EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 6.9.2022

SWD(2022) 284 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

EVALUATION

Of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020

{SWD(2022) 285 final}

Table of Contents

1.INTRODUCTION

1.1.Purpose of this evaluation

1.2.Scope of the evaluation

2.BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE

2.1.Description of the initiative and its objectives

2.2.Intervention logic

2.3.Baseline

3.IMPLEMENTATION AND STATE OF PLAY

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

4.METHODOLOGY

4.1.Evaluation questions

4.2.Process

4.3.Limitations – robustness of findings

5.ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS

5.1.Effectiveness

5.1.1Progress to the targets

5.1.2Major achievements and challenges, and underlying factors

5.2.Efficiency

5.2.1.Cost-effectiveness and socio-economic impacts

5.2.2.The Strategy as an instrument

5.2.3.Socio-economic impacts

5.3.Relevance

5.3.1.Strategy relevance to biodiversity and wider needs

5.3.2.Flexibility to adapt to emerging issues

5.4.Coherence

5.5.EU Added Value

6.CONCLUSIONS

6.1.Findings

6.2.Lessons learnt for the future

Annex 1 – Procedural information

Annex 2 – Synopsis report of stakeholder consultations

Annex 3 – Methods and Analytical models used in preparing the evaluation

Annex 4 – Overview of costs – benefits identified in the evaluation

ANNEX 5 – Operational Targets and Actions of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020

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

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

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

ABBREVIATIONS/GLOSSARY

1.    INTRODUCTION

This is an evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 1 , which provided the EU biodiversity policy framework for 2011-20. It was guided by the EU 2050 vision for biodiversity and the EU 2020 headline biodiversity target, endorsed by the EU Heads of State and Government in 2010 2 . 

1.1.1.1.    Purpose of this evaluation

This evaluation examines the performance of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 in line with Better Regulation Guidelines 3 . Its purpose is to provide lessons that will help improve the design and implementation of EU biodiversity policies beyond 2020.

At the end of 2019, the Commission published a communication on the European Green Deal 4 ̶ Europe’s new sustainable growth strategy. The Green Deal reset the EU’s commitment and laid out an ambitious agenda for tackling the ecological and climate crises in the EU, as well as to show leadership by example at global level 5 .

As part of this agenda and the political mandate that arose from it – to urgently strengthen the EU framework for biodiversity action – in May 2020 the Commission published an EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 6 . Work on this new strategy took place in parallel with the evaluation of the preceding policy period.

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

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

1.2.1.2.    Scope of the evaluation

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

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

It takes stock of achievements in implementing the Strategy at the EU level and in the Member States (EU-27+UK 7 ), depending on the level(s) at which each specific biodiversity action was to be implemented.

It reflects on the factors that have enabled progress, as well as implementation challenges and the likely underlying causes. It reviews available evidence of significant environmental, social and economic impacts of implementation vis-à-vis those forecast in the 2011 impact assessment 8 , and considers whether the Strategy has been a suitable instrument to help the EU and its Member States to deliver on the 2020 headline target.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.    BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE

1.3.2.1.    Description of the initiative and its objectives

Biodiversity – the variety of life on Earth – and the benefits provided by healthy ecosystems to people, have been in steep decline in recent decades, both in the EU and globally. Recognising the urgent need to halt and reverse this trend, in 2010 EU leaders endorsed a 2050 vision and a 2020 headline target for biodiversity 9 .

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

Table 1. Structure of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020

The Strategy brought together existing commitments under EU legislation and policies along with new ones, presenting them as a coherent package. It formed an integral part of the Europe 2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth 10 and the 7th Environmental Action Programme 11 .

It was designed to support the implementation of EU environmental legislation 12 and strengthen synergies with a range of EU policies including on the environment, climate, agriculture, rural development, fisheries, regional development, research, trade and development cooperation.

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

The EU is – along with all the EU Member States – a full party to the CBD. The Strategy is therefore to be considered as the EU level‑ NBSAP implementing the EU’s global commitments under the CBD and its global Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-20, including the Aichi targets 13 .

1.4.2.2.    Intervention logic 

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

A target to halt biodiversity loss by 2010 had been set by the EU Heads of State and Government already in 2001, and an EU Biodiversity Action Plan 14 had been in place since 2006 to accelerate progress towards it.

However, despite significant action carried out, the EU missed the 2010 target: the status and condition of biodiversity and ecosystems in the EU, and the essential services they provide continued to deteriorate in 2010, driven by changes in land use, pollution, overexploitation, invasive alien species and climate change 15 .

The most significant reasons for failure to tackle these drivers were found to be insufficient integration of biodiversity-related objectives across other sectoral policies, incomplete and uneven implementation of existing legislation and policy gaps, as well as shortcomings in funding for biodiversity in the EU 16 . 

The impact assessment for the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2020 17 further identified a range of indirect drivers related to demographic and cultural/lifestyle choices, institutional drivers, market failures, economic structure, size and growth, and trade.

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

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

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

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

1.5.2.3.    Baseline

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

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

The EEA report revealed that in 2010, only 17% of the assessments of habitats and species protected under the Nature Directives 19 were 'favourable', while 65% of habitats assessments and 52% of species assessments were 'unfavourable' (with the number being as low as just 5% for grasslands). Since 1990, common farmland birds had declined by 20–25%, all common bird populations by around 10% and grassland butterflies by nearly 60%, showing no sign of levelling off.

Corine Land Cover inventories 20 showed continued expansion of artificial surfaces at the expense of grasslands, wetlands and cultivated land. The serious and continuing loss of Europe's biodiversity resulted in a decline in the ability of ecosystems to sustain their natural production capacity and perform regulating functions, such as crop pollination, clean air and water provisioning, and the control of floods or erosion. An increase in provisioning services, such as timber, was also noted. The EEA assessment was subsequently updated in 2015 and 2020.

In 2011, a business-as-usual scenario was developed as part of the impact assessment underpinning the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 21 . It described how the state of biodiversity, and pressures on it, would likely develop in the absence of an EU Biodiversity Strategy. It made a qualitative projection of the likely level of implementation and consequences of existing policy and legislation.

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

Ecosystem degradation driven by land-use changes, overexploitation, pollution, habitat loss, climate change and invasion by alien species would likely continue or worsen. It predicted that mean species abundance would continue to decline in Europe, from approximately 40% in 2010 to approximately 37% in 2050.

The support study for this evaluation 22 revisited and introduced minor retrospective changes to the ‘business as usual’ scenario, reflecting new information and actual developments of EU policies and legislation (insofar as they were not considered to be a result of the Strategy). More detail on the assumptions of the ‘business as usual’ scenario is provided in Annex 6.

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

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

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

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

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

3.    IMPLEMENTATION AND STATE OF PLAY    

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

In 2015, the Commission undertook a mid-term review of the implementation of the Strategy 23 . It drew on the monitoring framework with indicators 24 and assessed progress and trends for each target.

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

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

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

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

Efforts were stepped up following the 2015 mid-term review, guided by an EU Roadmap for enhanced implementation 25 that the Commission drew up in 2016, in cooperation with Member State authorities and stakeholders in the Coordination Group for Biodiversity and Nature 26 .

This roadmap included measures to step up implementation of existing actions and introduced new actions where needed (e.g. a new EU Pollinators Initiative 27 ). It was created and implemented in synergy with the Action plan for nature, people and the economy 28 , which aimed to tackle implementation and enforcement weaknesses identified in the fitness check on EU nature legislation 29 .

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

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

The EU-level findings resonate with global assessments. In 2018 the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)  published a Regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia 30 and, in 2019, a Global assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services 31 .

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

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

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

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

Some of the biodiversity targets were not fully SMART 32 (see list of actions in Annex 5), which has implications for measuring and scoring the degree of their delivery.

Within most targets, implementation progress varied for the actions. A detailed assessment of each individual action has been provided in the final report of the study supporting this evaluation 33 .

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

(i) progress in implementing the actions

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

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

4.    METHODOLOGY    

This evaluation uses the standard policy evaluation criteria and follows a well-defined methodology in accordance with the Better Regulation Guidelines 65 . The evaluation criteria were further operationalised through evaluation questions.

1.7.4.1.    Evaluation questions

This evaluation aims to answer the following evaluation questions:

Effectiveness:

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

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

·To what extent has the strategy been successful in addressing the main drivers of biodiversity loss?

·What have been success factors and have successful approaches been shared and replicated?

·What have been possible gaps or challenges that have hindered progress towards the targets?

·To what extent have stakeholders been actively engaged in the strategy’s implementation and how have they been affected?

Efficiency

·To what extent has the strategy been cost-effective?

·What factors could have improved cost-effectiveness by strengthening delivery of the targets while minimising unnecessary costs and avoiding administrative burden?

·How timely and efficient is the process for reporting and monitoring?

·Was the Strategy the most appropriate instrument to achieve the EU biodiversity targets to 2020?

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

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

Coherence

·To what extent has the EU Biodiversity Strategy been coherent with the Europe 2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth?

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

·To what extent are the biodiversity targets coherent with and mainstreamed into other EU policies, in particular on agriculture, fisheries, regional and urban development, energy, climate change, research and innovation as well as trade and development cooperation?

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

Relevance

·To what extent do the objectives and targets of the strategy (still) correspond to the needs of the EU with regard to biodiversity?

·Has the strategy been flexible enough to respond to new or emerging issues?

·How relevant is the strategy for the different stakeholders and to EU citizens in particular?

EU added value

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

·How do Member States' targets and implementation add up or compare to the targets at EU‑level?

1.8.4.2.    Process

In line with standard practice for Commission evaluations, after adoption of the Roadmap 66 , an evaluation matrix was developed, breaking the above evaluation questions further to allow for their analysis, identifying the success criteria and indicators against which the assessment was performed, and clarifying sources of data and evidence. The evaluation matrix set the framework for the evaluation work.

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

·Review of literature, datasets and indicators: Numerous literature sources were studied, the majority of which were academic studies, Commission impact assessments, evaluations and fitness checks and reviews of relevant EU policies and legislation; Member States and Commission implementation reports on relevant EU legislation; reports by the European Court of Auditors; publications by the European Environment Agency (EEA), the Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), position papers by stakeholders as well as independent studies, policy documents, and projects funded by the EU; as well as national policies, publications and reports, including the EU and Member States’ 5th and 6th National Reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Key sources of evidence included the European Environment – State and Outlook Report 67 ; the State of Nature in the EU 68 (EEA 2020); the EU 6th National Report to the CBD (2020) 69 ; the first EU Ecosystem Assessment (JRC 2020) 70 and the Streamlined European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI) 71 .

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

·Targeted consultations including:

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

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

oDiscussions with Commission Services at the Inter-service group on the evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, and online meetings with individual services where necessary to further discuss specific aspects (see also Annex 1).

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

1.9.4.3.    Limitations – robustness of findings

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

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

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

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

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

This meant that, even when evidence on biodiversity outcomes and impacts was strong, it was often difficult to attribute them with a degree of certainty to the Strategy (rather than to the impact of other legislation or EU policies). In response, extra efforts were made in discussions with stakeholders to explore the possible impact of the implementation of the Strategy in the case study countries.

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

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

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

5.    ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS

1.10.5.1.    Effectiveness

5.1.1Progress to the targets 

What is the issue?

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

What are the findings?

Progress towards the headline target has been limited. Biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU have continued since 2010, and a number of direct and indirect drivers of loss have accelerated, including the increasing impacts of climate change and invasive alien species 72 , 73 . Ecosystems’ potential to deliver a range of services in the EU is stable or decreasing, while demand for these services is increasing, resulting in a deficit of services and further pressures on ecosystems 74 . Globally, biodiversity has been declining faster than at any time in human history, and direct and indirect drivers of change 75 have accelerated during the past decades. Together with climate change, biodiversity loss increases the risk of irreversible changes and undermines economic development and the resilience of societies in the face of new challenges.

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

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

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

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

Stakeholder views on implementation

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

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

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

(i)    100% more habitat assessments and 50% more species assessments under the Habitats Directive show an improved conservation status; and,

(ii) 50% more species assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure or improved status.

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

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

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

Source: State of nature in the EU 2020 (COM/2020/635 final).

