EU biodiversityec.europa.eu/.../pubs/docs/nat2000newsl/nat39_en.pdf · nature and biodiversity...

1 natureandb iod ivers i tynewsletter | Januar y2016

NATURAN u m b e r 3 9 | J a n u a r y 2 0 1 6N a t u r e a n d B i o d i v e r s i t y N e w s l e t t e r

2000

Environment

ISSN

24

43-7

727

Mid-termreviewoftheEUbiodiversitystrategy


Overthepast12monthsIhavetravelledto16MemberStates.Ihavelearnedalot,andIhaveseenatfirst-handhowmuchNaturemeanstopeople.Ihavenoticedthatpolicymakersrarelyconsiderthefullrelevanceofnatureintheirdecision-making,andthatthecountrysideistoooftentakenforgrantedasaresult.

Butwhencitizensthinkofnature,theythinkofafavouriteplaceofoutstandingnaturalbeauty.Theythinkofaplacethatevokesthevitalexperienceoffeelingconnectedtotheworld.

AsCommissionerfortheEnvironment,Iamtaskedwithsafeguardingmanyofthosefavouriteplaces.Weneedtorestorenature,notonlybecauseofitsoutstandingbeauty,butbecauseitformstheessenceofeverythingaroundus,andbecausewerelyonnaturalprocessesthatunderpinoureconomy.Myroleistoensurethatthelegalandpolicymechanismswehaveinplaceaffordnaturethebestpossibleproactiveprotection.

ThatiswhytheCommissionhasembarkedonacomprehensivere-evaluationoftheNatureDirectives.Weneedtoknowwhetherourcentrepiecelegislation–acrucialpartofourequipmentforachievingour2020Biodiversitytarget–isfitforpurpose,andwhetherotherrelevantEUpoliciesareworkingtowardsthesameobjective.

SimilarevaluationshavebeencarriedoutforEurope’sfreshwaterandwastelegislation,andothersimilarexercisesareon-going,butthisreviewisspecial.Ithasrevealedanunprecedentedlevelofinterest,withmorethanhalfamillioncitizensreplyingtothepublicconsultation–arecordforanyconsultationconductedbytheCommission.ThereisnodoubtthatpeopleacrossEuropewantandexpectustoachieveourbiodiversityobjectives.

Weknowthereisnoroomforcomplacency.AsdemonstratedbytheCommission’sMid-TermreviewoftheEUBiodiversityStrategy,Europeismakinggoodprogress,andtheveryrecentadoptionofthefirstlistofInvasiveAlienSpeciesofUnionConcernisoneexampleofthat.Butweneedtodomuchmore.IfwearetoreachtheEU2020Biodiversitytarget,wewillneedtosignificantlyscale-upourefforts.Wemustlearnfromoursuccessesandourfailures,andseekthebestpossiblesolutionsforthefuture.

In2016theCommissionwillreportbackonthisre-evaluationoftheNatureDirectives.Myheartfeltthankstoyou,ifyouhavealreadycontributedevidence.Youcanrestassuredthattheevidenceisbeingconsideredwiththeutmostcare.

Karmenu VellaEuropean Commissioner for Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

Natura2000natureandbiodiversitynewsletterJanuary2016CONTENTS3–5 TheviewsofEuropeansontheEUNatureDirectives

6–7 EstablishingaUnionlistofInvasiveAlienSpecies

8–9 Natura2000Barometer–update2015

10–13Themid-termreviewoftheBiodiversityStrategy

14–16 NewsRound-up

Cover: Blue tit Cyanistes caeruleus. ©AndyRouse/naturepl.com

Editorial

2

©RossH

oddinott/naturepl.com©

EuropeanComm

ission©

TerryWhittaker/naturepl.com

natureandb iod ivers i tynewsletter | Januar y2016

©ChrisG

omersall/naturepl.com

©N

atureProduction/naturepl.com©

PeterCairns/naturepl.com

©EC/JenniferJacquem

art

3 natureandb iod ivers i tynewsletter | Januar y2016 333

The vast majority of respondents to the Commission’s public consultation believe the Birds and Habitats Directives are important to nature conservation.

©AlexH

yde/naturepl.com

3

TheviewsofEuropeansontheEU Nature Directives

Atthestartof2015,theEuropeanCommissionlaunchedaFitnessCheckontheEUBirdsandHabitatsDirectives,withaviewtodeterminingwhetherthecurrentregulatoryframeworkisfitforpurpose. Aspartofthisevaluationprocess,anonlinepublicconsultationwasundertakentogathertheviewsofEurope’scitizensandstakeholdersonthisimportanttopic.Overhalfamillionpeoplereplied.ThisisthehighestresponseratetheCommissionhaseverreceivedtoanyofitspublicconsultations. IttestifiestothestrengthofemotiontheDirectivesgenerateamongstEurope’scitizensandthehighlevelofsupporttheyenjoy,eveninthistimeofeconomicuncertainty.

The public consultation Theonlineconsultationwasconductedoveraperiodof12

weeksfromApriltoJuly.Thequestionnairecontained32multiplechoicequestionsandonefinalopentextquestion.Participantshadachoiceofreplyingtothefirst14generalquestionsinPartIonly,orgoingontoanswerafurther18moredetailedquestionsinPartII.Theobjectivewastoobtainopinionsandqualitativeinsightsintotheeffectiveness,efficiency,coherence,relevanceandaddedvalueofthetwoNatureDirectives. Bytheendofthe12weeks,theconsultationhadgeneratedanunprecedentedlevelofinterest.Intotal,552,472repliesweresubmitted. ThegreatestnumberofrepliescamefromparticipantsinGermanyandtheUnitedKingdom(eacharound100,000replies),followedbyItaly(around70,000),Spain,Belgium,theNetherlandsandFrance

(eacharound40,000replies).Mostwereindividuals,butorganisationsalsosubmittedaround4,600replies,ofwhichoverhalfcamefrombusinesses. Ingeneral,respondents’interestsvariedsignificantlybetweenthosewhoansweredPartIonly(97%ofrespondents),andthosewhowentonfillinPartII(3%ofrespondents).ThevastmajorityofthosereplyingtoPartIstatedtheyweremainlyinterestedoractivein‘nature’.Ofthe16,815whorepliedtobothPartIandPartII,theinterestsweremorediversifiedwith21%stating‘hunting’,19%‘nature’,17%‘forestry’and15%‘agriculture’astheirmaininterest. TheoutcomeofthepublicconsultationisalsolikelytohavebeeninfluencedbyanumberofcampaignsthathadbeenlaunchedbydifferentNGOsandstakeholdergroupstoguide


©D

anBurton/naturepl.com


theirsupportersthroughthequestionnaire. Thefollowingsummarisesthekeysfindingsofthepublicconsultation.

Replies to Part I of the questionnaireThevastmajorityofrespondentstoPartIstatedthat,intheirview:· TheBirdsandHabitats

Directivesareimportant or very importanttonatureconservation(98%).

· ThestrategicobjectivesandapproachsetoutintheDirectivesareappropriateorvery appropriateforprotectingnatureintheEU(94%).

· TheDirectivesareeffectiveorvery effectiveinprotectingnature(93%).

· ThebenefitsofimplementingtheDirectivesfar exceedthecosts(93%).

· TheEUenvironmentalpolicyissupportiveofthetwoNatureDirectives(94%agree).However,agricultureandruraldevelopment(93%),energy(96%)andtransportpolicies(97%)arenotsupportive.Otherpolicyareascouldcontributemore.

· TheDirectivesprovidesignificant added-value overandabovethatwhichcouldbeachievedthroughnationalorregionallegislation(93%).

· ThereisstillaneedforEUlegislationtoprotectspeciesandhabitats(98%).

