The State of Nature in the EU Conservation status and trends of species and habitats protected by the EU Nature Directives 2013–2018

Environment © European Union, 2020

Author: Kerstin Sundseth, Ecosystems LTD, Brussels Commission coordinator: Sofia Pachini & Angelika Rubin, European Commission, Natura 2000 unit D.3, - B-1049 Brussels Graphic design: NatureBureau, United Kingdom. www.naturebureau.co.uk

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020

Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

The reuse policy of European Commission documents is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39).

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the copyright of the European Union, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders.

Print KH-04-20-577-EN-C ISBN 978-92-76-22783-0 doi:10.2779/5120 PDF KH-04-20-577-EN-N ISBN 978-92-76-22784-7 doi:10.2779/928382

Cover: Heathland, Arne RSPB reserve, Dorset, England © Ross Hoddinott / 2020VISION / naturepl.com

Getting in touch with the EU

In person All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct Information Centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you at: http://europa.eu/contact

On the phone or by email Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service • by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), • at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or • by electronic mail via: http://europa.eu/contact

Finding information about the EU

On line Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at: http://europa.eu

EU publications You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: http://bookshop.europa.eu. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see http://europa.eu/contact)

EU law and related documents For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

Open data from the EU The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data) provides access to datasets from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, both for commercial and non-commercial purposes. CONTENTS

Foreword 5

Introduction 11 How does the reporting process work? 7 Assessing conservation status 8 Measuring conservation trends 9

Birds 10 Population status of bird species at EU level 11 Population trends of breeding bird species at EU level 12 Population trends of wintering bird species at EU level 12 EU population status by taxonomic order 13 EU status and trends of species listed in the Birds Directive 13 State of birds in the EU: Examples 14 State of birds in the EU: Success stories 15

Other species 17 Conservation status and trends of other species at EU level 17 Conservation status at the biogeographical level 18 Conservation status per marine region 18 Conservation status by taxonomic group 19 Conservation trends by taxonomic group 19 State of other species in the EU: Examples 20 State of other species in the EU: Success stories 21

Habitat types 23 Conservation status and trends of habitat types at EU level 23 Conservation status per biogeographical region 24 Conservation status per marine region 24 Conservation status and trends by habitat group 25 State of habitat types in the EU: Examples 26 State of habitat types in the EU: Success stories 27

Key pressures and threats 29 Reporting on threats and pressures 29 High-ranking pressures 30

The role of the Natura 2000 network 33 The growth of the Natura 2000 network 33 Coverage of species and habitats in Natura 2000 34 Management effectiveness within Natura 2000 35

Looking to the future 36 The new EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2030 37

Further reading 39 Photo credits 39 4 The state of nature in the EU 5

Foreword

Europe hosts an impressive variety of wild plants, animals and landscapes, many of them unique to our continent. The EU Birds and Habitats Directives play an essential role in conserving this rich natural heritage, protecting over 2000 species and habitats all around the Union.

Every six years, we take a long, careful look at how that protection is working in practice, and we gather together the findings in aState of Nature report. This brochure summarises the key findings of the latest assessment, covering the period 2013–2018. This third edition of the report is the single most comprehensive health check ever undertaken of the species and habitats protected under the EU Nature Directives.

Its conclusions make for sobering reading. Protected habitats and species face strong pressures from all sides, and are still declining at an alarming rate. We have not yet succeeded in stemming this tide.

But as this brochure shows, targeted action can bring inspiring stories of success. The task now is ensure that these actions are undertaken at a sufficient scale. There is an urgent need for a step-change in our actions to put Europe’s biodiversity on a path to recovery by 2030. Failing to do so would mean the continued erosion not only of our shared natural heritage, but also of the vital services it provides, which ultimately underpin human health and prosperity.

Recognising the need to redouble our efforts, I have pushed for a truly ambitious programme of action under the new EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2030, and I will make every effort to ensure that we achieve our goals within the next ten years, as part of our wider ambitions to kick-start Europe’s economic recovery after the COVID 19 pandemic and to transition towards a more sustainable growth agenda under the European Green Deal.

The findings of this latestState of Nature report provide us with vital knowledge that will inform and boost our capacity to act on protection, on restoration and on the nature based solutions for the climate challenge. By acting together, I am convinced that Member States, stakeholders, NGOs and civil society can achieve great things in the next ten years.

Virginijus Sinkevičius European Commissioner for Environment, Oceans and Fisheries

opposite Eurasian lynx, Lynx lynx. 6 The state of nature in the EU 7

Introduction

The State of Nature in the EU

The EU Birds and Habitats Directives are the cornerstones How does the reporting process work? of the EU’s biodiversity policy. Together, they protect all 460 wild bird species naturally occurring in the EU and a Gathering comparable data on the conservation status of further 1400 other rare, endangered or vulnerable species, EU-protected species and habitats across so many countries is as well as 233 characteristic habitat types. a major undertaking and one that requires an unprecedented level of collaboration between Member States and European The overall objective is to ensure that these species and Institutions. habitats are restored to, or maintained at, a favourable conservation status across their entire natural range within After years of careful groundwork, the present reporting cycle the EU. This requires more than just halting their further can claim to be the largest and most extensive data-gathering decline or disappearance; measures must also be taken exercise ever undertaken on the state of Europe’s nature. to ensure they recover sufficiently to remain healthy over the long term. This can only be achieved if all EU Member This is not to say that the records are complete or of consistently States work together. good quality; there are still a number of significant information gaps, especially for species and habitats that are difficult to survey, such as in the marine environment. But the data gathered Every six years, Member States are asked to report back to date already provides an invaluable snapshot of the current to the European Commission on the conservation status of situation. those EU-protected species and habitats present on their territory. The Commission then pools all the data together, Having good quality data is essential not only to monitor progress with the help of the European Environment Agency, in order in the implementation of the EU Nature Directives but also to to see how well they are faring across the EU. help underpin any further action required to address any gaps or shortcomings. Additionally, it offers a valuable tool for assessing Published in October 2020, the ‘State of Nature in the the contribution of the Nature Directives towards meeting the European Union’ report presents the results of the 3rd EU’s broader biodiversity policy objectives under the new EU reporting cycle for the period 2013–2018. This brochure Biodiversity Strategy to 2030. summarises its key findings.

left Zois' bellflower,Campanula zoysii. 8 The state of nature in the EU

Assessing conservation status

A number of scientific then subjected to a common Also, as there is less scientific Conservation status categories parameters are used to assess assessment procedure to merit in using the concept of for species and habitats under the status (good, poor, bad) determine their status at the biogeographical regions for the Nature Directives of an EU-protected species wider biogeographical level birds, the data are collected only or habitat across its natural within each Member State, at the national level and then Good range within the EU (not just in and across the EU as a whole. aggregated at EU level. Poor protected areas). Working with biogeographical Bad regions is a more meaningful Despite these differences in Unknown/uncertain For the Habitats Directive, way in ecological terms of methodology, every effort has these are defined on the basis aggregating the results. It also been made to ensure that the of the criteria used to assess makes it easier to develop assessment categories used whether a species or habitat an overall picture of the under the two Directives are has reached a Favourable conservation status of species defined in broadly comparable Conservation Status across or habitats across the EU. terms and that the reporting is the EU or not. Thus, for species, done over the same time period. this means looking at their range, For the Birds Directive, population, suitable habitat and which protects all wild bird In order to further facilitate the future prospects. For habitat species present in the EU and understanding of the results, types, it focuses on the area, not just those that are rare and a traffic light system has been structure and functions of the threatened, there is a much applied to denote whether habitat, as well as its range and longer history of collecting the species or habitat has a future prospects. population data. So, although ‘good’ (green), ‘poor’ (amber), the data collection is similar ‘bad’ (red) or ‘unknown’ (grey) Data for each of these to that used by the Habitats conservation status. parameters are collected at Directive, the assessment the Member State level and method at EU-level is different.

below Cyprus tulip, Tulipa cypria.

What does a good conservation status mean?

The ultimate objective of the Habitats Directive is for all species and habitats it protects to achieve a Favourable (Good) Conservation Status. For a habitat type this is achieved when: • its natural range and areas it covers within that range are stable or increasing; • the specific structure and functions which are necessary for its long-term maintenance exist and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future; and • the conservation status of its typical species is favourable. For species under the Habitats Directive this is achieved when: • population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats; • the natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future; and • there is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long-term basis. In the case of birds, the EU assessment of status and trends is a bit different (based on IUCN’s red listing method with some slight adaptations in the Least Concern category) but the overall objective is similar: to maintain and restore the populations of all naturally occurring wild bird species present in the EU at a level that will ensure their long-term survival. 9

Measuring conservation trends

Because of the very broad conservation category (eg from work that quickly. It takes time Conservation status trends for categories and the high level of poor to good) will not be to respond to targeted species and habitat types under data aggregation used for picked up. conservation action and show the Habitats Directive assessing the conservation signs of recovery. status of species and habitat It is also important to recognise Improving types at EU level, only really that a change from one Thus, even if all the conditions Stable substantial changes will appear conservation status class to the are right and all threats have Deteriorating from one reporting period to next, for instance from ‘poor’ to been removed across its entire another. This means that many ‘good’, is very difficult to achieve range within the EU, it may still Unknown positive developments that do over a period as short as six take several generations before not result in a change of years. Nature simply doesn’t a particular species is able to Population trends for bird species produce enough offspring for its under the Birds Directive population to increase and Increasing significantly expand its range. Stable That is why the State of Nature Fluctuating report also analyses Declining conservation status trends. Unknown These provide important clues as to whether a species and habitat is at least heading in the right direction, i.e. improving, or whether it is remaining stable or continuing to decline.

left European pond turtles, Emys orbicularis.

