EU Biodiversity Targets 2030 – where are we now?

The EUROPARC Federation is an active participant in the EU Natura 2000 Biogeographical Seminars. In this article, our president Michael Hošek summarises results from the last two seminars held in Cyprus (April 2024 for the Mediterranean region) and Czechia (June 2024 for several regions), as well as the status of pledges made by EU Member states for the EU Biodiversity Targets 2030. Continue reading to discover the immediate challenges and tasks for nature conservation in the European Union!

EU Biodiversity Targets 2030 – where are we now?

Article written by Michael Hošek.

Role of EUROPARC members in pledges planning and implementation

The EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 fundamentally changed conservation goals by covering not just Natura 2000, but all Protected Areas. It also changed the way we define targets and how to reach them. As such, the manner of our coordination must adapt accordingly.

EUROPARC’s diverse network of members covers those responsible for national strategies (mainly ministries or regional governments), but is also largely made up of managers of Protected Areas who are responsible for practical conservation measures. This article is primarily aimed at the latter, because even though they are not directly involved in the process of pledge development, it is the nature managers that will later be affected by pledges in terms of implementation and outcomes. Furthermore, their contribution to achieving these pledges will be significant. In this article, I will assess how current planning to achieve the 2030 conservation targets are evolving and how nature managers can contribute.

EU Biodiversity pledges 2030 – what are they about?

Although we talk about them regularly, ‘the pledges’ might still be unclear for some of us. Therefore, let me shortly refresh our memories.

The EU has a set of targets for biodiversity protection by 2030, called the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. These targets are ambitious and aim to reverse the damage done to Europe’s natural habitats and species. They are in line with the global targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which the EU and all its Member States have also signed.

One of the key aspects of this strategy is the commitment to Protected Areas. EU countries have pledged to protect at least 30% of Europe’s land and sea by 2030 with at least one-third of that area (10% of land and sea) being strictly protected. This means that these areas will have the highest level of safeguards to preserve their natural state, but it does not mean only a non-intervention approach. If there is a need for active measures to support biodiversity, they are allowed, of course.

Another target is to improve the conservation status of species and habitats. By 2030, EU countries want to see at least 30% of species and habitats that are currently not in good condition improve to a favourable status, or at least show a significant positive trend in that direction.

These pledges are voluntary, but EU Member States were supposed to submit plans in 2023 outlining how they would achieve these goals. However, almost all countries missed this deadline.

Biogeographical seminars – what are they?

Those of us who experienced the so-called Natura 2000 Biogeographical Process before 2012 remember that it was purely a technical discussion about the completeness of Natura 2000 in one specific EU country. However, the purpose of this process has changed significantly. Currently, one of its aims is to take stock of the pledges that Member States in a Biogeographical Region have submitted, in the context of the objectives and targets of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and those of the GBF of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). In other words, it is the only tool to discuss pledges with Member States and between them, in particular regions, at the technical level.

The overall goal of the Biogeographical Process is to help EU Member States effectively implement and manage the Natura 2000 network and their nationally designated Protected Areas as a coherent ecological network, in line with the EU Biodiversity Strategy targets.

There is another specific reason why EU countries meet and discuss within the same region. As we know, nature does not care about our man-made borders. Achieving the targets is necessary from a conservation perspective at the bioregional level, not strictly separated by individual states. As such, if countries agree amongst themselves, it is possible to share the responsibility of meeting the targets. Concretely, this means that within a biogeographical region, if one country is able to preserve less nature than required, a ‘partner country’ can increase their natural spaces to compensate.

What can we read in the already submitted pledges?

Of the 27 EU Member States, only 7 have submitted pledges on Protected Areas targets. As the agreement to do so is voluntary, the European Commission does not have any legal tool to push states. Nonetheless, countries utilise the preparation of pledges as a vehicle for their internal discussions and conceptual planning. Therefore, it is supposed that the majority of all countries will prepare and share pledges, though with delay. The Member States are also preparing their new National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) for the CBD to align them with the new GBF. The pledge process is a good tool for Member States to work on their targets for their NBSAPs.

Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of the current pledges proposed promise only a minimal increase of Protected Areas, and no pledges propose reaching 30% of the land area by 2030. The explanation is simple: No one waited until now to declare areas of value. What was valuable and essential to the national system has, in principle, already been declared. Though there are still areas that are worth designating (both for the purpose of conservation and restoration), those do not help with reaching 30% in the majority of cases.

