ATTITUDES OF EUROPEANS TOWARDS BIODIVERSITY

Transcription

1 Special Eurobarometer ATTITUDES OF EUROPEANS TOWARDS BIODIVERSITY REPORT Fieldwork: May-June 0 Publication: October 0 This survey has been requested by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Environment and co-ordinated by the Directorate-General for Communication. This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission. The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors. Special Eurobarometer / Wave TNS opinion & social

2 Project title Linguistic Version Catalogue Number Special Eurobarometer Attitudes of Europeans towards biodiversity EN KH EN-N ISBN DOI 0.779/8 European Union, 0

3 Special Eurobarometer Attitudes of Europeans towards biodiversity Conducted by TNS Opinion & Social at the request of the Directorate-General for Environment Survey co-ordinated by the Directorate-General for Communication (DG COMM Strategy, Corporate Communication Actions and Eurobarometer Unit )

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... METHODOLOGY CHANGE... MAIN FINDINGS... I. PERCEIVED SERIOUSNESS OF BIODIVERSITY LOSS Perceived seriousness of biodiversity loss at local, national, EU-wide and global levels Evaluation of specific aspects of biodiversity loss..... Personal impact of biodiversity loss... 9 II. THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY... III. PROTECTING BIODIVERSITY..... Importance of halting biodiversity loss..... Efforts of the EU to protect biodiversity..... Personal efforts to protect biodiversity... IV. FOCUS ON NATURE PROTECTION AREAS Awareness of the Natura 000 network Importance of Natura 000 protected areas Development activities and protected areas... V. KNOWLEDGE OF BIODIVERSITY AND BIODIVERSITY LOSS Familiarity with the term biodiversity Level of information about biodiversity loss... 7 ANNEXES Technical specifications Questionnaire Result tables

5 INTRODUCTION Biodiversity is the unique web of life on Earth. We are part of it and depend on it for our survival and quality of life. Biodiversity and healthy ecosystems purify the water we drink and the air we breathe; they provide us with food, materials and medicines, maintain soil fertility, regulate the climate and protect us from extreme weather. Biodiversity and ecosystem services are being lost and degraded at rates unprecedented in human history. The loss of our natural capital undermines humanity's livelihoods and opportunities for sustainable development. It has been estimated that biodiversity loss costs the EU % of its GDP annually. In May 0, the European Commission adopted an ambitious strategy to halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU by 00, to restore them to the extent possible and to step up efforts to avert global biodiversity loss. The implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives, including Natura 000, the European network of protected areas, is a core element of this strategy. The strategy also contributes to the implementation of the EU's international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity, and to the new global 00 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The European Commission is currently preparing a mid-term review of the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 00, to take stock of progress and identify gaps in implementation. An on-going Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives will provide a basis for reflection on how EU nature legislation can fully deliver its objectives. Protecting and restoring biodiversity is a key aim for the EU, but what do Europeans think? This survey was designed to explore European citizens awareness and views on: biodiversity and the importance of preserving it the seriousness and impact of biodiversity loss at individual, domestic, European and global levels the biggest threats to biodiversity what the EU should do to prevent the loss of biodiversity, both within the EU and globally the role of the Natura 000 network and attitudes to developments that may damage these protected areas, and personal efforts to protect nature and biodiversity.

6 This survey was carried out by TNS Opinion & Social network in the 8 Member States of the European Union between the 0 th of May and 8 th of June 0. Some 7,78 respondents from different social and demographic groups were interviewed face-to-face at home in their mother tongue on behalf of the Directorate-General for Environment. The methodology used is that of Eurobarometer surveys as carried out by the Directorate-General for Communication ( Strategy, Corporate Communication Actions and Eurobarometer Unit). A technical note on the manner in which interviews were conducted by the Institutes within the TNS Opinion & Social network is appended as an annex to this report. Also included are the interview methods and confidence intervals. Note to readers: previous Flash Eurobarometer surveys were carried out on the topic of biodiversity in 007 (FL9), 00 (FL90) and 0 (FL79) by telephone. However, due to the complexity of the topic and the length of the questionnaire, the current wave of this survey was conducted face-to-face. As explained in the next chapter, due to this change in methodology and other factors, the results from the current survey are not directly comparable to other surveys previously carried out on biodiversity. This first Special Eurobarometer survey on biodiversity therefore sets the baseline for future trends. In this report, countries are referred to by their official abbreviation. The abbreviations used in this report correspond to: ABBREVIATIONS BE Belgium LT Lithuania BG Bulgaria LU Luxembourg CZ Czech Republic HU Hungary Denmark MT Malta DE Germany NL The Netherlands EE Estonia AT Austria EL Greece PL Poland ES Spain PT Portugal FR France RO Romania HR Croatia SI Slovenia IE Ireland SK Slovakia IT Italy FI Finland CY Republic of Cyprus* SE Sweden LV Latvia UK The United Kingdom EU8 European Union 8 Member States * Cyprus as a whole is one of the 8 European Union Member States. However, the acquis communautaire has been suspended in the part of the country which is not controlled by the government of the Republic of Cyprus. For practical reasons, only the interviews carried out in the part of the country controlled by the government of the Republic of Cyprus are included in the CY category and in the EU8 average. * * * * * We wish to thank the people throughout the European Union who have given their time to take part in this survey. Without their active participation, this study would not have been possible. The results tables are included in the annex. It should be noted that the total of the percentages in the tables of this report may exceed 00% when the respondent has the possibility of giving several answers to the question.

7 METHODOLOGY CHANGE Three Flash Eurobarometer surveys were conducted on the topic of biodiversity, in 007 (Flash 9 ), 00 (Flash 90 ) and 0 (Flash 79 ). Flash Eurobarometers are ad hoc thematic telephone interviews which enable the Commission to obtain results relatively quickly and to focus on specific target groups, a format that is more appropriate for shorter and simpler surveys. This 0 survey, an in-depth thematic study carried out face-to-face, is the first Special Eurobarometer on Biodiversity. The main reason for the decision to switch from a Flash to a Special Eurobarometer on Biodiversity was the complexity of the topic and the length of the questionnaire, including the presence of long grids of questions. In such situations, Special surveys based on face-to-face interviews can contribute to the interviewees' better understanding of the subject and questions. This change of surveying mode makes direct comparison with results from previous surveys methodologically unreliable, while the impact of these changes cannot be easily evaluated. Rather than comparing results obtained with different survey methodologies, this survey sets the baseline for comparison and the establishment of trends for future Special Eurobarometer surveys on Biodiversity. Flash 9: Flash 90: Flash 79:

8 MAIN FINDINGS At least eight out of ten Europeans consider the various effects of biodiversity loss to be serious. More than half think they will be personally affected by biodiversity loss. Overall, respondents consider the decline and possible extinction of animals, plants, natural habitats and ecosystems to be a serious problem. More than nine out of ten (9%) think this is a serious global issue; 80% think it is a serious issue in Europe, just over three quarters (7%) perceive it as a serious problem in their country and % think this is a serious issue in the local area where they live. Respondents are most likely to consider the degradation and loss of natural habitats like forests and meadows (%), the loss of the benefits from nature (9%) and the decline and disappearance of animal and plant species (8%) as very serious issues. Almost six out of ten say they are or will be personally affected by the degradation of nature and the decline or extinction of species: % say they are already affected, % believe this will have an effect on them later on, and an additional % say they will not be personally affected but the next generation will be. Pollution and man-made disasters are considered the biggest threats to biodiversity by at least six out of ten respondents, while % say this about climate change. More than three quarters of Europeans believe that mankind has a responsibility to look after nature and that it is important to stop biodiversity loss. More specifically, 7% totally agree that we have a responsibility to look after nature, while 7% totally agree that looking after nature is essential for tackling climate change and 0% that our health and well-being are based upon nature and biodiversity. At least half totally agree that biodiversity and nature are important for long-term economic development (%), and that biodiversity is indispensable for the production of goods such as food, fuel and medicines (%). More than nine out of ten Europeans think the EU should better inform citizens about the importance of biodiversity More than half of respondents totally agree that the EU should better inform citizens about the importance of biodiversity (%), that the EU should ensure that biodiversity concerns are taken into account when planning new infrastructure investments (%), and that it should better implement existing nature and biodiversity conservation rules (%).

