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

EN EN
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
Europaudvalget 2015
KOM (2015) 0478 Bilag 1
Offentligt
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND
THE COUNCIL
THE MID-TERM REVIEW OF THE EU BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY TO 2020
1. INTRODUCTION
Biodiversity — the unique variety of life on our planet — underpins our economy and well-being. It
provides us with clean air and water, food, materials and medicines, health and recreation; it supports
pollination and soil fertility, regulates climate and protects us from extreme weather.
However, human-induced changes to ecosystems and the extinction of species have been more rapid
in the past 50 years than at any time in human history.1
Biodiversity loss is one of the core planetary
boundaries2
that have already been crossed by humanity. Together with climate change, this increases
the risk of irreversible changes and undermines economic development and the resilience of societies
in the face of new challenges. The World Economic Forum listed ‘biodiversity loss and ecosystem
collapse’ among the top 10 global risks in 2015.3
The EU 2010 biodiversity baseline4
indicated that up to 25 % of European animal species were facing
extinction, and 65 % of habitats of EU importance were in an unfavourable conservation status,
mainly due to human activities. Basic ecosystem services have continued deteriorating.
As a response, in 2011, the European Commission adopted an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020,5
with
the headline target set by EU Heads of State and Government to ‘halt the loss of biodiversity and
ecosystem services by 2020, to restore ecosystems in so far as is feasible, and to step up the EU
contribution to averting global biodiversity loss’. The strategy is an integral part of the Europe 2020
strategy6
and the 7th Environmental Action Programme.7
It implements EU commitments under the
Convention on Biological Diversity. The strategy is built around six targets, each supported by a set of
actions.
The present mid-term review takes stock of progress in implementing the EU biodiversity strategy
against the 2010 baseline. It aims to inform decision-makers of areas in which increased efforts are
needed to meet the EU biodiversity objectives by 2020.
1
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253.full.
2
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855.full.
3
http://www.weforum.org/reports/global-risks-report-2015.
4
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eu-2010-biodiversity-baseline.
5
COM(2011)244 final.
6
COM(2010) 2020 final.
7
Decision No 1386/2013/EU.
2
Box 1. The socio-economic costs of not delivering on the EU biodiversity targets
The opportunity cost of not reaching the 2020 EU biodiversity headline target has been estimated at up
to EUR 50 billion a year.8
One in six jobs in the EU depends to some extent on nature.9
The value of
insect pollination services alone has been estimated at EUR 15 billion a year in the EU. At around
EUR 5.8 billion, the annual costs of maintaining the EU Natura 2000 network are but a fraction of the
economic benefits generated by the network through services such as carbon storage, flood mitigation,
water purification, pollination and fish protection, together worth EUR 200-300 billion annually.
Restoring ecosystems and green infrastructure can improve air and water quality and flood control,
reduce noise, encourage recreation and promote opportunities for green businesses. Among agri-
environmental practices that support biodiversity, organic farming is a sector with positive
employment trends that attracts younger workers, provides 10-20 % more jobs per land area than
conventional farms, and creates added value for agricultural products. Maintaining healthy marine
habitats and sustainable fish stocks is essential for the long-term viability of the fishing sector. There
is an important economic dimension to combating invasive alien species, which cause damage of at
least EUR 12 billion a year to EU sectors. Policy inaction and failure to halt the loss of global
biodiversity could result in annual losses in ecosystem services equivalent to 7 % of world GDP,10
with the greatest impacts being felt by the poorest nations and the rural poor.11
Box 2. Note on methodology
The assessment of progress in the mid-term review takes account of the way that the different targets
are defined. The headline target is formulated in terms of the desired state of biodiversity and
ecosystem services in the EU by 2020. Progress towards this target at the point of the mid-term review
has been assessed in terms of both status and trends. The six operational targets have both policy-
related and status-related elements. The assessment under each of these targets presents: (i) where we
stand at mid-term; (ii) what action has been implemented; and (iii) gaps and further efforts needed to
reach the target by 2020.
The mid-term review draws on the best available information from a wide range of sources
summarised in the accompanying Staff Working Document.12
Trends in status of habitats and species
of EU importance are based on data reported under the Birds and Habitats Directives (period 2007-
2012 vs 2001-200613
).
8
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/economics_policy/pdf/report_sept2011.pdf.
9
http://www.teebweb.org/.
10
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/biodiversity/pdf/ieep_alterra_report.pdf.
11
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/pdf/teeb_report.pdf.
12
SWD(2015) 187.
13
COM(2015) 219 final.
3
2. SUMMARY OF PROGRESS SINCE 2011
Headline target: Halt the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services
in the EU by 2020, and restore them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU
contribution to averting global biodiversity loss.