Theviewsvaried,however,accordingtothetypeofrespondent.Onthewhole,businessexpressedamorenegativeviewoftheDirectives,especiallyasregardseconomic

aspects.Over90%oftheresponsestoPartIcamethroughtheNatureAlertcampaignorganisedbyconservationNGOs,andthisisheavilyreflectedintheresults.

Replies to Part II of the questionnaire TheviewsexpressedinPartIIappeartocontrastsomewhatwiththosegiveninPartI,butthismayreflectthedifferentcompositionofrespondentsbetweenthetwopartsandtheimpactofdifferentcampaigns,whichalsodidnotincludetheNatureAlert.AroundathirdofresponsestoPartIIcamefromacampaignsupportedbyfarmers,forestersandhunters. ThemajorityofrespondentstoPartIIsharedtheviewthat:· Theadministrativecosts

associatedwiththeimplementationoftheDirectivesaremajor(60%).

· ThereisinsufficientfundingforimplementingtheDirectives(77%).

· Thislackofsufficientfundingissignificantlyrestrictingprogress(74%).

· Properenforcement,effectivenationalcoordination,internationalcooperation,publicawarenessandguidancehavesomeimpactonthesuccessoftheDirectives(87–90%).

· Thefollowingelementsaresignificantlylimitingprogress:insufficientstakeholderinvolvement(65%);ineffectivelocalcoordination(62%);gapsinscientificknowledgeofspeciesandhabitats(61%);unclearwordingoftheDirectives(54%);andineffectiveEU-levelcoordination(54%).

· InteractionswithotherEUlawsandpolicieshavecausedinefficienciestosomeextent(58%),ortoa largeextent(27%).

Views expressed in the final open question Intotal,10,000orsorespondentssubmittedcommentsinthefinalopenquestion.Justunderhalfofthesecamefrompeoplewhoexpressedaninterestinnatureandenvironment,followedcloselybythoseinterestedoractiveinagriculture,forestry,fishingorhunting.Thesetwomaingroupsmadeup80%ofallcommentssubmitted. Amoredetailedexaminationofasampleof10%ofthecommentsrevealedthatoneofthemostfrequentissuesraisedbyalltypesofrespondents(individualsandorganisationscombined)wasthattheDirectives’objectivesarepoorlyimplementedorenforced.Thesecomments

Attitudes of Europeans towards biodiversity

InJune2015,theCommissioncarriedoutasurveytogaugetheattitudesofEuropeanstowardsbiodiversityingeneral,andtoseewhethertheirviewshavechangedoverthepastfewyears.Thekeyresultsofthesurveyareasfollows:· AtleasteightoutoftenEuropeansconsiderthevariouseffects

ofbiodiversitylosstobeserious.Morethanhalfthinktheywillbepersonallyaffectedbybiodiversityloss.

· Morethanthree-quartersofEuropeansbelievethatmankindhasaresponsibilitytolookafternatureandthatitisimportanttostopbiodiversityloss.

· MorethannineofouttenEuropeansthinktheEUshouldbetterinformcitizensabouttheimportanceofbiodiversity.

· Almosttwo-thirdsofrespondentsfeeltheyaremakingapersonalefforttoprotectbiodiversityandnature.

· AboutaquarterofrespondentshaveheardoftheNatura2000network.

· ThemajorityofEuropeanshaveheardoftheterm‘biodiversity’butlessthanone-thirdknowwhatitmeans.

http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/PublicOpinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/SPECIAL/surveyKy/2091

Some stakeholders may feel insufficiently involved and this could lead to problems with implementation.

newsletter | Januar y2016©

StefanWidstrand/naturepl.com




An individual

A business

A non-governmental organisation (NGO)

An organisation or association (other than NGO)

A government or public authority

Other

An academic/research institute

All respondents

No Yes Don’t know

2%

70%

17%

28%

21%

47%

10%

2%

4%

15%

18%

41%

26%

19%

12%

4%

94%

12%

65%

27%

51%

30%

76%

93%

An individual

A business

A non-governmental organisation (NGO)

An organisation or association (other than NGO)

A government or public authority

Other

An academic/research institute

All respondents

No added value Some added value Significant added value Don’t know

63%

17%

22%

20%

46%

11%

98%

35%

82%

76%

78%

53%

89%

98%2%

2%


variedfromverygeneralstatementsaboutthelackofenforcement,controlormonitoringontheonehand,tomorespecificcommentsaboutweaknessesinthemanagementofprotectedareas. AnotherfrequentcommentmadebybothindividualsandorganisationswasthattheDirectiveswereeffectiveandhavecontributedtonatureprotection. Theviewshowever,divergedsomewhatbetweentypesofrespondents.Amongstthoseinterestedoractiveinagriculture,forestry,fishingandhunting,asizeablenumbercommentedthatsocio-economicaspectswerenotadequatelytakenintoaccountandthatlandownersandusers,asexpertsintheuseormanagementofnatureornaturalresources,werenotsufficientlyinvolved

intheimplementationoftheDirectives. ManyalsosaidthattheNatureDirectivescarryaconsiderablecostintermsoftheir

implementation,whichtheyfeltplacedtoohighaburdenonthem.Theyalsothoughtthattherulesweresometimestoocomplicatedtoimplementand

werenotunderstandableforthem. Respondentsinthefieldofnatureandenvironmentmostoftencommentedthattheproblemsofimplementationwerelinkedtoalackofenforcement,ascarcityoffinancialandhumanresourcesandalackofcohesionwithotherpolicies,especiallyagriculture.ManyalsomadeapointofstressingthattheDirectiveswereintheirvieweffective,theyhadanaddedvalueoverandabovenationallegislation,andshouldbemaintained. Manyalsoemphasisedthatnatureprotectionhasagreatvalueforhumanhealthandwell-beingandthatthesocio-economicbenefitsgeneratedbytheDirectivesshouldbebetterhighlighted.

Conclusions Theresultsofthepublicconsultationwillnowbetakenintoconsiderationintheoverallfitnesscheckreport.TheCommission’sfindingsareduetobepublishedinthesecondquarterof2016. The Public consultation report is available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/docs/consultation/public%20consultation_FINAL.pdf

Ninety-eight per cent of respondents to the consultation believe there is still a need for EU legislation to protect species and habitats in Europe.

Q. 11 To what extent have the Directives provided more value than could have been achieved through national or regional laws in this area?

Q. 14 Is there still a need for EU legislation to protect species and habitats?

©StafanW

idstrand/naturepl.com

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/docs/consultation/public consultation_FINAL.pdf





6 natureandb iod ivers i tynewsletter | Januar y201666 natureandb iod ivers i tynewsletter | Januar y2016

Invasivealienspecies(IAS)areasignificantandgrowingproblemacrosstheEU.Inadditiontobeingoneofthemajorsourcesofbiodiversitylosstheyalsocausesignificanteconomicandsocialdamage.Altogether,theyareestimatedtocosttheEuropeaneconomyover€12billionperyear,withthisfiguregrowingallthetime. Recognisingthis,theEUhasadoptedanewRegulationonInvasiveAlienSpecieswhichestablishesacoordinatedEurope-wideframeworkforactiontoprevent,minimiseandmitigatetheadverseimpactsofIASonbiodiversityandecosystemservices,andtolimittheirdamagetotheeconomyandhumanhealth. ThenewRegulationenteredintoforceon1January2015.AtitscoreisalistofinvasivealienspeciesofUnionconcern,whichneedstobedrawnup

andsubmittedforapprovaltoaStandingCommitteemadeupofMemberStaterepresentatives(knownastheIASCommittee). ThisUnionlistof‘worstoffenders’isintendedtotargetspeciesthatcausesuchsignificantdamageinaffectedMemberStatesthatitjustifiestheadoptionofdedicatedmeasuresapplicableacrosstheUnion,includingintheMemberStatesthatarenotyetaffected.Specieswillonlybelistedifthesemeasuresarelikelytoeffectivelyprevent,minimiseormitigatetheiradverseimpact. TheRegulationlaysdownaseriesofcriteriathatmustbemetinorderforaspeciestobeincludedontheUnionlist(seebox).Oneoftheserelatestotheneedforascientificallyrobustriskassessment.AsnotallIAShavesuchriskassessmentsinplace,theCommissionhasstartedwiththosethatdo.