9 In order to ensure that imported products come from sustainable sources, respondents are most likely to say the EU should work with other countries to include biodiversity protection into global trade policies and agreements (%), encourage companies to take action to reduce their impact on biodiversity, introduce obligatory sustainability requirements for imported goods (both %), or inform EU consumers (0%). Almost two thirds of respondents feel they are making a personal effort to protect biodiversity and nature About a third of respondents (%) consider they are making personal efforts to protect biodiversity and nature, while a further % consider they are already making an effort, but would like to do more. One quarter (%) are not making any effort because they do not know what to do. The most common action taken to protect nature and biodiversity is respecting nature protection rules such as not leaving waste in natural areas (9%). Additionally, a large proportion of Europeans claim they regularly buy eco-friendly or local products (%), look for information and make lifestyle choices to reduce possible negative impacts on nature and biodiversity (9%). About a quarter of respondents (%) have heard of the Natura 000 network, including % who say they have heard about it but don t know what it is. The majority (7%) have never heard of it. At least two thirds of respondents consider that nature protection areas such as Natura 000 are very important in protecting endangered animals and plants (9%), safeguarding nature s role in providing food, clean air and water (7%) and preventing the destruction of valuable nature areas on land and at sea (%). Most Europeans are unwilling to trade damage or destruction to nature in protected areas for economic development. % say developments that result in damage or destruction of nature in protected areas should be prohibited and a further % consider this acceptable only for projects of major public interest, and if the damage is fully compensated. Just 7% consider this acceptable because economic development takes precedence. The majority of Europeans have heard of the term biodiversity, but less than one third know what it means. Additionally, most do not feel informed about biodiversity loss. From the 0% of respondents who have heard of the term biodiversity, only half of them also know what it means. Those living in western and southern areas of the EU are more likely to have heard of the term biodiversity and to know what it means. Two thirds (%) of Europeans do not feel informed about the loss of biodiversity, with % saying they do not feel informed at all. 7

10 I. PERCEIVED SERIOUSNESS OF BIODIVERSITY LOSS The first section of the report explores the perceived seriousness of biodiversity loss at a local, country, European and global level. After the respondents received an introduction about the loss of biodiversity, they were asked to evaluate the seriousness of several aspects of biodiversity loss, as well as its potential impacts on them personally... Perceived seriousness of biodiversity loss at local, national, EU-wide and global levels At least three quarters of Europeans think there are serious threats to animals, plants and ecosystems at a national, European and global level The broader the area asked about, the more likely respondents are to consider as serious the decline and possible extinction of animals, plants, natural habitats and ecosystems 7. Indeed, more than nine out of ten (9%) think this is a serious global issue, while 80% think it s a serious issue in Europe, just over three quarters (7%) perceive it as a serious problem in their country and % think this is a serious issue in the local area where they live. The same conclusions can be observed when looking at respondents who consider the decline and possible extinction of animals, plants, natural habitats and ecosystems as very serious : the proportions who share this view range from % at a global level, to % at European level, 0% at their country level and 9% in the local area where they live. 7 All respondents received the following explanation regarding biodiversity: Biological diversity or biodiversity is the term given to the variety of life on Earth (like plants, animals, genes, but also ecosystems such as forests, oceans, etc.) of which we are an integral part. Biodiversity in Europe and in other parts of the world is being lost and degraded due to human activities. Q8: In your opinion, how serious is the decline and possible extinction of animal and plant species, natural habitats and ecosystems? Locally, in the area where you live; In (OUR COUNTRY); In Europe; Globally. It is : Very serious; Fairly serious; Not very serious; Not at all serious; Don t know. 8

11 A higher proportion of respondents in all Member States said that the decline and possible extinction of animal and plant species, natural habitats and ecosystems is a very serious problem globally, compared to local, national and European levels. At least half of all respondents in Member States consider global biodiversity loss to be a very serious issue. Respondents in Sweden are the most likely to say this is a very serious problem globally (8%), followed by those in Luxembourg (77%), France (70%) and Germany (9%). At the other end of the scale, a more limited 9% of respondents in Poland, % in Romania and 7% in Estonia think biodiversity loss is very serious at a global level. 9

12 Respondents across all Member States are more likely to consider the decline and possible extinction of animal and plant species, natural habitats and ecosystems to be a very serious problem in Europe than they are for their own country or local area. Respondents in Sweden are once again much more likely than those in other Member States to say that the decline and possible extinction of animal and plant species, natural habitats and ecosystems in Europe is a very serious problem (70%). Cyprus is the only other country where at least half of all respondents share this view (0%), followed by those in Greece (9%) and Malta (%). In contrast, % in Slovenia, % in Hungary and % in Slovakia and Estonia say the same. 0

13 Respondents in Sweden are also considerably more likely than those in other Member States to say the decline and possible extinction of animal and plant species, natural habitats and ecosystems is a very serious problem in their country. More than six out of ten say this (%), followed at a distance by % of respondents in Malta and % in Greece and Cyprus. At the other end of the scale, % of respondents in Estonia and % in Finland and Slovenia say the same. Estonia is also the only country where fewer than half think this is a serious problem to some degree (9%). Overall, at least half of all respondents in Member States consider the decline and possible extinction of animal and plant species, natural habitats and ecosystems to be a serious problem in the area where they live. As observed for all other levels, respondents in Sweden are much more likely than those in other Member States to say this is a very serious problem locally, in the area where they live (%). At least one quarter of respondents in Greece, Malta (both 0%), Cyprus (9%) and Bulgaria (%) say the same. In contrast, just 7% of those in Portugal, 8% in Finland and 9% in Slovakia and Hungary say this is a very serious local problem.

14 There are few notable differences between standard socio-demographic groups in the proportions who consider the decline and possible extinction of animal and plant species, natural habitats and ecosystems to be a very serious problem at any level. The youngest respondents are the most likely to consider this to be a serious issue globally, compared to those aged + (% vs. 8%). In addition, the longer a respondent remained in education, the more likely they are to say this is a very serious issue globally: % of those with the lowest education levels say this, compared to % of those who completed their education aged 0+. Attitudinal variables provide more differentiation between groups. Respondents who have heard of the term "biodiversity" are more likely to say the decline and possible extinction of animal and plant species, natural habitats and ecosystems is a very serious problem globally, compared to those who had not heard of the term (% vs. %). Feeling informed about the loss of biodiversity provides even greater differentiation. Respondents who feel informed about the loss of biodiversity are more likely than those who do not feel informed to say this issue is very serious at a local (% vs. 7%), national (% vs. 7%), EU (0% vs. %) and global level (70% vs. %). Furthermore, respondents who state that they are making an effort to protect biodiversity are more likely to consider this as a serious issue at all levels, compared to those who are not making any effort 8. For example, 0% of respondents who say that they are making an effort to protect biodiversity also say the decline and possible extinction of animal and plant species, natural habitats and ecosystems is a very serious problem for Europe, compared to % of those who are not making an effort to protect biodiversity. 8 See section. for full results.

15

16 .. Evaluation of specific aspects of biodiversity loss At least eight out of ten Europeans consider the various effects of biodiversity loss to be serious Respondents were asked to rate the seriousness of a range of issues relating to the loss of biodiversity 9. There is little variation across issues in the proportions who consider each to be serious to some degree (80%-9%); greater variation can be observed when comparing those who think each issue is very serious. Respondents are most likely to consider the degradation and loss of natural habitats like forests, meadows, wetlands (%), the loss of the benefits from nature (9%) and the decline and disappearance of animal and plant species (8%) as very serious issues. Additionally, just over four in ten say the disconnection from nature in urban areas and modern lifestyles is a very serious issue (%), while % say this about the negative economic impacts of biodiversity degradation, such as the loss of income from natureoriented tourism or fisheries. 9 Q: In your opinion, how serious is each of the following issues? The degradation and loss of natural habitats like forests, meadows, wetlands; The decline and disappearance of animal and plant species; The loss of the benefits that we get from nature, such as crop pollination, soil fertility, prevention of floods and droughts, climate regulation, clean air and water; The disconnection from nature in urban areas and modern lifestyles; The negative economic impacts of biodiversity degradation, such as the loss of income from nature-oriented tourism or fisheries. Very serious; Fairly serious; Not very serious; Not at all serious; Don t know.

17 In countries, the degradation and loss of natural habitats is the issue most likely to be considered very serious, and this is most notable for respondents in Greece (7%) and Spain (70%). Although not the issue most frequently mentioned as very serious, a large proportion of respondents in Cyprus (8%) and Luxembourg (7%) also consider the degradation and loss of natural habitats to be very serious. This issue is also in the top three issues most mentioned as very serious in all Member States. In fact, in Poland the only Member State where fewer than half consider this to be a very serious issue the proportion of those who share this view remains very high (%). At least half of the respondents in all but two Member States say the loss of the benefits from nature, such as crop pollination, soil fertility, prevention of floods and droughts, climate regulation, clean air and water is a very serious issue, with those in Cyprus (8%), Sweden (79%), Luxembourg (7%) and Greece (70%) the most likely to say this. The exceptions are Estonia (%) and Poland (%). This loss of benefits from nature is the most frequently mentioned very serious issue in seven Member States, and also ranks in the three most mentioned very serious issues by respondents in all Member States. In six Member States, respondents are most likely to say the decline and disappearance of animal and plant species is a very serious issue, and this is particularly the case in Cyprus (8%), Bulgaria and Malta (both 8%). This issue is also widely considered to be very serious by respondents in Greece, Spain and Luxembourg (all 9%). Estonia (%), Poland (%), Belgium and Latvia (both 9%) are the only Member States where fewer than half consider this to be a very serious issue. Respondents in Cyprus (8%), Greece (0%), Bulgaria (%), Luxembourg (%) and Malta (%) are the most likely to say the disconnection from nature in urban areas and modern lifestyles is very serious. This compares to a more limited % of respondents in Denmark, and 0% of those in Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands. Cyprus (%), Greece (9%), Malta and Spain (both %) are the only Member States where at least half say the negative economic impacts of biodiversity degradation, such as the loss of income from nature-oriented tourism or fisheries is a very serious issue. In contrast, % of respondents in the Netherlands, 0% in Denmark and % in Estonia say the same.

