kom (2015) 0478 - Bilag 1: Kopi af henvendelse af 8/12-15 fra Danmarks Naturfredningsforening om høringssvar til Rammenotat om formandskabets forslag til rådskonklusioner om midtvejsevaluering af EU’s biodiversitetsstrategi til 2020

Europaudvalget 2015-16
KOM (2015) 0478 Bilag 1
Offentligt

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION

Brussels, 02.10.2015

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND

THE COUNCIL

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

kom (2015) 0478 - Bilag 1: Kopi af henvendelse af 8/12-15 fra Danmarks Naturfredningsforening om høringssvar til Rammenotat om formandskabets forslag til rådskonklusioner om midtvejsevaluering af EU’s biodiversitetsstrategi til 2020

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND

THE COUNCIL

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

NTRODUCTION

Biodiversity — the unique variety of life on our planet — underpins our economy and well-being. It

provides us with clean air and water, food, materials and medicines, health and recreation; it supports

pollination and soil fertility, regulates climate and protects us from extreme weather.

However, human-induced changes to ecosystems and the extinction of species have been more rapid

in the past 50 years than at any time in human history.

Biodiversity loss is one of the core planetary

boundaries

that have already been crossed by humanity. Together with climate change, this increases

the risk of irreversible changes and undermines economic development and the resilience of societies

in the face of new challenges. The World Economic Forum listed ‘biodiversity loss and ecosystem

collapse’ among the top 10 global risks in 2015.

The EU 2010 biodiversity baseline

indicated that up to 25 % of European animal species were facing

extinction, and 65 % of habitats of EU importance were in an unfavourable conservation status,

mainly due to human activities. Basic ecosystem services have continued deteriorating.

As a response, in 2011, the European Commission adopted an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020,

with

the headline target set by EU Heads of State and Government to

‘halt the loss of biodiversity and

ecosystem services by 2020, to restore ecosystems in so far as is feasible, and to step up the EU

contribution to averting global biodiversity loss’.

The strategy is an integral part of the Europe 2020

strategy

and the 7th Environmental Action Programme.

It implements EU commitments under the

Convention on Biological Diversity. The strategy is built around six targets, each supported by a set of

actions.

The present mid-term review takes stock of progress in implementing the EU biodiversity strategy

against the 2010 baseline. It aims to inform decision-makers of areas in which increased efforts are

needed to meet the EU biodiversity objectives by 2020.

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253.full.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855.full.

http://www.weforum.org/reports/global-risks-report-2015.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eu-2010-biodiversity-baseline.

COM(2011)244 final.

COM(2010) 2020 final.

Decision No 1386/2013/EU.

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

The opportunity cost of not reaching the 2020 EU biodiversity headline target has been estimated at up

to EUR 50 billion a year.

One in six jobs in the EU depends to some extent on nature.

The value of

insect pollination services alone has been estimated at EUR 15 billion a year in the EU. At around

EUR 5.8 billion, the annual costs of maintaining the EU Natura 2000 network are but a fraction of the

economic benefits generated by the network through services such as carbon storage, flood mitigation,

water purification, pollination and fish protection, together worth EUR 200-300 billion annually.

Restoring ecosystems and green infrastructure can improve air and water quality and flood control,

reduce noise, encourage recreation and promote opportunities for green businesses. Among agri-

environmental practices that support biodiversity, organic farming is a sector with positive

employment trends that attracts younger workers, provides 10-20 % more jobs per land area than

conventional farms, and creates added value for agricultural products. Maintaining healthy marine

habitats and sustainable fish stocks is essential for the long-term viability of the fishing sector. There

is an important economic dimension to combating invasive alien species, which cause damage of at

least EUR 12 billion a year to EU sectors. Policy inaction and failure to halt the loss of global

biodiversity could result in annual losses in ecosystem services equivalent to 7 % of world GDP,

with the greatest impacts being felt by the poorest nations and the rural poor.

Box 2. Note on methodology

The assessment of progress in the mid-term review takes account of the way that the different targets

are defined.

