around 52,000 jobs. 

Qualitative 

Low-to-medium 
investments from 
public budgets in 
protected areas. 
Medium-to-high 
administrative 
burden related to 
compliance.  

Access to funding is 
a major driver of 
delivery of the 
Natura 2000 benefits. 
Financing needs 
were probably not 
covered. 

Significant variations 
of costs-to-benefit 
ratio; implementation 
costs reasonable and 
outweighed by 
benefits. 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Direct costs of 
management (needs) 
estimated at EUR 5.8 
billion / year (in 
2011); actual total 
spending over 2014 - 
2020 estimated at 
EUR 25.5 billion 
based on PAFs, 
including EU and 
national funding 
allocations to actions 
and sub-measures for 
Natura 2000.  

MS reports to CBD 
show a consolidated 
spending (all costs) 
at ca. EUR  13 
billion/year. Figures 
likely to at least 
partly include 
funding under the 
MFF. 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses and land and resource managers 
(farmers, foresters, fisheries) 

Administrations 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Costs and benefits from the 
implementation of Target 2 

Costs include one-off costs of 
restoration; recurring costs of 
maintenance of restored 
ecosystems; opportunity costs from 
alternative uses of restored areas; 
administrative burden for strategic 
planning (RPF, GI strategies). 

Benefits include improved 
biodiversity, flow of ecosystem 
services from restored ecosystems, 
jobs in restoration, monitoring and 
research. 

Note: There is no reporting 
obligation and no comprehensive 
overview of restoration actions and 
their costs in the EU.  

Benefits cannot be easily monetised 
due to lack of systematically 
collated evidence. Cost-
effectiveness depends on context: 

incomes linked to 
conservation 
measures. 

Unknown but likely 
low costs related to 
disturbance and 
possible ecosystem 
disservices. 

Positive benefit-to-
cost ratio of restoring 
ecosystem services 
of immense value 
such as crop 
pollination, carbon 
sequestration, 
outdoor recreation 
and flood 
protection254,255, 
noise reduction, 
provisioning of clean 
air and water; health 
and mental benefits, 
social opportunities 
of access to nature, 
pollution mitigation 
and microclimate 
regulation in urban 
ecosystems. 

No EU-wide estimate 
but very high value 
from restoring and 
maintaining 
ecosystems and their 
services: 
- Forest, wetlands 
and other ecosystem 
restoration has 
brought millions of 
EUR  in savings 
from lower water 
retention and 
purification costs  
- urban green 
infrastructure can 
generate multiple 
benefits in the form 
of enhanced health 
and well-being 
- Estimated 15,000 to 
110,000 direct jobs / 
year could be 
supported by 
investment to 
achieve Target 2. 

Potentially 
significant 
opportunity costs 
from constraints on 
other land and 
resource use 
activities: up to 60% 
of the total cost / up 
to EUR  1.7 billion 
(not realised)256. 

Significant benefits 
from ecosystem 
services (pollination, 
soil formation, 
integrated pest 
management, water 
and climate 
regulation, resilience 
of terrestrial 
ecosystems, tourism 
and recreation 
resources). 

Potentially 
significant 

Total economic 
activity associated 
with current level of 
restoration estimated 
at between EUR 11.5 
and EUR 79.5 
million (highly 
uncertain).  

Value of outdoor 
recreation was 
estimated at EUR 50 
billion /year. 

The value of the 
direct contribution of 
insect pollinators to 
EU agricultural 
output has been 
estimated at around 
EUR 15 billion per 
year257. 

Low to medium costs 
to public budgets for 
restoration (the 15% 
target was not 
achieved) and GI.  

Minimal costs from 
MAES (essentially a 
research initiative) 

Benefits from MAES 
(knowledge for 
decision-making) 

Medium potential 
burden for 
developing 
restoration plans (not 
done in most 
Member States: only 
very few national or 
regional authorities 
submitted such 
plans). 

One-off costs of 15% 
restoration 
(potential):  EUR 9.6 
billion / year (2013); 
cost of maintaining 
restored ecosystems: 
EUR 618 to EUR 
1,660 million / year 
(not realised). 

Estimated total 
realised restoration 
expenditure in 2010-
2020: EUR 4.8 
million to EUR 33.1 
million / year; 
figures highly 
uncertain. GI 
received ca EUR 915 
million / year from 
EU funds 2014 - 
2020.  
Database258 of ca. 
400 restoration 
projects in Europe259 
(2010 to 2020): ca 

254 Vallecillo et al. (2018). Ecosystem services accounting: Part I - Outdoor recreation and crop pollination, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 
255 Vallecillo et al. (2019). Ecosystem services accounting. Part II - Pilot accounts for crop and timber provision, global climate regulation and flood control, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 
256 Ecologic et al., (2011) Taking into account opportunity costs when assessing costs of biodiversity and ecosystem action. 
257 Gallai, N., et al,. (2009) Economic Valuation of the Vulnerability of World Agriculture Confronted with Pollinator Decline, Ecological Economics 68(3): 810-821. 
258 A searchable database of all the projects analysed is available online at www.restorationfunders.com  
259 UNEP-WCMC, FFI and ELP (2020) Funding Ecosystem Restoration in Europe: A summary of funding trends and recommendations to inform practitioners, policymakers and funders. 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses and land and resource managers 
(farmers, foresters, fisheries) 

Administrations 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Qualitative 

type of ecosystem, competing site 
uses, restoration approaches etc. 

restoration services 
niche. 

Costs and benefits from the 
implementation of Target 3A 

All Target 3A measures are 
implemented under the CAP.  

The total costs and benefits have 
not been comprehensively studied 
in the literature. Most benefits 
relate to employment and income 
generation from sustainable 
agricultural activities. 

The impact of direct 
payments on 
farmland biodiversity 
is low or unknown: 
the largest 
biodiversity-related 
investments have 
been made in the 
least effective 
measures from a 
biodiversity 
perspective (such as 
in areas of natural 
constraints). 

Not available 

Crop diversification 
and possibly 
permanent grassland 
ratio requirement 
under CAP greening 
may lead to lower 
farm income. 

Investing EUR 1 
billion / year in agri-
environment 
measures could 
create 6,600 
additional jobs 
(FTE). 

Crop losses and 
damage from 
protected species can 
be locally significant. 

Low costs related to 
other measures 
(voluntary uptake). 

The administrative 
costs of the 
biodiversity 
instruments is 
considered to be 
proportionate, given 
the complexity of 
some measures.  
Two CAP measures 
with direct 
biodiversity impact 
have significant 
administrative 
burden: the AECM 
and greening 
(especially EFA). 
Some examples of 
disproportionate 
costs of biodiversity 
measures in Member 
States (Alliance 
Environnement 
2019) 

260 Europe was defined as the 51 countries, territories and independent states within Europe, as defined by the Endangered Landscapes Programme. 

124 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

EUR 1.25 billion 
committed to restore 
16 million ha of 
degraded terrestrial 
(85%) and 
freshwater and 
marine (15%) 
ecosystems across 
Europe260.  

AECM accounted in 
2017 for EUR 558-
626m of the costs of 
managing and 
controlling the CAP. 
Greening accounted 
for a further EUR 
166-186m. The costs 
of managing and 
controlling cross-
compliance were 
estimated at EUR 
130-152m (but other 
aspects than 
biodiversity account 
for most of it). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses and land and resource managers 
(farmers, foresters, fisheries) 

Administrations 

Costs and benefits from the 
implementation of Target 3B 

Administrative costs and creation 
of jobs for the development of 
management plans for forests and 
the update of existing ones. 

Qualitative 

Exceptional values of 
intact forest 
ecosystems for 
biodiversity, climate 
mitigation and 
adaptation, reduced 
disturbance risk and 
public health 
benefits261.  

Qualitative 

Payments for 
ecosystem services 
for forest ecosystems 
restoration and 
maintenance has 
contributed only a 
minor amount to the 
income of forest 
owners. 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

The Natural Capital 
Financing facility 
leveraged up to EUR 
150 million for 
forestry projects on 
payments for 
ecosystem services, 
green infrastructure, 
innovative pro-
biodiversity and 
adaptation 
investment, and 
biodiversity offsets.  

Qualitative 

The main costs are 
related to the 
development and 
implementation of 
management plans 
for public forests and 
the update of existing 
ones to integrate 
biodiversity-related 
measures. Cost 
estimates of these 
measures could not 
be found but they are 
considered marginal.  

Quantitative / 
monetary 

Potentially very 
significant 
socio-economic 
benefits from 
sustainably managed 
forests: timber 
provision was 
estimated to provide 
EUR 10,820/km2 in 
the EU in 2012, 
whereas forest 
services such as 
climate regulation, 
flood control and 
nature-based 
recreation provided 
an estimated EUR 
34,860/km2). 

Costs and benefits from the 
implementation of Target 4 

Costs are related to implementing 
measures and investment in fishing 
equipment to reduce impacts on 
marine biodiversity; opportunity 
costs from limitations on marine 
economic activities; reporting and 
administrative burden for 

The societal benefits 
provided by healthy 
oceans are very high 
(immeasurable) in 
preserving the 
intrinsic and cultural 
value of marine 
biodiversity, food 
provisioning (fish, 
algae and other sea 

Fishing sector 
accounts for as many 
as half the local jobs 
in some coastal 
communities.  

MPA may cause 
opportunity costs due 
to fishing 
restrictions. 

EU fishing fleet 
maintained high 
levels of net profits 
totalling EUR 1 
billion in 2018, 
mainly as a result of 
the use of sustainable 
fishing methods263.  

Public budget 
measures to support 
sustainable fisheries 
and marine 
ecosystems’ 
protection and 
restoration. 

Coastal and marine 

Administrative 
burdens related to 

261 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-018-0490-x  
262 EC (2018). Progress in the implementation of the EU Forest Strategy. 
263 STECF (2020) The 2019 Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing Fleet (STECF 20-06), Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries. 
264 EY and Biotope (2017) Study on biodiversity financing and tracking biodiversity-related expenditures in the EU budget. 
265 European Commission (2020). FAME SU, EMFF implementation report 2019. 

125 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

1% of total RDP 
budget devoted to 
payment for 
ecosystem services. 

In the 2014–2020 
period, 90% of RDPs 
included at least one 
forest-related 
measure amounting 
to a total of EUR 8.2 
billion of public 
expenditure for 
forest measures 
(EAFRD + 
national/regional co-
financing)262. Most 
of this was not 
invested in 
biodiversity. 

EMFF funding to 
biodiversity is 
estimated at EUR 
199 million in 2015, 
EUR 134 million in 
2016, EUR 136 
million in 2017264, 
EUR 90 million in 
2018 and EUR 128 
million in 2019265. In 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses and land and resource managers 
(farmers, foresters, fisheries) 

Administrations 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary 

Qualitative 

stakeholders and authorities to 
ensure compliance. 

Note: maintaining and restoring 
fish stocks and achieving GES is 
mainly contributed through the 
Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) 
and the Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive (MSFD).  

food), maintaining 
the planet’s capacity 
to mitigate and adapt 
to climate change, 
regulating the 
climate, protection 
from extreme 
weather, recreation 
and health. 

Investments in 
marine biodiversity 
can generate high 
economic returns in 
enhanced yields, 
higher quality fish 
products, and 
tourism.  
No comprehensive 
overview of the costs 
and benefits of the 
actions related to 
Target 4 is not found 
in literature. 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

nature-based tourism 
employs over 3 
million people and 
generates more than 
EUR 180 billion / 
year in the EU. 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

national and regional 
programming, 
monitoring and 
reporting. 

2020, Member States 
committed a total of 
EUR 1,637 million 
of EMFF funding to 
measures that 
potentially contribute 
to the protection and 
restoration of 
biodiversity266.  
This only includes 
funding directed to 
measures for the 
protection and 
restoration of marine 
biodiversity. If 
broader measures are 
added that have the 
potential to 
contribute to 
biodiversity, the 
figures are 
significantly higher. 
In addition to the 
important role of the 
EMFF in supporting 
the Member States to 
reach Good 
Environmental 
Status, funding has 
also been available 
from the LIFE 
Programme, research 
and structural funds. 

266 European Commission (2020). FAME SU, EMFF implementation report 2019. 

126 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses and land and resource managers 
(farmers, foresters, fisheries) 

Administrations 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Qualitative 

Opportunity costs 
from restrictions on 
the use of listed 
species of economic 
importance. 

Cost-benefit analysis 
underpins each 
decision to place new 
species on the list of 
IAS of Union 
concern. 

Costs related to 
monitoring and 
control measures. 
Public investments in 
IAS control 
measures. 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Costs of 
implementing the 
Invasive Alien 
Species Regulation 
estimated at around 
EUR 1.43 billion /  
year. 

Quantitative / 
monetary 

Damages from IAS 
estimated to cost the 
EU at least EUR 12 
billion / year. (2009 
assessment, likely 
much higher now as 
IAS problem has 
steadily grown). 

Costs and benefits from the 
implementation of target 5 

Administrative costs, compliance 
costs, direct costs to affected parties 
in responding to the Regulation, 
and indirect costs (opportunity 
costs) from limitations on activities. 
Benefits concern avoided damage.  

Note: Most Member States were not 
able to estimates of the 
implementation costs incurred by 
the IAS Regulation in the 2019 
reports.  

Qualitative 

Constraints to 
owning or growing 
IAS. 

Benefits of tackling 
IAS: avoided cost of 
damage to 
ecosystems, 
infrastructure, 
human, animal and 
plant health and 
agricultural losses.  

Likely highly cost-
effective, net benefits 
will be increasing as 
the implementation 
advances.  

Costs and benefits from the 
implementation of Target 6  

Costs include EU and MS budget 
spending on global biodiversity 
(resource mobilisation under CBD); 
administrative and compliance 
costs; and controls and inspections 
(in relation to trade).  

Share of the 
employment that 
relies on ecosystem 
services varies 
significantly among 
regions, with Africa 
and Asia having the 
highest shares at 
59% and 47% 
respectively. 

Main benefits 
include global 

The global cost of 
inaction to halt 
biodiversity loss has 
been estimated at 
around US$4-20 
trillion (EUR 3.5-
17.5 trillion) per year 
in ecosystem services 
from 1997 to 2011.  

Benefits from natural 
resource 
conservation, 
restoration and 
sustainable use: 
potentially very high 
but no reliable 
methodology to 
assess impacts.  

A conservative 
estimate of the total 
cost globally of 

Significant costs of 
compliance and 
opportunity costs 

267 EU support for sustainable use and conservation of nature in developing countries. 

127 

Costs depend on 
management: e.g. 
continued 
commercial catches 
of red swamp 
crayfish 
Procambarus clarkii 
in Spain, where it 
reached up to 3000 
tonnes of annual 
catch, contributing 
local fishermen’s 
incomes. 

Not available, only 
individual examples 
in literature. 

Cost-effectiveness of 
preventative 
measures and early 
intervention far 
exceeds the costs-
effectiveness of 
management of 
established IAS.    

EU budget spending 
on resource 
mobilisation for 
global biodiversity, 
including Official 
Development 
Assistance, 
Instrument for Pre-
accession Assistance, 
European 
Neighbourhood 
Instrument, 
Development 

2011-2015: more 
than EUR 1 billion 
of total EU 
international 
biodiversity 
spending267. 
2014-2020 (note 
overlap) estimated at 
more than EUR  2 
billion (EU financial 
reporting to the 
Convention on 
Biological Diversity) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses and land and resource managers 
(farmers, foresters, fisheries) 

Administrations 

Quantitative / 
monetary 

subsidies that 
damage Nature is 
around US$4 to 6 
trillion per year. 

Qualitative 

biodiversity 
preservation and the 
safeguarding of 
essential ecosystem 
services, improved 
livelihoods, 
mitigation of risks 
from global 
biodiversity loss 
(including 
emergence of 
pandemics). 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

related to restrictions 
on trade. 

Cooperation 
Instrument, 
Partnership 
Instrument for 
cooperation with 
third countries, 
European 
Development Fund. 

Proportionate costs 
to tackle wildlife 
trafficking 

Administrative 
burden of 
biodiversity 
provisions in TSD 
chapters of FTA. 

One-off resources to 
build and develop 
capacity for the 
Nagoya Protocol 
between EUR 47 and 
EUR 270 million 
(2020 prices)268.  

EUR 340 million EU 
projects 
implementing 
wildlife trafficking-
related actions in 
countries in Africa, 
Asia, and South 
America269. 

268 CBD Technical Series No 78: Progress toward the Aichi Biodiversity Targets: An Assessment of Biodiversity Trends, Policy Scenarios and Key Actions, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 
269 Progress report on the implementation of the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking. (SWD/2018/452 final). 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
ANNEX  5  –  OPERATIONAL  TARGETS  AND  ACTIONS  OF  THE  EU  BIODIVERSITY 

STRATEGY TO 2020 

Target 1: Fully implement the EU Nature Legislation (the Birds and Habitats Directives) 

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

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

1a)  Member  States  and  the  Commission  will  ensure  that  the  phase  to  establish  Natura  2000, 
including in the marine environment, is largely complete by 2012. 

1b) Member States and the Commission will further integrate species and habitats protection and 
management requirements into key land and water use policies, both within and beyond Natura 
2000 areas. 

1c) Member States will  ensure that management plans or equivalent  instruments  which set  out 
conservation and restoration measures are developed and implemented in a timely manner for all 
Natura 2000 sites. 

1d) The Commission, together with Member States, will establish by 2012 a process to promote 
the  sharing  of  experience,  good  practice  and  cross-border  collaboration  on  the  management  of 
Natura 2000, within the biogeographical frameworks set out in the Habitats Directive. 

  Action 2: Ensure adequate financing of Natura 2000 sites 

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

  Action 3: Increase stakeholder awareness and involvement and improve enforcement 

3a)  The  Commission,  together  with  Member  States,  will  develop  and  launch  a  major 
communication campaign on Natura 2000 by 2013. 

3b) The Commission and Member states will improve cooperation with key sectors and continue 
to develop guidance documents to improve their understanding of the requirements of EU nature 
legislation and its value in promoting economic development. 

3c) The Commission and Member States will facilitate enforcement of the nature directives by 
providing specific training programmes on Natura 2000 for judges and public prosecutors, and 
by developing better compliance promotion capacities. 

  Action 4: Improve and streamline monitoring and reporting 

4a)  The  Commission,  together  with  Member  States,  will  develop  by  2012  a  new  EU  bird 
reporting system, further develop the reporting system under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive 
and improve the flow, accessibility and relevance of Natura 2000 data. 

4b)  The  Commission  will  create  a  dedicated  ICT  tool  as  part  of  the  Biodiversity  Information 
System for Europe to improve the availability and use of data by 2012. 

129 

 
 
Target 2: Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services 

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

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

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

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

6a)  By  2014,  Member  States,  with  the  assistance  of  the  Commission,  will  develop  a  strategic 
framework to set priorities for ecosystem restoration at sub-national, national and EU level. 

6b)  The  Commission  will  develop  a  Green  Infrastructure  Strategy  by  2012  to  promote  the 
deployment  of  green  infrastructure  in  the  EU  in  urban  and  rural  areas,  including  through 
incentives  to  encourage  up-front  investments  in  green  infrastructure  projects  and  the 
maintenance  of  ecosystem  services,  for  example  through  better  targeted  use  of  EU  funding 
streams and Public Private Partnerships. 

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

7a)  In  collaboration  with  the  Member  States,  the  Commission  will  develop  a  methodology  for 
assessing the impact of EU funded projects, plans and programmes on biodiversity by 2014. 

7b) The Commission will carry out further work with a view to proposing by 2015 an initiative 
to  ensure  there  is  no  net  loss  of  ecosystems  and  their  services  (e.g.  through  compensation  or 
offsetting schemes). 

Target 3: Increase the contribution of agriculture and forestry to maintaining and enhancing 
biodiversity 

3A) Agriculture: By 2020, maximise areas under agriculture across grasslands, arable land and 
permanent  crops  that  are  covered  by  biodiversity-related  measures  under  the  CAP  so  as  to 
ensure the conservation of biodiversity and to bring about a measurable improvement(*) in the 
conservation status of species and habitats that depend on or are affected by agriculture and in 
the  provision  of  ecosystem  services  as  compared  to  the  EU2010  Baseline,  thus  contributing  to 
enhance sustainable management. 

3B)  Forests:  By  2020,  Forest  Management  Plans  or  equivalent  instruments,  in  line  with 
Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) [30], are in place for all forests that are publicly owned 
and for  forest  holdings above a certain size** (to be defined by the  Member States or regions 
and communicated in their Rural Development Programmes) that receive funding under the EU 
Rural  Development  Policy  so  as  to  bring  about  a  measurable  improvement(*)  in  the 
conservation status of species and habitats that depend on or are affected by forestry and in the 
provision of related ecosystem services as compared to the EU 2010 Baseline. 

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

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

130 

 
 
  Action  8:  Enhance  direct  payments  for  environmental  public  goods  in  the  EU  Common 

Agricultural Policy 

8a)  The  Commission  will  propose  that  CAP  direct  payments  will  reward  the  delivery  of 
environmental  public  goods  that  go  beyond  cross-compliance  (e.g.  permanent  pasture,  green 
cover, crop rotation, ecological set-aside, Natura 2000). 

