The guide to multi-benefit cohesion policy investments in nature and green infrastructure.
Date: 2013-09-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy
Subjects: EU environmental policy, direct investment, environmental economics, environmental protection, regional development, regional policy, user guide

THE GUIDE TO MULTI-BENEFIT COHESION 
POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE 
AND GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

June 2013

REPORT AUTHORS
This report has been written by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) together with Milieu.

IEEP
Peter Hjerp 
Patrick ten Brink 
Keti Medarova-Bergstrom  
Leonardo Mazza 
Marianne Kettunen 

CASE STUDY AUTHORS
IEEP
Peter Hjerp 
Leonardo Mazza 
Marianne Kettunen 
Daniela Russi

Milieu
Jennifer McGuinn  
Paola Banfi  
Guillermo Hernández 

Milieu
Paola Banfi 
Elli Sfyroeras 

RECOMMENDED CITATION
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.

COMMISSIONED BY
DG Regional and Urban Policy (European Commission)
under the supervision of Mikel Landabaso - Head of Unit,
assisted by Mathieu Fichter - Team Leader on ‘sustainable growth’.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors of this guide would also like to thank for their contributions representatives
of DG Environment, in particular Ms. Milena Novakova and Mr. Marco Fritz.

LAYOUT AND GRAPHICAL DESIGN  
C. Diana C. Guardão

LANGUAGE EDITORS  
Sabrina Dekker, Jennifer Clinton and Sarah Green

STANDARD DISCLAIMER 
The contents and views contained in this report are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent those 
of the European Commission or of any of the contributors, reviewers or organisations supporting this work.

.O1

PART

RATIONALE FOR INVESTING IN 
NATURE AND BIODIVERSITY   08

.O2

PART

FINANCING MULTI-BENEFIT 
INVESTMENTS IN BIODIVERSITY 
AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES   26

.O3

PART

ENABLING AND SUPPORTING 
MULTI-BENEFIT INVESTMENTS 
IN NATURE THROUGH GREEN 
INFRASTRUCTURE  

     46

1   INTRODUCTION TO THE GUIDE

2   BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
3  BIODIVERSITY, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE:  

A REGION’S LIFELINE

3.1 

The benefits from nature to the regional economy and society 

3.2  Working with nature can save money 

3.3  The multiple values of nature in the regional context 

3.4 

Responding to the values of nature in the context of Cohesion Policy

4  COHESION POLICY INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES TO ACHIEVE MULTI-
BENEFITS THROUGH BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

4.1 

4.2 

4.3 

4.4 

4.5 

Direct funding opportunities

Indirect funding opportunities 

Cross-cutting initiatives and territorial cooperation 

Coordination and complementarity with other EU instruments

Prioritised Action Frameworks (PAFs)

5   STRATEGIC PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING
5.1 

Biodiversity and ecosystem services as a horizontal principle

5.2 

Developing a biodiversity-smart Operational Programme 

5.3   Review and revision: the role of assessment procedures in developing 

biodiversity-smart Operational Programmes 

5.4 

5.5 

Biodiversity and partnership 

Summary: practical tips for integrating biodiversity and ecosystem ser-
vices goals in the programming phase

6   INFORMATION AND SUPPORT TO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

6.1 

Awareness-raising and publication of project opportunities

6.2  Targeting the right applicants

6.3 

6.4 

6.5 
7 

7.1 

7.2 

7.3 
8 

8.1 

Designing biodiversity-smart projects

Developing a support mechanism for biodiversity-smart projects 

Summary: practical recommendations and further resources

PROJECT ELIGIBILITY, APPRAISAL AND SELECTION

Setting minimum requirements: eligibility criteria 

Selecting the right projects

7.2.1   Formulation of project appraisal criteria

7.2.2  Enhancing multi benefit investments in the project selection process

Summary: practical recommendations and further resources 

IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Applying indicators, milestones and targets

8.2  Monitoring, reporting and evaluation mechanisms 

8.3 

Summary: practical recommendations and further resources

ANNEX

REFERENCES

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CASE STUDIES 

06

08

13

13

18

20

22

27

28

29

40

44

45

47

48

48

51

52

52

55

55

56

57

58

61

62

62

63

63

65

66

67

68

72

73

74

81

83

 
 
 
FOREWORD

(cid:2)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:34)(cid:19)(cid:31)(cid:36)(cid:39)(cid:1)(cid:23)(cid:47)(cid:30)(cid:41)(cid:1)(cid:40)(cid:41)(cid:39)(cid:19)(cid:41)(cid:23)(cid:28)(cid:48)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:44)(cid:39)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:1)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:36)(cid:34)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:39)(cid:30)(cid:40)(cid:30)(cid:40)(cid:50)(cid:1)(cid:20)(cid:36)(cid:36)(cid:40)(cid:42)(cid:35)(cid:28)(cid:1)(cid:40)(cid:44)(cid:40)(cid:41)(cid:19)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:33)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:33)(cid:36)(cid:37)(cid:34)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:1)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:37)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:33)(cid:1)
(cid:36)(cid:37)(cid:37)(cid:36)(cid:39)(cid:41)(cid:44)(cid:35)(cid:30)(cid:41)(cid:48)(cid:1)(cid:24)(cid:36)(cid:39)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:44)(cid:39)(cid:36)(cid:37)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:41)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:28)(cid:30)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:30)(cid:42)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:51)(cid:1)(cid:9)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:58)(cid:56)(cid:57)(cid:59)(cid:52)(cid:58)(cid:56)(cid:58)(cid:56)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:39)(cid:36)(cid:28)(cid:39)(cid:19)(cid:34)(cid:34)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:28)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:30)(cid:36)(cid:22)(cid:50)(cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:36)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:30)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:36)(cid:33)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:48)(cid:1)
(cid:46)(cid:30)(cid:33)(cid:33)(cid:1)(cid:40)(cid:30)(cid:28)(cid:35)(cid:30)(cid:25)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:33)(cid:48)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:21)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:40)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:41)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:41)(cid:34)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:20)(cid:39)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:28)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:28)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:36)(cid:44)(cid:41)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:40)(cid:46)(cid:30)(cid:41)(cid:21)(cid:29)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:33)(cid:36)(cid:46)(cid:52)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:20)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:36)(cid:44)(cid:39)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:21)(cid:30)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:1)
(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:36)(cid:34)(cid:48)(cid:51)
(cid:18)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:32)(cid:35)(cid:36)(cid:46)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:19)(cid:41)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:41)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:35)(cid:36)(cid:41)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:40)(cid:48)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:19)(cid:40)(cid:32)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:24)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:29)(cid:19)(cid:33)(cid:33)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:28)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:33)(cid:30)(cid:34)(cid:19)(cid:41)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:29)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:28)(cid:23)(cid:50)(cid:1)(cid:40)(cid:44)(cid:40)(cid:41)(cid:19)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:33)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:28)(cid:48)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)
(cid:37)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:45)(cid:19)(cid:42)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:1) (cid:36)(cid:24)(cid:1) (cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:41)(cid:44)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:1) (cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1) (cid:20)(cid:30)(cid:36)(cid:22)(cid:30)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:40)(cid:30)(cid:41)(cid:48)(cid:51)(cid:1) (cid:16)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:36)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:1) (cid:36)(cid:44)(cid:39)(cid:1) (cid:19)(cid:30)(cid:34)(cid:1) (cid:30)(cid:40)(cid:1) (cid:41)(cid:36)(cid:1) (cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:33)(cid:37)(cid:1) (cid:19)(cid:44)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:36)(cid:39)(cid:30)(cid:42)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:1) (cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1) (cid:40)(cid:41)(cid:19)(cid:32)(cid:23)(cid:29)(cid:36)(cid:33)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:40)(cid:1) (cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:1) (cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)
(cid:10)(cid:23)(cid:34)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:1)(cid:15)(cid:41)(cid:19)(cid:41)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:28)(cid:30)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:46)(cid:30)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:39)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:42)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:33)(cid:1)(cid:40)(cid:44)(cid:37)(cid:37)(cid:36)(cid:39)(cid:41)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:33)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:21)(cid:30)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:40)(cid:44)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:40)(cid:24)(cid:44)(cid:33)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:34)(cid:37)(cid:33)(cid:23)(cid:34)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:19)(cid:42)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:24)(cid:1)
(cid:40)(cid:44)(cid:40)(cid:41)(cid:19)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:33)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:28)(cid:39)(cid:36)(cid:46)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:1)(cid:34)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:40)(cid:44)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:39)(cid:36)(cid:44)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:36)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:30)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:36)(cid:33)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:48)(cid:51)(cid:1)(cid:9)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:37)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:41)(cid:1)(cid:46)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:29)(cid:19)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:50)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:1)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:1)(cid:34)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:40)(cid:50)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:33)(cid:36)(cid:37)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:1)
(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:35)(cid:44)(cid:34)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:28)(cid:44)(cid:30)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:36)(cid:36)(cid:33)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:40)(cid:44)(cid:21)(cid:29)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:28)(cid:44)(cid:30)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:55)(cid:4)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:35)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:42)(cid:35)(cid:28)(cid:1)(cid:15)(cid:34)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:41)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:15)(cid:44)(cid:40)(cid:41)(cid:19)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:33)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:8)(cid:39)(cid:36)(cid:46)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:39)(cid:36)(cid:44)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:1)(cid:15)(cid:34)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:41)(cid:1)
(cid:15)(cid:37)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:30)(cid:19)(cid:33)(cid:30)(cid:40)(cid:19)(cid:42)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:55)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:39)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:9)(cid:16)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:36)(cid:36)(cid:33)(cid:1)(cid:55)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:58)(cid:10)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:6)(cid:55)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:20)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:34)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:28)(cid:23)(cid:34)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:12)(cid:37)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:19)(cid:42)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:33)(cid:1)(cid:13)(cid:39)(cid:36)(cid:28)(cid:39)(cid:19)(cid:34)(cid:34)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:51)
(cid:9)(cid:1) (cid:35)(cid:36)(cid:46)(cid:1) (cid:29)(cid:19)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:1) (cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1) (cid:37)(cid:33)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:40)(cid:44)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:1) (cid:41)(cid:36)(cid:1) (cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:39)(cid:36)(cid:22)(cid:44)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:1) (cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:40)(cid:1) (cid:35)(cid:23)(cid:46)(cid:1) (cid:55)(cid:8)(cid:44)(cid:30)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:1) (cid:41)(cid:36)(cid:1) (cid:10)(cid:44)(cid:33)(cid:42)(cid:52)(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:23)(cid:25)(cid:41)(cid:1) (cid:4)(cid:36)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:30)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:1) (cid:13)(cid:36)(cid:33)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:48)(cid:1) (cid:9)(cid:35)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:41)(cid:34)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:40)(cid:1) (cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:1)
(cid:11)(cid:19)(cid:41)(cid:44)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:8)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:9)(cid:35)(cid:24)(cid:39)(cid:19)(cid:40)(cid:41)(cid:39)(cid:44)(cid:21)(cid:41)(cid:44)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:55)(cid:51)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:36)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:30)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:36)(cid:33)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:48)(cid:1)(cid:29)(cid:19)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:42)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:41)(cid:35)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:33)(cid:37)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:28)(cid:1)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:28)(cid:30)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:1)
(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:40)(cid:44)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:40)(cid:44)(cid:40)(cid:41)(cid:19)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:33)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:34)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:28)(cid:23)(cid:34)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:30)(cid:39)(cid:1)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:41)(cid:44)(cid:39)(cid:19)(cid:33)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:40)(cid:40)(cid:23)(cid:41)(cid:40)(cid:51)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:33)(cid:33)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:44)(cid:39)(cid:36)(cid:37)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:35)(cid:30)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:46)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:29)(cid:19)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:36)(cid:52)
(cid:24)(cid:44)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:39)(cid:36)(cid:31)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:41)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:19)(cid:41)(cid:44)(cid:39)(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:58)(cid:56)(cid:56)(cid:56)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:40)(cid:50)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:41)(cid:36)(cid:39)(cid:19)(cid:42)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:46)(cid:23)(cid:41)(cid:33)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:27)(cid:36)(cid:36)(cid:22)(cid:37)(cid:33)(cid:19)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:40)(cid:50)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:33)(cid:36)(cid:37)(cid:34)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:28)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:1)
(cid:21)(cid:36)(cid:39)(cid:39)(cid:30)(cid:22)(cid:36)(cid:39)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:24)(cid:36)(cid:39)(cid:34)(cid:19)(cid:42)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:40)(cid:48)(cid:40)(cid:41)(cid:23)(cid:34)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:24)(cid:36)(cid:39)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:34)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:30)(cid:41)(cid:36)(cid:39)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:28)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:20)(cid:30)(cid:36)(cid:22)(cid:30)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:40)(cid:30)(cid:41)(cid:48)(cid:51)
(cid:15)(cid:30)(cid:34)(cid:30)(cid:33)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:41)(cid:34)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:46)(cid:30)(cid:33)(cid:33)(cid:1)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:39)(cid:30)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:44)(cid:41)(cid:1)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:41)(cid:46)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:58)(cid:56)(cid:57)(cid:59)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:58)(cid:56)(cid:58)(cid:56)(cid:51)(cid:1)(cid:9)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:24)(cid:39)(cid:19)(cid:34)(cid:23)(cid:46)(cid:36)(cid:39)(cid:32)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:20)(cid:31)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:42)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:28)(cid:44)(cid:30)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:1)
(cid:30)(cid:40)(cid:1) (cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:36)(cid:33)(cid:22)(cid:51)(cid:1) (cid:7)(cid:30)(cid:39)(cid:40)(cid:41)(cid:50)(cid:1) (cid:40)(cid:29)(cid:36)(cid:46)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:28)(cid:1) (cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:19)(cid:41)(cid:1) (cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:41)(cid:34)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:40)(cid:1) (cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:1) (cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:41)(cid:44)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:50)(cid:1) (cid:20)(cid:30)(cid:36)(cid:22)(cid:30)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:40)(cid:30)(cid:41)(cid:48)(cid:1) (cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1) (cid:28)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:1) (cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:24)(cid:39)(cid:19)(cid:40)(cid:41)(cid:39)(cid:44)(cid:21)(cid:41)(cid:44)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:1) (cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:1) (cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:33)(cid:23)(cid:45)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:1)
(cid:24)(cid:36)(cid:39)(cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:36)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:30)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:36)(cid:33)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:48)(cid:51)(cid:1)(cid:15)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:50)(cid:1)(cid:23)(cid:34)(cid:37)(cid:29)(cid:19)(cid:40)(cid:30)(cid:40)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:28)(cid:1)(cid:29)(cid:36)(cid:46)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:41)(cid:34)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:36)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:30)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:44)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:41)(cid:44)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1)
(cid:28)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:1) (cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:24)(cid:39)(cid:19)(cid:40)(cid:41)(cid:39)(cid:44)(cid:21)(cid:41)(cid:44)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:1) (cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:1) (cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:41)(cid:44)(cid:19)(cid:33)(cid:33)(cid:48)(cid:1) (cid:21)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:39)(cid:30)(cid:20)(cid:44)(cid:41)(cid:23)(cid:1) (cid:41)(cid:36)(cid:1) (cid:40)(cid:23)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:19)(cid:33)(cid:1) (cid:37)(cid:36)(cid:33)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:48)(cid:1) (cid:36)(cid:20)(cid:31)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:42)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:1) (cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1) (cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:33)(cid:30)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:1) (cid:34)(cid:44)(cid:33)(cid:42)(cid:37)(cid:33)(cid:23)(cid:1) (cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:23)(cid:25)(cid:41)(cid:40)(cid:50)(cid:1) (cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:1)
(cid:37)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:42)(cid:21)(cid:44)(cid:33)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:1) (cid:40)(cid:36)(cid:21)(cid:30)(cid:36)(cid:52)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:36)(cid:34)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:1) (cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:33)(cid:36)(cid:37)(cid:34)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:51)(cid:1) (cid:2)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1) (cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:39)(cid:22)(cid:50)(cid:1) (cid:19)(cid:40)(cid:40)(cid:30)(cid:40)(cid:42)(cid:35)(cid:28)(cid:1) (cid:19)(cid:44)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:36)(cid:39)(cid:30)(cid:42)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:1) (cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1) (cid:40)(cid:41)(cid:19)(cid:32)(cid:23)(cid:29)(cid:36)(cid:33)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:40)(cid:1) (cid:46)(cid:30)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:1) (cid:37)(cid:39)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:42)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:33)(cid:1)
(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:36)(cid:34)(cid:34)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:42)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:34)(cid:37)(cid:39)(cid:36)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:33)(cid:30)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:48)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:36)(cid:52)(cid:24)(cid:44)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:39)(cid:36)(cid:28)(cid:39)(cid:19)(cid:34)(cid:34)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:39)(cid:36)(cid:31)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:41)(cid:40)(cid:51)
(cid:16)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:28)(cid:44)(cid:30)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:44)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:33)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:39)(cid:44)(cid:21)(cid:30)(cid:19)(cid:33)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:21)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:35)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:42)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:46)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:29)(cid:1)(cid:23)(cid:47)(cid:30)(cid:40)(cid:41)(cid:1)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:41)(cid:46)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:41)(cid:44)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:50)(cid:1)(cid:40)(cid:36)(cid:21)(cid:30)(cid:23)(cid:41)(cid:48)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:36)(cid:34)(cid:48)(cid:51)(cid:1)
(cid:2)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:37)(cid:41)(cid:19)(cid:42)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:33)(cid:30)(cid:34)(cid:19)(cid:41)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:29)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:28)(cid:23)(cid:50)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:42)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:41)(cid:44)(cid:39)(cid:19)(cid:33)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:30)(cid:40)(cid:19)(cid:40)(cid:41)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:40)(cid:44)(cid:21)(cid:29)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:27)(cid:36)(cid:36)(cid:22)(cid:40)(cid:50)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:45)(cid:19)(cid:42)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:46)(cid:19)(cid:41)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:1)(cid:38)(cid:44)(cid:19)(cid:33)(cid:30)(cid:41)(cid:48)(cid:1)
(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1) (cid:38)(cid:44)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:42)(cid:41)(cid:48)(cid:1) (cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1) (cid:31)(cid:36)(cid:20)(cid:40)(cid:1) (cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:1) (cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1) (cid:41)(cid:36)(cid:44)(cid:39)(cid:30)(cid:40)(cid:34)(cid:1) (cid:36)(cid:39)(cid:1) (cid:19)(cid:28)(cid:39)(cid:36)(cid:52)(cid:24)(cid:36)(cid:36)(cid:22)(cid:1) (cid:40)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:41)(cid:36)(cid:39)(cid:1) (cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:1) (cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:42)(cid:34)(cid:19)(cid:41)(cid:23)(cid:33)(cid:48)(cid:1) (cid:33)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:32)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:51)(cid:1) (cid:9)(cid:41)(cid:1) (cid:30)(cid:40)(cid:1) (cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:36)(cid:44)(cid:41)(cid:1) (cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:40)(cid:44)(cid:39)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:28)(cid:1) (cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:40)(cid:1)
(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:23)(cid:28)(cid:39)(cid:19)(cid:41)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:37)(cid:37)(cid:39)(cid:36)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:29)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:24)(cid:36)(cid:33)(cid:33)(cid:36)(cid:46)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:46)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:46)(cid:36)(cid:39)(cid:32)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:28)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:41)(cid:34)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:41)(cid:44)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:28)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:24)(cid:39)(cid:19)(cid:40)(cid:41)(cid:39)(cid:44)(cid:21)(cid:41)(cid:44)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:51)(cid:1)
(cid:14)(cid:23)(cid:28)(cid:30)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:33)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:36)(cid:33)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:48)(cid:1)(cid:46)(cid:30)(cid:33)(cid:33)(cid:1)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:45)(cid:30)(cid:41)(cid:19)(cid:33)(cid:1)(cid:24)(cid:36)(cid:39)(cid:1)(cid:34)(cid:36)(cid:20)(cid:30)(cid:33)(cid:30)(cid:40)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:28)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:36)(cid:41)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:42)(cid:19)(cid:33)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:28)(cid:30)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:30)(cid:42)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:36)(cid:44)(cid:37)(cid:33)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:28)(cid:39)(cid:36)(cid:46)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:1)(cid:24)(cid:39)(cid:36)(cid:34)(cid:1)
(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:36)(cid:44)(cid:39)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:44)(cid:40)(cid:23)(cid:50)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:42)(cid:21)(cid:44)(cid:33)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:39)(cid:36)(cid:44)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:45)(cid:19)(cid:42)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:40)(cid:44)(cid:40)(cid:41)(cid:19)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:33)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:34)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:28)(cid:23)(cid:34)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:41)(cid:44)(cid:39)(cid:19)(cid:33)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:40)(cid:40)(cid:23)(cid:41)(cid:40)(cid:51)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:29)(cid:19)(cid:41)(cid:1)
(cid:30)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:46)(cid:29)(cid:48)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:28)(cid:44)(cid:30)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:40)(cid:23)(cid:41)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:44)(cid:41)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:33)(cid:37)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:33)(cid:36)(cid:37)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:34)(cid:37)(cid:33)(cid:23)(cid:34)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:35)(cid:23)(cid:47)(cid:41)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:39)(cid:36)(cid:28)(cid:39)(cid:19)(cid:34)(cid:34)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:28)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:30)(cid:36)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:53)(cid:58)(cid:56)(cid:57)(cid:59)(cid:52)(cid:58)(cid:56)(cid:58)(cid:56)(cid:54)(cid:51)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:40)(cid:1)
(cid:28)(cid:44)(cid:30)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:35)(cid:36)(cid:41)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:34)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:44)(cid:20)(cid:33)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:42)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:20)(cid:44)(cid:41)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:39)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:42)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:33)(cid:1)(cid:22)(cid:36)(cid:21)(cid:44)(cid:34)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:1)(cid:46)(cid:30)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:33)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:21)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:41)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:36)(cid:34)(cid:34)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:42)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1)
(cid:40)(cid:23)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:19)(cid:33)(cid:1)(cid:23)(cid:47)(cid:19)(cid:34)(cid:37)(cid:33)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:28)(cid:36)(cid:36)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:39)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:42)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:19)(cid:41)(cid:1)(cid:40)(cid:29)(cid:36)(cid:46)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:36)(cid:41)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:42)(cid:19)(cid:33)(cid:1)(cid:46)(cid:19)(cid:48)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:24)(cid:36)(cid:39)(cid:46)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:39)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:33)(cid:30)(cid:40)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:24)(cid:44)(cid:33)(cid:33)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:36)(cid:41)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:42)(cid:19)(cid:33)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:24)(cid:1)
(cid:21)(cid:36)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:30)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:36)(cid:33)(cid:30)(cid:21)(cid:48)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:41)(cid:34)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:35)(cid:19)(cid:41)(cid:44)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:51)
(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:46)(cid:36)(cid:44)(cid:33)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:33)(cid:30)(cid:32)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:21)(cid:36)(cid:44)(cid:39)(cid:19)(cid:28)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:33)(cid:33)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:44)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:36)(cid:39)(cid:30)(cid:42)(cid:23)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:40)(cid:41)(cid:19)(cid:32)(cid:23)(cid:29)(cid:36)(cid:33)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:45)(cid:36)(cid:33)(cid:45)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:37)(cid:19)(cid:39)(cid:19)(cid:42)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:35)(cid:23)(cid:47)(cid:41)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:39)(cid:36)(cid:28)(cid:39)(cid:19)(cid:34)(cid:34)(cid:30)(cid:35)(cid:28)(cid:1)
(cid:37)(cid:23)(cid:39)(cid:30)(cid:36)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:35)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:40)(cid:44)(cid:20)(cid:40)(cid:23)(cid:38)(cid:44)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:34)(cid:37)(cid:33)(cid:23)(cid:34)(cid:23)(cid:35)(cid:41)(cid:19)(cid:42)(cid:36)(cid:35)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:39)(cid:23)(cid:33)(cid:19)(cid:41)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:37)(cid:39)(cid:36)(cid:31)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:41)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:34)(cid:19)(cid:32)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:24)(cid:44)(cid:33)(cid:33)(cid:1)(cid:44)(cid:40)(cid:23)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:41)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:40)(cid:1)(cid:28)(cid:44)(cid:30)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:51)

Walter  DEFFAA
Director  General  for  Regional  and  Urban  Policy

.05

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE GUIDE

This SMART Guide to multi-benefit Cohesion Policy investments in nature and green infrastructure is the initia-
tive of European Commission’s Directorate General (DG) for Regional and Urban Policy, in consultation with DG 
Environment, to help with the Cohesion Policy design and implementation across the EU. It was developed by 
the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) and Milieu Ltd. 

The mounting evidence of the multiple benefits from nature and how these can help meet Cohesion Policy objec-
tives has led to an increased interest in understanding how Cohesion Policy and its tools can be used to obtain 
synergies and multiple benefits. Key questions the Guide aims to answer: 

  What are the values of nature and how are they important for Cohesion Policy objectives?

  How can Cohesion Policy tools and approaches be used to enable current and secure future multi-bene-

fits from nature?

  What can we learn from practical experiences to inform regional development?

The Guide is directed at helping with on-going implementation of Cohesion Policy 2007-2013, as well as form 
a useful toolkit and information source for the development and implementation of Cohesion Policy 2014-2020. 

THE TARGET AUDIENCE 

This  Guide  is  aimed  at  all  the  stakeholders  engaged  in  Cohesion  Policy  and  its  implementation.  Namely,  the 
Guide is for those who are developing the partnership agreements and Operational Programmes, to those setting 
regional objectives, plans and processes and finally, those selecting, assessing and implementing major projects. 

The Guide is for stakeholders who are interested in furthering the Cohesion Policy objectives of cohesion, soli-
darity, jobs and growth and seeing how working with nature can help these objectives. The Guide is also aimed 
at  those  stakeholders  interested  in  seeing  how  to  make  use  of  Cohesion  Policy  funding  for  nature  to  realise 
conservation benefits and wider ecosystem service benefits. 

Furthermore, the Guide will support regional and national authorities in meeting their legal obligations in respect 
to legislation on biodiversity conservation (notably the Bird and Habitats Directives), as well as compliance with 
a range of other commitments under the wider body of EU environmental law. 

Finally, the Guide will also be useful for a wider set of stakeholders as it also addresses issues such as water 
security,  climate  change,  health,  wellbeing  and  culture  where  the  nature-Cohesion  Policy  interface  can  help 
contribute to meeting their objectives.

.06

STRUCTURE OF THE GUIDE

PART .01

of the Guide is an introduction to the multiple values and the rationale for investing in nature and biodiversity. It 
underlines the economic benefits, the importance for legislative compliance and the wider synergies between 
biodiversity and Cohesion Policy. 

PART .02

focuses on investment choices. It provides insights and guidance on the opportunities for enhancing investments 
in nature (e.g. through green infrastructure) which can deliver multiple benefits for economic, social and territorial 
cohesion (section 4). 

PART .03 

of  the  Guide  presents  recommendations  on  how  to  plan,  implement  and  follow-up  programmes  and  projects 
to ensure maximum benefit to nature and synergy with Cohesion Policy. It presents the details of the different 
Cohesion Policy tools and instruments and how they can be used to realise the benefits of working with nature 
and avoid unnecessary trade-offs and inefficiencies. It focuses on: strategic planning and programming (section 
5); information and support to project development (section 6); project eligibility, appraisal and selection (section 
7) and implementation, monitoring and evaluation (section 8). 

ANNEX

includes all case studies that illustrate the benefits of nature and the application of different tools and measures.

.07

1
0

T
R
A
.
P

RATIONALE FOR 
INVESTING IN 
NATURE AND 
BIODIVERSITY
2. BACKGROUND
AND CONTEXT

Since  the  publication  of  the  Millennium  Ecosystem 
Assessment01,  there  has  been  an  ever  increasing 
recognition  of  the  multiple  benefits  from  nature  to 
society. The appreciation of the intrinsic values of bio-
diversity – in other terms the diversity of ecosystems, 
habitats,  species  and  gene  pools  –  is  now  comple-
mented  by  an  understanding  of  the  importance  of 
nature in supporting human and societal well-being, 
sustainable development and the economy. 

The understanding of the socio-economic importance 
of  nature  has  been  developing  rapidly,  supported  by, 
inter  alia,  the  TEEB  (The  Economics  of  Ecosystems 
and  Biodiversity)  initiative  (www.teebweb.org).  There 
is a growing evidence base of the importance of nature 

for local and regional development and an increased 
recognition  by  public  authorities,  private  businesses, 
communities  and  academia  that  working  with  nature 
can,  and  should  be,  an  integral  element  in  local  and 
regional policy. 

While  the  importance  of  nature  and  the  benefits  it 
provides is increasingly appreciated now, this has not 
always been the case. To date many of the benefits of 
nature  are  still  not  understood  or  taken  into  account 
in  decision  making  processes.  This  ‘invisibility  of 
nature’  has contributed  to the on-going loss of biodi-
versity. Knowledge of the benefits of nature promotes 
an understanding of the trade-offs and impacts of our 
decisions. 

01. MA (2005) 

.08

1
0
.

T
R
A
P

This Guide introduces the roles, the benefits and the 
related  values  of  nature.  Furthermore,  it  shows  how 
nature  contributes  to  multiple  policy  objectives,  and 
why  it  is  fundamentally  relevant  to  Cohesion  Policy 
and its implementation (see Box 1). It underlines the 
socio-economic  benefits  and  the  synergies  that  exist 
between  biodiversity  conservation  objectives  and 

cohesion  policy,  as  well  as  climate  mitigation  and 
adaptation,  water  security,  environment  and  health, 
and  resource  efficiency.  The  Guide  explains  why 
working with nature is integral to achieving a resource 
efficient green economy as well as EU and Cohesion 
Policies’ sustainable growth objectives. 

BOX .01 

EVOLVING CONTEXT OF COHESION POLICY TOWARDS WORKING WITH NATURE AND 
OVERCOMING CHALLENGES

In line with objectives set in the EU Treaties, EU Cohesion Policy has mostly dealt with addressing 
regional disparities and bringing structural change to the economies of ‘lagging European regions. 
Therefore,  Cohesion  Policy  and  its  funding  instruments  have  largely  focused  on  economic  and 
social objectives, in particular job creation and economic growth. Investment expenditure has fo-
cused on major infrastructure projects such as road and rail, as well as environmental infrastructure 
to comply with EU legislation and to ensure access to water, waste water and waste management 
infrastructure across the EU.

However, the political realities of the European Union are changing, as is the context for Cohesion 
Policy. Long term challenges, such as climate change, energy security, resource scarcity (raw ma-
terials, water), biodiversity loss, global competitiveness, an aging society, and the political stability 
of the EU’s neighbours, have become key strategic priorities of the EU. Coupled with short-term 
threats, such as increasing sovereign debt and fiscal discipline, and the challenges posed by imple-
mentation of EU legislation, the result is a demand for intelligent, timely and forward-looking policy 
responses. These challenges to a degree have been reflected in the 2007-2013 Cohesion Policy, 
which contains provisions that ensure the strategic alignment of Cohesion Policy to sustainable de-
velopment objectives, but also the environmental objectives of the EU Treaties and environmental 
acquis.

The 2014-2020 Cohesion Policy is based on the Europe 2020 strategy, which sets out the objectives 
for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. It is also complemented by a wide range of EU strate-
gies and commitments, for example the commitment to halting biodiversity loss, and investing in 
restoration and green infrastructure (CBD 2010 Aichi Accord and the 2011 EU Biodiversity Strategy 
–  see  Box  2).  Similarly  the  growing  evidence  base  of  the  benefits  of  addressing  environmental 

.09

 
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

concerns  –  e.g.  climate  change02,  biodiversity03  and  environmental  improvements  for  health  –  is 
changing the underlying paradigm from one where economy and environment are seen as trade-
offs to one where the synergies and co-benefits are increasingly appreciated.

There is a rationale that the greatest value to stem from EU financed interventions in the context of 
Cohesion Policy is via the provision of support that: 01. Delivers multiple benefits and 02. Enables 
regions to achieve complex policy objectives such as, regional development, jobs, growth, com-
petitiveness, education & culture, as well as water, resource efficiency and biodiversity goals. This 
will help address economic, social and territorial disparities (Treaty Objective 1) and Solidarity with 
Member States to catch up with EU standards (Treaty Objective 2), while at the same time helping 
to implement the Europe 2020 Agenda.

Working with nature will also complement regions’ and 
countries’  efforts  to  comply  with  legislative  require-
ments for biodiversity conservation, notably the Birds 
and Habitats Directives and EU’s Biodiversity Strategy 
to  2020  (see  Box  2).  It  will  also  help  meet  require-
ments and commitments under the Water Framework 

Directive 
(WFD),  Air  Framework  Directive  and 
Integrated  Coastal  Zone  Management  (ICZM).  It  will 
help to meet the objectives of the Floods Directive as 
well as the objectives of EU’s Strategy of Adaptation to 
Climate Change in those regions at risk.

BOX .02 

LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY DRIVERS FOR THE INVESTMENT IN NATURE04

Birds and Habitats Directives and the Natura 2000 network: The Birds Directive05  and the Habitats 
Directive06 , form the main legal framework for the protection of nature and biodiversity in the EU. 
The  Directives  require  two  main  types  of  activities.  Firstly,  the  designation,  implementation  and 
management of protected sites which are particularly important for conserving and restoring EU 
biodiversity.  Secondly,  the  strict  protection  of  the  species  lists  in  the  Directives,  as  well  as  their 
breeding  sites  and  resting  places,  wherever  they  occur.  In  addition,  there  are  strict  rules  under 
Article 6 of the Habitats Directive as regards projects that can potentially negatively impact Natura 
2000 sites. 

The establishment, protection and management of a coherent network of protected areas, the Natura 
2000  network  is  designed  to  protect  the  habitats  and  species.  Currently,  the  Natura  2000  network 
comprises of 26,000 sites, covering almost 18 per cent of the EU territory. It includes terrestrial Special 
Areas of Conservation (SACs), with an area of 59 million ha (0.59 million km2), terrestrial Special Pro-
tection Areas (SPAs) with an area of 49 million ha (0.49 million km2) and a growing marine protected 
area (MPA) network – now at 14.5 million ha. The network is a core element of the wider EU green 
infrastructure, which together form a great part of our living natural capital. 

In relation to investing in nature under the EU Cohesion Policy, Article 8 of the EU Habitats Di-
rective states explicitly that the implementation of the Natura 2000 network should be supported 

02. Stern (2006)  

03. TEEB (2011a) 

04. Mazza et al. (2011)  

.10

05. 2009/147/EC 

06. 92/43/EEC 

by funding from relevant EU funds, including the EU Structural and Cohesion Funds. Dedicated 
guidance has been developed by the European Commission that presents the EU funding options 
for Natura 2000 sites in the period 2007-2013 that are, in principle, available at the national and 
regional level07 . In 2013, this guidance will be updated to provide guidance on possibilities of fi-
nancing Natura 2000 for the programming period 2014-2020.

1
1
0
0
.
.

T
T
R
R
A
A
P
P

Furthermore, Article 6 of the Habitats Directive aims to minimise any negative impacts of investment 
on biodiversity. The processes for implementing the Article 6 safeguards can be used as a basis 
for identifying synergies between biodiversity conservation and cohesion policy objectives. These 
processes include:

  A screening for potential impacts of projects;

  An assessment of risks of impacts on the integrity, structure and function of sites as well as 
their conservation objectives. This includes an assessment of mitigation measures to avoid, 
minimise and/or as fully as possible offset negative impacts; 

  An assessment of alternatives to achieve the objectives without compromising the integrity of 

Natura 2000 sites;

  An assessment of measures or compensation for any significant adverse effects if the project 

is to go ahead under imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI).

EU Biodiversity Strategy and its targets: The EU’s Biodiversity Strategy (COM(2011) 244) has a 
2020 headline target: Halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services 
in the EU by 2020, and restoring them where feasible, whilst stepping up the EU contribution to 
averting  global  biodiversity  loss. The  six  main  targets  relate  to:  (i)  the  full  implementation  of  EU 
nature legislation [mentioned above] to protect biodiversity; (ii) the better protection for ecosystems, 
and more use of green infrastructure (including a 15 % restoration target); (iii) more sustainable 
agriculture and forestry; (iv) better management of fish stocks; (v) tighter controls on invasive alien 
species (IAS); and (vi) a bigger EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss.

Water Framework Directive (WFD): The WFD does not address green infrastructure directly. It does 
however  aim  to  prevent  further  deterioration  of  water  quality,  to  protect  and  enhance  the  status 
of aquatic ecosystems, related wetlands and terrestrial ecosystems, to ensure sustainable water 
use by protecting available water resources, to progressively reduce the pollution of groundwater, 
to prevent further pollution, to mitigate the effects of floods and droughts. It recommends the res-
toration  of  wetlands  as  a  possible  supplementary  measure  to  achieve  the  WFD  objectives.  The 
opportunities for the involvement of stakeholders affected by the creation and management of river 
basin management plans (e.g. broader public, experts, and landowners) may offer opportunities for 
green infrastructure identification and implementation in the area of water policy.

Floods Directive:  The  Floods  Directive  does  not  directly  address  green  infrastructure.  However, 
the Directive aims to reduce and manage the risks that floods pose to the environment as well as 
human health, cultural heritage and economic activity. The flood risk management plans ‘shall take 
into account areas which have a potential to retain flood water’.

Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM): The  Commission  launched  on  12  March  2013,  a 
new joint initiative on integrated coastal management and maritime spatial planning. The proposal, 

07. EC (2007)

.11

 
 
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

which takes the form of a draft Directive, aims to establish a framework for maritime spatial planning 
and integrated coastal management in EU Member States with a view to promote the sustainable 
growth of maritime and coastal activities and the sustainable use of coastal and marine resources. 
This builds on the 2002 ICZM Recommendation. The 2002 Recommendation promotes a holistic 
approach  to  the  management  of  the  coast  which  includes  recognising  the  natural  capital  of  the 
coasts and the need to preserve and use this sustainably within the context of sustainable develop-
ment.

Climate change mitigation and adaptation: The  EU  Climate  and  Energy  package  sets  out  three 
targets for 2020: 01. A 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, 02. Raising the share of EU 
energy consumption produced from renewable resources to 20% and 03. A 20% improvement in 
the EU’s energy efficiency. 

The  EU  Strategy  on Adaptation  to  Climate  Change  foresees  that  green  infrastructure  and  eco-
system-based  approaches  to  adaptation  will  be  encouraged.  The  Commission’s  2013  Green 
Infrastructure  Strategy  acknowledges  that  ecosystem-based  approaches  to  climate  change  and 
disaster risk management are ‘among the most widely applicable, economically viable and effective 
tools to combat the impacts of climate change’.

Directive on ambient air quality: The 2008 Ambient Air Quality Directive set a range of air quality 
objectives  with  limit  values  and  exposure  related  objectives  (exposure  concentration  obligations 
and exposure reduction targets) for particulate matter, including both PM2.5 and PM10. Member 
States had until 2010 to transpose the Directive. The 2013 Commission Communication on Green 
Infrastructure recognises that GI features in cities deliver health-related benefits such as clean air.

.12

3. BIODIVERSITY, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
AND GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE: 
A REGION’S LIFELINE 

1
0
.

T
R
A
P

3.1    THE BENEFITS FROM NATURE TO 
THE REGIONAL ECONOMY AND SOCIETY

Nature,  consisting  of  landscapes,  ecosystems,  habi-
tats, species and genetic material, provides a range of 
benefits  to  society.  These  benefits  have  been  termed 
‘ecosystem services’ (MA 2005, see Box 3). 

Some of these are well known, for example food, fibre 
and  fuel,  in  addition  to  nature’s  role  in  contributing 
to  human  enjoyment  (e.g.  recreation  and  aesthetic 
values). Others are known but sometimes overlooked, 
for example the role of nature in the provision and puri-
fication of water for human consumption, or the role of 
nature in cultural identity and spiritual well-being. 

Yet  others  are  less  well  known  and  infrequently  inte-
grated  into  decision  making,  such  as  nature’s  role  in 
regulating  local  and  global  climate,  crop  pollinating 
and  pest  control,  nutrient  recycling,  mitigating  natural 

hazards, and maintenance of soil and air quality. 

the  potential 

in  scientific 
for  advances 
Similarly 
remains  only  partly  understood  and 
knowledge 
largely  untapped.  This  leads  to  missed  opportunities 
to learn from the ‘living library of life’ and build on the 
innovations of nature to support research, development 
and innovation in our economies08.

In  integrating  nature  into  decision  making,  it  is  vital 
to  understand  not  only  the  interconnections  that  exist 
between the different components of nature (living and 
non-living), but those that exist between nature, society 
and  the  economy.  Knowledge  and  understanding  of 
these  connections  are  essential  to  the  development 
of  policy  that  supports  human  health  and  economic 
growth.

BOX .03 

KEY DEFINITIONS: BIODIVERSITY & ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Biological  diversity  (biodiversity)  means  ‘the  variability  among  living  organisms  from  all  sources, 
including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems, and the ecological complexes of which 
they  are  part;  this  includes  diversity  within  species,  between  species  and  of  ecosystems’09. The 
term covers every form of life on earth (plants, animals, fungi and micro-organisms), the diversity of 
communities that they form, and the habitats in which they live.

Ecosystem means ‘a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their 
non-living environment interacting as a functional unit’10. The quantity (e.g. biomass, productivity), 
quality and diversity of species (e.g. richness, rarity) all play an important role. The functioning of 
an ecosystem also often hinges on certain species or groups of species that perform key functions.

Ecosystem services refer to the flow of benefits that people obtain from ecosystems. These include:

  Provisioning services (e.g. food, raw materials such as fibre and fuel, fresh water, genetic 

and medicinal resources, and ornamental resources);

08. ten Brink et al. (2012) and http://biomimicry.net/ 

10. UN (1993)  ArticIe 2.

09. UN (1993)  ArticIe 2.

.13

 
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

  Regulating  services  (benefits  arising  from  ecosystem  processes  that  regulate  air  quality, 
local and global climate, natural hazards such as flooding, waste and water quality, prevent 
erosion,  maintain  soil  quality,  as  well  as  supporting  wild  pollination  and  offering  biological 
control of pest); 

  Cultural services (e.g. recreation, tourism, aesthetic, spiritual and ethical values as well as 

education and science); and

  Supporting services (e.g. soil formation, photosynthesis, nutrient cycling, gene pool protec-
tion and lifecycle maintenance) necessary for sustaining almost all other ecosystem services.