Overall, as compared with the EU 2010 biodiversity baseline,
biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU
have continued, as confirmed by the 2015 European environment — state
and outlook report.14
This is consistent with global trends and has serious
implications for the capacity of biodiversity to meet human needs in the
future. While many local successes demonstrate that action on the
ground delivers positive outcomes, these examples need to be scaled up
to have a measurable impact on the overall negative trends.
No significant overall
progress (much stronger
efforts are needed to
meet the target by its
deadline)
Since the last reporting period, the number of species and habitats of EU importance with
secure/favourable or improved conservation status has increased slightly. Populations of some
common birds appear to be stabilising but other species linked to fragile freshwater, coastal and
agricultural ecosystems continue to decline; 70 % of EU species are threatened by habitat loss. While
some ecosystem services (in particular provisioning) are increasing, others such as pollination are
decreasing.
The key threats to biodiversity — habitat loss (in particular through urban sprawl, agricultural
intensification, land abandonment, and intensively managed forests), pollution, over-exploitation (in
particular fisheries), invasive alien species and climate change — continue to exert pressure causing
loss of species and habitats and resulting in ecosystem degradation and weakening ecosystem
resilience.15
The EU-28 footprint is still over twice its biocapacity16
and this compounds pressures on
biodiversity outside Europe.
Since the launch of the strategy, progress has been made in establishing policy frameworks, improving
the knowledge base and setting up partnerships. These initiatives will need to be translated into
concrete actions at national, regional and local levels if we are to see sustained improvements in
biodiversity on the ground. Progress towards the headline target will also depend on the setting and
achievement of objectives in policy areas not directly targeted by the strategy, notably climate, air,
chemicals, water, and soil protection.
There is ample evidence of major efforts by stakeholders that have resulted in positive local trends in
biodiversity. These examples send an important message that targeted action on the ground can bring
very positive results. They provide models for guiding implementation in the second half of the
strategy.
14
http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer.
15
http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/europe/biodiversity.
16
SEBI 023, EEA, 2015.
4
2.1. Target 1: Halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats
covered by EU nature legislation and achieve a significant and measurable
improvement in their status so that, by 2020, compared with current
assessments: (i) 100 % more habitat assessments and 50 % more species
assessments under the Habitats Directive show an improved conservation
status; and (ii) 50 % more species assessments under the Birds Directive show
a secure or improved status.
Figure 1 — Progress towards Target 1: percentage of secure/favourable or improving assessments for
birds (Birds Directive) and for habitats and species of Community interest (Habitats Directive)
Source: EEA 2015
As indicated in Figure 1 above, more species and habitats covered by EU nature legislation show a
secure/favourable or improving conservation status since the 2010 baseline. Some emblematic species,
such as the Eastern Imperial Eagle, show recovery as a result of targeted conservation measures
supported by dedicated financing. However, the status of many other species and habitats remains
unfavourable, with some declining trends.
17
COM(2015) 219 final.
The latest report on the state of nature in the EU17
shows that the
number of species and habitats in secure/favourable or improved
conservation status has increased slightly since the 2010 baseline.
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)
5
The Natura 2000 network has been largely completed for terrestrial and inland water habitats,
covering about 18 % of the land surface. The marine network coverage has increased to 6 %, still well
below the 10 % global target.
Member States have progressed at different rates in developing and implementing action plans for
species and Natura 2000 site management plans. In 2012, only 58 % of Natura 2000 sites had
management plans, or had such plans in development.18
The Natura 2000 biogeographical process has
encouraged cooperation between Member States on habitat management and restoration, and financing
opportunities for Natura 2000 sites have increased.19
A full assessment of the integration of Natura
2000 in the new multiannual financial framework will only be possible once all programmes have
been approved.
Guidance has been developed on use of wind energy, port development and dredging, extractive
industries, agriculture, aquaculture, forests and energy infrastructure in the context of Natura 2000
sites.20
Training was organised for judges and prosecutors on the enforcement of key provisions of nature
legislation. Major improvements have been seen in the monitoring and reporting of biodiversity data,
and in streamlining the reporting requirements under the two nature directives.
Communication and awareness raising have been stepped up with the launch of the Natura 2000
communication platform, an annual Natura 2000 award scheme and national campaigns.
The Commission is undertaking a fitness check of the Birds and Habitats Directives21
as part of its
regulatory fitness and performance programme. This will be a comprehensive and evidence-based
analysis of whether the legislation and its implementation are proportionate to the set objectives and
are delivering as intended. The results will be presented in the first half of 2016.
While it will take time for the positive effects of many of these actions to become apparent, it is clear
that significantly more efforts and investment will be needed in the remaining period up to 2020, so as
to complete Natura 2000 in marine areas to achieve the 10 % global target, ensure that all Natura 2000
sites are managed effectively, and establish adequate financial and administrative conditions to
achieve conservation objectives and allow the potential of ecosystem services to deliver within and
beyond the territories of Natura 2000.
