COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Additional information on the review of implementation of the green infrastructure strategy Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN AN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF 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 SWD(2019) 184 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Additional information on the review of implementation of the green infrastructure strategy Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN AN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF REGIONS Review of progress on implementation of the EU green infrastructure strategy {COM(2019) 236 final}  
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Additional information on the review of implementation of the green infrastructure 
strategy 

Accompanying the document 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE 
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN AN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND 
THE COMMITTEE OF REGIONS 

Review of progress on implementation of the EU green infrastructure strategy 

1.  PART I:  FURTHER DETAILS ON GI MAINSTREAMING IN OTHER EU POLICIES 

2.  PART II:  SUMMARY REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION IN THE EU MEMBER STATES 
OF  THE  GREEN  INFRASTRUCTURE  STRATEGY  -  IEEP-LED  CONSORTIUM,  WITH 
SUPPORT FROM TRINOMICS, IUCN AND WCMC 

3.  PART 

III: 

FURTHER 

RESOURCES 

AND 

PUBLICATIONS

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1. Further details on GI mainstreaming in other EU policies 

A. EU nature policy and ecosystem protection 

The Natura 2000 network is at the core of the EU’s GI strategy. A recent fitness check of 
the Nature Directives concluded that, although the Directives are key instruments for the 
EU 2020 biodiversity strategy, they cannot deliver alone on the EU 2020 goal of halting 
the  loss  of  biodiversity,  and  they  are  less  effective  in  relation  to  the  maintenance  of 
features outside Natura 2000. Additional measures through GI deployment, including GI 
projects at EU level, would improve the network's coherence and would help achieve the 
objectives  of  the  Directives  (which  involve  maintaining  or  restoring  a  favourable 
conservation  status  for  all  species  and  habitats  of  Community  importance),  while  at  the 
same time contribute to other targets of the EU 2020 biodiversity strategy. 

Depending  on  the  local  situation,  GI  deployment  will  therefore  require  both  the 
conservation of existing biodiverse ecosystems in good ecosystem condition, as well as the 
restoration of degraded ecosystems. The Birds and Habitats Directives already incorporate 
a  clear  conservation  and  restoration  agenda.  Where  species  and  habitats  have  not  yet 
attained  a  favourable  conservation  status  at  the  level  of  individual  Natura  2000  sites, 
Member States are required to formulate restoration objectives and measures for the sites. 
They  also  provide  cost  estimates  for  Natura  2000  restoration  and  maintenance  measures 
through  Prioritised  Action  Frameworks  (PAFs)  based  on  Article 8  of  the  Habitats 
Directive. The Commission has also published a study that clarifies the link between the 
conservation  status  assessment  at  national  or  national  biogeographical  region  level  and 
objectives and measures at site level, including for those needed for restoration1. Some of 
the  conservation  and  restoration  successes  of  the  Nature  Directives  are  the  result  of 
dedicated LIFE Nature projects carried out over the last 25 years; although more needs to 
be done in the coming years - both inside and outside of the Natura 2000 network - to fully 
exploit the potential of the Directives to achieve their overall objective. 

The Commission published another study to help Member States prioritise the restoration 
of  degraded  ecosystems 2 .  Although  there  are  only  a  few  comprehensive  restoration 
strategies  at  national  and  sub-national  level3,  some  restoration  activity  is  taking  place  - 
often  in  response  to  other  relevant  EU  legislation  beyond  nature  legislation,  such  as  the 
Water  Framework  Directive  and  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive.  To  date, 
national restoration prioritisation frameworks have been developed and reported by three 
countries/regions:  Flanders  (Belgium),  Germany  and  the  Netherlands 4 .  Finland  has 

1    http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/restauration_and_natura2000_en.htm 
2   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/RPF.pdf 
3   Up to now, only Germany, the Netherlands and the region of Flanders (BE) have developed and submitted 

Restoration Prioritisation Frameworks (RPF). 

4   The full names of these RPFs are as follows: Flanders (Belgium): Prioriteitenkader voor ecosysteemherstel 
in  Vlaanderen  (Prioritisation  framework  for  ecosystem  restoration  in  Flanders),  2016;  Germany: 
Priorisierungsrahmen  zur  Wiederherstellung  verschlechterter  Ökosysteme  in  Deutschland  (Prioritisation 
framework  for  the  restoration  of  degraded  ecosystems  in  Germany),  2015;  and  the  Netherlands:  Naar  een 
strategisch  kader  voor  ecosysteemherstel  (‘RPF’)  in  Nederland  (Towards  a  strategic  framework  for 
ecosystem restoration in the Netherlands), 2014. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
established a national restoration prioritisation working group, which published its report 
in October 20155. However, it was not endorsed by the government. 

B. EU Common Agricultural policy  

The  GI  concept  is  not  included  per  se  in  the  legislative  instruments  of  the  common 
agricultural  policy  (CAP).  The  mid-term  review  of  the  EU  2020  biodiversity  strategy 
pointed to agriculture and human-induced modifications of natural conditions as the most 
prominent pressures on terrestrial ecosystems, and that there has been a substantial loss of 
biodiversity associated with agriculture in the EU over the last 50 years6. 

in  2015, 

introduced 

However,  the  two  pillars  of  the  CAP  provide  a  set  of  instruments  for  addressing  the 
sustainable  management  of  natural  resources  and  climate  action.  These  can  potentially 
contribute  significantly  to  green  infrastructure.  As  part  of  the  cross-compliance 
mechanism, two good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) directly involve 
green  infrastructure:  GAEC  17 and  GAEC  78.  Under  the  CAP’s  first  pillar,  compulsory 
including  (a)  crop  diversification;  (b) 
‘greening’  practices 
maintenance  of  permanent  grassland  including  strict  maintenance  of  environmentally 
sensitive  permanent  grassland  in  Natura  2000  areas;  and  (c)  establishment  of  ecological 
focus  areas  (EFA)9,  have  the  potential  to  benefit  both  the  environment  and  climate.  As 
regards  rural  development  policy  (CAP  2d  pillar),  a  wide  menu  of  rural  development 
measures  is  available  to  Member  States  and  regions  to  contribute  to  the  sustainable 
management of natural resources, such as: non-productive investments, agri-environment-
climate  measures,  Natura  2000  and  Water  Framework  Directive  payments,  organic 
farming payments or the forest environmental and climate services and forest conservation 
and measure for basic services and village renewal in rural areas, which provides support 
for the preparation of the Natura 2000 management plans and related actions.  
The  review  of  greening  measures  after  one  year  and  the  review  of  EFAs 10 illustrated 
though that the potential of greening measures to contribute towards biodiversity has been 
harnessed only partially, even if 76% of the Utilised Agricultural Area (UAA) is covered 
by  one  greening  practice.  A  comprehensive  greening  evaluation  has  been  finalised. 
Qualitative  information  from  the  ground  on  implemented  farm  management  using  field 
data on biodiversity will be important to further evaluate the impact of greening measures 
on green infrastructure. 

5   https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/156982/SY_8_2015.pdf  
6   Study on ‘Mapping and analysis of the implementation of the CAP’; Final Report; 2016, ISBN 978-92-79-

54679-2 ISSN 2016.1365 doi 10.2762/147473 KF-04-16-021-EN-N. 

7   GAEC 1: establishment of buffer strips along water courses. 
8   GAEC 7: Retention of landscape features, including where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line 
in group or isolated, field margins and terraces, and including a ban on cutting hedges and trees during the 
bird breeding and rearing season and, as an option, measures for avoiding invasive plant species. 

9   Based on the Commission staff working document on the March 2017 report from the Commission on the 
implementation of EFA, 8 million ha of land was declared as EFA in 2015, which accounted for 13 % of the 
arable land. 

10  https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct-support/greening_en;  COM(2017)  152  final:  Report  from 

the 
Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the ecological focus area 
obligation  under  the  green  direct  payment  scheme.  While  the  minimum  requirement  of  5 %  of  EFAs  in 
arable  land  has  been  exceeded  (9 %  after  application  of  weighting  factors),  farmers  mostly  opted  for  the 
productive type of EFA: nitrogen-fixing crops (39 %), land lying fallow (38 %) and catch crops (15 %). The 
EFA element with the highest potential benefit for biodiversity — landscape features — was adopted at 5 % 
of the total EFA area. 

3 

 
 
                                                           
The  EU  forest  strategy11 contains  a  reference  to  green  infrastructure  (GI):  ‘Protection 
efforts  should  aim  to  maintain,  enhance  and  restore  forest  ecosystems’  resilience  and 
multi-functionality  as  a  core  part  of  the  EU’s  green  infrastructure,  providing  key 
environmental  services  as  well  as  raw  materials.’  The  strategy’s  multiannual 
implementation  plan identifies certain  measures (e.g. the provision of guidance on  green 
infrastructure and restoration) to establish the link with the GI strategy. 

The main forestry-related measures in Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 that can potentially 
support  green  infrastructure  encourage  investments  in  forest  area  development  and 
improvement  of  the  viability  of  forests  (Article  21),    afforestation  and  creation  of 
woodland  (Article  22);  the  establishment  of  agroforestry  systems  (Article  23);  the 
prevention and restoration of damage to forests from forest fires and natural disasters and 
catastrophic  events  (Article  24);  and 
the  resilience  and 
investments 
environmental value of forest ecosystems (Article 25).  

improving 

In  addition,  the  EU  forest  strategy’s  main  objective  is  to  develop  sustainable  forest 
management  in  the  EU  and  abroad.  It  is  also  the  key  instrument  for  delivering  multiple 
goods  and  services  in  a  balanced  way.  The  valuation  of  ecosystem  services  and  the 
maintenance and enhancement of such services are among its strategic orientations, which 
are in line with the definition and objectives of green infrastructure. 

For  the  2014-2020  period,  cross  compliance,  greening  and  around  52 %  of  the  rural 
development budget are linked to environmental and climate priorities. In addition, under 
rural  development  programmes  (RDPs)  in  the  second  pillar  of  the  common  agriculture 
policy (CAP): 

  almost  25 % of EU farmland is  under contract  for more environmentally  friendly 

management; 

  44 %  (EUR  43.8  billion)  of  the  total  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural 
Development  (EAFRD)  budget  has  been  allocated  to  Priority  4  (restoring, 
preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry); 

  83 million ha of agricultural land and 7.9 million ha of forests will receive funding 
for restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems — a budget of around EUR 43 
billion in total; and 

  some EUR 2.2 billion of public expenditure is planned for the afforestation of 560 

000 ha, contributing to long-term climate change mitigation and adaptation. 

On the protection of ecosystems, agri-environment and climate measures will contribute to 
the increased sustainability of agricultural production on a large scale by covering around 
18 %  of  agricultural  land  and  3.8 %  of  forest  land  under  management  contracts  that 
support biodiversity and/or landscapes, including green infrastructure. 

Total public contributions currently planned for afforestation amount to EUR 2.2 billion, 
for agroforestry EUR 115 million, for prevention and restoration EUR 2.3 billion, and for 
investments in ecosystems EUR 1.4 billion. 

According to a recent study12, the EAFRD appears to be the fund that contributes most to 
green  infrastructure  in  monetary  terms,  with  EUR  4 967  million  (77 %  of  the  total  EU 
funded green infrastructure) allocated to green infrastructure for the 2014-2020 period. 

11 COM(2013) 659 final.  

 Report 

12
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/docs/green_infrastructures/GI%20Final%20Report.pdf 

implementation 

Supporting 

(2016): 

green 

the 

of 

infrastructure: 

4 

 
 
                                                           
In addition, the agricultural European Innovation Partnership (EIP-AGRI) includes a focus 
group  on  ecological  focus  areas 13  (EFAs).  Its  work  includes  information  on  the 
environmental benefits of EFAs, with the focus on: 

 

field  margins:  the  spontaneously  established  strips  of  herbaceous  plants  at  the 
edge of fields; 

  hedgerows:  composed  of  one  or  two  rows  of  planted  or  naturally  established 

shrubs and/or trees; and 

  grassy  or  flower  strips:  intentionally  sown,  the  former  mostly  with  grasses  and 

the latter with flowering plants. 

