titel van het project niet uit te lijnen en besteknummer€¦ · web viewthe service contract...

Imagine the result

WORKSHOP 29 – 30 MAYFinal report

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

Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 2|52

TABLE OF CONTENTSContents1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 42 Executive summary.................................................................................................................................. 5

2.1 RPF 4-level concept.......................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Options for achieving the 15% target................................................................................................6

2.3 Guidance on prioritisation of restoration actions................................................................................7

2.4 Support mechanism.......................................................................................................................... 7

3 Restoration in the context of the EU Biodiversity Strategy (SESSION 2A in Workshop)...................83.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 8

3.2 Discussions based on plenary presentations..................................................................................10

3.3 Results breakout groups on the 4-level concept of ecosystem restoration......................................12

3.3.1 Comments on general principles and assumptions......................................................................12

3.3.2 General discussion on 4-level concept.........................................................................................19

3.4 Well-defined set of descriptors and indicators for each ecosystem type and restoration level........20

3.4.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 20

3.4.2 Outcomes of the discussions........................................................................................................21

4 The options for the 15% target (SESSION 2B in the Workshop).........................................................244.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 24

4.2 Outcomes of the discussions...........................................................................................................24

5 Session 3: Criteria for priority setting at sub-national and national levels.......................................285.1 General conclusions on the prioritisation criteria and guidance.......................................................28

5.2 General needs for guidance on priority setting................................................................................28

5.3 Possible roles of the EU Commission in the restoration prioritisation process................................29

5.4 Review of the proposed prioritisation criteria...................................................................................30

6 The support mechanism (SESSION 4 in the workshop)......................................................................326.1 What are the general support needs?.............................................................................................32

6.2 What is the need for funding support?.............................................................................................34

6.3 Exploring the application of innovative financial mechanisms.........................................................35

Annex I: Proposed descriptors for different ecosystem types (basis for discussion in the breakout groups) 38

The 4-level concept applied to forests......................................................................................................38

The 4-level concept applied to cropland...................................................................................................39

The 4-level concept applied to grasslands................................................................................................40

The 4-level concept applied to wetlands...................................................................................................41

The 4-level concept applied to urban ecosystems....................................................................................42

Annex II: Workshop agenda...................................................................................................................... 43Annex III: Composition of the working groups and participants list.....................................................48

Session 2 Part A. Setting the frame..........................................................................................................48

Session 2 Part B. Options for Setting National Restoration Targets.........................................................49


Session 3 Criteria for priority setting at sub-national and national levels..................................................49

Session 4 Support mechanisms and financing opportunities....................................................................49

Full Participants list................................................................................................................................... 50


1 Introduction

This report presents the results of an international 2-day workshop organized as part of the EU Service contract “Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems and their services in the EU” carried out by a consortium under the lead of Arcadis Belgium.

The service contract provides support to the activities of the Working Group on a Restoration Prioritisation Framework (WG RPF), which specifically looks into the best ways to implement Action 6a of target 2 of the EU Biodiversity strategy to 2020: “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 workshop took place on 29 and 30 May in Brussels (Belgium). Facilities were kindly offered by the Belgian Science Policy Office (BELSPO). The workshop was attended by 57 participants. These included government representatives from 13 EU Member States plus Switzerland. Four sectors were represented including: the mining and energy industries, the banking and the hunting sectors. The nature conservation community was represented by six Europe-wide operating conservation NGOs: Birdlife International, European Environmental Bureau (EEB), CEE Web, IUCN and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). In addition, the workshop was attended by nine experts / scientists in the field of restoration from Belgium, France, Hungary, The Netherlands and Spain. The European Commission and other EU Institutions were represented by seven participants.

The purpose of the workshop was to contribute to the development of a strategic framework to set priorities for ecosystem restoration at sub-national, national and EU levels as foreseen under Action 6a of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. The workshop 1) informed participants; 2) involved participants in sharing their experiences and views and in identifying issues, recommendations and needs in connection to restoration.

This report presents the comments provided by the participants on the presentations as well as the outcomes of the break out groups in which specific issues were discussed. These results will be taken into account during the further elaboration of the contract.

The preparatory documents as well as the workshop presentation are all available on CIRCA.

The workshop agenda is included in Annex II. The list of participants and the distribution of participants over the different breakout groups are included in Annex III.


2 Executive summary

This executive summary provides an overview of the main outcomes of the workshop, mainly formulated as recommendations. These are structured according to the main themes that were discussed.

2.1 RPF 4-level concept

In general the impression is that the 4-level concept could provide a potentially suitable tool to support MS in their restoration planning:

Either for reaching the 15% target Either for their own internal restoration planning, Either for having a stronger basis for getting access to CAP and Cohesion funding;

in this regard it must be emphasized that applications for CAP and/or Cohesion funding are more successful if the restoration actions fit within a coherent approach;

Either for demonstrating progress towards Aichi target

The gradual approach is appreciated since it allows MS to take smaller steps

The challenge was acknowledged to:

strike a balance between simple and complicated; an alternative approach which could be more simple might be to focus the target on the main biodiversity threats in the EU, i.e. urbanisation and intensive agriculture

find a way to combine area-based and non-area based targets come to a common understanding of descriptors and transitions between levels;

in particular the delineation of the level 1 area deserves particular attention as this is the area which is not included in the target area.

deal with large amounts of data to be translated in descriptors on the one hand and huge data gaps on the other hand; an alternative approach could be a landscape-based approach as this requires less detailed data for each ecosystem type.

There is an important role for the EC to provide guidance on these challenges.

Regarding the descriptors the following main recommendations were made:

The links between descriptors and transition levels should be made clear, i.e. which descriptors to be used in which levels, or should the same set of descriptors be used in each of the 4 levels.

Distinguish more between state, pressure and measure descriptors It should be clarified whether it is possible to define common descriptors and

thresholds for all habitats within one ecosystem. The question was raised with regard to the relative value of ecosystems in terms of

biodiversity, i.e. how to weigh restoration of an urban ecosystem against the restoration of high nature value grassland. It was suggested to introduce weight factors.

Some descriptors are broad (so-called composite descriptors or umbrella descriptors) and need to be well explained in terms of underlying parameters e.g. ‘intensive management’, e.g. ‘naturalness index’


‘Naturalness’ descriptors provide a great opportunity to define the state of an ecosystem instead of focusing on pressures and defining complex threshold values. However there are multiple issues with using this descriptor. Different types of naturalness descriptors are already in place in a number of Member States but comparability is low. It could be investigated if ‘favourable conservation status’ could be used as an alternative.

Descriptors should be included describing ecosystem functioning and processes (e.g. natural hydrological processes, forest fires)

Descriptors reflecting a landscape level approach might be useful too e.g. to assess mosaic landscapes.

Delineation of urban areas is problematic. What about ‘urban spots’ such as airports?

There might be a need to prioritize between descriptors There is huge !potential for knowledge exchange between Member States on the

use of descriptors and the way descriptors are linked to different restoration levels, as well as on the way data are collected for these descriptors

2.2 Options for achieving the 15% target

The option to allocate the 15% target to each Member State, and not to link it to bio-geographical regions or ecosystem types, is generally considered as the most pragmatic option.

Main advantages:

Most pragmatic approach at this moment (no delay due to complex negotiations) Each Member State is given responsibility Member States can make optimal use of own national databases Baselines exist at Member State level Opportunity to set targets at the national /regional level that might be overlooked at

the bio-geographical level

Main disadvantages:

From an EU wide ecological perspective this is a suboptimal option Economic crisis hits some Member States more than others, causing problems to

finance the 15% target Still need for a common understanding of descriptors and transitions between

levels; also this process will require efforts and time

However the option of combining targets at different levels was also advocated. An approach was recommended, based on the following principles:

EU/bio-geographical level provides input on priority ecosystem types (should be part of priority guidance – role for EC), to be integrated in Member State Restoration Plans

Minimum % per ecosystem type Flexibility, but justification


2.3 Guidance on prioritisation of restoration actions

Criteria for priority setting should have a strong scientific basis and should be hierarchically structured into two groups. The first group dealing with what should be done in terms of restoration based on scientific, ecological and conservation criteria. The second group would include the socioeconomic, policy and sector related criteria that would help answer the question which of the restoration actions that should be done can actually be done given the socioeconomic, financial, policy and other constraints.

The European Commission could take the coordinating role to set priorities at the EU level based on clear and transparent justifications, especially in relation to the priority setting at the level of bio-geographical regions, in the case of cross-border initiatives and in support of cross-sectorial debates.

The Commission could also provide guidance in relation to the reporting format for restoration priorities, and some Member States might find it useful for the Commission to develop guidance on how Member States should work towards their priorities until the end of 2014.

The guidance should also provide information on how to involve the different stakeholders in the prioritisation process, on funding opportunities and on how to maximize the potential for funding within the prioritisation process. An overview of useful tools and approaches that can be used in the prioritisation process would also be welcomed.

2.4 Support mechanism

Support is needed in terms of facilitating knowledge and information exchange. This could be done by sharing best practice on aspects connected to restoration, informing about useful tools, or offering training and capacity building.

Regarding funding for restoration, the workshop participants first mentioned the need to further develop the biodiversity proofing of EU funding and policies, because as long as this is not complete, any actions in the field of restoration may be neutralized by the negative side effects of “bad” funding and policies.

In addition, the Commission could provide incentives for projects and initiatives that include nature restoration (such as ecological cross-border approach) as a condition to obtain other EU funding (cross-border element is already a bonus criterion in the assessment of LIFE proposals).

