1

DEBRIEF Stakeholder Workshop

'Nature-Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities'1

8 December 2014, Brussels

Introduction

Context

The Stakeholder Workshop 'Nature-Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities' held in Brussels on 8

December 2014 was part of an on-going multi-stakeholder dialogue which aims at contributing to

developing a Research & Innovation (R&I)agenda on Nature-Based Solutions (2014-2020). The

objective of this EU R&I agenda is to position Europe as world leader both in R&I and in the global

market of Nature-Based Solutions. Four challenges have been highlighted by the work of the

Horizon2020 Expert Group on 'Nature-Based Solutions and Re-naturing Cities':

Sustainable Urbanisation

Restoration of Degraded Ecosystems

Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation

Improved Risk Management and Resilience.

The objective of the workshop was to encourage discussion on the most promising strategic

opportunity areas for an EU R&I agenda on Nature-Based Solutions, as well as specific R&I actions

required to achieve these opportunities. Relevant actors and possible indicators (of implementation

success) were also debated. 56 participants from different sectors, including government, business,

finance, academia, policy, CSOs attended the workshop (link to participant list). Discussions were

held in parallel break-out groups (corresponding to the four challenges), using the outcomes of the E-

consultation on Nature-Based Solutions of 12 November 2014 as a starting point. Each break-out

group was introduced to the e-consultation results by the respective moderators of the e-

consultation. The break-out group moderation was done by a professional moderator, and results

were reported back to the plenary sessions by a volunteer participant .

1 The results in this report reflect the discussions of the Stakeholder Workshop on Nature-Based Solutions and

Re-Naturing Cities of 8 December 2014. It does not necessarily represent the views of the European Commission.

2

Main Conclusions

Sustainable Urbanisation focused its discussions on resilient cities, health & well-being, and urban

Living Labs (click here for a detailed report of the session). Discussions in the Restoration of Degraded

Ecosystems session focused on using Nature-Based Solutions for regulating pollution and natural

resource management, integration of urban planning and land restoration, integrating sustainable

agriculture and climate change adaptation and mitigation (click here for a detailed report of the

session). The Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation session emphasised the need for a holistic

approach and focused on the use of green infrastructure for protection from gradual (slow) climate

change impacts and from extreme weather events, and on bio-mimetic solutions. (click here for a

detailed report of the session). Improved Risk Management and Resilience focused on extreme water

level and prevention (click here for a report account of the session). There was significant overlap

across all four sessions. For example, urban issues and agriculture were discussed within the context

of all four challenges.

Overarching issues and plenary discussions resulted in the following conclusions:

Adopt an integrated and holistic regional landscape approach. There was an overall consensus on

the need to adopt an integrated and holistic urban/spatial planning approach. This is also the case

for cities, which are not independent of the wider environment / landscape / seascape (and the

people that live and work elsewhere). Programmes for research and innovation on Nature-Based

Solutions should therefore also address the interconnectedness and the interdependencies between

urban and non-urban areas (and people).

Innovate with "living labs" and diverse stakeholders. The idea of “living labs” for innovation and

experimentation on Nature-Based Solutions, both within and outside the urban context, was raised

several times at the workshop. Such living labs can provide the ground for inter- and trans-

disciplinary research and innovation, however the issue of interconnectedness with the broader

landscape should not be ignored. Nature-Based Solutions deliver benefits to diverse stakeholders,

hence the full stakeholder spectrum and their multiple values need to be considered.

Value the multiple benefits. The need for research and innovation on the valuation of the multiple

benefits of Nature-Based Solutions – also in the longer term, as well as into assessment tools was

also a recurring message. Indeed, the valuation (monetary and non-monetary) of the multiple

benefits of Nature-Based Solutions and the development of performance indicators, standards,

technical and scientific reference models for Nature-Based Solutions is necessary for their wider and

systemic implementation.

Create the suitable institutional and financial frameworks. Research and innovation into

governance practices including decision-making processes, constraints and opportunities related to

institutional and regulatory frameworks, as well as the development of new financial instruments are

all necessary to create a market for Nature-Based Solutions.

Map and build-on existing knowledge, and innovate. Research and innovation on Nature-Based

Solutions should include novel approaches, while also learning from and building on existing tools

3

and methods, knowledge, databases and networks. Connecting existing networks as well as “learning

by comparing" are additional strategies that are recommended.

Opening plenary session

Kurt Vandenberghe, Director of Climate Action and Resource Efficiency (EC, DG Research &

Innovation) emphasized the need for smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth. R&I policy on Nature-

Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities will support this type of growth by transforming societal

challenges into innovation opportunities. Nature-Based Solutions go beyond technological innovation

to include all possible innovations: business, finance, regulatory, governance, organisational and

social innovation. Solutions will be co-designed and co-created with stakeholders and maximise the

economic, social and environmental co-benefits. Universities, private sector, public sector and the

civil society are invited to work together to find a robust and scientific approach to Nature-Based

Solutions.

Dirk Sijmons, Professor of Landscape Architecture at Delft University of Technology, provided

illustrative examples of Nature-Based Solutions with a focus on the urban context, from the sixth

edition of the International Architecture Biennale Rotterdam

(http://iabr.nl/en/editie/urbanbynature).

Wilhelm Krull, Secretary General of VolkswagenStiftung H2020 and chair of the Horizon2020 Nature-

Based Solutions Expert Group, presented the work of the Expert Group, including the evolution of

the concept and definition of Nature-Based Solutions, as well as the underlying principles of R&I

actions within this policy. These include capitalising on existing knowledge, promoting responsible

innovation (i.e. integrating social, economic and environmental considerations), delivering role-

models to promote up-scaling, creating opportunities for capacity-building, fostering trans-

disciplinary and multi-stakeholder involvement, innovating with governance, finance and business

models, and leveraging both public and private sources of funding.

Horst Korn, Chair of the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS,

http://www.epbrs.org/) described the platform which is a science-policy interface with more than 15

years of experience and with a good foundation in the national networks. The platform is used to

deal with overarching issues like Nature-Based Solutions, and has extensively dealt with topics like

sustainable use and sustainable development. The EPBRS platform facilitated the organisation of the

e-consultation on Nature Based Solutions.

Jurgen Tack, CEO of Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) and co-chair of EPBRS,

presented the main outcomes of the e-consultation. These included the need to adopt a broader

systemic/ holistic thinking, the need for further clarification on the definition of Nature-Based

Solutions also by integrating existing (ecosystem-based) concepts, the need to think and work within

the full stakeholder spectrum and to increase awareness within a broader public, and to better

quantify and qualify the economic dimension, also on the long term.