Other  focus  groups14,  including  the  Focus  Group  on  Agriculture  and  Water,  mention 
some  environmental  benefits  of  EFAs 
(e.g.  cover  crops  and  agroforestry): 
(https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/sites/agri-eip/files/eip-
agri_fg_water_and_agriculture_final-report_en.pdf  

C. EU climate policy 

On  climate  mitigation,  Member  States  report  each  year  on  emissions  and  removals  of 
carbon  in  the  agriculture  and  forestry  sector  under  the  Land  Use,  Land-Use  Change  and 
Forestry  Decision15 and  the  United  Nations  Framework  Convention  on  Climate  Change 
(UNFCCC).  Green  infrastructure  impact  on  the  carbon  balance  in  these  sectors  may 
therefore  be  visible  thanks  to  estimating  greenhouse  gas  removals  and  emissions.  The 
purpose  of  the  current  legislative  framework  is  to  improve  the  national  systems  for 
estimating  these  emissions  and  removals.  After  2020,  the  land  use,  land-use  change  and 
forestry sector will contribute fully to achieving the reduction commitment under the Paris 
Agreement (40 % less greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990)16. 

On  climate  adaptation,  the  EU  adaptation  strategy 17  adopted  in  2013  specifically 
encourages  green  infrastructure  and  ecosystem-based  approaches  to  adaptation.  The 
Commission staff working document Adapting infrastructure to climate change18, which 
accompanied  the  strategy,  emphasised  green  infrastructure  as  a  cost-effective  and  low-
maintenance way to enhance climate change adaptation for buildings and physical assets. 

13

https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/content/optimising-profitability-crop-production-through-ecological-
focus-areas)  

14   (https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/sites/agri-eip/files/eipagri_fg_water_and_agriculture_final-

report_en.pdf) 

The  full list of  focus  groups  can be found on: http://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/content/focus-groups . 
Several of them refer to the respective EFAs. There is also a Focus Group on High Nature Value (HNV) 
profitability and a thematic network starting on HNV: http://www.hnvlink.eu/ 

15   Decision No 529/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on accounting 
rules  on  greenhouse  gas  emissions  and  removals  resulting  from  activities  relating  to  land  use,  land-use 
change and forestry and on information concerning actions relating to those activities. 

16   See  European  Council  (23  and  24 October  2014)  Conclusions  on  2030  Climate  and  Energy  Policy 

Framework. 

17   COM(2013) 216. See also: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/adaptation/what_en  

18   SWD(2013) 137 final. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
It  also  highlighted  ancillary  benefits  such  as  better  human  health  and  climate  change 
mitigation. 

In the EU adaptation strategy, infrastructure is referred to as part of: 

  Action  1  (Encourage  all  Member  States  to  adopt  comprehensive  adaptation 

strategies); 

  Action  2  (Provide  LIFE  funding  to  support  capacity  building  and  step  up 

adaptation action); 

  Action 3 (Introduce adaptation in the Covenant of Mayors framework); 
  Action  5  (Further  develop  Climate-ADAPT  as  a  one-stop  shop  for  adaptation 

information in Europe); 

  Action 6 (Facilitate the  climate-proofing of the  Common Agricultural  Policy, the 

Cohesion Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy); and 

  Action 7 (Ensuring more resilient infrastructure). 

Green  infrastructure  is  described  as  both  an  innovative  and  cost-effective  form  of 
adaptation. 

As  part  of  Action  1,  a  scoreboard  was  developed  to  measure  Member  States’  level  of 
adaptation readiness. One of the indicators looks at procedures or guidelines to assess the 
potential  impact  of  climate  change  on  major  projects  or  programmes  and  facilitate  the 
choice of alternative options, such as green infrastructure. 

Action  6  aims  to  facilitate  the  climate  proofing  of  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy,  the 
Cohesion policy and the Common fisheries policy,  

As  part  of  climate  mainstreaming  in  general,  20 %  of  the  EU  budget  is  earmarked  for 
climate  change  mitigation  and  adaptation  objectives.  Climate  action  is  mainstreamed  in 
the European Structural  and  Investment  Funds 2014-2010, which represent  around 42 % 
of  the  EU  budget  for  2014-2020  and  will  therefore  contribute  significantly  to  the  20 % 
goal mentioned above. 25 % (EUR 114 billion) of these funds are earmarked for climate 
change actions such as the development of green infrastructure, which includes renewable 
energy sources,  sustainable urban mobility and climate-related innovation to  name just  a 
few.  Detailed  guidance 19  for  the  ERDF  and  the  CF  on  how  to  promote  green 
infrastructure  has  been  issued  for  thematic  objective  6  on  environment  and  resource 
efficiency and thematic objective 5 on climate adaptation and risk management.  

Thanks  to  the  European  Climate  Adaptation  Platform 20 (CLIMATE-ADAPT)  and  the 
Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy, the Commission has provided information on 
the  role  of  green  infrastructure  in  climate  change  adaptation  and  mitigation.  These  two 
activities respond to Actions 3 and 5 of the 2013 EU adaptation strategy mentioned above. 
The  Commission  has  also  carried  out  a  study  on  ecosystem-based  assessments  for 
adaptation  purposes,  including  green  infrastructure,  whose  results  will  be  available  soon 
under  CLIMATE-ADAPT.  Finally,  the  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC)  and  DG  CLIMA’s 
work on PESETA III21 has provided some draft results on the use of green infrastructure 
in the Mediterranean. 

19   http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/legislation/guidance/ 

20   http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/ 

21   http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/projects/projection-of-economic-impacts-of-climate-change-in-

sectors-of-the-european-union-based-on-bottom-up-analysis 

6 

 
 
                                                           
CLIMATE-ADAPT  is  the  EU’s  climate  change  adaptation  platform.  A  partnership 
between the Commission and the European Environment Agency (EEA), it aims to bridge 
the  knowledge  gap  on  adaptation  options,  helping  users  access  and  share  data  and 
information on e.g. expected climate change impacts in regions and economic sectors, case 
studies and planning tools. 

The GI concept is cited as an adaptation option in several recent case studies, for example: 

  social housing in London, UK22; 
  green roofs in Hamburg, Germany23; and 
  green  infrastructure  is  also  cited24 in  the  ‘urban  section’  of  CLIMATE-ADAPT, 
for  example  in  the  urban  adaptation  support  tool  or  the  urban  vulnerability 
mapbook. 

The important role of ecosystem-based approaches in enhancing the resilience of cities is 
recognised in the new Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy25. This initiative brings 
together  thousands  of  local  and  regional  authorities  that  are  committed  to  implementing 
EU  climate  and  energy  objectives  on  their  territory.  New  signatories  pledge  to  address 
climate change mitigation and adaptation as well as access to clean energy in an integrated 
approach.  By  joining,  local  authorities  obtain  practical  support  and  knowledge  support, 
can  exchange  experiences,  increase  the  visibility  of  their  commitments  and  actions, 
increase financial opportunities for their projects and monitor the implementation of their 
action plans. 

The reporting guidelines followed by Covenant members contain the possibility to account 
for  emission  reductions  achieved  by  means  of  green  infrastructure.  Similarly,  when 
planning  and  implementing  adaptation  plans,  cities  are  encouraged  to  use  green 
infrastructure such as green roofs and walls, green spaces, urban gardens etc. as a way to 
limit the negative effects of climate change.  

Some examples of GI initiatives under this framework include: 

  good practices26;  

  brochure on climate measures, including green infrastructure27; and  

  Rouen case study28.  

On  the  Commission’s  study  of  the  ecosystem-based  assessment  for  adaptation  purposes, 
initial  results  show  that  green  infrastructure  helps  tackle  wind  erosion  and  damage, 
excessive  heat,  intense  rainfall,  flooding  and  drought  or  water  scarcity.  The  study  also 

22 http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/case-studies/climate-proofing-social-housing-landscapes-2013-

groundwork-london-and-hammersmith-fulham-council 

http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/case-studies/four-pillars-to-hamburg2019s-green-roof-
strategy-financial-incentive-dialogue-regulation-and-science 

24   http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/knowledge/tools/urban-adaptation/climatic-threats/heat-waves/exposure 

25   http://www.covenantofmayors.eu/The-Covenant-of-Mayors-for-Climate.html 

26   http://www.eumayors.eu/media/case-studies_en.html 

27   http://www.eumayors.eu/IMG/pdf/CovenantOfMayors_BestPracticePublication_web.pdf 

28

http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/case-studies/multifunctional-water-management-and-green-

infrastructure-development-in-an-ecodistrict-in-rouen 

7 

 
 
                                                           
aims to measure the frequency and type of co-benefits associated with green infrastructure 
compared with other ecosystem-based measures. 

On PESETA III, some preliminary results are available on the impact of climate change on 
the  Mediterranean  climate  domain  (MCD),  and  in  particular  Natura  2000  areas  under 
MCD. PESETA III tentatively recommends increasing support for GI projects, which can 
increase  connectivity  between  areas  where  MCD  prevails  or  expands  and  areas  where 
MCD  contracts.  As  climate  change  advances,  this  would  make  the  natural  migration  of 
species easier and help preserve biodiversity. 

Under the LIFE priority area ‘climate change mitigation29’, many financed projects help 
develop green infrastructure through the restoration of peatlands (e.g. LIFE Peat Restore, 
LIFE REstore), sustainably managed forests (e.g. LIFE+ MANFOR), agroforestry systems 
(e.g. LIFE OPERATION CO2), tree crops (e.g. LIFE ClimaTree, oLIVECLIMA) and the 
improvement  and  protection  of  carbon  sinks  in  soils  (e.g.  LIFE  CarbOnFarm,  LIFE 
HELPSOIL). 

Action 2 of the EU adaptation strategy deals with improving funding to Member States for 
adaptation  purposes.  Under  the  LIFE  Climate  Action  sub-programme30,  ‘projects  with 
demonstration and transferability potential will be encouraged, as will green infrastructure 
and ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation’. In 2014-2015, one third (8 out of 27) of 
the  projects  from  the  LIFE  priority  area  ‘climate  change  adaptation’  involved  green 
infrastructure measures, mostly in urban areas. For example: 

  green infrastructure in the city of Rotterdam31;  
  urban drainage systems in Spain, Portugal and Italy32; and  
  sustainable management of water in Radom, Poland33.   

The  Natural  Capital  Financing  Facility 34  (NCFF)  implemented  by  the  European 
Investment  Bank  (EIB)  also  includes  a  specific  project  category  on  green  infrastructure, 
including  green  roofs,  green  walls,  ecosystem-based  rainwater  collection/water  reuse 
systems,  flood  protection  and  erosion  control.  For  example,  the  EIB  is  currently 
developing  a  loan  to  support  renaturalisation  works  covering  a  20-km  stretch  of  the 
Alzette  River  (from  Luxembourg  city  centre  to  Mersch).  It  aims  to  reduce  flood  risk, 
improve water quality and protect biodiversity. 

D. EU research policy and relevant research projects on nature-based solutions 

  EU  research  framework  programmes  FP7  and,  since  2014,  Horizon  2020,  have  been 
funding  GI-relevant  projects  on  ecosystem  services,  restoration  and  nature-based 

29 

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

30 https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/budget/life_en  

31 www.urbanadapt.eu/en 

32 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=5665 

33 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=5356 

34 http://www.eib.org/products/blending/ncff/index.htm 

8 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
solutions,  using GI to address societal challenges at large.  Horizon 2020 provides support 
to demonstration projects for the deployment and assessment of nature-based solutions in 
real  world  conditions.  This  has  been  complemented  by  policy  integration,  indicator 
setting, information sharing, promotion and outreach to businesses and society. The aim is 
that  evidence  about  the  multiple  benefits  provided  by  nature-based  solutions  triggers 
upscaling and prioritisation of GI. 

