Hotararea 192/15.11.2016 privind aprobarea încheierii unui Acord de parteneriat între Municipiul Timişoara şi Asociaţia pentru Promovarea Valorilor Naturale şi Culturale ale Banatului şi Crişanei "Excelsior"

Supporting the Implementation of

Green Infrastructure Final Report

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 2

Contract details:

European Commission, Directorate-General for the Environment

ENV.B.2/SER/2014/0012

Service Contract for “Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure”

Presented by:

In association with:

Contact:

Trinomics B.V.

Westersingel 32A

3014 GS, Rotterdam

The Netherlands

E: [email protected]

T: +31 10 341 45 92

Date:

Rotterdam, 31 May 2016

Disclaimer:

The views expressed in this report are purely those of the writer and may not in any

circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 3

Table of Contents

Table of Contents .............................................................................................. 3 Executive summary ........................................................................................... 6

Task 1: Ensuring a more effective promotion of GI at all levels .......................... 6 Task 2: Capacity building, training, education for GI ......................................... 6 Task 3: Improving information exchange mechanisms for GI ............................. 6 Task 4: Assessing technical standards and innovation possibilities...................... 7 Task 5: Exploratory work on a TEN-G ............................................................. 7

Introduction .....................................................................................................11 Context ........................................................................................................11 Approach and objectives .................................................................................12

Task 1: Ensuring a more effective promotion of GI at all relevant levels .............12 Task 2: Capacity building, training, education for GI ........................................13 Task 3: Improving information exchange mechanisms .....................................14 Task 4: Assessing technical standards and innovation possibilities.....................15 Task 5: Assessing costs and benefits of establishing a TEN-G ...........................16

1 Task 1 – Ensuring a more cost-effective promotion of GI at all levels ...................18 Chapter summary ..........................................................................................18 Introduction ..................................................................................................19 1.1 GI promotion in Member States .................................................................19

1.1.1 Development of country fact sheets ......................................................19 1.1.2 Insights and lessons learnt from developing the country factsheets ...........20

1.2 Communication of costs and benefits of GI to sector groupings ......................20 1.2.1 Production of 6 sector factsheets and 4 topic factsheets ..........................21 1.2.2 Sector workshops ...............................................................................21 1.2.3 IEREK – Urban planning and architecture design for sustainable development

................................................................................................................22 1.2.4 Arad Workshop – GI implementation in Romania ....................................23 1.2.5 Helsinki Sector Workshop - CBD Business Forum ....................................26

1.3 Supporting key actions of GIIR WG .............................................................28 2 Task 2 – Capacity building, training, education for GI .........................................29

Chapter summary ..........................................................................................29 Introduction ..................................................................................................30 2.1 EU-28 Quick Scan of existing training and information initiatives ....................30 2.2 Development of a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) on GI .......................31 2.3 “Train the trainers” workshops ...................................................................32

2.3.1 Training on GI & Wetland Restoration in Budapest, Hungary ....................32 2.3.2 Training at the event ‘Implementation of the Strategy for Green

Infrastructure in Romania: Nature – our health our wealth’ ..............................33 3 Task 3 – Improving information exchange mechanisms ......................................37

Chapter summary ..........................................................................................37 Introduction ..................................................................................................41 3.1 Problem analysis and objectives of Task 3 ...................................................43 3.2 The digital GI information landscape ...........................................................45

3.2.1 Policy sectors .....................................................................................45 3.2.2 Stakeholders ......................................................................................55 3.2.3 National and international platforms on GI .............................................62

3.3 Increasing GI visibility for selected platforms ...............................................63 3.3.1 BISE .................................................................................................64 3.3.2 NWRM/WISE ......................................................................................70 3.3.3 Climate-ADAPT ...................................................................................74

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 4

3.3.4 Sustainable cities platform ...................................................................79 3.3.5 International Council of Landscape Architecture Schools ..........................80 3.3.6 World Green Building Council ...............................................................81 3.3.7 Green Roof Association ........................................................................81 3.3.8 European Council of Spatial Planners .....................................................82

3.4 Technical and governance aspects of BISE, NWRM and Climate-ADAPT ...........83 3.4.1 BISE .................................................................................................83 3.4.2 NWRM ...............................................................................................87 3.4.3 Climate-ADAPT ...................................................................................91

3.5 Recommendations ....................................................................................93 3.5.1 BISE to become a GI information hub....................................................93 3.5.2 GI as a common vocabulary across platforms .........................................94 3.5.3 Have GI relevant information made available to the end-users of the various

platforms ...................................................................................................95 3.5.4 Stronger connect across platforms ........................................................96 3.5.5 Long-term: machine to machine communication .....................................97

3.6 Further steps for BISE, NWRM and Climate-ADAPT .......................................99 3.6.1 BISE ............................................................................................... 100 3.6.2 NWRM ............................................................................................. 100 3.6.3 Climate-ADAPT ................................................................................. 101

4 Task 4 - Assessing technical standards and innovation possibilities .................... 102 Chapter summary ........................................................................................ 102 Introduction ................................................................................................ 105 4.1 Problem analysis and objectives of Task 4 ................................................. 106 4.2 Setting .................................................................................................. 107

4.2.1 Advantages and disadvantages of working with standards ..................... 107 4.2.2 Broader context: sustainability ........................................................... 107

4.3 Methodology .......................................................................................... 108 4.4 Overview of standards for GI for different sectors ....................................... 111

4.4.1 GI standards and the financial sector .................................................. 111 4.4.2 GI standards and the building sector ................................................... 116 4.4.3 GI standards and the water sector ...................................................... 121 4.4.4 GI standards and the transport sector ................................................. 124 4.4.5 GI standards and the public health sector ............................................ 132 4.4.6 GI standards and the industry sector................................................... 135 4.4.7 GI standards and climate adaptation ................................................... 139 4.4.8 GI standards and rural abandonment .................................................. 143 4.4.9 GI standards and the energy sector .................................................... 145 4.4.10 General findings on integration of GI in standards ............................... 149

4.5 General recommendations ....................................................................... 150 4.5.1 Integrated spatial planning ................................................................ 150 4.5.2 Green procurement ........................................................................... 151 4.5.3 Finding the appropriate standard ........................................................ 151 4.5.4 Harmonization across infrastructure sectors ......................................... 152

5 Task 5 - Assessing costs and benefits of establishing a TEN-G ........................... 153 Chapter summary ........................................................................................ 153 Introduction ................................................................................................ 154

Key GI features suitable for capturing European added value ......................... 154 GI implementation progress by Member States ............................................. 157 The rationale for developing a TEN-G .......................................................... 160

5.1 Learning from the Trans-European Networks (TENs) ................................... 161 5.1.1 Learning from the Trans-European Network for Transport (TEN-T) .......... 162 5.1.2 Learning from the Trans-European Network for Energy (TEN-E) .............. 167 5.1.3 Conclusions regarding the future design of TEN-G ................................. 169

5.2 Developing the current TEN-G baseline ..................................................... 170

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 5

5.2.1 The methodology to estimate and assess the baseline ........................... 170 5.2.2 Analysis of funds allocated to GI in the period 2007-2013 (analysis of the

Excel file) ................................................................................................. 171 5.2.3 Differences between the programming periods 2007-2013 and 2014-2020

.............................................................................................................. 175 5.2.4 The Baseline - Extrapolation of the results for 2007-2013 into the new

programming period 2014-2020 ................................................................. 178 5.2.5 Challenges and limitations of the baseline ............................................ 184

5.3 Assessment of the costs and benefits of establishing a TEN-G ...................... 185 5.3.1 Purpose and scope ............................................................................ 185 5.3.2 Methodological approach in a nutshell ................................................. 186 5.3.3 Results ............................................................................................ 190 5.3.4 Conclusions and discussion ................................................................ 193

5.4 Policy implications .................................................................................. 196 Conclusions ................................................................................................... 197

Task 1 ........................................................................................................ 197 Task 2 ........................................................................................................ 197 Task 3 ........................................................................................................ 198 Task 4 ........................................................................................................ 199 Task 5 ........................................................................................................ 202

Annexes ........................................................................................................ 203

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 6

Executive summary

The EU Green Infrastructure Strategy adopted in May 2013 foresees a number of

actions to be carried out under the lead of the European Commission in the following

years. They include, for example, integrating green infrastructure (GI) into key policy

areas, improving the knowledge base and encouraging innovation in relation to GI,

and assessing opportunities for developing a trans-European GI network (TEN-G).

The service contract reported on in this Final Report aimed at supporting the

implementation of these actions, in particular actions which require new knowledge.

This report presents the outputs of the five distinct tasks conducted during this service

contract, namely:

 Task 1: Ensuring a more effective promotion of GI at all relevant levels;

 Task 2: Capacity building, training, education for GI;

 Task 3: Improving information exchange mechanisms;

 Task 4: Assessing technical standards and innovation possibilities;

 Task 5: Assessing costs and benefits of TEN-G.

Task 1: Ensuring a more effective promotion of GI at all levels

The first task (summarised in Chapter 1 of this Final Report) aimed to raise awareness

of GI among the general public, Member States and a range of relevant sectors

through the development and dissemination of GI information material. The project

team produced factsheets regarding the implementation and potential of GI in ten

selected Member States, as well as six factsheets presenting the costs and benefits of

GI to specific sectors (i.e. finance, industry, transport, energy, public health, and

water). In addition, four thematic factsheets were produced, portraying GI in relation

to the construction of buildings, abandonment of rural areas, job creation, and climate

change adaptation. The project also contributed to the dissemination of GI knowledge

and awareness through three sectoral workshops. Finally, Task 1 included activities to

support meetings of the Green Infrastructure Implementation and Restoration Working

Group (GIIR WG).

Task 2: Capacity building, training, education for GI

Chapter 2 of this Final Report reports on the second task, which focused on capacity

building and training in relation to GI. It developed and implemented training modules

for two ‘train the trainers’ workshops, one on GI and wetland restoration and one on

better linking GI with existing operational programmes. The task also resulted in

material for a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) on GI, aimed at disseminating GI

training material to a broader audience across Europe and beyond.

Task 3: Improving information exchange mechanisms for GI

Task 3 presented in Chapter 3 of this Final Report evaluated the current visibility of GI

information on the digital platforms of several EU policy sectors and stakeholders, and

considered means of improving the content of and access to digital information on GI.

In a first step, the task identified the platforms relevant for disseminating GI

information and considered how such information can be (better) integrated. For eight

selected platforms, the accessibility and type of GI information was evaluated. Three

platforms – Biodiversity Information System for Europe (BISE), Natural Water

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 7

Retention Measures (NWRM) and Climate-ADAPT – were further chosen for a more

detailed analysis of the accessibility and user-friendliness of the GI information they

contained. For these three platforms, the team assessed the technical and governance

requirements for implementing a series of recommendations and discussed the

feasibility of the recommendations with the officials responsible for their

implementation.

Task 4: Assessing technical standards and innovation possibilities

Task 4 presented in Chapter 4 of this Final Report examined how technical standards,

particularly in relation to physical building blocks and methodologies and procedures,

could increase the deployment of GI. The study covered nine sectors: finances,

buildings, water, transport, public health, industry, climate, rural abandonment and

energy. It explored the extent to which GI is currently covered in the standards of

these sectors and assessed the need for (further) harmonising, adapting or developing

GI-related standards. A series of sector-specific sheets were developed, including

concrete recommendations concerning the need for harmonisation between standards,

the potential for including or strengthening the concept and principles of GI in different

standard categories (performance, procedure, methodology), and the interoperability

between technical standards applied in different project phases (planning, design, and

construction). A number of cross-sectoral recommendations were also formulated.

Task 5: Exploratory work on a TEN-G

Finally, Task 5 presented in Chapter 5 of this Final Report included all exploratory

work related to the potential introduction of a Trans-European Network for Green

Infrastructure (TEN-G).

The overall objective of the EU’s GI related policy ambitions is to have an EU network

of green infrastructure in optimal condition to deliver essential ecosystem services

throughout Europe. However, in practice priorities will need to be identified. To

promote sustainability, recovery and maximum effectiveness, there should be an

interlocking, coherent and co-ordinated approach across the different spatial scales

(local, regional, national, EU) to the mapping and assessment of the ecosystem

condition and to the identification of priorities for GI intervention/investment.

At the level of the EU, a TEN-G would involve the promotion of strategic investments

in the EU network of Green Infrastructure motivated by:

1. the need to protect, restore and enhance the overall quality of the network and

to maintain certain minimum quality levels to ensure the continued delivery of

ecosystem services;

2. the need to protect, restore and enhance the delivery of priority ecosystem

services in identified geographic locations at a scale which transcends

administrative boundaries, taking into account in particular trans-boundary

impacts; and

3. social and/or cultural considerations that transcend administrative boundaries

(e.g. the Green Belt initiative following the line of the "iron curtain" or the

pilgrimage route to Santiago de Compostela).

To this end, Chapter 5 of this Final Report captures the analysis and results from the

TEN-G exploratory work that has been carried out under the service contract. Chapter

5.1 first summarises what we can learn from existing trans-European infrastructure

networks (energy and transport) in terms of the possible design options of a TEN-G.

As a second step (as presented in Chapter 5.2), the team developed a baseline

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 8

estimating the current EU funding levels for GI under the existing GI policy and

funding structures in order to compare and contrast the expected costs and benefits of

a TEN-G to a situation without it.

The key outputs for the GI baseline scenario can be summarised as follows:

 During the 2014 – 2020 programming period, we estimate that green

infrastructure will likely receive EU finance amounting approximately

to €6,397 million by public EU funds through various funding mechanisms,

namely: LIFE+; the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the

European Social Fund (ESF) and the Cohesion Fund1; the European Agricultural

Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD); and the European Fisheries Fund (EFF)2.

This is an average of approximately €915 million per year.

 Although in monetary terms the fund contributing most to GI by far appears to

be the agriculture fund EAFRD, less than 1% of its total budget (€418 billion)

was allocated to GI between 2014 and 2020. That accounted for €4,967

million (77% of the total EU-funded GI). In fact, proportionally speaking, LIFE

is the biggest contributor to GI implementation. For 2014-2020, funding from

LIFE would amount to €1,248 million (19% of the total EU-funded GI), which

means that 36% of the total LIFE budget is allocated to activities that can be

considered GI.

 In terms of the distribution of funding across the various GI components,

current funding is primarily allocated to finance the conservation of green areas

(€5,010 million of all GI funding; 78% of all GI funding) and restoration of

green areas (€78 million of all GI funding; 12%). By contrast, connectivity

issues, sustainable use green zones and green urban and peri-urban areas are

underfunded in the baseline situation, as these building blocks receive only

approximately 1%, 4% and 4% of all EU funds allocated to GI projects

respectively. Investments in greening urban and peri-urban areas are mostly

spent on green roofs, city parks, urban forestation and the like. Connectivity

mostly funds fish passes and animal corridors while there is no indication of

financing having been provided to projects dealing with other connectivity-

related GI such as eco-ducts, green bridges, areas along energy and transport

networks.

 Against this backdrop, TEN-G could focus on promoting projects that

enhance natural and artificial connectivity, as this is an underfunded

area under the current set-up and could also contribute to reducing

fragmentation.

Building on this baseline, the team implemented a first-phase assessment of costs

and benefits of a potential TEN-G versus continuing the current GI policy and

funding structures. It should be noted that the assessment carried out did not focus

on finding out the best design set-up option for a TEN-G, but rather provides initial

evidence on whether or not the costs of introducing and running a TEN-G would be

outweighed by the expected economic, social and environmental benefits delivered via

such a network. This means that the assessment first established knowledge on the

current status quo scenario, the GI baseline. As a next step, the cost-benefit

assessment focused on comparing the different proposed GI components in terms of

what can deliver the greatest level of benefit if promoted under a Trans-European

network structure. The results therefore can be used for informing policy discussions

and next steps with regards to developing a TEN-G framework, the most relevant

ambition level, component focus, etc.

1 These three funds present their project beneficiaries together, without specifying which amounts come from CF, ERDF and ESF. 2 For the period 2014-2020, the EFF is replaced by so-called European Marine and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 9

Whilst the assessment process is high level and subject to a number of uncertainties,

the findings indicate that a TEN-G has the potential to provide greater benefits

per € invested than the current GI policy implementation and funding

allocation (as described under the baseline scenario). Considering only the top five

ranked components in the assessment, the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) for TEN-G is more

than double the BCR under the current funding allocation. If the goal is to maximise

the BCR (as opposed to focusing on particular environmental or social priorities), then

the top five priority components that could make up a TEN-G network are: Natura

2000 sites, Extensive agricultural landscapes, Regional and National parks, Multi-

functional sustainable managed agricultural landscapes, and Wilderness zones. The

ranking of priority components changes when the aim is to maximise the level of

environmental or social benefits delivered.

A TEN-G network based on the components that were ranked in the top ten at least

twice in this assessment (based on benefit-cost ratio, level of qualitative benefits,

based on social priorities or based on environmental priorities) alongside those that

could generate sufficient benefits to attract private funding would include3:

 Natura 2000 sites

 Regional and National parks

 Multi-functional sustainably managed agricultural landscapes

 Wilderness zones

 High nature value farmland

 Ecological networks with cross-border areas

 Local nature reserve

 Sustainable forest management

 Multi-use forests (such as watershed forests)

 Water protection areas

 Restored landscape systems covering a substantial part of agricultural/forestry

areas

 Allotments and orchards

 Storm ponds and sustainable urban drainage

 City reserves

 Metropolitan park systems

 Wildlife strips

3 The following components reached the Top10 list due to their suitability for private funding: Water protection areas; Restored landscape systems covering a substantial part of agricultural/forestry areas; Allotments and orchards; Storm ponds and sustainable urban drainage; City reserves; Metropolitan park systems; Wildlife strips. The following components could also be included in the Top10 list if only focusing on one of the prioritisations: Extensive agricultural landscapes; Functional riparian systems; Transboundary landscape features on river basin; Substantial share of structure-rich agricultural, forestry or natural landscapes; Supra-regional corridors; Sustainable coastal and marine management zones related to the respective sea basin; Restored areas which were before fragmented or degraded natural areas; Protection forests (against avalanches, mudslides, stonefalls, forest fires); Natural buffers such as protection shorelines with barrier beaches and salt marshes; Mountain range level (sustainable use zones).

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 10

The above list of potential priority components for a TEN-G incorporates a range of

different types of components, thus would be suitable for implementation in a variety

of areas across the EU.

Other findings of the assessment include:

 Overall, the results indicate that directing money towards components already

known for their high environmental value (e.g. Natura 2000 sites) can result in

benefits. However, if the list of components funded is extended to consider

the top components in terms of maximising the BCR, contributing to social

priorities and contributing to environmental priorities, the results show that a

wider variety of components should be prioritised under a TEN-G.

 Operating at an EU scale rather than at Member State level enables the

network to focus on those components that will provide the most benefits to

Europe for the money invested, since the area of land available for

implementation of such components is far greater than that available to one

Member State. Therefore, at a theoretical level, the overall benefits of setting

up a TEN-G would outweigh the costs, since the network could focus on

implementing those components that provided the greatest benefits. At a

practical level, considerations other than space would need to be taken into

account to ensure that the TEN-G was comprehensive and inclusive, and

shared benefits across the EU-28. However, such a network could still be far

more cost beneficial than the current allocation of funding across the various GI

components. Factors to take into account in the development of TEN-G would

include the existing spread of GI components across the EU (to avoid

imbalances between Member States), the condition of existing components,

and the location of settlements and their current access to GI components

(which affects the value of some of the benefits provided).

 Furthermore, the location of components in combination with the types of

benefits they are expected to provide is likely to affect the level of private

investment the components may attract. Components that provide

marketable services (e.g. crops, livestock) are likely to attract private

investment, whereas those which provide universal but non-exclusive services

(e.g. regulating services related to air quality, climate regulation) may be more

reliant on public investment.

While restricted by certain limitations, the first-phase cost-benefit assessment of the

potential environmental, social and economic advantages of introducing a TEN-G

versus continuing the status quo has generated food for further thought and

discussion on the matter. In the next follow-up steps it will be important to start

looking in more detail into the possible design options including potential locations

where components could be implemented, realistic ambition levels in terms of funding

for TEN-G, that could be taken forward by DG Environment.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 11

Introduction

Context

Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy4 aims to ensure that "by 2020, ecosystems

and their services are maintained and enhanced by establishing Green Infrastructure

and restoring at least 15% of degraded ecosystems." Action 6b of the Strategy

contains a pledge by the European Commission to develop a Green Infrastructure

Strategy, a commitment which was also recalled in the Roadmap to a Resource

Efficient Europe.5 The Commission delivered on this commitment in May 2013 by

adopting the Communication Green Infrastructure (GI) – Enhancing Europe's Natural

Capital.6 The GI strategy aims to create an enabling framework in order to promote

and facilitate GI projects within existing legal, policy and financial instruments.

Defined as “a strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas with

other environmental features designed and managed to deliver a wide range of

ecosystem services”,7 GI can contribute to the effective implementation of a range of

policy areas, including regional policy, climate action, disaster risk management, water

policy, health policy, and the Common Agricultural Policy. Indeed, one of the key

attractions of GI is its multifunctionality, i.e. its ability to perform several functions

and provide several benefits on the same spatial area, in contrast to its ‘grey’

counterparts, which tend to be designed to perform only one function such as

transport or drainage. The functions of GI can be environmental, such as conserving

biodiversity or adapting to climate change, social, such as providing water drainage or

green space, and economic, such as providing jobs and raising property prices.8

4 Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020, COM (2011) 0244 final. 5 Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, COM (2011) 0571 final. 6 Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Green Infrastructure (GI) – Enhancing Europe's Natural Capital, COM (2013) 249 final. 7 Ibid. 8 European Commission (2012) The Multifunctionality of Green Infrastructure. Science for Environment Policy. In-depth report. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/docs/Green_Infrastructure.pdf

What is Green Infrastructure?

Green Infrastructure (GI) is a strategically planned network of natural and semi-

natural areas with other environmental features designed and managed to deliver a

wide range of ecosystem services. It incorporates green spaces (or blue if aquatic

ecosystems are concerned) and other physical features in terrestrial (including

coastal) and marine areas.

GI is a tool for providing ecological, economic and social benefits through natural

solutions. It helps avoid relying on ‘grey infrastructure’ that is expensive to build

when nature can provide cheaper, more durable alternatives.

European Commission (2013) Green Infrastructure (GI) – Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 12

The GI Strategy foresees a number of actions to be carried out under the lead of the

Commission in the following years. They include, for example, integrating GI into key

policy areas, improving the knowledge base and encouraging innovation in relation to

GI, and assessing the opportunities for developing an EU TEN-G initiative (i.e. trans-

European priority axes for GI in Europe, similar to the trans-European networks in

grey infrastructure sectors including TEN-T for transport and TEN-E for electricity

infrastructure). To support the implementation of these new actions – particularly with

regard to actions which require new knowledge – the Commission launched the

present service contract in 2014. This final report brings together the outputs of the

five tasks conducted during the service contract, as outlined below.

Approach and objectives

The service contract was structured around five independent tasks:

1. Ensuring a more effective promotion of GI at all relevant levels;

2. Capacity building, training, education for GI;

3. Improving information exchange mechanisms;

4. Assessing technical standards and innovation possibilities;

5. Assessing costs and benefits of TEN-G.

The results of each task are included as separate chapters in this Final Report. Below,

we present an overview of the objectives and outputs per task.

Task 1: Ensuring a more effective promotion of GI at all relevant levels

The contract’s first task was aimed at raising awareness of GI among

the general public, Member States, and a range of relevant sectors,

via the development and dissemination of GI information material.

As part of this task, the project team produced ten country factsheets aimed at

providing Member States with a promotional tool which they could use in their own GI

promotion efforts, as well as informing economic policy activities at European level,

such as greening the European Semester process. Given this purpose, the country

factsheets include information on the aims of the EU Green Infrastructure Strategy

and related actions, figures on costs and benefits of investing in GI relevant for

Member States’ policy priorities, as well as good practice examples from the respective

country. The selection of countries sought to target (a) Member States with a

currently low level of GI awareness or commitment, (b) country involvement in the

European Semester process, as well as (c) an adequate geographical coverage across

Europe. Thus, factsheets were developed for: Denmark, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Malta,

Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, and Spain.

A further action under this task was the preparation of six sector factsheets

presenting the costs and social, economic and environmental benefits of GI to six

specific sector groups with further GI uptake potential. The factsheets covered the

following sectors: finance, industry, transport, energy, public health, and water (water

supply and waste water treatment). In addition, four thematic factsheets were

produced, focusing on GI in relation to the construction of buildings, abandonment of

rural areas, job creation, and climate change adaptation. The factsheets are intended

to serve stakeholders in the respective sectors, as well as policy-makers.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 13

The country-specific, sectoral and thematic fact sheets are included in Annex 1.

In addition to the factsheets, the project also contributed to the dissemination of GI

knowledge and awareness through the implementation of three sectoral

workshops, held in:

 Lecce, Italy – focused on GI and the health sector;

 Arad, Romania – focused on GI and various sectors faced with green/grey

infrastructure decisions; and

 Helsinki, Finland – focused on GI and businesses.

Finally, Task 1 also included activities to support meetings of the European Green

Infrastructure Implementation and Restoration Working Group (EU WG GIIR)

– namely, the 3rd and 4th GIIR WG meetings and the joint meeting with the MAES

Working Group – through the preparation of background materials and follow-up

deliverables assisting the client with its contributions to the group. The team also

presented preliminary findings of all tasks during each of the sessions, inviting

participants to provide feedback and suggestions.

Task 2: Capacity building, training, education for GI

The contract’s second task focused on capacity building and training

in relation to GI. In particular, the goal was to ‘train the trainers’ and

therefore provide the necessary background material and toolset to

‘pass on the message’ about GI in Europe and to ensure a

continuation in the efforts to increase GI uptake beyond the

timeframe of this service contract. To this end, the task developed

training material that can be re-utilised in various combinations to

create tailored training modules for different stakeholders.

In a first step, the project team conducted a ‘quick scan’ of existing trainings and

awareness raising initiatives across the EU-28 in order to gain a better

understanding of the current availability and the types of training workshops which

could be developed under this service contract. The resulting training database can be

seen as a living document that could be updated by representatives of the EU WG

GIIR on an annual basis.

As a next step, training material was developed, based on other tasks in this service

contract. The developed training material was subsequently ‘test-run’ in two

workshops which were selected based on opportunities to link up with an already

planned event. The two workshops were:

 A training on GI & Wetland Restoration as part of CEEWeb’s Academy event on

Building Blue-Green Infrastructure: Restoring and protecting wetlands and their

ecosystem services in Budapest, Hungary.

 A training on better linking GI with existing operational programmes, as part of an

event organised in Arad, Romania on ‘Implementation of the Strategy for Green

Infrastructure in Romania: Nature – our health our wealth’.

In addition to the two workshop events, it was agreed with the client to develop

material for a broader Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) on GI in order to

make training more widely available for a larger audience across Europe (and

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 14

beyond). The developed lectures (7 in total) can also be easily amended or

complemented with lectures on additional GI topics in the future. It should be noted

that this contract only developed the lecture scripts, not the actual video material to

deliver the MOOC.

The MOOC lecture scripts are included in Annex 7.

Task 3: Improving information exchange mechanisms

Task 3 evaluated the current visibility of GI information on digital

platforms of European policy sectors and other stakeholders and

considered means of improving the content of - and access to -

digital information on GI.

This part of the study was structured around four subtasks:

 Exploring the current digital GI information landscape and identifying the

policy sectors and stakeholder platforms that are relevant for disclosing

GI information at an EU level: this included identifying priority policy sectors

and stakeholders for which GI information should be available and identifying the

linked communication and information exchange platforms. It also included

describing what may be the ideal platform and how it could be implemented.

Furthermore, the team examined how the existing platforms are organized and

how GI information could best be integrated and made available.

 Evaluating the accessibility of GI information among a selection of eight

platforms and the type of information available (such as data, indicators,

maps, libraries, etc.): this assessment evaluated which GI content the selected

platforms provide or do not provide, whether its visibility can be improved and

whether the information available can be linked to the European Biodiversity

Information System (BISE). This exercise led to recommendations on how to

improve the content and visibility of GI information.

 Determining the technical or governance requirements for implementing

recommendations for a subset of three shortlisted platforms: the aim of

this subtask was to provide a file for each of the three selected platforms – i.e.

BISE, Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) and Climate-ADAPT – where a

description of the technical specifications and properties for the platform are

elaborated. After outlining the technical details, an analysis and proposal was

made to conduct the necessary adjustments to receive data, process the data and

finally publish the data targeted to the existing governance and technical

processes. Proposals, processes, approaches and recommendations were

discussed with the technical and administrating levels of the selected platforms, in

order to assess and estimate the most suitable mechanisms and procedures for

sharing GI-relevant information.

 Discussing with the representatives of the EU information systems to

what extent the recommendations provided in the report can be

implemented: with respect to content, deliverables of the other tasks within this

contract, in particular outputs from tasks 1, 2 and 4, may allow for material

being ready to use and available for being uploaded directly. It remains the

responsibility of the respective services to actually upload and incorporate the

information received.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 15

The task resulted in a series of recommendations related to the various platforms

examined, as well as more general recommendations for improving the online visibility

of GI.

As a final step, the analyses and recommendations made in this report were

distributed to the responsible services of BISE, NWRM and Climate-ADAPT. In an

iterative process, the team explored with them how to succeed in implementing the

recommendations made.

Task 4: Assessing technical standards and innovation possibilities

The objective of Task 4 was to support the Commission’s assessment

of how (and under which circumstances) technical standards,

particularly in relation to physical building blocks and methodologies

and procedures, could increase the deployment of GI.

The study covered nine sectors, namely, finances, buildings, water, transport, public

health, industry, climate, rural abandonment and energy. For these sectors, we

assessed how technical standards in use by each of these sectors could increase the

deployment of GI. This included an exploration of the extent to which GI is currently

covered in the standards of these sectors, as well as an identification of the gaps, i.e.

areas where GI is insufficiently covered in the standards. We thereby investigated in

depth the need for (further) harmonising, adapting or developing GI-related

standards.

The research combined desk review and interviews with representatives of the

different sectors. In addition to the evaluation of the nine sectors, representatives of

the Joint Research Centre and the Institute for Environmental Protection and Research

were interviewed with regard to ongoing initiatives related to GI and standardisation.

Where relevant, these initiatives were included in the sector fact sheets or in the

general outcomes of the report.

Based on the various inputs, sector sheets were developed clarifying the current state

for the sector and commenting on the possible way forward. These sector sheets

include concrete recommendations regarding:

 The need for harmonisation between standards;

 The potential for including or strengthening the concept and principles of GI in the

different standard categories (performance, procedure, methodology);

 The interoperability between technical standards applied in different project

phases (planning, design, and construction).

A series of cross-sectoral recommendations were also identified and discussed.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 16

Task 5: Assessing costs and benefits of establishing a TEN-G

The objective of Task 5 was to carry out TEN-G exploratory work, in

particular focusing on a first-phase assessment of costs and

economic, social and environmental benefits of establishing a Trans-

European Green Infrastructure Network.

The first part of this task reviewed the existing Trans-European Networks for

transport (TEN-T) and energy (TEN-E) since these networks may potentially

provide valuable feedback from existing experience for the establishment of a TEN-G

in terms of governance and financing mechanisms. The lessons learnt from this review

are reported for consideration when deliberating on the most suitable set-up options

of a TEN-G for Europe.

Building on this review, the remainder of the task consisted of a first-phase

assessment of costs and benefits of a potential TEN-G versus continuing the

current GI policy and funding structures. It should be noted that the assessment

carried out did not focus on finding out the best design set-up option for a TEN-G, but

rather provides initial evidence on whether or not the costs of introducing and running

a TEN-G would be outweighed by the expected economic, social and environmental

benefits delivered via such a network. This means that the assessment first

established knowledge on the current status quo scenario, the GI baseline. As a next

step, the cost-benefit assessment focused on comparing the different proposed GI

components in terms of what can deliver the greatest level of benefit if promoted

under a Trans-European network structure. The results therefore can be used for

informing policy discussions and next steps with regards to developing a TEN-G

framework, the most relevant ambition level, component focus, etc.

The first step during the assessment was the development of the status quo

scenario, the current GI baseline of what the existing GI policy and funding

approach already delivers in terms of GI initiatives and how much these cost (across

the various funds). This step involved identifying the costs and benefits associated

with different GI components. Existing funds that have been allocated to each of the

GI components have been estimated using the projects that have been funded under

LIFE+, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund

(ESF), the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), the European Agricultural

Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), the European Marine and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)

and the Cohesion Fund. This information was then used in combination with identified

data on the costs of each GI component (in € per ha) to estimate the area of each

component delivered, and hence the ecosystem service benefits under the existing

situation (the current baseline). The assessment in the next step then looked at

whether a TEN-G would provide greater benefits than those estimated under the

current baseline.

As mentioned above, the cost-benefit assessment then focused on comparing the

potential additional European added value a TEN-G could theoretically deliver

compared to the baseline scenario. This involved comparing the benefits of the various

GI components against their costs to identify which offered the best ‘value for money’

if promoted on a European scale, and hence to prioritise where funding might be

allocated under a TEN-G. Under a theoretical prioritisation exercise for TEN-G funding,

those GI components with the highest benefit-cost ratio were ranked highest, so more

funding was allocated to those components that delivered a higher level of benefits for

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 17

every € spent. The GI components were also ranked in terms of the non-monetary

benefits that they could provide. As well as ranking on all ecosystem service benefits,

the GI components were compared with how they performed against existing social

and environmental priorities, such as the ones identified by the 7th Environmental

Action Programme.

It should be noted that the narrative provided in this Final Report is supported with

the developed Excel calculation sheets and a technical methodological report as

annexes.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 18

1 Task 1 – Ensuring a more cost-effective promotion of GI at all levels

Chapter summary

In the bigger picture of supporting the implementation of Green Infrastructure via this contract, Task 1 is aimed at raising awareness on a general level – via the development and dissemination of information to a broad audience from various backgrounds (= catered to ‘the wider audience’ to gain further attention and buy-in from non-experts). In order to make the information material more accessible, the material and workshops are geared towards various target groups, namely: 10 Member States with little GI information available, 6 sectors with further GI uptake potential, and 4 topic areas offering interesting linkages to other policy areas to gain attention and link policy debates with other ‘hot topics’. 20 Factsheets: The development of the 20 factsheets (10 countries, 6 sectors, 4 topics) has generated additional information as regards the status of implementation, good practice cases, and the level of awareness for those selected countries, sectors and topics. However, the development process has also highlighted some challenges as regards the availability and accessibility of GI information for specific countries, sectors and/or topics. Feedback received for the factsheets has been very positive, with requests whether such factsheets will be made available for additional countries and sectors/topics. Sectoral workshops: In addition to the factsheets, another avenue for supporting DG ENV with the dissemination of GI knowledge and awareness was the implementation of three sectoral workshops. In addition to raising awareness, the workshops were also used to ‘test-run’ the relevant sector (and topic/country) factsheets. The three workshops were held as part of on-going workshops/events in order to maximise participation. The three sectoral workshops were as follows:

1. Lecce, Italy – focused on GI and the health sector;

2. Arad, Romania – focused on GI and various sectors faced with green/grey infrastructure decisions; and

3. Helsinki, Finland – focused on GI and businesses.

Key generalised lessons learned from the sectoral workshops are:

 Content: Participants really appreciated the wealth of usable information provided. As a next step, the client could possibly provide access to all workshop material via their website, BISE, etc. Additionally, further workshops of this type could be implemented in the future.

 Organisation: Low attendance and other organisational challenges can primarily be associated with the fact that we were dependent on the ‘hosting’ event. A lesson learnt here is that it might be better to organise future sessions independently, taking the risk of lower attendance rates (which are also not guaranteed when linking up with an existing event, see Helsinki).

 Status of GI awareness: All three workshops have shown that there is an urgent need to further raise awareness and build capacity on the linkages between GI and other sectors. While some steps have been taken, further efforts are needed to present good examples and provide training on how to include GI elements in other policy areas. For example, the sector factsheets can be used as an information source and further promoted not only in Romania but also in other Member States facing similar problems. Another major barrier to GI that has become very apparent during the workshops is insufficient understanding amongst stakeholders of the way natural ecosystems function which often results in an underused potential for GI development. Better use of integrated spatial planning processes, improved capacity of decision-makers and better institutional cooperation are important elements to address this challenge.

Supporting the EU WG GIIR: The contractor has supported the client with the preparation, hosting and follow-up of all WG GIIR meetings throughout the duration of the contract. This close interaction between the contractor and the WG GIIR has allowed maximisation of cross-fertilisation of ideas and sharing of knowledge on both sides.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 19

Introduction

The key objective of Task 1 was to ensure a more cost-effective promotion of GI at all

levels. This translated into three main support tasks the team was asked to implement

throughout the duration of the service contract.

The first sub-task focused on supporting the promotion of GI in Member States via the

development of promotional materials, namely GI factsheets. Similarly, the

communication towards sectors (both policy-makers and private actors) of costs and

benefits of GI as compared to grey alternatives within their respective fields has been

deemed as an area that needed improvement. The team also developed sectoral and

thematic factsheets, which can now be used as GI promotional material.

Finally, via interactions at sectoral workshops, but also during the various EU WG GIIR

meetings, the team was able to gather valuable feedback on current barriers to

further GI take-up, engage in discussions and test-run developed promotional

materials.

The outputs of these activities are captured in the remaining sections of this chapter.

1.1 GI promotion in Member States

1.1.1 Development of country fact sheets

As part of this task we have produced ten country factsheets whose aim is two-fold:

 To serve MSs, which can use the sheet as a promotional tool for their GI efforts;

 To feed information into MS-specific information delivered to the EC for the

Semester process.

Given this purpose, the country factsheets include information on the aims of the EC

GI Strategy and actions, figures on costs and benefits of investing in GI relevant for

Member States’ policy/topic priorities, good practice examples in the country of

concern.

The selection of Member States has been based on the following selection criteria (in

order of importance):

 Low level of GI awareness i.e. we should focus on those countries we do not

hear/know about;

 Inclusion mainly of those countries with low level of GI commitment;

 Country involvement in European Semester process;

 Geographical spread (to the extent possible).

In coordination with the representatives present during the inception meeting, the

following Member States were selected for the production of country factsheets:

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 20

Table 1 MS selection for Task 1.1

# Member State

Selection reason Geographical Coverage

1 Poland Pilot case East

2 Romania Semester process; planned national GI conference in 2015

East

3 Slovenia Semester process East

4 Italy Semester process South

5 Germany Semester process West

6 Latvia 2015 Presidency North

7 Denmark Little info known to EC North

8 Portugal Little info known to EC South

9 Malta Island state South

10 Spain High vs low commitment regions South

The draft factsheets were developed by the project team and reviewed by the client.

At a second iteration, they were also reviewed by country experts and circulated

amongst the EU WG GIIR for comments. After the progress call held on 5 August

2015, all the factsheets have gone through a final thorough grammar and spelling

check by an English native speaker from our consortium partner Stella Consulting. An

additional check has been done to enhance the readability of the factsheets in a way

that the message can get across in a clear and effective way. Further, we have

adjusted all factsheets to include pictures tailored to each country and type of GI

measure.

All final country factsheets can be found in Annex 1.

1.1.2 Insights and lessons learnt from developing the country factsheets

Looking back at the process of developing the factsheets, the content development

and review by country experts ran smoothly. The decision to include ‘standardised’

paragraphs introducing the concept of GI as well as the European policy context for

each factsheet, followed by a common structure to be filled with country-specific

information and illustrative cases worked well not only for the development of content,

but also for visual unity across all promotional sheets.

We have tested and distributed the factsheet to various types of users within the

national context and received very positive feedback as regards the usefulness of the

content, as well as the visual ‘attractiveness’ of the material, which entices the reader

to study the contents.

The Italian and Romanian sheets, in particular, have also been included as part of the

workshops delivered as part of Tasks 1.2 and Task 2 in Lecce, Italy and Arad,

Romania respectively. Participants had been asked to give feedback on the usefulness

of the factsheets. Commentary has been very positive, with requests on whether such

factsheets will be made available for additional countries and sectors/topics.

1.2 Communication of costs and benefits of GI to sector groupings

The outputs of Task 1.2 concerned the production of 10 sector and thematic factsheets

and the implementation of sectoral workshops with the aim of disseminating green

infrastructure knowledge and awareness across selected sectors.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 21

1.2.1 Production of 6 sector factsheets and 4 topic factsheets

We have created 10 factsheets which provide GI information relevant for selected

sectors and topics. The sectors and topics have been selected and agreed upon

together with the client during the inception phase of the project:

 In addition to the sectors proposed by the European Commission (finance,

industry, transport, energy and public health), a sector sheet for the water sector

(water supply, waste water treatment) has been produced. This choice has been

driven by the fact that water supply companies often manage large infiltration

areas with large GI potential (i.e. GI-based alternative waste water treatment)

and the fact that water-related ecosystems often deliver multiple benefits.

 The thematic sheets deal with GI in relation to the construction of buildings,

abandonment of rural areas, job creation, and climate adaptation.

The factsheets are aimed to serve sector actors as well as policy-makers. These

factsheets contain information about the aims of the EC GI Strategy and actions

(similar to the country factsheets). Furthermore, they include indications on costs and

benefits of investing in GI for the specific sector/topic and good practice examples.

Similar to the country factsheets, the study team took the lead in developing draft

content for the sector and topic sheets. Drafts were then reviewed by the client,

relevant sector experts, as well as circulated amongst the EU WG GIIR

representatives. It should be noted that (as agreed during the 21 May 2015 progress

meeting) the finance, energy, public health, jobs, and climate adaptation sheets have

been reviewed and updated based on a second round of expert feedback. After the

progress call held on 5 August 2015, all the factsheets have gone through a final

thorough grammar and spelling check by an English native speaker. An additional

check has been done to enhance the readability of the factsheets in a way that the

message can get across in a clear and effective way. Further, we have adjusted all

factsheets to include pictures tailored to each sector and the specific illustrative

examples.

All final sector and thematic factsheets can be found in Annex 1.

1.2.2 Sector workshops

As a second step for increasing the awareness about GI among sectors, the study

team was asked to run three sectoral workshops. As agreed during the inception

phase of the project, these workshops would be ‘hooked onto’ an existing sectoral

event in order to maximise the number of participants and to encourage engagement

with other organisations running relevant sectoral workshops.

The project team has run the following three sector workshops:

 IEREK – Urban planning and architecture design for sustainable development (14-

16 October 2015) http://www.ierek.com/events/urban-planning-architecture-

design-sustainable-development/, Lecce, Italy.

 Implementation of the Strategy for Green Infrastructure in Romania: Nature – our

health our wealth (29-30 October 2015), Arad, Romania. (Combined sector

workshop & train-the-trainer event).

 CBD Business Forum (11-12 November 2015)

https://www.cbd.int/business/bc/2015forum.shtml, Helsinki, Finland.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 22

We now elaborate on the summary of each workshop, present the lessons learnt and

suggest next steps accordingly.

1.2.3 IEREK – Urban planning and architecture design for sustainable

development

Summary of the workshop

The sector workshop was organised for an IEREK conference called Urban Planning

and Architectural Design for Sustainable Development (UPADSD), organised in Lecce,

Italy. Our audience mainly consisted of urban planners, architects and technical

engineers. Some sessions were very specific on e.g. green roofs, but many of them

were not about nature based solutions at all.