The State of Nature in the EU Report 2020 76 (based on the results of the Member States Reporting under the Nature Directives for 2013-18) reveals that an estimated 47% of European wild bird species assessments show good population status: a decrease of 5% since the last reporting period (2007-12), and 30% of breeding populations exhibit short-term decreasing trends. For species, there was only a 2% gap to the 50% target increase. The majority of habitat assessments show a ‘poor’ (45%) or ‘bad’ (36%) status, with only 15% of habitat types assessments showing ‘good’ status (a 2% decrease since 2010). For habitats not in good status, only 9% of assessments show improving trends between reporting periods, 34% are stable, and 36% are continuing to deteriorate 77 . Some positive trends are noted: an average, 6% of national or regional assessments for habitats and species (other than birds) show improvement. The status of emblematic species has improved thanks to conservation actions, often with support from the EU LIFE Programme (e.g. the recovery of populations of Lynx pardinus and the Cantabrian brown bear in Spain; the brown bear and the wolf in Italy; the chamois and griffon vultures in Bulgaria, the common crane, white-tailed eagle and osprey in the Netherlands) 78 . However, the majority of species within the scope of the Habitats Directive remain in ‘poor’ or ‘bad’ status (63% of assessments), with a slightly increasing short-term trend for those in ‘good’ status (27% of assessments in 2013-18 against 23% in 2007-12 and 17% in 2010). Another remaining challenge is protection outside Natura 2000 sites. Monitoring has improved, however gaps remain in data on status and trends, particularly pertinent for marine species and habitats. The trends of 21% of habitats and 31% of species are unknown 79 .

The Member States have progressed significantly with the designation of the Natura 2000 network. The terrestrial network is almost complete and covered about 18% of the EU’s land area by 2020. With this extent, the EU has achieved Aichi biodiversity target 11 80 . The marine network has increased significantly, from about 3% of the EU’s sea area in 2010 to more than 9% in 2020 for EU-27+UK (and about 8% for EU-27).

However, many Natura 2000 sites continue to suffer from anthropogenic pressures and fragmentation. The most commonly reported pressures on habitats and species are grouped as activities relating to agriculture, urbanization and forestry. For surface water habitats, the predominant factors for not achieving good ecological status under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) include hydromorphological pressures, diffuse pollution and over-abstraction 81 .

Management deficiencies, such as delays in the setting of adequate conservation objectives and measures for Natura 2000 sites, as well as constraints related to funding, knowledge, stakeholder engagement, policy integration and human resources have hindered the achievement of favourable conservation status 82 . A special report of the European Court of Auditors concluded that more efforts are needed in the management, financing and monitoring of Natura 2000 network to achieve its full potential 83 .

In evaluating progress to Target 1, it is important to note that it aims to support the full implementation of existing legislation. The actions set out in the Strategy aimed to increase stakeholder engagement, strengthen links with other policy areas, raise awareness and provide guidance on different implementation aspects. These actions as well as the Action Plan for nature, people and the economy have supported implementation, good practice exchange, enforcement and policy integration, as well as awareness raising 84 on the importance and benefits from Natura 2000. Partnerships and networks have been developed to share information and experiences among actors, manage and enhance Natura 2000 as an ecological network, as set out in Action 3 of the Strategy. However, it is a challenge to separate with a high degree of certainty the impacts of the actions undertaken as part of the Strategy’s Target 1, on the one hand, from other implementation and enforcement actions that would have taken place under the Nature Directives in the absence of the Strategy, on the other.

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

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

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

As part of Action 5, the EU initiative on the mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services (MAES) developed one of the most advanced regional ecosystem assessment schemes, with the engagement of all EU Member States 85 . It has helped to build a significant knowledge base on EU ecosystems and the services they provide, with the publication in 2020 of the first EU ecosystem assessment 86 . Nevertheless, there are still significant gaps in knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystems, underlining the need for a robust biodiversity observation network and more consistent ecosystem condition reporting.

The Commission supported the development of an integrated natural capital accounting system for ecosystems and their services and associated datasets via the Knowledge Innovation Project on ecosystem services and Natural Capital Accounting 87 . Biophysical and monetary assessments of ecosystem services have stimulated projects aiming to improve the conservation status of ecosystems and the development of national natural capital accounts 88 .

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

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

The EU ecosystem assessment further indicated that societal demand for several ecosystem services that were assessed has continued to increase since 2010, while the potential of ecosystems to provide these services has declined within the same period, resulting in a deficit 89 and increasing the risk of increased pressures and further ecosystem deterioration.

As part of Action 6, and in order to support the restoration of degraded ecosystems, in 2014, the Commission provided guidance to the Member States on the development of Restoration Prioritisation Frameworks 90 . Very few Member States formally submitted such frameworks 91 . Data on ecosystem restoration efforts in the EU is incomplete. Restoration activity is taking place – often in response to relevant EU legislation, such as the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). Wetlands and freshwater ecosystems have often been declared as restoration priorities. Restoration projects with support from the EU LIFE Programme have been instrumental for many local and regional conservation successes. They have also demonstrated the added value and effectiveness of transnational conservation approaches, particularly in relation to restoring fish migration routes and coherent site networks for migratory birds 92 . Annex 8 to this report provides a wealth of further examples of restoration initiatives identified in the national implementation surveys.

There is no comprehensive overview of restoration undertaken in the Member States. Estimates in studies suggest that restoration activity has been significantly below what would have been required to reach the target of restoring 15% of degraded ecosystems: between 2,850 km2 and 5,700 km2 of habitat restoration is occurring annually in the EU, whereas the restoration needs of Annex I habitats alone (i.e. assessments reported in ′not good′ condition) are estimated to concern an area of between 167,000 km2 to 263,000 km 93 .

As part of the implementation of Action 6, the EU published a Strategy on Green Infrastructure in 2013 94 . Few national green infrastructure strategies have been developed in response to the EU Green Infrastructure Strategy. However, significant development of Green Infrastructure is taking place in some Member States (Germany), and objectives or requirements related to green infrastructure are included in broader biodiversity and nature conservation policies and legislation. There is also evidence of implementation of local, national and transnational green infrastructure initiatives, if often only at a small-scale 95 .

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

By 2020, maximise areas under agriculture across grasslands, arable land and permanent crops that are covered by biodiversity-related measures under the CAP so as to ensure the conservation of biodiversity and to bring about a measurable improvement(*) in the conservation status of species and habitats that depend on or are affected by agriculture and in the provision of ecosystem services as compared to the EU2010 Baseline, thus contributing to enhance sustainable management.
(*) Improvement is to be measured against the quantified enhancement targets for the conservation status of species and habitats of EU interest in Target 1 and the restoration of degraded ecosystems under target 2.

Progress towards Target 3A has been limited. The available CAP Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF) indicators do not point to particular EU level improvements 96 .

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

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

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

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

Evidence provided in the targeted consultations as well as individual studies in the Member States indicate significant declines in butterfly and farmland bird populations, loss of high nature value farmland as well as exceeded nitrogen loads in over half the area of sensitive ecosystems 99 .

The Commission’s report on the evaluation of the impacts of the CAP on biodiversity concluded that the extent of uptake and the biodiversity impact of CAP measures, in interaction with other biodiversity-related instruments, are highly dependent on Member States’ implementation choices and the priority given to measures to support biodiversity in agroecosystems, or to counteract negative impacts on biodiversity from agriculture.In conclusion, the Common Agricultural Policy has provided options for enhanced biodiversity support measures, in line with the action set out in the Strategy. Their uptake has depended on the choices made by the Member States and regions, and has been overall too low to achieve the quantified target 3A. For example, many Member States have settled for minimum standards under CAP Pillar I. Some of the most beneficial measures for biodiversity under Pillar II, such as Natura 2000 support, have been infrequently used 100 . A special report of the European Court of Auditors concluded that the CAP support had not halted the decline of biodiversity on farmland, despite some instruments having the potential to achieve positive biodiversity outcomes 101 . The Commission’s proposals for the future CAP 102 took stock of the strengths and weaknesses of the CAP instruments and included an enhanced conditionality, advisory services, eco-schemes in Pillar I and Pillar II measures.

Following the mid-term review of the Strategy in 2015, as part of its efforts to step up implementation and address identified gaps, the Commission published in 2018 a new EU Pollinators Initiative 103 . The aim was to provide a coherent EU framework for actions to tackle the decline of wild pollinators. In 2021, the Commission published a report on the review of the initiative’s implementation 104 . It showed good progress in the implementation of the actions, but also major challenges in tackling the drivers of pollinator decline, particularly habitat loss in farming landscapes and pesticides, as well as the growing importance of drivers such as climate change and environmental pollutants. The Commission will revise the Pollinators Initiative in the second half of 2022, in order to strengthen EU action to resolve the identified challenges.

Target 3B Sustainable forestry

By 2020, Forest Management Plans or equivalent instruments, in line with Sustainable Forest Management (SFM), are in place for all forests that are publicly owned and for forest holdings above a certain size** (to be defined by the Member States or regions and communicated in their Rural Development Programmes) that receive funding under the EU Rural Development Policy so as to bring about a measurable improvement(*) in the conservation status of species and habitats that depend on or are affected by forestry and in the provision of related ecosystem services as compared to the EU 2010 Baseline.

(*) Improvement is to be measured against the quantified enhancement targets for the conservation status of species and habitats of EU interest in Target 1 and the restoration of degraded ecosystems under target 2.

(**) For smaller forest holdings, Member States may provide additional incentives to encourage the adoption of Management Plans or equivalent instruments that are in line with SFM.

Progress towards Target 3B has been limited. It is estimated that by 2020, 75% of Europe’s forests were covered by a management plan, while 25 out of the 30 countries reporting to Forest Europe have issued a national report on sustainable forest management (SFM) 105 . The degree to which such SFMs include biodiversity measures with beneficial impacts is unknown at the EU level, with the most recent study indicating that biodiversity measures included in such plans are often deemed ‘unsatisfactory’ in relation to protecting forests and biodiversity from negative effects 106 .

Tree species diversity and forest area have been steadily increasing in the EU, while common forest bird species remain in stable conditions overall. Deadwood volumes are increasing but remain below desirable threshold levels for biodiversity. A significant majority of Annex 1 forest habitat assessments show ‘bad’ or ‘poor’ status in the EU (85%) 107 . The area indicator shows that bad or poor condition is reported in 21.1% of the Annex 1 forest habitats‘ area 108 , good condition is reported in nearly half of the area (49.5%), and in almost one-third of the area (29.4%), the condition is unknown 109 .

Defoliation rates show increasing trends, indicating poor tree health, which corresponds to an increase in various pressures on forest ecosystems 110 . Since 2010, the following pressure indicators have shown a significant upward trend: tree cover loss; water scarcity; warming and extreme droughts (and subsequent impacts on forest productivity). A number of pathways such as conversion of natural forests to plantations, intensification of forest management or harvesting of stumps and roots are a major challenge which can exacerbate forest pressures and biodiversity impacts, including when woody biomass is used as a source of renewable energy 111 . On the other hand, biodiversity-friendly practices such as afforestation and reforestation measures that respect ecological principles favourable to biodiversity, agroforestry and other forms of mixed farming can have a positive biodiversity impact.

The EU Forest Strategy (2013) aimed to ensure that all EU forests are managed according to sustainable forest management (SFM) principles by 2020, with objective, ambitious and demonstrable SFM criteria to be developed in cooperation with Member States and stakeholders. A 2018 progress report concluded that the Strategy had made significant progress towards its 2020 objectives, but that implementing the EU biodiversity objectives has remained a major challenge 112 . The 2019 implementation progress assessment noted the lack of an overview of the status of forest management plans throughout Europe, as well as the lack of an analysis of the extent of biodiversity measures included in such plans 113 .

An analysis of the implementation challenges of Natura 2000 in forests concluded that the designation of protected areas in forests has met substantial policy challenges and management conflicts with sector stakeholders, and there is still a significant need to strengthen incentive-based conservation instruments for forest management for biodiversity, including compensation payments in Natura 2000 114 . The new EU Forest Strategy for 2030 took account of these findings and set out strengthened measures to protect and enhance forest ecosystems 115 .

CAP forestry measures are a key instrument to encourage mainstreaming of SFM in forest planning (being a funding prerequisite for forests above a certain size). However, an evaluation of the CAP forestry measures concluded that it was difficult to assess the support provided by the forest measures to forest management plans 116 , due to the differences between Member States in their approach to such plans and the lack of information on implementation. Evidence is scarce on the biodiversity impacts of the CAP forest measures and the afforestation and agroforestry elements of the ecological focus areas in forest areas. These measures are infrequently used by Member States. EFA measures are only targeted at very few high biodiversity areas. Their likely impact may be locally significant but overall limited 117 .

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

Most of the Member States have programmed investments improving the resilience and environmental value of forest ecosystems, including some biodiversity support measures. Interviewed forest sector stakeholders have noted little evidence of payments for ecosystem services or other innovative mechanisms deployed at any significant scale (input from forest stakeholders from the targeted consultations in the Member States).