18
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-nature-in-the-eu.
19
SEC(2011) 1573 final.
20
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm.
21
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/index_en.htm.
6
2.2. Target 2: By 2020, ecosystems and their services are maintained and
enhanced by establishing green infrastructure and restoring at least 15 % of
degraded ecosystems.
Progress has been made on policy and knowledge improvement
actions under this target, and some restoration activities have taken
place in Member States. However, this has not yet halted the trend
of degradation of ecosystems and services. National and regional
frameworks to promote restoration and green infrastructure need
to be developed and implemented. A lot remains to be done to halt
the loss of ordinary biodiversity outside the Natura 2000 network.
Progress towards the
target but at an
insufficient rate
(increased efforts are
needed to meet the target
by its deadline)
Figure 2 — Trends in pressures on ecosystems
Ecosystem type Habitat changes Climate change Exploitation Invasive species
Pollution and
nutrient
enrichment
Urban     
Cropland     
Grassland     
Woodland and forest     
Heathland, shrub and sparsely
vegetated land
    
Wetlands     
Freshwater (rivers and lakes)     
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 201522
Recent analysis23
confirms increasing trends for some provisioning services (e.g. timber production)
and decreasing trends for services directly related to biodiversity (e.g. pollination) for the period
between 2000-2010. As illustrated in Figure 2, some major pressures on ecosystems are decreasing
22
EEA Technical Report 6/2015.
23
JRC Report 2015, Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services.
7
(e.g. atmospheric deposition of sulphur); however, other threats to ecosystems and their services
persist and many are increasing, thereby slowing overall progress towards the target.
The Commission and Member States have taken important steps to improve the knowledge base. The
mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services, when completed by the 2020 target, will
allow public decision-makers and private-sector stakeholders to capture the value of the EU’s
ecosystem wealth and associated socio-economic benefits in their planning decisions. The Joint
Research Centre report provides a solid baseline against which progress will be tracked, with a first
update expected in 2016.
The EU green infrastructure strategy24
promotes the integration of green infrastructure solutions into
other EU policies and financing instruments. The Commission has also published a study25
to support
Member States in prioritising the restoration of degraded ecosystems. Although there are few
comprehensive restoration strategies at national and sub-national levels, some restoration is taking
place — often in response to EU legislation such as the Water Framework Directive, the Marine
Strategy Framework Directive, and the Birds and Habitats Directives.
Over the coming years, increased efforts will be needed to complete and implement national
restoration prioritisation frameworks. Further investments, coupled with capacity building and the
integration of green infrastructure into national and sub-national planning frameworks, will be
important drivers to maintain and restore ecosystems and their services. A lot remains to be done in
relation to halting the loss of ordinary biodiversity in the 80 % of the EU territory falling outside of
Natura 2000, which will require consideration of the most suitable approach to ensure no net loss of
biodiversity and ecosystem services.
2.3. Target 3: Increase the contribution of agriculture and forestry to maintaining
and enhancing biodiversity.
2.3.1. Target 3A — Agriculture: By 2020, maximise areas under agriculture
across grasslands, arable land and permanent crops that are covered by
biodiversity-related measures under the CAP so as to ensure the
conservation of biodiversity and to bring about a measurable
improvement* in the conservation status of species and habitats that
depend on or are affected by agriculture and in the provision of
ecosystem services as compared to the EU 2010 Baseline, thus
contributing to enhance sustainable management.
(*) Improvement is to be measured against the quantified enhancement
targets for the conservation status of species and habitats of EU interest
in Target 1 and the restoration of degraded ecosystems under Target 2.
24
COM(2013) 249 final.
25
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/RPF.pdf.
8
The continuing decline in the status of species and habitats of EU
importance associated with agriculture indicates that greater efforts
need to be made to conserve and enhance biodiversity in these areas.
The common agricultural policy (CAP) has an essential role to play in
this process in interaction with relevant environmental policies.26
The CAP reform for 2014-2020 provides a range of instruments that
can contribute to supporting biodiversity. If the target is to be
achieved, these opportunities need now to be taken up by Member
States on a sufficient scale. Local examples demonstrate successful
sustainable agricultural practices. If implemented more broadly, they
could put the EU back on track to achieve the target by 2020.
