REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Review of progress on implementation of the EU green infrastructure strategy
Date: 2019-05-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU investment, EU strategy, area management, biodiversity, conservation of resources, ecosystem, green area, green economy, sustainable development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 24.5.2019 COM(2019) 236 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Review of progress on implementation of the EU green infrastructure strategy   {SWD(2019) 184 final}  
 
 
1.  

Context and introduction 

Green  infrastructure  is  defined  in  the  EU  green  infrastructure  strategy  as  ‘a  strategically 
planned network of natural and semi-natural areas with other environmental features designed 
and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services. It incorporates green spaces (or 
blue if aquatic ecosystems are concerned) and other physical features in terrestrial (including 
coastal) and marine areas. On land, green infrastructure is present in rural and urban settings’.  

Unlike  single-purpose  grey  infrastructure,  biodiversity-rich  green  spaces  can  perform  a 
variety  of  extremely  useful  functions,  often  simultaneously  and  at  very  low  cost,  for  the 
benefit of people, nature and the economy.  

In the EU, green infrastructure (GI) includes the Natura 2000 network as its backbone, as well 
as  natural  and  semi-natural  spaces  outside  Natura  2000,  such  as  parks,  private  gardens, 
hedges,  vegetated  buffer  strips  along  rivers  or  structure-rich  agricultural  landscapes  with 
certain features and practices, and artificial features such as green roofs, green walls, or eco-
bridges and fish ladders. The annual benefits of eco-system services provided by the Natura 
2000 network alone have been estimated at EUR 300 billion across the EU1, with the benefits 
of GI going well beyond. 

Target  2  of  the  EU  2020  biodiversity  strategy  states  that  ‘by  2020,  ecosystems  and  their 
services  are  maintained  and  enhanced  by  establishing  green  infrastructure  and  restoring  at 
least 15 % of degraded ecosystems’. Fully meeting this target 2 and restoring Natura 2000 to 
favourable status could further generate respectively up to 50 000 and 140 000 jobs; and up to 
EUR 4.2 and 11.1 billion of direct outputs annually; as well as a wider range of benefits from 
ecosystem services2.  

The  Commission  adopted  an  EU  strategy  on  green  infrastructure  (GI  strategy)  in  20133  to 
enhance these economic benefits by attracting greater investment in Europe’s natural capital 
to  achieve  its  biodiversity  objectives  by  2020.  It  included  four  priority  work  streams: 
promoting GI in the main policy areas; improving information, strengthening the knowledge 
base  and  promoting  innovation;  improving  access  to  finance;  and  contributing  to  the 
development of GI projects at EU level. 

The strategy envisaged that by the end of 2017, the Commission should review progress on 
developing  GI  and  publish  a  report  on  the 
learned  together  with 
recommendations for future action. The Action Plan for nature, people, and the economy4 
stipulates  that  this  review  will  further  inform  the  way  forward  on  strategically  investing  in 
green infrastructure in the EU. It will also contribute to the final evaluation of the EU 2020 
biodiversity strategy. 

lessons 

1   The Economic benefits of the Natura 2000 Network; 2013, ISBN 978-92-79-27588-3 
2   Eftec, ECNC, UAntwerp & CEEWEB (2017) Promotion of ecosystem restoration in the context of the EU 

biodiversity strategy to 2020 

3   COM(2013) 249 final 
4   COM(2017)198 final 

1 

 
 
                                                           
The review addresses the progress made and challenges encountered at both EU and Member 
State5 level in carrying out the Strategy's four priority work streams; draws some lessons and 
puts forward some suggestions for the further implementation of the strategy.  

2.  