EstablishingaUnion listofInvasiveAlienSpecies

Establishing a first listThefirststeptowardsestablishingthelistwastocheckthateachriskassessmentwascomprehensiveandcoveredalltheelementssetoutinArticle5.1oftheIASRegulation.ThenextstepwastocheckwhetherthespeciesmetallthecriteriastipulatedinArticle4.3oftheRegulation.ThedraftwasthensubmittedtotheattentionoftheIASCommitteebeforeformaladoption. Intotal,around37speciesareincludedontheUnionlistadoptedinJanuary2016.TheyincludewellknowninvasivessuchastheruddyduckOxyura jamaicensis,commonsliderTrachemys scripta, andtheredswampcrayfishProcambarus clarkiifromNorthAmerica,aswellastheyellow-leggedhornetVespa velutinafromSouth-eastAsiaandthewater

Red swamp crayfish Procambarus clarkii.

Skunk cabbage Lysichiton americanus.

©D

ietmarN

eill/naturepl.com

©Shattil&

Rozinski/naturepl.com


Contents of the Risk Assessment To be considered complete, a risk assessment must contain the following elements (ref. Article 5.1 of the IAS Regulation):a) a description of the species with its taxonomic identity, its

history, and its natural and potential range; b) a description of its reproduction and spread patterns

and dynamics including an assessment of whether the environmental conditions necessary for its reproduction and spread exist;

c) a description of the potential pathways of introduction and spread of the species, both intentional and unintentional, including where relevant the commodities with which the species is generally associated;

d) a thorough assessment of the risk of introduction, establishment and spread in relevant biogeographical regions in current conditions and in foreseeable climate change conditions;

e) a description of the current distribution of the species, including whether the species is already present in the Union or in neighbouring countries, and a projection of its likely future distribution;

f) a description of the adverse impact on biodiversity and related ecosystem services, including on native species, protected sites, endangered habitats, as well as on human health, safety, and the economy including an assessment of the potential future impact having regard to available scientific knowledge;

g) an assessment of the potential costs of damage;h) a description of the known uses for the species and social and

economic benefits deriving from those uses.

Criteria for inclusion of IAS on the Union list

Invasive alien species are only included on the Union list if they meet all of the following criteria (Article 4.3): 1. They are found, based on available scientific evidence,

to be alien to the territory of the Union excluding the outermost regions;

2. They are found, based on available scientific evidence, to be capable of establishing a viable population and spreading in the environment under current conditions and in foreseeable climate change conditions in one biogeographical region shared by more than two Member States or one marine subregion excluding their outermost regions;

3. They are, based on available scientific evidence, likely to have a significant adverse impact on biodiversity or the related ecosystem services, and may also have an adverse impact on human health or the economy;

4. It is demonstrated by a risk assessment carried out pursuant to Article 5(1) that concerted action at Union level is required to prevent their introduction, establishment or spread;

5. It is likely that the inclusion on the Union list will effectively prevent, minimise or mitigate their adverse impact.

hyacinthEichornia crassipesfromSouthAmerica.TheyalsoincludemorediscreteyetequallydangerousspeciesliketheAfricancurlyweedLagarosiphon majororthefloatingprimrose-willowLudwigia peploides. ThisfirstlistaimstogettheactiongoingontacklingIASintheEU.Regularupdatesareforeseenasnewspeciesriskassessmentsmeetingtherequisitestandardsarecompleted.Thenextupdateislikelytobeattheendof2016.

What happens now? OnceaspecieshasbeenplacedontheUnionlist,theIASRegulationrequiresthreedistincttypesofmeasurestobetaken:• Prevention:speciesonthe

UnionlistareeffectivelybannedfromtheEUandanumberofrobustmeasureswillbeputinplacetopreventthemfromenteringthe

EUinthefirstplace,eitherintentionallyorunintentionally.

• Early detection and rapid eradication:MemberStateswillalsoputinplaceanearlywarningsystemtodetectthepresenceofthesespeciesasearlyaspossibleandtakerapidmeasurestopreventthemfrombecomingestablished.

• Management of already established invasive alien species:someIASontheUnionlistarealreadywellestablishedintheEUterritory.MemberStateswillneedtocarryoutarangeofpracticalmeasurestoeradicateoratleastcontainthemsothattheycannotspreadanyfurtherand

causefurtherharm.

For more information go to: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/index_en.htm

Stone moroko Pseudorasbora parva.

Common slider Trachemys scripta.

Parrot feather Myriophyllum aquaticum.

American bullfrog Rana catesbeiana.

Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis.

©RolfN

ussbaumer/naturepl.com

©VisualsU

nlimited/naturepl.com

©FreiARCO

/naturepl.com

©AdrianD

avis/naturepl.com

©ARCO

/naturepl.com

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/index_en.htm




Member States

Natura 2000 network (terrestrial and marine)

TERRESTRIAL MARINE

SCI SPA Natura 2000 network SCI SPA Natura 2000 network

Total N° Natura 2000 Sites

Total area Natura 2000 km2

SCI area(km2)

SPA area(km2)

Natura area(km2)

% land area covered

SCI area(km2)

SPA area(km2)

Natura area(km2)

AUSTRIA 239 12615.86 9114.85 10167.88 j 12615.86 15.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. AT

BELGIUM 458 5155.58 3065.86 2964.61 3884.81 12.7% 1127.01 318.14 1270.77 BE

BULGARIA 340 41048.10 33258.06 25226.06 38221.55 34.5% 2482.23 550.33 jjj 2826.55 BG

CYPRUS 61 1759.78 752.27 1482.66 1628.53 28.4% 131.09 110.40 131.25 CY

CZECHREPUBLIC 1116 11061.20 7855.61 7034.73 11061.20 14.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. CZ

GERMANY 5252 80759.17 33487.19 40245.08 55157.61 15.4% 20935.45 19718.31 25601.56 DE

DENMARK 350 22646.54 3177.78 2605.18 3593.75 8.3% 16492.08 12183.56 19052.79 DK

ESTONIA 568 14832.68 7666.69 6157.43 8078.41 17.9% 3883.94 6479.51 6754.27 EE

SPAIN 1863 209121.50 116998.27 100895.85 137444.01 27.2% 40553.66 52059.73 jjj 71677.49 ES

