Listen to our short audio summary to get a sense of this article
The Fading Echo of a Wilder Europe
Europe, to the modern eye, is a continent of profound human influence. Its landscapes are a mosaic of ancient cities, manicured fields, and managed forests, a testament to millennia of civilization. Yet, beneath this veneer of order lies the fading echo of a wilder past, a time when vast wetlands stretched across the heart of the continent, primeval forests sheltered large carnivores, and immense herds of herbivores shaped the plains. The current biodiversity crisis, often framed as a recent phenomenon, is in truth the dramatic acceleration of a long, slow unraveling of this living fabric. For centuries, human activities have taken a toll on Europe’s natural wealth, but we are now witnessing a decline of unprecedented scale and urgency.1
The paradox of Europe’s predicament is that this collapse is occurring not in a policy vacuum, but amidst one of the world’s most sophisticated and long-standing frameworks of environmental legislation. The continent has pioneered ambitious, legally binding conservation measures for decades. Yet, the data paints an unequivocal picture of failure. The latest comprehensive “health check” by the European Environment Agency (EEA) concludes that Europe’s nature is experiencing a “serious and continuing decline,” with the majority of its most precious habitats and species in a poor or bad state.3 This stark reality forces a difficult question: why has so much effort yielded such poor results?
This report argues that the answer lies in a fundamental and persistent policy incoherence. The modest, often underfunded ambitions of environmental policy have been consistently overwhelmed and undermined by the immense financial and political power of conflicting sectoral policies, most notably the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). This has created a system where one arm of European governance strives to protect nature while another simultaneously subsidizes the very practices that are its primary drivers of destruction. The continent now stands at a critical juncture. Armed with a new generation of ambitious strategies under the European Green Deal—including a landmark Nature Restoration Law that aims to make recovery legally binding—Europe has the tools to reverse the tide. However, it faces formidable political and economic inertia, a deep-seated reluctance to subordinate entrenched interests to the existential necessity of a healthy biosphere.
To fully grasp the challenge and the opportunity, this report will embark on a comprehensive analysis of Europe’s biodiversity. It will begin by tracing the historical decline, establishing a pre-industrial baseline to measure the true scale of what has been lost. It will then present a stark, data-driven assessment of the current crisis, synthesizing the latest findings on the status of species and habitats. The report will dissect the architecture of protection, critically evaluating the successes and, more importantly, the systemic failures of protected areas and the legislative framework that underpins them. From this diagnosis of the problem, the analysis will turn to solutions, highlighting beacons of hope in successful restoration projects and the innovative paradigm of rewilding. Finally, it will propose a bold, integrated strategy for a nature-positive future—a course correction that depends less on new science and more on the political will to achieve genuine policy coherence and close the devastating gap between ambition and implementation.
A Faded Tapestry: Establishing Europe’s Historical Biodiversity Baseline
To comprehend the severity of Europe’s current biodiversity crisis, one must first look back, beyond the immediate data of recent decades, to establish a historical baseline. The continent’s ecosystems are not static entities but are shaped by deep time, bearing the imprint of climatic shifts, geological events, and, for millennia, ever-intensifying human activity. Reconstructing a picture of this past biodiversity is not an exercise in nostalgia; it is an essential prerequisite for setting meaningful conservation and restoration targets. It reveals the profound extent of the loss, clarifies the origins of today’s most valuable habitats, and provides a benchmark against which the success or failure of future policies must be measured.
A Pre-Industrial Snapshot: The View from 1845 Bavaria
Long before the advent of modern ecological surveys, unique historical records offered windows into past ecosystems. Among the most remarkable of these is the 1845 Bavarian Animal Observation Dataset (AOD1845), a comprehensive survey of 44 vertebrate species across 119 forestry districts in what was then the Kingdom of Bavaria.4 Commissioned by the Ministry of Finance and compiled from the detailed prose reports of local foresters, this dataset provides an invaluable pre-industrial snapshot of a central European landscape on the cusp of transformative change. Computational analysis of over 5,400 of these archival records allows for a reconstruction of species distribution and offers early, first-hand accounts of human-wildlife interactions and habitat degradation.4
The 1845 data reveals a world both familiar and strikingly different. Species like the roe deer were reported as present and common in nearly all districts, much as they are today. However, the Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra), also reported in almost every district, was consistently described as “rare,” signaling it was already under significant pressure long before the industrial pollution of the 20th century would further decimate its populations.4 The fate of the Eurasian beaver (
Castor fiber) is even more telling. In 1845, it was present in just 16 districts and always described as “very rare.” The foresters’ reports document its final moments before its complete extinction in Bavaria around 1867, a result of centuries of hunting for its fur and castoreum and persecution as an agricultural nuisance.4
The dataset also provides a stark baseline for large carnivores. By the mid-19th century, the wolf (Canis lupus) was already functionally extinct across most of Bavaria. Only eleven districts reported occasional occurrences, ten of which were in the far western Rhine Palatinate, where wolves would occasionally cross over from neighboring territories. Reports from other districts explicitly noted the wolf’s disappearance, with dates ranging from 1650 to 1825, illustrating the long and successful history of persecution that had already reshaped the region’s ecology.4
Perhaps most importantly, the AOD1845 captures the direct observations of habitat loss by the very people managing the landscape. Foresters in the Rhine-Palatinate explicitly linked the decline of the common snipe—a bird reported as present in 104 districts in 1845 but now considered threatened—to the drainage of wet meadows for agriculture. Similarly, a senior forester noted the sharp decline in duck populations following the draining of local ponds. These are not retrospective analyses but contemporary accounts of cause and effect, providing clear evidence that the primary drivers of biodiversity loss were already well-established and understood in the pre-industrial era.4
The Long Shadow of History: Ancient Land Use and Ecosystems
The human fingerprint on Europe’s landscape extends far deeper than the 19th century. The continent is a palimpsest of past land use, where the actions of ancient peoples continue to shape the ecological patterns of today. A striking example comes from the forests of France, where researchers have demonstrated a strong correlation between present-day forest plant diversity and the precise locations of Roman farm buildings abandoned nearly two millennia ago. Plant species richness increases significantly towards the center of these ancient settlements, a clear and lasting legacy of soil enrichment and cultivation by Roman farmers.6 This long shadow of history requires that land-use history be considered a primary control over biodiversity variations, even in landscapes that appear to be ancient forests.6
This deep-time perspective is crucial for understanding the origins and vulnerability of Europe’s most threatened ecosystems, particularly its grasslands and wetlands.
