28/04/2015
REVISED WORKING GROUP ON GI IMPLEMENTATION AND RESTORATION – WG GIIR
MEASURING UPTAKE OF GI INITIATIVES IN EUROPE (PROCESS MONITORING)
One of the five objectives of the WG GIIR is on "e) Developing useful indicators to monitor the uptake of GI, and on descriptors on which GI should in particular be funded by public and private funds". An overview of different approaches has been discussed in the WG, and one of the recommendations was to split monitoring on the uptake of Green Infrastructure (cf. process monitoring) from monitoring the spatial distribution/functionality/DPSI(R) frame in Europe. This document therefore gives a first overview on available knowledge on the number of initiatives and their key features in Europe. It offers a frame to assess progress in policy initiatives on GI, and the uptake of financing for GI as well.
- Progress monitoring for policy and programming initiatives
- Progress monitoring on number and quality of GI initiatives
- Tracking of GI-related expenditures
There is no commonly agreed monitoring framework for measuring the degree of GI uptake at European level. There are no monitoring obligations in any legal framework which could be used for this purpose at European level; information on the number of initiatives is therefore taken through assessing information from study contracts, the information published by the EEA in the BISE catalogue, and any further information submitted by WG members (see point 10 of the 4th WG meeting). For the mid-term report of the Biodiversity Strategy in 2015, and the review of the GI strategy in 2017, the Commission measures progress on the uptake of GI at the relevant levels. Such a monitoring will be organised in the form of benchmarking based on the number of GI initiatives known by the Commission at cross-border, national, and sub-national levels. It also informs on the main aims of the GI initiative.
Clearly, the process is depending on the degree of information of the general situation in each MS. A step by step process could be interesting by first focusing on basic information and then going into more detail. Members of the Working Group are invited to discuss on
●how the Commission would best collect the information already available on existing GI initiatives, regarding the uptake of GI, and to make it available on European scale. What is the information Member States, business representatives and civil society organisations are ready to deliver (see review of table and map under point 10.)? Do any any national/regional or sector-based monitoring procedures for GI strategy development and implementation exist and are applied?;
●whether any relevant quality attributes beyond the scale (such as cross-border, national, regional/local) of GI initiatives would be useful, could be identified and are accessible on European-wide level. Member of the WG especially from socio-economic aspects would be extremely useful. Common socio-economic indicators by GI elements (e.g. jobs created, property price increased) could be very beneficial to develop (see 2nd monitoring document);
●whether the tools and mechanisms already existing are possible practical tools to ensure information sharing, and whether they would be adequate to achieving a more complete picture on European level.
Members of the WG are invited to reflect on possible practical tools on progress monitoring, with feedback loops allowing the providers of the information to comment on the use of the provided information.How far could any existing criteria, which have been defined for monitoring GI or for initiatives which contribute to GI, be further developed to elaborate monitoring frameworks for (i) GI programming and target setting, (ii) prioritisation of public and private GI financing, and of (iii) success monitoring for GI project implementation, usable on European scale? This should be done in the awareness that no European-wide common understanding has been established yet (whilst definitions and glossaries exist), and criteria may vary from a country to another or even from national level to local level. A further question is on how the how the collection and dissemination of success stories in relation to securing funds under EU instruments, national programmes, business engagement and the NCFF could be organised.
These questions could be further discussed during a workshop the Commission, together with the EEA, will organise in autumn 2015.
1. Progress monitoring for policy and programming initiatives
This approach looks at Green Infrastructure policies/strategies/programmes, at EU, national and sub-national levels, which have been adopted and how their implementation has enabled GI initiatives. It identifies sub-indicators to monitor progress in implementing the respective initiative.
GI strategy COM(2013)249: Implementing actions / Progress in the framework of enabling actions (already implemented yes/no)Promoting GI in the main policy areas / YES, partially. [Guidance documents published for regional and cohesion policies, water and flood management, connectivity acc. Art. 10 HD, EIA and SEA. Increasing awareness through brochure on Green Infrastructure to the wider public and EU-wide conferences in 2013 and 2015. Improvement of BISE hosting dedicated information on Green Infrastructure, including catalogue on GI. - Still missing: Health and consumer policies, climate change adaptation and disaster risk management, common agricultural policy. TEN-T and Connecting Europe Facility].
Improving information, strengthening the knowledge base and promoting innovation / YES, partially. [Progress with MAES for GI. EEA report on Spatial analysis of GI in Europe and on the role of Green Infrastructure in mitigating the impacts of climate change related natural hazards. Improved governance of BISE for hosting technical and spatial dissemination of GI-related information. Integration of GI into Horizon2020, with relevant calls in 2014 and 2015. Discussion within WG GIIR on monitoring GI, and launch of contract providing country-based and sector-specific information on GI, training workshops on GI; assessing the contribution technical standards could make to grow the market for GI, and inclusion of GI into CEN/CENELEC work program. – Still missing: Review extent and quality of technical and spatial data available to GI deployment, foreseen for 2015].