4

Birgit de Boissezon, Head of Unit Sustainable Management of Natural Resources (EC, DG Research &

Innovation) concluded the opening plenary with an outline of the day's programme and objectives

(agenda).

5

Feedback from the Break-Out Group Session on

Sustainable Urbanisation

Ania Rok (session moderator) Marina Tsalkatidou (volunteer rapporteur) Luise Noring (E-Consultation introducer) Ugo Guarnacci & Marie Yeroyanni (EC rapporteurs) Strategic Opportunity Areas (Table 1.1)

Cities as labs and hubs for innovation and experimentation in the field of Nature-Based

Solutions

Systemic urban governance

Nature-Based Solutions for health, wellbeing and social cohesion

Urban farming for self-sustained urban economy

R&I Actions to consider, practical steps and key actors (Table 1.2)

Cities as labs and hubs for innovation and experimentation in the field of Nature-

Based Solutions The following types of actions were identified as needed: demonstration projects with a strong

replication and up-scaling capacity, relying on existing city networks to match the frontrunners and

followers and support the peer-to-peer learning process. The attention should also fall both on

historic districts and dismissed industrial sites that are not functioning anymore in order to enhance

their attractiveness and convert their use. Strong attention should be also paid here to visionary

approaches for innovating cities with nature, combing engineering and scientific approaches (i.e. eco-

dynamic solutions). In addition, the demonstration projects should prove the added value of Nature-

Based Solutions for energy efficiency and climate change resilience in particular in contrasting urban

heat island effect, improving air quality and reducing noise. The focus on experimentation,

particularly in terms of initiatives that could offer combined social, environmental and economic

benefits, should be grounded in reflection on how to adequately measure impact of these

experiments (time scale, distribution, quantitative or qualitative, learning outcomes, etc.) in a way

that would not discourage involved actors from going beyond the status quo.

Systemic urban governance There is a need for overarching coordination in order to map, analyse and assess existing successful

business models, financing mechanisms and municipal initiatives to innovate cities with nature while

adopting a systemic, multi-stakeholder and trans-disciplinary approach. The focus should be not only

6

on capital cities but also on small-medium cities and regional perspective. Moreover, there is a need

to propose and suggest tools and training for innovating architects, practitioners and policy makers.

Nature-Based Solutions for health, wellbeing and social cohesion The focus, according to the discussion, should be on behavioural aspects and experimental

approaches aimed at understanding the values that may drive citizen behaviour, their relationship to

nature and willingness to develop/adopt Nature-Based Solutions. In particular, the need to involve

children and youth was highlighted. Moreover, more research is needed on the positive effects of

Nature-Based Solutions in hospitals, schools and other public spaces, highlighting and assessing not

only the environmental positive impact, but also the economic and social added value for health,

wellbeing and cohesion (including security). The process of urban gentrification in this context should

also be investigated, taking into account gender issues.

Urban farming for self-sustained urban economy Urban Circular Economy was considered to be too broad to be addressed in such a short space. There

is a need to further define this term, looking at it also in the context of reindustralisation of European

cities, and of support to innovative SMEs. The group recommended to focus on urban farming for

self-sustained urban economy.

Research and innovation in this area should promote a landscape approach (city-scape both for

“green” and “blue” cities close to sea, lake and rivers) with particular attention to the urban/peri-

urban link and to transition initiatives led by different stakeholders (including SMEs) involved in the

demand-supply chain for strong local economies that inspire urban renaissance.

7

STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY AREA (or PROBLEMS TO SOLVE)

AREAS OF INNOVATION

(what are the current 'promising' areas of innovation and action in NBS, within the

strategic opportunity areas?)

NBS for health & wellbeing

. Value creation

. Evidence-based design

. Green historical buildings

. Indoor

cities as living labs

. Integrated governance

. Adaptive management

. Dynamic policy, space for change

. Attractive city

. Community building

urban circular economy (urban metabolism)

. Reindustrialisation

. Support SMEs

. New consumer-producer relationships

. Data leads to action

. Self-sufficiency

. Food waste

climate change resilience

. tech/eco connection

. Balance

. Adaptive capacity

. Risk & resilience

. Soil

. Air quality and noise

. Urban-rural interface

. Technical networks

. Urban landscapes

. Awareness for nature as a solution

Table 1.1: SUSTAINABLE URBANISATION - WORKSHOP, BREAKOUT GROUP 1

Note: During the first breakout group, the group discussed strategic opportunity areas and potential areas of innovation. From these areas, there

was agreement that some opportunity areas, and some innovation areas, were particularly promising and/or significant. These are marked in

bold.

8

Chosen Solution (for one or

spanning more than one

areas of innovation)

R&I Actions

PRACTICAL STEPS

1. What actions are needed to make the commercial use of NBS

in each sector possible?

2. How could we stimulate the market for this NBS?

3. If far from commercialisation, what knowledge is needed

before commercialisation is possible?

4. What knowledge-generating processes will be required?

How long will these processes take and what will they consist

of?

5. How do we formulate these actions into strategies?

ACTORS

(who can make the action happen?)

INDICATORS

(how would we measure success?

What outcomes should we look

for?)

. planning for heat island effect . Start with a needs survey

. Demonstrate solutions

. Show impact

. Produce assessments of sustainability

. Build platforms for exchange

. Develop metrics and monitor

. Flood & drought, solved through combining

water to transport heat (veg. species)

. Combine

. Grey-black water recycling . Start with a needs survey

. Demonstrate solutions

. Show impact

. Produce assessments of sustainability

. Build platforms for exchange

. Develop metrics and monitor

. Green buildings, passive heating & cooling . Assess sustainability

. Use green spaces for carbon sequestration . Start with a needs survey

. Demonstrate solutions

. Show impact

. Produce assessments of sustainability

. Build platforms for exchange

. Develop metrics and monitor

how can cities be

resilient?

Table 1.2: SUSTAINABLE URBANISATION - WORKSHOP, BREAKOUT GROUP 2

Note: During the second breakout group, the group discussed in greater detail the strategic opportunity areas identified as promising in the first session. For these, Research and Innovation actions, practical steps, and actors

were identified.

9

. Design public space for quality of life . Create inventory, build networks

. Pay attention to the scale

. Evidence-based design . Produce "fair" cost/benefits analysis

. Values and/or monetise

. Acceptable distances . Social innovation

. Community benefits / value resources . Access to services

. Ownership

. Openness of data

. Deal with pollution . Do not forget indoor pollution

. City as a lab, can be used to test & explore

policy questions through application and

demonstration

. Engage in: data mapping and intergation

. What time scale?