Grasslands: Europe’s species-rich grasslands, which can host an astonishing 80 different plant species per square meter, are often mistakenly viewed as recent, man-made habitats created by clearing forests.7 However, a wealth of palaeoecological and palaeontological evidence suggests a much more ancient origin. For millions of years, through glacial-interglacial cycles, a biome of grass-dominated vegetation was maintained in Europe by wild megaherbivores.8 These ancient ecosystems, connected to the vast steppes of the east, allowed for the evolution and survival of a huge number of specialist grassland species.8 With the arrival of agriculture, domestic grazers and hay-making largely replaced the ecological role of these now-extinct wild ungulates, maintaining the open habitats upon which this rich biodiversity depends.8 The last century, however, has seen a catastrophic reversal. The twin pressures of agricultural intensification—converting these habitats to arable fields or heavily fertilized pastures—and the complete abandonment of traditional, low-intensity grazing have caused grasslands to disappear at an alarming rate, making them one of Europe’s most imperiled ecosystems.7
Wetlands: The history of Europe’s wetlands is a story of almost unimaginable loss. Following the retreat of the last glaciers some 12,000 to 14,000 years ago, wetlands covered enormous swathes of the continent, forming when glaciers dammed rivers, scoured valleys, and left behind countless depressions.11 These ecosystems were fundamental to the continental water balance and supported immense biodiversity. From the very beginning of human settlement in the Holocene, however, wetlands were seen as unproductive wastelands to be drained and converted for agriculture and settlement.11 While precise figures for their historical extent are difficult to establish, the narrative is one of relentless and dramatic decline over millennia. This long history of degradation has culminated in the current situation, where the EEA’s comprehensive ecosystem assessment finds that wetlands represent the ecosystem in the “worst condition in Europe”.12
The Myth of “Pristine” Nature and Its Policy Implications
The historical evidence, taken together, dismantles a persistent and consequential myth: the idea of a “pristine” European wilderness, untouched by human hands, to which we might one day return. For much of the continent, particularly in the temperate zones, the most biodiverse landscapes are not those devoid of human influence, but are in fact “semi-natural” or cultural landscapes, shaped by centuries of co-existence between people and nature.
This realization has profound implications for conservation policy. The case of Europe’s grasslands is particularly instructive. The evidence strongly suggests that these habitats, with their world-leading levels of small-scale species richness, were maintained for millennia by the activity of grazers.9 First, it was wild aurochs, bison, and horses; later, it was the cattle, sheep, and scythes of traditional farmers.8 This means that the primary threat to these ecosystems today is not only intensification and development but also the abandonment of the very agricultural practices that sustained them. When traditional grazing or mowing ceases, these open habitats rapidly succeed into low-biodiversity scrubland and eventually secondary forest.8
This creates a fundamental policy paradox that challenges the simplistic “fortress conservation” model of simply fencing off nature. To preserve these high-value habitats, conservation efforts must do more than just protect them; they must actively support or simulate the traditional land management that created them. This forces a more nuanced and complex question for restoration ecology. Are we aiming to restore a pre-human, closed-canopy forest state, which may in some areas be less biodiverse? Or are we restoring a pre-industrial agricultural state, which requires ongoing human intervention? There is no single correct answer, but acknowledging this complexity is the first step toward developing more effective, historically informed conservation strategies. It reframes the debate from merely “protecting nature” to making conscious, evidence-based decisions about which historical state of nature we value most and are prepared to actively manage for the future.
The Continental Health Check: Europe’s Biodiversity in the 21st Century
While historical baselines reveal the depth of Europe’s biodiversity loss over centuries, modern monitoring provides a high-resolution snapshot of the crisis as it unfolds today. Synthesizing data from the continent’s most authoritative environmental bodies—the European Environment Agency (EEA) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)—reveals a stark and deeply troubling picture. Despite decades of conservation policy, the vital signs of Europe’s ecosystems are failing. The decline is not isolated to specific regions or species; it is systemic, widespread, and, in many cases, accelerating.
The Official Diagnosis: A Serious and Continuing Decline
The most comprehensive assessment of Europe’s natural heritage is the EEA’s ‘State of Nature in the EU’ report. The latest edition, published in 2020 and covering the period 2013-2018, serves as the official diagnosis, and its conclusions are unambiguous. Europe’s biodiversity is in “serious, continuing decline,” with most protected species and habitats failing to achieve a good conservation status.3 The report, based on mandatory reporting from all EU Member States under the Nature Directives, provides a wealth of data that quantifies the scale of the problem.
The condition of Europe’s most valuable habitats is particularly dire. A staggering 81% of habitats assessed under the Habitats Directive are in ‘poor’ (45%) or ‘bad’ (36%) conservation status. Only a meager 15% are considered to be in ‘good’ condition.14 This already alarming figure represents a deterioration from the previous reporting period, when the share of habitats in ‘bad’ status was 6% lower.14 Ecosystems such as grasslands, dunes, and bogs, mires, and fens show particularly strong deteriorating trends.14
For species, the situation is slightly less bleak but remains a major cause for concern. Across the EU, 63% of species assessments report an ‘unfavourable’ conservation status (‘poor’ or ‘bad’).15 While 27% of non-bird species assessments are ‘good’—an increase of 4% from the previous period—this positive note is overshadowed by the fact that for species with an unfavourable status, the majority are either stable or continuing to deteriorate. Only 6% of these are showing signs of improvement.3
Bird populations, monitored under the Birds Directive, offer one of the longest-running datasets on biodiversity trends and tell a story of polarization. While nearly half (47%) of the EU’s 463 bird species have a ‘good’ population status, 39% are in a ‘poor’ or ‘bad’ state, a proportion that has increased by 7% since 2012.1 The most alarming trends are seen in birds associated with agricultural landscapes. The common bird index shows a 12% decline between 1990 and 2021, but this figure masks a much more dramatic collapse in farmland bird populations, which have plummeted by 36% over the same period.16 Short-term trends for farmland birds are overwhelmingly negative, with 54% showing deteriorating populations.14 Species like the Grey Partridge and the Red-backed Shrike are in steep decline across numerous Member States, serving as powerful indicators of the failing health of Europe’s agroecosystems.14
| Conservation Status of EU Protected Habitats and Species (2013-2018) | |
| Category | |
| Habitats | |
| Species (non-bird) | |
| Birds | |
| Table 1: The State of Nature in the EU: A Summary of Conservation Status. Data synthesized from the European Environment Agency’s ‘State of Nature in the EU’ report (2020).3 |
The Red List Verdict: Quantifying the Extinction Risk
Complementing the EEA’s focus on conservation status under EU law, the IUCN European Red List assesses the fundamental risk of extinction for species across the continent. By applying its globally recognized criteria, the IUCN provides a crucial, independent verdict on the health of Europe’s fauna and flora. To date, over 10,000 species have been assessed at the European level, and the findings confirm that the threat of extinction is a clear and present danger for a significant portion of the continent’s biodiversity.17
The threat levels vary significantly between taxonomic groups, reflecting the different pressures they face:
Trees: Europe’s trees are in a perilous state. A comprehensive assessment of all 454 native species found that a shocking 42% are threatened with extinction at the European level. For tree species endemic to Europe (found nowhere else), the figure rises to 58%. The primary threats identified are invasive and problematic species, deforestation, and urban development.18
Freshwater Species: Europe’s rivers, lakes, and wetlands are hotspots of imperilment. At least 37% of freshwater fish species are threatened, making them one of the most at-risk vertebrate groups on the continent.17 Freshwater molluscs are in a similar situation.
