Imagine the result
ENV.B.2/SER/2012/0029
Implementation of 2020
EU Biodiversity Strategy:
Priorities for the
restoration of
ecosystems and their
services in the EU
FINAL REPORT
January 2014
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 2|210
Client
European Commission
DG ENV – B2 Biodiversity
BU-5 5/149
B-1049 Brussels
Contact
Patrick Murphy
Project number
1094
Date
January 2014
ARCADIS Belgium
Post address
Kortrijksesteenweg 302
B-9000 Gent
Contact
Johan Lammerant
Tel
+32 9 241 77 22
Fax
+32 9 242 44 45
E-mail
[email protected]
Website
www.arcadisbelgium.be
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 3|210
Authorship
The recommended citation for this report is:
Lammerant, Johan; Peters, Richard; Snethlage, Mark; Delbaere, Ben; Dickie,
Ian; Whiteley, Guy. (2013) Implementation of 2020 EU Biodiversity Strategy:
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems and their services in the EU.
Report to the European Commission. ARCADIS (in cooperation with ECNC
and Eftec).
Additional contributions were received from:
Zoltan Kun, Toby Aykroyd, Anouk Kuijsters.
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this document are those of the contractor provided to the
Commission within the context of the service contract ENV.B.2/SER/2012/0029 and
according
to
the
terms
of
reference
associated
with
that
contract.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 5|210
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 11
2 A pragmatic model for Member States to plan and monitor ecosystem restoration at national and
subnational level ............................................................................................................................................. 13
2.1
Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 13
2.2
Definitions for ‘restoration’ ................................................................................................................ 13
2.3
The 4-level concept on ecosystem restoration ................................................................................ 15
2.3.1 General.......................................................................................................................................... 15
2.3.2 Terms and definitions .................................................................................................................... 18
2.3.3 General principles of the 4-level approach ................................................................................... 19
2.3.4 Background information on general principles .............................................................................. 24
2.3.5 Proposed descriptors for ecosystem types ................................................................................... 40
2.3.6 Proposal for practical implementation ........................................................................................... 65
3
Guidance for priority-setting at sub-national and national level ......................................................... 67
3.1
Reader’s guide ................................................................................................................................. 67
3.2
Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 69
3.3
Objectives of this guidance .............................................................................................................. 71
3.4
Methodology and sources used to compile the guidance ................................................................ 73
3.5
Guidance Section 1: Suggested framework for systematic restoration planning ............................ 74
3.5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 74
3.5.2 Hierarchy of the assessment scale ............................................................................................... 75
3.5.3 Stage 1. Define the scope of the prioritization exercise ................................................................ 76
3.5.4 Stage 2. Collect data and information ........................................................................................... 81
3.5.5 Stage 3. Analyse the situation and information ............................................................................ 83
3.5.6 Stage 4. Develop appropriate restoration strategies .................................................................... 89
3.5.7 Stage 5. Implement, monitor, evaluate and report restoration actions ......................................... 99
3.6
Guidance Section 2: Application of Stage 4 of the Restoration Prioritization Framework ............. 101
3.6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 101
3.6.2 European Union .......................................................................................................................... 101
3.6.3 Member State .............................................................................................................................. 102
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 6|210
3.6.4 Region ......................................................................................................................................... 102
3.6.5 Municipality ................................................................................................................................. 103
3.7
Guidance Section 3: Resources..................................................................................................... 109
3.7.1 Sources of basic information and data ........................................................................................ 109
4
Support mechanisms ............................................................................................................................. 111
4.1
Support mechanism for the restoration prioritization framework ................................................... 111
4.1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 111
4.1.2 Existing support mechanisms ..................................................................................................... 111
4.1.3 Towards a support mechanism for the restoration prioritization framework ............................... 117
4.1.4 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 130
4.2
Innovative financial mechanisms for restoration ............................................................................ 132
4.2.1 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 132
4.2.2 Funding Instruments ................................................................................................................... 136
4.2.3 Financing Principles .................................................................................................................... 139
4.2.4 Suitability of funding Instruments ................................................................................................ 141
4.2.5 Actions to develop innovative ecosystem restoration financing.................................................. 146
4.2.6 Discussion of most promising financing instruments .................................................................. 149
5
References .............................................................................................................................................. 153
Annex 1 : Typology of ecosystems reflected to other existing classifications ..................................... 159
Annex 2: Descriptors covered by existing EU environmental legislation and policies ........................ 165
Annex 3 : OVERVIEW of spatial reporting obligations in the EU ............................................................ 177
Annex 4: Matrix ecosystem types and potential descriptors ................................................................... 181
Annex 5 : Private sector financing instruments ........................................................................................ 185
Annex 6 : SWOT analysis of private sector financing instruments ........................................................ 189
Annex 7: Detailed analysis and examples of Funding Instruments ........................................................ 197
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 7|210
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Terms and definitions in the context of the 4-level concept for ecosystem restoration related to the 15%
restoration target ................................................................................................................................................... 18
Table 2: Overview of SEBI descriptors under the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy ................................................. 32
Table 3: Sustainable Forestry Management indicators for criterion 4 on biodiversity ........................................... 35
Table 4: Examples of ecosystem services and indicators selected by Switzerland (UNEP-WCMC, 2011)........... 37
Table 5: Descriptors for forests applied in the 4-level concept .......................................................................... 41
Table 6: Descriptors for cropland applied in the 4-level concept ....................................................................... 50
Table 7: Descriptors for grasslands applied in the 4-level concept ................................................................... 53
Table 8: Descriptors for wetlands applied in the 4-level concept ....................................................................... 58
Table 9: Descriptors for urban ecosystems applied in the 4-level concept ....................................................... 62
Table 10 Results of the MCDA process. The weighted criteria were used in the GIS sieve mapping application. 96
Table 11: Hypothetical example of a triage table when using multiple criteria. ..................................................... 98
Table 12: Summary of innovative financial instruments that can support ecosystem restoration ........................ 134
Table 13: Types of innovative financing instruments ........................................................................................... 138
Table 14: Linking key restoration actions with possible opportunities for innovative funding .............................. 143
Table 15: Linking Types of Funding Mechanism to Levels of Ecosystem Restoration ........................................ 145
Table 16: Advantages and disadvantages of different financing approaches in ecosystem restoration .............. 145
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 9|210
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: A conceptual model for ecosystem degradation and restoration ............................................................ 15
Figure 2: Illustrative example of the '4-level approach on ecosystem restoration' ................................................. 17
Figure 3. Spatial distribution of terrestrial ecosystems in EU 27 ........................................................................... 25
Figure 4. Schematic presentation of integration of the landscape approach into the 4-level concept ................... 29
Figure 5: Landscape fragmentation indicated by the number of meshes (Seff) per 1 km2 grid in 2009. The higher
the value the higher the amount of fragmentation (source: EEA 2011) ................................................................. 34
Figure 6: Combined option for setting the 15% restoration target ......................................................................... 39
Figure 7: Austrian forest 'hemeroby index' as an example of a 'naturalness' indicator .......................................... 46
Figure 8: Hungarian 'Natural Capital Index' approach as an example of a 'naturalness' indicator (Czucz et al.,
2012) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 9: Proposed framework for systematic restoration planning....................................................................... 75
Figure10: Suggested governance model for ecosystem restoration prioritization process .................................... 77
Figure11: Governance structure of the SRCE ...........................................................................................................
Figure12: The SWOT model ................................................................................................................................. 85
Figure13: The stakeholder analysis influence diagram ......................................................................................... 86
Figure14: Hypothetical problem tree analysis for a degraded wetland .................................................................. 88
Figure15: The DPSIR Framework as presented on the EEA website (www.eea.europa.eu) ................................ 89
Figure16: Sieve mapping procedure applied in the Cottonwood restoration site selection (see Box 4 Application of
MCDA in the Missouri River Cottonwood restoration site selection) ..................................................................... 95
Figure17: Landscape management intervention grid (Hobbs and Kristjanson 2003) ............................................ 98
Figure18: Coherence between the SCRE and other relevant environmental tools and processes ...........................
Figure19: The three criteria for the selection of target species in The Netherlands (Van der Zande and
Hoogeveen 1995)......................................................................................................................................................
Figure 20: Different spatial patterns of producers and beneficiaries of ecosystem services ............................... 141
Figure 21: Business model Ecosystem Return concept ...................................................................................... 148
LIST OF ANNEXES
Annex 1 : Typology of ecosystems reflected to other existing classifications ..................................... 159
Annex 2: Descriptors covered by existing EU environmental legislation and policies ....................... 165
Annex 3 : OVERVIEW of spatial reporting obligations in the EU ............................................................ 177
Annex 4: Matrix ecosystem types and potential descriptors .................................................................. 181
Annex 5 : Private sector financing instruments ....................................................................................... 185
Annex 6 : SWOT analysis of private sector financing instruments ........................................................ 189
Annex 7: Detailed analysis and examples of Funding Instruments ....................................................... 197
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 11|210
1
Introduction
The objective of this contract “Implementation of 2020 EU Biodiversity Strategy: Priorities for
the restoration of ecosystems and their services in the EU (ENV.B.2/SER/2012/0029)” is to
provide support to the Commission and through the Commission to the Member States, on the
implementation of target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy and in particular the development of
the strategic framework for setting priorities for ecosystem restoration at subnational,
national and EU level as foreseen in Action 6a of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020.
TARGET 2 : "By 2020, ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by
establishing green infrastructure and restoring at least 15% of degraded ecosystems."
ACTION 6a: "By 2014, Member States, with the assistance of the Commission, will develop
a strategic framework to set priorities for ecosystem restoration at sub-national, national
and EU level".
The strategic framework for priority setting is a tool to help and support the Member States and
the Commission in guiding the choices for the delivery of the 15% restoration target. The
framework must be robust, pragmatic and provide a flexible basis for users, which can be
adapted at different scales taking into account national circumstances and capabilities.
Under this contract the following deliverables are provided:
1.
A pragmatic model for Member States to plan and monitor ecosystem restoration at
national and subnational level, including clear guidance on what should be considered
as degraded and restored.
2.
A comparison of options for setting the national restoration targets
3.
A guidance for priority-setting at sub-national and national level
4.
A proposal for an EU steered mechanism to support Member States in achieving their
targets in relation to Target 2, including guidance on financing possibilities
5.
A 2-day workshop, which took place on 29 and 30 May 2013 in Brussels.
The report is further structured as follows:

Section 2 presents the 4-level model, a pragmatic approach to planning and monitoring
ecosystem restoration at national and subnational level

Section 3 presents the guidance for prioritization of restoration initiatives

Section 4 describes a potential support mechanism and provides insight on the state of
the art with regard to financing possibilities of restoration initiatives.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 13|210
2
A pragmatic model for Member States to plan and
monitor ecosystem restoration at national and
subnational level
2.1
Introduction
The ecosystem restoration model as described below has been developed in order to address a
number of challenges associated with the 15% restoration target in the EU Biodiversity strategy:

How to define a clear common understanding of terminology, in particular regarding
degraded and non-degraded, and as a result how should ‘restoration’ be understood?

How to proceed with restoration in a pragmatic way?
The model has been compiled on the basis of preparatory work by the contractor and completed
by means of a number of feasibility checks in Member States (UK, Finland (together with
Sweden and Estonia), Austria, Hungary, France) and taking account of feed-back from the RPF
Working Group, the European Commission, the EEA, the JRC and other experts, in particular
during the RPF workshop on 29 and 30 May 2013.
2.2
Definitions for ‘restoration’
Obviously definitions of ‘restoration’ and ‘restored ecosystems’ are closely related to definitions
of ‘degraded ecosystems’.
1
According to the recent IEEP- led study on the financing needs the EC definition as applied in
the Biodiversity Strategy Impact Assessment
is extremely ambitious. “In many cases full
restoration would require measures to overcome the long-term impacts of some
pressures, such as soil erosion, water pollution, acidification, nutrient enrichment and
contamination with toxic substances. The full restoration of such areas would require very
expensive and technically difficult actions, such as the removal of nutrient enriched or otherwise
contaminated soils and sediments, and in some cases their replacement or augmentation with
suitable soils. Furthermore, vegetation establishment takes time and some habitats will need to
undergo natural succession processes to regain their original structures, ecological processes
and composition.”
The study also states that “restoration will be constrained by the absence of component species
or even by the global extinction of some species”, and that “ it is reasonably certain that all these
constraints on restoration will be exacerbated by climate change
In the light of the considerations set out above, the Financing Needs study calculated Target 2
costs on the basis of the restoration of the key species, properties and processes of
ecosystems and their functions. This interpretation of the definition of restoration is also
compatible with other definitions, perhaps most importantly with respect to Aichi Target 15 (CBD,
2011) (See Box 1). The CBD definition appears to be taken from the Society for Ecological
Restoration (SER), a renowned international authority on restoration (see Box 1).
1
Tucker, Graham; Underwood, Evelyn; Farmer, Andrew; Scalera, Riccardo; Dickie, Ian;
McConville, Andrew; van Vliet, Wilbert. (2013) Estimation of the financing needs to implement
Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. Report to the European Commission. Institute for
European Environmental Policy, London.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 14|210
The financing needs study also points out that the CBD and SER do not in fact define
restoration, but describe the process in a rather open manner, and as a result the intended end
point is uncertain.
For the purpose of elaborating the prioritization framework on ecosystem restoration
under the present contract, it was decided to apply the pragmatic definition of the CBD and
the SER (see Box 1).
Box 1: Definitions
*
European Commission Biodiversity Strategy Impact Assessment:
Ecosystem restoration: “The return of an ecosystem to its original community
structure, natural complement of species, and natural functions”.
*
CBD (2011):
Restoration : “The process of actively managing the recovery of an ecosystem that has been
degraded, damaged or destroyed as a means of sustaining ecosystem resilience and conserving
biodiversity”
*
SER (2004):
Degradation : “subtle or gradual changes that reduce ecological integrity and health”
Damage
: “acute and obvious changes in an ecosystem”
Destroyed
: “when degradation or damage removes all macroscopic life, and commonly ruins
the physical environment as well”
Ecological restoration: “The process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been
degraded, damaged, or destroyed”
Transformation
: “the conversion of an ecosystem to a different kind of ecosystem or land
use type”
*
IUCN (2012):
Degraded
: “The simplification or disruption of ecosystems, and the loss of biodiversity,
caused by disturbances that are too frequent or severe to allow natural ecosystem recovery in a
relevant or ‘reasonable’ period of time. Degradation resulting from various factors, including
climate perturbations and extreme events, as well as human activities, generally reduces flows
of ecosystem goods and services.”
However there might be a need for better defining the process of restoration. Therefore we refer
2
to the conceptual model of Hobbs and Harris
for understanding ecosystem states and
transitions. It helps to identify the types of interventions that may be required to restore the
functions of ecosystems that are degraded to varying degrees (see Figure 1). Recovery of
heavily degraded ecosystems requires landscape- and/or ecosystem-scale modification of the
physical-chemical environment (abiotic factors such as water quality, water regulation,
reduction of air pollution etc). This often requires important efforts, and often other sectors will
need to be involved (e.g. economic development, spatial planning, energy). Once the main
abiotic barriers are removed a further recovery is enhanced by habitat manipulation and
2
Hobbs and Harris 2001.Restoration Ecology: Repairing the Earth‟s Ecosystems in the new Millennium.
Restoration Ecology, 9:239-246
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 15|210
replacement (e.g. reducing afforestation of abandoned grasslands by forest cutting) as well as
by further improvement of abiotic factors. In this stage, additional ecosystem services (e.g. flood
regulation) might be delivered, although habitat and species targets might not be achieved yet.
To achieve a further improvement of the health status, additional restoration measures need
to be taken (e.g. mowing regime for restoring High Nature Farming grasslands). Even in this
phase, optimization of abiotic factors can be part of the restoration actions. In this phase
additional ecosystem services can be obtained (e.g. cultural services). It is also in this phase
where favorable conservation status of Natura 2000 habitats and species can be achieved, or
good ecological status/ good environmental status as specified under the Water Framework
Directive or the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. However, for ecosystems without specific
biodiversity protection regimes, ‘restoration’ might be achieved ‘to a certain extent’ in the second
phase. Efforts on ecosystem restoration will therefore also depend on the restoration targets that
will be set at the level of ecosystems.
It must be emphasized that restoring abiotic and biotic conditions is not always carried out in a
sequential way, as illustrated in Figure 1. Restoration actions often use physical/chemical and
biological modification actions at the same time. This is dependent on the specific restoration
case.
Figure 1: A conceptual model for ecosystem degradation and restoration
2.3
The 4-level model for ecosystem restoration
2.3.1
General
The two guiding principles-. ‘restoration is a process’ and ‘restoration requires modification of
abiotic and biotic factors’ were central to developing the ‘4-level model for
ecosystem
restoration’ as presented in Figure 2. The model divides the continuum of ecosystem condition
3
from poor to excellent into four distinct levels. For each level there are sets of ecosystem
3
A differentiation in 4 levels seems to be the most pragmatic approach as on the one hand a too complex
system should be avoided (5 levels requires additional threshold values) and on the other hand the system
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 16|210
descriptors and associated threshold values that are regarded as typical for that level. The 4
levels and the associated descriptors are ‘tailor-made’ for each ecosystem type. For certain
ecosystem types, in particular the ‘transformed ecosystems’ under level 4, it is recognized that
the objective is not necessarily to restore a location to its original, natural conditions. It should be
acknowledged that in most cases, implementation of restoration measures in these transformed
ecosystems will lead to an improvement of the ecological function but only to the extent that is
feasible for a given land use. For example, the ecological functionality of an urban location can
usually be improved through investment in green infrastructure but the result will be an
improved/partially-restored urban location not a natural/wild ecosystem.
This approach is very pragmatic and effective:

It allows Member States to proceed gradually, as they can engage in restoration
activities and count them as part of the 15% without having to aim for full restoration
within the 7 next years

It allows Member States to set long term objectives with long term results.

It takes into account different baseline levels between Member States.
It must be emphasized that Figure 2 only clarifies the concept by means of an illustrative
example with fictitious percentages. In this example the Member State has realized 25,7%
restoration by 2020 by cumulating restoration achievements at different levels (1% from level 4
to level 3, 15% from level 3 to level 2 and 2% from level 2 to level 1 makes together 18%;
however as the restoration target does not apply on the total territory but only on the territory
which is degraded – in this case 70% - the outcome has to be adapted by a factor 100/70).
The 4-level model is further elaborated on the following elements:

terms and definitions

general principles and background information

descriptors and threshold values for each ecosystem type and restoration level

proposal for practical application
should not be too simplified (3 levels does not allow for sufficient differentiation between quality levels of
ecosystem condition)
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 17|210
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE FOR A MEMBER STATE WITH HIGH COVERAGE OF NATURAL AREAS
Types of areas
Base-
By
2020
line
(and
By 2050
net
gain)
LEVEL 1
D
R
E
E
G
S
R
S
A
T
D
O
A
R
T
Satisfactory abiotic conditions. Key
a.o. ‘wilderness’ areas
species, properties and processes of
and
ecosystem
and species in
functions,
patches
at
site
and
level
their
and
N2000
habitats
FCS,
at
rivers and lakes in
landscape level, are in good to
good ecological status
excellent condition.
(GES),
32% (+ 2%
40% (+ 8%
from L2)
from L2)
marine
ecosystems in GES,
….
LEVEL 2
Satisfactory abiotic conditions, some
a.o.
N2000
habitats
A
disrupted ecological processes and
and species not in
I
T
functions, either at site level or at
FCS, …
O
I
landscape level or at both levels.
O
Reduced or declining diversity and
N
key species, compared to L1 but
N
30%
15%
28% (+ 15%
35% (+15%
from L3; - 2%
from L3; - 8%
to L1)
to L1)
retains stable populations of some
native species.
LEVEL 3
Highly modified abiotic conditions,
a.o.
non-protected
many
rural
areas,
disrupted
ecological
processes and functions, either at
including
site level or at landscape level or at
agriculture
not
10% (+ 9%
intensive
30%
16% (+ 1%
from L4; - 15%
both levels. Dominated by artificial
from L4; - 15%
to L3)
to L2)
habitats but retains some native
species and stable populations.
LEVEL 4
Highly modified abiotic conditions,
‘heavily
severely
ecosystems’
reduced
ecological
modified
processes and functions, both at site
Intensive
level
build
and
at
landscape
level.
(e.g.
agriculture,
urban
areas,
Dominated by artificial habitats with
roads,
airports,
few and/or declining populations of
brownfield
native species; traces of original
heavily modified water
ecosystem hardly visible.
bodies);
areas,
25%
24%
15%
25,7%
71,4%
heavily
degraded ‘natural’ and
‘semi-natural’
ecosystems
TOTAL SURFACE
100%
TOTAL ‘RESTORABLE’ SURFACE
70%
TOTAL ‘RESTORED’ SURFACE (cumulative starting from
baseline, and calculated on the basis of ‘restorable surface’)
Figure 2: Illustrative example of the '4-level approach on ecosystem restoration'
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 18|210
2.3.2
Terms and definitions
To enhance a common language on the implementation of the 4-level model some terms and
definitions need to be clarified (see Table 1).
Table 1: Terms and definitions in the context of the 4-level model for ecosystem restoration
related to the 15% restoration target
Term
Definition
Ecosystem
Refers to ecosystem types defined in the context of MAES analytical framework 4.
Determining ecosystem condition (see ‘level’) in the context of the 4-level model
takes place at the level of ecosystem patches within the Member State territory.
Modified
In the context of the 4-level model modified ecosystems are those ecosystems
ecosystem
which are heavily influenced by human activities, i.e. Intensive agriculture and
silviculture, built urban areas, roads, airports, quarries, brownfield areas, heavily
modified water bodies
Transformed
In the context of the 4-level model transformed ecosystems are those ecosystems
ecosystem
which – in the framework of restoration – are transformed from one ecosystem type
to another ecosystem type
Ecosystem patch
An ecosystem patch in the 4-level model is an ecosystem area that can be
distinguished from other ecosystem patches based on its vegetation composition.
Patches can be delineated by their specific boundaries.
Level
The model divides the continuum of ecosystem condition from poor to excellent
into four distinct levels. For each level there are sets of ecosystem descriptors and
associated threshold values that are regarded as typical for that level
Descriptor
A descriptor characterizes ecosystem condition. A descriptor consists of one or
more indicators and distinguishes ecosystem condition levels by means of
threshold values between levels
Indicator
For each descriptor an indicator and indicator unit (e.g. ha, %) needs to be
defined. These indicators allow measuring the state of the descriptors. The choice
of the indicators should be pragmatic and based on available information,
applicable legislation, etc. As an example the indicator for the descriptor
‘connectivity’ is the level of fragmentation (see Box 3).
4
Threshold value
The transition values of applied indicators for moving between levels
Restoration
Moving from a lower level to a higher level in the 4-level model.
Degradation
Falling back to a lower level in the 4-level model
Restorable area
The total Member State territory minus the territory which qualifies as level 1
Baseline /
A fixed point in time to which progress towards the 15% restoration target can be
Reference point
measured
Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services - An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under Action
5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Discussion paper – Final, April 2013
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 19|210
2.3.3
General principles of the 4-level approach
The following principles are defining the model. Many of these principles are self-explanatory
and don’t require additional information. For others some background information is useful. This
additional information is provided in section 2.3.4.
A.
Definitions and assumptions applied within the 4-level model should be consistent with
other initiatives under the Biodiversity Strategy
B.
A pragmatic approach is key for the successful implementation of the 4-level model.
Although restoration is a complex issue and ecosystem condition can be described in
many ways a balance needs to found between scientific accuracy and efficiency. This
principle will prevail in the selection of descriptors, the description of threshold values and
the proposed way of applying the 4-level model.
C.
Restoration needs to be defined for the different ecosystem types identified in the
context of the MAES initiative. . Working with ecosystem types is a pragmatic approach
to capture the wide variety of habitat types in the EU, although it must be acknowledged
that assessing the condition of the wide variety of habitat types within some ecosystem
types is not an easy task. Therefore, ddescriptors and threshold values for ecosystem
types should be as adequate as possible for all habitat types covered by one ecosystem
type. Furthermore, divisions between sub-classes within a habitat type is possible. A
major challenge is to ensure consistency and inter-comparability. Given the large scale of
the application of the 4-level model and the fact that a pragmatic approach requires a
certain degree of simplification, the 4-level model does not address transient situations on
the boundaries of ecosystem patches or ecotones (mixed habitat situations e.g. grassland
with trees).
For more information, see 2.3.4.1
D.
Restoration is a process, leading to gradual and measurable progress in ecosystem
condition. Therefore a ‘quality level’ approach for restoration has been developed.
Monitoring should involve a follow-up of the chosen descriptors over time.
E.
Restoration levels need to be described for each ecosystem type by means of a welldefined set of descriptors and well-defined threshold values between the restoration
5
levels .
For more information, see 2.3.4.4
F.
An EU wide common understanding on how to determine the levels for ecosystem
condition is very important, i.e. an agreed list of applied descriptors as well as a
shared understanding on the transitions between levels (threshold values). This is
particularly important for determining level 1, as this has a direct impact on the restorable
area and associated financing needs for restoration.
5
Most probably an exception needs to be made for the ecosystem type “sparsely vegetated areas”. This
ecosystem type consists of very different ecosystems (e.g. glaciers, rocks, dunes) for which a common 4level description/approach doesn’t seem to be appropriate.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 20|210
For more information, see 2.3.4.4
G. Degradation in this concept is the reverse of restoration. If areas get degraded (e.g.
level 3 to level 4) within the period until 2020, these areas should be deducted from the
6
achieved progress towards the 15% restoration target .
H.
7
The 15% restoration target includes Natura 2000 targets (achieved progress on Target
8
1 of the Biodiversity Strategy contributes to the achievement of Target 2) as well as all
other environmental targets which are relevant in the context of restoration, such as
progress made towards the attainment of good Ecological Status under the WFD and Good
Environmental Status under the MSFD
910
.
For more information, see 2.3.4.2
I.
No additional descriptors need be identified for ecosystem types where restoration is
already covered by existing EU environmental legislation and associated targets (habitats
and species covered by Natura 2000 targets, freshwater ecosystems covered by WFD,
marine ecosystems covered by MSFD).
For more information, see 2.3.4.2
J.
Therefore the main challenge for the further elaboration of the 4-level model is to identify
suitable descriptors and threshold values for ecosystem types such as arable land,
permanent crops, plantation forests, and urban environments where the legal framework
11
for restoration is much weaker, and targets and descriptors are much less developed .
For more information, see 2.3.5
6
Important link with No Net Loss concept, as application of No Net Loss also means that degraded areas
should be restored
7
See also principle on the nature of the 15% target
8
By 2020, compared to current assessments 100% more habitat assessments and 50% more species
assessments under the Habitats Directive show an improved conservation status, and 50% more species
assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure or improved status
9
Progress made in the restoration of ecosystems that are not the subject of specific legislation obviously
cannot be used as a counterweight/compensation for the lack of progress in the attainment of legally binding
objectives required in legislation.
10
Descriptors have already been defined in some EU environmental legislation, such as the Water
Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive where the legal obligations to reach
‘good ecological
status’ (WFD) or ‘good environmental status’ (MSFD) are supported by a number of
underlying descriptors. In addition, the WFD foresees different levels of ecosystem condition (high, good,
moderate, poor and bad); this fits well with the multi-step approach of the 4-level concept, e.g. improvements
in water quality from bad to moderate, moderate to good and good to high.
11
This principle seems to give the impression that there is already a large body of information available for
protected areas. This is not always the case, e.g. at this moment NATURA 2000 areas do not have any
spatially specific data on their state. Therefore gathering data for protected areas could also be a challenge.
Another challenge is how to include habitats that are not listed in the annexes of the Habitats Directive but
which are important for nature conservation.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 21|210
K.
With regard to the nature of the 15% target, it is acknowledged that improvements to
ecosystem condition will have both quantitative (area based) and qualitative (e.g.
improvement in biotic and abiotic conditions, reduction in pollution load) components. .
L.
The baseline situation is the situation in 2010, as this was the start of the EU Biodiversity
Strategy. If no data are available for 2010 the most recent data should be used (e.g. Art 17
reporting Natura 2000 provides data for the situation in 2006). Monitoring of progress
towards the 15% restoration target should be related to this reference point, which also
means that descriptors should be applied for which data are available for 2010.
For more information, see 2.3.4.5
M. An important element of the 4-level restoration model is the continuous bookkeeping of
the total restorable area. As a first step the total restorable area in the baseline
12
situation
should be defined and the extent and condition of the different ecosystem
types should be mapped and assessed. All areas in level 1 should be out of scope for
13
the 15% restoration target. All other areas (level 2 to level 4) are ‘restorable area’ . As
non-restoration driven land use changes and restoration-driven transformations
between ecosystem types will take place in the remaining period till 2014 there will be a
need to adjust the surface of ecosystem types and their condition levels in 2020 to the
actual situation in 2020. When assessing progress towards the 15% restoration target this
will need to be taken into account.
N.
The 15% restoration target applies to each Member State. This is a more pragmatic
approach compared to applying the target to bio-geographical regions or to ecosystem
types, although each option has its advantages and disadvantages.
For more information, see 0
O. The 15% restoration target should apply to both the marine as well as the terrestrial
area. This means 15% restoration in the marine environment and 15% restoration in the
terrestrial environment.
P.
Different types of descriptors can be applied, describing state, pressures or
14
measures . State descriptors are largely preferred compared to other types of
descriptors as only state descriptors offer a solid guarantee to demonstrate progress.
Biotic state descriptors are preferred to abiotic state descriptors. Pressure descriptors
can offer useful additional information and, in particular regarding the trends in external
influence. Measure descriptors which directly support the restoration process (so
12
13
This exercise can be expected at the earliest in 2014
Originally the idea of ‘non-restorable area’, i.e. areas where restoration measures are extremely
expensive in relation to the outcomes, has been discussed. However, as even in the heart of cities green
infrastructure measures can be taken (e.g. green roofs) with important benefits in the field of ecosystem
services (e.g. air quality, cultural value) the concept of ‘non-restorable area’ has been left.
14
This is in line with the DPSIR approach (Drivers – Pressures – State – Impact – Responses), often applied
in environmental policy. In the context of the 4)level concept ‘responses’ are restoration measures.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 22|210
15
maintenance measures are excluded ) are acceptable and sometimes useful. Restoration
levels can be described by a combination of different types of descriptors.
For more information, see 2.3.4.4.1
Q. A landscape scale approach
16
should be integrated within the 4-level model, as this
allows to take account of the importance of landscape scale ecological processes and
functions with relevance for the condition of the ecosystem patch. In this way external
influence (e.g. threats) can be taken into account in describing ecosystem condition.
Therefore landscape-related descriptors need to be integrated in the set of descriptors.
For more information, see 2.3.4.3
R.
The list of descriptors should consist of both ‘on-site’ descriptors (or ‘internal’
descriptors) and ‘landscape-related’ descriptors (or ‘external’ descriptors). This is in line
with the advocated integration of a landscape approach in the 4-level model. Landscape
related descriptors can refer to the wider context at a local (neighbouring patches),
regional, national, EU or global scale, and can provide relevant information on external
influence.
For more information, see 2.3.4.3 and 2.3.4.4.1
S.
The way restoration is achieved (e.g. passive or active measures) is less important than
the result. Therefore restoration can be:
T.

active and passive

on-site and off-site.
17
Ecosystem condition and progress of restoration need to be measurable. Therefore
for each descriptor, measurable indicators and threshold values between restoration levels
need to be defined.
U.
Availability of data should be a prerequisite for selection of descriptors, indicators and
threshold values. EU databases are preferred (e.g. SEBI) in order to enhance
comparability between Member States in their efforts to achieve the 15% restoration target.
National databases should be used to complement EU databases.
V.
Transformation between ecosystem types needs to considered carefully and rules need
to be established:
i.
Transformation from one ecosystem type to another ecosystem type in the
framework of nature restoration results in increased surface for the desired
ecosystem type and decreased surface of the transformed ecosystem type. In
many cases however this ‘transformation’ will only be a restoration of the original
15
Maintenance measures however preserve ecosystems from degradation, and as such contribute to the
restoration target in an indirect way
16
17
See separate Working Paper on a Landscape Approach
Restoration can be ‘passive’ or ‘active’, Passive measures e.g. introducing a specific protection regime,
will result in avoiding damaging activities to take place any longer and will allow areas to regenerate by
colonisation and succession (also natural regeneration in a non-intervention regime is a typical passive
measure). Active measures are physical interventions in abiotic or biotic features.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 23|210
situation, e.g. cutting forest on an area which originally was a peatland (problem
of lowering groundwater level) or heath (problem of stopping original sheep
grazing) or even semi-natural grassland (e.g. problem of land abandonment). In
these cases it will depend on the way the baseline situation has been
described:
a.
If mapped as (degraded) forest there is no transformation of
ecosystems but only an upgrading within the forest ecosystem type;
b.
If mapped as peatland/heath/grassland only the net gain should be
counted (surface of ‘restored’ forest) and the total surface of the
‘transformed’ ecosystem type needs to be recalculated
ii.
Transformation between level 4 modified ecosystems can never be
considered as restoration or degradation (e.g. transformation between intensive
cropland and grey infrastructure).
iii.
Upgrading of level 4 modified ecosystems by re-creation of a ‘natural’
ecosystem type will always result in a net gain, so to avoid a ‘zero operation’ in
terms of the 15% target, only the gain should be taken into account. As an
example, in the case of a newly planted urban forest on a former intensive
cropland area, the surface loss of this cropland should not be deducted from the
restoration target.
iv.
A specific type of transformation is compensation. In these cases ecosystem
transformation is driven by non-restoration projects, i.e. infrastructural or industrial
developments where compensatory measures need to be taken for offsetting
remaining negative impacts on biodiversity
18
(these are mostly aimed at creating
an equal or higher surface of a similar ecosystem type on another location). In
these cases the same approach as outlined under I to iii can be followed.
W. Natural disaster induced changes in ecosystems (surface, condition) should not be
considered as degradation. In these cases the recommended solution is to adjust the
restorable surfaces for each concerned ecosystem type in 2020, and to recalculate the
restoration achievements in relation to the 15% target.
X.
Climate change induced changes in ecosystems (surface, condition) which cannot be
solved by means of restoration (at least at a reasonable cost) should not be
considered as degradation. In these cases the recommended solution is to adjust the
restorable surfaces for each concerned ecosystem type in 2020, and to recalculate the
restoration achievements in relation to the 15% target.
Y.
The added value of using ecosystem services as descriptors Is high for reasons of
communication. Ecosystem services are ideal descriptors to bring a convincing
narrative and to get support from stakeholders for restoration projects (e.g. links to
climate change adaptation, links to human well-being, links to financing of restoration and
funding opportunities). Generally it makes more sense to apply ecosystem services as
descriptors in modified ecosystems than in natural and semi-natural ecosystems, as it
is generally accepted that a balanced generation of ecosystem services will automatically
be achieved when restoring abiotic and biotic conditions in natural and semi-natural
ecosystem types. As applying ecosystem services as descriptors suffers from lack of
18
Link to No Net Loss
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 24|210
data and mapping, as well as from complexity of quantifying ecosystem services (as
quantification is highly dependent on local situations – stakeholder benefits – stakeholder
appreciations) descriptors should be carefully selected.
For more information, see 2.3.4.4.1
Z.
Restoration activities should be framed within a coherent long-term restoration
vision. As the time-scale of restoration differs widely between ecosystem types,
safeguards need to be built in the 4-level model against restoration initiatives that only
are implemented with the purpose to achieve results by 2020 but cannot be
considered as priority actions in the context of a coherent restoration program.
Therefore restoration measures that are in place by 2020 to achieve the desired “restored”
situation after 2020 should also be accounted for. A specific descriptor on ‘initiated
restoration actions’ will therefore be part of the descriptor’s list.
2.3.4
Background information on general principles
2.3.4.1
Ecosystem typology
The use of a uniform and generally accepted ecosystem typology is of huge importance for
establishing priorities for the restoration of ecosystems. The overall target of this ecosystem
typology is to function as a basic classification for ecosystem mapping at a European scale. This
should allow consistent assessments of surface and state of these ecosystem types at a local,
national and European scale. Information on a more detailed scale and higher resolution could
be integrated into this classification if this is information compatible with the European-wide
classification.
For the purposes of the Restoration Prioritisation framework, the classification of ecosystems, as
prepared within the activities of the MAES Working Group, is applied. It is primarily based on the
classification presented by the EEA (2012; Annex 1). The classification defines 12 main
ecosystem classes, of which 7 terrestrial ecosystems (Figure 3), 1 fresh water ecosystem and 4
marine ecosystems. This classification was based on the EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline. For
multiple biodiversity strategies, as the one discussed in this report, information on the spatial
distribution of ecosystems is highly important. Because of this the Biodiversity Baseline used
Corine Land Cover classes (CLC) for spatial explicit mapping, which is the most detailed panEuropean map on land use and vegetation structures (EEA 2007).
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 25|210
Figure 3. Spatial distribution of terrestrial ecosystems in EU 27
As mentioned before (see ‘general principles’) working with ecosystem types is a pragmatic
approach to capture the wide variety of habitat types in the EU. On the other hand, it is a
challenge to assess the condition of the wide variety of habitat types within some ecosystem
types by a limited number of uniform descriptors, and to present this as one figure.
Delineation of ecosystem patches based on CLC is often very rough, due to the low resolution
level of CLC. As a consequence, the surface of some ecosystem types can be overestimated
while for other ecosystem types it can be underestimated. Small areas with high biodiversity and
conservation value could get “left out” of the picture if included in large ecosystem patches.
Another issue which relates specifically to ‘urban’ ecosystems is how to define their boundaries
and/or possible overlaps with other ecosystem types (e.g. what about ‘urban green areas’?; are
urban forests covered by the ecosystem type ‘forests and woodlands’ or by ‘urban’?).
2.3.4.2
Link with other environmental targets
The integration of targets – both biotic and abiotic – defined by other EU environmental
legislation/policies (e.g. WFD, MSFD, Habitat Directive, Nitrate directive) in the 15% target is
accepted since it is a logical consequence of the concept, which is based on the assumption
that restoration is based on restoring both biotic and abiotic conditions. As clearly mentioned in
the general principles, no additional descriptors need to be identified for ecosystem types
where restoration is already covered by existing EU environmental legislation and associated
targets.
The WFD and the MSFD are the real drivers to restore degraded freshwaters and marine
waters, meaning that the prioritisation framework for these ecosystem types is established
through the legislation. The legal obligations to reach ‘good ecological status’ (WFD) or ‘good
environmental status’ (MSFD) are supported by a number of underlying descriptors. In addition,
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 26|210
19
the WFD foresees different levels of ecosystem condition . This fits well with the multi-step
approach of the 4-level model, e.g. improvements in water quality from bad to moderate,
moderate to good and good to high. This being the case, there is indeed no point in including
lakes and rivers, as well as marine ecosystems into the RPF work other than to make sure that
progress towards the objectives of the WFD and the MSFD can be properly accounted for in the
context of Target 2 of the Biodiversity Strategy.
Also the concept of ‘favourable conservation status’ (Habitats Directive) is based on underlying
descriptors with regard to for instance population size, range, future prospects and habitat
surface. These targets also distinguish different levels in relation to conservation status
(“favourable”, “unfavorable – inadequate”, “unfavorable – bad” for Natura 2000 species and
habitats). Therefore, for Natura 2000 habitats and species these ‘existing’ descriptors should be
applied to the ecosystem types where they are applicable and only completed with other
descriptors if this is useful to describe the ‘restoration’ level. A challenge here is the translation of
species and habitat descriptors into an area-based approach (see general principles).
Also the actions foreseen under the targets defined under the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy, in
particular Target 1, 3, 4 and 5, will contribute to Target 2
o
Target 1 : focus on Natura 2000 species and habitats
o
Target 3 : focus on agriculture and forestry, covering approximately 80% of
Europe's
land,
and
also
constituting
important
elements
of
Green
Infrastructure.
o
Target 4 : focus on fisheries.
o
Target 5 : focus on combating Invasive Alien Species.
The 4-level model as it is defined only considers level 1 as not degraded. That means that huge
remaining areas need to be considered as degraded, often more than 90% of national territories.
20
Integrating Target 1 of the Biodiversity Strategy in the 15% restoration target will contribute
substantially to the feasibility of achieving the 15% restoration target. Progress towards the
objectives of the WFD and the MSFD will also contribute to attainment of the 15% restoration
target. The same applies to freshwaters (WFD) and marine ecosystems (MSFD).
Annex 2 offers an overview of ‘data groups’ (comparable with ‘descriptors’) and ‘indicators’
(‘parameters’) which are already provided by this other EU environmental legislation (apart from
the targets under the EU Biodiversity Strategy). These indicators are grouped to ‘data’ which
Member States need to report. For instance under the Habitat Directive the indicators ‘range’,
‘surface area of habitat type’, ‘structure and functions’, ‘future prospects’ are grouped in order to
get an overall assessment of ‘habitat conservation status’ which is in fact some kind of
19
Water quality assessment: high, good, moderate, poor and bad. Water quality assessed by the extent of
deviation from the reference conditions. ‘Good status’ means ‘slight’ deviation from reference, ‘moderate
status’ means ‘moderate’ deviation etc. Reference condition (high status): biological, chemical and
morphological conditions associated with no or very low human pressure: best status achievable; typespecific: different for different types of waters (accounting for broad diversity of ecological regions in EU).
20
By 2020, compared to current assessments 100% more habitat assessments and 50% more species
assessments under the Habitats Directive show an improved conservation status, and 50% more species
assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure or improved status
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 27|210
‘umbrella-descriptor’. From the overview in Annex 2, it is clear that descriptors have already
been defined in some EU environmental legislation, such as the Water Framework Directive
and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive Therefore the main challenge for the further
elaboration of the 4-level concept is to identify suitable descriptors and threshold values for
ecosystem types such as arable land, permanent crops, plantation forests, urban environments,
etc. where environmental targets are not fixed in the legislation and condition descriptors have
not been developed in a systematic way.
In addition to the overview in Annex 2, an overview of EU environmental spatial reporting
21
obligations has recently been prepared by the EEA
2.3.4.3
(see Annex 3).
Including a landscape approach
The 4-level model for restoration recognizes that restoration is a process and that restoration
requires modification of both abiotic and biotic factors. The model divides the continuum of
ecosystem condition from poor to excellent into four, distinct levels. For each level there are sets
of ecosystem descriptors and associated threshold values that are regarded as typical for that
level. The 4 levels and the associated descriptors are ‘tailor-made’ for each ecosystem type. For
certain ecosystem types, in particular the ‘transformed ecosystems’ under level 4, it is
recognized that the objective is not necessarily to restore a location to its original, natural
conditions.
This approach is very pragmatic and allows Member States to proceed gradually. It also takes
into account different baseline levels between Member States.
The 4-level model is based on a fixed ecosystem typology. This is due to the fact that ecosystem
types can be clearly delineated based on their typical features (mainly vegetation) and that most
data are available at an ecosystem type level (or lower levels such as habitat level). However
this approach risks tooverlook the landscape-ecological processes and functions which are
extremely important for ecosystem quality. It should be acknowledged that many abiotic as well
as biotic features which are used as descriptors for ecosystem condition are in a dynamic
interaction with its surrounding. Also species occurrence in ecosystem types very often depends
on the abiotic and biotic conditions of the larger landscape. Good example are the ecosystem
types which are part of a small-scale, mosaic landscape.
Figure 4 provides an adapted 4-level model which explicitly takes into account the wider
landscape issue, by adding an extra dimension to the levels:

On the vertical axis the ecosystem condition is presented, i.e. 4 levels from poor to
excellent. Level 1 should always represent the more natural situation, while level 4
represents a degraded state. Moving up a level is considered as restoration, while
descending a level is degradation.