Assessment of progress and challenges 

2.1 

Promoting green infrastructure in the main policy areas: progress and challenges 

The  GI  strategy  stressed  the  need  to  ensure  that  GI  becomes  a  standard  part  of  spatial 
planning and territorial development and that it is fully integrated into the implementation of 
the  policies  whose  objectives  can  be  achieved  as  a  whole  or  in  part  through  nature-based 
solutions.  It  provided  that  regional  or  cohesion,  climate  change  and  environmental  policies, 
disaster risk management, health and consumer policies and the Common Agricultural Policy 
would be the main policy areas through which Green Infrastructure would be promoted. The 
sites and functions of the Natura 2000 network are the backbone of EU GI. The fitness check 
of the Nature Directives concluded that, although the Directives are key  instruments  for the 
EU 2020 biodiversity strategy, they could not deliver alone on the EU 2020 goal of halting the 
loss  of  biodiversity.  The  Action  Plan  for  Nature,  People  and  the  Economy  provides  for 
additional  measures  such  as  the  establishment  of  guidance  to  support  the  deployment  of  GI 
projects at EU level for better connectivity of Natura 2000 areas to help achieve the objectives 
of the Nature Directives, while also contributing to other EU biodiversity targets.  

GI  deployment  can  be  achieved  through  both  the  conservation  of  existing  biodiversity-rich 
ecosystems  in  good  condition  and  the  restoration  of  degraded  ecosystems,  both  inside  and 
outside of the Natura 2000 network. Under the Birds and Habitats Directives, Member States 
are required to formulate restoration objectives and measures for the Natura 2000 sites where 
species  and  habitats  have  not  yet  attained  a  favourable  conservation  status.  A  key  tool  for 
setting  priorities  for  conservation  and  restoration  at  regional  or  national  level  are  the 
Prioritised Action Frameworks developed by the Member States according to Article 8 of the 
Habitats  Directive.  The  new  format  for  these  Prioritised  Action  Frameworks6  includes  the 
possibility to include information on related wider green infrastructure measures.  

Action  6a  of  the  Biodiversity  Strategy  called  upon  Member  States  by  2014,  with  the 
assistance of the Commission, to develop a strategic framework to set priorities for ecosystem 
restoration at sub-national, national and EU level. In 2014, the Commission published a study 
to  help  Member  States  prioritise  the  restoration  of  degraded  ecosystems7.  Although  few 
restoration prioritisation frameworks (RPFs) are in place at national and sub-national level8, 
some restoration activity is taking place9 - often in response to other relevant EU legislation, 
such as the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 
(MSFD). Increased efforts are needed to complete national RPFs to implement Action 6b, in 

5   See the accompanying staff working document, and the 28 country fact sheets based on information gathered 

in 2017 

6   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/PAF%20format%20EN.docx 
7   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/RPF.pdf 
8   Germany, the Netherlands and the region of Flanders (BE) 
9   See footnote 2 

2 

 
 
                                                           
complement with the Prioritised Action Frameworks (PAFs) under the Nature Directives, in a 
way that is consistent with the methodological approach of the EU initiative on mapping and 
assessment  of  ecosystems  and  their  services  (MAES10),  and  with  restoration  activities 
required under EU legislation.  

Several  Member  States  have  established  national  ecological  networks  or  equivalent 
instruments. In many Member States, objectives or requirements specifically related to GI are 
included  in  broader  biodiversity  and  nature  conservation  policies  and  legislation.  For 
example, several national biodiversity strategies and plans include references to GI (whether 
labelled as such or using other terminology reflecting the same concept). GI is also implicitly 
addressed in instruments related to particular ecosystems, such as Ireland’s National Peatlands 
Strategy. However, with the exception of Germany's ‘national GI concept11’, Member States 
have  not  yet  adopted  national  strategies  specifically  dedicated  to  GI.  Nevertheless,  some 
national  strategies  are  being  developed  (e.g.  in  Spain),  and  other  policies  and  legislative 
instruments address - at least implicitly - the concept of GI as defined by the EU GI strategy. 

With regard to EU water policy, natural water retention measures (NWRM) can help to slow 
down  the  flow  of  storm  water,  increase  infiltration  and  reduce  pollution  through  natural 
processes. Such measures are identified as cost-effective approaches to reach the objectives of 
the  WFD  and  the  Floods  Directive12  while  also  contributing  to  biodiversity  protection  and 
adaptation to climate change. Guidance on NWRM was developed13 and their implementation 
via  EU  structural  and  agricultural  funds  encouraged  in  the  elaboration  of  Member  States 
operational  and  agricultural  programmes14.  An  ex-post  assessment15  of  the  operational 
programmes has suggested that in spite of some progress, more needs to be done to promote 
strategic and integrated programmes; and that planning of larger-scale GI and NWRM could 
provide  benefits  for  water  quality,  protect  against  floods  and  deliver  on  biodiversity 
objectives.  Planning  opportunities  can  be  informed  through  the  MAES  work,  River  Basin 
Management  Plans  and  PAFs  to  identify  multifunctional  spaces  that  offer  the  highest 
opportunity for ecosystem service delivery. 