8b) The Commission  will propose to  improve and simplify the GAEC  (Good Agricultural  and 
Environmental  Conditions)  cross-compliance  standards  and  consider  including  the  Water 
Framework  Directive  within  the  scope  of  cross-compliance  once  the  Directive  has  been 
implemented and the operational obligations for farmers have been identified in order to improve 
the state of aquatic ecosystems in rural areas. 

  Action 9: Better target Rural Development to biodiversity conservation 

9a) The Commission and Member States will integrate quantified biodiversity targets into Rural 
Development strategies and programmes, tailoring action to regional and local needs. 

9b)  The  Commission  and  Member  States  will  establish  mechanisms  to  facilitate  collaboration 
among  farmers  and  foresters  to  achieve  continuity  of  landscape  features,  protection  of  genetic 
resources and other cooperation mechanisms to protect biodiversity. 

  Action 10: Conserve Europe’s agricultural genetic diversity 

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

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

11a)  Member  States  and  the  Commission  will  encourage  the  adoption  of  Management  Plans, 
[31] inter alia through use of rural development measures [32] and the LIFE+ programme. 

11b) Member States and the Commission will foster innovative mechanisms (e.g. Payments for 
Ecosystem Services) to finance the maintenance and restoration of ecosystem services provided 
by multifunctional forests. 

  Action 12: Integrate biodiversity measures in forest management plans 

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

-  maintain  optimal  levels  of  deadwood,  taking  into  account  regional  variations  such  as  fire 

risk or potential insect outbreaks; 

-  preserve wilderness areas; 

- 

- 

- 

ecosystem-based measures to increase the resilience of forests against fires as part of forest 
fire  prevention  schemes,  in  line  with  activities  carried  out  in  the  European  Forest  Fire 
Information System (EFFIS); 

specific measures developed for Natura 2000 forest sites; 

ensuring that afforestation is carried out in accordance  with the Pan-European Operational 
Level Guidelines for SFM [33], in particular as regards the diversity of species, and climate 
change adaptation needs. 

Target 4: Ensure the sustainable use of fisheries resources 

Achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) by 2015. Achieve a population age and size distribution 
indicative of a healthy stock, through fisheries management with no significant adverse impacts on 

131 

 
other stocks, species and ecosystems, in support of achieving Good Environmental Status by 2020, 
as required under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. 

  Action 13: Improve the management of fished stocks 

13a) The Commission and Member States will maintain and restore fish stocks to levels that can 
produce MSY in all areas in which EU fish fleets operate, including areas regulated by Regional 
Fisheries Management  Organisations, and the  waters of third countries with  which the EU has 
concluded Fisheries Partnership Agreements. 

13b) The Commission and Member States will develop and implement under the CFP long-term 
management plans with harvest control rules based on the MSY approach. These plans should be 
designed  to  respond  to  specific  time-related  targets  and  be  based  on  scientific  advice  and 
sustainability principles. 

13c) The Commission and Member States will significantly step up their work to collect data to 
support implementation of MSY. Once this objective is attained, scientific advice will be sought 
to incorporate ecological considerations in the definition of MSY by 2020. 

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

14a)  The  EU  will  design  measures  to  gradually  eliminate  discards,  to  avoid  the  by-catch  of 
unwanted  species  and  to  preserve  vulnerable  marine  ecosystems  in  accordance  with  EU 
legislation and international obligations. 

14b)  The  Commission  and  Member  States  will  support  the  implementation  of  the  Marine 
Strategy  Framework  Directive,  including  through  providing  financial  incentives  through  the 
future  financial  instruments  for  fisheries  and  maritime  policy  for  marine  protected  areas 
(including Natura 2000 areas and those established by international or regional agreements). This 
could  include  restoring  marine  ecosystems,  adapting  fishing  activities  and  promoting  the 
involvement of the sector in alternative activities, such as eco-tourism, monitoring and managing 
marine biodiversity, and combating marine litter. 

Target 5: Combat invasive alien species 

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

  Action 15: Strengthen the EU Plant and Animal Health Regimes 

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

  Action 16: Establish a dedicated instrument on invasive alien species 

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

Target 6: Help avert global biodiversity loss 

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

  Action 17: Reduce indirect drivers of biodiversity loss 

17a) Under the EU flagship initiative on resource efficiency, the EU will take measures (which 
may  include  demand  and/or  supply  side  measures)  to  reduce  the  biodiversity  impacts  of  EU 

132 

 
 
 
consumption  patterns,  particularly  for  resources  that  have  significant  negative  effects  on 
biodiversity. 

17b)  The  Commission  will  enhance  the  contribution  of  trade  policy  to  conserving  biodiversity 
and address potential negative impacts by systematically including it as part of trade negotiations 
and  dialogues  with  third  countries,  by  identifying  and  evaluating  potential  impacts  on 
biodiversity  resulting  from  the  liberalisation  of  trade  and  investment  in  ex-ante  Impact 
Assessments and ex-post evaluations, and seek to include in all new trade agreements a chapter 
on sustainable development providing for substantial environmental provisions of importance in 
the trade context including on biodiversity goals. 

17c) The Commission will work with Member States and key stakeholders to provide the right 
market signals for biodiversity conservation, including work to reform, phase out and eliminate 
harmful  subsidies  at  both  EU  and  Member  State  level,  and  to  provide  positive  incentives  for 
biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. 

  Action 18: Mobilise additional resources for global biodiversity conservation 

18a) The Commission and Member States will contribute their fair share to international efforts 
to  significantly  increase  resources  for  global  biodiversity  as  part  of  the  international  process 
aimed  at  estimating  biodiversity  funding  needs  and  adopting  resource  mobilisation  targets  for 
biodiversity at CBD CoP11 in 2012 [34]. 

18b) The Commission will improve the effectiveness of EU funding for global biodiversity inter 
alia by supporting natural capital assessments in recipient countries and the development and/or 
updating  of  National  Biodiversity  Strategies  and  Action  Plans,  and  by  improving  coordination 
within the EU and with key non-EU donors in implementing biodiversity assistance/projects. 

  Action 19: Biodiversity-proof EU development cooperation 

19) The Commission will continue to systematically screen its development  cooperation action 
to  minimise  any  negative  impact  on  biodiversity,  and  undertake  Strategic  Environmental 
Assessments  and/or  Environmental  Impact  Assessments  for  actions  likely  to  have  significant 
effects on biodiversity. 

  Action  20:  Regulate  access  to  genetic  resources  and  the  fair  and  equitable  sharing  of  benefits 

arising from their use 

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

133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 6 – BUSINESS-AS-USUAL SCENARIO WITHOUT THE STRATEGY 

Baseline for the evaluation 

Due  to  the  complexity  of  biodiversity  loss  and  the  wide  range  of  direct  and  indirect  drivers  of 
biodiversity loss, it was not possible to establish a clear baseline for the evaluation.  

The expectations of how the state of biodiversity, and pressures on it, would develop in the absence 
of an EU Biodiversity Strategy were articulated in a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario as part of the 
Impact  Assessment  of  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  to  2020  (SEC(2011)  540  final,  hereafter 
referred to as the Impact Assessment).  

The Impact Assessment concluded that under a ‘business as usual’ scenario, overexploitation, 
pollution, habitat loss, climate change and invasion by alien species would likely continue or 
worsen.  It  predicted  that  mean  species  abundance  would  continue  to  decline  in  Europe,  from 
approximately 40% in 2010 to approximately 37% in 2050. With the existing measures and policies 
in place, it was considered that anthropogenic pressures would continue or worsen and would result 
in further degradation of EU ecosystems. 

The  business  as  usual  (BAU)  scenario  included  in  the  Impact  Assessment  made  a  qualitative 
projection of the consequences of existing policy and legislation. This projection provided a useful 
point  of  reference  to  consider  the  role  of  the  Strategy  in  addressing  biodiversity  needs.  It  was 
revisited for the purposes of the evaluation study. Minor retrospective changes were introduced in 
light of the actual development of some of the EU policies and legislation.  

The IA reviewed pre-existing EU policy areas against the 4 aspects of the headline target of the EU 
Biodiversity  Strategy:  (1)  halting  biodiversity  loss,  (2)  halting  degradation  of  ecosystem  services, 
(3) restoring biodiversity and ecosystem services, (3) counteracting increased loss of biodiversity at 
the global level. It also reviewed these policies against their contribution to reducing the following 
pressures  on  biodiversity:  over-exploitation,  fragmentation,  climate  change,  invasive  species  and 
pollution.  This  review  structure  is  continued  here  while  highlighting  the  connection  to  the  six 
Biodiversity Strategy targets. 

The BAU is concerned with other EU legal and policy initiatives to the extent that: 

(i)  the  Strategy  aimed  to  support  these  policies,  for  example  the  implementation  of  the  EU  Birds 
and  Habitats  Directives  (Target  1)  and  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  (Target  3).  In 
reality, it has been very difficult to predict or assess what part of progress has been the result of the 
implementation of the legislation itself, or from the Strategy.  

(ii) the Strategy aimed to change these policies, for example the CAP (Target 3) and the Common 
Fisheries Policy (Target 4), or trade (Target 6). The BAU assumed that the needed reforms  would 
not take place without the strategy’s targets. 

(iii)  the  Strategy  aimed  to  introduce  new  policies  and  legislation,  for  example  on  Green 
Infrastructure or on invasive alien species. 

Contribution of pre-existing policies and connections to the Strategy 

  Biodiversity policies 
The  Habitats  and  Birds  Directives  are  at  the  core  of  EU  biodiversity  policy.  They  have  been  the 
basis for the establishment of the Natura 2000 network. Improvements of the conservation status of 
protected  species  and  habitats  were  therefore  likely  to  have  occurred  as  a  result  of  the  Nature 
Directives alone. However, the implementation of the Directives is likely to have been slower and 
less effective without the additional measures encouraged by the Strategy. This includes targets and 
actions  to  further  integrate  species  and  habitat  protection  into  key  EU  land  and  sea  use  policies, 

134 

 
increase  financing,  facilitate  the  sharing  of  good  practices,  increase  awareness  and  improve 
enforcement,.  

Designation and management of protected areas under the Habitats Directive alone is also unlikely 
sufficient  to  curb  biodiversity  loss.  With  efforts  focused  on  protected  species  and  habitats  only, 
biodiversity in the wider landscape was expected to suffer. The conservation status of species and 
habitats protected under  EU nature legislation was expected to  remain  similar to  that of the 2009 
health check, with only 17% of the assessments completed showed a good conservation status.  

Connections to the Strategy  

Targets 1 and 2 of the Biodiversity Strategy set out to address some of the shortcomings in earlier 
biodiversity policies. Target 1 aimed to complete the establishment of the Natura 2000 Network and 
ensure its good management, a key aspect being to ensure adequate financing for the sites. It also 
aimed  to  increase  the  exchange  of  good  practice  and  improve  the  enforcement  of  the  Directives. 
Target 2 included actions to improve knowledge of ecosystems and their services, set priorities for 
ecosystem restoration and the deployment on green infrastructure, with direct potential benefits for 
protected habitats  and species  and for improving  the ecological  connectivity of Natura 2000. The 
increase of the contribution of agriculture and forestry to biodiversity under Target 3 was also to be 
measured against the improvement in the conservation status of protected species and habitats. 

  Agriculture and forestry policies 
The  Common  Agricultural  Policy  (CAP)  and  the  EU  Forestry  Strategy  have  major  impact  on 
biodiversity  outcomes.  However,  unsustainable  practices  such  as  intensive  farming  The  CAP  had 
been  reformed  on  several  occasions  prior  to  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy.  As  reported  in  the  IA 
however,  the  impacts  had  been  small  to  negative.  The  IA  BAU  scenarios  concluded  that  without 
considerable reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (in the absence of such targets as were set 
by the Strategy), agriculture in the EU would continue to be one of the most significant drivers of 
habitat loss and degradation. Insufficient policy change was predicted to lead to further biodiversity 
loss on farmland, with serious implications for the EU meeting the global 2020 biodiversity goals.  

Connection to the Strategy 

The reform of the CAP is linked most closely to Target 3 of the Biodiversity Strategy, which aimed 
to increase the contribution of agriculture and forestry to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity.  

  Air policies 
The  Air  Quality  Framework  Directive,  The  Clean  Air  For  Europe  programme  (CAFÉ),  National 
Emissions  Ceilings  Directive,  Integrated  Pollution  Prevention  and  Control  (IPPC),  Large 
Combustion Plants Directive, Waste Incineration Directive and Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution 
would have collectively acted to reduce the pressure of pollution from a wide range of sources on 
biodiversity.  Overall,  the  improvement  in  air  quality  would  have  been  generally  beneficial  to  the 
natural environment. Reduction of localised nitrogen deposition on land and sea would support low 
nutrient habitats, such as inland wetlands. 

Connections to the Strategy: 

Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, which aims to maintain and restore ecosystems and their 
services by, amongst other things, restoring at least 15% of degraded habitats. Achieving this target 
was aided by the reduction in  pressures resulting  from  Air Quality related policies and strategies. 
However, it unclear whether the absence of the Strategy would have resulted in weaker measures to 
tackle the impact of air pollution on ecosystems than the ones undertaken under EU air policies.   

  Water policies 
The  EU  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD)  and  the  Floods  Directive  have  a  major  potential  to 
improve the ecological status of freshwater bodies as well as the condition of terrestrial and marine 

135 

 
 
ecosystems  that  depend  on  them  through  the  provisions  on  achieving  good  ecological  status  and 
integrated  river  basin  management.  The  impact  assessment  recognised  the  WFD  key  role  in 
biodiversity  protection  and  ecosystem  restoration.  It  suggested  that  if  adequately  implemented,  a 
significant  amount  of  restoration  of  water  related  ecosystems  would  likely  take  place  even  in  the 
absence  of  the  Strategy.  However,  it  made  no  assessment  of  whether  the  WFD  would  be 
implemented  adequately.  The  deadline  for  achieving  good  status  for  water  bodies  throughout  the 
EU was 2015 but progress has been slow and the target has not been achieved to date. 

Connections to the Strategy 

Target  1 of the Strategy  included actions on cross-policy integration in  the implementation  of the 
Nature  Directives  and  of  the  WFD.  Target  2  of  the  Strategy  highlighted  the  role  of  ecosystem 
services  and  green  infrastructure,  which  can  strengthen  approaches  to  the  management  of  natural 
disasters such as flooding or droughts.  In addition, Target  3 specifically linked the EU CAP  with 
the WFD highlighting the potential for cross-compliance. 

  Fisheries and Marine policies 
Overfishing has been a major issue for marine ecosystems despite the 2002 reform of the Common 
Fisheries Policy (CFP). In 2011, at the time of adoption of the Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, EU 
stocks  were  being  fished  beyond  maximum  sustainable  yield  (MSY)  in  88%  of  cases,  ,  and  the 
average size of fish continued to decline. Without reform to the CFP, the impact assessment of the 
EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, as well as the impact assessment undertaken for the 2013 Reform 
of the CFP, concluded that further depletion of fish stocks would be expected, leading to setbacks 
for  the  attainment  of  good  environmental  status  for  EU  marine  waters  by  2020.  (Following  the 
adoption  of  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  to  2020,  the  2013  Reform  of  the  CFP  has  further 
enshrined MSY in the CFP by making it a legal obligation to be achieved by 2020 and the multi-
annual  plans  for  the  Baltic,  the  North  Sea  and  the  Western  Waters  have  further  specified  this 
objective for all target species in these waters. In doing so, the 2013 Reform of the CFP has enabled 
the achievement of 62 TACs fished in line with MSY by 2020 against only 5 in 2009.) 

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) aimed to conserve the marine environment and 
attain  Good  Environmental  Status  (GES)  of  marine  ecosystems.  It  supported  protected  areas  and 
ecosystem  restoration  to  achieve  GES.  However,  restoration  had  been  challenging  to  understand 
and the target of good environmental status was difficult to quantify. Nonetheless, the MSFD has 
helped drive increases in scientific understanding of the marine environment, which is necessary to 
support restoration.  

Connections to the Strategy 

Target 4 aimed for sustainable use of fish resources and suggested all fisheries achieve maximum 
sustainable  yield  (MSY)  by  2015.  It  further  encouraged  the  development  and  implementation  of 
management  plans,  and  the  stepping  up  of  work  to  collect  data  to  support  MSY.  These  measures 
were taken up in the revised CFP, although the originally proposed target date 2015 for achieving 
MSY  was  postponed.  Action  14b  in  the  Biodiversity  Strategy  encouraged  the  Member  States  to 
support the achievement of good environmental status under the MSFD, including by measures to 
restore marine ecosystems. Target 2 of the Biodiversity Strategy also aimed to restore at least 15% 
of  degraded  ecosystems.  The  Biodiversity  Strategy  identified  in  Target  4,  Action  13a,  that  EU 
fishing  fleets  should  maintain  and  restore  fish  stocks  to  MSY  in  all  areas  that  the  fleet  operate 
including  areas  regulated  by  Regional  Fisheries  Monitoring  Organisations  and  waters  of  third 
countries.  

  Plant and Animal Health policies 
The  Plant  Health  Directive  and  Animal  Health  Strategy  were  both  under  review  raising  the 
possibility that their scope could be expanded to include pest and diseases of wild species. For the 

136 

 
plant  health  regime,  the  possibility  of  including  all  invasive  alien  plants  causing  damage  to  the 
wider environment  was  also  being  considered. However, in  the absence  of a dedicated target,  the 
extent of integration of provisions on invasive alien species in  plant and animal  health legislation 
and  policy  is  likely  to  have  been  much  smaller.  Legislation  focusing  on  plant  and  animal  health 
would  also  have  been  insufficient  to  provide  a  coherent  EU  wide  framework  to  combat  invasive 
alien species.  

Connections to the Strategy 

The Biodiversity Strategy included an action under Target 5 to integrate biodiversity concerns into 
the Plant and Animal Health Regimes by 2012, and to adopt legislation on IAS.  

  Regional development 
EU Cohesion Policy funds, such as the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund 
and  the  European  Social  Fund,  have  contributed  to  investments  directly  benefiting  biodiversity, 
environmental  quality  improvements,  investments  in  Green  Infrastructure  and  rehabilitation  of 
contaminated  land.  However,  under  a  business-as-usual  scenario,  such  investments  may  not  have 
been  sufficiently  supported  and  potential  negative  impacts  from  investments  in  infrastructure  and 
other developments may not have been given sufficient attention to minimise and mitigate harm on 
biodiversity.  

Connections to the Strategy 

Under  Target  2  of  the  Strategy,  a  Green  Infrastructure  Strategy  was  adopted  which  has  provided 
impetus for investments in green infrastructure and ecological corridors; and a biodiversity proofing 
methodology was developed for assessing the impact of EU funded plans, projects and programmes 
on biodiversity. 

  Consumption and Production policies 
A  broad  set  of  policies  and  plans  preceded  the  Biodiversity  Strategy,  including:  the  Integrated 
Product Policy (IPP), EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS), Ecolabel, Eco-innovation 
Action Plan, Green Public Procurement Policy, Economic Reform Programme (ERP), Sustainable 
Consumption  and  Production  and  Sustainable  Industrial  Policy  (SCP/SIP)  Action  Plan, 
Environmental  Liability  Directive,  and  EU  Forest  Law  Enforcement,  Governance  and  Trade 
(FLEGT)  Action  Plan.  These  aimed  to  reduce  the  impacts  of  consumption  and  production  on 
biodiversity. Eco-labelling and certification would have reduced ecological footprints in terrestrial, 
freshwater  and  marine  environments.  The  Environmental  Liability  Directive  established  a 
framework  for  preventing  and  remedying  environmental  damage,  defined  as  damage  to  protected 
species and natural habitats, damage to water and damage to soil. Overall, under the BAU scenario, 
these policies would have had an important, though often indirect, benefit to biodiversity. However, 
there  remained  scope  for  greater  coordination  to  support  these  policies  in  making  a  tangible 
difference for EU and global biodiversity. 

Connections to the Strategy 

Several elements of the Biodiversity Strategy aimed to address consumption and production impacts 
on biodiversity. Target 2 included actions to improve knowledge of ecosystems and their services. 
Target  3  targeted  more  sustainable  agricultural  and  forestry  production,  whilst  Target  4  aimed  to 
ensure  that  fisheries  resources  are  used  sustainably.  Lastly,  Target  6  included  actions  to  reduce 
indirect drivers of biodiversity loss linked to EU production and consumption. 

  Climate and Energy policies 

137 

 
 
 
The impact assessment stated that achieving the '2 degrees' climate target is essential to avert global 
biodiversity  loss.  The  EU  had  already  developed  and  was  implementing  a  suit  of  climate  change 
policies,  including:  the  EU  20/20/20  climate  change  target  White  paper  on  adaptation  to  climate 
change  (COM  (2009)  0147),  Reducing  Emissions  from  Deforestation  and  Forest  Degradation 
(REDD) initiative, European Climate Change Programme (ECCP), and European Emission Trading 
Scheme (ETS). It was unclear in 2010 whether these policies would be sufficient to enable the EU 
to  meet  its climate targets  for 2020 and beyond.  To the extent that they contributed to  mitigating 
climate  change,  these  policies  have  been  expected  to  slow  down  climate  impacts  on  biodiversity 
and  ecosystem  services.    Similar  to  other  policy  areas,  a  business-as-usual  scenario  may  have 
included insufficient attention to minimising potential biodiversity harm from increased demand for 
resources and infrastructure developments for renewable energy. 