Further to the classification above, ‘habitat services’ can also be recognised as a separate category 
of ecosystem services to highlight the importance of ecosystems to provide habitats for migratory 
species (e.g. as nurseries) and as gene pool ‘protectors’ (maintain gene pool diversity and vitality).

In  more  economic  terms,  it  can  be  said  that  nature 
forms a part of the overall capital that human welfare 
builds  on  and  that  ecosystem  services  flow  from 
‘natural capital stocks’ (also sometimes termed ‘natural 
assets’),  like  interest  or  dividends  from  the  financial 
stocks (see Box 04). 

Planning and investment decisions, for example, local 
authorities  implementing  Cohesion  Policy,  determine 
the level of investment in various types of capital such 
as natural, social, human and man-made capital, which 
includes  financial  capital11.  These  decisions  in  turn 
affect the flow of ecosystem services. Understanding 
the synergies and trade-offs, between different forms 
of capital potentially created by these investments, is 
critical for the good governance of Cohesion Policy. 

There are indeed a range of interactions between the 
four capitals. In some cases there can be:

  Synergies: win-wins between nature and economy 

or nature and society;

  Trade-offs:  economic  gain  with  environmental 

loss, and 

  Lose-lose cases: where an environmental loss 

in turn leads to an economic loss.

Taking  into  account  the  links  between  the  various 
forms  of  capital,  the  importance  of  ecosystem  ser-
vices’ role in wellbeing, livelihoods and the economy, 
and the impacts of decisions is essential for effective 
decision making.

An appreciation of the benefits of nature can encourage 
institutions and wider stakeholders to respond and pre-
serve  ecosystem services  via a  range  of policy  tools 
such  as  investment,  planning  and  zoning,  strategic 
environmental  assessments  (SEAs)  and  environ-
mental impact assessments (EIA). The decisions and 
use  of  tools  will  in  turn  affect  nature,  the  economy, 
society and people. Figure 1 also illustrates the inter-
connections  between  policy,  nature  and  wellbeing. 
Regional  and  national  policies  and  other  human  and 
natural factors drive land and water use, climate and 
pollution. This in turn affects the stock and state of a 
region’s natural capital. Changes in biodiversity affect 
the functioning of ecosystems and the flow of services 
to people and the economy.

11. The four capitals include: man-made capital (assets that are used to produce other goods and services, such as machines, tools, buildings and 
infrastructure – i.e. fixed assets), human capital (health, well-being and productive potential of individual people and includes mental and physical health, 
education, motivation, and work skills), social capital (social networks that support an efficient, cohesive society and facilitate social and intellectual 
interactions among its members) and natural capital (natural resources (like timber, water, and energy) and mineral reserves, but also species diversity, 
endangered species, ecosystems that perform ecological services like air and water filtration). For more on the four capitals, see ten Brink et al. (2012)

.14

1
0
.

T
R
A
P

HUMAN WELLBEING 
AND LIVELIHOODS

DIRECT LIVELIHOOD 
SUPPORT
Food and materials, water

SECURITY AND RESILIENCE
Food security, mitigation of 
natural disasters, climate 
change adaption and 
mitigation

HEALTH
Access to clean air and 
water disease control, 
medication, traditional 
medicine

SOCIAL RELATIONS

Understanding 
of Benefits and 
Response

NATURAL CAPITAL 

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Human Capital

Man-made Capital

Social Capital

Supporting
nutrient cycling, 
soil formation, 
crop pollination

INSTRUMENTS

Investment, regulation, 
planning and zoning, 
partnerships and participa-
tion, SEA & EIA, permitting, 
MBIs, information & 
assessment et al

Impact

01.

Provisining
food, timber, raw 
materials, water...

Regulating
water purification and 
retention, climate control, 
pest and disease control...

Cultural
aesthetic, spiritual, 
recreational, knowledge... 

INSTITUTIONS & 
STAKEHOLDERS

Government and public 
institutions, regional and 
local authorities, companies, 
communities, NGOs, 
academia and citizens

Contribution of ‘green’ natural capital to human well-being and livelihoods 

SOURCE
Own Representation building on MA (2005) and TEEB (2011a)

Some examples are the amount of carbon sequestered 
by trees; impacts of wetlands on climate regulation in 
a  region;  the  quality  of  a  landscape  determines  its 
tourism  value;  and  the  potential  benefits  of  genetic 
diversity for pharmaceuticals. 

Well-targeted  investments  in  biodiversity  and 
ecosystem services will often not only achieve 
the conservation of nature, but will also deliver 
a range of benefits that resonate with a variety 
of Cohesion Policy objectives. 

Furthermore, diversity promotes ecosystem resilience, 
which  is  the  ability  of  an  ecosystem  to  provide  ser-
vices and maintain normal function12 under changing 
environmental  conditions,  such  as  climate  change. 
Ecosystem  resilience  provides  a  kind  of  ‘natural 
insurance’ against potential shocks and losses of eco-
system  services13.  Ecosystem  resilience  can  support 
social and economic  resilience  in  the  face  of  climate 
change.

Ecosystems play a fundamental role in the water 
cycle, helping with water storage, retention and 
flow as well as release back into the wider water 
cycle.  They  can  help  address  water  security 
concerns  by  ensuring  access  and  availability 
as  well  as  quality  where  ecosystems  provide 
natural filtration. This can also help in meeting 
water quality objectives and standards. Wetland 
in  particular  help  with  water 
ecosystems 
retention, purification and wider water cycling14. 

12. Holling (1973)

13. TEEB (2010b)

14. Russi et al. (2013)

.15

 
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

Ecosystems  are  also  an  integral  part  of  the  global 
carbon cycle, and have a core role in meeting climate 
change  mitigation  objectives.  Peatlands,  coastal 
zones with sea-grasses and old forests are examples 
of  ecosystems  that  play  an  important  role  in  carbon 
storage.  They  offer  free  or  very  low  cost  carbon 
storage and sequestration solutions. Peatland res-
toration in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in Germany (see 
case study in the annex) and in Bellacorick in Ireland 
(see  Box  5)  have  demonstrated  significant  gains  in 
carbon storage. 

Climate change adaptation can also be supported 
by ecosystems. Specifically ecosystems have a role 
in reducing climate change risks  such as urban heat 
islands  in  cities,  and  natural  hazards  (natural  flood 
plain). An example of ecosystems being used for miti-
gation comes from the natural restoration of the Scheldt 
estuary  in  Belgium  that  took  place  in  the  context  of 
the SIGMA Plan II (see case study in the annex). The 
restoration  has  successfully  delivered  flood  protec-
tion, through a combination of higher dykes with flood 
plains and wetland restoration.

Well-functioning  ecosystems  and  biodiversity  are  also 
at  the  heart  of  the  nutrient  cycle  and  help  with  food 
security  concerns,  through  genetic  diversity,  and  fish 
nurseries in marine protected areas. The restoration of 
Lake  Karla,  in  Greece,  (see  case  study  in  the  annex) 
has  resulted  in  the  reappearance  of  fish  species  that 
had disappeared from the lake and even more species 
are expected back once restoration is complete.

Furthermore, knowledge obtained from nature (scien-
tific  and  traditional)  can  help  with  economic  growth, 
innovation  and  competitiveness  (e.g.  pharmaceuti-
cals, biomimicry (learning from nature) as well as being 
of  help  in  meeting  EU’s  research  objectives  (e.g. 
scientific understanding, patents). 

Healthy  ecosystems  and  ecosystem  services  can 
help with human health (e.g. air quality improvements 
through filtration of particles, disease control via natural 
bio-predators, health benefits from access to nature), 
energy  security  (output  for  hydro  plant,  availability 
of  cooling  water),  local  economic  development 
(product  branding,  tourism)  and  investment  (e.g. 
mobilising investment via locational quality benefits, 

15. MA (2005), TEEB (2011a), TEEB (2012a; 2012b), de Groot et al. (2012), 
Barbier (2012), and Russi et al. (2013)

.16

or  funding  for  Natura  2000  sites).  One  illustration  of 
investments  that  secure  the  ecological  integrity  of 
a  region  and  the  associated  economic  potential  in 
sectors like tourism, cycling, hiking and hunting are the 
creation  of  the  Alpine-Carpathian  corridor  (see  case 
study in the annex).

Nature  can  help  by  increasing  job  security  through 
the  maintenance  of  fisheries,  and  soil  quality  for 
agriculture.  It  can  also  maintain  a  range  of  cultural 
benefits and create opportunities for recreation and 
tourism  which  can  also  support  jobs.  Furthermore 
it  can  underpin  the  formation  of  cultural  values, 
including identity and spiritual values. The evidence 
base  for  these  benefits  is  clear  and  growing,  which 
can be seen through the growing amount of literature 
available15. The West Wales and Valleys Operational 
Programme  (see  case  study  in  the  annex)  is  a  good 
example  of  combined  recreational  and  economic 
development  benefits  stemming  from  an  investment. 
Further  social  benefits  derived  from  the  programme 
include  jobs  skills  training  in  the  environmental  and 
tourism  sector  specifically  for  disadvantaged  groups 
in need of employment. Lastly to improve community 
health and cohesion high quality leisure facilities were 
built in close proximity to residential areas.

The  above  synergies  between  the  conservation  of 
nature and other policy goals generally do not appear 
by  default.  They  result  from  being  integrated  into 
strategies,  decision  making,  implementation,  and  in 
particular  careful  project  and  programme  design  that 
take  into  account  the  potential  benefits  and  risks  of 
trade-offs (see Part 03). 

When  considering  the  synergies,  it  is  important  to 
remember  that  achieving  biodiversity  conservation 
can go hand-in-hand with maintaining and/or restoring 
an ecosystem’s ability to provide different ecosystem 
services.  However,  in  some  cases  conflicts  between 
the  two  might  arise.  For  example,  an  important  wet-
land for birds could, in principle, be used for mitigating 
the impacts of floods (i.e. by providing a flood storage 
area).  However,  water  levels  might  need  to  be  kept 
lower than desirable for wetland habitats to maximise 
the  area’s  flood  mitigation  potential.  Thus  this  may 
lead  to  a  conflict  between  the  specific  conservation 
goals  of  an  area  (e.g.  as  according  to  the  Habitats 

Directive, Box 2) and its potential to provide benefits 
for  flood  mitigation.  Therefore,  at  the  project  level 
there  is  always  a  need  to  ensure  that  trade-offs  are 
avoided or minimised.

The described potential policy synergies above under-
line  that  there  is  scope  for  broadening  the  common 
agenda  between  nature  conservation  and  Cohesion 
Policy  objectives.  The  following  are  some  of  the  pro-
posed  thematic  objectives  of  future  Cohesion  Policy 
which can be promoted by working with nature:

  Strengthening  research,  technological  develop-

ment and innovation

  Supporting the shift towards low-carbon economy 

  Promoting  climate  change  adaptation,  risk  pre-

vention and management 

  Protecting 

the  environment,  and  promoting 

resource efficiency

  Promoting employment and labour mobility

Investing in education, skills and lifelong learning 

Examples of how nature contributes to many of these 
objectives  are  presented  in  the  case  studies  found  in 
the annex and the wider literature cited throughout the 
Guide16. 

BOX .04 

KEY DEFINITIONS: GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

The  process  of  acknowledging  nature  as  a 
driving  force  in  regional  development  and  high-
lighting  the  contribution  that  Cohesion  Policy 
can make to the protection of nature has already 
started.  Biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services 
are  increasingly  highlighted  as  an  integral  part 
of  supporting  sustainable  regional  development 
within the EU. DG Regional Policy has published 
a  Communication  providing  practical  guidelines 
on why and how Member States and regions can 
use EU funds so that they can contribute to the 
sustainable growth objective of the Europe 2020 
Strategy.  It  suggests  that  this  can  be  achieved 
through scaling up of financial resources targeting 
natural capital and green investments, integrating 
environmental  concerns  throughout  the  entire 
programme/project cycle and strengthening gov-
ernance through more participatory approaches, 
networks and exchange of good practice.17

One particular area of focus is that of investing 
in  green infrastructure (GI) as a tool to deliver 
biodiversity  conservation  and  enhance  eco-
system  services  (see  Box  4).  Importantly,  the 
benefits  of  green  infrastructure  go  beyond  the 
area  of  biodiversity  as  it  creates  benefits  for 
regional  economies,  employment,  tourism  and 
recreation,  water  management,  sustainability 
of  energy  and  transport  systems,  etc.18  The 
emphasis on the multiple benefits of GI, makes 
it  useful  for  discussions  on  targeting  regional 
development investments in Cohesion Policy. 

Green infrastructure has been described as ‘the network of natural and semi-natural areas, features 
and green spaces in rural and urban, terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine areas, which to-
gether enhance ecosystem health and resilience, contribute to biodiversity conservation and benefit 
human populations through the maintenance and enhancement of ecosystem services19. 

According to the Commission’s Communication, green infrastructure is ‘a strategically planned net-
work of natural and semi-natural areas with other environmental features designed and managed to 
deliver a wide range of ecosystem services. It incorporates green spaces (or blue if aquatic ecosys-
tems are concerned) and other physical features in terrestrial (including coastal) and marine areas. 
On land, green infrastructure is present in rural and urban settings.’ 20

16. Hjerp et al. (2011),  Mazza et al. (2011)

17. EC (2011g)

18. EC (2013c)

19. EC (2013c) 

20. Naumann et al. (2011)

1
0
.

T
R
A
P

.17

 
 
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

With the growing trend towards urbanisation and the 
increasing role of cities in the future of Cohesion Policy, 
green  infrastructure  in  urban  areas  and  peri-urban 
areas  is  likely  to  become  more  prevalent.  It  has  the 
potential to provide direct benefits to people who may 
have the greatest need for the benefits stemming from 
GI. These include ecosystem services associated with 

parks, canals, river banks, gardens, and green roofs 
for  urban  areas,  and  adjoining  forests,  grasslands, 
rivers  in  peri-urban  areas,  as  well  as  the  wider  river 
basin in which a city lies. Potentially there are multiple 
economic and societal benefits to be gained from the 
provision of these services from natural areas.21

3.2  WORKING WITH NATURE CAN SAVE MONEY

Investments in nature today can save money and pro-
mote economic growth in the medium and long term. It 
is therefore an integral part of the transition to and the 
foundation of a resource efficient, green economy that 
leads  to  jobs  and  growth.  It  is  worth  taking  a  careful 
look at the role of green infrastructure and the benefits 
it provides; as these can offer economic savings (e.g. 
reduced water purification costs) and opportunities for 
Cohesion Policy investments with real social and eco-
nomic  returns  (e.g.  green  infrastructure  restoration). 
Financial  constraints  should  not  slow  down  the  tran-
sition  to  a  resource  efficient,  green  economy.  On  the 

contrary, implementing agreed upon commitments can 
help achieve significant cost savings over time, exploit 
untapped  opportunities  to  create  jobs  and  growth. 
Finally, it can help society make the transition towards a 
green economy and a sustainable and desirable future.

Box 5 provides some examples of the socio-economic 
benefits that investment in green infrastructure can pro-
vide. Note that all examples are relevant to Cohesion 
Policy expenditure. However only a subset have been 
co-financed  by  Cohesion  Policy.  See  section  4  for  a 
range of examples of Cohesion Policy projects.

21. Hjerp et al. (2011)

.18

1
0
.

T
R
A
P

BOX .05 

EXAMPLES  OF  SOCIO-ECONOMIC  BENEFITS  FROM  NATURE:  NATURA  2000  AND 
WIDER GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

Protected areas that provide conservation benefits also provide many services of value to society 
and the EU. The prime focus of the Natura 2000 protected area network is on the conservation 
of  biodiversity,  EU’s  unique  and  endangered  ecosystems,  species,  gene  pool  and  habitats. The 
network comprises 26,000 sites and covers almost 18 per cent of the EU territory. It also includes 
a growing marine protected area (MPA) network. The network is a core element of the wider EU 
green infrastructure, which together form a significant part of our living natural capital. In parallel to 
the focus on conservation, there has been an increasing interest in the socio-economic benefits of 
biodiversity over the last decade22. Arguments on the wider benefits of nature are being used to help 
attract funding for protected areas. A first illustrative estimate of the benefits from the ecosystem 
services  flowing  from  the  (terrestrial)  Natura  2000  network  as  a  whole  arrived  at  an  illustrative 
value of between €200-300 billion per year23 across a range of ecosystem services. With regards 
to carbon, it is estimated that the Natura 2000 network currently stores around 9.6 billion tonnes of 
carbon, equivalent to 35 billion tonnes of CO2, which is estimated to be worth between €607 billion 
and €1,130 billion (stock value in 2010), depending on the price attached to a tonne of carbon24. 
The costs of managing the Natura 2000 network and investing in it to ensure that it meets favourable 
conservation status has been estimated at around €5.8 billion per year25. Further examples of value 
are given below.

EXAMPLES OF SPECIFIC ECOSYSTEM SERVICE BENEFITS AT LOCAL TO NATIONAL SCALES

Climate change mitigation: The industrial cutaway peatland at Bellacorick, Ireland, was restored 
in 2009 by blocking drains, creating peat ridges to contain the water and to landscape to the peat-
land surface. The project led to a higher water table level and the extensive re-colonisation of the 
former bare peat substrate by vascular and moss vegetation. The restoration project re-established 
the carbon sink function of natural peatlands. It was estimated that the benefits in terms of carbon 
restoration were worth on average €1,506 per ha for the avoided carbon loss (75 tCO2eq. per ha; 
adopting a carbon price of €20t CO2eq.) and €118 per hectare per year for the average net carbon 
sequestration (5.9 tCO2eq. per ha per year). (Wilson et al., 2012)

Climate change adaptation/Flood protection: Along the lower Danube River, restoration of flood-
plains by decommissioning under-performing flood protection infrastructure has improved natural 
capacity  to  retain  and  release  floodwaters  and  remove  pollutants,  enhanced  biodiversity,  and 
strengthened local economies through the diversification of livelihoods based on natural resources. 
Implementation of this project is estimated to cost €183 million, which can be compared to possible 
annual revenues of €85.6 million and to flood cost savings of €396 million (Hulea et al., 2009). 
In France, assessments of flood control benefits in several French river basins indicate benefits 
ranging from €37/ha/year to €617/ha/year (Schéhérazade et al., 2010). Better flood protection can 
lead to additional benefits, by supporting the livelihoods of local communities (as illustrated in the 
Study Case Donau Green corridor).

22. For further reading on the values of nature see MA (2005), TEEB 
(2010, 2011) and on protected areas specifically Kettunen et al. (2009) & 
(2011), Stolton et al. (2010), Gantioler et al. (2010), and Kettunen and ten 
Brink (2013).

23. ten Brink et al. (2012)

24. Ding, Markandya, Nunes in ten Brink et al. (2012)

25. Gantioler et al. (2010)

.19

 
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

Natural Water Retention: The restoration of the Skjern River in Denmark created outflows from the 
river to the fjord in order to form a delta of around 220 hectares, created a 160 hectare lake, and 
permitted periodic floods on land within the project area, requiring the conversion of 1550 hectares 
of arable land to extensive grazing. These changes led to cost savings such as reduced pumping 
costs and floods, as well as to wider benefits from improved outdoor recreation, improved hunting, 
improved fishing, and biodiversity protection). Sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) support 
green infrastructure in urban areas by managing water levels and flows through trees and vegeta-
tion, green roofs, infiltration trenches and filter drains, swales and basins, ponds and wetlands. A 
case study in Manchester indicates that increasing green areas by 10 per cent would reduce runoff 
by around 5 per cent (Gill et al., 2007). 

Tourism: In Scotland, the Cairngorms National Park receives around 1.4 million visitors a year, 
each  spending  on  average  £69  per  day  on  accommodation,  food,  transport  and  entertainment 
(Cairngorms  National  Park Authority,  2005).  In  Finland  the  total  annual  revenue  linked  to  visitor 
spending in national parks and key recreation areas (total of 45 areas) has been estimated as €87 
million per year, generating €10 return for every €1 of public investment (Huhtala et al., 2010).

Economic impact and Employment: The implementation of Natura 2000 network was considered to 
have positive impacts on GDP in Spain, with an estimated increase in GDP between 0.1 - 0.26 per 
cent at national level. It was estimated that the network would generate an additional 12,792 jobs 
to the country (Fernandez et al., 2008). A study of the economic value of protected areas in Wales 
concluded that they directly or indirectly support nearly 12 000 jobs. 

Regional identity and brand: Green infrastructure initiatives often involve planned and co-ordinated 
investment in natural assets which can contribute to regional identity and brand, thus enhancing 
economic opportunities. The English National Forest initiative has created or safeguarded 333 
forestry related jobs, created 5 forest related businesses and trained 78 people in forest related 
business activities (Naumann et al., 2011).

Health and labour productivity: The Mersey Forest project in North West England is estimated to 
have brought net benefits of £20,000 per annum resulting from reduced absenteeism from work. 
Cost savings of £13,000 per annum, also resulted from improved health through physical recrea-
tion. Additionally, the benefits of improved health through absorption of air pollution by the trees in 
the restored forest are estimated at £116,000 annually (Regeneris, 2009).

SOURCES: from ten Brink et al 2012a, ten Brink et al 2012b, Mazza et al 2011, and references therein.

3.3  THE MULTIPLE VALUES OF NATURE 
IN THE REGIONAL CONTEXT 

While evidence for the value of nature has increased 
significantly, there are still gaps in knowledge regarding 
ecosystems  and  ecosystem  services.  Consequently 
cities and regions with unique ecosystems and biodi-
versity  may  face  a  knowledge  gap  when  attempting 
develop  their  green  infrastructure  policies.  In  such 
cases,  cities  and  regions  may  benefit  from  an  up-
front  investment  into  the  identification  of  their  main 
distinct natural assets, exploring the interrelationships 
(both positive synergies and pressures) with regional 

economic development and social context, their roles 
and values (see Part 03 approaches and tools). 

Looking beyond nature’s intrinsic values can help regions 
recognise that nature is an asset that determines, in var-
ious ways, a region’s long-term development prospects. 
A  number  of  regions  have  already  taken  steps  in  this 
direction and taken the initiative to ensure the ecological 
integrity of some of their region’s most important natural 
assets (e.g. see Study Cases: Azores Islands in Portugal; 

.20

Rhône-Alpes  Region;  the  Alpine-Carpathian  Corridor; 
and  DANUBEPARKS).  The  appreciation  of  the  contri-
bution of a region’s natural capital to local and regional 
ecological  development  can  help  ensure  that  regions 
avoid having to deal with the consequences and costs of 
environmental degradation. Furthermore it can preserve 
the distinct characteristics that grant them their competi-
tive advantages and help them attract investments thus 
preserving opportunities for growth in the long-term.

Historically  the  appreciation  of  the  intrinsic  value  of 
nature (i.e. the rare and endangered species, ecosys-
tems, genetic diversity), and non-monetary appreciation 
of the benefits that man-kind derives from nature, have 
not  been  enough  to  halt  the  degradation  of  natural 
capital. This has resulted in the on-going degradation of 
the environment and erosion of natural capital, moreover 
a decrease in well-being for a region. Consequently it is 

necessary to demonstrate and communicate the values 
of natural capital such that it is considered thoughtfully 
at each level of decision making.

1
0
.

T
R
A
P

Figure 2 presents an overview of the values of nature 
across  different  habitat  types.  The  value  of  nature  is 
very site specific hence there is a wide range of values. 
The value ranges for specific ecosystem services also 
vary widely across sites. For extensive literature on the 
values,  see  the  suggested  references  in  the  Guide’s 
footnotes26.

This gives an indication of the economic value of the 
different ecosystem services which offer considerable 
opportunities  for  regional  development,  the  primary 
interest  for  managing  authorities  responsible  for 
programming  national  and  regional  expenditure  pro-
grammes and the respective investment priorities.

02.

Range of values of all ecosystem services provided by different types of habitat 
(Int.$/ha/yr2007/PPP-corrected)27

SOURCE
redrawn from data in de Groot et al. (2012) building on TEEB (2010).

NOTE
The figure above shows range and average of total monetary value of bundle of ecosystem services per biome. The total number of values per biome 
(i.e. how many values from the academic literature) is indicated in brackets; the ‘average value’ of the value range is indicated as a star sign. Note 
that breadth of the range is affected by the number of studies – the more studies the more site specific values will be found and the greater the likely 
range. Similarly it can be affected how ‘outliers’ (i.e. very low or very high values) are addressed. Note also that there is arguably no such thing as 
an ‘average site’ and therefore the average values should be seen simply as illustrative.

26. Kumar (2010), ten Brink (2011), de Groot et al. (2012), Barbier (2011), 
ten Brink et al. (2012), and Russi et al. (2013).

27. De Groot et al. (2012) 

.21

 
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

3.4   RESPONDING TO THE VALUES OF NATURE IN 
THE CONTEXT OF COHESION POLICY 

There is an increased recognition globally and in Europe 
of the need to move towards a resource efficient, low 
carbon,  inclusive  green  economy28.  This  recogni-
tion  is  also  enshrined  in  the  Europe  2020  Strategy 
and  related  Flagship  Initiatives  and  2050  Roadmaps 
(Europe 2020). A sound appreciation of the values and 
role of nature can provide a core foundation for a tran-
sition toward these sustainability objectives. Cohesion 
Policy  provides  tools,  funding  and  leverage  to  help 
catalyse change. For example working with nature is 
complemented  by  other  Cohesion  Policy  measures, 
such as support for energy efficiency, renewable ener-
gies and innovation in general29. 

This section presents some overarching principles and 
approaches  for  biodiversity-smart  Cohesion  Policy.  It 
acts as a spring board for practical guidance on invest-
ment and governance which are provided in the Parts 
II and III of the Guide. A framework of approaches is 
presented  below30.  This  framework  of  measures  for 
Cohesion Policy is based on four main strands elabo-
rated further below:

01. 

Investment in environmental infrastructure, and 
other measures to minimise impacts on nature 
and avoid inappropriate trade-offs;

02.  Adopting  active  ecosystem  management 
approaches,  by  investing  in  nature  to  meet 
cohesion policy objectives and at the same time 
objectives  of  nature  conservation  and  support 
other policies; 

03.  Measures  pursuing  objectives  of  resource  effi-
ciency, decoupling and sustainable growth; and

04.  Good governance as a cross cutting approach.

The traditional framework of approaches for addressing 
environmental  challenges,  specifically  to  reduce  or 
avoid environmental damage are:

1.1) 

infrastructure 

Invest  in  environmental  infrastructure  to 
comply  with 
legislation  and  regulation: 
investments 
Environmental 
have  been  central  to  Cohesion  Policy  and 
remain  an  important  issue  for  a  subset  of 
countries.  For  example,  water  supply  and 
waste  water  infrastructure  expenditure  is 
critical  to  meet  water  quality  standards 
which in turn reduces pressure on biodiver-
sity.  These  investments  can  be  linked  to 
SEAs, EIAs, AAs (appropriate assessments) 
and  project  selection  (see  section  6  on 
Information and support to project develop-
ment  and  section  7  on  Project  eligibility, 
appraisal  and  selection).  The  associated 
use of Cohesion Policy leverage for pricing 
to  encourage  (full)  cost-recovery  (e.g.  for 
water pricing) and wider subsidy reform can 
help cost-effectiveness. 

1.2)  Minimise  losses  and  avoid  inappropriate 
trade-offs:  Tools  include  the  use  of  strate-
gies and partnerships as well as SEAs and 
carrying out SWOT31 analysis for OPs (see 
section  5:  Strategic  planning  and  program-
ming).  These  can  support  setting  priorities 
and ensuring policy coherence in OPs. At a 
project level the requirements under Article 
6.3 of the Habitats Directive include assess-
ments of risks and impacts, identification of 
alternatives  and  mitigation  measures,  and 
eventually  compensation.  Using  these  in 
conjunction with EIAs, project selection and 
evaluation criteria can help in the selection 
of  priority  projects  and  minimise  impacts.32 
This  may  also  help  contribute  to  meeting 
commitments  to  the  No  Net  Loss  (NNL)  of 
biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services  at  OP 
and  regional  levels.  Other  important  tools 
include land use planning (zoning of impor-
tant  natural  assets)  and  integrated  coastal 

28. UNEP (2011), UNCSD (2012)

31. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

29. See UNEP (2011), Fedrigo-Fazio et al. 

32. Hjerp et al. (2011)

30. Hjerp et al. (2011) and ten Brink et al. (2011) (2012), ten Brink et al. (2011)

.22

zone management. These have all been used in 
the 2007-2013 programme as part of Cohesion 
Policy governance and implementation. 

Measures  and  studies  have  been  supported 
under  Cohesion  Policy,  particularly  under  the 
Interreg programme, such as in the case study 
Natureship. 

1
0
.

T
R
A
P

These objectives and sets of measures have been the 
core approach within Cohesion Policy since its incep-
tion. Other approaches useful to Cohesion Policy, are 
those that adopt a more active ecosystem manage-
ment approaches, such as: 

2.1)  Proactive  approaches  to  risk  management  that 
build  on  a  wider  appreciation  of  risks.  Tools 
include risk mapping for flood control, and map-
ping and modelling for areas likely to be affected 
by water stress and other impacts from climate 
change.  Similarly  mapping  and  monitoring  of 
areas  prone  to  risk  from  invasive  alien  species 
can  help  avoid  potentially  serious  impacts  on 
infrastructure, economic output and health33. Ex 
ante  assessment,  SEAs  and  SWOTs  are  other 
examples  of  useful  processes  (see  sections  5 
and 6). The focus on risk management became 
an important feature of the Cohesion Policy 2007-
2013 and it is expected to increase in importance 
especially in regards to meeting objectives cost-
effectively34. There is also potential for integrating 
in SWOTs via support for mapping, communica-
tions and response to risks. 

2.2) 

Investment  in  natural  capital  via  restoration, 
conservation, and improved management prac-
tices  can  offer  particular  synergies  between 
Cohesion  Policy  and  biodiversity  policy.  Direct 
investment priorities are region specific, and can 
include investments in restoration and manage-
ment to help ensure clean water supply for cities 
and  regions,  mitigate  flood  risks,  and  support 
city  cooling35  (see  sections  4  and  8).  This  can 
support commitments to NNL and help achieve 
net positive gains in biodiversity and ecosystem 
services.There is also a need for the investment 
and  management  of  the  Natura  2000  network 
itself,  as  well  as  buffer  zones  and  connec-
tivity  features  with  wider  green  infrastructure. 

Increasingly  policy  interest  is  focusing  on  the  need 
to  pursue  overall  environmental  sustainability  via 
resource efficiency and decoupling:

3.1)   Measures for eco-efficiency and wider resource 
efficiency  through  water  or  other  resource 
pricing, and potentially payments for ecosystem 
service provision where land management leads 
to  wider  public  goods.  The  use  of  Cohesion 
Policy  to  leverage  full  cost  pricing  (notably 
for water supply and for waste) and the use of 
whole life costing (WLC) for projects can help 
promote  resource  efficiency  and  savings,  not 
just within the Cohesion Policy but more widely. 
Similarly, encouragement of green public pro-
curement  can  be  beneficial.  Finally  the  use 
of  these  tools  has  increasingly  been  apart  of 
Cohesion Policy. 36

3.2)  Decoupling  the  economy  from  resource  use 
and  its  negative  impacts  through  more  radical 
innovation  and  changes  in  demand.  This  can 
include  new  clean  products  and  processes37. 
Decoupling also builds on the five approaches 
discussed above. While there has arguably been 
less Cohesion Policy focus on absolute decou-
pling historically, parallels do exist in regards to 
investment  in  knowledge  and  learning,  as  well 
as investment in clusters and innovation centres 
which  can  provide  platforms  for  nature  based 
decoupling initiatives.

to 

transitioning 

These six approaches, together with good governance 
to  a  green  economy. 
are  key 
Components  of  good  governance  inter  alia  include: 
institutions  and  their  roles;  processes  and  participa-
tion;  information  provision,  transparency,  reporting 
and  disclosure;  and  monitoring  and  enforcement. 
Guidance  on  these  elements  are  provided  in  Part  03 

33. Shine et al. (2010) as well as the following websites:

European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/inva-
sivealien/index_en.htm; 
JRC: EASIN (European Alien Species Information Network) http://easin.jrc.
ec.europa.eu/use-easin; 
DAISIE: http://www.europe-aliens.org/index.jsp; 
EEA: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/impacts-of-invasive-alien-species 

34. Hjerp et al. (2012)

35. TEEB (2011a), TEEB (2012b)

36. Hjerp et al. (2011)

37. TEEB (2011a); ten Brink et al. (2012)

.23

 
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

of  this  Guide.  The  mix  and  emphasis  of  measures 
will  differ  from  one  region  or  country  to  another 
depending  on  regional  and  national  circumstances 
and  windows  of  opportunity  for  progress.  Cohesion 
Policy  and  its  implementation  relates  to  each  of 
the  above  approaches  and  therefore  will  translate 
across  regional  and  country  contexts.  Furthermore, 
Operational  Programmes  typically  integrate  a  mix  of 
instruments from the above approaches.

the  potential  to  be  a  catalyst  in  developing  resource 
efficient green economies that acknowledge the multi-
benefit  opportunities  that  inherently  exist  as  part  of 
investments in nature. Further realisation of the inter-
connections  between  Cohesion  Policy,  biodiversity 
objectives and wider EU ambitions under EU 2020 will 
help  enable  promote  sustainable  green  growth  and 
territorial cohesion. 

A  range  of  Cohesion  Policy  tools  and  measures 
already  contribute  to  the  above  steps  in  the  transi-
tion  to  a  green  economy.  Thus  Cohesion  Policy  has 

These  opportunities  can  be  further  capitalised  upon 
within Cohesion Policy 2014-2020, as shown in the next 
sections and as already demonstrated by the range of 
case studies in this report and associated annex.

.24

1
0
.

T
R
A
P

.25

 
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

2
0

T
R
A
.
P

FINANCING MULTI-BENEFIT
INVESTMENTS IN 
BIODIVERSITY AND 
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 

Whereas Part 01 of the guide provided the evidence 
base  for  multi-benefits  as  part  of  Cohesion  Policy 
investments, Part 02 and Part 03 will provide the prac-
tical steps on how to enable these. The focus of Part 
II  is  on  the  opportunities  for  enhancing  investments 
in  natural  capital,  biodiversity  and  green  infrastruc-
ture which can deliver multiple benefits for economic, 

social  and  territorial  cohesion.  What  can  be  done 
within Cohesion Policy planning, programming, imple-
mentation and monitoring to support and enable these 
benefits will be discussed in Part 03. 

The  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  2020  (EU  BDS-2020)38 
defines to a great extent the need for further investment 

38. EC (2011a) 

.26

in preserving EU biodiversity and Natura 2000 through 
relevant  funding  instruments  of  the  2014-2020  finan-
cial framework. EU BDS-2020, setting six targets and 
identifying  20  actions,  represents  an  ambitious  com-
mitment of EU Member States. EU BDS-2020 makes 
clear that action for biodiversity has a key role to play 
in speeding up the EU’s transition towards a resource 
efficient  and  sustainable  economy. The  new  strategy 
also  fully  acknowledges  the  economic  value  of  eco-
system services and the need to restore them for the 
benefit of the economy. 

all  EU  BDS  2020  objectives,  in  particular  the  Natura 
2000  network,  are  adequately  financed.  The  aim  of 
PAFs is to help to define the funding needs and priori-
ties  for  Natura  2000  at  a  national  or  regional  level. 
Also to facilitate their integration into the forthcoming 
Operational Programmes for the different EU funding 
instruments, including funds supporting the implemen-
tation of Cohesion Policy. For more information about 
PAFs  as  planning  tools  for  identification  and  prioriti-
zation  of  the  nature-related  investment  needs,  see 
section 4.5. 

The Impact Assessment of the EU BDS-202039 reports 
that  there  is  a  need  for  significant  funding  to  meet 
its  targets.  In  particular,  it  is  stated  that  the  costs  for 
achieving  favourable  conservation  status  of  species 
and habitats within the Natura 2000 network are esti-
mated at €5.8 billion per year. This is the equivalent 
of €62/ha/year. On the other hand, the costs of estab-
lishing  green  infrastructure  and  restoration  projects 
have  not  yet  been  estimated  at  EU  level.  However, 
the local and national level estimates suggest that the 
benefits for society of restoration and green infrastruc-
ture projects exceed costs. 

In  2014-2020  national  Prioritised Action  Frameworks 
(PAFs)  are  foreseen  to  be  developed  under  Article 
8(4) of the Habitats Directive with a view to ensure that 

Some of the major threats to biodiversity in the EU are 
climate change, land fragmentation, land use changes, 
overexploitation of natural resources, the spread of inva-
sive  alien  species,  and  pollution.  Despite  action  taken 
to combat biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation, 
these continue pose serious challenges for the EU. 

In the following sections the ways in which these chal-
lenges  can  be  addressed  through  Cohesion  Policy 
investments  are  presented. The  focus  of  Part  02  is  on 
the  opportunities  for  enhancing  investments  in  natural 
capital,  biodiversity  and  green  infrastructure  which  can 
deliver multiple benefits for economic, social and territo-
rial cohesion. Part 03 will discuss what can be done within 
Cohesion Policy planning, programming, implementation 
and monitoring to support and enable these benefits.

4. COHESION POLICY INVESTMENT 
OPPORTUNITIES TO ACHIEVE MULTI-BENEFITS 
THROUGH BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM 
SERVICES

The  proposed  Common  Provisions  Regulation  sets 
out  the  common  rules  and  provisions  for  all  funds 
under  shared  management  including  the  European 
Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Cohesion Fund 
(CF) and European Social Fund (ESF). The proposed 
Regulation  also  contains  eleven  thematic  objectives 

that  will  govern  spending  in  the  2014-2020  period. 
These  objectives  provide  both  direct  and  indirect 
opportunities  for  green  investment  that  can  deliver 
multiple economic, social and territorial benefits. The 
aim of this section is to identify these benefits.

39. EC (2011b) 

.27

GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

4.1  DIRECT FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES  

The  protection  of  the  environment,  including  support 
for  nature  protection  and  biodiversity,  is  one  of  the 
eleven  thematic  objectives  of  the  Cohesion  Policy 
for  2014-2020.  This  objective  provides  opportunities 
to  fund  projects  that  directly  address  environmental 
protection  issues,  provided  that  they  are  specified  in 
the  relevant  Operational  Programmes.  Hence,  direct 

funding  opportunities  are  defined  as  those  that  are 
intended  for  the  funding  of  nature,  biodiversity,  eco-
system services and green infrastructure and are part 
of the thematic objective of protecting the environment. 
Table 1 summarises these direct funding opportunities 
and gives examples of project types.

Table .01
INVESTMENT  PRIORITIES  FOR  FUNDING  NATURE  (BIODIVERSITY  AND  ECOSYSTEM  SERVICES)  AND 
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITIES FOR DIRECT FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

THEMATIC OBJECTIVE

OPPORTUNITIES

(6) Protecting the envi-

Relevant activities proposed in draft Regulations on the ERDF and CF

ronment and promoting 

resource efficiency

  Protecting biodiversity, soil conservation and promoting ecosystem services including Natura 

2000 and green infrastructure (ERDF)

  Protecting and restoring biodiversity, including through green infrastructures (Cohesion Fund).

Implementation and coordination mechanisms proposed in the Common Strategic Framework

  Investment in green infrastructure, which includes: investing in Natura 2000 sites and other territories to promote the protection 

and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystem services climate change mitigation and adaptation, protection against floods and fires, 

coastal protection, soil protection and other risk prevention measures, decrease the fragmentation of natural areas, increase water 

availability, and restore heavily modified sites and habitats.

  Support for sustainable integrated urban development, including through sustainable urban drainage, soil sealing measures, reha-

bilitation of contaminated sites, and rehabilitation of cultural infrastructure. 

  Investment in the diversification of local economies by protecting and enhancing cultural heritage and landscapes (both in rural 

and urban contexts).

PROJECT TYPE EXAMPLES

PROJECT TITLE

MULTI-BENEFITS

Development of infrastructure to protect 

Benefits of green infrastructure - socio-

Regulating the flow of runoff water and im-

and promote ecosystem services and 

economic importance of constructed 

proving water quality within the watershed. 

biodiversity (e.g. peatland, wetland 

urban wetlands (Nummela, Finland)

Recreational and cultural benefits.

restoration, measures for the conserva-

Semi-natural grassland as a source of 

Encouraging the use of locally sourced 

tion and improvement of fauna and flora, 

biodiversity improvement (EU-Salvere 

seeds for restoration of semi-natural 

land purchase). 

project, Central Europe Programme)

grasslands, improving of harvesting and 

Benefits of a natural wonderland - 

storage techniques. Supporting sus-

socio-economic importance of restoring 

tainable rural development.

wetland biodiversity (Thessalia, Greece).

Economic value for fisheries, tourism, 

water supply for agriculture and water 

supply for urban use, flood prevention.

.28

PROJECT TYPE EXAMPLES

PROJECT TITLE

MULTI-BENEFITS

Green infrastructure (e.g. regional 

Alpine/Carpathian corridor (Austria, 

Improvement of habitat-structure and 

development of eco-corridors, green 

Slovakia) 

migratory routes. Better informed spatial 

roofs etc.).

Green Corridors Contracts (Rhone-

planning. 

Alpes, France)

Recreational and educational benefits. 

Creation of sustainable livelihoods and 

jobs, economic and leisure activities and 

environmental education. Improvement 

of quality of life and public health and 

road safety.

Environmental education, training, 

DANUBEPARKS : Cross-border coop-

Restoration of the natural dynamics 

capacity building, (e.g. workshops, 

eration to enhance the environmental 

and ecosystems of the river basin have 

conferences, guidance documents, bro-

status of Danube River basin, creating 

contributed to biodiversity conservation 

chures, websites, information centres, 

benefits to both biodiversity and people

and also improved the recreational and 

exhibitions, education tools, visitors 

centres).

tourism value of the basin; avoided con-

flicts between inland waterways transport 

development and conservation; adapta-

tion of man-made hydraulic structures; 

capacity building and skills development.

Awareness raising and public par-

Green Corridors Contracts project in the 

Achieved benefits were in job creation, 

ticipation (e.g. dissemination of 

Rhône-Alpes region (France)

economic activities, leisure activities 

biodiversity-related knowledge and 

translation of knowledge into practice).

and environmental education as well as 

improving the quality of local habitats  

and road safety. Mapping of ecological 

networks.