. Ensure local NBS reflect local needs

. Replication of NBS in other cities/regions through up-scaling

. Capitalise on existing results

. How many cities should be involved?

. How many ecosystems?

. Urbact network

. Avoid stakeholder fatigue by working in

smaller groups

. City as a hub, of creativity and social

innovation

. Research by design

. Indicators for circular economy?

health & wellbeing

urban living labs

10

Feedback from the break-out group session on

Restoration of Degraded Ecosystems

Heidi Wittmer (session moderator) Fabien Quetier & Machteld Schoolenberg (volunteer rapporteurs) Bill Sutherland (E-Consultation Introducer) Attilio Gambardella (EC rapporteur)

Strategic opportunity areas (Table 2.1)

To begin, the group agreed that the area “green cities” (identified during the E-Consultation) should

have not been discussed in this session. Together with the areas, “Using Nature-Based Solutions for

regulating pollution and natural resources management” and “Integration of urban planning and land

restoration”, another opportunity area that was considered of relevance was “integrating sustainable

agriculture and climate change adaptation and mitigation”. The group then decided to further

address all the three areas mentioned above in the second part of the discussion..

Areas of innovation (Table 2.1)

Within the three strategic opportunity areas, promising sectors identified for innovation in Nature-

Based Solutions – where Nature-Based Solutions have been proven to be effective, cost-efficient and

upscale-ready – are sustainable land/water management practices (water catchments management,

afforestation, use of vegetation to reduce soil erosion, re-use of brownfields to minimize use of peri-

urban land) and restoration of ecosystems functions (e.g. coastal areas).

Within this context it is important to stress the potential role of EU regional and structural funds as

well as the link with relevant EU policies, such as Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), Water

Framework Directive (WFD), Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), Common Fisheries Policy

(CFP) which can offer additional funding opportunities (e.g. CAP funds for soil erosion are currently

underused).

R&I Actions to consider, practical steps and key actors (Table 2.2)

There is a need for clearer definition, delimitation and explanation of the concept of Nature-Based

Solutions.

11

There is a need to have research on decision-making processes (governance) and on measurable

performance indicators (interdisciplinary). More in detail, there is a need for research on:

how to assess the value (not just monetary: benefits provided to society) of an ecosystem (as

natural capital), not just looking at each ecosystem service separately;

how to compare decisions against non-monetary criteria (e.g. Multiple-Criteria Decision

Analysis) and how to include these criteria into the decision making process (e.g. resilience);

how to include risk analyses into the implementation of Nature-Based Solutions etc. (e.g.

invasive species, biodiversity impacts, natural hazards, etc.)

business models for capturing/incorporating the value of ecosystems and ecosystem

services, and then mainstreaming them into planning and economic decisions.

Overall it is important to develop an integrated approach that addresses all relevant issues at

national level, which then needs to be specified for each area.

Specific Research & Innovation Actions may include:

Modification of built-structures, or different way of building, to rebuild/re-create ecosystems

functions (e.g. wind farms, harbours, sea walls in coastal ecosystems to improve resilience of

coastal lines to erosion).

Innovative methods for CO2 sequestration and soil conservation

Innovative governance / implementation of ecosystem conservation and restoration.

Role of vegetation in the deployment of Nature-Based Solutions: how vegetation reacts to

extreme weather patterns, diversity cultivars and varieties adapted to climate change.

Clearer knowledge on local soil biodiversity as basis to restore it also with regard to

structure, health and reduction of pollutants.

12

STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY AREA

(or PROBLEMS TO SOLVE)

AREAS OF INNOVATION

(what are the current 'promising' areas of

innovation and action in NBS, within the strategic

opportunity areas?)

Has this solution been proven to

be effective, and is it cost-efficient?

Is it upscale-ready and

transferable?

Is the solution close to the market/wider use? Is

there demand for it? What are the barriers to

wider implementation?

1. Using NBS for regulating

pollution and Natural Resources

Management (NMR)

a) - managing water catchments for multipurpose

benefits;

- "Afforestation" + rewetting of peatlands.

b) - restoring natural coastal functions;

- restoring marine ecosystems.

c) - use of vegetation to reduce soil erosion.

d) innovative governance / implementation of

ecosystem conservation and restoration

Yes

Yes

Good evidence saltmarsh

Evidence inter subtidal (non EU)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

EU behind North America

?

BARRIERS:

Price of land

Lack of awareness

Land ownership and national regulations

Knowledge exchange (outside EU)

link to relevant policies and funding WFD, MSFD,

CFP

2. Integration of urban planning

and land restoration

a) Minimize use of peri-urban land -(stimulate re-use

of brownfields)

b) Planning land restoration

?Yes

BARRIERS:

Planning, Who decides?

Cost effective for whom?

Very regulated in many countries

Scaling of decision making process

3. Integrating sustainable

agriculture and climate change

adaptation and mitigation

a) sustainable land + water management practices

b) innovation in agriculture for climate change

mitigation

c) innovation + markets for Environmental services

Water harvesting = effect

Connect with food production or

other use

Under-used Common

agriculture Policy (CAP) should

be used.

?

Table 2.1: RESTORATION OF DEGRADED ECOSYSTEMS - WORKSHOP, BREAKOUT GROUP 1, PART 1

Note: During the first breakout group, the Restoration group discussed strategic opportunity areas and potential areas of innovation.Three were chosen, and were rated in terms of effectiveness,

transferability etc.

13

Chosen Solution (for one or

spanning more than one areas

of innovation)

R&I Actions

PRACTICAL STEPS

1. What actions are needed to make the commercial use of NBS in each sector

possible?

2. How could we stimulate the market for this NBS?

3. If far from commercialisation, what knowledge is needed before

commercialisation is possible?

4. What knowledge-generating processes will be required? How long will these

processes take and what will they consist of?

5. How do we formulate these actions into strategies?

ACTORS

(who can make the action

happen?)

INDICATORS

(how would we

measure success?

What outcomes

should we look for?)

1. Using NBS for regulating

pollution and Natural

Resources Management

(NMR)

a) - managing water catchments for

multipurpose benefits;

- "Afforestation" + rewetting of peatlands.

b) - restoring natural coastal functions;

- restoring marine ecosystems.

c) - use of vegetation to reduce soil erosion.

d) innovative governance / implementation

of ecosystem conservation and restoration

Local biodiversity should be the starting point for restoration

1) Identifying the effectiveness of "single" "local" solutions

a) what are the benefits of landscape scale interventions? On water flow, Ph,

fisheries, etc.