Improving access to finance / YES. [Pilot phase of Natural Capital Financing Facility started in 2015].
EU-level GI projects / YES, partially. [Running contract assessing the opportunities for developing EU-TEN-G initiative.Based on investment priorities identified through the EU 2020 strategy and the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020/the Connecting Europe Facility, a first-phase assessment of costs and the economic, social and environmental benefits of such an initiative shall be carried out by the end of 2015. The analysis should show how building blocks of GI could be promoted by a TEN-G approach – there should be a comprehensive approach combining building blocks of different characters (natural units such as river basins or mountain ranges, cross-border ecological networks or cultural-administrative units such as metropolitan areas). Governance setup, financing mechanisms, experiences and lessons learnt on European and Member States levels should be analysed in the view of applicability for a TEN-G – Still missing: The Commission will, as foreseen, decide by the end of 2015, whether a TEN-G initiative will be the adequate tool for prioritizing the uptake of GI with European-wide importance].
A. European level
B. National level
Such a table could be filled in with information directly provided by MS authorities. Actions reported by MS to the CBD (Aichi targets) have not been useful in tracking national GI strategies. Some Member States are developing indicators to monitor the uptake of GI at a Member State level (e.g. some information is available on initiatives in England that are underway to develop national level monitoring).
Development of a Green Infrastructure strategy/program … / Process indicator[Level of Initiative: national, sector-based/ integrated] / Yes/No [date of adoption]
Progress in implementing targets or actions of Green Infrastructure strategy/program If yes above / Process indicator If yes above
[Name of initiative] / [Description of targets/actions]
Yes/No [targets reached] for each target/action
C. Sub-national (= regional, cross-border or local) level
Development of a Green Infrastructure strategy/program … / Process indicator[Level of Initiative: regional/cross-border/local, sector-based/ integrated] / Yes/No [date of adoption]
Progress in implementing targets or actions of Green Infrastructure strategy/program If yes above / Process indicator If yes above
[Name of initiative] / [Description of targets/actions]
Yes/No [targets reached] for each target/action
2. Progress monitoring on number and quality of GI initiatives
This monitoring approach intends to get an overview on how many GI initiatives exist in the EU union, and to categorize them. Green infrastructure examples exist in each Member State.
In the frame of the Mid-term reporting of the European Biodiversity strategy, a test is carried out whether the following monitoring approach can be carried out with available information on European level. These maps/tables could be regularly (once a year) or continuously updated each time when additional information is available in the Member States, and be further developed towards an interactive approach. A mechanism should be developed linking towards information sharing mechanisms such as on BISE, WISE, ClimateAdapt on European level, to national information sharing facilities (such as for the trame verte et bleue in France), to regional (such as the UK North West GI initiative), stakeholder and civil society information sources (such as the CEEweb/ECNC databases) and transnational information mechanisms (such as ENGINE).
The table below provides the types and the scale of Green Infrastructure activities within and between Member States. The selection of MS is for illustrative purposes only.
MS – overview of Primary objective of initiatives / Name of initiative / Scale / Date of adoption/duration / Link*AUSTRIA / LIFE Habitat networks - networks for life / National / 2010-ongoing /
Grünkorridore Pinzgau / Regional / 2013-2014 /
Living space in the rivers of Mostviertel- Wachau / Local / 2009-2014 /
Vienna Water Charter / Local / Information pending /
BELGIUM / Reconstituting a habitat network for threatened butterflies in the Walloon region / Regional / 2009-2013; ongoing /
Sigmaplan / Local / 2000-2030 /
Rehabilitation of heath and mires on the Hautes-Fagnes plateau / Local / 2007-2011 /
Actions for the valleys and turf moors of Criox Scaille / Local / 2006 - 2009 /
LITHUANIA / Nature Frame Action Plan / National / 2007-ongoing /
Development of a pilot ecological network in southern Lithuania / Regional / 2010-2014 /
Transnational and cross-border initiatives / Name of initiative / MS participating / Date of adoption/duration / Link*
/ Econnect: Restoring the web of life / AT, DE, IT, CH, FR, LI / 2008-2011 /
/ Alpine-Carpathian Corridor / AT, SK / 2008-2012 /
/ Green Belt initiative / SI, HR, HU, DE, SU, NO, CZ, AT, SK, RO, SER, AL, EL, BU, FYROM, MNT / 2002-2013 /
/ DeltaNet project [network of European deltas] / BE, NL, ES, PT, HU, PL, CZ, DE / 2010-2013 /
/ F:ACTS! Forms for Adapting to Climate Change through Territorial Strategies / ES, EL, BE, PT, BG / 2010-2012 /
/ River contract Haute Sure / LU, BE, FR / Information pending / Information pending
The map below ‘Green Infrastructure Initiatives in Europe illustrates geographically the different levels of green infrastructure initiatives per EU-28 member state. Objective of this map is to showcase the current knowledge on GI initiatives in Europe in the Mid-term reporting of the Biodiversity Strategy. Afterwards, the map is planned to be further developed towards a regularly updated, more interactive document (e.g. with links to web sources informing on the displayed initiatives). The information in the map is congruent with the table above.