18

19 The socio-demographic analysis highlights that women are more likely than men to say the degradation and loss of natural habitats (% vs. 8%), and the disconnection from nature in urban areas and modern lifestyles (% vs. 9%) are very serious issues. The youngest respondents are the least likely to say the loss of benefits we get from nature, the disconnection from nature in urban areas and modern lifestyles and the negative economic impacts of biodiversity degradation are very serious issues. For example, % of - year olds say the disconnection from nature in urban areas and modern lifestyles is a very serious issue, compared to %-% of those aged +. Respondents with the highest education levels are the most likely to say the loss of benefits we get from nature is a very serious issue (% vs. 7%). In contrast, the lower a respondent s education level, the more likely they are to consider the negative economic impacts of biodiversity degradation as a very serious issue: % of those with the lowest education levels share this view, compared to % of those who completed their education aged 0+. The awareness of biodiversity also influences opinion on this aspect. Respondents who have heard the term "biodiversity" are more likely to consider each of these issues to be very serious, compared to those who have not heard it. For instance, % of those who have heard of biodiversity say the degradation and loss of natural habitats is a very serious issue, compared to % of those who have not heard the term. The same pattern applies when comparing those who feel informed about the loss of biodiversity with those who do not: respondents who feel informed are more likely to consider each of these issues as very serious. Respondents who say the degradation of nature will impact them are more likely to consider each of these issues to be very serious, compared to those who say they will not be affected 0. For example, % of those who say they will be affected consider the loss of benefits we get from nature to be very serious, compared to % of those who say they will not be affected. The same pattern also applies in relation to protecting biodiversity: respondents who are making efforts to protect it are more likely to consider each of these issues as very serious compared to those who are not making any efforts. 0 See section. for full results. 7

20 8

21 .. Personal impact of biodiversity loss A majority of Europeans consider that they are or will be personally affected by the degradation of nature and the decline of animal and plant species Respondents were asked if they thought they will be personally affected by the degradation of nature and the decline and possible extinction of animal and plant species. A majority answer positively (8%), with more than one in five (%) saying they are already affected and % saying it will affect them later on. One third (%) say they will not be personally affected but the next generation will be, while just % say this will have no effect. At least half of the respondents in all but four Member States say they already are or will be personally affected by the degradation of nature and the decline and possible extinction of animal and plant species. Respondents in Spain (7%), Cyprus (7%), Sweden and Slovakia (both 7%) are the most likely to say this, while those in Finland (7%), Estonia, Denmark (both 8%) and Ireland (9%) are the least likely. Q: Do you think that the degradation of nature and the decline and possible extinction of animal and plant species will affect you personally? Yes, you are already affected by this; Yes, this will have an effect on you, but not now, later on; No, not on you personally but on the next generation; No, this will have no effect. 9

22 The socio-demographic analysis shows no differences based on gender. It does however illustrate that older Europeans are least likely to consider that the degradation of nature and the decline and possible extinction of animal and plant species will affect them personally. Just under half of the respondents aged and over (9%) think this will be the case, compared to %-% of younger age groups. Consequently, they are most likely to say the next generation, rather than themselves, will be affected (% vs. 7%-0%). The longer a respondent remained in education, the more likely they are to say they will be personally affected: 0% of those with the lowest education levels say this, compared to % of those who completed education aged -9, and % of those who completed aged 0+. The retired and house persons are less likely than those in other occupation groups to say they will be personally affected (respectively % and % vs. 0%-%) Respondents who have heard of biodiversity are more likely to say they will be personally affected than those who have not heard the term (% vs. 0%). The same is true when comparing those who feel informed about the loss of biodiversity with those who do not (% vs. %). Respondents who are making a personal effort to protect biodiversity are also much more likely to say they will be affected compared to those who are not making any efforts in this regard (% vs. %). See section. for full results. 0

23

24 II. THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY Pollution and man-made disasters are considered the biggest threats to biodiversity Respondents were asked about a range of threats to biodiversity. Once again, the main differences are observed not at the overall level, but between the issues respondents consider very much a threat. At least six out of ten consider the pollution of air, soil and water (%) and man-made disasters (0%) to be very much a threat to biodiversity, while % say this about climate change. More than four in ten say biodiversity is very threatened by intensive farming, intensive forestry and over-fishing (7%), or from the conversion of natural areas to other land uses (%). Modification or fragmentation of natural areas by transport, water and energy infrastructure projects is considered by 9% to threaten biodiversity very much, while 0% say this about non-native plants or animals. In 9 Member States, the pollution of air, soil and water is the issue most frequently mentioned as being very much a threat to biodiversity, and in the remaining nine countries it is the second most frequently mentioned issue. Overall, at least half of all respondents in each Member State say this issue is very much a threat. Respondents in Cyprus (8%), France (7%), Greece (7%), Luxembourg (7%), Bulgaria (7%), Spain (70%) and Sweden (70%) are the most likely to say this is very much a threat to biodiversity, while those in Poland (%) and the UK (%) are the least likely to share this view. Q7: In your opinion, to what extent is biodiversity threatened by the following? Intensive farming, intensive forestry and over-fishing; Pollution of air, soil and water (e.g. seas, rivers, lakes); Man-made disasters (e.g. oil spills, industrial accidents); Plants and animals non-native to your region or country and introduced from elsewhere; Climate change; Conversion of natural areas to other land uses (e.g. expansion of urban areas); Modification or fragmentation of natural areas by transport, water and energy infrastructure projects (e.g. dams, navigation channels, motorways). Very much; Quite a lot; Not much; Not at all; Don't know.

25 Respondents in Cyprus (8%), Greece (77%), France (7%) and Luxembourg (7%) are the most likely across the EU to say man-made disasters are very much a threat to biodiversity. At least half of all respondents in each Member State say the same, with those in the Netherlands and Denmark (both 0%) the least likely to do so. Both the pollution of air, soil and water and man-made disasters appear in the three most frequently mentioned threats to biodiversity in each Member State. In 9 Member States, at least half of all respondents say that climate change is very much a threat to biodiversity. Those in Cyprus (8%) are the most likely to say this, followed by respondents in Greece (%), Spain (%) and Malta (%). In addition, in Spain, Malta, Sweden, Denmark and Poland, climate change is the second issue most frequently mentioned as very much threatening biodiversity. Conversely, respondents in Estonia (%) and Poland (7%) are the least likely to say climate change is very much a threat to biodiversity. Intensive farming, intensive forestry and over-fishing are most likely to be considered as very much threatening biodiversity by a majority of respondents in France (7%), Luxembourg (%), Cyprus (%), Spain, Sweden (both %), Greece (%) and Malta (%). At the other end of the scale, % of respondents in Poland and % in Estonia consider this to very much threaten biodiversity. In eight Member States, at least half of all respondents say conversion of natural areas to other land use very much threatens biodiversity, and this is particularly the case in Cyprus (7%), Greece (9%) and Malta (7%). In contrast, 9% of respondents in Latvia and 0% in Denmark share this view. Cyprus (%), Greece (7%) and Spain (%) are the only countries where at least half of all respondents say that the modification or fragmentation of natural areas by transport, water and energy infrastructure projects very much threaten biodiversity. In contrast, 0% of those in the Netherlands and % in Denmark say the same. Respondents in Cyprus (8%) and Spain (%) are also the most likely across the EU to say plants and animals non-native to their region or country very much threaten biodiversity, particularly compared to those in the Netherlands (9%).

26 The socio-demographic analysis shows women are more likely than men to say climate change (% vs. 8%) and the modification or fragmentation of natural areas by transport, water and energy infrastructure projects (% vs. %) very much threaten biodiversity. Older respondents are more likely than those aged to consider the conversion of natural areas to other land uses (%-% vs. 9%) and the modification or fragmentation of natural areas by transport, water and energy infrastructure projects (0% vs. %) to very much threaten biodiversity. Those with the highest education levels are the most likely to say pollution of air, soil and water (7% vs. 0%-%) and intensive farming, intensive forestry and overfishing (% vs. %-%) very much threaten biodiversity. Conversely, the longer a respondent remained in education, the less likely they are to say biodiversity is very

27 much threatened by non-native plants and animals : % with the lowest education levels say this, compared to 7% of those with the highest levels. Awareness of biodiversity also influences opinion. Respondents who have heard the term "biodiversity" are more likely to say each of these issues very much threatens biodiversity, compared to those who have not heard the term. For instance, % of those who have heard of biodiversity say the pollution of soil, air and water very much threatens biodiversity, compared to % of those who have not heard the term. The same pattern applies when comparing those who feel informed about the loss of biodiversity with those who do not: respondents who feel informed are more likely to consider each of these issues as very much threatening biodiversity. Respondents who say the degradation of nature will impact them are also more likely to consider each of these issues to very much threaten biodiversity, compared to those who say they will not be affected. For example, % of those who say they will be affected consider the conversion of natural areas to other land uses to very much threaten biodiversity, compared to % of those who say they will not be affected. The same pattern also applies in relation to protecting biodiversity: respondents who are making efforts to protect it are more likely to consider each of these issues as very much threatening biodiversity, compared to those who are not making any efforts.