Solutions should build on the above (effectiveness of single measures)

a) similar approach might be applicable to all areas

b) Identify potential restoration objective/targets

Modify (or build in a different way) built-structures (e.g. wind farm, harbours, sea

walls) to rebuild/re-create coastal ecosystems

Eco-designed infrastructure (e.g. green roof in a city)

Improve resilience of coastal lines to erosion by rebuilding coastal ecosystems

c) Soils (pollution)+ forests and their interactions, people do not want to build on

polluted soil - change ways of restoration

Water companies

Risk authorities, coastal

management

Different of authorities

involved in coastal

management

Table 2.2: RESTORATION OF DEGRADED ECOSYSTEMS - WORKSHOP, BREAKOUT GROUP 2

Note: In the second breakout group, these all three strategic opportunity areas were further discussed. Research and innovation actions required to develop the solutions further were continued to be analysed and

developed, as well as practical steps, relevant actors, and indicators of success.

14

2. Integration of urban

planning and land restoration

a) Minimize use of peri-urban land -

(stimulate re-use of brownfields)

b) Planning land restoration

Local biodiversity should be the starting point for restoration

Research on what should be restored, and how to decide, and how to measure

success

How to actually do the restoration, particularly cost-effective restoration incl. Long

term management, risks, resilience, especially if animals will destroy them ("geese in

restored lakes")

Upscaling requires testing + research + learn how to manage "adapt. management"

Tools to assess the value/benefits of ecosystems including non-monetary values

includ. by MCDA

Business models to mainstream the values generated; Ways to manage exernalities,

or liabilities-based

How to build the institutional arrangements to make these business models

compete with urban land use or intensive agriculture?

Safeguards or restoration actions that minimize ecological but also social impacts

(invasive alien species)

Governments +

authorities at different

scales local-regiona-

national

Researchers +

practitioners involved

Business including farms,

fish, forestry …

Civil society organisations

(everywhere except

purely technology)

Planning authorities

European Investment

Bank

peak + low flows, N,

water colour,

economic

investments,

biodiversity, fisheries,

quality of life.

Persistance of habitat,

fisheries.

3. Integrating sustainable

agriculture and climate

change adaptation and

mitigation

a) sustainable land + water management

practices

b) innovation in agriculture for climate

change mitigation

c) innovation + markets for Environmental

services

Local biodiversity should be the starting point for restoration

a) innovative methods for CO2 sequestration and soil conservation; cultural

landscape approach (mosaic, blue and green infrastructure)

b) how does vegetation react to extreme weather patterns

Requirements for implementation of a) including governance + investments +

knowledge exchange + management (both a) and b))

Research on nutrient recycling and access to nutrients (esp. in Europe)

c) Clearer knowledge on local soil biodiversity as basis of production + how to

restore it also with regard to structure, health and reduction of pollutants

Intensifying agriculture sustainably including all options - high-tech innovations,

vertical farming, agro ecology, fossil-fuel-free

Diversity cultivars + varieties adapted to climate change

d) business model for environmental services

WOCAT

EIB

World Bank

15

Feedback from the Break-Out Group Session on Climate change adaptation and mitigation

Martin Watson (session Moderator) Ernst-Jan Mul & David Avelar (volunteer rapporteurs) Pam Berry (E-Consultation Introducer) Eleni Manoli (EC rapporteur)

Strategic Opportunity Areas

An initial, key consideration addressed by the break-out group concerned the fact that Nature-Based

Solutions should address both climate change adaptation and climate change mitigation objectives,

rather than be considered a single-purpose solution, to either adapt to climate change or only

mitigate green-house gas (GHG) emissions. In addition, the strategic opportunity areas initially

defined through the e-consultation were broadened and expanded to address:

Slow onset climate change impacts (i.e. gradual climate change), as well as protection from

extreme weather events;

Mitigation/restoration of past GHG emissions;

The holistic approach needed across all priorities on which the Nature-Based Solutions is

working on (sustainable urbanization, restoration of degraded ecosystems, climate change

adaptation and mitigation, improved risk management) to identify and address cross-overs

among them and identify/meet complementary objectives.

For the complete list of Strategic Opportunity Areas, please refer to the Table 3.1.

Particularly on the holistic approach, the group noted that solutions should at least integrate

adaptation and mitigation objectives, and address both regulatory and policy requirements (and

especially the regulatory frameworks that inevitably create the boundary conditions for the wide

implementation of Nature-Based Solutions).

Areas of innovation

The group identified a set of promising areas for innovation under each of the four Strategic

Opportunity Areas, as well as links among them (see relevant Table 3.1 and Table 3.2). Broadly

speaking, and under all four Strategic Opportunity areas, the following common innovation areas

were identified:

16

Green infrastructure, both at the city level (urban green infrastructure), and at the river

basin/watershed level. Despite the fact that green infrastructure is already being

implemented in several cities across Europe (e.g. London and Barcelona), there are specific

needs for further research and innovation, mostly relating to the development of a

systematic approach to embed/integrate green infrastructure to the urban environment,

new buildings, coastal management plans.

The following aspects were highlighted:

o The dense urban fabric requires new types of urban nature.

o ‘Urban green’ is closely linked to human health and well-being.

o Air quality should be addressed together with the other challenges.

o Existing economic assessments from European cities showcase that green

infrastructure can be indeed an economically attractive and efficient solution, when

the many co-benefits are taken into account.

o The integration of green infrastructure can be an interesting area for companies and

property developers to work with, as it increases the value of real estate

developments, but often the business case is not made.

o A holistic thinking is needed across sectors (e.g. water management, energy

efficiency/use, land use) to mobilise stakeholders and get more impact from actions;

the most promising sectors (and the cross-sectoral trade-offs and co-benefits) should

be identified.

o Integrated assessments are still needed for low-regret and no-regret measures (such

universal and systematic frameworks do not appear to exist or be systematically

applied).

o Green education for Nature-Based Solutions in cities can also help to boost their

implementation.

o At the watershed/river basin level, ‘green management’ should also address

enhancement of water retention and infiltration to cope with extreme events (both

floods and droughts).

Biomimicry can provide solutions both for carbon sequestration and for climate change

adaptation (the latter case by looking at how living organisms/nature responds and adapts to

weather/hydro-meteorological extremes and climate change).

Urban agriculture, when done the ‘Nature-Based Solutions way’, can also be promising. Main

benefits include the shortening of food loops and the fact that urban agriculture can be a

source of social innovation, bringing together local communities. The potential economic

value is also high as urban agriculture can create new types of jobs in the urban environment

and economic loops for the local economy. Urban gardening can also have short-term

benefits (e.g. property value increase). Nonetheless, the derived economic value will also

depend on local market conditions for agricultural products and for properties/land.