Target 4 Ensure the sustainable use of fisheries resources

Achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) by 2015 118 . Achieve a population age and size distribution indicative of a healthy stock, through fisheries management with no significant adverse impacts on other stocks, species and ecosystems, in support of achieving Good Environmental Status by 2020, as required under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

Target 4 has shown limited progress overall, however significant progress has been made in relation to fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic where 41% of assessed shellfish and commercial fish stocks have been brought within safe biological limits. The number of Total Allowable Catch (TAC) quotas set in line with the MSY has significantly increased in recent times, from 5 TACs in 2009 to 62 in 2020 119 . Multiannual Management Plans include fisheries measures for the conservation of certain species. Reference to the legal basis under the CFP allows the Member States to adopt measures for the conservation of habitats and species through regionalisation 120 . Ambitious actions and emergency measures have shown success, e.g. in the recovery of the Northern hake and the Northern seabass.

The latest data indicate a reduction in the overall exploitation rate and an increase in the biomass of stocks in the NE Atlantic in the period 2013-20. Nevertheless, many stocks remain overfished and/or outside safe biological limits. The objective of the CFP to ensure that all stocks are fished at or below FMSY in 2020 has not been achieved, due in particular to continued overfishing in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea 121 , 122 , where annual fishing mortality estimates are around twice FMSY for the entire time series (2013-2019) 123 .

The 2017 recast Data Collection Framework 124  and the multiannual programme for the collection, management and use of data added a requirement on data to assess the impacts of EU fisheries on marine ecosystems in the EU and in non-EU waters (e.g. incidental bycatch of all birds, mammals and reptiles and fish protected under Union legislation and international agreements). Member States implemented pilot studies to test different methodologies, and this has become part of regular sampling programmes since 2022. This information feeds into the assessments and reporting under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD).

The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund has supported investments in on-board equipment that limits or eliminates the physical and biological impacts of fishing on the ecosystem or the sea bed as well as catches of protected mammals and birds, eliminates discards and deals with unwanted catches to be landed. The new EU Technical Measures Regulation 125 completed the framework for conservation measures outside Natura 2000 sites and other marine protected areas (MPA). The first report on its implementation 126 noted that, only 2 years after the entry into force of the regulation, some Member States have already started to develop additional fisheries measures to protect sensitive species and habitats at both the national and regional levels.

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

Target 4 also aims to support the achievement of Good Environmental Status (GES) as required under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). In 2020, the Commission concluded that despite data inconsistencies 128 and missing reports from several Member States 129 , evidence indicated that progress to reaching GES had not been enough 130 . Difficulties in defining threshold values 131 , inadequate alignment between MS programmes of measures and identified pressures were (inter alia) noted as hindrances to achieving GES 132 . Nearly all of Europe’s marine area (93%) is under various pressures from human activities and there is hardly any part of this area that is not affected by at least two such pressures. Comprehensive data on EU level trends of seafloor integrity is currently lacking, with estimates that approximately 35% of the European shelf area has been disturbed by unsustainable fishing practices 133 . Bottom trawling is a key pressure on the seafloor particularly within the demersal zone, although data indicates that such activities may be decreasing in some regions.

Further pressures on the marine environment exist that are beyond the immediate scope of Target 4, such as other seafloor damaging activities e.g. related to the extraction of marine minerals, pollution, invasive alien species and underwater noise. These pressures are being exacerbated by the increasing impacts of climate change and the acidification on oceans. Marine litter is present in all marine ecosystems. The trends and impacts of marine underwater noise are largely unassessed currently, yet various measures under the MSFD are currently in place to assess and mitigate underwater noise emissions 134 .

Target 5 Combat invasive alien species

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

Significant progress was made in implementing the actions under Target 5 with the adoption of the Regulation on Invasive Alien Species (IAS) in 2014 135 . A list of IAS of Union concern was adopted in 2016, and updated in 2017 and 2019, reaching a total of 66 species 136 . Furthermore, revised Regulations on Plant Health and on Animal Health have also been introduced.

By the date of this evaluation, most progress has related to processes and outputs. Full implementation of the IAS Regulation only began in July 2019, 36 months after the adoption of the first Union list. On 13 October 2021, the Commission published its report on the review of the application of the IAS Regulation 137 , primarily based on reports submitted by the Member States for the period 2015-18. While it is premature to draw conclusions on most implementation aspects of the Regulation, the report already identified some significant achievements, including:

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

·Mechanisms and platforms are in place to support reporting and early warning of new detections 138 .

·Most Member States have set up a surveillance system and carry out official controls for IAS on the Union List.

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

·The number of early-detection notifications and of management measures taken indicates that the listed IAS of Union concern are relevant to most Member States.

·The IAS Regulation has led to increased awareness of the problem of invasive alien species, including among the general public.

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

The Regulation has encouraged coordinated action between countries 139 , 140 , while the European Alien Species Information Network (EASIN) 141 has facilitated access to harmonised scientific information and on the distribution of around 14 000 alien species throughout Europe 142 , leading to increased knowledge sharing and citizen involvement 143 , 144 , 145 .

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

·Continuing increase in newly introduced alien species many of which are likely to become invasive.

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

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

·There is scope for improvement of the coverage of surveillance systems and official control structures in many Member States.

·There are knowledge gaps related to the implications of climate change and to novel methods for IAS management, in particular at pathway level.

·Uncertainty over the exact limits between the native and alien range of some species in the EU is a major obstacle to regional cooperation.

Despite clear progress in implementing the actions of the Strategy, IAS continue to exert significant pressure on EU biodiversity and ecosystems, both terrestrial and aquatic 146 . IAS of Union concern impact Atlantic and Continental regions disproportionately, but high potential impacts occur across all ecosystems and biogeographic regions. Implementation has started in all Member States, but Target 5 has not been achieved by the Target date 2020.

Target 6 Help avert global biodiversity loss

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

Progress to Target 6 has been limited. Biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services are deteriorating worldwide, as evidenced by the IPBES Global assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services. The natural capital stock per person worldwide is estimated to have declined by 40% between 1992-14, with global biodiversity decline occurring faster now than at any time in human history 147 . The EU's (EU27+ UK) ecological footprint per person has been steadily falling since 2010, but this is largely due to a reduction in the carbon footprint. The EU still remains in a significant ecological deficit compared to its biocapacity, with over-extraction of resources within the EU or in other regions through the import and export of goods, or through the exploitation of global commons 148 .

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

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

Positive developments are noted in relation to some of the actions set out under Target 6. International financial flows from the EU and its Member States for global biodiversity have been significant since the Strategy was published. The Hyderabad commitment to double financial resources for biodiversity to developing countries was achieved or exceeded by a number of Member States. The Bonn Challenge 149 launched in 2011 mobilised national commitments to restore 150 million ha of degraded forests globally by 2020. However, limited progress has been made on identifying and eliminating subsidies that are harmful for biodiversity. Several Member States have published studies, reviews and catalogues of such subsidies, but initiatives to reduce or eliminate them are at an early stage of development.

The EU has taken measures to tackle illegal trade, for example in timber as part of the implementation of the FLEGT Action Plan, and in wildlife as part of the EU Action plan against wildlife trafficking. Biodiversity-related provisions have been systematically included in the Trade and Sustainable Development chapters of EU trade agreements. However, detailed assessment of the biodiversity impacts of trade – and the monitoring and enforcement of these (non-binding) provisions – remain a challenge. There is evidence of limited progress in developing market signals to avert biodiversity loss 150 , while comprehensive indicators and robust methods to substantiate trade impacts on biodiversity are still lacking 151 .

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

5.1.2Major achievements and challenges, and underlying factors

What is the issue?

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

What are the findings?

Major achievements

There is significant evidence of successful protection and restoration actions on the ground, including a significant increase of species’ assessments under the Habitats Directive that show favourable conservation status; the restoration of degraded vulnerable habitats and the return of many emblematic species, as well as the deployment of nature-based solutions and green infrastructure 152 . While projects financed to date often do not have the critical mass to reverse the heavy trends of biodiversity loss 153 , such successful actions have demonstrated the feasibility of biodiversity protection and restoration, as well as the benefits arising from healthy nature.

The Natura 2000 network has been significantly developed and is almost complete on land. Greater Natura 2000 coverage positively correlates with the conservation status of habitats and species 154 . Under Target 1 of the Strategy, the Commission and the Member States have launched important processes that have supported implementation of the Nature Directives. For instance, the biogeographical cooperation process 155  has supported the sharing of experience and good practice, and cross-border action among authorities and stakeholders on the management of Natura 2000.  Guidance has been developed to improve understanding of the requirements of EU nature legislation and to support authorities and stakeholders in its implementation and in ensuring compliance. In 2017, the Commission developed an Action plan for nature, people and the economy to tackle the main shortcomings identified in the fitness check of the Nature Directives. Many of its elements built on actions already undertaken under Target 1.

The EU Green Infrastructure Strategy 156 has encouraged the inclusion of green infrastructure measures in various national biodiversity strategies and plans and policy documents, such as on the sustainable development of coastal areas, climate change adaptation strategies, and EU urban policy 157 . It has also helped to mobilise support for green infrastructure under EU funding instruments. Increased political momentum and actions by cities to create green infrastructure have been noted in some Member States (as highlighted for example in the Germany case study, see Annex 8).

The biodiversity targets have also stimulated the development of a range of instruments and measures in other policy areas, with a significant potential to support biodiversity in the Member States, such as (i) Agri-environment-climate measures, and some Pillar I greening measures that support biodiversity (albeit with limited uptake), (ii) support for forest management plans including biodiversity measures 158 , as well as (iii) measures under the Common Fisheries Policy with direct positive impact on marine biodiversity, such as the establishment of TACs, the implementation of closures to protect spawning and the implementation of technical measures to improve fishing selectivity..

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

The EU and its Member States’ have increased their financial contributions to the conservation and sustainable use of global biodiversity in line with the EU’s global commitments on resource mobilisation under the Convention on Biological Diversity 159 .

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

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

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

Factors for success or failure

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

Resources for implementation. Funding for biodiversity has increased since 2010 but, while there are differences between different EU funding instruments, overall it remains clearly insufficient. The Strategy did not specify the needs and set no target on financing for biodiversity in the EU, which was a major setback in securing the resources needed for implementation. Insufficient funding has been a key barrier to restoration 161 , and was also commonly cited by stakeholders and authorities in the Member States’ case studies 162 . In addition to inadequate finance, tracking expenditure on biodiversity has been challenging in some areas 163 . Information gaps on funding limited the assessment of its effectiveness and efficiency, for example in relation to Target 2, Target 3 and Target 6. The lack of a comprehensive overview of harmful subsidies has also hindered efforts for the removal of such funding in public and private financing, ultimately exacerbating not only biodiversity loss but also other forms of environmental degradation 164 . The EU has initiated some reforms to shift away from harmful subsidies to support for more sustainable practices, for example in relation to fisheries.

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

Knowledge is essential for evidence-based decision-making on biodiversity (both public and private), robust policy development, implementation and monitoring. Gaps in data and monitoring or lack of access to data (including on pressures and on their impacts on biodiversity) have hindered progress in the implementation of the Strategy. Knowledge needs have been recognised and the Strategy encouraged the development and application of common methodologies for the mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services, as well as approaches to better reflect the value of biodiversity and ecosystem services in decision-making 165 . Nevertheless, significant gaps in knowledge have remained underlining the need for a robust biodiversity observation network and more consistent ecosystem condition reporting.

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

Clearly formulated, measurable targets. Many of the Strategy’s targets and actions were not measurable or specific enough to guide implementation and enable the monitoring of results. For example, challenges to restoration have arisen from the ambiguity of the 15% restoration target 166 : the ecosystems it referred to 167 , what restoration activities comprise, or how to measure the achievement of the objective 168 . The absence of baseline to define ‘degraded’ ecosystems was also mentioned by authorities and stakeholders.

Governance and clear responsibilities for implementation, co-ordination and cooperation between relevant stakeholders. While engagement of a range of actors in implementation has increased, and some structures for stakeholder engagement have been set up at the EU level and in the Member States, it is still considered insufficient 169 . Cross-border cooperation is often found to encounter communication issues due to language barriers, a lack of administrative structures in place, and a lack of clear policy direction by Member States to guide cross-border issues 170 .

Last but not least, political priority given to biodiversity protection and restoration, especially vis-à-vis other policy objectives, is essential for successful implementation. Insufficient awareness of the value of biodiversity and policy support for the Strategy in the period of its implementation has been often noted as a key barrier in literature  171 and in the targeted consultations of stakeholders 172 . 

Views of stakeholders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quotes from stakeholder contributions:

“the Strategy is an important anchor point but not central because it is not a legislative tool.” (Environmental non-governmental organisation.)

“There is a disconnect between the strategy and local action. … To strengthen biodiversity work on the ground, the local governments should have a role both in the implementation and have a say in the developments.” (Local government authority.)

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

Quotes from stakeholder contributions:  “...[the Coordination Group on Biodiversity and Nature 174 ] was extremely useful for coordination amongst ourselves (NGOs) but in terms of breaking silos and reaching out to other administrations, that did not really happen. Even when the Commission were making presentations, DG Environment and DG Agriculture spoke separately. Having a proper governance mechanisms with a whole of government approach could be something to take to 2030.” (Environmental non-governmental organization.)