The only exception is the Czech Republic, which is proposing a substantial increase in areas through newly designated or declared Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs). However, this is also a novelty for Czech nature conservation and needs to be further discussed – at the national level and with the European Commission.

What tools do we have to reach the pledges?

1. Expansion of Protected Areas (unitedly Natura 2000 and nationally designated Protected Areas) to cover 30% of Europe – the so-called 30×30 goal. However, the situation in Europe varies greatly. Some countries have already reached this proportion, while others do not have the natural conditions to do so. This is where an agreement between states on the possible sharing of pledges is appropriate. The target is 30% at the EU level and at each biogeographical region.
2. Part of the 30×30 target is that 1/3 of the Protected Areas (10% of the EU land and sea) will be strictly protected. What does that mean? In these areas, no activities should be allowed besides those benefiting the Protected Area conservation objectives. Such measures can be non-intervention as well as active management, which is necessary to maintain or improve biodiversity. To define which Protected Areas should be strictly protected and in what way, practical experience of nature managers is needed.
3. OECMs – Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures. These are a new tool for us in Europe (but also globally), which is why their definition is being clarified for the European context. You can read more about them here. In principle, their purpose should be filling the “sharp boundary” between Protected Areas and our competences in them, as opposed to the unprotected landscape, in which, on the contrary, nature conservation often has no tools at all. However, it should be clear that OECMs are defined as a type of Protected Area. An interesting and still not closed discussion is whether OECMs can serve as a tool for strict protection.
   The basic point is that these are “schemes” that are not a priori nature managers’ activity, but that of our partners – farmers, foresters, and others who manage the landscape –  that have voluntarily chosen to do so sustainably. It is agreed that there is a need for EU-specific guidelines for the OECMs definition.

These examples are the most important points among many others, such as creating a functional Protected Areas Management Effectiveness system. A project to develop a methodology for assessing the effectiveness of Protected Areas will be launched by EUROPARC in September. Of course, I also warmly invite you to save the date for our e-Forum on the 7th of November, which also focuses on Management Effectiveness.

EU Nature Restoration Law adopted!

The approval of the EU Nature Restoration Law (NRL) makes a significant difference in the entire strategic approach and can become an additional, important, tool. The NRL is a regulation. This means it creates binding legislation directly applicable to all EU member states. There is no need for the countries to translate it into national law, unlike Directives, which set goals, but allow some flexibility in achieving them. Therefore, it is possible to read and interpret the text in terms of application and national perspectives directly. Nonetheless, its text provides scope for a modified approach that takes account of national circumstances. The European Commission itself is now defining its approach in this respect.

But what is the NRL likely to change? How will national pledges be defined? While the part about Protected Areas (30×30 target) is not strongly affected by the NRL, the pledge about the improvement of the conservation status of species and habitats might be replaced by the NRL implementation. That is a fundamental question that is going to be answered in the upcoming months.

We can consider the approval of the NRL as a great victory, but we must not forget the stakeholders – especially landscape managers (farmers, foresters, fishermen and others). They often express fear and feel they were not invited to contribute to its development. 

The NRL is a strong legislation in its objectives and instruments. Although many argue it is weaker because of compromises made during its adoption, I still consider it an ambitious and powerful instrument. However, the detailed roadmap for its implementation will be defined in the coming months, and this only encourages stakeholders (i.e. our partners) to be uncertain whether the NRL will be enforced too hard or without appropriate agreements. This fear of uncertainty must not be underestimated because it is relevant. We have a chance to turn it into collaboration.

What is now needed above all?

Most countries have still not sent their pledges to the European Commission and time is running out, with only 6 years until 2030. We should therefore try to achieve the targets now, because we know what is needed in principle, and we know how to achieve them, both strategically and practically.

EUROPARC contributes to this not only by developing a methodology for management effectiveness, but also by consulting with individual countries and bodies. Any of our members who want to contribute to this discussion or be informed are welcome to participate

To learn more about the seminars:

Mediterranean Seminar – 19 April 2024 in Larnaca, Cyprus.

Continental Seminar – 25 to 27 June 2024 in Prague, Czech Republic.