The headline target

is formulated in terms of the desired state of biodiversity and

ecosystem services in the EU by 2020. Progress towards this target at the point of the mid-term review

has been assessed in terms of both status and trends.

The six operational targets

have both policy-

related and status-related elements. The assessment under each of these targets presents: (i) where we

stand at mid-term; (ii) what action has been implemented; and (iii) gaps and further efforts needed to

reach the target by 2020.

The mid-term review draws on the best available information from a wide range of sources

summarised in the accompanying Staff Working Document.

Trends in status of habitats and species

of EU importance are based on data reported under the Birds and Habitats Directives (period 2007-

2012 vs 2001-2006

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/economics_policy/pdf/report_sept2011.pdf.

http://www.teebweb.org/.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/biodiversity/pdf/ieep_alterra_report.pdf.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/pdf/teeb_report.pdf.

SWD(2015) 187.

COM(2015) 219 final.

UMMARY OF PROGRESS SINCE

2011

Headline target: Halt the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services

in the EU by 2020, and restore them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU

contribution to averting global biodiversity loss.

Overall, as compared with the EU 2010 biodiversity baseline,

biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU

have continued, as confirmed by the

2015 European environment — state

and outlook report.

This is consistent with global trends and has serious

implications for the capacity of biodiversity to meet human needs in the

future. While many local successes demonstrate that action on the

ground delivers positive outcomes, these examples need to be scaled up

to have a measurable impact on the overall negative trends.

No significant overall

progress (much stronger

efforts are needed to

meet the target by its

deadline)

Since the last reporting period, the number of species and habitats of EU importance with

secure/favourable or improved conservation status has increased slightly. Populations of some

common birds appear to be stabilising but other species linked to fragile freshwater, coastal and

agricultural ecosystems continue to decline; 70 % of EU species are threatened by habitat loss. While

some ecosystem services (in particular provisioning) are increasing, others such as pollination are

decreasing.

The key threats to biodiversity — habitat loss (in particular through urban sprawl, agricultural

intensification, land abandonment, and intensively managed forests), pollution, over-exploitation (in

particular fisheries), invasive alien species and climate change — continue to exert pressure causing

loss of species and habitats and resulting in ecosystem degradation and weakening ecosystem

resilience.

The EU-28 footprint is still over twice its biocapacity

and this compounds pressures on

biodiversity outside Europe.

Since the launch of the strategy, progress has been made in establishing policy frameworks, improving

the knowledge base and setting up partnerships. These initiatives will need to be translated into

concrete actions at national, regional and local levels if we are to see sustained improvements in

biodiversity on the ground. Progress towards the headline target will also depend on the setting and

achievement of objectives in policy areas not directly targeted by the strategy, notably climate, air,

chemicals, water, and soil protection.

There is ample evidence of major efforts by stakeholders that have resulted in positive local trends in

biodiversity. These examples send an important message that targeted action on the ground can bring

very positive results. They provide models for guiding implementation in the second half of the

strategy.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/europe/biodiversity.

SEBI 023, EEA, 2015.

2.1. Target 1: Halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats

covered by EU nature legislation and achieve a significant and measurable

improvement in their status so that, by 2020, compared with current

assessments: (i) 100 % more habitat assessments and 50 % more species

assessments under the Habitats Directive show an improved conservation

status; and (ii) 50 % more species assessments under the Birds Directive show

a secure or improved status.

The latest report on the state of nature in the EU

shows that the

number of species and habitats in secure/favourable or improved

conservation status has increased slightly since the 2010 baseline.

However, many habitats and species that were already in

unfavourable status remain so, and some are deteriorating further.

While much has been achieved since 2011 in carrying out the actions

under this target, the most important challenges remain the

completion of the Natura 2000 marine network, ensuring the effective

management of Natura 2000 sites, and securing the necessary finance

to support the Natura 2000 network.

Progress towards the

target but at an

insufficient rate

(increased efforts are

needed to meet the target

by its deadline)

Figure 1 — Progress towards Target 1: percentage of secure/favourable or improving assessments for

birds (Birds Directive) and for habitats and species of Community interest (Habitats Directive)

Source: EEA 2015

As indicated in Figure 1 above, more species and habitats covered by EU nature legislation show a

secure/favourable or improving conservation status since the 2010 baseline. Some emblematic species,

such as the Eastern Imperial Eagle, show recovery as a result of targeted conservation measures

supported by dedicated financing. However, the status of many other species and habitats remains

unfavourable, with some declining trends.