FINLAND 1839 55987.65 48556.49 24655.45 48847.29 14.4% 6800.05 6424.98 7140.36 FI

FRANCE 1754 111115.07 47192.59 43366.39 69417.93 12.6% 27877.15 35543.01 41697.14 FR

GREECE 419 42946.17 21388.24 27622.04 35747.40 27.1% 6689.40 1904.85 7198.77 GR

CROATIA 780 25953.56 15997.91 17036.30 20673.35 36.5% 4960.66 1106.07 5280.21 HR

HUNGARY 525 19948.51 14442.23 13746.58 19948.51 21.4% n.a. n.a. n.a. HU

IRELAND 594 19455.03 7164.26 4311.35 9227.45 13.1% 9755.14 1583.37 j 10227.58 IE

ITALY 2589 63892.71 42807.17 40108.15 57172.16 19.0% 5633.13 4005.26 6720.55 IT

LITHUANIA 489 8926.31 6137.52 5525.79 7932.78 12.1% 527.42 739.39 j 993.53 LT

LUXEMBOURG 60 470.86 414.80 141.18 470.86 18.1% n.a. n.a. n.a. LU

LATVIA 333 11833.18 7418.14 6609.39 7445.81 11.5% 2663.69 4279.91 4387.37 LV

MALTA 39 233.72 40.68 13.17 41.32 13.1% 192.33 3.42 192.40 MT

NETHERLANDS 194 17311.90 3133.61 4765.78 5517.22 13.3% 11673.38 5735.93 11794.68 NL

POLAND 987 68400.72 33849.35 48394.14 j 61164.56 19.6% 4338.83 7222.77 7236.16 PL

PORTUGAL 149 21628.44 15480.66 9200.51 18994.90 20.6% 1075.61 2283.67 2633.54 PT

ROMANIA 531 55674.44 39765.43 35347.94 53780.59 22.6% 1703.18 1629.96 1893.85 RO

SWEDEN 4072 66738.42 56902.67 25329.30 57407.43 13.8% 9261.21 4744.18 9330.99 SE

SLOVENIA 354 7684.29 6635.57 5067.68 7673.69 37.9% 4.36 10.40 10.60 SI

SLOVAKIA 514 14442.27 5837.12 13106.18 14442.27 29.6% n.a. n.a. n.a. SK

UNITEDKINGDOM 924 94969.30 13097.94 16014.01 20896.14 8.5% 67094.93 11546.68 74073.16 UK

EU28 27393 1 106 612.96 601 638.96 537 140.81 788 487.39 18.1% 245 855.93 180 183.83 jj 318 125.57 EU28

barometerThisNaTuraBaromeTer isproducedbyDGEnvironmentwiththehelpoftheEuropeanEnvironmentAgency.ItisbasedoninformationofficiallytransmittedbyMemberStatesuptoDecember 2014.

TheNatura2000networkiscomposedofsitesundertheHabitatsDirective(pSCI,SCIsorSACs–labelled‘SCIs’inthebarometer)andsitesundertheBirdsDirective(SPAs).ThefiguresrelatingtothetotalareaofNatura2000sites(i.e.SPAs+SCIs)havebeenobtainedthroughGISanalysis.ThisavoidsanyriskofdoublecountingsiteswhichhavebeendesignatedunderbothDirectives.ThemethodologyforproducingtheBarometerhasrecentlybeensimplified,whichexplainswhymanyofthefiguresareslightlydifferentfromthepreviousBarometerupdates.

ThesufficiencyofsitesundertheHabitatsDirectiveisdeterminedbyDGEnvironment,withtheassistanceoftheEuropeanTopicCentreforBiologicalDiversity.ItreflectsthesituationupuntilDecember 2013.

ForeachMemberState,theCommissionassesseswhetherthespeciesandhabitattypesonAnnexesIandII,whicharepresentinthecountry,aresufficientlyrepresentedbythesitesdesignatedtodate.Thisisexpressedasapercentageofspeciesandhabitatsforwhichfurtherareasneedtobedesignatedinordertocompletethenetworkinthatcountry.Ascientificreserveisgivenwhenfurtherresearchisneededinordertoidentifythemostappropriatesitestobeaddedforagivenspeciesorhabitat.

ThenumberofsufficiencyassessmentsforagivenMemberStatedependsbothonthenumberofbiogeographicalregionstowhichthatMemberStatebelongs,andonthenumberofhabitatsandspeciesoccurringonitsterritoryineachoftheseregions.

j Smallincreasein2014jj Moderateincreasein2014jjj Substantialincreasein2014


Member States

Natura 2000 network (terrestrial and marine)

TERRESTRIAL MARINE

SCI SPA Natura 2000 network SCI SPA Natura 2000 network

Total N° Natura 2000 Sites

Total area Natura 2000 km2

SCI area(km2)

SPA area(km2)

Natura area(km2)

% land area covered

SCI area(km2)

SPA area(km2)

Natura area(km2)

AUSTRIA 239 12615.86 9114.85 10167.88 j 12615.86 15.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. AT

BELGIUM 458 5155.58 3065.86 2964.61 3884.81 12.7% 1127.01 318.14 1270.77 BE

BULGARIA 340 41048.10 33258.06 25226.06 38221.55 34.5% 2482.23 550.33 jjj 2826.55 BG

CYPRUS 61 1759.78 752.27 1482.66 1628.53 28.4% 131.09 110.40 131.25 CY

CZECHREPUBLIC 1116 11061.20 7855.61 7034.73 11061.20 14.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. CZ

GERMANY 5252 80759.17 33487.19 40245.08 55157.61 15.4% 20935.45 19718.31 25601.56 DE

DENMARK 350 22646.54 3177.78 2605.18 3593.75 8.3% 16492.08 12183.56 19052.79 DK

ESTONIA 568 14832.68 7666.69 6157.43 8078.41 17.9% 3883.94 6479.51 6754.27 EE

SPAIN 1863 209121.50 116998.27 100895.85 137444.01 27.2% 40553.66 52059.73 jjj 71677.49 ES

FINLAND 1839 55987.65 48556.49 24655.45 48847.29 14.4% 6800.05 6424.98 7140.36 FI

FRANCE 1754 111115.07 47192.59 43366.39 69417.93 12.6% 27877.15 35543.01 41697.14 FR

GREECE 419 42946.17 21388.24 27622.04 35747.40 27.1% 6689.40 1904.85 7198.77 GR

CROATIA 780 25953.56 15997.91 17036.30 20673.35 36.5% 4960.66 1106.07 5280.21 HR

HUNGARY 525 19948.51 14442.23 13746.58 19948.51 21.4% n.a. n.a. n.a. HU

IRELAND 594 19455.03 7164.26 4311.35 9227.45 13.1% 9755.14 1583.37 j 10227.58 IE

ITALY 2589 63892.71 42807.17 40108.15 57172.16 19.0% 5633.13 4005.26 6720.55 IT

LITHUANIA 489 8926.31 6137.52 5525.79 7932.78 12.1% 527.42 739.39 j 993.53 LT

LUXEMBOURG 60 470.86 414.80 141.18 470.86 18.1% n.a. n.a. n.a. LU

LATVIA 333 11833.18 7418.14 6609.39 7445.81 11.5% 2663.69 4279.91 4387.37 LV

MALTA 39 233.72 40.68 13.17 41.32 13.1% 192.33 3.42 192.40 MT

NETHERLANDS 194 17311.90 3133.61 4765.78 5517.22 13.3% 11673.38 5735.93 11794.68 NL

POLAND 987 68400.72 33849.35 48394.14 j 61164.56 19.6% 4338.83 7222.77 7236.16 PL

PORTUGAL 149 21628.44 15480.66 9200.51 18994.90 20.6% 1075.61 2283.67 2633.54 PT

ROMANIA 531 55674.44 39765.43 35347.94 53780.59 22.6% 1703.18 1629.96 1893.85 RO

SWEDEN 4072 66738.42 56902.67 25329.30 57407.43 13.8% 9261.21 4744.18 9330.99 SE

SLOVENIA 354 7684.29 6635.57 5067.68 7673.69 37.9% 4.36 10.40 10.60 SI

SLOVAKIA 514 14442.27 5837.12 13106.18 14442.27 29.6% n.a. n.a. n.a. SK

UNITEDKINGDOM 924 94969.30 13097.94 16014.01 20896.14 8.5% 67094.93 11546.68 74073.16 UK

EU28 27393 1 106 612.96 601 638.96 537 140.81 788 487.39 18.1% 245 855.93 180 183.83 jj 318 125.57 EU28

update 2015

3010 20 40 50 60 70 80 90 3010 20 40 50 60 70 80 90

Noseaarea

Noseaarea

Terrestrial % Marine %

SCI SUffICIENCy ASSESSMENT No additional areas required Scientific reserve (unknown) Additional areas required