Marine Fish: While the overall threat level is lower than in freshwater, 7.5% of Europe’s 1,220 native marine fish species are threatened with extinction. The main drivers are clear: overfishing, coastal development, and pollution.17
Invertebrates: These often-overlooked but ecologically vital groups are also suffering significant declines. Assessments have found that about 9% of butterfly species are threatened, largely due to habitat loss and degradation resulting from changes in agricultural management.17 For pollinators like bees and hoverflies, the situation is also critical, prompting specific EU-level initiatives to address their decline.7
Birds: The 2021 European Red List of Birds assessed all 544 species occurring in Europe and found that one in five are threatened or near-threatened with extinction. In absolute numbers, 71 species (13%) are threatened (Vulnerable, Endangered, or Critically Endangered), and a further 34 (6%) are Near Threatened.20
This species-level data is corroborated by the European Red List of Habitats, which provides an overview of the risk of ecosystem collapse. The findings mirror those of the EEA, identifying mires and bogs as the most endangered habitat type, with up to 85% of their area in the EU28 being threatened. They are followed by grasslands (53% threatened), freshwater habitats (46%), and coastal habitats (45%), confirming that the crisis is not just about individual species, but the wholesale degradation of entire ecosystems.22
| Threat Level for Selected European Species Groups (IUCN European Red List) | |
| Taxonomic Group | |
| Trees | |
| Freshwater Fishes | |
| Lycopods and Ferns | |
| Birds | |
| Butterflies | |
| Marine Fishes | |
| Table 2: European Red List Snapshot: Threat Levels for Selected Taxa. Data synthesized from various IUCN European Red List reports.17 |
The Culprits: Identifying the Drivers of Decline
The overwhelming consensus from European environmental assessments is that the biodiversity crisis is not a natural phenomenon but a direct consequence of human pressures. The EEA’s analysis provides a clear and consistent hierarchy of the activities driving this decline across the continent.3
The single greatest pressure, affecting the largest number of habitats and species, is unsustainable agriculture. This is a dual-edged sword. On one hand, the intensification of farming—characterized by the heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides, large-scale monocultures, and the removal of landscape features like hedgerows—has rendered vast areas of Europe hostile to wildlife.24 On the other hand, the abandonment of extensive, traditional farming practices, particularly in remote or marginal areas, leads to the loss of high-nature-value habitats like species-rich grasslands, which depend on low-intensity grazing or mowing for their existence.3
The second most significant driver is urbanisation and infrastructure development. The relentless expansion of cities, roads, and industrial areas—often termed “urban sprawl”—directly destroys and fragments natural habitats. Coastal and dune habitats are particularly affected by this pressure.3
Following these top two pressures are a suite of other damaging activities. Unsustainable forestry practices, which prioritize timber production over ecosystem health, are a major source of pressure on forest-dwelling species like arthropods and mammals.3
Pollution of air, water, and soil, much of it originating from agriculture and industry, affects nearly all ecosystem types.3 The
overexploitation of biological resources, most notably through industrial fishing in marine environments, remains a key threat to many species.15
Finally, two cross-cutting threats are amplifying all other pressures. The spread of invasive alien species disrupts native ecosystems and outcompetes native flora and fauna. And, increasingly, climate change is emerging as a major and rising threat. Its impacts, including more frequent and intense droughts, altered precipitation patterns, and rising temperatures, are placing additional stress on already weakened ecosystems and species, forcing them to adapt or move in a landscape that is too fragmented to allow for easy passage.3
Fortress Europe? The Role and Reality of Protected Areas
In the face of escalating biodiversity loss, Europe’s primary defense has been the establishment of a vast network of protected areas. At the heart of this strategy lies Natura 2000, an ambitious, continent-spanning endeavor to safeguard the most valuable natural heritage. It is the largest coordinated network of protected areas in the world and represents the crown jewel of EU conservation policy. However, as the overall decline in biodiversity continues, a critical examination of this fortress strategy is warranted. Is Natura 2000 a robust shield effectively protecting Europe’s wildlife, or is it a porous defense, impressive in scale but failing in its fundamental mission?
The Crown Jewel of EU Conservation: The Natura 2000 Network
The Natura 2000 network is the practical manifestation of the EU’s two foundational pieces of nature legislation: the 1979 Birds Directive and the 1992 Habitats Directive.25 Together, these are known as the “Nature Directives,” and they form the legal bedrock of biodiversity protection in the EU.27 The network’s purpose is to ensure the long-term survival of Europe’s most valuable and threatened species and habitats, as listed in the directives’ annexes.25
The scale of the network is immense. It comprises over 27,000 sites, covering approximately 18% of the EU’s land area and around 10% of its marine waters—a combined territory larger than France and Spain put together.15 Unlike traditional national parks, Natura 2000 is not a system of strict nature reserves where all human activities are excluded. Instead, it is based on the principle of sustainable management, seeking to ensure that activities within the sites are compatible with the conservation objectives for which they were designated.28 This approach recognizes that much of Europe’s biodiversity exists within cultural landscapes shaped by human activity.
Assessing Effectiveness: A Mixed and Troubling Picture
For an initiative of such scale and legal standing, assessing its effectiveness is crucial. The evidence presents a complex picture of genuine successes tempered by profound and systemic weaknesses that ultimately undermine its overall impact.
On the positive side, the network has delivered measurable benefits. The EEA’s own assessments show that for many habitats and species, their conservation status is better inside Natura 2000 sites than outside, and that designation is often linked to improvements over time.15 The network has proven effective at covering the ranges of many threatened species, including many that are not even explicitly listed in the directives’ annexes. One comprehensive study found that the distributions of a large proportion of threatened mammals, birds, and reptiles were well-covered by the network.29 Furthermore, the process of designating and managing thousands of sites has driven a substantial increase in the scientific knowledge and monitoring of Europe’s biodiversity, a crucial prerequisite for effective conservation.30
However, these successes are overshadowed by significant failures and gaps that severely limit the network’s ability to halt biodiversity loss.