In terms of funding efficiency, the Commission could disclose information about supposedly large amounts of earmarked money that remain unspent (for example, ERDF, LIFE) and could be used for financing of restoration projects.


3 Restoration in the context of the EU Biodiversity Strategy (SESSION 2A in Workshop)

3.1 Introduction

The ideas presented in the workshop document and during the introductory speeches have 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 approach has been developed over several months and has been continuously updated and refined on the basis of preparatory and ongoing 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)1 and taking account of feed-back from the RPF Working Group , the European Commission, the EEA and individual experts. Further adaptations will be made based on the outcomes of the RPF workshop on 29 and 30 May.

Two guiding principles, i.e. ‘restoration is a process’ and ‘restoration requires modification of abiotic and biotic factors’ were key in developing the ‘4-level concept on ecosystem restoration’ as presented in Figure 1. It must be emphasized that Figure 1 only clarifies the concept by means of an illustrative example with fictitious percentages. Also the descriptive narratives with regard to the 4 levels will be adapted for each ecosystem type and will be completed with well-defined sets of descriptors and threshold values for each ecosystem type.

By making the 4 levels ‘tailor-made’ for each ecosystem type, the concept allows that for certain ecosystem types, in particular the ‘transformed ecosystems’ under level 4, Member States don’t have to strive for reaching full restoration to the original natural conditions.

1 The mission to France took place on 15 and 16th May but the outcomes of this mission were not included in the preparatory documents as these were sent out the week before


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

Types of areas Base-line (2010)

By 2020 (and net gain)

By 2050

LEVEL 1 Satisfactory abiotic conditions. Key species, properties and processes of ecosystems and their functions are restored

a.o. ‘wilderness’ areas and N2000 habitats and species in FCS

30%32% (+ 2%

from L2)40% (+ 8%

from L2)

LEVEL 2 Satisfactory abiotic conditions, but disrupted ecological processes and functions. Declining diversity and key 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, reduced ecological processes and functions, 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, dominated by artificial habitats with few and/or declining populations of native species; traces of original ecosystem hardly visible.

‘transformed 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; percentage restored surface is relative to ‘restorable area’ and not to ‘total area’)

25,7%2 71,4%3

Figure 1: Illustrative example of the '4-level approach on ecosystem restoration'

2 18% (cumulation of improvements between levels) relative to 70% is 25,7%3 50% (cumulation of improvements between levels from 2010 to 2050) relative to 70% is 71,4%

RESSTORATION

DEGRADATION


3.2 Discussions based on plenary presentations

Raised issues after the presentation by Johan Lammerant

It should be clear that the habitats and species assessments of article 17 do not refer exclusively to the state of these habitats and species within the Natura 2000 network, but also take into account those habitats that are not within the Natura 2000 network.

The question was raised whether cost benefit analyses were also included in determining the transition between levels in the conceptual 4 level model approach. Reply: CBA is not part of the 4-level concept, however it’s a technique which will be mentioned in the prioritisation guidance

With regard to the application of the CBA the issue was raised in how far the restoration cost benefit analysis should take into account additional CO2 emissions as a result of restoration activities. For example if forest was to be felled in order to restore a mire ecosystem, the CO2 release of this process could/should be taken into account in the CBA.

The question was raised on how to deal with the fact that until 2020 (7 years) only a partial restoration or recovery of ecosystems was possible. Reply: This is exactly the reason to adopt the four level approach which allows MS to engage in restoration activities and count these as part of the 15% without having to aim for full restoration within the 7 next years, but which also allows them to set long term objectives with long term results.

A concern was raised about the mixing of pressure and state in the proposed descriptors. As an example reference was made to the Water Framework Directive, as there are some parallels between this process and the WFD. The WFD almost exclusively uses state indicators to measure and monitor progress. The information on pressures is included in the process of preparing the Water Basin Management Plan. So state and pressure indicators are kept separate in the process. It would be an idea to investigate whether the same approach could be applied for the RPF. For the four level approach it would therefore be better to limit it as much as possible to state indicators, and leave the other indicators for the prioritisation, planning and implementation phases.

It was suggested to use the same set of metrics before and after restoration measures had been implemented.

A comment was made that EU wide descriptors for measuring restoration inside Natura 2000 areas are probably lacking.

A question was raised on the intended role of stakeholders in this RPF process. Shouldn’t they also be included in the selection of descriptors? According to the Commission this process will be open to all stakeholders from now on.

Issues raised after the Member State presentations

Forests in Austria (Monika Paar) :

Measurements for the hemeroby maps of Austrian forests were based on a detailed study of 5 000 sample areas throughout the country, whose results had been interpolated.

The restorable area has been calculated.by making a link between the hemeroby classes and the 4 levels of the RPF concept.

The areas included as clear felled area on the map were actually forest, but under intensive management that included clear felling every x (e.g. 20) years.


A comment was made that forest management and restoration is a totally different matter in different parts of Europe, and that approaches for assessing, managing and restoring forests could not be the same for all European countries. As an example active intervention in Mediterranean habitats (especially forests) is part of the solution for a long term management (as recovery of Mediterranean forest after disturbance is a very slow process).

Forest and peatland restoration in Finland (Jussi Païvinen)

A general comment was made with regard to the influence of climate change. With climate change much of the ecosystem management efforts will have to keep up with the future degradation of ecosystems due to climate change. How much room does this leave to invest in the restoration of ecosystems that were degraded in the past?

Urban ecosystems in France (Guéhanne Beaufaron)

There was some discussion on the integration of social aspects such as combating social deprivation in the prioritisation of “restoration“ in urban areas. In France the idea is that in the urban ecosystems social criteria should be leading, and prevail over the ecological criteria.

Natural Capital Index in Hungary (Katalin Török)

The project has been largely based on phytosociological and botanical research carried out by more than 100 botanists. This should give an idea about the size of the project. The exact financial cost was not known.

Discussion on the state of advancement of the restoration agenda in the Member States, following some conclusions and comments by Pat Murphy

The European Commission had insisted on the fact that it was urgent for the MS to develop a concrete agenda on restoration in their countries, because time until 2020 was short. It should be part of the political debates and be discussed with the relevant partners, in order to take the required steps to implement this target.

This comment was followed by a short discussion on the role of the Prioritisation Action Frameworks (PAFs) in introducing the issue in the political debate. Out of 27 MS it seemed that only a minority of about 4 Member States had included the restoration agenda as part of their PAFs.

Some MS representatives noted that it was very difficult to convince their government that the PAF is crucial to unlock funding, including possibly for restoration. Other MS/regions have prepared a restoration agenda (e.g. Wallonia, Belgium).


3.3 Results breakout groups on the 4-level concept of ecosystem restoration

The 4-level restoration concept is based on a number of general principles and assumptions. These are the ‘rules of the game’ and there should be a general consensus on them. Therefore they were discussed by means of 4 breakout groups during the workshop (see Annex 2 for composition of breakout groups).

3.3.1 Comments on general principles and assumptions

A. Definitions and assumptions applied within the 4-level concept should be consistent with other initiatives under the Biodiversity Strategy

No specific comments

B. The 4-level concept is characterized by a pragmatic approach accepted by MS: Although restoration is a complex issue the 4-level concept and the prioritisation framework should be pragmatic in order to enhance feasibility of application. As a result the 4-level concept should not be turned into a detailed calculation model.

The main argument was that we should be careful in using the term pragmatic. Pragmatism should not get in the way of developing better quantifiable descriptors. Therefore the statement was made to better define the 4 levels with a minimum requirement of specific semi-quantitative data.

Although the 4-level concept is a very helpful tool to facilitate the discussion in each Member State, the concept might be very difficult to implement in Member States with only limited data for the ecosystem types. As economical or other circumstances will not allow some Member States to gather appropriate data to implement the 4-level approach, other more flexible approaches to contribute to the 15% restoration target should be considered. A landscape-based approach (see also comments under principle C) might be one of the best, involving economic sectors in restoration activities. This is also the approach applied in cross-border projects on ecological connectivity.

C. Restoration needs to be defined for the different ecosystem types according to an agreed classification system on ecosystem typology, i.e. agreed under the MAES Working Group. Working with ecosystem types is a pragmatic approach to capture the wide variety of habitat types in the EU. Descriptors and threshold values for ecosystem types should be adequate for all habitat types covered by one ecosystem type.

In one of the breakout groups the discussion mainly focused on the ecosystem classification. The comment was made that the classes are too broad for assessing their state of degradation. It was discussed whether it could be beneficial if – if well argued – a Member State could distinguish between sub-classes. This does however affect the comparability between Member States.


Therefore it was suggested to make a distinction between ecosystem types per ecoregion. For instance continental grasslands and pannonic grasslands. This classification could help to better define suitable descriptors. Also a more general statement was made that this classification only accounts for a static state of ecosystem types, while in an ecosystem specific types are highly dynamic (especially grasslands). The suggestion was made to distinguish between ecosystem classes which include all the succession stages within a specific region. This notion however creates huge difficulties in using already existing datasets which are based on the more static ecosystem typology.

The question was raised on how to deal with ecotones (mixed habitat situations), i.e. how to define threshold values for transitions between ecosystems and habitats (e.g. grassland with trees)

The question was raised whether it is possible to define common descriptors and thresholds for all habitats within one ecosystem.

