Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
EN EN
EN
EN EN
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Brussels, 16.12.2008 SEC(2008) 3045 Vol. 2
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Accompanying document to the
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
A MID-TERM ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTING THE EC BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN
SEBI 2010 BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS
{COM(2008) 864 final} {SEC(2008) 3042} {SEC(2008) 3043} {SEC(2008) 3044}
EN 53 EN
FOCAL AREA: SUSTAINABLE USE
European Headline Indicator: Area of forest, agriculture, fishery and aquaculture ecosystems under sustainable management
17. Forest: growing stock, increment and fellings
Key Policy Question: Is forestry in Europe sustainable in terms of the balance between increment of growing stock and fellings?
Key message
The ratio of fellings to increment is relatively stable around 60%. This favourable utilization rate occurs throughout Europe, with the exception of Albania and Macedonia, and has allowed a continuous build-up of the growing stock.
EN 54 EN
Balance between Fellings and Increment on Forest Available for Wood Supply
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
AlbaniaM acedonia, FYR
EstoniaFinland
PortugalSweden
SwitzerlandCzech Republic
GreeceLithuania
LatviaBelgium
FranceLiechtenstein
SpainHungaryCroat iaAustria
NetherlandsSlovakia
SerbiaPoland
NorwayGeorgiaBelarus
LuxembourgM oldova
United KingdomDenmark
CyprusRomaniaGermanySlovenia
M ontenegroTurkey
UkraineItaly
Russian Federat ionBulgaria
Iceland
Ratio Fellings to Increment (%)
2005
2000
1990
max. value: 550max. value: 297max value: 233
Balance estimate EU-27, 2005
Source: MCPFE and UN-ECE/FAO, 2007. State of Europe’s Forests.
EN 55 EN
Utilisation rate in 2005 (% of annual felling compared with net annual increment in growing stock) for MCPFE countries Source
MCPFE and UN-ECE/FAO, 2007. State of Europe’s Forests.
Assessment
Increment has shown a continuous increase throughout Europe and fellings have generally increased proportionally. This has allowed a continuous build-up of the growing stock. Of the several factors that have contributed to this, forest management is considered the most important. As shown in the map the ‘utilisation rate’, i.e. % of annual felling compared with net annual increment, varies considerably between countries but remains generally below the ‘sustainability limit of 100%. A more in-depth analysis of the forest utilisation rate should preferably take place on a more detailed geographical level taking into account age-class distribution and silvicultural system. From a biodiversity point of view such an analysis should also specifically address the share of older age-classes.
But, the ratio of fellings to increment is forecast to increase to between 70% and 80% by 2010. This is due to an expected increase of the demand for wood in the wider European region, due to factors such as development of Eastern European markets (MCPFE, 2007, Schelhaas et al, 2006).
Note: Growing stock decreases if the ratio of fellings to increment is >100%.
EN 56 EN
Growing stock on forest available for wood supply by forest types, 2005
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Ger
man
y
Swed
en
Fran
ce
Finl
and
Pola
nd
Ukr
aine
Italy
Turk
ey
Bela
rus
Aust
ria
Nor
way
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
Latv
ia
Slov
akia
Switz
erla
nd
Esto
nia
Bulg
aria
Lith
uani
a
Cro
atia
Slov
enia
Hun
gary
Uni
ted
King
dom
Serb
ia
Gre
ece
Belg
ium
Den
mar
k
Alba
nia
Mol
dova
Gro
win
g st
ock
(billi
on c
ubic
met
res
)
Mixed
Predominantly broadleaved
Predominantly coniferous
Total previous period
Source
MCPFE and UN-ECE/FAO, 2007. State of Europe’s Forests.
EN 57 EN
Geographical coverage
Web links
Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE): www.mcpfe.org
Sources and references
MCPFE (Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe). 2007. State of Europe's Forests 2007. Jointly prepared by the MCPFE Liaison Unit Warsaw, UNECE and FAO. 247 pp. Warsaw. http://www.mcpfe.org/ (Accessed February 2008)
Schelhaas M.J. et al. (2006): Outlook on the forest resources in Europe. European Forest Sector Outlook Studies – EFSOS. Geneva Timber and Forest Discussion Papers, No. 41. ECE/TIM/DP/41
Version 26 November 2008
EN 58 EN
18. Forest: deadwood
Key Policy Question: How much deadwood is present in European forests??