COM(2015) 219 final.

The Natura 2000 network has been largely completed for terrestrial and inland water habitats,

covering about 18 % of the land surface. The marine network coverage has increased to 6 %, still well

below the 10 % global target.

Member States have progressed at different rates in developing and implementing action plans for

species and Natura 2000 site management plans. In 2012, only 58 % of Natura 2000 sites had

management plans, or had such plans in development.

The Natura 2000 biogeographical process has

encouraged cooperation between Member States on habitat management and restoration, and financing

opportunities for Natura 2000 sites have increased.

A full assessment of the integration of Natura

2000 in the new multiannual financial framework will only be possible once all programmes have

been approved.

Guidance has been developed on use of wind energy, port development and dredging, extractive

industries, agriculture, aquaculture, forests and energy infrastructure in the context of Natura 2000

sites.

Training was organised for judges and prosecutors on the enforcement of key provisions of nature

legislation. Major improvements have been seen in the monitoring and reporting of biodiversity data,

and in streamlining the reporting requirements under the two nature directives.

Communication and awareness raising have been stepped up with the launch of the Natura 2000

communication platform, an annual Natura 2000 award scheme and national campaigns.

The Commission is undertaking a fitness check of the Birds and Habitats Directives

as part of its

regulatory fitness and performance programme. This will be a comprehensive and evidence-based

analysis of whether the legislation and its implementation are proportionate to the set objectives and

are delivering as intended. The results will be presented in the first half of 2016.

While it will take time for the positive effects of many of these actions to become apparent, it is clear

that significantly more efforts and investment will be needed in the remaining period up to 2020, so as

to complete Natura 2000 in marine areas to achieve the 10 % global target, ensure that all Natura 2000

sites are managed effectively, and establish adequate financial and administrative conditions to

achieve conservation objectives and allow the potential of ecosystem services to deliver within and

beyond the territories of Natura 2000.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-nature-in-the-eu.

SEC(2011) 1573 final.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/index_en.htm.

2.2. Target 2: By 2020, ecosystems and their services are maintained and

enhanced by establishing green infrastructure and restoring at least 15 % of

degraded ecosystems.

Progress has been made on policy and knowledge improvement

actions under this target, and some restoration activities have taken

place in Member States. However, this has not yet halted the trend

of degradation of ecosystems and services. National and regional

frameworks to promote restoration and green infrastructure need

to be developed and implemented. A lot remains to be done to halt

the loss of ordinary biodiversity outside the Natura 2000 network.

Progress towards the

target but at an

insufficient rate

(increased efforts are

needed to meet the target

by its deadline)

Figure 2 — Trends in pressures on ecosystems

Ecosystem type

Habitat changes Climate change

Exploitation

Invasive species

Pollution and

nutrient

enrichment









Urban

Cropland

Grassland

Woodland and forest

Heathland, shrub and sparsely

vegetated land

Wetlands

Freshwater (rivers and lakes)

Marine (transitional and

marine waters, combined)*





















*NB: results for marine ecosystem are preliminary.

Key:

Projected future trends in pressure



Decreasing



Continuing



Increasing



Very rapid

increase

Observed impact on biodiversity to date

Low

Moderate

High

Very high

Source: EEA 2015

Recent analysis

confirms increasing trends for some provisioning services (e.g. timber production)

and decreasing trends for services directly related to biodiversity (e.g. pollination) for the period

between 2000-2010. As illustrated in Figure 2, some major pressures on ecosystems are decreasing

EEA Technical Report 6/2015.

JRC Report 2015,

Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services.

(e.g. atmospheric deposition of sulphur); however, other threats to ecosystems and their services

persist and many are increasing, thereby slowing overall progress towards the target.