17

R&I actions, Practical Steps and Key Actors (Table 3.3)

From the three areas of innovation described above, the group decided to focus on green

infrastructure and biomimicry, as it was considered that the contribution of urban agriculture to

climate change adaptation and mitigation would be small overall. The group was split in two sub-

groups to analyse the two remaining areas of innovation, green infrastructure and biomimicry.

As a general comment, both sub-groups pointed out that the definition of Indicators ‘to measure

success’ would be difficult, because of the difference in time between R&I actions and impacts which

that would demonstrate effectiveness in terms of climate change adaptation and mitigation.

Green Infrastructure Four potential R&I actions were identified: (a) the development of value assessment tools, (b)

research on the interaction between (urban) greening and air pollution, (c) the development of

performance-based contracts for urban and real-estate development, and (d) innovation for high

density green infrastructure (e.g. green facades, etc.). Due to time limitations, the sub-group

analysed the a-c R&I actions.

Value assessment tools

Despite the fact that the multiple benefits of green infrastructure are broadly recognized, the low-

dynamic functions of green infrastructure are still badly valued from an economic point of view,

when compared to the highly dynamic functions provided e.g.by buildings, roads, transport

networks, etc. Research on these multiple benefits and ways through which they can be valorized is

still very much relevant. Examples on benefits that should be addressed within the context of

integrated methodology frameworks and subsequently implemented through studies include human

health, mental health and well-being, soft mobility, and others. Existing guidelines remain simplistic:

there are very few tools that can assess specific impacts in a specific context.

In the above framework, practical steps that R&I would need to address:

o The development of connections among the many different databases of solutions,

approaches, indicators that have been developed so far to provide a set of examples that are

proven and documented so as to facilitate replication;

o The linking/further development of existing tools to quantify benefits in a comparative, user-

friendly framework that looks at the whole lifecycle of solutions and values the actual return

to society;

o The creation of living labs within cities, as a demonstration space, empty of rules where new

forms of planning can be tested and demonstrated, and solutions can be translated to local

situations.

For such actions to work and develop replicable solutions, they would need to engage actors besides

R&D institutes, such as local governments, local societies, real estate developers, and contractors

taking up public tenders for infrastructure development.

18

Interaction between greening and air pollution

This was considered by the sub-group as an area where strategic research is still lacking to

understand how green infrastructure can help to mitigate air and noise pollution, and what can be

the corresponding economic benefits in terms of optimal design/location, reduction of health

expenditure and the meeting of quantitative air quality targets.

Based on the Barcelona example, it can be argued that practical steps would include a

comprehensive mapping, analysis and documentation of synergies and an analysis of cost savings

would provide the evidence-base much required to engage with the implementation of green

infrastructure solutions.

Besides R&D institutes, actors that should be engaged include health institutions and the health

sector in general, as well as the government at all levels (from local to national and the EU), as air

quality standards are set at national and EU levels.

Performance-based contracts

Performance-based contracts can be used to set quantitative targets for real estate developers and

public sector contractors for specific design objectives for new buildings/infrastructures, as well as

indicators for performance monitoring. Practical steps should first focus on providing an overview of

successful contracts/tenders that have managed to embed such targets and objectives. Targets and

monitoring indicators for performance and for the integration of green infrastructure should be co-

defined together with developers/contractors so that they are feasible and economically attractive,

and with local governments so that existing tendering procedures are modified in a way that is

beneficial also from the administrative and social point of view (see list of actors in the relevant

table). Pilot performance-based contracts can then be demonstrated and implemented through the

city living labs. Public buildings can also be an effective demonstration field.

Bio-inspiration/Biomimicry Examples of biomimetic solutions, which can be investigated through R&I actions are:

o Algae systems that capture CO2 or recycle organic waste as a carbon source to produce feed

or new energy, where larger scale demonstration is needed;

o Buildings with microalgae on the façade which can treat wastewater and provide other

ecosystem services;

o Bio-assistance, a form of biomimicry in which living organisms are put into ecological

systems. Some are examples are more nature-based, others more technology-based.

Examples of specific research and innovation actions would be to:

o Examine how energy is produced by nature (renewable energy), how nature uses it

efficiently (the concept can then apply to buildings) and how energy flows (can mimic energy,

water and heat flows);

o Analyse and apply nature concepts for climate change adaptation (biomimicry in adaptation).

For example, it has been discovered that different trees have different ways of conducting

water from the soil to the canopy, but trees that deal with drought have the same pattern of

movement i.e. have small channels and these are highly connected. This can be applied to

19

dealing with flood water. Similarly it has been found many small reservoirs for flood water

storage are better than a single large one.

o Upscale further bio-sequestration of carbon; there are already pilots but there is need to

adapt these to different industrial settings.

For commercializing solutions, it was pointed out that many of biomimicry adaptation benefits

appear in the longer-term, whereas the market is looking for short-term returns. Still, the analysis of

multiple benefits could speed up marketability and would be a way to ensure other revenue streams

to help the translation of the activity into an action which generates income.

As such, and in terms of practical steps, R&D funding would be needed to get the proof-of-concept

for the suggested solution, which should be communicated to the principal actors and main

stakeholders. Then, further funding would be needed for developing and proving scalability and this

is the area where funding is generally lacking. The full commercialization would then involve

addressing the market and potential investors.

Actors to engage in the development of biomimetic solutions for climate change adaptation would

include researchers, the insurance sector (provided that it can be demonstrated that the sector has

indeed an economic return/interest for investing in Nature-Based Solutions), local governments,

land-owners and real-estate planners.

In addition to traditional R&I actors, the further development of carbon bio-sequestration solutions

would include major CO2 emitting sectors (chemical, waste, the agro-food industry, etc.).

20

STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY AREA (or PROBLEMS TO SOLVE)

AREAS OF INNOVATION

(what are the current 'promising' areas of innovation and action in NBS, within the

strategic opportunity areas?)

Protection from gradual (slow) climate change and from

extreme weather events

Green infrastructure to fight surface flooding in cities

New building modes (houses) with embedded green infrastructure (roofs etc.)