Key message
Quantities of deadwood in Europe (an important indicator for forest biodiversity) have strongly decreased since the middle of the nineteenth century due to intense forest exploitation and widespread burning of small wood and other debris. Since 1990, however, an overall increase by about 4.3% is observed and this may be due to increased compliance with sustainable forest management principles. These principles should be observed in view of increasing wood demand, e.g. for renewable energy production.
Development of deadwood in pan-European forests, 1990-2005
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Central Asia NWE Caucasus SEE EE
tonn
es/h
ecta
re
1990
2000
2005
Source: UNECE/FAO (2005)
Note:
Central Asia: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan
North-West Europe (NWE): Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland
Caucasus: Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia
South-East Europe (SEE): Albania, Bulgaria, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro and Turkey
Eastern Europe (EE): Belarus, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation and Ukraine
Assessment
Quantities of deadwood in Europe have strongly decreased since the middle of the nineteenth century due to intense forest exploitation and widespread burning of small wood and other debris. Moreover, classical forest management is usually based on rotations shorter than the natural longevity of tree species and so the number of large old trees in the forest is relatively low. However, nowadays, in many European countries, initiatives have been taken to increase the amount of deadwood in forests. Available evidence suggests that the amount of deadwood increased in the pan-European region by about 4.3% In the period 1990-2005. The deadwood stock in forests might decline again as wood demand increases, e.g. for renewable energy production.
EN 59 EN
Deadwood per hectare in forests, 2005
0
5
10
15
20
25
Albania
Ukraine
Cyprus
Belarus
Serbia
United
Kingdo
m
Finlan
d
Sweden
Belgium
Hunga
ry
Netherl
ands
Czech
Rep
ublic
Luxe
mbourg
Estonia Ita
lyLa
tvia
Austria
Russia
n Fed
eratio
n
Lithu
ania
cubi
c m
etre
/ha
lying
standing
total
Source: MCPFE (2007): State of Europe’s Forests 2007.
Note:
Deadwood decomposition plays a key role in the recycling of nutrients and organic matter, the creation of a wide variety of microsites for regeneration of plant species, and the creation of a wide variety of habitats for other organisms. The amount of deadwood is an excellent indicator of the conservation value of a forest.
The amount of deadwood that will naturally accumulate in forests varies greatly depending on forest type, development stage, site productivity, climate, natural disturbance, and forest history. In a study of beech forest reserves in Europe, deadwood volumes ranged from almost 59 m3/ha (northern boreal forest) up to 216 m3/ha (mixed mountain forest in central Europe) (Hahn and Christensen 2004). In a study of boreal forests in Fennoscandia, deadwood volumes ranged from 19 m3/ha up to 145 m3/ha with values at the lower end of the range at higher latitudes near the timberline (Siitonen 2001). In managed forests Siitonen (2001) reports deadwood volumes of between 2 m3/ha and 10 m3/ha.
In certain circumstances the accumulation of deadwood may not be desirable, for example where the risk of insect pests (such as invasions of bark beetles) is considered unacceptable. In e.g. Mediterranean coniferous plantations deadwood will have to be removed because of the risk of forest fires.
Geographical coverage
EN 60 EN
Web links
Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE): www.mcpfe.org
Sources and references
EEA (European Environment Agency), in press: May 2008. European forests – Ecosystem conditions and sustainable use.
Hahn, K. and Christensen, M. 2004. Dead wood in European forest reserves - a reference for forest management. EFI Proceedings 51: 181-191.
MCPFE (Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe). 2007. State of Europe's Forests 2007. Jointly prepared by the MCPFE Liaison Unit Warsaw, UNECE and FAO. 247 pp. Warsaw. http://www.mcpfe.org/
Siitonen, J. 2001. Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecological Bulletins 49: 11-41.
Vallauri & al. (2005) Bois mort et à cavités: une clé pour des forêts vivantes. Ed.Tec & DOC, Lavoisier. WWF, 2004. Deadwood - Living Forests. WWF Report http://assets.panda.org/downloads/deadwoodwithnotes.pdf
Version 26 November 2008
EN 61 EN
19. Agriculture: nitrogen balance
Key Policy Question: How big is agriculture’s pressure on the environment? Is the nitrogen surplus reduced?
Key message
Agricultural nitrogen surpluses show a declining trend, potentially reducing the environmental pressures on soil, water and air. Many countries still have a high surplus, though.
Nitrogen balance per hectare of agricultural land
-10
20
50
80
110
140
170
200
230
260
290
320
350
380
410
440
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Kg p
er H
a
AT
BE
CZ
DE
DK
ES
FI
FR
GR
HU
IE
IT
LU
NL
PL
PT
SE
SK
UK
Source: OECD, 2008
EN 62 EN
Assessment
A nutrient balance describes the difference between all nutrient inputs and outputs on agricultural land. A positive balance or surplus reflects inputs that are in excess of crop and forage needs, and can result in the loss of nutrients to water bodies, decreasing their quality and promoting eutrophication. Surplus nitrogen can also be lost to air as ammonia and other greenhouse gases.