Noseaarea

Noseaarea

Noseaarea


2020 Headline Target To halt the loss of

biodiversity andecosystem services by 2020, to restore ecosystems in so far as is feasible, and to step-up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss


Themid-termreviewoftheEUBiodiversity Strategy

TheEUBiodiversityStrategyto2020laysdowntheframeworkforEUactiontomeettheheadlinetargetofhaltingthelossofbiodiversityandecosystemservicesby2020.AchievingtheEUbiodiversityobjectiveswillhelptocontributetofoodandwatersecurity,abetterqualityoflifeandtheEU’sinternationalcommitments. TheBiodiversityStrategyisbuiltaroundsixmutuallysupportivetargetswhichaddressthemaindriversofbiodiversitylossandaimtoreducethekeypressuresonnatureandecosystemservicesintheEUandglobally.Eachtargetistranslatedintoasetoftime-boundactions,and

1010

“

”

supportedbyfurthermeasuresregardingfinancing,partnershipsandthestrengtheningoftheknowledgebase. Atthishalf-waystage,thetimehascometotakestockofprogresssofar.Withthisinmind,theCommissionpublisheditsmid-termreviewofprogressinOctober2015.Theaimistoinformdecisionmakersofthecurrentstateofplayandoftheareasinwhichincreasedeffortsareneededtomeetthe2020objectives.

Mid-term but not mid-way to our targetThemid-termreviewconcludedthat,despiteprogressinmanyareas,biodiversitylossand

thedegradationofecosystemservicesarecontinuingintheEUandglobally,withseriousimplicationsforthecapacityofecosystemstomeethumanneedsinthefuture. TheconservationstatusofanumberofspeciesandhabitatsofEUimportancehasimprovedslightlycomparedtothe2010baseline,butthemajorityisstillinanunfavourablestate,andmanycontinuetodecline.Populationsofsomecommonbirdsappeartobestabilisingbutotherspecieslinkedtofragilefreshwater,coastalandagriculturalecosystemsarestilldecliningatanalarmingrate.Whilesomeecosystemservicesareincreasing,others,suchaspollinationaredecreasing.

Male spur-thighed tortoise Testudo graeca on sand dune in Spain.

©JoseB

.Ruiz/naturepl.com


Thekeythreatstobiodiversity—habitatlossanddegradation(inparticularthroughurbansprawl,agriculturalintensification,landabandonment,andintensivelymanagedforests),pollution,over-exploitation(inparticularfisheries),invasivealienspeciesandclimatechange–havenotbeensubstantiallyreducedandcontinuetoweakenecosystemresilienceaswellascausebiodiversityloss.Some progress madeAtthesametime,themid-termreviewacknowledgedprogressthathasbeenmadeinanumberofareas,includinginestablishingimportantpolicyframeworkssuchasthenewInvasiveAlienSpeciesRegulation. Thereporthighlightedinparticulartheincreasingbodyofevidencewhichshowsthatconservationeffortsbymanystakeholdershaveresultedinpositivelocaltrendsinbiodiversity.Theseexamplessendanimportantmessage

11

thattargetedactiononthegroundcanbringverypositiveresults.However,suchactionwouldneedtobescaledupsignificantlytobringaboutmeasurableimprovementsoftheoverallnegativetrendsinthestateofbiodiversity. TheCommissionhasalsosupportedandcomplementedeffortsmadebyMemberStates,regionalandlocalauthoritiesandstakeholdersinenforcingenvironmentallegislation,addressingpolicygaps,providingguidelinesandfunding,promotingpartnershipsandfosteringresearchandtheexchangeofbestpractice. Inaddition,progresshasbeenmadeinimprovingtheknowledgebase,forinstanceinrelationtotheMappingandAssessmentofEcosystemsandtheirServices(MAES),whichisrecognisedinternationallyasoneofthemostadvancedregionalassessmentschemes. Elsewhere,effortshavebeenmadetointegratebiodiversityintotheEuropeanstructural

4EuropeanEnvironmentAgency

The 5 key threats to biodiversity — habitat change, pollution, over-exploitation, invasive alien species, and climate change — continue to exert pressure on biodiversity.

Mid-term review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020Key trends in threats since the EU 2010 Biodiversity baseline

In the period 2006-2012, the expansion of artificial surfaces has continued (e.g. urban sprawl, infrastructure) as compared to the period 2000-2006.

There has been no measurable improvement in the status of agriculture- related habitats and species covered by the nature legislation.

Water quality in European rivers has improved for e.g. decrease of oxygen-consuming substances (BOD5), and ammonium.

Habitat loss stilla major concern

Intensive agriculture is stilla major pressure

Pollution – improvements in some areas

4% Improved assessments11% Favourable assessments39% Assessments which have deteriorated46% Unfavourable and unknown assessments that did not change

BOD5

(mg

02/l)

Amm

oniu

m (μ

g N

/l)

Crop

land

Gra

ssla

nd

Woo

dlan

d an

d fo

rest

Hea

thla

nd a

nd s

hrub

Spar

sely

veg

etat

ed la

nd

Wet

land

s

Rive

rs a

nd la

kes

-0.2

% (-

2,83

0 km

2 )

-0.1

% (-

623

km2 )

0.0%

(+32

3 km

2 )

-0.1

% (-

152

km2 )

0.2%

(+78

km

2 )

0.1%

(+13

5 km

2 )

0.2%

(+22

3 km

2 )

Urb

an1.

5% (+

2,87

2 km

2 )

Changes in water quality variables during the last two decades

0.0 0

1.5

300

3.0

0.5100

2.0

4003.5

1.0

200

2.5

4.0 500

1995 2000 2005 2010

BOD5 (539)Ammonium (799)

* Provisional results

Change in conservation status of agriculture-related habitatsChanges in ecosystems between 2006-2012

Marine environment still overexploited

Currently most of the assessed commercial stocks in European waters (58%) are not in good environmental status (GES),with 19% of stocks exploited sustainably, 11% with their reproductive capacity intact, and only 12% considered in GES.

Proportion of assessed stocks that are in Good Environmental Status (GES)

Invasive alien species – a growing threatto biodiversity and ecosystems

In the seas around Europe, more than 80% of non-indigenous species (NIS) have been introduced since 1950.

Primary producersVertebrateInvertebrate

Rate of introduction of marine non-indigenous species

Num

ber o

f NIS

0

1951 - 1960

1971 - 1980

1991 - 2000

1961 - 1970

1981 - 1990

2001 - 2010

2011 - 2014

150

300

50

200

100

250

350

Global dimension

EU-28 ecological footprint is over twice the size of its biocapacity.EU28 - Ecological footprint, biocapacity and reserve or deficit

-1

2

5

0

-2-3

3

1

4

6

Ecological footprint per capitaBiocapacity per capitaReserve/deficit

1951 - 1960

1971 - 1980

1991 - 2000

1961 - 1970

1981 - 1990

2001 - 2010

2011 - 2014

1991 - 2000

1981 - 1990

2001 - 2010

3

Species

Overall, 23% of the EU-level species assessments are favourable and 4% are unfavourable but improving; 20% are stable, 22% are deteriorating and 17% are unknown.

Over half (52%) of the bird species assessments have a secure population status. Short-term trends indicate that some 4% of all bird species are non-secure but increasing, and 6% are stable, even if a further 20% are declining.

Poor conservation status EU bird population statusand trends

Natura 2000 network extended

Since 2010, the network of Natura 2000 sites has progressed and is largely completed for terrestrial and inland water habitats covering about 18% of the land surface. The coverage of the marine network has increased to more than 300 000 km2 in 2014.

