linking biodiversity to national economic and social ... report.… · the objective of the project...

November 2017

Linking biodiversity to national economic and social priorities in the EU Member States

Final Report 07.0202/2015/717714/SER/B.2

In collaboration with

© Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2017 Cite this report: ten Brink P., Schweitzer J-P., Gionfra S., Kettunen M., Rayment M. (2017) Linking biodiversity to national economic and social priorities in the EU Member States – Linking biodiversity to national economic and social priorities in the EU Member States by IEEP, ENT Environment and Management, Ecologic, Denkstatt, LUKE and partners. Institute for European Environmental Policy, Brussels / London.

For more information on the project, please contact: Jean-Pierre Schweitzer, Marianne Kettunen or Patrick ten Brink at IEEP – [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Acknowledgements We would like to thank the European Commission for this project and their advice on the study, the workshops and its outputs. This executive summary also builds on the twenty-eight country fiches by experts from across the team, inputs from the five regional and thematic workshops and involvement of many experts and officials contacted during the course of the project. For this, we are grateful. Legal notice The contents and views contained in this report are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent those of the European Commission. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) aisbl 4 rue de la Science, 1000 Brussels, Belgium

11 Belgrave Road, IEEP Offices, Floor 3, London SW1V 1RB, UK

Tel.: +32 (0) 2738 7482 and +44 (0) 20 7799 2244

www.ieep.eu

The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) is an independent not-for-profit institute. IEEP undertakes work for external sponsors in a range of policy areas as well as engaging in our own research programmes. For further information about IEEP, see our website at www.ieep.eu or contact any staff member.

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.ieep.eu/

http://www.ieep.eu/

Table of contents

Table of contents .............................................................................................................. 3

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 5

1 Opportunities for synergies – nature’s contributions to socio-economic priorities of Member States ............................................................................................................... 13

2 Overview of promising areas in EU Member States .................................................. 17

2.1 Promising areas for biodiversity contribution towards socio-economic priorities in EU Member States......................................................................................................................... 17

2.2 Emerging promising areas across EU Member States ..................................................... 19

3 Promising area: Agro-Ecology for jobs, growth and regional development ............... 22

3.1 What is the status of the synergies & benefits? .............................................................. 22

3.2 What are the drivers of change? ..................................................................................... 25

3.3 What is the potential? ..................................................................................................... 27

3.4 What are the barriers to progress? ................................................................................. 27

3.5 What can the EU do to address the barriers and realise the opportunities? ................. 28

3.6 What can national governments and other stakeholders do to address the barriers and realise the opportunities? ........................................................................................................ 29

4 Promising area: Sustainable forestry for jobs, growth and regional development .... 31







5 Promising area: Sustainable fisheries and coastal management for growth, jobs and regional development .................................................................................................... 40






6 Promising area: Eco-tourism for jobs, growth and regional development ................. 48







7 Promising area: Green infrastructure for climate resilience and adaptation to climate change ........................................................................................................................... 58







8 Promising area: Green infrastructure for public health, growth, jobs and regional development .................................................................................................................. 68







9 Summary Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................... 77

9.1 Summary conclusions ...................................................................................................... 77

9.2 What more can countries do? ......................................................................................... 78

9.3 Recommendations for action - what can the EU do? ...................................................... 81

9.4 The Way forward - A multi-level governance solution. ................................................... 84

Annex 1 Thematic and EU-level literature review ....................................................... 85

Annex 2 Country-level review for Member States .................................................... 119

5

Executive Summary

The objective of the project - Linking biodiversity to national economic and social priorities in the EU Member States[1] - was to assess how biodiversity conservation and the enhancement of multiple ecosystem services can contribute towards socio-economic priorities in EU Member States. The project was carried out by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) and partners - ENT Environment and Management, Ecologic, Denkstatt, and LUKE. The study aims to contribute to national-EU co-operation and dialogue on the opportunities for nature-based solutions (NBS). NBS are designed to bring more nature and natural features and processes to cities, landscapes and seascapes. Where effectively implemented, these innovative solutions also support economic growth, create jobs and enhance our well-being[1]. This report identifies areas where NBS contribute to socio-economic objectives, as well as what policies and measures can address barriers and drive progress on these opportunities. This research aims to facilitate knowledge exchange on good practice between stakeholders both at the European and national level as well as within the six areas examined in-depth. Insights on good practice and recommendations on action aim to help Member States with their national commitments and objectives, as set out in a range of strategies, plans and programmes. Progress with integration also aims to help implement the EU biodiversity strategy and the green infrastructure strategy. Recommendations include Member State-specific recommendations for each of the EU-28 (see the country fiches) and EU recommendations – for the Implementation Review, European Semester and the use of the EU Budget. Which socio-economic priorities can nature-based solutions contribute to?

The analysis of existing Member State strategic documents, plans and programmes highlights the diversity of socio-economic priorities across countries. It also highlights that there are a range of common priorities – from these many demonstrate promising areas for which biodiversity can contribute to achieving MS socio-economic priorities. These include:

Economic growth (e.g. sector diversification & budget consolidation)

Jobs and skills (e.g. innovation)

Regional development

Urban development and regeneration, and improving the living environment

Public health and wellbeing

Demographic change and social justice (e.g. social cohesion and equity)

“Nature-based solutions” (NBS) can both support the socio-economic priorities and help to reach the biodiversity targets to 2020 in a number of areas in particular, including:

Agro-ecology

Sustainable forestry

[1] 07.0202/2015/717714/SER/B.2 [1] https://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/index.cfm?pg=nbs

https://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/index.cfm?pg=nbs

6

Sustainable fisheries

Eco-tourism

Green infrastructure (GI) for climate change mitigation & adaptation

GI for health & mobility The implementation of NBS constitutes a unique opportunity to boost the realization of socio-economic objectives in the EU Member States:

Creating jobs and improving job security through sustainable agriculture, forestry, and fisheries.

Enhancing growth, especially in rural areas, through eco-tourism.

Supporting climate change adaptation objectives with green infrastructure, while benefiting public health and wellbeing and reducing burdens on public budgets.

Potentially offering cost-effective delivery of a range of ecosystem services contributing to sustainable growth, such as flood protection, water purification, and air quality.

There are a range of financing opportunities and instruments available to help realise the

socio-economic priorities linked to nature conservation and biodiversity actions. EU funds

available to support nature conservation in the context of different socio-economic sectors

include: EU Fund for Environment – LIFE, Rural development and agriculture – EAFRD,

Fisheries, marine and blue economy – EMFF, Regional and urban development – ERDF,

Cohesion Fund, Social cohesion – ESF, and Research and development – Horizon2020.

Competition with priorities other than biodiversity has, however, hindered the uptake of these opportunities at national and regional level. The benefits of biodiversity projects may vary locally, and realising these opportunities often depends on the ability to demonstrate socio-economic benefits in each case. This, in turn, has often been constrained by a lack of awareness or gaps in local knowledge, as well as a shortage of pioneering projects and/or champions. There has also been insufficient involvement of relevant stakeholders actively engaged in nature-based solutions in planning (programme and project levels) as well as insufficient integration of evidence on NBS benefits into planning of plans and projects. These have each constrained the demand for and uptake of EU and other funding and realisation of the opportunities. Other barriers for funding NBS to deliver socio-economic benefits have included:

Scale of NBS projects sometimes is too small to attract investment, hence they may need to be ‘bundled’ or linked to wider initiatives

Lack of capacity among conservation stakeholders

Lack of links to the relevant business sectors

Unclear / poorly specified financing requirements discourage applications

Limited co-funding to match EU funding

Co-ordination problems linked to the range of beneficiaries (e.g. different business sectors, conservation organisations, the land based sector and the wider public). Expenditure savings do not always accrue where the initial investment in nature has been made (i.e. different budget, geography or governance level)

Uncertainties and sometimes long timescales for delivery of benefits

7

(Perceived) administrative burdens. There are many examples where these benefits are already being realised in Member States - these are opportunities for mutual inspiration and learning - wider roll out of these measures is needed. There is quite some diversity of progress across Member States in the uptake of NBS – reflecting a mixture of level and type of natural endowments, needs and initiatives taken. There remains a significant unlocked potential across all Member States for biodiversity integration and maximization of NBS it underpins.

What more can countries do?

What Member States can do varies across socio-economic priorities, the type of nature-based solutions and the state of natural capital in the countries. While this is issue- and country- specific, there are a range of common ways forward:

Integration of nature based solutions into policies, strategies and plans – i.e. ensuring joined-up thinking and policy coherence. E.g. NBS into climate adaptation strategies for cities and coastal regions, into urban noise strategies; into health strategies; forestry strategies and programmes; bioeconomy strategies; and into rural development plans (RDPS), for example by the integration of organic farming and promotion of agro-ecological practices.

Developing national targets and requirements – e.g. for modal share of cycling and walking, for organic agriculture, for avoided soil sealing and avoided soil erosion. In terms of requirements, laws on use of green roofs for buildings (e.g. new and refurbished flat roofs) have proven useful in some countries.

Implementing measures under EU and national laws – e.g. using marine spatial planning (MSP) to reduce conflicts of uses and encourage sustainable investments and management; making use of the national river basin management plans (RBMPs) under the WFD to integrate NBSs.

Making greater use of innovative national funding, as well as blending it with judicious use of EU funding (see below).

Making greater use of modelling and mapping – of ecosystems and their interaction with economic and social systems, how NBS can help with environmental issues (noise, heat, air quality) and social issues (health, income and access to services), linking to the EU’s MAES process. Also making use of accounting practices and ensure integration of NBS where it offers added-value - e.g. potentially in forest, fish, water, environmental, natural capital and ecosystem accounts.

Supporting and focusing sustainable regional investment – e.g. through development of rural sustainable development zones. Also, using zoning to protect fragile ecosystems and natural assets that risk being eroded.

Making use of protected area management plans – these can integrate NBS initiatives that meet ecological and socio-economic objectives. Also coordinating management plans – e.g. for UNESCO world heritage sites that are also Natura 2000 sites, allowing co-management of natural and cultural heritage. Coordinating Natura 2000 management planning with RBMPs.

8

Ensuring inclusive governance and cooperation where there are multiple interests, trade-offs and synergies – e.g. involvement of key stakeholders in the development of management plans for marine areas.

Investing in information, science and awareness - through research, demonstration and pilot projects, transparency commitments, and dissemination of information through guidance and labelling. Also, ensuring that sustainable issues are taught in schools. Ensuring that the public (and policy makers) are aware of the full cost of the products they buy or promote – e.g. link to “empty oceans” (for unstainable fishing), climate change (for food products or supply chains linked with high GHG emissions), polluted aquifer and human health from some intensive agricultural practices, and the benefits of sustainable alternatives.

Investing in capacity building and training - offering advisory systems and training such as on ecosystem-based approaches and on nature guides.

Developing and applying decision support tools, which recognise, quantify and value the multiple benefits of NBS.

Developing governance and commissioning arrangements that bring together land managers and the multiple beneficiaries of NBS in order to test and develop markets for ecosystem services.

Promoting sustainable products and accessibility to products - e.g. labelling and GPP to promote organic products or sustainably produced/managed products (e.g. MSC labelled fish); blue flag beaches for sustainable tourism. In some places, the reintroduction of locally extinct species could be a new attractor for tourism in the region.

Supporting access to markets – e.g. supporting common and organised access to markets by fisheries cooperation and self-organisations.

Investing in infrastructure to encourage access – e.g. eco-friendly infrastructure in forests to foster eco-tourism, with due consideration for impacts on biodiversity through appropriate zoning practices.

Investing in green infrastructure – e.g. developing biodiversity hubs in existing infrastructure, such as greening the central partitions of highways or the embankments of railway lines; invest in green cycling infrastructure.

Supporting citizens’ initiatives – e.g. reforming land rights to allow citizens to plant on public pavements in local communes, as this can help with social wellbeing and integration.

Recommendations for the EU Semester Process The EU can work together with countries by highlighting opportunities and needs for action within the EU Semester progress. The following points merit being the focus of European semester recommendations:

Integrating NBS into key strategic and operational programmes – including: national reform programmes (NRPs); integration of NBS into partnership agreements (PAs), operational programmes (OPs), rural development programmes (RDPs); integration of NBS into health, climate adaptation, noise, air pollution, rural and urban regeneration strategies to support cost-effective policies and joined-up thinking.

9

Addressing the implementation deficit though accelerated use of NBS where suitable – e.g. for the WFD and the 2nd RBMPs.

Examining opportunities for adapting and applying EU funds to recognise the multiple benefits and beneficiaries of NBS. NBS require long term investment and can potentially benefit from range of EU funding sources, complemented by national and local funds, and private sector payments for ecosystem services; fully realising NBS and overcoming barriers to provision depends on ensuring that EU and other funding sources work together effectively.

Developing shared knowledge, tools and guidance to further the development and application of NBS across the EU. Horizon 2020 offers opportunities to develop the knowledge based required, while LIFE (including the NCFF) offers opportunities to demonstrate practical application of NBS. Engage in peer-to-peer sharing of best practice and solutions.

What more can the EU do?

Integration and policy coherence: There is a need for a systematic check of the level of policy coherence and opportunities for improved integration. This will support the better regulation agenda and good governance. It would be important to assess the state of integration as a whole on a regular basis, and complement it with specific focus in impact assessments, REFIT assessments, valuations and the integration on biodiversity’s multifunctionality and values. There is also a specific opportunity in the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) – e.g. ensure social and environmental criteria are factored into measure to regulate access to fish resources; ensure agro-ecological considerations and benefits to soil sustainability (“brown gold”), long term productivity and public goods are factored into reform discussions. Implementation: Addressing the implementation deficit of the EU biodiversity strategy and the wider EU environmental acquis, as well as national policies and commitments, will go a long way to supporting biodiversity contribution to socio-economic priorities. Areas that merit particular attention include: the Birds and Habitats Directives, Water Framework Directive, Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Flood Risk Directive as well as climate adaptation policies. Use of EU Budget: Biodiversity should be strongly reflected in Partnership Agreements (PAs) and Operational Programmes (OPs) implementing the EU budget at the national level. The multiple benefits of NBS should be factored into project selection, monitoring and evaluation, and hence support progress with EU-added value objectives – see also specific section further below. EU expenditures contributing to biodiversity objectives should be robustly measured, and targets (similar to the 20% target for climate related expenditures) should be considered. Biodiversity proofing of EU funds, programmes and projects should be encouraged at all levels.

10

Science-policy-stakeholder interface and better regulation: Investment should be provided to increase the evidence base, integrate science into policy processes, ensure transparency and support cooperation.

Good multi-stakeholder governance: “Silo-thinking” is a clear barrier for using action on nature conservation to support objectives of other sectors. Engaging different stakeholders with integration issues (and joint implementation) is essential for good governance. It will help cross-sector cooperation, increase policy buy-in and help to break “silo-thinking”. Furthermore, nature is not only about protected areas, and NBS implementation should take into account every territory. The SDGs agenda is a key process to progress this. Furthermore, there is a need for engaging both top-down and bottom-up ideas and collaborations.

Opportunities for addressing the implementation deficit include: Firstly, the EU treaties and the three pillars of sustainable development should be

implemented. Within this, it is vital to recognise environment as a foundation for economy

and society.

SDG implementation is equally important, and special attention should be paid to the

integration of NBS into the achievement of the SDGs in Europe and globally.

In addition, to support coherence and joined up thinking, greater use of UNISDR (United

Nations International Strategy Disaster Reduction) process and framework could be useful

to help implement EU own initiatives on disaster risk prevention.

Suggestions that promote policy coherence, integration and better regulation:

• Strengthen biodiversity integration in the circular economy;

• Integrate insights on the cost of non-implementation into decision-making;

• Improve the integration of nature’s multiple benefits in existing tools and processes – impact assessments, REFIT assessments, evaluations etc.;

• Raise awareness of the multiple benefits of NBS and demonstrate their relevance across policy areas.

Linking to the global dimension:

• Build better on health-environment-nature links in EU policies (WHO-CBD collaboration “Connection Global Priorities - Biodiversity & Health” as part of COP 12 decision XII 21 offers leverage); evaluations and funding

• NBS can be integrated into global agreements and international conventions - a significant opportunity lies in linking biodiversity and health and other socio-economic benefits in international commitments.

• Ensuring that the EU makes best use of international evidence and applies international experience and best practice in developing and applying NBS.

11

Knowledge, awareness and capacity building

Good practice across countries should be disseminated and there has to be a clear channel for that – through expert networks, awareness raising activities, workshops, guidance documents, awards, and reporting and evaluation. There is potential for mechanisms that facilitate information exchange between Member States (e.g. better utilising TAIEX REGIO PEER 2 PEER). This would help to catalyse/leverage progress and facilitate scaling up of successful cooperation and investments.

It will also be important to accelerate inter-DG work on nature-based solutions, and in some cases initiate collaboration – e.g. on biodiversity and health, to support uptake of synergies. Joint application of funds – e.g. through LIFE integrated projects – offers potential to further this agenda.

Furthermore, the discussion and implementation of SDGs at the EU level are dominated by economic concerns that do not permit environmental issues to become a priority. Therefore, an underpinning driver for the uptake of NBS is to make social and environmental concerns on equal footing with the economic. Not only should the environment and economy be treated equally, but it should be understood that environment is a prerequisite for the economy to exist. This requires considerable effort at reframing awareness of the causal relationships between economy, society and the environment. A more comprehensive understanding of the dependency of positive socio-economic outcomes on nature conservation goes beyond simply increasing awareness of the socio-economic benefits or services which the environment provides in specific sectors or towards given objectives. Recommendations for better use of EU funding

Member States rely greatly on EU funding, while opportunities exist for the private sector to contribute an increasing share of investments and funding opportunities. The public sector is constrained by budgetary limitations and thus the private sector has to be mobilized. Furthermore, NBS offer a range of public and private benefits, and finding new ways of securing finance and paying for services, which recognise the breadth of benefits and beneficiaries, will be important in addressing the current under-supply of NBS. In the context of private sector participation, mechanisms for compensation should be discussed further at the EU level.

• Integrate NBS into different EU Funds – partnership agreements, strategies and operational programmes, their implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

• Guarantee dedicated funding for biodiversity conservation; and ensure clear objectives of biodiversity funding (nature based solutions should be in addition to, rather than in place of traditional conservation measures).

• Examine how different EU funds could better work together to deliver NBS, recognising the range of needs (research, demonstration, investment, ongoing management), benefits (variety of ecosystem services) and beneficiaries (private sector as well as public). Ensuring that EU funds (e.g. EAFRD) facilitate and mobilise, rather than constrain or crowd out private finance for NBS, will also be important.

12

• Ensure clear allocations and guidance for the use of EU funding for NBS – EABF, EAFRD, ERDF, ESF, Life+, and Horizon 2020.

• Use EU funding to support the development of a skilled workforce that can work with NBS.

• Implement robust processes for biodiversity proofing of EU budgetary expenditures at all levels.

• Continue to develop and apply methodologies for tracking EU expenditures that contribute to biodiversity priorities, and consider the introduction of a biodiversity expenditure target similar to the commitment to spend 20% of the EU budget on climate change related measures.

• Avoid relying on EU funding alone. Make greater use of private funding and other sectors’ funding.

• Given finance limitations, also ensure the issue of compensation and responsibility for damage to nature and biodiversity are addressed.

• Link to process of Environmental Tax Reform and also Environmental Harmful Subsidies reform - taking into account the polluter pays principle (PPP) as well as environmental externalities (e.g. water pollution from pesticides; health risks).

The Way forward - A multi-level governance solution.

There are multiple opportunities for scaling up the use of nature-based solutions for national socio-economic priorities. Countries, regions and cities need to drive this process. This can also be helped by European policies, initiatives and funding as well as international activities – e.g. ensuring the NBS are recognised for the SDGs. At each of these levels, there is a need for collaboration across stakeholder types and skills - only if there is a systematic attempt at breaking out of silos and seeing the synergies between nature, society and the economy can the potential for NBS be realised. This will help towards delivering the SDGs, contribute to the implementation of existing commitments, support good governance and better regulation and help with the added-value of institutional investments and budgets.

Publications The Main Report: ten Brink P., Schweitzer J-P., Gionfra S., Kettunen M., Rayment M. (2017) Linking biodiversity to national economic and social priorities in the EU Member States by IEEP, ENT Environment and Management, Ecologic, Denkstatt, LUKE and partners. Institute for European Environmental Policy, Brussels / London. Available on www.ieep.eu The 28 Country Summaries: available on www.ieep.eu

http://www.ieep.eu/

http://www.ieep.eu/

13

1 Opportunities for synergies – nature’s contributions to socio-economic priorities of Member States

1.1 Background

This is the final report for the project - Linking biodiversity to national economic and social priorities in the EU Member States (07.0202/2015/717714/SER/B.2), whose objective was to assess how biodiversity conservation and the enhancement of multiple ecosystem services, and their integration into relevant sectors, can contribute towards socio-economic priorities in EU Member States. The overall objectives of this study were as follows: - Analyse relevant socio-economic priorities in the EU and its 28 Member States - Identify synergies between the identified priorities and biodiversity conservation

objectives in each Member State - Evaluate economic and social benefits stemming from these synergies, including

Member State specific examples and data - Provide recommendations on how these synergies can be best exploited, with a view to

maximize the benefits (economy, society and environment) and optimize the use of public resources through cost-effective policy approaches and solutions

- Provide data and recommendations to feed into the European Semester process, with a view to raise the profile of natural capital and its contribution towards Member States’ macro-economic policies.

These overall objectives have been achieved through the following specific tasks:

1. Identification of key areas for biodiversity contribution towards socio-economic priorities in the EU and its Member States (Task 1) Sub-task 1.1 – Develop methodology and approach to country analysis Sub-task 1.2 – Thematic and EU-level literature review Sub-task 1.3 – Country-level literature review and identification of priority areas

2. Analysis of the identified key areas within socio-economic priorities, including the evaluation of economic and social benefits stemming from the synergies between biodiversity and socio-economic priorities (Task 2)

3. Organisation of regional workshops and a synthesis meeting (Task 3) 4. Compilation of final report with 28 country profiles (Task 4).

The method and approach to the tasks were detailed in the inception report, the two interim reports and in subsequent communications with DG ENV, including agreeing on a template that the team used for conducting the country level analysis under Task 2.

14

1.2 Terms and concepts used

This report explores how biodiversity conservation and the enhancement of multiple ecosystem services can contribute to the sustainability of a range of economic sectors and related socio-economic priorities across Member States. In particular, agriculture, forestry, fisheries / aquaculture and tourism are characterised by a direct dependence on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning and quality. These sectors also, however, have a range of negative impacts on both, this way posing a risk to their very own long-term sustainability. Consequently, the starting point for the analysis and discussion for the economic sectors addressed is that, in order to benefit and build on biodiversity, policies and management approaches underpinning different sectors need to recognised biodiversity and well-functioning ecosystems as a prerequisite and underlying resource for their very functioning. In the context of this report the terms “sustainable forestry”, “sustainable agriculture”, “sustainable fisheries” and “sustainable tourism” are used as a shorthand for sectoral activities governed by such policies and/or approaches, following ecosystem approach as defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity, i.e. as management aimed at conserving and enhancing biodiversity while using it sustainably. Agriculture / agroecology: Agroecology integrates ecosystem approach into agriculture. Gliessman et al (1998)1 define agroecology as “the application of ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable agroecosystems". Agroecology follows ecological concepts to favour and build on natural processes, optimising synergies with biological interactions to maintain soil fertility and crop protection. In practice, agro-ecological principles are adapted in different ways and to varying extent in approaches such as organic farming, permaculture, conservation agriculture, climate-smart agriculture etc. In this report, we use terms sustainable agriculture and agroecology interchangeably and consider organic farming as an important stepping-stone in the transition thereto. Sustainable forestry / sustainable forest management: According to the EU Forest Strategy2, sustainable forest management means using forests and forest land in a way - and at a rate - that does not cause damage to other ecosystems and that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and potential to fulfil, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions at different levels (local, national, global). In this report, we use terms sustainable forestry and sustainable forest management interchangeably. We also discuss the relationship between the bioeconomy and sustainable forestry. We consider that the extent to which the bioeconomy encourages or complicates sustainable forestry practices and synergies with biodiversity depends on the type of transition. To benefit from and be beneficial to biodiversity, the approach to bioeconomy would need to be both resources efficient (i.e. this way reducing pressures on nature) and consist of a diverse portfolio of activities supporting multifunctional forests.

1 Book: Agroecology: Ecological Processes in Sustainable Agriculture 2 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:21b27c38-21fb-11e3-8d1c-01aa75ed71a1.0022.01/DOC_1&format=PDF. This definition was initially developed by the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (Forest Europe) and has since also been adopted by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

https://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:21b27c38-21fb-11e3-8d1c-01aa75ed71a1.0022.01/DOC_1&format=PDF


15

Sustainable fisheries: According to FAO, ecosystem approach to fisheries means planning, developing and managing fisheries in a manner that addresses the multiple needs and desires of societies, without jeopardizing the options for future generations to benefit from the full range of goods and services provided by marine ecosystems3. The approach recognises that fish stocks are not only affected by fishing but their sustainability is also dependent on the availability and quality of habitat, changes in abundance of predators and prey and climatic stability. The key objective of the approach is to ensure – or restore –sustainable use of the whole ecosystem (not just targeted species), this way creating opportunities for socio-economic benefits arising from conservation of biodiversity. Sustainable tourism: The quality and aesthetics of ecosystems and the access to nature are the underpinnings of tourism sector including, for example, ecosystems’ role in supporting the maintenance of water supply and quality. However, if not managed, tourism can also pose threats and exacerbate pressures on ecosystems and biodiversity, leading to degradation of the natural environment. Consequently, as recognised while tourism, visitation and recreational activities can provide a significant socio-economic opportunity these activities need to be monitored and managed to retain the integrity of ecosystems they build on. In this report, we use term sustainable tourism to refer to tourism that respects and contributes to conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem quality, considering eco-tourism and nature-based tourism as key approaches to sustainable tourism. Nature-based solutions: Nature-based solutions are concrete approaches for the management of natural resources across sectors (e.g. agriculture, forestry, fisheries and tourism) that implement the understanding of biodiversity conservation and enhancement of multiple ecosystem services as contributors to socio-economic wellbeing4. These nature-based solutions provide sustainable, cost-effective, multi-purpose and flexible alternatives for various objectives. Working with nature, rather than against it, can further pave the way towards a more resource efficient, competitive and greener economy. It can also help to create new jobs and economic growth, through the manufacture and delivery of new products and services, which enhance the natural capital rather than deplete it. Nature-based solutions include, for example, the conservation and restoration of wetlands for water purification, conservation of ecosystems’ carbon storage to mitigate climate change or adoption of management practises that encourage an increase in natural pollinators. As such nature-based solutions provide concrete means for different sectors to build on synergies with nature conservation. In the context of this report, nature-based solutions refer to the above type of approaches, with a strong link to simultaneously delivering both socio-economic and conservation objectives (e.g. habitat conservation and restoration). Nature-based solutions are commonly implemented through the means of Green Infrastructure as a strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services5.

3 http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0191e/a0191e00.htm#abs 4 https://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/index.cfm?pg=nbs 5 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/index_en.htm

16

1.3 Structure of final report This report presents the findings to date, with Chapter 2 presenting the progress on Tasks 1 and Task 2. This comprises the identification of promising areas in Member States and their detailed analysis (method development, overarching thematic and EU-wide literature review, and country-level literature review). Chapter 2 also contains a synthesis table that locates the promising areas across the Member States in a matrix of socio-economic themes and sectors. Chapters 3 – 8 provide a synthesis of findings across Member States for the promising areas of agro-ecology, sustainable forestry, sustainable fisheries, eco-tourism, and green infrastructure for climate change adaptation and public health. Chapter 9 presents the conclusions and recommendations of the project, presenting a synthesis of the country specific conclusions and recommendations presented in the 28 country profiles. The overarching thematic and EU-wide literature review is presented in Annex 1, while Annex 2 (separate electronic file) contains the revised country profiles for 28 Member States, which identify national economic and social priorities, outline key biodiversity priorities and objectives, examine linkages between them, and document examples of initiatives taken to develop these linkages. They also present recommendations for action by both the Countries and the EU (e.g. via the European Semester, Implementation Review and EU Budget) to help realise the opportunities present in in the Member States for nature based solutions to address national socio-economic priorities.

17

2 Overview of promising areas in EU Member States

2.1 Promising areas for biodiversity contribution towards socio-economic priorities in EU Member States

Protecting biodiversity and enhancing multiple ecosystem services can, via their integration in a number of relevant sectors, contribute to economic and social priorities in EU Member States. While the multiple benefits of biodiversity and nature are increasingly understood, there exists ample scope to make better use of opportunities of working with nature across the European Union and realising these benefits. The analysis of such opportunities requires both an overview of existing studies and research across Europe and an analysis of the specific situation in the Member States. Though some sectors such as tourism, agriculture or forestry have obvious links to nature and biodiversity, marked differences across Member States exist and need to be considered to identify promising areas in which biodiversity protection could better contribute to current socio-economic priorities. This work departs from a general literature review from a thematic point of view (focussing on a number of sectors of interest) and under an EU-wide perspective. This literature review provides a general understanding of how biodiversity and nature-based approaches deliver benefits already today. Second, the analysis follows a structured and methodologically comparable approach at the situation in the Member States. This approach, as agreed with the European Commission, analyses the current socio-economic challenges and priorities of the Member States both from a short-term and medium-term perspective (including inter alia the European Semester process, progress towards the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and priorities of Member States as documented in Partnership Agreements under ESIF funding). Thematic and EU-level literature review This overarching literature review, presented in Annex 1, provides an overview of the role of biodiversity and nature protection in pursuing socio-economic objectives in key areas. The review focusses on six areas of interest:

• Economic Growth • Jobs, Skills and Innovation • Public Health • Regional Development • Urban Development and Regeneration • Demographic Change and Social Justice

The review shows that the challenges that Member States face are of a short-term (e.g. impacts of recent economic crises on employment and growth), medium-term (e.g. regional economic decline) and long-term nature (e.g. demographic change, aging). Many of these

18

challenges link to structural changes or weaknesses, for which investments into different forms of capital, including human and natural capital, are crucial. Already today, nature-based approaches and investments into nature yield important benefits e.g. in the form of jobs created (at different skill levels), growth and regional development, or for public health. From an overarching EU-wide perspective, some integration of biodiversity and nature protection into other sector policies (to help reach sector goals) can be observed, though has not reached its full potential yet. The literature review also reveals that for some areas of interest, comprehensive assessments of socio-economic benefits are not available yet (e.g. the employment creation potential around marine protected areas). Existing research and study limitations NBS is not a new area of research and has already been examined in the context of a number of research projects and analyses. Much of this existing work has linked NBS opportunities with societal challenges at the global, European and Member State level. Examples of relevant reports include: - EEA (2015) Exploring nature-based solutions: The role of green infrastructure in

mitigating the impacts of weather- and climate change-related natural hazards - Maes & Jacobs (2017) Nature-Based Solutions for Europe’s Sustainable Development - Cohen-Shacham et al (2016) Nature-based Solutions to address global societal

challenges - Raymond et al (2017) An Impact Evaluation Framework to Support Planning and

Evaluation of Nature-based Solutions Projects - European Commission (2015) Final Report of the Horizon 2020 Expert Group on 'Nature-

Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities' Despite this existing research, little analysis has been done to explore the extent to which NBS can contribute to Member State socio-economic objectives in a comprehensive way, or make explicit links to national policy objectives. The size and scope of this project also has not permitted such a comprehensive quantified assessment of the potential for NBS in Europe. The methodology adopted to identify the potential for NBS to contribute towards national socio-economic priorities and assess its potential was designed in order make best use of resources and provide qualified insights to shed insights on the opportunities that exist. Future research needs are identified in Chapter 9 Summary Conclusions and Recommendations. Country-level analysis and identification of potential priority areas Based on an analysis of the socio-economic challenges and priorities in Member States and after systematically screening the relevant sectors (agriculture, forestry, rural development, fisheries, tourism, climate, health, and the built environment (construction, energy, transport)), three to four promising areas where identified per Member State, where biodiversity could contribute to current socio-economic priorities synergistically. Whenever country specifics pointed to other relevant sectors, they were included, too (e.g. the Arctic

19

environment for Finland). The analysis focusses on the benefits today, the potential in future, drivers for realising the benefits and barriers that are in place. Whenever available, benefits and potential are expressed in quantitative terms, complemented with a qualitative assessment. Annex 2 presents the country specific fiches, which represent the core of the activities of the team in the reporting period.