Coverage Gaps: Despite its size, the network is not a comprehensive safety net. There are major coverage gaps for certain ecosystems and taxonomic groups. The EEA has noted that forest habitats, marine species, and breeding birds have relatively low coverage.15 The situation is particularly critical for freshwater ecosystems; studies have shown that a large proportion of threatened fish species are poorly covered by the network, with many having less than 10% of their distribution range protected.29
Management Deficiencies: The single greatest challenge facing Natura 2000 is not its designation but its management. An EEA report dedicated to management effectiveness revealed that Member States had only reported assessments for less than 8% of their protected areas.31 Many sites lack clear, site-specific conservation objectives and the management plans needed to achieve them. Even where plans exist, they are often not implemented. A survey of over 200 conservation scientists involved in Natura 2000 implementation across 24 EU countries identified the primary weaknesses as a lack of political will from national and local governments, the negative attitude of some local stakeholders, and the chronic understaffing of the authorities responsible for management.30
Funding Shortfalls: Effective management requires sustained and adequate funding, a resource that has consistently been lacking for the Natura 2000 network. There is no dedicated EU fund for Natura 2000; instead, financing is supposed to be integrated into other EU funds, such as those for agriculture and regional development. This approach has proven deeply flawed. A report by the European Court of Auditors found that Member States often failed to provide reliable estimates of the costs required to manage their networks, and it was difficult to distinguish funding for Natura 2000 from general environmental spending.32 This lack of a dedicated, transparent funding stream has created a persistent investment gap, leaving many site managers without the resources to carry out necessary conservation measures.33
External Pressures: Natura 2000 sites do not exist in a vacuum. They are vulnerable to pressures originating both inside and outside their boundaries. Studies have shown that invasive alien species can pose a significant threat, spreading through protected areas via transport and water networks.34 Furthermore, the legal requirement to assess any plan or project that could negatively affect a site is often poorly implemented. The European Court of Auditors found that such assessments were frequently incomplete, lacked sufficient scientific rigor, and failed to adequately consider the cumulative impacts of multiple projects.32
Natura 2000 as a Microcosm of the EU’s Implementation Crisis
The struggles of the Natura 2000 network are more than just technical challenges in conservation management; they are a perfect illustration of the EU’s wider and more fundamental “implementation gap.” The network itself is a testament to a powerful, legally robust, and scientifically grounded pan-European vision for conservation. Its design is broadly considered adequate by conservation experts, and its legal underpinnings in the Nature Directives are strong.25 The failure, therefore, lies not in the concept but in its execution.
The evidence points overwhelmingly to a systemic breakdown at the point of delivery—within the Member States. The ambitious vision conceived in Brussels is consistently weakened and diluted by a lack of political will in national capitals, insufficient financial commitment, and inconsistent enforcement by local and regional authorities.30 This disconnect between the letter of the law and the reality on the ground is the central tragedy of European conservation policy.
This understanding is critical because it dictates the path forward. It suggests that the solution to the biodiversity crisis is not necessarily to write more laws or designate even more protected areas. While expanding the network is part of the new strategy, it will be a hollow victory if the new sites are managed as ineffectively as many of the existing ones. The core challenge is political and administrative. Future strategies must be laser-focused on closing this implementation gap. This requires building stronger enforcement mechanisms at the EU level, creating dedicated and transparent funding streams that cannot be diverted for other purposes—such as the specific Natura 2000 fund long advocated by conservation scientists—and investing heavily in building the capacity of national agencies to do their jobs effectively.30 The success of the EU’s entire green agenda, from biodiversity to climate, hinges on its ability to solve this fundamental problem of governance.
The Architecture of Protection: EU and National Policy in Focus
Europe’s response to the biodiversity crisis is built upon a complex architecture of legislation and policy, developed over more than four decades. At its best, this framework is a powerful, legally-binding system that sets a global standard for environmental governance. At its worst, it is a web of contradictions, where ambitious conservation goals are actively undermined by conflicting policies in other sectors. Understanding this architecture—its strengths, its weaknesses, and its internal tensions—is essential to diagnosing why the decline of nature continues and to charting a more effective course for the future.
The Legal Bedrock: The Birds and Habitats Directives
The foundation of all EU nature protection rests on the two “Nature Directives”: the Birds Directive (originally 1979, now codified as Directive 2009/147/EC) and the Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC) of 1992.25 These directives are the cornerstones of EU biodiversity policy, providing a strong and legally enforceable framework for all Member States.25
Their core provisions are twofold. First, they establish a system of strict protection for the most threatened species, which are listed in their annexes. For species listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive, for example, Member States must prohibit all forms of deliberate killing, capture, or disturbance, as well as the destruction of their breeding sites or resting places.25 This protection applies everywhere, both inside and outside of protected areas. Second, they mandate the creation of the Natura 2000 network, requiring Member States to designate and manage core areas for the conservation of habitat types listed in Annex I and species listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive.25
For decades, this legal bedrock has been considered largely untouchable. However, in recent years, it has faced growing political pressure. Amidst farmer protests and a pushback against green policies, conservative political groups in the European Parliament have begun calling for the directives to be weakened, citing concerns over food security and administrative burdens.35 This culminated in a controversial EU-led initiative to downgrade the protection status of the wolf under the Bern Convention, with preparations underway to amend the Habitats Directive accordingly, which would make it easier to authorize lethal control. This move has raised serious concerns among conservationists that the foundational principles of EU nature law are being eroded by short-term political and economic interests.35
The New Blueprint for Recovery: The EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and Nature Restoration Law
In response to the clear evidence that existing policies were failing to meet their objectives, the European Commission launched the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 as a central pillar of the overarching European Green Deal.36 This strategy represents a significant increase in ambition, setting a comprehensive, long-term plan to put Europe’s biodiversity on a path to recovery by the end of the decade.38 It moves beyond general commitments to establish a series of specific, quantified, and time-bound targets that are designed to tackle the primary drivers of biodiversity loss.36
| Headline Target | Commitment by 2030 | |
| Protected Areas (Land) | Legally protect at least 30% of EU land area. | |
| Protected Areas (Sea) | Legally protect at least 30% of EU sea area. | |
| Strict Protection (Land & Sea) | Place one-third of protected areas (10% of total area) under strict protection. | |
| Ecosystem Restoration | Put in place effective restoration measures for significant areas of degraded ecosystems. | |
| Pesticides | Reduce the overall use and risk of chemical pesticides by 50%. | |
| High-Diversity Landscapes | Ensure at least 10% of agricultural area is under high-diversity landscape features. | |
| Organic Farming | Achieve at least 25% of the EU’s agricultural land under organic farming. | |
| Pollinators | Halt and reverse the decline of pollinators. | |
| Table 3: Key Targets of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Data synthesized from official strategy documents.24 |
Perhaps the most significant development to emerge from this new strategy is the EU Nature Restoration Law, which entered into force in 2024.16 This legislation is a potential game-changer because it translates the political commitments of the Biodiversity Strategy into legally binding obligations for Member States. For the first time, countries are not just required to protect existing high-value habitats but are also legally mandated to restore degraded ecosystems. The law sets an overarching target to restore at least 20% of the EU’s land and sea areas by 2030 and all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050, with specific, binding targets for different ecosystem types like wetlands, forests, and agricultural lands.16
The Elephant in the Room: The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
While the Nature Directives and the new Restoration Law form the explicit architecture of protection, the policy that has the single greatest impact on Europe’s biodiversity is the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). With a budget that accounts for roughly one-third of the entire EU spending, the CAP is the most powerful force shaping the continent’s landscapes.41 Despite having official objectives to contribute to halting biodiversity loss, the overwhelming consensus of scientific and expert opinion is that the CAP has failed in this regard and has, in fact, been a major driver of the problem it purports to help solve.24
The policy’s historical structure, which largely linked subsidies to production volume, incentivized the very intensification, specialization, and landscape simplification—such as the removal of hedgerows and the drainage of wetlands—that have decimated farmland wildlife.24 While successive reforms have attempted to “green” the policy by making payments conditional on meeting certain environmental standards (“cross-compliance”) and by funding voluntary agri-environment schemes, these efforts have been widely criticized as insufficient. A comprehensive analysis by over 300 experts concluded that the CAP’s environmental instruments have been hampered by low requirements, broad exemptions, and unambitious design.43
The most recent iteration of the CAP (for 2023-2027) introduced a new “Green Architecture,” including mandatory enhanced conditionality and new voluntary “eco-schemes.” However, a special report by the European Court of Auditors concluded that while the legislation is greener on paper, the national strategic plans submitted by Member States do not demonstrate a substantial increase in environmental ambition and are not well aligned with the targets of the European Green Deal. The report found that the actual impact of the new measures will be limited and that the monitoring framework is inadequate to track green performance.41
From Brussels to Berlin, Paris, and Madrid: National Implementation
The success of EU-level strategies ultimately depends on their translation into concrete action at the national level through National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs). A look at several key Member States reveals a shared commitment to the EU’s goals but varying approaches and challenges.