What is a biogeographical region? The biogeographical and marine regions of the The EU has nine terrestrial biogeographical regions and five marine regions, European Union each with its own characteristic blend of vegetation, climate, topography and geology. Some Member States may have several biogeographical regions within Alpine Atlantic their territory (e.g. France has four such regions: Atlantic, Alpine, Continental and Black Sea Mediterranean) whereas others have only one (e.g. the Netherlands has only the Boreal Atlantic region). Continental Using biogeographical regions to select sites for the Natura 2000 network and Macaronesian assess the conservation status of species and habitats under the Habitats Mediterranean Directive is very useful from a scientific point of view since it allows the species Pannonian and habitats to be examined under very similar natural conditions, irrespective of Steppic national boundaries. Marine Atlantic Marine Baltic Marine Black Sea Marine Macaronesian Marine Mediterranean Overlapping submissions to UNCLOS 10 The state of nature in the EU 11

Birds

The Birds Directive protects all wild bird species that are Population status of bird species at EU level naturally present in the EU. In total, this amounts to some 460 species, ranging from familiar garden birds such as The latest State of Nature report shows that EU population status for the Eurasian blue tit, Cyanistes caeruleus, or European almost half of all European wild bird species birds in 2020 robin, Erithacus rubecula, to much rarer species such as (47%) have a good population status and the Corsican nuthatch, Sitta whiteheadi or the Spanish are holding their own, despite the immense imperial eagle, Aquila adalberti. pressures they continue to face. On the 19% other hand, around 39% still have a poor or 19% bad status. Because birds are highly mobile and do not respect 47% 20% 47% 20% national boundaries, there are good reasons for tackling The number of species with a good status their conservation at EU level, with all Member States has decreased by 5% while those with a 14%14% working towards the same objectives. The Birds Directive poor or bad status have gone up by 7%. aims to do precisely that. It requires the introduction of However, this does not necessarily mean the same EU-wide provisions for the protection of wild there have been genuine changes on the ■ Good ■ ■ Good Unknown ground. Differences seem at least partly due bird species in all Member States, and during all stages of ■ ■ Unknown Poor to a refinement in data quality and analysis, their life cycle, whether breeding, wintering, or migrating. ■ ■ Poor Bad rather than a real change in conservation It also regulates the hunting of certain species listed in ■ Bad Annex II. status at EU level.

In addition, the Birds Directive requires the protection Genuine changes for individual species are more visible at the Member State level. This is the case, for instance, for the Eurasian bittern, Botaurus stellaris of key sites for a subset of 197 threatened bird species in Belgium, the cinereous vulture, Aegypius monachus in Spain, the aquatic listed in Annex I of the Directive, as well as other regularly warbler, Acrocephalus paludicola in Poland or the little bustard, Tetrax tetrax occurring migratory species. in France. Many of these species have benefited from targeted conservation action under the EU LIFE Fund. The 2020 State of Nature report concludes that almost half (47%) of all bird species show a good population status while over a third (39%) show a poor or bad status.

The Birds Directive Number of species All naturally occurring wild bird species in 463 (of which 30 endemics and 66 the EU marine) Annex I (sub) species requiring designation 197 species of Special Protection Areas Annex II (sub) species that may be hunted 86 (of which 4 are non native/feral under national legislation species) left Ural Owl, Strix uralensis. 12 The state of nature in the EU

Population trends of breeding bird species Population trends of wintering bird species at EU level at EU level

Member States were asked to report on population trends for both While many of Europe’s breeding birds migrate to warmer climates breeding and wintering bird populations over the short (12 years) and outside Europe during the winter months, some (91 species) choose the long term (38 years). In the case of breeding birds, about a to stay within the EU. They are either resident species that stay in quarter (23%) of species continue to show an increasing short-term one area their entire lives or species that migrate within the EU. population trend, which is an encouraging sign as it indicates that Migratory birds also tend to congregate in certain key areas in winter, some species are recovering across their range in the EU. such as large coastal wetlands, which makes their monitoring and conservation that little bit easier. A further 30% are said to be stable or fluctuating, which is 7 percentage points higher than in 2015. Some species might have Exploring the short and long term trends of wintering species reached a plateau compared to 6 years ago and are no longer therefore provides another important clue as to the overall health of increasing. On the other hand, 30% of species are still showing a Europe’s birds. In this context, it is encouraging to note that around decreasing short-term trend. half of the wintering populations have an increasing trend over the short term (45%) and especially over the long term (54%). Looking at breeding bird population trends over the long-term, more species (29%) are showing an increasing long-term trend compared Just under a third (29%) show a decreasing population trend over to the short term, but, on the other hand, only 20% have a stable or the short term, but over the long term this falls to around 13%, fluctuating trend, which is significantly lower than over the short term. which is again a good sign. Overall, birds that overwinter in the EU The situation therefore looks to become more volatile for many seem to have a better long-term prospect than those that migrate species in the long term. further afield.

Left:Short term (12 years) breeding bird population trends at EU level Left:Short term (12 years) wintering bird population trends13% at EU level 13% Right: Long term (38 years)23% breeding bird population trends at EU 29%level Right: Long term (38 years)23% wintering bird population trends at EU29% level 30% 32% 29%30% 32% 29% 13% 13% 45% 54% 45% 54% 13%13%13%13% 23%23%23%23% 29%29%29%29% 9% 2% 9% 2% 30%30%30%30% 28% 32%32%32%32% 18% 29%29%29%29% 28% 18% 18% 18% 17% 20% 17% 13%13%13%13%20% 15% 45%45%45%45% 54%54%54%54% 15% 2% 2% 2% 1% 9%9%9%9% 2% 2%2%2%2% 1% 17%17%17%17% 28%28%28%28% 18%18%18%18% 18%18%18%18% 20%20%20%20% 15%15%15%15% 2%2%2%2% 2%2%2%2% 1%1%1%1% ■ Increasing ■ Stable ■ Fluctuating ■ Unknown ■ Decreasing ■ ■Increasing Increasing ■ ■Stable Stable ■ ■Fluctuating Fluctuating ■ ■Unknown Unknown ■ ■Decreasing Decreasing ■ Increasing ■ Stable ■ Fluctuating ■ Unknown ■ Decreasing

Red-crested■■ Increasing■ Increasing■ Increasing Increasingpochard ■, ■ Netta Stable ■ Stable ■ rufinaStable Stable ■ ■ Fluctuating ■ Fluctuating ■ Fluctuating Fluctuating ■ ■ Unknown ■ Unknown ■ Unknown Unknown ■ ■ Decreasing■ Decreasing ■ Decreasing Wallcreeper, Decreasing Tichodroma muraria■■ Increasing■ Increasing■ Increasing Increasing ■ ■ Stable ■ Stable ■ Stable Stable ■ ■ Fluctuating ■ Fluctuating ■ Fluctuating Fluctuating Black-tailed ■ ■ Unknown ■ Unknown ■ Unknown godwit, Unknown ■Limosa ■ Decreasing■ Decreasing ■ limosaDecreasing Decreasing 13

EU population status by taxonomic order EU status and trends of species listed in the Birds Directive

If one looks at the status of Europe’s birds according to their Looking at the population status and trends of species listed in Annex I taxonomic order (i.e. belonging to the same order or family), one can (in need of site protection), the results reveal that the proportion of see that some groups are clearly doing better than others. Annex I species with a secure status decreased by 8% from 2015, while the proportion of those with poor and bad status increased by 6%. Almost 90% of all herons, pelicans and spoonbills and 65% of hawks and eagles have a good population status in the EU, compared to As for huntable species listed in Annex II, the proportion with a good only 28% of all cranes, rails, gallinules and coots, and a quarter of status is 9% lower now than in 2015. 46% of huntable species also pheasants, partridges and grouse. Many species of ducks, geese and show a decreasing trend over the short term which is twice as many swans, waders, gulls and auks, falcons and marine birds like petrels, as for Annex I species (23%). This is a cause for concern as it indicates storm petrels and shearwaters are also mostly in a poor or bad that existing provisions in the different Member States are not conservation status (50% or more). providing sufficient safeguards for these species.