The question was raised with regard to the relative value of ecosystems in terms of biodiversity, i.e. how to weigh restoration of an urban ecosystem (e.g. low biodiversity green and blue infrastructure) against the restoration of high nature value grassland. It was suggested to introduce weight factors.

A landscape scale approach was favoured by some participants as it offers a wider perspective and doesn’t focus on specific ecosystem types; advantages are 1°/ Concept of mosaic landscape (e.g. the combination of extensive grasslands and croplands, and small forests in HNV farmland areas), 2°/ Connectivity issues, 3°/ Easier to divide national territory in ‘areas’ where 4-level concept could be applied

The question was raised which spatial unit of management should be considered to assess the quality level of an ecosystem type e.g. 1 ha of forests, or 100 ha of forests

The question was raised on how to deal with the 4-level approach with 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.

D. Restoration is a process, leading to gradual and measurable progress in ecosystem condition. Therefore a ‘quality level’ approach for restoration has been developed.

Possible issue here is how to make sure that small areas with high biodiversity and conservation value (but perhaps lower ecosystem services or economic value) are taken fully into account

A comment was made on the fact that the time-scale of restoration differs widely between ecosystem types. Therefore, within this general principle we should include this aspect as part of the process definition. We could for instance include initiated restoration actions within this principle. See also principle V.

It was suggested to explicitly mention that dealing with indirect pressures should be part of the restoration process (not only reducing or avoiding direct pressures). See also comment under principle N.


E. The 15% restoration target includes Natura 2000 targets (achieved progress on Target 14 of the Biodiversity Strategy accounts as part of Target 2) as well as all other environmental targets which are relevant in the context of restoration, such as a.o. the WFD and the MSFD5. 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. It is expected that delivery of Target 1 of the Biodiversity Strategy will contribute substantially to the achievement of the 15% restoration target as will the progress made on the restoration of freshwaters under the MFD and marine waters under the MSFD.

It should be made clear that no trade-offs with regard to compliance to these other EU environmental legislations can be made in order to achieve the 15% restoration target; full compliance with the obligations of these other EU environmental legislation, such as the WFD, should stand on its own, to avoid situations where Member States would choose between compliance to the WFD and other possibilities to achieve the 15% restoration target.

It is not clear how “includes” will be made tangible

F. No additional descriptors need to 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).

One could introduce exceptions in the view of local / specific conditions

G. 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 there is no legal obligation, no targets and no condition descriptors.

A remark was made on the fact that this principle states that there is already a large body of information available for protected areas. This is not always the case, therefore gathering data for protected areas could also be a challenge.

4 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 status5 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 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. Also the concept of ‘favourable conservation status’ (Habitats Directive) is based on underlying descriptors with regard to for instance population size and habitat surface. These targets also distinguish different levels (favourable, unfavourable – inadequate, unfavourable – bad) for Natura 2000 species and habitats.


Especially NATURA 2000 areas do not have any spatially specific data on their state.

The question was raised on how to include habitats that are not listed in the annexes of the Habitats Directive but which are important for nature conservation.

H. With regard to the nature of the 15% target, it is assumed that the restoration target might be a combination of a surface-based target and non-surface-based targets e.g. % increase in ‘good status’ assessments (e.g. N2000, WFD) or % increase in species (e.g. evolution in farmland bird index). Turning these non-surface-based into surface-based figures is often complicated and therefore parallel use of surface-based and non-surface-based figures is acceptable.

In one breakout group the general conclusion on this principle was that the group did not agree on the fact that surface and non-surface based descriptors could be integrated. The statement was made that we should either pick one of the two or create rules which address these two datasets separately with different targets. The majority of the group considered the first option, i.e. choosing only type of descriptors, as the best one.

Others could live with a scenario based on a parallel presentation of progress related to both types of descriptors separately, although it is unclear how to combine surface and non-surface related achievements; scoreboard could be a way of presenting. It was acknowledged that many improvement measures are not strictly related to surface

A certain flexibility in the setting of thresholds should be acceptable.

I. 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. As a first step Member States should start defining the total restorable area. Therefore they should subdivide their national territory into ‘restoration quality levels’ (based on descriptors and defined threshold values). All areas in level 1 should not be the focus of the 15% restoration target, which doesn’t mean that they should not take any further restoration actions in level 1 areas. All other areas (level 2 to level 4) are ‘restorable area’.

An important notion was made on the principle that there should be a common understanding on how to determine level 1 areas, as these are out of scope for achieving the 15% target. As this has a direct impact on the amount of the remaining territory of the country, i.e. the restorable area, it is suggested to develop a EU wide common understanding on the descriptors and the transition values which determine the transition between level 2 and level 1. This could be guided by the European Commission.

The last EU wide baseline useful for this process was Article 17 reporting which reflects the situation in 2007 or even 2006, not the situation in 2010.


J. 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.

The question was raised how to consider degradation within a level. Would this be acceptable?

K. The 15% restoration target should apply to both the marine as well as the terrestrial area. In that way it will be avoided that restoration measures are focusing completely on one of both areas, which might lead to situations where Member States with large marine areas could easily achieve the target by taking some restoration initiatives in the marine area only.

In one of the breakout groups it was agreed that there should not only be a distinction between marine and terrestrial ecosystems, but also between all ecosystem types. According to this group this will ensure a more even allocation of restoration efforts to the different ecosystem types.

The question was raised in how far targets under the CBD regarding managed and protected areas relate to the restoration targets in this process.

L. 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 levels.

For the descriptors determining level 2,3 and 4, guidelines should be provided which also state the minimum amount of data that should be used.

The question was raised on how to weigh the relative importance of moving from one level to the other? Is moving up from level 4 to level 3 always equal to moving from level 2 to level 1?

The question was raised if jumping with 2 levels by 2020 should be weighted double compared to jumping with one level.

A certain flexibility in the setting of thresholds should be allowed for.

M. Although the implementation of the target to a large extent will be defined by the Member States, there should be a common understanding of the 4 levels for each ecosystem type, i.e. a common understanding on the potential descriptors and threshold values, as well as a common understanding of transitions between levels. Member States should have the freedom however to select the most relevant descriptors for their situation (motivated e.g. based on data availability).

It is essential to have a clear and common understanding of the definition of level 1, as this determines to a great extent what is considered restorable and thus also the area of the 15% restorable target (see also comment under principle I)

N. State descriptors are preferred compared to ‘restoration measure’ descriptors as only state descriptors offer a solid guarantee to demonstrate progress. Biotic state

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


descriptors are preferred to abiotic state descriptors. Measure descriptors which directly support the restoration process (so maintenance measures excluded7) are acceptable and even are the only possibility in case restoration takes longer than the target year of 2020. Measure descriptors should be representative for the most relevant threat categories for each ecosystem type. Restoration levels can be described by a combination of state descriptors and measure descriptors.

The so-called “measure” descriptors seem difficult to measure in terms of ecological significance

It was mentioned that also indirect pressures on ecosystems should be taken into account. If we would resolve only the direct pressures on a system, indirect pressures could still increase the amount of degradation.

O. The way restoration is achieved (e.g. passive or active measures) is less important than the result. Therefore restoration can be active and passive8. There is opportunity for more in-depth consideration of natural regeneration in a

non-intervention regime. This also ties in with practical assessment of maximising the cost-effectiveness of restoration and subsequent management in achieving Target 2.

P. 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


Q. Availability of data should be a prerequisite for selection of descriptors, indicators and threshold values. National databases might be preferred over EU databases, on condition that they are more accurate.

Data availability was raised as a major issue. A large proportion of different datasets are available, however translating these into specific indicators which assess the quality of an ecosystem is a difficult task. It was suggested to provide guidelines (role EC) on translating these data into quality descriptors and on how to deal with data-gaps. The first step would be to include data on an EU wide level for assessing the quality of an ecosystem. Additionally rules should be established to define the minimum amount of data (linked to descriptors) required to determine the different levels. Additionally clear examples (‘good or best

7 Maintenance measures however preserve ecosystems from degradation, and as such contribute to the restoration target in an indirect way8 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. Active measures are targeted actions such as planting vegetation or reintroducing lapsed management regimes. In many cases passive restoration is appropriate, but if restoration needs to be completed quickly, such as to meet restoration targets, then higher levels of active restoration may be required – with resulting cost implications.


practices’) from different Member States on how to determine the four levels should be provided. Maybe a platform for sharing knowledge could be organised.

R. Transformation between ecosystem types needs to considered carefully:i. Transformation between ‘transformed’ ecosystems e.g. intensive cropland to

grey infrastructure is not considered as degradation.ii. Re-creation of a ‘natural’ ecosystem type out of a transformed ecosystem

type should always be rewarded, i.e. deduction of former ecosystem type should not take place. As an example, in the case of a newly planted urban forest on a former cropland area, the surface loss of this cropland should not be deducted from the restoration target.

iii. 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. To avoid a ‘zero operation’ in terms of the 15% target, only the gain should be taken into account. The ‘lost’ surface should not be deducted from the target but the total restorable area needs to be decreased. In many cases however this ‘transformation’ will only be a restoration of the original 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 e.g. mapped as forest or mapped as peatland/heath/grassland.

It was suggested to include quality requirements too in the evaluation of ecosystem type transformation

A comment was made with regard to compensation. In some cases ecosystem transformation is driven by non-restoration projects, and in a number of cases compensatory measures need to be taken (which are mostly aimed at creating an equal or higher surface of a similar ecosystem type on another location).

