Imagine the result€¦ · B-9000 Gent Contact Tel Fax E-mail Website Johan Lammerant +32 9 241 77 22 +32 9 242 44 45 [email protected] ... France) and taking account

Imagine the result

ENV.B.2/SER/2012/0029

Implementation of 2020

EU Biodiversity Strategy:

Priorities for the

restoration of

ecosystems and their

services in the EU

FINAL REPORT

January 2014

Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 2|210

Client

Contact

European Commission

DG ENV – B2 Biodiversity

BU-5 5/149

B-1049 Brussels

Patrick Murphy

Project number

Date

1094

January 2014

ARCADIS Belgium

Post address

Kortrijksesteenweg 302

B-9000 Gent

Contact

Tel

Fax

E-mail

Website

Johan Lammerant

+32 9 241 77 22

+32 9 242 44 45

[email protected]

www.arcadisbelgium.be


Authorship

The recommended citation for this report is:

Lammerant, Johan; Peters, Richard; Snethlage, Mark; Delbaere, Ben; Dickie,

Ian; Whiteley, Guy. (2013) Implementation of 2020 EU Biodiversity Strategy:

Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems and their services in the EU.

Report to the European Commission. ARCADIS (in cooperation with ECNC

and Eftec).

Additional contributions were received from: Zoltan Kun, Toby Aykroyd, Anouk Kuijsters. Disclaimer

The views expressed in this document are those of the contractor provided to the

Commission within the context of the service contract ENV.B.2/SER/2012/0029 and

according to the terms of reference associated with that contract.


TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 11

2 A pragmatic model for Member States to plan and monitor ecosystem restoration at national and

subnational level ............................................................................................................................................. 13

2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 13

2.2 Definitions for ‘restoration’ ................................................................................................................ 13

2.3 The 4-level concept on ecosystem restoration ................................................................................ 15

2.3.1 General.......................................................................................................................................... 15

2.3.2 Terms and definitions .................................................................................................................... 18

2.3.3 General principles of the 4-level approach ................................................................................... 19

2.3.4 Background information on general principles .............................................................................. 24

2.3.5 Proposed descriptors for ecosystem types ................................................................................... 40

2.3.6 Proposal for practical implementation ........................................................................................... 65

3 Guidance for priority-setting at sub-national and national level ......................................................... 67

3.1 Reader’s guide ................................................................................................................................. 67

3.2 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 69

3.3 Objectives of this guidance .............................................................................................................. 71

3.4 Methodology and sources used to compile the guidance ................................................................ 73

3.5 Guidance Section 1: Suggested framework for systematic restoration planning ............................ 74

3.5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 74

3.5.2 Hierarchy of the assessment scale ............................................................................................... 75

3.5.3 Stage 1. Define the scope of the prioritization exercise ................................................................ 76

3.5.4 Stage 2. Collect data and information ........................................................................................... 81

3.5.5 Stage 3. Analyse the situation and information ............................................................................ 83

3.5.6 Stage 4. Develop appropriate restoration strategies .................................................................... 89

3.5.7 Stage 5. Implement, monitor, evaluate and report restoration actions ......................................... 99

3.6 Guidance Section 2: Application of Stage 4 of the Restoration Prioritization Framework ............. 101

3.6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 101

3.6.2 European Union .......................................................................................................................... 101

3.6.3 Member State .............................................................................................................................. 102


3.6.4 Region ......................................................................................................................................... 102

3.6.5 Municipality ................................................................................................................................. 103

3.7 Guidance Section 3: Resources..................................................................................................... 109

3.7.1 Sources of basic information and data ........................................................................................ 109

4 Support mechanisms ............................................................................................................................. 111

4.1 Support mechanism for the restoration prioritization framework ................................................... 111

4.1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 111

4.1.2 Existing support mechanisms ..................................................................................................... 111

4.1.3 Towards a support mechanism for the restoration prioritization framework ............................... 117

4.1.4 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 130

4.2 Innovative financial mechanisms for restoration ............................................................................ 132

4.2.1 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 132

4.2.2 Funding Instruments ................................................................................................................... 136

4.2.3 Financing Principles .................................................................................................................... 139

4.2.4 Suitability of funding Instruments ................................................................................................ 141

4.2.5 Actions to develop innovative ecosystem restoration financing.................................................. 146

4.2.6 Discussion of most promising financing instruments .................................................................. 149

5 References .............................................................................................................................................. 153

Annex 1 : Typology of ecosystems reflected to other existing classifications ..................................... 159

Annex 2: Descriptors covered by existing EU environmental legislation and policies ........................ 165

Annex 3 : OVERVIEW of spatial reporting obligations in the EU ............................................................ 177

Annex 4: Matrix ecosystem types and potential descriptors ................................................................... 181

Annex 5 : Private sector financing instruments ........................................................................................ 185

Annex 6 : SWOT analysis of private sector financing instruments ........................................................ 189

Annex 7: Detailed analysis and examples of Funding Instruments ........................................................ 197


LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Terms and definitions in the context of the 4-level concept for ecosystem restoration related to the 15%

restoration target ................................................................................................................................................... 18

Table 2: Overview of SEBI descriptors under the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy ................................................. 32

Table 3: Sustainable Forestry Management indicators for criterion 4 on biodiversity ........................................... 35

Table 4: Examples of ecosystem services and indicators selected by Switzerland (UNEP-WCMC, 2011) ........... 37

Table 5: Descriptors for forests applied in the 4-level concept .......................................................................... 41

Table 6: Descriptors for cropland applied in the 4-level concept ....................................................................... 50

Table 7: Descriptors for grasslands applied in the 4-level concept ................................................................... 53

Table 8: Descriptors for wetlands applied in the 4-level concept ....................................................................... 58

Table 9: Descriptors for urban ecosystems applied in the 4-level concept ....................................................... 62

Table 10 Results of the MCDA process. The weighted criteria were used in the GIS sieve mapping application. 96

Table 11: Hypothetical example of a triage table when using multiple criteria. ..................................................... 98

Table 12: Summary of innovative financial instruments that can support ecosystem restoration ........................ 134

Table 13: Types of innovative financing instruments ........................................................................................... 138

Table 14: Linking key restoration actions with possible opportunities for innovative funding .............................. 143

Table 15: Linking Types of Funding Mechanism to Levels of Ecosystem Restoration ........................................ 145

Table 16: Advantages and disadvantages of different financing approaches in ecosystem restoration .............. 145


LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: A conceptual model for ecosystem degradation and restoration ............................................................ 15

Figure 2: Illustrative example of the '4-level approach on ecosystem restoration' ................................................. 17

Figure 3. Spatial distribution of terrestrial ecosystems in EU 27 ........................................................................... 25

Figure 4. Schematic presentation of integration of the landscape approach into the 4-level concept ................... 29

Figure 5: Landscape fragmentation indicated by the number of meshes (Seff) per 1 km2 grid in 2009. The higher

the value the higher the amount of fragmentation (source: EEA 2011) ................................................................. 34

Figure 6: Combined option for setting the 15% restoration target ......................................................................... 39

Figure 7: Austrian forest 'hemeroby index' as an example of a 'naturalness' indicator .......................................... 46

Figure 8: Hungarian 'Natural Capital Index' approach as an example of a 'naturalness' indicator (Czucz et al.,

2012) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 47

Figure 9: Proposed framework for systematic restoration planning....................................................................... 75

Figure10: Suggested governance model for ecosystem restoration prioritization process .................................... 77

Figure11: Governance structure of the SRCE ...........................................................................................................

Figure12: The SWOT model ................................................................................................................................. 85

Figure13: The stakeholder analysis influence diagram ......................................................................................... 86

Figure14: Hypothetical problem tree analysis for a degraded wetland .................................................................. 88

Figure15: The DPSIR Framework as presented on the EEA website (www.eea.europa.eu) ................................ 89

Figure16: Sieve mapping procedure applied in the Cottonwood restoration site selection (see Box 4 Application of

MCDA in the Missouri River Cottonwood restoration site selection) ..................................................................... 95

Figure17: Landscape management intervention grid (Hobbs and Kristjanson 2003) ............................................ 98

Figure18: Coherence between the SCRE and other relevant environmental tools and processes ...........................

Figure19: The three criteria for the selection of target species in The Netherlands (Van der Zande and

Hoogeveen 1995) ......................................................................................................................................................

Figure 20: Different spatial patterns of producers and beneficiaries of ecosystem services ............................... 141

Figure 21: Business model Ecosystem Return concept ...................................................................................... 148

LIST OF ANNEXES Annex 1 : Typology of ecosystems reflected to other existing classifications ..................................... 159

Annex 2: Descriptors covered by existing EU environmental legislation and policies ....................... 165

Annex 3 : OVERVIEW of spatial reporting obligations in the EU ............................................................ 177

Annex 4: Matrix ecosystem types and potential descriptors .................................................................. 181

Annex 5 : Private sector financing instruments ....................................................................................... 185

Annex 6 : SWOT analysis of private sector financing instruments ........................................................ 189

Annex 7: Detailed analysis and examples of Funding Instruments ....................................................... 197


1 Introduction

The objective of this contract “Implementation of 2020 EU Biodiversity Strategy: Priorities for

the restoration of ecosystems and their services in the EU (ENV.B.2/SER/2012/0029)” is to

provide support to the Commission and through the Commission to the Member States, on the

implementation of target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy and in particular the development of

the strategic framework for setting priorities for ecosystem restoration at subnational,

national and EU level as foreseen in Action 6a of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020.

TARGET 2 : "By 2020, ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by

establishing green infrastructure and restoring at least 15% of degraded ecosystems."

ACTION 6a: "By 2014, Member States, with the assistance of the Commission, will develop

a strategic framework to set priorities for ecosystem restoration at sub-national, national

and EU level".

The strategic framework for priority setting is a tool to help and support the Member States and

the Commission in guiding the choices for the delivery of the 15% restoration target. The

framework must be robust, pragmatic and provide a flexible basis for users, which can be

adapted at different scales taking into account national circumstances and capabilities.

Under this contract the following deliverables are provided:

1. A pragmatic model for Member States to plan and monitor ecosystem restoration at

national and subnational level, including clear guidance on what should be considered

as degraded and restored.

2. A comparison of options for setting the national restoration targets

3. A guidance for priority-setting at sub-national and national level

4. A proposal for an EU steered mechanism to support Member States in achieving their

targets in relation to Target 2, including guidance on financing possibilities

5. A 2-day workshop, which took place on 29 and 30 May 2013 in Brussels.

The report is further structured as follows:

Section 2 presents the 4-level model, a pragmatic approach to planning and monitoring

ecosystem restoration at national and subnational level

Section 3 presents the guidance for prioritization of restoration initiatives

Section 4 describes a potential support mechanism and provides insight on the state of

the art with regard to financing possibilities of restoration initiatives.


2 A pragmatic model for Member States to plan and monitor ecosystem restoration at national and subnational level

2.1 Introduction

The ecosystem restoration model as described below has been developed in order to address a

number of challenges associated with the 15% restoration target in the EU Biodiversity strategy:

How to define a clear common understanding of terminology, in particular regarding

degraded and non-degraded, and as a result how should ‘restoration’ be understood?

How to proceed with restoration in a pragmatic way?

The model has been compiled on the basis of preparatory work by the contractor and completed

by means of a number of feasibility checks in Member States (UK, Finland (together with

Sweden and Estonia), Austria, Hungary, France) and taking account of feed-back from the RPF

Working Group, the European Commission, the EEA, the JRC and other experts, in particular

during the RPF workshop on 29 and 30 May 2013.

2.2 Definitions for ‘restoration’

Obviously definitions of ‘restoration’ and ‘restored ecosystems’ are closely related to definitions

of ‘degraded ecosystems’.

According to the recent IEEP- led study on the financing needs1 the EC definition as applied in

the Biodiversity Strategy Impact Assessment is extremely ambitious. “In many cases full

restoration would require measures to overcome the long-term impacts of some

pressures, such as soil erosion, water pollution, acidification, nutrient enrichment and

contamination with toxic substances. The full restoration of such areas would require very

expensive and technically difficult actions, such as the removal of nutrient enriched or otherwise

contaminated soils and sediments, and in some cases their replacement or augmentation with

suitable soils. Furthermore, vegetation establishment takes time and some habitats will need to

undergo natural succession processes to regain their original structures, ecological processes

and composition.”

The study also states that “restoration will be constrained by the absence of component species

or even by the global extinction of some species”, and that “ it is reasonably certain that all these

constraints on restoration will be exacerbated by climate change

In the light of the considerations set out above, the Financing Needs study calculated Target 2

costs on the basis of the restoration of the key species, properties and processes of

ecosystems and their functions. This interpretation of the definition of restoration is also

compatible with other definitions, perhaps most importantly with respect to Aichi Target 15 (CBD,

2011) (See Box 1). The CBD definition appears to be taken from the Society for Ecological

Restoration (SER), a renowned international authority on restoration (see Box 1).

1 Tucker, Graham; Underwood, Evelyn; Farmer, Andrew; Scalera, Riccardo; Dickie, Ian;

McConville, Andrew; van Vliet, Wilbert. (2013) Estimation of the financing needs to implement

Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. Report to the European Commission. Institute for

European Environmental Policy, London.


The financing needs study also points out that the CBD and SER do not in fact define

restoration, but describe the process in a rather open manner, and as a result the intended end

point is uncertain.

For the purpose of elaborating the prioritization framework on ecosystem restoration

under the present contract, it was decided to apply the pragmatic definition of the CBD and

the SER (see Box 1).

Box 1: Definitions

* European Commission Biodiversity Strategy Impact Assessment:

Ecosystem restoration: “The return of an ecosystem to its original community

structure, natural complement of species, and natural functions”.

* CBD (2011):

Restoration : “The process of actively managing the recovery of an ecosystem that has been

degraded, damaged or destroyed as a means of sustaining ecosystem resilience and conserving

biodiversity”

* SER (2004):

Degradation : “subtle or gradual changes that reduce ecological integrity and health”

Damage : “acute and obvious changes in an ecosystem”

Destroyed : “when degradation or damage removes all macroscopic life, and commonly ruins

the physical environment as well”

Ecological restoration: “The process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been

degraded, damaged, or destroyed”

Transformation : “the conversion of an ecosystem to a different kind of ecosystem or land

use type”

* IUCN (2012):

Degraded : “The simplification or disruption of ecosystems, and the loss of biodiversity,

caused by disturbances that are too frequent or severe to allow natural ecosystem recovery in a

relevant or ‘reasonable’ period of time. Degradation resulting from various factors, including

climate perturbations and extreme events, as well as human activities, generally reduces flows

of ecosystem goods and services.”

However there might be a need for better defining the process of restoration. Therefore we refer

to the conceptual model of Hobbs and Harris2 for understanding ecosystem states and

transitions. It helps to identify the types of interventions that may be required to restore the

functions of ecosystems that are degraded to varying degrees (see Figure 1). Recovery of

heavily degraded ecosystems requires landscape- and/or ecosystem-scale modification of the

physical-chemical environment (abiotic factors such as water quality, water regulation,

reduction of air pollution etc). This often requires important efforts, and often other sectors will

need to be involved (e.g. economic development, spatial planning, energy). Once the main

abiotic barriers are removed a further recovery is enhanced by habitat manipulation and

2 Hobbs and Harris 2001.Restoration Ecology: Repairing the Earth‟s Ecosystems in the new Millennium.

Restoration Ecology, 9:239-246


replacement (e.g. reducing afforestation of abandoned grasslands by forest cutting) as well as

by further improvement of abiotic factors. In this stage, additional ecosystem services (e.g. flood

regulation) might be delivered, although habitat and species targets might not be achieved yet.

To achieve a further improvement of the health status, additional restoration measures need

to be taken (e.g. mowing regime for restoring High Nature Farming grasslands). Even in this

phase, optimization of abiotic factors can be part of the restoration actions. In this phase

additional ecosystem services can be obtained (e.g. cultural services). It is also in this phase

where favorable conservation status of Natura 2000 habitats and species can be achieved, or

good ecological status/ good environmental status as specified under the Water Framework

Directive or the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. However, for ecosystems without specific

biodiversity protection regimes, ‘restoration’ might be achieved ‘to a certain extent’ in the second

phase. Efforts on ecosystem restoration will therefore also depend on the restoration targets that

will be set at the level of ecosystems.

It must be emphasized that restoring abiotic and biotic conditions is not always carried out in a

sequential way, as illustrated in Figure 1. Restoration actions often use physical/chemical and

biological modification actions at the same time. This is dependent on the specific restoration

case.

Figure 1: A conceptual model for ecosystem degradation and restoration

2.3 The 4-level model for ecosystem restoration

2.3.1 General

The two guiding principles-. ‘restoration is a process’ and ‘restoration requires modification of

abiotic and biotic factors’ were central to developing the ‘4-level model for ecosystem

restoration’ as presented in Figure 2. The model divides the continuum of ecosystem condition

from poor to excellent into four3 distinct levels. For each level there are sets of ecosystem

3 A differentiation in 4 levels seems to be the most pragmatic approach as on the one hand a too complex

system should be avoided (5 levels requires additional threshold values) and on the other hand the system


descriptors and associated threshold values that are regarded as typical for that level. The 4

levels and the associated descriptors are ‘tailor-made’ for each ecosystem type. For certain

ecosystem types, in particular the ‘transformed ecosystems’ under level 4, it is recognized that

the objective is not necessarily to restore a location to its original, natural conditions. It should be

acknowledged that in most cases, implementation of restoration measures in these transformed

ecosystems will lead to an improvement of the ecological function but only to the extent that is

feasible for a given land use. For example, the ecological functionality of an urban location can

usually be improved through investment in green infrastructure but the result will be an

improved/partially-restored urban location not a natural/wild ecosystem.

This approach is very pragmatic and effective:

It allows Member States to proceed gradually, as they can engage in restoration

activities and count them as part of the 15% without having to aim for full restoration

within the 7 next years

It allows Member States to set long term objectives with long term results.

It takes into account different baseline levels between Member States.

It must be emphasized that Figure 2 only clarifies the concept by means of an illustrative

example with fictitious percentages. In this example the Member State has realized 25,7%

restoration by 2020 by cumulating restoration achievements at different levels (1% from level 4

to level 3, 15% from level 3 to level 2 and 2% from level 2 to level 1 makes together 18%;

however as the restoration target does not apply on the total territory but only on the territory

which is degraded – in this case 70% - the outcome has to be adapted by a factor 100/70).

The 4-level model is further elaborated on the following elements:

terms and definitions

general principles and background information

descriptors and threshold values for each ecosystem type and restoration level

proposal for practical application

should not be too simplified (3 levels does not allow for sufficient differentiation between quality levels of

ecosystem condition)


ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE FOR A MEMBER STATE WITH HIGH COVERAGE OF NATURAL AREAS

Types of areas Base-

line

By 2020

(and net

gain)

By 2050

LEVEL 1 Satisfactory abiotic conditions. Key

species, properties and processes of

ecosystem patches and their

functions, at site level and at

landscape level, are in good to

excellent condition.

a.o. ‘wilderness’ areas

and N2000 habitats

and species in FCS,

rivers and lakes in

good ecological status

(GES), marine

ecosystems in GES,

….

30% 32% (+ 2%

from L2)

40% (+ 8%

from L2)

LEVEL 2 Satisfactory abiotic conditions, some

disrupted ecological processes and

functions, either at site level or at

landscape level or at both levels.

Reduced or declining diversity and

key species, compared to L1 but

retains stable populations of some

native species.

a.o. N2000 habitats

and species not in

FCS, …

15%

28% (+ 15%

from L3; - 2%

to L1)

35% (+15%

from L3; - 8%

to L1)

LEVEL 3 Highly modified abiotic conditions,

many disrupted ecological

processes and functions, either at

site level or at landscape level or at

both levels. Dominated by artificial

habitats but retains some native

species and stable populations.

a.o. non-protected

rural areas, not

including intensive

agriculture 30%

16% (+ 1%

from L4; - 15%

to L2)

10% (+ 9%

from L4; - 15%

to L3)

LEVEL 4 Highly modified abiotic conditions,

severely reduced ecological

processes and functions, both at site

level and at landscape level.

Dominated by artificial habitats with

few and/or declining populations of

native species; traces of original

ecosystem hardly visible.

‘heavily modified

ecosystems’ (e.g.

Intensive agriculture,

build urban areas,

roads, airports,

brownfield areas,

heavily modified water

bodies); heavily

degraded ‘natural’ and

‘semi-natural’

ecosystems

25% 24% 15%

TOTAL SURFACE 100%

TOTAL ‘RESTORABLE’ SURFACE 70%

TOTAL ‘RESTORED’ SURFACE (cumulative starting from

baseline, and calculated on the basis of ‘restorable surface’) 25,7% 71,4%

Figure 2: Illustrative example of the '4-level approach on ecosystem restoration'

R

E

S

S

T

O

R

A

T

I

O

N

D

E

G

R

A

D

A

T

I

O

N


2.3.2 Terms and definitions

To enhance a common language on the implementation of the 4-level model some terms and

definitions need to be clarified (see Table 1).

Table 1: Terms and definitions in the context of the 4-level model for ecosystem restoration

related to the 15% restoration target

Term Definition

Ecosystem Refers to ecosystem types defined in the context of MAES analytical framework4.

Determining ecosystem condition (see ‘level’) in the context of the 4-level model

takes place at the level of ecosystem patches within the Member State territory.

Modified

ecosystem

In the context of the 4-level model modified ecosystems are those ecosystems

which are heavily influenced by human activities, i.e. Intensive agriculture and

silviculture, built urban areas, roads, airports, quarries, brownfield areas, heavily

modified water bodies

Transformed

ecosystem

In the context of the 4-level model transformed ecosystems are those ecosystems

which – in the framework of restoration – are transformed from one ecosystem type

to another ecosystem type

Ecosystem patch An ecosystem patch in the 4-level model is an ecosystem area that can be

distinguished from other ecosystem patches based on its vegetation composition.

Patches can be delineated by their specific boundaries.

Level The model divides the continuum of ecosystem condition from poor to excellent

into four distinct levels. For each level there are sets of ecosystem descriptors and

associated threshold values that are regarded as typical for that level

Descriptor A descriptor characterizes ecosystem condition. A descriptor consists of one or

more indicators and distinguishes ecosystem condition levels by means of

threshold values between levels

Indicator For each descriptor an indicator and indicator unit (e.g. ha, %) needs to be

defined. These indicators allow measuring the state of the descriptors. The choice

of the indicators should be pragmatic and based on available information,

applicable legislation, etc. As an example the indicator for the descriptor

‘connectivity’ is the level of fragmentation (see Box 3).

Threshold value The transition values of applied indicators for moving between levels

Restoration Moving from a lower level to a higher level in the 4-level model.

Degradation Falling back to a lower level in the 4-level model

Restorable area The total Member State territory minus the territory which qualifies as level 1

Baseline /

Reference point

A fixed point in time to which progress towards the 15% restoration target can be

measured

4 Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services - An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under Action

5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Discussion paper – Final, April 2013


2.3.3 General principles of the 4-level approach

The following principles are defining the model. Many of these principles are self-explanatory

and don’t require additional information. For others some background information is useful. This

additional information is provided in section 2.3.4.

A. Definitions and assumptions applied within the 4-level model should be consistent with

other initiatives under the Biodiversity Strategy

B. A pragmatic approach is key for the successful implementation of the 4-level model.

Although restoration is a complex issue and ecosystem condition can be described in

many ways a balance needs to found between scientific accuracy and efficiency. This

principle will prevail in the selection of descriptors, the description of threshold values and

the proposed way of applying the 4-level model.

C. Restoration needs to be defined for the different ecosystem types identified in the

context of the MAES initiative. . Working with ecosystem types is a pragmatic approach

to capture the wide variety of habitat types in the EU, although it must be acknowledged

that assessing the condition of the wide variety of habitat types within some ecosystem

types is not an easy task. Therefore, ddescriptors and threshold values for ecosystem

types should be as adequate as possible for all habitat types covered by one ecosystem

type. Furthermore, divisions between sub-classes within a habitat type is possible. A

major challenge is to ensure consistency and inter-comparability. Given the large scale of

the application of the 4-level model and the fact that a pragmatic approach requires a

certain degree of simplification, the 4-level model does not address transient situations on

the boundaries of ecosystem patches or ecotones (mixed habitat situations e.g. grassland

with trees).

For more information, see 2.3.4.1

D. Restoration is a process, leading to gradual and measurable progress in ecosystem

condition. Therefore a ‘quality level’ approach for restoration has been developed.

Monitoring should involve a follow-up of the chosen descriptors over time.

E. Restoration levels need to be described for each ecosystem type by means of a well-

defined set of descriptors and well-defined threshold values between the restoration

levels5.


F. An EU wide common understanding on how to determine the levels for ecosystem

condition is very important, i.e. an agreed list of applied descriptors as well as a

shared understanding on the transitions between levels (threshold values). This is

particularly important for determining level 1, as this has a direct impact on the restorable

area and associated financing needs for restoration.

5 Most probably an exception needs to be made for the ecosystem type “sparsely vegetated areas”. This

ecosystem type consists of very different ecosystems (e.g. glaciers, rocks, dunes) for which a common 4-

level description/approach doesn’t seem to be appropriate.



G. Degradation in this concept is the reverse of restoration. If areas get degraded (e.g.

level 3 to level 4) within the period until 2020, these areas should be deducted from the

achieved progress towards the 15% restoration target6.

H. The 15% restoration target includes7 Natura 2000 targets (achieved progress on Target

18 of the Biodiversity Strategy contributes to the achievement of Target 2) as well as all

other environmental targets which are relevant in the context of restoration, such as

progress made towards the attainment of good Ecological Status under the WFD and Good

Environmental Status under the MSFD910

.


I. No additional descriptors need be identified for ecosystem types where restoration is

already covered by existing EU environmental legislation and associated targets (habitats

and species covered by Natura 2000 targets, freshwater ecosystems covered by WFD,

marine ecosystems covered by MSFD).


J. Therefore the main challenge for the further elaboration of the 4-level model is to identify

suitable descriptors and threshold values for ecosystem types such as arable land,

permanent crops, plantation forests, and urban environments where the legal framework

for restoration is much weaker, and targets and descriptors are much less developed11

.

For more information, see 2.3.5

6 Important link with No Net Loss concept, as application of No Net Loss also means that degraded areas

should be restored

7 See also principle on the nature of the 15% target

8 By 2020, compared to current assessments 100% more habitat assessments and 50% more species

assessments under the Habitats Directive show an improved conservation status, and 50% more species

assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure or improved status

9 Progress made in the restoration of ecosystems that are not the subject of specific legislation obviously

cannot be used as a counterweight/compensation for the lack of progress in the attainment of legally binding

objectives required in legislation.

10 Descriptors have already been defined in some EU environmental legislation, such as the Water

Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive where the legal obligations to reach

‘good ecological status’ (WFD) or ‘good environmental status’ (MSFD) are supported by a number of

underlying descriptors. In addition, the WFD foresees different levels of ecosystem condition (high, good,

moderate, poor and bad); this fits well with the multi-step approach of the 4-level concept, e.g. improvements

in water quality from bad to moderate, moderate to good and good to high.

11 This principle seems to give the impression that there is already a large body of information available for

protected areas. This is not always the case, e.g. at this moment NATURA 2000 areas do not have any

spatially specific data on their state. Therefore gathering data for protected areas could also be a challenge.

Another challenge is how to include habitats that are not listed in the annexes of the Habitats Directive but

which are important for nature conservation.


K. With regard to the nature of the 15% target, it is acknowledged that improvements to

ecosystem condition will have both quantitative (area based) and qualitative (e.g.

improvement in biotic and abiotic conditions, reduction in pollution load) components. .

L. The baseline situation is the situation in 2010, as this was the start of the EU Biodiversity

Strategy. If no data are available for 2010 the most recent data should be used (e.g. Art 17

reporting Natura 2000 provides data for the situation in 2006). Monitoring of progress

towards the 15% restoration target should be related to this reference point, which also

means that descriptors should be applied for which data are available for 2010.


M. An important element of the 4-level restoration model is the continuous bookkeeping of

the total restorable area. As a first step the total restorable area in the baseline

situation12

should be defined and the extent and condition of the different ecosystem

types should be mapped and assessed. All areas in level 1 should be out of scope for

the 15% restoration target. All other areas (level 2 to level 4) are ‘restorable area’13

. As

non-restoration driven land use changes and restoration-driven transformations

between ecosystem types will take place in the remaining period till 2014 there will be a

need to adjust the surface of ecosystem types and their condition levels in 2020 to the

actual situation in 2020. When assessing progress towards the 15% restoration target this

will need to be taken into account.

N. The 15% restoration target applies to each Member State. This is a more pragmatic

approach compared to applying the target to bio-geographical regions or to ecosystem

types, although each option has its advantages and disadvantages.

For more information, see 0

O. The 15% restoration target should apply to both the marine as well as the terrestrial

area. This means 15% restoration in the marine environment and 15% restoration in the

terrestrial environment.

P. Different types of descriptors can be applied, describing state, pressures or

measures14

. State descriptors are largely preferred compared to other types of

descriptors as only state descriptors offer a solid guarantee to demonstrate progress.

Biotic state descriptors are preferred to abiotic state descriptors. Pressure descriptors

can offer useful additional information and, in particular regarding the trends in external

influence. Measure descriptors which directly support the restoration process (so

12 This exercise can be expected at the earliest in 2014

13 Originally the idea of ‘non-restorable area’, i.e. areas where restoration measures are extremely

expensive in relation to the outcomes, has been discussed. However, as even in the heart of cities green

infrastructure measures can be taken (e.g. green roofs) with important benefits in the field of ecosystem

services (e.g. air quality, cultural value) the concept of ‘non-restorable area’ has been left.

14 This is in line with the DPSIR approach (Drivers – Pressures – State – Impact – Responses), often applied

in environmental policy. In the context of the 4)level concept ‘responses’ are restoration measures.


maintenance measures are excluded15

) are acceptable and sometimes useful. Restoration

levels can be described by a combination of different types of descriptors.

For more information, see 2.3.4.4.1

Q. A landscape scale approach16

should be integrated within the 4-level model, as this

allows to take account of the importance of landscape scale ecological processes and

functions with relevance for the condition of the ecosystem patch. In this way external

influence (e.g. threats) can be taken into account in describing ecosystem condition.

Therefore landscape-related descriptors need to be integrated in the set of descriptors.


R. The list of descriptors should consist of both ‘on-site’ descriptors (or ‘internal’

descriptors) and ‘landscape-related’ descriptors (or ‘external’ descriptors). This is in line

with the advocated integration of a landscape approach in the 4-level model. Landscape

related descriptors can refer to the wider context at a local (neighbouring patches),

regional, national, EU or global scale, and can provide relevant information on external

influence.

For more information, see 2.3.4.3 and 2.3.4.4.1

S. The way restoration is achieved (e.g. passive or active measures) is less important than

the result. Therefore restoration can be:

active and passive17

on-site and off-site.

T. Ecosystem condition and progress of restoration need to be measurable. Therefore

for each descriptor, measurable indicators and threshold values between restoration levels

need to be defined.

U. Availability of data should be a prerequisite for selection of descriptors, indicators and

threshold values. EU databases are preferred (e.g. SEBI) in order to enhance

comparability between Member States in their efforts to achieve the 15% restoration target.

National databases should be used to complement EU databases.

V. Transformation between ecosystem types needs to considered carefully and rules need

to be established:

i. Transformation from one ecosystem type to another ecosystem type in the

framework of nature restoration results in increased surface for the desired

ecosystem type and decreased surface of the transformed ecosystem type. In

many cases however this ‘transformation’ will only be a restoration of the original

15 Maintenance measures however preserve ecosystems from degradation, and as such contribute to the

restoration target in an indirect way

16 See separate Working Paper on a Landscape Approach

17 Restoration can be ‘passive’ or ‘active’, Passive measures e.g. introducing a specific protection regime,

will result in avoiding damaging activities to take place any longer and will allow areas to regenerate by

colonisation and succession (also natural regeneration in a non-intervention regime is a typical passive

measure). Active measures are physical interventions in abiotic or biotic features.


situation, e.g. cutting forest on an area which originally was a peatland (problem

of lowering groundwater level) or heath (problem of stopping original sheep

grazing) or even semi-natural grassland (e.g. problem of land abandonment). In

these cases it will depend on the way the baseline situation has been

described:

a. If mapped as (degraded) forest there is no transformation of

ecosystems but only an upgrading within the forest ecosystem type;

b. If mapped as peatland/heath/grassland only the net gain should be

counted (surface of ‘restored’ forest) and the total surface of the

‘transformed’ ecosystem type needs to be recalculated

ii. Transformation between level 4 modified ecosystems can never be

considered as restoration or degradation (e.g. transformation between intensive

cropland and grey infrastructure).

iii. Upgrading of level 4 modified ecosystems by re-creation of a ‘natural’

ecosystem type will always result in a net gain, so to avoid a ‘zero operation’ in

terms of the 15% target, only the gain should be taken into account. As an

example, in the case of a newly planted urban forest on a former intensive

cropland area, the surface loss of this cropland should not be deducted from the

restoration target.

iv. A specific type of transformation is compensation. In these cases ecosystem

transformation is driven by non-restoration projects, i.e. infrastructural or industrial

developments where compensatory measures need to be taken for offsetting

remaining negative impacts on biodiversity18

(these are mostly aimed at creating

an equal or higher surface of a similar ecosystem type on another location). In

these cases the same approach as outlined under I to iii can be followed.

W. Natural disaster induced changes in ecosystems (surface, condition) should not be

considered as degradation. In these cases the recommended solution is to adjust the

restorable surfaces for each concerned ecosystem type in 2020, and to recalculate the

restoration achievements in relation to the 15% target.

X. Climate change induced changes in ecosystems (surface, condition) which cannot be

solved by means of restoration (at least at a reasonable cost) should not be

considered as degradation. In these cases the recommended solution is to adjust the

restorable surfaces for each concerned ecosystem type in 2020, and to recalculate the

restoration achievements in relation to the 15% target.

Y. The added value of using ecosystem services as descriptors Is high for reasons of

communication. Ecosystem services are ideal descriptors to bring a convincing

narrative and to get support from stakeholders for restoration projects (e.g. links to

climate change adaptation, links to human well-being, links to financing of restoration and

funding opportunities). Generally it makes more sense to apply ecosystem services as

descriptors in modified ecosystems than in natural and semi-natural ecosystems, as it

is generally accepted that a balanced generation of ecosystem services will automatically

be achieved when restoring abiotic and biotic conditions in natural and semi-natural

ecosystem types. As applying ecosystem services as descriptors suffers from lack of

18 Link to No Net Loss


data and mapping, as well as from complexity of quantifying ecosystem services (as

quantification is highly dependent on local situations – stakeholder benefits – stakeholder

appreciations) descriptors should be carefully selected.

For more information, see 2.3.4.4.1

Z. Restoration activities should be framed within a coherent long-term restoration

vision. As the time-scale of restoration differs widely between ecosystem types,

safeguards need to be built in the 4-level model against restoration initiatives that only

are implemented with the purpose to achieve results by 2020 but cannot be

considered as priority actions in the context of a coherent restoration program.

Therefore restoration measures that are in place by 2020 to achieve the desired “restored”

situation after 2020 should also be accounted for. A specific descriptor on ‘initiated

restoration actions’ will therefore be part of the descriptor’s list.

2.3.4 Background information on general principles

2.3.4.1 Ecosystem typology

The use of a uniform and generally accepted ecosystem typology is of huge importance for

establishing priorities for the restoration of ecosystems. The overall target of this ecosystem

typology is to function as a basic classification for ecosystem mapping at a European scale. This

should allow consistent assessments of surface and state of these ecosystem types at a local,

national and European scale. Information on a more detailed scale and higher resolution could

be integrated into this classification if this is information compatible with the European-wide

classification.

For the purposes of the Restoration Prioritisation framework, the classification of ecosystems, as

prepared within the activities of the MAES Working Group, is applied. It is primarily based on the

classification presented by the EEA (2012; Annex 1). The classification defines 12 main

ecosystem classes, of which 7 terrestrial ecosystems (Figure 3), 1 fresh water ecosystem and 4

marine ecosystems. This classification was based on the EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline. For

multiple biodiversity strategies, as the one discussed in this report, information on the spatial

distribution of ecosystems is highly important. Because of this the Biodiversity Baseline used

Corine Land Cover classes (CLC) for spatial explicit mapping, which is the most detailed pan-

European map on land use and vegetation structures (EEA 2007).


Figure 3. Spatial distribution of terrestrial ecosystems in EU 27

As mentioned before (see ‘general principles’) working with ecosystem types is a pragmatic

approach to capture the wide variety of habitat types in the EU. On the other hand, it is a

challenge to assess the condition of the wide variety of habitat types within some ecosystem

types by a limited number of uniform descriptors, and to present this as one figure.

Delineation of ecosystem patches based on CLC is often very rough, due to the low resolution

level of CLC. As a consequence, the surface of some ecosystem types can be overestimated

while for other ecosystem types it can be underestimated. Small areas with high biodiversity and

conservation value could get “left out” of the picture if included in large ecosystem patches.

Another issue which relates specifically to ‘urban’ ecosystems is how to define their boundaries

and/or possible overlaps with other ecosystem types (e.g. what about ‘urban green areas’?; are

urban forests covered by the ecosystem type ‘forests and woodlands’ or by ‘urban’?).

2.3.4.2 Link with other environmental targets

The integration of targets – both biotic and abiotic – defined by other EU environmental

legislation/policies (e.g. WFD, MSFD, Habitat Directive, Nitrate directive) in the 15% target is

accepted since it is a logical consequence of the concept, which is based on the assumption

that restoration is based on restoring both biotic and abiotic conditions. As clearly mentioned in

the general principles, no additional descriptors need to be identified for ecosystem types

where restoration is already covered by existing EU environmental legislation and associated

targets.

The WFD and the MSFD are the real drivers to restore degraded freshwaters and marine

waters, meaning that the prioritisation framework for these ecosystem types is established

through the legislation. The legal obligations to reach ‘good ecological status’ (WFD) or ‘good

environmental status’ (MSFD) are supported by a number of underlying descriptors. In addition,


the WFD foresees different levels of ecosystem condition19

. This fits well with the multi-step

approach of the 4-level model, e.g. improvements in water quality from bad to moderate,

moderate to good and good to high. This being the case, there is indeed no point in including

lakes and rivers, as well as marine ecosystems into the RPF work other than to make sure that

progress towards the objectives of the WFD and the MSFD can be properly accounted for in the

context of Target 2 of the Biodiversity Strategy.

Also the concept of ‘favourable conservation status’ (Habitats Directive) is based on underlying

descriptors with regard to for instance population size, range, future prospects and habitat

surface. These targets also distinguish different levels in relation to conservation status

(“favourable”, “unfavorable – inadequate”, “unfavorable – bad” for Natura 2000 species and

habitats). Therefore, for Natura 2000 habitats and species these ‘existing’ descriptors should be

applied to the ecosystem types where they are applicable and only completed with other

descriptors if this is useful to describe the ‘restoration’ level. A challenge here is the translation of

species and habitat descriptors into an area-based approach (see general principles).

Also the actions foreseen under the targets defined under the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy, in

particular Target 1, 3, 4 and 5, will contribute to Target 2

o Target 1 : focus on Natura 2000 species and habitats

o Target 3 : focus on agriculture and forestry, covering approximately 80% of

Europe's land, and also constituting important elements of Green

Infrastructure.

o Target 4 : focus on fisheries.

o Target 5 : focus on combating Invasive Alien Species.

The 4-level model as it is defined only considers level 1 as not degraded. That means that huge

remaining areas need to be considered as degraded, often more than 90% of national territories.

Integrating Target 120

of the Biodiversity Strategy in the 15% restoration target will contribute

substantially to the feasibility of achieving the 15% restoration target. Progress towards the

objectives of the WFD and the MSFD will also contribute to attainment of the 15% restoration

target. The same applies to freshwaters (WFD) and marine ecosystems (MSFD).

Annex 2 offers an overview of ‘data groups’ (comparable with ‘descriptors’) and ‘indicators’

(‘parameters’) which are already provided by this other EU environmental legislation (apart from

the targets under the EU Biodiversity Strategy). These indicators are grouped to ‘data’ which

Member States need to report. For instance under the Habitat Directive the indicators ‘range’,

‘surface area of habitat type’, ‘structure and functions’, ‘future prospects’ are grouped in order to

get an overall assessment of ‘habitat conservation status’ which is in fact some kind of

19 Water quality assessment: high, good, moderate, poor and bad. Water quality assessed by the extent of

deviation from the reference conditions. ‘Good status’ means ‘slight’ deviation from reference, ‘moderate

status’ means ‘moderate’ deviation etc. Reference condition (high status): biological, chemical and

morphological conditions associated with no or very low human pressure: best status achievable; type-

specific: different for different types of waters (accounting for broad diversity of ecological regions in EU).

20 By 2020, compared to current assessments 100% more habitat assessments and 50% more species

assessments under the Habitats Directive show an improved conservation status, and 50% more species

assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure or improved status


‘umbrella-descriptor’. From the overview in Annex 2, it is clear that descriptors have already

been defined in some EU environmental legislation, such as the Water Framework Directive

and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive Therefore the main challenge for the further

elaboration of the 4-level concept is to identify suitable descriptors and threshold values for

ecosystem types such as arable land, permanent crops, plantation forests, urban environments,

etc. where environmental targets are not fixed in the legislation and condition descriptors have

not been developed in a systematic way.

In addition to the overview in Annex 2, an overview of EU environmental spatial reporting

obligations has recently been prepared by the EEA21

(see Annex 3).

2.3.4.3 Including a landscape approach

The 4-level model for restoration recognizes that restoration is a process and that restoration

requires modification of both abiotic and biotic factors. The model divides the continuum of

ecosystem condition from poor to excellent into four, distinct levels. For each level there are sets

of ecosystem descriptors and associated threshold values that are regarded as typical for that

level. The 4 levels and the associated descriptors are ‘tailor-made’ for each ecosystem type. For

certain ecosystem types, in particular the ‘transformed ecosystems’ under level 4, it is

recognized that the objective is not necessarily to restore a location to its original, natural

conditions.

This approach is very pragmatic and allows Member States to proceed gradually. It also takes

into account different baseline levels between Member States.