Germany: The country’s updated National Biodiversity Strategy 2030 (NBS 2030) is a comprehensive document that aligns with EU targets, setting out 64 specific targets across 21 action areas. Crucially, it places a strong emphasis on implementation, with a first action plan detailing around 250 concrete national measures.46 However, Germany has a history of failing to meet its own biodiversity targets, with a 2015 report showing that the measures employed under the previous strategy were insufficient, highlighting a persistent implementation gap.48
France: The French National Biodiversity Strategy 2030 is structured around four key pillars: reducing pressures, restoring biodiversity, mobilizing stakeholders, and guaranteeing resources.50 It contains 40 measures with highly specific targets, such as protecting 100% of Mediterranean Posidonia seagrass beds, halving pesticide use, and increasing the length of hedgerows by 50,000 km by 2030.51 A key commitment is also to develop a plan to phase out subsidies that are harmful to biodiversity.52
Spain: Spain’s Strategic Plan on Natural Heritage and Biodiversity to 2030 serves as its NBSAP. A central theme of the Spanish strategy is the importance of ecological connectivity and green infrastructure to allow species to adapt and move in response to climate change.53 The plan includes concrete restoration goals, such as the commitment to recover 20,000 hectares of degraded wetlands by 2030.55
Poland: Poland stands out for its high percentage of nationally protected areas, which cover nearly 40% of its land territory.57 The country’s most recent NBSAP (for 2015-2020) aimed to better integrate biodiversity protection with the country’s social and economic development, with specific objectives for sectors like forestry, agriculture, and fisheries.58
The Centrality of Policy Coherence
This examination of the policy landscape reveals a stark and central truth: Europe’s biodiversity crisis is not the result of a lack of policies, but a profound and systemic lack of coherence between them. The EU has world-leading laws to protect nature and has set ambitious new targets for its restoration. Yet, these efforts are continuously swimming against a powerful tide of conflicting incentives flowing from other, better-funded policy areas.
The CAP is the most glaring example of this incoherence. The funds allocated to agri-environment schemes aimed at supporting biodiversity are dwarfed by the vast sums that continue to support conventional, intensive farming practices. This creates the perverse situation where the EU is, in effect, paying farmers with one hand to protect nature while paying them far more with the other for practices that degrade it. This fundamental contradiction is the single greatest obstacle to achieving the EU’s environmental goals.
The new Nature Restoration Law can be seen as a direct, and perhaps final, attempt to resolve this conflict. By making ecosystem restoration a legally binding outcome for Member States, it aims to force other sectors to align with environmental objectives. If a country is legally required to restore its rivers and wetlands, it can no longer simultaneously fund agricultural or infrastructure projects that would further degrade them. The future of European biodiversity, therefore, will be decided not in nature reserves, but in the political and bureaucratic battles over policy coherence. The success of the European Green Deal hinges on its ability to enforce this principle and to subordinate the narrow objectives of sectoral policies to the overarching, existential goal of a healthy and resilient biosphere.
Beacons of Hope: Restoration Successes and the Rewilding Movement
Amidst the sobering statistics and the analysis of policy failures, it is crucial to recognize that the decline of Europe’s biodiversity is not an irreversible fate. Across the continent, a growing number of projects and initiatives are demonstrating that with targeted investment, scientific knowledge, and community engagement, ecosystems can be brought back from the brink. These “beacons of hope” provide not only tangible ecological benefits but also powerful proof of concept for the ambitious goals of the EU’s new restoration agenda. They range from meticulously planned, hands-on restoration of specific habitats to a visionary new paradigm of “rewilding” that seeks to restore natural processes at a landscape scale.
Targeted Restoration: Proof of Concept
For decades, the EU’s LIFE programme has co-financed thousands of local conservation projects, many of which have achieved remarkable success in restoring degraded habitats. These projects serve as vital laboratories for developing and testing restoration techniques, and their successes are now informing the creation of the National Restoration Plans required under the new EU law.60 Several standout examples illustrate the potential for recovery.