Unfortunately, due to logistical issues, our well prepared interactive workshop had to

be transformed into a (although quite interactive) presentation. On our arrival, we

were informed that the schedule was very much delayed and that they could offer us a

slot on the day after. Due to our travel schedule, that was not an option for us.

Consequently, we were offered a room when one of the parallel sessions finished a bit

early. Our time slot was reduced to no longer than 20 minutes. To make matters

worse, our workshop had to start before the scheduled moment and in an unknown

room, so participants came in only during the presentation. However, given that the

presentation started slowly, with extra emphasis on the first introduction slides, late

comers did not miss substantial parts. Although we had prepared a wonderful

presentation with internet voting and interaction by Mentimeter9 (so that the audience

would answer different questions by choosing options, or scaling the importance of

different types of GI), as a consequence of the limited time we were granted from the

organisers, we decided to skip the interactive slides. Although the speaker interacted

with the audience verbally, given the poor ability of many participants to express

themselves in English, the interaction was less informative than the Mentimeter polls

would have been.

Although the audience in the beginning consisted of approximately 20 people, by the

time the workshop came to an end the room was filled with about 60-80 people. We

decided to go on and take considerably more time than the 20 minutes we had been

given. The audience only grew, nobody left the room and participants became very

engaged and asked many questions, both during the session and afterwards (for

example, during lunch some of the session’s attendees engaged with us in a

discussion about green/nature-based solution for cooling school yards, for climate

change adaptation and storm water management). Most participants came from the

Mediterranean countries and experienced different problems than the north-western

European examples we presented.

The 30 sets of factsheets we brought printed with us were gone in a few moments and

many people asked for the digital versions. We provided a link to them in the

presentation, so that participants could download them.

Lessons learnt

The concept of a sector workshop worked well. Even though the audience was quite

diverse and mostly originating from other climatic zones, many of them recognised the

urban examples and discussed the solutions Green Infrastructure could offer.

9 Service to create interactive presentations online that allow the audience to vote with smartphones during the presentation.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 23

The presentation we prepared was targeting primarily urban planners and architects.

The replicability of the workshop is not straightforward for other sectors and would

need some adjustments to the presentation, for instance new examples. The structure

of the presentation and the Mentimeter questions need less changes.

The factsheets were useful in preparing the presentation and raised a wealth of

interest. We mentioned many examples addressed in those and in this way we were

able to refer to the sheets during the session.

It was unfortunate that our workshop time had to be reduced, but the interactive

Power Point presentation developed for the workshop could be used for other events.

All workshop materials (presentations and pictures) can be found in the accompanying

Annex 2 ‘Task 1.2 - Lecce Workshop Material’.

1.2.4 Arad Workshop – GI implementation in Romania

Summary of the workshop

The workshop was held within the two-day conference “Implementing the Green

Infrastructure Strategy in Romania - policy and practice.” The conference was

organized by Excelsior NGO in partnership with CEEweb for Biodiversity, supported by

the Arad Municipality and took place on 29-30th October 2015 in Arad City Hall.

The purpose of the conference was to promote the implementation of the EU Green

Infrastructure Strategy, and to identify the means of integrating the strategy in

national development plans, financing options and sectors including environment,

agriculture, forestry, transport and territorial development. The event was attended by

representatives of the European Commission, Romanian ministries and authorities.

Attendants had the opportunity to present their experience with respect to GI

implementation, exchange views and ideas on how to tackle challenges.

The sectoral workshop on green infrastructure implementation was designed to be in

line with the overall objectives of the conference. Specifically, the workshop aimed to

highlight the wider benefits of GI and stimulate a discussion on mainstreaming GI in a

number of sectors considering the Romanian context. The topics of the workshop

complemented other themes addressed during the conference such as: vision and

state of play of EU Green Infrastructure strategy, financing GI and opportunities for

businesses, GI aspects in Romanian OPs for transport, CBC OP between Romania and

Hungary, etc. In addition, the workshop served as an opportunity to inform the

participants about the ongoing DG Environment contract on supporting the

implementation of the GI Strategy and how they can benefit from its outcomes and

deliverables.

Presentations

The presentation on mainstreaming GI into projects financed under ESI Funds (2014-

2020) was delivered by Venelina Varbova from the REC and outlined the linkages

between GI and the following policy areas: climate adaptation, transport, agriculture,

industry, energy. The important role of GI for job creation was also highlighted. The

presentation included a host of examples for different sectors that were mostly taken

from the sector factsheets prepared under the DG Environment contract on supporting

the implementation of the GI Strategy.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 24

Kristin Faurest, external expert to the REC, gave a presentation on the multiple

benefits (social, ecological and economic) of Green Infrastructure. The presentation

also focused on GI as an integrated solution and highlighted the value of and

approaches to stakeholder mapping. Kristin Faurest also presented three European

green infrastructure case studies at the regional landscape, local institutional and

neighbourhood level: 1) Landscape Park Rems (Landscape Park Stuttgart Region); 2)

Miskolctapolca spa complex, Hungary; and 3) Ekostaden Augustenborg (urban

regeneration initiative), Malmö, Sweden. The examples provided further insight into

cross-sectoral cooperation, multidisciplinary approach, broad spectrum of benefits

designed to solve existing social, environmental and economic problems.

The presentations were very well received by the participants and aimed to provide a

basis for the subsequent group break-out sessions.

Group break-out sessions

Due to the reduced number of participants, three group break-out sessions were held

instead of the originally planned six. The participants were split into three groups, as

follows:

 Green Infrastructure and adaptation to climate change;

 Green Infrastructure and transport;

 Green Infrastructure and agriculture.

The groups were asked to consider the following key questions:

 What are the underused resources for GI development in Romania?

 What are the opportunities and challenges?

 Identify ideas for GI projects in Romania;

 Identify opportunities for incorporating GI as a part of other projects.

As an output the groups were requested to formulate policy ideas for development of

GI in Romania. A representative of each of the working group presented the outcomes

of the group work and discussions in plenary.

Working group: Transport and green infrastructure

Underused resources, opportunities and challenges with regards to GI and the

transport sector:

 The underused resources for GI development are also opportunities.

 Romania possesses rich diversity of nature, but it is not considered from the

transport point of view.

 There is potential in integrating GI solution in public transport (e.g. introducing

green tram lines).

 Local communities are not sufficiently engaged in GI development.

 There is a need to build capacity of state administrations with regards to GI

opportunities and implementation.

 There is a need to consider GI in local development plans.

 There is a need for incorporating GI in transport master plans.

 There is insufficient funding for GI solutions.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 25

 There is a need for better institutional cooperation with regards to applying GI

solutions in the transport sector.

Suggestions for policy improvement:

 Mapping existing GI (ecological corridors);

 Development of cycle network across borders;

 Integration of GI into transport policy at national and regional level;

 Analysis of the Impact of GI on the development of metro infrastructure, e.g. with

regards to underground water system, drainage, greening of metro stations;

 Provide sufficient Institutional resources for the development of GI.

Working group: Agriculture and green infrastructure

Underused resources:

 There is non-utilized agricultural land/structures (e.g. canals);

 Much land is under small-scale biodiversity-rich and culturally valuable

cultivation;

 The local products are not promoted enough;

 Traditional landscapes and opportunities for tourism;

 Heterogeneous landscape – allows for cultivating different types of crops.

Problems:

 There is no access to financing for high quality products;

 There is insufficient national financial support for product certification;

 There is erroneous or lack of support for small-scale farmers;

 Lack of farmers’ cooperatives/associations;

 Depopulation of villages;

 Invasive species on abandoned land.

Opportunities exist with regards to:

 Agri-environmental schemes (eco-conditionality);

 Greening agricultural practices;

 Empowering local action groups;

 Limiting excessive fertilization.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 26

Suggestions for further interventions:

 More investments in nature protection are needed.

 There is a need to revive water mills and canals.

 There is a need to develop short producers-buyers chains.

 Support needs to be provided to learning farms.

 There is a need to develop a database with information about local traditions.

Working group: Adaptation to climate change and green infrastructure

The following suggestions for policy actions have been outlined:

 There is a need to stimulate biomass production and use.

 There is a need to eliminate waste pollution from canals.

 The focus should be on the implementation of the WFD.

 Funding is needed for refurbishment of old buildings with focus on green

roofs/walls. Such funding can come from OPs or municipal budgets.

 There is a need to raise awareness about the linkages between GI and adaptation

to climate change.

Lessons learnt

Feedback on the quality of presentations, presented examples and facilitation of the

workshop was positive. The group discussion was lively, and the participants were

stimulated to think about GI development and what policy actions are needed to

address challenges and unlock potential for GI implementation in Romania. Some of

the ideas that resulted from the group work were quite innovative and could be further

developed in a future working session.

We understood that the wider benefits of GI are poorly understood among authorities

who are not dealing directly with nature conservation. The workshop was an

opportunity to raise their awareness of economic and social benefits that GI projects

deliver and the collaborative and multidisciplinary approach needed to achieve these

goals.

All workshop materials (presentations and photos) can be found in the accompanying

Annex 3 ‘Task 1.2 – Arad Workshop Material’.

1.2.5 Helsinki Sector Workshop - CBD Business Forum

Summary of the workshop

This sector workshop was attached to the CBD business and biodiversity forum in

Helsinki on 11 and 12 November 2015. Communication was started early with the

organisers. However, we only received green light to give the presentation a couple of

weeks before the event.

In addition, while our aim was to have the session as a parallel session during the

forum (to attract a large set of the 270 registered participants), our session was at the

very last minute re-scheduled to take place right after the forum on 12 November

2015, later afternoon. Many participants were already flying home or were satisfied

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 27

with having had 2 full days of presentations and discussions. Unfortunately, this led to

only 3 participants attending the session on GI.

Despite the low turn-out rate, the session was very lively, with good sharing of

expertise and discussions on aspects relating to what was shown in the presentations.

The feedback from participants was also very positive:

“The session was an excellent opportunity to get us thinking and discussing about

GI, and in particular the following points:

 Monitoring of GI: there is a tendency to assess GI from a quantitative

perspective (e.g. number of hectares implemented), whereas the quality of the

infrastructure itself is key and also needs to be assessed and monitored over

time.

 New sets of skills are required to ensure the maintenance of GI. Training a wide

range of stakeholders – from architects to gardeners - to managing GI will be

critical to ensure success of the projects.

I have found the EC approach of embedding GI as a solution in different European

platforms an interesting one. At the moment, the WBCSD is developing a specific

and distinct project on “Natural Infrastructure for Business”, and we should also

start considering infusing GI in different existing WBCSD projects, such as the

Climate Change or Sustainable Cities ones.”

(Violaine Berger, World Business Council on Sustainable Development)

“Interesting and inspiring session on Green Infrastructure. The movie on green

infrastructure (third movie) showed very clearly the different options and benefits.

Clearly presented with enthusiasm which helps to deliver the message. The work for

the EC is interesting but not as interesting as the first and last part of the

presentation. Good to show the report from 2013, I will definitely have a look.

Company example at the end is interesting but maybe a bit too long/detailed (end

of the day...). Maybe too detailed on the methodology of biodiversity assessment.

Would be good to see if you can capture this story in two slides using pictures of the

area and putting the numbers in the picture or using infographics. Also good to

show/indicate the results from an ecosystem services perspective and the

beneficiaries. This also allows you to end with something which is a bit closer to the

concept of green infrastructure (focus last part is now very much on biodiversity).”

(Wijnand Broer, Crem)

The presentation was shared with the participants by e-mail after the event.

Afterwards, it was also agreed with the hosts of the CBD business and biodiversity

forum that they would share the GI presentation with all participants to the forum by

including it in the Forum materials made available on the Forum’s webpages:

www.ym.fi/BBDF2015. (The Forum materials include: Discussion paper, Added Value

from Nature to Sustainable Business, presentations - PDF and web-stream

recordings.) In this way, we hope for a wider dispersal and usage of the prepared

information.

Lessons learnt

One of the key lessons learnt from this session relates to the fact as to how best to

communicate with the private sector. Business agendas are typically quite full and

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 28

people’s targets relate to turnover. They are very careful attending meetings if they do

not see direct benefits on their end. To this end, it is important to locate the right

outlet for such information to be disseminated. Additionally, the information should be

as tailored as possible to the individual participants so as to maximise the benefit they

can get out of the session.

All workshop materials (presentations and pictures) can be found in the accompanying

Annex 4 ‘Task 1.2 – Helsinki Workshop Material’.

1.3 Supporting key actions of GIIR WG

The consortium has been present during the 3rd and 4th GIIR WG meetings, as well as

the joint day with the MAES working group. The team has delivered draft minutes for

these meetings as well as provided various requested preparatory and follow-up

deliverables assisting the client with its contributions to the group. In addition, the

team has presented preliminary findings of all tasks during each of the sessions,

inviting participants to provide feedback and suggestions.

The separate file entitled ‘Annex 5: Task 1.3 – WG GIIR support documents’

contains all draft minutes, presentations, edited documents, etc. created during the

course of the project.

Lessons Learnt

The participation in the WG GIIR has been a very valuable experience for the team.

The participation has allowed us to gain insights into the current debates on GI across

Europe, as well as direct access to the main representatives per Member State, sector

organisations and NGOs. From our perspective, we have maximised these insights and

direct networking opportunities in order to improve deliverables via sharing ideas,

asking for feedback and giving exposure to the overall contract amongst the relevant

stakeholders.

From the perspective of the WG GIIR participants, we have gathered that they have

appreciated the involvement of the contractor as part of the WG GIIR as this showed

them the European Commission’s deep commitment to the group and to delivering

progress across various topics the WG is engaged in. Various members have

acknowledged that the facilitation of drafting documents and the continuous updates

regarding the status of this contract have been highly appreciated.

From the perspective of the client, the request for involvement in the WG GIIR has

delivered positive results in terms of having had support for preparatory actions,

during the events, as well as with follow-up action points. In addition, the client and

contractor were able to maximise lessons learnt and the cross-nurturing of thought

processes / developments between this project and ongoing work of the WG.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 29

2 Task 2 – Capacity building, training, education for GI

Chapter summary

In the bigger picture of supporting the implementation of Green Infrastructure via this contract, Task 2 is targeted at a deeper level of understanding and more focused target group (in comparison to Task 1). The goal of this task is to ‘train the trainers’ and thus provide the necessary background material and toolset to ‘pass on the message’ about GI in Europe and – in turn – ensure a continuation in the efforts to increase GI uptake beyond the timeframe of this project. This was also highlighted during the inception meeting, where the client emphasised that Task 2 was included in the service contract to try and fill a missing link between the existing trainings on various relevant topics and the inclusion of ‘GI’ considerations within existing sectoral trainings. To this end, the task contains the preparatory research and development of training material that can be re- utilised in various combinations to create tailored training modules for different sectors, Member States, etc. The first sub-task focused on gathering a brief overview of existing trainings and awareness raising initiatives across the EU-28 in order to gain a better understanding of the current availability and what types of training workshops could be developed under this service contract. The resulting training database can be seen as a living document that could be updated by representatives of the EU WG GIIR on an annual basis. The two workshops to ‘test-run’ developed training material were chosen based on opportunities to link up with an already planned event. Material was then tailored to the level of GI knowledge of the audience as well as to the sector/theme covered by the broader conference. In addition to these tailored workshop modules, the team had agreed with the client to develop one broader GI module that can be accessed by a wider range of audience as an online training course. This MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) material could be a tool to reach and train many people from across the EU- 28 (and beyond) on GI. The developed lectures (7 in total) can also easily be amended with lectures for additional GI topics in the future.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 30

Introduction

Task 2 of the contract focused on capacity building, training and education in relation

to GI. On the one hand, the task set out to identify the existing initiatives that already

exist across Member States and NGOs/educational institutions. On the other hand, the

task also included steps to generate new training material to be ‘test-run’ in

workshops.

To achieve these overall goals, the team first conducted a ‘quick scan’ of existing

training and awareness raising initiatives in the EU-28. As a next step, training

material was developed (based on other tasks in this service contract) and tailored to

the two events where the training workshops were held. In addition to the two

workshop events, it was agreed with the client to develop the material for a broader

GI MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) to make training more widely available for a

larger audience across Europe (i.e. not event dependent).

2.1 EU-28 Quick Scan of existing training and information initiatives

As part of Task 2, we have reviewed existing training programmes across the EU-28

Member States. The aim of this quick-scan was to identify a short-list of measures

(activities in this case) which are particularly relevant to enhancing capacities for GI.

The ‘EU-28 quick-scan’ was presented in an Excel sheet to the Commission in April

2015 with name, target area, target group, short description of measure, and entity

responsible for the measure. The result was a list of 20 existing training programmes /

facilities. This list was circulated amongst the WG GIIR members in order to gather

any additional initiatives the team may not have been aware of. The final EU-28 Quick

Scan (document entitled “EU-28 Quick Scan final.xls”) can be found in Annex 6. The

exercise should be seen in combination with some of the inventory relevant for

training/awareness that has been gathered in parallel as part of the WG GIIR (see

Annex 6 for Task 2, document entitled “MTR_target 2_GI_31032015.xls”).

Conclusions from this scanning exercise have indicated that there is a need for a

greater availability of tailored GI information sessions that can teach decision-makers

the practical application of ‘green options’ as an alternative to their traditional grey

infrastructure solutions. To this end, it was agreed to develop two train-the-trainer

workshops and test-run them as a parallel session linked to an existing event in order

to draw sufficient participants.

In addition to these tailored sector- and/or country/city/region- specific trainings, it

was agreed with the client that a broader GI course available for a wider public

throughout Europe could help those interested in the topic gain the necessary

knowledge to then teach/inform others. To this end, it was agreed to develop the

content for a freely accessible Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) that could

eventually be run by a university, NGO or another European institution via commonly

known platforms, such as COURSERA or edX.

In practice the above has materialised into:

 Preparatory documents for a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) on GI

 A training on GI & Wetland Restoration as part of CEEWeb’s Academy event on

Building Blue-Green Infrastructure: Restoring and protecting wetlands and their

ecosystem services in Budapest, Hungary.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 31

 A training on better linking GI with existing operational programmes, as part of an

event organised in Arad, Romania on ‘Implementation of the Strategy for Green

Infrastructure in Romania: Nature – our health our wealth’ (combined sector

workshop & training event).

These three trainings are further explained in the remaining chapters of this Task 2

report.

2.2 Development of a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) on GI

The development of a so-called Massive Open Online course (MOOC) on GI included

the conceptualisation of what content information would be suitable to be conveyed in

this type of training format, what type of target audience the material should be

designed for, and the preparation of all scripts for the MOOC sessions. The actual

implementation (launching and running) of the online course on GI was not within the

scope of the service provided. The documentation that has been produced as a final

deliverable can, however, be picked up by a professor/facilitator (e.g. University of

Wageningen), recorded and easily transformed into the online MOOC once a hosting

organisation has been found. During the preparatory work for the MOOC the team had

close contact with the ATENS Resource Centre in France, as well as CEEWeb in

Hungary who are both interested in participating in the implementation of such an

online training opportunity.

As regards the target audience, the MOOC was developed to appeal to a wide range of

individuals: from trainers to practitioners in the field, to local decision-makers, to

architects, urban designers and planners, etc.

The format of the training module should resemble online courses in platforms such as

‘Coursera’. The format we propose reads as follows:

 The course would run for 7 weeks;

 The course would consist of a total of 6 lectures, one per week;

 Lectures would be in the form of videos and text in English (videos have not been

developed within this contract);

 Each week there will be a piece of homework given to students, in the form of a

practice-driven assignment based on the lecture;

 Each lecture includes a quick test in the form of a quiz;

 The course should offer the possibility to obtain a certification upon request, when

all assignments have been completed and tests passed;

 There will be a support email for content related questions.

We have developed all the materials that would together compose a full-fledged online

course on GI, namely:

 1 syllabus incl. a brief overview of the course; and

 Written lecture scripts (7 sessions), including short exam/test quizzes for each

lecture, as well as recommended readings.

Aside from these materials, depending on the chosen MOOC hosting organisation, the

organisers may want to consider adding a final exam and certificate to acknowledge

the successful completion of the course.

The final MOOC materials can be found in Annex 7 under the name “MOOC GI”.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 32

2.3 “Train the trainers” workshops

This chapter provides summarised overviews of the two training workshops and

lessons learnt as regards their implementation. The material for each workshop has

been developed by a team of experts based on existing knowledge and preliminary

outputs of other tasks under this service contract so as to maximise the cross-feeding

of information material. It should be noted that the information has been specifically

tailored to match the events that the trainings were ‘hooked onto’. As such, they

cannot be replicated in the same manner elsewhere. However, much of the

information and presentations can be adjusted for new settings with relatively minimal

efforts, given the trainer team is aware of the context (e.g. country, sector, theme) it

needs to be tailored to.

2.3.1 Training on GI & Wetland Restoration in Budapest, Hungary

Workshop Summary

The workshop was fun, everyone seemed to have a good time, working in the role

play worked really well and the evaluation gave rise to some interesting cases and

examples some of the participants could provide.

We had about 18 participants, which allowed us to create three groups. As the room

was small, it would not have been possible to fit in more participants. The schedule of

the morning programme was very much delayed, so we only started after lunch, but

by merging some of the presentations and shortening the time for some of the

assignments, we could finish right on time (by the time the energy level dropped and

everyone got hungry).

Since the group consisted mostly of ecologists, the programme worked well. We did

not have to explain the concept of Green Infrastructure, but they were very much

interested in working with stakeholders. The session involved a mix of working and

listening; Kristin Faurest, external expert to the REC, gave an inspiring presentation

about multi-functionality after some intensive discussions within the groups, to give

some new insights.

Lessons Learnt

We provided an evaluation sheet and asked participants to give their opinion about

three parts of the workshop. The roleplay was evaluated in a short plenary moment.

Most participants’ feedback was positive; they know their own role as an ecologist, but

now had to think from a different perspective and negotiate with other stakeholders,

some of which may not be in favour of ‘all green’. As some of the participants said,

that was a very inspiring part of the workshop. Other reactions included the

observation that stakeholders need to be involved in the process, not only informed.

Especially the stakeholders that can provide financial or political support should not be

forgotten in the early stages of the process.

By the time the workshop took place, the factsheets were not yet finalised and

available in print. We provided a link to the digital set of factsheets. It is not clear how

many participants actually downloaded and used them.

Although the presentation was good and informative, the timing of the workshop

(right after lunch) and the crammed room made it difficult for some participants to

stay awake. Although we had planned a speed-date, the room did not allow for that.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 33

All workshop materials (presentations and photos) can be found in the accompanying

file under Annex 8 ‘Task 2 – Budapest Workshop Material’.

2.3.2 Training at the event ‘Implementation of the Strategy for Green

Infrastructure in Romania: Nature – our health our wealth’

Workshop summary

The workshop was held within the two-day conference “Implementing the Green

Infrastructure Strategy in Romania - policy and practice. The conference was

organized by Excelsior NGO in partnership with CEEweb for Biodiversity, supported by

the Arad Municipality and took place on 29-30th October 2015 in Arad City Hall.

The purpose of the conference was to promote the implementation of the EU Green

Infrastructure Strategy, and to identify the means of integrating the strategy into

national development plans, financing options and sectors including environment,

agriculture, forestry, transport and territorial development. The event was attended by

representatives of the European Commission, Romanian ministries and authorities.

Attendants had the opportunity to present their experience with respect to GI

implementation, exchange views and ideas on how to tackle challenges.

The sectoral workshop on green infrastructure implementation was designed to be in

line with the overall objectives of the conference. Specifically, the workshop aimed to

highlight the wider benefits of GI and stimulate a discussion on mainstreaming GI in a

number of sectors considering the Romanian context. The topics of the workshop

complemented other themes addressed during the conference such as: vision and

state of play of the EU Green Infrastructure strategy, financing GI and opportunities

for businesses, GI aspects in Romanian OPs for transport, CBC OP between Romania

and Hungary, etc. In addition, the workshop served as an opportunity to inform the

participants about the ongoing DG Environment contract on supporting the

implementation of the GI Strategy and how they can benefit from its outcomes and

deliverables.

Presentations

The presentation on mainstreaming GI into projects financed under ESI Funds (2014-

2020) was delivered by Venelina Varbova from the REC and outlined the linkages

between GI and the following policy areas: climate adaptation, transport, agriculture,

industry, energy. The important role of GI for job creation was also highlighted. The

presentation included a host of examples for different sectors that were mostly taken

from the sector factsheets prepared under the DG Environment contract on supporting

the implementation of the GI Strategy.

Kristin Faurest, external expert to the REC, gave a presentation on the multiple

benefits (social, ecological and economical) of Green Infrastructure. The presentation

also focused on GI as an integrated solution and highlighted the value of and

approaches to stakeholder mapping. Kristin Faurest also presented three European

green infrastructure case studies at the regional landscape, local institutional and

neighbourhood level: 1) Landscape Park Rems (Landscape Park Stuttgart Region); 2)

Miskolctapolca spa complex, Hungary; and 3) Ekostaden Augustenborg (urban

regeneration initiative), Malmö, Sweden. The examples provided further insight into

cross-sectoral cooperation, multidisciplinary approach, broad spectrum of benefits

designed to solve existing social, environmental and economic problems.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 34

The presentations were very well received by the participants and aimed to provide a

basis for the subsequent group break-out sessions.

Group break-out sessions

Due to the reduced number of participants three group break-out sessions were held

instead of the originally planned six. The participants were split into three groups, as

follows:

 Green Infrastructure and adaptation to climate change;

 Green Infrastructure and transport;

 Green Infrastructure and agriculture.

The groups were asked to consider the following key questions:

 What are the underused resources for GI development in Romania?

 What are the opportunities and challenges?

 Identify ideas for GI projects in Romania;

 Identify opportunities for incorporating GI as a part of other projects.

As an output the groups were requested to formulate policy ideas for development of

GI in Romania. A representative of each of the working groups presented the

outcomes of the group work and discussions in plenary.

Working group: Transport and green infrastructure

Underused resources, opportunities and challenges with regards to GI and the

transport sector:

 The underused resources for GI development are also opportunities.

 Romania possesses rich diversity of nature, but this is not considered from the

transport point of view.

 There is potential in integrating GI solution in public transport (e.g. introducing

green tram lines).

 Local communities are not sufficiently engaged in GI development.

 There is a need to build capacity of state administrations with regards to GI

opportunities and implementation.

 There is a need to consider GI in local development plans.

 There is a need for incorporating GI in transport master plans.

 There is insufficient funding for GI solutions.

 There is a need for better institutional cooperation with regards to applying GI

solutions in the transport sector.

Suggestions for policy improvement:

 Mapping existing GI (ecological corridors);

 Development of cycle network across borders;

 Integration of GI into transport policy at national and regional level;

 Analysis of the Impact of GI on the development of metro infrastructure, e.g. with

regards to underground water system, drainage, greening of metro stations;

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 35

 Provide sufficient institutional resources for the development of GI.

Working group: Agriculture and green infrastructure

Underused resources:

 There is non-utilized agricultural land/structures (e.g. canals);

 Much land is under small-scale biodiversity-rich and culturally valuable

cultivation;

 The local products are not promoted enough;

 Traditional landscapes and opportunities for tourism;

 Heterogeneous landscape – allows for cultivating different types of crops.

Problems:

 There is no access to financing for high quality products;

 There is insufficient national financial support for product certification;

 There is erroneous or lack of support for small-scale farmers;

 Lack of farmers’ cooperatives/associations;

 Depopulation of villages;

 Invasive species on abandoned land.

Opportunities exist with regards to:

 Agri-environmental schemes (eco-conditionality);

 Greening agricultural practices;

 Empowering local action groups;

 Limiting excessive fertilization.

Suggestions for further interventions:

 More investments in nature protection are needed.

 There is a need to revive water mills and canals.

 There is a need to develop short producers-buyers chains.

 Support needs to be provided to learning farms.

 There is a need to develop a database with information about local traditions.

Working group: Adaptation to climate change and green infrastructure

The following suggestions for policy actions have been outlined:

 There is a need to stimulate biomass production and use.

 There is a need to eliminate waste pollution from canals.

 The focus should be on the implementation of the WFD.

 Funding is needed for refurbishment of old buildings with focus on green

roofs/walls. Such funding can come from OPs or municipal budgets.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 36

 There is a need to raise awareness about the linkages between GI and adaptation

to climate change.

Lessons learnt

Feedback on the quality of presentations, presented examples and facilitation of the

workshop was positive. The group discussion was lively, and the participants were

stimulated to think about GI development and what policy actions are needed to

address challenges and unlock potential for GI implementation in Romania. Some of

the ideas that resulted from the group work were quite innovative and could be further

developed in a future working session.

We understood that the wider benefits of GI are poorly understood among authorities

who are not dealing directly with nature conservation. The workshop was an

opportunity to raise their awareness of economic and social benefits that GI projects

deliver and the collaborative and multidisciplinary approach needed to achieve these

goals.

All workshop materials (presentations and photos) can be found in the accompanying

file under Annex 3 ‘Task 1.2 – Arad Workshop Material’.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 37

3 Task 3 – Improving information exchange mechanisms

Chapter summary

Green infrastructure (GI) is a successfully tested tool for providing ecological, economic and social benefits through natural solutions. GI helps to understand the value of the benefits that nature provides to human society and to mobilise investments to sustain and enhance them. It also helps avoid relying on infrastructure that is expensive to build when nature can often provide cheaper, more durable solutions. GI is based on the principle that protecting and enhancing nature and natural processes, and the many benefits human society gets from nature, are consciously integrated into spatial planning and territorial development. Compared to single-purpose grey infrastructure, GI has many benefits. It can sometimes offer an alternative, or be complementary, to standard grey solutions. GI has ties with agriculture, forestry, nature, water, marine and fisheries, regional and cohesion policy, climate change mitigation and adaptation, transport, energy, disaster prevention and land use policies. Further, GI information may range from content on policy, to costs and benefits of measures and very technical input serving designers and engineers. Also, GI-relevant information might vary in its format: e.g. maps, indicators, articles, web pages, published documents, etc. In this report, the current visibility of GI information on digital platforms of European policy sectors and other stakeholders has been evaluated. The availability of solutions for improving access to digital information on GI has also been addressed. Four subtasks have been distinguished in this work:

 Exploring the current digital GI information landscape and identifying the policy sectors and stakeholder platforms that are relevant for disclosing GI information at an EU level. This included identifying priority policy sectors and stakeholders for which GI information should be available and identifying the linked communication and information exchange platforms. It also included describing what may be the ideal platform and how it could be implemented. Further, it was researched how the existing platforms are organized and how GI information could best be integrated and made available.

 Evaluating the accessibility of GI information among a selection of eight platforms and the type of information available (such as data, indicators, maps, libraries, etc.). This assessment evaluated which GI content they provide or do not provide, whether its visibility can be improved from a GI perspective and whether the information available can be linked to BISE (the European Biodiversity Information System). This exercise led to recommendations on how to improve the content and visibility of GI information.

 Determining the technical or governance requirements for implementing recommendations for a subset of three shortlisted platforms. The aim of this task was to provide a file for each of these three platforms, where a description of the technical specifications and properties for the platform are elaborated. After outlining the technical details, an analysis and proposal was made to conduct the necessary adjustments to receive data, process the data and finally publish the data targeted to the existing governance and technical processes. Proposals, processes, approaches and recommendations were discussed with the technical and administrating levels of the selected platforms, in order to asses and estimate the most suitable mechanisms and procedures for sharing GI relevant information.

 Discussing with the representatives of the EU information systems to what extent the recommendations provided in the report can be implemented. With respect to content, deliverables of the other tasks within this contract, in particular outputs from tasks 1, 2 and 4, may allow for material being ready to use and available for being uploaded directly. It remains the responsibility of the respective services to actually upload and incorporate the information received.

The recommendations that were given are split over three time horizons:

 Recommendations that can be implemented in the short term: i.e. can be realized during the duration of the contract;

 Recommendations that can be implemented in the mid-term: i.e. can be initiated during the duration of the contract but will require final efforts shortly following the finalization of the contract; and

 Recommendations that can be implemented in the longer term, i.e. recommendations which need to be aligned with the technicalities and governance the different platforms have (however, it is not a request to dig deep into the governance of the various platforms).

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 38

For the first subtask, from a policy sector perspective, platforms were searched at the EU level relating to nature, water, climate, agriculture, health and consumers, disaster risk management, mobility and transport, and regional and cohesion policy. In addition, GI may be important to a variety of stakeholders that are either involved in working on infrastructure and design of open space or otherwise are users of open space. For the first group, stakeholder groups that will have large impact through their activities on the environments-we-live-in are landscape architects, building professionals and spatial planners. Focusing on the users of open spaces, relevant groups to consider are land owners, foresters, farmers, fishermen, hunters, nature NGOs and businesses. For each of the digital platforms that were identified, a brief description was provided of the available GI information. Next, for each of the platforms an evaluation was made of the GI information that is available. For platforms hosted by the European Commission’s policy sectors, the evaluation shows the relatively weak availability of GI information. The GI information that is available across the studied EC platforms is relatively dispersed and not presented in a coherent way. A common aspect for the reviewed platforms is that there is a lot of information that is highly relevant to GI but not defined and labelled as such. With respect to the available policy information, GI is only visible on a limited number of EC-related websites and platforms. Much progress therefore can be made by having the concept, its relevance for the sector and a link to the GI section on BISE integrated across the relevant policy sectors. Based on the stakeholder platforms that were evaluated, it was found that except CEEweb none of them qualifies as an information or knowledge sharing platform. It may be explored whether links can be made from BISE to CEEweb and vice versa. Next to CEEweb, FACE and WBCSD are best in class with limited but clear and inspiring information on GI. On some other platforms GI is mentioned, however very little could be retrieved. Also for those platforms that have related information (biodiversity, ecosystem services, nature- based solutions, etc.), the link to GI is made in some documents. However, GI is not included on these platforms in a dedicated manner. Altogether, the visibility of GI on platforms and websites at the EU scale of stakeholder groups for which GI is considered very much relevant can be considered poor. A future ‘ideal world’ could be one where GI visibility has increased substantially for a large selection of the platforms hosted by stakeholders. It is evident that if constructed appropriately, portals can positively contribute to distributing relevant information to the public and to various end-users. A major question is where to disclose information and how to make information accessible such that end-users can locate what they search for in a straightforward and easy way. Thus, the link has to be made between the “what” and “why” of information with the “where” and “how”.

 Therefore, it is necessary to gain thorough insights in where end-users may be assisted by specific information.

 Further, it has to be acknowledged that end-users will not necessarily look for GI related information from a GI perspective. Indeed, for example, a farmer may simply be looking for ways to diversify and thereby be aided by knowing that a GI focus can be one option.

 Knowing which end-users may need GI-related information and understanding the online paths they may choose to reach that information can aid in providing the required information at the places where end-users are likely looking for it.

 This concerns information available from various departments at the EU and the national level, but also the information provided at regional and local levels.

 Different groups of end-users have very different ways in which they interact with GI and many of them will not be inclined or have a natural tendency to go and dig into technical information provided on a website dedicated to GI, for example under BISE.

 The web portals they usually visit (for example about support to agriculture or industries) should point towards the websites providing relevant GI information.

For the second subtask eight platforms were selected to be explored in more depth and addressing which of the content that is presented or can be presented relates to GI. Also, we explored in more depth the accessibility and user friendliness of the platform in general and from a GI perspective more specifically for three of the eight platforms: BISE, NWRM and Climate-ADAPT. For each of the eight platforms, the analysis addressed the end-users and their expectations, what is available on GI and what is lacking, whether there is potential to connect across platforms and how to improve the visibility of GI.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 39

The following conclusions could be drawn regarding the three major platforms that were researched (BISE, NWRM and Climate-ADAPT):

 With respect to BISE, although not labelled as such, most information of the BISE platform is highly relevant from a GI perspective as preserving biodiversity is an important result and building block of GI measures, because ecological networks are GI and because it concerns ecosystem services for delivering goods and services. One of the key conclusions from the analysis is that the GI relevant sections need to be made more visible, including through better labelling of the many sub-sections that have GI relevance. Moreover, by providing further interlinkages between the various GI-related sections, the usefulness of BISE for the end-users would increase, and a more holistic picture will be given. The platform hosts the nice feature of the GI library which has a lot of potential to be further developed into a rich source of information. The library, however, needs to be made more visible and accessible to be able to provide its full potential. There is a lot of GI relevant information available on BISE, but its coherence, visibility and user-friendliness needs to be improved. By structuring the information, increasing interlinkages, extending the integration of other GI platforms, BISE could become a good source of GI information. The GI information available should be extended to encompass policy aspects as well as greater depth with regard to the different GI options and measures that are available. These aspects need to be addressed before BISE can claim to be a user friendly, exhaustive source of GI knowledge in Europe.

 NWRM (Natural Water Retention Measures) is all about GI. It is well-placed under WISE and only needs to be indicated on BISE with a link and short explanation. In other words, no integration into BISE is necessary and only a connection should be established. Considering the NWRM platform from a GI perspective, it could be improved by better introducing and integrating the GI concept and the strong supportive relationship of GI and NWRM, as this is currently missing. All information on the website is highly relevant to GI as NWRM per se are green infrastructure solutions. The information is however not labeled as such and the user might not be aware that this is in fact GI. This aspect should be given further attention to make the context clear for the end-users. Currently, there are not many linkages made to external sources, and it would be useful to have many more links to other GI platforms and sources of information. A technical challenge is how to integrate NWRM into WISE. The NWRM platform, which is entirely GI, could serve as inspiration for setting up/renewing other GI- related platforms such as BISE or the new platform on sustainable cities that will be organised. The structure of the measures section, and to some extent the case studies section, can be used as an illustrative example of how to create interlinkages within a platform and how it is making links to the relevant case studies, benefits etc.

 In the context of climate, GI is among the most widely applicable, economically viable and effective tools to support climate change adaptation. The integration of GI into climate adaptation management, also called ecosystem-based adaptation, contributes to achieving the EU climate adaptation goals. The Climate-ADAPT platform contains a few references to GI, however not sufficiently to reflect its significance. A clear introduction of GI is missing. In its current state the few GI references are scattered across the platform. These aspects are making the GI relevant information on the platform difficult to locate resulting in a low usefulness for the user. The website contains knowledge which would be highly relevant to GI and that could provide useful information and guidance on sectors, measures, processes etc. relevant for GI, and in particular GI measures supporting climate adaptation. Presenting the GI concept in a visible and structured way is needed. The available information related to GI should be highlighted as GI relevant. It would also be important to increase the interlinkages across the platform to provide a fuller overview of GI and to help the user to find their way to the information. It would be beneficial to create a separate section on GI and adaptation which could present all these aspects in a coherent and visible way. These improvements would be necessary to establish links with other platforms, such as BISE.

Very specific recommendations have been made for the various platforms researched as well as more general recommendations for improving the online visibility of GI, including:

 In the short-term, BISE should be developed into a GI information hub, while considering it will and should not be the only access point for GI knowledge. Therefore, it is a crucial aspect to decide on which GI information to make available through BISE, and which through other platforms (such as, for example, NWRM or Climate-ADAPT). For GI information disclosed through other platforms it requires attention to assure this to be connected to BISE such that it is accessible also for end-users that do access through BISE. In addition, there is a rather weak presence of both the term GI and the information that relates to GI across platforms linked to either the EC or to stakeholders. In fact, many platforms that can be considered as relevant do not contain any reference at all to the concept of GI. Much progress therefore can be made by having the concept, its relevance for the sector or stakeholder group and a link to the GI section on BISE integrated across the relevant policy sectors and stakeholder platforms.

 In the mid-term, it was discussed that the ‘ideal’ future situation has GI information made available through the different websites/platforms linked to specific policy sectors/stakeholder groups. It will be important to consider end-user needs when deciding where to disclose which GI information. Another

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 40

challenge is to connect the different sources available on the various platforms. For end-users, rather than having to search for GI information on various platforms, it may be beneficial to have user- relevant GI information become available through a single search or from a single page with convenient links to where other information is available. To improve user access to GI information, a search function in combination with a single repository where all GI related information is centralized, would be the most effective solution. However, the feasibility of this option is rather low, as it is very unlikely that all platforms involved would be willing to share all information in an agreed manner. This brings us to a long-term recommendation: machine to machine communication.

 While most websites have some degree of structure, the language in which they are created, HTML, is oriented towards structuring textual documents rather than data. As data is intermingled into the surrounding text, it is hard for software applications to extract snippets of structured data from HTML pages. Linking data distributed across the Web requires a standard mechanism for specifying the existence and meaning of connections between items described in this data. "Structured data markup" is a standard way to annotate your content so machines can understand it. When your web pages include structured data markup, Google (and other search engines) can use that data to index your content better, present it more prominently in search results, and surface it in new applications like voice answers, maps, and Google Now. A more generic approach to making structured data available on the Web are Web APIs. Web APIs provide simple query access to structured data over the HTTP protocol.

As a final step, the analyses and recommendations made in this report were distributed to the responsible services of BISE, NWRM and Climate-ADAPT. In an iterative process it was explored with them how to succeed in implementing the recommendations that were made.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 41

Introduction

The overall purpose of this task report is to look for very pragmatic solutions for

improving the digital information sharing/presentation on green infrastructure (GI). In

short, solutions are needed for making relevant digital content on GI more visible.

Before further considering where GI information should be digitally present, we feel

the need to concisely consider what GI is. A challenge is that GI is not a sector and

that the language can be different in the various sectors where it is relevant. Indeed,

GI is a concept not easily defined, with broad ties to a variety of sectors and policy

fields (see BOX 1 and the glossary developed by the expert Working Group on Green

Infrastructure Implementation and Restoration (WG GIIR)10).

More specifically, GI has ties with agriculture, forestry, nature, water, marine and

fisheries, regional and cohesion policy, climate change mitigation and adaptation,

transport, energy, disaster prevention and land use policies. Therefore, GI information

may need to be dispatched through all these channels. In addition, GI information

may range from content on policy, to costs and benefits of measures and very

technical input serving designers and engineers. Therefore, GI information should not

only be present in a variety of disciplines, but also serve a variety of needs (decision

makers, designers, engineers, businesses, users, etc.). GI-relevant information may

also vary in its format: e.g. maps, indicators, articles, web pages, published

documents, etc. Considering the relevance of GI to a variety of sectors and

stakeholders, determining the most relevant sectors and platforms for providing

information on GI at the EU level needs to be prioritized.

At this moment there is a lack of a coherent availability of digital GI information to the

relevant stakeholders. Experience shows that clearing house mechanisms and other

means of experience sharing and information hosting are not dedicated to GI or the

relevant context has not been targeted towards the needs of GI stakeholders, and

therefore is only of limited use for GI implementation. Indeed, target groups which are

important for GI implementation in the field, such as land owners, project developers

and businesses, are only informed to a very limited degree about benefits and trade-

offs in using GI, ways to get GI measures approved and implemented, funding

possibilities, etc. Therefore, the European Commission aims to better integrate GI-

relevant issues into existing or planned platforms visited by stakeholder groups. In

this context it is relevant to note that there will not be a central repository where all

GI information will be available. The aim is to identify the different repositories that

are available (i.e. locating the main GI information on a European scale today) and

connecting these.