Habitats

Overall, 16% of the EU-level habitat assessments are favourable and 4% are improving; 33% are unfavourable but stable. A further 30% are still deteriorating, which is a serious cause for concern. Only 7% of the assessments are unknown.

Many species threatened with extinction

Overall, at least 23% species are threatened in EU. Freshwater species - mollusc (55%) and freshwater fish (43%) - are the groups with the highest proportion of threatened species, together with marine mammals (43%), followed by amphibians (22%), reptiles (21%) and birds (18%).

Ecosystemsunder pressure

Some major pressures on ecosystems are decreasing (e.g. atmospheric deposition of sulphur). However, other threats to ecosystems and their services persist and many pressures are increasing.

* NB: results for marine ecosystem adjusted 09.07.2015

Ecosystem type Habitat change

Climate change

Over-exploitation

Invasive species

Pollution and nutrient enrichment

Urban Þ Û Þ Þ ÛCropland Þ Û Þ Þ ÛGrassland Þ Û Þ Þ Û

Woodland and forest à Û Ú Ú ÞHeathland,shrub and sparsely

vegetated land Ú Û Ú Þ ÞWetlands Ú Û Ú Þ à

Freshwater (rivers and lakes) Ú Û Ú Þ àMarine (transitional and

marine waters, combined)* Þ Û Ú Þ Ú

17% Unknown23% Favourable4% Unfavourable - Improving20% Unfavourable - Stable22% Unfavourable - Deteriorating14% Unfavourable - Unknown Trend


16% Unknown52% Secure4% Not secure - Increasing6% Not secure - Stable20% Not secure - Declining2% Not secure - Uncertain/unknown

17%16.7%

2010

17.5%

2011

17.9%

2012

17.9%

2013

18.1%

2014

18.1%

201515%

Mid-term review of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020Key trends in status since the EU 2010 biodiversity baseline

1% Data Deficient10% Near Threatened 23% Threatened66% Least Concern

Projected future trends in pressure

à Ú Þ Û

Decreasing Continuing Increasing Very rapid increase

Observed impact on biodiversity to date

Low Moderate High Very high

Conservation status and trends of species Conservation status and trends of habitats Birds’ population status and short-term population trends

Species facing the risk of extinction which have had a complete assessment at EU level between 2007 and 2015.

Share of EU land area covered by Natura 2000 sites.

Trends in pressures on ecosystems

andinvestmentfunds,notablytheCAP,CohesionPolicyFundsandtheEuropeanMaritimeandFisheriesFund.ButsuccessnowdependsonMemberStatesmakingfulluseoftheseopportunities. AnewfinancingmechanismhasalsobeencreatedundertheEULIFEFund–theNaturalCapitalFinancingFacility–tosupportprojectsthatpromotethepreservationofnaturalcapitalintheMemberStates. EUexternalfinancinginstrumentscontinuetodeliveroninternationalbiodiversitycommitments,andeffortshavebeenmadetoenhanceEUresourcemobilisationthroughthenew‘BiodiversityforLife’flagshipinitiative(B4Life). Lastly,theCommissionhasdevelopedaprocesstotrackbiodiversity-relatedexpenditureintheEUbudget,andamethodologyto‘biodiversity-proof’thebudgettoensurethatspendinghasnonegativeimpactsbutinsteadsupportsbiodiversityobjectiveswhereverpossible.

The to-do list is long … MoreworkisstillneededtocompletetheNatura2000networkatsea,securesufficientfinancingandensuretheeffectivemanagementofallsites.National,regionalandlocalactionsareneededtodevelopanEU-widegreeninfrastructureandrestoredegradedecosystemstomeetthe15%target.Also,muchremainstobedonetohaltthelossofordinarybiodiversityandecosystemservicesbeyondNatura2000. TheestablishmentofanEUframeworkforcombatinginvasivealienspeciesnowneedstobefollowedwiththeurgentimplementationofmeasurestocombatthosespeciesidentifiedasspeciesofUnionconcern. Theintegrationofbiodiversityconcernsintokeysectorpoliciesneedstobecomemoreeffective;inparticularregardingagriculture,forestry,marine,fisheries,tradeanddevelopment. TheEU-28footprintisstillovertwiceitsbiocapacity,pointingtoanurgentneedtoaddresstheimpactsofEUconsumptionandproductiononglobalbiodiversity,especiallyintheframeworkoftheglobalAgenda2030forsustainabledevelopment.

Conclusions Inessence,themid-termreviewconcludesthatthe2020biodiversitytargetscanonlybereachedifimplementationandenforcementeffortsbecomeconsiderablybolderandmoreambitious,withthefullengagementofkeyactors.Whileawealthoflocalsuccessstoriesdemonstratesthatactiononthegrounddeliverspositiveoutcomes,theseexamplesneedtobescaledupsignificantlytohaveameasurableimpactontheoverallnegativetrends. More information on: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/2020.htm http://biodiversity.europa.eu/http://catalogue.biodiversity.europa.eu/uploads/document/file/1274/MTR_leaflet_Final_version_09_10_2015.pdf

Corncrake Crex crex.3

Species

Overall, 23% of the EU-level species assessments are favourable and 4% are unfavourable but improving; 20% are stable, 22% are deteriorating and 17% are unknown.

Over half (52%) of the bird species assessments have a secure population status. Short-term trends indicate that some 4% of all bird species are non-secure but increasing, and 6% are stable, even if a further 20% are declining.

Poor conservation status EU bird population statusand trends

Natura 2000 network extended

Since 2010, the network of Natura 2000 sites has progressed and is largely completed for terrestrial and inland water habitats covering about 18% of the land surface. The coverage of the marine network has increased to more than 300 000 km2 in 2014.

Habitats

Overall, 16% of the EU-level habitat assessments are favourable and 4% are improving; 33% are unfavourable but stable. A further 30% are still deteriorating, which is a serious cause for concern. Only 7% of the assessments are unknown.

Many species threatened with extinction

Overall, at least 23% species are threatened in EU. Freshwater species - mollusc (55%) and freshwater fish (43%) - are the groups with the highest proportion of threatened species, together with marine mammals (43%), followed by amphibians (22%), reptiles (21%) and birds (18%).

Ecosystemsunder pressure

Some major pressures on ecosystems are decreasing (e.g. atmospheric deposition of sulphur). However, other threats to ecosystems and their services persist and many pressures are increasing.

* NB: results for marine ecosystem adjusted 09.07.2015

Ecosystem type Habitat change

Climate change

Over-exploitation

Invasive species

Pollution and nutrient enrichment

Urban Þ Û Þ Þ ÛCropland Þ Û Þ Þ ÛGrassland Þ Û Þ Þ Û

Woodland and forest à Û Ú Ú ÞHeathland,shrub and sparsely

vegetated land Ú Û Ú Þ ÞWetlands Ú Û Ú Þ à

Freshwater (rivers and lakes) Ú Û Ú Þ àMarine (transitional and

marine waters, combined)* Þ Û Ú Þ Ú



16% Unknown52% Secure4% Not secure - Increasing6% Not secure - Stable20% Not secure - Declining2% Not secure - Uncertain/unknown

17%16.7%

2010

17.5%

2011

17.9%

2012

17.9%

2013

18.1%

2014

18.1%

201515%

Mid-term review of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020Key trends in status since the EU 2010 biodiversity baseline

1% Data Deficient10% Near Threatened 23% Threatened66% Least Concern

Projected future trends in pressure

à Ú Þ Û

Decreasing Continuing Increasing Very rapid increase

Observed impact on biodiversity to date

Low Moderate High Very high

Conservation status and trends of species Conservation status and trends of habitats Birds’ population status and short-term population trends

Species facing the risk of extinction which have had a complete assessment at EU level between 2007 and 2015.

Share of EU land area covered by Natura 2000 sites.

