-
Streamlining European biodiversity indicators 2020: Building a future on lessons learnt from the SEBI 2010 process
-
This report marks the end of the current SEBI cycle noting SEBI milestones and drawing lessons for further improving the process and the indicator set.
Located in
Publications
-
Public awareness (SEBI 026) - Assessment DRAFT created Nov 2010
-
Two-thirds of EU citizens do not know the meaning of the word 'biodiversity', let alone understand what the threats and challenges to its conservation are. Most EU citizens have never heard of the Natura 2000 network (78 %). However, over two-thirds of EU citizens report personally making efforts to help preserve nature.
Located in
Data and maps
›
Indicators
›
Public awareness
-
Abundance and distribution of selected species (SEBI 001) - Assessment published May 2010
-
Overall, Europe's common bird populations reduced by around 10 % since 1980. Common farmland birds declined most severely (around 50 %) but common forest birds also declined by some 9 %. Falls have levelled off since the late 1990s. Europe's grassland butterflies have declined dramatically (60 %) since 1990 and this reduction shows no sign yet of levelling off.
Located in
Data and maps
›
Indicators
›
Abundance and distribution of selected species
-
Agriculture: area under management practices potentially supporting biodiversity (SEBI 020) - Assessment published May 2010
-
Europe has significant areas of High Nature Value (HNV) farmland, which provide habitats for a wide range of species. Such areas are under threat, however, from intensification of farming and land abandonment. The mere presence of HNV farmland is of course not proof of sustainable management but promoting conservation and sustainable farming practices in these areas is crucial for biodiversity. Map 1 presents the first estimate of HNV farmland distribution and can therefore not yet be analysed for trends. Agri-environment schemes have been used widely to make agriculture more sustainable. Not all agri-environment measures are explicitly targeted on biodiversity, however, and further analysis is required to determine their effectiveness. Organic farming has developed rapidly since the beginning of the 1990s and continues to do so. While it is difficult to assess its impact on biodiversity it is assumed that this type of farming reduces stress on ecosystems and provides a wider range of niches for farmland species.
Located in
Data and maps
›
Indicators
›
Agriculture: area under management practices potentially supporting biodiversity
-
Agriculture: nitrogen balance (SEBI 019) - Assessment published May 2010
-
Agricultural nitrogen surpluses (the difference between all nutrient inputs and outputs on agricultural land) show a declining trend, thereby potentially reducing environmental pressures on soil, water and air. Many countries, however, still maintain a large surplus.
Located in
Data and maps
›
Indicators
›
Agriculture: nitrogen balance
-
Aquaculture: effluent water quality from finfish farms (SEBI 022) - Assessment published May 2010
-
Aquaculture production in Europe has increased in the EU since 1990, levelling off slightly since 2000 although Norway and Iceland continue to show large increases. This overall increase implies a rise in pressure on adjacent water bodies and associated ecosystems resulting mainly from nutrient releasefrom aquaculture facilities. Annual production in the current version of the indicator is a proxy for the environmental impacts of aquaculture. Work is underway to develop a more advanced indicator to assess the sustainability of aquaculture.
Located in
Data and maps
›
Indicators
›
Aquaculture: effluent water quality from finfish farms
-
Critical load exceedance for nitrogen (SEBI 009) - Assessment published May 2010
-
Nitrogen emissions and deposition of nitrogen compounds have decreased since 1990 but relatively little compared to sulphur emissions. Agriculture and transport are the main sources of nitrogen pollution (EEA, 2007c). In addition, nitrogen components can lead to eutrophication of ecosystems. When this pollution exceeds certain levels ('critical load'), it is damaging to biodiversity. Critical load exceedance is still significant (1) . (1) The critical load of nutrient nitrogen is defined as 'the highest deposition of nitrogen as NOX and/or NHY below which harmful effects in ecosystem structure and function do not occur according to present knowledge' (ICP, M&M, 2004).
Located in
Data and maps
›
Indicators
›
Critical load exceedance for nitrogen
-
Ecological Footprint of European countries (SEBI 023) - Assessment published May 2010
-
The Ecological Footprint for pan-Europe (1) has been increasing almost constantly since 1961, while Europe's biocapacity (2) has decreased. This results in an ever larger deficit, with negative consequences for the environment within and outside Europe. (1) For this analysis, data from all European countries were used, except for nations that were excluded because of insufficient population (Cyprus, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Malta) and nations for which data are lacking (Andorra, Monaco, San Marino). (2) The capacity of ecosystems to produce useful biological materials and to absorb waste materials generated by humans, using current management schemes and extraction technologies.
Located in
Data and maps
›
Indicators
›
Ecological Footprint of European countries
-
Ecosystem coverage (SEBI 004) - Assessment published May 2010
-
Built-up areas, infrastructure and woodland are increasing whilst agricultural land, semi-natural and natural habitats decrease. The overall statistics hide more detailed transition patterns. Wetlands, for example, are mainly changing into forest; other (semi-)natural areas primarily give way to agriculture.
Located in
Data and maps
›
Indicators
›
Ecosystem coverage
-
Financing biodiversity management (SEBI 025) - Assessment published May 2010
-
This indicator currently has a limited scope and only contains information from EU funding of projects using the LIFE financial instrument for the environment. The amount of the EU contribution per LIFE project varies significantly among Member States. Newer Member States tend to spend less money through the LIFE Nature programme (with a small number of notable exceptions). Further detail is required (e.g. on project size) in order to interpret these figures. The LIFE Nature project represents a very small proportion of the total EU budget. European funding benefiting biodiversity may also be 'hidden' in budget lines within other policy areas, such as agriculture, rural development and research. Finally, the indicator currently does not show national funding for biodiversity.
Located in
Data and maps
›
Indicators
›
Financing biodiversity management
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube channel
RSS Feeds
Write to us
Call us
Upcoming environmental events around the world