All European countries exhibit a nitrogen surplus. Overall, however, these surpluses have declined over the period covered, potentially reducing the environmental pressures on soil, water and air. The adoption of nutrient management plans and environmental farm plans has had a key role in this reduction.
It is, however, important not only to consider rates of surplus decline, but the absolute value too. Belgium and the Netherlands, for example, show significant decreases; however, nutrient surpluses in these two countries currently remain much higher than the average across all countries. Conversely, some countries show an increase but still remain below the average.
In most countries, national scale nutrient balances typically mask considerable regional variation due to variation in the type and intensity of farming.
Note:
1. Although gross nitrogen balance can show areas where ground and surface waters may be at risk from nitrogen leaching, it should not be taken as providing data on actual losses to the environment. In order to assess the environmental impact of excess nitrogen, more information is needed on farm nitrogen management, soil type, and climate conditions, all of which play a role in the fate of nitrogen in the environment.
2. “Gross nitrogen balance” is also an agri-environmental indicator and part of the compulsory indicators of the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF) for rural development. Work is ongoing on the streamlining of similar indicators used in different processes.
Geographical coverage
Web links
OECD: www.oecd.org/tad/env/indicators
Sources and references
OECD (2008), Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD countries since 1990, Paris, France.
Version 26 November 2008
EN 63 EN
20. Agriculture: area under management practices potentially supporting biodiversity
Key Policy Question: To what extent is European agriculture geared towards prevention of biodiversity loss?
Key message
NB: This indicator comprises of two elements; a quality parameter (distribution of high nature value farmland) as well as a response parameter (area under agri-environment and organic farming). Both are relevant for an assessment of environmental sustainability, but they are not necessarily linked.
Europe has significant areas of so-called High Nature Value farmland, which provide habitat for a wide range of species. They are however under threat from intensification and land abandonment. Promoting conservation and sustainable farming practices in these areas is crucial for biodiversity. The map below presents the first estimate of HNV farmland distribution and trends can therefore not yet be analysed for trends.
Agri-environment schemes have been a widely used tool to make agriculture more sustainable, but not all agri-environment sub-measures are explicitly targeted on biodiversity 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 can be assumed that it reduces stress on ecosystems and provides a wider range of niches for farmland species.
Assessment
Countries in Europe to varying degrees contain High Nature Value (HNV) farmland. The identification and conservation of HNV farmland was given high priority in the Kiev Resolution on Biodiversity (UNECE, 2003).
EN 64 EN
Source: JRC/EEA
Note:
green - areas likely to contain primarily HNV land, on the basis of a stratified selection of CORINE land cover classes per Country and Environmental Zone, and national biodiversity data when available
violet - areas likely to contain primarily HNV land in selected Natura2000 sites
orange - areas likely to contain primarily HNV land in selected Important Bird Areas
pink - areas likely to contain primarily HNV land in Primary Butterfly Areas
Since the layers are displayed on top of each other the more visible is the “green” one. The values in the map are a proxy for the share of HNV in each 1 sqkm cell.
South East Europe and EECCA countries ((Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia) are not covered in the data sets used to make this map and, hence, are not represented. The share of HNV farmland in these regions is probably higher than in Western and Central Europe, but the currently available data do not allow a precise estimate. Finally, while the map above indicates the location of HNV, no indicator is yet available to help assess countries' efforts in managing these areas for biodiversity. The Commission has contracted a study on an HNV indicator for evaluation including a guidance document to the Member States on the application of the HNV impact indicator. This study has been completed in October 2007. Following consultations with the Member States, the guidance document on the application of the HNV impact indicator is currently being finalised in the context of the Evaluation Network for Rural Development under the auspices of the Commission. The final version is expected to be made available in December 2008 (IEEP, 2007).
Agri-environment schemes are the most relevant policy tool in the EU for biodiversity conservation on farmlands. They support agricultural production methods that help protect and improve the
EN 65 EN
environment, in particular the landscape and its features, natural resources, the soil and genetic diversity. Some agri-environment measures are aimed directly at biodiversity protection. In the EU, the share of agricultural land under these schemes varies from less than 5 % in the Netherlands and Greece to more than 80 % in Austria, Sweden, Finland and Luxembourg.