S. 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.


T. 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.



U. Ecosystem services are not applied as descriptors (except for cropland and urban ecosystems), due to:

assumption that balanced generation of ecosystem services will automatically be achieved when restoring abiotic and biotic conditions of natural ecosystems, and as such additional monitoring of ecosystem services would deliver no added value

lack of data and mapping for most ecosystem services at this moment complexity of quantifying ecosystem services at MS level (as quantification

depends highly on local situations – stakeholder benefits – stakeholder appreciations)

For cropland and urban ecosystems the use of ecosystem services as descriptors makes more sense.

Change in ecosystem services (positive or negative) should be taken into account in the prioritisation of restoration activities. E.g. carbon emissions associated with the conversion (restoration) of forest (or “degraded bogland”) into healthy mire and bog habitat should be accounted for in the weighing and decision making process

Why just croplands and urban ecosystems for using ecosystem services as descriptors? Applying ecosystem services with forests and wetlands could help define upfront the potential of restoration projects to achieve 1) mitigation of climate change and 2) possible funding income. Arguments cited against this – e.g. data availability and complexity of quantification – can be addressed..

V. Safeguards need to be built in against those ‘quick-wins’ restoration initiatives that cannot be considered as priority actions in the context of a coherent restoration program (other quick wins do fit well in a coherent restoration programme!). The concept should be designed in such a way that the risk to only realize quick wins by 2020 should be avoided; since the 15% target is set for 2020 there is a risk to focus restoration actions only on quick wins; some of these however might not always be the most desirable actions for sustainable (long-term) restoration of certain ecosystems; therefore restoration measures that are in place by 2020 to achieve the desired “restored” situation after 2020 should also be accounted for; the 4-level concept however is very suitable to deal also with this type of situations on condition that the selected descriptors which define the 4 levels also contain descriptors which represent initiated restoration actions.


3.3.2 General discussion on 4-level concept

In general the impression is that the 4-level concept could provide a potentially suitable tool to support MS in their restoration planning

Either for reaching the 15% target Either for their own internal restoration planning, Either for having a stronger basis for getting access to CAP and Cohesion funding;

in this regard it must be emphasized that applications for CAP and/or Cohesion


funding are more successful if the restoration actions fit within a coherent approach;

Finally might be suitable for demonstrating progress towards Aichi target The gradual approach is appreciated since it allows MS to take smaller steps The challenge was acknowledged to strike a balance between simple and

complicated; some participants considered the proposed approach, although conceptually attractive, as very complicated and fuzzy to have a potential in real world application; if this approach is adopted, very much time will have to be spent in harmonizing and finding consensus among Member States and between Member States and NGO and sector representatives; something easier is needed; the approach should be fine-tuned as much as possible with existing conservation, monitoring, reporting, research and planning processes, policies and obligations; on the other hand other participants expressed their doubts if this concept, based on 4 levels applied to the proposed ecosystem classification, would offer sufficient possibilities to deal with differences in habitats within ecosystem types.

Regarding the feasibility of the 15% target by 2020, the 4-level concept cannot provide the solution:

MS will exclude areas which are in fact restorable, only to make the target feasible Therefore define level 1 well and strive to common understanding between MS on

descriptors and transitions between level 2 and level 1 Alternative approach might be to focus the target on the main biodiversity threats

in the EU, i.e. urbanisation and intensive agriculture

Other issues were the following:

The question was raised on a so-called second layer, e..g. human rights issues related to restoration included or overlooked. This could be part of the prioritisation guidance.

The question was raised how to make the link with the wider framework, i.e. how do actions and targets contribute to other targets in the strategy?

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

3.4.1 Introduction

For each ecosystem type the restoration levels should be described by means of descriptors and threshold values.

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, the further elaboration of the 4-level restoration concept is focused on the 7 terrestrial ecosystem types, which are distinguished


by the MAES Working Group. In particular within this contract a first attempt to elaborate the 4-level concept will be done for the following ecosystem types9:

Forests Croplands Grasslands Wetlands Urban

For the purposes of the workshop for each of these ecosystem types potentially suitable descriptors were listed and commented (see Annex 1). During the workshop break-out groups discussed:

if these descriptors are appropriate which descriptors have preference how transitions between levels can be defined.

3.4.2 Outcomes of the discussions

The following general comments were made:

The links between descriptors and transition levels should be made clear, i.e. which descriptors are used in which levels, or should the same set of descriptors be used in each of the 4 levels?

Distinguish more between state, pressure and measure descriptors Don’t use the presence of particular activities or sectors to describe state of the

habitat. Use true “state” indicators instead. Some descriptors are broad (so-called composite descriptors or umbrella

descriptors) and need to be well explained in terms of underlying parameters e.g. ‘intensive management’, e.g. ‘naturalness index’

‘Naturalness’ descriptors provide a great opportunity to define the state of an ecosystem instead of focusing on pressures and defining complex threshold values. However there are multiple issues with using this descriptor. First of all the descriptors are not comparable between Member States. This is due to the fact that different approaches are used to determine the natural state of a system. This is either defined by using a reference area or a specific state in time, which differs between countries. Secondly 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 ecoregion is forest while in the pannonic region only pristine state grasslands occur under natural conditions. Therefore it was suggested to create a pan-European definition on pristine systems which should be addressed within an ecoregion approach.

Also with regard to the ‘naturalness’ descriptors there is an issue with regard to the definition, i.e. one could question in what sense does it differ from, for example, favourable conservation status? What is the reference to define the naturalness of an ecosystem? This differs from region to region. 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.

9 The other terrestrial ecosystem types are ‘heathland and scrub’ and ‘sparsely vegetated land’


Management intensity was considered as a highly important descriptor for specific ecosystem types (e.g. grasslands, forests). However the main issue with this descriptor was the definition of an intensively managed ecosystem. 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. It was also raised to use land use intensity instead of management, because management is not the only pressure for grassland types in this perspective.

Descriptors should be included describing ecosystem functioning and processes (e.g. natural hydrological processes, forest fires)

Descriptors reflecting a landscape level approach might be useful too e.g. to assess mosaic landscapes. 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.

Species indices such as the wetland bird index have the advantage of having quite a good data coverage but 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

For cropland the question was raised in how far IACs data (applied within the CAP context) could be used for localised statistics e.g. on the intensity of cropland management.

Some descriptors might overlap e.g. CAP focus areas and HNV farmland areas For cropland additional useful descriptors could be the size of parcels, soil

degradation data e.g. erosion data For wetlands it was suggested not to use descriptors / indicators but to proceed in

a different way: map the historic extent and location (and if possible nature) of the wetlands as a guideline. Such a map could function as a basis for discussions which should ultimately result in the identification of the locations where such wetlands can be restored given the wider socioeconomic considerations.

A water quality descriptor seems to be a straightforward descriptor to determine the thresholds between restoration levels in wetlands, but water quality is notoriously difficult to measure due to its high temporal and spatial fluctuations. On the other hand water quality can be approximated by using presence, distribution, trends of indicator species populations, including water plants and fresh water invertebrates.

Delineation of urban areas is problematic. What about ‘urban spots’ such as airports?

With regard to descriptors for urban ecosystems not only threatened species but also ‘ordinary’ species could be used. Next to noise and light pollution also other types of pollution could be used. The question was raised in how far sports areas within cities can be considered as ‘green’ areas.

There might be a need to prioritize between descriptors


There is huge !potential for knowledge exchange between MS on the use of descriptors and the way descriptors are linked to different restoration levels, as well as on the way data are collected for these descriptors


4 The options for the 15% target (SESSION 2B in the Workshop)

4.1 Introduction

To avoid restoration measures being focused completely on either the terrestrial area either the marine area, which might lead to situations where Member States with large marine areas could easily achieve the target by taking some restoration initiatives in the marine area only, a general principle is already formulated that the 15% restoration target should apply to both the marine as well as the terrestrial area.

Three main basic options can be identified :

Target set per bio-geographical area Target set per Member State Target set per ecosystem type

Ideally data should be available with regard to:

Surface of different ecosystem types across the EU and in each Member State; this information exists but is based on CLC data; many MS have much more accurate data

State of these ecosystem types (in ha, in %); so far a common understanding on the terminology regarding ‘degraded’ and ‘restored’ is not available, except for Natura 2000 habitats/species, freshwaters and marine waters; the 4-level restoration concept provides the framework for developing a common understanding of the ‘state’ levels for each terrestrial ecosystem type; if this common understanding will be a fact Member States first need to start categorizing their territory into the 4 levels; only then there will be a basis for comparing the state of ecosystem between Member States

4.2 Outcomes of the discussions

The table below lists a number of pro’s and con’s for each of these options. During the workshop these have been further discussed (comments and additions are presented in italic).