2.2 Emerging promising areas across EU Member States

While the focus of this work in on Member State level, several promising areas have been identified across a range of Member States. Table 2.1 presents the promising areas of interest in the framework of the socio-economic priorities, sectors and nature based solutions matrix, which was used for analysing the potential for biodiversity to contribute to several socio-economic priorities (e.g. growth, jobs, public health etc.) across a range of sectors (e.g. agriculture, forestry, tourism etc.). Dark green cells mark areas identified in many countries, light green cells highlight areas that were identified often

20

Table 2.1: Distribution of identified areas across socio-economic priorities and sectors

Economic growth (incl. sector development / diversification, fiscal

consolidation)

Jobs and skills (incl. innovation)

Public health Regional development Urban development/ regeneration & living

environment

Demographic change and social justice (incl.

social cohesion/equity)

Agro-ecology AT, BG, HR, CY, CZ, DK, FR, DE, EL, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, NL, PL, SK, SI, ES

AT, BE, BG, HR, CY, CZ, DK, FR, DE, EL, HU, IE, IT, LV, LT, LU, NL, SK, SI, ES

BE, HU

AT, BE, BG, HR, CY, CZ, DK, FR, DE, EL, IE, IT, LV, LT, LU, NL, PL, SK, SI, ES

PL


EE, FI, IT, PT, SI, SE, SK EE, FI, LV, IT, PL, PT, SI, SE, SK

PL EE, FI, IT, PL, PT, SI, SE, SK


HR, IT, ES HR, IT, ES HR, IT

Eco-tourism AT, BG, HR, CY, EE, FI, FR, DE, EL, HU, LT, LU, MT, PL, PT, RO, SK, SI, ES, SE

AT, BG, HR, CY, EE, FI, FR, DE, EL, HU, LT, LU, MT, PL, PT, RO, SK, SI, ES, SE

AT, BG, HR, CY, EE, FI, DE, EL, HU, LT, LU, MT, PL, PT, RO, SK, SI, ES, SE

GI for climate change

mitigation and adaptation

CY, CZ, DK, EE, FR, LT, LV, MT, NL, PT, RO, SK, ES, UK

AT, CY, DK, EE, FR, RO, ES, NL, PT

AT, CZ, LT, NL, SK, UK LT, LV, MT, NL, SK, UK CY, CZ, UK FR

GI for health and wellbeing

BE, CZ, FI, FR, EL, UK EL, MT, UK BE, BG, CZ, DK, FR, DE, FI, IE, LV, MT, UK

FI DE, EL, IE, MT, UK BE, BG, CZ, DE, UK

GI for soft mobility

BE, LU BE, LU SE LU

21

While the specifics differ slightly across Member States, common relevant socio-economic objectives are growth, employment, public health and regional development, and to a lesser extent urban development and demography. In addition, the analyses concluded that biodiversity could contribute to some socio-economic priorities that are not captured by the above matrix or sectors and priorities, for example biodiversity-related to research and development across sectors or related to country-specifics (e.g. the role of biodiversity for livelihoods in the Arctic environment in Finland). Though there exist nuances across countries, the promising areas broadly fall into

Agro-ecological practices (often in the form of organic farming)


Sustainable fisheries (sometimes as part of wider sustainable marine and coastal development)

Eco-tourism (sometimes in combination with agro-tourism)

Green infrastructure for climate change adaptation (also in combination with climate change mitigation)

Green infrastructure for public health and wellbeing (also including supporting soft mobility)

The following chapters synthesise the key findings for these promising areas. They first describe the status of the synergies and benefits already today, then present drivers of change that have been identified across several Member States and then discuss the potential in this promising area. They include selected observations based on country-specific recommendations on how to better realise the synergies at national and EU levels – for more details see the country fiches.

22

3 Promising area: Agro-Ecology for jobs, growth and regional development

3.1 What is the status of the synergies & benefits?

The country-specific analyses have shown that agriculture has been recognised as a promising area that can contribute to socio-economic priorities and make better use of synergies with biodiversity objectives for almost all the Member States, with the exception of Estonia, Finland, Sweden and the UK.

In general, a number of socio-economic priorities can be supported through a shift towards more sustainable agricultural practices, but the most common relevant socio-economic objectives are found in economic growth, employment, regional development, and to a lesser extent public health. Sustainable nature-based agricultural processes are being increasingly recognised for their relevance to the protection of resources, biodiversity and ecosystem services. Such growing importance is amplified by the rising vulnerabilities of traditional farming activities to climate change as well as by the increasing concern for natural capital and ecosystem services (Borron, 2006; Scialabba & Müller-Lindenlauf, 2010; Müller, 2009).

Although many forms of sustainable agriculture exist, organic farming seems to be the most commonly adopted and the one that is developing at a faster rate. In fact, some countries show decreasing rates of agriculture, but increasing rates of organic farming, therefore suggesting a growing trend for this type of land use. Organic farming is in many cases less harmful to biodiversity than conventional agriculture and offers the potential for synergies with biodiversity protection goals (European Commission 2013).

The increasing focus on sustainable agriculture can be seen in the majority of the Member States, but growth in such practices has been particularly rapid in countries such as Austria, Italy, France and Spain among others, where agriculture represents a particularly important sector for the countries’ economies. Economic growth, employment, public health and regional development represent the main socio-economic priorities that can be enhanced by agro-ecological activities and measures.

Economic growth: The value and quality of agricultural produce is considerably enhanced through biodiversity conservation and management, therefore indicating that sustainable and less harmful forms of agriculture offer opportunities to introduce high quality regionally branded products and increase farm incomes.

- Austria is the European leader in organic agriculture, with organic farms covering 20% of the agricultural land in 2015 and representing the highest proportion amongst EU-MS (Eurostat 2015).

- Italy plays a leading role in the production of regionally designated products. The agricultural area devoted to organic farming increased by 7.5% between 2014 and 2015 (Unioncamere and Symbola, 2016, p. 109).

23

- Luxembourg is ranked fourth behind Switzerland, the UK and Denmark in terms of the consumption of sustainable products demonstrating the potential of the domestic market (Ministère du Développement durable et des Infrastructures, 2010).

Jobs and skills: Sustainable agricultural practices also contribute considerably to yearly revenues as well as to total employment through the need of skilled labour and the creation of biodiversity related jobs.

- In Spain, the number of jobs in organic farming has more than doubled since 1998, notably from 23,278 to approximately 50,000 in 2014 (Sustainlabour and Fundación Biodiversidad, 2012), being the most promising sector among green jobs (Fundación Biodiversidad and OSE, 2009).

Regional development: Biodiversity is one element contributing to the diversity and distinctiveness of regional produce therefore contributing to regional development.

- In 2014, the introduction and maintenance of organic farming in Germany was funded with € 158.5 million, thus supporting regional development and engaging a younger generation to work in rural areas (BMEL website, 2016).

Growing success of organic products: the experience of wine producers

Organic wine sales in Italy are growing fast: during the first six months of 2015, retail sales grew by 91%. This is a result of better variety of offer, and increased consumer demand. Between 2013 and 2015, the number of people who drank organic wine at least once during the previous year grew from 2% to 17%. There are opportunities to increase organic wine exports, which only represent 2% of all wine exports (Unioncamere and Symbola, 2015). The Salcheto organic wine company represents a good example of this expanding sector. The company, located in central Italy, only uses sustainable wood products for their wine production. It was the first company in the world to certify the Carbon Footprint of a wine bottle (Unioncamere and Symbola, 2015).

In addition to the aforementioned socio-economic priorities, agro-ecology offers opportunities for wider benefits and synergies to other sectors.

Social cohesion: By contributing to rural diversification and providing new job opportunities for young people, land abandonment and population decline can be addressed. Similarly, investment in this sector supports the economic engagement of young people, therefore promoting social cohesion, particularly in rural areas.

Climate change mitigation and adaptation: Agro-ecological approaches and organic farming improve soil fertility, promote diversity of crops and increase the resilience of the sector to climate change.

- Organic farming prevents two of the main challenges faced by Spain in terms or climate change adaptation: water stress and desertification.

24

Figure 3.1: Drivers, barriers and contributions of agro-ecology to socio-economic priorities

Promising Area: Agro-Ecology

Illustrative indicators: • Share of organic agriculture in UAA (%)• Number of products of geographical indication

(PDO-PGI)

Current Situation

Agricultural research and

training

Regional investments

Funding

Existing Subsidies for intensive

farming

Lack of funding for conversion

Marketing and consumer awareness

Need for a skilled workforce

Poor market signals

Future potential

Growth in per capita spending on organic foods; increased businesses’ competitiveness

due to the lower cost of inputs and energy

Reduced human health risks

Agro-ecological skills; diversity of enterprises; labour-intensity

Increased rural income and viability; diversity and

distinctiveness of regional produce; high potential for

export

RD

Reduced transport UD

Benefits for youth employmentDSJ

Benefits

PH

JS

EG

Product labelling

Goal: Increase the share of agro-

ecological approaches

Contribution to priorities

EU: Conventional agriculture remains the

predominant form

Increased accessibility to products and higher

WTP

EAGF, EAFRD, ERDF, ESF

Subsidies for organic farmers

and land conversion

Knowledge about the organic

farming sector

Lack of knowledge

Promotion of specific

products (e.g. organic)

Advisory services and training on

organic farming; reduction of

pesticides

Social cohesion: economic

engagement of young people

Pubic health and water quality: nutrient and

pesticide reduction

Tourism: enhancement of rural landscapes

Climate change adaptation and mitigation: soil fertility, crop

diversity, resilience

Wider benefits and synergies

25

Public health and water quality: A range of health benefits can be derived from the use of such agricultural practices as they promote the consumption of products of high nutritional quality as well as more balanced diets. The reduced use of chemical and pesticides also results in positive effects on health. Similarly, nutrient and pesticide reduction can improve the quality of water.

- Diffuse pollution from agriculture through nutrients and pesticides is one of the biggest pressures on water resources in Austria (EC, 2017, page 16).

- The French government wants to reduce the use of pesticides by 25 % in 2020 and by 50 % in 2025 (Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt, 2015b, p.6, 3).

Tourism: Sustainable agriculture and organic farming specifically, can enhance rural landscapes by making them more attractive through the protection of nature and biodiversity. This tends to attract tourists, therefore highlighting the potential synergies between the agriculture and the tourism sector.

3.2 What are the drivers of change?

Several drivers were mentioned in the country-specific analyses as supporting the development of sustainable agriculture. Although they differ from country to country, a few were identified as main drivers in several cases (see Figure 3.1).

Agricultural research and training: In many countries, advisory services and training are provided for organic farming. Research can also contribute to development of such practices when applied to reduce the use of pesticides and fertilizers, as well as to protect natural resources such as soil, water and biodiversity (Ministère de l’agriculture, de l’agroalimentaire et de la forêt, 2014a, p.3).

- Luxembourg contributes widely to the promotion of sustainable agricultural practices through a number of tools, including farm fairs, demonstration farms, research and training courses in sustainable agriculture (Ministère de l'Agriculture, de la Viticulture et de la Protection des consommateurs, 2015).

- France offers multiple plans in its framework of agroecology policy for French agriculture, which focus on putting agriculture on a more sustainable path. Examples are the “Plan Écophyto”, supporting biological plant protection products and bio-controls, the “Plan Écoantibio” to reduce antibiotics, and the “Plan Azote / Méthanisation”, aimed at improving nitrogen management and supporting organic rather than mineral nitrogen (Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt, 2013b, p.10).

Increasing knowledge about the organic farming sector: Knowledge about organic farming is often limited. Financing promotion and research activities and improving statistics and publications dedicated to organic farming can lead to wider knowledge and therefore support the development of such practices.

26

Product labelling: National and regional labels exist within the EU scheme as well as not covered under the EU wide labelling scheme. These are used to promote specific products, for example produced in a specific area or for organic products.

- Since the establishment of the German label for organic products “Bio-Siegel” in 2001, 4,615 users of the label have notified the information centre of the labelling of 72,358 products (as of 31 January 2016) (BMEL website, 2016).

Marketing and consumers awareness: Sustainable agricultural practices can be promoted by making the derived products more widely accessible. For instance, accessibility to organic products can be enhanced through marketing practices. Moreover, increasing consumers’ awareness about sustainable and local products can lead to higher willingness to pay.

Success in the merchandise and marketing of organic products: Veritasi

Veritas is the leading network of supermarkets distributing organic products in Spain. In 2016, there were 35 shops in Catalonia and it was planned to open 10 additional shops all around the country. In 2014, revenues reached EUR 33 million growing 36% in 2015, and employed more than 300 people. Their business model includes more than 4,500 different products of which 500 are of their own brand including fresh dairy bread. Veritas currently supplies 50,000 students in education centres.

Having their own brand has allowed Veritas to lower their prices, making the average shopping cart 50% cheaper in the last decade.

Regional investment: In some countries, subsidies are available for organic farmers. Alternatively, organic farming is incentivised through public funds. Organic farming has in fact been included within national and regional Rural Development Plans as required by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which means that financial support to agro-ecology is to be increased through European financing tools (MAPAMA, 2016a).

- Organic agriculture features in Italy’s national policy documents, emphasising the positive links between biodiversity and agriculture. Italy’s National Action Plan for Organic Agriculture prioritises investment in innovative systems to enhance productivity while preserving biodiversity and reducing environmental impacts.

- In Luxembourg, a law has been approved in June 2016, establishing support for the promotion of rural sustainable development zones through the provision of outlines and guidelines for several issues, such as increasing competitiveness of the agricultural sector, increasing its viability, promoting the engagement of young farmers, biodiversity conservation, as well as climate change adaptation and agro-tourism.

Funding: Several European funds are aimed at increasing biodiversity within the agricultural sector. These include the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), the European Regional Development Fund (EFDR), and the European Social Fund (ESF).

- Between 2014 and 2020, the EU is committed to investing EUR 100 billion in rural areas across Europe in order to support agriculture in improving soil and water quality, conserving biodiversity, and addressing climate change (EC, 2016b).

27

3.3 What is the potential?

Past and current trends in Europe demonstrate that sustainable agriculture is a growing sector, therefore presenting the potential to generate benefits for the EU, as well as for specific Member States. Quantitative and qualitative information is available across member states, covering national statistics and country analyses on agricultural areas, growth and employment. The scale of the potential differs among countries, although a common trend can be found in terms of economic growth, employment and regional development. Growth: Organic agriculture is growing across the EU. The major market potential of this type of agriculture is supported by evidence showing a significant growth in per capita spending on organic foods in the EU (110% between 2005 and 2014) as compared to other food and non-alcoholic beverages (IFOAM EU Group et al. 2016, p.13). Some agro-ecological practices ensure businesses’ competitiveness due to the lower cost of inputs and energy (Ministère de l’agriculture, de l’agroalimentaire et de la forêt, 2014a, p.8).

- Between 2003 and 2010 organic area and holdings in the EU increased by 55% and 50% respectively (European Commission, 2014).

Jobs and skills: Organic agriculture is generally more labour intensive than conventional agriculture and involves a greater diversity of enterprises. Employment opportunities can therefore be derived from the conversion of farms to organic (FAO, 2016, European Commission 2013).

- In France, it was estimated that approximately 50% more jobs per farm could be generated in organic agriculture rather than other agricultural forms (Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la forêt, 2013a, p.7).

- The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Food and Environment in Spain foresees that in 2025, organic farming could create around 20,000 additional jobs, in line with the foreseen development of the sector (MAPAMA, 2015e).

Regional development: The potential to increase the links between producers and consumers as well as the development of regional produce with high potential for export makes agro-ecology particularly relevant in promoting regional development (JRC, 2013). The adoption of agro-ecological projects can be further enhanced through the creation of groups among farmers and other partners with the aim of consolidating their production system and reaching a better environmental, economic and social performance (Ministère de l’agriculture, de l’agroalimentaire et de la forêt, 2014a, p.8).

- In 2016, there were 246 GIEE (groupement d’interet economique et environnemental) recognized in France. In total, they comprise more than 4,000 farmers and 300,000 hectares of UAA (Ministère de l’agriculture, de l’agroalimentaire et de la forêt, 2016b).

3.4 What are the barriers to progress?

Despite the multiple benefits that can be derived from the agro-ecological activities and the drivers of its development and potential for growth, there still exists a number of barriers that can challenge the development of the sector in the desired direction. Among the barriers that have been identified in the country analyses, some of them result of greater concern due to their presence in a large number of member states (see Figure 3.1).

28

Need for skilled workforce: As mentioned in the previous section, the employment potential of organic farming is derived from its labour intensity (FAO, 2016, European Commission 2013). Nevertheless, this type of farming differs in many aspects from conventional agriculture. Therefore, there are specific skills that need to be acquired in order to engage in such practice. It follows that the labour force needed for organic agriculture has to meet specific requirements in terms of skills, therefore representing a barrier to the development of the sector. Even though agricultural trainings are available in many countries in the EU, the need for skilled labour still represents an additional challenge compared to conventional forms of agriculture.

- Organic agriculture tends to be more labour intensive and involve a greater diversity of enterprises (FAO, 2016, European Commission 2013). Organic farmers tend to be younger than conventional farmers are. In 2010, farmers younger than 55 represented 61.3% of organic farmers but just 44.2% of non-organic farmers (European Commission, 2014).

Existing subsidies for intensive farming: Even though subsidies for organic farmers are available in some countries, they are still not as widely available as for traditional agriculture. The availability of subsidies for conventional, more intensive forms of farming works as a disincentive towards the development of sustainable forms of agriculture and therefore represents a significant barrier to the agro-ecological sector.

- The EU agricultural policies support all farming with funds, however, the larger

farms benefit most (Greenpeace website, 2015). Lack of funding for conversion: Conversion of agricultural areas from conventional to organic farming is generally associated with high costs. The potential for conversion is therefore highly dependent on the financial resources available. Even though financial support for such shift is expected to increase, the current lack of funding in many member states lowers the incentives to bring the development of the agro-ecological sector forward. Poor market signals/ lack of knowledge: The limited knowledge about organic farming and the lack of economic information on the relationship between prices of organic and conventional products tends to discourage consumers from buying the more expensive organic products. As interest in comparability between the organic and conventional farming sectors is increasing, such often-unavailable economic information works as a barrier to organic and in general sustainable forms of agriculture (LEI, 20056).

3.5 What can the EU do to address the barriers and realise the opportunities?

The country analyses have shown that several measures can be used to generate benefits from the link between biodiversity and the Member States’ priority areas. The agro-ecological sector appears to have great potential in terms of future benefits for the EU. Financing and legislation result as the most widely suggested tools to enable the achievement of the aforementioned benefits.

6 http://ageconsearch.tind.io//bitstream/29130/1/re050003.pdf

http://ageconsearch.tind.io/bitstream/29130/1/re050003.pdf

29

Recommendations for better use of EU funding EU funding is already available through EAFRD to support organic and sustainable agricultural practices, and for complementary activities such as processing and marketing. However, the scale of funding provided is small compared to Pillar I of the CAP. Further reforms of the CAP will offer opportunities to shift resources from Pillar I to Pillar II, enhancing opportunities to support organic farming and environmentally beneficial practices. Between 2014 and 2020, the EU is committed to investing EUR 100 billion in rural areas across Europe in order to support agriculture in improving soil and water quality, conserving biodiversity, and addressing climate change (EC, 2016b).

Recommendations for the EU Semester Process The European Semester process can provide a tool to promote the links between socio-economic priorities and biodiversity conservation in Member States. In order to promote an increase in the share of sustainable agriculture, and more specifically organic, best practice from member states should be identified, recognising that some countries are more advanced than others in the agro-ecological sector. This would allow for an exchange of information and training which would support the development of the sector across the EU. Increasing communication between Member States could then support the coordination of strategies. Even though the European Semester process includes elements that enable growth of the sustainable agriculture sector, the reporting and progress monitoring process of implementing specific targets for the achievement of Europe 2020 strategy should be further enhanced.

3.6 What can national governments and other stakeholders do to address the barriers and realise the opportunities?

The country analyses have identified several options for the national governments to derive socio-economic benefits from the agro-ecological sector. Among the recommended measures, agricultural advice, training and research, product labelling, investments, marketing, knowledge and funding represent the most commonly suggested. Austria’s Organic Action Plans (BMLFUW 2016), which have been in place since 2001, demonstrate how an integrated national approach to promoting agro-ecology can realise potential growth in the sector – reflected in Austria’s high share of organic agricultural utilised area. Agro-ecological projects should be developed in order to increase added value, create employment and improve regional development and the state of the environment through more sustainable practices. Given the range of barriers that are found to challenge the development of the agro-ecological activities in the EU Member States, a number of policy tools are to be implemented by national governments. Nevertheless, the role of regional/local governments, as well as businesses and citizens initiatives should also be taken under consideration. The development of specific regional labels in Luxembourg, is illustrative of the importance of marketing local agricultural production in this sector in contrast to intensive agriculture (Grand-Duché Luxembourg, 2015a). Involving all related parties of sustainable agriculture could create an opportunity to further support such promising area across all Member States. This might include both agricultural and nature

30

conservation stakeholders – the use of agronomists to assess sites suitable for the Naturschutz durch Nutzung project is a good example of this (Ministère de l'Agriculture, 2012). Programs for citizen education on the health and wider benefits of organic farming should be implemented to raise consumer awareness and support more sustainable consumer behaviours. Similarly, agricultural training should be made available in order to guarantee the skilled labour needed for sustainable agricultural practices. Training measures can also target farm advisers, so they provide better advice to farmers. Financial support should be directed towards organic farmers but also those adopting agro-ecological farming practices, in particular to aid the transition from conventional to sustainable farming, as well as to overcome the barriers due to the presence of subsidies for intensive agriculture. Member States can help to advance funding opportunities at EU level by pushing for further reforms of the CAP, shifting resources from Pillar I to Pillar II.

31

4 Promising area: Sustainable forestry for jobs, growth and regional development


The analysis of promising areas where biodiversity could contribute to socio-economic priorities in Member States showed that sustainable forestry is relevant in a number of countries across the EU, notably in Northern and Eastern Europe (Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden), but also in several countries in the Southern Europe (Italy, Slovenia, Portugal). In all of these countries, the contributions to socio-economic priorities focus on economic growth, jobs, and regional and rural development, but also come along with wider benefits for public health and climate change adaptation and mitigation. Currently, about a quarter of European forests are protected under Natura 2000. Forests provide the basis for multiple economic activities such as wood industry, tourism, or biomass for energy (half of the total EU renewable energy consumption) (EC, 2013b). Forests also maintain other significant – but perhaps less tangible - benefits, including water management, carbon storage and temperature cooling (Bonan, 2008), hence contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Sustainable forest management that supports biodiversity protection requires a number of policy measures. One key measure currently applied is the third-party certification of forests complying with sustainable management standards, which has gained of importance in the last decades, globally and in the EU (MacDicken et al., 2015). Fernholz and Kraxner (2012) estimate that around 95 million ha of forest were certified in the EU in 2012, with marked differences in the share of certified forest area across EU Member States. The contributions of sustainable forestry have strong links to sustainable agriculture and agroforestry systems in many Member States, especially in the Mediterranean. Economic growth: The contributions of a sustainable forest sector are based on traditional forest products as timber and subsequent value chains, as well as wider efforts to transition to a bioeconomy, notably in Northern Europe. Agroforestry plays an important role in agriculture and land use in several countries.

- In Finland, with a share of 19% of Finnish exports and 10% of the output, the contribution of the forestry sector for the national economy is significant. The national forest strategy stresses economic growth, employment and diversification of the sector’s livelihoods, but also sustainable use of natural resources, recreational use of nature and healthy living environments.

- In Latvia, forestry, wood processing and furniture manufacturing represented 5.2% of GDP in 2014.

- In 2012, Portugal had the fifth largest absolute extension of agroforestry area of EU-27 (1.2 million ha), and with 32% the second largest share of agroforestry area over the total utilised agricultural area (UAA), after Cyprus with 40%.

32

Jobs & skills: The forestry sector plays an important role for employment in rural areas and remote regions in a number of Member States. Job effects are not only limited to direct jobs in forest management, but also indirect jobs e.g. in associated industries, but also other ecosystem services provided by forest areas.

- In 2014, the basic forestry and wood, pulp and paper industry offered jobs for about 76,000 workers in Finland, which is around 3% of the employed workforce.

- The forest sector in Latvia employed directly around 52,000 people in 2010 but there are also around 30,000 jobs, which are indirectly related to the sector. In Poland, around 50,000 people are directly employed in forestry.

- In Sweden, the forest products industry provides direct employment for almost 60,000 people in Sweden. Together with its sub-contractors and the forest operations, including transportation, the sector is the source of 200,000 jobs, which is over 4% of the employed labour force.

Regional development: The role of sustainable forestry for regional development is closely linked to its potential for growth and employment in forest-rich, sometimes remote, and economically disadvantaged regions of member states.

- In Portugal, agroforestry areas are concentrated in inner mainland regions, which, in general, present a more rural profile, and, in some cases, reveal socio-economic disparities in comparison with coastal (urban) areas.

- There exist strong links to restoring degraded ecosystems, not only to protect biodiversity, but also for wider regional development benefits. Estonia aims at restoring, preserving and improving agricultural and forestry ecosystems. The aim is to diversify the rural economy and to create alternative employment opportunities for labour force released from agriculture.

Sustainable forestry practices have a high potential for realising benefits in other sectors and to wider socio-economic priorities. Accessible forest areas rich in biodiversity can support (eco-) tourism, recreational and health related activities, and contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation. In some Member States (e.g. Poland, Finland, Estonia), the forest are seen as an important carbon sink and thus considered as an element of national climate policies. Realising these benefits requires a careful integration of biodiversity considerations into the forestry sector. Consequently, while the transition to sustainable forestry and/or bioeconomy can provide for a range of benefical synergies with biodiversity, the extent of synergies in question depends on the type of transition. For example, the approach to bioeconomy would need to be both resources efficient (i.e. this way reducing pressures on nature) and consist of a diverse portfolio of activities (e.g. ones based on non-use and/or conservation). Green infranet project, Latvia

A pilot project in Latvia supported four farms that demonstrated sustainable forest management practices. The practices were based on selective cutting and thinning. The aim of the project was that the owners maintain forests´ internal balance and ensured that the felling volume does not exceed an annual quota. In order to assess varying practices, up to three new model plots were established per year on each farm. The variables include intensity, tree selection, allowing dead trees to remain (for biodiversity reasons) and creating openings in the forest.

33

The results show that sustainable forest management creates optimal light conditions for young trees and greater resistance to high wind. According to project:

- In order to provide sustainable forest management in all phases of the forest life cycle, development objectives should be integrated into other sectoral policies, such as climate change mitigation, biodiversity conservation, energy and rural development.

- While compensation schemes are successful in improving nature conservation in private forests, more sophisticated instruments to promote the wider application of sustainable forest management have yet to be applied.

- Effective communication and cooperation between stakeholders is crucial in promoting sustainable forest management.

- Personal experience can be a successful communication instrument between private forest owners.

- Environmental awareness, personal values, enthusiasm and commitment to the property are important driving forces for private forest owners in applying sustainable forest management.

- Because sustainable forest management impacts on several sectors, the involvement of a range of stakeholders is crucial.

Based on the lessons learned, main factors that might hamper the development of sustainable forest management on a wider scale include: lack of policy support, coordination and integration into other policies at the national level; the need to involve a wide range of stakeholders and the forestry sector; the complexities of the management process: the lower economic benefits of selective cutting in small properties; and he placing of short-term economic interests above long-term goals. Source: Greeninfranet

http://www.greeninfranet.org/index.php?page=latvia-s-experience-with-sustainable-forest-management

34

Figure 4.1: Drivers, barriers and contributions of sustainable forestry to socio-economic priorities

Promising Area: Sustainable Forestry for Jobs, Growth, and Regional Development

Illustrative indicators: • Diversity of the bioeconomy sector• Added value of the different areas of the

bioeconomy• New businesses and products in the forestry

sector

Current Situation

Investment in R&D

Regional investment

Funding

Lack of financing for SMEs

Demand for innovative products

Lack of comprehensive

policy framework

Lack of skilled workforce

Future potential Benefits

National strategies

Goal: multifunctional forests providing range of socio-

economic benefits

Contribution to priorities:

EAFRD, ERDF, ESF, LIFE+

Rural sustainable development

zones

Adverse public policies

Targeted strategies e.g. Forest strategy,

Bioeconomy strategyProvide a strong

evidence base, including

Ecotourism and recreation in

forested zones

Reduction of UHI in forested per-urban

zones

Contribution of woodland to GHG mitigation, carbon

sink

Wider benefits and synergies:

RD

UD

DSJ

PH

JS

EG

Citizen initiatives and civil society

engagement

Innovative products & services, diversified

forestry sector

Nutrition supplements, recreation

Research & development, new entrepreneurship

New livelihood options, viability, remote locations

Urban forests for local regeneration & wellbeing

Benefits for youth employment

Afforestation

Deforestation

Small but regionally significant contribution of EU’s forestry

sector

35


While drivers that support the role of biodiversity for realising socio-economic benefits through sustainable forestry vary across the Member States, some recurring mechanisms are in place that are of importance for several countries (see Figure 4.1). Sector policies and strategies: Policies and strategies directly related to forestry or agroforestry are of relevance, as well as other sector policies, which influence forestry practices and investment decisions. To support synergies with biodiversity, these policies and strategies need to cater for multiuse and/or multifunctional forests that can deliver a broad range of socio-economic benefits (e.g. beyond biomass extraction).