A horizontal axis is added as a new feature which distinguishes the descriptors by its
spatial influence. Two broad classes could be defined for the spatial scale. A first class
of descriptors, the so-called internal descriptors, describes the local abiotic and biotic
status, i.e. the status within the ecosystem itself. The second class of descriptors, the
so-called external descriptors, describes external factors which might affect the local
21
EEA (2012) Available data for assessing ecosystems in Europe. Final report task 5.2 Ecosystem
assessment: identification of thematic datasets.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 28|210
status of the ecosystem in a positive or a negative way. This applies to every level.
These external descriptors could be established by for instance:
o
Analysing fauna requirements (state of fragmentation);
o
Establishing cultural and historical use (ecosystem services);
o
Assessing hydrological cycles (external drainage issues);
o
Determining nutrient inputs and outputs (eutrophication impacts);
o
Addressing migration induced due to climate change (flora and fauna distribution
change).
External descriptors could be further classified according to their scale of influence: local,
regional/national, global. Some examples:

Disturbance by excessive recreation or tourism activities on a recreational lake has a
negative influence on the condition of an adjacent wetland for breeding wetland birds.
This phenomenon takes place at a local (landscape) scale.

Atmospheric nitrogen deposition caused by intensive pig farming in some regions e.g.
The Netherlands and Flanders, is a negative external factor causing excessive nitrogen
loads in ecosystems which are sensitive to eutrophication. This phenomenon takes
place at a regional (landscape) scale.

Habitat change and species migration affecting the condition of several ecosystem
types in i.a. Alpine and Mediterranean regions in the EU is a phenomenon caused by
global climate change.
This differentiation between internal and external descriptors and between different landscape
scales of external factors allows the following information to be incorporated into the 4-level
model:

Threats. Local ecosystem conditions can be excellent (which in the previous concept
qualifies for level 1) but external conditions can be bad or get worse. In such case the
ecosystem state should be qualified as level 2 allowing restoration measures to be
taken, even if these measures have to take place outside the considered ecosystem.

Institutional levels where actions should be taken. This is important in view of the
prioritisation process.
By applying the approach described above, the landscape dimension can be integrated into the
ecosystem based 4-level model.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 29|210
Figure 4. Schematic presentation of integration of the landscape approach into the 4-level
concept
It’s clear that this extra dimension needs to be taken into account in determining the condition of
ecosystem types, i.e. the ‘level’. For level 1 it means that not only the large majority of internal
(‘on site’) descriptors should be categorized as good to excellent, but also the large majority of
the external descriptors, (this would indicate that the ecosystem patch is benefiting from optimal
landscape-ecological processes within the landscape to which it belongs). It would be possible,
for example, to have an ecosystem patch where the “on site” descriptors would suggest level 1
whereas the rather moderate values of the “external” descriptors would cause the overall
condition level to be categorized as “level 2”.
However, as a pragmatic approach is one of the key principles for a well-functioning restoration
prioritisation framework, we should be careful not to overcomplicate the 4-level model by adding
extra guidelines which might result from adding the landscape approach as an extra dimension.
2.3.4.4
Well-defined set of descriptors and indicators for each ecosystem type and restoration
level
For each ecosystem type, ecosystem condition should be described by means of descriptors
and indicators, and the appropriate threshold values which determine movements between
levels.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 30|210
2.3.4.4.1
How to select suitable descriptors and indicators?
Selection of the most appropriate descriptors should be based on the following criteria (see also
general principles):
o
Availability of data is a condition sine quo non
o
Descriptors should facilitate comparability between Member States
o
Descriptors already used in EU environmental legislation with regard to ecosystem
restoration should be applied in the 4-level model where possible.
o
State descriptors, pressure descriptors and measure descriptors can all be applied.
However, state descriptors are preferred
Descriptors should consist of both “on-site” descriptors and landscape-related
o
“external” descriptors
o
Mixture of abiotic, biotic and (in some cases) ecosystem services descriptors
Some issues are discussed in more detail:

Data availability and examples of existing descriptor sets

State descriptors, pressure descriptors and measure descriptors

Ecosystem services as part of the descriptors set
Data availability and examples of existing descriptor sets
Data availability is a major issue. Many data-sets exist, however, translating these into specific
descriptors and indicators which assess the quality of an ecosystem is a difficult task. For the
purposes of the Restoration Prioritisation Framework one should rely as much as possible on
existing descriptors, such as those defined and monitored under the Pan-European SEBI
22
initiative
23
(Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators ). This was launched in 2005,
with the aim to develop a European set of biodiversity indicators (based on those already
existing, plus new indicators as necessary ) to assess and inform about progress towards the
2010 targets. From its inception, SEBI linked the global framework set by the Convention on
Biological Diversity with regional and national indicator initiatives. The first set of 26 SEBI
indicators was chosen at the end of 2006. SEBI should be recognized as a comprehensive, peer
group reviewed and validated set of indicators.
SEBI has now become a key instrument to monitor progress towards the targets of the EU
2020 Biodiversity Strategy.
It’s interesting to understand the criteria for selection of the SEBI indicators (see Box 2), as in
principle these criteria should equally apply to the selection of descriptors for monitoring
progress towards the 15% restoration target.
Box 2: Criteria for selection of the proposed indicators in 2006 (SEBI)
• Policy-relevant and meaningful: indicators should send a clear message and provide
information at a level appropriate for policy and management decision-making by assessing
22
23
http://biodiversity.europa.eu/topics/sebi-indicators
Here ‘indicator’ is used instead of descriptor; however the SEBI indicators need to be considered as
descriptors as applied within the 4-level restoration concept
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 31|210
changes in the status of biodiversity (or pressures, responses, use or capacity), related to
baselines and agreed policy targets if possible.
• Biodiversity-relevant: indicators should address key properties of biodiversity or related
issues as pressures, state, impacts and responses.
• Progress towards 2010: indicators should show clear progress towards the 2010 target.
• Well-founded methodology: the methodology should be clear, well defined and relatively
simple. Indicators should be measurable in an accurate and affordable way, and constitute part
of a sustainable monitoring system. Data should be collected using standard methods with
known accuracy and precision, using determinable baselines and targets for the assessment of
improvements and declines.
• Acceptance and intelligibility: the power of an indicator depends on its broad acceptance.
Involvement of policy-makers as well as major stakeholders and experts in the development of
an indicator is crucial.
• Routinely collected data: indicators must be based on routinely collected, clearly defined,
verifiable and scientifically acceptable data.
• Cause-effect relationship: information on cause-effect relationships should be achievable and
quantifiable in order to link pressures, state and response indicators. These relationship models
allow scenario analysis and represent the basis of the ecosystem approach.
• Spatial coverage: indicators should ideally be pan-European and include adjacent marine
areas, if and where appropriate.
• Temporal trend: indicators should show temporal trends.
• Country comparison: as far as possible, it should be possible to make valid comparisons
between countries using the indicators selected.
• Sensitivity towards change: indicators should show trends and, where possible, permit
distinction between human-induced and natural changes. Indicators should thus be able to
detect changes in systems in timeframes and on scales that are relevant to the decisions, but
also be robust enough to measure errors that do not affect interpretation.
In addition, the following criteria were used to evaluate the set as a whole:
• Representative: the set of indicators provides a representative picture of the DPSIR chain.
• Small in number: the smaller the total number of indicators, the easier it is to communicate
cost-effectively to policy-makers and the public.
• Aggregation and flexibility: aggregation should be facilitated on a range of scales.
The ‘new’ SEBI indicator list was specifically developed to measure progress towards the targets
24
of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy . Many of the SEBI indicators are relevant, directly or
25
indirectly, in relation to the 15% restoration target. The EEA core set of indicators (CSI)
26
as several Agri-Environmental Indicators (AEI)
24
25
26
are also relevant (see Table 2).
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/streamlining-european-biodiversity-indicators-2020
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators#c5=&c7=all&c0=10&b_start=0&c10=CSI
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/agri_environmental_indicators/introduction
as well
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 32|210
Table 2: Overview of SEBI descriptors under the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy
Code
SEBI descriptor
Baseline year
Included in EU 2010
Biodiversity Baseline
Target 1: Nature Conservation: Fully implement the nature directives
To halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats covered by EU nature legislation and achieve a
significant and measurable improvement in their status by 2020 compared to current assessments: 100 % more
habitat assessments and 50 % more species assessments under the Habitats Directive show an improved
conservation status and more 50 % more species assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure or improved
status.
SEBI 03
Species of European interest
2007
OK
SEBI 05
Habitats of European interest
2007
OK
Target 2: Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services
By 2020, ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by establishing green infrastructure and
restoring at least 15 % of degraded ecosystems.
SEBI 01
Abundance and distribution of selected species
1980 (birds)
OK
1990
(butterflies)
SEBI 04
Ecosystem coverage
1990
OK
(see also CSI 014 ‘Land take’)
SEBI 07
Nationally designated protected areas
1895
NOK
SEBI 09
Critical load exceedance for nitrogen
1990
OK
(see
also
CSI 005
‘Exposure
of
ecosystems
to
acidification, eutrophication and ozone’)
SEBI 11
Impact of climate change on bird populations
1980
OK
SEBI 13
Fragmentation of natural and semi-natural areas (see
1990
OK
Box 3)
SEBI 14
Fragmentation of river systems
SEBI 16
Freshwater quality
NOK
1992
OK
(see also CSI 020 ‘Nutrients in freshwater)
Target 3: Increase the contribution of agriculture & forestry to maintaining & enhancing biodiversity
A) Agriculture: By 2020, maximise areas under agriculture across grasslands, arable land and permanent crops that
are covered by biodiversity-related measures under the CAP so as to ensure the conservation of biodiversity and to
bring about a measurable improvement in the conservation status of species and habitats that depend on or are
affected by agriculture and in the provision of ecosystem services as compared to the EU2010 baseline, thus
contributing to enhance sustainable management.
B) Forests: By 2020, forest management plans or equivalent instruments, in line with Sustainable Forest Management
(SFM), are in place for all forests that are publicly owned and for forest holdings above a certain size (to be defined by
the Member States or regions and communicated in their rural development programmes) that receive funding under
the EU rural development policy so as to bring about a measurable improvement (*) in the conservation status of
species and habitats that depend on or are affected by forestry and in the provision of related ecosystem services as
compared to the EU 2010 baseline.
(*) For both targets, improvement is to be measured against the quantified enhancement targets for the conservation
status of species and habitats of EU interest in Target 1 and the restoration of degraded ecosystems under Target 2.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 33|210
SEBI 03
Species of European interest
2007
OK
SEBI 05
Habitats of European interest
2007
OK
Indicators relevant for Target 3 A) 'Agriculture'
SEBI 06
Livestock genetic diversity
1995
NOK
SEBI 19
Agriculture : nitrogen balance
1985
NOK
(see also CSI 025 ‘Gross nutrient balance’ and AEI 15
‘Gross nitrogen balance’)
SEBI20
Agriculture: area under management practices supporting
NOK
biodiversity:
o
HNV farmland (also AEI 23)
o
Organic farming (also CSI 026, AEI 4)
2008
2000
Additional indicators: The common set of baseline, output, result and impact indicators for the rural development
programmes — (Common Monitoring Framework — CMEF), in particular related to AXIS 2 (see also CAP
descriptors in Annex 2)
Indicators relevant for Target 3 B)'Forests'
SEBI 17
Forest : growing stock, increment and fellings
1990
OK
SEBI 18
Forest: deadwood
1990
OK
Additional indicators: Indicators developed in the frame of the pan-European FOREST EUROPE initiative (formerly:
MCPFF), in particular indicators of: Maintenance, Conservation and Appropriate Enhancement of Biological Diversity
in Forest Ecosystems (FOREST EUROPE Criterion 4)(see
Table
3)
Target 4: Ensure sustainable use of fisheries resources
Achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) by 2015. Achieve a population age and size distribution indicative of a
healthy stock, through fisheries management with no significant adverse impacts on other stocks, species and
ecosystems, in support of achieving Good Environmental Status by 2020, as required under the Marine Strategy
Framework Directive.
SEBI 21
Fisheries: European commercial fish stocks
2006
OK
SEBI 12
Marine Trophic Index
1950
OK
Additional indicators: Indicators developed under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Target 5 Combat Invasive Alien Species
By 2020, Invasive Alien Species (IAS) and their pathways are identified and prioritised, priority species are controlled
or eradicated, and pathways are managed to prevent the introduction and establishment of new IAS.
SEBI 10
Invasive alien species in Europe
1900
OK
Box 3: Level of fragmentation
Fragmentation by infrastructure and land-use change can have a devastating effect on
ecosystems, because it reduces ecosystems in size, isolates specific areas and reduces the
quality (EEA 2011). Determining the amount of fragmentation within an ecosystem could
therefore give a strong indication on the state of degradation. The results gathered in the
Landscape Fragmentation in Europe report by the EEA (2011)
27
27
give an EU wide indication of
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/landscape-fragmentation-in-europe
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 34|210
fragmentation by determining the effective mesh size metric for specific areas. This source of
information could be of great value in determining degradation (see Figure 5).
Figure 5: Landscape fragmentation indicated by the number of meshes (Seff) per 1 km2 grid in
2009. The higher the value the higher the amount of fragmentation (source: EEA 2011)
Also under the FOREST EUROPE Initiative on sustainable forestry management (SFM),
criteria and indicators have been developed. The criteria and indicators for SFM were adopted in
Lisbon 1998 and further improved and endorsed by the Ministerial Conference in Vienna (2003).
They represent the consensus achieved by European countries on the most important aspects of
SFM and provide guidance for developing policies and help assess progress on sustainable
forest management.
The six Pan-European criteria for SFM are:

Maintenance and appropriate enhancement of forest resources and their contribution to
global carbon cycles;

Maintenance of forest ecosystems’ health and vitality;

Maintenance and encouragement of productive functions of forests (wood and nonwood);

Maintenance, conservation and appropriate enhancement of biological diversity in
forest ecosystems;

Maintenance, conservation and appropriate enhancement of protective functions in
forest management (notably soil and water); and

Maintenance of other socio-economic functions and conditions.
They describe the different aspects of sustainable forest management in Europe. The fulfillment of the criteria can be
of the criteria can be evaluated through a set of 35 quantitative indicators.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 35|210
Table 3 presents the indicators related to biological diversity, but from the abovementioned
criteria it’s clear that also ecosystem services are taken into account.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 36|210
Table 3: Sustainable Forestry Management indicators for criterion 4 on biodiversity
C4: Maintenance, Conservation and Appropriate Enhancement of Biological
Diversity in Forest Ecosystems
Indicator
4.1
Explanation
Tree
species
Area of forest and other wooded land, classified by number
composition
of tree species occurring and by forest type
4.2 Regeneration
Area of regeneration within even-aged stands and unevenaged stands, classified by regeneration type
4.3 Naturalness
Area of forest and other wooded land, classified by
“undisturbed by man”, by “semi-natural” or by “plantations”,
each by forest type
4.4 Introduced tree species
Area of forest and other wooded land dominated by
introduced tree species
4.5 Deadwood
Volume of standing deadwood and of lying deadwood on
forest and other wooded land classified by forest type
4.6 Genetic resources
Area managed for conservation and utilisation of forest tree
genetic resources (in situ and ex situ gene conservation) and
area managed for seed production
4.7 Landscape pattern
Landscape-level spatial pattern of forest cover
4.8 Threatened forest
Number of threatened forest species, classified according to
species
IUCN Red List categories in relation to total number of forest
species
4.9 Protected forests
Area of forest and other wooded land protected to conserve
biodiversity, landscapes and specific natural elements,
according to Forest Europe Assessment Guidelines
State descriptors, pressure descriptors and measure descriptors
State descriptors, pressure descriptors and measure descriptors can all be applied:

State descriptors describe ecosystem condition best as they provide objective
information on the actual state of the ecosystem. As habitats and species are
dependent on abiotic features and landscape-ecological processes, the presence and
tendencies of vulnerable habitats and species are extremely informative in relation to
ecosystem condition. As such they are preferred over abiotic descriptors.

Pressure descriptors should be in line with the most important threats to ecosystems.
Ecosystem degradation can be caused by multiple factors including fragmentation,
pollution, over-exploitation, invasive species, climate change and land cover reduction
(European Environmental Agency 2010). SOER 2010 determined the current state of
Europe’s environment with specific descriptors and indicators which are of great use in
determining the spatial distribution of degraded ecosystems (European Environmental
Agency 2010). As an example we refer to descriptors such as fragmentation, pollution,
land-use change and the trend in ecosystem services.

Measure descriptors do not provide information on the state of an ecosystem, but in
the framework of the 4-level model they are very useful to describe ‘a positive tendency’
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 37|210
in those cases where restoration actions take a long time before results (in terms of
returning species, restored habitats) are achieved.
Ecosystem services as part of the descriptors set
Given the importance of restoring heavily modified ecosystems to an ecologically more valuable
condition, descriptors should not only cover abiotic and biotic conditions but also ecosystem
services. The use of ecosystem services as descriptors needs to be ‘handled with care’. Some
considerations:

It could be argued that ecosystems where abiotic and biotic conditions are improving
automatically will generate a balanced mix of ecosystem services, and as a result there
is no need for additional descriptors on ecosystem services. This is consistent with the
hypothesis of the MAES Analytical Framework document that good ecosystem status
results in better ecosystem functioning and hence, in enhanced ecosystem services.

However, it is worth remembering that many level 4 ecosystems (heavily modified
ecosystems) will never return to a good ecosystem status (level 2 or 1) but might be
restored to level 3. For these situations, the additional delivery of ecosystem services
could be even more important than the creation of ecologically valuable habitats and
the return of some species. Ecosystem services do add another dimension to
expressing the level of restoration, which is very important from a societal point of view.
Therefore degradation and restoration should also consider the ability of ecosystems to
deliver multiple ecosystem services.

Finally we need to be careful with setting targets on ecosystem services delivery, as
this requires trade-offs between ecosystem services and even with nature restoration
targets. As an example, hilly areas in southern Europe suffering heavily from erosion
could be planted with fast growing Eucalyptus forests which will contribute a lot to
erosion control, carbon sequestration, timber production, air quality regulation etc. but
Eucalyptus is not a native species and as such is not the preferred choice from a
biodiversity point of view.
In the context of the 4 level model, ecosystem services should be linked to descriptors with
28
measurable indicators . In Table 4 a sample of Switzerland’s selection of ecosystem services
and indicators is presented as an example of how the specification of ES services and
descriptors could be done. However, this is only one example and does not necessarily reflect
the way ecosystem services descriptors will be developed within the restoration prioritization
framework.
28
Useful data sources are:

UNEP-WCMC 2011. Developing ecosystem service indicators: Experiences and lessons learned
from sub-global assessments and other initiatives. Secretariat of the CBD, Technical series 58

Kettunen, M., Bassi, S., Gantioler, S. & ten Brink, P. 2009. Assessing Socio-economic Benefits of
Natura 2000 – a Toolkit for Practitioners (September 2009 Edition); this report contains a very
suitable overview of which ecosystem type delivers which ecosystem services.

Egoh B. et al., Indicators for mapping ecosystem services: a review (JRC Report EUR 25456 EN,
2012)
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 38|210
Table 4: Examples of ecosystem services and indicators selected by Switzerland (UNEPWCMC, 2011)
Final ecosystem services
Recreational services from city green
Descriptors

areas and open spaces as well as from
nearby and remote recreational areas
Size and accessibility of green areas in
residential areas

Recreational use of forests, measured
in visits per day
Protection from avalanches, rockfalls and

Protected values through protective
debris flows through vegetation on steep
forests in Swiss francs (prevented
slopes
damage potentials)
Natural supply of drinking and process

water
Water supply that consists of untreated
spring and ground water in million m
3
and percentage share
Existence value of diversity* at levels of
species, genes, ecosystems and landscapes

Indicators of the biodiversity monitoring
of Switzerland
(*non-use value of biodiversity in addition to
the use value of ES services)
2.3.4.4.2
How to select threshold values?
For each descriptor threshold values need to be defined. These mark the transition between
restoration levels. For some descriptors these threshold values are already established, i.e.
habitat conservation status and species conservation status for habitats/species protected under
the Habitats Directive (4 categories of status assessment: favorable, unfavorable – inadequate,
unfavorable – bad, unknown). Also the WFD and the MSFD distinguish different quality levels for
the descriptors applied to rivers and lakes, and to marine ecosystems.
However there are hardly any threshold values available for other descriptors which could be
used in the framework of the restoration target. Exceptions are so-called naturalness indices for
some ecosystem types, but these are only applied in a limited number of Member States and are
Member State specific. Consequently, for many descriptors these threshold values will need to
be defined.
2.3.4.5
Defined baseline
For the purposes of the restoration concept the baseline situation is the situation in 2010, as this
was the start of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. However, data will not be available for all indicators
for 2010. Some might be older. If no data are available for 2010 we propose to take the most
recent data (e.g. Art 17 reporting Natura 2000 provides data for the situation in 2006). This is
consistent with the study on the financing of the 15% restoration target, which assumes that the
15% restoration requirement under Target 2 refers to ecosystems that have been destroyed
since 2000, as well as ecosystems that were considered to be degraded in 2010 according to
the Biodiversity Baseline report.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 39|210
2.3.4.6
Options for setting the national restoration targets
The 15% restoration target included as part of Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity strategy
represents an objective for the EU. On the other hand, the restoration work will be prioritized and
implemented by the Member States. It is important to try and develop a common understanding
regarding the degree to which restoration efforts will be coordinated, upon what basis and
whether or not the Member States will work independently or engage in burden-sharing. The
advantages and disadvantages of the different possible approaches relating to the level at which
the 15% target should be applied, were discussed during the workshop (29 – 30 May 2013)
which took place in the framework of this contract. A summary of the outcomes is presented
below.
The 15% target should be applied within each bio-geographical regions as identified
under the Habitats Directive.
This option will ensure a more ecologically sound distribution of restoration actions. Additionally
conditions within bio-geographical regions are likely to be comparable, therefore setting targets
could be easier and priorities could be set on an ecological basis. However, the main objection
to this approach is that it will be very hard to apply because it requires difficult and time
consuming negotiations on burden-sharing between Member States. Another important point is
that although the ecological conditions are more or less comparable within a bio-geographical
region, the pressures could be very different causing different states of degradation. This will
significantly reduce the comparability of ecosystems within one region and therefore make the
process very complex.
The 15% target should be applied within each Member State
This approach was considered as the most pragmatic option as this does notrequire negotiations
between Member States. Additionally, each Member State can take its own responsibility and
set its own targets and priorities. National databases can be used without trying to create a
consensus with pan-European datasets and in the end this process will be more cost effective.
Another important advantage is that Member States have to report on the Aichi targets anyway
(which include a similar target on restoration).
On the other hand it could be argued that this option is not the best option for ensuring optimal
restoration from an ecological point of view, as a Member State can decide to focus on nationally
important ecosystems without considering a pan-European view (or doing only the easy things –
see also ‘general principle’ Z under 2.3.3). Additionally, the economic crisis has hit some
Member States more than others causing differences in the potential to finance the 15% target.
Finally, this option requires a uniform understanding of level 1 and restorable areas, to avoid
scenarios where Member States include a ‘too’ large proportion of their territory into level 1 and
thereby artificially minimizing the “restorable area”.
The 15% target should be applied to each ecosystem type
This option was considered as a good option from an ecological perspective. It ensures that the
restoration actions are evenly distributed between ecosystems. As a result there are gains for
every ecosystem. Another advantage is that restoration actions in Member States can be
focused on areas where the restoration of a specific ecosystem is easier to realise and with
relatively lower costs. As an example, restoring large areas of wetlands in Finland is relatively
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 40|210
easy to carry out. It has been suggested that the EU could set minimum guidelines on how much
should be restored of a specific ecosystem type (further discussed in Section 3 ‘Guidance for
priority setting at national and subnational level’).
Another disadvantage is that Member States with multiple ecosystems could have a higher
burden sharing than other Member States. Finally setting this target for croplands could result in
restoring only semi-natural ecosystems in heavily urbanized countries (like in Belgium and the
Netherlands), while paying less attention on for instance forest or wetland restoration.
Combined option
During the workshop, discussions took place on whether the options could/should be combined
into one overall framework. As a result Figure 6 was elaborated.
As a first step the Commission in consultation with scientists and conservationists (e.g. NGO’s)
identifies which ecosystems have a priority within each of the bio-geographical regions. Once
this list of priority ecosystems is defined for every bio-geographical region, it was proposed that
Member States could get a bonus on the 15% target if they mainly focus on these priority
ecosystems.
In the second step the 15% restoration target is applied by every Member State. Member States
are fully responsible to realize this target and use their own data in assessing the state of
degraded ecosystems.
Figure 6: Combined option for setting the 15% restoration target
The third step consists of further refinement and boundary setting. Although the Member States
have a large freedom in deciding on their own restoration actions, there are certain boundaries
that should be respected. A clear boundary is that every ecosystem type should receive a
minimum amount of restoration. It was suggested that for each ecosystem type a minimum of
5% of the total surface of this ecosystem type within the Member State should be restored.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 41|210
However the total should reach 15%. As an example a Member State could decide on only
restoring 5% of the degraded grasslands while restoring 25% of forests. There is a high degree
of flexibility, but it is recommended that choices are justified.
Conclusion:
Notwithstanding the arguments in favour of varying degrees of co-ordination and burden sharing,
the decisive factor on this question is the position of the Member States. In that regard, it is clear
that a significant majority of the Member States are in favour of an approach where each country
strives to restore 15% of the degraded ecosystems within its borders. This being the case,
approaches based on biogeographic regions and ecosystem types will not be effective. In the
light of these considerations, it is assumed that the 15% restoration target will be applied at the
level of each Member State.
2.3.5
Proposed descriptors for ecosystem types
The matrix in Annex 4 provides an overview of potential descriptors and the link with ecosystem
types. For a selection of ecosystem types, a more elaborated table is provided below. Taking
into account the fact that restoration targets are already established for freshwaters (rivers and
lakes) and marine ecosystem types, and Member States are taking initiatives to reach the
targets set under the WFD and the MSFD, this report focuses on selected terrestrial ecosystem
types. In particular the 4-level concept is elaborated for the following ecosystem types, as these
ecosystem types suffer most from human pressures:

Forests

Croplands

Grasslands

Wetlands

Urban
For each ecosystem type a table is elaborated, which is structured as follows:

Proposed descriptor (with indication if a SEBI descriptor is available)

Spatial scale of influence: specifies if descriptor only refers to an on-site situation or to
a situation where a larger area is affected (from local to international)

Type of descriptor

Applied indicator(s)

Threshold value: provides information on potential ways to distinguish between
condition levels

Measurement system: uniform throughout EU or Member State specific

Data: EU data and/or national data

Restoration actions: it’s useful to link the type of restoration measures with the defined
descriptor, as these restoration measures should have an influence on the ecosystem
condition described by the descriptor

An extra row can be added for each descriptor to provide additional information (e.g.
examples, pro’s and contra’s, …)
These tables are not complete and should be further elaborated (see also 2.3.6). However they
provide an initial start and demonstrate the way forward.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 42|210
2.3.5.1
The 4-level model applied to forests
Table 5: Descriptors for forests applied in the 4-level model
FOREST
Spatial scale of
Descriptors
influence
‘Naturalness’
On site
indicator
Type of descriptor
Indicator
Threshold Level
Measurement
Data
Restoration actions
system
State
descriptor
(biotic + abiotic)
Composite (many
Allows
parameters)
classification
for
Not uniform
in
Member
State
Site management
specific
levels
Austria applies a so-called ‘hemeroby’-index (see Figure 7) , which is a composite indicator reflecting the degree of naturalness (based on naturalness of
tree species composition, naturalness of ground flora, type of tree regeneration, clearcut areas, recent impact of man, state of development, age structure,
dead wood, composition of the stand, diversity of tree species and diversity of ground layer). The index classifies the Austrian forests in natural, nearnatural, moderately modified, strongly modified, artificial. Hungary applies a Natural Capital Index for all ecosystem types (see Figure 8)

(+) This type of index fits well with the 4-level approach.

(+) ‘Naturalness’ descriptors provide a great opportunity to define the state of an ecosystem instead of focusing on pressures and defining
complex threshold values.

(+) This composite descriptor can be used by Member States which apply such type of descriptor

(-) As not all Member States apply such descriptors and as there are differences in the measurement systems comparability between Member
states is very low

(-) it is not clear in what sense naturalness differs from favourable conservation status. Also the reference to define the naturalness of an
ecosystem differs from region to region (see remark below). It looks like “naturalness” is an overall descriptor that includes many of the other listed
descriptors. An alternative could be to use the favourable conservation and its descriptors instead of a naturalness descriptor.

(-) The highest level is considered as the pristine state; however the definition of a pristine state varies per country. A pristine state for grasslands
in the Atlantic eco-region is forest while in the pannonic region only pristine state grasslands occur under natural conditions. Therefore it is
recommended to create a pan-European definition on pristine systems which should be addressed within an eco-region approach
Deadwood
(SEBI18)
On site
State
(biotic)
descriptor
One
(kg/ha)
parameter
To
determined
be
SEBI
EU
wide
+
Site management
national
databases

(+) EU wide descriptor
Other specific descriptors could be used if MS have no composite descriptor such as a naturalness index. Next to deadwood, tree species composition and
forest age structure might be useful descriptors (see also Forest Europe indicators for biological diversity in
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 43|210
FOREST
Spatial scale of
Descriptors
influence
Type of descriptor
Indicator
Threshold Level
Measurement
Data
Restoration actions
system
Table 3).
Connectivity
29
(SEBI13)
On site / local /
State descriptor
2 parameters:
To
regional
(landscape-
internal (site) and
determined
ecological process)
external
be
SEBI
EU
wide
+
Defragmentation
national
Integration
databases
corridors
in
ecological
(landscape, but
limited to forest )
Ideally data on fragmentation within the forest ecosystem need to be combined with data on fragmentation at a landscape level, as forests may be part of
green corridors covering multiple ecosystem types; as a consequence the descriptor could be formulated as: “forest is part (or not) of a larger ecological
network”.


(+) EU wide descriptor
(-) Although connectivity could be a highly useful descriptor, it does depend a lot on the scale on which an ecosystem is assessed. Additionally
fragmentation effects are very species specific and therefore hard to address

Species index
(-) Differentiation in 4 levels difficult, as very species dependent
On site / local
State
descriptor
(biotic)
(SEBI 01)
Different
indices
possible (species
From low to high
SEBI for birds and
EU
index
butterflies;
national
groups e.g. forest
probably
birds,
systems for other
…),
butterflies,
based
diversity
on
species
of
too
uniform
wide
+
Wide range of actions
databases
groups
species

(+) Next to the use of these ‘positive indicator species’, also presence of negative indicator species and invasive alien species can be applied if
data are available.
Ecosystem

(+) generally applied monitoring tool

(-) data often only available at MS level, so difficult to link to ecosystem patches
On-site / local
29
State descriptor
Range of ES
Fragmentation of natural and semi-natural areas (SEBI 013)
To
be
No
uniform
No
EU
wide
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 44|210
FOREST
Spatial scale of
Descriptors
influence
services
Type of descriptor
Indicator
Threshold Level
Measurement
Data
Restoration actions
system
(ecosystem services)
determined.
(provisioning,
regulating,
measurement
database
method
some
cultural)
yet,
national
databases
available, others
under
development
Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on the capacity of the ecosystem to offer a well-balanced range of ecosystem services (i.e. none of the
ecosystem services is dominating).
Provisioning services will score highest in level 4 but for obvious reasons this cannot be used as a suitable descriptor in the context of restoration.
Regulating services (water regulation, water purification, carbon sequestration, erosion control, air quality, …) will score higher when proceeding from level
4 to level 1.

(+) ES suitable descriptor for assessing progress in lower levels e.g. from level 4 to level 3, due to societal impacts

(-) ecosystem services hard to monitor due to lack of uniform monitoring systems and high local variations due to presence/absence and
appreciation of beneficiaries
Intensity
Production
of
To
(timber)
of
timber
ha
determined.
exploitation
(‘round
(SEBI 17)
removals’ )
On site
Pressure descriptor
per
wood
30
be
SEBI;
see
also
Forest
Europe
criteria
and
EU
wide
National
+
Decreasing
intensity
of
exploitation
databases
indicators
Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on intensity of exploitation. Extensive commercial exploitation might be acceptable in level 1 forests (e.g. as long
as FCS for habitats and species in Natura 2000 forest areas is not threatened)
It has to be investigated in how far a descriptor with regard to a certification scheme (e.g. surface of forests under Sustainable Forestry Management) can
31
be used for differentiating the 4 levels .
30
31
Applied in Finland
In Finland most forests are under PEFC certification scheme, which is SFM (sustainable forest management). As such this doesn’t differentiate Finnish forests. Most of
Finnish forests (about 90 %) are available for timber production. Still at least a part of the commercial forests in Finland might qualify even for level 2, as abiotic conditions in
Finnish forests are certainly not highly modified, and forests are not dominated by artificial habitats.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 45|210
FOREST
Spatial scale of
Descriptors
influence
Pressure
Regional
/
acidification
national
/
(CSI 005)
international
from
Type of descriptor
Indicator
Threshold Level
Measurement
Data
Restoration actions
EU wide
Legislative
system
Pressure descriptor
Actual
atmospheric
deposition
+
critical load as
CSI
‘Exposure
determining
ecosystems
factor
acidification,
to
national
framework
and
at
international
level
historical
eutrophication and
deposition
ozone’
Also historical deposition should be taken into account, as although current deposition levels have improved substantially, forests may need long time to
recover

Pressure
from
(+) EU wide descriptor
Regional
/
eutrophication
national
/
(CSI 005)
international
Pressure descriptor
Actual
critical load as
CSI
atmospheric
determining
ecosystems
factor
acidification,
deposition
+
‘Exposure
EU wide
Legislative
to
historical
eutrophication and
deposition
ozone’
national
framework
and
at
international
level
Some forest types are more vulnerable to nitrogen deposition than other forest types.
Also historical deposition should be taken into account, as although current deposition levels have improved substantially, forests may need long time to
recover

Protected
On-site
(+) EU wide descriptor
Measure descriptor
Ha
forest (SEBI 07)
Protected
or
SEBI
non-protected
EU
wide
National
databases
Forest
under
On-site
Measure descriptor
Ha
Under
agro-
agro-forest
forest system or
system (CAP)
not
CAP
EU wide
+
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 46|210
FOREST
Spatial scale of
Descriptors
influence
Initiated
On
restoration
regional
/
or not; actions
actions
national
/
can be taken at
site
international
Type of descriptor
Indicator
Threshold Level
Measurement
Data
system
/
Measure descriptor
Ha
Actions
any level
started
Not uniform
National
Restoration actions
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 47|210
Figure 7: Austrian forest 'hemeroby index' as an example of a 'naturalness' indicator
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 48|210
Figure 8: Hungarian 'Natural Capital Index' approach as an example of a 'naturalness' indicator (Czucz et al., 2012)
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 49|210
2.3.5.2
The 4-level model applied to cropland
Applying the 4-level model concept to modified ecosystem types such as croplands is a challenge. At first view it might be hard to understand how
croplands ever can be qualified as level 1. However extensively managed croplands in traditional farming systems have high ecological values and are the
preferred habitat for many species, which have a Red List status today.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 50|210
Table 6 provides an overview of potential descriptors. Based on the presented descriptors a fictitious example is presented how the 4-level approach is
applied to cropland areas (see Box 4).
Box 4: Example of application of 4-level restoration model to croplands

Level 4: area dominated by large monocultures of crops requiring intensive management; CAP ecological focus areas are present as isolated pieces
of land with no connection to a green ecological network; farmland bird index species are absent

Level 3: area characterized by combination of large monoculture parcels, intensively managed grasslands and landscape elements (tree rows, some
hedges, small rivers with natural elements in a narrow bank area); CAP ecological focus areas are located in connection to existing landscape
elements; only 2 to 3 species of farmland bird index present, although not in healthy populations

Level 2: area characterized by mosaic landscape, with smaller parcels of cropland and grassland, and presence of other ecosystem types, such as
small forests; still quite intensive farmland management; CAP ecological focus areas are located in connection to existing landscape elements and
contribute to improving overall landscape connectivity; the area is connected to the wider ecological network; about 50% of farmland bird index
species are present, some of them in healthy populations

Level 1: area characterized by mosaic landscape, with smaller parcels of cropland and grassland, and presence of other ecosystem types, such as
forests and wetlands; extensive farmland management (often traditional farming); high cultural values and wide range of regulatory ecosystem
services; CAP ecological focus areas are located in connection to existing landscape elements and contribute to improving overall landscape
connectivity; many farmland bird index species are present, most of them with healthy populations
From this example it’s clear that applying a wider landscape approach offers advantages when describing the 4 levels. Level 1 cropland will still have the
functionality of producing crops. However there will be a gradual shift from very intensive cropland (level 4) to very extensive cropland (level 1). This
example demonstrates that level 1 and level 2 croplands (and to a lesser extent level 3) show some overlap with grassland ecosystems. This is logical as
traditional extensive farming practices are characterized by a combination of crop cultivation and cattle raising (mosaic landscapes).
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 51|210
Table 6: Descriptors for cropland applied in the 4-level model
CROPLAND
Spatial scale of
Descriptors
influence
Management
On-site
Type of descriptor
Indicator
Threshold Level
Measurement
Data
Restoration actions
IACS?
Reducing
system
Pressure descriptor
intensity
Different
To
parameters
determined
be
Depending
on
indicator
intensity
of
management
The intensity of fertilizer and pesticides use, the intensity of artificial irrigation, etc.. are parameters for describing the management intensity. Data at a
national (or subnational) level should be available via IACS (Information and Administration Control System).
Organic farming might be qualified as level 1.
Connectivity

(+) very relevant descriptor

(-) no clear definition of intensive/extensive management
On-site / local /
State descriptor
Connection to
Not clear
regional
(landscape-
natural and semi-
To
ecological process)
natural areas
Not uniform
be
No EU wide and
Defragmentation
hardly
Integration
national
databases
determined
in
ecological
corridors
Ideally data on fragmentation within the agricultural ecosystem need to be combined with data on fragmentation at a landscape level, as crops and
grasslands may be part of green corridors covering multiple ecosystem types.
Internal connectivity within agricultural areas, even within areas dominated by large cropland parcels, can be realized by introducing landscape elements
such as hedges and ecologically managed verges. Cropland areas however can also be crossed by broader green corridors such as rivers and their
forested borders, or even by man-made robust ecological corridors in order to overcome a migration barrier between more natural ecosystem types.
Farmland
bird

(-) no EU wide descriptor, as the SEBI descriptor on fragmentation only applies to natural and semi-natural areas; hardly national data

(-) Differentiation in 4 levels difficult, as very species dependent
On site / local
index
State
(biotic)
(SEBI 01)
descriptor
Index based on
From low to high
SEBI;
probably
EU
diversity
index
uniform
systems
national
and
population size of
for other species
farmland birds
groups too
wide
+
Wide range of actions
databases
Similar species indices might be applied if data are available e.g. mammals (e.g. Hamster – Cricetus cricetus), butterflies, …

(+) Next to the use of these ‘positive indicator species’, also presence of negative indicator species and invasive alien species can be applied if
data are available.

(+) generally applied monitoring tool
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 52|210
CROPLAND
Spatial scale of
Descriptors
influence

Soil condition
Type of descriptor
Indicator
Threshold Level
Measurement
Data
Restoration actions
system
(-) data often only available at MS level, so difficult to link to ecosystem patches
On-site
State descriptor
soil degradation
To
be
(abiotic)
parameters e.g.
determined
erosion

Ecosystem
On-site / local
services
State descriptor
Range of ES
To
be
(ecosystem services)
(provisioning,
determined
regulating,
No
EU
wide
measurement
database
yet,
method
some
cultural)
uniform
No
national
databases
available, others
under
development
Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on the capacity of the ecosystem to offer a well-balanced range of ecosystem services (i.e. none of the
ecosystem services is dominating).
Cultural services will score high in level 1 cropland areas. Provisioning services will score highest in level 4 but for obvious reasons this cannot be used as
a suitable descriptor in the context of restoration. Regulating services (erosion control, air quality, pollination, …) will score higher when proceeding from
level 4 to level 1.

(+) ES suitable descriptor for assessing progress in lower levels e.g. from level 4 to level 3, due to societal impacts

(-) ecosystem services hard to monitor due to lack of uniform monitoring systems and high local variations due to presence/absence and
appreciation of beneficiaries
Surface
of
ecological
focus
(CAP)
areas
On-site
Measure descriptor
Ha
Degree
of
connection
of
CAP
in
EFAs
wider
landscapeecological
network
CAP
EU wide
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 53|210
CROPLAND
Spatial scale of
Descriptors
influence
Type of descriptor
Indicator
Threshold Level
Measurement
Data
Restoration actions
system
Some descriptors might overlap e.g. CAP focus areas and HNV farmland areas
Surface
of
On-site
Measure descriptor
Ha
croplands
under
HNV
or
not,
SEBI, AEI
EU wide
Not uniform
National
qualifying for at
HNV
least L2
farmland
(SEBI20, AEI23)
Initiated
On-site / local /
restoration
regional
/
or not; actions
actions
national
/
can be taken at
international
Measure descriptor
Ha
Actions
any level
started
Ha
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 54|210
2.3.5.3
The 4-level model applied to grasslands
Table 7: Descriptors for grasslands applied in the 4-level model
GRASSLAND
Spatial scale of
Descriptors
influence
‘Naturalness’
On site
indicator
Type of descriptor
Indicator
Threshold Level
Measurement
Data
Restoration actions
system
State
descriptor
(biotic + abiotic)
Composite (many
Allows
parameters)
classification
for
Not uniform
Member
in
State
Site management
specific
levels
Depends on availability of data.
In Finland the Habitat representativeness indicator has been applied on semi-natural grasslands. The indicator allows a classification of grasslands in 4
categories, and is based on the following parameters: level of overgrowing due to abandonment, level of nutrient enrichment due to abandonment or to
wrong management, vegetation height, typical species composition for the habitat type, threatened habitat types. Next to this indicator a number of
additional indicators are applied.

(+) This type of index fits well with the 4-level approach.

(+) ‘Naturalness’ descriptors provide a great opportunity to define the state of an ecosystem instead of focusing on pressures and defining
complex threshold values.

(+) This composite descriptor can be used by Member States which apply such type of descriptor

(-) As not all Member States apply such descriptors and as there are differences in the measurement systems comparability between Member
states is very low

(-) it is not clear in what sense naturalness differs from favourable conservation status. Also the reference to define the naturalness of an
ecosystem differs from region to region (see remark below). It looks like “naturalness” is an overall descriptor that includes many of the other listed
descriptors. An alternative could be to use the favourable conservation and its descriptors instead of a naturalness descriptor.

(-) The highest level is considered as the pristine state; however the definition of a pristine state varies per country. A pristine state for grasslands
in the Atlantic eco-region is forest while in the pannonic region only pristine state grasslands occur under natural conditions. Therefore it is
recommended to create a pan-European definition on pristine systems which should be addressed within an eco-region approach
Management
intensity
On-site
Pressure descriptor
Different
parameters
Unclear
Depending
indicator
on
IACS?
Reducing
intensity
of
management
(parameter)
Meadows and pastures each require a specific management. The intensity of fertilizer and pesticides use, the intensity of grazing and mowing, etc.. are
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 55|210
GRASSLAND
Spatial scale of
Descriptors
influence
Type of descriptor
Indicator
Threshold Level
Measurement
Data
Restoration actions
system
parameters for describing the management intensity. Data at a national (or subnational) level should be available via IACS (Information and Administration
Control System).