NBS in water management for flood protection (sustainable management of river

basins)

Health (also looking at particular/sensitive population groups i.e. senior citizens)

New urban nature typologies between ecosystem function and service

Drought protection-water infiltration

Heatwaves protection- greening of cities city

Bio inspiration for adaptation to extreme events (immitating the adaptation of

ecosystems/living organisms to extreme events)

Climate change mitigation including a restorative approach

for the mitigation of past greenhouse gas emissions

Urban green for the mitigation of air pollution and climate change

Green walls in urban areas as part of the green infrastructure

Electrostatic fine dust "catcher" based on electric fields from tries (tested in Hong

Kong and by TU Delft)

Urban agriculture (GSA, …) as a solution for closed short loops, and a solution of

high social potential and with contribution to the local economy

Food production - mitigation (transition movement)

Carbon sequestration of past GHG emissions using biological systems/biomimicry

Integration of natural resource management and disaster

risk protection

Agricultural "waste" remediation by growing algae on effluents; preventing the

run-off of nutrients while creating valuable ingredients (tested in Netherlands)

Holistic approach

Integrated solutions that address/meet both adaptation and mitigation objectives

Identification and assessment of no regret and low regret measures for both

mitigation and adaptation

Integration of grey, blue & green infrastructures (database of solutions,

approaches & indicators, with proof of concept)

Integration of regulations and policy & Mainstreaming of CCAM into sectoral

policies (land use, transport, buildings, etc.): (a) Identify processes, stakeholders,

technologies; (b) sharing of capacity-building, opportunities).

New alliances in financing coastal adaptation (transition wheel)

Process architecture

Cross-over (between sectors) - trade-offs

Bio-inspiration/Bio-mimicry as an effective NBS tool

Table 3.1: CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION & MITIGATION - WORKSHOP, BREAKOUT GROUP 1, PART 1

Note: During the first breakout group, the CCAM group discussed strategic opportunity areas and potential areas of innovation. From these areas,

three were chosen which were rated in terms of effectiveness, transferability etc. These three are marked in bold.

21

Chosen Solution (for one or

spanning more than one areas of

innovation)

Has this solution been proven to be

effective, and is it cost-efficient?

Is it upscale-

ready and

transferable?

Is the solution close to the

market/wider use? Is there demand for

it? What are the barriers to wider

implementation?

Bio-inspiration/Biomimicry as an

effective tool for Nature-Based

Solutions

ENV: 5 (potentially)

ECON: to be investigated (depending on

carbon prices)

SOC: 3

YES: 5 YES: 5

Green Infrastructure (for

addressing flood risks, improving

health & well-being, attenuating

heatwaves, droughts, etc.)

ENV: 4

ECON: 4 (to be investigated)

SOC: 5

YES: 5 City Counci: 3-4

Urban Agriculture in a 'Nature-

Based Solutions' way

ENV: 4

ECON: 4

SOC: 5

YES: 5 ± 3-4/locally dependent

Table 3.2: CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION & MITIGATION - WORKSHOP, BREAKOUT GROUP 1, PART 2

Note: During the first breakout group, the CCAM group discussed strategic opportunity areas and potential areas of innovation. From these

areas, three were chosen which were rated in terms of effectiveness, transferability etc. Results are reported in this table.

22

Chosen Solution (for one or

spanning more than one

areas of innovation)

R&I Actions

PRACTICAL STEPS

1. What actions are needed to make the commercial use of NBS

in each sector possible?

2. How could we stimulate the market for this NBS?

3. If far from commercialisation, what knowledge is needed

before commercialisation is possible?

4. What knowledge-generating processes will be required?

How long will these processes take and what will they consist

of?

5. How do we formulate these actions into strategies?

ACTORS

(who can make the action happen?)

INDICATORS

(how would we measure success?

What outcomes should we look

for?)

Translating the adaption patterns of

ecosystems to climate stressors into

innovative solutions

1) Identify demands for solutions to specific stresses and

impacts

2) Mapping of examples

a) researchers

b) insurance, if it can be demonstrated that

they have vested interests

c) local government

d) land owners and real estate

Meteorological indicators of

extreme events and cost savings

(damage avoided)

R&D projects on biosequestration

R&D projects on carbon sequestration

Platforms for linking sequestration to mitigation and MNC CO2 emitting sectors e.g. chemical, waste,

agrofood

a) Price of CO2 equivalent

b) tracking carbon containing

waste streams

Bio-inspiration/Biomimicry

as an effective tool for

Nature-Based Solutions

Table 3.3: CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION & MITIGATION - WORKSHOP, BREAKOUT GROUP 2

Note: During the first breakout group, the CCAM group chose two solutions to focus on. In the second breakout group, these two solutions were further discussed. Research and innovation actions required to develop the

solutions further were identified, as well as practical steps, relevant actors, and indicators of success.

23

Value assessment tools a) Connect existing databases

b) Quantify through (by linking) existing tools

c) use living labs for urban development for applying tools

in practice

a) local government

b) local society

c) real estate developers

d) contractors

e) R&D institutes

R&D on the interaction between greening and

air polution

a) overview of existing effects

b) legal actions

a) health institutions

b) government & communities - local, national

and EU level

Performance-based contracts for urban/real-

estate development

a) Overview of successful contracts/tenders

b) Definition of targets for green infrastructure and indicators

for adopting instruments

c) connect /implement/demonstrate through living labs

a) local government

b) local society

c) real estate developers

d) contractors

e) R&D institutes

High density green infrastructure (e.g. green

facades, etc.)

Green Infrastructure (for

addressing flood risks,

improving health & well-

being, attenuating

heatwaves, droughts, etc.)

24

Feedback from the Break-Out Group Session on Improved Risk Management and Resilience

Stefanie Dannenmann (session Moderator) Marisol Estrella (volunteer rapporteur) Allan Watt (E-Consultation Introducer) Denis Peter (EC rapporteur)

Strategic opportunity areas (Table 4.1)

The first consideration addressed by the group was to agree that the discussion of Nature-Based

Solutions would mainly concern hydro-meteorological /climatological hazards (e.g. floods, low water

levels /drought, urban heat, wildfires). Following the more sectorial examples given in the original

tables, it was made clear that one should consider the landscape level (or watershed level) and the

several interconnections that exist from the mountains up to plains and the coastal areas or between

the rural-urban interface. An overall area called "extreme water level, prevention" merged the idea of

flood prevention and coastal risk considering not only excessive water situation but also low level

water cases (low stream rivers, drying issues, ..). Discussion of Nature-Based Solutions should

therefore be understood in the context of "integrated risk management ". Another possible area that

came out were: "Risk reduction through biodiversity & sustainable agriculture" and "risks in cities”.

Both topics were not addressed further as other groups dealt with them. The topic area "risk

management in mountains" would further be addressed in the context of “extreme water level

prevention”.

Area of innovation (Table 4.1)

Promoting ecosystem-based approaches, nature based solutions in the context of risk management

represents in itself an innovative approach that needs to be considered with a larger and integrated

risk management and planning perspective (with possible hybrid solutions of hard engineering and

ecosystem-based approaches).