10http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/docs/green_infrastructures/GI%20webpage%20glos

sary.pdf

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 42

Box 1 What is GI?

Many definitions of GI have been developed11. In its 2013 Green Infrastructure strategy12, the European Commission defines Green Infrastructure as “a strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas with other environmental features designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services. It incorporates green spaces (or blue if aquatic ecosystems are concerned) and other physical features in terrestrial (including coastal) and marine areas. On land, GI is present in rural and urban settings.”

In addition, many countries may have had a form of GI in place for many years, but do not label it ‘GI’ or see the need to evaluate it as such. For example, in their report on the design, implementation and cost elements of GI, Naumann and colleagues13 found that out of the 127 GI initiatives that they assessed only 20% explicitly identified themselves as GI. In the report, GI is defined as the network of natural and semi- natural areas, features and green spaces in rural and urban, and terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine areas, which together enhance ecosystem health and resilience, contribute to biodiversity conservation and benefit human populations through the maintenance and enhancement of ecosystem services. GI can be strengthened through strategic and coordinated initiatives that focus on maintaining, restoring, improving and connecting existing areas and features, as well as creating new areas and features. Further, many initiatives might cover specific purposes (e.g. re-connecting areas with high biodiversity values, restoring riparian forests to protect against floods, promoting green roofs in cities for water retention, planting hedgerows in agricultural areas for landscape enhancement/pollination/erosion control/preventing floods …). They do not, however, fully consider its many benefits for other sectors and citizens, which the very same structure could offer if properly planned and managed. The multi-purpose character of GI therefore is in these instance not acknowledged or communicated.

Owing to its multifunctionality, there is no single science or discipline responsible for GI14. The nearest integrative scientific discipline accountable for its evolution is ‘landscape planning’. GI relies on the theories and practices of numerous scientific and land planning professions, such as conservation biology, landscape ecology, urban and regional planning, geographic analysis, information systems and economists.

GI is widespread in spatial scales as its application can range from individual buildings to neighborhoods and cities to entire regions, even across countries (see Natura 2000 network or European Green Belt). Further, benefit groups are also different at the respective scale of consideration: e.g. carbon storage by peatlands has beneficiaries worldwide; whilst the water retention function of the same peatland is felt locally.

The features or elements are not always simple to define and descriptions of GI can change depending on the stakeholder15.

Related terms are landscape planning, natural infrastructure (US nomenclature), nature-based solution, ecosystem services, natural capital, etc. among many others.

Given the wide span of definitions of GI, and the wide range of the components and parts of the GI, we may define GI as the spatial structure delivering multiple ecosystem services, which might include 'grey' or hybrid elements (such as green roofs or fauna passages).

Through the adoption of the Green Infrastructure strategy in 2013, the common understanding of

terminology and purpose of GI has made significant progress. However, the need for information sharing and communicating about Green Infrastructure will probably go up along with the increased deployment of GI in the EU.

11 Green Infrastructure and territorial cohesion. European Environment Agency (2011). Technical Report No 18/2011. See also http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/docs/Green_Infrastructure.pdf 12 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0249 13 Naumann, S., McKenna D., Kaphengst, T. et al. (2011). Design, implementation and cost elements of Green Infrastructure projects. Final report. Brussels: European Commission. 14 Benedict, M.A. & McMahon, E.T. (2002) Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21st Century. Renewable Resources Journal. 20(3: 12-17. 15 Horwood, K. (2011) Green infrastructure: reconciling urban green space and regional economic development: lessons learnt from experience in England’s north-west region. Local Environment 16(10):963-975.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 43

3.1 Problem analysis and objectives of Task 3

As introduced, the goal of task 3 is to look for very pragmatic solutions for improving

the digital information sharing/presentation of GI. Task 3 consists of four parts. It

concerns (1) identifying platforms and selecting the most useful ones, (2) evaluating

the potential for increasing GI visibility among selected platforms, (3) making

recommendations for improving GI visibility, and (4) making progress towards having

recommendations for the main European-level information systems implemented by

the responsible services, facilitated by technical assistance given by this contract. A

more detailed description of these four subtasks is provided below:

1. Exploring the current digital GI information landscape and identifying the

policy sectors and stakeholder platforms that are relevant for disclosing GI

information at an EU level.

a. Identify priority policy sectors and stakeholders for which GI

information should be available and identify the linked communication

and information exchange platforms.

b. Consider what platform may be ideal and how to implement it, and

then consider how to work with what is available. Which platforms are

there, how are they organized, and how can GI information be best

integrated?

2. Assessing for a selection of eight platforms how accessible the GI information

is and what sort of information is available (such as data, indicators, maps,

libraries, etc.). Specifically, it will be evaluated which GI content they provide

or do not provide, whether its visibility can be improved from a GI

perspective and whether the information available can be linked to BISE16

(see BOX 2). This exercise will lead to recommendations on how to improve

content-wise the visibility of GI information. Note, however, that the analysis

of this set of eight platforms does not include evaluating what the

implementation of recommendations requires from a technical or governance

perspective.

3. For three of the eight selected platforms, this last step will be undertaken;

for each of the recommendations given, the technical or governance

requirements for their implementation will be evaluated. The aim is to

provide a file for each of these three platforms where a description of the

technical specifications and properties for the platform will be elaborated.

After outlining the technical details, an analysis and proposal will be made to

conduct the necessary adjustments to receive data, process the data and

finally publish the data targeted to the existing governance and technical

processes. Proposals, processes, approaches and recommendations will be

discussed with the technical and administrating levels of the selected

platforms, in order to asses and estimate the most suitable mechanisms and

procedures for sharing GI relevant topics. This will result in the development

of an implementation file including a roadmap, technical advice,

recommendations on budget needed, entry points, web design and risks.

4. It will be discussed with the owners of the EU information systems to what

extent the recommendations provided in the report can be implemented.

With respect to content, deliverables of the other tasks within this contract,

in particular outputs from tasks 1, 2 and 4, may allow for material being

16 http://biodiversity.europa.eu/

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 44

ready to use and available for being uploaded directly. It remains the

responsibility of the responsible services to actually upload and incorporate

the information received.

The recommendations will be split over three time horizons:

 Recommendation can be implemented in the short term: i.e. can be realized

during the duration of the contract;

 Recommendation can be implemented in the mid-term: i.e. can be initiated during

the duration of the contact but will require final efforts shortly following the

finalization of the contract; and

 Recommendation can be implemented in the longer-term, i.e. recommendations

which need to be aligned with the technicalities and governance the different

platforms have (however, it is not a request to dig deep into the governance of

the various platforms).

Box 2 BISE – the Biodiversity Information System for Europe

The “Biodiversity Information System for Europe” (BISE), a portal owned by DG Environment and hosted by the EEA, has the objective to provide a single entry point for accessing the best available information to support the implementation of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy and the CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. The main focus of this integrative platform is to better integrate available outcomes from reporting and monitoring from different sources and consolidate the knowledge base for biodiversity-related policies in Europe in a coherent and co-ordinated way. The general objective of BISE is not to duplicate but to integrate and upgrade existing tools and develop new ones as necessary to be shared within the EKC. In short, the aim of BISE is to 'strengthen the knowledge base in support of the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020'. The system is following and implementing the principles of the 2007 EC Directive establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Union (INSPIRE)17 as well as the 2008 EC Communication concerning a Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS)18. It integrates any relevant content from Environmental Data Centres19 as defined in the EU Environmental Data Centre (EDC) arrangement. Interoperability with thematic data centres and similar portals supporting requirements under other environmental legislation (e.g. WISE20, Climate-ADAPT21) is a main goal to be achieved by 2018. BISE is a partnership between the European Commission DG Environment - Directorate B and the European Environment Agency, supporting the knowledge base for the implementation of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy. It also serves as the Clearing-House Mechanism for the EU within the context of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and as such it is supported by the collaboration of the European CHM network and the CBD Secretariat. BISE is a process. Its content and services are being developed in collaboration with key users and information providers so that it meets the information needs of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and of the global Aichi Targets. BISE will facilitate the integration of facts and figures on biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services, making links to related policies, interconnecting with environmental data centres, supporting harvesting assessments and research findings from various sources. More generally, it will contribute to strengthening the knowledge base for biodiversity policy and better informed decision-making on biodiversity. The BISE website is complemented by the so called BISE-Catalogue. This catalogue hosts a dedicated library on GI with currently 230 documents being online that can be searched through free search or e.g.

17 Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) http://eur- lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:108:SOM:EN:HTML http://www.ec-gis.org/inspire/home.html 18 Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Towards a Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS) COM/2008/0046 final. 19 http://biodiversity.europa.eu/data 20 http://water.europa.eu/ 21 http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 45

language/country options. Even if this tool is accessible and usable, it is not fully operational now. Currently BISE is organising information under six main entry points:

1. Topics: state of species, habitats, ecosystems and their services, genetic diversity, threats to biodiversity, impacts of biodiversity loss, policy responses;

2. Policy: policy, legislation and supporting activities related to EU directives, EU biodiversity policy developments, pan- European and global policy frameworks;

3. Data: data sources, statistics and maps related to land, water, soil, air, marine, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, tourism, energy, land use, transport;

4. Knowledge: important EU-wide research projects or peer-reviewed literature related to biodiversity and ecosystem services, improving the science-policy interface;

5. Countries: national biodiversity reporting activities and information; country profiles based on officially published and regularly updated information from Member States;

6. Networks: sharing by networks across national borders. Under the umbrella of the entry point ‘Topics’ a thematic part of BISE is dedicated to Green Infrastructure: http://biodiversity.europa.eu/topics/green-infrastructure Next to the topic section, information on GI is also available through the 'policy' section, Biodiversity Strategy (there through information on Target 2 in general and on Action 6b in particular).

3.2 The digital GI information landscape

3.2.1 Policy sectors

To answer the question of which digital platforms GI information is or should be

available we need to identify the policy areas which might be relevant in relation to

GI.22 The following may be possibly relevant areas, although this list is not exhaustive

and other areas (for example the area of biodiversity and businesses) can also be

considered:

 Agricultural policy with the Common Agriculture Policies (CAP) and its funding

possibilities;

 Forestry policy with the Forest Action Plan;

 Biodiversity & Nature with the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy, the Birds and

Habitats Directive and the Life+ programme;

 Water policy with the Water Framework Directive, the River Basin Management

Plans, the Floods Directive, the EU Drought policy, the EU water Blueprint;

 Soil policy and the protection of soil;

 Climate change policy with the 2050 Low Carbon Roadmap and the programme to

adaptation;

 Territorial Cohesion and innovative financing with the regional or cohesion policy

and examples such as the EU Strategies for the Danube Region and for the Baltic

Sea Region;

 EU 2020 & Resource Efficiency Flagship: EU 2020 Strategy and Resource

Efficiency Flagship under EU 2020;

 Transport & Energy: TEN-T, TEN-E, energy policy, Connecting Europe Facility;

 Impact assessment and damage prevention and remediation: EIA and SEA

Directives, Environmental Liability Directive;

 Spatial planning: European Spatial Development Perspective, ESPON 2013

Programme, Urban Strategy, Territorial Agenda of the EU 2020;

22 See also: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/studies.htm#implementation

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 46

 Marine and coastal zones policy: Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Fishery

policies, EU Maritime Spatial Planning Communication;

 Environment & Health: Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010;

 Research Policy/ Horizon 2020, Framework programme for research and

innovation;

 EC external development cooperation.

To further build on this, the European Commission indicated in a communication23 to

the Parliament and the Council “that GI can make a significant contribution in the

areas of regional development, climate change, disaster risk management,

agriculture/forestry and the environment. For promoting GI in the communication,

focus was made on the following main policy areas through which GI should be

promoted: regional or cohesion policy, climate change and environmental policies,

disaster risk management, health and consumer policies and the Common Agricultural

Policy, including their associated funding mechanisms”.

From a policy sector perspective, in our analyses on where GI information is or should

be available we therefore focussed on searching for platforms at the EU level (EC

websites and related agencies) for the following eight themes:

1. Nature-linked platforms such as biodiversity, forest, marine, Natura 2000

2. Water-linked platforms

3. Climate adaptation linked platforms

4. Agricultural linked platforms

5. Health and consumer linked platforms

6. Disaster risk management linked platforms

7. Mobility and transport linked platforms

8. Regional or cohesion linked platforms

In what follows, for each of these eight themes we report our findings on the selected

platforms and provide a brief description of the available GI information. Next, for

each of the platforms we have made an evaluation of the GI information that is

available, its accessibility and its usefulness towards end-users (see 3.3).

Policy sector priorities and identified related EC platforms

A. Nature-linked platforms:

 DG Environment GI24: The DG ENV GI site gives a good introduction to GI from a

policy perspective. The policy context is described well and links are provided to

the EC communication on GI. The information on the website is nevertheless brief

and there is limited practical information on economic and technical aspects etc.

However, further information can be found through available links to a number of

relevant studies. The reports and studies include best practice examples. The site

also provides links to other EC websites, e.g. the DG ENV biodiversity site,

CIRCABC and BISE. Maps and standards and classifications are for instance

available through a link to the BISE platform. No specific information for the

different relevant audiences is available. On 06/08/2015 the DG ENV GI web site

has been updated, in particular the conference section, new study uploads,

working groups, better links to climate adaptation, research, water policies and

23 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0249 24 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/index_en.htm

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 47

business/financing possibilities such as the B&B/NCFF. It is recommended to

transfer all knowledge-based information from this webpage to BISE (the DG ENV

web page should be limited to policy-relevant information) once BISE is fully

operational (see also 3.5.1).

 EC CIRCABC website25: The CIRCABC website library on GI provides a range of

information giving a general introduction to GI, the policy framework, best

practice examples as well as information on financing.

 European Environmental Agency26: There is no specific section for GI on the EEA

website. The existing GI information is scattered and can be found under various

sections such as land use, biodiversity, agriculture, urban environment.

Information relevant to GI is in many cases not labelled as such. Three reports on

GI have been produced by the EEA containing some policy background: Exploring

nature-based solutions — The role of green infrastructure in mitigating the

impacts of weather- and climate change-related natural hazards (September

2015); Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe (2014); and Green

infrastructure and territorial cohesion (2011).

 BISE27: The amount of GI information on this platform is rather disappointing.

There is a separate section on GI, organized under ‘Topics’ where a definition and

background is provided. The policy context is briefly described and links are

included to a number of policy studies. There is no practical information regarding

GI technical standards. No specific information for the different relevant

audiences. Some of the data on the platform such as the implementation of the

Biodiversity Strategy would be relevant from a GI perspective (e.g. the MAES

data) but this information is not linked from the GI section of the BISE. Existing

and new information can be uploaded on the BISE GI section but it has to be

further linked to other existing tools to guarantee the best use of existing

knowledge sharing possibilities. There is a GI library in the BISE catalogue, but it

is relatively hidden for the user and not easily found as it is not linked from the GI

section.

 FISE - the Forest Information System for Europe28: This is a good source of

information on GI in terms of nature connectivity. There is a subsection dedicated

to 'Patterns and Fragmentation' which is directly linked to GI, although not

labelled as such. GI is mentioned in the text. Links are provided to EC GI

strategy. Models (one developed by JRC themselves), indicators and maps for

connectivity assessments are available. Links to examples from MS and relevant

projects are also provided. Information with regards to GI connectivity related to

CAP and WFD is available.

 Natura 2000 Communication Platform29: No information on GI. A link is provided

to BISE and to the Eionet platform on biodiversity.

B. Water-linked platforms:

 WISE30: There is no GI information available.

 NWRM31: Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) are measures representing

GI in the water sector, and the website is therefore highly relevant and contains

25 https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/76df6314-a37c-4cc9-9fc6-2d9c9d6889fe 26 eea.europa.eu/ 27 http://biodiversity.europa.eu/topics/green-infrastructure 28 http://forest.jrc.ec.europa.eu 29 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/platform/index_en.htm 30 http://water.europa.eu/ 31 http://www.nwrm.eu

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 48

valuable information in terms of water related GI. There is no easily accessible

link to information on the fact that NWRM are GI. That being said, the definition of

GI is included in the glossary (http://nwrm.eu/node/3835) and also when doing a

search of GI the concept appears in a number of search results. The website

contains rich information with regards to the policy framework, selection, design

and implementation of measures, a wide catalogue of possible measures (ID

cards). The ID cards are a way of presenting the measures in a synthesised way

but the catalogue of measures online has a lot of information which can be also

downloaded in pdf. The catalogue of measures includes information on biophysical

impacts, ecosystem services, how the measures impact the achievement of

different policy objectives, financing, costs, design and governance aspects. The

website also includes 125 case studies. This information is available directly on

the website and more extensively in the online guidance, ID cards of the

measures and synthesis documents. The platform is linked to a Linkedin

discussion group.

 OURCOAST - the European portal for ICZM32: No specific information on GI. There

are a number of case studies related to green and blue infrastructure available in

the database, searchable by themes, key approaches or free text. New

information and case studies can be uploaded to the website. There is a link to

the ICZM Assistant which is an online tool supporting project leaders, policy

makers and water professionals to integrate the ICZM principles in projects and

plans. A number of case studies and documents are available in the ICZM

assistant, although not directly labelled as GI.

C. Climate adaptation linked platforms:

 Climate-ADAPT33: There is no specific section on GI and the available information

is relatively sparse. However, the concept and the term is mentioned briefly on a

few occasions with regards to 'Cities and towns' and 'Urban adaptation support

tool'. Although very little information is labelled as GI, the platform is highly

relevant and provides useful information and guidance on sectors, measures,

processes etc. relevant for GI, and in particular GI measures supporting climate

adaptation. A number of adaptation options presented can be linked to GI, such

as green roofs, green spaces and corridors, riparian buffers etc. The tools

presented have information on cost-benefit, legal aspects, success factors etc. A

link to the EC communication on GI is available. Link to best practice on green

and blue infrastructure (Grabs project) is available. New information could be

uploaded to Climate-ADAPT for users with EIONET account. It was discussed with

the responsible services that next to Climate-ADAPT there is also Mayors Adapt

(http://mayors-adapt.eu/). However, it was indicated by the responsible services

that this is intended to be more of an outreach website than a platform,

wherefore it was decided not to be included in the review under the current task.

D. Agricultural linked platforms:

 CAP for our roots/ DG Agriculture and Rural development34: No information on GI

and no suitable knowledge sharing platform could be located other than the EC

website. However, there are more potential places where GI could possibly be

made visible. The role of agriculture in GI should be recognised and further

enhanced within the CAP. Agriculture can, for example, assist in watershed

management, the protection of habitats and biodiversity as well as in the

32 http://ec.europa.eu/ourcoast/index.cfm?menuID=3 33 http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/home 34http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-for-our-roots/index_en.htm and http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/agriculture/index_en.htm

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 49

maintenance and restoration of multifunctional landscapes. With regards to DG

Agriculture and Rural development platform, GI could be highlighted in the policy

areas (especially the section on Agriculture and Environment, Forest Resources,

and Rural Development), the monitoring and implementation of the ecological

focus areas (where the Green Infrastructure Strategy should be taken into

account).

 Rural Development Gateway 2014-2020, European Network for Rural

Development35: The platform contains information such as the policy background

and support to ecosystems within RDP programming and implementation. There is

no direct information on GI. There is a section on forestry which includes

information on the multifunctional role of forests and the section Environmental

Services also has relevance and provides several useful documents on Delivering

Environmental Services using Rural Development Policy. Some of the priorities

(Especially priority 3: Ecosystems), related measures and thematic information

sheets of the RDP have some relevance to GI but it is not clear from the

information provided on the platform. There is a database with RDP projects, but

it is difficult to find any GI related information there. This section could potentially

include much more information on GI. For instance GI could be highlighted among

the Focus Areas, examples of RDP implementation and in the theme of

Environmental Services. In addition, it would be relevant to include GI as a key

word in the searchable project database.

E. Health and consumer linked platforms:

 EC Public Health Website36: No information on GI and no suitable knowledge

sharing platform could be located other than the EC website. The contribution of

GI to human health is a beneficial outcome that results from the healthy

functioning of ecosystems. Ecosystems provide a variety of services which

promote basic human survival, for example, by limiting the spread of disease or

reducing air pollution but also in terms of improving general wellbeing and quality

of life by e.g. improving the access to green areas in urban environments

benefitting both individuals and communities. With this background, it would be

relevant to include GI in the section on Health in society/healthy environments.

 European Food Safety Authority37: No information on GI and no suitable

knowledge sharing platform could be located other than the EC website. Food

production is an important component of green infrastructure and can provide

opportunities e.g. through urban food production, multi-purpose farms and how

innovative food production methods can benefit the natural landscapes. Reference

to GI would therefore be relevant to include in the food related EU platforms.

 EC Food Safety Website38: No information on GI and no suitable knowledge

sharing platform could be located other than the EC website.

F. Disaster risk management linked platforms:

 Disaster risk management portal39: The purpose of the portal is to provide a

collaborative working space for JRC and its partners in the field of Disaster Risk

Reduction (DRR). There is no information related to GI. GI has vast potential for

alleviating disaster risks such as floods, landslides, avalanches, forest fires and

35 http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/en/policy-in-action/cap-towards-2020/rdp-programming-2014-2020 36 http://ec.europa.eu/health/index_en.htm 37 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/ 38 http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/index_en.htm 39 http://drr.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 50

droughts which are threatening infrastructure, cost human lives and are the cause

of billions of EUR of damage each year in the EU. GI solutions that boost disaster

resilience of infrastructure form an integral part of the EU policy on disaster risk

management. It would be beneficial to have a better visibility of the benefits GI

has on disaster risk management, as well as information on various GI options

and measures for disaster preventions and it would therefore be advised to

include information and links to GI information from the EU’s portal. This could be

done, for example, by providing a link not only to BISE but also to the Climate-

ADAPT and NWRM platforms as they are strongly linked to risk management

where GI plays an important role. In this context, it would also be relevant to

make a link to the recent EEA report “Exploring nature-based solutions — The role

of green infrastructure in mitigating the impacts of weather- and climate change-

related natural hazards.”40

G. Mobility and transport linked platforms:

 DG Mobility and Transport41: No information on GI and no suitable knowledge

sharing platform could be located other than the EC website. GI is an important

instrument for the overarching goal of European transport policy: to reduce the

carbon footprint of transport, mitigate the negative effects of land uptake and

fragmentation, and boost opportunities to better integrate land use, ecosystem

and biodiversity concerns into policy and planning. Avoiding or mitigating the

fragmentation impacts of transport infrastructure on nature is a well-established

GI strategy in the transport sector. Fragmentation of nature networks may be

minimised by choosing specific GI design solutions, e.g., tunnels, or viaducts

which minimise land-take or by allowing watercourses, including natural banks, to

continue under the structure. Developing GI adjacent to infrastructure has the

potential to deliver many ecosystem services. Against this background, it is very

relevant to include a short introduction and links to further readings on GI and its

links to the transport sector on the DG platform on Mobility and transport. A link

should therefore be made to the BISE platform where additional information is

available.

H. Regional or cohesion linked platforms:

 InfoRegio42: No direct information on GI. There is one Thematic Guidance Fiche

on biodiversity, green infrastructure, Ecosystem Services and Natura 2000 and

one Guide for investments in Nature and green infrastructure available. The policy

learning database includes one project example on GI.

 DG Environment Urban Environment43: No information on GI. There is one link to

an EC report on peri-urban natural spaces which has some GI relevance.

 Reference Framework for European Sustainable Cities44: Online toolkit designed to

help cities promote and enhance their work on integrated sustainable urban

development. It offers practical support in integrating sustainability principles into

local policies and actions. The full version is not available to view for unregistered

users. No specific GI information seems to be available. Show-case examples are

available to view, but only few of them are relevant.

40 http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/exploring-nature-based-solutions-2014 41 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/index_en.htm 42 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/ 43 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/urban/home_en.htm 44 http://app.rfsc.eu/

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 51

Evaluation of GI on EC-related platforms

In our evaluation of the aforementioned platforms we compared the current digital GI

information availability with the GI information that would ideally be available in the

future for each of the identified platforms.

In doing so we have distinguished six different sorts of GI information that may serve

different end-users and purposes:

1. GI policy aspects

2. GI technical aspects (data, maps, standards)

3. GI economic aspects (cost/benefits, funding)

4. GI methodological and implementation aspects

5. Best practices and lessons learned

6. Network and discussion groups

For each of these six sorts of information we scored the current presence of GI and

the ‘ideal world’ future disclosure of GI information on a scale of green, orange or red:

 Green: information is available and substantial;

 Orange: information is available, however, basic; and

 Red: information is not available or very limited.

In addition, each of the platforms/websites were scored for its usefulness for

stakeholders/target groups:

 Green: information is available and substantial, high usefulness;

 Orange: information is available, however, basic; and

 Red: information is not available or very limited, low usefulness.

 White: not applicable, considering the absence of GI information.

A last scoring of the platforms/websites was for the accessibility of the GI information:

 Green: information easily found on front page or after one-two clicks;

 Orange: information found after several clicks; and

 Red: information difficult to find.

 White: not applicable, considering the absence of GI information.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 52

Table 2- Evaluation of GI on EC-related platforms

Platform

P o li c y

T e c h n ic

a l

E c o n o m

ic

M e th

o d o lo

g ic

a l

B e s t

p ra

c ti c e s

N e tw

o rk

P o li c y

T e c h n ic

a l

E c o n o m

ic

M e th

o d o lo

g ic

a l

B e s t

p ra

c ti c e s

N e tw

o rk

DG Environment GI

EC CIRCABC website

European Environmental Agency

BISE

FISE

Natura 2000 Communication Platform

DG Environment Urban Environment

WISE

NWRM

OURCOAST - the European portal for ICZM

Climate-ADAPT

CAP for our roots

EC Public Health Website

European Food Safety Authority

EC Food Safety Website

Disaster risk management portal

DG Mobility and Transport

European Network for Rural Development

InfoRegio

Reference Framework for European Sustainable Cities

U s e fu

ln e s s

A c c e s s ib

il it y

GI information 'Ideal world'GI information current situation

Interim conclusions

In this section an interim conclusion is made on how the visibility of GI information

can be improved for the platforms and websites explored. For DG Environment GI,

BISE, WISE/NWRM, Climate-ADAPT and the sustainable cities platform we refer to the

section ‘Increasing GI visibility for selected platforms’, where a more in-depth analysis

will be done for these platforms. For the DG Environment part of the website

dedicated to GI, the aim of the European Commission is to have only policy relevant

GI information being provided here. All other GI information should be moved to BISE.

This is also considered in the next section of this report.

From Table 2 it is obvious that the “ideal world” and the current situation on GI

disclosure in the various platforms are very much dissimilar. In what follows we

comment on the potential of increasing GI disclosure for the websites/platforms that

were evaluated:

1. Table 2 shows the relatively weak availability of GI information on the analysed

platforms. Many platforms, that can be considered as relevant, do not contain

any reference at all to the concept of GI such as WISE and the Natura 2000.

2. The GI information that is available across the studied EC platforms is relatively

dispersed and not presented in a coherent way. A common aspect for the

reviewed platforms is that there is a lot of information that is highly relevant to

GI but not defined and labelled as such.

3. With respect to the available policy information, GI is only visible on a limited

number of EC-related websites and platforms. The current available information

is relatively scattered, and in principle only DG ENV can be considered to have

the policy aspect appropriately covered (this would be ok, but then appropriate

links should be provided).

4. Much progress therefore can be made by having the concept, its relevance for

the sector and a link to the GI section on BISE integrated across the relevant

policy sectors. The policy aspects would deserve to be briefly explained on all

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 53

EC catered platforms that were researched here, this at least with a link

directing the user to more information. More restricted it could be done only for

these platforms/websites that in Table 2 are marked green for the “ideal world”

situation. Ideally this would be done in a language and vocabulary that

considers the specific sector. Exactly this approach was taken under Task 1 of

this contract where factsheets were produced on the GI relevance for a variety

of sectors. Next steps therefore would include identifying who to contact for

reaching GI disclosure through the EU websites/platforms on sectors such as

agriculture, health and consumer, mobility and transport, and disaster risk

management.

5. Across DG ENV linked platforms by the EC and the related agencies again there

is much potential for improving GI visibility. For example, typically these

platforms have much information on nature and biodiversity for example in a

Natura 2000, forest, or marine context. However, in many instances it is not

made explicit that this information links to GI and is GI relevant. One example

is the NWRM website which is all about GI but which is not immediately

apparent or clearly highlighted on the website. This makes the knowledge

search on GI difficult for the end-users and also risks that a lot of useful

information for the GI stakeholders is left unseen. Therefore, with an ambition

to having GI becoming a more used vocabulary and its linked information

becoming more broadly and widely disclosed much can be done on platforms

and websites within the immediate reach by DG ENV. For example, for FISE

information under ecosystem services can be indicated to be GI relevant and

GI visibility could be improved by more strongly labelling GI relevant

information, potentially even including a dedicated section on the platform to

GI (cf. the BISE example).

6. The CIRCA website provides a good collection of relevant GI literature sorted

under different categories. This source should be used when further developing

the GI library on the BISE catalogue. The resources available on the CIRCA

website should be cross-linked (integrated) with the GI library, ensuring that

the GI library contains all GI information produced in the EC framework up to

date. Meanwhile, all relevant documents of the CIRCABC library have been

transferred to the BISE GI library, wherefore it has become obsolete and is not

updated anymore. It remains a possibility that a section with restricted access

will be kept active on CIRCABC to allow to share 'grey literature' and non-

official or sensitive information. The CIRCABC site also hosts publically

available information of the Working Group on Green Infrastructure

Implementation and Restoration.

7. A methodological problem with CIRCABC was its strict hierarchical order, i.e. no

cross-links for documents covering more than one topic was possible. When

moving the information towards the BISE library, the documents 'lost' their

attribution to a topic as it is using a 'google-style' search engine. However, all

documents are indexed/tagged and key terms are indicated, which could make

up partly for this loss (this means that if a document is tagged as relevant for

'forest', a search through the free search field with 'forest' will list all GI-

relevant documents which either contain the term 'forest' in its text or have

been tagged as forest-relevant, even if the term 'forest' does not appear in the

document itself).

8. The available information on technical, economic and methodological aspects is

poor. This is catered for only by the EC CIRCAB library and to some extent by

the NWRM, which however only cover water related GI measures. For NWRM

the entry point is on water retention but there are many measures (53) that

initially one would not think have an effect in water resources, or which would

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 54

be just categorised as GI with little information on the impacts on water. There

are 13 measures for example for the agricultural sector with information on

costs. These aspects should also be better covered and it should be indicated

and linked on the key platforms where further information could be found.

9. Further use of best-practices would be important across the platforms as a way

to provide real life examples on implementation and inspiration for selection of

measures etc. This is an aspect that would be needed for most of the thematic

platforms. There are already a significant number of case studies spread out

over the analysed platforms. These should be interlinked and a best

practices/case studies on GI catalogue could be built in the framework of the

GI catalogue with options for detailed filtering according to the users need. I.e.

Climate-ADAPT would have a link to the climate change adaptation relevant

case studies.

10. The accessibility of the GI information on the reviewed platforms is in general

not particularly good. As mentioned, GI is often not placed in a central place on

the homepage. Rather, the information can be found a number of clicks away.

This is the case, for example, on BISE. The GI information is there, but it is not

immediately apparent to the user. The situation is worse on Climate-ADAPT

where the user has to search closely to be able to find the available GI

information.

11. There are only a few available networks for GI stakeholders. Except the

working groups relating to NWRM the others are not facilitated through

platforms. One workgroup was set up to contribute to the development of a

European Green Infrastructure policy (2011) and provided concrete

recommendations. The revised Working Group on Green Infrastructure

Implementation and Restoration (2014) will develop documents supporting

Green Infrastructure in particular on national and regional levels. Further, there

is a dedicated discussion group on LinkedIn which was developed in the context

of the NWRM pilot project initiative launched in October 2013 by the EC. The

forum is aimed at supporting the development of networks of experts and

practitioners on NWRM. In addition, the WG on Programmes of Measures and

the WG on Floods under the Common Implementation Strategy of the WFD and

FD worked extensively on NWRM between 2013 and 2014 to develop the Policy

Document on NWRM45. WG Floods and the Strategic Coordination group will

continue sharing information and experiences on its implementation in the next

work programme of the CIS.

It is clear that if constructed appropriately, portals can positively contribute to

distributing relevant information to the public and to various end-users. A major

question is where to disclose information and how to make information accessible such

that end-users can locate what they search for in a straightforward and easy way.

Thus, the link has to be made between the “what” and “why” of information with the

“where” and “how”.

 Therefore, it is necessary to gain thorough insights in where end-users may be

assisted by specific information.

 Further, it has to be acknowledged that end-users will not necessarily look for GI

related information from a GI perspective. Indeed, for example, a farmer may

simply be looking for ways to diversify and thereby be aided by knowing that a GI

focus can be one option.

45 https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/2457165b-3f12-4935-819a- c40324d22ad3/Policy%20Document%20on%20Natural%20Water%20Retention%20Measures_Final.pdf

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 55

 Knowing which end-users may need GI-related information and understanding the

online paths they may choose to reach that information can help in providing the

required information on the places where they are likely looking for it.

 This concerns information available at the various departments at the EU and the

national level, but also the information provided at regional and local levels.

 Different groups of end-users have very different ways in which they interact with

GI and many of them will not be inclined or have a natural tendency to go and dig

into technical information provided on a website dedicated to GI, for example

under BISE.

 The web portals they usually visit (for example about support to agriculture or

industries) should point towards the websites providing relevant GI information.

3.2.2 Stakeholders

GI may matter to a whole variety of stakeholders that are either involved in working

on infrastructure and design of open space or otherwise are users of open space. For

the first group stakeholder groups that will have large impact through their activities

on the environments-we-live-in are landscape architects, building professionals and

spatial planners. Focussing on the users of open spaces, relevant groups to consider

are land owners, foresters, farmers, fishermen, hunters, nature NGOs and businesses.

In the following section we collect information about these various audiences and the

platforms they have at the EU geographic scale and evaluate to what extent GI is

visible on these platforms. We first provide an overview of EU-scale platforms for the

various stakeholder groups. Secondly, we indicate some national and international

platforms while searching for where GI information is provided and how this is done.

For each of the organisations we also provide a short explanation of their coverage

and end-users.

Stakeholder priorities and identified EU scale platforms

Landscape architects:

 International Federation of Landscape Architects46: Umbrella organisation for

professional landscape associations (38 organisations from 33 CoE nations, >

10,000 professional practitioners + students and associates, c. 180 accredited

academic courses, The European arm of IFLA’s global network). GI is not highly

visible on this platform. Using the search box only 6 hits resulted when entering

GI. The most significant hit is that in the ‘About’ section where it is indicated that

landscape architects consider green, nature and habitats.

 International Council of Landscape Architecture Schools47: ECLAS exists to foster

and develop scholarship in landscape architecture throughout Europe by

strengthening contacts and enriching the dialogue between members of Europe's

landscape academic community and by representing the interests of this

community within the wider European social and institutional context. From their

website GI is not visible, with just a few instances where it is mentioned if green

is entered in the search tool. However, for members, ECLAS is having a member-

only accessible platform where GI information is available http://www.le-

notre.org/. The original LE:NOTRE Projects were co-funded by the European

Union's Socrates and Lifelong Learning Programmes. With funding ceasing, to

maintain the gathered information alive it was decided to make this member-only

accessible.

46 http://iflaeurope.eu/ 47 www.eclas.org

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 56

Building professionals:

 World Green Building Council48: The World Green Building Council is a network of

national green building councils in more than one hundred countries, making it

the world’s largest international organisation influencing the green building

marketplace. They have specific information for each region, including with a

focus on Europe: http://www.worldgbc.org/regions/europe. Green in this context

should be understood as sustainable and not being limited to working with GI.

There is no indication on the webpages on GI, neither is there a sitemap or search

box allowing for quick access to possible GI information. One specific aspect that

is mentioned is the benefits in terms of health, wellbeing and productivity thanks

to views of nature. We could not find GI being mentioned anywhere upfront.

 European Federation of Green Roof Associations (EFB)49: The ten associations

promote and encourage the uptake of green roofs in their countries to help

address issues related to climate change, ecosystem services, green

infrastructure and lack of green space in the built environment. While it is clear

from this first statement and the further information provided on the website

pages that EFB cares about GI and ecosystem services, the website is not a hub

for information on GI relating to green roofs.

Spatial planners:

 European Council of Spatial Planners50: Umbrella association (1985) of 25

professional planning associations and institutes from 23 European countries as

well as corresponding members. In total representing c. 40,000 planning

professionals, ECTP-CEU focuses on planning practice, it engages in dialogues

with local, national and European governments, identifies, and rewards good

practices (European Planning Awards), Charter of European Planning. Entering GI

or green did not lead to GI relevant hits. They have a working group on climate,

but no information could be located on a working group or pages being dedicated

to GI or related terms such as nature or ecosystem services.

Land owners:

 European Landowners’ Organization (ELO)51: ELO is committed to promoting a

sustainable and prosperous countryside and to increasing awareness relating to

environmental and agricultural issues. ELO represents a large number of rural

family business and enterprises as well as individual actors in Europe involved in

activities such as farming and agriculture, forestry and cork, wine production,

hunting and fishing as well as water and waste treatment. They have a large set

of links to other organisations. Under the topic section, they cover N2000. GI

information could not be retrieved.

Foresters:

 European State Forest Association (EUSTAFOR)52: Their members represent one

third of the EU forest area, including large, protected areas (established in 2006,

currently 29 members from 21 European countries, total land area managed ~ 49

million ha (~ 30% of EU forests), total forest area managed ~ 42 million ha

(including French overseas departments and territories), protected and protective

forests ~ 16 million ha). Under the publications entry there are 2 reports on

48 http://www.worldgbc.org/ 49 http://www.efb-greenroof.eu/ 50 http://www.ectp-ceu.eu/index.php/en/ 51 http://www.europeanlandowners.org/ 52 http://www.eustafor.eu/

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 57

ecosystem services and 1 on N2000. Using GI in the search box did not give any

results.

 Confederation Européenne des Propriétaires Forestiers/Confederation of European

Forest Owners (CEPF)53: This is the umbrella association of national forest owner

organizations in Europe. It works as the representative of family forestry in

Europe, by promoting the values of sustainable forest management, private

property ownership and the economic viability of the forest holding. CEPF serves

the interests of the approximately 16 million forest owners. They are private

individuals, families and cooperatives who take care of about 60% of the forest

area within Europe. They indicate on their website that Environment / Natura

2000 and Forest ecosystem services are among the main policy areas and

processes CEPF is currently following. GI information could not be located on the

platform.

 European Forest Network (EFN)54: This is an unofficial network of national forest

societies and associations of Europe. The main goal is to promote the exchange of

information relevant to forests, forestry and forest policy among its members.

There is very little information on the website and no information on GI.

 Forest-based Sector Technology Platform (FTP)55: FTP was established in 2005 as

the very first initiative in which European forest owners, woodworking industries

and pulp & paper industries came together to share one common goal: to

advance the competitiveness of the whole sector. In their vision and strategy

documents they consider forest ecology and ecosystem services. They also have

the FTP Research and Innovation Portal (http://www.forestplatform.net) which is

an advanced and comprehensive Internet database of EU-funded projects

involving the forest-based sector. For that portal there were no results matching

the query GI.

 European Forest Institute56: They are an international organisation, established by

European States (25 European States have ratified the Convention on EFI, c.120

Associate and Affiliate Member organisations in 35 countries). EFI's Virtual Library

contains a variety of free services and materials (databases, publications,

information services). The query GI rendered 34 results where GI is mentioned in

reports or in news items. There is no direct information or topic on GI.

Farmers:

 The European farmers (COPA) and the European agri-cooperatives (COGECA)57:

COPA is made up of 60 organisations from the countries of the European Union

and 36 partner organisations from other European countries such as Iceland,

Norway, Switzerland and Turkey. This broad membership allows COPA to

represent both the general and specific interests of farmers in the European

Union. Since its inception, COPA has been recognised by the Community

authorities as the organisation speaking on behalf of the European agricultural

sector as a whole. COGECA, now called the “General Confederation of Agricultural

Cooperatives in the European Union”, currently represents the general and

specific interests of some 40,000 farmers’ cooperatives employing some 660,000

people and with a global annual turnover in excess of three hundred billion euros

throughout the enlarged Europe. Since its creation, COGECA has been recognised

by the European Institutions as the main representative body and indeed the

spokesman for the entire agricultural and fisheries cooperative sector. In line with

53 http://www.cepf-eu.org 54 http://www.forestrysocieties.eu/ 55 http://www.forestplatform.org/ 56 http://www.efi.int/portal/ 57 http://www.copa-cogeca.be/

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 58

the recent European Union enlargements, COPA and COGECA have together

further reinforced their position as Europe’s strongest farming representative

organisations. On the homepage there is a direct link to Environment information.

This information concerns statements on various issues by COPA-COGECA-, but

the statements are not available. Entering GI in the search box did render 11 hits,

including a brochure on farming biodiversity. Certainly GI information is not easily

accessible and GI is only sparsely mentioned in brochures or statements.

Fishermen and hunters:

 European Anglers Alliance (EAA)58: This is a pan-European organisation for

recreational angling, which defends European recreational anglers' interests at the

European level and beyond. There are about 3 mill. affiliated members to EAA's

18 member organisations and affiliates (2014) from 17 European nations. There is

no highly visible GI information, neither a related-term entrance through the

sitemap. Entering GI in the search function rendered no results. However, some

relevant information on GI was found such as http://www.eaa-

europe.org/positions/small-scale-hydropower-2013.html or http://www.eaa-

europe.org/topics/eel.html.

 European Federation of Associations for Hunting & Conservation (FACE)59:

Established in 1977, it represents the interests of Europe’s 7 million hunters as an

international non-profit-making non-governmental organisation. FACE is made up

of its Members: national hunters’ associations from 36 European countries

including the EU-28. They have a webpage dedicated to GI:

http://www.face.eu/nature-conservation/green-infrastructure. From this page

there is a link to the EC pages on GI and also a statement and perspective on GI

by the hunting association. The page on GI is accessible though the higher level

called “nature conservation” to be found in the banner.

Nature NGOs:

 Birdlife Europe60: This is a global Partnership of independent organisations

working together as one for nature and people. While in the top menu several

entries are GI relevant, for someone looking for GI information there is no

dedicated page or information section on GI. Entering GI in the search box gave

35 hits.

 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)61: IUCN is the world’s

oldest and largest global environmental organisation, with more than 1,200

government and NGO Members and almost 11,000 volunteer experts in some 160

countries. In the top menu GI is not mentioned and there is no dedicated page to

GI. Under priorities there is a direct link to nature-based solutions and under

‘work by topic’ there are many more teams directly relating to GI. Entering GI in

the search box rendered 214 hits.

 World Wildlife Fund (WWF)62: WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of the

planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in

harmony with nature, by: conserving the world’s biological diversity, ensuring

that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable and promoting the

reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption. Entering GI in the search box

gave 3 hits, none of which to a dedicated page on GI on the WWF website.

58 http://www.eaa-europe.org/ 59 http://www.face.eu/ 60 http://www.birdlife.org/europe-and-central-asia 61 http://iucn.org/about/union/secretariat/offices/europe/ 62 http://www.wwf.eu/

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 59

 Eurosite63: This is a network of site managers, non-governmental and

governmental organisations, and individuals and organisations committed to

create a Europe where nature is cared for, protected, restored and valued by all.