- The national forest strategy and the bioeconomy strategy in Finland stress the significance of new, bio-based products in enhancing and diversifying the sector’s production and exports, and in creating new jobs.

- In Slovenia, the National Forest Programme has at its core the principle of sustainable management of forests, and sets out the objectives for sustainable forest management. The Slovenian National Action Programme ‘Wood is beautiful’ aims to increase the competitiveness of the forest-wood supply chain by 2020 (MKGP, 2012).

National and EU funding: Funding and investment are of relevance for maintaining or introducing sustainable forestry practices, but also for the diversification of the forestry sector. Funding can also be triggered through other sectors (e.g. tourism or recreation) and is composed of both public and private sector sources. Rural development programmes (RDP) play an important role.

- In Poland, sustainable forest management and utilisation are funded under biodiversity protection objectives through LIFE+ and ERDF (European Commission, 2016). Under new and continuing commitments over €300 million will be available as afforestation grants to cover areas of roughly 82,000 ha.

- Total funding for the Latvian Rural Development Programme is around € 1.5 billion of public money that is available from 2014-2020 (nearly € 1.08 billion from the EU budget and nearly € 500 million from national funding) (EC, 2015c). Funds tentatively allocated for carbon promoting carbon conservation and sequestration are over € 30 million (EC, 2015c). Funding for carbon conservation can, in principle, be used for initiatives that conserve or restore ecosystems’ carbon storage (e.g. peatlands).

- Portugal’s RDP mentions various examples covering, inter alia, the areas of the promotion of agroforestry (Ministério da Agricultura e do Mar, 2014). A particular example addressing agroforestry systems refers to the “Operation 8.1.2 – Establishment of Agroforestry Systems”, which focus on the support in terms of the installation and maintenance costs of these systems (Ministério da Agricultura e do Mar, 2014, p. 261-264).

Innovation and competitiveness: Research, development and education activities play an important role for sustainable forestry.

- In Estonia, the need for research and innovation within the bioeconomy sectors is especially stressed in the new rural development plan (Ministry of Rural Affairs 2014). This focus on innovation can, in principle, be directed to a range of activities

36

that reduce pressures to biomass extraction and/or champion sectors that directly build on biodiversity conservation (e.g. health sector innovations).

- The Portuguese National Strategy for Forests highlights the need to promote research and innovation. It provides examples associated with the areas of biomass renewable energy production, control of forest pests and diseases, adaptation to climate change, promotion of new products, and competence centres in the existing forest productive segments (Conselho de Ministros, 2015).

The country analyses have revealed further drivers, which are of relevance in some Member States. Climate change policies can refer to the role of sustainable forestry for carbon capture and storage as part of wider strategies for climate change mitigation. Equally, the role of forest areas for climate change adaptation are of importance in some Member States, notably for flood control and for urban and peri-urban forests as one means of mitigating urban heat islands and their negative impacts on public health.


Many Member States acknowledge the potential of sustainable forestry to contribute to key socio-economic priorities; however, estimates of the potential often are of a qualitative nature, while a few quantitative estimates or policy objectives are available. Furthermore, as explained above, realising synergies between biodiversity and sustainable forestry requires a careful integration of the former considerations into the forestry sector. To this end, policies and approach would need to focus on maintaining – or creating - multifunctional forests catering for a diverse portfolio of socio-economic activities. Economic growth: Generally, the role of forestry is acknowledged, often with an emphasis on new products and processes. Diversification of forestry activities and higher value added are objectives in countries such as Poland, Estonia or Sweden. In Finland, it is expected that by the year 2030 new products will contribute half of the forestry sector’s export income (VNK 2015c). Today the share is 21.6%. Jobs & skills: The job potential is expected to be significant in a number of countries, especially with regard to diversified forestry-based activities, but also within other sectors for which forest environments provide ecosystem services relevant for example in eco-tourism, for bio-based fuels or agro-forestry. Forests can also provide the setting for educational and research activities. Promotional forest complexes in Poland attract about 30 percent of participants of the educational programmes organised by foresters. They employ qualified and experienced educators. Promotional forest complexes are also important centres for science and interdisciplinary research (State Forests, 2015). Regional development: The sustainable use of forest environments for related products and services opens up entrepreneurial options and can create an enabling environment for economic activities with important regional benefits. These activities are not only related to the direct use of forests for harvesting timber and non-timber products. They can cover a wide range of activities related to tourism, recreation and health.

37

In several Member States, policies and strategies aim for an increased use of forest areas for climate change adaptation and mitigation (carbon storage). Generally, there exist good synergies with biodiversity objectives, for example around the restoration of degraded areas such as forests or peatlands. However, the links between climate change policies and biodiversity policies need to be developed carefully. Some short-term oriented activities such as fast rotating plants for bio-fuels or monocultures for storing capturing carbon could not be in line with long-term biodiversity considerations.


The country analyses have pointed to several barriers for biodiversity to contribute to socio-economic priorities through forestry-related activities. These barriers refer to the better use of existing forest areas for traditional and new uses, to the restoration and further development of degraded and/or abandoned land, or the protection of agro-forestry systems as one element of rural viability (see Figure 4.1). Skilled workforce: A workforce with up-to-date skills is essential for both traditional and new economic activities in forest areas. For some countries, the analyses point to a general lack of qualified workforce, partially due to demographic developments. In other cases, specific skills are lacking for new entrepreneurial activities where forests are embedded in wider value chains for timber and non-timber products, but also services. The specific skills gaps vary across Member States. For example, in Latvia this relates to skills needed to manage abandoned land, while in Finland the skills gap refers more to the technical and managerial skills linked to a bio-economy. Lack of knowledge and awareness: Sustainable forestry requires knowledge among forest managers and the different user groups for which forests provide an environment for economic activities. While the multiple benefits of forest areas are generally acknowledged, there exists some lack of awareness about the role of biodiversity, for example for climate resilience and adaptation for climate change, for agro-forestry practices, or specific knowledge gaps on sustainable afforestation of degraded or abandoned land. The lack of awareness-raising often refers to the benefits over the long-term, which require specific investments, similar to the development of skills. Adverse public policies: In spite of a general recognition of forests as important multi-use ecosystems, there exist adverse policies and practices in some Member States that work as a barrier for realising more of the multiple benefits. Biodiversity considerations can support sustainable forestry practices based on long-term strategies and objectives, while this is less the case for short-term objectives (e.g. fast rotating products). For example, biodiversity-rich and complex forests can play an important role for capturing and storing carbon (as can other activities such as the protection and restoration of peatlands) and for supporting climate resilience. Environmental stressors: Unsustainable forestry practices can be exacerbated by environmental stressors such as air or water pollution, pests or diseases. In combination with not suitable management practices, forest areas cannot provide their full potential of ecosystem services.

38

Generally, to better contribute to socio-economic priorities in EU Member states, the country-specific contributions of forestry would need to be integrated across different sector policies and strategies, including synergistic contributions in areas such as tourism development, recreation and health, as well as climate change adaptation and mitigation.


The EU can play a role in addressing some of the barriers that prevent biodiversity from better contributing to wider socio-economic objectives in Member States. Recommendations for better use of EU funding EU funding already supports a number of forestry-related actions, e.g. related to agro-forestry, but this could be enhanced by further reforms of the CAP to transfer funding from Pillar I to Pillar II. The country analyses point to the need in a number of Member States to increase awareness and develop workforce skills both in traditional and more innovative activities. The further development of the Natura 2000 network and the forest areas within it is an important contribution to addressing the barriers identified above. There are many synergies between the objectives of sustainable forestry activities and the objectives outlined in the Commission’s Circular Economy Action Plan, as already identified by the European Innovation Partnership for agricultural productivity and sustainability (EIP-AGRI)7. Such forestry activities which support the transition to a circular economy (as well as nature conservation objectives) can have access to recently developed circular economy funding mechanisms (i.e. under Horizon2020, EASME and ESIF) as well as financing via the EIB. More than 5% of the H2020 currently goes towards the bio-economy – more than EUR 4 billion. Opportunities for forestry-based activities within the circular economy action plan should be communicated with sectoral stakeholders. Recommendations for the EU Semester Process The forestry sector generally plays a small, though at times regionally significant role for employment, value-added and economic growth in EU Member States. In Finland, more than 3% of employment are in forestry and wood based industries alone (MEE, MAF & ME 2014). For the EU Semester Process it would be important to account for the wider benefits of forestry, beyond the measured contributions of the forestry sector in a narrow sense of the definition. The wider benefits are partially measurable as contributions to other sector activities (e.g. eco-tourism) or in closely related value chains (e.g. of the bioeconomy). In general, the EU Semester Process should encourage Member States to integrate the contributions of forestry in other sectors. Research and development should be encouraged in a way that can help to build additional economic activities around forests, which are in line with biodiversity considerations.

7 https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/sites/agri-eip/files/eip-agri_ws_circular_economy_final_report_2015_en.pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/sites/agri-eip/files/eip-agri_ws_circular_economy_final_report_2015_en.pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/sites/agri-eip/files/eip-agri_ws_circular_economy_final_report_2015_en.pdf

39


The analysis of the specific situation in the Member States points to the need to support diversification of forest-based activities, based on the protection of related ecosystem services. Supporting restoration (especially of agro-forestry systems) and the further development of sustainable forestry practices would be two important elements, which require investment into skills and research and development activities. Generally, the diversification of practices is advisable, in order to develop forestry systems which are truly multifunctional, providing a variety of services for the economy and society, rather than focusing solely on the production of timber. The “Herdade do Freixo do Meio” farm in Portugal provides a good example of this, implementing a diverse a Montado agroforestry system, including forest production (cork, wood, mushrooms, wild and dried fruits), in addition to cropland, renewable energy production, and the support of scientific research 8.

Member States could support entrepreneurial activities around the bio-economy, as well as promoting the delivery of a wide range of ecosystem services, recognising the benefits that forests offer for recreation and tourism, the mitigation of flooding, the purification of air and water, and the enhancement of physical and mental health. Several Member States have demonstrated their ambitions and commitments towards diversifying their forestry sectors within national bio-economy and/or dedicated forestry strategies. Future challenges for Europe’s forestry sectors will be to improve the knowledge base of rural entrepreneurs, and provide them with a sufficiently skilled workforce and suitable financing. While the national governments have an important role (e.g. by enforcing existing regulation and the management of forests in Natura 2000 area), local and regional governments, the private sector (also in its role as forest owner) and wider civil society also have an important role to play in helping to realise these benefits. Sustainable forestry certification schemes continue to play an important role in marketing good practice in the sector. Some Member States provide financial support for the certification of private forests.

8 http://www.repository.utl.pt/handle/10400.5/7381 (accessed 17th February 2017).

http://www.repository.utl.pt/handle/10400.5/7381

40

5 Promising area: Sustainable fisheries and coastal management for growth, jobs and regional development


The country-specific analyses have shown that sustainable fisheries and coastal management is a promising area that can contribute to socio-economic priorities and make better use of synergies with biodiversity objectives for three EU Member States: Croatia, Italy and Spain. Coastal management has also been identified as an important area of analysis in Cyprus, Greece, Malta and Portugal, within the tourism sector. In general, a number of socio-economic priorities can be supported through a shift towards more sustainable fisheries, but the country cases indicate that the most common relevant socio-economic objectives are found in economic growth, employment and regional development. National statistics have been reported with the aim of quantifying such benefits in terms of economic growth and jobs created, together with qualitative assessments of the sector development. The Committee of the Regions (CoR, 2014) recognized the necessity to preserve marine ecosystems, as well as their potential for both growth and employment. One of the strategic priorities of the fisheries sector is achieving long-term sustainable production. The growing concern for overfishing and for the livelihoods of fishing communities calls for the development of more sustainable fishing practices with the aim of addressing issues of low productivity and ensure the continuation of fishing activities (Ibid., p. 311). Although fishing trends differ among countries, such concerns are common in the three country cases that have identified sustainable fisheries as a promising area. The integration of a sustainable approach to fishing is found to contribute largely to the countries’ economies, and therefore warrants priority, together with the management of marine and coastal ecosystems. Growth: The achievement of long-term sustainable production processes in the fisheries sector and the derived promotion of diverse high quality products with low environmental impacts significantly boost the sectors’ competitiveness (ibid.). Even though for some countries (Croatia and Spain) the production of fishing products is growing, there is still a need for creation of additional value for the fish market (De Leo et.al 2014). Higher demand for fish products creates a good opportunity for development of the sector, increasing its share to national GDP (Ministry of Agriculture 2014).

- The cluster of “maritime activities” in Italy represents approximately 3% (EUR 39.5 billion) of the GDP and 2% of the labour force (EC, 2014).

Jobs and skills: Despite its small contribution to GDP, the sector provides occupation and year-round income for small communities, therefore representing a relevant sector for the improvement of the socio-economic situation of countries (Ministry of Agriculture, 2014). Sustainable fisheries safeguard existing jobs and contribute to employment generation by increasing yields over time. Moreover, job opportunities are created in the management of

41

the marine environment (EC, 2014, p. 2; Dipartimento per lo Sviluppo e la Coesione Economica, 2014a, p. 92).

- Artisanal fisheries employed 11,367 work units in Spain in 2015, which represents 33% of total direct and indirect, land-based and marine employment. Aquaculture employed 18,076 people in 2015.

Regional development: Fisheries are of particular importance for coastal areas and islands, especially in Croatia (EEA, 2015). Here, small communities highly depend on the sector. Therefore, achieving long-term sustainable production in the sector reduces the depopulation trend in these regions (Flanders investment and trade market survey, 2016). Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification in Italy MSC certification was only recently introduced in Italy: the first MSC audit process was launched on an Italian company only in 2015. Since then, certification has been extended to 25 companies and about 400 different products (MSC, 2016b). According to MSC, both Italian producers and consumers are showing an increasing interest towards sustainable fishing products. Interviews with Italian consumers found that 77% of respondents valued the need to consume certified products in order to support biodiversity protection. Furthermore, 33% declared that they had purchased more sustainable seafood as compared to the previous year. This suggests that the sustainable fishing sector may expand rapidly (MSC, 2016a).

In addition to the aforementioned socio-economic priorities, sustainable fisheries offer opportunities for wider benefits and synergies to other sectors. Tourism: There is a growing integration of the fisheries sector with other activities, such as fishing tourism and recreational fishing (Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali, 2015b, p 18). These result to contribute to increasing demand for tourism activities. Moreover, better management of coastal and marine habitats can attract tourists. This is particularly the case in countries where coastal tourism is a relevant area.

- Greece ranked third in the world in the “Blue Flag” programme for holding 430 beaches and 9 marinas that were recognised for their excellent seawater quality, litter management, organisation of the swimming area, and safety procedures for bathers and protection of the environment (Visitgreece, 2016).

- Unpublished statistics reveal that 14,120 SCUBA diving certifications were issued in

Greece in 2007 (data from the Greek Ministry of Mercantile Marine).

- Cyprus ‘coastal zone’, the area that extends 2km inland from the coastline covering 23% of the country’s total area, hosted about 50% of the total population and 90% of the tourism industry in 2008 (Coccossis et al., 2008).

Health: Fish products supplied by sustainable fisheries and organic aquaculture tend to be of high nutritional value and contribute to a more balanced diet. Moreover, organic aquaculture avoids the use of harmful chemicals. The promotion of such fisheries products has positive effects on public health.

42


43


Several drivers were mentioned in the country-specific analyses as supporting the development of sustainable fisheries and coastal management. Although they differ from country to country, a few were identified as main drivers in more cases (see Figure 5.1). Marine Protected Areas (MPAs): Marine protected areas can play a relevant role in promoting the development of sustainable fishing practices. For instance, MPAs may allow access for sustainable artisanal fishing only, promoting the preservation of fish stock and generating long-term benefits for society and biodiversity (WWF, Sunce and MAVA, 2012).

- Croatia is increasingly implementing “No take zones” within MPAs (WWF, Sunce and MAVA, 2012).

- Cyprus’ Protected Areas (PAs) under implementation of the Habitats Directive now cover 130.18 km2 of marine areas (CBD, 2014).

Marine protected areas and artisanal fishing in Spain In Spain, there are several successful examples of the interaction between marine conservation through marine protected areas (MPA) and artisanal fisheries. Regulating the access to fish in specific areas through management plans have allowed fish stocks to recover and revitalise local artisanal fisheries (López-Ornat et al., 2014): Columbretes MPA: Artisanal fishing is allowed at the borders of the protected areas, where abundance of fish and other species is higher than in the surrounding non-protected fishing areas. Cabo de Gata MPA: The abundance of key commercial species has ceased decreasing since the creation of this marine protected area. Cabo de Palos: In this area, 6,000 kg of fish were captured before the protected area was put in place. In 2012, artisanal fisheries captured 40,000 kg in 2012.

EU funding: The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the Cohesion Fund (CF), the European Social Fund (ESF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) can provide funding for implementation of measures in the fishery sector.

- European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) offers 252.6m EUR investment package for fisheries.

Fisheries cooperation/ self-organizations: Fishermen are often organised in cooperatives for sustainable fishing, which aim for a common and organised access to market. For example, in Spain, these organizations called “cofradías” can facilitate decision-making and engagement with public administration and scientists.

- In 2014, there were 18 fishing cooperatives in Croatia approved by Directorate of Fisheries of Croatian Ministry of Agriculture (De Leo et.al 2014).

Common Fisheries Policy Reform: The recent reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, put in place in 2014, promotes the achievement of a sustainable fisheries sector. Several social and environmental criteria have been introduced in order to regulate the access to fish resources. Catches are limited to achieve maximum sustainable yield, and a ban on discards

44

has been introduced, requiring fishermen to land and market all of the fish caught. These measures work as drivers for the development of less harmful fishing practices, such as artisanal fishing.


Past and current trends in three country cases that present sustainable fisheries as a promising area demonstrate that the sector presents the potential to generate benefits for the EU, as well as for specific Member States. Quantitative and qualitative information is available for the three countries, covering national statistics and country analyses on growth and jobs creation from sustainable fishing practices. The scale of the potential differs among countries, although a common trend can be found in terms of economic growth, employment and regional development. Growth: Evidence suggests that the sustainable fishing sector is expected to expand rapidly due to the increased interest of both producers and consumers towards sustainable fishing products. This is particularly the case in Italy, where statistics show a significant increase in sustainable seafood purchased.

- A significant growth in aquaculture is foreseen for the EU, from 266,684 tons in 2012 to 527,766 tons until 2030 (Fundación Observatorio Español de Acuicultura, 2013).

- In Spain, organic aquaculture is projected to grow from 0.85 tons in 2012 to 9.4 tons

in 2030 (Fundación Observatorio Español de Acuicultura, 2013). A specific action features within the Multiannual Strategic Plan of Spanish Aquaculture, which aims at shifting from conventional to ecological aquaculture (Fundación Observatorio Español de Acuicultura, 2013, pp265).

- The inappropriate management of fisheries was calculated to have a cost, measured

as the net revenues from the maximum sustainable yield minus actual revenues, of 102.5 million in 2012 only in the Atlantic areas (New Economics Foundation, 2012).

Jobs and skills: The employment potential of sustainable artisanal fishing derives from the labour intensity of the techniques used (New Economy Foundation, 2012).

- Aquaculture is expected to generate 23,000 new jobs in the EU by 2030 (Fundación Observatorio Español de Acuicultura, 2013).

- Croatia presents significant potential in the sector as 7.5% of the budget under the

Operational Programme for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (2014-2020) is expected to be allocated for the promotion of the maintenance of the economic and social sustainability of Croatian fisheries, aquaculture areas and job creation (Ministry of Agriculture, 2014).

- The inappropriate management of fisheries was calculated to have a cost, measured

as the net jobs derived from the maximum sustainable yield minus actual jobs, of 3,500 jobs in 2012 only in the Atlantic areas (New Economics Foundation, 2012).

45

- Sustainable fishing methods will require new skills, particularly given the challenges

introduced by the Common Fisheries Policy reforms. There will be new job opportunities in the management of MPAs, and in diversification of the sector, such as in marine tourism (EC, 2014, p. 2; Dipartimento per lo Sviluppo e la Coesione Economica, 2014a, p. 92).

Regional development: Investments in the sector are particularly relevant for the promotion of regional development. These include improved fishing infrastructure, accommodation for fishing tourism and biodiversity conservation. Such investments opportunities can revitalize small coastal and inland areas.

- Investing in Greece’s natural coastal heritage can generate spill over benefits for regions facing decline by revitalising local economies.


Despite the multiple benefits that can be derived from the sustainable fisheries sector and the drivers of its development and potential for growth, there still exists a number of barriers that can challenge the development of the sector in the desired direction. Several barriers have been identified in the country analyses. Inadequate/uncertain enforcement of CFP reforms: Although the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy contains several environmental and social criteria that regulate the access to fish resources, enforcement of such measures needs to be ensured. Inadequate or uncertain enforcement can undermine the effectiveness and compliance with the criteria and lead to overfishing.

- Information and monitoring systems represent an essential tool for securing fish stock and their sustainable use in Croatia.

Overfishing and unsustainable fishing practices: Overfishing represents a crucial challenge for the fishing sector. Imbalances between fish stock and fishing capacity can lead to a decline in the fishing population. The issue is amplified by the use of aggressive forms of extraction and unsustainable fishing practices. This compromises the development and expansion of sustainable artisanal fishing (MAPAMA, 2015d). Lack of awareness of consumers and ineffective labelling: Even though consumer demand for sustainable fish products is growing, awareness is still limited. Lack of knowledge regarding the fishing practices used and the potential benefits of sustainable forms of fishing can compromise consumers’ choices. An ineffective use of product labels contributes to the lack of consumer awareness and misleading information.

- In Spain labelling is still uncommon at retail points and consumers are not entirely familiar with the information labels contain.

46

Degradation of marine ecosystems and coastal habitats: The degradation of marine ecosystems, for example due to the presence of marine litter, compromises the quality and quantity of fish stock. Therefore, in order to meet the necessary catch levels, fishing activities and imbalances between fish stock and fishing capacity increase, leading to unsustainable catches. Shortcoming of fisheries control systems: The implementation of regulations on catch levels as well as bans on discards and limitations on access to fish resources represent powerful tools for the achievement of sustainable fishing. Nevertheless, enforcement is not guaranteed. Lack or poor fisheries control systems contribute to ineffective enforcement.


The country analyses have shown measures that can generate benefits from the link between biodiversity and the Member States’ priority areas. Financing, legislation and monitoring are the most widely suggested tools to achieve these benefits. Recommendations for the EU Semester Process The European Semester process can provide a tool to promote the links between socio-economic priorities and biodiversity conservation in Member States. In order to promote sustainable fisheries, compliance with EU priorities and targets should be ensured by safeguarding enforcement, control and monitoring. Moreover, investments in fishing infrastructure through Operational Programmes could enable positioning member states’ fisheries products on the EU and global market. Removing administrative barriers to the development of marine protected areas would support coastal management as well as provide an opportunity for the development of sustainable fishing practices and preservation of fish stock, creating long-term benefits for society and biodiversity. Recommendations for better use of EU funding There are various opportunities for support under EU funding in the sustainable fisheries sector. Transparent and efficiently allocated public spending should be ensured in order to enable better absorption of EU funding. In addition, ensuring adequate enforcement and monitoring of CFP implementations as well as any regulations applied in the sector would result in better use of EU funding. In general, EU funds should be made available for sustainable fishing practices rather than environmentally harmful methods in order to ensure that sustainable forms of production can compete fairly in the EU market.


The country analyses have identified several options for the national governments to derive socio-economic benefits from the sustainable fisheries sector. Among the recommended measures, effective implementation of CFP reforms, fisheries control systems and marine conservation measures (MPAs) represent the most commonly suggested.

47

National governments should better account for the ecological and socio-economic risks related to overfishing. Similarly, awareness of the impacts of unsustainable forms of fishing should be improved. Educational campaigns and initiatives can play an important role for this purpose. Regulations represent the most effective measures to cease unsustainable exploitation of resources if effective enforcement is ensured. Funds should be adequately absorbed towards strengthening the sector in terms of fishing infrastructure, increasing the capacity of the fishing fleet and widening the market through better promotion of products. National governments should aim at maximising the opportunities for sustainable fisheries to contribute to blue growth, through full and effective implementation of the CFP reforms as well as through the effective management of MPAs and better use of EMFF funding.

48

6 Promising area: Eco-tourism for jobs, growth and regional development


Tourism is an important economic sector in all member states, contributing in particular to economic performance, employment and regional development: Growth: Tourism is widely reported to be an important and growing sector in Europe. Many member states have experienced and forecasted growth in the tourism sector. Often growth in the tourism and leisure industries is faster than overall growth in a country. The contribution of tourism to a member state’s economic performance varies significantly from country to country. Eco-tourism is estimated to be growing six times faster than tourism in general (UNWTO, 2007). Within the tourism sector, eco-tourism still contributes a small but growing share of revenues.

- In Austria, the tourism and leisure industry contributed €45.7 billion in value to the economy in 2015, about 13.5% of Austria’s GDP (WKO Bundessparte Tourismus und Freizeitwirtschaft 2016, pp.7–8).

- In Finland, tourism counted for 2.3% of Finland’s GDP (Ministry of Employment and the Economy 2010), whilst Tourism-related sectors represent 31% of the Maltese economy and 11% of jobs (Ministry for Rural Affairs and the Environment, 2012).

- In Bulgaria, sustainable tourism makes up 4.6% of the total touristic product (MoE, 2014, p. 69).

Jobs: Tourism is labour intensive, generating employment in a broad range of activities, in different levels of education and qualification and primarily for young people (Organisation of Athens, 2011). Additionally the tourism sector supports a range of enterprise sizes, including SMEs. Including indirect jobs, the employment impact of the tourism sector can be significant. However, very little data is available on the specific contribution of eco-tourism to employment.

- In Bulgaria, it is estimated that in 2015 tourism supported directly the creation of 92,500 jobs. Whereas, the indirect effect of tourism on the job market was the creation of 338,500 jobs in 2015 with an estimated increase to 389,000 jobs in 2016 (WTTC 2016, p. 1).

- In Finland, tourism offers jobs for 130,500 employees, i.e. 5.2% of the employed workforce (VNK 2015a; VNK 2015c; Ministry of Employment and the Economy 2010, p6).

- In Greece, the contribution of tourism to employment is much higher, and the total number of people directly and indirectly employed in the tourism sector was equivalent to 822,000 people in 2015 (23% of total employment) (WTTC, 2016).

Regional development: regional tourism and the development of tourism products that are associated to a particular region or geography can help to support the economic growth of a given region within a member state. Greening the tourism sector can contribute to regional

49

development and poverty reduction, by involving local communities (UNEP, 2011). In many member states, particular regions demonstrate strong tourism sectors; this is often given to particular natural and cultural characteristics of that region. Nature based tourism can provide new economic opportunities in rural areas.

- Mountainous regions in particular are able to exploit opportunities for winter sports. For instance, the southwestern region of Bulgaria is an area with developed winter/ski tourism and winter sports. Five of the mountains that offer activities for winter tourism are situated in this part of the country (MoE 2014, p. 41).

- Many coastal regions exploit opportunities for tourism linked to the marine environment. For example, Greece has long based its tourism development primarily on mass-market models adopted by popular sea-sun-sand destinations. Hence, regions can drive local economic development through the marketing of niche products as well as adding value to local resources and agriculture.

Supporting eco-tourism can indirectly present synergies with other sectors as well as wider socio-economic priorities. Growth in the tourism sector can be used to offset economic decline in other sectors, such as agriculture or industry where these affect specific regions of communities. Eco-tourism might be used to complement or revitalise existing economic activities, for instance where artisan products are linked to particular regions and marketed in the context of tourism they can support the development of that region. The development of nature tourism can contribute to rural development in a region or protected area by supporting rural economies and employment opportunities.

- In Malta, agro-tourism offers increased income for cooperating farmers through artisanal production and farm shops (Malta’s Rural Development Programme 2014 – 2020).

Some member states are also exploiting the links between the health and tourism sectors, notably nature-based health and well-being services offer possibilities to further expand the tourism services.

- Hungary’s current tourism strategy puts an emphasis on the potentials in health tourism – primarily linked to thermal waters – it also recognises the importance of eco-tourism and its links to health tourism (Nemzetgazdasági Minisztérium 2014). In Sweden, particular attention is given to LOHAS (Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability) consumers, referring to a relatively upscale consumer segment interested in healthy and environmentally friendly consumerism.

As well as supporting other sectors, activities linked to eco-tourism can also contribute to wider socio-economic priorities, which might not be primary objectives for that activity. For instance, as well as the health sector, nature contributes to public health and the outdoor activities promoted in eco-tourism offer solutions to health problems, such as physical inactivity and obesity (Metsahallitus, 2016). In addition, a greening of the tourism sector can contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation, such as reducing emissions from tourism, and preserving natural barriers to extreme events (UNEP, 2009). Education can also be supported or linked to tourism infrastructure and facilities. This can often be seen in protected areas in Member States. Educational aspect of ecotourism can

50

help promote sustainable development values, raising public awareness of activities detrimental for the environment and cultivating environmentally friendly choices.

- Educational facilities in Polish forests comprise a network of 58 forest education centres, 991 educational trails and 1,914 educational sites (State Forests, 2015).

Linking tourism and health in Hungary One of the main aims of Hungary’s current tourism strategy is to further build on the country’s potential to become a top health tourism destination in Europe. This objective is also present in Hungary’s Health Sector Strategy for 2014-2020 (Emberi Erőforrások Minisztériuma 2014a). Nevertheless, the links between health tourism and eco-tourism have been also noted. Health tourism can promote eco-tourism, for instance in cases where thermal waters are situated in nature areas. Furthermore, eco-tourism can promote more active holidays, which in turn can have positive impacts on human health.

Activities that actively seek to preserve biodiversity can provide dividends for the tourism sector.

- An example of where biodiversity and eco-tourism have shown synergies in the Mediterranean can be found in Greece, an MPA the National Marine Park of Zakynthos (NMPZ), has supported diving activities. Three dive sites within the NMPZ are annually visited by more than 6,500 SCUBA divers through four diving centres (Gerovassileiou et al. 2009).

The evidence on the contribution that tourism to Europe’s socio-economic priorities is significant, however rarely are these contributions disaggregated between eco-tourism and other activities. Indeed, there is very little evidence that provides data on member state or Europe wide activities that are explicitly classified as eco-tourism. Whilst a number of national level documents promote eco-tourism as a growth sector, evidence tends to focus on activities within the sector (e.g. forms of recreation). Most of the country fiches refer to wider literature (incorporating a range of tourism types) in order to illustrate the benefits developing eco-tourism.

51


52


Natural assets: are key drivers of eco-tourism as a result of the ecosystem services that natural environments provide. Member States across Europe can capitalise on their unique natural assets to create niche tourism products, which might not be available or feasible elsewhere (see Figure 6.1).

- A Swedish investment agency, who supported Sweden’s Strategy for tourism and travel 2020, argue that “Sweden is a country where natural luxuries like wide-open spaces, fresh air, clean water and beautiful, pristine nature and wilderness exist in abundance — for everyone” (VIA 2016).