The new EU guidelines for rural development explicitly encourage the targeting of agri-environment schemes (and other rural development measures) on EU environmental priorities, including biodiversity in general and High Nature Value farming systems in particular. However, the success of such targeting at national and regional level cannot be assessed at this stage andbetter information on the effectiveness of the agri-environment measures is still desirable. As information on HNV farmland and forestry has become a compulsory element of Rural Development evaluations, relevant data should be available in due time.
Share of total utilised agricultural area (UAA) occupied by organic farming
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Austria
Belgium
Czech
Rep
ublic
Denmark
German
y
Estonia
Irelan
d
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Latvi
a
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Hunga
ryMalt
a
Netherl
ands
Poland
Portug
al
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finlan
d
Sweden
United
Kingdo
mEU 25
Norway
2000
2003
2005
Source: Eurostat
Note:
Area covers existing organically-farmed areas and areas in process of conversion.
The values for the following are estimates: France 2000, Luxembourg 2005, Poland 2005.
Average of EU 25 is calculated for the countries for which data are available
Organic farming can contribute to biodiversity enhancement through the reduction in the use of inputs, rotation practices or livestock extensification. For this indicator, farming is only considered to be organic at the EU level if it complies with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 and its amendments. Organic farming has developed rapidly since the beginning of the 1990s, with, by 2004, 6.5 million ha in Europe managed organically by around 167 000 farms. Of these, more than 5.8 million ha were in the EU — 3.4 % of the utilised agricultural area. In the South Eastern Europe and Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia (SEE and EECCA) regions organic farming covers less than 0.5 % of the agricultural land. Organic farming reduces overall stress on ecosystems and provides more different niches for farmland species. In a global context, it needs to be considered that it may require a larger area of land to produce the same amount of food than intensive conventional agriculture.
Notes
The three main categories of HNV farmland are (adapted after Andersen et al., 2003):
• Type 1: farmland with a high proportion of semi -natural vegetation;
EN 66 EN
• Type 2: farmland with a mosaic of low intensity agriculture and natural and structural elements, such as field margins, hedgerows, stonewalls, patches of woodland or scrub, and small rivers;
• Type 3: farmland supporting rare species or a high proportion of European or world populations.
EN 67 EN
Geographical coverage
High Nature Value Farmland
Organic farming
Sources and references
Andersen, E.; D. Baldock; H.Bennett; G. Beaufoy; E. Bignal; F. Brouwer; B. Elbersen; G. Eiden; F. Godeschalk; G. Jones; D. McCracken; W. Nieuwenhuizen; M. van Eupen; S. Hennekens; G. Zervas (2003), Developing a High Nature Value Farming area indicator. Internal report for the European Environment Agency. Conference 'Environment for Europe', Kiev, Ukraine, 12–23 May 2003. Document ECE/CEP/108. United Nations. Commission for Europe. EC, 2005, Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_277/l_27720051021en00010040.pdf EC, 2006. Council decision of 20 February 2006 on Community strategic guidelines for rural development (programming period 2007 to 2013) (2006/144/EC) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:055:0020:0029:EN:PDF EEA Core Set Indicator 026 Area under organic farming. Europe's environment - The fourth assessment (EEA, 2007) Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe (EEA Technical Report 11/2007). High nature value farmland. Characteristics, trends and policy challenges. (European Environment Agency, 2004). IEEP, 2007. HNV Indicators for Evaluation. Final Report for DG Agriculture. M.L. Paracchini, J.-E. Petersen, Y. Hoogeveen, C. Bamps, I. Burfield, C. van Swaay (2008), High Nature value farmland in Europe - An estimate of the distribution patterns on the basis of land cover and biodiversity data, EUR 23480 EN (2008)Report XXXX, in preparation UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe), 2003. Kiev Resolution on Biodiversity. Fifth ministerial
Version 26 November 2008
EN 68 EN
21. Fisheries: European commercial fish stocks
Key Policy Question: What is the status of European commercial fish stocks, and what can be done to prevent stocks from collapsing?
Key message
Of the assessed European commercial stocks, about 45 percent is outside safe biological limits.1
Status of the fish stocks in ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) and GFCM (General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean) fishing regions of Europe in 2006
(Ver. 8.00)
Data source: GFCM and ICES
Note: The chart shows the proportion of assessed stocks which are overfished (red) and stocks within safe biological limits (blue). Number in circle is the number of stocks assessed within the given region. The size of the circles is scaled proportional to the magnitude of the regional catch
1 A stock is considered to be outside 'Safe Biological Limits' (SBL) when the Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) (the
mature part of a stock) is below a biomass precautionary approach reference point (Bpa), or when the Fishing mortality (F) (an expression of the proportion of a stock that is removed by fishing activities in a year) exceeds a fishing mortality precautionary approach reference point (Fpa), or when both conditions exist.