…”[the Business@Biodiversity platform has led to] businesses becoming more coordinated and active.” (Business association.)

1.11.5.2.    Efficiency

5.2.1.    Cost-effectiveness and socio-economic impacts

What is the issue?

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

Several of the Strategy’s targets and actions aim to stimulate the implementation of existing legislation. The exact effect of the Strategy on the implementation of these commitments cannot be estimated independently from the legal implementation. In these cases, the actual costs and benefits that arose solely from the implementation of the Strategy cannot be estimated. Therefore, the analysis of whether the Strategy has been cost-effective considers the cost-effectiveness of specific measures, and the extent to which such measures were implemented to give rise to actual costs and benefits. The analysis also presents evidence, where available, about the Strategy’s influence on the emergence of these costs and benefits.

What are the findings?

In relation to Target 1, there are significant variances of magnitude in the estimates of the costs and benefits of implementation of the Nature Directives. The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that, independently of the level of their implementation, the benefits far exceed the costs. Earlier studies 175 have estimated the direct costs of maintaining the Natura 2000 network to be at least EUR 5.8 billion per year across the EU (including UK – excluding Croatia) for 2011, while acknowledging data challenges in this area. The benefits generated by the Natura 2000 network range from various ecosystem services to rural development benefits and have been estimated in the range between EUR 200 and EUR 300 billion per year across the EU 176 . An ongoing study based on the national Prioritised Action Frameworks (PAF) estimates the EU and national funding allocations to actions and sub-measures for Natura 2000 in EU-27 during the period 2014 – 2020 at around EUR 25.5 billion 177 , or an estimated EUR 3.65 billion annually on average. This indicates that the financing needs of the network were probably not covered by the realised funding. The LIFE Nature and Biodiversity sub-programme under the EU multi-annual financial framework 2014-20 was set at EUR 1.2 billion, while also helping to mobilise national and other co-funding. For example, between 2014 to 2018, 24 LIFE Nature Integrated Projects had a cumulative mobilisation target of nearly EUR 1.4 billion.

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

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

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

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

The one-off costs of the restoration and maintenance of 15% of degraded ecosystems has been estimated at around EUR 9.6 billion. The additional costs for maintaining all restored ecosystems in good condition were estimated at EUR 618 million to EUR 1,660 million per year. Restoration activity has been significantly below what would be required to fulfil Target 2, and the realised total expenditure during the 2010-2020 period is significantly lower. The total actual costs of Target 2 implementation activities in 2016 have been estimated at between EUR 4.8 million and EUR 33.1 million; however, this estimation is highly uncertain. Green infrastructure investments have received around EUR 915 million per year by public EU funds between 2014 and 2020 178 .

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

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

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

Nevertheless, available evidence indicates that some CAP instruments and measures (in particular the AECM, the Natura 2000 measure, and the ESPG greening measure) have made significant contributions to the conservation, and to a lesser extent restoration, of semi-natural farmland habitats and their species. However, payment rates were not always sufficient to motivate farmers to commit to these measures. Greater benefits could have been secured from the available budget, had Member States allocated more of this funding to measures which deliver benefits for biodiversity most effectively, such as the AECM and Natura 2000 support measures, rather than to other measures such as areas of natural constraints 179 . 

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

The main costs associated with the implementation of Target 3B refer to the development, update and implementation of management plans for forests. The cost of developing and implementing Forest Management Plans as well as the benefits they have generated could not be found in the literature and the case studies in the Member States. Funding for forestry-related actions was mostly realised through the Rural Development Programmes (RDPs). In addition, the Natural Capital Financing Facility leveraged up to EUR 150 million for forestry projects on payments for ecosystem services, green infrastructure, innovative pro-biodiversity and adaptation investment, and biodiversity offsets 180 . However, EEA (2016) indicated that payments for forest ecosystem services have contributed only a minor amount to the income of forest owners 181 .

In relation to Target 4, the efficiency question refers mostly to the cost-effectiveness of achieving biodiversity-related objectives of the CFP and MSFD, on the results of which there is no concrete quantitative evidence in literature. While a comprehensive overview of the costs and benefits of actions related to Target 4 is not present throughout literature, the EMFF Annual Implementation Reports give a rather comprehensive overview of the support measures directly and indirectly benefitting marine biodiversity. Funding allocated to biodiversity through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) is estimated at around EUR 199 million in 2015, EUR 134 million in 2016, EUR 136 million in 2017, EUR 90 million in 2018, and EUR 128 million in 2019. In 2020, Member States committed a total of EUR 1,637 million of EMFF funding to measures that potentially contribute to the protection and restoration of biodiversity 182 . This includes funding directed to measures for the protection and restoration of marine biodiversity. When including broader measures which have the potential to contribute to biodiversity, the figures are significantly higher. EU and international studies have shown that investments in protection of fisheries and marine biodiversity can generate high economic returns in enhanced yields, higher quality fish products, and tourism.

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

In relation to Target 5, the costs that arise from the Invasive Alien Species Regulation were estimated in the accompanying Impact Assessment to be around EUR 1.43 billion per year 183 . Most Member States were not able to give estimates of the costs incurred, in their implementation reports under Article 24 of the IAS Regulation. Costs for IAS management are rarely attributed to exclusively IAS-related projects, but are often integrated with other objectives and procedures. The costs of tackling IAS through regulation include costs to the EU and national governments of the intervention itself, direct costs to affected parties in responding to the regulation, and indirect costs (opportunity costs) to those whose activities might be impeded by the intervention.

The benefits of tackling IAS can be presented as avoided cost of damage from IAS to ecosystems, human health, infrastructure and agricultural losses. These damages were estimated to cost the EU at least EUR 12 billion per year in 2009 184 . The figure is considered to be an underestimate , as it refers to a previous decade situation, and the IAS problem has since then steadily grown. Evidence suggests that the net benefits from controlling IAS will be increasing as the Regulation implementation advances.

It is notable that the cost-effectiveness of preventative measures and early intervention far exceed the cost-effectiveness of IAS management once an invasive species has become established 185 . As such, the boost to IAS preparedness and the additional expenditure by Member States in response to the IAS Regulation is likely to be a highly cost-effective expenditure. The Commission’s report on the application of the IAS Regulation 186 noted that the cost estimates by the Member States of complying with the IAS Regulation over the period 2015-18 ranged from EUR 17,000 to EUR 40 million per Member State for measures such as management, awareness-raising and in some cases also personnel and other costs. Since these estimates do not cover the same cost categories and have various limitations, comparisons are not meaningful. Most Member States considered that reported costs are an underestimation. Member States were mostly unable to quantify the overall costs, since implementation activities are carried out by public bodies as part of their existing work or capacity (e.g. for official controls and surveillance systems). In addition, some activities are undertaken by many different players at national, regional, and local levels, making it difficult to collate all the costs. There are knowledge gaps in methods to document the costs and benefits of addressing IAS.

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

Stakeholder views

Further examples of costs 187 and benefits 188 are presented in the summary of the targeted consultations in the Member States. Only a small minority of the respondents in the OPC considered that funding for any of the targets had been fully sufficient. Funding for Target 1 was deemed fully or partially sufficient by just over half of the respondents (51%) while most respondents considered that funding was poorly or not at all sufficient for Target 5. Industry, health and culture sector representatives provided the greatest share of responses identifying funding as ‘fully’ sufficient to support the implementation of Target 2. The tourism, leisure and education sections provided the greatest proportion of ‘poorly’ responses.

5.2.2.    The Strategy as an instrument

What is the issue?

A number of potential policy instruments could be considered to achieve the EU headline target – namely i) regulatory instruments; ii) market-based and financing instruments, and iii) voluntary instruments 189 . This question examined whether alternative policy tools would have had the potential to better deliver the targets in a cost-effective manner. The objective is to assess whether a different policy mix could have improved the implementation of the Strategy.

What are the findings?

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

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

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

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

Legislative and regulatory instruments are the main tool for environmental policy and have been widely used at EU level. According to the EEA Report on the State of the Environment and Outlook (SOER 2020), there are significantly fewer binding targets for biodiversity than for other environment areas, such as climate change, air pollution, waste, and chemicals. When biodiversity policy objectives and targets are not met (as has been the case for several consecutive biodiversity policy instruments), there has been a tendency to reiterate them, and extend the timeframe for their achievement. SOER 2020 points to six key areas for bold action, one of which is the development of systemic policy frameworks with binding targets to mobilise and guide actions across actors and levels. The lack of legislative teeth of many of the Strategy’s actions has been one of the major drivers of its limited implementation.

It was a clear conclusion of the evaluation support study 190 that the reliance on voluntary instruments in key areas had been a significant cause of the Strategy’s failures in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The EP Resolution of January 2020 also called upon the Commission to “move away from voluntary commitments and to propose an ambitious and inclusive Strategy that sets legally (and, consequently, enforceable) binding targets for the EU and its Member States".

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

Views of stakeholders

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

5.2.3.    Socio-economic impacts

What is the issue?

Conservation activities can often have short-term and long-term positive 193 socio-economic impacts, generating income and jobs in the conservation sector as well as income in other sectors, such as tourism and recreation. They can also incur costs for the implementation of conservation measures, create administrative burden as well as opportunity costs related to limitations on certain economic activities. At the same time, failure to halt and reverse biodiversity loss comes at an enormous environmental, social and economic cost to society as well as risks to present and future generations.

What are the findings?

In relation to Target 1, the fitness check of the Nature Directives 194 and a range of studies 195 , 196 , 197 indicated that the flexible system 198 of protection of Natura 2000 has had a positive impact and a potential to generate business opportunities and incomes from sustainable socio-economic activities. Moreover, studies have shown that the effect of access to nature on life satisfaction is of similar magnitude to that of income 199 . National parks can generate substantial employment both within the park and indirectly in the tourism sector in the broader region 200 . Some negative socio-economic impacts have resulted from restrictions on socio-economic activities especially in Natura 2000 sites 201 . Overall, the evidence suggests that despite some negative socio-economic impacts, the costs of implementation are reasonable and the total costs are outweighed by the total benefits, although they do impact some stakeholders more than others.

In relation to Target 2, restoration and the deployment of green infrastructure have contributed to a range of socio-economic benefits linked to improved air and water quality, flood control, noise reduction, recreation and social opportunities, and health. The restoration of forest, wetlands and other ecosystems has brought millions of euros in savings across the EU due to lower water retention and purification costs 202 , 203 . Urban green infrastructure can generate multiple benefits in the form of enhanced health and well-being 204 . According to some estimates, 110,000 direct full-time jobs each year can be supported by investment needed to achieve Target 2 (restoration of 15% of degraded ecosystems) 205 . Additional investments in restoration in the range of EUR 506 million to EUR 1,750 million per year would likely result in 15,000 to 50,000 full-time jobs 206 .

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

In relation to Target 3, socio-economic benefits mainly relate to employment and income generation through sustainable agricultural and forestry practices. The CAP has provided payments to farmers and foresters to encourage sustainable practices and protect or restore species and/or habitats through agri-environment-climate and other rural development measures. According to a study undertaken for the European Commission, investing EUR 1 billion per year in agri-environment measures could create 6,600 additional jobs (FTE). Income generation in organic agriculture is still quite limited compared to conventional agricultural and forestry practices; however, there is a clear upward trend, which is expected to continue increasing 207 driven by more ambitious policy targets set for 2030, and increasing demand.

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

Data on the direct socio-economic impacts of Target 3B and the accompanying actions is limited. Developing and implementing Forest Management Plans directly creates jobs for forest engineers, forest technicians and foresters, but this benefit is marginal compared to the indirect socio-economic benefits for wider society derived from sustainably managed, healthy forests in terms of services such as climate regulation, flood control and nature-based recreation, as well as tourism opportunities and forest products 208 . An estimate of the direct socio-economic impact of the Strategy cannot be provided based on available evidence.

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

In relation to Target 4, fisheries play a crucial role for employment and economic activity in several EU regions – in some European coastal communities the fishing sector accounts for as many as half the local jobs 209 . Restoring fish populations and maintaining marine ecosystems can have substantial socio‑economic benefits in income and jobs due to both increasing fish harvest and generating locally more tourism and recreation opportunities. Healthier fish stocks result in better economic performance of the EU fleet 210 . The total socio-economic benefits of marine protected areas go beyond food provision, and include tourism, coastal security, climate mitigation and research. MPAs in southern Europe generate an estimated EUR 640,000 per MPA in income from services to non-resident recreational users 211 . The possible negative socio-economic impacts due to the implementation of Target 4 and its accompanying actions have not been comprehensively examined by the relevant literature. The OPC as well as survey and interviews in the case study Member States have indicated socio-economic impacts that mainly relate to MPAs and fishing-related restrictions, which give rise to short run opportunity costs. However, it should be noted that the costs and benefits of MPAs vary significantly depending on the context of their implementation 212 .    