They do this by providing practitioners with opportunities to network and

exchange experience on practical nature management. There is no direct

information or topic on GI. GI entered in the search box resulted in 12 hits.

Businesses:

 World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD): This is a CEO-led

organization of forward-thinking companies that galvanizes the global business

community to create a sustainable future for business, society and the

environment. The WBCSD has been working on ecosystems issues for 15 years

and a formal Focus Area on Ecosystems was established in 2007. They have a

dedicated part of the platform on GI (here called natural infrastructure)64 with a

definition, the business cases, challenges and opportunities, events, a case

example and 3 reports.65 In addition, since December 6, 2015 the Natural

Infrastructure for Business platform has been launched.66 The aim of this platform

is to strengthen the business case for investing in natural infrastructure. It has

entries on the business case, tools, case studies and resources.

Further relevant stakeholders:

 ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability)67 is the only network of sustainable

cities operating worldwide. The organisation facilitates local government input to

United Nations (UN), processes such as the UN Framework Conventions on

Climate Change, and Biodiversity. In partnership with the UN and other

organisations, as well as national governments, ICLEI puts in the groundwork for

more ambitious and more responsible international commitments - and seeks

global recognition and support for local action. In Europe ICLEI has dedicated

pages on biodiversity, climate adaptation and water. On the biodiversity page GI

is not specifically mentioned. Among the ICLEI activities are Greensurge (Green

Infrastructure and Urban Biodiversity for Sustainable Urban Development and the

Green Economy; http://www.greensurge.eu/) and URBES (Urbanization,

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; http://urbesproject.org/index.html).

 CEEweb for Biodiversity68 is a network of non-governmental organizations in the

Central and Eastern European region working for 20 years in 20 countries. Our

mission is the conservation of biodiversity through the promotion of sustainable

development. They have part of their platform dedicated to GI:

http://www.ceeweb.org/work-areas/priority-areas/green-infrastructure/. This part

of the platform has inspiring YouTube fragments on GI and also they have a

colourful board on Pinterest with pictures of great GI projects, various elements of

GI, GI street-art or do it yourself GI. Further on the GI page they have an online

course on GI, a GI training manual, a news and events section on GI, a section on

experts also including a LinkedIn community – the European Green Infrastructure

Practitioners’ Network and a section on funding. The platform is not rich in

providing access to literature on GI or in providing links to other platforms that

have information on GI.

63 http://www.eurosite.org/ 64 http://www.wbcsd.org/naturalinfrastructure.aspx 65 http://www.wbcsd.org/ 66 Accessible through http://www.naturalinfrastructureforbusiness.org/ 67 http://www.iclei-europe.org/ 68 http://www.ceeweb.org/

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 60

 Infra Eco Network Europe (IENE)69 is a network of experts working with various

aspects of transportation, infrastructure and ecology. The network was initiated in

1996 to provide an independent, international and interdisciplinary arena for the

exchange and development of expert knowledge – and with the aim to promote a

safe and ecologically sustainable pan-European transport infrastructure. IENE

arranges international conferences, workshops and symposia, initiates

collaboration projects and helps answering questions that require a joint

international expertise. The platform links to a discussion and a mailing list and a

forum. Information on conferences, workshops and meetings. Under the project

section information is available on the COST 341 Action, “Habitat Fragmentation

due to Transportation Infrastructure” and also on a project on Planning and

Applying Mitigating Measures to Green Transport Infrastructure in Myanmar and

Thailand. The platform has a literature section which unfortunately is empty.

 European Network of Environmental Professionals (ENEP)70 represents 22

European Environmental Organisations and over 45,000 individual professionals.

ENEP is the leading environmental professional networking organisation across

Europe. ENEP believes environmental professionalism is one of the essential

prerequisites for achieving sustainability, so they have created a Platform to help

build a professional community which promotes knowledge sharing, cross-border

integration and an arena to positively influence and implement policy, science and

education. The platform includes a link to the European Green Week and a word

cloud in tags71 which includes ecosystem services, green procurement and green

capital, but not GI; further, they have a working group on biodiversity and one on

climate-proof cities to which access is available through the members’ area. One

of the reasons for having created the biodiversity working group was to

encourage the use of GI, ecosystem and catchment approaches and tools. The

working group has discussed in detail the Commission’s strategy on GI. For the

working group on climate-proof cities they indicate that adaptation measures are

essential and could include increasing the area and attractiveness of ‘green’

(nature, parks, trees) and ‘blue’ (water) in and near cities (increasing the water

storage capacity and reducing the heat stress), energy-saving buildings and new

sustainable energy technologies, such as solar cells or thermal energy storage.

Evaluation of GI at stakeholder platforms

Only FACE, WBCSD and CEEweb have dedicated pages on GI.

 For FACE, GI information is available at: http://www.face.eu/nature-

conservation/green-infrastructure. From this page there is a link to the EC pages

on GI and also a statement and perspective on GI by the hunting association.

Together, this is clear, however, limited information on GI that is made available.

 For the WBCSD, where GI is referred to as natural infrastructure,

http://www.wbcsd.org/naturalinfrastructure.aspx, a definition, the business

cases, challenges and opportunities, events, a case example and 3 reports are

provided. Although clear in structure and providing a good view on GI, the

information altogether is limited and rather to be called providing GI information

and not being a knowledge or information hub on GI. In addition, since December

6, 2015 the Natural Infrastructure for Business platform has been launched and is

accessible through http://www.naturalinfrastructureforbusiness.org/.

69 http://www.iene.info/ 70 http://www.efaep.org/ 71 http://www.efaep.org/md-taxonomy/page/1

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 61

 For CEEweb, GI information is available at http://www.ceeweb.org/work-

areas/priority-areas/green-infrastructure/. This part of the platform has inspiring

Youtube fragments on GI and also they have a colourful board on Pinterest with

pictures of great GI projects, various elements of GI, GI street-art or do it

yourself GI. Further on the GI page they have an online course on GI, a GI

training manual, a news and events section on GI, a section on experts also

including a LinkedIn community – the European Green Infrastructure

Practitioners’ Network and a section on funding. The platform is not rich in

providing access to literature on GI or in providing links to other platforms that

have information on GI.

At the ECLAS platform, GI is not very much visible. More on GI may be available

under http://www.le-notre.org/ which is a member-only accessible platform hosted by

ECLAS. The EFB emphasises the link between green roofs and GI strongly, however,

the platform cannot be considered a hub on GI information.

For all other platforms and websites of the various organisations that were researched,

no or very little could be retrieved on GI. This indicates that there is large potential for

increasing GI visibility, however, at the same time this indicates there is only limited

information that is easily available on these platforms to connect to BISE.

Interim conclusions

Based on the organisations and platforms that were evaluated, the conclusion is that

except CEEweb and the new platform on natural infrastructure by the WBCSD, none of

them qualify as an information or knowledge sharing platform. It may be explored

whether links can be made from BISE to CEEweb and WBCSDs dedicated platform on

natural infrastructure and vice versa. Next to CEEweb and WBCSD, FACE is best in

class with limited, but clear and inspiring information on GI. On some other platforms

GI is mentioned, however, mostly nothing could be found. Also for those platforms

that have related information (biodiversity, ecosystem services, nature-based

solutions, etc.) in some documents the link is made to GI, however, GI is not included

on the platforms in a dedicated manner. Altogether, the visibility of GI on platforms

and websites at the EU scale of stakeholder groups for which GI is considered very

much relevant, is considered poor. A future ‘ideal world’ could be one where GI

visibility has increased substantially for a large selection of the platforms that were

mentioned. In the introductory section, we have indicated which types of GI

information can be distinguished. Further consultations with the representatives and

the end-users of the various platforms (or a selection) can provide insight on what

type(s) of GI information they consider useful to be disclosed.

It must be mentioned here that the Green Infrastructure Network (GreenInfraNet) is a

EU co-funded partnership of 11 regions from across Europe. The partners are working

together to promote the development and implementation of GI in EU regions.72 One

of the aims of this project is to create a permanent European Network for Green

Infrastructure Knowledge and Experience (ENGINE), which will enable GI stakeholders

across Europe to capitalise on project achievements and continue to exchange and

transfer experience, expertise and good practices after the end of the GreenInfraNet

project. Possibly, this could become a needed central hub for GI information and

knowledge. In this case, information from this platform can be connected to others

where less information on GI is provided. Also, in recent years the partnership had

regular communication with DG ENV (specifically with Marco Fritz) indicating the aim

of ENGINE closely collaborating with the GI section on BISE.

72 http://www.greeninfranet.org/

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 62

3.2.3 National and international platforms on GI

On the national and international level there are examples of hubs where GI

information is disclosed in a more exhaustive manner. These may provide inspiration

on how to disclose GI information and/or may provide sources of information to be

linked to BISE. In what follows we only provide some inspirational examples. An

extensive survey of available national or international (outside of the EU) platforms on

GI or relating to GI is not within the scope of the current exercise. Because this is a

limited exercise, for national platforms, we focussed on English platforms (UK and

Ireland) in order to provide examples that any reader of this document most likely can

understand (from a language perspective). This does not suggest that there are no

good examples on GI platforms in other EU Member States.

The platforms on the national scale that we would like to introduce are the following

two:

 Green Infrastructure North West73: This is a UK website disclosing GI information

organised in projects (4 examples), resources, contact, links, glossary and

partners. They also provide information on the benefits and values of GI, the key

opportunities, the challenges and the complementarity.

 Green Infrastructure Partnership (GIP)74: GIP brings together a network of over

300 stakeholder organisations and individuals. It provides a platform for members

to share their research, news, and best practice and to co-ordinate influencing

key decision makers about the value of GI. This could be mainly seen as a social

network on GI with newsletters, twitter and a calendar as main items.

The platforms on an international scale that may provide inspiration are:

 Green Infrastructure Collaborative: The Green Infrastructure Collaborative

consists of more than 20 organizations in the US committed to advancing the

adoption of green infrastructure as a means of supporting water quality and

community development goals. This broad group of signatories includes

academia, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector. In the top bar

they have entries on the basics, tools, case studies, research and a library.75

 Green4Cities76: This is an international centre of excellence for GI in urban areas.

With experience in research, development, education and installed projects, the

platform provides signposts to guide cities towards resilience to climate change.

We would suggest including the three platforms mentioned here in the section on BISE

GI on networks. This section on networks could steadily grow by also including

examples of GI platforms from other Member States or continents. Also, the platforms

indicated here may provide perspective on how to organize the section on BISE GI.

For example, a combination of how the GI North West and the GI Partnership disclose

GI information and connect to a community would cover much of the needs of many

GI end-users.

In case the desire is to have information that is available on the above indicated

platforms to also be uploaded or connected to BISE there are three immediate options

for this:

73 http://www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk/ 74 http://www.gip-uk.org/ 75 http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/gi_partners.cfm 76 www.green4cities.com

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 63

 The easiest one is to link to the information from BISE and to provide guidance on

BISE to the user on what to expect when visiting either of the other platforms or

sections within.

 A second possibility would be to upload information manually (copy/paste

procedure). This is because the various platforms have different technicalities (for

example, BISE is based on Plone).

 For a last, however more challenging option, we refer to the recommendation

section, in particular where we comment on machine-to-machine communication.

3.3 Increasing GI visibility for selected platforms

For each of the eight platforms we will explore in more depth which GI content is or

could be presented. Three platforms (BISE, NWRM and Climate-ADAPT) were further

chosen for a more detailed analysis of the accessibility and user friendliness of each

platform in general and from a GI perspective more specifically. The following set of

questions were considered:

1. Who are the end-users of the platform and what sort of information do they

expect?

2. Are these end-users provided with information/explanation on GI?

3. For each division/subdivision of the platform, it will be evaluated whether the

information is GI relevant or not. This will be approached through the sitemap.

4. Are there ideas on GI information that are lacking and could enrich the specific

platform?

5. Is the GI information presented easy to be located (for this see also further)?

6. Is this information on GI similar to other information on other platforms and

therefore relevant to be integrated with that other information?

7. Is this information that is also relevant to be integrated available through BISE,

or only through a link, or not at all? For BISE this question will be answered

from the perspective of linkage to NWRM and Climate-ADAPT.

8. Which recommendations can be made to improve the visibility of GI?

For an end-user it is important not only that information is available, but also that it is

easy and straightforward to find the information that suits users’ needs. Therefore,

accessibility and user friendliness are important. In what follows we will explore in

more depth for the different platforms the following five overall performance

dimensions (for more detail, see Box 3), each time approached from a general

perspective and a GI specific perspective:

 Ease of navigation, inter-operability and user friendliness for finding GI

information;

 Structure allowing to navigate easily for finding GI information;

 Searchability and geo-referencing;

 Accuracy, objectivity and historical depth;

 Coverage and coherence.

In Annex 9 we include the specific set of questions that will be answered for each of

these performance dimensions. Considering that for platforms of stakeholders there

was little information available on GI we have not conducted this detailed survey on

accessibility and user friendliness. If GI information would become more abundant on

these platforms the principles that are indicated here and the evaluations of BISE,

NWRM and Climate-ADAPT may provide guidance and inspiration.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 64

Box 3 Accessibility and user-friendliness of the studied platforms

Ease of navigation, inter-operability and user friendliness for finding GI information These aspects are linked and highly important for the effective dissemination of information. Even if a portal contains a lot of information, the manner of presenting the information determines whether the users will ever find the correct GI data. An element that can greatly increase the ease of navigation is the presence of a sitemap, providing information on the structure and content of the portal. Simplifying the website to make it more inter-operable and increase user friendliness is highly important. The structure is for instance simplified by including menus that show dropdown attributes once they are selected. To improve the navigation through the portal, presenting the users’ location through a so-called breadcrumb trail is highly effective. Visual properties of the portal are highly supportive in making the portal more user friendly and attractive. Both the provision of intuitive pictures and an interactive homepage can aid the user in understanding the content of a specific page or part of the portal. For navigation purposes it is often convenient to have fixed items or an explanation of the structure of the portal on the homepage. Structure allowing to navigate easily for finding GI information A clear and logical structure of a website supports the effective dissemination of information. If the structure is not logical or comprehensive, this will have a direct impact on the user search effectiveness. This starts already with whether the first level subdivision of the website is intuitive and logical. For the structure of the website it is also important to get quick access to either new information items or to other relevant GI portals. Searchability and geo-referencing For finding relevant information with regard to GI, the search functions on a portal are of great importance. If the search bar is not easily located or the search engine is not sufficient, then this could significantly hamper the visitors in achieving the relevant information. The presence of a simple search box on the home page is important for the user to perform a quick search for relevant information. The further content and properties of the search engine are also important. When the quick search results are for instance not sufficient, then the potential for an advanced search could greatly increase the chance for finding the desired information. Besides the advanced search option, the results could also be presented in categories. This helps the user in distinguishing between different types of information of his search. Besides specifically searching for information, the portal could also present information via an interactive map. Accuracy, objectivity and historical depth Providing inaccurate information or erroneous links could hamper users to find the relevant information. For an accurate portal it is first of all important to be regularly updated. Objectivity is often supported with scientific information. It is therefore important to have evidence or research based results supporting statements on portals. Also relevant is that data are provided in a standardized format or manner. Coverage and coherence In considering the envisioned end-users, a major question is whether the portal gives an overall coverage of relevant information. Further, as a portal can be seen as a center for providing further directions, it is expected that a portal will contain many references to other websites.

3.3.1 BISE

Before discussing the standard set of questions on content and accessibility, the

reader may wish to refer back to Box 2 for more details on the BISE platform. The

results of the nine analysis questions relating to the content of this platform are

provided below:

1. Who are the end-users of the platform and what sort of information do they

expect?

The end-users are policy-makers, practitioners (both national, local and regional

governance levels) in Europe working with or interested in strengthening the

knowledge base in support of the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to

2020.

1. Are these end-users served by GI information/explanation?

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 65

Yes, there is a separate section on GI, organised under ‘Topics’. It provides a

definition, a brief background on why GI is important, provides a reference to the EC

GI strategy, links to further reading as well as links to relevant EC and JRC sites.

2. For each subcategory the question needs to be asked as to which information is

GI relevant, which not.

Before answering the question, it is important to note that the platform is difficult to

navigate. The platform’s sitemap often does not correspond to the actual pages, drop

down menus or sub-sections of the different sections. The analysis provided here is

departing from the sitemap but in several cases it was necessary to divert from that

and consider what is the logical overview of the content and categories of the

platform.

In the table below (Table 3) we comment on the GI relevance of the available

information for each of the divisions/subdivisions on BISE. In the column on relevance

this is indicated through categories (High – high GI relevance, Medium – some aspect

relevant to GI, Low – low GI relevance), while in the comment section further

explanation is provided:

Table 3: GI relevance of the divisions/subdivisions on BISE

First level

heading

Second level

heading

GI Relevance

Comments and recommendations

HOME

TOPICS General Medium The site structure is not so clear. There are quick

links on the left column, links presented in the

main text and a drop down menu which overlap

with each other. Some of the links are missing.

E.g. GI appears only under ‘quick links’ but not

under ‘Responses’ as is outlined in the sitemap,

and in the dropdown menu.

Climate change Medium/high No reference to GI. The page describes the threat

and impact of climate change on biodiversity and

have relevance as GI is one instrument to apply to

mitigate and adapt to changes. Link is provided to

Climate-ADAPT platform.

Ecosystem

services

High This page should be interlinked to the GI section, in

both directions. Both from the GI section site as

ecosystem services are mentioned on the GI site (A

hyperlink would be easily added). Link should also

be provided from this site to the GI section. Link

could also be provided to NWRM.

Ecosystems

habitat

Medium/high Link should be provided to GI site.

Contains subsections which in general have some

GI relevance:

Cropland and grassland, coastal, woodland and

forests (Link should be added to FISE), heathlands

and scrubs, sparsely vegetated land, islands,

wetlands (link should be added to NWRM), marine,

mountains, urban, GI concept is introduced. (Link

should be provided to GI site. A link to the Climate-

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 66

ADAPT page on cities and towns should be added)

croplands, rivers and lakes (link should be added to

NWRM).

Fragmentation High Add link to GI, as a response measure.

Genetic

resources

Low

Green

Infrastructure

High This section could be further strengthened by

extending the currently available material. Add

internal links to LIFE+, policy site and the

interactive presentation on the Biodiversity

strategy on BISE. Add links to Climate-ADAPT,

NWRM. Links could be provided directly to the

relevant sites on the above mentioned platforms

such as to case studies and the catalogue of

measures. See further recommendations below.

Invasive species Low

Land use

change

High GI concept is introduced. The link to the GI site is

not working

LIFE+ Nature

and Biodiversity

projects

High

Overexploitation Medium No reference to GI. Is relevant as background.

Pollution Low/Medium

Protected areas High Add link to GI site.

SEBI Medium Good source of biodiversity indicators that can be

useful for GI stakeholders.

Species Low/Medium Divided into sub-categories of selected species

groups.

Tipping points Low/medium

POLICY Policy, general

page

High Relevant, although GI is not directly linked.

The site structure is not clear and it is difficult to

navigate. Sitemap, drop down menu and the

general page does not correspond.

Overview of the EU biodiversity strategy. Especially

Target 2 is GI relevant. Add link to GI site.

Global High References and links to UN Convention on

biodiversity, Ramsar Convention

Pan European High Links to Pan European Initiatives and European

conventions.

Interactive

presentation of

EU Biodiversity

Strategy

overview

High Good and easy overview of the EU strategy

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 67

DATA DATA Medium/High The section gathers selected entry points to data

and information related to Biodiversity; the EEA’s

Biodiversity data centre (BDC) as well as to other

environmental data centers from the EU. The scope

is set to information infrastructure supported by

the EU.

KNOWLEDGE Knowledge Medium/high Has GI relevance, but not as specified and difficult

to navigate. Collection of links to science-policy

interfaces, key research funding, networks,

relevant bodies and projects related to biodiversity.

Clearer division of categories is needed and GI

should be better highlighted.

COUNTRIES Medium/low EU Member State national reports related to

biodiversity and information related to indicators

organized by country.

No specific information on GI, but still with some

GI relevance

NETWORKS High Information on networks supporting the current

developments of BISE and their products relevant

to the EU biodiversity strategy.

BISE

CATALOGUE

High There is a GI catalogue available. It is however

difficult to find.

Link from GI site needed. It does not appear in

sitemap, search results and needs to be connected

through the search function as well as included in

sitemap.

3. Are there ideas on GI information that are lacking and could enrich the specific

platform?

See recommendations below.

4. Is the GI information presented easy to be located (for this, see also further)?

Relatively. All GI information is gathered in one section which is beneficial. However,

with increasing GI information becoming available, it will be important to maintain this

easiness to locate by the end-user searching for information. The interlinkages

between the different sub-sections on BISE are currently not so strong, which would

need to be addressed to further ease the access to GI information for the end-user.

5. Is this information that is similar to other information on other platforms and

therefore relevant to be integrated with that other information?

The information is similar to the information on the DG ENV GI site. As the European

Commission indicated a desire to have much of the DG ENV GI information moved to

BISE, with only policy-relevant GI information being disclosed through the DG ENV GI

location. The BISE GI site could be strengthened by the information on DG ENV.

6. Is this information that is also relevant to be integrated available through BISE,

or only through a link, or not at all? For BISE this question will be answered

from the perspective of linkage to NWRM and Climate-ADAPT

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 68

The information on BISE is highly GI relevant and also very relevant in the context of

the themes covered on Climate-ADAPT and the NWRM platform. Further integration of

the three platforms would be desirable.

7. Which recommendations can be made to improve the visibility of GI?

Short-term

 Ease the navigation to and increase the visibility of the GI section on the BISE

platform. As the general ease of navigation on the platform is difficult, it also

makes it difficult to easily access the GI section. It is not immediately apparent

where it is to be found. A more visible link to GI should be offered on the home

page; in the short term, under ‘BISE highlights’, but in the long run through a

separate box or similar.

 Enrich the current GI section on BISE. The information available needs to be

enhanced to provide a fuller picture, e.g. the policy aspects should be

strengthened, as they are currently only described by a reference to the EC

Communication on GI. Information on GI measures and links to case studies

should also be added to further strengthen the section.

 Increase the attractiveness and user-friendliness of the website. The section

would benefit, for example, from separating the text with headings or using

textboxes or similar to make it more user-friendly. Links to case studies,

measures, etc. should be added.

 Enable the user to quickly find its way to the right reports/links by grouping them

under themes such as “Making the case for GI”, GI and “green economy”, GI and

Climate change”, etc.

 Add a calendar of events and a news section.

 It would be important to give toolkits and guidance materials a more central place

and highlight them on the website. Gathering the available practical support tools

for developers would also make it easier to define the need for additional ones to

be developed.

 Further increase the interlinkages between relevant sections across the BISE

platform. Many of the sections would benefit from a link to the GI section and this

would also allow to accentuate the potential gains GI applications could provide.

Currently, only on a few occasions there is a link to GI. Vice-versa, additional

links should also be provided on the GI site, e.g. to the Biodiversity Strategy

sections as well as to the many sections that contribute to understanding the

background and current situation with regards to GI (for example, such as

relevant indicators etc.). Please see table above for additional comments on the

interlinkages.

 Further increase the integration of other GI platforms such as Climate-ADAPT,

NWRM, FISE on the website, on the GI section and across the BISE platform.

Links should be added to relevant case studies, primarily from NWRM and

Climate-ADAPT. Please see table above for further details on links.

 Further promote and visualize the GI library on the BISE catalogue. The library

has more than 220 documents and is a good source of GI information that can be

filtered down to match the users’ need, according to geographical region, topic, or

specific year. However, the library is not easy to find for the user as there is no

reference at all to the library on the GI relevant sections. It does not appear in

the sitemap either. A highly visible link should be provided from the GI section, as

well as in all other relevant sections. Linkages between the GI library and the

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 69

CIRCAB catalogue on GI should be explored. This recommendation may also be

extended to other platforms where it would beneficial to link to the GI catalogue.

Mid-term

 Consider applying all of the above in creating a separate section for GI on BISE to

further streamline the GI information on the website and to develop it into an

accessible, useful and inviting knowledge hub for GI. However, given that the

expert Working Group on Green Infrastructure Implementation and Restoration

(WG GIIR) has concluded that there will not be a separate repository dedicated to

GI and serving as a central gateway, it will be essential from a governance point

of view to decide on which information to centralize on BISE and for which

information to limit the linkage to cross-referring across platforms.

 Much of the information on BISE is relevant to GI but is not labelled as such. To

support the above points, the website needs to be reviewed and the information

which can be related to GI should be identified and highlighted as such. This could

provide a good example for other GI platforms where a similar need has been

identified.

 It would be helpful to make the GI section (and the platform itself) more inviting.

This could be achieved by e.g. introducing interactive presentations and

illustrations. One inspiring example is provided by NWRMS’s interactive illustration

of sectoral measures which after clicking on a chosen measure presents more

detailed information and links to potential benefits of measures and case studies

(http://nwrm.eu/urban).

Long-term

 Establish a network for GI practitioners and experts for which BISE provides the

platform. Synergies should be sought with ENGINE (the European Network for

Green Infrastructure Knowledge and Experience). Inspiration could also be taken

from the the Green Infrastructure Partnership (GIP) set up by Defra, UK

(http://www.gip-uk.org/).

 Enable a knowledge sharing function where users could upload best practice

examples or new reports. This would facilitate the BISE GI section to stay up to

date with the continuous development of GI information and help to build BISE

into a relevant knowledge base.

 Define the end-users and conduct an assessment among them to define their

needs and expectations of the GI section on BISE to see what type of information

and/or functions they are expecting or missing from the platform.

 Consider developing the use of social media to reach out to a wider audience but

also to keep the end-users informed about news, developments and updates.

NWRM use of Linkedin might provide inspiration.

 Consider to develop a GI newsletter.

Answers to the specific questions of Annex II on accessibility and user friendliness are

included in Annex III and have been covered in the recommendations provided under

8.

Concise summary

Although not labelled as such, most information of the BISE platform is highly relevant

from a GI perspective as preserving biodiversity is an important result and building

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 70

block of GI measures, because ecological networks are GI and because it concerns

ecosystem services for delivering goods and services. Some of the key conclusions

from the analysis is that the GI relevant sections need to be made more visible, which

includes that the many sub-sections that have GI relevance should be better labelled

as such. Moreover, by providing further interlinkages between the various GI related

sections the usefulness of BISE for the end-users would increase as well as a more

holistic picture will be given. The platform hosts the nice feature of the GI library

which has a lot of potential to be further developed into a rich source of information.

The library however needs to be made more visible and accessible to be able to

provide for its full potential.

There is a lot of GI relevant information available on BISE but its coherence, visibility

and user-friendliness needs to be improved. By structuring the information, increasing

interlinkages, extending the integration of other GI platforms, BISE could become a

good source of GI information. The GI information available should be extended to

also encompass policy aspects. In addition, a deeper dive in the different GI options

and measures that are available would be needed. These aspects need to be

addressed before BISE can claim to be a user friendly, exhaustive source of GI

knowledge in Europe.

3.3.2 NWRM/WISE

Today there is no GI information available at the Water Information System Europe

(WISE). This is despite the fact that including GI information on the WISE site is very

relevant as ‘blue infrastructure’ is an important physical building block of GI. GI

contributes to achieving and maintaining healthy water ecosystems and offers

multiple-benefits to the water sector including providing regulation of water flows,

water purification and water provisioning, i.e. significantly contributes to achieving the

objectives of the EU water related directives. It would thus be suitable to have

information on technical standards and on how to design and construct biodiversity

friendly waterways and water bodies on WISE. However, today there is no GI

information available on this platform. Neither are any links to external GI platforms

provided.

The Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) platform, on the other hand, contains

a great deal of relevant GI information. This platform was initially thought to be part

of WISE but is currently separate. Therefore, for evaluating which GI information is

available and how the visibility can be improved, focus has been placed not on WISE

but on NWRM. It is a possibility to explore how NWRM can be integrated into WISE in

the long-term.

The stated objective of the NWRM platform is to gather and provide information at the

EU level. The platform was developed within a DG ENV project with the objective to

develop a sound and comprehensive European (web-based) knowledge base on NWRM

in order to improve the uptake of these measures in the 2nd and 3rd River Basin

Management Plans under the WFD and the Flood Risk Management Plans. The

platform was set up after the first cycle on River Basin Management Plans were

reported by the Member States. The knowledge base structures available information

on technical, environmental, socio-economic, governance and implementation aspects

of NWRM, mobilizing existing practical experiences, studies and stakeholders’

knowledge. During the second cycle of reporting (to be done by March 2016) more

information on GI/NWRM will be included. NWRM are defined as one of the key type

measure to be reported under the Programmes of measures of the River Basin

Management Plans (RBMPs). GI or NWRM may also be included under other key types

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 71

of measures. This reporting will provide an updated picture of the measures planned

to be implemented by MS in the upcoming years.

1. Who are the end-users of the platform and what sort of information do they

expect?

The platform is targeted to all parties interested in the design and implementation of

NWRM in the context of the planning process of the Water Framework Directive (WFD)

or the Floods Directive, the development of a climate change adaptation strategy or

the establishment of sustainable urban plans, such as:

 practitioners who are or have been involved in the design and practical

implementation of NWRM in different sectors (urban, agriculture, forestry…);

 managers involved in the development of River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs)

or Flood Management plans;

 technical service staff (for example, from a large city engaged in a “sustainable

city” initiative);

 representatives from funding agencies that can support NWRM implementation;

 representatives from economic sectors that can implement NWRM;

 environmental NGOs; researchers and independent experts, etc.

In short, the end-users are existing and future NWRM practitioners and stakeholders

looking for practical examples for implementing NWRM measures and

recommendations on how to select and prioritise measures.

2. Are these end-users served by GI information/explanation?

The relation between NWRM and GI is explained in the ‘About the project’ section as

well as throughout the information available, such as the practical guide, the synthesis

documents, the ID cards, measures etc. There is also a GI definition provided in the

Glossary and in the Relations graph. This information is however not easily accessible

and it is not immediately clear for the user that NWRM is GI. The user needs to have

some background knowledge and know what to search for in order to find the

information.

3. For each subcategory, the question needs to be asked as to which information

is GI relevant, which not

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 72

Table 4: GI relevance of the divisions/subdivisions on NWRM

First level heading Second level heading GI Relevance

HOME High

IMPLEMENTING NWRM The Practical Guide High

The ID Cards High

Communication material High

Synthesis documents High

CATALOGUE OF NWRM NWRM per sector High

NWRM per benefits High

Benefits tables High

CASE STUDIES High

GLOSSARY Relations graph High

ABOUT THE NWRM PROJECT About High

The regional networks High

4. Are there ideas on GI information that are lacking and could enrich the specific

platform?

It would be useful to add a section on the GI concept and the links between GI

and NWRM. It should include a GI definition and provide a more holistic

overview of GI and the water sector, include links to other platforms and

information sources. A sentence on GI as a concept and the links to NWRM

should be included on the home page introduction to immediately catch the

attention of the user.

The Policy section on NWRM is not so strong, as the user has to go to the

Guidance or to additional documents to get the full picture. See further

recommendations below.

5. Is the GI information presented easy to be located (for this, see also further)?

All information on the website is related to GI, as NWRM per se are green

infrastructure solutions. The information is however not presented as such and

the user has however to be aware of that as it is not immediately, explicitly

mentioned on the front page of the platform. The specific GI references are

dispersed and spread out in the online guidance and in other documents

(available as pdf documents). Otherwise, the website has a logical and clear

structure.

In the NWRM catalogue/NWRM per type of benefit, there is an option to filter

NRWMs according to policy objective, and here it is possible to choose the

priority of “Better protection of ecosystem and more use of Green

Infrastructure”. But also here, the user has to search specifically for GI to be

able to find it.

6. Is this information that is similar to information on other platforms and

therefore relevant to be integrated with that other information?

This is the most detailed information resource with regards to water related GI

among the EC GI platforms. Some of the NWRM measures supporting climate

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 73

change adaptation could be linked to Climate Adapt. Also the ones related to

habitats could be linked to the Biodiversity Strategy.

7. Is this information that is also relevant to be integrated available through BISE,

or only through a link, or not at all?

This information is highly relevant to BISE and an overview of the NWRM

information should be integrated to BISE in addition to clear and visible links to

the in-depth NWRM information.

8. Which recommendations can be made to improve the visibility of GI?

Short-term

To enhance and facilitate the end-users’ understanding of the GI concept and the

strong supporting relationship to NWRM by:

 Adding an introduction on GI as a concept and its links to NWRM on the home

page.

 Adding links to related information and external information portals for further

relevant readings on GI, such as BISE, Climate-ADAPT, DG ENV GI and FISE page

would increase the coverage of the GI concept and would enable users interested

in GI to find additional information, beyond NWRM. In particular, stronger links

should be made to Climate-ADAPT and the sections on e.g. water management

and urban sector to benefit from the capacity of NWRM to contribute to climate

change adaptation. The links should be made easily accessible and appear in

sections where related information is presented (in the future, ideally on the

suggested separate GI section). E.g. targeted links to Climate-ADAPT should

appear under the adaptation section in the NWRM catalogue/NWRM per type of

benefit provided as well as in the Case Study. Links to BISE should appear in the

section on Biodiversity under the NWRM catalogue.

 Organise case studies in a similar way as with the NWRM measures, i.e. according

to benefits and sectors to facilitate finding the most relevant ones for the specific

user.

 Establish deep links with WISE; there should be a clear and visible link to the

NWRM platform from WISE.

Mid-term

 Adding a separate section on GI to highlight the links between GI and NWRM

where a definition and an overall introduction to the GI concept is provided. This

section could possibly be added under ‘About the project’ or ideally by creating a

new sub-section on GI.

 It should be ensured that the information material from the NWRM is available

through the GI library on BISE.

Answers to the specific questions of Annex 9 on accessibility and user friendliness are

included in Annex 10 and have been covered in the recommendations provided under

8.

Concise summary

NWRM is all about GI. It is at its place under WISE and only needs to be indicated on

BISE with a link and short explanation. In other words, no integration into BISE is

necessary and only a connection should be established.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 74

Considering the NWRM platform from a GI perspective, it would be helpful to improve

the platform by better introducing and integrating the GI concept and the strong

supportive relationship of GI and NWRM, as this is currently missing. All information

on the website is highly relevant to GI as NWRM per se are green infrastructure

solutions. The information is however not labeled as such and the user might not be

aware that this is in fact GI. This aspect should be given further attention to make the

context clear for the end-users.

Currently, there are not many linkages made to external sources, and it would be

useful to have much more links being made to other GI platforms and sources of

information, thereby considering to not flood it such that its attractiveness in making

available what is needed is not being lost. A technical challenge is how to integrate

NWRM into WISE.

The NWRM platform, which is entirely a GI, could through the way it has been set-up

serve as inspiration for setting up/renewing other GI related platforms such as BISE or

the new platform on sustainable cities that will be organised. The structure of the

measures section, and to some extent the case studies section, can be used as an

illustrative and good example on how to create interlinkages within a platform and in

how it is making links to the relevant case studies, benefits etc.

3.3.3 Climate-ADAPT

The European Climate Adaptation Platform (Climate-ADAPT) aims to support Europe in

adapting to climate change. It helps users to access and share information on i.e.

adaptation case studies and potential adaptation options, etc. It is obvious that GI

plays a crucial role in climate change adaptation.

More in detail, Climate-ADAPT is a partnership between the European Commission (DG

CLIMA, DG Joint Research Centre and other DGs) and the European Environment

Agency.

Climate-ADAPT aims to support Europe in adapting to climate change. It is an

initiative of the European Commission and helps users to access and share data and

information on:

 Expected climate change in Europe

 Current and future vulnerability of regions and sectors

 National and transnational adaptation strategies

 Adaptation case studies and potential adaptation options

 Tools that support adaptation planning

The platform includes a database that contains quality checked information that can

be easily searched.

1. Who are the end-users of the platform and what sort of information do they

expect?

The end-users are policy-makers, practitioners (national, local and regional

governance) in Europe working with or interested in adapting to climate change.

2. Are these end-users served by GI information/explanation?

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 75

There is no specific section on GI and no proper background overview of the concept is

provided. The GI concept is mentioned briefly on a few occasions with regards to

'Cities and towns' and 'Urban adaptation support tool' as well as being mentioned in a

number of case studies.

3. For each subcategory question needs to be asked as to which information is GI

relevant, which not

Table 5: GI relevance of the divisions/subdivisions on Climate-ADAPT

First level heading

Second level heading

GI Relevance

Comments

HOME High Introduction to the platform. Link to BISE and WISE is available.

ADAPTATION INFORMATION

General Medium There is no specific GI information.

Recommendation: Include general introduction of benefits of applying GI for adaptation to increase the relevance. The information should be accompanied with links to relevant GI platform and information sources such as DG ENV GI site, BISE and NWRM.

Observations and scenarios

High The sub-section is further divided in 6 categories. Each category contains links to selected indicators, relevant reports and links. In particular the sections on Water Systems, Terrestrial biosphere, Urban areas and Health are relevant to GI.

Recommendation: Link to NWRM should be added under Water system sector (if possible directly to the relevant sections of adaptation on NRWM, i.e. case studies, benefits tables). A link should be made to the NWRM guidance in the report section. A link to BISE should be made available in the Urban areas and health and terrestrial biosphere sections.

Vulnerabilities and risks

Medium Not directly relevant to GI, but interesting background for GI stakeholders.

Adaptation options

High Some adaptation options presented are highly relevant, such as:

- Improved water retention in agricultural areas,

- Adaptive management of natural habitats

- Agro-forestry and crop diversification

- Dune construction and strengthening

- Green roofs and walls

- Adaptation or improvement of dikes and dams

- Water sensitive urban and building design

- etc.

Recommendation: Link should be provided to NWRM website and reports and BISE. Include GI as an adaptation sector to be applied in the search function.

Adaptation strategies

Low

Research projects

Medium There is a link to the Curriculum Adaptive Water Management which is relevant to GI.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 76

Recommendation: current or future projects on GI and adaptation could be included here.

Uncertainty guidance

Medium The guidance has some relevance for handling uncertainty issues when using GI for adaptation measures.

EU ADAPTATION POLICY

EU adaptation policy and funding

Medium Link to the EC communication on GI information is provided.

EU Adaptation Strategy

Medium Although not addressing GI specifically, it can serve as background for GI stakeholders.

EU sector policies

High The section is organised into 9 sectors. Some of the sectors are more GI relevant than others, such as biodiversity, forestry, water management, coastal areas, urban areas, infrastructure, disaster risk reduction.

Recommendation: Green infrastructure could potentially be added as a separate section to increase the visibility of GI and enable easy access to GI information.

Synergies could be established with the NRWM sections on sectors (in particular the water management and coastal areas) by providing visible links between the two websites. For Forestry link should be provided to FISE. Link to BISE should be added to biodiversity, water management.

EU funding of adaptation

Medium There is a reference under the LIFE funding section for Climate Action where green infrastructure is cited as a potential action to be funded.

COUNTRIES, REGIONS, CITIES

General Low/medium

Countries Low/medium

Transnational regions

Low/medium

Cities and towns

High The site contains some information on GI and its co- benefits for tackling climate change, including improved air quality, support for biodiversity and enhanced quality of life. Funding opportunities for urban mitigation and adaptation are presented which have some relevance to GI stakeholders, although not directly targeted to GI.

Recommendation: - The information on GI could be enhanced, potentially as a separate section. - The text should also highlight the capacity of GI to contribute to adaptation, not only mitigation. - The relevance would be increased by including links to active links to other GI platforms (would be easily done by including hyperlinks in the text where GI is mentioned).

TOOLS General Medium Have some relevance for GI measures supporting adaptation. E.g. a link is provided to the Grabs toolkit for adaptation using green and blue infrastructure. The visibility would be increased if it was highlighted as a tool for GI.

Adaptation Medium/high Tool could be relevant for selecting GI relevant

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 77

support tool measures and drafting strategies. Relevant links to e.g. GRABS guidance and PLUREL Xplorer.

Case study search tool

High Several case studies on GI could be find.

Recommendation: Make GI searchable by adding GI as an adaptation sector.

Map viewer Low

Uncertainty guidance

Medium See above

Guidelines for project managers

Medium Have relevance for project managers and developers of physical assets and infrastructure and could thus be relevant for GI project managers.

Urban vulnerability map book

Medium Pilot version. Good illustration on some issues such as floods and droughts. Could be relevant for planning GI measures.

Urban adaptation support tool

High Provides practical guidance and knowledge support on urban adaptation. Includes several references to GI. Offers links to case studies and adaptation options.

Recommendations: The introduction could indicate that the link and relevance of the tool to GI.

Time series tool

Gives good illustration of the development of some climate indicators such as land-use and water stress. Could be relevant for planning GI measures.

4. Are there ideas on GI information that are lacking and could enrich the specific

platform?

A visible and coherent presentation of GI and its relevance to climate change

adaptation is not available on the platform. Such section would enrich Climate-

ADAPT. See further recommendations below.

5. Is the GI information presented easy to be located (for this, see also further)?

The specific GI relevant information to be found is relatively scattered and not

easy to locate.

6. Is this information that is similar to other information on other platforms and

therefore relevant to be integrated with that other info?

Yes, the information is relevant to other information platforms and the Climate-

ADAPT would benefit from a further integration with related platforms such as

DGENV GI site, BISE, NWRM and FISE.

7. Is this information that is also relevant to be integrated available through BISE,

or only through a link, or not at all?

Part of the information would be highly relevant to BISE, however the GI

information on Climate-ADAPT needs to be made more coherent and visible in

order to provide meaningful linkages from BISE. Ideally, an overview of the GI

information available on the Climate-ADAPT should be integrated to BISE in

addition to clear and visible links to the most relevant, in-depth, GI information

on Climate-ADAPT.

8. Which recommendations can be made to improve the visibility of GI?

Short term

 Increase the integration with other platforms on GI by making links across the

Climate-ADAPT platform to relevant sections of external GI platforms such as the

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 78

DGENV GI site, BISE, NWRM and FISE. Please see Table 5 above for additional

specifications on the linkages.

 Consider adding GI as a sector under ‘EU Sector Policies’. As the integration of GI

into climate adaptation management, contributes to achieving the EU climate

adaptation goals it would be relevant to include it.

 Add GI to the ‘Glossary’.

Mid-term

 Increase the accessibility and coherence of GI on the Climate-ADAPT platform to

highlight the significance and benefits of GI as an effective measure for climate

change adaptation. This could preferably be achieved by adding a separate

section on GI and adaptation where a short overview and its high relevance for

climate change is provided. This section would in addition to the overview also

interlink the climate change options related to GI, the relevant case studies as

well as links to further reading e.g. at DG ENV GI page, BISE and NWRM, i.e. also

gather the relevant links which are already available across the platform but in

most cases not presented as GI. This could possibly be placed in the ‘Adaptation

Options’ section, or in the section on ‘Cities and Towns’ to further strengthen the

short reference to GI which is already available there. Streamlining the GI

information in such way would also increase the possibilities for creating synergies

and integration of Climate-ADAPT GI relevant information with other GI relevant

platforms, thus contributing to the awareness raising of GI and its possibilities.

See http://www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk/climatechange/ for further

inspiration.