Overall,  it  seems  likely  that  climate  policies  under  the  BAU  scenario  would  have  developed 
similarly  to  the  scenario  with  a  Strategy,  and  climate  impacts  would  have  continued  to  impact 
biodiversity to 2020, with some types of mitigation activities adding pressure on biodiversity.   

Connections to the Strategy 

Target  2  aimed  to  encourage  better  use  of  nature-based  approaches  to  tackle  climate  change. 
Nature-based  solutions  and  green  infrastructure  can  provide  cost-effective  approaches  to  climate 
mitigation  and  adaptation,  and  ecosystem  restoration  can  increase  resilience  to  the  impacts  of 
climate change. Target 3 contained actions to promote sustainable agriculture and forestry. Target 4 
aimed  to  support  the  achievement  of  good  environmental  status  of  marine  ecosystems.  Climate 
change  is  an  important  pressure  on  marine  and  terrestrial  ecosystems,  as  well  as  a  factor  in 
increased  invasive  species  dynamics.  Climate  change  is  also  a  growing  pressure  on  global 
biodiversity and ecosystem services. 

  Policies regarding external relations 
A  broad  set  of  policies  existed  prior  to  the  Biodiversity  Strategy  that  addressed  the  EU’s 
international  relations  and  trade,  including  aspects  relating  to  biodiversity  change.  The  Thematic 
Programme  for  Environment  and  Natural  Resources  (ENRTP),  European  Neighbourhood  and 
Partnership  Instrument  (ENPI),  Development  Cooperation  and  Economic  Cooperation  Instrument 
(DCECI)  and  European  Development  Fund  (EDF)  made  contributions  to  biodiversity  initiatives, 
partnerships and  global multilateral  processes.  It is  likely that under a  BAU scenario this funding 
would have continued, including in implementation of the EU’s commitments under the Convention 
on biological diversity. Global Multilateral Environmental Agreements, funds and trade agreements 
have  been  important  to  support  action  to  support  biodiversity  globally.  The  EU  has  been  key  in 
supporting  global  biodiversity  by  means  of  best  practice  exchange,  funding  and  leadership.  It  is 
likely that under BAU this role would have continued, but to a lesser extent. 

Connections to the Strategy 

Target  6  of  the  Biodiversity  Strategy  aimed  to  improve  the  impact  of  trade  agreements  on 
biodiversity via Trade Sustainability Impact Assessments. A chapter on sustainable development is 
suggested  in  all  trade  agreements.  It  also  includes  an  action  to  mobilise  additional  resources  for 
global biodiversity conservation and an action to screen EU development cooperation to minimise 
negative biodiversity impacts. 

Conclusion of the Business-As-Usual Scenario 

Overall,  the  BAU  suggested  that  without  significant  policy  reforms  and  additional  measures  to 
strengthen the implementation of existing legislation, the EU would not attain its 2020 biodiversity 
targets. In the absence of the Strategy, continued ecosystem degradation, through land-use changes 
and invasive alien species, amongst others, were expected to negatively impact species and habitats 
across the majority of EU Member States.  

138 

 
ANNEX 7 – MAIN OUTPUTS OF THE EU BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY TO 2020 

Annex 7 provides an overview of key outputs from the implementation of the Strategy’s actions by the Commission and the Member States. This concerns in 
particular outputs  at the  EU  level.  Outputs  under  other  EU  legislation and policies  are included, to  the  extent  that  certain  aspects  of these  EU  instruments 
formed part of the Strategy. For highlights of achievements (as well as challenges) at the national level in the 10 case study Member States, see Annex 8. 

Target 1 

Fully implement the Birds and Habitats Directives 

Measures taken  

  Member States have almost completed the terrestrial Natura 2000 network (covering 

about 18% of EU land area by 2020), and significantly increased the marine network 

Action 1: Complete 

the establishment of 

the Natura 2000 

Network and 

ensure good 

management 

1a) Complete the establishment of Natura 2000, including in the marine 

(from 3% in 2010 to 9% for EU-28 and 8% for EU-27 in 2020).  

environment. 

  Commission Guidance on permitting procedures, Article 6 (update of previous 

1b) Member States and the Commission will further integrate species 

guidance), sector-specific guidance with input from ad hoc working groups of national 

and habitat protection and management requirements into key land and 

authorities and experts from other sectors (energy, transport, extractive industries, 

water use policies, both within and beyond Natura 2000 areas. 

fisheries, farming, forestry, aquaculture, etc),  

1c) Member States will ensure that management plans or equivalent 

 

Strengthened links the between Nature Directives and other key environmental 

instruments which set out conservation and restoration measures are 

legislation (IAS, MSFD, WFD, Nitrates).  

developed and implemented in a timely manner for all Natura 2000 

 

EU and international species and habitat action plans for threatened habitats and species.  

sites. 

  Action Plan for Nature, People, and the Economy launched in 2017 with actions to 

1d) The Commission, together with Member States, will establish by 

strengthen implementation, enforcement, policy integration and awareness raising. 

2012 a process to promote the sharing of experience, good practice, and 

 

 Management plans established for 15 500 Natura 2000 sites (SACs) covering an area of 

cross-border collaboration on the management of Natura 2000, within 

358,000 km by 2020  

the biogeographical frameworks set out in the Habitats Directive. 

  Natura 2000 Biogeographical Process270  launched in 2012, bringing together national 

2) The Commission and Member States will provide the necessary funds 

Action 2: Ensure 

and incentives for Natura 2000, including through EU funding 

adequate financing 

instruments, under the next Multi-annual Financial Framework. The 

of Natura 2000 sites 

Commission will set out its views in 2011 on how Natura 2000 will be 

financed under the next Multi-annual Financial Framework. 

270 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/seminars_en.htm 

conservation agencies, government officials, experts and stakeholders to discuss 

solutions to common challenges at the level of the biogeographical regions. 

  Regulations on EU funding instruments (2013) required Prioritised Action Frameworks 

(PAF) to be considered in programming and included indicators of funding for Natura 

2000. 

  Varying level of uptake by the Member States of CAP Natura 2000 support measures  

  Member States’ Prioritised Action Frameworks developed and implemented 

 

since 2012 supporting authorities in EU Member States to implement Natura 2000. LIFE 

Preparatory Projects on tools to promote private land conservation.  

  Natura 2000 funding handbook published in 2014.  

139 

 
                                                           
 

European Natura 2000 Award launched in 2013 with European Citizen’s Award from 

2016, Natura 2000 Day annually since 2017. 

 

EU Platform on Coexistence between People and Large Carnivores held regular 

dialogues and meetings since 2014; LIFE Eurolargecarnivores project.  

3a) The Commission, together with Member States, will develop and 

  Collaboration between the Commission and stakeholders (hunters association and NGO) 

launch a major communication campaign on Natura 2000 by 2013. 

to produce guidance on hunting and Natura 2000, a dedicated awareness-raising 

Action 3: Increase 

3b) The Commission and Member States will improve cooperation with 

programme on Natura 2000 among hunters, study on bird species action plan method.  

stakeholder 

awareness and 

key sectors and continue to develop guidance documents to improve 

 

EMS national, regional, and local authorities have organised exchanges on 

their understanding of the requirements of EU nature legislation and its 

implementation issues with support from the Peer2Peer tool.  

involvement and 

value in promoting economic development. 

 

Training for judges and prosecutors was provided in implementation of the Action plan 

improve 

enforcement 

3c) The Commission and Member States will facilitate enforcement of 

for nature, people and the economy.  

the nature directives by providing specific training programmes on 

  Coordinated EU action on illegal trapping, killing and trade of birds, Intergovernmental 

Natura 2000 for judges and public prosecutors, and by developing better 

Task Force on Illegal Killing, Taking and Trade of Migratory Birds in the 

compliance promotion capacities. 

Mediterranean. 

Action 4: Improve 

and streamline 

monitoring and 

reporting 

4a) The Commission, together with Member States, will develop by 

2012 a new EU bird reporting system, further develop the reporting 

system under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive and improve the flow, 

accessibility and relevance of Natura 2000 data. 

4b) The Commission will create a dedicated ICT tool as part of the 

Biodiversity Information System for Europe to improve the availability 

and use of data by 2012. 

Target 2 

Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services 

  Biannual meetings of Technical Platform for Cooperation on the Environment focused 

on the smart and effective implementation by local and regional authorities of the Birds 

and Habitats Directives (from 2017).  

  Update of guidance on species protection in preparation.  

  Commission developed, together with the Member States, the method to report on the 

status and trends of their bird populations  

 

(Member States’ reports (State of Nature report 2015 and State of Nature report 2020).  

  HABIDES+ reporting tool on derogations made operational.  

  Member States have cooperated with the Commission in the Expert Group on Reporting 

to improve quality and coherence of Article 17/12 and Natura 2000 data reporting.  

 

EEA Natura 2000 network viewer tool as part of Biodiversity Information System for 

Europe (BISE).  

Action 5: Improve 

5) Member States, with the assistance of the Commission, will map and 

Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) initiative: Research, pilot studies and EU 

knowledge of 

ecosystems and 

assess the state of ecosystems and their services in their national 

workshops.  

territory by 2014, assess the economic value of such services, and 

  MAES reports: (1) analytical framework and typologies of ecosystems and ecosystem 

their services in the 

promote the integration of these values into accounting and reporting 

services; (2) indicators to map and assess biodiversity, ecosystem condition and 

EU 

systems at EU and national level by 2020. 

ecosystem services; (3) available information; (4) urban ecosystems and their services; 

  Member States and the Commission have launched the Mapping and Assessment of 

(5) integrated analytical framework and indicators.  

140 

 
 
  All Member States have progressed in the mapping and assessment of ecosystems and 

their services in their territories (MAES barometer).  

 

The project “Integrated System of Natural Capital and ecosystem services accounting in 

the EU” (KIP-INCA) proposed a design of a NCA system and produced a suite of EU-

level ecosystem accounts including time series of ecosystem extent accounts, ecosystem 

services accounts (on water purification, crop pollination, recreation, crop provision, 

timber provision, global climate regulation, and flood control) and pilot ecosystem 

provision accounts. 

 

EU research projects: OpenNess and OPERAS, OPPLA hub on nature-based solutions, 

ESMERELDA. (See horizontal action on knowledge for more activities).  

 

EU Pollinators Initiative launched in 2017 with communication campaigns, information, 

guidance, and capacity building as well as actions to improve knowledge on pollinator 

decline and its drivers. 

 

 

Estimation of the financing needs to implement Target 2 (IEEP, 2013).  

EU Green Infrastructure Strategy (COM(2013)249 final).  

  Actions across all Member States to deploy green and blue infrastructure: see Review of 

progress on the implementation of the EU green infrastructure Strategy (COM(2019)236 

final and SWD(2019)184 final) 

 

Increased financing possibilities for green infrastructure projects under the multi-annual 

financial framework for the period 2014-2020 and Commission guidance on 

opportunities under different EU policies and funding instruments..  

 

 EU guidance on a strategic framework for further supporting the deployment of EU-

level green and blue infrastructure SWD(2019) 193 final  

 

Study to support Restoration Prioritization Frameworks (Arcadis, 2014).  

  Commission review of progress in implementing the EU GI Strategy (2019). Horizon 

2020 funding for research programmes on green infrastructure and on pollinators (2020). 
EU guidance to the Member States on developing Restoration Prioritization 
Frameworks;  

 

 

Publication of restoration prioritization frameworks by several Member States. 

EU Pollinators Initiative and preparatory action on EU pollinator monitoring and 

indicators.  

6a) By 2014, Member States, with the assistance of the Commission, 

will develop a strategic framework to set priorities for ecosystem 

Action 6: Set 

restoration at sub-national, national and EU level. 

priorities to restore 

6b) The Commission will develop a Green Infrastructure Strategy by 

and promote the 

2012 to promote the deployment of green infrastructure in the EU in 

use of green 

infrastructure 

urban and rural areas, including through incentives to encourage up-

front investments in green infrastructure projects and the maintenance of 

ecosystem services, for example through better targeted use of EU 

funding streams and Public Private Partnerships. 

7. Ensure no net 

7a) In collaboration with the Member States, the Commission will 

  Common framework for biodiversity-proofing the EU funding programmes and sector-

loss of biodiversity 

develop a methodology for assessing the impact of EU-funded projects, 

specific guidance published in 2013.  

and ecosystem 

plans and programmes on biodiversity by 2014. 

  Guidance on integrating ecosystems and their services into decision-making 

141 

 
services 

7b) The Commission will carry out further work with a view to 

(SWD(2019) 305 final) published in 2019. 

proposing by 2015 an initiative to ensure there is no net loss of 

  No Net Loss Working Group defined the scope and objectives and the operational 

ecosystems and their services (e.g. through compensation or offsetting 

principles of a NNL initiative.  

schemes). 

 

Study of policy options for achieving NNL target (IEEP, 2013) and study of potential 

impacts of options (IEEP, 2016).  

 

Public consultation in 2016 revealed diverging opinions on policy instruments for the 

initiative, in particular offsetting. No further policy development occurred, other than 

publication in 2020 of guidance on NNL of biodiversity and ecosystem services. 

Target 3 

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

8a) The Commission will propose that CAP direct payments will reward 

the delivery of environmental public goods that go beyond cross-

  Mandatory greening measures in CAP (2014-2020) direct payments covered 80% of 

8. Enhance direct 

compliance (e.g. permanent pasture, green cover, crop rotation, 

UAA.  

payments for 

environmental 

ecological set-aside, Natura 2000). 

  Overall limited impact of ecological focus areas due to Member States’ choices often 

8b) The Commission will propose to improve and simplify the GAEC 

favouring EFA types of low biodiversity value. 

public goods in the 

(Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions) cross-compliance 

  Ban on ploughing up all environmentally sensitive permanent grassland covered about 

EU Common 

standards and consider including the Water Framework Directive within 

1/3 of permanent grassland in Natura 2000 and only 1% outside of it. 

Agricultural Policy 

the scope of cross-compliance once the Directive has been implemented 

  Cross-compliance: GAECs help to maintain landscape elements, reduce pollution and 

and the operational obligations for farmers have been identified in order 

soil erosion – but most Member States have settled for minimum standards.   

to improve the state of aquatic ecosystems in rural areas. 

9. Better target 

Rural Development 

to biodiversity 

conservation 

9a) The Commission and Member States will integrate quantified 

biodiversity targets into Rural Development strategies and programmes, 

tailoring action to regional and local needs. 

9b) The Commission and Member States will establish mechanisms to 

facilitate collaboration among farmers and foresters to achieve 

continuity of landscape features, protection of genetic resources and 

other cooperation mechanisms to protect biodiversity. 

  Rural Development Regulation 2013 included focus area 4A for MS to programme 

measures dedicated to biodiversity, with mandatory 30% to be spent on environmental 

measures.  

  Voluntary commitments under pillar II add targeted environmental provisions: on 15% 

of UAA for AECM measures, and on 5% of UAA for organic farming. 

 

The area supported by payments for Natura 2000 (M12) has increased by 45.5%, 

however the measure has been infrequently used by Member States. 

 

ENRD workshops with the Member States, dissemination of best practices e.g., results-

based payments approach (notably EU funded pilots 2014-2019). 

  Common farmland birds index and the conservation status of grassland habitats (as 

reported under the Habitats Directive reporting) used as context and impact indicators 

for biodiversity.  

 

European Innovation Partnerships for Agricultural Sustainability and Productivity.  

10. Conserve 

10) The Commission and Member States will encourage the uptake of 

  Rural Development Regulation included sub measure to support agricultural genetic 

142 

 
 
Europe’s 

agri-environmental measures to support genetic diversity in agriculture 

diversity. 

agricultural genetic 

and explore the scope for developing a strategy for the conservation of 

 

EU funded research projects on ex-situ and in-situ conservation of plant genetic 

diversity 

genetic diversity. 

resources including crops.  

 

EP preparatory action on EU plant and animal genetic resources. Stakeholders objected 

to the failure to protect farmers’ rights to exchange traditional seeds.  

11a) Member States and the Commission will encourage the adoption of 

 

Funding for forest measures through the CAP Rural Development Programmes from 

11. Encourage 

Management Plans, inter alia through use of rural development 

2014 to 2020 was made conditional on the existence of a forest management plan or 

forest holders to 

measures and the LIFE+ programme.  

equivalent instrument in line with the sustainable forest management principles of Forest 

protect and 

enhance forest 

biodiversity 

11b) Member States and the Commission will foster innovative 

Europe.  

mechanisms (e.g., Payments for Ecosystem Services) to finance the 

 

Some Member States have used CAP forest measures and the afforestation and 

maintenance and restoration of ecosystem services provided by 

agroforestry elements of the EFA in forest areas, but overall infrequently. 

multifunctional forests. 

  Member States have only targeted EFA measures at very few high biodiversity forests. 

12. Integrate 

biodiversity 

measures in forest 

management plans 

12) Member States will ensure that forest management plans or 

equivalent instruments include as many of the following measures as 

possible: 

– maintain optimal levels of deadwood, considering regional variations 

such as fire risk or potential insect outbreaks. 

– preserve wilderness areas. 

– ecosystem-based measures to increase the resilience of forests against 

fires as part of forest fire prevention schemes, in line with activities 

carried out in the European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS) 

– specific measures developed for Natura 2000 forest sites 

– ensuring that afforestation is carried out in accordance with the Pan-

European Operational Level Guidelines for SFM33, as regards the 

diversity of species, and climate change adaptation needs. 

  Diversity of Member States approaches to forest management planning.  

  A Guidance document on Natura 2000 and forests.  

  Commission study on implementing sustainable forest management according to the EU 

Biodiversity Strategy and the EU Bioeconomy Strategy (NEPCon, 2018).  

 

The assessment of progress in implementing the EU Forest Strategy in 2019 (EFI et al., 

2019) stated that an overview of the status of forest management plans throughout 

Europe is lacking, as is an analysis of the extent of biodiversity measures included in 

such plans. 

Target 4 

Ensure the sustainable use of fisheries resources 

13. Improve the 

management of 

fished stocks 

13a) The Commission and Member States will maintain and restore fish 

  Reformed Common Fisheries Policy Regulation adopted in 2013 set target to achieve 

stocks to levels that can produce MSY in all areas in which EU fish 

MSY by 2015 where possible, and by 2020 at the latest. 

fleets operate, including areas regulated by Regional Fisheries 

 

Fishing opportunities are set to bring stocks at safe and sustainable levels and ensure that 

Management Organisations, and the waters of third countries with which 

they are fished at maximum sustainable yield levels. Further efforts are needed on 

the EU has concluded Fisheries Partnership Agreements. 

Mediterranean and Black Sea stocks.  

13b) The Commission and Member States will develop and implement 

  Member States gradually introduced landing obligations for all species subject to catch 

under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) long-term management plans 

limits, and in the Mediterranean also for species subject to minimum sizes, implemented 

with harvest control rules based on the MSY approach. These plans 

at the fishery level through multiannual plans or specific discard plans.  

143 

 
 
should be designed to respond to specific time-related targets and be 

 

Taskforce for approving multi-annual plans set up. Multiannual plans, including work to 

based on scientific advice and sustainability principles. 

develop use of Total Allowable Catch (TAC) limits.  

13c) The Commission and Member States will significantly step up their 

 

The Multiannual Union programme for the collection, management and use of data in 

work to collect data to support implementation of MSY. Once this 

the fisheries and aquaculture sectors for the period 2017-2019 contains an obligation to 

objective is attained, scientific advice will be sought to incorporate 

collect data on the impact of fisheries on protected and endangered species and habitats, 

ecological considerations in the definition of MSY by 2020. 

first through pilot studies to test different methodologies before including in the regular 

14a) The EU will design measures to gradually eliminate discards, to 

avoid the by-catch of unwanted species and to preserve vulnerable 

marine ecosystems in accordance with EU legislation and international 

obligations. 

14. Eliminate 

14b) The Commission and Member States will support the 

adverse impacts on 

implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, including 

fish stocks, species, 

through providing financial incentives through the future financial 

habitats and 

ecosystems  

instruments for fisheries and maritime policy for marine protected areas 

(including Natura 2000 areas and those established by international or 

regional agreements). This could include restoring marine ecosystems, 

adapting fishing activities and promoting the involvement of the sector 

in alternative activities, such as eco-tourism, monitoring and managing 

marine biodiversity, and combating marine litter. 

sampling plan. 

 

EU Action Plan for reducing incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gears 

(COM/2012/0665 final). EU Action Plan for the conservation and management of sharks 

(COM/2009/0040 final). 

 

Shark finning regulation No 1185/2003, as amended by Regulation No 605/2013 

prohibited the practice of shark finning in EU waters and for all EU vessels fishing 

everywhere, and required reporting of shark landings.  