No significant overall
progress (much stronger
efforts are needed to
meet the target by its
deadline)
Figure 3 — Changes (2007-2012 vs 2001-2006) in conservation status for habitats of Community interest
associated with agricultural ecosystems (grassland and cropland)
Source: EEA 2015
The 2015 European environment — state and outlook report identifies intensification in agricultural
practices and land abandonment, along with urban sprawl and grey infrastructure, as key pressures on
biodiversity. The 2015 report The State of Nature in the European Union also points to agriculture and
human-induced modifications of natural conditions as the most prominent pressures on terrestrial
ecosystems in the period 2007-2012, with 20 % of the pressure stemming from agriculture alone. As
illustrated in Figure 3, there has been no measurable improvement in the status of the majority of
agriculture-related species and habitats covered by EU nature legislation since the last reporting
period. Grasslands and wetlands have the highest proportion of habitats in ‘unfavourable — bad’ or
‘deteriorating’ status. While populations of common bird species have started stabilising since 2010,
farmland birds have continued declining. Pollination services are in steep decline27
with multiple
26
Many EU policies and legal texts have impacts (direct and indirect) on the state of biodiversity in rural areas.
Target 3A focuses on the contribution of the common agricultural policy.
27
JRC Report 2015, Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services.
9
pressures on wild bees.28
Grassland butterflies are declining severely and there is no sign of levelling
off.
While overall trends continue to be a cause for serious concern, there are many local improvements as
a direct result of good agricultural practices and biodiversity measures under the CAP, in particular
under the agri-environment measures and in Natura 2000 sites. Such successes carry an important
message on the achievability of the 2020 biodiversity target, but would need to be spread wider to
achieve measurable results at EU level.
The CAP reform for 2014-2020 includes various instruments that can contribute to support
biodiversity. Cross-compliance represents the basic layer of environmental requirements and
obligations to be met by farmers. Direct payments reward the delivery of environmental public goods.
One of the three greening practices under the first pillar — ecological focus areas — specifically
targets biodiversity. Finally, the Rural Development Regulation
29
provides national and regional
authorities with a wide range of biodiversity-favourable options to choose from. These options include
a sub-priority on the restoration, preservation and enhancement of ecosystems, a target for biodiversity
output in rural development programmes, collaboration mechanisms among farmers and foresters, and
a greater focus on advising farmers on water and pesticide use but also on biodiversity, including the
obligations under the Birds and Habitats Directives.
The reformed CAP gives Member States’ national and regional authorities the flexibility to decide
how and to what extent they take up these opportunities. Member States’ rural development
programmes and choices related to ecological focus areas will be carefully monitored and evaluated
with respect to biodiversity protection. Based on programmes adopted at the time of finalising this
report, 19.1 %30
of total agricultural land is under management contracts supporting biodiversity
and/or landscapes, with very large disparities among Member States and regions. Understanding the
reasons for disparity in take-up among Member States will be critical for further progress towards the
2020 target.
28
European Red List of Wild Bees (2015).
29
Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
30
The 73 rural development programmes (of 118 in total) adopted by 23.08.2015 cover three quarters of the
budget and three quarters of utilised agricultural area.
10
2.3.2. Target 3B — Forests: By 2020, Forest Management Plans or equivalent
instruments, in line with Sustainable Forest Management (SFM), are in
place for all forests that are publicly owned and for forest holdings
above a certain size** (to be defined by the Member States or regions
and communicated in their Rural Development Programmes) that
receive funding under the EU Rural Development Policy so as to bring
about a measurable improvement* in the conservation status of species
and habitats that depend on or are affected by forestry and in the
provision of related ecosystem services as compared to the EU 2010
Baseline.
(*) Improvement is to be measured against the quantified enhancement
targets for the conservation status of species and habitats of EU interest
in Target 1 and the restoration of degraded ecosystems under Target 2.
(**) For smaller forest holdings, Member States may provide additional
incentives to encourage the adoption of Management Plans or equivalent
instruments that are in line with SFM
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.
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)
11
Figure 4 — Change (2007-2012 vs 2001-2006) in conservation status for habitats of Community interest
associated with woodland and forest ecosystem at EU-27 level31
Source: EEA 2015
The EU forest strategy32
highlights the economic, social and environmental importance of Europe’s
forest ecosystems and sets the guiding principles of sustainable forest management, resource
efficiency and global forest responsibility. The Commission is also developing criteria and indicators
for sustainable forest management. Securing adequate funding for biodiversity-favourable measures in
forested areas remains a challenge. During the period 2007 to 2013, a total of EUR 5.4 billion was
allocated to forests under rural development programmes whereas the annual cost of managing the
Natura 2000 network (of which over half is forest) is around EUR 5.8 billion.
Forest management plans or equivalent instruments could play a key role in achieving Target 3B,
including in private forests. Overall, a large share of EU forests is covered by some form of
management plan but there nevertheless remain significant variations across the Member States. The
take-up of some of the measures identified in the EU biodiversity strategy has been limited. Improving
EU-level information on forest status will allow a more precise assessment of the situation and the
design of appropriate policy responses to meet the target.
31
The graph refers to EU-27 as it relates to the time before the accession of Croatia.