Under  the  EU  policy  on  maritime  affairs  and  fisheries16,  GI  is  referred  to  as  a  tool 
contributing  to  the  sustainable  development  of  coastal  areas.  Article  5  of  the  Directive  on 
maritime spatial planning17 covers the principal objectives of GI, stating that 'Member States 
shall aim to  contribute to  the preservation, protection and improvement  of the environment, 
including resilience to climate change impacts'. GI though is not sufficiently used in maritime 
spatial plans, whereas it could contribute to healthy marine ecosystems and deliver substantial 

10   Mapping and Assessing Ecosystems and their Services: 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/index_en.htm 

11   http://www.bfn.de/bkgi.html 
12   http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0673 
13   European Commission (2014). EU Water Policy Document on Natural Water Retention Measures. WFD CIS 

Working Group Programme of Measures. https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/2457165b-3f12-4935-819a-
c40324d22ad3/Policy%20Document%20on%20Natural%20Water%20Retention%20Measures_Final.pdf  

14   https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rural-development-2014-2020_en  
15   Evaluation of the contribution of Operational Programmes to the implementation of EU water policy 
16  COM(2014) 86 final 
17   Directive 2014/89/EU; O.J. EU 28.8.2014; L 257/135 

3 

 
 
                                                           
 
benefits  in  terms  of  food  production,  recreation  and  tourism,  climate  change  mitigation  and 
adaptation, shoreline dynamics control and disaster prevention. 

Although the GI concept was not  embedded in  the MSFD, its objectives are aligned with  it 
since  the  Directive  is  designed  to  maintain  biodiversity  and  provide  clean,  healthy  and 
productive oceans and seas. Some attempts to set up marine GI networks are done through the 
establishment  of  coherent  networks  of  marine  protected  areas  pursuant  to  Article  13.4. 
Measures taken under the Directive will continue addressing pressures to improve the status 
of marine environment through a cross-border/regional perspective with the help of newly set 
criteria and methodological standards18. The deployment of GI can help reach this goal. 

Ecosystem-based  solutions  and  GI  are  recognised  as  relevant  approaches  to  addressing 
climate change in the EU strategy on adaptation to climate change19. Action 7 of the strategy 
makes a specific reference to GI in relation to grey infrastructure resilience. At international 
level,  climate-related  benefits  of  ecosystem-based  approaches  have  been  highlighted  in 
several  decisions  under  the  Convention  on  Biological  Diversity20  and  in  the  Paris 
Agreement21. However, opportunities exist for further synergies,  given the higher frequency 
of natural disasters induced by climate change such as the extreme weather-related events in 
2017, including forest fires, storms and floods. More could be done to highlight the multiple 
benefits  GI  can  provide  to  climate  change  mitigation  and  adaptation,  directly  through  e.g. 
carbon  sequestration,  and  indirectly  by  reducing  energy  demands  and  pollution  through  GI-
related  active  transport  (such  as  cycling  and  walking),  mitigating  heat  island  effects  and 
reducing the needs for cooling and heating of buildings through green roofs and green walls. 

The  review  of  the  EU  Adaptation  Strategy22  provided  an  opportunity  to  consider  how  to 
encourage  further  the  uptake  of  GI  to  deliver  cost-effectively  climate-resilient  societies. 
Likewise  does  the  review  of  EU  water  policies  (Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive  -
UWWTD,  WFD,  FD)23.  Further  synergies  could  also  be  explored  with  the  Covenant  of 
Mayors for Climate & Energy24, or ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability25. 