  Data Collection Framework Regulation (2017) set requirements for data collection on 

incidental bycatch of seabirds, cetaceans, and other protected species.  

  New Technical Measures Regulation No 2019/1241 set measures to increase the use of 

selective fishing gear, restrict the use of non-selective gear such as drift nets and bottom 

trawlers, prohibit the catch of certain species and fishing in certain sensitive habitats, 

and mitigation measures to reduce or prevent bycatch of protected species.   

 

Some Member States have developed fisheries measures to protect sensitive species and 

habitats at both the national and regional levels. Regional cooperation between fisheries 

administrations and stakeholders has expanded, with the support of regional seas 

conventions. 

  Member States have progressed in setting up marine strategies to pursue good 

environmental status, however resources and measures have been insufficient to target 

the most important pressures, prevent deterioration and restore marine ecosystems 

(Commission report on the MSFD implementation (COM/2020/259 final)). Spatial 

analysis of MPA networks and methodology to assess network coherence (2015), 

guidance on the establishment of fisheries conservation measures under the CFP for 

Natura 2000 sites and for the MSFD (2018).  

  Adoption and implementation of the EMFF 2014-2020, including measures to help 

fishers adapt to sustainable fishing, and to preserve and protect the marine environment. 

Target 5 

Combat invasive alien species 

144 

 
 
 
15. Strengthen the 

EU plant and 

animal health 

regimes 

16. Establish a 

dedicated 

instrument on 

invasive alien 

species 

15) The Commission will integrate additional biodiversity concerns into 

biodiversity and the wider environment in the EU.  

the Plant and Animal Health Regimes by 2012. 

 

2018 expanded list of priority notifiable diseases and their carriers includes diseases 

  Commission 2013 proposal for package of measures on animal health.  

  Revised EU Plant Health Regulation (2016) including list of priority pests with adverse 

impacts on biodiversity and native plants. 

 

EU Animal Health Law (2016) establishes list of diseases negatively impacting 

16) The Commission will fill policy gaps in combating IAS by 

developing a dedicated legislative instrument by 2012. 

affecting bats and other wild mammals, bumblebees, wild birds, fish, shellfish, and 

crustaceans.  

 

2019 list of 20 quarantine pests as priority pests, whose economic, environmental and 

social impacts on the EU territory is most severe.  

 

The EU IAS Regulation was adopted in 2014 and entered into force in 2015, provides a 

framework to combat IAS. 

 

Lists of invasive alien species of Union concern adopted in 2016 and updated in 2017 

and 2019, to a total of 66 species.  

  Restrictions and obligations for IAS eradication or management gradually kicked-in 

over the period 2016-2019, including measures on their prevention, early detection, 

rapid eradication, and management.  

  Most Member States have set up a surveillance system and carry out official controls for 

IAS on the Union List.  

  Most Member States have identified the priority pathways relevant to them. However, 

most Member States have not yet implemented the action plans to address the priority 

pathways. In June 2021, the Commission initiated procedures against 18 Member States. 

 

European Alien species Information Network (EASIN) platform that provides 

information of alien species in Europe, Within EASIN, JRC developed the including a 

notification system (NOTSYS) to exchange information and early alerts on occurrence 

of IAS included in the Union list.  

 

J 

Target 6 

Contribute to averting global biodiversity loss 

17. Reduce indirect 

drivers of 

biodiversity loss 

17a) Under the EU flagship initiative on resource efficiency, the EU will 

 

EU Flagship initiative on Resource Efficiency actions to analyse environmental 

take measures (which may include demand and/or supply side measures) 

footprints and improve the knowledge base (2011), Circular Economy package (2015), 

to reduce the biodiversity impacts of EU consumption patterns, 

European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy (2018). 

particularly for resources that have significant negative effects on 

  Updates of critical raw materials list and report on CRMs and circular economy (2018).  

biodiversity. 

 

FLEGT action plan against illegal logging promotes Voluntary Partnership Agreements 

17b) The Commission will enhance the contribution of trade policy to 

(and 2019 COM on deforestation which includes a commitment to present a legislative 

145 

 
 
conserving biodiversity and address potential negative impacts by 

proposal).  

systematically including it as part of trade negotiations and dialogues 

 

EU Timber Regulation obligations for operators placing timber and timber products on 

with third countries, by identifying and evaluating potential impacts on 

the market. 

biodiversity resulting from the liberalisation of trade and investment 

 

Expert Group on the EU Timber Regulation and the Forest Law Enforcement, 

through ex-ante Trade Sustainability Impact Assessments and ex-post 

Governance and Trade Regulation.  

evaluations, and seek to include in all new trade agreements a chapter on 

 

Encouragement of public procurement policies that specify trade in sustainable and 

sustainable development providing for substantial environmental 

verified legal timber.  

provisions of importance in the trade context including on biodiversity 

 

Signing up to international biodiversity agreements as condition of Generalised Scheme 

goals. 

of Preferences (GSP) and bilateral trade agreements.  

17c) The Commission will work with Member States and key 

 

EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking (2016).  

stakeholders to provide the right market signals for biodiversity 

  Business and Biodiversity Platform (B@B) sharing of best practices.  

conservation, including work to reform, phase out and eliminate harmful 

 

Following a scoping study (2018), the Commission initiated in 2019 the development of 

subsidies at both EU and Member State level, and to provide positive 

a methodology to better assess the impacts of trade liberalization on biodiversity in 

incentives for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. 

support of better integration of biodiversity in Sustainability Impact Assessments and ex 

post evaluations of EU FTAs.  

 

The Commission is including biodiversity articles in Trade and Sustainable 

Development chapters of all new EU FTAs.  

  Biodiversity is also regularly addressed as part of TSD implementation. 

 

The EU significantly increased budgetary resources allocated to environmental issues 

via the Thematic Programme on Global Public Goods and Challenges (GPGC) under the 

18. Mobilise 

additional 

resources for global 

biodiversity 

conservation 

18a) The Commission and Member States will contribute their fair share 

Development Cooperation Instruments (including support for NBSAPs and resource 

to international efforts to significantly increase resources for global 

mobilization plans), the Partnership Instrument and increased the proportion of funding 

biodiversity as part of the international process aimed at estimating 

directed to natural resources in the European Development Fund.  

biodiversity funding needs and adopting resource mobilisation targets 

  DEVCO led programs supporting biodiversity over 2014-2020.  

for biodiversity at the 10th Conference of the Parties to the Convention 

 

The scope of external programming included Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in 

on Biological Diversity in 2012. 

Territories of European Overseas (BEST) funded initially as a preparatory action in 

18b) The Commission will improve the effectiveness of EU funding for 

2010, then EU funded the BEST 2.0 Programme with a budget of 8 million EUR from 

global biodiversity inter alia by supporting natural capital assessments in 

2015.  

recipient countries and the development and/ or updating of National 

 

The Biodiversity for Life Flagship Initiative was used to bring together all EU-funded 

Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans, and by improving coordination 

development cooperation projects and programmes that target biodiversity as a principal 

within the EU and with key non-EU donors in implementing 

objective. 

biodiversity assistance/projects. 

 

Strategies such as Larger than Elephants, Larger than Tigers, and Larger than Jaguars, 

define a strategic approach to halting biodiversity loss in Africa, Asia, and Latin 

America and the Caribbean respectively, including institutional strengthening and 

146 

 
19. ‘Biodiversity 

proof’ EU 

development 

cooperation 

19) The Commission will continue to systematically screen its 

  Guidance for Member States on Strategic Environmental Assessments and 

development cooperation action to minimise any negative impact on 

mainstreaming biodiversity and climate in development cooperation action (2017).  

biodiversity, and undertake Strategic Environmental Assessments and/or 

  Development cooperation planned and delivered through National Indicative 

Environmental Impact Assessments for actions likely to have significant 

Programmes or Regional Indicative Programmes and Sector Policy Support 

effects on biodiversity. 

Programmes.  

capacity building of national authorities and global action against wildlife crime, 

deforestation, and ecosystem function collapse. 

  Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 on compliance measures for users from the Nagoya 

Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits 

Arising from their Utilization in the Union applicable since 12 October 2014. 

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1866 sets rules for the register of 

collections, monitoring user compliance and best practices.  

 

The Commission sent letters of formal notice in January 2018 to nine Member States 

that were still non-compliant with the establishment of competent authorities and 

20) The Commission will propose legislation to implement the Nagoya 

penalties for infringement of users’ due diligence obligations under the Regulation ; by 

Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable 

the end of 2020 all Member States were compliant.   

Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation in the European Union 

 

The first Commission  report on implementation of the regulation was published in 

so that the EU can ratify the Protocol as soon as possible and by 2015 at 

2017.  

the latest, as required by the global target. 

 

The ABS Expert Group set up  under the Regulation met regularly and assist Member 

States with the implementation.  

 

The Consultation Forum, gathering stakeholders from private and public sectors, also 

met regularly. 

  A Workshop in 2017 with participation from provider countries. 

  A guidance document on the scope of application and core obligation of the EU ABS 

Regulation was issued by the Commission in 2016,and a revised version was published 

in 2020). 

20. Regulate access 

to genetic resources 

and the fair and 

equitable sharing of 

benefits arising 

from their use 

Horizontal measures 

Reinforce cooperation and build effective partnerships with key sectors, 

  Common Implementation Framework (CIF) set out a governance structure to support the 

including business, spatial planners and researchers and society at large; 

delivery of the Strategy under the EU Nature Directors meetings (NDM). The 

Partnerships for 

biodiversity 

also 

 

The EU outermost regions and overseas countries and 

Group to steer implementation of the Strategy with sub-groups dealing with a range of 

Coordination Group for Biodiversity and Nature (CGBN) was set up as the main Expert 

territories (through the BEST initiative); 

topics.  

  Developing countries (in implementing the TEEB 

  A range of Partnerships were set up under Target 1 (see Action 1) and Target 2 (see 

recommendations) and EU candidate countries; 

Actions 5, 6 & 7).  

147 

 
  Biodiversity-related Conventions. 

 

EU Business and Biodiversity Platform (B@B platform) supported by the Commission 

to encourage active involvement of businesses in the implementation of the Strategy.  

  Global: Biodiversity for Life (B4Life) initiative (see Action 18). EU participated in the 

Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund (CEPF) with EUR 20 million, Wealth Accounting 

and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services (WAVES) global partnership headed by the 

World Bank with EUR 2.5 M. Joint Communication on International Ocean Governance 

(2016). 

 

EU funding instruments under the Multi-annual financial framework for the period 

The Commission and Member States will work to ensure a better uptake 

2014-2020 integrated biodiversity priorities and measures. 

and distribution of existing funds for biodiversity, rationalise available 

 

European Court of Auditors assessed use of ERDF funds for biodiversity in 2014, EMFF 

resources and maximise co-benefits of various funding sources, 

in 2020, agri-environment in 2011, and CAP funds overall in 2020.  

including funding for agriculture and rural development, fisheries, 

  Common Framework for Biodiversity-Proofing of the EU funds (2014).  

regional policy and climate change, and diversify and scale up various 

 

LIFE programme prioritised targets 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and funded information and 

sources of funding. The Commission and Member States will promote 

awareness raising campaigns under information & governance priority area.  

the development and use of innovative financing mechanisms, including 

 

LIFE funding for nature and biodiversity was increased by 10% in 2018-2020 following 

Mobilising funding 

market-based instruments, public private partnerships, and the possible 

the Action Plan for People, Nature, and the Economy.  

resources 

establishment of a biodiversity financing facility. The potential of 

 

7th FP and then Horizon 2020 funding for research and innovation projects focusing on 

biodiversity offsets to ensure no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem 

biodiversity and ecosystem services.  

services will be explored. Member States to develop multi-annual 

  Commission developed biodiversity financing and tracking methodology for the major 

planning for Natura 2000, consistent with the prioritised action 

EU funds and applied from 2017 onwards.  

frameworks. Responses to the COP10 commitment to increase 

 

EIB set up Natural Capital Financing Facility (NCFF) for pilot projects promoting the 

substantially financial resources from all sources for effective 

preservation of natural capital in 2014, European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) 

implementation of the Nagoya outcomes set out in national biodiversity 

for large restoration investments in 2015.  

strategies and action plans (NBSAPs).  

 

See Action 2 for funding resources for Natura 2000. See partnerships and Action 18 for 

increase in development cooperation funding resources for biodiversity.  

Commission will work with Member States and the European 

 

EU 2020 Biodiversity baseline was established in 2010 and revised in 2015, used in the 

Environment Agency to develop an integrated framework for 

mid-term review to measure progress in reaching targets as well as in the final 

monitoring, assessing and reporting on progress in implementing the 

evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy.  

Strategy. The Biodiversity Information System for Europe (BISE) web 

  Biodiversity Information System for Europe (BISE) as single-entry point for published 

portal will be the main platform for data and information sharing. 

data and information supporting the implementation and monitoring of the EU 

National, EU and global monitoring, reporting and review obligations 

Biodiversity Strategy 2020.  

will be improved and streamlined as far as possible with requirements 

  Update and development of EU SEBI biodiversity indicators.  

under other environmental legislation, such as the Water Framework 

 

EU Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services (MAES) and Knowledge 

Directive. 

Innovation Project for Integrated Natural Capital Accounting (KIP-INCA initiatives) – 

Building 

biodiversity 

knowledge 

148 

 
The EU 2020 biodiversity baseline and the updated EU biodiversity 

see Action 5.  

indicators will be key components of Shared Environmental Information 

 

TRAIN and Eurostat grants to support MS in MAES and accounting. EU support for 

System and Global Monitoring for Environment and Security, the EU 

science-policy interfaces: IPBES, EKLIPSE, Biodiversa.  

Forest Data Centre and the LUCAS Land Use Cover Area Frame 

  Global knowledge: Digital Observatory for Protected Areas (DOPA) developed by JRC 

Survey.  

to assess, monitor, and forecast biodiversity in protected areas globally.  

EU will remain closely involved in and contribute actively to the new 

 

EU funded setup of regional observatories of biodiversity and protected areas - 

intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and 

BIOPAMA (in ACP countries), OFAC (in central Africa), and BID (to improve quality 

ecosystem services (IPBES), particularly to work on regional 

and use of scientific information related to biodiversity for decision-making).  

assessments. 

  MAES OR OCT EP pilot project on mapping and assessing the state of ecosystems and 

their services in the outermost regions and overseas countries and territories.  

149 

 
 
 
ANNEX  8  –  KEY  INSIGHTS  FROM  THE  CASE  STUDIES  IN  10  MEMBER 
STATES 

As part of the support study to the evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, surveys and 
interviews with national authorities, stakeholders and experts were carried out from November 2020 
to March 2021 in ten EU Member States. The aim was to identify and learn about efforts made in 
different  national  contexts,  provide  examples  of  successful  approaches  and  challenges  as  well  as 
explore  the  views  of  different  stakeholders  on  the  implementation  process.  The  findings  from 
these surveys are in no way assessments of how well any of these Member State performed in 
implementing the Strategy.  

The  purpose  of  the  national  surveys  was  to  provide  insights  into  (i)  national  approaches  to  the 
implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 in different Member States, (ii) views of 
national and regional stakeholders on the implementation process and results, (iii) examples of what 
worked  well  and  what  didn’t,  and  (iv)  reflections  of  key  stakeholders  on  the  likely  factors  of 
success and failure, and on the impacts of the Strategy on the ground. 

Several criteria were applied to select ten Member States with a balanced representation of different 
national  contexts,  including:  biogeographical  region,  date  of  accession,  available  evidence  on 
biodiversity implementation initiatives and measures, and relevance of national context in relation 
to  the  selected  biodiversity  targets.  Each  national  case  study  covered  national  implementation 
efforts across all EU biodiversity targets, as well as a more focused assessment  of 2 to 3 selected 
biodiversity targets. 

The  following  Member  States  were  selected:  Bulgaria  (with  emphasis  on  Targets  1,  3a  and  5), 
Finland (with emphasis on Targets 2, 3b, 4 and 5), Germany (with emphasis on Targets 2, 3a and 
5),  Greece  (with  emphasis  on  Targets  2,  3a  and  3b),  Italy  (with  emphasis  on  Targets  2  and  4), 
Lithuania (with emphasis on Targets 3b and 4), the Netherlands (with emphasis on Targets 1, 2 and 
4), Romania (with emphasis on Targets 1, 3a and 3b), Slovakia (with emphasis on Targets 1 and 2) 
and Spain (with emphasis on Targets 1 and 4). 

Each case study included the following elements:  

  Document  review:  official  publications,  scientific  papers,  stakeholder  positions  and  other 
documents  were  examined  in  order  to  gain  an  overview  of  the  national  framework  and 
approaches to implementation and monitoring, as well as to identify relevant examples.  

  Online survey: the survey, translated in all national languages, was open for stakeholder input 
from September 2020 to January 2021 on the webpage of the contractor. It invited respondents 
to  provide:  (i)  examples  of  implementation  successes  and  difficulties,  and  their  views  on  the 
factors that underpin them; (ii) evidence of costs and benefits of implementation; and (iii) views 
on the Strategy’s relevance to national biodiversity needs and its added value. Authorities and 
stakeholders were actively invited to contribute.  

  Stakeholder interviews: in each of the selected Member States, five representatives of national 
or  regional  authorities,  stakeholder  organisations  or  experts  were  identified  and  interviewed. 
The  interviews  were  carried  out  in  the  format  of  a  free  conversation  while  the  interviewers 
followed  a  broadly  defined  pattern  to  understand  (i)  the  stakeholder’s  role  and  activities  in 
relation  to  biodiversity,  (ii)  positive  experiences,  (iii)  challenges  met,  and  (iv)  views  on  their 
root causes. 

150 

 
Key findings from these national surveys and interviews are summarised below. 

1. National Biodiversity Policy Frameworks 

The Member States in the case studies have developed different national instruments translating the 
EU and global biodiversity targets to 2020. These included: 
  Spain’s Strategic Plan on Natural Heritage and Biodiversity (SPNHB) for 2011-2017 which set 
the overarching goal to halt the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services, 
and to address their restoration. A monitoring system with indicators measured progress towards 
the  national  and  EU  targets.  The  Ministry  for  the  Ecological  Transition  and  Demographic 
Challenge  (MITECO)  prepared  and  published,  in  collaboration  with  the  autonomous 
communities and other bodies, annual reports271 with values and interpretation of the indicators. 
The Plan was not updated following its completion in 2017 until 2020272. 

  The Italian National Biodiversity Strategy (NBS) released in 2010, and updated in 2016 in line 
with  the  objectives  of  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  to  2020273.  It  defined  3  national  strategic 
targets on: 1) Biodiversity and ecosystem services, 2) Biodiversity and climate change, and 3) 
Biodiversity and economic policies and specific targets and priority measures for 15 work areas. 
The Ministry of the Environment published an implementation report every two years274,275 and 
a  mid-term  review  in  2016276,  with  a  set  of  indicators  on  the  state  of  biodiversity  and  on  the 
effectiveness of actions277.  

  The  national  Strategy  for  Biodiversity  for  2014-2029  of  Greece  is  the  primary  biodiversity-
related  policy  instrument  in  the  country,  closely  following  the  structure  and  rationale  for  the 
Aichi targets and operationalised by 5-year Action Plans278. 

  The  National  Biodiversity  Strategy279  of  Germany  sets  biodiversity  objectives  and  actions  to 
2020,  with  330  concrete  and  often  quantified  targets  with  target  years  ranging  from  2010  to 
2020, and around 430 measures that should encourage action from state and non-state actors. In 
2015,  the  Federal  Ministry  of  Environment,  Nature  Conservation  and  Nuclear  Safety  (BMU) 
launched the Nature Conservation Initiative 2020 to step up efforts to achieve the biodiversity 
targets  in  ten priority action  areas in  relation  to  arable land  and  grassland, coastal  and marine 
areas, alluvial areas/floodplains, wilderness, protected areas, Natura 2000 and biotope network, 
city green, international  responsibility, knowledge and understanding and financing.  The 2016 
national strategy on biodiversity aspects in the federally owned areas of Germany280,281 details 
how  the  national  biodiversity  strategy  is  being  implemented  in  these  areas.  Progress  on  the 
national  strategy  and  on  the  Nature  Conservation  Initiative  are  reported  in  Germany’s  6th 
national report to the CBD (2020) and in the national indicator reports (most recently published 
in  2017  and  2020).  Fourteen  out  of  the  sixteen  Länder  have  adopted  their  own  biodiversity 

https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/inventarios-nacionales/inventario-espanol-patrimonio-natural-

271 
biodiv/informe_anual_IEPNB.aspx 
272 The Environmental Implementation Review – Country Report Spain (European Commission, 2019). 
273 https://www.minambiente.it/pagina/strategia-nazionale-la-biodiversita  
274 First period (2011-12) Report on the implementation and efficacy of the Strategy (MATMM, 2014). 
275 Fourth period (2017-18) Report on the implementation and efficacy of the Strategy (MATMM, 2020). 
276 Mid-term review - Third period (2015-16) Report on the implementation and efficacy of the Strategy (MATMM, 2018). 
277https://www.minambiente.it/sites/default/files/archivio/allegati/biodiversita/snb_set_preliminare_indicatori_strategia.pdf  
278 CBD (2019). Greece – Sixth National Report.  
279  BMUB  (2007)  National  Strategy  on  Biological  Diversity,  Berlin,  Germany:  Bundesministerium  für  Umwelt,  Naturschutz,  Bau  und 
Reaktorsicherheit (BMU) - Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. 
280 Strategie zur vorbildlichen Berücksichtigung von Biodiversitätsaspekten für alle Flächen des Bundes (Ströff). 
281 BMU (2016) Naturschutzstrategie für Bundesflächen: Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit. 