The Commission and Member States have taken important steps to improve the knowledge base. The

mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services, when completed by the 2020 target, will

allow public decision-makers and private-sector stakeholders to capture the value of the EU’s

ecosystem wealth and associated socio-economic benefits in their planning decisions. The Joint

Research Centre report provides a solid baseline against which progress will be tracked, with a first

update expected in 2016.

The EU green infrastructure strategy

promotes the integration of green infrastructure solutions into

other EU policies and financing instruments. The Commission has also published a study

to support

Member States in prioritising the restoration of degraded ecosystems. Although there are few

comprehensive restoration strategies at national and sub-national levels, some restoration is taking

place — often in response to EU legislation such as the Water Framework Directive, the Marine

Strategy Framework Directive, and the Birds and Habitats Directives.

Over the coming years, increased efforts will be needed to complete and implement national

restoration prioritisation frameworks. Further investments, coupled with capacity building and the

integration of green infrastructure into national and sub-national planning frameworks, will be

important drivers to maintain and restore ecosystems and their services. A lot remains to be done in

relation to halting the loss of ordinary biodiversity in the 80 % of the EU territory falling outside of

Natura 2000, which will require consideration of the most suitable approach to ensure no net loss of

biodiversity and ecosystem services.

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

and enhancing biodiversity.

2.3.1.

Target 3A — Agriculture: By 2020, maximise areas under agriculture

across grasslands, arable land and permanent crops that are covered by

biodiversity-related measures under the CAP so as to ensure the

conservation of biodiversity and to bring about a measurable

improvement* in the conservation status of species and habitats that

depend on or are affected by agriculture and in the provision of

ecosystem services as compared to the EU 2010 Baseline, thus

contributing to enhance sustainable management.

(*) Improvement is to be measured against the quantified enhancement

targets for the conservation status of species and habitats of EU interest

in Target 1 and the restoration of degraded ecosystems under Target 2.

COM(2013) 249 final.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/RPF.pdf.

The continuing decline in the status of species and habitats of EU

importance associated with agriculture indicates that greater efforts

need to be made to conserve and enhance biodiversity in these areas.

The common agricultural policy (CAP) has an essential role to play in

this process in interaction with relevant environmental policies.

The CAP reform for 2014-2020 provides a range of instruments that

can contribute to supporting biodiversity. If the target is to be

achieved, these opportunities need now to be taken up by Member

States on a sufficient scale. Local examples demonstrate successful

sustainable agricultural practices. If implemented more broadly, they

could put the EU back on track to achieve the target by 2020.

No significant overall

progress (much stronger

efforts are needed to

meet the target by its

deadline)

Figure 3 — Changes (2007-2012 vs 2001-2006) in conservation status for habitats of Community interest

associated with agricultural ecosystems (grassland and cropland)

Source: EEA 2015

The

2015 European environment — state and outlook report

identifies intensification in agricultural

practices and land abandonment, along with urban sprawl and grey infrastructure, as key pressures on

biodiversity. The 2015 report

The State of Nature in the European Union

also points to agriculture and

human-induced modifications of natural conditions as the most prominent pressures on terrestrial

ecosystems in the period 2007-2012, with 20 % of the pressure stemming from agriculture alone. As

illustrated in Figure 3, there has been no measurable improvement in the status of the majority of

agriculture-related species and habitats covered by EU nature legislation since the last reporting

period. Grasslands and wetlands have the highest proportion of habitats in ‘unfavourable — bad’ or

‘deteriorating’ status. While populations of common bird species have started stabilising since 2010,

farmland birds have continued declining. Pollination services are in steep decline

with multiple

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

Target 3A focuses on the contribution of the common agricultural policy.

JRC Report 2015,

Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services.

pressures on wild bees.

Grassland butterflies are declining severely and there is no sign of levelling

off.

While overall trends continue to be a cause for serious concern, there are many local improvements as

a direct result of good agricultural practices and biodiversity measures under the CAP, in particular

under the agri-environment measures and in Natura 2000 sites. Such successes carry an important

message on the achievability of the 2020 biodiversity target, but would need to be spread wider to

achieve measurable results at EU level.