28 III. PROTECTING BIODIVERSITY This third section of the report explores Europeans attitudes to protecting biodiversity. It addresses the reasons why it is important to stop biodiversity loss, as well as the measures Europeans think the EU should take to protect biodiversity. Finally, it analyses the personal actions Europeans take to protect biodiversity... Importance of halting biodiversity loss More than three quarters of Europeans totally agree it is important to stop biodiversity loss because we have a responsibility to look after nature Respondents were asked about the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with a range of reasons for stopping the loss of biodiversity. The large majority of respondents agree to some degree with each of these: more than nine out of ten agree with each of the reasons. Again, the main differences are observed between those that totally agree (from % to %, depending on the reason). More than three quarters (7%) totally agree that we have a responsibility to look after nature, while just over two thirds totally agree that looking after nature is essential for tackling climate change (7%). Six in ten totally agree that our health and well-being are based upon nature and biodiversity (0%). At least half totally agree that biodiversity and nature are important for long-term economic development (%), and that biodiversity is indispensable for the production of goods such as food, fuel and medicine (%). Q: I will read some statements to you about why it might be important to halt the loss of biodiversity. Please tell me how much you agree or disagree with them. We have a responsibility to look after nature; Our health and well-being are based upon nature and biodiversity; Biodiversity is indispensable for the production of goods such as food, fuel and medicines; Biodiversity and healthy nature are important for our long-term economic development; Looking after nature is essential in tackling climate change: Totally agree; Tend to agree; Tend to disagree; Totally disagree.

29 In every Member State, respondents are most likely to totally agree that we have a responsibility to look after nature. Almost all respondents in Cyprus and Sweden totally agree with this idea (both 9%), as do 9% of those in Denmark. Respondents in Poland (%), Italy (%) and Portugal (%) are the least likely to totally agree, but even in these countries this represents a clear majority. Almost all respondents in Cyprus also totally agree that looking after nature is essential in tackling climate change (9%), with a large proportion of those in Sweden (88%) and Spain (80%) saying the same. In fact, a majority of respondents in all Member States totally agree. Even in countries where the proportions are lowest, more than half of respondents totally agree with this statement: Poland (%) and Belgium (8%). Along with having a responsibility to look after nature, this is the statement respondents in Spain most frequently totally agree with, and in Member States this idea ranks second in terms of the proportions who totally agree. In all but one Member State, a majority totally agree that our health and well-being are based upon nature and biodiversity. Once again, respondents in Cyprus are the most likely to totally agree (87%), followed by those in Bulgaria (7%), Lithuania (7%), Spain and Latvia (both 7%). At the other end of the scale, 8% of those in the Netherlands and % in Poland and Italy also totally agree. In Member States, at least half of all respondents totally agree that biodiversity and healthy nature are important for our long-term economic development. More than eight out of ten respondents in Cyprus totally agree (8%), as do 70% in Spain and 9% in Slovenia. In contrast, % of those in Denmark and % in Poland, Austria and Belgium totally agree. Once again, respondents in Cyprus are the most likely to totally agree that biodiversity is indispensable for the production of goods such as food, fuel and medicines (88%), while 70% of those in Spain and 7% in Greece and Bulgaria share this view. Respondents in Slovakia, Austria (both %), Poland and Belgium (both %) are the least likely to totally agree with this statement. 7

30 8

31 Once again, the main socio-demographic differences can be observed between those who totally agree, as overall agreement with each statement is high. Women are more likely than men to totally agree health and well-being are based upon nature and biodiversity (% vs. 7%), biodiversity and healthy nature are important for our longterm economic development (8% vs. %) and that looking after nature is essential in tackling climate change (70% vs. %). The youngest respondents are the least likely to totally agree health and well-being are based upon nature and biodiversity (% vs. 9%-%), or that biodiversity and healthy nature are important for our long-term economic development (9% vs. %- 8%). There are few notable differences based on education levels, other than that those who completed their education aged 0+ are the most likely to say we have a responsibility to look after nature (8% vs. 7%). As has been the case in previous sections, the awareness of biodiversity leads to greater differences. Respondents who have heard of the term "biodiversity" are more likely to totally agree with each of these statements, compared to those who have not heard the term. For example, 7% of those who have heard of biodiversity totally agree that looking after nature is essential in tackling climate change, compared to % of those who have not heard the term. The same pattern applies when comparing those who feel informed about biodiversity loss with those who do not: respondents who feel informed are more likely to totally agree with each of these statements. Respondents who think that the degradation of nature will affect them personally are more likely to totally agree with each statement, compared to those who think they will not be affected. For instance, 7% of those who think they will be affected totally agree health and well-being are based upon nature and biodiversity, compared to % of those who think they will not be affected. The same pattern can be seen when comparing those who are making a personal effort to protect biodiversity with those who do not: respondents who are making an effort are more likely to totally agree with each of these statements. 9

32 0

33 .. Efforts of the EU to protect biodiversity... Measures the EU should take to protect Europe's biodiversity More than six in ten Europeans think the EU should better inform citizens about the importance of biodiversity Respondents were asked about things the EU should do to protect biodiversity. As the chart below illustrates, general agreement with each action is very high, with the main differences in the proportion of those who totally agree. Just over six in ten respondents totally agree that the EU should better inform citizens about the importance of biodiversity (%), while % totally agree that the EU should ensure that biodiversity concerns are taken into account when planning new infrastructure investments or that it should better implement existing nature and biodiversity conservation rules. Almost as many (%) totally agree that the EU should restore nature and biodiversity to compensate for damage caused by human activities or infrastructure outside protected areas, or make sure that subsidies to agriculture and fisheries do not harm biodiversity. Around half totally agree that the EU should expand the areas where nature is protected in Europe (%), and strengthen existing nature and biodiversity conservation rules (0%). More than four in ten totally agree that the EU should promote research on the impact of biodiversity loss (8%), allocate more financial resources to nature protection in Europe (7%) or create innovative forms of financing for nature conservation (%). Q8: Please tell me if you agree or disagree that, in order to protect biodiversity, the EU should Expand the areas where nature is protected in Europe; Strengthen existing nature and biodiversity conservation rules; Better implement existing nature and biodiversity conservation rules; Allocate more financial resources to nature protection in Europe; Make sure that subsidies to agriculture and fisheries do not harm biodiversity; Create innovative forms of financing for nature conservation; Promote research on the impact of biodiversity loss; Better inform citizens about the importance of biodiversity; Ensure that biodiversity concerns are taken into account when planning new infrastructure investments; Restore nature and biodiversity to compensate for damage caused by human activities or infrastructure outside protected areas. Totally agree; Tend to agree; Tend to disagree; Totally disagree; Don t know.

34 As was the case at the EU level, there is little variation between Member States in the overall agreement with each of these actions. The main differences are observed in the proportions that totally agree. At least half of the respondents in all but two Member States totally agree that the EU should better inform citizens about the importance of biodiversity. Respondents in Cyprus are the most likely to think this way (87%), followed by those in Spain, Malta and Greece (all 7%). The exceptions are Poland (%) and Estonia (7%).

35 Respondents in Cyprus are also the most likely to totally agree that biodiversity concerns should be taken into account when planning new infrastructure investments (8%); additionally, at least two thirds of respondents in Sweden (8%), Bulgaria (7%), Spain and Malta (%) also totally agree with this statement. At the other end of the scale, 8% of respondents in Poland and % in the Netherlands and Estonia share this view. Respondents in Cyprus (87%), Bulgaria, Sweden and Spain (all 9%) are also the most likely to totally agree that the EU should better implement existing nature and biodiversity conservation rules, while those in Poland (%), the Netherlands (0%) and Estonia (%) are once again the least likely to totally agree.

36 In Member States, at least half of all respondents totally agree that the EU should restore nature and biodiversity to compensate for damage caused by human activities or infrastructure outside protected areas. Respondents in Cyprus are the most likely to totally agree (8%), followed by 70% in Bulgaria, 9% in Spain and % in Malta. In contrast, 8% of those in the Netherlands, 9% in Finland and % in Poland totally agree. Eight in ten respondents in Cyprus totally agree that the EU should make sure that agricultural and fisheries subsidies do not harm biodiversity (80%), as do 7% of those in Sweden, % in Spain and % in Malta and Germany. Just over one third of respondents in Poland (%), 8% in Estonia and 0% in Belgium say the same.

37 Respondents in Cyprus (8%), Spain (70%), Malta (%) and Bulgaria (%) are the most likely to totally agree the EU should expand the areas where nature is protected in Europe. At the other end of the scale, % in Finland, % in Estonia and 7% in Poland say the same. At least two thirds of respondents in Cyprus (88%), Spain (70%), Bulgaria (8%) and Malta (%) totally agree the EU should strengthen existing nature and biodiversity conservation rules. In contrast, just over one third in Poland (%), 7% in the Netherlands and 9% in Estonia totally agree that the EU should do this.

38 As has been the case for many of the other possible actions, respondents in Cyprus (8%), Sweden (8%), Spain and Malta (both %) are the most likely to totally agree the EU should promote research on the impact of biodiversity loss. In contrast, % of respondents in Poland, % in Estonia and 7% in Austria also totally agree. More than eight out of ten respondents in Cyprus totally agree the EU should allocate more financial resources to nature protection in Europe (8%), as do % of those in Malta, % in Bulgaria and % in Spain. Far smaller proportions of respondents in the Netherlands (%), Poland (%) and Belgium (%) totally agree the EU should do this.