The 4-level model is based on a fixed ecosystem typology. This is due to the fact that ecosystem

types can be clearly delineated based on their typical features (mainly vegetation) and that most

data are available at an ecosystem type level (or lower levels such as habitat level). However

this approach risks tooverlook the landscape-ecological processes and functions which are

extremely important for ecosystem quality. It should be acknowledged that many abiotic as well

as biotic features which are used as descriptors for ecosystem condition are in a dynamic

interaction with its surrounding. Also species occurrence in ecosystem types very often depends

on the abiotic and biotic conditions of the larger landscape. Good example are the ecosystem

types which are part of a small-scale, mosaic landscape.

Figure 4 provides an adapted 4-level model which explicitly takes into account the wider

landscape issue, by adding an extra dimension to the levels:

On the vertical axis the ecosystem condition is presented, i.e. 4 levels from poor to

excellent. Level 1 should always represent the more natural situation, while level 4

represents a degraded state. Moving up a level is considered as restoration, while

descending a level is degradation.

A horizontal axis is added as a new feature which distinguishes the descriptors by its

spatial influence. Two broad classes could be defined for the spatial scale. A first class

of descriptors, the so-called internal descriptors, describes the local abiotic and biotic

status, i.e. the status within the ecosystem itself. The second class of descriptors, the

so-called external descriptors, describes external factors which might affect the local

21 EEA (2012) Available data for assessing ecosystems in Europe. Final report task 5.2 Ecosystem

assessment: identification of thematic datasets.


status of the ecosystem in a positive or a negative way. This applies to every level.

These external descriptors could be established by for instance:

o Analysing fauna requirements (state of fragmentation);

o Establishing cultural and historical use (ecosystem services);

o Assessing hydrological cycles (external drainage issues);

o Determining nutrient inputs and outputs (eutrophication impacts);

o Addressing migration induced due to climate change (flora and fauna distribution

change).

External descriptors could be further classified according to their scale of influence: local,

regional/national, global. Some examples:

Disturbance by excessive recreation or tourism activities on a recreational lake has a

negative influence on the condition of an adjacent wetland for breeding wetland birds.

This phenomenon takes place at a local (landscape) scale.

Atmospheric nitrogen deposition caused by intensive pig farming in some regions e.g.

The Netherlands and Flanders, is a negative external factor causing excessive nitrogen

loads in ecosystems which are sensitive to eutrophication. This phenomenon takes

place at a regional (landscape) scale.

Habitat change and species migration affecting the condition of several ecosystem

types in i.a. Alpine and Mediterranean regions in the EU is a phenomenon caused by

global climate change.

This differentiation between internal and external descriptors and between different landscape

scales of external factors allows the following information to be incorporated into the 4-level

model:

Threats. Local ecosystem conditions can be excellent (which in the previous concept

qualifies for level 1) but external conditions can be bad or get worse. In such case the

ecosystem state should be qualified as level 2 allowing restoration measures to be

taken, even if these measures have to take place outside the considered ecosystem.

Institutional levels where actions should be taken. This is important in view of the

prioritisation process.

By applying the approach described above, the landscape dimension can be integrated into the

ecosystem based 4-level model.


Figure 4. Schematic presentation of integration of the landscape approach into the 4-level

concept

It’s clear that this extra dimension needs to be taken into account in determining the condition of

ecosystem types, i.e. the ‘level’. For level 1 it means that not only the large majority of internal

(‘on site’) descriptors should be categorized as good to excellent, but also the large majority of

the external descriptors, (this would indicate that the ecosystem patch is benefiting from optimal

landscape-ecological processes within the landscape to which it belongs). It would be possible,

for example, to have an ecosystem patch where the “on site” descriptors would suggest level 1

whereas the rather moderate values of the “external” descriptors would cause the overall

condition level to be categorized as “level 2”.

However, as a pragmatic approach is one of the key principles for a well-functioning restoration

prioritisation framework, we should be careful not to overcomplicate the 4-level model by adding

extra guidelines which might result from adding the landscape approach as an extra dimension.

2.3.4.4 Well-defined set of descriptors and indicators for each ecosystem type and restoration

level

For each ecosystem type, ecosystem condition should be described by means of descriptors

and indicators, and the appropriate threshold values which determine movements between

levels.


2.3.4.4.1 How to select suitable descriptors and indicators?

Selection of the most appropriate descriptors should be based on the following criteria (see also

general principles):

o Availability of data is a condition sine quo non

o Descriptors should facilitate comparability between Member States

o Descriptors already used in EU environmental legislation with regard to ecosystem

restoration should be applied in the 4-level model where possible.

o State descriptors, pressure descriptors and measure descriptors can all be applied.

However, state descriptors are preferred

o Descriptors should consist of both “on-site” descriptors and landscape-related

“external” descriptors

o Mixture of abiotic, biotic and (in some cases) ecosystem services descriptors

Some issues are discussed in more detail:

Data availability and examples of existing descriptor sets

State descriptors, pressure descriptors and measure descriptors

Ecosystem services as part of the descriptors set

Data availability and examples of existing descriptor sets

Data availability is a major issue. Many data-sets exist, however, translating these into specific

descriptors and indicators which assess the quality of an ecosystem is a difficult task. For the

purposes of the Restoration Prioritisation Framework one should rely as much as possible on

existing descriptors, such as those defined and monitored under the Pan-European SEBI

initiative22

(Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators23

). This was launched in 2005,

with the aim to develop a European set of biodiversity indicators (based on those already

existing, plus new indicators as necessary ) to assess and inform about progress towards the

2010 targets. From its inception, SEBI linked the global framework set by the Convention on

Biological Diversity with regional and national indicator initiatives. The first set of 26 SEBI

indicators was chosen at the end of 2006. SEBI should be recognized as a comprehensive, peer

group reviewed and validated set of indicators.

SEBI has now become a key instrument to monitor progress towards the targets of the EU

2020 Biodiversity Strategy.

It’s interesting to understand the criteria for selection of the SEBI indicators (see Box 2), as in

principle these criteria should equally apply to the selection of descriptors for monitoring

progress towards the 15% restoration target.

Box 2: Criteria for selection of the proposed indicators in 2006 (SEBI)

• Policy-relevant and meaningful: indicators should send a clear message and provide

information at a level appropriate for policy and management decision-making by assessing

22 http://biodiversity.europa.eu/topics/sebi-indicators

23 Here ‘indicator’ is used instead of descriptor; however the SEBI indicators need to be considered as

descriptors as applied within the 4-level restoration concept

http://biodiversity.europa.eu/topics/sebi-indicators


changes in the status of biodiversity (or pressures, responses, use or capacity), related to

baselines and agreed policy targets if possible.

• Biodiversity-relevant: indicators should address key properties of biodiversity or related

issues as pressures, state, impacts and responses.

• Progress towards 2010: indicators should show clear progress towards the 2010 target.

• Well-founded methodology: the methodology should be clear, well defined and relatively

simple. Indicators should be measurable in an accurate and affordable way, and constitute part

of a sustainable monitoring system. Data should be collected using standard methods with

known accuracy and precision, using determinable baselines and targets for the assessment of

improvements and declines.

• Acceptance and intelligibility: the power of an indicator depends on its broad acceptance.

Involvement of policy-makers as well as major stakeholders and experts in the development of

an indicator is crucial.

• Routinely collected data: indicators must be based on routinely collected, clearly defined,

verifiable and scientifically acceptable data.

• Cause-effect relationship: information on cause-effect relationships should be achievable and

quantifiable in order to link pressures, state and response indicators. These relationship models

allow scenario analysis and represent the basis of the ecosystem approach.

• Spatial coverage: indicators should ideally be pan-European and include adjacent marine

areas, if and where appropriate.

• Temporal trend: indicators should show temporal trends.

• Country comparison: as far as possible, it should be possible to make valid comparisons

between countries using the indicators selected.

• Sensitivity towards change: indicators should show trends and, where possible, permit

distinction between human-induced and natural changes. Indicators should thus be able to

detect changes in systems in timeframes and on scales that are relevant to the decisions, but

also be robust enough to measure errors that do not affect interpretation.

In addition, the following criteria were used to evaluate the set as a whole:

• Representative: the set of indicators provides a representative picture of the DPSIR chain.

• Small in number: the smaller the total number of indicators, the easier it is to communicate

cost-effectively to policy-makers and the public.

• Aggregation and flexibility: aggregation should be facilitated on a range of scales.

The ‘new’ SEBI indicator list was specifically developed to measure progress towards the targets

of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy24

. Many of the SEBI indicators are relevant, directly or

indirectly, in relation to the 15% restoration target. The EEA core set of indicators (CSI)25

as well

as several Agri-Environmental Indicators (AEI)26

are also relevant (see Table 2).

24 http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/streamlining-european-biodiversity-indicators-2020

25 http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators#c5=&c7=all&c0=10&b_start=0&c10=CSI

26 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/agri_environmental_indicators/introduction

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/streamlining-european-biodiversity-indicators-2020

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators#c5=&c7=all&c0=10&b_start=0&c10=CSI

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/agri_environmental_indicators/introduction


Table 2: Overview of SEBI descriptors under the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy

Code SEBI descriptor Baseline year Included in EU 2010

Biodiversity Baseline

Target 1: Nature Conservation: Fully implement the nature directives

To halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats covered by EU nature legislation and achieve a

significant and measurable improvement in their status by 2020 compared to current assessments: 100 % more

habitat assessments and 50 % more species assessments under the Habitats Directive show an improved

conservation status and more 50 % more species assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure or improved

status.

SEBI 03 Species of European interest 2007 OK

SEBI 05 Habitats of European interest 2007 OK

Target 2: Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services

By 2020, ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by establishing green infrastructure and

restoring at least 15 % of degraded ecosystems.

SEBI 01 Abundance and distribution of selected species 1980 (birds)

1990

(butterflies)

OK

SEBI 04 Ecosystem coverage

(see also CSI 014 ‘Land take’)

1990 OK

SEBI 07 Nationally designated protected areas 1895 NOK

SEBI 09 Critical load exceedance for nitrogen

(see also CSI 005 ‘Exposure of ecosystems to

acidification, eutrophication and ozone’)

1990 OK

SEBI 11 Impact of climate change on bird populations 1980 OK

SEBI 13 Fragmentation of natural and semi-natural areas (see

Box 3)

1990 OK

SEBI 14 Fragmentation of river systems NOK

SEBI 16 Freshwater quality

(see also CSI 020 ‘Nutrients in freshwater)

1992 OK

Target 3: Increase the contribution of agriculture & forestry to maintaining & enhancing biodiversity

A) Agriculture: By 2020, maximise areas under agriculture across grasslands, arable land and permanent crops that are covered by biodiversity-related measures under the CAP so as to ensure the conservation of biodiversity and to bring about a measurable improvement in the conservation status of species and habitats that depend on or are affected by agriculture and in the provision of ecosystem services as compared to the EU2010 baseline, thus contributing to enhance sustainable management.

B) Forests: By 2020, forest management plans or equivalent instruments, in line with Sustainable Forest Management (SFM), are in place for all forests that are publicly owned and for forest holdings above a certain size (to be defined by the Member States or regions and communicated in their rural development programmes) that receive funding under the EU rural development policy so as to bring about a measurable improvement (*) in the conservation status of species and habitats that depend on or are affected by forestry and in the provision of related ecosystem services as compared to the EU 2010 baseline.

(*) For both targets, improvement is to be measured against the quantified enhancement targets for the conservation

status of species and habitats of EU interest in Target 1 and the restoration of degraded ecosystems under Target 2.


SEBI 03 Species of European interest 2007 OK

SEBI 05 Habitats of European interest 2007 OK

Indicators relevant for Target 3 A) 'Agriculture'

SEBI 06 Livestock genetic diversity 1995 NOK

SEBI 19 Agriculture : nitrogen balance

(see also CSI 025 ‘Gross nutrient balance’ and AEI 15

‘Gross nitrogen balance’)

1985 NOK

SEBI20 Agriculture: area under management practices supporting

biodiversity:

o HNV farmland (also AEI 23)

o Organic farming (also CSI 026, AEI 4)

2008

2000

NOK

Additional indicators: The common set of baseline, output, result and impact indicators for the rural development

programmes — (Common Monitoring Framework — CMEF), in particular related to AXIS 2 (see also CAP descriptors in Annex 2) Indicators relevant for Target 3 B)'Forests'

SEBI 17 Forest : growing stock, increment and fellings 1990 OK

SEBI 18 Forest: deadwood 1990 OK

Additional indicators: Indicators developed in the frame of the pan-European FOREST EUROPE initiative (formerly: MCPFF), in particular indicators of: Maintenance, Conservation and Appropriate Enhancement of Biological Diversity in Forest Ecosystems (FOREST EUROPE Criterion 4)(see

Table 3)

Target 4: Ensure sustainable use of fisheries resources

Achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) by 2015. Achieve a population age and size distribution indicative of a

healthy stock, through fisheries management with no significant adverse impacts on other stocks, species and

ecosystems, in support of achieving Good Environmental Status by 2020, as required under the Marine Strategy

Framework Directive.

SEBI 21 Fisheries: European commercial fish stocks 2006 OK

SEBI 12 Marine Trophic Index 1950 OK

Additional indicators: Indicators developed under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive Target 5 Combat Invasive Alien Species

By 2020, Invasive Alien Species (IAS) and their pathways are identified and prioritised, priority species are controlled

or eradicated, and pathways are managed to prevent the introduction and establishment of new IAS.

SEBI 10 Invasive alien species in Europe 1900 OK

Box 3: Level of fragmentation

Fragmentation by infrastructure and land-use change can have a devastating effect on

ecosystems, because it reduces ecosystems in size, isolates specific areas and reduces the

quality (EEA 2011). Determining the amount of fragmentation within an ecosystem could

therefore give a strong indication on the state of degradation. The results gathered in the

Landscape Fragmentation in Europe report by the EEA (2011)27

give an EU wide indication of

27 http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/landscape-fragmentation-in-europe


fragmentation by determining the effective mesh size metric for specific areas. This source of

information could be of great value in determining degradation (see Figure 5).

Figure 5: Landscape fragmentation indicated by the number of meshes (Seff) per 1 km2 grid in

2009. The higher the value the higher the amount of fragmentation (source: EEA 2011)

Also under the FOREST EUROPE Initiative on sustainable forestry management (SFM),

criteria and indicators have been developed. The criteria and indicators for SFM were adopted in

Lisbon 1998 and further improved and endorsed by the Ministerial Conference in Vienna (2003).

They represent the consensus achieved by European countries on the most important aspects of

SFM and provide guidance for developing policies and help assess progress on sustainable

forest management.

The six Pan-European criteria for SFM are:

Maintenance and appropriate enhancement of forest resources and their contribution to

global carbon cycles;

Maintenance of forest ecosystems’ health and vitality;

Maintenance and encouragement of productive functions of forests (wood and non-

wood);

Maintenance, conservation and appropriate enhancement of biological diversity in

forest ecosystems;

Maintenance, conservation and appropriate enhancement of protective functions in

forest management (notably soil and water); and

Maintenance of other socio-economic functions and conditions.

They describe the different aspects of sustainable forest management in Europe. The fulfillment of the criteria can be of the criteria can be evaluated through a set of 35 quantitative indicators.

http://www.foresteurope.org/en/sfm_criteria/criteria/carbon

http://www.foresteurope.org/en/sfm_criteria/criteria/carbon

http://www.foresteurope.org/en/sfm_criteria/criteria/health

http://www.foresteurope.org/en/sfm_criteria/criteria/functions-and-forests

http://www.foresteurope.org/en/sfm_criteria/criteria/biological-diversity

http://www.foresteurope.org/en/sfm_criteria/criteria/protective-functions

http://www.foresteurope.org/en/sfm_criteria/criteria/socioeconomic-functions


Table 3 presents the indicators related to biological diversity, but from the abovementioned

criteria it’s clear that also ecosystem services are taken into account.


Table 3: Sustainable Forestry Management indicators for criterion 4 on biodiversity

C4: Maintenance, Conservation and Appropriate Enhancement of Biological

Diversity in Forest Ecosystems

Indicator Explanation

4.1 Tree species

composition

Area of forest and other wooded land, classified by number

of tree species occurring and by forest type

4.2 Regeneration Area of regeneration within even-aged stands and uneven-

aged stands, classified by regeneration type

4.3 Naturalness Area of forest and other wooded land, classified by

“undisturbed by man”, by “semi-natural” or by “plantations”,

each by forest type

4.4 Introduced tree species Area of forest and other wooded land dominated by

introduced tree species

4.5 Deadwood Volume of standing deadwood and of lying deadwood on

forest and other wooded land classified by forest type

4.6 Genetic resources Area managed for conservation and utilisation of forest tree

genetic resources (in situ and ex situ gene conservation) and

area managed for seed production

4.7 Landscape pattern Landscape-level spatial pattern of forest cover

4.8 Threatened forest

species

Number of threatened forest species, classified according to

IUCN Red List categories in relation to total number of forest

species

4.9 Protected forests Area of forest and other wooded land protected to conserve

biodiversity, landscapes and specific natural elements,

according to Forest Europe Assessment Guidelines

State descriptors, pressure descriptors and measure descriptors

State descriptors, pressure descriptors and measure descriptors can all be applied:

State descriptors describe ecosystem condition best as they provide objective

information on the actual state of the ecosystem. As habitats and species are

dependent on abiotic features and landscape-ecological processes, the presence and

tendencies of vulnerable habitats and species are extremely informative in relation to

ecosystem condition. As such they are preferred over abiotic descriptors.

Pressure descriptors should be in line with the most important threats to ecosystems.

Ecosystem degradation can be caused by multiple factors including fragmentation,

pollution, over-exploitation, invasive species, climate change and land cover reduction

(European Environmental Agency 2010). SOER 2010 determined the current state of

Europe’s environment with specific descriptors and indicators which are of great use in

determining the spatial distribution of degraded ecosystems (European Environmental

Agency 2010). As an example we refer to descriptors such as fragmentation, pollution,

land-use change and the trend in ecosystem services.

Measure descriptors do not provide information on the state of an ecosystem, but in

the framework of the 4-level model they are very useful to describe ‘a positive tendency’


in those cases where restoration actions take a long time before results (in terms of

returning species, restored habitats) are achieved.

Ecosystem services as part of the descriptors set

Given the importance of restoring heavily modified ecosystems to an ecologically more valuable

condition, descriptors should not only cover abiotic and biotic conditions but also ecosystem

services. The use of ecosystem services as descriptors needs to be ‘handled with care’. Some

considerations:

It could be argued that ecosystems where abiotic and biotic conditions are improving

automatically will generate a balanced mix of ecosystem services, and as a result there

is no need for additional descriptors on ecosystem services. This is consistent with the

hypothesis of the MAES Analytical Framework document that good ecosystem status

results in better ecosystem functioning and hence, in enhanced ecosystem services.

However, it is worth remembering that many level 4 ecosystems (heavily modified

ecosystems) will never return to a good ecosystem status (level 2 or 1) but might be

restored to level 3. For these situations, the additional delivery of ecosystem services

could be even more important than the creation of ecologically valuable habitats and

the return of some species. Ecosystem services do add another dimension to

expressing the level of restoration, which is very important from a societal point of view.

Therefore degradation and restoration should also consider the ability of ecosystems to

deliver multiple ecosystem services.

Finally we need to be careful with setting targets on ecosystem services delivery, as

this requires trade-offs between ecosystem services and even with nature restoration

targets. As an example, hilly areas in southern Europe suffering heavily from erosion

could be planted with fast growing Eucalyptus forests which will contribute a lot to

erosion control, carbon sequestration, timber production, air quality regulation etc. but

Eucalyptus is not a native species and as such is not the preferred choice from a

biodiversity point of view.

In the context of the 4 level model, ecosystem services should be linked to descriptors with

measurable indicators28

. In Table 4 a sample of Switzerland’s selection of ecosystem services

and indicators is presented as an example of how the specification of ES services and

descriptors could be done. However, this is only one example and does not necessarily reflect

the way ecosystem services descriptors will be developed within the restoration prioritization

framework.

28 Useful data sources are:

UNEP-WCMC 2011. Developing ecosystem service indicators: Experiences and lessons learned

from sub-global assessments and other initiatives. Secretariat of the CBD, Technical series 58

Kettunen, M., Bassi, S., Gantioler, S. & ten Brink, P. 2009. Assessing Socio-economic Benefits of

Natura 2000 – a Toolkit for Practitioners (September 2009 Edition); this report contains a very

suitable overview of which ecosystem type delivers which ecosystem services.

Egoh B. et al., Indicators for mapping ecosystem services: a review (JRC Report EUR 25456 EN,

2012)


Table 4: Examples of ecosystem services and indicators selected by Switzerland (UNEP-

WCMC, 2011)

Final ecosystem services Descriptors

Recreational services from city green

areas and open spaces as well as from

nearby and remote recreational areas

Size and accessibility of green areas in

residential areas

Recreational use of forests, measured

in visits per day

Protection from avalanches, rockfalls and

debris flows through vegetation on steep

slopes

Protected values through protective

forests in Swiss francs (prevented

damage potentials)

Natural supply of drinking and process

water

Water supply that consists of untreated

spring and ground water in million m3

and percentage share

Existence value of diversity* at levels of

species, genes, ecosystems and landscapes

(*non-use value of biodiversity in addition to

the use value of ES services)

Indicators of the biodiversity monitoring

of Switzerland

2.3.4.4.2 How to select threshold values?

For each descriptor threshold values need to be defined. These mark the transition between

restoration levels. For some descriptors these threshold values are already established, i.e.

habitat conservation status and species conservation status for habitats/species protected under

the Habitats Directive (4 categories of status assessment: favorable, unfavorable – inadequate,

unfavorable – bad, unknown). Also the WFD and the MSFD distinguish different quality levels for

the descriptors applied to rivers and lakes, and to marine ecosystems.

However there are hardly any threshold values available for other descriptors which could be

used in the framework of the restoration target. Exceptions are so-called naturalness indices for

some ecosystem types, but these are only applied in a limited number of Member States and are

Member State specific. Consequently, for many descriptors these threshold values will need to

be defined.

2.3.4.5 Defined baseline

For the purposes of the restoration concept the baseline situation is the situation in 2010, as this

was the start of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. However, data will not be available for all indicators

for 2010. Some might be older. If no data are available for 2010 we propose to take the most

recent data (e.g. Art 17 reporting Natura 2000 provides data for the situation in 2006). This is

consistent with the study on the financing of the 15% restoration target, which assumes that the

15% restoration requirement under Target 2 refers to ecosystems that have been destroyed

since 2000, as well as ecosystems that were considered to be degraded in 2010 according to

the Biodiversity Baseline report.


2.3.4.6 Options for setting the national restoration targets

The 15% restoration target included as part of Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity strategy

represents an objective for the EU. On the other hand, the restoration work will be prioritized and

implemented by the Member States. It is important to try and develop a common understanding

regarding the degree to which restoration efforts will be coordinated, upon what basis and

whether or not the Member States will work independently or engage in burden-sharing. The

advantages and disadvantages of the different possible approaches relating to the level at which

the 15% target should be applied, were discussed during the workshop (29 – 30 May 2013)

which took place in the framework of this contract. A summary of the outcomes is presented

below.

The 15% target should be applied within each bio-geographical regions as identified

under the Habitats Directive.

This option will ensure a more ecologically sound distribution of restoration actions. Additionally

conditions within bio-geographical regions are likely to be comparable, therefore setting targets

could be easier and priorities could be set on an ecological basis. However, the main objection

to this approach is that it will be very hard to apply because it requires difficult and time

consuming negotiations on burden-sharing between Member States. Another important point is

that although the ecological conditions are more or less comparable within a bio-geographical

region, the pressures could be very different causing different states of degradation. This will

significantly reduce the comparability of ecosystems within one region and therefore make the

process very complex.

The 15% target should be applied within each Member State

This approach was considered as the most pragmatic option as this does notrequire negotiations

between Member States. Additionally, each Member State can take its own responsibility and

set its own targets and priorities. National databases can be used without trying to create a

consensus with pan-European datasets and in the end this process will be more cost effective.

Another important advantage is that Member States have to report on the Aichi targets anyway

(which include a similar target on restoration).

On the other hand it could be argued that this option is not the best option for ensuring optimal

restoration from an ecological point of view, as a Member State can decide to focus on nationally

important ecosystems without considering a pan-European view (or doing only the easy things –

see also ‘general principle’ Z under 2.3.3). Additionally, the economic crisis has hit some

Member States more than others causing differences in the potential to finance the 15% target.

Finally, this option requires a uniform understanding of level 1 and restorable areas, to avoid

scenarios where Member States include a ‘too’ large proportion of their territory into level 1 and

thereby artificially minimizing the “restorable area”.

The 15% target should be applied to each ecosystem type

This option was considered as a good option from an ecological perspective. It ensures that the

restoration actions are evenly distributed between ecosystems. As a result there are gains for

every ecosystem. Another advantage is that restoration actions in Member States can be

focused on areas where the restoration of a specific ecosystem is easier to realise and with

relatively lower costs. As an example, restoring large areas of wetlands in Finland is relatively


easy to carry out. It has been suggested that the EU could set minimum guidelines on how much

should be restored of a specific ecosystem type (further discussed in Section 3 ‘Guidance for

priority setting at national and subnational level’).

Another disadvantage is that Member States with multiple ecosystems could have a higher

burden sharing than other Member States. Finally setting this target for croplands could result in

restoring only semi-natural ecosystems in heavily urbanized countries (like in Belgium and the

Netherlands), while paying less attention on for instance forest or wetland restoration.

Combined option

During the workshop, discussions took place on whether the options could/should be combined

into one overall framework. As a result Figure 6 was elaborated.

As a first step the Commission in consultation with scientists and conservationists (e.g. NGO’s)

identifies which ecosystems have a priority within each of the bio-geographical regions. Once

this list of priority ecosystems is defined for every bio-geographical region, it was proposed that

Member States could get a bonus on the 15% target if they mainly focus on these priority

ecosystems.

In the second step the 15% restoration target is applied by every Member State. Member States

are fully responsible to realize this target and use their own data in assessing the state of

degraded ecosystems.

Figure 6: Combined option for setting the 15% restoration target

The third step consists of further refinement and boundary setting. Although the Member States

have a large freedom in deciding on their own restoration actions, there are certain boundaries

that should be respected. A clear boundary is that every ecosystem type should receive a

minimum amount of restoration. It was suggested that for each ecosystem type a minimum of

5% of the total surface of this ecosystem type within the Member State should be restored.


However the total should reach 15%. As an example a Member State could decide on only

restoring 5% of the degraded grasslands while restoring 25% of forests. There is a high degree

of flexibility, but it is recommended that choices are justified.

Conclusion:

Notwithstanding the arguments in favour of varying degrees of co-ordination and burden sharing,

the decisive factor on this question is the position of the Member States. In that regard, it is clear

that a significant majority of the Member States are in favour of an approach where each country

strives to restore 15% of the degraded ecosystems within its borders. This being the case,

approaches based on biogeographic regions and ecosystem types will not be effective. In the

light of these considerations, it is assumed that the 15% restoration target will be applied at the

level of each Member State.

2.3.5 Proposed descriptors for ecosystem types

The matrix in Annex 4 provides an overview of potential descriptors and the link with ecosystem

types. For a selection of ecosystem types, a more elaborated table is provided below. Taking

into account the fact that restoration targets are already established for freshwaters (rivers and

lakes) and marine ecosystem types, and Member States are taking initiatives to reach the

targets set under the WFD and the MSFD, this report focuses on selected terrestrial ecosystem

types. In particular the 4-level concept is elaborated for the following ecosystem types, as these

ecosystem types suffer most from human pressures:

Forests

Croplands

Grasslands

Wetlands

Urban

For each ecosystem type a table is elaborated, which is structured as follows:

Proposed descriptor (with indication if a SEBI descriptor is available)

Spatial scale of influence: specifies if descriptor only refers to an on-site situation or to

a situation where a larger area is affected (from local to international)

Type of descriptor

Applied indicator(s)

Threshold value: provides information on potential ways to distinguish between

condition levels

Measurement system: uniform throughout EU or Member State specific

Data: EU data and/or national data

Restoration actions: it’s useful to link the type of restoration measures with the defined

descriptor, as these restoration measures should have an influence on the ecosystem

condition described by the descriptor

An extra row can be added for each descriptor to provide additional information (e.g.

examples, pro’s and contra’s, …)

These tables are not complete and should be further elaborated (see also 2.3.6). However they

provide an initial start and demonstrate the way forward.


2.3.5.1 The 4-level model applied to forests

Table 5: Descriptors for forests applied in the 4-level model

FOREST

Descriptors

Spatial scale of

influence

Type of descriptor

Indicator Threshold Level Measurement

system

Data Restoration actions

‘Naturalness’

indicator

On site State descriptor

(biotic + abiotic)

Composite (many

parameters)

Allows for

classification in

levels

Not uniform Member State

specific

Site management

Austria applies a so-called ‘hemeroby’-index (see Figure 7) , which is a composite indicator reflecting the degree of naturalness (based on naturalness of

tree species composition, naturalness of ground flora, type of tree regeneration, clearcut areas, recent impact of man, state of development, age structure,

dead wood, composition of the stand, diversity of tree species and diversity of ground layer). The index classifies the Austrian forests in natural, near-

natural, moderately modified, strongly modified, artificial. Hungary applies a Natural Capital Index for all ecosystem types (see Figure 8)

(+) This type of index fits well with the 4-level approach.

(+) ‘Naturalness’ descriptors provide a great opportunity to define the state of an ecosystem instead of focusing on pressures and defining

complex threshold values.

(+) This composite descriptor can be used by Member States which apply such type of descriptor

(-) As not all Member States apply such descriptors and as there are differences in the measurement systems comparability between Member

states is very low

(-) it is not clear in what sense naturalness differs from favourable conservation status. Also the reference to define the naturalness of an

ecosystem differs from region to region (see remark below). It looks like “naturalness” is an overall descriptor that includes many of the other listed

descriptors. An alternative could be to use the favourable conservation and its descriptors instead of a naturalness descriptor.

(-) The highest level is considered as the pristine state; however the definition of a pristine state varies per country. A pristine state for grasslands

in the Atlantic eco-region is forest while in the pannonic region only pristine state grasslands occur under natural conditions. Therefore it is

recommended to create a pan-European definition on pristine systems which should be addressed within an eco-region approach

Deadwood

(SEBI18)


(biotic)

One parameter

(kg/ha)

To be

determined

SEBI EU wide +

national

databases

Site management

(+) EU wide descriptor

Other specific descriptors could be used if MS have no composite descriptor such as a naturalness index. Next to deadwood, tree species composition and forest age structure might be useful descriptors (see also Forest Europe indicators for biological diversity in


FOREST

Descriptors

Spatial scale of

influence

Type of descriptor


system


Table 3).

Connectivity

(SEBI13)29

On site / local /

regional

State descriptor

(landscape-

ecological process)

2 parameters:

internal (site) and

external

(landscape, but

limited to forest )

To be

determined

SEBI EU wide +

national

databases

Defragmentation

Integration in ecological

corridors

Ideally data on fragmentation within the forest ecosystem need to be combined with data on fragmentation at a landscape level, as forests may be part of

green corridors covering multiple ecosystem types; as a consequence the descriptor could be formulated as: “forest is part (or not) of a larger ecological

network”.


(-) Although connectivity could be a highly useful descriptor, it does depend a lot on the scale on which an ecosystem is assessed. Additionally

fragmentation effects are very species specific and therefore hard to address

(-) Differentiation in 4 levels difficult, as very species dependent

Species index

(SEBI 01)

On site / local State descriptor

(biotic)

Different indices

possible (species

groups e.g. forest

birds, butterflies,

…), based on

diversity of

species

From low to high

index

SEBI for birds and

butterflies;

probably uniform

systems for other

species groups

too

EU wide +

national

databases

Wide range of actions

(+) Next to the use of these ‘positive indicator species’, also presence of negative indicator species and invasive alien species can be applied if

data are available.

(+) generally applied monitoring tool

(-) data often only available at MS level, so difficult to link to ecosystem patches

Ecosystem On-site / local State descriptor Range of ES To be No uniform No EU wide

29 Fragmentation of natural and semi-natural areas (SEBI 013)


FOREST

Descriptors

Spatial scale of

influence

Type of descriptor


system


services (ecosystem services) (provisioning,

regulating,

cultural)

determined. measurement

method

database yet,

some national

databases

available, others

under

development

Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on the capacity of the ecosystem to offer a well-balanced range of ecosystem services (i.e. none of the

ecosystem services is dominating).

Provisioning services will score highest in level 4 but for obvious reasons this cannot be used as a suitable descriptor in the context of restoration.

Regulating services (water regulation, water purification, carbon sequestration, erosion control, air quality, …) will score higher when proceeding from level

4 to level 1.

(+) ES suitable descriptor for assessing progress in lower levels e.g. from level 4 to level 3, due to societal impacts

(-) ecosystem services hard to monitor due to lack of uniform monitoring systems and high local variations due to presence/absence and

appreciation of beneficiaries

Intensity of

(timber)

exploitation

(SEBI 17)

On site Pressure descriptor Production of

timber per ha

(‘round wood

removals’30

)

To be

determined.

SEBI; see also

Forest Europe

criteria and

indicators

EU wide +

National

databases

Decreasing intensity of

exploitation

Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on intensity of exploitation. Extensive commercial exploitation might be acceptable in level 1 forests (e.g. as long

as FCS for habitats and species in Natura 2000 forest areas is not threatened)

It has to be investigated in how far a descriptor with regard to a certification scheme (e.g. surface of forests under Sustainable Forestry Management) can

be used for differentiating the 4 levels31

.

30 Applied in Finland

31 In Finland most forests are under PEFC certification scheme, which is SFM (sustainable forest management). As such this doesn’t differentiate Finnish forests. Most of

Finnish forests (about 90 %) are available for timber production. Still at least a part of the commercial forests in Finland might qualify even for level 2, as abiotic conditions in

Finnish forests are certainly not highly modified, and forests are not dominated by artificial habitats.


FOREST

Descriptors

Spatial scale of

influence

Type of descriptor


system


Pressure from

acidification

(CSI 005)

Regional /

national /

international

Pressure descriptor Actual

atmospheric

deposition +

historical

deposition

critical load as

determining

factor

CSI ‘Exposure

ecosystems to

acidification,

eutrophication and

ozone’

EU wide Legislative framework at

national and international

level

Also historical deposition should be taken into account, as although current deposition levels have improved substantially, forests may need long time to

recover


Pressure from

eutrophication

(CSI 005)

Regional /

national /

international


atmospheric

deposition +

historical

deposition

critical load as

determining

factor

CSI ‘Exposure

ecosystems to

acidification,

eutrophication and

ozone’



level

Some forest types are more vulnerable to nitrogen deposition than other forest types.

Also historical deposition should be taken into account, as although current deposition levels have improved substantially, forests may need long time to

recover


Protected

forest (SEBI 07)

On-site Measure descriptor Ha Protected or

non-protected

SEBI EU wide +

National

databases

Forest under

agro-forest

system (CAP)

On-site Measure descriptor Ha Under agro-

forest system or

not

CAP EU wide


FOREST

Descriptors

Spatial scale of

influence

Type of descriptor


system


Initiated

restoration

actions

On site /

regional /

national /

international

Measure descriptor Ha Actions started

or not; actions

can be taken at

any level

Not uniform National


Figure 7: Austrian forest 'hemeroby index' as an example of a 'naturalness' indicator


Figure 8: Hungarian 'Natural Capital Index' approach as an example of a 'naturalness' indicator (Czucz et al., 2012)


2.3.5.2 The 4-level model applied to cropland

Applying the 4-level model concept to modified ecosystem types such as croplands is a challenge. At first view it might be hard to understand how

croplands ever can be qualified as level 1. However extensively managed croplands in traditional farming systems have high ecological values and are the

preferred habitat for many species, which have a Red List status today.


Table 6 provides an overview of potential descriptors. Based on the presented descriptors a fictitious example is presented how the 4-level approach is

applied to cropland areas (see Box 4).

Box 4: Example of application of 4-level restoration model to croplands

Level 4: area dominated by large monocultures of crops requiring intensive management; CAP ecological focus areas are present as isolated pieces

of land with no connection to a green ecological network; farmland bird index species are absent

Level 3: area characterized by combination of large monoculture parcels, intensively managed grasslands and landscape elements (tree rows, some

hedges, small rivers with natural elements in a narrow bank area); CAP ecological focus areas are located in connection to existing landscape

elements; only 2 to 3 species of farmland bird index present, although not in healthy populations

Level 2: area characterized by mosaic landscape, with smaller parcels of cropland and grassland, and presence of other ecosystem types, such as

small forests; still quite intensive farmland management; CAP ecological focus areas are located in connection to existing landscape elements and

contribute to improving overall landscape connectivity; the area is connected to the wider ecological network; about 50% of farmland bird index

species are present, some of them in healthy populations

Level 1: area characterized by mosaic landscape, with smaller parcels of cropland and grassland, and presence of other ecosystem types, such as

forests and wetlands; extensive farmland management (often traditional farming); high cultural values and wide range of regulatory ecosystem

services; CAP ecological focus areas are located in connection to existing landscape elements and contribute to improving overall landscape

connectivity; many farmland bird index species are present, most of them with healthy populations

From this example it’s clear that applying a wider landscape approach offers advantages when describing the 4 levels. Level 1 cropland will still have the

functionality of producing crops. However there will be a gradual shift from very intensive cropland (level 4) to very extensive cropland (level 1). This

example demonstrates that level 1 and level 2 croplands (and to a lesser extent level 3) show some overlap with grassland ecosystems. This is logical as

traditional extensive farming practices are characterized by a combination of crop cultivation and cattle raising (mosaic landscapes).


Table 6: Descriptors for cropland applied in the 4-level model

CROPLAND

Descriptors

Spatial scale of

influence

Type of descriptor


system


Management

intensity

On-site Pressure descriptor Different

parameters

To be

determined

Depending on

indicator

IACS? Reducing intensity of

management

The intensity of fertilizer and pesticides use, the intensity of artificial irrigation, etc.. are parameters for describing the management intensity. Data at a

national (or subnational) level should be available via IACS (Information and Administration Control System).

Organic farming might be qualified as level 1.

(+) very relevant descriptor

(-) no clear definition of intensive/extensive management

Connectivity On-site / local /

regional

State descriptor

(landscape-

ecological process)

Connection to

natural and semi-

natural areas

Not clear

To be

determined

Not uniform No EU wide and

hardly national

databases

Defragmentation


corridors

Ideally data on fragmentation within the agricultural ecosystem need to be combined with data on fragmentation at a landscape level, as crops and

grasslands may be part of green corridors covering multiple ecosystem types.

Internal connectivity within agricultural areas, even within areas dominated by large cropland parcels, can be realized by introducing landscape elements

such as hedges and ecologically managed verges. Cropland areas however can also be crossed by broader green corridors such as rivers and their

forested borders, or even by man-made robust ecological corridors in order to overcome a migration barrier between more natural ecosystem types.

(-) no EU wide descriptor, as the SEBI descriptor on fragmentation only applies to natural and semi-natural areas; hardly national data


Farmland bird

index

(SEBI 01)


(biotic)

Index based on

diversity and

population size of

farmland birds

From low to high

index

SEBI; probably

uniform systems

for other species

groups too

EU wide +

national

databases


Similar species indices might be applied if data are available e.g. mammals (e.g. Hamster – Cricetus cricetus), butterflies, …


data are available.



CROPLAND

Descriptors

Spatial scale of

influence

Type of descriptor


system



Soil condition On-site State descriptor

(abiotic)

soil degradation

parameters e.g.

erosion

To be

determined

Ecosystem

services

On-site / local State descriptor

(ecosystem services)

Range of ES

(provisioning,

regulating,

cultural)

To be

determined

No uniform

measurement

method

No EU wide

database yet,

some national

databases

available, others

under

development

Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on the capacity of the ecosystem to offer a well-balanced range of ecosystem services (i.e. none of the


Cultural services will score high in level 1 cropland areas. Provisioning services will score highest in level 4 but for obvious reasons this cannot be used as

a suitable descriptor in the context of restoration. Regulating services (erosion control, air quality, pollination, …) will score higher when proceeding from

level 4 to level 1.




Surface of

ecological

focus areas

(CAP)

On-site Measure descriptor Ha Degree of

connection of

CAP EFAs in

wider

landscape-

ecological

network

CAP EU wide


CROPLAND

Descriptors

Spatial scale of

influence

Type of descriptor


system


Some descriptors might overlap e.g. CAP focus areas and HNV farmland areas

Surface of

croplands

under HNV

farmland

(SEBI20, AEI23)

On-site Measure descriptor Ha HNV or not,

qualifying for at

least L2

SEBI, AEI EU wide

Initiated

restoration

actions

On-site / local /

regional /

national /

international


or not; actions

can be taken at

any level

Not uniform National Ha


2.3.5.3 The 4-level model applied to grasslands

Table 7: Descriptors for grasslands applied in the 4-level model

GRASSLAND

Descriptors

Spatial scale of

influence

Type of descriptor


system


‘Naturalness’

indicator


(biotic + abiotic)

Composite (many

parameters)

Allows for

classification in

levels


specific

Site management

Depends on availability of data.

In Finland the Habitat representativeness indicator has been applied on semi-natural grasslands. The indicator allows a classification of grasslands in 4

categories, and is based on the following parameters: level of overgrowing due to abandonment, level of nutrient enrichment due to abandonment or to

wrong management, vegetation height, typical species composition for the habitat type, threatened habitat types. Next to this indicator a number of

additional indicators are applied.






states is very low







Management

intensity

On-site Pressure descriptor Different

parameters

Unclear Depending on

indicator

(parameter)

IACS? Reducing intensity of

management

Meadows and pastures each require a specific management. The intensity of fertilizer and pesticides use, the intensity of grazing and mowing, etc.. are


GRASSLAND

Descriptors

Spatial scale of

influence

Type of descriptor


system


parameters for describing the management intensity. Data at a national (or subnational) level should be available via IACS (Information and Administration

Control System).

(+) very relevant descriptor

(-) no clear definition of intensive/extensive management; Intensive management for some habitats could be very beneficial, while for other

habitats this management could be highly damaging.; therefore it is very hard to use this as a uniform descriptor for grasslands; a solution would

be to define specific comparable grassland types which require similar management regimes and compare these with the current situation; this is

however a very complex process and could require more guidance at an EU level.

Connectivity

(SEBI 13 for

semi-natural

grasslands?)

On-site / local /

regional

State descriptor

(landscape-

ecological process)

Connection to

natural and semi-

natural areas

To be

determined.