EU  co-funding  for  projects  implementing  GI  through  nature-based  solutions,  and 
restoration in the 2014-15 calls under Horizon 2020 reaches EUR 38.6 million, and EUR 
68  million  for  the  calls  in  2016,  with  further  EUR  73  million  in  2017.  Co-funding  for 
green  infrastructure-related  calls  with  national  agencies  is  available  through  the 
BiodivERsA35 ERA-net  co-fund.  Its  co-funding  for  GI-related  projects  amounted  to  an 
additional EUR 33 million in the 2015-2016 co-funding call (i.e. EUR 52 million in total 
for  calls  on  ‘Understanding  and  managing  the  biodiversity  dynamics  of  soils  and 
sediments  to  improve  ecosystem  functioning  and  delivery  of  ecosystem  services’  and 
‘Understanding  and  managing  biodiversity  dynamics  in  land-,  river-  and  sea-scapes 
(habitat  connectivity,  green  and  blue  infrastructures,  and  ‘naturing’  cities)  to  improve 
ecosystem  functioning  and  delivery  of  ecosystem  services)’.  The  Horizon  2020  work 
programme  2018-2036 foresees  more  than  110  million  euro  investments  in  nature-based 
solutions,  ecosystems  and  their  services.  Other  funding  instruments  such  as  structural 
funds could take up the results of GI-relevant research and innovation and add ambition in 
terms of scale of interventions and coherence among them, and apply them more widely, 
but this is not happening yet. 

The FP7 project GreenSurge37 linking up green spaces, biodiversity, people and the green 
economy, provides amongst other, a typology of urban Green Infrastructure in Europe and 
a handbook on its implementation. 

The list of projects below contains topics and results of the Horizon 2020 calls of 2014-
2016: 

  EKLIPSE, the science-policy-society mechanism, has produced an impact assessment 
framework for nature-based solutions38, which could be tested on, and applied to, any 
GI project; 
INSPIRATION is looking at new research models for GI-relevant topics; 

 
  NAIAD focuses on the insurance value of ecosystems; 
  Two  projects,  Nature4Cities  and  Naturvation,  are  developing  innovative  approaches 

and tools for nature-based solutions in cities; 

  Four demonstration projects are testing, applying and investigating ways of upscaling 
nature-based  solutions  in  cities  to  improve  urban  resilience  to  climate  change  and 
water  (CONNECTING Nature, GROW GREEN, UrbanGreenUP, UNALAB); 

  ESMERALDA is steering mapping ecosystem services in Europe; 
  Two projects, MERCES and AMBER, are developing new approaches to ecosystem 

restoration; and 

35 http://www.biodiversa.org/ 

36

http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/climate-action-environment-resource-efficiency-and-raw-

materials-work-programme-2018-2020 

37 http://greensurge.eu/ 

38  http://www.eklipse-mechanism.eu/apps/Eklipse_data/website/EKLIPSE_Report1-NBS_FINAL_Complete-

08022017_LowRes_4Web.pdf 

9 

 
 
                                                           
  The  BiodivERsA  co-fund  launched  a  call  on  green  infrastructure  with  national 

authorities in 2015-16, resulting in 17 projects. 

  ALICE  (AcceLerate  Innovation  in  urban  wastewater  management  for  Climate 

change)  

  CuPESS (Catchments under Pressure: Ecosystem Service Solutions)  
  LANDMARK (LAND Management: Assessment, Research, Knowledge base) 
  AquaSpace (Ecosystem Approach to making Space for Aquaculture) 
 

InnoForESt (Smart information, governance and business innovations for sustainable 
supply and payment mechanisms for forest ecosystem services) 

  SINCERE (Spurring INnovations for Forest ECosystem SERvices in Europe) 
  SCALEFORES (Scaling Rules For Ecosystem Service Mapping) 

The calls of 2017 have resulted in 4 additional projects on the testing, demonstrating and 
upscaling of NBS for inclusive urban regeneration, and 3 projects on demonstrating how 
NBS can reduce hydro-meteorological risks such as floods, landslides and droughts.  

DG RTD is investing in improved access to information: all new projects should provide 
open access to project results; maximum coherence at EU level is proposed for ecosystem-
based  approaches  hosted  on  the  research-funded  platforms  for  information  sharing 
Oppla39 and networking ThinkNature40, which are open to GI-relevant stakeholders and 
businesses. 

Through  Oppla,  a  knowledge  marketplace  with  GI-relevant  information,  the  outputs  of 
research  and  innovation  are  made  accessible  to  end-users  on  natural  capital,  ecosystems 
services  and  the  community  of  science  for  nature-based  solutions,  policy  and  practice. 
Oppla aims to become the European knowledge hub for nature-based solutions. 

For more information, see 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/pdf/research_and_innovation_sc5_projects_2014-
2016.pdf. 

E. Green infrastructure and water policy 

On mainstreaming green infrastructure into the water policy, natural water retention measures 
(NWRMs) have been identified as GI measures / nature-based solutions that can improve the 
state  of  aquatic  ecosystems  and  help  achieve  the  objectives  of  the  Water  Framework 
Directive41 as well as those of the Floods Directive. This also helps  achieving other policy 
objectives  such  as  biodiversity  and  adaptation  to  climate  change.  NWRMs  are  being 
promoted  within  the  common  implementation  strategy  for  the  Water  Framework  Directive 
(CIS). In 2014, the "Water Directors" agreed on  an EU policy document on NWRMs, which 
explained their policy relevance and promoted their uptake in water management. 
The Commission is currently carrying out an assessment of the 2nd River Basin Management 
Plans and 1st  Flood  River Management Plans,  which should provide further information on 
how  NWRMs  can  help  achieve  the  EU  water  policy  objectives.  This  assessment  might 
provide further information on NWRMs. The findings could point however to an insufficient 
uptake  of  NWRMs  compared  to  expectations.  This  could  be  due  to  the  lack  of  a  dedicated 

39 http://oppla.eu 

40 https://www.think-nature.eu/ 

41 Directive 2000/60/EC. 

10 

 
 
 
                                                           
funding  mechanism,  lack  of  expertise  among  practitioners  in  the  field  or  lack  of  sufficient 
proof that there is a favourable cost/benefit ratio. 

Following a pilot project on ‘Atmospheric precipitation - protection and efficient use of fresh 
water:  integration  of  natural  water  retention  measures  in  river  basin  management  (2013-
2015)’,  a  structured  knowledge  base  on  NWRM  (www.nwrm.eu)  was  developed  together 
with  an  active  European  ‘community  of  NWRM  practitioners’  (including  the  launch  of 
different regional networks and the development of a practical guide to support the practical 
design  and  implementation  of  NWRM).  This  database  contains  case  studies,  and  could 
provide information on projects of strategic importance from the Water Framework Directive 
and  the  Floods  Directive.  A  guide  was  also  created  to  help  select,  design  and  implement 
NWRMs for the agriculture, urban, forestry and water/flood management sectors. 

On  the  ground,  green  infrastructure  /  NWRMs  are  not  being  implemented  to  the  extent 
needed.  There  can  be  many  reasons  for  this,  including  lack  of  information  on  the  benefits, 
lack of  green engineering know-how,  greater complexity in  dealing with  a large number of 
land owners etc. An instrument that allows for direct funding of strategically important green 
infrastructure is therefore considered highly relevant. 

Transboundary  river  basins  form  an  essential  part  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive. 
Strategic and integrated programmes across boundaries could be achieved by introducing GI 
projects  at  EU  level.  This  would  allow  for  the  implementation  of  a  coherent  set  of  GI 
measures and NWRMs along river basins, improving for example continuity and connectivity 
by restoring floodplains (recreating functional and biodiverse wetlands) or removing physical 
barriers  in  rivers,  which  would  help  fish  migration  along  rivers  from  source  to  sea.  Well-
established  international  river  basin  commissions  and  dedicated  environment  pillars  of  the 
macro-regional strategies could facilitate implementation of such GI projects at EU level. 

F.   Scientific GI-related work by the JRC 

  More green infrastructure is required to maintain ecosystem services under current trends 

in land-use change in Europe42:  

This  article  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10980-014-0083-2  describes  how 
Europe’s  GI  and  ecosystem  services  are  expected  to  change  under  the  EU  reference 
scenario (LUISA model). The total number of ecosystem services is expected to decrease 
by 5 % by 2050 relative to 2010 (see figure 7) as a result of further growth in artificial 
areas. Although green infrastructure is projected to increase slightly due to afforestation, 
this increase cannot make up for the loss of ecosystem services. New green infrastructure 
(plus  restoration  of  ecosystems)  is  therefore  needed  to  maintain  ecosystem  services  at 
2010  levels.  As  a  rule  of  thumb,  each  additional  per  cent  increase  in  the  proportion  of 
artificial land needs  to  be offset  by an increase of 2.2 % in  land that qualifies as  green 
infrastructure in order to maintain ecosystem services at 2010 levels. 

  An  article43 presents  a  methodology  for  proposing  and  assessing  green  infrastructure 
based  on  two  entry  points:  (i)  the  multiple  delivery  of  ecosystem  services  (ES)  (multi-
functionality) and (ii) biodiversity conservation and functional connectivity.  

42   https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10980-014-0083-2 

43 doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.009 

11 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
  The  fourth  MAES  report 44  on  urban  ecosystems:  this  report  provides  guidance  on 
mapping and assessing urban green infrastructure and the services it provides. It is being 
currently tested in the EnRoute project45. 

  The  Protected  Connected  indicator:  Protected  Connected  (ProtConn)  is  an  indicator  of 
protected area (PA) connectivity recently developed by the JRC. ProtConn quantifies the 
percentage of a country  or ecoregion  covered by protected  connected lands.  It  assesses 
how well the terrestrial PA systems (Natura 2000 and/or nationally designated sites) are 
designed  for  connectivity,  taking  into  consideration  how  different  categories  of  land 
(protected,  unprotected,  transboundary)  contribute  to  connectivity.  The  ProtConn 
indicator 
article: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.12.047 

presented 

recently 

been 

this 

has 

in 

for 

The  ProtConn  values  at  ecoregion  level  are  already  available  in  the  JRC’s  Digital 
Observatory 
(DOPA) 
Protected 
http://dopa.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/mapsanddatasets.  The  ProtConn  values  at  country  level 
have  already  been  calculated  and  are  available  internally  and  for  any  interested  DGs; 
these  results  will  be  published  in  DOPA  and  presented  in  a  new  scientific  article  later 
this  year.  Further  development  of  the  indicator  may  include  focusing  on  particular 
habitats  or  species  of  conservation  value,  or  for  which  connectivity  is  a  prominent 
conservation concern, as well as on the specific landscape features or green infrastructure 
elements from which they benefit. 

Areas 

  Connectivity of forests, a recommended GI component and their trends in Europe46:  

The  pattern  of  forests,  a  recommended  GI  component,  was  mapped  at  landscape  level 
and  reported  at  national  and  European  level  in  terms  of  forest  morphological  shapes 
(interior/core  areas,  edge,  islet,  linear),  forest  edge  interface  types  (natural,  artificial), 
immediate  landscape  surroundings  (core  natural,  mixed,  some  natural)  and  functional 
connectivity  based  on  three  levels  (forest  poorly,  medium  or  highly  connected)  for 
species dispersing 1 km on average within a 25 km landscape grid cell (Forest Europe, 
2015; Saura et al, 2011).  The heterogeneity of the landscape in between forest habitats 
was  not  accounted  for;  differences  across  countries  and  how  they  compare  to  the 
European  average  were  highlighted  for  each  specific  variable.  Similarly,  the  structural 
and  functional  connectivity  of  broadly  defined  natural  and  semi-natural  vegetation  and 
their immediate landscape surroundings could be assessed in Europe. 
Saura,  S.,  Estreguil,  C.,  Mouton,  C.,  Rodríguez-Freire,  M.,  2011.  Network  analysis  to 
assess  landscape  connectivity  trends:  Application  to  European  forests  (1990-2000). 
Ecological Indicators 11: 407-416. 