25

R &I Actions to consider, practical steps and key actors (Table 4.1):

There is a clear need to have more evidence-based knowledge on Nature-Based Solutions (Eco-DRR)

in order to help the designers, engineers, planners, decision makers, etc. to consider them in relation

to other options and within a strategic risk management plan.

1. Developing technical and scientific references for Nature-Based Solutions Need to develop methods, protocols, standards, performance tools, guidance for the way to

compare green-grey-hybrid solutions for using and implementing Nature-Based Solutions for risk

management.

A practical step would be to go for regional test sites at high risk areas in order to develop a portfolio

of solutions. Two aspects need to be considered:

Identifying those zones which could be undertaken using natural capital mapping or so called

Eco-DRR opportunity mapping to identify areas where ecosystem based solutions can be

applied to manage or reduce risks, preferably at a large scale i.e. river basin scale

Literature review of all available guidelines/standards/protocols that exist for specific ecosystem

management solutions e.g. wetlands restoration, protection forests, forest fire.

2. Developing financial instruments/market for Nature-Based Solutions for risk

management There is a need to consider new roles of the financial/private sector in order to enable to create a

new market valuing Ecosystem services and their benefits, especially ecosystem regulatory services

that contribute to preventing/mitigating/regulating hazards that are often not valued or under-

valued. This would consider:

identifying, adapting PES (payment of ecosystem services) schemes specifically designed for

risk management, that would link upstream and downstream stakeholders

creating financial incentives to support Nature-Based Solutions for risk management e.g. tax

breaks, etc

working with insurance companies to develop innovative ways for promoting Nature-Based

Solutions for risk management e.g. pooling of insurance between towns/cities/countries,

Nature-Based Solutions linked to setting insurance premiums and pay-outs,

bringing together of key parties e.g. local governments (e.g. cities), investors, insurance

companies, engineers and developing partnerships on Nature-Based Solutions-DRR schemes

that bring about enabling policies and new business models that support Nature-Based

Solutions-DRR.

Other considerations:

3. Nature-Based Solutions and land use Overall the goal is to have a land use evolution that should be guided by sustainable development

(e.g. sustainable agriculture that underpin relevant policies, mechanisms and measures, that

promote biodiversity management, responsible behaviour, …)

26

In the case of focusing on the river basin/catchment based approach for water management linking

upstream and downstream water users – it will be important to identify the types of financial, social,

economic, political incentives needed to make river basin management work for e.g. flood risk

management. Taking a river basin approach will also help link the urban-rural interface, as well as

upstream and downstream links, as the unit of research for developing all sorts of innovative

schemes

4. Nature-Based Solutions and multiple benefits Identify Nature-Based Solutions for multi-risk management, recognizing that certain ecosystems, e.g.

wetlands, can be managed to address multiple hazards (floods, drought, fire, etc. )

In implementing Nature-Based Solutions for risk management, there is a need to explore all the

direct and indirect benefits brought by these options (short to long-term) and assess the added

value.

5. Engaging with multiple actors / partners in designing, researching, implementing

Nature-Based Solutions for disaster risk management Multiple actors needs to be involved, from natural scientists/ecologists, to engineers, from public to

private sectors (e.g. SMEs, insurance, investors, etc) , but interacting with key stakeholders (where

possible via the National Platforms for Disaster Risk Reduction) that have decision-making capacities

(ministries, sectorial authorities, users, …).

We also need to maximize engagements with universities, university networks, as well as the

Europe’s main Research Centres of Excellence in driving forward this research agenda on Nature-

Based Solutions for disaster risk management to establish a baseline of knowledge in the European

context.

27

Strategic Opportunity Areas R&I Actions

PRACTICAL STEPS

1. What actions are needed to make the commercial use of NBS

in each sector possible?

2. How could we stimulate the market for this NBS?

3. If far from commercialisation, what knowledge is needed

before commercialisation is possible?

4. What knowledge-generating processes will be required?

How long will these processes take and what will they consist

of?

5. How do we formulate these actions into strategies?

ACTORS

(who can make the action happen?)

INDICATORS

(how would we measure success?

What outcomes should we look

for?)

Extreme water level and

preventionA - need for development of

standards/protocols for NBS adapted for risk

assessment

e.g. wetland restoration,

e.g forest fire management

Try out in regional cases where disaster risks are urgent and

create portfolio of solutions

Natural capital mapping to prioritise NBS = oppor. Mapping =

ESB disaster reduction - future oriented

Review hidden knowledge (literature review) - NoK-network

Env. scientists/engineers

Multiple responsible ministries

National platform on disaster risk

management (e.g. Cobra) + EU Level

B - Financial instrument

- Creating market systems on ESS

- upstream/downstream

- payment solutions ESS for risk management

Develop mechanisms of cooperation

Capturing ecosystem values between up/down stream

Value aspects of natural resources that reduce risks

C - Insurance "pooling" between

towns/cities/countries

- new BN's financial incentives to reduce risks

(private business involvement) premium

reductions

Insurance/Governmnets/Finance regulators

D - Develop new ways of financial

management/innov. Instrument

- alignment of key parties (governments,

associations, investors, engineers, insurances)

- pro-active insurance practives: insurances -

customers

Inducing resilience

Insurance companies

Local (multilevel) governments

Financial regulators e.g. insurance comp.

Land owner/assetowner

Managers of land/occupier of assets =

citizens/urbanists

Table 4.1: IMPROVED RISK MANAGEMENT AND RESILIENCE - WORKSHOP, BREAKOUT GROUP 2

Note: During the first breakout group, the Risk Management group identified three possible areas of strategic opportunity: 'risks in cities', 'risk reduction through biodiversity & sustainable agriculture' and 'extreme water level

prevention', which merged the areas of flood prevention and coastal management. In the second breakout group, it was decided to focus on the last of the three, as the other two were being dealt with in other groups. During

the second breakout group, strategic areas 'extreme water level prevention' was thus further discussed, and R&I actions, practical steps, and relevant actors were identified.

28

E - Transforming sustainable

agriculture/landuse

- via (mandatory) policies

- landscape level

- strategic water management opportunities

Develop mechanisms (policies) for risk management for

sustainable landuse (behavioural, policies, BM) baed on

drought/flood scenario's

Landowners - producers

Government

Industries that use land resources

Policy beneficiaries

F - Explore multiple benefits from practical

options (multirisk prevention).