Not uniform No EU wide

(unless SEBI 13

for semi-natural

grasslands?)

and hardly

national

databases

Defragmentation


corridors

Ideally data on fragmentation within the agricultural ecosystem need to be combined with data on fragmentation at a landscape level, as crops and

grasslands may be part of green corridors covering multiple ecosystem types.

Internal connectivity within agricultural areas, can be realized by introducing landscape elements such as hedges and ecologically managed verges.

Grassland areas however can also be crossed by broader green corridors such as rivers and their forested borders, or even by man-made robust

ecological corridors in order to overcome a migration barrier between more natural ecosystem types.

(-) no EU wide descriptor, as the SEBI descriptor on fragmentation only applies to natural and semi-natural areas; to be investigated if this SEBI

descriptor applies to semi-natural grasslands; hardly national data


Historical

continuum as a

grassland

On-site State descriptor historic

grasslands in L2

or L1

No EU wide

database, some

national

databases


GRASSLAND

Descriptors

Spatial scale of

influence

Type of descriptor


system


Ecosystem

services



Range of ES

(provisioning,

regulating,

cultural)

To be

determined.

No uniform

measurement

method

No EU wide

database yet,

some national

databases

available, others

under

development

Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on the capacity of the grassland ecosystem to offer a well-balanced range of ecosystem services (i.e. none of the


Provisioning services will score highest in level 4 but for obvious reasons this cannot be used as a suitable descriptor in the context of restoration.

Regulating services (water regulation, erosion control, air quality, pollination, …) will score higher when proceeding from level 4 to level 1.




Surface of

ecological

focus areas

(CAP)

On-site Measure descriptor Ha Degree of

connection of

CAP EFAs in

wider

landscape-

ecological

network

CAP EU wide

Some descriptors might overlap e.g. CAP focus areas and HNV farmland areas

Surface of

grasslands

under HNV

farmland

(SEBI20, AEI23)

On-site Measure descriptor Ha HNV or not,

qualifying for at

least L2

SEBI, AEI EU wide


GRASSLAND

Descriptors

Spatial scale of

influence

Type of descriptor


system


Protected

grassland

(SEBI 07)


non-protected

SEBI EU wide +

National

databases

Farmland bird

index

(SEBI 01)


(biotic)

Index based on

diversity and

population size of

farmland birds

From low to high

index

SEBI; probably

uniform systems

for other species

groups too

EU wide +

national

databases


Similar species indices might be applied if data are available e.g. grassland butterflies, …


data are available.



Pressure from

eutrophication

(CSI 005)

Regional /

national /

international


atmospheric

deposition (+

historical

deposition?)

critical load as

determining

factor

CSI ‘Exposure

ecosystems to

acidification,

eutrophication and

ozone’



level

Some grassland types are more vulnerable to nitrogen deposition than other grassland types.

It has to be investigated if historical deposition should be taken into account for grasslands too, as grasslands might recover sooner than forests


Initiated

restoration

actions

On-site / local /

regional /

national /

international


or not; actions

can be taken at

any level



GRASSLAND

Descriptors

Spatial scale of

influence

Type of descriptor


system



2.3.5.4 The 4-level model applied to wetlands

Table 8: Descriptors for wetlands applied in the 4-level model

WETLAND

Descriptors

Spatial scale of

influence

Type of descriptor


system


‘Naturalness’

indicator


(biotic + abiotic)

Composite (many

parameters)

Allows for

classification in

levels


specific

Site management

A ‘naturalness indicator’ could be applied to wetlands too. In Hungary a ‘Natural Capital Index’ is applied to all ecosystem types (see Figure 8)






states is very low







Connectivity

(SEBI 13)

On-site / local /

regional

State descriptor

(landscape-

ecological process)

Connectivity with

other wetlands

To be

determined.

Not uniform EU wide Defragmentation


corridors

Ideally data on fragmentation within a wetland ecosystem need to be combined with data on fragmentation at a landscape level, as wetlands may be part

of green corridors covering multiple ecosystem types e.g. river valley with mosaic of wetlands, grasslands and alluvial forests.




WETLAND

Descriptors

Spatial scale of

influence

Type of descriptor


system


Wetland bird

index

(SEBI 01)


(biotic)

Index based on

diversity and

population size of

wetland birds

From low to high

index

SEBI; probably

uniform systems

for other species

groups too

EU wide +

national

databases


Similar species indices might be applied if data are available e.g. amphibians, dragonflies, …


data are available.


(-) data often only available at MS level, so difficult to link to ecosystem patches (although there are data for specific wetland areas)

(-) one has to be careful that these indices are not hiding severe problems. As an example certain wetlands which are in a poor ecological state

(pollution, eutrophication, inadequate water management, such as the Biebrza Marshes and the Camargue, still have high bird diversity and

therefore possibly a favourable wetland bird index

Water quality On-site State descriptor

(abiotic)

Water quality

parameters

Comparable to

ranking in WFD?

Uniform water

quality monitoring

methods

National

databases

Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on water quality data. A water quality descriptor is a straightforward descriptor to determine the thresholds

between restoration levels in wetlands. Although water quality sometimes shows high temporal and spatial fluctuations, water quality can be approximated

by using presence, distribution, trends of indicator species populations, including water plants and fresh water invertebrates. If there is a general

consensus on critical load data (threshold values), these data should be applied.

Water level On-site / local State descriptor

(abiotic)

Groundwater and

surface water

level

or drained vs.

not-drained?

Uniform methods

for measuring

water level

National

databases e.g.

drainage data

(some data

available at EU

level)

Ecosystem On-site / local State descriptor Range of ES To be No uniform No EU wide


WETLAND

Descriptors

Spatial scale of

influence

Type of descriptor


system


services (ecosystem services) (provisioning,

regulating,

cultural)

determined measurement

method

database yet,

some national

databases

available, others

under

development

Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on the capacity of the wetland ecosystem to offer a well-balanced range of ecosystem services (i.e. none of the


Provisioning services (water, fish, ..) and regulating services (water regulation, water purification, carbon sequestration, …) will score higher when

proceeding from level 4 to level 1.




Protected

wetlands (SEBI

07)


non-protected

SEBI EU wide +

National

databases

Several protection regimes might apply

Initiated

restoration

actions

On-site / local /

regional /

national /

international


or not; actions

can be taken at

any level


Restoring drained peatlands requires time before desired results become visible.


2.3.5.5 The 4-level model applied to urban ecosystems

‘Urban ecosystems’ in the context of the restoration framework consist of cities, industrial estates and large transport infrastructure areas (e.g. harbours,

airports, highway nodes etc…). Delineation of urban areas is problematic though. Also, it has to be clarified where to draw the line between rural

settlements and urban areas. Table 9 provides a non-exhaustive overview. Additional information can be found in the City Biodiversity Index32

. The City

Biodiversity Index (CBI), also known as the Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity (SI) is a tool designed to allow cities to monitor and evaluate their

progress and performance related to conserving and enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem services (CBI 201233

). The 23 CBI indicators are:

1.Proportion of natural areas

2.Connectivity measures or ecological networks to counter fragmentation

3.Native biodiversity in built-up areas (bird species)

4–8.Change in number of native species (4. vascular plants, 5. birds, 6. butterflies, 7. and 8. optional)

9.Proportion of protected natural areas

10.Proportion of invasive alien species

11.Regulation of quantity of water

12.Climate regulation: carbon storage and cooling effect of vegetation

13–14.Recreational and educational services

15.Budget allocated to biodiversity

16.Number of biodiversity projects implemented annually

17.Rules, regulations and policy – existence of local biodiversity strategy and action plans

18–19.Institutional capacity

20–21.Participation and partnership

22–23.Education and awareness

The CBI’s current 23 indicators are viewed as core indicators and optional or sub-indicators can be developed as necessary and tailored to specific

monitoring needs of individual cities. For each indicator, the CBI manual (CBI 2012) proposes a scoring of 0–4 points, where 0 corresponds to poor

performance and 4 points corresponds to excellent performance. Points can be summed to provide an overall score of the city’s biodiversity performance.

32 As information on the CBI reached the authors only at the very last moment of the contract, the CBI indicators are not included in Table 9. However we considered it as

very relevant to refer to this CBI.

33 See http://www.cbd.int/en/subnational/partners-and-initiatives/city-biodiversity-index

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-7088-1_32/fulltext.html#CR3

http://www.cbd.int/en/subnational/partners-and-initiatives/city-biodiversity-index


Table 9: Descriptors for urban ecosystems applied in the 4-level model

URBAN

Descriptors

Spatial scale of

influence

Type of descriptor


system


Green space

per capita /

distance to

green space

per capita


(biotic, ecosystem

service)

Surface (m2) per

capita

To be investigated

if recommended

thresholds are

applied

Not always clear

what can be

considered as

‘green space’

National

databases

Green Infrastructure in urban

areas

Access to green space in European cities varies significantly (from only a few m2 per capita to several hundred m2 per capita34

). Data can be based on the

surface covered by the tree canopy, by grass areas (e.g sports area), ...

Connectivity On-site / local /

regional

State descriptor

(landscape-

ecological process)

Internal GI

network +

connection to

natural and semi-

natural areas

To be

determined.

Not uniform No EU wide and

hardly national

databases

Green Infrastructure in urban

areas

Defragmentation


corridors

Also in urban areas there are opportunities for creating green/blue urban networks, i.e. mutually connected green and/or blue areas throughout the urban

area. This network can be connected to a green belt around the urban area and even with an ecological network at the wider landscape level.

Geographical data are not always available. Therefore a more pragmatic descriptor might be the number of cities which have integrated green urban

networks in urban spatial planning.

Indicator

species


(biotic)

Index based on

diversity and

population size of

species

From low to high

index

Generally uniform

monitoring

methods

EU wide for

birds, butterflies

(SEBI) +

national

databases


Urban areas offer opportunities for bats and several bird species (e.g. Peregrine falcon, Swift, ….) and many other threatened animal and plant species.

However in urban ecosystems not only threatened species but also ‘ordinary’ species could be used. The descriptor can be based on a combination of

34 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/146na2.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/146na2.pdf


URBAN

Descriptors

Spatial scale of

influence

Type of descriptor


system


data on the presence of these species in combination with data on the number of cities which take active restoration measures to restore species diversity.

Ecosystem

services



Range of ES

(provisioning,

regulating,

cultural)

. To be

determined.

No uniform

measurement

method

No EU wide

database yet,

some national

databases

available, others

under

development

Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on the capacity of the urban ecosystem to offer a range of ecosystem services (i.e. none of the ecosystem

services is dominating).

Regulating services (water regulation, water purification, climate regulation – cooling the ‘heath island’ effect, carbon sequestration, air quality, …) will

score higher when proceeding from level 4 to level 3.




Ambient air

quality

On site / local /

regional /

national /

international

State descriptor

(abiotic)

Different air

quality parameters

WHO

thresholds, EU

Air Quality

legislation

thresholds

Uniform

measurement

methods

EU wide Green Infrastructure

Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on ambient air quality in combination with measures such as green walls, green roofs. Also here, with regard to

the presence of green walls and green roofs spatial data will be hard to find. Therefore this issue might be solved by counting the cities which have a

program to promote green walls and green roofs.

Pressure from

noise/light


(abiotic)

Noise parameters

and light

parameters

EU Noise

Directive

thresholds,

WHO thresholds

Uniform

measurement

methods

EU wide


URBAN

Descriptors

Spatial scale of

influence

Type of descriptor


system


Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on ambient noise data in combination with inquiry data of citizen’s perception with regard to noise and light

hindrance.


2.3.6 Proposal for practical implementation

The approaches described in this document have been developed over the space of a few months.

The 4-level model represents a robust and pragmatic tool that can be used at EU, national and sub-

national level to support the restoration agenda. However, the model needs to be used and to be

refined and further elaborated on the basis of experience and expert judgment and adapted to suit

the specific circumstances in which it is applied. The following issues should be given priority in the

further elaboration of the model:

Defining the set of descriptors for each ecosystem type. To be investigated:

o Fixed set of descriptors to be applied uniformly across the EU,or a basket of

descriptors from which a selection can be made in the light of national/sub-national

situation?

o How to deal with data gaps at EU level, i.e. no, or limited, spatial data at an EU-wide

level for certain descriptors? Can SEBI descriptors be applied as the core descriptors,

as this allows for measuring progress in different Member States in a uniform way?

o How to accommodate additional descriptors applied nationally/sub-nationally? Can

Member States propose additional descriptors, and under which conditions?

o Differentiation between biogeographic regions?

Defining indicators and threshold values for each of these descriptors. To be investigated:

o Differentiation between ecosystem types and possibly between biogeographic

regions?

o Should thresholds be applied uniformly across the EU? What degree of flexibility is

appropriate?

Defining the minimum level of detail of the analysis. To be investigated:

o Which is the minimum surface of ecosystem patches to be considered?

Defining rules for moving between levels. To be investigated:

o Which is the acceptable threshold at the level of the whole set of descriptors, i.e.

which percentage of the descriptor set for a certain quality level will need to be ‘in

good status’ to be qualified as ‘restored’ (100%?, 80%? etc.)

o Should weights be attributed to descriptors, to allow the application of ‘priority’

descriptors? Should achieving threshold values for ‘priority’ descriptors be considered

as a condition sine quo non for moving up a level (e.g. return of defined indicator

species)? Which criteria should be used to identify ‘priority’ descriptors? If so which

‘priority’ descriptors will be defined?

Defining rules for measuring progress towards the 15% target. To be investigated:

o Which area-based and which non-area-based targets will be taken into account?

o Will weights be attributed to ecosystem types?

o Will weights be attributed to different ecosystem condition levels (e.g. higher weight if

change from 2 to 1, compared to change from 4 to 3 – or opposite)?

o Will a 2-level progress be weighted double as 1-level progress?


3 Guidance for priority-setting at sub-national and national level

3.1 Reader’s guide

This chapter is intended to provide assistance to those involved with the identification of priorities

for restoration at national and sub-national levels. It is recognized that some of the proposed steps

are not relevant to certain countries or governance structures (e.g. federal states with responsibility

for restoration lying with subnational governance levels). The steps proposed here are therefore not

prescriptions on how things should be done but rather guidance on how processes could be

implemented.

It is important to realize that the guidance on restoration prioritization as presented here, applies to

those areas that are not covered by designations systems for nature conservation. For such

protected areas, other processes are in place in support of habitat management and restoration.

A review of many restoration prioritization accounts point to the significant importance of process

management and planning for reaching a successful outcome. In addition, stakeholder involvement

is time and again identified as a key factor in the successful and sustainable implementation of

restoration projects. Therefore, this guidance not only focuses on the prioritization process itself,

but provides some wider context in terms of project planning and management that should

significantly increase the likelihood of a successful prioritization of restoration actions and most

importantly their long-term sustainability.

Such an attention to the planning and management of the prioritization process is also important in

view of the need for frequent feedback between the definition of goals, objectives and targets, and

the monitoring and reporting of preliminary results (adaptive management). Also, the contribution of

local, regional and national results to reaching the overall EU target of 15% restored ecosystems

requires frequent iterations between the various levels of planning and decision making. This

requires planning and coordination.

The structure of the document is based on a five-stage framework for the prioritization of restoration

actions consisting of:

Stage 1. Define the scope of the prioritization exercise

Stage 2. Collect data and information

Stage 3. Analyse the situation and information

Stage 4. Develop appropriate restoration strategies

Stage 5. Implement, monitor, evaluate and report restoration actions

The prioritization, itself part of stage 4, is developed in greater detail and looks at four basic

questions:

1. Why restore?

2. What to restore?

3. Where to restore?

4. What to restore first?

Depending on the stage of progress in any department or agency responsible for the setting of

priorities for restoration at national or subnational level, various elements of this guidance can be of

greater significance.

If the identification of restoration priorities is part of an on-going conservation and restoration

planning process, the reader might want to jump directly to Step 4.2 on the actual priority setting.


If on the other hand, the identification of restoration priorities is part of an incipient conservation and

restoration planning process, then starting with Stage 1 might be more appropriate.

Finally, the various stages and steps described in the guidance can also be consulted individually,

e.g. the basics of situation analysis are explained in Step 3.1.


3.2 Introduction

Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (European Commission 2011) states that ‘By 2020,

ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by establishing green infrastructure

and restoring at least 15% of degraded ecosystems’. Associated with Target 2 are a number of

specific actions. Action 6a reads: ‘By 2014, Member States, with the assistance of the Commission,

will develop a strategic framework to set priorities for ecosystem restoration at sub-national,

national and EU level’

Notwithstanding the large number of publications in peer-reviewed literature on systematic

conservation planning, only a handful concern the prioritization of restoration (Wilson et al. 2011).

Moreover, existing restoration guidelines such as the SER Guidelines for developing and managing

ecological restoration projects (Clewell, Rieger, and Munro 2005) have been developed primarily for

site-level interventions (Thompson 2011).

Planning for restoration at multiple scales requires explicit prioritization in order to avoid ad hoc

decision making which may compromise the efficiency with which restoration objectives are

achieved (Wilson et al. 2011). Recent frameworks, approaches and guidelines make use of the

increasingly available digital data and analysis techniques resulting in systematic identification of

priority areas for restoration based on spatially explicit and transparent methods. Experience also

shows that plans developed with the participation of stakeholders tend to have a more complete

resources inventory, more balanced objectives and tend to be implemented more successfully. This

would suggest that the frameworks and approaches should be used as sources of information that

inform a stakeholder based planning process.

The prioritization of restoration investments and actions (in space and time) should be seen in the

context of the wider strategy to maintain and enhance ecosystems and the services they provide to

society. In view of the large time lags between actions taken to restore ecosystems and their

services and the desired outcome as well as the uncertainties of the outcome, the planning requires

numerous stages to provide feedback and integrate the results from on-going activities in the

redefinition of the goals and targets.

Throughout this guidance, ecosystem restoration prioritization is considered as a part of the wider

EU agenda for biodiversity and ecosystem services as well as for other environmental issues and

its implementation at Member State and subnational levels. Also, because of its fundamental spatial

dimension, ecosystem restoration is considered as a full part of other spatial planning and sectorial

integration processes.


3.3 Objectives of this guidance

This document is designed to provide guidance to Member States, subnational governments and

other stakeholders in their efforts to prioritize ecosystem restoration actions. The guidance is not

intended to be prescriptive, but to offer the Member States a framework for taking the prioritization

of their restoration activities forward.

While acknowledging that significant progress has been made in many scientific and technical

fields such as our understanding of ecology, data collection (including remote sensing), ecological

modelling and software development, the prioritization of restoration activities remains very much a

consensual process involving dialogue among stakeholders, specifically including stakeholders

from other sectors such as business and industry. The scientific and methodological advances in

understanding and modelling possible outcomes of scenarios should however have a central place

in this process by informing the decision making with the best available data, evidence, science and

knowledge.

As it has been repeatedly shown, the success of restoration projects depends to a great extent

on good planning and process management in which consultation with the stakeholders takes a

central role. In addition to specific recommendations for a prioritization framework, this guidance

therefore summarizes the latest advances in systematic conservation planning as a process as

applied to the prioritization of ecological restoration and points towards possible tools and

resources that can be used at every stage of the process. Also, the guidance should be seen in

connection to the definition of terms, the four-level model for restoration and potential support

mechanisms. (related deliverables from service contract ENV.B.2/SER/2012/0029)


3.4 Methodology and sources used to compile the guidance

This guidance is the result of a preliminary review of criteria for restoration prioritization and

prioritization frameworks followed by a consultation process with the main stakeholders involved in

the process of implementing Action 6a of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy.

The initial review of existing restoration and conservation prioritization frameworks and criteria was

done through the analysis of peer-reviewed and grey literature (see references). This resulted in a

preliminary list of potential criteria for priority-setting at national and subnational levels. This list was

presented to the Working Group on (Green Infrastructure and) the Restoration Prioritization

Framework (RPF Working Group) composed of representatives of the EU Member States. The list

was complemented after being discussed at the second meeting of the RPF Working Group, and a

consolidated version was presented at a workshop organized in Brussels on 29-30 May 2013. In

addition to the members of the RPF Working Group, participants in this workshop also included

representatives from the conservation, research and business sectors.

At the workshop, the criteria, the prioritization framework and the guidance were discussed in small

working groups and the results of this participative consultation were taken into account in the

further development of the guidance document. This prompted a more thorough and targeted

review of literature in order to address the comments and concerns expressed during the workshop.

The following principles have been applied in the drafting of this document:

Emphasis on the use of existing knowledge, models and conceptual frameworks (i.e. not

reinventing the wheel). For this, an extensive literature review of existing restoration

prioritization frameworks has been carried out.

Make the best possible use of existing information, data and earlier prioritization exercises,

i.e. designation of protected areas (i.e. avoiding to the maximum the need to collect new

information), in particular the results of the MAES process and Article 17 reporting.

Use existing conservation and restoration prioritization tools and mechanisms, such as the

Montreux record (RAMSAR sites in danger)35

, and the IBAs in danger36

.

Prioritization of ecosystem restoration should not be an exclusively top-down science-driven

activity. It needs to be a well-informed process based on the best available knowledge

(some of which, mainly strategic information, is provided through a top-down approach), but

it should ultimately be based on societal and political consensus, and therefore includes a

form of stakeholder involvement.

These principles as translated in the guidance should result in a more efficient and easier

implementation of the prioritization process and guidance for Member States and other

stakeholders. On the other hand, it also means that the suggested approach is not necessarily the

one that would have been developed if based on purely scientific criteria.

35 RAMSAR sites in danger: The Montreux Record; www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-documents-

montreux/main/ramsar/1-31-118_4000_0__

36 IBAs in danger; www.birdlife.org/datazone/info/IBAsInDanger#EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-documents-montreux/main/ramsar/1-31-118_4000_0__



3.5 Guidance Section 1: Suggested framework for systematic restoration planning

3.5.1 Introduction

Resources for restoration of ecosystems and their services are always likely to be limiting (Hobbs

2008). Therefore, restoration actions should be prioritized and directed towards explicitly stated

goals and targets..

A review of peer-reviewed and grey literature on conservation and restoration planning and

prioritization indicates the importance of:

stakeholder involvement in all phases of the process;

clear definition and agreement of the scale / geographical scope;

clear definition and agreement of the goal(s);

clear definition of the targets (SMART);

need to address issues of information and data gaps;

need to address issues of uncertainty in modelling or scenarios of ecosystem restoration;

need to consider ecosystem restoration as part of an integrated approach to planning and

resources allocation.

In addition to a framework for restoration prioritization (Steps 4.2 and 4.3. and Section 3), the

guidelines provide a general framework for restoration planning described in this section. This has

been done for the following reasons:

Need to fine-tune restoration and coordinate priorities across levels of decision making.

Need to coordinate restoration priorities across borders (municipal, regional and national).

Recognition that conservation based on technical top-down approaches only, tends to be less

successful than approaches based on a mixture of good science and stakeholder involvement.

These factors are not purely criteria for prioritization but contribute very much to the success of the

restoration prioritization and its implementation. The prioritization of restoration is a key stage in the

overall restoration planning at any level of decision making.

In order for the prioritization of ecosystem restoration actions to be efficient in the delivery of its

objectives, it should be adequately incorporated in the national, regional and local spatial planning

processes.

Although the main framework is presented as a linear sequence of stages and steps, the planning

and prioritization of biodiversity and ecosystem restoration is a complex process that requires:

frequent iterations and feedback between goals and results;

frequent and continued iterations and feedback between the various planning and decision

making levels (from the EU down to the site level and back), i.e. a good coordination between a

top-down approach that sets general goals and priorities and a bottom-up approach that is more

concerned with the practical achievability.

For the purposes of this guidance, we developed a scale-independent framework for restoration

planning and prioritization based on a detailed review of the literature on systematic conservation

planning combined with the much scarcer frameworks for restoration prioritization. Examples of

existing restoration prioritization frameworks such as those existing in Estonia, France and the UK

have been included in the development of this framework and are summarized in boxes as

illustrations.


3.5.2 Hierarchy of the assessment scale

This section on restoration planning has been developed in such a way that it should be useful and

applicable at many levels of planning and decision making, from the EU level down to the local

level. However, in practice, goals and objectives, numbers and types of stakeholders, requirements

in terms of data and information, prioritization criteria will vary according to the scale of the

exercise.

In identifying the priority areas for restoration of degraded ecosystems it is useful to adopt a

hierarchical approach covering the spectrum of scales from the EU level to the site/patch level. The

criteria used for identifying priorities as well as the necessary support data are adapted to the

different scales: At the EU level aggregated, general indicators are used whereas at the local scale

more detailed, location-specific data are needed.

The various levels of the hierarchical approach can be the EU level, bio-geographical level,

Member State level, regional level, local level and site level. For the implementation of policies in

general, this is a common approach where global objectives are integrated into EU policy which is

gradually taken up into lower level policies and legislation. For restoration priorities a similar

approach can be followed, and clear links between the levels, in terms of roles and responsibilities,

data flows, monitoring reporting structures have to be defined.

The restoration prioritization exercise has to be repeated at each level, taking into account the

guidance or conditions imposed from the higher level. This is in order to ensure the ecological

coherence (in terms of targets and spatial and ecological coherence) between the various levels. In

relation to setting priorities for restoration) and implementation of green infrastructure as a delivery

model for ecosystems restoration, the French approach to implementing the trame verte et bleue

(green/blue infrastructure) through formal regional planning instruments called schéma régional de

cohérence écologique can provide a useful example to follow (see Box 5)

The following framework is our proposal to address these issues in a systematic way (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Proposed framework for systematic restoration planning

Scope

Team and resources

Planning area

Governance

Goals

Information

Biophysical data & information

Socio-economic and political data

& information

Data preparation

(including modelling)

Analysis

Situation analysis

Stakeholder analysis

Current conservation

status

Threat assessment

Strategies

Objectives & targets

Criteria

Prioritization

Actions

Implementation

Monitoring & evaluation

Reporting


The individual stages (top level in Figure 9) and steps (sub-levels in Figure 9) are explained in more

detail in the following pages. For ease of navigation the respective stage/step is highlighted in the

miniature graphic and each stage is represented by its own colour scheme.

3.5.3 Stage 1. Define the scope of the prioritization exercise

3.5.3.1 Introduction

The wider context in which the identification of ecosystem restoration priorities is taking

place needs to be well understood and some preconditions should be explicitly addressed.

These (practical) constraints will determine many of the choices and options available

during the prioritization process and typically include (Pressey and Bottrill 2009):

Determine the size and composition of the team in charge of the process;

Assess available time, funds and other resources;

Setting the initial boundaries of the planning area;

Select and involve the key stakeholders;

Make a project plan outline;

Agree vision and goals.

It is important at this scoping stage for the team to review and discuss all the stages and steps

leading to the prioritization described in these guidelines (including the monitoring and reporting

stage), as this will allow the team to get an insight into the needs in terms of expertise, data, time

and resources required and to perform the prioritization.

3.5.3.2 Step 1.1. Assign team and resources

Ecosystem restoration affects many individuals, organisations and sectors. Restoration is a process

that aims at re-establishing functional ecosystems and their services whereby a landscape

approach is often needed to recreate or reinvigorate ecological processes. It is therefore

essential that the affected people, organisations, and sectors (the stakeholders) are

appropriately represented in the various stages leading to the decisions on what to restore,

where and when. The exact division of roles and responsibilities depends on the level (EU,

national, regional or local) at which the restoration prioritization takes place and the

particular local conditions.


It is important to put in place qualified governance structures at the various levels of planning,

prioritizing and implementing for ecosystem restoration. Each level, from the national down to the

site, requires a group of people qualified to manage the project, collect and analyse the data,

manage the stakeholder involvement etc. For the design and implementation of the Green

Infrastructure in France, various levels of planning, decision making and action have been

identified, each with its own governance structure (see Box 6).

Figure10: Suggested governance model for ecosystem restoration prioritization process

Project team Lead and coordination

Steering Committee (selected

stakeholders) Scientific committee

Stakeholder group

Consultation and support

Box 5: Levels of planning, decision making and implementation of the Green/Blue

Infrastructure in FranceThe following levels of action and responsibility are distinguished:

National level: A national framework set by the state provides consistency across the

territory

Regional level: A regional framework to support for local initiatives, guaranteeing the

consistency of the approach and taking into account the services provided by

biodiversity

Department level: Through the policy for fragile nature areas, management of

departmental road infrastructure, agricultural land development, knowledge of

biodiversity and the implementation

Project level: Green infrastructure as part of project planning, ensuring

complementarity and coherence between different policies. Implementation of

experiments and contractual tools (Regional Nature Parks, Water Planning and

Management Frameworks (SAGE), etc.)

Land use planning level (instrument = Territorial Coherence Framework (SCoT):

Green infrastructure as part of project planning, complementarity and coherence

between different policies

Municipal level: Operational implementation and enforceability against third parties by

the planning documents

Individual / site level: action for site development of and impact reduction on the

environment; positive role of farmers and foresters in maintaining ecological continuity;

citizen action in gardens,...


A suggested governance model for ecosystem restoration prioritization is presented in Figure10.

The project team is at the core of the process. It ensures overall management and coordination of

the process, and ensures contacts with the other stakeholders. It also ensures that the guidance

from the higher levels of (strategic) planning and decision making are taken into account, reflected

or integrated in the process and that lower levels receive adequate (strategic) instructions on how

to integrate the prioritization decisions in their restoration planning and prioritization activities.

A scientific committee provides the required scientific advice, data and information to ensure the

highest possible scientific standards to the process. Members of this committee should cover the

areas of ecology, conservation and restoration, but also in some cases areas of economy,

sociology and planning (or other required fields of expertise).

A steering committee. An effective way to include and involve stakeholders in the process is to

create a steering committee with representatives of the main stakeholder groups. This steering

committee should be given a clear mandate and be actively involved in the key stages of the

prioritization process. Together with the scientific committee, the steering committee ensures that

all relevant factors and knowledge are taken into account during the preparation of the identification

of restoration priorities.

A stakeholder group - A wider group of stakeholders is consulted at key decision moments in the

process, but does not follow the process as closely and actively as the steering group. It should

ensure that the interests of the various stakeholders are taken into account in the process.

Members of this group are identified as part of Step 3.2. The involvement of stakeholders allows

capturing tacit knowledge, increasing support for the process and implementing the actions.


3.5.3.3 Step 1.2. Define the planning area

The planning area will determine to a great extent what scale the analysis will be performed

at. The next steps, starting with the definition of the goals will depend on the scale of the

exercise. The scale of the analysis depends not only on the size of the area but also on the

administrative hierarchy. In practice however, later work, for example on identifying

stakeholders or collecting data on biodiversity and threats, may lead to the initial boundaries

being revised.

For practical reasons (such as availability of data), the planning area will in general be the

administrative unit (municipality, region, member state) of the department coordinating the

prioritization process. However, as the goal of the process is to restore ecosystems, their functions

and processes, (parts of) the prioritization will require analysis based on physiographic or

biogeographic units such as river basins or landscapes, whose limits do not coincide with the

administrative borders.

Output:

a map with a clear definition of the planning area for which the restoration prioritization will be

performed.

Links with other stages and steps:

Box 6 : Governance and participation in French Regional Scheme for Ecological

Coherence

The development of the Regional Scheme for Ecological Coherence) SRCE is a complex process

that requires the integration of large amounts of data and information, the taking into account of

various policies and legal obligations and the reflection of the interests of a wide range of

stakeholders. In order to make the process as inclusive a possible the following governance

structure is being applied.

Figure11: Governance structure of the SRCE

In the development of the regional scheme for green infrastructure the scientific rigor and the

stakeholder participation are central. Therefore, next to the steering and the technical committee,

the process is being carried forward by a scientific committee and a regional stakeholders

committee, both who participate in the development of the strategy and action plan and its

implementation (Figure11).


Provide geographical constraints for the data search (Stage 2).

3.5.3.4 Step 1.3. Agree on a vision and overarching goal(s)

This stage sets the scene for all following steps, and increases the understanding of the

social, economic and cultural conditions in the planning area, and how these shape

constraints and opportunities for ecosystem restoration. Part of this will lead to a better

understanding of which pressures can be addressed spatially, through restoration actions

in particular areas and which require complementary, non spatial actions.

The definition of goals may begin with agreement on a broad vision statement for the region that is

then progressively refined into qualitative goals about biodiversity (e.g. representation, persistence),

ecosystem services, livelihoods and other concerns (Pressey and Bottrill 2009). The very generality of

goals can help to promote agreement among stakeholders. In this sense, the goals can be thought

of as broad qualitative statements that provide a bridge between the values and beliefs upon which

ecosystems restoration is based and the more specific, often quantitative targets/objectives used in

the actual prioritization process. The four-level model and the descriptors associated with each

level, as developed under this contract, provide a useful concept to identify what constitutes

restoration in the context of the current restoration prioritization framework. An important purpose of

the goals is to help with the identification of spatially explicit data that will be needed in the

prioritization process.

Within the context of the restoration prioritization framework, the definition of the overall restoration

goals should be derived from the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy and the four-level approach. As

restoration is by definition an activity that will yield results in the long term, the EU 2050 vision

should also be considered.

Box 7: EU vision and targets of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy

EU 2050 Vision

‘By 2050, European Union biodiversity and ecosystems services it provides – its natural capital –

are protected, valued and appropriately restored for biodiversity’s intrinsic value and for their

essential contribution to human well-being and economic prosperity, and so that catastrophic

changes caused by the loss of biodiversity are avoided’

EU 2020 headline target

‘Halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and

restoring them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global

biodiversity loss.’

Target 2: Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services

‘By 2020, ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by establishing a green

infrastructure and restoring at least 15% of degraded ecosystems’

Action 6: Set priorities to restore and promote the use of green infrastructure

6.a.) ‘By 2014, Member States, with the assistance of the Commission, will develop a strategic

framework to set priorities for ecosystem restoration at sub-national, national and EU level.’


3.5.3.5 Step 1.4. Plan the project

The prioritization of restoration can be considered as a process with a start and end date,

resources, a timeline and milestones. It is important to coordinate the milestones in terms

of information exchange between the levels (EU down to local) in order to enable fruitful

synergies to be established between the levels of planning and prioritization.

Milestones important for fruitful exchanges include meetings (such as workshops and

conferences) to discuss the coordination between levels and allow effective synergies

between the top down and bottom up approaches. Also important are meetings and information

exchange with parallel processes such as the New Bio-geographical process, MAES and other on-

going processes related to the implementation of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy.

Outputs:

Project timeline with start and end dates and milestones.

A project budget.

A list of project team members, their responsibilities and time allocations.

Main points to remember from Stage 1

Practical constraints will always divert the process from its most ideal outline

Defining the planning area for prioritization of restoration activities requires some flexibility as the

data and information required is not always available for the same units

A clear governance structure and the assignment of roles and responsibilities to all involved parties

(including stakeholders) ensures efficient management and increases the likelihood for a wide

support

Agreeing on the overall goals is a first way to actively engage with the stakeholders involved in the

prioritization process

Clearly defined vision and goals also help define the (spatial) data needs

3.5.4 Stage 2. Collect data and information


The previous stages describing the context and the goals clarified the need for spatially

explicit data that will influence decisions about where to restore what and when. Planning

and prioritization of ecosystem restoration needs both ecosystem (biotic and abiotic) and

socioeconomic data (Poiani et al. 1998; Pressey and Bottrill 2009; Sarkar and Illoldi-Rangel 2010).

As part of the iterative nature of the planning process (see Figure 9) it might be required to

return to this stage if other steps down the line such as Stage 3 (analysis) or Stage 4 (strategy)

indicate a further need for data and information.

The data should inform the problem analysis Stage 3 and assist in formulating SMART objectives

and identifying relevant criteria for the selection of priority sites and areas for restoration.

In order to ensure the best possible use of existing data and information, care should be taken to

revise all relevant mapping, monitoring and prior conservation planning exercises that have been

carried out and that could inform the process.


3.5.4.2 Step 2.1. Assemble biophysical data and information

Biophysical datasets used for ecological restoration prioritization are typically spatially

explicit, that is they consist of a geographic reference (coordinates, conservation areas,

catchments, tenure parcels, units of land use, administrative units etc.) linked to a number

of attributes. Spatially explicit data on biodiversity that include representation units (e.g.

vegetation types), focal species and ecological processes are fundamental to the

prioritization of ecosystems restoration. (Pressey and Bottrill 2009). The units can be grid cells in a

raster map, polygons on a vector map representing a catchment area, a patch of habitat, a

protected area, a property etc. Features are the properties or attributes of these areas.

As all facets of ecosystem condition cannot be captured in spatially explicit datasets, biodiversity

surrogates are used in conservation and restoration planning.

Biodiversity surrogates may be taxa (e.g. species), species assemblages, and environmental

classes or variables or combinations of these. Compiling datasets for use in restoration planning

includes both acquiring relevant data and in most cases analysing those data (classification,

ordination, mapping) so that they are in a form suitable for identifying ecological restoration areas

(Margules, Pressey, and Williams 2002).

The biodiversity and environmental data most commonly used in the prioritization of ecological

restoration include:

Species: presence, distribution, abundance, conservation status, trends

Habitats: presence, distribution, conservation status, trends

Geology and soils

Geomorphology and topography

Climate (temperature, precipitation)

Hydrography

In the current ecosystem restoration prioritization framework the descriptors associated with the

four-level model provide further indication of required data.

Stage 3 (resources) provides a list with sources of information useful for the collection of relevant

biophysical data.

3.5.4.3 Step 2.2. Gather socioeconomic data and information

In addition to data and information on the biotic and abiotic systems, a successful ecosystem

restoration prioritization exercise will require socioeconomic data. This includes a broad

overview of social, economic, land use, fiscal and cultural information for the planning

region (Poiani et al. 1998). This information will help understanding the socioeconomic

factors influencing the land use and associated pressures and opportunities in a certain

area.

Relevant, spatially explicit data will include variables such as tenure, extractive uses, cultural

features, cost of conservation, sectoral activities, drivers and pressures (Margules, Pressey, and

Williams 2002). Also included should be an overview of existing pressures and possible future

threats.

An indication of the type of socioeconomic data that might be required in the prioritization process

will come from the PESTEL analysis (Step 3.1).

It should be noted that further down the process, new needs for socioeconomic data and

information might surface, and that a return to this step might therefore be required.


3.5.4.4 Step 2.3. Prepare data and information for analysis

Before the data collected in the previous stage is ready for analysis it needs to be prepared

in such a way that it can be adequately queried to answer the specific questions asked

during the prioritization process. The data preparation can include the digitalization of

maps, entering data in a database, transforming data from one format in the other in order

to allow data compatibility across systems. This data preparation process will also reveal

possible gaps in data and information and can prompt the planning team to assess the possibility to

collect new data or to fill possible gaps by empirical or statistical modelling (Margules, Pressey, and

Williams 2002; Sarkar and Illoldi-Rangel 2010).


The full variety of biodiversity and ecosystem conditions of a given region cannot be captured in

any, one dataset.

Therefore, for planning purposes so-called biodiversity surrogates (species, clades, and

populations) are generally used.

Most useful in restoration planning are spatially explicit datasets, linking values of attributes (the

biodiversity surrogates such as species or habitat presence and abundance) to a georeferenced

system (e.g. latitude longitude).

The descriptors as part of the four-level approach provide a useful selection of possible data for the

restoration prioritization framework.

3.5.5 Stage 3. Analyse the situation and information


Although their overall goal is generally evident, restoration projects typically impact a large

number of stakeholders and sectors, either directly or indirectly. It is therefore useful to

spend some time and effort in establishing a picture of the type and intensity of potential

impacts (e.g. hydrological changes on agriculture, or new species on human health and

safety) of restored nature. Likewise, it can pay off to analyse the opportunities for

restoration in the case of ecosystem services or funding. Some formal assessment methods can

help to avoid overlooking potential threats to, or opportunities for, restoration. These are explained

in this section. Some of the techniques can be applied for more than one of the main assessment

exercises. The assessments and techniques discussed in this section are:

Situation analysis: 1. Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental and Legal

(PESTEL); and 2. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) analysis;

Stakeholder analysis;

Problem or issues analysis: 1.Drivers, Pressures, State, Impact, Response (DPSIR); 2.

Situation diagram; and 3. Problem tree analysis.

The overall situation analysis should not necessarily include all assessment methods presented in

this section. According to the situation, the (time) resources, the project team can decide on which

methods best respond to the needs.

3.5.5.2 Step 3.1. Perform a general situation analysis

In the case of a process with such complex goals as the restoration of degraded

ecosystems and their services in a socioeconomic context, it is imperative to carry out an


in-depth situation analysis in order to identify all the relevant factors influencing the process. There

are various formalized ways to conduct this process, such as:

Policy, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental and Legal (PESTEL) analysis;

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) analysis.

Policy, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental and Legal (PESTEL) analysis

The PESTEL analysis is a structured way to make an assessment of the external factors that may

be of influence on a project or activity such as in this case the decision to restore ecosystems. It is

nothing more than a framework for a systematic review of factors that may pose threats or

opportunities to the process under consideration. In that sense it provides a good preparation to

more detailed assessments such as SWOT or DPSIR. It allows the group to improve their overview

of the wider context in which restoration takes place.

The basic PEST analysis includes four factors (adapted from Wikipedia):

Political factors related to the identification of restoration priorities, relevant political factors include

environmental law, spatial planning law and government objectives related to public safety (e.g.

disaster risk reduction) and climate change policy. More general political factors include areas such

as tax policy, labour law, trade restrictions, tariffs, and political stability. Furthermore, governments

have great influence on the health, education, and infrastructure of a nation.

Economic factors include economic growth, interest rates, exchange rates and the inflation rate.

These factors are among the main driving forces that result in pressures on the ecosystems, some

of which can be addressed by restoration. For example, economic growth might lead to increased

demand for agricultural products. To meet this demand, it might be decided to intensify agricultural

production by drainage and irrigation, increased use of pesticides.

Social factors include the cultural aspects and include health consciousness, population growth

rate, age distribution, career attitudes and emphasis on (environmental) safety. Trends in social

factors affect the demand for ecosystems and their services, and therefore also the attitude of

communities towards their restoration (or no).

Technological factors include technological aspects such as R&D activity, automation, technology

incentives and the rate of technological change. In relation to restoration of ecosystem services

they are especially important in assessing the opportunities for ecological engineering solutions,

such as phytoremediation, climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Expanding the analysis to PESTEL adds:

Environmental factors include ecological and environmental aspects such as geological

processes, weather, climate, and global change (including climate), which may especially affect

stakeholder industries such as tourism and farming. Furthermore, growing awareness of the

potential impacts of how climate change is affecting the activities of a wide range of stakeholders

relates to the potential of ecosystem restoration to climate change adaptation.