151 

 
                                                           
 

strategies  and/or  action  plans  to  be  in  line  with  the  national  ambitions;  however,  progress  on 
their implementation is unknown282. 
In  Lithuania,  the  National  Sustainable  Development  Strategy,  the  National  Environmental 
Protection Strategy and the National Action Plan for Biodiversity and Landscapes have been the 
main  horizontal  instruments  that  set  targets  for  the  conservation  and  sustainable  use  of 
biodiversity.  The  National  Environmental  Protection  Strategy  (2015)  emphasises  four  priority 
areas: 1) the sustainable use of natural resources and waste management; 2) the improvement of 
the  quality  of  the  environment;  3)  the  maintenance  of  the  stability  of  ecosystems;  and  4) 
mitigation and adaptation to climate change. 

  Romania’s  National  Biodiversity  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  (NBSAP)  2014-2020283  sets  the 
general  strategic  framework  for  biodiversity  and  nature  protection,  identifying  strategic 
objectives and corresponding actions to be implemented by 2020. 

  Bulgaria’s national legislative framework directly related to biodiversity conservation is based 
on  the  Biodiversity  Act  and  the  Environmental  Protection  Act284,  supported  by  further 
legislative and policy instruments. 

  The  main  strategic  biodiversity  documents  in  the  Slovak  Republic  included  the  updated 
National  Strategy  for  Biodiversity  Protection  until  2020  (2014)  and  the  Action  Plan  for 
Implementation  of  Measures  Resulting  from  the  Updated  National  Strategy  for  Biodiversity 
Protection until 2020 (2014). 

  The main policy instruments implementing the global and EU biodiversity targets to 2020 in the 
Netherlands are the Natural Capital Agenda285 (including 16 actions that covered most, but not 
all,  EU  biodiversity  targets),  a  Nature  Pact  implementation  agreement286  between  the  national 
and provincial authorities (with a focus on the National Ecological Network (NNN), agricultural 
nature management and species’ protection as well as ecological measures under the EU Water 
Framework Directive), and the National Nature Vision287 adopted in 2014.  

2. Insights on successes and challenges from national implementation 

  Target 1 
Success examples:  

  Significant advances have been made in the designation and management of Natura 2000 sites. 
The terrestrial Natura 2000 network is almost completed in most Member States. In Spain, the 
total marine area designated as Natura 2000 increased from 1% to 8% between 2013 and 2016, 
while the terrestrial Natura 2000 area increased by about 10% and is almost completed288, and 
by 2018, management plans were elaborated for the majority of Special Protection Areas (67%) 
and Special Areas of Conservation (77%). In Italy, 97% of SCIs were designated as SACs by 
the  end  of  2020289  (100%  in  the  Calabria  Region),  and  all  of  them  have  general  and  specific 
conservations measures adopted. For more than 90 % of habitats, conservation measures have 
been  identified  and  taken.  Since  2018,  Greece  has  increased  the  marine  Natura  2000  network 

282  BMU  (2017)  Biologische  Vielfalt  in  Deutschland  Rechenschaftsbericht  2017:  Bundesministerium  für  Umwelt,  Naturschutz,  Bau  und 
Reaktorsicherheit. 
283 Ministry of Environment (2014), Strategia națională și Planul de acțiune pentru conservarea biodiversității 2014-20. 
284 Ministry of Environment and Water. Sixth National Report 2014-18 to the Convention on Biological Diversity.  
285 Government of the Netherlands (2013) Uitvoeringsagenda Natuurlijk Kapitaal.  
286 Ministerie van EZ & IPO (2013) Natuurpact ontwikkeling en beheer van natuur in Nederland, Den 
Haag.  
287  https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2014/04/01/rijksnatuurvisie-2014   
288 http://atlasnacional.ign.es 
289 https://www.minambiente.it/pagina/sic-zsc-e-zps-italia  

152 

 
 
 
                                                           
from  6%  to  19.6%  of  total  marine  area  (however,  most  of  these  areas  are  not  effectively 
managed yet290). The Natura 2000 network in Germany covers 15.5% of the terrestrial and 45% 
of the marine area in 2020 and is considered to be almost complete for terrestrial sites and 100% 
complete for marine sites (by the beginning of 2020, legal protection has been secured for over 
98% of the SACs and conservation measures have been defined for approximately 85% of the 
sites, mainly via management plans291). The designation of Important  Bird Areas as SPAs has 
been completed in Bulgaria, however, there is a considerable delay in the designation of Sites of 
Community  Importance  as  SACs.  Slovakia’s  terrestrial  Natura  2000  network  is  virtually 
complete. In the Netherlands, all SCI were designated as SACs by 2018 and management plans 
are in place for all Natura 2000 sites except the 4 marine sites in the Exclusive Economic Zone 
(EEZ)292. 

  The  status  of  emblematic  species  has  improved  thanks  to  conservation  actions,  often  with 
support from the EU LIFE Programme (e.g. the recovery of populations of Lynx pardinus and 
the  Cantabrian  brown  bear  in  Spain;  the  brown  bear  and  the  wolf  in  Italy;  the  chamois  and 
griffon vultures in Bulgaria, the common crane, white tale eagle and osprey in the Netherlands). 
Progress in the improvement of conservation status of habitats has been mostly localised (e.g. 
Alpine streams in Germany293).  

  Most Member States have published red lists and national and regional inventories of terrestrial 
and marine species and terrestrial habitats (numerous examples provided in the case studies of 
Spain,  Italy294,  Germany).  Databases  have  been  created  at  the  regional  level  for  Appropriate 
Assessment (AA) procedures and Natura 2000 sites’ management295.   

  Monitoring  has  been  put  in  place  for  threatened  and  protected  species,  and  there  are  some 
initiatives to monitor the impacts of climate change on protected areas (e.g. in Spain). Data from 
monitoring  programmes  carried  out  by  scientific  societies,  institutions  and  amateurs  are 
increasingly converging and being organised in georeferenced and expert validated databases, at 
both  local  and  national  scales  (e.g.  www.ornitho.it  for  birds,  the  Nature  Directives  reporting 
database296  and  the  web  portal  “NaturaItalia”  in  Italy,  a  national  habitat  monitoring  system  in 
Lithuania297,  a  comprehensive  Information  and  Monitoring  System  www.biomonitoring.sk  in 
Slovakia).  

  Partnerships and networks of actors have been developed to share information and experiences 
and cooperate, such as the Information and Environmental Education (INFEA) system with its 
territorial organizations in Italy298 or collaboration with energy companies in protected areas. 

  Networks of protected areas have been implemented to manage and enhance Natura 2000 as an 
ecological  network,  and  counteract  fragmentation  (e.g.  “Networks  of  reserves"299  in  Trentino 
with support from the LIFE Programme).  

Examples of gaps and challenges: 

290 EC (2019). The Environmental Implementation Review 2019. Country Report Greece. SWD(2019) 138 final. 
291 BfN input to the survey. 
292 Bij12 (2021) Webpage ‘Natura 2000 beheerplannen’.  
293 Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2019) Nationaler Bericht 2019 gemäß FFH-Richtlinie.  
294 The Environmental Implementation Review – Country Report Spain (European Commission, 2019). 
295 https://www.sivic.servizirl.it/vic/#!/homePublic  
296 www.reportingdirettivahabitat.it  
297 https://am.lrv.lt/lt/veiklos-sritys-1/saugomos-teritorijos-ir-krastovaizdis/igyvendinti-projektai 

298 6th National report to the CBD – Italy (Convention of Biological Diversity, 2019. 
299 Provincial law n. 11/2007, art. 47. 

153 

 
                                                           
  Many  Natura  2000  sites  still  lack  conservation  objectives  and  measures,  and  non-compliance 
and new developments adversely impact Natura 2000 areas. (Survey inputs from authorities and 
environmental NGOs in Spain, Italy, Greece).   

  Despite local successes, terrestrial and freshwater species and habitats show a critical situation 
across most Member States. Another remaining challenge in relation to full implementation of 
the  Birds-  and  Habitats  Directives  is  protection  outside  of  Natura  2000  sites.  The  short  term 
trends of a high number of populations are unknown.  

  Conflicts with local actors have followed successful species reintroductions, for example of the 
ferreret  Alytes  muletensis  in  the  Serra  de  Llevant  Natural  Park  and  raptors  in  the  Mondragó 
Natural  Park  on  the  Balearic  Islands,  or  the  brown  bear  in  some  areas  (survey  inputs  from 
regional authorities in Spain).  

  EU guidelines on the management of Natura 2000 forests300 are sometimes in contradiction with 
national  and  regional  forest  management  practices  and  forest  management  guidelines,  for 
example regarding wildfire risks or pest control (Spanish regional forest association).  

Factors influencing success and failure: 

  Financial  and  human  resources:  funding  has  been  insufficient  for  species  and  habitat 
conservation  measures  across  the  case  study  Member  States,  and  limited  capacities  of  nature 
protection  authorities  have  been  raised  in  a  number  of  case  studies  (e.g.  in  Italy,  Romania, 
Slovakia). 

  Strategic integrated approach and governance: competences for nature conservation and for the 
sustainable use of land are divided (Spanish regional authorities and environmental NGOs).  
  Participatory process: not all stakeholders have been consulted or involved in the development 
of Natura 2000 management plans (inputs from Spanish  associations of farmers, foresters and 
fishermen, Lithuanian forestry stakeholders, Romanian authorities and forestry stakeholders). In 
2020,  the  Ministry  of  Environment,  Waters  and  Forests  initiated  a  dialogue  with  relevant 
stakeholders from the forestry sectors to help develop and discuss future forest policy301.  

  Enforcement:  due  to  EU's  infringement  proceedings,  governments  are  pursuing  the  with  high 
priority completion of management plans in Natura 2000 areas (e.g. Greece) and the completion 
of  designations  of  Natura  2000  sites  (e.g.  in  Lithuania,  Romania).  Illegal  practices  (such  as 
illegal logging in Romania) continue to be a threat to Natura 2000. 

  Knowledge:  monitoring  and  knowledge  gaps  on  the  status  of  habitats  and  species  and  on 
pressures  remain,  and  they  affect  the  quality  of  management  plans  (inputs  from  national  and 
regional authorities in a number of case studies) 

  Awareness: negative attitudes to carnivores partly stem from insufficient information about co-
existence  with  emblematic  species  (environmental  NGOs  in  Spain,  survey  inputs  in  Slovakia, 
Lithuania, the Netherlands). 

  Administrative  burden:  authorities  have  noted  that  reporting  under  the  Habitats  and  Birds 
Directives has been extremely difficult to apply due to the requested level of precision and data. 
(Regional  authority  in  Italy).  One  of  the  hindering  factors  to  apply  for  biodiversity  support 
measures, as identified by interviewees in Slovakia, has been the high demand for paperwork.  
  Land use: according to stakeholders and authorities interviewed in the German case study, the 
most  necessary  change  to  improve  the  conservation  status  of  species  and  habitats,  alongside 

300 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm  
301 Forest policy consultation (2020).  

154 

 
                                                           
better  financing  and  resource  provisioning,  is  to  change  land  use  and  management,  especially 
focusing on agriculture, in areas within or in proximity to Natura 2000 sites.  

  Land ownership in Natura 2000 sites is often complex, involving numerous private owners and 
users,  making  both  monitoring  and  conservation  measures  difficult.  Acquisition  of  land,  or 
agreeing  on nature management  agreements, is  additionally hampered by compensation levels 
deemed  to  be  insufficient  for  land  owners  and  users  to  adapt  their  business-model  (evidence 
from  regional  authorities,  farmers  associations,  research  and  environmental  organisations  in 
Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Lithuania)302. 

  Target 2 

Success examples:  

  Significant  progress  has  been  made  in  the  development  of  biodiversity  knowledge,  including 
inventories  and  catalogues  (e.g.  inventories  of  marine  biodiversity,  wetlands,  forests,  an 
inventory of Natural Heritage and Biodiversity in Spain303,￼).  

  All  Member  States  have  progressed  in  the  mapping  and  assessment  of  ecosystems  and  their 
services on their territories, under the EU MAES initiative304  and with support from LIFE and 
Horizon  2020  projects305,￼306￼307￼308￼  has  been  developed  (however,  an  integrated 
environmental  and  economic  accounting  system  is  still  in  its  infancy).  In  Bulgaria,  the 
MetEcoSMAP project has supported the development of a national methodological framework 
and the mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services in 309￼. 

  Examples  of  measures  to  restore  habitats,  promote  ecological  connectivity  and  develop  green 

infrastructure have been highlighted in survey responses.  

o 

In Italy, many municipalities have implemented ecosystem restoration, urban regeneration 
and greening with EU funding and in collaboration with public and private organizations 
and  stakeholders  (for  example  the  H2020  project  Urban  Green  Up,  or  the  LIFE-funded 
GAIA Urban Forestry project, the Veneto ADAPT LIFE project, Soil4LIFE or the LIFE project 
“Sic2Sic”  to  promote  citizen  participation  in  nature  protection).  In  the  Calabria  region, 
restoration of degraded ecosystems has exceeded the 15% target set by the EU Strategy. In 
Lombardy region, the restored Park of San Colombano is one of the widest riparian woods 
of the Po, accessible to the population and local associations.  

o  Germany was one of several Member States that published a Prioritisation Framework for 
ecosystem  restoration  in  2015,  and  carried  out  some  large-scale  restoration  of  rivers  and 

302  PBL (2017) Lerende evaluatie van het Natuurpact: naar nieuwe verbindingen tussen natuur, beleid en samenleving. 
303 Follow up Report of the Strategic Plan for Natural Heritage and Biodiversity (MITECO, 2017). 
304 https://biodiversity.europa.eu/countries/greece/maes 
305 Dimopoulos, P.; Drakou, E.; Kokkoris, I.; Katsanevakis, S.; Kallimanis, A.; Tsiafouli, M.; Bormpoudakis, D.; Kormas, K.; Arends, J. The need for 
the implementation of an Ecosystem Services assessment in Greece: Drafting the national agenda. One Ecosyst. 2017, 2 
306 Albert, C., Burkhard, B., Daube, S., Dietrich, K., Engels, B., Frommer, J., Götzl, M., Grêt-Regamey, A., Job-Hoben, B., Keller, R., Marzelli, S., 
Moning, C., Müller, F., Rabe, S.-E., Ring, I., Schwaiger, E., Schweppe-Kraft, B. and Wüstemann, H. (2015) Development of national indicators for 
ecosystem  services:  recommendations  for  Germany,  Bonn-Bad  Godesberg,  Germany:  Bundesamt  für  Naturschutz  -  Federal  Agency  for  Nature 
Conservation, BfN-Skripten 411. 
307  Albert,  C.,  Neßhöver,  C.,  Schröter,  M.,  Wittmer,  H.,  Bonn,  A.,  Burkhard,  B.,  Dauber,  J.,  Döring,  R.,  Fürst,  C.,  Grunewald,  K.,  Haase,  D., 
Hansjürgens, B., Hauck, J., Hinzmann, M., Koellner, T., Plieninger, T., Rabe, S.-E., Ring, I., Spangenberg, J. H., Stachow, U., Wüstemann, H. and 
Görg, C. (2017) 'Towards a National Ecosystem Assessment in Germany: A Plea for a Comprehensive Approach', GAIA - Ecological Perspectives on 
Science and Society, 26(1), pp. 27-33. 
308 Albert, C., Neßhöver, C., Wittmer, H., Hinzmann, M. and Görg, C. (2014) Sondierungsstudie für ein Nationales Assessment von Ökosystemen und 
ihren Leistungen für Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in Deutschland: Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung – UFZ. 
309 http://www.sopsr.sk/files/hodnota-ekosys.pdf 

155 

 
 
                                                           
floodplains,  as  well  as  programmes  and  initiatives  such  as  Germany’s  Blue  Belt310,  the 
nationwide  flood  protection  programme311  312￼313￼.314315,316,￼.  As  a  consequence  of 
insect  decline  strongly  reported  in  the  media  and  gaining  visibility  in  society  (especially 
due to the ￼4￼ ) the federal government has become active on the topic and developed a 
dedicated insect programme as part of the GAK. 

o  Lithuania  is  considering  decommissioning  of  obsolete  river  barriers  not  fulfilling  socio-

economic criteria (study by the Ministry of Environment). 

o  Successful restoration projects in Bulgaria have been financed under the LIFE programme 
and include NaturAll LIFE - NaturAll LIFE, Restoration and sustainable management of Imperial 
Eagle’s foraging habitats in Natura 2000, Safe Ground Redbreasts, LIFE IAS Free Habitats. 

o  Restoration  of  old  oxbow  lakes  system  with  particular  hydro  meliorations  canals  in 
Medzibodrožie, Slovakia317 and the well-developed concept of green infrastructure in the 
form of the concept of a Territorial System of Ecological Stability318. 

o  The  Netherlands  commissioned  a  quick  scan  for  national  restoration  opportunities319  in 
2014 but didn’t publish an RPF. Restoration measures in the NNN are mostly related to the 
removal  of  built-up  nitrogen  through  vegetation  and  soil  removal,  and  hydrological 
measures  to  increase  the  resilience  of  remaining  habitats320.  In  the  Multi-annual 
Programme  Defragmentation  (2004-2021),  the  national  government  worked  with  ProRail 
and  provinces  to  reconnect  natural  areas,  e.g.  creating  by  wildlife  passages  or  tunnels321. 
The Netherlands approach to flood risk management - ‘room for the river’ - is focused on 
creating more space for flooding rather than further raising dikes where possible. The two 
largest  multi-annual  programmes ‘Ruimte voor de Rivier’ (2006-2019,  EUR  2.3 billion) 
and  ‘Maaswerken’  (1997-2018,  EUR    1.5  billion)  implemented  large-scale  projects  in 
nearly  100  locations  on  the  Rhine-  and  Meuse  river  systems,  recreating  thousands  of 
hectares  of  riverine  nature  areas  resulting  in  significant  biodiversity  improvements322. 
Important  steps  to  restore  river  connectivity  also  taken  2010-2020323.  An  agreement 
between Belgium, The Netherlands and  Luxembourg to  overcome all barriers in  all river 
basins  by  2027  significantly  scaled  up  action.  This  included  green  light  on  some  far-
reaching measures such  as the partial  re-opening of the Haringvliet324 and the 3  km  long 
‘Fish Migration River’ through the Afsluitdijk dam. Other large and innovative ecosystem 
recreation  projects  are:  the  ‘Sand  Motor’325  (natural  marine  currents  recreating  a  large 

310 BVI and BMU (2017) Bundesprogramm Blaues Band Deutschland, Berlin.  
311 Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit (2014) Nationales Hochwasserschutzprogramm. 
312 BfN (2017) Bundeskonzept Grüne Infrastruktur- Grundlagen des Naturschutzes zu Planungen des Bundes, Bonn: Bundesamt für Naturschutz. 
313 Bundesregierung (2014) Antwort der Bundesregierung: Grüne Infrastruktur – Nutzen für Mensch und Tier, Berlin.  
314 BMU (2014) Presseinformation Stand der Umsetzung von Maßnahmen des Bundesprogramms Wiedervernetzung 
315 Ministerium für Verkehr Baden-Württemberg (2019) Wiedernetzung.  
316 Ministerium für Verkehr Baden-Württemberg (2015) Landeskonzept Wiedervernetzung an Straßen in Baden-Württemberg  
317 Stakeholder survey results. 
318 Filčák, R., Považan, R., Adamec, M., Dokupilová, D., Chrenko, M., Izakovičová, Z., Kadlečík, J., Szemesová, J., Špulerová, J. and Šťastný, P., 
(2017).  Environmental Development Scenarios 2020+. Sustainable growth  in the context of biodiversity protection and climate change (short-term 
prospective study). Centre for Social and Psychological Sciences, Slovak Academy of Sciences, organizational unit Prognostic Institute of the Slovak 
Academy of Sciences.  
319 WUR (2015) Ecosysteemherstel in Nederland: een quick-scan naar kansen. 
320 Bij12 (2021) Webpage ‘Herstelmaatregelen in beeld’.  
321 MJPO (2020) Eindboek Meerjarenprogramma Ontsnippering Natuur verbonden, meer leefruimte voor dieren in Nederland.  
322 See for example Straatsma M. et al (2017) Biodiversity recovery following delta-wide measures for flood risk reduction. Science Advances 08 Nov 
2017: Vol. 3, no. 11, e1602762 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1602762. 
323 RWS (2020) Webpage ‘Make way for fish’.  
324 State Forest Service and partners (2018) Website Haringvliet.nu.  
325 RWS & Provincie Zuid-Holland (2021) Website the Sand Engine. 