Protected areas: various designation schemes or programmes can preserve natural environments and facilitate their contributions to socio-economic priorities. The Natura 2000 network, via the Birds and Habitats Directive, provide the most significant network of protected areas in Europe.

- In Greece, the total coverage of nationally protected areas amounted to 2,500,000 ha in 2011 (19% of land surface). On top of that, Greece hosts 90 areas of special community interest (SCI) within the national protected areas of the Natura 2000 network (YPEKA, 2014).

- In Hungary, more than 70% of nature trails and visitor centres were located in national parks. In 2013, Hungary’s 10 national parks were visited by 1.39 million people (Magyar and Sulyok, 2014).

Eco-tourism in the Northern Area of Piatra Craiului National Park, Romania Before 1997, Zarnesti had no tourism-related infrastructure at all. Therefore, the main challenge that CLCP (Carpathian Large Carnivore Project) faced involved stimulating the development of eco-tourism services, starting from the ground up. Over the years of the project, an increasing amount of infrastructure was developed, including several guesthouses, a tour operator, 10 trained and licensed nature guides, a bike rental business, horse-cart transport services and a handicraft shop for the merchandising of local crafts. In 2001-2002, the local portion of the total revenue generated by the eco-tourism programme was about 46%. This demonstrates that a substantial amount of money — EUR 400,000 (about 140,000 EUR in 2001 and 260,000 EUR in 2002) — remained at the local community level. In 2001-2002, the average income in Zarnesti did not exceed 1,800 EUR per year. Thus, the local money generated through eco-tourism represented the equivalent of more than 100 full time jobs over two years. 9

Regional promotion and accessibility: At the local or regional level, efforts can be made to market particular eco-tourism products.

- In Croatia, different regional marketing campaigns were launched to raise awareness of local attractions including protected areas, leisure opportunities as well as accommodation base. At the same time, the awareness of consumers of the impacts of consumption can also promote ecological stewardship, and thus increase the

9 http://www.ceeweb.org/piatra-craiului-national-park/

53

demand for sustainable tourism products (The Government of Republic of Croatia 2013, p. 9).

Linking natural and cultural heritage: successful eco-tourism activities often link aspects of local or regional cultural and natural heritage in order to develop attractive products for visitors. This can be seen in rural areas where cultural heritage, such as historical buildings, are located in pristine or managed rural locations.

- In Romania, heritage sites such as painted monasteries, wooden churches, Saxon fortified churches and Dacian fortresses can be found within sites of natural heritage such as Bucovina, Maramures, Danube Delta and Transylvania. Hence, rural accommodation stock, activity operators and specialist agro-tourism and eco-tourism suppliers are consequently well positioned to benefit from the identified increasing interest in rural tourism (Romania National Tourism Master Plan 2007 – 2026, p. 33).

EU funds: European funds are available to support sustainable tourism through a range of funds including the European Social Fund, European Regional Development Fund, as well as LIFE, EAFRD and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF).

- In Hungary, during the 2007-2013 EU programming period with the help of EU Cohesion Policy funds 37 eco-tourism projects were supported with HUF 11 billion (approximately EU 35 million) (Nemzetgazdasági Minisztérium 2014).

As well as investments in infrastructure, EU funds can also be used to support capacity building and training.

- Malta’s Operational Programme II for Cohesion Policy 2014 – 2020 states that the European Social Fund can be used to provide training that contributes towards the development of the green economy and environmental protection (Parliamentary Secretariat for the EU Presidency 2017 and EU funds, 2014c, p. 135).

Other funding sources: as well as EU funds, investments might also be leveraged from other sources to support the development of sustainable tourism activities. National investments are often linked to or can complement EU funding.

- In Romania, The National Programme for Rural Development, in its third Pillar – “Quality of life in rural areas and diversifying the rural economy”, supports investments in agro-tourism. In Poland, institutions such as the Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture offer loans that can be used to set up tourist business around agricultural holdings.

UNESCO World Heritage Sites provide significant pull for tourism, and designate sites are able to draw upon UNESCO funding.

- In Poland, UNESCO funding was invested in the World Heritage Site Bialowieza National Park to boost its tourist activity (Pabian and Jaroszewicz, 2009).

National strategies: many member states integrate tourism within their overarching socio-economic priorities and strategies for economic development. Some member states have developed tourism strategies oriented toward a more sustainable and nature-based approach.

54

- The Greek authorities perceive tourism as one of the key priority areas of the 2016 growth strategy (EC, 2016a). While no specific strategy has been set up to stimulate eco-tourism, it receives growing attention. The role of tourism in supporting the organisation, operation and management of a National System of Protected Areas is recognised in the Greek Biodiversity Strategy (YPEKA, 2014).

- According to the National Strategy of Eco-tourism Development of Romania (Strategia Naţională de Dezvoltare a Ecoturismului în România), Romania will focus on three main aspects: (i) increasing the quality of tourism, providing a valuable experience for visitors, as well as improving the quality of citizens’ life, (ii) reducing poverty and protecting the environment, (iii) promoting sustainability – sustainable tourism ensures the sustainability of natural resources, and balances between the needs of the tourist industry and environmental concerns.

- In Portugal nature tourism is one of the priority products mentioned in the National Strategic Plan for Tourism, together with other strategic products with strong links with biodiversity (e.g., food and wine, sun and sea) (Ministério da Economia e do Emprego, 2013, p. 15-21).

- Slovenia’s Tourism Development Strategy states that all tourism objectives are underlined by a basic orientation towards sustainable development, including concern for the natural environment and quality of the environmental management. The Strategy includes a very active marketing campaign to promote Slovenia as a ‘green destination’.

Labelling schemes: labelling can help support sustainable purchasing by increasing awareness and consumer confidence in the qualities of a specific product. More generally, the creation and establishment of eco-labels and eco-certifications in tourism will enhance the growth and employment in this sector since the environmental contribution of touristic sites is better acknowledged (AFPA-Aten, 2014e, p.3).

- In 2016, Greece ranked third in the world in the “Blue Flag” programme for holding 430 beaches and 9 marinas that were recognised for their excellent seawater quality, litter management, organisation of the swimming area, and safety procedures for bathers and protection of the environment (Visitgreece, 2016).

- Luxembourg currently hosts 84 tourist establishments for cycle-tourism. Four of these establishments received the “bed+bike” label in 2016. Today, the country offers 600 km of cycle routes (Grand-Duché Luxembourg, 2016c). The cycle paths are generally found in remote locations, away from traffic (Grand-Duché Luxembourg, 2016b). Moreover, 42 tourist establishments in Luxembourg have been certified with an Eco Label for their environmentally friendly management, accounting for 8% of the total tourist establishments in the country (Oekozenter Pafendall, 2016).


Economic growth: tourism is considered a growth sector in most member states. Having said this, the status of member states in terms of developing themselves as a location for tourism is heterogeneous. Cyprus has been a very popular location for tourism since the 1980s, in contrast Croatia is only recently but now rapidly establishing itself as one of Europe’s most popular destinations. In other member states, tourism only plays a less

55

significant but important role in the national economies. Hence, member states have different perspectives on the potential for economic performance in the tourism sector.

- In Croatia, where tourism already has a share of 12.2% of GDP in 2014, it is expected that tourism will attract investments of approximately 7 billion Euros until 2020 (OECD 2016, p. 326). Due to this investment, the tourist spending in 2020 is expected to reach 14.3 billion Euros (The Government of Republic of Croatia 2013, p. 63).

Tourism Policy Guidelines recognise that sustainable tourism policy is key for ensuring long-term competitiveness of the German tourism industry, as consumer interest in sustainability is expected to continue to rise, and explicitly acknowledges that biodiversity protection and protected areas are a major competitive advantage (BMWI 2009). Jobs: according to UNEP & UNWTO (2012), one job in the core tourism industry creates about one and a half additional or indirect jobs in the tourism related economy. Sustainable tourism is expected to reinforce the employment potential of the sector with increased local hiring and sourcing and significant opportunities in tourism oriented toward local culture and the natural environment (UNEP & UNWTO, 2012). Eco-tourism offers opportunities for job creation, especially in remote areas where it is a bigger challenge to provide for jobs (Ministère de l’Écologie, de l’Énergie, du Développement durable et de l’Aménagement du territoire, 2009, p.3).

- In Greece, the tourism employment multiplier was equal to 1.87 in 2009 according to SETE (2012).

- In Sweden, exploiting the opportunities related to local culture and natural environment, nature-based tourism is expected to increase further the employment potential. Extrapolating the employment data from 2013 with yearly growth rate of 6.1%, in 2020 the number of employees within tourism industry is expected to be 261, 851 (full time equivalent) meaning an increase of over 50% compared to that in 2013.

Regional development: eco-tourism contributes to regional development by allowing the local population to develop activities in their area and stay in their local community (Ministère de l’Écologie, de l’Énergie, du Développement durable et de l’Aménagement du territoire, 2009, p.3). Sustainable tourism provides economic alternatives to local people in order to reduce the exploitation of wildlife resources and support biodiversity conservation efforts on an individual basis (UNEP, 2009). Marine protected areas (MPAs), which are established in areas characterized as biodiversity ‘hot-spots’, constitute popular diving destinations.

- Тhe Croatian Tourism Development Strategy 2013-2020 sets as a priority the improvement of the quality and diversification of tourist services in order to attract more local and international tourists. The Ministry of Tourism and the Croatian National Tourist Board (CNTB) are supporting the diversification of the tourist services and products for the development of cultural, sport, gastronomic and cycling tourism products (OECD 2016, p. 327).

56


Environmental degradation: Negative externalities associated with mass tourism can deduct from the qualities of a particular environment, which make them suitable for eco-tourism. Locations that are already highly developed from the perspective of tourism face challenges in developing a brand as a location for eco-tourism, particularly in contrast to pristine or less developed environments (see Figure 6.1).

- This can be said for some locations for example in Spain. The country as a whole was the third world tourist destination in 2014 (World Bank, 2016) and occupied the first position of the travel & tourism competiveness index of the World Economic Forum in 2015ii. The Sectoral Plan of Nature Tourism and Biodiversity 2014-2040 considers that the rich biodiversity of Spain should be integrated in the national nature tourism policy, referring to its importance in terms of economic growth, employment and regional development.iii

Land use change and access: Popular locations for tourism are often threatened by land use change, which affects the quality of the natural environment.

- In Croatia, coastal areas are suffering from overbuilding, which pose threat to ecosystems and may lead to degradation and serious environmental impacts (Institute for Tourism 2016, p. 7). Despite the efforts of the government and the non-governmental sector to diversify the touristic services, the share of coastal tourism takes about 85% of the overall touristic services (The Government of Republic of Croatia 2013, p. 8).

In contrast, locations for eco-tourism are often hindered by a lack of access or do not have access to marketing channels in order to publicise their activities.

- The Slovenian Tourist Agency has identified a number of barriers to the further development of green tourism, including limited overnight ‘green’ capacities, limited integration of the supply chains for green tourist products, and limited public transport options for tourists.

National disparities: Although many member states have locations that are popular with tourists, they also have regions that attract less attention; this can drive socio-economic disparities on the national level.

- This has been experienced for example in Portugal where, despite the increase in rural areas’ accommodation establishments in terms of its number and overnight stays in the past decades, the metropolitan areas of Lisbon and Oporto, and the regions of Madeira and Algarve still prevail as the main touristic destinations. In 2013, approximately 82% of total nights were spent in these areas.21


The EU should prioritise support for sustainable forms of tourism. Unsustainable tourism, particularly where significant impacts on conservation and biodiversity objectives occur, should not be supported. Safeguarding the enforcement, control and monitoring of compliance with EU priorities and targets in relation to tourism practices is a necessary step to ensure sustainable management of resources.

57

Recommendations for the EU Semester Process The EU should better consider how sustainable forms of tourism can be integrated into the European Semester process, considering its potential contribution to national socio-economic priorities. In order to track and evaluate such contribution, the EU should provide requirements and guidelines for Member States as well as promote exchange of knowledge and experiences in this area. Recommendations for better use of EU funding EU funds should be made available for eco-tourism particularly where these contribute to economic growth, employment, regional development, as well as synergies with wider sectors. In addition to accommodation facilities, EU funds should be directed towards infrastructure, local transportation, eco-routes and paths, regeneration and revitalization of regions. Effective application of biodiversity proofing of EU funding programmes would help to ensure that EU funds are not allocated to tourism projects that damage biodiversity, and instead encourage sustainable and environmentally beneficial forms of tourism.


Member states should better account for the negative impacts associated with tourism on the environment (e.g. by defining indicators for monitoring the impact of tourism on natural resources and infrastructure). Better regulation for building in natural areas (e.g. coastal zones) should be applied. Similarly, national governments should recognise the benefits which can be found in supporting sustainable forms of tourism, particularly for growth, employment and regional development (e.g. by developing statistical indicators that enable systematic tracking of jobs and added value associated with eco-tourism). Efforts should be made to diversify products marketed to both domestic and international tourists. This includes marketing regional and local products that might face competition from high volume or turnover mass tourism. National eco-tourism strategies, marketing schemes and investments in eco-tourism should focus on those areas with potential for sustainable growth. National initiatives should support capacity building and training, such as on ecosystem-based approaches and nature guides, that develops a work force capable of supplying the eco-tourism sector. The interlinkages between biodiversity and tourism should be explored by national governments in order to reduce the negative impacts of tourism on the environment as well as highlight the importance of natural resources to sustainable forms of tourism and vice-versa. The role of tourism in supporting the organisation, operation and management of a National System of Protected Areas should be stressed and eco-tourism should be integrated into national biodiversity objectives making full and sustainable use of protected areas.

58

7 Promising area: Green infrastructure for climate resilience and adaptation to climate change


Green infrastructure can be an important element for increasing climate resilience, for example as part of flood protection measures. It can be designed in a synergistic way that promotes biodiversity, for example through restoration of degraded ecosystems. An important benefit of climate change adaptation measures are the avoided economic costs compared to the cost of inaction (Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente, 2015, p. 8). In addition, compared to traditional engineering approaches, nature-based solutions form cost-effective alternatives for climate change adaptation. The development and maintenance of green infrastructure for climate change adaptation can contribute to economic growth and employment. Furthermore, green infrastructure can reduce negative health impacts from climate change. Economic growth and avoided economic losses: Climate change can affect the economy negatively through damages to infrastructure and additional costs in a number of sectors. Ecosystem-based approaches are a means to adapt to climate change and can provide cost-effective and more durable solutions than grey infrastructure (EC, 2013b). Next to avoiding losses, green infrastructure for climate change adaptation contributes to economic growth through the development of existing and new markets such as ecological engineering (AFPA-Aten, 2014c, p.1-2).

- In the Czech Republic, damage caused by floods between 1990 and 2010 was calculated at 170 billion CZK, which is approximately 8.5 billion CZK (~314.5 million Euro) annually for flood damage compensation only (Ministry of Environment, 2013, p. 140).

- The management and restoration of ecosystems contributes to economic growth. In 2012, there were between 150 and 200 small and medium-sized enterprises of ecological engineering in France. This market of ecological engineering activities amounted to around 2 billion euros in 2012 (AFPA-Aten, 2014c, p.1-2).

- Economic losses are also due to physical and mental health impacts of climatic extremes. For example, during the heat wave of 2003, the economic costs due to the, on average, loss of one year of life, was estimated to be 500 million euro (ONERC, 2009, p.8-10).

- Portugal presented a total cost of 6,783 million euros equivalent to 665 Euros per capita, and 0.14% of GDP between 1980 and 2013 due to climate-related hazards (EEA, 2017, p. 123).

- Projections until 2050 in Slovakia predict a slowdown in economic growth of 0.4 to 0.7% of GDP, if adaptation measures will be not taken. If preventive measures will be implemented, the impact could be reduced to 0.1 - 0.15% of annual GDP (SHMU, 2011).

59

- According to the EEA (2017), economic losses related to climate change in the period 1980-2013 in Spain cumulated to 32.8 million euros, which represent EUR 800 per capita until 2013, and 0.12% of GDP (Ciscar et al., 2010).

Jobs and skills: The growth of new markets for climate change adaptation has a potential to maintain and create new and local jobs. For example, jobs in research, technology, the infrastructure and construction sector, landscape architects, ecological engineers, the insurance sector, etc.

- A job directly related to green infrastructure in general and in protected areas is ecological engineering. In 2014, about 28,000 professionals had a job to enhance ecosystem functioning in France. Around 11,000 worked directly for the management and restoration of natural environments and 2,200 people were ecological engineers (AFPA-Aten, 2014c, p.1).

- Policies intended to create green jobs are creating new opportunities in the sustainability and adaptation sector. The programme “Emplea Verde” of Spain has channelled 42 million Euros of investment from EU funding, creating 500 jobs and training 60,000 people until 2015.

Network of Natura 2000 sites in Languedoc-Roussillon A green infrastructure project in France supported by the LIFE+ program was the lagoon and dune Natura 2000 sites network in Languedoc-Roussillon, which lasted between 2009 and 2013. The coastline of Languedoc-Roussillon contains some 40,000 hectares of wetland. It hosts several Natura 2000 sites with lagoons and dunes. The LIFE+ project consisted of the creation of a network of 5 Natura 2000 sites with lagoons and dunes to improve the management of the sites. The activities consisted of restoration works, management of human activities and invasive species control. The restoration and improved management of the lagoon and dunes increases their adaptation to climate change. In addition, more employment was created through the works and activities in a region that has economic difficulties. Services of local economic operators during the project were estimated at 908,000 euros. In addition, 27 full-time equivalent contracts were signed over 5 years (EC, 2009).

Public health: Green infrastructure with biodiversity for climate change adaptation helps cooling urban and peri-urban areas and mitigates climate-induced dangers to public health (Bowler et al., 2010), such as poor air quality, high temperatures (e.g. urban heat islands) and noise pollution. In addition, green areas offer opportunities for exercise and recreation, which help address physical and mental health problems. Regional development: Green infrastructure works for climate change adaptation carried out in rural areas promote local development through the creation of employment in infrastructure and construction as well as through creating opportunities for tourism, recreation and local retailers. In addition, green infrastructure provides appealing places to live and work (EC, 2013b). Urban development: Green infrastructure for climate change adaptation in cities protects cities against increased runoff of water, heat waves, prolonged periods of drought and hence increased dustiness etc. (Ministry of Environment, 2013). In addition, green

60

infrastructure delivers health-related benefits such as clean air and better water quality (EC, 2013b).

61


62

Demographic change and social justice: Climate change impacts will be different according to regions and depending on the economic and social situation of individuals. The most disadvantaged people will be probably the most vulnerable (ONERC, 2009, p.13). Addressing these vulnerabilities can increase social justice. In addition, green infrastructure for climate change adaptation offers opportunities for social cohesion trough increased exchanges between individuals from different social communities and fosters their interactions (Bell et al., 2008; Weldon et al., 2007). Several country analyses point to the synergies between green infrastructure for climate change adaptation and tourism opportunities. Green spaces and especially protected areas can attract tourists. Coastal zones that are important for tourism are threatened from flooding events. Other sectors that will benefit from green infrastructure for climate change adaptation are agriculture, forestry and fisheries through the promotion of higher resilience of species and habitats that support the viability of these economic sectors. In addition, the energy and transport sectors can benefit through the creation of new jobs, supporting the growth of new markets or creating savings for the economy.


Drivers often identified in the country analyses are plans and strategies, and funding received from the EU. Other drivers mentioned are protected areas and Natura 2000 sites, research and innovation, legislation and public awareness (see Figure 7.1). National plans and strategies for climate change adaptation: A number of countries have specific national strategies or plans to prepare and adapt to climate change, many referring to the role of green infrastructure and biodiversity.

- The National Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change in the Czech Republic (Ministry of environment, 2015) provides an assessment of the climate change impacts, vulnerabilities, and suggested adaptation measures across different sectors to address the adverse anticipated impacts of climate change.

- The national plan for climate change adaptation of France mentions that the effect of climate change on biodiversity has to be taken into account when managing territories. One of the means to do this is by developing and preserving the green and blue infrastructure and by considering climate change when developing protected areas. Another objective is to integrate climate change adaptation into strategies and plans for biodiversity preservation (Ministère de l’Écologie, du Développement durable, des Transports et du Logement, 2011b, p.31-32).

- The National Climate Adaptation Strategy of the Netherlands ('Nationale klimaatadaptatiestrategie’, Ministry of IenM 2016) stipulates that the effects of climate change need to stay manageable and be reduced. The Deltaprogramma (Ministerie van IenM and Ministerie van EZ 2016) is the most important policy for adapting the country’s water systems to climate change. EU policy driving climate adaptation in the Netherlands includes the flood directive (EU Directive 2007/60/EC) which requires MS to improve flood risk management and the EU adaptation strategy, which promotes climate proofing and encourages MS to produce climate adaptation strategies.

63

Room for the River Programme, Netherlands The room for the river programme was initiated in 2007 in response to growing water levels in the rivers due to more intense precipitation and meltwater. With the aim to provide more room for rivers to accommodate the increasing amounts of water, the programme relocated dikes, restored floodplains and revived old river branches in the river basins of the IJssel, Waal, Rhine and Lek. Next to flood protection, all spatial interventions were designed to serve other purposes such as recreation, green neighbourhoods, and the local economy (Rijkswaterstaat 2017).

National plans and strategies on green infrastructure: National plans exist to enhance green infrastructure that have climate change adaptation among their objectives.

- The program Nature 2050 of the “Caisse des dépôts biodiversité” of France endeavours to adapt territories to climate change and to enhance their biodiversity by 2050 (CDC biodiversité, 2016, p.19). - The Landscape and Biodiversity Conservation Action Plan 2015-2020 in Lithuania introduces the term “Green Infrastructure” and states that it is implemented through the “natural frame” development. The Action Plan acknowledges that green infrastructure solutions could contribute to solving problems caused by climate change (LR Aplinkos Ministerija 2015).

Protected areas: Protected areas are a means for climate change adaptation. They increase the resilience of ecosystems by reducing the impact of climate change and by maintaining ecosystem services (Ministère de l'environnement, de l'énergie et de la mer, 2011, p.23).

In Cyprus, 1.2% of the total land area is designated for the protection of birds while 5% is designated for rare species and habitats, with some overlap between some designated areas. The European Commission has included 61 areas in Cyprus to the Natura 2000 network (ANEL, 2012).

Research and innovation: Research and innovation on climate change adaptation will improve measures that protect against climate change.

- Between 2007 and 2011, the Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic has supported two research and development projects in regards to climate scenarios. A major outcome from a project resulted in the creation of local Early Warning System that provides detection of flash flood occurrence based on a combination of several risk factors (ME, 2015).

Legislation: Laws can encourage green infrastructure measures for climate change adaptation taken by governmental institutions or individuals.

- In Austria, legislative texts were adjusted or developed on new building requirements including for green roofs and on urban land use planning policies.

64

- The Romanian Law no. 1466/2010 obliges municipalities to elaborate a Green Spaces Register. The main objectives of these Green Spaces Registers are to protect and preserve green urban spaces, to maintain the protective function of green spaces against floods, landslides and climate effects, to identify deficient areas and to take action in order to develop them.

European funding: European funds mentioned for climate change adaptation are the five European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds): the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), European Social Fund (ESF), Cohesion fund (CF), European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), and European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). Other funds are the research and innovation funding programme Horizon 2020 and the LIFE+ instrument or the EU Solidarity Fund for natural disasters. The European Structural Funds 2014–2020 – ESF, ERDF and CF envisage measures directly related to climate change within the National thematic objective 5 “Promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management”. 1.3 billion Euros will be allocated from the budget in support of this thematic objective.

- The “PO SEUR” – “Operational Programme for Sustainability and Efficient Use of Resources” (one of the 16 programmes of the Portugal 2020 strategy) includes an operational axis focusing on the “Promotion of climate change adaptation, and risk prevention and management”. This axis has a total budget of 401 million Euros, divided in coastal protection (200 million Euros), climate change adaptation and risk prevention (144 million Euros), air firefighting media (50 million Euros), and natural and human action risk prevention and management (7 million Euros). One investment priority is identified under the following category: “Support investment for the adaptation to climate changes, including approaches based on ecosystems”.


The information on the potential of climate change adaptation for the socio-economic priorities (economic growth, jobs and skills, regional development, public health, urban development, demographic change and social justice) are mostly qualitative rather than of a quantitative nature. Economic growth: The potential of climate change adaptation measures for economic growth is recognized by several countries. The potential of green infrastructure for climate change adaptation include economic savings against potential damages. Green infrastructure and biodiversity protection will safeguard the ecosystem services offered by biodiversity and its economic contribution (ONERC, 2009, p.9). Protecting green areas and its biodiversity is economically sensible, since biodiversity provides every year two times the value of goods and services than what we produce ourselves (Ministère de l'environnement, de l'énergie et de la mer, 2016b). Several other growth opportunities are recognized as well, but not quantified.

- France estimated that the market of ecological engineering would grow to 3 billion euros in 2020 in this country (AFPA-Aten, 2014c, p.2).

65

Jobs and skills: The construction, maintenance and restoration of green infrastructure contribute to the maintenance and development of new local jobs and skills. Planning green infrastructure requires skilled individuals, such as architects, designers and engineers but its implementation also requires ‘green collar’ jobs in construction, maintenance and installation. In addition, education and training needs to be developed.

- The French government wants to increase the amount of jobs concerning the enhancement of ecosystem functioning to 40,000 by 2020 (AFPA-Aten, 2014c, p.1). - According to a green jobs study of 2013 in Romania, performed by the European Employment Observatory, the ecological sectors could represent 25% of total occupancy. The largest number of green or ecological jobs will be created in agricultural and energy production sectors, but even without these sectors, the share of green sectors/activities could reach 4,7% of the total occupancy in Romania, which in 2010 was about 9,239,390 (Anghel et al, 2014, p. 7).

Regional development: There is an opportunity of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation and regional development. These include the reduction of water stress, eco-touristic opportunities and a potential for rural areas. Public health: Most countries consider de potential of green infrastructure for public health on a qualitative and not on a quantitative level, but Romania included some numbers.

- In Romania, green areas in cities can reduce pollution by up to 20% and can decrease temperatures in cities by up to 10°C. Building facades covered with plants, could consume carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. The direct benefit could be the absorption of up to 10-20% of particulate matter pollution resulting from transport, industrial or commercial activities10.

Urban development: Investments in green infrastructure for climate change adaptation are opportunities to increase the attractiveness and liveability of urban spaces. Ecosystems and biodiversity in green infrastructure can play an important role to ensure resilience of the cities against climate change (Mutafoglu et al., 2016 and ten Brink et al., 2016). Furthermore, green spaces in a residential community attract tourism and investment and improve employment and income potential.


Land use change: A barrier that was mentioned in the country cases was the competition for land use, mostly in urban areas. This trend is often accompanied with a short-term perspective and priority on delivering instant economic benefits rather than taking the long-term benefits of green infrastructure into consideration. Consequently, this situation tends to favour grey infrastructure over green infrastructure (see Figure 7.1).

10 http://www.green-report.ro/beneficii-fatade-verzi/

66

- More than three quarters of Germans live in dense or medium-dense populated areas and even in these urban areas, land-use change and sealing continues at 73 ha per day (StBa, 2015).

Political and administrative barriers: Other barriers exist on a political level. Some county analyses mention that local authorities lack power and autonomy for green infrastructure implementation and that bureaucratic obstacles exist. Lack of awareness: There is a lack of awareness in some countries among the public and politicians on the broader context and impacts of climate change. Lack of knowledge: Furthermore, there are knowledge gaps on the functioning and importance of green infrastructure and a lack of reliable sectoral and regional cost-benefit studies on climate change measures. In addition, education programmes and professional trainings are insufficient in some countries. Funding and budget constraints: Funding needs to be improved in some countries, especially in Romania, Portugal and Spain. In Portugal and Spain, public investment in adaptation measures is severely limited, this is mostly due to national budget constraints and the country’s economic and financial vulnerability.


The country cases suggest national and EU policies and legislation as options to realise more of the benefits of green infrastructure for climate change adaptation. In addition, funding and capacity building opportunities are recognized. Recommendations include the need to promote further research on and the deployment of green infrastructure solutions within member states. Furthermore, better implementation of existing EU environmental policy and legislation can strengthen national policy frameworks. In addition, EU environmental policy and legislation can incentivise investments in nature-based solutions against climate change and ensure that climate change adaptation policies in member states are better integrated into planning and decision-making. Furthermore, the EU should promote the exchange of knowledge and training activities concerning climate change adaptation across regions and municipalities, so that best practices are spread and innovation is fostered. Recommendations for better use of EU funding The available EU funds should be used more for green infrastructure projects that support adaptation to climate change. Conditionality related to environmental criteria can contribute to consolidate EU funds as a coherent set of incentives and economic signals towards the accomplishment of climate change adaptation targets and socio-economic priorities. Robust and effective delivery of the EU commitment to spend at least 20% of the budget for 2014-2020 on climate change-related action will provide opportunities for green infrastructure for climate adaptation. Guidance and funding opportunities should be made more available and awareness raising and capacity building to use them should be encouraged. In addition, innovative cross-sectoral funding mechanisms should be promoted to account for the benefits offered by green infrastructure for climate change adaptation.

67

Recommendations for the EU Semester Process Green infrastructure should be better promoted during public budget balancing, as climate change has the potential to cause economic losses. Investments in biodiversity and green infrastructure for climate change adaptation can support national socio-economic priorities. The European Semester process should promote a shift towards greater deployment of green infrastructure and nature-based solutions as viable climate change adaptation options particularly in sectoral policies of member states, within the European semester. Value added should be viewed beyond purely economic terms, with environmental and societal co-benefits also under due consideration, thus allowing for encompassing and managing the full breadth of benefits that innovations such as green infrastructure offer. The EU Semester process should encourage green infrastructure investments as part of a wider approach to climate risk management. In addition, a joint platform could create an opportunity to involve all related parties of a promising area, on a national and EU-wide level to support the coordination of strategies.


Member states should better recognise the contribution of green infrastructure and nature-based solutions towards climate change adaptation and the benefits of these approaches for a number of socio-economic priorities. Especially in Romania and Slovakia, climate change adaptation should be placed higher on the political agenda. Options for applying green infrastructure or nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation in different sectors should be developed and implemented under sectoral policies. In addition, research on the sectoral and regional impacts of climate change and on the role of green infrastructure for climate change adaptation should be enhanced. Also better education and professional training related to green infrastructure activities should be provided. Furthermore, institutional capacity building should be improved to deal with these challenges. In addition, awareness raising among the public of these benefits is needed to increase the knowledge and commitment of citizens. Funding: National and regional funding opportunities should be identified and fostered across sectors, highlighting the multiple co-benefits for socio-economic priorities of green infrastructure for climate change adaptation. Some countries such as the Czech Republic, Romania and Slovakia recognize the need to use the EU funds more effectively and to ensure fair and transparent public tendering procedures. In addition, the administrative burden should be reduced and the administrative capacity improved to enhance the use of European funds by businesses.