E.g. win-win's - resilient areas of innovation

Multimple risk prevention (see A))

Env. scientists/engineers

Multiple responsible ministries

National platform on disaster risk

management (e.g. Cobra) + EU Level

G - Proper transdisciplinary research with

engagement of citizen level for flood

prevention protection

Combine/explicitise best practicesResearchers

Citizens (org) CSO/NGO

29

Agenda

Stakeholders Workshop 'Nature-Based Solutions and Renaturing Cities'

8 December 2014, Brussels

(SDR1-2, Rue du Champ de Mars, 21)

09:00 - 09:30 Registration and Coffee

09:30 - 10:45 Plenary session – Setting the scene for action

Chair: Dr Wilhelm Krull, Secretary General, VolkswagenStiftung

Keynote speaker: Dirk Sijmons, Professor of Landscape Architecture at Delft University of

Technology.

o Policy framework and objectives – Kurt Vandenberghe, Director I, DG RTD

o H2020 Nature-Based Solutions Expert Group – Dr Wilhelm Krull, Secretary General,

VolkswagenStiftung

o EPBRS – contributions to R&I policy – Horst Korn, Chair of EPBRS

o Outcome of the E-consultation on Nature-Based Solutions – Jurgen Tack, CEO INBO

o Outline of the day's programme – Birgit de Boissezon, Head of Unit, I3

10:45 - 12:00 Parallel break-out groups – Actions for strategic opportunities

o Group 1: Sustainable Urbanisation – Introduction: Dr Luise Noring Moderator: Ania Rok

o Group 2: Restoration of Degraded Ecosystems – Introduction: Dr Bill Sutherland Moderator: Dr. Heidi Wittmer

o Group 3: Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation – Introduction: Dr Pam Berry Moderator: Dr. Marc Gramberger

o Group 4: Improved Risk Management & Resilience – Introduction: Dr Allan Watt Moderator: Dr. Martin Watson

12:00 - 12:45 Plenary session – Debrief from the break-out groups Chair: Dr Wilhelm Krull, Secretary General, VolkswagenStiftung

Moderator: Dr Allan Watt

o Each group (5 minutes)

o Input/suggestions from participants to other break-out groups

12:45 - 13:45 Lunch

13:45 - 15:00 Parallel break-out groups – Actions & stakeholders & indicators for

strategic opportunities o Group 1: Sustainable Urbanisation – Moderator: Ania Rok

o Group 2: Restoration of Degraded Ecosystems – Moderator: Dr. Heidi Wittmer

o Group 3: Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation – Moderator: Dr. Martin Watson

o Group 4: Improved Risk Management & Resilience – Moderator: Dr. Stefanie Dannenmann

15:00 - 15:30 Coffee

15:30 - 16:45 Plenary session – Debrief from the break-out groups Chair: Dr Wilhelm Krull, Secretary General, VolkswagenStiftung

Moderator: Dr Allan Watt

o Each group (5 minutes)

o Input/suggestions from participants to other break-out groups

o Discussion

16:45 – 17:00 Conclusions - Chair / RTD I

End of the meeting

30

PARTICIPANTS2

2 Only participants who attended the workshop are mentioned here. Many registered participants were unable

to reach the workshop venue following a general strike on the day of the workshop.

GROUP NAME AFFILIATION

Plenary Kurt Vandenberghe European Commission - DG RTD

Plenary Dirk Sijmons Delft Technical University

Plenary Wilhelm Krull VolkswagenStiftung

Plenary Horst Korn Federal Agency for Nature Conservation

Plenary Jurgen Tack Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek (INBO)

Plenary Birgit de Boissezon European Commission - DG RTD

DG RTD Christos Fragakis European Commission - DG RTD

DG RTD Jana Perkovic European Commission - DG RTD

DG RTD Sofie Vandewoestijne European Commission - DG RTD

Urbanisation Luise Noring Copenhagen Business School

Urbanisation Ania Rok ICLEI

Urbanisation Claudio Cecchi University Roma La Sapienza

Urbanisation Annette PiorrInstitute of Socio-Economics Leibniz-Centre for

Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF e.V.)

Urbanisation Francesco Garofalo Openfabric

Urbanisation Marina Tsalkatidou Environmental Sciences of Trinity College

Urbanisation Murielle EylettersEuropean Female Entrepreneurship / European

Commission Reseau Diane

Urbanisation Nektarios Chrysoulakis Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas

Urbanisation Paris Sansoglou European Dredging Association

Urbanisation Adrian Hill BUUR

Urbanisation Adriana Bernardi CNR - ISAC

Urbanisation Chantal van HamInternational Union for Conservation of Nature

(IUCN)

Urbanisation Jonas Bylund JPI Urban Europe

Urbanisation Marie Yeroyanni European Commission - DG RTD

Urbanisation Ugo Guarnacci European Commission - DG RTD

Restoration Bill Sutherland Cambridge University

Restoration Heidi Wittmer Helmholtz-Centre for Enviromental Research - UFZ

Restoration Fabien Quetier BIOTOPE

Restoration Machteld SchoolenbergPBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency -

Sustainable Development

Restoration Attilio Gambardella European Commission - DG RTD

Restoration Bend Jepsen Astrale

Restoration Federico Nogara European Commission - DG RTD

Restoration Isabel Sousa Pinto (PT)Centre for Marine and Environmental Research,

University of Porto

Restoration Joao Silva Astrale

Restoration Marie-Alice Budniok European Landowners’ Organization

Restoration Silvia Giannisi VELTHA IVZW

Restoration Adrian Peres European Commission - DG RTD

CCAM Martin Watson PROSPEX

CCAM Pam Berry Oxford University

CCAM Annemie Wyckmans NTNU

CCAM David Avelar University of Lisbon

CCAM Fina AmbattleAdvisory Council for Sustainable Development of the

Catalan Government

CCAM Julia Poliscanova London's European Office

CCAM Lucie Blondel Climate Alliance

CCAM Madeleine van Mansfeld Climate-KIC

CCAM Caroline Zaoui NovoBiom

CCAM Eleni Manoli European Commission - DG RTD

CCAM Ernst-Jan Mul TU Delft

CCAM Han Vanderveyvere VITO Transition Platform

CCAM Helen Davies ADAS UK Ltd

CCAM Marianna Elmi Permanent Secretariat of the Alpine Convention

CCAM Sandra Ramos EUROCITIES

CCAM Søren Heinecke

DRR Allan Watt Centre for Ecology & Hydrology

DRR Stefanie Dannenmann UNISDR

DRR Marisol EstrellaUnited Nations Environment Programme /Disaster

Risk

DRR Peter Maxson World Bank GFDRR Brussels office

DRR Andrew Bower European Commission - DG ECHO

DRR Anton Imeson

DRR Blanka Krivankova GEOtest, a.s. - FWC Department

DRR Denis Peter European Commission - DG RTD

DRR Peter Smith Interserve