156 

 
                                                           
sandbank to aid coastal protection), and ‘Marker Wadden’326 creating islands, marshes and 
mudflats in one of the country’s largest freshwater lakes. 

  Biophysical and monetary assessments of ecosystem services have stimulated projects aiming to 
improve the conservation status of ecosystems (e.g. in Italy). The Netherlands made significant 
progress  in  the  development  of  national  natural  capital  accounts327  and  a  publicly  accessible 
Atlas Natural  Capital  was launched in  2015328.  In 2015 a TEEB329  city  tool was launched for 
municipalities330. The Netherlands Knowledge Network Development and Management Nature 
Quality allows researchers, conservation site managers, universities, consultancies, NGO’s, and 
governmental bodies to closely cooperate to restore ecosystems331. 

Examples of gaps and challenges, and factors influencing success and failure: 

  Strategic  approach:  potential  areas  for  restoration  and  green  infrastructure  still  need  to  be 
mapped  and  discussed  with  stakeholders  in  order  to  reconcile  land  uses  and  plan  restoration. 
Strategies  for  green  infrastructure  and  prioritised  action  frameworks  for  restoration  are  not 
developed  in  most  Member  States332.  Systematic  data  on  degraded  and  restored  surfaces  has 
generally been insufficient to set a baseline and track progress to the 15 % restoration target. 

  Although  in  several  Member  States  a  coordinated  effort  was  made  to  prioritise  restoration 
efforts,  limited  progress  has  been  made  on  the  ground.  Wetlands  and  freshwater  ecosystems 
have  been  declared  as  restoration  priorities  by  a  number  of  Member  States  (Germany,  the 
Netherlands),  other  ecosystems  have  received  less  attention,  and  there  is  no  comprehensive 
evidence of the success  of restoration at  the national  or regional level.  This  is  exacerbated by 
continued pressures on ecosystems, e.g. due to extraction and drainage, and climate change. 

  The  non-binding  nature  of  the  EU  restoration  targets  has  resulted  in  a  low  level  of 
implementation  (Survey  inputs  from  environmental  NGOs  and  some  authorities  in  a  large 
number of the surveyed Member States). 

  High  fragmentation  of  land  of  ownership  poses  challenges,  and  the  complexity  of  involving 
private  owners  for  restoration  have  not  been  sufficiently  tackled.  (Survey  input  from 
environmental  NGOs,  regional  sector  associations  and  regional  authorities  in  Spain,  Italy, 
Germany333). 

  There have been insufficient budgets for restoring degraded ecosystems, in particular outside of 
protected  areas.  Insufficient  funding  in  general  has  led  administrations  to  prioritise  other 
objectives  and  actions  over  biodiversity  urgencies  (inputs  from  national  and  regional 
administrations). 

  Specific challenges have been faced in some Member States, e.g. the protection of historical city 
centres poses constrains on the green infrastructure development in Italian towns. The uncritical 
application  of  monetary  valuation  methods  can  be  dangerous,  especially  in  the  evaluation  of 
regulating ecosystem services. (National public research institution in Italy). 

326 Natuurmonumenten (2021) Webpage on the Marker Wadden.  
327 Netherlands Statistics (CBS) web portal on Natural Capital.  
328 Web portal ‘Atlas Natuurlijk Kapitaal’. 
329 TEEB = The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. 
330 Website TEEB city The Netherlands.  
331 OBN (2021) OBN Knowledge Network introduction.  
332 The Green Tank (2020) «Προτεραιότητα στη φύση: Αξιολόγηση της υλοποίησης της Εθνικής Στρατηγικής για τη Βιοποικιλότητα». 
333 Pers. Comm. Interviews NABU and management authority Schleswig-Holstein. 

157 

 
                                                           
  In relation to Target 3  
Success examples:  

  Adoption  and  implementation  of  national  and  regional  strategies  and  plans  for  organic 
agriculture (for example in Spain334; in Italy there has been a large increase of CAP support to 
organic production and investment  in  landscape elements  such as drystone walls, buffer strips 
and ponds close to agricultural land, and in Bulgaria areas under organic farming have seen an 
increase of 197% between 2012 and 2020335).  

  Coordinated  rural  development  interventions  have  supported  many  farmers  in  increasing 
ecological connectivity. Many small farms have benefited from CAP support measures to apply 
sustainable practices in  Natura 2000.  (Spanish  agroecology association,  regional  authorities in 
Italy). Around half of Romania’s high nature value grassland (1.2 million ha) were protected by 
granting financial compensation to farmers applying management requirements336. 

  Cooperation  between  farmers,  authorities,  research  and  non-government  organisations  to 
recover traditional local agricultural varieties and livestock breeds (e.g. in the Valencia Region 
in Spain, the German rural development programmes and the GAK framework).  

 

Initiatives  to  promote  sustainable  farming  and  food  systems  (Italy’s  “biodiversity  park”  at 
EXPO 2015 and Mountain Agriculture Forum in 2017).  

  Examples  of  successful  projects:  in  Germany:  the  F.R.A.N.Z  pilot  project337,  LIFE  projects 
Wiesenvögel  Life  in  Niedersachsen338  and  Life  Limosa  in  Schleswig-Holstein339;  LIFE 
Integrated Nature project NATURALIT (Lithuania). 

  The  development  of  sustainable  forest  management  plans  in  public  and  private  forests  has 
continued its slow but constant increase340. In Lithuania, all state forests and almost a third of 
private  forests  are  covered  by  management  plan.  Best  conservation  practices  have  been 
supported  through  financing  and  compensation  mechanisms  in  some  Member  States341,￼. 
Germany’s  indicator  report  for  the  national  biodiversity  strategy,  the  sub-indicator  for  species 
diversity and landscape quality in forests has shown a positive trend and lies within the target 
area. 

Examples of gaps and challenges: 

  Unsustainable  agriculture  practices  remain  one  of  the  main  threats  to  biodiversity342.  343￼.  In 
Germany,  butterfly  344￼.  Bulgaria  is  among  the  Member  States  with  the highest  loss  of  High 
Nature  Value farmland (~0.2% of the Utilised Agricultural  Area) due to  the intensification of 
agriculture. 

https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/alimentacion/planes-y-estrategias/Estrategia%20Apoyo%20Producci%C3%B3n%20Ecol%C3%B3gica_tcm30-

334 
79287.pdf  
335 Eurostat, 2017. Organic farming statistics.  
336 European Commission (2019), The Environmental Implementation Review 2019. Country Report Romania. 
337 Umweltstiftung Michael Otto (2021) F.R.A.N.Z.  
338 Wiesenvögel LIFE (2011) Lebensräume von Wiesenvögeln sichern: Niedersachsen übernimmt Verantwortung.   
339 European Commission (2012) LIFE LIMOSA.  
340 http://www.observatoriforestal.cat/propietat-i-planificacio/  
341 For example the LIFE Biorgest Project. 
342 ΕΚΠΑΑ (2019). Φύση-Βιοποικιλότητα. Επικαιροποίηση Έκθεσης Κατάστασης Περιβάλλοντος 2018 (Nature-Biodiversity. Update of the State of 
the Environment Report 2018. 
343 The final report on the implementation of the national strategy for Biodiversity in 2020, currently being prepared by MATTM. 
344 Umweltbundesamt (2018) Überschreitung der Belastungsgrenzen für Eutrophierung.  

158 

 
 
                                                           
  Agriculture in most case studies remains marked by intensive and specialised models. Measures 
supporting  agricultural  intensification  with  potential  negative  impacts  have  been  promoted 
through EU and national funds. (Respondents to survey across the Member States)  

  Although an increasing share of forests are covered by management plans, many are outdated, 
and not all integrate biodiversity restoration measures (especially if they are not protected under 
the Natura 2000 network). For example in Lithuania, NGOs have pointed to intensified logging 
and practices damaging for biodiversity in private forests. Evidence indicates that there is a low 
uptake of rural development measures and a low number of projects that target biodiversity in 
forests across the case study Member States. In terms of financing mechanisms to  maintain and 
restore forests, payments for ecosystem services or other innovative mechanisms have not been 
deployed at any significant level.  

  There  are  no  comprehensive  and  agreed  indicators  and  thresholds  to  assess  the  impact  of 
agricultural  and  forest  management,  direct  payment  schemes  and  rural  development 
programmes on biodiversity (Regional forest association in Spain, regional authority in Italy). 

Factors influencing success or failure: 

  Studies  indicate  that  pesticide  use,  factors  affecting  farmer’s  uptake  of  biodiversity  measures 
and  insufficient  effectiveness  of  the  rural  development  programmes  are  the  main  barriers  to 
biodiversity conservation345.  

  Respondents  across  the  board  considered  that  nationally  programmed  measures,  funds  and 
uptake  have  been  insufficient  to  incentivise  sustainable  land  and  forest  management, 
agroecological  practices  and  organic  production  (which  has  e.g.  only  received  the  minimum 
CAP support in Spain). A review of the EFA options selected by farmers in Germany in the first 
two years concluded that the conservation effect of the EFAs has been limited largely because 
farmers have the option of selecting types of EFAs that are easy to implement but that have little 
to no impact on biodiversity, and farmers have a low risk of incurring penalties346. 

  Difficulties  in  accessing  compensation  for  restrictions  in  Natura  2000  sites  have  been  a  topic 
mentioned in survey inputs from stakeholders across the Member States. Further issues raised 
by  respondents  include  heavy  administration  and  difficult  access  to  funding  for  small  farmers 
who often make the highest contribution to the protection of biodiversity; non-activation by the 
Regions of the 2000 Natura support measures; too low premium ceilings347 and unclear rules for 
access  to  allowances  in  relation  to  cross-compliance.  (Survey  responses  from  association  of 
farmers  associations,  regional  forest  associations,  agroecology  association  and  environment 
NGOs in Spain, Italy, Greece, Germany, Romania). In Romania, greening is sometimes seen by 
farmers as a primarily bureaucratic exercise adding a layer of complexity to existing mandatory 
obligations  and  voluntary  undertakings348.  In  some  case  studies  (e.g.  in  Romania,  Bulgaria), 
environment  NGOs  and  sector  stakeholders  have  raised  concerns  about  the  efficiency  and 
transparency of spending. 

345 Joorman, I. and Schmidt, T. (2017) Hindernisse und Perspektiven für mehr Biodiversität in der Agrarlandschaft.  
346  Zinngrebe,  Y.,  Pe’er,  G.,  Schueler,  S.,  Schmitt,  J.,  Schmidt,  J.  and  Lakner,  S.  (2017)  'The  EU’s  ecological  focus  areas  –  How  experts  explain 
farmers’ choices in Germany', Land Use Policy, 65, pp. 93-108. 
347 Pers. Comm. Interview management authority Schleswig-Holstein. 
348  Redman,  M,  and  Barbu,  R.  (2017).  Evaluation  study  of  the  payment  for  agricultural  practices  beneficial  for  the  climate  and  the  environment 
(“greening” of direct payments). Case study on Romania. 

159 

 
 
                                                           
  Biodiversity  provisions in  the CAP  have increased complexity and  costs  both  for farmers and 
for  administrators.  (Farmers  associations  in  Spain).  Regional  administrations  have  preferred 
easily  controllable  but  less  targeted  measures  (i.e.  light  green),  while  more  high-nature  value 
measures, that are not able to be as standardised and need to be adapted to specific species, have 
often  been  deprioritised349.  (German  case  study.)  In  Lithuania,  NGOs  have  pointed  to  Natura 
2000  payments  under  RDP  being  conditional  on  foresters’  signing  contracts  for  biodiversity 
protection measures exceeding the period of compensation. 

  Few incentives  have been given to  farmers for public services in  favour  of biodiversity, or to 
compensate  limitations  on  agricultural  activities  by  Natura  2000  site  management  plans. 
(Survey inputs from  Spanish  farmers and ranchers association.) However, such incentives can 
work  for  nature:  in  Greece,  financial  incentives  have  encouraged  farmers  to  make  use  of 
protective mechanisms against damages inflicted by wild animals, with a positive impact on the 
recovery of large carnivore populations. 

  Enforcement of legal protection: e.g. the failing obligation to prevent the deterioration and loss 
of permanent grassland in Germany has led action by the federal government, as well as formal 
notice by the Commission350. 

  Engagement:  Species-specific conservation projects  have been most sustainable when planned 
and executed in close collaboration with the land users. Cooperation between ornithologists and 
farmers  has  been  key  to  protect  nesting  sites  and  rewet  wetland  areas,  leading  to  measurable 
improvements  in  local  and  regional  population  trends.  (German  case  study).  Insufficient 
collaboration among actors in different sectors and insufficient engagement in the definition of 
protection  measures  has  been  raised  by  agriculture  and  forestry  stakeholders  in  Spain,  by 
respondents  to  the  survey  in  Slovakia,  and  by  forest  owners  and  stakeholders  in  Lithuania 
(where  the  case  study  indicates  very  significant  conflicts  between  conservation  and  forestry 
objectives).  

  Successful projects have established extensive farming techniques on grassland to provide safe, 
undisturbed  nesting  sites  for  ground  nesting  birds,  restored  and  protected  moorlands,  and 
deciduous  forests.  However,  to  effectively  address  the  declining  population  trends,  effective 
measures must be implemented at the landscape scale, and address the major causes of species 
decline. (German case study). 

  In relation to Target 4  

Success examples: 

  A number of commercial fish stocks are slowly increasing as a result of the implementation of 
fisheries management plans. Today three of the four most important commercial fish stocks in 
the North Sea for the Netherlands (herring, sole and plaice) are above safe biological limits and 
above sustainable levels351. 

  Measures  are  being  developed  and  introduced  to  reduce  damage  to  species  and  habitats  from 
fishing  activities,  such  as  technical  and  other  innovations  for  sustainable  fisheries  with  fewer 

349  LANA  (2016)  Wirksamkeit  der  derzeitigen  EU-Naturschutzfinanzierung  in  Deutschland  und  Anforderungen  für  die  nächsten  Förderperiode  ab 
2020, Germany: Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Naturschutz, Landschaftspflege und Erholung LANA. 
350 European Commission Press Corner (2019) July infringement package: key decisions.  
351 Government of the Netherlands (2019) Environmental data compendium indicator page ‘Fish stocks in the North Sea 1947-2019.   

160 

 
 
                                                           
discards, and closing of some marine Natura 2000 sites for damaging forms of fishing (evidence 
in case studies from Italy, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands).   

  The fisheries sector is increasingly involved in biodiversity conservation efforts. For example in 
Spain, the “Pesca Neta”352 project has supported marine litter removal by fishermen, the «Avoid 
ghost  fishing»  project  has  recovered  abandoned  fishing  gear  along  the  Catalan  coast  in 
collaboration  with  fishermen,  NGOs  and  scientists,  reducing  the  risk  of  entanglement  of 
organisms, ocean floor erosion and vectors of invasive species. Interreg-Med programme (2014-
2020) has co-financed several initiatives that tackle marine litter353. 

  The  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  has  supported  measures  for  the  replacement  of 
fishing  gear  with  less  impacting  ones  and  interventions  for  the  conservation  of  marine  SCIs, 
with the contribution of fishermen. 

Examples of gaps and challenges: 

  The sustainable fishing target is not achieved for all fish stocks. Mediterranean and Black Sea 
fish  stocks  continue  to  be  overexploited.  A  number  of  commercially  exploited  fish  stocks 
remain in poor condition in the Baltic and in the North Sea354. Fish populations have decreased 
both in the Curonian Lagoon and Baltic Sea (Lithuania), mainly as a result of water pollution, 
changes in food abundance and invasive species355.  

  Bottom-disturbing fisheries, bycatch/incidental catches of sensitive species and continued over-
fishing  of  shared  fish  stocks  are  identified  as  key  challenges  and  continue  to  severely  impact 
some  protected  species  (such  as  the  porpoise,  long-lived  shark  and  ray  species),  benthic 
organisms  and  habitats  (such  as  Posidonia  seagrass  meadows)  (evidence  from  case  studies  in 
Spain, Italy, the Netherlands). 

  Big  knowledge  gaps  in  relation  to  marine  biodiversity  and  impacts  of  human  activities  on 
ecosystems present further challenges to effective fisheries and marine management measures. 
  Human impacts from urbanisation, energy infrastructure, chemical, nutrient and noise pollution 
and litter, transportation, tourism and recreation and other activities continue to degrade marine 
habitats,  and  have  not  been  alleviated  through  protection  (survey  inputs  from  regional 
authorities  and  association  of  fishing  enterprises  in  Spain,  Germany,  the  Netherlands).  Good 
environmental status of marine ecosystems has not been achieved356.  

Factors influencing success or failure: 

  Knowledge  gaps  remain  on  marine  ecosystems,  pressures  and  impacts  (environment  NGOs, 

research organisations, national and regional authorities). 

  Limitations  on  fishing  to  conserve  marine  biodiversity  strongly  impact  on  fishers’  incomes 

(associations of fishing enterprises in Spain, Italy). 

  Fishery  stakeholders  have  expressed  frustration  with  being  insufficiently  engaged  in  the 
definition  of  actions  to  preserve  marine  biodiversity,  and  with  their  efforts  and  positive 
contributions being insufficiently recognised. (Associations of fishing enterprises in Spain and 
Italy). On the other hand, Fisheries in Protected Areas (VIBEG) agreements, although initially 

352 https://pescaneta.com/  
353 http://www.etc.uma.es/mediterranean-biodiversity-interaction-with-marine-litter-new-knowledge-base/  
354 Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2019) Impacts on commercial species.  
355 CBD Country profile, Lithuania  
356 BMU (2016) MSFD Programme of Measures for Marine Protection in the German Parts of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea Report pursuant to 
Article 45h(1) of the Federal Water Act, Bonn Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation, Construction and Nuclear Safety. 

161 

 
                                                           
not well-supported by the sector, provided an important platform to discuss and agree on more 
sustainable fishing measures in the Dutch part of the North Sea. 

  Rules and restrictions to preserve marine biodiversity have not applied to all actors, for example 
third-country  fleets,  small-scale  fishing  boats  (below  12  meters  in  length  overall),  and  sectors 
other  than  fishing  such  as  tourism,  transport  or  extractive  activities.  This  is  diminishing  the 
results from efforts undertaken to introduce more sustainable fishing practices (Associations of 
fishing enterprises in Spain, Italy). 

  In relation to Target 5  

Success examples:  

  Lists  of  invasive  alien  species  (IAS)  and  systems  to  detect  IAS  have  been  put  in  place  at 
national level, in regions and autonomous communities (Spain case study – inputs from regional 
authorities; in Italy, guidelines have been prepared for all IAS on the Union list; in Germany, a 
methodology is being applied to assess invasiveness and list species at national level) 

  Pathways of introduction of IAS have been analysed, identified and prioritised in many Member 
States (e.g. German analysis of paths of unintentional introduction and spread of invasive alien 
species was published in 2018357).  

  Actions  have  been  carried  out  to  control  IAS  on  the  EU  and  national  lists,  such  as  the  ruddy 
duck and the zebra mussel along the Ebro River in Spain, the pond slider in Valencia and Rioja, 
or  the  Argentinean  parrot  in  Catalonia.  Italian  regions  have  defined  and  adopted  regional 
blacklists  of  invasive  alien  species  (primarily  plant  species)  that  contain  a  higher  number  of 
species than the Union list.  

  The  EMFF  foresees  interventions  for  the  control  and  eradication  of  invasive  alien  species  in 

marine and lagoon areas.  

  Notification  systems  have  been  set  up  (e.g.  Germany’s  notification  system  is  linked  to  an 
immediate  eradication  process358;  in  contrast  in  Bulgaria,  a  quick  response  to  handling  newly 
detected species is a challenge as there are no clear responsibilities and procedure). 

  Successful  citizen  science  projects  (such  as  “MONitoring  CSMON-LIFE”  and  LIFE  Asap  in 

Italy) have contributed to IAS containment interventions and awareness raising.  

Examples of gaps and challenges: 

  Priority species are far from being controlled or eradicated.  

  Prevention, detection, eradication, and control strategies have not been completed for a number 

 

of species. 
Insufficient actions have been undertaken to limit introductions from legal trade in animals and 
plants. Failures to define lists of exotic species of national interest and to tackle the continuous 
search  for  exotic  species  for  gardening  and  the  spread  of  commercial  cultivations  of  invasive 
exotic species have been highlighted by national trade organisations, and research institutions in 
the case study countries. 

357 Rabitsch, W., Heger, T., Jeschke, J. M., Saul, W.-C. and Nehring, S. (2018) Analyse und Priorisierung der Pfade nicht vorsätzlicher Einbringung 
und  Ausbreitung invasiver  gebietsfremder  Arten  in  Deutschland  gemäß  Verordnung  (EU)  Nr.  1143/2014], Bonn  -  Bad  Godesberg:  Bundesamt  für 
NaturschutzBfN-Skripten 490). 
358 Pers. Comm. interview with BfN. 

162 

 
 
                                                           
  The obligation to  report  the possession  of  IAS  of EU concern has sometimes resulted in  their 

abandonment in the wild by owners who did not understand the reasons for this measure . 