32
COM(2013) 659 final.
12
2.4. Target 4: Achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) by 2015*. Achieve a
population age and size distribution indicative of a healthy stock, through
fisheries management with no significant adverse impacts on other stocks,
species and ecosystems, in support of achieving Good Environmental Status
by 2020, as required under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive
(MSFD).
* The reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) which entered into force in 2014, aims
to ensure MSY exploitation rates for all stocks by 2015 where possible, and at the latest
by 2020.
Significant progress has been made in setting the policy framework
for sustainable fisheries under the reformed EU common fisheries
policy, and for achieving good environmental status under the MSFD.
The Commission is promoting improvements in oceans governance
for more sustainable management of marine resources. However,
policy implementation has been uneven across the EU and major
challenges remain to ensure that the objectives are achieved
according to schedule. Just over 50 % of MSY-assessed stocks were
fished sustainably in 2013.
As a result of multiple pressures, marine species and ecosystems
continue declining across Europe’s seas.
Progress towards the
target but at an
insufficient rate
(increased efforts are
needed to meet the target
by its deadline)
The reformed common fisheries policy provides a sound policy framework for sustainable fisheries,
and implementation is advancing. Harvesting levels are at or approaching maximum sustainable yield
for an increasing number of commercial stocks. Progress has been noteworthy in the northern waters
where most stocks subject to catch limits are assessed (up to 90 % in the Baltic) and the majority are
managed under the maximum sustainable yield. However, in the Mediterranean and Black Seas, less
than 10 % of landings come from assessed stocks and around 90 % of assessed stocks remain
overexploited.33
Fishing mortality has significantly decreased for a number of stocks in the Baltic and the greater North
Sea.34
This is evidence that they are responding positively to the implementation of long-term
management plans and fishing practices respecting the MSY objective.
Marine biodiversity across Europe’s regional seas continues to decline. Having good quality, reliable
and comprehensive data on the marine environment is a challenge in itself, with 80 % of species and
habitats under the MSFD categorised as unknown (commercial fish stocks being a positive exception).
Only 4 % of habitats are documented as being in good environmental status. Climate change and
acidification compound the negative impacts of overfishing, pollution and marine litter, habitat
destruction and invasive alien species.35
33
COM(2015) 239 final.
34
JRC (2015) Monitoring the performance of the common fisheries policy — STECF-15-04.
35
EEA Report No 2/2015.
13
In support of reducing the adverse impact of fishing on non-target species and ecosystems, the new
common fisheries policy aims — through the gradual introduction of a landing obligation by 2019 —
to eliminate discarding. This will require strengthened monitoring at Member State level in order to
lead to practices that are cleaner, more selective and which avoid by-catch, and to improve by-catch
data.
Continued efforts at the national level to implement management plans and monitor the enforcement
of rules will be paramount in addressing pressures on marine biodiversity by 2020, along with
improved monitoring, broadening the knowledge base and coordination of marine biodiversity
information. Building on experience and expanding research networks will be a key task.
2.5. Target 5: By 2020, Invasive Alien Species (IAS) and their pathways are
identified and prioritised, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and
pathways are managed to prevent the introduction and establishment of new
IAS.
Invasive alien species are a fast-growing threat to biodiversity. The
IAS Regulation36
entered into force in 2015. Work is under way to
propose the first list of invasive alien species of Union concern. If
this list is adopted by the end of 2015, the EU can be considered to
be on track with the actions envisaged under Target 5.
The next critical step for achieving the target will be implementation
by Member States. Ratification of the Ballast Water Convention,
crucial for addressing marine invasive alien species, is slow-going
with only 7 Member State ratifications to date.
On track to achieve target
(if we continue on our
current trajectory we
expect to achieve the
target by 2020)
Currently, there are more than 11 000 alien species in the European environment and 10-15 % of them
are causing problems. In the seas around Europe, more than 80 % of non-indigenous species have been
introduced since 1950 (see Figure 5).
36
Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014.
14
Figure 5 — Rate of introduction of marine non-indigenous species37
Source: EEA 2015
The new IAS Regulation provides a framework to prevent and manage the introduction and spread of
invasive alien species in the EU. The European Alien Species Information Network38
is being set up to
assist Member States in its implementation. Work is under way with Member States to finalise the first
list of invasive alien species of Union concern based on species’ risk assessments, including potential
economic threats. A scanning exercise to prioritise future risk assessments will support a preventive
approach. The Commission's 2013 proposals on plant39
and animal40
health also aim to support
biodiversity protection.
The swift adoption of the first list of invasive alien species of Union concern and effective
implementation by the Member States will be decisive for continued progress towards this target.
Progress on related policies will be crucial, in particular the ratification and enforcement of the Ballast
Water Convention and the application of the animal health regime for wildlife diseases.