(+) very relevant descriptor

(-) no clear definition of intensive/extensive management; Intensive management for some habitats could be very beneficial, while for other
habitats this management could be highly damaging.; therefore it is very hard to use this as a uniform descriptor for grasslands; a solution would
be to define specific comparable grassland types which require similar management regimes and compare these with the current situation; this is
however a very complex process and could require more guidance at an EU level.
Connectivity
(SEBI
13
for
On-site / local /
State descriptor
Connection to
To
regional
(landscape-
natural and semi-
determined.
ecological process)
natural areas
semi-natural
be
Not uniform
No
EU
wide
Defragmentation
(unless SEBI 13
Integration
for semi-natural
corridors
in
ecological
grasslands?)
grasslands?)
and
hardly
national
databases
Ideally data on fragmentation within the agricultural ecosystem need to be combined with data on fragmentation at a landscape level, as crops and
grasslands may be part of green corridors covering multiple ecosystem types.
Internal connectivity within agricultural areas, can be realized by introducing landscape elements such as hedges and ecologically managed verges.
Grassland areas however can also be crossed by broader green corridors such as rivers and their forested borders, or even by man-made robust
ecological corridors in order to overcome a migration barrier between more natural ecosystem types.

(-) no EU wide descriptor, as the SEBI descriptor on fragmentation only applies to natural and semi-natural areas; to be investigated if this SEBI
descriptor applies to semi-natural grasslands; hardly national data

Historical
On-site
(-) Differentiation in 4 levels difficult, as very species dependent
State descriptor
historic
No
EU
continuum as a
grasslands in L2
database, some
grassland
or L1
national
databases
wide
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 56|210
GRASSLAND
Spatial scale of
Descriptors
influence
Ecosystem
On-site / local
services
Type of descriptor
Indicator
Threshold Level
Measurement
Data
Restoration actions
system
State descriptor
Range of ES
To
be
(ecosystem services)
(provisioning,
determined.
regulating,
No
EU
wide
measurement
database
yet,
method
some
cultural)
uniform
No
national
databases
available, others
under
development
Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on the capacity of the grassland ecosystem to offer a well-balanced range of ecosystem services (i.e. none of the
ecosystem services is dominating).
Provisioning services will score highest in level 4 but for obvious reasons this cannot be used as a suitable descriptor in the context of restoration.
Regulating services (water regulation, erosion control, air quality, pollination, …) will score higher when proceeding from level 4 to level 1.

(+) ES suitable descriptor for assessing progress in lower levels e.g. from level 4 to level 3, due to societal impacts

(-) ecosystem services hard to monitor due to lack of uniform monitoring systems and high local variations due to presence/absence and
appreciation of beneficiaries
Surface
of
On-site
Measure descriptor
Ha
ecological
focus
areas
(CAP)
Degree
of
connection
of
CAP
in
EFAs
CAP
EU wide
SEBI, AEI
EU wide
wider
landscapeecological
network
Some descriptors might overlap e.g. CAP focus areas and HNV farmland areas
Surface
of
grasslands
under
On-site
Measure descriptor
Ha
HNV
or
not,
qualifying for at
HNV
farmland
(SEBI20, AEI23)
least L2
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 57|210
GRASSLAND
Spatial scale of
Descriptors
influence
Protected
On-site
Type of descriptor
Indicator
Threshold Level
Measurement
Data
system
Measure descriptor
Ha
Protected
grassland
or
SEBI
EU
non-protected
wide
+
National
(SEBI 07)
Farmland
Restoration actions
databases
bird
On site / local
State
index
descriptor
(biotic)
(SEBI 01)
Index based on
From low to high
SEBI;
probably
EU
diversity
index
uniform
systems
national
and
population size of
for other species
farmland birds
groups too
wide
+
Wide range of actions
databases
Similar species indices might be applied if data are available e.g. grassland butterflies, …

(+) Next to the use of these ‘positive indicator species’, also presence of negative indicator species and invasive alien species can be applied if
data are available.
Pressure
from

(+) generally applied monitoring tool

(-) data often only available at MS level, so difficult to link to ecosystem patches
Regional
/
eutrophication
national
/
(CSI 005)
international
Pressure descriptor
Actual
atmospheric
deposition
(+
critical load as
CSI
‘Exposure
determining
ecosystems
factor
acidification,
EU wide
to
historical
eutrophication and
deposition?)
ozone’
Legislative
national
framework
and
international
level
Some grassland types are more vulnerable to nitrogen deposition than other grassland types.
It has to be investigated if historical deposition should be taken into account for grasslands too, as grasslands might recover sooner than forests

(+) EU wide descriptor
Initiated
On-site / local /
restoration
regional
/
or not; actions
actions
national
/
can be taken at
international
Measure descriptor
Ha
Actions
any level
started
Not uniform
National
Ha
at
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 58|210
GRASSLAND
Spatial scale of
Descriptors
influence
Type of descriptor
Indicator
Threshold Level
Measurement
system
Data
Restoration actions
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 59|210
2.3.5.4
The 4-level model applied to wetlands
Table 8: Descriptors for wetlands applied in the 4-level model
WETLAND
Spatial scale of
Descriptors
influence
‘Naturalness’
On site
Type of descriptor
Threshold Level
Measurement
Data
Restoration actions
system
State
indicator
Indicator
descriptor
(biotic + abiotic)
Composite (many
Allows
parameters)
classification
for
Not uniform
in
Member
State
Site management
specific
levels
A ‘naturalness indicator’ could be applied to wetlands too. In Hungary a ‘Natural Capital Index’ is applied to all ecosystem types (see Figure 8)

(+) This type of index fits well with the 4-level approach.

(+) ‘Naturalness’ descriptors provide a great opportunity to define the state of an ecosystem instead of focusing on pressures and defining
complex threshold values.

(+) This composite descriptor can be used by Member States which apply such type of descriptor

(-) As not all Member States apply such descriptors and as there are differences in the measurement systems comparability between Member
states is very low

(-) it is not clear in what sense naturalness differs from favourable conservation status. Also the reference to define the naturalness of an
ecosystem differs from region to region (see remark below). It looks like “naturalness” is an overall descriptor that includes many of the other listed
descriptors. An alternative could be to use the favourable conservation and its descriptors instead of a naturalness descriptor.

(-) The highest level is considered as the pristine state; however the definition of a pristine state varies per country. A pristine state for grasslands
in the Atlantic eco-region is forest while in the pannonic region only pristine state grasslands occur under natural conditions. Therefore it is
recommended to create a pan-European definition on pristine systems which should be addressed within an eco-region approach
Connectivity
On-site / local /
State descriptor
Connectivity with
To
(SEBI 13)
regional
(landscape-
other wetlands
determined.
be
Not uniform
EU wide
ecological process)
Defragmentation
Integration
in
ecological
corridors
Ideally data on fragmentation within a wetland ecosystem need to be combined with data on fragmentation at a landscape level, as wetlands may be part
of green corridors covering multiple ecosystem types e.g. river valley with mosaic of wetlands, grasslands and alluvial forests.

(+) EU wide descriptor

(-) Differentiation in 4 levels difficult, as very species dependent
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 60|210
WETLAND
Spatial scale of
Descriptors
influence
Wetland
bird
On site / local
index
Type of descriptor
Indicator
Threshold Level
Measurement
Data
Restoration actions
system
State
descriptor
(biotic)
(SEBI 01)
Index based on
From low to high
SEBI;
probably
EU
diversity
index
uniform
systems
national
and
population size of
for other species
wetland birds
groups too
wide
+
Wide range of actions
databases
Similar species indices might be applied if data are available e.g. amphibians, dragonflies, …

(+) Next to the use of these ‘positive indicator species’, also presence of negative indicator species and invasive alien species can be applied if
data are available.

(+) generally applied monitoring tool

(-) data often only available at MS level, so difficult to link to ecosystem patches (although there are data for specific wetland areas)

(-) one has to be careful that these indices are not hiding severe problems. As an example certain wetlands which are in a poor ecological state
(pollution, eutrophication, inadequate water management, such as the Biebrza Marshes and the Camargue, still have high bird diversity and
therefore possibly a favourable wetland bird index
Water quality
On-site
State descriptor
Water quality
Comparable
(abiotic)
parameters
ranking in WFD?
to
Uniform
water
quality monitoring
National
databases
methods
Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on water quality data. A water quality descriptor is a straightforward descriptor to determine the thresholds
between restoration levels in wetlands. Although water quality sometimes shows high temporal and spatial fluctuations, water quality can be approximated
by using presence, distribution, trends of indicator species populations, including water plants and fresh water invertebrates. If there is a general
consensus on critical load data (threshold values), these data should be applied.
Water level
On-site / local
State descriptor
Groundwater and
or drained vs.
Uniform methods
National
(abiotic)
surface water
not-drained?
for
databases
e.g.
drainage
data
(some
data
level
measuring
water level
available at EU
level)
Ecosystem
On-site / local
State descriptor
Range of ES
To
be
No
uniform
No
EU
wide
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 61|210
WETLAND
Spatial scale of
Descriptors
influence
Type of descriptor
Indicator
Threshold Level
Measurement
Data
Restoration actions
system
services
(ecosystem services)
(provisioning,
determined
regulating,
measurement
database
method
some
cultural)
yet,
national
databases
available, others
under
development
Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on the capacity of the wetland ecosystem to offer a well-balanced range of ecosystem services (i.e. none of the
ecosystem services is dominating).
Provisioning services (water, fish, ..) and regulating services (water regulation, water purification, carbon sequestration,
…) will score higher when
proceeding from level 4 to level 1.

(+) ES suitable descriptor for assessing progress in lower levels e.g. from level 4 to level 3, due to societal impacts

(-) ecosystem services hard to monitor due to lack of uniform monitoring systems and high local variations due to presence/absence and
appreciation of beneficiaries
Protected
On-site
Measure descriptor
Ha
wetlands (SEBI
Protected
or
SEBI
non-protected
EU
wide
+
National
07)
databases
Several protection regimes might apply
Initiated
On-site / local /
restoration
regional
/
or not; actions
actions
national
/
can be taken at
international
Measure descriptor
Ha
Actions
started
any level
Restoring drained peatlands requires time before desired results become visible.
Not uniform
National
Ha
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 62|210
2.3.5.5
The 4-level model applied to urban ecosystems
‘Urban ecosystems’ in the context of the restoration framework consist of cities, industrial estates and large transport infrastructure areas (e.g. harbours,
airports, highway nodes etc…). Delineation of urban areas is problematic though. Also, it has to be clarified where to draw the line between rural
32
settlements and urban areas. Table 9 provides a non-exhaustive overview. Additional information can be found in the City Biodiversity Index . The City
Biodiversity Index (CBI), also known as the Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity (SI) is a tool designed to allow cities to monitor and evaluate their
33
progress and performance related to conserving and enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem services (CBI 2012 ). The 23 CBI indicators are:

1.Proportion of natural areas

2.Connectivity measures or ecological networks to counter fragmentation

3.Native biodiversity in built-up areas (bird species)

4–8.Change in number of native species (4. vascular plants, 5. birds, 6. butterflies, 7. and 8. optional)

9.Proportion of protected natural areas

10.Proportion of invasive alien species

11.Regulation of quantity of water

12.Climate regulation: carbon storage and cooling effect of vegetation

13–14.Recreational and educational services

15.Budget allocated to biodiversity

16.Number of biodiversity projects implemented annually

17.Rules, regulations and policy – existence of local biodiversity strategy and action plans

18–19.Institutional capacity

20–21.Participation and partnership

22–23.Education and awareness
The CBI’s current 23 indicators are viewed as core indicators and optional or sub-indicators can be developed as necessary and tailored to specific
monitoring needs of individual cities. For each indicator, the CBI manual (CBI 2012) proposes a scoring of 0–4 points, where 0 corresponds to poor
performance and 4 points corresponds to excellent performance. Points can be summed to provide an overall score of the city’s biodiversity performance.
32
As information on the CBI reached the authors only at the very last moment of the contract, the CBI indicators are not included in Table 9. However we considered it as
very relevant to refer to this CBI.
33
See http://www.cbd.int/en/subnational/partners-and-initiatives/city-biodiversity-index
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 63|210
Table 9: Descriptors for urban ecosystems applied in the 4-level model
URBAN
Spatial scale of
Descriptors
influence
Green
On-site / local
per
space
capita
distance
green
/
Type of descriptor
Threshold Level
Measurement
Data
Restoration actions
system
State
(biotic,
to
Indicator
descriptor
ecosystem
Surface (m2) per
To be investigated
Not always clear
National
Green Infrastructure in urban
capita
if
what
databases
areas
service)
recommended
thresholds
space
are
can
be
considered
as
‘green space’
applied
per capita
34
Access to green space in European cities varies significantly (from only a few m2 per capita to several hundred m2 per capita ). Data can be based on the
surface covered by the tree canopy, by grass areas (e.g sports area), ...
Connectivity
On-site / local /
State descriptor
Internal GI
To
regional
(landscape-
network +
determined.
ecological process)
connection to
be
Not uniform
No EU wide and
Green Infrastructure in urban
hardly
areas
national
databases
Defragmentation
natural and semi-
Integration
natural areas
in
ecological
corridors
Also in urban areas there are opportunities for creating green/blue urban networks, i.e. mutually connected green and/or blue areas throughout the urban
area. This network can be connected to a green belt around the urban area and even with an ecological network at the wider landscape level.
Geographical data are not always available. Therefore a more pragmatic descriptor might be the number of cities which have integrated green urban
networks in urban spatial planning.
Indicator
On site / local
species
State
(biotic)
descriptor
Index based on
From low to high
Generally uniform
EU
diversity
index
monitoring
birds, butterflies
methods
(SEBI)
and
population size of
species
wide
for
Wide range of actions
+
national
databases
Urban areas offer opportunities for bats and several bird species (e.g. Peregrine falcon, Swift, ….) and many other threatened animal and plant species.
However in urban ecosystems not only threatened species but also ‘ordinary’ species could be used. The descriptor can be based on a combination of
34
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/146na2.pdf
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 64|210
URBAN
Spatial scale of
Descriptors
influence
Type of descriptor
Indicator
Threshold Level
Measurement
Data
Restoration actions
system
data on the presence of these species in combination with data on the number of cities which take active restoration measures to restore species diversity.
Ecosystem
On-site / local
services
State descriptor
Range of ES
.
To
be
(ecosystem services)
(provisioning,
determined.
regulating,
No
uniform
EU
wide
measurement
database
yet,
method
some
cultural)
No
national
databases
available, others
under
development
Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on the capacity of the urban ecosystem to offer a range of ecosystem services (i.e. none of the ecosystem
services is dominating).
Regulating services (water regulation, water purification, climate regulation – cooling the ‘heath island’ effect, carbon sequestration, air quality, …) will
score higher when proceeding from level 4 to level 3.

(+) ES suitable descriptor for assessing progress in lower levels e.g. from level 4 to level 3, due to societal impacts

(-) ecosystem services hard to monitor due to lack of uniform monitoring systems and high local variations due to presence/absence and
appreciation of beneficiaries
Ambient
air
quality
On site / local /
State descriptor
Different air
WHO
regional
/
(abiotic)
quality parameters
thresholds,
national
/
Air
international
Uniform
EU
Quality
EU wide
Green Infrastructure
measurement
methods
legislation
thresholds
Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on ambient air quality in combination with measures such as green walls, green roofs. Also here, with regard to
the presence of green walls and green roofs spatial data will be hard to find. Therefore this issue might be solved by counting the cities which have a
program to promote green walls and green roofs.
Pressure
noise/light
from
On site / local
State descriptor
Noise parameters
EU
(abiotic)
and light
Directive
Noise
measurement
parameters
thresholds,
methods
WHO thresholds
Uniform
EU wide
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 65|210
URBAN
Spatial scale of
Descriptors
influence
Type of descriptor
Indicator
Threshold Level
Measurement
Data
Restoration actions
system
Differentiation in 4 levels might be based on ambient noise data in combination with inquiry data of citizen’s perception with regard to noise and light
hindrance.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 66|210
2.3.6
Proposal for practical implementation
The approaches described in this document have been developed over the space of a few months.
The 4-level model represents a robust and pragmatic tool that can be used at EU, national and subnational level to support the restoration agenda. However, the model needs to be used and to be
refined and further elaborated on the basis of experience and expert judgment and adapted to suit
the specific circumstances in which it is applied. The following issues should be given priority in the
further elaboration of the model:

Defining the set of descriptors for each ecosystem type. To be investigated:
o
Fixed set of descriptors to be applied uniformly across the EU,or a basket of
descriptors from which a selection can be made in the light of national/sub-national
situation?
o
How to deal with data gaps at EU level, i.e. no, or limited, spatial data at an EU-wide
level for certain descriptors? Can SEBI descriptors be applied as the core descriptors,
as this allows for measuring progress in different Member States in a uniform way?
o
How to accommodate additional descriptors applied nationally/sub-nationally? Can
Member States propose additional descriptors, and under which conditions?
o

Differentiation between biogeographic regions?
Defining indicators and threshold values for each of these descriptors. To be investigated:
o
Differentiation between ecosystem types and possibly between biogeographic
regions?
o
Should thresholds be applied uniformly across the EU? What degree of flexibility is
appropriate?

Defining the minimum level of detail of the analysis. To be investigated:
o

Which is the minimum surface of ecosystem patches to be considered?
Defining rules for moving between levels. To be investigated:
o
Which is the acceptable threshold at the level of the whole set of descriptors, i.e.
which percentage of the descriptor set for a certain quality level will need to be ‘in
good status’ to be qualified as ‘restored’ (100%?, 80%? etc.)
o
Should weights be attributed to descriptors, to allow the application of ‘priority’
descriptors? Should achieving threshold values for ‘priority’ descriptors be considered
as a condition sine quo non for moving up a level (e.g. return of defined indicator
species)? Which criteria should be used to identify ‘priority’ descriptors? If so which
‘priority’ descriptors will be defined?

Defining rules for measuring progress towards the 15% target. To be investigated:
o
Which area-based and which non-area-based targets will be taken into account?
o
Will weights be attributed to ecosystem types?
o
Will weights be attributed to different ecosystem condition levels (e.g. higher weight if
change from 2 to 1, compared to change from 4 to 3 – or opposite)?
o
Will a 2-level progress be weighted double as 1-level progress?
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 67|210
3
Guidance for priority-setting at sub-national and national
level
3.1
Reader’s guide
This chapter is intended to provide assistance to those involved with the identification of priorities
for restoration at national and sub-national levels. It is recognized that some of the proposed steps
are not relevant to certain countries or governance structures (e.g. federal states with responsibility
for restoration lying with subnational governance levels). The steps proposed here are therefore not
prescriptions on how things should be done but rather guidance on how processes could be
implemented.
It is important to realize that the guidance on restoration prioritization as presented here, applies to
those areas that are not covered by designations systems for nature conservation. For such
protected areas, other processes are in place in support of habitat management and restoration.
A review of many restoration prioritization accounts point to the significant importance of process
management and planning for reaching a successful outcome. In addition, stakeholder involvement
is time and again identified as a key factor in the successful and sustainable implementation of
restoration projects. Therefore, this guidance not only focuses on the prioritization process itself,
but provides some wider context in terms of project planning and management that should
significantly increase the likelihood of a successful prioritization of restoration actions and most
importantly their long-term sustainability.
Such an attention to the planning and management of the prioritization process is also important in
view of the need for frequent feedback between the definition of goals, objectives and targets, and
the monitoring and reporting of preliminary results (adaptive management). Also, the contribution of
local, regional and national results to reaching the overall EU target of 15% restored ecosystems
requires frequent iterations between the various levels of planning and decision making. This
requires planning and coordination.
The structure of the document is based on a five-stage framework for the prioritization of restoration
actions consisting of:

Stage 1. Define the scope of the prioritization exercise

Stage 2. Collect data and information

Stage 3. Analyse the situation and information

Stage 4. Develop appropriate restoration strategies

Stage 5. Implement, monitor, evaluate and report restoration actions
The prioritization, itself part of stage 4, is developed in greater detail and looks at four basic
questions:
1. Why restore?
2. What to restore?
3. Where to restore?
4. What to restore first?
Depending on the stage of progress in any department or agency responsible for the setting of
priorities for restoration at national or subnational level, various elements of this guidance can be of
greater significance.
If the identification of restoration priorities is part of an on-going conservation and restoration
planning process, the reader might want to jump directly to Step 4.2 on the actual priority setting.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 68|210
If on the other hand, the identification of restoration priorities is part of an incipient conservation and
restoration planning process, then starting with Stage 1 might be more appropriate.
Finally, the various stages and steps described in the guidance can also be consulted individually,
e.g. the basics of situation analysis are explained in Step 3.1.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 69|210
3.2
Introduction
Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (European Commission 2011) states that ‘By 2020,
ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by establishing green infrastructure
and restoring at least 15% of degraded ecosystems’. Associated with Target 2 are a number of
specific actions. Action 6a reads: ‘By 2014, Member States, with the assistance of the Commission,
will develop a strategic framework to set priorities for ecosystem restoration at sub-national,
national and EU level’
Notwithstanding the large number of publications in peer-reviewed literature on systematic
conservation planning, only a handful concern the prioritization of restoration (Wilson et al. 2011).
Moreover, existing restoration guidelines such as the SER Guidelines for developing and managing
ecological restoration projects (Clewell, Rieger, and Munro 2005) have been developed primarily for
site-level interventions (Thompson 2011).
Planning for restoration at multiple scales requires explicit prioritization in order to avoid ad hoc
decision making which may compromise the efficiency with which restoration objectives are
achieved (Wilson et al. 2011). Recent frameworks, approaches and guidelines make use of the
increasingly available digital data and analysis techniques resulting in systematic identification of
priority areas for restoration based on spatially explicit and transparent methods. Experience also
shows that plans developed with the participation of stakeholders tend to have a more complete
resources inventory, more balanced objectives and tend to be implemented more successfully. This
would suggest that the frameworks and approaches should be used as sources of information that
inform a stakeholder based planning process.
The prioritization of restoration investments and actions (in space and time) should be seen in the
context of the wider strategy to maintain and enhance ecosystems and the services they provide to
society. In view of the large time lags between actions taken to restore ecosystems and their
services and the desired outcome as well as the uncertainties of the outcome, the planning requires
numerous stages to provide feedback and integrate the results from on-going activities in the
redefinition of the goals and targets.
Throughout this guidance, ecosystem restoration prioritization is considered as a part of the wider
EU agenda for biodiversity and ecosystem services as well as for other environmental issues and
its implementation at Member State and subnational levels. Also, because of its fundamental spatial
dimension, ecosystem restoration is considered as a full part of other spatial planning and sectorial
integration processes.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 71|210
3.3
Objectives of this guidance
This document is designed to provide guidance to Member States, subnational governments and
other stakeholders in their efforts to prioritize ecosystem restoration actions. The guidance is not
intended to be prescriptive, but to offer the Member States a framework for taking the prioritization
of their restoration activities forward.
While acknowledging that significant progress has been made in many scientific and technical
fields such as our understanding of ecology, data collection (including remote sensing), ecological
modelling and software development, the prioritization of restoration activities remains very much a
consensual process involving dialogue among stakeholders, specifically including stakeholders
from other sectors such as business and industry. The scientific and methodological advances in
understanding and modelling possible outcomes of scenarios should however have a central place
in this process by informing the decision making with the best available data, evidence, science and
knowledge.
As it has been repeatedly shown, the success of restoration projects depends to a great extent
on good planning and process management in which consultation with the stakeholders takes a
central role. In addition to specific recommendations for a prioritization framework, this guidance
therefore summarizes the latest advances in systematic conservation planning as a process as
applied to the prioritization of ecological restoration and points towards possible tools and
resources that can be used at every stage of the process. Also, the guidance should be seen in
connection to the definition of terms, the four-level model for restoration and potential support
mechanisms. (related deliverables from service contract ENV.B.2/SER/2012/0029)
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 73|210
3.4
Methodology and sources used to compile the guidance
This guidance is the result of a preliminary review of criteria for restoration prioritization and
prioritization frameworks followed by a consultation process with the main stakeholders involved in
the process of implementing Action 6a of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy.
The initial review of existing restoration and conservation prioritization frameworks and criteria was
done through the analysis of peer-reviewed and grey literature (see references). This resulted in a
preliminary list of potential criteria for priority-setting at national and subnational levels. This list was
presented to the Working Group on (Green Infrastructure and) the Restoration Prioritization
Framework (RPF Working Group) composed of representatives of the EU Member States. The list
was complemented after being discussed at the second meeting of the RPF Working Group, and a
consolidated version was presented at a workshop organized in Brussels on 29-30 May 2013. In
addition to the members of the RPF Working Group, participants in this workshop also included
representatives from the conservation, research and business sectors.
At the workshop, the criteria, the prioritization framework and the guidance were discussed in small
working groups and the results of this participative consultation were taken into account in the
further development of the guidance document. This prompted a more thorough and targeted
review of literature in order to address the comments and concerns expressed during the workshop.
The following principles have been applied in the drafting of this document:

Emphasis on the use of existing knowledge, models and conceptual frameworks (i.e. not
reinventing the wheel). For this, an extensive literature review of existing restoration
prioritization frameworks has been carried out.

Make the best possible use of existing information, data and earlier prioritization exercises,
i.e. designation of protected areas (i.e. avoiding to the maximum the need to collect new
information), in particular the results of the MAES process and Article 17 reporting.

Use existing conservation and restoration prioritization tools and mechanisms, such as the
35
36
Montreux record (RAMSAR sites in danger) , and the IBAs in danger .

Prioritization of ecosystem restoration should not be an exclusively top-down science-driven
activity. It needs to be a well-informed process based on the best available knowledge
(some of which, mainly strategic information, is provided through a top-down approach), but
it should ultimately be based on societal and political consensus, and therefore includes a
form of stakeholder involvement.
These principles as translated in the guidance should result in a more efficient and easier
implementation of the prioritization process and guidance for Member States and other
stakeholders. On the other hand, it also means that the suggested approach is not necessarily the
one that would have been developed if based on purely scientific criteria.
35
RAMSAR
sites
in
danger:
The
Montreux
Record;
www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-documents-
montreux/main/ramsar/1-31-118_4000_0__
36
IBAs in danger; www.birdlife.org/datazone/info/IBAsInDanger#EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 74|210
3.5
Guidance Section 1: Suggested framework for systematic restoration
planning
3.5.1
Introduction
Resources for restoration of ecosystems and their services are always likely to be limiting (Hobbs
2008). Therefore, restoration actions should be prioritized and directed towards explicitly stated
goals and targets..
A review of peer-reviewed and grey literature on conservation and restoration planning and
prioritization indicates the importance of:

stakeholder involvement in all phases of the process;

clear definition and agreement of the scale / geographical scope;

clear definition and agreement of the goal(s);

clear definition of the targets (SMART);

need to address issues of information and data gaps;

need to address issues of uncertainty in modelling or scenarios of ecosystem restoration;

need to consider ecosystem restoration as part of an integrated approach to planning and
resources allocation.
In addition to a framework for restoration prioritization (Steps 4.2 and 4.3. and Section 3), the
guidelines provide a general framework for restoration planning described in this section. This has
been done for the following reasons:

Need to fine-tune restoration and coordinate priorities across levels of decision making.

Need to coordinate restoration priorities across borders (municipal, regional and national).

Recognition that conservation based on technical top-down approaches only, tends to be less
successful than approaches based on a mixture of good science and stakeholder involvement.
These factors are not purely criteria for prioritization but contribute very much to the success of the
restoration prioritization and its implementation. The prioritization of restoration is a key stage in the
overall restoration planning at any level of decision making.
In order for the prioritization of ecosystem restoration actions to be efficient in the delivery of its
objectives, it should be adequately incorporated in the national, regional and local spatial planning
processes.
Although the main framework is presented as a linear sequence of stages and steps, the planning
and prioritization of biodiversity and ecosystem restoration is a complex process that requires:

frequent iterations and feedback between goals and results;

frequent and continued iterations and feedback between the various planning and decision
making levels (from the EU down to the site level and back), i.e. a good coordination between a
top-down approach that sets general goals and priorities and a bottom-up approach that is more
concerned with the practical achievability.
For the purposes of this guidance, we developed a scale-independent framework for restoration
planning and prioritization based on a detailed review of the literature on systematic conservation
planning combined with the much scarcer frameworks for restoration prioritization. Examples of
existing restoration prioritization frameworks such as those existing in Estonia, France and the UK
have been included in the development of this framework and are summarized in boxes as
illustrations.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 75|210
3.5.2
Hierarchy of the assessment scale
This section on restoration planning has been developed in such a way that it should be useful and
applicable at many levels of planning and decision making, from the EU level down to the local
level. However, in practice, goals and objectives, numbers and types of stakeholders, requirements
in terms of data and information, prioritization criteria will vary according to the scale of the
exercise.
In identifying the priority areas for restoration of degraded ecosystems it is useful to adopt a
hierarchical approach covering the spectrum of scales from the EU level to the site/patch level. The
criteria used for identifying priorities as well as the necessary support data are adapted to the
different scales: At the EU level aggregated, general indicators are used whereas at the local scale
more detailed, location-specific data are needed.
The various levels of the hierarchical approach can be the EU level, bio-geographical level,
Member State level, regional level, local level and site level. For the implementation of policies in
general, this is a common approach where global objectives are integrated into EU policy which is
gradually taken up into lower level policies and legislation. For restoration priorities a similar
approach can be followed, and clear links between the levels, in terms of roles and responsibilities,
data flows, monitoring reporting structures have to be defined.
The restoration prioritization exercise has to be repeated at each level, taking into account the
guidance or conditions imposed from the higher level. This is in order to ensure the ecological
coherence (in terms of targets and spatial and ecological coherence) between the various levels. In
relation to setting priorities for restoration) and implementation of green infrastructure as a delivery
model for ecosystems restoration, the French approach to implementing the trame verte et bleue
(green/blue infrastructure) through formal regional planning instruments called schéma régional de
cohérence écologique can provide a useful example to follow (see Box 5)
The following framework is our proposal to address these issues in a systematic way (Figure 9).
Scope
Information
Analysis
Strategies
Actions
Team and
resources
Biophysical data &
information
Situation analysis
Objectives &
targets
Implementation
Planning area
Socio-economic
and political data
& information
Stakeholder
analysis
Criteria
Monitoring &
evaluation
Current
conservation
status
Prioritization
Reporting
Data preparation
Governance
Goals
(including
modelling)
Threat assessment
Figure 9: Proposed framework for systematic restoration planning
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 76|210
The individual stages (top level in Figure 9) and steps (sub-levels in Figure 9) are explained in more
detail in the following pages. For ease of navigation the respective stage/step is highlighted in the
miniature graphic and each stage is represented by its own colour scheme.
3.5.3
Stage 1. Define the scope of the prioritization exercise
3.5.3.1
Introduction
The wider context in which the identification of ecosystem restoration priorities is taking
place needs to be well understood and some preconditions should be explicitly addressed.
These (practical) constraints will determine many of the choices and options available
during the prioritization process and typically include (Pressey and Bottrill 2009):

Determine the size and composition of the team in charge of the process;

Assess available time, funds and other resources;

Setting the initial boundaries of the planning area;

Select and involve the key stakeholders;

Make a project plan outline;

Agree vision and goals.
It is important at this scoping stage for the team to review and discuss all the stages and steps
leading to the prioritization described in these guidelines (including the monitoring and reporting
stage), as this will allow the team to get an insight into the needs in terms of expertise, data, time
and resources required and to perform the prioritization.
3.5.3.2
Step 1.1. Assign team and resources
Ecosystem restoration affects many individuals, organisations and sectors. Restoration is a process
that aims at re-establishing functional ecosystems and their services whereby a landscape
approach is often needed to recreate or reinvigorate ecological processes. It is therefore
essential that the affected people, organisations, and sectors (the stakeholders) are
appropriately represented in the various stages leading to the decisions on what to restore,
where and when. The exact division of roles and responsibilities depends on the level (EU,
national, regional or local) at which the restoration prioritization takes place and the
particular local conditions.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 77|210
Box 5: Levels of planning, decision making and implementation of the Green/Blue
Infrastructure in FranceThe following levels of action and responsibility are distinguished:

National level: A national framework set by the state provides consistency across the
territory

Regional level: A regional framework to support for local initiatives, guaranteeing the
consistency of the approach and taking into account the services provided by
biodiversity

Department level: Through the policy for fragile nature areas, management of
departmental road infrastructure, agricultural land development, knowledge of
biodiversity and the implementation

Project level: Green infrastructure as part of project planning, ensuring
complementarity and coherence between different policies. Implementation of
experiments and contractual tools (Regional Nature Parks, Water Planning and
Management Frameworks (SAGE), etc.)

Land use planning level (instrument = Territorial Coherence Framework (SCoT):
Green infrastructure as part of project planning, complementarity and coherence
between different policies

Municipal level: Operational implementation and enforceability against third parties by
the planning documents

Individual / site level: action for site development of and impact reduction on the
environment; positive role of farmers and foresters in maintaining ecological continuity;
citizen action in gardens,...
It is important to put in place qualified governance structures at the various levels of planning,
prioritizing and implementing for ecosystem restoration. Each level, from the national down to the
site, requires a group of people qualified to manage the project, collect and analyse the data,
manage the stakeholder involvement etc. For the design and implementation of the Green
Infrastructure in France, various levels of planning, decision making and action have been
identified, each with its own governance structure (see Box 6).
Project team
Lead and coordination
Steering Committee
(selected
stakeholders)
Stakeholder group
Scientific committee
Consultation and
support
Figure10: Suggested governance model for ecosystem restoration prioritization process
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 78|210
A suggested governance model for ecosystem restoration prioritization is presented in Figure10.
The project team is at the core of the process. It ensures overall management and coordination of
the process, and ensures contacts with the other stakeholders. It also ensures that the guidance
from the higher levels of (strategic) planning and decision making are taken into account, reflected
or integrated in the process and that lower levels receive adequate (strategic) instructions on how
to integrate the prioritization decisions in their restoration planning and prioritization activities.
A scientific committee provides the required scientific advice, data and information to ensure the
highest possible scientific standards to the process. Members of this committee should cover the
areas of ecology, conservation and restoration, but also in some cases areas of economy,
sociology and planning (or other required fields of expertise).
A steering committee. An effective way to include and involve stakeholders in the process is to
create a steering committee with representatives of the main stakeholder groups. This steering
committee should be given a clear mandate and be actively involved in the key stages of the
prioritization process. Together with the scientific committee, the steering committee ensures that
all relevant factors and knowledge are taken into account during the preparation of the identification
of restoration priorities.
A stakeholder group - A wider group of stakeholders is consulted at key decision moments in the
process, but does not follow the process as closely and actively as the steering group. It should
ensure that the interests of the various stakeholders are taken into account in the process.
Members of this group are identified as part of Step 3.2. The involvement of stakeholders allows
capturing tacit knowledge, increasing support for the process and implementing the actions.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 79|210
Box 6 : Governance and participation in French Regional Scheme for Ecological
Coherence
The development of the Regional Scheme for Ecological Coherence) SRCE is a complex process
that requires the integration of large amounts of data and information, the taking into account of
various policies and legal obligations and the reflection of the interests of a wide range of
stakeholders. In order to make the process as inclusive a possible the following governance
structure is being applied.
Figure11: Governance structure of the SRCE
In the development of the regional scheme for green infrastructure the scientific rigor and the
stakeholder participation are central. Therefore, next to the steering and the technical committee,
the process is being carried forward by a scientific committee and a regional stakeholders
committee, both who participate in the development of the strategy and action plan and its
implementation (Figure11).
3.5.3.3
Step 1.2. Define the planning area
The planning area will determine to a great extent what scale the analysis will be performed
at. The next steps, starting with the definition of the goals will depend on the scale of the
exercise. The scale of the analysis depends not only on the size of the area but also on the
administrative hierarchy. In practice however, later work, for example on identifying
stakeholders or collecting data on biodiversity and threats, may lead to the initial boundaries
being revised.
For practical reasons (such as availability of data), the planning area will in general be the
administrative unit (municipality, region, member state) of the department coordinating the
prioritization process. However, as the goal of the process is to restore ecosystems, their functions
and processes, (parts of) the prioritization will require analysis based on physiographic or
biogeographic units such as river basins or landscapes, whose limits do not coincide with the
administrative borders.
Output:

a map with a clear definition of the planning area for which the restoration prioritization will be
performed.
Links with other stages and steps:
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 80|210

3.5.3.4
Provide geographical constraints for the data search (Stage 2).
Step 1.3. Agree on a vision and overarching goal(s)
This stage sets the scene for all following steps, and increases the understanding of the
social, economic and cultural conditions in the planning area, and how these shape
constraints and opportunities for ecosystem restoration. Part of this will lead to a better
understanding of which pressures can be addressed spatially, through restoration actions
in particular areas and which require complementary, non spatial actions.
The definition of goals may begin with agreement on a broad vision statement for the region that is
then progressively refined into qualitative goals about biodiversity (e.g. representation, persistence),
ecosystem services, livelihoods and other concerns (Pressey and Bottrill 2009). The very generality of
goals can help to promote agreement among stakeholders. In this sense, the goals can be thought
of as broad qualitative statements that provide a bridge between the values and beliefs upon which
ecosystems restoration is based and the more specific, often quantitative targets/objectives used in
the actual prioritization process. The four-level model and the descriptors associated with each
level, as developed under this contract, provide a useful concept to identify what constitutes
restoration in the context of the current restoration prioritization framework. An important purpose of
the goals is to help with the identification of spatially explicit data that will be needed in the
prioritization process.
Within the context of the restoration prioritization framework, the definition of the overall restoration
goals should be derived from the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy and the four-level approach. As
restoration is by definition an activity that will yield results in the long term, the EU 2050 vision
should also be considered.
Box 7: EU vision and targets of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy
EU 2050 Vision
‘By 2050, European Union biodiversity and ecosystems services it provides – its natural capital –
are protected, valued and appropriately restored for biodiversity’s intrinsic value and for their
essential contribution to human well-being and economic prosperity, and so that catastrophic
changes caused by the loss of biodiversity are avoided’
EU 2020 headline target
‘Halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and
restoring them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global
biodiversity loss.’
Target 2: Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services
‘By 2020, ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by establishing a green
infrastructure and restoring at least 15% of degraded ecosystems’
Action 6: Set priorities to restore and promote the use of green infrastructure
6.a.) ‘By 2014, Member States, with the assistance of the Commission, will develop a strategic
framework to set priorities for ecosystem restoration at sub-national, national and EU level.’
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 81|210
3.5.3.5
Step 1.4. Plan the project
The prioritization of restoration can be considered as a process with a start and end date,
resources, a timeline and milestones. It is important to coordinate the milestones in terms
of information exchange between the levels (EU down to local) in order to enable fruitful
synergies to be established between the levels of planning and prioritization.
Milestones important for fruitful exchanges include meetings (such as workshops and
conferences) to discuss the coordination between levels and allow effective synergies
between the top down and bottom up approaches. Also important are meetings and information
exchange with parallel processes such as the New Bio-geographical process, MAES and other ongoing processes related to the implementation of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy.
Outputs:

Project timeline with start and end dates and milestones.

A project budget.