Monitoring, reporting activities, scientific 

CARIBSAT: Caribbean Satellite Environ-

Developed a thematic geographic informa-

studies (e.g. mechanism for collecting 

mental Information System. 

tion system focused on coastal areas, 

2
0
.

T
R
A
P

information, monitoring of species and 

sites mapping, inventory, assessment 

of protected areas and ecosystems, 

creation of environmental information 

system, database, web based virtual 

observatory).

wetlands and marine environment at the 

regional level. The project mobilised the 

relevant regional partners and contributed 

to the assessment, management and 

planning of the target territories. It pro-

vided a platform for cooperation between 

public and private organisations based on 

the wider benefits that nature can provide.

4.2  INDIRECT FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES   

Opportunities  for  supporting  the  protection  of  nature, 
including  biodiversity,  ecosystem  services  and  asso-
ciated  wider  benefits  through  Cohesion  Policy  also 
exist  outside  the  thematic  objective  dedicated  to 
investment in the environment and resource efficiency. 
As discussed in Part 01 of this Guide, the conservation 
of  nature  and  maintenance  of  ecosystem  services 
have  synergies  with  a  wide  range  of  policy  areas 
(i.e.  research,  innovation,  business  development, 

employment,  climate  change  mitigation  and  adap-
tation) are eligible for support from Cohesion Policy. 

This  section  outlines  the  most  relevant  thematic 
objectives  and  investment  priorities  that  can  provide 
synergy-based opportunities for financing biodiversity 
and  ecosystem  services  (e.g.  through  the  establish-
ment of green infrastructure) from the ERDF, ESF and 
the Cohesion Fund, and gives some project examples 

.29

 
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

for these.40 The ERDF and Cohesion Fund opportunities 
are  mainly  concentrated  around  environmental  infra-
structure,  innovative  research,  SME  competitiveness, 
sustainable energy and adaptation to climate change. 

The ESF, which targets employment, human resources 
and social issues, also provides opportunities for inte-
grating  nature  into  strategic  directions  and  specific 
projects, as shown in the tables below. These include 
creation  of  employment  opportunities  through  the 
tourism  sector;  in  conservation,  restoration  and  sus-
tainable resource management; health gains through 
increased  exposure  to  green  space  and  nature;  and 
educational opportunities. 

A major new opportunity to be taken into account for 
the  2014-2020  programming  period  is  the  require-
ment  for  Member  States  to  develop  national  and/or 
regional ‘research and innovation strategies for smart 
specialisation’  (RIS3  see  more  in  the  Commission 
factsheet41).  These  strategies  could  include  aspects 
directly  or  indirectly  linked  to  biodiversity,  ecosystem 
services or the bio-economy and therefore represent 
an  important  support  to  fund  the  related  innovation 
activities.  Specific  guidance42  builds  on  a  number  of 
already  existing  cases  is  available  to  show  the  way 
ahead  on  how  this  reinforced  framework  on  invest-
ments in innovation through cohesion policy could also 
benefit biodiversity and nature protection.

Specific  synergies  between  the  different  types  of 
investment financed by the ERDF and ESF should be 

exploited.  The  ESF  can  in  fact  provide  funding  for  a 
number of different thematic objectives. For example, 
it can be done through education reforms and training 
systems,  adaptation  of  skills  and  qualifications,  up-
skilling  of  the  labour  force,  and  the  creation  of  new 
jobs in sectors related to the environment and energy. 
Conversely,  the  ERDF  can  contribute  to  promoting 
employment  and  supporting  labour  force  mobility 
through the development of business incubators and 
investment support for self-employment and business 
creation.  It  can  contribute  to  promoting  social  inclu-
sion  and  combating  poverty  by  investing  in  health 
and social infrastructure which contribute to national, 
regional and local development, reducing inequalities 
in  terms  of  health  status,  and  transition  from  institu-
tional to community-based services. Thus ERDF can 
be  a  source  for  concrete  investment  while  ESF  can 
help to develop the skills and knowledge that will use 
and benefit from this investment. 

The  Regulation  underlines  the  necessity  to  support 
integrated  actions  to  tackle  the  economic,  environ-
mental, climate and social challenges affecting urban 
areas.  The  proposed  ERDF  proposal  has  increased 
its focus on sustainable urban development (SUD). It 
envisages the allocation of 5 per cent of national ERDF 
funding for integrated sustainable urban development 
measures and for the establishment of an urban devel-
opment  platform  to  promote  capacity  building  and 
knowledge exchange between cities (these elements 
on  the  urban  dimension  are  further  developed  in  the 
subsequent section 4.3). 

STRENGTHENING RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION

1
0

Selected relevant activities proposed in draft Regulation

I

E
V
T
C
E
J
B
O
C
T
A
M
E
H
T

I

  Enhancing research and innovation infrastructure (R&I) and capacities to develop R&I excellence and promoting 

centres of competence, in particular those of European interest. (ERDF)

Possible synergies with the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services

Protected areas and other biodiversity hot-spots represent the potential for creating centres of excellence for research in bio-

diversity, terrestrial and marine ecosystems and/or pharmacology. Well-managed natural sites help to promote and increase 

the scientific understanding on ecosystems and they can form a source for a range of nature-based innovations for the 

bio-economy (the bio-economy includes: biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and sustainable nature-based solutions for natural 

resources management). Many sectors of the economy and activities are affected, including industrial biotechnology, horticul-

ture, bio-control, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, farm animal breeding, food and beverage, botanic gardens, culture collections, 
and academic research43. Furthermore, the less bio-diverse ecosystems that are maintained as part of a wider green 

40. Kettunen et al. (2013)

41. EC (2012a)

.30

42. EC (2012b)

43. ten Brink et al. (2012); IEEP et al. (2012a)

 
 
infrastructure, also have a significant innovation potential, providing possible nature-based solutions for energy ef-

ficiency (e.g. green roofs and walls), water management and improvement of health.

Remote sensing station for satellite-assisted environmental monitoring in the Indian Ocean (SEAS-OI) (ERDF)

SEAS-OI aims to put in place a centre of excellence in remote sensing using a station to receive and process high-

resolution satellite images covering the entire south-west area of the Indian Ocean. Two types of images are needed 

to be processed: radar images (RADARSAT-2 and ENVISAT) and optical images (SPOT-4 and SPOT-5). Radar 

images are particularly well suited to the monitoring of maritime areas. Optical images offer resolutions that can be ac-

curate to 2.5 m and which make many applications in terms of land imaging and mapping possible.

Multi-benefits: 

The results will be useful in relation to regional problems concerning land planning, the management of natural land 

environments, maritime monitoring, epidemiological monitoring, the preservation of biodiversity, monitoring of climate 

indicators and the management of natural hazards.

SEAS-SI project website: http://teledetection.univ-reunion.fr/tcc/ 

    http://www.espace.ird.fr 

2
0
.

T
R
A
P

ENHANCING ACCESS TO AND USE AND QUALITY OF 
INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES (ICT)

2
0

Selected relevant activities proposed in draft Regulation

I

E
V
T
C
E
J
B
O
C
T
A
M
E
H
T

I

  Strengthening ICT application for e-government, e-learning, e-inclusion and e-health. (ERDF)

  Investment in institutional capacity and in the efficiency of public administration and public services with the objec-

tive of introducing reforms to improve regulation and good governance. (ESF)

Possible synergies with the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems

Developing the ICT for eGovernment applications in environmental monitoring and the management of ecosystems 

and biodiversity (e.g. protected areas). ICT can help develop a quantitative understanding of the state and changes 

in ecosystems, and associated service flows. Further it can provide information on the links between ecosystems, 

and the social and economic systems, hence improving policy and instrument design (e.g. spatial planning, use of 

Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes). Similarly improved mapping and risk assessment tools can help 

with policy design, hazard mitigation and response strategies. For example ICT tools can help minimise risks and 

potential negative impacts stemming from natural hazards, such as sea level rise and storm surges, water stress, or 

invasive alien species, all which impact not just biodiversity, but health, production and infrastructure. ICT can also 

help improve the evidence base needed for the development of environmental economic accounts, useful at local, 

regional, river basin and national levels.

Simulation tool to explore the environmental impact of development scenarios in French Guiana (GUYASIM) (ERDF)

GUYASIM is a simulation software programme that will help policy makers base their planning and development deci-

sions on an objective, quantified system. Depending on the different development scenarios considered, it will provide 

a means of quantifying changes in the environmental services provided by the forest ecosystem, such as: carbon 

storage, the erosion or preservation of biodiversity and soil functioning.

Multi-benefits: 

Research findings and knowledge in the areas of spatial plotting of Guianese forest ecosystem services, socioeco-

nomic development options and the impact of climate change on the Guianese forest ecosystem will all be built into 

the programme. In the context of reducing emissions form deforestation and forest degradation REDD+ system set 

up to compensate countries whose forests contribute to mitigating climate change, GUYASIM will provide a way of 

quantifying the services provided by the Guianese ecosystem and hence serve as a basis for assessing the financial 

compensation owed to French Guiana.

SOURCE: Guyasim project website: http://www.ecofog.gf/spip.php?article429

.31

 
 
 
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

ENHANCING COMPETITIVENESS OF SMALL- AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES (SMES)

3
0

Selected relevant activities proposed in draft Regulation

I

E
V
T
C
E
J
B
O
C
T
A
M
E
H
T

I

  Promoting entrepreneurship, in particular by facilitating the economic exploitation of new ideas and fostering the 

creation of new firms. (ERDF)

Possible synergies with the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services

The number of green jobs necessary for planning, implementing, and monitoring green infrastructure is expected to in-

crease, and in particular SMEs will play a fundamental role for regional and local solutions. Moreover, protected areas 

(both terrestrial and marine protected areas) offer multiple opportunities and unique ‘selling points’ for SMEs within the 

tourism sector. Opportunities exist to develop SMEs that exploit biodiversity and/or conservation-related opportunities 

beneficial for businesses and site managers (e.g. biochemical, pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries, and biomass 

extraction). Other opportunities include enhancing the resource efficiency of SMEs, such as cost-effective solutions for 

water management (e.g. wetland restoration or establishment of water related PES schemes).

Riahovo - freshwater fisheries in the Kalimok- Brushlen protected area (non EU funded) 

Riahovo is a micro-enterprise providing ecotourism services and water body management (for fish breeding) located in 

the Kalimok-Brushlen protected area in Bulgaria. It is managed through a partnership of three directors with locally re-

cruited labour. Riahovo aims to re-establish two previously drained and dry fish ponds for commercial fish production, the 

smaller of the two being built for recreational fishing. The ponds will generate direct benefits to biodiversity by providing 

a habitat for birds and other aquatic wildlife, including the maintenance of native fish populations, and plants. It will also 

provide indirect benefits for biodiversity by helping to move the local economy away from unsustainable agriculture. 

Multi-benefits:

The main market for the fish is Bulgarian wholesalers. The market for angling is mainly local, or customers from Sofia. 

The potential increase in tourism to the region provides opportunities for developing ecotourism activities and offering 

information services to the visitors of the protected area. Even though the local market is the main market to which the 

products are sold, sufficient demand is expected for fish and angling through tourism activities which are an economi-

cally viable enterprise.

SOURCE: RSPB (2009) Handbook for Developing and Implementing Pro-Biodiversity Projects- an output from the EC Biodiversity 

Technical Assistance Unit project, Sandy, UK

FURTHER REFERENCE: BTAU Project website: http://www.smeforbiodiversity.eu/index.php

SHIFT TOWARDS A LOW-CARBON ECONOMY IN ALL SECTORS

4
0

Selected relevant activities proposed in draft Regulation

  Promoting low-carbon strategies for urban areas. (ERDF & Cohesion Fund)

  Through employment, education or enhancing institutional capacity to support the shift towards a low-carbon, 

climate-resilient, resource-efficient and environmentally sustainable economy, through the reform of education and 

training systems, adaptation of skills and qualifications, up-skilling of the labour force, and the creation of new jobs in 

sectors related to the environment and energy. (ESF)

Possible synergies with the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services

Greening cities reduces energy use, and provides significant health and social benefits. Activities can include:

  Conservation and restoration of peatlands and other wetlands, woods and forests, coastal zones that include 
sea grasses can prevent CO2 emissions from degraded habitats and/or improve carbon sequestration, while offering 
multiple additional benefits;

  Urban green areas can play an important role in reducing an area’s overall energy footprint and would include 

initiatives such as urban parks, tree-lined streets and other green spaces, green roofs and urban agriculture, com-

posting, low energy water purification, and the use of rain and grey water. 

I

E
V
T
C
E
J
B
O
C
T
A
M
E
H
T

I

.32

 
 
 
 
Redesigning and changing public lighting and other light sources to benefit the environment (non EU funded)

The programme proposed by the CEE Bankwatch for Hungary would support activities for the manufacturing, 

purchase and installation of biodiversity-friendly light fittings which decrease light pollution. The objectives of the 

programme are to decrease energy consumption and light pollution, decrease the attraction of insects to light sources, 

hinder the evolution of secondary food chains and decrease road deaths of insect-eating animals.

Multi-benefits:

Through the installation of light-directing plates it is possible to lessen the attraction of insects to LED light bulbs, 

reduce light pollution and still achieve the decrease in energy consumption provided by LED lights.

SOURCE. CEE Bankwatch (2013), Recommendations for the programming of EU funds in 10 CEE countries

Peatland restoration in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany (non EU funded)

Restoring peatlands can lead to low-cost carbon capture and storage. Between 2000 and 2008, an area of 29,764 ha 

of peatlands was restored in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, by raising the water level to prevent the further oxidation of 

peat. The project provided a reduction of 14 tonnes of CO2-eq. emissions per restored hectare.

Multi-benefits: 

Peatland restoration improved biodiversity and led to a reduction in emissions. Additional income can be obtained 

using the restored peatlands for alternative land uses that do not reduce the carbon stock. Other benefits include the 

2
0
.

T
R
A
P

improvement of water quality and cultural ecosystem services.

SOURCE: Case study in the annex

PROMOTING CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION, RISK PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT

5
0

Selected relevant activities proposed in draft Regulation

I

E
V
T
C
E
J
B
O
C
T
A
M
E
H
T

I

  Supporting dedicated investment for adaptation to climate change. (ERDF)

  Promoting investment to address specific risks, ensuring disaster resilience and developing disaster management 

systems. (ERDF)

Possible synergies with the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services 

Funding can be allocated to support ecosystem-based adaptation measures and green infrastructure which build on 

the maintenance and/or restoration of ecosystem services in several ways: 

  Restoring ecosystems’ natural capacity and investing in green infrastructure can help buffer the impact of climate 

change (e.g. extreme weather phenomena) and can be used as a means to mitigate flooding, droughts and wild fires.

Measures include restoration of wetlands, development of water retention areas, building of semi-natural dunes, con-

nectivity of natural and man-made infrastructure for flood mitigation (i.e. flood plains, natural barriers and man-made 

levees), and afforestation. Support for these hydrological measures is generally needed as well as risk mapping to 

identify areas at risk and assess cost-effectiveness of measures. A risk assessment to identify key beneficiaries from 

action and those providing the service (e.g. farmers’ fields for flood control) will be important to help assess potential 

needs for engagement of stakeholders and potentially payments for ecosystem services.

  As noted above, improved information base and monitoring, supported by ICT, can help improve risk management 

systems.

WATER: Wetted land- the assessment, techniques and economics of restoration, France / England (ERDF) 

The WATER project will develop a market based catchment restoration scheme which will be based on a PES model 

with the aim to identify both delivery and funding mechanisms to leverage private investment for catchment restora-

tion. It is funded under the INTERREG IV A France (Channel) England Programme, Priority Axis 4 ‘ensure sustainable 

development of the common space’, specific objective 11 ‘mitigate and manage risks of environmental damage’.

.33

 
 
 
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

Multi-benefits:

This Anglo-Franco English Channel catchment scale project aims to assess, restore, economically evaluate and dis-

seminate findings for the restoration of former wetlands as a way of ‘climate proofing’ rivers, reducing bacterial and 

nutrient loading, and enhancing biodiversity as well as establishing our shared common identity.

SOURCE: SURF database http://surfnature.ctfc.cat/index.php

ALFA - Adaptive Land use for Flood Alleviation (ERDF)

The ALFA project is funded under the INTERREG IVB North West Europe Programme. It aims to protect citizens in 

the region against the effects of flooding due to climate change. This will be done by creating new capacity for water 

storage or discharge of peak floods within river catchments in Belgium, France, Germany, United Kingdom and The 

Netherlands.

Multi-benefits: 

The project also aims to raise awareness and increase solidarity between citizens in upstream and downstream areas 

within river catchments in Europe. This is achieved, through public involvement measures to optimise social, economic 

and ecological benefits, preserving the current land use function in the project areas and combining this with desirable 

and suitable new functions, such as nature and recreation.

SOURCE: SURF database http://surfnature.ctfc.cat/index.php

PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT AND PROMOTING RESOURCES EFFICIENCY

6
0

Selected relevant activities proposed in draft Regulation

  Addressing the significant needs for investment in the waste and water sector to meet the requirements of the 

environmental acquis. (ERDF and Cohesion Fund)

  Protecting, promoting and developing cultural heritage. (ERDF and Cohesion Fund)

  Action to improve the urban environment, including regeneration of brownfield sites and reduction of air pollution. 

(ERDF and Cohesion Fund)

Possible synergies with the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services

Synergies exist from investments in enhanced water supply and water and waste management, to waste water treat-

ment and air quality. Special support is also foreseen for transnational cooperation projects with the aim of protecting 

and managing river basins, coastal zones, marine resources, water services and wetlands. Investment in solutions 

which work with nature and strengthen the resilience and vitality of natural ecosystems will result in significant im-

provements in resource efficiency.

There are synergies both from working with man-made infrastructure and from working with nature. Investment in 

man-made waste water treatment and waste management infrastructures will help reduce pressure on nature which 

will consequently lead to reduced degradation and loss of ecosystem services (e.g. clear water supply, fish provision, 

erosion control, natural hazards management). Restoration, new investment and management of green infrastructure 

can lead to savings in terms of water use and cost, energy use and cost, and improved natural resource yields (e.g. 

fisheries), which can make the use of man-made and financial capitals more efficient.

Wales-Wild Fishing (ERDF) 

Wild Fishing Wales (WFW) is a component of the Communities and Nature project (CAN), which seeks to maximise 

the economic value of Wales’ natural assets. It is funded under the Operational Programme for Convergence, Priority 

‘Creating an Attractive Business Environment’, theme ‘Environment for Growth’. The project may facilitate the develop-

ment of a fisheries booking system or passport scheme that will continue to promote partner fisheries. It is anticipated 

that angling guiding will become a more common aspect of angling tourism in Wales.

I

E
V
T
C
E
J
B
O
C
T
A
M
E
H
T

I

.34

 
 
Multi-benefits:

Economic opportunities for local communities are provided through developing people’s skills to help manage and 

provide guided access to these sites. The ecological function of these sites is enhanced so that they provide high 

quality fishing, and an improved environment for wildlife. It is expected that a proportion of the additional income to 

WFW fisheries will be used to maintain and extend the environmental and access improvements delivered through the 

project.

SOURCE: SURF database http://surfnature.ctfc.cat/index.php

Renovation of the ‘Maison de la Baie’, St Brieuc, France (ERDF) 

The transformation and renovation of the ‘Maison de la Baie’ environment centre ensures compliance with high en-

vironmental quality building regulations. Its ultimate output will be the modernisation of educational material such as, 

permanent and temporary exhibitions, website, green classrooms, site visits, guided tours, adequate literature and 

museography. It is funded under the Operational Programme for Competitiveness Brittany Region, action ‘study and 

carry out ecological work’.

Multi-benefits: 

Urban pressure on the environment is growing and it is important to raise the awareness of the inhabitants about 

the value of the environment they live in and the importance of protecting it. St Brieuc is also located in between two 

important tourism areas. Thus the local authority would like to attract tourists to its territory, promoting the natural and 

cultural environment of the bay and raising the awareness of tourists to their impact on the environment.

SOURCE: SURF database http://surfnature.ctfc.cat/index.php

2
0
.

T
R
A
P

PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT AND 
REMOVING BOTTLENECKS IN KEY NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURES

7
0

Selected relevant activities proposed in draft Regulation

I

E
V
T
C
E
J
B
O
C
T
A
M
E
H
T

I

  Developing environment-friendly and low-carbon transport systems and promoting sustainable urban mobility. 

(ERDF and Cohesion Fund)

Possible synergies with the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services 

The development of environmentally friendly and low-carbon transport systems helps to achieve the protection objec-

tives for air, water, ecosystems and biodiversity. It is also important that the negative impact caused by other funding (e.g. 

transport infrastructure) is minimised through biodiversity proofing of projects and other instruments to support commit-

ment to the No Net Loss of biodiversity (see section 5.2). Green infrastructure can address the problem of fragmentation 

through innovative solutions on planning and implementing new transport infrastructure by routing with minimal envi-

ronmental impact, ecoducts, and improving ecosystem functions along the road track. In the Trans-European Transport 

Network (TEN-T) policy, for example, green Infrastructure as an integral part of projects may be promoted within the 

framework of the proposed corridor approach. Ex-post biodiversity proofing of existing transport infrastructure can help 

reduce fragmentation of landscapes and contribute to increasing biodiversity.

Cross-border green infrastructure – Alpine-Carpathian corridor/Alpen-Karpaten Korridor (Austria, Slovakia) (ERDF)

The project aimed to contribute to constructing and preserving a coherent 120 km corridor, from the Alps to the 

Carpathians in response to the increasing fragmentation of habitats. By means of safeguarding habitats the project 

aimed to enable migration and promote genetic exchange between wild animal populations. Implementation measures 

carried out within the framework of this cross-border project included the building of ‘green bridges’ over highways, 

the creation of suitable habitat patches or stepping stones within the corridor, routing along existing bikeways, de-

velopment (by project partners), and signing (by political leaders) of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the 

protection of the Alpine-Carpathian corridor. Public awareness campaigns and environmental education for schools in 

relation to the Alpine-Carpathian corridor within the region were also part of the project.

.35

 
 
 
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

Multi-benefits:

Green bridges promote the diversity of plants and animals species and give populations that have been forced back 

behind infrastructure the chance to mix with others of their own species again. Greater biodiversity also improves the 

water, air and soil quality, as a balanced biological system is highly beneficial for the cleanliness of the environment. 

Additionally, the project will help to reduce the impacts from future developments on the corridor due to the information 

outputs of the project. For example, detailed corridor models for bottlenecks can provide a basis for better informed 

spatial planning in the future and allow for more effective use of planning tools such as EIA. The project also presents 

benefits to the recreation and ecotourism sectors . Additional socio-economic benefits include environmental education 

and communication, and the provision of recreational areas (e.g. bike path) which will benefit the eco-tourism sector 

with an increased number of visitors. 

SOURCE: Case study in the annex

Via Baltica (S8) Expressway in North-Eastern Poland – SEA as effective tool for biodiversity proofing trans-

port plans (Cohesion Fund & ERDF) 

The S8 expressway, Bialystok located along the Lithuanian border with north-eastern Poland is a major project which 

had been presented for financing under Operational Programme Infrastructure & Environment. It was included in the 

indicative major project list under Priority Axis 6 TEN-T Road and Air Transport Network, Measure 6.1 Development of 

the TEN-T Road Network. As a result of a long assessment process it was concluded that the routing of the expressway 

was not optimal, leading to the abandonment of the original project. It was replaced by a new alternative route for the 

entire Polish section of Via Baltica expressway. The project case demonstrates that SEA Directive can be an excel-

lent tool to reconcile trade-offs between economic development and environmental sustainability. The SEA, in fact, 

facilitated a multi-variant analysis and assisted in solving the problem of possible collisions with Natura 2000 sites on a 

macro scale. Assessments of needs and economic analysis carried out on this level were also extremely valuable.

Multi-benefits: 

Implementation of Cohesion Policy investments in Poland, particularly in the field of transport, led to institutional 

reforms, enabling smoother and higher quality SEA procedures, a positive ‘spillover’ effect. In 2008, the General Direc-

torate for Environmental Protection was established, together with 16 Regional Directorates. The General Directorate is 

responsible for the SEA of national strategic documents and deals with trans boundary procedures for SEA. One of the 

primary tasks of these institutions is carrying out EIA procedures and management of Natura 2000 sites. The creation 

of these new, independent institutions ensured extra capacities to deal with EIAs for transport projects. In fact one of 

the aims of the institutional reform was to facilitate the implementation of several legal changes addressing the respec-

tive directives (EIA, SEA, Birds and Habitats). This has consequentially also facilitated the implementation of transport 

investments funded by the EU, which before had been delayed due to problems with environmental procedures.

SOURCE: IEEP (2011), Cohesion Policy and Sustainable Development. Supporting Paper 4: Case studies

PROMOTING EMPLOYMENT AND SUPPORTING LABOUR MOBILITY

8
0

Selected relevant activities proposed in draft Regulation

  Self-employment, entrepreneurship and business creation. (ESF)

  Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon, climate-resilient, resource-efficient and environmentally sustainable 

economy, through reform of education and training systems, adaptation of skills and qualifications, up-skilling of the 

labour force, and the creation of new jobs in sectors related to the environment and energy. (ESF)

  Development of business incubators and investment support for self-employment and business creation. (ERDF)

Possible synergies with the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services

The activities required to restore, manage and protect biodiversity result in both direct and indirect employment opportu-

nities. Green infrastructure and nature protection activities have the potential to create employment opportunities while 

preserving and improving the quality of nature particularly for skilled designers and engineers, landscape architects, and 

I

E
V
T
C
E
J
B
O
C
T
A
M
E
H
T

I

.36

 
 
scientists or maintenance crews. As well as providing a diverse range of direct employment opportunities, the preserva-

tion of nature also stimulates activity within a variety of other sectors, such as agriculture, construction and tourism. For 

example, investment in nature reserves are required to develop the tourism sector through the establishment and main-

tenance of public infrastructure (bike paths, parking, traffic calming) to redirect visitors or to carefully direct tourist activity 

(e.g. via information centres, observatories, scenic view points, signage, walking trails, natural and cultural routes and 

trails). Investment to improve/restore habitats when carried out as an integral part of initiatives promoting self-employ-

ment and business could be linked with the creation of sustainable bio-business.

Benefits of a natural wonderland - socio-economic importance of restoring wetland biodiversity (Thessalia, 

Greece) (ERDF) 

To complete the reconstitution of Lake Karla and its eco-system, and to further develop socio-economic prospects 

in the area, a follow-up project was designed and funded by the 2007 – 2013 national-level Operational Programme 

addressing environment and development. The main objectives of this project are to address the environmental 

challenges of the energy-intensive use of boreholes, the overuse of underground waters and the destruction of the 

biodiversity of the area. 

Multi-benefits:

Environmental successes observed so far include the return of a number of bird species to the area and the reap-

pearance of fish in the lake. Most importantly, the project is expected to create a small number of jobs in the area, 

specifically to staff the management institute, the information centre and the museum. Furthermore, private sector 

initiatives in the sector of sustainable tourism in the area, such as camping sites, horse raising farms, rowing centres, 

etc. are also expected.

SOURCE: Case study in the annex

2
0
.

T
R
A
P

PROMOTING SOCIAL INCLUSION AND COMBATING POVERTY

9
0

Selected relevant activities proposed in draft Regulation

I

E
V
T
C
E
J
B
O
C
T
A
M
E
H
T

I

  Enhancing access to affordable, sustainable and high-quality services, including health care and social services of 

general interest. (ESF)

  Support for social enterprises. (ESF)

  Community-led local development strategies.(ESF)

  Investing in health and social infrastructure which contribute to national, regional and local development, reducing 

inequalities in terms of health status, and transition from institutional to community-based services. (ERDF)

Possible synergies with the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services

Building on nature’s capacity to support sustainable development can be used to support broader physical and eco-

nomic regeneration of deprived urban and rural communities:

  Restoring ecosystems and related ecosystem services can have significant welfare impacts, for example by im-

provements to environmental security and quality in the area; 

  Restoration of nature and building on nature-based economic sectors can be the basis for a community-led local 

development strategy. For example in the framework of a complex nature-based sustainable tourism, agriculture and 

fisheries approach to local development;

  Contact with green spaces and nature can improve mental health and well-being (e.g. by reducing stress levels);

  Green cities, green spaces, and green roofs create an environment that is better for health by providing natural 

noise control, natural cooling, and reducing particulate pollution. These in turn contribute to a reduction in respiratory 

diseases and heat related mortality that disproportionately affect disadvantaged groups, namely children, seniors and 

low income individuals. Green infrastructure, a public good, compensates for these inequalities;

  Nature can support a range of measures and activities that enhance social inclusion, including providing opportu-

nities for nature-based therapy and care. 

.37

 
 
 
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

PERIURBAN PARKS – improving environmental conditions in suburban areas (ERDF) 

PERIURBAN is a regional initiative project co-financed under the Interreg IV C framework which uses interregional 

exchange of experiences to improve policies on management of natural suburban areas. PERIURBAN focuses 

specifically on policy and management solutions to mitigate pressures on biodiversity. Focus on the creation and 

management of parks in natural suburban areas, in line with European environment policy and redevelopment in 
suburban areas, can impact positively on the environment and on halting biodiversity loss. 

Multi-benefits:

The added value of peri-urban parks results from their ability to address different issues, beginning with environmental 

protection and provision of ecosystem services, to creation of environmental green infrastructure, to local economic 

development and finally the improvement of the quality of life and social promotion. In particular, peri-urban parks can 

impact the quality of life of inhabitants and promote social inclusion. It offers a green, healthy space for residents of the 

area, a welcome change from the rush and smog that often characterise urban areas. Benefits to health from regular 

exercise and clean air can be highlighted, along with educational and cultural advantages depending on the services 

offered. Parks provide educational opportunities for schools and childcare, services for people with disabilities and 

disadvantaged groups and, opportunities for volunteerism and socialising.

SOURCE: Project website: http://www.periurbanparks.eu/ 

DANUBEPARKS under the European Territorial Cooperation for South-East Europe (ETC-SEE), priority axis ‘Protec-
tion and Improvement of the Environment’.

Multi-benefits:

Dedicated efforts have been made during the project to increase the human capital within the Danube River basin. 

A range of training and capacity building activities have been carried out to further develop and diversify local skills, 

including training related to services within the tourism sector and skills in environmental monitoring (see above). 

Several information sources aimed at improving common knowledge based on sustainable river basin management 

(success factors and/or barriers) have been developed, including lessons learned from restoration practises within 

the basin. This strong emphasis on capacity building across the river basin will play an important role in ensuring the 

uptake of project results and insights in the long run, contributing to local livelihoods.

INVESTING IN EDUCATION, SKILLS AND LIFELONG LEARNING

0
1

Selected relevant activities proposed in draft Regulation

I

E
V
T
C
E
J
B
O
C
T
A
M
E
H
T

I

  Reducing early school-leaving and promoting equal access to good quality early-childhood, primary and secondary 

education. (ESF)

  Improving the quality, efficiency and openness of tertiary and equivalent education with a view to increasing partici-

pation and attainment levels. (ESF)

  Enhancing access to lifelong learning, upgrading the skills and competences of the workforce and increasing the 

labour market relevance of education and training systems.(ESF)

  Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon, climate-resilient, resource-efficient and environmentally sustainable 

economy, through reform of education and training systems, adaptation of skills and qualifications, up-skilling of the 

labour force, and the creation of new jobs in sectors related to the environment and energy. (ESF)

  This thematic objective can also be funded through ERDF but there are no specific activities proposed in the draft 

Regulation.

Possible synergies with the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services

  Nature provides a vast number of opportunities for education and skills development:

  Environmental education activities are considered an important means to improving children’s understandings of 

sustainable development.

  Increasing people’s knowledge on biodiversity conservation, ecosystems services and the related business and 

investments opportunities contributes to lifelong learning, thereby supporting a shift towards more sustainable socio-

economic practices.

.38

 
 
  Training in green infrastructure principles and implementation is a key element of successful green infrastructure 

strategies.

Crafts as a way to equal education (ERDF) 

The project is financed by the OP Education for Competitiveness of Czech Republic, under the Priority axis 7.1: Initial 

education. The main goal of the project is to help pupils with special education needs to be successful and develop 

their competencies. Secondary goals are to prevent them from leaving school early, motivate them to pursue higher 

education, and introduce them to special professional education and labour integration in the field of sustainable 

development, with focus on nature conservation and landscape protection. The project uses innovative education 

methods targeted to meet each student’s individual education needs. 

Multi-benefits:

The development of innovative teaching methods supports the objective of achieving equal opportunities in education 

irrespective of disability. 

SOURCE: Project website: http://www.cmelak.cz/en/ 

2
0
.

T
R
A
P

ENHANCING INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND AN EFFICIENT PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

1
1

Selected relevant activities proposed in draft Regulation

I

E
V
T
C
E
J
B
O
C
T
A
M
E
H
T

I

  Investment in institutional capacity and in the efficiency of public administrations and public services with a view to 

reforms, better regulation and good governance.(ESF)

  Capacity building for stakeholders delivering employment, education and social policies and sectoral and territorial 

pacts to mobilise for reform at national, regional and local level. (ESF)

  Enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration by strengthening of institutional capacity and 

the efficiency of public administrations and public services related to implementation of the ERDF, and in support of 

actions in institutional capacity and in the efficiency of public administration supported by the ESF. (ERDF)

  Enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration by strengthening of institutional capacity and the 

efficiency of public administrations and public services related to implementation of the Cohesion Fund. (Cohesion Fund)

Possible synergies with the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services

Allocating funding for technical assistance and capacity building activities, for the improvement of national and 

regional environmental governance (e.g. biodiversity mainstreaming) can help to overcome institutional and adminis-

trative barriers.

Action 7.A - Horizontal actions for environmental integration (ERDF)

The programme is aimed at increasing the skills of government in the Italian Convergence Regions (Calabria, Campania, 

Puglia and Sicily) in terms of environmental integration in decision-making, management and control of public action. The 

Action 7.A provides information communication, training activities and exchange of best practices. The objectives of the 

Action include improving the skills of staff so that they are transferrable at the regional and local levels; promoting the 

traditional use of environmental resources, including energy; and ensuring the knowledge exchange of experience and 

technical-scientific contents for the integration of the environmental considerations in investment decisions. 

Multi-benefits:

The activities will increase the regional governments’ capacity to integrate environmental concerns into the program-

ming activities such as biodiversity and conservation of nature. Additionally a network of excellence will be set up 

on the issues in question in order to promote models of land use planning management which are able to combine 

economic, social and environmental needs.

SOURCE: Italian Ministry of Environment http://www.pongasminambiente.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout

=blog&id=18&Itemid=124

.39

 
 
 
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

The  new  regulatory  framework  for  Cohesion  Policy 
2014-2020  offers  numerous  funding  opportunities 
under  different  thematic  objectives  to  promote  biodi-
versity  and  ecosystem  services,  and  deliver  a  wide 
range  of  benefits  simultaneously.  The  best  way  for 
Member  States  and  regions  to  take  advantage  of 
these benefits is to develop their Cohesion Policy pro-
grammes  and  programme  implementation  systems 

in  such  a  way  that  encourages  better  understanding 
and consideration of these issues at every stage of the 
process. This includes planning and programming; the 
development of the right projects; and a performance 
framework  that  encourages  smart  project  imple-
mentation  through  proper  indicators  and  monitoring 
practices. How this can be done is explained in more 
detail in Part 03.

4.3  CROSS-CUTTING INITIATIVES AND TERRITORIAL COOPERATION   

The  proposed  2014-2020  Common  Provisions 
Regulation  for  European  Structural  and  Investment 
Funds44  (ESI  funds)  places  important  emphasis 
on  integrated  approaches  to  programming  and 
spending  of  the  funds,  allowing  an  intervention  to 
receive support from more than one type of fund. For 
the  ESI  funds,  this  means  that  a  single  project  may 
have  different  components  funded  from  different 
funds,  an  example  being  a  community  development 
initiative  that  combines  support  for  environment  and 
nature  (e.g.  eco-tourism)  with  employment  initiatives 
(e.g.  training  and  job  search  services)  and  rural 
development  measures  (e.g.  diversification  of  the 
rural  economy).  The  possibility  to  combine  support 
from different funds into single, coordinated initiatives 
provides  a  wide  range  of  potential  synergies  and 
benefits for sustainable development. 

Two  cross-cutting  initiatives  proposed  for  2014-
2020  seek  to  engage  regional  and  local  actors  as 
well  as  local  communities  in  the  implementation  of 
programmes.  These  can  be  important  tools  to  com-
plement  and  enhance  the  promotion  of  biodiversity, 
nature conservation and green infrastructure projects 
through all ESI Funds. When planning and program-
ming the ESI funds, Member States are required to set 
out  in  their  Partnership Agreements  and  Operational 
Programmes  how  they  intend  to  make  use  of  these 
mechanisms: 

  Community  Led  Local  Development  (CLLD) 
initiatives  represent  an  additional  mechanism 
for  the  integration  of  sub-regional  and  local 
concerns into national planning. These provide 
bottom-up  opportunities,  which  are  based  on 

local  action  strategies  that  are  well-suited  for 
incorporating  biodiversity  issues  (see  more  in 
the Commission factsheet on CLLD).45 As com-
munity-led local development is area-based and 
can  be  financed  by  the  different  ESI  Funds,  it 
is  an  ideal  methodology  for  building  linkages 
between  urban  and  rural  areas,  including  bio-
diversity and ecosystem approaches. However, 
Member  States  will  need  to  specify  in  their 
Partnership  Agreements  how  they  intend  to 
support CLLD and indicate which programmes 
and  areas  CLLD  may  be  used.  As  the  CLLD 
local  action  groups 
strategies  created  by 
may  cover  operations  for  one  or  more  Funds, 
there  needs  to  be  consistency  and  coordina-
tion  between  the  Funds.  Member  States  and 
Managing  Authorities  will  have  to  define  the 
criteria  for  the  selection  of  local  development 
strategies and ensure that calls and procedures 
are  coordinated  between  the  Funds.  Selection 
and  approval  of  the  strategies  will  be  carried 
out by a joint committee set up for this purpose 
by  the  Managing Authorities  concerned,  which 
will  ensure  that  multi-Fund  strategies  receive 
coordinated  funding  for  the  complete  strategy. 
The deadline for selection and approval of local 
strategies is the end of 2015. The new proposals 
also  allow  for  the  existing  local  action  groups 
to  consider  widening  their  local  strategies  to 
include  the  use  of  other  CSF  Funds.  CLLD 
initiatives  entail  a  multi-stakeholder  approach 
throughout  all  project  implementation  phases 
that can help ensure that multi-benefits associ-
ated  with  biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services 
are  effectively  identified  and  capitalised  upon. 

44. In addition to the three Cohesion Policy Funds (ERDF, ESF, Cohesion Fund), it includes also the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development 
(EAFRD) and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) 

45. EC (2012a) 

.40

To learn more about stakeholder practices, see 
sections 5 and 6 of this Guide.

Integrated  Territorial  Investment  (ITI)  aims  to 
ensure  the  coordination  of  priority  interven-
tions supported by all ESI funds. Funding from 
several  priority  axes  and  programmes  can  be 
bundled into an integrated investment strategy 
for  a  certain  territory  or  functional  area  (i.e. 
urban,  rural,  coastal  and  fisheries  areas,  and 
areas  with  particular  territorial  features).  This 
allows  the  managing  authorities  to  delegate 
the  implementation  of  parts  of  different  priority 
axes  to  one  body  (a  local  authority)  to  ensure 
that  investments  are  undertaken  in  a  comple-
mentary manner (see more in the Commission 

factsheet  on  ITI).46  As  biodiversity  and  nature 
conservation  investments  are  the  basis  for  a 
wide  range  of  socio-economic  benefits,  they 
can  be  a  critical  asset  for  territorial  develop-
ment  if  protected  and  managed  effectively.  ITI 
is  also  an  opportunity  to  consider  investment 
opportunities related to Natura 2000 and there-
fore  should  be  closely  aligned  to  the  priorities 
set out in national PAFs. As a key condition to 
succeed in developing the territory in a coherent 
and sustainable manner, policy-makers have to 
take into account biodiversity, nature conserva-
tion  and  green  infrastructure  in  the  integrated 
territorial  strategies,  especially  through  the 
coordination of the various programmes. 

2
0
.

T
R
A
P

 SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT (SUD)
The  European  Commission  has  long  recognised  the 
important role that local authorities play in improving the 
environment. The European Green Capital Award47 has 
been conceived as an initiative to promote and reward 
cities  that  are  frontrunners  in  these  efforts.  The  pro-
posed new provisions on urban development represent 
another step forward in this direction (see more in the 
Commission factsheet on integrated sustainable urban 
development)48. The ERDF supports sustainable urban 
development  through  integrated  strategies  that  tackle 
the economic, environmental, climate and social chal-
lenges  of  the  urban  areas49.  This  is  an  opportunity  to 
integrate  biodiversity  and  nature  in  sustainable  urban 
development  programmes  and  plans.  A  minimum  of 
5% of the ERDF resources allocated to each Member 
State  shall  be  invested  in  integrated  actions  for  sus-
tainable  urban  development  implemented  through  the 
Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI) tool (see above), 
with the management and implementation delegated to 

cities. In addition, the ERDF can also support innovative 
actions in the field of sustainable urban development, 
subject to ceiling of 0.2 % of the total annual ERDF allo-
cation. These can include studies and pilot projects to 
identify or test new solutions to issues relating to sus-
tainable urban development. 

Benefits  maintained  by  green  infrastructure  are  par-
ticularly important in urban environments as they have 
significant  potential  to  strengthen  regional  and  urban 
development, including by maintaining or creating jobs. 
Further  green  infrastructure  in  cities  plays  a  vital  role 
in creating climate resilient development. The recently 
adopted  EU  Adaptation  Strategy  underlines  this,  and 
foresees the development of an adaptation initiative for 
cities similar to the Covenant of Mayors50.

Examples  of  projects  that  promote  the  use  of  green 
infrastructure  in  urban  areas  and  the  associated 
benefits are presented in the boxes below.

GRABS - Green and Blue Space Adaptation for Urban Areas and Eco Towns (ERDF) 

The project is aimed at facilitating the much needed exchange of knowledge and experience with the actual transfer of 

good practices on climate change adaptation strategies to local and regional authorities. The project raised awareness 

and increased the expertise of key stakeholders responsible for spatial planning and development as to how green and 

blue infrastructure can help new and existing mixed use urban development adapt to projected climate change scenarios. 