 Review the information in the database to increasingly label case studies etc.,

with the key word GI to make them searchable. Currently, only a couple of case

studies and adaptation options are identified as GI.

 To further refine the ‘Search the Database’ function and to add GI as an

adaptation sector used as a search filter would facilitate the search and enable the

users to more easily find the relevant GI information and increase the visibility of

GI as a valid adaptation measure. Such improvements would improve the search

function on several sections on the platform, such as the Adaptation Options’, the

‘Case Study Search Tool’ and the ‘Map viewer’. See also

http://www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk/climatechange/search_start.php for

inspiration on how GI filters can be used in a search function.

 It should be made sure that the information material from the NWRM is available

through the GI library on BISE.

Long-term

 Assess the need for new materials to be developed and consider developing

targeted guidance material or toolkit on GI and climate change adaptation.

Answers to the specific questions of Annex 9 on accessibility and user friendliness are

included in Annex 10 and have been covered in the recommendations provided under

8.

Concise summary:

GI is among the most widely applicable, economically viable and effective tools to

support climate change adaptation. The integration of GI into climate adaptation

management, also called ecosystem-based adaptation, contributes to achieving the EU

climate adaptation goals.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 79

The Climate-ADAPT platform contains a few references to GI, however not sufficiently

to reflect its significance. A clear introduction of GI is missing. In its current state, the

few GI references are scattered across the platform. These aspects are making the GI-

relevant information on the platform difficult to locate resulting in a low usefulness for

the user. The website contains knowledge which would be highly relevant to GI and

that could provide useful information and guidance on sectors, measures, processes

etc. relevant for GI, and in particular GI measures supporting climate adaptation.

Presenting the GI concept in a visible and structured way is needed. The available

information which is related to GI should be highlighted as GI relevant. It would also

be important to increase the interlinkages across the platform to provide a fuller

overview of GI and to help the user to find its way to the information. It would be

beneficial to create a separate section on GI and adaptation which could present all

these aspects in a coherent and visible way. These improvements would be necessary

to establish links with other platforms, such as BISE.

3.3.4 Sustainable cities platform

The DG REGIO Sustainable Cities platform is currently under reconstruction due to

expired software. We can therefore not evaluate it from a GI perspective. A new

platform will be set up. For that new platform we provide guidance here from a GI

perspective on how to populate it.

GI use has much potential for urban areas. Indeed, boosting GI in cities and towns

has large capacity to contribute to sustainable urban development as it has numerous

co-benefits, including improved air quality, support for biodiversity and enhanced

quality of life. In addition, it has big potential in mitigating and adapting to the effects

of climate change and can deliver benefits such as flood alleviation, strengthening

ecosystems resilience, carbon storage and sequestration, mitigation of urban heat

island effects, disaster prevention (e.g. storms, forest fires, landslides), among others.

For the platform to be constructed we consider the following recommendations:

 Add a separate section on GI, where the concept is defined and a short

background including policy aspects, implementation aspects highlighting the wide

range of possibilities and benefits GI has for urban development.

 Make apparent and visible links to:

o BISE GI section

o BISE GI library

o Climate-ADAPT platform, and in particular the section on Cities and towns.

o NWRM, highlighting the urban related NWRM measures having climate

change mitigation and adaptation as key benefit.

With regards to content:

 Provide user-oriented materials that can support the practical work, such as

toolkit and guidance, etc. for local planners as GI should be a key consideration in

planning, developing and maintaining sustainable cities.

 GI standards, targets and performance indicators.

 Information on funding opportunities.

 Catalogue of measures. It would be beneficial to take inspiration from NWRM and

its catalogue of measures in presenting GI options.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 80

 Catalogue of relevant case studies. Plenty of case studies could be

collected/linked from the DG ENV GI, NWRM and Climate-ADAPT.

3.3.5 International Council of Landscape Architecture Schools

The European Council of Landscape Architecture Schools (ECLAS) exists to foster and

develop scholarship in landscape architecture throughout Europe by strengthening

contacts and enriching the dialogue between members of Europe's landscape

academic community and by representing the interests of this community within the

wider European social and institutional context. In pursuit of this goal ECLAS seeks to

build upon the Continent's rich landscape heritage and intellectual traditions to:

 Facilitate the exchange of information, experience and ideas within the discipline

of landscape architecture at the European level, stimulating discussion and

encouraging co-operation between Europe's landscape architecture schools

through, amongst other means, the promotion of regular international meetings,

in particular an annual conference;

 Foster and develop the highest standards of landscape architecture education in

Europe by, amongst other things, providing advice and acting as a forum for

sharing experience on course and curriculum development, and supporting

collaborative developments in teaching;

 Promote interaction between academics and researchers within the discipline of

landscape architecture.

Provided these goals and the relevance of GI for the landscape planning it is rather

surprisingly that from the ECLAS website GI is not visible, with just a few instances

where it is mentioned if “green” is entered in the search tool.

For members, ECLAS has a member-only accessible platform where GI information is

available at http://www.le-notre.org/. The original LE:NOTRE Projects (2002-2013)

were co-funded by the European Union's Socrates and Lifelong Learning Programmes.

The project web site provides a richly interactive platform for communication and the

sharing of information between all project members. With funding ceasing, to maintain

the gathered information alive it was decided to make this member-only accessible.

www.le-notre.org is the web site of the LE:NOTRE Thematic Network Project in

Landscape Architecture. It is a key tool for sharing information and communicating

within this global network. The LE:NOTRE Directory comprises a series of inter-linked

databases providing a European 'Who is Who' information of universities and other

organisations involved in landscape architecture teaching research and practice. The

LE:NOTRE channels collect and view information of various fields of interest and

identify each member as a member of 12 sub-communities. These sub-communities

include the entries ‘vegetation’ and ‘infrastructure’. From these sub-communities it is

not clear, however, how well information on GI is presented and how well practitioners

of GI are linked to each other. The Resource databases represent a growing collection

of user-editable databases which are developing into a common resource where

Network members can enter and share a wide range of information.

We recommend that once the GI section on BISE has been further developed that

from www.le-notre.org users easily will find their way to the information on the BISE

platform. Also, with the information on BISE growing, it may be beneficial to explore

in more depth the information available on GI at LE:NOTRE and the way it is

presented. Potentially, in the long-term, this may provide an opportunity for having a

win-win realized in the information sharing of these two platforms. For the ECLAS

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 81

website we would recommend having a minor section on GI being included, covering

issues such as definition, advantages/disadvantages, relevance and a link to BISE.

3.3.6 World Green Building Council

The World Green Building Council is a network of national green building councils in

more than one hundred countries, making it the world’s largest international

organisation influencing the green building marketplace. They have specific

information for each region, including with a focus on Europe:

http://www.worldgbc.org/regions/europe. “Green” in this context should be

understood as sustainable and not being limited to GI only. This is very clear also from

the cases that illustrate the report on the “Business case for green building.”77

There is no indication on the webpages on GI, neither is there a sitemap or search box

allowing for quick access to possible GI information. One specific aspect that is

mentioned is the benefits in terms of health, wellbeing and productivity thanks to

views of nature. We could not find GI being mentioned anywhere upfront.

Nevertheless, there are several points of entry which encompass GI despite not

mentioning it directly. For example, with the Sustainable Cities Initiative (SCI) the

WGBC supports national green building councils (GBCs) in their relationships with local

governments around the world, with the aim of creating greener, more sustainable

cities everywhere.

We do not think that the platform is waiting for GI to be put in the picture. Therefore,

the best way to bring more attention to GI would be to first integrate it better in

different sectors of EU policy. With GI becoming a more widely used term, as has been

the case with climate or sustainability, then it will likely be covered more specifically

on the WGBC’s platform. It is relevant in this context that the WGBC’s website is

mainly aimed at facilitating a network and less so at providing content.

3.3.7 Green Roof Association

The ten associations promote and encourage the uptake of green roofs in their

countries to help address issues related to climate change, ecosystem services, green

infrastructure and lack of green space in the built environment. While it is clear from

this first statement and the further information provided on the website pages that

EFB cares about GI and ecosystem services, the website is not a hub for information

on GI relating to green roofs.

Links are provided to the websites/platforms of each of the 10 member associations.

Although these national websites vary in the information offered, in several instances

they provide much more content on the green roof industry (producers and suppliers),

on the pros and cons of green roofs, guidance (such as on

http://greenrooftraining.com/the-guide/). Also, newsletters and connection to blogs

on green roofs, and information on funding are provided for some of the national

associations. On several occasions also a library is included, for example

http://www.aivep.it/bibliografia. While some of this information may be rather country

specific or only available in the country’s language, there certainly is potential to

further disclose some of the available information among countries.

Therefore, we recommend to make http://www.efb-greenroof.eu/index.html a central

hub on GI information that is relevant to be shared across countries. In particular, we

would recommend having the platform become “the” one-stop-shop for information on

green roofs and the pros and cons this GI element provides. Providing a link from

77 http://www.worldgbc.org/activities/business-case/case-studies

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 82

BISE, NRWM and Climate-ADAPT to the EFB’s website would allow practitioners to

directly find what they need. In the links section on the EFB website, a link should also

be made to BISE, NRWM and Climate-ADAPT to provide end-users with the broader

picture on GI and building with nature.

3.3.8 European Council of Spatial Planners

ECTP-CEU is the umbrella organisation for spatial planning institutes in Europe. From a

networking perspective, it is an achievement and benefit that the services ECTP-EU

provides include a register of experts from across Europe specifically on planning

issues. Specifically, planning practitioners all over Europe are increasingly confronted

with new challenges. Globalisation, environmental problems, accessibility of urbanised

areas, immigration and social tensions, identity and cultural heritage, natural heritage,

water management and climate change, all affect spatial development of cities and

regions. Different European regulations and processes deal with these challenges

differently and devising integrated approaches or balancing development with

sustainability can be a problem. ECTP-CEU experts offer their knowledge, insight and

experience in these issues to individuals and organisations all over Europe looking for

guidance in these fields. This may be an opportunity to easily bring GI to attention and

to create a community of practice or working group on GI. Also, this provides an

opportunity for involving such experts in a network of experts that would be created

as part of the GI section on BISE. In fact, the ECTP-EU has working groups on specific

teams already, including a group on climate. They have an url-entry,78 however, little

information is available on the topic.

The current work of the ECTP-CEU includes:

 Dissemination of the revised New Charter of Athens on planning European cities in

the 21st century;

 The design of a Vision enhancing the quality and efficiency of cities and urban life

in Europe;

 The production of a guide to spatial planning and territorial cohesion;

 The publishing of the proceedings of major conferences on European spatial

development and the preparation of forthcoming conferences;

 The preparation of the European Urban and Regional Planning Awards.

 There is a member only area on the platform at http://www.ectp-

ceu.eu/index.php/en/members-area

From this work description it is clear that the ECTP-EU does not aim to be a content

hub, but rather aims at bringing attention to major approaches and outcomes of

events such as conferences. Therefore, our recommendation is not to have a specific

content-rich section included on the platform that deals with GI. Rather, we would

recommend having a minor section on building with nature, where the possibilities and

benefits of GI and making use of nature are brought to attention. In addition, for this

section it would be beneficial to also include a selection of inspiring examples on

spatial planning and GI and include visible links to the GI section on BISE and to the

NWRM and Climate-ADAPT platform.

78 http://www.ectp-ceu.eu/index.php/en/about-us-2/working-groups-19/climate-change

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 83

3.4 Technical and governance aspects of BISE, NWRM and Climate-

ADAPT

3.4.1 BISE

The server signature for BISE is Zope/(2.13.21, python 2.6.6, linux2) ZServer/1.1.

BISE is running on top Plone. The CMS correct version of Plone could not be identified.

In other words, it is unclear on what version of Plone BISE is built. Further technical

specificities of BISE features are that:

 On BISE most of the content is based on data presentation of simple text using

WYSIWYG mechanisms exposed by standard “Add Page” functionalities. More

information on how to add a Page with content in Plone is available at:

http://docs.plone.org/working-with-content/adding-content/adding-pages.html

 Other web resources such as Images, Links, files, are done with the help of

standard content processing mechanisms (see: http://docs.plone.org/working-

with-content/adding-content/index.html).

 The map under countries (http://biodiversity.europa.eu/countries) is a standard

map found under the EC maps portofolio. For other maps in the EC portofolio,

see: https://webtools.ec.europa.eu/fusionmapsxt/Tools/GUI/FusionMapsGUI.html

or http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/biogeographical-regions-

europe-1.

We could not identify any modules present that are facilitating communication with

citizens in order to gather data for further processing or for presentation of data such

as news and/or newsletters. Where there is a hint of such mechanisms, they are

rather poor in presentation or difficult to read; i.e. the “BISE - Clearing House

Mechanism (CHM) network of Europe” page (http://biodiversity.europa.eu/chm-

network) does not present data categorised by language and the order of news should

be descending.

Figure 1 – Unordered news and hard to identify relevant information between different languages.

The “Knowledge” page is a rather poor page in design, presenting a group of links into

a simple page. Most of the links are outside of the biodiversity.europa.eu domain.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 84

The menu on top in BISE cannot be reached on a mobile device.

Figure 2 – Submenu on Data section may not be reached on mobile device

The result of searches are not relevant. For example, searching for “Fragmentation”

renders 5 pages with links where the title of the page is the only information

presented to the user that needs to make a choice on how to proceed. Clearly, this is

not very user-friendly in terms of using key words and having rapid access to the

relevant pages or information.

In what follows we provide recommendations on how to technically improve the

functioning of BISE such that GI information can become easily available to end-users

of the BISE platform.

Short-term recommendations:

 Make the BISE portal HTML5 compatible and change its presentation based on a

responsive design79. Opening the application on a mobile device, this would give a

user a better experience together with an easiness of navigation. There are

different themes with responsive mechanism available on the plone.org website:

https://plone.org/products/plonetheme.diazo_responsivetheme

79 Responsive web design (RWD) is an approach to web design aimed at crafting sites to provide an optimal viewing and interaction experience—easy reading and navigation with a minimum of resizing, panning, and scrolling—across a wide range of devices (from desktop computer monitors to mobile phones).

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 85

 A better order of events has to be achieved by presenting upcoming events in an

ascending order and past events in descending order. For News items the

standard is in descending order.

 Improve the Knowledge page by adding categories and lists with different sections

to improve information visibility and the finding of information.

 For easy technical maintenance of BISE, we recommend to have the modules and

vulnerability fixes updated (currently the most recent version of Plone is 4.3.6).

 Improve the search function by showing under the main link or title the context

part of the paragraph where the search word is found. There does not seem to be

a search engine on offer in Plone modules, however an open source search engine

that delivers a better experience by searching is http://sphinxsearch.com/.

Figure 3 - A search in Google reveals a better way of presenting of the found expression

Long-term recommendations:

 On plone.org there are multiple plugins for Plone including one developed by EEA

in order to facilitate machine to machine communication:

https://plone.org/products/eea.daviz

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 86

Figure 4 - DaViz plone module app facilitating machine-to-machine communication

 It is recommended to create a data warehouse exposing data in RDF format with

immediate availability to SPARQL queries; Data may be visualized in different

formats such as Interactive charts, dashboards, tables, URLs. A way of doing this

may be to gather a warehouse with GI related information in RDF format. Such

data can then be analysed with tools like Cytoscape (cytoscape.org).

 Cytoscape is an open source software platform for visualizing complex networks

and integrating these with any type of attribute data. A lot of Apps are available

for various kinds of problem domains, including bioinformatics, social network

analysis, and semantic web.

Figure 5 – Cytoscape LOD modelling

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 87

3.4.2 NWRM

The nwrm.eu website uses Drupal 7 (http://drupal.org) as a development platform,

hosted on an Apache/2.2.15 (CentOS) server powered by PHP 5.3.5.

Drupal is an open source content management platform powering millions of websites

and applications. It is built, used, and supported by an active and diverse community

of people around the world.

Drupal is powerful in the availability of modules allowing a high degree of website

customisation. See https://www.drupal.org/project/project_module for a full list of

modules (i.e., more than 17000). On that page, tools are available to allow filtering

for specific types of modules.

We noticed some problems with the presentation to users of the NWRM platform

depending on the browser/device used. These are issues that would best be fixed in

the short-term to provide the best experience to users of the platform. We have

included an overview of our experiences in Annex 11.

Most of the pages on the NWRM platform that display text data have links to either

flash applications, pdf documents or, in most cases, simple text.

With regard to machine to machine communications, Drupal offers various modules

allowing exchange of information with other Sites, Systems, Data and APIs. A list of

modules is available at https://www.drupal.org/node/627270.

Drupal has support for RDF format content: https://www.drupal.org/project/rdfx. An

introduction to this in Drupal is https://www.drupal.org/node/219862. A SPARQL

module is also available at https://www.drupal.org/project/sparql. Simple RDF

(https://www.drupal.org/node/1393378) automatically maps values of Drupal objects

(e.g. nodes) to RDF properties. Simple RDF provides RDF mapping configuration for

the node, user, and term object types per classification, such as content type in the

case of nodes. However, simple RDF has been stopped with development of Drupal 6

level. More on RDFx module for Drupal 7 is available at

https://www.drupal.org/project/rdfx. Simple RDF also comes with an RDF document

display module: Simple RDF View. This module publishes the RDF document for an

object on a configurable path under the object's path, e.g. `node/123/rdf. In NWRM,

RDF visualization is present; see http://nwrm.eu/page/relations-graph. This page

shows RDF data (it is however not clear if data presented in these nodes are limited to

the NWRM website only). For browser presentation some fixes are needed (see Figure

6): nodes are exceeding the presentation (IE, the graph should be aligned centered

(FireFox and Chrome), and connection points are not visible (IE9).

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 88

Figure 6 – RDF visualisation on the NWRM websites with IE

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 89

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 90

Specifically with respect to GI a node is displayed under Glossary->Relations graph

(see Figure 7). It was not entirely clear from the research how this graph is

generated. This was either by using GraphAPI

(https://www.drupal.org/project/graphapi) or the JIT (http://philogb.github.io/jit/).

Figure 7 – GI RDF node present in graph

Short-term recommendations:

 Fix the layout issues encountered with the different browsers.

 Implement a responsive design theme allowing mobile users to properly

experience the NWRM platform. In fact, there are several themes available out-of-

the-box on the Drupal website or alternatively other low-priced commercial ones.

For example:

- AdaptiveTheme - https://www.drupal.org/project/adaptivetheme;

- Zen - https://www.drupal.org/project/zen

- AdaptiveTheme - http://adaptivethemes.com/

 Improve the size of thumbnails (small pictures links) on the platform. A maximum

size of 15-20KB for this would be more suitable.

 The page at http://nwrm.eu/catalogue-nwrm/benefit-tables needs revision.

Pictures need to be resized and it would be more convenient if by clicking on the

links the big image would be loaded on another page. Also, use can be made of a

free and open source picture library slider from http://bxslider.com. Many other

similar libraries are available on the internet. For example, another recommended

free open source library is: http://www.jssor.com/download.html.

 Open links that are not part of nwrm.eu in another window.

Long-term recommendation:

 Choose for a mechanism to display the already existing RDF data (or existing

mechanism in Drupal for generating RDF content) in a more formatted way. The

graph visualization of LOD (http://nwrm.eu/page/relations-graph) may be useful

to display the complexity of link relations, but may not be the best way of

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 91

showing data to the final users. This would allow for all GI related data and

information to be presented in a structured way. With the help of Drupal RDF

modules, all pages and information may be exposed easily to RDF related

warehouses on the EEA servers. Further, these data may then be immediately

available to other publishing engines like BISE, Climate- ADAPT, WISE, etc.

3.4.3 Climate-ADAPT

Climate adapt is built on top of the Liferay community edition CMS available at

http://www.liferay.com (but to be changed to Plone in 2015). The version of the portal

is Community Edition 6.2.0 CE GA1 (Newton / Build 6200 / November 1, 2013).

Liferay contains a lot of modules that may be used to enrich content such as Web

Content, Documents and Media, Message Boards, Dynamic Data Links, Pools,

Categories etc. On the continuous integration EEA platform http://ci.eionet.europa.eu/

it can be researched which portlets (modules) have been used with Climate-ADAPT.

Also, Liferay is strong on social network connectivity. More information is available at:

https://dev.liferay.com/discover/portal/-/knowledge_base/6-2/social-networking.

On Climate-ADAPT most of the content is based on data presentation of simple text

using WYSIWYG mechanisms exposed by standard Web Content functionalities. More

about web content management is available at:

https://dev.liferay.com/discover/portal/-/knowledge_base/6-2/web-content-

management. Data on Climate-ADAPT is well presented, based on categories and lists

with different filters easing the information search. The map under adaptation -

http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/adaptation-strategies - is a standard map found

under the EC maps portfolio. For other maps in the EC portfolio, see:

https://webtools.ec.europa.eu/fusionmapsxt/Tools/GUI/FusionMapsGUI.html or

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/biogeographical-regions-europe-1.

We encountered two minor issues that need to be solved:

1. On Android 5 with Google Chrome there is no website header and top menu (see

Figure 8). With Firefox and Chrome, the page is loaded well.

Figure 8 – Android 5 view of the climate-ADAPT homepage

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 92

2. Browsing with IE9 the map under http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/tools/map-

viewer does not appear at all (see Figure 9). With Firefox and Chrome the page is

loaded well. The responsible services of Climate-ADAPT indicated more problems

have been reported for IE9.

Figure 9 – Uses experience on IE9 for the map-viewer on Climate-ADAPT

Short-term recommendations:

 Implement a responsive layout for the correct display of the climate-ADAPT

website to mobile users. This can, for example, be done though the theme

available within the Community edition of Liferay: AlloyUI 2.0 TagLib and

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 93

Bootstrap Migration https://dev.liferay.com/develop/tutorials/-

/knowledge_base/6-2/alloyui-2-0-taglib-and-bootstrap-migration .

 Some small layout fixes such as the search textbox where “Search” is not

properly aligned and the search icon has an improper size; see:

3.5 Recommendations

Based on the previous chapters we are now in the position to provide general

recommendations for improving the online visibility of GI. This chapter will not bring

together all the previous, sometimes very specific recommendations which have been

made throughout this document. Therefore, we recommend to also consult the

previous chapters in taking up actions for improving the GI visibility for the various

platforms that have been researched. Specifically, for BISE, NWRM and Climate-

ADAPT the preceding sections provide detailed information on actions that can or need

to be done in the short-, mid- or long-term for improving the online visibility of GI.

As in previous chapters, we distinguish between short, mid and long-term timelines for

implementation. Some of the recommendations entail a combination of actions,

starting with actions that can be addressed in the short-term, followed by actions to

be taken in the mid- and long-term time horizon.

In each of the recommendations below, we comment on the ‘why’, ‘what’, ‘how’,

‘when’, ‘who’, technical advice, governance, roadmap and risks. Only for the long-term

recommendations we do not follow this structure and provide our insights on how

progress can be made on increasing the online visibility and interconnectivity of GI

information.

Short-term

3.5.1 BISE to become a GI information hub

The amount of GI information on this platform today is rather disappointing. In the

previous sections it has been extensively discussed which actions can be taken. In

making BISE a GI hub it needs to be considered that the Commission prefers not to

create a central repository on GI but to use existing facilities: e.g. BISE covering the

biodiversity aspects, WISE/NWRM the water aspects, Climate-ADAPT the climate

aspects etc. Therefore, it is crucial to decide on which GI information to disclose

through BISE, and which through other platforms (such as NWRM or Climate-ADAPT).

GI information disclosed through other platforms should be connected to BISE such

that it is also accessible for end-users who access through BISE. In practical terms, GI

information will be more visible on BISE than on other platforms, as currently the GI

file is hosted by the Biodiversity Unit of DG ENV, which has a steering role in BISE

(but less on water and climate policies). While this approach may work well for linking

to NWRM and Climate-ADAPT, it may need to be reconsidered when GI uptake is also

increasing in other policy sectors. The reason is that other sectors are not necessarily

familiar with terminology used on BISE or inclined to search for information on a

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 94

‘nature’ platform. Therefore, evaluation may be needed on how GI information needs

to be provided (e.g. language, setting) to attract users that relate to these other

policy sectors.

 Why?: BISE should become an inspirational and exemplary platform on how to

optimally provide online GI information and connect this to other platforms.

 What?: See sections ‘Increasing GI visibility for selected platforms’ and ‘Technical

and governance aspects of BISE, NWRM and Climate-ADAPT’.

 How?: A combination of improving content, paying particular attention to user

friendliness and accessibility, and establishing good connections at least to NWRM

and Climate-ADAPT, and by extension to other platforms or sources of GI

information (see national or international - outside the EU - examples).

 When?: See sections ‘Increasing GI visibility for selected platforms’ and ‘Technical

and governance aspects of BISE, NWRM and Climate-ADAPT’.

 Who?: DG Environment and the EEA have a key role.

 Technical advice: See ‘Technical and governance aspects of BISE, NWRM and

Climate-ADAPT’ and corresponding longer term recommendation (3.5.5).

 Governance?: This requires DG Environment and the EEA to agree on how to

bring this forward.

 Roadmap: Drafting a detailed roadmap is suggested to be a first action after the

governance issue has been settled.

 Budget: Budget needs for implementing this short-term recommendation are low.

With increasing time horizons and considering the ambition levels that are

decided on, budget needs will be higher, andnot only for DG Environment and

EEA. When working towards recommendation 3.5.5, several organisations and

initiatives may be connected.

 Risks?: Similarly as for budget, the first steps to take have little risks, however,

for implementation of longer-term recommendations budgets are required and

also several parties have to agree on how to proceed and on how to structure the

information on their platform.

3.5.2 GI as a common vocabulary across platforms

There is a rather weak presence of both the term GI and the information that relates

to GI across platforms linked to either the EC or to stakeholders. In fact, many

platforms that can be considered relevant do not contain any reference at all to the

concept of GI. Much progress therefore can be made by having the concept, its

relevance for the sector or stakeholder group and a link to the GI section on BISE

integrated across the relevant policy sectors and stakeholder platforms.

 Why?: To create a community and connect across policy sectors and

stakeholders, having a common terminology and understanding can be a catalyst

for GI information to become labelled as such, disclosed and, most importantly,

applied.

 What?: GI information may be present at a variety of websites/platforms,

however, it will often be available as very specific information and not necessarily

named GI. Therefore, it is not evident to retrieve all the available information by

using the term GI. Indeed, often other search terms (such as ecosystem-based

adaptation, nature-based solutions, natural capital, ecosystem services, etc.) are

needed or in use for GI related information.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 95

 How?: (1) Introduce the concept where it is not present today and link it to the

expectations/language of the end-user (see also the fact sheets on GI that were

produced in task 1 for various policy sectors). (2) Identify which information is GI

relevant and take the necessary actions to label it as such. (3) Provide at least a

link to BISE and possibly to other platforms relevant for that sector.

 When?: This can start now with a focus on BISE, NWRM and Climate-ADAPT, then

further extended across EC websites and platform (mid-term) and ultimately lead

to GI visibility also on many stakeholder platforms or information hubs (long-

term).

 Who?: DV ENV will need to facilitate this until a community has been built that

may start doing this.

 Technical advice: There are no real challenges from a technical perspective,

unless ambition is to cater for this also more directly through recommendations

3.5.3, 3.5.4 and 3.5.5.

 Governance: Not each representative may welcome the idea to have GI as a

common label and to indicate where it links to related information.

 Roadmap: (1) Step 1 would be to have BISE as a representative platform on GI

such that it can be an inspiration and that links can be provided. (2) Step 2 would

be to have GI become commonly used and more visible on NWRM and Climate-

ADAPT, such as to illustrate how connections can be made. (3) Step 3 would

involve the same for other platforms/websites of EU policy sectors. (4) Step 4

would involve the same for stakeholder platforms.

 Budget: Efforts to be mainly expressed in terms of manpower to discuss this with

representatives of the various organisations and a limited effort of each in terms

of providing the information on the various platforms.

 Risks: See ‘Governance’.

Mid-term

3.5.3 Have GI relevant information made available to the end-users of the

various platforms

For the majority of the studied platforms there is limited availability of GI information.

In Chapter 3 we have indicated the ‘ideal’ future situation on the way GI information

could be made available through the different websites/platforms linked to specific

policy sectors. For the stakeholder platforms, the exercise that was made for the

policy sectors can provide inspiration. However, to define exactly which GI information

to disclose is something that is best considered in terms of the needs of end-users and

of the platform’s function for end-users (for example, is it included in the aims of a

specific platform to also provide technical information?).

 Why?: Various end-users have different needs for GI information. Also, not each

end-user may be expected to search for GI information on BISE, which is a

platform on biodiversity.

 What?: Provide end-user oriented GI information. Distinguish between

information on policy, techniques, economics, methods, best practices and

network/discussion groups, and consider for each information type which needs

end-users may have and whether these can best be satisfied through the platform

for which this analysis is being made or by connecting to other platforms/sources

of information (for example BISE).

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 96

 How?: After or parallel to recommendation 3.5.2, identify which GI information

needs to be disclosed where.

 When?: This can start now with a focus on BISE, NWRM and Climate-ADAPT, then

further extended across EC websites and platforms (mid-term) and ultimately

lead to GI information also being shared on many stakeholder platforms or

information hubs (long-term).

 Who?: DG ENV will need to facilitate this process and likely stay involved for a

longer-term.

 Technical advice: Depending on the long-term ambitions, this may directly be

catered for also through starting implementation of the long-term machine-to-

machine recommendation described below.

 Governance: It will need to be discussed with the various representatives of the

different platforms whether they agree on providing GI information. An alternative

decision could be to go for recommendation 3.5.2 and not for 3.5.3. In the latter

case, connecting from the platform to BISE may still satisfy end-users’ needs. In

this case, the way information is provided on BISE and whether that appeals to

end-users, different policy sectors or fields of expertise will be critical.

 Roadmap: 1) Step 1 would be to make BISE a representative platform on GI such

that it can be an inspiration and that links can be provided to the available

information. (2) Step 2 would be to render GI information more visible on NWRM

and Climate-ADAPT and well-connected to BISE. (3) Step 3 would involve doing

the same for other platforms/websites of EU policy sectors. (4) Step 4 would

involve doing the same for stakeholder platforms.

 Budget: Further budget needs will depend on how much GI information will be

disclosed and on how much effort will be made in catering the information

towards the end-user. However, in case BISE, NWRM and Climate-ADAPT further

grow to be strong sources for GI information, this may also provide an

opportunity for a rapid start on other platforms. When catering for specific end-

users, efforts will be needed to collect and disclose GI information in an adequate

way with respect to the different categories of GI information (policy, technical,

economic, methodological, best practices and network/discussion groups).

 Risks: See ‘Governance’.

3.5.4 Stronger connect across platforms

The GI information that is available across the studied EC platforms is relatively

dispersed and not presented in a coherent way. By introducing the GI concept (3.5.2)

and providing end-user specific information on the various platforms (3.5.3) much

more GI information is expected to become available. A challenge then becomes to

connect the different sources of information (for example for green roofs there may be

very technical information on the digital platforms for the construction sector, e.g. on

how to construct these, while more information on their biodiversity values may be on

BISE, more information on the water buffering capacity on NWRM and more on the

climate consequences and calculations on Climate-ADAPT. For some end-users it may

be desirable to make such information available through a single search or from a

single page with convenient links to where other information is available. To improve

user access to this information, a search function in combination with a single

repository where all GI related information is centralized, would be a most effective

solution. However, the feasibility of this option is rather low, as it is very unlikely that

all platforms involved will be happy to share all information in an agreed manner. A

different option is provided under recommendation 3.5.5. A different approach (less

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 97

preferable) is indicated here and would involve the manual connection of all the

different types of information through deep links (for example, not simply from BISE

to NWRM, but from BISE green roofs to NWRM green roofs).

 Why?: Connecting platforms would assist in GI becoming more broadly and widely

disclosed.

 What?: Create and extend connection across the analysed platforms as this is not

properly done.

 How?: This can be done by creating separate entries on GI on the different

platforms and by streamlining the disclosure of GI information. Start this process

with connecting between BISE, NWRM and Climate-ADAPT.

 When?: Mid-term for BISE, NWRM and Climate-ADAPT, more long-term for other

platforms.

 Who?: At the onset, DG ENV and EEA. For the long-term, representatives of the

other platforms.

 Technical advice: Considering this is a manual option, technical advice is not

applicable.

 Governance: For each platform, agreement is needed on doing this and also on

who will be doing this (budget-wise). For example, a connection can be made

from BISE to a variety of other platforms. The vice versa operation will require

approval and efforts by the other organisations.

 Roadmap: This could be something that grows, with mid-term efforts for

connecting BISE, NWRM and Climate-ADAPT and more long-term efforts for other

platforms. It is not sufficient to have this as a one-time investment. Indeed, this

action requires follow-up and maintenance of the links that are established.

 Budget: If many deep links are installed and require maintenance, this will result

in a long-term budget need. Also, it needs to be addressed who will cover the

costs.

 Risks: When a platform is redesigned or pages are differently located, links will

need to be renewed. In short, there is a high risk that links will not function after

some time.

3.5.5 Long-term: machine to machine communication

Linking data distributed across the Web requires a standard mechanism for specifying

the existence and meaning of connections between items described in this data. This

mechanism is provided by the Resource Description Framework (RDF).

Key is that RDF provides a flexible way to describe things in the world – such as

people, locations, or abstract concepts – and how they relate to other things. These

statements of relationships between things are, in essence, links connecting things in

the world.

While most websites have some degree of structure, the language in which they are

created, HTML, is oriented towards structuring textual documents rather than data. As

data is intermingled into the surrounding text, it is hard for software applications to

extract snippets of structured data from HTML pages.

To address this issue, a variety of microformats (http://microformats.org/) have been

made. Microformats can be used to publish structured data describing specific types of

entities, such as people and organizations, events, reviews and ratings, through

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 98

embedding of data in HTML pages. As microformats tightly specify how to embed data,

applications can unambiguously extract the data from the pages. Weak points of

microformats are that they are restricted to representing data about a small set of

different types of entities; they only provide a small set of attributes that may be used

to describe these entities; and that it is often not possible to express relationships

between entities, such as, for example, that a person is the speaker of an event,

rather than being just an attendee or the organizer of the event. Therefore,

microformats are not suitable for sharing arbitrary data on the Web.

One of the most important implementations of the micro formats technology is in the

Google search engine that has called this Structured Data Markup. "Structured data

markup" is a standard way to annotate your content so machines can understand it.

When your web pages include structured data markup, Google (and other search

engines) can use that data to index your content better, present it more prominently

in search results, and surface it in new experiences like voice answers, maps, and

Google Now.

Structured data markup makes your content eligible for two kinds of Google features:

 Enhanced Presentation in Search Results: By including basic structured data

appropriate to your content, your site can enhance its search results with Rich

Snippets, Breadcrumbs, or a Sitelinks Search Box.

 Answers from the Knowledge Graph: If you are the authority for certain content,

Google can treat the structured data on your site as factual and import it into the

Knowledge Graph, where it can power prominent answers in Search and across

Google properties. Features are available for authoritative data about

organizations, events, movie reviews, and music/video play actions.

More about Google Structured data markup is available here:

https://developers.google.com/structured-data/

The example of Structured Data service from Google may provide a means to expose

data on GI to other machines. This would involve:

 To create a microformat standard library covering as much as possible GI data

and relations between data entities;

 Enrich the pages on all considered GI platforms/websites, i.e. markup each page;

 Explore websites and expose data in data warehouses with slight modifications of

existing RDF based technologies in use by EEA. These modifications would relate

to grabbing the microformat data markups of the pages.

 When immediately available in data warehouses, this data may be exposed as a

service to other websites to be consumed via, for example, SPARQL endpoints.

 Having an SQPARQL endpoint with GI data, users may use, for example, already

implemented Drupal mechanism to query and expose this information. There are

a series of YouTube presentations of how to do this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwY_2kmOgUc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsWPm0vpmoI

A more generic approach to making structured data available on the Web are Web

APIs. Web APIs provide simple query access to structured data over the HTTP

protocol. High profile examples of these APIs include the Amazon Product Advertising

API (http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/AWSECommerceService/latest/DG/) and the

Flickr API (http://www.flickr.com/services/api/). The site ProgrammableWeb

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 99

(http://www.programmableweb.com/) maintains a directory containing several

thousand Web APIs.

On the Amazon website the following comment is provided: “Amazon has spent over

ten years and hundreds of millions of dollars developing a world-class web service that

millions of customers use every day. As a developer, you can build Product Advertising

API applications that leverage this robust, scalable, and reliable technology. You get

access to much of the data that is used by Amazon, including the items for sale,

customer reviews, seller reviews, as well as most of the functionality that you see on

www.amazon.com, such as finding items, finding similar items, displaying customer

reviews, and product promotions. In short, Product Advertising API operations open

the doors to Amazon's databases so that you can take advantage of Amazon's

sophisticated e-commerce data and functionality. Build your own web store to sell

Amazon items or your own items.”

From this regard, although more generic, WebAPI may not be considered a pragmatic

approach but a very long term recommendation.

For more on linked data we recommend the following key references:

 http://ec.europa.eu/isa/ready-to-use-solutions/index_en.htm; in particular the

section on Highly reusable semantic standards

 http://linkeddatabook.com

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM6XIICm_qo

 http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_berners_lee_the_year_open_data_went_worldwide

3.6 Further steps for BISE, NWRM and Climate-ADAPT

The analyses and recommendations made in this report were distributed to the

responsible services of BISE, NWRM and Climate-ADAPT. In what follows we provide a

log of what will be next steps and which of the recommendations seem feasible to be

implemented on either of the three platforms. Also, when applicable we have indicated

how issues may be solved or how progress can be made. Before going into the

specifics for each of the three platforms, we also provide here an overview of the

deliverables of the GI contract and make suggestion on how these products can be

displayed on all of the platforms that were reviewed under this task.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 100

TASK DELIVERABLE DISSEMINATION LEVEL

1a 20 Factsheets on GI Broad dissemination for stakeholders across policy levels, sectors, etc. The sector sheets provide basic backgrounds on GI and its relevance for the specific sectors and can be linked to the policy sectors and also to specific stakeholder groups. The country sheets can have similar purpose, however, with a focus on the national level.

1b Workshop documentation (PDFs, etc.) of 3 sector workshops

Broad dissemination, but with the question on the format and on which of the included information to disclose.

1c Various edited docs of the EU WG GIIR; Minutes of WG meetings

Internal WG (EC has to decide on broader dissemination).

2 - Workshop documentation (PDFs, etc.) of 3 thematic workshops - MOOC (documentation for running an online course on GI)

 Dissemination should best be targeted in accordance with the themes and audience of the workshops they were aimed for. That being stated, the presentations are meant to be presented and there is a question of whether they have similar value when just providing them to be read.

 In theory the information is interesting for people also to just read; but it is meant to be presented as an online course. Possibly the course can be provided to targeted audiences or at targeted times.

3 Final Task Report Internal use across various EC services. Use for external purposes when connecting to stakeholders. This can mainly be seen as a reflection on the current state of GI

disclosure and a working document for increasing GI visibility.

4 Final Task Report Broad dissemination, but also to specific audiences considering that nine sectors were explored and evaluated independently. The report can be disclosed through BISE; the sector sheets may have value also for the policy sectors or stakeholder groups relating to each of the sectors.

5  Baseline of current EU GI spending  TEN-G Assessment

 Possibly a wide dissemination for the EC to show what is already being done.

 TEN-G assessment: it is up to the EC whether to keep this for internal use or to communicate it at a later stage.

3.6.1 BISE

For BISE, since the first analysis, this platform has already increased in the

information that is provided and the aim is for this platform to grow further in terms of

disclosing GI information. Further, as a service provider hosting the BISE

infrastructure, for EEA there is no conflict from an architectural point of view with

respect to the generic improvement proposals to BISE in sections 3.4 and 3.5.

3.6.2 NWRM

For NWRM most of the recommendations made to the NWRM platform can easily be

done in the next few months. Specifically, in autumn 2015 changes can be made such

as adding an introduction on GI, adding links to external and related information such

as BISE and Climate-ADAPT, fixing the layout and other technical recommendations.

For example, it is also planned during 2015-2016 to:

 Improve the following aspects of the platform: fix layout issues for IE 8 to IE 11

users, improve the size of the thumbnails, open documents and external links in

separate windows and improve the search functions.

 Improve the accessibility of the data by implementing the INSPIRE Directive by

adding a shapefile with case studies and download service using xls format.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 101

 Include clear references to Green Infrastructure (GI) and climate change

adaptation activities (BISE and Climate Adapt platforms).

Also, NWRM responsible services agree with the recommendations in the report for

BISE and Climate Adapt on the need to make the links with the information included in

the NWRM platform. In this regard it is planned to update the text in the water pages

on Climate-ADAPT by adding these links, which does not prevent from making further

changes as proposed.

With respect to the long-term recommendations made, resources are currently lacking

and the amount of resources needed to successfully make these changes would also

need to be evaluated. Proceeding with this recommendation only starts making sense

when other relevant platforms have also decided to move forward similarly.

The integration of the information on the NWRM platform into WISE should be

considered in the long-term. Information on the planned implementation of measures

coming from the 2nd RBMPs and 1st FRMPs would add to the existing information.

3.6.3 Climate-ADAPT

For Climate-ADAPT we have included full comments by the responsible services

attached in Annex 12 to this report. It has been agreed to have a DG Clima, EEA, DG

ENV meeting to further discuss how to move forward from recommendation to

implementation. Among the various recommendations to be discussed, this may

include looking into how to link GI to ecosystem-based adaptation on the Climate-

ADAPT platform, and vice versa for BISE. Perhaps as a first step one could link the

searches "green infrastructure" and "ecosystem-based adaptation" (EbA). Both

keywords should lead to all the information on both GI and EbA. However, such

retagging may be challenging and also needs to be considered with respect to EEA

migrating the Content Management System of the platform from Liferay to Plone.

From Annex 12 it is clear that several of the recommendations can be implemented by

the responsible services for Climate-ADAPT. It was requested to provide text and link

proposal to the responsible services for Climate-ADAPT. This was done and the input is

included in Annex 13 to this report.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 102

4 Task 4 - Assessing technical standards and innovation possibilities

Chapter summary

Green infrastructure (GI) is a successfully tested tool for providing ecological, economic and social benefits through natural solutions. GI helps to understand the value of the benefits that nature provides to human society and to mobilise investments to sustain and enhance them. It also helps avoid relying on infrastructure that is expensive to build when nature can often provide cheaper, more durable solutions. GI is based on the principle that protecting and enhancing nature and natural processes, and the many benefits human society gets from nature, are consciously integrated into spatial planning and territorial development. Compared to single-purpose grey infrastructure, GI has many benefits. It can sometimes offer an alternative, or be complementary, to standard grey solutions. GI is therefore very much relevant for a whole set of sectors. Here, a study was conducted for nine sectors, namely, finances, building, water, transport, public health, industry, climate, rural abandonment and energy. For these sectors, we have assessed how technical standards in use by each of these sectors could increase the deployment of GI. This included an exploration of the extent to which GI is currently covered in standards of these sectors, as well as an identification of the gaps, i.e. areas where GI is insufficiently covered in the standards. We thereby investigated in depth the need for (further) harmonising, adapting or developing GI-related standards. For technical standards, we distinguished:

 Standards on the performance of physical building blocks, be it a building, a local park or an international river basin. These standards often work with a scoring system. Well-known examples include BREEAM, LEED, DGNB, HQE or the Biotope Area Factor.