39 Respondents in Cyprus are also the most likely to totally agree the EU should create innovative forms of financing for nature conservation (80%), followed by those in Spain (%), Malta (%) and Bulgaria (8%). At the other end of the scale, % of respondents in Poland, and % in Belgium, the Netherlands Denmark, Austria and Estonia also agree. The socio-demographic analysis shows women are slightly more likely than men to totally agree the EU should expand the areas where nature is protected in Europe (% vs. 9%), strengthen existing nature and biodiversity conservation rules (% vs. 7%), better implement existing nature and biodiversity conservation rules (7% vs. %), and that the EU should better inform citizens about the importance of biodiversity (% vs. 9%). The youngest respondents are less likely than those aged + to totally agree the EU should better implement existing nature and biodiversity conservation rules (9% vs. %-%). Respondents with the highest education levels are more likely than those who completed education aged 9 or younger to totally agree that the EU should make sure that subsidies to agriculture and fisheries do not harm biodiversity (9% vs. %), or that the EU should ensure that biodiversity concerns are taken into account when planning new infrastructure investments (9% vs. %-%). Respondents who have heard of biodiversity are more likely than those who have not to totally agree that the EU should undertake each of these actions, with the exception of allocating more financial resources to nature protection. For example, 7% of those who have heard of biodiversity totally agree that the EU should better implement existing nature and biodiversity conservation rules, compared to % of those who have not heard of biodiversity. 7

40 In addition, respondents who feel informed about the loss of biodiversity are more likely than those who do not feel informed to totally agree the EU should take each of these actions. For instance, % of those who feel informed totally agree the EU should create innovative forms of financing for nature conservation, compared to % of those who do not feel informed. Respondents who think the degradation of nature will affect them personally are more likely to totally agree the EU should take each of these actions, compared to those who think they will not be affected. For instance, 0% who feel informed totally agree that the EU should ensure subsidies to agriculture and fisheries do not harm biodiversity, compared to % who feel they will not be affected. The same pattern applies when comparing those who are making a personal effort to protect biodiversity with those who are not: respondents who are making an effort are more likely to totally agree that the EU should take each of these actions. 8

41 9

42 ... Measures the EU should take to ensure that imports respect biodiversity - Just over half of all Europeans think that the EU should work with other countries to include biodiversity protection into global trade policies and agreement Respondents were asked if they thought the EU should take a range of measures to ensure imported products come from sustainable sources. Respondents are most likely to say the EU should work with other countries to include biodiversity protection into global trade policies and agreement (%). At least four in ten say the EU should encourage companies to take action to reduce their impact on biodiversity, introduce obligatory sustainability requirements for imported goods (both %), or inform EU consumers (0%). More than a quarter think the EU should finance research and innovation into more biodiversity-friendly production methods in exporting countries (8%), while just % say the EU should do nothing because this is the responsibility of the exporting countries. Q9: Sometimes, goods imported into the EU (such as timber, palm oil, coffee or beef) may have been produced in ways that cause biodiversity loss in other parts of the world. In your opinion, what should the EU do to ensure that the products it imports come from sustainable sources? (MAX answers) Nothing, because it is the responsibility of exporting countries to ensure the protection of their own nature; Finance research and innovation into more biodiversity-friendly production methods in these exporting countries; Inform EU consumers (e.g. by adding biodiversity footprints to the labels of imported products); Encourage companies to take action to reduce their impact on biodiversity; Introduce obligatory sustainability requirements for imported goods; Work with other countries to include biodiversity protection into global trade policies and agreements; Don t know. 0

43 Working with other countries to include biodiversity protection into global trade policies and agreements is the action most often mentioned by respondents in 9 Member States, and particularly by those in the Netherlands (7%), Sweden (8%), Germany (%) and Denmark (%). At the other end of the scale, 7% of respondents in Slovenia, Romania, Poland and Bulgaria think the EU should do this. In each Member State, including biodiversity protection into global trade policies and agreements is one of the three most frequently mentioned actions the EU should take. France is the only Member State where at least half say the EU should encourage companies to take action to reduce their impact on biodiversity (%), followed by 9% of respondents in the UK, Portugal and Greece. In spite of this, encouraging companies to do this is the most mentioned of all actions in Spain (7%), Hungary (%), Croatia (%) and Romania (7%), and is also one of the top three most mentioned actions in Member States. On the other hand, respondents in Slovenia (%), Slovakia and Latvia (both %) are the least likely to say the EU should take this action. Introducing obligatory sustainability requirements for imported goods is the most likely to be mentioned by respondents in Austria (8%), Greece, the Netherlands (both %) and Cyprus (%); and the least likely to be mentioned by those in Latvia (9%), Romania and Malta (both 0%). This is also the most mentioned action by respondents in Austria, Greece, Italy (%), the Czech Republic (%) and Bulgaria (%). At least half of all respondents in Cyprus (8%), Sweden (%), Finland (%), Greece (%) and Denmark (0%) say the EU should inform consumers (e.g. by adding biodiversity footprints to the labels of imported products). In contrast, % of those in Hungary and 8% in Slovakia say the same. Financing research and innovation into more biodiversity-friendly production methods in exporting countries is mentioned by at least one third of respondents in Sweden (%), Cyprus (9%), the Netherlands (7%), Luxembourg and Denmark (both %). At the other end of the scale, 7% of those in Slovenia and % in Hungary and Slovakia mention this option. In five Member States, at least one in ten respondents say the EU should do nothing: Slovakia (%), Poland (%), Malta, the Czech Republic (both %) and Lithuania (0%). This compares to just % of those in Cyprus and Sweden.

44

45 When looking at socio-demographic variables, there are no notable age or gender differences in the proportions who think that the EU should take each of these actions. The longer a respondent remained in education, the more likely they are to say the EU should inform consumers, introduce obligatory sustainability requirements for imported goods, or work with other countries to include biodiversity protection into global trade policies and agreements. For example, % of those with the lowest education levels say the EU should work with other countries to include biodiversity protection into policies and agreements, compared to % of those who completed education aged -9, and 9% of those who completed aged 0+. The self-employed, managers and other white collar workers are more likely than other occupation groups to say that the EU should introduce obligatory sustainability requirements for imported goods (7%-9% vs. 7%-0%). Those currently working are more likely than those who are not to say that the EU should work with other countries to include biodiversity protection into policies and agreements (%-7% vs. %-9%). Those living in towns are more likely than respondents in rural villages to say that the EU should introduce obligatory sustainability requirements for imported goods (%-% vs. 8%). Awareness of biodiversity once again provides a degree of differentiation for a number of these actions. Respondents who have heard of biodiversity are more likely to say that the EU should finance research and innovation into more biodiversity-friendly production methods in exporting countries, encourage companies to take action to reduce their impact on biodiversity, introduce obligatory sustainability requirements for imported goods, or work with other countries to include biodiversity protection into global trade policies and agreements. For example, 7% of respondents who have heard of biodiversity say that the EU should introduce obligatory sustainability requirements for imported goods, compared to % of those who have not heard of biodiversity. The same pattern applies when comparing those who feel informed about biodiversity loss with those who do not: respondents who feel informed are more likely to mention each of these actions. Respondents who think that the degradation of nature will affect them personally are more likely to mention most of these actions, compared to those who think they will not be affected. For instance, % of those who think they will be affected say the EU should finance research and innovation, compared to % of those who think they will not be affected. In addition, respondents who are making a personal effort to protect biodiversity are more likely to mention each of these actions (other than nothing) compared to those who are not taking personal action.

46

47 .. Personal efforts to protect biodiversity... Personal efforts to protect biodiversity - Almost two thirds of respondents feel they are making a personal effort to protect biodiversity and nature At least three in ten respondents consider they are making personal efforts to protect biodiversity and nature (%), while a further % consider they are already making an effort, but would like to do more 7. One quarter think they are not making any effort because they do not know what to do, while 7% claim not making an effort for other reasons. In all but three Member States, a majority of respondents consider they are making a personal effort to protect biodiversity and nature. Those in Finland (87%) and Luxembourg (8%) are the most likely to say this, followed by those in Malta and France (both 8%). The three exceptions are Bulgaria, Poland (both %) and Latvia (9%). It is worth noting, however, that in Latvia and Poland respondents are more likely to say they are making an effort than to say they are not. In the case of Bulgaria there is an even split between those who consider they are (%) and are not (%) making a personal effort to protect biodiversity and nature. 7 Q: Would you say that you personally make an effort to protect biodiversity and nature? Yes, you do; Yes, but you would like to do even more; No, because you do not know what to do; No, for other reasons; Don t know.

48 The socio-demographic analysis does not reveal any notable differences between men and women. Surprisingly, the youngest respondents are the least likely to say they are making a personal effort to protect biodiversity and nature: 7% of those aged - say they are making an effort, compared to %-9% of older respondents. In addition, the longer a respondent remained in education, the more likely they are to be making a personal effort: 8% of those with the lowest education levels are doing so compared to % of those who completed education aged -9, and 7% of those who completed aged 0+. Respondents living in rural villages and small or mid-sized towns are more likely than those in large towns to be making a personal effort to protect biodiversity and nature (% and 7% vs. %). Unsurprisingly, those who have heard of the term "biodiversity" are much more likely than those who have not to say they are making a personal effort (7% vs. %). The same pattern applies when comparing those who feel informed about biodiversity loss with those who do not (8% vs. 8%). Respondents who think the degradation of nature will impact them are also much more likely to be making a personal effort to protect biodiversity and nature than those who say they will not be affected (7% vs. %).