SOURCE: GRABS website: http://www.grabs-eu.org/

46. EC (2012b) 

47. EC (2013e) 

48. EC (2012c)

49. EC (2011h)

50. The Covenant of Mayors initiative encourages EU cities to commit to 
and implement sustainable energy plans

.41

 
 
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

Benefits of green infrastructure - socio-economic importance of constructed urban wetlands 
(Nummela, Finland)

New wetlands were created along the heavily degraded stream corridor in the municipality of Vihti in Southern Finland 

to compensate for land-use changes within the watershed and to restore lost stream corridor habitats. In addition, a 

large wetland park named the Nummela Gateway Wetland Park was established at the mouth of the Kilsoi stream. 

This project is an example of how constructed wetlands can help increase biodiversity while at the same time providing 

ecosystem services such as erosion and flood control, reduction of pollutants in runoff water, and opportunities for 

recreation and education. It demonstrates how such benefits can be successfully integrated into urban planning and 

management processes.

SOURCE: case study in the annex

Green Life in the City, Greece (ERDF)

Green Life in the City is funded under the Operational Programme for Convergence for the Attica region. It funds 

projects and actions in urban municipalities of the Region of Attica which face problems such as a lack of green 

spaces, deterioration in quality of life, poor air quality etc. It involves using targeted actions of urban issue revitalisa-

tion focusing on its environmental upgrading and improvement of urban equipment. The project will contribute to the 

improvement and equal distribution of social infrastructure, as well as the protection of the residential character of 

the City; an increase in business activity within the city, the restoration of its historical and cultural heritage, and the 

integrated management of the Halandri stream as a key resource for urban green space and as a leisure area for 

residents; water resources management and flood prevention; energy efficiency schemes; improving traffic flow and 

further promotion of recycling.

SOURCE: SURF database http://surfnature.ctfc.cat/index.php

European  Territorial  Cooperation  (ETC)  provides 
ERDF  dedicated  opportunities  to  support  coopera-
tion between different EU regions. Provisions for this 
European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) are outlined in 
a  separate  Regulation51.  For  the  2014-2020  funding 
period,  territorial  cooperation  under  ERDF  is  to  take 
place on cross-border, transnational and interregional 

cooperation. It provides opportunities for funding bio-
diversity conservation across borders and regions. As 
biodiversity  and  ecosystems  naturally  cross  borders, 
this  funding  is  critical  for  direct  support  to  EU  biodi-
versity goals. Around 3.5% of the total funding for EU 
Cohesion Policy is to be allocated to support ETC.

51. EC (2011i)

.42

For  2014-2020,  the  territorial  aspect  of  ETC  has 
been  strengthened  with  additional  focus  on  macro-
regional  and  sea-basin  strategies  (e.g.  the  Baltic 
Sea  and  Danube  regions).  This  refocus  on  Member 
States and regions which are critically linked through 
shared  natural  resources  provides  a  solid  basis  for 
further  cooperation  and  investment  in  the  natural 
environment, including innovative approaches to inte-
grating ecosystems services and green infrastructure 
into development solutions in these areas. Examples 
include  the  BALANCE  (Baltic  Sea  Management  – 
Nature  Conservation  and  Sustainable  Development 
of the Ecosystem through  Spatial  Planning52 and  the 

case study DANUBEPARKS. 

ETC opportunities should particularly be exploited by the 
more developed Member States and regions where the-
matic concentration may limit the access to direct funds 
for  the  environmental  objectives,  through  national  and 
regional  Operational  Programmes.  There  has  already 
been  good  experience  with  using  these  funds  to  pro-
mote nature and biodiversity goals either through direct 
application in a trans-boundary context or exchange of 
experience  across  regions,  such  as  in  the  Natureship 
case study. Other examples of projects financed under 
the ETC objective are presented in Table 2 below. 

2
0
.

T
R
A
P

Table .02
EXAMPLES OF CROSS-BORDER (IVA), TRANSNATIONAL (IVB) AND INTERREGIONAL (IVC) 
COOPERATION PROJECTS WITH BIODIVERSITY AND ASSOCIATED MULTI-BENEFIT FOCUS
SOURCE: own compilation

INTERREG IVA

Action for Biodiversity (East Border Region)

The project aims to engage local authorities and communities with biodiversity, and to raise aware-

ness and build capacity for the protection of habitats, species and ecosystems in the region. The project 

specifically aims to demonstrate a clear and measurable link between a strong, vibrant economy and a 

functioning healthy environment with biodiversity at its core.

http://www.eastborderregion.com/pages/index.asp?title=Action_For_Biodiversity

INTERREG IVB 

VALUE - Valuing Attractive Landscapes in the Urban Economy (North West Europe Programme)

The project aims to establish where green infrastructure investments in cities and regions will deliver the 

greatest economic benefits. It also aims to ensure that high quality green infrastructure is protected and 

integrated to the urban fabric.

http://www.value-landscapes.eu/ 

REVERSE - Regional exchanges and policy making for protecting and valorising biodiversity in Europe

The project consists of an exchange of experiences between the 14 European Partners involved in the 

project aimed at protecting biodiversity. Its aim is to promote biodiversity on a European scale, by fa-
vouring positive action in territories. The project focuses on 3 key topics: 1. Agriculture, food production 
and biodiversity, 2. Tourism and biodiversity, 3. Land development and biodiversity.

INTERREG IVC

http://reverse.aquitaine.eu/

52. http://www.balance-eu.org/

.43

 
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

4.4   COORDINATION AND COMPLEMENTARITY 

WITH OTHER EU INSTRUMENTS

Opportunities 
to  finance  biodiversity  and  nature 
protection  also  exist  under  other  EU  funding  instru-
ments  such  as  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for 
Rural Development (EAFRD), the European Maritime 
and  Fisheries  Fund  (EMFF),  the  EU  Research  and 
Innovation  Programmes  Horizon  2020  and  the  LIFE 
instrument. In order to optimise the investment oppor-
tunities and leverage additional funding for biodiversity 
and nature protection, potential synergies and comple-
mentarities with other EU funding instruments should 
be actively pursued. 

In the 2014-2020, the ERDF, ESF and Cohesion Fund 
are  placed  under  a  Common  Strategic  Framework 
(CSF)  with  the  EAFRD  and  the  EMFF  (all  five  of 
them now referred to as the European Structural and 
Investment  Funds  (ESIF)). The  aim  of  the  CSF  is  to 
ensure  better  coordination  between  funding  instru-
ments  under  shared  management  and  to  strengthen 
their alignment to EU strategic objectives. The future 
Partnership  Agreements  are  envisioned  to  set  out 
strategic  priorities  for  all  five  funds  under  shared 
management, providing an opportunity to ensure better 
targeting of investment for biodiversity, nature protec-
tion and green infrastructure in regions, rural areas and 
marine / coastal areas depending on the specific local 
circumstances, priorities and needs. For example, the 
2014-2020 EAFRD will promote different agri-environ-
ment  measures  that  are  relevant  to  biodiversity  and 
nature conservation. The 2014-2020 EMFF will focus 
on ecosystem based management of fisheries and will 
promote the management, restoration and monitoring 
of Natura 2000. Possible overlaps should be avoided, 
while  synergies  should  be  exploited  so  as  to  ensure 
a coherent and targeted investment framework for all 
territories that delivers added value in terms of tangible 
results for biodiversity and nature protection.

Further  synergies  should  be  pursued  with  Horizon 
2020 for research and innovation projects in the area 
of biodiversity, ecosystem services and bio-economy. 
Horizon 2020 covers societal challenges in the priority 
area of sustainably, managing natural resources and 
ecosystems,  and  is  directed  towards  assessing  and 
forecasting changes in biodiversity, and understanding 
the  dynamics  of  ecosystems,  particularly  marine 
ecosystems. In particular, stakeholders and Managing 

Authorities are encouraged to focus on the synergies 
between  Horizon  2020  and  the  forthcoming  national 
and/or regional research and innovation strategies for 
smart  specialisation  (RIS3)  as  explained  in  section 
4.2.  Thus,  research  projects  co-financed  by  Horizon 
2020  can  create  the  knowledge  base  for  investment 
opportunities under ESI funds in different priority areas 
among  biodiversity,  ecosystem  services  and  nature 
protection.

As before, in the 2014-2020 funding period the LIFE 
programme  is  the  only  funding  stream  specifically 
dedicated  to  the  environment.  The  LIFE  Programme 
will  be  divided  into  two  sub-programmes  including 
the  sub-programme  for  Environment  and  the  sub-
programme  for  Climate  Action.  The  sub-programme 
for  Environment  is  divided  into  three  priority  areas: 
Environment and Resource Efficiency, Biodiversity and 
Environmental  Governance,  and  Information.  Under 
the  Biodiversity  priority,  key  actions  focus  on  Natura 
2000  (envisioned  to  be  delivered  through  Integrated 
Projects  to  implement  Priority  Action  frameworks 
(PAFs,  see  section  4.5  below),  the  implementation 
of  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy,  and  the  demonstra-
tion and dissemination of good practice examples for 
nature and biodiversity. 

The  Commission  proposals  for  the  post  2013  period 
aim  to  improve  the  coordination  and  complementarity 
of  activities  under  LIFE  and  other  EU  funding  instru-
ments in order to avoid overlap. This could be achieved 
through  the  new  approach  of  developing  Integrated 
Projects  in  the  areas  of  nature,  water,  waste,  air,  cli-
mate change mitigation and climate change adaptation 
under  LIFE.  Integrated  Projects  have  a  strong  focus 
on  nature  with  the  proposed  targets  of  25%  of  EU 
habitats  and  25%  of  EU  species  targeted  by  projects 
for  improved  conservation  status;  3%  of  ecosystem 
services  restored;  and  15%  of  Natura  2000  network 
adequately managed. This means promoting solutions, 
methods  and  approaches  to  be  tested  and  demon-
strated  under  the  LIFE  Programme,  then  replicating 
them at a larger scale under Cohesion Policy. Bearing 
this in mind, Figure 3 provides an overview of how LIFE 
and Cohesion Policy could be coordinated in the con-
text of Integrated Projects in the field of nature in terms 
of responsibilities, examples and practical steps.

.44

 
Elements of a programme for the management of a Natura 2000 site

COMPETENT 
BODY

Drafts

Programme & 
Financial plan

Land 
purchase

Education & 
awareness

Monitoring

IAS Habitat 
restoration

Management 
plans

Species 
Conservation

Competent body 
submits proposal 
for an integrated 
project under LIFE 
covering specific 
activities

Cohesion 
Fund

Agricultural 
measures

Training 
farmers

Large
infrastructure

Others

Scientific studies

Management 
bodies 
Institutional 
capacity

Risk 
management

Recurrent 
management

Tourism 
promotion

Decontamina-
tion

Visitors 
facilities

National and regional fund, private sector funds

LIFE

ESF

ERDF

Horizon 
2020

EARDF

Proposal shows 
how other 
Funds will be 
used to finance 
complementary 
activities

Other funds are 
mobilised at 
national/regional level 
to finance comple-
mentary activities 
included in the plan

2
0
.

T
R
A
P

03.

Example of Integrated Project - Nature

SOURCE
European Commission

4.5  PRIORITISED ACTION FRAMEWORKS (PAFS)

In order to encourage better integration of funds and 
to promote more strategic planning of investments in 
Natura  2000,  the  Commission  is  assisting  Member 
States in the development of their Prioritised action 
frameworks (PAFs) under Article 8 (4) of the Habitats 
Directive.  It  is  intended  that  the  PAF  will  identify  key 
priorities  for  managing  the  Natura  2000  network,  to 
achieve the objectives of the EU Biodiversity Strategy 
2020. As  Natura  2000  plays  a  central  role  in  the  EU 
efforts  to  promote  biodiversity  conservation,  it  is 
expected that PAFs will be an important planning tool 
for identification and prioritization also of the wider set 
of nature-related investment needs and their integra-
tion into the Partnership Agreements and Operational 
Programmes  (OPs).  The  aim  is  to  ensure  strategic 
focus on the funding need priorities, while maintaining 
complementarity  and  consistency  between  the  infor-
mation contained in the prioritised actions frameworks 
and the relevant Operational Programmes. 

The  PAF  is  not  intended  as  a  stand-alone  document 
but as a strategic tool to assist in the mainstreaming of 
funding for Natura 2000 across different EU financial 
instruments. This is in line with Commission proposals 
for  the  next  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  (2014-
2020),  which  advocates  a  strengthened  integrated 
approach  using  the  various  EU  funds  to  provide 
a  strong  basis  for  the  new  Natura  2000  financing 
strategy.  These  include  the  EARDF,  EMFF,  the 
ERDF, ESF and Cohesion Fund, as well as the LIFE. 
Proposed measures for funding Natura 2000 sites in 
the OPs should be consistent with the PAFs. PAFs will 
also  provide  opportunities  for  improved  stakeholder 
involvement  in  programme  and  project  development 
The  PAFs  will  also  be  valuable  references  for  the 
development  of  ‘integrated  projects’  under  the  pro-
posed LIFE Regulation. 

.45

 
ENABLING AND 
SUPPORTING MULTI-
BENEFIT INVESTMENTS IN 
NATURE THROUGH GREEN 
INFRASTRUCTURE

3
0

T
R
A
.
P

.46

ENABLING AND 

SUPPORTING MULTI-

BENEFIT INVESTMENTS IN 

NATURE THROUGH GREEN 

INFRASTRUCTURE

In  Part  02  the  direct,  indirect  and  integrated  funding 
opportunities 
for  nature,  biodiversity,  ecosystem 
services  and  green  infrastructure,  which  have  the 
capability to provide multi-benefits were demonstrated. 
Part III will look at the different stages of the Cohesion 

Policy cycle in order to identify the main entry points 
and  steps  for  approaches  that  managing  authorities 
need to take in order to effectively utilise and support 
these investment opportunities. These different stages 
and approaches are presented in Figure 4 below.

04.

Cohesion Policy stages and entry points for approaches

Operational	  Programmes	  
Ex-­‐ante	  assessment,	  SEA	  
SWOT	  or	  other	  analytical	  tools	  
Integrated	  Territorial	  Investment	  	  
Community	  Led-­‐Local	  Development	  	  
Sustainable	  development	  as	  a	  horizontal	  principle	  	  
Indicators	  and	  targets	  
Consultation	  and	  participation	  (partnership	  
principle)	  

Technical	  support	  to	  beneficiaries	  
Indicators	  	  
On-­‐going	  monitoring,	  accounting	  and	  reporting	  
Evaluation	  mechanism	  

Strategic	  planning	  and	  
programming	  

Awareness	  raising	  	  
Communicating	  project	  opportunities	  
Project	  commissioning	  system	  
Expert	  project	  preparation	  support	  	  

Implementa2on,	  
Monitoring	  and	  
Evalua2on	  

Informa2on	  and	  support	  
to	  project	  development	  

3
0
.

T
R
A
P

Project	  Evalua2on	  and	  
Selec2on	  

Eligibility	  requirements	  
Appraisal	  criteria	  
Selection	  process	  	  
EIA	  
Cost-­‐Benefit	  Analysis	  

5. STRATEGIC PLANNING 
AND PROGRAMMING

The  Partnership  Agreement  summarises  Member 
State’s plans for using all the ESI Funds in a way that 
is  consistent  with  the  EU  2020  Strategy  for  smart, 
sustainable  and  inclusive  growth.  The  Partnership 
Agreement is a binding document, new for 2014-2020, 
with  obligations  on  the  part  of  the  Member  State.  It 

is therefore a good opportunity to ensure that nature 
and  biodiversity  goals  and  their  role  in  overall  socio-
economic development is clearly stated up front in this 
document.  The  Operational  Programmes  (OPs)  are 
the key planning tool for Cohesion Policy expenditure.

.47

 
	  
	  
	  
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

5.1  BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES  

AS A HORIZONTAL PRINCIPLE

Article  8  of  the  Common  Provisions  Regulation 
requires that the objectives of the Funds be pursued 
in  the  framework  of  sustainable  development  and 
the  promotion  of  environmental  protection  and 
improvement.  It  further  stipulates  that  environmental 
protection  requirements,  resource  efficiency,  climate 
change  mitigation  and  adaptation,  disaster  resilience 
and  risk  prevention  and  management  are  promoted 
in the preparation and implementation of Partnership 
Agreements  and  Operational  Programmes.  This  is 
an  important  requirement  that  incentivises  Managing 
Authorities  and  other  stakeholders  to  set  out  special 

arrangements  in  order  to  ensure  that  environmental 
issues  –  including  nature  and  biodiversity  –  are 
promoted  in  the  preparation  and  implementation  of 
Operational Programmes. It is important that this part 
of  the  Operational  Programmes  not  be  limited  to  an 
analysis of how the proposed measures will be in line 
with  environmental  acquis.  It  must  elaborate  upon 
concrete  implementation  principles  and  tools  as  well 
as  procedural  and  institutional  mechanisms  for  the 
integration of environmental and biodiversity consider-
ation along the entire programme cycle.

5.2  DEVELOPING A BIODIVERSITY-SMART OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME 

These  sections  will  point  out  where  the  main  oppor-
tunities  are  for  including  a  nature  and  biodiversity 
perspective into the different sections of the OPs, with 
an eye towards overall sustainable development and 
green  economic  growth.  This  broader  perspective  is 
essential for recognising the overall potential benefits 
of  maximising  funding  in  these  areas  as  it  considers 
the  synergies  between  investing  in  nature  and  other 
policy fields. It is important that interventions proposed 
in the OPs are planned in harmony with sustainability 
objectives  and  do  not  cause  undue  or  irreversible 
damage to the natural environment. 

Communication  across  different  sectoral  authori-
ties  and  the  main  economic  development  authorities 
is  critical  for  programming.  Biodiversity  experts  (i.e. 
experts in environmental authorities, relevant experts 
in  the  sectoral  ministries  and  other  knowledgeable 
partners) and Managing Authorities will need to mobi-
lise available information about the potential value and 
multi-benefits deriving from biodiversity and ecosystem 
services  through  green  infrastructure  investments 
across Cohesion Policy sectors. The potential priority 
interventions and technical options for funding should 

also  be  discussed,  and  these  should  be  then  pre-
sented to the sectoral and other planning authorities at 
the right time for consideration into programmes.

Programming of OPs follows a logical process – first 
a  development  strategy  is  set  forth,  which  identifies 
and  justifies  priority  axes  for  spending,  through  a 
SWOT  analysis53.  Funding  priorities  describe  the 
objectives  and  parameters  for  spending  –  e.g.  the 
future development of projects. This sets the basis for 
determining what measures and activities are eligible 
and  could  be  funded  within  the  programme.  Specific 
financial  appropriations,  programme  indicators  and  a 
review  of  horizontal  principles  are  also  integral  parts 
of  the  programme.  Finally,  there  is  a  need  to  ensure 
compatibility  and  complementarity  with  and  between 
different EU instruments (e.g. with the help of horizontal 
planning tools such as PAFs, see 4.5 above).

Table 3 presents the different sections that constitute 
an OP. It explains why each stage of the process and 
section of the programme document offers an impor-
tant opportunity to focus on biodiversity and ecosystem 
services. 

53. EC (2011i)

.48

 
Table .03
ANATOMY OF A BIODIVERSITY-SMART OP
SOURCE
based on information from the SURF project’s analysis of selected Operational Programmes

OP SECTION

IMPORTANCE FOR INTEGRATING, BIODIVERSITY, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
Example from an existing Operational Programme

Importance: Member States and regions should include in the SWOT analysis information to 
demonstrate that biodiversity and ecosystem services are critical components of socio-economic 

development. The description of the natural environment and environmental protection infrastructure, 

together with the analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, draw a very important 

baseline for further integration and interpretation of activities and measures for nature conservation. 

Note description could also be built upon the information contained in the PAFs (section A-B). 

It will be important to include in the SWOT the extent and state of the natural capital (e.g. forests, 

wetlands, protected areas and wider green infrastructure), which elements are the:

  ‘Strengths’ for the region - e.g. assets and sources of resources and services, income, develop-

ment, identity, security and wellbeing; 

  ‘Weaknesses’ - e.g. areas under water stress, degraded ecosystems;

SWOT
analysis

  ‘Opportunities’ - e.g. new sources of income and development, potential benefits from restora-

tion and management); and 

  ‘Threats’ - e.g. risks of climate impacts, pollution pressures, degradation and soil erosion. 

These can create an input into planning (e.g. zoning key natural assets and sources of services), 

priorities for investments (e.g. restoration), and monitoring measures (e.g. as regards risks). SEAs 

and EIAs can usefully integrate such information too. The nature of the information will be a mix of 

spatially explicit, qualitative, quantitative and monetary data for specific methodologies for assess-
ments, indicators, mapping and valuation54.

Example: In the Regional Programme ‘Strengthening Regional Development Potential Slovenia’ 
biodiversity is clearly mentioned in the SWOT analysis. Information on the different habitats types and 

risks encountered are detailed, as well as the changes that have occurred in recent decades and a 

historical overview of how Natura 2000 sites have been managed in the past. The special needs for 

nature-preserving activities are linked to socio-economic opportunities in the tourism sector. 

3
0
.

T
R
A
P

Priority axis 
objectives

Importance: The more precisely the priority axis objectives are formulated, the easier it is for 
project applicants to refer to them. It is therefore necessary to include nature, biodiversity, ecosys-

tems and green infrastructure directly at the priority stage when they can either be directly funded or 

integrated into other priorities. Priority axes also establish the link to the overall thematic objectives. 

Section F of PAFs could help prioritise different investments. In particular, section F.3 refers to the 

multi-benefits associated with investments in Natura 2000 sites. 

Example: The Regional Programme of Catalonia is an example of how biodiversity objectives 
can be clearly integrated within the objectives of the priority axis. Priority 2 ‘Environment and Risk 

Prevention’ seeks to further sustainable economic development while protecting and improving the 

natural environment by enhancing the clean and rational use of natural resources and through the 

establishment of environmental risk alert and prevention mechanisms. Another nature conservation 

related priority is number 4, ‘Local and urban sustainable development’, with a view to financing 

projects in the field of tourism and culture. Benefits can be derived from the variety and quality of 

the region’s cultural assets and the job created by the tourism sector. 

54. TEEB (2010), TEEB (2011a), TEEB (2012b)

.49

 
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

Importance: Well-described activities are often the most important part of the programmes as they 
define the eligible measures. Activities should be formulated broadly with a clear language, such 

that it can be easily understood and readily translated for tenders and calls for projects. They should 

be general enough to be included in the Operational Programme, but also concrete enough to guide 

the on-going project development. 

Example: The OP Regional Competitiveness and Employment Programme, Brittany, clearly defines 
the funding opportunities by listing specific activities and giving an indicative breakdown by catego-

ries. The Priority 4 is ‘Conserving the environment and anticipating natural risks’. It envisages 

Activities

specific activities and provides an indicative breakdown by categories such as: 

  studying and conducting ecological engineering work;

  studying and implementing the regional migratory fish plan;

  the set-up of the regional natural heritage observatory. 

Activities to be financed under indirect opportunities are also delineated. The Priority 3 ‘Highlighting 

Brittany’s exceptional maritime assets, from the point of view of sustainable development of the 

coastline’ includes actions related to biodiversity and the natural world: 

  supporting actions aimed at reinforcing knowledge about the coastline; 

  implementing the regional plan for integrated management of coastal areas. 

Importance: The proposed regulations for 2014-2020 place a greater emphasis on indicators 
to measure results, with common indicators as a requirement. The new performance framework 

consists of indicators, milestones and targets to be developed at the programming stage for each 

priority axis. This approach provides an opportunity to include biodiversity and ecosystem services 

indicators for all programmes. As well as using wider set of indicators for the four capitals – eco-

nomic, environmental, social and human capitals. The specific objectives of each programme 

should be expressed by appropriate result indicators to capture the changes that the programme is 

intended to facilitate. The programme indicators should be clear, applicable and should be inferred 

from the SWOT analysis and goals. Indicators are better used during the early stages of the pro-

gramming process to increase awareness of the potential and the value of the natural environment. 

This approach will result in the improved consideration of biodiversity and nature conservation in 

programming by creating opportunities. Moreover with monitoring and reporting taking place during 

the implementation and evaluation stages, the approach further strengthens programmes. Natural 

environment and biodiversity-focused projects must ensure that they achieve their target, but should 

also demonstrate the value of wider project outcomes. It is important to set out indicators which will 

help to measure biodiversity impacts and evaluate socio-economic outcomes. This will make use 

Indicators

of a mix of (spatially relevant) qualitative, quantitative and monetary indicators. Where possible and 

relevant, links to environmental economic accounts can be made, over time these accounts will 

provide new indicators (e.g. relationship between land, water and carbon biomass for different land-

uses) that can support CP. Their development will also benefit from indicators work within CP. 

Example: The Managing Authority for the OP for West Wales and Valleys set out at a very early 
stage the ERDF Indicator and a specific guidance document that provided definitions and details 

of the evidence requirements for the ERDF monitoring and evaluation indicators. The monitoring 

indicators are the outputs and results (outputs defined as the activities undertaken by the project 

and results the direct consequence of the activity). The evaluation indicators are the impacts (the 

impacts defined as the longer term consequence of the activity and follow on from the results). 

The definition of such indicators helped setting out the parameters for the Environment for Growth 

Theme projects. These were:

  Number of initiatives to develop the natural environment;

  Kilometres of managed access to countryside or coast;

  Number of additional visits;

  Number of enterprises created;

.50

  Number of gross jobs created;

  Income generated (Spend in £ associated directly or indirectly to the visits under the indicator 

‘visits’).

Only after these parameters were laid out, a series of promotional activities were organised in order 

to launch different projects calls. 

For a broader description and concrete examples of indicators, see section 8.1.

5.3  REVIEW AND REVISION: THE ROLE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES 
IN DEVELOPING BIODIVERSITY-SMART OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES 

It  is  important  to  underline  that  the  value  of  nature 
can be measured and demonstrated by different indi-
cators.  Some  of  these  will  be  monetary,  such  as  the 
value of avoided costs of water purification or avoided 
costs  of  flood  damage.  Others  will  be  in  quantitative 
form,  such  as  the  number  of  people  benefitting  from 
clean water or tonnes of carbon stored. Finally, some 
indicators will be qualitative, such as sites of cultural 
importance,  and  scientific  learning.  To  have  a  full 
sense of the value of nature, generally a combination 
of  monetary,  quantitative  and  qualitative  indicators  is 
needed.  Moreover  indicators  in  conjunction  with  an 
understanding  of  biophysical  functions  behind  iden-
tified  values  and  a  spatial  appreciation  of  the  links 
between the ecosystem and social and economic sys-
tems increase the understanding of nature55. 

Understanding  the  real  value  of  nature  (biodiversity 
and ecosystem services) and its contributions towards 
socio-economic development goals, in the context of 
developing  Operational  Programmes,  can  be  chal-
lenging.  However,  there  are  a  number  of  strategic 
procedures and programming principles that can pro-
vide  support  to  Managing  Authorities  and  partners. 
Operational  Programmes  are  subject  to  an  ex-ante 
evaluation,  which  checks  the  overall  consistency 
and  relevance  of  the  programmes,  and  a  Strategic 
Environmental  Assessment  (SEA)  to  determine  the 
expected  environmental  impacts  and  interactions  of 
the draft programme. 

The  ex-ante  evaluation  examines  consistency  of 
the  programme  strategy  with  funding  priorities  and 
the  regional  situation.  It  is  therefore  a  chance  for  a 
re-appraisal of the treatment of nature in funding priori-
ties and horizontal principles. The ex-ante evaluation 
also  has  to  summarise  the  Strategic  Environmental 

Assessment  (SEA);  in  some  cases  the  two  assess-
ments  can  be  carried  out  jointly.  However,  evaluators 
for  both  documents  should  cooperate  as  closely  as 
possible to avoid discrepancies and misunderstandings 
between two documents.

SEA is an important tool for integrating environmental 
considerations,  including  biodiversity  and  ecosystem 
services, 
into  Operational  Programmes.  Most 
Operational  Programmes  will  constitute  plans  or 
programmes  that  are  likely  to  have  significant  envi-
ronmental  affects  (or  set  the  framework  for  future 
development  consent  of  projects  likely  to  have  envi-
ronmental  effects)  according  to  the  SEA  Directive. 
Experience  with  the  2007-2013  programmes  have 
shown that the SEA procedure is a vital opportunity for 
bringing in an environmental perspective to Cohesion 
Policy  spending.  Especially  for  the  ‘proofing’  of  pro-
grammes covering transport, infrastructure and other 
interventions  that  are  most  likely  to  have  a  negative 
impact on the natural environment, which includes bio-
diversity  and  ecosystem  services.  There  is  potential 
to  use  SEA  to  evaluate  the  positive  contributions  of 
plans, programmes and projects as well. There is con-
siderable  guidance  available  on  conducting  SEAs, 
derived from good practice from Member States at the 
European and national levels.56

Using  an  ecosystem-based  approach  when  con-
ducting  an  SEA  can  help  identify  the  importance  of 
different  ecosystems  and  their  distinct  services  and 
benefits.  Here,  key  questions  to  ask  during  the  SEA 
would be the following:

Is the plan or programme dependent upon bio-
diversity and ecosystem services?

55. See also TEEB (2010), TEEB (2011) and Kettunen and ten Brink (2013).

56. See DG Environment’s Environmental Assessment page at  
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/.

.51

3
0
.

T
R
A
P

 
 
 
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

  Can an increased supply of ecosystem services 
contribute  towards  the  plan  or  programme’s 
objectives?

biodiversity into SEA, under further references at the 
end of this section.

  Are there opportunities to consolidate or connect 
habitats  with  a  view  of  enhancing  biodiversity 
and ecosystem services?

  Are there opportunities to build or develop green 
infrastructure as part of the plan or programme 
to  support  its  non-environmental  goals  and  its 
environmental goals (e.g. adaptation to climate 
change  or  increasing  connectivity  of  protected 
sites)?

For  more  details,  see  the  European  Commission’s 
2013  Guidance  on  integrating  climate  change  and 

to 

With  regard  to  implementation  of  the  OP,  SEA  can 
contribute 
the  development  of  eligibility  and 
selection  criteria  for  projects,  as  well  as  programme 
monitoring plans and indicators (see Sections 7 and 8 
below for more details on these). A good example of 
this is the OP for the 2007-2013 Central Baltic Interreg 
IVA Programme. The OP specifies how  the SEA has 
been taken into consideration in the decision-making/
development  of  the  programme.  There  is  a  detailed 
table  on  how  mitigation  measures  have  or  have  not 
been incorporated into the programme. The SEA also 
provided  guidelines  on  project  selection  criteria,  and 
set the terms of reference for EIA of future projects.

5.4  BIODIVERSITY AND PARTNERSHIP

The proposed Common Provisions Regulation requires 
that  ‘partners’  shall  be  involved  at  each  stage  of  the 
programme cycle and shall be members of the moni-
toring  committee.  In  practice,  partnership  can  range 
from  a  very  formal  consultation  exercise  to  genuine 

participatory  planning.  For  cross-sectoral  issues  like 
biodiversity,  the  right  for  environmental  authorities, 
experts and NGOs to have a say in the design of pro-
grammes and projects is critical.

PARTICIPATION PROCESS DURING 
PROGRAMMING: STRAT.AT 2020 AUSTRIA

The Austrian Conference on Spatial Planning (ÖROK) is responsible for the process of preparing the partnership agree-

ment – STRAT.AT 2020 – for Austria. This process is based on the principle of partnership, enabling participation of 
different stakeholders in an appropriate fashion. The four forums of STRAT.AT 2020 are open to all players who are 
involved in the programmes (programme implementation partners, economic and social partners, association of cities 
and municipalities, intermediate service providers, NGOs, experts/scientists). Further focus groups for each topic are 
established.  Several  representatives  from  the  governmental  nature  conservation  departments  and  from  the  umbrella 

environmental organisation BIO Austria as well as other biodiversity experts participated to the meeting that took place 

on 28 November 2012. A SWOT analysis of the current status of biodiversity as well as the funding needs and the spe-

cific role of the structural funds in Austria were discussed. Particular attention was given to how the EU Strategy 2020 

(and the associated Biodiversity Strategy in Austria) can best be implemented through the programmes. The working 

documents and the results of the ‘Biodiversity and Conservation’ focus group are available online. 

SOURCE: STRAT.AT 2020 website http://www.oerok.gv.at/eu-regionalpolitik/eu-kohaesionspolitik-2014/nationale-strategie-stratat-2020.html

5.5  SUMMARY: PRACTICAL TIPS FOR INTEGRATING BIODIVERSITY 
AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES GOALS IN THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 

.52

Managing Authorities are encouraged to put in place 
different  procedures  and  institutional  arrangements 
that  will  ensure  biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services 
are  taken  into  consideration  at  the  programme  level. 
These may include57:

  Set  up  of  an  inter-ministerial  working  group: 
This  can  ensure  effective  partnership,  good 
coherence  between  sectoral  planning  tools 
which  exist  at  national,  regional  and  sub-
regional levels, as well as between the different 
EU funds available. 

Inclusion  and  consultation  of  civil  society: 
Participants  with  specialist  expertise,  including 
environmental authorities and NGOs should be 
part of the work on programming.

  Set-up and/or reinforce environmental networks 
and exchanges between project developers: EU 
Funds would benefit from facilitating networking 
between biodiversity stakeholders and creating 
a  shared  platform  for  exchange  of  experience 
and  better  sharing  of  available  knowledge 
(e.g.  The  European  Network  of  Environmental 
Authorities  at  supranational  level,  the  Italian 
Network  of  Environmental  and  Managing 
Authorities  at  national  level  or  REEB,  Brittany 
network  for  education  and  the  environment  at 
regional level).

  Hold  a  regional  conference  for  monitoring 
European funding, on the theme of biodiversity 
and  ecosystem  services:  This  would  provide 
a  platform  for  discussion  and  monitoring  of 
European  programming,  bringing  together  the 
State, Regions, cities and all other biodiversity 
stakeholders. This collaboration could constitute 
an opportunity for developing specific monitoring 
and  evaluation  tools  that  can  support  program 
revisions 
the  constraints 
presented by biodiversity.

that  will  address 

  Ensure strong evidence based communication: 
Managing Authorities should engage in persis-
tent cross-sectoral communication and develop 
a clear, convincing message about the opportu-
nities that funding nature conservation entails.

57. SURF (2012b), SURF (2012f) 

  Provide  genuine  opportunities  for  the  involve-
stakeholders 
in 
ment  of  environmental 
(MCs):  Programme 
monitoring  committees 
MCs  should  allow  for  significant  numbers  of 
environmental  partners,  including  NGOs,  with 
voting  rights  and  should  ensure  a  fair  voting 
balance  across  different  types  of  stakeholders 
so  that  environmental  interests  are  effectively 
represented.

Such  institutional  and  organizational  arrangements 
can  promote  and  support  further  preparation  activi-
ties in order to ensure that biodiversity is appropriately 
integrated within the PAs and the OPs; and eventually 
into project development. 

Examples of ‘preparatory activities’ are: 

  Development  of  an  evidence  base  linked  to 
the economic value of the natural environment: 
Scientific studies can demonstrate the rationale 
for  including  nature  and  biodiversity  into  pro-
grammes and also define the best way forward 
for  priority  axes  and  more  specific  investment 
measures  that  contribute  to  overall  socio-eco-
nomic goals. 

  Determination of the scale of funding needed to 
meet 2020 biodiversity targets: A study to deter-
mine the scale of funding required for achieving 
EU biodiversity’s commitments and identify the 
cost-benefit of them, including an estimate of the 
added value generated, would better inform dis-
cussions with the Managing Authority and help 
to prioritize biodiversity and ecosystem services 
funding within the Operational Programme.

  Preparation  of  OPs  in  line  with  Prioritised 
Action  Frameworks  (art.  8  Habitat  Directive): 
This will ensure good coordination with Nature 
2000  management  plans  and  funding  needs, 
and would help integrate Natura 2000 financial 
requirements into relevant ESI Funds.

3
0
.

T
R
A
P

.53

 
 
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

FURTHER RESOURCES FOR STRATEGIC 
PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING

The Position Paper Integration of Biodiversity and Natura 2000 in Partnership Agreements and Operational Programmes 
2014-2020,  by  the  ENEA-MA  Working  Group  on  Cohesion  Policy  and  Biodiversity  is  intended  for  representatives  of 
Managing Authorities  and  environmental  authorities  involved  in  the  development  and  review  of  programming  docu-

ments, and also as a useful basis for discussing investment portfolios with stakeholders within the Member States. 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/pdf/ENEA%20BiodivFINAL%2002042013.pdf

The European Commission’s Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity into Strategic Environmental 

Assessment.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/SEA%20Guidance.pdf

The CEE Bankwatch network has prepared a paper with proposed priorities addressing biodiversity and green infra-

structure  for  Cohesion  Policy  in  Hungary;  this  covers  objectives,  eligible  activities,  sustainability  criteria  for  funding, 

programme monitoring, indicators and targets. The approach and concepts are transferable to other Member States. 

http://bankwatch.org/sites/default/files/shadow-HU-biodiversity.pdf 

A recent study for the European Commission covers biodiversity proofing of the EU budget, with a focus on ensuring that 

spending across all areas of intervention protects and enhances biodiversity, in line with the EU Biodiversity Strategy.

Background Study Towards Biodiversity Proofing of the EU Budget

The European Commission issued in April 2013 a discussion paper Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their 
Services: An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. 
The objective of this discussion paper is to support the development of a coherent analytical framework to be applied 

by the EU and its Member States in order to ensure consistent approaches are used to map and assess the state of 

ecosystems and their services as proposed by Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/pdf/MAESWorkingPaper2013.pdf

.54

6.  INFORMATION AND SUPPORT 
TO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

Developing  Operational  Programmes  that  integrate 
nature  and  biodiversity  and  recognise  their  potential 
to  generate  benefits  is  the  first  step  in  the  process 
of  bolstering  the  contribution  of  Cohesion  Policy 
to  a  greener  economy.  Managing  Authorities 
Intermediate  Bodies,  Monitoring  Committees,  and 
all  other  stakeholders  will  need  to  translate  these 
strategic  orientations  into  all  steps  of  programme 
implementation:  from  supporting  the  development 
of  projects  to  implementation  and  monitoring.  To 
do  so,  they  should  aim  at  reaching  out  to  relevant 
stakeholders  who  have  the  capacity  to  initiate  the 
most  suitable  projects  -  those  that  understand  and 
actively integrate a multi-benefits approach to nature, 
biodiversity and ecosystem services. 

This section outlines the key aspects related to aware-
ness-raising  and  dissemination  of  information,  which 
are: 

  Targeting the right kinds of applicants. 

  Providing the support necessary to ensure that 
applicants understand and make use of oppor-
tunities  to  promote/integrate  biodiversity  and 
ecosystem services into their projects. 

  Lastly,  that  applicants  think  creatively  about 
how  ecosystems  and  green  infrastructure  can 
be part of overall development solutions.

6.1  AWARENESS-RAISING AND PUBLICATION 
OF PROJECT OPPORTUNITIES

3
0
.

T
R
A
P

Combining  timely  dissemination  of  information  with 
awareness-raising actions is essential to promote and 
mainstream an approach to Cohesion Policy interven-
tions  that  focuses  on  multi-benefits  from  nature  and 
biodiversity.  When  informing  stakeholders  about  pro-
grammes,  Managing  Authorities  should  be  certain 
to  include  those  stakeholders  and  potential  project 
initiators  who  will  be  critical  to  the  development  of 
projects  that  promote  and  integrate  nature  and  bio-
diversity.  These  will  very  often  include  smaller-scale 

applicants  such  as  local  partnerships,  NGOs  and 
small  enterprises,  who  may  lack  the  capacity  to 
systematically monitor Cohesion Policy funding oppor-
tunities. Managing Authorities should therefore ensure 
that  these  institutions  and  organisations  take  part  in 
the  process.  Selected  examples  of  well-designed 
promotional  activities,  including  communication  and 
awareness-raising strategies and project-related infor-
mation materials are presented in the box below.

SELECTED EXAMPLES OF PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES
West Wales and the Valleys OP (see case study in the annex): A launching seminar as well as a ‘road show’ were organised 

to attract and inform potential applicants. This served to gather ideas on how to take relevant project forward. A circula-

tion list and a webpage to inform interested parties were also created, and further dissemination activities were organised. 

Information on general result indicators in the framework of the ‘Environment for Growth’ (E4G) theme was also dissemi-

nated as part of the promotional activities under this OP. 

National/Sectoral OP ‘Environment’, Czech Republic (see case study in the annex): Supporting materials for project application 

have been made available to interested parties. These materials outline a description of the actual situation, planned aims and 

tools, strategy for achievement of goals, specification of deliveries, indicators and interconnection with other axes of the OP.

.55

 
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

6.2  TARGETING THE RIGHT APPLICANTS

Preparing relevant projects can prove challenging for 
certain stakeholder categories with limited resources; 
yet it is these small, local organisations that are often 
best-placed  to  develop  and  implement  projects  with 
great  potential  for  the  natural  environment.  It  is  not 
uncommon  to  see  potential  applicants  in  particular 
NGOs,  SMEs  and  local  partners  shy  away  from 
funding opportunities due to cumbersome administra-
tive and financial requirements. 

Managing Authorities should therefore consider easing 
financial  constraints  and  minimising  administrative 
burdens  wherever  possible.  To  do  this,  Managing 
Authorities may:

  Set  up  pre-financing  facilities  that  can  help 
overcome  cash-flow  constraints  of  specific 
applicants.

  Revise 

the  payment  schedules 

for  smaller 
projects  to  improve  cash  flow  for  the  project 
proponent.

  Reduce  application  and  invoice  processing 

times by means of adapted one-stop shops.58

  Adopt a simplified costs approach to reimburse-
ment, using flat rates based on unit costs set at 
EU level (as opposed to a real-cost approach).

  Consider ways in which they can adopt ’lighter’ 

auditing requirements for smaller projects.

  Shorten  the  mandatory  period  for  document 
retention  (e.g.  by  means  of  rolling  closure 
mechanisms) thus helping reduce the amount of 
resources required for bookkeeping and freeing 
up capacity for innovative project development.