  Continuity  of  natural/semi-natural  lands  in  Europe47:  Natural  and  semi-natural  lands 
were  considered  GI  components.  The  largest,  most  structurally  connected  green 
infrastructure  networks  and  the  most  critical  ones  were  identified,  including  the  ones 

44   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/pdf/102.pdf 

45   https://www.oppla.eu/enroute 

46   Forest Europe, 2015. State of Europe’s Forests 2015. Status and Trends in Sustainable Forest Management 
in  Europe,  Ministerial  Conference  on  the  Protection  of  Forests  in  Europe,  Forest  Europe,  Liaison  Unit 
Madrid, Madrid. http://foresteurope.org/state-europes-forests-2015-report/ (Indicator 4.7) 

47   (Mubareka, S., Estreguil, C., Lavalle, C., Baranzelli C., Rocha Gomes C., 2013. Integrated modelling of the 
impact  of  Natural  Water  Retention  Measures  on  Europe’s  Green  Infrastructure.  International  Journal  of 
Geographical Information Science. Special Issue on Land Change Modelling: Moving Beyond Projections. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2013.782408). 

12 

 
 
                                                           
with  cross-state  boundaries  Their  dynamics  were  also  studied  according  to  policy 
scenarios of land use conversion for 2030 based on three NWRMs (increase of riparian 
areas,  increase  of  grassland,  afforestation);  the  riparian  areas  measure  was  found  to 
increase the green infrastructure core area sizes the most, while all three measures helped 
merge  two  large  networks.  Clerici  and  Vogt48 used  the  GuidosToolbox49 to  identify 
structural riparian corridors at EU level, and proposed a ranking of European regions as 
providers  of  corridors  based  on  environmental  pressure  and  degree  of  protection  of 
riparian corridors. 

  European  and  regional  level  connectivity  of  Natura  2000  sites 50 :  the  landscape 
surroundings,  the  structural  continuity  and  functional  connectivity  of  the  Natura  2000 
protected sites,  as  the recommended backbone component of green infrastructure, were 
assessed at macro-scale over the European territory and at a finer scale over a region of 
interest. 
Across  Europe,  the  study  applied  the  integrated  modelling  framework  using  functions 
from GuidosToolbox and Conefor software. The focus was on the protected network of 
Natura  2000  sites  that  host  forest  habitats.  To  reduce  computational  times,  the 
assessment was deliberately kept generic by focusing on terrestrial species dispersing 1 
km on average and accounting for a basic level of heterogeneity of the landscape matrix 
in  between  protected  sites.  Natural  and  semi-natural  lands  were  considered  GI 
components, i.e. favourable lands that facilitate connectivity and landscape permeability, 
which mirrors the dispersal of most species. Non-GI elements such as grey infrastructure 
(e.g.  building  urban  areas  and  roads)  and  intensive  agricultural  land  use,  which  often 
pose  the  biggest  threats  to  or  disturbances  for  biodiversity  conservation,  were  set  as 
major  factors  that  reduce  connectivity,  permeability  and  therefore  species  dispersal. 
Some  interesting  differences  were  highlighted  across  European  countries.  Places  well 
connected  were  identified  due  to  a  good  permeability  in  the  inter-site  unprotected 
landscape.  This  is  ensured  by  the  presence  of  GI  unprotected  elements  and  other  areas 
weakly connected due to GI antagonist components, which likely act as a bottleneck for 
the presence and movement of most species. The functional connectivity of the protected 
network was computed at landscape level, then aggregated on a national scale. 

A regional case study was created for the region of Castile-Leon in Spain using detailed 
regional  and  national  level  maps.  The  continuity  of  the  Natura  2000  network  was 
compared to the average level in Europe. Functional least-cost paths most favourable to 
forest  species  dispersal  in  the  unprotected  space  were  mapped  and  their  differences 
highlighted. The use of four forest ecoprofiles (generalist to specialist species) and four 
dispersal  capabilities  (short  to  long  distance)  led  to  the  conclusion  that  a  generic 
approach could be applied when selecting GI components and finding corridor solutions 
in  order  to  prioritise  forest  conservation  and  restoration  management  efforts.  Public 
utility  forests  and  riversides  were  found  to  be  key  landscape  components  within 
corridors. Roads had a greater negative impact on connectivity than fire. Priority places 

48   Clerici,  N.,  Vogt,  P.,  2013.  Ranking  European  regions  as  providers  of  structural  riparian  corridors  for 
conservation  and  management  purposes.  International  Journal  of  Applied  Earth  Observation  and 
Geoinformation 21 (2013) 477-483. 

49   http://forest.jrc.ec.europa.eu/download/software/guidos/ 

50   More  information:  Estreguil,  C.,  Caudullo,  G.,  San-Miguel-Ayanz,  J.  2013.  Connectivity  of  Natura  2000 
Forest  Sites.  JRC  scientific  and  policy  report  EUR 26087EN.  Luxemburg:  Publications  Office  of  the 
European Union. doi: 10.2788/95065. 

13 

 
 
                                                           
 
for  defragmentation  were  proposed  for  the  region  of  Castile-Leon.  Outcomes  for  this 
region are spatially explicit maps of dispersal corridors between Natura 2000 sites, which 
identify preferential paths and GI components to conserve or restore forest areas in order 
to enhance connectivity. This analysis may be extended to other regions in Europe. 

in  support 
http://fise.jrc.ec.europa.eu/topics/ecosystem-services/  

to  the  European  Forest  Data  Centre’.  Available  for  download  at 

A  case  study  that  mapped  and  prioritised  the  linkages  between  Natura  2000  sites  in 
Romania  and  Bulgaria,  including  transnational  connectivity  patterns,  was  presented  at 
the EU technical workshop on knowledge base and spatial and technical data on GI and 
restoration in Brussels on 24-25 October 2016. The case study included: 

  mapping  the  swaths  of  land  of  variable  width  able  to  function  as  corridors 

between Natura 2000 sites; 
identifying the bottlenecks (weak parts) along these corridors; and 
the spatial prioritisation of these corridors for restoration and conservation. 

 
 

Results  showed  a  remarkable  polarisation  and  spatial  segregation  of  the  key  areas  for 
connectivity  conservation  and  those  of  priority  for  restoration,  which  calls  for  an 
integrated  perspective  for  green  infrastructure  planning  that  encompasses  multiple 
sectors and landscape types. Similar analysis and results, obtained using similar methods, 
are also available (although not yet made public) for other Member States such as Spain 
and Portugal. This analysis may be extended to the entire EU in the future. 

  Cost-benefit prioritisation of greening measures to improve GI connectivity51: This case 
study  addresses  the  cost-effective  spatial  development  of  a  well-connected  green 
infrastructure  relevant  to  the  integration  of  forest,  agri-environment  and  regional 
development  policies.  This  is  demonstrated  by  the  region  of  Lombardy  in  Italy  –  at 
micro-scale to  benefit pollinators and pest  predators, and on a  regional scale to benefit 
‘connectivity sensitive’ terrestrial species. Corridors most favourable to species dispersal 
are  mapped,  and  gaps  in  the  connectivity  of  GI  network  components  are  identified. 
Spatially explicit solutions on where to convert agricultural areas into vegetation are then 
proposed  to  prioritise  improvement  actions  based  on  their  monetary  cost  by  means  of 
‘greening’  subsidies  and  their  benefit  to  connectivity.  A  schematic  synoptic  view  of 
green  infrastructure  based  on  existing  regional  components  and  including  its  cost-
effective  potential  improvement  is  proposed  as  a  tool  to  help  decision  makers  in 
particular  to  prioritise  subsidies  in  terms  of  the  best  cost/benefit  areas  and  to  motivate 
land owners to implement biodiversity-friendly measures. 

The methodology includes: 

  mapping functional corridors that contain GI components; 
  guiding how restoration priorities are set; and  
  managing  the  interface  between  green  and  grey  infrastructure  at  regional  and 

local level.  

It  also  covers the monetary cost  involved in  specific land reallocations to  develop  new 
corridors  within  a  green  infrastructure  network.  As  such,  this  methodology  could  help 
establish a rapid and harmonised green infrastructure assessment across regions. 

51   Christine  Estreguil,  Giovanni  Caudullo,  Carlo  Rega,  Maria-Luisa  Paracchini,  2016.  Enhancing 

Connectivity, Improving Green Infrastructure; EUR 28142 EN; doi:10.2788/170924 

14 

 
 
                                                           
 
 

JRC  tools:  JRC  has  developed  dedicated  digital  image  processing  methodologies  for 
mapping and assessing the land cover structure, in particular pattern and fragmentation; 
they  are  available  via  the  free  GuidosToolbox  software.  A  presentation  and  half-day 
workshop on these tools was provided at the EU technical workshop on knowledge base 
and spatial and technical data on GI and restoration in Brussels on 24-25 October  2016. 
The  analysis  methods  depend  on  the  availability  of  digital  land  cover  maps  with 
appropriate spatial resolution and extent. While they are not specific to any species, they 
may  address  spatial  land  cover  aspects  that  contribute  to  the  description  of  green 
infrastructure. 
Conefor is a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat  areas, linkages 
and  other  elements  of  green  infrastructure  in  order  to  maintain  or  restore  landscape 
connectivity. It is conceived as a tool for decision-making support in landscape planning, 
habitat conservation and the design of green infrastructure networks by identifying and 
prioritising critical sites for ecological connectivity. The connectivity metrics have been 
from  Europe. 
validated  with 
http://www.conefor.org/empirical.html  Conefor  has  discovered  a  large  number  of 
applications in Europe and elsewhere; these highlight its potential for supporting policy-
making  and  for  prioritising  the  restoration  planning  actions  for  green  infrastructure, 
including  its  use  in  assessments  performed  by  the  JRC.  Examples  of  the  Conefor 
applications related to connectivity and green infrastructure include:  

data,  most 

empirical 

species 

them 

of 

 
restoration planning and prioritisation; 
  protected area connectivity indicators; 
  assessments of ecosystem service provision; 
  green network planning in urban landscapes; 
  evaluation  of  the  impact  of  roads  on  connectivity  and  prioritisation  of 

defragmentation measures; 

  evaluation of the impact of climate change on species or protected areas; and 
  monitoring  of  the  trends  in  the  connectivity  of  forests,  grasslands  and  other 

habitats.  

Further details on the Conefor applications are available at 
http://www.conefor.org/applications.html  

JRC  has  developed  a  spatially  explicit  integrated  modelling  framework52 using  tools 
from Guidos Toolbox and Conefor as well as other GIS tools for corridor mapping. Its 
application  at  European  and  regional  level  provides  methodological  guidance  for 
reporting and mapping the structural continuity, immediate surroundings and functional 
connectivity  of  any  landscape  components  such  as  protected  sites,  natural/semi-natural 
habitats or/and any other GI components over large regions. This framework enables the 
automated  integrated  processing  of  large  datasets,  including  their  preparation  and 
customisation  for  GI  mapping  and  assessment,  as  well  as  reduced  time  computing  for 
large regions. 

52   Further information: Estreguil, C., de Rigo, D., Caudullo, G., 2013. A proposal for an integrated modelling 
framework to characterise habitat pattern. Environmental Modelling & Software, Vol. 52 (February 2014), 
pp. 176-191, ISSN 1364-8152, doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.10.011. 