49 7

50 ... Specific actions undertaken personally to protect biodiversity - Almost all Europeans consider they respect nature protection rules Respondents were asked whether they personally take a range of actions to protect biodiversity 8. Almost all (9%) say they respect nature protection rules such as not leaving waste in natural areas while % claim they regularly buy eco-friendly or local products. Almost half (9%) look for information and make lifestyle choices to reduce possible negative impacts on nature and biodiversity. Around one in ten participate as a volunteer in biodiversity projects (%), while 0% contribute to one or more monitoring projects. In all Member States, respondents are most likely to say they respect nature protection rules. Furthermore, a large majority of respondents in each country say this, from 99% in Sweden and 98% in The Netherlands, to 8% in Italy and 8% in Poland. At least three quarters of respondents in Luxembourg, Sweden (both 78%), Denmark (7%), Malta and Austria (both 7%) say they regularly buy eco-friendly or locally produced products. In fact, the Czech Republic is the only Member State where fewer than half of all respondents say they do this (%), followed by those in Poland (0%) and Croatia (%). In Member States, at least four in ten respondents look for information and make lifestyle choices that reduce possible negative impacts on nature and biodiversity. This is particularly the case in the UK (%), Germany (9%), Malta (8%) and Sweden (7%), but less likely to be something respondents do in Poland (%), Greece (%) or Bulgaria (%). 8 Q: Please tell me whether or not you personally do the following? Respect nature protection rules (e.g. by not leaving waste in the forest or on the beach, by not disturbing wild animals); Regularly buy products that are eco-friendly or locally produced (e.g. organic, biologically degradable); Look for information and make lifestyle choices that reduce possible negative impacts on nature and biodiversity; Participate as a volunteer in projects and actions dedicated to biodiversity (e.g. field work in nature reserves); Contribute to one or several monitoring projects (e.g. to count migratory birds). 8

51 Across the EU, % of respondents participate as a volunteer in projects and actions dedicated to biodiversity. This proportion is higher in Ireland (9%), Hungary (9%) and Luxembourg (7%), while a limited % of those in Sweden and 7% in Denmark and Bulgaria say they volunteer in this way. Respondents in Ireland are also the most likely across the EU to say they contribute to one or several monitoring projects (0%), followed by those in Belgium, the UK (both 7%) and Hungary (%). At the other end of the scale, % of respondents in Sweden, Latvia and Estonia say the same. 9

52 The socio-demographic analysis shows women are more likely than men to say they regularly buy eco-friendly or local products (8% vs. %). Respondents aged + are the most likely to regularly buy eco-friendly or local products (%-9% vs. %), or to look for information and make lifestyle choices that reduce possible negative impacts on nature and biodiversity (8%-% vs. %) compared to those aged -. The longer a respondent remained in education, the more likely they are to regularly buy eco-friendly or local products, or to look for information and make lifestyle choices that reduce possible negative impacts on nature and biodiversity. For example, % of those with the lowest education levels regularly buy eco-friendly or local products, compared to % who completed education aged -9, and 7% of those with the highest education levels. Respondents who have heard of biodiversity are more likely than those who have not to say they respect nature protection rules (9% vs. 89%), regularly buy products that are eco-friendly or locally produced (70% vs. %), look for information and make lifestyle choices that reduce possible negative impacts on nature and biodiversity (% vs. 9%), or participate as a volunteer in projects and actions dedicated to biodiversity (% vs. 8%). In addition, respondents who feel informed about the loss of biodiversity are more likely than those who do not feel informed to regularly buy products that are eco-friendly or locally produced (7% vs. 9%), look for information and make lifestyle choices that reduce possible negative impacts on nature and biodiversity (% vs. 0%), participate as a volunteer in projects and actions dedicated to biodiversity (7% vs. 8%), or contribute to at least one monitoring project (% vs. 7%). The same pattern applies when comparing those who think they will be affected by biodiversity loss with those who say they will not be affected: those who think they will be affected are more likely to be taking each of these actions. Unsurprisingly, there are also strong links between the different activities. Respondents who take at least one of these actions are more likely to take other actions as well. This relation is particularly strong for respondents who participate as a volunteer in projects and actions dedicated to biodiversity and those who contribute to one or more monitoring studies ; these respondents are particularly likely to take several of the other actions as well. 0

53

54 - Just over half of all Europeans avoid using pesticides and chemicals in their gardens or on their balconies Respondents were asked about a range of activities carried out in gardens or on balconies 9. More than half (%) mention they avoid using pesticides or chemicals in these areas the most common activity by a considerable margin. At least one quarter of respondents leave space for wild animals and plants, or select plants that provide food for birds and insects (both 8%), while % avoid introducing plants that may become invasive. More than one in ten respondents with a garden or balcony do not do any of these things (%), while 8% say they do not have a garden or balcony at home. 9 Q: Do you personally do the following in your garden or on your balcony? Leave space for wild animals and plants, Avoid using pesticides and chemicals; Select plants that provide food for birds and pollinating insects; Avoid introducing new plants that may become invasive; You have a garden or balcony but you don t do any of these things; You have no garden or balcony at home; Don t know.

55 Avoiding using pesticides and chemicals is the most mentioned activity in each Member State. Respondents in Slovenia are the most likely to say they do this (9%), followed by those in Sweden (8%), the Netherlands and Finland (both %). At the other end of the scale, % in Spain and % in Poland and Portugal say they avoid using these products in their garden or on their balcony. Respondents in Finland are the most likely in the EU to say they leave space for wild animals and plants (8%). Additionally, at least four in ten in the UK (%), Luxembourg (%), Ireland and the Netherlands (both %) say the same. This compares to just 8% in Greece and Bulgaria, and 9% in Portugal. Selecting plants that provide food for birds and insects is most likely to be done by respondents in the UK (%), Luxembourg (%), the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium (all %), and least likely to be done by those in Portugal (7%), Greece (8%) and Spain (9%). Respondents in Finland are much more likely than average to say they avoid introducing new plants that might become invasive (%), followed by % in Luxembourg and 7% in Belgium. At the other end of the scale, % in Portugal and % in the Netherlands and Cyprus say the same. Respondents in Bulgaria (8%), Poland (7%), Italy and Portugal (both %) are the most likely to say that they have a garden or balcony, but that they don t do any of these things. Respondents in Austria (8%) and Germany (9%) are the least likely to say this. Finally, % of respondents in Spain, % in Portugal and % in Estonia say they do not have a garden or balcony, compared to % in the Netherlands and 7% in Ireland.

56

57 There are a number of socio-demographic differences in the activities undertaken in the garden or on a balcony. Women are slightly more likely than men to say they avoid using pesticides and chemicals (% vs. 0%), or that they select plants that provide food for birds and pollinating insects (0% vs. %). Respondents aged 0+ are the most likely to say they leave spaces for wild animals and plants (0%-% vs. %-% of younger age groups). The older the respondent, the more likely they are to say they avoid using pesticides and chemicals, select plants that provide food for birds and pollinating insects, or avoid introducing new plants that may become invasive. For example % of those aged - say they select plants that provide food for birds and insects, compared to % of those aged -9, % of 0- year olds, and % of those aged +. The longer a respondent remained in education, the more likely they are to leave space for wild animals and plants. % of those with the lowest education levels do this, compared to % of those with the highest levels. Respondents who completed their education aged years or older are the most likely to say they avoid using pesticides and chemicals (%-7% vs. 8%), select plants that provide food for birds and pollinating insects (0%-% vs. %), or avoid introducing new plants that may become invasive (8%-% vs. %). Those with the lowest education levels are the most likely to say they have no garden or balcony (% vs. %). The more urbanised the respondent, the less likely they are to undertake any of these activities. For example, 9% of those in rural villages avoid using pesticides and chemicals, compared to % in small or mid-sized towns, and % in large towns. This pattern is the same for the other three activities. Also, unsurprisingly, the more urbanised the respondent, the less likely they are to have a garden or balcony : % in large towns say this, compared to 8% in small or mid-sized towns and % in rural villages. Respondents who have heard of biodiversity are more likely than those who have not to say they leave space for wild animals and plants (0% vs. %), avoid using pesticides and chemicals (% vs. 8%) or avoid introducing new plants that may become invasive (0% vs. %). Respondents who feel informed about biodiversity loss are more likely than those who do not feel informed to undertake each of these activities in their garden or on their balconies. They are also less likely to say they have no garden or balcony (% vs. 0%), or that they don t do any of these activities (% vs. 8%). Respondents who consider they make a personal effort to protect biodiversity are more likely than those who do not to undertake each of these activities. For example, 0% avoid using pesticides and chemicals, compared to 7% who do not take personal actions. Finally, respondents who think they will be personally affected by the degradation of nature are more likely to leave space for wild plants and animals (% vs. %) and to avoid using pesticides and chemicals (% vs. 9%) compared to those who think they will not be affected.