Legal factors include consumer law, employment law, and health and safety law. These factors

can (negatively) affect the decisions related to ecosystem restoration. It is therefore useful to

anticipate them in order to design practical avoidance strategies.


Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) analysis

Another tool to better understand the context of the possible restoration activities, to identify

opportunities and to avoid threats is to submit the plan to a SWOT analysis. The SWOT analysis

consists of a two by two matrix in which each quadrant represents one of the four factors. The

listing and review of strengths and weaknesses should focus on the internal factors of the

restoration project, while opportunities and threats refer to external factors that affect the

restoration, either positively or negatively.

Figure12: The SWOT model

It is recommended to perform the analyses described in this section in a workshop form in which

the project team invites members of the steering committee and the scientific committee. By

including these stakeholders the likelihood to perform an exhaustive review of the ecosystem

restoration strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats can be maximized.

3.5.5.3 Step 3.2. Conduct a detailed stakeholder analysis

Prioritization of ecosystems restoration with a view to result in cost effective projects that

are supported and efficiently implemented in the long run, that make the best use of the

opportunities and incorporate the constraints are only possible with a sound involvement of

the stakeholders. Important stakeholders include those who will influence or be affected by

the restoration actions arising from the prioritization process, or be responsible for

implementing those actions. Different groups of stakeholders will have to be involved in different

ways in specific stages of the process, including at the start when agreeing on the goals and

targets.

The stakeholders represented in the steering committee (Step 1.1) do not represent all individuals

affected by the restoration plans. Based on the results of the situation analysis a clearer picture of

the potential stakeholders can be obtained. Analyzing the other stakeholders is a critical step in

building more powerful constituencies, participating more effectively in (local) decision-making and

avoiding potential pitfalls (Poiani et al. 1998; Jones-Walters et al. 2010; Snethlage et al. 2012).

Strengths Weaknesses

Opportunities Threats

i

n

t

e

r

n

a

l

e

x

t

e

r

n

a

l


A stakeholder analysis is often performed in two steps. First the project team performs a listing or

brainstorm of all types of potential stakeholders influencing or likely to be affected by the plan. The

following questions can help ensure that a complete list is obtained:

1. Who is causing the situation that needs to be addressed by restoration?

2. Who could benefit from restoration?

3. Who would be hurt or negatively affected by restoration?

4. Who could shape public opinion?

5. Who has the authority to make decisions?

6. Who will implement the restoration measures?

7. Who could pay for restoration measures?

A second step involves assessing each stakeholder identified in Step 1. For each stakeholder

answer the following questions:

1. What effects or potential effects will the goals have on the stakeholder?

2. What effects or potential effects will the stakeholder have on the goals?

3. What is known or unknown about the stakeholder?

A third step may involve plotting each stakeholder stake/power matrix:

Figure13: The stakeholder analysis influence diagram

By plotting the stakeholder in the four quadrants of the above matrix one obtains a visual

expression of the influence and power relations of the different groups towards the objectives of the

restoration plans. Stakeholders in the green quadrant need much attention in order to keep them on

board. Stakeholders in the blue quadrant need to be kept well informed. Stakeholders in the red

quadrant need to be kept informed and their power and influence could be used as a lever to

achieve better results.

interest/stake high

influence/power low

interest/stake high

influence/power high

interest/stake low

influence/power low

interest/stake low

influence/power high


3.5.5.4 Step 3.3. Evaluate the current degradation status of ecosystems

Planning and prioritizing restoration of ecosystems is performed in a landscape or region in

which many forms of land use, including conservation actions, have been performed

already. A major challenge is to review the level of degradation of a given ecosystem in the

planning and prioritization of ecosystem restoration.

A useful approach to such a review is offered by the proposed four-level model and the

descriptors associated with the four levels of degradation. On the basis of the data collected in

steps 2.1 and 2.2 and processed in step 2.3 an initial map of degradation level per ecosystem can

be made. Such a map can then be used for review by stakeholders for possible amendment of

degradation levels based on tacit knowledge. Such a map can then also form the basis for the

prioritization step 4.3.

3.5.5.5 Step 3.4. Assess the causes, threats and pressures of degradation

In order for the restoration actions to be effective it is essential to have a good understanding of the

pressures and threats underlying the process that led to the degradation in the first place.

This will decrease the likelihood that ineffective restoration measures are chosen and

prioritized, or that secondary pressures or threats are dealt with to the detriment of more

important ones.

It is important that sufficient data and information are available (Stage 2) and that the holders

of scientific and traditional knowledge (Steps 1.1 & 3.2) about the ecosystem and its use are

involved in the process of identifying the threats and pressures that lead to the degradation.

This type of formalized analysis can be repeated at the appropriate scale and for the ecosystems,

habitats, sites or species under review.

Problem tree analysis

Problem tree analysis (also called Situational analysis or just Problem analysis) helps to find

solutions by mapping out the anatomy of cause and effect around an issue in a similar way to a

mind map, but with more structure. This brings several advantages:

The problem can be broken down into manageable and definable chunks. This enables a

clearer prioritization of factors and helps focus objectives;

There is more understanding of the problem and its often interconnected and even contradictory

causes. This is often the first step in finding win-win solutions;

It identifies the constituent issues and arguments, and can help establish who and what the

political actors and processes are at each stage;

It can help establish whether further information, evidence or resources are needed to make a

strong case, or build a convincing solution;

Present issues - rather than apparent, future or past issues - are dealt with and identified;

The process of analysis often helps build a shared sense of understanding, purpose and action.


Figure14: Hypothetical problem tree analysis for a degraded wetland

The problem tree analysis should ideally be carried out by a small group of stakeholders in order to

capture most of the relevant causes and effects of the core problem at hand. Not only is this a

powerful analytical tool, it is also a very useful approach for discussing a problem in a

heterogeneous group of stakeholders. Problem trees can be far more complex and show more

detail than the example shown in Figure14. An added advantage of ‘dissecting the anatomy of the

problem’ is that, in principle, reading it in the reverse order leads to strong clues as to how to solve

it. If you start with the secondary effects of increased flood risks (this might actually be identified as

the core problem in an analysis performed in another context), the first action might be to find

solutions to increase the water retention capacity. According to this analysis, this can be achieved

by restoring the degraded wetland. A key intervention to achieve this is to revert the land

conversion, i.e. to restore the wetland and to find another solution to the problem of urban sprawl.

Driving force, Pressure, State, Impact, Response (DPSIR) analysis

The DPSIR framework (EEA 1999; UNEP/GRID-Arendal 2012) (see Figure15) can be a useful tool to

orient the situation analysis as it makes a clear distinction between Driving forces, Pressures,

States, Impacts and Responses and their mutual relationships.


Figure15: The DPSIR Framework as presented on the EEA website (www.eea.europa.eu)

This type of analysis is particularly useful to disentangle the various factors that affect ecosystem

state and to identify the pressures and drivers that need to be addressed in order to restore the

ecosystem to some predefined state, through the use of appropriate responses.


The description and analysis of the regional context will highlight opportunities and constraints for

restoration

A thorough appreciation of people and organisations and their relationship with the degraded

ecosystems has a number of benefits, including opportunities to use their (tacit) knowledge,

engaging supporters and identifying opponents

The assessment of the current state of ecosystems and their associated services provides a

baseline for identifying priority areas for restoration

A clear understanding of the causes and effects of degradation will permit a more effective

prioritization of restoration activities

Choose the assessment method that best fits your situation in terms of resources, people involved

and available information

3.5.6 Stage 4. Develop appropriate restoration strategies


If performed adequately, the preceding stages provide the preconditions to define the

objectives and targets for identifying ecosystem restoration priorities. The prioritization

process involves three steps explained in this stage:

Determine the restoration objectives and targets

Choose and agree on prioritization criteria

Prioritize sites and actions for ecosystem restoration


3.5.6.2 Step 4.1. Determine the restoration objectives and targets

Restoration objectives should be formulated in such a way that their contribution to

achieving the goal is clear (Pressey and Bottrill 2009). In addition, targets should be described

as far as possible in quantitative terms and be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable,

Relevant (Realistic) and Time-bound). Despite inevitable subjectivity in their formulation,

the value of such objectives and targets is their explicitness (Margules and Pressey 2000).

In the case of their expected contribution to the EU Biodiversity Strategy as an overarching goal,

the restoration targets should be formulated in terms of their contribution to the state or condition of

ecosystems and their services. The four-level approach is proposed as the method to identify

degraded ecosystems and it provides a way to quantify restoration targets.

Explicit targets, especially quantitative ones, require discussion about outcomes, limit the likelihood

of quick restoration decisions and encourage accountability. Quantitative targets allow the full

potential of decision support systems (Step 4.3) to be realized.

Formulating the objectives, targets and criteria is best achieved by analysing the outcomes of Stage

3, in particular the results of the problem tree analysis.

When the general ecological restoration goal is defined in broad and wide-ranging terms, it is of

paramount importance to agree on a limited number of SMART objectives. Again, the four-level

approach has been adopted to allow such SMART formulation of objectives. For example, a

specific objective of a given country may be to improve at least 10 % of wetlands with degradation

level 3 to level 2 by 2020, as a contribution to the overall 15 % national restoration target.

3.5.6.3 Step 4.2. Choose and agree on prioritization criteria

In order to choose useful criteria it is important to refer to the definition of ‘degraded

ecosystem’ as adopted under this contract and as further detailed in the four-level

approach.

Within the wider setting of identifying degraded sites specific criteria need to be applied to

filter out those ecosystems or areas that are in most urgent need to be restored. A first class of

criteria may relate to the specific responsibility the planning area has for the conservation of specific

ecosystems or habitats in a European context or which ecosystems have been identified to be of

high priority nationally. Attention should be given to ensure sufficient balance across all ecosystem

types in terms of restoration needs. The European Commission might be requested to provide

specific guidance in connection to ecosystem-based efforts in neighbouring countries or elsewhere

in Europe.

In terms of practical steps, it is advised to arrange a meeting with the stakeholders that have been

identified to be of most importance for identifying restoration priorities (Step 3.2). During such

meeting, consensus needs to be built on the following question:

Which ecosystems have more importance in terms of restoration compared to other ecosystems

(see national strategies, check with EC or neighbouring countries)? And why?

While identifying criteria for selecting priority ecosystems or restoration measures it is important to

consider the following guiding principles:

Ensuring synergy with related policies (e.g. Habitats Directive, green infrastructure, CAP, CFP)

Focusing on restoration measures that tackle key pressures and threats;

Considering restoration measures in a landscape setting or an integrated approach;

Considering restoration measures in an international context (EU or transnational).


Criteria used in the prioritization of restoration

In the process of prioritization, a hierarchy (or sequence) in the consideration of the different types

of criteria needs to be established. This was explicitly requested by the participants in the

workshop, but also finds support in literature (Sarkar 1999; Margules, Pressey, and Williams 2002).

According to the workshop participants, the identification of potential priority restoration areas

should in first instance be based on ecological and conservation criteria. The information generated

by a selection process based on these ecological criteria should then in a second stage inform the

process of prioritization and decision making that also integrates social, economic and other policy

considerations. A special focus should be on land use designation in spatial planning

processes/tools in order to avoid conflicts up front, ineffective restoration efforts and the

misallocation of restoration funds.

During the workshop, participants identified six categories of possible criteria to be used. These are

listed here.

1. Conservation criteria

Risk of ecosystem collapse

Habitat state of conservation

Trend (in conservation status)

Natura 2000 (designation under Birds / Habitats Directive)

Nationally designated areas (National Parks etc.)

Importance for conservation of HD Annex IV species

Importance for conservation of bird species

Importance for conservation of (national) Red List species

2. Spatial & ecological criteria

Size

Perimeter–to-area ratio

Proximity to natural areas

Proximity to protected and managed nature areas

Proximity to critical species habitat (Habitat and Birds Directive, Red List, locally important

species)

Function in green infrastructure and national ecological network

Ecological role in re-establishing healthy multifunctional landscapes

Restoration outlook and timeframe (ecological feasibility)

Ecosystem state (4 levels suggested for this project)

Vulnerability

Persistence

Complementarity

Irreplaceability

Flexibility

Efficiency

3. Ecosystem services criteria (CICES, for full detailed list see www.cices.eu)

Biomass


Water

Biomass, Fibre

Water

Biomass-based energy sources

Mechanical energy

Mediation by biota

Mediation by ecosystems

Mass flows

Liquid flows

Gaseous / air flows

Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection

Pest and disease control

Soil formation and composition

Water conditions

Atmospheric composition and climate regulation

Physical and experiential interactions

Intellectual and representational interactions

Spiritual and/or emblematic

Other cultural outputs

4. Policy and sector related criteria

Potential synergies with WFD

Potential synergies with CAP

Potential synergies with MSFD

Potential synergies with Climate change policy

Potential synergies with Regional policy

Potential synergies with national business/industrial policy

Potential synergies with national, regional and local priorities for conservation and sustainable

development

Sectors’ willingness and synergies: transport, energy, employment etc.

Restoration in the context of compensation measures (linked to EIA, SEA and no-net-loss)

Cross-border opportunities

Land use designation in spatial planning tools and processes (regional land use plan, local land

use plan, urban plan, location relative to other types of land use such as industrial or other

operations, etc.).

5. Social criteria

Stakeholder acceptance and public support (social feasibility)

Proximity to human settlement

Land ownership & property rights

Cultural criteria (also partly covered by cultural ecosystem services, see above)

Species appreciation (also partly covered by cultural ecosystem services, see above)


Cultural and natural heritage value (also partly covered by cultural ecosystem services, see

above)

6. Economic criteria

Cost benefit ratio of the restoration work (economic feasibility)

Economic value of ecosystem services

Eligibility for EU funding

Eligibility for national public financing

Eligibility for private funding

Eligibility for innovative funding (Payments for ecosystem services, Bonds for green

infrastructure, Biodiversity offsets and habitat banking) – see chapter on financial mechanisms

In addition, six classes of criteria are being used to identify and prioritize networks of conservation

areas for the most effective conservation of biodiversity based on ecological considerations (Brooks

2010; Margules, Pressey, and Williams 2002):

Vulnerability

Persistence

Complementarity

Irreplaceability

Flexibility

Efficiency

Vulnerability: some ecosystems and the biota they contain are more vulnerable to pressures than

others. For example ecosystems linked to fertile soils and good rainfall, are likely to be under

pressure from agricultural development or intensification. Conversely ecosystems linked to

extensive agricultural practices may be threatened by the abandonment of extensive land use

practices.

Persistence related to the long term viability of species in areas established (or restored ) for the

conservation of biodiversity (Gaston, Pressey, and Margules 2002).

Complementarity: the selection of priority areas for conservation should in first instance proceed

from the goal of representing all biodiversity and should not be side tracked by other equally

legitimate but different goals

Irreplaceability: this property of conservation areas refers to the fact that some sites harbour biota

or provide functions that are not provided by others. These areas should form the core of the

restoration prioritization.

Flexibility: is a property of the network of restorable areas. If the network contains many

replaceable sites, i.e. site that contain features or provide functions that are also covered by other

sites, then the network is said to be highly flexible. This property allows a more flexible approach in

the second stage of prioritization when other criteria or interests (social, economic, policy related

etc.) come into the equation.

In the case of the RPF, when other considerations, such as provision of ecosystem services, and

synergies with other policies should also be taken into account in the equation, flexibility is an

essential (ecological) criterion.


3.5.6.4 Step 4.3. Prioritize sites and actions for ecosystem restoration

In this step, the potential restoration sites will be reviewed and prioritized according to a

number of criteria. The criteria to be applied to the prioritization process vary depending on

the scale at which the prioritization is performed (e.g., at an EU scale, few criteria may be

sufficient to give some overall prioritization guidance to the Member States and Regions,

while at the local level, many different criteria might be needed to determine the exact

location of the restoration activities) and will have been selected in step 4.2.

Once the questions of the previous steps have been answered in as clear terms as possible and

when all stakeholders have agreed the scope and definitions for the restoration prioritization, it is

time to identify priority ecosystems or potential areas for restoration.

It is essential for this process of identification and selection to do so with involvement of all relevant

stakeholders. The map of level of degradation of all ecosystems as produced in step 3.3 provides

an essential basis for the current step of selection. However, attaching importance to the criteria

and deciding which ones are more important than others can only be done in consultation with

those parties that are directly concerned including the holders of scientific knowledge (the experts).

The selection of the criteria that ultimately will be used for the prioritization is therefore a task for the

stakeholder team.

A number of methods is available to assist such stakeholder engagement process, and it is up to

the project team to select the method that best meets the requirements. In the following sections we

describe a number of such methods.

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)37

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a set of procedures that analyse complex decisions

based on disparate, conflicting criteria. MCDA consists of a series of techniques (e.g. weighted

summation) that facilitate the scoring, ranking, or weighting of decision-making criteria based on

stakeholder preferences. These techniques ideally operate within a transparent framework that

encourages informed decision-making by providing opportunities for genuine, substantive

participation in decision-making supported by the best available scientific knowledge that can also

incorporate uncertainties in an honest, rigorous and consistent manner. MCDA typically involves

five steps:

Define the goals and objectives (Steps 1.3 & 4.1);

Identify decision options;

Select the criteria that measure performance relative to the objectives;

Determine the weights for the various criteria;

Apply the procedures and perform the mathematical calculations to rank options.

An MCDA is implemented by a multidisciplinary team (e.g. a steering committee) under the lead of

a facilitator or project leader. The purpose of the MCDA is to identify priority decisions by

completing a table by assigning a score for importance for all of the combinations of restoration

option vs. criterion. The method is perfectly suited to prioritize areas for restoration through a

technique called sieve mapping.

Sieve mapping is a commonly used multi-criteria, GIS-based planning approach that allows

participants to assess the value of an area’s contribution (land availability, ecosystem integrity, land

use conflicts, etc.) toward attainment of restoration goals and objectives. Each constraint or

37 based on ‘Using Multi-criteria Decision Analysis to Support Ecosystem Restoration Planning’ (Suedel et al.

2011) and references therein.


opportunity (i.e. criterion) is mapped as a rasterized ‘sieve’ and the area of concern is passed

through the sieves systematically in a definitive sequence to reveal areas suitable for the intended

use. A spatial overlay procedure offers participants the opportunity to assign ratings and weightings

of importance to the criterion in combination, and conducts thorough ‘what-if’ scenario analyses in

an iterative fashion.

Figure16: Sieve mapping procedure applied in the Cottonwood restoration site selection (see Box 4

Application of MCDA in the Missouri River Cottonwood restoration site selection)

Criteria to be analysed by the MCDA tool and sieve mapping are best identified by the

multidisciplinary team through a series of brainstorming workshops. Examples of such decision

criteria for prioritizing areas for restoration may include (see also the longer list under step 4.2):

Criterion 1: Provide connectivity

Criterion 2: Land has no ownership restrictions

Criterion 3: Restoration will provide multiple ecosystem services

Criterion 4: Is identified as important area for birds, butterflies or plants

Criterion 5: Has an unfavourable conservation status

…

The steering committee can then identify which of the criteria they assign more importance to

compared to other criteria (e.g. by voting or through blind balloting). On the basis of this ranking a

weight can be given to each criterion (with criteria receiving more votes to get a higher weight than

criteria that have fewer votes).


Table 10 Results of the MCDA process. The weighted criteria were used in the GIS sieve mapping

application.

Description of criteria Average

Vote 1

Rank2 Rank Sum

Weight

1: Have Suitable Groundwater Depths 0.83

1 0.18

2: Be Inside the Missouri National Recreational River (MNRR)

boundary owned by ‘willing’ land owners

0.35

9 0.04

3: Avoid Tern and Plover Sites 0.32 10 0.02

4: Be Near Potential Backwaters 0.54 8 0.05

Box 8: Application of MCDA in the Missouri River Cottonwood restoration site selection

In 2000, in response to plans for further flood control on the Missouri River, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service issued a Biological Opinion (BiOp) directing the Corps to conduct collaborative,

long-term planning efforts to restore critical ecosystem functions, mitigate for habitat losses, and

recover native fish and wildlife populations, while seeking to enhance social, economic, and

cultural values for future generations along the Missouri River. The magnitude of the project and

the wide range of stakeholders and planning objectives called for the development of

standardized and reproducible methods that could be applied across the watershed. The

Cottonwood Restoration Integrated Site Identification System (CRISIS) was developed, a

participatory GIS-based, sieve-mapping system that employs expert elicitation to identify spatially

explicit ‘siting’ criteria within an MCDA framework that in turn screens for potential restoration and

preservation targets. The project team first hosted a series of brainstorming workshops to

generate a list of potential criteria that could be used to ‘sieve’ potential restoration sites. Team

members spanned multiple areas of expertise and affiliations. The list of criteria was refined and

10 independent criteria were ultimately selected for use in the analysis (see

Table 10). Maps were developed for each criterion and reclassified to indicate the relative

suitability of each cell with respect to each criterion. A normalized scale of 1 to 5 was adopted to

capture the range of conditions (‘5’ = optimal conditions; ‘1’ = unsuitable conditions). ERDC then

facilitated a blind balloting procedure in which the members were asked to rank the criteria from

highest (most important) to lowest (least important). These values were averaged across the

team on a criterion-by-criterion basis, and converted to ranks using rank sum transformation. In

rank sum, the rank position is weighted and then normalized by the sum of all weights (

Table 10). This ranking method is simple and provides an approach to weight assessment.

However, it is limited by the number of criteria to be ranked and is not appropriate for a large

number of criteria since it becomes very difficult to straight rank as a first step. The resultant

weights were entered into a GIS analysis using a weighted arithmetic average:

SSw = 0.18c1 + 0.04c2 + 0.02c3 + 0.05c4 + 0.13c5 + 0.80*0.16c6 + 0.07c7 + 0.15c8 +

0.11c9 + 0.09c10

where SSw is weighted site suitability, and ci is criterion number i as defined in Table 10.

Finally, the results were reclassified on a scale of 1 to 5 using natural breaks and then presented

in a Red Amber Green pattern to communicate the results in a spatial context.


Description of criteria Average

Vote 1

Rank2 Rank Sum

Weight

5: Be Adjacent to Existing Young Cottonwood Stands 0.59 4 0.13

6: Be Subject to Periodic Inundation 0.68 2 0.16

7: Avoid High Erosion Areas 0.55 7 0.07

8: Provide Connectivity 0.63 3 0.15

9: Be At Risk to Urban Conversion 0.58 5 0.11

10: Be Near Existing Seed Sources 0.56 6 0.09

1 The higher the score, the more important (inverse ranking).

2 The most important = 1, second important = 2, etc.

A GIS-based thematic mapping can then be used to produce a vectorized map for each of the

selected decision criteria. These can then be converted to raster maps for processing in

consecutive steps. On the basis of available spatial data, each cell in the respective raster maps

can be classified in terms of suitability with regard to the criterion under view (e.g. 10 = optimal

condition, 1 = unsuitable condition). An additional calculation can be carried out by integrating the

weighted values for the individual criteria. The results of this exercise can be reclassified to a 1 to 5

scale and spatially presented in a red/amber/green pattern to communicate the results. The end

result is a map of the project area with an indication of potential areas for restoration.

See Section 3 for a list of possible resources to consider for implementing the sieve mapping.

Further reading: A comprehensive overview of the MCA technique is provided in ‘Multicriteria

Analysis: A Manual’ (Department for Communities and Local Government 2009)

Restoration triage

Triage in a restoration context is the process of prioritising the allocation of limited resources to

maximise restoration returns, relative to the restoration goals, under a constrained budget (based on

Bottrill et al. 2008).

The method of triage can be used as a stand-alone method for ranking options in terms of their

priority. It can also be used in combination with, for example, MCDA for assigning importance levels

to decision criteria.

In its most simple form triage in restoration can be based on two factors. In the example below

(Hobbs and Kristjanson 2003) this is applied to landscape management intervention with the factors

‘level of need/threat’ and ‘probability of long-term persistence or system recovery’.


Figure17: Landscape management intervention grid (Hobbs and Kristjanson 2003)

The method of triage is also based on stakeholder participation, in which stakeholders identify their

priorities by allocating a score to the combination of factors under view.

When more than two factors are considered, which is mostly the case, the triage table takes a

different form. Table 11 illustrates this for a set of seven criteria (see step 4.2 for a long list of

possible criteria).

Table 11: Hypothetical example of a triage table when using multiple criteria.

Criterion

category

Conservation Spatial

ecological

Ecosystem service …

Sub-criterion Risk of

ecosystem

collapse

Habitat state

of

conservation

Trend in

conservation

status

Size Perimeter-

to-area

ratio

Biomass Water

retention

… Weighted sum

Weight W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 …

Ecosystem/area

for restoration

Forest S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 … (S1*W1)+(S2*W2)

+…

Wetlands

Dunes

…


In this example, the stakeholder team compares a number of choices in the form of ecosystem

types. This could also be specific areas or sites. The sub-criteria in the second row can be derived

from a brainstorm session held by the stakeholder group, who also can give weights to individual

sub-criteria (see under MCDA). For each combination of ecosystem and sub-criterion stakeholders

are invited to assign scores. These can then be combined into a weighted sum for each ecosystem

type. By ranking these sums an indicative priority list is created of ecosystems or areas to be

restored.

Spatial data overlay

A simple method for prioritization is that of spatial data overlay. It basically consists of a technical

exercise in which existing maps for a given country are combined in a Geographical Information

System (GIS). For many countries or regions maps have been produced by a range of

organizations, indicating areas that are most in need of conservation. Various algorithms can be

applied (from simple summation to weighted combinations or specific filters) to combine maps to

yield prioritization results (Micheli et al. 2013). For example, a combination of areas of high

importance for given species groups - e.g. Important Bird Areas (Heath et al. 2011) or Prime Butterfly

Areas (van Swaay and Warren 2003) - with Natura 2000 or other designations may reveal important

areas that lack conservation and that may be in need for restoration.

Although this approach has advantages of being relatively straightforward in terms of its

implementation, it lacks the involvement of stakeholders and therefore risks lack of acceptance of

the results. Also, depending on the data layers used, it may have a bias towards conservation

areas and neglect areas with restoration potential in that currently have degradation level 4 (e.g.

urban areas). However, it may provide a useful step in bringing together existing knowledge as a

basis for discussion with stakeholders.

3.5.7 Stage 5. Implement, monitor, evaluate and report restoration actions

The stage of implementing the identified restoration priorities is only very briefly mentioned in these

guidelines. Implementation, monitoring and reporting are important through the feedback of relevant

information on restoration progress to the earlier stages. Even if carefully prepared in consultation

with a wide range of stakeholders, the implementation of selected sites and identified priorities for

ecosystem restoration may face unexpected opposition of practical limitations.

In such cases, a return to earlier stages of planning and prioritizing restoration in the light of the

new practical field knowledge may be needed.

In addition the precise outcomes of planned restoration measures are difficult to predict, because of

our limited knowledge of ecosystem functioning and because of the general unpredictability of

natural processes. Monitoring, evaluation and reporting progress enables planners, decision

makers and managers to revisit the agreed restoration priorities and assess the effectiveness of the

restoration measures in the light of the measured progress and to adopt adaptive management

measures if needed.


3.6 Guidance Section 2: Application of Stage 4 of the Restoration Prioritization Framework

3.6.1 Introduction

In this section, suggestions are made for the application of Stage 4 of the restoration prioritization

framework to the Member State and sub-national levels. Again, it should be stressed that the

recommendations or guidelines are not intended to be prescriptive, but to give ideas about how the

prioritization of restoration could be achieved. The selection of criteria, the weighting of their relative

importance in identifying priority areas for restoration and the trade-offs to be made between

competing interests, are all part of a stakeholder process that can be supported by the steps

described in Section 1.

The framework described in Section 1 is based on a review of available literature on restoration

prioritization most of which have been developed in non EU contexts. This approach should have

the advantage that the framework would be universally applicable. But it does not specifically refer

to the EU context. The situation in the EU with regards to restoration is however quite different from

many other parts of the world, for the following reasons: high population density and high affluence

are the drivers of a wide range of pressures that have led to the far reaching deterioration of

ecosystems and biodiversity. On the other hand, the responses in terms of policies, legislation and

regulations have resulted in one of the most comprehensive networks of protected areas in the

world (Natura 2000). In addition conservation objectives (including restoration) are included in many

related policies (Water Framework Directive, Common Agricultural Policy, Marine Strategy

Framework Directive, regional and cohesion policy etc.) and their implementation frameworks.

On the following pages, for each of the levels a possible role and specific actions in connection to

the three steps under Stage 4 are described.

3.6.2 European Union

At EU level, there is an important role in terms of coordination, and providing guidance.

3.6.2.1 Determining objectives

Target is defined. Support countries in interpretation and implementation of the objectives (e.g.

through this guidance document and the support mechanism)

Identify and enable synergies with other European policy (e.g. green infrastructure, Natura

2000)

3.6.2.2 Agreeing criteria

Communicate criteria, create consensus

Exchange experience in criteria development

Engage stakeholders at European level (RPF WG, EHF, ETC BD, EEA, etc.)

3.6.2.3 Prioritizing

Exchange experience from Member States and other actors (e.g. via working group and support

mechanism)

Coordinate national priorities in transnational/EU context (ensuring balance)

Communicate MS priorities to other MS


3.6.3 Member State

Typically, the type of question to be addressed in a restoration prioritization exercise at national

level is about what broad categories of ecosystems need to be restored first in order to meet the EU

target, and where are they located. The answer to this will be in relatively generic terms, perhaps

resulting in a listing only or sometimes accompanied by an indicative map. The outcome of this

exercise is for regional or local authorities to fine-tune for their respective levels.


Establish national governance structure

Develop a national strategic framework for ecosystem restoration

Establish clear links with the EU Green Infrastructure Strategy

Transpose 15 % target to national policy and identify country-specific objectives per ecosystem

Communicate national objectives to EU and MS


Facilitate stakeholder meeting to reach consensus over national criteria

Share selected criteria with EU and other MS


Produce national ecosystem degradation map (cfr. MAES)

Produce national indicative map or list of priority ecosystems/regions based on agreed criteria

and stakeholder approach (including EU)

Communicate national indicative priorities to regional/local level

Agree with regional/local level division of roles and responsibilities

Communicate national priorities to EU and MS

Coordinate monitoring of implementation and outcome and aggregate the information for

communication to EU level

3.6.4 Region

Regions within countries will in many cases be responsible for turning broad restoration policy

objectives and priorities into more precise maps and objectives, including detailed planning and

budgeting.


Establish regional governance structure

Develop a regional strategic framework for ecosystem restoration

Integrate the national priorities and criteria in terms of ecosystem restoration in the Regional

Strategic Framework

Turn overall national objectives into regional level involving stakeholders throughout the process

Transpose the regional strategic framework to relevant spatial planning tools and processes


Facilitate stakeholder meeting to reach consensus over regional criteria

Share selected criteria with national level and other regions


Produce regional ecosystem degradation map, where needed


Produce regional map or list of priority ecosystems/regions based on agreed criteria and

stakeholder approach (including national)

Communicate regional priorities to national and local level

Agree with local level division of roles and responsibilities

Identify planning and resource requirements

Coordinate monitoring of implementation and outcome and aggregate the information for

communication to national level

3.6.5 Municipality

The local level is in many cases the level of implementation, with site managers where appropriate.

Town plans and other spatial planning tools are turned into practice through full planning

processes.


Establish local governance structure

Develop a local spatial plan for ecosystem restoration

Integrate the regional priorities and criteria in terms of ecosystem restoration in the local

planning

Turn overall regional objectives into local level involving stakeholders throughout the process


Facilitate stakeholder meeting to reach consensus over local criteria

Share selected criteria with regional level and other municipalities


Produce local map of priority ecosystems/sites based on agreed criteria and stakeholder

approach (including regional)

Communicate local priorities to regional level

Agree with local stakeholders division of roles and responsibilities

Identify planning and resource requirements

Implement

Monitor progress in implementation and outcome and communicate to regional level


Box 9 National coordination of the Green and Blue Infrastructure in France

The Green Blue Infrastructure (GBI) is an instrument to increase ecological coherence in France

and to enhance ecosystems and their benefits for society. Identification of degraded ecosystems

and the prioritization of their restoration is a key process in the implementation of the French GBI.

In that sense it can be seen as a model identifying and prioritizing ecosystems restoration.

Design and implementation of the GBI is coordinated from the state level. Guidance, resources

and support are provided to the different groups having responsibility for its implementation down

to the local level through a special web portal: http://www.trameverteetbleue.fr.

Coordinated by the French Ministry for Ecology, Sustainable Development and energy (MEDDE),

Resource Centre for GBI is supported by the Atelier technique des espaces naturels (Aten), the

Federation of French Regional Nature Parks (FPNRF), the Research Institute for Science and

Technology for the Environment and Agriculture (Irstea), The National Natural History Museum

(MNHN) and the National Office for Water and Aquatic Environments (Onema). It is structured

around 3 main functions:

A resource function led by Aten which is mainly focusing on coordinating the offer of GBI

training, development and maintenance of the web platform and the dissemination of

best practice with the support of the FPNRF;

An exchange function led by the FPNRF, mainly focused on the coordination of actions

concerning exchanges of knowledge and the dissemination of the newsletter ‘Qu'est-ce

qui se trame ?’ (‘What’s being networked?’);

A scientific and technical support function led by the MEDDE with the support of

IRSTEA, MNHN and Onema.

http://www.trameverteetbleue.fr/


Box 10: Ensuring coherence in the implementation of Blue Green Infrastructure in France

One of the objectives of the Grenelle de l’Environnement involves the implementation of a

strategy for the restoration of ecological coherence throughout its territory (trame verte et bleue

TVB). The aims of the TVB are to restore and conserve biodiversity but also to increase and

restore the benefits that society derives from nature. The implementation is coordinated at the

level of the regions in close cooperation with the central government. The development and

implementation of the Schéma régional de cohérence écologique (SRCE, or Regional scheme for

ecological coherence) is the key process. The SRCE procedures and guidelines have been

centrally developed and guidance is also provided to ensure consistency across the regions. This

guidance covers the following national coherence criteria:

Species

Habitats

Interregional and international connectivity

The coherence between the measures taken at different spatial scales and across administrative

levels is being ensured by establishing formal requirements to take into account or reflect the

guidance and conditions established in other relevant documents, according to the following

scheme.

Figure18: Coherence between the SCRE and other relevant environmental tools and

processes

The regions, in developing their spatially explicit plans for the implementation of green

infrastructure (trame verte et bleue) are required to take into account the priorities and guidelines

set at national level, i.e. to make sure the network of protected and restored areas contribute to

the species and habitats selected at the national level and that they contribute to the national

ecological corridors.


National guidelines for restoration – the case of France

Although not explicitly a part of the implementation of target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy,

France has developed a comprehensive approach to the multiscale identification of conservation

and restoration areas based on the concept of green infrastructure (trame verte et bleue).

This is a biodiversity conservation policy which is enshrined in a legal framework (Loi du Grenelle

de L’Environnement and associated decrees)

The five criteria to ensure ecological coherence at national level though the development of

regional schemes for ecological coherence are (Sordello et al. 2011):

1. Existing protected areas

2. Water and wetland habitats

3. Species

4. Habitats

5. Interregional and international ecological coherence

Ad 1. Existing protected areas: this national level criterion establishes that existing designated strict

areas for the protection of nature should be included in the identification of elements of the Blue

Green Infrastructure. These include the ‘Arrêtés Préfectoraux de Protection de Biotope’ (APPB), the

core areas of national parks, the national nature reserves, the regional nature reserves, sites

explicitly designated for biodiversity conservation and biological reserves. The possible non-

inclusion of other designated areas in the GBI needs to be justified;

Ad 2. Water and wetland habitats: this criterion is included to guarantee the taking into account of

the plans and actions related to water management, in particular as described in the SDAGE

(Schéma Départemental d’Aménagement et de Gestion des Eaux, Departmental plan for water

planning and management)


Ad 5. For the criterion Interregional and international ecological coherence, five themes have been

identified:

Open areas (grasslands etc.)

Half open areas (wooded heathlands etc.)

Half-closed areas (bocage)

Closed areas (woods and forests)

Migration corridors


Box 11: EHS: Identifying restoration areas in The Netherlands

The main delivery process of nature conservation policy in The Netherlands (Natuurbeleidsplan)

is the implementation of the national ecological network, NEN (Ecologische Hoofdstructuur, or

EHS), whose main goal it is to preserve biodiversity in The Netherlands. The decision to design

and implement the EHS came shortly after the 1992 Rio Conference.

It was originally thought of as a national network of core areas, nature development areas and

ecological corridors. The strong spatial focus was chosen because it was thought that improving

physical conditions in a spatially explicit manner would benefit the management of the core areas.

To implement the EHS concrete objectives were needed. For this a measure for biodiversity was

needed. Because the definition of ecosystems is rather arbitrary, key species were chosen as a

surrogate to express biodiversity (Van der Zande and Hoogeveen 1995). The objective of the EHS

was to avoid that species would disappear from The Netherlands, with a special attention for

species of international significance. These EHS target species (doelsoorten) have been selected

in a transparent and reproducible way by using three criteria: International significance (I),

Negative trend in The Netherlands (T) and Rarity in The Netherlands (Z) (see Figure19). Only

species with a high score for two of the three criteria were selected as target species (black and

dark grey areas in the figure below). Threshold values for the operationalization of the criteria for

the species groups considered as part of this process are given in Van der Zande and Hoogeveen

(1995).

Figure19: The three criteria for the selection of target species in The Netherlands

(Van der Zande and Hoogeveen 1995)

For the conservation of these target species, a system of nature target types (natuurdoeltypen)

has been developed, linked to a clustering of the target species, and which can be assessed for

each conservation area. The natuurdoeltypen have been based on the classification of plant

communities in The Netherlands, to which the target species have been linked. The combination

of plant communities and target species resulted in some 100 nature target types for which the

key species, abiotic conditions and associated natural processes have been described. The

nature target types have been clustered into four main groups based on the level of human

intervention in their management. The nature target types have been described in great detail in

the ‘bible of Dutch nature conservation’: Handboek Natuurdoeltypen (Bal et al. 2001) (Manual for

nature target types).


109

3.7 Guidance Section 3: Resources

3.7.1 Sources of basic information and data

Biodiversity portal http://biodiversity.europa.eu/

International conservation significance

Biodiversity Hotspot

http://www.conservation.org/where/priority_areas/hotspots/Pages/hotspots_main.aspx

Key biodiversity area http://www.iucn.org/knowledge/focus/ipbes_focus/key_biodiversity_areas/

http://ipbes.unepwcmc-004.vm.brightbox.net/assessments/164

Important Bird Area http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/site

http://www.birdlife.org/action/science/sites/european_ibas/index.html

IBA’s in danger http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/info/IBAsInDanger#EUROPE AND CENTRAL

ASIA

Vector map of IBAs http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/geomap.php?r=i&c=3

Important Plant Area http://www.plantlife.org.uk/international/wild_plants/IPA/

http://www.plantlifeipa.org (password restricted)

Prime Butterfly Areas of Europe http://www.bc-europe.eu/upload/PBA_summary.pdf

Ramsar Site / Wetlands of International Importance http://ramsar.wetlands.org/

RAMSAR sites in danger: The Montreux Record http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-

documents-montreux/main/ramsar/1-31-118_4000_0__

Vector Map of RAMSAR Sites

http://ramsar.wetlands.org/GISMaps/RamsarSitesinGoogleEarth/tabid/944/Default.aspx

http://ramsar.wetlands.org/GISMaps/DownloadGISdatasets/tabid/769/Default.aspx

World Heritage Sites http://whc.unesco.org/en/list

Man and Biosphere Reserves http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-

sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/europe-north-america/

Restoration needs in MABs: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-

sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/man-and-biosphere-programme/mab40/infocus-

archive/results/periodic-review/

Marine Protected Areas (MPA): Specially Protected Areas Protocol of the Barcelona Convention

http://www.rac-spa.org/spami

Pressures

Flood risk http://floods.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

Desertification http://wad.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

Drought http://edo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/edov2/php/index.php?id=1000

Pollutants http://fate.jrc.ec.europa.eu/rational/home

State

http://biodiversity.europa.eu/

http://www.conservation.org/where/priority_areas/hotspots/Pages/hotspots_main.aspx

http://www.iucn.org/knowledge/focus/ipbes_focus/key_biodiversity_areas/

http://ipbes.unepwcmc-004.vm.brightbox.net/assessments/164

http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/site

http://www.birdlife.org/action/science/sites/european_ibas/index.html

http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/info/IBAsInDanger#EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/info/IBAsInDanger#EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/geomap.php?r=i&c=3

http://www.plantlife.org.uk/international/wild_plants/IPA/

http://www.plantlifeipa.org/

http://www.bc-europe.eu/upload/PBA_summary.pdf

http://ramsar.wetlands.org/



http://ramsar.wetlands.org/GISMaps/RamsarSitesinGoogleEarth/tabid/944/Default.aspx

http://ramsar.wetlands.org/GISMaps/DownloadGISdatasets/tabid/769/Default.aspx

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/europe-north-america/

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/europe-north-america/

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/man-and-biosphere-programme/mab40/infocus-archive/results/periodic-review/



http://www.rac-spa.org/spami

http://floods.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

http://wad.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

http://edo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/edov2/php/index.php?id=1000

http://fate.jrc.ec.europa.eu/rational/home


110

Article 17 reporting

http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Reporting/Article_17/Reports_2007/index_html

European soils http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

Responses

Natura 2000 sites http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/natura-3

Natura 2000 viewer http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/#

World Database of Protected Areas http://www.protectedplanet.net/

Rewilding Europe areas www.rewildingeurope.com/areas/

National conservation significance

Nationally designated areas

National Red List of Ecosystems

Habitats / sites important for Red List Species

http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Reporting/Article_17/Reports_2007/index_html

http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/natura-3

http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/

http://www.protectedplanet.net/

http://www.rewildingeurope.com/areas/


111

4 Support mechanisms

4.1 Support mechanism for the restoration prioritization framework

4.1.1 Introduction

This chapter assesses the needs and benefits of developing a support mechanism and the

services it could/should provide. Also, we review existing support mechanisms, describe a

number of potential building blocks, identify priorities for service development, propose

scenarios, and make an assessment of costs and potential funding sources for the respective

scenarios of a possible support mechanism. Recommendations are formulated at the end.