The CAP reform for 2014-2020 includes various instruments that can contribute to support

biodiversity. Cross-compliance represents the basic layer of environmental requirements and

obligations to be met by farmers. Direct payments reward the delivery of environmental public goods.

One of the three greening practices under the first pillar — ecological focus areas — specifically

targets biodiversity. Finally, the Rural Development Regulation provides national and regional

authorities with a wide range of biodiversity-favourable options to choose from. These options include

a sub-priority on the restoration, preservation and enhancement of ecosystems, a target for biodiversity

output in rural development programmes, collaboration mechanisms among farmers and foresters, and

a greater focus on advising farmers on water and pesticide use but also on biodiversity, including the

obligations under the Birds and Habitats Directives.

The reformed CAP gives Member States’ national and regional authorities the flexibility to decide

how and to what extent they take up these opportunities. Member States’ rural development

programmes and choices related to ecological focus areas will be carefully monitored and evaluated

with respect to biodiversity protection. Based on programmes adopted at the time of finalising this

report, 19.1 %

of total agricultural land is under management contracts supporting biodiversity

and/or landscapes, with very large disparities among Member States and regions. Understanding the

reasons for disparity in take-up among Member States will be critical for further progress towards the

2020 target.

European Red List of Wild Bees (2015).

Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

The 73 rural development programmes (of 118 in total) adopted by 23.08.2015 cover three quarters of the

budget and three quarters of utilised agricultural area.

2.3.2.

Target 3B — Forests: By 2020, Forest Management Plans or equivalent

instruments, in line with Sustainable Forest Management (SFM), are in

place for all forests that are publicly owned and for forest holdings

above a certain size** (to be defined by the Member States or regions

and communicated in their Rural Development Programmes) that

receive funding under the EU Rural Development Policy so as to bring

about a measurable improvement* in the conservation status of species

and habitats that depend on or are affected by forestry and in the

provision of related ecosystem services as compared to the EU 2010

Baseline.

(*) Improvement is to be measured against the quantified enhancement

targets for the conservation status of species and habitats of EU interest

in Target 1 and the restoration of degraded ecosystems under Target 2.

(**) For smaller forest holdings, Member States may provide additional

incentives to encourage the adoption of Management Plans or equivalent

instruments that are in line with SFM

EU forest area has increased as compared with the EU 2010

biodiversity baseline. However, the conservation status of forest

habitats and species covered by EU nature legislation shows no

significant signs of improvement. EU-level data on the status of forest

habitats outside Natura 2000 is limited.

Forest management plans or equivalent instruments can play an

important positive role in achieving the target, but their potential

remains largely unused.

No significant overall

progress (much stronger

efforts are needed to

meet the target by its

deadline)

Favourable conservation status assessments of forest habitats of European importance have decreased

from nearly 17 % to about 15 % in the latest assessment. The vast majority of assessments remain

unfavourable (80 %) but results vary considerably across Europe’s biogeographical regions, with the

highest proportion of favourable assessments being found in the Mediterranean region.

Figure 4 — Change (2007-2012 vs 2001-2006) in conservation status for habitats of Community interest

associated with woodland and forest ecosystem at EU-27 level

Source: EEA 2015

The EU forest strategy

highlights the economic, social and environmental importance of Europe’s

forest ecosystems and sets the guiding principles of sustainable forest management, resource

efficiency and global forest responsibility. The Commission is also developing criteria and indicators

for sustainable forest management. Securing adequate funding for biodiversity-favourable measures in

forested areas remains a challenge. During the period 2007 to 2013, a total of EUR 5.4 billion was

allocated to forests under rural development programmes whereas the annual cost of managing the

Natura 2000 network (of which over half is forest) is around EUR 5.8 billion.

Forest management plans or equivalent instruments could play a key role in achieving Target 3B,

including in private forests. Overall, a large share of EU forests is covered by some form of

management plan but there nevertheless remain significant variations across the Member States. The

take-up of some of the measures identified in the EU biodiversity strategy has been limited. Improving

EU-level information on forest status will allow a more precise assessment of the situation and the

design of appropriate policy responses to meet the target.

The graph refers to EU-27 as it relates to the time before the accession of Croatia.