Factors influencing success or failure: 

  There  are  insufficient  practical  tools,  expertise  on  the  control  and  eradication  of  IAS  and 
communication to citizens on the need to combat IAS (mentioned by authorities and experts in 
most surveys). 

  Some  species  are  problematic  but  are  not  included  on  the  Union  list.  For  example,  the  fight 
against  the  Japanese  knotweed  requires  drastic  solutions  in  sectorial  regulations  (e.g. 
management of aggregates, soil movement, etc.). The control of exotic animal species is even 
more complex, including for ethical reasons (inputs from regional and local authorities, NGOs, 
research organisations). 

  Commercial  use  of  some  IAS  still  continues.  While  in  some  cases,  such  as  the  blue  crab 
Callinectes sapidus (Italy, Spain), commercial fishing catches may contribute to controlling the 
populations, in general commercial use is seen as incentivising introductions and spread. In the 
case  of  competing  interests,  economic  considerations  have  been  prioritised  over  the  Scientific 
Forum’s criteria (interviews with NGOs in Spain, experts in Slovakia).  

  Operational difficulties to combat invasive alien species are experienced in marine areas given 
the  nature  of  the  environment,  climate  change  and  different  forms  of  pollution  (including  by 
ballast waters) (regional authorities in Italy and Spain). 

  In relation to Target 6  

Success examples: 

-  There has been significant  increase in  international  funding for biodiversity  conservation. The 
target  relating  to  the  doubling  of  financial  resources  related  to  biodiversity  for  developing 
countries was achieved (Italy359) or exceeded (Germany) by some Member States. 

-  Member  States  have  implemented  plans  to  combat  the  illegal  trafficking  of  species.  In  Spain, 
the competences of the CITES administrative authorities were revised giving NGOs a stronger 
role. The TECUM project (Tackling Environmental Crimes through standardised approach) in 
Italy has been strengthened the fight against environmental crimes. Germany has implemented 
measures  against  illegal  ivory  and  rhino  horn  trade,  with  a  total  volume  of  2,5  million  Euro, 
including  activities  to  reduce  the  demand  in  target  countries  and  to  prevent  poaching  in  the 
source countries. 

-  National Business and Biodiversity Initiatives have involved business in the implementation of 

the Convention on Biological Diversity360.  

-  Under  German initiative, the  Bonn Challenge361  was launched in  2011  and  mobilised national 

commitments to restore 150 million ha of degraded forests globally by 2020. 

359 Fourth period (2017-18) Report on the implementation and efficacy of the Strategy (MATMM, 2020). 
360 6th National report to the CBD – Spain. 
361 Restore our Future Bonn Challenge (2020) The Bonn Challenge.  

163 

 
  
                                                           
-  Various  information  and  awareness  campaigns  have  been  carried  out  on  the  conservation  of 
genetic resources and fair distribution of the benefits (Germany, Spain). Different initiatives and 
projects (ATOPICA, VectorNet in Italy) have explored links between health and biodiversity. 

-  Memoranda  of  Understanding  have  been  signed  with  a  number  of  countries  to  implement 

actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change.  

-  The  Italian  Government  published  in  2016  its  first  catalogue  of  environmentally  friendly 
subsidies  and  environmentally  harmful  subsidies.  The  German  government  reviews  the 
sustainability  of  existing  subsidies  every  two  years  and  tracks  environmentally  harmful 
subsidies362.  Some  initiatives  to  reduce  environmentally  harmful  subsidies,  transition  to 
sustainable  consumption,  and  reduce  waste  have  also  been  highlighted  in  the  Germany  case 
study, such as the ‘KonsumWende’ - consumption transition project (2017-2019)363 to develop 
tools  and  policy  recommendations  to  promote  consumption  patterns  that  lead  to  the 
conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services.  

Factors influencing success or failure:  

The factors mentioned most often by respondents are: 

-  Advances  and  national  programmes  to  address  sustainable  consumption  are  expected  to  have 
some  positive  effects  in  the  future  if  they  are  backed  with  human  and  financial  resources. 
However,  these  initiatives  are  in  their  infancy  and  there  is  currently  no  strategic  integrated 
approach to tackling the key drivers of biodiversity loss (inputs from authorities and NGOs in 
Germany, Italy, Spain) 

-  Political  will  and  leadership  were  mentioned  repeatedly  by  authorities  and  environment 
organisations in the case study Member States providing examples of success in regions where 
there  was  a  strong  leadership  for  biodiversity  protection364  (Spain,  Italy,  Germany,  the 
Netherlands).  

-  Stable  and  predictable  national  policy  and  legal  frameworks  (survey  inputs  from  the 
Netherlands,  Italy  and  Spain)  and  a  fair  playing  field  (inputs  from  authorities,  civil  society 
organisations in Italy and fisheries sector stakeholders in Italy and Spain). 

-  A  common,  integrated  strategic  approach  across  policies,  plans  and  strategies.  Separation  of 
administrative  competences  for  nature  conservation  and  for  the  sustainable  land  and  sea 
management,  and  insufficient  engagement  and  dialogue  between  ministries  and  with 
stakeholders,  users  and  academia,  were  mentioned  as  major  implementation  weaknesses. 
(Regional  authorities and environmental NGOs in  Spain,  public authorities in  Italy, Germany, 
Slovakia,  Romania,  associations  of  forests,  farmers  and  ranchers,  and  fishing  enterprises  in 
Spain, Lithuania, Slovakia). The EU Biodiversity Strategy was seen by some respondents as a 
DG Environment undertaking lacking ownership and responsibility in other EU policy areas and 
sectors such as fisheries and aquaculture, agriculture, forestry management, livestock. 

-  Coordination  between  the  central  authorities  and  the  regional  and  local  levels.  Fragmentation 
across  levels  of  governance  and  unclear  division  of  responsibilities  has  been  highlighted  as 
implementation  challenges  by  national  and  regional  authorities  in  Spain,  Italy,  Germany,  the 
Netherlands. 

362 UBA (2017) Umweltschädliche Subventionen in Deutschland: Aktualisierte Ausgabe 2016, Dessau-Roßlau, Germany: Umweltbundesamt. 
363 Institut für ökologische Wirtschaftsforschung (2019) Konsumwende. Available at: https://www.ioew.de/en/project-single/konsumwende 
364 Interview with NGO. 

164 

 
                                                           
-  Adequate capacities to plan and implement biodiversity measures in the public administration. 
Cuts  in  public  administration  budgets  at  national,  regional  and  local  level  in  some  of  the 
Member  States  have  further  diminished  environmental  implementation  and  enforcement 
capacities (Survey inputs in Italy, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, the Netherlands). 

-  Adequate  investments  from  EU  funding  instruments  (in  particular  LIFE,  Horizon  2020, 
EAFRD,  EMFF  and  Cohesion  Policy  funds)  and  national  budgets,  as  well  as  other  financing 
mechanisms  for  biodiversity.  Biodiversity  funding  from  EU  and  national  instruments  and 
incentives  for  sustainable  management  activities  have  been  insufficient  for  most  measures 
(Survey inputs from respondents across the board). Funding is particularly difficult to obtain for 
some priority  initiatives  such as monitoring. At the same time, the  case studies have  revealed 
that  available  funding  for  nature  and  biodiversity  measures  was  not  always  used,  or  in  some 
cases transferred to other priorities (e.g. in Bulgaria, see section on costs below). 

-  Mobilising  funding  to  implement  large-scale  restoration  projects  has  been  highlighted  as  an 
important  factor,  since  the  success  of  restoration  often  depends,  among  other  factors,  on  a 
sufficient  size  and  strategic  ecological  connection  of  the  restored  areas  (evidence  from 
restoration in the Netherlands).  

-  Some stakeholders considered that there were too limited interventions from the Commission in 
checking  the  sustainability  of  projects  approved  at  national  level  (inputs  from  environmental 
and  social  NGOs  in  Italy).  Respondents  have  also  pointed  to  the  need  for  a  more  effective 
system  to  mobilise  and  track/monitor  the  use  of  financial  resources  for  nature  conservation 
coming  from  different  funding  programmes  (regional  and  public  authorities  in  a  number  of 
Member States, NGOs). 

-  The impact of the Strategy was weakened by insufficiently measurable and concrete objectives, 
no obligation for the Member States to implement a minimum number of measures and actions, 
and  deficiencies  in  data  and  reporting  on  progress  (including  the  set  of  indicators  used) 
(Environmental NGOs in Spain, public authority and research organisation in Italy, stakeholders 
in Germany). 

3. Evidence on spending and cost-effectiveness of biodiversity actions 

In  general,  most  national  biodiversity  strategies  and  plans  were  not  accompanied  by  dedicated 
budgets  (e.g.  in  Spain)  and  comprehensive  evaluations  of  the  mobilisation  of  resources  for 
biodiversity  are  not  available  at  the  national  level.  Studies  and  projects  have  shown  a  growing 
interest  in  the use of market  instruments  and public-private financing for biodiversity365,￼. There 
are nevertheless many examples of biodiversity funding. 

3.1. Examples of costs of biodiversity measures 

  In  Spain  in  the  period  2008-2017,  MITECO  financed,  through  Fundación  Biodiversidad,  90 
projects on land stewardship to a total value of EUR 4 million366. In the period 2009-2012, the 
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment promoted actions in the Natura 2000 Network 
in  several  autonomous  communities,  for  a  total  amount  of  about  EUR  55  million  under  the 

365 https://prioridadrednatura2000.es/sites/default/files/instrumentos-innovadores.pdf  
366 Follow up Report of the Strategic Plan for Natural Heritage and Biodiversity (MITECO, 2013). 

165 

 
 
 
                                                           
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)367. Spending for biodiversity, nature protection 
and green infrastructure under the ERDF (2014-20) was estimated at about EUR  86.32 million 
in  2021.  Projected  total  annual  costs  of  Natura  2000  management  in  two  desirable  short-term 
scenarios have been estimated at EUR 1,557 million (EUR 114/ha), or EUR 2,602 million (EUR 
196.37/ha) with the expansion of marine protected areas. The costs related to the management 
of  Natura  2000  in  Formentera  (Balearic  Islands)  amounted  to  EUR    1,491,500368  covering 
measures related to knowledge and research, the recovery of habitats and species to favourable 
conservation  status;  damage  prevention  and/or  restoration;  sustainable  uses  and  activities; 
awareness raising and public engagement, and cooperation between competent administrations. 
In the La Rioja region, species conservation measures carried out by the forestry sector had low 
costs  and  high  positive  returns,  while  other  actions  have  required  major  investments,  e.g.  the 
conservation of the European mink (inputs from a regional authority). 

  In Italy, primary expenditure for environmental protection and for the use and management of 
natural resources amounted to approximately  EUR  4.7 billion in 2017 (a decrease from  EUR  
8.3 billion in 2010). However, expenses for the protection of biodiversity have decreased while 
the  resources  for  the  use  and  management  of  flora  and  fauna  have  recorded  an  increase.  An 
important  share  of  the  environment  expenditure  -  more  than  half  of  the  resources  -  were 
allocated  to  the  "protection  and  remediation  of  the  soil,  subsoil  and  surface  waters"  (30.5%), 
"other  environmental  protection  activities"  (13.2%)  and  “biodiversity  and 
landscape” 
(12.2%)369. Under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for 2014-20, about EUR  
376  million  have  been  spent  for  investments  in  biodiversity,  nature  protection  and  green 
infrastructure.  Under  Rural  Development,  about  EUR    1.9  billion  have  been  allocated  for  the 
thematic objective “Preserving and protecting the environment and promoting the  efficient use 
of its natural resources”. The LIFE Nature and Biodiversity sub-programme has financed a total 
of  26  projects  in  Italy  from  2014  to  2017370.  Italy’s  budget  law  of  2018  introduced  a  ‘green 
bonus’  providing  tax  deductions  for  properties  that  include  significant  green  cover  in  urban 
environments371. The preliminary estimate of fully implementing the EU Natura 2000 network 
for the 2014-2020 programming cycle range from EUR  1.8 to 2.5 billion, or annual costs from 
EUR  267.6 to EUR  424.7 million, of which 46% refers to operating costs and the remaining 
54% to one-time costs (e.g. for restoration)372.  

  In Greece, the total allocation to actions or sub-measures relevant to Natura 2000 in Greece for 
the  2014–2020  programming  period  has  been  around  EUR    860  million,  spent  through  EU 
(93%)  and  national  (7%)  funding  from  the  EAFRD,  CF,  EMFF,  LIFE,  and  other  EU 
programmes  (1%)373.  Funding  for  other  targets  has  been  quite  limited.  Ecosystem  restoration 
and  GI  outside  of  Natura  2000  areas  has  been  undertaken  sparsely  across  Greece;  therefore 
Target  2  has  not  generated  significant  costs  or  benefits374.  For  the  2014–2020  operational 
programme,  the  total  EMFF  and  national  contribution  to  sustainable  fisheries  in  Greece  was 
more than EUR 186 million375. Target 5 seems to have only generated some administrative costs 

367 6th National report to the CBD – Spain. 
368https://app.alchemer.eu/response/download/file/247-
132af265a5a4fd38603ff44900a00d01_20200521_PG_NATURA_2000_FORMENTERA_cast.pdf/id/90260004  
369  Ecorendiconto”  published  2019  from  the  Ministry  of  Finance  is  dated  concerning  the  financial  year  2018  and  reporting  data  on  resource 
mobilization, expenditures made by Central Administration (Ministries) to biodiversity. 
370 6th National report to the CBD – Italy (Convention of Biological Diversity, 2019). 
371 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Global biodiversity outlook. 
372 https://chm.cbd.int/database/record/5BF16163-204D-9261-5172-EB83C1DA1226  
373 N2K Group and IEEP (in prep.) Strengthening investments in Natura 2000 and improving synergies with EU funding instruments. Estimates of the 
aggregated financing costs of Natura 2000 from the Prioritised Action Frameworks 2021-27. 
374 The Green Tank (2020). Προτεραιότητα στη φύση: Αξιολόγηση της υλοποίησης της Εθνικής Στρατηγικής για τη Βιοποικιλότητα. 
375 European Maritime and Fisheries Fund - Operational Programme for Greece (2014 – 2020).  

166 

 
                                                           
for  salaries  and  studies,  but  has  not  yet  resulted  in  a  coordinated  action.  In  general,  all 
stakeholders  surveyed  and  interviewed  considered  that  both  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  as 
well  as  the  national  strategy  have  not  been  adequately  funded  in  Greece  and  that  a  national 
funding scheme for biodiversity is missing.  

  In  Germany,  the  Federal  Biodiversity  Programme376,377  was  launched  in  2011  to  finance  the 
implementation  of  the  National  Biodiversity  Strategy.  Federal  funding  for  large-scale 
landscape protection and restoration is available through the chance.natur378 programme379. The 
Joint Task for the Improvement of Agricultural Structures and Coastal Protection (GAK) is the 
most  important  national  funding  instrument  for  agriculture  and  forestry,  the  development  of 
rural  areas  and  the  improvement  of  coastal  and  flood  protection380.  Together  with  funds 
provided by the Länder, the total GAK budget amounts to around EUR  1.9 billion per year381. 
Added  to  this  is  EAFRD  funding  in  the  order  of  nearly  EUR    1.2  billion  and  funding  by  the 
Länder  and  municipalities.  The  financial  requirements  for  the  implementation  of  Natura  2000 
alone  in  Germany  are  estimated  at  approximately  EUR    1.4  billion  /  year,  while  only 
approximately EUR  323 million / year was spent on conservation measures via the 2nd pillar of 
the  CAP  up  until  20131.  Between  2014-20  Germany  had  around  EUR    1.35  billion  /  year  in 
EAFRD  funds382,  however  on  average  only  21%  were  spent  on  agri-environment-climate 
measures383.  The  funding  needs  of  the  National  Biodiversity  Strategy  for  the  period  2010-20 
were estimated at EUR  3.26 billion / year (excluding marine funding needs)122 and the financial 
gap for nature conservation measures has been calculated at EUR  1.96 billion / year. The most 
cost-intensive conservation measures were estimated for grassland habitats, costing EUR  1.76 
billion  /  year,  while  annual  conservation  costs  for  arable  land  and  forests  were  calculated  at 
EUR    903.16  million  and  EUR    354.84  million  respectively,  for  peatlands  at  EUR    87.96 
million,  and  for  dry  sites  at  EUR    89.87  million.  Wetland  conservation  measures  were 
calculated  to  need  EUR    64.68  million  /  year122.  The  PAF  (2013)  estimated  the  total  funding 
needs for implementing the EU nature directives at EUR  627 million / year for the 2014 - 2020 
period384. This figure was reviewed upwards in 2016 to EUR  1.42 billion / year, excluding the 
marine  environment98.  The  EMFF  budget  for  the  period  2014-20  planned  around  EUR    3-4 
million / year for biodiversity needs, mainly for marine Natura 2000 areas, ecologically sound 
fishing  techniques  and  free  flowing  rivers.  Although  this  represents  15%  of  the  German  total 
EMFF fund, it covers less than 1% of the Natura 2000 costs. 

  In Lithuania, the benefits of the Natura 2000 network (comprising the use value of berries and 
mushrooms, fish and game for amateur fishing and hunting, drinking water quality, visitors and 
other  services)  were  estimated  at  about  EUR    193  million  by  the  LIFE  IP  NATURALIT 

to 

the  CBD,  Germany:  Bundesministerium 

(2020)  Germany's  Sixth  National  Report 

376 Bundesamt für Naturschutz. Leben.Natur.Vielfalt (2019) Bundesprogramm Biologische Vielfalt.  
377 BfN and BMU (2016) Bundesprogramm Biologische Vielfalt-Ziele und Fördermöglichkeiten, Bonn: Bundesamt für Naturschutz.  
378  Bundesministerium  für  Natur,  Umwelt  und  nukleare  Sicherheit  (2019).  Chance.natur  Bundesförderung  Naturschutz.  Available  at: 
https://www.bmu.de/themen/natur-biologische-vielfalt-arten/naturschutz-biologische-vielfalt/foerderprogramme/chancenatur/ 
15 
December 2020] 
379  BMU 
https://www.cbd.int/doc/nr/nr-06/de-nr-06-en.pdf. 
380  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  oft  he  United  Nations  FAOLEX  Database  (2015)  Germany  (national 
http://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC150344/ [Accessed 15 December 2020] 
381 Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (2020) Joint Task for the "Improvement of Agricultural Structures and Coastal Protection" Available at: 
https://www.bmel.de/EN/topics/rural-regions/rural-development-support/gak.html [Accessed 15 December 2020] 
382 Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (2020) Main features of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and its implementation  in Germany. 
Available 
https://www.bmel.de/EN/topics/farming/eu-agricultural-policy-and-support/CAP-main-features-implemantation-germany.html 
at: 
[Accessed 15 December 2020] 
383  Bundesministerium  für  Ernährung  und  Landwirtschaft  (2020)  Umsetzung  der ELER-Förderperiode  2014  bis  2020  für  ländliche  Räume  in 
Deutschland.  Available  at:  https://www.bmel.de/DE/themen/laendliche-regionen/foerderung-des-laendlichen-raumes/eu-foerderung/eler-2014-2020-
umsetzung.html [Accessed 15 December 2020] 
384  BfN 
Format 
https://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/themen/natura2000/Prioritaerer_Aktionsrahmen_fuer_Natura_2000_in_Deutschland.pdf 
15 December 2020] 

für  Umwelt.  Available  at: 

Prioritären  Aktionsrahmen 

at: 
[Accessed 

level).  Available  at: 

2000.  Available 

für  Natura 

and  BMU 

[Accessed 

(2013) 

(PAF) 

einen 

für 

167 

 
                                                           
 
project385. Costs were calculated at just over EUR  10.1 million, and lost income of landowners 
due to  Natura 2000 related restrictions of use at  almost  EUR   88.7 million. Thus total  Natura 
2000 benefits were estimated to exceed the costs by about EUR  105 million (2019). However 
the  study  scope  and  methodology  were  criticised.  The  National  Plan  for  Landscape  and 
Biological  Diversity  Conservation  estimated  the  total  financing  needs  for  biodiversity  for  the 
period 2014-20 at EUR  124.3 million.  

