Assessing Biodiversity in Europe 2010

EEA Report
No 5/2010
Assessing biodiversity in Europe the 2010 report
ISSN 1725-9177
EEA Report
No 5/2010
Cover design: EEA

Cover photo Pia Schmidt
Left photo EEA
Right photo Stock.xchng
Layout: Pia Schmidt/EEA
Legal notice
The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the European Commission
or other institutions of the European Union. Neither the European Environment Agency nor any person or
company acting on behalf of the Agency is responsible for the use that may be made of the information
contained in this report.
Copyright notice
EEA, Copenhagen, 2010
Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated.
Information about the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa
server (www.europa.eu).
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Union, 2010
ISBN 978-92-9213-106-7
ISSN 1725-9177
doi:10.2800/42824
EEA, Copenhagen, 2010
Environmental production
This publication is printed according to high environmental standards.
Printed by Schultz Grafisk
Environmental Management Certificate: ISO 14001
IQNet The International Certification Network DS/EN ISO 14001:2004
Quality Certificate: ISO 9001: 2000
EMAS Registration. Licence no. DK 000235
Ecolabelling with the Nordic Swan, licence no. 541 176
Paper
RePrint 90 gsm.
CyclusOffset 250 gsm.
Both paper qualities are recycled paper and have obtained the ecolabel Nordic Swan.
Printed in Denmark
REG.NO. DK- 000244
European Environment Agency

Kongens Nytorv 6
1050 Copenhagen K
Denmark
Tel.: +45 33 36 71 00
Fax: +45 33 36 71 99
Web: eea.europa.eu
Enquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries
Contents
Contents
Acknowledgements..................................................................................................... 4
Foreword..................................................................................................................... 5
Executive summary..................................................................................................... 6
1 Introduction........................................................................................................... 9
2 Biodiversity policy in Europe................................................................................ 11
3 The
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
state of biodiversity in major ecosystems...................................................... 16

Freshwater ecosystems.................................................................................... 16
Mountain ecosystems....................................................................................... 21
Forest ecosystems........................................................................................... 26
Coastal and marine ecosystems......................................................................... 30
Agricultural ecosystems ................................................................................... 36
4 Conclusions, way forward and knowledge gaps.................................................... 44

References................................................................................................................ 47
Annex 1 SEBI 2010 set of indicators......................................................................... 58
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
Authors
EEA contributors
This report was written by a project team from the

SEI-Milieu Consortium that was led by KevinHicks
of the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and
included contributions from: Richard Aishton,
Neville Ash, Guido Broekhoven, DavidCollins,
AnaNieto and Chantal van Ham of the International
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN and
IUCN Regional office for Pan-Europe); Leigh Ann
Hurt, Aaron McLoughlin, Jean-Nicolas Poussart,
and Peter Prokosch of UNEP/GRID-Arendal,
Norway; Eoghan Daly and Ric Eales of Collingwood
Environmental Planning, London; Tony Zamparutti
of Milieu Limited; Bettina Schwarzl and
ElisabethSchwaiger of the Austrian Environment
Agency (Umweltbundesamt GmbH).
Gordon McInnes, Katarzyna Biala, Ivone Pereira

Martins and Ronan Uhel.
Support was provided by Peter Kristensen, Josef
Herkendell, Stphane Isoard, Mette Palitzsch Lund,
Karina Makarewicz and Sophie Conde from the
ETC/BD.
Editorial support
MRAG Ltd and Mike Asquith (EEA).
EEA project manager
Frederik Schutyser with coordination support from
Ana Nieto (IUCN Regional Office for Pan-Europe,
under contract with EEA).
Foreword
Foreword
The European target of halting biodiversity loss

by 2010 has brought visibility to Europe's wealth
of natural capital and the essential ecosystem
services that biodiversity delivers: providing food,
fibre, medicines and freshwater; pollinating crops;
filtering pollutants; and protecting us from natural
disasters. It has raised awareness of the need to
prioritise biodiversity in all areas of decision-making
and in all economic sectors.
The present report considers the status and trends of
pan-European biodiversity in a range of ecosystems,
and the implications of these trends for biodiversity
management policy and practice. It considers
the key biodiversity policy instruments currently
applied in Europe, the threats to biodiversity and
the management implications of such threats
across major habitat types. The report makes use of
Streamlining European 2010 Biodiversity Indicators
(SEBI 2010) and other relevant national and regional
information sources that the European Environment
Agency coordinates.
This report shows that Europe is still far from
meeting its 2010 target and that we risk missing
future targets unless we change the way that we
are managing our environment. Shortcomings until
now have included gaps in policy implementation
and integration a lack of political will, insufficient
financing and communication, the absence of readily
quantifiable targets and inadequate knowledge and
monitoring of biodiversity in Europe.
For change to occur, we need two core elements. First,
we need hugely broadened public understanding and
appreciation of biodiversity and its role in sustaining
our societies and economies. This is crucial because
it is ultimately popular recognition of the value of
biodiversity and healthy ecosystems that is going to
create the political will for action.
Clearly, though, this needs to be complemented by
a second element, which is greater understanding
on the part of policymakers of what is driving
biodiversity loss and how we can halt and reverse
it. In practice, this means steering private sector
decision-making through a mixture of economic
incentives and legal standards that protect the public

good. It is unlikely that sufficient progress can be
made without the fundamental step of embedding
environment in the economy.
Recognising the urgent need to address these issues,
in March 2010 EU Environment Ministers adopted
the Headline Target of halting biodiversity loss and
degradation of ecosystem services and restoring
them, in so far as feasible, by 2020, while stepping
up EU efforts to prevent global biodiversity loss.
It also endorsed a Long-term Biodiversity Vision
for 2050. The European Council further specified
the need to establish a clear baseline, outlining
criteria for assessing achievements. These ambitious
initiatives will underpin the new EU Biodiversity
Strategy, to be finalised by the end of 2010.
The EEA developed the EU 2010 Biodiversity
Baseline in response to this need. The Baseline
offers a comprehensive snapshot of the current
state of biodiversity. It thereby supports the EU in
developing the post-2010 sub-targets as part of the
biodiversity strategy and provides factual data for
measuring and monitoring progress in the EU from
2011 to 2020.
The EEA has also made considerable efforts
to deliver biodiversity assessments during the
International Year of Biodiversity. These include
the present report and the '10 messages for 2010'
short assessments of specific ecosystems or issues
related to biodiversity in Europe.
This report will be presented at the 10th meeting of
the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity (1829 October 2010, Nagoya,
Japan) to provide decision-makers with information
on the status and management of biodiversity and
ecosystems in Europe to assist in setting new global
biodiversity targets.
Jacqueline McGlade
Executive Director
Executive summary
Executive summary
This report confirms the finding of the EEA's

2009 report 'Progress towards the European 2010
biodiversity target' (EEA, 2009a) that Europe will not
achieve its target of halting biodiversity loss by 2010.
The present report considers the status and trends
of pan-European biodiversity, and the implications
of these trends for biodiversity management policy
and practice. It considers the key biodiversity
policy instruments currently applied in Europe,
the threats to biodiversity and their management
implications across major habitat types. The
implications for biodiversity of cross-cutting
issues such as tourism and urban planning are
also considered, along with the challenges that
remain for conserving and sustainably using of
Europe's biodiversity. The report makes use of the
SEBI2010 indicators and other relevant national
and regional information sources. It does not
consider the biodiversity of EU overseas territories
and outermost regions.
As a result of human activity, most of Europe's
biodiversity exists within a mosaic of heavily
managed land and highly exploited seascapes.
To a large degree, this is linked to agricultural,
forestry and fishery practices across the region.
In recent decades, growing public and political
awareness of biodiversity decline has led to
improved commitments, policies and practices for
the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity
throughout much of Europe, and there are
indications that some aspects of biodiversity are
improving in some areas.
Almost two decades after the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) came into force,
biodiversity loss now has a high political profile
at the global, regional and national levels.
Governments have made ambitious commitments
to act. Under the Swedish Presidency in 2001, for
example, the EU agreed its 2010 biodiversity target
in Gothenburg. At the Fifth Environment for Europe
(EfE) Ministerial Conference (Kiev, Ukraine) in 2003,
governments across the pan-European region agreed
the Kiev Resolution on biodiversity and endorsed
the 2010 target.
Despite such efforts, biodiversity loss continues in

many parts of Europe. Major threats include habitat
destruction and fragmentation, the establishment
and spread of invasive alien species, pollution from
agricultural runoff in many countries, increasing
water abstraction and use, over-exploitation, and the
increasing impact of climatic change.
There are indications that, where implemented
successfully, Europe's key policy instruments
have had positive impacts, with the status of some
targeted species and habitats improving in parts
of the region. In particular, the Birds Directive
(EC, 2009e), the Habitats Directive (EC, 1992) and
the Water Framework Directive (EC, 2000) have
had important positive impacts on biodiversity
in the EU. Growth in protected areas across the
panEuropean area has also been significant. Despite
progress in enacting and implementing European
policy, assessments at various scales show that a
large proportion of habitats and species have an
unfavourable conservation status. This highlights
the urgent need to intensify conservation efforts.
Freshwater ecosystems are among the ecosystems
facing most pressures in Europe, with the quantity
and quality of habitats and abundance of many
species declining. Natural wetlands (marshes and
bogs) decreased by 5% between 1990 and 2006
the second largest proportional land cover change
of all the major habitat classes although inland
surface water cover increased by nearly 4.4%.
Pollution, habitat degradation and fragmentation,
and invasive species remain significant threats to
freshwater ecosystems. However, legislation and
investments, particularly in the EU, have improved
the quality of freshwater ecosystems.
Mountain ecosystems in Europe are particularly
diverse in habitats and species but are also especially
vulnerable to impacts from changes in agricultural
practices, tourism, infrastructural development
and climate. International frameworks have been
established to protect and manage mountain areas
sustainably, for example the Alpine and Carpathian
Conventions. However, the value of mountain
ecosystems and their services to lowland economies,
Executive summary
including water supply and regulation, is not widely

recognised.
Forest ecosystems in Europe have endured dramatic
historical declines, although in the last 20years
deforestation has largely been reversed. Decline is
now limited to only a few regions and in some areas
significant forest expansion has occurred. Around
3% of European forests are protected for biodiversity
conservation, 25% of EU forests are excluded from
wood harvesting, and forest certification schemes
and sustainable forest management are increasingly
common. The loss of forest biodiversity in Europe
continues, however, with declining forest bird and
mammal populations in some parts. Fragmentation
and forest fires are major threats, although smaller
woodlands and wood pastures are important for
biodiversity in a mosaic landscape. Institutional
changes, including privatisation in many former
centrally planned economies, have led to intensified
commercial forestry in unprotected areas, increasing
pressures on biodiversity.
Coastal and marine ecosystems have lost
considerable biodiversity in recent decades, mainly
due to erosion of coastal and estuarine wetlands and
dune systems, overexploitation of marine fisheries,
and pollution. Some 45% of assessed European fish
stocks are outside safe biological limits. Invasive
alien species remain a threat and are increasing
rapidly in Europe's marine ecosystems. The reform
of the EU Common Fisheries Policy calls for better
stewardship. Meanwhile, the Marine Strategy
Framework Directive, adopted in 2008, applies an
ecosystem-based approach to managing the seas
around Member States.
Agricultural ecosystems dominate much of
Europe's landscape and biodiversity has fallen
significantly in agricultural areas. For example
populations of farmland birds have fallen 50%
since 1980. However, examples of positive
changes can be seen across Europe. These include
reduced nitrogen surpluses due to more careful
application of fertilisers and wider uptake of
environmentallyfriendly management, such as
organic farming and agri-environment schemes,
which can support agricultural biodiversity. Recent
reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy have
encouraged these new approaches. However,
there remains considerable potential to improve
management of agricultural areas, to safeguard
ecosystem services and integrate biodiversity into
agricultural management practices.
Grassland ecosystems in Europe are experiencing
a major decline in their biodiversity, such as
butterflies. This is mainly caused by habitat loss

and degradation due to intensified farming or
abandonment of agricultural land. Climate change,
air pollution and invasive alien species are also
significant threats. Upland grasslands are declining
in extent and are in poor condition, with their
characteristic biodiversity showing significant and
serious decline since 1990. The dry grasslands of
Europe, in the Mediterranean and the steppes of
eastern Europe are also under threat, mainly from
desertification related to unsustainable management
practices, exacerbated by climate change.
Abandonment of sustainable grazing and traditional
hay-making practices are particular problems for
these areas.
Urban ecosystems are seldom well integrated
into wider biodiversity considerations. Moreover,
urbanisation and urban sprawl are significant factors
affecting biodiversity in Europe through land-use
change. The concept of 'green infrastructure' is
gaining recognition in Europe and could strengthen
sustainable management of urban and peri-urban
natural areas, increasing people's contact with
nature, reducing urban stress and helping climate
change adaptation.
Successful conservation actions across the region
could be expanded and scaled up to address major
gaps. However, conservation activities alone are
insufficient to address biodiversity loss in the
region. One reason is that many of the direct drivers
and all of the indirect drivers of biodiversity
loss emanate from sectors beyond the control of
conservation interventions alone.
In recent years, governments have taken steps
to increase policy integration and coherence, for
example with respect to EU fisheries and agriculture
policies. However, these have not been sufficient to
stem biodiversity loss. Continuing and deepening
the mainstreaming of biodiversity in public and
private sector decisions and policies (such as
concerning trade, planning, transport, tourism and
finance) would help address many of the underlying
threats to biodiversity. Recent work to ascribe
economic values to biodiversity and ecosystem
services in and beyond these sectors can play a vital
role in supporting such mainstreaming.
A more integrated approach to biodiversity
management across sectors, and across
administrative boundaries, at landscape and
seascape scales would be an important step forward.
This effectively amounts to wider application of the
ecosystem-based approach. Efforts to link protected
areas to the wider landscape, including through
Executive summary
ecological networks and connectivity areas, need to

continue with the aim of achieving multifunctional
land-use planning at a regional scale.
Communication and education must continue
to raise public awareness about biodiversity's
importance, its links to livelihoods via ecosystem
services, and its ongoing loss. These actions can
encourage both individual action to conserve
biodiversity and public support for changes in
policy and practice.
Key gaps in knowledge remain across Europe,

for example regarding the status of specific taxa
and habitats (especially in eastern Europe) and
interdisciplinary knowledge of the links between
biodiversity change, ecosystem services and human
well-being. Filling such gaps through further
monitoring, research and assessment would enable
better decision-making and policies on European
biodiversity in the 21st century.
Introduction
1 Introduction
This report considers the status and trends of

European biodiversity, and the implications of
these trends for biodiversity management policy
and practice. The geographic scope of the report
is panEuropean, including the whole of Europe,
Caucasus, Central Asia and Russia (Map 1.1).
The report does not consider the biodiversity of
EUoverseas territories and outermost regions.
The present report uses the SEBI 2010 (Streamlining
European 2010 Biodiversity Indicators) indicator
set and other relevant information sources, and
includes information from non-EEA countries
where available. SEBI 2010 is a regional partnership
between the European Environment Agency (and
its European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity),
the European Centre for Nature Conservation, the
United Nations Environment Programme World
Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC),
the European Commission, the Joint Secretariat
of the Pan-European Biological and Landscape
Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS), and the Czech
Republic.
SEBI 2010 was established to help streamline
national, regional and global indicators and,
crucially, to develop a simple and workable
set of indicators to measure progress and help
achieve the 2010 target at the European scale. SEBI
indicators have subsequently been used in other
policyrelevant indicator sets such as the EEA
Core Set of Indicators or the Environment Policy
Review to monitor progress in implementation
of the EU Sixth Environment Action Programme.
The European Commission has used the SEBI 2010
indicator set to support its assessment of progress in
implementing the Biodiversity Action Plan. Finally,
SEBI 2010 works closely with the 2010 Biodiversity
Indicators Partnership with the intention of ensuring
close linkages across national, pan-European and
global activities. The complete set of SEBI 2010
indicators grouped by the CBD focal area and
EUheadline indicators is shown in Annex 1 to the
present report.
This report completes a five-year assessment cycle

that started with a 2006 report on progress towards
the 2010 biodiversity target (EEA, 2006a). It updates
the findings from 2006 with the information
gathered through SEBI 2010 and will be presented
to the Conference of the Parties to the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD) at its tenth meeting.
It also complements other publications in 2010:
the EEA's European Environment State and
Outlook Report 2010 (SOER2010), the '10 messages
for 2010' (EEA, 2010a), the EU 2010 Biodiversity
Baseline (EEA, 2010d) and the scheduled update
of the first SEBI 2010 report, describing the
technical characteristics of the SEBI 2010 indicators
(EEA,2007e).
Information and assessments on European
biodiversity should be seen in the context of the
Biodiversity Information System for Europe (BISE),
in particular the development of an EU Biodiversity
Data Centre and the Pan-European Biological and
Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS). These
new developments will help address several of the
knowledge gaps identified in this report.
Chapter 2 of the report considers the key
biodiversity policy instruments currently applied
in Europe. Chapter 3 addresses the status and
trends of biodiversity, threats to biodiversity and
management implications for major habitat classes
(using the aggregated Corine classes defined for
SEBI 2010 reporting) and includes text boxes on
several key themes. Finally, Chapter 4 highlights key
conclusions and identifies challenges that remain
for conservation and sustainable use of Europe's
biodiversity.
40
IN
1500 Km
ISR
AE
ON
AN
PRU
LEB
CY
E Y
I R A
Q
R I
A
40
SY
S
AR
ND
RGI
50
-100
e n
t s
-90
-110
-120
U
Z
60
IS
AFGHA
TA
N
T UR K M
EN
IS
70
ST
-140
-150
Ar
ct
ic
-160
ir
AN
PA
YZS
N
TA
AN
KIST
TA N
KYRG
80
cl
S e a
N A
C H I
R A
D E
E
F
-130
TA J I K I S
NIS
U S
S I A N
I R A N
AN
30
e a
EC
GEO
E N
Sea
20
1000
500
RR
e r
RB
ZE A
I
A
EN
M
J
AI
SP
DO
AN
CO
o
y
a
y
B a isc
B
NA
MO
T ALY
p ia n
as
20
A
R
E AN INO
Z
R
E I T N D S MA I
C
N SW LA
M
XE G
LU U R
BO
FR
RE
ic
IU
AL
TA
c
t i EST
ON
B a l L
M
A
IA
AN
TV
R LI
IA
Y PO
U
LI
T
FE S
H
CZ
S EC
.
LA
D
UA
TE H
RE E
.
IN TE
NI
ND
PU CH
N
A
BL
BE
US
I
C
L
S
AR
LO T R I A S
U
LO
VE
S
VA
C N HU
R I
O A NGA KIA
RY
H E B OA T
UK
RZ S I A
RA
R
E N
M O G OI A- O
IN
MO
M
NE NT VIN
E
AN
LD
G R E -S E A
IA
O
R
K
V
O O
A
SO B I A
FY VO*
AL
BU
BA
LG
NI
AR
A
IA B l a
G
LG
BE
ER
TH G
LA
ED DO
IT
G
UN KIN
ND
ro
AL
G R E E N
L A N
D
-80
E a s t
a n
S i b e r i
-70
G
TU
LA
r
30
PO
IRE
o
h EN
D
a
e
IA
N
t
IS
TU
e
a
S e
e
n
I CE L AN
r w
a
n
a
e
c
90
100
* Kosovo under UNSCR 1244/99
Outside report coverage
Caucasus
Central Asia
Eastern Europe
110
South Eastern Europe (SEE)
Andorra, Monaco, San Marino
European Free Trade

Association (EFTA)
European
Union 27 Member
I
L
States
(EU27)
PanEuropean region
-170
n g
B e r i
o f
e a
S e a
k h
o t s k
10
N o
S
30
40
Map 1.1
-60
Introduction
The pan-European region covered in this report
Biodiversity policy in Europe
2 Biodiversity policy in Europe
Biodiversity is now higher on the European political

agenda than ever before. In 2001, the EU Strategy
for Sustainable Development included a target to
halt biodiversity decline by 2010. The following
year, the Conference of the Parties to the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD) agreed at its fifth
meeting to reduce biodiversity loss significantly
by 2010. Later that year, governments reaffirmed
the CBD commitment at the World Summit for
Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. Since
then, considerable progress has been made towards
conserving biodiversity in Europe.
At the fifth Environment for Europe (EfE)

Ministerial Conference (Kiev, Ukraine) in
2003, the EU's 2010 target was endorsed at the
pan-European level. The 'Kiev Resolution on
Biodiversity' represents the framework for action.
The EfE process has produced a large number
of agreements, strategies and policies on nature
conservation, including the Pan-European Biological
and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS), which
governments endorsed in 1995.
Box 2.1 Article 17 reporting under the Habitats Directive

Article 17 of the Habitats Directive (EC, 1992) requires Member States to report every six years on progress
in implementation. For the reporting period 20012006, 25 Member States provided the first detailed
assessments of the conservation status of the 216 habitat types and 1 182 species listed in the directive
and found within their territory. The scale of this reporting exercise is unparalleled in Europe and provides a
first overview and point of reference for assessing future trends.
Article 1 of the Habitats Directive defines 'conservation status' as applied to habitats and species. The
definitions take into account parameters affecting long-term distribution. For habitats, that includes the
extent and surface of the habitat, its structure and functions. For species parameters include range,
population size, age structure, mortality and reproduction. This forms the basis for developing a common
assessment method and reporting format for the Member States (EC, 2009a).
The Directive's overall objective is that all habitat types and species of community interest should achieve
'favourable conservation status'. In simple terms, that means a situation where a habitat type or species is
prospering in terms of both quality and extent/population, and has good prospects to do so in the future.
The fact that a habitat or species is not threatened (i.e. does not face a direct extinction risk) does not
mean that it is in favourable conservation status (EC, 2006c).
In the present report, the conservation status of habitats and species is categorised in four groups:

'Favourable' status implies that the habitat or species can be expected to prosper without any change to
existing management or policies.
'Unfavourable inadequate' implies that a change in management or policy is required but the danger of
extinction is not high.
'Unfavourable bad' implies that the habitat or species is in serious danger of becoming extinct (at least
locally).
'Unknown' implies that there is no or insufficient information is available. This category includes the
following categories from Article 17 reporting: 'unknown but not favourable', 'unknown' and 'not possible
to assess'.
11
In May 2006, the European Commission adopted

the communication entitled 'Halting Biodiversity
Loss by 2010 and Beyond' (EC, 2006a) and set out
a detailed Biodiversity Action Plan to achieve this
target (EC, 2006b). The Action Plan's mid-term
report (EC, 2008a), published in December 2008, has
provided the most ambitious assessment of the state
of biodiversity in the EU to date. The Action Plan's
final assessment will be published later in 2010.
As described in Box 2.1, the first assessment of
the conservation status of habitats and species
protected under the Habitats Directive (EC, 2009a)
also provides a first overview and point of reference
for assessing future trends. Troublingly, it shows
that a large proportion of the habitats and species
of Community interest have an unfavourable
or unknown conservation status (Figure 2.1;
Map2.1). According to BirdLife International (2004)
nearly half of all European bird species have an
unfavourable conservation status (Figure 2.2). These
findings demonstrate the urgent need for intensified
conservation efforts.
Nevertheless, there are indications that the Birds
and Habitats Directives can deliver positive results.
In particular the Birds Directive has made significant
progress towards halting the decline of many of
Europe's most threatened birds. Key measures
include designating Special Protection Areas (SPAs)
as part of Natura 2000; adopting and implementing
Figure 2.1 Conservation status of assessed

species in EU-25, by taxonomic
group
Arthropods (336)
Fish (242)
Mammals (381)
Molluscs (81)
Non-vascular plants (92)
Reptiles (149)
Vascular plants (799)
Others (8)
20
40
60
80
Favourable
Unknown
Unfavourable inadequate
Unfavourable bad
Note:
Number of assessments in brackets.
Source: ETC/BD, 2008; SEBI 2010 Indicator 03.
12
100
Unfavourable
48 %
Favourable
52 %
Source: BirdLife International, 2004.
international Species Action Plans (SAPs); additional

measures by Member States; and empowering
conservation NGOs (Donald etal. 2007).
Under the Habitats Directive some species,
including the wolf (Canis lupus), brown bear (Ursus
arctos), Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber), Eurasian otter
(Lutra lutra), Lake Constance forget-me-not (Myosotis
rehsteineri) and the Troodos rockcress (Arabis
kennedyae) are showing signs of recovery or positive
trends (EC, 2009a). Temperate forest cover has also
expanded over recent decades in Europe, showing
the strongest sign of recovery of any major habitat
type globally.
Outside the EU, the Bern Convention and its
Emerald Network, aimed at conserving biodiversity
in the pan-European region, is not as specific
and binding as the Habitats and Birds Directives.
Nonetheless, it obliges member countries to
designate protected areas for selected species and
nature types. Furthermore, Figure 2.3 illustrates that
the total area of nationally designated protected
areas in Europe has increased over time.
Amphibians (152)
Figure 2.2 Conservation status of all birds in

EU-25
In addition, many other policies in Europe that

are not biodiversity policies actually have an
important impact and may contribute to conserving,
managing and restoring biodiversity. For instance,
the Common Agricultural Policy and the Water
Framework Directive are both directly relevant to
the management of biodiversity.
The EU also supports biodiversity through
direct funding. For example, the LIFE+ funding
programme has a window for nature and
biodiversity. Furthermore, the Commission has
Map 2.1
Conservation status of assessed habitats in EU-25, by biogeographical region

Conservation status by
main type of habitats
Pie charts
Favourable
Unknown
Unfavourable
inadequate
Unfavourable bad
Biogeographical region
Alpine
Atlantic
Marine Atlantic
Black Sea
Marine Baltic
Boreal
Continental
Macaronesia
Mediterranean
Pannonian
Steppic
Marine
Medterranean
Canary Is.
Terrestrial
Terrestrial
Terrestrial
Marine
Marine
Marine
Canary Is.
Note:
Azores Is.
Madeira is.
500
1000 Km
How to read the map: in the Mediterranean biogeographical region (see Box 2.2 for an explanation of biogeograhical regions)
about 21% of habitats have a favourable conservation status but 37% have an unfavourable (bad/inadequate) status.
Source: ETC/BD, 2008; SEBI 2010 Indicator 05.
recommended that financial support for the Natura

2000 network be integrated into funding for
different EU policy sectors in the period 20072013
(EC, 2004a). The aim of this 'integrated funding
model' is to further embed the implementation of
the EU biodiversity goals into other relevant policy
sectors (WWF, 2009). Biodiversity conservation
activities have also received financial support
from other EU policy areas, such as from EU funds
for agriculture and rural development (EAFRD),
research (7thFramework Programme) and regional
development (European Regional Development
Fund, European Social Fund and Cohesion Fund).
Some key gaps remain in EU policy for

conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity,
for instance addressing the increasing number
of invasive alien species. In December 2008, the
EU adopted a Communication presenting policy
options for an EU Strategy on Invasive Species
(EC, 2008b). It is now preparing this strategy to
be adopted in 2011. There is also a need to put
in place an effective legal EU framework for
conserving soil structure and functions, as soil
biodiversity is also of fundamental significance
to ecosystem health. The EU is also responsible
for conserving the rich biodiversity of its overseas
13
Box 2.2 Biogeographical regions

From an ecological perspective, Europe can be divided into nine land and four marine biogeographical
regions areas with similar climate, altitude and geology, where certain habitats and species are typically
found together. When a Member State assesses the conservation status of a species or habitat, the
appropriate area for comparison is not the territory of that State but rather matching biogeographical
regions within that Member State (EC, 2009a).
For the purpose of the Article 17 assessments of conservation status, nine terrestrial regions were
considered:

Alpine: mountain chains with high altitudes and cold, harsh climates, forests and rock peaks, including
the Alps, Apennine, Carpathian, Pyrenees and Scandinavian mountains.
Atlantic: Europe's western coastal areas, with flat lands and cliffs, plus major river estuaries.
Black Sea: the western and southern shores of the Black Sea, extending through Bulgaria and Romania.
Boreal: Europe's far north, extending into the Arctic Circle.
Continental: the heartland of Europe much of it agricultural spanning 11 countries from France to
Poland. Hot summers contrast with cold winters.
Macaronesian: made up of Europe's volcanic islands in the Atlantic Ocean: the Azores, Madeira and the
Canaries. Covering only 0.3% of EU territory, this region is home to 19% of habitat types of EU concern.
Mediterranean: Europe's hot, dry, southern countries, with mountains, grasslands, islands and extensive
coastlines.
Pannonian: the steppes of Hungary and southern Slovakia, the dry grasslands of the Carpathian basin.
Steppic: stretching from Bucharest (Romania) in the west, across the lower section of the flood plain of
the Danube and to the north of the Black Sea, with low-lying plains and wetlands.
Similarly, four marine regions were considered:

Atlantic: northern and western Atlantic, from the Straits of Gibraltar to the Kattegat, including the North
Sea.
Baltic: east of the Kattegat, including the Gulf of Finland and the Gulf of Bothnia.
Macaronesian: exclusive economic zones of the Azores, Madeira and Canary Archipelagos.
Mediterranean: east of the Straits of Gibraltar.
These marine regions are based on reported exclusive economic zones or other territorial claims. They were
prepared purely for reporting under Article 17 and have no legal status.
territories and outermost regions. Additional

measures to safeguard a network of Special Areas
of Conservation and to facilitate landscape-scale
initiatives for biodiversity in these regions need to
be considered.
Many events in 2009 and 2010 at the EU and
panEuropean levels have paved the way for the
tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the
CBD in October 2010 and efforts to agree a post2010
vision and a target. Following the European
Commission's communication on options beyond
2010 (EC, 2010a), the European Council committed
at its meeting of 2526 March 2010 (EC, 2010d) to
a new long-term vision and mid-term headline
14
target for biodiversity in the EU for the period

beyond 2010. The new target is, 'To halt the loss
of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem
services in the EU by 2020, restore them in so far as
feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to
averting global biodiversity loss.'
Biodiversity is primarily affected by drivers outside
the direct influence of the environmental sector.
Akey challenge in Europe is therefore ensuring
that policies in other sectors, such as agriculture,
trade and planning, also take into account impacts
and dependencies on biodiversity (see Chapter 4).
Only continuous and concerted effort towards more
sustainable consumption and production practices
Figure 2.3 Growth of nationally designated protected areas in 39 European countries

Area (km)
Number of sites
1 200 000
100 000
90 000
1 000 000
80 000
70 000
800 000
60 000
600 000
50 000
40 000
400 000
30 000
20 000
200 000
10 000
0
1895
0
1905
1915
1925
Cumulated sites number

Note:
1935
1945
1955
1965
1975
1985
1995
2005
Cumulated sites area (km)
How to read the graph: in 1995 there were more than 40000 nationally designated sites covering over 600000km within
the 39 countries monitored. Overlap may exist due to multiple designations of the same site. The average overlap is around
14% across Europe. At country level average overlap varies from 46% in Germany, to 34% for Estonia and less than 5%
in Turkey.
Source: CDDA, 2009; SEBI 2010 Indicator 07.
will ensure that positive trends in European nature

and biodiversity conservation are maintained and
negative trends reversed. This is essential to meet
national, regional and global commitments to halt

and reduce biodiversity loss and degradation of
ecosystems and their services.
15
The state of biodiversity in major ecosystems
3 The state of biodiversity in major

ecosystems
This chapter reviews biodiversity's status, trends

and threats, and management implications for major
panEuropean habitat types (forest, mountain,
grassland, freshwater, arctic, coastal and marine,
agricultural and urban). The implications for
biodiversity of cross-cutting issues such as tourism
and urban planning are also considered. Box 3.1
sets out the main threats to biodiversity that are
recognised in the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD).
It should be noted that although ecosystems such
as forest, mountain and freshwater are addressed
separately in this chapter they occur together in
both natural and managed landscapes. As such,
an integrated approach is needed to conserve
biodiversity in these ecosystems.
Figure 3.1 Land cover change between 1990
and 2006 percentage change in
area of major habitat classes
7.9 %
0.0 %
4.4 %
2.7 %
0.6 %
5.9 %
1.2 %
0.9 %
Artificial surfaces
Forests
Coastal ecosystems
Heath and scrubs
Rivers and lakes
Grasslands
Wetlands
Agro ecosystems
Note:
EU-27 except Finland, Greece, Sweden and the United

Kingdom.
Source: CLC, 2006; SEBI 2010 Indicator 04.
16
As a background to the information presented

below, it should be noted that the land cover of the
major habitat classes used in SEBI 2010 reporting
(aggregated Corine classes) has altered appreciably
in recent decades (Figure 3.1). In particular, artificial
surfaces show the largest proportional growth,
increasing by 7.9% (equal to some 12 500 km2)
between 1990 and 2006. Heath and scrub habitat
increased by 5.9% (more than 13 000 km2) and
grassland decreased by 1.2% (more than 4 000 km2).
Both changes are linked to land abandonment.
Wetlands decreased by 2.7% (more than 1 000 km2),
while rivers and lakes increased by 4.4% (more than
1 500 km2).
3.1 Freshwater ecosystems
Key messages
Freshwater ecosystems provide various services,
including cleaning water, preventing floods,
providing energy and regulating freshwater
resources.
Freshwater ecosystems are under severe pressure
in Europe, with the abundance of habitats and
species declining. Pollution, habitat degradation
and fragmentation, climate change and invasive
species pose serious threats.
Targeted responses in the European Union have
improved water quality in freshwater habitats.
The Water Framework Directive in particular will
significantly contribute to this improvement.
Restoring and preserving natural freshwater
ecosystems has multiple benefits across a range of
services and requires close coordination between
nature protection, water uses, energy production
and spatial planning.
Status and trends
Freshwater ecosystems are regarded as the most
threatened ecosystem type (CBD, 2010). Many are
far from their natural ecological state and have been
modified significantly over time, with many small
Box 3.1 Threats to biodiversity

The CBD identifies five main direct threats to biodiversity globally.
Habitat loss and degradation
Habitat loss and degradation has been the single greatest pressure on biodiversity worldwide (GBO3,
2010). Pressures on habitats include modifying and fragmenting freshwater ecosystems; losing and
fragmenting natural habitats through land conversion (see Box 3.7 below); intensified agriculture; and land
abandonment.
Invasive alien species
Invasive alien species are still a major threat to all types of ecosystems and species (GBO-3, 2010). The
number of alien species in Europe continues to rise, posing an increasing risk for biodiversity (EEA, 2009a).
The Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe (DAISIE) project has found that more than
90% of alien species are introduced unintentionally, mostly by shipping and other forms of transporting
goods.
Pollution and nutrient load
Pollution from nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) and other sources threatens biodiversity in terrestrial,
inland water and coastal ecosystems (GBO-3, 2010). During the last two decades, pollution has fallen
significantly in numerous European rivers (EEA, 2010a) but micropollutant contamination, such as from
pharmaceuticals, cleaning agents, pesticides and industrial chemicals, is an issue of increasing concern.
Nitrogen deposition to terrestrial and coastal ecosystems remains a significant threat to European
biodiversity.
Overexploitation and unsustainable use
Overexploitation and destructive harvesting practices exert significant pressure on biodiversity globally
(GBO-3, 2010). Pressures include rising demand for limited freshwater resources (e.g. from agriculture
or tourism), overexploitation of fish stocks and other marine organisms, and unsustainable forest
management.
Climate change
Climate change is already affecting biodiversity and impacts are projected to increase significantly in
coming decades (GBO-3, 2010). Warming temperatures can limit suitable habitat availability and more
frequent extreme weather events and changing weather patterns are expected to have significant impacts
on biodiversity. Increasing ocean acidification and rising sea levels are projected to impact biodiversity
significantly in coming decades.
lakes and streams disappearing from the landscape

as a consequence of agricultural intensification,
draining and urbanisation (EEA, 2006a).
Unfortunately, historic information and long-term
data are rare for freshwater biodiversity and key
environmental drivers such as temperature and
habitat change. Where available, this information
is mostly gathered at the national scale, rather
than at the catchment area or continental scales
(Tockner etal., 2008). This is despite the fact that the
catchment area must be considered the key spatial
unit to understand freshwater ecosystem processes
and biodiversity patterns.
According to Member States reporting under the
Habitats Directive, 30% of Europe's freshwater
habitats have an 'unfavourable bad' conservation
status, with nearly 33% classified as 'unfavourable

inadequate' (EC, 2009a; Figure3.2). In the case
of wetlands (mires, bogs and fens) the situation
is much worse, with some 56% classified as
'unfavourable bad' and another 30% as
'unfavourable inadequate' (EC, 2009a; Box 3.2).
The World Conservation Union (IUCN) has
reported that some 38% of Europe's freshwater
fish species are threatened with extinction
(IUCN,2007). Other freshwater biodiversity
also has poor conservation status, with 15% of
European dragonflies and damselflies threatened
with extinction (Kalkman etal., 2010) and 23%
of European amphibians classified as threatened
(Temple and Cox, 2009). The four species of
freshwater crabs occurring in Europe are all
considered 'near threatened' (Vi etal., 2009).
17
Map 3.1
-30
Threatened and introduced freshwater fish species in the pan-European region
-20
-10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Percentage of native
freshwater fish that are
classified globally
as 'threatened'
40
60
07
815
1630
3144
Number of native freshwater
species that are classified
globally as threatened
50
30
025
2650
51100
40
0
0
-30
-10
10
10
30
50 60
20
70
80
30
90
40
60
-30
-10
10
1000
500
40
1500 Km
50
30
50 60
70
80
90
40
60
101344
Percentage of freshwater
species that are introduced
(non-native)
011
1220
50
2129
50
30
40
10
20
30
500 1000 1500 Km
40
50
30
40
10
20
30
500 1000 1500 Km
40
50
3069
Outside report
coverage
Source: EEA, 2007a.
18
At the pan-European scale, the first analyses of data

on freshwater biodiversity show that more than 75%
of European catchment areas are subject to multiple
pressures and have been heavily modified, resulting
in serious threats to their biodiversity (Tockner
etal., 2008). Furthermore, up to 40% of native fish
have disappeared at the catchment scale, especially
long-migrating species such as sturgeons, allis shad
(Alosa alosa) and lampreys (Tockner etal., 2008).
Concentrations of BOD and ammonium are key

indicators of the organic matter and oxygen content
of water bodies. They normally increase as a result
of organic pollution due to discharges from waste
water treatment plants, industrial effluent and
agricultural run-off. Severe organic pollution may
lead to rapid de-oxygenation of river water along
with increased ammonium levels and consequent
disappearance of fish and aquatic invertebrates.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and total

ammonium concentration have decreased in
European rivers over the period 19922007,
corresponding to the general improvement in
wastewater treatment (Figure 3.3). BOD and
ammonium concentrations are generally highest
in eastern, southern and south-eastern European
rivers. The largest declines in BOD are evident in the
rivers of western Europe, while the biggest drops in
ammonium concentration are apparent in eastern
European countries.
The most important sources of organic waste

load are household waste water, discharges
from industries such as paper production or
food processing, and occasional silage or slurry
effluents from agriculture. Increased industrial and
agricultural production, coupled with a greater
percentage of the population being connected to
sewerage systems, initially resulted in increased
discharge of organic waste into surface water across
most European countries after the 1940s. Over the
past 1530 years, however, biological treatment of
Figure 3.2 Conservation status of assessed

freshwater animal species in
EU25, by biogeographical region
Figure 3.3 Biochemical Oxygen Demand

(BOD5) and total ammonium
concentrations in rivers between
1992 and 2007
BOD5 (mg O2/l)
Pannonian (35)
Mediterranean (81)
Total ammonium (g N/l)
4.5
900
4.0
800
3.5
700
3.0
600
2.5
500
2.0
400
1.5
300
1.0
200
0.5
100
0.0
Continental (75)
Boreal (27)
Atlantic (54)
Alpine (72)
50
75
Favourable
Unknown
%
100
9
19 2
9
19 3
9
19 4
9
19 5
9
19 6
9
19 7
9
19 8
9
20 9
0
20 0
0
20 1
0
20 2
0
20 3
0
20 4
0
20 5
0
20 6
07
25
19
Unfavourable bad
Note:
Source: ETC/BD, 2008.
BOD5 (1 640)
Note:
Total ammonium (2 272)
How to read the graph: between 1992 and 2007, BOD5

decreased from 4 mg O2/l to 2 mg O2/l and ammonium
from 700 g N/l to 300 g N/l
Source: Waterbase, 2009; SEBI 2010 Indicator 16.
Box 3.2 Mires, including bogs and fens