COM(2013) 659 final.

2.4. Target 4: Achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) by 2015*. Achieve a

population age and size distribution indicative of a healthy stock, through

fisheries management with no significant adverse impacts on other stocks,

species and ecosystems, in support of achieving Good Environmental Status

by 2020, as required under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive

(MSFD).

* The reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) which entered into force in 2014, aims

to ensure MSY exploitation rates for all stocks by 2015 where possible, and at the latest

by 2020.

Significant progress has been made in setting the policy framework

for sustainable fisheries under the reformed EU common fisheries

policy, and for achieving good environmental status under the MSFD.

The Commission is promoting improvements in oceans governance

for more sustainable management of marine resources. However,

policy implementation has been uneven across the EU and major

challenges remain to ensure that the objectives are achieved

according to schedule. Just over 50 % of MSY-assessed stocks were

fished sustainably in 2013.

As a result of multiple pressures, marine species and ecosystems

continue declining across Europe’s seas.

Progress towards the

target but at an

insufficient rate

(increased efforts are

needed to meet the target

by its deadline)

The reformed common fisheries policy provides a sound policy framework for sustainable fisheries,

and implementation is advancing. Harvesting levels are at or approaching maximum sustainable yield

for an increasing number of commercial stocks. Progress has been noteworthy in the northern waters

where most stocks subject to catch limits are assessed (up to 90 % in the Baltic) and the majority are

managed under the maximum sustainable yield. However, in the Mediterranean and Black Seas, less

than 10 % of landings come from assessed stocks and around 90 % of assessed stocks remain

overexploited.

Fishing mortality has significantly decreased for a number of stocks in the Baltic and the greater North

Sea.

This is evidence that they are responding positively to the implementation of long-term

management plans and fishing practices respecting the MSY objective.

Marine biodiversity across Europe’s regional seas continues to decline. Having good quality, reliable

and comprehensive data on the marine environment is a challenge in itself, with 80 % of species and

habitats under the MSFD categorised as unknown (commercial fish stocks being a positive exception).

Only 4 % of habitats are documented as being in good environmental status. Climate change and

acidification compound the negative impacts of overfishing, pollution and marine litter, habitat

destruction and invasive alien species.

COM(2015) 239 final.

JRC (2015) Monitoring the performance of the common fisheries policy — STECF-15-04.

EEA Report No 2/2015.

In support of reducing the adverse impact of fishing on non-target species and ecosystems, the new

common fisheries policy aims — through the gradual introduction of a landing obligation by 2019 —

to eliminate discarding. This will require strengthened monitoring at Member State level in order to

lead to practices that are cleaner, more selective and which avoid by-catch, and to improve by-catch

data.

Continued efforts at the national level to implement management plans and monitor the enforcement

of rules will be paramount in addressing pressures on marine biodiversity by 2020, along with

improved monitoring, broadening the knowledge base and coordination of marine biodiversity

information. Building on experience and expanding research networks will be a key task.

2.5. Target 5: By 2020, Invasive Alien Species (IAS) and their pathways are

identified and prioritised, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and

pathways are managed to prevent the introduction and establishment of new

IAS.

Invasive alien species are a fast-growing threat to biodiversity. The

IAS Regulation

entered into force in 2015. Work is under way to

propose the first list of invasive alien species of Union concern. If

this list is adopted by the end of 2015, the EU can be considered to

be on track with the actions envisaged under Target 5.

The next critical step for achieving the target will be implementation

by Member States. Ratification of the Ballast Water Convention,

crucial for addressing marine invasive alien species, is slow-going

with only 7 Member State ratifications to date.

On track to achieve target

(if we continue on our

current trajectory we

expect to achieve the

target by 2020)

Currently, there are more than 11 000 alien species in the European environment and 10-15 % of them

are causing problems. In the seas around Europe, more than 80 % of non-indigenous species have been

introduced since 1950 (see Figure 5).

Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014.