Ireland’s Peatlands: Peatlands are among Europe’s most important habitats for carbon storage and unique biodiversity, but many have been degraded by drainage for peat extraction and agriculture. In Ireland, the EU-funded ‘Living Bog’ project set out to restore 3,000 hectares of raised bog across twelve Natura 2000 sites. By implementing simple but effective measures—blocking thousands of drains to raise the water table and removing invasive trees and scrub—the project successfully restored the hydrological conditions necessary for the bog ecosystem to begin healing. A key element of its success was extensive engagement with local communities and stakeholders, which built crucial support for the restoration work. The project was so successful that it has served as a model for a more ambitious, nationwide peatland restoration program, backed by further EU funding.61
Denmark’s Skjern River: The story of the Skjern River is a powerful example of reversing a major historical mistake. In the 1960s, one of Denmark’s largest rivers was straightened and its vast surrounding marshlands were drained for agriculture. While initially productive, the farmland soon degraded. In 1987, the Danish government launched a major restoration project. The river was re-excavated from its straight channel and returned to a natural, meandering course over a 26 km stretch, and 2,200 hectares of land were reconverted to marshland. The results were swift and dramatic: water quality improved, and wildlife, including salmon and a huge number of birds, returned in significant numbers. The restored landscape also became a major magnet for tourism and recreation, with up to 400,000 people visiting the new nature trails annually. Crucially, a cost-benefit analysis concluded that the local economic opportunities created by the restoration were greater than the overall project cost, demonstrating that restoring nature can be a sound economic investment.61
Finland’s Forests: In southern Finland, where most natural forests had been converted to commercial plantations, an EU LIFE project initiated in 2003 aimed to restore the ecological integrity of forests in 33 Natura 2000 sites. Restoration measures focused on mimicking natural processes, such as diversifying the age and size of trees, increasing the amount of dead and decaying wood (a vital habitat for countless species), and creating small clearings. The project’s success led to the development of a major national restoration program called METSO. A key feature of METSO is its voluntary approach, which encourages private landowners to set aside their forests for conservation in exchange for financial compensation. This collaborative, non-coercive model has been widely welcomed by forest owners and has become a cornerstone of Finnish conservation policy.61
A New Paradigm: The Rise of Rewilding
While targeted restoration projects are vital, a new and complementary approach has gained significant momentum in recent years: rewilding. This is a progressive approach to conservation that moves beyond protecting static snapshots of nature to focus on restoring dynamic, self-regulating ecosystems. It is about giving nature more space and autonomy, restoring natural processes, and reintroducing keystone species that have been missing from the landscape for centuries.63
The organization at the forefront of this movement is Rewilding Europe, which was established in 2011 and is now working to restore at least one million hectares across ten large-scale “rewilding landscapes” in 12 countries.65 The core principles of their work are to restore the key natural processes that shape ecosystems—particularly natural hydrology, natural grazing, and the “circle of life” involving predation and scavenging—and to build nature-based economies that provide new opportunities for local communities in areas often affected by rural depopulation.64
Restoring Natural Grazing in the Danube Delta: In the vast Danube Delta of Romania, a flagship rewilding landscape, the removal of dikes is allowing floodplains to reconnect with the river. To restore the natural grazing processes that once shaped these habitats, Rewilding Europe has reintroduced herds of water buffalo and wild-living horses. These large herbivores act as ecosystem engineers, creating a dynamic mosaic of habitats—open wetlands, grazed meadows, and scrub—that benefits an immense diversity of birds, fish, and insects.63
Preventing Wildfires in Portugal: In the Greater Côa Valley of Portugal, an area prone to devastating wildfires, rewilding is being used as a tool for climate adaptation. By introducing herds of semi-wild horses and cattle, the project is creating more open, “mosaic landscapes.” These grazed areas act as natural firebreaks, reducing the risk of large-scale fires while simultaneously creating better habitat for native prey species like roe deer, which in turn supports the recovery of the endangered Iberian wolf.65
Bringing Back Keystone Species: A central tenet of rewilding is the return of keystone species that have a disproportionate impact on their environment. Rewilding Europe has been instrumental in the spectacular comeback of the European bison. Through translocation and reintroduction projects, the wild population of Europe’s largest land mammal has grown from around 2,500 to over 7,000 in just a decade.67 Similarly, the reintroduction of beavers—”ecosystem engineers” par excellence—is a priority in many landscapes, as their dam-building activities create wetlands, enhance water retention, and boost biodiversity.63
Freeing Rivers: Across Europe, tens of thousands of obsolete dams and weirs fragment rivers, blocking fish migration and disrupting natural flows. Rewilding Europe is pioneering dam removal as a powerful restoration tool. Projects in Sweden, Italy, and Portugal are physically removing these barriers, instantly restoring river connectivity and allowing migratory fish to return to their spawning grounds, with benefits cascading through the entire freshwater ecosystem.63
From Conservation “Gardening” to Restoring Natural Processes
The contrast between targeted restoration projects and the rewilding movement reveals a fundamental and important evolution in conservation philosophy. Traditional restoration, as exemplified by the brilliant success of the Skjern River project, can be likened to a form of intensive ecological “gardening.” It often requires massive, active human intervention—re-excavating riverbeds, planting specific vegetation, and carefully managing water levels—to achieve a pre-determined and desired ecological state.62 These projects are highly effective but can be resource-intensive and often require ongoing management to maintain that specific state, particularly for habitats like grasslands that depend on human-led mowing or grazing.
Rewilding, on the other hand, represents a shift from managing composition to managing process. The goal is not to create and maintain a specific, static landscape, but to “kick-start” the natural engines of ecological change and then, to a large extent, step back and let nature take the lead. Instead of planting a forest, rewilding focuses on restoring the drivers of forest regeneration. Instead of mowing a meadow, it focuses on reintroducing the large herbivores that would naturally graze it. This approach aims to create dynamic, resilient, and self-sustaining ecosystems that can adapt to changing conditions with minimal human intervention.
This philosophical shift has profound policy implications. In a continent facing large-scale rural land abandonment, rewilding offers a cost-effective and scalable long-term solution for ecological recovery.66 It suggests that in many areas, the most effective strategy may not be to continue subsidizing specific, often uneconomical, farming practices through complex agri-environment schemes, but rather to invest in the re-establishment of natural processes and the reintroduction of keystone species. It challenges a purely anthropocentric view of conservation and offers a hopeful, forward-looking, and ultimately more efficient vision for a wilder, more resilient, and self-willed European landscape.
Charting a New Course: Strategies for a Nature-Positive Europe
The evidence is undeniable: Europe’s biodiversity is in a state of profound crisis, driven by a systemic failure to align economic activity with ecological limits. The existing architecture of protection, while well-intentioned, has been insufficient to stem the tide of decline. The new ambitions of the European Green Deal, particularly the legally binding Nature Restoration Law, offer a historic opportunity for a genuine course correction. However, seizing this opportunity requires moving beyond incremental adjustments and adopting bold, transformative strategies that address the root causes of the crisis. Based on the analysis in this report, four strategic pillars are proposed for charting a new course towards a nature-positive Europe.
1. Enforce Radical Policy Coherence
The single greatest obstacle to protecting Europe’s biodiversity is the profound lack of coherence between environmental policy and other powerful sectoral policies, especially the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The current situation, where the EU spends billions to subsidize agricultural practices that directly contravene the objectives of its own environmental laws, is untenable. The solution is not to weaken environmental protections, but to enforce radical coherence across all policy domains.