EN 69 EN
Assessment
Many commercial fish stocks in European waters remain non-assessed. In the NE Atlantic, the percentage (of catch in weight to the total catch) of non-assessed stocks range from a minimum of 3 % (W. Scotland and West of Ireland) to a maximum of 34 % (Irish Sea and Iberian Peninsula). There is a general trend from North to South of an increase in percentage of non-assessed stocks. In the Mediterranean region, the percentage is higher ranging from 23% in the Adriatic Sea to 70% for tuna and tuna like species for the entire Mediterranean. In the Black Sea no stock is assessed.
Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea) are outside safe biological limits (SBL). For the other areas in the NE Atlantic the percentages of stocks outside safe biological limits vary between 25% and 55%. It can be seen that the pelagic stocks (fish living in the waters column well above the sea bottom and sometimes close to the sea surface) like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal (fish living close to the sea bottom) stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean the percentage of stocks outside SBL ranges from 44% to 73%, with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition. Here the small pelagic stocks like anchovy and sardine are doing better than demersal stocks like hake and red mullet and bluefin tuna.
While the data used for the indicator provide a snapshot in time only, the table below, based on the same data, shows that based on the assessments available now, all fishing areas except the Baltic have 33% or more of their assessed stocks outside safe biological limits, a worrying figure for biodiversity.
Area Percentage of stocks outside safe biological limits
Black Sea n/a
Baltic Sea 8.3
North Sea 47.1
W. Scotland 36.4
Irish Sea 80.0
West Ireland 25.0
Celtic Sea Western Channel 44.4
Iberian peninsula 33.3
Bay of Biscay 40.0
Faroe Islands 50.0
Arctic - East 40.0
Arctic - NWestern 54.5
Balearic 60.0
Gulf of Lions 50.0
Sardinia 43.8
Adriatic Sea 50.0
Ionian Sea 50.0
Aegean Sea and Crete 72.7
Area 37 Tunas 50.0
EN 70 EN
When examining the NE Atlantic stocks more closely, the following conclusions can be drawn:
• The pelagic stocks are generally fished sustainably. • Almost all demersal stocks have declined and are currently not sustainable. Over the recent
decades there have been a slight, but steady decline in the stocks and there is still no clear sign of a stop of this trend.
• Industrial species especially the capelin and sandeel stocks are not doing well. This is, however, more due to natural causes than high fishing pressure (ICES Advisory Report 2006).
In the Mediterranean region the following conclusions can be drawn:
• Only two demersal and two small pelagic species are monitored by the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM), with a limited spatial coverage. Demersal stocks remain outside safe biological limits. Small pelagic stocks in the same area exhibit large-scale fluctuations, but are not fully exploited anywhere, except for anchovy and pilchard in the Southern Alboran and Cretan Seas.
• According to the latest assessment by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) a strong recruitment of swordfish over recent years has rendered the exploitation of the stock sustainable.
• Concern still remains about the over-exploitation of bluefin tuna. Uncertainties of stock assessment and lack of documented reporting (including EU Member States) still hinder management of these highly migratory species. Bluefin tuna catches continue to exceed the sustainable rate.
EU Member States will make an integrated 'initial assessment' of the environmental situation of their marine waters pursuant to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive Art. 8 by mid-2012.
It is important to note that the indicator may not reflect the complete ecological impact of the stocks’ stattus. For example, even if relatively few stocks in the Baltic may be outside biological limits the demise of the cod stocks has a very significant impact on the ecosystem (probably relatively much more so than some other stocks).
Geographical coverage
See map above.
Web links
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES): www.ices.dk
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean: www.gfcm.org/gfcm
The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas: www.iccat.int
Sources and references
ICES advice: http://www.ices.dk/products/icesadvice.asp
EEA Core Set Indicator 032 Status of marine fish stocks: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1116498234748/view_content
Version 26 November 2008
EN 71 EN
22. Aquaculture: effluent water quality from finfish farms
Key Policy Question: How is aquaculture and its potential pressure on the environment developing?
Key message
Aquaculture production in Europe has increased in the EU since 1990, levelling off slightly since 2000. Norway and Iceland continue to show a large increase. This increase implies a rise in pressure on adjacent water bodies and associated ecosystems, resulting mainly from nutrient release from aquaculture facilities. While more work is needed to develop an indicator on the sustainability of aquaculture (e.g. precisely calculating nutrient discharge as reflected in the title of the indicator).