4.1.2 Existing support mechanisms

In order to learn from other experiences and prevent possible duplication, we have consulted a

number of initiatives that can be regarded as support mechanisms for European processes for

which input from Member States or other actors is required. We have looked at an EU-process

for an ambitious policy field (regional policy), two initiatives that are run for specific topics for DG

Environment (EU Business & Biodiversity Platform, New Biogeographical Process), a more

general EU information service (Biodiversity Information System for Europe), and an NGO-

based initiative (Society for Ecological Restoration Europe). The reviews are descriptive and

give insight into possible overlaps or lessons learned.

4.1.2.1 Regional policy – inforegio

Four joint initiatives (Special Support Instruments38

) were developed by the European

Commission (Directorate General for Regional Policy) in cooperation with the European

Investment Bank (EIB) group and other financial institutions in the framework of the 2007-2013

programming period in order to make cohesion policy more efficient and sustainable. These

initiatives are set up in support of efficient use of a substantial part of the overall EU budget

(nearly 36 % of the EU budget for the period 2007-2013). Two of them refer to the promotion of

financial engineering instruments (JEREMIE and JESSICA) and the other two (JASPERS and

JASMINE) operate as technical assistance facilities.

JASPERS: Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions, is a technical

assistance facility for the twelve EU countries which joined the EU in 2004 and 2007. It

provides the Member States concerned with the support they need to prepare high

quality major projects, which will be co-financed by EU funds. The instrument is

governed through headquarters based at the EIB in Luxembourg, supported by three

regional offices, totalling about 85 staff. Experts are recruited and paid by the EC or on

secondment from the EIB, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)

and Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW).

JEREMIE: Joint European Resources for Micro to Medium Enterprises, is an initiative of

the European Commission developed together with the European Investment Fund. It

promotes the use of financial engineering instruments to improve access to finance for

38 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/thefunds/instruments/index_en.cfm

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/thefunds/instruments/index_en.cfm


112

SMEs via Structural Funds interventions. In addition to online documents and events, a

networking platform is set up by which workshops are organized.

JESSICA: Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas, is an

initiative of the European Commission developed in cooperation with the EIB and the

Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB). It supports sustainable urban development

and regeneration through financial engineering mechanisms. As for JEREMIE, online

documents and events are complemented by a networking platform through which

workshops are organized.

JASMINE: Joint Action to Support Micro-finance Institutions in Europe, aims at providing

both technical assistance and financial support to non-bank, micro-credit providers and

to help them to improve the quality of their operations, to expand and to become

sustainable. JASMINE seeks also to promote good practices in the field of microcredit

and to draft a code of good conduct for micro-credit institutions.

4.1.2.2 The EU Business @ Biodiversity Platform

The EU Business @ Biodiversity Platform39

was developed by a consortium of partners under

the lead of IUCN-Europe as part of a three-year contract with the Commission, which ended in

October 2012. It covered six sectors; Agriculture, Forestry, Finance, Food Supply, Non-energy

Extractive Industry and Tourism. The activities of the previous Platform focussed on:

providing opportunities for dialogue between, and among, businesses and the Commission;

encouraging and supporting businesses in incorporating biodiversity conservation in their

activities, benchmarking good practices and giving recognition to best practices through the

European Business Awards for the environment and ensuring sustainability;

contributing to the work led by the EC on business engagement in biodiversity

conservation.

Although the EU Business @ Biodiversity Platform was not directly linked to a specific target, it

was developed in the framework of the EU Communication of 2006 on ‘Halting the loss of

biodiversity by 2010 – and beyond - sustaining ecosystem services for human well-being’40

. This

called for building more effective partnerships, including partnerships with business both at the

level of the EU and in the Member States.

Although the most visible component is a website, the Platform also provided other support

services, such as the production of guidance documents and the organization of meetings with

sector representatives to identify issues and solutions concerning the interaction between

biodiversity and business. The Platform also brought together actors from different business

sectors, aiming to encourage knowledge exchange and to build capacity.

A total of 72 partners joined the community during the life of the Platform. In support of the

knowledge exchange a resource centre was included in the website, providing information on

relevant publications, case studies and relevant web links for the sectors of agriculture, food

supply, forestry, non-energy extractive industry, finance, and tourism.

39 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/business/index_en.html

40 COM/2006/0216 final

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/business/index_en.html


113

Benefits for businesses participating in the platform included direct exchange with other

businesses during workshops, access to overview information on best practices, recognition of

their work through an award and in newsletters and a website, and first-hand information on EU

policy in the field of business and biodiversity.

The Platform was effective in terms of communication activities and increasing awareness of the

ways that business can support biodiversity. Some useful best practices related to

benchmarking concerning, in particular, the monitoring of biodiversity were also developed.

Total costs for developing and maintaining the EU Business @ Biodiversity Platform for a period

of three years were around € 900,000, funded by EC DG Environment. Businesses and other

partners participated in the workshops and other activities on their own budgets.

4.1.2.3 The EU Business @ Biodiversity Platform Phase 2

The Commission launched Phase 2 of the EU B@B Platform in October 2013. Phase 2 of the

Platform will take a different approach. Firstly, it will be open to all sectors. It will also provide an

overview and updates on all European national B@B Platforms. Finally, a large part of the tasks

will focus on themes including, but not restricted to: 1) Accounting for Natural Capital, 2)

Innovation for biodiversity and business, and 3) Access to finance and innovative financing

mechanisms for biodiversity-related business activities.

4.1.2.4 New Biogeographical Process

The ‘New’ Biogeographical Process (NBP) follows-on from an earlier process of biogeographical

seminars that started in 1997 in support of activities of EU Member States to designate Natura

2000 areas. The new process aims to assist Member States in their efforts to manage habitat

types as listed in the Habitats Directive towards Favourable Conservation Status. It therefore

provides a direct support to achieving Target 1 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and

makes it comparable to the process in support of the restoration target. The NBP started in

2011 and is currently contracted by the Commission to a consortium under lead of ECNC to run

until the end of 2014.

The NBP is an ambitious process with a fixed cycle of activities that is repeated for all

biogeographical regions and that is serving all Member States. It has a number of building

blocks that jointly can be regarded as a support mechanism for Natura 2000 management. The

key building blocks of the NBP are:

Meetings

Meetings of the Steering Committee, which is composed of representatives of the

Member States in the biogeographical region and of the European Commission, the

European Environment Agency, the European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity, the

European Habitats Forum and the Natura 2000 Users Forum. The Steering Committee

reviews the pre-scoping document (see below), and decides about the habitat types,

species and habitat groups selected for the concerned biogeographical region. It is also

the forum where Member States discuss all issues linked to the preparation of

documents as well as the practical preparation of the workshops and seminars.


114

A Preparatory Workshop is used to prepare the Natura 2000 seminar. It is an informal

working meeting that provides the basic material and preparation for the Seminar. It is

informed by a background document (see below).

A Natura 2000 Seminar bring together key actors from different countries for the

exchange of practice and results in the establishment of expert networks about similar

habitats inside a biogeographical region. The Natura 2000 Seminars are based on a

'Seminar Document' whose contents are derived from the preparatory workshop (see

below). The conclusions of the seminar result in a jointly agreed list of actions on the part

of Member States and other actors.

Networking: the active networking and cooperation between all experts involved

throughout the biogeographical region, but also between different biogeographical

regions represents the heart of the process. This networking and cooperation can be

supported by the organisation of ad-hoc expert meetings that can address specific

issues.

Documents

A pre-scoping document with a pre-selection of habitats and species of Community

interest in the biogeographical region ranked according to conservation status and

representation is drafted by the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity (ETC/BD). The

pre-scoping document explains the selection of habitats. It provides a description of each

habitat together with a summary of the relevant Article 17 data (conservation status,

pressures and threats, etc.). Annex II and IV species linked to the selected habitat types

are also included.

A background document compiles relevant information from the pre-scoping

document, complemented by pre-existing sources on management methods including

best practice, etc. The background document has a life beyond the seminar and is

updated as the seminar process continues.

The Seminar Document provides the basis for the discussions at the seminar,

summarizes the outcomes of the preparatory workshop, and lists the actions that have

been identified at the workshop and refined prior to the seminar.

The Seminar Conclusions set out conclusions and recommendations of the seminar

deliberations and discussions in relation to the way forward.

Communication

A Natura 2000 platform41

has been developed in the form of a website that offers

access to available management knowledge, relevant contacts, a forum for discussion,

as well as relevant events, documents and news.

Total costs for developing and maintaining the New Biogeographical Process for a period of

three years will be around € 1,200,000, funded by EC DG Environment. Member States and

other actors participated in the workshops and other activities on their own budgets and some

provide additional input by hosting events on their costs.

41 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/platform/index_en.htm


115

4.1.2.5 Biodiversity Information System for Europe

The Biodiversity Information System for Europe (BISE42

) is a single entry point for data and

information on biodiversity in the EU. Bringing together facts and figures on biodiversity and

ecosystem services, it links to related policies, environmental data centres, assessments and

research findings from various sources. It is being developed to strengthen the knowledge base

in support of the implementation of the EU biodiversity strategy and the assessment of its

progress.

BISE is a partnership between the European Commission (DG Environment, Joint Research

Centre and Eurostat) and the European Environment Agency. It serves as the Clearing-House

Mechanism for the EU within the context of the United Nations Convention on Biological

Diversity (CBD) and maintains cooperation with the European network of Biodiversity CHMs.

BISE organises information at the European level accessible through five entry points:

Policy: policy, legislation and supporting activities related to EU directives, the EU

Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), pan-European and global policies

Topics: state of species, habitats, ecosystems, genetic diversity, threats to biodiversity,

impacts of biodiversity loss, evaluation of policy responses

Data: data sources, statistics and maps related to land, water, soil, air, marine,

agriculture, forestry, fisheries, tourism, energy, land use, transport

Research: important EU-wide research projects related to biodiversity and ecosystem

services, improving the science-policy interface

Countries and networks: national biodiversity reporting activities and information

sharing by networks across national borders

The description above is taken from the BISE website and it illustrates that BISE is a generic

information service that aims to provide a central entry point on biodiversity in Europe,

connected to European and global policies.

4.1.2.6 Society for Ecological Restoration – Europe

The website43

of SER Europe says: ‘SER Europe is a network of restoration experts,

exchanging knowledge and expertise for the promotion of ecological restoration in Europe. The

network is open to scientists, practitioners, policy makers and other restoration enthusiasts.’

As a component of an international non-profit organisation (founded as SERM in 1987), SER

Europe acts as a support mechanism for ecological restoration in Europe in its widest sense,

including to support EU policy. This is demonstrated by its commitment, which reads:

‘We try to facilitate dialogue among restorationists, both scientists and practitioners, by

organising conferences, workshops and training courses;

We try to provide practical advice for cost-effective restoration;

We encourage research and research networks;

We publish the international journal of Restoration Ecology;

42 http://biodiversity.europa.eu/

43 http://chapter.ser.org/europe/

http://biodiversity.europa.eu/

http://chapter.ser.org/europe/


116

We promote awareness of and public support for restoration and restorative

management;

We contribute to public policy discussions.’

Of particular relevance in this respect is the website of SER Europe. This website already

provides background information on the European policy context (although no specific mention

is made of target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, let alone of Action 6a), it holds a

calendar of relevant events (including training), and provides a searchable knowledge base on

restoration. The latter service provides a tool for the restoration community to share knowledge,

best practice experience, interesting case studies and so on. It includes a menu to search the

knowledge base for any key word, such as habitat or vegetation type, habitat code under the EU

Habitats Directive, species name, degradation source, restoration measure or technique,

author, country and so on. You can search whole documents or particular parts of documents

(such as title, author, abstract, key words, main content body).

Total expenses for SER globally, based on its 2011 annual report44

, amounted about € 754,000

($ 988,159). No information is available about the budget for SER Europe. The SER budget is

largely covered by membership fees, sponsorship, grants, donations, publications, and world

conference fees.

4.1.2.7 Conclusion on existing initiatives

Based on the review of a limited number of existing European support mechanisms we may

conclude that very different kinds of initiatives are established, all with their strengths and

weaknesses:

The initiatives listed as part of the Regional Policy Special Support Instruments

concentrate on capacity building and direct assistance, rather than on producing

websites or managing communication. They are very ambitious and powerful and

backed by a large budget.

The Business @ Biodiversity Platform was effective in terms of communication

activities, engaging stakeholders and raising business awareness. There were more

challenges in producing outputs on benchmarking, notably the development of

methodologies that accommodate the needs of all sectors. Nevertheless, some useful

best practices concerning, in particular, the monitoring of biodiversity were developed.

The New Biogeographic Process is directly connected to an essential process in

support of EU policy and has a clear objective, sufficient budget and good time span

for it to be efficient. The combination of networking events, information exchange,

communication tools and cooperation offers a good suite of services to Member

States.

BISE is not to be regarded as a support mechanism for a particular activity, a specific

objective or target group but rather provides generic support by making information

and data more easily accessible to the interested community. It is entirely focused on

internet-based services and is embedded in the governance of a formal agency and

policy. The current version of BISE (consulted 29 August 2013) does not offer a special

44 http://www.ser.org/docs/default-document-library/2011-annual-report.pdf?sfvrsn=2

http://www.ser.org/docs/default-document-library/2011-annual-report.pdf?sfvrsn=2


117

section in relation to restoration, which it does for green infrastructure. It would be

recommendable to add a restoration section, certainly if a support mechanism with a

website would be developed this should be linked from BISE.

The SER has many years of track record in providing support to a range of

stakeholders in the field of ecological restoration, including meetings, publications,

networking and a website. We recommend for the EC to explore possibilities to liaise

more closely with SER Europe and to identify possible fields of cooperation on aspects

of a support mechanism.

4.1.3 Towards a support mechanism for the restoration prioritization

framework

4.1.3.1 Target groups

The call for the current activity refers to ‘Member States, regions and cities’ as target group. It

does not specify what actors at these geographical levels are targeted, although it can be

assumed that it in a first instance refers to the competent authorities at these levels. Other

relevant actors for each of the levels may include spatial planners, developers, businesses, land

managers, researchers, consultants, or legal advisors.

It is assumed that an RPF support mechanism, depending on the form it will take, will serve

quite a wide range of target groups in different ways, with the highest benefits expected for

actors at national and regional levels.

4.1.3.2 User needs

During a session on the support mechanism that was held at the restoration workshop on 29-30

May as part of this project, participants (the majority of which represented the public sector, with

less participants from research and NGO community and only a few representing the business

community) identified key needs for which support would in particular be helpful. In summary, it

concerns need for:

Data - Accurate data at the right resolution are crucial for the prioritization of restoration

activities, from the EU level down to the local level. Although it is mostly the task and

responsibility of Member States to make sure they collect the data according to agreed

standards, some EU level coordination would be helpful to fill gaps and to generate data that

are useful for planning and prioritization, as for example demonstrated by initiatives such as

Copernicus45

, EUBON46

, GEO47

.

Clear guidance on matters relating to the restoration target and how to achieve it. This includes

guidance on identifying degraded ecosystems (such as based on the descriptors in the 4-level

model proposed in the current contract), methods for prioritization and use of criteria, available

models and assessment methods, stakeholder involvement (including options for engaging the

business community), restoration experience, funding sources, etc.

45 Copernicus – The European Earth Observation Programme - http://copernicus.eu/

46 EU BON - Building the European Biodiversity Observation Network - http://www.eubon.eu/

47 GEO – Group on Earth Observations - http://www.earthobservations.org/index.shtml

http://copernicus.eu/

http://www.eubon.eu/

http://www.earthobservations.org/index.shtml


118

Funding - Adequate funding opportunities were considered crucial to the achievement of any

restoration target. Significant support is required from the Commission in terms of the provision

of information regarding accessing existing funding opportunities and generating finance from

innovative approaches. This includes sharing of best practices and making Member States

aware of any public money that could be utilised. Wider recommendations for the Commission

included coherency in objectives across funding and policy and the adoption of ecological cross-

border approaches. Private financing is a new area, in which few Member States have

expertise. Support is required in exploring the potential for such approaches, with those where

public money is used to lever private funding likely to be most appropriate. Supporting pilot

project and the provision of best practice guidelines and case studies are appropriate actions.

Coordination - The search for cross-border opportunities to create ecological continuities

benefiting the wider restoration of ecosystems and their services lies primarily with the Member

States through bilateral consultation. However, there is a need for the European Commission to

pro-actively signal those opportunities where they may not have been identified, if they would

primarily benefit European or BGR scale nature restoration. Also, the Commission could play a

coordinating role if opportunities have been identified bilaterally, but implementation is

hampered by some barriers. Alternatively, a mechanism should be available on how to deal with

cross-border projects.

Communication and stakeholder engagement - Although information and communication are

instrumental to promoting the restoration agenda among the stakeholders, actively engaging

with stakeholders in the prioritization and decision making process is a key requirement.

Member States could benefit from guidance on how effectively to engage with stakeholders

(especially economic sectors and businesses) in the planning, prioritization and implementation

of the restoration agenda. At the same time, stakeholders such as developers, engineers,

businesses etc. need guidance on how to engage in policy processes and with authorities when

planning restoration activities. Lessons learned from existing models (e.g. WFD) should be

communicated. Additionally consulting the locals is very time consuming and hard to achieve in

the short time span that is connected to the restoration target. There is a need for rewarding

stakeholders for their involvement (incentive mechanisms). Also, people should know how they

are affected by restoration measures (active participation in the decision making). There is a

further need for good general arguments for restoration (maybe a political paper) to help

convince stakeholders.

Reporting - There is a need for a specific reporting structure in which the Member States can

compile their results on restoration actions. Additionally a reporting template on the prioritization

should be developed. In order to help the Member States to increase their efficiency in the

reporting for Target 2, Action 6a, the Commission could develop a reporting format in such a

way that it could also be used by the Member States to report on the relevant Aichi targets.

Exchange of best practice – Although experience sharing works pretty well, there is room for

improvement. An easily accessible repository of best practice would be helpful. Examples of

best practices (both on restoration and on prioritization and support needs and also on best

scientific and technological practices) should be available for the Member States and other user


119

groups. This should include digested information (e.g. IEEP draft financing report48

could also

help).

Training and capacity building - In order to implement the very ambitious restoration agenda

there is a need to increase the knowledge and expertise to identify, prioritise and implement

restoration projects. More particularly, there is a need for capacity building through training and

staff exchanges as well as seminars and conferences.

Legal and contractual support – there is a need for information on legal issues regarding

restoration activities as well as working approaches to create contracts for restoration and

management.

Tools – easily accessible information on tools that support restoration (prioritization) action as

well as on experience with applying such tools (e.g. GIS, multi-criteria analysis, option appraisal,

red lists of ecosystems).

4.1.3.3 Possible benefits of a support mechanism

A support mechanism is by definition designed to support those actors that (are expected to)

play a role in achieving a given objective. In the case of Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy

to 2020 it would therefore support actors (both public, private, and non-governmental) in

Member States, regions and municipalities in implementing Action 6a. The benefits of a support

mechanism to the Member States are expected to be in terms of providing easy access to

relevant information and best practices, reducing costs for research and trials by pointing at

existing knowledge and evidence, coordination of cross-border activities, monitoring of

effectiveness and so forth. An expected benefit for the European Commission is in terms of

more harmonized approaches between Member States, expected impetus to implementation by

Member States and therefore a higher potential for the Action to be achieved by 2020.

4.1.3.4 Objectives of a support mechanism

Within the overall goal to assist Member States and other actors in their efforts to implement

Action 6a of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, we propose that a support mechanism for the

restoration prioritization framework will aim to achieve the following objectives:

1. awareness raising on restoration: to draw the attention of the target groups on the need for

and benefits of restoration of ecosystems;

2. information transfer:

2.1. technical and scientific information on ecosystem restoration

2.2. advice and examples with regard to funding of restoration (funding sources,

(innovative) ways of financing)

2.3. decision making on planning of restoration (including prioritization of restoration

actions)

48 IEEP, Estimation of the financing needs to implement target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, 2

nd interim

report, 22/10/2012


120

3. capacity building: to contribute to the development of necessary planning and management

skills and to transfer of knowledge and best practice;

4. stakeholder engagement: to enhance involvement of stakeholders in decision making,

planning and implementation in the area of ecosystem restoration;

5. coordination: to coordinate actions by Member States and others involved within a European

setting, across borders and with multiple actors.

4.1.3.5 Building blocks of a support mechanism

In order to achieve the objectives described above and to respond to the needs as formulated in

section 4.1.3.2 we propose a mixture of building blocks to compose the support mechanism.

Such mixture includes both physical and digital services and tools, the overall setup of which is

presented in the following table with an indication of which building block serves which objective

best.

Building

block

Objective

Support

office

Events and

meetings

Written

communication

Website

Awareness raising ⱱ ⱱ ⱱ

Information

transfer

ⱱ ⱱ ⱱ

Capacity building ⱱ ⱱ ⱱ

Stakeholder

engagement

ⱱ ⱱ

Coordination ⱱ ⱱ ⱱ

Most of the services within the building blocks and especially those on communication should

be framed by a communication plan. Such plan should spell out in detail the answers to the

following questions:

Why communicate?

Who to communicate with?

What to communicate about?

How to interact and communicate with the target group?

When to deliver the message?

We recommend, therefore, that if a support mechanism is set up, that the development of a

communication plan is one of the first steps to be taken, as this will define the type of written

communication (and events and other tools) that best serves the purpose.

4.1.3.5.1 Support office


121

A support office is a physical entity, a secretariat that takes care of operational coordination and

is responsible for developing and managing the support mechanism. Such secretariat could be

a single person at the European Commission or another designated organization who works full

time or part time on it. It could also be a more ambitious setup, with a number of staff hosted at

an office in the EC and complemented by officers in Member States or regions (see the

example on regional policy in 4.1.2.1).

Specific services to be provided by a support office include:

Overall coordination and management of the support mechanism;

Development and implementation of a communication plan;

Liaison between Commission officials and Member States;

Monitoring and reporting on implementation of the objectives of the support

mechanism. The support office could also have a role in monitoring and/or reporting of

the achievements with regard to the 15% restoration target;

Coordination of Member State activities in terms of cross-border opportunities;

Support to project development;

Help desk services and technical assistance;

Development and management of a restoration award programme;

Facilitation of partnerships between agencies, site managers, scientists, businesses,

developers, potential investors etc.;

Preparation of communication programmes and campaigns that highlight the

economic, social and ecological benefits of ecosystem restoration;

Establishment and moderation of an online forum.

4.1.3.5.2 Events and meetings

The organization or facilitation of events and meetings is an excellent way to serve a number of

needs, depending on the type of meeting and the target group. Field visits, for example, are

ideal ways to demonstrate practices, to exchange real-life knowledge, to meet peers, or to raise

awareness. Customized training events focusing on a given ecosystem or a certain restoration

practice help in building capacity and learning from each other. Existing meetings, such as

those of the restoration working group under the EC Coordination Group on Biodiversity and

Nature (CGBN) or of the Society for Restoration Ecology, also provide great opportunities for

supporting Member States and other actors in their efforts towards implementing Action 6a.

We propose that events and meetings are fully integrated in a support mechanism, with specific

activities (to be implemented or coordinated by the service desk) including:

Identifying needs of Member States and other groups for topics to be addressed by a

meeting;

Collating and managing a list of relevant events, including possible actions for Member

States, the Commission or other actors (e.g. participation, presentation, reporting);

Organizing, in response to the identified needs, training events, field visits, practice

workshops, marketplace events (meet-and-greet), brainstorm meetings, (side events

at) conferences or other events as appropriate. This could include agenda

development, managing invitations, outreach, logistics, field guides, etc.;


122

Providing facilitation services where required (e.g. moderation, chairing, reporting);

Supporting interested parties in their attendance of relevant events (e.g. providing

PowerPoint presentations or posters).

4.1.3.5.3 Written communication

Publications and other written communication (either digital or in hardcopy) serves a number of

needs. In particular, it is essential in terms of awareness raising and information transfer and it

is a useful element in capacity building. As with events and meetings, the type of written

communication will have to be customized to a specific target and target group.

Without pre-empting what a possible communication plan would entail, the following types of

written communication should be thought of in the framework of a support mechanism:

Policy briefs for national/regional policymakers about restoration and its benefits;

Flyers about the support mechanism and how this can support Member States and

other stakeholders;

Information notes summarizing the outcome of field visits;

Guidance documents on specific restoration activities/ecosystem types (e.g.

prioritization approaches and tools as developed by government agencies around the

world, developers, businesses, land managers, NGOs, and academic and research

institutes; identify possible gaps and ways to fill such gaps);

Booklets with best practice examples (e.g. LIFE+ projects). Where possible build on

the upcoming DG Environment contract ‘Restoration efforts required for achieving the

objectives of the Birds and Habitats Directives’ as well as cases collected in related

contracts (e.g. in connection to restoration for Natura 2000 management as part of the

‘New Biogeographical Process’);

Summary reports on national implementation or restoration activities and their

effectiveness;

Review reports digesting scientific information for practitioners and their advisers.

Not all of the publication types listed above will be produced by the support office. Guidance

documents, for example, may require in-depth review and writing and would therefore be part of

individual contracts to be issued. We envisage the support office to have a key role in producing

policy briefs, flyers, information notes, and summary reports.

4.1.3.5.4 Website

Key objectives of a support mechanism, in particular information transfer, are best served by a

website, where possible in combination with interactive tools and social media. However, a

website alone is not sufficient for this purpose and it is clear that for a topic such as exchange of

knowledge on restoration practices face-to-face information transfer is often the most effective.

Nevertheless, a website provides for an additional tool that allows easy access to relevant

information anywhere at any time.

The needs expressed by the participants of the restoration workshop on 29-30 May 2013 (see

4.1.3.2) contain many references to the provision of information and data in support of

implementing Action 6a of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. The creation of a website that is


123

dedicated to support Member States in their restoration activities would serve many of these

needs.

While recommending the development of a website (or a web portal as part of a wider website,

such as the ‘Nature’ pages on the Europa server), it is important to note that existing sources

already provide much relevant information (see for example 4.1.2.6). It is also worth considering

for the Commission to set up a section on the ‘Nature’ website which is dedicated to all actions

as part of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy. As a number of on-going actions (such as MAES

and the New Biogeographical Process) have complementary aims and overlapping information

services (e.g. case studies), it would be advisable to cluster all these elements in a centrally

accessible ‘Strategy portal’.

It is important that, if a website in support of the restoration target is produced, the objective and

target group for the website are clearly defined. This will make clearer what niche and needs are

being served by the website and how it is different from related information sources.

We therefore propose the following objective for the website:

‘To provide a central online access point to relevant information and knowledge to support

relevant actors in Member States, regions and municipalities in their efforts towards

implementing Action 6a of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020’.

This objective provides a potential new website with a unique niche and makes it different from

other websites on ecological restoration.

We foresee the envisaged website to provide the following services:

Provide on-line access or entry points to:

o reference data sets (e.g. maps)

o relevant key publications

o monitoring data and reports on restoration projects and their effectiveness

o information on relevant policy and legislation (national and EU)

o information on funding sources, innovative financing and cost-benefit analyses

o contact information of experts / contact points (EU, national, subnational)

o news flashes and announcements

o definitions of key terms

o evidence base of restoration practice and management (link to the SER Knowledge

Base)

Provide an on-line forum for users to exchange knowledge and experience. In

connection to the website and internet presence we refer here to the potential of using

social media as part of a support mechanism.

o LinkedIn offers a platform for thematic group discussions or exchange (forum). It is

primarily a useful tool to make announcements or share information rather than

actively discussing topics. It is free to create a group. The SER does already

manage a group on the topic of ecological restoration. This deals with global

issues, although European policy also is covered occasionally. If a LinkedIn group

is opted for as part of the support mechanism, its niche should be clearly

formulated and the group should actively be fed with information for it to have any

purpose.


124

o A Facebook page offers wider opportunities for informal interaction on ecological

restoration. It is an excellent tool for rapid and short communications, including

photos, videos and web links to which ‘friends’ can react. It is also a good way to

quickly grow a community. Again, the SER manages a global Facebook page,

which mainly serves organizational matters and promotion. Setting up a Facebook

page is easy and free but requires active management and feeding.

o A Twitter account could be created to support instant messaging and outreach as

part of the support mechanism. Although quick and easy to establish, maintenance

effort of a Twitter account should not be underestimated.

4.1.3.6 Development priorities

The package of building blocks and all services that have been described in the previous

sections forms some kind of ideal situation. If resources and capacity would be limitless then we

would advocate developing the full suite of services as quickly as possible. However, both at the

level of EU and of the Member States resources are limited and capacity is scarce. Therefore,

we propose here a three-level approach which allows selections to be made based on the

availability of resources.

The table below lists services and actions that to a certain extent correspond to the services that

have been mentioned previously. Services are ranked according to their feasibility with easy

wins (requiring no or minimal extra investment) in green on top (level 1), gradually increasing

ambition and resource requirements (amber, level 2 which includes level 1) with more extensive

services requiring a lot of resources in red at the bottom of the table (level 3, including levels 1

and 2). For each service within each level some explanation is provided.

Service Comment

Restoration

working group

Continue using the restoration WG as an opportunity for MS to exchange

experience, discuss common issues and report on progress

Project report Disseminate the results of the current project to MS and other actors,

especially definitions, criteria for priority setting, guidance on applying the

criteria, and funding opportunities.

e-mail

distribution list

The EC to maintain the e-mail list that is available for the restoration WG

and to use this as a communication channel for disseminating relevant

information.

Webpage EC to add a (few) web page(s) to the Nature section on the Europa server

(analogous to the pages on Green infrastructure49

) to explain restoration,

its requirements and benefits, and disseminate key information sources.

49 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/index_en.htm


125

Service Comment

EC contact point Publicly accessible contact details at the EC to answer process-related

questions or act as intermediary for content-related questions. To

guarantee reply within 2 working days.

Reporting

template

Offer a template for MS to report on progress in implementing Action 6a

which at the same time serves reporting to the CBD.

Event support EC to provide support to MS or other parties that want to organize a

restoration event (e.g. workshop, training, field visit) for multiple

countries/EU. Such support could be financial, logistical, facilitation,

communication, etc. Where possible, liaise with SER Europe on joining

efforts.

Best practice

overview

Create an online overview of best practice on how MS and other actors go

about implementing Action 6a. Where possible, liaise with SER Europe on

joining efforts and build on the work under the upcoming DG Environment

contract on ‘Restoration efforts required for achieving the objectives of the

Birds and Habitats Directives’ and the on-going ‘New Biogeographical

Process’.

Funding

overview

EC to establish easily accessible and updated online restoration funding

overview and associated guidance.

Restoration

barometer

EC to produce a restoration barometer, collect data from MS based on the

reporting template, and disseminate progress towards the 15% target on a

regular basis.

Topical

information

notes

EC to facilitate production of short information notes on restoration

practices, by restoration type or habitat type. These information notes

could complement the current study on the 4-level concept and could

provide further information on criteria for each level and each ecosystem

type. Alternatively an additional study could be launched. Where possible,

liaise with SER Europe on joining efforts.

Access to data,

information and

tools

EC to create and update an overview of essential European data sources,

publications, information sources and tools for publication on the internet.

Use this overview to coordinate filling of any gaps in data and knowledge.

Annual seminar EC (where appropriate with a MS) to hold annual seminar or marketplace

for MS and other actors to exchange experience, visit field sites, hold side

events, and make alliances.

Project

development

support

Establish a basic support desk (at EC, at a MS or with a contractor) to

support actors in developing successful restoration projects and finding

financiers and investors.


126

Service Comment

Forum EC to set up an online forum for MS and other actors to discuss, share

experience and announce relevant information. If this service is selected,

multilingualism and active animation are required. Alternatively, consider

using and promoting the existing forum on the SER LinkedIn group.

Evidence base Create an online overview of evidence on what restoration measures work

under which conditions. Where possible, liaise with SER Europe on joining

efforts.

EU support

office

Set up a properly resourced support office (at EC, at one or more MS or

with a contractor) to provide a full set of services (all actions below) and

coordination. This type of support office could also provide support in the

field of related action points of the EU Biodiversity Strategy such as Green

Infrastructure, Ecosystem Services, New Biogeographical Process, and No

Net Loss, and thus combine efforts. Ideally, this support office is to be

complemented by national/regional support offices or officers.

Support

fundraising,

liaise with

funders

Actively engage potential financiers or facilitate access to financiers (e.g.

through fundraise events) for potential restoration projects.

Award

programme

Develop a restoration award programme, showcasing some of the best

restoration activities on an annual basis, presented at an annual event with

(potential) funders.

Organize events Engage stakeholders by organizing on a regular basis (and on request of

MS) targeted events (e.g. workshops, training, field visits, fundraising

events) and implement any follow-up. Where possible, liaise with SER

Europe on joining efforts.

Newsletter Produce a regular newsletter/magazine about ecosystem restoration in

Europe. Where possible, liaise with SER Europe on joining efforts.

Website Develop and maintain an extended and targeted website, offering

interactive services, data repositories, contact and publications database,

etc. Consider developing a ‘Strategy portal’ that brings together all web

pages that are dedicated to individual actions of the EU 2020 Biodiversity

Strategy. As an immediate step synergies and links to the EU Business @

Biodiversity Platform and the Natura 2000 Platform could be looked into.

4.1.3.7 Cost assessment

Based on the above division in green/amber/red services as part of a potential future support

service and based on a number of budgetary and process-related assumptions we provide here

a cost estimate for three options. A key assumption is that the support mechanism will run from

January 2014 to December 2020.


127

4.1.3.7.1 Green option

The Green option concerns the easy wins, based on already on-going processes. Assuming

that these processes (e.g. restoration working group) will continue as they are now until 2020

and that these form part of on-going EC processes, no or very limited (e.g. creating a webpage

on the Europa server) extra costs are involved in this option.

4.1.3.7.2 Amber option

The Amber option contains a number of services that are additional to current on-going

processes and that would require extra capacity and resources. The set of amber activities is

rather mixed, with some services easy and without real costs involved (e.g. setting up a

dedicated contact point at the EC) and others requiring substantial staff time input and

considerable financial resources (e.g. supporting an annual seminar, hosted by a Member

State).

For the entire set of services for the period 2014-2020 we made an estimate for staff costs,

travel and subsistence costs, publication costs, meeting costs and other costs. For most of the

budget categories specific assumptions were made. The overall estimate is presented below,

with figures rounded to thousands Euros.

Cost

category

Detail of assumptions Costs

(thousand

Euros)

Staff costs 1,495 days at an average rate of € 87650

for the period 2014-

2020.

1,310

Travel 175 travels by support office to events, seminars and for

project development support at average travel costs of € 400

70

Subsistence 861 travel days associated to these travels at average per

diem of € 150

129

Publications Lump sum for design and layout; only digital publication, no

print.

30

Meetings Assumption: host MS to provide venue and facilities,

participants to cover T&S; support for NGO participation at 7

participants per event/seminar * max. € 500

147

Other Contingency: 5% of total of the above 84

TOTAL 1,770

50 Day rate based on assumed average (senior and junior days) of € 800 in 2014 with an annual increment

of 3%, including salary and all employer costs and costs of support staff and all overheads.


128

4.1.3.7.3 Red option

The Red option contains those services that would allow a support mechanism with a support

office of two FTE to be fully operational for the period 2014-2020. This option contains all of the

services in the Green and Amber options with extras in the form of events actually organized

and covered by the EC rather than by Member States or with an extended website with online

data sets and interactive tools.

For the entire set of Amber and Red services for the period 2014-2020 we made an estimate for

staff costs, travel and subsistence costs, publication costs, meeting costs and other costs. For

most of the budget categories specific assumptions were made. The overall estimate is

presented below, with figures rounded to thousands Euros.

Cost

category

Detail of assumptions Costs

(thousand

Euros)

Staff costs 2 FTE for a period of 7 years at 216 working days p.a. and

average rate of € 876 for the period 2014-2020

2,649

Travel 273 travels by support office to events, seminars and for

project development support at average travel costs of € 400

109

Subsistence 1,120 travel days associated to these travels at average per

diem of € 150

168

Publications Lump sum for design and layout; only digital publication, no

print.

50

Meetings Same as amber version + costs of annual events organized

by support office (per event: 20 persons * € 50 catering per

day + € 2000 for venue + 7 * € 500 for NGOs)

304

Other Contingency: 5% of total of the above 164

TOTAL 3,445

Based on the above rough estimates for an Amber or a Red set of services it is safe to assume

that a budget of € 250,000 to 500,000 per year would be required for running an effective

support mechanism for the restoration prioritization framework. This figure is in line with the

current figure for the New Biogeographical Process.

4.1.3.8 Potential funding sources

A potential support mechanism for restoration will serve the needs of a number of beneficiaries.

These include the European Commission, public authorities at national regional and local levels,

site managing organisations and other land managers, consultancies, businesses, developers,

research bodies, and NGOs. It would therefore make sense to share the financial burden of

developing and maintaining a support mechanism between a number of these beneficiaries.


129

A first source of funding is that by the European Commission. The budget for the period 2014-

2020 has now been approved, although details on the division of funds are yet to be provided.

One of the potential funding sources, apart from the DG Environment budget, is the continued

LIFE+ programme which may offer opportunities for country-based projects as part of or in

support of the support mechanism. The proposed programme51

is split up into three sub-

programmes, two of which provide for direct opportunities to fund (part of) the proposed support

mechanism:

Specific objectives for the priority area Biodiversity

The specific objectives of the sub-programme for Environment for the priority area Biodiversity

shall in particular be:

(a) to contribute to the implementation of Union policy and legislation in the area of biodiversity,

including the Union Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, Directive 2009/147/EC and Directive

92/43/EEC, in particular by applying, developing, testing and demonstrating approaches,

best practices and solutions;

(b) to support the further development, implementation and management of the Natura 2000

network set up in Article 3 of Directive 92/43/EEC, in particular the application,

development, testing and demonstration of integrated approaches for the implementation of

the Prioritised Action Frameworks referred to in Article 8 of Directive 92/43/EEC;

(c) to improve the knowledge base for the development, assessment, monitoring and

evaluation of Union biodiversity policy and legislation, and for the assessment and

monitoring of the factors, pressures and responses that impact on the biodiversity within

and outside the Union.

Specific objectives for the priority area Environmental Governance and Information

The specific objectives of the sub-programme for Environment for the priority area

Environmental Governance and Information shall in particular be:

(a) to promote awareness raising on environmental matters, including generating public and

stakeholders support to Union policy-making in the field of environment, and to promote

education for sustainable development;

(b) to support communication, management, and dissemination of information in the field of

environment, and to facilitate knowledge sharing on successful environmental solutions and

practice, including by developing cooperation platforms between stakeholders and training;

(c) to promote and contribute to a more effective compliance with and enforcement of Union

environmental legislation, in particular by promoting the development and dissemination of

best practices and policy approaches;

(d) to promote better environmental governance by broadening stakeholder involvement,

including NGOs, in policy consultation and implementation.

51 COM(2011) 874 final


130

A second source of funding is from the primary beneficiaries of the support mechanism, the

public authorities. Funding from their side may have various forms, such as in-kind funding by

offering accommodation and/or staff time (e.g. for attending meetings and contributing to

information collection), seconding personnel to a possible support office, providing a one-off or

annual financial contribution, or paying fees to get access to certain services.

Given the subject of the support mechanism, ecosystem restoration, there is potential for

sponsorship from possible commercial or philanthropic actors, if this is in line with Commission

policy. For example, companies specialized in dredging or earthworks may be interested in

offering sponsorship by way of advertising their services to potential clients.

Where there are widespread opportunities for private sector involvement (independently or in

partnership with public authorities) in financing ecosystem restoration, financial institutions may

provide funding through ‘Technical Assistance’. This is most likely from public investment banks

such as the European Investment Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

and similar national institutions.

There are numerous EU funds designed to support innovation and development (such as those

reviewed in Section 1.2.1 that may be relevant. These are not traditionally applied to biodiversity

and ecosystems, however with developments in funding requirements and mechanisms, they

should be regarded as potential funding sources.

The most realistic funding package to achieve may be some combination of funding sources,

whereby the EC commits a proportion of funds in order to attract complementary funding from

other public, private and third sector sources.

4.1.4 Recommendations

Based on the reviews of existing support mechanisms, needs expressed by stakeholders,

objectives formulated and building blocks proposed, we recommend the following when

developing a support mechanism for actors in Member States, regions and municipalities to

implement Action 6a:

1. The Commission to explore with the European chapter of the Society for Ecological

Restoration possibilities for cooperation and synergy;

2. The Commission to continue the current process of restoration working group and to create

in an early stage basic webpages about restoration on the Nature section of the Europa

website;

3. The European Environment Agency to create a webpage on restoration on BISE and to link

to the webpages on the DG Environment and other relevant websites;

4. Consider the New Biogeographical Process as a model to be based on (with the

understanding that the NBP is running on the basis of a clearly outlined cycle which is

continuously repeated);

5. To encourage Member States and other actors to engage in the process and to recognize

the added value provided by an EU support mechanism by considering direct contributions

(in kind or otherwise);

6. Prior to establishing a support mechanism, to clearly spell out its objectives and target

groups;


131

7. Given the level of ambition of Action 6a, the time pressure involved and the geographical

scale of the operations, to seriously consider the setting up of a permanent support office to

be operational until 2020 with a minimum capacity of 2 FTE, to be amended where

appropriate based on an interim evaluation of its functioning;

8. To include ample opportunities for face-to-face meetings between the various stakeholders

and to engage stakeholders as early as possible;

9. To create a communication and dissemination plan in an early stage;

10. To seek private sector and other finance opportunities as part of the potential funding

package.


132

4.2 Innovative financial mechanisms for restoration

4.2.1 Summary

This note is part of a project to support the implementation of the 2020 EU Biodiversity

Strategy’s targets for the restoration of ecosystems and their services. It discusses the financing

of this target. It considers:

Public and private sector sources of funding.

How these sources of funding can be enabled, and/or combined, by policy actions.

How different restoration actions can be supported by different funding mechanisms.

Following this summary of the work and key principles, Section 4.2.2 reviews options for public

or private sector sources of funding, Section 4.2.3 describes principles in how these funding

instruments operate, and Section 4.2.4 looks at their suitability to ecosystem restoration.

Section 4.2.5 looks at actions for developing the use of innovated financing instruments, and

4.2.6 describes the most promising instruments in relation to financing ecosystem restoration.

The instruments are defined in Annex 5, subject to a SWOT analysis in Annex 6, and

discussed in more detail, along with examples, in Annex 7.