Below: Population status of EU birds by taxonomic order (number of species per Left: EU population status of Annex I and II, non‑Annex I/II and all bird species group in brackets) Right: EU short-term breeding population trends for Annex I and II, non‑Annex I/ II and all bird species LoonsLoons or or Divers Divers (3) (3) 100% 100% StorksStorks and and Flamingo Flamingo (3) (3) 100% 100% Herons,Herons, Pelicans, Pelicans, Ibises Ibises and and Spoonbills Spoonbills (13) (13) Kingfishers,Kingfishers, Rollers, Rollers, Bee-eaters Bee-eaters and and Hoopoe Hoopoe (4) (4) GannetsGannets and and Cormorants Cormorants (4) (4) 80% 80% HawksHawks and and Eagles Eagles (28) (28) 80% 80% GrebesGrebes (5) (5) PigeonsPigeons and and Doves Doves (9) (9) OwlsOwls (13) (13) 60% 60% FalconsFalcons (10) (10) 60% 60% CuckoosCuckoos (2) (2) PasserinesPasserines (192) (192) Woodpeckers (11) Woodpeckers (11) 40% 40% Ducks,Ducks, Geese Geese and and Swans Swans (36) (36) 40% 40% Waders,Waders, Gulls Gulls and and Auks Auks (78) (78) BustardsBustards (3) (3) Cranes, Rails, Gallinules and Coots (10) Cranes, Rails, Gallinules and Coots (10) 20% 20% Pheasants,Pheasants, Partridges Partridges and and Grouse Grouse (13) (13) 20% 20% SandgrouseSandgrouse (2) (2) Petrels,Petrels, Storm-petrels Storm-petrels and and Shearwaters Shearwaters (15) (15) SwisSwis and and Nightjars Nightjars (8) (8) 0% 0% 0% Annex I Annex II Non- All taxa 0% Annex I Annex II Non- All taxa 0%0% 25%25% 50%50% 75%75% 100%100% Annex I Annex IIAnnexNon- II All taxa Annex I Annex II AnnexNon- II All taxa Annex II Increasing Stable/FluctuatingAnnex II Good Unknown Poor Bad Uncertain/UnknownIncreasing Stable/FluctuatingDeclining GoodGood UnknownUnknown PoorPoor BadBad Good Unknown Poor Bad Uncertain/Unknown Declining

Northern wren, Troglodytes troglodytes Squacco heron, Ardeola ralloides Common diver, Gavia immer 14 The state of nature in the EU

Examples of birds that are increasing, decreasing STATE OF BIRDS IN THE EU or remaining stable across the EU

Atlantic puffin Fratercula arctica

Little bunting Emberiza pusilla

Great white egret

➔ Red throated diver Ardea alba Gavia stellata INCREASING Bonelli's eagle

➔ Aquila fasciata

Eurasian Golden oriole Golden eagle Oriolus oriolus Aquila chryseatus ➔ STABLE ➔ Little tern Sternula albifronsa Rock ptarmigan Lagopus muta

Common kingfisher Woodlark Alcedo atthis Lullula arborea

Eurasian green Hazel grouse Lanner falcon woodpecker Bonasia bonasia Falco biarmicus Picus viridis Common swift Apus apus ➔

DECREASING ➔

Tufted duck Eurasian Skylark Aythya fuligula Alauda arvensis

Yelkouan shearwater Puffinus yelkouan 15

Griffon vulture Red kite Gyps fulvus Milvus milvus The griffon vulture started to decline Like many birds of prey, the red kite was already in the second half of the once heavily persecuted and hunted. This, nineteenth century as a result of combined with the loss of breeding and persecution, poisoning and a reduction foraging habitats (usually related with in food availability, caused by the agricultural intensification) meant that the disappearance of extensive grazing species range shrank considerably across practices. The species has, however, made the EU and became highly fragmented. a remarkable recovery in recent years thanks to its legal protection under Illegal poisoning is thought to be another main driver of its decline these days. the Birds Directive and to concerted conservation efforts. A series of very As occasional scavengers, red kites are particularly sensitive to poisons used successful reintroduction programmes have been launched, notably in France, to control foxes, crows and other species. Italy and the Balkans. Much of this conservation work was funded by the EU However, thanks to the prohibition of the use of poison under the Birds LIFE programme. Directive and the launch of a series of species reintroduction programmes, The EU population has quadrupled in size since the 1980s, and the species is the red kite population has begun to increase again. In total, 18 LIFE-nature starting to recolonise parts of its range where it had previously disappeared. projects have been implemented for the species so far, which has led to a The conservation status of the griffon vulture is now considered to be secure genuine improvement in both its status and trend in recent years. The species at EU level. is now considered to have a secure conservation status at EU level.

Success stories Aquatic warbler Eurasian bittern Acrocephalus paludicola Botaurus stellaris The aquatic warbler was The Eurasian bittern is once relatively common in many fens, a well camouflaged bird that lives in mires and wet meadows throughout extensive reedbeds where visibility is much of mainland Europe. However, after generally limited. Although the species years of large-scale habitat loss and has a very large range within Europe, agricultural intensification, its population its numbers fell over the years due to plummeted, earning it the title as one the loss of its prime habitat: large wet of Europe’s rarest songbirds. But, thanks to the combined effects of Natura reedbeds. Scientific studies have demonstrated that these habitats should 2000 site protection and targeted conservation projects funded for the most ideally be at least 20 hectares to support a viable population. part by the EU LIFE programme, notably in Poland, Germany and Lithuania, A European Action Plan was drawn up in 1999 to help coordinate conservation the situation is slowly improving for the little bird. efforts across the EU. Since then, over 80 LIFE-funded projects have been The projects focused on restoring the hydrology of core wetlands where undertaken for the bittern in 20 Member States. This has had a significant the species is known to breed, and then reintroducing regular habitat impact. The species is now considered to have a good conservation status at management measures that mimic past, but long-since abandoned, farming EU level. However, on-going management of its reedbed habitat is essential, techniques. Thanks to these efforts, the aquatic warbler is slowly recovering, and further wetland restoration measures will probably be needed to sustain but its future remains precarious as its EU population is still low and remains the population in the long-term. heavily dependent on conservation management. 16 The state of nature in the EU 19% ■ Good ■ Unknown 47% 20% ■ Poor ■ Bad 14% 17 19% ■ Good ■ Unknown 47% 19% ■ Poor 23% ■ Good 20% ■ Increasing ■ 30%Bad ■ Unknown ■ Stable 47% ■ Poor 14% 20% ■ Fluctuating ■ Bad Other species ■ Unknown 17%14% 28% ■ Decreasing

23% ■ 2% The Habitats Directive protects almost 1,400 rare, Conservation status of30% other species at EU Increasing level 19% ■ Stable ■ Good threatened or endemic species of wild animals and plants, 23% ■ Fluctuating ■ Increasing ■ Unknown 30% 47% ■ other than birds – often collectively referred to as species Overall, the State of Nature report concludes Conservation■ Unknown status of ■ Stable 20% Poor of European importance or of Community Interest. that the conservation status is good17% for just28% other■ Decreasing species at EU level ■ Fluctuating ■ Bad over a quarter of species (27%) listed in ■ Unknown 14% 28% the Habitats Directive. This is up from2% 23% 17% ■ Decreasing They include some high-profile species like the Iberian 21% 27% lynx, Lynx pardinus, and the Mediterranean monk seal, during the last reporting round. Nevertheless, ■ Good the majority (63%) still have a poor or bad 2% ■ Unknown Monachus monachus, as well as many lesser known, but ■ 23% conservation status. Poor ■ Increasing equally important, species such as the Northern birch 10% ■ 30% Bad ■ Stable mouse, Sicista betulina, the stag beetle, Lucanus cervus, 42% The share of species with an unknown ■ Fluctuating the lady’s-slipper orchid, Cypripedium calceolus, and the 21% ■ Unknown conservation status has decreased notably,27% 28% southern damselfly,Coenagrion mercuriale. ■ Good 17% ■ Decreasing indicating that Member States have made ■ Unknown 6% 21% 27% ■ Unfavourable a greater effort at monitoring during this ■ Poor ■ Good 2% As with the Birds Directive, the Habitats Directive requires 10% 35% – improving reporting round. However, data on marine ■ Bad ■ Unknown 42% ■ Unknown the application of uniform EU-wide provisions to ensure species remains largely incomplete, even for 31% ■ Poor 10% ■ Unfavourable the protection of those species listed in Annex IV and well-known species such as cetaceans and ■ Bad Conservation42% status – stable ■ the regulated use of those in Annex V. The Directive also marine turtles. trends for 28%species not in a Unfavourable 6% good status at EU level – deteriorating requires core sites to be designated for around 1000 ■ Unfavourable species listed in Annex II. Along with sites protected under 35% – improving6% 21% 27% ■ the Birds Directive these form part of the EU-wide Natura Trends of species with a poor or 31% ■ Unknown ■ Unfavourable Good ■ ■ Unknown 35%Unfavourable – improving 2000 Network. bad status ■ Poor – stable 31% ■ Unknown 10% ■ Unfavourable ■ ■ Bad 28% Unfavourable42% According to the State of Nature report, just over a Looking at the trends of species with a poor – deteriorating – stable or bad status, only 6% show an increasing ■ quarter (27%) of the species have a good conservation 28% Unfavourable trend, while 35% are still deteriorating. This 4% – deteriorating status at EU level, up from 23% in 2015. Nevertheless, 15% is a cause for concern as it indicates that 6% ■ Improving ■ ■ Unfavourable the majority of species (63%) continue to have a poor very few species are showing any signs of 36% Good or bad status. ■ Unknown ■ Unknown35% – improving recovery. The trend is stable for 28% species ■ Stable ■ Poor 31% ■ Unknown ■ Decreasing ■ ■ Unfavourable and for 31% the trend is simply not known. 45% Bad – stable 4% ■ 15% 28% Unfavourable – deteriorating Species on the Habitats Directive Number of species 36% ■ Good 4% 15% ■ Unknown 9% Annex II: species requiring site designation only 202 ■ Unfavourable ■ Poor ■ Good 36% – improving Annex IV: species requiring strict protection only ■36% Bad 269 ■ Unknown 45% 21% ■ Unknown ■ Poor Species on both Annexes II and IV 789 ■ Unfavourable ■ Bad Annex V: species whose taking in the wild and exploitation 9645% – stable ■ is subject to management measures 34% Unfavourable left Sand lizard, Lacerta agilis. 9% – deteriorating 4% Species on both Annex IV and V ■ Unfavourable45 15% – improving 36% 21% 9% 36% ■ Good ■ Unknown ■ Unfavourable ■ Unknown ■ Unfavourable – improving ■ Poor 36% – stable 21% ■ Unknown ■ ■ 45% Bad 34% Unfavourable ■ Unfavourable – deteriorating – stable ■ 34% Unfavourable – deteriorating 9% ■ Unfavourable – improving 36% 21% ■ Unknown ■ Unfavourable – stable ■ 34% Unfavourable – deteriorating 18 The state of nature in the EU