Mires are often grouped together with inland waterways but often have little in common in terms of species,
threats or responses. For example, invasive species currently do not appear to be an acute threat to mire
diversity (Nobanis, 2009). The largest share of the total European mire area lies in the Nordic countries and
available data indicate a considerable decline in mire biodiversity in this region (Normander etal., 2009),
with a drastic fall in pristine mire area, and declining bird and butterfly populations. In the EU, drainage
ditches, afforestation, tree felling, river diversion, flooding and fertilisation are major threats (Minayeva
etal., 2009; Bragg and Lindsay, 2003). Between 1990 and 2006 some wetlands (marshes and bogs)
decreased in area by 5%.
The Water Framework Directive (EC, 2000) protects Europe's inland waters but there is no similar directive
for mires, bogs and fens. Internationally, mires are protected under the Convention on Wetlands of
International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar, 1971). While the loss of wetland habitats
in Europe is continuing, there is some progress in conserving 'wetlands of international importance' under
the Convention. This is indicated by the steady increase in the area designated in the past decade and
the growing number of restoration and local community awareness projects in many countries. However,
Ramsar sites still face many threats and most have reported negative changes in ecological state.
19
wastewater has increased and organic discharges

have consequently decreased throughout Europe.
Nutrient levels in freshwater habitats are decreasing.
The average nitrate concentration in European
rivers has decreased since 1992, from 2.5 mg N/l
to 2.1 mg N/l, reflecting the effect of measures to
reduce agricultural inputs of nitrate. Nitrate levels
in lakes are generally much lower than in rivers but
there has also been a 15% reduction of the average
concentration in lakes (Figure 3.4).
Agriculture is the largest contributor of nitrogen
pollution but the Nitrates Directive (EC, 1991b) and
national measures have reduced nitrogen pollution
from agriculture in some regions during the last
1015 years. European air emissions of nitrogen
oxides have declined by one third over the last
15 years and the deposition of nitrogen on inland
surface waters has also fallen.
Phosphorus concentrations in European rivers and
lakes generally decreased during the last 15years
Figure 3.4 Concentrations of nitrate and

orthophosphate in rivers and
total phosphorus in lakes in the
period 19922007
mg N/l
mg P/l
0.18
3.0
0.16
2.5
0.14
0.12
2.0
0.10
1.5
0.08
0.06
1.0
0.04
0.5
0.02
7
20
0
5
20
0
20
03
20
01
19
99
19
97
19
95
19
93
0.0
Nitrate (1 281)
Orthophosphate (830)
Total phosphorus lakes (332)
Note:
Total number of stations in parenthesis. Concentrations

are expressed as weighted means of annual mean
concentrations for rivers and lakes. Only stations with
time series of seven years or more are included.
Source: Waterbase, 2009; SEBI 2010 Indicator 16.
20
as a result of better wastewater treatment and

reduced phosphate content in detergents. In many
rivers the reduction started in the 1980s. During
recent decades phosphorus concentrations have
also fallen gradually in many European lakes
due to nutrient removal measures introduced by
national and European legislation, particularly
the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive
(EC,1991a). As treatment of urban wastewater
has improved and many wastewater outlets have
been diverted from lakes, point source pollution is
gradually becoming less important. Agricultural
inputs of phosphorus are still significant and need
increased attention for lakes and rivers to achieve
agood status.
Indicators of improved water quality, notably the
return of species such as salmon and common
otter in increasing numbers in Denmark, the
Netherlands and the United Kingdom (EEA, 2010a),
demonstrate positive trends for some species
in some areas. While there has been progress in
reducing the pressures on freshwater habitats,
nutrient impacts persist. Although there remains
considerable potential for restoring freshwater
habitats throughout pan-Europe, many EU river
basins are unlikely to achieve the Water Framework
Directive requirement of good ecological status by
2015 (EEA,2010a).
Threats
Habitat loss and degradation: heavy modification
of river systems (e.g. drainage and damming)
and fragmentation may seriously affect
freshwater biodiversity, interrupting migration
of fish, preventing access to spawning sites and
impoverishing freshwater habitats (EEA, 2010a).
Invasive alien species: with increased travel, trade
and tourism, the pan-European area is likely to
see a significant increase in invasive alien species
(CBD, 2010). This is already a significant problem
in some catchment areas, such as Central Asia and
the Atlantic coast, where the share of non-native fish
exceeds 40% (Tockner, 2008; Map 3.1).
Pollution and nutrient load: although pollution
has fallen significantly in numerous European
freshwater habitats in the last two decades
(EEA,2010a), micro-pollutant contamination
(chemical pollution, such as endocrine disruptors,
from private households, agriculture and industry)
has become a cause for concern, with many adverse
impacts on aquatic ecosystems (FOEN, 2009). The
Nitrates Directive and the Urban Waste Water
Directive have markedly improved many rivers and

lakes in recent decades (EEA, 2009a). The Water
Framework Directive represents a further step
forward, as it brings together existing EU water
legislation and sets the goal of 'good ecological
status' for water bodies by 2015.
Overexploitation and unsustainable use: water
scarcity and over-abstraction have resulted in
increased concentrations of pollutants (EEA,
2010a). Unsustainable hunting and fishing practices
(EEA,2006a), tourism and recreational activities
have also impacted on freshwater biodiversity.
Climate change: freshwater biodiversity is highly
vulnerable to climate change, with species and
habitat dynamics largely interrelated. Increased
CO2 concentrations and rising temperatures affect
processes such as photosynthesis, respiration and
decomposition (EEA, 2010b). Further impacts of
climate change on freshwater biodiversity include:
annual runoff increasing and decreasing, drought
and flooding, phenological changes and an increase
in invasive alien species.
Management issues
Freshwater ecosystem biodiversity across Europe
is managed using protected areas and measures
pursuant to the Water Framework Directive, which
advocates an ecosystem services approach.
There is significant potential to reduce biodiversity
loss in freshwater systems. Opportunities include
reversing the trend of wetland habitat loss in
Europe; removing pressure from water abstraction,
drainage or damming; removing underlying causes
for converting wetlands to forest; and limiting
fragmentation from urbanisation and transport
development. The negative impacts of tourism,
recreational activities, unsustainable hunting
and fishing in freshwater habitats can be greatly
reduced.
Additional issues to be tackled include invasive
species and agricultural runoff (EEA, 2009a).
Addressing the drivers of habitat loss and
fragmentation is essential, while also assessing
in detail some of the least studied freshwater
ecosystems such as riverine floodplains and deltas,
which are among the most threatened (Tockner
etal., 2008).
A large proportion of Europe's freshwater habitats
and species are protected under EU directives
(notably the Birds and Habitats Directives) but the
key legislation for protecting Europe's waters is the

Water Framework Directive, which could go a long
way in solving the issues raised in this section. The
Water Framework Directive is relevant to nature
protection, requiring that countries establish a
register of areas designated as requiring special
protection for the conservation of habitats and
species dependent on water (Article 6). The Water
Framework Directive was adopted due to increasing
awareness of the importance of conserving riverine
and wetland habitats. Its main objective is to achieve
good water status by 2015. Although we will not
know its true impact for a number of years, it
appears to contain the measures needed to address
biodiversity protection and sustainable use of
Europe's freshwater ecosystems (EEA, 2010a).
The Water Framework Directive defines the
ecological status that freshwater ecosystems need
to reach but gives EU Member States flexibility
and discretion in restoring such habitats. Some
nonEUcountries have comparable policies and
targets regarding water protection and management.
However, increased enforcement and monitoring is
essential for most pan-European freshwater habitats.
3.2 Mountain ecosystems
Key messages
European mountain regions provide essential
ecosystem services such as supplying and
regulating water for communities in both
mountain and lowlands areas. They also host
a high diversity of habitats and species, many
adapted to extreme climatic conditions.
Mountain ecosystems are fragile and
vulnerable, and are severely threatened by
land abandonment or intensified agriculture,
infrastructure development and rapid climate
change.
Several important factors increase resilience
to the major threats to mountain ecosystems.
In addition to designating protected areas,
measures to improve connectivity and
ecosystem-based management are key for
conserving mountain ecosystems, particularly
helping adapt to climate change.
Urgent action is needed to minimise the risk
of local extinction of several species and to
counteract the effects of habitat fragmentation
and changes in land use.
International cooperation across European
mountain ranges can support improved
integrated management practices.
21
Status and trends

According to research in the EU-27, Norway and
Switzerland, around 40% of the total land area
of these countries is classified as mountain area
and around 60% of the total population lives
in or near mountain areas (Nordic Centre for
Spatial Development, 2004). Mountain areas vary
significantly throughout the pan-European region
and include areas such as the Alps, the Carpathians
and the Caucasus mountains. Mountain areas host
higher species richness and levels of endemism than
adjacent lowlands due to their ecological isolation
and special climate conditions combined with their
biogeographic history (EEA, 2006a).
European mountain areas are extremely diverse
in terms of biology, landscapes, languages and
cultures. It is estimated that there are approximately
30000animal species in the Alps, and also about one
third of all European flora (CBD, 2003). About 9% of
European butterflies are threatened with extinction,
with most European endemic butterflies being
restricted to mountainous areas (van Swaay etal.,
2010). Approximately three quarters of the vascular
Map 3.2
-30
plants of the entire European continent grow in the

Alpine region (WWF, 2004), of which the endangered
and widely known edelweiss is a good example.
The Carpathians are one of Europe's largest
mountain ranges and host the headwaters of
several major rivers (Carpathian Convention, 2009).
The Carpathians are an important reservoir for
biodiversity and a key refuge for large mammals
such as the brown bear, wolf and lynx. They are also
home to populations of European bison, moose,
wildcat, chamois, golden eagle, eagle owl, black
grouse and many endemic insect species and plants.
The mountains of Central Asia are a biodiversity
hotspot (Myers etal., 2000) in the pan-European
region. Central Asia has many mountains above
6500meters in elevation. Their ecosystems range
from glaciers to desert, and they hold a large number
of endemic plant and mushroom species (Carpathian
Convention, 2009). Map 3.2 shows the major
European mountain ranges.
The western Caucasus is one of the few large
mountain areas of Europe that humans have not
significantly altered, containing extensive tracts
Major mountain ranges of Europe

-20
-10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Major mountain ranges

of Europe
Meters
407 to 0
050
51125
60
126250
251500
50
5011 000
1 0011500
1 5012 000
2 0013 000
3 0014 000
50
4 0015 000
5 0016 000
40
40
500
1000
150010
km
20
30
Source: Global Digital Elevation Model (GTOPO30) USGS EROS Data Center.
22
40
of undisturbed mountain forests. This area has

a great diversity of ecosystems, with endemic
plants and wildlife. It is also the place of origin and
reintroduction of the mountain sub-species of the
European bison. Water is inherently a crucial issue for
mountain ecosystems and it is important to preserve
or re-establish healthy water systems (Alpine
Convention, 2009).
The CBD report on threats to mountain biodiversity
lists a number of impacts on threatened species
(CBD, 2003). Populations of 'flag' species such
as the snow leopard and Argali sheep have been
drastically reduced due to poaching. Today, there
are no more than 200 leopards and 150 Argali in
the Russian part of Altai-Sayan left. It is estimated
that 70% of the endangered species' trade to
Europe from Asia now passes through Central Asia
(CBD,2003).
Threats
Habitat loss and degradation: mountain landscapes
are particularly fragile and susceptible to change and
degradation. They include a wide range of small and
unique habitats that may be particularly sensitive to
disturbance by human activity (UNEP, 2007). Pressure
on mountain forests in many parts of the world is
increasing. Travel to mountain areas, which already
attracts up to 20% of global tourism, is increasing
rapidly (UNEP, 2007).
Invasive alien species: recent studies have shown
that invasive species are being encountered at ever
higher altitudes (Pauchard etal., 2009).
Pollution and nutrient load: pollution of mountain
rivers occurs through wastewater discharge or
water abstraction (EEA, 2009b). Other impacts occur
indirectly. For example, higher runoff rates may
worsen water quality as it transports sediments
and eroded soil. A regional assessment of European
mountain lake ecosystems has shown that high
mountain lakes are sensitive to environmental change
and that many countries have recorded effects of air
pollution and lake acidification (EMERGE, 2002).
Overexploitation and unsustainable use: tourism
often involves the development and intense use
of tracks, paths and sports slopes by vehicles,
non-motorised transport and pedestrian traffic.
Visitors are also usually concentrated in small areas,
contributing to increased noise and waste. The
negative environmental effects of poorly managed
tourism can include vegetation clearing and soil
erosion, removal of scarce habitats, altering critical
landscapes and water flows, water and air pollution,

and wildlife relocation or behavioural changes.
Climate change: mountain areas are among the
most sensitive to climate change, through changes to
temperature, precipitation and runoff (CDE, 2009).
For example, climate-induced glacier shrinkage
could threaten the water balance of some inner alpine
regions. Retreating glaciers may no longer be able
to balance the river discharge during hot and dry
summer months, with reduced water availability as a
result (Zappa and Kan, 2007).
Management issues
Mountains are not covered by a specific policy
framework. Management of mountain ecosystems
is thus governed by policies in other sectors such as
agriculture, water, transport or tourism. International
frameworks and cooperation between mountain
areas become especially important when different
mountain regions contribute water to the same river
(EEA, 2009b). Integrated management approaches
are required that value the services that mountainous
areas provide, counteract the already visible effects of
habitat fragmentation and changes in land use, and
minimise the high risk of local extinctions of several
species.
Protected areas alone are not sufficient to conserve
mountain biodiversity in the long term (Kohler and
Heinrichs, 2009). Protecting nature and conserving
biodiversity successfully requires ecologically
compatible actions across an entire mountain region,
particularly outside protected areas. Connectivity
measures are crucial for conserving mountain
ecosystems beyond protected areas, particularly as
an adaptive response to climate change. Current
efforts to create a functioning ecological network
in the Alps can contribute to conserving the
extraordinarily rich Alpine diversity. Sustainable
grazing and hay meadow management are also
essential to sustain the rich invertebrate diversity of
mountain regions.
An important ecosystem service in mountain regions
and adjacent metropolitan areas is the provision of
drinking water. Large-scale disturbances may lead
to increased runoff and consequently reduced water
storage in catchments, which may lessen water
security and increase soil erosion, flooding and debris
flow activity. Furthermore, accelerated decomposition
of organic matter as a result of canopy openings
(from disturbances) and increased temperatures may
stimulate the leaching of nitrates and other nutrients,
diminishing water quality (Jandl etal., 2008).
23
The sustainability of mountain natural resources

and communities depends on having management
forms that are adapted to local conditions and
situations (FAO, 2007a). Under appropriate
management, mountain ecosystems provide many
benefits to lowland regions (FAO, 2007a). Many
socioeconomic sectors both benefit from and
influence these resources.
Mountain resources are often undervalued

or given away for free but to ensure proper
conservation and management of finite resources
it is important to attempt to assign true economic
values (Mountain Partnership, 2009). Examples
are the lease of land at a market value (which
can still be lower than the true economic value),
charging royalties for mountain trekking and
Box 3.3 Tourism and biodiversity in Europe

Tourism is a significant and growing industry in the pan-European region, particularly impacting biodiversity
in coastal, freshwater, mountain, and forests ecosystems. In 2009, the UN World Tourism Organization
estimated that by 2020 more than 717 million international travellers will visit areas of Europe. Nearly
half (346 million) will travel to the Mediterranean, resulting in additional pressure on the already fragile
ecosystems there, especially the coveted sea and beaches (De Stanfano, 2004; EEA, 2007b).
From day trippers visiting Finnish national parks to seasonal skiers in the Swiss Alps, from birdwatchers in
Spain's largest wetland to sunbathers in the Greek Isles, the literature documents how tourism is increasing
pressure on Europe's unique animals, plants and vital ecosystems. While the findings suggest growing
awareness of the importance of preserving these wild habitats and species, and the role they can play in
fostering a more competitive tourism industry, the behaviour and practices of those involved in the industry
is still lagging behind (Kemp, 1999; Russell, 2007).
Tourism's most obvious impacts on European biodiversity can be seen on the coast (EEA, 2007b). Research
shows a lack of regulation, enforcement and coordination at many levels and with other sectors, which is
contributing to the further demise of Europe's endangered species and habitats (CSIL, 2008). At the once
underdeveloped National Marine Park in Zakynthos, Greece, for example, both the national government and
the European Commission have needed to intercede at different times to halt tourism-related development
and activities from encroaching on the nesting beaches for the endangered loggerhead turtle (Ryan, 1991;
Margaritoulis and Casale, 2007; UNEP, 2009).
In the Baltic Sea, national and regional legislation and enforcement were considered insufficient to protect
the sea's fragile biodiversity and support growth in tourism. Policy challenges included a lack of national
and international laws, complicated and inefficient management structures, poor awareness and public
participation in decision-making and insufficient engagement with private interests (Schernezski and
Neumann, 2002; Schernewski and Sterr, 2002; Jedrzejczak, 2004; Jedrzejczak etal., 2005). In October
2009, the European Council endorsed a new EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, identifying ecotourism
as a key component for sustainable development in the region.
The impacts of tourism can also be seen on other ecosystems. In the Mediterranean, tourism is often
blamed for destroying important freshwater ecosystems, fragmenting and lowering groundwater levels
and drying out wetlands (De Stanfano, 2004). More than 50% of the 25 000 plant species found in
the Mediterranean are endemic. More than 50% of the 253 endemic fish species are threatened with
extinction, mainly due to unsustainable and sometimes illegal water extraction and pollution related to
tourism (Smith and Darwall, 2006).
Mountain ecosystems are also heavily affected. For example, as competition for the growing number
of tourists in the European Alps has increased in the last 15 years (Keller, 2004), so has infrastructure
development at higher altitudes. This has mean ever more second homes, new roads and snow cannons to
ensure the greatest opportunities for skiers. With climate change affecting, for example, the length of the
snow season, Alpine tourism has also expanded what it offers in other seasons to include outdoor sports
that take their toll on the environment. Such investment has had negative impacts on the landscape as
well as the traditional communities, since first documented by Barker in 1982. These activities degrade the
fragile mountain environment and affect the natural food chain, reducing species diversity and the incidence
of rare plants. They also affect insect populations, insectivorous birds and possibly even small mammals
(Williams, 1998).
24
Box 3.3 Tourism and biodiversity in Europe (cont.)

In the Bavarian Alps, even the perceived 'eco-friendly' use of mountain huts by hikers has been shown
to alter the natural competition of species at high altitudes. One study found that the use of the huts
contributed to an increased number of corvids, such as Carrion crows, magpies, jays and nutcrackers. Their
presence in turn affected local food chains. As a consequence, conservation efforts to protect threatened
species, like grouse, could be undermined by mountain tourism (Storch and Leidenberger, 2003).
Like other industries, tourism is likely to be affected by climate change on a large scale. In the Arctic,
where some of the greatest impacts are expected, tourism is on the rise. While tourism offers many
economic opportunities for people in the region, UNEP-GRID warned in 2009 about the dangers of
uncontrolled tourism on this unique area, arguing for stricter policies and practical guidelines to ensure
tourism is sustainable (UNEP-GRID, 2009).
Tourism also contributes to biodiversity loss by helping spread invasive alien species. This is expected to
escalate with increased travel and climate change, wreaking havoc on Europe's wildlife and wild places
despite efforts to halt their intrusion (EEA, 2009c).
On the positive side, where sustainable tourism policies are established and effectively implemented,
tourism can assist biodiversity conservation and local communities. For example, in the Dadia-Lefkimi-Soufli
Forest Reserve in north-east Greece, community involvement is seen as essential to ensuring the reserve's
success (Valoras etal., 2002; Svorounou and Holden, 2005; Hovadas and Korfiatis, 2008). Further north,
Europe's largest marine protected area, the Wadden Sea, is recognised internationally for its important
role as a staging area for millions of birds on the North-East Atlantic Flyway. Policies and investments in
educating and informing tourists about the natural values of the Wadden Sea have paid off for biodiversity
conservation. Many of the millions of tourists who visit the area each year now recognise its natural
significance and help make the case for its protection (Lotze etal., 2005; Stevens and Associates, 2006).
The recent decision of Unesco to declare the Wadden Sea as a World Heritage Site is largely because it has
the support from the local communities, which benefit from nature tourism.
Tourism has also shown that it can support biodiversity protection through protected areas, and the benefits
of these areas go beyond nature conservation (Stolton, 2009). A Flash Eurobarometer survey of Europeans
in 2009 found that only 6.3% listed nature as their primary motivation for taking a holiday in 2008, while
36.5% stated it was for rest and recreation (Eurobarometer, 2009). However, a Eurobarometer survey two
years earlier on attitudes about biodiversity loss found that 55% of the respondents thought biodiversity
was important because it provided rest and recreation (Blackman, 2009). Other benefits are equally
important to local stakeholders. The Pan Parks initiative, for example, has selected five parks as test sites
for generating tourism-related income. The goal is to see these important biologically diverse protected
areas become self-sufficient, both from management and financial perspectives. Voluntary certification and
outreach to local businesses can help support the parks (Pan Parks Foundation, 2009).
There is a range of examples of community-based and region-wide efforts to promote sustainable tourism
and thereby lessen the impacts on Europe's biodiversity (Todorovic, 2003; Nylander and Hall, 2005; EU,
2009). At the global level, the Linking Tourism and Conservation initiative of UNEP/GRID seeks to take
advantage of the interests of tourists visiting protected areas and to multiply existing good examples where
tourism is supporting biodiversity conservation (UNEP-GRID, 2009).
Much of the literature emphasises the potential for sustainable tourism to provide economic, social and
environmental benefits for communities. However, it also stresses that these activities must be coupled
with effective regulation, coordination and information at all levels (Papayannis, 2004). While individuals
have a role to play in reducing their ecological footprint, ensuring tourism is developed and regulated in
a sustainable manner, and at the scale needed to protect Europe's biodiversity, is seen to be the principal
responsibility of the local, provincial, national and regional authorities not the industry or businesses or
the tourists themselves.
In conclusion, research on the impacts of tourism policies on Europe's wild animal and plant species and
their habitats is largely based on specific local and regional examples. There is growing evidence of the
links between Europe's biodiversity loss and a lack of coordination, enforcement and development of
tourism policies. Therefore, further studies and policies are urgently needed to address these issues.
25
developing frameworks for beneficiaries to pay

for the ecosystem services provided by mountain
environments.
Europe is, however, still struggling to halt

the loss of forest biodiversity. Institutional
changes, including privatisation in many
formerly centrally planned economies, have
led to an intensification of commercial forestry
in unprotected areas, increasing pressures on
biodiversity.
3.3 Forest ecosystems

Key messages
Status and trends
Forests provide a wide range of ecosystem

services such as soil protection and regulating
watersheds and local hydrological systems. They
regulate the local, regional and global climate,
store carbon, and purify air and freshwater.
Deforestation has historically been a major
issue in Europe. During the past 20 years,
deforestation has been under better control and
limited to only a few regions; overall there has
been an expansion of forest cover in Europe.
Using protected areas and other management
measures, European countries are protecting and
restoring their forest biodiversity. Around 3% of
European forests are protected for biodiversity
conservation (or over 8% if Russia's forest area
is excluded) and 25% of EU forests are excluded
from wood harvesting.
Forest certification schemes are being
implemented in many European countries
and within the pan-European forestry process
37countries are participating in the development
and implementation of criteria and indicators for
sustainable forest management.
EU forests and other wooded areas now cover

176million hectares, which is more than 42% of
the EU land area (EC, 2010b). However, there are
significant differences in the extent and distribution
of forests in different regions of the EU (EEA, 2010a).
Data on the total area of forest in Europe show
an expansion in forest cover in most countries
between 1990 and 2005 (EEA, 2009d), partly due to
afforestation programmes and natural regeneration
on abandoned agricultural or formerly grazed land
(EC, 2006d). However, these statistics can mask
decreases in areas of natural forest and increases in
plantations of non-native species, such as eucalyptus
(e.g. Pereira etal., 2001).
The conservation status of species and habitats
of European interest differs strongly between
biogeographical regions but more than half of
species and nearly two thirds of habitats have an
unfavourable conservation status. In particular,
52% of forest species of European interest have
Figure 3.5 Conservation status of species of Community interest in forest ecosystems in EU-25
15 %
Alpine (88)
33 %
Atlantic (53)
Boreal (64)
Continental (79)
Macaronesian (39)
29 %
Mediterranean (94)
Pannonian (60)
23 %
%
0
Favourable
Note:
Unknown
26
20
Unfavourable bad
40
60
80
100
Figure 3.6 Conservation status of habitat types of Community interest in forest ecosystems
in EU-25
16 %
Alpine (37)
21 %
Atlantic (26)
Boreal (18)
Continental (37)
Macaronesian (7)
Mediterranean (46)
35 %
28 %
Pannonian (16)
%
0
Favourable
Note:
Unknown
20
40
60
80
100
Unfavourable bad
an 'unfavourable' conservation status (Figure 3.5).

