Natura 2000 is the key instrument to protect biodiversity in the European Union. It is an ecological network of protected areas, set up to ensure the survival of Europe's most valuable species and habitats. Natura 2000 is based on the 1979 Birds Directive and the 1992 Habitats Directive. This version covers the reporting in 2020.
As a main source of protein, commercial fish stocks and other commercial sea products are renewable resources, which could sustain human needs in the long term — if exploited in an appropriate manner.
Although further improvements are still necessary, the analysis of long time series shows clear and important signs of improvement in the North-East Atlantic Ocean and Baltic Sea. At least 24-47 % of all stocks meet at least one of two criteria defining the Marine Strategy Framework Directive's 'good environmental status' (GES) in the regions respectively. Meeting these criteria means that the exploitation (i.e. fishing mortality, F) and reproductive capacity of the stocks are compatible with their maximum sustainable yield (MSY). While slightly less than half of all stocks in the region have adequate assessments allowing comparisons with at least one of the GES criteria (83% of these met at least one criterion), these assessed stocks account for approximately 75% of the landings in the NEA and Baltic Sea. Since the early 2000s, better management of fish and shellfish fisheries has contributed to a clear decrease in fishing pressure in these two regional seas, with the average fishing mortality close to F MSY in 2018. This has led to signs of recovery in the reproductive capacity of several fish and shellfish stocks. If these efforts continue, fishing mortality in the region on average should remain near F MSY and reproductive capacity should continue to improve towards the objective for healthy fish and shellfish stocks in the North-East Atlantic Ocean and Baltic Sea.
In contrast, in the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea the situation remains critical. Only six out of 70 stocks (8.6 %) in the Mediterranean Sea and none of the 7 stocks in the Black Sea meet at least one of the GES criteria in these regions. This is mainly due to the prevalence of overfishing and a significant lack of knowledge of the reproductive capacity state of fish and shellfish stocks. Most of the stocks considered in the Mediterranean Sea had adequate assessment to compare fishing mortality with the GES criterion, but few had measures or thresholds of reproductive capacity. In the Black Sea, five of the seven stocks had adequate assessments to evaluate fishing mortality but only one of these also had measures or thresholds for reproductive capacity. It is unlikely that the 2020 policy objective has been met in the Mediterranean and Black Seas.
Given this context, the 2020 objective of having healthy commercial fish and shellfish populations is unlikely to have been met in Europe’s seas and further collective action is required.
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.
This figure shows the 2018 landings of commercially exploited fish and shellfish stocks per EU marine region, and the proportions of landings for which stock assessments were conducted in 2015-2019 (not all stocks have annual assessments). See the related Excel File for extra details.
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.
Climate change has increased forest fire risk across Europe. Even so, the burnt area of the Mediterranean region has decreased slightly since 1980, indicating that fire control efforts have been effective. However, in recent years, forest fires have affected regions in central and northern Europe not typically prone to fires, and, in 2018, more countries suffered large fires than ever before, coinciding with record droughts and heatwaves. An expansion of fire-prone areas and longer fire seasons are projected in most European regions, so additional adaptation measures are needed.
This indicator monitors:
the burnt areas in European countries;
the current state of and projected changes in forest fire danger.
From policy corridors to academic platforms, the world has been talking about global crises: a health crisis, an economic and financial crisis, a climate crisis and a nature crisis. Ultimately, they are all symptoms of the same problem: our unsustainable production and consumption. The COVID-19 shock has only revealed the systemic frailty of our global economy and society with all their inequalities.
The European inventory of nationally designated protected areas holds information about designated areas and their designation types, which directly or indirectly create protected areas. This is version 19 and covers data reported until March 2021.
Birds and butterflies are sensitive to environmental change and can indicate the health of the environment. Long-term monitoring shows significant declines in farmland birds and grassland butterflies. Between 1990 and 2019, the index of 168 common birds decreased by 8% in the 25 EU Member States with monitoring schemes. The decline in common farmland birds over the same period was much more pronounced at 27%, while the common forest bird index increased by 5%. Between 1991 and 2018 the grassland butterfly index also declined strongly, by 25%, in the 19 EU countries with monitoring data.
Common bird index shows the population trends of farmland, forest and all common bird species
This indicator shows trends in the abundance of common birds and butterflies across their European ranges over time . It is a composite of many species trend indices. A value of 100 is set for each species in the start year. If a species is added to the composite index after the start year, it is scaled to the index value of the year it was added to the indicator.
Europe's seas are precious. Our quality of life, livelihoods and economies depend on them being in good condition. Our seas are home to many species, habitats and ecosystems. They also provide our societies with vital ecosystem services, including food, energy, clean air and climate change mitigation. However, through the continued unsustainable use of Europe’s seas, we have altered their physio-chemical environment, and their habitats and ecosystems. The resilience of our seas is eroding, while their ecosystems, habitats and biodiversity, and the services they provide are under significant threat. This briefing summarises the current state of biodiversity in Europe’s seas.
Europe's seas are precious. Our quality of life, livelihoods and economies depend on them being in good condition. Our seas are home to many species, habitats and ecosystems. They also provide our societies with vital ecosystem services, including food, energy, clean air and climate change mitigation. However, through the continued unsustainable use of Europe’s seas, we have altered their physio-chemical environment, and their habitats and ecosystems. The resilience of our seas is eroding, while their ecosystems, habitats and biodiversity, and the services they provide are under significant threat. This briefing summarises the current state of biodiversity in Europe’s seas.
Working with nature can help prevent the worst impacts of climate change, and biodiversity and ecosystem loss. Nature-based solutions offer ways to do this. Science and policy have begun to recognise their potential.
The knowledge base is expanding rapidly, with gaps identified and plans to fill them. However, challenges for implementation remain at the local level, as demonstrated by the case studies in this report.
At EU level, only 27 % of species assessments have a good conservation status, with 63 % having a poor or bad conservation status. Only 6 % of all species have improving trends. Reptiles and vascular plants have the highest proportion of good conservation status. The EU did not meet its 2020 target to improve the conservation status of EU protected species and habitats. At Member State level, a large proportion of assessments show few species with a good conservation status. Agriculture, urban sprawl, forestry and pollution are the pressures on species reported most.
Document Actions
Share with others