 

  Bulgaria’s  Operational  Programme  for  the  Environment  for  the  period  2014-20  envisaged 
financing of the amount of EUR  86 million for Natura 2000, of which  EUR  15.3 million for 
the  "Conservation  and  enhancement  of  biological  diversity,  nature  protection  and  green 
infrastructure” and EUR  70.88 million for the “Conservation, restoration and sustainable use of 
NATURA 2000 sites".  The funds actually paid  amounted to  just over  EUR   4.6 million386.  In 
2020, about EUR  35 million were transferred for the economic consequences of Covid-19. The 
Rural  Development  Program  2014-20387  was  set  to  spend  almost  EUR    140  million  on 
“Payments  under  NATURA  2000  and  the  Water  Framework  Directive”  to  compensate 
beneficiaries  for  additional  costs  or  lost  income  due  to  Natura  2000.  The  actual  funds  paid 
amounted to less than EUR  70 million388.  
In Slovakia, protected areas are mainly financed through the state budget and EU funds. Under 
the  EAFRD  for  2014-20,  EUR    297.6  million  is  allocated  for  nature  conservation.  Slovakia 
makes  use  of  financing  from  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF)  in  different 
ways  for  nature  conservation  and  GI  activities  such  as  cross  border  cooperation,  Interreg  for 
green infrastructure development in cities and regional cooperation projects under the Danube 
Strategy.  Slovakia  has  also  utilised  Cohesion  Policy  funds  (2014-20)  for  nature  for  the 
preparation  and  implementation  of  management  plans  for  Natura  2000  sites,  preparation  and 
implementation of action plans for priority species and habitats, enhancement of the monitoring 
and reporting, green infrastructure and control of invasive alien species (EUR  41.776 million 
spent by 2021389), as well as LIFE funding (EUR  13.5 million spent by the end of 2020390). 
In  the  Netherlands,  no  cost  estimates  have  been  done  for  the  implementation  of  the  entire 
biodiversity  strategy.  An  overview  of  the  necessary  investments  in  Natura  2000,  species 
protection outside Natura 2000 and green infrastructure is available for the 2014-20 period from 
the  national  Prioritised  Action  Framework.  It  includes  EU  as  well  as  other  funding  (national 
postal  code  lottery)  of  EUR    322  million,  to  a  total  of  EUR    4,646.074  million  for  the  entire 
period, or EUR  663.725 million per year. 
These costs have been found to be an underestimate, and the estimated annual needs for the next 
period (2021-27) amount to EUR  903.110 million (an increase of 36%). 

 

3.2. Examples of the importance and benefits of biodiversity measures 

  In  Spain,  the  National  Ecosystem  Assessment391  outlined  wider  benefits  from  ecosystem 
conservation for human wellbeing; the socio-economic benefits of the Natura 2000 Network for 
Spanish  society  were  estimated  at  EUR    43,661  million  per  year392,  much  higher  than  the 

385 https://naturalit.lt/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/BGI_VSTT_Natura-2000_Galutine-vertinimo-ataskaita_20200916-su-ekspertu-parasais.pdf  

386  Bulgarian  National  Audit  Office  (2019).  “Efficiency  of  the  management  of  Natura  2000  network  for  protection  of  the  environment  and  local 
communities” for the period from 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2018, Sofia 
387 Rural Development Programme 2014-2020. RDP 2014-2020  
388  Bulgarian  National  Audit  Office  (2019).  “Efficiency  of  the  management  of  Natura  2000  network  for  protection  of  the  environment  and  local 
communities” for the period from 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2018, Sofia  
389 European Structural and Investment Funds data – Open Data Platform. 
390 EEA, (2020). Management effectiveness in the EU’s Natura 2000 network of protected areas. (European Environment Agency 2020).  
391 https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/conservacion-de-la-biodiversidad/ecosystems_human_well_being_tcm30-196684.pdf  
392 Economic benefits of the Natura 2000 Network in Spain (MITECO, 2019). 

168 

 
 
                                                           
costs393. The Balearic Islands region benefits from nature tourism and environment productions 
and films, however failure to halt biodiversity degradation is causing beach surface loss (e.g. in 
the Es Trenc natural park), alteration of riverside habitats (e.g. in the Torrent de Na Borges) and 
loss  of  fisheries  due  to  a  decline  of  the  Posidonia  seagrass  meadows.  (Survey  inputs  from  a 
regional  authority).  Biodiversity  measures  in  agroecosystems  have  demonstrated  direct 
economic  benefits394  from  improved  nutrient  management  and  soil  organic  matter  (valued  at 
EUR 150-300/ha), and reduced costs for controlling non-native grasses, pests395 or diseases396. 
Stakeholders  have  pointed  to  a  link  between  agrarian  policies  that  favour  large  monocultures 
owned by few service companies and (i) depopulation and loss of quality of life in large rural 
areas, on the one hand, and (ii) loss of biodiversity and the depletion of natural resources, on the 
other (Survey inputs from agroecology association, environment NGOs and regional authorities 
in Spain). 

  In  Italy,  large  protected  areas  in  different  regions  has  favoured  major  tourist  development 
creating  job  opportunities  and  specialization  opportunities  for  local  companies  (Regional 
authority). Direct green jobs at national level in 2011 included over 100,000 people in national 
parks,  more  than  1.5  million  in  regional  parks  and  more  than  630,000  people  in  Natura  2000 
sites397. A socio-economic evaluation of the benefits from Natura 2000 sites in Trentino (Life + 
TEN  Project398)  identified  benefits  linked  to  the  enhancement  of  natural  features,  the 
development  of  small  farms  and  sustainable  tourism,  against  significant  investments  in  nature 
protection (Provincial authority and a provincial research entity). Combatting IAS some plants 
and  promoting  native  vegetation  can  increases  the  stability  of  banks  and  slopes,  reducing  the 
risk  of  landslides  (research  and  environmental  organizations).  The  assessment  of  ecosystem 
services provided by soil indicates potential economic damage due to soil losses exceeding EUR  
3 billion per year399. 

  In  Greece,  the  benefits  of  biodiversity  measures  are  multiple  but  they  are  not  systematically 
assessed and cannot be monetised. For example, the LIFE TERRACESCAPE project400 with a 
budget  of  around  EUR  2.7  million,  aims  to  demonstrate,  on  the  island  of  Andros,  the  use  of 
drystone  terraces  for  the  revitalisation  of  island  terrace  farming  to  bring  benefits  for  local 
societies,  economies,  and  biodiversity.  In  2020,  there  were  almost  30  thousand  organic 
agricultural  producers  in  Greece401  and  the  number  of  organic  farmers  increased  by  52% 
between  2015  and  2020.  Healthy  forests  create  tourism  and  recreation  opportunities  in  rural 
regions in Greece, generating additional income for the local communities402. 

  In  Germany,  identified  important  services  delivered  by  healthy  ecosystems  include  the 
reduction of nitrogen loads, avoidance of soil erosion, maintenance of pollination services, the 
control of pests as well as regulating services e.g. improvement of water and air quality, local 
climate regulation, protection from extreme weather events, and cultural services e.g. recreation 

393 Analysis of costs for the preservation of the Natura 2000 Network in Spain (MITECO, 2013). 
394 EEA Estación Experimental Agraria de Carcaixent and the IVIA Instituo Valenciano de Investigaciones Agrarias 
395 Sorribas, J., González-Cavero, S., Domínguez-Gento, A. & Vercher, R. 2016. Abundance, movements and biodiversity of flying predatory insects 
in crop and non-crop agroecosystems. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 26-34. 
396 González, S., Vercher, R., Domínguez Gento, A., and Mañó, P.; 2008; Biodiversity and distribution of beneficial arthropods within hedgerows of 
organic Citrus orchards in Valencia (Spain); Control in Citrus Fruit Crops, IOBC/wprs Bulletin Vol. 38, 2008, pp. 275-279   
397 Research on green employment linked to biodiversity (Unioncamere, 2020). 
398 http://www.lifeten.tn.it/binary/pat_lifeten/monitoraggi_monitoring/LifeTEN_D2_Report_Versione_Finale_20180702.1530537807.pdf  
399  State  of  nature  in  the  EU-Results  from  reporting  under  the  nature  directives  2013-18  and  Rapporto  ISPRA  sul  consumo  del  suolo,  dinamiche 
territorili e servizi ecosistemici edizione 2020. 
400 http://www.lifeterracescape.aegean.gr/  
401 Eurostat (2020). Organic operators by status of the registration process (from 2012 onwards).  
402  Tampakis,  S.,  Andrea,  V.,  Karanikola,  P.,  &  Pailas,  I.  (2019).  The  growth  of  mountain  tourism  in  a  traditional  forest  area  of  Greece.  Forests, 
10(11), 1022. 

169 

 
                                                           
and  nature  experience403,404.  Floodplains  along  Germany’s  largest  rivers  are  reported  as 
delivering  purification  services  (nitrogen,  phosphorous)  worth  500  million  EUR/year,  which 
could be greatly increased through restoration measures. The costs of floodplain restoration of 
35,000 ha along the Elbe have been calculated at 566 million EUR. The social benefit arising 
from flood protection, have been estimated as 177 million EUR, while adding co-benefits from 
the retention of nutrients, avoidance of old dyke maintenance costs, and the willingness to pay 
for biodiversity, the total societal benefits were calculated at around 1.75 billion EUR, greatly 
outweighing the costs of dyke removal and restoration measures. Overall, in the case of large-
scale  dyke405.  In  the  Wurzacher  Ried  Moors  in  Southern  Germany,  it  was  calculated  that 
restoration measures could save approximately 11,400 t CO2
In the Netherlands, studies have shown that natural areas provide both the largest diversity of 
services as well as the largest net value in demanded services while representing a smaller area 
of  the  country  than  agricultural  areas  and  cities407.  The  national  natural  capital  account 
development resulted in a first attempt by Statistics Netherlands and Wageningen University to 
calculate the monetary value of 10 terrestrial ecosystem services in line with the SEEA EEA408. 
For example, the flow and asset values (in millions of euros) of several of these services in 2015 
is presented in the table below: 

406. 

 

  Case  studies  in  all  countries  have  indicated  that  failure  to  achieve  the  biodiversity  targets  is 
linked  to  negative  socio-economic  consequences  including  soil  erosion  and  climate  change 
impacts. 

3.3. Examples of adverse socio-economic impacts from implementation  
  Sector stakeholders have reported economic difficulties as a consequence from nature protection 
restrictions  and  requirements  not  (sufficiently)  backed  by  social  and  economic  measures  to 
support good practices (NGOs, associations of fishing enterprises, farmers and foresters across 
the  Member  States).  Farmers  are  currently  faced  with  conflicts  between  environmental 

403 Collection of survey answers. 
404 BfN (2015) Gewässer und Auen- Nutzen für die Gesellschaft, Bonn: Bundesamt für Naturschutz.  
405  Grossmann, M.,  Hartje,  V. and Meyerhoff,  J.  (2010)  Ökonomische  Bewertung  naturverträglicher  Hochwasservorsorge  an  der  Elbe  Naturschutz 
und Biologische Vielfalt Heft 89).  
406 Leonhardt, S. D., Gallai, N., Garibaldi, L. A., Kuhlmann, M. and Klein, A.-M. (2013) 'Economic gain, stability of pollination and bee diversity 
decrease from southern to northern Europe', Basic and Applied Ecology, 14(6), pp. 461-471. 
407 Government of The Netherlands (2021) Environmental data compendium indicator page ‘Ecosystem services in the Netherlands, 2020.  
408 Statistics Netherlands (2021) Ecosystem services.  

170 

 
 
 
                                                           
protection  and  current  economic  context  and  model  of  farming,  seen  by  many  respondents  as 
the result of insufficient governance leadership to facilitate transformative change409. 

  Stakeholders  in  the  fisheries  and  aquaculture  sector  in  Italy  have  stated  that,  if  incentives  for 
implementing good practices were available, and if rules were applied across the board (also for 
international  fishing  vessels)  the  socio-economic  impacts  from  measures  to  conserve  fisheries 
resources and marine ecosystems could be positive. (Business association in Italy). 

  The  return  of  some  emblematic  species  has  been  linked  with  damage  to  stock  by  wolves,  or 
flooding of agricultural land by beaver (farmers associations and regional authorities in Spain, 
Greece, Italy). However, compensations for damage has reduced tensions between farmers and 
carnivores for example in Greece. 

  Limitations  imposed  in  implementation  of  the  IAS  regulation  affects  private  animal  holders, 
zoos (listed species can be kept until natural death but cannot be bred), animal shelters (danger 
that the regulation will cause shelters to lack placement options), hunters, and gardeners, as well 
as horticultural and pet trade businesses. Elimination rather than prevention measures can be in 
conflict with animal welfare410. 

4. Coherence of national policies with the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 

4.1. The EU biodiversity targets have been taken into account to different degrees in a range 
of instruments, including:  

  national  and  regional  plans  for  adaptation  to  climate  change411,  organic  agriculture412,  soil 
protection,  forest  restoration413  including  of  areas  affected  by  fires  (e.g.  following  the  Sa 
Canova fires, Artà; S'Espalmador, Formentera; S'Arenal d'en Castell, Es Mercadal in Spain); 
river  basin  management  plans,  and  restoration  measures  of  rivers  and  ravines,  riverside 
vegetation (e.g. the Alzira green belt in Spain); policy fostering models on Economy of the 
Common  Good414  and  Green  Routes415;  eco-schemes  under  the  CAP  for  hedges  and 
biodiversity; the protection and sustainable management of forests and dealing with the risk 
of forest fires; renewable energy in synergy with biodiversity conservation; flood protection 
through  ecosystem  restoration  and  nature  based  solutions,  other  infrastructure  plans  that 
include  ecosystem  restoration  and  nature  based  solutions  (railways,  roads,  energy  etc.), 
urban  green  infrastructure416,417.  (Inputs  from  regional  authorities,  agroecology  association 
and NGOs in Spain, Italy).  

  The case study in Greece provided examples of cooperation between business and NGOs on 
the protection, restoration and management of habitats and species (a black pine forest after 
fires in the Peloponnese, coastal dunes, brown bear protection), as well as dissemination and 
awareness-raising  activities418.  The  Piraeus  Bank  has  provided  support  to  the  LIFE-
Stymfalia  project  that  restored  Stymfalia  lake  and  introduced  a  long-term  plan  for  its 
management419. 

409 Personal Interview NABU and management authority Schleswig-Holstein. 
410  Deutscher  Tierschutzbund,  Auffangstation  für  Reptilien,  Bmt  and  Tierärztliche  Vereinigung  für  Tierschutz  (2017)  Positionspapier  zur  EU-
Verordnung  Nr.1143/2014  über  die  Prävention  und  das  Management  der  Einbringung  und  Ausbreitung  invasiver  gebietsfremder  Arten  und  deren 
Umsetzung in Deutschland.  
411 https://www.minambiente.it/comunicati/parchi-minambiente-al-maxifondo-ridurre-le-emissioni-di-co2-combattere-i-cambiamenti  
412 http://www.pianetapsr.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/2058  
413 https://www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/19419  
414 http://www.indi.gva.es/es/web/economia/economia-del-be-comu  
415 https://www.valenciabonita.es/2018/01/05/las-vias-verdes-de-la-comunitat-valenciana/  
416 https://www.isprambiente.gov.it/it/pubblicazioni/rapporti/sinergie-fra-la-direttiva-quadro-sulle-acque-e-ledirettive  
417 https://welforum.it/la-legge-di-bilancio-2020-e-gli-obiettivi-di-sviluppo-sostenibile/  
418 OECD (2020). OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Greece 2020.  
419 http://www.lifestymfalia.gr/ 

171 

 
 
                                                           
4.1.  Examples  have  also  been  provided  of  incoherence  with  the  EU  biodiversity  targets  to 
2020, such as: 
  National Programming and spending under EU funding instruments such as the EAFRD, EMFF 
and Cohesion Policy funds include measures that can provide major contribution to biodiversity, 
depending  on  the  implementation  choices  made  in  the  Member  States.  However,  at  the 
operational  level  in  the  Member  States,  for  example  some  CAP  direct  payments  have 
encouraged  intensification,  the  removal  of  borders  with  wild  species,  mechanization,  water 
management modifications and the use of plant protection products and fertilisers; incentives for 
intensive  forest  plantations  such  as  eucalyptus;  and  for  the  use  of  water  resources,  including 
irrigation  (Spanish  agroecology  association  and  environment  NGOs,  national  and  regional 
authorities in Italy).  

  Support  for  certain  transport,  energy  (including  renewable  energy),  hydrological  and  other 
infrastructures may have significant negative impacts on biodiversity. Infrastructure plans have 
not taken biodiversity impacts into account to a sufficient degree. (Agroecology association and 
a  farms  and  ranchers  association  in  Spain,  regional  authorities  and  research  institute  in  Italy, 
regional authorities, research institutes and NGOs in Greece, NGOs and research organisations 
in  Germany).  The  case  study  in  Lithuania  provided  examples  of  perceived  conflicts  between 
biodiversity and climate mitigation and adaptation objectives in relation to (old-growth) forests. 
  The  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  to  2020  has  been  seen  as  relatively  weak  in  terms  of  ensuring 
coherence with EU sectoral policies, especially the critical natural resource use policies such as 
on  farming,  forestry  and  fishing.  In  addition  to  slow  progress  to  targets  3  and  4,  this  has  had 
important knock-on effects on achieving targets 1 and 2 (case study in the Netherlands). 

5. Relevance of the EU biodiversity targets to biodiversity needs in the Member States 
  Overall, respondents across the Member States considered the Strategy relevant to biodiversity 
needs.  However,  biodiversity  needs  themselves  have  often  remained  low  in  the  ranking  of 
priorities  for  policy  and  investment  decisions  (research  entities,  regional  authorities,  NGOs 
across the survey Member States). 

  Some respondents considered that the EU biodiversity targets had been too vaguely formulated 
and  insufficiently  concrete,  for  example  in  relation  to  pesticide  reduction  or  organic  farming. 
(Environmental NGOs in Spain) or pressures from urban development, construction and tourism 
(agriculture stakeholders in Greece, Spain, Italy).  

  While  biodiversity  needs  have  remained  similar,  the  intensity  of  threats  and  pressures  on 
habitats  and  species  has  evolved  since  2011.  Marine,  coastal,  terrestrial  and  freshwater 
ecosystems  all  show  vulnerability  to  climate  change,  constituting  a  growing  emergency. 
Another  major  emergency  is  linked  to  soil  degradation  and  loss  and  desertification  (regional 
authorities, research organisations and environmental NGOs in Spain, Italy). 

  Areas  considered  in  need  of  stronger  emphasis  include:  adapting  to  the  impacts  of  climate 
change  on  ecosystems  and  species,  the  promotion  of  good  practices  (in  farming,  forestry, 
sustainable  fishing),  more  focus  on  vulnerable  ecosystems  (e.g.  coastal,  freshwater)  and  on 
ensuring that the development of fast growing sectors  such as renewable energy is done in ways 
that  minimise  pressures  on  biodiversity;  more  attention  to  traditional  management  systems, 
improvement  of  biodiversity  governance  at  all  levels,  education  and  youth  involvement,  fair 
distribution  of  the  costs  and  benefits  of  biodiversity  conservation  and  green  taxation  (survey 

172 

 
 
inputs from forest association, agroecology association, and farmers and ranchers association in 
Spain, regional authorities in Italy, environmental NGOs in Bulgaria). 

6. EU added value of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 
  Respondents have overall recognised the added value of the Strategy, compared to what would 
have  been  achieved  by  national  efforts  in  its  absence.  A  number  of  Member  States  had  no 
biodiversity-related  strategy  nor  targets  in  place  prior  to  the  EU  Strategy,  and  biodiversity 
knowledge  was  insufficient.  The  Strategy  is  seen  to  have  raised  the  ambition  of  national 
biodiversity  objectives,  helped  to  set  deadlines  for  their  achievement,  as  well  as  to  attract 
funding for biodiversity from EU instruments, and to generate investments in large biodiversity 
projects.  It  has  also  encouraged  a  more  coherent  approach  and  cross-border  cooperation  on 
biodiversity  in  the  EU  (environmental  NGOs,  association  of  farmers  and  ranchers,  regional 
authorities,  association  of  fishing  enterprises  in  Spain,  regional  authorities  and  environmental 
consultancy in Italy, Bulgaria).  

  The  added  value  of  the  EU  Strategy  was  seen  as  lower  by  respondents  in  the  context  of 
Germany  which  already  had  a  comprehensive  biodiversity  strategy  in  place.  But  it  was 
recognised that the Strategy was useful to keep the topic on the national agenda and to push for 
delivery. The Dutch case study questioned the added value of Target 1 in comparison to what 
would have happened in implementation of the Nature Directives without the (voluntary) target. 
  The  Strategy  is  also  seen  as  adding  value  in  integrating  biodiversity  objectives  in  different 
sectors. A number of case studies provide evidence of changes in  key sectoral  policies due to 
the EU biodiversity targets to 2020. However, biodiversity conservation is still considered as a 
separate policy area (regional authorities, environmental NGOs, sector forest associations). 

  The added value of the Strategy has been further reduced by its ambiguity on some targets and 
by  governance  weaknesses, 
the  responsibilities  for 
implementation. The non-binding nature of the targets made it difficult to ensure compliance (in 
particular  in  relation  to  restoration).  No  clear  funding  was  earmarked  for  implementation 
(environmental  authorities,  research  organisations,  NGOs  in  Spain,  Italy,  Greece,  Germany, 
Lithuania, Bulgaria).  

in  particular  gaps 

in  defining 

  Some  stakeholders  considered  that  the  Strategy  did  not  provide  for  sound  implementation 
instruments,  and  that  better  results  would  have  been  achieved  in  the  agricultural,  forestry  and 
aquaculture sectors by providing more dedicated funding from EU instruments  to  compensate 
and  incentivise  biodiversity  measures  (Associations  of  farmers,  association  of  fishing 
enterprises, forestry in Spain, Italy); or by setting the biodiversity targets and measures directly 
in other policy instruments (regional authorities in Italy). 

173