Only 15% of the assessments report a favourable
conservation status. The Macaronesian and Boreal
regions report the highest percentage of favourable
assessments (ETC/BD, 2008).
Even more worrying, of the 73 forest habitat types
listed in the Habitats Directive that were assessed,
63% had 'unfavourable' conservation status, while
just 21% were 'favourable' (Figure 3.6). In contrast
to the situation with respect to species, the highest
percentage of favourable assessments was in the
Mediterranean and the Alpine regions, with no

favourable assessments reported in the Atlantic,
Boreal and Macaronesian regions.
Within the SEBI 2010 set of indicators, two specific
indicators have been selected to address sustainable
management of forest ecosystems: forest growing
stock, increment and fellings; and deadwood. The
first provides information on the stock size, wood
production and production capability. Deadwood
provides additional information on the state of
the ecosystem, as a proxy for the state of many
Figure 3.7 Deadwood in pan-European forests, 19902005

Tonnes/hectare
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Central Asia
1990
EU-27 + EFTA
2000
Caucasus
South-east Europe
Eastern Europe
2005
Source: FAO, 2005; SEBI 2010 Indicator 18.
27
invertebrate species, whose status is difficult to

measure
Deadwood volumes have strongly decreased since
the middle of the 19th century due to intense
forest exploitation and widespread burning of
small wood and other debris. Between 1990 and
2005, however, they increased overall by about
4.3% (Figure 3.7), perhaps due to increased
compliance with sustainable forest management
principles (UNECE/FAO, 2007). However, these
data should be interpreted with caution. First,
deadwood inventory methods and data reliability
differ between countries. Second, management
objectives and practices regarding deadwood may
vary between countries and forests depending
on the local conditions. For example, in forests
with a relatively high risk of fire, pest outbreak or
diseases, the amount of dead wood may be kept to
a minimum.
One critical indicator of biodiversity that is totally
dependent on deadwood is the status of saproxylic
beetles, which was assessed at in pan-Europe region
and the EU-27. At the pan-European level nearly
11% of assessed species were considered threatened,
while a slightly higher proportion of threatened
species was seen in the EU-27 (14% threatened)
(Nieto and Alexander, 2010).
Indicators are also available that directly monitor
forest-dependent species such as birds. Figure3.8
Figure 3.8 Populations of common forest
bird species in four European
regions
%
120
+1%
100
2%
80
31 %
60
35 %
40
20
0
1980
Note:
1985
1995
2000
2005
West Europe (26)
North Europe (22)
Central and East Europe (25)
South Europe (21)
Number of species per indicator in brackets.
Source: PECBM, 2007.
28
1990
illustrates that between 1980 and 2005, the population

size of common forest bird species declined by 31%
in northern Europe and 35% in southern Europe
while remaining relatively stable in western and
eastern Europe. As a particular example, populations
of lesser-spotted woodpecker (Dendrocopos minor) and
willow tit (Parus montanus) declined more steeply in
western Europe than in central and eastern Europe.
Both depend on deciduous forests with old trees and
deadwood (EEA, 2008).
Threats
Habitat loss and degradation: increased
fragmentation, mainly due to urban and transport
infrastructure, threatens forest ecosystems across
Europe. It is often masked in the aggregated data
and reporting on trends in forest growth, volume
and area of forested land.
Invasive alien species: movement of plant
stock and tourism can introduce species. For
example, 19EUMember States have reported
and taken official measures to control the
pathogen Phytophthora ramorum, which affects
rhododendron, viburnum and camellia shrubs
(RAPRA, 2009).
Pollution and nutrient load: air pollution is a major
threat to Europe's forest biodiversity. For example,
air pollution can degrade or destroy culturally
and historically important ancient woodlands
and associated species (EEA, 2010a). Forest soil
acidification is widespread in Europe, despite now
being below critical loads in many countries. It
is mainly caused by atmospheric depositions of
pollutants, especially related to nitrogen emissions,
which can affect tree roots and soil biodiversity
and also impair the supply of nutrients to plants
(ICPForests, 2009).
Overexploitation and unsustainable use:
intensifying forest management using fertilisers has
a serious impact on biodiversity. Forest pests also
cause problems to varying degrees, with the overall
damage often less severe in well managed forests.
In addition, a much larger proportion of forest fires
recorded during the past 20 years are attributed to
man-made sources.
Climate change: climate change is likely to affect
forest stands directly through changing temperature
and precipitation patterns (especially on the edge of
tree species distribution), and indirectly, by altering
the distribution and frequency of viruses, pests,
small fires and wind damage.
Box 3.4 Forests mechanisms for adapting to climate change

Tree populations have three biological adaptation options to avoid extinction in a rapidly changing climate:

persistence based on the inherent flexibility (or 'plasticity') of tree species, enabling them to withstand
awide range of environments;
genetic adaptation to new conditions in existing locations;
migration to areas with more suitable conditions.
Climate change is likely to favour species with high levels of plasticity (whereas low plasticity may lead to
extinction). At forest ecosystem level, the co-existence of tree species with different plasticity levels can act
as a buffer against changes.
In many parts of Europe, the rate of climate change is likely to exceed the adaptive capacity of many wild
and domesticated plant species, including forest trees, which have the highest levels of genetic diversity of
any group of plants and have wide geographic and ecological ranges.
In Europe, maintaining forest genetic diversity plays a crucial role in sustainable forest management and
conserving forest biodiversity by ensuring a continuous evolutionary process within tree populations and
maintaining the resilience of forest ecosystems. Widely distributed tree species in Europe are unlikely to
face extinction at the species level due to climate change but some local populations are likely to decline,
in particular at the edge of distribution ranges. However, tree species with scattered and/or limited
distributions are more vulnerable and may face serious threats, including at the species level.
Including genetic diversity considerations in practical forest management is highly recommended as a
means to diversify and reduce risk. It also benefits society by ensuring a supply of goods and services from
forests. Climate change's impacts on competition between trees and other living organisms (plants, insects,
pests, fungal and bacterial diseases) may also significantly affect the survival of tree species, forest habitats
and biodiversity.
There is evidence that evolution in tree populations can occur over a few generations or less than
200years, while local adaptation of tree populations can occur even over one generation. Estimates of
migration rates differ considerably among tree species but they are considered to be less than 100 metres
per year on average. A study estimated that migration rates of more than 1 000 metres per year will be
needed to respond to future climate change (EEA, 2010c). It is therefore unlikely that natural migration will
cope with rapid climate change. Assisted migration will therefore be needed, especially for tree species in
fragmented landscapes and with small population sizes (EEA, 2010c).
Management issues
The EU Forest Strategy, EU Forest Action Plan
and other policies that indirectly address forest
issues are assessed by the European Union, the
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
Timber Committee, and the Ministerial Conference
on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE).
In addition, a number of sub-regional processes
and initiatives contribute to the policy framework
for forests, including the Alpine Convention,
Carpathian Convention and south-east European
(Balkan) mountain initiative.
Several developments have impacted on European
forest resources. First, to various extents policies
in Europe have changed in recent years to
reflect increased public interest in sustainable
development. Support for recycling (including of

paper) has increased in many European countries.
More recently, renewable energy has also been
promoted as a major component of environmental
policies. Within the forest sector, policies have
encouraged the production of non-market benefits
and, particularly in western Europe, forestry has
been promoted as an alternative to agriculture.
Another notable development has been
institutional and administrative changes in the
way that governments act within the sector. In
recent years, many forest sector institutions and
legal frameworks have adapted to changing
circumstances (e.g. separation of 'authority' and
'management' functions for public forests). Some
countries have partially privatised state forest
assets and, in eastern Europe, restoring forests to
29
their previous owners has created a vast number

of small private forest owners. Furthermore,
where significant areas of forest remain in public
ownership, many governments have encouraged
their public forest managers to act more like private
forest owners by setting clear commercial targets
and more clearly separating the different roles of
the forestry administration.
Since the 1970s, forestry throughout North America
and Europe has undergone a massive structural
change, heralded by the spread of advanced
mechanisation and outsourcing of forest work as
the standard mode of operation in more and more
enterprises and countries. The combined effect has
been dramatic falls in the number of forest workers
and the emergence of private contractors brought
in to harvest wood. Most experts believe that
independent contractors tend to ignore concerns
about biodiversity (Puumalainen etal., 2002). The
use of certification standards may be an effective
way to ensure that negative effects on biodiversity
are limited.
Demands on forests and their services will
become stronger, more complex and spatially
more diversified. Producing timber and pulp
and other traditional forest resources will have
to be balanced against providing other kinds
of goods and services (e.g. bioenergy, but also
cultural services and water management) from
forest ecosystems. Green (public) procurement
policies, Payment for Environmental Services
(PES) schemes and other incentive structures
related to 'greening the economy' and creating
a 'carbon neutral' society are likely to become
more important mechanisms to influence forest
management. However, they will not compensate
fully the decrease in income from wood
production. As a result, the profitability of forest
management will continue to be a challenge.
Status and trends

Oceans and seas cover more than half of the territory
of the EU-27. Of the 64 large marine ecosystems
(LMEs) defined worldwide (Sherman etal., 1990),
13 are located around the European continent. The
LMEs of the Baltic Sea, Black Sea, Celtic-Biscay
shelf, Mediterranean Sea and North Sea are linked
to and influenced by the coastal zones and inland
catchments of the EU area. Habitats range from
highly productive near-shore regions to the deep
sea floor inhabited only by highly specialised
organisms.
Key messages
Some environmental changes at the global and

European scale are likely to have significant and
far-reaching consequences for marine biodiversity.
In addition to fisheries, marine ecosystems provide
other key services both globally (e.g. oxygen
production, nutrient cycles, carbon capture through
photosynthesis and carbon sequestration) and at the
regional and local scales (e.g. coastline protection,
bioremediation of waste and pollutants, and a
variety of aesthetic and cultural values) (MARBEF,
2008).
Coastal and marine ecosystems provide a range

of services including defence against rising
sea levels, oxygen production, nutrient cycles,
carbon sequestration, food, bioremediation of
waste and pollutants, and a variety of aesthetic
and cultural values.
Available information indicates that the
loss of biodiversity in all European seas and
coasts is considerable and shows little sign of
Biodiversity loss impairs a marine ecosystem's

capacity to deliver services such as providing
food, maintaining water quality and recovering
from perturbations (Worm etal., 2006). According
to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species,
approximately 3 000 marine species have been
assessed globally for the threat of extinction.
At the European level, approximately 22% of
marine mammals were classified as in 'threatened'
3.4 Coastal and marine ecosystems
30
being reduced; however integrated data and

information to document the extent and severity
of problems are lacking.
Data compiled under Article 17 of the Habitats
Directive reveal that the unknowns for marine
species and habitats are much greater than those
for terrestrial ecosystems.
Overexploitation of marine fisheries is a major
threat to marine ecosystems. Many fishery
resources are still not being used sustainably
with some 45% of assessed European stocks
falling outside safe biological limits.
Invasive alien species remain a threat.
EU governments agree that an ecosystembased
approach is the best means to manage
and govern activities affecting the marine
environment. Synergies between the marine and
maritime policy framework and well established
marine nature protection policy will benefit
European marine biodiversity.
Figure 3.9 Conservation status of marine

habitat types and species of
Community interest in EU-25
Figure 3.10 Marine Tropic Index percentage

change in Europe between 1950
and 2004
Marine species excluding

diadromous fishes *
(81)
Black Sea
Baltic Sea
Iceland Shelf/Sea
Marine species including

diadromous fishes *
(93)
Greenland Sea
Celtic-Biscay Shelf
Marine habitat types

(20)
North Sea
Barents Sea
Terrestrial species
(1 808)
Iberian Coastal
Norwegian Sea
Terrestrial habitat types

(681)
Faroe Plateau
0
Favourable
Unknown
Note:
20
40
60
80
100
Mediterranean Sea
14
12
10
Unfavourable bad
* = migrating between fresh and salt water.

Note:
How to read the graph: The MTI for the Black Sea was
about 13% lower in 2004 than it was in 1950.
Source: Sea Around Us Project, 2009; SEBI 2010 Indicator 12.
categories, with 7.4% rated as 'critically

endangered', 7.4% as 'endangered' and 7.4% as
'vulnerable' (Temple and Terry, 2007; IUCN, 2010).
smaller fish that are lower in the food chain. The

index has been endorsed by the CBD as a measure
of marine biodiversity, overall ecosystem health
and stability, but also serves as a proxy measure for
overfishing. Examining change in the MTI over time
reveals how much a country is altering fish stocks
in the marine ecosystem (Figure 3.10). If the change
is negative, it means the overall trophic structure of
the marine ecosystem is becoming depleted of larger
fish higher up the food chain, and smaller fish lower
in the food chain are being caught. However, if the
change in the MTI is zero or positive, the fishery
is either stable or improving. The MTI declined in
11European seas since the mid 1950s, indicating
the unsustainability of fisheries in those waters
(EEA,2009a).
According to reporting under Article 17 of the

Habitats Directive, less than 5% of marine species
and 10% of marine habitats have a favourable
conservation status, while for coastal habitats only
10% have a favourable status, and more than 30%
have an 'unfavourable bad' status (ETC/BD, 2008;
Figure 3.9).
Fishing has led to local extinctions, especially
among large, long-lived and slow-growing species
with narrow geographical ranges (MEA, 2005).
Destructive fishing practices, in particular trawling
and dredging, change the structure of marine
ecosystems with consequences for their capacity to
provide ecosystem services.
Threats
A further impact of fishing is by-catch, for

example of small whales in the Mediterranean, the
CelticBiscay shelf, the North Sea and the Arctic
and marine turtles in the Mediterranean. Seabird
by-catch, both by long-lines and gill nets, affects
many European bird species, including, the critically
endangered Balearic Shearwater, endemic to the EU.
Habitat loss and degradation: marine and coastal

biodiversity face an unprecedented range of
pressures (see below) causing habitat loss and
degradation. Coastal habitats are fragile and are
being destroyed to make way for housing, industry,
agricultural land and infrastructure for tourism and
transport (see Box 3.3 on tourism above).
The Marine Trophic Index (MTI) measures the

degree to which countries are 'fishing down the food
chain', with fish catches increasingly consisting of
Invasive alien species: coastal waters are especially

prone to invasive alien species, introduced both
intentionally and unintentionally. In Europe, the
31
Figure 3.11 Alien species in European marine

and estuarine waters
Cumulative number of species
1 400
1 200
1 000
800
600
400
200
nk
no
w
n
<
19 19
00 00
19 19
10 09
19 19
20 19
19 19
30 29
19 1
40 93
9
19 19
50 49
19 1
60 95
9
19 19
70 69
19 19
80 79
19 1
90 98
9
20 19
00 99
2
00
8
Primary producers
Note:
Invertebrates
Vertebrates
The indicator on the cumulative number of alien

species established in Europe includes data from all
European countries with marine or estuarine waters,
as well as non-European countries bordering European
seas. In the 1990s, the total number of alien marine
species increased to around 1 000. Casual records are
included except for those dating from before 1920 and
those relating to species that were not sighted again
and are therefore assumed extinct. For an additional
31species (15 primary producers, 16 invertebrates)
the date of establishment is unknown.
Source: SEBI 2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species,

based on national data sets (Belgium, Denmark,
Germany, Malta and the United Kingdom) available
online; review papers (the Netherlands and Turkey);
NEMO database for the Baltic; Black Sea database;
HCMR database for the Mediterranean; project
reports (ALIENS, DAISIE); and the contributions of
experts from France, Spain and Russia made during a
dedicated workshop; SEBI 2010 Indicator 10.
32
Marine litter is increasingly recognised as a modern

form of pollution, with entanglement and ingestion
of marine litter causing direct damage to wildlife,
including most marine top predators (Cuttelod
etal., 2009; Gregory, 2009). For example, Young
etal.(2009) report that the Laysean albatross has a
deadly diet composed of large amounts of plastic.
There is increasing concern about the role of
microplastics as a vector in transporting persistent
and toxic substances, and the risk that ingesting
plastic debris and micro-plastics can introduce toxic
chemicals into the food chain.
Pollution sources in open marine systems include
oil and gas platforms and ever-increasing maritime
traffic. Major oil spills in the open sea are relatively
rare in European waters but may have big impacts,
also on the coastal zone. The role of river inflows
is most important for enclosed seas like the Baltic
and Black Seas. The pressure of industrial pollution
can be shown by the elevated levels of heavy
metals, pesticides and hydrocarbons and plastic
derivatives that accumulate in living fish (EEA,2006a;
EEA,2007c).
Overexploitation and unsustainable use:
overexploitation of fish stocks and other marine
organisms has significant impacts ecosystem
goods and services. Fishing fleet overcapacity is a
severe problem for European marine ecosystems
(EC, 2009b), with 88% of Community fish stocks
fished beyond Maximum Sustainable Yields. Less
fishing pressure now would allow stocks to recover,
delivering greater yields in future years. Troublingly,
however, 46% of overfished Community fish stocks
are even outside safe biological limits that may not
allow recovery (Map 3.3; EEA, 2009a).
cumulative number of alien species has been

increasing constantly since the 1900s (Figure 3.11).
Unlike terrestrial and freshwater species, whose
increase may be slowing or levelling off, the number
of alien species introduced to marine and estuarine
waters continues to increase.
Besides overexploitation of commercial fish

stocks, current fishing practices can also threaten
other marine ecosystem components, e.g. marine
mammals, seabirds and sea floor habitats. As a
consequence, marine habitats become less resilient
and more vulnerable to other pressures, such as
alien invasive species (EEA, 2007c).
Pollution and nutrient load: eutrophication

continues to be a major problem affecting most
European seas. Nitrogen and phosphorus loads
originating from agricultural runoff and households
encourage phytoplankton blooms, which perturb
the pelagic system (i.e. open sea). Despite reduced
point sources of nutrient pollution (sewage and
industrial waste), non-point (or diffuse) sources
of pollution (agricultural runoff) continue to be a
problem (EEA,2005a, 2005b; EC, 2007a; Andersen
and Conley, 2009).
Climate change and ocean acidification: impacts

on marine biodiversity are already visible and are
very likely to cause large-scale alterations within
marine ecosystems: sea surface temperatures and
sea levels are rising; sea ice cover is decreasing; and
the chemical, physical and biological characteristics
of the sea are changing (EEA, 2010b). Coastal and
estuarine wetlands and dune systems and the
biodiversity therein will be particularly under threat
from rising sea levels and changing erosion and
accretion patterns (EEA, 2010b).
Map 3.3
Status of fish stocks in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
(ICES) and General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) fishing
regions of Europe
Proprotion of stocks
within and outside safe
biological limits, 2008
12
14
Arctic N.Western
Total number
of assessed
fish stocks
Arctic East
Number of
overfished stocks
Iceland and
Faroes grounds
13
10
14
12
West Ireland
23
Irish Sea
15
Celtic Sea and