Some  of  these  options  are  among  the  most  recent 
European Commission proposals to simplify Cohesion 
Policy after 201359. Adapted administrative procedures 
can also be instrumental in fostering the development 
of  the  community-led  initiatives  discussed  in  section 
5.3 of this Guide. Some examples of exiting Cohesion 
Policy  initiatives  aimed  at  facilitating  the  involvement 
of  small  project  proponents  are  provided  in  the  box 
below.

EXAMPLES OF FOCUS ON SMALLER APPLICANTS

The Alpine Carpathian Corridor programme (see case study in the annex) illustrates how the provision of adequate financing 

options can favour the emergence of relevant projects: pre-financing was available for small/civil society applicants thanks 

to a more flexible approach to funding by the Austrian Government.

Interreg  4A  France-England  encompasses  a  ‘micro-project’  system  for  voluntary  sector  associations  and  SMEs.  Micro-

projects  are  partnership  projects  with  a  total  budget  of  less  than  EUR  60,000.  The  co-funding  can  reach  75%,  and  the 

instruction process is faster. 

West Wales and the Valleys OP (see case study in the annex): To reach out to specific types of applicants that might not 

ordinarily  consider  Cohesion  Policy  funding,  the  programme  calls  were  advertised  on  the  ‘Sell2Wales’,  an  SME-oriented 
website. Managing Authorities (WEFO60) also produced guidance on ‘Sponsorship, Partnership, Procurement and Grants’, 
which included advice on access to EU funding by small/individual project applicants.

58. SURF (2012f)

59. EC (2012d) 

.56

60. WEFO (2012)

6.3  DESIGNING BIODIVERSITY-SMART PROJECTS

The  design  and  preparation  of  projects  that  take 
every opportunity to consider ways in which biodiver-
sity  and  ecosystem  services  can  be  promoted  is  an 
integral step in the process of maximising the contri-
bution  of  Cohesion  Policy  to  sustainable  growth  and 
a greener economy. Managing Authorities (or interme-
diate bodies) play an important role in facilitating the 
development of the ‘right’ types of projects and should 
take  every  opportunity  to  support  and  guide  project 
proponents  along  the  way. This  is  particularly  impor-
tant as recent studies have identified that the lack of 
awareness, incentives, tools and guidance to support 
analytical capacity are among the main hindrances to 
a  broader  uptake  of  ecosystem  services  valuation  in 
policy and project appraisal.61

The  role  of  Managing  Authorities  in  this  context  will 
vary depending on their in-house skills and expertise 
as well as available resources. The following are some 
of the ways in which Managing Authorities can actively 
support the development of projects that both directly 
support and biodiversity and ecosystem services, and 
also maximise associated socio-economic benefits.

  Ensure  that  officials  in  charge  adequately 
understand the multi-benefits linked to biodi-
versity and ecosystem services. This involves 
reaching  for  external  expertise  and  support 
where required and by providing training oppor-
tunities  to  officials.  Technical  assistance  funds 
are  available  from  Cohesion  Policy  to  support 
this.

  Provide  technical  assistance  to  project 
proponents  where  required.  For  example, 
in  the  form  of  advice  from  dedicated  experts 
within  Managing Authorities,  such  as  ‘environ-
mental coaches’ and training programmes, and 
allowing  for  joint  capacity  building  involving  all 
stakeholders  (e.g.  on  a  sectoral  or  thematic 
basis,  or  for  similar  stakeholder  categories)62, 
with special focus on support with interpretation 
of goals, requested input and output, etc.

  Provide  tailored  guidance  and  access  to 

relevant resources for applicants. Optimising 
project  design  requires  knowledge  and  skills 
that  may  not  be  at  the  disposal  of  many  pro-
ject  initiators.  This  notably  involves  providing 
access to written and online materials such as: 

Guidance  on  project  design,  project 

development, project cycle management, etc. 

Fiches examining the dependence on 
nature and exposure to degradation of sectors 
covered by Cohesion Policy expenditure.

Thematic  studies,  on  ecosystem 
based  adaptation  to  climate  change  and  inte-
grated coastal zone management (ICZM).

Descriptions of relevant project types 
and project examples (see box ‘relevant project 
type recommendations’).

User-friendly abstracts and/or transla-

tions of any of the above materials.

  Facilitate  access  by  project  proponents  to 
qualified external advisory services; e.g. how 
to  prepare  applications  and  develop  projects 
that  take  multi-benefits  linked  to  biodiversity 
and  ecosystem  services  into  account.  These 
services  can  also  be  designated  as  eligible 
expenditure when the project is approved.

  Refer  project  applicants  to  potential  part-
ners whose involvement could strengthen their 
project proposal.

There are a number of existing successful approaches 
to  providing  environmentally-oriented  advice  and 
guidance to applicants for Cohesion Policy funding from 
around the EU. Some of these are reviewed in the case 
studies in the annex to this guide and the box below. It is 
important that each Managing Authority tailor advice and 
guidance to the specific attributes of the territory and the 
programme; and finds an approach that fits the working 
culture of the organisation implementing the project. 

3
0
.

T
R
A
P

61. Defra (2010)

62. SURF (2012c); McGuinn et al. (2012)

.57

 
 
 
 
 
  
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

EXAMPLES OF PREPARATION SUPPORT MECHANISMS

In the OP European Objective for Territorial Cooperation Austria-Czech Republic a programme complement was developed 

by the Monitoring Committee where the purpose of each individual activity field is explained in detail and examples are given 

of potential activities, as well as descriptions of projects that should receive special support.

Infrastructure and Environment OP, Poland: The application and preparation of a large, dispersed water retention project 

required special practical provisions. Handbooks were distributed by the project coordinator to project beneficiaries; more-

over, direct support was provided to Regional Directorates and Forest Districts. Another good practice was the set-up of a 

database for monitoring investments and expenditures.

DANUBEPARKS (see case study in the annex): Capacity building has been carried out to train local stakeholders, including 

on product development (boat excursions, visitor centre and nature trail design etc.), marketing and regional cooperation.

South  East  Europe  Transnational  Programme:  Beneficiaries  received  assistance  for  project  preparation,  application  and 

implementation from established SEE Contact Points in collaboration with National Committees. Continuous assistance via 

e-mail was provided. Competent authorities also organise individual meetings with beneficiaries and offer different kinds of 

information depending on the level of involvement, for example: general information about the programme, information about 

the documents for the specific call and reasons for rejection at the first stage.

6.4  DEVELOPING A SUPPORT MECHANISM 
FOR BIODIVERSITY-SMART PROJECTS

Nature and its interactions with socio-economic devel-
opment can be complex topics, and even experts need 
to keep up with the ever-changing developments in this 
field. Managing Authorities should be aware that they 
do not need to generate support programmes for project 
applicants from scratch. Many relevant guidance docu-
ments, studies, reports and other material already exist 
that  can  be  very  useful  for  Managing Authorities  and 
potential project applicants. A starting point is provided 
in this section of the Guide. These are ‘raw materials’ 
that will need to be further elaborated on by Managing 
Authorities  in  order  to  clearly  explain  why  and  how 
such documents can be of use to project developers, 
and relevant Managing Authorities officials. 

Managing  Authorities  can  concretely  contribute  to 
project initiation and preparation by providing descrip-
tions of relevant project types that should be promoted 
to  maximise  socioeconomic  benefits  associated  with 
biodiversity and ecosystem services. They should also 
aim at disseminating relevant real-life examples of these 
kinds  of  projects  wherever  possible  (including  trans-
lated  versions  if  necessary).  Under  its  ‘Environment 
for growth theme’, the Welsh European Funding Office 
issued  recommendations  of  project 
(WEFO)  has 
types that can ally environmental and socio-economic 
benefits. A selection of these recommendations, which 
need to be considered alongside funding opportunities, 
specified in the OPs (see sections 5.1 and 5.2 of this 
Guide), are provided in the box below.

WALES: ENVIRONMENT FOR GROWTH
List of Indicative Project Activity (ERDF)

  Enhancing and improving the attractiveness of existing, or the development of new, natural and manmade facilities, 

including the development of centres of excellence and spin-out activities related to the environment;

  Physical infrastructure that will bring economic benefits such as marinas, cycle and walking trails (for recreation 

rather than for transport), as well as ancillary services and facilities;

  Coastal footpaths, as well as other routes that will provide improved access to the coast and countryside, and that 

have significant economic benefits;

    Developing  the  potential  for  sustainable  recreation  and  economic  activity  linked  to  the  natural  environment,  for 

example, around important conservation and Natura 2000 sites.

.58

is 

the  Cambridge  Sustainable 
Another  example 
Drainage  Design  and  Adoption  Guide63,  which  is 
designed  to  help  project  developers  and  consultants 
develop sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) 
as  a  cost-effective  response  to  the  effects  of  climate 
change  on  water  management.  The  Guide,  whose 
advice revolves around the green infrastructure notion, 
explores specific SuDS methods such as: ponds and 
wetlands, retention and infiltration basins, swales and 
filter strips, filter drains, canals, rills and channel sys-
tems,  as  well  as  source-control  methods  for  private 
householder SuDS.

An  important  but  complex  and  challenging  task  for 
project  proponents,  particularly  for  larger  projects, 
will  be  to  effectively  assess  the  value  of  nature  in 
socio-economic  terms.  This  can  have  an  impor-
tant  impact  on  the  eligibility  and  scoring  of  projects 

for  funding  (see  section  7  below),  and  will  also  con-
tribute  handsomely  to  overall  programme  monitoring 
and reporting. Effective valuation techniques can also 
provide project proponents with a strong rationale for 
designing  projects  that  integrate  biodiversity  protec-
tion  and  promotion  of  ecosystem  services  as  part  of 
overall development solutions.

The  box  below  lists  selected  examples  of  existing 
resources for assessing the value of nature, biodiversity 
and ecosystem services. The latter are at the core of an 
integrated approach to multi-benefits associated with 
nature and biodiversity and are, therefore, essential for 
Cohesion Policy to become an effective driver towards 
a greener economy. A selection of indicators to track 
and  measure  benefits  from  ecosystem  Services  is 
provided in section 8.1 of this Guide. 

3
0
.

T
R
A
P

ASSESSING THE VALUE OF BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: 
SELECTED REFERENCES 

For a quick overview of a framework to assess the value biodiversity and ecosystem services, please 
see the ‘How to estimate the value of ecosystem services?’ and ‘Overall rapid assessment of possible benefits’ 
chapters  in  Surf  (2012f)  (p.  12  ff.,  adapted  from  Kettunen  et  al.  2009)  and  Kettunen  and  ten  Brink  2013). 
These sections namely include: A conceptual and methodological framework for the assessment of potential 

benefits;  applicable  valuation  techniques;  and  commonly  used  estimates  for  the  value  of  biodiversity  and 

related  ecosystem  services,  as  well  as  estimates  of  the  cost  of  losing,  replacing  or  restoring  ecosystem 

services. Indicators that can be used to track and measure benefits from ecosystem services are discussed 

in greater detail in section 8 of this guidance. While assessing and demonstrating the values is important to 

help raise awareness of the multiple benefits to different stakeholders, this should be seen as only a first step. 

The fundamental issue is taking account of the values in decision making and ‘capturing’ the values, whether 

by due zoning and regulation (e.g. safeguarding an area for its water purification and provision services), by 

market creation (e.g. by using payments for ecosystem services or developing nature based pharmaceutical 

products) or by making markets work better (e.g. building up eco-tourism & recreation, improving information to 
users and consumers such as labelling, and increasing market pull via the use of green public procurement)64.

The  discussion  paper  ‘Mapping  and  Assessment  of  Ecosystems  and  their  Services.  An  analytical 
framework for ecosystem assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020’65 pro-
vides  a  valuable  analytical  framework  for  a  deeper  understanding  of  ecosystem  functions.  It  also  provides 

elements to help Managing Authorities operationalise ecosystem services, notably by better understanding the 

links between ecosystems, ecosystem services and biodiversity. 

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in the UK has developed an inno-
vative approach consisting of the application of existing valuation evidence in policy appraisal66 (i.e. 
applying the results of a valuation study undertaken in one specific context to a different policy context), It is 

a means to bring about a ‘more practical use of environmental values in policy-making’. This approach is also 

63. Cambridge City Council et al. (2010)

65. JRC (2013)

64. TEEB (2011a) Chapters 5 to 9 and TEEB (2012b)

66. Defra (2007; 2009; 2010a, 2011)

.59

 
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

identified as ‘a response to the difficulty, cost and time constraints for sourcing primary data’. A set of practical 

guidelines including checklists, references and case studies is available online.

A study proposing a five-step process67 to ‘characterise non-urbanised areas (NUAs) and identify pos-
sible new land uses to maximise their benefits’ was recently highlighted by the European Commission. The 
study indicates that ‘NUAs can be parks, woodlands, or agricultural land and are an important part of green 

infrastructure, providing many environmental, social and health benefits’. These benefits include reductions 

in air pollution, local temperatures and noise, as well as carbon sequestration and recreational services. The 

study underscores the need to reap these potential benefits given that many areas in Europe are currently at 

risk of ‘urban sprawl’; i.e. low density developments accompanied by the loss and degradation of NUAs.

Another study68 has proposed a method to place monetary value on green infrastructure at both a project 
and regional scale. This method illustrates the value of investing in green infrastructure to the public and other 

stakeholders  and  is  ‘a  useful  complement  to  traditional  cost-benefit  approaches’  in  that  it  highlights  the  indi-

rect  economic  benefits  of  green  infrastructure.  Furthermore,  according  to  DG  Environment  of  the  European 

Commission, ‘it can help convince stakeholders of the importance of investing in green infrastructure and allow 

policymakers  to  balance  issues  of  community  and  economic  growth,  environmental  protection  and  quality  of 

life’. At the project level, the study applied a cost-benefit analysis, using the concept of ‘Total Economic Value’, 

which attempts to capture the value of the different components of natural resources. Costs considered by this 

approach include land purchasing costs, design and construction costs and maintenance costs of the infrastruc-

ture. Whilst benefits include production and regulating ecosystem services, such as air quality improvement and 

climate change mitigation (see section 8 of this guidance for suggestions on indicators for benefits stemming 

from these services), as well as improved health from cycling, reduced accident risks and recreational benefits. 

At the regional level, a ‘multiplier analysis’ was used, based on an input-output approach, to consider not only 

the positive impact on local industries but also on wages and the subsequent impacts on the regional economy.

A joint EEA-FOEN report69 on landscape fragmentation in Europe provides a series of analytical tools for 
fragmentation assessment including a section specifically focused on the implications of that assessment for 
policy interventions in areas such as traffic and urban planning.

A study70 on the economic cost of invasive and non-native species in Ireland and Northern Ireland shows 
that ecosystem services have pervasive economic implications (e.g. these services are valued at more than 

EUR 2.5bn p.a.). Although the values presented in this study may not be directly applicable beyond Ireland, 

its methodological approach constitutes a valuable example. It assesses the economic impact of ecosystem 

degradation and biodiversity loss caused by invasive species in areas well beyond the usual agriculture, hor-

ticulture and fisheries by covering also tourism and recreation; construction, development and infrastructure; 

transport; utilities; and human health. 

67. La Rosa, D. & Privitera, R. (2013)

69. EEA (2011) 

68. Vandermeulen, V., Verspecht, A., Vermeire, B. et al. (2011)

70. Kelly, J., Tosh, D., Dale, K., and Jackson, A. (2013)

.60

6.5  SUMMARY: PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 
AND FURTHER RESOURCES

PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INFORMATION 
AND SUPPORT TO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

  Focus on raising awareness when communicating programmes to stakeholders - explaining that programmes 

have to consider multi-benefits and translate these considerations to the project level.

  Ensure constraints affecting specific groups of applicants are duly taken into consideration in the project com-

missioning system (e.g. administrative and auditing requirements, financing conditions, etc.).

  If applicable, build screening requirements into the process so that proposal-improving feedback can be pro-

vided early in the process.

  Provide training sessions for project applicants to learn more about how to assess multi-benefits that potentially 

stem from their projects.

  Provide specialised expertise to project developers for incorporating a multi-benefit approach.

  Provide web-based guidance and resources for applicants.

FURTHER RESOURCES FOR INFORMATION AND 
SUPPORT TO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

See  the  GRDP  project’s  Greening  Projects  for  Growth  and  Jobs  guidance,  Chapter  4  on  ‘Greening  the  Programme 
Operational System’ which provides more details, based on good practice across the EU. Ch. 6 pp. 46 – 52 provides 

more details on support for project developers, based on good practice across the EU. Annex II of the same report (p. 

58 ff.) includes a checklist of project’s environmental aspects.

3
0
.

T
R
A
P

.61

 
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

7.   PROJECT ELIGIBILITY, 
APPRAISAL AND SELECTION

When  reviewing  and  selecting  projects  for  funding, 
Managing Authorities can  play  a decisive  role in fos-
tering  interventions  that  recognise  and  appropriately 
use nature as a valuable asset and help meet policy 
objectives in other areas. 

Project  appraisal  and  selection  methods  depend  on 
the type of programme or call. In some cases projects 
are  ranked  against  each  other  and  the  best  ones 
selected;  in  others  a  pre-designated  project  concept 
and beneficiary is evaluated in detail. In all cases there 
are opportunities at this stage to ensure that projects 
seek to identify and maximise the multi-benefits related 
to nature.

SETTING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: 

7.1 
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Eligibility  criteria  can  rule  out  projects  that  do  not 
meet  minimum  sustainability  criteria.  They  can  also 
ensure that projects that consider nature and biodiver-
sity as positive contributions to project objectives are 
selected. Eligibility criteria are basic standards that all 
projects must meet to be considered for funding. They 
therefore  must  be  balanced  and  reasonable,  so  that 
they  are  effective  in  bringing  about  relevant  projects 
without being overly restrictive. 

Clearly minimum legal standards, such as the develop-
ment  of  Environmental  Impact Assessments  (EIA)  or 
Appropriate  Assessments  (AAs)  where  required  and 
keeping with other environmental laws and standards 
must be part of the eligibility criteria for any projects to 
be considered for Cohesion Policy funding. However, 
there are a number of other ways in which basic princi-
ples  that  support  the  mainstreaming  of  nature  and 
biodiversity  into  projects  can  be  addressed  through 
minimum requirements, depending on the programme 
context. These include:

the  principle  of  sustainable 
Integration  of 
development  (Article  8  of 
the  CPR)  and 
consistency  with  specific  relevant  overarching 
priorities or regional objectives, such as specific 
environmental/nature conservation strategies; or 

.62

more general goals such as resource efficiency, 
climate change adaptation strategies, low carbon 
economy, etc. Where appropriate, these may be 
evidenced by specific project aspects:

reduced  maintenance 

costs  of 
infrastructure in the long-term (even zero main-
tenance  costs  in  the  case  of  self-regulated 
green infrastructure formations).

reduced  energy  consumption  (e.g. 

biodiversity-friendly light fittings).

enhanced cost-effectiveness of public 

spending.

removal of negative externalities (e.g. 

by halting biodiversity loss).

Involvement of key environmental stakeholders 
in either project development (e.g. through con-
sultation or actual project participation) including 
NGOs, experts or other relevant groups.

  Assurance  that  no  (net)  negative  impacts  will 
be  incurred  by  the  natural  environment  and 
biodiversity.  This  may  go  beyond  existing  legal 

 
 
 
 
 
 
requirements,  such  as  the  avoidance  of  any 
development in a Natura 2000 site, or the offset-
ting of negative impacts to the extent possible.

minimum level of ‘biodiversity proofing’. This is 
especially  relevant  for  transport  infrastructure 
development projects. 

  Presentation  of  a  range  of  alternative  options, 
especially for projects where biodiversity site or 
habitats of value may be adversely affected. This 
allows for the most harmful projects to be either 
disregarded or redesigned, thereby ensuring a 

The box below contains selected examples of eligibility 
criteria  proposed  by  the  Welsh  European  Funding 
Office  (WEFO)  to  maximise  a  project’s  quality  and 
environmental sustainability.

APPROACHES TO ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA IN WALES AND CATALONIA

The Welsh European Funding Office has published guidance material for the integration of the horizontal principle 

of sustainable development. The guidance on ‘Environment for Growth’ advocates actions that: combine environ-

mental and socioeconomic objectives; enhance and improve the attractiveness of existing (or the development of 

new) natural and manmade facilities; and develop the potential for sustainable recreation and economic activity 

linked to the natural environment. 

To maintain flexibility, WEFO states that ‘certain actions may be considered eligibility issues and will be labelled 

as such’ and, if an action is deemed not applicable to the project, ‘the reasons why must be recorded’. 

Within the Welsh OP, the Communities and Nature (CAN) project, which supports local development activities 

through grants, developed specific criteria to ensure projects would be biodiversity-‘proofed’ and contribute to 

more sustainable development, as follows:

  No funded activities should negatively impact on Natura 2000 designated sites.

  Any  new  buildings  must  meet  Building  Research  Establishment  Environmental  Assessment  Method 

(BREEAM) excellent standard as a minimum and have 10% recycled materials.

The programme follows up on environmental compliance as part of due diligence checks prior to receipt of funds. 

3
0
.

T
R
A
P

In Catalonia, Spain, the regional environmental authority has produced a document that specifies requirements 

to which applicants for funding from the regional OP must comply in order to contain or remove possible negative 

impacts on the environment, related to specific categories of expenditure. These must be accounted for in addi-

tion to the EIA required by national legislation.

7.2  SELECTING THE RIGHT PROJECTS

Appraisal and selection mechanisms can ensure that 
the  whole  range  of  major  socio-economic  impacts 
associated with nature and biodiversity are duly taken 

into  account  in  selected  projects.  This  includes  both 
criteria and the selection process itself.

7.2.1  FORMULATION OF PROJECT APPRAISAL CRITERIA

Appraisal criteria have a dual function. First, they send 
a message to project proponents about how projects 
will be reviewed and scored; thereby guiding them on 
what  to  include  and  how  to  formulate  applications. 
Second,  they  form  the  basis  of  a  transparent  project 

review  and  selection  process  that  helps  to  ensure 
the  funded  projects  clearly  contribute  to  programme 
objectives  and  development  needs.  In  other  words, 
they  help  ensure  consistency  with  the  strategic  pri-
orities  and,  therefore,  with  the  funding  opportunities 

.63

 
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

defined in Operational Programmes (see sections 5.1 
and 5.2).

The  development  of  appraisal  criteria  is  therefore 
an  important  chance  for  Managing  Authorities  to 
encourage project proponents to demonstrate a robust 
methodological  approach  to  maximising  a  project’s 
environmental,  social  and  economic  benefits.  It  also 
encourages  the  consideration  of  multi-benefit  objec-
tives be shown at this stage of project preparation. In 
the  same  vein,  where  relevant  sustainability-oriented 
considerations  have  been  included  in  public  pro-
curement  provisions,  these  should  be  translated  into 
appraisal criteria. 

When 
formulating  appraisal  criteria,  Managing 
Authorities should be certain that a clear message is 
sent to project developers: projects that systematically 

identify  multi-benefits  associated  with  biodiversity 
and ecosystem services and seek to maximise them 
stand  better  chances  of  obtaining  Cohesion  Policy 
funding.  For  this  purpose  appraisal  criteria  should 
clearly  reflect  the  identification  and  maximisation  of 
multi-benefits associated with nature as a key priority; 
and should give them sufficient weight in the appraisal 
process itself. Some suggestions for appraisal criteria 
that can be used to promote the integration of nature 
and ecosystem services, and maximise the associated 
benefits  are  provided  in  the  below. At  the  same  time 
however, it needs to be stressed that in some cases, 
dedicated investment in nature/biodiversity should be 
stimulated  even  if  no  additional  (economic  or  social) 
benefits are generated. They are justified on the ground 
of  contributing 
to  pure  environmental/biodiversity 
objectives, in relation to the 2020 Biodiversity targets 
or the implementation of the Natura 2000 network.

SAMPLE APPRAISAL CRITERIA

Are the project’s implications for biodiversity, ecosystem services and the green infrastructure maintaining them being 

considered, including possible synergies and trade offs? Are both synergies and potential trade-offs considered? Do 

the implications adequately cover local, regional, national and international/global perspectives? Are suitable indicators 

used, including ecosystem service indicators and a mix of indicators for the four capitals (environment, economic, social 

and human capitals) so as to get a sufficiently in-depth and broad understanding of the inter-relationships?

(If applicable) Does the project proposal comply with relevant public procurement provisions for sustainability? Does 

it take on board whole life costing (WLC) as part of procurement evaluation?

Has a clear and comprehensive strategy been developed to identify the socioeconomic benefits associated with bio-

diversity, ecosystem services and green infrastructure?

Do project developers or their partners produce evidence of relevant knowledge to identify and maximise socioeco-

nomic benefits associated with biodiversity and ecosystem services?

Has  a  detailed  assessment  of  expected  socioeconomic  benefits  associated  with  biodiversity,  ecosystem  services  and 

green infrastructure been carried out? Are the key winners and losers from the project being addressed in the assessment?

Has a detailed assessment of possible trade-offs between conservation goals and enhancement of ecosystem services 

been carried out, to prevent any negative impacts on biodiversity? Are the results taken into account in the project design?

Is monitoring of results in terms of socioeconomic benefits associated with biodiversity, ecosystem services and green 

infrastructure foreseen?

As discussed in the case study on Wales, one of the 
ways  pursuing  environmental  objectives  can  con-
tribute to other socioeconomic goals is by enhancing 
the  attractiveness  of  a  given  territory.  The  WEFO 
outlines  scoring  criteria  to  ‘maximise  the  sustainable 

economic benefits, utilising Wales’ natural capital, by 
increasing the volume, length and value of visitation’. It 
also provides instructions on how to approach scoring. 
These criteria were prepared by an independent pro-
ject selection board (see box below for more details).

.64

7.2.2  ENHANCING MULTI BENEFIT INVESTMENTS 
IN THE PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS 

The project selection process should be a transparent 
one, and a well-formulated set of criteria and scoring 
process is very important for this. As discussed above, 
scoring mechanisms should reward project proposals 
that identify multi-benefits associated with nature and 
biodiversity.  Nevertheless,  the  review  and  appraisal 
of  project  applications  will  have  a  degree  of  subjec-
tivity to it. For this reason it is important that appraisal 
and  selection  committees  include  the  necessary 
expertise  on  biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services, 
as  well  as  a  general  understanding  of  the  long-term 

socio-economic benefits they bring. 

Specific  training  for  Managing Authority  staff  as  well 
as  outside  experts  involved  in  project  appraisal  may 
be required to ensure the necessary level of skills and 
knowledge, particularly as expert contributions to the 
appraisal  process  may  include  technical  elements. 
Project  appraisal  guidelines 
for  specific  project 
categories may also be valuable. See the box below 
for examples of how this has been done.

EXAMPLES OF RELEVANT EXPERTISE IN THE APPRAISAL PROCESS

Catalonia  OP,  Spain:  The  presence  of  nature  conservation  experts  in  the  Selection  Committee  was  ensured  through 

the  appointment  of  a  permanent  representative  from  the  authorities  in  charge  of  the  environment  and  related  issues. 

Environmental authorities also participate in the Evaluation Committee through written submissions.

DANUBEPARKS (see case study in the annex): An assessment tool to keep the number of visitors sustainable will be devel-

oped and tested to help to solve potential conflicts of interest between nature conservation and tourism development.

CAN Project, Wales (see case study in the annex): The CAN Project Board advertised externally for members of an independent 

Project Selection Board with the delegated powers to assess and prioritise applications received and to make recommendations 

for funding. The CAN Selection Board also defined a set of formal selection criteria against which all applications were assessed.

3
0
.

T
R
A
P

Even  in  the  presence  of  relevant  expert  and  stake-
holder  support  and  expertise,  methodological 
challenges apply that can undermine efforts to appro-
priately  assess  socio-economic  benefits  linked  to 
biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services.  Key  benefits 
may  be  overlooked  or  underestimated  as  a  result. 
Managing Authorities should help disseminate existing 
evidence  and  promote  its  use  in  the  applicable  con-
text through collaborative action. Managing Authorities 

should take all necessary steps to ensure a systematic 
use of relevant expertise regarding the assessment of 
socioeconomic benefits associated to nature and bio-
diversity,  while  applying  existing  evidence  wherever 
possible.  They  should  also  use  well-adapted  criteria 
to  ‘lock-in’  the  need  to  evaluate  and  maximise  those 
benefits as a priority in the project appraisal and selec-
tion process.

.65

 
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

7.3  SUMMARY: PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 
AND FURTHER RESOURCES

PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROJECT 
ELIGIBILITY, APPRAISAL AND SELECTION

The main goal  is to give appropriate  priority  to project applications that  consider benefits from biodiversity  and 
ecosystem services

  Ensure a robust project appraisal criteria and scoring system that effectively prioritise projects that address 
multi-benefits associated with nature and biodiversity. They should reflect the importance of developing and incorporating 

a multi-benefit approach to project design and project implementation.

  Consider  whether  environmental  requirements  in  public  procurement  regulations  apply  and  can  be  inserted  in 

appraisal criteria.

  As part of the project appraisal process, understand and assess how potential benefits associated to biodiversity 
and ecosystem services can be taken into account. Involving external experts and stakeholders directly in evaluation 
bodies and/or educational support for managing authorities is needed to address this issue. Appraisal guidelines for 
different project types can help.

FURTHER RESOURCES FOR PROJECT ELIGIBILITY, 
APPRAISAL AND SELECTION

See  the  GRDP  project’s  Greening  Projects  for  Growth  and  Jobs  guidance,  Ch.  5.3  pp.  40-43,  which  provides  more 
details on good practice for project evaluation and selection.

.66

8. IMPLEMENTATION, 
MONITORING AND EVALUATION

A key task for Managing Authorities at the project imple-
mentation stage is to provide on-going support to project 
beneficiaries. Monitoring and reporting on programme 
and project implementation and results is a challenging 
yet  critical  aspect  that  needs  to  be  embedded  in  pro-
ject design, particularly through indicator-related work. 
Available assessment tools and research regarding the 
linkages between natural and capital assets, and socio-
economic factors are evolving. Thus it is also the role 
of Managing Authorities to follow up on their progress 
to ensure reliable monitoring and evaluation. Moreover, 
as in the previous stages of the project cycle, Managing 
Authorities should encourage the development of multi-
stakeholder approaches to project delivery, monitoring 
and evaluation, as this can help ensure that multi-bene-
fits associated with nature are effectively identified and 
capitalised upon. In addition to better project outcomes, 
broad stakeholder involvement, notably in the case of 
green infrastructure-related projects, can be a catalyst 
for  broader  socio-economic  regeneration  and  com-
munity  ownership,  while  stimulating  investment  and 
fostering job creation.71

development  initiatives  (CLLD)  aim  to  strengthen 
the  community’s  capacity  for  conservation,  use  and 
sustainable  management  of  local  biodiversity  with  a 
blend  of  traditional  and  scientific  knowledge  systems. 
Leadership  by  the  local  level  institution  in  setting 
the  research  and  project  development  agenda  is 
encouraged.  The  processes  for  implementing  these 
initiatives  can  include  community  level  benchmark 
studies  of  biodiversity;  enhancement  of  community 
skills,  knowledge  and  engagement;  community-
based  land  and  sea  management;  and  traditional 
knowledge  recording.  Long-term  benefits 
include 
increased community-based approaches to sustainable 
development  and  management  of  other  natural 
resources in partnership with the government. 

Managing  Authorities  should  make  use  of  available 
funding  for  technical  assistance  to  strengthen  their 
evaluation capabilities with regard to multi-benefits asso-
ciated to nature and biodiversity. Technical assistance 
funding can also be used to make expertise available 
to project beneficiaries during project implementation.

In those areas in which community empowerment is a 
driving force to motivate local people for conservation 
efforts,  access  to  knowledge  and  financial  resources 
are basic requirements for the community to translate 
their acquired knowledge and skills into practices that 
lead  to  nature  conservation.  Community-led  local 

The  box  below  presents  examples  of  fruitful  stake-
holder cooperation in this regard. Further details on the 
importance of involving a broad range of stakeholders 
throughout the project cycle for successful project out-
comes  can  be  found  in  sections  6  (knowledge  and 
expertise needs) and 7 (eligibility criteria). 

EXAMPLES OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT AND COOPERATION    
AT THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION STAGES

DANUBEPARKS (see case study in the annex): This project is an example of cooperation between participating protected 

area administrations. This cooperation has ensured effective development, communication and uptake of results, leading to 

further follow-up projects and cooperation between the areas on different themes. The DANUBEPARKS network has also 

fostered formal cooperation with a number of key regional partners such as the International Commission for the Protection 

of the Danube River (ICPDR), the Network of Danube Waterway Administrations (NEWADA) and the Danube Competence 

Centre (CDD).

Nummela, Finland (see case study in the annex): This project is the result of a partnership created between researchers and 

a local association for water protection.

Infrastructure and Environment OP, Poland (see case study in the annex): Broad stakeholder participation was required in a project 

to promote and support ecologically sound water retention methods. This was necessary to access sources of funding, rationalise 

and mainstream existing small-scale actions covering 178 forest districts, and ensure support for the project at the local level. 

71. Landscape Institute (2013)

.67

3
0
.

T
R
A
P

 
 
 
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

Alpine Carpathian Corridor Austria-Slovakia (see case study in the annex): There is strong cooperation between regional 

authorities,  NGOs,  universities,  motorway  companies  and  national  park  authorities.  An  advisory  board  composed  of 

stakeholders and independent experts as well as a steering group with representatives of relevant (regional) governments 

provide inputs on a regular basis that can be used for monitoring purposes.

Green  corridors  contracts  project,  Rhone-Alpes,  France  (see  case  study  in  the  annex):  Contracts  are  drawn  up  through 

a  permanent  dialogue  between  the  services  of  the  State,  the  towns  involved,  associations  and  local  stakeholders.  This 

approach contributes to underline the role of local governance in fostering dialogue and cooperation. Furthermore, the large 

number of stakeholders involved in this process enables the development of interregional and supra-regional partnerships.

8.1  APPLYING INDICATORS, MILESTONES AND TARGETS

The  Common  Provision  Regulation  aims  to  improve 
the  performance  of  EU  spending.  The  Commission 
foresees  two  consecutive  performance  reviews,  in 
2017  and  2019  respectively,  which  would  assess 
performance  against 
the  preliminary  established 
milestones  for  inter  alia  biodiversity  among  others 
in  a  ‘performance  framework’  (Article  19).  The  latter 
shall be determined in each Operational Programme. 
Based on the 2019 review, a performance reserve (5 
per cent of the resources allocated to each CSF Fund 
and Member States) will be awarded to the best per-
forming  Member  States  or  funds  may  be  suspended 
in the case of failing to achieve the established mile-
stones  (Article  20).  A  set  of  ‘common  indicators’ 
proposed  by  the  Commission  in  the Annexes  of  the 
fund-specific Regulations, should be accompanied by 
programme-specific indicators and used in the context 
of the performance framework. An attempt is made to 
move  away  from  output-based  to  more  result-based 
indicators.  These  include  a  number  of  indicators  for 
biodiversity,  soil,  greenhouse  gas  emissions,  energy, 
environmental infrastructure and risk prevention.72

Working  within  this  required  framework,  there  are 
many  opportunities  to  ensure  that  nature  conser-
vation  and  ecosystem  services  are  integrated  into 

programme  implementation  within  the  programmes 
over their seven years of implementation.

Each priority axis will need indicators. Output indica-
tors  relate  to  project  outputs;  and  result  indicators 
should show how overall project results contribute to 
the  objective  set  out  in  the  spending  priority.  Where 
there  is  direct  spending  on  biodiversity,  it  will  be 
important  to  have  indicators  that  effectively  illustrate 
successes.  It  is  a  greater  challenge  to  develop  indi-
cators  that  assess  indirect  objectives,  such  as  the 
associated  multi-benefits  aspects.  However,  where 
important nature conservation and ecosystem services 
goals  have  been  successfully  inserted  into  funding 
priorities, they should be backed up with relevant indi-
cators. These will be essential for project preparation, 
implementation  and  the  programme  monitoring  and 
evaluation stages.

The proposed regulations for 2014-2020 place greater 
emphasis  on  the  use  of  common  indicators  across 
the  Member  States,  and  on  monitoring  for  results. A 
number  of  general  indicators  for  each  policy  field  or 
sector  are  given  in  the  fund-specific  regulations;  the 
ERDF regulation specifies one indicator for nature and 
biodiversity, under the Environment category. 

Proposed common indicators for measuring progress on risk prevention and management in the 
proposed ERDF regulation for 2014-2020

UNIT

Hectares

Nature and 
biodiversity

NAME

Surface area of habitats in better conservation status

SOURCE: Proposal for specific provisions regulation on the ERDF, EC COM(2011) 614 final, Annex p20

72. See Annexes to proposed Regulation on ERDF and Cohesion Fund

.68

This  proposed  indicator  is  a  good  start.  However,  it 
does not capture any potential associated multi-bene-
fits and it does not track whether and how programmes 
and/or projects have considered biodiversity risks and 
considered  ways  to  mitigate  them. Additional  indica-
tors  will  need  to  be  developed  to  capture  relevant 
results related to biodiversity and nature.

Further  examples  of  indicators  covering  nature  con-
servation  and  ecosystem  services,  from  selected 
2007-2013 Operational Programmes are contained in 
the table below.

Examples of indicators for biodiversity in Operational Programmes (2007-2013)

OPERATIONAL 
PROGRAMME

INDICATOR

TARGET/BASELINE

Poland
OP Environment 
and Infrastructure

Number of completed projects in the field of education or 
promotion of ecological attitudes (numbers) 

0 in 2007
Expected in 2013: 20

Time of identification and response to risks on the national 
level (hours)

0 in 2007
Expected in 2013: 150

Number of completed projects aimed at protection of Natura 
2000 areas (number)

0 in 2007
Expected in 2013: 50

Total surface of areas, in which protection of the proper con-
dition of ecosystem has been restored or guaranteed (ha)

0 in 2007
Expected in 2013: 1.550

Number of species covered by protection or reintroduction 
programme (number)

Number of developed protection programmes (number)

Spain
OP ERDF of the 
Region of Murcia

Actions in Natura 2000 areas (numbers)

Activities carried out in Natura 2000 areas (number) 

Affected area beyond Natura 2000 Network areas 
(hectares)

Supply networks created (kilometers)

Number of resource centers, classrooms, nature, etc. that
incorporate measures to promote accessibility (number) 

Recovered surface and / or defended (hectares)

Protected areas with Management Plans (hectares)

Czech Republic
OP Environment

Acreage of revitalized areas (hectares)

3
0
.

T
R
A
P

0 in 2007
Expected in 2013: 8

0 in 2007 
Expected in 2013: 100

Expected in 2010: 60
Expected in 2013: 80

Expected in 2010: 4
Expected in 2013: 11

Expected in 2010: 330
Expected in 2013: 1 000

Expected in 2010: 10,8
Expected in 2013: 36

Expected in 2010: 2
Expected in 2013: 4

Expected in 2010: 33
Expected in 2013: 100

38.106 in 2007
Expected in 2010: 126.018
Expected in 2013: 263.531,67

0 in 2007
Expected in 2013: 1.000

.69

 
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

Proportion of the Czech sites of Community importance pre-
pared to be declared as SPAs or for contractual protection, 
of the total number of Czech sites of Community importance 
placed on the European list (percentage) 

0 in 2007
Expected in 2013: 80

Recovery of stable landscape water regime and of elements 
of ecological stability (number)

0 in 2007
Expected in 2013: 15

Number of projects being focused on improving the nature 
and landscape condition (number)

0 in 2007
Expected in 2013: 150

SOURCE: Author’s compilation from relevant programming documents

Successful monitoring implies sound integration of the 
multi-benefit  approach  into  the  indicators  and  mile-
stones  developed  at  the  programming  stage  and  set 
out  clearly  in  the  Operational  Programmes.  This  will 
have  increased  importance  in  the  2014-2020  period, 
when  evaluation  will  become  more  focused  on  the 
actual  results  and  impacts  of  Cohesion  Policy  pro-
grammes  and  projects73.  As  discussed  in  section  5 
of  this  Guide,  Managing Authorities  should  therefore 
facilitate the integration of the socioeconomic benefits 
linked to nature into this new performance framework.

From  a  project  level  perspective,  a  key  challenge  in 
this regard comes  from the  fact that  indirect benefits 
are  hard  to  track  and  measure.  Therefore,  relevant 
indicators  may  not  be  straightforward  to  develop. As 
discussed in the previous section, limited data availa-
bility  enabling  the  assessment  of  sometimes  rather 
intangible  benefits  is  another  obstacle.  Managing 
Authorities should therefore attempt to make as much 

use as possible of relevant good practices regarding 
the  valuation  of  socioeconomic  benefits  linked  to 
nature or, alternatively, concerning the use of qualita-
tive assessment methodologies when straightforward 
quantification  or  monetisation  are  not  possible.  They 
should also make these examples available to project 
developers in a timely manner. 

Managing Authorities should therefore keep abreast of 
methodological developments that are relevant to main-
stream  consideration  of  nature  throughout  the  project 
cycle, particularly at the monitoring and implementation 
stages. In this sense, the box below contains an illus-
trative list of indicators for monitoring the status of and 
benefits  from  ecosystem  services  (for  suggestions  on 
valuation techniques related to benefits from biodiver-
sity and ecosystem services, please refer to section 6.4 
of this Guide). These examples should be considered 
on an indicative basis and fine-tuned to reflect the local 
specificities applying within the scope of the project.

73. EC (2012d)

.70

EXAMPLES OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES INDICATORS 
Sustainable management of ecosystem services depends on a sound understanding of 1) biophysical functioning of ecosys-
tems that form the foundation for services and 2) socio-economic importance and value of the services. Consequently, both 
of these aspects are important to take into consideration when monitoring the impacts and/or outcomes of projects.

BIO-PHYSICAL INDICATOR (STATUS / AVAILABILITY)

SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATOR (IMPORTANCE / VALUE)

EXAMPLES

EXAMPLES

PROVISIONING SERVICES

  Current actual stock / population size of fish, game, 

  (Market) value / value added of catch (sustainable)

plants etc. affected and/or used

  Land  area  under  production  of  sustainable  food  – 

ha, quality and changes

  Reproduction  rate  /  status  of  reproduction  (esti-

mated) to secure healthy population levels

  Number of jobs / employment / businesses / income

REGULATING SERVICES

  Land  area  of  ecosystems  performing  regulative 

functions (e.g. wetland)

  Number of / trends in flood, wild fire etc. events per 

year in region 

  Current and/or estimated future erosion risk 

  Current and/or estimated nutrient retention capacity 

of wetlands

  Frequency of pest / disease outbreaks

  Current level /status of pollinator populations

  Market  value  of  CO2  tonnes  stored  per  year  and 

funds invested

  Value  of  protective  function,  i.e.  infrastructure  / 
economic activity / human well-being protected by 
ecosystem-based regulation (real or estimated)

  Cost of hydrological infrastructure and of water treat-
ment needed when ecosystems are not functioning

  Costs of damage to properties and arable lands in 

case of floods, if forests are cut or degraded

  Cost of erosion protection measures

  Cost  of  pest  control  when  natural  balance  and 
conservation measures are not in place (usually in 
agriculture  and  mosquito  problems  in  urban  areas 
close to protected areas – cost of spraying)

  Cost of fertilisers vs. pollinators

   Cost of health problems

3
0
.