58

59 IV. FOCUS ON NATURE PROTECTION AREAS This section of the report looks at Europeans awareness of the Natura 000 network, as well as how important nature protection areas are for protecting biodiversity, enhancing the quality of life and stimulating economic opportunities. Europeans' attitudes to economic development projects in areas of protected nature are also discussed... Awareness of the Natura 000 network Most Europeans have not heard of the Natura 000 network When asked if they had heard of the Natura 000 network, just % of respondents answer positively. More specifically, 0% mention they have heard of it and also know what it is, while % have heard of it but don t know what it is. The majority (7%) have never heard of the Natura 000 network. Awareness of the Natura 000 network varies widely across Member States. There are only three Member States where a majority have heard of the Natura 000 network: Bulgaria (7%), Finland (7%) and Slovenia (8%). In sharp contrast, just % in the UK and % in Denmark and Germany mention having heard of it. 7

60 Although the recognition of the network's name is highest in Bulgaria, Finland and Sweden, only a minority of respondents in each of these countries say they have not only heard of it but also know what this network is: Bulgaria (0%), Finland (%) and Slovenia (9%). In contrast, just % of respondents in the UK and % in Latvia, Lithuania, Ireland, Germany and Denmark have heard of Natura 000 and know what it is. Several differences can be observed when looking at socio-demographic variables. Specifically, men are slightly more likely to have heard of Natura 000 than women (9% vs. %). The youngest respondents are the least likely to have heard of this network, particularly when compared to those aged 0- (9% vs. 0%). There are no differences based on age or gender in the proportion of those who mention knowing what Natura 000 is. The longer a respondent remained in education, the more likely they are to have heard of Natura 000: % of those with the lowest education levels had heard of it, compared to % of those who completed education aged -9, and % of those who completed aged 0+. The same pattern applies for the subset of respondents who have heard of Natura 000 and know what it is. Managers, self-employed respondents and other white collar workers are more likely than other occupation groups to have heard of Natura 000 (%-% vs. 7%-%). Respondents who have heard the term "biodiversity" are more likely to have at least heard of Natura 000 (% vs. %), and also to know what it is (% vs. %), compared to those who have not heard the term. Similarly, those who feel informed about biodiversity loss are also more likely to have heard about Natura 000 (9% vs. 9%) and to know what it is (8% vs. %), compared to those who do not feel informed. 8

61 Finally, respondents who are making an effort to protect biodiversity are more likely to have heard of Natura 000 than those who are not (0% vs. 7%), and they are also more likely to know what it is (% vs. %). 9

62 .. Importance of Natura 000 protected areas - A large majority of Europeans think nature protection areas are important for biodiversity, as well as for socio-economic reasons Respondents were asked for their opinion about the importance of protection areas such as Natura 000 for several aspects 0. Once again, there is a high level of general agreement that such protection areas are important for all aspects evaluated; the main differences can be observed in the proportions who consider them to be very important. At least two thirds of respondents consider that nature protection areas such as Natura 000 are very important for protecting endangered animals and plants (9%), safeguarding nature s role in providing food and clean air and water (7%) and preventing the destruction of valuable nature areas on land and at sea (%). At least half say nature protection areas are very important for promoting naturefriendly land use (%), and in increasing the quality of life of local people (%). More than four in ten say these areas are very important for stimulating local socioeconomic development (%). 0 Q: Natura 000 is a network of more than 7,000 nature protection areas all over the EU. How important do you think such nature protection areas are for the following? Protecting endangered animals and plants; Preventing the destruction of valuable nature areas on land and at sea; Promoting nature-friendly land-use; Stimulating local socio-economic development (e.g. via eco-tourism and nature-related leisure activities); Safeguarding nature s role in providing food and clean air and water; Increasing the quality of life of local people. Very important; Somewhat important; Not very important; Not at all important; Don t know. 0

63 In 0 Member States, protecting endangered animals and plants is the most likely role to be considered as very important, and overall a majority of respondents in each country say this role is very important. Almost all respondents in Cyprus say this (9%), as do 8% in Bulgaria and 80% in Lithuania. This compares to % of those in Poland and 0% in Italy and Croatia. In all but one Member State, a majority of respondents say that safeguarding nature s role in providing food and clean air and water is a very important role of nature protection areas. At least three quarters of respondents in Cyprus (9%), Bulgaria (79%), Lithuania (78%) and Spain (7%) say this. Poland is the exception, with nevertheless 9% considering this role to be very important. Safeguarding nature s role in providing food and clean air and water is the role most frequently mentioned as very important by respondents in Germany (7%), Ireland (7%), Slovenia (8%), Latvia (7%), France (%), Hungary (%) and Estonia (%). Preventing the destruction of valuable nature areas on land and at sea is the role most frequently mentioned as very important by respondents in Sweden (78%), the Netherlands (7%), Finland (7%) and Italy (%). It is also widely considered as very important by those in Cyprus (9%), Bulgaria and Spain (both 7%). Respondents in Poland (9%), Estonia (%) and Croatia (8%) are the least likely to say this is very important. The majority of respondents in 0 Member States say nature protection areas are very important for promoting nature-friendly land-use. At least seven out of ten respondents in Cyprus (88%), Malta (7%), Bulgaria, Spain (both 7%) say this, compared to 7% in Denmark, % in Poland and % in Austria. Respondents in Cyprus are also the most likely to say increasing the quality of life of local people is a very important role for nature protection areas (88%), followed by those in Bulgaria (7%), Greece (70%), Spain and Lithuania (both 9%). At the other end of the scale, 9% of respondents in Poland, % in Belgium and % in Denmark say the same. Finally, respondents in Cyprus are the most likely to say that a very important role for nature protection areas is stimulating local socio-economic development (78%), followed by those in Bulgaria (%), Spain (0%) and Malta (0%). In contrast, % of those in Denmark and % in the Netherlands say the same.

64

65 The socio-demographic analysis shows that women are slightly more likely than men to say nature protection areas are very important for protecting endangered animals and plants (7% vs. %) and for increasing the quality of life of local people (% vs. 0%). The older the respondent, the more likely they are to say nature protection areas are very important for increasing the quality of life of local people : 7% of - year olds say this, compared to 7% of those aged +. In addition, those with the lowest education levels are the most likely to say increasing the quality of life of local people is a very important role of nature protection areas (9% vs. %-%). Respondents who have heard the term biodiversity are more likely than those who have not to say nature protection areas are very important for preventing the destruction of valuable nature areas on land and at sea (9% vs. %). Respondents who feel informed about biodiversity loss are more likely than those who do not feel informed to say nature protection areas are very important for protecting endangered animals and plants (7% vs. 7%), preventing the destruction of valuable nature areas on land and at sea (7% vs. %), promoting nature-friendly land-use (% vs. %), and stimulating local socio-economic development (7% vs. 0%). Those who think that the degradation of nature will affect them personally are more likely than those who think they will not be affected to say nature protection areas are very important for protecting endangered animals and plants (7% vs. %), preventing the destruction of valuable nature areas on land and at sea (7% vs. 9%), promoting nature-friendly land use (% vs. 9%), increasing the quality of life of local people (7% vs. 8%) and for stimulating local socio-economic development (8% vs. %). The same pattern applies when comparing those who make a personal effort to protect biodiversity with those who do not.

66

67 .. Development activities and protected areas - Most Europeans are unwilling to trade damage or destruction to nature in protection areas for economic development Respondents were asked for their opinion about economic development that results in damage or destruction to nature in protected areas. Most are unwilling to accept such consequences on nature in exchange for economic development: almost half consider that these kinds of developments should be prohibited, because these are our most important nature areas (%). A further % consider this acceptable only for projects of major public interest and if the damage is fully compensated for. Just 7% consider this kind of economic development should take precedence over nature in protected areas. In nine Member States, the majority of respondents say economic development in these areas should be prohibited, and this is particularly the case for those in Italy (%), Portugal (%), Cyprus and Greece (both 9%). At the other end of the scale, % of those in the Netherlands and 0% in Denmark and Poland say the same. Respondents in the Netherlands are the most likely to say that this kind of development is only acceptable for projects of major public interest, and if the damage is fully compensated (70%); additionally, % in Denmark, 9% in Sweden and 7% in Latvia also share this view. Q: Sometimes economic development results in damage or destruction of nature in protected areas such as Natura 000 sites. Which of the following statements comes closest to your opinion? This is acceptable because economic development takes precedence; This should be prohibited because these are our most important nature areas; This is only acceptable for projects of major public interest and if the damage is fully compensated for (e.g. through restoration or mitigation measures); Don t know.

68 Romania (%), Malta, Ireland (both %), Hungary and Croatia (both 0%) are the only Member States where at least one in ten say that this kind of development is acceptable because economic development takes precedence. The socio-demographic analysis reveals no notable differences by age group, and the only gender-based difference is that men are slightly more likely than women to say that this kind of development is only acceptable for projects of major public interest, and if the damage is fully compensated (% vs. 9%). Respondents who completed education before the age of 0 are the most likely to say that this kind of economic development should be prohibited (8%-0% vs. %). Furthermore, the higher a respondents education level, the more likely they are to say this kind of development is only acceptable for projects of major public interest, and if the damage is fully compensated. Almost one third with the lowest education levels say this (%) compared to 0% who completed education aged -9, and 8% who completed aged 0+. Respondents who feel informed about biodiversity loss are slightly more likely to say this development is only acceptable for projects of major public interest, and if the damage is fully compensated, compared to those who do not feel informed (% vs. 0%). Respondents who think the degradation of nature will affect them personally are more likely than those who think it will not to say this kind of development should be prohibited (0% vs. %), and less likely to say it is acceptable for projects of major public interest, and if the damage is fully compensated (0% vs. %). Respondents who are making a personal effort to protect biodiversity loss are more likely than those who are not to say development that results in damage or destruction in nature protection areas should be prohibited (0% vs. 0%). Similarly, those who have heard of Natura 000 are more likely to say this kind of development should be prohibited (0% vs. %).