Estreguil,  C.,  Caudullo,  G.,  de  Rigo,D.,  2014.  Connectivity  of  Natura  2000  forest  sites  in  Europe. 
F1000Posters 2014, 5: 485. DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1063300. ArXiv: 1406.1501 

15 

 
 
                                                           
 
G.   Green infrastructure and EU energy policy 

The  Elia  project,  in  collaboration  with  the  French  transmission  system  operator  RTE, 
several  environmental  NGOs  (Solon,  Carah)  and  the  Walloon  government  in  Belgium, 
has launched an EU-funded Life+ project to restore and/or create habitats in Natura 2000 
sites under existing overhead lines. The overall objective of the project is to restore 130 
km of corridors under overhead lines in Belgium and France. It aims to foster innovation 
in  the  management  of  forest  corridors  and  demonstrate  the  innovative  character.  In 
addition, the project aims to prove that active management of biodiversity can reduce the 
costs of securing and maintaining corridors. RTE and Elia will share the experience with 
other transmission system operators. Part of the project also involves developing training 
modules  for  the  maintenance  teams  and  providing  guidelines  with  favourable 
biodiversity actions.  Thanks to  its efforts,  the  LIFE Elia-RTE team  managed to  restore 
20  ha  of  natural  habitats  and  improve  the  biodiversity  network  by  creating  connecting 
zones  between  core  areas  of  conservation.  By  relying  on  local  partnerships,  they  also 
succeeded in improving acceptance for high-voltage grid lines. 

The Terna project53 developed an innovative methodology for installing marine cables. 
It minimises the environmental impact of submarine grid interconnections, protecting in 
particular vast meadows of the rare seagrass Posidonia oceanica.  

H.   EEA publications on green infrastructure 

The  European  Environment  Agency  (EEA)  has  published  reports  on  the  usability  of 
existing data and new methodologies for GI deployment, e.g. on spatial analysis of green 
infrastructure in Europe54, on its role in mitigating the impacts of weather and climate 
change related to natural hazards55, or for protection against floods56 .  

53

https://renewables-grid.eu/activities/best-
practices/database.html?tx_browser_pi1%5BshowUid%5D=156&cHash=279ebaaf656d64e7d20b30ff5abad
c66 

54   https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/spatial-analysis-of-green-infrastructure 

55   https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/exploring-nature-based-solutions-2014 

56   https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/restoring-floodplains-and-wetlands-offer  

16 

 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
2.  Summary report on implementation in the EU Member States of the green 
infrastructure strategy 

(IEEP-led consortium, with support from Trinomics, IUCN and WCMC) 

Disclaimer: this  report is based on the information collected by the  consultants until 

mid-October 2017.  

Introduction 

The EU’s green infrastructure strategy 

In May 2013, the European Commission adopted its green infrastructure (GI) strategy57. 
The strategy aims to create an enabling framework to promote and facilitate GI projects 
across the EU using existing legal, policy and financial instruments.  

It  defines  green infrastructure 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, GI is present in rural and urban settings.’   

The  strategy  provides  for  several  actions  to  be  carried  out  under  the  guidance  of  the 
Commission. These include: 

 
 

integrating green infrastructure into other policy areas; 
improving information sharing, strengthening the knowledge base and promoting 
innovation in relation to green infrastructure; 
improving access to finance for GI projects; and 

 
  exploring  opportunities  for  developing  a  trans-European  network  in  green 

infrastructure (TEN-G). 

Factsheets on the implementation of green infrastructure in the Member States58 

As  part  of  the  service  contract  ‘Technical  support  related  to  Target  2  of  the  EU 
biodiversity  strategy  to  2020  —  maintaining  and  restoring  ecosystems  and  their 
services’,  28  country  factsheets  were  created  to  provide  an  overview  of  the  activities 
undertaken by the Member States that contribute to the implementation of the EU’s GI 
strategy. For each Member State, the factsheets provide information on: 

the main policies relevant to green infrastructure; 

 
  selected examples of recent or ongoing GI projects and initiatives; 
 
  an overview of the funding sources available for green infrastructure; 
 

information on the integration of GI considerations in other policy areas; 

information on the methods, tools and research outputs that have been developed 
and successfully used for GI development; and 
information on the specific challenges and opportunities for GI implementation. 

 

57 Green Infrastructure (GI) — Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital, COM(2013) 249 final. 

58 The full country fact sheets are available on BISE at:  https://biodiversity.europa.eu/countries/gi   

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
The factsheets used as a starting point the country-specific GI information available on 
the  Biodiversity  Information  System  for  Europe  (BISE)  website59,  which  was  in  turn 
based  on  a  combination  of  information  from  the  environmental  implementation  review 
country reports and 10 country factsheets produced in 2016 as part of the service contract 
‘Supporting the implementation of green infrastructure’.  

An  additional  desk  review  of  publicly  available  information  was  carried  out  and 
accompanied,  where  possible,  by  interviews  with  national  experts  in  the  International 
Union  for  Conservation  of  Nature’s  network.  The  resulting  draft  factsheets  were 
circulated to national  experts (members of the EU Green Infrastructure Implementation 
and  Restoration  Working  Group  and  the  Coordination  Group  on  Biodiversity  and 
Nature)  for  review  and  additions.  Feedback  was  received  from  17  Member  States: 
Austria,  Belgium  (Flemish  Region,  Walloon  Region  and  Brussels  Capital  Region), 
Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Hungary,  Italy, 
Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and the UK. The responses 
provided by national experts do not necessarily represent an official national position. 

This  report  presents  a  consolidated  overview  of  the  information  collected  in  the  28 
country  factsheets  following  the  same  structure  as  the  individual  Member  State 
factsheets. 

Green infrastructure policies in the Member States 

  National/regional strategies dedicated to green infrastructure 

With  the  exception  of  Germany,  which  adopted  a  ‘national  green  infrastructure 
concept’60 in  early  2017  aimed  at  implementing  the  EU’s  GI  strategy,  Member  States 
have not  yet adopted national strategies dedicated to green infrastructure. Nevertheless, 
as  outlined  in  the  sections  below,  other  policies  and  legislative  instruments  address  at 
least implicitly the concept of green infrastructure as defined by the EU’s GI strategy. 

In Spain, the Natural Heritage and Biodiversity Law (Law 42/2007), which was updated 
in 2015 (Law 33/2015), provides for the development of a national green infrastructure 
strategy  by  2018.  The  law  also  requires  the  autonomous  communities  to  develop  their 
own green infrastructure strategies by 2018, building on the national strategy61. 

Similarly,  county  administrative  boards  in  Sweden  are  developing  regional  GI  action 
plans, as provided for in Sweden’s 2013 strategy for biodiversity and ecosystem services. 
These  action  plans  are  primarily  intended  to  provide  frameworks  for  public  land  use 
planning,  a  knowledge  base  (including  maps  of  existing  green  infrastructure)  for 
planning,  management  and  the  sustainable  use  of  land,  and  the  basis  for  planning  and 
permitting processes. 

  National ecological networks 

59 https://biodiversity.europa.eu/  

60  http://www.bfn.de/bkgi.html 

61  Trinomics, ALTERRA, Arcadis, Risk & Policy Analysis, STELLA Consulting, and Regional Environmental 
Centre (2016) ‘Green Infrastructure in Spain’, in Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure, 
Final report to the European Commission under service contract ENV.B.2/SER/2014/0012, Annex I. 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/pdf/Green%20Infrastructure/GI_ES.pdf 

18 

 
 
 
                                                           
Several  Member  States  have  established  national  ecological  networks  or  equivalent 
instruments. These include: 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 
 
 
 

the Flemish Ecological Network (Belgium); 

the Ecological Network of the Brussels Capital Region (Belgium); 

the National Ecological Network of Bulgaria; 

the Territorial System of Ecological Stability of the Landscape, Czech Republic; 
the French ‘green and blue network’ (trame verte et bleue); 
the German National Ecological Network (Biotopverbund); 
the ‘Green Network’ in Estonia; 
the Hungarian National Ecological Network; 

the ‘Nature Frame’ in Lithuania; 

the National Nature Network in the Netherlands; 

the National Ecological Reserve in Portugal; 
the Territorial System of Ecological Stability of Slovakia; 
the ‘Network of ecologically important areas’ in Slovenia; and 
in Italy, several regions have established Regional Ecological Networks. 

  GI considerations in biodiversity and nature policies 

In  many  Member  States,  objectives  or  requirements  specifically  related  to  green 
infrastructure  are  included  in  broader  biodiversity  and  nature  conservation  policies  and 
legislation.  For  example,  several  national  biodiversity  strategies  and  plans  include 
references  to  green  infrastructure  (whether  labelled  as  such  or  using  other  terminology 
reflecting the same concept). The box below includes some examples. 

Box 1 — Examples of national biodiversity strategies and action plans that include 
GI objectives 

The French  National  Biodiversity  Strategy  (2011-2020) includes  a target  to  ‘build a 
green infrastructure including a coherent network of protected areas.’ 

Similarly, the Hungarian  National  Biodiversity  Strategy (2015-2020) comprises two 
objectives  explicitly  related  to  green  infrastructure:  ‘Harmonised  development  of  the 
elements  of  green  infrastructure  in  order  to  maintain  and  enhance  the  operability  of 
ecological  systems  and  to  promote  the  adaptation  to  the  effects  of  climate  change, 
including  the  improvement  of  the  connections  between  areas  of  ecological  and 
landscape  ecological  function,  as  well  as  the  reconstruction  of  potential  landscape 
elements  together  with  the  restoration  of  degraded  ecosystems’;  and  ‘Integrate 
conservation  and  biological  and  landscape  diversity  enhancement  aspects  into 
comprehensive and related sectoral policies, with the tools of green infrastructure and 
ecosystem services, with special focus on spatial planning.’ 

The  Finnish  Biodiversity  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  for  2020  states  that  ‘… 
detrimental  impacts  on  biodiversity  due  to  the  fragmentation  of  natural  areas  must  be 
prevented or reduced, by developing so-called green and blue infrastructure.’ 

Malta’s  National  Biodiversity  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  (2012-2020)  sets  outs 
measures  such  as  (i)  the  further  uptake  of  community  initiatives  for  urban  green 
infrastructure using linear landscape features as ecological corridors between fragmented 

19 

 
 
 
and protected areas; and (ii) implementing green infrastructure to improve the coherence 
of the Natura 2000 network while providing other functions. 

Luxembourg’s  National  Nature  Protection  Plan  (2017),  which  also  includes  the 
national  biodiversity  strategy,  mentions  green  infrastructure  and  ecosystem  restoration, 
including actions such as reducing fragmentation and improving connectivity of Natura 
2000 sites and other nature areas. 

Other examples of national biodiversity strategies containing explicit references to green 
infrastructure are those of Greece and Slovakia. 

A  number  of  other  national  biodiversity  strategies  and  action  plans  do  not  specifically 
mention  green  infrastructure,  but  do  address  the  underlying  concept.  For  example, 
Romania’s  National  Biodiversity  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  (2014-2020)  includes 
actions such as ‘analysing the coherence of the natural protected areas and ecological 
corridors’  and  ‘evaluating  the  way  in  which  the  current  road  transport  network 
fragments  natural  habitats  and  habitats  of  wild  species  of  conservation  interest  and 
proposing solutions to reduce or eliminate fragmentation’. 

Green  infrastructure  is  also  implicitly  addressed  in  instruments  related  to  particular 
ecosystems such as:  

  Finland’s  national  strategy  for  the  sustainable  and  responsible  use  of  mires  and 

peatlands; 
Ireland’s National Peatlands Strategy; 

 
  National Action Plan for Conservation of Wetlands of High Significance in Bulgaria, 

2013-2022; 

  National  Strategy  for  River  Restoration  in  Spain  and  strategic  plan  for  the 

conservation and rational use of wetlands; and 

  Germany’s  ‘Blue  Belt’  programme  (which  aims  to  develop  a  national  system  of 
interlinked biotopes along the federal waterways and their associated floodplains). 