A list of project team members, their responsibilities and time allocations.
Main points to remember from Stage 1
Practical constraints will always divert the process from its most ideal outline
Defining the planning area for prioritization of restoration activities requires some flexibility as the
data and information required is not always available for the same units
A clear governance structure and the assignment of roles and responsibilities to all involved parties
(including stakeholders) ensures efficient management and increases the likelihood for a wide
support
Agreeing on the overall goals is a first way to actively engage with the stakeholders involved in the
prioritization process
Clearly defined vision and goals also help define the (spatial) data needs
3.5.4
Stage 2. Collect data and information
3.5.4.1
Introduction
The previous stages describing the context and the goals clarified the need for spatially
explicit data that will influence decisions about where to restore what and when. Planning
and prioritization of ecosystem restoration needs both ecosystem (biotic and abiotic) and
socioeconomic data (Poiani et al. 1998; Pressey and Bottrill 2009; Sarkar and Illoldi-Rangel 2010).
As part of the iterative nature of the planning process (see Figure 9) it might be required to
return to this stage if other steps down the line such as Stage 3 (analysis) or Stage 4 (strategy)
indicate a further need for data and information.
The data should inform the problem analysis Stage 3 and assist in formulating SMART objectives
and identifying relevant criteria for the selection of priority sites and areas for restoration.
In order to ensure the best possible use of existing data and information, care should be taken to
revise all relevant mapping, monitoring and prior conservation planning exercises that have been
carried out and that could inform the process.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 82|210
3.5.4.2
Step 2.1. Assemble biophysical data and information
Biophysical datasets used for ecological restoration prioritization are typically spatially
explicit, that is they consist of a geographic reference (coordinates, conservation areas,
catchments, tenure parcels, units of land use, administrative units etc.) linked to a number
of attributes. Spatially explicit data on biodiversity that include representation units (e.g.
vegetation types), focal species and ecological processes are fundamental to the
prioritization of ecosystems restoration. (Pressey and Bottrill 2009). The units can be grid cells in a
raster map, polygons on a vector map representing a catchment area, a patch of habitat, a
protected area, a property etc. Features are the properties or attributes of these areas.
As all facets of ecosystem condition cannot be captured in spatially explicit datasets, biodiversity
surrogates are used in conservation and restoration planning.
Biodiversity surrogates may be taxa (e.g. species), species assemblages, and environmental
classes or variables or combinations of these. Compiling datasets for use in restoration planning
includes both acquiring relevant data and in most cases analysing those data (classification,
ordination, mapping) so that they are in a form suitable for identifying ecological restoration areas
(Margules, Pressey, and Williams 2002).
The biodiversity and environmental data most commonly used in the prioritization of ecological
restoration include:

Species: presence, distribution, abundance, conservation status, trends

Habitats: presence, distribution, conservation status, trends

Geology and soils

Geomorphology and topography

Climate (temperature, precipitation)

Hydrography
In the current ecosystem restoration prioritization framework the descriptors associated with the
four-level model provide further indication of required data.
Stage 3 (resources) provides a list with sources of information useful for the collection of relevant
biophysical data.
3.5.4.3
Step 2.2. Gather socioeconomic data and information
In addition to data and information on the biotic and abiotic systems, a successful ecosystem
restoration prioritization exercise will require socioeconomic data. This includes a broad
overview of social, economic, land use, fiscal and cultural information for the planning
region (Poiani et al. 1998). This information will help understanding the socioeconomic
factors influencing the land use and associated pressures and opportunities in a certain
area.
Relevant, spatially explicit data will include variables such as tenure, extractive uses, cultural
features, cost of conservation, sectoral activities, drivers and pressures (Margules, Pressey, and
Williams 2002). Also included should be an overview of existing pressures and possible future
threats.
An indication of the type of socioeconomic data that might be required in the prioritization process
will come from the PESTEL analysis (Step 3.1).
It should be noted that further down the process, new needs for socioeconomic data and
information might surface, and that a return to this step might therefore be required.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 83|210
3.5.4.4
Step 2.3. Prepare data and information for analysis
Before the data collected in the previous stage is ready for analysis it needs to be prepared
in such a way that it can be adequately queried to answer the specific questions asked
during the prioritization process. The data preparation can include the digitalization of
maps, entering data in a database, transforming data from one format in the other in order
to allow data compatibility across systems. This data preparation process will also reveal
possible gaps in data and information and can prompt the planning team to assess the possibility to
collect new data or to fill possible gaps by empirical or statistical modelling (Margules, Pressey, and
Williams 2002; Sarkar and Illoldi-Rangel 2010).
Main points to remember from Stage 2
The full variety of biodiversity and ecosystem conditions of a given region cannot be captured in
any, one dataset.
Therefore, for planning purposes so-called biodiversity surrogates (species, clades, and
populations) are generally used.
Most useful in restoration planning are spatially explicit datasets, linking values of attributes (the
biodiversity surrogates such as species or habitat presence and abundance) to a georeferenced
system (e.g. latitude longitude).
The descriptors as part of the four-level approach provide a useful selection of possible data for the
restoration prioritization framework.
3.5.5
Stage 3. Analyse the situation and information
3.5.5.1
Introduction
Although their overall goal is generally evident, restoration projects typically impact a large
number of stakeholders and sectors, either directly or indirectly. It is therefore useful to
spend some time and effort in establishing a picture of the type and intensity of potential
impacts (e.g. hydrological changes on agriculture, or new species on human health and
safety) of restored nature. Likewise, it can pay off to analyse the opportunities for
restoration in the case of ecosystem services or funding. Some formal assessment methods can
help to avoid overlooking potential threats to, or opportunities for, restoration. These are explained
in this section. Some of the techniques can be applied for more than one of the main assessment
exercises. The assessments and techniques discussed in this section are:

Situation analysis: 1. Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental and Legal
(PESTEL); and 2. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) analysis;

Stakeholder analysis;

Problem or issues analysis: 1.Drivers, Pressures, State, Impact, Response (DPSIR); 2.
Situation diagram; and 3. Problem tree analysis.
The overall situation analysis should not necessarily include all assessment methods presented in
this section. According to the situation, the (time) resources, the project team can decide on which
methods best respond to the needs.
3.5.5.2
Step 3.1. Perform a general situation analysis
In the case of a process with such complex goals as the restoration of degraded
ecosystems and their services in a socioeconomic context, it is imperative to carry out an
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 84|210
in-depth situation analysis in order to identify all the relevant factors influencing the process. There
are various formalized ways to conduct this process, such as:

Policy, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental and Legal (PESTEL) analysis;

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) analysis.
Policy, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental and Legal (PESTEL) analysis
The PESTEL analysis is a structured way to make an assessment of the external factors that may
be of influence on a project or activity such as in this case the decision to restore ecosystems. It is
nothing more than a framework for a systematic review of factors that may pose threats or
opportunities to the process under consideration. In that sense it provides a good preparation to
more detailed assessments such as SWOT or DPSIR. It allows the group to improve their overview
of the wider context in which restoration takes place.
The basic PEST analysis includes four factors (adapted from Wikipedia):
Political factors related to the identification of restoration priorities, relevant political factors include
environmental law, spatial planning law and government objectives related to public safety (e.g.
disaster risk reduction) and climate change policy. More general political factors include areas such
as tax policy, labour law, trade restrictions, tariffs, and political stability. Furthermore, governments
have great influence on the health, education, and infrastructure of a nation.
Economic factors include economic growth, interest rates, exchange rates and the inflation rate.
These factors are among the main driving forces that result in pressures on the ecosystems, some
of which can be addressed by restoration. For example, economic growth might lead to increased
demand for agricultural products. To meet this demand, it might be decided to intensify agricultural
production by drainage and irrigation, increased use of pesticides.
Social factors include the cultural aspects and include health consciousness, population growth
rate, age distribution, career attitudes and emphasis on (environmental) safety. Trends in social
factors affect the demand for ecosystems and their services, and therefore also the attitude of
communities towards their restoration (or no).
Technological factors include technological aspects such as R&D activity, automation, technology
incentives and the rate of technological change. In relation to restoration of ecosystem services
they are especially important in assessing the opportunities for ecological engineering solutions,
such as phytoremediation, climate change mitigation and adaptation.
Expanding the analysis to PESTEL adds:
Environmental factors include ecological and environmental aspects such as geological
processes, weather, climate, and global change (including climate), which may especially affect
stakeholder industries such as tourism and farming. Furthermore, growing awareness of the
potential impacts of how climate change is affecting the activities of a wide range of stakeholders
relates to the potential of ecosystem restoration to climate change adaptation.
Legal factors include consumer law, employment law, and health and safety law. These factors
can (negatively) affect the decisions related to ecosystem restoration. It is therefore useful to
anticipate them in order to design practical avoidance strategies.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 85|210
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) analysis
Another tool to better understand the context of the possible restoration activities, to identify
opportunities and to avoid threats is to submit the plan to a SWOT analysis. The SWOT analysis
consists of a two by two matrix in which each quadrant represents one of the four factors. The
listing and review of strengths and weaknesses should focus on the internal factors of the
restoration project, while opportunities and threats refer to external factors that affect the
restoration, either positively or negatively.
i
Strengths
Weaknesses
Opportunities
Threats
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
e
x
t
e
r
Figure12:
n The SWOT model
a
l
It is recommended
to perform the analyses described in this section in a workshop form in which
the project team invites members of the steering committee and the scientific committee. By
including these stakeholders the likelihood to perform an exhaustive review of the ecosystem
restoration strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats can be maximized.
3.5.5.3
Step 3.2. Conduct a detailed stakeholder analysis
Prioritization of ecosystems restoration with a view to result in cost effective projects that
are supported and efficiently implemented in the long run, that make the best use of the
opportunities and incorporate the constraints are only possible with a sound involvement of
the stakeholders. Important stakeholders include those who will influence or be affected by
the restoration actions arising from the prioritization process, or be responsible for
implementing those actions. Different groups of stakeholders will have to be involved in different
ways in specific stages of the process, including at the start when agreeing on the goals and
targets.
The stakeholders represented in the steering committee (Step 1.1) do not represent all individuals
affected by the restoration plans. Based on the results of the situation analysis a clearer picture of
the potential stakeholders can be obtained. Analyzing the other stakeholders is a critical step in
building more powerful constituencies, participating more effectively in (local) decision-making and
avoiding potential pitfalls (Poiani et al. 1998; Jones-Walters et al. 2010; Snethlage et al. 2012).
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 86|210
A stakeholder analysis is often performed in two steps. First the project team performs a listing or
brainstorm of all types of potential stakeholders influencing or likely to be affected by the plan. The
following questions can help ensure that a complete list is obtained:
1.
Who is causing the situation that needs to be addressed by restoration?
2.
Who could benefit from restoration?
3.
Who would be hurt or negatively affected by restoration?
4.
Who could shape public opinion?
5.
Who has the authority to make decisions?
6.
Who will implement the restoration measures?
7.
Who could pay for restoration measures?
A second step involves assessing each stakeholder identified in Step 1. For each stakeholder
answer the following questions:
1.
What effects or potential effects will the goals have on the stakeholder?
2.
What effects or potential effects will the stakeholder have on the goals?
3.
What is known or unknown about the stakeholder?
A third step may involve plotting each stakeholder stake/power matrix:
interest/stake
high
influence/power
low
interest/stake
high
influence/power
high
interest/stake
low
influence/power
low
interest/stake
low
influence/power
high
Figure13: The stakeholder analysis influence diagram
By plotting the stakeholder in the four quadrants of the above matrix one obtains a visual
expression of the influence and power relations of the different groups towards the objectives of the
restoration plans. Stakeholders in the green quadrant need much attention in order to keep them on
board. Stakeholders in the blue quadrant need to be kept well informed. Stakeholders in the red
quadrant need to be kept informed and their power and influence could be used as a lever to
achieve better results.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 87|210
3.5.5.4
Step 3.3. Evaluate the current degradation status of ecosystems
Planning and prioritizing restoration of ecosystems is performed in a landscape or region in
which many forms of land use, including conservation actions, have been performed
already. A major challenge is to review the level of degradation of a given ecosystem in the
planning and prioritization of ecosystem restoration.
A useful approach to such a review is offered by the proposed four-level model and the
descriptors associated with the four levels of degradation. On the basis of the data collected in
steps 2.1 and 2.2 and processed in step 2.3 an initial map of degradation level per ecosystem can
be made. Such a map can then be used for review by stakeholders for possible amendment of
degradation levels based on tacit knowledge. Such a map can then also form the basis for the
prioritization step 4.3.
3.5.5.5
Step 3.4. Assess the causes, threats and pressures of degradation
In order for the restoration actions to be effective it is essential to have a good understanding of the
pressures and threats underlying the process that led to the degradation in the first place.
This will decrease the likelihood that ineffective restoration measures are chosen and
prioritized, or that secondary pressures or threats are dealt with to the detriment of more
important ones.
It is important that sufficient data and information are available (Stage 2) and that the holders
of scientific and traditional knowledge (Steps 1.1 & 3.2) about the ecosystem and its use are
involved in the process of identifying the threats and pressures that lead to the degradation.
This type of formalized analysis can be repeated at the appropriate scale and for the ecosystems,
habitats, sites or species under review.
Problem tree analysis
Problem tree analysis (also called Situational analysis or just Problem analysis) helps to find
solutions by mapping out the anatomy of cause and effect around an issue in a similar way to a
mind map, but with more structure. This brings several advantages:

The problem can be broken down into manageable and definable chunks. This enables a
clearer prioritization of factors and helps focus objectives;

There is more understanding of the problem and its often interconnected and even contradictory
causes. This is often the first step in finding win-win solutions;

It identifies the constituent issues and arguments, and can help establish who and what the
political actors and processes are at each stage;

It can help establish whether further information, evidence or resources are needed to make a
strong case, or build a convincing solution;

Present issues - rather than apparent, future or past issues - are dealt with and identified;

The process of analysis often helps build a shared sense of understanding, purpose and action.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 88|210
Figure14: Hypothetical problem tree analysis for a degraded wetland
The problem tree analysis should ideally be carried out by a small group of stakeholders in order to
capture most of the relevant causes and effects of the core problem at hand. Not only is this a
powerful analytical tool, it is also a very useful approach for discussing a problem in a
heterogeneous group of stakeholders. Problem trees can be far more complex and show more
detail than the example shown in Figure14. An added advantage of ‘dissecting the anatomy of the
problem’ is that, in principle, reading it in the reverse order leads to strong clues as to how to solve
it. If you start with the secondary effects of increased flood risks (this might actually be identified as
the core problem in an analysis performed in another context), the first action might be to find
solutions to increase the water retention capacity. According to this analysis, this can be achieved
by restoring the degraded wetland. A key intervention to achieve this is to revert the land
conversion, i.e. to restore the wetland and to find another solution to the problem of urban sprawl.
Driving force, Pressure, State, Impact, Response (DPSIR) analysis
The DPSIR framework (EEA 1999; UNEP/GRID-Arendal 2012) (see Figure15) can be a useful tool to
orient the situation analysis as it makes a clear distinction between Driving forces, Pressures,
States, Impacts and Responses and their mutual relationships.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 89|210
Figure15: The DPSIR Framework as presented on the EEA website (www.eea.europa.eu)
This type of analysis is particularly useful to disentangle the various factors that affect ecosystem
state and to identify the pressures and drivers that need to be addressed in order to restore the
ecosystem to some predefined state, through the use of appropriate responses.
Main points to remember from Stage 3
The description and analysis of the regional context will highlight opportunities and constraints for
restoration
A thorough appreciation of people and organisations and their relationship with the degraded
ecosystems has a number of benefits, including opportunities to use their (tacit) knowledge,
engaging supporters and identifying opponents
The assessment of the current state of ecosystems and their associated services provides a
baseline for identifying priority areas for restoration
A clear understanding of the causes and effects of degradation will permit a more effective
prioritization of restoration activities
Choose the assessment method that best fits your situation in terms of resources, people involved
and available information
3.5.6
Stage 4. Develop appropriate restoration strategies
3.5.6.1
Introduction
If performed adequately, the preceding stages provide the preconditions to define the
objectives and targets for identifying ecosystem restoration priorities. The prioritization
process involves three steps explained in this stage:

Determine the restoration objectives and targets

Choose and agree on prioritization criteria

Prioritize sites and actions for ecosystem restoration
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 90|210
3.5.6.2
Step 4.1. Determine the restoration objectives and targets
Restoration objectives should be formulated in such a way that their contribution to
achieving the goal is clear (Pressey and Bottrill 2009). In addition, targets should be described
as far as possible in quantitative terms and be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable,
Relevant (Realistic) and Time-bound). Despite inevitable subjectivity in their formulation,
the value of such objectives and targets is their explicitness (Margules and Pressey 2000).
In the case of their expected contribution to the EU Biodiversity Strategy as an overarching goal,
the restoration targets should be formulated in terms of their contribution to the state or condition of
ecosystems and their services. The four-level approach is proposed as the method to identify
degraded ecosystems and it provides a way to quantify restoration targets.
Explicit targets, especially quantitative ones, require discussion about outcomes, limit the likelihood
of quick restoration decisions and encourage accountability. Quantitative targets allow the full
potential of decision support systems (Step 4.3) to be realized.
Formulating the objectives, targets and criteria is best achieved by analysing the outcomes of Stage
3, in particular the results of the problem tree analysis.
When the general ecological restoration goal is defined in broad and wide-ranging terms, it is of
paramount importance to agree on a limited number of SMART objectives. Again, the four-level
approach has been adopted to allow such SMART formulation of objectives. For example, a
specific objective of a given country may be to improve at least 10 % of wetlands with degradation
level 3 to level 2 by 2020, as a contribution to the overall 15 % national restoration target.
3.5.6.3
Step 4.2. Choose and agree on prioritization criteria
In order to choose useful criteria it is important to refer to the definition of ‘degraded
ecosystem’ as adopted under this contract and as further detailed in the four-level
approach.
Within the wider setting of identifying degraded sites specific criteria need to be applied to
filter out those ecosystems or areas that are in most urgent need to be restored. A first class of
criteria may relate to the specific responsibility the planning area has for the conservation of specific
ecosystems or habitats in a European context or which ecosystems have been identified to be of
high priority nationally. Attention should be given to ensure sufficient balance across all ecosystem
types in terms of restoration needs. The European Commission might be requested to provide
specific guidance in connection to ecosystem-based efforts in neighbouring countries or elsewhere
in Europe.
In terms of practical steps, it is advised to arrange a meeting with the stakeholders that have been
identified to be of most importance for identifying restoration priorities (Step 3.2). During such
meeting, consensus needs to be built on the following question:

Which ecosystems have more importance in terms of restoration compared to other ecosystems
(see national strategies, check with EC or neighbouring countries)? And why?
While identifying criteria for selecting priority ecosystems or restoration measures it is important to
consider the following guiding principles:

Ensuring synergy with related policies (e.g. Habitats Directive, green infrastructure, CAP, CFP)

Focusing on restoration measures that tackle key pressures and threats;

Considering restoration measures in a landscape setting or an integrated approach;

Considering restoration measures in an international context (EU or transnational).
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 91|210
Criteria used in the prioritization of restoration
In the process of prioritization, a hierarchy (or sequence) in the consideration of the different types
of criteria needs to be established. This was explicitly requested by the participants in the
workshop, but also finds support in literature (Sarkar 1999; Margules, Pressey, and Williams 2002).
According to the workshop participants, the identification of potential priority restoration areas
should in first instance be based on ecological and conservation criteria. The information generated
by a selection process based on these ecological criteria should then in a second stage inform the
process of prioritization and decision making that also integrates social, economic and other policy
considerations. A special focus should be on land use designation in spatial planning
processes/tools in order to avoid conflicts up front, ineffective restoration efforts and the
misallocation of restoration funds.
During the workshop, participants identified six categories of possible criteria to be used. These are
listed here.
1.
Conservation criteria

Risk of ecosystem collapse

Habitat state of conservation

Trend (in conservation status)

Natura 2000 (designation under Birds / Habitats Directive)

Nationally designated areas (National Parks etc.)

Importance for conservation of HD Annex IV species

Importance for conservation of bird species

Importance for conservation of (national) Red List species
2.
Spatial & ecological criteria

Size

Perimeter–to-area ratio

Proximity to natural areas

Proximity to protected and managed nature areas

Proximity to critical species habitat (Habitat and Birds Directive, Red List, locally important
species)

Function in green infrastructure and national ecological network

Ecological role in re-establishing healthy multifunctional landscapes

Restoration outlook and timeframe (ecological feasibility)

Ecosystem state (4 levels suggested for this project)

Vulnerability

Persistence

Complementarity

Irreplaceability

Flexibility

Efficiency
3.

Ecosystem services criteria (CICES, for full detailed list see www.cices.eu)
Biomass
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 92|210

Water

Biomass, Fibre

Water

Biomass-based energy sources

Mechanical energy

Mediation by biota

Mediation by ecosystems

Mass flows

Liquid flows

Gaseous / air flows

Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection

Pest and disease control

Soil formation and composition

Water conditions

Atmospheric composition and climate regulation

Physical and experiential interactions

Intellectual and representational interactions

Spiritual and/or emblematic

Other cultural outputs
4.
Policy and sector related criteria

Potential synergies with WFD

Potential synergies with CAP

Potential synergies with MSFD

Potential synergies with Climate change policy
 Potential synergies with Regional policy

Potential synergies with national business/industrial policy

Potential synergies with national, regional and local priorities for conservation and sustainable
development

Sectors’ willingness and synergies: transport, energy, employment etc.

Restoration in the context of compensation measures (linked to EIA, SEA and no-net-loss)

Cross-border opportunities

Land use designation in spatial planning tools and processes (regional land use plan, local land
use plan, urban plan, location relative to other types of land use such as industrial or other
operations, etc.).
5.
Social criteria

Stakeholder acceptance and public support (social feasibility)

Proximity to human settlement

Land ownership & property rights

Cultural criteria (also partly covered by cultural ecosystem services, see above)

Species appreciation (also partly covered by cultural ecosystem services, see above)
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 93|210

Cultural and natural heritage value (also partly covered by cultural ecosystem services, see
above)
6.
Economic criteria

Cost benefit ratio of the restoration work (economic feasibility)

Economic value of ecosystem services

Eligibility for EU funding

Eligibility for national public financing

Eligibility for private funding

Eligibility for innovative funding (Payments for ecosystem services, Bonds for green
infrastructure, Biodiversity offsets and habitat banking) – see chapter on financial mechanisms
In addition, six classes of criteria are being used to identify and prioritize networks of conservation
areas for the most effective conservation of biodiversity based on ecological considerations (Brooks
2010; Margules, Pressey, and Williams 2002):

Vulnerability

Persistence

Complementarity

Irreplaceability

Flexibility

Efficiency
Vulnerability: some ecosystems and the biota they contain are more vulnerable to pressures than
others. For example ecosystems linked to fertile soils and good rainfall, are likely to be under
pressure from agricultural development or intensification. Conversely ecosystems linked to
extensive agricultural practices may be threatened by the abandonment of extensive land use
practices.
Persistence related to the long term viability of species in areas established (or restored ) for the
conservation of biodiversity (Gaston, Pressey, and Margules 2002).
Complementarity: the selection of priority areas for conservation should in first instance proceed
from the goal of representing all biodiversity and should not be side tracked by other equally
legitimate but different goals
Irreplaceability: this property of conservation areas refers to the fact that some sites harbour biota
or provide functions that are not provided by others. These areas should form the core of the
restoration prioritization.
Flexibility: is a property of the network of restorable areas. If the network contains many
replaceable sites, i.e. site that contain features or provide functions that are also covered by other
sites, then the network is said to be highly flexible. This property allows a more flexible approach in
the second stage of prioritization when other criteria or interests (social, economic, policy related
etc.) come into the equation.
In the case of the RPF, when other considerations, such as provision of ecosystem services, and
synergies with other policies should also be taken into account in the equation, flexibility is an
essential (ecological) criterion.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 94|210
3.5.6.4
Step 4.3. Prioritize sites and actions for ecosystem restoration
In this step, the potential restoration sites will be reviewed and prioritized according to a
number of criteria. The criteria to be applied to the prioritization process vary depending on
the scale at which the prioritization is performed (e.g., at an EU scale, few criteria may be
sufficient to give some overall prioritization guidance to the Member States and Regions,
while at the local level, many different criteria might be needed to determine the exact
location of the restoration activities) and will have been selected in step 4.2.
Once the questions of the previous steps have been answered in as clear terms as possible and
when all stakeholders have agreed the scope and definitions for the restoration prioritization, it is
time to identify priority ecosystems or potential areas for restoration.
It is essential for this process of identification and selection to do so with involvement of all relevant
stakeholders. The map of level of degradation of all ecosystems as produced in step 3.3 provides
an essential basis for the current step of selection. However, attaching importance to the criteria
and deciding which ones are more important than others can only be done in consultation with
those parties that are directly concerned including the holders of scientific knowledge (the experts).
The selection of the criteria that ultimately will be used for the prioritization is therefore a task for the
stakeholder team.
A number of methods is available to assist such stakeholder engagement process, and it is up to
the project team to select the method that best meets the requirements. In the following sections we
describe a number of such methods.
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)
37
Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a set of procedures that analyse complex decisions
based on disparate, conflicting criteria. MCDA consists of a series of techniques (e.g. weighted
summation) that facilitate the scoring, ranking, or weighting of decision-making criteria based on
stakeholder preferences. These techniques ideally operate within a transparent framework that
encourages informed decision-making by providing opportunities for genuine, substantive
participation in decision-making supported by the best available scientific knowledge that can also
incorporate uncertainties in an honest, rigorous and consistent manner. MCDA typically involves
five steps:

Define the goals and objectives (Steps 1.3 & 4.1);

Identify decision options;

Select the criteria that measure performance relative to the objectives;

Determine the weights for the various criteria;

Apply the procedures and perform the mathematical calculations to rank options.
An MCDA is implemented by a multidisciplinary team (e.g. a steering committee) under the lead of
a facilitator or project leader. The purpose of the MCDA is to identify priority decisions by
completing a table by assigning a score for importance for all of the combinations of restoration
option vs. criterion. The method is perfectly suited to prioritize areas for restoration through a
technique called sieve mapping.
Sieve mapping is a commonly used multi-criteria, GIS-based planning approach that allows
participants to assess the value of an area’s contribution (land availability, ecosystem integrity, land
use conflicts, etc.) toward attainment of restoration goals and objectives. Each constraint or
37
based on ‘Using Multi-criteria Decision Analysis to Support Ecosystem Restoration Planning’ (Suedel et al.
2011) and references therein.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 95|210
opportunity (i.e. criterion) is mapped as a rasterized ‘sieve’ and the area of concern is passed
through the sieves systematically in a definitive sequence to reveal areas suitable for the intended
use. A spatial overlay procedure offers participants the opportunity to assign ratings and weightings
of importance to the criterion in combination, and conducts thorough ‘what-if’ scenario analyses in
an iterative fashion.
Figure16: Sieve mapping procedure applied in the Cottonwood restoration site selection (see Box 4
Application of MCDA in the Missouri River Cottonwood restoration site selection)
Criteria to be analysed by the MCDA tool and sieve mapping are best identified by the
multidisciplinary team through a series of brainstorming workshops. Examples of such decision
criteria for prioritizing areas for restoration may include (see also the longer list under step 4.2):

Criterion 1: Provide connectivity

Criterion 2: Land has no ownership restrictions

Criterion 3: Restoration will provide multiple ecosystem services

Criterion 4: Is identified as important area for birds, butterflies or plants

Criterion 5: Has an unfavourable conservation status

…
The steering committee can then identify which of the criteria they assign more importance to
compared to other criteria (e.g. by voting or through blind balloting). On the basis of this ranking a
weight can be given to each criterion (with criteria receiving more votes to get a higher weight than
criteria that have fewer votes).
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 96|210
Box 8: Application of MCDA in the Missouri River Cottonwood restoration site selection
In 2000, in response to plans for further flood control on the Missouri River, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service issued a Biological Opinion (BiOp) directing the Corps to conduct collaborative,
long-term planning efforts to restore critical ecosystem functions, mitigate for habitat losses, and
recover native fish and wildlife populations, while seeking to enhance social, economic, and
cultural values for future generations along the Missouri River. The magnitude of the project and
the wide range of stakeholders and planning objectives called for the development of
standardized and reproducible methods that could be applied across the watershed. The
Cottonwood Restoration Integrated Site Identification System (CRISIS) was developed, a
participatory GIS-based, sieve-mapping system that employs expert elicitation to identify spatially
explicit ‘siting’ criteria within an MCDA framework that in turn screens for potential restoration and
preservation targets. The project team first hosted a series of brainstorming workshops to
generate a list of potential criteria that could be used to ‘sieve’ potential restoration sites. Team
members spanned multiple areas of expertise and affiliations. The list of criteria was refined and
10 independent criteria were ultimately selected for use in the analysis (see
Table 10). Maps were developed for each criterion and reclassified to indicate the relative
suitability of each cell with respect to each criterion. A normalized scale of 1 to 5 was adopted to
capture the range of conditions (‘5’ = optimal conditions; ‘1’ = unsuitable conditions). ERDC then
facilitated a blind balloting procedure in which the members were asked to rank the criteria from
highest (most important) to lowest (least important). These values were averaged across the
team on a criterion-by-criterion basis, and converted to ranks using rank sum transformation. In
rank sum, the rank position is weighted and then normalized by the sum of all weights (
Table 10). This ranking method is simple and provides an approach to weight assessment.
However, it is limited by the number of criteria to be ranked and is not appropriate for a large
number of criteria since it becomes very difficult to straight rank as a first step. The resultant
weights were entered into a GIS analysis using a weighted arithmetic average:
SSw = 0.18c1 + 0.04c2 + 0.02c3 + 0.05c4 + 0.13c5 + 0.80*0.16c6 + 0.07c7 + 0.15c8 +
0.11c9 + 0.09c10
where SSw is weighted site suitability, and ci is criterion number i as defined in Table 10.
Finally, the results were reclassified on a scale of 1 to 5 using natural breaks and then presented
in a Red Amber Green pattern to communicate the results in a spatial context.
Table 10 Results of the MCDA process. The weighted criteria were used in the GIS sieve mapping
application.
Description of criteria
Rank2
Average
Vote
1
Rank
Sum
Weight
1: Have Suitable Groundwater Depths
0.83
1
0.18
2: Be Inside the Missouri National Recreational River (MNRR)
0.35
9
0.04
3: Avoid Tern and Plover Sites
0.32
10
0.02
4: Be Near Potential Backwaters
0.54
8
0.05
boundary owned by ‘willing’ land owners
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 97|210
Description of criteria
Rank2
Average
Vote
1
Rank
Sum
Weight
5: Be Adjacent to Existing Young Cottonwood Stands
0.59
4
0.13
6: Be Subject to Periodic Inundation
0.68
2
0.16
7: Avoid High Erosion Areas
0.55
7
0.07
8: Provide Connectivity
0.63
3
0.15
9: Be At Risk to Urban Conversion
0.58
5
0.11
10: Be Near Existing Seed Sources
0.56
6
0.09
1
The higher the score, the more important (inverse ranking).
2
The most important = 1, second important = 2, etc.
A GIS-based thematic mapping can then be used to produce a vectorized map for each of the
selected decision criteria. These can then be converted to raster maps for processing in
consecutive steps. On the basis of available spatial data, each cell in the respective raster maps
can be classified in terms of suitability with regard to the criterion under view (e.g. 10 = optimal
condition, 1 = unsuitable condition). An additional calculation can be carried out by integrating the
weighted values for the individual criteria. The results of this exercise can be reclassified to a 1 to 5
scale and spatially presented in a red/amber/green pattern to communicate the results. The end
result is a map of the project area with an indication of potential areas for restoration.
See Section 3 for a list of possible resources to consider for implementing the sieve mapping.
Further reading: A comprehensive overview of the MCA technique is provided in ‘Multicriteria
Analysis: A Manual’ (Department for Communities and Local Government 2009)
Restoration triage
Triage in a restoration context is the process of prioritising the allocation of limited resources to
maximise restoration returns, relative to the restoration goals, under a constrained budget (based on
Bottrill et al. 2008).
The method of triage can be used as a stand-alone method for ranking options in terms of their
priority. It can also be used in combination with, for example, MCDA for assigning importance levels
to decision criteria.
In its most simple form triage in restoration can be based on two factors. In the example below
(Hobbs and Kristjanson 2003) this is applied to landscape management intervention with the factors
‘level of need/threat’ and ‘probability of long-term persistence or system recovery’.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 98|210
Figure17: Landscape management intervention grid (Hobbs and Kristjanson 2003)
The method of triage is also based on stakeholder participation, in which stakeholders identify their
priorities by allocating a score to the combination of factors under view.
When more than two factors are considered, which is mostly the case, the triage table takes a
different form. Table 11 illustrates this for a set of seven criteria (see step 4.2 for a long list of
possible criteria).
Table 11: Hypothetical example of a triage table when using multiple criteria.
Criterion
Conservation
Spatial
category
Sub-criterion
Weight
Ecosystem service
…
Biomass
…
ecological
Risk of
Habitat state
Trend in
Size
Perimeter-
Water
ecosystem
of
conservation
to-area
collapse
conservation
status
ratio
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
W7
…
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
…
Weighted sum
retention
Ecosystem/area
for restoration
Forest
(S1*W1)+(S2*W2)
+…
Wetlands
Dunes
…
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 99|210
In this example, the stakeholder team compares a number of choices in the form of ecosystem
types. This could also be specific areas or sites. The sub-criteria in the second row can be derived
from a brainstorm session held by the stakeholder group, who also can give weights to individual
sub-criteria (see under MCDA). For each combination of ecosystem and sub-criterion stakeholders
are invited to assign scores. These can then be combined into a weighted sum for each ecosystem
type. By ranking these sums an indicative priority list is created of ecosystems or areas to be
restored.
Spatial data overlay
A simple method for prioritization is that of spatial data overlay. It basically consists of a technical
exercise in which existing maps for a given country are combined in a Geographical Information
System (GIS). For many countries or regions maps have been produced by a range of
organizations, indicating areas that are most in need of conservation. Various algorithms can be
applied (from simple summation to weighted combinations or specific filters) to combine maps to
yield prioritization results (Micheli et al. 2013). For example, a combination of areas of high
importance for given species groups - e.g. Important Bird Areas (Heath et al. 2011) or Prime Butterfly
Areas (van Swaay and Warren 2003) - with Natura 2000 or other designations may reveal important
areas that lack conservation and that may be in need for restoration.
Although this approach has advantages of being relatively straightforward in terms of its
implementation, it lacks the involvement of stakeholders and therefore risks lack of acceptance of
the results. Also, depending on the data layers used, it may have a bias towards conservation
areas and neglect areas with restoration potential in that currently have degradation level 4 (e.g.
urban areas). However, it may provide a useful step in bringing together existing knowledge as a
basis for discussion with stakeholders.
3.5.7
Stage 5. Implement, monitor, evaluate and report restoration actions
The stage of implementing the identified restoration priorities is only very briefly mentioned in these
guidelines. Implementation, monitoring and reporting are important through the feedback of relevant
information on restoration progress to the earlier stages. Even if carefully prepared in consultation
with a wide range of stakeholders, the implementation of selected sites and identified priorities for
ecosystem restoration may face unexpected opposition of practical limitations.
In such cases, a return to earlier stages of planning and prioritizing restoration in the light of the
new practical field knowledge may be needed.
In addition the precise outcomes of planned restoration measures are difficult to predict, because of
our limited knowledge of ecosystem functioning and because of the general unpredictability of
natural processes. Monitoring, evaluation and reporting progress enables planners, decision
makers and managers to revisit the agreed restoration priorities and assess the effectiveness of the
restoration measures in the light of the measured progress and to adopt adaptive management
measures if needed.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 101|210
3.6
Guidance Section 2: Application of Stage 4 of the Restoration
Prioritization Framework
3.6.1
Introduction
In this section, suggestions are made for the application of Stage 4 of the restoration prioritization
framework to the Member State and sub-national levels. Again, it should be stressed that the
recommendations or guidelines are not intended to be prescriptive, but to give ideas about how the
prioritization of restoration could be achieved. The selection of criteria, the weighting of their relative
importance in identifying priority areas for restoration and the trade-offs to be made between
competing interests, are all part of a stakeholder process that can be supported by the steps
described in Section 1.
The framework described in Section 1 is based on a review of available literature on restoration
prioritization most of which have been developed in non EU contexts. This approach should have
the advantage that the framework would be universally applicable. But it does not specifically refer
to the EU context. The situation in the EU with regards to restoration is however quite different from
many other parts of the world, for the following reasons: high population density and high affluence
are the drivers of a wide range of pressures that have led to the far reaching deterioration of
ecosystems and biodiversity. On the other hand, the responses in terms of policies, legislation and
regulations have resulted in one of the most comprehensive networks of protected areas in the
world (Natura 2000). In addition conservation objectives (including restoration) are included in many
related policies (Water Framework Directive, Common Agricultural Policy, Marine Strategy
Framework Directive, regional and cohesion policy etc.) and their implementation frameworks.
On the following pages, for each of the levels a possible role and specific actions in connection to
the three steps under Stage 4 are described.
3.6.2
European Union
At EU level, there is an important role in terms of coordination, and providing guidance.
3.6.2.1
Determining objectives

Target is defined. Support countries in interpretation and implementation of the objectives (e.g.
through this guidance document and the support mechanism)

Identify and enable synergies with other European policy (e.g. green infrastructure, Natura
2000)
3.6.2.2
3.6.2.3
Agreeing criteria

Communicate criteria, create consensus

Exchange experience in criteria development

Engage stakeholders at European level (RPF WG, EHF, ETC BD, EEA, etc.)
Prioritizing

Exchange experience from Member States and other actors (e.g. via working group and support
mechanism)

Coordinate national priorities in transnational/EU context (ensuring balance)

Communicate MS priorities to other MS
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 102|210
3.6.3
Member State
Typically, the type of question to be addressed in a restoration prioritization exercise at national
level is about what broad categories of ecosystems need to be restored first in order to meet the EU
target, and where are they located. The answer to this will be in relatively generic terms, perhaps
resulting in a listing only or sometimes accompanied by an indicative map. The outcome of this
exercise is for regional or local authorities to fine-tune for their respective levels.
3.6.3.1
3.6.3.2
3.6.3.3
Determining objectives

Establish national governance structure

Develop a national strategic framework for ecosystem restoration

Establish clear links with the EU Green Infrastructure Strategy

Transpose 15 % target to national policy and identify country-specific objectives per ecosystem

Communicate national objectives to EU and MS
Agreeing criteria

Facilitate stakeholder meeting to reach consensus over national criteria

Share selected criteria with EU and other MS
Prioritizing

Produce national ecosystem degradation map (cfr. MAES)

Produce national indicative map or list of priority ecosystems/regions based on agreed criteria
and stakeholder approach (including EU)

Communicate national indicative priorities to regional/local level

Agree with regional/local level division of roles and responsibilities

Communicate national priorities to EU and MS

Coordinate monitoring of implementation and outcome and aggregate the information for
communication to EU level
3.6.4
Region
Regions within countries will in many cases be responsible for turning broad restoration policy
objectives and priorities into more precise maps and objectives, including detailed planning and
budgeting.
3.6.4.1
Determining objectives

Establish regional governance structure

Develop a regional strategic framework for ecosystem restoration

Integrate the national priorities and criteria in terms of ecosystem restoration in the Regional
Strategic Framework
3.6.4.2
3.6.4.3

Turn overall national objectives into regional level involving stakeholders throughout the process

Transpose the regional strategic framework to relevant spatial planning tools and processes
Agreeing criteria

Facilitate stakeholder meeting to reach consensus over regional criteria

Share selected criteria with national level and other regions
Prioritizing

Produce regional ecosystem degradation map, where needed
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 103|210

Produce regional map or list of priority ecosystems/regions based on agreed criteria and
stakeholder approach (including national)

Communicate regional priorities to national and local level

Agree with local level division of roles and responsibilities

Identify planning and resource requirements

Coordinate monitoring of implementation and outcome and aggregate the information for
communication to national level
3.6.5
Municipality
The local level is in many cases the level of implementation, with site managers where appropriate.
Town plans and other spatial planning tools are turned into practice through full planning
processes.
3.6.5.1
Determining objectives

Establish local governance structure

Develop a local spatial plan for ecosystem restoration

Integrate the regional priorities and criteria in terms of ecosystem restoration in the local
planning

3.6.5.2
3.6.5.3
Turn overall regional objectives into local level involving stakeholders throughout the process
Agreeing criteria

Facilitate stakeholder meeting to reach consensus over local criteria

Share selected criteria with regional level and other municipalities
Prioritizing

Produce local map of priority ecosystems/sites based on agreed criteria and stakeholder
approach (including regional)

Communicate local priorities to regional level

Agree with local stakeholders division of roles and responsibilities

Identify planning and resource requirements

Implement

Monitor progress in implementation and outcome and communicate to regional level
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 104|210
Box 9 National coordination of the Green and Blue Infrastructure in France
The Green Blue Infrastructure (GBI) is an instrument to increase ecological coherence in France
and to enhance ecosystems and their benefits for society. Identification of degraded ecosystems
and the prioritization of their restoration is a key process in the implementation of the French GBI.
In that sense it can be seen as a model identifying and prioritizing ecosystems restoration.
Design and implementation of the GBI is coordinated from the state level. Guidance, resources
and support are provided to the different groups having responsibility for its implementation down
to the local level through a special web portal: http://www.trameverteetbleue.fr.
Coordinated by the French Ministry for Ecology, Sustainable Development and energy (MEDDE),
Resource Centre for GBI is supported by the Atelier technique des espaces naturels (Aten), the
Federation of French Regional Nature Parks (FPNRF), the Research Institute for Science and
Technology for the Environment and Agriculture (Irstea), The National Natural History Museum
(MNHN) and the National Office for Water and Aquatic Environments (Onema). It is structured
around 3 main functions:

A resource function led by Aten which is mainly focusing on coordinating the offer of GBI
training, development and maintenance of the web platform and the dissemination of
best practice with the support of the FPNRF;

An exchange function led by the FPNRF, mainly focused on the coordination of actions
concerning exchanges of knowledge and the dissemination of the newsletter ‘Qu'est-ce
qui se trame ?’ (‘What’s being networked?’);

A scientific and technical support function led by the MEDDE with the support of
IRSTEA, MNHN and Onema.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 105|210
Box 10: Ensuring coherence in the implementation of Blue Green Infrastructure in France
One of the objectives of the Grenelle de l’Environnement involves the implementation of a
strategy for the restoration of ecological coherence throughout its territory (trame verte et bleue
TVB). The aims of the TVB are to restore and conserve biodiversity but also to increase and
restore the benefits that society derives from nature. The implementation is coordinated at the
level of the regions in close cooperation with the central government. The development and
implementation of the Schéma régional de cohérence écologique (SRCE, or Regional scheme for
ecological coherence) is the key process. The SRCE procedures and guidelines have been
centrally developed and guidance is also provided to ensure consistency across the regions. This
guidance covers the following national coherence criteria:

Species

Habitats

Interregional and international connectivity
The coherence between the measures taken at different spatial scales and across administrative
levels is being ensured by establishing formal requirements to take into account or reflect the
guidance and conditions established in other relevant documents, according to the following
scheme.
Figure18: Coherence between the SCRE and other relevant environmental tools and
processes
The regions, in developing their spatially explicit plans for the implementation of green
infrastructure (trame verte et bleue) are required to take into account the priorities and guidelines
set at national level, i.e. to make sure the network of protected and restored areas contribute to
the species and habitats selected at the national level and that they contribute to the national
ecological corridors.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 106|210
National guidelines for restoration – the case of France
Although not explicitly a part of the implementation of target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy,
France has developed a comprehensive approach to the multiscale identification of conservation
and restoration areas based on the concept of green infrastructure (trame verte et bleue).
This is a biodiversity conservation policy which is enshrined in a legal framework (Loi du Grenelle
de L’Environnement and associated decrees)
The five criteria to ensure ecological coherence at national level though the development of
regional schemes for ecological coherence are (Sordello et al. 2011):
1.
Existing protected areas
2.
Water and wetland habitats
3.
Species
4.
Habitats
5.
Interregional and international ecological coherence
Ad 1. Existing protected areas: this national level criterion establishes that existing designated strict
areas for the protection of nature should be included in the identification of elements of the Blue
Green Infrastructure. These include the ‘Arrêtés Préfectoraux de Protection de Biotope’ (APPB), the
core areas of national parks, the national nature reserves, the regional nature reserves, sites
explicitly designated for biodiversity conservation and biological reserves. The possible noninclusion of other designated areas in the GBI needs to be justified;
Ad 2. Water and wetland habitats: this criterion is included to guarantee the taking into account of
the plans and actions related to water management, in particular as described in the SDAGE
(Schéma Départemental d’Aménagement et de Gestion des Eaux, Departmental plan for water
planning and management)
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 107|210
Ad 5. For the criterion Interregional and international ecological coherence, five themes have been
identified:

Open areas (grasslands etc.)

Half open areas (wooded heathlands etc.)