Annual aquaculture production by major area (Ver. 2.00)2
0200000400000600000800000
1000000120000014000001600000
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
Tonn
es
EU-27
EU-15
EFTA
EU-9 + others
Source: FAO FISHSTAT Plus
Assessment
A significant increase in total European aquaculture production has been observed in the past 15 years (due to expansion in the marine sector in the EU and EFTA countries) although this has slowed since 1999. This increase represents a rise in pressure on adjacent water bodies and associated ecosystems, resulting mainly from nutrient release from aquaculture facilities.
In general, significant improvements in the efficiency of feed and nutrient utilisation as well as environmental management have served to partially mitigate the associated increase in environmental pressure. The increase in both production and pressure on the environment has not been uniform across countries or production systems. Only the mariculture sector has experienced a significant increase, while brackish water production has increased at a much slower rate and the levels of freshwater production have declined.
Europe's fish farms fall into two distinct groups: the fish farms in western Europe grow high-value species such as salmon and rainbow trout, frequently for export, whereas lower-value species such as carp are cultivated in central and eastern Europe, mainly for local consumption.
2 Note: EFTA: Iceland and Norway. EU-9: Estonia, Cyprus, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Slovenia, Bulgaria and
Romania. Others: Albania, Croatia, and Turkey.
EN 72 EN
The biggest European aquaculture producers are found in the EU 15 + EFTA region. Norway has the highest production with more than 700 thousand tonnes in 2006, followed by Spain, France, Italy and the UK. These 5 countries account for nearly 75% of all aquaculture production in 34 European countries. Turkey's production of nearly 130 thousand tonnes represents substantially the highest production in the countries grouped as EU-9+others.
Different types of aquaculture generate very different pressures on the environment, the main pressures being discharges of nutrients, antibiotics and fungicides. In addition, wild fish is often used as the basis for fish food. According to one estimate (UNEP, 2004), 4 to 6 kilograms of wild fish are ground into meal to produce 1 kg of farmed fish.
The main environmental pressures are associated with intensive finfish production, mainly salmonids in marine, brackish and freshwaters, and sea bass and sea bream in the marine environment, sectors which have experienced the highest growth rate in recent years. The pressures associated with the cultivation of bivalve molluscs, which include removal of plankton and local concentration and accumulation of organic matter and metabolites, are generally considered to be less severe than those from intensive finfish cultivation. Pond aquaculture of carp in inland waters in some cases requires less intensive feeding, and in most cases a greater proportion of the nutrients discharged are assimilated locally. Environmental pressure per unit production in inland waters is likely to be less than for the more intensive salmonid production. Furthermore, this type of aquaculture has decreased in recent years.
In fresh water farms, chemicals, particularly formalin and malachite green, are used to control fungal and bacterial diseases. In marine farms, antibiotics are used for disease control. The amount of antibiotics used have been reduced drastically in recent years following the introduction of vaccines and improved husbandry practices.
The level of local impact will vary according to production scale and techniques as well as the hydrodynamics and chemical characteristics of the region. Improvements in the efficiency of feed and nutrient utilisation as well as environmental management have served to partially mitigate the associated increase in environmental pressure of marine farms. Of the EU 15 countries, Spain, France and the Netherlands, and of the EU 10 + Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey, have the greatest marine aquaculture production in relation to coastline length.
Aquaculture production intensity as measured per unit coastline length has reached an average of around 8 tonnes per km of coastline in EU 10 + EFTA countries compared with 2 tonnes per km in the EU 10 + Romania + Bulgaria + Balkan region. The pressure is likely to continue to increase as the production of new species such as cod, halibut and turbot becomes more reliable. At the same time, significant improvements have been made in reducing effluents from fish farms. For example, it was reported (Enell, 1995), that in Nordic fish farms between 1974 and 1994, the load of N and P were reduced respectively from 132 kg N/t of fish produced to 55 and from 31 kg P/t to 5. Similarly, nitrogen discharge per ton production in EU aquaculture was three times lower in 2003 than in 1983 (INDENT, 2006).