W. Channel
4
Atlantic waters around
Iberian Peninsula
Note:
1000
1500 km
Baltic Sea
ICES and GFCM

fishing regions
North Sea
10
Bay of Biscay
500
Commercial stocks
within 'safe' limits
13
13
W. Scotland
Balearic
16
9
16
8
11
Gulf of Lions
Adriatic Sea
Sardinia
Ionian Sea
Aegean Sea
The chart shows the proportion of assessed stocks that are overfished (red) and stocks within safe biological limits (blue).
The numbers in the circles indicate the number of stocks assessed within the given region. The size of the circles is
proportional to the magnitude of the regional catch.
Source: GFCM, 2005; ICES, 2008; SEBI 2010 Indicator 21.
Several studies in Europe confirm that marine fish

and invertebrate species respond to ocean warming
by shifting latitudinal and depth range (Dulvy etal.,
2008; Cheung etal., 2009). For instance, the fish
species composition in the North Sea has changed
from 1985 to 2006 in response to higher water
temperatures. In general, small species of southerly
origin increased while large northerly species
decreased, although this can also be partly explained
by commercial overexploitation of large predator
fish species (Hiddink etal., 2008). Many fish also
experience what is called an 'oxygen squeeze' in
warmer water, where less oxygen is available. As
the fish adapt to the warmer temperature their
metabolism speeds up and they grow more quickly,
often to a smaller adult body size because of the
limited oxygen supply.
Ocean acidification may cause serious adverse
impacts on the marine environment, preventing
the process of calcification (Hoegh-Guldberg etal.,
2007). Even if atmospheric CO2 levels were reduced,

it would take tens of thousands of years for ocean
chemistry to return to a preindustrial conditions
(Orr etal., 2005).
Management issues
Designation of protected areas is the primary means
of conserving biodiversity in Europe's marine areas,
although in recent years there is increasing use of
ecosystem approaches to balance the many demands
on the marine environment.
European marine biodiversity is primarily protected
by establishing Natura 2000 sites under the Habitats
and Birds Directives but compared to the terrestrial
environment there are serious delays in identifying
areas and even longer delays in assessing their status
(EC, 2009c). This is in part because effective protection
of marine areas requires international collaboration.
33
Box 3.5 Arctic biodiversity assessment

In 2005, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) recommended that long-term Arctic biodiversity
monitoring be expanded and enhanced (ACIA, 2005). The Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF)
Working Group responded by implementing the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (CBMP, 2010).
The CBMP is tasked with developing an integrated, interdisciplinary and collaborative Arctic biodiversity
monitoring programme that enhances our ability to detect important trends and to provide such information
to the public and policymakers. After the CBMP was established, it was further agreed that it was necessary
to provide policymakers and conservation managers with a synthesis of the best available scientific and
traditional ecological knowledge on Arctic biodiversity. This initiative is known as the Arctic Biodiversity
Assessment (ABA) and was endorsed by the Arctic Council in 2006. The geographic area covered by the
ABA is shown in Map 3.4.
The first deliverable from the ABA the 'Arctic Biodiversity Trends 2010: Selected Indicators of Change'
report was released in May 2010. This presents a preliminary assessment of status and trends in Arctic
biodiversity and is based on the suite of indicators developed by the CBMP. Twenty-two indicators were
selected to provide a snapshot of the trends being observed in Arctic biodiversity today. The indicators
were selected to cover major species groups with wide distribution across Arctic ecosystems. Each indicator
chapter provides an overview of the status and trends in a given indicator, information on stressors, and
concerns for the future. The report presents key findings reflecting information in the 22 indicators. A more
complete scientific assessment of biodiversity in the Arctic will emerge from the full Arctic Biodiversity
Assessment, currently being prepared.
Map 3.4
Location of datasets in the Arctic Species Trend Index
Location of datasets in
the Arctic Species Trend
Index (ASTI)
ASTI populations
High Arctic
Low Arctic
Subarctic
Source:
34
CAFF, 2010.
Box 3.5 Arctic biodiversity assessment (cont.)
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
06
20
20
02
98
19
19
94
19
90
19
86
82
19
78
19
74
0.6
19
A total of 965 populations of 306 species were

used to generate the ASTI (see Map 3.4). Overall,
the average population of Arctic species rose by
16% between 1970 and 2004, although this
trend is not consistent across biomes, regions
or groups of species. The terrestrial index shows
an overall decline of 10%, largely reflecting a
28% decline in terrestrial High Arctic populations
such as caribou, lemmings, and High Arctic Brent
goose (Figure3.12). These may be due partly to
the northward movement of southern species in
combination with increasing severe weather events
in the High Arctic and changing tundra vegetation.
Although both freshwater and marine indices show
increases, the data behind the freshwater index
is currently too sparse in terms of species and
populations, while the marine index is not spatially
robust.
Index value
70
The Arctic Species Trend Index (ASTI) was

commissioned and coordinated by the CBMP. ASTI
was developed to provide a pan-Arctic perspective
on trends in Arctic vertebrates. Tracking this index
will help reveal patterns in the response of Arctic
wildlife to growing pressures and thereby help
predict trends in Arctic ecosystems.
Figure 3.12 Index of terrestrial species

disaggregated by Arctic
boundary for the period
19702004
19
Tracking trends in Arctic wildlife: the Arctic

Species Trend Index
Terrestrial High Arctic

Terrestrial Subarctic
Terrestrial Low Arctic
Terrestrial Arctic species trend index
Note:
High Arctic, n = 25 species, 73 populations;

Low Arctic, n = 66 species, 166 populations;
Subarctic, n = 102 species, 204 populations.
Source: CAFF, 2010.
By December 2009, about 2 000 sites, either fully

or partly marine, had been proposed or classified
under the Habitats and Birds Directives. Together
they cover an area of approximately 167 000km2,
mostly in near-shore areas (ETC/BD, 2008;
EC,2009c). In some marine regions, biodiversity
protection measures have been developed in
cooperation with regional seas conventions, which
provide advanced mechanisms and guidance
to halt marine biodiversity loss (EC,2009b;
EEA2010b). Studies show that establishing
protected areas may help increase abundance
and biomass of individuals, raise the proportion
of larger and older individuals, enhance the
fisheries yield outside the protected area and
increase the dominance of large predator species
(GarciaCharton etal., 2008). It has also been shown
that the extent of recovery increases with the age
and size of the protected area (Claudet etal., 2008).
The Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) complements

the Natura 2000 network of marine protected
areas while not unduly compromising economic
development. The Marine Strategy Framework
Directive (EC, 2008c) completes the coverage of
the whole water cycle by EU legislation and uses
the approaches already enshrined in the Water
Framework Directive. Crucially, it applies an
ecosystem-based approach to managing human
activities that impact the marine environment. In
addition, it specifies the designation of marine
protected areas as a means for Europe's seas
to achieve 'good environmental status' by 2020
(EC,2007b; EC, 2009d; EC, 2010c). This reflects the
fact that an ecosystem approach to managing our
seas is needed to conserve biodiversity and maintain
resources (Gaines etal., 2010).
35
In view of the severe ecosystem pressures linked to

fisheries, the European Commission's recent Green
Paper on the Reform of the Common Fisheries
Policy (EC, 2009d) calls for better stewardship of
marine resources. To face these challenges fisheries
communities need support in adapting to an
ecosystem management approach.
Despite specific policies to reduce pressures,
eutrophication and pollution will continue to have
negative impacts for years to come. As a key action
against pollution, policies to reduce emissions and
regulate the use of hazardous substances have been
developed at global, European and national levels.
In general, concentrations of hazardous substances
in European seas have been decreasing. However,
the persistence of many such substances and the
amounts already released in the environment mean
that negative effects will continue for decades.
In addition, new substances that cause concern
will continue to appear, such as residues from
pharmaceutical products. Diffuse inputs into the
marine environment are now recognised as highly
significant for some heavy metals (Rodrigues etal.,
2009) and plastic debris is a continuing problem
(Gregory, 2009). Combating the effects of such
pollution, in addition to climate change and ocean
acidification, is a major challenge.
3.5 Agricultural ecosystems
Key messages
Along with providing food, fibre and fuels,
agricultural ecosystems provide other vital
services, such as pollination and natural pest
control.
Intensified agriculture and land abandonment
are the main threats of agricultural ecosystems. In
particular, less diverse crops, simplified cropping
methods, use of fertilisers and pesticides and
homogenisation of landscapes all have negative
effects on biodiversity. Land abandonment causes
the loss of specialised species and damages the
habitats associated with extensively farmed
agroecosystems.
Several pressures from agriculture have been
addressed directly by reducing nitrogen
surpluses and losses and indirectly by promoting
environmentally friendly management,
such as organic farming practices through
AgriEnvironment Schemes (AES).
To adapt to climate change, an integrated
approach handling both agricultural productivity
and biodiversity issues is necessary.
36
Agricultural ecosystems should be managed

in such a way that their ecosystem services are
maintained sustainably.
Status and trends
Agriculture is the main land use in the EU-27,
occupying 47% of the territory (EC, 2007c). As a
result, a large number of highly valued wildlife
species and semi-natural habitat types in Europe
are dependent on extensively managed agricultural
land. However, increasing demand for food and
energy crops is putting more pressure on extensive
agriculture and natural systems. Furthermore,
biodiversity on grazing land and extensive meadows
threatened by reduced management of the land
(abandonment and marginalisation) (EEA, 2005b;
EEA, 2010a).
Seventy per cent of species of European interest
linked to agro-ecosystems and 76% of habitats have
an unfavourable conservation status (Figures 3.14
and 3.15).
More than 80% of assessments for amphibians linked
to agro-ecosystems are unfavourable, while mammals
and invertebrates are the only species groups with
favourable assessments (less than 10%). Plants are
one of the species groups with the highest percentage
of unknown assessments (ETC/BD,2008).
Since 1980, the population of European common
birds has declined by 10% (Figure 3.16). Among
them, farmland birds have declined by around
50%, although populations have been relatively
stable since 1995. Increased specialisation and
intensification as well as habitat loss have driven
the decline of farmland birds (EEA, 2009a).
Increased agricultural production in eastern
Europe, if linked to higher inputs of nutrients
and pesticides, combined with further land
abandonment in some parts of Europe and the
abolition of set-aside areas in 2008, may lead to a
new decline in biodiversity.
Despite the availability of good data for farmland
bird species, it is widely acknowledged that
agricultural practices affect many habitat types other
than agricultural land in the narrow sense. Halada
etal. (in press) listed all the habitat types in AnnexI
of the Habitats Directive whose conservation status
directly or indirectly depends on agricultural
practices such as grazing or mowing. These habitat
types include types of heath, wetlands, forest and
even sand dunes. There is large variation across
Europe, however, in the types of habitat affected
Box 3.6 Grasslands

Europe does not have grasslands like the prairies, the Pampas or the Serengeti. Practically all grassland is
linked to agriculture, except for natural grasslands such as on mountain summits. Grassland can also be an
intensive monoculture, such as Lolium spp. grasslands in the Netherlands.
Europe is experiencing a major decline in biodiversity associated with grasslands. In Europe, the major
threat to semi-natural grasslands and their biodiversity is habitat loss and degradation due to intensification
or abandonment of agricultural land. Habitat fragmentation, conversion to biofuel production or forestry,
climate change, air pollution and invasive alien species are also significant threats.
The area of grasslands in Europe is decreasing; an area approximately twice the size of Luxembourg was
lost between 1990 and 2006. The main causes are increasing urban sprawl and forestry.
About half of Europe's endemic species depend on grasslands, whether in mountains, lowlands, river plains
or coastal areas. Many grasslands originate in traditional agricultural landscapes. Modern intensification,
however, brings many of these ecosystems under threat (Veen etal., 2009). In particular, 76% of the
assessments of grassland habitats of European interest are unfavourable (ETC/BD, 2008).
Grasslands are a key habitat for birds and butterflies and are in decline. Of the 152 grassland bird species,
89 (59%) have an unfavourable conservation status in Europe (BirdLife International in Veen etal., 2009).
This is a slight deterioration compared to a decade before, when 81 grassland species had an unfavourable
conservation status. A number of the currently threatened species were formerly common in Europe, such
as the lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) and the corn bunting (Miliaria
calandra) (Tucker and Heath, 1994 in Veen etal., 2009).
Grassland butterflies have declined by almost 70%, indicating a dramatic loss of grassland biodiversity
(Figure 3.13). The main driver behind the decline of grassland butterflies is changes in rural land use:
agricultural intensification where the land is relatively flat and easy to cultivate, and abandonment in
mountains and wet areas, mainly in eastern and southern Europe. Agricultural intensification leads to
uniform, almost sterile grasslands, where the management is so intensive that grassland butterflies can
only survive in traditional farmed low-input systems (High Nature Value Farmland) as well as nature
reserves, and marginal land such as road verges and amenity areas.
Upland grasslands are declining in extent and are in poor condition. Their characteristic biodiversity,
especially butterflies, has shown seriously declined since 1990. This is particularly due to abandonment of
sustainable grazing or hay making.
Dry grasslands are the most prevalent grassland
type in the Mediterranean region and the steppes
of Eastern Europe. Dry grasslands are important
for bird conservation more than 400 Important
Bird Areas (IBAs) in Europe contain steppe or dry
calcareous grassland.
Figure 3.13 Trends in the population index of

grassland butterflies in Europe
Population index (1990 = 100)
140
Several Prime Butterfly Areas also occur in dry

grasslands and depend on sustainable grazing or hay
cutting to sustain the abundance of larval foodplants
and butterfly diversity. The main threat to dryland
biodiversity in Europe is desertification caused by
change in water regimes due to unsustainable use,
poor agricultural practices and land abandonment
leading to soil erosion, exacerbated by climate
change (IUCN, 2008). Efforts to improve
understanding of how dryland ecosystems function
are under way. Recent work shows that shrub
encroachment can reverse desertification in semiarid Mediterranean grasslands, leading to enhanced
vascular plant richness, contrary to the findings in
other parts of the world (Maestre etal., 2009).
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
Source: De Vlinderstichting/Butterfly Conservation Europe/

Statistics Netherlands, 2010; SEBI 2010 Indicator 01.
37
Figure 3.14 Conservation status of habitat types of Community interest in agro-ecosystems in

EU-25
7%
17 %
Alpine (32)
Atlantic (44)
Boreal (32)
26 %
Continental (52)
Macaronesian (8)
Mediterranean (38)
Pannonian (24)
50 %
Favourable
Note:
0
Unknown
20
40
60
80
100
Unfavourable bad
Figure 3.15 Conservation status of species of Community interest in agro-ecosystems in EU-25

3%
27 %
Alpine (19)
Atlantic (11)
37 %
Boreal (7)
Continental (19)
Macaronesian (1)
Mediterranean (15)
Pannonian (14)
33 %
Favourable
Note:
%
0
Unknown
20
40
60
80
100
Unfavourable bad
and their specific links to agricultural management

practices.
The biodiversity most important for agriculture,
yet arguably also the most unknown and neglected,
is soil biodiversity. The species richness below
ground is certainly greater than above ground
(Heywood, 1995) but most soil organisms are still
unknown (Wall etal., 2001). Indeed, one study
estimates that only 1% of soil microorganism
species are known (Turb etal., 2010). This
38
biodiversity underpins processes and ecosystems

services that are essential for agriculture, such as
soil formation, maintaining soil fertility, water cycle
regulation and pest control (Turb etal., 2010).
The precise ecological and economic value of these
services is still largely unknown.
Pressures on soil biodiversity are certainly
increasing. For example erosion, a natural process
that is exacerbated by human activities such as
overexploitation of agricultural lands (Gardi etal.,
Figure 3.16 Trends in the population index of

common birds in Europe
Figure 3.17 Nitrogen balance per hectare

of agricultural land in OECD
countries
Population index (1980 = 100)
Kg per ha
125
140
100
90
75
40
50
20
03
20
01
19
99
19
97
19
95
19
93
19
91
19
85
19
87
19
89
0
25
Source: Based on OECD, 2008b; SEBI 2010 Indicator 19.

0
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
All common birds (136)

Common farmland birds (36)
Common forest birds (29)
Source: EBCC/RSPB/BirdLife International/Statistics
Netherlands, 2009; SEBI 2010 Indicator 01.
2009), can remove fertile soil that took hundreds

of years to form. Inventories and monitoring are
necessary to better understand soil biodiversity and
the threats it faces (Gardi etal., 2009).
Animal genetic resources for food and agriculture
are an essential part of the biological basis for world
food security (FAO, 2007b). Europe is home to a
large proportion of the world's domestic livestock
diversity, with more than 2500breeds registered
in the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
breeds database (EEA,2006a) and many native
breeds are endangered. At EU level the Community
programme on the conservation, characterisation,
collection and utilisation of genetic resources in
agriculture (EC,2004b) and the rural development
programmes under Regulation 1698/2005 (EC,2005)
are co-funded instruments for conserving genetic
resources. In Austria, for example, preservation of
plant varieties and rearing of endangered breeds
is supported through measures implemented in
the Agri-Environmental Schemes (AES) under
the EU Regulation 1698/2005. In 2008 about
4400 agricultural holdings, that is about 4% of
all holdings participating in the Austrian AES,
were involved in the AES measure 'keeping of
endangered breeds' (BMLFUW, 2009).
In Europe 44% of emissions of eutrophying
substances and 27% of emissions of acidifying
substances come from agriculture (EEA, 2007c).

Although aggregated emissions of acidifying
pollutants decreased in most EEA member
countries between 1990 and 2006, half of the area
of EU-25 natural and semi-natural habitats was
still exposed to atmospheric nitrogen depositions
above the critical load in 2004. (The critical load is
the level above which harmful effects in ecosystem
structure and function may occur, according to
present knowledge.)
The National Emission Ceiling Directive (2001/81/EC),
one of the main EU instruments for reducing
nitrogen and sulphur emissions, binds EU Member
States to respect emission ceilings by 2010. The
current proposal for revising the Directive includes
provisions on monitoring the effects on aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems within all types of Natura
2000 sites (EEA, 2009a).
Agricultural nitrogen balances (nitrogen surplus)
are declining (Figure 3.17) but they are still high
in some countries, particularly in lowland western
Europe, notably the Netherlands and Belgium
(229and 184kg N/ha, respectively). The average
gross nitrogen balance in the period 20002004 in
the EU15 was 83 kg N/ha (OECD, 2008a).
Organic farming is increasing across Europe
(Figure3.18). Omitting synthetic herbicides and
mineral nitrogen fertilizers, along with more
diverse crop rotations, reduces detrimental impacts
on biodiversity. Positive effects of organic farming
on biodiversity are found especially in intensively
managed agricultural landscapes (Bengtsson etal.,
2005).
39
Figure 3.18 Share of total utilised agricultural area occupied by organic farming
%
12
10
8
6
4
2
Sw
itz
Au
st
ri
er a
la
Sw nd
ed
en
La
tv
ia
It
Cz
Es aly
ec
to
h
n
Re ia
pu
b
G lic
re
Po ece
rt
ug
Fi al
nl
a
Sl nd
ov
a
Sl kia
ov
e
D
en nia
m
a
G
er rk
m
an
N
or y
w
U
L
ni
ith ay
te
u
d
a
Ki nia
ng
do
m
Sp
H ain
N un
et ga
h
r
Lu erl y
xe an
m ds
bo
Be ur
lg g
iu
m
Fr
an
Cy ce
pr
Ir us
el
Ro and
m
an
ia
P
Av
ol
a
er
Bu nd
ag
lg
e
ar
fo
ia
r
co
M
al
un
ta
tr
ie
s
co
ve
re
d
2000
Note:
2003
2005
2007
Area covers existing organically-farmed areas and areas in process of conversion. The values for the following are
estimates: France (2000), Luxembourg (2005), Poland (2005), Denmark (2007), Luxembourg (2007), Malta (2007), Poland
(2007), Romania (2007).
Source: Based on Eurostat, 2009; data for Switzerland from BDM, 2009; SEBI 2010 Indicator 20.
Threats
Habitat loss and degradation: the loss of landscape
corridors like hedgerows and grassy field margins
causes fragmentation and decreases species diversity
(e.g. Marshall and Moonen, 2002; Smith etal.,
2008). This calls for joint efforts at field-, farm- and
landscape-scale to provide larger resource patches
managed and using extensive farming methods that
increase biodiversity (Whittingham, 2007).
Invasive alien species: many of the problems
caused by invasive alien species that are most
expensive to resolve arise first and foremost in
agriculture (e.g. Amaranthus spp.). Many of the
invasive weeds affecting agriculture and natural
grasslands have been spread around the world as
contaminants in crop seed (IUCN, 2001).
Pollution: inefficient use of nitrogen and synthetic
chemicals causes problems for biodiversity both in
agricultural ecosystems and in other ecosystems
subject to runoff from agricultural land through
freshwaters into coastal and marine waters.
Overexploitation: intensification is the main threat
to biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems. Indices of
national agricultural intensity (cereal yield (t/ha),
fertiliser use (t/ha), number of tractors per unit
area of agricultural land and livestock density
(head of cattle/ha of grassland)) showed significant
40
negative correlation with mean national trends of all

farmland bird species (Donald etal., 2006).
Climate change: agricultural ecosystems are not
only impacted by climate change, they can also act
as sources and sinks of greenhouse gases. Livestock
accounts for a significant proportion of greenhouse
gas emissions. Increased use of biomass from
agriculture to produce bioenergy is often seen as an
option to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Management issues
The value of Europe's agricultural land for
biodiversity is recognised in current legislation and
management practices, especially organic farming
methods. Significant challenges lie ahead, however,
related to intensification and abandonment, and
increasing demand for biofuels. Furthermore, global
demand for meat and milk is set to double by 2050
(FAO, 2006).
Europe has significant areas of 'High Nature Value
Farmland' (HNV), providing a habitat for a wide
range of species (Paracchini etal., 2008). In High
Nature Value (HNV) farmland, farming practices
are associated with high biodiversity values. HNV
farmland is characterised by a high proportion
of semi-natural vegetation with a mosaic of low
intensity agriculture and semi-natural structural
elements (e.g. field margins, hedgerows, stone

walls, patches of woodland or scrub, small rivers),
and farmland that supports rare species or a high
proportion of European or world populations
(EEA,2010a).
Maintaining HNV systems is critical to sustaining
and developing biodiversity. As such, it is one of
the mandatory impact indicators in the Common
Monitoring and Evaluation Framework of the CAP.
However, market pressures may lead to harmful
intensification or abandonment of HNV farmland.
In the European Alps, 40% of all farm holdings
were abandoned in the period 19802000 (Tasser
etal., 2007). Natural forest regrowth in these areas
means the long-term loss of species-rich agricultural
habitats (Gellrich etal., 2006).
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) provides
direct support to farmers. In 2003 the CAP shifted
away from subsidies based on production to those
based on farming areas, with the goal of making
these progressive so that the largest farms take a
smaller proportion of total funds than previously.
While some production-oriented financing remains,
this shift should in principle reduce incentives
for intensive farming that has high impacts on
biodiversity. Moreover, the 2003 reforms (and a
further 2008 'health check') introduced a system of
'crosscompliance' to ensure that farmers receiving
subsidies followed EU environmental legislation.
The CAP now plays an important role in financing
biodiversity. The most substantial contribution that
can assist biodiversity comes from agrienvironmental
schemes (for which EUR20.3billion has been
allocated for the period 20072013). The geographic
pattern of agri-environment expenditures shows
large differences in Europe, since such schemes are
adopted voluntarily. Extremely low disbursements
for these schemes are seen in Latvia, Romania, France,
Scotland and most of Spain. The highest expenditures
are found in Austria, England, Finland, Sweden and
parts of Italy (BirdLife International, 2009b).
Unfortunately, despite recognition of agriculture's

heavy impact on nature, the CAP is not changing
sufficiently to reduce biodiversity loss (EEA, 2009e).
In several EU countries, direct support is provided
on an historic basis, which in practice favours
more productive land, usually farmed intensively.
Moreover, cross-compliance rules can only make
a small contribution to biodiversity conservation
because although they limit environmentally
damaging practices, they cannot really ensure active
management of ecosystems rich in biodiversity.
By contrast, agri-environmental measures may
explicitly target management practices beneficial to
biodiversity but relatively little is spent on areas with
a high proportion of HNV farmland. The inconsistent
application and distribution of CAP support across
Pillars (in particular Pillar 2), measures and farm
systems suggest insufficient support for favourable
management of HNV farmland (EEA, 2009e).
The European model of multifunctional sustainable
agriculture can address these challenges. Raising
awareness and increasing public support for
agriculture's role in the provision of public goods is
at the heart of this discussion (EEA, 2009e). Debate
is underway on the future of the CAP beyond 2013,
including in terms of environment and biodiversity,
and the multiple objectives of the CAP reform reflect
the varied functions that agro-ecosystems serve.
Increasing the share of renewable energy in total
EU energy consumption is a key policy objective
in the European Union. Biomass is by far the most
important renewable energy source, providing
two thirds of the total energy produced from
renewables (EEA, 2007d). The substantial rise in the
use of biomass from agriculture and other sectors
for producing transport fuels and energy can put
significant environmental pressures on farmland or
forest biodiversity. Positive effects on biodiversity
have been noted in degraded or marginal areas
where new perennial mixed species (grassland,
trees) have been introduced to restore ecosystem
functioning and increase biodiversity (CBD, 2008).
41
Box 3.7 Urban ecosystems