OPTION PRO CONTRA

EU Best practice Optimisation of targets

Target per biogeographical area

Condition of ecosystems might differ between bio-geographical areas

Makes ecological sense Scientifically the right option Allows a logical link with the New Bio-

geographical Process International connectivity

Uniform basis for defining degradation for large parts of the territory not established yet

Complex negotiation process to be started between Member States

Practically difficult: would require many bilateral and multilateral negotiations to reach agreements between MS


ECONET / Green corridor Policy framework Overview / scene setting

Local/regional setting differs within a BGR Impossible to cross-reference Different scales between the bio-geographical

level and some smaller Member States such as Malta

At the implementation level: the borders of bio-geographical regions are diffuse

Target per Member State

Most pragmatic approach at this moment (no delay due to negotiations)

Each Member State takes its responsibility Member States can make optimal use of own

national databases Baselines exists at MS level Relatively practical and quick Opportunity to set targets at the national

/regional level that might be overlooked at the BGR level

Wording for this option should be changed, so to give more ownership to the MS. MS are given ownership / responsibility (not “are responsible”)

No binding obligations

From an EU wide ecological perspective this is a suboptimal option

Economic crisis hits some Member States more than others, causing problems to finance the 15% target

Still need for a common understanding of descriptors and transitions between levels; also this process will require efforts and time

Target per ecosystem type

Most optimal option from an EU wide ecological perspective

Combined with a landscape approach

Uniform basis for defining degradation for large parts of the territory not established yet

EU priorities with regard to ecosystem restoration can also be highlighted in the guidance on the prioritisation framework (see Section 3 in Workshop)

Target per bio-geographical area

The first pro stated for this option was that it will ensure a more ecological sound distribution of restoration actions. Additionally conditions within bio-geographical regions could be comparable, therefore setting targets could be easier and priorities could be set on an ecological basis. However the main objection for this approach is that it will be very hard to apply because it requires difficult and time consuming negotiations between Member States. Additionally until now no uniform basis exists for determining degradation which will complicate realising this option. 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.

Target per Member State


This approach was considered as the most pragmatic option as this doesn’t require 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. Also Member States have to report on the Aichi targets anyway.

As a contra 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 principle V under 3.3.1). Additionally the economic crisis hits some Member States more than others causing differences in the potential to finance the 15% target. This will especially be the case for more southern EU Member States. 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, each based on an own approach. Creating these guidelines could be time consuming..

Target per 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 every ecosystem profits. Another advantage is that restoration actions in Member States can be focused on areas where the restoration of a specific ecosystem is more easy to realise and with relatively lower costs. As an example restoring large areas of wetlands in Finland is relatively easy to carry out. As a contra to this option this approach requires a uniform basis for determining degradation for large parts of the territories which is currently not available. Moreover it is not yet clear whether realizing a uniform approach on determining degradation at a pan-European scale is even possible with the current availability of data.

It was suggested that the EU could set minimum guidelines on how much should be restored of a specific ecosystem type (further discussed in section 3).

Another contra is that Member States with multiple ecosystems could have a higher burden sharing than other Member States, which could cause political problems. Finally setting this target for croplands could result in restoring only semi-natural ecosystems in heavily urbanized countries, while paying less attention on for instance forest or wetland restoration (like in Belgium and the Netherlands).

Combined option

Discussions took place on whether the options could/should be combined into one overall framework. In one breakout group a funnelling approach (see figure below) was elaborated.

As a first step the Commission together with scientists and conservation agencies (e.g. NGO’s) determine 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 will be applied by every Member State. Member States are fully responsible to realize this target and can use their own data in assessing the state of degraded ecosystems.


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. The group 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 choices should however always be justified.

This approach was confirmed by the ideas in another breakout group, where the concept of combining targets at different levels was also advocated. An approach was recommended, based on the following principles:

EU/bio-geographical level provides input on priority ecosystem types (should be part of priority guidance – role for EC), to be integrated in MS Restoration Plans

Minimum % per ecosystem type Flexibility, but justification


5 Session 3: Criteria for priority setting at sub-national and national levels

5.1 General conclusions on the prioritisation criteria and guidance

Criteria for priority setting should have a strong scientific basis. They should be separated into two groups:

A first group dealing with what should be done in terms of restoration based on scientific, ecological and conservation criteria.

A second group would include the socioeconomic, policy and sector related criteria that would help answer the question which of the restoration actions that should be implemented can actually take place given the socioeconomic, financial, policy and other constraints.

The European Commission could take the coordinating role to set priorities at the EU level based on clear and transparent justifications, especially in relation to the priority setting at the level of bio-geographical regions, in the case of cross-border initiatives and in support of cross-sectorial debates. The Commission could also provide guidance in relation to the reporting format for restoration priorities, and some Member States might find it useful for the Commission to develop guidance on how Member States should work towards their priorities until the end of 2014. What would also be very useful is some clear and practical guidance on how to involve the different stakeholders in the prioritisation process. The guidance should also provide information on funding opportunities and on how to maximize the potential for funding within the prioritisation process. An overview of useful tools and approaches that can be used in the prioritisation process would also be welcomed (see also “Support mechanism”).

5.2 General needs for guidance on priority setting

Motivation - Providing the justification for “Why do we do this?”

Scientific consistency - The general guidance on priority setting should strengthen the scientific basis of the criteria, in particular regarding the first phases of the prioritisation exercise, when the question “what should be restored?” needs to be answered. Secondly it should aid in integrating different criteria, and not be focused on conservation criteria only.

Data - What role in terms of research and data? Clear guidance on how to deal with data gaps.

Standardization – A standardized methodology for setting priorities, e.g. on how to achieve a good level of public involvement when deciding on local priorities. Guidance on coherence (flexible, iterative, as a basis for discussion)

Timing – The guidance should clearly state how to deal with the short amount of time left before 2020. Additionally it was asked whether the priorities should be set at the beginning or the end of 2014.

Land tenure and ownership - The guidance should help to deal with non-state owned properties and stakeholders.

Sustainability - The guidance should help to ensure the quality of restoration actions and pay attention to sustainable restoration actions.


5.3 Possible roles of the EU Commission in the restoration prioritisation process

Prioritisation at bio-geographical level - The EU Commission could have a proactive role in establishing the targets and setting the agenda and provide clear guidelines on which ecosystems are a priority (for instance at the level of bio-geographical regions). This priority setting should be performed very fast. However, the question is who is going to do this and on which criteria this selection of ecosystem types should be based. Identify endangered ecosystems at EU level (links to the threatened species / habitats annexes), e.g. through the planned European Red List of Ecosystems. The European priority list should be flexible with a minimum set of pre-defined criteria. The Commission could establish rules for getting a bonus on restoration when focusing on priority ecosystems. In addition, the European Commission could discuss national action plans for ecosystem restoration with the Member States and assess them at a bio-geographical level, suggesting possible adjustments to the Member States in view of European priorities in terms of restoration.

Policy and sector integration – Include in the guidance a description of the ways how various EU policies contribute to the restoration agenda and a description of how to ensure the best possible synergies. For example, the link between restoration and climate change adaptation and mitigation, could be presented as an example. In particular, the Commission should coordinate decision-taking between departments at an early stage to avoid negative impacts on restoration. The Commission should also help the Member States to maintain the focus on the current implementation of compulsory EU law (nature, water and marine directives) and their wider contribution to the restoration agenda, as this offers the best opportunities for creating cost efficient synergies. A useful framework to do so would be to promote “TEEB thinking” within the various DGs of the Commission (and other EU Institutions) and at the Member State level, and to present in an explicit way the mutual relationship between ecosystem restoration and TEEB. Guidance on the opportunities of cross-sectorial linkages – but also to help support funding (and policy, e.g. CAP) opportunities.

Process integration / coordination – Through the guidance, the Commission could promote, facilitate and coordinate the integration of the restoration prioritisation framework with the other actions of target 2 under the Common Implementation Framework (CIF): Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem Services (MAES) and the No Net Loss initiative. As is also stated under “Prioritisation at bio-geographical level”, the Commission could provide cross-boundary recommendations, e.g. also to encourage cooperation (linked to ecological connectivity). The Commission could in addition clarify the possible role of the Priority Action Frameworks (PAF) in making progress with the Restoration Prioritisation Framework and provide guidance on how to include biodiversity and restoration actions. Finally the Commission could prepare a “Restoration action form” (as part of the guidance?) based on the PAF form that was developed. This would make the process easier and also help Member States in their obligation to report on Aichi target 15. Clarifying the usefulness and linkages with Article 17 reporting, Priority Action Frameworks (PAFs), monitoring and review: link to the CBD and Bonn challenge (global movement to restore 150 million hectares of degraded and deforested land by 2020). Although the above suggests an active role from the Commission, other views favoured a more reactive role but also spreading good practice.


5.4 Review of the proposed prioritisation criteria

General comments

There are too many criteria for the EU level. For the national level, the criteria were considered as valuable. However it will be difficult to account for all these criteria within a Member State. The main six groups of criteria were considered sufficient, however some of the specific criteria should be described in more detail. It was also asked whether we should include bio-geographical regions as a level instead of only focusing on EU, national and regional levels. Additionally two specific lists of criteria should be created, one on an EU level and one on a Member State level.

In order to make the number of criteria to be used in the restoration prioritisation framework manageable a better organization of the criteria could be achieved, e.g. through a hierarchical structure. In the guidance for the restoration prioritisation, the grouping of the criteria could then be revised and a hierarchy in their assessment could be applied. The following suggestion was made: Group 1 includes ecological and conservation criteria based on scientific evidence. It should answer the question: “what should be done?” (including stakeholders).Group 2: should focus on the practical achievability of the restoration priorities in terms of socioeconomic, political, cultural constraints and include decision making and trade-offs. It should answer the question: “What can be done?”

The prioritisation of restoration activities could follow a checklist approach. Because of scale issues, there is a need to choose the appropriate level for application and for integrating the criteria (e.g. the Territory “scale”. As individual criteria are difficult for scoring prioritisation, an approach including weighing the importance of different criteria should be proposed.

The ecosystem services criteria should be created together with the MAES work. Establish cross-references between the various criteria (especially with the various components of ecosystem services)

Conservation criteria

Within this criterion we should try to integrate the different EU legislation into one criteria, to reduce the overlap in priority setting. Additionally in the above presented picture for every example it is depicted whether it should focus on an EU level or a National level.