37
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/trends-in-marine-alien-species-mas-2/assessment.
38
http://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/.
39
COM(2013) 267.
40
COM(2013) 260.
15
2.6. Target 6: By 2020, the EU has stepped up its contribution to averting global
biodiversity loss.
The EU remains by far the largest financial donor and has made
progress in increasing resources for global biodiversity. The EU has
taken initial steps to reduce indirect drivers of global biodiversity
loss, including wildlife trade, and to integrate biodiversity into its
trade agreements. However, progress is insufficient in reducing the
impacts of EU consumption patterns on global biodiversity. On the
current trajectory, existing efforts may not be sufficient to meet the
Aichi Biodiversity Targets by the deadlines.41
Progress towards the
target but at an
insufficient rate
(increased efforts are
needed to meet the target
by its deadline)
The EU is the largest contributor to biodiversity-related official development assistance and has more
than doubled funding between 2006 and 2013.
In order to regulate access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising
from their utilisation, the EU ratified the Nagoya Protocol in 2014. New legislation has been adopted
to regulate compliance measures, and an additional implementing act is being prepared.
The 2013 EU Timber Regulation aims to stop the circulation of illegally logged wood on the EU
market. The EU Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Plan encourages trade in legal
timber. There is a growing consumer preference for products from sustainably managed forests. Some
progress has also been made on palm oil, but too little action has been taken regarding other
commodities and the EU-28 footprint is over twice the size of its biocapacity.
41
CBD Global Biodiversity Outlook 4.
16
Figure 6 — Ecological footprint per region of the world
Source: EEA (SEBI)42
All recent EU free trade agreements have provisions on the implementation of multilateral
environmental agreements. The EU has also supported global efforts against wildlife trafficking,43
including promoting progress towards the adoption of a comprehensive UN General Assembly
Resolution on tackling illicit trafficking in wildlife. On 8 July 2015, the EU officially became a Party
to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
Actions to biodiversity-proof EU development cooperation have been addressed through the
mainstreaming of environment and climate change. A compulsory environmental screening for any
new development cooperation action addresses potential impacts on protected or vulnerable areas,
ecosystem services, the introduction of alien species, and the use of fertilisers, pesticides or other
chemicals. Programming has paid special attention to the potential for biodiversity protection and
improvement.
The EU and its Member States have played an active role in shaping the global 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development. Implementing these commitments in the EU and supporting their
achievement on a global scale will help to advance towards meeting this target. Reaching the
international target of doubling biodiversity-related funding flows to developing countries by 2015 and
maintaining them until 2020, as well as increasing the effectiveness of funding, will require continued
commitment, better prioritisation and coordination with other donors. Achieving EU objectives will
require further action to address the EU ecological footprint, and the effective implementation of
recently adopted policy and legislation, with particular focus on compliance under the Nagoya
Protocol. More efforts are also needed to implement provisions on biodiversity in recent trade
42
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/ecological-footprint-of-european-countries/ecological-
footprint-of-european-countries-2.
43
COM(2014) 64 final.
17
agreements, to further integrate biodiversity objectives into EU trade policies and to encourage
initiatives to promote sustainable trade.
3. HORIZONTAL MEASURES
3.1. Financing
Insufficient financing was a major factor in the failure to reach the 2010 biodiversity target.
Biodiversity aspects have been integrated to various degrees into European structural and investment
funds, notably the common agricultural policy, cohesion policy funds and the European Maritime and
Fisheries Fund. A robust analysis of the allocations to biodiversity will only be possible once all rural
development and operational programmes are adopted. The LIFE programme remains a small but
highly effective funding source for nature and biodiversity. It will also support innovative financing
through the recently launched Natural Capital Financing Facility.
The Commission has developed a process to track biodiversity-related expenditure in the EU budget in
order to estimate more accurately the integration of biodiversity in programming.44
A methodology
has also been developed to ‘biodiversity-proof’ the EU budget, to ensure that spending has no negative
impacts but supports biodiversity objectives.
EU financing instruments are key in delivering on international biodiversity commitments, in
particular through the Development and Cooperation Instrument and the European Development Fund,
as well as under the Partnership Instrument. EU efforts to enhance resource mobilisation from these
external instruments are enshrined in the ‘Biodiversity for Life’ flagship initiative (B4Life) launched
in 2014.
3.2. Partnerships
There has been considerable progress in establishing partnerships and engaging stakeholders and civil
society. The re-launched EU Business and Biodiversity Platform supports the active involvement of
businesses in the strategy implementation. The Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Territories of
European Overseas (BEST) preparatory action contributes to the transition towards swift and easy
access to funding for biodiversity protection and sustainable use of ecosystem services. The EU has
also supported the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity initiative, both within the EU and in
developing countries, and has encouraged synergies between the Convention on Biological Diversity
and other conventions.