Conservation status at the Conservation status biogeographical level per marine region

Looking at the conservation status of species at the biogeographical Species in the marine environment are faring much worse than their level, it is clear that species are doing better in some EU terrestrial counterparts. Of the 44 marine species listed in the biogeographic regions than in others. For terrestrial species, the Habitats Directive, 36% have a bad or poor status, and only 5% have highest proportion with a good status can be found in the Steppic a good status. For the vast majority (59%), their status remains region (43%) and to a lesser extent in the Boreal (33%), Black Sea unknown, reflecting the general lack of marine data. (32%) and Mediterranean (31%) regions. At the biogeographical level, the marine Baltic region has the highest On the other hand, the Atlantic and Continental regions have the proportion of species with a poor or bad status assessment (86%). lowest share of good conservation status assessments (19% and This, however, concerns only seven species. The marine 21%). In both regions, almost three quarters of species have a poor Mediterranean and marine Black Sea regions also have a significant or bad status (72% and 70%). proportion of species assessments with a bad status (62% and 75% respectively). The status of species in the Atlantic and Macaronesian regions remains largely unknown (69% and 94% respectively).

Conservation status of species per biogeographical and marine region. Steppic Boreal Black Sea Mediterranean Macaronesian Reptiles (106) Alpine Vascular plants (650) Pannonian Amphibians (71)

Biogeographical regions Continental Arthropods (129) Atlantic Mammals (141) Marine Baltic Non-vascular plants (37) Marine Mediterranean Marine Atlantic Molluscs (48) Marine Macaronesian Fish (203)

Marine regions Marine Black Sea Other invertebrates (4) 0% 20% 0% 40%25% 50% 75%60% 100% 80% 100% Good Unknown Poor Bad

Eurasian brown bear, Ursus arctos European bullhead, Cottus gobio Bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus. 19

Conservation status by taxonomic group Conservation trends by taxonomic group

The State of Nature report also examines the conservation status of Looking at the trends of those with a poor or bad conservation species according to different taxonomic groups. The results indicate status, one can see that fish and amphibians have the highest share that reptiles and vascular plants are faring best, with 40% and 36% of species with a deteriorating trend (49%) whereas reptiles have in a good status respectively, followed by amphibians (27%) and the lowest share (23%). Mammals have the highest proportion of arthropods (25%). species that are improving but at only 10%, this remains very low. Amongst those that are improving, are well known species like the By contrast, fish or non-vascular plants have an overwhelmingly Eurasian otter Lutra lutra, and the harbour seal, Phoca vitulina. poor or bad status (82% and 73% respectively). In the case of fish species, this points clearly to continuing pressures on their But other lesser well known species are also showing signs of freshwater habitats in particular. recovery at a national or biogeographical level such as the forest reindeer Rangifer tarandus fennicus in the Boreal region, the yellow Regarding mammals, it is encouraging to note that twice as many twayblade Liparis loeselii in the Atlantic region, the yellow-bellied species have a good status (25%) as have a bad status (12%). toad Bombina variagata in Luxembourg, and the sand lizard, Lacerta Nevertheless, almost half (45%) continue to have a poor status. agilis in Spain. All have been targeted by conservation projects funded under the EU LIFE Fund.

Conservation status per species group at EU level (number of species per group Conservation status of species with poor, bad or unknown status at EU level, in brackets) per group

Reptiles (106) Mammals Vascular plants (650) Fish Amphibians (71) Non-vascular plants Arthropods (129) Arthropods Mammals (141) Vascular plants Non-vascular plants (37) Molluscs Molluscs (48) Reptiles Fish (203) Amphibians Other invertebrates (4) Other invertebrates 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Good Unknown Poor Bad Improving Unknown Stable Deteriorating

Alpine longhorn beetle, Rosalia alpina Yellow-bellied toad, Bombina variegata European mink, Mustela lutreola 20 The state of nature in the EU

Examples of species improving, STATE OF OTHER SPECIES decreasing or remaining stable at the IN THE EU biogeographical level

Eurasian Otter Schreibers's bat European green toad Northern birch mouse Lutra lutra Miniopterus schreibersii Bufotis viridis Sicista betulina ➔ INCREASING ➔ STABLE ➔ Lizard orchid Eurasian Beaver Jersey tiger moth Castor fiber Euplagia quadripunctaria ➔ Himantoglossum jankae

Hermann’s tortoise Testudo hermanni Italian marbled white Melanargia arge

Grey seal Halochoerus grypus

Freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera European ground squirrel Spermophilus citellus Hexagonal colour key Biogeographical and marine ➔ regions of the European Union Fairy slipper orchid Calypso bulbosa Alpine DECREASING Atlantic ➔ Black Sea Boreal Continental Macaronesian Atlantic sturgeon Mediterranean Acipenser sturio Pannonian Green turtle Green hawker Steppic Chelonia mydas Aeshna viridis Marine Atlantic Marine Baltic Marine Black Sea Marine Macaronesian Marine Mediterranean 21

Wild forest reindeer Iberian lynx Rangifer tarandus fennicus Lynx pardinus Unique to Finland within the EU, the The Iberian lynx was previously wild forest reindeer was once common widespread across the Iberian peninsula, throughout Finland and Russia, but, by the but by the 1960s the species had 1900s, it had been hunted to extinction. been pushed to the edge of extinction 50 years on, individuals started to through a combination of habitat loss cross back over from Russia and breed and fragmentation, overhunting and in Finland. Further populations were the depletion of its main source of food: subsequently reintroduced to other old growth forests in central Finland. The rabbits. By the 1990s, when the Habitats Directive came in force, the species species is now protected under the Habitats Directive but remains at risk from had become the most threatened wild cat species in the world. incompatible forest management practices, predation and inter-breeding with This prompted the launch of an intensive conservation programme, funded the more common semi-domesticated tundra reindeer. mostly by the EU LIFE programme which targeted core areas in both southern Several LIFE projects have been undertaken to help the species. They include Spain and Portugal. Numerous conservation measures were undertaken to the re-enforcement of an 80 km fence in western Finland to prevent cross improve the quality of the habitat, reconnect isolated populations, reduce breeding with other reindeer herds, guidance on wild forest reindeer friendly road kills and the illegal poaching of rabbits, all in close collaboration with forest management practices as well as further reintroduction programmes. local land owners and stakeholders. Captive breeding programmes were Thanks to these efforts, the species has improved in status established to supplement the wild populations. The species since the last reporting round and is now considered to have a now has a positive conservation trend, even if its status good status in the Boreal region. remains poor.