The  strong  linkages  between  disaster  risk  management  and  the  environment  are  well 
acknowledged  and  magnified  by  the  impact  of  climate  change.  The  EU  Action  Plan  on  the 
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-203026 explicitly recognises the positive 
contribution that GI can bring to disaster risk reduction and management. GI can be promoted 
through  mechanisms  to  strengthen  EU  disaster  management27.  However,  this  has  still  to  be 
translated  into  specific  actions  on  the  ground.  Experience  illustrates  that  ecosystem-based 
approaches  such  as  GI,  nature-based  solutions,  ecosystem-based  adaptation,  natural  water 

18   Commission Decision 2017/848 
19   COM(2013) 216 
20   https://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/  ; https://www.cbd.int/climate/  
21   https://unfccc.int/process/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement  
22   COM(2018)738 
23   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/index_en.htm  
24   http://www.conventiondesmaires.eu/index_en.html  
25   http://iclei-europe.org/about-iclei/  
26   http://ec.europa.eu/echo/sites/echo-site/files/1_en_document_travail_service_part1_v2.pdf  
27   COM(2017) 773 final 

4 

 
 
                                                           
retention  measures  and  ecosystem-based  disaster  risk  reduction  measures  are  cost-efficient 
policy tools28;  but  they are not  used to their full extent and their potential should  be further 
strengthened at EU level.  

Although the GI concept is not included per se in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), 
the two pillars of the current CAP provide a set of instruments for addressing the sustainable 
management of natural resources and climate action, which can contribute to GI depending on 
their design and implementation. Under the cross-compliance system, the Good Agricultural 
and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) related to buffer strips and landscape features involve 
GI29 but the benefits they deliver vary across member States. Under the first pillar of the CAP, 
compulsory  ‘greening’  practices  introduced  in  2015  have  the  potential  to  benefit  both  the 
environment and climate; however the European Court of Auditors recently concluded30 that 
as currently implemented, they are unlikely to provide significant benefits for the environment 
and climate, in particular for biodiversity. As regards the second pillar, a wide menu of rural 
development  measures  can  be  selected  by  Member  States  and  regions  to  help  achieve  agri-
environment-climate  objectives,  and  farmers  can  receive  an  area-based  payment  for  them; 
which  can  be  complemented  by  targeted  support  to  non-productive  investments.  Specific 
support may also be granted to the conversion to or the maintenance of organic farming, the 
direct implementation of provisions of the Habitats and Birds Directives and the WFD31.  The 
European  Agricultural  Rural  Development  Fund  (EARDF)  can  also  be  used  to  support 
forestry-related measures that potentially involve the development or maintenance of GI. 

This contribution could be enhanced by incentivizing the reintroduction of landscape features 
in  farmed  areas  and  better  protecting  permanent  grasslands.  An  ex-post  assessment  of  the 
contribution of the Rural Development Programs towards the delivery of the WFD and the FD 
includes an assessment of the use of Natural Water Retention Measures and how this can be 
improved  in  the  future.  The  Communication  on  the  Future  of  Food  and  Farming32 
recommends innovative instruments that have the potential to strengthen existing GI.  

Efforts  have  been  made  to  mainstream  GI  in  EU  regional  policy:  the  regulations  for  the 
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund for 2014-2020 provide33 
that  sustainable  development  -  including  environmental  protection  requirements  and 
biodiversity - is promoted horizontally. In its guidance34 to Member States, the Commission 
highlighted  GI  and  ecosystem-based  adaptation  as  a  cost-effective  alternative  or  a 
complementary measure to grey infrastructure and intensive land use change. 

The EU macro-regional strategies35 are useful platforms for designing and implementing GI 
projects and bringing together countries (EU and non-EU), regions and stakeholders. GI can 

28   https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/climate-change-adaptation-and-disaster 
29   GAEC 1 and 7, see SWD 
30   http://publications.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/greening-21-2017/en/  
31   Key descriptive statistics on the consideration of water issues in the Rural Development Programmes 2014-

2020 

32   COM(2017) 713 final 
33   Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013  
34   http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/legislation/guidance/  
35   Adriatic-Ionan, Alpine, Baltic Sea and Danube 

5 

 
 
                                                           
become  the  structural  and  functional  backbone  for  the  sustainable  development  of  those 
regions. As a good example, in the context of the EU macro-regional strategy for the Alpine 
Region, a ministerial joint declaration on Alpine GI was adopted in October 2017. 