Spatial and ecological criteria

First of all it was mentioned that the size of the natural areas is not very relevant because this is already taken into account in the other criteria. The other criteria were regarded as highly suitable for spatial ecological criteria. There was a suggestion also to include geomorphological criteria.

Policy and sector related criteria

The top 4 criteria could be integrated into one general criterion on EU policies. This will reduce double counting. Additionally it was mentioned to remove the criterion ‘restoration’ in the context of compensation measures, because this will already be taken into account in the no net loss framework. Finally a general statement was made on the fact that the


synergies are important, however the level between these synergies differ a lot. Some are suitable on an EU level while other are more focused on a national level.

As a principle Euromines is opposed to using sector-related criteria as they unfairly disadvantage the best performers in each sector. Criteria should stick as much as possible to those that describe directly the quality of the ecosystems at an appropriate scale on the ground.

Social criteria

First it was discussed that for the social criteria, cultural criteria are mentioned twice in this list. Therefore it was suggested to merge the two. Secondly most of these criteria are only suitable on a local level. However criteria should also be included on a national or EU level. For the economic criteria the cost and benefit ratio for restoration work is hard to imply on an EU level. This is due to the fact that it is already apparent that comparing the restoration actions between member states is very difficult. Workshop participants also called for the inclusion of more explicit criteria to deal with issues relating to land tenure and ownership. The level of involvement and engagement of stakeholders should also be better reflected among the suggested criteria.

Economic criteria

It was mentioned that you should remove the economic value of ecosystem services because these are already mentioned in previous criteria. The cost of maintenance should only be taken into account when this maintenance shows a sustainable result, instead of only having realized quick wins. Economic criteria should also better reflect efficiency and economic background as well as the cost effectiveness of different methods of restoration.

There should be more consideration of the role played in the restoration scenario by background economic forces. For example, rising lamb prices will do more over the next decades to roll back land abandonment and restore grasslands than EU subsidy – and this should be taken into account when prioritising use of scarce conservation resources to alternative habitat restoration.

Tentative prioritisation of the criteria

One breakout group established a tentative prioritized list of criteria they considered the most important for the process. In the list of criteria the 7 first are presented in decreasing order of importance. The seven last in order of being mentioned (i.e. they did not receive any points in the ranking exercise)

1. Being part of an ecological network2. All criteria that contribute (or take into account) the conservation of biodiversity3. Cost effectiveness4. Contribution to other targets (of the EU Biodiversity Strategy)5. Local dynamics6. Synergies with other policies7. Total number of ecosystem services provided8. Land productivity9. Climate change mitigation and adaptation10. Priority habitats (annex 1)11. Long term viability


12. Stakeholder acceptance and support13. Land ownership14. State of the habitat

It must however be emphasized that this ranking only reflects the outcomes of a quick ranking exercise within one breakout group and will not be considered as an important basis for the further elaboration of the guidance.


6 The support mechanism (SESSION 4 in the workshop)

6.1 What are the general support needs?

(see also section 5.2)

Data - Accurate data at the right resolution are crucial for the prioritisation 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 in the right way, some EU level coordination can be helpful to fill gaps and to generate data that is useful for planning and prioritisation, as for example demonstrated by initiatives such as GMES (Copernicus), EUBON, GEO.

Clear guidance as explored and discussed in the earlier breakout group was also considered an important need of the Member States

Funding - Adequate funding opportunities were considered crucial, and support in terms of how to access existing funding or generate innovative funding opportunities was identified as a need for which the Commission could provide some support. For the financial means a lot of the options presented are only focusing on passing knowledge, however you also need to get (buy) the information. Answers to questions on the use of long-term market mechanisms and cost-benefit analysis in support of restoration projects would be very helpful too. A specific component in this respect was the mention of the need for economic background information of direct relevance to the restoration practice (e.g. trends in price of sheep or timber).

Coordination - Although 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, the EU / Commission could play either a pro-active role in signalling those opportunities where they may not have been identified, if they would primarily benefit European or BGR scale nature restoration, or play a coordinating role if opportunities have been identified bilaterally, but implementation is hampered by some barriers. Alternatively, it was mentioned that a mechanism should be available on how to deal with cross-border projects.

Communication and stakeholder engagement - Although information and communication were acknowledged as being instrumental to promoting the restoration agenda among the stakeholders, it was underlined that actively engaging with stakeholders in the prioritisation and decision making process was a key requirement. Member states could benefit from guidance on how effectively to engage with stakeholders (especially economic sectors) in the planning, prioritisation and implementation of the restoration agenda. We should learn from existing models (e.g. WFD). Additionally consulting the locals is very time consuming. How do you cope with this in the short time span? There could for instance be a need for rewarding stakeholders to get them involved (incentive mechanisms). People should know how they are affected (active participation in the decision making). Also a need was stated for good general arguments for restoration (maybe a political paper). Participation of stakeholders is really important. But how you get them actively involved is still an issue (make sure that you are right on the facts and involve the stakeholders in the process from the beginning).

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 prioritisation should be developed. In order to help the Member States to increase their


efficiency in the reporting for Target 2, action 6.2., 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 Aichi targets.

Exchange of best practice - Experience sharing is not a major obstacle but improvements could be beneficial. An easily accessible repository of best practice would be helpful. Examples of best practices (both on restoration and on prioritisation and support needs and also on best scientific and technological practices) should be available for the member states and other user groups. This should include digested information (IEEP financing report could also help). Again it was asked how to motivate people for the restoration cause and how to get them actively involved (capacity building and acquiring expertise is very important for specific member states). In general it was stated that creating a binding reporting structure for the Aichi target could be very useful for the restoration prioritisation framework.

It was stressed that an important element in ensuring sustainable success of restoration projects involves inclusion of socio-economic considerations – including maximisation of funding/income earning potential - to projects at the initial design stage, not as an afterthought.

Training and capacity building - In order to implement the very ambitious restoration agenda, some member states might lack the knowledge and expertise to identify, prioritise and implement restoration projects. For this capacity building through training and staff exchanges as well as seminars and conferences could be useful.

Legal and contractual support – information on legal issues regarding restoration activities as well as working approaches to create contracts for restoration and management would be helpful.

Tools – easily accessible information on tools that support restoration (prioritisation) action as well as on experience with applying such tools (e.g. GIS, multi-criteria analysis, option appraisal, red lists of ecosystems).

The following scheme resulted from the discussions (see below). The figure has to be further elaborated during the further elaboration of the report (e.g. better indication of relations between the boxes, indication of role of EC).


6.2 What is the need for funding support?

Regarding funding for restoration, the workshop participants first mentioned the need to further develop the biodiversity proofing of EU funding and policies, because as long as this is not complete, any actions in the field of restoration may be neutralized by the negative side effects of “bad” funding and policies.

In addition, the Commission could provide incentives for projects and initiatives that include ecological cross-border approaches as a condition to obtain other EU funding (the cross-border element is already a bonus criterion in the assessment of LIFE proposals).

As far as the different applicable EU funding mechanisms are concerned it would be very helpful and probably quite useful, to include priorities or conditions for nature restoration in the calls for proposals.

The Commission could also promote the better use of CAP Pillar II funding. The Commission could ask specific countries such as Austria, for example, which has quite some experience to share regarding the use of CAP Pillar II funds for nature restoration.

At a practical level, it would be very useful for Member States to have access to lists of restoration projects that successfully make use of public / private funding.

In order to ensure the long term viability of restoration projects, assessment of project proposals should ensure the continuity and sustainability of site management after the restoration is adequately covered, also in financial terms

In terms of funding efficiency, the Commission could disclose information about supposedly large amounts of earmarked money that remain unspent (e.g. ERDF, LIFE) and could be used for financing of restoration projects.


Finally, through rephrasing the funding conditions in the calls for proposals, the Commission could promote the development of integrated projects that address the restoration of ecosystems and their services as part of a wider agenda also tackling other urgent territorial challenges such as integrated river basin management, flood control, climate change mitigation, employment etc.

6.3 Exploring the application of innovative financial mechanisms

Varied experience and opinions were presented in one of the breakout groups, although the need for private financing in general appeared to be unanimously supported. Many ideas and examples were presented which will be followed up by the study team. We ask again attendees to make us aware of any (positive or negative) experience with innovative financing approaches ([email protected] ; [email protected] ) .

The table below is not an exhaustive list of examples of innovative financing, but only contains those that were discussed during this session. In general examples are too scarce at this moment.

We were not familiar with them all and they are therefore useful additions to our case study database. Each case study presented may not be directly transferable to other Member States because of different environments, but they do contain useful features and principles which should provide insights to biodiversity financing across member states.

MECHANISM (to support restoration)

SITUATION / EXAMPLE

BARRIERS and INCENTIVES

COMMENT eftec

An NGO led initiative where land is bought for restoration. A wind turbine is constructed on this land. This generates an income of €17,000 / yr from an electricity company. This income funds restoration activities.

Example was given in Belgium – not unique to any ecosystem, but key species cannot be disrupted by presence of wind farm.

Planning rules

Local opposition

Rate of payment

Requires significant upfront NGO investment. It is unclear if this can be replicated across member states as dependent on electricity company payments. Probably not scalable but worth investigating.

Products from ecosystems (that support restoration) can be sold to large public sector organisations. Examples: wood fuel for hospitals and schools; government support e.g. guaranteed purchasing of local products from restoration products.

