Protecting ecosystems and biodiversity are key policy targets in the EU’s biodiversity strategy for 2030 and the European Green Deal. EU and national policymaking require approaches to be developed to measure the extent and condition of ecosystems to improve their management. This briefing presents the EEA’s work on ecosystem extent accounts and pilot ecosystem condition accounts in the EU INCA project. Examples illustrate the potential use of ecosystem accounting results to design measures to protect and restore European ecosystems, e.g. in implementing the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030.
The dataset consists of a collection of annual soil moisture (SM) anomalies during the vegetation growing season (GS) for the years 2000-2019 across EEA 38 area and the United Kingdom. The vegetation growing season is defined by EEA´s phenology data series "Vegetation growing season length 2000-2016" [https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/annual-above-ground-vegetation-season]. The anomalies are calculated based on the European Commission's Joint Research Centre European Drought Observatory (EDO) Soil Moisture Index (SMI) with respect to the 1995–2019 base period. The yearly start and end of GS periods are dynamic and calculated according to the EEA Phenology Indicators. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed SM was wetter than the long-term SM average for the base period, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed SM was drier than the reference value. Because SM anomalies are measured in units of standard deviation from the long-term SMI average, they can be used to compare annual deficits/surplus of SM between geographic regions.
EDO is one of the early warning and monitoring systems of the Copernicus Emergency Management Service. As the dataset builds on EDO's SMI, it therefore contains modified Copernicus Emergency Management Service information (2019).
The area and number of terrestrial protected areas in Europe have grown steadily over time, with the biggest increases in recent decades. In 2020, protected areas covered 26 % of EU land, with 18 % designated as Natura 2000 sites and 8 % as other national designations. In the EEA-38 countries plus the United Kingdom, this coverage is lower and amounts to 23 %.
Further expansion of terrestrial protected areas will be needed to achieve the target of legally protecting a minimum of 30 % of EU land, as set out in the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030. The designation of protected areas is not in itself a guarantee of biodiversity conservation. Effective management requires building a coherent and well-connected network of protected areas with clearly defined conservation objectives and measures.
The indicator illustrates the rate of growth in the number and cumulative area of nationally designated terrestrial protected areas over time. It also shows the overlap between the international protected areas networks such as Natura 2000 or the Emerald Network and national designations.
A 'nationally designated protected area' is an area protected by a national legislation. If a country has included sites designated under international agreements, such as the EU Birds and Habitats Directives, or the Bern or Ramsar Convention in its legislation, the corresponding protected sites, such as the Natura 2000, Emerald or Ramsar sites, of this country are included in the indicator.
At the EU level, only 15 % of habitat assessments have a good conservation status, with 81 % having poor or bad conservation status. Grasslands, dunes, and bog, mire and fen habitats show strong deteriorating trends, while forests have the most improving trends.
The EU is not on track to meet the 2020 target of improving the conservation status of EU protected species and habitats. At the EU Member State level, the majority of assessments indicate a low number of habitats with a good conservation status. Intensive agriculture, urban sprawl and pollution are the top reported pressures to habitats.
The indicator illustrates the conservation status and trends of 233 habitats of European interest listed in the Habitats Directive at EU and Member State level. Conservation status is shown as good, poor, bad and unknown. It is based on data collected under the reporting obligations of Article 17 of the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC).
Our joint Strategy indicates our direction of travel. It introduces a new way of working together and creating knowledge — more agile, more responsive, more pro-active, more actionable — befitting the challenges we will face and the knowledge we will need in the decade to come.
The maps show the long term average soil mosture contents and the trends in soil moisture values, aggregated by NUTS3 regions. Lower average soil moisture values indicate areas where during the 2000-2019 period the soil moisture was constantly low. Negative trends indicate that soil moisture values show a decreasing tendency during the 2000-2019 period. Areas with lower soil moisture content together with decreasing tendency in the soil moisture are in risk of loosing their land functions of supplying ecosystem services.
The indicators track the status of commercial fish stocks in European regional seas and the pressure exerted by fisheries on those stocks, as well as the quality of the information available. To that end, the following is reported:
the status of marine fish and shellfish stocks based on the current level of exploitation and reproductive capacity;
the importance of the (sub-)region, reflected by the total landings (as a proxy of catch) of fish from commercial fisheries in European seas per MSFD (sub-)region;
the availability of appropriate information for the status assessment, as reflected by the proportion of those landings covered by quantitative stock assessments (i.e. the proportion providing the required indicators and their reference levels).
State of marine fish and shellfish stocks
The MSFD requires 'Good Environmental Status' to be achieved by 2020 (EC, 2008). According to the MSFD (Descriptor 3), three criteria are relevant to determining if a fish or shellfish stock has achieved GES. Stocks should be: (1) exploited sustainably consistent with high long-term yields, (2) have full reproductive capacity in order to maintain stock biomass, and (3) the proportion of older and larger fish/shellfish should be maintained (or increased) being an indicator of a healthy stock.
Sustainable exploitation: sustainably exploited stocks are stocks for which F is at or below levels that deliver MSY, i.e. F ≤ F MSY . If values for F and F MSY are available from a stock assessment, the stock is considered to have met the GES criterion if F ≤ F MSY . For some ICES stocks without stock assessments, proxy methods exist to estimate the status of F in relation to F MSY by using catch length and other available biological information.