 Standards on the (development) process or procedure. This type of standard offers a roadmap, a standardised way of working resulting in a set of actions to achieve a pre-defined outcome. Examples are the SEA, EIA and AA procedures in different Member States (MS). Another example is green procurement by administrations.

 Standards on the methods one can use to integrate or enhance GI. Technical guidance and codes of conduct in general are part of this category.

The point of departure for the work was the idea that today we are at the start of GI becoming used broadly and that the available information and uptake of GI is very fragmented. Therefore, the output of the work addressed what is happening (overview of initiatives) and what needs to be done (by providing recommendations). When assessing the extent to which GI is included in the standards of the nine sectors, it is expected that GI is often covered as part of sustainability. For several of the sectors GI may be a rather novel concept, indeed. However, all sectors are familiar with sustainability and with standards on sustainability. These standards on sustainability may be the most logical entry for considering inclusion of GI in the standards in use by a sector. Further, for some sectors ‘green’ may have a different connotation. For example, the green in green building refers to sustainable building rather than specifically referring to making use of GI or considering natural or green elements. Therefore, when exploring standards for the nine sectors this broader sustainability spectrum was considered. As for our methodology, a combination was made of literature study, web searches and interviews with representatives of the different sectors. In addition to the evaluation for the nine sectors, it was considered that several initiatives are ongoing. Therefore, representatives of the Joint Research Council and the Institute for Environmental Protection and Research were interviewed on ongoing initiatives. Where relevant, these initiatives were included in the sector fact sheets or in the general outcomes of the report. Based on the various inputs, sector sheets were developed clarifying the current state for the sector and commenting on the possible way forward for the sector. These sector sheets include concrete recommendations regarding:

 The need for harmonization between standards;

 The potential for including or strengthening the concept and principles of GI in the different standard categories (performance, procedure, methodology);

 The interoperability between technical standards applied in different project phases (planning, design,

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 103

and construction).

Following the sector sheets, also cross-sectoral recommendations were identified and discussed. In what follows we first comment on four identified cross-sectoral recommendations. Secondly, we highlight for each of the nine sectors the major findings.

 Integrated spatial planning: Several sectors (such as climate adaptation, water, land abandonment and infrastructure) have indicated that the implementation of GI would benefit from integrated spatial planning early in the planning process. Also, it has been increasingly recognized that it is necessary to work at the landscape level to ensure that sectors can capture the benefits of GI and to maintain biodiversity and ecosystem services. A landscape approach can contribute to bringing together sectoral economic development plans and national action plans on biodiversity conservation, water management and climate change.

 Green procurement: Europe and the Member States’ public authorities are major consumers. By using their purchasing power to choose environmentally friendly goods, services and works, they can make an important contribution to sustainable consumption and production. Therefore, the way GI is included in Green Public Procurement (GPP) will have a major impact on how GI will be considered in activities and businesses. GPP therefore will be key to ensure GI procurement. What may be needed is to develop and establish a GI Public Procurement (GIPP) to include in public tenders the use of GI as innovative solutions presenting a real alternative to traditional grey infrastructure.

 Finding the appropriate standard: There is no obvious, simple and non-time consuming way of understanding which standards are most suitable to meet needs. Therefore, users require assistance in finding the ‘needle in the haystack’ standard that matches their needs. A way forward therefore would be to investigate ways to facilitate the search and access to appropriate standards. There could be a role here for sectorial organisations to facilitate for their members the search for appropriate standards and to provide guidance on what can be achieved with which standard. This is indeed already practiced to some extent and shown by several of the references included in this report. In addition, it may be considered to also work on this with the standards-making bodies. Here, possibilities could be explored for a collaborative interactive database with a hierarchical tree facilitating finding appropriate standards and gaining insight into what can be done with shortlisted standards.

 Harmonization across infrastructure sectors: Each of the infrastructure sectors (e.g. buildings, transport, energy, water) have their own standards on performance, procedure and methodology. In the past, each of these sectors was mainly operating in isolation from the other sectors. However, over recent years, integrated approaches have become more common. Therefore, it may be seen as an opportunity that the sectors we reviewed have large potential for improving on the way GI is included in standards. Indeed, rather than each sector working on improving the way GI is included there is potential for collaborative action and harmonization across sectors on including GI into standards on performance, procedure and methodology.

Major findings for each of the nine sectors:

 Financial sector: Whilst direct lending for biodiversity projects by financial institutions accounts for a limited proportion of financial markets, retail and investment banks as well as institutional lenders are increasingly applying sustainable investment criteria to their loans that incorporate impacts and dependencies on biodiversity and ecosystem services. However the focus is mainly on conservation and restoration of biodiversity values affected by project developments, rather than actively promoting the deployment of GI as part of these project developments. Even the substantial benefits of GI in the field of climate change adaptation (such as flood risk reduction) are until now largely undervalued by financial and insurance companies. As a consequence, there is substantial room for improvement, starting with increased efforts in awareness raising of the sector, in particular about the long-term financial benefits of GI. Other opportunities are the uptake of GI in performance standards applied by the sector.

 Building sector: There is a plethora of sustainability standards in the buildings sector across Europe with varying levels of requirement. Few are known to be legally required but they can often be mandated at country, region, city or local level. Building sustainability standards focus primarily on materials and energy performance and where biodiversity requirements exist they are often not mandated, carry little weight and do not promote high levels of biodiversity. Where GI is integrated into buildings, it often is limited to green roofs, with little focus on other elements of the building or surrounding area to integrate GI. Building standards have an architectural focus with GI almost as an afterthought. Developments that have taken place in the context of green roofs may provide inspiration for broader inclusion of GI in the building process.

 Water sector: In the water sector procedural standards for sustainable water management in Europe are available through the Water Framework Directive. In the private sector there is a growing

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 104

awareness for proactive investment in sustainable management water in the catchment in which companies operate. Although GI is not always explicitly mentioned, the application of GI fits well in the ecosystem and catchment based approaches. As a way forward for the implementation of GI it is important to incorporate both ‘green’, ‘grey’, and also hybrid solutions in the initial assessments of options in such a way that actors can compare and make the best choice for their situation. At the moment, there are often already established criteria to evaluate the performance of the more conventional grey options, but not so for GI or for comparing across grey and green options. This forms a barrier for the wider implementation of green options.

 Transport sector: Transport infrastructure, in particular road and railway systems, form widespread networks with varying density all over the EU. They have tremendous impacts on biodiversity, both at a local and regional scale. Most visible impacts are collisions with animals. Yet more consequential are the indirect effects of transport infrastructure, including habitat loss and reduced habitat quality (e.g. increased noise levels), habitat fragmentation and barrier impacts. As these impacts often occur simultaneously, the cumulative effects on wildlife populations can be very significant. There is a significant quantity of guidance and good practice on how to address fragmentation and barrier effects by means of overpasses or fauna tunnels etc., which in some cases are supported by GI measures. Also at a landscape level GI offering improved habitat connectivity is often applied as part of wildlife and landscape management, and increasingly incorporated into regional spatial planning. However, guidance on how to reconcile transport networks with ecological networks at a regional scale is very scarce. The same goes for guidance on how to optimize the ecosystem services provided by GI to mitigate impacts of transport infrastructure on biodiversity.

 Public health sector: In the public health sector there are many standards, guidelines and protocols outside the scope of the GI/health domain. Examples are safety standards (toxic species, allergenic species, risks of falling branches, pesticide use etc.). Accessibility standards that recommend the availability of GI for citizens form an exception. However, there is a growing body of literature linking GI to human health and wellbeing, but the underlying mechanisms are poorly understood and the knowledge tends to remain in the green sector, not penetrating the health sector. Exceptions are some SMEs and bottom-up local initiatives bridging the gap between the green sector and the health sector. There is a large potential for GI standards for the health sector, but before standardization can take place, the evidence base has to grow stronger, and the results must be dissipated within the health sector rather than only in the green sector.

 Industry sector: The industry sector is very familiar with sustainability standards. Although biodiversity, as part of sustainability, has been a rather neglected issue for a long time, the recent increase in specific biodiversity guidance for industry shows a growing interest in the field of ‘business and biodiversity’. However, when zooming in on the topic of GI within this growing amount of biodiversity standards, it’s clear that there is room for improvement. Particular issues which deserve more attention are costs and benefits of GI in an industrial context, as well as guidance on how to implement GI.

 Climate sector: Many examples of tools, guidelines and best practices already exist on how to apply GI, or nature-based solutions, in the context of climate change adaptation. Performance standards, which are common practice in for instance the building world, are not a useful way forward in the climate adaptation sector. The reason for this is that the local situation is always too specific. The multi-functionality of GI is a benefit but it makes planning and implementation of GI at the same time very difficult. Integrating a GI framework into Environmental Impact Assessments might be a way forward, as this would guarantee that the potential of GI in landscape planning is considered.

 Rural abandonment: GI can offer solutions for both the prevention of farmland abandonment and for minimizing the negative impacts when farmland is already abandoned. There are no specific GI standards in the context of rural abandonment. An indirect way to stimulate GI in rural abandonment areas is for instance through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) funding scheme or European structural funds.

 Energy sector: Terrestrial energy infrastructure consists of energy production facilities (hydropower, windfarms, gas and coal based power plants, nuclear power plants) as well as the energy transmission infrastructure (oil and gas pipelines, electricity grid). As a consequence, possibilities for developing GI are quite diverse and rather specific for each type of energy infrastructure. The energy sector is under full development and is characterized by increasing investments in renewable energy as well as in electricity transmission infrastructure in the EU. But also existing energy infrastructure is being revitalized. The energy sector might benefit from investments in GI for various reasons, ranging from reducing risks (operational, reputational) to grasping opportunities (cost reduction, reputational), depending on the type of investments. Due to the variety of energy infrastructure generic GI standards for the energy sector are not available, but there are a number of specific standards available.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 105

Introduction

This project aimed to assess how technical standards (see Box 4), particularly in

relation to performance, methodologies and procedures, could increase the

deployment of Green Infrastructure (GI). This included an exploration of the extent to

which GI is currently covered in standards, as well as an identification of the gaps, i.e.

areas where GI is insufficiently covered in standards. We thereby investigated in depth

the need for (further) harmonising, adapting or developing GI-related standards. In

line with the deliverables that have been completed under Task 1 of this contract, our

work was mainly focused on exploring standards and GI for the different sectors

covered under Task 1: namely, finance, buildings, water, transport, public health,

industry, climate, rural abandonment and energy. Job creation is not included here,

considering that it is not a sector, but a topic across sectors.

Expected outputs of the work were:

a) An insight into the current uptake of GI in standards applied by the various

sectors;

b) Overview of possibilities for improving technical standards, including

harmonization and interoperability between technical standards applied in

different project phases (planning, design, and construction).

Box 4 Terminology

GI in the context of this contract is defined as follows: Green Infrastructure “is a strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas with other environmental features designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services. It incorporates green spaces (or blue if aquatic ecosystems are concerned) and other physical features in terrestrial (including coastal) and marine areas. On land, GI is present in rural and urban settings.”80 Linked together, these strategically planned networks of green elements are able to provide multiple benefits in the form of supporting a green economy, improving quality of life, protecting biodiversity and enhancing the ability of ecosystems to deliver services such as disaster risk reduction, water purification, air quality, space for recreation and climate change mitigation and adaption. Standards on performance, procedure and methodology are distinguished:

 Performance: Standards on the performance of physical building blocks81, be it a building, a local park or an international river basin. These standards often work with a scoring system. Well- known examples include BREEAM, LEED, DGNB, HQE or the Biotope Area Factor.

 Procedure: Standards on the (development) process. This type of standard offers a roadmap, a standardised way of working resulting in a set of actions to achieve a pre-defined outcome. Examples are the SEA, EIA and AA procedures in different Member States (MS). Another example is green procurement by administrations.

 Methodology: Standards on the methods one can use to integrate or enhance GI. Technical guidance and codes of conduct in general are part of this category.

80 Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Green Infrastructure (GI) – Enhancing Europe's Natural Capital, COM (2013) 249 final. 81 According to the Technical Document supporting the Communication on GI ‘physical building blocks’ are the network of green spaces in which and through which natural functions and processes are sustained

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 106

4.1 Problem analysis and objectives of Task 4

One of the actions of the GI Strategy as outlined in the Communication on GI is

‘Improving information, strengthening the knowledge base and promoting innovation’.

More specifically “by 2013, the Commission will assess the need and the opportunities

in the context of Horizon 2020 to (…) develop and encourage innovative technologies

and approaches to facilitating the development of GI. It will also assess the

contribution technical standards, particularly in relation to physical building blocks and

procedures, could make to ‘growing the market’ for GI-friendly products.” Task 4

aimed to cover this part of the action described above. In particular, under task 4 it

was assessed how and under which circumstances technical standards could increase

the deployment of GI.

Including GI in technical standards may create a huge leverage effect in the

deployment of GI on the ground. In this context, technical standards not only apply to

design specifications of physical elements (such as green roofs, eco-ducts, etc.) but

also to methodologies such as spatial planning, and to procedures such as (if

applicable) SEA, EIA and AA. Incorporating attention to GI from the very early

planning phase (SEA, spatial planning) to the project design phase (including EIA,

technical standards for buildings, water infrastructure, etc.) and final project approval

(permitting phase) will contribute substantially to GI implementation, and as such to

new GI markets.

The point of departure for the work in this task was the idea that today we are at the

start of GI becoming used broadly and that the available information and uptake of GI

is very fragmented. Therefore, the output of the work addressed what is happening

(overview of initiatives) and what needs to be done (by providing recommendations).

Under this task, nine sectors (finances, buildings, water, transport, public health,

industry, climate, rural abandonment and energy) were explored in more detail, in

particular with regard to the extent GI is included in the standards they use and the

actions that can be taken to further strengthen the uptake of GI. With respect to the

latter this included (1) determining best practices, (2) identifying promising fields to

make progress and (3) addressing how to implement improvements. Also, the

repercussions and possible bottlenecks of using GI in relation to issues such as

legislation and safety issues were assessed.

A distinction was made between three types of standards: standards on performance,

procedure and methodology (see Box 4 on how these are defined in the context of this

study). When evaluating these standards it is clear that a wide spectrum of GI

developments are covered, from small local projects (e.g. a green roof) to large-scale

cross-border projects (e.g. ecological corridors). Indeed, the types of physical features

that contribute to GI are diverse, specific to each location or place and very scale-

dependent. On the local scale, biodiversity-rich parks, gardens, green roofs, ponds,

streams, woods, hedgerows, meadows, restored brown field sites and coastal sand-

dunes can all contribute to GI and may deliver multiple ecosystem services.

Connecting elements are for example green bridges and fish ladders. On the regional

or national scale, large protected natural areas, large lakes, river basins, high-nature

value forests, low intensity agricultural areas, extensive dune systems and coastal

lagoons are just a few of many examples. On the EU scale, transboundary features

such as international river basins, forests and mountain ranges are examples of the

EU’s supranational GI.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 107

4.2 Setting

4.2.1 Advantages and disadvantages of working with standards

A standard is a repeatable, harmonised, agreed and documented way of doing

something. Standards contain technical specifications or other precise criteria

designed to be used consistently as a rule, guideline, or definition. They help to make

life simpler and increase the reliability and the effectiveness of many of the goods and

services we use.82 Standards result from collective work by experts in a field and

provide a consensus at the time when the standards are developed. As standards in

the international arena are established on a consensus and broad stakeholder basis,

they represent what can be agreed upon. A published standard is therefore the

harmonised synthesis of what the group is prepared to publish. International

standards bring technological, economic and societal benefits83. They help to

harmonize technical specifications of products and services, making industry more

efficient and breaking down barriers for international trade. Compliance to

international standards in the field of environment helps to reassure consumers that

products are good for the environment. Over the years the International Organization

for Standardization (ISO) has made significant efforts to provide proof on the benefits

that standards bring to organizations and, more generally, to citizens and society84. To

illustrate, we indicate some advantages and disadvantages of working with standards

(Table 6). The following sections describe in more detail which strengths and

weaknesses can be identified in relation to the way GI is covered in standards applied

by different sectors.

Table 6: Examples of benefits and disadvantages of working with standards

Benefits of working with standards Disadvantages of working with standards

They set the recognised level of quality The implementation of standards may remove the creative element

May lead to reduced market risks Standards may force people to change their methods

May lead to market growth for new and emerging technologies

Standards reduce productivity by forcing unnecessary actions

May lead to reduced development time and costs and increased productivity and enhanced efficiency

Registration requires an amount of money, time and paperwork

Facilitation of common language and understanding of what the product or service is or is not.

Standards do not prevent bugs

4.2.2 Broader context: sustainability

When assessing the extent to which GI is included in the standards used by the

identified nine sectors, it is expected that GI is often covered as part of sustainability.

For several of these sectors GI may be a rather novel concept. However, all sectors

are familiar with sustainability and with standards on sustainability. These standards

on sustainability may be the most logical entry for considering including GI in the

standards in use by a sector. Also, for some sectors green may have a different

82 Amended from BSI website: What is a standard? http://www.bsigroup.com/en- GB/standards/Information-about-standards/what-is-astandard/ 83 http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/benefitsofstandards.htm 84 http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/benefitsofstandards/benefits_of_standards.htm

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 108

connotation. For example, the green in green building refers to sustainable building

rather than specifically referring to making use of GI or considering natural or green

elements. Therefore, when exploring standards for the nine sectors this broader

sustainability spectrum was considered.

4.3 Methodology

To approach the work in Task 4 a combination was made of literature study, web

searches and interviews with representatives of the different sectors. The literature

study and web searches were both supporting the preparation of the interviews, the

contextual framing of the outcomes and the formulation of recommendations. The

preparatory work in advance of the interviews included the collection of information on

standards applied by a sector as well as a first evaluation of the extent to which GI is

included in these standards. As mentioned before, for this evaluation a distinction is

made between standards on performance, procedure and methodology. Following this

preparatory work, sector representatives were interviewed. The purpose of these

interviews was to find out if well-placed sector representatives could confirm the

outcomes of the preparatory work and to gain additional insights, for instance on the

potential for including GI more strongly in future updates of the standards. Based on

the literature study, web searches and the interviews, sector sheets were developed

clarifying the current state of the sector and commenting on the possible way forward

for that sector. These sector sheets include concrete recommendations regarding:

 The need for harmonization between standards;

 The potential for including or strengthening the concept and principles of GI in the

different standard categories (performance, procedure, methodology);

 The interoperability between technical standards applied in different project

phases (planning, design, and construction).

As the aim was not to carry out a statistical study, but rather a qualitative study with

useful recommendations on how including GI within standards can improve the

deployment of GI, interviews did not necessarily follow identical questions for each

sector or organisation. Outputs from interviews that took place in an early stage

guided later interviews. Nonetheless, as interviews were done by several people, it

was decided to prepare a standard set of questions (see Box 5), and to use this set as

a guidance for conducting the interview, rather than as a strict scheme to be

thoroughly followed. Further, when arranging for the interview, representatives were

informed on what GI is and how we defined the different standards on performance,

procedure and methodology. This introduction to essential terminology was done by

sharing the content of Box 4 and by verifying whether this content was clear when

starting the interview.

Box 5 Type of questions (non-limitative) to be covered during the interviews

1. Does your sector make use of standards and do these standards include GI? 2. Which are the most important standards in your field of work (if possible on

performance/procedures/methodologies)? Do they yet include GI and to what extent? If not, would these benefit by GI being included? Why?

3. What is the importance of standards in your line of work (very high, high, moderate, low, and very low) (overall + for performance/procedures/methodologies)? Why?

4. Have you experience with standards having a positive impact on GI (yes/no). Why? 5. What are the key elements of a good standard for GI according to you? 6. Do you have suggestions on examples of good GI standards? 7. Do you have examples on GI standards that are not so effective? 8. Are there in your opinion instances were GI currently is not included or covered in standards and

could be a welcome addition? 9. Are you aware/involved in initiatives to harmonize GI standards over the sector? For which

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 109

standard(s)? 10. Have you experienced a situation where the harmonization of standards on GI would have been

beneficial to GI development? 11. What are the main benefits of harmonisation according to you? What exactly should the

standard/harmonisation exercise tackle? 12. What are the threats of harmonization of standards according to you? 13. What are the main steps to be taken in the context of GI standards in your opinion (regional or

national level)? (short, mid, long-term) 14. What are the main steps to be taken in the context of GI standards at the EU level? (short, mid,

long-term) 15. Do you have final recommendations on GI standards? 16. Optional: share a table on the different standards resulting from the literature review and web

search and work on that during or following the interview.

Prior to the interview a working table was made based on the literature and web

search on the extent GI is covered in standards in use by each sector. During the

interview the working table was verified and the scoring adjusted (see Table 7). When

finalised, the table will provide insight in how strongly GI is included today in

standards on performance, procedure and methodology applied by the different

sectors.

Table 7: Working table for interviews

Sector Performance Procedure Methodology

Finances

Building

Water

Transport

Public health

Industry

Climate

Rural Abandonment

Energy

[Note: For each of the nine sectors it is indicated as a working hypothesis to what extent GI is included in standards on performance, procedure and methodology (green: fairly well covered; orange: rather basic; red: little or lacking).]

For each sector the aim was to interview at least one representative, and when

possible to have 2-3 interviews in total. In Table 8 we indicate the different sector

representatives that were included in the interviews. For each of the interviews, a

small report is included in Annex 14.

Table 8: Overview of sector representatives that were interviewed in the context of GI and standards

Sector Representatives

Finance Gavin Templeton (Green Investment Bank)

Buildings Dusty Gedge (European Federation of Green Roof Associations)

Maarten Dansen (Dutch Green Building Council)

Water Maija Bertule (UNEP-DHI Partnership)

Transport Carme Rosell (Infra Eco Network Europe (IENE))

Philip Charles – Operations Director and Ian Nicholson – Technical Director (Civil

Engineering Environmental Quality Assessment and Award Scheme (CEEQUAL))

Public health

Patrick Ten Brink (Head of the Green Economy Programme of the Institute for

European Environmental Policy (IEEP) and project leader of the Health and

Social Benefits of Nature and Biodiversity Protection project for DG

Environment)

Jasperina Venema (green entrepreneur and advisor specialized in urban green

and health)

Sjerp de Vries (senior scientist green health, Alterra Wageningen University and

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 110

Research Centre)

Industry Violaine Berger (World Business Council on Sustainable Development)

Climate Stefan Kleeschulte (Managing Director of Space 4 Environment)

Rural abandonment

No interview was taken considering that rural abandonment not really qualifies

as a sector. The opposite, intensified agriculture indeed is a sector, but falls

outside of the scope here.

Energy Simon Devoghele (LIFE Elia)

In addition to the evaluation for the nine sectors, it was considered that several

initiatives were ongoing and related to the current project on GI. Therefore,

representatives of the Joint Research Council (JRC) and the Institute for

Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA) were interviewed on ongoing

initiatives. Where relevant, these initiatives were included in the sector fact sheets or

in the general outcomes in the report. Highlighted initiatives by JRC and ISPRA

included:

 Green Procurement and road construction;

 Standards for constructions and structural design;

 Resource efficiency indicators for buildings, with a potential to include GI

indicators;

 Safety in relation to including GI.

Furthermore, the European Commission indicated to consider ecosystem services

(MAES working group (Mapping and Assessing Ecosystem Services)), climate change

adaptation (the European Commission’s Directorate General on Climate) and

defragmentation measures for road development (IENE, see also contact for transport

in Table 8).

By combining the information gathered during the literature, web search and

interviews, uniform sectorial fact sheets were produced (see template in Box 6).

Box 6 Template for sector sheets

Page 1 covers the following five elements:

 Major findings/conclusion on the extent GI is included today and the possible steps forward (3-4 lines).

 Table with examples of standards. The aim was not to provide an exhaustive overview of standards, but rather to show a selection of representative examples of standards on performance, procedure and methodology.

 Major outcomes of the interview(s): 3-5 highlights.

 The extent GI is integrated in standards and the potential, with a focus on the potential.

 Recommendations on the way forward for the sector

Next page(s): major outcomes with respect to GI and standards on performance, procedure and methodology. Here, there is room to provide more detail on the standards that are included in the table on the first page. This section should be a summary overview of the standards and where they apply and the way GI is included or can be included. Understanding the scale and status of the standards is also important, as well as the uptake/market share of the standards and whether the standards compliment/contradict/elevate requirements beyond applicable regulations.

In the final section, we conclude with highlighting some major cross-sector

recommendations, i.e. recommendations that are considered more general and not

specific to a single sector.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 111

4.4 Overview of standards for GI for different sectors

4.4.1 GI standards and the financial sector

Whilst direct lending for biodiversity projects by financial institutions

accounts for a limited proportion of financial markets, retail and

investment banks as well as institutional lenders are increasingly

applying sustainable investment criteria to their loans that

incorporate impacts and dependencies on biodiversity and ecosystem

services. However, the focus is mainly on conservation and

restoration of biodiversity values affected by project developments,

rather than actively promoting the deployment of GI as part of these

project developments. Even the substantial benefits of GI in the field

of climate change adaptation (such as flood risk reduction) are until

now largely undervalued by financial and insurance companies.

Consequently, there is substantial room for improvement, starting

with increased efforts in awareness raising of the sector in particular

about the long-term financial benefits of GI. Other opportunities are

the uptake of GI in performance standards applied by the sector.

Table 9: Examples of standards applied by the financial sector with indication on the degree of GI coverage (green: GI well covered; orange: GI moderate to basically; red: GI hardly or not covered)

Type Standard Key aspects G I

Performance Natural Capital Declaration (NCD)85

This is a commitment by a limited number (+/- 40) of finance and insurance companies to work towards integrating natural capital and biodiversity criteria into their products and services. The NCD was born out of the insight that financial institutions could benefit from greater guidance to embed specific aspects of environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors in their management, due diligence, loans, investments and insurance activities. While GI is not mentioned it is highlighted that the services nature provides underpin productivity and the global economy. It is open for new signatories since 2012 but apparently the number of signatories is not increasing.

Equator Principles86

The Equator Principles is a risk management framework, adopted by financial institutions, for determining, assessing and managing environmental and social risk in projects. It is primarily intended to provide a minimum standard for due diligence to support responsible risk decision-making. The Biodiversity for Banks (B4B) program is designed to help financial institutions overcome the challenges of incorporating risks associated with biodiversity and ecosystem services into their lending decisions. Here links are provided to a variety of initiatives linked to biodiversity conservation and valuing ecosystem services, however, leaving it to the user to be explored and interpreted. Considering its focus on risks, the framework could be improved by also considering the opportunity perspective of ecosystem services and how working with nature can drive business performance.

International Finance

This is a standard for ‘Biodiversity Conservation’ and ‘Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources’ adhered

85 http://www.naturalcapitaldeclaration.org/the-declaration 86 http://www.equator-principles.com/

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 112

Corporation Performance Standard 687

to by several major financial institutions. Performance Standard 6 recognizes that protecting and conserving biodiversity, maintaining ecosystem services, and sustainably managing living natural resources are fundamental to sustainable development. In essence the standard is mainly on risks and impacts and only to a limited extent considers GI and the ecosystem services that go with it provide as a business opportunity.

The European Investment Bank Statement on Environmental and Social principles and Standards88

The Statement outlines the standards the EIB is imposing on projects that it finances, and the responsibilities of the various parties. It provides a great sense of urgency about the problems of climate change and gives great recognition to the importance of biodiversity. However the emphasis is on conservation or restoration of biodiversity (according to the mitigation hierarchy), rather than promoting GI as an opportunity to enhance biodiversity and deliver ecosystem services. As the EIB is periodically reviewing this standard to align with new developments under the EU environmental policy and legislation, there might be a chance that future versions put more emphasis on GI.

Procedure Triodos Bank89 The Netherland’s Triodos Bank has established a leadership position in Europe as a provider of retail banking services with a focus on sustainable investment. Triodos Bank has lending criteria for companies operating in sectors with a high risk of negative effects on biodiversity. This approach ensures that businesses have a policy to identify and manage these risks. The list of these companies is published on Triodos’ website. Company performance is reviewed periodically and companies can be removed from this list where they do not meet sustainability criteria. At the same time, Triodos Bank focuses on financing enterprises that protect and encourage biodiversity.

ASN Bank Biodiversity approach90

The ASN Bank has elaborated investment criteria for biodiversity in its issue paper Biodiversity, which it applies for all its investment policies. Sectors that have a negative impact on biodiversity are excluded or are required to show more engagement. ASN Bank’s investment policy also enables them to improve the conservation of species and ecosystem services, for example by investing in the establishment of new forests or even new nature reserves, which is nothing else than investing in GI. The bank has not yet established a policy which takes into account the positive impact of companies on biodiversity. The ASN Bank wishes to develop such a policy together with other financial institutions interested in making a positive impact on natural capital.

Natural Capital Financing Facility91

This is a new financial instrument with a focus on risk-pooling of Natural Capital projects in the areas of PES, GI, biodiversity offsetting and pro-biodiversity business. A key criterion for inclusion of projects within the NCFF Pipeline is that the project design needs to demonstrate either a viable revenue stream or cost savings to the beneficiary, which will to support repayment of the finance provided.

The Environment Bank Ltd.92

This is a UK company which acts as a broker and delivery agent in emerging markets for environmental assets, in particular biodiversity offsetting. It has developed a unique and innovative business model in this respect. EBL is currently operational in the UK but is looking to extend its business operations to other European countries. Research for the Ecosystem Markets Task Force estimated that biodiversity offsetting could deliver 300,000 ha of ecological

87 www.ifc.org 88 http://www.eib.org/attachments/strategies/eib_statement_esps_en.pdf 89 https://www.triodos.com/ 90 https://www.asnbank.nl/web/file?uuid=760e2f4f-c742-40c9-82dc-f7d4204f9d0b&owner=9ccef6a9-c451- 451a-963a-e931fe46c086&contentid=2214 91 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/business/assets/pdf/ncff.pdf 92 http://www.environmentbank.com/

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 113

creation/restoration over 20 years in England alone.

Methodology WBCSD Business Guide to Natural Infrastructure

The WBCSD is preparing a business guide on natural infrastructure (= GI) including the financial institutions as a target audience. This guide will include the business case, case studies, fact sheets on existing tools, decision tree and check list. GI is thereby seen as a cost-effective investment opportunity and solution to benefit from a range of ecosystem services for issues material to companies.

Swiss Re Swiss RE is one of the globally leading re-insurance companies. They are very aware of the risks related to natural disasters as a consequence of climate change and are developing decision- support tools to pro-actively manage total climate risk. The ‘economics of climate adaptation’ methodology as implemented in Climada93 provides decision makers with a fact base to understand the impact of climate on their economies - and identify actions to minimize that impact at the lowest cost to society. Using state-of-the-art probabilistic modelling, it estimates the expected economic damage as a measure of risk today, the incremental increase from economic growth and the further incremental increase due to climate change. It then builds a portfolio of adaptation measures (including ecosystem based ones), assessing the damage aversion potential and cost-benefit ratio for each measure. The adaptation cost curve illustrates that a balanced portfolio of prevention, intervention and insurance measures allows to pro-actively manage total climate risk. This methodological approach is underpinned by the climate change adaptation benefits of GI.

Interview highlights

An interview took place with Gavin Templeton, Head of Sustainable Finance of Green

Investment Bank (GIB). The following issues can be highlighted:

 GIB only invests in sustainable projects (until now £2.1 billion investments in the

private sector), such as biomass, energy efficiency, wind energy. They call it

‘green’ infrastructure projects, but it has a completely different meaning than

what is covered under the GI definition as described in the EC Green

Infrastructure Communication. In fact, although the projects they are investing in

are indeed very sustainable, they have not invested yet in GI.

 GIB’s 7 Green Investment Principles (Positive contribution to a recognised green

purpose; Reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions; Enduring green impact;

Clear and firm investment criteria; Robust green impact evaluation; Effective

covenants, monitoring and engagement; Transparent reporting) ensure a

commitment to working in an open and transparent way so that investors can be

assured in their investment. Therefore, standardisation of standards can only

assist and encourage use of GIB.

Extent GI is integrated in standards and the potential

The links between financial services, risk and biodiversity (and also climate change)

have, to date, been weak. Resource scarcity, loss of biodiversity and degradation of

ecosystem services such as freshwater availability have, however, started to present

financially material risks and opportunities for bankers, investors and insurers. This is

particularly the case with financial institutions that have a large exposure or client

base in industries directly dependent on biodiversity and ecosystem services, such as

fisheries, agriculture, forestry and tourism, and industries with major biodiversity

footprints, such as the extractive sectors.

93 Climada - the open-source Economics of Climate Adaptation (ECA) tool: https://github.com/davidnbresch/climada/wiki

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 114

At present many financial institutions do not sufficiently understand, account for and

therefore value, the risks and opportunities related to natural capital in their financial

products and services (loans, investments and insurance products) and in their supply

chains. If biodiversity is considered, it is mainly within the philanthropic and

sponsoring domain. Some financial institutions, however, have started to

systematically look into the ecological footprint and exposure to disruptions within the

supply chain, and some banks have developed specific expertise in this area (e.g.

Triodos Bank).

The overall conclusion is that, despite a number of very interesting initiatives (e.g.

Natural Capital Declaration), the uptake of natural capital as a material issue by the

private financial sector is rather poor. Standards related to biodiversity do exist, but

they are only applied by a very limited number of financial companies (e.g. NCD) or

only applied by the International Financial Institutions (IFIs), such as the World Bank

and the EIB. As a result the standards listed in the table above cannot be considered

as standards with a widespread uptake by the financial sector, but – on the contrary –

as standards applied by a minority of the financial sector. And even within this

minority group the promotion of GI as a business opportunity is largely lacking.

Exceptions are the Natural Capital Financing Facility and a number of green banks

(such as Green Investment Bank) and insurance companies. Insurance and re-

insurance companies face huge risks due to the expected increased frequency and

severity of extreme weather hazards, enhanced by climate change. Therefore the

preservation of healthy ecosystems with natural storm regulatory capacities is also in

their interest (e.g. coral reefs and mangroves that mitigate the impact of storm waves

on coastal areas, natural flood areas along river systems).

Way forward

As impacts of climate change and ecosystem degradation will increasingly affect

business performance, it can be expected that financial institutions will pay more

attention to the natural capital impacts and dependencies of companies. Financial

institutions will start realizing that companies with a strong biodiversity policy have

less financial risk and are also performing better on financial and reputational (e.g.

Dow Jones Sustainability index) indices. This is confirmed by the WBCSD, who signals

an important role for banks and accountants as change agents in the transition to the

incorporation of natural and social capital in the governance of companies. The

importance of GI as an effective solution to mitigate the impacts of extreme weather

events and natural hazards due to climate change is already acknowledged by some

re-insurance companies. But there is still a way to go to enhance the uptake of GI by

the financial sector as a tool for decreasing business risks. The Natural Capital

Financing Facility of the EIB is a major step forward, as it aims to explore viable

business models of ecosystem restoration, acknowledging the important role of GI.

On a longer term – considering the variety of initiatives – it would be beneficial to

increase the harmonization of lending or investment criteria against recognized

standards to add credibility and accelerate GI uptake. This may be promoted by a

wider input from the financial community (alongside the conservation community) in

the development and refinement of standards.

Major findings on standards for performance elements

 A number of biodiversity related performance standards have been developed and

are applied by the financial sector. However these standards mainly focus on

biodiversity conservation and restoration of biodiversity damage rather than on

actively promoting the deployment of GI. A second observation is that these

standards are not widely applied within the financial sector. Apart from the

international financial institutions and some niche banks profiling themselves as

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 115

green banks, the vast majority of the private financial sector does not take

biodiversity into account in its lending and investment operations.

 Non-financial reporting is now mainstream among large companies with the

majority regularly providing reports on their environmental impacts and

performance. This improved reporting informs rating agencies on these

companies’ risks, helping investors to better steer their investment portfolio.

However, reporting on biodiversity and ecosystem services, and even more so on

GI, is relatively underdeveloped in this regard.

 Various elements of the financial sector have different roles to play in

championing biodiversity. The development of common standards rewards ‘first

movers’ in the financial sector providing support or advisory services to pro-

biodiversity business. At a higher level, forward-thinking organizations are

increasingly grouping together within associations to promote greater

transparency within and between financial institutions relating to biodiversity,

whilst a number of major stock market indices are launching specialist

biodiversity metrics so as to better inform investors on the exposure of their

investments to biodiversity related risk.

Major findings on standards for procedures

 Several green banks have established procedures for screening companies and

projects in the framework of their lending and investment operations. For this

purpose they have set up a number of biodiversity related criteria. Analogous to

performance standards the focus is rarely on opportunities to invest in GI. There

are a few exceptions such as the Natural Capital Financing Facility and the

Environment Bank.

 The Natural Capital Financing Facility, financed by the EIB and the EU LIFE fund,

has been created exactly to cover the current gap in possibilities provided by

financial institutions in the field of investing in ecosystem restoration, amongst

which investing in GI. Hopefully the pilot projects which will be supported with

advantageous loans in the coming years, will demonstrate the financial benefits of

investing in GI, and as such open up the market for it in the coming decades.

Because the benefits of GI are usually shared between the public and private

sectors, and provide long-term, relatively low-risk returns on investment, there is

a strong case for public-private partnership models of delivery, whereby risk and

returns are spread over time.

 A specific type of banking is habitat banking, and this is the field of play of

organizations such as The Environment Bank. If the concept of habitat banking

exceeds the purely obligatory biodiversity offsets and achieves to create

additional nature, it would definitely enhance the further deployment of GI.

Major findings on standards for methodology

 Financial institutions are active mainly on standards that relate to performance

and to some extent also on procedure. They are usually not involved in

developing handbooks or manuals on how to include GI into business or

governmental activities. An exception is the recently developed Climada tool by

Swiss Re. Another example is the WBCSD guidance on Investing in Natural

Infrastructure, which is also intended for use by financial institutions. It contains a

well elaborated business case, as well as case studies and tools which can support

decision-making by businesses.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 116

4.4.2 GI standards and the building sector

There is a plethora of sustainability standards in the buildings sector

across Europe with varying levels of requirement. Some are known to

be legally required but they can often be mandated at country,

region, city or local level. Building sustainability standards focus

primarily on materials and energy performance and where

biodiversity requirements exist they are often not mandated, carry

little weight and do not promote high levels of biodiversity. Where GI

is integrated into buildings it is often limited to green roofs, with little

focus on other elements of the building or surrounding area to

integrate GI. Building standards have an architectural focus with GI

almost as an afterthought. Developments that have taken place in

the context of green roofs may provide inspiration for broader

inclusion of GI in the building process.

Table 10: Examples of standards for the building sector with indication on whether green infrastructure (GI) is thoroughly included (green: GI well covered; orange: GI moderate to basically; red: GI hardly or not covered)

Type Standard Key aspects G I

Performance Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM)94

BREEAM assessments use recognised measures of performance, which are set against established benchmarks, to evaluate a building’s specification, design, construction and use. The measures used represent a broad range of categories and criteria from energy to ecology. GI is covered under the section of ‘Land Use and Ecology’, which addresses value, protection, enhancement and management.

DGNB system95 The DGNB system is an integrated evaluation of economic and environmental aspects and user comfort. GI is covered under the sections of ‘Local Environmental Impact’ and ‘Biodiversity and Interaction’.

PassiveHaus96 Passivhaus is an energy performance standard focusing on thermal performance, airtightness and ventilation. It does not address wider sustainability issues such as biodiversity or GI.

HQE97 HQE is an environmental assessment methodology that pursues sustainable performance objectives while considering impacts on health, personal comfort and the indoor environment. Biodiversity is covered in the section Ecosystems and Biodiversity

ISO 21931 ISO 21931 is an international standard aimed at improving environmental performance. Environmental impacts are addressed at local, global and interregional level

Standard Assessment Procedure98

The Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) is the UK Government’s recommended method system for measuring the energy rating of residential dwellings. It does not factor broader sustainability requirements such as biodiversity or GI.

Biotope Area Factor99

Biotope Area Factor (BAF) is a calculation undertaken by Berlin city to secure green qualities. BAF targets are applied to various developments and structures to safeguard and improve microclimate and atmospheric hygiene; safeguard and develop

94 http://www.breeam.org/ 95 http://www.dgnb.de/en/ 96 http://www.passivhaus-institut.de/ 97 http://assohqe.org/hqe/ 98 http://www.bre.co.uk/sap2012/page.jsp?id=2759 99 http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/landschaftsplanung/bff/index_en.shtml

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 117

soil function and water balance; create and enhance quality of plant and animal habitat; and improve the residential environment.

Procedure The Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA)100

The Essential Role of Green Infrastructure: Eco-towns Green Infrastructure Worksheet - The Worksheet is designed to provide clear guidance on how to design, incorporate and operate green infrastructure. It is intended to support the emergence of green infrastructure networks that, in terms of their quality, extent and capacity, deliver the widest range of environmental, social and economic benefits.

The London Plan Policy 5.10 Urban Greening – Requires development proposals to include green infrastructure. Elements can include tree planting, green roofs and walls, and soft landscaping. Policy 5.11 Green Roofs and Development Site Environs – Requires major developments to include roof, wall and site planting, especially green roofs and walls where feasible to deliver; adaptation to climate change, sustainable urban drainage, mitigation of climate change, enhancement of biodiversity, accessible roof space, improvements to appearance and resilience of the building, and growing food.

Methodology

International Green Roofs Policies101

Details of a number of green roof policies from around the world are detailed here, which include a number of German, US & Chinese cities; as well as Basel, London, Toronto, Singapore and Australia. These cities are actively promoting GI and it is included at the policy level.

European Federation of Green Roof Associations (EFB)102

The EFB brings European green roof associations together which promote and encourage the uptake of green roofs. The majority of green roof associations have standards based on the German FLL standard, which addresses waterproofing, soils, vegetation, treatment, installation, procedures and maintenance.

Designing for Biodiversity: A Technical Guide for New and Existing Buildings103

This book advises on how to incorporate provision for biodiversity within building developments. Focus is largely on building features, but also limited information is provided on how to increase biodiversity and include green infrastructure in the building surroundings.

Putting the Green in the grey104

UK guide on creating sustainable grey infrastructure by considering GI. A guide for developers, planners and project managers. It is intended to provide a framework that can be used to identify the additional environmental benefits that projects primarily focussed on delivering economic outputs can deliver at the same time.

Demystifying GI UK GBC105

This report consolidates existing information on Green Infrastructure (GI) for those working in the built environment, providing a simple, accessible guide. It helps to define the topic and its scope, and crucially attempts to highlight the business case for creating and maintaining GI – aimed primarily at the developer and client.

Interview highlights

The interviews - with Dusty Gedge, European Federation of Green Roof Associations

(EFB) and Maarten Dansen (Dutch Green Building Council) - revealed the following

interesting findings:

100 http://www.tcpa.org.uk/pages/green-infrastructure.html 101 http://livingroofsworld.com/page22.php 102 http://www.efb-greenroof.eu/ 103 http://products.ihs.com/cis/Doc.aspx?AuthCode=&DocNum=304592 104 http://www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk/resources/6b4_Guide.pdf 105 http://www.ukgbc.org/sites/default/files/Demystifying%20Green%20Infrastructure%20report%20FINAL.pdf

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 118

 Standards are important in the construction industry to ensure reliability and

consistency – however, they are often also used in a policy context. Performance

criteria and not construction criteria/techniques should dictate policy.