In relation to Target 5, there is little literature evidence on the actual direct socio-economic consequences from tackling IAS in Europe, in terms of income and employment generation, due to the early stages of implementation and reporting on the IAS Regulation. Employment opportunities for the removal of invasive species and administration positions have been estimated to be between 520 and 2,520 FTE staff annually. Socio-economic impacts are duly considered when deciding whether to include an IAS in the Union list. There are cases where IAS may represent a valuable resource for local communities. Targeting these species may result in loss of jobs and income for a certain stakeholder group. For example, the invasive red swamp crayfish Procambarus clarkii in Spain negatively impacts agriculture while it contributes to the income of several hundred local fishermen 213 . The American mink Neovison vison was introduced for fur farming and continues to be of economic importance in the fur industry in several Member States. The species was considered for inclusion in the Union list but continuation of the fur farming would be possible under Article 9 authorisation system. The resulting administrative burden though was deemed too high and the species was not listed. The water hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes was a popular aquatic plant providing significant annual revenues to the horticultural sector mostly in Northern Europe. The decision to list the species was based on the estimation that future invasions , related management costs and costs to impairment of activities such as water transportation, water quality and fisheries would be much more significant than the income losses for horticultural trade or other known uses.

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

Benefits include the avoided adverse impacts on biodiversity, human health (e.g. skin burns caused by the giant hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum) and the economy (e.g. damage to infrastructure), as a result of preventing new introductions and of managing existing populations of IAS of Union concern. Damage and management costs tend to increase substantially over time, however there are no comprehensive estimates of these benefits in monetary terms. Studies 214 confirm the statement in the impact assessment for the IAS Regulation 215 that the cost of addressing IAS as early as possible is clearly outweighed by the costs of delayed action or inaction.

In relation to Target 6, healthy ecosystems are of vital importance for sustainable development and poverty eradication. About 40% of the total world employment is sustained by sectors that are directly or heavily dependent on ecosystem services 216 . Ecosystem degradation damages human health and well-being and economic activity, increasing the vulnerability of farmers, fishermen, and rural communities who depend on natural capital. It also undermines global efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change and to achieve the sustainable development goals. The reduction of indirect drivers of biodiversity loss, mainly related to the mitigation of the ecological footprint of the European production and consumption patterns, is likely to entail opportunity costs on certain economic activities, in particular in the short run, but also bring long-term benefits from the preservation and enhancement of natural capital. The mobilization of additional resources for global biodiversity has created jobs and income for companies and organizations outside of the EU, including in restoration, sustainable management and protection activities, in fighting wildlife crime and in tackling illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. However, the job and growth impacts of biodiversity-related development cooperation and international partnerships have not been comprehensively estimated in the literature. A more integrated approach in EU external action in support of global biodiversity could have resulted in further synergies and socio-economic benefits by connecting biodiversity conservation and sustainable development objectives. Finally, while the Nagoya Protocol aimed to contribute to a more equitable access to and the benefit‑sharing of genetic resources, its effectiveness has been disputed by a number of third countries.

Views of stakeholders

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

The targeted consultations in the Member States have provided a wealth of examples of benefits from the Strategy’s implementation 217 , and indicated that failure to achieve the biodiversity targets is linked to negative socio-economic consequences. At the same time, a number of stakeholders have pointed out adverse socio-economic impacts, in particular economic difficulties as a consequence from nature protection restrictions and requirements that are not (sufficiently) backed by social and economic measures to support good practices (NGOs, associations of fishing enterprises, farmers and foresters across the Member States). The return of some emblematic species has been linked with damage to stock by wolves, or flooding of agricultural land by beaver (farmers associations and regional authorities in Spain, Greece, Italy). However, compensations for damage has reduced tensions between farmers and carnivores for example in Greece. Limitations imposed in implementation of the IAS regulation affects private animal holders, zoos (listed species can be kept until natural death but cannot be bred), animal shelters (danger that the regulation will cause shelters to lack placement options), hunters, and gardeners, as well as horticultural and pet trade businesses. Elimination rather than prevention measures can be in conflict with animal welfare.

1.12.5.3.    Relevance

5.3.1.    Strategy relevance to biodiversity and wider needs 

What is the issue?

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

There is a strong (though not comprehensive) evidence base on biodiversity needs in the EU. The 2010 Biodiversity Baseline 218 , as well as the Impact Assessment 219 for the Strategy provided detailed evidence of the status and trends in biodiversity. The Impact Assessment articulated the links between these needs and the Strategy’s targets. It also emphasised that halting the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services is important for EU citizens and the economy, identified a range of different stakeholder groups affected by the Strategy, and recognised the important role of different stakeholders, sectors and groups in implementation.

What are the findings?

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

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

The EU ecosystem assessment provided evidence of a growing societal demand for key ecosystem services that depend on healthy ecosystems. However, many of these services are stable or declining, resulting in a deficit. Lower income groups tend to be more dependent on ecosystem services, and vulnerable to their loss, especially globally. The socio-economic value of services such as pollination, erosion protection or climate mitigation is increasingly understood, and the EU Green infrastructure strategy has highlighted the role of innovative nature-based solutions for tackling a range of societal challenges. The importance of access to nature for physical and mental health has become ever more evident during the lockdowns to contain the spread of Covid-19 in the course of 2020 and 2021. Tackling ecosystem degradation and illegal wildlife trade is necessary to curb the risk of emergence of new zoonotic diseases with the potential to result in a catastrophic outbreak of pandemic proportions as seen with influenza in the past, and SARS-CoV2 today, further considering herein that around three quarter of new infectious diseases globally result from direct animal-human interactions. Last but not least, healthy and resilient ecosystems are essential to remove and store carbon away from the atmosphere, and to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change. There is strong evidence that the protection of natural capital is essential for prosperity and socio-economic development 220 and growing recognition of this interdependence. However, despite this growing recognition, awareness of the contribution of biodiversity to meeting socio-economic development demands needs to be further increased, and the knowledge accumulated on the value of ecosystems and their services needs to be further systematically integrated into policy and investment decisions 221 .

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

Stakeholder views

The OPC survey responses as well as the EU and national stakeholder interviews carried out in the context of this evaluation, revealed broad agreement that the Strategy and its targets were overall relevant to biodiversity needs in the EU. Stakeholders and authorities indicated issues that could have been given greater prominence such as links with climate change; cultural heritage and landscapes; the role of sectors other than agriculture, forestry and fisheries; further pressures on biodiversity; as well as actions to tackle consumer demand and encourage green investments. The Strategy and its targets were criticised by environment organisations as insufficiently ambitious, due to their non-binding nature and inability to address wider challenges identified at the time of the Strategy. Stakeholder consultations revealed criticism of insufficient emphasis given to some ecosystems (e.g. freshwater) in the Strategy, while targets deal explicitly with agriculture and forest ecosystems 222 .

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

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

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

5.3.2.    Flexibility to adapt to emerging issues

What is the issue?

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

What are the findings?

The main challenges affecting biodiversity in the EU remain as they were when the Strategy was published (and have yet to be adequately addressed). While the Strategy framework of targets was formulated in a broad enough way to cover the range of biodiversity needs, some specific issues have become apparent or risen in prominence since 2011. These include, for example, the decline of pollinators, the links between biodiversity and climate change, biodiversity and health, as well as technological developments with potentially major impacts on biodiversity, such as deep sea mining for rare minerals or synthetic biology.

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

Views of stakeholders

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

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

1.13.5.4.    Coherence

5.4.1. Coherence with EU environmental and other policies

What is the issue?

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

What are the findings?

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

In relation to coherence with the Europe 2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth: The two strategies referred to each other but they did not make explicit how the joint priorities could be realised, and therefore did not provide sufficient incentives for synergies. The Europe 2020 Strategy included few policy drivers on biodiversity, and the flagship policies did not mainstream biodiversity. Although the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 identified several needs that are clearly related to the flagship initiatives, including biodiversity-related skills and jobs, digital infrastructure and tools, innovation, and trade agreements, these were not reflected in the priorities set by the flagship initiatives. In practice, the policy instruments and funding streams of the Europe 2020 strategy were used in some ways to advance biodiversity objectives. The headline indicators presented in the 2019 edition of the Indicators to support the Europe 2020 Strategy 223 made no reference to biodiversity, ecosystem services, or resource efficiency.

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

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

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

Some aspects of implementation have improved, but there are still elements of incoherence and even conflicts, as well as a failure to use measures to their fullest potential to create synergies (including inadequate funding and reach of measures). All three sectors have significant pressures on biodiversity 224 , but they have a key role to play in moving towards sustainable use that is compatible with biodiversity conservation.

-The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is coherent with the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020 at the level of policy objectives and instruments, with evidence that biodiversity has been mainstreamed to a certain extent in the policy instruments addressed by the Strategy. However, the absence of a strategic framework which required Member States to give greater priority to biodiversity has left them able to prioritise other objectives and measures. Failures to maximise synergies were mostly related to national implementation choices and inadequate uptake of the most effective options for biodiversity, failure of CAP planning process to adequately identify the needs for biodiversity 225 , and failure to allocate sufficient funding to meet needs of biodiversity conservation in agriculture 226 . Examples of positive coherence with the CAP include targeted agri-environment-climate measures (AECM) with benefits for biodiversity. CAP forest measures were generally coherent but with very limited scope, and Member States have programmed the measures for biodiversity objectives mainly through targeted investments addressing also improved resilience. The evaluation of the impacts of the CAP on biodiversity, soil and water concluded that, had Member States made different implementation choices and had they always used the most effective and efficient measures, the CAP could be delivering greater synergies with the EU’s biodiversity strategy to 2020 - and the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives.

-The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) reform in 2013 increased coherence of the policy with the Biodiversity Strategy by applying the ecosystem-based approach that aims to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities are minimised, and that aquaculture and fisheries avoid degradation of the marine environment. The CFP also included measures specifically contributing to Good Environmental Status (GES) under the MSFD and a toolbox of measures contributing to biodiversity conservation, as well as the regulation of fishing activities and their impact on the marine environment. However, the review of the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 227 identified as one of the critical areas for improvement coherence in the operational objectives of key EU policies (such as the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy). It pointed to the need for sectors such as fisheries, energy, transport, agriculture and climate to further integrate measures for the achievement of GES of marine ecosystems. Data from the Member States to assess the impacts of EU fisheries on marine ecosystems in the EU and non-EU waters (e.g. incidental by-catch of all birds, mammals and reptiles and fish protected under Union legislation and international agreements) is not systematically reaching the MSFD assessments and reporting.

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

One of the investment priorities of the ERDF and Cohesion Fund (2014-20) was “protecting and restoring biodiversity and soil and promoting ecosystem services, including through Natura 2000, and green infrastructure” 228 . Nineteen Member States (EU-28 including the UK) programmed Cohesion Policy funds under this priority.

As some of the above sectors receive significant EU funding, the biodiversity proofing of EU funding was also an important relevant action. However, the methodology for biodiversity proofing was not consistently applied at the national level. Many sectoral policies continue to drive biodiversity decline rather than incentivising synergies, and examples of policy incoherence were found in the case studies 229 .

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

Views of stakeholders

The OPC responses to the question on the contribution of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to the objectives of other EU policies revealed very mixed views. The strongest positive responses were given for coherence with the policy areas of climate action, the CAP, energy policy, the forest strategy, regional policy, and water policy. There were stronger positive responses in relation to contributions of the Strategy to the air quality and climate action objectives. This may be influenced by the large proportion of responses received from the Polish forestry sector, as these are environmental objectives widely associated with forests. The targeted consultations in the Member States provided numerous examples of policy coherence as well as incoherent policy instruments at the national and regional levels 230 .

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

What is the issue?

The EU policy framework for biodiversity, which also implement the EU’s commitments under the Convention on Biodiversity, needs to ensure links with sustainable development and climate objectives, in line with global efforts to strengthen links between the global frameworks on biodiversity, sustainable development and climate.

What are the findings?

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

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

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

1.14.5.5.    EU Added Value

What is the issue? 

The purpose of the Strategy builds upon several components of potential EU added value, including setting a high level of ambition for biodiversity across the EU and a common framework for action, providing additional and innovative interventions at the EU level; transboundary features of biodiversity (no aspects of biodiversity inherently coincide with national borders); information sharing between EU Member States; coordinated action; policy coherence at EU level; governance and enforcement through infringement procedures and financing through the allocation of additional resources at Member State and EU level.

What are the findings?