Reproductive capacity: in areas assessed by the ICES, the criterion for sustainable reproductive capacity (SSB > SSB MSY ) has been modified, for pragmatic reasons, to SSB > MSY B trigger . Spawning stock biomass (SSB) is consistently provided as part of ICES stock assessments, i.e. of the North-East Atlantic and Baltic Sea, but not, for the most part, by STECF assessments, i.e. of the Mediterranean and Black Sea stocks. Similarly to the above, a stock is considered to have been assessed against this criterion if values of SSB and a good proxy for SSB MSY (i.e. MSY B trigger ) are available from a stock assessment, and the stock is considered to have met the GES criterion if SSB > SSB MSY (or appropriate proxy).
Healthy age and size structure: in this case, the assumption is that a stock with sufficient numbers of old and large fish is healthy. However, this criterion is not sufficiently developed and no threshold for GES is known for this criterion. Therefore, it is not included.
This has resulted in four assessment categories:
Not assessed: no sufficient information available to assess status;
F: status assessed based only on F in relation to F MSY;
SSB: status assessed based only on SSB in relation to SSB MSY (or some proxy, i.e. MSY B trigger );
F & SSB: status assessed based on both F and SSB.
Due to the ongoing discussions of the criteria integration rules for Descriptor 3, the stocks are classified as:
Stocks meeting both the available GES criteria for F and SSB
Stocks meeting only one of the available GES criteria, i.e. either F or SSB criteria are met
Stocks not meeting any of the available GES criteria, i.e. neither F nor SSB criteria are met
For those stocks for which adequate information is available to determine GES for fishing mortality (F) and/or reproductive capacity (SSB) a second distinction is made between: (1) stocks in good status based on both fishing mortality and reproductive capacity; (2) stocks in good status based on only one criteria (either because one of the two criteria are not in good status or data is only available for one criteria and it is in good status); and (3) stocks not in good status (either because one of the two criteria are not in good status or data is only available for one criteria and it is not in good status).
Total landing
Landings information for the North-East Atlantic and the Baltic Sea is based on the Stock Assessment Graphs landings data for the assessed stocks, and in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Official Nominal Catches, 2006-201 8 dataset in the case of unassessed stocks/landings. Fisheries nominal catch statistics are reported annually by the national offices. In cooperation with Eurostat and FAO, ICES prepares and publishes the Official Nominal Catch statistics dataset for the Northeast Atlantic (FAO major fishing area 27). SAG catches are used whenever available, as these take discards and potential area reporting issues into account, neither of which are reflected in the nominal catches. Landings information for the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea is based on the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) capture production dataset For the Mediterranean and Black Sea, the figure is based on 2018 landings data. In this case, it was not possible to use landings data from the assessments as these refer to GSAs which are not specified in the FAO capture production dataset, divided in larger aggregation areas.
Only some of the species/taxa in the landings data can be considered 'commercial fish', which, for assessment purposes, may consist of several stocks. Only some of these stocks are covered by quantitative stock assessments such that their status can be assessed based on the above criteria.
Stock
In the North-East Atlantic area, stocks are generally defined based on biological criteria and knowledge of population migration, mixing and spawning areas. For example, cod in the northeast Atlantic is currently considered to form sixteen different stocks, between which mixing is generally negligible. These stocks are found over multiple MSFD ecoregions, and some individual stock distributions cover more than one ecoregion. However, in this analysis each stock has been assigned to a single ecoregion (see Methodology).
In the Mediterranean and Black Sea, on the other hand, stocks are mostly defined by management area because of a lack of biological knowledge. Because these stocks are based on a specific geographical area, most can be attributed to a specific MSFD (sub-)region. In the Mediterranean, assessments can refer to several stocks of the same species, but these stocks remain separate management and functional units.
This figure shows the state of the assessed commercially exploited fish and shellfish stocks per EU marine region, for which assessments were conducted in 2015-2019 (not all stocks have annual assessments). Majority of data is from 2018.
Natura 2000 data refers to information reported by Member States in 2019. Europe's seas are defined by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) marine regions (in bold below) and subregions.
The figure shows the conservation status of habitats at Member State level. Statistics are based on the number of habitat assessments at Member States′ biogeographical/marine level. The number of assessments per Member State is indicated in parentheses. The total number of assessments is 3 246.
The figure shows the conservation status of habitats at EU level. Statistics are based on the number of EU habitats assessments (818)
The map shows European river water bodies with significant pressures from barriers. ‘Significant’ means that the pressure contributes to an impact that may result in failing to meet the WFD objectives of not having at least good status. Each redish line on the map indicates a river water body affected by barriers according to the country-specific assessment system of significant pressures. The map was created from WISE-WFD data reported for the 2nd RBMPs under the WFD (EU-27, and Norway)
New approaches to biodiversity conservation or unexpected but irreversible forms of environmental disruption?
Protecting and conserving Europe’s species and their habitats is critical, not only for their intrinsic value as part of our shared natural heritage, but also for human well-being.
This dashboard presents detailed information on individual derogations/exceptions, as extracted from the national reports that have been submitted to the European Commission. Click on a derogation to see more information below the table
A derogation/exception is a permit produced by an administration in a EU Member State that allows to deviate from the legal obligation for strict protection of all individuals of
certain species, and of the breeding/resting sites of these individuals, as provided in the EU Birds and Habitats Directives.
This dashboard presents an overview of the derogations and exceptions that national, regional or local administrations have granted across the EU. It is based on the number
of derogations/exceptions that are reported to the EU. Please note that the number of derogations does not reflect the number of individuals affected by the derogations – a
single derogation may cover many individuals, or just a single one
This dashboard presents statistics about the completeness of the information in the national reports on derogations. It shows the percentage of derogations for which mandatory fields of the
reporting form have been filled in.
This dashboard does not provide any assessment of the reported derogations
Document Actions
Share with others