The analysis and examples extend previous analysis on the use of innovative financing

instruments in relation to biodiversity objectives generally (no net loss and ecosystem

restoration, eftec, 2012; IEEP, 2013). This analysis focusses on supporting ecosystem

restoration, and presents new financing examples of this activity.

Both public and private sources of funding are considered in this note. As most restoration

actions will have at least an element of public goods benefits, it is expected that different

combinations of public and private finance will be relevant in different circumstances.

A series of public funding instruments are able to support ecosystem restoration. These include:

The Common Agricultural Policy (particularly agri-environment schemes under Pillar 2), The

Common Fisheries Policy and other natural resource policies;

Cohesion and structural funds, often linked to arguments for ‘Green Infrastructure’;

LIFE+ and other environmentally focussed funds;

Member State funding mechanisms.

However, public funding is under significant and increasing pressure and therefore is

considered unlikely to deliver sufficient funds to achieve the 15% restoration target. As a result a

range of instruments to encourage private sector financing are attracting increasing attention

and are considered in this paper (see Annex 5). They can be broadly divided into those that are

philanthropic (at least in part), those that are profit driven, and those that are stimulated by

regulatory measures. Different instruments can also be classified as being:

Direct, which result in a direct change on the ground; and

Indirect, which support actions on the ground, but do not directly guarantee them.


133

Direct mechanisms are often specific to particular ecosystem types. Both direct and indirect

mechanisms are applicable to many habitat types, and can play a cross-cutting or enabling role.

The key concepts and issues covered in this paper are:

The choices of financing mechanisms will depend on different Member State

circumstances, but some key factors in determining the suitability of finance mechanisms

include:

o The starting level and extent of ecosystem restoration (as defined in the 4 levels of

ecosystem condition proposed to define restoration actions). The extent of restoration

can be measured in both the size of the area involved, and the amount of improvement

in the ecosystem (i.e. does it move up 1 or more of the 4 levels?).

o The visibility of the impacts, especially in order for private funders to gain some PR

impact from their actions;

o Scalability, as the 15% target is very ambitious, so suitable instruments but be able to be

replicated across numerous sites and large areas; and

o Whether they maintain a fixed level or standard, such as quality of soils (for organic

farming), forest or a fishery, OR require measurement of a change in benefits, (which

can be ecosystem enhancement or maintaining ecosystem service benefits where the

baseline scenario shows a deteriorating quality). Measuring change often has greater

monitoring costs, but also can demonstrate greater additionality and therefore higher

returns to finance.

Some instruments (e.g. agri-environment schemes, product labelling and certification) are

linked to a particular level of ES – they apply equally to efforts to maintain ecosystems as

well as to restore them. Other instruments are linked to the degree of ES change (e.g. PES

are linked to the (expected) extent of improvements in certain ecosystem services; carbon

offsets are linked to the amount of additional carbon being sequestered as an ecosystem is

restored). Fixed-level instruments are generally more appropriate at higher level of

ecosystem condition, where maintenance of ecosystems generally has higher value.

Some restoration actions involve active intervention, whereas others achieve restoration by

protection from disturbance (e.g. allowing natural processes to recover through wilderness

restoration). Wilderness restoration is likely to be most relevant for achieving level 4 in

habitats (e.g. mature forests) that are not a function of human management actions (e.g.

semi-natural habitats like grasslands that rely on traditional grazing regimes to maintain their

ecosystem characteristics).

A SWOT analysis of potential funding instruments (see Annex 6) shows very similar results

for funding ecosystem re-creation and restoration actions – indeed the distinction between

them is not always clear. The main differences relate to:

o Higher up-front costs for re-creation in any given ecosystem, and possible longer times

before financial returns are realised (i.e. because it would be expected to take longer to

re-establish ecosystem services).

o While ecosystem re-creation may cost more to undertake, it might also bring higher

ecosystem service gains and therefore higher financial return under these instruments.


134

As a result re-creation needs to produce greater benefits to have sufficient prospects of

making a financial return attractive to investments of private funding sources. Measurement

of the additional benefits provided is important. The greater the additional benefits, the

greater the potential funding.

Analysis in Section 4.2.2 identifies which funding mechanisms are more suitable options for

different habitats (see Table 14). Funding for ecosystem restoration will be closely related to the

benefits it is expected to bring to different parties. These benefits are discussed here in terms of

ecosystem services (ES). Many ES benefits will arise outside markets: they benefit people

through goods and services (like clean air or regulation of water supplies) that are not directly

bought and sold in markets. This non-market characteristic can arise due to a lack of property

rights which means many of the benefits of restoration are public goods.

Our knowledge of the value of ecosystem services remains substantially incomplete, but is

improving, and provides evidence that can inform policy, including on funding instrument design.

For example, recent work on the value of the Natura2000 network (IEEP, 2013) identified order-

of-magnitude estimates of the scale of the annual benefits of the network as between €200bn

and €300bn annually. Furthermore it estimates values of individual ecosystem services that

could indicate where market values could be realised as a result of ecosystem restoration

actions:

The welfare value of recreational visits to Natura 2000 sites is €5bn-€9bn/year, and that

these visitors supported total tourism and recreation expenditure of around €50bn-€85bn in

2006.

Policy actions could increase the value of carbon storage in the Natura2000 network by

€30bn-€50bn by 2020.

Based on these principles, and research on European activities including consideration of case

studies, actions for the EC and/or Member States to develop use of innovative financing

mechanisms can be suggested. These instruments, current developments in them and potential

actions to increase their use with respect to ecosystem restoration are summarised in Table 12.

The current developments summarise the state of knowledge and experience that can be drawn

on, including through references in the analysis in this Section. The potential actions are

suggested steps to build on those developments.

Table 12: Summary of innovative financial instruments that can support ecosystem restoration

Instrument type Instrument Current Development Potential Actions

Direct

instruments

Payments for ecosystem

services

Several examples exist,

particularly for water

Establish standards/ guidelines,

encourage scaling-up

Not-for profit organisations

contributions

Widespread and well-

established, often involved

in innovative approaches

Link to other instruments


135

Instrument type Instrument Current Development Potential Actions

Product labelling and

certification

Widespread and well-

established for

environment, further

opportunities to link to

ecosystem restoration

Research links to ecosystem

restoration, consider

consolidation of labels relating

to restoration

Bio-carbon markets

Widespread outside

Europe. Several pilots and

guidelines developing in

Europe

Further develop guidelines and

pilots, research links to wider

carbon markets

Biodiversity offsets and

habitat banking

Some member state

systems established/ under

development

Requires net gain objectives to

link to ecosystem restoration

Insurance sector mitigating

of environmental risk

Mainly theoretical work Requires pilot projects to test

concepts

Enabling

instruments

Philanthropic donations by

companies

Already widespread, but not

systematically linked to


Encourage recognition of links

to ecosystem restoration

Tax relief on capital assets

History of use on natural

resources, but not

widespread re: ecosystem

restoration

Research potential to link to

ecosystem restoration within

domestic tax structures

Private finance initiative

History of use, but not on

natural environment


ecosystem restoration spending

Hypothecated tax funds History of use on natural

resources, including on


Research potential to expand

use re: ecosystem restoration

within domestic tax structures

Bonds for green

infrastructure

History of use on public

goods, but not widespread

re: environment



Risk-sharing investment

structures

History of use on natural

resources, including in

environment sector (e.g.

energy)



Pro-biodiversity business

models

Several examples exist,

including inside EU

Consider potential for

expansion re: ecosystem

restoration in context of EU

multi-annual financial

framework


136

4.2.2 Funding Instruments

It is recognized that financing ecosystem restoration is very challenging. The benefits it

produces are often things that are not traded in normal markets, so there is no revenue to gain

in return for spending on restoration. However options for how to fund ecosystem restoration

can be identified, including some that are innovative in the context of ecosystem management.

These options could be used by Member States to develop a financing approach suitable to the

national circumstances they face.

A key part of the scope of this work is that it deals with instruments to support restoration, and

does not explicitly consider all the actions needed to reduce pressures that degrade

ecosystems. Reducing degradation is already being addressed through some policy instruments

(e.g. Water Framework Directive avoidance of deterioration) and it is assumed that addressing

any causes of degradation not covered by existing instruments would apply the polluter pays

principle and will not place significant extra requirements on public funds. However, there are

overlaps between measures to fund restoration and measures to avoid degradation.

Both public and private sources of potential finance for ecosystem restoration can be identified.

4.2.2.1 Public Funds

It is recognized that there are many existing public funding instruments that are already used for

ecosystem restoration actions. Obviously there are public funds earmarked for environmental

spending, for example in supporting delivering of the Water Framework Directive or future

delivery of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, and LIFE+ funding demonstrating

Favourable Conservation Status within the Natura 2000 Network.

There is also considerable potential to use public funds not specifically earmarked for the

environment to deliver ecosystem restoration. Recent research52

has produced a Handbook on

financing biodiversity in the context of the European Fund for Regional Development (EFRD)

identified eleven European public funding approaches with potential to support biodiversity

conservation. These sources can fund ecosystem restoration.

Across Europe, key public sector funding sources are53

:

Pillars 1 and 2 of the CAP. These will constitute a vital contribution to the financing of

restoration of habitats, in particular those under Pillar 2. The Ecological Focus Area measure

under Pillar 1 are significant, but are limited to existing agricultural land in receipt of direct

payments. The proposed for Pillar 2’s rural development priorities to include restoration of

ecosystems, presents an opportunity, and its measures such as non-productive investments;

52 Practical guidance based on the lessons learned from SURF Nature project:

http://www.surf-

nature.eu/fileadmin/SURFNATURE/Publications/FINAL_SURF_Handbook_V4_Sept_2012.pdf

53For more details also see study on Biodiversity Proofing of the EU Budget

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/BD%20Proofing%20Main%20Report.pdf

http://www.surf-nature.eu/fileadmin/SURFNATURE/Publications/FINAL_SURF_Handbook_V4_Sept_2012.pdf

http://www.surf-nature.eu/fileadmin/SURFNATURE/Publications/FINAL_SURF_Handbook_V4_Sept_2012.pdf


137

advice, training and information; management of less-favoured areas (LFA) and Natura

sites, can all potentially contribute to ecosystem restoration.

The Fisheries and Aquaculture Funds. The EFF that could be significant in funding private

sector activity that supports restoration and is compatible with sustainable exploitation of

restored ecosystems.

Structural and Cohesion Funds, and the ERDF. These can potentially support the

development of green infrastructure, including through the recreation markets that are an

opportunity in the attractive environments that result from ecosystem restoration.

The LIFE instrument is focussed specifically on ecosystem restoration actions, and also

helps to implement projects that demonstrate best practice.

National public financing is also an important source of ecosystem restoration funding,

including through spending facilitated through the tax system (see hypothecated taxes).

The potential to have additional funds allocated to ecosystem restoration is considered low.

Therefore, attention is placed on different uses of existing funds, such as by reallocating within

budgets to support ecosystem restoration (e.g. fisheries expenditure to support marine

ecosystem recovery), or using budgets already devoted to environmental measures different

(e.g. using CAP Pillar 2 spending to co-fund PES deals with the private sector).

However, recent work by IEEP et al. (2013) identified that the financing of ecosystem restoration

is going to require investments substantially greater than those currently made available by

public and private sources. They therefore cite the current negotiations under the Multi-annual

Financial Framework as influential for the future ability to secure sufficient resources.

4.2.2.2 Private Funds

Although gradual changes in perception are observable, biodiversity and natural resources

linked to it has historically been considered a liability by business. Barriers to greater private

sector investment in ecosystem protection include:

Low rate of return being unattractive to investors who pursue other markets;

High opportunity costs of land use, often artificially boosted by subsidy (e.g. for farming and

renewable energy), and compounded by perceived risk of long-term contracts (impact on

land values or tradability)

Lack of internationally agreed biodiversity metrics and indicators to measure the positive and

negative results of investment; and

Lack of understanding amongst bank managers of the biodiversity-friendly business models

and the often micro/small size of the businesses involved.

The use of private sector finance for biodiversity conservation is currently small and restricted to

a limited, but growing, number of examples. A number of mechanisms54

can encourage private

54 Also see study on "Innovative Use of Financial Instruments and Approaches to Enhance Private Sector


138

sector financing, which can be thought of in different groups with respect to how they operate

and the motivations for them. Firstly, there is a distinction between:

‘Direct instruments’ which directly fund an activity on the ground and in each case tends to

be specific to particular habitat type(s) which produces a desired ecosystem service.

‘Enabling actions’ whose application is less habitat-specific. These are instruments that

could be applied to several habitat types, and can be used to incentivise (lever) private

sector financing.

A number of direct and enabling financing options are listed in Table 13, based on recent

analysis of ecosystem restoration costs (IEEP, 2013).

Table 13: Types of innovative financing instruments

Instrument

type

Description Examples

Direct

instruments

Result in a direct change on

the ground; can be specific

to particular ecosystem

types.

Payments for ecosystem services

Not-for profit organizations’ contributions

Product labelling and certification

Bio-carbon markets

Biodiversity offsets and habitat banking

Insurance sector mitigating of environmental risk

Enabling

instruments

Support actions on the

ground but do not directly

guarantee them; are

applicable to any group of

habitat types. Usually used

to improve the incentives for

ecosystem restoration.

Philanthropic donations by companies

Tax relief on capital assets

Private finance initiative

Hypothecated tax funds

Bonds for green infrastructure

Risk-sharing investment structures

Pro-biodiversity business models

The role for enacting enabling instruments usually lies with a public body or a non-profit

organization. Where the rate and/or of timing of return on investments in ecosystem restoration

would be unattractive to private sector in a pure commercial sense, instruments like risk-

sharing, public-private partnerships and tax incentives can help make investments in habitat

restoration activities commercially viable. Funding through these enabling instruments differs

from conventional uses of public spending, such as direct grants, in that funds are used to

broker a deal to promote a commercial activity. The returns can be compared, at least in theory,

on basis of the ecosystem gain per € public spend.

Finance of Biodiversity" http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/biodiversity/pdf/BD_Finance_summary-

300312.pdf


139

4.2.3 Financing Principles

This section briefly describes some key factors in identifying ways of financing ecosystem

restoration. It is recognised that these factors will vary in different Member States, and therefore

create the context for determining which financing options a Member State decides are most

appropriate for its circumstances:

A key part of the scope of this work is that it deals with instruments to support restoration,

and does not explicitly consider the need to reduce pressures that degrade ecosystems.

Reducing degradation is already being addressed through some policy instruments (e.g.

Water Framework Directive avoidance of deterioration) and it is assumed that addressing

any degradation not covered by existing instruments would apply the polluter pays principle.

It is therefore a matter of policy design, and will not place significant requirements on public

funds. However, there are overlaps between measures to fund restoration and measures to

avoid degradation, and therefore avoiding degradation is relevant to many of the funding

instruments discussed.

Funding for ecosystem restoration will be closely related to the benefits it is expected to

bring to different parties. These benefits are discussed here in terms of ecosystem services

(ES). Many ES benefits will arise outside markets: they benefit people through goods and

services (like clean air or regulation of water supplies) that are not directly bought and sold

in markets. This non-market characteristic can arise due to a lack of property rights which

means many of the benefits of restoration are public goods.

Our knowledge of the value of ecosystem services remains substantially incomplete, but is

improving, and provides evidence that can inform policy, including on funding instrument

design. For example, recent work on the value of the Natura2000 network (IEEP, 2013)

identified order-of-magnitude estimates of the scale of the annual benefits of the network as

between € 200bn and € 300bn annually. Furthermore it estimates values of individual

ecosystem services that could indicate where market values could be realised as a result of

ecosystem restoration actions:

o The welfare value of recreational visits to Natura 2000 sites is € 5-€9 bn/ year, and that

these visitors supported total tourism and recreation expenditure of around €50bn-€85bn

in 2006.

o Policy actions could increase the value of carbon storage in the Natura2000 network by

€30-50bn by 2020.

There are many other factors that influence the benefits from, ecosystem restoration actions,

and therefore they indirectly influence the appropriate choice of financing mechanisms. Two key

factors are scale of ecosystem restored and its location. Larger areas can host more wholly

integrated ecosystems, more comprehensive gene pools and offer opportunity for migration and

adaptation to address climate change, with proportionately less interference than with smaller

areas. All these features can suggest more cost-effective restoration potential. The location of

restored ecosystems will influence the level of ecosystem services they provide (see Scale

above). It is also a key factor in determining the numbers of people who benefit from these

services, and therefore their value. Where competition from existing land use (opportunity costs)

is a significant factor in determining the cost benefit ratio of restoration, remoter regions where


140

traditional land uses are less economically viable (and so have lower opportunity cost) may offer

greater opportunities.

Both public and private sources of funding are considered in this analysis. As most

restoration actions will have at least an element of public goods benefits, it is expected that

different combinations of public and private finance will be relevant in different

circumstances.

The choices of financing mechanisms for different restoration actions will depend on the

starting level and extent of ecosystem restoration (as defined in the 4 levels of ecosystem

condition proposed to define restoration actions in Section 2.3). The extent of restoration can

be measured in both the size of the area involved, and the amount of improvement in the

ecosystem (i.e. does it move up 1 or more levels?). These considerations are discussed

further in Section 4.2.4), they will affect the suitability of financing instruments, for example

due to:

o Some instruments apply equally to efforts to maintain ecosystems as well as to restore

them (e.g. agri-environment schemes).

o Some financing instruments (e.g. agri-environment schemes, product labelling and

certification) are linked to a particular level of ES. Other instruments are linked to the

degree of ES change (e.g. PES are usually linked to an increase in the level of

ecosystem service(s), carbon offsets are linked to the amount of additional carbon being

sequestered as an ecosystem is restored).

This distinction between funding instruments linked to a fixed level of ES and those related to

the degree of ecosystem (or ES) change is used in analysis is subsequent sections.

Some restoration actions involve active intervention, whereas others achieve restoration by

protection from disturbance (e.g. allowing natural processes to recover through wilderness

restoration). Wilderness restoration is likely to be relevant for achieving level 4 in natural

habitats (e.g. mature forests) that are not a function of human management actions (e.g.

semi-natural habitats like grasslands that rely on traditional grazing regimes to maintain their

ecosystem characteristics).

All the above issues generate data requirements, for example in relation to biodiversity

status and objectives, environmental externalities, drivers of biodiversity and ecosystem

loss, and spatial patterns of ecosystem services.

Analysis of the appropriate spatial scale of delivery of ecosystem services is required to

understand how the distribution of different users/beneficiaries of ecosystem services

restoration can be taken account. Different spatial patterns can be present for different

ecosystem services, as per the four relationships defined by the RSPB (undated)55

in Figure

20, and a fifth relationship, which is the inverse of diagram 2 (where the benefits occur in a

spatial subset of the provision area). Different patterns in the locations and/or scale of

providers and beneficiaries will generate different financing requirements and opportunities.

Larger numbers of beneficiaries can increase transaction costs and the risks of free-riding,

making public funding mechanisms more suitable. Remoteness between the locations of

55 RSPB (undated) Naturally, at your service: Why it pays to invest in nature. RSPB


141

beneficiaries and providers can increase monitoring requirements. Where providers do not

sit neatly within political jurisdictions (e.g. transboundary areas) or are within different

jurisdictions to beneficiaries, this can increase transactions costs and/or create problems in

the governance of funding.

Figure 20: Different spatial patterns of producers and beneficiaries of ecosystem services

4.2.4 Suitability of funding Instruments

In assessing the suitability of potential funding instruments, economic appraisal is applied to

assess their pros and cons. In general this takes a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) type approach,

rather than cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). CBA is a more powerful tool than CEA because it

can demonstrate that an objective is worth achieving (e.g. achieving the 15% restoration target).

However, it requires quantification of all major impacts in monetary terms. This may not always

be realistic for ecosystem restoration, in particular for regulating and other ecosystem services

that produce non-market benefits. If the 15% target is accepted, then restoration effectiveness

can be measured in non-monetary terms (e.g. linked to the 4 levels and the ecosystem services

supported) and the cost-effectiveness of different ways to deliver this restoration can be

assessed.

Some key issues relevant to this analysis are: Firstly, there is a clear advantage for those

instruments who are already close to commercial viability; i.e. that ‘pay their own way’ in terms

of the returns they are able to accrue for their investors (e.g. through PES or reduced risk). This

reduces susceptibility to changes in government policy.


142

Secondly, mechanisms that are already well understood and/or already operational have a

greater chance of rapid implementation. A considerable barrier to a number of the instruments is

the lack of understanding or experience of investors with these models. This applies both to the

uncertainty of returns and lack of understanding of how they will function in practice. Uncertainty

increases risks for private sector investors. Thirdly, there is a need for clear markets to exist to

provide a reliable trading platform and drive demand.

The available mechanisms range from actions in financial markets (e.g. using public support to

reduce risks in relevant investment funds), to those with micro-enterprises who manage

ecosystems (e.g. pro-biodiversity business models supporting family farms). Environmental

markets can also be driven by policy requirements; for example, compliance with regulations

can involve market mechanisms that trade units of compliance such as carbon and biodiversity

offsets markets. Thus there is a scale of motivations behind private sector actions from purely

philanthropic motivation (e.g. private donations), to purely profit motivated (e.g. PES). Profit

driven motivations relate to actions by businesses that can profit from ecosystem restoration,

such as the certification of sustainably-produced food. In this sense ‘profit’ is defined in a

broadly in terms any type of return such as reputational, financial, or reduced risk.

The instruments in Table 12 are described in more detail in Annex 5, developed from Dickie et

al (2011 and; 2012). Most of the mechanisms currently sit in the middle part of this

philanthropic-profit motivation scale, in that while they make some economic sense to the

private sector, they are partly, particularly in pilot schemes, altruistically motivated. Regulatory

Different combinations of these instruments will be more or less appropriate for different

restoration actions and habitats. For example, motivations for philanthropic donations can

combine an element of reputational return (profit).

The recent analysis by IEEP (2013), undertook a SWOT analysis of potential instruments to

increase private sector funding of ecosystem restoration. This SWOT is in Annex 6. The direct

instruments identified with the greatest potential to support ecosystem restoration were

Payments for Ecosystem Services, Product Labelling and Certification, and Bio-Carbon

Markets. These mechanisms are relatively well understood and are already happening, and

have potential to impact over a large scale. They are discussed in more detail in Section 4.2.6.

However, these are specific mechanisms that can only be used for particular habitats, and have

limitations (e.g. in terms of restoration costs per ha).

The instruments that can potentially bring the greatest amounts of funds are those in which

measures are introduced at the national level to either leverage funds from the private sector

(e.g. Dutch Green Funds) or act as an environmental tax (e.g. UK Landfill Levy). Both of these

require the relinquishing of tax revenue for restoration purposes or the imposing of an

environmental tax, both of which may require substantial political support.

The blending of mechanisms is likely to result in the greatest impact. Even well-known success

stories of payments for ecosystem services in the water industry (e.g. SCAMP, Vittel) depended

on securing public payments through agri-environment measures to ensure profitability. An


143

important element, therefore, required for the success of securing private sector financing is the

use of public funds in enabling actions to improve the risks and returns for the commercial

activities involved. Overall combinations of public and private funds are considered more likely

to fund widespread ecosystem restoration.

4.2.4.1 Distinction between funding maintenance, restoration and re-creation

The SWOT analysis in Annex 6 highlights a subtle difference between the opportunities

presented by the instruments for the funding of maintenance or restoration of ecosystems. In

addition, the re-creation of ecosystems, (i.e. restoration where the ecosystem has been

destroyed in the restoration site) can also be considered.

The distinction between re-creation and restoration is not always clear, and in general, the

analysis of funding opportunities for both will be very similar. The main differences relate to

higher up-front costs for re-creation in any given ecosystem, and possible longer times before

financial returns are realised (i.e. because it would be expected to take longer to re-establish

ecosystem services). Both of these reduce the prospects of making a financial return, and

therefore lessen the attractiveness of the investments to private funding sources.

Section 4.2.2 distinguished measures that fund a fixed level of ecosystem services, and those

that pay relative to the benefits realized from the change involved. For the latter, accurate

measurement of the additional benefits provided is highly important. The greater the additional

benefits, the greater the potential funding. Therefore, while ecosystem re-creation may cost

more to undertake, it might also bring higher ecosystem service gains and therefore higher

financial return under these instruments. A number of mechanisms are identified as the best

options for different habitats in the SWOT in Annex 6. These observations are summarised in

Table 14.

Overall, maintenance measures are likely to attract less financing compared to restoration

measures with a high degree of visibility of the impacts of the investment. There are exceptions

to this though: maintenance can be supported by product labelling, which relies upon the

maintenance of a particular standard, such as quality of soils (for organic farming), forest or a

fishery. Maintenance can also attract funding (e.g. from PES, carbon markets) for maintaining

ecosystem service benefits where the baseline scenario shows a deteriorating quality. In this

case, maintenance may offer a cost-effective means of achieving a return on investment.

Table 14: Linking key restoration actions with possible opportunities for innovative funding

Target 2 habitat (habitat-

specific actions)

Ecosystem-specific options for private funding Cross-cutting actions

Farmland: arable

ecosystems, permanent

crops, and temporary and

improved grasslands,

PES: eg payments by water companies to reduce diffuse

water pollution, such as from pesticide/fertiliser use,

maintenance of permanent crops on slopes

Labelling: nature-friendly farming practices such as

Enabling Actions by

public sector:

Risk-sharing


144

Target 2 habitat (habitat-

specific actions)

Ecosystem-specific options for private funding Cross-cutting actions

protection of pollinators and ‘bird friendly’ cutting practices. approaches.

Pro-biodiversity

business actions.

Private finance

initiatives

Tax incentives: relief on

restoration or

hypothecation with

private match-funding

requirement.

Sources that can apply

to all habitats:

Regulatory: mandating

use of offsets with net

gain.

Philanthropic sources

(profit and non-profit).

Natural and semi-natural

grasslands

PES Labelling

Bio-carbon

Forests Labelling (e.g. FSC) Forest Bonds

Insurance sector (reduced risk of natural disasters in

upland areas) Bio-carbon

Heathland and tundra

(actions to restore

vegetation)

PES

Labelling if grazed

Bio-carbon (peatlands)

Sclerophyllous vegetation

Mires (bogs and fens) Bio-carbon (especially peatlands)

Inland marshes PES

Freshwater ecosystems

(lakes and rivers)

PES (e.g. flood control)

Biodiversity friendly business models (e.g. through

sustainable fishing practices)

Restoration of beaches

and dunes

PES (e.g. water purification)

Insurance sector risk mitigation

Coastal ecosystems

(beaches, dunes,

saltmarshes, estuaries and

lagoons)

Fisheries PES

Bio-carbon markets

Marine ecosystems Labelling (MSC)

4.2.4.2 Suitability of Financing Mechanisms to Different ‘Restoration Levels’

The 4-level model defines restoration in the context of Target 2 with reference to four ‘levels’ of

ecosystem condition. These range from ‘transformed ecosystems’ under level 4, to the

maximum achievable restoration state (level 1). These definitions are applied within habitat

types, so level 1 for cropland involves the maximum amount of restoration possible while the

ecosystem remains as cropland.

The levels are defined in Table 15, which also described the suitability of funding instruments

linked to ES levels of ES changes (See 4.2.4), to the changes between the different levels.

Instruments linked to a fixed level of ecosystem restoration (or services) are less relevant to

changes between lower levels of ecosystem quality.


145

Table 15: Linking Types of Funding Mechanism to Levels of Ecosystem Restoration

Linking Types of Funding Mechanism to Levels of Ecosystem Restoration

Level achieved Funding mechanism linked to ecosystem restoration through

Fixed level of ES Change in ES

LEVEL 2 to

LEVEL 1

Level 1: Satisfactory abiotic

conditions. Key species,

properties and processes

of ecosystems and their

functions are restored

Highly relevant, as both achieving

and/or maintaining a high-quality

ecosystem will have significant ES

benefits.

Relevant where there is a

need to incentivize

complex investments in

ecosystem restoration (i.e.

bespoke actions).

LEVEL3 to

LEVEL 2

Level 2: Satisfactory abiotic

conditions, but disrupted

ecological processes and

functions. Declining

diversity and key species.

Less relevant, as maintaining

ecosystems already achieving the

level of ES has low additionality. May

be appropriate to limit application of

instruments by area or to small

funding amounts per area (i.e. as per

entry level agri-environment schemes.

Highly relevant as can

distinguish additionality of

ES benefits from different

actions, which will be

variable.

LEVEL 4 to

LEVEL 3

Level 3: Highly modified

abiotic conditions, reduced

ecological processes and

functions, dominated by

artificial habitats but retains

some native species and

stable populations.

As level 3 to level 2 above, but lower

relevance due to lower absolute level

of ES benefits.

Relevant, but extent may

be limited as the ES

benefits may be limited.

Level 4: Highly modified abiotic conditions, severely reduced ecological processes and functions,

dominated by artificial habitats with few and/or declining populations of native species; traces of

original ecosystem hardly visible.

Restoration is a process of change, but as discussed above financing mechanisms sometimes

relate to degrees of change, and sometimes relate to achieving a fixed level in an ecosystem (or

ecosystem service). Both kinds of mechanisms can finance ecosystem restoration, but with

different advantages and disadvantages discussed in the matrix below (Table 16).

Table 16: Advantages and disadvantages of different financing approaches in ecosystem

restoration

Financing

approach

Advantages Disadvantages

Fixed level Simpler to administer so lower transactions

costs, and less risk of complexity being off-

putting those undertaking and funding

restoration.

Can be established to work over longer

timescales within budget (or area)

May not be cost-effective in purchasing restoration

when funding is given to managers of ecosystems close

to or at the required standard, thereby paying to

maintain ecosystems but producing little or no

additional ecosystem restoration or ES benefit.

Can exclude managers of ecosystems so degraded that


146

Financing

approach

Advantages Disadvantages

constraints. restoration costs to achieve the level are greater than

fixed payment.

Degree of

change

Can be focused on one-off actions to

undertake restoration.

Cost-effective in that amount of funding

relates to extent of ecosystem restoration/ES

benefit.

More complex to measure and administer.

Difficult to determine timescale over which payment

should be made to incentivise both restoration and

maintenance of restored ecosystems. OR may need to

be linked to additional actions that secure long term

revenues to maintain ecosystem.

4.2.5 Actions to develop innovative ecosystem restoration financing

Adequate funding opportunities are considered crucial to the achievement of any restoration target

in Europe. Significant support is required from the European Commission in terms of the provision

of information regarding accessing existing funding opportunities and generating finance from

innovative approaches. This includes sharing of best practices and making Member States aware

of any public money that could be utilised. Wider recommendations for the Commission included

coherency in objectives across funding and policy and the adoption of ecological cross border

approaches. Private financing is a new area, in which few Member States had expertise. Support is

required in exploring the potential for such approaches, with those where public money is used to

lever private funding likely to be most appropriate. Supporting pilot project and the provision of best

practice guidelines and case studies are appropriate actions.

An example of where EU level action can lead greater ecosystem restoration financing

opportunities is in relation to PES markets. To promote a more substantial voluntary PES market,

EU level actions could facilitate development of common measurement standards for use in PES

markets. It could also help develop validation and monitoring frameworks – building on

entrepreneurial standards already being established (e.g. in voluntary codes of practice).

In order to channel private resources into ecosystem restoration, new funding platforms or

processes may be required, in line with approaches recently explored through pro-biodiversity

business models. A funding platform is an organizational arrangement through which funding

(possibly from multiple sources) is channelled to particular objectives. An example would be a

research fund for a particular sector or area of science

Recently a number of innovative business models with a focus on ecosystem

conservation/restoration were developed. Businesses are appreciating the fact that they are

dependent on the scarce resources they once considered unlimited, while governments are

becoming aware that growing Gross National Product does not always correlate with long-term

ecological and social well-being. Meanwhile, individuals and organisations around the world are

redesigning economic activities, based on making ecology and economy complementary value

systems. Examples are Corporation 2020 (developed by Pavan Sukhdev), Benefit Corporations

(USA) and Ecosystem Return (founded by Willem Ferwerda, former director of IUCN NL).

The Corporation 2020 is a concept for the firm of the future. It produces positive benefits for society

as a whole, rather than just its shareholders. It encourages positive social interactions among


147

workers, management, customers, neighbours, and other stakeholders. It is a responsible steward

of natural resources. It invests in the productivity of its workers through training and education. It

strives to produce a surplus of all types of capital --- financial, natural, human --- it is thus a “capital

factory.” In order to get to a green economy, the way economy’s primary agent --- the corporation --

- does business, must change. According to Corporation 2020 there are four clear mechanisms to

get us there: disclosing corporate externalities, putting taxes on resource extraction, enacting limits

to financial leverage, and making advertising accountable. Corporation 2020 calls for precisely such

a new understanding of the importance of disclosure of externalities in the financial reports of

corporations.

This is quite similar to the concept of Benefit Corporations. Benefit Corporations56

are a new type

of corporate legal entity that 1) creates a material positive impact on society and the environment;

2) expands fiduciary duty to require consideration of non-financial interests when making decisions;

and 3) reports on its overall social and environmental performance using recognized third party

standards.

The ambition of the Ecosystem Return Foundation is to restore 200 million hectares of degraded

ecosystems worldwide in the next 20 years. To achieve this goal, Ecosystem Return will both

accelerate and scale up existing restoration efforts, and initiate new ones, by making the right

matches between project owners (NGOs, local communities, governments) and a variety of

stakeholders (investors, businesses and sponsors). For each restoration project, a site-specific

business model is developed together with a selected team of professionals with extensive

experience in business, ecology, finance and agriculture. The business model is based on restoring

areas by a business partnership yielding four Returns: Return on Investment (economic benefits),

Return of Natural Capital (ecosystem services), Return of Social Capital (employment and social

cohesion) and Return of Inspirational Capital (engagement and innovation). The business model is

based on returns from agriculture, carbon, water and additional values land, which are coming from

restored degraded lands. The longer the restoration activities last the more returns it will provide

(see Figure 21).

56 http://benefitcorp.net/


148

Figure 21: Business model Ecosystem Return concept

Successful implementation of a biodiversity funding platform should build on the work of the pro-

biodiversity business project. Its handbook (ref PBB handbook) highlights recurring aspects and

approaches of successful case studies that contribute to sustainable enterprise development in

combination with biodiversity conservation. It observes that successful PBBs often include the

following:

Demand led- opportunities should be generated based on the needs of the market and on

consumer demand, including consideration for individual consumers as well as public and

private resource policies.

Marketing and labelling- implementation of effective marketing activities such as labelling of

products; as well as assistance to gain market access, such as through the creation of farmers’

markets.

Certification- or eco-labeling, is potentially a useful tool to stimulate the growth of ecosystem

service markets. Certification guidelines offer landowners clearly defined approaches to

biodiversity-friendly management. Adhering to recognized standards and obtaining sustainable

certification and verification such as adopting Marine Stewardship Council13 or Forest

Stewardship Council14 criteria, can be strongly advantageous to PBB development.

Distribution- designing and implementing efficient distribution chains;

Training staff- ensuring sufficiently trained and skilled staff. Business skills training and

technical advice for PBBs such as new product development, quality control, and accessing

new markets;

Clustering- This approach involves networking between businesses with similar goals through

the identification of specific clusters of firms that deliver similar products and/or services, which

rely on similar raw materials, shared processing facilities or supply chains and have similar

client profiles. Alone they may suffer from a lack of business acumen, operational capacity,

miss out on advice and guidance and be unable to develop or implement innovation. Together,

in clusters, they can overcome obstacles such as low operational capacity, lack of business

expertise, be connected to sources of relevant advice and guidance, cut costs in terms of

product development, transport and sale, and share innovation.


149

To be attractive to a wider range of potential funding mechanisms, the design of ecosystem

restoration projects, and the impacts they are expected to have, will need to be more transparent to

funders. This will require a greater participation in ecosystem management activities by those with

business, economics and social specialisms than is currently the case. This is unlikely to happen

rapidly enough for Target 2 to be fulfilled by 2020 unless driven as a specific objective. This is

something that funding platforms can enable.

4.2.6 Discussion of most promising financing instruments

Based on the SWOT in Annex 6 and other analysis in this Section, a number of instruments are

considered to offer the most promising ways to develop financing of ecosystem restoration in the

EC. They are discussed further in Annex 7, including through examples of their use:

a) Bio-carbon markets: the role of carbon codes and peatland restoration.

b) Ecolabelling, particularly in the food sector.

c) Payments for ecosystem services.

d) The role of nature-based tourism.

Examples of use of these instruments have been presented in previous analysis on innovative

financial instruments and biodiversity in Europe (eftec, 2012; IEEP, 2013). These examples are

referenced from Annex 7, but not repeated: new examples are given further illustrating financing of

ecosystem restoration. An effort has been made to source examples from across the EU, as

different underlying conditions influence the relevance of examples to different member states. For

example, similar actions on catchment management by the private water industry in England and

Wales and private bottled water companies in France (IEEP, 2013), may not be replicable by

publicly-run utilities in other EU countries.

4.2.6.1 Bio-carbon markets

Private purchase of carbon credits, although much smaller than regulated emissions trading

arrangements, is already one of the largest private-sector driven environmental markets. Part of this

market already involves purchases of carbon credits from actions that are also positive for

biodiversity (bio-carbon). This market has potential to expand, with the most likely habitats to

benefit being those whose management has the greatest impact on carbon emissions.

Greenhouse gas sequestration can apply to restoration generally, not just specific forest or

peatland habitats – e.g. the quantifiable reduction in climate changing gas emissions resulting from

the transformation from net positive emissions on marginal agricultural land to net negative

emissions on restored habitats. Present funding focus is on carbon dioxide, but methane and

nitrous oxide will also be of quantifiable importance. Forests are the most widespread relevant

habitat, but peat soils (eg in mountain, moorland and heath ecosystems) and coastal wetlands have

also been identified as significant stores of carbon.

Markets are growing worldwide, and projects around Europe are starting to increase in scale (e.g.

peatland projects in NL, Belarus, UK – see Annex 3). The development of the market can be

assisted by reliable methods for calculating carbon benefits from nature conservation management,

such as in the UK’s woodland carbon and peatland carbon codes (EMTF, 2013). Around 80%, or

over 5million ha of European peatlands may be degraded, and restoration funding based on carbon

offsets has the potential to raise up to €100m per year.


150

4.2.6.2 Product labelling and certification

Labelling products as environmentally-friendly in order to attract a price-premium from customers is

already a well-established approach for channelling private funding into ecosystem restoration and

management. Organic and high-nature value labels already exist in a variety of agricultural systems

used to manage farmland, grasslands, and mountain, moorland and heath. Markets for timber and

fish that are sustainably produced are also well-established (e.g. Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)

or the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)).

Markets for environmentally and ethically labelled produce have continued to grow in recent years,

despite global economic slowdown and limited growth in household incomes. These markets

contribute to ecosystem restoration, for example by supporting conversion of farms to organic

production, but also contribute to maintaining ecosystems. They could contribute further to

ecosystem restoration through development and targeting of labelling, but this may be challenging

in an already over-crowed labelling market space.

However, there are limits to the financial scale of these approaches, both in terms of the size of the

price premium that customers are prepared to pay, and the extent of the market (number of

customers). Therefore, they often require some public funding (e.g. as in the additional agri-

environment payments for organic farmers).

Environmentally-labelled production processes may not always deliver Target 2 objectives for the

ecosystems involved. Nonetheless, they can be expected to make a significant contribution where

they are used. For example, Marine Stewardship Council fisheries certification relates to the

sustainable exploitation of particular commercial fish species, but also has some requirements to

control fisheries pressures in marine areas, contributing to ecosystem restoration.

A recent study (Oakdene Hollins, 2010) on the potential expansion of the EU Ecolabel in the food

and drink sector identified that it offers an market opportunity for sustainably-produced food, in.

However, it also illustrates the risks of proliferation: with ecosystem restoration and/or management

being just one aspect of environmental performance, and meaning that new labeling risks having

little additional impact on the environment.

Product labeling and certification has a role to play in financing ecosystem restoration because it

provides information to consumers about the effects of production of goods and services on

ecosystems. However, this information can be diluted when there is a proliferation of labels such

that consumer trust and understanding are weakened. A solution to this may be consolidation of

labels. This already happens, such as in the organic ‘family’ of labels, or the coordination of Wildlife

Estates labeling by the European Landowners Organization. No consolidation has been attempted

in relation to restoration. There is a clear possibility of market failure (specifically coordination

failure) in providing consumers information about ecosystem restoration through product labeling.

So there is a potential role of Governments (possibly at EC level) to coordinate labels. However,

developing effective labels needs extensive marketing expertise, which must be coordinated with

the private sector.


151

4.2.6.3 Payments for ecosystem services

Payments for ecosystem services are regarded as a good prospect in several areas because they

are already an established mechanism. Public-sector PES through agri-environment schemes are

relevant to managing the condition of farmland; grasslands; and mountain, moorland and heath.

The existence of these PES arrangements provides a mechanism through which payments from

private sources for ecosystem services can be made. This is already happening in the water sector,

where private payments may be combined with public funds (see SCAMP and Vittel case studies).

These water sector PES mainly address diffuse pressures on water resources (e.g. water

colouration or nutrient pollution), but usually do so through restoration of farmed habitats. They can

therefore directly lead to restoration of several terrestrial habitats, and to relieving pressures that

are a barrier to restoration of water bodies, including coastal wetlands. The expansion of PES is

expected to continue in the water sector, but has potential to be expanded to other industries with

strong reliance on water supplies. This is more likely in PES arrangements where multiple

purchasers can be found.

Coastal wetlands provide other ecosystem services that could be traded through PES, such as

carbon storage (see Bio-carbon above`) and supporting fisheries productivity. The latter is a more

speculative PES opportunity. Its recognition in public funding for fisheries management could lead

to private support for coastal ecosystem restoration. This is more likely for less mobile commercial

species, such as shellfish.

4.2.6.4 Nature-based Tourism

Tourism and recreation ecosystem services value is recognised as substantial for the Natura

network in 4.2.2. Growth in tourism and recreation markets can be an important consequence of

restoring ecosystems, and may provide a source of revenue to maintain ecosystems after they

have been restored. The value of ecosystem restoration for recreation and tourism will vary

depending on the number of people benefits, the substitute sites available and levels of ecosystem

degradation in an area. An interesting recent development aiming to channel nature-based tourism

expenditure to benefit ecosystem conservation in the Conservation Birding initiative launched by

the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) (see Annex 7).

4.2.6.5 Most promising enabling instruments

Some other options in Table 13 are regarded as of cross-cutting relevance to Target 2 actions. The

most promising of these are use of the tax system and encouragement of philanthropy.