Trends in pressures on ecosystems

©Lesniew

ski/WildW

ondersofEurope/naturepl.com

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




http://biodiversity.europa.eu/

http://catalogue.biodiversity.europa.eu/uploads/document/file/1274/MTR_leaflet_Final_version_09_10_2015.pdf





Target 2 Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services

Progressbutatinsufficientrate

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.


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

Nosignificantprogresstowardsthetarget

The continuing decline in the status of species and habitats of EU interest associated with agriculture indicates that greater efforts need to be made to conserve and enhance biodiversity in these areas. The CAP reform for 2014–20 provides a range of instruments that can contribute to supporting biodiversity. But, 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.

Target 1 Fully implement the Birds and Habitats Directives


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.

2020 Headline TargetHalt 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,biodiversitylossandthedegradationofecosystemservicesintheEUhavecontinuedsincetheEU2010biodiversitybaseline,asconfirmedbythe2015Europeanenvironment–stateandoutlookreport.Thisisconsistentwithglobaltrendsandhasseriousimplicationsforthecapacityofbiodiversitytomeethumanneedsinthefuture.Whilemanylocalsuccessesdemonstratethatactiononthegrounddeliverspositiveoutcomes,theseexamplesneedtobescaleduptohaveameasurableimpactontheoverallnegativetrends.

©BenH

all2020Vision/naturepl.com©

ChrisGom

ersall2020Vision/naturepl.com

©RobertThom

pson/naturepl.com


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


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 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.


Target 5 Help combat invasive alien species

Currentlyontrackwithimplementation

Invasive alien species are a fast-growing threat to biodiversity. The invasive alien species Regulation entered into force in 2015. Work is underway 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 the Member States. Ratification of the Ballast Water Convention, crucial for addressing marine invasive alien species, is slow going with only seven Member States ratifications to date.

Target 4 Ensure the sustainable use of fisheries resources and achieve a good environmental status


Significant progress has been made in setting the policy framework for sustainable fisheries under the reformed EU common fisheries policy, and of good environmental status under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. 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 Maximum Sustainable Yield-assessed stocks were fished sustainably in 2013. As a result of multiple pressures, marine species and ecosystems continue to decline across Europe’s seas.

Target 6 Help avert 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.

©AlexH

yde/naturepl.com

©N

ickUpton/naturepl.com

©AlexM

ustard/naturepl.com

©BernardCastelein/naturepl.com


•NEWS •PUBLICATIONS • EVENTS

Fitness check conference Amajorconference,attendedbyaround400people,washeldinBrusselson20November2015inordertoshareanddiscussthepreliminaryfindingsofthefitnesscheckthatisbeingcarriedoutontheHabitatsandBirdsDirectives.Theconferenceprovidedanopportunitytodiscusstheconsultants’emergingfindingsandensurethatnothingsignificanthadbeenoverlookedormisrepresented,andthatthepreliminaryfindingsrepresentedabalancedassessmentoftheevidenceprovided. Thefitnesscheck,whichhasbeenunderwaysinceearly2015,aimstoassesstheeffectiveness,efficiency,coherence,relevanceandEUaddedvalueofthetwoDirectives.Theexercisestartedwithanevidence-gatheringphasewhichhasinvolvedthescrutinyofsome1,700referencedocumentsandtheanalysisofover100repliestothequestionnairesubmittedtorelevantpublicauthorities,NGOs,

businessandstakeholderorganisationsacrosstheEU. Itwasfollowedupbymeetingswithauthoritiesandstakeholdersin10MemberStates,whichallowedforamorein-depthdiscussiononthefitnesscheckquestions. AnonlinepublicconsultationwasalsolaunchedinAprilfor12weeks,generatinganunprecedentednumberofreplies–552,472intotal.ThisisbyfarthelargestresponsetheCommissionhaseverhadtoanon-lineconsultation. Theconsultants’reportwillnowbefinalised,takingintoaccountthefeedbackreceivedfromtheconference.Thereafter,theCommissionwillwriteitsownStaffWorkingPapersettingoutitsconclusionsonwhethertheNatureDirectivesarefitforpurpose.Thisisexpectedforthesecondquarterof2016. Full details on: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/index_en.htm

New Natura 2000 sites adopted InDecember,theCommissionadoptedaseriesofupdatesoftheUnionlistsofSitesofCommunityImportanceforeightoftheninebiogeographicalregionsintheEU(allexcepttheSteppicregion).Intotal,57newsites,representingaltogetherover36,500km2(mostlymarineareas),havebeenaddedtotheNatura2000networksincethebeginningof2014. ByfarthemostsignificantadditionscomefromSpain,whichhasadded17newmarinesitestotheMediterraneanandAtlanticlists,covering30,200km2.IrelandhasalsoaddedsixnewmarinesitestotheAtlanticlist,covering3,400km2,andBulgariahasaddedthreemoremarineSCIstotheBlackSealist(1,870km2).Altogether,thesenewsitesbringthetotalmarineareaofSCIsareaupto246,000km2,whichrepresentsanincreaseof17%comparedto2014.

Natura 2000 and forestsInJuly2015,theCommissionpublishedanewguideonthe

managementofforestsinNatura2000.Itsaimistooutline,inaneasilyunderstandableway,thekeyprovisionsofNatura2000inthecontextofotherrelevantEUpoliciesandinitiativesconcerningforests,inparticularthenewEUForestStrategyandtheRuralDevelopmentRegulationfor2014–2020.TheguideoffersrepliestoanumberoffrequentlyaskedquestionsraisedbystakeholdersandpresentsanumberofgoodpracticeexamplesofmanagingforestsinNatura2000areasfromacrosstheEU. Thedocumenthasbenefitedfromextensivediscussionswithinanad-hocworkinggroupsetupbyDGEnvironmentandDGAgriculture,whichbroughttogetherdifferentstakeholders.ThegroupprovidedanopportunitytohaveafullandfrankdiscussionontheaimsofNatura2000,anditsimplicationsforlandownersandmanagerswhoseforestsareincludedinNatura2000. Go to: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm

Commissioner Vella at the fitness check conference.

Managing forests in Natura 2000 sites.

©M

arkHam

blin2020Vision/naturepl.com

©EC/JenniferJaquem

art

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




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



15 natureandb iod ivers i tynewsletter | Januar y2016 1515 natureandb iod ivers i tynewsletter | Januar y2016

Water, Marine and Nature Directors meetingInlateNovember2015,theWater,MarineandNatureDirectorsofall28EUMemberStatesmetinLuxembourg,undertheauspicesoftheLuxembourgpresidency,todiscusswaysofimprovingthesynergiesbetweentheWaterFrameworkDirective,theMarineStrategyFrameworkDirectiveandtheHabitatsandBirdsDirectives. Inanticipationofthismeeting,acompilationofcasestudieswaspreparedfortheCommissiontodemonstratehowvariouselementsoftheDirectivescanbecoordinatedinpractice,eitheratthelevelofriverbasins,oracrossthedifferentauthoritiesresponsiblefortheirimplementation. Case studies are available on: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/Compilation%20WFD%20MSFD%20HBD.pdf

Further European Red Lists TwofurtherEuropeanRedListshavebeenpublishedin2015,oneforbirdsandtheotherformarinefishes.Todate9,735specieshavebeenassessedontheEuropeanRedList,includingallvertebratespecies(mammals,amphibians,reptiles,birdsandfishes),freshwatermolluscs,medicinalplants,dragonflies,butterflies,beesandaselectionofterrestrialmolluscs,saproxylicbeetlesandplants.TheassessmentofgrasshoppersandcricketsisongoingandwillbecompletedbySeptember2016. Full details on: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist/