T
R
A
P

CULTURAL SERVICES

  Share  of  land  cover  with  high  cultural,  recreation 

etc. value

  Number natural areas (e.g. protected areas) and/or 

green spaces

  Ecological  quality  of  the  environment  and  natural 

areas

  Direct  market  values,  such  as  the  price  of  tourist 
services  at  a  given  place,  or  the  price  tour  opera-
tors  charge,  incl.  for  additional  services  related  to 
natural attractions

  Consumers’ willingness to pay for a visit to a certain 

place or intrinsic value attached to it

  Willingness to pay to obtain a house in a given area 

with natural attractions

  Value of income for local communities

  Work places open and maintained

  Change of level of living standard

.71

 
   
GUIDE ON COHESION POLICY INVESTMENTS IN NATURE

    SUPPORTING SERVICES

Supporting services form the basis for all other services above. Therefore, at a practical project level the status and value 
of these services can, to a large extent, be considered to be captured by the previous 3 groups.

For more information see, for example, Kettunen et al (2012).

Indicators  can  be  used  for  different  forms  of  capital, 
allowing them to be useful tools for measurement and 
hence  governance  in  the  context  of  Cohesion  Policy. 
They  can  be  (and  have  been)  used  to  illustrate  and 
assess  the  nature  and  scale  of  trade-offs  and  syner-
gies  and  be  used  in  ex  ante,  interim  and  ex  post 
assessments  of  the  sustainable  development  impacts 

of  Cohesion  Policy74.  Furthermore  environmental  and 
economic accounts as well as social accounts integrate 
different indicators of the four capitals. They can produce 
valuable  insights  for  decision  makers  at  regional  and 
national  level  as  regards  status  and  trends  in  their 
regions, needs and opportunities for action as well as 
help monitor and evaluate impacts of CP programmes.

8.2  MONITORING, REPORTING AND EVALUATION MECHANISMS

Overall,  monitoring  and  reporting  follow  the  perfor-
mance framework, with its indicators, milestones and 
targets developed at the programming stage for each 
priority axis within an Operational Programme. 

As  in  previous  stages,  relevant  expertise  on  the 
Managing Authorities’ side is necessary; e.g. as part 
of the Monitoring Committee, which plays an important 
role  in  project  monitoring  and  evaluation.  Managing 
Authorities  should  adopt  a  systematic  approach  to 
monitoring  and  evaluation  through  the  lifetime  of  the 
project, as this can help ensure the alignment between 
purported objectives and effective results, as well as 
comparability across relevant initiatives.

The  indicators  developed  at  the  Programming  stage 
will be used by the Monitoring Committee during the 
annual  review  meetings. They  will  also  feed  into  the 
annual  implementation  reports  and  into  progress 
reports  on  the  implementation  of  the  Partnership 
Agreement, ex ante and ex post evaluations.

Authorities should therefore aim to maintain regular con-
tact with project beneficiaries. This is of great importance 
for  efficient  monitoring  and  evaluation,  as  indicator-
related work can prove challenging, due to difficulties for 
example in the construction of counterfactual scenarios. 
Furthermore, Managing Authorities will often need to act 
as intermediaries in beneficiary-expert contacts.

Managing Authorities  should  define  reporting  require-
ments that clearly focus on substantive aspects such as 
quality and effectiveness in the project implementation 
process,  in  addition  to  the  usual  financial  and  admin-
istrative  components  of  the  reporting  procedure.  In 
this  respect,  Environmental  Impact Assessment  (EIA) 
requirements, which in accordance with the EU Directive 
apply to all projects that can be expected to have signifi-
cant impact on the environment, are a key instrument to 
mainstream biodiversity proofing, as well as monitoring 
of biodiversity-related impacts of Cohesion Policy inter-
ventions  (including  reorienting  or  redesigning  projects 
with undesirable effects in that regard).

As  previously  discussed,  data  and  information  are 
the backbone of monitoring mechanisms; a solid indi-
cator framework will determine the data requirements 
as  programmes  are  implemented.  Good  cooperation 
between  Managing  Authorities  and  the  bodies  and 
organisations  providing  information  sources  will  help 
to  ensure  that  the  right  data  and  information  can  be 
collected in the context of a specific project. Managing 

The case study on Nummela, Finland is a good example 
of how monitoring can be used to support informed deci-
sion  making  and  increase  political  as  well  as  public 
support  for  innovative  projects  that  combine  environ-
mental  and  socioeconomic  benefits.  This  case  study 
also illustrates the importance of stakeholder participa-
tion in the project delivery process, notably with regard to 
data and information gathering for monitoring purposes. 

74. See Hjerp et al. (2011), GHK et al. (2005)

.72

8.3  SUMMARY: PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 
AND FURTHER RESOURCES

PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROJECT 
IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Project implementation is mainly carried out by project beneficiaries. While Managing Authorities need to monitor project 

implementation. Two main ways in which this can be done are:

  Providing technical support and advice: specialised expertise can be made available to project beneficiaries as-

needed during project implementation.

  On-going  monitoring:  An  informal  supervision  process  that  enables  feedback  and  communication  between 

Managing Authority and project beneficiary during the project implementation process.

  The key factors are: having access to relevant expertise (internal or external) and integrating the multi-benefit 

approach to nature and biodiversity into regular monitoring and supervision of project implementation.

  Monitoring and evaluation are typically difficult for integration of horizontal concerns into programmes: Successful 
monitoring therefore depends upon sound integration of nature, biodiversity and associated multi-benefits into 

the indicators and milestones developed at the programming stage.

  Use funds from technical assistance to develop the necessary indicator systems which integrates a multi-benefit 

approach to investment.

  Integrate specific and innovative indicators in the relevant OP’s on biodiversity, nature protection, Green Infrastructure 

and other OP’s to monitor impacts on ecosystems.

  The monitoring committee plays an important role in monitoring and evaluation. Getting relevant expertise into the 
committee – through direct membership on the committee, but also access to required external specialist experts - is 

critical, as is cooperation between managing authorities and information sources for data collection purposes. 

  Stakeholder involvement in project delivery, monitoring and evaluation is crucial to ensure that multi-benefits 

from nature and biodiversity are appropriately assessed and maximised.

3
0
.

T
R
A
P

FURTHER RESOURCES FOR PROJECT 
IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING AND EVALUATION

See  the  GRDP  project’s  Greening  Projects  for  Growth  and  Jobs  guidance,  Ch.  5.3  pp.  40-43,  which  provides  more 
details on good practice for project evaluation and selection.

The CEE Bankwatch report on proposed priorities for Cohesion Policy in Hungary – Biodiversity suggests a monitoring 

programme which is a useful example and transferable to other countries:

http://bankwatch.org/sites/default/files/shadow-HU-biodiversity.pdf

.73

 
REFERENCES

Barbier E. B. (2011). ‘Wetlands as natural assets’, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 56 (8): 1360-1373.

BIO Intelligence Service (2011). Estimating the economic value of the benefits provided by tourism/recreation and employment 
supported by Natura 2000, final report prepared for the European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/

financing/docs/Economic_Benefits_of_Natura_2000_report.pdf.

BPL (Butcher Partners Limited) (2006). Evaluation Study of the Economic Benefits of Water in Te Papanui Conservation Park 
(Prepared for the New Zealand Department of Conservation of New Zealand), www.doc.govt.nz/upload/documents/conservation/

threats-and-impacts/benefits-of-conservation/economic-benefits-te-papanui.pdf.

Brittany Regional Competitiveness and Employment Operational Programme for the programming period 2007-2013.

Cambridge  City  Council  (2010).  Sustainable  Drainage  Cambridge  Design  and  Adoption  Guide.  By  Steve  Wilson,  Environment 

Protection Group Ltd , Bob Bray, Robert Bray Associates, Simon Neesam, The Landscape Partnership, Simon Bunn, Cambridge 

City  Council,  Eithne  Flanagan,  Cambridge  City  Council  https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/sites/www.cambridge.gov.uk/files/docs/

SUDS-Design-and-Adoption-Guide.pdf.

Catalonia Competitiveness Regional Operational Programme for the programming period 2007-2013.

CEE Bankwatch (2013). Recommendations for the programming of EU funds in 10 CEE countries.

CEE Bankwatch network (2013). Making the EU budget work for people and planet – citizens’s recommendations for EU funds 

2014-2020.

Council of the European Communities (1992): Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habi-
tats and of wild fauna and flora.

Czech Republic Operational Programme ‘Environment’ for the European Regional Development Fund 2007-2013.

Defra – Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2007). Introductory Guidance for Valuing Ecosystem Services, 

Defra, London, http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/policy/natural-environ/documents/eco-aluing.pdf.

Defra (2009). Valuing Environmental Impacts: Practical Guidelines for the Use of Value Transfer in Policy and Project Appraisal, 

Main Guidelines.

Defra (2010a). Improving the use of environmental valuation in policy appraisal: A Value Transfer Strategy. A joint publication by 

Defra, Environment Agency, Natural England and Forestry Commission.

Defra (2010b). Incorporating Valuation of Ecosystem Services into Policy and Project Appraisal.

Defra (2012). Accounting for environmental impacts: Supplementary Green Book guidance.

de Groot R., Brander L., van der Ploeg S., Costanza R., Bernard F., Braat L., Christi, M., Crossman N., Ghermandi A., Hein 

L., Hussain, S., Kumar P., McVittie A., Portela R., Rodriguez L.C., ten Brink P., van Beukering P., (2012). ‘Global estimates of 
the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units’. Ecosystem Services 1,50–61.

EC (2007). Financing Natura 2000 – Guidance handbook. Commissioned by European Commission DG Environment.

EC  (2010).  Europe  2020:  A  strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth,  Communication  from  the  Commission, 

COM(2010)2020, 3.3.2010, Brussels.

.74

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EC (2011a). Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Brussels, 3.5.2011, COM(2011) 244 final. 

EC (2011b). Impact Assessment Accompanying the document: Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 

2020, SEC(2011) 540 final, 3.5.2011, Brussels.

EC  (2011c).  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  on  specific  provisions  concerning  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  and  the 
Investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006, COM(2011)614,6.10.2011, Brussels.

EC (2011d). Proposal for a Regulation on specific provisions for the support from the European Regional Development Fund to the 
European territorial cooperation goal, COM(2011)611, 6.10.2011, Brussels.

EC (2011e). Proposal for a Regulation on the Cohesion Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006, COM(2011)612, 

6.10.2011, Brussels.

EC (2011f). Proposal for a Regulation on the European Social Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006, COM(2011)607, 

6.10.2011, Brussels.

EC (2011g). Regional policy contributing to sustainable growth in Europe 2020, SEC(2011) 92 final, 26.1.2011, Brussels.

EC (2011h). Cities of tomorrow - Challenges, visions, ways forward. DG Regional Policy. European Commission.

EC (2011i). Proposal for a Regulation on specific provisions for the support from the European Regional Development Fund to the 

European territorial cooperation goal, COM(2011)611, 6.10.2011, Brussels.

EC  (2012a).  Community-led  local  development.  Factsheet.  http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/

community_en.pdf

EC  (2012b).  Integrated  territorial  investments.  Factsheet.  http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/

iti_en.pdf

EC (2012c). Integrated Sustainable Urban Development Factsheet. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/

themes2012/urban_en.pdf

EC (2012d). Panorama no. 41, Spring 2012.

EC  (2012e).  Research  innovation  strategies  for  smart  specialisation.  Factsheet.  http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/

docgener/informat/2014/smart_specialisation_en.pdf

EC  (2012f).  Connecting  Smart  and  Sustainable  Growth  through  Smart  Specialisation  -  A  practical  guide  for  ERDF  Managing 
Authorities, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/presenta/green_growth/greengrowth.pdf.

EC (2013a). Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity into Environmental Impact Assessment.

EC (2013b). Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity into Strategic Environmental Assessment. 

EC  (2013c).  Green  Infrastructure  (GI)  –  Enhancing  Europe’s  Natural  Capital.  Staff  Working  Document,  SWD  (2013)  155  final 

6.5.2013, Brussels. 

EC  (2013d).  Green  Infrastructure  (GI)  —  Enhancing  Europe’s  Natural  Capital  Communication  from  the  European  Commission, 

COM(2013) 249 final, Brussels.

EC (2013e). European Green Capital Award, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/europeangreencapital/about-the-award/index.html.

EEA (2009). Territorial cohesion. Analysis of environmental aspects of the EU Cohesion Policy in selected countries, EEA Technical 

report No 10/2009.

EEA  (2011).  Landscape  fragmentation  in  Europe,  Joint  EEA-FOEN  report,  No  2/2011,  http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/

landscape-fragmentation-in-europe.

.75

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
REFERENCES

Ekins, P. (1992). ‘A four-capital model of wealth creation’, in P. Ekins and M. Max-Neef (eds) Real-Life Economics: Understanding 

Wealth Creation, Routledge, London and New York, pp 147-155.

ENEA-MA (2013). Integration of Biodiversity and Natura 2000 in Partnership Agreements and Operational Programmes 2014-2020, 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/pdf/ENEA%20BiodivFINAL%2002042013.pdf.

European  Parliament  and  the  Council  (2009):  Directive  2009/147/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  30 

November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds. Official Journal of the European Union, 26.1.2010.

Fedrigo-Fazio, D. and ten Brink, P. (2012). Briefing by IEEP, UNEP and GLOBE Europe under Knossos 7FP. Nairobi, Kenya. URL: 

http://www.unep.org/pdf/Main_briefing_2012.pdf

Gantioler S., Rayment M., Bassi S., Kettunen M., McConville A., Landgrebe R., Gerdes H., ten Brink P (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.

Gerdes,  H.,  Lago,  M.  and  Lang,  S.  ‘Water  regulation,  purification  and  provision’  in  ten  Brink  et  al  Estimating  the 
Overall  Economic  Value  of  the  Benefits  provided  by  the  Natura  2000  Network,  final  report  to  the  European  Commission, 

Institute 

for  European  Environmental  Policy 

/  GHK 

/  Ecologic,  Brussels,  http://www.ieep.eu/publications/2012/06/

estimating-the-overall-economic-value-of-the-benefits-provided-by-the-natura-2000-network.

GHK, IEEP, PSI, et al (2005) ‘SRDTOOLS Methods and tools for evaluating the impact of cohesion policies on sustainable regional 
development (SRD)’, Contract No 502485 Sixth Framework Programme Priority 8.3.1 Task 11 Regio Underpinning European Integration, 

Sustainable Development, Competitiveness and Trade Policies.

GRDP (2006). Greening Regional Development Programmes, Greening Projects for Growth and Jobs Guidance on integrating the 

environment within regional development programmes and their projects.

GRDP  (2007).  Greening  Regional  Development  Programmes,  Beyond  Compliance:  a  toolkit  for  integrating  the  environment  into 

regional development programmes.

Hjerp, P., Medarova-Bergstrom, K., Cachia, F., Evers, D., Grubbe, M., Hausemer, P., Kalinka, P., Kettunen, M., Medhurst, J., 
Peterlongo, G., Skinner, I. and ten Brink, P., (2011). Cohesion Policy and Sustainable Development, A report for DG Regio, October 

2011. 

Hjerp,  P.,  Volkery,  A.,  Lückge,  H.,  Medhurst,  J.,  Hart,  K.,  Medarova-Bergstrom,  K.,  Tröltzsch,  J.,  McGuinn,  J.,  Skinner,  I., 
Desbarats, J., Slater, C., Bartel, A., Frelih-Larsen, A., and ten Brink, P., (2012). Methodologies for Climate Proofing Investments 
and Measures under Cohesion and Regional Policy and the Common Agricultural Policy, A report for DG Climate, August 2012.

Holling C.S. (1973). “Resilience and stability of ecological systems”. in: Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. Vol 4 :1-23.

Huhtala, M., Kajala, L. & Vatanen, E. (2010). Local economic impacts of national park visitors’ spending: The development process 
of an estimation method. Metlan työraportteja / Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 149. 20 s. ISBN 978-951-40-

2224-1. http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2010/mwp149.htm

IEEP (2011). Cohesion Policy and Sustainable Development: Supporting Paper 4: Case Studies, An Annex to the Final Report. A report 

for DG Regio, October 2011.

IEEP, Ecologic and GHK (2012a). ‘Study to analyse legal and economic aspects of implementing the Nagoya Protocol on ABS in the 
European Union’. Final report for the European Commission, DG Environment. Institute for European Environmental Policy, Brussels 

and London, July 2012.

.76

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IEEP,  GHK  and  TEPR  (2012b).  Background  Study  Towards  Biodiversity  Proofing  of  the  EU  Budget.  Report  to  the  European 

Commission. Institute for European Environmental Policy, London.

JRC (2013). Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under 
Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Discussion paper – Final, April 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowl-

edge/ecosystem_assessment/pdf/MAESWorkingPaper2013.pdf

Kelly, J., Tosh, D., Dale, K., and Jackson, A., 2013. (2013). The economic cost of invasive and non-native species in Ireland 
and Northern Ireland. A report prepared for the Northern Ireland Environment Agency and National Parks and Wildlife Service as 

part  of  Invasive  Species  Ireland,  http://invasivespeciesireland.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Economic_Impact_Assessment_

FINAL_280313.pdf.

Kettunen, M, Terry, A., Tucker, G. & Jones A. (2007). Guidance on the maintenance of landscape features of major importance for 
wild flora and fauna - Guidance on the implementation of Article 3 of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC). and Article 10 of the Habitats 

Directive (92/43/EEC). Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels, 114 pp. & Annexes.

Kettunen M., Bassi S., Gantioler S. and ten Brink P. (2009). Assessing Socio-Economic Benefits of Natura 2000: A Toolkit for 
Practitioners (November 2009 edition), Output of the European Commission project Financing Natura 2000: Cost estimate and ben-

efits of Natura 2000, IEEP, Brussels.

Kettunen M., Berghöfer A., Bouamrane M., Brunner A., Chape S., Conner, N., Dudley N., Ervin J., Gidda S.B., Morling P., 
Mulongoy K. J., Pabon L., Seidl A., Stolton S., ten Brink P., Vakrou A., (2011). Recognising the value of protected areas. In 

TEEB (2011).

Kettunen, M., Vihervaara, P., Kinnunen, S., D’Amato, D., Badura, T., Argimon, M. and ten Brink, P. (2012) Socio-economic 
importance  of  ecosystem  services  in  the  Nordic  Countries  –  Synthesis  in  the  context  of  The  Economics  of  Ecosystems  and 

Biodiversity (TEEB). TemaNord 2012:559, Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen.

Kettunen M and ten Brink P (Eds) (2013). The Social and Economic Benefits of Protected Areas: An Assessment Guide  Earthscan 

/ Taylor & Francis Group.

Kettunen, M., Torkler, P. and Rayment, M. (2013). Financing Natura 2000 in 2014-2020: Guidance Handbook, a publication com-

missioned by the European Commission DG Environment (to be published).

Kumar, P. (ed.) (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations, Earthscan, London. 

La Rosa, D. & Privitera, R. (2013). Characterization of non-urbanized areas for land-use planning of agricultural and green infra-
structure in urban contexts. Landscape and Urban Planning. 109: 94-106. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.201 2.05.012.

Laird,  S.,  Johnson,  S.,  Wynberg,  R.,  Lisinge,  E.  and  Lohan,  D.  (2003).  Biodiversity  Access  and  Benefit-Sharing  Policies  for 
Protected Areas: An Introduction, United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies, Tokyo.

MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005). http://www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx

Mayer, M., Müller, M., Woltering, M., Arnegger, J. und Job, H. (2010). ’The Economic Impact of Tourism in Six German National 
Parks’, Landscape and Urban Planning: 97(2):73-82.

Mazza L., Bennett G., De Nocker L., Gantioler S., Losarcos L., Margerison C., Kaphengst T., McConville A., Rayment M., 
ten Brink P., Tucker G., van Diggelen R. 2011. Green Infrastructure Implementation and Efficiency. Final report for the European 

Commission,  DG  Environment  on  Contract  ENV.B.2/SER/2010/0059.  Institute  for  European  Environmental  Policy,  Brussels  and 

London.

McGuinn, J., Stokenberga, L., Medarova-Bergstrom, K., Banfi, P., Volkery, A. and Hjerp, P., (2012). Climate Proofing Cohesion 
Policy, Technical Guidance, A report for DG Climate Action, August 2012.

Murcia Convergence Regional Operational Programme for the European Regional Development Fund 2007-2013.

.77

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
REFERENCES

Naumann,  Sandra,  McKenna  Davis,  Timo  Kaphengst,  Mav  Pieterse  and  Matt  Rayment  (2011):  Design,  implementation 
and  cost  elements  of  Green  Infrastructure  projects.  Final  report  to  the  European  Commission,  DG  Environment,  Contract  no. 

070307/2010/577182/ETU/F.1, Ecologic institute and GHK Consulting. 

Poland Convergence Operational Programme ‘Infrastructure and Environment’ for the European Regional Development 

Fund 2007-2013.

Roncin, N., Alban, F., Charbonnel, E., Crec’hriou, R., de la Cruz Modino, R., Culioli, J-M., Dimech, M., Goñi, R., Guala, I., 

Higgins,  R.,  Lavisse,  E.,  LeDireach,  L.,  Luna,  B.,  Marcos,  C.,  Maynou,  F.,  Pascual,  J.,  Person,  J.,  Smith,  P.,  Stobart,  B., 
Szelianszky, E., Valle, C., Vaselli, S., Boncoeur, J. (2008) ‘Uses of ecosystem services provided by MPAs: How much do they 
impact he local economy? A southern Europe perspective’, Journal for Nature Conservation 16: 256—270.

RSPB (2009). Handbook for Developing and Implementing Pro-Biodiversity Projects- an output from the EC Biodiversity Technical 
Assistance Unit project, Sandy, UK.

Russi  D.,  ten  Brink  P.,  Farmer  A.,  Badura  T.,  Coates  D.,  Förster  J.,  Kumar  R.  and  Davidson  N.  (2013).  The  Economics  of 
Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Water and Wetlands. IEEP, London and Brussels; Ramsar Secretariat, Gland.

Science for Environment Policy (2012). Economic value of green infrastructure estimated by new method. European Commission 

DG Environment News Alert Service, edited by SCU, The University of the West of England, Bristol.

Science for Environment Policy (2013). New five-step planning tool makes the most of urban green spaces. European Commission 

DG Environment News Alert Service, edited by SCU, The University of the West of England, Bristol.

Shine, C., Kettunen, M., Genovesi, P., Essl, F., Gollasch, S., Rabitsch, W., Scalera, R., Starfinger, U. and ten Brink, P. (2010). Assessment 
to support continued development of the EU Strategy to combat invasive alien species. Final Report for the European Commission. Institute 

for  European  Environmental  Policy  (IEEP),  Brussels,  Belgium.  http://www.ieep.eu/work-areas/biodiversity/invasive-alien-species/2011/02/

assessment-to-support-continued-development-of-the-eu-strategy-to-combat-invasive-alien-species

Slovenia  Convergence  Operational  Programme  “Strengthening  Regional  Development  Potential  Slovenia”  for  the  European 

Regional Development Fund 2007-2013.

Stern, N. (2006). Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change, HM Treasury, London.

Stolton, S. and Dudley, N. (2010). Arguments for protected areas: multiple benefits for conservation and use, Earthscan, London. 

SURF (2011a). SURF-Nature project (Sustainable Use of Regional Funds – for Nature). Thematic Booklet. Environmental education. 

Contribution to a sustainable future.

SURF (2011b). SURF-Nature project (Sustainable Use of Regional Funds – for Nature). Thematic Booklet. Green Infrastructure. 

Sustainable Investments for the Benefit of Both People and Nature, report prepared by Giurgiu County Council, Miruna Dudau.

SURF (2011c). SURF-Nature project (Sustainable Use of Regional Funds – for Nature). Thematic Booklet. Sustainable Tourism & 

Nature Conservation. An Investment in our Future, report prepared by Klara Brandl, Environment Agency Austria.

SURF  (2011d).  SURF-Nature  project  (Sustainable  Use  of  Regional  Funds  –  for  Nature).  Thematic  Booklet.  Forest  biodiversity 

Sustainable investment for the benefit of both people and nature, report prepared by Francesc Cots, Forest Sciences Centre of 

Catalonia.

SURF (2011e). SURF-Nature project (Sustainable Use of Regional Funds – for Nature). European Regional Development Funding 

for biodiversity. An analysis of selected Operational Programmes.

.78

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SURF (2012a). SURF-Nature project (Sustainable Use of Regional Funds – for Nature). Handbook on future funding for biodiversity 

from regional funds - Regional Report Austria, report prepared by Brandl Klara, Suske Wolfgang.

SURF  (2012b).  SURF-Nature  project  (Sustainable  Use  of  Regional  Funds  –  for  Nature).  New  Opportunities  for  investing  in  the 

Natural Environment. ERDF funding for biodiversity in Wales.

SURF (2012c). SURF-Nature project (Sustainable Use of Regional Funds – for Nature). Guidance on Assessing Socio-Economic 

Benefits for better Access to Structural Funds for Biodiversity.

SURF (2012d). SURF-Nature project (Sustainable Use of Regional Funds – for Nature). Handbook on financing biodiversity in the 

context  of  the  European  Fund  for  Regional  Development  (EFRD).  Practical  guidance  based  on  the  lessons  learned  from  SURF 

Nature project (ERDF Interreg IVC), Cardiff.

SURF (2012e). SURF-Nature project (Sustainable Use of Regional Funds – for Nature). Thematic Booklet. Natura 2000 Management. 

Regional Development funding as part of the integrated funding approach for biodiversity.

SURF (2012f). SURF-Nature project (Sustainable Use of Regional Funds – for Nature). Use of the ERDF Fund in Brittany for biodi-

versity. Analysis and recommendations for the preparation of future European programming (2014-2020).

TEEB (2008). TEEB Interim Report, http://www.teebweb.org/.

TEEB (2009). TEEB Climate Issues Update. September 2009 http://www.teebweb.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=L6XLPaoaZv8%3d

&tabid=1278&language=en-US.

TEEB (2010a). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Edited by Pushpam Kumar. 

Earthscan, London and Washington.

TEEB  (2010b).  The  Economics  of  Ecosystems  and  Biodiversity:  Mainstreaming  the  Economics  of  Nature:  A  synthesis  of  the 
approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. URL: www.teebweb.org/TEEBSynthesisReport/tabid/29410/Default.aspx.

TEEB  (2010c).  ‘The  Economics  of  Ecosystems  and  Biodiversity  Report  for  Business  –  Executive  Summary’.  URL:  http://www.

teebweb.org/Portals/25/Documents/TEEB%20for%20Business/TEEB%20for%20Bus%20Exec%20English.pdf

TEEB (2011a). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in National and International Policy Making. Edited by Patrick ten 

Brink. Earthscan, London and Washington.

TEEB (2011b). TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management.

TEEB (2012a). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Business and Enterprise. Edited by Joshua Bishop. Earthscan, 

London and New York.

TEEB (2012b). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Local and Regional Policy and Management. Edited by Heidi 

Wittmer and Haripriya Gundimeda. Earthscan, London and New York. 

TEEBcase: Peatlands restoration for carbon sequestration, Germany, 2010. Förster, J. mainly based on MLUV - Ministerium für 

Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (2009). 

ten  Brink  (Ed.)  (2011).  The  Economics  of  Ecosystems  and  Biodiversity  in  National  and  International  Policy  Making.  Earthscan, 

London and Washington.

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.

ten Brink, P., Badura, T., Bassi, S., Gantioler, S., Kettunen, M., Rayment, M., Pieterse, M., Daly, E., Gerdes, H., Lago, M., Lang, 
S., Markandya, A., Nunes, P., Ding, H. Tinch, R., Dickie, I., (2011). Estimating the Overall Economic Value of the Benefits provided 
by the Natura 2000 Network. Final report for the European Commission, DG Environment on Contract 07.0307/2010/581178/SER/

B3. Institute for European Environmental Policy, Brussels and London.

.79

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
REFERENCES

UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2011). The UK National Ecosystem Assessment. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

UN (United Nations) (1993). Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Treaty Series, vol 1760, I-30619, http://www.cbd.

int/convention/text/.

UNEP (2011). ‘Towards a Green Economy – Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication, A Synthesis for Policy 
Makers’, www.unep.org/greeneconomy/Portals/88/documents/ger/GER_synthesis_en.pdf.

UNCSD (2012). Rio+20 Declaration : “The Future We Want” (UN document A/66/L.56). Online: http://www.uncsd2012.org/content/

documents/727The%20Future%20We%20Want%2019%20June%201230pm.pdf. 

Vandermeulen, V., Verspecht, A., Vermeire, B. et al. (2011). The use of economic valuation to create public support for green 
infrastructure investments in urban areas. Landscape and Urban Planning. 103:198-206.

WEFO (2012). Cross Cutting Themes - Environmental Sustainability. Environment for Growth. Activity-based Guidance Document. 

Welsh European Funding Office, European structural funds programmes 2007-2013.

West Wales and the Valleys Convergence Programme Operational Programme for the European Regional Development 

Fund 2007-2013.

Wilson D., Renou-Wilson F., Farrell C., Bullock C., Müller C. (2012). Carbon Restore – The Potential of Restored Irish Peatlands 
for Carbon Uptake and Storage. The Potential of Peatlands for Carbon Sequestration (2007-CCRP-1.6). CCRP Report, Prepared 

for the Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/research/climate/CCRP_15_web.pdf. 

WWF (2012). Our Natural Capital. A profitable Investment in Times of Crisis, WWF European Policy Office.

.80

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LIST OF 
ABBREVIATIONS

AA

CF

CLLD

CSF

Appropriate Assessment

Cohesion Fund

Community Led Local Development

Common Strategic Framework

EAFRD

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development

EIA

EMFF

ERDF

ESF

Environmental Impact Asses

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund

European Regional Development Fund

European Social Fund

ESI funds

European Structural and Investment funds

ETC

GI

ICT

ICZM

ITI

MCs

MPA

NNL

OP

PA

PAF

PES

PM

REDD

RIS3 

SAC

SEA

SPA

SUD

SWOT

TEEB

TEN-T

WFD

WLC

European Territorial Cooperation

Green Infrastructure

Information and Communications Technologies

Integrated Coastal Zone Management

Integrated Territorial Investment

Monitoring Committees

Marine Protected Area

No Net Loss

Operational Programme

Partnership Agreement  or Protected Area

Prioritised Action Framework

Payment for Ecosystem Services

Particulate Matter

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation

Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation

Special Area of Conservation

Strategic Environmental Assessment

Special Protected Area

Sustainable Urban Development

Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats analysis

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity

Trans-European Transport Network

Water Framework Directive

Whole Life Costing

.81

CASE STUDIES  

Annex 

.83

DANUBEPARKS
CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION TO 
ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENTAL 
STATUS OF DANUBE RIVER BASIN

Key Message

Area of focus 

The  integrated  ecosystem-based  approach  to  river 

Integrated  river  basin  management,  recreation  and 

basin  management  provides  a  good  framework  for 

tourism, capacity building and skills development.

establishing  multiple  benefits  for  biodiversity  and 

human  well-being.  Such  an  approach,  facilitating  net-

working and information sharing between stakeholders 

across national borders, facilitates workable win-win solutions for biodiversity conservation and sustainable socio-eco-

nomic development while helping to mitigate conflicts with conservation goals and other river uses. Such activities are 

therefore very suitable to be funded under the EU Cohesion Policy.

Type, size and source of funding 

€2.7 million for Phase I (2009-2012) and €2.2 million for Phase II (2012-2014) under the European Territorial Cooperation 

for South-East Europe (ETC-SEE), priority axis ‘Protection and Improvement of the Environment’.

The project and its background 

DANUBEPARKS, i.e. the Danube River Network of Protected Areas, was founded in 2007 as a joint transnational initiative 

which included a number of key protected areas within the Danube River basin. The initiative was prompted by the growing 

socio-economic demands and associated changes in land use within the basin. The increased pressures and impacts on 

biodiversity, ecosystems and related ecosystem services were also driving forces. As a response to these challenges, the 

aim was to establish a basin-wide framework for cross-border cooperation with a view to adopt a more integrated approach 

to biodiversity conservation within the basin and to help improve the environmental status of the basin. 

DANUBEPARKS consist of five thematic elements, addressing both the biophysical status of and socio-economic ben-
efits associated with the basin’s ecosystems. The morphological element aims to conserve and/or restore natural river 
dynamics within the basin and, at the same time,find suitable compromises for river navigation. Dedicated efforts are 
also taken to preserve key habitats and flagship species (e.g. White-tailed Eagle, Sturgeon and Black Poplar) within 
the basin. These conservation and restoration measures are supported by dedicated monitoring activities, aimed at 
building a more solid knowledge base in the status of ecosystems in the area. Finally, building on the elements above, 
a range of activities were taken to promote sustainable, nature-based tourism in the area.

Since its implementation, the DANUBEPARKS initiative has resulted in two consecutive multi-annual projects co-financed by 

the EU, representing various forms of activities promoted in the context of Cohesion Policy. These activities have included: the 

elaboration of transnational strategies; the implementation of pilot projects related to conservation and sustainable resource 

management; and the facilitation of knowledge transfer, awareness raising and partnership building within the river basin.

.84

Achieved multiple benefits 

SOURCE. http://www.danubeparks.org/

One of the key socio-economic benefits achieved by DANUBEPARKS has been the systematic promotion of sustain-

able tourism activities in the region. A common strategy for enhancing tourism, environmental education and regional 

development within the basin has been developed as a part of the project. In the future, a carrying capacity assessment 

tool will be developed and tested to help to solve any possible conflicting interests between nature conservation and 

tourism development. In addition, capacity building has been carried out through training of local stakeholders, including 

product development (boat excursions, visitor centre and nature trail design etc.), marketing and regional cooperation. 

Consolidated efforts have also been made to market the areas as a destination for international visitors. For example, 

plans were made for the development of a joint DANUBEPARKS visitor centre with indoor and outdoor exhibitions.

The  project  has  also  played  an  integral  role  in  finding  solutions  to  balance  the  competing  demands  on  the  Danube 

River  basin,  especially  conserving  the  basin’s  natural  heritage  while  maintaining  its  role  in  navigation.  In  2011,  the 

DANUBEPARKS  Strategy  on  Conservation  and  Navigation  was  adopted  to  outline  approaches  and  tools  available 

to integrate biodiversity goals into navigation planning and avoid conflicts between Inland Waterway Transport (IWT) 

development and conservation.

A number of concrete measures have been carried out by DANUBEPARKS to restore the structure and functioning of 

Danube River ecosystems. For example, attempts have been made to adapt the existing man-made hydraulic structures 

to be more biodiversity-friendly. Similarly, guidance has been provided to establish common standards for floodplain 

forest  management  and  restoration  (within  protected  areas)  along  the  Danube  River.  These  activities  are  aimed  at 

restoring the natural dynamics and/or ecosystems of the river basin; which have contributed to biodiversity conservation 

and also improved the recreational and tourism value of the basin. In the future, a common River Restoration Action 

Plan will be developed, detailing the most valuable and necessary restoration sites and actions within the river basin, 

including three examples of restoration plans.

Key project success factors 

Building partnerships: One of the key success factors of the project is that it set up networks which function beyond the 

lifetime of the project, ensuring continuity and capitalization of project results. This cooperation has led to further follow-up 

projects and cooperation between the areas on different themes. DANUBEPARKS network has also established formal 

cooperation with a number of key regional partners including: International Commission for the Protection of the Danube 

River (ICPDR), Network of Danube Waterway Administrations (NEWADA) and Danube Competence Center (CDD). The 

partners work together to improve and promote sustainable tourism along the Danube. This broader regional cooperation 

with different sectoral stakeholders has helped to link the project activities with broader regional development.

Integrated, ecosystem-based management: The approach adopted by DANUBEPARKS has aimed to address conser-

vation challenges across jurisdictional borders and as a part of the broader socio-economic development of the Danube 

basin. This  integrated  and  ecosystem-based  approach  has  been  one  of  the  success  factors  of  the  project.  It  seeks 

4
0

.

T
R
A
P

.85

 
DANUBEPARKS

workable win-win situations for biodiversity conservation and sustainable socio-economic development in the effort to 

mitigate conflicts with conservation goals and other river uses (i.e. navigation). 

Capacity building and skill development: Dedicated efforts have been made during the project to increase the human 

capital within the Danube River basin. A range of training and capacity building activities have been carried out to further 

develop and diversify local skills, including training related to services within the tourism sector and skills in environ-

mental monitoring (see above). Several information sources aimed at improving common knowledge (success factors 

and/or barriers) based on sustainable river basin management have been developed, including lessons learned from 

restoration practises within the basin. This strong emphasis on capacity building across the river basin will play an impor-

tant role in ensuring the uptake of project results and insights in the long run. Furthermore, efforts have been made to 

communicate both the biodiversity values and socio-economic importance of Danube River basin to the broader public. 

It is foreseen that these systematic outreach activities will help increase support for the conservation and sustainable 

management of the basin.

Transferability to other areas

The DANUBEPARKS case study provides a good evidence base for exploring the possibilities for integrated transna-

tional river basin management - with associated multiple benefits - also in other areas within the EU.

Contacts 
Carl Manzano, Spokesman Danube River Network of Protected Areas (office@danubeparks.org) and Georg Frank, Project Manager 

Danube River Network of Protected Areas (g.frank@danubeparks.org)  

Source 

http://www.danubeparks.org/

.86

ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 
OF COMANA WETLANDS 

Key Message

ROMANIA

Area of focus 

Wetland restoration can greatly improve biodiversity as 

Restoration of wetlands.

well  as  offer  a  valuable  contribution  to  environmental 

education, scientific research and the creation of jobs.

Type, size and source of funding 

The total budget was €1.9 million, and the ERDF co-financed €1.2 million, and the rest was nationally financed.

The financing was granted under the sectorial Operational Programme Environment, under the Programme Convergence, 

Priority Axis 4 ‘Implementation of Adequate Management Systems for Nature Protection’. The key areas of intervention 

were the development of infrastructure and management plans to protect biodiversity and Natura 2000. The investment 

priorities were the ecological restoration of habitats, the reinforcement of species populations, and the setting up of the 

monitoring systems for the Natura 2000 sites and protected areas, including infrastructure and equipment.

The project 

Comana wetlands, in Giurgiu County, Romania are part of the Natural Park Comana, included in the ecological network 

Natura 2000 and listed among the Ramsar Sites. The area is characterised by many important natural habitats and 

endemic species and it is visited by migratory birds. Approximately two thirds of Romania’s bird species can be found 

in the Comana wetlands. The area is characterised by a richly structured landscape, including reed, lakes, oak forests, 

and fish farms. It is the third most important wetland in Romania. 

Prior  to  1990,  three  fourths  of  the  wetlands  were  drained  to  be  used  for  agriculture. This  had  a  significant  negative 

THE PROJECT DEVELOPER AND STAKEHOLDERS’ INVOLVEMENT

The project developer was the Giurgiu County Council, in Ro-
mania, in partnership with Comana Local Council and Adminis-
tration of Comana Natural Park.

The  project  has  the  support  of  local  public  authorities  and 
business people who have invested in the area. Also, the Coun-
ty  Council  Giurgiu  collaborates  with  the  Local  Environmental 
Protection Agency and land users from the area of Comana 
wetland restoration.

impact on biodiversity.

Comana wetlands were restored between 2009 and 2011, to improve 

biodiversity and ensure the conservation of natural habitats and wild 

species of flora and fauna. The area covered by the restoration pro-

ject was 1,180 hectares. The funded measures were the following:

4
0

.

T
R
A
P

  Ecological  restoration  of  habitats  and  reinforcement  of  species 
population, through 1) construction of a dam with sluice on Neajlov 
River,  downstream  of  Comana  Lake,  in  order  to  increase  the  river 

depth by more than 1.50m, extending the water surface to 490 hec-
tares and maintaining the shallow water area below half a meter; 2) construction of a fish scale downstream of the dam 
to avoid aquatic habitat fragmentation and the disruption of the migration route of some fish species.

 Setting up monitoring systems for the Natura 2000 sites and protected areas, including infrastructure and equipment 

for monitoring the natural habitats and the conservation status of flora and fauna species.

.87

 
ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION OF COMANA WETLANDS

ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION OF COMANA WETLANDS

 Construction and improvement of the infrastructure of the national protected areas and Natura 2000 sites (building of 

visitors and information centres and of information panels, risk management / fire prevention and control etc.).

 Preparation of information and publicity materials to contribute to awareness raising on the issues of protected areas 

and Natura 2000.

The project is the first wetland restoration and the first example of green infrastructure development in the region.

Achieved multiple benefits 

The restoration of the Comana wetlands greatly improved biodiversity in the area. The construction of the dam on the 

Neajlov River, downstream of Comana Lake, increased the level of water in the floodplain area and has maintained it at 

a constant level, which has had positive effects on avifauna. New feeding sites for duck and heron species in the area 

previously occupied by reeds were established. It is estimated that the land available as habitat for bird species was 

increased by at least 30% and the number of birds increased by at least 5%. Moreover, the improved ecological condi-

tions increased the quality of habitats and hence species richness for fish and invertebrates.

Other benefits include cultural ecosystem services. The park administration organises guided visits for school children 

and other groups, and thematic seminars and workshops with local authorities and interested local stakeholders. 

Also,  an  ecological  research  area  was  established  in  cooperation  with  scientific  institutions  of  Bucharest  and  other 

nearby cities. The project includes the implementation of the first monitoring system for environmental parameters and 

bird species in the region. 

Twenty new jobs were temporarily created during the construction of the dam. More permanent economic benefits are 

to be expected from the development of tourism (the restoration of Comana wetlands is attracting an increasing number 

of tourists, especially during weekends) and from collaboration with scientific institutions in nearby cities. 