EN 73 EN
Annual aquaculture production by country 2001 and 2006
708780
293288
238905
173083
171848
129073
113384
53122
43945
37188
35867
35379
20431
14897
14686
12891
8241
8088
7549
6778
3257
2667
2503
2224
1970
1369
1263
1214
1200
1126
703
646
565
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000
Norway
Spain
France
Italy
United Kingdom
Turkey
Greece
Ireland
Netherlands
Denmark
Poland
Germany
Czech Republic
Croatia
Hungary
Finland
Iceland
Romania
Sweden
Portugal
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Austria
Lithuania
Albania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Switzerland
Belgium
M alta
Estonia
M acedonia, Fmr Yug Rp of
Latvia
Serbia and M ontenegro
Tonnes
2001
2006
Source: FAO FISHSTAT Plus
Note:
Production includes all environments i.e. marine, brackish and freshwater
2005 data for Serbia and Montenegro
Numbers are 2006 values.
Geographical coverage
EN 74 EN
Web links
EEA Core Set Indicator 33 (Aquaculture production): http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/CSI
Sources and references
Enell, M. 1995. Environmental impact of nutrients from Nordic fish farming. Water Science and Technology 31(10):61–71.
INDENT (INDicators of ENvironmental inTegration), 2006. Final report. Tender Reference No FISH/2004/12
UNEP, 2004 Resource Kit for Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns, http://www.unep.org/PDF/sc/SC_resourcekit.pdf
Version 26 November 2008
EN 75 EN
European Headline Indicator: Ecological Footprint and biocapacity of European countries
23. Ecological Footprint of European countries
Key Policy Question: What impact does the overall resource demand and use of European societies have on biodiversity and ecosystems outside Europe?
Key message
The EU 27 Ecological Footprint3 has been increasing almost constantly since 1961, while the EU’s biocapacity4 has decreased. This results in an ever larger deficit, with negative consequences on the environment in- and outside Europe.
EU 27 Footprint, Biocapacity and Reserve/Deficit
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001glob
al h
ecta
res
per p
erso
n
Footprint
Biocapacity
Reserve/Deficit
Source: Global Footprint Network, National Footprint Accounts 2006 Edition
Note: 2003 data
3 Update, including data for all European countries will be available for assessment later in 2008. 4 The capacity of ecosystems to produce useful biological materials and to absorb waste materials generated by
humans, using current management schemes and extraction technologies.
EN 76 EN
Assessment
The Footprint is the area used to support a defined population's consumption including the area needed to produce the materials consumed and to absorb the waste. Europe’s ecological deficit means that biological resource use and waste emission is about 2.5 times greater than the biological capacity available within Europe, showing that Europe cannot sustainably meet its consumption demands from within its own borders. The deficit is the difference between the biocapacity and Ecological Footprint of a region or country.
A regional or national ecological deficit means that the region is either importing biocapacity through trade or liquidating regional ecological assets. The global ecological deficit however cannot be compensated through trade, and is therefore equal to overshoot.
In a world that is already in ecological overshoot, Europe’s ecological deficit contributes to the diminishing amount of renewable natural resources available in the future and puts regional and global ecosystems at a greater risk of degradation or collapse.
The figure below shows that Europe is not the only region whose Ecological Footprint (shown as per person Footprint times population size) exceeds its biocapacity ((per person biocapacity shown as red dot). Europe beyond the EU actually has a biocapacity that is slightly larger than its Footprint. North America, EU25 and the remaining Europe have a Footprint (global hectares per capita) that is significantly larger than that in any other continent.
Ecological Footprint variation per region (2003)
Source
Global Footprint Network, National Footprint Accounts 2006 Edition
Note
2003 data, Pan-European update available later in 2008
EN 77 EN
Geographical coverage
Web links
Global Footprint Network: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/
Sources and references
Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe (EEA Technical Report 11/2007)
Global Footprint Network, National Footprint Accounts 2006 Edition
Version 26 November 2008
EN 78 EN
FOCAL AREA: STATUS OF ACCESS AND BENEFITS SHARING
European Headline Indicator: Percentage of European patent applications for inventions based on genetic resources
24. Patent applications based on genetic resources
Key Policy Question: What percentage of European patents is biodiversity-related?
Key message
n/a
This indicator is not yet available.
Assessment
n/a Version 26 November 2008
EN 79 EN
FOCAL AREA: STATUS OF RESOURCE TRANSFERS AND USE
European Headline Indicator: Funding to biodiversity
25. Financing Biodiversity Management
Key Policy Question: To what extent are public funds being committed to conservation of biodiversity?
Key message
The indicator currently has a limited scope and only contains information from EU funding on the LIFE project. The amount of the EU contribution per LIFE project varies significantly among member states. The 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 size of projects) in order to interpret these figures. The Life Nature project represents a very small proportion of the total EU budget.