Success stories Harbour seal Allis shad Phoca vitulina Alosa alosa The harbour seal has had A member of the herring a chequered history in Europe, having family, the Allis shad was once widespread suffered heavily from overhunting, across Northern Europe, spending much of disease, habitat destruction and pollution its time at sea before migrating back up over the years. Thanks to the Habitats along its native rivers to spawn. Only 150 Directive the species is now protected years ago, several hundred thousand shad across the EU and many of its core haul were caught annually in the Rhine system out sites are included in the Natura 2000 network. where they formed an important part of the local economy. But, overfishing, pollution and habitat loss caused populations to crash. By the 1920s, the Various international management programmes have also been adopted species had disappeared altogether from the Rhine. to ensure the conservation of the species in key areas like the Wadden Sea. Thanks to the Trilateral Seal Management Plan adopted in 1994, the Wadden Two EU LIFE projects are now helping to bring the species back to the Rhine. Sea harbour seal population has increased rapidly over the years and now They have re-introduced some 11 million Allis shad larvae into the river at stands at 24,000, compared to just 3000 individuals in 1974. The overall EU various points. So far 250 adults have been observed returning to the Rhine population has also increased and is now considered to have a poor, rather from the North Sea, which is probably only a proportion of the real total. The than a bad, conservation status in the marine Atlantic region. However its species still has a long way to go before it can get out of its bad conservation status remains bad in the Baltic region. status, but at least its conservation trend has already improved thanks to the LIFE projects. 22 The state of nature in the EU 19% ■ Good ■ Unknown 47% 20% ■ Poor ■ Bad 14%

23% ■ 30% Increasing ■ Stable ■ Fluctuating ■ Unknown 17% 28% ■ Decreasing 19% 2% ■ Good ■ Unknown 47% 20% ■ Poor ■ Bad 14%

21% 27% ■ Good 23% ■ Unknown 30% Increasing ■ Poor 10% Stable ■ FluctuatingBad 42% 23 ■ Unknown 17% 28% ■ Decreasing 19% ■ Good2% 6% ■ ■ Unknown Unfavourable 47% ■35% Poor – improving 20% ■ ■ Bad 31% Unknown ■ Unfavourable Habitat types 14% – stable ■ 28% Unfavourable – deteriorating 21% 27% The EU has a remarkable diversity of landscapes and Conservation status of habitat ■ Good 23% ■ ■ Unknown habitats for its size, many of which have been fashioned 30% Increasing types at EU level ■ ■ Poor Stable 10% through centuries of diverse farming and forest practices. ■ Fluctuating ■ Bad 42% As in the previous report, very few habitat Conservation■ Unknown status of 28% habitats at EU level Some 230 of these natural and semi-natural habitat types types are in a good status (just 15%).17% ■ Decreasing The overwhelming majority are in a poor are protected under the Habitats Directive in their own 6% 2% 4% right. This is because they are in danger of disappearing (45%) or bad (36%) conservation status. 15% ■ Unfavourable19% or because they present outstanding examples of 36%35% ■ –Good improving ■ Good characteristic habitats from one or more of Europe’s This is no doubt linked to a wide range of 31% ■ Unknown ■ Unknown ■ 47% ■ factors, be it the high level of pressures they ■ PoorUnfavourable20% Poor biogeographical regions. ■ ■ Bad continue to face and their long recovery time 45% Bad– stable ■ Unfavourable even if all the pressures are removed and 28% 14% – deteriorating Included in the list are such well known habitats as shifting appropriate management measures21% have been27% sand dunes, western taiga forests and mountain hay ■ Good introduced. Many habitats are also so depleted ■ Unknown 9% meadows, as well as other typically European habitats such that they will require active restoration or even ■ Poor ■ Unfavourable 10% 23% as active raised bogs, Mediterranean temporary ponds recreation in order to kick start their recovery. ■ Bad – improving ■ Increasing 36% 21% 30% and dehesas – the latter is a characteristic type of wooded 42% ■ Unknown ■ Stable ■ Unfavourable ■ Fluctuating pasture found across much of the Iberian peninsula. It – stable ■ Unknown harbours a particularly rich biodiversity. ■ Unfavourable 28% ■ Decreasing 6% 34% 4% 17% 15% ■ Unfavourable – deteriorating Across the EU, just 15% of habitats have a good status Trends of habitat types 35%with a poor 36% – improving ■ Good 2% according to the State of Nature report. The vast or bad status 31% ■ Unknown ■ Unknown ■ Unfavourable ■ Poor majority (81%) are in a poor or bad status. – stable ■ Bad The trends of those with a poor or bad Conservation status45% of ■ Unfavourable status also raises serious concerns as only28% habitats not in a good status – deteriorating at EU level 9% show an increasing trend. For a third of habitats, the trend is stable (34%) but an 21% 27% 9% equal number (36%) are continuing to decline. ■ Unfavourable ■ Good – improving ■ Unknown For 21% the trend is simply not known. 36% 21% ■ Unknown ■ Poor 10% ■ ■ Unfavourable Bad 42% This decline is especially acute for bogs, mires – stable and fens, dunes and grassland habitats. In ■ Unfavourable 4% 34% all cases, more than half of the habitats are15% – deteriorating 6% deteriorating. ■ Good 36% ■ Improving ■ Unfavourable ■ Unknown ■ Unknown – improving ■ Poor 35% ■ Stable ■ Unknown ■ Bad 31% 45% ■ Decreasing ■ Unfavourable – stable ■ left Mountain hay meadow. 28% Unfavourable – deteriorating 9% ■ Unfavourable – improving 36% 21% ■ Unknown ■ Unfavourable – stable ■ 34% Unfavourable – deteriorating 4% 15%

36% ■ Good ■ Unknown ■ Poor ■ 45% Bad

9% ■ Unfavourable – improving 36% 21% ■ Unknown ■ Unfavourable – stable ■ 34% Unfavourable – deteriorating 24 The state of nature in the EU

Conservation status Conservation status per biogeographical region per marine region

Regarding the conservation status of habitats across the different Of the nine marine habitats listed in the Directive, just 3% have a biogeographical regions, the highest proportion of habitats with a good status compared to 70% with a poor or bad status at EU level. good status can be found in the Steppic region (72%). This region, For over a third (27%), the status remains unknown. which is exclusively confined to Romania, has several typically dry habitats such as xeric sand calcareous grasslands or Pannonic salt The marine Black Sea region has identified one marine habitat type steppes and marshes that require little or no management. in a good conservation status : submarine structures made by leaking gases. In all other regions, the marine habitat types are in a On the other hand, just 4% of the 117 habitat types present in the poor or bad status (100% in the marine Baltic region, 85% in marine Atlantic region have a good status, with many semi-natural Atlantic and 75% in marine Mediterranean) or their status is simply grasslands and coastal dune habitats being particularly degraded. unknown. This is the case for over 90% of the marine habitats in the Overall, the share of habitat types having a poor or bad status Macaronesian region. exceeds 50% in all regions, except the Steppic region.

Conservation status of habitats per biogeographical and marine region. Steppic Macaronesian Alpine Black Sea Mediterranean Rocky habitats (14) Pannonian Sclerophyllous scrubs (13) Boreal Freshwater habitats (20)

Biogeographical regions Continental Forests (81) Atlantic Heath & scrub (12) Marine Black Sea Grasslands (32) Marine Macaronesian Marine Mediterranean Dune habitats (21) Marine Atlantic Bogs, mires & fens (12)

Marine regions Marine Baltic Coastal habitats (28) 0% 10% 20% 30%0% 40%25% 50%50% 75%60% 100%70% 80% 90% 100% Good Unknown Poor Bad

Woodland, Huesca, Spain Drifting sand dune, Skagen, Denmark Freshwater lake, Julien Alps, Slovenia 25

Conservation status and trends by habitat group

Looking at the conservation status of different habitat groups, one can see that the worst affected are the grasslands, dunes, bogs, mires and fen habitats. In all cases, over 85% of the habitat types are in a bad or poor status. Rocky habitats and sclerophyllous scrub habitats are doing relatively better, but still only a fifth of these habitats have a good conservation status (25% and 21% respectively).

Of those with a poor or bad conservation status, forests (13%) and heath and scrub habitats (11%) have the highest share with improving trends. By contrast only 4% of freshwater habitats, bogs, mires and fens are improving. Once again, grasslands, dunes, bogs, mires and fen habitats are showing the sharpest declining trends with more than half of their habitats showing clear signs of a continued deterioration. above Red kite, Milvus milvus following the plough. Grasslands have the highest proportion of habitats with a bad status (49%).

Conservation status per habitat group at EU level (number of habitat types per Conservation status trends of habitats with poor, bad or unknown status at group in brackets) EU level, per group

Rocky habitats (14) Forests Sclerophyllous scrubs (13) Grasslands Freshwater habitats (20) Coastla habitats Forests (81) Dune habitats Heath & scrub (12) Freshwater Grasslands (32) Rocky habitats Dune habitats (21) Sclerophyllous scrubs Bogs, mires & fens (12) Heath & scrub Coastal habitats (28) Bogs, mires & fens 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Good Unknown Poor Bad Improving Unknown Stable Deteriorating

Alpine meadow, South Tyrol, Italy Corals on rocky reefs, Vis Island, Croatia Bog pool with islands, Western Estonia 26 The state of nature in the EU

Examples of habitats improving, STATE OF HABITATS decreasing or remaining stable at the IN THE EU biogeographical level

Coastal dunes with Pannonian Apeninne Sub-arctic Juniperus spp. ➔ salt steppes Beech forest Salix scrub INCREASING ➔ STABLE ➔ ➔

Continental Macaronesian Natural dystrophic turloughs laurel forests Alluvial meadows lakes and ponds

➔ Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Western taiga Erica tetralix Hexagonal colour key DECREASING Biogeographical and marine ➔ regions of the European Union Alpine Atlantic Black Sea Boreal Semi-natural dry Continental Mountain grasslands on calcarious Macaronesian hay meadows substrates Mediterranean Pannonian Steppic Wooded dunes Marine Atlantic with Pinus pinea Marine Baltic Marine Black Sea Marine Macaronesian Marine Mediterranean 27