Strategic procedures and lessons learned 

The Giurgiu County Development Strategy for the period 2007 - 2012 established the conservation of natural heritage 

and biodiversity as one of its objectives, and included the restoration of Comana wetlands as a priority.

The Operational Programme Environment 2007 - 2013 provided a very good opportunity for the implementation of the 

project. The project was submitted together with representatives of the Comana village hall and the Administration of 

Comana Natural Park.

The project was also included in the Management Plan and Visit Strategy of the protected area. 

Conservation of natural heritage and biodiversity is one of the priorities of the Giurgiu County Development Strategy. In 

addition, the project is in line with the Regional Development Strategy.

Transferability to other areas

The Comana case shows that restoring wetlands delivers not only improvements in biodiversity and ecosystem ser-

vices, but also contributes to education, research and the creation of jobs.

To demonstrate the transferability of the approach in new contexts, workshops will be organised to facilitate exchange 

of experiential knowledge with the administration of similar parks or protected areas in Romania, other countries and 

research institutions.

.88

ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION OF COMANA WETLANDS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. Daniela Peicea - Project Manager, daniela_peicea@yahoo.com
SOURCE. http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-news-archives-2011-romania-two/main/ramsar/1-26-45-489%5e25548_4000_0__

Contacts 
Daniela Peicea - Project Manager, daniela_peicea@yahoo.com

Source 

http://surfnature.ctfc.cat/det_project.php?id=36

http://www.surf-nature.eu/uploads/media/SURF_Romania_example_28032011_01.pdf

4
0

.

T
R
A
P

.89

 
NATURESHIP
NATURE CONSERVATION AND 
WATER PROTECTION PLANNING 
IN THE BALTIC REGION

Key Message

Area of focus 

Integrating ecosystem services in land use planning is 

Integrated  river  basin  management,  recreation  and 

capable of providing multiple benefits through improved 

tourism, capacity building and skills development.

planning  decisions  by  the  use  of  a  GIS  tool  that  wel-

comes  both  development  and  nature  conservation. 

Cohesion  Policy  investment  in  tools  that  improve  the 

assessment and role of ecosystem services can have a 

knock-on effect that results in improved land use plans 

considering the multi-benefits from ecosystem services. 

Type, size and source of funding 

The  Natureship  project  is  part  of  the  Central  Baltic 

Interreg IVA Programme and a budget of €1.4 million.

Project background 

The coastal zones are of great value, not just in terms of nature and culture but also with regards to recreation. It is 

therefore important that their current management is carried out in a sustainable manner, so that future generations can 

also utilise and enjoy them. To succeed in this, knowledge and efficient public planning are crucial.

The project 

The  objective  of  the  project  ‘Integrated  coastal  zone  planning  and  management  in  the  Baltic  region’  is  to  facilitate 

physical planning in the coastal zone and establish new forms of management. The emphasis of the Natureship pro-

ject is for a novel approach to the planning and management of traditional rural landscapes and selected coastlines. 

The aim of the project is to create and restore an optimal ecosystem service network based on integrated sustainable 

coastal planning. The project will also assess how to achieve cost-effective planning and management of traditional rural 

biotopes in order to enhance public and biodiversity values. The principal purpose of the project has been to develop a 

GIS model that will facilitate the planning process by the public administration. The model is meant to provide guidance 

to administrators on regional as well as local levels who for example work with social planning on matters regarding 

building permits.

Achieved multiple benefits 

One objective of Natureship was to make better use of urban meadows through management plans. The aim was to 

improve access to these meadows for recreational purposes. As part of the project it was found that inhabitants were 

increasingly interested in the existence of well-maintained green areas, the presence of which were likely to have a posi-

tive impact on property prices within their vicinity. Consequently, the presence of green areas has also gained greater 

importance in how land use plans are prepared.

The GIS tool enabled a hot-spot analysis with the aim to identify the most vulnerable areas and to adapt development 

.90

SOURCE. http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=141261&lan=en

pressures in relation to these. This provided a better understanding of where development needs were more suitable 

spatially compared to other areas. 

Overall  the  funding  available  for  municipal/local  planning  is  shrinking,  therefore  the  multi-benefits  came  from  using 

these funds more efficiently. It also enabled local authorities to identify those areas that are most relevant for manage-

ment plans; the funds could therefore be allocated accordingly. As part of Natureship, fifteen management plans were 

developed. In developing these management plans it was envis-

aged that they would increase the attractiveness of the area thus 

attracting new residents/tax payers to the area. There were also 

plans  to  develop  a  database  portal  for  local  residents  for  their 

observations of their local environment. This would improve their 

understanding of ecosystem services and allow for their opinions 

to influence local land use plans. The improvement of these land 

use plans would provide socio-economic benefits, as described 

above. 

THE PROJECT DEVELOPER AND STAKEHOLDERS’ INVOLVEMENT

Natureship has a total of eleven partners: The Centre for Economic 
Development,  Transport  and  the  Environment  in  the  Southwest 
of Finland, the University of Turku Department of Geography and 
Geology, Metsähallitus, Luontopalvelut (Natural Heritage Services) in 
the cities of Hamina, Raisio and Salo, and the municipality of Vihti, 
Norrtälje Nature Conservation Foundation, the County Administrative 
Board of Gotland, Estonian Environmental Board and the University 
of Tartu. Another key stakeholder is the Stiftung für Umwelt und 
Natur (a foundation), which owns some of the rewetted areas.

In the case of Natureship the multiple benefits were not quantified but were assessed through the development of a 

GIS planning tool that aimed at improving planning decisions in terms of their consideration of ecosystem services. The 

achieved multiple benefits depended on the specific situations in which the model was used. 

Decision-makers  and  other  governing  bodies  in  society  were  constantly  confronted  with  questions  regarding  costs 

to society, revenue derived from action programmes, and threats to and the development of the coastal zone and its 

ecosystems. The aim of the GIS model developed was therefore to ensure that they receive better and more detailed 

knowledge regarding ecosystem services. Based on the existing maps, a GIS model has been produced that illustrates 

the conservation values and exploitation interests and which strives for sustainable development, welcoming both con-

servation and development.

Key project lessons learned

Environmentally focused Operational Programme: Overall the funded projects of the Central Baltic Programme are win-

wins, reflecting the holistic and proactive objectives that can be funded, and the high proportion of investment under 

Priority 1 (safe and healthy environment). Most of these projects have a spatial planning component and could be used 

as a model for the type of objectives that can be used for integrating the environment into land use planning from a ter-

ritorial cohesion point of view. A contributing factor to the innovative approach to Priority 1 was the considerable input by 

an Estonian researcher, who had an environmental background and an interest into ecosystem services. Her contribu-

tion was significant in developing the Central Baltic Programme. An indication that the quality of a Programme depends 

largely on the background and expertise of the individuals developing the Programme. 

4
0

.

T
R
A
P

.91

 
NATURESHIP

Strategic  Environmental  Assessment:  Interestingly  the  Operational  Programme  for  the  Central  Baltic  Interreg  IVA 

Programme includes an Annex on how the SEA has been taken into consideration in the decision-making/development 

of the Programme. Normally this tends to be a broad general statement by those making the decision, however in this 

case it is a detailed table on how mitigation measures have or have not been incorporated into the Programme. In addi-

tion the SEA attempted to further influence the impacts occurring during the project stage by providing guidelines on 

project selection criteria.

Land use plans: Land use plans have the potential to better consider the role of ecosystem services and the socio-

economic benefits. The GIS tool identifies the most vulnerable areas and this enables to put a priority order on where 

development needs are more suitable spatially compared to other areas. Overall the funding available for municipal/

local planning is shrinking and therefore the multi-benefits come from using these funds better and more efficiently. 

Transferability to other areas

The GIS tool and the overall approach are transferable. However, some adaptation might be required to better corre-

spond to the variation of land use plan systems among Member States.

Contacts 
Mika Orjala, Southwest Finland Regional Environment Centre, mika.orjala@ely-keskus.fi
Christina Huhtasaari, Gotland County Administrative Board, Christina.Huhtasaari@lansstyrelsen.se
Annastina Sarlin, Southwest Finland Regional Environment Centre, annastina.sarlin@ely-keskus.fi

Source 

Natureship (2012), Integrated planning and management in the Baltic Sea Region - a GIS-model elaborated in Gotland, 2012:11,  
http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=141261&lan=fi

Hjerp, P., Medarova-Bergstrom, M., Cachia, F., Evers, D., Grubbe, M., Hausemer, P., Kalinka, P., Kettunen, M., Medhurst, J., Peterlongo, G., Skinner, I. and 
ten Brink, P., (2011) Cohesion Policy and Sustainable Development: Supporting Paper 4: Case Studies, An Annex to the Final Report. A report for DG 
Regio, October 2011. 

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/sustainable_development/sd_supporting_paper_4.pdf

.92

 
PEATLAND RESTORATION IN 
MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN 

GERMANY

Key Message

Area of focus 

Restoring  peatlands  can  lead  to  low-cost  carbon  cap-

Nature-based carbon capture and storage.

ture and storage, provide multiple ecosystem services, 

generate income and support biodiversity. Involving the 

business sector by offering voluntary carbon credits is a 

way to ensure funding to peatland restoration projects.

Type, size and source of funding 

The total cost of the peatland rewetting projects in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, which were carried out between 2000 

and 2008, was €20 million. The European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund provided €15 million and the 

State of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern €5 million.

The private sector was involved in 2011 through the creation of carbon credits for the voluntary market. The Ministry for 

Agriculture, Environment and Consumer Protection of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern also contributed to the creation of the 

MoorFutures programme (see below).

The project 

Around 930,000 hectares of peatlands have been drained in Germany for agriculture, 300,000 of which in the area of 
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Peatland drainage causes emissions of around 20 million tonnes of CO2-eq. per year (Schäfer 
2009). 

Between  2000  and  2008,  a  29,764  hectares  area  of  peatlands  was  restored  in  Mecklenburg-Vorpommern,  by  raising 

THE PROJECT PROPONEN/DEVELOPER AND STAKEHOLDERS’ INVOLVEMENT

The main project developers were the Ministry of Agriculture, Environment and Con-
sumer Protection and the University of Greifswald. The former formulated a peatland 
restoration strategy (LUV MV 2009), which initiated the peatland restoration and con-
tributed to financing the rewetting projects. 

The  Ministry  for  Agriculture,  Environment  and  Consumer  Protection  of  Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern also commissioned to the university of Greifswald a study on the eco-
nomic  potential  of  different  land  use  options  and  a  model  of  the  emission  reduction 
potential of peatlands (the Greenhouse Gas Emission Site Type methodology – GEST 
(Couwenberg, 2011), which was used to established the MoorFuture Programme. Also, 
it  financed  the  dissemination  of  the  MoorFuture  project  (through  the  creation  of  a 
webpage and the preparation of flyers and brochures). Another key stakeholder is the 
Stiftung für Umwelt und Natur (a foundation), which owns some of the rewetted areas.

the water level to prevent further oxidation of the 

peat.

The establishment of the restoration project was 

facilitated by a reduction in demand for land for 

cattle ranching and fodder production, as well as 

by the high costs required to maintain drainage 

infrastructure  and  equipment.  Moreover,  the 

need for increased water storage was identified 

as an adaptive strategy to respond to the reduc-

tion in precipitation in north-east Germany due to 

climate change.

4
0

.

T
R
A
P

One of the biggest rewetting projects in the area is in the ‘Grosse Rosin’ bog (840 ha), which allowed the rewetted area to 

become a valuable habitat for rare birds like the white-winged black tern (Chlidonias leucopterus) and the Baillon’s crake 

(Porzana pusilla). Also, white-tailed eagles (Haliaeetus albicilla) and ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) now use the area for 

.93

 
PEATLAND RESTORATION IN MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN

PEATLAND RESTORATION IN MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN

hunting, and more than one thousand cranes use it as their resting place. Many typical wetland plant species started to 
re-populate the restored area. The project provided a reduction of 14 tonnes of CO2-eq. emissions per restored hectare (i.e. 
11,760 tonnes of CO2-eq. for the entire area).

In addition, in 2011 the Ministry for Agriculture, Environment and Consumer Protection of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern estab-

lished a system of carbon credits for the voluntary market, in order to involve the private sector in conservation projects 
in the area. The carbon credits were called MoorFutures (one MoorFuture corresponds to one tonne of CO2 per year and 
costs €35). The first Moorfuture project (Kieve Polder) was started in July 2012, and so far 8,000 MoorFutures were sold 

in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in about eight months, financing the restoration of 55 hectares.

The Ministry acts as a guarantor that the projects financed through the MoorFutures will be maintained for at least for a 

period of 30 or 50 years, depending on the project.

Achieved multiple benefits 

Peatland restoration improved biodiversity but it also led to a reduction in emissions of about 300,000 tCO2-eq per year 
(on  average  10.4  tCO2-eq  /hectares).  It  has  been  estimated  that  the  cost  of  avoided  emissions  range  between  €30 
and €50 per avoided tCO2-eq. over a period of 30 to 50 years. In addition, additional income can be obtained using the 
restored peatlands for alternative land uses that do not reduce the carbon stock. Examples are extensive grazing, the 

production of reed (usable as building material and for biofuel production), sphagnum mosses (which can be used as 

substrate in horticulture) or alder forests (for the production of high quality furniture).

Other benefits include the improvement of water quality and cultural ecosystem services (the latter due to the increased 

recreation/tourism potential offered by the restored peatlands).

Strategic procedures and lessons learned 

In 2000, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Environment and Consumer Protection of the state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 

formulated a peatland restoration strategy, mainly financed through the state and the EU.

Barriers and Solutions: The cost of restoring peatlands can be high. In Mecklenburg-Vorpommern it was estimated at 

€5,000 to €9,000 per hectare when land was purchased from farmers (note: when rewetted peatland is public land the 

cost is obviously lower). Additionally, the cost of forgone income from conventional agriculture is on average €585 per 

hectare (2007/8 data) and the foregone subsidies are often higher than €300 per hectare. However, it must be taken into 

account that the investment for restoration is only needed once, at the beginning of the project, whereas the emissions 
costs are avoided annually. Also, the cost per avoided tonne of CO2 is lower than other options (see above). Another 
obstacle is the lack of public awareness on the link between climate change and mire conservation. For this reason it is 

important to improve public knowledge on the role peatlands can play in climate mitigation.

.94

PEATLAND RESTORATION IN MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN

Transferability to other areas

The idea behind MoorFutures was taken up by the state of Brandenburg, which now offers a similar Programme.

The price for peatland restoration depends primarily, on the price of land and the opportunity cost for lost agricultural 

production (which in turn depends on the market prices for agricultural products and inputs, and on agricultural sub-

sidies). Peatland restoration will be cheaper, and therefore more affordable, in areas with lower land costs and lower 

opportunity costs.

In general, peatland restoration can offer benefits across many EU Member States (e.g. UK, Ireland, Finland) and also 

in the European Neighbourhood countries (e.g. Ukraine, Belarus). It is a cost-effective strategy for achieving reduction 
of CO2 emissions, while offering a wide range of ecosystem services (e.g. climate adaptation, water quality regulation, 
improvement of biodiversity, increased tourism potential).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. Dr. habil. Thorsten Permien. Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz, T.Permien@lu.mv-regierung.de
SOURCE. www.fv-berlin.de

Contacts 
Dr. habil. Thorsten Permien. Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz, T.Permien@lu.mv-regierung.de

Source 

Couwenberg J., Thiele A., Tanneberger F., Jürgen A., Bärisch S., Dubovik D., Liashchynskaya N., Michaelis D., Minke M., Skuratovich A., Joosten H. (2011). 
Assessing greenhouse gas emissions from peatlands using vegetation as a proxy. Hydrobiologia, 674 (1): 67-89.

Federal Environment Agency (2007) Economic Valuation of Environmental Damage. Methodological Convention for Estimates of Environmental 
Externalities. Dessau, 85p. URL: http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/3482.pdf (last access May 12, 2010)

Förster, J. mainly based on LU - Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (2009), Schäfer (2009), 
TEEBcase: Peatlands. http://www.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Peatlands-restoration-for-carbon-sequestration-Germany.pdf 

Permien, T. (2012) MoorFutures – Innovative Finanzierung von Projekten zur Moorwiedervernässung in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Natur und 
Landschaft 87, 77-80.Schäfer, A. (2009) Moore und Euros – die vergessenen Millionen. Archiv für Forstwesen und Landschaftsökologie 43, 156-160. 

LU MV (2009) Konzept zum Schutz und zur Nutzung der Moore. Fortschreibung des Konzeptes zur Bestandssicherung und zur Entwicklung der 
Moore. Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Schwerin, 109p.

Webpage of MoorFuture: http://www.moorfutures.de/ 

4
0

.

T
R
A
P

.95

 
SIGMA PLAN II  

BELGIUM

Key Message

Area of focus 

Investing  in  ecosystem  services  can  provide  a  wide 

Investment  in  green  infrastructure;  conservation  and 

range  of  benefits, 

including  flood  protection, 

the 

improvement  of  ecosystem  services  and  biodiversity; 

improvement  of  biodiversity,  contribution  to  climate 

climate adaptation.

adaptation, water purification and retention, recreation 

and cultural ecosystem services.

Type, size and source of funding 

The total cost of the Sigma Plan II over the period 2006-2030 is €469 million (i.e. about €100,000 per hectare), including 

the costs related to the construction and adaptation of dykes and sluices, land purchase and creation of green infrastruc-

tures. The financing is being provided by the Flemish government. 

In addition, an investment for flanking policies of €42 million for agricultural projects and €8 million for rural recreation 

plans is planned (altogether approximately €10,000 per hectare).

The project 

The  Sigma  Plan  II  is  a  long-term  strategy  to  manage  flood  protection  and  nature  restoration  of  the  Scheldt  estuary  in 

Belgium. It followed the Sigma Plan I, which was prepared in 1977 as a response to a disastrous flood in the Belgian 

Scheldt estuary in 1976. The Sigma Plan II includes a list of 

50 projects to be carried out between 2006 and 2030, cov-

ering 5,000 hectares over the full length of the Zeeschelde 

river and its tributaries. The projects aim at flood protection 

(through a combination of higher dykes with flood plains and 

wetland restoration) and nature restoration along the Scheldt 

river  and  its  tributaries.  There  are  two  main  categories  of 

measures that contribute to both flood safety and nature res-

toration:  the  restoration  of  estuarine  processes  with  muds 

and marshes and the establishment of wetlands in order to 

create habitats for species protection. 

THE PROJECT DEVELOPER AND STAKEHOLDERS’ INVOLVEMENT

The Sigma Plan II was prepared and financed by the Flemish government. 
The waterway authority Waterwegen en Zeekanaal (W&Z) is leading and 
coordinating the project and the Nature and Woodlands Agency (ANB) is 
collaborating with it. The Flemish Land Agency (VLM) assists in developing 
the supporting agricultural policy. The Spatial Planning, Housing Policy and 
Built  Heritage  Department  contributes  to  the  spatial  translation  of  the 
Sigma Plan II. Local governments, agricultural organisations, nature associa-
tions, hunters, fishermen, tourism and the hotel and catering industry are 
also involved in the realisation of the Plan, as the implementation of the 
projects follows a participation process with all key stakeholder categories.

Every  five  years,  a  new  batch  of  Sigma  Plan  II  projects  starts.  For  each  project  the  first  step  is  the  identification  and 

selection of a location for flood control. Next, the project is planned by a multidisciplinary team of scientists, economists, 

sociologists, landscape architects and ecologists, and with the participation of local government administrations, nature 

associations, hunters, fishermen.

The selection of the projects that were included in the Sigma Plan II was based on a Social Cost-Benefit Analysis (SCBA). 

.96

The SCBA showed that an approach based on improving the natural infrastructure (through a combination of dikes and 

flood plains) would be cheaper than the construction and maintenance of a storm surge barrier near Antwerp, which was 

one of the hypotheses that were taken into consideration when preparing the Plan. The cost-benefit analysis took into 

account the ecosystem services using a contingent valuation approach for the recreational value of new floodplains.

SOURCE. http://www.sigmaplan.be

Achieved multiple benefits

The projects included in the Sigma Plan II aimed to significantly improve biodiversity. Ecological rehabilitation targets 

were defined through scientific research, in order to ensure the reestablishment of the estuary’s ecological processes 

and to improve their organisation, vigour and resistance.

The Sigma Plan II will increase the provision of regulating ecosystem services in the area (i.e. flood protection, nutrient 

recycling, water purification, carbon sequestration, erosion control), while improving cultural services (it is estimated that 

the restored areas will receive 150,000 visitors per year). 

The SCBA valued the flood protection benefits at €740 million, the recreational benefits at €22 million and the ecological 

benefits/ecosystem services at €130 million (actualised benefits for the period 2010-2100).

The SCBA demonstrated that the benefits of the Sigma Plan II are higher than the costs.

Strategic procedures and lessons learned 

The  Sigma  Plan  II  adopted  a  stepwise  strategy.  First  of  all,  the  Flemish  Government  defined  the  areas  where  flood 

control needed to be created in a document called The Most Desirable Alternatives. For each project, the details were 

established through a land use plan, which described how the spatial aspects of an area would be handled. The land 

use plan was prepared by a multidisciplinary team that included scientists, economists, sociologists, landscape archi-

tects and ecologists. It benefitted from inputs from the local government administrations, nature associations, hunters, 

and fishermen. In this way the objectives and knowledge of a wide range of stakeholders is taken into account, which 

improves the quality and acceptability of the projects.

4
0

.

T
R
A
P

.97

 
SIGMA PLAN II

Transferability to other areas

The  Sigma  Plan  II  adopted  a  stepwise  strategy.  First  of  all,  the  Flemish  Government  defined  the  areas  where  flood 

control needed to be created in a document called The Most Desirable Alternatives. For each project, the details were 

established through a land use plan, which described how the spatial aspects of an area would be handled. The land 

use plan was prepared by a multidisciplinary team that included scientists, economists, sociologists, landscape archi-

tects and ecologists. It benefitted from inputs from the local government administrations, nature associations, hunters, 

and fishermen. In this way the objectives and knowledge of a wide range of stakeholders is taken into account, which 

improves the quality and acceptability of the projects.

Contacts 
Leo De Nocker, leo.denocker@vito.be 

Source 

Broekx S., Smets S., Liekens I., Bulckaen D. and De Nocker L. (2011). Designing a long-term flood risk management plan for the Scheldt estuary 
using a risk-based approach’, Natural Hazards, 57 (2): 245-266.

De Nocker L., Broekx S. and Liekens I. (2004). Maatschappelijke kosten-batenanalyse voor de actualisatie van het Sigmaplan, Conclusies op 
hoofdlijnen, Tussentijds rapport in opdracht van Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, LIN AWZ, Afdeling Zeeschelde, door Vito i.s.m. Tijdelijke 
Vereniging RA-IMDC, Vito, September, available from www.sigmaplan.be.

De Nocker L and Mazza L., Freshwater and Wetlands Management and Restoration. Report for the project Green Infrastructure Implementation 
and Efficiency – ENV.B.2./SER/2010/0059, http://www.ieep.eu/assets/902/GI_Case_Analysis_4_-_Freshwater_and_Wetlands.pdf.

Meire P., Ysebaert T., van Damme S., van den Bergh E., Maris T. and Struyg E. (2005). The Scheldt estuary: a description of a changing ecosystem, 
Hydrobiologia, vol 540, nos 1–3, pp1–11.

Web page of Sigma Plan: http://www.sigmaplan.de/

.98

CROSS-BORDER GREEN 
INFRASTRUCTURE 
ALPINE-CARPATHIAN CORRIDOR 

AUSTRIA, SLOVAKIA

Key Message

Area of focus 

The  Alpine-Carpathian  Corridor  (ACC)  project  is  an 

Green 

infrastructure,  urban/regional  planning  and 

example  of  a  successfully  designed  project  driven  by 

development,  transport,  tourism,  nature  protection, 

a  coalition  of  civil  society  organisations  (CSOs)  sup-

ecological connectivity.

ported  by  regional  authorities.  Driven  by  the  common 

goal  of  developing  a  coherent  long-term  strategy,  the 

CSOs successfully identified and implemented a range of measures necessary to preserve the ecological integrity of the 

cross-border region (and associated economic potential in sectors like tourism, cycling, hiking and hunting).

Type, size and source of funding 

The overall budget of the project was around €1.75 million. The project started under the European Territorial Cooperation 

Objective of the ERDF. The project was in line with funding opportunities offered by the Cross-border Cooperation Programme 

Slovakia-Austria which set out objetcives for biodiversity and nature protection. In addition to ERDF, which contributed 

about €1.65 million, co-funding was also provided by the Austian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and 

Water Management; the Department of Spatial Planning and Regional Policy of Lower Austria; the Department of Nature 

Protection of Lower Austria; Regional Management Burgenland; and national co-financing in Slovakia.

Project background

Both the Alps and the Carpathian mountain ranges are important habitats for wildlife. The wild animal population’s genetic 

diversity between these two biodiversity nodes along the traditional migration route of the Alpine-Carpathian Corridor is 

hindered by the expanding traffic infrastructure and areas of intensifying land use (built-up areas and agricultural intensifi-

cation). In 2001, the University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences (BOKU), on behalf of the Austrian Federal 

Ministry for Traffic, Innovation and Technology (BMVIT), carried out a first examination of the barriers within the national 

motorway  network  and  wildlife  corridors. A  broad  partnership  was  afterwards  formed  between Austrian  and  Slovakian 

4
0

.

T
R
A
P

organisations which joined forces to build and preserve a coherent green corridor from the Alps to the Carpathians and 

identified key actions to re-establish and maintain the Corridor in a feasibility study conducted under the lead of WWF 

and supported by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Vienna Office. The support of the provincial gov-

ernment of Lower Austria was instrumental to secure funds from ERDF to help do a range of exemplary measures and 

produce a precise action plan for other measures to be carried out. The three year cross-border and cross-sectoral project 

started in December 2008 and ended in December 2012 (Naumann et al., 2011). There has been a follow up to the project 

until December 2013 as not all money was spent until December 2012 despite all planned measures having been imple-

mented by that date. Thus, in the context of the follow up project, a range of measures included in the action plan that was 

developed through the project will be implemented.

.99

 
SOURCE. www.carpathianconvention.org/tl_files/carpathiancon/Downloads/
03%20Meetings%20and%20Events/Implementation%20Committee/20121205-07_CCIC_Meeting_Vienna/Presentations/AKK_project.pdf

CROSS-BORDER GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

The project

The  project  aimed  to  help  construct  and  preserve  a  coherent  120  km  Corridor  from  the  Alps  to  the  Carpathians. 

Implementation measures carried out within the framework of this cross-border project included the planning of ‘green 

bridges’ over highways as well the creation of suitable habitat patches or stepping stones within the corridor, routing along 

existing bikeways, development (by project partners) and signing (by political leaders and other stakeholders ) of a joint 

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) facilitated by UNEP Vienna – Interim Secretariat of the Carpathian Convention for 

the protection of the Alpine-Carpathian Corridor, related public awareness campaigns and environmental education.

Achieved multiple benefits 

Outputs of the project included: a joint final conference on 4 December 2012, the opening of the cycling trail along the 

Corridor, the elaboration and signing of the Strategic Action Plan/Memorandum of Understanding, the construction of a 

green bridge in Austria (still under construction as of mid-2013) and securing of financing for a green bridge in Slovakia. 

Benefits for biodiversity inside and outside protected areas in the region include the improvement of habitat-structure and 

migratory routes. The project helps to reduce impacts from future developments on the Corridor due to the information 

outputs of the project (e.g. detailed Corridor models for bottlenecks) that should provide a basis for better informed spatial 

planning in the future and allow a more effective use of planning tools such as EIA. No quantified estimates of socio-

economic benefits are available for the Alpine Carpathian Corridor although the quantified estimates could have included 

recreational visitor numbers (ecotourism benefits) and provision of recreational area (e.g. bike path). Environmental educa-

tion and communication involved lessons for about 1,400 students (elementary school) (in SK and AT) and a seminar for 

84 teachers within the ACC region.

Key project lessons learned/success factors

Facilitating the emergence of projects through the provision of adequate financing options: A clearly identified barrier to 

the implementation of this kind of project is the lack of stability in financial flows. The absence of pre-financing in some EU 

funding schemes makes it difficult for small NGOs to lead projects or even participate without the cooperation of and pre-

financing from a source such as the national government. The Regional Government of Lower Austria thus assumed this 

lead role and supplied up to 50% of the needed pre-financing when needed. As this instrument does not exist in Slovakia, it 

was necessary to find independent sources of funding (e.g. solicit bank loans) to ensure a stable financial flow. In addition, 

a strategic selection of the project’s lead partner was required in order to ensure sufficient financing for the smaller project 

partners during the waiting periods of reimbursement. There will not always be project partners suitable to play such a lead 

role, which underlines the importance of making clear information available to NGOs or potentially even raising awareness/

building capacity among local NGOs in order to help them develop projects that may be funded under the Programmes in 

place.

Building  partnerships  for  the  future: The  participative  approach  to  managing  this  green  infrastructure  project,  although 

adding complexity, proved worthwhile: while the regional government was in charge, there was strong cooperation with 

NGOs, universities, motorway companies and national parks; input was provided by an advisory board of stakeholders 

and independent experts as well as a steering group with representatives of the most important (regional) governments. 

.100

CROSS-BORDER GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

This has allowed for a very good exchange and co-ordination as the effective delivery of the project required that different 

stakeholders with very different backgrounds work together towards achieving the same aim.

Increasing awareness that will help deliver objectives beyond the project’s duration: Actors in nature protection and regional 

development are very aware of the undermined ecological connectivity in the region and the funding opportunities in ERDF 

Programmes (in Cross-border Cooperation Programmes). The information and support for applicants in the context of the 

Cross-border Cooperation Programme Slovakia-Austria was very good. The level of awareness as regards the need for 

ecological connectivity for biodiversity conservation within the political sphere was also sufficient to ensure political support 

to the project. Given the more limited awareness of the general public with regards to the challenges for biodiversity, infor-

mation dissemination was an important component of the project. The project kick-off in the region included an invitation 

to all local players, the development of a bilingual homepage, and the preparation of articles on the project. Furthermore, 

there were efforts tailored to specific groups, flyers with information sent to involved communities, education programmes 

in schools, and guide-education in the protected areas.

Long term sustainability through concluded joint Memorandum of Understanding and awareness on various levels: The 

elaboration and signature of the joint MoU between the Slovak and Austrian national and regional authorities, and leading 

motorway companies (ASFINAG and NDS) established a framework for future cooperation on transport and infrastructure, 

agriculture and nature protection, and spatial planning. Moreover by including specific commitments by these stakeholders, 

the long-term sustainability of the project was ensured. Throughout this MoU and the demonstrated commitment by polit-

ical leaders, the project has gained significant attention at the EU and global levels, inspiring similar action/approaches 

in other regions. The project has been recognised as a flagship project in the context of the EU Strategy for the Danube 

Region as well as is included as a flagship project in the UNEP Annual Report 2012. In addition to this, the project has 

received several awards and was amongst the 5 finalists of the RegioStars Awards 2012. 

Transferability to other areas

The project can therefore serve as an important source of inspiration for similar bilateral projects not only in other parts of 

the Carpathian region but also other cross-border regions across Europe where ecological coherence of the wider land-

scape needs to be preserved. Developing a follow-up project to continue to implement the MoU and Strategic Action Plan 

is also planned and should be eligible for funding under the 2014-2020 funding period.

Contacts 
Sylvia Hysek (sylvia.hysek@euregio-weinviertel.eu), Weinviertel Management
Mr. Harald Egerer/ Mr. Matthias Jurek (harald.egerer@unvienna.org / matthias.jurek@unvienna.org), UNEP Vienna Interim Secre-
tariat of the Carpathian Convention (ISCC), Project Partner
Other contacts : Brigitta Mirwald (Regional Government of Lower Austria, Lead Partner), Milan Janák (Daphne, Project Partner) and 
Gerhard Egger (WWF Austria, Project Partner) 

Source 

Naumann, S., M. Davis, T. Kaphengst, M. Pieterse and M. Rayment (2011): Design, implementation and cost elements of Green Infrastructure 
projects. Final report to the European Commission, DG Environment, Contract no. 070307/2010/577182/ETU/F.1, Ecologic institute and GHK 
Consultation, URL: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/biodiversity/pdf/GI_DICE_FinalReport.pdf

SURF nature (2011) Green Infrastructure – Sustainable Investments for the Benefit of Both People and Nature, URL: http://ekologie.upol.cz/ku/
fobop/podklady/Green_Infrastructure_110321_screen.pdf

See also: http://surfnature.ctfc.cat/det_project.php?id=39

Website of the Alpen Karpaten Korridor, URL: http://www.alpenkarpatenkorridor.at/

Websites of the Alpine and Carpathian Conventions: www.carpathianconvention.org, www.alpconv.org

www.carpathianconvention.org/tl_files/carpathiancon/Downloads/03%20Meetings%20and%20Events/Implementation%20Committee/20121205-07_
CCIC_Meeting_Vienna/Presentations/AKK_project.pdf

4
0

.

T
R
A
P

.101

 
GREEN CORRIDORS 
CONTRACTS PROJECT 
IN THE RHÔNE-ALPES REGION   

FRANCE

Key Message

Area of focus 

This  project  was  designed  to  ensure  the  optimal  use 

Green infrastructure, biodiversity, sustainable develop-

of the Funds for activities that would generate capacity, 

ment, tourism, agriculture.

tools  and  awareness  required  for  long-term  invest-

ment in the region’s natural capital. In particular, it was 

designed to ensure that the needs of local stakeholders 

Type, size and source of funding 

were taken into account and strong partnerships, which 

Total  of  €18.8  million  of  which  €7.1  million  is  from 

are key to ensuring effective mainstreaming of biodiver-

ERDF. As of 2012, the Rhône-Alpes region had spent 

sity objectives, were developed.

35% of the available funds for the 2007-2013 period.

Project background 

The natural heritage and biodiversity of the Rhône-Alpes region is threatened today by increased human activity which is 

the main cause of environmental degradation and pressure on biodiversity. In particular an acceleration of urban sprawl 

leads to increasing fragmentation of the natural environment by different types of infrastructure. In order to facilitate the 

movement  of  wildlife  and  preserve  the  rich  local  biological  network,  the  region  has  adopted  a  strategy,  the  ‘Regional 

Scheme of Ecological Coherence’ (SRCE) to preserve and restore a series of ‘Green Corridors’ on its territory. The devel-

opment  of  such  regional  schemes  is  a  requirement  established  in  the  country’s  revised  nature  protection  laws  which 

applies to all regions. The ERFD provided the means to develop new operational and financial tools to fund projects to 

connect or re-connect different natural core areas in order to preserve the ecological continuity of the region.

The project 

The ‘Green Corridor Contracts’ were agreed upon on the basis of a detailed action programme that is planned for a 5 

year-period. A contractual document specifies the technical and financial commitments of the region, the organisation that 

is overall responsible for the contract, those responsible for implementing the actions, and other funders. The region’s 

financial contribution on average covers about 50% of the project’s cost and the grant finance may not exceed €1 million 

per contract.

The objectives of these Contracts are twofold: the restoration of corridors, ensuring their sustainability, and the improve-

ment of knowledge on species and their habitat. They also encourage ‘green’ agricultural practices to protect biodiversity 

and counter obstacles to biodiversity continuity. The Contracts play a key role in the sustainable development of the region 

by mainstreaming biodiversity issues into all policies (urban, agricultural, etc.), fostering awareness-raising on the long term 

objectives, and creating long-lasting infrastructure that preserves the ecological continuity of the region.

The starting point for the process is the mapping of the ecological networks in the region, which forms the working basis 

for all local players wishing to engage in ecological projects in their areas and ensures they are both participants and ben-

eficiaries of the project.

.102

SOURCE. http://www.nrg4sd.org/sites/default/files/default/files/content/public/news/EGM/rhone_alpes.pdf

As of 2012, five Contracts had been agreed upon (covering 5% of the Rhône-Alpes region) and four others were in prepa-

ration, of which one is a cross-border Contract with Switzerland. 

Each  Contract  is  based  on  a  detailed  action  programme,  developed  over  a  5-year  period,  which  identifies  a  leading 

partner and a provisional budget for each action. The region sets out its overall financial allocation to each objective of the 

Contract. The project is organised around 4 main types of actions: inclusion in regulatory instruments, restoration work, 

scientific monitoring and local governance.

Achieved multiple benefits 

One of the objectives of the project was to take into account the services delivered by ecosystems sustaining livelihoods 

and jobs, economic activities, leisure activities and environmental education as well as their contribution to the improve-

ment of quality of life and public health (reduction of pesticides in soils, water and agricultural products) and road safety 

(fewer collisions with wild animals).

The Contracts resulted in: the construction of crossing points for wildlife, the planting of hedgerows, the implementation 

of agro-environmental measures, the restoration of riverbanks, awareness-raising actions, the management of wetlands, 

and the acquisition of land by the regional authorities. Finally, the project allowed the mapping of ecological networks in 

Rhône-Alpes and enabled considerable progress in the understanding and consideration of biodiversity. For example, it 

has identified :

  650 areas of conflict between nature and man-made infrastructures;

  350 obstacles to ecological connectivity; and

  1,800 weirs.

Moreover, the Contracts have created jobs, with the region financing 50% of the salary of the engineers responsible for 

their coordination.

Once the financing under the Contracts is absorbed, the cost of the daily functioning of the infrastructures is expected to 

be relatively small. Management costs should be relatively low and can be assured by local and regional authorities alone.

4
0

.

T
R
A
P

Key project lessons learned/success factors 

Stakeholder involvement: With the ambition of being a leader in the development of a green infrastructure at the regional 

scale, the Rhône-Alpes region took a long-term perspective and laid down the basis of a new sustainable policy based 

on new governance principles and the integration of stakeholders in the decision-making processes. The partnership has 

allowed the stakeholders to develop a real sense of the issues linked to biodiversity conservation in their region. Thanks to 

.103

 
Green Corridors Contracts project in the Rhône-Alpes region

this approach, all stakeholders in the region are at the same time actors and beneficiaries of the project.

The way the Contracts are perceived as a means to reflect the reality of local stakeholders’ needs (farmers, local authori-

ties, equipment providers, NGOs, water boards, etc.). Contracts are drawn up through a permanent dialogue between the 

services of the State, the towns involved, associations and local stakeholders. This approach contributes to underlining the 

role of local governance in fostering dialogue and cooperation. Besides, the large number of stakeholders involved in this 

process enables the development of interregional and supra-regional partnerships.

Thus, a key success factor in the project was the development of strong partnerships: the actions are jointly led by local 

associations, road infrastructure organisations, infrastructure users, land owners, farmers, and local authorities. A total of 

71 public partners, 19 associations, and 8 private companies are involved in this elaborate, multidisciplinary approach.

The above also lays the basis for the everyday functioning of green infrastructures after the initial, more important up-front 

investments supported by EU funding. Thus, while the mapping of the territory and the definition of ecological continuity 
are quite costly, this is mainly an up front cost. EU funding is therefore an important and necessary financial injection 
to a long-term approach aiming not only at changing the infrastructures of the region, but also at fostering awareness and 

the mainstreaming of biodiversity issues in all policies.

Transferability to other areas

Under a new legislation in France all French regions are expected to develop ‘Regional Schemes of Ecological Coherence’ 

(SRCE). This project provides an ideal framework for turning these schemes into practical measures on the ground using 

co-financing under the ERDF. Other EU regions could optimise this spatial planning if they adopt a similar approach to the 

one presented in this case study.

Contacts 
Biodiversity Unit in the Region’s administration:
Julien SEMELET; e-mail: jsemelet@rhonealpes.fr
Hélène GUILLOY; e-mail : hguilloy@rhonealpes.fr 

Source 

European Commission (2012) RegioStar Awards 2012 – Presentation of the finalists, URL: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperate/regions_
for_economic_change/doc/regiostars/2012/regiostars_finalists_2012.pdf

Rhone Alpes (2012), Green Corridor Contracts, URL: http://biodiversite.rhonealpes.fr/documents/corridors/NOTE_Green%20corridors%20contracts.pdf

Website on the Contrats “corridors biologiques” (in French): 

http://biodiversite.rhonealpes.fr/spip.php?rubrique39

.104

BENEFITS OF GREEN 
INFRASTRUCTURE
SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF 
CONSTRUCTED URBAN WETLANDS

Nummela, FINLAND

Key Message

Constructed  wetlands  can  help  increase  biodiversity  while  at  the  same  time  providing  ecosystem  services  such  as 

erosion and flood control, reduction of pollutants in runoff water, and opportunities for recreation and education. Such 

benefits can be successfully integrated into urban planning and management processes. Supporting the development 

of urban wetlands with an aim to achieve benefits for both biodiversity and human wellbeing are well suited for funding 

under the EU Cohesion Policy that promotes resource efficiency (e.g. cost-effective solutions) in risk prevention and 

management, with a dedicated emphasis on green urban regeneration.

Area of focus 

Type, size and source of funding 

Green infrastructure, nature based water management, 

Initial project costs related to the construction of the wet-

green urban regeneration.

land were around €65,000, of which €40,000 came from 

Vihti  municipality  and  €25,000  came  from  the  state’s 

regional authority of the Uusimaa Centre for Economic 

Development, Transport and the Environment (UUDELY). The project has continued with a 2012-2017 joint EU funded 

project Urban Oases, with a total budget of €3.4 million, to the University of Helsinki Department of Forest Sciences the 

Municipality of Vihti, the UUDELY, and the Water Protection Association of the River Vantaa and Helsinki Region.

Project background

Land-use changes and management practices (mainly related to agriculture and urban development) within the Lake 

Enäjärvi watershed (Municipality of Vihti, Uusimaa Region, Southern Finland) have resulted in poor water quality and 

related adverse impacts such as increased algal blooms and fish mortality. Within  the Enäjärvi watershed, a 550 hec-

tare  sub-watershed,  covering  15%  of  the  entire  area,  has  been  particularly  affected  by  intense  land-use  around  the 

Vihti suburb of Nummela. This has resulted in a significant flow of waste- and runoff water into the lake and/or one of its 

tributary streams, Kilsoi. Furthermore, land-use practices within the Kilsoi watershed cause rain and snowmelt events to 

be followed by flashy flows of polluted runoff water into the stream, degrading the stream ecosystem. As a consequence, 

problems such as erosion, flooding, draught, habitat degradation and low water quality have been common in the area, 

limiting local people from access to and enjoyment of their surrounding natural environment.