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

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

Several examples of transboundary cooperation exist that have links to the Strategy, such as support for biogeographical cooperation, guidance for strategic EU level Green and Blue infrastructure, coordinated action at the EU level to tackle the threat if invasive alien species, links with global commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity, as well as cooperation with the Council of Europe to tackle illegal trapping, killing and trade of birds. However, the European Court of Auditors 2017 report into the Natura 2000 network noted insufficient structures in place to ensure cross-border cooperation and in particular habitat connectivity of the Natura 2000 network 231 . Also, despite much discussion and work in relation to green infrastructure, some stakeholders in EU-level organisations noted the insufficient EU investment in green infrastructure.

Many working groups and events have been convened to provide knowledge sharing between Member States, and can be attributed to the Strategy and its Common Implementation Framework. For example, through the IAS Regulation, networks such as EASIN have increased knowledge-sharing and cooperation between stakeholders, encouraging coordinated action between countries which share invasive alien species, and facilitated harmonised monitoring of invasive alien species throughout Europe 232 , 233 , and leading to increased citizen involvement 234 . The EU MAES initiative has brought national experts, the research community and stakeholders together to work on improving the knowledge base on ecosystems and their services and to help integrate ecosystem-based approaches in other EU policy areas.

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

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

Views of stakeholders

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

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

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

A greater proportion of respondents to the OPC stated across all Targets that funding ‘poorly’ supported the implementation of the Strategy. Case studies undertaken as part of the stakeholder consultations on the evaluation identified strong stakeholder support for a specific financing instrument to reduce conflicts in the destination of economic resources and strengthened the effectiveness of the Strategy 235 , a finding also made in other studies 236 .

Quotes from the consultations:

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

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

6.    CONCLUSIONS

1.15.6.1.    Findings

6.1.1. Effectiveness

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

Positive achievements associated with the implementation of the Strategy include:

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

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

(iii) improved knowledge on ecosystems and their services;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Factors that have influenced effectiveness:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.1.2. Efficiency

Overall, the Strategy had the potential to give rise to economic benefits far exceeding the costs incurred from the full implementation of its targets and actions (both in terms of conservation spending and administrative and opportunity costs). Implementation has supported the creation of economic value, employment and quality of life linked to ecosystem services and the preservation of natural capital. However, the full potential of such benefits has not been realised, due to limited implementation.

Factors that have influenced efficiency:

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

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

·Investment in prevention and early intervention to tackle pressures on biodiversity has increased the effectiveness of spending, for example in the case of invasive alien species (as controlling established invasions can be very costly and less effective).

·Coherence of biodiversity and other policy objectives and measures: support for economic activities that damage biodiversity, for example such that result in land use intensification and the over-extraction of natural resources, have reduced the impact of biodiversity conservation actions. Increasing coherence with internal EU policies can further reinforce EU external action to curb global biodiversity loss.

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

·Clear and predictable policy framework, and a fair playing field for stakeholders. The efficiency of measures has been hampered by uneven implementation, different rules and interpretation (linked also to flexibility for choices at the national level) and in some cases, low predictability of biodiversity measures arising from the non-binding nature of the Strategy’s targets.

·Insufficient implementation has hampered the achievement of the full potential of the Strategy to deliver a range of socio-economic and environmental benefits from healthy ecosystems.

6.1.3. Relevance

The Strategy was underpinned by strong evidence on the decline of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and its targets are widely recognised by experts and stakeholders as relevant to the EU’s needs with respect to biodiversity. However, the Strategy’s targets and actions were not comprehensive in addressing all drivers of biodiversity loss, such as land use intensification in agriculture, or pressures on marine ecosystems arising from other economic activities beside fisheries.

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

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

Factors that have influenced the relevance of the Strategy include:

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

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

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

6.1.4. Coherence

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

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

Factors that have influenced coherence:

·Measures to reward practices favourable to biodiversity, and to compensate for incomes lost due to limitations on certain activities in protected areas. Strengthened biodiversity proofing of EU funding for biodiversity has helped to increase mainstreaming and coherence. However, despite coherent broad policy objectives, there have been insufficient mechanisms to realise joint priorities, and insufficient incentives for seeking synergies. There are still significant pressures on biodiversity from economic activities, and investments that promote increasing pressures (such as intensification) rather than incentivising synergies.

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

·Enforcement of environmental legislation has been crucial, and this has been supported to some extent in other policies, e.g. by cross-compliance under CAP direct payments, or CFP delegated acts restricting or banning fishing activities in marine protected areas.

·In some cases, insufficient monitoring frameworks, mechanisms and capacities to track biodiversity financing and to biodiversity-proof interventions under EU funding instruments (failures of tracking and proofing) that have resulted in continued conflicts of policy objectives.

6.1.5. EU added value

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

Factors that have influenced EU value added include:

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

·Leveraging financing for biodiversity and support for innovative approaches.

·The non-binding nature of the Strategy has been considered as a weakness reducing its added value, as it has made it difficult to ensure coherent and even implementation, and reporting to the EU level.

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

1.16.6.2.    Lessons learnt and follow-up

The EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 237 was adopted in May 2020. It responded to the high environmental ambition set by the European Green Deal 238 , and drew on implementation experience 239 , exchanges with stakeholders and emerging findings from the evaluation. The following section summarises how key lessons derived from the evaluation of the strategy to 2020 have been reflected in the design of the new strategy, as well as in related follow-up actions.

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

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

Response - The strategy for 2030 lays out a comprehensive framework of measurable and time-bound commitments, with clearly indicated responsibilities, to protect, restore and sustainably manage biodiversity in the EU and support global biodiversity. It further sets related time-bound actions and clearly indicates the responsibilities for their implementation. This includes enabling measures to boost implementation and the necessary societal transformation, as well as a detailed agenda for external actions in support of global biodiversity. Its flagship initiative, a Commission proposal for a new EU Regulation on nature restoration 240 , aims to set concrete EU targets to restore degraded ecosystems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lesson 6. EU programmes and instruments should be biodiversity-proof to ensure no significant harm.

A methodological framework was developed for biodiversity-proofing the EU budget 241 . However, its use in the national programming of EU funds has remained limited. The evaluation indicates that integration with sectoral policies has been the strongest at the level of broad policy objectives. However, the methodology for biodiversity proofing was not consistently applied at the national level to eliminate support measures that encourage unsustainable land and sea use practices.

Response – biodiversity-proofing frameworks are being improved and applied across specific sectors. The Commission has developed checklists of criteria to ensure that EU investments do no significant harm to biodiversity in line with the do no significant harm principle, for example in the context of the Recovery and Resilience Facility 242 . Strengthened biodiversity proofing will help to minimise pressures on biodiversity and increase the contribution of sectoral policies to biodiversity objectives, both at the EU level and in the EU countries.

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

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

Response – under the strategy for 2030, an enhanced governance framework is being set up including a transparent progress-tracking mechanism with public tools to monitor implementation of the actions and the delivery of the targets, and to enable regular progress reporting and review. In this new governance framework, research and science will be better connected with political decision-making through a new Science Service, funded by Horizon Europe, and a new Knowledge Centre for Biodiversity 243 . The monitoring and review mechanism will be further developed and aligned with other monitoring frameworks under EU legislation and policies, as well as the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Coordination among EU and national actors, stakeholder engagement and the science-policy interface have been strengthened with the launch of the EU Biodiversity Platform 244 .

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

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

Response – the strategy for 2030 sets out actions to strengthen biodiversity monitoring and ecosystem condition assessment for a more robust knowledge base for biodiversity policy, and ensure this knowledge is available, taken up and used in designing and implementing biodiversity measures. Such actions include for example a Commission proposal on new modules for European environmental economic accounts 245 , the integrated forest monitoring system envisaged in the EU Forest Strategy for 2030, and Horizon Europe projects to strengthen biodiversity monitoring 246 .

The Knowledge Centre for Biodiversity will play a key role in this process. A range of initiatives will aim to ensure that actors across the board develop the knowledge, skills and attitudes to contribute to the green agenda, such as the Council Recommendation on Learning for Environmental Sustainability and the new European sustainability competence framework 247 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Annex 1 – Procedural information

1)Lead DGs and internal references 

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

2)Organisation and timing

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

The group met 5 times during the evaluation process.

Table 4 ISG meeting dates and topics of discussion

3)Exceptions to the better regulation guidelines

No exceptions were made to the Better Regulation Guidelines 248 during this evaluation.

4)Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board

a.Upstream meeting

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

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

On 18 May 2021, the Commission submitted to the RSB its draft Staff Working Document on the evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. On 9 June 2021, the RSB provided preliminary comments and questions that were responded in written by the Commission on 12 June 2021, and discussed at the RSB meeting on 15 June 2021. The Board gave a positive opinion on 18 June 2021 but considered that the report should further improve on a number of aspects. The RSB recommendations, and the way they have been reflected in the revised report, are presented below.

b.Changes resulting from the RSB opinion

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

5)Evidence, sources and quality 

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

The evaluation was supported by an external study that considered the delivery of the headline target as well as the individual operational targets and actions against each evaluation criterion in line with Better Regulation and presented its findings in an evaluation study report 249 . The technical specifications for the study and all deliverables were discussed with the Inter-service Steering Group for the evaluation of the Strategy, and comments were reflected in the final specifications.

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

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

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

Annex 2 – Synopsis report of stakeholder consultations

1.Introduction

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

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

The main consultation activities were:

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

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

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

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

·An online public consultation (OPC) open for feedback to all interested stakeholders as well as individual citizens, which ran from January 2021 until early April 2021.

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

2.Outcomes of the consultation activities

2.1.Feedback on the evaluation Roadmap

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

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

-Apply an evidence-based evaluation approach (robust data and monitoring)

-Engage sector stakeholders, use non-technical language in the consultations

-Seek to identify underlying causes of failure and wider contexts and factors

-Assess policy coherence with other policies such as agriculture, marine and fisheries, trade, forestry, as well as trade-offs between biodiversity targets and other policy objectives.

-Reflect on the global biodiversity impacts of EU consumption.

These recommendations have been taken up in the evaluation scope and approach.

The main recommendations for post-2020 are summarised below:

-Use the evaluation findings to inform the EU as well as the global post-2020 debates

-Formulate ambitious and measurable post-2020 objectives as well as new tools for implementation.

-Strengthen links between biodiversity goals, climate and the Sustainable Development Goals.

-Reflect biodiversity objectives and needs in the Multiannual Financial Framework

-Step up biodiversity governance.

-Support research into the links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and food.

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

2.2.Public Consultation

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

1. Evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020

2. Review of the application of the EU Regulation on Invasive Alien Species

3. Development of binding EU nature restoration targets

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

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

·Distribution of responses

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

·Overview of geographical spread of responses and stakeholder categories

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

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

II-2 Area of activity of respondents

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

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

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

1)An overview of all quantitative responses;

2)An overview of quantitative responses in selected questions;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Performance was the best rated under Targets 1 and 3, with 1,033 (30%) of respondents saying that Target 1 was fully achieved, and 764 (22%) of respondents considering that Target 3 was fully achieved. Target 1 scored best in terms of combined “fully” and “partially” responses (80%), followed by Target 2 (66%) and Target 3 (65%). Target 4 was the only one for which more respondents answered “poorly” or “not at all” (1,217; 53%) than “partially” or “fully”. Target 4 was also the one with the highest share of “I do not know/no answer” (1,234).

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

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

A total of 55 open text responses were received. They highlighted the benefits for habitats and species stemming from the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives and other forms of nature protection (11: 9 EU citizens, 2 NGOs); increased awareness (6: 5 EU citizens, 1 business association) and bottom-up conservation approaches giving preference to regional/local rather than EU biodiversity measures (8: 4 EU citizens, 2 company/business organization, 1 NGO, 1 public authority, with six of the responses originating from Poland forestry). Other achievements mentioned included increased funding for protection (3: 2 EU citizens, 1 NGO); improved agri-environment payments (2: EU citizen and company/business organization); and the Regulation on Invasive Alien Species (2: EU and non-EU citizen).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Air quality was the best rated EU policy in terms of full and partial integration of the EU biodiversity targets to 2020 (1,520; 60%), followed by Research and Innovation (1,265; 60%), Education and training (1,324; 58%) and Climate action (1,450; 57%). The EU policy area with the highest share of respondents believing that it has not aligned itself at all with the EU biodiversity targets to 2020 was Banking and finance (360; 22%). The area with the highest combined share of “not at all” and “poorly” responses was Marine policy (884; 59%). Marine policy was also the area where most respondents did not know or had no opinion on the question (1,378; 48% of the total number of respondents to this sub-question).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question 13. Other comments

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

-In relation to Target 6: acknowledgment of EU efforts to prioritise biodiversity investments in development cooperation; criticism for failures to reduce the impacts of EU consumption on biodiversity and forests outside of the EU and the lack of compliance measures for trade and sustainable development in Free Trade Agreements (in contrast to the other FTA chapters); and pointing to the need for engagement and support of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and for more investment in biodiversity under the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument. Gaps in the Strategy are highlighted in relation to links with health policy, illegal and unsustainable wildlife trade, global oceans and fisheries.