 Policy change is required. Cities drive the market and they have the ability to

drive quality – codes and standards generally are the lowest common

denominator – good policy leads to good green roofs. Current codes and

standards are about how they are constructed – not what they deliver.

 Dusty recommends the Commission works on policy guidelines that are separate

but refer to industry codes. They are two different beasts. Unfortunately a lot of

policies are written with too much reference to industry codes because of

architects. Policy codes should be written and considered by sustainability officers

and planning officers, not by suppliers and installers.

 How GI is included in standards shows much heterogeneity: sometimes focus is

more on the process, the framework and the expertise of an ecologist, while in

other instances focus is on the species and the ticking of a checklist.

 Project developers are positive on having green being considered early in the

process for two reasons. One is that by having an early analysis, risk is minimized

that species protected by law are only discovered at a later stage during the

building process and then cause the (temporary) halting of the project. The other

is that they also showcase with the green that is included in the projects they

conduct. In fact, enthusiasm is such that GI could be included even more

strongly.

 A challenge is how to decide whether an ecologist is credible. Criteria now include

that either the person can be considered an ecologist due to education (e.g.

biology degree), profession (being an ecologist in a consultancy) or because of

active involvement in nature protection and being an active member of a nature

organization. It is another challenge to have ecologists that are sufficiently

familiar with building specifications and that can provide relevant input when at

the table with the building designer’s team.

Extent GI is integrated in standards and the potential

The level of GI integration in building standards is extremely varied. There can be

none at all, such as the Standard Assessment Process (SAP); some inclusion such as

the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology

(BREEAM) that addresses land use and ecology as part of the assessment; or

completely dedicated to GI, such as the European Federation of Green Roof

Associations that ensures a robust methodology in engineering green roofs and

maximizing biodiversity value.

Where the standards include elements of GI, the requirements are minimal, focusing

on the protection of features and simple enhancement. There is little requirement to

create GI of value and this is never mandatory.

Standards dedicated to GI, such as the FLL for green roofs, ensure that the GI created

has a high standard, creating value in both biodiversity and the wider sustainability

benefits such as reducing pollution, buffering storm water, increasing well-being and

productivity for employees, students, etc.

Way forward

 The European Federation of Green Roof Associations (EFB) is an excellent

example of an association bringing together similarly minded organizations to

promote and encourage best practice. Members have recognized the German FLL

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 119

as a leader in the field and have used it as foundation to create their own country

specific standards that suppliers can become registered to, helping spread use of

a common standard.

 Harmonization of standards is seen as necessary but should be done so via

associations and common policy, rather than by legislation. Best practice should

be identified and shared amongst the Member States via associations and experts

in their field.

 Discussing how to move forward should be led by leaders in their field in

collaboration with buildings experts to ensure integration and to maximize the

benefits of GI at both the building and larger development level.

Major findings on standards for performance elements

 Building performance standards are generally voluntary but can be enforced

through local policy, planning or funding requirements. This is often seen as

bureaucratic box ticking with additional expense and no added value. Greatest

value is achieved where companies want to be leaders in sustainability and

recognize the true value of GI.

 The standards have an architectural bias with little consideration for GI. For

example, BREEAM weighs Ecology at 10% but only mandates 1%.

 Some methods are well established, such as BREEAM and LEED. These schemes

can be used on different types of buildings (new vs. existing; residential vs. non-

residential; etc.) and cover different stages (design, post construction, and

operation). The main target group of such a certification scheme are real estate

companies, investors or property owners. Their motivation is to have a label

demonstrating both the greenness of their buildings and to have a credible

assessment that their building has a low energy demand; as well as adding a

‘green’ premium to sale and rental prices.

 The market for voluntary building certification schemes is young. However, it is

important to note that there are differences between European regions. The

western EU countries, many of which have their own national voluntary leading

schemes, e.g. BREEAM in the UK, DGNB in Germany or HQE in France, all report a

steady rise in certification. Furthermore, it appears that in Western Europe

certification of new buildings is considered more or less mandatory for certain

types of development. In contrast, other parts of Europe have only recently

started using the rating schemes.

 Many of the building assessment schemes are very similar and can be applied to

any country across Europe creating confusion across the building sector.

 Main drivers for using a green building rating schemes are the desire to improve

performance, marketing and competitive advantage. The only significant reason

to not use such rating system is the cost and length of time that it takes for

certification106.

 Another German example, this time at the local scale, can be found in Berlin. The

city uses the concept of ‘biotope area factor’ (BAF). The BAF gives an indication of

the quantity of Green infrastructure available at a certain site. In Berlin the BAF is

established in landscape plans as an ordinance. This concept has created an

increase in green roofs, permeable surfaces and living walls in the city. These

106 http://www.worldgbc.org/files/8613/6295/6420/World_Green_Building_Trends_SmartMarket_Report_2013. pdf

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 120

types of procedures, with high potential to be replicated, are very valuable in the

European context.

Major findings on standards for procedures

 Embedding GI in regulations is incentivizing the GI market significantly. Since

1998, the German construction law with § 9 (1) no.25a (The German Federal

Building Code) provided a clear opportunity to set requirements for green roofs,

which are used widely in Germany.

 Very specific types of procedures apply to taxation and subsidies. There are many

different ‘green taxes’ across Europe. One relevant example for GI is the taxation

of sealed surfaces and water run-off107. There is a taxation in place in Sweden,

France, England and Germany. In the Czech Republic there is a similar system for

industry only.

 One third of German cities has a so-called ‘rainwater tax’ (Berlin, Stuttgart, etc.).

This tax is based on surface sealing. Taxpayers can receive a reduction if they

provide water retention and/or filtration. This system is in part responsible for the

amount of green roofs in the cities which has increased from 10 million m² in

1995 to 84 million in 1999.

 In Stockholm (Sweden) the tax can be reduced by 50% if there is reduced or

attenuated run-off of rainwater to the urban drainage system. If the building is

autonomic and has no need for the public drainage system, one can receive a

100% reduction.

 Many subsidies operate at the local scale, such as the green-roof subsidy in the

city of Ghent108, paying 31 euro/ m² per green roof.

 Under UK legislation the Greater London Authority has set out an overall strategic

plan for London setting out an integrated economic, environmental and social

framework for the development of London over the next 20-25 years. It brings

together a number of areas including a range of environmental issues such as

climate change (adaptation and mitigation), air quality, noise and waste. It

recognizes the key benefits of Green Infrastructure (climate change adaptation &

mitigation, improving water quality, flood mitigation, sustainable urban drainage,

appreciation of landscapes and cultural heritage, enhancement of biodiversity),

thereby encouraging buildings to include green roofs & walls as well as the use of

soft landscaping.109 Approximately 47% of London is green and is continuing to be

‘greened’ by the addition of green roofs, walls and other green infrastructure.

Major findings on standards for methodology

 Best practices and leaders in their field are recognized and their approach

adopted or used as a framework to develop local methodologies.

 Excellent examples of this are the German FLL standard for Green Roofs which

has gone on to be adopted or influence the development of standards in the

Netherlands, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, UK, Sweden, Austria and

Switzerland.

107 http://livingroofsworld.com/page22.php; ARCADIS (2012), Comparison of cost price of water/ waste water/ rain water for users in different EU Member States (Flemish Environmental Agency); Science for environment policy (2012), Soil Sealing, in depth report, European commission 108 http://www.gent.be/eCache/THE/1/32/953.cmVjPTQzNzc0.html 109 http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/london-plan/further-alterations-to-the-london-plan

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 121

 This has also been greatly assisted by the support of the European Federation of

Green Roof Associations (EFB) and that of experts in their field to lobby and

encourage policy change at the city level.

 Methodologies such as the FLL, covered by the EFB, and the TCAP worksheet are

holistic, thorough and are developed by collaborative efforts by leaders in their

field

 The sheer volume and complexity of guidance that exists promoting GI can be

bewildering. This is often challenging for the non-specialists within the

construction industry, particularly clients and developers, to understand which

information and guidance they should be following.

 Many of the methodologies and guides detail the benefits and risks of green

infrastructure and how they can be integrated into the design of buildings and the

surrounding infrastructure. For example, the ‘Demystifying GI UK GBC’ report

details how GI is not only green roof and walls, but also includes sustainable

drainage, city parks, reed beds, swales, urban wetland and urban woodland; and

how these can be used to assist planning applications, reduce installation costs,

flood attenuation, reduced management costs, community and employee

engagement, health & wellbeing, improved air quality, increased land & property

value and crime reduction to mention a few.

4.4.3 GI standards and the water sector

In the water sector, procedural standards for sustainable water

management in Europe are available through the Water Framework

Directive. In the private sector there is a growing awareness for

proactive investment in sustainable management of water in the

catchment where companies operate. Although GI is not always

explicitly mentioned, the application of GI fits well in the ecosystem

and catchment based approaches. As a way forward for the

implementation of GI it is important to incorporate both ‘green’,

‘grey’, and also hybrid solutions in the initial assessments of options

in such a way that actors can compare and make the best choice for

their situation. Currently, there are often already established criteria

to evaluate the performance of the more conventional grey options

but not so for GI or for comparing across grey and green options.

This forms a barrier for wider implementation of green options.

Table 11: Examples of standards for the water sector with indication on the extent to which GI (GI) is included (green: GI well covered; orange: GI moderate to basically; red: GI hardly or not covered)

Type Standard Key aspects G I

Performance The Alliance for water stewardship (AWS) has developed the International Water

This is a globally-consistent framework that outlines the expectations of responsible water stewardship. The standard is one of the first examples of a landscape-based approach to certification, focusing on the health of the entire watershed and balancing the needs of different water users and managers to ensure freshwater use that is socially and economically beneficial as well as environmentally sustainable. Although GI

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 122

Stewardship Standard110

is not explicitly mentioned, it would fit well within the objectives of sustainable water stewardship.

European Water Stewardship Standard111

Growing awareness of water as a reputational risk to the private sector is spurring proactive investment by a number of companies. The European Water Stewardship Standard, a production site voluntary standard that encourages water users to engage with the wider challenges and opportunities of the catchment in which they operate, has been implemented at sites across the EU by large multinationals such as BASF and Coca-Cola. The Standard is independently verified and a performance-based certification scheme can be used in marketing and communication activities in the manner of the Forest Stewardship Council label.

Procedure Water Framework Directive112

The EU Water Framework Directive, adopted in October 2000, is an important piece of EU environmental legislation which aims at improving the water environment. This Directive establishes a framework for the protection of all waters including rivers, lakes, estuaries, coastal waters and groundwater, and their dependent wildlife/habitats under one piece of environmental legislation.

GI & Water Framework Directive in the Association of Greater Manchester 113

The Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) supports the use of GI interventions as part of its wider strategy for sustainable growth. Recommendations where GI interventions could potentially be targeted, to address WFD and flood risk as a priority but also contribute to reducing other risk factors contributing to climate resilience.

WANI water and Nature initiative114

WANI, has worked over the past decade towards managing and protecting water reserves and heritage for the future benefit of all. Stretching across 5 continents in 12 river basins, WANI works with governments and local communities to use and manage water resources more sustainably. WANI aims to help reduce poverty and protect the environment by helping people to access and manage river flows. Although GI is not explicitly mentioned, GI fits well within the ecosystem based approach.

Method ology

European Natural Water Retention Measures Platform (NWRM)115

This platform contains rich information with regards to the design and implementation of measures, a wide catalogue of possible measures (ID cards) including financing and costs aspects and case studies. This information is available directly on the website and more extensively in the online guidance, ID catalogue and synthesis documents. The measure presented are all on GI in the context of water.

Water for business116

This online guide by the WBC-SD is specifically designed for businesses to help them manage water more sustainably by providing them with an overview of water tools and initiatives which they can use or engage with. Biodiversity is mentioned but detail is very limited. There is no mention of GI and how it may provide solutions.

GI guide for water management117

UNEP, UNEP-DHI Partnership, IUCN, WRI guidance on GI solutions, tools for quantification and valuation of benefits, barriers and the possible ways ahead.

110 http://www.allianceforwaterstewardship.org/ 111 http://www.ewp.eu/activities/ews/ 112 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/info/intro_en.htm 113http://www.salford.gov.uk/corestrategy/iw/QA-QA10-Joint-Green-Infrastructure-Project-GI-and-the- Water-Framework-Directive.pdf 114 http:// www.waterandnature.org 115 http://www.nwrm.eu 116 http://www.wbcsd.org/waterforbusiness3.aspx 117 http://www.unepdhi.org/-/media/microsite_unepdhi/publications/documents/unep/web-unep-dhigroup- green-infrastructure-guide-en-20140814.pdf

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 123

Interview highlights

The interview with Maija Bertule (program advisor at UNEP-DHI Partnership) revealed

the following interesting findings:

 The application of GI in the water sector is still in the phase of building the

evidence base on the efficiency, costs and co-benefits over time. This knowledge

base is crucial in establishing any kind of standards.

 It would be quite complicated to develop common standards for GI in the water

sector, as the green options are highly variable from small urban elements to

large watershed measures. There will always be site-specific elements that cannot

be accounted for in general guidance, such as interaction of the local climate and

geography with vegetation types, etc.

 Nevertheless, common standards or guidance covering some of the key aspects of

GI, e.g. cost and benefit analysis and performance measurements (including

performance of delivery of co-benefits), could be useful. These could be in the

form of recommendations, as opposed to binding standards, as there is a lot of

variation in what can be acceptable and desired depending on the local

circumstances. Case study examples of best practices are also an effective way of

sharing experience and establishing ‘best practice’.

Extent GI is integrated in standards and the potential

Although the application of GI fits well in the ecosystem and catchment based

approaches, GI is not always explicitly mentioned in standards. A large potential for

the further uptake of GI lies in the private sector, where awareness is growing for

proactive investment in sustainable water management in the catchment in which

companies operate.

Way forward

A growing number of initiatives are linking GI investments to water management

needs through an integrated catchment management approach. A number of large EU

water utility companies have pioneered the approach of linking agri-environmental

schemes to water source protection measures.

Major findings on standards for performance elements

Several initiatives exist for performance standards, such as the Alliance for Water

Stewardship, that have developed the International Water Stewardship Standard.

Although GI is not explicitly mentioned, it would fit well within the objectives for

sustainable water stewardship.

Major findings on standards for procedures

 In the water sector, procedural standards for sustainable water management are

available through the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive.

 The implementation of GI would gain from a stronger focus on integrated spatial

planning, taking the wide range of ecosystem services related to water and flood

management into account.

 A main condition for wider implementation and success of ecological practices is

the systematic integration of biodiversity in investment pathways supported by

policy and funding.

 The more widespread use of a cost-benefit analysis that considers the valuation of

ecosystem services could serve as a lever to demonstrate that green, nature-

based solutions are in fact often more cost-effective than traditional

infrastructure. However, this may not be sufficient to include biodiversity concerns

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 124

into water management, as the monetary values that relate to ecosystem services

are generally low, except in densely-populated urban areas.

Major findings on standards for methodology

 Several methodology standards for GI in sustainable water management already

exist, such as the guidelines and methods of the European Natural Water

Retention Measures Platform (NWRM) or the GI guide for water management

developed by UNEP, UNEP-DHI Partnership, IUCN and WRI on GI solutions, tools

for quantification and valuation of benefits.

 In the private sector there is still a need for awareness raising, for instance

among water and waste water treatment companies about GI-based alternatives

or hybrid solutions (combination of green and grey) to traditional grey

infrastructure investments. An increased use of NWRM would be advantageous in

this context.

 It is important to find ways to incorporate ‘green’, ‘grey’ and ‘hybrid’ solutions in the initial assessments of the options in such a way that actors can compare and

make the best choice for their situation. At the moment, there are often already

established criteria to evaluate the performance of the more conventional grey

options but not for GI. This forms a barrier for the wider implementation of green

options.

4.4.4 GI standards and the transport sector

Transport infrastructure, in particular road and railway systems, form

widespread networks with varying density all over the EU. They have

tremendous impacts on biodiversity, both at a local and regional

scale. The most visible impacts are collisions with animals. Yet more

consequential are the indirect effects of transport infrastructure,

including habitat loss and reduced habitat quality (e.g. increased

noise levels), habitat fragmentation and barrier impacts. As these

impacts often occur simultaneously, the cumulative effects on wildlife

populations can be very significant. There is a significant quantity of

guidance and good practice on how to address fragmentation and

barrier effects by means of overpasses or fauna tunnels etc., which in

some cases are supported by GI measures. Also at a landscape level

GI offering improved habitat connectivity is often applied as part of

wildlife and landscape management, and increasingly incorporated

into regional spatial planning. However, guidance on how to reconcile

transport networks with ecological networks at a regional scale is

very scarce. The same goes for guidance on how to optimize the

ecosystem services provided by GI to mitigate impacts of transport

infrastructure on biodiversity.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 125

Table 12: Examples of standards for the transport sector with indication on whether GI (GI) is thoroughly included (green: GI well covered; orange: GI moderate to basically; red: GI hardly or not covered)

Type Standard Key aspects G I

Performance Civil Engineering Environmental Quality Assessment (CEEQUAL)118

CEEQUAL is an environmental assessment methodology for clients, designers and contractors to deliver improved project specification, design and construction of civil engineering projects. It is an integral part of UK construction industry contribution to support UK government strategy towards sustainable development. Section 6 of the method covers impacts on sites of high ecological value, protected species, surveys conservation & enhancement, habitat creation measures, monitoring and maintenance. Focus therefore is on impact mitigation, but not on making use of the multi- functionality of GI. CEEQUAL is a commercial tool requiring payment.

INVEST119 INVEST was developed by the Federal Highway Administration, United States. It is an assessment system that provide a list of sustainable factors best practices to be incorporated into transportation project and is designed to address sustainability throughout the project stages. The INVEST sustainability factors consist of noise quality, ecology and biodiversity, visual impact, waste management, energy and carbon emissions, erosion and sediment control, flora and fauna, health and safety, life cycle cost, cultural heritage, public access and intermodality of transport. Ecological connectivity (PD-09) is covered from a wildlife perspective, but not considering the ecosystem services GI may provide.

The European Investment Bank Statement on Environmental and Social principles and Standards120

The Statement outlines the standards the EIB is imposing on projects that it finances, and the responsibilities of the various parties. It provides a great sense of urgency about the problems of climate change and gives great recognition to the importance of biodiversity. However the emphasis is on conservation or restoration of biodiversity (according to the mitigation hierarchy), rather than promoting GI as an opportunity to enhance biodiversity and deliver ecosystem services. As the EIB is periodically reviewing this standard to align with new developments under the EU environmental policy and legislation, there might be a chance that future versions put more emphasis on GI.

Procedure Habitats Directive Highly relevant from a procedural point of view are the following articles:

 Art 10: The Habitats Directive includes specific measures to maintain or restore the coherence of the Natura 2000 network. In particular, Article 3(3) of the Habitats Directive states that ‘where they consider it necessary, Member States shall endeavour to improve the ecological coherence of Natura 2000 by maintaining, and where appropriate developing, features of the landscape which are of major importance for wild fauna and flora, as referred to in Article 10.’ Article 10 states that ‘Member States shall endeavour, where they consider it necessary, in their land-use planning and development policies and, in particular, with a view to improving the ecological coherence of the Natura 2000 network, to encourage the management of features of the landscape which are of major importance for wild fauna and flora. Such features are those which, by virtue of their linear and continuous structure (such as rivers with their banks or the traditional systems for marking field

118 http://www.ceequal.com/ 119 https://www.sustainablehighways.org/ 120 http://www.eib.org/attachments/strategies/eib_statement_esps_en.pdf

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 126

boundaries) or their function as stepping stones (such as ponds or small woods), are essential for the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species.’

 The less known article 12.4: “Member States shall establish a system to monitor the incidental capture and killing of the animal species listed in Annex IV). (..) shall take further research or conservation measures as required to ensure that incidental capture and killing does not have a significant negative impact on the species concerned”. As a consequence transport infrastructure planning, design and maintenance should include appropriate measures to avoid or mitigate incidental killing of animals. Appropriate design of Green Infrastructure offers at least part of the solution. This should be reflected in the planning and permitting processes and conditions for new infrastructure (e.g. TEN-T project applications for funding must demonstrate that the project respects all EU legislation such as the Nature and Water directives and the impact assessment directives (SEA and EIA)), but in practice a lot more can be done.

SEA/EIA The process ensures a detailed assessment of adverse and beneficial environmental effects for a range of alternative solutions, either at the planning stage (SEA) or the project stage (EIA). While the focus is on the assessment of impacts, an important part of these assessments is dedicated to mitigation measures. Although this offers an excellent opportunity to promote GI, the multi-functionality of it or its societal benefits are often poorly described.

Multi-Annual Defragmentation Programme, the Netherlands121

In 2004, the Multi-Annual Defragmentation Programme was adopted with the aim to remove during the period 2015-2018 the most important barriers for the National Ecological Network formed by the country’s dense road and rail infrastructure as well as major waterways. Relevant defragmentation projects include wildlife passages and crossings, specifically looking at fauna tunnels, green bridges, fish ladders, oversized viaducts and wildlife-friendly verges and river banks. This initiative focuses on ecosystem resilience and improved functional habitat connectivity for targeted species. A guidance has been published (see below under ‘Methodology’).

Methodology Wildlife and Traffic: A European Handbook for Identifying Conflicts and Designing Solutions122

The COST action 341-project has elaborated a handbook (Wildlife and Traffic: A European Handbook for Identifying Conflicts and Designing Solutions, 2003) with detailed ecological solutions to minimise or mitigate wildlife and traffic conflicts, but not on the benefits that can be derived from making us of GI. In annex 5 of the handbook an overview is given of handbooks and guidelines per country.

SAFEROAD – ‘Safe Roads for Wildlife and People’ (CEDR Transnational Road Research Program 2014‐2016)123

This ongoing project aims to publish a guidance by end of 2016, i.e. the ‘European WILDLIFE Road Maintenance Guidelines’. Preliminary findings are the fact that currently Road Maintenance Guidelines (RMG) in most EU countries include only short information about wildlife topics (in sections about fencing, road wildlife awareness signs, road verge management, bridges, drainage, and – exceptionally - wildlife passages). The aim is to bring evidence‐based knowledge from road and wildlife experts together to identify new strategies, practices and technologies to reduce conflicts and costs. As the focus is road safety and biodiversity conservation, GI and its full range of societal benefits will be covered only to a minor extent.

121 http://www.mjpo.nl/ 122 http://www.iene.info/wp-content/uploads/COST341_Handbook.pdf 123 http://www.saferoad-cedr.org/en/saferoad.htm

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 127

Leidraad Natuurtechniek – Ecologisch wegbermbeheer (2011, Flemish Ministry)124

This guidance provides recommendations on how to enhance biodiversity values of road verges and waterway verges. The concept of GI is not explicitly mentioned, neither the multi- functional role of these verges in terms of ecosystem services. However, LNE has prepared two follow-up studies on valuation of ecosystem services provided by road and waterway verges (prepared by Arcadis).125

Leidraad Faunavoorziening en bij infrastructuur (2013, Multi- Annual Defragmentation Programme, The Netherlands)126

This guidance provides recommendations on how to enhance biodiversity values of road, railway and waterway verges. The concept of GI is not explicitly mentioned, neither the multifunctional role of these verges in terms of ecosystem services.

Vilda djur och infrastruktur – en handbok för åtgärder (2005, Swedish Road Administration)127

This guidance provides recommendations on how to enhance biodiversity values of road verges. The concept of GI is not explicitly mentioned, neither the multi-functional role of these verges in terms of ecosystem services.

Restoring ecological networks across transport corridors in Bulgaria128

The main objective of this project (2006-2007) was to develop a long-term programme for defragmentation measures at transport corridors in Bulgaria in order to restore ecological networks and preserve biodiversity. It is not covered what the multi-functional benefits can be from an ecosystem services and GI perspective.

The ecology of transportation: managing mobility for the environment129

This volume brings together international experts from a variety of disciplines to review the ecological effects and their causes in terms of road, rail, ship and aircraft transport. Focus ranges from identification of threats and amelioration of damaging effects through to future design of transport systems to minimize environmental degradation. As with many of the other examples in Table 5-7 coverage is limited to evaluating impact and considering mitigation, however, not taking opportunity to also highlight the potential of including and making use of GI and the ecosystem services it provides.

Green Stormwater Infrastructure Strategies for Airports130

This recent work (2015) presents a synthesis of information that can be valuable in assisting airport decision-makers and professionals responsible for managing the stormwater programs and for the planning and project development of conventional grey infrastructure and new green infrastructure related to stormwater management. Airports urgently need resilient and affordable solutions to address stormwater quantity and quality issues and to promote the triple bottom line of sustainability. Recent years have seen increasing use of green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) strategies at airports. GSI solutions (e.g., bioretention systems, rain gardens, vegetated filter strips, permeable asphalt or concrete pavement, drainage wells, and amended topsoil) are designed to supplement or replace conventional grey infrastructure (e.g., impermeable pavements and curbs, inlets and pipes) that inhibit water filtration or infiltration and related natural treatment and flow attenuation processes. This work aims to

124 http://www.lne.be/themas/milieu-en-infrastructuur/Leidraad%20natuurtechniek%20- %20ecologisch%20bermbeheer.pdf 125 http://www.lne.be/themas/beleid/milieueconomie/kosten-batenanalyses/literatuur-over-mkba 126 http://www.mjpo.nl/nieuws-publicaties/publicaties/leidraad/ 127 http://www.lansstyrelsen.se/stockholm/SiteCollectionDocuments/Sv/miljo-och-klimat/tillstandet-i- miljon/Sjoar-och-vattendrag/Vilda-djur-och-infrastruktur.pdf 128 http://www.ecnc.org/uploads/2012/10/final-report-restoring-ecological-networks-across-transport- corridors-in-bulgaria.pdf 129 http://www.springer.com/us/book/9781402045035 130 Shi, X., Beutel, M., Long, T., Hellenthal, A., and Bristoll-Groll, C. (2015) Green Stormwater Infrastructure Strategies for Airports: Challenges and Opportunities. Environmental Sustainability in Transportation Infrastructure: pp. 1-13. doi: 10.1061/9780784479285.001

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 128

provide a brief overview of the GSI strategies for airports, followed by a discussion of challenges and opportunities in balancing airport priorities in environmental, economic, and social values and operational constraints. The airport challenges in implementing GSI strategies mainly include those related to wildlife attraction, climate change, anti- icing/de-icing compounds, and land use limitations. A research project on this issue is underway in the United States.131

Interview highlights

The interview took place with Carme Rosell. Apart from being an expert associate of

Minuartia (a consultancy in Catalonia) and University of Barcelona, she is a Board

Member of Infra Eco Network Europe (IENE)132. IENE is a network of experts working

with various aspects of transportation, infrastructure and ecology. The network was

initiated in 1996 to provide an independent, international and interdisciplinary arena

for the exchange and development of expert knowledge with the aim to promote a

safe and ecologically sustainable pan-European transport infrastructure. IENE arranges

international conferences, workshops and symposia, initiates collaboration projects

and helps answering questions that require a joint international expertise. Main focus

is on defragmentation solutions and solutions to avoid or reduce animal collisions. She

is involved in the SAFEROAD project (see Table 5-7).

The interview revealed the following interesting findings:

 In the transport sector there is a lot of guidance and standards for building and

maintenance, but GI is poorly covered. Topics related to GI are mainly focusing

on defragmentation measures (e.g. design and maintenance of wildlife passages),

and on this issue several EU countries have developed their own guidance. Other

GI related topics are road and waterway verges, drainage systems, water

retention ponds, resting areas, and green areas in airports. Sometimes this

guidance is very fragmented in different types of standards.

 If GI is covered it is related to new developments (construction). GI in relation to

maintenance is hardly covered, which is a pity since the extensive network of old

infrastructure (railways, roads) offers a lot of opportunities in the field of

maintenance. The Saferoad project (see Table 5-7) aims to cover this gap.

 Most countries have drawn up handbooks on wildlife issues (with some

information about maintenance). However the information is often not included in

general ‘Road Maintenance Guidelines’ (RMG), or in contracts to road

maintenance companies or PPP agreements. Experience shows that if it is not in

the contract, it is not applied. The DBFM (Design, Build, Finance, Maintain) type of

contracts for building and maintenance of roads offers opportunities as conditions

can be imposed to consortia on improving ecological connectivity and on

deploying GI.

 Key elements of a good standard for green infrastructure are the following:

o The standard should be produced in cooperation between transport

experts and ecologists, and preferably with experts from different

countries;

o Standards need to be evidence based (monitoring), e.g. on the use of

fauna passages;

o Standards should build on best practices and be promoted (raising

awareness);

131 http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=3835 132 http://www.iene.info/

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 129

o Standards need to adapt to country specificities (different climate,

different animals, …); be careful with general requirements;

o Standards should not only focus on ecological benefits, but also on

economic and social factors; this fits very well with the GI philosophy,

e.g. airports preventing bird strikes by means of habitat management

measures which attract less birds but might be very suitable for other

biodiversity, e.g. insects; this reduces costs for preventing bird strikes.

o Many standards are only available in the country language. Good

standards should include at least a summary in English or French.

 An interesting observation is that the wording of ‘green infrastructure’ might be

confusing to civil engineers and non-ecologists in general. Even biologists within

building and construction companies are often not aware. They often confuse its

use with ‘sustainability’ e.g. reducing waste, emissions, etc. (like ‘green policy’).

Therefore the first task is to explain the concept (e.g. by means of material

provided by the EC). The concept of ‘natural infrastructure’ is sometimes better

understood.

Extent GI is integrated in standards and the potential

There are many standards on transport infrastructure construction and maintenance,

but until now GI is poorly covered. Main links are guidelines and prescriptions on

defragmentation measures and anti-collision measures for wildlife, as well as

guidelines on how to enhance biodiversity values of road and waterway verges.

However, transport infrastructure offers enormous opportunities for deploying GI and

its associated range of societal benefits. As nowadays the planning and permitting of

new transport infrastructure roads often faces societal resistance, a smart combination

of grey and green infrastructure (integrated solutions) accompanied with clear

communication of the societal benefits of GI might increase societal acceptance

(license to operate) and overcome resistance. Key elements of these integrated

solutions should include the creation of large GI areas (over-compensation of

biodiversity loss due to construction works is recommended) designed according to the

expectations of different stakeholder groups, and safeguarding the ecological

connectivity of the wider landscape. With regard to existing transport infrastructure an

opportunity is to create GI in order to mitigate negative health impacts created by

transport infrastructure (noise reduction, regulation of air pollution, aesthetics).

Translating these opportunities into standards which have an obligatory character

would be a major step ahead, both for biodiversity and for human health.

Way forward

As described above there is a tremendous opportunity for deploying GI both in the

field of new transport infrastructure developments as well as in the field of existing

transport infrastructure. Regional and local spatial planning processes as well as

dedicated standards on how to link GI to transport infrastructure in order to maximize

biodiversity and societal benefits are key instruments to make this happen.

Major findings on standards for performance elements

 Only a few performance standards in relation to GI and transport infrastructure

have been identified, and even in these cases the full concept of GI is not taken

into account. The only link is the mitigation and compensation of biodiversity

impacts, but the multi-functionality of GI, i.e. its full range of societal benefits

next to biodiversity benefits, is hardly covered.

 Transportation sustainability is largely being measured by transportation system

effectiveness and efficiency as well as the environmental and climate impacts of

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 130

the system133. Opportunities for including GI are often overlooked and as a

consequence the biodiversity and societal benefits of it (ecosystem services) do

not show up in most sustainability performance measurement systems for

transport infrastructure.

 Sustainability performance across the life cycle of construction projects is a crucial

aspect in achieving the goal of sustainable development.

 Based on methodologies for the transport sector, the basic philosophy is that

prevention is better than cure in avoiding the negative effects of habitat

fragmentation. Where avoidance is impossible/impractical, mitigation measures

should be designed as an integral part of the scheme. Where mitigation is

insufficient or significant residual impacts remain, compensating measures should

be considered as a last resort. In most large scale transport infrastructure

projects compensatory measures are required. This provides opportunities for

creating GI.

Major findings on standards for procedures

 Specific transport infrastructure sector related procedural standards, i.e.

standards on how to include GI in planning and permitting processes for new

transport infrastructure, are poorly available. There is however plenty of generic

spatial planning guidance which increasingly takes into account the concept of

ecosystem services and as such includes links to GI.

 SEA provides a perfect instrument to cover GI when comparing alternative

routings or locations for new transport infrastructure, while EIA serves as an

excellent tool to fine-tune the most suitable options at a more detailed level.

However, the concept of GI in SEA and EIA is mostly limited to its biodiversity and

landscape functions, while the full potential of its wide range of positive societal

benefits (ecosystem services) is often only covered to a minor extent. As a

consequence, the opportunities provided by GI e.g. in terms of human health

benefits, are not fully exploited. Initiatives promoting the uptake of the ecosystem

services concept in environmental impact assessment, including the development

of guidance on this issue, would be very beneficial to enhance the uptake of GI in

plans and projects at local or regional level.

 A challenge is to reconcile transport infrastructure policies with national or

regional policies on ecological connectivity. The Pan-European Biological and

Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS) promotes the concept of ‘ecological

networks’ (i.e. connections between habitats via ecological corridors). This has

been specifically identified as an effective strategy for addressing habitat

fragmentation as it promotes the integration of biodiversity conservation into land

use planning procedures. Consideration of these ‘ecological networks’ in the

planning of roads, railways and waterways may help to avoid critical bottlenecks

in habitat connectivity and identify where mitigation measures are required. The

Dutch Multi-Annual Defragmentation Programme is an excellent example, as it

guarantees that within each spatial planning process for new transport

infrastructure ecological connectivity is safeguarded.

 Transport infrastructure related procedural standards for including GI in the

maintenance or upgrading of existing transport infrastructure is generally lacking,

apart from the fact that in many countries it is recommended to use existing

methodological guidance in preparatory studies (e.g. EIA) related to a new

development (e.g. building of a fauna overpass on an existing road). We are not

133 http://center.sustainability.duke.edu/sites/default/files/documents/transportation_indicators.pdf

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 131

aware of any legal obligation, embedded in national or regional legislation, to use

existing GI standards. Art 10 and art. 12.4 of the Habitats Directive however

require that appropriate measures are taken.

Major findings on standards for methodology

 Many standards are available on defragmentation measures and measures to

avoid animal collisions, i.e. with an exclusive focus on biodiversity conservation

and road safety. Quite some standards are also available on how to improve

biodiversity values of road and waterway verges, water retention basins, etc.

Methodological standards on how to enhance societal benefits with GI associated

to transport infrastructure are far less available. Developing methodological

guidance on how to include GI as a mitigating or compensation measure to

reduce or offset the adverse environmental impacts of transport infrastructure

and to turn them into societal benefits would be very beneficial.

 GI can also be applied to reduce costs, or as a climate change adaptation

measure. An example is the article on Green Stormwater Infrastructure Strategies

for Airports, which provides an excellent overview of the benefits of nature-based

solutions compared to traditional grey infrastructure.

 An issue that deserves particular attention in these methodological standards is

governance e.g. how to involve stakeholders, how to organize the financing and

maintenance, how to ensure the long-term effectiveness of wildlife corridors (see

Figure 10 below). Very often methodological standards are limited to technical

aspects.

Figure 10: Example of sustainable GI solution in the field of transport infrastructure

[Source: adapted from Schulz et al134]

134 Björn Schulz1, H. Reck2, M. Böttcher3. How to reconnect biodiversity across motorways? Practical experiences of establishing ecological hinterland connections of fauna passages in a highly fragmented

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 132

4.4.5 GI standards and the public health sector

In the public health sector there are many standards, guidelines and

protocols outside the scope of the GI/health domain. Examples are

safety standards (toxic species, allergenic species, risks of falling

branches, pesticide use etc.). Accessibility standards that recommend

the availability of GI for citizens are an exception. However, there is

a growing body of literature linking GI to human health and

wellbeing, but the underlying mechanisms are poorly understood and

the knowledge tends to remain in the green sector, not penetrating

the health sector. Exceptions are some SME’s and bottom-up local

initiatives bridging the gap between the green sector and the health

sector. The health sector demonstrates large potential for GI

standards, but before standardization can take place, the evidence

base must grow stronger, and results must be dissipated within the

health sector rather than only in the green sector.

Table 13: Examples of standards for the public health sector with indication on whether GI (GI) is thoroughly included (green: GI well covered; orange: GI moderate to basically; red: GI hardly or not covered)

Type Standard Key aspects G I

Performance The Natural England Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards (ANGSt) 135

ANGSt recommends that everyone, wherever they live, should have accessible natural greenspace:

 of at least 2 hectares in size, no more than 300 metres (5 minutes walk) from home;

 at least one accessible 20 hectare site within two kilometre of home;

 one accessible 100 hectare site within five kilometres of home; and

 one accessible 500 hectare site within ten kilometres of home; plus

 a minimum of one hectare of statutory Local Nature Reserves per thousand population.

Accessibility guidelines in Germany 136

Berlin aims at providing at least 6 m² urban green per person while Leipzig aims at 10 m² per capita. Berlin’s Department of Urban Development and the Environment recommends that every resident should have access to urban green of minimum 0.5 ha within a 500 m distance from home.

WHO green space standard137

The WHO is cited to have proposed a standard of 300m maximum distance to green space for every citizen, and or that every city should have a minimum of 9 m2 of green space per person. An optimal amount would sit between 10 and 15 m2 per person.

northern German landscape 1 Schleswig‐Holstein State Foundation for Nature Conservation, 2 University of

Kiel, 3 Federal Agency for Nature Conservation. 135http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140605090108/http:/www.naturalengland.org.uk/regions/e ast_of_england/ourwork/gi/accessiblenaturalgreenspacestandardangst.aspx 136 GREENSURGE project: compiled in (http://greensurge.eu/working- packages/wp3/files/MS24_update_13022015.pdf) 137 http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/Housing-and- health/publications/2010/urban-planning,-environment-and-health-from-evidence-to-policy-action

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 133

Accessibility guideline in the Netherlands138

75m2 per household within 500m is used as a guideline.

UK National Playing Fields Association’s six acre standard, now the Fields In Trust (FIT)’s recommendations on Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play 139

The six acre standard suggests that for each 1000 residents there should be 2.4 hectares (6 acres) as follows: 1.6 hectares (4 acres) for outdoor sport and recreation space (including parks); 0.8 hectares (2 acres) for children's play, with about 0.25 ha of this equipped playgrounds. The new FIT publication continues to uphold the original recommendation that 6 acres of recreational space is required for every 1000 people and also provides a detailed framework relating to quantity, quality and accessibility of outdoor facilities for sport and play and the importance of local assessments and standards.

Procedure Managing Risk in Play Provision: Implementation guide140

The Play Safety Forum has produced Managing Risk in Play Provision to help strike a balance between the risks and the benefits of offering children challenging play opportunities.

Methodology HEAT141 Developed by WHO (World Health Organisation) to estimate the economic savings resulting from reductions in mortality as a consequence of regular cycling and/or walking. It enables users to estimate the value of new infrastructure to health policies or programmes.

Interview highlights

 Patrick ten Brink, Head of the Green Economy Programme of the Institute for

European Environmental Policy (IEEP) and project leader of the Health and Social

Benefits of Nature and Biodiversity Protection project for DG Environment came

up with the “teaspoon of dirt a day” notion for healthy immune system

development in kids. Evidence is gathering that a certain amount of dirt is

good142. Nature play is a great way to get an ample amount of dirt and germs and

stimulate the immune system. Recently, enhanced immune functioning emerged

as one promising candidate for a central pathway between nature and human

health (Kuo 2015143.)

 Jasperina Venema, green entrepreneur and advisor specialized in urban green and

health came up with the disease-resilient landscapes concept: GI can prevent the

spread of infectious disease between farms and from farm animals to humans, or

from wild animals to farm animals. Of course every disease is unique (One health,

FAO144). No standards or guidelines exist yet.

 Sjerp de Vries, Alterra scientist and green health expert is worried about the

standard recently proposed by the WHO of 1 ha green space within 300 m from

home. The possible impact of this: large apartment blocks around one ha of green

space. If one of the purposes is to allow people to experience peace and quiet to

reduce their stress levels and improve their mood, it would be better to introduce

an area per 1000 inhabitants instead of only an absolute area and distance

measure.

138 http://www.compendiumvoordeleefomgeving.nl/indicatoren/nl0299-Beschikbaarheid-van-groen-in-de- stad.html?i=13-46 139 http://www.fieldsintrust.org/Product_Detail.aspx?productid=dc291578-50c5-49c5-b0d7-3c376db6b801 140 http://www.playengland.org.uk/resources/managing-risk-in-play-provision-implementation-guide.aspx 141 http://www.heatwalkingcycling.org/ 142 Callahan, G. N. (2003). Eating dirt. Emerging infectious diseases, 9(8), 1016-1021. 143 Kuo, M. (2015). How might contact with nature promote human health? Promising mechanisms and a possible central pathway. Frontiers in psychology, 6. 144 http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/en/news_archive/2010_one-health.html

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 134

Extent GI is integrated in standards and the potential

GI is still hardly integrated in the public health sector, with the exception of standards

for the accessibility of GI for citizens. There is a large potential for GI standards for

the health sector, but before standardization can take place, the evidence base has to

grow stronger, and the results must be dissipated within the health sector rather than

only in the green sector.

Way forward

A gap exists between the green sector and the health sector; the health sector by

large ignores GI. Many initiatives are bottom-up initiatives of patients, caretakers, and

freelancers or small SME’s rooted mostly in the green domain rather than the medical

domain. There is a growing evidence base on the health benefits of GI, but the causal

relationships and effect size remain largely unknown. It is important to first

demonstrate and quantify causal relations between health and GI.

Major findings on standards for performance elements

Performance standards for GI in the health sector so far focus on standards for the

accessibility of GI for citizens in urban areas.

Major findings on standards for procedures

 Safety regulations for natural playgrounds are an issue. The safety

standards/safety requirements for play equipment are too strict for outdoor

playing and in conflict with children’s right to play (http://www.righttoplay.com).

A careful risk inventory/risk assessment can be used instead.

 Since the health sector is largely unaware of the health benefits of GI, no

standardized procedures exist yet.

 There are some guidelines for procedures regarding the construction and use of

e.g. community gardens, gardens surrounding hospitals or other care facilities

(“healing gardens”, therapeutic gardens) or care farms, but these are only shared

locally or in national platforms, there are no widely accepted or commonly used

guidelines.

Major findings on standards for methodology

 In the health sector, there are certain standards for research design, such as the randomized control trial (RCT145), the “gold” standard for intervention studies, and

other standards, checklists and guidelines on how to do sound scientific research.

These also apply to GI impact assessments.

 Guidance on how to include GI in urban planning do not go beyond accessibility

guidelines on area of green space per 1000 inhabitants (or per household) within

a certain diameter. A national guideline has only been adopted in the UK; in other

countries general recommendations are more common.

 No standards on how to include GI in design of care facilities exist (care gardens,

therapeutic gardens or care farm). What happens in practice are mainly bottom-

up initiatives not based on any guidelines or standards.

145 http://www.consort-statement.org/ http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/en/news_archive/2010_one- health.html

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 135

4.4.6 GI standards and the industry sector

The industry sector is very familiar with sustainability standards.