69 7

70 V. KNOWLEDGE OF BIODIVERSITY AND BIODIVERSITY LOSS This section of the report explores Europeans familiarity with the term biodiversity, as well as how informed they feel about the loss of biodiversity. These questions were asked at the beginning of the survey, which also served to set up the scene and to ensure that respondents understand the subject of the questionnaire... Familiarity with the term biodiversity The majority have heard of the term biodiversity, but less than one third know what it means Overall, 0% of respondents have heard of the term biodiversity. Three in ten (0%) say they have heard of the term and know what it means, while 0% have heard of it but do not know what it means. Almost four in ten (9%) have not heard of the term biodiversity. At least three quarters of respondents in Sweden (9%), France (88%), Bulgaria (87%), Luxembourg, the Netherlands (both 78%) and Belgium (77%) have heard of the term biodiversity. Sweden and Bulgaria are the only Member States where at least half of all respondents say they have both heard of the term biodiversity and know what it means (0% and 8% respectively). Q: Have you ever heard of the term "biodiversity"? You have heard of it and you know what it means; You have heard of it but you do not know what it means; You have never heard of it; Don t know. 8

71 Additionally, a higher than average proportion of respondents in Luxembourg (8%), Croatia (%), Portugal and France (both %) also know what the term means. At the other end of the scale, a limited proportion of those in Slovakia (%) and in Latvia, Germany and Poland (all 7%) say they have heard of biodiversity and know what it means. There are six Member States where a majority have not heard of biodiversity: Germany (%), Poland (9%), Slovakia (7%), the Czech Republic (%), Austria (%) and Romania (%). In the previous surveys, the term "biodiversity" had been translated in German as Artenvielfalt (a commonly used term which literally translates as species diversity ). The awareness and knowledge results were exceptionally high in Austria and Germany. The translation was modified to Biodiversität in this survey, a term which better represents the specificities of the biodiversity concept but which is much less commonly used outside expert circles. Such a change is likely to have had an impact on the lower recognition results in Austria and Germany in the 0 survey, and hence on the overall EU results. However, it is not possible to measure this impact with a sufficient degree of certainty. 9

72 Recognition of the term "biodiversity" in the EU Member States 70

73 The socio-demographic analysis shows that men are slightly more likely than women to say they have heard of the term "biodiversity" and they know what it means (% vs. 7%). Younger respondents are more likely than those aged + to have heard of biodiversity and to know what it means. Around one third of those aged - know what biodiversity means (%-%), compared to % of those aged +. Similarly, the oldest respondents are the most likely to say they have never heard the term (% vs. %-8%). Amongst occupation groups, managers are the most likely to have heard the term "biodiversity" and to know what it means (9%), particularly when compared to house persons (8%) and the retired (%). In more general terms, managers (79%), the selfemployed (8%) and other white collar workers (%) are the most likely to have at least heard the term biodiversity. The larger the town the respondent lives in, the more likely it is they have heard the term "biodiversity" and know what it means. One quarter of those living in rural areas say this (%), compared to % of those in small or mid-sized towns, and % of those in large towns. 7

74 .. Level of information about biodiversity loss Most Europeans do not feel informed about the loss of biodiversity Before being asked how informed they feel about the loss of biodiversity, all respondents were presented with a definition of biodiversity. They were informed that Biological diversity or biodiversity is the term given to the variety of life on Earth (like plants, animals, genes, but also ecosystems such as forests, oceans, etc.) of which we are an integral part. Biodiversity in Europe and in other parts of the world is being lost and degraded due to human activities. Having that information, when asked how informed they feel about the loss of biodiversity, two out of three respondents (%) say they do not feel sufficiently informed including % who say they are not informed at all. Conversely, a third (%) feel informed, with % feeling very well informed and 8% saying they feel well informed. There are only three Member States where a majority of respondents say they feel informed about the loss of biodiversity: Finland (%), Sweden (%) and Luxembourg (%). Relatively high proportions of respondents who feel informed can also be observed in the Netherlands (9%), Croatia (8%) and Slovenia (%). Slovakia (0%) and the Czech Republic (%) have the smallest proportions of respondents who feel informed about the loss of biodiversity. Q: How informed do you feel about the loss of biodiversity? Very well-informed; Well-informed; Not wellinformed; Not informed at all; Don t know. 7

75 The socio-demographic analysis highlights that men are slightly more likely to say they feel informed about the loss of biodiversity compared to women (% vs. %). There are no notable differences based on age, but there is a trend based on education levels: the longer a respondent remained in education, the more likely they are to say they feel informed about the loss of biodiversity. Just over one in five (%) of those with the lowest education levels say they feel informed, compared to 0% who finished education aged -9, and % of those who completed education aged 0+. Managers (%) and the self-employed (%) are the most likely to say they feel informed, particularly compared to house persons (%). Unsurprisingly, respondents who have heard of the term "biodiversity" are more likely to say they feel informed about the loss of biodiversity, compared to those who have not heard of the term (% vs. 7%). 7

76 7

77 ANNEXES

78 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

79 SPECIAL EUROBAROMETER Attitudes of Europeans towards biodiversity TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Between the 0 th of May and the 8 th of June 0, TNS opinion & social, a consortium created between TNS political & social, TNS UK and TNS opinion, carried out the wave of the EUROBAROMETER survey, on request of the EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Directorate-General for Communication, Strategy, Corporate Communication Actions and Eurobarometer unit. The Special Eurobarometer is part of the wave covers the population of the respective nationalities of the European Union Member States, resident in each of the Member States and aged years and over. The basic sample design applied in all states is a multi-stage, random (probability) one. In each country, a number of sampling points was drawn with probability proportional to population size (for a total coverage of the country) and to population density. In order to do so, the sampling points were drawn systematically from each of the "administrative regional units", after stratification by individual unit and type of area. They thus represent the whole territory of the countries surveyed according to the EUROSTAT NUTS II (or equivalent) and according to the distribution of the resident population of the respective nationalities in terms of metropolitan, urban and rural areas. In each of the selected sampling points, a starting address was drawn, at random. Further addresses (every Nth address) were selected by standard "random route" procedures, from the initial address. In each household, the respondent was drawn, at random (following the "closest birthday rule"). All interviews were conducted face-to-face in people's homes and in the appropriate national language. As far as the data capture is concerned, CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interview) was used in those countries where this technique was available. For each country a comparison between the sample and the universe was carried out. The Universe description was derived from Eurostat population data or from national statistics offices. For all countries surveyed, a national weighting procedure, using marginal and intercellular weighting, was carried out based on this Universe description. In all countries, gender, age, region and size of locality were introduced in the iteration procedure. For international weighting (i.e. EU averages), TNS Opinion & Social applies the official population figures as provided by EUROSTAT or national statistic offices. The total population figures for input in this post-weighting procedure are listed below. TS

80 Readers are reminded that survey results are estimations, the accuracy of which, everything being equal, rests upon the sample size and upon the observed percentage. With samples of about,000 interviews, the real percentages vary within the following confidence limits: Statistical Margins due to the sampling process (at the 9% level of confidence) various sample sizes are in rows various observed results are in columns % 0% % 0% % 0% % 0% % 0% 9% 90% 8% 80% 7% 70% % 0% % 0% N=0,0 8, 9,9,,0,7,,,8,9 N=0 N=00,9,,,,8,0,,,, N=00 N=000,,9,,,7,8,0,0,, N=000 N=00,,,8,0,,,,,, N=00 N=000,0,,,8,9,0,,,, N=000 N=000 0,8,,,,,,7,8,8,8 N=000 N=000 0,7 0,9,,,,,,,, N=000 N=000 0, 0,8,0,,,,,,, N=000 N=000 0, 0,8 0,9,0,,,,,, N=000 N=7000 0, 0,7 0,8 0,9,0,,,,, N=7000 N=700 0, 0,7 0,8 0,9,0,0,,,, N=700 N=8000 0, 0,7 0,8 0,9 0,9,0,0,,, N=8000 N=9000 0, 0, 0,7 0,8 0,9 0,9,0,0,0,0 N=9000 N=0000 0, 0, 0,7 0,8 0,8 0,9 0,9,0,0,0 N=0000 N=000 0, 0, 0,7 0,7 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 N=000 N=000 0, 0, 0, 0,7 0,8 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 N=000 N=000 0, 0, 0, 0,7 0,7 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,9 0,9 N=000 N=000 0, 0, 0, 0,7 0,7 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8 N=000 N=000 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,7 0,7 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8 N=000 % 0% % 0% % 0% % 0% % 0% 9% 90% 8% 80% 7% 70% % 0% % 0% TS

81 TS