-In relation to Target 4: criticism of the Strategy’s failure to protect species and habitats in marine ecosystems, obstacles to achieving Targets 1 and 4 related to commercial fishing, dredging, construction, shipping and boat traffic, and challenges in coordination between the Common Fisheries Policy, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Water Framework Directive.

2.Analysis of campaigns

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

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

Table B. Campaign responses identified

2.3.Targeted consultations of EU-level stakeholders

Approach

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

·Step 1: Questionnaire development

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

·Step 2: Stakeholder selection

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

·Step 3: Organization and facilitation of interviews

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

Analysis

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

2.4.Targeted consultations in ten selected Member States

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

The aim of this consultation was to gain insights from successes, challenges and stakeholders’ experiences in national implementation. Interviewees included experts in central and regional authorities, sector stakeholder associations, NGOs and academic/research representatives. In each Member State, the interviews focussed in more detail on the implementation of 2-3 targets.

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

Annex 3 – Methods and Analytical models used in preparing the evaluation

This evaluation uses the standard policy evaluation criteria and follows a well-defined methodology in accordance with the Better Regulation Guidelines 250 . The evaluation criteria were further operationalised through evaluation questions that guided this evaluation, taking account of the cross-cutting nature of the strategy and its very broad scope. The evaluation matrix below provides an overview of the questions and sub-questions considered in the evaluation in relation to the entire strategy or its individual elements, as well as the indicators used and the main tools used to derive the necessary information and analysis.

No modelling was considered necessary in this evaluation.

Annex 4 – Overview of costs – benefits identified in the evaluation

ANNEX 5 – Operational Targets and Actions of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020

Target 1: Fully implement the EU Nature Legislation (the Birds and Habitats Directives)

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

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

1a) Member States and the Commission will ensure that the phase to establish Natura 2000, including in the marine environment, is largely complete by 2012.

1b) Member States and the Commission will further integrate species and habitats protection and management requirements into key land and water use policies, both within and beyond Natura 2000 areas.

1c) Member States will ensure that management plans or equivalent instruments which set out conservation and restoration measures are developed and implemented in a timely manner for all Natura 2000 sites.

1d) The Commission, together with Member States, will establish by 2012 a process to promote the sharing of experience, good practice and cross-border collaboration on the management of Natura 2000, within the biogeographical frameworks set out in the Habitats Directive.

·Action 2: Ensure adequate financing of Natura 2000 sites

The Commission and Member States will provide the necessary funds and incentives for Natura 2000, including through EU funding instruments, under the next multiannual financial framework. The Commission will set out its views in 2011 on how Natura 2000 will be financed under the next multi‑annual financial framework.

·Action 3: Increase stakeholder awareness and involvement and improve enforcement

3a) The Commission, together with Member States, will develop and launch a major communication campaign on Natura 2000 by 2013.

3b) The Commission and Member states will improve cooperation with key sectors and continue to develop guidance documents to improve their understanding of the requirements of EU nature legislation and its value in promoting economic development.

3c) The Commission and Member States will facilitate enforcement of the nature directives by providing specific training programmes on Natura 2000 for judges and public prosecutors, and by developing better compliance promotion capacities.

·Action 4: Improve and streamline monitoring and reporting

4a) The Commission, together with Member States, will develop by 2012 a new EU bird reporting system, further develop the reporting system under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive and improve the flow, accessibility and relevance of Natura 2000 data.

4b) The Commission will create a dedicated ICT tool as part of the Biodiversity Information System for Europe to improve the availability and use of data by 2012.

Target 2: Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services

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

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

Member States, with the assistance of the Commission, will map and assess the state of ecosystems and their services in their national territory by 2014, assess the economic value of such services, and promote the integration of these values into accounting and reporting systems at EU and national level by 2020.

·Action 6: Set priorities to restore and promote the use of green infrastructure

6a) By 2014, Member States, with the assistance of the Commission, will develop a strategic framework to set priorities for ecosystem restoration at sub-national, national and EU level.

6b) The Commission will develop a Green Infrastructure Strategy by 2012 to promote the deployment of green infrastructure in the EU in urban and rural areas, including through incentives to encourage up-front investments in green infrastructure projects and the maintenance of ecosystem services, for example through better targeted use of EU funding streams and Public Private Partnerships.

·Action 7: Ensure no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services

7a) In collaboration with the Member States, the Commission will develop a methodology for assessing the impact of EU funded projects, plans and programmes on biodiversity by 2014.

7b) The Commission will carry out further work with a view to proposing by 2015 an initiative to ensure there is no net loss of ecosystems and their services (e.g. through compensation or offsetting schemes).

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

3A) Agriculture: By 2020, maximise areas under agriculture across grasslands, arable land and permanent crops that are covered by biodiversity-related measures under the CAP so as to ensure the conservation of biodiversity and to bring about a measurable improvement(*) in the conservation status of species and habitats that depend on or are affected by agriculture and in the provision of ecosystem services as compared to the EU2010 Baseline, thus contributing to enhance sustainable management.

3B) Forests: By 2020, Forest Management Plans or equivalent instruments, in line with Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) [30], are in place for all forests that are publicly owned and for forest holdings above a certain size** (to be defined by the Member States or regions and communicated in their Rural Development Programmes) that receive funding under the EU Rural Development Policy so as to bring about a measurable improvement(*) in the conservation status of species and habitats that depend on or are affected by forestry and in the provision of related ecosystem services as compared to the EU 2010 Baseline.

(*) For both targets, improvement is to be measured against the quantified enhancement targets for the conservation status of species and habitats of EU interest in Target 1 and the restoration of degraded ecosystems under target 2.

(**) For smaller forest holdings, Member States may provide additional incentives to encourage the adoption of Management Plans or equivalent instruments that are in line with SFM.

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

8a) The Commission will propose that CAP direct payments will reward the delivery of environmental public goods that go beyond cross-compliance (e.g. permanent pasture, green cover, crop rotation, ecological set-aside, Natura 2000).

8b) The Commission will propose to improve and simplify the GAEC (Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions) cross-compliance standards and consider including the Water Framework Directive within the scope of cross-compliance once the Directive has been implemented and the operational obligations for farmers have been identified in order to improve the state of aquatic ecosystems in rural areas.

·Action 9: Better target Rural Development to biodiversity conservation

9a) The Commission and Member States will integrate quantified biodiversity targets into Rural Development strategies and programmes, tailoring action to regional and local needs.

9b) The Commission and Member States will establish mechanisms to facilitate collaboration among farmers and foresters to achieve continuity of landscape features, protection of genetic resources and other cooperation mechanisms to protect biodiversity.

·Action 10: Conserve Europe’s agricultural genetic diversity

The Commission and Member States will encourage the uptake of agri-environmental measures to support genetic diversity in agriculture and explore the scope for developing a strategy for the conservation of genetic diversity.

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

11a) Member States and the Commission will encourage the adoption of Management Plans, [31] inter alia through use of rural development measures [32] and the LIFE+ programme.

11b) Member States and the Commission will foster innovative mechanisms (e.g. Payments for Ecosystem Services) to finance the maintenance and restoration of ecosystem services provided by multifunctional forests.

·Action 12: Integrate biodiversity measures in forest management plans

Member States will ensure that forest management plans or equivalent instruments include as many of the following measures as possible:

-maintain optimal levels of deadwood, taking into account regional variations such as fire risk or potential insect outbreaks;

-preserve wilderness areas;

-ecosystem-based measures to increase the resilience of forests against fires as part of forest fire prevention schemes, in line with activities carried out in the European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS);

-specific measures developed for Natura 2000 forest sites;

-ensuring that afforestation is carried out in accordance with the Pan-European Operational Level Guidelines for SFM [33], in particular as regards the diversity of species, and climate change adaptation needs.

Target 4: Ensure the sustainable use of fisheries resources

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

·Action 13: Improve the management of fished stocks

13a) The Commission and Member States will maintain and restore fish stocks to levels that can produce MSY in all areas in which EU fish fleets operate, including areas regulated by Regional Fisheries Management Organisations, and the waters of third countries with which the EU has concluded Fisheries Partnership Agreements.

13b) The Commission and Member States will develop and implement under the CFP long-term management plans with harvest control rules based on the MSY approach. These plans should be designed to respond to specific time-related targets and be based on scientific advice and sustainability principles.

13c) The Commission and Member States will significantly step up their work to collect data to support implementation of MSY. Once this objective is attained, scientific advice will be sought to incorporate ecological considerations in the definition of MSY by 2020.

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

14a) The EU will design measures to gradually eliminate discards, to avoid the by-catch of unwanted species and to preserve vulnerable marine ecosystems in accordance with EU legislation and international obligations.

14b) The Commission and Member States will support the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, including through providing financial incentives through the future financial instruments for fisheries and maritime policy for marine protected areas (including Natura 2000 areas and those established by international or regional agreements). This could include restoring marine ecosystems, adapting fishing activities and promoting the involvement of the sector in alternative activities, such as eco-tourism, monitoring and managing marine biodiversity, and combating marine litter.

Target 5: Combat invasive alien species

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

·Action 15: Strengthen the EU Plant and Animal Health Regimes

The Commission will integrate additional biodiversity concerns into the Plant and Animal Health regimes by 2012.

·Action 16: Establish a dedicated instrument on invasive alien species

The Commission will fill policy gaps in combating IAS by developing a dedicated legislative instrument by 2012.

Target 6: Help avert global biodiversity loss

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

·Action 17: Reduce indirect drivers of biodiversity loss

17a) Under the EU flagship initiative on resource efficiency, the EU will take measures (which may include demand and/or supply side measures) to reduce the biodiversity impacts of EU consumption patterns, particularly for resources that have significant negative effects on biodiversity.

17b) The Commission will enhance the contribution of trade policy to conserving biodiversity and address potential negative impacts by systematically including it as part of trade negotiations and dialogues with third countries, by identifying and evaluating potential impacts on biodiversity resulting from the liberalisation of trade and investment in ex-ante Impact Assessments and ex-post evaluations, and seek to include in all new trade agreements a chapter on sustainable development providing for substantial environmental provisions of importance in the trade context including on biodiversity goals.

17c) The Commission will work with Member States and key stakeholders to provide the right market signals for biodiversity conservation, including work to reform, phase out and eliminate harmful subsidies at both EU and Member State level, and to provide positive incentives for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.

·Action 18: Mobilise additional resources for global biodiversity conservation

18a) The Commission and Member States will contribute their fair share to international efforts to significantly increase resources for global biodiversity as part of the international process aimed at estimating biodiversity funding needs and adopting resource mobilisation targets for biodiversity at CBD CoP11 in 2012 [34].

18b) The Commission will improve the effectiveness of EU funding for global biodiversity inter alia by supporting natural capital assessments in recipient countries and the development and/or updating of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans, and by improving coordination within the EU and with key non-EU donors in implementing biodiversity assistance/projects.

·Action 19: Biodiversity-proof EU development cooperation

19) The Commission will continue to systematically screen its development cooperation action to minimise any negative impact on biodiversity, and undertake Strategic Environmental Assessments and/or Environmental Impact Assessments for actions likely to have significant effects on biodiversity.

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

The Commission will propose legislation to implement the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation in the European Union so that the EU can ratify the Protocol as soon as possible and by 2015 at the latest, as required by the global target.

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

Baseline for the evaluation

Due to the complexity of biodiversity loss and the wide range of direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss, it was not possible to establish a clear baseline for the evaluation.

The expectations of how the state of biodiversity, and pressures on it, would develop in the absence of an EU Biodiversity Strategy were articulated in a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario as part of the Impact Assessment of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (SEC(2011) 540 final, hereafter referred to as the Impact Assessment).

The Impact Assessment concluded that under a ‘business as usual’ scenario, overexploitation, pollution, habitat loss, climate change and invasion by alien species would likely continue or worsen. It predicted that mean species abundance would continue to decline in Europe, from approximately 40% in 2010 to approximately 37% in 2050. With the existing measures and policies in place, it was considered that anthropogenic pressures would continue or worsen and would result in further degradation of EU ecosystems.

The business as usual (BAU) scenario included in the Impact Assessment made a qualitative projection of the consequences of existing policy and legislation. This projection provided a useful point of reference to consider the role of the Strategy in addressing biodiversity needs. It was revisited for the purposes of the evaluation study. Minor retrospective changes were introduced in light of the actual development of some of the EU policies and legislation.

The IA reviewed pre-existing EU policy areas against the 4 aspects of the headline target of the EU Biodiversity Strategy: (1) halting biodiversity loss, (2) halting degradation of ecosystem services, (3) restoring biodiversity and ecosystem services, (3) counteracting increased loss of biodiversity at the global level. It also reviewed these policies against their contribution to reducing the following pressures on biodiversity: over-exploitation, fragmentation, climate change, invasive species and pollution. This review structure is continued here while highlighting the connection to the six Biodiversity Strategy targets.