Green infrastructureInSeptember2015,theEEApublishedareporton‘Exploring nature-based solutions – the role of green infrastructure in mitigating the impacts of weather and climate change-

related natural hazards’whichdemonstratesthatgreeninfrastructureoffersattractivesolutionstoenvironmental,socialandeconomicissuesatEuropeanlevel. Thereportfocusesoncertaintypesofeventsthatwillbeamplifiedbyongoingclimatechange,i.e.landslides,avalanches,floodsandstormsurges.Italsolooksathowgreeninfrastructureandecosystemservicescancontributetoglobalclimateregulation. Go to: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/exploring-nature-based-solutions-2014

The Natura 2000 Awards TheNatura2000AwardwaslaunchedtwoyearsagotocelebrateandpromotebestpracticefornatureconservationinEurope.ItaimstobringthesuccessoftheNatura2000networktothepublic’sattentionandtodemonstrateitsimportanceforprotectingbiodiversityacrossEurope. Thedeadlineforthe2016editionoftheawardswas15December.Atotalof83applicationshavebeenreceived.ThesearenowbeingscrutinizedwithaviewtoannouncingthefinalistsandwinnersonoraroundNatura2000Day(21May2016). More information on: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/awards/index_en.htm

Updated list of birds in the EUAnupdatedversionofthelistofbirdspeciescoveredbyArticle1oftheBirdsDirectivehasbeenpublished(thepreviouslistdatesbackto1999).ThislistwasagreedwiththeMemberStatesandtakesintoaccountthesuccessiveenlargementsoftheEU,naturalchangestothedistributionofspeciesandtaxonomicdevelopments.For

thefirsttime,italsoprovidesanindicationofwhichspeciesareconsideredtobemigratory. InadditiontoitsusefulnessfortheBirdsDirective,thelistwillalsobeusedfortheimplementationoftheDirectiveontheprotectionoftheenvironmentthroughcriminallawandtheDirectiveonenvironmentalliabilitywithregardtothepreventionandremedyingofenvironmentaldamage. Further details on: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/eu_species/index_en.htm

Marine Protected Areas in EuropeMarineProtectedAreas(MPAs)canplayasignificantroleinsafeguardingmarineecosystemsandbiodiversity,aswellasthe

Compiled by BirdLife International

European Red List

of Birds

Ensuring synergies between the Nature Directives and the Water Framework Directive.

Bluethroat Luscinia svecica, a European migratory species.

©iStock

©ErlendH

aarberg/naturepl.com

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/Compilation%20WFD%20MSFD%20HBD.pdf





http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist/



http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/exploring-nature-based-solutions-2014



http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/awards/index_en.htm



http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/eu_species/index_en.htm





The Natura 2000 Newsletter is produced by DG Environment, European Commission

Author: Kerstin SundsethEcosystems LTD, BrusselsCommission Editor: Sylvia Barova, DG EnvironmentDesign: www.naturebureau.co.uk

The newsletter is produced twice a year and is available in English, French, German, Spanish, Italian and Polish.

To be added to the mailing list, or to download the electronic version, visit http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs:natura2000nl_en.htm

The newsletter does not necessarily reflect the official view of the European Commission.

Printed on recycled paper that has been awarded the EU Ecolabel (http://ec.europa.eu/ecolabel)

© European Union (2016) Reproduction of content other than photographs is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

All photos © naturepl.com unless otherwise stated. Cover ©Andy Rouse; p2 ©Ross Hoddinott; ©Nature Production; ©Chris Gomersall; ©Peter Cairns; ©EC/Jennifer Jacquemart; p3 ©Dan Burton; ©Alex Hyde; p4 & 5 ©Stefan Widstrand; p6 ©Dietmar Neill; ©Shattil & Rozinski; p7 ©Visuals Unlimited; ©Frei ARCO; ©Rolf Nussbaumer; ©Adrian Davis; ©ARCO; p10 ©Jose B. Ruiz; p11 ©Lesniewski; p12 ©Ben Hall; ©Robert Thompson; ©Chris Gomersall; p13 ©Alex Hyde; ©Nick Upton; ©Alex Mustard; ©Bernard Castelein; p14 ©EC/Jennifer Jaquemart; ©Mark Hamblin;p15 ©iStock; ©Erlend Haarberg.

servicestheseecosystemsprovide.AnewreportbytheEEAonMarineProtectedAreasinEurope’sseasoffersafirstoverviewonprogressmadeinestablishingMPAsandMPAnetworksuptoandincluding2012.ItalsodiscusseshowbesttoassessanddeterminetheeffectivenessoftheseMPAs.

Go to: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/marine-protected-areas-in-europes

Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES)Tworeportshavebeenpublishedrecentlywhichaimtocontributetothe‘MappingandAssessmentofEcosystemsandtheirServices’(MAES)initiativeunderaction5oftheEU2020BiodiversityStrategy.Thefirstreport,fromtheEUJointResearchCentre,presentsananalysisofthetrendsinthespatialextentofecosystems,andinthesupplyanduseof

ecosystemservicesattheEuropeanscalebetween2000and2010. ThesecondreportoutlinestheEEA’smethodologicalcontributionstotheprocesssofar.Itexplainsthemotivationforusinganecosystem-basedapproachanddescribestheconceptualframeworkformappingandassessingecosystems.ThefinalchaptergoesontosummarisetheachievementsoftheEurope-wideecosystemassessmentsofarandexploretheremainingchallengesfortheprovisionoftherelevantknowledgetounderpinthequantitativetargetsoftheEUBiodiversityStrategyto2020. AmoreoperationalreportonmappingandassessingtheconditionofEurope’secosystems–progressandchallenges,willbepublishedbytheEEAshortly. See: http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC94889/lbna27143enn.pdf and http://catalogue.biodiversity.europa.eu/uploads/document/file/1228/Tech_06_2015_THAK15006ENN-1.pdf Information on MAES: http://biodiversity.europa.eu/maes

LIFE and Land Stewardship report InOctoberathematicreportentitledLIFE and Land Stewardshipwaspublished.It

examinesthecontributionmadebytheLIFEprogrammeinengagingprivatestakeholdersinnatureconservation.ItalsoexploreshowLIFEprojectscouldfurthercontributetolandstewardshipagreementsthroughouttheEU. Landstewardshipisdefinedasastrategytoinvolvelandownersandlandusers(suchasfarmers,foresters,hunters,fishermenandrecreationalists)intheconservationofnatureandlandscape,withthesupportofarangeofcivilsocietygroups.TheimplementationofvoluntaryagreementsbetweenthesegroupsoffersanimportantmeansofextendingconservationpracticesbeyondtheboundariesoftheNatura2000networkandotherconventionallyprotectedareas.

Go to: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/generalpublications/documents/life_land_stewardship.pdf

Current status, challenges and opportunitiesSeptember 2015

LIFE AND LAND STEWARDSHIPInga Račinska, Lynne Barratt and Christina Marouli

proposal_Landstewardship-final.indd 1

8/10/15 10:00

ISSN 1977-8449

Marine protected areas in Europe's seas

An overview and perspectives for the future

EEA Report No 3/2015

KH-AA-15-002-EN

-N

http://www.naturebureau.co.uk

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs:natura2000nl_en.htm



http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/platform/index_ en.htm

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/marine-protected-areas-in-europes



http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC94889/lbna27143enn.pdf




http://catalogue.biodiversity.europa.eu/uploads/document/file/1228/Tech_06_2015_THAK15006ENN-1.pdf





http://biodiversity.europa.eu/maes

http://biodiversity.europa.eu/maes

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/generalpublications/documents/life_land_stewardship.pdf






EU biodiversityec.europa.eu/.../pubs/docs/nat2000newsl/nat39_en.pdf · nature and biodiversity...

Documents

Transcript of EU biodiversityec.europa.eu/.../pubs/docs/nat2000newsl/nat39_en.pdf · nature and biodiversity...