Key messages
Overall, the conversion of natural or semi-natural land to urban uses reduces biodiversity.
In a highly urbanised continent such as Europe, tackling the relationship between biodiversity and the
development of towns and cities is crucial to help halt biodiversity loss.
Urban development can also present opportunities for enhancing biodiversity. For example, taking
a 'green infrastructure' approach can facilitate urban development that is consistent with existing
landscapefeatures and benefits both people and biodiversity. That includes maintaining important
ecosystem services and increasing resilience to climate change.
Urban sprawl is commonly used to describe physically expanding urban areas. The European Environment
Agency (EEA) has described sprawl as the physical pattern of low-density expansion of large urban areas,
under market conditions, mainly into the surrounding agricultural areas. It is the result of a mix of forces,
including transport links, land prices, individual housing preferences, demographic trends, cultural traditions
and constraints, the attractiveness of existing urban areas and, importantly, the application of land use
planning policies at both local and regional scales (EEA, 2006b). Urban sprawl is usually associated with the
push of urban areas into agricultural land (EEA, 2006c) (Figure 3.19).
Figure 3.19 Origin of urban land uptake as a percentage of total uptake, derived from
land cover accounts: 24 countries in Europe, 19902000 (left);
and 36countries in 20002006 (right)
19902000
20002006
0%
0%
0%
5%
1%
1%
1%
0%
1%
8%
Artificial surfaces
9%
Arable land and

permanent crops
14 %
Pastures and mosaic

farmland
47 %
49 %
35 %
Forests and transitional

woodland shrub
Natural grassland, heathland,
sclerophylous vegetation
Open space with little
or no vegetation
Wetlands
29 %
Water bodies
Source: CLC, 2006; SEBI 2010 Indicator 04.
Urban development and urban sprawl are significant factors affecting biodiversity in Europe, with
biodiversity generally decreasing along an urban gradient (from rural areas to city centres) (Blair and
Launer, 1997). As cities grow, the range of plant and animal species supported is restricted and the species
present may be those most adaptable to the urban environment, rather than more typical native species.
Both of these factors contribute to the homogenisation of biodiversity in urban areas (McKinney, 2006).
Loss of landscape features, character and biodiversity
Within urban areas, denser development often occurs at the expense of green space, particularly gardens
which can (in aggregation) be the largest green space type (Pauleit and Golding, 2005). While the effects
of increasing urban density may be limited in isolation, over time the cumulative effect is likely to reduce
urban biodiversity significantly.
42
Box 3.7 Urban ecosystems (cont.)

Habitat fragmentation
Many of Europe's habitats are already highly fragmented and at risk further fragmentation due to urban
development and land-use changes (Benedict and McMahon, 2006). The links between fragments are an
important determinant of biodiversity (Sylwester, 2009). In an urban context, it is necessary to understand
habitat fragmentation and connectivity to manage the effects of urban development on biodiversity. The
EEA estimates that nearly 30% of EU land is highly fragmented (EEA, 2010d).
Green infrastructure
The term 'green infrastructure' has its origin in two concepts: linking parks and other green spaces for
the benefit of people; and, conserving and linking natural areas to benefit biodiversity and counter habitat
fragmentation (Sylwester, 2009). Green infrastructure has the potential to improve the biodiversity of
urban areas by improving the connectivity with rural areas (and other habitat fragments) and enhancing
the natural characteristics of existing landscape features, as well as providing other multiple benefits such
as increasing resilience to climate change, improving the human health and wellbeing, and providing flood
regulation. This 'multifunctionality' provides for the integration and interaction of different functions or
activities on the same piece of land.
In Europe, green infrastructure planning is increasingly recognised as a valuable approach for spatial
planning, providing an improved green structure for the landscape. It also serves as a mechanism for more
informed decision-making and more 'joined-up' thinking in relation to urban and regional environmental
planning (Sylwester, 2009). Using a green infrastructure approach can therefore facilitate land development
and conservation in a way that is consistent with existing natural features, delivering multiple benefits to
people and biodiversity.
43
Conclusions, way forward and knowledge gaps
4 Conclusions, way forward

and knowledge gaps
European biodiversity has declined dramatically in

the last two centuries, with the conversion of natural
habitats to meet growing demands for food, energy
and infrastructure. Although the pace of change
has varied across the region and has generally
slowed considerably in the last couple of decades,
agricultural land use now accounts for almost half of
the European terrestrial area.
In coastal and marine areas, industrial fishery
operations have had similarly large impacts,
affecting both fish populations and habitats
throughout European coastal and marine waters.
Nearly half of assessed fish stocks in Europe fall
outside safe biological limits. The majority of
biodiversity in Europe now exists within a mosaic
of heavily managed land and seascapes, and is to
a large degree linked to agricultural, forestry and
fishery practices across the continent.
In recent decades, growing awareness of biodiversity
decline has led to improved commitments, policies
and practices for the conservation and sustainable
use of biodiversity throughout much of Europe.
Biodiversity is now higher on the political agenda
in Europe than ever before. Significant targeted
responses have been made by public, civil society
and private institutions to restore habitats, protect
threatened species and reduce the main threats to
biodiversity in Europe.
As a result of the policies adopted and implemented
at international and European scales, including
the Birds, Habitats, and Water Framework
Directives, there are indications that some aspects
of biodiversity are improving in status in parts of
Europe. There have been significant increases in
forest cover in the last two decades across northern
Europe and the status of many waterways has
improved across Europe as a result of reduced
industrial and agricultural pollution in many
countries. Recovery plans have been documented
and are being implemented for many of Europe's
threatened species, with some successes.
While ambitious targets are being set in Europe to
halt biodiversity loss and some progress is being
44
made, many threats remain and new ones are

growing. This erodes the ability of ecosystems to
provide services to people in Europe and beyond.
Threats to Europe's biodiversity include habitat
loss and degradation, unsustainable harvesting,
establishment and spread of invasive alien species,
pollution from agricultural runoff in many
countries, unsustainable forest and agriculture
management, increasing water abstraction and use,
and increasing climatic change impacts, especially in
southern and northern Europe, and in mountainous
areas across the region. The loss of wetland and
dryland habitats also continues.
Future progress in addressing these threats and
conserving Europe's remaining biodiversity will
depend on success in four key areas:
1. Enhanced implementation of measures targeted
at biodiversity conservation. There has been
progress in protecting and restoring threatened
species and habitats across much of Europe,
and protected areas and sustainable farmland
and forestry management practices have grown
steadily. However, there remains considerable
opportunity to scale up such practices across
the region, including coastal and marine areas.
Such direct efforts for biodiversity conservation
are a cornerstone of conservation. They are
essential to manage the most important threats
and conserve the most threatened biodiversity.
However, alone they are insufficient to address
biodiversity loss in the medium and long term
because many of the direct drivers, and all of
the indirect drivers of biodiversity loss, emanate
from other sectors.
2. Policy coherence on biodiversity is required
with other sectors. In order to conserve and
sustainably use biodiversity, policies in other
sectors that have an impact on or depend on
biodiversity need to be supportive. These
include those on trade, agriculture, fisheries,
planning, transport, health, tourism, and
the financial sector, including insurance. In
many EU countries, considerable funding
for managing biodiversity in landscapes is
obtained from the Common Agricultural

Policy. Mainstreaming biodiversity into these
areas in both the public and private sectors
is essential for an integrated approach
to biodiversity conservation. Successful
mainstreaming will require all sectors to
recognise the value of biodiversity. Recent
efforts to ascribe accurate economic values to
biodiversity and ecosystem services, for example
'The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity'
(TEEB, 2010), provide a basis for mainstreaming.
3. A more integrated approach across sectors
and administrative boundaries, at landscape
and seascape scales. This entails applying the
ecosystem approach more widely, and requires
cooperation across sectors for successful
implementation. The present report shows
that management of some habitat types, such
as forestry and freshwater systems, is already
starting to apply such approaches. Others, such
as marine habitats, mountains and agricultural
land, have not yet been adjusted sufficiently.
Integrating protected areas, ecological networks,
connectivity areas, production and urban
landscapes into multifunctional land-use
planning at a regional scale will be an essential
element of a successful European conservation
strategy. Likewise at watershed and landscape
scales, the integration of biodiversity and natural
resources management, including that of water,
will require dialogue and agreement between
the multiple stakeholders using, depending on,
and managing such resources.
4. Public awareness of the relevance of
biodiversity to the lives of European citizens,
and the consequences of biodiversity loss at
local, European and global scales, needs to be
raised. Significant efforts are therefore required
on communication, education and public
awareness, to complement the policy framework
and to encourage both individual action for
biodiversity conservation, and a supportive
public opinion for changes in policy and
practice.
This report shows that, particularly regarding forest
habitats, public awareness of the value of sustainable
practices and recycling is increasing. This can be
enhanced by publicising how more sustainable
practices can benefit both society and the ecosystems
themselves.
Despite being the region with the longest and
broadest biodiversity knowledge base, key
knowledge gaps remain across Europe. Filling such
gaps would support action and policies across the

four key areas.
Knowledge gaps exist in individual elements of
biodiversity. Little is known, for example, about
many aquatic systems (and especially floodplains
and deltas), genetic diversity beyond the agricultural
sector, and for many taxa at the species level.
Considerable further work is required to assess the
status of plants, invertebrates and fungi, and to assess
trends in species status. A global base of species level
assessments (or 'Barometer of Life') would cost some
EUR 45 million, according to recent estimates (Stuart
etal., 2010).
In addition to knowledge of specific elements of
biodiversity, interdisciplinary knowledge gaps
are particularly apparent, with little in the way
of accumulated knowledge on the interlinkages
between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human
wellbeing. Recent efforts to link biodiversity science
with economics have been particularly promising
but further interdisciplinary research and assessment
would support strengthened decision-making and
policymaking processes on European biodiversity in
the 21st century.
Key gaps in knowledge that emerge from this report
are as follows.
Data availability: Data beyond EU-27 Member
States are often limited, especially Europeanlevel
information on biodiversity (species, communities
and genetic stock). Generally, data for marine
species and habitats are much scarcer than
for terrestrial ecosystems, and across Europe
some important ecosystem types (e.g. marine
and coastal) are among the least studied. Data
are often lacking at relevant scales, e.g. for key
environmental drivers or habitat change. This
information would help set solid and relevant
targets and continually improve sustainable
management schemes.
Adaptation strategies: Information on adaptation
measures and strategies is often insufficient
for many European ecosystems to counteract
adverse climate change impacts and maintain
ecosystem goods and services (e.g. FAO, 2009).
While climate change considerations have largely
driven the debate on adaptive capacity and
vulnerability, there is now increased recognition
of the multidimensional nature of drivers of
change, responses and feedback mechanisms
(e.g.CDE,2009).
45
Ecosystem services: Enhanced information on

environmental, economic and social benefits of
the ecosystem services supplied by biodiversity
is lacking to inform sustainable management
of ecosystems and raise public awareness of
biodiversity's value and the link to livelihoods.
The value of non-marketed goods and services
are an important element in this.
Optimal land-use strategies: It is important
to finding the optimal mix of protected
and productive areas, whether used for
intensive agriculture or biomass for energy.
More detailed data and analysis are needed
to assess the extent and consequences
of losing natural habitats through land
conversion for increased biomass e.g. biofuel
feedstock production (FAO, 2008). Ecosystem
approaches are also particularly well suited
for addressing competing land-use issues in
a systematic and holistic framework, even in
the absence of economic valuations, and they
have considerable potential as an integrated
management tool (Hicks etal., 2008).
Sustainable management indicators: More
knowledge on sustainable management
indicators is required along the lines of the
pan-European indicators of sustainable forest
management.
Green infrastructure: More information is
required on the potential benefits of a green
46
infrastructure approach to facilitate land

development and land conservation together
in a way that is consistent with existing natural
features to deliver multiple benefits to people
and biodiversity.
Recognising the urgent need to address these
issues and reverse the trends of biodiversity loss
and ecosystem degradation, the Environment
Council adopted the 2020 Headline Target on
15March and the European Council endorsed the
Long-term Biodiversity Vision on 26 March 2010.
These ambitious initiatives will underpin the new
EU biodiversity strategy to be finalised by the end
of 2010. In its conclusions, the European Council
specified that the strategy to address biodiversity
loss and ecosystem degradation should set a
clear baseline outlining the criteria against which
achievements are to be assessed.
EEA developed the EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline
(EEA, 2010) to respond to this need. It offers
a comprehensive snapshot of the current state
of biodiversity. It thereby supports the EU in
developing the post 2010 sub targets as part of the
biodiversity strategy and provides factual data
for measuring and monitoring progress in the
EU from 2011 to 2020. This new information tool
demonstrates that a large proportion of European
species and habitats are either facing extinction,
have an unfavourable conservation status or their
status is unknown. It highlights the urgent need for
conservation actions and intensified efforts.
References
References
ACIA, 2005. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, the United
Kingdom, 1042pages.
Alpine Convention, 2009. Alpine Convention.
Available at: www.alpconv.org/home/index_en
[accessed 20 August 2010].
Blair and Launer, 1997. 'Butterfly diversity and

human land use: Species assemblages along an
urban gradient', Biological Conservation, 80(1),
pp.113125.
Andersen, J.H. and Conley, D.J., 2009.

'Eutrophication in coastal marine ecosystems:
towards better understanding and management
strategies', Hydrobiologia 629(1), pp.14.
doi:10.1007/s10750-009-9758-0.
BMLFUW, 2009. Grner Bericht. Bericht ber die

Situation der sterreichischen Land- und Forstwirtschaft.
Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry,
Environment and Water Management,Wien.
Barker, M.L., 1982. 'Traditional Landscapes and

Mass Tourism in the Alps', Geographical Review,
Vol.72, No. 4, p. 395-415.
Bragg, O. and Lindsay, R. 2003. Strategy and Action

Plan for Mire and Peatland Conservation in Central
Europe. Wetlands International, Wageningen,
TheNetherlands. vi + 94 pp.
Benedict, M. and McMahon, E., 2006. Green

Infrastructure, Linking Landscapes and Communities.
Washington, D.C., Island Press.
Butterfly Conservation Europe, 2010. Butterfly

Conservation Europe. Available at: www.bc-europe.
org/category.asp?catid=14 [accessed 23 August 2010].
Bengtsson, J., Ahnstrm, J. and Weibull A.C., 2005.

'The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity
and abundance: a meta-analysis', Journal of Applied
Ecology, 42, pp.261269.
BDM, 2009. Biodiversity Monitoring Switzerland.
Available at: www.biodiversitymonitoring.ch/
english/aktuell/portal.php [accessed 20 August 2010]
BirdLife International, 2004. Birds in the
European Union: a status assessment. Wageningen,
theNetherlands, BirdLife International.
BirdLife International, 2009a. BirdLife International.
Available at: www.birdlife.org/ [accessed 23 August
2010].
BirdLife International, 2009b. Could do better.
How is EU Rural development policy delivering for
biodiversity? BirdLife International, Wageningen,
theNetherlands.
Blackman, R., 2009. 'The role of protected areas for
tourism and the public perception of this benefit'.
In: Stolton, S. (ed.). Community values and benefits
of protected areas in Europe. Results of a seminar

organized by BfN and EUROPARC Federation at
the International Academy for Nature Conservation,
Island of Vilm, Germany, 1418 April, 2009. BfN,
Skripten, Germany.
CAFF, 2010. Arctic Species Trend Index 2010: Tracking

Trends in Arctic Wildlife. CAFF CBMP Report No. 20,
CAFF International Secretariat, Akureyri, Iceland.
Carpathian Convention, 2009. Carpathian Convention.
Available at: www.carpathianconvention.org/index
CBD, 2003. Status and trends of, and threats to,
mountain biodiversity, marine, coastal and inland water
ecosystems: Abstracts of poster presentations at the eighth
meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical
and Technological Advice of the Convention on Biological
Diversity. CBD Technical Series no 8. Montreal,
SCBD.
CBD, 2008. 'The potential impact of biofuels on
biodiversity', note by the Executive Secretary for
the Conference of the Parties to the Convention
on Biological Diversity, 1930 May 2008, Bonn,
Germany (draft, 7 February 2008). In: The state
47
References
of food and agriculture: Biofuels: prospects, risks and

opportunities. FAO, Rome, 2008.
CBD, 2010. The Convention on Biological Diversity:
Year in Review 2009. Secretariat of the Convention
on Biological Diversity. Available at: www.cbd.int/
doc/reports/cbd-report-2009-en.pdf [accessed 22 July
2010].
CBMP, 2010. Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring
Program. Available at: http://cbmp.arcticportal.org/
CDDA, 2009. Nationally designated areas (National CDDA). Available at: www.eea.europa.eu/data-andmaps/data/nationally-designated-areas-nationalcdda-4/#previous-versions [accessed 16 August
2010].
CDE, 2009. Mountains and climate change, from
understanding to action. Institute of Geography,
University of Bern, with the support of the Swiss
Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC).
Cheung, W.W.L.; Lam, W.Y.L.; Sarmiento, J.L.;
Kearney, K.; Watson, R. and Pauly, D., 2009.
'Projecting global marine biodiversity impacts under
climate change scenarios', Fish and Fisheries 10(3),
pp.235251. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2008.00315.x.
Claudet, J.; Osenberg, C.W.; Benedetti-Cecchi, L.;
Domenici, P.; Garca-Charton, J.A.; Prez-Ruzafa,
A.; Badalamenti, F.; Bayle-Sempere, J.; Brito, A.;
Bulleri, F.; Culioli, J.M.; Dimech, M.; Falcn, J.M.;
Guala, I.; Milazzo, M.; Snchez-Meca, J.; Somerfield,
P.J.; Stobart, B.; Vandeperre, F.; Valle, C. and Planes,
S., 2008. 'Marine reserves: size and age do matter',
Ecology Letters 11, pp.481489.
CLC, 2006. Corine Land Cover. Corine Land Cover
2006 raster data, available at: www.eea.europa.
eu/data-and-maps/data/corine-land-cover-2006raster [accessed 16 August 2010]; Corine land cover
19902000 changes, available at: www.eea.europa.eu/
data-and-maps/data/corine-land-cover-1990-2000
[accessed 16 August 2010]; Corine land cover 2000
2006 changes, available at: www.eea.europa.eu/
data-and-maps/data/corine-land-cover-2000-2006
[accessed 16August 2010].
48
CSIL, 2008. The Impact of Tourism on Coastal Areas:

Regional Development Aspects. Centre for Industrial
Studies (CSIL) in partnership with Touring Servizi.
European Parliament, Brussels.
Cuttelod, A.; Garcia, N.; Abdul Malak, D.; Temple,
H.J. and Katariya, V., 2009. 'The Mediterranean:
a biodiversity hotspot under threat'. In: Vi, J.-C.,
Hilton-Taylor, C. and Stuart, S.N. (eds), 2009. Wildlife
in a Changing World An Analysis of the 2008 IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species. Gland, Switzerland.
180pages.
De Stanfano, L., 2004. Freshwater and Tourism in the
Mediterranean. WWF Mediterranean Programme,
Rome.
De Vlinderstichting, 2010. De Vlinderstichting.
Available at: www.vlinderstichting.nl/ [accessed
23August 2010].
Donald, P.F.; Sanderson, F.J.; Burfield, I.J.; Bierman,
S.M.; Gregory, R.D. and Waliczky, Z., 2007.
'International conservation policy delivers benefits
for birds in Europe', Science 317, pp.810813.
Donald, P.F.; Sanderson, F.J.; Burfield, I.J. and Van
Bommel, F.P.J., 2006. Further evidence of continentwide impacts of agricultural intensification on
European farmland birds, 19902000. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environmental 116: 189196.
Dulvy, N.K.; Rogers, S.I.; Jennings, S.; Stelzenmller,
V.; Dye, S.R. and Skyoldal, H.R. 2008. 'Climate
change and deepening of the North Sea fish
assemblage: a biotic indicator of warming seas',
Journal of Applied Ecology 45(4), pp.10291039.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01488.x.
EBCC, 2009. European Bird Census Council.
Available at: www.ebcc.info/ [accessed 23 August
2010].
EC, 1991a. Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May
1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment.
OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 4052. Available at: http://
eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.
do?uri=CELEX:31991L0271:EN:NOT
EC, 1991b. Council Directive 91/676/EEC of
12December 1991 concerning the protection of waters
against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural
sources. OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 18. Available at:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.
do?uri=CELEX:31991L0676:EN:NOT [accessed
16August 2010].
References
EC, 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the

Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
and flora. OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. Available at: http://
do?uri=CELEX:31992L0043:EN:NOT [accessed
12August 2010].
& Guidelines. Final draft October 2006. Available

at: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/
library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/
guidlines_reporting/notesguidelines_2/_
EN_1.0_&a=d [accessed 12 August 2010].
EC, 2006d. LIFE and European forests. European
Communities, 2006. Available at: http://ec.europa.
eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/
lifefocus/documents/forest_lr.pdf [accessed
20August 2010].
EC, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European

Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000
establishing a framework for Community action in the
field of water policy. OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 173.
Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0060:EN:NOT
EC, 2004a. Communication from the Commission
to the Council and the European Parliament
Financing Natura 2000. Available at: http://
do?uri=COM:2004:0431:FIN:EN:PDF [accessed
23August 2010].
EC, 2004b. Council Regulation (EC) No 870/2004 of
24April 2004 establishing a Community programme
on the conservation, characterisation, collection and
utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture and
repealing Regulation (EC) No 1467/94. OJ L 162,
30.4.2004, p. 1828. Available at: http://eur-lex.
europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:
162:0018:0018:EN:PDF [accessed 20 August 2010].
EC, 2005. Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of
20 September 2005 on support for rural development by
the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
(EAFRD). OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p. 137. Available at:
do?uri=OJ:L:2005:277:0001:0040:EN:PDF [accessed
20August 2010].
EC, 2006a. Communication from the Commission
Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and
beyond Sustaining ecosystem services for human
well-being. COM(2006) 216 final. Available at:
do?uri=CELEX:52006DC0216:EN:NOT [accessed
12August 2010].
EC, 2006b. Annexes to the Communication from the
Commission 'Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010
and beyond. Sustaining ecosystem services for human
wellbeing'. COM(2006) 216 final. SEC(2006) 621.
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/
nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/sec_2006_621.
pdf [accessed 12 August 2010].
EC, 2006c. Assessment, monitoring and reporting under
Article 17 of the Habitats Directive: Explanatory notes
EC, 2007a. Report from the Commission to the

Council and the European Parliament of 19 March
2007 on implementation of Council Directive 91/676/
EEC concerning the protection of waters against
pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources
for the period 20002003. COM(2007)120 final.
European Commission, Brussels. Available at:
20August 2010].
EC, 2007b. A Maritime Policy for the EU. An ocean
of opportunity. European Commission, Brussels.
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/
subpage_en.html [accessed 20 August 2010].
EC, 2007c. Note for the file. Subject: Situation and
prospects for EU agriculture and rural areas. Brussels,
AGRI G.2/BT/FB/LB/PB/TV/WM/ D(2007). Available
at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/markets/
prospects12_2007_en.pdf [accessed 20 August 2010]
EC, 2008a. Communication from the Commission to
the Council, the European Parliament, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of
the Regions A Mid-term Assessment of Implementing
the EC Biodiversity Action Plan. COM(2008) 864
final. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/
biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/bap_2008_en.pdf
EC, 2008b. Communication from the Commission to
the Council, the European Parliament, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions Towards an EU Strategy on Invasive Species.
COM(2008) 789 final. Available at: http://ec.europa.
eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/docs/1_EN_
ACT_part1_v6.pdf [accessed 12 August 2010].
EC, 2008c. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008
establishing a framework for community action in the
field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy
Framework Directive). OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 1940.
Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
49
References
LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008L0056:en:NOT
water/marine/index_en.htm [accessed 12 August

2010].
EC, 2009a. Report from the Commission to the Council

and the European Parliament Composite Report on
the Conservation Status of Habitat Types and Species
as required under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive.
COM(2009) 358 final. Available at: http://ec.europa.
eu/environment/nature/knowledge/rep_habitats/
docs/com_2009_358_en.pdf [accessed 12 August
2010].
EC, 2010d. European Council 25/26 March 2010

Conclusions. Available at: http://europa.eu/
rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=DOC/10/1
&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLang
uage=en [accessed 12 August 2010].
EC, 2009b. International Conventions. European

Commission, Brussels. Available at: http://ec.europa.
eu/environment/water/marine/conventions_en.htm
EC, 2009c. Natura 2000: Habitats Directive Sites
according to Biogeographical regions. European
Commission, Brussels. European Commission,
Brussels. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/
environment/nature/natura2000/sites_hab/biogeog_
regions/index_en.htm [accessed 20 August 2010].
EC, 2009d. Green Paper. Reform of the Common
Fisheries Policy. COM(2009)163 final. European
Commission, Brussels. Available at: http://
20August 2010].
EC, 2009e. Directive 2009/147/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the
conservation of wild birds. Available at: http://eur-lex.
europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:0
20:0007:0025:EN:PDF [accessed 20 August 2010].
EC, 2010a. Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions
Options for an EU vision and target for biodiversity
beyond 2010. COM(2010) 4 final. Available at: http://
ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/
policy/pdf/communication_2010_0004.pdf [accessed
12August 2010].
EC, 2010b. Green Paper on Forest Protection and
Information in the EU: Preparing forests for climate
change. COM(2010)66 final. Available at: http://
20August 2010].
EC, 2010c. A Marine Strategy Directive to save Europe's
seas and oceans. European Commission, Brussels.
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/
50
EEA, 2005a. Source apportionment of nitrogen and

phosphorus inputs into the aquatic environment. EEA
Report No 7/2005. European Environment Agency,
Copenhagen. Available at: www.eea.europa.eu/
publications/eea_report_2005_7 [accessed 13 July
2010].
EEA, 2005b. The European environment State
and outlook 2005. European Environment Agency,
Copenhagen, Denmark. Available at: www.eea.
europa.eu/publications/state_of_environment_
report_2005_1/SOER2005_all.pdf [accessed 13 July
2010].
EEA, 2006a. Progress towards halting the loss of
biodiversity by 2010. EEA Report No 5/2006.
European Environment Agency, Copenhagen,
Denmark. Available at: www.eea.europa.eu/
publications/eea_ report_2006_5 [accessed 4 March
2009].
EEA, 2006b. Urban sprawl in Europe. The ignored
challenge. EEA Report No 10/2006. European
Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Available at: www.eea.europa.eu/publications/
eea_report_2006_10 [accessed 13 July 2010].
EEA, 2006c. Land accounts for Europe 19902000:
Towards integrated land and ecosystem accounting.
EEA Report No 11/2006. European Environment
Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. Available at: www.
eea.europa.eu/publications/eea_report_2006_11
[accessed 13 July 2010].
EEA, 2007a. Europe's environment The fourth
assessment. Chapter 4: Biodiversity. European
state_of_environment_report_2007_1/chapter4.pdf
EEA, 2007b. Europe's environment The fourth
assessment. Chapter 7: Sectors that drive environmental
change: Tourism. European Environment Agency,
europa.eu/publications/state_of_environment_
report_2007_1/chapter7.pdf [accessed 13 July 2010].
References
EEA, 2007c. Europe's environment The fourth

assessment. Chapter 5: Marine and coastal environment.
European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
Denmark. Available at: www.eea.europa.eu/
publications/state_of_environment_report_2007_1/
chapter5.pdf [accessed 13 July 2010].
EEA, 2007d. Estimating the environmentally compatible
bioenergy potential from agriculture. EEA technical
report 12/2007. Available at: www.eea.europa.eu/
publications/technical_report_2007_12 [accessed
20August 2010].
EEA, 2007e. Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010:
proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress
in Europe. Technical Report Number 11. Available at:
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/technical_
report_2007_11 [accessed 13 September 2010].
EEA, 2008. European forests ecosystem conditions and
sustainable use. EEA Report No. 3/2008. European
Environment Agency, Copenhagen. Available at:
www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eea_report_2008_3
EEA, 2009a. Progress towards the European 2010
biodiversity target. EEA Report No 4/2009. European
Available at www.eea.europa.eu/publications/
progress-towards-the-european-2010-biodiversitytarget [accessed 13 July 2010].
EEA , 2009b. Regional climate change and adaptation
The Alps facing the challenge of changing water
resources. EEA Report No 8/2009 European
Available at www.eea.europa.eu/publications/
alps-climate-change-and-adaptation-2009 [accessed
13July 2010].
EEA, 2009c. Killer slugs and other aliens Europe's
biodiversity is disappearing at an alarming rate.
Available at www.eea.europa.eu/articles/killer-slugsand-other-aliens [accessed 13 July 2010].
EEA, 2009d. Progress towards the European
2010 biodiversity target indicator fact sheets.
Compendium to EEA Report No 4/2009. Available at:
www.eea.europa.eu/publications/progress-towardsthe-european-2010-biodiversity-target-indicator-factsheets [accessed 13July 2010]
EEA, 2009e. Distribution and targeting of the CAP
budget from a biodiversity perspective. EEA Technical
Report No 12/2009. European Environment Agency,
publications/distribution-and-targeting-of-the-
capbudget-from-a-biodiversity-perspective?&utm_
campaign=distribution-and-targeting-of-thecapbudget-from-a-biodiversity-perspective&utm_
medium=email&utm_source=EEASubscriptions
[accessed 7 June 2010].
EEA, 2010a. 10 messages for 2010. Available at: www.
eea.europa.eu/publications/10-messages-for-2010.
technical_report_2007_12 [accessed 13 July 2010].
EEA, 2010b. Signals 2010 Biodiversity, climate
change and you. European Environment Agency,
publications/signals-2010 [accessed 13 July 2010].
EEA, 2010c. The European Environment: State and
Outlook 2010 Thematic assessment on 'Adapting to
climate change'. In press. European Environment
Agency, Copenhagen.
EEA, 2010d. EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline. Post-2010
EU biodiversity policy. European Environment Agency,
europa.eu/publications/eu-2010-biodiversity-baseline
EMERGE, 2002. EU Research Programme: European
Mountain lake Ecosystems: Regionalisation, diagnostic &
socio-economic evaluation. Available at: www.mountainlakes.org/emerge [accessed 18 August 2010].
ETC/BD, 2008. Habitats Directive Article 17 Report
(20012006). Available at: http://biodiversity.eionet.
europa.eu/article17 [accessed 12 August 2010].
Eurobarometer, 2009. Survey on the attitudes of
Europeans towards tourism Analytical report. Available
at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_258_
en.pdf [accessed 12 August 2010].
Eurostat, 2009. Available at: http://epp.eurostat.
ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/
FAO, 2005. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005
Country tables Biomass stock in forest and other wooded
land. www.fao.org/forestry/32100/en/ [accessed
27April 2009].
FAO, 2006. Livestock's Long Shadow Environmental
Issues and Options. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO, 2007a. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of
the United Nations. Available at: www.fao.org/forestry/
mountains [accessed 18 August 2010].
51
References
FAO, 2007b. Food and Agriculture Organization

(FAO) of the United Nations Global plan of Action for
animal genetic resources and the Interlaken declaration.
Commission on genetic resources for food and
agriculture. Rome, Italy.
FAO, 2008. The state of food and agriculture: Biofuels:
prospects, risks and opportunities. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO, 2009. Climate change impacts on goods and
services of European mountain forests, FAO, Rome,
Italy.
FOEN, 2009. Environmental Switzerland 2009. Federal
Office for the Environment, Bern. Available at: www.
bafu.admin.ch/publikationen/publikation/01039/
index.html?lang=en [accessed 17 August 2010].
Gaines, S.D.; White, C.; Carr, M.H. and Palumbi,
S.R., 2010. 'Designing marine reserve networks
for both conservation and fisheries management',
PNAS, published online before print March 3, 2010,
doi:10.1073/pnas.0906473107.
Garcia-Charton, J.A.; Prez-Ruzafa, A.; Marcos, C.;
Claudet, J.; Badalamenti, F; Benedetti-Cecchi, L.;
Falcn, J.M.; Milazzo, M.; Schembri, P.J.; Stobart,
B.; Vandeperre, F.; Brito, A.; Chemello, R.; Dimech,
M.; Domenici, P.; Guala, I.; Le Dirach, L.; Maggi,
E. and Planes, S., 2008. 'Effectiveness of European
Atlanto-Mediterranean MPAs: Do they accomplish
the expected effects on populations, communities
and ecosystems?' Journal for Nature Conservation 16,
pp.193221.
Gardi, C.; Montanarella, L.; Arrouays, D.; Bispo, A.;
Lemanceau, P.; Jolivet, C.; Mulder, C.; Ranjard,L.;
Rmbke, J.; Rutgers, M. and Menta, C., 2009.
'Soil biodiversity monitoring in Europe: ongoing
activities and challenges', European Journal of Soil
Science 60, pp.807819.
GBO-3, 2010. Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. Secretariat
of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montral.
Available at: http://gbo3.cbd.int [accessed 16August
2010].
Gellrich, M.; Baur, P.; Koch, B. and Zimmermann,
N.E., 2006. 'Agricultural land abandonment and
natural forest re-growth in the Swiss mountains:
A spatially explicit economic analysis', Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 118 (2007), pp.93108.
GFCM, 2005. General Fisheries Commission for the
Mediterranean. Available at: www.gfcm.org/gfcm/en
52
Gregory, M.R, 2009. 'Environmental implications

of plastic debris in marine settings-entanglement,
ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and
alien invasions', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1526),
pp.20132025.
Halada, L., Evans, D., Roma, C. and Petersen, J.E.
(in press). Which habitats of European Importance
depend on agricultural practices?
Heberlein, T.A., Fredman, P. and Vuorlo, T., 2002.
'Current Tourism Patterns in the Swedish Mountain
Region', Mountain Research and Development 22(2),
pp.142149.
Heywood, V.H., 1995. Global Biodiversity Assessment.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hicks, K.; Morrissey, T.; Ashmore, M.; Raffaelli,
D.; Sutton, M.; Smart, J.; Ramwell, C.; Bealey, B.
and Heinemeyer, A., 2008. Towards an Ecosystems
Approach for Ammonia Embedding an Ecosystem
Services Framework into Air Quality Policy for
Agricultural Ammonia Emissions. Defra Report
NR0120.
Hiddink, J.G.; MacKenzie, B.R.; Rijnsdorp, A.;
Dulvy, N.K.; Nielsen, E.E.; Bekkevold, D.; Heino,
M.; Lorance, P. and Ojaveer, H., 2008. 'Importance
of fish biodiversity for the management of fisheries
and ecosystems', Fisheries Research 90(13), pp.68.
doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2007.11.025.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O.; Mumby, P.J.; Hooten,
A.J.; Steneck, R.S.; Greenfield, P.; Gomez, E.;
Harvell, C.D.; Sale, P.F.; Edwards, A.J.; Caldeira,
K.; Knowlton, N.; Eakin, C.M.; Iglesias-Prieto,
R.; Muthiga, N.; Bradbury, R.H.; Dubi, A. and
Hatziolos, M.E., 2007. 'Coral Reefs Under Rapid
Climate Change and Ocean Acidification', Science
318, no5857, pp.17371742.
Hovadas, T. and Korfiatis, K.J., 2008. 'Framing
environmental policy by the local press: Case study
from the Dadia Forest Reserve, Greece', Forest Policy
and Economics10(5), pp.316325.
ICP Forests, 2009. The condition of forests in Europe.
2009 Executive Report. Institute for World Forestry,
Hamburg. Available at: www.icp-forests.org/pdf/
ER2009_EN.pdf [accessed 25 March 2010].
ICES, 2008. International Council for the Exploration
of the Sea. Available at: www.ices.dk/indexfla.asp
References
IUCN, 2001. Global Strategy on Invasive Alien Species.

Available at: www.gisp.org/publications/brochures/
globalstrategy.pdf [accessed 12 August 2010].
IUCN, 2007. Handbook of European Freshwater Fish.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
IUCN, 2008. The nature of drylands Diverse
ecosystems, diverse solutions. International Union for
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.
IUCN, 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2010.1. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org
in the Alps. The Continuum Project ALPARC,

ISCAR, CIPRA WWF.
Lotze, H.K.; Reise, K.; Worm, B.; van Beusekom,
J.; Busch, M.; Ehlers, A.; Heinrich, D.; Hoffmann,
R.C.; Holm, P.; Jensen, C.; Knottnerus, O.S.;
Langhanki, N.; Prummel, W.; Vollmer, M.; Wolff,
V.J., 2005. 'Human transformations of the Wadden
Sea ecosystem through time: a synthesis', Helgoland
Marine Research 59(1), pp. 8495.
Maestre, F.T.; Bowker, M.A.; Puche, M.D.; Hinojosa,
M.B.; Martnez, I.; Garca-Palacios, P.; Castillo,
A.P.; Soliveres, S.; Luzuriaga, A.L.; Snchez, A.M.;
Carreira, J.A.; Gallardo, A. and Escudero, A., 2009.
'Shrub encroachment can reverse desertification in
semi-arid Mediterranean grasslands', Ecology Letters
12, pp.930941.
IUCN/WCMC, 1994. World Heritage Nomination

IUCN Summary. Available at: http://whc.unesco.
org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/685bis.pdf
Jandl, R.; Herman, F.; Smidt, S.; Butterbach-Bahl, K.;
Englisch, M.; Katzensteiner, K.; Lexer, M.; Strebl,
F. and Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S., 2008. 'Nitrogen
dynamics of a mountain forest on dolomitic
limestone a scenario-based risk assessment',
Environmental Pollution 155, pp.512516.
MARBEF, 2008. Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem

Functioning: The Valencia Declaration a plea for the
protection of Marine Biodiversity. Marine Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Functioning EU Network of
Excellence (MARBEF), Yerseke. Available at: www.
marbef.org/worldconference/docs/The_Valencia_
Declaration_20081115.pdf [accessed 12 August 2010]
Jedrzejczak, M.F., 2004. 'The modern tourist's

perception of the beach: Is the sandy beach a place
of conflict between tourism and biodiversity?' In:
Schernewski, G. and Lser, N. (Eds.) Managing the
Baltic Sea. Coastline Reports 2, pp.109119.
Margaritoulis, D. and Casale, P., 2007. 'The Sixth

Reunion of Mediterranean Sea Turtle Specialists
at the 27th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle
Conservation and Biology (Myrtle Beach, SC, USA)',
Marine Turtle Newsletter 118, pp.2021.
Jedrzejczak, M.F.; Chelazzi, L.; Colombini, I.;

Scapini, F. and Weslawski, J.M., 2005. 'Bridging
sustainability and productivity of sandy beaches'.
OCEANS, Proceedings of MTS/IEEE. Washington, DC,
Vol. 2, pp.10751079.
Marshall E.J.P. and Moonen, C., 2002. 'Field margins

in northern Europe: their functions and interactions
with agriculture', Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 89(12), pp.521.
Kalkman, V.J.; Boudot, J.P.; Bernard, R.; Conze, K.J.;