More  generally,  national  policies  and  legislation  on  nature  conservation  help  maintain 
and  enhance  green  infrastructure  and  its  components  by  regulating,  for  example,  the 
protection  of  species  and  habitats  as  well  as  the  designation  and  management  of 
protected areas and the Natura 2000 network. 

  Other relevant policies 

Another  policy  area  that  contributes  to  GI  implementation  is  spatial  planning  and 
development.  For example, the Finnish  Land Use and  Building Act  and  National  Land 
Use  Guidelines  include  GI-related  considerations  such  as  (i)  maintaining  ecological 
connectivity  between  protected  areas  and/or  between  protected  areas  and  the  broader 
landscape;  (ii)  preventing  fragmentation  of  uniform  and  ecologically/recreationally 
important  areas;  (iii)  ensuring  the  protection  of  areas  with  cultural  significance  and 
natural  beauty;  (iv)  maintaining  the  quality  of  water  resources;  and  (v)  establishing 
national urban parks62. 

The  concept  of  a  green  map  of  Denmark  (‘Grønt  Danmarkskort’)  introduced  in  the 
Danish Spatial Planning Act in 2015 aims, among other things, to  ensure that the most 
valuable nature in Denmark is sufficiently interconnected to allow species to spread and 

62  IEEP  (2010)  Green  infrastructure  country  file:  Finland,  prepared  in  the  context  of  the  project  ‘Green 

infrastructure implementation and efficiency’ (ENV.B.2./SER/2010/0059). 

20 

 
 
 
                                                           
thrive.  Although  the  term  ‘green  infrastructure’  is  not  explicitly  mentioned  in  the 
document, ‘more and better interconnected nature’ is its main objective. The green map 
is intended to provide the strategic framework for Denmark’s nature policy by ensuring 
that both existing and new measures and new natural areas are located where they will 
have the most effect. The map is also intended to function as a detailed map of existing 
natural  areas  in  order  to  support  land  use  planning  processes  and  the  location  of  new 
green infrastructure. According to the Danish Spatial Planning Act, municipalities should 
designate areas to the green map based on a common base map and common criteria, and 
include  these  in  municipal  plans  from  2017  onwards 63 .  Before  this  date,  the 
municipalities  had  to  plan  for  national  nature  priorities  by  designating  and  formulating 
guidelines for the administration of valuable nature areas and ecological corridors64. The 
plans are to be further developed and gradually implemented until 2050. 

In  Sweden,  the  National  Board  of  Housing,  Building  and  Planning,  which  develops 
guidance on implementing the Planning and Building Act (2010), is currently drawing up 
guidance on planning and building ecosystem services and green infrastructure for 2017-
2018.  In  Ireland,  GI  implementation  is  currently  advanced  through  local  governments, 
who also develop county and city development plans. The Regional Planning Guidelines 
for the Greater Dublin Area include a model for a GI network for the area65. In the UK, 
national  planning  policy  at  the  level  of  the  devolved  governments  provides  specific 
guidance  on  the  integration  of  green  infrastructure  principles.  References  to  GI-related 
aspects  can  also  be  found  in  Slovenia’s  spatial  development  strategy66,  Germany’s 
landscape  planning  policy67,  and  the  Estonian  Planning  Act  and  spatial  plan  ‘Estonia 
2030+’68. 

Programmes  focused  on  defragmentation  in  relation  to  transport  are  underway  in 
Germany  and  the  Netherlands.  Germany’s  Federal  Defragmentation  Programme69 was 
adopted in 2012 to maintain, restore and develop green infrastructure across the national 
German  road  network  so  that  habitat  corridors  for  flora  and  fauna  are  reconnected. 
Implementation of the programme by the various federal  states is  currently at  different 
stages.  The  Multiannual  Defragmentation  Plan 70  in  the  Netherlands  is  a  national 
programme  in  which  the  national  government,  the  rail  operator  ProRail  and  provinces 
work  together  to  resolve  ecological  bottlenecks  (e.g.  by  creating  wildlife  passages  or 

63  Trinomics, ALTERRA, Arcadis, Risk & Policy Analysis, STELLA Consulting, and Regional Environmental 
Centre (2016) ‘Green Infrastructure in Denmark’, in Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure, 
Final report to the European Commission under service contract ENV.B.2/SER/2014/0012, Annex I. 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/pdf/Green%20Infrastructure/GI_DK.pdf 

IEEP  (2010)  Green  infrastructure  country  file:  Denmark,  prepared  in  the  context  of  the  project  ‘Green 
infrastructure implementation and efficiency’ (ENV.B.2./SER/2010/0059). 

65  Dublin Regional Authority and Mid-East Regional Authority (2010)  Regional Planning Guidelines for the 

Greater Dublin Area 2010-2022. The Regional Planning Guidelines Office, Ireland. 

66  http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/zakonodaja/en/sprs_eng.pdf 

67  https://www.bfn.de/0312_landsch_planung.html 

68  European Commission (2017),  The EU Environmental Implementation Review  Country  Report  — Estonia. 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/pdf/report_ee_en.pdf 

69  Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), (2012) 

http://www.bmub.bund.de/themen/natur-biologische-vielfalt-arten/naturschutz-biologische-
vielfalt/gebietsschutz-und-vernetzung/biotopverbund/ 

70   http://www.mjpo.nl/over-mjpo/ 

21 

 
 
                                                           
tunnels),  often  in  dialogue  with  municipalities,  regional  water  authorities  and  nature 
conservation organisations. 

Other examples of broader strategic documents containing GI-related objectives include 
Latvia’s  National  Development  Plan  2014-2020 71  and  Sustainable  Development 
Strategy until  203072,  Ireland’s framework for promoting sustainable development and 
the green economy73, and Romania’s Territorial Development Strategy74. 

An overview of the integration of GI considerations in other relevant policy areas, from 
agriculture to health, is presented in section 3. 

  National policies related to green infrastructure in cities 

National policies specifically related to green infrastructure in cities include: 

 

Italy:  The  national  law  on  the  development  of  green  urban  areas  (Law  no 10, 
14.1.2013),  aimed  at  promoting  green  areas  for  the  provision  of  ecosystem  services 
(air  quality,  hydrological  risks,  soil  protection  and  cultural  dimensions).  The  law 
identifies a set of measures including green urban planning and monitoring, support to 
local-level  initiatives  and  the  safeguarding  of  trees  and  tree  lines  as  significant 
features for landscape, heritage, nature, history and culture75. 

  Germany:  The  2015  green  paper  Green  in  cities  —  for  a  liveable  future,  which 
discusses the multiple functions of urban green infrastructure, current challenges and 
perspectives,  recommended  a  series  of  actions  to  improve  green  infrastructure  in 
urban areas. The green paper was followed by the adoption of a white paper in May 
2017,  which  contained  concrete  measures  to  support  municipalities  in  enhancing 
urban green infrastructure76. 

 

Ireland’s  previous  biodiversity  plan  —  Actions  for  Biodiversity  2011-2016  — 
required  each  local  authority  to  publish  a  local  biodiversity  action  plan  or  review 
existing plans. These plans address GI issues to some extent. For example, the Dublin 
City Biodiversity Action Plan defines four themes to structure actions, one of which 
involves green infrastructure77. 

  National restoration prioritisation frameworks 

To date, national restoration prioritisation frameworks have been developed and reported 
by four countries/regions: 

71  https://rio.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/library/national-development-plan-latvia-2014-2020 

72  http://www.pkc.gov.lv/sites/default/files/images-legacy/LV2030/LIAS_2030_parluks_en.pdf 

73  https://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/environment/topics/sustainable-development/our-sustainable-

future/Pages/default.aspx 

74  http://www.sdtr.ro/ 

75  Italian Ministry for the Environment and the Protection of Land and Sea and Italian Botanical Society (2016) 
Greening  Rome.  The  Urban  Green  of  the  Metropolitan  Area  of  Rome  in  the  Context  of  the  Italian  MAES 
Process. 
https://circabc.europa.eu/webdav/CircaBC/env/ecosystem_assesment/Library/2016 %20event%20on%20Evi
dence%20based%20policy%20 making%20for%20sustainable%20cities/Annexes%204th%20 mAES%20re
port%20Urban%20Pilot/3_9_Annex_Rome%20.pdf 

76  http://www.bmub.bund.de/service/publikationen/downloads/details/artikel/weissbuch-stadtgruen/ 

77 http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/RecreationandCulture/DublinCityParks/Biodiversity/Docu

ments/DublinCityBiodiversityActionPlan2015-2020.pdf 

22 

 
 
                                                           
  Flanders  (Belgium):  Prioriteitenkader  voor  ecosysteemherstel  in  Vlaanderen 

(Prioritisation framework for ecosystem restoration in Flanders), 2016; 

  Germany: Priorisierungsrahmen zur Wiederherstellung verschlechterter Ökosysteme 
in  Deutschland  (Prioritisation framework for the restoration of degraded ecosystems 
in Germany), 2015; 

  The  Netherlands:  Naar  een  strategisch  kader  voor  ecosysteemherstel  (‘RPF’)  in 
Nederland  (Towards  a  strategic  framework  for  ecosystem  restoration  in  the 
Netherlands), 2014; and 

  Finland  has  established  a  national  restoration  prioritisation  working  group,  which 

published its report in October 201578. 

  GI-related policies at city level 

Some European cities have adopted strategies and plans specifically dedicated to green 
infrastructure  (e.g.  Barcelona,  Manchester),  while  many  others  have  integrated  GI 
aspects  into  broader  city  plans  and  strategies.  Several  examples  are  presented  in  more 
detail in Box 2 below. 

A prime example of EU-level facilitation of action at city level is the ongoing EnRoute 
project  ‘Enhancing  Resilience  of  Urban  Ecosystems  through  Green  Infrastructure’79. 
Following  the  MAES  pilot  study  on  urban  ecosystems  and  their  services  completed  in 
2015,  the  two-year  EnRoute  project  was  launched  in  2017.  It  aims  to  introduce  the 
MAES  approach  into  the  local  policy  arena,  connecting  the  governance  levels 
horizontally  and  vertically,  in  order  to  contribute  to  the  further  deployment  of  green 
infrastructure in cities and in urban contexts. The envisaged outcomes include: 

 

 

 

an  accepted  common  framework  for  the  spatially  explicit  multi-scale  assessment  of 
urban green infrastructure  and urban ecosystem services; 

an  overview  of  policy  opportunities  and  needs  for  connecting  urban  green 
infrastructure to the local policy arena; and 
a  network  of  organisations  involved  in  the  further  development  and  use  of  green 
infrastructure at various governance levels in the EU. 

The project will include detailed analyses of a set of case studies or ‘city labs’, where the 
URBAN-MAES  framework  will  be  implemented  using  local  data,  involving  local 
stakeholders  in  the  process  and  focusing  on  specific  issues.  Participating  ‘city  labs’ 
include Antwerp (Belgium); Helsinki (Finland); Limmasol (Cyprus); Lisbon (Portugal); 
Oslo (Norway); Padova (Italy); Poznan (Poland); Karlovo (Bulgaria); Tallinn (Estonia); 
Rome  (Italy);  The  Hague  (The  Netherlands);  Utrecht  (the  Netherlands);  Trento  (Italy); 
Valetta (Malta); Leipzig (Germany); Dublin (Ireland); Glasgow (UK); Manchester (UK) 
and Lyon (France).  

