Europe has biodiversity data, but still struggles to turn it into conservation policies

A new study , published in Nature 's npj Biodiversity, has identified the 'bottlenecks' in current biodiversity monitoring programmes in Europe. These are points where we get stuck when it comes to obtaining the information needed to respond to environmental policies. Although the study focuses on the European level, the results also contribute to fulfilling the global commitments to biodiversity conservation, included in the Kunming-Montreal Global Framework with its 23 targets and which were recently evaluated during COP17 in Yerevan, Armenia. This study has been led by CREAF as part of the European projects EuropaBON and BioAgora.

One of the bottlenecks identified by the study is the difficulty of reaching every part of Europe. As a result, the continent still has natural areas, ecosystems or regions that are not being monitored, either because they are extremely difficult to access or because insufficient effort is being devoted to them. This is the case for the , for which we lack continuous data as monitoring programmes have become fragmented, especially in southern and eastern Europe, where data availability is poor. The study also notes that there are groups of species that receive less attention than others. Examples include freshwater zooplankton, lichens, terrestrial arthropods and crop pests.

To these obstacles are added to another 15 . For example, many of these monitoring programmes do not share their data on the status of a species or habitat, which makes it difficult to compare results with those obtained at different geographical scales. Another is the lack of tools to process data automatically and transform the information collected in the field into useful, comparable indicators.

To carry out the study, 17 monitoring programmes for aquatic, marine and terrestrial ecosystems, which are coordinated at a European level, were analysed. For each programme, the study described how the monitoring is carried out, at what scale and how often, and assessed its capacity to provide Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs).

EBVs are a set of standardized measures that allow us to assess and track changes in biodiversity over time and space, both at the species and ecosystem levels . For example, within the data collected in the European butterfly monitoring program we find information on two EBVs, one on the total abundance of butterflies and another on how seasonal changes affect their biological cycle. To be useful, these two indicators must be able to be assessed over space and time within the butterfly monitoring sites in Europe. The problem arises when the data we obtain from species and habitat monitoring does not exactly match the definition of the EBV. In such cases, we encounter a new bottleneck that prevents this data from being useful for responding to environmental policies.

Each of the obstacles analyzed in the study appear at different times, from when data is collected to when it is integrated at the subnational, national, or European level. The researcher compares it to a ladder in which each step can present barriers or new difficulties when obtaining essential biodiversity variables: “each obstacle progressively hinders the ability to share and integrate information and, consequently, to guide conservation policies.”

Why does this happen? Many European countries monitor the same species or habitats, but they do not always do so in the same way, as there can be differences in the protocol to be followed, in the tools and materials used, or even in the way the data are analysed. This lack of standardisation makes it difficult to compare data over time and between territories and to integrate them at a
European scale to obtain a global view of the state of biodiversity.

In this regard, the study proposes concrete actions to achieve this objective at a European level. These include improving coordination, establishing harmonized protocols, providing open, ethical and fair data available to everyone, and ensuring sustained funding .

The issue of funding is important, because as Blasi comments, "insufficient funding means that there is no long-term monitoring data, but it also affects coordination between countries, the capacity to analyze the data we obtain or the automation of monitoring."

This study discusses what is lacking at a European level, but it is also necessary to put on the table the initiatives that are being carried out from Catalonia. In this sense, the HARMON project should be highlighted, which seeks to coordinate biodiversity monitoring throughout the territory and make them comparable at a European level. Regarding monitoring in Catalonia, there are, for example, the butterfly monitoring program ( cBMS ) or the common bird monitoring ( SOCC ), two programs that are well covered throughout the territory and that provide continuous data that contribute to understanding the European distributions and trends of this group of species. The data they collect are integrated into the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECMBS) and European Breeding Bird Atlas (EBBA2) in the case of birds, and into the European Butterfly Monitoring Scheme (eBMS) in the case of butterflies.

Essential biodiversity variables are key in this study because they serve as the reference for determining whether we are effectively monitoring the evolution of biodiversity and which data we still need to fulfil the objectives set out in conservation policies. These EBV were developed by GEO BON, the Biodiversity Observation Network of the Group on Earth Observations, which aggregates biodiversity data to make them accessible to governments and managers. Based on this framework, the European project EuropaBON defined a list of 84 EBV, adapted to the requirements of European environmental policies.

To see where the bottlenecks occur, the study compared these EBVs at European level with the biodiversity monitoring programs that are already operating in Europe. Specifically, of the 84 EBVs proposed by EuropaBON, up to 37 have been analyzed in this study. A sheet was prepared for each one and, based on 16 criteria that can become obstacles to the availability of data, it was assessed to what extent each monitoring program has the necessary information to comply with the essential variable and what should be improved. The researcher gives an example: “if a monitoring program collects data every five years, but the essential variable requires a periodicity of three years, it is considered that there is a bottleneck”. Identifying these bottlenecks is a first step to improving monitoring programs and obtaining a more complete picture of the changes that biodiversity is experiencing in Europe.

From here, the author highlights the importance of being able to implement what is currently a pilot project, which is the European Coordination Centre for Biodiversity Observation . This initiative, which was born from EuropaBON, aims to harmonize biodiversity monitoring across the continent and ensure that all countries use the same criteria to assess biodiversity. This will allow the data to be comparable between them and, therefore, help guide environmental policies.

Reference: Morán-Ordóñez, A., Blasi, M., Santana, J., et al. (2026). Europe's bottlenecks to the operationalization of Essential Biodiversity Variables for Environmental Policy Support. npj Biodiversity. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44185-026-00147-4