Average amount (EUR) of the EU LIFE contribution per project from 2000 to 2006 (number of projects in brackets)
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
AT(18)
BE(25)
CY(1)
CZ(2)
DE(31)
DK(11)
EE(10)
ES(61)
FR(28)
FI(21)
GR(17)
HU(16)
IR (7)
IT(62)
LUX(1)
LT (2)
LV(14)
MT(1)
NL(16)
PL (4)
PT(18)
RO(20)
SE(11)
SI(11)
SK(8)
UK(18)
Source: DG ENV LIFE unit
EN 80 EN
Percentage of total EU expenditure on the Life project from 1995 to 2006
0.066%0.066%
0.055%0.052% 0.058%
0.077%
0.096%
0.077% 0.074%
0.038%
0.082%
0.000%
0.020%
0.040%
0.060%
0.080%
0.100%
0.120%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Source: DG ENV LIFE unit
How to read the graph: In 2006, EU expenditure represents 0,066 % of the total EU budget
Assessment
The figures are shown for 1995 onwards because this was the beginning of the EU15 and the implementation of the Directive. It should be noted that the amounts indicated represent the EU contribution (from the LIFE Programme) to the projects, not the total cost of the projects in question - LIFE covers 50% to 75% of the total costs, depending on the target species and/or habitats. Furthermore, the period from 2000 onwards has enjoyed a more stable budget (although there was no call in 2001) and the amount of money allocated for nature has actually increased through Life+. Private or national government spending is not shown. That said, in spite of the decline in expenditure between 2000 and 2006 (which is in part due to the accession of a number of new countries influencing the total EU budget), this has now levelled out and the overall trend indicated in relation to the percentage of the EU budget spend on the Life project is increasing.
Geographical coverage
Web links
About LIFE projects
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm
Version 26 November 2008
EN 81 EN
FOCAL AREA: PUBLIC OPINION
European Headline Indicator: Public Awareness and Participation
26. Public Awareness
Key Policy Question: What is the level of public awareness about biodiversity in Europe and what actions do Europeans take to preserve biodiversity?
Key message
Two thirds of EU citizens indicate not knowing 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 (80%). Finally, over two thirds of EU citizens indicate personally making efforts to help preserve biodiversity.
Assessment
A recent survey5 shows that only one third of EU citizens know the meaning of the word “biodiversity”, and few feel well informed about the issue.
Familiarity with the term "biodiversity" (EU27), share of respondents
I've heard of it and I know what it means
35%
I've heard of it but I do not know what it means
30%
I have never heard of it34%
DK/NA1%
5 Flash Eurobarometer 219: The Attitudes of Europeans towards the Issue of Biodiversity.
EN 82 EN
Source: Flash Eurobarometer 219: The attitude of Europeans towards the issue of Biodiversity (December 2007)
Roughly one third of Europeans indicate knowing the meaning of the word “biodiversity”. Two thirds of EU citizens indicate not knowing the meaning of the word “biodiversity”, let alone understand what the threats and challenges to its conservation are. But that doesn’t mean they are not aware of nature questions. When the issue is explained to them, over two thirds consider the loss of biodiversity a serious problem, albeit more so at global than at a local level. The main threats to biodiversity identified by Europeans (pollution and man-made disasters) indicate that the level of understanding of the problem is still inadequate.
Awareness of the Natura 2000 Network, share of respondents
I have never heard of it81%
DK/NA1%
I've heard of it but I do not know w hat it is
12%
I've heard of it and I know w hat it is
6%
Source: Flash Eurobarometer 219: The attitude of Europeans towards the issue of Biodiversity (December 2007)
The survey also reveals that Europeans are unaware of what the EU is doing to save biodiversity: Only one in five has ever heard of Natura 2000, the EU’s main programme for biodiversity conservation, and only 6% of respondents indicated they really knew what NATURA 2000 meant. Most EU citizens are unaware of the NATURA 2000 network and have never even heard of it (80%). This major EU programme for biodiversity conservation needs urgent attention as far as communication to the public is concerned.
All these results indicate: 1. that there is a good basis for increased public participation for halting the loss of biodiversity, 2. that there is an urgent need for increased information and awareness raising about the issue. If repeated at regular intervals the selected indicators of the survey will allow indicating trends and assessing the effectiveness of existing and possible future policies geared towards a greater public awareness and participation with regards to biodiversity.
As yet the survey data discussed in this review give no idea about development of public awareness and participation with regards to biodiversity over time.
EN 83 EN
Geographical coverage
Web links
About Eurobarometer: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/flash_arch_en.htm
Version 26 November 2008