Taxation is one of the most influential ways that governments intervene in markets and therefore

influence use of private sector resources. Two mechanisms considered in this section (tax breaks

and match-funded hypothecated taxes) provide options for using the tax system to encourage

private funding of Target 2 actions. An example of tax hypothecation to environmental spending in

Bulgaria is in Annex 7.

Their appropriateness for delivering Target 2 is dependent on existing Member States’ national tax

structures, land ownership structures and the main ecosystem restoration and maintenance

priorities. For example, in a Member State with mainly private land ownership where maintaining

ecosystems is the dominant challenge, inheritance tax breaks may provide the best incentives. In a


152

Member State with existing resource-use taxes (eg on non-renewable resource extraction) and

more extensive actions needed to restore ecosystems, allowing hypothecation of taxes with private

matched funding into ecosystem restoration may be a more suitable instrument.

Encouraging philanthropic funding for Target 2 actions is also highly dependent on Member State

circumstances, as most will already have existing systems for encouraging charitable giving. The

best actions may therefore be to adapt these to give greater encouragement to ecosystem

restoration, or to simply highlight the benefits of ecosystem restoration. Greater awareness of the

benefits of ecosystem restoration could motivate more philanthropic support, in particular, from the

CSR budgets of a wider range of large private companies with links to ecosystem management.

While tax-system and philanthropic measures can be encouraged at a European level, their

implementation is most likely through Member State actions.


153

5 References

Bottrill, Madeleine C, Liana N Joseph, Josie Carwardine, Michael Bode, Carly Cook, Edward T

Game, Hedley Grantham, et al. 2008. ‘Is Conservation Triage Just Smart Decision Making?’

Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23 (12) (December): 649–654. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.07.007.

———. 2013. ‘Draft Report of the Workshop on ‘Priorities for the Restoration of Ecosystems and

Their Services’’.

American Bird Conservancy (2013). Available Online: http://www.conservationbirding.org/

Analogforestyrnetwork.org (2013). Available Online:

Brooks, Thomas M. 2010. ‘Conservation Planning and Priorities’. In Conservation Biology for All,

edited by Navjot S. Sodhi and Paul R. Ehrlich. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

http://www.conbio.org/images/content_publications/Chapter11.pdf.

CBD (2005) Indicators for assessing progress towards the 2010 target: Trends in extent of

selected biomes, ecosystems and habitats. Website:

http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-10/information/sbstta-10-inf-10-en.pdf.

CLC (2007) Corine Land Cover 2006. Website: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-

maps/data/corine-land-cover-2006-raster-2.

Clewell, Andre, John Rieger, and John Munro. 2005. ‘Guidelines for Developing and Managing

Ecological Restoration Projects’. Society for Ecological Restoration International.

Conservation Measures Partnership. 2013. ‘Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation

Version 3.0’. http://www.conservationmeasures.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/CMP-OS-V3-0-

Final.pdf.

Conservationbirding.org (2013). Available Online: http://www.conservationbirding.org/index.html

Czucz et al., Using the natural capital index framework as a scalable aggregation methodology

for local and regional biodiversity indicators; Journal for Nature Conservation 20 (2012), p. 144 -

152

Department for Communities and Local Government. 2009. ‘Multicriteria Analysis: A Manual’.

Communities and Local Government Publications.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7612/1132618.pdf

.

Ecosystems Markets Task Force (EMTF) (2013). Realising Nature’s Value: The Final Report of

the Ecosystem Markets Task Force. Available Online: http://www.defra.gov.uk/ecosystem-

markets/files/Ecosystem-Markets-Task-Force-Final-Report-.pdf

EEA (2007) CLC2006 technical guidelines. EEA Technical report. ISBN: 978-92-9167-968-3

EEA (2011) Biogeographical regions. Website: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-

maps/data/biogeographical-regions-europe.\

EEA (2012-) ECRINS map project pinpoints water information in Europe. Website:

http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/ecrins-map-project-pinpoints-water.

EEA (2012) Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services: An analytical

framework for ecosystem assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020,

Discussion paper. Website: http://www.eccb2012.org/userfiles//MAESWorkingPaper_v8_3.pdf.

http://www.conservationbirding.org/

http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-10/information/sbstta-10-inf-10-en.pdf



http://www.conservationbirding.org/index.html

http://www.defra.gov.uk/ecosystem-markets/files/Ecosystem-Markets-Task-Force-Final-Report-.pdf



http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/biogeographical-regions-europe./

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/biogeographical-regions-europe./

http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/ecrins-map-project-pinpoints-water

http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/ecrins-map-project-pinpoints-water

http://www.eccb2012.org/userfiles/MAESWorkingPaper_v8_3.pdf




154

EEA (2012+) Eionet GEMET Thesaurus. Website:

http://www.eionet.europa.eu/gemet/concept?cp=3808&langcode=en&ns=1.

EEA (2013) EIONET GEMET Thesaurus. Website:

http://www.eionet.europa.eu/gemet/concept?cp=2519&langcode=en&ns=1.

EEA. 1999. ‘Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview’. No 25. Technical Report.

European Environment Agency. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/TEC25.

eftec (2012) Innovative Use Of Financial Instruments and Approaches To Enhance Private

Sector Finance Of Biodiversity. Report to DG Environment.

ETC (2013) Eionet Central Data Repository. Website: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/.

EUNIS (2012) EUNIS habitat type hierarchical view. Website:

http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp.

European Commission. 2011. ‘Our Life Insurance, Our Natural Capital: An EU Biodiversity

Strategy to 2020’. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the

Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_ACT_part1_v7%

5B1%5D.pdf.

Eurostat (2010) NUTS - Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics administrative units /

statistical units. Website :

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/gisco_Geographical_information_maps/popu

ps/references/administrative_units_statistical_units_1.

FAO (2000) Land Cover Classification System (LCCS): Classification Concepts and User

Manual. Website: http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x0596e/X0596e00.htm#P-1_0.

Forest Stewardship Council (2012). FSC-Certified Wood and Products Fetch Higher Prices.

Available Online: https://ic.fsc.org/newsroom.9.66.htm

Forestry Commission (2013). Woodland Carbon Code Statistics, Data to June 2013. First

release. Available Online: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/wccjul2013.pdf/$FILE/wccjul2013.pdf

Fowlie, M. (2013). From Prairies to Pampas. Birdfair- Official Programme 2013. Pp. 25-29.

Gamboa, L.; and Hendriks, M. (year published unknown). Forest Garden Products Certification,

Setting Standards for Ecological Restoration and Biodiversity. Available Online:

http://www.analogforestrynetwork.org/docs/FGP-Certification.pdf

Gaston, K. J., R. L. Pressey, and C. R. Margules. 2002. ‘Persistence and Vulnerability: Retaining

Biodiversity in the Landscape and in Protected Areas’. Journal of Biosciences 27 (4) (July 1):

361–384. doi:10.1007/BF02704966.

Geoland2 (2008) Supporting the Monitoring, Protection and Sustainable Management of our

Environment - High Resolution Layers. Website: http://www.gmes-geoland.info/.

Heath, M.F., M.I. Evans, D.G. Hoccom, A.J. Payne, and N.B. Peet. 2011. Important Bird Areas in

Europe: Priority Sites for Conservation 2 Volume Set. Birdlife International.

http://www.birdlife.org/community/2011/01/important-bird-areas-in-europe-priority-sites-for-

conservation-2-volume-set/.

Hobbs, Richard J. 2008. ‘Goals, Targets and Priorities for Landscape-Scale Restoration’. In

Managing and Designing Landscapes for Conservation, edited by David B. Lindenmayer and

Richard J. Hobbs, 511–526. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

http://www.eionet.europa.eu/gemet/concept?cp=3808&langcode=en&ns=1

http://www.eionet.europa.eu/gemet/concept?cp=3808&langcode=en&ns=1

http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/gisco_Geographical_information_maps/popups/references/administrative_units_statistical_units_1




http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x0596e/X0596e00.htm#P-1_0

http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x0596e/X0596e00.htm#P-1_0

https://ic.fsc.org/newsroom.9.66.htm

https://ic.fsc.org/newsroom.9.66.htm

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/wccjul2013.pdf/$FILE/wccjul2013.pdf

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/wccjul2013.pdf/$FILE/wccjul2013.pdf




http://www.gmes-geoland.info/

http://www.gmes-geoland.info/


155

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470692400.ch43/summary.

Hobbs, Richard J., and Linda J. Kristjanson. 2003. ‘Triage: How Do We Prioritize Health Care for

Landscapes?’ Ecological Management & Restoration 4: S39–S45. doi:10.1046/j.1442-

8903.4.s.5.x.

IEEP (2012) Estimation of the financing needs to implement target 2 of the EU biodiversity

strategy. Website: http://www.ieep.eu/work-areas/biodiversity/valuing-biodiversity-and-

ecosystem-services/.

IEEP (2013) Estimation of the Financing Needs to Implement Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity

Strategy. Report to DG Environment.

JNCC (2012) EUSeaMap - Mapping European seabed habitats. Website:

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5020.

Jones-Walters, Lawrence, Roger Catchpole, Aleksandra Mladenovic, Aysegul Cil, Mark

Snethlage, Kristijan Civic, Andrew Schrauwen, Srdjan Susic, and Sasa Solujic. 2010. Local

Biodiversity Action Planning for Southeastern Europe. Tilburg: ECNC-European Centre for

Nature Conservation. http://www.ecnc.org/publications/technicalreports/local-biodiversity-action-

planning.

JRC (2003) Harmonisation, mosaicing and production of the Global Land Cover 2000 database.

Website: http://bioval.jrc.ec.europa.eu/products/glc2000/glc2000.php.

JRC (2006) Forest Mapping. Website: http://forest.jrc.ec.europa.eu/activities/forest-mapping/.

Margules, C R, R L Pressey, and P H Williams. 2002. ‘Representing Biodiversity: Data and

Procedures for Identifying Priority Areas for Conservation’. Journal of Biosciences 27 (4 Suppl 2)

(July): 309–326.

Margules, C. R., and R. L. Pressey. 2000. ‘Systematic Conservation Planning’. Nature 405

(6783) (May 11): 243–253. doi:10.1038/35012251.

Marine Stewardship Council (2011). New Study Shows UK Supermarkets Secure Price

Premium for MSC-Labelled Seafood Products. Available Online: http://www.msc.org/cook-eat-

enjoy/news/newsitem/new-study-shows-uk-supermarkets-secure-price-premium-for-msc-

labelled-seafood-products

MEA (2006) Ecosystems and human well-being A framework for assessment. Website:

http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.300.aspx.pdf

Micheli, Fiorenza, Noam Levin, Sylvaine Giakoumi, Stelios Katsanevakis, Ameer Abdulla, Marta

Coll, Simonetta Fraschetti, et al. 2013. ‘Setting Priorities for Regional Conservation Planning in

the Mediterranean Sea’. PLoS ONE 8 (4) (April 5): e59038. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059038.

Oakdene Hollins (2010). EU Ecolabel for Food and Feed Products- Feasibility Study. Available

Online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/documents/Ecolabel_for_food_final_report.pdf

Organic-world.net (2013). Global Organic Farming Statistics and News 2013 Edition: Key

Results and Tables. Available Online:

PELCOM (2001) Development of a consistent methodology to derive land cover information on a

European scale. Website: http://edepot.wur.nl/81583

Poiani, Karen, Jeffrey Baumgartner, Jeffrey Buttrick, Shelley Green, Edward Hopkins, George

Ivey, Katherine Seaton, and Robert Sutter. 1998. ‘A Scale-independent, Site Conservation

Planning Framework in The Nature Conservancy’. Landscape and Urban Planning 43: 143–156.

http://www.ieep.eu/work-areas/biodiversity/valuing-biodiversity-and-ecosystem-services/



http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5020

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5020

http://bioval.jrc.ec.europa.eu/products/glc2000/glc2000.php

http://bioval.jrc.ec.europa.eu/products/glc2000/glc2000.php

http://forest.jrc.ec.europa.eu/activities/forest-mapping/

http://www.msc.org/cook-eat-enjoy/news/newsitem/new-study-shows-uk-supermarkets-secure-price-premium-for-msc-labelled-seafood-products






http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/documents/Ecolabel_for_food_final_report.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/documents/Ecolabel_for_food_final_report.pdf

http://edepot.wur.nl/81583

http://edepot.wur.nl/81583


156

doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(97)00086-8.

Pressey, Robert L., and Madeleine C. Bottrill. 2009. ‘Approaches to Landscape- and Seascape-

scale Conservation Planning: Convergence, Contrasts and Challenges’. Oryx 43 (04): 464–475.

doi:10.1017/S0030605309990500.

RUBICODE (2011) Review paper on concepts of dynamic ecosystems and their services.

Website: http://www.rubicode.net/rubicode/RUBICODE_Review_on_Ecosystem_Services.pdf

Sarkar, Sahotra, and Patricia Illoldi-Rangel. 2010. ‘Systematic Conservation Planning: An

Updated Protocol’. Natureza & Conservação 08 (01): 19–26. doi:10.4322/natcon.00801003.

Sarkar, Sahotra. 1999. ‘Wilderness Preservation and Biodiversity Conservation: Keeping

Divergent Goals Distinct’. BioScience 49 (5) (May): 405. doi:10.2307/1313633.

Smith, T.M., & Smith, R.L. (2006) Elements of ecology. Pearson International Edition. ISBN: 0-

321-41029-7.

Snethlage, Mark, Ben Delbaere, Martin Elliott, and Lawrence Jones-Walters. 2012. ‘How to Plan

for Nature - Action Planning Skills in Practice’. Tilburg: ECNC-European Centre for Nature

Conservation. http://www.biodiversityskills.eu/.

Sordello, R., J. Comolet-Tirman, H. Da Costa, J.C. De Massary, P. Dupont, O. Escuder, G.

Grech, et al. 2011. ‘Trame verte et bleue – Critères nationaux de cohérence – Contribution à la

définition du critère pour une cohérence interrégionale et transfrontalière’. Rapport MNHN-SPN.

http://www.trameverteetbleue.fr/sites/default/files/references_bibliographiques/111221_-_tvb_-

_rapport_mnhn_interreg.pdf.

Suedel, Burton C., K. Burks-Copes, J. Kim, and K. McKay. 2011. ‘Using Multi-criteria Decision

Analysis to Support Ecosystem Restoration Planning’. ERDC TN-EMRRP-EBA-7. EMRRP

Technical Notes Collection. Vicksburg: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/eba07.pdf.

The Co-Operative (2012). Ethical Consumer Markets Report 2012. Available Online:

http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/linkclick.aspx?fileticket=96yXzu8nyrc%3D&tabid=1557

The Nature Conservancy (2011) Conservation GIS Data. Website:

http://maps.tnc.org/gis_data.html

The World Bank (2011). Natural Grasslands Beef to be Certified Soon. Available Online:

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2011/08/30/primera-carne-pastizal

The World Bank (2012). Innovative Livestock Farming Protects the Environment in Argentina.

Available Online: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/12/27/ganaderia-de-pastizal

Thompson, Bill A. 2011. ‘Planning for Implementation: Landscape-Level Restoration Planning in

an Agricultural Setting’. Restoration Ecology 19 (1): 5–13. doi:10.1111/j.1526-

100X.2010.00666.x.

UNEP/GRID-Arendal. 2012. ‘DPSIR Framework for State of Environment Reporting’.

UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library.

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/dpsir_framework_for_state_of_environment_reporting.

UNESCO (1974) Tentative Physiognomic-Ecological Classification of Plant Formations of the

Earth. Website: http://www.ecosystems.ws/ecosystem_classification_systems.htm.

Van Swaay, Chris, and Martin Warren. 2003. ‘Prime Butterfly Areas in Europe: Priority Sites for

Conservation’. Wageningen: De Vlinderstichting.







http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/12/27/ganaderia-de-pastizal

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/12/27/ganaderia-de-pastizal


157

VLIZ & VLIMAR (2011) Exclusive Economic Zones Boundaries, version 7 (EEZ). Website:

http://www.marineregions.org/downloads.php

Wildlife Estates (2013). Available Online: http://www.wildlife-estates.eu/

Wilson, Kerrie A., Megan Lulow, Jutta Burger, Yi-Chin Fang, Caitlin Andersen, David Olson,

Michael O’Connell, and Marissa F. McBride. 2011. ‘Optimal Restoration: Accounting for Space,

Time and Uncertainty’. Journal of Applied Ecology 48 (3): 715–725. doi:10.1111/j.1365-

2664.2011.01975.x.

WWF (2013) Major habitat types, Fresh water, Marine and Terrestrial ecoregions. Website:

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/ecoregions/about/

http://www.wildlife-estates.eu/




159

ANNEX 1 : TYPOLOGY OF ECOSYSTEMS REFLECTED TO OTHER EXISTING CLASSIFICATIONS

(Refinement of the EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline (EEA 2012)).


161

Major eco-

system cate-

gory (level 1)

Ecosystem

type for

mapping and

assessment

(level 2)

Representation of

habitats

(functional

dimension by

EUNIS)/MSFD for

marine

ecosystems )

Representation of

land cover (spatial

dimension)

Benefits of mapping Problems of

mapping

Potential

spatial data

availability for

the member

states

Data used

for pan-

European

study

Link with ecosystem classifications, major habitat types or reporting

categories

Terrestrial 1. Urban Constructed,

industrial and other

artificial habitats

Urban, industrial,

commercial and

transport areas,

urban green areas,

mines, dump and

construction sites

Urban areas represent

mainly human habitats but

they usually include

significant areas for

synanthropic species

CLC’s coarse

resolution that needs

to be complemented

e.g. by Urban atlas

(ca. 300 cities) and

HRL Imperviousness

CLC

Urban Atlas

HRL

Imperviousness

CLC codes:

111, 112,

121, 122,

123, 124,

131, 132, 133, 141,

142

Urban area’s (CBD 2005; PELCOM 2001)

Artificial surfaces and associated areas (JRC 2003)

Urban (MEA 2006; IEEP 2012)

Constructed, industrial and other artificial habitats (EUNIS 2012)

Urban fabric; Industrial; commercial and transport units; Mine; dump and construction sites; Artificial; non-agricultural vegetated areas (CLC level 2)

Built-Up Areas; Non Built-Up Areas (FAO 2000)

2. Cropland

Regularly or recently

cultivated

agricultural,

horticultural and

domestic habitats

Annual and

permanent crops

Main food production areas,

intensively managed

ecosystems

Habitat classification

(e.g. EUNIS)

includes permanent

crops into Heathland

and scrub

CLC

CLC codes:

211, 212,

213, 221, 222, 223,

241, 242,

243, 244

Croplands (as a component of agricultural systems) (CBD 2005)

Cultivated and managed areas; Mosaic: Cropland/Tree Cover /Other Natural

Vegetation; Mosaic: Cropland / Shrub and/or Herbaceous cover (JRC 2003)

Cultivated (MEA 2006)

Rainfed arable land, Irigated arable land, Permanent crops (PELCOM 2001)

Agro-ecosystems (RUBICODE 2011)

Arable land; Permanent crops; Heterogeneous agricultural areas (CLC 2007; Level 2)

Regularly or recently cultivated agricultural, horticultural and domestic

habitats (EUNIS 2012)

Arable ecosystems including temporary grasslands, permanent crops (IEEP 2012)

Managed Lands; Non-Graminoid Crops; Graminoid Crops; Herbaceous Crops;

Aquatic Or Regularly Flooded Graminoid Crops; Aquatic Or Regularly Flooded

Non-Graminoid Crops (FAO 2000)

3. Grassland Grasslands and land

dominated by forbs,

mosses or lichens

Pastures and (semi-)

natural grasslands

Areas dominated by grassy

vegetation of two kinds –

managed pastures and

natural (extensively

managed) grasslands

Distinction between

intensively used and

more natural

grasslands requires

additional datasets

(Art. 17)

CLC

HRL grasslands

CLC codes:

231, 321

Grasslands/savannahs (as a component of dry and sub-humid lands) (CBD 2005)

Dryland (MEA 2006)

Grassland (PELCOM 2001)

Semi-natural grassland and shrubland ecosystems (RUBICODE 2011)

Terrestrial herbaceous communities, Meadows, pastures or related grasslands

(UNESCO 1974)

Pastures; Scrub and/or herbaceous vegetation associations (CLC 2007; Level

2)

Grasslands and lands dominated by forbs, mosses or lichens (EUNIS 2012)

Natural and semi-natural grassland formations (Annex 1 habitat directive)

Arable ecosystems including temporary grasslands, permanent crops (IEEP

2012)

Tropical & Subtropical Grasslands; Savannas & Shrublands; Temperate Grasslands, Savannas & Shrublands; Flooded Grasslands & Savannas;

Montane Grasslands & Shrublands; Tundra (WWF 2013)

Grassland; Lichens/Mosses (FAO 2000)

4. Woodland

and forest

Woodland, forest and

other wooded land

Forests Climax ecosystem type on

most of the area supporting

many ecosystem services

Missing information

on quality and

management

requires additional

datasets (Art. 17,

CLC

HRL forests

CLC codes:

311, 312, 313

Forests (including different forest types, notably mangroves) (CBD 2005)

Tree Cover, broadleaved, evergreen; Tree Cover, broadleaved, deciduous, closed; Tree Cover, broadleaved, deciduous, open; Tree Cover, needle-leaved,

evergreen; Tree Cover, needle-leaved, deciduous; Tree Cover, mixed leaf

type; Tree Cover, regularly flooded, fresh; Tree Cover, regularly flooded,


162

HRL forest) saline, (daily variation); Mosaic: Tree cover/Other natural vegetation; Tree

Cover, burnt (JRC 2003)

Forest (MEA 2006)

Coniferous forest; Deciduous forest, Mixed forest (PELCOM 2001)

Forests ecosystems (RUBICODE 2011)

Closed forests; Woodland (UNESCO 1974)

Forests (CLC 2007; Level 2)

Woodland, forest and other wooded land (EUNIS 2012)

Forests (Annex 2 habitat directive)

Woodland and forest (IEEP 2012)

Tropical and Subtropical Moist Broadleaf Forests; Tropical & Subtropical Dry Broadleaf Forests; Tropical & Suptropical Coniferous Forests; Temperate

Broadleaf & Mixed Forests, Temperate Coniferous Forests; Boreal

Forests/Taiga; Mediterranean Forests; Woodlands & Scrub (WWF 2013)

Tree Crops; Forest; Thicket; Woodland (FAO 2000)

5. Heathland

and shrub

Heathland, scrub and

tundra (vegetation

dominated by shrubs

or dwarf shrubs)

Moors, heathland

and sclerophyllous

vegetation

Mostly secondary

ecosystems with

unfavourable natural

conditions

Mapping the

condition of these

areas requires

combination with

Art.17

CLC CLC codes:

322, 323,

324

Dry and sub-humid lands (other than grasslands/savannahs) (CBD 2005)

Shrub Cover, closed-open, evergreen (with or without sparse tree layer);

Shrub Cover, closed-open, deciduous (with or without sparse tree layer);

Herbaceous Cover, closed-open; Sparse Herbaceous or sparse shrub cover;

Regularly flooded shrub and/or herbaceous cover (JRC 2003)

Dryland (MEA 2006)

Shrubland (PELCOM 2001)

Semi-natural grassland and shrubland ecosystems (RUBICODE 2011)

Scrub, Dwarf-scrub and related communities (UNESCO 1974)

Scrub and/or herbaceous vegetation associations (CLC 2007; Level 2)

Heathland, scrub and tundra (EUNIS 2012)

Temperate heath and scrub, Sclerophyllous scrub (Matorral) (Annex 2 habitat

directive)

Heathland and tundra, Sclerophyllous vegetation (IEEP 2012)

Shrub Crops; Shrubland (FAO 2000)

6. Sparsely

vegetated

land

Unvegetated or

sparsely vegetated

habitats (naturally

unvegetated areas)

Open spaces with

little or no

vegetation (bare

rocks, glaciers and

beaches, dunes and

sand plains included)

Ecosystems with extreme

natural conditions that

might support valuable

species. Includes coastal

ecosystems on (beaches,

dunes) affected by marine

ecosystems

Becomes a

conglomerate of

distinctive rarely

occurring

ecosystems, often

defined by different

geographical location

CLC CLC codes:

331, 332,

333, 334,

335

Polar/ice (CBD 2005)

Bare Areas; Snow and Ice (natural & artificial)(JRC 2003)

Barren land, Ice and snow (PELCOM 2001)

Soils (RUBICODE 2011)

Deserts and other scarcely vegetated areas (UNESCO 1974)

Open spaces with little or no vegetation (CLC 2007; Level 2)

Inland unvegetated or sparsely vegetated habitats (EUNIS 2012)

Rocky habitats and caves, Coastal sand dunse and inland dunes (Annex 1 habitat directive)

Sparsely vegetated land (not covered) (IEEP 2012)

Deserts & Xeric Shrublands (WWF 2013)

Sparse Vegetation; Consolidated Areas; Unconsolidated Areas; Artificial Snow; Artificial Ice; Snow; Ice (FAO 2000)


163

7. Wetlands

Mires, bogs and fens

Inland wetlands

(marshes and

peatbogs)

Specific plant and animal

communities, water

regulation, peat-related

processes

Separation from

grasslands

(temporary

inundation) and

forests (tree

canopy), HRL

wetlands

CLC

HRL wetlands

CLC codes:

411, 412

Peatlands (as a component of inland waters or forests); Inland wetlands

(other than those already covered as peatlands)(CBD 2005)

Inland water (MEA 2006)

Wetland (PELCOM 2001)

Wetlands ecosystems (RUBICODE 2011)

Aquatic plant formations (UNESCO 1974)

Inland wetlands (CLC 2007; Level 2)

Mires, bogs and fens (EUNIS 2012)

Raised bogs and mires and fens (Annex 1 habitat directive)

Mires (bogs and fens), Inland marshes (IEEP 2012)

Fresh water 8. Rivers and

lakes

Inland surface

waters (freshwater

ecosystems)

Water courses and

bodies incl. coastal

lakes (without

permanent

connection to the

sea)

All permanent freshwater

surface waters

Underestimation of

water courses and

small water bodies

needs application of

external datasets

(ECRINS, HRL Small

lakes)

CLC

HRL small water

bodies

ECRINS

CLC codes:

511, 512

Water Bodies (natural & artificial) (JRC 2003)

Inland water (MEA 2006; PELCOM 2001; CLC 2007; Level 2)

River ecosystems (RUBICODE 2011)

Inland surface waters (EUNIS 2012)

Freshwater habitats (Annex 2 habitat directive)

Rivers and lakes (IEEP 2012)

Large Rivers; Large River Headwaters; Large River Deltas; Small Rivers, Large

Lakes; Small Lakes; Xeric Basins (WWF 2013)

Artificial Waterbodies; Natural Waterbodies (FAO 2000)

Marine 9. Marine

inlets and

transitional

waters

Pelagic habitats:

Low/reduced salinity

water (of lagoons)

Variable salinity water (of coastal

wetlands, estuaries

and other

transitional waters)

Marine salinity water

(of other inlets)

Benthic habitats:

Littoral rock and

biogenic reef

Littoral sediment

Shallow sublittoral

rock and biogenic

reef

Shallow sublittoral

sediment

Coastal wetlands:

Saltmarshes, salines and intertidal flats

Lagoons: Highly

restricted connection to open sea,

reduced, often

relatively stable,

salinity regime

Estuaries and other

transitional waters:

Link rivers to open sea, variable, highly

dynamic salinity

regime. All WFD

‘transitional waters’ included

Fjords/sea lochs:

Glacially derived, typically elongated

and deep; marine

salinity regime

Embayments: Non-

glacial origin,

typically shallow,

marine salinity system

Pelagic habitats in

this type include the

photic zone, benthic

habitats can include

it or not

Spatial representation of

the land-sea interface, and of the relative proportion of

habitats and related

services. Interface limited

by the WFD landward boundaries of transitional

and coastal waters

Use of relevant CLC

classes would lead to mapping

geographically

distinct entities

rather than benthic habitats

EUSeaMap††

provides broad-scale

seabed habitat

maps, which are based on predictive

modelling with

partial validation.

But these cannot be used for all

ecosystems in this

class

CLC (allows

mapping of

lagoons,

saltmarshes,

salines,

intertidal flat s

and estuaries)

GIS layer of

WFD ‘lake water

bodies’ and

‘transitional

water bodies’

EUSeaMap is

now only

available for the

Baltic, North,

Celtic and

western

Mediterranean

seas. Remaining

seas to be

covered by new

projects (over

2013-2014)

Marine ‘water

column’ habitats

are not mapped

by EUSeaMap

CLC codes;

521, 421, 422, 423,

522

Coral reefs (as a component of marine and coastal ecosystems); Tidal

flats/estuaries (as an additional component of coastal ecosystems); Seagrass

beds (as an additional component of coastal ecosystems) (CBD 2005)

Coastal (MEA 2006)

Marine waters (CLC level 2)

Marine habitats (EUNIS 2012)

Marine, coastal, and halophytic habitats (Annex 1 habitat directive)

Coastal ecosystem - beaches, dunes, saltmarshes, estuaries & lagoons (IEEP)

Mangroves (WWF 2013)

Transitional water bodies (WFD)

Water column’ predomi-nant habitat types; Variable salinity (estuarine);

Reduced salinity; Marine salinity (MSFD)

Seabed’ predomi-nant habitats (MSFD)

10. Coastal Pelagic habitats:

Coastal waters

Benthic habitats:

Coastal, shallow-

depth marine systems that

experience

Spatial representation of

the marine coastal ‘zone’

and of the relative

No European

common scheme

exists for mapping of

GIS layer of

WFD ‘coastal

water bodies’

EUSeamap:

A1

Littoral rock

Marine (MEA 2006)

Sea (PELCOM 2001)



164

Littoral rock and

biogenic reef

Littoral sediment

Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic

reef

Shallow sublittoral sediment

significant land-

based influences. These systems

undergo diurnal

fluctuations in

temperature, salinity

and turbidity, and are subject to wave

disturbance. Depth is

up to 50-70 meters.

Pelagic habitats in this type include the

photic zone, benthic

habitats can include

it or not

proportion of habitats and

related services

pelagic habitats nor

for combined

pelagic/ben-thic

systems

EUSeaMap broad-

scale seabed habitat maps

are based on

predictive modelling with partial

validation

EUSeaMap is

now only

available for the

Baltic, North,

Celtic and

western

Mediterra-nean

seas. Remaining

seas to be

covered by new

projects (over

2013-2014)

Marine ‘water

column’ habitats

are not mapped

by EUSeaMap

and other

hard substrata,

A2

littoral

sediment


Marine (IEEP)

Polar, Temperate Shelf and Seas, Temperate Upwelling, Tropical Upwelling,

Tropical Coral (WWF 2013)

Coastal water bodies (WFD)

Water column predominant habitat types; Variable salinity (estuarine);

Reduced salinity; Marine salinity (MSFD)

Seabed predominant habitats (MSFD)

11. Shelf Pelagic habitats:

Shelf waters

Benthic habitats:

Shelf sublittoral rock

and biogenic reef

Shelf sublittoral

sediment

Marine systems

away from coastal

influence, down to

the shelf slope. They

experience more

stable temperature

and salinity regimes

than coastal

systems, and their

seabed is below

wave disturbance.

Depth is up to 200

meters. Pelagic

habitats in this type

include the photic

zone, benthic

habitats are beyond

the photic limit

(aphotic)

Spatial representa-tion of

the marine shelf ‘zone’ and

of the relative proportion of

habitats and related

services

No European

common scheme



for combined

pelagic/ben-thic

systems

EUSeaMap broad-

scale seabed habitat

maps

are based on

predictive modelling

with partial

validation

EUSeaMap is

now only

available for the

Baltic, North,

Celtic and

western

Mediterra-nean

seas. Remaining

seas to be

covered by new

projects (over

2013-2014)

Marine ‘water

column’ habitats

are not mapped

by EUSeaMap

EUSeamap:

A3

Infralittoral

rock and

other hard substrata,

A4

Circalittoral rock and

other hard

substrata,

A5

Sublittoral

sediment

Marine (MEA 2006)

Sea (PELCOM 2001)



Marine (IEEP)



Water column predominant habitats with marine salinity (MSFD)

Seabed’ predominant habitats (MSFD)

12. Open

ocean

Pelagic habitats:

Oceanic waters

Benthic habitats:

Bathyal (upper, lower) rock and

biogenic reef

Bathyal (upper, lower) sediment

Abyssal rock and

biogenic reef

Abyssal sediment

Marine systems

beyond the shelf

slope with very

stable temperature

and salinity regimes,

in particular in the

deep seabed. Depth

is beyond 200

meters. Pelagic

habitats in this type

are, in proportion,

mostly aphotic,

benthic habitats are

aphotic

Spatial representa-tion of

the marine open ocean

zone and of the relative

proportion of habitats and

related services

No European

common scheme



for combined

pelagic/ben-thic

systems

EUSeaMap broad-

scale seabed habitat

maps

are based on

predictive modelling

with partial

validation

EUSeaMap is

now only

available for the

Baltic, North,

Celtic and

western

Mediterra-nean

seas. Remaining

seas to be

covered by new

projects (over

2013-2014)

Marine ‘water

column’ habitats

are not mapped

by EUSeaMap

EUSeamap:

A6

deep-sea bed

Marine (MEA 2006)

Sea (PELCOM)



Marine (IEEP)



Water column predominant habitats with marine salinity (MSFD)

Seabed predominant habitats (MSFD)


165

ANNEX 2: DESCRIPTORS COVERED BY EXISTING EU ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION AND POLICIES


167

Descriptors based on existing EU environmental legislation and policy

The tables below provide an overview of the main EU environmental policies and legislation that were established by the European Commission during the

past decades: Natura 2000, European Red List57

, Water Framework Directive, EU Nitrate Directive, Marine Strategy Framework Directive, EU Soil Policy, Air

Quality Legislation, Flood Risk Directive, CAP. There is no EU fire prevention policy yet, but the need has been recognized and a brochure on fire prevention

has been issued. Fire risk has been assessed and mapped (data available in JRC database).

The tables are structured as follows:

‘data’: this refers to the type of information which is currently available or should be made available soon, according to the planned deadlines of the

directives; as an example according to the Habitat Directive Member States should report on the conservation status of habitats and species.

‘indicators’: these are the components constituting the data groups; as an example habitat conservation status is based on range, surface, etc.; some

indicators, e.g. those of N2000, are open for (some) interpretation by Member States; other indicators, e.g. EU Nitrate Directive, are measured in a

uniform way.

‘indicator unit’ : represents the unit in which the measured indicator is expressed

‘source’ : reveals the source(s) of data represented in the table

‘potential descriptor’: very rough link to a potential descriptor name; this is based on a preliminary exercise by the authors and should not be

considered as a final proposal

‘red bars’: these refer to the legislation/policy; also the target to be achieved is mentioned; in some cases this target is explicitly mentioned in the

legislation (e.g. FCS for Habitat Directive) while in other cases this target is less clearly expressed; in those cases we tried to capture the overall

target in one simple denomination e.g. non endangered status for the Red List species; we also used abbreviations for this target as this comes back

in Annex 4 in the Report.

57 The European Red List is neither a policy nor a legislation but we included this concept as it is widely applied in biodiversity policy and biodiversity

assessment and includes useful descriptors and indicators


168

Data Indicator Indicator unit Source Potential descriptor

Natura 2000 (Goal: Favourable Conservation Status (FCS)

Habitat conservation

status

Range Interpretation MS

FV/U1/U2/?

EC - explanatory notes &

guidelines

Surface area of habitat type Interpretation MS

FV/U1/U2/?

Structure & functions incl.

typical species

Interpretation MS

FV/U1/U2/?

Future prospects Interpretation MS

FV/U1/U2/?

Overall assessment (=final

conclusion)

Interpretation MS

FV/U1/U2/?

Habitat status

Species conservation

status

Range Interpretation MS

FV/U1/U2/?

Population size and density Interpretation MS

FV/U1/U2/?

Surface area of suitable

habitat

Interpretation MS

FV/U1/U2/?

Future prospects Interpretation MS

FV/U1/U2/?

Overall assessment (=final

conclusion)

Interpretation MS

FV/U1/U2/?

Species status


169

European Red List (Goal: Non Endangered status (NE) non-official abbreviation)

Species

composition

Species composition Number of species

EU Red List data (IUCN)

9 documents (one per species

group):

Mammals (2007); amphibians

(2009); reptiles (2009);

beetles (2010);

fresh water fish (2010); butterflies

(2010); dragonflies (2011);

mollusks (2011); vascular plants

(2011)

Species status

Endemic species ratio % Species status

Species taxonomic classification Species status

Sp. Distribution Geographic range Species status

Other species

characteristics

Red list category

& criteria

Species status

Population information Species status

Habitat preferences Species status

Threats Major threats Species status

Conservation Conservation measures (in

place/needed)

Species status

Species

exploitation

Species utilization Species status

Use and trade information Species status

Water Framework Directive (Goal: Good or High Status (GHS) (non-official abbreviation)

Biological Abundance, composition

phytobenthos, macro-phytes,

macroalgae

Species status

Abundance,composition, diversity,

sensitive taxa – Invertebrate fauna

Species status (N2000 &

Red List)

Abundance, composition, life

cycle/age structure, sensitive

taxa - Fish

Species status


170

Abundance,composition, bloom

frequency and intensity –

Phytoplankton

EC – WFD common

implementation strategy

Species status

Abundance,composition,

sensitive taxa, depth

distribution/cover, diversity -

Angiosperms

Species status

Hydromorpho-logical Water flow quantity & dynamics;

residence time

Hydrological status

Connectivity

(to groundwater)

Connectivity

River continuity Dist. hydrological cycle

Depth & width variation Dist. hydrological cycle

Bed structure&-substrate Dist. hydrological cycle

Water flow velocity Dist. hydrological cycle

Physico-chemical Termal conditions °Celcius Temperature

Dissolved oxygen Acidification

Salinity Electrical conductivity Salinization

Nutriënt concentration (P/N;

nitrite; ammonium)

Acidification

Transparency (secchi dept,

turbidity, colour)

Water clouding

Acidification pH, alkalinity/ANC, TOC Acidification

Spec. (non-) synthetic

pollutants

Pollution

Toxic waste products


171

EU Nitrate Directive (Goal : <50mg/l )

Nitrate pollution Nitrate concentration

surface water

mg/l Nitrates directive – guidelines &

“The EU Nitrate Directive58

-

brochure

Water eutrophication

Nitrate concentration

ground water

mg/l Water eutrophication

Marine Strategy framework Directive (Goal: Good Environmental Status (GES))

Physical and

Chemical

features

Salinity http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriS

erv.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:164:0019:0

040:EN:PDF

Salinization

Nutrients and oxygen DIN;TN;DIP;TP; TOC;O2 Eutrophication

Marine acidification pH, pCO2 Acidification

Habitat type

characteristics

Water depth

Temperature regime

Currents

Salinity Salinization

Substrata composition Habitat status (N2000)

Biological

features

Population dynamics, natural and

actual range and status of species

of marine mammals and reptiles,

seabirds and other relevant species

Species status (N2000)

Seasonal & geographical variability

phyto- & zooplankton


Species composition, biomass and

annual/ seasonal variability of

angiosperms, macro-algae and


58 *Part of WFD and ground water directive; focus on ground and surface waters; <50mg is accepted (exemption can be granted if necessary)

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:164:0019:0040:EN:PDF





172

invertebrates

Abundance, distribution and

age/size structure of fish

populations


Other features Chemical pollution Toxic waste products

Physical loss Smothering

Sealing

Physical damage Siltation

Abrasion

Selective extraction

Other physical

Disturbance

Contamination By hazardous

Substances

Underwater noise Noise pollution

Marine litter

Pollution (non-) synthetic substances) Toxic waste products

Radio-nuclide pollution

Systematic/ intentional sub- stance release

Pollution (other substances)

Nutrient and Organic matter

enrichment

Eutrophication (N; P) Eutrophication

Eutrophication(organic matter) Eutrophication

Biological Disturbance Microbial pathogens Pests/diseases

Non-indigenous species

Invasive alien species

Selective extraction (Excess) harvesting


173

EU soil policy (Goal: Good Soil Status (GSS) non-official term)

Soil degradation Soil Organic Carbon content

http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriS

erv.do?uri=COM:2006:0232:FIN:E

N:PDF (Proposal for a Directive)

Soil organic carbon content

Soil compaction Soil compaction

Soil salinization Salinization

Soil erosion Soil erosion

Soil biodiversity Species status

Soil contamination Site history

Soil pollution Toxic waste products

Biomass production Ecosystem services

Environmental,

economic, social &

cultural functions

Storing, filtering & transforming

nutrients, substances & water

Ecosystem services

Biodiversity pool

(habitat,species&genes)

Species/Habitat status

(N2000; Red list)

Physical & cultural environment for

humans and their activities

Ecosystem services

Supply of raw materials Ecosystem services

Carbon pool function Ecosystem services

Geological and archeological

heritage

Ecosystem services

Air quality legislation (Goal: Good Air Quality (GAQ); non-official term)

General pollution Sulphur pollution µg/m³ eur-lex.europe.eu/

LexUriServ.do?uri=

COM:2005:0447:FIN: EN:PDF

Air pollution

Nitrogen (oxides) pollution µg/m³ Air pollution

Carbon monoxide pollution µg/m³ Air pollution

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0232:FIN:EN:PDF





174

Ozone pollution µg/m³ Air pollution

PM pollution PM10 pollution µg/m³ Air pollution

PM2,5 pollution µg/m³ Air pollution

Toxic waste pollution Benzene pollution µg/m³ Air pollution

Lead µg/m³ Air pollution

Flood Risk Directive (Goal: No uncontrolled Flood Risk (NFR); non-official term)

Flood risk Flood risk S/M/L

(S=sporadically;

M>100 years; L= regular or

<100years)

EC – Guidelines Flood Risk

Directive

Flood Risk

Flood characteristics Flood size ha Flood Risk

Water depth/Water level M Flood Risk

Common Agricultural Policy CAP

AXIS 2, Improving the environment and the countryside

through land

management

BASELINE INDICATORS RELATED TO OBJECTIVES:

o Biodiversity: Population of farmland birds

o Biodiversity: High nature value farmland and forestry

o Biodiversity: Tree species composition

o Water quality: Gross Nutrient Balances

o Water quality: Pollution by nitrates and pesticides

o Soil: Areas at risk of soil erosion

o Soil: Organic farming o Climate change:

Production of renewable energy from agriculture and forestry

BASELINE INDICATORS RELATED TO CONTEXT:

o Land cover o Less favoured

areas o Areas of extensive

agriculture o Biodiversity :

protected forest o Development of

forest area o Forest ecosystem

health o Water quality o Water use o Protective forests

concerning primarily soil and water

COMMON OUTPUT INDICATORS: o Natura 2000 payments and

payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (indicator: Supported agricultural land under Natura 2000/under Water Framework Directive)

o Agri-environment payments (indicator: total area under agri-environmental support)

o First afforestation of agricultural land (ind. : number of ha afforested land)

o First establishment of agroforestry systems on agricultural land

o First afforestation of non-agricultural land

o Natura 2000 payments (ind: supported forest land (ha) in

COMMON RESULT INDICATORS: o Area under successful

land management contributing to:

(a) biodiversity and high nature value farming/ forestry (b) water quality (c) climate change (d) soil quality (e) avoidance of marginalisation and land abandonment


175

o Climate change: UAA devoted to renewable energy

o Climate change/air quality: gas emissions from agriculture

Natura 2000 areas) o Forest-environment payments o Restoring forestry potential

and introducing prevention actions (ind : number of prevention/restoration actions, supported area of damaged forests, …)


177

ANNEX 3 : OVERVIEW OF SPATIAL REPORTING OBLIGATIONS IN THE EU


179


181

ANNEX 4: MATRIX ECOSYSTEM TYPES AND POTENTIAL DESCRIPTORS


182


183


184


185

ANNEX 5 : PRIVATE SECTOR FINANCING INSTRUMENTS

Description of the private sector financing instruments

Financing

instrument

Description

Philanthropic donations

Not-for profit sources Funds raised by organisations registered as non-profit for ecosystem management (ie that

would otherwise have been spent on other issues), not including funds already earmarked for

ecosystem management (eg by governments, companies or foundations) that are channelled

via NGOs.