The BAU is concerned with other EU legal and policy initiatives to the extent that:

(i) the Strategy aimed to support these policies, for example the implementation of the EU Birds and Habitats Directives (Target 1) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Target 3). In reality, it has been very difficult to predict or assess what part of progress has been the result of the implementation of the legislation itself, or from the Strategy.

(ii) the Strategy aimed to change these policies, for example the CAP (Target 3) and the Common Fisheries Policy (Target 4), or trade (Target 6). The BAU assumed that the needed reforms would not take place without the strategy’s targets.

(iii) the Strategy aimed to introduce new policies and legislation, for example on Green Infrastructure or on invasive alien species.

Contribution of pre-existing policies and connections to the Strategy

·Biodiversity policies

The Habitats and Birds Directives are at the core of EU biodiversity policy. They have been the basis for the establishment of the Natura 2000 network. Improvements of the conservation status of protected species and habitats were therefore likely to have occurred as a result of the Nature Directives alone. However, the implementation of the Directives is likely to have been slower and less effective without the additional measures encouraged by the Strategy. This includes targets and actions to further integrate species and habitat protection into key EU land and sea use policies, increase financing, facilitate the sharing of good practices, increase awareness and improve enforcement,.

Designation and management of protected areas under the Habitats Directive alone is also unlikely sufficient to curb biodiversity loss. With efforts focused on protected species and habitats only, biodiversity in the wider landscape was expected to suffer. The conservation status of species and habitats protected under EU nature legislation was expected to remain similar to that of the 2009 health check, with only 17% of the assessments completed showed a good conservation status.

Connections to the Strategy

Targets 1 and 2 of the Biodiversity Strategy set out to address some of the shortcomings in earlier biodiversity policies. Target 1 aimed to complete the establishment of the Natura 2000 Network and ensure its good management, a key aspect being to ensure adequate financing for the sites. It also aimed to increase the exchange of good practice and improve the enforcement of the Directives. Target 2 included actions to improve knowledge of ecosystems and their services, set priorities for ecosystem restoration and the deployment on green infrastructure, with direct potential benefits for protected habitats and species and for improving the ecological connectivity of Natura 2000. The increase of the contribution of agriculture and forestry to biodiversity under Target 3 was also to be measured against the improvement in the conservation status of protected species and habitats.

·Agriculture and forestry policies    

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the EU Forestry Strategy have major impact on biodiversity outcomes. However, unsustainable practices such as intensive farming The CAP had been reformed on several occasions prior to the EU Biodiversity Strategy. As reported in the IA however, the impacts had been small to negative. The IA BAU scenarios concluded that without considerable reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (in the absence of such targets as were set by the Strategy), agriculture in the EU would continue to be one of the most significant drivers of habitat loss and degradation. Insufficient policy change was predicted to lead to further biodiversity loss on farmland, with serious implications for the EU meeting the global 2020 biodiversity goals.

Connection to the Strategy

The reform of the CAP is linked most closely to Target 3 of the Biodiversity Strategy, which aimed to increase the contribution of agriculture and forestry to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity.

·Air policies

The Air Quality Framework Directive, The Clean Air For Europe programme (CAFÉ), National Emissions Ceilings Directive, Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), Large Combustion Plants Directive, Waste Incineration Directive and Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution would have collectively acted to reduce the pressure of pollution from a wide range of sources on biodiversity. Overall, the improvement in air quality would have been generally beneficial to the natural environment. Reduction of localised nitrogen deposition on land and sea would support low nutrient habitats, such as inland wetlands.

Connections to the Strategy:

Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, which aims to maintain and restore ecosystems and their services by, amongst other things, restoring at least 15% of degraded habitats. Achieving this target was aided by the reduction in pressures resulting from Air Quality related policies and strategies. However, it unclear whether the absence of the Strategy would have resulted in weaker measures to tackle the impact of air pollution on ecosystems than the ones undertaken under EU air policies.

·Water policies

The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Floods Directive have a major potential to improve the ecological status of freshwater bodies as well as the condition of terrestrial and marine ecosystems that depend on them through the provisions on achieving good ecological status and integrated river basin management. The impact assessment recognised the WFD key role in biodiversity protection and ecosystem restoration. It suggested that if adequately implemented, a significant amount of restoration of water related ecosystems would likely take place even in the absence of the Strategy. However, it made no assessment of whether the WFD would be implemented adequately. The deadline for achieving good status for water bodies throughout the EU was 2015 but progress has been slow and the target has not been achieved to date.

Connections to the Strategy

Target 1 of the Strategy included actions on cross-policy integration in the implementation of the Nature Directives and of the WFD. Target 2 of the Strategy highlighted the role of ecosystem services and green infrastructure, which can strengthen approaches to the management of natural disasters such as flooding or droughts. In addition, Target 3 specifically linked the EU CAP with the WFD highlighting the potential for cross-compliance.

·Fisheries and Marine policies

Overfishing has been a major issue for marine ecosystems despite the 2002 reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). In 2011, at the time of adoption of the Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, EU stocks were being fished beyond maximum sustainable yield (MSY) in 88% of cases, , and the average size of fish continued to decline. Without reform to the CFP, the impact assessment of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, as well as the impact assessment undertaken for the 2013 Reform of the CFP, concluded that further depletion of fish stocks would be expected, leading to setbacks for the attainment of good environmental status for EU marine waters by 2020. (Following the adoption of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, the 2013 Reform of the CFP has further enshrined MSY in the CFP by making it a legal obligation to be achieved by 2020 and the multi-annual plans for the Baltic, the North Sea and the Western Waters have further specified this objective for all target species in these waters. In doing so, the 2013 Reform of the CFP has enabled the achievement of 62 TACs fished in line with MSY by 2020 against only 5 in 2009.)

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) aimed to conserve the marine environment and attain Good Environmental Status (GES) of marine ecosystems. It supported protected areas and ecosystem restoration to achieve GES. However, restoration had been challenging to understand and the target of good environmental status was difficult to quantify. Nonetheless, the MSFD has helped drive increases in scientific understanding of the marine environment, which is necessary to support restoration.

Connections to the Strategy

Target 4 aimed for sustainable use of fish resources and suggested all fisheries achieve maximum sustainable yield (MSY) by 2015. It further encouraged the development and implementation of management plans, and the stepping up of work to collect data to support MSY. These measures were taken up in the revised CFP, although the originally proposed target date 2015 for achieving MSY was postponed. Action 14b in the Biodiversity Strategy encouraged the Member States to support the achievement of good environmental status under the MSFD, including by measures to restore marine ecosystems. Target 2 of the Biodiversity Strategy also aimed to restore at least 15% of degraded ecosystems. The Biodiversity Strategy identified in Target 4, Action 13a, that EU fishing fleets should maintain and restore fish stocks to MSY in all areas that the fleet operate including areas regulated by Regional Fisheries Monitoring Organisations and waters of third countries.

·Plant and Animal Health policies

The Plant Health Directive and Animal Health Strategy were both under review raising the possibility that their scope could be expanded to include pest and diseases of wild species. For the plant health regime, the possibility of including all invasive alien plants causing damage to the wider environment was also being considered. However, in the absence of a dedicated target, the extent of integration of provisions on invasive alien species in plant and animal health legislation and policy is likely to have been much smaller. Legislation focusing on plant and animal health would also have been insufficient to provide a coherent EU wide framework to combat invasive alien species.

Connections to the Strategy

The Biodiversity Strategy included an action under Target 5 to integrate biodiversity concerns into the Plant and Animal Health Regimes by 2012, and to adopt legislation on IAS.

·Regional development

EU Cohesion Policy funds, such as the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Social Fund, have contributed to investments directly benefiting biodiversity, environmental quality improvements, investments in Green Infrastructure and rehabilitation of contaminated land. However, under a business‑as‑usual scenario, such investments may not have been sufficiently supported and potential negative impacts from investments in infrastructure and other developments may not have been given sufficient attention to minimise and mitigate harm on biodiversity.

Connections to the Strategy

Under Target 2 of the Strategy, a Green Infrastructure Strategy was adopted which has provided impetus for investments in green infrastructure and ecological corridors; and a biodiversity proofing methodology was developed for assessing the impact of EU funded plans, projects and programmes on biodiversity.

·Consumption and Production policies

A broad set of policies and plans preceded the Biodiversity Strategy, including: the Integrated Product Policy (IPP), EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS), Ecolabel, Eco-innovation Action Plan, Green Public Procurement Policy, Economic Reform Programme (ERP), Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy (SCP/SIP) Action Plan, Environmental Liability Directive, and EU Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan. These aimed to reduce the impacts of consumption and production on biodiversity. Eco-labelling and certification would have reduced ecological footprints in terrestrial, freshwater and marine environments. The Environmental Liability Directive established a framework for preventing and remedying environmental damage, defined as damage to protected species and natural habitats, damage to water and damage to soil. Overall, under the BAU scenario, these policies would have had an important, though often indirect, benefit to biodiversity. However, there remained scope for greater coordination to support these policies in making a tangible difference for EU and global biodiversity.

Connections to the Strategy

Several elements of the Biodiversity Strategy aimed to address consumption and production impacts on biodiversity. Target 2 included actions to improve knowledge of ecosystems and their services. Target 3 targeted more sustainable agricultural and forestry production, whilst Target 4 aimed to ensure that fisheries resources are used sustainably. Lastly, Target 6 included actions to reduce indirect drivers of biodiversity loss linked to EU production and consumption.

·Climate and Energy policies

The impact assessment stated that achieving the '2 degrees' climate target is essential to avert global biodiversity loss. The EU had already developed and was implementing a suit of climate change policies, including: the EU 20/20/20 climate change target White paper on adaptation to climate change (COM (2009) 0147), Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) initiative, European Climate Change Programme (ECCP), and European Emission Trading Scheme (ETS). It was unclear in 2010 whether these policies would be sufficient to enable the EU to meet its climate targets for 2020 and beyond. To the extent that they contributed to mitigating climate change, these policies have been expected to slow down climate impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Similar to other policy areas, a business‑as‑usual scenario may have included insufficient attention to minimising potential biodiversity harm from increased demand for resources and infrastructure developments for renewable energy.

Overall, it seems likely that climate policies under the BAU scenario would have developed similarly to the scenario with a Strategy, and climate impacts would have continued to impact biodiversity to 2020, with some types of mitigation activities adding pressure on biodiversity.

Connections to the Strategy

Target 2 aimed to encourage better use of nature-based approaches to tackle climate change. Nature-based solutions and green infrastructure can provide cost-effective approaches to climate mitigation and adaptation, and ecosystem restoration can increase resilience to the impacts of climate change. Target 3 contained actions to promote sustainable agriculture and forestry. Target 4 aimed to support the achievement of good environmental status of marine ecosystems. Climate change is an important pressure on marine and terrestrial ecosystems, as well as a factor in increased invasive species dynamics. Climate change is also a growing pressure on global biodiversity and ecosystem services.

·Policies regarding external relations

A broad set of policies existed prior to the Biodiversity Strategy that addressed the EU’s international relations and trade, including aspects relating to biodiversity change. The Thematic Programme for Environment and Natural Resources (ENRTP), European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI), Development Cooperation and Economic Cooperation Instrument (DCECI) and European Development Fund (EDF) made contributions to biodiversity initiatives, partnerships and global multilateral processes. It is likely that under a BAU scenario this funding would have continued, including in implementation of the EU’s commitments under the Convention on biological diversity. Global Multilateral Environmental Agreements, funds and trade agreements have been important to support action to support biodiversity globally. The EU has been key in supporting global biodiversity by means of best practice exchange, funding and leadership. It is likely that under BAU this role would have continued, but to a lesser extent.

Connections to the Strategy

Target 6 of the Biodiversity Strategy aimed to improve the impact of trade agreements on biodiversity via Trade Sustainability Impact Assessments. A chapter on sustainable development is suggested in all trade agreements. It also includes an action to mobilise additional resources for global biodiversity conservation and an action to screen EU development cooperation to minimise negative biodiversity impacts.

Conclusion of the Business-As-Usual Scenario

Overall, the BAU suggested that without significant policy reforms and additional measures to strengthen the implementation of existing legislation, the EU would not attain its 2020 biodiversity targets. In the absence of the Strategy, continued ecosystem degradation, through land-use changes and invasive alien species, amongst others, were expected to negatively impact species and habitats across the majority of EU Member States.    

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

Annex 7 provides an overview of key outputs from the implementation of the Strategy’s actions by the Commission and the Member States. This concerns in particular outputs at the EU level. Outputs under other EU legislation and policies are included, to the extent that certain aspects of these EU instruments formed part of the Strategy. For highlights of achievements (as well as challenges) at the national level in the 10 case study Member States, see Annex 8.