A transformative strategy would be to make all future CAP payments—the largest single item in the EU budget—strictly conditional on meeting verifiable, outcome-based targets set out in the Member States’ National Restoration Plans. This “Conditionality 2.0” would forge a direct, unbreakable link between agricultural support and the legal obligations of the Nature Restoration Law. Farmers would be rewarded not for simply complying with baseline rules, but for delivering tangible improvements in biodiversity, water quality, and soil health. This would fundamentally realign the CAP’s vast financial power with the EU’s overarching environmental goals. Furthermore, as part of this realignment, a clear and time-bound plan must be implemented to identify and phase out all subsidies that have been identified as harmful to biodiversity, a commitment already made in France’s National Biodiversity Strategy.51
2. Build a True Restoration Economy
For too long, conservation has been framed as a cost to be borne by society, rather than an essential investment in our collective well-being and economic prosperity. To reverse this, Europe must build a true restoration economy where the economic system recognizes, values, and invests in nature.
The first step is the mandatory and full implementation of natural capital accounting at both the EU and Member State levels. This would ensure that the value of ecosystem services—such as pollination, water purification, and carbon sequestration—is integrated into national accounts and economic decision-making. Building on this foundation, the EU should champion the creation of a robust, regulated European market for “biodiversity credits.” Under such a system, companies whose operations unavoidably degrade ecosystems would be required to purchase certified credits from large-scale, high-integrity restoration projects. This would operate on the “polluter pays” principle and would create a powerful, private-sector funding stream for nature recovery. The economic benefits are already clear from localized projects like the Skjern River restoration and broader analyses showing the immense value of marine protection to the seafood industry and wetlands to the insurance industry.38 A regulated market would scale up these benefits continent-wide.
3. Scale Up and Connect: From Protected Sites to a Trans-European Nature Network
The Natura 2000 network, for all its strengths, has resulted in a fragmented archipelago of protected “islands” in a wider sea of intensive land use. Species cannot thrive in isolation, especially in the face of climate change which forces them to move. The policy focus must therefore shift from simply protecting individual sites to building a functional, interconnected, continent-wide nature network.
This requires moving beyond the current site-based approach to the ambitious creation of a true Trans-European Nature Network, as envisioned in Spain’s national strategy.53 The backbone of this initiative should be a new, dedicated, multi-billion Euro “Ecological Corridor Fund.” This fund could be financed through innovative mechanisms, such as a small levy on all major EU-funded infrastructure projects in the transport and energy sectors, whose developments often contribute to habitat fragmentation. The fund’s purpose would be to finance the creation of ecological corridors
between existing Natura 2000 sites. This would be achieved through targeted land acquisition, long-term conservation easements with landowners, and funding for large-scale rewilding initiatives in connecting landscapes. The goal is to create a living, breathing network that allows for genetic exchange, species migration, and the restoration of ecological processes at a meaningful, continental scale.
4. Strengthen Governance and Enforcement
The most sophisticated laws and ambitious targets are meaningless if they are not implemented and enforced. As the struggles of the Natura 2000 network demonstrate, the “implementation gap” is the Achilles’ heel of EU environmental policy. Closing this gap requires a fundamental strengthening of governance and enforcement.
The powers of the European Commission to hold Member States accountable must be reinforced. A critical step would be the creation of an independent “European Nature Enforcement Agency.” This body would be modeled on other successful EU agencies and given the specific mandate and the scientific and legal resources to investigate serious breaches of the Nature Directives and the Nature Restoration Law. Crucially, it should have the power to conduct its own on-the-ground assessments and to recommend significant, non-negotiable fines directly to the European Court of Justice. This would create a credible and powerful deterrent for Member States that consistently fail to meet their legal obligations, transforming environmental law from a set of aspirational goals into a set of non-negotiable responsibilities.
VIII. Conclusion: Re-weaving Europe’s Living Fabric
The story of Europe’s biodiversity is one of profound loss. The continent’s rich natural heritage, a living fabric woven over millennia, has been deeply eroded by centuries of human activity, with the last 70 years witnessing an unprecedented acceleration of this decline. This report has demonstrated that, despite possessing a world-leading framework of environmental laws, the downward trend continues unabated. The primary cause is not a lack of knowledge or a shortage of policies, but a systemic failure of political will and a deep-seated policy incoherence that has allowed the drivers of destruction to overpower the efforts of protection.
Europe now stands at a pivotal moment, a genuine crossroads that will determine the ecological health of the continent for generations to come. The European Green Deal, with the ambitious Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and the groundbreaking Nature Restoration Law at its core, provides a blueprint for a different future. For the first time, the restoration of nature is not just a political aspiration but a legal obligation. This presents a clear and definitive choice. One path is to continue with the status quo: managing a slow, subsidized decline, patching up fragmented ecosystems with localized projects while the primary economic drivers of loss—particularly in agriculture—continue unabated. This is the path of managed degradation.
The other path is to embrace the full ambition of the new green agenda. It is a path that requires the courage to enforce radical policy coherence, fundamentally re-aligning the continent’s economy and subsidies to invest in the large-scale recovery of nature. It means moving beyond a defensive, site-based approach to conservation and proactively building a connected, continent-wide network of healthy ecosystems. It demands the creation of a true restoration economy that values natural capital as the bedrock of our prosperity. And it requires a commitment to governance and enforcement that closes the gap between the promise of the law and the reality on the ground.
This is not a nostalgic dream of returning to a mythical, pristine past. It is a practical and achievable vision for the future, a future whose feasibility is already being demonstrated by the beacons of hope shining across the continent. From the rewetted bogs of Ireland to the re-meandered rivers of Denmark, from the return of the bison in the Carpathians to the rewilding of abandoned farmlands in Iberia, these projects prove that recovery is possible. They show that a future Europe can be a place where wild rivers flow freely, where large herbivores and carnivores once again shape dynamic landscapes, and where resilient, biodiverse ecosystems support both human prosperity and the continent’s rich living fabric. The choice is no longer whether this future can be created, but whether the people and politicians of Europe will it to be done.
References
Global Agriculture. “New report reveals drastic decline in Europe’s biodiversity.” Global Agriculture, October 19, 2020.
European Environment Agency. “The European environment — state and outlook 2020: knowledge for transition to a sustainable Europe.” EEA, December 4, 2019.
European Environment Agency. “State of nature in Europe — a health check.” EEA. Accessed August 7, 2025.
MDPI. “Historical data on vertebrate species distribution, habitat associations, and human-wildlife interactions in 19th century Bavaria.” Diversity 17, no. 5 (2025): 315.
Preprints.org. “The 1845 Bavarian Animal Observation Dataset: A Historical Survey of Vertebrate Species in Pre-Industrial Bavaria.” Preprints.org, March 2025.
Dambrine, Etienne, et al. “Present Forest Biodiversity Patterns in France Related to Former Roman Agriculture.” Ecology 88, no. 6 (2007): 1430-1439.