Philanthropic

donations by

companies

Donations made by private sources that are not predicated on achieving a positive financial

(or other private) return. This category overlaps with actions motivated by business being

seen to be taking actions in the public interest for reputational reasons.

Profit driven investments

Payments for

ecosystem services

A voluntary market mechanism in which suppliers are paid by beneficiaries to manage the

ecosystems in such a way so as to enhance or continue the ecosystem service.

Bonds for green

infrastructure

A tradable financial security that promises to payback the holder at pre-defined interest rate

used to fund projects with positive ecological impact. It can be delivered through a public

private partnership in which government guarantees a certain level of payback to the private

investor.

Insurance sector

mitigating of

environmental risk

Using funds generated by insurance premiums to manage sources of environment risk.

Bio-carbon markets The sale of carbon credits created through ecosystem maintenance or restoration that

sequesters and/or reduces emissions of carbon.

Pro-biodiversity

business models

Investment or support structures for businesses that have a positive impact on biodiversity,

via a funding platform (eg NGO with restoration expertise).


certification

Identifying a product to consumers whose purchase supports a certain type of production

process favouring ecosystem maintenance and/or restoration.

Tax relief on capital

assets

Adjustment of tax rates to favour certain types of ecosystem management and maintenance

of assets in good environmental management.

Private finance

initiative

Private sector invests in public infrastructure on the basis of long-term public service

contracts that specify the outputs required (e.g. numbers of hospital beds).

Risk-sharing

investment structures

The use of public sector guarantees to encourage private investment in ecosystem

restoration activities that lead to business opportunities (eg loans on favourable terms, first


186

Financing

instrument

Description

loss on public shares or guaranteed minimum return on investment).

Regulatory measures

Hypothecated tax

funds

Allocating tax revenues to specific spending objectives, combined with requirements for

private matched funding.

Biodiversity offsets

and habitat banking

A scheme whereby the losses of biodiversity as a consequence of a development or land use

change are compensated by the investment in the restoration of another site of similar

habitat, resulting in no net loss of biodiversity. Where offset outcomes planned to

compensate for residual biodiversity loss exceed the damage done (net gain) they can

contribute to ecosystem restoration.

Relation of the private sector financing instruments to ecosystem restoration levels

The changes do not necessarily have to relate to the changes between the definitions of levels

in Section 2.3, but relate to changes to ecosystems similar to the differences in the approximate

states represented by these levels.

Financing instrument Level 4 - 3 Level 3 - 2 Level 2 - 1


Not-for profit sources May be possible if motivated by social objectives, linked

to ecosystem restoration as part of socio-economic

regeneration

More likely to have

flagship CSR values


by companies

May be possible if motivated by social objectives, linked

to ecosystem restoration as part of socio-economic

regeneration, but only likely in close proximity to large

company locations.

More likely to have

flagship CSR values, so

expected to attract

majority of this

instrument’s funding


Payments for ecosystem

services

Possible here, but where

degradation is high, conflict

with polluter pays principle

(activities damaging

ecosystem held responsible

for restoration)

Most likely here, where

changes in ecosystem

services from restoration

may be greatest

Also relevant here, but

changes in some

ecosystem services may

be less significant here

Bonds for green

infrastructure

Less likely

Insurance sector

mitigating of

environmental risk

As PES


187

Financing instrument Level 4 - 3 Level 3 - 2 Level 2 - 1

Bio-carbon markets Less likely to have

Carbon benefits

Pro-biodiversity business

models

More likely as higher

biodiversity values


certification

Unlikely to motivate

consumers

Also possible where part

of traditional exploitation

of ecosystems

More likely – highest

quality environments

appeal to consumers

Tax relief on capital

assets

Applies to all, but more likely at higher level as not

contravening polluter pays principle and relates to

existing ecosystem standards that instrument can

relate to

Private finance initiative Potentially all levels

Risk-sharing investment

structures

Applies to all

Regulatory measures

Hypothecated tax funds Applies to all If optional, co-motivated

by CSR more likely here

Biodiversity offsets and

habitat banking

Applies to all, depends on measured bd gain rather than

overall ecosystem level.

If ‘trading up’ (eftec,

IEEP et al 2010), more

likely here.


189

ANNEX 6 : SWOT ANALYSIS OF PRIVATE SECTOR FINANCING INSTRUMENTS


191

Philanthropic instruments

Mechanism Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Conclusion

Not-for profit

sources

Generates funds from the

public, which can fund

ecosystem maintenance

and restoration.

Knowledge and position in

society allow NGOs to act

as a trusted intermediary.

Different organisations (eg

environmental NGOs) can

duplicate functions.

Limited to the resources

they receive from

donations and only

sustainable as long as

support continues.

Non-profit organisations

can play a key role as

intermediary in private

finance of target 2, eg

through pro-biodiversity

business models and

mediating the

establishment of PES.

Economic downturn could

result in less donations

from donors. May have

limited legitimacy with

some sectors.

Non-profit sector

generates some funding

for ecosystem

maintenance and

restoration, but may make

larger contribution as an

intermediary in facilitating

the other mechanisms to

happen.

Philanthropic

donations

A simple and direct

mechanism and

established as a means of

funding ecosystem

maintenance and

restoration.

It is unlikely that funding

from this source will

increase significantly to

make a contribution to

achieving Target 2.

Donations can be

supported through tax

incentives. Environmental

awareness could increase

spotlight on corporate

giving and CSR,

encouraging donations.

Current weak state of the

global economy likely to

reduce donations, with an

increased focus on the

maintenance of profit

margins.

Will support ecosystem

restoration, but the

contribution unlikely to

increase significantly.



Payments for

ecosystem

services (PES)

Potential perpetual source

of private finance with

minimal government

involvement. An approach

that has been

demonstrated throughout

Europe.

Private use currently

limited mainly to water

services. There is a need

to establish the benefits

provided to a wider range

of sectors in order to

expand.

Emergence of stronger

evidence on value of

ecosystem services.

Potential for expansion in

water sector and/or

schemes with multiple

purchasers.

Public opposition to

commodification of

environment. Lack of

knowledge of ecosystem

services benefits from


Well demonstrated for

services tied to water, and

could be expanded.

Potentially limited by

uncertainties over benefits

of ecosystem restoration.


192

Bonds for

green

infrastructure

Can raise upfront finance

needed to undertake


and restoration actions.

Needs to be attached to

large scale activities with

sufficient financial returns

to justify formulating

‘bonds’.

Long term returns on


and stability of

environmental assets (eg

forests) suitable to bonds.

Public sector could share

risk. Possibility to group

with related funds e.g.

green bond funds or

Resource Efficiency

funds.

Unclear if markets have

appetite for bonds.

Limited by uncertainty of

payback of ecosystem

restoration.

Potential mechanism to

raise finance for target 2

actions organized on a

sufficient scale and

offering commercial

returns if benefits are

clear or risk shared.

Insurance

sector

mitigating

environmental

risk

A clear link exists

between natural hazard

risks and ecosystems,

recognised already by

some insurance

companies.

May not fit within the

institutional structure of

the insurance sector.

Cost-effectiveness of

investments in

ecosystems to mitigate

natural risks uncertain.

An increase in natural

risks (eg due to climate

change) may increase the

attractiveness of such

mitigating measures.

If governments underwrite

natural hazard risks, there

is little incentive for the

insurance sector to

finance restoration.

Theoretical at present,

further research and

development needed

before it is likely to be

applied.

Bio-carbon

markets

Existing carbon markets

could be adapted to trade

bio-carbon. Small part of

carbon market could fund

substantial ecosystem

restoration and, to an

extent, maintenance (see

below).

Technical and institutional

barriers to adapting

carbon markets to include

bio-carbon. Need to verify


credits. Not all restoration

generates carbon credits.

Defining clear standards

for measuring bio-carbon

credits from ecosystem

maintenance and

restoration would support

market confidence and

reduce transaction costs.

Weaknesses in global

climate commitments

undermining confidence in

carbon markets.

Could be useful source of

finance for Target 2

actions. Could mainly

work in conjunction with

other mechanisms (eg

PES, labelling).

Pro-

biodiversity

business

(PBB) models -

funding

Intermediary between

funding sources (public

and private) and

businesses (especially

SMEs) that can deliver

Needs to be organized on

sufficient scale to justify

transaction costs.

Opportunities where

viable business models

Establishing PBBs where

significant numbers of

SMEs control an area

suitable for commercial


Uncertainties and conflicts

in policies influencing

ecosystem management

(eg CAP).

Useful model to expand

where significant numbers

of SMEs can deliver

commercial ecosystem

maintenance and


193

platforms ecosystem maintenance

and restoration actions.

also support biodiversity

will be limited and site

specific.

and restoration. restoration.

Product

labelling and

certification

Potentially huge market

supporting maintenance

(and incentivising

restoration) of those

habitats tied to

provisioning services.

Certification processes

are well understood,

reducing time needed for

establishment.

Scope limited to

ecosystems with

commercial products.

Price premium may not

cover restoration costs.

Challenge to

communicate ecosystem

restoration benefits

through a label.

Defining new labels, or

adjusting existing labels,

that include ecosystem

restoration in their

labelling criteria.

Tough economic

conditions could see

consumers turn away

from labelled products

due to the cost.

Proliferation of labels may

confuse consumer.

A potentially large market

to support Target 2.

Requires consumer

appetite for such

information and products.

Tax relief on

capital assets

Works through existing

tax system and will

encourage ecosystem

restoration by those

willing to invest in it for

other reasons. Pay-off

expected for large scale

landowners (eg forestry,

mining).

Difficulties persuading

finance ministries to give

tax breaks for the natural

environment. Applies to

restoration likely to have

happened anyway.

Targeting to restoration

increases transaction

costs.

Inheritance tax and

taxation of land assets

could be adjusted to

support ecosystem

maintenance and

restoration actions.

Likely to come under

pressure in time of fiscal

constraints. Could be

inequitable to those who

already are maintaining or

have restored

ecosystems.

Potential to operate at a

large scale eg forestry or

mining sector, especially if

already amenable to

restoration. Signals strong

policy commitment to

Target 2.

Private finance

initiative

Direct way of levering

private sector spending to

deliver public goods.

Political capture

Uneven distribution of

risk. Difficulty in specifying

outputs from restoration in

contracts.

Have not been applied to


Could be used where

restoration techniques,

and measuring their

outputs, are well

established.

Political capture, poor

reputation.

Unpredictability of level of

benefits that will result

from ecosystem

restoration.

May be suitable where


activities and objectives

are well understood and

can be measured.

Risk-sharing

investment

Cost-effective use of

public funds prompting

Needs sufficient scale of

potentially commercially

Risk-sharing structures

could be used to support

Uncertainty of extent and

diversity of commercial

Could play a useful role in

facilitating investments for


194

structures private finance.

Successfully used for

energy efficiency.

viable ecosystem

maintenance and

restoration opportunities

to invest in.

private funding through

other mechanisms with

best potential to support

Target 2.

activities that can operate

alongside large-scale


and restoration projects.

large-scale activities that

otherwise would not

happen. Why only large

scale activities? There

could be also a pooling of

smaller scale projects.

The EU Risk Sharing

Instrument aims at

supporting SMEs.


195

Regulatory measures


Hypothecated

tax funds

Works through existing tax

system and levers private

funds through matched

funding. Gives fiscal

incentive for ecosystem

restoration actions.

Difficulties in persuading

finance ministries to give

tax breaks for the natural

environment. Would apply

to restoration that would

have happened anyway.

Targeting to restoration

increases transaction

costs.

Could direct private funds

to support Target 2

through eligibility criteria

and matched funding

requirements.

Difficulties relinquishing

tax revenues in time of

fiscal constraints. Better if

tax forgone has

connection to ecosystem

restoration.

Could lever new private

funds to ecosystem

restoration and would

signal strong policy

commitment to Target 2.

Biodiversity

offsets and

habitat

banking

No net loss or net gain

policy attached to

offsetting activities could

support ecosystem

maintenance and

restoration on a large-

scale.

Net gain is usually a small

fraction of offset activity,

so not expected to make

large contribution to

restoration activities.

Could result in net loss if

not implemented and

enforced correctly.

Mandatory approach to

offsets and/or adoption of

best practice for offsets

would support Target 2.

Regulatory and

philosophical barriers

could restrict the

development of this

approach.

Potential to have

significant impact at a

large scale but political

sensitivity may restrict its

development. Poor

implementation could

result in biodiversity

losses.

Water pricing and water allocation - 197|210

197

ANNEX 7: DETAILED ANALYSIS AND EXAMPLES OF FUNDING INSTRUMENTS

This annex presents more discussion of the most promising funding instruments identified in

Section 4.2.6:

a) Bio-carbon markets: the role of carbon codes and peatland restoration.

b) Ecolabelling, particularly in the food sector.

c) Payments for ecosystem services.

d) The role of nature-based tourism.

The discussion below includes case studies of these instruments. These case studies are

additional to the examples on EU ecosystem restoration provided in Annex 4 of the IEEP

et.al. (2013) report on costs, which are summarized in the Table below. An example is also

provided of earmarking national taxation revenue related to natural resources (e.g. water

use) to environmental spending in Bulgaria.

Instrument

type

Case example Funds raised

(€)

Description

Philanthropic

donations by

companies

Moorland Protection Fund, Germany.

Funded by Volkswagen.

€1.6 million

(Ongoing)

This sum refers to those raised

by Nov. 2011.59

Donation of

fixed amount for each vehicle

leased.

LaFarge (mining company) floodplain

rehabilitation.

€80,000

(2009 – 2011)

100ha restored, supported by

WWF.

Payments for

ecosystem

services

Vittel water funding of Water

Catchment Management, France.

€24 million

(1993-2000)

Includes land acquisition (€9m),

compensation (€11m) and farm

equipment (€4m).

‘Drinking Water Forest’ funded by

Bionade to offset water use,

Germany.

€1 million

(2008-2011)

Over 60ha of deciduous forest

planted plus upkeep. 100,000

m3/yr of water regeneration.

Sustainable Catchment Management

Plan (SCAMP), UK. United Utilities

funding of upland bog management.

€16 million

Restoration of 55 km2 of

blanket bog; 4.5 km2 of upland

oak woodland.

Product labelling

& certification

Wildlife Estates label, industry led

certification for hunting estates

managed in biodiversity-friendly

manner.

Undisclosed Estates to halt and reverse the

loss of biodiversity.

Risk-sharing

investment

structures

Verde Ventures debt financing

scheme for small and medium

enterprises (SMEs).

€15 million Currently only outside the EU.

Protection or restoration of

4,640 km2. €102 million sales of

59 http://www.volkswagenag.com/content/vwcorp/info_center/en/news/2011/12/fonds.html

http://www.volkswagenag.com/content/vwcorp/info_center/en/news/2011/12/fonds.html


198

Instrument

type

Case example Funds raised

(€)

Description

eco-friendly goods/services.

Tax relief on

capital assets

Dutch Green Funds: tax

compensation provided by the

government for individuals who invest

in green institutions below market

returns.

€12 billion

(1995-2011)

(€750 million

per year)

Biodiversity measures only a

small proportion. Two thirds

directed to energy efficiency

measures include organic

farming and 1,250 km2 of

restoration. Government

invested approx. €150m.

Hypothecated

tax funds

Landfill Communities Fund, UK.

Restoration actions funded by a part

of the Landfill Tax.

€59 million

(1993-2012)

(€5.9 million

per year)

Ongoing. Total fund has raised

€1.5 billion over this period.

Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund,

UK.

€61 million

(2002-2011)

(€6.1 million

per year)

Constitutes around 7% of the

total sum paid by aggregates

companies (ca €370 million).

Biodiversity

offsetting/

habitat banking

CDC Biodiversité pilot offsets

scheme, France.

€13 million Approx. €3,800/ha.

1 Bio-Carbon Markets

There are a number of ways in which the carbon market could support the restoration of

ecosystems, particularly carbon-rich habitats such as peatlands and forests in the EU.

Emissions trading can trade units of reduced carbon emissions realized over time as a

result of project interventions. Carbon reductions can arise due to avoided emissions (i.e.

halting a baseline over which net emissions are expected) or due to sequestration of carbon

in habitats. The measurement of each of these is still uncertain, due to developments in

science and the need to consider the life-cycle of the carbon in the habitats (see Carbon

Codes below).

The significant international potential for bio-carbon to assist with biodiversity conservation

financing was recognized in eftec et.al. (2012). The current global market features

transactions worth €100’s millions, and has potential to grow. To generate carbon credits

the projects funded need to intervene in an ecosystem, either to stop deterioration or

undertake restoration, and therefore this market is relevant to ecosystem restoration goals.

The potential to issue credits from carbon offsets projects will need to consider the

emissions reduction targets of the country from which they originate. Project based

emissions reductions in the EU have only been undertaken in new member states under the


199

aegis of the Kyoto Protocol and Joint Implementation (JI); reductions that fall outside the

scope of EU climate policy.

An Ecosystem Marketplace and Bloomberg New Energy Finance report on the State of the

Voluntary Carbon Markets 201360, identified that:

In 2012 voluntary carbon markets have grew in tonnes of CO2e offset but fell in market

value since 2011.

101 MtCO2e were sold in 2012, the vast majority (98.5 MtCO2e) in Over-the-counter

offsets (OTC).

The total value of the market in 2012 was $523 million (€394 million).

The average price reached in these OTC offsets was $5.9 per tonne (€4.45) and 90% of

offsets were bought by the private sector.

These offsets trades were mostly undertaken between project developers and the offset

‘end user’.

The voluntary offset market has been predicted to grow to between $1.6-2.3 billion by

2020.

Foresty and land use were the second largest type of offset (after renewable energy)

with 32% of offsets by volume.

Europe has been a small source of offset projects, despite being the greatest buyer of

offsets. There is potential to develop bio-carbon offsets in Europe, where financial

conditions (opportunity costs of land, cost of rewetting and restoration) are competitive

and/or projects have sufficiently high market appeal for CSR purposes.

1.1 UK Carbon Codes

According to market research cited by The Ecosystem Markets Task Force (EMTF)61, UK

demand for nature-based carbon reduction projects is estimated to exceed 1 million tonnes

of carbon reduction per year, and could potentially be as high as 10 million tonnes. The

EMTF recognised that there are a number of opportunities in this market which support the

Task Force objectives of both supporting new business opportunities and markets, and

environmental enhancement.

Among these are the prospects of expanding the model of the current Woodland Carbon

Code (WCC) certification. Under the UK Government’s GHG Reporting Guidelines, where

companies finance WCC certified projects, they can claim carbon savings (proportionately

in line with their funding) that can be reported against their net emissions. A total of 133

projects were registered under the WCC covering an area of 14.2 thousand hectares of

woodland and projected to sequester 5.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. Of these, 42

60 http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_3846.pdf

61 The Ecosystem Markets Task Force, was set up to review the opportunities for UK business from

expanding green goods, services, products, investment vehicles and markets which value and protect

nature’s services. More information available online at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/ecosystem-markets/.

http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_3846.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/ecosystem-markets/


200

projects on 2.1 thousand hectares had completed validation and are predicted to sequester

one million tonnes of carbon dioxide (Forestry Commission, 2013).

This approach could be extended to projects that save carbon by restoring peatland and

moorland. Peatland and moorland act as natural carbon sinks, providing a high rate of

carbon sequestration compared to other types of habitat (such as semi-natural grassland or

inter-tidal habitats) in addition to increasing biodiversity. They also suffer from vast

degradation, estimated to be around 80% of their area (EMTF, 2013). Restoration would

offer potential for sale to both the ‘corporate social responsibility’ voluntary market and, if

suitably underpinned by a robust carbon code like woodland, eventually be eligible to be

reported under the Government’s GHG reporting guidelines (EMTF, 2013).

In order to develop this opportunity, peatland and moorland carbon code certification must

be based on sound science and suitable metrics for measuring reductions in carbon

emissions to underpin market confidence in restoration (EMTF, 2013).

1.2 Peatland Restoration Financing Through Carbon Offsets

Greenhouse gas reductions resulting from peatland management projects can be sold as

carbon offsets. Un-drained healthy peatlands act as carbon sinks. They are recognised as

hugely important in the fight against climate change62. But if degraded and decomposing,

peatlands emit significant quantities of carbon63. The carbon sequestered in healthy

peatlands and avoiding the carbon emitted in degraded peatlands makes the restoration of

peatlands an attractive habitat for carbon markets.

In Belarus, at nine peatland sites, 15,602 ha have been restored in total between 2009 and

20011 as part of the ‘Restoring Peatlands’ projects64. The project was extended to

December 2012 to finalise the carbon financing. The project was initially financed by a

broker who will provide approximately €3 million for the project. Future maintenance and

rewetting of new sites will be provided by the sale of 24,000 tonnes of carbon per annum

over 11 years. The approximate price of this carbon will be €6 a tonne including a broker’s

fee (approx. revenue for project of €138,600 a year).

In the UK, Peatlands Plus Ltd (PPL) is an initiative to match private owners of degraded

peatlands with organisations that are seeking carbon credits and could contribute financially

to the restoration of those peatlands. The first successful project has been in Alladale

Estate in Scotland. Peatland Plus sold carbon credits for €4.91 per tonne on 224 hectares

to a financial institution who bought them for corporate social responsibility purposes.

In the Netherlands, as part of the development of a coal power facility by RWE Eemshaven

Holding, the company is voluntarily financing restoration of 9 bird areas and 20 nature areas

62 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=peat-and-repeat-rewetting-carbon-sinks

63 Fact book for UNFCCC policies on peat carbon emissions

64 http://www.restoringpeatlands.org/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=peat-and-repeat-rewetting-carbon-sinks

http://www.restoringpeatlands.org/


201

which are suffering from nitrogen deposition in the north of The Netherlands. These

restoration projects are not carried as part of a statutory conservation (the project’s

Appropriate Assessment did not demonstrate a risk of significant negative impacts). The

largest project, a peatland restoration in the Fochteloërveen Natura 2000 site, is managed

by ARCADIS to deliver the desired outcomes within the agreed budget and planning.

Research on this initiative started in 2006, when the first projects also began, but most of

the implementation bring delivered in 2013 – 2015. Project expenditure amounts to several

million euro for RWE. advisory and design costs amount to less than 5% of total project

costs. In developing these projects, RWE were advised by ARCADIS, and also benefit from

involvement by public and NGO nature conservation organizations and local government.

There is significant potential for this peatland carbon market in Europe. The global average

carbon price achieved is €4.45 per tonne, around 3.5 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year

can be sequestered and approximately 80% (lower estimate) of peat bogs and fens are

degraded (with 7,675,305 total hectares, giving 6,140,244 hectares of degraded habitat)65.

Therefore, an estimate of the value of the carbon saved, and the financing for peatland

restoration, is €96 million per year.

2 Product labelling and certification

Labelling products as environmentally-friendly in order to attract a price-premium from

customers is already a well-established approach for channelling private funding into

ecosystem restoration and management. Organic and high-nature value labels already exist

in a variety of agricultural systems used to manage farmland, grasslands, moorland and

heath. Markets for timber and fish that are sustainably produced are also well-established

(e.g. Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)),

although it is less clear to what extent these are connected to ecosystem restoration rather

than ecosystem maintenance.

However, there are limits to the financial scale of these approaches, both in terms of the

size of the price premium that customers are prepared to pay and the extent of the market

(number of customers). Therefore, they often require some public funding (e.g. as in the

additional agri-environment payments for organic farmers).

Environmentally-friendly labelled production processes may not always deliver objectives

for the ecosystems involved. Nonetheless, they can be expected to make a significant

contribution where they are used. For example, MSC fisheries certification relates to the

sustainable exploitation of particular commercial fish species, but also has some

requirements to control fisheries pressures in marine areas, contributing to ecosystem

restoration.

2.1 Market Information

65

Estimation of the financing needs to implement target 2 of the EU biodiversity strategy – IEEP et al (in prep)


202

At the end of 2011, 10.6 million hectares of farmland in the EU were organic (source:

organic-world.net). This is 29% of total global organic farmland and 5.4% of EU agricultural

area. Sales of organic products in the EU totalled €21.5 billion in 2011 (organic-world.net).

Markets for ethical goods and services have been resilient despite the global recession. In

2011, ethical food and drink markets in the UK increased 7.8% to reach £7.5billion.

Markets for green home products were up 10.6% to £8.4billion and ethical personal

products were up 4.2 % to £1.8billion (the co-operative, 2012).

In addition, the UK saw expenditure increase on:

Sustainable fish: increase from £69 million to £292 million between 2007 and 2011

(323% growth) despite growth in overall household expenditure of just 1%66.

Fairtrade: increased 176% from £458 million to £1,262 million; and

Free range eggs sales up 78% from £444 million to £792 million (the co-operative,

2012).

Some evidence on the price premiums in these markets is shown in the Table below.

66 http://www.goodwithmoney.co.uk/ethical-consumerism-report-2010

http://www.goodwithmoney.co.uk/ethical-consumerism-report-2010


203

2.1.1 EU Ecolabel

Eco-labelling involves identifying a product to consumers whose purchase supports a

certain type of production process favouring ecosystem maintenance and/or restoration.

Currently, the EU Ecolabel is a voluntary scheme, created as part of EU policies to

encourage more sustainable consumption and production. EU Ecolabel criteria should be

capable of being implemented on a Europe-wide basis and the criteria for eligibility should

be based on scientific evidence taking into account the best techniques to reduce

environmental impacts (Oakdene Hollins, 2013).

A feasibility study concerning using the label more widely within the food and drink industry

found that a gap in the eco-food labelling landscape exists, which presents an opportunity

for an EU Ecolabel (Oakdene Hollins, 2010). The study found that most labels currently

only concentrate on the environmental impacts of primary production and not, or only to a

limited extent, the processing lifecycle stage. Focusing the label on highly processed

products would therefore play to the strength of the EU Ecolabel (its lifecycle approach) by

covering the environmental impacts of processing, transport and consumption. The

environmental impacts of primary production could be dealt with by cooperating with

existing sufficiently strict agri/fishery labelling schemes. However the risk of a switch from

existing labels to an EU Ecolabel cannot be discounted and this may lead to no net

environmental impact if the criteria used are not significantly different (Oakdene Hollins,

2010).

2.1.2 Wildlife Estates72

Wildlife Estates (WE) is an industry-led certification of hunting estates that are being

managed in a sustainable manner for biodiversity in Europe. The initiative seeks to help

landowners involved in the hunting and recreational fishing industry bring their

67FSC.org

68 MSC.org

69 http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/20/06/2012/133493/Cereals-2012-Demand-fuelling-conservation-grade-

contracts.htm

70 http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/20/06/2012/133493/Cereals-2012-Demand-fuelling-conservation-grade-

contracts.htm

71http://www.conservationgrade.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/environmentalscientistapr10.pdf

72 Information sourced from http://www.wildlife-estates.eu/

Certification Scheme Price Premium

FSC 15%-25% (especially for tropical sawn hard woods)67

MSC 14.2%68

Conservation Grade 69

€9/t for milling wheat70

. Assuming organic yields of 7 t / ha71

. Therefore €63

per ha.

http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/20/06/2012/133493/Cereals-2012-Demand-fuelling-conservation-grade-contracts.htm




http://www.conservationgrade.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/environmentalscientistapr10.pdf



204

environmental management in-line with European legislation such as the Habitats and Birds

Directive requirements including for Natura 2000 sites.

The Wildlife Estate program’s objectives include engaging the private and public sectors in

collaboration to halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity. On some estates this may involve a

program of ecosystem restoration actions. To receive the WE label, an estate or territory

must fulfill all eligibility and generic criteria and obtain a minimum total score. There are also

further specific indicators assessed against an evaluation grid that varies depending on the

bio-geographical region (in-line with the regional classifications contained in the Habitats

Directive 92/43 CEE, 21 May 1992).

Under the Level 1 certification landowners must adhere to the ten commitments (available

online at http://www.wildlife-estates.eu/), amongst which the following are relevant to

ecosystem restoration:

Undertaking active wildlife management following a long-term integrated wildlife

management plan;

Managing for a sustainable balance of game and wildlife and their shared habitats;

Improving, whenever possible, biodiversity and species notably those favourable to

pollinators;

Compliance with all legal requirements, relevant National codes of practice and

European Environmental legislation (e.g. Natura 2000); and

Adhering to the requirements of the Agreement between Birdlife International and FACE

on Directive 79/409/EEC, the European Charter on Hunting and Biodiversity and the EU

Commission’s Guide on Hunting under the Birds Directive.

Under an industry-led certification scheme such as the WE initiative, landowners must use

their own money to improve their environmental performance to at least the minimum

standard required to become accredited. The development of the WE initiative was aided by

bringing the scheme under the overall direction of the European Landowners’ Organisation

(ELO). The ELO has streamlined the certification process between estates in different

countries, and coordinated interaction with the EC, where the ELO was already engaged in

environmental policy development. The Wildlife Estates label has also received political

support from the EU’s Environment Commissioner, Janez Potocnik.

2.1.3 Natural Grasslands Beef Certification

Argentinian beef is exported to hundreds of countries, recognised globally for its superior

quality, and is an important part of the Argentinian economy and culture. While around 20-

40% of livestock comes from feed lots, the remainder are from grasslands which have

suffered from overgrazing and run the risk of further degradation due to expanding

agricultural crops. A major site of beef cultivation and production, the Argentine Pampas

grasslands are a portion of the South American Pampas grasslands which extend through

Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay, and are one of the richest areas of grassland biodiversity in

the world. This landscape is known for its plant species diversity and grassland-dependent

birds; it is home of over 100 species of mammal and 500 bird species, highlighting the

importance of protection from degradation (the World Bank, 2011).



205

In 2011 the Argentina Grasslands Projects, with a USD$900,000 donation from the Global

Environmental Facility and support from the Southern Cone Grasslands Alliance, was

implemented with the goal to conserve grassland biodiversity through sustainable

management by combining conservation with beef production. This new model for

grassland conservation and cattle-ranching involved the identification of sustainable, pro-

conservation farming practices through the certification of ‘Natural Grassland Beef’. It was

implemented as a pilot in four livestock ranches where the livestock breeds and feeds freely

in the grasslands, increasing the quality and nutritional value of the beef without harming

vulnerable ecosystems. This pastoral-based system also avoids the risks of human

consumption of livestock antibiotics, hormones, and bacteria often found in feed lots (the

World Bank, 2011).

An important landmark for this initiative is the fact that ‘Natural Grassland Beef’ is now on

sale in the Argentinean market73. It is also expected that other countries such as Uruguay,

Brazil and Paraguay, where pilot projects are also in place, will start to sell the produce in

their local markets. Additionally, this sustainable meat will soon be evaluated to European

export standards (the World Bank, 2012).

The model is also being exported to the USA where the National Audubon Society is

partnering with ranchers who own the remaining natural grasslands to develop market-

based management that benefits prairie birds and ecosystems. In collaboration, the Birdlife

Flyways Programme is set to demonstrate and communicate these grassland management

and conservation techniques more widely throughout the Americas. Eventually, it will trial

bird-friendly adaptive grassland management plans at existing Important Bird Areas (IBAs)

used by flagship species in four countries, in the hopes of securing long-term support for

grassland conservation and generating new funding opportunities throughout the

hemisphere (Fowlie, 2013).

2.1.4 Forest Garden Products and the International Analog Forestry

Network

Forest Garden Products (FGPs) are outputs of a system which focuses on biodiversity and

ecosystem recovery in combination with organic farming on small farm plots. This label

certifies agricultural products which are grown in analog forests (AF), degraded areas that

are being restored analogous to the original ecosystems that existed before deforestation,

development, and/or other degrading pressures were present. The International Analog

Forestry Network (IAFN) is responsible for setting standards for and, through an

independent third-party organisation, certifying these agricultural products. This

government-supported certification encompasses the requirements of most organic

certification, but includes additional criteria to further the protection of biodiversity and to

facilitate ecosystem restoration through research, design, and application of the AF system.

73 http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2011/08/30/primera-carne-pastizal

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/2011/08/30/primera-carne-pastizal

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/2011/08/30/primera-carne-pastizal



206

The IAFN has members in the USA, Canada, Costa Rica, Spain, and Australia. Within

participating farms over 500 hectares of land are currently managed under AF restoration

practices (NB: this is the area being restored, not the total area of the farm involved). AF is

a relatively new certification concept, and most of its implementation has been on small,

organic plot farms. The relatively small area managed with AF principles owes to the fact

that farmers may choose to only designate a small piece of their farmland to AF restoration.

FGP certified products already have an increasing demand on organic and fair trade

markets in Europe and the USA, and an increasing number of producers are seeking

certification for their export products that originate from Forest Garden sustainable and

diversified methods (Gamboa and Hendricks). Currently, FGP standards are being

evaluated by the International Foundation for Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM)

assessment committee for inclusion in their Family of Standards. In addition, FGP

standards are currently being adapted to certify responsibly-mined minerals as well as

ecosystem services.

3 Payments for ecosystem services (PES)

Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) are a new market mechanism in which service

suppliers are paid by beneficiaries to manage the ecosystems in such a way to enhance or

continue the service provision. Agri-environment payments that have been in place for a

long time are examples of PES and new applications are emerging in Europe (e.g. on water

catchments – SCAMP and Vittel for example).

PES schemes have been tried in many different contexts and therefore they are relatively

well understood and ready for further implementation attempts. There is considerable

potential for the private sector to fund ecosystem restoration through the purchase of

ecosystem services. For example through the extent to which existing schemes for water

services (see the case studies) can be expanded.

IEEP et al (2013) identified that privately financed PES schemes outside of those industries

that use water directly are rare in Europe. Water is particularly suited to PES for the

following reasons:

Security of water supply and water quality are direct, tangible, quantifiable inputs to

many industries, and is well understood by those industries.

The science linking upstream areas and down-stream water quality is relatively robust.

Catchments and water courses are bounded, i.e. there is generally one direction of

provision of ecosystem services, and therefore the link between a downstream buyer

and upstream seller of ecosystem services is strong.

Those companies that use water have a strong understanding of the direct ties they

have to the ecosystem services. The perception of the dependence between an industry

and an ecosystem service influences the potential application of privately financed PES.


207

A scheme depends on providers having sufficient control over environmental assets so that

they can manage them to provide improvements in ecosystem services to beneficiaries.

These conditions are not always available, even in bi-lateral relationships between

providers and beneficiaries. There are even greater challenges in organising multilateral

schemes over appropriate spatial scales. It should be noted that where scales become

large and require significant capital investment PPP arrangements or bonds may be

suitable.

Water-based PES schemes can involve maintaining ecosystems, but many are in areas

where water resources have deteriorated noticeably, such that the PES is established to

restore ecosystems in order to restore the water resources to previous levels.

4 Nature Based Tourism

Tourism and recreation ecosystem services value recognised as substantial for Natura

network in Section 2. They are a major, but usually indirect, impact from high-quality

ecosystems in the EU. The existence of nature based tourism may not, in most instances,

itself fund ecosystem restoration directly. However, many tourism and recreation operators

who rely on ecosystems for their business trade finance restoration activities under

programs that could be considered PES. Examples of such activities can be found amongst

members of the 1% for the Planet initiative74

. Members of the 1% for the Planet initiative,

including some tourism companies, donate 1% of sales to NGOs that are part of an

approved network.

However, growth in tourism and recreation markets can be an important consequence of

restoring ecosystems, and may provide a source of revenue to maintain ecosystems after

they have been restored. This can help encourage funding of restoration by the public

sector or other private sector actors for different reasons, such as:

6. By aligning restoration programmes with the rural development agenda. Upfront

estimates of employment and income from tourism and ancillary services

(accommodation, restaurant, retail supplies, crafts) can be significant particularly in

remoter areas where alternative livelihoods are least in evidence – and multiplier effects

tend to be stronger (lower spending leakage from the local economy)

7. By attracting direct contributions: e.g. from corporate sponsorship for PR or CSR

purposes, local bed levy (where hypothecated: voluntary via trade association

agreements, or compulsory via tax), or contributions from establishment of private or

community conservation conservancies etc

8. By linking with urban social issues – youth at risk, youth development, healthcare and

conflict resolution, where areas of wilder nature can facilitate benefits – often as part of

a broader remedial programme. These initiatives are relatively recent and small scale,

but potentially have good budget backing (from Interior Ministries, Probation & Health

Services), their benefits are quantifiable, and above all they are seen to have wider

74 http://onepercentfortheplanet.org/

http://onepercentfortheplanet.org/


208

societal relevance, particularly to urban politicians for whom the general conservation

agenda is often a marginal priority.

The potential for recreation and tourism to support restoration in this way will vary with local

conditions. This is linked to the fact that the value of ecosystem restoration for recreation

and tourism will vary depending on the number of people (visitors or resident population)

with access to a site, and the substitute sites available. In areas with greater levels of

ecosystem degradation (and/or fewer opportunities to access high-quality environments),

ecosystem restoration would be expected to have greater value per person amongst the

people whom can access the restored ecosystem

4.1 Conservation Birding

In an effort to formalise nature-tourism support for nature conservation, the American Bird

Conservancy (ABC) has launched an initiative (available via

http://www.conservationbirding.org/index.html) which allows birders to find lodges that

contribute to bird conservation in the Americas. There are currently conservation projects

along bird routes over six countries75 in South America that are funded by this bird

watching-specific form of eco-tourism.

Travellers can choose a lodge in one of 18 participating reserves after viewing information

about the local and migrant species, birding routes, accommodation, trails and tours, and

the conservation projects their visit will help to fund. The main goals of the ABC are to

safeguard the rarest species, conserve habitats and elimination threats to protect all birds

through a foundation of building partner capacity, effective alliances, conservation science,

and support (conservationbirding.org).

5 National Taxation

Hypothecation of Tax Revenues to Biodiversity Spending in Bulgaria76

Established in 2002, the Bulgarian Enterprise for Management of Environmental Protection

Activities (EMEPA) is a state-owned not-for-profit organisation. Before Bulgaria’s accession

into the EU, it was the largest source of funding for biodiversity conservation. EMEPA’s

revenue comes from taxes for water usage according to the Water Act, and taxes from

other environment protection legislation/ Acts.

The main role of the EMEPA is to implement environmental projects in accordance with

national and regional strategies. EMEPA funds projects in the form of grants and low

interest, or interest-free loans. The EMEPA funds:

Water and waste water management;

Environmental investment projects;

75 Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Bolivia, Costa Rica, and Brazil.

76 Source: http://www.ceeweb.org/4886/financing-nature-in-cee-countries/

http://www.conservationbirding.org/index.html

http://www.ceeweb.org/4886/financing-nature-in-cee-countries/


209

Applied scientific research and development;

Development and maintenance of the National Environment and Waters Monitoring

System;

Educational and awareness campaigns;

Management plans for National Parks;

Biodiversity conservation;

The establishment of Natura 2000 in Bulgaria; and

The new edition of the Bulgarian Red Data Book

National Park management activities

The annual budget for 2011 was around €31,500,000 (BGN 61,600,000 at a rate of €1 =

1.95583 BGN in 2011). The amount of money specifically given to ‘Biodiversity’ from the

EMEPA decreased in 2007 due to the introduction of the OPE (Operational Program Fund)

which gets most of its money from the ERDF (European Regional Development Fund). The

OPE is now the biggest donor for biodiversity conservation in Bulgaria since its accession to

the EU.

The EMEPA was a positive example of how water taxes can be used for biodiversity

conservation. However, there is a lack of transparency with the EMPA fund; the money is

distributed according to the programme of the minister and there are no clear rules for

applying for funding. This opaqueness in the management of the fund, and the undertaking

of huge projects without serious studies/background checks, led to accusations of mis-use

of funds.


210

Kantoren www.arcadisbelgium.be

Antwerpen- Berchem

Citylink - Posthofbrug 12

B-2600 Berchem

T +32 3 360 83 00

F +32 3 360 83 01

Hasselt

Eurostraat 1 – bus 1

B-3500 Hasselt

T +32 11 28 88 00

F +32 11 28 88 01

Gent

Kortrijksesteenweg 302

B-9000 Gent

T +32 9 242 44 44

F +32 9 242 44 45

Brussel

Koningsstraat 80

B-1000 Brussel

T +32 2 505 75 00

F +32 2 505 75 01

Liège

26, rue des Guillemins, 2ème étage

B-4000 Liège

T +32 4 349 56 00

F +32 4 349 56 10

Charleroi

119, avenue de Philippeville

B-6001 Charleroi

T +32 71 298 900

F +32 71 298 901

ARCADIS Belgium nv/sa

BTW BE 0426.682.709

RPR BRUSSEL

ING 320-0687053-72

IBAN BE 38 3200 6870 5372

SWIFT BIC BBRUBEBB

Maatschappelijke zetel

Brussel

Koningsstraat 80

B-1000 Brussel