68

8 Promising area: Green infrastructure for public health, growth, jobs and regional development


Nature and biodiversity in cities support human health by decreasing the impact of air pollution, noise and augmenting physical activity. Soft mobility, including walking and cycling, can be linked to the health benefits of nature by reducing the drivers of pollution and supporting public participation in recreation, integrating an increasing share of green rather than grey infrastructure in urban environments (Mutafoglu et al., 2016 and ten Brink et al., 2016). In this context, investing in green infrastructure can support economic growth, improve public health, support sustainable transport systems, and urban development. Economic growth: Investing in GI has been shown to contribute to the recovery of Europe’s economy by fostering innovative approaches and creating new green businesses. According to the European Commission, green jobs already represent around 5% of the job market (EC, 2013a). The health sector represents one of the most significant public expenditures for all of the Member States.

- In 2014, the private and public health expenditures in France were high reaching about 257 billion euro, which represents 12% of GDP.

- In the United Kingdom, public health system is a significant contributor to the national deficit. Total healthcare expenditure in the UK reached £150.6 billion in 2013, equivalent to £2,350 per capita, more than two and a half times the level in 1997 (ONS, 2015). Improving access to nature and promoting nature-based activities including exercise can reduce the burden of disease. A UK Department of Health study estimated that a 10% increase in physical activity in adults would bring an overall economic benefit to England worth at least £500 million per year, of which 17 per cent (or £85 million) would be a direct saving to the NHS11.

Public health: Respiratory disease linked to air pollution, obesity and idleness, as well as mental health issues are key drivers of poor health across Europe. Poor physical and mental health has far-reaching socio-economic consequences, and ensuring access to good health remains a priority in all Member States, particularly in the context of changing demographics. Citizens across Europe already benefit from ecosystem services provided by green infrastructure.

- Researchers from the Universities of Bristol and East Anglia found that people living closer to green spaces were more physically active, and were less likely to be overweight or obese, and people who lived furthest from public parks were 27% more likely to be overweight or obese.12 Research also demonstrates that access to green space and the natural environment plays an important role in tackling mental

11 Foster, J., Thompson, K. and Harkin, J. (2009) Let's Get Moving Commissioning Guidance: A physical activity care pathway, London: Department of Health. 12 E. Coombs, A. Jones, & Hillsdon. M., 2010. Objectively measured green space access, green space use, physical activity and overweight.’ Society of Science and Medicine. 70(6):816-22

69

ill health, which is increasing and estimated to affect significantly one in four people in the UK each year13.

Concerning soft mobility, in areas with a high modal share, research has been used to demonstrate a range of benefits, including for public health. Even though there are no detailed numbers on the use of the bicycle and walking.

- 20 % of Flemish inhabitants use their bicycle daily (Vlaamse overheid, 2012, p.29). This has major health benefits, which is also recognized by the Walloon government. The mortality risk of people who cycle is reduced by 28 % for all ages (Gouvernement Wallon, 2014b, p.10).

Transport: Many urban and peri-urban areas in Europe suffer from congestion and pollution linked to motor and fossil fuel based transport. Member states that have a higher model share of soft mobility options, demonstrate the multiple benefits of reducing dependencies on car transport in particular. The use of soft mobility is often closely linked to urban planning which plays a greater attention to un-motorised transport and green infrastructure. Urban congestion primarily linked to motorised transport costs Europe’s economy EUR 100 billion each year, or 1% of the EU’s GDP.

- The modal share of cycling in Europe’s cities varies between 3 and 28% (European Commission, 2015). EU27 average for cycling as a main mode of transport was 7.4%, with the highest share found in the Netherlands, 31.2% (Gallup Organisation, 2011).

Urban development: High rates of urbanisation in Europe present challenges to the development of sustainable urban environments, which can support healthy populations. At the same time, urban spaces are economic powerhouses and home to most of Europe’s populations, so there is a significant interest and political will to support sustainable urban development. At the national level and amongst regional as well as municipal authorities, there are existing activities that promote urban development integrating green infrastructure recognising its multiple benefits.

GREENLINKS – Green infrastructure to promote cycle commuting between Belgium and France Greenlinks was an Interreg IV Project, carried out between April 2011 and March 2015 with the aim to create a network of green cycling routes within Eurométropole (the triangle of Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai). The objective was to, through investment in green soft mobility infrastructure, facilitate the movement of people across the Franco-Belgium border, and increase the use of cycling as a means for commuting. Additionally the Eurométropole aims to increase its popularity as a location for hiking, cycling and equestrian recreational and tourism activities. 60 km of cyclable routs were created which are integrated as part of the Euro 5 trans Europe cycle network (connecting London to Brindisi). The total cost of the project was EUR 4.5 million, with EUR 1.1 million of EU regional funds (Lille Metropole, 2015; Interreg IV, 2014).

Synergies with other sectors and priorities: As well as contributing to the above socio-economic priorities, investments in green infrastructure that target health and sustainable

13 Natural England (2016) A review of nature-based interventions for mental health care

70

mobility can indirectly deliver wider benefits and support a range of wider economic sectors. Social cohesion: Much burden of disease is unevenly distributed amongst social groups within Europe. For example, in many Member States socio-economic status is closely linked with levels of physical activity. Likewise, evidence suggests that access to green space or opportunities for recreation are also dissected along socio-economic lines. Economic growth in wider sectors: Green infrastructure can support the growth in a range of sectors; these include tourism and emerging industries.

- In Germany, it was reported that city tourism and local businesses, gardening, urban planning and the sports industry all profit from green urban areas (BMUB, 2015). In 2014, the green roof coverage in Germany was 86 million m2 and growing at 9% per year with an annual sales figure of €254 million (EFB 2015).

Green corridors for promoting environmental awareness in Bulgaria Much in the spirit of European cycling networks such as EuroVelo14, the Municipality of Burgas under the project “Green corridors - promotion of natural, cultural and historical heritage in the region of Burgas and Kirklareli” has developed a one-stop-shop for cycling routes and areas of interest in the Burgas Province15. While in this case principally developed with tourism in mind, such green infrastructure has the potential for promoting environmentally-conscious behavioural change (Panter and Ogilvie, 2015), and Burgas can also be noted for its cycling infrastructure including its exemplar bike renting scheme16. Outside of indirect (behavioural) impacts, such infrastructure can also have direct benefits for emissions of both air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as for conservation of biodiversity (ten Brink et al, 2016).

Tourism: Green infrastructure and national networks for cycling and hiking linked to green infrastructure are notable drivers of growth in the tourism sector.

- Today, France counts around 10,000 km of cycle paths and green tracks (Ministère des affaires étrangères et du développement international, 2015, p.2-4). Between 2013 and 2014, the use of touristic cycle routes increased by 12 %. Thus, the development of the eco-tourism sector has potential and will contribute to economic growth. On the other hand, the pressure of tourism is reduced since eco-tourism allows developing tourism in other places. Furthermore, more profit per tourist will be made since eco-tourists spend on average more money per day (Ministère des affaires étrangères et du développement international, 2015, p.2-4).

Job: Soft mobility can support jobs in both developing infrastructure and those sectors that directly support soft-mobility.

- The cycling sector for Luxembourg City, which has a low modal share for cycling, currently employs 78 people (WHO, 2016). Groningen, Netherlands has the highest number of cycling-related jobs per 1000 residents, at 2.2.

14 http://www.eurovelo.com/en 15 http://greencorridors.burgas.bg/ 16 http://gotoburgas.com/en/index/static/31

71


72


Urban planning: City strategies and urban planning can support the development of living environments that promote physical and mental wellbeing as well as soft mobility.

- In Germany, currently the daily land-use change rate for urban areas is 73 ha per day, but the Germany government plans to lower that rate drastically to 30 ha per day by 2020 (StBa, 2015, page 9), indicating their intention to reduce the loss of green spaces nation-wide.

Many member states apply specific strategies for socio-economic priorities, which incorporate biodiversity and green infrastructure.

- Luxembourg’s National Action Plan for Soft Mobility (Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, 2008) provides a national level strategy to promote a greater modal share of soft mobility. Tools identified include investment, urban and land-use planning, transport infrastructure, supporting services, legal instruments, promoting safety, data collection and communication and markets. Luxembourg supports the implementation of “integrated road spaces” which are based on soft mobility (for both walking and cycling) and green infrastructure.

Investments in green infrastructure: In contrast to grey infrastructure, which is typically linked to motorised transport, investment in green infrastructure can facilitate citizens to switch to soft-mobility options by increasing sense of security, improving aesthetics and environmental health. This in turn can promote the development of cycling as a sector supporting the economy, as well as lending to a range of public health benefits. In addition, soft-mobility can contribute to employment and support wider sectors of the economy, notably tourism and recreation.

- In France, in the Île-de-France region, the objective is to reach 10 m2 of nearby public green spaces per citizen in urban areas (Cours des comptes, 2016). In addition, a Regional green plan 2016-2021 (Plan vert régional 2016-2021) has been presented to the regional parliament.

Protected areas: Protected areas located in both rural and urban locations improve access to nature, and represent an important facet of Europe’s green infrastructure. The Natura 2000 network can mitigate habitat fragmentation, and maintain the functioning of ecosystems, safeguarding the benefits of ecosystem services (CBD, 2014).

- Forests in Latvia take up totally 52% of the country´s territory and due to afforestation, the amount of forestland is expanding.

Public strategies and research in health and physical activity: Strategies and plans which explicitly state the multiple benefits of green infrastructure help to provide political salience to efforts to support health and transport priorities through investments in nature.

- GI was highlighted under the Greek Biodiversity Strategy under Target 13 (YPEKA, 2014), and the ecological functions associated with the green infrastructure in urban overpopulated areas, creating and maintaining biodiversity islands within the urban fabric were considered as a priority.

As well as public health strategies, there is a growing body of research highlighting the multiple benefits of nature and nature based activities for public health. Further research and innovation on how green urban areas increase climate mitigation, habitat for

73

biodiversity, and coincidently public health drives investment and public acceptance/awareness towards green areas (EC, 2012; ten Brink et al., 2016). European funding: A number of EU funding programmes support investments in green infrastructure for health and transport. The EU contributes to the funding of green infrastructure through two of the Structural Funds (Chapter 4 of the European Regional Development fund and the European Social Fund), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, LIFE+ and the research funding programmes. Urban green spaces are eligible for several of these programmes. Concerning transport, the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) made EUR 24.05 billion available for decarbonising transport in the EU. Other European funds such as EFSI and ESIF also have funds for transport projects. Parts of Horizon 2002 also promote “smart, green, and integrated transport”. Interreg funding can also be invested where transport issues are linked to the existence of borders (see example above). URBACT III is a European Territorial Cooperation programme (2014-2020) jointly financed by the European Union (through the European Regional Development Fund, nearly € 75 million). It acts as European exchange and learning programme promoting sustainable urban development. It will enable European cities to work together to develop solutions to urban challenges and share good practices, lessons and solutions with all stakeholders involved in urban policy throughout Europe. The programme will cover all of the 28 Member States of the European Union as well as the 2 partner countries of Norway and Switzerland (OECD 2016). In addition, a number of EU funding programmes support investments in urban and rural development.


There exist significant opportunities for reducing public healthcare expenditure by introducing nature and biodiversity into cities, as well as improving the protection and management of public spaces. Economic growth: Reducing public expenditure in health care can help to leverage finances for investments which provide value added to Europe’s economy. For example, air pollution is not only a health problem, but also an economic issue. Treatments, hospitalizations, and disability pensions put a burden on already stretched health budgets. In addition, there are economic costs for absence, productivity losses etc.

- The costs for the health system of the treatment of diseases related to air pollution is estimated to be between 1 and 2 billion euros per year in France. The costs for the health system of the treatment of diseases related to air pollution is estimated to be between 1 and 2 billion euros per year in France. This is between 15 % and 30 % of the expenditures of the “diseases” branch of the social security system. Together the total cost for the French health system of air pollution is calculated to be at least 3 billion euros per year (Senat, 2015, p.93, 96-97).

74

- The Natural Capital Committee (2015) estimates that improved urban greenspaces in England could provide recreational benefits and improvements in physical and mental health, which could reduce health treatment costs by £2.1 billion.

Public health: Improvements in public health can help to reduce the negative economic impacts of disease, including to productivity. Data from across Europe highlights the impacts of poor lifestyles and the quality of living environments on public health. Transport: Sustainable, carbon neutral and efficient transport systems can help to reduce congestion, as well as air and noise pollution. In some member states, addressing congestion and the negative externalities of unsustainable transport systems is a national priority.

- In Luxembourg, emissions from the transport sector as well as high costs linked to congestion are highlighted as being priority issues (EC, 2016b, p. 46). Luxembourg has both the highest motorisation rate (672 passenger cars per 1000 inhabitants) and rate of diesel usage for passenger cars (62%) (eurostat, 2015).

Urban development: Greening urban areas can have a multitude of valuable positive effects for Europe’s cities, such as moderating urban climates, improving air quality, reducing noise pollution, supporting physical and mental health and creating space for social interactions and communication (BMUB 2015). Investments in urban ecosystem-based adaptation help with urban regeneration, and thus increase the image and attractiveness of a city. Green urban areas are highly important for the regional and international competitiveness of a city, as a number of city rankings prove that the general population and employees rate greenness as a higher quality of living (BUMB 2015, page 15).


Access and education: Facilitating individuals to have access to green spaces and nature is not only a question of physical access, but also one of education and awareness raising.

- Reportedly, French citizens rarely visit parks and forests. Only 25 % of the French population visit a park once a month and only 23 % of the French population visit a forest once a month (Val'hor, 2013). In contrast, More than 80% of Latvia’s residents regularly visit the forest to participate in sports, hunt for mushrooms or pick berries (Meža Attīstības Fonds 2011).

Land use change: Competing land uses and high demand for property in urbanised areas puts pressure on green spaces. A trend towards developing green space for other uses is not uncommon in European cities. The conversion of green spaces to other uses can reduce public access to spaces for recreation, as well as associated health benefits.

- More three quarters of Germans live in dense or medium-dense populated areas (StBa, 2014) and even in these urban areas, land-use change and sealing continues at 73 ha per day (StBa, 2015).

Demographic change: Several European countries have ageing populations. Changing demographics can place pressure on public services as the dependencies are increased.

75

These impacts are notable in the health care sector, where the demand on specific age related resources are anticipated to increase in the near future.

- Currently, 5% of Germans are 80 years and older, which is predicted to more than double by 2050 (Destatis, 2009, page 5).

Air pollution and legislation: Many Member States continue to fail to meet European standards on air quality, including nitrous oxide and particulate matter. This includes many cities, such as London, Brussels and Stuttgart.

- Bulgaria continues to be amongst the worst performers in terms of air quality in Europe (EEA, 2015, p. 22, 40), with implications for public health (MoH, 2014a, p.20) and biodiversity (Harmens et al., 2013). It has been referred to the EU Court of Justice due to persistent non-compliance with limits on PM10 emissions (EC, 2015).

Research into benefits: although environmental health is an established field, many of the links between access to nature and public health or wellbeing are either poorly understood or only recently being researched. The nature of the health sector is that there is a significant research burden that must be overcome before significant investments can be made. More research is needed to better understand the links between investments in green infrastructure and soft-mobility can be mutually reinforcing and contribute significantly to sustainable urban development.


Recommendations for better use of EU funding The EU should continue to promote the objectives of the Green Infrastructure Strategy. EU research grants should promote research into the multiple benefits of green infrastructure. Future research should consider the complex pathways through which GI and sustainable mobility systems can benefit the economy and promote public wellbeing. Long-term economic objectives should aim towards heightening physical and mental wellbeing above targets for growth. This should be considered with statistical reporting including via Eurostat. The EU should help Member States to analyse the negative impacts of high congestion and motorised transport. Soft mobility should be promoted, particularly in dense urban environments. The EU should avoid subsidising unsustainable forms of transport. The EU should put pressure on all Member States and municipalities who fail to adhere to air quality standards. This process should highlight the multiple socio-economic benefits of a transition towards sustainable urban environments integrating soft mobility and green infrastructure. The recently established Natural Capital Financing Facility (NCFF) provides opportunities for EIB finance for natural capital investments, including green infrastructure for both public and private entities. Recommendations for the EU Semester Process The European Semester should be used to leverage Member States to recognise the socio-economic benefits that exist in developing living environments that facilitate active living, low exposure to pollutants and high levels of physical and mental wellbeing. A key aspect of

76

this objective is to reduce the economic burden on public health services, freeing public finances, which could be invested in preventative health care, and developing more sustainable living and working environments.


At the national level, member states should better account for the negative impacts which urbanisation, land-use change, and transport systems have on human health and wellbeing. Member States should avoid investments and subsidies which facilitate lifestyles that have a negative impact on public health. The multiple benefits of green infrastructure should be integrated into national and regional strategies for health and land-use planning. Transport strategies should prioritise soft mobility, particularly where it integrates green infrastructure, recognising its multiple benefits for public health and the economy. All Member States should develop targets to increase the modal share for soft-mobility. All Member States should make significant efforts to adhere to EU legislation and WHO guidelines on air pollution. Many member states fail to follow regulations with significant impacts on the health of urban populations in particular. The economic impacts of air pollutions should be integrated into urban planning and the socio-economic objectives of Member States. Member states should develop integrated approaches to promoting the interlinkages between biodiversity and health. The Finnish National Regional Green Care Programme provides a useful example of this. Investments into green infrastructure should consider the impacts of urban planning in perpetuating social inequities. Efforts should be made to support equal access to nature, recognising the benefits nature based activities can have on different groups within society, including supporting social cohesion.

77

9 Summary Conclusions and Recommendations

9.1 Summary conclusions

The analysis of existing Member State strategic documents, plans and programmes

highlights the diversity of socio-economic priorities across countries. It also highlights that

there are a range of common priorities – from these many demonstrate promising areas for

which biodiversity can contribute to achieving MS socio-economic priorities. These

include:

Economic growth (e.g. sector diversification & budget consolidation)

Jobs and skills (e.g. innovation)

Regional development

Urban development and regeneration, and improving the living environment

Public health and wellbeing

Demographic change and social justice (e.g. social cohesion and equity)

“Nature-based solutions” (NBS) can both support the socio-economic priorities and help

to reach the biodiversity targets to 2020 in a number of areas in particular, including:

Agro-ecology



Eco-tourism

Green infrastructure (GI) for climate change mitigation & adaptation

GI for health & mobility

The implementation of NBS constitutes a unique opportunity to boost the realization of

socio-economic objectives in the EU Member States:

Creating jobs and improving job security through sustainable agriculture,

forestry, and fisheries.

Enhancing growth, especially in rural areas, through eco-tourism.

Supporting climate change adaptation objectives with green infrastructure, while

benefiting public health and wellbeing and reducing burdens on public budgets.

Potentially offering cost-effective delivery of a range of ecosystem services

contributing to sustainable growth, such as flood protection, water purification,

and air quality.

There are a range of financing opportunities and instruments available to help realise the socio-economic priorities linked to nature conservation and biodiversity actions. Several EU funds are in principle available to support nature conservation in the context of different

78

socio-economic sectors, including: EU Fund for Environment – LIFE, Rural development and agriculture – EAFRD, Fisheries, marine and blue economy – EMFF, Regional and urban development – ERDF, Cohesion Fund, Social cohesion – ESF, and Research and development – Horizon2020. However, competition with priorities other than biodiversity has hindered the uptake of these opportunities at national and regional level. Furthermore, the benefits of biodiversity projects may vary locally, and realising these opportunities often depends on the ability to demonstrate socio-economic benefits in each case. This has often been constrained by a lack of awareness or gaps in local knowledge, as well as a shortage of pioneering projects and/or champions. There has also been insufficient involvement of relevant stakeholders actively engaged in nature-based solutions in planning (programme and project levels) as well as insufficient integration of evidence on NBS benefits into planning of plans and projects. Other barriers for funding NBS to deliver socio-economic benefits have included:

Scale of NBS projects sometimes is too small to attract investment, hence they may

need to be ‘bundled’ or linked to wider initiatives

Lack of capacity among conservation stakeholders

Lack of links to the relevant business sectors

Unclear / poorly specified financing requirements discourage applications

Limited co-funding to match EU funding

Co-ordination problems linked to the range of beneficiaries (e.g. different business

sectors, conservation organisations, the land based sector and the wider public).

Expenditure savings do not always accrue where the initial investment in nature has

been made (i.e. different budget, geography or governance level)

Uncertainties and sometimes long timescales for delivery of benefits

(Perceived) administrative burdens.

As noted in the earlier chapters, and in the country annexes, there are many examples

where these benefits are already being realised in Member States - these are

opportunities for mutual inspiration and learning - wider roll out of these measures is

needed. There is quite some diversity of progress across Member States in the uptake of

NBS – reflecting a mixture of level and type of natural endowments, needs and initiatives

taken. There remains a significant unlocked potential across all Member States for

biodiversity integration and maximization of NBS it underpins.

9.2 What more can countries do?

What Member States can do varies across socio-economic priorities, the type of nature-based solutions and the state of natural capital in the countries. While this is issue- and country- specific, there are a range of common ways forward:

Integration of nature based solutions into policies, strategies and plans – i.e. ensuring joined-up thinking and policy coherence. E.g. NBS into climate adaptation strategies for cities and coastal regions, into urban noise strategies; into health strategies; forestry strategies and programmes; bioeconomy strategies; and into

79

rural development plans (RDPS), for example by the integration of organic farming and promotion of agro-ecological practices.

Developing national targets and requirements – e.g. for modal share of cycling and walking; for organic agriculture, for avoided soil sealing and avoided soil erosion. In terms of requirements, laws on use of green roofs for buildings (e.g. new and refurbished flat roofs) have proven useful in some countries.

Implementing measures under EU and national laws – e.g. using marine spatial planning (MSP) to reduce conflicts of uses and encourage sustainable investments and management; making use of the national river basin management plans (RBMPs) under the WFD to integrate NBSs.

Making greater use of innovative national funding, as well as blending it with judicious use of EU funding (see below)

Making greater use of modelling and mapping – of ecosystems and their interaction with economic and social systems, how NBS can help with environmental issues (noise, heat, air quality) and social issues (health, income and access to services) linking to the EU’s MAES process. Also making use of accounting practices and ensure integration of NBS where it offers added-value - e.g. potentially in forest, fish, water, environmental, natural capital and ecosystem accounts.

Supporting and focusing sustainable regional investment – e.g. through development of rural sustainable development zones. Also, using zoning to protect fragile ecosystems and natural assets that risk being eroded.

Making use of protected area management plans – these can integrate NBS initiatives that meet ecological and socio-economic objectives. Also coordinating management plans – e.g. for UNESCO world heritage sites that are also Natura 2000 sites, allowing co-management of natural and cultural heritage. Coordinating Natura 2000 management planning with RBMPs.

Ensuring inclusive governance and cooperation where there are multiple interests, trade-offs and synergies – e.g. involvement of key stakeholders in the development of management plans for marine areas.

Investing in information, science and awareness - through research, demonstration and pilot projects, transparency commitments, and dissemination of information through guidance and labelling. Also, ensuring that sustainable issues are taught in schools. Ensuring that the public (and policy makers) are aware of the full cost of the products they buy or promote – e.g. link to “empty oceans” (for unstainable fishing), climate change (for food products or supply chains linked with high GHG emissions), polluted aquifer and human health from some intensive agricultural practices, and the benefits of sustainable alternatives.

Investing in capacity building and training - offering advisory systems and training such as on ecosystem-based approaches and on nature guides.

Developing and applying decision support tools, which recognise, quantify and value the multiple benefits of NBS.

Developing governance and commissioning arrangements that bring together land managers and the multiple beneficiaries of NBS in order to test and develop markets for ecosystem services.

Promoting sustainable products and accessibility to products - e.g. labelling and GPP to promote organic products or sustainably produced/managed products (e.g. MSC labelled fish); blue flag beaches for sustainable tourism. In some places, the

80

reintroduction of locally extinct species could be a new attractor for tourism in the region.

Supporting access to markets – e.g. supporting common and organised access to markets by fisheries cooperation and self-organisations.

Investing in infrastructure to encourage access – e.g. eco-friendly infrastructure in forests to foster eco-tourism, with due consideration for impacts on biodiversity through appropriate zoning practices.

Investing in green infrastructure – e.g. developing biodiversity hubs in existing infrastructure, such as greening the central partitions of highways or the embankments of railway lines; invest in green cycling infrastructure.

Supporting citizens’ initiatives – e.g. reforming land rights to allow citizens to plant on public pavements in local communes, as this can help with social wellbeing and integration.

Recommendations for the EU Semester Process

The EU can work together with countries by highlighting opportunities and needs for action within the EU Semester progress. The following points merit being the focus of European semester recommendations:

Integrating NBS into key strategic and operational programmes – including: o national reform programmes (NRPs); o integration of NBS into partnership agreements (PAs), operational

programmes (OPs), rural development programmes (RDPs); o integration of NBS into health, climate adaptation, noise, air pollution, rural

and urban regeneration strategies to support cost-effective policies and joined-up thinking.

Addressing the implementation deficit though accelerated use of NBS where suitable – e.g. for the WFD and the 2nd RBMPs.

Examining opportunities for adapting and applying EU funds to recognise the multiple benefits and beneficiaries of NBS. NBS require long term investment and can potentially benefit from range of EU funding sources, complemented by national and local funds, and private sector payments for ecosystem services; fully realising NBS and overcoming barriers to provision depends on ensuring that EU and other funding sources work together effectively.

Developing shared knowledge, tools and guidance to further the development and application of NBS across the EU. Horizon 2020 offers opportunities to develop the knowledge based required, while LIFE (including the NCFF) offers opportunities to demonstrate practical application of NBS. Engage in peer-to-peer sharing of best practice and solutions.

81

9.3 Recommendations for action - what can the EU do?

Integration and policy coherence: There is a need for a systematic check of the level

of policy coherence and opportunities for improved integration.

‒ This will support the better regulation agenda and good governance. It would

be important to assess the state of integration as a whole on a regular basis,

and complement it with specific focus in impact assessments, REFIT

assessments, valuations and the integration on biodiversity’s

multifunctionality and values.

‒ There is a specific opportunity in the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy

(CFP) and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) – e.g. ensure social and

environmental criteria are factored into measure to regulate access to fish

resources; ensure agro-ecological considerations and benefits to soil

sustainability (“brown gold”), long term productivity and public goods are

factored into reform discussions.

Implementation: Addressing the implementation deficit of the EU biodiversity

strategy and the wider EU environmental acquis, as well as national policies and

commitments, will go a long way to supporting biodiversity contribution to socio-

economic priorities.

‒ Areas that merit particular attention include: the Birds and Habitats

Directives, Water Framework Directive, Marine Strategy Framework

Directive, Flood Risk Directive as well as climate adaptation policies.

Use of EU Budget: Biodiversity should be strongly reflected in Partnership

Agreements (PAs) and Operational Programmes (OPs) implementing the EU budget

at the national level. The multiple benefits of NBS should be factored into project

selection, monitoring and evaluation, and hence support progress with EU-added

value objectives – see also specific section further below. EU expenditures

contributing to biodiversity objectives should be robustly measured, and targets

(similar to the 20% target for climate related expenditures) should be considered.

Biodiversity proofing of EU funds, programmes and projects should be encouraged at

all levels.

Science-policy-stakeholder interface and better regulation: Investment should be

provided to increase the evidence base, integrate science into policy processes,

ensure transparency and support cooperation.

Good multi-stakeholder governance: “Silo-thinking” is a clear barrier for using

action on nature conservation to support objectives of other sectors. Engaging

different stakeholders with integration issues (and joint implementation) is essential

for good governance. It will help cross-sector cooperation, increase policy buy-in and

help to break “silo-thinking”. Furthermore, nature is not only about protected areas,

and NBS implementation should take into account every territory. The SDGs agenda

82

is a key process to progress this. Furthermore, there is a need for engaging both top-

down and bottom-up ideas and collaborations.

Opportunities for addressing the implementation deficit include:

Firstly, the EU treaties and the three pillars of sustainable development should be

implemented. Within this, it is vital to recognise environment as a foundation for economy

and society.

SDG implementation is equally important, and special attention should be paid to the

integration of NBS into the achievement of the SDGs in Europe and globally.

In addition, to support coherence and joined up thinking, greater use of UNISDR (United

Nations International Strategy Disaster Reduction) process and framework could be useful

to help implement EU own initiatives on disaster risk prevention.

Suggestions that promote policy coherence, integration and better regulation:

• Strengthen biodiversity integration in the circular economy

• Integrate insights on the cost of non-implementation into decision-making

• Improve the integration of nature’s multiple benefits in existing tools and

processes – impact assessments, REFIT assessments, evaluations etc.

• Raise awareness of the multiple benefits of NBS and demonstrate their relevance

across policy areas.

Linking to the global dimension:

• Build better on health-environment-nature links in EU policies (WHO-CBD

collaboration “Connection Global Priorities - Biodiversity & Health” as part of COP

12 decision XII 21 offers leverage); evaluations and funding

• NBS can be integrated into global agreements and international conventions - a

significant opportunity lies in linking biodiversity and health and other socio-

economic benefits in international commitments.

• Ensuring that the EU makes best use of international evidence and applies

international experience and best practice in developing and applying NBS.

Knowledge, awareness and capacity building

Good practice across countries should be disseminated and there has to be a clear channel for that – through expert networks, awareness raising activities, workshops, guidance documents, awards, and reporting and evaluation. There is potential for mechanisms that facilitate information exchange between Member States (e.g. better utilising TAIEX REGIO

83

PEER 2 PEER). This would help to catalyse/leverage progress and facilitate scaling up of successful cooperation and investments.

It will also be important to accelerate inter-DG work on nature-based solutions, and in some cases initiate collaboration – e.g. on biodiversity and health, to support uptake of synergies. Joint application of funds – e.g. through LIFE integrated projects – offers potential to further this agenda.

Furthermore, the discussion and implementation of SDGs at the EU level are dominated by economic concerns that do not permit environmental issues to become a priority. Therefore, an underpinning driver for the uptake of NBS is to make social and environmental concerns on equal footing with the economic. Not only should the environment and economy be treated equally, but it should be understood that environment is a prerequisite for the economy to exist. This requires considerable effort at reframing awareness of the causal relationships between economy, society and the environment. A more comprehensive understanding of the dependency of positive socio-economic outcomes on nature conservation goes beyond simply increasing awareness of the socio-economic benefits or services which the environment provides in specific sectors or towards given objectives. Recommendations for better use of EU funding

Member States rely greatly on EU funding, while opportunities exist for the private sector to contribute an increasing share of investments and funding opportunities. The public sector is constrained by budgetary limitations and thus the private sector has to be mobilized. Furthermore, NBS offer a range of public and private benefits, and finding new ways of securing finance and paying for services, which recognise the breadth of benefits and beneficiaries, will be important in addressing the current under-supply of NBS. In the context of private sector participation, mechanisms for compensation should be discussed further at the EU level.

• Integrate NBS into different EU Funds – partnership agreements, strategies and

operational programmes, their implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

• Guarantee dedicated funding for biodiversity conservation; and ensure clear

objectives of biodiversity funding (nature based solutions should be in addition to,

rather than in place of traditional conservation measures).