Green infrastructure is  promoted as part of Europe's urban policy. One of the topics of 
the  Urban  Agenda  for  the  EU80 ,  launched  in  2016,  is  'Sustainable  Use  of  Land  and 

78  https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/156982/SY_8_2015.pdf 

79  Zulian, G., Thijssen, M., Günther, S. Maes, J., Enhancing Resilience Of Urban Ecosystems through Green 
Infrastructure  (EnRoute).  Progress  report,  EUR  29048  EN,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union, 
JRC110402;  Website: 
2018, 
Luxembourg, 
http://oppla.eu/enroute 

doi:10.2760/958542, 

978-92-79-77697-7, 

ISBN 

80  http://www.urbanagendaforthe.eu/ 

23 

 
 
                                                           
Nature-Based  Solutions',  which  includes  a  focus  on  green  infrastructure.  A  partnership 
on  this  topic  will  be  set  up  in  2017,  bringing  cities  together  with  the  Commission, 
Member  States  and  stakeholders  to  develop  and  implement  concrete  actions  to  tackle 
challenges  of  cities  in  this  area.  'Sustainable  Use  of  Land  and  Nature-Based  Solutions' 
will  also  be  included  in  one  of  the  upcoming  calls  for  the  Urban  Innovative  Actions, 
which  provide  funding  to  cities  to  test  novel  solutions  for  selected  sustainable  urban 
development themes81. 

Box 2 — Examples of GI-related policies at city level across Member States 

Barcelona’s green infrastructure and biodiversity plan 202082 , which was adopted 
in 2013, sets out a plan of actions to make Barcelona by 2050 ‘a city where nature and 
urbanity  interact  and  enhance  one  another  by  ensuring  the  connectivity  of  green 
infrastructure.’ The plan is organised into ten strategic lines of action based on two key 
concepts  —  connectivity  and  renaturalisation  —  and  is  defined  by  means  of  two 
instruments:  

  urban green corridors intended to constitute a real, robust and functional network 

 

of green infrastructure; and 
‘opportunity  areas’  of  varying  kinds  and  sizes,  ranging  from  unoccupied  plots  to 
green  roofs  and  balconies,  which  can  be  identified  in  all  neighbourhoods  in 
Barcelona and are likely to be subject to renaturalisation and revitalisation. 

Manchester’s  Great  Outdoors  —  a  Green  and  Blue  Infrastructure  Strategy  for 
Manchester (2015-2025)83 frames the city’s GI actions in the context of its plans for 
growth up to 2025. The strategy is structured around four objectives:  

1.  Improve  the  quality  and  function  of  existing  green  and  blue  infrastructure,  to 

maximise the benefits it delivers; 

2.  Use  appropriate  green  and  blue  infrastructure  as  a  key  component  of  new 
developments  to  help  create  successful  neighbourhoods  and  support  the  city’s 
growth; 

3.  Improve  connectivity and accessibility to  green  and blue infrastructure  within the 

city and beyond; 

4.  Improve  and  promote  a  wider  understanding  and  awareness  of  the  benefits  that 
green  and  blue  infrastructure  provides  to  residents,  the  economy  and  the  local 
environment. 

It also sets out a stakeholder implementation plan and identifies funding and delivery 
mechanisms. 

The Lisbon Strategy for 2010-2024 sets out three main objectives for the city, all of 
which are linked to green infrastructure:  

1.  City  regeneration  —  including  rehabilitation  of  vacant  buildings,  degraded  city 

districts and green spaces;  

81  http://www.uia-initiative.eu 

82

http://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/ecologiaurbana/sites/default/files/Barcelona%20green%20infrastructure%20
and%20biodiversity%20plan%202020.pdf 

83  http://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/download/6314/manchester_green_and_blue_strategy 

24 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
2.  Climate  change  adaptation  —  with  a  focus  on  natural  vulnerabilities  (such  as 
flooding),  energy  efficiency,  reducing  traffic  and  increasing  the  area  of  green 
spaces; and 

3.  Connectivity of green spaces — implementation of a network of green spaces and 

corridors for recreational activities and protection.  

As a result of this strategy, the number of green spaces in Lisbon significantly 
increased84. In addition, the Master Development Plan includes the ecological 
structure as a key factor in the city’s planning strategy. The ecological structure aims to 
ensure the continuity and complementarity of natural and semi-natural systems in the 
urban territory, which is constrained by the dense urban fabric, especially in the city 
centre85. 

Based on a commitment made in the Urban Nature in Copenhagen   — Strategy for 
2015-2025,  Copenhagen  adopted  a  new  policy  for  trees  in  the  city  —  Copenhagen 
tree  planting  policy  (‘Københavns Kommunes træpolitik’) 2016-2025. The policy  — 
outlining  five  policy  principles  for  the  management  of  urban  trees  —  aims  to  make 
trees a greater priority in the city without hampering city development and ultimately 
achieving a 20 % coverage of canopy in the city86. 

The region of Stockholm has gradually introduced the concept of ecosystem services 
into  planning  at  various  levels;  barely  mentioned  in  the  2010  regional  development 
plan, it has become a central  part of the most recent  plan up to  2050, for example in 
terms  of  green  structure,  blue  structure  and  countryside.  The  region  is  also  using  the 
MatrixGreen  planning  tool  developed  by  the  Stockholm  Resilience  Centre  and  the 
Swedish  University  of  Agricultural  Sciences  to  e.g.  assess  connectivity  between 
various habitats and biotopes in the region87. 

The London Plan, which outlines the strategic plan for the city up to 2031, provides a 
policy  framework  that  encourages  the  protection  and  maintenance  of  trees  and  the 
planting  of  new  trees  and  woodlands.  New  versions  of  the  plan  are  published  every 
year;  in  the  latest  (2016),  policy  2.18  focuses  on  green  infrastructure  and  sets  out 
commitments  for  management  and  implementation,  including  the  need  to  develop 
action  plans  at  the  level  of  boroughs88.  Policies  7.16-7.22  set  out  further  actions  for 
habitat protection and restoration in line with the Mayor’s biodiversity strategy, as well 
as  protection  of  London’s  green  belt  and  agricultural 
land.  The  London 
Infrastructure  Plan  205089 is  accompanied  by  a  supporting  document  on  enabling 
infrastructure,  with  a  section  focusing  on  green  infrastructure.  Supporting  green 

84  GREEN  SURGE  (2015)  Lisbon,  Portugal.  Case  Study  City  Portrait;  part  of  a  GREEN  SURGE  study  on 
cities. 
and 

urban 
http://greensurge.eu/products/case-studies/Case_Study_Portrait_Lisbon.pdf 

infrastructure 

governance 

European 

planning 

green 

20 

in 

85  Ibid. 

86  http://www.kk.dk/artikel/koebenhavns-kommunes-traepolitik-2016-2025 

87  http://www.rufs.se/rufs-2050/en-ny-plan/ 

88  GLA (2016a) The London Plan. Greater London Authority, London, UK. 

89

https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/business-and-economy/better-infrastructure/london-infrastructure-

plan-2050#acc-i-43214 

25 

 
 
                                                           
infrastructure  is  also  listed  as  a  current  focus  area  of  the  plan;  to  implement  this,  a 
Green  Infrastructure  Task  Force 90  was  established.  This  has  produced  a  range  of 
outputs,  including  a  2015  report  called  ‘Natural  Capital:  Investing  in  a  Green 
Infrastructure for a Future City’. The All London Green Grid91 is a policy framework 
that promotes the design and delivery of green infrastructure across London. 

The  Bristol  Local  Plan  2011-26 92  includes  policies  on  the  protection  and 
enhancement  of  green  space,  as  does  Policy  BCS9  of  the  Bristol  Development 
Framework Core Strategy93. The latter also introduces further stipulations to restrict 
the conditions under which the loss of green infrastructure is acceptable. 

  Other relevant policy initiatives in preparation 

A number of initiatives  related to  green infrastructure  are currently being developed in 
various Member States: 

  Belgium,  Flemish  Region:  The  Agency  for  Nature  and  Forests  is  currently 
developing  a  new  long-term  vision  on  urban  greenery  and  urban  forestry.  The 
vision  is  intended  to  lead  to  a  strategy  that  seeks  to  drastically  increase  the 
amount, quality and linkages of nature and greenery in the built-up environment 
(urban and peri-urban areas). 

  Ireland: A new national planning framework, Ireland  2040  — Our  Plan94, is 

being prepared. 

  Sweden:  Regional  GI  action  plans  are  being  developed  by  the  county 

administrative boards. 

  Slovenia:  A  new  Spatial  Development  Strategy  of  Slovenia  2050  is  being 
prepared.  It  will  include  significant  national  infrastructure,  including  green 
infrastructure,  as  a  strategically  planned  multifunctional  system  of  different 
spatial/landscape  elements  at  national  level,  with  guidelines  for  development  at 
regional and local level.    
In  addition,  the  Ministry  of  Environment  and  Spatial  Planning  is  currently 
preparing  a  proposal  for  the  new  National  Environmental  Action  Programme 
2017-2030 (NEAP), which will also include a new National Nature Conservation 
Programme  (NNCP).  Green  infrastructure  objectives  and  measures  —  with 
special  emphasis  on  the  Natura  2000  network  and  achieving  the  nature 
conservation  objectives  on  state  property  (forests,  agricultural  land  and  waters) 
— are set to be included in these two programmes. 

90

https://www.london.gov.uk/WHAT-WE-DO/environment/environment-publications/green-infrastructure-

task-force-report 

91  https://www.london.gov.uk/WHAT-WE-DO/environment/parks-green-spaces-and-biodiversity/all-london-

green-grid 

92  https://www.bristol.gov.uk/planning-and-building-regulations/local-plan 

93

https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/34540/Core%20Strategy%20WEB%20PDF%20(low%20res
%20with%20links)_0.pdf/f350d129-d39c-4d48-9451-1f84713a0ed8 

94 http://npf.ie/ 

26 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
  United  Kingdom:  The  UK  government  is  developing  a  25-year  environment 
plan together with the Natural Capital Committee95. The plan should have been 
published in 2016, but has been delayed in part as a result of Brexit. 

 

Implementation of green infrastructure in the Member States 

A range of GI projects  and initiatives have been  implemented in  the Member States in 
recent 
regional, 
cover 
transboundary/international) and intervention types, such as; 

years.  These 

national, 

different 

(local, 

scales 

  habitat restoration or creation; 
  conservation of important ecosystems (e.g. through designation and management 

of protected areas and Natura 2000 sites); 

  sustainable management of natural resources (e.g. forests, agricultural land); 
  measures to enhance connectivity; and 
  urban greening measures.  

The following boxes provide examples of the initiatives identified at various levels. 

Box 3 — Examples of local GI initiatives 

Belgium: Greening public space in the Brussels Capital Region 

Since  2000,  the  Green  Neighbourhoods programme96 has  supported  more  than  200 
local  greening  initiatives  in  the  Brussels  Capital  Region.  It  consists  of  small-scale  
initiatives by individuals to green public space. 

Denmark: Green roofs in Copenhagen97 

Green  roofs  are  part  of  Copenhagen’s  Climat98e  Adaptation  Plan  as  well  as  its 
biodiversity strategy. The Municipality Plan 2015 makes green roofs mandatory for all 
new buildings in new planned areas where buildings are suitable and include a flat roof 
(up to 30 degree angle). 

Germany: GI interventions in Leipzig 

The  city  of  Leipzig  has  implemented  a  series  of  local  interventions,  including  the 
creation  of  green  corridors,  the  ‘Green  Ring’,  management  of  the  Parthe  Floodplain 
and  investments  in  developing  parks  and  converting  derelict  areas  into  green  urban 
spaces.  In  the  Paunsdorf  area,  a  ‘Green  Arc’  (a  chain  of  green  spaces  surrounding  a 
large  high-density  housing  area)  was  developed,  and  water  buffalo  are  now  part  of  a 
landscape of ponds and swamps99. 