GI  has  also  been  promoted  in  EU  urban  policy.  Under  the  Urban  Agenda  for  the  EU36  on 
Sustainable use of land and nature-based solutions, a partnership was launched in 2017, and a 
call for proposals is also foreseen under Urban Innovative Actions37, which provide funding 
to cities to test innovative solutions on selected sustainable urban development topics. GI has 
been included in the award criteria of the European Green Capital and Green Leaf awards38. 
Knowledge of urban GI is also improving with the support of the MAES ‘EnRoute’ project39, 
and  Horizon  2020  projects  on  nature-based  solutions  implemented  in  urban  areas40.  Several 
initiatives launched by European cities target GI at city and local level as well. 

In EU health policy, despite many studies41 demonstrating the positive link between GI and 
human health, GI is not widely used by decision-makers and stakeholders as a cost-efficient 
solution to health issues. Good practices need to be scaled up, such as Finland's initiatives to 
promote a holistic approach to GI and human health. 

GI,  by  providing  multiple  ecosystem-based  benefits,  can  contribute  to  increasing  public 
acceptance  of  newly  created  energy  infrastructure.  Forms  of  habitat  enhancement  such  as 
converting areas under power lines into habitats with low lying vegetation  has been popular 
with local communities and land owners and has shown a reduction in vegetation maintenance 
costs  for  project  promoters42.  The  Renewables  Grid  Initiative  rewards  projects  with 
outstanding  innovative  practices  in  nature  and  biodiversity  protection,  such  as  those 
conducted  by  Elia  and  Terna43.  Similar  practices  could  be  scaled  up  across  the  EU  and 
potentially incentivized by regulators as best practices for ensuring the timely implementation 
of  Projects  of  Common  Interest  along  TEN-E  priority  corridors,  a  precondition  for  an 
integrated, secure, competitive and sustainable internal EU energy market and for achieving 
EU's climate and energy policy objectives. 

Regarding EU transport policy, some examples illustrate good practices but they are still too 
isolated, and more efforts are required to enhance biodiversity by using GI alongside TEN-T44 
networks and benefit nature and the economy, increasing at the same time societal acceptance 
of  new  transport  infrastructure.  This  can  include  the  maintenance  of  biodiversity-rich  areas 
alongside TEN-T corridors or the construction of specific structures to provide safe passage 
for  wild  fauna.  It  is  therefore  important  to  strengthen  synergies  between  TENs  and  GI 

36   http://www.urbanagendaforthe.eu  
37   http://www.uia-initiative.eu  
38   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/europeangreencapital/  
39   www.oppla.eu/EnRoute and  http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC110402 
40   E.g. Nature4Cities, GrowGreen, NAIAD, NATURVATION, UNALAB, Connecting and UrbanGreenUp 
41   e.g. Study report on the Health and social benefits of nature 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/intro/ 

42   BESTGRID Project, https://www.bestgrid.eu  
43   See SWD 
44   https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/ten-t  

6 

 
 
                                                           
deployment  at  EU  level,  including  through  exploring  the  potential  to  green  Connecting 
Europe Facility45 projects. 

2.2.  

Improving  information,  strengthening  the  knowledge  base  and  promoting 
innovation 

The  GI  strategy  called  on  the  Commission  to  improve  and  further  disseminate  GI-related 
information.  Wider  access  to  dedicated  information  on  GI  has  been  provided  on  the 
Biodiversity  Information  System  for  Europe46,  including  a  library  on  GI47.  Synergies  are   
developed with other relevant information platforms. Guidance documents on integrating GI 
into  specific  policy  areas  have  been  published  (e.g.  regional  and  cohesion  policies48,  water 
and flood management49, Environmental  Impact  Assessments50 and Strategic Environmental 
Assessments51). 