Half-closed areas (bocage)

Closed areas (woods and forests)

Migration corridors
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 108|210
Box 11: EHS: Identifying restoration areas in The Netherlands
The main delivery process of nature conservation policy in The Netherlands (Natuurbeleidsplan)
is the implementation of the national ecological network, NEN (Ecologische Hoofdstructuur, or
EHS), whose main goal it is to preserve biodiversity in The Netherlands. The decision to design
and implement the EHS came shortly after the 1992 Rio Conference.
It was originally thought of as a national network of core areas, nature development areas and
ecological corridors. The strong spatial focus was chosen because it was thought that improving
physical conditions in a spatially explicit manner would benefit the management of the core areas.
To implement the EHS concrete objectives were needed. For this a measure for biodiversity was
needed. Because the definition of ecosystems is rather arbitrary, key species were chosen as a
surrogate to express biodiversity (Van der Zande and Hoogeveen 1995). The objective of the EHS
was to avoid that species would disappear from The Netherlands, with a special attention for
species of international significance. These EHS target species (doelsoorten) have been selected
in a transparent and reproducible way by using three criteria: International significance (I),
Negative trend in The Netherlands (T) and Rarity in The Netherlands (Z) (see Figure19). Only
species with a high score for two of the three criteria were selected as target species (black and
dark grey areas in the figure below). Threshold values for the operationalization of the criteria for
the species groups considered as part of this process are given in Van der Zande and Hoogeveen
(1995).
Figure19: The three criteria for the selection of target species in The Netherlands
(Van der Zande and Hoogeveen 1995)
For the conservation of these target species, a system of nature target types (natuurdoeltypen)
has been developed, linked to a clustering of the target species, and which can be assessed for
each conservation area. The natuurdoeltypen have been based on the classification of plant
communities in The Netherlands, to which the target species have been linked. The combination
of plant communities and target species resulted in some 100 nature target types for which the
key species, abiotic conditions and associated natural processes have been described. The
nature target types have been clustered into four main groups based on the level of human
intervention in their management. The nature target types have been described in great detail in
the ‘bible of Dutch nature conservation’: Handboek Natuurdoeltypen (Bal et al. 2001) (Manual for
nature target types).
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 109|210
3.7
Guidance Section 3: Resources
3.7.1
Sources of basic information and data
Biodiversity portal http://biodiversity.europa.eu/
International conservation significance
Biodiversity Hotspot
http://www.conservation.org/where/priority_areas/hotspots/Pages/hotspots_main.aspx
Key biodiversity area http://www.iucn.org/knowledge/focus/ipbes_focus/key_biodiversity_areas/
http://ipbes.unepwcmc-004.vm.brightbox.net/assessments/164
Important Bird Area http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/site
http://www.birdlife.org/action/science/sites/european_ibas/index.html
IBA’s in danger http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/info/IBAsInDanger#EUROPE AND CENTRAL
ASIA
Vector map of IBAs http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/geomap.php?r=i&c=3
Important Plant Area http://www.plantlife.org.uk/international/wild_plants/IPA/
http://www.plantlifeipa.org (password restricted)
Prime Butterfly Areas of Europe http://www.bc-europe.eu/upload/PBA_summary.pdf
Ramsar Site / Wetlands of International Importance http://ramsar.wetlands.org/
RAMSAR sites in danger: The Montreux Record http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsardocuments-montreux/main/ramsar/1-31-118_4000_0__
Vector Map of RAMSAR Sites
http://ramsar.wetlands.org/GISMaps/RamsarSitesinGoogleEarth/tabid/944/Default.aspx
http://ramsar.wetlands.org/GISMaps/DownloadGISdatasets/tabid/769/Default.aspx
World Heritage Sites http://whc.unesco.org/en/list
Man and Biosphere Reserves http://www.unesco.org/new/en/naturalsciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/europe-north-america/
Restoration needs in MABs: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/naturalsciences/environment/ecological-sciences/man-and-biosphere-programme/mab40/infocusarchive/results/periodic-review/
Marine Protected Areas (MPA): Specially Protected Areas Protocol of the Barcelona Convention
http://www.rac-spa.org/spami
Pressures

Flood risk http://floods.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

Desertification http://wad.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

Drought http://edo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/edov2/php/index.php?id=1000

Pollutants http://fate.jrc.ec.europa.eu/rational/home
State
109
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 110|210

Article 17 reporting
http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Reporting/Article_17/Reports_2007/index_html

European soils http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
Responses

Natura 2000 sites http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/natura-3

Natura 2000 viewer http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/#

World Database of Protected Areas http://www.protectedplanet.net/

Rewilding Europe areas www.rewildingeurope.com/areas/
National conservation significance

Nationally designated areas

National Red List of Ecosystems

Habitats / sites important for Red List Species
110
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 111|210
4
Support mechanisms
4.1
Support mechanism for the restoration prioritization framework
4.1.1
Introduction
This chapter assesses the needs and benefits of developing a support mechanism and the
services it could/should provide. Also, we review existing support mechanisms, describe a
number of potential building blocks, identify priorities for service development, propose
scenarios, and make an assessment of costs and potential funding sources for the respective
scenarios of a possible support mechanism. Recommendations are formulated at the end.
4.1.2
Existing support mechanisms
In order to learn from other experiences and prevent possible duplication, we have consulted a
number of initiatives that can be regarded as support mechanisms for European processes for
which input from Member States or other actors is required. We have looked at an EU-process
for an ambitious policy field (regional policy), two initiatives that are run for specific topics for DG
Environment (EU Business & Biodiversity Platform, New Biogeographical Process), a more
general EU information service (Biodiversity Information System for Europe), and an NGObased initiative (Society for Ecological Restoration Europe). The reviews are descriptive and
give insight into possible overlaps or lessons learned.
4.1.2.1
Regional policy – inforegio
38
Four joint initiatives (Special Support Instruments ) were developed by the European
Commission (Directorate General for Regional Policy) in cooperation with the European
Investment Bank (EIB) group and other financial institutions in the framework of the 2007-2013
programming period in order to make cohesion policy more efficient and sustainable. These
initiatives are set up in support of efficient use of a substantial part of the overall EU budget
(nearly 36 % of the EU budget for the period 2007-2013). Two of them refer to the promotion of
financial engineering instruments (JEREMIE and JESSICA) and the other two (JASPERS and
JASMINE) operate as technical assistance facilities.

JASPERS: Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions, is a technical
assistance facility for the twelve EU countries which joined the EU in 2004 and 2007. It
provides the Member States concerned with the support they need to prepare high
quality major projects, which will be co-financed by EU funds. The instrument is
governed through headquarters based at the EIB in Luxembourg, supported by three
regional offices, totalling about 85 staff. Experts are recruited and paid by the EC or on
secondment from the EIB, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)
and Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW).

JEREMIE: Joint European Resources for Micro to Medium Enterprises, is an initiative of
the European Commission developed together with the European Investment Fund. It
promotes the use of financial engineering instruments to improve access to finance for
38
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/thefunds/instruments/index_en.cfm
111
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 112|210
SMEs via Structural Funds interventions. In addition to online documents and events, a
networking platform is set up by which workshops are organized.

JESSICA: Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas, is an
initiative of the European Commission developed in cooperation with the EIB and the
Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB). It supports sustainable urban development
and regeneration through financial engineering mechanisms. As for JEREMIE, online
documents and events are complemented by a networking platform through which
workshops are organized.

JASMINE: Joint Action to Support Micro-finance Institutions in Europe, aims at providing
both technical assistance and financial support to non-bank, micro-credit providers and
to help them to improve the quality of their operations, to expand and to become
sustainable. JASMINE seeks also to promote good practices in the field of microcredit
and to draft a code of good conduct for micro-credit institutions.
4.1.2.2
The EU Business @ Biodiversity Platform
The EU Business @ Biodiversity Platform
39
was developed by a consortium of partners under
the lead of IUCN-Europe as part of a three-year contract with the Commission, which ended in
October 2012. It covered six sectors; Agriculture, Forestry, Finance, Food Supply, Non-energy
Extractive Industry and Tourism. The activities of the previous Platform focussed on:

providing opportunities for dialogue between, and among, businesses and the Commission;

encouraging and supporting businesses in incorporating biodiversity conservation in their
activities, benchmarking good practices and giving recognition to best practices through the
European Business Awards for the environment and ensuring sustainability;

contributing to the work led by the EC on business engagement in biodiversity
conservation.
Although the EU Business @ Biodiversity Platform was not directly linked to a specific target, it
was developed in the framework of the EU Communication of 2006 on ‘Halting the loss of
40
biodiversity by 2010 – and beyond - sustaining ecosystem services for human well-being’ . This
called for building more effective partnerships, including partnerships with business both at the
level of the EU and in the Member States.
Although the most visible component is a website, the Platform also provided other support
services, such as the production of guidance documents and the organization of meetings with
sector representatives to identify issues and solutions concerning the interaction between
biodiversity and business. The Platform also brought together actors from different business
sectors, aiming to encourage knowledge exchange and to build capacity.
A total of 72 partners joined the community during the life of the Platform. In support of the
knowledge exchange a resource centre was included in the website, providing information on
relevant publications, case studies and relevant web links for the sectors of agriculture, food
supply, forestry, non-energy extractive industry, finance, and tourism.
39
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/business/index_en.html
40
COM/2006/0216 final
112
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 113|210
Benefits for businesses participating in the platform included direct exchange with other
businesses during workshops, access to overview information on best practices, recognition of
their work through an award and in newsletters and a website, and first-hand information on EU
policy in the field of business and biodiversity.
The Platform was effective in terms of communication activities and increasing awareness of the
ways that business can support biodiversity. Some useful best practices related to
benchmarking concerning, in particular, the monitoring of biodiversity were also developed.
Total costs for developing and maintaining the EU Business @ Biodiversity Platform for a period
of three years were around € 900,000, funded by EC DG Environment. Businesses and other
partners participated in the workshops and other activities on their own budgets.
4.1.2.3
The EU Business @ Biodiversity Platform Phase 2
The Commission launched Phase 2 of the EU B@B Platform in October 2013. Phase 2 of the
Platform will take a different approach. Firstly, it will be open to all sectors. It will also provide an
overview and updates on all European national B@B Platforms. Finally, a large part of the tasks
will focus on themes including, but not restricted to: 1) Accounting for Natural Capital, 2)
Innovation for biodiversity and business, and 3) Access to finance and innovative financing
mechanisms for biodiversity-related business activities.
4.1.2.4
New Biogeographical Process
The ‘New’ Biogeographical Process (NBP) follows-on from an earlier process of biogeographical
seminars that started in 1997 in support of activities of EU Member States to designate Natura
2000 areas. The new process aims to assist Member States in their efforts to manage habitat
types as listed in the Habitats Directive towards Favourable Conservation Status. It therefore
provides a direct support to achieving Target 1 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and
makes it comparable to the process in support of the restoration target. The NBP started in
2011 and is currently contracted by the Commission to a consortium under lead of ECNC to run
until the end of 2014.
The NBP is an ambitious process with a fixed cycle of activities that is repeated for all
biogeographical regions and that is serving all Member States. It has a number of building
blocks that jointly can be regarded as a support mechanism for Natura 2000 management. The
key building blocks of the NBP are:
Meetings

Meetings of the Steering Committee, which is composed of representatives of the
Member States in the biogeographical region and of the European Commission, the
European Environment Agency, the European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity, the
European Habitats Forum and the Natura 2000 Users Forum. The Steering Committee
reviews the pre-scoping document (see below), and decides about the habitat types,
species and habitat groups selected for the concerned biogeographical region. It is also
the forum where Member States discuss all issues linked to the preparation of
documents as well as the practical preparation of the workshops and seminars.
113
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 114|210

A Preparatory Workshop is used to prepare the Natura 2000 seminar. It is an informal
working meeting that provides the basic material and preparation for the Seminar. It is
informed by a background document (see below).

A Natura 2000 Seminar bring together key actors from different countries for the
exchange of practice and results in the establishment of expert networks about similar
habitats inside a biogeographical region. The Natura 2000 Seminars are based on a
'Seminar Document' whose contents are derived from the preparatory workshop (see
below). The conclusions of the seminar result in a jointly agreed list of actions on the part
of Member States and other actors.

Networking: the active networking and cooperation between all experts involved
throughout the biogeographical region, but also between different biogeographical
regions represents the heart of the process. This networking and cooperation can be
supported by the organisation of ad-hoc expert meetings that can address specific
issues.
Documents

A pre-scoping document with a pre-selection of habitats and species of Community
interest in the biogeographical region ranked according to conservation status and
representation is drafted by the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity (ETC/BD). The
pre-scoping document explains the selection of habitats. It provides a description of each
habitat together with a summary of the relevant Article 17 data (conservation status,
pressures and threats, etc.). Annex II and IV species linked to the selected habitat types
are also included.

A background document compiles relevant information from the pre-scoping
document, complemented by pre-existing sources on management methods including
best practice, etc. The background document has a life beyond the seminar and is
updated as the seminar process continues.

The Seminar Document provides the basis for the discussions at the seminar,
summarizes the outcomes of the preparatory workshop, and lists the actions that have
been identified at the workshop and refined prior to the seminar.

The Seminar Conclusions set out conclusions and recommendations of the seminar
deliberations and discussions in relation to the way forward.
Communication

41
A Natura 2000 platform
has been developed in the form of a website that offers
access to available management knowledge, relevant contacts, a forum for discussion,
as well as relevant events, documents and news.
Total costs for developing and maintaining the New Biogeographical Process for a period of
three years will be around € 1,200,000, funded by EC DG Environment. Member States and
other actors participated in the workshops and other activities on their own budgets and some
provide additional input by hosting events on their costs.
41
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/platform/index_en.htm
114
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 115|210
4.1.2.5
Biodiversity Information System for Europe
42
The Biodiversity Information System for Europe (BISE ) is a single entry point for data and
information on biodiversity in the EU. Bringing together facts and figures on biodiversity and
ecosystem services, it links to related policies, environmental data centres, assessments and
research findings from various sources. It is being developed to strengthen the knowledge base
in support of the implementation of the EU biodiversity strategy and the assessment of its
progress.
BISE is a partnership between the European Commission (DG Environment, Joint Research
Centre and Eurostat) and the European Environment Agency. It serves as the Clearing-House
Mechanism for the EU within the context of the United Nations Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) and maintains cooperation with the European network of Biodiversity CHMs.
BISE organises information at the European level accessible through five entry points:

Policy: policy, legislation and supporting activities related to EU directives, the EU
Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), pan-European and global policies

Topics: state of species, habitats, ecosystems, genetic diversity, threats to biodiversity,
impacts of biodiversity loss, evaluation of policy responses

Data: data sources, statistics and maps related to land, water, soil, air, marine,
agriculture, forestry, fisheries, tourism, energy, land use, transport

Research: important EU-wide research projects related to biodiversity and ecosystem
services, improving the science-policy interface

Countries and networks: national biodiversity reporting activities and information
sharing by networks across national borders
The description above is taken from the BISE website and it illustrates that BISE is a generic
information service that aims to provide a central entry point on biodiversity in Europe,
connected to European and global policies.
4.1.2.6
Society for Ecological Restoration – Europe
The website
43
of SER Europe says: ‘SER Europe is a network of restoration experts,
exchanging knowledge and expertise for the promotion of ecological restoration in Europe. The
network is open to scientists, practitioners, policy makers and other restoration enthusiasts.’
As a component of an international non-profit organisation (founded as SERM in 1987), SER
Europe acts as a support mechanism for ecological restoration in Europe in its widest sense,
including to support EU policy. This is demonstrated by its commitment, which reads:

‘We try to facilitate dialogue among restorationists, both scientists and practitioners, by
organising conferences, workshops and training courses;
42
43

We try to provide practical advice for cost-effective restoration;

We encourage research and research networks;

We publish the international journal of Restoration Ecology;
http://biodiversity.europa.eu/
http://chapter.ser.org/europe/
115
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 116|210

We promote awareness of and public support for restoration and restorative
management;

We contribute to public policy discussions.’
Of particular relevance in this respect is the website of SER Europe. This website already
provides background information on the European policy context (although no specific mention
is made of target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, let alone of Action 6a), it holds a
calendar of relevant events (including training), and provides a searchable knowledge base on
restoration. The latter service provides a tool for the restoration community to share knowledge,
best practice experience, interesting case studies and so on. It includes a menu to search the
knowledge base for any key word, such as habitat or vegetation type, habitat code under the EU
Habitats Directive, species name, degradation source, restoration measure or technique,
author, country and so on. You can search whole documents or particular parts of documents
(such as title, author, abstract, key words, main content body).
44
Total expenses for SER globally, based on its 2011 annual report , amounted about € 754,000
($ 988,159). No information is available about the budget for SER Europe. The SER budget is
largely covered by membership fees, sponsorship, grants, donations, publications, and world
conference fees.
4.1.2.7
Conclusion on existing initiatives
Based on the review of a limited number of existing European support mechanisms we may
conclude that very different kinds of initiatives are established, all with their strengths and
weaknesses:

The initiatives listed as part of the Regional Policy Special Support Instruments
concentrate on capacity building and direct assistance, rather than on producing
websites or managing communication. They are very ambitious and powerful and
backed by a large budget.

The Business @ Biodiversity Platform was effective in terms of communication
activities, engaging stakeholders and raising business awareness. There were more
challenges in producing outputs on benchmarking, notably the development of
methodologies that accommodate the needs of all sectors. Nevertheless, some useful
best practices concerning, in particular, the monitoring of biodiversity were developed.

The New Biogeographic Process is directly connected to an essential process in
support of EU policy and has a clear objective, sufficient budget and good time span
for it to be efficient. The combination of networking events, information exchange,
communication tools and cooperation offers a good suite of services to Member
States.

BISE is not to be regarded as a support mechanism for a particular activity, a specific
objective or target group but rather provides generic support by making information
and data more easily accessible to the interested community. It is entirely focused on
internet-based services and is embedded in the governance of a formal agency and
policy. The current version of BISE (consulted 29 August 2013) does not offer a special
44
http://www.ser.org/docs/default-document-library/2011-annual-report.pdf?sfvrsn=2
116
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 117|210
section in relation to restoration, which it does for green infrastructure. It would be
recommendable to add a restoration section, certainly if a support mechanism with a
website would be developed this should be linked from BISE.

The SER has many years of track record in providing support to a range of
stakeholders in the field of ecological restoration, including meetings, publications,
networking and a website. We recommend for the EC to explore possibilities to liaise
more closely with SER Europe and to identify possible fields of cooperation on aspects
of a support mechanism.
4.1.3
Towards a support mechanism for the restoration prioritization
framework
4.1.3.1
Target groups
The call for the current activity refers to ‘Member States, regions and cities’ as target group. It
does not specify what actors at these geographical levels are targeted, although it can be
assumed that it in a first instance refers to the competent authorities at these levels. Other
relevant actors for each of the levels may include spatial planners, developers, businesses, land
managers, researchers, consultants, or legal advisors.
It is assumed that an RPF support mechanism, depending on the form it will take, will serve
quite a wide range of target groups in different ways, with the highest benefits expected for
actors at national and regional levels.
4.1.3.2
User needs
During a session on the support mechanism that was held at the restoration workshop on 29-30
May as part of this project, participants (the majority of which represented the public sector, with
less participants from research and NGO community and only a few representing the business
community) identified key needs for which support would in particular be helpful. In summary, it
concerns need for:
Data - Accurate data at the right resolution are crucial for the prioritization of restoration
activities, from the EU level down to the local level. Although it is mostly the task and
responsibility of Member States to make sure they collect the data according to agreed
standards, some EU level coordination would be helpful to fill gaps and to generate data that
are useful for planning and prioritization, as for example demonstrated by initiatives such as
45
46
47
Copernicus , EUBON , GEO .
Clear guidance on matters relating to the restoration target and how to achieve it. This includes
guidance on identifying degraded ecosystems (such as based on the descriptors in the 4-level
model proposed in the current contract), methods for prioritization and use of criteria, available
models and assessment methods, stakeholder involvement (including options for engaging the
business community), restoration experience, funding sources, etc.
45
Copernicus – The European Earth Observation Programme - http://copernicus.eu/
46
EU BON - Building the European Biodiversity Observation Network - http://www.eubon.eu/
47
GEO – Group on Earth Observations - http://www.earthobservations.org/index.shtml
117
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 118|210
Funding - Adequate funding opportunities were considered crucial to the achievement of any
restoration target. Significant support is required from the Commission in terms of the provision
of information regarding accessing existing funding opportunities and generating finance from
innovative approaches. This includes sharing of best practices and making Member States
aware of any public money that could be utilised. Wider recommendations for the Commission
included coherency in objectives across funding and policy and the adoption of ecological crossborder approaches. Private financing is a new area, in which few Member States have
expertise. Support is required in exploring the potential for such approaches, with those where
public money is used to lever private funding likely to be most appropriate. Supporting pilot
project and the provision of best practice guidelines and case studies are appropriate actions.
Coordination - The search for cross-border opportunities to create ecological continuities
benefiting the wider restoration of ecosystems and their services lies primarily with the Member
States through bilateral consultation. However, there is a need for the European Commission to
pro-actively signal those opportunities where they may not have been identified, if they would
primarily benefit European or BGR scale nature restoration. Also, the Commission could play a
coordinating role if opportunities have been identified bilaterally, but implementation is
hampered by some barriers. Alternatively, a mechanism should be available on how to deal with
cross-border projects.
Communication and stakeholder engagement - Although information and communication are
instrumental to promoting the restoration agenda among the stakeholders, actively engaging
with stakeholders in the prioritization and decision making process is a key requirement.
Member States could benefit from guidance on how effectively to engage with stakeholders
(especially economic sectors and businesses) in the planning, prioritization and implementation
of the restoration agenda. At the same time, stakeholders such as developers, engineers,
businesses etc. need guidance on how to engage in policy processes and with authorities when
planning restoration activities. Lessons learned from existing models (e.g. WFD) should be
communicated. Additionally consulting the locals is very time consuming and hard to achieve in
the short time span that is connected to the restoration target. There is a need for rewarding
stakeholders for their involvement (incentive mechanisms). Also, people should know how they
are affected by restoration measures (active participation in the decision making). There is a
further need for good general arguments for restoration (maybe a political paper) to help
convince stakeholders.
Reporting - There is a need for a specific reporting structure in which the Member States can
compile their results on restoration actions. Additionally a reporting template on the prioritization
should be developed. In order to help the Member States to increase their efficiency in the
reporting for Target 2, Action 6a, the Commission could develop a reporting format in such a
way that it could also be used by the Member States to report on the relevant Aichi targets.
Exchange of best practice – Although experience sharing works pretty well, there is room for
improvement. An easily accessible repository of best practice would be helpful. Examples of
best practices (both on restoration and on prioritization and support needs and also on best
scientific and technological practices) should be available for the Member States and other user
118
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 119|210
groups. This should include digested information (e.g. IEEP draft financing report
48
could also
help).
Training and capacity building - In order to implement the very ambitious restoration agenda
there is a need to increase the knowledge and expertise to identify, prioritise and implement
restoration projects. More particularly, there is a need for capacity building through training and
staff exchanges as well as seminars and conferences.
Legal and contractual support – there is a need for information on legal issues regarding
restoration activities as well as working approaches to create contracts for restoration and
management.
Tools – easily accessible information on tools that support restoration (prioritization) action as
well as on experience with applying such tools (e.g. GIS, multi-criteria analysis, option appraisal,
red lists of ecosystems).
4.1.3.3
Possible benefits of a support mechanism
A support mechanism is by definition designed to support those actors that (are expected to)
play a role in achieving a given objective. In the case of Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy
to 2020 it would therefore support actors (both public, private, and non-governmental) in
Member States, regions and municipalities in implementing Action 6a. The benefits of a support
mechanism to the Member States are expected to be in terms of providing easy access to
relevant information and best practices, reducing costs for research and trials by pointing at
existing knowledge and evidence, coordination of cross-border activities, monitoring of
effectiveness and so forth. An expected benefit for the European Commission is in terms of
more harmonized approaches between Member States, expected impetus to implementation by
Member States and therefore a higher potential for the Action to be achieved by 2020.
4.1.3.4
Objectives of a support mechanism
Within the overall goal to assist Member States and other actors in their efforts to implement
Action 6a of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, we propose that a support mechanism for the
restoration prioritization framework will aim to achieve the following objectives:
1. awareness raising on restoration: to draw the attention of the target groups on the need for
and benefits of restoration of ecosystems;
2. information transfer:
2.1. technical and scientific information on ecosystem restoration
2.2. advice and examples with regard to funding of restoration (funding sources,
(innovative) ways of financing)
2.3. decision making on planning of restoration (including prioritization of restoration
actions)
48
IEEP, Estimation of the financing needs to implement target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, 2nd interim
report, 22/10/2012
119
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 120|210
3. capacity building: to contribute to the development of necessary planning and management
skills and to transfer of knowledge and best practice;
4. stakeholder engagement: to enhance involvement of stakeholders in decision making,
planning and implementation in the area of ecosystem restoration;
5. coordination: to coordinate actions by Member States and others involved within a European
setting, across borders and with multiple actors.
4.1.3.5
Building blocks of a support mechanism
In order to achieve the objectives described above and to respond to the needs as formulated in
section 4.1.3.2 we propose a mixture of building blocks to compose the support mechanism.
Such mixture includes both physical and digital services and tools, the overall setup of which is
presented in the following table with an indication of which building block serves which objective
best.
Building
block
Support
Events
office
meetings
and
Written
Website
communication
Objective
Awareness raising
ⱱ
ⱱ
ⱱ
Information
ⱱ
ⱱ
ⱱ
Capacity building
ⱱ
ⱱ
ⱱ
Stakeholder
ⱱ
ⱱ
ⱱ
ⱱ
transfer
engagement
Coordination
ⱱ
Most of the services within the building blocks and especially those on communication should
be framed by a communication plan. Such plan should spell out in detail the answers to the
following questions:

Why communicate?

Who to communicate with?

What to communicate about?

How to interact and communicate with the target group?

When to deliver the message?
We recommend, therefore, that if a support mechanism is set up, that the development of a
communication plan is one of the first steps to be taken, as this will define the type of written
communication (and events and other tools) that best serves the purpose.
4.1.3.5.1
Support office
120
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 121|210
A support office is a physical entity, a secretariat that takes care of operational coordination and
is responsible for developing and managing the support mechanism. Such secretariat could be
a single person at the European Commission or another designated organization who works full
time or part time on it. It could also be a more ambitious setup, with a number of staff hosted at
an office in the EC and complemented by officers in Member States or regions (see the
example on regional policy in 4.1.2.1).
Specific services to be provided by a support office include:

Overall coordination and management of the support mechanism;

Development and implementation of a communication plan;

Liaison between Commission officials and Member States;

Monitoring and reporting on implementation of the objectives of the support
mechanism. The support office could also have a role in monitoring and/or reporting of
the achievements with regard to the 15% restoration target;

Coordination of Member State activities in terms of cross-border opportunities;

Support to project development;

Help desk services and technical assistance;

Development and management of a restoration award programme;

Facilitation of partnerships between agencies, site managers, scientists, businesses,
developers, potential investors etc.;

Preparation of communication programmes and campaigns that highlight the
economic, social and ecological benefits of ecosystem restoration;

4.1.3.5.2
Establishment and moderation of an online forum.
Events and meetings
The organization or facilitation of events and meetings is an excellent way to serve a number of
needs, depending on the type of meeting and the target group. Field visits, for example, are
ideal ways to demonstrate practices, to exchange real-life knowledge, to meet peers, or to raise
awareness. Customized training events focusing on a given ecosystem or a certain restoration
practice help in building capacity and learning from each other. Existing meetings, such as
those of the restoration working group under the EC Coordination Group on Biodiversity and
Nature (CGBN) or of the Society for Restoration Ecology, also provide great opportunities for
supporting Member States and other actors in their efforts towards implementing Action 6a.
We propose that events and meetings are fully integrated in a support mechanism, with specific
activities (to be implemented or coordinated by the service desk) including:

Identifying needs of Member States and other groups for topics to be addressed by a
meeting;

Collating and managing a list of relevant events, including possible actions for Member
States, the Commission or other actors (e.g. participation, presentation, reporting);

Organizing, in response to the identified needs, training events, field visits, practice
workshops, marketplace events (meet-and-greet), brainstorm meetings, (side events
at) conferences or other events as appropriate. This could include agenda
development, managing invitations, outreach, logistics, field guides, etc.;
121
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 122|210

Providing facilitation services where required (e.g. moderation, chairing, reporting);

Supporting interested parties in their attendance of relevant events (e.g. providing
PowerPoint presentations or posters).
4.1.3.5.3
Written communication
Publications and other written communication (either digital or in hardcopy) serves a number of
needs. In particular, it is essential in terms of awareness raising and information transfer and it
is a useful element in capacity building. As with events and meetings, the type of written
communication will have to be customized to a specific target and target group.
Without pre-empting what a possible communication plan would entail, the following types of
written communication should be thought of in the framework of a support mechanism:

Policy briefs for national/regional policymakers about restoration and its benefits;

Flyers about the support mechanism and how this can support Member States and
other stakeholders;

Information notes summarizing the outcome of field visits;

Guidance documents on specific restoration activities/ecosystem types (e.g.
prioritization approaches and tools as developed by government agencies around the
world, developers, businesses, land managers, NGOs, and academic and research
institutes; identify possible gaps and ways to fill such gaps);

Booklets with best practice examples (e.g. LIFE+ projects). Where possible build on
the upcoming DG Environment contract ‘Restoration efforts required for achieving the
objectives of the Birds and Habitats Directives’ as well as cases collected in related
contracts (e.g. in connection to restoration for Natura 2000 management as part of the
‘New Biogeographical Process’);

Summary reports on national implementation or restoration activities and their
effectiveness;

Review reports digesting scientific information for practitioners and their advisers.
Not all of the publication types listed above will be produced by the support office. Guidance
documents, for example, may require in-depth review and writing and would therefore be part of
individual contracts to be issued. We envisage the support office to have a key role in producing
policy briefs, flyers, information notes, and summary reports.
4.1.3.5.4
Website
Key objectives of a support mechanism, in particular information transfer, are best served by a
website, where possible in combination with interactive tools and social media. However, a
website alone is not sufficient for this purpose and it is clear that for a topic such as exchange of
knowledge on restoration practices face-to-face information transfer is often the most effective.
Nevertheless, a website provides for an additional tool that allows easy access to relevant
information anywhere at any time.
The needs expressed by the participants of the restoration workshop on 29-30 May 2013 (see
4.1.3.2) contain many references to the provision of information and data in support of
implementing Action 6a of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. The creation of a website that is
122
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 123|210
dedicated to support Member States in their restoration activities would serve many of these
needs.
While recommending the development of a website (or a web portal as part of a wider website,
such as the ‘Nature’ pages on the Europa server), it is important to note that existing sources
already provide much relevant information (see for example 4.1.2.6). It is also worth considering
for the Commission to set up a section on the ‘Nature’ website which is dedicated to all actions
as part of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy. As a number of on-going actions (such as MAES
and the New Biogeographical Process) have complementary aims and overlapping information
services (e.g. case studies), it would be advisable to cluster all these elements in a centrally
accessible ‘Strategy portal’.
It is important that, if a website in support of the restoration target is produced, the objective and
target group for the website are clearly defined. This will make clearer what niche and needs are
being served by the website and how it is different from related information sources.
We therefore propose the following objective for the website:
‘To provide a central online access point to relevant information and knowledge to support
relevant actors in Member States, regions and municipalities in their efforts towards
implementing Action 6a of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020’.
This objective provides a potential new website with a unique niche and makes it different from
other websites on ecological restoration.
We foresee the envisaged website to provide the following services:

Provide on-line access or entry points to:
o reference data sets (e.g. maps)
o relevant key publications
o monitoring data and reports on restoration projects and their effectiveness
o information on relevant policy and legislation (national and EU)
o information on funding sources, innovative financing and cost-benefit analyses
o contact information of experts / contact points (EU, national, subnational)
o news flashes and announcements
o definitions of key terms
o evidence base of restoration practice and management (link to the SER Knowledge
Base)

Provide an on-line forum for users to exchange knowledge and experience. In
connection to the website and internet presence we refer here to the potential of using
social media as part of a support mechanism.
o LinkedIn offers a platform for thematic group discussions or exchange (forum). It is
primarily a useful tool to make announcements or share information rather than
actively discussing topics. It is free to create a group. The SER does already
manage a group on the topic of ecological restoration. This deals with global
issues, although European policy also is covered occasionally. If a LinkedIn group
is opted for as part of the support mechanism, its niche should be clearly
formulated and the group should actively be fed with information for it to have any
purpose.
123
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 124|210
o A Facebook page offers wider opportunities for informal interaction on ecological
restoration. It is an excellent tool for rapid and short communications, including
photos, videos and web links to which ‘friends’ can react. It is also a good way to
quickly grow a community. Again, the SER manages a global Facebook page,
which mainly serves organizational matters and promotion. Setting up a Facebook
page is easy and free but requires active management and feeding.
o A Twitter account could be created to support instant messaging and outreach as
part of the support mechanism. Although quick and easy to establish, maintenance
effort of a Twitter account should not be underestimated.
4.1.3.6
Development priorities
The package of building blocks and all services that have been described in the previous
sections forms some kind of ideal situation. If resources and capacity would be limitless then we
would advocate developing the full suite of services as quickly as possible. However, both at the
level of EU and of the Member States resources are limited and capacity is scarce. Therefore,
we propose here a three-level approach which allows selections to be made based on the
availability of resources.
The table below lists services and actions that to a certain extent correspond to the services that
have been mentioned previously. Services are ranked according to their feasibility with easy
wins (requiring no or minimal extra investment) in green on top (level 1), gradually increasing
ambition and resource requirements (amber, level 2 which includes level 1) with more extensive
services requiring a lot of resources in red at the bottom of the table (level 3, including levels 1
and 2). For each service within each level some explanation is provided.
Service
Comment
Restoration
Continue using the restoration WG as an opportunity for MS to exchange
working group
experience, discuss common issues and report on progress
Project report
Disseminate the results of the current project to MS and other actors,
especially definitions, criteria for priority setting, guidance on applying the
criteria, and funding opportunities.
e-mail
The EC to maintain the e-mail list that is available for the restoration WG
distribution list
and to use this as a communication channel for disseminating relevant
information.
Webpage
EC to add a (few) web page(s) to the Nature section on the Europa server
49
(analogous to the pages on Green infrastructure ) to explain restoration,
its requirements and benefits, and disseminate key information sources.
49
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/index_en.htm
124
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 125|210
Service
Comment
EC contact point
Publicly accessible contact details at the EC to answer process-related
questions or act as intermediary for content-related questions. To
guarantee reply within 2 working days.
Reporting
Offer a template for MS to report on progress in implementing Action 6a
template
which at the same time serves reporting to the CBD.
Event support
EC to provide support to MS or other parties that want to organize a
restoration event (e.g. workshop, training, field visit) for multiple
countries/EU. Such support could be financial, logistical, facilitation,
communication, etc. Where possible, liaise with SER Europe on joining
efforts.
Best
practice
overview
Create an online overview of best practice on how MS and other actors go
about implementing Action 6a. Where possible, liaise with SER Europe on
joining efforts and build on the work under the upcoming DG Environment
contract on ‘Restoration efforts required for achieving the objectives of the
Birds and Habitats Directives’ and the on-going ‘New Biogeographical
Process’.
Funding
EC to establish easily accessible and updated online restoration funding
overview
overview and associated guidance.
Restoration
EC to produce a restoration barometer, collect data from MS based on the
barometer
reporting template, and disseminate progress towards the 15% target on a
regular basis.
Topical
EC to facilitate production of short information notes on restoration
information
practices, by restoration type or habitat type. These information notes
notes
could complement the current study on the 4-level concept and could
provide further information on criteria for each level and each ecosystem
type. Alternatively an additional study could be launched. Where possible,
liaise with SER Europe on joining efforts.
Access to data,
EC to create and update an overview of essential European data sources,
information and
publications, information sources and tools for publication on the internet.
tools
Use this overview to coordinate filling of any gaps in data and knowledge.
Annual seminar
EC (where appropriate with a MS) to hold annual seminar or marketplace
for MS and other actors to exchange experience, visit field sites, hold side
events, and make alliances.
Project
Establish a basic support desk (at EC, at a MS or with a contractor) to
development
support actors in developing successful restoration projects and finding
support
financiers and investors.
125
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 126|210
Service
Comment
Forum
EC to set up an online forum for MS and other actors to discuss, share
experience and announce relevant information. If this service is selected,
multilingualism and active animation are required. Alternatively, consider
using and promoting the existing forum on the SER LinkedIn group.
Evidence base
Create an online overview of evidence on what restoration measures work
under which conditions. Where possible, liaise with SER Europe on joining
efforts.
EU support
Set up a properly resourced support office (at EC, at one or more MS or
office
with a contractor) to provide a full set of services (all actions below) and
coordination. This type of support office could also provide support in the
field of related action points of the EU Biodiversity Strategy such as Green
Infrastructure, Ecosystem Services, New Biogeographical Process, and No
Net Loss, and thus combine efforts. Ideally, this support office is to be
complemented by national/regional support offices or officers.
Support
Actively engage potential financiers or facilitate access to financiers (e.g.
fundraising,
through fundraise events) for potential restoration projects.
liaise with
funders
Award
Develop a restoration award programme, showcasing some of the best
programme
restoration activities on an annual basis, presented at an annual event with
(potential) funders.
Organize events
Engage stakeholders by organizing on a regular basis (and on request of
MS) targeted events (e.g. workshops, training, field visits, fundraising
events) and implement any follow-up. Where possible, liaise with SER
Europe on joining efforts.
Newsletter
Produce a regular newsletter/magazine about ecosystem restoration in
Europe. Where possible, liaise with SER Europe on joining efforts.
Website
Develop and maintain an extended and targeted website, offering
interactive services, data repositories, contact and publications database,
etc. Consider developing a ‘Strategy portal’ that brings together all web
pages that are dedicated to individual actions of the EU 2020 Biodiversity
Strategy. As an immediate step synergies and links to the EU Business @
Biodiversity Platform and the Natura 2000 Platform could be looked into.
4.1.3.7
Cost assessment
Based on the above division in green/amber/red services as part of a potential future support
service and based on a number of budgetary and process-related assumptions we provide here
a cost estimate for three options. A key assumption is that the support mechanism will run from
January 2014 to December 2020.
126
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 127|210
4.1.3.7.1
Green option
The Green option concerns the easy wins, based on already on-going processes. Assuming
that these processes (e.g. restoration working group) will continue as they are now until 2020
and that these form part of on-going EC processes, no or very limited (e.g. creating a webpage
on the Europa server) extra costs are involved in this option.
4.1.3.7.2
Amber option
The Amber option contains a number of services that are additional to current on-going
processes and that would require extra capacity and resources. The set of amber activities is
rather mixed, with some services easy and without real costs involved (e.g. setting up a
dedicated contact point at the EC) and others requiring substantial staff time input and
considerable financial resources (e.g. supporting an annual seminar, hosted by a Member
State).
For the entire set of services for the period 2014-2020 we made an estimate for staff costs,
travel and subsistence costs, publication costs, meeting costs and other costs. For most of the
budget categories specific assumptions were made. The overall estimate is presented below,
with figures rounded to thousands Euros.
Cost
Detail of assumptions
Costs
category
(thousand
Euros)
Staff costs
1,495 days at an average rate of € 876
50
for the period 2014-
1,310
175 travels by support office to events, seminars and for
70
2020.
Travel
project development support at average travel costs of € 400
Subsistence
861 travel days associated to these travels at average per
129
diem of € 150
Publications
Lump sum for design and layout; only digital publication, no
30
print.
Meetings
Assumption: host MS to provide venue and facilities,
147
participants to cover T&S; support for NGO participation at 7
participants per event/seminar * max. € 500
Other
Contingency: 5% of total of the above
TOTAL
50
84
1,770
Day rate based on assumed average (senior and junior days) of € 800 in 2014 with an annual increment
of 3%, including salary and all employer costs and costs of support staff and all overheads.
127
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 128|210
4.1.3.7.3
Red option
The Red option contains those services that would allow a support mechanism with a support
office of two FTE to be fully operational for the period 2014-2020. This option contains all of the
services in the Green and Amber options with extras in the form of events actually organized
and covered by the EC rather than by Member States or with an extended website with online
data sets and interactive tools.
For the entire set of Amber and Red services for the period 2014-2020 we made an estimate for
staff costs, travel and subsistence costs, publication costs, meeting costs and other costs. For
most of the budget categories specific assumptions were made. The overall estimate is
presented below, with figures rounded to thousands Euros.
Cost
Detail of assumptions
category
Costs
(thousand
Euros)
Staff costs
2 FTE for a period of 7 years at 216 working days p.a. and
2,649
average rate of € 876 for the period 2014-2020
Travel
273 travels by support office to events, seminars and for
109
project development support at average travel costs of € 400
Subsistence
1,120 travel days associated to these travels at average per
168
diem of € 150
Publications
Lump sum for design and layout; only digital publication, no
50
print.
Meetings
Same as amber version + costs of annual events organized
304
by support office (per event: 20 persons * € 50 catering per
day + € 2000 for venue + 7 * € 500 for NGOs)
Other
Contingency: 5% of total of the above
TOTAL
164
3,445
Based on the above rough estimates for an Amber or a Red set of services it is safe to assume
that a budget of € 250,000 to 500,000 per year would be required for running an effective
support mechanism for the restoration prioritization framework. This figure is in line with the
current figure for the New Biogeographical Process.
4.1.3.8
Potential funding sources
A potential support mechanism for restoration will serve the needs of a number of beneficiaries.
These include the European Commission, public authorities at national regional and local levels,
site managing organisations and other land managers, consultancies, businesses, developers,
research bodies, and NGOs. It would therefore make sense to share the financial burden of
developing and maintaining a support mechanism between a number of these beneficiaries.
128
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 129|210
A first source of funding is that by the European Commission. The budget for the period 20142020 has now been approved, although details on the division of funds are yet to be provided.
One of the potential funding sources, apart from the DG Environment budget, is the continued
LIFE+ programme which may offer opportunities for country-based projects as part of or in
support of the support mechanism. The proposed programme
51
is split up into three sub-
programmes, two of which provide for direct opportunities to fund (part of) the proposed support
mechanism:
Specific objectives for the priority area Biodiversity
The specific objectives of the sub-programme for Environment for the priority area Biodiversity
shall in particular be:
(a) to contribute to the implementation of Union policy and legislation in the area of biodiversity,
including the Union Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, Directive 2009/147/EC and Directive
92/43/EEC, in particular by applying, developing, testing and demonstrating approaches,
best practices and solutions;
(b) to support the further development, implementation and management of the Natura 2000
network set up in Article 3 of Directive 92/43/EEC, in particular the application,
development, testing and demonstration of integrated approaches for the implementation of
the Prioritised Action Frameworks referred to in Article 8 of Directive 92/43/EEC;
(c) to improve the knowledge base for the development, assessment, monitoring and
evaluation of Union biodiversity policy and legislation, and for the assessment and
monitoring of the factors, pressures and responses that impact on the biodiversity within
and outside the Union.
Specific objectives for the priority area Environmental Governance and Information
The specific objectives of the sub-programme for Environment for the priority area
Environmental Governance and Information shall in particular be:
(a) to promote awareness raising on environmental matters, including generating public and
stakeholders support to Union policy-making in the field of environment, and to promote
education for sustainable development;
(b) to support communication, management, and dissemination of information in the field of
environment, and to facilitate knowledge sharing on successful environmental solutions and
practice, including by developing cooperation platforms between stakeholders and training;
(c) to promote and contribute to a more effective compliance with and enforcement of Union
environmental legislation, in particular by promoting the development and dissemination of
best practices and policy approaches;
(d) to promote better environmental governance by broadening stakeholder involvement,
including NGOs, in policy consultation and implementation.
51
COM(2011) 874 final
129
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 130|210
A second source of funding is from the primary beneficiaries of the support mechanism, the
public authorities. Funding from their side may have various forms, such as in-kind funding by
offering accommodation and/or staff time (e.g. for attending meetings and contributing to
information collection), seconding personnel to a possible support office, providing a one-off or
annual financial contribution, or paying fees to get access to certain services.
Given the subject of the support mechanism, ecosystem restoration, there is potential for
sponsorship from possible commercial or philanthropic actors, if this is in line with Commission
policy. For example, companies specialized in dredging or earthworks may be interested in
offering sponsorship by way of advertising their services to potential clients.
Where there are widespread opportunities for private sector involvement (independently or in
partnership with public authorities) in financing ecosystem restoration, financial institutions may
provide funding through ‘Technical Assistance’. This is most likely from public investment banks
such as the European Investment Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
and similar national institutions.
There are numerous EU funds designed to support innovation and development (such as those
reviewed in Section 1.2.1 that may be relevant. These are not traditionally applied to biodiversity
and ecosystems, however with developments in funding requirements and mechanisms, they
should be regarded as potential funding sources.
The most realistic funding package to achieve may be some combination of funding sources,
whereby the EC commits a proportion of funds in order to attract complementary funding from
other public, private and third sector sources.
4.1.4
Recommendations
Based on the reviews of existing support mechanisms, needs expressed by stakeholders,
objectives formulated and building blocks proposed, we recommend the following when
developing a support mechanism for actors in Member States, regions and municipalities to
implement Action 6a:
1.
The Commission to explore with the European chapter of the Society for Ecological
Restoration possibilities for cooperation and synergy;
2.
The Commission to continue the current process of restoration working group and to create
in an early stage basic webpages about restoration on the Nature section of the Europa
website;
3.
The European Environment Agency to create a webpage on restoration on BISE and to link
to the webpages on the DG Environment and other relevant websites;
4.
Consider the New Biogeographical Process as a model to be based on (with the
understanding that the NBP is running on the basis of a clearly outlined cycle which is
continuously repeated);
5.
To encourage Member States and other actors to engage in the process and to recognize
the added value provided by an EU support mechanism by considering direct contributions
(in kind or otherwise);
6.
Prior to establishing a support mechanism, to clearly spell out its objectives and target
groups;
130
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 131|210
7.
Given the level of ambition of Action 6a, the time pressure involved and the geographical
scale of the operations, to seriously consider the setting up of a permanent support office to
be operational until 2020 with a minimum capacity of 2 FTE, to be amended where
appropriate based on an interim evaluation of its functioning;
8.
To include ample opportunities for face-to-face meetings between the various stakeholders
and to engage stakeholders as early as possible;
9.
To create a communication and dissemination plan in an early stage;
10. To seek private sector and other finance opportunities as part of the potential funding
package.
131
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 132|210
4.2
Innovative financial mechanisms for restoration
4.2.1
Summary
This note is part of a project to support the implementation of the 2020 EU Biodiversity
Strategy’s targets for the restoration of ecosystems and their services. It discusses the financing
of this target. It considers:

Public and private sector sources of funding.