3.3. Strengthening the knowledge base
The knowledge and evidence base for EU biodiversity policy has been improved through streamlined
reporting under the nature directives, and the mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their
services, recognised internationally as the most advanced regional assessment scheme under the
Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Research and innovation
framework programmes have an important role in the assessment of ecosystem services, in synergy
with other EU funds. Horizon 2020 supports integrated assessments and science-policy interfaces with
a focus on nature-based solutions. Cohesion policy funding for research and innovation is another
source of support. However, major gaps in data and knowledge remain, in particular concerning the
44
SEC(2015)240.
18
marine environment, the assessment of ecosystem health and links to ecosystem services and
resilience. The integration of — and open access to — data from biodiversity monitoring and reporting
under relevant EU legislation (such as agriculture, fisheries, and regional policy) needs to be
strengthened as a priority for the remainder of the implementation period. EU external instruments
have resulted in the creation of regional observatories in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries for
better informing the decision-makers in natural resource management.
4. CONCLUSION
The mid-term review assessing progress under the EU biodiversity strategy shows that the 2020
biodiversity targets can only be reached if implementation and enforcement efforts become
considerably bolder and more ambitious. At the current rate of implementation, biodiversity loss and
the degradation of ecosystem services will continue throughout the EU and globally, with significant
implications for the capacity of biodiversity to meet human needs in the future.
Progress has been made in establishing important policy frameworks: the new common fisheries
policy, the Invasive Alien Species and Timber Regulations, and the introduction of biodiversity
provisions in bilateral trade agreements, to name just a few. The reformed common agricultural policy
provides opportunities for enhanced integration of biodiversity concerns but the extent of take-up by
Member States will be decisive for success. The Commission has supported and complemented efforts
made by Member States, regional and local authorities and stakeholders in enforcing environmental
legislation, addressing policy gaps, providing guidelines, funding, promoting partnerships and
fostering research and the exchange of best practice. There is a wealth of positive experience that can
be a model for advancing towards the EU biodiversity targets in the remaining period until 2020.
It is now urgent to intensify the implementation of measures across all targets and to ensure that the
principles included in the policy frameworks are fully reflected on the ground. Achieving the 2020
biodiversity objectives will require strong partnerships and the full engagement and efforts from key
actors at all levels, in particular with respect to completing the Natura 2000 network for the marine
environment, ensuring effective management of Natura 2000 sites and implementing the Invasive
Alien Species Regulation, and considering the most suitable approach for recognizing our natural
capital throughout the EU.
Achieving this target will also require more effective integration with a wide range of policies, by
setting coherent priorities underpinned by adequate funding — in particular in the sectors of
agriculture and forestry which together account for 80% of land use in the EU, as well as marine,
fisheries and regional development. EU financing instruments can assist in the process. Achieving
biodiversity objectives will also contribute to the growth and jobs agenda, food and water security, and
to quality of life, as well as to the implementation of sustainable development goals globally and in the
EU.


Dato: 20. november 2015
Til:
Miljø- og Fødevareministeriet
Naturstyrelsen, Biodiversitet og arter
Att. Johan Husfeldt (johus@nst.dk)
Annette Samuelsen (asamu@nst.dk)
Charlotte B Mogensen (chbmo@mfvm.dk)
Masnedøgade 20
2100 København Ø
Telefon: 39 17 40 00
Mail: dn@dn.dk
Høringssvar til Rammenotat om formandskabets forslag til rådskonklusioner om
midtvejsevaluering af EU’s biodiversitetsstrategi til 2020
Danmarks Naturfredningsforening, Dansk Ornitologisk Forening / Birdlife Denmark, Det Økolo-
giske Råd, Greenpeace og WWF - Verdensnaturfonden har den 16. november 2015 modtaget
rammenotat til EU-Miljøspecialudvalget om formandskabets forslag til rådskonklusioner om
midtvejsevaluering af EU’s biodiversitetsstrategi til 2020 i høring.
Overordnet set er det stærke og vigtige budskaber, der kommer frem i rådskonklusionerne.
Det er glædeligt at se, at der lægges op til ikke at genåbne EU’s naturdirektiver, men i stedet
at opfordre medlemsstaterne til at gennemføre en fyldestgørende implementering, så målene
om gunstig bevaringsstatus for både naturtyper og arter opnås.
Organisationerne bakker generelt op om regeringens ”foreløbige generelle holdning”. Det er
vigtigt, at der er enighed i Rådet om den fremadrettede indsats for biodiversiteten i hele EU.