White dunes Active raised bogs Shifting dunes, or white dunes, are mostly Active raised bogs have been subjected found along the Atlantic coast, albeit to centuries of turf extraction, drainage in small pockets. This is a rare habitat: and afforestation, which is why they now its total surface area in the EU is just have a bad conservation status across the 380 km2. It has a poor conservation EU. In some countries, like Ireland, turf status in the Atlantic region but thanks extraction was once done on an industrial to targeted conservation action, notably scale to supply the country with electricity in the Netherlands and Denmark, its and fuel. conservation status has gradually improved over the years (from bad in In order to preserve what remains, several countries have launched national 2006 to poor-stable now). In the Netherlands, it even achieved a good status restoration programmes for their raised bogs. This is the case in Ireland, in 2018. where the largest restoration effort of its kind was launched in 2015. It will A key threat to the habitat is human-induced fixation of the dunes, mostly for lead to improvement of 8 000 ha of raised bog, thanks to the blocking of over coastal defence purposes. These prevent the habitat from being mobile and 200 km of deep drainage channels. Until now, any attempts to protect and shifting in function of the prevailing winds. Several LIFE projects have focused restore raised bogs have been met with strong resistance. Peat cutting is very on restoring the habitat’s natural dynamics, amongst others by removing much part of Ireland’s social history and traditions. The project is therefore vegetation and plantations, in order to revert them to an earlier stage of putting a lot of emphasis on engaging fully with local communities to win succession. Wind patterns are now once again influencing the their support and foster a greater national understanding of the newly restored mobile dunes, and many typical yet rare pioneer importance of Ireland’s raised bogs through a variety of public species are starting to return. awareness activities. Success stories Lowland grasslands Fennoscandian in Latvia wooded pastures There are 29 different types Unique to Sweden, Finland of grassland habitats on the Habitats and the Baltic States, Fennoscandian Directive, many of which occur in the wooded pastures host an exceptionally lowlands. Almost all have a poor or bad rich array of species, including many conservation status in the EU, having rare insects such as the hermit beetle, disappeared on a massive scale over Osmoderma eremita, the great capricorn the past decades, mostly as a result beetle, Cerambyx cerdo and the European of changing agricultural practices. Such a large-scale habitat loss can only stag beetle, Lucanus cervus. These rare habitats are characterised by their really be effectively addressed through equally large scale conservation mosaic pattern of open grasslands interspersed with a sparse coverage of programmes aimed at a whole suite of sites in one go. ancient deciduous trees, such as oak, ash and lime. Several LIFE projects have done exactly this in a bid to kick-start the long Wooded pastures were of vital importance for livestock grazing right into the term recovery of key grassland habitats. In Latvia for instance, the EU LIFE 20th Century. But, as intensive livestock husbandry practices took over, most Meadows project set in motion a coordinated nation-wide programme for the were abandoned and left to grow over. What remains today represents just restoration of 15 of the best floodplain grassland areas in the country. This a fragment of its former range, which is why they have a bad conservation was followed by the reintroduction of regular management on all sites, using status throughout the Boreal region. In a bid to improve the status of this EU funded agri-environmental measures. Ten years on, some 70-80% of the valuable habitat, around 20 LIFE projects have been funded over the years floodplain originally included in the project are still being managed in a proper to help restore and defragment key areas in Sweden and elsewhere. Thanks way. Buoyed by its success, a new project has been launched to target further to these efforts, the habitat now has an improving trend in the Continental grassland areas in Latvia. Region of Sweden. 28 The state of nature in the EU 29

Key pressures and threats

Living in one of the most densely populated regions of the Reporting on threats and pressures world, with a long history of land use, European society has had a profound impact on nature. Initially, this led to the Member States were asked to report on a range of key creation of diverse cultural landscapes that are home to a pressures and threats for each of the habitats and species rich fauna and flora. protected under the EU Nature Directives. This was done at two hierarchical levels: the first covered 15 broad categories But human activities have also caused the large-scale while the second identified 203 individual activities. destruction of nature, particularly during the 20th century. By the mid-1980s, two-thirds of Europe’s wetlands and The results were then aggregated at EU level in order to almost three-quarters of its sand dunes and heaths had see which high ranking pressures and threats were the most common. already disappeared.

In order to gain a better understanding of the underlying Reported frequency of high ranking pressures for level pressures and threats on the species and habitats protected one categories (in %) under the two Nature Directives, Member States were asked Agriculture 21.4% to report on what they considered to be the principle causes Urbanization 12.9% of species and habitat loss. Forestry 10.8% The results show that agriculture remains the most Natural processes 8.5% common pressure and threat on species and habitats, Changes in water regimes 8.3% followed by urbanisation, forestry and the modification Invasive alien species 7.3% of water regimes. Over exploitation 7.2% Energy infrastructure 4.8% Transport 4.7% Climate change 3.7%

left Farmland, Cattenom, France. 30 The state of nature in the EU

High-ranking pressures

1. Agriculture 2. Urbanisation

Agriculture remains the most frequently As more and more people live in cities and reported pressure affecting over a fifth of all large conurbations, the pace of urban spread protected species and habitats. This reflects has grown considerably in recent years. not only the scale of agricultural land use in The significant network of roads has also the EU but also continuing changes in fragmented the landscape and rendered the farming practices. countryside less permeable to biodiversity.

Agriculture exerts its pressure in two opposing ways. On the According to the State of Nature report, the majority of pressures one hand, there is the abandonment of agricultural areas and linked to this category come from a range of activities linked to their lack of management. On the other, there is the continuing outdoor sports, recreation and tourism all of which can significantly intensification of agricultural activities and the conversion of one deteriorate fragile habitats and cause disturbance to wildlife, type of agricultural practice to another that has a greater impact on especially in breeding and overwintering sites. The spread of urban nature. Other threats include the use of pesticides and fertilisers, areas – be it for industry, housing, or tourism and leisure – is also a the removal of small landscape features, such as hedgerows, and major threat to species and habitats. drainage for agricultural use.

Level 2 agricultural pressures for habitats and species, shown as the Level 2 urban pressures for habitats and species, shown as the percentage of pressures within this level 1 group percentage of pressures within this level 1 group Abandonment of grassland management 14.3% Sports, tourism and leisure activities 24.8% Use of plant protection chemicals 8.3% Conversion from other land uses to housing, settlement or 11.8% recreational areas Intensive grazing or overgrazing by livestock 8.2% Construction or modification in existing urban or recreational areas 10.4% Conversion from one type of agricultural land use to another 8.2% Creation or development of sports, tourism and leisure infrastructure 6.0% Drainage for use as agricultural land 6.2% Modification of coastline, estuary and coastal conditions for urbane areas 5.9% Removal of small landscape features for agricultural land 6.1% parcel consolidation Drainage of natural systems to industrial or commercial areas 5.5% Agricultural activities generating diffuse pollution to surface or 5.5% Industrial or commercial activities and structures generating noise, 4.0% ground waters light etc. Conversion into agricultural land 5.2% Conversion from other land uses to commercial or industrial 3.8%

Motorway transport infrastructure Wind energy production Intensive farming 31

3. Forestry 6. Over-exploitation of species

Like agriculture, forestry is a major land The illegal shooting and killing of wildlife use within the EU and is practiced in a wide represents a major pressure for species variety of ways, from ‘close to nature’ forest especially for wintering and migrating birds. It management to intensive afforestation is estimated that around 25 million birds are schemes using fast growing non-native killed illegally every year for sport, trade and species. According to the State of Nature report, the most common food in the Mediterranean alone as they migrate between Europe type of pressure comes from the removal of dead, dying and old and Africa. Hunting is also a major pressure when not properly trees, followed by clear-cutting and the conversion to other types of regulated. In the marine environment, one of the biggest threats forests or land uses. comes from the accidental bycatch of marine animals in fishing nets.

4. Alien (problematic) species 7. Changes in water regime

Represents a growing threat to native Changes in water regime can be caused by European species. Alien species can modifications to the hydrological flow or the outcompete native species for food and physical alteration of water bodies, such as in habitats, or otherwise decimate local the case of the construction of a hydrological populations of birds and other wildlife. Some dam or the straightening of rivers. It can alien species also spread diseases, or create such dense masses that also be caused by the drainage of wetlands and other habitats, or they prevent anything else from growing. water abstraction.

5. Natural processes 8. Climate change

Habitats and species are subject to natural Although an emerging threat and not yet processes over long time-frames as as a major pressure, it is clear that changes they evolve together. However, when an in weather patterns are starting to have ecosystem’s natural balance is distorted an impact on Europe’s biodiversity, through these natural pressures can turn into negative for instance more frequent floods and pressures. The most common form is natural succession, which droughts and more extreme weather conditions. This in turn can may be caused by a lack of appropriate management or drainage. have a dramatic effect on European plants and animals and lead to Natural processes can also be caused by interspecies competition or accelerated biodiversity loss and desertification in many areas. predation, amongst others.