4
0

.

T
R
A
P

The project

To improve the situation, the existing unsustainable means of disposal of runoff water was examined at the watershed 

level, seeking solutions through a holistic assessment of watershed processes and dynamics. As a result, new wetlands 

were created along the heavily degraded stream corridor to compensate for land-use changes within the watershed and 

to restore lost stream corridor habitats. In addition, a large wetland park named the Nummela Gateway Wetland Park 

was established at the mouth of the Kilsoi stream. The construction of wetlands was led by the project team and sup-

ported by a range of local and regional stakeholders (see below).

.105

 
BENEFITS OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

SOURCE. http://www.helsinki.fi/urbanoases/Nummela/Prototypes/index_proto.html

Achieved multiple benefits 

The  results  clearly  show  that  the  constructed  wetlands  play  a  crucial  role  in  regulating  the  flow  of  runoff  water  and 

improving water quality within the watershed. The Nummela Gateway wetland has successfully reduced sediment loads 

to Lake Enäjärvi, even during snowmelt runoff in spring when biological activity of wetlands is low. Furthermore, the 

overall capacity of the wetland to improve water quality increases each year as the vegetation coverage increases and 

matures. However, weather conditions throughout the hydrological year impact the wetland’s overall capacity to clean-

up during snowmelt. For example, heavy and eroding rain events in early winter may saturate wetland sediment holding 

surfaces, resulting in a lower sediment trapping capacity during snowmelt the following spring. Improvements in water 

quality also contribute to reducing health risks (e.g. toxic algal blooms) and fish mortality in Lake Enäjärvi.

In addition to the water related environmental benefits, the constructed wetland areas have provided a range of recrea-

tional and cultural benefits. The areas are a popular destination for everyday recreation (jogging, dog walking etc.) and 

they also serve educational purposes. A nature trail leads visitors past different types of landscapes, from dry meadows 

to wetlands, all the way to the lake Enäjärvi shore. Along the trail there are illustrative signs that provide useful infor-

mation on the site history, watershed characteristics, and site design goals and establishment, as well as the on-site 

vegetation and fauna.

With regards to biodiversity, wetland vegetation was allowed to self-establish on constructed landforms. This resulted 

in a rapid establishment of taxonomically rich flora, dominated by native wetland species. The wetlands have become a 

habitat for threatened amphibian species (frogs and a salamander) and several bird species (e.g. mallard, goldeneye, 

teal,  nightingale  and  willow  warbler).  Numerous  insect  species  also  inhabit  the  wetlands  and  the  Gateway  Wetland 

includes spawning grounds for the lake fish. 

It was estimated that the cost of enhancing the existing stream corridor and establishing the wetland park to manage 

runoff from the altered watershed was significantly less than the costs of constructing pipe and culvert storm / runoff 

water drainage systems. The implementation costs of restoring 250 meters of the most severely eroded and altered 

Kilsoi stream into an open and vegetated stream corridor amounted to €25,000 (total). The estimated costs of conven-

tional conveyance culverts (i.e. pipes allowing continuous flow of runoff water underground) would have been €125,000 

(€50,000 per 100 meters) at the clayey site. Similarly, the total cost of establishing the Nummela Gateway Wetland Park 

was €62,000 for two hectares of park area (including the construction of 1 hectare of inundated area, nature trail, and 

125 planted native trees). The estimated cost of a conventional park was €100 per m2 (amounting to several hundred 

thousands of euro for 2 ha area). Also, no re-planting of implemented vegetation – which is typically essential for urban 

parks after the first two years - was necessary, making the one-off costs of the wetland park a cheaper option. Further, 

the maintenance costs of the wetland park are foreseen to be minimal, including upkeep of the nature trail (annual), and 

maintenance of wetland open meadows and sediment trapping pool (once every five to ten years).

.106

BENEFITS OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

Strategic procedures and lessons learned 

Participatory land-use planning: Participatory methods were used to integrate the needs of local people into the design, 

planning and implementation of the project. This planning process resulted in the municipality acquiring land along the 

stream and dedicating it as a ‘functional’ zone for water protection. Securing this core zone – and positive results in 

managing it - provided a starting point for further development of urban green infrastructure in Nummela. Further plans 

for constructing a continuous buffer wetland park along the stream corridor has already been integrated into municipal-

ity’s land-use plans (see also below).  

Building partnerships: Participatory approach and engagement of local stakeholders in the design and implementation 

of the process were found beneficial to long-term success. The project was initiated in partnership with environmental, 

planning and technical authorities, and led by active team of researchers from the University of Helsinki. In addition, the 

local association for water protection (VESY ry) supported the project from the very beginning with several voluntary 

actions related to public engagement. The Uusimaa Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment 

(UUDELY)  has  participated  in  project  management  and  monitoring,  providing  guidance  and  support  at  the  regional 

level. Appropriate technical expertise (e.g. sustainable landscape design and monitoring) has been secured by involving 

experts from the University of Helsinki, Luode Consulting Oy, the UUDELY, and the Water Protection Association of the 

River Vantaa and Helsinki Region. Finally, the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (SLL) supported communi-

cation and environmental education activities.

Importance of monitoring outcomes: Convincing decision-makers and stakeholders of the multiple benefits related to 

investment in natural solutions such as wetland creation is a common barrier to financing green infrastructure under the 

EU Cohesion Policy. This case study shows how investment in monitoring facilitates the verification of wetland restora-

tion and/or creation benefits. Valuation of the gained benefits allows for fully informed decisions, increasing political and 

public support. The verified positive outcomes of Nummela Gateway Wetland Park have supported the construction of 

another multipurpose wetland park in Nummela named the ‘Niittu’ Wetland initiated in winter 2013. The Niittu wetland is 

planned to include intermittently inundated wet meadows and clay stream habitat, with water flowing through wide areas 

of wetland vegetation increasing water purification capacity.

Transferability to other areas

The Nummela case study provides a good evidence base for exploring the possibilities of nature based water man-

agement – with associated multiple benefits - in other urban areas within the EU. Monitoring was carried out for many 

parameters in implemented water mitigation landscapes of varying design. Monitoring demonstrates the links between 

a designed structure and a verified outcome. The knowledge gained supports informed decision-making for large scale 

urban planning and site design alike.

Contacts 
Outi Salminen (outi.m.salminen@helsinki.fi ) Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland

Source 

Salminen, O., Ahponen, H., Valkama, P., Vessman, T., Rantakokko, K., Vaahtera, E., Taylor, A., Vasander, H. and Eero Nikinmaa (2013) TEEB Nordic 
case: Benefits of green infrastructure - socio-economic importance of constructed wetlands (Nummela, Finland). In Kettunen et al. Socio-
economic importance of ecosystem services in the Nordic Countries - Scoping assessment in the context of The Economics of Ecosystems and 
Biodiversity (TEEB). Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. Available also at: www.TEEBweb.org. 

See also: http://www.helsinki.fi/urbanoases/Nummela/Prototypes/index_proto.html

4
0

.

T
R
A
P

.107

 
SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS 
RELATED TO THE INVESTMENT 
IN PROTECTED AREAS  

AZORES ISLANDS

Key Message

In addition to improving nature conservation efforts, the Natura 2000 network of protected areas is also a core element 

of EU-wide green infrastructure supporting human welfare and bringing considerable economic and social benefits. For 

example, the protection and/or restoration of wetlands and peat bogs can provide resource effective, nature-based solu-

tions for water management and climate change mitigation while biodiversity and landscape values help to bring tourism 

to the area. Consequently, while traditionally funded by EU’s Rural Development or LIFE Programmes, the management 

of Natura 2000 sites is also a suitable investment under the EU Cohesion Policy.

Area of focus 

Socio-economic benefits of protected areas, recreation and tourism, nature-based management of water resources.

Type, size and source of funding 

The total cost of the project is €2.2 million, of which €1.6 million contribution from the EU LIFE Programme.

The project and its background 

Covering  an  area  of  over  6,000  hectares  and  hosting  a  range  of  endemic  and/or  rare  species,  the  Pico  da  Vara  / 

Ribeira do Guilherme Natura 2000 site comprises the last remaining large area of the altitudinal Laurel Forest in São 

Miguel Island (Azores Archipelago, Portugal). In addition to its biodiversity value, the site is also of high socio-economic 

importance as it is located in the area of Nordeste and Povoação on the Island of São Miguel - two of the most rural 

communities in the area with 6,700 inhabitants (1,300 families) and 5,200 inhabitants (1,000 families), respectively. It 

provides important benefits to the local communities.

A dedicated assessment of the socio-economic benefits associated with Pico da Vara / Ribeira do Guilherme site was 

carried out in the context of an EU LIFE project established to preserve an endemic Azorean bird species (Priolo, the 

Azorean Bullfinch) (LIFE Priolo, 2003-2008). Based on the results (see below) a follow-up LIFE project (LIFE Sustainable 

Laurel Forest) was initiated to continue implementing both conservation measures and dedicated actions to preserve 

ecosystems and their benefits for the rural population.

The  LIFE  Sustainable  Laurel  Forest  (2009-2012)  was  a  partnership  of  the  Society  for  the  Study  of  Birds,  with  the 

Secretariat for the Environment and the Sea and the City Council of Povoação. The project aimed to protect existing 

natural habitats Pico da Vara / Ribeira do Guilherme Natura 2000 site, including the native Laurel Forest. In addition, 

the project had a number of goals contributing to the sustainable development of the region. These included supporting 

sustainable  ecotourism  activities  in  the  area  and  restoring  peatland  habitats  (raised  bogs)  for  water  management. 

Establishing partnerships between institutions and private sector was foreseen to be a key factor for achieving these 

set goals.

.108

SOURCE. www.centropriolo.spea.pt

Achieved multiple benefits 

The  socio-economic  assessment  carried  out  in  2003-2008  concluded  that  national  and  international  tourism  is  an 
increasing component of the local economy in the Azores. According to the study, the value of tourism in Pico da Vara 

/ Ribeira do Guilherme Natura 2000 site was estimated €74,629/year. Furthermore, the landscape and amenity value 

of the Povoação area, combined with the estimated existence value of endemic species, was estimated to be worth 

€3 million. Building on this information, one of the key socio-economic benefits addressed in the context of the LIFE 

Sustainable  Laurel  Forest  was  the  systematic  promotion  of  sustainable  tourism  in  the  region. A  range  of  activities, 

including courses for tour guides, lectures and workshop on sustainable tourism and a touristic guide of the site, were 

developed during the duration of the project.

The results of the 2003-2008 assessment also indicated high socio-economic importance of the Pico da Vara / Ribeira 
do Guilherme Natura 2000 site in terms of water management. Despite high rainfall, seasonal water scarcity is a critical 
issue in the Azores and for this reason Pico da Vara’s role in supporting water supply was considered of highest impor-

tance. Laurel forest vegetation cover allows for replenishment of the aquifer, important for ensuring the availability of 

water in dry periods and for reducing the cost of water supply for public suppliers and for the local community. The value 

of water regulation (mitigation of flooding and landslides) and water supply were estimated to be €20 million/year and 

€604,997/year. Water purification was estimated to be €110,556/year. Building on these results, one of the aims of the 

LIFE Sustainable Laurel Forest was to recover 81 hectares of raised bogs within the site, with a view to both improve 

site’s conservation status and enhance its capacity to manage water resources in the area.

Finally, the 2003-2008 assessment also identified a significant socio-economic importance of forest-based resources 
to local communities. For example, harvesting the Azorean Blueberry (Vaccinium cylindraceum), used traditionally for 
cooking, might represent a potential economic benefit if adequately promoted by local institutions. Similarly, there has 

been an increasing demand for ornamental plants from the Laurel Forest. Consequently, LIFE Sustainable Laurel Forest 

included a component focused on recovering native Azorean vegetation by establishing a nursery of Azores plant spe-

cies  and  coordinating  their  planting. A  total  production  of  the  nursery  was  over  60,000  plants  with  38,000  produced 

native plants planted by the project. The collection included, for example, cuttings and selection of samples of Azorean 

Blueberry for demonstrative orchard.

Key project success factors

Socio-economic  assessment  of  benefits:  Identifying  the  socio-economic  benefits  associated  with  the  site  helped  to 

(re)define  its  management  priorities,  with  an  increased  focus  on  preserving  functionality  of  the  habitats  and  conse-

quently supporting the sustainable provisioning of ecosystem services and related goods for local communities. The 

assessment of benefits also supported cooperation between different stakeholders during the project, helping to ensure 

effective  development,  communication  and  uptake  of  results.  Finally,  the  results  of  the  socio-economic  assessment 

played an integral role in successfully establishing a follow-up project, LIFE Sustainable Laurel Forest, in the area.

4
0

.

T
R
A
P

.109

 
Socio-economic benefits related to the investment in protected areas

Capacity building and skill development: Dedicated efforts were made during the project to increase the human capital 

within the rural areas of Povoação and Nordeste. A range of training and capacity building activities have been car-

ried out to further develop and diversify local skills, including training related to services within the tourism sector. This 

emphasis on capacity building has played an important role in ensuring the uptake of project results and insights in the 

long run.

Transferability to other areas

The case study provides good evidence on how protected areas are an important part of regional green infrastructure, 

providing  benefits  to  both  biodiversity  and  people.  It  also  shows  how  systematic  identification,  promotion  and  man-

agement of these socio-economic benefits (e.g. by using socio-economic assessments) can contribute to increasing 

well-being in rural areas around the EU.

Contacts 
Azucena da la Cruz, SPEA – Portuguese Society for the Study of Birds (azucena.martin@spea.pt) 
and José Benedicto Royuela, BRUNEL University (jose.benedicto.royuela@brunel.ac.uk)

Source 

http://www.ics2011.pl/artic/SP64_1955-1959_A.%20Cruz.pdf

.110

LANDSCAPE PROGRAMME 
AND LAND USE PLAN

Bremen, Germany

Key Message

Incorporation of ecosystem services into Land Use Plans can be achieved through better coordination and co-operation 

of different Spatial Plans. In this case the coordination between the environmentally focused Bremen Landscape Plan 

and the Bremen Land Use Plan resulted in the consideration of ecosystem services (climate change adaptation and 

green  infrastructure),  improved  spatial  planning  and  likely  socio-economic  benefits.  Even  if  not  directly  relevant  to 

Cohesion Policy investment the case study shows how investments into ecosystem services can be further enhanced 

through land use planning. 

Area of focus 

Type, size and source of funding 

Land use planning and ecosystem services.

The external costs are about €110,000 per year for the 

Landscape Programme with the funding is coming from 

the Department for Nature and Water.

Project background

The Landscape Programme in Germany is part of the landscape planning for the whole territory of a federal state. It is 

fixed in the national law of nature conservation. The actual Landscape Programme of the federal state of Bremen has 

been running since 1991.

The preparatory Land Use Plan for the city of Bremen was drawn up in 1983 and newly published in 2001. Because 

these planning instruments were outdated, in 2009 politicians decided they had to be realigned for the next five years. 

The Landscape Programme has been developed for the city of Bremen and the intention is to prepare, combine and 

integrate both Plans for the city simultaneously. In this way, all aspects of urban ecology, conservation of biodiversity, 

habitat connectivity and adaptation to climate change can be included in the Land Use Plan.

The project

The integrated realignment of the Landscape Programme and the Land Use Plan makes it possible to fix information 

on  natural  values,  habitat  connectivity  and  areas  of  high  biodiversity  in  the  basic  Plan  for  Urban  Development. The 

expected results are a base for urban development, the conservation of biodiversity and implementation of a habitat 

THE PROJECT DEVELOPER AND STAKEHOLDERS’ INVOLVEMENT

The Landscape Programme is implemented by employees of the De-
partment for Nature and Water the Land Use Plan by employees of 
the Department of Urban Development, both within the government 
agency, Senator for Environment, Urban Development and Traffic).

network in the state of Bremen.

Both Plans were prepared simultaneously on a scientific basis with 

information about urban development, social needs, demographic 

changes, results of monitoring nature and external expertise on soil, 

water, climate, biodiversity, landscape and public green spaces.

4
0

.

T
R
A
P

.111

 
SOURCE. http://www.lapro-bremen.de/

The Bremen Land Use Plan evolved through broad discussions with many stakeholders and the public and in the end 

provided an opportunity to integrate natural values and needs for conservation within urban planning. This approach 

enabled the identification of habitat corridors and the creation of a habitat network and areas of high natural values. It 

also introduced climate change adaptation as part of urban development and nature conservation measures. 

The final decision on the Plans by the Parliament of Bremen is expected at the end of 2014, following the consultation 

of public agencies and the public in 2012 and 2013.

Achieved multiple benefits 

The  Landscape  Programme  improved  the  Land  Use  Plan  and  vice-versa.  Traditionally,  these  two  Plans  have  been 

developed in isolation from each other but the cooperation and consultation amongst key stakeholders resulted in the 

improvement of both Plans. A new category of special biological values were included in the Land Use Plan, while the 

Landscape Programme was adapted to better incorporate industrial areas. Separate SEAs were developed for both plans 

in house (but by different teams), providing an additional communication source for developing the plans. It is likely that 

both the Bremen Landscape Programme and the Bremen Land Use Plan will provide socio-economic benefits through 

measures considering climate change adaptation, the greening of urban areas and the prevention of urban sprawl. 

Key project lessons learned

Land use planning as an opportunity for preservation of biodiversity. The combined preparation of the Land Use Plan 

and  the  Landscape  Programme  enabled  the  integration  of  urban  development  and  preservation  of  biodiversity  as  a 

basis for communal planning. 

Co-operation and coordination: The broad discussion with many stakeholders and the public enabled the identification 

of habitat corridors, creation of a habitat network and areas of high natural values. It also introduced climate change 

adaptation as part of urban development and nature conservation measures.

Transferability to other areas

The approach is transferable to other areas in terms of the coordination of different kind of spatial plans and the benefits 

that this co-ordination can bring in terms of improved plans that consider mutually the need for development and the 

benefits from ecosystem services.

Contacts 
Henrich Klugkist, Department of the environment, Bremen, henrich.klugkist@umwelt.bremen.de
Dirk Hürter, Department of the environment, Bremen, Dirk.Huerter@umwelt.bremen.de

Source 

Reverse (2012), Enhancing biodiversity and boosting economic development, 2012,  http://reverse.aquitaine.eu/IMG/pdf/good_practice_guide_low_
def.pdf
Hürter, D (2013), Neuaufstellung des Landschaftsprogramms Bremen, Presentation 12.3.2013 http://www.ortsamt-burglesum.bremen.de/sixcms/
media.php/13/Beirat_08-01-13_Anlage%201_Lapro-Burglesum.pdf

.112

BENEFITS OF GREEN 
INFRASTRUCTURE
SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF 
RESTORING WETLAND BIODIVERSITY

Thessalia, Greece

Key Message

Developing a large wetland area, as part of the restoration of an ecosystem, delivers strong economic, social and cul-

tural benefits. Several ecosystem services, such as local water and soil management, the sourcing of water and flood 

control provide infrastructure that generates jobs, better drinking water for residents and opportunities for eco-tourism. 

Investing in a Lake’s flora and fauna supports biodiversity, the economy and people’s health and livelihoods.

Area of focus 

Green infrastructure, eco-tourism, biodiversity restoration, wetland areas, local economy.

Type, size and source of funding 

Between 2007-2013, the Lake Karla project received €38 million in co-funding from Cohesion Policy. The full investment 

over the period was €50 million. At the national level, the project was supported by the Operational Programme (OP) 

‘Environment and Sustainable Development’, under Priority Axis 9 ‘Protection of the Environment and Biodiversity’. Total 

investment since 1999 (with funding from 2000 – 2006) was around €250 million.

Project Background

Lake Karla sits in the south-eastern part of the Thessaly plain. It is Greece’s biggest plain and most fertile agricultural 

area. During the early 20th century, the Pinios River often overflowed, flooding the Thessaly valley. Dams were built 

to resolve this problem. However, the waters of Lake Karla were no longer renewed; inevitably their quality declined 

and mosquitos and malaria thrived. In 1962, the lake was fully drained to create more farmland; later water tanks were 

built to irrigate the wider Thessaly valley. This caused radical ecological and socio-economic changes in the lakeside. 

Fishermen became farmers and water extracted for irrigation depleted groundwater levels. As the land became less 

suitable for productive use, people migrated to the cities, and the local economy stagnated. To tackle this problem, a 

project to re-create approximately 15,000 hectares of the Lake was initiated between 2000 and 2006 supported by the 

Cohesion Fund (the Lake’s surface area before drainage was around 53,000 hectares).

4
0

.

T
R
A
P

The project

A follow-up project, funded by the 2007 – 2013 national-level OP, aimed to complete the reconstitution of Lake Karla. It should 

be completed by 2013. The project addresses the energy-intensive use of boreholes, the overuse of underground waters and 

the destruction of biodiversity. 

Specific objectives include finding alternatives to provide surface water to farmers for irrigation, providing water to the nearby 

.113

 
THE PROJECT DEVELOPER AND STAKEHOLDERS’ INVOLVEMENT

There are two entities managing the OP and overseeing the implementation of 
the project, one at national level and one at regional level. The unit managing the 
implementation of the initiative from Athens is Unit D7 of the Ministry of Public 
Works (today called Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change) and it 
cooperates with the respective regional division of the Ministry based near Lake 
Karla. The engagement of local actors from the beginning of the intervention is 
seen as a key success factor.

An Institute for the Management of the Eco-development Area of Karla, was 
set up in 2003. The project foresees €4 million for the Institute’s operation. 
However, it is not yet fully functioning, despite the budget being available and 
the staff resources allocated. Its mission is to combine the preservation and 
protection of aesthetic, ecological and cultural value of Lake Karla and the re-
gion-Montenegro-Velestinou Kefalovriso.

Benefits of green infrastructure

city of Volos from surface waters, rather than underground 

water reserves; re-instating the habitats of plantation, birds, 

animals and fish in the lake. Birds, in particular, used to use 

Lake Karla as a stop-over on their emigration route to the 

South, valorising this habitat and boosting economic devel-

opment via light-touch tourism, such as offering spots for 

bird-watching, bicycle routes and a local museum. 

Infrastructure and eco-tourism works carried out include 

building  a  natural  history  museum  and  an  information 

centre. Each year 5,000 visitors are expected. The pro-

ject will also complete work started in 2000-06 on managing the local water and soil ecosystem, together with local 

archaeological studies.

Multiple benefits achieved

The ake Karla project is an excellent example of a ‘win-win’ intervention, restoring the ecological status of an area while 

simultaneously creating a wide range of socio-economic benefits. While the project devoted some funds to support sustain-

able tourism, the majority went directly to restore the lake and its ecosystems. Through this, the project is expected to provide 

benefits for fisheries, tourism, water supply for agriculture and urban use and flood prevention.

There are some early environmental successes. A number of bird species have been observed  and roughly 160 species of 

birds - including some endangered ones- are expected back once restoration is complete. Fish have reappeared in the lake, 

and underground water levels have risen and continue to rise.

With regard to tourism, the area is expected to attract visitors such as bird-watchers, school children on study trips and ama-

teur fishermen. This will create a small number of jobs in the area, to staff the management institute, the information centre 

and museum. Furthermore, private sector initiatives in the sustainable tourism sector, offering camping sites, horse raising 

farms etc. are also expected. Additionally, the 2Bparks organisation, under the ERDF Programme, is raising awareness about 

this natural wonderland through information days, conventions, exhibitions and marketing campaigns

The project also dovetails with other environmental initiatives. A nationally funded irrigation project is helping to make local 

agriculture  more  sustainable.  Some  interest  has  also  been  shown  by  the  private  sector  in  developing  renewable  energy 

sources, using the Lake’s water.

The longer term strategic plan is for the area to move gradually from conventional agriculture to organic, sustainable farming, 

in line with EU policy. 

Key project lessons learned

Investment in the rehabilitation of natural capital: through Cohesion Policy can result in significant socio-economic gains, 

including  the  leveraging  of  national  and  private  sector  initiatives  which  complement  the  environmental  investment.  The 

Cohesion Policy funded investments in Lake Karla were undertaken with primarily environmental objectives. Nevertheless, 

thanks to the participation of a wide range of stakeholders and a solid understanding of the local socio-economic situation, 

the project is making a major economic contribution across many sectors. Furthermore, the project has tapped into important 

national and private sector initiatives that will benefit the wider Thessaly valley.

Stakeholder consultation and cooperation: are vital in a project that impacts livelihoods. The recreation of Lake Karla faced 

initial opposition from local stakeholders, mainly farmers who owned wells and did not want to relinquish existing irrigation 

methods through the use of boreholes. To overcome these and other objections by local farmers, dependent upon existing 

.114

SOURCE. http://e-thessalia.gr/?p=27133

irrigation systems, project funding was made contingent upon national support for investments providing surface water supply. 

The engagement of local actors has been key to the success of the project. Solutions have been found which are good for 

the environment, but also for all stakeholders over the long term. 

Transferability to other areas

The case of Lake Karla is good example of a situation where the degradation of natural resources was a key factor affecting 

the prospects for local economic development. Cohesion Policy funding aimed at environmental improvement is an impor-

tant catalyst for the development of such areas, particularly in Member States or regions that would otherwise not be able to 

undertaken such investments. The approach, results and lessons can therefore serve as a model.

Source 

Η ΘΕΣΣΑΛΙΑ, Βουλιάζει το έργο ανασύστασης της Κάρλας, Μαγνησία, Πρώτο Θέμα, 21st of November 2012
http://e-thessalia.gr/?p=27133

Τσιγγανα Θ., Ο ευτροφισμός «πνίγει» την Κάρλα, Greece, 15 September 2012, Kathimerini News paper, 2012. 
Available Online at: http://news.kathimerini.gr/4dcgi/_w_articles_ell_2_15/09/2012_495530http://news.kathimerini.
gr/4dcgi/_w_articles_ell_2_15/09/2012_495530

European Commission, Lake Karla welcomes new life, Thessalia – Greece, Inforegio, September 2011. Available online at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/projects/stories/details_new.cfm?LAN=7&pay=GR&the=72&sto=2281&region=ALL&obj=ALL&per
=2&defL=EN&lang=7

4
0

.

T
R
A
P

Institute for the Management of the Eco-development Area of Karla, Managing Authority
http://www.fdkarlas.gr/Context.aspx

Study Center for the Protection of the Environment and Heritage Lake Voiviida-Karla (KEMEVO)
http://www.boebes-karla.gr/sites/07.html

Region of Thessaly Intermediate Managing Authority
http://www.thessalia-espa.gr/

Website of the Greek Operational Programme 2007-2013 on ‘Environment and Sustainable Development’ http://www.epper.gr/

.115

 
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR 
PROTECTION OF ECOSYSTEMS 
AND NATURAL RISK PREVENTION

POLAND

Key Message

Green infrastructure can deliver direct ecosystem services, such as flood control and the renovation of water storage sys-

tems. It can also provide biodiversity benefits. Poland’s Infrastructure and Environment Operational Programme provides 

a good example of this synergy. Using co-financing from the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund, the Operational Programme 

integrates biodiversity and nature conservation across its activities. A specific forestry project is showcased here.

Area of focus 

Green infrastructure, synergies with climate change adaptation and the integration of biodiversity and ecosystem ser-

vices into the Operational Programme

Type, size and source of funding 

Poland’s Infrastructure and Environment Operational Programme for 2007-2013 is supported by the ERDF and Cohesion 

Fund. It is a sectoral Programme, with a total budget of €37.56 billion: €22.18 billion from the Cohesion Fund, €5.74 

billion from the ERDF and the balance from Polish sources. It is both the largest Operational Programme (OP) in Poland 

and the largest-ever OP in the EU. 

The Programme

The Programme supports the development of all types of infrastructure. It also seeks to protect and improve the natural 

environment, health, cultural identity and territorial cohesion. Environmental objectives lie in Priority Axis 5, ‘Environment 

protection and the promotion of ecological habits’ which aims to reduce environmental degradation, natural resource 

loss and the deterioration of biological variety; it also seeks to promote active environmental protection in special areas. 

This priority is allocated €90 million from the ERDF, about 0.24% of the whole budget. 

It is worth noting how biodiversity and nature conservation issues were recognised, even though transport and energy 

projects  received  the  greatest  funding. Although  not  systematically  integrated  across  all  activities,  the  way  they  are 

interlinked with many Priority Axes creates a good basis for achieving multiple benefits. An example of inter-linkages is 

in Priority Axis 2 ‘Waste management and the protection of earth’. It sees land rehabilitation as including the restoration 

of natural land features. The activities undertaken aim to maintain (or improve) the ecological functions of the area and 

maintain or restore biodiversity and the traditional landscape. This fully supports the benefits envisioned by Priority Axis 5.

Biodiversity and nature conservation are clearly mentioned in the SWOT analysis and the Programme clearly explains 

how the principle of sustainable development will be implemented through both direct and indirect initiatives: ‘Solutions 

[for the integration of nature protection objectives] will be taken into consideration in a horizontal way at the level of 

.116

SOURCE. http://www.fundusze.lubuskie.pl/

preparation, assessment and project implementation under the priority axes’. 

Moreover, each Priority Axis contains a paragraph on the ‘complementarity and demarcation’ of the Priority Axis with 

initiatives co-financed with other priorities of the Operational Programme and other funding instruments (EAFRD, EFF, 

EDF, LIFE +). 

This recognition of nature and biodiversity at the strategic level and across the Programme created innovative opportuni-

ties, such as the example below. It shows how projects financed by the ERDF and Cohesion Fund for climate adaptation 

and risk prevention can support nature conservation, biodiversity and green infrastructure. 

The project 

Forest ecosystems in Poland have long suffered from drought. From the mid-90s, the Polish forest management authority 

undertook a variety of small-scale water retention works, financed from a combination of its own and external funds (i.e. 

the Polish Ecofund, and the Polish National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management). 

In 2006, the authority consolidated all its initiatives into a single project ‘Increasing retention and preventing floods and 

droughts in forest ecosystems in lowland areas’ under Priority axis 3: ‘Resource management and counteracting envi-

ronmental risks.’ It is the first to be conducted on such a large scale, combining water retention in forest ecosystems 

with the protection against surface water run-off. It is coordinated by the Coordination Centre for Environmental Projects 

(CCEP), established in 2008 to act as a Project Implementation Unit for the Infrastructure and Environment Operational 

Programme. The project beneficiary is the State Forests - National Forests Holding. The project runs from 2007-2014 

with an allocation of approximately €50 million, including €34.2 million in co-financing from the Cohesion Fund. 

The  project  aims  to  stop  or  slow  down  the  outflow  of  surface  water  near  small  catchment  areas  and  to  develop  the 

natural landscape. The activities include the construction or renovation of several thousand water storage systems in 

lowland forests throughout the country. A major goal is to support ecologically sound methods of water retention. 

Achieved multiple benefits 

The improvement of water balance enhanced the biodiversity in the forest ecosystems. It restored wetlands and marshy 

areas and improved the lowland forest ecosystems. With water from the forest stimulating animals, birds and insects, 

the trees’ biological resilience was strengthened. Additionally, rare species of fauna and flora were better protected. 

Other benefits achieved include the lessening of drought, the counteraction against floods as well as the reduction of fire 

hazard. It is in fact estimated that due to the implementation of a small-scale retention program in the forest ecosystems, 

the costs for fire protection activities are going to be reduced by 10%. 

Other benefits regard the improvement in landscape values and as a consequence the increased tourist attractiveness 

of forests (as a result of increase in resources of mushrooms, berries and other forest fruit, improvement of tree stand 

quality, improvement of local climate, reduced losses from fires, etc.). The increase of the absorption capacity of green-

house gases due to the proliferation of plant mass is another beneficial consequence. 

4
0

.

T
R
A
P

.117

 
Green infrastructure for protection of ecosystems and natural risk prevention

Key lessons learned 

Structure of the Operational Programme: The Infrastructure and Environment Operational Programme integrated biodi-

versity and nature conservation issues into its different sections in the SWOT analysis and in its objectives and activities 

by using clear indicators. There were good interlinkages between different Priority Axes, ensuring that nature and biodi-

versity were supported through opportunities outside Priority Axis 5. 

Implementation arrangements: Special practical provisions eased the preparation and application of such a large, dis-

persed project. Handbooks for beneficiaries were issued by CCEP. In addition, direct support was provided to Regional 

Directorates and Forest Districts. Another example of good practice is the setting-up of a database for monitoring invest-

ments and expenditures.

Transferability to other areas

The project ‘Increasing retention and preventing floods and droughts in forest ecosystems in lowland areas’ provides a 

good evidence base for exploring possibilities for nature based water management that enables both biodiversity and 

economic benefits. The OP Infrastructure and Environment represents a good example of integrated policy planning that 

addresses both environmental and economic development objectives. 

Contacts 
Izabella Tarnowska, Project Manager, Coordination Center for Environmental Projects izabella.tarnowska@ckps.lasy.gov.pl
Kopczynska Joanna, Ministry of Environment Department for European Funds joanna.kopczynska@mos.gov.pl

Source 

DG REGIO website: Operational Programme Infrastructure and Environment http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/country/prordn/details_new.
cfm?gv_PAY=PL&gv_reg=ALL&gv_PGM=1212&LAN=7&gv_per=2&gv_defL=7 

CCEP website: http://www.ckps.pl/ccep.html

SURF (2011e), SURF-Nature project (Sustainable Use of Regional Funds – for Nature). European Regional Development Funding for biodiversity. An 
analysis of selected Operational Programmes

.118

DELIVERING LOCAL ECONOMIC 
DEVELOPMENT BENEFITS 
THROUGH THE NATURAL 
ENVIRONMENT AND BIODIVERSITY 
Wales

Key Message

The implementation of the West Wales and the Valleys Operational Programme (OP) is a good example of how to achieve 

benefits for regional and local economic development through investment in the natural environment, without dedicating 

direct funding to it. The OP features strong implementation arrangements, especially regarding the Programme promo-

tion, the project selection practices and the integration of cross-sectoral principles that can be considered by other EU 

Cohesion Policy Programmes.

Area of focus 

Programme implementation arrangements; green infrastructure; delivery of benefits to disadvantaged groups; improving 

community sense of ownership for biodiversity and the natural environment on its ‘doorstep’.

Type, size and source of funding 

West Wales and the Valleys is one of two Convergence regions in the UK. It has been allocated a total of €2.2 billion in 

Cohesion Policy funding for the 2007-2013 period. The EU contribution is divided into €1.3 billion from the ERDF and €887 

million from the ESF. Approximately 18% of the ERDF co-funding was allocated to Priority 4 ‘Creating an attractive busi-

ness environment’ of which over €75 million have been invested in the Theme 3 ‘Environment for Growth (E4G)’. Although 

no direct funding was allocated to code 51 ‘Promotion of biodiversity and nature protection’, other codes related to nature 

protection  are  represented  in  the  budget  allocation:  55  ‘Promotion  of  natural  assets’  (€23  million),  56  ‘Protection  and 

development of natural heritage’ (€53 million), and 61 ‘Integrated projects for urban and rural regeneration’ (€171million). 

Programme background

The importance of a healthy environment to a robust and sustainable economy, and the economic benefits of maintaining a 

high quality environment have long been recognised in government strategies and policy documents in Wales. The Welsh 
Government acknowledges the role of biodiversity and nature in the new Natural Environment Framework ‘Sustaining a 
Living Wales’ (2012) which proposes an ecosystem approach to managing Wales’ natural resources. The ‘Green Jobs 
Strategy for Wales’ (2009) Priority 3 ‘Investing in a more sustainable economy’ is also of particular relevance for biodi-
versity. Both these strategies have the ambitious objective of a better quality of life and future prospects for the people of 

Wales through sustainable development, combining economic growth, social cohesion and environmental resilience.

4
0

.

T
R
A
P

The Programme

As a Convergence region, Cohesion Policy funding for West Wales and the Valleys represents a significant investment in 

the development of the area. The managing authority is the Welsh European Funding Office (WEFO), a governmental insti-

tution created specifically for the management of EU-funded Programmes throughout Wales. The ‘Environment for Growth’ 

.119

 
COPYRIGHT. Tir Coed

(E4G) theme promotes sustainable recreation and economic activity linked to the natural environment in order to achieve 

sustainable tourism, for example around important conservation and Natura 2000 sites. It recognises the importance of the 

environment as a stimulus for growth and jobs; and seeks to integrate environmental sustainability across projects. 

There are six strategic projects within the ‘Environment for Growth’ (E4G) theme covering heritage, tourism, regenera-

tion and development. The E4G steering group consists of representatives from the Welsh government departments 

and from the Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA), the Environmental Agency Wales, the Forestry Commission 

Wales and the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW). 

The project 

Communities and Nature (CAN) is a project financed under the E4G theme. It was developed by the Countryside Council 

for Wales (CCW) to enable a wide range of public and charitable sector organisations to access EU funding as part of this 

strategic partnership approach, with CCW as the Lead Sponsor. CAN aims to generate economic benefits for local econo-

mies by increasing visits to, and enjoyment of the natural environment. It also promotes the sharing of economic benefits 

with local communities, especially through involving disadvantaged groups in activities. It also encourages those working 

in the environmental sector to use their sites / skills beyond traditional conservation, to that of job and enterprise creation. 

Achieved multiple benefits 

The CAN project, financed under the E4G theme, demonstrates how a strategic investment in the natural environment 

and biodiversity can offer multiple benefits beyond nature conservation - namely local economic growth and commu-

nity cohesion. Most of the initiatives under CAN financed green infrastructure, sites improvement and restoration, high 

quality recreational assets for tourism and improvements to footpaths and cycle ways to connect people to nature. 

Direct economic benefits include job creation and the creation of new business initiatives linked to the development of the 

natural environment. Examples of jobs created, besides those attached to the new enterprises, include a site warden and 

grounds man. 

Social benefits include the development of new skills linked to the environment and tourism for disadvantaged groups 

through employment, training and volunteering opportunities. Examples of training and volunteering opportunities have 

included survey work, conservation management, construction work on green (eco) buildings and carpentry work on 

outdoor furniture. In addition, new high quality leisure facilities close to homes are regularly used and valued and lead to 

social and health benefits for all groups.

Key lessons learned

The OP West Wales and the Valleys and the CAN project is an interesting example of Programme and project implementa-

tion arrangements. 

Awareness  raising  and  publication  of  project  opportunities:  The  ERDF  Indicator  Definitions  supplied  by  the  WEFO 

.120

	  
Delivering local economic development benefits through the natural environment and biodiversity 

Monitoring and Evaluation team set out the parameters for the E4G projects. The early setting of ERDF indicators eased 

the clear definition of criteria for project promotion and development. CCW held a CAN seminar 8 January 2008 in order to 

launch the project. An independent facilitator was engaged to plan and run the event. This enabled CAN to capture a host 

of ideas on which to base project activity. A circulation list and a webpage to inform interested parties were established. 

Project pre-selection (screening): Following these promotional activities, a database of project ideas was compiled. The 

purpose of this list was to demonstrate where demand exists and enabled CCW to draw up the Communities and Nature 

business plan around this demand. Different projects were prioritised. The CAN Project Board advertised externally for 

members  of  an  independent  Project  Selection  Board  with  the  delegated  powers  to  assess  and  prioritise  applications 

received and to make recommendations for funding. Criteria for the assessment awarded higher score to proposals that 

addressed the cross-cutting theme of environmental sustainability, including demonstration of how this would be achieved.

Project application support: Four calls for projects were advertised on ‘Sell2Wales’, the Welsh Government supported web-

site offering procurement and joint sponsorship opportunities. Guidance throughout the application phase was provided. 

The CAN Handbook was prepared as a guide to best practice for CAN initiatives. 

Targeting the right applicants: The selection criteria and an invitation to tender/submit applications were made available on 

the ‘Buy4Wales’ website, the sourcing portal for the Welsh public sector. The invitation to tender targeted those organisa-

tions with sites and/or the expertise to provide enhanced visitor experience of natural heritage and biodiversity. 

Maximise  synergies  between  initiatives:  During  all  stages  of  project  development,  selection  and  implementation,  the 

management  and  delivery  of  CAN  was  closely  aligned  to  all  other  strategic  projects  operating  under  the  E4G  theme. 

Coordination was achieved through regular meetings of the E4G Steering Group. This enabled all strategic projects’ project 

managers to discuss progress and learn from each other’s respective problems and approaches. 

Cross-cutting theme on environmental sustainability and equal opportunities: Specific guidance documents for integrating 

the  cross-cutting  themes  of  environmental  sustainability  and  equal  opportunities  were  prepared  by  WEFO  and  made 

available both on the WEFO website and on the CCW website. The CAN Team monitors progress towards meeting the 

objectives set out in these action plans as part of the quarterly reporting cycle.

Transferability to other areas

The OP West Wales and the Valleys is a good example of how the natural environment can be utilised to generate enhanced 
economic benefits as also demonstrated by the CAN strategic project. It is important in showing (i) how the natural environ-
ment can be utilised to generate significant benefits for the ‘visitor economy’ and (ii) how local communities and disadvantaged 
groups can share in some of these economic benefits. CAN has also delivered actions which support biodiversity through the 

use of the cross-cutting themes’ monitoring plans which are agreed upon with each component initiative within the strategic 

project. Individual actions of the various initiatives addressing environmental sustainability create a bedrock of environmental 

actions running through the project. 

Contacts 
Emyr Thomas, CAN Project Manager, CCW E.Thomas@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk
Lynette Hough, WEFO Project Development Officer lynette.hough@wales.gsi.gov.uk

Source 

DG REGIO website: Operational Programme ‘West Wales and the Valleys’ http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/country/prordn/details_new.
cfm?gv_PAY=UK&gv_reg=353&gv_PGM=1239&LAN=7&gv_PER=2&gv_defL=7 

SURF (2012b), SURF-Nature project (Sustainable Use of Regional Funds – for Nature). New Opportunities for investing in the Natural Environment. 
ERDF funding for biodiversity in Wales

West Wales and the Valleys Convergence Operational Programme European Regional Development Fund 2007-2013 

WEFO website: http://wefo.wales.gov.uk/publications/guidance/crosscutting/environmental/?lang=en

Countryside Council for Wales website: http://www.ccgc.gov.uk/

4
0

.

T
R
A
P

.121

 
European Commission 

The Guide to Multi-Benefit Cohesion Policy Investments in Nature and Green Infrastructure 

2013 — 121 pp. — 21 × 29.7 cm 

ISBN 978-92-79-30929-8 
doi:10.2776/3581