Strengthening the knowledge base for GI is part of a broader action to provide the knowledge 
base  for  Target  2  of  the  EU  2020  biodiversity  strategy.  The  EU  initiative  on  mapping  and 
assessment  of  ecosystems  and 
in  2013  provides 
methodological guidance for the EU and its Member States to mapping and assessing the state 
of ecosystems and their services. The fourth MAES report52 published in 2016 was dedicated 
to urban GI.  

their  services  (MAES) 

launched 

The  Commission  published  a  report  on  ‘strategic  GI  and  ecosystem  restoration;  geospatial 
methods, data and tools’53 as a response to the GI strategy’s call for a review of the ‘extent 
and  quality  of  spatial  and  technical  data  available  for  decision-makers  in  relation  to  GI 
deployment’. 

The  European  Environment  Agency  (EEA)  and  the  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC)  are 
developing support work for GI and restoration, and have published reports on the usability of 
existing data and new methodologies for GI deployment54. 

As regards EU research and innovation policy, the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7), 
and  since  2014  Horizon  2020,  have  been  funding  GI-relevant  projects.  Investment 
opportunities  are  provided  through  research,  innovation  and  demonstration  projects  on  the 
deployment and assessment of nature-based solutions. This has been complemented by policy 
integration, indicator setting, information sharing, promotion and outreach to businesses and 
society;  as  evidence  about  the  multiple  benefits  provided  by  nature-based  solutions  triggers 

45   https://ec.europa.eu/inea/connecting-europe-facility/cef-transport  
46   http://biodiversity.europa.eu/  
47   http://biodiversity.europa.eu/topics/green-infrastructure  
48   http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/guides/2013/guide-to-multi-benefit-cohesion-

policy-investments-in-nature-and-green-infrastructure  

49   https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/green-infrastructure-and-flood-management  
50   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-support.htm  
51   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/sea-support.htm  
52   http://biodiversity.europa.eu/maes and http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC101639  
53   Estreguil, C., Dige, G., Kleeschulte, S., Carrao, H., Raynal, J. and Teller, A., Strategic Green Infrastructure 
and Ecosystem Restoration: geospatial methods, data and tools, EUR 29449 EN, Publications Office of the 
European Union, Luxembourg, 2019, ISBN 978-92-79-97295-9, doi:10.2760/36800, JRC113815. 

54   See SWD. 

7 

 
 
                                                           
upscaling and prioritisation of GI. Access to funding is facilitated through the research-funded 
information sharing platform Oppla55 and the networking platform ThinkNature56. 

The  GI  strategy  also  called  on  the  Commission  to  ‘assess  the  contribution  that  technical 
standards, particularly in relation to physical building blocks and procedures, could make to 
develop a market for GI-friendly products’. The possible development of GI-related standards 
is included in the annual Union work programme for standardisation57, and the Commission 
carried  out  a  study  on  the  matter58.  Work  will  continue  over  the  coming  months,  involving 
relevant  stakeholder  and  standardisation  organisations,  to  assess  whether  and  for  which  GI-
related elements new standards would be needed. 

2.3.  

Improving access to finance 

A  recent  study59  estimated  the  level  of  EU  funding  for  GI  in  the  2007-2013  programming 
period to  around EUR 6 579 million in  the 2007-2013 period, with  the highest  contribution 
from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. The LIFE programme provides 
specific funding for biodiversity, including green infrastructure60. 

For  the  2014-2020  period,  green  infrastructure  is  further  supported  as  part  of  European 
Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund direct allocations to biodiversity, nature and 
green  infrastructure  with  EUR  3  700  million  earmarked  investments;  as  well  as  with 
investments  in  several  related  areas  such  as  on  flood  protection,  water  purification  or 
renovation of buildings. 

The  GI  strategy  called  on  the  Commission  to  explore  the  opportunities  for  setting  up 
innovative  financing  mechanisms  to  support  GI  and  to  set  up  an  EU  financing  facility  to 
support  people  seeking  to  develop  GI  projects.  GI  projects  are  eligible  under  the  Natural 
Capital Financing Facility (NCFF)61, a financial instrument that supports projects delivering 
on biodiversity and climate adaptation and that generate revenues or demonstrate cost savings. 
The  first  loan  was  signed  in  April  201762,  and  is  expected  to  provide  strong  GI  and  nature 
benefits. Three additional operations have been signed in 2018, including a loan to the City of 
Athens for Urban GI, and several other relevant projects are under preparation. 