Urban sprawl Forestry Commercial fishing 32 The state of nature in the EU 33

The role of the

Natura 2000 The growth of the Natura 2000 network

The Natura 2000 network has grown rapidly since the early 1990s, network increasing from 50 000 km2 in 1993 to 950 000 km2 in 2010. By 2019, the network had reached over 1.35 million km2, covering almost a fifth of the EU territory. At the heart of the two Nature Directives lies a EU-wide ecological network of nature conservation areas – called The recent growth can be attributed mainly to the extension of the the Natura 2000 network. Almost 28,000 sites have been marine Natura 2000 network, which has doubled in area since the included so far. They cover nearly a fifth of Europe’s land previous reporting period (2007–2012). area (18%) and 10% of the surrounding seas, making it the largest coordinated network of protected areas anywhere in The coverage varies significantly between Member States, from 8% in the world. Denmark to 38% in Slovenia.

Once designated, Member States are duty bound to prevent any further deterioration of the habitats and Cumulative surface area of Natura 2000 network in km², 1993–2019 species for which the sites have been designated. They 1400K Natura 2000 (area) must also introduce positive conservation measures to improve their condition within these Natura 2000 sites, 1200K wherever necessary. SCI (area) 1000K The State of Nature report reveals that species and SPA (area) habitats are more likely to have a good conservation 800K status if they are well represented within the Natura Area 600K 2000 network. However, the network’s full potential has still to be unlocked. In particular, there is an urgent need 400 to improve the effective management and restoration of the sites within the network. 200K 0K

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year Site Type Natura 2000 (area): SPA + SCIs SCI (area): Sites of Community Interest under the Habitats Directive SPA (area): Special Protection Areas under the Birds Directive

left Mother and daughter enjoying an autumn forest walk. 34 The state of nature in the EU

Coverage of species and habitats in Natura 2000

The State of Nature report habitat area or population is Percentage of habitats with good conservation status and their coverage in has attempted to gauge the well covered (> 75%) by the Natura 2000 influence of the Natura 2000 network. This is most obvious Bogs, mires and fens ≥ 75 % network on the conservation for dune, heaths and scrub < 75 % status of the species and habitats and forests. Coastal habitats ≥ 75 % habitat types for which sites < 75 % have been designated. Habitat types with a high Dune habitats ≥ 75 % representation (>75%) in Natura < 75 % As the current reporting does 2000 sites have also improved Forests ≥ 75 % not provide information that more, and deteriorated less, < 75 % Freshwater habitats ≥ 75 % would allow a direct comparison since the last reporting round < 75 % of the conservation status of than those that are less well Grasslands ≥ 75 % species and habitats inside and represented. With a reported < 75 % outside Natura 2000, other improvement of over 8%, bogs, Heath and scrub ≥ 75 % potential indicators have been mires and fens have benefited < 75 % studied, such as the relationship particularly from their inclusion Rocky habitats ≥ 75 % between the extent to which in Natura 2000. < 75 % the species and habitats are Sclerophyllous scrub ≥ 75 % covered by the network and The situation for non-bird < 75 % their conservation status. species is not so clear cut, 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% altough it would appear that The results show that species the species with more than and habitats are, on average, 75% coverage have the lowest more likely to have good proportion of deteriorating conservation status if their changes.

below Farmer feeding Salers bull and herd near Craonne, Picardy, France.

Natura 2000: a valuable economic asset

Natura 2000 is much more than just a refuge for rare and endangered species and habitats. It preserves countless other species and valuable ecosystems as well. As such, it is capable of delivering an important range of goods and services to society. Healthy freshwater ecosystems, for instance, provide clean water and help remove pollutants from the surrounding countryside. Intact wetlands act as natural buffers against floods, soaking up excess rainwater. Peat bogs fix and store carbon dioxide, the number one cause of climate change whilst forests retain soils and prevent land slides and avalanches. Natura 2000 also offers ample opportunities for tourism and recreation and provides a vital source of income for countless people across Europe who harness its potential natural resources in a sustainable manner. The benefits that flow from the Natura 2000 network alone are estimated to be worth in the order of €200 to €300 billion/year. Investing in Natura 2000 therefore makes sound economic sense, as it means investing in our own future as well. 35

Management effectiveness within Natura 2000

Despite these positive signs, report found that they tend to Percentage of non-bird species with good conservation status and their coverage it is clear that much still focus mostly on maintaining in Natura 2000 needs to be done to improve the status quo or preventing Amphibians ≥ 75 % the effectiveness of the the further degradation of the < 75 % management and conservation sites. Far fewer conservation Arthropods ≥ 75 % of individual Natura 2000 sites measures are being undertaken < 75 % within the network. to actively restore the species Fish ≥ 75 % and habitats present within < 75 % To date, only around 60% of the site to a better state of Mammals ≥ 75 % the sites in the network have conservation. < 75 % Molluscs ≥ 75 % Natura 2000 management < 75 % plans. However, all evidence to There is therefore an urgent need Non-vascular plants ≥ 75 % date suggests that very few of to not only scale up conservation < 75 % them are being implemented, actions at individual site level but Other invertebrates ≥ 75 % usually for lack of the necessary also to focus on more ambitious < 75 % resources, both human and restoration measures for the Reptiles ≥ 75 % financial. species and habitats. Without < 75 % this, the Natura 2000 will not Vascular plants ≥ 75 % Where measures are being reach its full potential. < 75 % undertaken, the State of Nature 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

below Biologist monitoring Iberian lynx, Lynx pardinus, in Andalusia, Spain.

The role of the EU LIFE Programme

Adopted in 1992 at the same time as the Habitats Directive, the EU LIFE Programme has been supporting nature conservation projects across the EU ever since. To date, LIFE has co-financed some 1800 projects to the tune of almost €3 billion in order to help restore protected habitats and protect species across the EU. Over 5400 Natura 2000 sites have also benefited from LIFE funding during this period. A recent study of the LIFE Programme, published at the same time as the State of Nature report, shows that LIFE has had a direct impact on the conservation status of numerous species and habitats such as the bearded vulture, Gypaetus barbatus, the Iberian lynx, Lynx pardinus, and the Mediterranean monk seal, Monachus monachus. In addition, LIFE projects have been instrumental in raising awareness of Natura 2000 amongst millions of Europeans and has actively engaged thousands of stakeholders in the protection and management of sites, habitats and species. A truly impressive achievement for what remains a very small fund, representing less than 1% of the EU budget. 36 The state of nature in the EU

Looking to the future

As the State of Nature report not been sufficient to turn the Inspiring success stories from of putting Europe’s biodiversity has shown, the EU has not yet tide on Europe’s biodiversity. across the Member States have on a path to recovery by managed to stem the decline shown what can be achieved 2030, as envisaged in the new of protected habitat types and The Natura 2000 network, in through targeted action, inter Biodiversity Strategy. Failure to species of EU conservation particular, has yet to reach its alia with the support of EU do so will mean the continued concern. The key land and water full potential. There is therefore funds under LIFE, or dedicated erosion not only of our shared use pressures are still too strong an urgent need to scale up agri-environment schemes natural heritage, but also of the to allow them to recover. conservation actions at site level under the Common Agricultural vital services it provides, which and improve the effectiveness Policy. However, such large ultimately underpin human Although there has been some of the measures taken. There is scale initiatives are not being health and prosperity. progress in implementing also a need to raise the bar in undertaken on a sufficient scale both Directives over the last 6 terms of ambitions, in order to at the moment. years, resulting, for instance, in go beyond simply maintaining a significant extension of the the status quo, and focus instead The State of Nature report Natura 2000 network and an on a concerted restoration therefore underlines the need increase in the number of sites programme in order to kick start for a step-change in action if we with management plans, this has the recovery process. are to have any serious chance

below Many Annex I habitats requiring restoration are particularly carbon-rich, offering significant potential to store and sequestrate carbon and so contribute significantly to the climate agenda..

Restoration needs for EU protected habitats

The State of Nature report examined the extent to which habitats protected under the Habitats Directive needed to be restored , i.e. either their condition needs to be improved or they need to be actively recreated in order to reach a favourable conservation status within the EU. The report concludes that 215 000 km2 (or 5% of EU-27 territory) of protected habitats need to have their condition improved. Forests have the greatest need (about 100 000 km2), followed by coastal habitats (about 46 000 km2), grasslands (about 33 000 km2), freshwater habitats (about 13 500 km2) and bogs, mires and fens (about 10 900 km2). In addition, at least 11 000 km2 of Annex I habitats need to be actively (re) created in order to ensure the long-term viability of these habitat types. Because of the lack of data, the figures are very conservative. The real figures are likely to be much greater than current estimates. But at least they provide a good starting point for the new European Restoration Plan due to be proposed in 2021. 37

The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2030

The new Biodiversity Strategy to surrounding seas. At least a somewhat piecemeal and EU programmes and via public 2030, adopted in May 2020, third (10%) should be strictly small-scale, the Commission will private partnerships. A provides the necessary protected. put forward a proposal in 2021 significant proportion of the EU framework for this for legally binding EU nature budget dedicated to climate transformative change. Together Member States will also have to restoration targets to restore action will also be invested in with other initiatives under the ensure that at least 30% of degraded ecosystems, including biodiversity and nature-based Green Deal, it sets out a highly species and habitats protected those in Natura 2000. solutions. ambitious and practical under the EU Nature Directives programme of action for the – and not currently in favourable Finally, the implementation and With these additional coming decade. status – are in that category or enforcement of EU commitments and tools, the two show a strong positive trend environmental legislation will Nature Directives will be given a Its first objective is to increase by 2030. also be stepped up and will be significant boost in terms of the protected area coverage so accompanied by increased implementation and that more areas of high The second objective of the finances and human resources. investments, the benefits of biodiversity value or potential Strategy is to restore nature The Commission will aim to which should start to become can be safeguarded. The target across significant parts of the unlock at least €20 billion a year apparent in the next State of is to protect at least 30% of the EU. Recognising that restoration for Natura 2000 and green Nature report. land and 30% of the efforts up to now have been infrastructure through different

below Young girl photographing a fly agaric,Amanita muscaria.