Could be used for all productive ecosystems.

Public funds to support development of markets

Captured markets and therefore guaranteed income.

Price of products is limiting factor

Squeezed public finances limit ability to pay any premiums

We are not sure of the current status of the woodfuel project and the success of implementation. It is a good idea, if the costs of the products are comparable to other sources (public bodies are under increase financial pressure)

Danube Basin - Payments Water catchments NGO funding is limited WWF provided the ‘summary

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


for Ecosystem Services. Landowners are paid to manage land in such a way to ensure ecosystem services.

If on a catchment basis cross border co-operation is necessary

and conclusions’ report of a recent workshop10 (to be circulated to participants).

Unsure of private sector involvement in this project.

A dedicated organisation which facilitates carbon offsets. The money from these offsets (~€4/ tonne) comes from voluntary offsets, e.g. companies trying to become carbon neutral.

Peatlands UK Uncertainty with regard to the existence of carbon markets and being able to gain credits for restoration activities

Role for governments.

Potentially a huge source of financing. Voluntary offsets depend on strong appetite for carbon neutrality.

Carbon is carbon, therefore companies may go to where land restoration is cheapest.

Government has a large part to play in potentially enforcing carbon offsetting or rigorous carbon markets.

Biodiversity offsetting – land with some nature value is offset by restoration of land elsewhere.

Potentially across UK Attitudes

Size of net gain

Absence of regulatory framework

Regulation, reward mechanisms could overcome barriers

As shown during the session biodiversity offsetting is sensitive topic – even amongst those with the same goal. It appears that these concerns must be addressed.

In the UK offsetting pilots have taken place but no voluntary offset has taken place. It is unclear as to the cause of this.

In order to help achieve the restoration target a significant net gain must be incorporated into any offsetting.

Some other examples which were only touched very superficially were: water tax to restore biodiversity (Bulgaria), ‘green for red’ mechanisms in spatial planning, EIB support for pilot projects, insurance companies could be encouraged, CSR actions, development aid (nature based solutions for poverty, for food provisioning).

In general it was felt that the socio-economic agenda was insufficiently integrated into the biodiversity side of the process. It was also suggested that for Target 2 to have any chance of achieving its goals, particularly in a period of ongoing budgetary austerity, this project needs to consider and propose how best to augment gaps in the conservation sector (both

10 WWF Workshop on Payment for Ecosystem Services / Ecosystem Services; SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS, Bucharest, 24-25 April 2013


NGO and MS elements), particularly relating to business and economic capacity. Without this, there will be insufficient ability at both strategic and field level to understand and develop the measures that can maximise the income and funding potential related to restoration projects.


Annex I: Proposed descriptors for different ecosystem types (basis for discussion in the breakout groups)

The 4-level concept applied to forests

Potential descriptors Comments

‘Naturalness’ indicator Depends on availability of data.

Austria applies a so-called ‘hemeroby’-index, 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 oft he 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. This type of index fits well with the 4-level approach.

Connectivity Based on fragmentation data, and data on green 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”.

Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on degree of fragmentation and on degree of connectivity with wider green corridor network

Forest bird index Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on numbers of forest bird species

Similar species indices might be applied if data are available e.g. forest mammals, forest butterflies, …

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.

Commercial exploitation (timber)

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)

Surface of forests under Sustainable Forestry Management

If a certification scheme applies, this might qualify for level 3. Question is in how far this descriptor can be used for differentiating the 4 levels.

Surface of forests under HNV forestry

This probably qualifies for level 2 and/or level 1

Surface of protected forests

Several protection regimes might apply.

Pressure from acidification

Also historical deposition should be taken into account, as although current deposition levels have improved substantially, forests may need long time to recover

Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on historical and present sulfur deposition data. If there is a general consensus on critical load data


(threshold values), these data should be applied.

Pressure from eutrophication (nitrogen deposition)

Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on historical and present nitrogen deposition data. If there is a general consensus on critical load data (threshold values), these data should be applied.

Initiated restoration actions

Planting of new forests (not in the context of re-planting forest after clearcutting for commercial reasons) will require time before desired results become visible. However also these actions should qualify for the 15% restoration target, e.g. level 3.

The 4-level concept applied to cropland

Applying the 4-level concept to cropland does not mean that cropland will be restored into a natural ecosystem. 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).


Management intensity Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on intensity of cropland exploitation.

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.


Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on degree of fragmentation and on degree of internal connectivity as well as connectivity with wider green corridor network

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.

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; as a consequence the descriptor could be formulated as: “the cropland area is part (or not) of a larger ecological network”.

Surface of ecological focus areas (CAP)

Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on the way these areas are embedded in the green infrastructure network at a landscape level

Surface of croplands under HNV farmland

This will qualify for level 2 and/or level 1

Farmland bird index Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on numbers of farmland bird species


Similar species indices might be applied if data are available e.g. mammals (e.g. Hamster – Cricetus cricetus), butterflies, …


Ecosystem services 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).

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.

The 4-level concept applied to grasslands


‘Naturalness’ indicator 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.

This type of index fits well with the 4-level approach.

Management intensity Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on intensity of grassland exploitation.

Meadows and pastures each require a specific management. However both can be characterized by the intensity of farming practices (mowing, grazing, fertilizer and pesticides use, …) 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.


Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on degree of fragmentation and on degree of internal connectivity as well as connectivity with wider green corridor network

Ideally data on fragmentation within the agricultural ecosystem need to be combined with data on fragmentation at a landscape level, as grasslands may be part of green corridors covering multiple ecosystem types; as a consequence the descriptor could be formulated as: “the grassland area is part (or not) of a larger ecological network”.

Historical continuum as a grassland

Restoration of historical grasslands might qualify for level 2 or level 1

Surface of ecological Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on the way these areas are


focus areas (CAP) embedded in the green infrastructure network at a landscape level

Surface of grasslands under HNV farmland

This will qualify for level 2 and/or level 1

Surface of protected natural and semi-natural grasslands

Farmland bird index Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on numbers of farmland bird species

Similar species indices might be applied if data are available e.g. mammals, butterflies, …


Pressure from eutrophication (nitrogen deposition)

Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on historical and present nitrogen deposition data. If there is a general consensus on critical load data (threshold values), these data should be applied.

The 4-level concept applied to wetlands


‘Naturalness’ indicator Depends on availability of data. If such indicator exists (see examples Austria on forests, and Finland on grasslands) this type of index fits well with the 4-level approach.


Ideally data on fragmentation within the 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; as a consequence the descriptor could be formulated as: “wetland is part (or not) of a larger ecological network”.

Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on degree of fragmentation and on degree of connectivity with wider green corridor network

Wetland bird index Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on numbers of wetland bird species

Similar species indices might be applied if data are available e.g. amphibians, dragonflies, …


Water quality Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on water quality data. If there is a general consensus on critical load data (threshold values), these data should be applied.

Water level Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on drainage data (drained vs. non-drained) in combination with other descriptors

Surface of protected wetlands

Several protection regimes might apply


Surface of area with initiated restoration actions

Restoring drained peatlands requires time before desired results become visible. However also these actions should qualify for the 15% restoration target, e.g. level 3.

The 4-level concept 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…). It has to be clarified where to draw the line between rural settlements and urban areas.


Green space per capita / distance to green space per capita

Access to green space in European cities varies significantly (from only a few m2 per capita to several hundred m2 per capita11). Data can be based on the surface covered by the tree canopy, by grass areas (e.g sports area). This fits well with the 4-level approach

Connectivity Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on the degree of internal connectivity and on connectivity with wider green corridor network

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 this issue might be solved by counting the cities which have integrated green urban networks in urban spatial planning.

Indicator species Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on presence of threatened species in cities

Urban areas offer opportunities for bats and several bird species (e.g. Peregrine falcon, Swift, ….) and many other threatened animal and plant species. The descriptor can be based on a combination of 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.

Ambient air quality 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 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.

711 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/146na2.pdf


Annex II: Workshop agenda

EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDIRECTORATE-GENERALENVIRONMENT

Brussels, ENV-B2 D(2013)

Draft Workshop AGENDA

"Priorities for the Restoration of Ecosystems and their Services"

29 – 30 May 2013, BELSPO (Belgian Science Policy Office)

Louizalaan 231, 1050 Brussels

Participants: representatives from Member States with both policy and scientific/technical expertise, EU stakeholders and selected experts.

Objective: The purpose of the workshop is to contribute to the development of a strategic framework to set priorities for ecosystem restoration at sub-national, national and EU levels as foreseen under Action 6a of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. The workshop will 1) inform participants; 2) involve participants in sharing their experiences and views and in identifying issues, recommendations and needs in connection to restoration.

Wednesday, 29 May 2013

08:30 Registration and coffee

Session 1- Opening

Chair: Mr Patrick Murphy, DG ENV

09:00 Welcome by the Chair


09:05 The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and the importance of restoration

By Mr François Wakenhut, Head of Biodiversity Unit, DG ENV (t.b.c.)

09:20 Tour de table: brief presentation of the participants

09:40 Setting Priorities for Restoration

By Mr Patrick Murphy, DG ENV

Target 2 of the Biodiversity Strategy and action 6a on priorities for restoration. The issues that need to be dealt with. A strategic framework to set priorities for ecosystem restoration at sub-national, national

and EU level. The process and its links with other work under the Biodiversity Strategy. Input from the last restoration working group meeting, 19 April 2013.

10:05 The purpose and structure of the workshop

By Mr Johan Lammerant, Arcadis

The support contract-partners, timeline, outputs. The workshop in relation to the development of the Restoration Prioritisation Framework.