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

Source: EEA 2015

The new IAS Regulation provides a framework to prevent and manage the introduction and spread of

invasive alien species in the EU. The European Alien Species Information Network

is being set up to

assist Member States in its implementation. Work is under way with Member States to finalise the first

list of invasive alien species of Union concern based on species’ risk assessments, including potential

economic threats. A scanning exercise to prioritise future risk assessments will support a preventive

approach. The Commission's 2013 proposals on plant

and animal

health also aim to support

biodiversity protection.

The swift adoption of the first list of invasive alien species of Union concern and effective

implementation by the Member States will be decisive for continued progress towards this target.

Progress on related policies will be crucial, in particular the ratification and enforcement of the Ballast

Water Convention and the application of the animal health regime for wildlife diseases.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/trends-in-marine-alien-species-mas-2/assessment.

http://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/.

COM(2013) 267.

COM(2013) 260.

2.6.

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

biodiversity loss.

The EU remains by far the largest financial donor and has made

progress in increasing resources for global biodiversity. The EU has

taken initial steps to reduce indirect drivers of global biodiversity

loss, including wildlife trade, and to integrate biodiversity into its

trade agreements. However, progress is insufficient in reducing the

impacts of EU consumption patterns on global biodiversity. On the

current trajectory, existing efforts may not be sufficient to meet the

Aichi Biodiversity Targets by the deadlines.

Progress towards the

target but at an

insufficient rate

(increased efforts are

needed to meet the target

by its deadline)

The EU is the largest contributor to biodiversity-related official development assistance and has more

than doubled funding between 2006 and 2013.

In order to regulate access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising

from their utilisation, the EU ratified the Nagoya Protocol in 2014. New legislation has been adopted

to regulate compliance measures, and an additional implementing act is being prepared.

The 2013 EU Timber Regulation aims to stop the circulation of illegally logged wood on the EU

market. The EU Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Plan encourages trade in legal

timber. There is a growing consumer preference for products from sustainably managed forests. Some

progress has also been made on palm oil, but too little action has been taken regarding other

commodities and the EU-28 footprint is over twice the size of its biocapacity.

CBD Global Biodiversity Outlook 4.

Figure 6 — Ecological footprint per region of the world

Source: EEA (SEBI)

All recent EU free trade agreements have provisions on the implementation of multilateral

environmental agreements. The EU has also supported global efforts against wildlife trafficking,

including promoting progress towards the adoption of a comprehensive UN General Assembly

Resolution on tackling illicit trafficking in wildlife. On 8 July 2015, the EU officially became a Party

to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

Actions to biodiversity-proof EU development cooperation have been addressed through the

mainstreaming of environment and climate change. A compulsory environmental screening for any

new development cooperation action addresses potential impacts on protected or vulnerable areas,

ecosystem services, the introduction of alien species, and the use of fertilisers, pesticides or other

chemicals. Programming has paid special attention to the potential for biodiversity protection and

improvement.

The EU and its Member States have played an active role in shaping the global 2030 Agenda for

Sustainable Development. Implementing these commitments in the EU and supporting their

achievement on a global scale will help to advance towards meeting this target. Reaching the

international target of doubling biodiversity-related funding flows to developing countries by 2015 and

maintaining them until 2020, as well as increasing the effectiveness of funding, will require continued

commitment, better prioritisation and coordination with other donors. Achieving EU objectives will

require further action to address the EU ecological footprint, and the effective implementation of

recently adopted policy and legislation, with particular focus on compliance under the Nagoya

Protocol. More efforts are also needed to implement provisions on biodiversity in recent trade

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

footprint-of-european-countries-2.

COM(2014) 64 final.

agreements, to further integrate biodiversity objectives into EU trade policies and to encourage

initiatives to promote sustainable trade.

ORIZONTAL MEASURES

3.1. Financing

Insufficient financing was a major factor in the failure to reach the 2010 biodiversity target.

Biodiversity aspects have been integrated to various degrees into European structural and investment

funds, notably the common agricultural policy, cohesion policy funds and the European Maritime and

Fisheries Fund. A robust analysis of the allocations to biodiversity will only be possible once all rural

development and operational programmes are adopted. The LIFE programme remains a small but

highly effective funding source for nature and biodiversity. It will also support innovative financing

through the recently launched Natural Capital Financing Facility.