Biodiversity Information System for Europe. “Grasslands.” Accessed August 7, 2025.
Eriksson, Ove. “The Decline of European Grasslands: A Historical and Ecological Perspective.” Lund University, 2009.
Deák, Balázs, et al. “Biodiversity-rich European grasslands: Ancient, forgotten ecosystems.” Biological Conservation 228 (2018): 297-302.
Eriksson, Ove. “The Decline of European Grasslands: A Historical and Ecological Perspective.” Lund University, 2009.
Wilderness Society. “Dawn history of wetlands in Europe.” Accessed August 7, 2025.
Biodiversity Information System for Europe. “Wetlands.” Accessed August 7, 2025.
Deák, Balázs, et al. “Biodiversity-rich European grasslands: Ancient, forgotten ecosystems.” Biological Conservation 228 (2018): 297-302.
Global Agriculture. “New report reveals drastic decline in Europe’s biodiversity.” Global Agriculture, October 19, 2020.
Ecologic Institute. “State of Nature in the EU 2020: Key Findings.” October 2020.
Convention on Biological Diversity. “European Union – Country Profile.” Accessed August 7, 2025.
European Commission. “The European Red List of Threatened Species.” Accessed August 7, 2025.
IUCN. “European Red List of Trees.” 2019.
IUCN. “European Red List of Trees.” 2019.
Eni Scuola. “European Red List of Birds published.” 2021.
FACE. “The European Red List of birds: 2021 update.” October 14, 2021.
Janssen, J.A.M., et al. “European Red List of Habitats Part 2. Terrestrial and freshwater habitats.” Publications Office of the European Union, 2016.
Publications Office of the European Union. “European red list of habitats. Part 2, Terrestrial and freshwater habitats.” 2016.
European Commission. “Biodiversity.” Agriculture and rural development. Accessed August 7, 2025.
Wikipedia. “Habitats Directive.” Last modified July 2025.
Generation Climate Europe. “EU Birds and Habitats Directive: Conserving Europe’s Ecosystems.” Accessed August 7, 2025.
Wikipedia. “Habitats Directive.” Last modified July 2025.
National Parks and Wildlife Service. “Habitats Directive.” Accessed August 7, 2025.
Hochkirch, Axel, et al. “Effectiveness of the Natura 2000 network to cover threatened species.” Nature Conservation 4 (2013): 35-53.
Apostolopoulou, Evanthia, and John D. Pantis. “To what extent is the Natura 2000 network implementation fulfilling its conservation objectives? A questionnaire survey of conservation scientists.” Journal for Nature Conservation 22, no. 5 (2014): 430-439.
European Environment Agency. “Management effectiveness in the EU’s Natura 2000 network of protected areas.” EEA Report No 13/2020.
CEEweb for Biodiversity. “Where Natura 2000 went wrong.” 2018.
Convention on Biological Diversity. “Financing Natura 2000: Costs and Benefits.” 2011.
Koutsias, Nikos, et al. “Natura 2000 Areas, Road, Railway, Water, and Ecological Networks May Provide Pathways for Biological Invasion: A Country Scale Analysis.” Land 10, no. 10 (2021): 1044.
Belga News Agency. “World Wildlife Day: EU poised to weaken Habitats Directive amid growing concerns.” March 3, 2025.
European Commission. “EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030.” Accessed August 7, 2025.
European Commission. “EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030.” Accessed August 7, 2025.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. “EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives.” SDG Action #33654.
European Commission. “Biodiversity.” Agriculture and rural development. Accessed August 7, 2025.
Convention on Biological Diversity. “European Union – Country Profile.” Accessed August 7, 2025.
European Court of Auditors. “Special report 20/2024: Common Agricultural Policy Plans.” 2024.
Martyn, Annie. “The Common Agricultural Policy: An Adequate Means of Supporting Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services within the European Union?” The Plymouth Law & Criminal Justice Review 7, no. 1 (2015): 138-166.
Pe’er, Guy, et al. “How can the European Common Agricultural Policy help halt biodiversity loss? Recommendations by over 300 experts.” Conservation Letters 15, no. 4 (2022): e12883.
Salvia, Rosanna, et al. “Towards the new Common Agricultural Policy for Biodiversity: custodian farmers for sustainable agricultural practices in the Apulia region (South of Italy).” Belgeo 4 (2022).
Pe’er, Guy, et al. “How can the European Common Agricultural Policy help halt biodiversity loss? Recommendations by over 300 experts.” Conservation Letters 15, no. 4 (2022): e12883.
German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection. “The National Biodiversity Strategy 2030 (NBS 2030).” July 30, 2025.
German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection. “The National Biodiversity Strategy.” July 30, 2025.
German Centre for Research on Ethics. “Implementation of the National Strategy on Biological Diversity.” 2015.
Convention on Biological Diversity. “Germany – Country Profile.” Accessed August 7, 2025.
Biodiversité.gouv.fr. “Living in harmony with nature.” Accessed August 7, 2025.
Pollutec. “France’s new Biodiversity strategy aims to turn findings into actions.” 2024.
French Office for Biodiversity. “Launch of the national biodiversity strategy 2030.” November 2023.
Conservation Corridor. “National Dialogue for Ecological Connectivity convenes in Spain.” June 27, 2025.
Convention on Biological Diversity. “Spain – Country Profile.” March 13, 2014.
La Moncloa. “On World Wetlands Day, the Vice-President of the Government… presents the Spanish Government’s commitment to achieving the recovery of 20,000 hectares of wetlands by 2030.” February 2, 2021.
Fundación Biodiversidad. “The Government is committed to the recovery of wetlands with the aim of reaching, by 2030, nearly 40,000 hectares restored.” February 2, 2021.
Biodiversity Information System for Europe. “Poland.” Accessed August 7, 2025.
Convention on Biological Diversity. “The Programme of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity along with Action Plan for the period 2015-2020.” February 26, 2016.
Convention on Biological Diversity. “The Programme of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity along with Action Plan for the period 2015-2020.” February 26, 2016.
Forest Restoration EU. “How Europe’s restoration projects are shaping national plans.” May 8, 2025.
XQ The News. “Restoring nature: success stories from Europe.” 2024.
European Commission. “Success stories.” Nature Restoration Regulation. Accessed August 7, 2025.
European Commission. “Interview with Rewilding Europe.” July 24, 2024.
Rewilding Europe. “Rewilding Europe – Making Europe a Wilder Place.” YouTube video, 2:30. November 18, 2021.
Wikipedia. “Rewilding Europe.” Last modified July 2025.
Wild Europe. “Restoration & Rewilding Europe Programme.” Accessed August 7, 2025.
Rewilding Europe. “Rewilding Europe.” Accessed August 7, 2025.