• Examine how different EU funds could better work together to deliver NBS,

recognising the range of needs (research, demonstration, investment, ongoing

management), benefits (variety of ecosystem services) and beneficiaries (private

sector as well as public). Ensuring that EU funds (e.g. EAFRD) facilitate and mobilise,

rather than constrain or crowd out private finance for NBS, will also be important.

• Ensure clear allocations and guidance for the use of EU funding for NBS – EABF,

EAFRD, ERDF, ESF, Life+, and Horizon 2020.

• Use EU funding to support the development of a skilled workforce that can work

with NBS.

84

• Implement robust processes for biodiversity proofing of EU budgetary expenditures

at all levels.

• Continue to develop and apply methodologies for tracking EU expenditures that

contribute to biodiversity priorities, and consider the introduction of a biodiversity

expenditure target similar to the commitment to spend 20% of the EU budget on

climate change related measures.

• Avoid relying on EU funding alone. Make greater use of private funding and other

sector’s funding.

• Given finance limitations, also ensure the issue of compensation and responsibility

for damage to nature and biodiversity are addressed.

• Link to process of Environmental Tax Reform and also Environmental Harmful

Subsidies reform - taking into account the polluter pays principle (PPP) as well as

environmental externalities (e.g. water pollution from pesticides; health risks).

9.4 The Way forward - A multi-level governance solution.

There are multiple opportunities for scaling up the use of nature-based solutions for national socio-economic priorities. Countries, regions and cities need to drive this process. This can also be helped by European policies, initiatives and funding as well as international activities – e.g. ensuring the NBS are recognised for the SDGs. At each of these levels, there is a need for collaboration across stakeholder types and skills - only if there is a systematic attempt at breaking out of silos and seeing the synergies between nature, society and the economy can the potential for NBS be realised. This will help towards delivering the SDGs, contribute to the implementation of existing commitments, support good governance and better regulation and help with the added-value of institutional investments and budgets.

85

Annex 1 Thematic and EU-level literature review

1. Introduction Annex 1 presents the findings of a thematic and EU-wide literature review on the role of biodiversity and nature protection for wider social and economic priorities in EU Member states and from a European perspective. The review focusses on six thematic areas and explores what is already known today about the role of nature, notably through a wide range of ecosystem services, for realising social and economic benefits:

Economic Growth (Chapter 2)

Jobs, Skills and Innovation (Chapter 3)

Public Health (Chapter 4)

Regional Development (Chapter 5)

Urban Development and Regeneration (Chapter 6)

Demographic Change and Social Justice (Chapter 7)

The thematic literature review aims to present a synthesis of key insights, complemented by concrete examples, references and further literature. Each thematic area follows two questions:

What are the challenges across Europe?

What can be the role of nature/biodiversity to address these challenges?

This review does not only provide an introduction and background to the analysis of the role of biodiversity for national socio-economic priorities, but also supports the country analysis for Member States, and workshops and synthesis papers planned in the course of this project.

2. Economic Growth


The European Union is still in the process of recovering from the 2008-2009 crisis with 1.9% of GDP growth in 2015, a rate expected to rise to 2.0% in 2016 and 2.1% in 2017. These improvements, however, benefit from temporary low oil prices and a relatively weak Euro, which suggest that the underlying health of the economy still needs strengthening. Deficit-to-GDP and debt-to-GDP ratios are projected to fall respectively by 0.9 pp. and 2 pp. between 2016 and 2017, which should help (EC, 2016). However, situations widely vary across the Member States (MS). For example, Greece remains in recession while Ireland and Romania experience economic growth rates above 4% (EC Economic and Financial Affairs, 2016). There are also wide differences across cities and regions, between urban/rural areas, and for certain communities.

86

The EU economic growth rates are likely to remain weaker in the coming 10 years than in the pre-crisis decade without any policy change due to weak Total Factor Productivity rates (i.e. the value added by technology and innovation), the ageing of population and remaining effects of the financial crisis (EC ECFIN, 2014). A report from the European Strategy and Policy Analysis System (ESPAS, 2015) underlines that high debts levels threaten sustainable and durable growth – a problem that more public and private investment, the completion of a single competitive market and enhanced governance in the Euro area should contribute to solve (p8-9).

The ESPAS report also identifies climate change as a main concern not only for the environment and for social issues, but also for the economy. In case of no policy change, a 3.5°C above the industrial era temperature scenario would impute a welfare loss of 1.8% of GDP, 2/3 of it being associated to effects on health, whilst a 2°C scenario would reduce the loss to 1.2% (Joint Research Centre, 2014, p102-103).

The Europe 2020 Strategy, which is the key strategy that drives the current EU agenda, partly responds to these key economic, social and environmental trends through five quantitative targets related to (1) Employment, (2) Research and Development (R&D), (3) Climate change and energy, (4) Education and (5) Poverty and Exclusion (EC, 2012a). Whilst employment and policy rates remain problematic, targets related to R&D investment and education are largely on the right path. As regards climate change goals, energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, indicators show globally positive trends, but this could be related to temporary effects (Eurostat, 2016).


In 2011, the OECD’s Green Growth Strategy outlined the opportunities that exist in environmentally and socially sustainable growth (OECD, 2011). Economic growth in Europe’s green-economy is already a reality, and in many areas, green sectors outperform the rest of the economy. Eurostat publishes data online on growth in the Environmental Economy across the EU-28. In 2013, the environmental economy generated EUR 699 billion of output and EUR 284 billion of value added, growing year on year (Eurostat, 2016). In a study looking at Germany, Italy, Portugal, Poland and the UK, it was shown that eco-industries have driven growth, on average growing faster than GDP between 2008-2012. In Italy and Portugal, where nominal GDP stagnated in the same period, Eco-industries grew by 9.4% and 5% respectively (Görlach et al. 2014).

As the Europe 2020 targets show, the EU expresses growing interest in fostering green growth, mostly by supporting innovation and better resources management (EC, 2014; Potočnik, 2013; Mazza & ten Brink, 2012; EC, 2012b). Alongside, natural capital and ecosystem services are gaining interest (EEA, 2015), as evidenced by the Biodiversity strategy and the 7th Environment Action Programme (7th EAP) (EC, 2011; EC, 2013a). The economic benefits of biodiversity and nature protection are more and more recognized: Natura 2000 protected areas are estimated to generate €313.5 billion of wellbeing benefits on average (EC Environment, 2013). Natura 2000 and wider green infrastructure are also being shown to help address local economic decline and supports regional regeneration (ten Brink et al., 2016). Nature-based solutions in agriculture (agroecology) are increasingly recognized as necessary to protect resources, biodiversity and ecosystem services such as

87

pest management, water quality, soil health and air quality (Poláková et al., 2011; Tscharntke et al., 2012; Gurr et al., 2003). This is amplified by the rising vulnerability of farming activities towards climate change, as organic farming help preventing the associated risks (Borron, 2006; Scialabba & Müller-Lindenlauf, 2010; Müller, 2009). They also offer a range of important and growing niches in specific local produce that can help rural and regional viability.

The level of protection of forests is improving in the EU and about a quarter of European forests are protected under Natura 2000. Forests provide multiple benefits including economic activities such as wood industry, tourism, or biomass for energy (half of the total EU renewable energy consumption) (EC, 2013b). Forests also deliver significant ecosystem services, including water management, carbon storage and temperature cooling (Bonan, 2008), hence contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Sustainable forest management and biodiversity protection require a number of measures. One element is the third-party certification of forests, which has gained of importance in the last decades, globally and in the EU (MacDicken et al., 2015). Fernholz and Kraxner (2012) estimate that around 95 million ha of forest were certified in the EU in 2012, with marked differences in the share of certified forest area across EU Member States.

The Committee of the Regions (CoR, 2014) recognized both the potential of marine ecosystems for growth and jobs, and the necessity to preserve this environment. Blue economy in the EU represents a gross added value of €500 billion per year, and 75% of the EU’s external trade (EC, 2012c). Evidence shows that marine protected areas generate economic benefits: they support food production, nature-based tourism and research, and contribute to climate change mitigation (Russi et al., 2016).

As mentioned, marine protected areas widely benefit touristic activities. Marine and coastal tourism represent €283 billion each year of gross value added (Ecorys, Mrag and Spro, 2013). Similarly, the total expenditure related to tourism and recreation supported by Natura 2000 was estimated between €50 and €85 billion in 2006 (EC Environment, 2013).

Forests and marine ecosystems have already been mentioned as efficient for climate change mitigation mainly through carbon sequestration (Bonan, 2008; Duarte et al., 2005). Properly managed landscapes can contribute to climate change adaptation by hampering vulnerability towards flooding, soil erosion, heat waves or fisheries depletion (Opdam, 2009; EC, 2013c).

Increasing the presence of natural areas and green spaces in Europeans’ living environment is likely to have considerable positive effects on their mental and physical health as multiple evidence show (ten Brink et al., 2016). A WHO Europe and OECD (2015) study estimates that air pollution – mostly generated by road transport – cost the EU up to €1 trillion each year. Such health costs are expected to grow with the ageing of the European population and the effects of climate change (EC, 2015; Hübler et al., 2007).

Green roofs and green facades are shown to attenuate the effects of climate change by lowering temperatures in the built urban environment (Alexandri & Jones, 2008), contributing to storm water retention (Van Woert et al., 2005; Oberndorfer et al., 2007), and helping address air and noise pollution (Rowe, 2011; Van Renterghem & Botteldooren,

88

2009). A study in the US showed that the positive externalities generated by green roofs make them 20% to 40% less expensive than conventional roofs over 40 years with the current technology (Clark et al., 2007). The sector is growing – The European Federation of Green Roofs & Walls noted that annual expenditure is worth over 380 million EUR for 6 countries17. The global market is expected to reach 6.8 billion EUR by 2017, with many EU countries and companies being world leaders18.

More than preventing costs, urban green infrastructure can benefit economic activities such as urban farming (COST, 2015). The cycling industry might as well be stimulated considering that green spaces – associated with the presence of cycling paths and other factors – are an incentive to use cycling as a transport mode in European cities (Fraser & Lock, 2010).

References and further literature

Alexandri E. & Jones P. (2006). Temperature decreases in an urban canyon due to green walls and green roofs in diverse climates. Building and Environment, 43, 4, 480-493

BIO intelligence service (2011). Estimating the economic value of the benefits provided by the tourism/recreation and Employment supported by Natura 2000. Final report to EC DG Environment. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/Estimating_economic_value.pdf

Bonan B. G. (2008). Forests and Climate Change: Forcings, Feedbacks, and the Climate Benefits of Forests. Science 320, 1444.

Borron S. (2006). Building resilience for an unpredictable future: how organic agriculture can help farmers adapt to climate change. Rome, FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/a-ah617e.pdf

Clark C., Adriaens P. & Talbot B. (2007). Green Roof Valuation: A Probabilistic Economic Analysis of Environmental Benefits. Environmental Science & Technology, 42, 2155-2161

CoR (2014). Innovation in the Blue Economy: Realising the potential of our seas and oceans for jobs and growth. 109th plenary session, 3-4 December 2014. http://web.cor.europa.eu/ecr/Documents/blue%20economy.doc

COST (2015). Urban Agriculture Europe. Jovis editions. http://www.urbanagricultureeurope.la.rwth-aachen.de/#prettyPhoto

Duarte C. M., Middelburg J. J., Caraco N. (2005). Major role of marine vegetation on the oceanic carbon cycle. Biogeosciences, European Geosciences Union, 2005, 2 (1), pp.1-8. https://hal-sde.archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/297509/filename/bg-2-1-2005.pdf

EC (2011). Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. COM(2011) 244 final. 03.05.2011, Brussels http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0244&from=EN

17 http://www.efb-greenroof.eu/EFB_WhitePaper_2015.pdf

18 http://www.efb-greenroof.eu/EFB_WhitePaper_2015.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/Estimating_economic_value.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/Estimating_economic_value.pdf

http://www.fao.org/3/a-ah617e.pdf

http://web.cor.europa.eu/ecr/Documents/blue%20economy.doc

http://www.urbanagricultureeurope.la.rwth-aachen.de/#prettyPhoto

http://www.urbanagricultureeurope.la.rwth-aachen.de/#prettyPhoto

https://hal-sde.archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/297509/filename/bg-2-1-2005.pdf

https://hal-sde.archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/297509/filename/bg-2-1-2005.pdf

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0244&from=EN

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0244&from=EN

89

EC (2012a). Europe 2020: Europe’s growth strategy, growing to a sustainable and job-rich future. http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/europe_2020_explained.pdf

EC (2012b). Innovating for Sustainable Growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe. COM(2012) 60 final, 13.02.2012, Brussels http://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/201202_innovating_sustainable_growth_en.pdf

EC (2012c). Blue Growth, opportunities for marine and maritime sustainable growth. COM(2012) 494 final. http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/documentation/publications/documents/blue-growth_en.pdf

EC (2013a). General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’. Decision No 1386/2013/EU, 20.11.2013. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013D1386&from=EN

EC (2013b). A new EU Forest Strategy: for forests and the forest-based sector. COM(2013) 659 final, 20.09.2013, Brussels http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:21b27c38-21fb-11e3-8d1c-01aa75ed71a1.0022.01/DOC_1&format=PDF

EC (2013c) Principles and recommendations for integrating climate change adaptation considerations under the 2014-2020 European Maritime and Fisheries Fund operational programmes. SWD(2013) 299 final, 30.07.2013, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform/emff/climate-change_en.pdf

EC (2014). Employment: Commission presents Green Employment Initiative to support structural shift to green growth by maximising job opportunities - frequently asked questions. MEMO/14/446 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-446_en.htm

EC (2015) The 2015 Ageing Report: Economic and budgetary projections for the 28 EU member states (2013-2060). ISSN 1725-3217 (online). European Economy 3. http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2015/pdf/ee3_en.pdf

EC (2016). Annual Growth Survey 2016, strengthening the recovery and fostering convergence. COM(2015) 690 final, 26.11.2015 Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/2016/ags2016_annual_growth_survey.pdf

EC ECFIN (2014). The EU’s growth prospects in a globalised economy. In ECFIN Economic Brief, Issue 35, June 2014. ISSN: 1831-4473. http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/economic_briefs/2014/pdf/eb35_en.pdf

EC Environment (2013). The Economic benefits of the Environment Natura 2000 Network. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/ENV-12-018_LR_Final1.pdf

EC Economic and Financial Affairs (2016). Spring 2016 Economic Forecast: Staying the course amid high risks. Accessible online: http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/eu/forecasts/2016_spring_forecast_en.htm [Accessed 1 June 2016]

Ecorys, Mrag and SPro (2013). Study in support of policy measures for maritime and coastal tourism at EU level

ESPAS (2015). Global Trends to 2030: Can the EU meet the challenges ahead? Luxembourg http://europa.eu/espas/pdf/espas-report-2015.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/europe_2020_explained.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/201202_innovating_sustainable_growth_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/documentation/publications/documents/blue-growth_en.pdf


http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013D1386&from=EN

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013D1386&from=EN



http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform/emff/climate-change_en.pdf

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-446_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2015/pdf/ee3_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/2016/ags2016_annual_growth_survey.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/economic_briefs/2014/pdf/eb35_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/ENV-12-018_LR_Final1.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/eu/forecasts/2016_spring_forecast_en.htm

http://europa.eu/espas/pdf/espas-report-2015.pdf

90

Eurostat (2016). Europe 2020 targets. Accessible online: http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/europe-2020-in-a-nutshell/targets/index_en.htm [Accessed 1 June 2016]

Eurostat (2016). Environmental economy – employment and growth http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Environmental_economy_-_employment_and_growth

Fernholz, K. & Kraxner, F. (2012). Certified forest products markets, 2011–2012. UNECE/FAO Forest Products Annual Market Review, Geneva, pp. 107–116.

Fraser D.S. S. & Lock K. (2010). Cycling for transport and public health: a systematic review of the effect of the environment on cycling. The European Journal of Public Health, 738-743.

Görlach B., Porsch L. et al (2014). How crisis-resistant and competitive are Europe’s Eco-Industries? http://ecologic.eu/sites/files/publication/2014/how-crisis-resistant-and-competitive-are-europes-eco-industries.pdf

Gurra M. G., Wratten D. S. & Luna J. M. (2003) Multi-function agricultural biodiversity: pest management and other benefits. Basic and Applied Ecology, 4, 2, 107-116

Hübler, M.; Klepper, G. & Peterson, S. (2007) Costs of climate change: The effects of rising temperatures on health and productivity, Kiel Working Paper, No. 1321.

Joint Research Centre (2014). Climate Impacts in Europe, The JRC PESETA II Project. Report EUR 26586EN, Luxembourg. http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC87011.pdf

Mazza J. & ten Brink P. (2012). Green economy in the European Union. Supporting briefing. http://www.ieep.eu/assets/963/KNOSSOS_Green_Economy_Supporting_Briefing.pdf

MacDicken K.G., Sola, P, Hall J.E., Sabogal C., Tadoum M., de Wasseige C. (2015). Global progress toward sustainable forest management, Forest Ecology and Management, Volume 352, Pages 47–56.

Müller A. (2009). Benefits of Organic Agriculture as a Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Strategy for Developing Countries. Environment for Development.

OECD (2011). Towards green growth http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/towards-green-growth_9789264111318-en

Opdam P., Luque S., Jones K. B. (2009) Changing landscapes to accommodate for climate change impacts: a call for landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology, 24, 715–721.

Oberndorfer E., Lundholm J., Bass B., Coffman R. R., Doshi H., Dunnett N., Gaffin S., Köhler M., Liu K. Y. K. & Rowe B. (2007) Bioscience, 57, 10, 823-833.

Poláková J., Tucker G., Hart, K., Dwyer J. & Rayment M. (2011). Addressing biodiversity and habitat preservation through measures applied under the Common Agricultural Policy

Potočnik, J. (2013). Towards Green Growth: Seizing Business Opportunities. Green Economy Forum (Dublin Chamber of Commerce) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-359_en.htm

Russi D., Pantzar M., Kettunen M., Gitti G., Mutafoglu K., Kotulak M. & ten Brink P. (2016). Socio-Economic Benefits of the EU Marine Protected Areas. Report prepared by the Institute for European

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/europe-2020-in-a-nutshell/targets/index_en.htm


http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Environmental_economy_-_employment_and_growth

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Environmental_economy_-_employment_and_growth

http://ecologic.eu/sites/files/publication/2014/how-crisis-resistant-and-competitive-are-europes-eco-industries.pdf

http://ecologic.eu/sites/files/publication/2014/how-crisis-resistant-and-competitive-are-europes-eco-industries.pdf

http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC87011.pdf

http://www.ieep.eu/assets/963/KNOSSOS_Green_Economy_Supporting_Briefing.pdf

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/towards-green-growth_9789264111318-en

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/towards-green-growth_9789264111318-en

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-359_en.htm

91

Environmental Policy (IEEP) for DG Environment http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/Socio%20-Economic%20Benefits%20of%20EU%20MPAs.pdf

Rowe D. B. (2011). Green roofs as a means of pollution abatement. Environmental pollution, 159, 8-9, 2100-2110.

Scialabba E-H. N. & Müller-Lindenlauf M. (2010) Organic agriculture and climate change. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 25, 02.

ten Brink P., Mutafoglu K., Schweitzer J.-P., Kettunen M., Twigger-Ross C., Kuipers Y., Emonts M., Tyrväinen L., Hujala T., Ojala A. (2016) The Health and Social Benefits of Nature and Biodiversity Protection – Executive summary. A report for the European Commission (ENV.B.3/ETU/2014/0039), Institute for European Environmental Policy, London / Brussels. http://www.ieep.eu/assets/2073/Health_and_Social_Benefits_of_Nature_-_Final_Report_Executive_Summary_sent.pdf http://www.ieep.eu/assets/2074/Health_and_Social_Benefits_of_Nature_-_Final_Report_Main_sent.pdf

Tscharntke T., Clough Y., Wanger C. T., Jackson L., Motzke I., Perfecto I., Vandermeer J. & Whitbread A. (2012). Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biological Conservation, 151, 53-59

Van Woert D. N., Rowe D. B., Andresen A. J., Rugh L. C., Fernandez R. T. & Xiao L. (2005). Green Roof Stormwater Retention: Effects of Roof Surface, Slope, and Media Depth. Journal of Environmental Quality, 34, 1036-1044

Van Renterghem T., Botteldooren D. (2009). Reducing the acoustical façade load from road traffic with green roofs. Building and Environment, 44, 5, 1081-1087.

WHO Europe, OECD (2015) Economic cost of the health impact of air pollution in Europe: Clean air, health and wealth. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/276772/Economic-cost-health-impact-air-pollution-en.pdf

World Bank (2015). EU regular economic report 2: sustaining recovery, improving living standards, 102089. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2015/12/25691199/eu-regular-economic-report-2-sustaining-recovery-improving-living-standards

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/Socio%20-Economic%20Benefits%20of%20EU%20MPAs.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/Socio%20-Economic%20Benefits%20of%20EU%20MPAs.pdf

http://www.ieep.eu/assets/2073/Health_and_Social_Benefits_of_Nature_-_Final_Report_Executive_Summary_sent.pdf

http://www.ieep.eu/assets/2074/Health_and_Social_Benefits_of_Nature_-_Final_Report_Main_sent.pdf

http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/276772/Economic-cost-health-impact-air-pollution-en.pdf


http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2015/12/25691199/eu-regular-economic-report-2-sustaining-recovery-improving-living-standards

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2015/12/25691199/eu-regular-economic-report-2-sustaining-recovery-improving-living-standards

92

3. Jobs, Skills and Innovation What are the challenges across Europe?

Unemployment is slowly decreasing in the EU but is still a major challenge. The Joint Employment Report 201419 noted that 10.1% or 24.6 million people were registered unemployed in the EU in September 2014, down from 10.8% in 2013. There remain major divergences in unemployment levels across Member States, at 5.0% in Germany and 5.1% in Austria at the lower end and up to 24.0% in Spain and 26.4% in Greece at the higher end (September 2014 statistics). This underlines that addressing unemployment may differ significantly in national priority rankings. However, even in countries of low average national unemployment, there can be significant regional variations that make job creation important and needs to support existing or create new jobs, that can in turn require new skill development20. There are major policy commitments to support and create jobs. The Europe 2020 Strategy21 has employment as one of its specific priorities and other priorities such as that on inclusive growth will support this – by aiming to foster a high-employment economy delivering social and territorial cohesion. Member States retain the primary competence for employment, however, supported by the European Employment Strategy22 (launched in 1997), soft EU measures (e.g. European Semester process), as well as funding. For example, the European Social Fund (ESF) has a budget allocation of 83 billion EUR for employment, integration, poverty, education. Within Europe 2020, there is also a specific employment related flagship initiative - “New Skills for New Jobs agenda”. This aims to address skills gaps. The New Skills agenda should be able to support the transition to a low carbon economy, and has the potential to make use of the social benefits that nature and biodiversity have to offer. What can be the role of nature/biodiversity to address these challenges? In the backdrop of the transition to a resource efficient, low carbon economy, Europe has already experienced a greening of the job market and sectors linked to the environment present real opportunities for jobs creation - 20 million European jobs can already be linked to the environment (European Commission, 2013). Employment in the environmental economy rose from 2.8 million FTEs in 2000 to 4.2 million FTEs in 2013 (Eurostat, 2016). One study estimated that shifting investment from current patterns in the Cohesion Policy and the CAP to green sectors would increase job creation more than threefold (320%) per euro invested (Bird Life, 2012) Working with nature is proving to be a major source of (new) employment: Natura 2000 management, restoration of landscapes, sustainable agriculture, forestry and fisheries, new

19 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=101

20 See CEDEFOP - Forecasting skill demand and supply http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/events-and-projects/projects/forecasting-skill-demand-and-supply/data-visualisations

21 Europe 2020 targets: http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/europe-2020-in-a-nutshell/targets/index_en.htm

22 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=101

http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/events-and-projects/projects/forecasting-skill-demand-and-supply/data-visualisations

http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/events-and-projects/projects/forecasting-skill-demand-and-supply/data-visualisations


93

green roofs, tourism and recreation, as well as bioprospecting and biomimicry, each offer opportunities to support existing and/or create new jobs (see specific sections that follow). It is also expected to remain an area of significant new growth potential. Growth areas are expected to include urban green infrastructure for climate cooling and air pollution management, organic agriculture, certified production (e.g. crops, fish, timber), sustainable/agri-/nature tourism. There is also scope for health sector employment linked to nature-based preventative and cure solutions (ten Brink et al., 2016). There will be growth in the type of skills, for example in urban farming, green architecture, landscape planning, or green road infrastructure. Investment in skills and retraining are essential to creating green jobs. Initiatives such as those under the LIFE programme demonstrate how skills in the environmental sector can create jobs (European Commission, 2013). For example, in Enguera, Spain, EUR 1 million of LIFE funding was invested into new methods to reduce forest fire risks by selective clearing and biomass processing for renewable pellets. Four FTEs were created in project management, 20 FTEs for forestry workers, and up to 10 FTEs in the biomass plant. Furthermore, employment growth can be expected to be driven by a range of policies: national green infrastructure policies, restoration targets (EU biodiversity target 2), investing to meet the good ecologic status of river basins (Water Framework Directive) and good conservation status of Natura 2000 sites (Nature directives). Protected area management can create both direct and indirect jobs, as well as secure existing jobs through the maintenance and restoration of ecosystem services. The Natura 2000 network is the core of biodiversity and nature conservation in Europe. Investment in the network has been proven a source of job creation. The management of the Natura 2000 network can be expected to support 122,000 FTE jobs directly (Gantioler et al., 2010). Each site leads on average to the creation of 3-5 FTEs, and tourism around the sites helps to create one additional job. Estimates of jobs linked to ecosystem services have not been assessed. In stark contrast, a failure to prevent current rates biodiversity loss globally could result in economics and social losses (Braat and ten Brink, 2008). Recreation and tourism Eco-tourism offers opportunities for sustainable jobs. EU (2013), building on Bio (2012) noted that around 4.5 and 8 million Full Time Employment (FTE) jobs are supported by tourism and recreation expenditure. Of these around 800,000 to 2 million FTE jobs are associated with Natura 2000. Economic activities related to tourism employ just over 12 million people in the EU, accounting for 22% of people in the services sector (Eurostat, 2016). The value of tourism varies across countries and regions:

- The “Wales Coastal Path”, which covers 1,400 km of Welsh coastline, attracted 3 million visitors and brought EUR 40 million to the economy in just 12 months when it

94

was opened in 2012. New businesses led the creation of 112 jobs linked to tourist related businesses along the walking route (Natural Resources Wales, 2013).

- It is as a key source of employment in Scotland already – and one estimate concluded that the total employment resulting from tourism and recreation spending attributable to woodland was estimated at around 17,900 FTE jobs in 2006-7 (Edwards et al., 2009).

Ecotourism can be promoted using the European Eco-Management and Audit Scheme, as well as the EU Ecolabel. Initiatives such as the EU COSME programme have offered funding to SMEs for the development of sustainable transnational tourism products, in sectors such as sports tourism, food and wine, nature tourism, and health and well-being tourism. Rural and regional regeneration There is no overarching report on employment benefits linked to rural or regional regeneration. However, some prominent examples include:

Hoge Kempen National Park that has created an equivalent of 400 full-time jobs in the Belgian province of Limburg, an area that suffered from decline following coal pit closures.

The Emscher Landscape Park (ELP) in the Ruhr area of Germany covers an area of 456 km2, including 20 towns and 400 green infrastructure projects. The ELP works to revitalise this region that suffered from the decline of earlier vibrant steel and coal industries. The ELP has contributed 3,700 indirect jobs (RWI, 2013).

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Around 5.2% of all EU employment in 2013 was due to people employed in agriculture, forestry and fishing activities (EU’s labour force survey, LFS)23. Over 20 million people are employed in EU Farming. Many jobs are in rural and peripheral regions where there are few prospects of alternative employment24. In forestry, over 0.4 million “annual work units” were supported and wood based industries support 3.4 million people in 201225. Certification schemes such as Program for Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) can help to promote the creation of green jobs, as well as promoting good labour practices (FAO, 2011). A study by DG Agri showed that afforestation programmes between 1994 and 1999 created 150,000 FTEs. Afforestation in Spain and Portugal led to the improvement of cork oak stands with the aim to increase cork production by up to 15% (European Commission, 2001). Currently, there exist no comprehensive, EU-wide estimates of employment benefits linked to MPAs or sustainable fisheries. However, a study in the Mediterranean by Roncin et al

23 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/7158355/KS-FK-15-101-EN-N.pdf/79470e8c-abf3-43d3-8cd4-84880962cdd4

24 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/7158355/KS-FK-15-101-EN-N.pdf/79470e8c-abf3-43d3-8cd4-84880962cdd4

25 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/7158355/KS-FK-15-101-EN-N.pdf/79470e8c-abf3-43d3-8cd4-84880962cdd4 see page 163

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/7158355/KS-FK-15-101-EN-N.pdf/79470e8c-abf3-43d3-8cd4-84880962cdd4

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/7158355/KS-FK-15-101-EN-N.pdf/79470e8c-abf3-43d3-8cd4-84880962cdd4

95

(2008) concluded that even adopting a conservative approach (based only on local expenditures related to non-resident users), on average 54.2 and 2.1 full time jobs per year per MPA are due to professional and recreational fishing respectively. Built environment Job creation opportunities are not only linked to the above sectors, which are closely linked to nature, as one would expect. Activities in an around the built environment offer good prospects, too. Designing, creating and maintaining green infrastructure in urban and suburban settings can create employment at different skill levels and with scope for innovation. For example, one estimate of the labour intensity of green roofs (from the US) noted that 1 billion USD of investment could create 19,000 jobs by building 450 million m2 of green roof area26. Activities in the built environment are not only limited to the public sector domain (e.g. public parks, green corridors or protected areas), but are also of interest to the private sector, as many green infrastructure elements and engineering solutions are of interest to consumers and industry (e.g. insulation and thermal comfort of buildings or energy saving opportunities). References and further literature Adevi A., Martensson F. (2013). Stress rehabilitation through garden therapy: The garden as a place in the recovery from stress. Vol. 12, Issue 2, pages 230-237. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1618866713000198 (no free access) Braat L., ten Brink P. et al (2008). The Cost of Policy Inaction. The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target. http://www.globio.info/downloads/85/Report%20-%20Braat%20&%20ten%20Brink%20eds%20(2008)%20The%20Cost%20of%20Policy%20Ina.pdf Birdlife International (2011). Growth, Jobs, and Biodiversity, learning from practice. https://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/growthjobsandbiodiversity_tcm9-257284.pdf CEDEFOP (2010). Skills for green jobs, European synthesis report. http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/publications/3057 Consoli D., Marin G. et Al (2016). Do green jobs differ from non-green jobs in term of skills and human capital? Research Policy, Vol. 45, Issue 5, pages 1046-1060 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733316300208 (no free access) CoR (2014). Opinion, Innovation in the Blue Economy: Realising the potential of our seas and oceans for jobs and growth. http://www.google.be/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwif4MHxy7HOAhUjJ8AKHWm2A2MQFggbMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.cor.europa.eu%2Fecr%2FDocuments%2Fblue%2520economy.doc&usg=AFQjCNEE3bBOZHSmB1uNBIv_Rj2KG6yWjw Deloitte Access Economics (2013). Economic contribution of the Great Barrier Reef. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville.