The Commission has developed a process to track biodiversity-related expenditure in the EU budget in

order to estimate more accurately the integration of biodiversity in programming.

A methodology

has also been developed to ‘biodiversity-proof’ the EU budget, to ensure that spending has no negative

impacts but supports biodiversity objectives.

EU financing instruments are key in delivering on international biodiversity commitments, in

particular through the Development and Cooperation Instrument and the European Development Fund,

as well as under the Partnership Instrument. EU efforts to enhance resource mobilisation from these

external instruments are enshrined in the ‘Biodiversity for Life’ flagship initiative (B4Life) launched

in 2014.

3.2. Partnerships

There has been considerable progress in establishing partnerships and engaging stakeholders and civil

society. The re-launched EU Business and Biodiversity Platform supports the active involvement of

businesses in the strategy implementation. The Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Territories of

European Overseas (BEST) preparatory action contributes to the transition towards swift and easy

access to funding for biodiversity protection and sustainable use of ecosystem services. The EU has

also supported the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity initiative, both within the EU and in

developing countries, and has encouraged synergies between the Convention on Biological Diversity

and other conventions.

3.3. Strengthening the knowledge base

The knowledge and evidence base for EU biodiversity policy has been improved through streamlined

reporting under the nature directives, and the mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their

services, recognised internationally as the most advanced regional assessment scheme under the

Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Research and innovation

framework programmes have an important role in the assessment of ecosystem services, in synergy

with other EU funds. Horizon 2020 supports integrated assessments and science-policy interfaces with

a focus on nature-based solutions. Cohesion policy funding for research and innovation is another

source of support. However, major gaps in data and knowledge remain, in particular concerning the

SEC(2015)240.

marine environment, the assessment of ecosystem health and links to ecosystem services and

resilience. The integration of — and open access to — data from biodiversity monitoring and reporting

under relevant EU legislation (such as agriculture, fisheries, and regional policy) needs to be

strengthened as a priority for the remainder of the implementation period. EU external instruments

have resulted in the creation of regional observatories in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries for

better informing the decision-makers in natural resource management.

ONCLUSION

The mid-term review assessing progress under the EU biodiversity strategy shows that the 2020

biodiversity targets can only be reached if implementation and enforcement efforts become

considerably bolder and more ambitious. At the current rate of implementation, biodiversity loss and

the degradation of ecosystem services will continue throughout the EU and globally, with significant

implications for the capacity of biodiversity to meet human needs in the future.

Progress has been made in establishing important policy frameworks: the new common fisheries

policy, the Invasive Alien Species and Timber Regulations, and the introduction of biodiversity

provisions in bilateral trade agreements, to name just a few. The reformed common agricultural policy

provides opportunities for enhanced integration of biodiversity concerns but the extent of take-up by

Member States will be decisive for success. The Commission has supported and complemented efforts

made by Member States, regional and local authorities and stakeholders in enforcing environmental

legislation, addressing policy gaps, providing guidelines, funding, promoting partnerships and

fostering research and the exchange of best practice. There is a wealth of positive experience that can

be a model for advancing towards the EU biodiversity targets in the remaining period until 2020.

It is now urgent to intensify the implementation of measures across all targets and to ensure that the

principles included in the policy frameworks are fully reflected on the ground. Achieving the 2020

biodiversity objectives will require strong partnerships and the full engagement and efforts from key

actors at all levels, in particular with respect to completing the Natura 2000 network for the marine

environment, ensuring effective management of Natura 2000 sites and implementing the Invasive

Alien Species Regulation, and considering the most suitable approach for recognizing our natural

capital throughout the EU.

Achieving this target will also require more

effective integration

with a wide range of policies, by

setting coherent priorities underpinned by adequate funding — in particular in the sectors of

agriculture and forestry

which together account for 80% of land use in the EU, as well as

marine,

fisheries

and regional development. EU financing instruments can assist in the process. Achieving

biodiversity objectives will also contribute to the growth and jobs agenda, food and water security, and

to quality of life, as well as to the implementation of sustainable development goals globally and in the

EU.