Key Commitments under the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2030

Protecting nature • Legally protect at least 30% of the EU’s land area and 30% of its seas; • Strictly protect at least a third of the EU’s protected areas, including all remaining primary and old-growth forests; • Create ecological corridors as part of a true Trans European Nature Network; • Effectively manage all protected areas. Restoring nature • Legally binding targets to be proposed in 2021; • Ensure no deterioration in any protected habitats and species by 2030, and a favourable status or strong positive trend for at least 30%; • At least 25% of agricultural land to be organically farmed; • At least 10% of agricultural land to be transformed into biodiverse landscape features; • Reduce use of pesticides and fertilisers by 20%; • Plant 3 billion additional trees respecting ecological principles; • Reverse decline in pollinators; • Remediate contaminated soil sites; • Restore 25,000km free flowing rivers; • New Urban Greening Platform: the Green City Accord; • Halve the number of ‘red list’ species threatened by Invasive Alien Species; • Reduce damage to the seabed and from accidental bycatch. 38 The state of nature in the EU 39

Photo credits Cover: Heathland © Ross Hoddinott / 2020VISION / naturepl.com Further reading Page 4: Eurasian lynx © Klein & Hubert / naturepl.com Page 6: Zois' bellflower © Alex Hyde / naturepl.com Page 8: Cyprus tulip © Wild Wonders of Europe / Lilja / naturepl.com Commission’s report on ‘The State of Nature in the European Union – status Page 9: European pond turtles © Wild Wonders of Europe / Geidemark / naturepl.com; Cyprus tulip © Wild and trends of species and habitats protected by the Birds and Habitats Wonders of Europe / Lilja / naturepl.com Directives (2013–2018)’ 20 pages available in all EU languages: Page 10: Ural Owl © Sven Zacek / naturepl.com https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2020:635:FIN Page 12: Red-crested pochard © David Tipling / naturepl.com; Wall creeper © AGAMI Photo Agency / Alamy Stock Photo; Black-tailed godwit © Markus Varesvuo / naturepl.com; Wren © Bernard Castelein / naturepl. com; Squacco Heron © Juan Manuel Borrero / naturepl.com; Common loon © John Shaw / naturepl.com EEA Report No10/2020 ‘State of Nature in the EU – results from reporting Page 14: Puffin © Guy Edwardes / naturepl.com; Little bunting © Markus Varesvuo / naturepl.com; Bonelli's under the Nature Directives 2013–2018‘ (140 pages): eagle © Massimo Piacentino / Alamy Stock Photo; Kingfisher © Andy Rouse / naturepl.com; Rock ptarmigan https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-nature-in-the-eu-2020 © Espen Bergersen / naturepl.com; Great egret © Mick Durham FRPS / Alamy Stock Photo; Red throated diver © Erlend Haarberg / naturepl.com; Golden eagle © Eric Medard / naturepl.com; Little tern © David Woodfall / naturepl.com; Green woodpecker © blickwinkel / Alamy Stock Photo; Woodlark © Andres M. Dominguez / EEA webpage with a series of online dashboards presenting the results of the naturepl.com; Golden oriole © Kerstin Hinze / naturepl.com; Swift © Alan Williams / naturepl.com; Lanner State of Nature report: Falcon © Martin Lindsay / Alamy Stock Photo; Skylark © Arterra Picture Library / Alamy Stock Photo; Yelkouan’s shearwater © Marco Valentini / Alamy Stock Photo; Tufted duck © Russell Cooper / naturepl.com; https://bit.ly/3ohXchQ Hazel grouse © Markus Varesvuo / naturepl.com Page 15: Griffon vulture © Fabrice Cahez / naturepl.com; Red Kite © Hermann Brehm / naturepl.com; Aquatic Reference portal for reports under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive warbler © Bert Willaert / naturepl.com; Eurasian Bittern © Hanne & Jens Eriksen / naturepl.com (2013–2018): Page 16: Sand lizard © Edwin Giesbers / naturepl.com https://nature-art17.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ Page 18: Brown Bear © Danny Green / naturepl.com; European bullhead © Remi Masson / naturepl.com; Bottlenose dolphin © Pedro Narra / naturepl.com; Alpine longhorn beetle © Andres M. Dominguez / naturepl. com; Yellow-bellied toad © Imagebroker / Alamy Stock Photo; European mink © CTK / Alamy Stock Photo Reference portal for reports under Article 12 of the Birds Directive (2013–2018): Page 20: Otter © Chris Gomersall / 2020VISION / naturepl.com; Schreibers's bat © Dietmar Nill / naturepl. https://nature-art12.eionet.europa.eu/article12/ com; Lizard orchid © agefotostock / Alamy Stock Photo; Grey seal © SCOTLAND: The Big Picture / naturepl. com; Italian marbled white © Alex Hyde / naturepl.com; European green toad © Melvin Grey / naturepl. LIFE report “Bringing back nature through LIFE”: com; Northern birch mouse © Kerstin Hinze / naturepl.com; Jersey tiger moth © Ingo Arndt / naturepl.com; Hermann’s tortoise © Michael W. Richards / naturepl.com; Beaver © Nick Upton / naturepl.com Study (150 pages): https://ec.europa.eu/easme/sites/easme-site/files/ • Page 21: Wild Forest Reindeer © Uri Golman / naturepl.com; Iberian Lynx © Jose B. Ruiz / naturepl.com; bringing_nature_back_through_life.pdf Harbour seal © Juniors Bildarchiv GmbH / Alamy Stock Photo; Allis Shad © agefotostock / Alamy Stock Photo • Brochure (96 pages): https://ec.europa.eu/easme/sites/easme-site/files/ Page 22: Mountain hay meadow © Alex Hyde / naturepl.com bringing_nature_back_through_life_brochure.pdf Page 24: Woodland © Andres M. Dominguez / naturepl.com; Drifting sand dune © Wild Wonders of Europe / Bartocha / naturepl.com; Freshwater lake © Guy Edwardes / naturepl.com EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2030: Page 25: Grasslands © TJ Rich / naturepl.com; Alpine meadow © Ernie Janes / naturepl.com; Red sea fan © https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1590574123338&uri=CEL Franco Banfi / naturepl.com; Bog pool © Sven Zacek / naturepl.com EX%3A52020DC0380 Page 26: Coastal dunes © J. GarcÍa de Lomas; Pannonian salt steppes © Daniel Dite; Macaronesian laurel forests © Juan Manuel Borrero / naturepl.com; Continental Turloughs © agefotostock / Alamy Stock Photo; Appenine Beech forest © Bruno D'Amicis / naturepl.com; Sub-arctic salix scrub © Petri Ahlroth; Natural Natura home page: dystrophic lakes and ponds © Michel Roggo / naturepl.com; Alluvial meadows © VIera Stanova Sefferova; https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/index_en.htm Western tiaga © Petri Ahlroth; Northern Atlantic wet heaths © Ross Hoddinott / 2020VISION / naturepl. com; Semi natural dry grassland © Alfonso San Miguel; Wooded dunes © Mike Lane / Alamy Stock Photo; Mountain hay meadows © Alex Hyde / naturepl.com; Western tiaga © Petri Ahlroth The State of Nature in the EU (8 page leaflet): Page 27: White dunes © Bernard Castelein / naturepl.com; Active raised bogs © iStockphoto; Lowland https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/pdf/The State of Nature 8 grasslands in Latvia © Sven Zacek / naturepl.com; Fennoscandian wooded pastures © iStockphoto page brochure - complete v8.pdf Page 28: Farmland © Michel Poinsignon / naturepl.com Page 30: © iStockphoto; Motorway transport infrastructure © Wild Wonders of Europe / Widstrand / naturepl. State of Nature Press release: com; Wind energy production © Zoonar GmbH / Alamy Stock Photo; Intensive farming © Gary K. Smith / naturepl.com https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_1920 Page 31: © iStockphoto; Urban sprawl © Cheryl Ramalho / Alamy Stock Photo; Forestry © Kathy deWitt / Alamy Stock Photo; Commercial fishing © Steve Parkins / Alamy Stock Photo Page 32: © iStockphoto Page 34: © Nature Picture Library / Alamy Stock Photo left Small Tortoiseshell Butterfly,Aglais urticae, Page 35: © Laurent Geslin / naturepl.com feeding on scabious flowers. Page 36: © Inaki Relanzon / naturepl.com Page 37: © David Tipling / naturepl.com Page 38: © Small Tortoiseshell Butterfly © Ernie Janes / naturepl.com 40 The state of nature in the EU