26 http://www.greenroofs.org/index.php/about/greenroofbenefits

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1618866713000198

http://www.globio.info/downloads/85/Report%20-%20Braat%20&%20ten%20Brink%20eds%20(2008)%20The%20Cost%20of%20Policy%20Ina.pdf

http://www.globio.info/downloads/85/Report%20-%20Braat%20&%20ten%20Brink%20eds%20(2008)%20The%20Cost%20of%20Policy%20Ina.pdf

https://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/growthjobsandbiodiversity_tcm9-257284.pdf

http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/publications/3057


http://www.google.be/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwif4MHxy7HOAhUjJ8AKHWm2A2MQFggbMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.cor.europa.eu%2Fecr%2FDocuments%2Fblue%2520economy.doc&usg=AFQjCNEE3bBOZHSmB1uNBIv_Rj2KG6yWjw



96

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/66417/Economic-contribution-of-the-Great-Barrier-Reef-2013.pdf EC Agricultural and rural development (2013). Organic versus conventional farming, which performs better financially? http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rica/pdf/FEB4_Organic_farming_final_web.pdf EC (2013). A new EU Forest Strategy: for forests and the forest-based sector. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/forest/strategy/communication_en.pdf EC Environment (2013). LIFE creating green gobs and skills http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/lifefocus/documents/jobs_skills.pdf EC Environment (2013). The Economic Benefits of the Natura 2000 Network. Synthesis report. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/ENV-12-018_LR_Final1.pdf EC (2001). Evaluation of the Community aid scheme for forestry measures in agriculture of Regulation No 2080/92 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/forest/text_en.pdf EC Maritime Affairs (2012). Blue growth, Opportunities for marine and maritime sustainable growth. http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/documentation/publications/documents/blue-growth_en.pdf Ecorys (2014). Study on Deepening Understanding of Potential Blue Growth in the EU Member States on Europe’s Atlantic Arc. https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/sites/maritimeforum/files/Blue%20Growth%20Atlantic_Seabasin%20report%20FINAL%2007Mar14.pdf EC Research and Innovation (2015). Towards an EU Research and Innovation policy agenda for Nature-Based Solutions & Re-Naturing Cities. Final Report of the Horizon 2020 Expert Group on ‘Nature-Based Solutions & Re-Naturing Cities’. http://www.vhg.org/media/rtf/Kennisbank/2015_0739_DG_RTD_WEB-Publication_A4_NBS_long_version_20150310.pdf EC (2003). Sustainable forestry and the European union, Initiatives of the European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/forest/strategy/communication_en.pdf EC website, Policy topics, Nature-based solutions. https://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/index.cfm?pg=nbs Edwards, D., Elliott, A., Hislop, M., Martin, S., Morris, J., O’Brien, L., Peace, A., Sarajevs, V., Serrand, M. and Valatin, G. (2009). A valuation of the economic and social contribution of forestry for people in Scotland. Forestry Commission Research Report. Forestry Commission Scotland, Edinburgh.http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcrp101.pdf/$FILE/fcrp101.pdf Eurostat (2016). Tourism industries and employment. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Tourism_industries_-_employment

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/66417/Economic-contribution-of-the-Great-Barrier-Reef-2013.pdf

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/66417/Economic-contribution-of-the-Great-Barrier-Reef-2013.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rica/pdf/FEB4_Organic_farming_final_web.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/forest/strategy/communication_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/lifefocus/documents/jobs_skills.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/lifefocus/documents/jobs_skills.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/ENV-12-018_LR_Final1.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/forest/text_en.pdf


https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/sites/maritimeforum/files/Blue%20Growth%20Atlantic_Seabasin%20report%20FINAL%2007Mar14.pdf

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/sites/maritimeforum/files/Blue%20Growth%20Atlantic_Seabasin%20report%20FINAL%2007Mar14.pdf

http://www.vhg.org/media/rtf/Kennisbank/2015_0739_DG_RTD_WEB-Publication_A4_NBS_long_version_20150310.pdf

http://www.vhg.org/media/rtf/Kennisbank/2015_0739_DG_RTD_WEB-Publication_A4_NBS_long_version_20150310.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/forest/strategy/communication_en.pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/index.cfm?pg=nbs

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcrp101.pdf/$FILE/fcrp101.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Tourism_industries_-_employment

97

FAO (2011). Green Jobs for a Revitalized Food and Agriculture Sector. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/suistainability/pdf/FAO_green_jobs_paper_March_31.pdf Farsani T. N., Coelho C. & Costa C. (2011). Geotourism and Geoparks as Novel Strategies for Socio-economic Development in Rural Areas. International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 13, pages 68-81. https://www.academia.edu/658578/Geotourism_and_geoparks_as_novel_strategies_for_socio-economic_development_in_rural_areas Gantioler S., Rayment M. et al (2010). Costs and Socio-Economic Benefits associated with the Natura 2000 Network. Final report to the European Commission, DG Environment on Contract ENV.B.2/SER/2008/0038. Institute for European Environmental Policy / GHK / Ecologic, Brussels 2010 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/natura2000_costs_benefits.pdf ICF GHK (2012). The EU biodiversity objectives and the labour market: benefits and identification of skill gaps in the current workforce. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/biodiversity/Biodiversity%20and%20Jobs_final%20report.pdf ILO (2003). Employment Trends and Prospects in the European Forest Sector. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/publications/dp-29.pdf Information on Kerava Prison, Finland https://sites.google.com/site/juuretvapauteen/ http://www.inworkproject.eu/toolbox/index.php/good-practice-collection/good-practice-european-wips/activity/2-uncategorised/91-activity-environmentally-friendly Information on Kirkerud gård, Hakadal, Norway http://www.kirkerudgard.no/ Lundmark L., Fredman P. & Sandell K. (2010). National Parks and Protected Areas and the Role for Employment in Tourism and Forest Sectors: a Swedish Case. Ecology and society, Vol. 15, Issue 1, Art. 19. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss1/art19/ Mayer M., Job H. (2014). The Economics of Protected Areas – A European Perspective. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265140752_The_economics_of_protected_areas_-_A_European_perspective Mutersbaugh T. (2005). Just-in-space: certified rural products, labor quality and regulatory spaces. Journal of rural studies, Vol. 21, Issue 4, pages 389-402. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016705000677. Natural Resources Wales (2013). Evalutating the benefits to business of the Wales coast path http://www.walescoastpath.gov.uk/media/1144/evaluating-the-benefits-to-business-of-the-wales-coast-path.pdf

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/suistainability/pdf/FAO_green_jobs_paper_March_31.pdf

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/suistainability/pdf/FAO_green_jobs_paper_March_31.pdf

https://www.academia.edu/658578/Geotourism_and_geoparks_as_novel_strategies_for_socio-economic_development_in_rural_areas

https://www.academia.edu/658578/Geotourism_and_geoparks_as_novel_strategies_for_socio-economic_development_in_rural_areas

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/natura2000_costs_benefits.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/natura2000_costs_benefits.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/biodiversity/Biodiversity%20and%20Jobs_final%20report.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/biodiversity/Biodiversity%20and%20Jobs_final%20report.pdf

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/publications/dp-29.pdf

https://sites.google.com/site/juuretvapauteen/

http://www.inworkproject.eu/toolbox/index.php/good-practice-collection/good-practice-european-wips/activity/2-uncategorised/91-activity-environmentally-friendly

http://www.inworkproject.eu/toolbox/index.php/good-practice-collection/good-practice-european-wips/activity/2-uncategorised/91-activity-environmentally-friendly

http://www.kirkerudgard.no/

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss1/art19/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265140752_The_economics_of_protected_areas_-_A_European_perspective

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265140752_The_economics_of_protected_areas_-_A_European_perspective


http://www.walescoastpath.gov.uk/media/1144/evaluating-the-benefits-to-business-of-the-wales-coast-path.pdf

http://www.walescoastpath.gov.uk/media/1144/evaluating-the-benefits-to-business-of-the-wales-coast-path.pdf

98

Rayment M., Pirgmaier E. et al (2009). The economic benefits of environmental policy, A project under the Framework contract for economic analysis ENV.G.1/FRA/2006/0073 – 2nd http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/economics_policy/pdf/report_economic_benefits.pdf Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (RWI) (2013). Regionalökonomische Effekte des Emscherumbaus. http://www.rwi-essen.de/media/content/pages/publikationen/rwi-projektberichte/PB_Regionaloekonomische_Effekte_des_Emscherumbaus.pdf. Roncin, N., Alban, F., Charbonnel, E., Crec'hriou, R., de la Cruz Modino, R., Culioli, J.-M., Dimech, M., Goni, R., Guala, I., Higgins, R., Lavisse, E., Direach, L.L., Luna, B., Marcos, C., Maynou, F., Pascual, J., Person, J., Smith, P., Stobart, B., Sze. (2008) Uses of ecosystem services provided by MPAs: How much do they impact the local economy? A southern Europe perspective. Journal for Nature Conservation, 16, 256–270. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1617138108000356 ten Brink P., Badura T., Bassi S., Daly, E., Dickie, I., Ding H., Gantioler S., Gerdes, H., Kettunen M., Lago, M., Lang, S., Markandya A., Nunes P.A.L.D., Pieterse, M., Rayment M., Tinch R., (2011). Estimating the Overall Economic Value of the Benefits provided by the Natura 2000 Network. Final Report to the European Commission, DG Environment on Contract ENV.B.2/SER/2008/0038. Institute for European Environmental Policy / GHK / Ecologic. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/Economic_Benefits_of_Natura_2000_report.pdf ten Brink P., Mutafoglu K., Schweitzer J-P., Kettunen M., Twigger-Ross C., Baker J., Kuipers Y., Emonts M., Tyrväinen L., Hujala T., and Ojala A. (2016) The Health and Social Benefits of Nature and Biodiversity Protection. A report for the European Commission (ENV.B.3/ETU/2014/0039), Institute for European Environmental Policy, London/Brussels. http://ieep.eu/assets/2074/Health_and_Social_Benefits_of_Nature_-_Final_Report_Main_sent.pdf Schops I. (2011). TEEB case: Developing the first national park in Belgium together with stakeholders

http://www.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/TEEBcase-Developing-the-first-national-

park-in-Belgium-together-with-stakeholders.pdf.

Smit J. M., van Leeuwen S. E. et al (2015). Rural development funding and agricultural labour productivity: A spatial analysis of the European Union at the NUTS2 level. Ecological Indicators, Vol. 59, pages 6-18. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X15003210 (no free access) Viola I., Pontrandolfi A. & Manelli A. (2016). The employment crisis and green orientation in agriculture: new education models. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedi, Vol. 8, pages 560_565. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210784316300742

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/economics_policy/pdf/report_economic_benefits.pdf

http://www.rwi-essen.de/media/content/pages/publikationen/rwi-projektberichte/PB_Regionaloekonomische_Effekte_des_Emscherumbaus.pdf



http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/Economic_Benefits_of_Natura_2000_report.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/Economic_Benefits_of_Natura_2000_report.pdf

http://ieep.eu/assets/2074/Health_and_Social_Benefits_of_Nature_-_Final_Report_Main_sent.pdf

http://www.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/TEEBcase-Developing-the-first-national-park-in-Belgium-together-with-stakeholders.pdf

http://www.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/TEEBcase-Developing-the-first-national-park-in-Belgium-together-with-stakeholders.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X15003210


99

4. Public Health


The health sector plays an important role in the economy as it represents 8% of the workforce and 10% of GDP in the European Union (EC, 2015a, p1). It is a major burden on national and private budgets in many countries.

Public funding is critical to healthcare as it finances more than 70% of health expenditures in two thirds of the Member States (MS). These healthcare expenditures usually represent a significant part of total public spending, with an EU average of 15%, and a variation from 8% to 20% across MS (EC, 2015a, p1-2).

The “health and social work” sector is also decisive to employment: it showed the largest rise in recent years, with more than 2 million jobs. “Residential care”, “human health”, and “non-residential social work” sub-sectors experienced the highest increase with respectively 47%, 31% and 22% more jobs between 2008 and 2014 (EC, 2015a, p3).

Equitable access to quality healthcare is still not ensured in all the MS, across which situations widely vary. While self-reported unmet needs for medical examination remains below 4% of the population in 20 MS, the share goes up to 7-8% in 5 MS, and to 10% and 14% respectively in Latvia and Romania. The most cited reasons for unmet needs were inability and/or unwillingness to pay, or waiting times (EC, 2015a, p5-6).

Healthcare spending is one of the fastest growing items in European public budgets (EC, 2015a, p7), which raises questions about the financial sustainability of healthcare systems and the ability to provide long-term care. The ageing of populations might increase public spending by 2 pp. of GDP between 2013 and 2060, mostly due to healthcare and long-term care expenses (EPC/EC, 2015, p4). Growing incomes and technological innovations are also likely to increase the level of health-related expenditure (EC, 2015a, p7).

Many MS health systems face cost-effectiveness issues as well, which is usually measured through the ratio between healthcare expenditures and life expectancy. For example, people in Cyprus and France have approximatively the same life expectancy (around 82 years old), while Cyprus’ healthcare spending is 42% lower (EC, 2015a, p11).

Climate change is very likely to amplify these problems. Depending on the assumptions, the effects of climate change on health in the EU are expected to represent €2 to €30 billion by the 2020s and €8 to €180 billion by 2100 (Ciscar et al., 2009, p97).

The EU’s Third Health Programme 2014-2020 plans to address these challenges throughout four priorities: (1) to promote health, prevent diseases and foster healthy environments, (2) to protect EU citizens from cross-border health threats, (3) to contribute to innovative, efficient and sustainable health systems, and (4) to facilitate access to quality healthcare.

100


Prevention of diseases accounts for only 2.8% of total health spending in the EU27, a problem raised both in the previous health programme (EC, 2007) and the 2013 Investing on Health report (EC). There is growing evidence on the preventive role of nature towards both physical and mental pathologies.

Air pollution (especially particulate matter) is the leading environmental cause of ill health in Europe (EBoDE, 2010), was responsible for 400,000 deaths in EU28 in 2012 (EEA, 2015a), and generated a global health cost of more than €1 trillion (WHO Europe & OECD, 2015, p30). Nature can reduce air pollution levels through gaseous absorption or dry deposition (Currie & Bass, 2008), and decrease people’s exposure to pollutants by providing oases or by bringing about behavioural change in urban mobility (ECF, 2014; EEA, 2015b).

Noise pollution can generate auditory effects, e.g. hearing impairment and tinnitus, and non-auditory ones, e.g. annoyance, sleep disturbance, stress, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, and impaired cognitive development of children (Basner et al., 2014). WHO (2011) estimates that 1 million healthy life years (HLY) are lost per year due to traffic noise in Western Europe. Vegetation can hamper noise propagation and reduce traffic noise (van Renterghem et al., 2015; Hosanna, 2013).

Extreme high temperature can cause exhaustion, heat stroke and mortality (Kovats et al., 1999). The 2003 heat wave caused up to 70,000 deaths in Europe. Climate change (EEA, 2012a) and the urban heat island effect (Watkins, Palmer, & Kolokotroni, 2007) are likely to straighten similar event in the future. Consequently, 70,000 to 127,000 additional deaths per year are expected by the 2080s (ClimateCost, 2011). Nature contributes to cooling through shade and evapotranspiration (Ennos, 2012), and provides oases on hot days (Bowler Buyung-Ali Knight & Pullin, 2010).

WHO (2010) estimates that a 25% of European adults and 80% of European adolescent do not practice enough physical activity. Inactivity generates significant risks of developing cancer, type II diabetes, heart diseases and premature deaths: it is the fourth leading risk factor for all global deaths. In EU28, inactivity causes 500,000 deaths/year and €80.4 billion per year in direct and indirect costs (ISCA Cerb, 2015). Green exercise (activity in the presence of nature) is shown to generate positive effects on physical and mental health, and people tend to exercise more and longer outdoor than in built environments (Thompson et al., 2011; Neuvonen et al., 2007; Focht et al., 2009; Gladwell et al., 2013).

Prolonged stress is linked to several diseases such as infections, cardiovascular, gastroenterological and immunological diseases, diabetes, depression and aggression (Kivimäki et al., 2002; Wellen et al., 2005; Nilsson et al., 2011). Each year, 38% of the EU population suffers from a mental disorder (Wittchen et al., 2011), resulting in higher rates of absenteeism at work (EU-WMH, date unknown). Being in contact with nature can improve children’s concentration (Faber Taylor & Kuo, 2009), reduce stress (Tyrväinen et al., 2014),

27http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Healthcare_expenditure_by_function,_2012_(%25_of_current_health_expenditure)_YB15.png

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Healthcare_expenditure_by_function,_2012_(%25_of_current_health_expenditure)_YB15.png

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Healthcare_expenditure_by_function,_2012_(%25_of_current_health_expenditure)_YB15.png

101

blood pressure and cortisol levels (e.g. Park et al., 2010; Li, 2010; Horiuchi et al., 2013). Thus, nature plays an important role for both physical and mental health.


Basner et al. (2014). Auditory and non-auditory effects of noise on health. The Lancet 2014, 383:1325-32.

Bowler, D.E., Buyung-Ali, L., Knight, T.M., and Pullin, A.S. (2010) Urban greening to cool towns and cities: A systematic review of empirical evidence. Landscape and Urban Planning 97:147-155.

Ciscar J-C., Soria A., Goodess C. M., Christensen O. B., Iglesias A., Garrote L. et al. (2009). Climate change impacts in Europe. Final report of the PESETA research project, EUR 24093 EN https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238796263_Climate_change_impacts_in_Europe_Final_report_of_the_PESETA_research_project

ClimateCost (2011) Technical Policy Briefing Note 5: Health, The Impacts and Economic Costs of Climate Change on Health in Europe http://www.climatecost.cc/images/Policy_Brief_5_Climatecost_Health_Summary_Results_vs_5_draft_final_web.pdf

Currie, B., & Bass, B. (2008). Estimates of air pollution mitigation with green plants and green roofs using the UFORE model. Urban Ecosyst, 11, 409-422. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225190459_Estimates_of_air_pollution_mitigation_with_green_plants_and_green_roofs_using_the_UFORE_model

EBoDE (2011). European Perspectives on Environmental Burden of Disease Estimates for Nine Stressors in Six European Countries. Otto Hänninen & Anne Knol Editions. Helsinki, Finland 2011 http://www.iss.it/binary/ampp/cont/13__IAVARONE_b75f6999_e7c4_4550_a939_3bccb19e41c1_1_.pdf

EC (2007). Together for Health: A Strategic Approach for the EU 2008-2013, COM(2007) 630 final, 23/10/2007, Burssels http://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_overview/documents/strategy_wp_en.pdf

EC (2013). Investing in Health. SWD(2013) 43 final, 20/02/2013, Brussels http://ec.europa.eu/health/strategy/docs/swd_investing_in_health.pdf

EC (2014). The Third Health Programme 2014-2020 Funding Health Initiatives http://ec.europa.eu/health/programme/docs/factsheet_healthprogramme2014_2020_en.pdf

EC (2015a). European Semester Thematic Fiche - Health and Health systems http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/themes/2015/health-and-health-systems.pdf

EEA (2015a). Air quality in Europe – 2015 report http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/air-quality-in-europe-2015

EEA (2015b). European Briefings – Urban systems, http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/europe/urban-systems

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238796263_Climate_change_impacts_in_Europe_Final_report_of_the_PESETA_research_project

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238796263_Climate_change_impacts_in_Europe_Final_report_of_the_PESETA_research_project

http://www.climatecost.cc/images/Policy_Brief_5_Climatecost_Health_Summary_Results_vs_5_draft_final_web.pdf

http://www.climatecost.cc/images/Policy_Brief_5_Climatecost_Health_Summary_Results_vs_5_draft_final_web.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225190459_Estimates_of_air_pollution_mitigation_with_green_plants_and_green_roofs_using_the_UFORE_model

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225190459_Estimates_of_air_pollution_mitigation_with_green_plants_and_green_roofs_using_the_UFORE_model

http://www.iss.it/binary/ampp/cont/13__IAVARONE_b75f6999_e7c4_4550_a939_3bccb19e41c1_1_.pdf

http://www.iss.it/binary/ampp/cont/13__IAVARONE_b75f6999_e7c4_4550_a939_3bccb19e41c1_1_.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_overview/documents/strategy_wp_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/health/strategy/docs/swd_investing_in_health.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/health/programme/docs/factsheet_healthprogramme2014_2020_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/themes/2015/health-and-health-systems.pdf

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/air-quality-in-europe-2015

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/air-quality-in-europe-2015

http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/europe/urban-systems

http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/europe/urban-systems

102

Ennos, R. (2012). Quantifying the cooling benefits of urban trees, in: Forestry Commission (2012). Trees, People, and the Built Environment, Proceedings of the Urban Trees Research.

EPC/EC (2015). The 2015 Ageing Report, Economic and budgetary projections for the 28 EU Member States (2013-2060), ISSN 1725-3217 http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2015/pdf/ee3_en.pdf

European Cyclists’ Federation (ECF) (2014). Cycling and Urban Air Quality – A study of European Experiences, Brussels. http://www.slideshare.net/EuropeanCyclistsFederation/cycling-and-urban-air-quality-astudyofeuropeanexperiences

EU-WMH (date unknown). The burden of mental disorders in the European Union #1

Faber Taylor, A. & Kuo, F.E. (2009). Children with attention deficits concentrate better after walk in the park. Journal of Attention Disorders 12: 402–409.

Focht, B. (2009). Brief walks in outdoor and laboratory environments: effects on affective responses, enjoyment, and intentions to walk for exercise. Res Q Exerc Sport, 80:611–620.

Gladwell, V.F., Brown, D.K. et al. (2013). The great outdoors: how a green exercise environment can benefit all. Extrem Physiol Med, 2:3.

Horiuchi, M., Endo, J. et al. (2013). Influence of forest walking on blood pressure, profile of mood states, and stress markers from the viewpoint of aging. J Aging Gerontol, 1: 9-17.

Hosanna project (2013). Novel solutions for quieter and greener cities. www.greener-cities.eu

ISCA Cebr (2015). The economic cost of physical inactivity in Europe. June 2015.

Kivimäki M. et al. (2002). Work stress and risk of cardiovascular mortality: prospective cohort study of industrial employees. British Medical Journal, 2002, 325:857–860.

Kovats, R.S. et al, (1999). Climate Change and human health in Europe. BMJ 318:1682-1685.

Li, Q. (2010). Effect of forest bathing trips on human immune function. Environmental Health & Preventive Medicine 15(1): 917.

Lim, S.S., Vos, T. et al. (2012). A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 380 (9859), 2224–60.

Neuvonen, M., Sievänen, T. et al. (2007). Access to green areas and the frequency of visits - A case study in Helsinki. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 6(4): 235-247.

Nilsson, K, Sangster, M, and Konijnendijk, C C (2011). Forest, trees and human health and well-being: Introduction, in K Nilsson, M Sangster, C Gallis, T Hartig, S de Vries, K. Seeland, et al (eds) Forest, trees and human health, pp1-19. Springer Science Business Media.

Park, B. J., Tsunetsugu, Y. et al. (2010). The physiological effects of Shinrin-yoku (taking in the forest atmosphere or forest bathing): Evidence from field experiments in 24 forests across Japan. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, 15(1): 18e26.

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2015/pdf/ee3_en.pdf

http://www.slideshare.net/EuropeanCyclistsFederation/cycling-and-urban-air-quality-astudyofeuropeanexperiences

http://www.slideshare.net/EuropeanCyclistsFederation/cycling-and-urban-air-quality-astudyofeuropeanexperiences

http://www.greener-cities.eu/

103

Thompson Coon, J., Boddy, K. et al. (2011). Does participating in physical activity in outdoor natural environments have a greater effect on physical and mental wellbeing than physical activity indoors? A systematic review. Environmental Science & Technology 1(3), 45(5): 1761–1772.

Tyrväinen, L., Ojala, A. et al. (2014). The Influence of Urban Green Environments on Stress Relief Measures: A Field Experiment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38(6): 1-9.

van Renterghem, T. et al. (2015). Using natural means to reduce surface transport noise during propagation outdoors. Applied Acoustics 92, 86-101.

Watkins, R., Palmer, J., Kolokotroni, M. (2007). Increased Temperature and Intensification of the Urban Heat Island: Implications for Human Comfort and Urban Design, Built Environment, 33 (1), 85-96.

Wellen, K, E., & Hotamisligil, G., S., (2005). Inflammation, stress, and diabetes. J Clin Invest. May 2; 115(5): 1111–1119.

WHO (2011). Burden of disease from environmental noise, Quantification of healthy life years lost in Europe http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/136466/e94888.pdf

WHO Regional Office for Europe, OECD (2015). Economic cost of the health impact of air pollution in Europe: Clean air, health and wealth. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/276772/Economic-cost-health-impact-air-pollution-en.pdf

Wittchen H. U. et al. (2011). The size and burden of mental disorders and other disorders of the brain in Europe 2010. European Neuropsychopharmacology, 21, 655–679

World Health Organisation. (2010). Global recommendations on physical activity for health

http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/136466/e94888.pdf



104

5. Regional Development What are the challenges across Europe? Regions have an important role to play in generating wealth and jobs, and can provide links between the European institutions and local communities (ESFRI, 2011). However, as well as economic and social disparities between the Member States, there are also large imbalances within member states and across territories, which are evident at the regional level. The recent economic crisis is associated with rising economic disparities and increased unemployment and poverty levels in most parts of the EU (European Commission, 2014b). For instance, employment rates were 11 percentage points higher in more developed regions (72%) than in less developed ones (61%) in 2013 (European Commission, 2014). The number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion in the EU increased by 6.5 million between 2008 and 2012, to almost a quarter (24.8%) of the population (European Commission, 2014b). Life expectancy in the EU, which is a reflection of well-being, varies across the regions. In 17 regions in Italy, France and Spain, life expectancy at birth is 83 years or more, and in two-thirds of regions, it is over 80. However, it is less than 74 in many parts of Bulgaria as well as in Latvia and Lithuania (European Commission, 2014b). To address these challenges, economic, social and territorial cohesion policy in the period up to 2020 is focused on the EU’s objectives on jobs and economic growth (European Commission, 2014b). EU Cohesion Policy is the umbrella term for policies that address imbalances in territorial development across the European Union in order to reduce “disparities between the various regions and the backwardness of the least-favoured regions” (Single European Act, 1986). Funding for projects with a cohesion policy element can come from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF), the Cohesion Fund (CF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). Together, these five funds are referred to as the European Structural Investment Funds (ESIF) and they account for more than one third of the EU’s total budget (European Commission, 2014a). They play a significant role in delivering the Europe 2020 strategy. Some challenges are common throughout Europe and characteristic of certain types of regions. For instance, the economic development of rural areas and preserving and enhancing forestry and agricultural ecosystems is a challenge common to many regions. At the same time, coastal regions all over Europe can be characterized by similar challenges, such as badly managed tourism developments, pollution, and the decline of the fishing industry, as well as habitat destruction and coastal erosion (European Commission, 2001). Cohesion Policy distinguishes between three groups of regions: more developed regions are those with a GDP/capita of more than 90% of the EU average, transition regions with a GDP/capita between 75% and 90% of the EU average, and less developed regions with a GDP/capita of less than 75% of the EU average. Cohesion Policy benefits all EU regions, but poorer ones receive higher levels of investment (European Commission, 2014).

105

EU regional policy supports the development of regions through capital investment and supporting job creation, competitiveness, economic growth, improvement in quality of life, and sustainable development. This investment and support is important for delivering the Europe 2020 strategy. What can the role of nature/biodiversity be in addressing these challenges? In the 2014–2020 period, €351 billion investment will be made through Cohesion Policy in areas that support smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, in line with the Europe 2020 strategy (European Commission, 2014a). The protection of the environment, including biodiversity and nature protection, is one of eleven thematic objectives for Cohesion Policy (IEEP and Milieu, 2013). This is complemented by the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2020, which encourages collaboration between stakeholders involved in land use management to ensure coherency with the European Territorial Agenda (European Commission, 2011). EU Cohesion Policy supports measures aimed at the protection of biodiversity and nature, and other natural assets like water, clean air and raw materials. Cohesion policy can support investment in the Natura 2000 network (DG for Regional and Urban Policy, 2014), which in itself is a type of green infrastructure (European Commission, 2014b). As well as constructing “green bridges” and creating habitats, investment in Natura 2000 has improved cross-border and multi-region cooperation. Cohesion policy can also provide means and leverage to help catalyse sustainable change and grasp the inherent multi-benefits of investment in nature (IEEP and Milieu, 2013). In 2014–2020, there is a new opportunity to apply ERDF and CF investment to green infrastructure. This can include maintaining or developing high-quality green public spaces, green roofs and vertical gardens and storm pond systems etc. (DG for Regional and Urban Policy, 2014). This type of investment can have a positive effect on biodiversity, while at the same time contribute to job creation, improved quality of life for communities, and climate change adaptation. Investing in biodiversity projects can contribute to cross-border and multi-region cooperation. For instance, the European Regional Development Fund has been used to finance the “Alps-Carpathians Corridor”, which fosters cooperation between Austria and Slovakia to reduce land fragmentation and facilitate migration and genetic exchange of wild animals (InfoRegio, 2007). Similarly, the Salvere biodiversity project between Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Poland and Slovakia, has had a major contribution to grassland biodiversity in Central Europe. The project promoted High Nature Value Farmland in these countries to enhance local biodiversity (InfoRegio, 2014). The project involved harvesting seeds from species-rich grasslands, which were then used for restoration of species-poor grasslands and re-vegetation or former arable land, ski slopes, road embankments, and mined sites (Kirmer and Tischew, 2010). The project has resulted in increased specialisation in sustainable landscape management in the partner countries, with each now having a common technical methodology for restoring semi-natural grassland (InfoRegio, 2014).