De Knijf, G.; Dyatlova, E.; Ferreira, S.; Jovia, M.;
Ott, J.; Riservato, E. and Sahlaon, G., 2010. European
Red List of Dragonflies. Luxembourg, Publications
Office of the European Union.
Keller, P., 2004. Conclusions of the Conference
on Innovation and Growth In Tourism. Lugano,
Switzerland.
Kemp, C., 1999. Influencing Consumer Behaviour to
Promote Sustainable Development. Prepared on behalf
of the Ecumenical Coalition of Third World Tourism.
Available at: http://csdngo.igc.org/tourism/tourdial_
cons.htm [accessed 18 August 2010].
Kohler, Y. and Heinrichs, A.K., 2009. Catalogue of
possible measures to improve ecological connectivity
McKinney, M.L. 2006. 'Urbanization as a major cause

of biotic homogenization', Biological Conservation
127(3), pp.247260.
MEA, 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being:
synthesis. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island
Press, Washington, DC. Available at: www.
millenniumassessment.org/en/Synthesis.aspx
Minayeva, T.; Sirin, A. and Bragg, O., 2009.
AQuick Scan of Peatlands in Central and Eastern
Europe. Wetlands International, Wageningen,
theNetherlands. 132 pp, tabl. 6, fig. 17.
Mountain Partnership, 2009. Policy and law. Available
at: www.mountainpartnership.org/issues/policylaw.
html [accessed 12 August 2010].
53
References
Myers, N.; Mittermeier, R.A.; Mittermeier, C.G.;

da Fonseca, G.A.B. and Kent, J., 2000. 'Biodiversity
hotspots for conservation priorities', Nature 403,
pp.853858.
Nagle, G., 1999. Focus on Geography: Tourism, leisure
and recreation. Nelson Thornes Ltd, the United
Kingdom.
Nieto A. and Alexander K.N.A., 2010. European Red
List of Saproxylic Beetles. Luxembourg, Publications
Office of the European Union.
Nobanis, 2009. European Network on Invasive Alien
Species Gateway to information on Invasive Alien
Species in North and Central Europe. Available at:
www.nobanis.org/ [accessed 12 August 2010].
Nordic Centre for Spatial Development, 2004.
Mountain Areas in Europe: Analysis of mountain areas
in EU member states, acceding and other European
countries. Nordregio Report.
Normander, B.; Levin, G.; Auvinen, A-P.; Bratli,
H.; Stabbetorp, O.; Hedblom, M.; Glimskr, A. and
Gudmundsson, G.A., 2009. State of biodiversity in the
Nordic countries. An assessment of progress towards
achieving the target of halting biodiversity loss by 2010.
TemaNord 2009:509, Copenhagen, 133 pages.
Nylander, M. and Hall, D., 2005. 'Rural Tourism
Policy: European Perspectives'. In: Hall, D.R.,
Kirkpatrick, I. and Mitchell, M. (eds) Aspects of
Tourism: Rural Tourism and Sustainable Business.
pp.1740, Cromwell Press, the United Kingdom.
OECD, 2008a. Environmental performance of
agriculture at a glance. Available at: www.semarnat.
gob.mx/presenciainternacional/Documents/
OCDE/Environmental%20Performance%20of%20
Agriculture%20at%20a%20Glance.pdf [accessed
12August 2010].
OECD, 2008b. Environmental Performance of
Agriculture in OECD countries since 1990. Publications
Service, Paris, France. Available at: www.oecd.org/
tad/env/indicators [accessed 12 August 2010].
Orr, J.C.; Fabry, V.J.; Aumont, O.; Bopp,L.; Doney,
S.C.; Feely, R.A.; Gnanadesikan, A.; Gruber,
N.; Ishida, A.; Joos, F.; Key, R.M.; Lindsay, K.;
MaierReimer, E.; Matear, R.; Monfray, P.; Mouchet,
A.; Najjar, R.G.; Plattner, G.K.; Rodgers, K.B.;
Sabine, C.L.; Sarmiento, J.L.; Schlitzer, R.; Slater,
R.D.; Totterdell, I.J.; Weirig, M.F.; Yamanaka, Y. and
Yool,A., 2005. 'Anthropogenic ocean acidification
54
over the twenty-first century and its impact on

calcifying organisms', Nature 437(7059), pp.681686.
Pan Parks Foundation, 2009. Panparks. Protecting
Europe's Wilderness. Available at: www.panparks.
org/about-us/who-we-are [accessed 12 August 2010].
Papayannis, T., 2004. 'Tourism Carrying Capacity in
Areas of Ecological Importance'. In: Coccossis, H.
and Mexa, A. (eds) The Challenge of Tourism Carrying
Capacity Assessment: Theory and Practice. Ashgate
Publishing Ltd, UK and US, pp.151162.
Paracchini, M.L.; Petersen, J.-E.; Hoogeveen, Y.;
Bamps, C.; Burfield, I. and van Swaay, C., 2008.
High Nature Value Farmland in Europe. An estimate
of the distribution patterns on the basis of land cover
and biodiversity data. JRC Scientific and Technical
Reports. European Communities, Luxembourg.
Available at: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
activities_HNV.htm [accessed 7 June 2010].
Pauchard, A.; Kueffer, C.; Dietz, H.; Daehler, C.C.;
Alexander, J.; Edwards, P.J.; Arvalo, J.R.; Cavieres,
L.A.; Guisan, A.; Haider, S.; Jakobs, G.; McDougall,
K.; Millar, C.I.; Naylor, B.J.; Parks, C.G.; Rew,L.J.
and T. Seipel. 2009. 'Ain't no mountain high
enough: plant invasions reaching new elevations',
Fronteirs in Ecololgy and the Environment 7(9),
pp.479486.
Pauleit, E. and Golding, 2005. 'Modeling the
environmental impacts of urban land use and
land cover change a study in Merseyside, UK',
Landscape and Urban Planning 71(24), pp.295310.
PECBM, 2007. State of Europe's Common
Birds 2007. Pan-European Common Bird
Monitoring. Available at: www.ebcc.info/index.
php?ID=344&basket=7a093aab [accessed 25 April
2010].
Pereira, H., Domingos, T. and Vicente, L., 2001.
Portugal Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: State of the
Assessment Report. A contribution to the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, prepared by the Portugal
Sub-Global Assessment Team. Available at: www.
millenniumassessment.org/documents_sga/
Portugal%20MA_State_of_the_Assessment.pdf
Puumalainen, J.; Kennedy, P.; Folving, S.; Angelstam,
P.; Banko, G.; Brandt, J.; Caldeira, M.; Estreguil,
C.; Garcia del Barrio, J.M.; Keller, M.; Khl, M.;
Marchetti, M.; Neville, P.; Olsson, H.; Parviainen,
J.; Pretzsch, H.; Ravn, H.P.; Sthl, G.; Tomppo, E.;
Uuttera, J.; Watt, A.; Winkler, B. and Wrbka, T.,
References
2002. Forest Biodiversity Assessment Approaches for

Europe, European Commission. Joint Research Centre,
Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Ispra.
Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M. and Gold, B.D. (eds)

1990. Large Marine Ecosystems. Patterns, Processes and
Yields. AAAs Press, Washington DC.
Ramsar, 1971. The Convention on Wetlands text, as

amended in 1982 and 1987. Available at: www.ramsar.
org/cda/en/ramsar-documents-texts-convention-on/
main/ramsar/1-31-38^20671_4000_0__ [accessed
16August 2010].
Smith, K.G and Darwell, R.T., 2006. The status

and Distribution of Freshwater Fish Endemic to the
Mediterranean Basin. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, the United Kingdom.
RAPRA, 2009. Summary: Pest Risk Analysis for

Phytophthora ramorum. European Commission,
Brussels. Available at: http://rapra.csl.gov.uk/
SUMMARY_pra_26feb09.pdf [accessed 25 March
2010].
Smith, J.; Potts, S. and Eggelton, P., 2008. 'The

value of sown grass margins for enhancing soil
macrofaunal biodiversity in arable systems',
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 127,
pp.119125.
Statistics Netherlands, 2009. Statistics Netherlands.
Availbale at: www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/home/default.
htm [accessed 23 August 2010].
Rodrigues, S.M.; Glegg, G.A.; Pereira M.E. and

Duarte, A.C., 2009. 'Pollution Problems in the
Northeast Atlantic: Lessons Learned for Emerging
Pollutants such as the Platinum Group Elements',
Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment 38(1),
pp.1723. doi:10.1579/0044-7447-38.1.17.
Statistics Netherlands, 2010. Statistics Netherlands.

Available at: www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/home/default.
htm [accessed 23 August 2010].
RSPB, 2009. The Royal Society for the Protection

of Birds. Available at: www.rspb.org.uk/ [accessed
23August 2010].
Russell, A., 2007. 'Anthropology and ecotourism in
European wetlands', Tourist Studies 7(2), pp.225244.
Ryan, C., 1991. Recreational Tourism: a social science
perspective. Routledge, London.
Schernewski, G. and Neumann, T., 2002. 'Impact of
river basin management on the Baltic Sea: Ecological
and economical implications of different nutrient
load reduction strategies'. In: Proceedings of the
International Conference 'Sustainable Management of
Transboundary Waters in Europe'. UNECE, 2124 April
2002, Miedzyzdroje, Poland, pp.4351.
Schernewski, G. and Sterr, H., 2002. 'Tourism
and Environmental Quality of the German Baltic
Coast: Conflict or Chance?' In: Schernewski, G.
and Schiewer, U. (eds.) Baltic Coastal Ecosystems:
Structure, Function and Coastal Zone Management.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp.215229.
Stevens and Associates, 2006. 'A Review of Relevant

Experience in Sustainable Tourism in the Coastal
and Marine Environment, Case Studies: Wadden
Sea National Park'. In: Scottish Natural Heritage. A
Review of Relevant Experience in Sustainable Tourism
in the Coastal and Marine Environment. National Park
Office, Scotland.
Stolton, S. (Ed). 2009. Community values and benefits
of protected areas in Europe. Results of a seminar
organized by BfN and EUROPARC Federation at
the International Academy for Nature Conservation,
Island of Vilm, Germany, April 1418, 2009, BfN,
Skripten, Germany.
Storch, I. and Leidenberger, C., 2003. 'Tourism,
mountain huts and distribution of corvids in the
Bavarian Alps, Germany', Wild Biology 9, pp.301308.
Stuart, S.N.; Wilson, E.O.; McNeely, J.A.;
Mittermeier, R.A. and Rodrguez, J.P., 2010. The
Barometer of Life. Science Vol 328, page 177.
Sea Around Us Project, 2009. Available at: www.

seaaroundus.org [accessed 20 August 2010].
SEBI indicators, 2010. Streamlining European
2010 Biodiversity Indicators. Available at:
www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/
indicators/#c7=all&c5=&c0=10&b_start=0&c10=SEBI
Svorounou, E. and Holden, A., 2005. 'Ecotourism as

a Tool for Nature Conservation: The Role of WWF
Greece in the Dadia-Lefkimi-Soufli Forest Reserve in
Greece', Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13(5),
pp.456467.
Sylwester, A., 2009. Green Infrastructure supporting
connectivity, maintaining sustainability. European
Commission, DG Environment. Available
at: http://green-infrastructure-europe.org/
download/Discussion%20Paper%20Green%20
55
References
Infrastructure%20Aleksandra%20Sylwester.pdf
unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx0957xPAMountainsEN.pdf [accessed 22 July 2010].
Tasser, E.; Walde, J.; Tappeiner, U.; Teutsch, A.

and Noggler, W., 2007. 'Land-use changes and
natural reforestation in the Eastern Central Alps',
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 118,
pp.115129.
UNEP, 2009. Promoting Sustainable Tourism in the

Mediterranean. Proceedings of the Regional Workshop
in France, 23 July 2008. MAP Blue Plan Regional
Activity Center BP/RAC Technical Report Series,
No173, Athens, Greece.
TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and

Biodiversity (TEEB). Available at: www.teebweb.org/
UNEP-GRID, 2009. Linking Tourism and Sustainable

Development. Available at: www.grida.no [accessed
20 August 2010].
Telknranta, H., 2006. The Baltic Sea: Discovering

the Sea of Life. Helsinki Commission, Baltic Marine
Environment Protection Commission.
Valoras, G.; Pistolas, K. and Sotrirpoulou, H., 2002.

'Ecotourism Revives Rural Communities: The Case
of the Dadia Forest Reserve, Evros, Greece', Mountain
Research and Development 22(2), pp.123127.
Temple, H.J. and Cox, N.A., 2009. European Red

List of Amphibians. Luxembourg, Office for Official
Publications for the European Communities.
Temple, H.J. and Terry, A., 2007. The Status and
Distribution of European Mammals. Luxembourg,
Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities, viii + 48 pages.
Tockner, K., 2008. Water stress in water rich countries,
Girona, November 2008. Leibniz-Institute for
Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries. Available
at: www.icra.cat/wsmmc_posters/pdf/oral24/
klement-tockner.pdf [accessed 20 August 2010].
Tockner, K.; Robinson, C. and Uehlinger, U., 2008.
Rivers of Europe. Elsevier Ltd, London.
Todorovic, M. (ed.), 2003. Development and Potentials
of Ecotourism on Balkan Peninsula (3 Volume Set). The
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
Turb, A.; De Toni, A.; Benito, P.; Lavelle, P.; Ruiz, N.;
Van der Putten, W.H.; Labouze, E. and Mudgal, S.,
2010. Soil biodiversity: functions, threats and tools
for policy makers. Contract 07.0307/2008/517444/
ETU/B1. Final report. Bio Intelligence Service, IRD,
and NIOO report for the European Commission.
European Commission, Brussels. Available at: http://
ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/pdf/biodiversity_
report.pdf [accessed 24 March 2010].
UNECE/FAO, 2007. State of Europe's Forests.
Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests
in Europe, 2007.
UNEP, 2007. Tourism in mountain areas: A practical
guide for management of environmental and social
impacts of mountain tours. United Nations
Environment Programme. Available at: www.
56
Van Swaay, C.; Cuttelod, A.; Collins, S.; Maes, D.;

Lpez Munguira, M.; ai, M.; Settele, J.; Verovnik,
R.; Verstrael, T.; Warren, M.; Wiemers, M. and
Wynhof I., 2010. European Red List of Butterflies.
Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European
Union.
Veen, P.; Jefferson, R.; de Smidt, J. and de Straaten,
J.V (eds.), 2009. Grasslands in Europe of high nature
value. KNNV publishing. Available at: www.efncp.
org/download/Grasslands-in-Europe-brochure.pdf
Vi, J.C.; Hilton-Taylor, C. and Stuart, S.N., 2009.
Wildlife in a changing world An analysis of the
2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Gland,
Switzerland, IUCN.
Wall, D.H.; Snelgrove, P.V.R. and Covich, A.P.,
2001. 'Conservation priorities for soil and sediment
Invertebrates'. In: Soul, M.E. and Orians, G.H. (eds).
Conservation Biology. Research Priorities for the
Next Decade. Island Press, Society for Conservation
Biology, Washington, DC, pp.99123.
Waterbase, 2009. Waterbase Rivers. Available at:
www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/waterbaserivers-6/#previous-versions [accessed 16 August
2010].
Williams, S., 1998. Tourism Geography. Routledge,
London.
Whittingham, M.J., 2007. 'Will agri-environment
schemes deliver substantial biodiversity gain, and if
not why not?' Journal of Applied Ecology 44, pp.15.
Worm, B.; Barbier, E. B.; Beaumont, N.; Duffy, J. E.;
Folke, C.; Halpern, B.S.; Jackson, J.B.C.; Lotze, H.K.;
References
Micheli, F.; Palumbi, S.R.; Sala, E.; Selkoe, K.A.;

Stachowicz, J.J. and Watson, R., 2006. 'Impacts of
Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services',
Science 314(5800), pp.787790. doi:10.1126/
science.1132294.
WWF (ed.), 2004. The Alps: a unique natural heritage. A
common vision for the conservation of their biodiversity.
Frankfurt, WWF Germany.
WWF, 2009. Biodiversity and the future budget. Making
the case for conserving biodiversity in the context of the
EU Budget Review. Available at: http://assets.panda.
org/downloads/wwf_biodiversity_and_eu_budget.
pdf [accessed 22 July 2010].
Young, L.C.; Vanderlip, C.; Duffy, D.C.; Afanasyev,

V. and Shaffer, S.A., 2009. 'Bringing Home the
Trash: Do Colony-Based Differences in Foraging
Distribution Lead to Increased Plastic Ingestion
in Laysan lbatrosses?' PLOS ONE 4(10), Article
Number e7623.
Zappa, M. and Kan, C., 2007. 'Extreme heat and
runoff extremes in the Swiss Alps', Natural Hazards
and Earth System Sciences 7, pp.375389.
57
Annex 1
Annex 1 SEBI 2010 set of indicators
CBD focal area
Headline indicator
Status and trends Trends in the abundance and distribution of

of the components selected species
of biological
diversity
SEBI 2010 specific indicator

1. Abundance and distribution of selected

species

a. birds
b. butterflies
Change in status of threatened and/or

protected species
2. Red List Index for European species
Trends in extent of selected biomes,

ecosystems and habitats
4. Ecosystem coverage
Trends in genetic diversity of domesticated

animals, cultivated plants, and fish species of
major socio-economic importance
6. Livestock genetic diversity
Coverage of protected areas
7. Nationally designated protected areas
3. Species of European interest

5. Habitats of European interest
8. Sites designated under the EU Habitats

and Birds Directives
Threats to
biodiversity
Ecosystem
integrity and
ecosystem goods
and services
Nitrogen deposition
9. Critical load exceedance for nitrogen
Trends in invasive alien species (numbers and

costs of invasive alien species)
10. Invasive alien species in Europe
Impact of climate change on biodiversity
11. Impact of climatic change on bird

populations
Marine Trophic Index
12. Marine Trophic Index of European seas
Connectivity/fragmentation of ecosystems
13. Fragmentation of natural and semi-natural

areas
14. Fragmentation of river systems
Water quality in aquatic ecosystems
15. Nutrients in transitional, coastal and

marine waters
16. Freshwater quality
Sustainable use
Area of forest, agricultural, fishery and

aquaculture ecosystems under sustainable
management
17. Forest: growing stock, increment and

fellings
18. Forest: deadwood
19. Agriculture: nitrogen balance
20. Agriculture: area under management

practices potentially supporting biodiversity
21. Fisheries: European commercial fish stocks
22. Aquaculture: effluent water quality from

finfish farms
58
Ecological Footprint of European countries
23. Ecological Footprint of European countries
Status of access
and benefits
sharing
Percentage of European patent applications for

inventions based on genetic resources
24. Patent applications based on genetic

resources
Status of resource
transfers
Funding to biodiversity
25. Financing biodiversity management
Public opinion
(additional EU
focal Area)
Public awareness and participation
26. Public awareness

Assessing biodiversity in Europe
the 2010 report
2010 58 pp. 21 x 29.7 cm
ISBN 978-92-9213-106-7
doi:10.2800/42824
How to obtain EU publications

Publications for sale:
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
from your bookseller by quoting the title, the publisher and/or ISBN number;
by contacting one of our sales agents directly. You can obtain their contact details on the

Internet (http://bookshop.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.
Free publications:
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
at the European Commission's representations or delegations. You can obtain their

contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.
TH-AL-10-005-EN-C
doi:10.2800/42824

Kongens Nytorv 6
1050 Copenhagen K
Denmark
Tel.: +45 33 36 71 00
Fax: +45 33 36 71 99
Web: eea.europa.eu
Enquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries

Assessing Biodiversity in Europe 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessing Biodiversity in Europe 2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessing Biodiversity in Europe 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EEA Report

Assessing biodiversity in Europe the 2010 report

Assessing biodiversity in Europe the 2010 report

Cover design: EEA

REG.NO. DK- 000244

European Environment Agency

state of biodiversity in major ecosystems...................................................... 16

4 Conclusions, way forward and knowledge gaps.................................................... 44

Assessing biodiversity in Europe the 2010 report

This report was written by a project team from the

Gordon McInnes, Katarzyna Biala, Ivone Pereira

Assessing biodiversity in Europe the 2010 report

The European target of halting biodiversity loss

incentives and legal standards that protect the public

Assessing biodiversity in Europe the 2010 report

This report confirms the finding of the EEA's

Despite such efforts, biodiversity loss continues in

Assessing biodiversity in Europe the 2010 report

including water supply and regulation, is not widely

butterflies. This is mainly caused by habitat loss

Assessing biodiversity in Europe the 2010 report

ecological networks and connectivity areas, need to

Key gaps in knowledge remain across Europe,

Assessing biodiversity in Europe the 2010 report

This report considers the status and trends of

This report completes a five-year assessment cycle

Assessing biodiversity in Europe the 2010 report

Assessing biodiversity in Europe the 2010 report

* Kosovo under UNSCR 1244/99

Outside report coverage

South Eastern Europe (SEE)

Andorra, Monaco, San Marino

European Free Trade

The pan-European region covered in this report

Biodiversity policy in Europe

2 Biodiversity policy in Europe

Biodiversity is now higher on the European political

At the fifth Environment for Europe (EfE)

Box 2.1 Article 17 reporting under the Habitats Directive

Assessing biodiversity in Europe the 2010 report

Biodiversity policy in Europe

In May 2006, the European Commission adopted

Figure 2.1 Conservation status of assessed

Number of assessments in brackets.

Source: ETC/BD, 2008; SEBI 2010 Indicator 03.

Source: BirdLife International, 2004.

international Species Action Plans (SAPs); additional

Figure 2.2 Conservation status of all birds in

In addition, many other policies in Europe that

Assessing biodiversity in Europe the 2010 report

Biodiversity policy in Europe

Conservation status of assessed habitats in EU-25, by biogeographical region

Source: ETC/BD, 2008; SEBI 2010 Indicator 05.

recommended that financial support for the Natura

Some key gaps remain in EU policy for

Assessing biodiversity in Europe the 2010 report

Biodiversity policy in Europe

Box 2.2 Biogeographical regions

Similarly, four marine regions were considered:

territories and outermost regions. Additional