Although biodiversity, as part of sustainability, has been a rather

neglected issue for a long time, the recent increase in specific

biodiversity guidance for industry shows a growing interest in the

field of ‘business and biodiversity’. However, when focussing on the

topic of GI within this growing amount of biodiversity standards, it is

clear that there is room for improvement. Particular issues which

deserve more attention are costs and benefits of GI in an industrial

context, as well as guidance on how to implement GI.

Table 14: Examples of standards for the industry sector with indication on the extent to which GI (GI) is included (green: GI well covered; orange: GI moderate to basically; red: GI hardly or not covered)

Type Standard Key aspects G I

Performance Global Reporting Initiative G4146

GRI is an international independent organization that helps businesses, governments and other organizations understand and communicate the impact of business on critical sustainability issues. Biodiversity is specifically covered under the environmental dimensions (see G4-EN11 to G4-EN15), but also has links with for example water (G4-EN9, G4-EN26). However, most biodiversity indicators describe impacts on biodiversity while only one (G4 – EN13 ‘Habitats protected or restored’) links to active GI implementation, which is very limited.

BBOP Standard on Biodiversity Offsets147

The Standard enables project developers to manage biodiversity related risks by providing an auditable approach to no net loss, as well as enabling auditors and assessors to determine whether an offset has been designed and subsequently implemented in accordance with the BBOP Principles.

Procedure Natural Capital Protocol (NCP)148

Currently, companies that measure and value their impacts and dependencies on natural capital do so in a myriad of different ways. This prevents comparability, consistency and mainstream adoption of these approaches. The overall vision of the NCP is to transform the way business operates through understanding and incorporating their impacts and dependencies on natural capital. Biodiversity as part of natural capital is included in this guidance. The NCP is under preparation.

EIA and AA149 For many industrial activities, as part of the permitting process, an EIA is carried out (and in case Natura 2000 protected habitats and species might be affected, an AA is required). While the focus is on the assessment of biodiversity impacts, an important part of these assessments is dedicated to mitigation measures. However, although this offers an excellent opportunity to promote GI, the multi-functionality of it or its societal benefits are often poorly described.

Environmental Management System -

Many companies operate environmental management systems, often certified to ISO 14001 or EMAS. However, biodiversity issues are frequently neglected or even omitted,

146 https://www.globalreporting.org/ 147 http://bbop.forest-trends.org/pages/guidelines 148 http://www.naturalcapitalcoalition.org/natural-capital-protocol.html 149 AA: Appropriate Assessment according to Habitats Directive Art 6(3) and 6(4)

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 136

European Biodiversity Standard (EBS)150

despite their importance. The EBS provides a process to use in companies, to measure, improve and demonstrate publicly their ecological performance. EBS is a commercial tool requiring payment.

Environmental Management System - Biodiversity Benchmark (BB)151

BB is a standard for assessing and certifying an organisation’s system for achieving continual biodiversity protection and enhancement on its landholdings and their implementation. BB can complement existing environmental management systems such as ISO14001 and EMAS by integrating biodiversity into the systems of an organisation. Alternatively it can operate as a stand-alone system. Using the BB requires payment.

Methodology Cross-sector guide for implementing the Mitigation Hierarchy (CSBI)152

Provides practical guidance, innovative approaches and examples to support operationalizing the mitigation hierarchy effectively. As such it contains guidance on restoration and offsetting measures, and it offers insight into comparing costs and savings.

WBCSD Business Guide to Natural Infrastructure

The WBCSD is preparing a business guide on natural infrastructure (= GI). This guide will include the business case, case studies, fact sheets on existing tools, decision tree and check list. GI is thereby seen as a cost-effective investment opportunity and solution to benefit from a range of ecosystem services for issues material to companies.

WBCSD Eco4BiZ153

Eco4Biz “Ecosystem services and biodiversity tools to support business decision-making" is a structured overview of existing tools and approaches. Tools are identified as primarily focusing on either ecosystem services or biodiversity. The aim is to help companies make better-informed decisions about which tool they could apply when assessing and managing their ecosystem impacts and dependencies, in order to ultimately lower risk. However it provides only limited information on the business case of GI and how to implement it.

Specific GI guidance documents within individual companies

A limited number of businesses (often multinational companies in amongst others the Oil and Gas sector and the Mining sector) have developed their own internal guidance on when and how to implement GI.

Interview highlights

The interview (Violaine Berger, WBCSD) revealed the following interesting findings:

 There is a need for raising awareness in the business sector, in particular on the

business case for GI (costs and benefits). Businesses still only look for grey

infrastructure solutions e.g. for waste water treatment and flood protection, while

nature-based solutions such as engineered wetlands and natural or semi-natural

flood protection might be cheaper and might create additional societal benefits.

 There is a general lack of suitable guidance for the industry sector on how to

identify suitable GI solutions and how to implement them.

 Checklist - type standards (performance) often do not deliver added value, as

they do not provide any information on the benefits of GI.

 There is a need to develop the ‘proof of evidence’ by means of demonstration

projects.

150 http://www.europeanbiodiversitystandard.eu/node/4 151 http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/biodiversitybenchmark 152 http://www.csbi.org.uk/tools-and-guidance/mitigation-hierarchy/ 153 www.wbcsd.org/eco4biz2013.aspx

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 137

Extent GI is integrated in standards and the potential

At this moment the industry is increasingly focusing on biodiversity, as it is more and

more acknowledged as a material sustainability issue. As a result there is a rapid

growth in the number of industry standards related to biodiversity. The majority of

these standards, however, deal with methods to identify and assess business impacts

and dependencies on biodiversity, and contains only limited information on methods to

implement mitigation measures. It is clear that creation of GI is an excellent way to

mitigate or to compensate biodiversity impacts. Specific guidance on the mitigation

hierarchy and the concept of No Net Loss (and Net Positive Impact) is provided by the

BBOP and the CSBI (see Table 14). There are very few standards with a clear focus on

GI. Specific guidance is currently being developed by the WBCSD (see Table 14).

There is a huge potential for GI uptake in existing business related biodiversity

standards by including information on how to identify GI solutions, on the business

case for GI and on how to implement GI.

Way forward

In 2013, experts from The Dow Chemical Company, Shell, Swiss Re, and Unilever,

working with The Nature Conservancy and a resiliency expert, evaluated a number of

business case studies, and developed a white paper with recommendations. The

paper154 illustrates the growing awareness and knowledge among the industry sector

on the benefits and potential of GI. The paper provides a number of critical success

factors for implementation of GI solutions, for example:

 Employ a more comprehensive economic and environmental footprint analysis to

more accurately compare green versus grey infrastructure;

 Engage with the engineering community (utilities/process technology/waste

stream management, etc.) to build organizational capacity and expertise in green

or hybrid infrastructure engineering. Develop learning modules that focus on the

identification of GI opportunities and on the evaluation of typical failure modes of

GI solutions in order to develop internal skill sets;

 Establish an external network from academia, R&D institutes and contractors to

facilitate knowledge sharing and skill transfer activities;

 Engage with the project community early on in the project development process

to ensure GI solutions are being considered as part of the early field planning

process.

As mentioned in Table 14, the business community is developing specific GI guidance

(WBCSD), which will be promoted amongst all industrial sectors. The fact that this

guidance covers issues such as a decision tree guiding companies throughout the

decision process on GI, a set of case studies which will be regularly updated on a

dedicated webpage, and demonstrating the business case for GI is very promising.

Major findings on standards for performance elements

 Current GI performance standards mainly focus on biodiversity offsets and how to

measure No Net Loss. This, however, is only part of the GI business applications.

 A performance standard related to the multi-functionality of GI, i.e. including

societal benefits, seems to be missing. Societal benefits could be measured and

valued by means of ecosystem services indicators, but again, these are lacking in

the investigated GI performance standards.

 GRI indicators tend to focus mainly on biodiversity impacts, while efforts to

enhance biodiversity e.g. by implementing GI, are only to a limited extent

reflected by GRI indicators.

154 http://www.nature.org/about-us/the-case-for-green-infrastructure.pdf

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 138

Major findings on standards for procedures

 Substantial progress could be achieved by putting specific emphasis on GI in EIA

for industry projects and in environmental management systems such as ISO

14001. At this moment some commercial certification systems are established

(see Table 14). Environmental Impact Assessment is typically associated with the

exploration and feasibility stages of project developments, whereas Environmental

Management Systems are more closely associated with operations.

 The Natural Capital Protocol is expected to boost standardization of measuring

and valuing approaches of business natural capital impacts and dependencies, as

it provides a framework for a uniform way of natural capital measurement and

valuation based on key principles and a step-by-step approach. It will also provide

ways to deal with biodiversity and will refer to GI as part of the solutions.

Major findings on standards for methodology

 Innovative industries integrate nature into their thinking and understand its value

and potential services. This can lead to higher resilience for these companies,

more effective risk management, better relationships with customers and

suppliers and strengthening their image and reputation.

 Industry needs to have access to specialist guidance, professional advice and

toolkits on GI and in particular concrete technical solutions for GI, and their

financial costs and benefits. The most appropriate guidance is company specific,

and some companies are developing their own GI guidance material, based on

combined in-house engineering and ecological expertise. The WBCSD business

guide on GI – under development – is also expected to be very concrete. It will

include a decision-tree supporting companies to identify and to decide on the use

of GI and the most suitable type of GI for their specific business applications. It

will contain case studies representing a range of sectors and both aquatic and

terrestrial GI solutions.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 139

4.4.7 GI standards and climate adaptation

Many examples of tools, guidelines and best practices already exist

on how to apply GI, or nature-based solutions, in the context of

climate change adaptation. Performance standards, which are

common practice in for instance the building world, are not a useful

way forward in the climate adaptation sector. The reason for this is

that the local situation is always too specific. The multi-functionality

of GI is a benefit but it makes planning and implementation of GI

very complex. Integrating a GI framework into Environmental Impact

Assessments might be a way forward, as this would guarantee that

the potential of GI in landscape planning is considered.

Table 15: Examples of standards for the public health sector with indication on whether GI (GI) is thoroughly included (green: GI well covered; orange: GI moderate to basically; red: GI hardly or not covered)

Type Standard Key aspects G I

Performance Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standards (CCB Standards)155

The CCB Standards identify land management projects that deliver net positive benefits for climate change mitigation, for local communities and for biodiversity. The CCB Standards have a two-step process: (1) Validation demonstrates good project design to generate significant climate, community and biodiversity benefits. Successful CCB validation can help build support for the project among stakeholders and investors. (2) Verification is a rigorous independent endorsement of the quality of project implementation and the delivery of multiple benefits. Successful CCB Verification enables the addition of a ‘CCB label‘.

Climate Bond Standard Community and Biodiversity Standards (CCB Standards)156

The Climate Bonds Standard issues certificates which are a screening tool for investors and governments which allows them to easily prioritize climate and green bonds. Recently a new Climate Bond Standard was developed for Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses. Appropriate and responsible investments in these sectors can help developed and emerging economies transition to more sustainable growth pathways, especially where these investments help to increase adaptation capacity and resilience to climate change. Examples include GI: for instance protecting or enhancing natural buffers in coastal and riverine zones (e.g. mangroves, sea grass, corals) and restoring wetlands to reduce impacts of sea level rise, flooding and storm events.

CEN and CENELEC Adaptation to climate change coordination group (ACC- CG)157

The EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change (COM(2013) 216 final) has invited European Standardization Organizations to contribute to the European efforts aiming to make Europe more climate-resilient. The ACC-CG group coordinates standardization activities and fosters collaboration in standardization work in the field of adaptation to climate change. The focus is on transport infrastructure, energy infrastructure and buildings / construction sector.

Procedure UNEP Ecosystem based adaptation guidance;

The UNEP uses the term ecosystem-based adaptation instead of GI. The goals for these two terms are similar. The benefits of ecosystem-based adaptation as a sustainable adaptation

155 http://www.climate-standards.org/ccb-standards/ 156 http://www.climatebonds.net/standards 157http://www.cencenelec.eu/standards/Sectors/ClimateChange/Pages/default.aspx

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 140

Ecosystem-Based Adaptation Decision Support Framework 158

approach are highlighted. In addition to protection from climate change impacts, also the many other benefits to communities are highlighted, for example through the maintenance and enhancement of ecosystem services crucial for livelihoods and human well-being, such as clean water and food.

Integrating climate change into EIA and SEI159

An EC guidance document on how to integrate climate change and biodiversity as a standard procedure in ‘Environmental Impact Assessment’ (EIA) and ‘Strategic Environmental Assessment’ (SEI). Although the guidance focuses on the terms biodiversity and climate change, the recommendations are also valuable for GI.

Methodology Learning Framework for IUCN’s work on Ecosystem Based Adaptation 160

The IUCN has developed a learning framework for the successful implementation of Ecosystem based adaptation to climate change. Among other activities they have developed a database of all project and activities that embrace EBA.

EBA Ecosystem Based Adaptation Program 161

Methodologies and tools how to make use of biodiversity and ecosystem services as part of an overall adaptation strategy to help people adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change. Examples of ecosystem based adaptation are available for agricultural landscapes mountains, coastal areas, river basins, urban and wetlands.

Adaptation support tool European Climate Adaptation Platform 162

Many support tools exist how to successfully implement GI or ecosystem based adaptation measures. This website gives examples of guidance and tools for the different phases of implementation.

Exploring nature- based solutions; the role of GI in mitigating impacts of weather- and climate change- related natural hazards163

A practical methodology is proposed for screening (rather than assessing) ecosystem services in areas where GI may contribute to reducing current (or future) weather- and climate-related natural hazards. The report addresses landslides, avalanches, floods, soil erosion, storm surges and carbon stabilisation by ecosystems.

Interview highlights

The interview with Stefan Kleeschulte (Managing Director Space 4 Environment)

revealed the following interesting findings:

 In the climate adaptation sector we are not in the phase of developing GI

standards yet, but more in an exploring phase of how GI, or nature-based

solutions, might contribute to the resilience against extreme weather events.

 Performance standards, which are common practice in, for instance, the building

world, are not a useful way forward in the climate adaptation sector. The reason

for this is that the local situation is always too specific. You need to assess the

specific risks, the ecosystems present, the other ecosystem services that might be

required, etc. Too narrowly defined standards could in fact become problematic,

as flexibility is required to adapt to the specific situations.

158 www.unep.org > Climate Change Adaptation > EbA 159 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/EIA%20Guidance.pdf./ 160 https://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/ecosystem_management/climate_change/eba/ 161 http://www.ebaflagship.org/ 162 http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/adaptation-support-tool 163http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/exploring-nature-based-solutions-2014

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 141

 The multi-functionality of GI is a benefit but it also makes planning and

implementation of GI at the same time very difficult. The prerequisites for the

different services provided by the GI, the multiple scales required for the

functioning of different services, make it all very complicated and context

dependent. In this respect integrating a GI framework into Environmental Impact

Assessments might be a way forward, as this would guarantee that the potential

of GI in landscape planning is considered.

Extent GI is integrated in standards and the potential

In climate change adaptation the notion that green adaptation provides sustainable

solutions with multiple benefits is well established. In this context the term ecosystem

based adaptation is the more familiar term for applying green infrastructure as a

climate adaptation measure. Many guidelines and good examples exist on how GI can

be applied in this sector. Most standards involve methodological guidelines and

procedures on how to incorporate GI in decision making.

Way forward

 A framework with guidelines on how to assess the potential of GI-solutions and

how to implement GI to reduce vulnerability for climate hazards would be a

welcome product.

 A database of good practice is always helpful as it informs local planners on the

solutions that were effective elsewhere and which they might adjust to their

specific situation.

 Integrating a GI framework into Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and

Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) might be a way forward, as this

would guarantee that the potential of GI in landscape planning is considered.

Major findings on standards for performance elements

 Performance standards for climate adaptation are being developed, for instance

by the ACC-CG group. However, the focus is on transport infrastructure, energy

infrastructure and the building sector and not on GI.

 An exception is the CCB standards that identify land management projects that

deliver net positive benefits for climate change mitigation, for local communities

and for biodiversity. Successful CCB Verification enables the addition of a ‘CCB

label’.

Major findings on standards for procedures

 The UNEP uses the term ecosystem-based adaptation instead of GI. The goals for

these two terms are similar. The benefits of ecosystem-based adaptation as a

sustainable adaptation approach are highlighted. In addition to protection from

climate change impacts, also the many other benefits to communities are

highlighted, for example through the maintenance and enhancement of

ecosystem services crucial for livelihoods and human well-being, such as clean

water and food.

 There is need for a stronger focus on integrated spatial planning and methods to

stimulate cross-sectoral regional cooperation.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 142

Major findings on standards for methodology

Many examples of tools, guidelines and best practices already exist on how to apply

GI, or nature-based solutions, in adapting to climate change. For example the EEA164

recently published a practical methodology for screening ecosystem services in areas

where GI may contribute to reducing current (or future) weather- and climate-related

natural hazards.

164http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/exploring-nature-based-solutions-2014

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 143

4.4.8 GI standards and rural abandonment

GI can offer solutions for both the prevention of farmland

abandonment and for minimizing the negative impacts when

farmland is already abandoned. There are no specific GI standards in

the context of rural abandonment. An indirect way to stimulate GI in

rural abandonment areas is for instance via the Common Agricultural

Policy (CAP) funding scheme or European Structural Funds.

Table 16: Examples of standards related to rural abandonment with indication on whether GI (GI) is thoroughly included (green: GI well covered; orange: GI moderate to basically; red: GI hardly or not covered)

Type Standard Key aspects G I

Performance Common Agricultural practice (CAP)165

The CAP is an indirect instrument to stimulate Green Infrastructure in rural abandonment areas. Green Infrastructure is already well integrated in agricultural policies for instance in Pillar 1 funding and Pillar 2 European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) funding. Collective Ecological Focus Areas give the opportunity to move from individual farms to implementing GI on a regional level in collective ecological focus areas.

Procedure European Structural Funds166

European Structural Funds form an opportunity to invest in rural abandonment areas. Green infrastructure is not specifically mentioned in these funds.

Integrating green infrastructure into EIA and SEI167

An EC guidance document on how to integrate climate change and biodiversity as a standard procedure in ‘Environmental Impact Assessment’ (EIA) and ‘Strategic Environmental Assessment’ (SEA). Although the guidance focuses on the terms biodiversity and climate change, the recommendations are also valuable for GI. When an environmental impact assessment is made for landscape planning in rural abandonment, the integration of GI in EIA would also stimulate the implementation of GI in rural abandonment areas.

Methodology High nature value farming indicator168

Rural abandonment can be prevented by linking Green Infrastructure to opportunities offered by HNV farming. The HNV Impact Indicator aims to assess changes in the extent and condition of HNV farming and forestry in relation to a baseline established at the start of the programming period. There is no single indicator or data source appropriate for this purpose. In the approach proposed, the Impact Indicator therefore consists of a basket of indicators put in place at the national and/or regional level.

Rewilding Europe examples169

Rewilding Europe aims to bring the variety of wildlife back to Europe’s abandoned lands. Rewilding creates new opportunities for abandoned land, creating new economic models based on wild nature. There are several ongoing pilot projects in Europe.

165 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/ 166 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/ 167 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/EIA%20Guidance.pdf./ 168 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rurdev/eval/hnv/guidance_en.pdf 169 http://www.rewildingeurope.com

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 144

Interview highlights

No interview was taken because it can be argued rural abandonment does not really

qualify for consideration as a sector. The opposite, intensified agriculture, is indeed a

sector but falls outside of the scope here.

Extent GI is integrated in standards and the potential

There are no specific GI standards in the context of rural abandonment. An indirect

way to stimulate GI in rural abandonment areas is for instance through the Common

Agricultural Policy (CAP) funding scheme, high nature value farming (HNV-farming) or

European Structural Funds. GI is already well integrated in CAP and HNV-farming but

GI is not specifically mentioned in the European Structural Funds.

Way forward

 The implementation of GI in the context of land abandonment would gain from

standardized procedures to integrate GI into Environmental Impact Assessments

(EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA), as this would guarantee

that the potential of GI in landscape planning is considered.

 A challenge is the development of assessment methods to identify the most

suitable areas for prevention of rural abandonment as well as for use of

opportunities created by rural abandonment.

Major findings on standards for performance elements

 There are no specific GI standards in the context of rural abandonment. An

indirect way to stimulate GI in rural abandonment areas is for instance through

the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) funding scheme. GI standards are already

well integrated in CAP.

Major findings on standards for procedures

 The European Structural Funds form a potential to invest in GI in rural

abandonment areas.

Major findings on standards for methodology

 HNV-farming and the Rewilding Europe initiative offer best practices for how to

avoid land abandonment or create new opportunities for already abandoned land.

 A challenge is the development of assessment methods to identify the most

suitable areas for prevention of abandonment as well as for use of opportunities

created by rural abandonment.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 145

4.4.9 GI standards and the energy sector

Terrestrial energy infrastructure consists of energy production

facilities (hydropower, windfarms, gas and coal based power plants,

nuclear power plants) as well as the energy transmission

infrastructure (oil and gas pipelines, electricity grid). As a

consequence, possibilities for developing GI are quite diverse and

rather specific for each type of energy infrastructure. The energy

sector is under full development and is characterized by increasing

investments in renewable energy as well as in electricity transmission

infrastructure in the EU. But also existing energy infrastructure is

being revitalized. The energy sector might benefit from investments

in GI for various reasons, ranging from reducing risks (operational,

reputational) to grasping opportunities (cost reduction, reputational),

depending on the type of investments. Due to the variety of energy

infrastructure, generic GI standards for the energy sector are not

available, but there are a number of specific standards available.

Table 17: Examples of standards for the energy sector with indication on whether GI (GI) is thoroughly included (green: GI well covered; orange: GI moderate to basically; red: GI hardly or not covered)

Type Standard Key aspects G I

Performance Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol170

The Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol provides useful guidance for promoting ecological design. This protocol covers technical, environmental, social, economic and integrative sustainability. The protocol covers all stages of a hydropower project, covering 20 performance topics which are each scored based on six criteria. Biodiversity and invasive species is one of the topics covered. All criteria have basic and best practice requirements. This has potential to cover GI and ecosystem services as a best practice requirement.

Procedure European Renewable Energy Source Directive171

This directive establishes an overall policy for the production and promotion of energy from renewable sources in the EU. It requires the EU to fulfil at least 20% of its total energy needs with renewables by 2020, to be achieved through the attainment of individual national targets. Within the directive there is a bonus system for the use of degraded land. Further, there is acknowledgement of the impact of the production of biofuels and bioliquids on biodiversity. However, no further reference is made to consider how to link energy production or transportation to ecosystem services and GI.

European Grid Declaration on Electricity Development and Nature Conservation172

In 2011 Europe’s largest transmission system operators (TSOs) and environmental NGOs signed the European Grid Declaration on Electricity Development and Nature Conservation. This Declaration sets out principles and commitments for ensuring there is no conflict between grid development and nature protection. It recognizes that the European environmental legislation provides a good basis for environmentally sensitive grid planning and delivery. It calls for full and proactive implementation of procedures such as strategic environmental assessment of grid plans. Its focus is

170 http://www.hydrosustainability.org/ 171 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-directive 172 http://renewables-grid.eu/documents/eu-grid-declaration.html

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 146

on avoiding negative impacts, not touching upon GI or the benefits ecosystem services may provide.

SEA/EIA The process ensures a detailed assessment of adverse and beneficial environmental effects for a range of alternative solutions, either at the planning stage (SEA) or the project stage (EIA). While the focus is on the assessment of impacts, an important part of these assessments is dedicated to mitigation measures. Although this provides an excellent opportunity to promote GI, the multi-functionality of it or its societal benefits are often poorly described.

Wind energy developments and Natura 2000173

This document provides guidance on how best to ensure that wind energy developments are compatible with the provisions of the Habitats and Birds Directives. It is designed for use by competent authorities and developers, as well as consultants, site managers and other practitioners who are involved in the planning, design, implementation or approval. Focus of the document is on avoiding negative impacts on biodiversity, but the document also contains examples of wind farms having delivered overall net benefits for biodiversity, this especially in areas with degraded ecosystems.

Methodology Life Elia174 Life Elia, in collaboration with the French TSO RTE, several environmental NGO’s (Solon, Carah), and the Walloon government, is implementing an EU-funded Life+ project to restore and/or create habitats in Natura2000 sites under existing overhead lines. The overall objective of the project is to restore 130km of corridors under overhead lines in Belgium and France. It aims at fostering innovation in the management of forest corridors. Furthermore, the project wants to prove that active management for biodiversity can reduce the costs of securing and maintaining corridors, thereby making use of the positive benefits of GI. Guidance documents are under preparation.

Connecting energy, protecting nature175

With the report “Connecting energy, protecting nature”, BirdLife Europe and European Environmental Bureau present their ideas on how to protect nature when planning and investing in a low carbon society. It focusses on protecting habitats and vulnerable species, but also provides guidance on how to protect and enhance natural resources, ecosystem services and the natural environment. Unfortunately it does not refer to GI as an opportunity to invest in and to the multiple societal benefits GI may provide.

AECOM for National Grid176

AECOM has developed a tool for National Grid which: (i) quantifies natural capital (NC) assets; (ii) identifies the ecosystem services (ES) provided by these assets; (iii) assesses how these ES change under different management scenarios; (iv) estimates the monetary value of these ES; (v) develops a business case for investing in NC assets.

Interview highlights

The interview with Simon Devoghele (LIFE Elia) confirmed some of the findings of the

other sectors and provided a number of useful additional insights:

 There is a general lack of standards related to the maintenance of infrastructure.

For the design and building phase of high voltage electricity transmission

infrastructure there are a number of instruments including safeguards related to

protected areas (e.g. SEA, EIA, Natura 2000 guidance). However, once the route

is decided, there is no further guidance anymore.

173 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/Wind_farms.pdf 174 http://www.life-elia.eu/ 175 http://renewables-grid.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Files_RGI/Reports/272-1861-13- 14_Energy_infrastructure_report_w_low_res_final__1_.pdf 176 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/business/assets/pdf/workstream2/aecom-for-national- grid_en.pdf

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 147

 Standardisation of maintenance approaches which are beneficial for Green

Infrastructure is more than welcome. Certainly when considering the transnational

character of electricity transmission grids in the EU.

 The following key elements of a good standard for GI are mentioned: 1) a good

standard should not only focus on protected species and habitats, but should deal

with common biodiversity too, 2) a good standard for GI related to electricity

transmission should allow continuous maintenance by TSOs (TSO = Transmission

System Operator); as a consequence a balance needs to be found between

practical maintenance possibilities and the required conditions for habitats and

species, 3) a good standard needs to be developed in cooperation with TSOs;

they must be on board.

 The LIFE ELIA team is preparing the publication of a guidebook (foreseen early

2017). This guidebook will include best practices on vegetation management

under high voltage lines, and will cover all ecosystem types in Continental and

Atlantic biogeographic areas (another one will focus on Boreal, Alpine and

Mediterranean ecosystems). Key issues include ‘How can we promote biodiversity

under linear infrastructure and increase public acceptance?’, ‘Which (technical)

actions can be taken and how can they be implemented?’, ‘How can stakeholders

be involved?’. It will also include cost issues (at least with reference to the Cost

Benefit Assessment that was conducted under the LIFE ELIA project).

Extent GI is integrated in standards and the potential

In the field of nature protection and restoration there are a number of standards for

specific subsectors of the energy sector, such as for hydropower, windfarms and

electricity grid infrastructure, but not all of them refer to GI as an opportunity to

reduce risks and enhance societal benefits. It has been demonstrated, not at least by

the Life Elia project (see Table 17), that smart development of GI as part of new

project development substantially increases societal acceptance. For existing

electricity transmission systems it significantly reduces the maintenance cost. Hence

there is room for improvement.

Way forward

The energy sector would also benefit from GI standards. The sector needs to be made

aware that GI has multiple benefits: it increases societal acceptance of new

infrastructure which is key to acquire the license to operate, in some cases it reduces

operational costs and it always contributes to a green reputation amongst the

stakeholders. Guidance material including best practices and figures on costs and

benefits should be prepared and made available.

Major findings on standards for performance elements

 Very little performance standards on GI in the energy sector have been found.

Only for the hydropower sector has a sustainability performance standard been

traced. Unfortunately it doesn’t contain specific requirements on GI. However a

suitable best practice approach on GI related to hydropower are afforestation

measures in the watershed basin which reduce erosion and the associated

siltation in the lake.

 No Net Loss of biodiversity is a requirement for all wind energy projects in France.

Major findings on standards for procedures

 The Renewables Grid Initiative (RGI) promotes the integration of 100%

renewably-generated electricity into the European grid. TSOs and NGOs join

forces in RGI to support the build-up of a sufficient grid infrastructure in Europe

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 148

for both decentralized and large-scale renewable energy sources. This grid

development should be efficient, sustainable, timely, environmentally friendly,

and socially acceptable to all stakeholders.

 SEA provides a perfect instrument to cover GI when comparing alternative

routings or locations for new energy infrastructure, while EIA serves as an

excellent tool to fine-tune the most suitable options at a more detailed level.

However, the concept of GI in SEA and EIA is mostly limited to its biodiversity and

landscape functions, while the full potential of its wide range of positive societal

benefits (ecosystem services) very often is only covered to a minor extent. As a

consequence the opportunities provided by GI e.g. in terms of human health

benefits, are not fully exploited. Initiatives promoting the uptake of the ecosystem

services concept in environmental impact assessment, including the development

of guidance on this issue, would be very beneficial to enhance the uptake of GI in

plans and projects at all levels (including transboundary).

Major findings on standards for methodology

 Most identified GI standards for the energy sector are focusing on methods and

best practices. A most recommendable approach is the Life Elia approach.

 Projects that link GI to existing ‘grey’ infrastructure - such as Gaz de France’s creation of ecological networks linked to its gas pipeline infrastructure177 - can

provide tangible early benefits and overcome scepticism amongst decision- makers. In the case of Shell178 GI has been utilized strategically to ensure

protection of coastal gas pipelines against erosion, through natural reclamation

processes, habitat restoration or development of oyster reefs.

177 http://www.gdfsuez.com/en/commitments/climate-environmental/protecting-biodiversity/ 178 www.nature.org/about-us/the-case-for-green-infrastructure.pdf

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 149

4.4.10 General findings on integration of GI in standards

Here, we re-evaluate Table 7. At the start of this work we made best judgements to

what extent GI is included in standards for the different sectors. We based the scores

in Table 7 on our best judgment given our own expertise, and a quick screen of

available literature. Now, we are in position to make new evaluation based on a more

extensive review and information that was collected through the interviews. In Table

18, the upper table shows the results of our initial assessment. The lower table shows

the results of our new evaluation based on the insights we gained through doing the

study.

Table 18: Update of Table 7 based on the interviews

Original (Table 7)

Sector Performance Procedure Methodology

Finances

Building

Water

Transport

Public health

Industry

Climate

Rural

Abandonment

Energy

Revised Scores

Sector Performance Procedure Methodology

Finances

Building

Water

Transport

Public health

Industry

Climate

adaptation

Rural

Abandonment

Energy

[Note: For each of the nine sectors it is indicated to what extent GI is included in standards on performance, procedure and methodology (green: fairly well covered; orange: rather basic; red: little or lacking). The upper table is the original table, while the lower table shows the scores based on review and interview.]

The results in Table 18 provide at a glance to what extent GI is included in sectorial

standards. Also, the table shows several interesting and relevant findings for

improving the way GI is included in technical standards:

 For performance standards, none of the sectors scored well. In most instances, if

anything was included in performance evaluations, it was biodiversity and

ecosystem services. Therefore, there is much room for having GI included in

performance standards.

 For procedure standards, GI is covered for the building and water sector,

indicating the approaches taken by these sectors may provide inspiration when

including GI in procedure standards for other sectors.

 For standards on methodology, results are more positive. For the building, water,

industry, climate adaptation and energy sectors, each have guidance or

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 150

handbooks on how to make use of GI. For the transport sector, it should therefore

be relatively straightforward to also put more emphasis on GI in guidance and

handbooks. With respect to the finance sector it seems reasonable that they focus

mainly on performance and procedure standards, and leave it to the sectors they

finance for developing standards on methodologies.

 We are all concerned about public health. There is increasing evidence on the

benefits green living environments provide to our health and productivity.

However, as it appears from our work, there certainly is a gap for the public

health sector when it comes to covering GI in standards.

4.5 General recommendations

4.5.1 Integrated spatial planning

Several sectors (such as climate adaptation, water, land abandonment and

infrastructure) have indicated that the implementation of GI would benefit from

integrated spatial planning early in the planning process. Also, it has been increasingly

recognized that it is necessary to work at the landscape level to ensure that sectors

can capture the benefits of GI and to maintain biodiversity and ecosystem services. A

landscape approach can contribute to bringing together sectoral economic

development plans and national action plans on biodiversity conservation, water

management and climate change. Note, for example, the emergence of Integrated

Water Resource Management (IWRM).

The International Federation of Landscape Architects (IFLA)179 recommends that GI

must become an integral part of policy and decision making. They gave the following

recommendations to achieve this:

 GI needs to be integrated into Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA);

 Monitoring of GI delivery from EU funded infrastructure projects;

 Funding for GI-related research and training;

 Developing an expert service providing guidance and support on GI for public and

community bodies;

 Promoting EU GI strategy, advice and guidance through professional

communication channels.

An EC guidance document is available on how to integrate climate change and

biodiversity as a standard procedure in ‘Environmental Impact Assessment’ (EIA) and

‘Strategic Environmental Assessment’ (SEA)180 (EC, 2013a and 2013b). Although the

guidance focuses on the terms biodiversity and climate change, the recommendations

are also valuable for GI. EIAs are legally required and provide an opportunity to

systematically integrate GI into a wide range of public and private projects. The report

observes however that biodiversity (and GI) and climate change are, so far, not being

systematically integrated into EIA/SEA. The main reason for this is that climate

change and biodiversity are not yet explicitly included in the formal requirements of

EIA procedures. In addition, they are multi-faceted issues that do not lend themselves

to simple or quick analyses. In this context, we highlight the Guidance Manual

‘Integrating Ecosystem Services in Strategic Environmental Assessment: A guide for

179 http://iflaeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/03/EU-GI-IFLA-Europe-ECTP-v8-200114.pdf. 180 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/SEA%20Guidance.pdf

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 151

practitioners’181. The aim of this guidance is to better integrate ecosystem assessment,

scenario development and economic valuation of ecosystem services into development

planning at various scales (national, sub-national and local).

As indicated by IFLA, platforms providing guidance and information on GI are needed.

In this context we link to Task 3 of this contract in which an evaluation was made on

how to improve the digital disclosure of GI information through EC and sector-based

platforms.

4.5.2 Green procurement

European and the Member States’ public authorities are major consumers. By using

their purchasing power to choose environmentally friendly goods, services and works,

they can make an important contribution to sustainable consumption and production –

what is called Green Public Procurement182, or GPP. All of the nine sectors that have

been evaluated will have activities or business ongoing with public authorities.

Therefore, the way GI is included in GPP will have a major impact on how GI will be

considered in activities and businesses. GPP therefore will be key to ensure GI

procurement. What may be needed is to develop and establish a GI Public

Procurement (GIPP) to include in public tenders the use of GI as innovative solutions

presenting a real alternative to standard grey infrastructure.

Although GPP is a voluntary instrument, it has a key role to play in the Europe’s

efforts to become a more resource-efficient economy. It can help stimulate a critical

mass of demand for more sustainable goods and services which otherwise would be

difficult to get onto the market. GPP is therefore a strong stimulus for eco-innovation.

To be a success, GPP needs clear and verifiable environmental criteria for products

and services. A number of European countries already have national criteria, and the

challenge now, as GPP becomes more widespread, is to ensure that the criteria are

compatible between Member States. A level playing field will boost the single market,

ensuring that what is good for the EU is also good for the environment.

The EU GPP criteria are developed to facilitate the inclusion of green requirements in

public tender documents. These criteria have been developed for a variety of different

product groups183. There is a well-defined process for setting criteria including the

possibility for stakeholder participation184. It is also agreed for the possibility of

revising the existing GPP criteria. Therefore, with developments in the field of GI, it is

possible to have criteria designed to be favourably contribute to the deployment of GI.

4.5.3 Finding the appropriate standard

For users of standards, the ability to understand which set of standards is required for

specific applications and to easily find and get access to those standards could be

rather challenging. There is no obvious, simple and non-time consuming way of

understanding which standards are most suitable to meet needs. Therefore, users

require assistance in finding the ‘needle in the haystack’ standard that matches their

needs. A way forward therefore would be to investigate ways to facilitate the search

and access to standards. There could be a role here for sectorial organisations to

facilitate for their members the search for appropriate standards and to provide

181 http://www.proecoserv.org/images/docs/sea/2014Guideline%20ES%20into%20SEA-unep- proecoserv.pdf 182 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/index_en.htm 183 http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/product_bureau/projects.html 184 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/gpp_criteria_process.htm

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 152

guidance on what can be achieved with which standard. This is indeed undertaken in

practice by several of the references included in this report where the overview of

standards is given on methodologies, tools and the like. In addition, it may be

considered to also work on this with the standards-making bodies. For example, this

could lead to exploring possibilities for a collaborative interactive database with a

hierarchical tree facilitating location of standards and gaining insight into what can be

done with shortlisted standards.

4.5.4 Harmonization across infrastructure sectors

Each of the infrastructure sectors (e.g. buildings, transport, energy, water) have their

own standards on performance, procedure and methodology. In the past, each of

these sectors was mainly operating in isolation from the other sectors. However, over

recent years, integrated approaches have become more common. Therefore, it may be

seen as an opportunity that the sectors we reviewed have large potential for

improving on the way GI is included in standards. Indeed, rather than each sector

working on improving the way GI is included there is potential for collaborative action

and harmonization across sectors on including GI into standards on performance,

procedure and methodology.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 153

5 Task 5 - Assessing costs and benefits of establishing a TEN-G

Chapter summary

Task 5 included all exploratory work related to the potential introduction of a Trans-European Network for Green Infrastructure (TEN-G) in order to determine whether a TEN-G approach is a feasible and sensible way of improving the uptake of GI across Europe.

The rationale for possibly setting up a TEN-G stems from the objective of the EU’s GI related policy ambitions to have an EU network of green infrastructure in optimal condition to deliver essential ecosystem services throughout Europe. To promote sustainability, recovery and maximum effectiveness, there should be an interlocking, coherent and co-ordinated approach across the different spatial scales (local, regional, national, EU) to the mapping and assessment of the ecosystem condition and to the identification of priorities for GI intervention/investment.

At the level of the EU, a TEN G would involve the promotion of strategic investments in the EU network of Green Infrastructure motivated by:

1. the need to protect, restore and enhance the overall quality of the network and to maintain certain minimum quality levels to ensure the continued delivery of ecosystem services;

2. the need to protect, restore and enhance the delivery of priority ecosystem services in identified geographic locations at a scale which transcends administrative boundaries, taking into account in particular trans-boundary impacts; and

3. social and/or cultural considerations that transcend administrative boundaries (e.g. the Green Belt initiative following the line of the "iron curtain" or the pilgrimage route to Santiago de Compostella).

To this end, TEN-G exploratory work that has been carried out under the service contract. Chapter 5.1 first summarises what we can learn from existing trans-European infrastructure networks (energy and transport) in terms of the possible design options of a TEN-G. As a second step (as presented in Chapter 5.2), the team developed a baseline estimating the current EU funding levels for GI under the existing GI policy and funding structures in order to compare and contrast the expected costs and benefits of a TEN-G to a situation without it.

The key outputs for the GI baseline scenario can be summarised as follows:

 During the 2014 – 2020 programming period, we estimate that green infrastructure will likely receive EU finance amounting approximately to €6,397 million by public EU funds through various funding mechanisms, namely: LIFE+; the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Cohesion Fund185; the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD); and the European Fisheries Fund (EFF)186. This is an average of approximately €915 million per year.

 Based on the current distribution of this amount spread across the different types of GI components, a TEN-G could focus on promoting projects that enhance natural and artificial connectivity, as this is an underfunded area under the current set-up and could also contribute to reducing fragmentation.

Building on this baseline, the team implemented a first-phase assessment of costs and benefits of a potential TEN-G versus continuing the current GI policy and funding structures. Whilst the assessment process is high level and subject to a number of uncertainties, the findings indicate that a TEN-G has the potential to provide greater benefits per € invested than the current GI policy implementation and funding allocation (as described under the baseline scenario). Considering only the top five ranked components in the assessment, the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) for TEN-G is more than double the BCR under the current funding allocation. If the goal is to maximise the BCR (as opposed to focusing on particular environmental or social priorities), then the top five priority components that could make up a TEN-G network are: Natura 2000 sites, Extensive agricultural landscapes, Regional and National parks, Multi-functional sustainable managed agricultural landscapes, and Wilderness zones. The ranking of priority components changes when the aim is to maximise the level of environmental or social benefits delivered.

185 These three funds present their project beneficiaries together, without specifying which amounts come from CF, ERDF and ESF. 186 For the period 2014-2020, the EFF is replaced by so-called European Marine and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 154

Other findings of the assessment include:

 Overall, the results indicate that directing money towards components already known for their high environmental value (e.g. Natura 2000 sites) can result in benefits. However, if the list of components funded is extended to consider the top components in terms of maximising the BCR, contributing to social priorities and contributing to environmental priorities, the results show that a wider variety of components should be prioritised under a TEN-G.

 Operating at an EU scale rather than at Member State level enables the network to focus on those components that will provide the most benefits to Europe for the money invested, since the area of land available for implementation of such components is far greater than that available to one Member State. Therefore, at a theoretical level, the overall benefits of setting up a TEN-G would outweigh the costs, since the network could focus on implementing those components that provided the greatest benefits. At a practical level, considerations other than space would need to be taken into account to ensure that the TEN-G was comprehensive and inclusive, and shared benefits across the EU-28. However, such a network could still be far more cost beneficial than the current allocation of funding across the various GI components. Factors to take into account in the development of TEN-G would include the existing spread of GI components across the EU (to avoid imbalances between Member States), the condition of existing components, and the location of settlements and their current access to GI components (which affects the value of some of the benefits provided).

Introduction

This introduction provides a summarised overview of the key GI features rendering it

suitable for potentially capturing European added value under a common trans-

European network structure. The introduction also highlights the current

implementation and knowledge status as regards the concept of a network of GI. The

introduction concludes with capturing the rationale for investigating the possible costs

and benefits of establishing a TEN-G as compared to retaining the current status quo.

Key GI features suitable for capturing European added value

The cross-sectoral and cross-scale applications of GI solutions make it an

interesting tool to apply across various sectors on local, regional, national as well as

European levels. A coordinated approach for prioritising Green Infrastructure

investment could potentially be beneficial for all stakeholders involved.

Given the wide definition of GI, measures can range from green roofs, to wildlife

overpasses, to urban farming as well as biodiversity-rich business parks. The large

variety of cross-sectoral applications of GI on the one hand is an immense advantage

to offer solutions to various societal and environmental challenges. On the other hand,

the broad coverage also represents a certain challenge as it is difficult for decision-

makers to grasp the comprehensiveness and complexities of the topics and possible

applications involved. Figure 11 overleaf provides a non-exhaustive visual illustration

of different types of GI measures that can be applied as solutions for various sectoral

challenges.

Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure

May 2016 155