Organisationerne har følgende anbefalinger til regeringens videre arbejde med rådskonklusio-
nerne:
80 % af EU’s natur er beliggende udenfor Natura 2000 netværket, og der er i perioden efter
strategiens ikrafttræden registreret et fortsat fald af biodiversitet med forringede økosystemer
og yderligere opsplitning af naturområder. Tiden har vist, at det er yderst vanskeligt at sikre
naturen uden for de internationale naturbeskyttelsesområder mod yderligere fragmentering på
grund af pres fra byudvikling, infrastruktur og intensiv udnyttelse af landarealerne.
Det er derfor afgørende vigtigt, at Kommissionen og medlemsstaterne vedtager strategier og
indsatser, der målrettes den biologiske mangfoldighed, der ikke er omfattet af EU’s naturdirek-
tiver.
Organisationerne foreslår derfor, at regeringen arbejder for, at teksten under mål 2
justeres, således at Rådet anmoder Kommissionen om specifikt at udarbejde et Direktiv for
Grøn Infrastruktur, som overvejet i forbindelse med Kommissionens arbejde med Strategen for
Grøn Infrastruktur (preparatory study). Ordlyden kunne være:”Calls on the Commission to
prepare without delay a Framework Directive for the Conservation and Restoration of Europe’s
Green Infrastructure with binding conservation targets”.
Yderligere foreslår organisationerne, at teksten under mål 2 strammes, således at Rådet op-
fordrer medlemsstaterne til at udarbejde og implementere en strategi for genopretning af for-
ringede og ødelagte økosystemer, frem for blot at invitere hertil. Ordlyden kunne være: ”Calls
on Member States to develop and implement a ecosystem restoration prioritization framework
concerning restoring at least 15 % of the degraded ecosystems by 2020 and to use the appro-
priations available within the MFF for this purpose and urges Member States to initiate large
scale ecosystem restoration projects”.
Europaudvalget 2015
KOM (2015) 0478 Bilag 1
Offentligt
2
Organisationerne opfordrer regeringen til at støtte den nuværende tekst om Den
Fælles Landbrugspolitik i lyset af, hvor vigtig landbrugssektoren er for at opnå 2020-målet i
EU’s biodiversitetsstrategi. Særligt er det vigtigt at bakke op om, at Kommissionen gennemfø-
rer en evaluering af Den Fælles Landbrugspolitiks effekter på biodiversiteten i tide forud for
den næste revision af Den Fælles Landbrugspolitik, herunder især en undersøgelse af eventu-
elle skadelige subsidier. En sådan evaluering må naturligvis gennemføres på baggrund af ro-
bust, relevante og meningsfulde indikatorer.
Det er vigtigt, at Den Fælles Landbrugspolitik senest ved den næste reform omdannes til en
mere resultatorienteret politik. Det er vigtigt at koble betaling af støtte sammen med konkrete
resultater for natur og miljø. Subsidier, der skader biodiversitet og miljø skal udfases og er-
stattes med ordninger, der i langt højere grad gavner biodiversitet og økosystemer.
Støtten i søjle 1 bør løbende lægges over i landdistriktsprogrammet (søjle 2) ved at hæve flek-
sibiliteten, herunder den obligatoriske del (så miljø-, natur- og klimaindsatser ikke kan vælges
fra).
Organisationerne opfordrer regeringen til at arbejde for, at der indarbejdes et nyt
punkt under Mål 3 i rådskonklusionerne, hvor Rådet opfordrer medlemsstaterne til at sik-
re, at der nationalt afsættes midler fra landdistriktsprogrammet, der øremærkes beskyttelse
og udvikling af grøn infrastruktur, og at naturbaserede løsninger tilskyndes. Ordlyden kunne
være: “Calls for Member States to ensure that funds earmarked for green infrastructure from
pillar two, structural funds, are taken up by the managing authorities and that nature based
solutions are particular encouraged.”
Vi ser frem til at følge den videre proces frem mod vedtagelsen af endelige rådskonklusioner
om midtvejsevalueringen af EU’s biodiversitetsstrategi den 16. december 2015.
På vegne af organisationerne,
Ann Berit Frostholm
Danmarks Naturfredningsforening
International og national naturpolitik
Tlf.: 31 19 32 28
Mail: abf@dn.dk
Knud N. Flensted
Dansk Ornitologisk Forening/Birdlife Denmark
Naturbeskyttelsesmedarbejder
Tlf.: 21 24 22 75
Mail: knud.flensted@dof.dk
Christian Ege
Sekretariatsleder
Det Økologiske Råd
Tlf.: 33 18 19 33
christian@ecocouncil.dk
Jan Søndergård
Greenpeace
Politisk rådgiver
Tlf.: 28 96 9026
Mail: jan.soendergaard@greenpeace.org
John Nordbo
Klima- og miljøchef
WWF Verdensnaturfonden
Tlf.: 35 24 78 53
Mail: j.nordbo@wwf.dk