How these sources of funding can be enabled, and/or combined, by policy actions.

How different restoration actions can be supported by different funding mechanisms.
Following this summary of the work and key principles, Section 4.2.2 reviews options for public
or private sector sources of funding, Section 4.2.3 describes principles in how these funding
instruments operate, and Section 4.2.4 looks at their suitability to ecosystem restoration.
Section 4.2.5 looks at actions for developing the use of innovated financing instruments, and
4.2.6 describes the most promising instruments in relation to financing ecosystem restoration.
The instruments are defined in Annex 5, subject to a SWOT analysis in Annex 6, and
discussed in more detail, along with examples, in Annex 7.
The analysis and examples extend previous analysis on the use of innovative financing
instruments in relation to biodiversity objectives generally (no net loss and ecosystem
restoration, eftec, 2012; IEEP, 2013). This analysis focusses on supporting ecosystem
restoration, and presents new financing examples of this activity.
Both public and private sources of funding are considered in this note. As most restoration
actions will have at least an element of public goods benefits, it is expected that different
combinations of public and private finance will be relevant in different circumstances.
A series of public funding instruments are able to support ecosystem restoration. These include:

The Common Agricultural Policy (particularly agri-environment schemes under Pillar 2), The
Common Fisheries Policy and other natural resource policies;

Cohesion and structural funds, often linked to arguments for ‘Green Infrastructure’;

LIFE+ and other environmentally focussed funds;

Member State funding mechanisms.
However, public funding is under significant and increasing pressure and therefore is
considered unlikely to deliver sufficient funds to achieve the 15% restoration target. As a result a
range of instruments to encourage private sector financing are attracting increasing attention
and are considered in this paper (see Annex 5). They can be broadly divided into those that are
philanthropic (at least in part), those that are profit driven, and those that are stimulated by
regulatory measures. Different instruments can also be classified as being:

Direct, which result in a direct change on the ground; and

Indirect, which support actions on the ground, but do not directly guarantee them.
132
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 133|210
Direct mechanisms are often specific to particular ecosystem types. Both direct and indirect
mechanisms are applicable to many habitat types, and can play a cross-cutting or enabling role.
The key concepts and issues covered in this paper are:

The choices of financing mechanisms
will depend on different Member State
circumstances, but some key factors in determining the suitability of finance mechanisms
include:
o The starting level and extent of ecosystem restoration (as defined in the 4 levels of
ecosystem condition proposed to define restoration actions). The extent of restoration
can be measured in both the size of the area involved, and the amount of improvement
in the ecosystem (i.e. does it move up 1 or more of the 4 levels?).
o The visibility of the impacts, especially in order for private funders to gain some PR
impact from their actions;
o Scalability, as the 15% target is very ambitious, so suitable instruments but be able to be
replicated across numerous sites and large areas; and
o Whether they maintain a fixed level or standard, such as quality of soils (for organic
farming), forest or a fishery, OR require measurement of a change in benefits, (which
can be ecosystem enhancement or maintaining ecosystem service benefits where the
baseline scenario shows a deteriorating quality). Measuring change often has greater
monitoring costs, but also can demonstrate greater additionality and therefore higher
returns to finance.

Some instruments (e.g. agri-environment schemes, product labelling and certification) are
linked to a particular level of ES – they apply equally to efforts to maintain ecosystems as
well as to restore them. Other instruments are linked to the degree of ES change (e.g. PES
are linked to the (expected) extent of improvements in certain ecosystem services; carbon
offsets are linked to the amount of additional carbon being sequestered as an ecosystem is
restored). Fixed-level instruments are generally more appropriate at higher level of
ecosystem condition, where maintenance of ecosystems generally has higher value.

Some restoration actions involve active intervention, whereas others achieve restoration by
protection from disturbance (e.g. allowing natural processes to recover through wilderness
restoration). Wilderness restoration is likely to be most relevant for achieving level 4 in
habitats (e.g. mature forests) that are not a function of human management actions (e.g.
semi-natural habitats like grasslands that rely on traditional grazing regimes to maintain their
ecosystem characteristics).

A SWOT analysis of potential funding instruments (see Annex 6) shows very similar results
for funding ecosystem re-creation and restoration actions – indeed the distinction between
them is not always clear. The main differences relate to:
o Higher up-front costs for re-creation in any given ecosystem, and possible longer times
before financial returns are realised (i.e. because it would be expected to take longer to
re-establish ecosystem services).
o While ecosystem re-creation may cost more to undertake, it might also bring higher
ecosystem service gains and therefore higher financial return under these instruments.
133
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 134|210

As a result re-creation needs to produce greater benefits to have sufficient prospects of
making a financial return attractive to investments of private funding sources. Measurement
of the additional benefits provided is important. The greater the additional benefits, the
greater the potential funding.
Analysis in Section 4.2.2 identifies which funding mechanisms are more suitable options for
different habitats (see Table 14). Funding for ecosystem restoration will be closely related to the
benefits it is expected to bring to different parties. These benefits are discussed here in terms of
ecosystem services (ES). Many ES benefits will arise outside markets: they benefit people
through goods and services (like clean air or regulation of water supplies) that are not directly
bought and sold in markets. This non-market characteristic can arise due to a lack of property
rights which means many of the benefits of restoration are public goods.
Our knowledge of the value of ecosystem services remains substantially incomplete, but is
improving, and provides evidence that can inform policy, including on funding instrument design.
For example, recent work on the value of the Natura2000 network (IEEP, 2013) identified orderof-magnitude estimates of the scale of the annual benefits of the network as between €200bn
and €300bn annually. Furthermore it estimates values of individual ecosystem services that
could indicate where market values could be realised as a result of ecosystem restoration
actions:

The welfare value of recreational visits to Natura 2000 sites is €5bn-€9bn/year, and that
these visitors supported total tourism and recreation expenditure of around €50bn-€85bn in
2006.

Policy actions could increase the value of carbon storage in the Natura2000 network by
€30bn-€50bn by 2020.
Based on these principles, and research on European activities including consideration of case
studies, actions for the EC and/or Member States to develop use of innovative financing
mechanisms can be suggested. These instruments, current developments in them and potential
actions to increase their use with respect to ecosystem restoration are summarised in Table 12.
The current developments summarise the state of knowledge and experience that can be drawn
on, including through references in the analysis in this Section. The potential actions are
suggested steps to build on those developments.
Table 12: Summary of innovative financial instruments that can support ecosystem restoration
Instrument type
Instrument
for
Current Development
Direct
Payments
ecosystem
Several
examples
instruments
services
particularly for water
Not-for profit organisations
Widespread
contributions
established, often involved
and
exist,
Establish standards/ guidelines,
encourage scaling-up
well-
in innovative approaches
134
Potential Actions
Link to other instruments
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 135|210
Instrument type
Instrument
Product
Current Development
labelling
and
certification
Widespread
and
well-
established
for
environment,
further
opportunities
to
link
to
Potential Actions
Research links to ecosystem
restoration,
consider
consolidation of labels relating
to restoration
ecosystem restoration
Bio-carbon markets
Widespread
outside
Further develop guidelines and
Europe. Several pilots and
pilots, research links to wider
guidelines
carbon markets
developing
in
Europe
Biodiversity
offsets
and
habitat banking
Some
member
state
systems established/ under
Requires net gain objectives to
link to ecosystem restoration
development
Insurance sector mitigating
Mainly theoretical work
Requires pilot projects to test
of environmental risk
concepts
Enabling
Philanthropic donations by
Already widespread, but not
Encourage recognition of links
instruments
companies
systematically
to ecosystem restoration
linked
to
ecosystem restoration
Tax relief on capital assets
History of use on natural
Research potential to link to
resources,
ecosystem
but
not
widespread re: ecosystem
restoration
within
domestic tax structures
restoration
Private finance initiative
Hypothecated tax funds
Bonds
for
green
infrastructure
History of use, but not on
Research potential to link to
natural environment
ecosystem restoration spending
History of use on natural
Research potential to expand
resources,
use re: ecosystem restoration
including
on
ecosystem restoration
within domestic tax structures
History of use on public
Research potential to link to
goods, but not widespread
ecosystem restoration
re: environment
Risk-sharing
investment
structures
History of use on natural
Research potential to link to
resources,
ecosystem restoration
including
environment
sector
in
(e.g.
energy)
Pro-biodiversity
models
business
Several
examples
including inside EU
exist,
Consider
potential
expansion
re:
for
ecosystem
restoration in context of EU
multi-annual
framework
135
financial
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 136|210
4.2.2
Funding Instruments
It is recognized that financing ecosystem restoration is very challenging. The benefits it
produces are often things that are not traded in normal markets, so there is no revenue to gain
in return for spending on restoration. However options for how to fund ecosystem restoration
can be identified, including some that are innovative in the context of ecosystem management.
These options could be used by Member States to develop a financing approach suitable to the
national circumstances they face.
A key part of the scope of this work is that it deals with instruments to support restoration, and
does not explicitly consider all the actions needed to reduce pressures that degrade
ecosystems. Reducing degradation is already being addressed through some policy instruments
(e.g. Water Framework Directive avoidance of deterioration) and it is assumed that addressing
any causes of degradation not covered by existing instruments would apply the polluter pays
principle and will not place significant extra requirements on public funds. However, there are
overlaps between measures to fund restoration and measures to avoid degradation.
Both public and private sources of potential finance for ecosystem restoration can be identified.
4.2.2.1
Public Funds
It is recognized that there are many existing public funding instruments that are already used for
ecosystem restoration actions. Obviously there are public funds earmarked for environmental
spending, for example in supporting delivering of the Water Framework Directive or future
delivery of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, and LIFE+ funding demonstrating
Favourable Conservation Status within the Natura 2000 Network.
There is also considerable potential to use public funds not specifically earmarked for the
environment to deliver ecosystem restoration. Recent research
52
has produced a Handbook on
financing biodiversity in the context of the European Fund for Regional Development (EFRD)
identified eleven European public funding approaches with potential to support biodiversity
conservation. These sources can fund ecosystem restoration.
53
Across Europe, key public sector funding sources are :

Pillars 1 and 2 of the CAP. These will constitute a vital contribution to the financing of
restoration of habitats, in particular those under Pillar 2. The Ecological Focus Area measure
under Pillar 1 are significant, but are limited to existing agricultural land in receipt of direct
payments. The proposed for Pillar 2’s rural development priorities to include restoration of
ecosystems, presents an opportunity, and its measures such as non-productive investments;
52
Practical guidance based on the lessons learned from SURF Nature project:
http://www.surfnature.eu/fileadmin/SURFNATURE/Publications/FINAL_SURF_Handbook_V4_Sept_2012.pdf
53
For
more
details
also
see
study
on
Biodiversity
Proofing
of
the
EU
Budget
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/BD%20Proofing%20Main%20Report.pdf
136
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 137|210
advice, training and information; management of less-favoured areas (LFA) and Natura
sites, can all potentially contribute to ecosystem restoration.

The Fisheries and Aquaculture Funds. The EFF that could be significant in funding private
sector activity that supports restoration and is compatible with sustainable exploitation of
restored ecosystems.

Structural and Cohesion Funds, and the ERDF. These can potentially support the
development of green infrastructure, including through the recreation markets that are an
opportunity in the attractive environments that result from ecosystem restoration.

The LIFE instrument is focussed specifically on ecosystem restoration actions, and also
helps to implement projects that demonstrate best practice.

National public financing is also an important source of ecosystem restoration funding,
including through spending facilitated through the tax system (see hypothecated taxes).
The potential to have additional funds allocated to ecosystem restoration is considered low.
Therefore, attention is placed on different uses of existing funds, such as by reallocating within
budgets to support ecosystem restoration (e.g. fisheries expenditure to support marine
ecosystem recovery), or using budgets already devoted to environmental measures different
(e.g. using CAP Pillar 2 spending to co-fund PES deals with the private sector).
However, recent work by IEEP et al. (2013) identified that the financing of ecosystem restoration
is going to require investments substantially greater than those currently made available by
public and private sources. They therefore cite the current negotiations under the Multi-annual
Financial Framework as influential for the future ability to secure sufficient resources.
4.2.2.2
Private Funds
Although gradual changes in perception are observable, biodiversity and natural resources
linked to it has historically been considered a liability by business. Barriers to greater private
sector investment in ecosystem protection include:

Low rate of return being unattractive to investors who pursue other markets;

High opportunity costs of land use, often artificially boosted by subsidy (e.g. for farming and
renewable energy), and compounded by perceived risk of long-term contracts (impact on
land values or tradability)

Lack of internationally agreed biodiversity metrics and indicators to measure the positive and
negative results of investment; and

Lack of understanding amongst bank managers of the biodiversity-friendly business models
and the often micro/small size of the businesses involved.
The use of private sector finance for biodiversity conservation is currently small and restricted to
a limited, but growing, number of examples. A number of mechanisms
54
54
can encourage private
Also see study on "Innovative Use of Financial Instruments and Approaches to Enhance Private Sector
137
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 138|210
sector financing, which can be thought of in different groups with respect to how they operate
and the motivations for them. Firstly, there is a distinction between:

‘Direct instruments’ which directly fund an activity on the ground and in each case tends to
be specific to particular habitat type(s) which produces a desired ecosystem service.

‘Enabling actions’ whose application is less habitat-specific. These are instruments that
could be applied to several habitat types, and can be used to incentivise (lever) private
sector financing.
A number of direct and enabling financing options are listed in Table 13, based on recent
analysis of ecosystem restoration costs (IEEP, 2013).
Table 13: Types of innovative financing instruments
Instrument
Description
Examples
Direct
Result in a direct change on
Payments for ecosystem services
instruments
the ground; can be specific
Not-for profit organizations’ contributions
type
to
particular
ecosystem
types.
Product labelling and certification
Bio-carbon markets
Biodiversity offsets and habitat banking
Insurance sector mitigating of environmental risk
Enabling
Support
instruments
ground but do not directly
guarantee
actions
on
them;
the
are
applicable to any group of
habitat types. Usually used
Philanthropic donations by companies
Tax relief on capital assets
Private finance initiative
Hypothecated tax funds
to improve the incentives for
Bonds for green infrastructure
ecosystem restoration.
Risk-sharing investment structures
Pro-biodiversity business models
The role for enacting enabling instruments usually lies with a public body or a non-profit
organization. Where the rate and/or of timing of return on investments in ecosystem restoration
would be unattractive to private sector in a pure commercial sense, instruments like risksharing, public-private partnerships and tax incentives can help make investments in habitat
restoration activities commercially viable. Funding through these enabling instruments differs
from conventional uses of public spending, such as direct grants, in that funds are used to
broker a deal to promote a commercial activity. The returns can be compared, at least in theory,
on basis of the ecosystem gain per € public spend.
Finance of Biodiversity" http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/biodiversity/pdf/BD_Finance_summary300312.pdf
138
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 139|210
4.2.3
Financing Principles
This section briefly describes some key factors in identifying ways of financing ecosystem
restoration. It is recognised that these factors will vary in different Member States, and therefore
create the context for determining which financing options a Member State decides are most
appropriate for its circumstances:

A key part of the scope of this work is that it deals with instruments to support restoration,
and does not explicitly consider the need to reduce pressures that degrade ecosystems.
Reducing degradation is already being addressed through some policy instruments (e.g.
Water Framework Directive avoidance of deterioration) and it is assumed that addressing
any degradation not covered by existing instruments would apply the polluter pays principle.
It is therefore a matter of policy design, and will not place significant requirements on public
funds. However, there are overlaps between measures to fund restoration and measures to
avoid degradation, and therefore avoiding degradation is relevant to many of the funding
instruments discussed.

Funding for ecosystem restoration will be closely related to the benefits it is expected to
bring to different parties. These benefits are discussed here in terms of ecosystem services
(ES). Many ES benefits will arise outside markets: they benefit people through goods and
services (like clean air or regulation of water supplies) that are not directly bought and sold
in markets. This non-market characteristic can arise due to a lack of property rights which
means many of the benefits of restoration are public goods.

Our knowledge of the value of ecosystem services remains substantially incomplete, but is
improving, and provides evidence that can inform policy, including on funding instrument
design. For example, recent work on the value of the Natura2000 network (IEEP, 2013)
identified order-of-magnitude estimates of the scale of the annual benefits of the network as
between € 200bn and € 300bn annually. Furthermore it estimates values of individual
ecosystem services that could indicate where market values could be realised as a result of
ecosystem restoration actions:
o The welfare value of recreational visits to Natura 2000 sites is € 5-€9 bn/ year, and that
these visitors supported total tourism and recreation expenditure of around €50bn-€85bn
in 2006.
o Policy actions could increase the value of carbon storage in the Natura2000 network by
€30-50bn by 2020.
There are many other factors that influence the benefits from, ecosystem restoration actions,
and therefore they indirectly influence the appropriate choice of financing mechanisms. Two key
factors are scale of ecosystem restored and its location. Larger areas can host more wholly
integrated ecosystems, more comprehensive gene pools and offer opportunity for migration and
adaptation to address climate change, with proportionately less interference than with smaller
areas. All these features can suggest more cost-effective restoration potential. The location of
restored ecosystems will influence the level of ecosystem services they provide (see Scale
above). It is also a key factor in determining the numbers of people who benefit from these
services, and therefore their value. Where competition from existing land use (opportunity costs)
is a significant factor in determining the cost benefit ratio of restoration, remoter regions where
139
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 140|210
traditional land uses are less economically viable (and so have lower opportunity cost) may offer
greater opportunities.

Both public and private sources of funding are considered in this analysis. As most
restoration actions will have at least an element of public goods benefits, it is expected that
different combinations of public and private finance will be relevant in different
circumstances.

The choices of financing mechanisms for different restoration actions will depend on the
starting level and extent of ecosystem restoration (as defined in the 4 levels of ecosystem
condition proposed to define restoration actions in Section 2.3). The extent of restoration can
be measured in both the size of the area involved, and the amount of improvement in the
ecosystem (i.e. does it move up 1 or more levels?). These considerations are discussed
further in Section 4.2.4), they will affect the suitability of financing instruments, for example
due to:
o Some instruments apply equally to efforts to maintain ecosystems as well as to restore
them (e.g. agri-environment schemes).
o Some financing instruments (e.g. agri-environment schemes, product labelling and
certification) are linked to a particular level of ES. Other instruments are linked to the
degree of ES change (e.g. PES are usually linked to an increase in the level of
ecosystem service(s), carbon offsets are linked to the amount of additional carbon being
sequestered as an ecosystem is restored).
This distinction between funding instruments linked to a fixed level of ES and those related to
the degree of ecosystem (or ES) change is used in analysis is subsequent sections.

Some restoration actions involve active intervention, whereas others achieve restoration by
protection from disturbance (e.g. allowing natural processes to recover through wilderness
restoration). Wilderness restoration is likely to be relevant for achieving level 4 in natural
habitats (e.g. mature forests) that are not a function of human management actions (e.g.
semi-natural habitats like grasslands that rely on traditional grazing regimes to maintain their
ecosystem characteristics).

All the above issues generate data requirements, for example in relation to biodiversity
status and objectives, environmental externalities, drivers of biodiversity and ecosystem
loss, and spatial patterns of ecosystem services.

Analysis of the appropriate spatial scale of delivery of ecosystem services is required to
understand how the distribution of different users/beneficiaries of ecosystem services
restoration can be taken account. Different spatial patterns can be present for different
ecosystem services, as per the four relationships defined by the RSPB (undated)
55
in Figure
20, and a fifth relationship, which is the inverse of diagram 2 (where the benefits occur in a
spatial subset of the provision area). Different patterns in the locations and/or scale of
providers and beneficiaries will generate different financing requirements and opportunities.
Larger numbers of beneficiaries can increase transaction costs and the risks of free-riding,
making public funding mechanisms more suitable. Remoteness between the locations of
55
RSPB (undated) Naturally, at your service: Why it pays to invest in nature. RSPB
140
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 141|210
beneficiaries and providers can increase monitoring requirements. Where providers do not
sit neatly within political jurisdictions (e.g. transboundary areas) or are within different
jurisdictions to beneficiaries, this can increase transactions costs and/or create problems in
the governance of funding.
Figure 20: Different spatial patterns of producers and beneficiaries of ecosystem services
4.2.4
Suitability of funding Instruments
In assessing the suitability of potential funding instruments, economic appraisal is applied to
assess their pros and cons. In general this takes a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) type approach,
rather than cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). CBA is a more powerful tool than CEA because it
can demonstrate that an objective is worth achieving (e.g. achieving the 15% restoration target).
However, it requires quantification of all major impacts in monetary terms. This may not always
be realistic for ecosystem restoration, in particular for regulating and other ecosystem services
that produce non-market benefits. If the 15% target is accepted, then restoration effectiveness
can be measured in non-monetary terms (e.g. linked to the 4 levels and the ecosystem services
supported) and the cost-effectiveness of different ways to deliver this restoration can be
assessed.
Some key issues relevant to this analysis are: Firstly, there is a clear advantage for those
instruments who are already close to commercial viability; i.e. that ‘pay their own way’ in terms
of the returns they are able to accrue for their investors (e.g. through PES or reduced risk). This
reduces susceptibility to changes in government policy.
141
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 142|210
Secondly, mechanisms that are already well understood and/or already operational have a
greater chance of rapid implementation. A considerable barrier to a number of the instruments is
the lack of understanding or experience of investors with these models. This applies both to the
uncertainty of returns and lack of understanding of how they will function in practice. Uncertainty
increases risks for private sector investors. Thirdly, there is a need for clear markets to exist to
provide a reliable trading platform and drive demand.
The available mechanisms range from actions in financial markets (e.g. using public support to
reduce risks in relevant investment funds), to those with micro-enterprises who manage
ecosystems (e.g. pro-biodiversity business models supporting family farms). Environmental
markets can also be driven by policy requirements; for example, compliance with regulations
can involve market mechanisms that trade units of compliance such as carbon and biodiversity
offsets markets. Thus there is a scale of motivations behind private sector actions from purely
philanthropic motivation (e.g. private donations), to purely profit motivated (e.g. PES). Profit
driven motivations relate to actions by businesses that can profit from ecosystem restoration,
such as the certification of sustainably-produced food. In this sense ‘profit’ is defined in a
broadly in terms any type of return such as reputational, financial, or reduced risk.
The instruments in Table 12 are described in more detail in Annex 5, developed from Dickie et
al (2011 and; 2012). Most of the mechanisms currently sit in the middle part of this
philanthropic-profit motivation scale, in that while they make some economic sense to the
private sector, they are partly, particularly in pilot schemes, altruistically motivated. Regulatory
Different combinations of these instruments will be more or less appropriate for different
restoration actions and habitats. For example, motivations for philanthropic donations can
combine an element of reputational return (profit).
The recent analysis by IEEP (2013), undertook a SWOT analysis of potential instruments to
increase private sector funding of ecosystem restoration. This SWOT is in Annex 6. The direct
instruments identified with the greatest potential to support ecosystem restoration were
Payments for Ecosystem Services, Product Labelling and Certification, and Bio-Carbon
Markets. These mechanisms are relatively well understood and are already happening, and
have potential to impact over a large scale. They are discussed in more detail in Section 4.2.6.
However, these are specific mechanisms that can only be used for particular habitats, and have
limitations (e.g. in terms of restoration costs per ha).
The instruments that can potentially bring the greatest amounts of funds are those in which
measures are introduced at the national level to either leverage funds from the private sector
(e.g. Dutch Green Funds) or act as an environmental tax (e.g. UK Landfill Levy). Both of these
require the relinquishing of tax revenue for restoration purposes or the imposing of an
environmental tax, both of which may require substantial political support.
The blending of mechanisms is likely to result in the greatest impact. Even well-known success
stories of payments for ecosystem services in the water industry (e.g. SCAMP, Vittel) depended
on securing public payments through agri-environment measures to ensure profitability. An
142
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 143|210
important element, therefore, required for the success of securing private sector financing is the
use of public funds in enabling actions to improve the risks and returns for the commercial
activities involved. Overall combinations of public and private funds are considered more likely
to fund widespread ecosystem restoration.
4.2.4.1
Distinction between funding maintenance, restoration and re-creation
The SWOT analysis in Annex 6 highlights a subtle difference between the opportunities
presented by the instruments for the funding of maintenance or restoration of ecosystems. In
addition, the re-creation of ecosystems, (i.e. restoration where the ecosystem has been
destroyed in the restoration site) can also be considered.
The distinction between re-creation and restoration is not always clear, and in general, the
analysis of funding opportunities for both will be very similar. The main differences relate to
higher up-front costs for re-creation in any given ecosystem, and possible longer times before
financial returns are realised (i.e. because it would be expected to take longer to re-establish
ecosystem services). Both of these reduce the prospects of making a financial return, and
therefore lessen the attractiveness of the investments to private funding sources.
Section 4.2.2 distinguished measures that fund a fixed level of ecosystem services, and those
that pay relative to the benefits realized from the change involved. For the latter, accurate
measurement of the additional benefits provided is highly important. The greater the additional
benefits, the greater the potential funding. Therefore, while ecosystem re-creation may cost
more to undertake, it might also bring higher ecosystem service gains and therefore higher
financial return under these instruments. A number of mechanisms are identified as the best
options for different habitats in the SWOT in Annex 6. These observations are summarised in
Table 14.
Overall, maintenance measures are likely to attract less financing compared to restoration
measures with a high degree of visibility of the impacts of the investment. There are exceptions
to this though: maintenance can be supported by product labelling, which relies upon the
maintenance of a particular standard, such as quality of soils (for organic farming), forest or a
fishery. Maintenance can also attract funding (e.g. from PES, carbon markets) for maintaining
ecosystem service benefits where the baseline scenario shows a deteriorating quality. In this
case, maintenance may offer a cost-effective means of achieving a return on investment.
Table 14: Linking key restoration actions with possible opportunities for innovative funding
Target 2 habitat (habitat-
Ecosystem-specific options for private funding
Cross-cutting actions
arable
PES: eg payments by water companies to reduce diffuse
Enabling
permanent
specific actions)
Farmland:
ecosystems,
Actions
water pollution, such as from pesticide/fertiliser use,
public sector:
crops, and temporary and
maintenance of permanent crops on slopes
Risk-sharing
improved grasslands,
Labelling:
nature-friendly farming practices such
143
as
by
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 144|210
Target 2 habitat (habitat-
Ecosystem-specific options for private funding
Cross-cutting actions
protection of pollinators and ‘bird friendly’ cutting practices.
approaches.
specific actions)
Pro-biodiversity
Natural and semi-natural
PES
Labelling
grasslands
Bio-carbon
Forests
Labelling (e.g. FSC)
Private
finance
initiatives
Forest Bonds
Insurance sector (reduced risk of natural disasters in
Tax incentives: relief on
upland areas)
restoration
Bio-carbon
hypothecation
Heathland
and
tundra
PES
(actions
to
restore
Labelling if grazed
vegetation)
business actions.
private
or
with
match-funding
requirement.
Bio-carbon (peatlands)
Sources that can apply
Sclerophyllous vegetation
to all habitats:
Mires (bogs and fens)
Bio-carbon (especially peatlands)
Inland marshes
PES
use of offsets with net
PES (e.g. flood control)
gain.
Regulatory: mandating
Freshwater
ecosystems
(lakes and rivers)
Biodiversity
friendly
business
models
sustainable fishing practices)
Restoration
of
beaches
and dunes
Coastal
(e.g.
through
Philanthropic
sources
(profit and non-profit).
PES (e.g. water purification)
Insurance sector risk mitigation
ecosystems
(beaches,
dunes,
Fisheries PES
Bio-carbon markets
saltmarshes, estuaries and
lagoons)
Marine ecosystems
4.2.4.2
Labelling (MSC)
Suitability of Financing Mechanisms to Different ‘Restoration Levels’
The 4-level model defines restoration in the context of Target 2 with reference to four ‘levels’ of
ecosystem condition. These range from ‘transformed ecosystems’ under level 4, to the
maximum achievable restoration state (level 1). These definitions are applied within habitat
types, so level 1 for cropland involves the maximum amount of restoration possible while the
ecosystem remains as cropland.
The levels are defined in Table 15, which also described the suitability of funding instruments
linked to ES levels of ES changes (See 4.2.4), to the changes between the different levels.
Instruments linked to a fixed level of ecosystem restoration (or services) are less relevant to
changes between lower levels of ecosystem quality.
144
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 145|210
Table 15: Linking Types of Funding Mechanism to Levels of Ecosystem Restoration
Linking Types of Funding Mechanism to Levels of Ecosystem Restoration
Level achieved
Funding mechanism linked to ecosystem restoration through
Fixed level of ES
LEVEL 2 to
Level 1: Satisfactory abiotic
LEVEL 1
conditions.
Key
species,
properties and processes
of ecosystems and their
functions are restored
LEVEL3
to
LEVEL 2
Change in ES
Highly relevant, as both achieving
and/or
maintaining
a
high-quality
ecosystem will have significant ES
benefits.
Less
conditions, but disrupted
ecosystems already achieving the
ecological processes and
level of ES has low additionality. May
Declining
diversity and key species.
relevant,
as
be appropriate to limit application of
funding amounts per area (i.e. as per
entry level agri-environment schemes.
Level 3: Highly modified
LEVEL 3
abiotic conditions, reduced
to
complex
incentivize
investments
in
ecosystem restoration (i.e.
maintaining
instruments by area or to small
LEVEL 4 to
need
bespoke actions).
Level 2: Satisfactory abiotic
functions.
Relevant where there is a
Highly
relevant
as
can
distinguish additionality of
ES benefits from different
actions,
which
will
be
variable.
ecological processes and
As level 3 to level 2 above, but lower
Relevant, but extent may
functions,
relevance due to lower absolute level
be
of ES benefits.
benefits may be limited.
dominated
by
artificial habitats but retains
limited
as
the
ES
some native species and
stable populations.
Level 4: Highly modified abiotic conditions, severely reduced ecological processes and functions,
dominated by artificial habitats with few and/or declining populations of native species; traces of
original ecosystem hardly visible.
Restoration is a process of change, but as discussed above financing mechanisms sometimes
relate to degrees of change, and sometimes relate to achieving a fixed level in an ecosystem (or
ecosystem service). Both kinds of mechanisms can finance ecosystem restoration, but with
different advantages and disadvantages discussed in the matrix below (Table 16).
Table 16: Advantages and disadvantages of different financing approaches in ecosystem
restoration
Financing
Advantages
Disadvantages
Simpler to administer so lower transactions
May not be cost-effective in purchasing restoration
costs, and less risk of complexity being off-
when funding is given to managers of ecosystems close
putting
to or at the required standard, thereby paying to
approach
Fixed level
those
undertaking
and
funding
restoration.
maintain
Can be established to work over longer
additional ecosystem restoration or ES benefit.
timescales
Can exclude managers of ecosystems so degraded that
within
budget
(or
area)
145
ecosystems
but
producing
little
or
no
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 146|210
Financing
Advantages
Disadvantages
constraints.
restoration costs to achieve the level are greater than
approach
fixed payment.
Degree
change
of
Can be focused on one-off actions to
More complex to measure and administer.
undertake restoration.
Difficult to determine timescale over which payment
Cost-effective in that amount of funding
should be made to incentivise both restoration and
relates to extent of ecosystem restoration/ES
maintenance of restored ecosystems. OR may need to
benefit.
be linked to additional actions that secure long term
revenues to maintain ecosystem.
4.2.5
Actions to develop innovative ecosystem restoration financing
Adequate funding opportunities are considered crucial to the achievement of any restoration target
in Europe. Significant support is required from the European Commission in terms of the provision
of information regarding accessing existing funding opportunities and generating finance from
innovative approaches. This includes sharing of best practices and making Member States aware
of any public money that could be utilised. Wider recommendations for the Commission included
coherency in objectives across funding and policy and the adoption of ecological cross border
approaches. Private financing is a new area, in which few Member States had expertise. Support is
required in exploring the potential for such approaches, with those where public money is used to
lever private funding likely to be most appropriate. Supporting pilot project and the provision of best
practice guidelines and case studies are appropriate actions.
An example of where EU level action can lead greater ecosystem restoration financing
opportunities is in relation to PES markets. To promote a more substantial voluntary PES market,
EU level actions could facilitate development of common measurement standards for use in PES
markets. It could also help develop validation and monitoring frameworks – building on
entrepreneurial standards already being established (e.g. in voluntary codes of practice).
In order to channel private resources into ecosystem restoration, new funding platforms or
processes may be required, in line with approaches recently explored through pro-biodiversity
business models. A funding platform is an organizational arrangement through which funding
(possibly from multiple sources) is channelled to particular objectives. An example would be a
research fund for a particular sector or area of science
Recently
a
number
of
innovative
business
models
with
a
focus
on
ecosystem
conservation/restoration were developed. Businesses are appreciating the fact that they are
dependent on the scarce resources they once considered unlimited, while governments are
becoming aware that growing Gross National Product does not always correlate with long-term
ecological and social well-being. Meanwhile, individuals and organisations around the world are
redesigning economic activities, based on making ecology and economy complementary value
systems. Examples are Corporation 2020 (developed by Pavan Sukhdev), Benefit Corporations
(USA) and Ecosystem Return (founded by Willem Ferwerda, former director of IUCN NL).
The Corporation 2020 is a concept for the firm of the future. It produces positive benefits for society
as a whole, rather than just its shareholders. It encourages positive social interactions among
146
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 147|210
workers, management, customers, neighbours, and other stakeholders. It is a responsible steward
of natural resources. It invests in the productivity of its workers through training and education. It
strives to produce a surplus of all types of capital --- financial, natural, human --- it is thus a “capital
factory.” In order to get to a green economy, the way economy’s primary agent --- the corporation -- does business, must change. According to Corporation 2020 there are four clear mechanisms to
get us there: disclosing corporate externalities, putting taxes on resource extraction, enacting limits
to financial leverage, and making advertising accountable. Corporation 2020 calls for precisely such
a new understanding of the importance of disclosure of externalities in the financial reports of
corporations.
This is quite similar to the concept of Benefit Corporations. Benefit Corporations
56
are a new type
of corporate legal entity that 1) creates a material positive impact on society and the environment;
2) expands fiduciary duty to require consideration of non-financial interests when making decisions;
and 3) reports on its overall social and environmental performance using recognized third party
standards.
The ambition of the Ecosystem Return Foundation is to restore 200 million hectares of degraded
ecosystems worldwide in the next 20 years. To achieve this goal, Ecosystem Return will both
accelerate and scale up existing restoration efforts, and initiate new ones, by making the right
matches between project owners (NGOs, local communities, governments) and a variety of
stakeholders (investors, businesses and sponsors). For each restoration project, a site-specific
business model is developed together with a selected team of professionals with extensive
experience in business, ecology, finance and agriculture. The business model is based on restoring
areas by a business partnership yielding four Returns: Return on Investment (economic benefits),
Return of Natural Capital (ecosystem services), Return of Social Capital (employment and social
cohesion) and Return of Inspirational Capital (engagement and innovation). The business model is
based on returns from agriculture, carbon, water and additional values land, which are coming from
restored degraded lands. The longer the restoration activities last the more returns it will provide
(see Figure 21).
56
http://benefitcorp.net/
147
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 148|210
Figure 21: Business model Ecosystem Return concept
Successful implementation of a biodiversity funding platform should build on the work of the probiodiversity business project. Its handbook (ref PBB handbook) highlights recurring aspects and
approaches of successful case studies that contribute to sustainable enterprise development in
combination with biodiversity conservation. It observes that successful PBBs often include the
following:

Demand led- opportunities should be generated based on the needs of the market and on
consumer demand, including consideration for
individual consumers as well as public and
private resource policies.

Marketing and labelling- implementation of effective marketing activities such as labelling of
products; as well as assistance to gain market access, such as through the creation of farmers’
markets.

Certification- or eco-labeling, is potentially a useful tool to stimulate the growth of ecosystem
service markets. Certification guidelines offer landowners clearly defined approaches to
biodiversity-friendly management. Adhering to recognized standards and obtaining sustainable
certification and verification such as adopting Marine Stewardship Council13 or Forest
Stewardship Council14 criteria, can be strongly advantageous to PBB development.

Distribution- designing and implementing efficient distribution chains;

Training staff- ensuring sufficiently trained and skilled staff. Business skills training and
technical advice for PBBs such as new product development, quality control, and accessing
new markets;