10:15 Coffee/Tea break

Session 2-The 15% restoration target

10:45 Session 2 part A. Setting the frame

Introductory presentation by Mr Johan Lammerant, Arcadis (30 min)

Definition of degraded ecosystems and restoration. Conceptual framework for ecosystem restoration: the four level approach. Descriptors of degradation and indicators of restoration.

Followed by three to four presentations of Member State case studies (each 15 min + 5 min Q&A) on their experience with national target setting for restoration.

Outcome: Common understanding of the key issues and definitions as part of this process.

12.30 Buffet lunch

13:30 Setting the frame: four breakout groups (45 min)


Each breakout group discusses the general principles of the conceptual framework and approach. Discussion about the levels and descriptors of degradation/restoration of five ecosystem types considered in this process: urban, cropland, grassland, forest and wetland (two per breakout group, may be reduced to one per breakout group).

14:15 Plenary report of the breakout group sessions and conclusions (20 min)

Each facilitator will make a brief report of the results of his group. Commonalities and differences between the groups will be recorded.

14:35 Conclusions

14 :45 Session 2 Part B. Options for Setting National Restoration Targets

Introductory presentation by Mr Richard Peters, Arcadis (30 min)

Identification of options; Assessment of options.

15:15 Coffee break

15:45 Options for Setting National Restoration Targets: Four breakout groups

Participants will be divided into four groups that each will have the opportunity to comment on the three main options for target setting: per country, per ecosystem type or per biogeographical region. The groups will carry out a reality check of the presented options: What are the issues in connection to each of the options? What experiences do participants have that help in deciding preferred options? Any suggestions or recommendations?

Outcome: Lists of issues, comments, recommendations for each of the presented options.

.

16:30 Reporting the options in plenary and moderated discussion

Outcome: Consolidated lists of issues, comments and recommendations

17:00 Closing of day 1.

19:00 Dinner (Restaurant « Le Cap de Nuit », Brussels)


Thursday, 30 May 2013

08:45 Doors open

09:00 Session 3 Criteria for priority setting at sub-national and national levels

Introductory presentation by Mr Mark Snethlage, ECNC

Identification and description of prioritisation criteria. Development of prioritisation framework. Outline of prioritisation guidance.

Participants will be divided in three breakout groups that each will discuss and identify issues and solutions concerning:

the feasibility of the suggested prioritisation criteria; the suggested prioritisation framework (i.a. weighting and trade-offs); Member States needs in terms of prioritisation to be addressed by the guidance.

10:30 Coffee break

11:00 Reporting of the breakout groups and discussion.

Outcome: review of suggested prioritisation criteria, suggestions for additional criteria, input for the further development of the prioritisation framework and guidance.

12:00 Lunch

13:00 Session 4 Support mechanisms and financing opportunities

Presentation of elements for the development of a restoration support mechanism for member states by Mr Mark Snethlage, ECNC (20 min)

Presentation on the conditions for financing restoration by Mr Guy Whiteley, EFTEC (20 min)

Three separate break-out groups on: 1. general technical support needs, 2. making best use of traditional funding opportunities and 3. exploring innovative funding for restoration.

Reporting of the breakout groups and discussion (coffee is served when participants return to the plenary)


Outcome: comprehensive overview of Member States’ and stakeholders’ needs in terms of a support mechanism, for restoration prioritisation, financing and implementation.

15:30 Session 5-Wrapping up and pulling it together

Workshop conclusions and next steps

Closing remarks , DG Environment

16:30 End of the workshop


Annex III: Composition of the working groups and participants list

Session 2 Part A. Setting the frame

Grasslands Forests

Moderator: Richard Peters Moderator: Lawrence Jones-Walters

Inga Belasova Egoh Benis Jordi Cortina Olivier Diana Peter Finck Sophie Herbert Maurice Hoffmann Zoltan Kun Ulrike Nyenhuis Merit Otsus Jussi Païvinen Attil Andras Takacs Katalin Torok Ward Verhaeghe

Georgina Alvarez Toby Aykroyd Chris Buss Johannes Drielsma Laura Kammonen Zoltan Kun Anna Lindhagen Katja Matveinen-Huju Ulrike Nijenhuis Monika Paar Jussi Päivinen Margit Tennokene Guy Whiteley Frank Wugt Larsen

Wetlands Transformed Ecosystems

Moderator: Mark Snethlage Moderator: Johan Lammerant

Kris Decleer Guy Duke Nora Elvinger François Laviolette Kristiina Nikkonen Fredrik Nordwall Robverta Pasquariella Howard Platt Geert Raeymaekers Raffaella Zammit

Alberto Arroyo Guéhanne Beaufaron Gabor von Bethlenfalvy Strahil Christov Sophie Condé Celia Garcia Feced Gareth Heavisides Agathe Lebocq Martina Mlinaric


Session 2 Part B. Options for Setting National Restoration Targets

Same groups as Session 2 Part A

Session 3 Criteria for priority setting at sub-national and national levels

Same groups as Session 2 Part A

Session 4 Support mechanisms and financing opportunities

General technical support needs and making the best use of traditional funding

Exploring innovative funding for restoration

Moderators : Mark Snethlage and Richard Peters Moderators: Lawrence Jones Walters and Guy Whiteley

Georgina Alvarez Guéhanne Beaufaron Egoh Benis Sophie Condé Jordi Cortina Kris Decleer Johannes Drielsma Peter Finck Celia Garcia Feced Agathe Lebocq Anna Lindhagen Kristina Nikkonen Fredrik Nordwall Merit Otsus Monika Paar Jussi Päivinen Katalin Torok Ward Verhaeghe Frank Wugt Larsen Raffaella Zammit

Kristina Articus Toby Aykroyd Inga Belasova Gabor von Bethlenfalvy Chris Buss Strahil Christov Olivier Diana Guy Duke Nora Elvinger Gareth Heavisides Sophie Herbert Maurice Hoffmann Zoltan Kun François Laviolette Katja Matveinen-Huju Roberta Pasquariello Howard Platt Geert Raeymaekers Attil Andras Takacs Margit Tennokene Guy Whiteley Agnes Zolyomi

Full Participants list


First name Last name Organisation E-mail

Georgina Alvarez Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment

ES [email protected]

Alberto Arroyo Schnell WWF European Policy Office

BE [email protected]

Kristina Articus-Lepage Belgian Biodiversity Platform


Toby Aykroyd WILD EUROPE INITIATIVE

UK [email protected]

Guéhanne Beaufaron University of Versailles Saint-Quentin

FR [email protected]

Inga Belasova LV [email protected]

Egoh Benis JRC IT [email protected] Buss International Union

for Conservation of Nature

CH [email protected]

Peter Carter European Investment Bank

BE

Sophie Condé ETC/BD FR [email protected] Cortina Spanish

Association for Terrestrial Ecology

ES [email protected]

Kris Decleer Society for Ecological Restoration Europe / INBO


Olivier Diana European Commission


Johannes Drielsma Euromines NL [email protected] Duke The Environment

Bank LtdBE [email protected]

Nora Elvinger Ministère du développement durable et des infrastructures

LU [email protected]

Peter Finck Federal Agency for Nature Conservation

DE [email protected]

Marco Fritz European Commission


Celia Garcia Feced Joint Research Centre - European Commission

IT [email protected]

Gareth Heavisides Scottish Government


Sophie Herbert BirdLife Europe BE [email protected] Hoffmann INBO NL [email protected] Jones-Walters ECNC NL [email protected] Kammonen FACE Federation of

Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU

FI [email protected]

Anouschka Kuijsters ARCADIS Belgium BE [email protected] Kun PAN Parks

FoundationHU [email protected]

Johan Lammerant ARCADIS BE [email protected]çois Laviolette Walloon Region BE [email protected] Lebocq EDF FR [email protected] Lindhagen Swedish

Environmental Protection Agency

SE [email protected]


First name Last name Organisation E-mailKatja Matveinen-Huju Ministry of

Agriculture and Forestry


Martina Mlinaric European Environmental Bureau (EEB)


Patrick Murphy European Commission


Kristiina Niikkonen Ministry of the Environment


Ulrike Nyenhuis Federal Ministry for the Environment

DE [email protected]

Eva Obermeier European Commission


Merit Otsus Estonian Ministry of the Environment

EE [email protected]

Monika Paar Ministry of Environment

AT [email protected]

Jussi Päivinen Metsähallitus FI [email protected] Pasquariello Italian ministry of

environmentIT [email protected]

Richard Peters ARCADIS Belgium NL [email protected] Platt Northern Ireland

Environment Agency


Geert Raeymaekers FOD Volksgezondheid


Mark Snethlage ECNC-European Centre for Nature Conservation

NL [email protected]

Attila András Takács Ministry of Rural Development

HU [email protected]

Anne Teller European Commission


Margit Tennokene Ministry of Environment

EE [email protected]

Katalin Török Hungarian Academy of Sciences


Aline Van der Werf INBO BE [email protected] Vanderhoeven Belgian Science

PolicyBE [email protected]

Ward Verhaeghe Agency Nature & Forests


François Wakenhut European Commission


Guy Whiteley eftec UK [email protected] Wugt Larsen European

Environment Agency

DK [email protected]

Raffaella Zammit Malta Environment and Planning Authority

MT [email protected]

Agnes Zólyomi European Habitats forum


titel van het project niet uit te lijnen en besteknummer€¦ · web viewthe service contract...

Documents