The European Fund for Strategic Investments63 (EFSI) and the objectives of the new EFSI II 
regulation (linking EFSI to more sustainable and cross-border projects, in particular those that 
contribute  to  achieving  COP21  climate  targets  or  the  transition  towards  a  more  resource 
efficient, circular and (near) zero-carbon economy) can also contribute, indirectly though, to 
supporting GI projects. 

55   http://oppla.eu/  
56   https://www.think-nature.eu/  
57   COM(2017) 453 final  
58   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/docs/green_infrastructures/GI%20Final%20Report.pdf 
59   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/docs/green_infrastructures/GI%20Final%20Report.pdf 
60   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm 
61   http://www.eib.org/products/blending/ncff/index.htm  
62   http://www.eib.org/products/blending/ncff/project-examples/index.htm  
63   http://www.eib.org/efsi/  

8 

 
 
                                                           
EU co-funding for projects implementing GI through nature-based solutions, and restoration 
in the 2014-15 calls under Horizon 2020 reached EUR 38.6 million, and EUR 68 million for 
the calls in 2016, with further EUR 73 million in 2017. The BiodivERsA64 ERA-net co-fund 
provided additional EUR 33 million for GI-related projects to national agencies in 2015-2016. 
Other  funding  instruments  such  as  structural  funds  could  then  take  up  the  results  of  GI-
relevant  research  and  innovation  and  add  ambition  in  terms  of  scale  of  interventions  and 
coherence among them, but this is not happening yet.  

This  review  has  shown  that  the  opportunities  embedded  in  the  various  EU  financing 
instruments have not been fully used and that access to finance remains to be improved. Some 
stakeholders  consulted  in  the  framework  of  the  Coordination  Group  on  Biodiversity  and 
Nature noted they perceived the lack of a dedicated financing instrument as an obstacle. There 
is a need to improve awareness of existing opportunities65, and to provide information on how 
to combine different sources for more strategic and integrated GI projects.  

Investing in GI brings substantial returns to the private sector. GI can be used by developers 
to increase land value or to protect assets from the impact of climate change given the carbon 
storage, erosion and flood control services of many ecosystems. Guidance on quantifying the 
economic returns on investment in GI is needed to encourage uptake of these opportunities. 
Action  1b66  of  the  action  plan  for  nature,  people  and  the  economy  addresses  this  need  by 
providing  Commission  guidance  on  integrating  ecosystems  and  their  services  into  decision-
making.  

2.4.   Contributing to the development of GI projects at EU level 

The  EU  GI  strategy  highlighted  the  support  to  GI  projects  at  EU  level  as  an  important 
objective  to  avoid  a  situation  where  GI  projects  would  only  be  carried  out  as  independent 
initiatives  and  would  not  achieve  their  full  potential.  It  encouraged  Member  States  and 
regions to seize the opportunities for developing GI in a cross-border/transnational context.  

In Member States, only a few transnational initiatives have been successfully developed, such 
as the European Green Belt67 or the Lower Danube Green Corridor68. In the latter, it has been 
estimated that each hectare of restored  floodplain provided EUR 500 per  year in  ecosystem 
services, helping to diversify local livelihoods. 

Regarding  support  to  EU-wide  GI  projects,  existing  instruments  are  primarily  oriented 
towards  projects  implemented  within  the  territory  of  a  single  Member  State  (with  the 
exception  of  INTERREG);  and  have  their  own  procedural  requirements  and  time  frame, 
which does not ease the design and implementation of transboundary GI projects.  

64  http://www.biodiversa.org/  
65   See the Commission's guide on Multi-benefit cohesion policy investments in nature and GI. 
66   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/action_plan/factsheets_en.pdf  
67   http://www.europeangreenbelt.org/  
68   http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/case-studies/lower-danube-green-corridor-floodplain-restoration-

for-flood-protection  

9 

 
 
 
                                                           
More generally, there is scope to further integrate GI in a synergistic way in strategic planning 
instruments such as river basin management plans, Natura 2000 management plans, national 
air  quality  plans,  rural  development  programmes  and  cohesion  policy  operational 
programmes,  as  well  as  in  TENs.  Such  plans  could  contribute  to  setting  up  an  EU-wide  GI 
network.  