3. Tracking of GI-related expenditures
One way to measure GI implementation and monitor its progress, is to elaborate proxies on the amount of funding reserved for or paid for GI projects or actions contributing to GI through the relevant funding mechanisms on European or national scale. Tracking GI-related expenditure on European level is currently not possible, but assessments are under way on tracking biodiversity-related expenditure within the European Multiannual Financing Framework which might give a proxy. A typology of biodiversity related EU expenditure could be used to identify broad categories of expenditures that are related to Green Infrastructure and distinguishing between examples of expenditures to which a 100, 40 or 0 per cent marker should be applied. Expenditures with a primary biodiversity objective (100 per cent) could be separated from expenditures with a significant biodiversity objective (40 per cent). Clearly, discussions would be useful to agree on the way how measures are counted in order to measures which delivering an ecosystem services improvement through GI (in particular on agri-environmental measures). The following categorisation has been proposed:
Marker / Type of expenditure100% / Expenditures for Green infrastructure: Development, restoration, protection and management of green infrastructure with a primary objective of conservation and management of biodiversity and related ecosystem services.
This includes, for example, the restoration and management of habitats, the creation of ecological networks and related research, education, advisory and monitoring activities. These expenditures are also likely to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services and to meet other objectives such as water purification, flood management and recreation.
40% / Expenditures which include some green infrastructure elements, where biodiversity through the development and management of green infrastructure is a significant objective alongside other benefits and services, sometimes combined with grey infrastructure.
Examples would include agri-environment measures designed to meet multiple objectives as well as biodiversity; urban drainage and water purification schemes which include some green infrastructure elements; and infrastructure investments which include both green and grey infrastructure elements. These expenditures can be expected to deliver a number of ecosystem services (but not the full range possible), of which some – but not all – are dependent on the diversity and natural functioning of ecosystems;
0% / Expenditures for which biodiversity is not a significant objective. This may include expenditures that target specific investments or functions which are not dependent on the diversity or natural functioning of ecosystems. Examples include built infrastructure for flood management (constructed drainage or flood defence schemes), monocultures for food or timber production, and living features which lack biodiversity benefits (such as use of non-native hedges purely for landscaping, screening or control of noise or erosion).
Table based on: Kettunen, M., Illes, A., Baldock, D., Rayment, M., Hart, K., and Medarova-Bergstrom, K. (2014) Tracking Biodiversity Expenditure in the EU Budget, Part I – Guidance on definition and criteria for biodiversity expenditure in the EU budget, Final Report for the European Commission – DG ENV, Institute for European Environmental Policy, London/Brussels (not published yet). This study (probably published in 2015) will contain a detailed discussion of the tracking approach per measure in each individual financing program. It could serve to identify GI measures within the various funding schemes, and how they are tracked. A follow-up study (publication foreseen in 2016) will screen Operational Programmes on GI-related funding envelopes mobilised in the various priorities.
For some instruments however, funding categories which are more specific to GI could be identified, and the mobilised funding be identified (if MS would deliver relevant data).
Financing instruments on EU level relevant for GI strategy/program … / EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (FP5-7, Horizon 2020)Copernicus
Regional and Cohesion Funding: the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the Cohesion Fund (CF) and the European Social Fund (ESF), including INTERREG
Common Agricultural Policy Funding: the European Agriculture Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)
The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)
LIFE-Programme (L'instrument financier pour l'environnement)
Connecting Europe Facility
Development and Cooperation Instrument (DCI) and European Neighbourhood instrument (ENI)
The Partnership Instrument (PI)
The Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA II)
The Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM)
The European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) ("Juncker investment package")
JASPERS (Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions)
JESSICA (Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas)
NCFF (Natural Capital Financing Facility)
National level
Sub-national level
This table would need to be completed by information on incentives to encourage up-front investments in GI projects and maintenance of ecosystem services through better targeted use of EU innovative financing mechanisms and Public Private Partnerships.
Possible additional sources: recommendations of first WG (Document 4: Financing, on NCFF project assessment (8-12 projects, under which Green Infrastructure, will be financed in the period 2015-2017).
1