Clustering- This approach involves networking between businesses with similar goals through
the identification of specific clusters of firms that deliver similar products and/or services, which
rely on similar raw materials, shared processing facilities or supply chains and have similar
client profiles. Alone they may suffer from a lack of business acumen, operational capacity,
miss out on advice and guidance and be unable to develop or implement innovation. Together,
in clusters, they can overcome obstacles such as low operational capacity, lack of business
expertise, be connected to sources of relevant advice and guidance, cut costs in terms of
product development, transport and sale, and share innovation.
148
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 149|210
To be attractive to a wider range of potential funding mechanisms, the design of ecosystem
restoration projects, and the impacts they are expected to have, will need to be more transparent to
funders. This will require a greater participation in ecosystem management activities by those with
business, economics and social specialisms than is currently the case. This is unlikely to happen
rapidly enough for Target 2 to be fulfilled by 2020 unless driven as a specific objective. This is
something that funding platforms can enable.
4.2.6
Discussion of most promising financing instruments
Based on the SWOT in Annex 6 and other analysis in this Section, a number of instruments are
considered to offer the most promising ways to develop financing of ecosystem restoration in the
EC. They are discussed further in Annex 7, including through examples of their use:
a) Bio-carbon markets: the role of carbon codes and peatland restoration.
b) Ecolabelling, particularly in the food sector.
c) Payments for ecosystem services.
d) The role of nature-based tourism.
Examples of use of these instruments have been presented in previous analysis on innovative
financial instruments and biodiversity in Europe (eftec, 2012; IEEP, 2013). These examples are
referenced from Annex 7, but not repeated: new examples are given further illustrating financing of
ecosystem restoration. An effort has been made to source examples from across the EU, as
different underlying conditions influence the relevance of examples to different member states. For
example, similar actions on catchment management by the private water industry in England and
Wales and private bottled water companies in France (IEEP, 2013), may not be replicable by
publicly-run utilities in other EU countries.
4.2.6.1
Bio-carbon markets
Private purchase of carbon credits, although much smaller than regulated emissions trading
arrangements, is already one of the largest private-sector driven environmental markets. Part of this
market already involves purchases of carbon credits from actions that are also positive for
biodiversity (bio-carbon). This market has potential to expand, with the most likely habitats to
benefit being those whose management has the greatest impact on carbon emissions.
Greenhouse gas sequestration can apply to restoration generally, not just specific forest or
peatland habitats – e.g. the quantifiable reduction in climate changing gas emissions resulting from
the transformation from net positive emissions on marginal agricultural land to net negative
emissions on restored habitats. Present funding focus is on carbon dioxide, but methane and
nitrous oxide will also be of quantifiable importance. Forests are the most widespread relevant
habitat, but peat soils (eg in mountain, moorland and heath ecosystems) and coastal wetlands have
also been identified as significant stores of carbon.
Markets are growing worldwide, and projects around Europe are starting to increase in scale (e.g.
peatland projects in NL, Belarus, UK – see Annex 3). The development of the market can be
assisted by reliable methods for calculating carbon benefits from nature conservation management,
such as in the UK’s woodland carbon and peatland carbon codes (EMTF, 2013). Around 80%, or
over 5million ha of European peatlands may be degraded, and restoration funding based on carbon
offsets has the potential to raise up to €100m per year.
149
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 150|210
4.2.6.2
Product labelling and certification
Labelling products as environmentally-friendly in order to attract a price-premium from customers is
already a well-established approach for channelling private funding into ecosystem restoration and
management. Organic and high-nature value labels already exist in a variety of agricultural systems
used to manage farmland, grasslands, and mountain, moorland and heath. Markets for timber and
fish that are sustainably produced are also well-established (e.g. Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
or the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)).
Markets for environmentally and ethically labelled produce have continued to grow in recent years,
despite global economic slowdown and limited growth in household incomes. These markets
contribute to ecosystem restoration, for example by supporting conversion of farms to organic
production, but also contribute to maintaining ecosystems. They could contribute further to
ecosystem restoration through development and targeting of labelling, but this may be challenging
in an already over-crowed labelling market space.
However, there are limits to the financial scale of these approaches, both in terms of the size of the
price premium that customers are prepared to pay, and the extent of the market (number of
customers). Therefore, they often require some public funding (e.g. as in the additional agrienvironment payments for organic farmers).
Environmentally-labelled production processes may not always deliver Target 2 objectives for the
ecosystems involved. Nonetheless, they can be expected to make a significant contribution where
they are used. For example, Marine Stewardship Council fisheries certification relates to the
sustainable exploitation of particular commercial fish species, but also has some requirements to
control fisheries pressures in marine areas, contributing to ecosystem restoration.
A recent study (Oakdene Hollins, 2010) on the potential expansion of the EU Ecolabel in the food
and drink sector identified that it offers an market opportunity for sustainably-produced food, in.
However, it also illustrates the risks of proliferation: with ecosystem restoration and/or management
being just one aspect of environmental performance, and meaning that new labeling risks having
little additional impact on the environment.
Product labeling and certification has a role to play in financing ecosystem restoration because it
provides information to consumers about the effects of production of goods and services on
ecosystems. However, this information can be diluted when there is a proliferation of labels such
that consumer trust and understanding are weakened. A solution to this may be consolidation of
labels. This already happens, such as in the organic ‘family’ of labels, or the coordination of Wildlife
Estates labeling by the European Landowners Organization. No consolidation has been attempted
in relation to restoration. There is a clear possibility of market failure (specifically coordination
failure) in providing consumers information about ecosystem restoration through product labeling.
So there is a potential role of Governments (possibly at EC level) to coordinate labels. However,
developing effective labels needs extensive marketing expertise, which must be coordinated with
the private sector.
150
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 151|210
4.2.6.3
Payments for ecosystem services
Payments for ecosystem services are regarded as a good prospect in several areas because they
are already an established mechanism. Public-sector PES through agri-environment schemes are
relevant to managing the condition of farmland; grasslands; and mountain, moorland and heath.
The existence of these PES arrangements provides a mechanism through which payments from
private sources for ecosystem services can be made. This is already happening in the water sector,
where private payments may be combined with public funds (see SCAMP and Vittel case studies).
These water sector PES mainly address diffuse pressures on water resources (e.g. water
colouration or nutrient pollution), but usually do so through restoration of farmed habitats. They can
therefore directly lead to restoration of several terrestrial habitats, and to relieving pressures that
are a barrier to restoration of water bodies, including coastal wetlands. The expansion of PES is
expected to continue in the water sector, but has potential to be expanded to other industries with
strong reliance on water supplies. This is more likely in PES arrangements where multiple
purchasers can be found.
Coastal wetlands provide other ecosystem services that could be traded through PES, such as
carbon storage (see Bio-carbon above`) and supporting fisheries productivity. The latter is a more
speculative PES opportunity. Its recognition in public funding for fisheries management could lead
to private support for coastal ecosystem restoration. This is more likely for less mobile commercial
species, such as shellfish.
4.2.6.4
Nature-based Tourism
Tourism and recreation ecosystem services value is recognised as substantial for the Natura
network in 4.2.2. Growth in tourism and recreation markets can be an important consequence of
restoring ecosystems, and may provide a source of revenue to maintain ecosystems after they
have been restored. The value of ecosystem restoration for recreation and tourism will vary
depending on the number of people benefits, the substitute sites available and levels of ecosystem
degradation in an area. An interesting recent development aiming to channel nature-based tourism
expenditure to benefit ecosystem conservation in the Conservation Birding initiative launched by
the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) (see Annex 7).
4.2.6.5
Most promising enabling instruments
Some other options in Table 13 are regarded as of cross-cutting relevance to Target 2 actions. The
most promising of these are use of the tax system and encouragement of philanthropy.
Taxation is one of the most influential ways that governments intervene in markets and therefore
influence use of private sector resources. Two mechanisms considered in this section (tax breaks
and match-funded hypothecated taxes) provide options for using the tax system to encourage
private funding of Target 2 actions. An example of tax hypothecation to environmental spending in
Bulgaria is in Annex 7.
Their appropriateness for delivering Target 2 is dependent on existing Member States’ national tax
structures, land ownership structures and the main ecosystem restoration and maintenance
priorities. For example, in a Member State with mainly private land ownership where maintaining
ecosystems is the dominant challenge, inheritance tax breaks may provide the best incentives. In a
151
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 152|210
Member State with existing resource-use taxes (eg on non-renewable resource extraction) and
more extensive actions needed to restore ecosystems, allowing hypothecation of taxes with private
matched funding into ecosystem restoration may be a more suitable instrument.
Encouraging philanthropic funding for Target 2 actions is also highly dependent on Member State
circumstances, as most will already have existing systems for encouraging charitable giving. The
best actions may therefore be to adapt these to give greater encouragement to ecosystem
restoration, or to simply highlight the benefits of ecosystem restoration. Greater awareness of the
benefits of ecosystem restoration could motivate more philanthropic support, in particular, from the
CSR budgets of a wider range of large private companies with links to ecosystem management.
While tax-system and philanthropic measures can be encouraged at a European level, their
implementation is most likely through Member State actions.
152
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 153|210
5
References
Bottrill, Madeleine C, Liana N Joseph, Josie Carwardine, Michael Bode, Carly Cook, Edward T
Game, Hedley Grantham, et al. 2008. ‘Is Conservation Triage Just Smart Decision Making?’
Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23 (12) (December): 649–654. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.07.007.
———. 2013. ‘Draft Report of the Workshop on ‘Priorities for the Restoration of Ecosystems and
Their Services’’.
American Bird Conservancy (2013). Available Online: http://www.conservationbirding.org/
Analogforestyrnetwork.org (2013). Available Online:
Brooks, Thomas M. 2010. ‘Conservation Planning and Priorities’. In Conservation Biology for All,
edited by Navjot S. Sodhi and Paul R. Ehrlich. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
http://www.conbio.org/images/content_publications/Chapter11.pdf.
CBD (2005) Indicators for assessing progress towards the 2010 target: Trends in extent of
selected
biomes,
ecosystems
and
habitats.
Website:
http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-10/information/sbstta-10-inf-10-en.pdf.
CLC (2007) Corine Land Cover 2006.
maps/data/corine-land-cover-2006-raster-2.
Website:
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-
Clewell, Andre, John Rieger, and John Munro. 2005. ‘Guidelines for Developing and Managing
Ecological Restoration Projects’. Society for Ecological Restoration International.
Conservation Measures Partnership. 2013. ‘Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation
Version 3.0’. http://www.conservationmeasures.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/CMP-OS-V3-0Final.pdf.
Conservationbirding.org (2013). Available Online: http://www.conservationbirding.org/index.html
Czucz et al., Using the natural capital index framework as a scalable aggregation methodology
for local and regional biodiversity indicators; Journal for Nature Conservation 20 (2012), p. 144 152
Department for Communities and Local Government. 2009. ‘Multicriteria Analysis: A Manual’.
Communities
and
Local
Government
Publications.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7612/1132618.pdf
.
Ecosystems Markets Task Force (EMTF) (2013). Realising Nature’s Value: The Final Report of
the Ecosystem Markets Task Force. Available Online: http://www.defra.gov.uk/ecosystemmarkets/files/Ecosystem-Markets-Task-Force-Final-Report-.pdf
EEA (2007) CLC2006 technical guidelines. EEA Technical report. ISBN: 978-92-9167-968-3
EEA (2011) Biogeographical regions.
maps/data/biogeographical-regions-europe.\
Website:
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-
EEA (2012-) ECRINS map project pinpoints water information in Europe. Website:
http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/ecrins-map-project-pinpoints-water.
EEA (2012) Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services: An analytical
framework for ecosystem assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020,
Discussion paper. Website: http://www.eccb2012.org/userfiles//MAESWorkingPaper_v8_3.pdf.
153
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 154|210
EEA
(2012+)
Eionet
GEMET
Thesaurus.
http://www.eionet.europa.eu/gemet/concept?cp=3808&langcode=en&ns=1.
Website:
EEA
(2013)
EIONET
GEMET
Thesaurus.
http://www.eionet.europa.eu/gemet/concept?cp=2519&langcode=en&ns=1.
Website:
EEA. 1999. ‘Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview’. No 25. Technical Report.
European Environment Agency. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/TEC25.
eftec (2012) Innovative Use Of Financial Instruments and Approaches To Enhance Private
Sector Finance Of Biodiversity. Report to DG Environment.
ETC (2013) Eionet Central Data Repository. Website: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/.
EUNIS
(2012)
EUNIS
habitat
type
http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp.
hierarchical
view.
Website:
European Commission. 2011. ‘Our Life Insurance, Our Natural Capital: An EU Biodiversity
Strategy to 2020’. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_ACT_part1_v7%
5B1%5D.pdf.
Eurostat (2010) NUTS - Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics administrative units /
statistical
units.
Website :
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/gisco_Geographical_information_maps/popu
ps/references/administrative_units_statistical_units_1.
FAO (2000) Land Cover Classification System (LCCS): Classification Concepts and User
Manual. Website: http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x0596e/X0596e00.htm#P-1_0.
Forest Stewardship Council (2012). FSC-Certified Wood and Products Fetch Higher Prices.
Available Online: https://ic.fsc.org/newsroom.9.66.htm
Forestry Commission (2013). Woodland Carbon Code Statistics, Data to June 2013. First
release. Available Online: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/wccjul2013.pdf/$FILE/wccjul2013.pdf
Fowlie, M. (2013). From Prairies to Pampas. Birdfair- Official Programme 2013. Pp. 25-29.
Gamboa, L.; and Hendriks, M. (year published unknown). Forest Garden Products Certification,
Setting Standards for Ecological Restoration and Biodiversity.
Available Online:
http://www.analogforestrynetwork.org/docs/FGP-Certification.pdf
Gaston, K. J., R. L. Pressey, and C. R. Margules. 2002. ‘Persistence and Vulnerability: Retaining
Biodiversity in the Landscape and in Protected Areas’. Journal of Biosciences 27 (4) (July 1):
361–384. doi:10.1007/BF02704966.
Geoland2 (2008) Supporting the Monitoring, Protection and Sustainable Management of our
Environment - High Resolution Layers. Website: http://www.gmes-geoland.info/.
Heath, M.F., M.I. Evans, D.G. Hoccom, A.J. Payne, and N.B. Peet. 2011. Important Bird Areas in
Europe: Priority Sites for Conservation 2 Volume Set. Birdlife International.
http://www.birdlife.org/community/2011/01/important-bird-areas-in-europe-priority-sites-forconservation-2-volume-set/.
Hobbs, Richard J. 2008. ‘Goals, Targets and Priorities for Landscape-Scale Restoration’. In
Managing and Designing Landscapes for Conservation, edited by David B. Lindenmayer and
Richard
J.
Hobbs,
511–526.
Blackwell
Publishing
Ltd.
154
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 155|210
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470692400.ch43/summary.
Hobbs, Richard J., and Linda J. Kristjanson. 2003. ‘Triage: How Do We Prioritize Health Care for
Landscapes?’ Ecological Management & Restoration 4: S39–S45. doi:10.1046/j.14428903.4.s.5.x.
IEEP (2012) Estimation of the financing needs to implement target 2 of the EU biodiversity
strategy.
Website:
http://www.ieep.eu/work-areas/biodiversity/valuing-biodiversity-andecosystem-services/.
IEEP (2013) Estimation of the Financing Needs to Implement Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity
Strategy. Report to DG Environment.
JNCC
(2012)
EUSeaMap
http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5020.
Mapping
European
seabed
habitats.
Website:
Jones-Walters, Lawrence, Roger Catchpole, Aleksandra Mladenovic, Aysegul Cil, Mark
Snethlage, Kristijan Civic, Andrew Schrauwen, Srdjan Susic, and Sasa Solujic. 2010. Local
Biodiversity Action Planning for Southeastern Europe. Tilburg: ECNC-European Centre for
Nature Conservation. http://www.ecnc.org/publications/technicalreports/local-biodiversity-actionplanning.
JRC (2003) Harmonisation, mosaicing and production of the Global Land Cover 2000 database.
Website: http://bioval.jrc.ec.europa.eu/products/glc2000/glc2000.php.
JRC (2006) Forest Mapping. Website: http://forest.jrc.ec.europa.eu/activities/forest-mapping/.
Margules, C R, R L Pressey, and P H Williams. 2002. ‘Representing Biodiversity: Data and
Procedures for Identifying Priority Areas for Conservation’. Journal of Biosciences 27 (4 Suppl 2)
(July): 309–326.
Margules, C. R., and R. L. Pressey. 2000. ‘Systematic Conservation Planning’. Nature 405
(6783) (May 11): 243–253. doi:10.1038/35012251.
Marine Stewardship Council (2011). New Study Shows UK Supermarkets Secure Price
Premium for MSC-Labelled Seafood Products. Available Online: http://www.msc.org/cook-eatenjoy/news/newsitem/new-study-shows-uk-supermarkets-secure-price-premium-for-msclabelled-seafood-products
MEA (2006) Ecosystems and human well-being A framework for assessment. Website:
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.300.aspx.pdf
Micheli, Fiorenza, Noam Levin, Sylvaine Giakoumi, Stelios Katsanevakis, Ameer Abdulla, Marta
Coll, Simonetta Fraschetti, et al. 2013. ‘Setting Priorities for Regional Conservation Planning in
the Mediterranean Sea’. PLoS ONE 8 (4) (April 5): e59038. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059038.
Oakdene Hollins (2010). EU Ecolabel for Food and Feed Products- Feasibility Study. Available
Online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/documents/Ecolabel_for_food_final_report.pdf
Organic-world.net (2013). Global Organic Farming Statistics and News 2013 Edition: Key
Results and Tables. Available Online:
PELCOM (2001) Development of a consistent methodology to derive land cover information on a
European scale. Website: http://edepot.wur.nl/81583
Poiani, Karen, Jeffrey Baumgartner, Jeffrey Buttrick, Shelley Green, Edward Hopkins, George
Ivey, Katherine Seaton, and Robert Sutter. 1998. ‘A Scale-independent, Site Conservation
Planning Framework in The Nature Conservancy’. Landscape and Urban Planning 43: 143–156.
155
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 156|210
doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(97)00086-8.
Pressey, Robert L., and Madeleine C. Bottrill. 2009. ‘Approaches to Landscape- and Seascapescale Conservation Planning: Convergence, Contrasts and Challenges’. Oryx 43 (04): 464–475.
doi:10.1017/S0030605309990500.
RUBICODE (2011) Review paper on concepts of dynamic ecosystems and their services.
Website: http://www.rubicode.net/rubicode/RUBICODE_Review_on_Ecosystem_Services.pdf
Sarkar, Sahotra, and Patricia Illoldi-Rangel. 2010. ‘Systematic Conservation Planning: An
Updated Protocol’. Natureza & Conservação 08 (01): 19–26. doi:10.4322/natcon.00801003.
Sarkar, Sahotra. 1999. ‘Wilderness Preservation and Biodiversity Conservation: Keeping
Divergent Goals Distinct’. BioScience 49 (5) (May): 405. doi:10.2307/1313633.
Smith, T.M., & Smith, R.L. (2006) Elements of ecology. Pearson International Edition. ISBN: 0321-41029-7.
Snethlage, Mark, Ben Delbaere, Martin Elliott, and Lawrence Jones-Walters. 2012. ‘How to Plan
for Nature - Action Planning Skills in Practice’. Tilburg: ECNC-European Centre for Nature
Conservation. http://www.biodiversityskills.eu/.
Sordello, R., J. Comolet-Tirman, H. Da Costa, J.C. De Massary, P. Dupont, O. Escuder, G.
Grech, et al. 2011. ‘Trame verte et bleue – Critères nationaux de cohérence – Contribution à la
définition du critère pour une cohérence interrégionale et transfrontalière’. Rapport MNHN-SPN.
http://www.trameverteetbleue.fr/sites/default/files/references_bibliographiques/111221_-_tvb__rapport_mnhn_interreg.pdf.
Suedel, Burton C., K. Burks-Copes, J. Kim, and K. McKay. 2011. ‘Using Multi-criteria Decision
Analysis to Support Ecosystem Restoration Planning’. ERDC TN-EMRRP-EBA-7. EMRRP
Technical Notes Collection. Vicksburg: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/eba07.pdf.
The Co-Operative (2012). Ethical Consumer Markets Report 2012.
Available Online:
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/linkclick.aspx?fileticket=96yXzu8nyrc%3D&tabid=1557
The
Nature
Conservancy
http://maps.tnc.org/gis_data.html
(2011)
Conservation
GIS
Data.
Website:
The World Bank (2011). Natural Grasslands Beef to be Certified Soon. Available Online:
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2011/08/30/primera-carne-pastizal
The World Bank (2012). Innovative Livestock Farming Protects the Environment in Argentina.
Available Online: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/12/27/ganaderia-de-pastizal
Thompson, Bill A. 2011. ‘Planning for Implementation: Landscape-Level Restoration Planning in
an Agricultural Setting’. Restoration Ecology 19 (1): 5–13. doi:10.1111/j.1526100X.2010.00666.x.
UNEP/GRID-Arendal. 2012. ‘DPSIR Framework for State of Environment Reporting’.
UNEP/GRID-Arendal
Maps
and
Graphics
Library.
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/dpsir_framework_for_state_of_environment_reporting.
UNESCO (1974) Tentative Physiognomic-Ecological Classification of Plant Formations of the
Earth. Website: http://www.ecosystems.ws/ecosystem_classification_systems.htm.
Van Swaay, Chris, and Martin Warren. 2003. ‘Prime Butterfly Areas in Europe: Priority Sites for
Conservation’. Wageningen: De Vlinderstichting.
156
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 157|210
VLIZ & VLIMAR (2011) Exclusive Economic Zones Boundaries, version 7 (EEZ). Website:
http://www.marineregions.org/downloads.php
Wildlife Estates (2013). Available Online: http://www.wildlife-estates.eu/
Wilson, Kerrie A., Megan Lulow, Jutta Burger, Yi-Chin Fang, Caitlin Andersen, David Olson,
Michael O’Connell, and Marissa F. McBride. 2011. ‘Optimal Restoration: Accounting for Space,
Time and Uncertainty’. Journal of Applied Ecology 48 (3): 715–725. doi:10.1111/j.13652664.2011.01975.x.
WWF (2013) Major habitat types, Fresh water, Marine and Terrestrial ecoregions. Website:
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/ecoregions/about/
157
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 159|210
ANNEX 1 : TYPOLOGY OF ECOSYSTEMS
REFLECTED TO OTHER EXISTING
CLASSIFICATIONS
(Refinement of the EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline (EEA 2012)).
159
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 161|210
Major ecosystem category (level 1)
Ecosystem
type for
mapping and
assessment
(level 2)
Terrestrial
1. Urban
Representation of
habitats
(functional
dimension by
EUNIS)/MSFD for
marine
ecosystems )
Constructed,
industrial and other
artificial habitats
Representation of
land cover (spatial
dimension)
Benefits of mapping
Problems of
mapping
Potential
spatial data
availability for
the member
states
Data used
for panEuropean
study
Link with ecosystem classifications, major habitat types or reporting
categories
Urban, industrial,
commercial and
transport areas,
urban green areas,
mines, dump and
construction sites
Urban areas represent
mainly human habitats but
they usually include
significant areas for
synanthropic species
CLC’s coarse
resolution that needs
to be complemented
e.g. by Urban atlas
(ca. 300 cities) and
HRL Imperviousness
CLC
Urban Atlas
HRL
Imperviousness
CLC codes:
111, 112,
121, 122,
123, 124,
131, 132,
133, 141,
142
Urban area’s (CBD 2005; PELCOM 2001)
Annual and
permanent crops
Main food production areas,
intensively managed
ecosystems
Habitat classification
(e.g. EUNIS)
includes permanent
crops into Heathland
and scrub
CLC
Artificial surfaces and associated areas (JRC 2003)
Urban (MEA 2006; IEEP 2012)
Constructed, industrial and other artificial habitats (EUNIS 2012)
Urban fabric; Industrial; commercial and transport units; Mine; dump and
construction sites; Artificial; non-agricultural vegetated areas (CLC level 2)
Built-Up Areas; Non Built-Up Areas (FAO 2000)
2. Cropland
Regularly or recently
cultivated
agricultural,
horticultural and
domestic habitats
CLC codes:
Croplands (as a component of agricultural systems) (CBD 2005)
211,
213,
222,
241,
243,
Cultivated and managed areas; Mosaic: Cropland/Tree Cover /Other Natural
Vegetation; Mosaic: Cropland / Shrub and/or Herbaceous cover (JRC 2003)
212,
221,
223,
242,
244
Cultivated (MEA 2006)
Rainfed arable land, Irigated arable land, Permanent crops (PELCOM 2001)
Agro-ecosystems (RUBICODE 2011)
Arable land; Permanent crops; Heterogeneous agricultural areas (CLC 2007;
Level 2)
Regularly or recently cultivated agricultural, horticultural and domestic
habitats (EUNIS 2012)
Arable ecosystems including temporary grasslands, permanent crops (IEEP
2012)
Managed Lands; Non-Graminoid Crops; Graminoid Crops; Herbaceous Crops;
Aquatic Or Regularly Flooded Graminoid Crops; Aquatic Or Regularly Flooded
Non-Graminoid Crops (FAO 2000)
3. Grassland
Grasslands and land
dominated by forbs,
mosses or lichens
Pastures and (semi-)
natural grasslands
Areas dominated by grassy
vegetation of two kinds –
managed pastures and
natural (extensively
managed) grasslands
Distinction between
intensively used and
more natural
grasslands requires
additional datasets
(Art. 17)
CLC
HRL grasslands
CLC codes:
231, 321
Grasslands/savannahs (as a component of dry and sub-humid lands)
(CBD 2005)
Dryland (MEA 2006)
Grassland (PELCOM 2001)
Semi-natural grassland and shrubland ecosystems (RUBICODE 2011)
Terrestrial herbaceous communities, Meadows, pastures or related grasslands
(UNESCO 1974)
Pastures; Scrub and/or herbaceous vegetation associations (CLC 2007; Level
2)
Grasslands and lands dominated by forbs, mosses or lichens (EUNIS 2012)
Natural and semi-natural grassland formations (Annex 1 habitat directive)
Arable ecosystems including temporary grasslands, permanent crops (IEEP
2012)
Tropical & Subtropical Grasslands; Savannas & Shrublands; Temperate
Grasslands, Savannas & Shrublands; Flooded Grasslands & Savannas;
Montane Grasslands & Shrublands; Tundra (WWF 2013)
4. Woodland
and forest
Woodland, forest and
other wooded land
Forests
Climax ecosystem type on
most of the area supporting
many ecosystem services
161
Missing information
on quality and
management
requires additional
datasets (Art. 17,
Grassland; Lichens/Mosses (FAO 2000)
CLC
HRL forests
CLC codes:
Forests (including different forest types, notably mangroves) (CBD 2005)
311, 312,
313
Tree Cover, broadleaved, evergreen; Tree Cover, broadleaved, deciduous,
closed; Tree Cover, broadleaved, deciduous, open; Tree Cover, needle-leaved,
evergreen; Tree Cover, needle-leaved, deciduous; Tree Cover, mixed leaf
type; Tree Cover, regularly flooded, fresh; Tree Cover, regularly flooded,
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 162|210
HRL forest)
saline, (daily variation); Mosaic: Tree cover/Other natural vegetation; Tree
Cover, burnt (JRC 2003)
Forest (MEA 2006)
Coniferous forest; Deciduous forest, Mixed forest (PELCOM 2001)
Forests ecosystems (RUBICODE 2011)
Closed forests; Woodland (UNESCO 1974)
Forests (CLC 2007; Level 2)
Woodland, forest and other wooded land (EUNIS 2012)
Forests (Annex 2 habitat directive)
Woodland and forest (IEEP 2012)
Tropical and Subtropical Moist Broadleaf Forests; Tropical & Subtropical Dry
Broadleaf Forests; Tropical & Suptropical Coniferous Forests; Temperate
Broadleaf & Mixed Forests, Temperate Coniferous Forests; Boreal
Forests/Taiga; Mediterranean Forests; Woodlands & Scrub (WWF 2013)
Tree Crops; Forest; Thicket; Woodland (FAO 2000)
5. Heathland
and shrub
Heathland, scrub and
tundra (vegetation
dominated by shrubs
or dwarf shrubs)
Moors, heathland
and sclerophyllous
vegetation
Mostly secondary
ecosystems with
unfavourable natural
conditions
Mapping the
condition of these
areas requires
combination with
Art.17
CLC
CLC codes:
Dry and sub-humid lands (other than grasslands/savannahs) (CBD 2005)
322, 323,
324
Shrub Cover, closed-open, evergreen (with or without sparse tree layer);
Shrub Cover, closed-open, deciduous (with or without sparse tree layer);
Herbaceous Cover, closed-open; Sparse Herbaceous or sparse shrub cover;
Regularly flooded shrub and/or herbaceous cover (JRC 2003)
Dryland (MEA 2006)
Shrubland (PELCOM 2001)
Semi-natural grassland and shrubland ecosystems (RUBICODE 2011)
Scrub, Dwarf-scrub and related communities (UNESCO 1974)
Scrub and/or herbaceous vegetation associations (CLC 2007; Level 2)
Heathland, scrub and tundra (EUNIS 2012)
Temperate heath and scrub, Sclerophyllous scrub (Matorral) (Annex 2 habitat
directive)
Heathland and tundra, Sclerophyllous vegetation (IEEP 2012)
Shrub Crops; Shrubland (FAO 2000)
6. Sparsely
vegetated
land
Unvegetated or
sparsely vegetated
habitats (naturally
unvegetated areas)
Open spaces with
little or no
vegetation (bare
rocks, glaciers and
beaches, dunes and
sand plains included)
Ecosystems with extreme
natural conditions that
might support valuable
species. Includes coastal
ecosystems on (beaches,
dunes) affected by marine
ecosystems
Becomes a
conglomerate of
distinctive rarely
occurring
ecosystems, often
defined by different
geographical location
CLC
CLC codes:
Polar/ice (CBD 2005)
331, 332,
333, 334,
335
Bare Areas; Snow and Ice (natural & artificial)(JRC 2003)
Barren land, Ice and snow (PELCOM 2001)
Soils (RUBICODE 2011)
Deserts and other scarcely vegetated areas (UNESCO 1974)
Open spaces with little or no vegetation (CLC 2007; Level 2)
Inland unvegetated or sparsely vegetated habitats (EUNIS 2012)
Rocky habitats and caves, Coastal sand dunse and inland dunes (Annex 1
habitat directive)
Sparsely vegetated land (not covered) (IEEP 2012)
Deserts & Xeric Shrublands (WWF 2013)
Sparse Vegetation; Consolidated Areas; Unconsolidated Areas; Artificial Snow;
Artificial Ice; Snow; Ice (FAO 2000)
162
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 163|210
7. Wetlands
Mires, bogs and fens
Inland wetlands
(marshes and
peatbogs)
Specific plant and animal
communities, water
regulation, peat-related
processes
Separation from
grasslands
(temporary
inundation) and
forests (tree
canopy), HRL
wetlands
CLC
HRL wetlands
CLC codes:
411, 412
Peatlands (as a component of inland waters or forests); Inland wetlands
(other than those already covered as peatlands)(CBD 2005)
Inland water (MEA 2006)
Wetland (PELCOM 2001)
Wetlands ecosystems (RUBICODE 2011)
Aquatic plant formations (UNESCO 1974)
Inland wetlands (CLC 2007; Level 2)
Mires, bogs and fens (EUNIS 2012)
Raised bogs and mires and fens (Annex 1 habitat directive)
Mires (bogs and fens), Inland marshes (IEEP 2012)
Fresh water
8. Rivers and
lakes
Inland surface
waters (freshwater
ecosystems)
Water courses and
bodies incl. coastal
lakes (without
permanent
connection to the
sea)
All permanent freshwater
surface waters
Underestimation of
water courses and
small water bodies
needs application of
external datasets
(ECRINS, HRL Small
lakes)
CLC
HRL small water
bodies
ECRINS
CLC codes:
511, 512
Water Bodies (natural & artificial) (JRC 2003)
Inland water (MEA 2006; PELCOM 2001; CLC 2007; Level 2)
River ecosystems (RUBICODE 2011)
Inland surface waters (EUNIS 2012)
Freshwater habitats (Annex 2 habitat directive)
Rivers and lakes (IEEP 2012)
Large Rivers; Large River Headwaters; Large River Deltas; Small Rivers, Large
Lakes; Small Lakes; Xeric Basins (WWF 2013)
Artificial Waterbodies; Natural Waterbodies (FAO 2000)
Marine
9. Marine
inlets and
transitional
waters
Pelagic habitats:
Low/reduced salinity
water (of lagoons)
Variable salinity
water (of coastal
wetlands, estuaries
and other
transitional waters)
Marine salinity water
(of other inlets)
Benthic habitats:
Littoral rock and
biogenic reef
Littoral sediment
Shallow sublittoral
rock and biogenic
reef
Shallow sublittoral
sediment
Coastal wetlands:
Saltmarshes, salines
and intertidal flats
Lagoons: Highly
restricted connection
to open sea,
reduced, often
relatively stable,
salinity regime
Spatial representation of
the land-sea interface, and
of the relative proportion of
habitats and related
services. Interface limited
by the WFD landward
boundaries of transitional
and coastal waters
Use of relevant CLC
classes would lead to
mapping
geographically
distinct entities
rather than benthic
habitats
EUSeaMap††
provides broad-scale
seabed habitat
maps, which are
based on predictive
modelling with
partial validation.
But these cannot be
used for all
ecosystems in this
class
Estuaries and other
transitional waters:
Link rivers to open
sea, variable, highly
dynamic salinity
regime. All WFD
‘transitional waters’
included
Fjords/sea lochs:
Glacially derived,
typically elongated
and deep; marine
salinity regime
Embayments: Nonglacial origin,
typically shallow,
marine salinity
system
Pelagic habitats:
Coastal waters
Benthic habitats:
Coastal, shallowdepth marine
systems that
experience
CLC codes;
521, 421,
422, 423,
522
GIS layer of
WFD ‘lake water
bodies’ and
‘transitional
water bodies’
Coral reefs (as a component of marine and coastal ecosystems); Tidal
flats/estuaries (as an additional component of coastal ecosystems); Seagrass
beds (as an additional component of coastal ecosystems) (CBD 2005)
Coastal (MEA 2006)
Marine waters (CLC level 2)
Marine habitats (EUNIS 2012)
Marine, coastal, and halophytic habitats (Annex 1 habitat directive)
Coastal ecosystem - beaches, dunes, saltmarshes, estuaries & lagoons (IEEP)
Mangroves (WWF 2013)
Transitional water bodies (WFD)
Water column’ predomi-nant habitat types; Variable salinity (estuarine);
Reduced salinity; Marine salinity (MSFD)
Seabed’ predomi-nant habitats (MSFD)
EUSeaMap is
now only
available for the
Baltic, North,
Celtic and
western
Mediterranean
seas. Remaining
seas to be
covered by new
projects (over
2013-2014)
Marine ‘water
column’ habitats
are not mapped
by EUSeaMap
Pelagic habitats in
this type include the
photic zone, benthic
habitats can include
it or not
10. Coastal
CLC (allows
mapping of
lagoons,
saltmarshes,
salines,
intertidal flat s
and estuaries)
Spatial representation of
the marine coastal ‘zone’
and of the relative
No European
common scheme
exists for mapping of
163
GIS layer of
WFD ‘coastal
water bodies’
EUSeamap:
A1
Littoral rock
Marine (MEA 2006)
Sea (PELCOM 2001)
Marine waters (CLC level 2)
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 164|210
Littoral rock and
biogenic reef
Littoral sediment
Shallow sublittoral
rock and biogenic
reef
Shallow sublittoral
sediment
11. Shelf
12. Open
ocean
Pelagic habitats:
Shelf waters
Benthic habitats:
Shelf sublittoral rock
and biogenic reef
Shelf sublittoral
sediment
Pelagic habitats:
Oceanic waters
Benthic habitats:
Bathyal (upper,
lower) rock and
biogenic reef
Bathyal (upper,
lower) sediment
Abyssal rock and
biogenic reef
Abyssal sediment
significant landbased influences.
These systems
undergo diurnal
fluctuations in
temperature, salinity
and turbidity, and
are subject to wave
disturbance. Depth is
up to 50-70 meters.
Pelagic habitats in
this type include the
photic zone, benthic
habitats can include
it or not
proportion of habitats and
related services
Marine systems
away from coastal
influence, down to
the shelf slope. They
experience more
stable temperature
and salinity regimes
than coastal
systems, and their
seabed is below
wave disturbance.
Depth is up to 200
meters. Pelagic
habitats in this type
include the photic
zone, benthic
habitats are beyond
the photic limit
(aphotic)
Marine systems
beyond the shelf
slope with very
stable temperature
and salinity regimes,
in particular in the
deep seabed. Depth
is beyond 200
meters. Pelagic
habitats in this type
are, in proportion,
mostly aphotic,
benthic habitats are
aphotic
Spatial representa-tion of
the marine shelf ‘zone’ and
of the relative proportion of
habitats and related
services
Spatial representa-tion of
the marine open ocean
zone and of the relative
proportion of habitats and
related services
pelagic habitats nor
for combined
pelagic/ben-thic
systems
EUSeaMap broadscale seabed habitat
maps
are based on
predictive modelling
with partial
validation
No European
common scheme
exists for mapping of
pelagic habitats nor
for combined
pelagic/ben-thic
systems
EUSeaMap broadscale seabed habitat
maps
are based on
predictive modelling
with partial
validation
No European
common scheme
exists for mapping of
pelagic habitats nor
for combined
pelagic/ben-thic
systems
EUSeaMap broadscale seabed habitat
maps
are based on
predictive modelling
with partial
validation
164
EUSeaMap is
now only
available for the
Baltic, North,
Celtic and
western
Mediterra-nean
seas. Remaining
seas to be
covered by new
projects (over
2013-2014)
Marine ‘water
column’ habitats
are not mapped
by EUSeaMap
EUSeaMap is
now only
available for the
Baltic, North,
Celtic and
western
Mediterra-nean
seas. Remaining
seas to be
covered by new
projects (over
2013-2014)
Marine ‘water
column’ habitats
are not mapped
by EUSeaMap
and other
hard
substrata,
A2
littoral
sediment
Marine habitats (EUNIS 2012)
Marine (IEEP)
Polar, Temperate Shelf and Seas, Temperate Upwelling, Tropical Upwelling,
Tropical Coral (WWF 2013)
EUSeamap:
A3
Infralittoral
rock and
other hard
substrata,
A4
Circalittoral
rock and
other hard
substrata,
A5
Sublittoral
sediment
Marine (MEA 2006)
Sea (PELCOM 2001)
Marine waters (CLC level 2)
Marine habitats (EUNIS 2012)
Marine (IEEP)
Polar, Temperate Shelf and Seas, Temperate Upwelling, Tropical Upwelling,
Tropical Coral (WWF 2013)
EUSeaMap is
now only
available for the
Baltic, North,
Celtic and
western
Mediterra-nean
seas. Remaining
seas to be
covered by new
projects (over
2013-2014)
Marine ‘water
column’ habitats
are not mapped
by EUSeaMap
EUSeamap:
A6
deep-sea bed
Marine (MEA 2006)
Sea (PELCOM)
Marine waters (CLC level 2)
Marine habitats (EUNIS 2012)
Marine (IEEP)
Polar, Temperate Shelf and Seas, Temperate Upwelling, Tropical Upwelling,
Tropical Coral (WWF 2013)
Coastal water bodies (WFD)
Water column predominant habitat types; Variable salinity (estuarine);
Reduced salinity; Marine salinity (MSFD)
Seabed predominant habitats (MSFD)
Water column predominant habitats with marine salinity (MSFD)
Seabed’ predominant habitats (MSFD)
Water column predominant habitats with marine salinity (MSFD)
Seabed predominant habitats (MSFD)
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 165|210
ANNEX 2: DESCRIPTORS COVERED BY
EXISTING EU ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION
AND POLICIES
165
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 167|210
Descriptors based on existing EU environmental legislation and policy
The tables below provide an overview of the main EU environmental policies and legislation that were established by the European Commission during the
57
past decades: Natura 2000, European Red List , Water Framework Directive, EU Nitrate Directive, Marine Strategy Framework Directive, EU Soil Policy, Air
Quality Legislation, Flood Risk Directive, CAP. There is no EU fire prevention policy yet, but the need has been recognized and a brochure on fire prevention
has been issued. Fire risk has been assessed and mapped (data available in JRC database).
The tables are structured as follows:






‘data’: this refers to the type of information which is currently available or should be made available soon, according to the planned deadlines of the
directives; as an example according to the Habitat Directive Member States should report on the conservation status of habitats and species.
‘indicators’: these are the components constituting the data groups; as an example habitat conservation status is based on range, surface, etc.; some
indicators, e.g. those of N2000, are open for (some) interpretation by Member States; other indicators, e.g. EU Nitrate Directive, are measured in a
uniform way.
‘indicator unit’ : represents the unit in which the measured indicator is expressed
‘source’ : reveals the source(s) of data represented in the table
‘potential descriptor’: very rough link to a potential descriptor name; this is based on a preliminary exercise by the authors and should not be
considered as a final proposal
‘red bars’: these refer to the legislation/policy; also the target to be achieved is mentioned; in some cases this target is explicitly mentioned in the
legislation (e.g. FCS for Habitat Directive) while in other cases this target is less clearly expressed; in those cases we tried to capture the overall
target in one simple denomination e.g. non endangered status for the Red List species; we also used abbreviations for this target as this comes back
in Annex 4 in the Report.
57
The European Red List is neither a policy nor a legislation but we included this concept as it is widely applied in biodiversity policy and biodiversity
assessment and includes useful descriptors and indicators
167
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 168|210
Data
Indicator
Indicator unit
Source
Potential descriptor
Natura 2000 (Goal: Favourable Conservation Status (FCS)
Habitat conservation
Range
status
Interpretation MS
FV/U1/U2/?
Surface area of habitat type
Interpretation MS
FV/U1/U2/?
Structure & functions incl.
Interpretation MS
typical species
FV/U1/U2/?
Future prospects
Interpretation MS
FV/U1/U2/?
Species conservation
Overall assessment (=final
Interpretation MS
EC - explanatory notes &
conclusion)
FV/U1/U2/?
guidelines
Range
Interpretation MS
status
Habitat status
FV/U1/U2/?
Population size and density
Interpretation MS
FV/U1/U2/?
Surface area of suitable
Interpretation MS
habitat
FV/U1/U2/?
Future prospects
Interpretation MS
FV/U1/U2/?
Overall assessment (=final
Interpretation MS
conclusion)
FV/U1/U2/?
168
Species status
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 169|210
European Red List (Goal: Non Endangered status (NE) non-official abbreviation)
Species
Species composition
Number of species
Endemic species ratio
%
Species status
composition
Species taxonomic classification
EU Red List data (IUCN)
Species status
9 documents (one per species
Species status
group):
Sp. Distribution
Geographic range
Other species
Red list category
Mammals (2007); amphibians
characteristics
& criteria
(2009); reptiles (2009);
Population information
beetles (2010);
Species status
Species status
Species status
fresh water fish (2010); butterflies
Threats
Conservation
Habitat preferences
(2010); dragonflies (2011);
Species status
Major threats
mollusks (2011); vascular plants
Species status
(2011)
Conservation measures (in
Species status
place/needed)
Species
Species utilization
Species status
Use and trade information
Species status
exploitation
Water Framework Directive (Goal: Good or High Status (GHS) (non-official abbreviation)
Biological
Abundance, composition
Species status
phytobenthos, macro-phytes,
macroalgae
Abundance,composition, diversity,
Species status (N2000 &
sensitive taxa – Invertebrate fauna
Red List)
Abundance, composition, life
Species status
cycle/age structure, sensitive
taxa - Fish
169
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 170|210
Abundance,composition, bloom
Species status
frequency and intensity –
Phytoplankton
EC – WFD common
implementation strategy
Abundance,composition,
Species status
sensitive taxa, depth
distribution/cover, diversity Angiosperms
Hydromorpho-logical
Water flow quantity & dynamics;
Hydrological status
residence time
Connectivity
Connectivity
(to groundwater)
Physico-chemical
River continuity
Dist. hydrological cycle
Depth & width variation
Dist. hydrological cycle
Bed structure&-substrate
Dist. hydrological cycle
Water flow velocity
Dist. hydrological cycle
Termal conditions
°Celcius
Dissolved oxygen
Salinity
Temperature
Acidification
Electrical conductivity
Salinization
Nutriënt concentration (P/N;
nitrite; ammonium)
Acidification
Transparency (secchi dept,
turbidity, colour)
Acidification
Spec. (non-) syn- thetic
Water clouding
pH, alkalinity/ANC, TOC
Pollution
Acidification
Toxic waste products
pollutants
170
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 171|210
EU Nitrate Directive (Goal : <50mg/l )
Nitrate pollution
Nitrate concentration
Nitrates directive – guidelines &
mg/l
Water eutrophication
58
“The EU Nitrate Directive -
surface water
Nitrate concentration
brochure
mg/l
Water eutrophication
ground water
Marine Strategy framework Directive (Goal: Good Environmental Status (GES))
Physical and
Salinity
Chemical
Nutrients and oxygen
DIN;TN;DIP;TP; TOC;O
Marine acidification
pH, pCO2
http://eur2
features
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriS
erv.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:164:0019:0
Salinization
Eutrophication
040:EN:PDF
Habitat type
Water depth
characteristics
Temperature regime
Acidification
Currents
Salinity
Salinization
Substrata composition
Habitat status (N2000)
Biological
Population dynamics, natural and
Species status (N2000)
features
actual range and status of species
of marine mammals and reptiles,
seabirds and other relevant species
Seasonal & geographical variability
Species status (N2000)
phyto- & zooplankton
Species composition, biomass and
Species status (N2000)
annual/ seasonal variability of
angiosperms, macro-algae and
58
*Part of WFD and ground water directive; focus on ground and surface waters; <50mg is accepted (exemption can be granted if necessary)
171
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 172|210
invertebrates
Abundance, distribution and
Species status (N2000)
age/size structure of fish
populations
Other features
Chemical pollution
Physical loss
Smothering
Toxic waste products
Sealing
Physical damage
Siltation
Abrasion
Selective extraction
Other physical
Disturbance
Contamination
By hazardous
Substances
Underwater noise
Noise pollution
Marine litter
Pollution (non-) synthetic
substances)
Toxic waste products
Radio-nuclide pollution
Systematic/
intentional substance release
Nutrient and
Organic matter
enrichment
Biological
Disturbance
Pollution
(other substances)
Eutrophication (N; P)
Eutrophication
Eutrophication(organic matter)
Eutrophication
Pests/diseases
Microbial pathogens
Non-indigenous species
Invasive alien species
(Excess) harvesting
Selective extraction
172
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 173|210
EU soil policy (Goal: Good Soil Status (GSS) non-official term)
Soil degradation
Soil Organic Carbon content
Soil organic carbon content
Soil compaction
http://eur-
Soil compaction
Soil salinization
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriS
Salinization
Soil erosion
erv.do?uri=COM:2006:0232:FIN:E
Soil erosion
N:PDF (Proposal for a Directive)
Soil biodiversity
Soil contamination
Species status
Site history
Soil pollution
Toxic waste products
Biomass production
Ecosystem services
Environmental,
Storing, filtering & transforming
economic, social &
nutrients, substances & water
Ecosystem services
Biodiversity pool
Species/Habitat status
(habitat,species&genes)
(N2000; Red list)
cultural functions
Physical & cultural environment for
humans and their activities
Ecosystem services
Supply of raw materials
Ecosystem services
Carbon pool function
Ecosystem services
Geological and archeological
Ecosystem services
heritage
Air quality legislation (Goal: Good Air Quality (GAQ); non-official term)
General pollution
Sulphur pollution
µg/m³
Nitrogen (oxides) pollution
µg/m³
Carbon monoxide pollution
µg/m³
173
eur-lex.europe.eu/
LexUriServ.do?uri=
COM:2005:0447:FIN: EN:PDF
Air pollution
Air pollution
Air pollution
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 174|210
PM pollution
Toxic waste pollution
Ozone pollution
µg/m³
Air pollution
PM10 pollution
µg/m³
Air pollution
PM2,5 pollution
µg/m³
Air pollution
Benzene pollution
µg/m³
Air pollution
Lead
µg/m³
Air pollution
Flood Risk Directive (Goal: No uncontrolled Flood Risk (NFR); non-official term)
Flood risk
S/M/L
EC – Guidelines Flood Risk
(S=sporadically;
Directive
Flood risk
Flood Risk
M>100 years; L= regular or
<100years)
Flood characteristics
Flood size
ha
Flood Risk
Water depth/Water level
M
Flood Risk
Common Agricultural Policy CAP
AXIS 2,
Improving the
environment and the
countryside
through land
management
BASELINE INDICATORS
RELATED TO OBJECTIVES:
o Biodiversity: Population
of farmland birds
o Biodiversity: High nature
value farmland and
forestry
o Biodiversity: Tree
species composition
o Water quality: Gross
Nutrient Balances
o Water quality: Pollution
by nitrates and
pesticides
o Soil: Areas at risk of soil
erosion
o Soil: Organic farming
o Climate change:
Production of renewable
energy from agriculture
and forestry
BASELINE INDICATORS
RELATED TO CONTEXT:
o Land cover
o Less favoured
areas
o Areas of extensive
agriculture
o Biodiversity :
protected forest
o Development of
forest area
o Forest ecosystem
health
o Water quality
o Water use
o Protective forests
concerning primarily
soil and water
174
COMMON OUTPUT
INDICATORS:
o Natura 2000 payments and
payments linked to Directive
2000/60/EC (indicator:
Supported agricultural land
under Natura 2000/under
Water Framework Directive)
o Agri-environment payments
(indicator: total area under
agri-environmental support)
o First afforestation of
agricultural land (ind. :
number of ha afforested land)
o First establishment of
agroforestry systems on
agricultural land
o First afforestation of nonagricultural land
o Natura 2000 payments (ind:
supported forest land (ha) in
COMMON RESULT
INDICATORS:
o Area under successful
land management
contributing to:
(a) biodiversity and high
nature value farming/
forestry
(b) water quality
(c) climate change
(d) soil quality
(e) avoidance of
marginalisation and land
abandonment
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 175|210
o
o
Climate change: UAA
devoted to renewable
energy
Climate change/air
quality: gas emissions
from agriculture
o
o
175
Natura 2000 areas)
Forest-environment payments
Restoring forestry potential
and introducing prevention
actions (ind : number of
prevention/restoration
actions, supported area of
damaged forests, …)
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 177|210
ANNEX 3 : OVERVIEW OF SPATIAL REPORTING OBLIGATIONS IN THE EU
177
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 179|210
179
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 181|210
ANNEX 4: MATRIX ECOSYSTEM TYPES AND POTENTIAL DESCRIPTORS
181
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 182|210
182
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 183|210
183
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 184|210
184
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 185|210
ANNEX 5 : PRIVATE SECTOR FINANCING
INSTRUMENTS
Description of the private sector financing instruments
Financing
Description
instrument
Philanthropic donations
Not-for profit sources
Funds raised by organisations registered as non-profit for ecosystem management (ie that
would otherwise have been spent on other issues), not including funds already earmarked for
ecosystem management (eg by governments, companies or foundations) that are channelled
via NGOs.
Philanthropic
Donations made by private sources that are not predicated on achieving a positive financial
donations
by
companies
(or other private) return. This category overlaps with actions motivated by business being
seen to be taking actions in the public interest for reputational reasons.
Profit driven investments
Payments
for
A voluntary market mechanism in which suppliers are paid by beneficiaries to manage the
ecosystem services
ecosystems in such a way so as to enhance or continue the ecosystem service.
Bonds
A tradable financial security that promises to payback the holder at pre-defined interest rate
for
green
infrastructure
used to fund projects with positive ecological impact. It can be delivered through a public
private partnership in which government guarantees a certain level of payback to the private
investor.
Insurance
sector
mitigating
of
Using funds generated by insurance premiums to manage sources of environment risk.
environmental risk
Bio-carbon markets
The sale of carbon credits created through ecosystem maintenance or restoration that
sequesters and/or reduces emissions of carbon.
Pro-biodiversity
Investment or support structures for businesses that have a positive impact on biodiversity,
business models
via a funding platform (eg NGO with restoration expertise).
Product labelling and
Identifying a product to consumers whose purchase supports a certain type of production
certification
process favouring ecosystem maintenance and/or restoration.
Tax relief on capital
Adjustment of tax rates to favour certain types of ecosystem management and maintenance
assets
of assets in good environmental management.
Private
finance
Private sector invests in public infrastructure on the basis of long-term public service
initiative
contracts that specify the outputs required (e.g. numbers of hospital beds).
Risk-sharing
The use of public sector guarantees to encourage private investment in ecosystem
investment structures
restoration activities that lead to business opportunities (eg loans on favourable terms, first
185
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 186|210
Financing
Description
instrument
loss on public shares or guaranteed minimum return on investment).
Regulatory measures
Hypothecated
tax
Allocating tax revenues to specific spending objectives, combined with requirements for
funds
private matched funding.
Biodiversity
offsets
A scheme whereby the losses of biodiversity as a consequence of a development or land use
and habitat banking
change are compensated by the investment in the restoration of another site of similar
habitat, resulting in no net loss of biodiversity. Where offset outcomes planned to
compensate for residual biodiversity loss exceed the damage done (net gain) they can
contribute to ecosystem restoration.
Relation of the private sector financing instruments to ecosystem restoration levels
The changes do not necessarily have to relate to the changes between the definitions of levels
in Section 2.3, but relate to changes to ecosystems similar to the differences in the approximate
states represented by these levels.
Financing instrument
Level 4 - 3
Level 3 - 2
Level 2 - 1
Philanthropic donations
Not-for profit sources
May be possible if motivated by social objectives, linked
More
to ecosystem restoration as part of socio-economic
flagship CSR values
likely
to
have
regeneration
Philanthropic
donations
by companies
May be possible if motivated by social objectives, linked
More
to ecosystem restoration as part of socio-economic
flagship CSR values, so
likely
to
regeneration, but only likely in close proximity to large
expected
company locations.
majority
to
have
attract
of
this
instrument’s funding
Profit driven investments
Payments for ecosystem
Possible here, but where
Most likely here, where
Also relevant here, but
services
degradation is high, conflict
changes
changes
with polluter pays principle
services from restoration
ecosystem services may
(activities
may be greatest
be less significant here
damaging
in
ecosystem
ecosystem held responsible
for restoration)
Bonds
for
green
Less likely
Insurance
sector
As PES
mitigating
of
infrastructure
environmental risk
186
in
some
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 187|210
Financing instrument
Level 4 - 3
Level 3 - 2
Bio-carbon markets
Level 2 - 1
Less
likely
to
have
Carbon benefits
Pro-biodiversity business
More likely as higher
models
biodiversity values
Product
labelling
and
certification
Tax
relief
Unlikely
to
motivate
consumers
on
capital
Also possible where part
More likely – highest
of traditional exploitation
quality
of ecosystems
appeal to consumers
environments
Applies to all, but more likely at higher level as not
assets
contravening polluter pays principle and relates to
existing ecosystem standards that instrument can
relate to
Private finance initiative
Potentially all levels
Risk-sharing investment
Applies to all
structures
Regulatory measures
Hypothecated tax funds
Applies to all
If optional, co-motivated
by CSR more likely here
Biodiversity offsets and
Applies to all, depends on measured bd gain rather than
If
‘trading
habitat banking
overall ecosystem level.
IEEP et al 2010), more
likely here.
187
up’
(eftec,
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 189|210
ANNEX 6 : SWOT ANALYSIS OF PRIVATE
SECTOR FINANCING INSTRUMENTS
189
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 191|210
Philanthropic instruments
Mechanism
Strengths
Weaknesses
Opportunities
Threats
Conclusion
Not-for profit
Generates funds from the
Different organisations (eg
Non-profit
organisations
Economic downturn could
Non-profit
sources
public, which can fund
environmental NGOs) can
can play a key role as
result in less donations
generates some funding
ecosystem
duplicate
intermediary
maintenance
from donors. May have
for
Limited to the resources
finance of target 2, eg
limited
maintenance
Knowledge and position in
they
from
through
some sectors.
society allow NGOs to act
donations
only
business
as a trusted intermediary.
sustainable as long as
mediating
support continues.
establishment of PES.
and
restoration.
functions.
receive
and
in
private
pro-biodiversity
models
legitimacy
with
sector
ecosystem
and
restoration, but may make
and
larger contribution as an
the
intermediary in facilitating
the other mechanisms to
happen.
Philanthropic
A
donations
mechanism
simple
and
direct
and
It is unlikely that funding
Donations
can
be
Current weak state of the
Will
from
supported
through
tax
global economy likely to
restoration,
this
source
will
significantly
support
ecosystem
but
established as a means of
increase
to
incentives. Environmental
reduce donations, with an
contribution
funding
make a contribution to
awareness could increase
increased focus on the
increase significantly.
achieving Target 2.
spotlight
on
maintenance
giving
and
ecosystem
maintenance
and
restoration.
corporate
CSR,
of
unlikely
the
to
profit
margins.
encouraging donations.
Profit driven investments
Mechanism
Payments
for
Strengths
Weaknesses
use
Opportunities
Potential perpetual source
Private
ecosystem
of private finance with
limited mainly to water
currently
Emergence
evidence
services (PES)
minimal
of
on
Threats
stronger
value
of
opposition
commodification
services tied to water, and
demonstrated
of
could
ecosystem
to establish the benefits
Potential for expansion in
knowledge of ecosystem
Potentially
that
services
uncertainties over benefits
provided to a wider range
water
of sectors in order to
schemes
Europe.
expand.
purchasers.
191
sector
and/or
with
multiple
benefits
from
ecosystem restoration.
be
for
services. There is a need
been
Lack
Well
of
government
has
environment.
to
involvement. An approach
demonstrated throughout
services.
Public
Conclusion
expanded.
limited
by
of ecosystem restoration.
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 192|210
Bonds
for
Can raise upfront finance
Needs to be attached to
Long
green
needed
undertake
large scale activities with
ecosystem
infrastructure
ecosystem
maintenance
sufficient financial returns
and
to
to
and restoration actions.
justify
formulating
‘bonds’.
term
returns
on
restoration
Unclear if markets have
Potential mechanism to
appetite
bonds.
raise finance for target 2
Limited by uncertainty of
actions organized on a
environmental assets (eg
payback
sufficient
forests) suitable to bonds.
restoration.
stability
of
for
of
ecosystem
scale
offering
and
commercial
Public sector could share
returns
risk. Possibility to group
clear or risk shared.
if
benefits
are
with related funds e.g.
green
bond
funds
Resource
or
Efficiency
funds.
Insurance
A
exists
May not fit within the
An increase in natural
If governments underwrite
Theoretical
sector
between natural hazard
clear
institutional structure of
risks (eg due to climate
natural hazard risks, there
further
mitigating
risks
ecosystems,
the
change) may increase the
is little incentive for the
development
environmental
recognised
already
Cost-effectiveness
of
attractiveness
insurance
before it is likely to be
risk
some
investments
in
mitigating measures.
finance restoration.
and
link
by
insurance
companies.
insurance
ecosystems
to
sector.
of
such
sector
to
at
present,
research
and
needed
applied.
mitigate
natural risks uncertain.
Bio-carbon
Existing carbon markets
Technical and institutional
Defining clear standards
Weaknesses
markets
could be adapted to trade
barriers
for measuring bio-carbon
climate
commitments
finance
bio-carbon. Small part of
carbon markets to include
credits
undermining confidence in
actions.
carbon market could fund
bio-carbon. Need to verify
maintenance
carbon markets.
work in conjunction with
substantial
ecosystem
restoration
ecosystem
and,
to
an
extent, maintenance (see
to
adapting
restoration
from ecosystem
and
in
global
Could be useful source of
for
Target
Could
restoration would support
other
credits. Not all restoration
market
PES, labelling).
generates carbon credits.
reduce transaction costs.
confidence
and
2
mainly
mechanisms
(eg
below).
Pro-
Intermediary
between
Needs to be organized on
Establishing PBBs where
Uncertainties and conflicts
Useful model to expand
biodiversity
funding sources (public
sufficient scale to justify
significant
in
where significant numbers
business
and
transaction
costs.
SMEs control an area
ecosystem
(PBB) models -
businesses
Opportunities
where
suitable for commercial
(eg CAP).
funding
SMEs) that can deliver
private)
and
(especially
viable business models
ecosystem
192
numbers
of
maintenance
policies
influencing
management
of
SMEs
commercial
maintenance
can
deliver
ecosystem
and
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 193|210
platforms
ecosystem
maintenance
and restoration actions.
also support biodiversity
and restoration.
restoration.
will be limited and site
specific.
Product
labelling
and
certification
Potentially huge market
Scope
to
Defining new labels, or
Tough
supporting
maintenance
ecosystems
with
adjusting existing labels,
conditions
could
(and
incentivising
commercial
products.
that
ecosystem
consumers
turn
in
from
restoration)
habitats
of
Price premium may not
restoration
to
cover restoration costs.
labelling criteria.
tied
services.
Certification
processes
well
include
those
provisioning
are
limited
understood,
reducing time needed for
Challenge
their
labelled
see
away
products
due to the cost.
to
A potentially large market
to
support
Target
Requires
appetite
2.
consumer
for
such
information and products.
Proliferation of labels may
communicate ecosystem
restoration
economic
confuse consumer.
benefits
through a label.
establishment.
Tax relief on
Works
capital assets
tax
through
system
encourage
restoration
existing
and
Difficulties
persuading
Inheritance
tax
and
Likely
to
come
under
Potential to operate at a
will
finance ministries to give
taxation of land assets
pressure in time of fiscal
large scale eg forestry or
ecosystem
tax breaks for the natural
could
constraints.
mining sector, especially if
by
be
adjusted
those
environment. Applies to
support
willing to invest in it for
restoration likely to have
maintenance
other
happened
restoration actions.
reasons.
Pay-off
anyway.
expected for large scale
Targeting to restoration
landowners (eg forestry,
increases
mining).
costs.
levering
to
Could
be
ecosystem
inequitable to those who
already
and
already are maintaining or
restoration. Signals strong
have
policy
restored
ecosystems.
amenable
commitment
to
to
Target 2.
transaction
Private finance
Direct way of
Political capture
Have not been applied to
Political
initiative
private sector spending to
Uneven
ecosystem
reputation.
ecosystem
deliver public goods.
risk. Difficulty in specifying
Could
where
Unpredictability of level of
activities and objectives
outputs from restoration in
restoration
techniques,
benefits that will result
are well understood and
contracts.
and
their
from
can be measured.
well
restoration.
distribution
of
be
restoration.
used
measuring
outputs,
are
capture,
poor
ecosystem
May be suitable where
restoration
established.
Risk-sharing
Cost-effective
investment
public
funds
use
of
prompting
Needs sufficient scale of
Risk-sharing
potentially
could be used to support
commercially
193
structures
Uncertainty of extent and
Could play a useful role in
diversity
facilitating investments for
of
commercial
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 194|210
structures
private
Successfully
finance.
used
energy efficiency.
for
viable
maintenance
restoration
to invest in.
ecosystem
and
opportunities
private
other
funding
through
mechanisms
with
activities that can operate
large-scale activities that
alongside
otherwise
large-scale
best potential to support
ecosystem
Target 2.
and restoration projects.
maintenance
would
not
happen. Why only large
scale
activities?
There
could be also a pooling of
smaller
The
scale
EU
Instrument
projects.
Risk
supporting SMEs.
194
Sharing
aims
at
Priorities for the restoration of ecosystems’ and their services in the EU - 195|210
Regulatory measures
Mechanism
Strengths
Weaknesses
Opportunities
Hypothecated
Works through existing tax
Difficulties in persuading
Could direct private funds
Difficulties
tax funds
system and levers private
finance ministries to give
to
2
tax revenues in time of
funds
funds
matched
tax breaks for the natural
through eligibility criteria
fiscal constraints. Better if
restoration
fiscal
environment. Would apply
and
tax
signal
incentive for ecosystem
to restoration that would
requirements.
restoration actions.
have happened anyway.
through
funding.
Gives
Targeting
increases
to
support
Threats
Target
matched
funding
Conclusion
relinquishing
forgone
has
connection to ecosystem
Could lever new private
to
ecosystem
and
strong
would
policy
commitment to Target 2.
restoration.
restoration
transaction
costs.
Biodiversity
No net loss or net gain
Net gain is usually a small
Mandatory
offsets
policy
to
fraction of offset activity,
offsets and/or adoption of
philosophical
habitat
offsetting activities could
so not expected to make
best practice for offsets
could
banking
support
large
would support Target 2.
development
and
attached
maintenance
ecosystem
and
contribution
restoration
to
activities.
approach
to
Regulatory
restrict
of
Potential
to
significant
impact
have
at
a
the
large scale but political
this
sensitivity may restrict its
development.
Poor
restoration on a large-
Could result in net loss if
implementation
could
scale.
not
result
implemented
approach.
and
barriers
and
enforced correctly.
losses.
195
in
biodiversity
Water pricing and water allocation - 197|210
ANNEX 7: DETAILED ANALYSIS AND
EXAMPLES OF FUNDING INSTRUMENTS
This annex presents more discussion of the most promising funding instruments identified in
Section 4.2.6:
a) Bio-carbon markets: the role of carbon codes and peatland restoration.
b) Ecolabelling, particularly in the food sector.
c) Payments for ecosystem services.
d) The role of nature-based tourism.
The discussion below includes case studies of these instruments. These case studies are
additional to the examples on EU ecosystem restoration provided in Annex 4 of the IEEP
et.al. (2013) report on costs, which are summarized in the Table below. An example is also
provided of earmarking national taxation revenue related to natural resources (e.g. water
use) to environmental spending in Bulgaria.
Instrument
Case example
Funds
Description
(€)
type
Philanthropic
donations
raised
by
Moorland Protection Fund, Germany.
€1.6 million
This sum refers to those raised
Funded by Volkswagen.
(Ongoing)
by Nov. 2011.
companies
59
Donation of
fixed amount for each vehicle
leased.
Payments
for
ecosystem
LaFarge (mining company) floodplain
€80,000
100ha restored, supported by
rehabilitation.
(2009 – 2011)
WWF.
€24 million
Includes land acquisition (€9m),
(1993-2000)
compensation (€11m) and farm
Vittel
water
funding
of
Water
Catchment Management, France.
equipment (€4m).
services
‘Drinking Water Forest’ funded by
€1 million
Over 60ha of deciduous forest
Bionade
(2008-2011)
planted plus upkeep. 100,000
to
offset
water
use,
3
Germany.
m /yr of water regeneration.
Sustainable Catchment Management
€16 million
Restoration
of
55
km
2
of
2
Plan (SCAMP), UK. United Utilities
blanket bog; 4.5 km of upland
funding of upland bog management.
oak woodland.
Product labelling
Wildlife Estates label, industry led
& certification
certification
managed
for
in
hunting
Undisclosed
estates
Estates to halt and reverse the
loss of biodiversity.
biodiversity-friendly
manner.
Risk-sharing
Verde
investment
scheme
structures
enterprises (SMEs).
59
Ventures
for
small
debt
and
financing
medium
€15 million
Currently only outside the EU.
Protection
or
restoration
of
2
4,640 km . €102 million sales of
http://www.volkswagenag.com/content/vwcorp/info_center/en/news/2011/12/fonds.html
197
Water pricing and water allocation - 198|210
Instrument
Case example
Funds
raised
Description
(€)
type
eco-friendly goods/services.
Tax
relief
on
capital assets
tax
€12
the
(1995-2011)
small proportion. Two thirds
government for individuals who invest
(€750
directed to energy efficiency
in green institutions below market
per year)
Dutch
Green
compensation
Funds:
provided
by
billion
million
Biodiversity measures only a
measures
returns.
farming
and
include
1,250
restoration.
organic
km
2
of
Government
invested approx. €150m.
Communities
Fund,
UK.
€59
million
Hypothecated
Landfill
tax funds
Restoration actions funded by a part
(1993-2012)
of the Landfill Tax.
(€5.9
Ongoing. Total fund has raised
€1.5 billion over this period.
million
per year)
Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund,
€61 million
Constitutes around 7% of the
UK.
(2002-2011)
total sum paid by aggregates
(€6.1
million
companies (ca €370 million).
per year)
Biodiversity
CDC
Biodiversité
offsetting/
scheme, France.
pilot
offsets
€13 million
Approx. €3,800/ha.
habitat banking
1
Bio-Carbon Markets
There are a number of ways in which the carbon market could support the restoration of
ecosystems, particularly carbon-rich habitats such as peatlands and forests in the EU.
Emissions trading can trade units of reduced carbon emissions realized over time as a
result of project interventions. Carbon reductions can arise due to avoided emissions (i.e.
halting a baseline over which net emissions are expected) or due to sequestration of carbon
in habitats. The measurement of each of these is still uncertain, due to developments in
science and the need to consider the life-cycle of the carbon in the habitats (see Carbon
Codes below).
The significant international potential for bio-carbon to assist with biodiversity conservation
financing was recognized in eftec et.al. (2012). The current global market features
transactions worth €100’s millions, and has potential to grow. To generate carbon credits
the projects funded need to intervene in an ecosystem, either to stop deterioration or
undertake restoration, and therefore this market is relevant to ecosystem restoration goals.
The potential to issue credits from carbon offsets projects will need to consider the
emissions reduction targets of the country from which they originate. Project based
emissions reductions in the EU have only been undertaken in new member states under the
198
Water pricing and water allocation - 199|210
aegis of the Kyoto Protocol and Joint Implementation (JI); reductions that fall outside the
scope of EU climate policy.
An Ecosystem Marketplace and Bloomberg New Energy Finance report on the State of the
Voluntary Carbon Markets 201360, identified that:

In 2012 voluntary carbon markets have grew in tonnes of CO2e offset but fell in market
value since 2011.

101 MtCO2e were sold in 2012, the vast majority (98.5 MtCO 2e) in Over-the-counter
offsets (OTC).

The total value of the market in 2012 was $523 million (€394 million).

The average price reached in these OTC offsets was $5.9 per tonne (€4.45) and 90% of
offsets were bought by the private sector.

These offsets trades were mostly undertaken between project developers and the offset
‘end user’.

The voluntary offset market has been predicted to grow to between $1.6-2.3 billion by
2020.

Foresty and land use were the second largest type of offset (after renewable energy)
with 32% of offsets by volume.
Europe has been a small source of offset projects, despite being the greatest buyer of
offsets. There is potential to develop bio-carbon offsets in Europe, where financial
conditions (opportunity costs of land, cost of rewetting and restoration) are competitive
and/or projects have sufficiently high market appeal for CSR purposes.
1.1
UK Carbon Codes
According to market research cited by The Ecosystem Markets Task Force (EMTF) 61, UK
demand for nature-based carbon reduction projects is estimated to exceed 1 million tonnes
of carbon reduction per year, and could potentially be as high as 10 million tonnes. The
EMTF recognised that there are a number of opportunities in this market which support the
Task Force objectives of both supporting new business opportunities and markets, and
environmental enhancement.
Among these are the prospects of expanding the model of the current Woodland Carbon
Code (WCC) certification. Under the UK Government’s GHG Reporting Guidelines, where
companies finance WCC certified projects, they can claim carbon savings (proportionately
in line with their funding) that can be reported against their net emissions. A total of 133
projects were registered under the WCC covering an area of 14.2 thousand hectares of
woodland and projected to sequester 5.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. Of these, 42
60
61
http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_3846.pdf
The Ecosystem Markets Task Force, was set up to review the opportunities for UK business from
expanding green goods, services, products, investment vehicles and markets which value and protect
nature’s services. More information available online at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/ecosystem-markets/.
199
Water pricing and water allocation - 200|210
projects on 2.1 thousand hectares had completed validation and are predicted to sequester
one million tonnes of carbon dioxide (Forestry Commission, 2013).
This approach could be extended to projects that save carbon by restoring peatland and
moorland. Peatland and moorland act as natural carbon sinks, providing a high rate of
carbon sequestration compared to other types of habitat (such as semi-natural grassland or
inter-tidal habitats) in addition to increasing biodiversity.
They also suffer from vast
degradation, estimated to be around 80% of their area (EMTF, 2013). Restoration would
offer potential for sale to both the ‘corporate social responsibility’ voluntary market and, if
suitably underpinned by a robust carbon code like woodland, eventually be eligible to be
reported under the Government’s GHG reporting guidelines (EMTF, 2013).
In order to develop this opportunity, peatland and moorland carbon code certification must
be based on sound science and suitable metrics for measuring reductions in carbon
emissions to underpin market confidence in restoration (EMTF, 2013).
1.2
Peatland Restoration Financing Through Carbon Offsets
Greenhouse gas reductions resulting from peatland management projects can be sold as
carbon offsets. Un-drained healthy peatlands act as carbon sinks. They are recognised as
hugely important in the fight against climate change62. But if degraded and decomposing,
peatlands emit significant quantities of carbon63.
The carbon sequestered in healthy
peatlands and avoiding the carbon emitted in degraded peatlands makes the restoration of
peatlands an attractive habitat for carbon markets.
In Belarus, at nine peatland sites, 15,602 ha have been restored in total between 2009 and
20011 as part of the ‘Restoring Peatlands’ projects64. The project was extended to
December 2012 to finalise the carbon financing. The project was initially financed by a
broker who will provide approximately €3 million for the project. Future maintenance and
rewetting of new sites will be provided by the sale of 24,000 tonnes of carbon per annum
over 11 years. The approximate price of this carbon will be €6 a tonne including a broker’s
fee (approx. revenue for project of €138,600 a year).
In the UK, Peatlands Plus Ltd (PPL) is an initiative to match private owners of degraded
peatlands with organisations that are seeking carbon credits and could contribute financially
to the restoration of those peatlands. The first successful project has been in Alladale
Estate in Scotland. Peatland Plus sold carbon credits for €4.91 per tonne on 224 hectares
to a financial institution who bought them for corporate social responsibility purposes.
In the Netherlands, as part of the development of a coal power facility by RWE Eemshaven
Holding, the company is voluntarily financing restoration of 9 bird areas and 20 nature areas
62
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=peat-and-repeat-rewetting-carbon-sinks
63
Fact book for UNFCCC policies on peat carbon emissions
64
http://www.restoringpeatlands.org/
200
Water pricing and water allocation - 201|210
which are suffering from nitrogen deposition in the north of The Netherlands. These
restoration projects are not carried as part of a statutory conservation (the project’s
Appropriate Assessment did not demonstrate a risk of significant negative impacts). The
largest project, a peatland restoration in the Fochteloërveen Natura 2000 site, is managed
by ARCADIS to deliver the desired outcomes within the agreed budget and planning.
Research on this initiative started in 2006, when the first projects also began, but most of
the implementation bring delivered in 2013 – 2015. Project expenditure amounts to several
million euro for RWE. advisory and design costs amount to less than 5% of total project
costs. In developing these projects, RWE were advised by ARCADIS, and also benefit from
involvement by public and NGO nature conservation organizations and local government.
There is significant potential for this peatland carbon market in Europe. The global average
carbon price achieved is €4.45 per tonne, around 3.5 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year
can be sequestered and approximately 80% (lower estimate) of peat bogs and fens are
degraded (with 7,675,305 total hectares, giving 6,140,244 hectares of degraded habitat) 65.
Therefore, an estimate of the value of the carbon saved, and the financing for peatland
restoration, is €96 million per year.
2
Product labelling and certification
Labelling products as environmentally-friendly in order to attract a price-premium from
customers is already a well-established approach for channelling private funding into
ecosystem restoration and management. Organic and high-nature value labels already exist
in a variety of agricultural systems used to manage farmland, grasslands, moorland and
heath. Markets for timber and fish that are sustainably produced are also well-established
(e.g. Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)),
although it is less clear to what extent these are connected to ecosystem restoration rather
than ecosystem maintenance.
However, there are limits to the financial scale of these approaches, both in terms of the
size of the price premium that customers are prepared to pay and the extent of the market
(number of customers). Therefore, they often require some public funding (e.g. as in the
additional agri-environment payments for organic farmers).
Environmentally-friendly labelled production processes may not always deliver objectives
for the ecosystems involved. Nonetheless, they can be expected to make a significant
contribution where they are used. For example, MSC fisheries certification relates to the
sustainable exploitation of particular commercial fish species, but also has some
requirements to control fisheries pressures in marine areas, contributing to ecosystem
restoration.
2.1
Market Information
65
Estimation of the financing needs to implement target 2 of the EU biodiversity strategy – IEEP et al (in prep)
201
Water pricing and water allocation - 202|210
At the end of 2011, 10.6 million hectares of farmland in the EU were organic (source:
organic-world.net). This is 29% of total global organic farmland and 5.4% of EU agricultural
area. Sales of organic products in the EU totalled €21.5 billion in 2011 (organic-world.net).
Markets for ethical goods and services have been resilient despite the global recession. In
2011, ethical food and drink markets in the UK increased 7.8% to reach £7.5billion.
Markets for green home products were up 10.6% to £8.4billion and ethical personal
products were up 4.2 % to £1.8billion (the co-operative, 2012).
In addition, the UK saw expenditure increase on:

Sustainable fish: increase from £69 million to £292 million between 2007 and 2011
(323% growth) despite growth in overall household expenditure of just 1%66.

Fairtrade: increased 176% from £458 million to £1,262 million; and

Free range eggs sales up 78% from £444 million to £792 million (the co-operative,
2012).
Some evidence on the price premiums in these markets is shown in the Table below.
66
http://www.goodwithmoney.co.uk/ethical-consumerism-report-2010
202
Water pricing and water allocation - 203|210
Certification Scheme
Price Premium
FSC
15%-25% (especially for tropical sawn hard woods)
MSC
14.2%
Conservation Grade
67
68
69
70
71
€9/t for milling wheat . Assuming organic yields of 7 t / ha . Therefore €63
per ha.
2.1.1
EU Ecolabel
Eco-labelling involves identifying a product to consumers whose purchase supports a
certain type of production process favouring ecosystem maintenance and/or restoration.
Currently, the EU Ecolabel is a voluntary scheme, created as part of EU policies to
encourage more sustainable consumption and production. EU Ecolabel criteria should be
capable of being implemented on a Europe-wide basis and the criteria for eligibility should
be based on scientific evidence taking into account the best techniques to reduce
environmental impacts (Oakdene Hollins, 2013).
A feasibility study concerning using the label more widely within the food and drink industry
found that a gap in the eco-food labelling landscape exists, which presents an opportunity
for an EU Ecolabel (Oakdene Hollins, 2010). The study found that most labels currently
only concentrate on the environmental impacts of primary production and not, or only to a
limited extent, the processing lifecycle stage.
Focusing the label on highly processed
products would therefore play to the strength of the EU Ecolabel (its lifecycle approach) by
covering the environmental impacts of processing, transport and consumption.
The
environmental impacts of primary production could be dealt with by cooperating with
existing sufficiently strict agri/fishery labelling schemes. However the risk of a switch from
existing labels to an EU Ecolabel cannot be discounted and this may lead to no net
environmental impact if the criteria used are not significantly different (Oakdene Hollins,
2010).
2.1.2
Wildlife Estates72
Wildlife Estates (WE) is an industry-led certification of hunting estates that are being
managed in a sustainable manner for biodiversity in Europe. The initiative seeks to help
landowners involved in the hunting and recreational fishing industry bring their
67
FSC.org
68
69
MSC.org
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/20/06/2012/133493/Cereals-2012-Demand-fuelling-conservation-grade-
contracts.htm
70
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/20/06/2012/133493/Cereals-2012-Demand-fuelling-conservation-grade-
contracts.htm
71
http://www.conservationgrade.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/environmentalscientistapr10.pdf
72
Information sourced from http://www.wildlife-estates.eu/
203
Water pricing and water allocation - 204|210
environmental management in-line with European legislation such as the Habitats and Birds
Directive requirements including for Natura 2000 sites.
The Wildlife Estate program’s objectives include engaging the private and public sectors in
collaboration to halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity. On some estates this may involve a
program of ecosystem restoration actions. To receive the WE label, an estate or territory
must fulfill all eligibility and generic criteria and obtain a minimum total score. There are also
further specific indicators assessed against an evaluation grid that varies depending on the
bio-geographical region (in-line with the regional classifications contained in the Habitats
Directive 92/43 CEE, 21 May 1992).
Under the Level 1 certification landowners must adhere to the ten commitments (available
online at http://www.wildlife-estates.eu/), amongst which the following are relevant to
ecosystem restoration:

Undertaking active wildlife management following a long-term integrated wildlife
management plan;

Managing for a sustainable balance of game and wildlife and their shared habitats;

Improving, whenever possible, biodiversity and species notably those favourable to
pollinators;

Compliance with all legal requirements, relevant National codes of practice and
European Environmental legislation (e.g. Natura 2000); and

Adhering to the requirements of the Agreement between Birdlife International and FACE
on Directive 79/409/EEC, the European Charter on Hunting and Biodiversity and the EU
Commission’s Guide on Hunting under the Birds Directive.
Under an industry-led certification scheme such as the WE initiative, landowners must use
their own money to improve their environmental performance to at least the minimum
standard required to become accredited. The development of the WE initiative was aided by
bringing the scheme under the overall direction of the European Landowners’ Organisation
(ELO). The ELO has streamlined the certification process between estates in different
countries, and coordinated interaction with the EC, where the ELO was already engaged in
environmental policy development. The Wildlife Estates label has also received political
support from the EU’s Environment Commissioner, Janez Potocnik.
2.1.3
Natural Grasslands Beef Certification
Argentinian beef is exported to hundreds of countries, recognised globally for its superior
quality, and is an important part of the Argentinian economy and culture. While around 2040% of livestock comes from feed lots, the remainder are from grasslands which have
suffered from overgrazing and run the risk of further degradation due to expanding
agricultural crops. A major site of beef cultivation and production, the Argentine Pampas
grasslands are a portion of the South American Pampas grasslands which extend through
Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay, and are one of the richest areas of grassland biodiversity in
the world. This landscape is known for its plant species diversity and grassland-dependent
birds; it is home of over 100 species of mammal and 500 bird species, highlighting the
importance of protection from degradation (the World Bank, 2011).
204
Water pricing and water allocation - 205|210
In 2011 the Argentina Grasslands Projects, with a USD$900,000 donation from the Global
Environmental Facility and support from the Southern Cone Grasslands Alliance, was
implemented with the goal to conserve grassland biodiversity through sustainable
management by combining conservation with beef production.
This new model for
grassland conservation and cattle-ranching involved the identification of sustainable, proconservation farming practices through the certification of ‘Natural Grassland Beef’. It was
implemented as a pilot in four livestock ranches where the livestock breeds and feeds freely
in the grasslands, increasing the quality and nutritional value of the beef without harming
vulnerable ecosystems.
This pastoral-based system also avoids the risks of human
consumption of livestock antibiotics, hormones, and bacteria often found in feed lots (the
World Bank, 2011).
An important landmark for this initiative is the fact that ‘Natural Grassland Beef’ is now on
sale in the Argentinean market73. It is also expected that other countries such as Uruguay,
Brazil and Paraguay, where pilot projects are also in place, will start to sell the produce in
their local markets. Additionally, this sustainable meat will soon be evaluated to European
export standards (the World Bank, 2012).
The model is also being exported to the USA where the National Audubon Society is
partnering with ranchers who own the remaining natural grasslands to develop marketbased management that benefits prairie birds and ecosystems. In collaboration, the Birdlife
Flyways Programme is set to demonstrate and communicate these grassland management
and conservation techniques more widely throughout the Americas. Eventually, it will trial
bird-friendly adaptive grassland management plans at existing Important Bird Areas (IBAs)
used by flagship species in four countries, in the hopes of securing long-term support for
grassland conservation and generating new funding opportunities throughout the
hemisphere (Fowlie, 2013).
2.1.4
Forest Garden Products and the International Analog Forestry
Network
Forest Garden Products (FGPs) are outputs of a system which focuses on biodiversity and
ecosystem recovery in combination with organic farming on small farm plots. This label
certifies agricultural products which are grown in analog forests (AF), degraded areas that
are being restored analogous to the original ecosystems that existed before deforestation,
development, and/or other degrading pressures were present. The International Analog
Forestry Network (IAFN) is responsible for setting standards for and, through an
independent third-party organisation, certifying these agricultural products.
This
government-supported certification encompasses the requirements of most organic
certification, but includes additional criteria to further the protection of biodiversity and to
facilitate ecosystem restoration through research, design, and application of the AF system.
73
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2011/08/30/primera-carne-pastizal
205
Water pricing and water allocation - 206|210
The IAFN has members in the USA, Canada, Costa Rica, Spain, and Australia. Within
participating farms over 500 hectares of land are currently managed under AF restoration
practices (NB: this is the area being restored, not the total area of the farm involved). AF is
a relatively new certification concept, and most of its implementation has been on small,
organic plot farms. The relatively small area managed with AF principles owes to the fact
that farmers may choose to only designate a small piece of their farmland to AF restoration.
FGP certified products already have an increasing demand on organic and fair trade
markets in Europe and the USA, and an increasing number of producers are seeking
certification for their export products that originate from Forest Garden sustainable and
diversified methods (Gamboa and Hendricks). Currently, FGP standards are being
evaluated by the International Foundation for Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM)
assessment committee for inclusion in their Family of Standards. In addition, FGP
standards are currently being adapted to certify responsibly-mined minerals as well as
ecosystem services.
3
Payments for ecosystem services (PES)
Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) are a new market mechanism in which service
suppliers are paid by beneficiaries to manage the ecosystems in such a way to enhance or
continue the service provision. Agri-environment payments that have been in place for a
long time are examples of PES and new applications are emerging in Europe (e.g. on water
catchments – SCAMP and Vittel for example).
PES schemes have been tried in many different contexts and therefore they are relatively
well understood and ready for further implementation attempts. There is considerable
potential for the private sector to fund ecosystem restoration through the purchase of
ecosystem services. For example through the extent to which existing schemes for water
services (see the case studies) can be expanded.
IEEP et al (2013) identified that privately financed PES schemes outside of those industries
that use water directly are rare in Europe. Water is particularly suited to PES for the
following reasons:

Security of water supply and water quality are direct, tangible, quantifiable inputs to
many industries, and is well understood by those industries.

The science linking upstream areas and down-stream water quality is relatively robust.

Catchments and water courses are bounded, i.e. there is generally one direction of
provision of ecosystem services, and therefore the link between a downstream buyer
and upstream seller of ecosystem services is strong.

Those companies that use water have a strong understanding of the direct ties they
have to the ecosystem services. The perception of the dependence between an industry
and an ecosystem service influences the potential application of privately financed PES.
206
Water pricing and water allocation - 207|210
A scheme depends on providers having sufficient control over environmental assets so that
they can manage them to provide improvements in ecosystem services to beneficiaries.
These conditions are not always available, even in bi-lateral relationships between
providers and beneficiaries. There are even greater challenges in organising multilateral
schemes over appropriate spatial scales. It should be noted that where scales become
large and require significant capital investment PPP arrangements or bonds may be
suitable.
Water-based PES schemes can involve maintaining ecosystems, but many are in areas
where water resources have deteriorated noticeably, such that the PES is established to
restore ecosystems in order to restore the water resources to previous levels.
4
Nature Based Tourism
Tourism and recreation ecosystem services value recognised as substantial for Natura
network in Section 2. They are a major, but usually indirect, impact from high-quality
ecosystems in the EU. The existence of nature based tourism may not, in most instances,
itself fund ecosystem restoration directly. However, many tourism and recreation operators
who rely on ecosystems for their business trade finance restoration activities under
programs that could be considered PES. Examples of such activities can be found amongst
74
members of the 1% for the Planet initiative . Members of the 1% for the Planet initiative,
including some tourism companies, donate 1% of sales to NGOs that are part of an
approved network.
However, growth in tourism and recreation markets can be an important consequence of
restoring ecosystems, and may provide a source of revenue to maintain ecosystems after
they have been restored. This can help encourage funding of restoration by the public
sector or other private sector actors for different reasons, such as:
6. By aligning restoration programmes with the rural development agenda. Upfront
estimates of employment and income from tourism and ancillary services
(accommodation, restaurant, retail supplies, crafts) can be significant particularly in
remoter areas where alternative livelihoods are least in evidence – and multiplier effects
tend to be stronger (lower spending leakage from the local economy)
7. By attracting direct contributions: e.g. from corporate sponsorship for PR or CSR
purposes, local bed levy (where hypothecated: voluntary via trade association
agreements, or compulsory via tax), or contributions from establishment of private or
community conservation conservancies etc
8. By linking with urban social issues – youth at risk, youth development, healthcare and
conflict resolution, where areas of wilder nature can facilitate benefits – often as part of
a broader remedial programme. These initiatives are relatively recent and small scale,
but potentially have good budget backing (from Interior Ministries, Probation & Health
Services), their benefits are quantifiable, and above all they are seen to have wider
74
http://onepercentfortheplanet.org/
207
Water pricing and water allocation - 208|210
societal relevance, particularly to urban politicians for whom the general conservation
agenda is often a marginal priority.
The potential for recreation and tourism to support restoration in this way will vary with local
conditions. This is linked to the fact that the value of ecosystem restoration for recreation
and tourism will vary depending on the number of people (visitors or resident population)
with access to a site, and the substitute sites available. In areas with greater levels of
ecosystem degradation (and/or fewer opportunities to access high-quality environments),
ecosystem restoration would be expected to have greater value per person amongst the
people whom can access the restored ecosystem
4.1
Conservation Birding
In an effort to formalise nature-tourism support for nature conservation, the American Bird
Conservancy
(ABC)
has
launched
an
initiative
(available
via
http://www.conservationbirding.org/index.html) which allows birders to find lodges that
contribute to bird conservation in the Americas. There are currently conservation projects
along bird routes over six countries75 in South America that are funded by this bird
watching-specific form of eco-tourism.
Travellers can choose a lodge in one of 18 participating reserves after viewing information
about the local and migrant species, birding routes, accommodation, trails and tours, and
the conservation projects their visit will help to fund. The main goals of the ABC are to
safeguard the rarest species, conserve habitats and elimination threats to protect all birds
through a foundation of building partner capacity, effective alliances, conservation science,
and support (conservationbirding.org).
5
National Taxation
Hypothecation of Tax Revenues to Biodiversity Spending in Bulgaria
76
Established in 2002, the Bulgarian Enterprise for Management of Environmental Protection
Activities (EMEPA) is a state-owned not-for-profit organisation. Before Bulgaria’s accession
into the EU, it was the largest source of funding for biodiversity conservation. EMEPA’s
revenue comes from taxes for water usage according to the Water Act, and taxes from
other environment protection legislation/ Acts.
The main role of the EMEPA is to implement environmental projects in accordance with
national and regional strategies. EMEPA funds projects in the form of grants and low
interest, or interest-free loans. The EMEPA funds:

Water and waste water management;

Environmental investment projects;
75
Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Bolivia, Costa Rica, and Brazil.
76
Source: http://www.ceeweb.org/4886/financing-nature-in-cee-countries/
208
Water pricing and water allocation - 209|210

Applied scientific research and development;

Development and maintenance of the National Environment and Waters Monitoring
System;

Educational and awareness campaigns;

Management plans for National Parks;

Biodiversity conservation;

The establishment of Natura 2000 in Bulgaria; and

The new edition of the Bulgarian Red Data Book

National Park management activities
The annual budget for 2011 was around €31,500,000 (BGN 61,600,000 at a rate of €1 =
1.95583 BGN in 2011). The amount of money specifically given to ‘Biodiversity’ from the
EMEPA decreased in 2007 due to the introduction of the OPE (Operational Program Fund)
which gets most of its money from the ERDF (European Regional Development Fund). The
OPE is now the biggest donor for biodiversity conservation in Bulgaria since its accession to
the EU.
The EMEPA was a positive example of how water taxes can be used for biodiversity
conservation. However, there is a lack of transparency with the EMPA fund; the money is
distributed according to the programme of the minister and there are no clear rules for
applying for funding. This opaqueness in the management of the fund, and the undertaking
of huge projects without serious studies/background checks, led to accusations of mis-use
of funds.
209
Water pricing and water allocation - 210|210
Kantoren
www.arcadisbelgium.be
Antwerpen- Berchem
Hasselt
Gent
Citylink - Posthofbrug 12
Eurostraat 1 – bus 1
Kortrijksesteenweg 302
B-2600 Berchem
B-3500 Hasselt
B-9000 Gent
T +32 3 360 83 00
T +32 11 28 88 00
T +32 9 242 44 44
F +32 3 360 83 01
F +32 11 28 88 01
F +32 9 242 44 45
Brussel
Liège
Charleroi
Koningsstraat 80
26, rue des Guillemins, 2ème étage
119, avenue de Philippeville
B-1000 Brussel
B-4000 Liège
B-6001 Charleroi
T +32 2 505 75 00
T +32 4 349 56 00
T +32 71 298 900
F +32 2 505 75 01
F +32 4 349 56 10
F +32 71 298 901
ARCADIS Belgium nv/sa
BTW BE 0426.682.709
RPR BRUSSEL
Maatschappelijke zetel
ING 320-0687053-72
Brussel
IBAN BE 38 3200 6870 5372
Koningsstraat 80
SWIFT BIC BBRUBEBB
B-1000 Brussel
210