The  GI  strategy  noted  that  developing  a  so-called  TEN-G  (trans-European  network  for  GI), 
'would have significant  benefits  for securing the resilience and vitality  of some of Europe’s 
most iconic ecosystems, with consequential social and economic benefits'. It provided that the 
Commission would carry out a study to assess the opportunities for developing an EU TEN-G 
initiative,  including  an  assessment  of  the  costs  and  the  economic,  social  and  environmental 
benefits of such an initiative. The European Parliament69, the Council70 and the Committee of 
the Regions71 also expressed support for a TEN-G initiative. 

A cost-benefit analysis was published in 201672, concluding  that a more strategic approach to 
GI at EU level would have the potential to provide greater benefits per euro invested than the 
current GI policy implementation and funding allocation (with a benefit-cost ratio more than 
double the current approach). 

Action  12  of  the  action  plan  for  nature,  people  and  the  economy  provides  that  the 
Commission should develop guidance providing a strategic framework for further supporting 
the  development  of  EU-level  GI.  This  should  help  identify  projects  of  common  European 
interest  to  be  prioritised  with  appropriate  funding  within  the  current  multiannual  financial 
framework, at a scale that transcends administrative boundaries.  

3.  

Conclusions and next steps 

The  EU  GI  strategy  has  highlighted  the  benefits  of  GI  and  built  some  momentum  for  the 
deployment of GI in the EU. There has been progress at various levels but challenges remain 
and  the  deployment  of  GI  needs  to  be  further  scaled  up.  Evidence  shows  that  a  strategic 
approach  for  GI  at  EU  level  has  not  been  implemented  yet;  and  a  more  robust  enabling 
framework for GI should be considered. GI deployment is often only implemented at a small 
scale, not giving due recognition to the potential economic and social benefits of using green 
instead of grey infrastructure solutions.  

At Member State level, increased efforts are required to develop and implement national GI 
strategies and prioritisation frameworks for the restoration of degraded ecosystems, consistent 
with  the  MAES  approach.  This  will  provide  greater  synergy  and  complementarity  with  the 
PAFs under the Nature Directives, and with the WFD and the MSFD. 

The  integration  of  GI  into  appropriate  EU  funding  mechanisms  has  provided  new 
opportunities;  however,  uptake  is  still  too  limited.  Efforts  should  be  stepped  up  to  achieve 

69   Resolution of 2 February 2016 on the mid-term review of the EU’s Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, § 29 
70   Conclusions of 16 December 2015 on the mid-term review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, § 30 
71   Opinion of 26 June 2014 on Multilevel governance in promoting the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and 

implementing the international Aichi Targets, § 53 

72   See footnote 59 

10 

 
 
                                                           
effective mainstreaming of GI in relevant EU policies and legislation. It will be important to 
ensure a more strategic approach and make the best use of the future EU funding instruments 
to support green infrastructure. Besides, the coherence of ecosystem-based policies should be 
improved, including through better interoperability of related existing platforms.  

The implementation of Action 12 of the EU Nature Action Plan and its related guidance on 
supporting the deployment of EU-level GI projects are an opportunity to further clarify the GI 
concept  (in  light  of  comments  that  the  multiple  aspects  covered  by  the  EU  definition  are 
sometimes challenging to capture). The guidance document also provides concrete examples 
on how GI relates to ecosystem restoration. It aims to help optimising investments in nature 
and biodiversity from the current multiannual financial framework as well as informing future 
debates on how to do this in the post-2020 period.  

Moreover, the Commission's guidance on the integration of ecosystems and their services into 
decision-making73  helps  to  better  take  into  account  the  economic,  social  and  environmental 
benefits provided by GI. 

The  findings  included  in  this  report  will  feed  into  the  evaluation  of  the  EU  biodiversity 
strategy to 2020 and its follow up.  They will contribute to achieving the objectives of other 
key  EU  policies  in  areas  such  as  economic  growth  and  jobs,  climate  mitigation  and 
adaptation, disaster risk reduction, cohesion and sustainable agriculture and forestry, and in a 
broader perspective the Sustainable Development Goals. 

73 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/index_en.htm  

11