106

The Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) approach, adopted for the 2014–2020 period, is also supported by Cohesion Policy and offers ample potential for the implementation of projects related to nature and biodiversity. It is hoped that this approach will help to address some issues in the 2007–2013 period in relation to biodiversity funding, such as governance and capacity problems within authorities (DG for Regional and Urban Policy, 2014). Working with nature can also complement other Cohesion Policy measures, such as support for innovation generally and for energy efficiency and renewable energies particularly (ten Brink, P. et al., 2012). Investing in ecosystem-based approaches can be effective for climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well as for generating other benefits beyond biodiversity conservation itself. Ecosystem restoration and green infrastructure shows great scope for innovation which yet is largely untapped (European Commission, 2011). This nature-based innovation, and efforts to conserve biodiversity and protect ecosystems, has the potential to create new business opportunities and jobs (European Commission, 2011). The restoration of degraded ecosystems and enhancement of ecosystem services contributes to both the biodiversity targets and the EU’s objectives for sustainable growth and economic, territorial and social cohesion (European Commission, 2011). Realising the benefits of interconnections between Cohesion Policy, biodiversity objectives and wider EU 2020 targets can help to promote sustainable green growth and territorial cohesion (IEEP and Milieu, 2013). References and further literature Dijkstra, L. and Athanasoglou, S., 2015, The Europe 2020 Index: The Progress of EU Countries, Regions and Cities to the 2020 Targets. May 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/focus/2015_01_europe2020_index.pdf DG for Regional and Urban Policy, 2014, Thematic Guidance Fiche for Desk Officers. Biodiversity, Green Infrastructure, Ecosystem Services and Natura 2000. Version 2, 20/02/2014. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/guidance_fiche_biodiversity_n2000.pdf European Commission, 2001, EU focus on coastal zones. Turning the tide for Europe’s coastal zones. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/2000brochure_en.pdf European Commission, 2011, Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/EP_resolution_april2012.pdf European Commission, 2014a, A new Cohesion Policy for jobs and growth in Europe 2014 – changes for 2014-2020, March 2014. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/information/cohesion-policy-achievement-and-future-investment/factsheet/en.pdf European Commission, 2014b, Investment for jobs and growth. Promoting development and good governance in EU regions and cities. Sixth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion.

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/focus/2015_01_europe2020_index.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/guidance_fiche_biodiversity_n2000.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/guidance_fiche_biodiversity_n2000.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/2000brochure_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/EP_resolution_april2012.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/information/cohesion-policy-achievement-and-future-investment/factsheet/en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/information/cohesion-policy-achievement-and-future-investment/factsheet/en.pdf

107

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/cohesion6/6cr_en.pdf European Commission website, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/faq/#1. Date Accessed: 12.02.2015 European Union, 2011, Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020. Towards an Inclusive, Smart and Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions. http://www.nweurope.eu/media/1216/territorial_agenda_2020.pdf ESFRI, 2011, ESFRI Regional Issues Working Group Report 2010, May 2011. https://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/pdf/regional_issues.pdf IEEP and Milieu (2013). The Guide to Multi-Benefit Cohesion Policy Investments in Nature and Green Infrastructure. By Peter Hjerp, Patrick ten Brink, Keti Medarova-Bergstrom, Leonardo Mazza, and Marianne Kettunen of IEEP, together with Jennifer McGuinn, Paola Banfi and Guillermo Hernández of Milieu. A Report for the European Commission. Brussels. http://www.ieep.eu/assets/1235/guide_multi_benefit_nature.pdf InfoRegio, 2007, Innovative Alps-Carpathians Corridor re-establishes a major migration route for wild animals. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/projects/austria/innovative-alps-carpathians-corridor-re-establishes-a-major-migration-route-for-wild-animals Kirmer, A. and Tischew, S., 2010, The EU-Salvere Project: Producing Native Seeds using threshing material and species-rich hay from grasslands. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257921853_THE_EU-SALVERE_PROJECT_PRODUCING_NATIVE_SEEDS_USING_THRESHING_MATERIAL_AND_SPECIES-RICH_HAY_FROM_GRASSLANDS ten Brink, P., Mazza L., Badura, T., Kettunen, M. and Withana, S. (2012) Nature and its Role in the Transition to a Green Economy. http://www.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Green-Economy-Report.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/cohesion6/6cr_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/cohesion6/6cr_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/faq/#1

http://www.nweurope.eu/media/1216/territorial_agenda_2020.pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/pdf/regional_issues.pdf

http://www.ieep.eu/assets/1235/guide_multi_benefit_nature.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/projects/austria/innovative-alps-carpathians-corridor-re-establishes-a-major-migration-route-for-wild-animals

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/projects/austria/innovative-alps-carpathians-corridor-re-establishes-a-major-migration-route-for-wild-animals

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257921853_THE_EU-SALVERE_PROJECT_PRODUCING_NATIVE_SEEDS_USING_THRESHING_MATERIAL_AND_SPECIES-RICH_HAY_FROM_GRASSLANDS



http://www.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Green-Economy-Report.pdf

108

6. Urban Development and Regeneration


“Urbanisation is both a challenge and an opportunity to manage ecosystem services globally” (CBD, 2012, p. 20) Urbanisation means that urban dwellers represent the overwhelming majority (around 72%) of the European population (Eurostat, 2015). Urban areas might be defined by their population density, administrative delineation, morphological characteristics, and functional area (EEA, 2009, p. 11). A number of challenges affect cities as a whole, but also affect the lives of individuals; at both levels, issues are often interrelated. At the European level, there is no single policy to address urban development; however, there are a range of programmes and initiatives that are relevant to cities. Challenges for European cities

Economic competitiveness – cities are economic powerhouses and compete with each other on a global market. 67% of the EU’s GDP is generated in metropolitan areas, whilst their population accounts for just 59% of the total population. The Commission Communication on the Urban Dimension of EU Policies outlines the need for cities to drive growth and resource efficiency (European Commission, 2014).

Stewardship, consumption and ecological footprint – cities have a key role and responsibility in managing planetary resources and ecosystems. Cities occupy just 3% of the earth’s land surface but between 60-80% of material consumption can be attributed to cities (Peter and Swilling, 2012).

Energy, waste and pollution – cities consume between 60-80% of global energy demand, and similar values for CO2 emissions (OECD, 2010). For this reason, they are central to the energy transition and climate change mitigation. They also produce vast quantities of waste and other pollutants. The Covenant of Mayors, established in 2008, it is the world’s largest coalition of cities committed to addressing climate change. It offers European cities a voluntary commitment to meet and exceed the EU 20% CO2 reduction target.

Water management – cities face huge challenges in meeting the demand for fresh water for consumers and industry, as well as managing run-off across large areas of impermeable surfaces present in urban areas. In the UK, it is estimated that flooding in urban areas costs a minimum of EUR 300 million a year (Sunderland, 2012).

Biodiversity – cities can harbour rich biodiversity, all cities ultimately depend on ecosystem services. Of the 34 global biodiversity hotspots identified by Conservation International, all contain urban areas (CBD, 2012), in Europe a number of Natura 2000 sites are close to or within city limits.

Challenges to quality of life

Health – urban citizens face a number of health challenges, which are often specific to urban environments or ways of life. These include respiratory disease linked to poor air quality, heat stress linked to the urban heat island effect, obesity linked to sedentary

109

lifestyles, noise related disease, and allergies related to low microbial diversity (ten Brink et al., 2016, Romanelli et al., 2015). 80 million people (20 %) in the EU were exposed to road traffic noise above 65dB(A) – associated with cardiovascular disease (EEA, 2014).

Transport – transport is a key driver of development in cities, supporting jobs, services and industry. However, it also causes congestion, emissions and pollution. Hence, there is a need for sustainable transport. Congestion costs the EU approximately 1% of GDP, ~ EUR 100 billion (European Commission, 2006). A target within the Europe 2020 strategy is to focus on the urban dimension of transport “where much of the congestion and emissions are generated” (European Commission, 2010).

Climate challenges – intense flooding and heat stress linked to climate change present significant and costly challenges to cities. An estimated 70,000 additional European deaths were recorded following heat waves in 2003 (Robine et al., 2008). In Copenhagen, cloud burst flooding in 2011 caused EUR 800 million of damage (The City of Copenhagen, 2012).

Social Integration – cities are highly diverse in socio-economic, social and ethnic terms, affecting lifestyles, attitudes and day-to-day activities. This presents opportunities and challenges to all cities. In Vienna, the charity Caritas run three neighbourhood gardens, participants include elderly people that need care, disabled people and underage refugees separated from their parents. The aim is to provide a means for social interaction and inclusion (Schweitzer et al., 2016). Reducing those in or at risk of poverty and social exclusion in one of the Europe 2020 targets (European Commission, 2010).


Cities’ strategies – city plans and strategies that acknowledge the potential and value biodiversity are important tools for achieving these goals. For example, many local authorities have developed green infrastructure strategies. Whilst investment in individual sites or parks is useful, much of the utility of biodiversity is linked to networked green spaces. The European Green Capital and Green Leaf Awards promote large and small cities for being leaders on environmental sustainability; previous winners include Stockholm, Bristol and Nantes.

Smart cities, which promote intelligent urban design and planning, for example supported by mapping, big data, and citizen science, can facilitate cities to manage urban metabolisms effectively, including ecosystem services and the multiple benefits of biodiversity (Gill et al., 2007). The European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities (EIP-SCC) aims towards improving urban life through smart and sustainable solutions.

Green jobs and competitive cities – investing in nature provide opportunities to support employment and growth in cities in a number of areas including construction, maintenance, or management (Gore et al., 2013). The EU Green Infrastructure Strategy promotes the application of green infrastructure in urban environment to provide socio-economic benefits (European Commission, 2013). Jobs linked to green infrastructure require training or certification (see above section on jobs and skills), for example, installing green roofs, landscape gardening, ecology, or climatology linked to heat mapping. In 2012, it was estimated that the total number of people working in eco-industries was around 3.4 million

110

representing 1 % of the total work force. Resource efficiency and environmental protection can be used to support job creation (Rademaekers et al., 2012).

Urban regeneration – investment in green areas can support the movement of employers to an area and increase the value of local property. One study demonstrated that in the Netherlands distance to green space correlates with house prices, adding up to a 28% premium on costs (Luttik, 2000). Green infrastructure can help to regenerate areas in decline, or brownfield sites. The Emscher Landscape Park (ELP) in the Ruhr area of Germany covers an area of 456 km2, including 20 towns and 400 green infrastructure projects. The ELP aims to revitalise this region following the decline of steel and coal industries, and has contributed 3,700 indirect jobs (RWI, 2013).

Water management – sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS), including green infrastructure and nature based solutions, are increasingly being shown to be cost-effective methods to deliver drainage, which reduce flood risks and meet environmental legislation. One study in Manchester showed green roofs in the town centre could reduce run-off by up to 20% (Gill et al, 2007).

Energy efficiency in the built environment – nature based solutions can promote energy efficiencies in the built environment, thus helping to reduce energy costs and emissions. Green roofs for example can reduce the need for heating and cooling. Savings may also be made through rainwater harvesting.

City cooling and green space – investment in green infrastructure can mitigate the urban heat island effect and the effects of climate change. Green infrastructure cools cities through evapotranspiration and providing shade. Some cities have developed integrated plans and zoning in order to promote cool air exchange, as well as investments in green corridors. In Stuttgart in Germany, climate and air exchange mapping has informed planning regulations to facilitate cool air exchange. Regulations promote green infrastructure, and now 39% of the city is under nature conservation (Baden-Württemberg, 2012).

Integrated healthy cities – biodiversity should be integrated into urban policy and initiatives aimed towards supporting well-being. For example, promoting nature that serves as a setting for other activities, such as recreation, education, rehabilitation, wellness, cooling, and urban agriculture (CBD, 2012 p.31). City plans and strategies that acknowledge the potential and value biodiversity are important tools for achieving these goals. For example, rehabilitation gardens are already being used across Europe.

Urban and peri-urban agriculture – individual and collaborative engagement in agriculture can improve food security and nutrition; provide opportunities for employment, volunteering, exercise, and social integration, as well as contributing to urban biodiversity. In Barcelona, the city supports urban agriculture through its Horts Urbans (urban gardens) project, which provides 396 allotment plots free of charge to over 65s residing in the city – the aim is to support active living, good nutrition and biodiversity (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2016).

Soft mobility – promoting the use of soft or active mobility, such as walking and cycling, over motorised transport, by investing in green infrastructure and education campaigns, can

111

reduce congestion, air pollution, increase exercise, and promote tourism. A number of EU funds are available to increase the modal share of cycling and walking in transport systems, for example between as part of Intelligent Energy Europe EUR 33.6 million was invested in 21 cycling projects (European Commission, 2016).

Education and engaging youth – cities and their natural spaces offer unique opportunities to engage and educate future generations in finding employment, and contributing positively to a sustainable society. In Barcelona, the Social Forest project provides employment and training in forestry management to disadvantaged youth.

Opportunities for funding

Investment Fund

Relevant areas of focus Total budget (EUR)

Management Type of funding

Cohesion Fund Various: infrastructure, sustainability

63 bn National Authorities and EC

Grant

ERDF Various: 5% must be for urban development

183 bn National Authorities & EC

Grant

ESF Social: employment, integration, poverty, education

83 bn National Authorities & EC

Grant

LIFE Biodiversity: efficiency, waste management, GI

3.4 bn EC Grant

Connecting Europe Facility

Communication: transport, IT and energy

33 bn EC Grant

Horizon 2020 Research: clean technology, transport, efficiency, innovation

>70 bn EC Research funding

EFSI Various: infrastructure, energy SMEs

21 bn EIB Loan/equity

NCFF Natural capital: green infrastructure, climate change adaptation

100 million

EIB Loan/equity

JESSICA Urban: regeneration, redevelopment

na EIB Loan/equity


Ajuntament de Barcelona (2016) Horts urbans. Gestió del verd i biodiversitat. Barcelona. Available at: http://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/ecologiaurbana/ca/serveis/la-ciutat-

http://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/ecologiaurbana/ca/serveis/la-ciutat-funciona/manteniment-de-l-espai-public/gestio-del-verd-i-biodiversitat/horts-urbans

112

funciona/manteniment-de-l-espai-public/gestio-del-verd-i-biodiversitat/horts-urbans (Accessed: 14/07/2016 2016).

Baden-Württemberg 2012. Städtebauliche Klimafibel - Hinweise für die Bauleitplanung. In: Reuter, U. & Kapp, R. (eds.). Stuttgart: Ministerium für Verkehr und Infrastruktur Baden-Württemberg,.

CBD (2012) Cities and Biodiversity Outlook - Action and Policy, Montreal: CBD. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/health/cbo-action-policy-en.pdf.

EEA (2009) Ensuring quality of life in Europe's cities and towns, Copenhagen: European Environment Agency5/2009). Available at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/quality-of-life-in-Europes-cities-and-towns (Accessed: 5th July 2016).

EEA 2014. Noise in Europe 2014. EEA Report. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency (EEA).

European Commission (2006) Council and the European Parliament. Keep Europe moving - Sustainable mobility for our continent Mid-term review of the European Commission's 2001 Transport White Paper. Brussels: European Commission.

European Commission (2010) Europe 2020 A European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Brussels: European Commission.

European Commission (2013) Green Infrastructure (GI) - Enhancing Europe's Natural Capital. Brussels: European Commission.

European Commission (2014) The Urban Dimension of EU Policies - Key Features of an EU Urban Agenda. Brussels: European Commission.

European Commission (2016) Clean transport, Urban transport. Transport Themes. Brussels: DG Move. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/cycling_en.htm (Accessed: 14/07/2014 2016).

Eurostat 2015. Statistics on European cities. Statistics Explained. Luxembourg: Eurostat.

Gill, S. E., Handley, J. F., Ennos, A. R. and Pauleit, S. (2007) 'Adapting Cities for Climate Change: The Role of the Green Infrastructure', Built Environment, 33(1), pp. 115-133.

Gore, T., Ozdemiroglu, E., Eadson, W., Gianferrara, E. and Phang, Z. (2013) Green Infrastructure's contribution to economic growth: a review, London: eftecA Final Report for Defra and Natural England). Available at: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=19056.

Luttik, J. (2000) 'The value of trees, water and open space as reflected by house prices in the Netherlands', Landscape and Urban Planning, 48(3–4), pp. 161-167.

OECD 2010. Cities and Climate Change. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Peter, C. and Swilling, M. (2012) Sustainable, Resource Efficient Cities - Making it Happen! : UNEP. Available at: http://www.unep.org/urban_environment/PDFs/SustainableResourceEfficientCities.pdf.

Rademaekers, K. v. d. L., Jeroen, Widerberg, O., Zaki, S., Klaassens, E., Smith, M. and Steenkamp, C. (2012) The number of Jobs dependent on

the Environment and Resource

Efficiency improvements Rotterdam: Ecorys. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/jobs/pdf/jobs.pdf.

http://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/ecologiaurbana/ca/serveis/la-ciutat-funciona/manteniment-de-l-espai-public/gestio-del-verd-i-biodiversitat/horts-urbans

https://www.cbd.int/doc/health/cbo-action-policy-en.pdf

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/quality-of-life-in-Europes-cities-and-towns

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/quality-of-life-in-Europes-cities-and-towns

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/cycling_en.htm

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=19056

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=19056

http://www.unep.org/urban_environment/PDFs/SustainableResourceEfficientCities.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/jobs/pdf/jobs.pdf

113

Robine, J.-M., Cheung, S. L. K., Le Roy, S., Van Oyen, H., Griffiths, C., Michel, J.-P. and Herrmann, F. R. (2008) 'Death toll exceeded 70,000 in Europe during the summer of 2003', Comptes Rendus Biologies, 331(2), pp. 171-178.

Romanelli, C., Cooper, D., Campbell-Lendrum, D., Maiero, M., B. Karesh, W., Hunter, D. and Golden, C. D. (2015) Connecting global priorities: biodiversity and human health: a state of knowledge review., Geneva: World Health Organization and Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/health/SOK-biodiversity-en.pdf (Accessed: 14/07/2016).

RWI (2013) Endbericht – August 2013, Essen: Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (RWI). Available at: http://www.rwi-essen.de/media/content/pages/publikationen/rwi-projektberichte/PB_Regionaloekonomische_Effekte_des_Emscherumbaus.pdf.

Schweitzer, J.-P., Mutafoglu, K., ten Brink, P., Paquel, K., Illes, A., Gitti, G., Kettunen, M., Twigger-Ross, C., Baker, J., Kuipers, Y., Emonts, M., Tyrväinen, L., Hujala, T. and Ojala, A. 2016. The Health and Social

Benefits of Nature and Biodiversity Protection: Annex 1: 20 Cases. Annex 1. Brussels/London.

Sunderland, T. 2012. Microeconomic Evidence for the Benefits of Investment in the Environment - review Natural England Research Reports. Natural England,.

ten Brink, P., Mutafoglu, K., Schweitzer, J.-P., Kettunen, M., Twigger-Ross, C., Kuipers, Y., Emonts, M., Tyrväinen, L., Hujala, T. and Ojala, A. (2016) The health and social benefits of nature and biodiversity protection, London/Brussels: Institute for European Environmental PolicyInitiative funded by the European Commission (ENV.B.3/ETU/2014/0039)). Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/pdf/Study%20on%20Health%20and%20Social%20Benefits%20of%20Nature%20and%20Biodiversity%20Protection.pdf.

The City of Copenhagen (2012) Cloudburst Management Plan 2012, Copenhagen: Technical and Environmental Administration. Available at: http://www.deltacities.com/documents/WEB_UK_2013_skybrudsplan.pdf (Accessed: 11/07/2016).

https://www.cbd.int/health/SOK-biodiversity-en.pdf




http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/pdf/Study%20on%20Health%20and%20Social%20Benefits%20of%20Nature%20and%20Biodiversity%20Protection.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/pdf/Study%20on%20Health%20and%20Social%20Benefits%20of%20Nature%20and%20Biodiversity%20Protection.pdf

http://www.deltacities.com/documents/WEB_UK_2013_skybrudsplan.pdf

114

7. Demographic Change and Social Justice


Ageing, migration, poverty and disability – The demography of Europe is changing. The EU population is growing, predominantly because of migration, but it is also ageing. This brings about unique challenges as well as opportunities for Member States (European Commission, 2011a). Two population groups are particularly crucial for the EU in improving social cohesion and equality associated with its changing demographics: migrants and older people. Europe needs to tap into the potential of migrants and older people in order to foster economic growth and ensure improved social cohesion in order to meet its Europe 2020 strategy (European Commission, 2011a). Furthermore, adequate responses to poverty and disability also need to be developed to address social exclusion and social justice, and create conditions that are conducive to economic development.

Ageing

Population ageing is largely a result of economic, social and medical progress (European Commission, 2011a). Ageing is not solely associated with increased life expectancy. People are not simply living longer; they may also be living longer healthy lives. Evidence suggests that the ageing process, by which people become progressively disabled until they die, is being progressively delayed, rather than simply slowing down (European Commission, 2011a). Life expectancy has increased on average by 2 years per decade (Oeppen and Vaupel, 2002), but crucially, healthy life expectancy has been increasing at about the same rate (Vaupel and Lundström, 1994; Vaupel, 2010). In spite of this trend towards a greater number of healthy life years, Europe nevertheless must prepare for greater age-related expenditure (European Commission, 2011a). From 2010 to 2060, the old age dependency ratio (the population aged 65 or over in relation to that aged 20-64) is expected to rise from 28.4 % to 58.5% (European Commission, 2011a).

Migration

In most Member States, migration is the main instigator of population growth. Some 20 million non-EU nationals were living in the EU-27 in 2010, while in excess of 4,2 million non-nationals acquired citizenship of an EU Member State between 2009 and 2013 (Eurostat, 2015). Since migrants tend to be young, they also add to the labour force of the EU. In this regard, migration can play an important part in ensuring the economic competitiveness of the EU economy and address demographic imbalances associated with an ageing population (European Commission, 2011b). However, lack of integration is a challenge associated with migration and needs to be addressed by developing better social and cultural relations in communities (European Commission, 2011b). This is crucial for reaching the Europe 2020 objectives for social inclusion.

Poverty

Another major challenge for social cohesion and equity is to address poverty in Member States. In 2014, the average at-risk-of-poverty rate was 17.2 % in the EU-28 (Eurostat, 2016). In 2008, there were an estimated 80 million people in the EU living below the poverty line, which has certainly worsened as a result of the financial crisis. The Europe 2020 strategy

115

sets out to address this by lifting 20 million people out of poverty or social exclusion by 2020 (European Commission, 2011b). The risk of poverty in some member states is particularly exacerbated in rural areas. The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) supports rural development to improve educational and social infrastructure and, in doing so, enhance human capital (European Commission, 2011b).

Disability

According to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, people with disabilities are those who have “long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others”. As well as the 80 million Europeans that live below the poverty, a further 80 million with disabilities are estimated to be prevented from participating fully in society (European Commission, 2010). Many obstacles prevent those with disabilities from exercising their fundamental rights, such as the right to free movement and access to cultural, recreational and sports activities (European Commission, 2010). The European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 sets out to break down environmental and attitudinal barriers that prevent people with disabilities from living their lives on an equal basis as those without disabilities (European Commission, 2010).

Disability is also interlinked with the ageing population phenomenon. More than a third of those over 75 have disabilities that restrict them to a certain extent, while over 20% are substantially restricted (European Commission, 2010). Despite the trend of increased healthy life years, disability is likely to be a significant feature associated with the EU’s ageing population. For the EU’s 2020 strategy to succeed in bringing about smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, the full economic and social participation of people with disabilities is essential (European Commission, 2010).


The EU faces a unique set of demographic and social challenges, only briefly addressed above. It is evident that they need to be addressed in order to succeed in reaching the aims of the Europe 2020 strategy. What may be less evident initially is that biodiversity and nature can play a role in addressing these challenges. Nature and biodiversity protection is not only worthwhile for environmental reasons, but can also play a significant role in addressing demographic and social challenges. The many benefits of nature and interaction with it can be harnessed to support healthy ageing, the integration of migrants and to improve the wellbeing of those with disabilities or who are experiencing poverty. Investing in green infrastructure and biodiversity is also associated with regeneration and improved livelihoods. Examples from across the EU provide evidence of how nature and biodiversity are being used to generate improved social outcomes.

Nature and biodiversity are associated with multiple health benefits, which are particularly relevant for an ageing population. As well as these benefits, there are also links between nature and biodiversity and social factors, such improved social cohesion, reduced social tension (especially for minorities and the socially excluded), and both urban and rural regeneration (ten Brink et al, 2016). Green areas are associated with positive outcomes for social interaction and cohesion within communities (Korpela et al., 2014).

116

A review by Keniger et al. (2013) found that interacting with nature is associated with facilitating social interaction, social empowerment, reduced crime rates and violence, and improved interracial interaction, social cohesion, and social support. Green spaces can provide a place for people to interact, helping people to integrate in their community (ten Brink et al. 2016). Seeing one’s neighbours interacting in the neighbourhood environment, like local parks, can establish behavioural norms and contribute to more interaction (Bennet et al., 2012). Green spaces are also associated with leading interaction of residents with different cultural backgrounds (Bennet et al., 2012; Seeland et al., 2009). These types of interactions can in turn lead to improved inclusion and social cohesion (e.g. Hartig et al., 2014).

Green space can be considered particularly important for social equity and addressing Europe’s changing demographics in light of research by Maas et al. (2009), which found that the relationship between green space and social support especially strong for people with a low income or a low level of education. People from lower socio-economic groups and the elderly are amongst those who benefit the most from green spaces in their living environments as they spend more time in their immediate surroundings (ten Brink et al., 2016). People from low-income groups also to depend on green areas within the city that are accessible by public transport, as they do not have the means to visit distant green areas (Kabisch et al., 2015), indicating than urban green areas are very important for social equity.

Accessibility is crucial in order to get the maximum benefits from nature. Investing in nature areas and green infrastructures that are accessible both physically and socially is important for tackling social exclusion overall and the challenges associated with an ageing population in particular. Access to nature standards have been proposed in some Member States, through spatial planning or from organizations that promote the access to nature. These are based on the minimum distance from green areas of varying sizes and can be used with GIS to improve accessibility of green space for citizens (ten Brink et al., 2016). This can be used to identify and address shortages in green spaces that are associated with poorer neighborhoods in particular (Drayson, 2014).

In the 2014-2020 period, the European Commission has proposed a more integrated approach to Cohesion Policy to support local development strategies by community groups including local authorities, NGOs, and economic and social partners, in order to support community-led development (European Commission, 2011c). Accessing Cohesion Policy funding for projects related to nature and biodiversity protection can be an effective strategy for using nature’s benefits to address these challenges.


Barton, J. and Pretty, J., 2010, What is the Best Dose of Nature and Green Exercise for Improving Mental Health? A Multi-Study Analysis, Environmental Science and Technology, 44 (10) pp. 3497-3955.

Bennet, S.A., Yiannakoulias, N., Williams, A.M., Kitchen, P. (2012). Playground Accessibility and Neighbourhood Social Interaction Among Parents. Social Indicators Research, Vol 108, Issue 2, pp199 – 213.

Drayson, K. (2014). Green Society Policies to improve the UK’s urban green spaces. Policy Exchange. Edited by Guy Newey. http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/green%20society.pdf

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/green%20society.pdf

117

European Commission, 2010, European Disability Strategy 2010-2020: A Renewed Commitment to a Barrier-Free Europe. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0636:FIN:en:PDF

European Commission, 2011a, Demography report 2010 Older, more numerous and diverse Europeans. http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=5936&furtherPubs=yes

European Commission, 2011b, The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion

A European framework for social and territorial cohesion. ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=6393&langId=en

European Commission, 2011c, Cohesion Policy 2014 -2020 Investing in growth and jobs

Eurostat, 2015, Number of persons having acquired the citizenship of an EU Member State, EU-28, 2009–13.http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Number_of_persons_having_acquired_the_citizenship_of_an_EU_Member_State,_EU-28,_2009%E2%80%9313_(thousands)_YB15.png#file

Eurostat, 2016, At-risk-of-poverty rate and threshold, 2014. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:At-risk-of-poverty_rate_and_threshold,_2014_YB16bis.png

Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., de Vries, S., and Frumkin, H. (2014). Nature and Health. Annual Reviews of Public Health, 35, pp. 207-228.

Kabisch, N., Qureshi, S., and Haase, D. (2015), Human-environment interactions in urban green spaces - A systematic review of contemporary issues and prospects for future research. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 50, pp. 25–34.

Keniger, L.E., Gaston, K.J., Irvine, K.N. and Fuller, R.A. (2013), What are the Benefits of Interacting with Nature? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10, pp913- 935.

Korpela, K., Borodulin, K., Neuvonen et al., 2014, Analyzing the mediators between nature-based outdoor recreation and emotional well-being, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 37, pp1-7.

Lee, J., Scott, D., and Floyd, M. F., 2001, Structural Inequalities in Outdoor Recreation Participation: A Multiple Hierarchy Stratification Perspective, Journal of Leisure Research, 33, pp. 427-449.

Nielsen, T. S. and Hansen, K. B., 2007, Do green areas affect health? Results from a Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators, Health and Place, 13, pp 839–850.

Maas, J., van Dillen, S.M.E., Vehrheij, R.A. and Groenewegen, 2009, Social contacts as a possible mechanisms behind the relation between green space and health: a multilevel analysis. Health and Place, 15(2), pp. 558 – 592

Oeppen, J. and Vaupel, J. W, 2002, Broken limits to life expectancy, Science.

Vaupel, J. W. and H. Lundström, H., 1994, The future of mortality at older ages in developed countries, in Lutz, W. (ed.), 1994, The Future Population of the World. What can we Assume Today?

Vaupel, J. W., 2010, Biodemography of human ageing, Nature, 464, pp. 536-542.

Seeland, K., Dübendorfer, S., Hansmann, R. (2009). Making friends in Zurich's urban forests and parks: The role of public green space for social inclusion of youths from different cultures. Forest Policy and Economics, Vol.11, Issue 1, 10 – 17

Sesso, H D, Paffenbarger, R S, Ha, T and Lee, I M (1999). Physical activity and cardiovascular disease risk in middle-aged and older women. American Journal of Epidemiology, No 150(4), pp408-416.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0636:FIN:en:PDF

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0636:FIN:en:PDF

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=5936&furtherPubs=yes

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Number_of_persons_having_acquired_the_citizenship_of_an_EU_Member_State,_EU-28,_2009%E2%80%9313_(thousands)_YB15.png#file



http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:At-risk-of-poverty_rate_and_threshold,_2014_YB16bis.png

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:At-risk-of-poverty_rate_and_threshold,_2014_YB16bis.png

118

ten Brink, P., Mutafoglu, K, Schweitzer, J.P et al. (2016), The Health and Social Benefits of Nature and Biodiversity Protection. A report for the European Commission (ENV.B.3/ETU/2014/0039), Institute for European Environmental Policy, London/Brussels.

Wannamethee, S. G. and Shaper, A. G., 1999, Physical activity and the prevention of stroke, Journal of Cardiovascular Risk, 6, pp. 213-216.

119

Annex 2 Country-level review for Member States

Please see separate electronic files.

120

i http://www.economiadigital.es/es/notices/2015/09/veritas-abrira-10-tiendas-en-2016-y-entrara-en-madrid-76465.php iihttps://reports.weforum.org/travel-and-tourism-competitiveness-report-2015/economy-rankings/ (accessed 27th February 2017) iiiRoyal Decree 416/2014 of 6 June: https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2014-6432 ((accessed 27th February 2017)

http://www.economiadigital.es/es/notices/2015/09/veritas-abrira-10-tiendas-en-2016-y-entrara-en-madrid-76465.php

https://reports.weforum.org/travel-and-tourism-competitiveness-report-2015/economy-rankings/

https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2014-6432