95

 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/natural-capital-committee-advice-on-governments-25-year-

environment-plan 

96  http://www.quartiersverts.be/; http://www.quartiersverts.be/IMG/pdf/guids_gw2015.pdf 

97 http://en.klimatilpasning.dk/media/568851/copenhagen_adaption_plan.pdf 

98 https://kp15.kk.dk/artikel/municipal-plan-2015 

99  Trinomics, ALTERRA, Arcadis, Risk & Policy Analysis, STELLA Consulting, and Regional 

Environmental Centre (2016) ‘Green Infrastructure in Germany’, in Supporting the Implementation of 
Green Infrastructure, Final report to the European Commission under service contract 

27 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Italy: Vertical Forest of Milan 

The  Bosco  Verticale100 is  an  innovative  project  consisting  of  two  residential  towers 
— one 110 m high, the other 76 m — in the city’s central business district. The towers 
are planted with 900 trees (each measuring 3 m, 6 m or 9 m) and over 20 000 plants 
from a wide range of shrubs and floral plants distributed according to the sun exposure 
of  the  facade.  On  flat  land,  each  vertical  forest  is  equivalent  to  an  area  of  roughly 
20 000 m2 of forest. 

The Netherlands: Sand Motor 

The  Sand  Motor 101  on  the  Delfland  Coast  was  created  in  2011  as  an  artificial 
sandbank  in  the  form  of  a  peninsula  covering  128  ha.  Natural  processes  (wind  and 
currents) redistribute the sand gradually along the shore face, beach and dunes. It is an 
innovative pilot project for coastline management whose aim is to contribute to coastal 
protection in the long term. The aim was also to create another attractive area for nature 
and leisure activities and to boost current knowledge on coastline management.  

An  evaluation  carried  out  in  2016  reveals  that  the  Sand  Motor  has  created  a  wider 
coastal zone, and a variety of plants, birds and other animals have settled in the new, 
attractive coastal landscape. The area also  plays  a major role as a leisure location for 
nature lovers and sporty types102. 

Slovakia: Green infrastructure for climate change adaptation in Bratislava 

The city of Bratislava is implementing several climate adaptation measures, including a 
green  roof  of  1  000  m2  on  a  retirement  home  and  the  planting  of  trees  along  two 
avenues  to  provide  cool  corridors.  A  new  1  000  m2  park  will  be  created  in  an  area 
without green public spaces and will contain a variety of water retention measures. On 
the Námestie hraničiarov square measuring some 1 ha, the pavement will be replaced 
by grass areas, trees and flower beds, and a rainwater collection and irrigation system 
will  build  resilience  against  drought.  In  the  Nové  Mesto  district,  which  used  to  be 
industrialised,  a  former  velodrome  (of  around  3  ha)  on  a  brownfield  site  will  be 
transformed into a multifunctional leisure area, and a new green space will be created 
on a former chestnut plantation103. 

ENV.B.2/SER/2014/0012, Annex I. 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/pdf/Green%20Infrastructure/GI_DE.pdf 

100   Oppla (2017) Milan: Bosco verticale (vertical garden). http://oppla.eu/casestudy/17625 

101  

http://www.dezandmotor.nl/en/the-sand-motor/introduction/ 

102   Ministry  of  Infrastructure  and  the  Environment  (2016),  Interim  results  2011-2015,  The  Sand  Motor: 
driver  of  innovative  coast  maintenance.  http://www.dezandmotor.nl/uploads/2016/09/1300005-brochure-
sandmotor-a4-eng.pdf 

103   CLIMATE-ADAPT (2016) EEA grants supporting the city of Bratislava to implement climate 

adaptation measures (2016), http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/case-studies/eea-grants-supporting-
the-city-of-bratislava-to-implement-climate-adaptation-measures 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Spain: Sustainable drainage systems in Benaguasil 

The municipality of Benaguasil is promoting a more sustainable method of managing 
rainwater by using sustainable drainage systems — green infrastructure that encourages 
the  retention,  detention  and  infiltration  of  surface  water  runoff.  To  this  end,  it  has 
renovated urban spaces by constructing a vegetation cover, drainage ditches, permeable 
pavements, rain gardens, detention rafts and rainwater harvesting depots.  

The monitoring results confirm their efficiency in urban water management, and have 
highlighted  additional  benefits  such  as  greater  resilience  to  the  effects  of  climate 
change,  reduction  of  energy  consumption,  avoiding  sediment  entry  in  the  sewage 
network, and the multi-functionality of public spaces104. 

Box 4 — Examples of regional GI initiatives 

Austria: LIFE+ Wilderness Wetland Wachau 

This  LIFE+  project105,  which  runs  from  January  2015  to  December  2020,  aims  to 
restore alluvial and riparian forests in the Wachau Valley, one of the last free-flowing 
sections of the Austrian Danube, and improve the conservation status of several species 
protected under the Habitat and Birds Directives. 

Finland: NATNET — Increasing the ecological connections and coherence of the 
Natura 2000 network in south-west Lapland 

Implemented between February 2012 and December 2017, this LIFE+ project106 aims 
to increase ecological connectivity and establish green infrastructure that will improve 
the  vitality  and  coherence  of  the  Natura  2000  network  in  south-western  Lapland  and 
raise  the  biodiversity  of  the  forests  in  the  project  area.  The  project  area  covers 
32 Natura 2000 sites with a total area of 363 000 ha.  

A series of actions target the species and habitats of Community importance within the 
project area to improve and restore their conservation status or, in some cases, maintain 
a ‘favourable’ conservation status.  Another objective is to  increase biodiversity in  the 
commercial  forests  and  protect  important  areas  around  and  between  the  Natura  2000 
sites.  The  ecological  connections  between  the  Natura  2000  area  and  other  existing 

104  

Ayuntamiento de Benaguasil (2016) La apuesta por la infraestructura verde urbana para la gestión de 

pluviales tiene premio. 
http://www.conama2016.org/web/generico.php?idpaginas=&lang=es&menu=406&id=1230&op=view 

105  

LIFE+ Wilderness Wetland Wachau: 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=491
7&docType=pdf 

106  

European Commission (undated) NATNET — Increasing the ecological connections and coherence of 

the Natura 2000 network in south-west Lapland. LIFE10 NAT/FI/000047 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=407
1 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
protection  areas  in  south-west  Lapland  are  established  by  voluntary  permanent 
protection agreements on privately owned land107. 

France: LIFE Jura peatlands  — Functional rehabilitation of the Jura mountains 
peatlands of Franche-Comté 

Implemented between June 2014 and November 2020, the project108 aims to improve 
the conservation status of habitats listed in the annexes of the Habitats Directive in the 
peat bogs of the Jura Mountains. It is developing conservation management plans and 
implementing hydrology restoration and other supporting works on land accounting for 
37 % of the Franche-Comté Natura 2000 network. 

Italy: Turin’s ‘Green Crown’ (Corona Verde) 

Corona Verde is a strategic project implemented in the metropolitan and surrounding 
area of Turin and involves 93 municipalities. Initiated by the Piedmont Region and the 
Politecnico di Torino University, the project aims to establish a green infrastructure that 
integrates the ‘Crown of delights’ (Corona di Delitie) — a system of royal residences 
from the sixteenth and seventeenth century spread out across the city of Turin — with 
the city’s green belt, including metropolitan parks, rivers and rural areas.  

The  project  covers  an  area  of  164 883  ha  and  includes  1 865  ha  of  special  protected 
areas. EUR 13 147 665 was invested by different parties, including the EU.  

The  objective  is  to  provide  —  in  a  cost-effective  manner  —  the  metropolitan  area  of 
Turin  with  many  social,  environmental  and  economic  benefits  for  the  city  and  its 
population. These include protecting against soil erosion, reducing adverse impacts of 
grey infrastructure projects, enhancing tourism and reducing pollution109. 

Romania:  Connect  Carpathians  —  Enhancing  landscape  connectivity  for  brown 
bear and wolf through a regional network of NATURA 2000 sites 

This  LIFE  project 110 aims  to  enhance  landscape  connectivity  within  an  ecological 
corridor  located  in  western  Romania.  This  corridor  consists  of  a  network  of  Natura 
2000 sites situated between the Apuseni Mountains and the Southern Carpathians, and 
is  the  only  route  through  which  flagship  species  such  as  bears  and  wolves  can  move 
between the two areas. The project runs from September 2013 to February 2019. 

Project activities aimed at enhancing functional connectivity include:  

107  

NATNET project website, http://en.natnet.fi/ 

108 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=486
1&docType=pdf 

109  

Trinomics, ALTERRA, Arcadis, Risk & Policy Analysis, STELLA Consulting, and Regional 
Environmental Centre (2016) ‘Green Infrastructure in Italy’, in Supporting the Implementation of Green 
Infrastructure, Final report to the European Commission under service contract ENV.B.2/SER/2014/0012, 
Annex I. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/pdf/Green%20Infrastructure/GI_IT.pdf 

110  

Connect Carpathians (2014) LIFE Connect Carpathians. Project website: 

http://connectcarpathians.ro/?lang=en 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  building 

the  capacity  of  responsible  agencies  and  Natura  2000  site 

administrators in landscape scale conservation; 
involving local stakeholders in connectivity management; 

 
  securing land to develop linkage corridors; and 
  managing corridors to create carnivore-permeable landscape. 

Slovenia: Sečovlje Salina Nature Park and Natura 2000 site 

Sečovlje  Salina,  a  650  ha  area  along  the  estuary  of  the  Dragonja  River  on  the 
southernmost  stretch  of  the  Slovenian  coastline,  is  the  first  state-designated  protected 
area  to  be  managed  by  a  private  company  (Soline;  a  salt  producer).  It  is  a  prime 
example of multifunctional green infrastructure that combines salt production, tourism, 
recreational activities and education whilst at the same time conserving unique habitats 
for salt-loving vegetation.  

The  LIFE+  project  MANSALT — Man and Nature in Sečovlje  salt-pans111 (2010-
2015) improved the conservation status of target species and habitat types in the Natura 
2000 site Sečovlje Salina. Specific actions included: 

  ensuring control and effectively managing the water regime; 
  enhancing the conservation status of numerous species and habitats in the area; 

and 
raising public awareness among the local population and wider public112. 

 

Sweden: ReBorN — Restoration of Boreal Nordic Rivers 

This  LIFE  project113 aims  to  enhance  previously  modified  water  bodies  in  northern 
Sweden  to  improve  the  conservation  status  of  habitats  and  species  of  Community 
interest, as defined in the Habitats Directive, and to achieve good environmental status 
of these bodies of water, in accordance with the Water Framework Directive.  

The project has a budget of just over EUR 13 million and runs from 2016 to 2021. 

UK: The Seven Lochs Wetland Park in Scotland 

The Seven Lochs Wetland Park114 is an example of a large-scale project that is part of 
the  Central  Scotland  Green  Network  (a  national  development  whose  aims  include  an 
integrated habitat network and improved landscape quality).  

111

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=385
4&docType=pdf 

112  

Trinomics, ALTERRA, Arcadis, Risk & Policy Analysis, STELLA Consulting, and Regional 

Environmental Centre (2016) ‘Green Infrastructure in Slovenia’, in Supporting the Implementation of Green 
Infrastructure, Final report to the European Commission under service contract ENV.B.2/SER/2014/0012, 
Annex I. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/pdf/Green%20Infrastructure/GI_SL.pdf 

113 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=586
4&docType=pdf 

114 http://sevenlochs.org/ 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Located on the north-east outskirts of Glasgow and North Lanarkshire, the project links 
the  lochs  with  other  wetland  areas  as  well  as  peatland  and  woodland  habitat,  and 
develops community access to the natural and historic environment in the area. 

Box 5 — Examples of national initiatives 

Czech  Republic:  Complex  approach  to  the  protection  of  fauna  of  terrestrial 
ecosystems from landscape fragmentation 

Financed by EEA Grants and Norway Grants, this project115, which runs from 2015-
2017,  focuses  on  the  identification  of  biotopes  of  specially  protected  large  mammal 
species  (lynx,  bear,  wolf  and  moose).  The  biotopes  consist  of  core  areas,  migration 
biotopes  and  critical  barrier  sites.  The  main  output  is  a  polygon  layer,  which  is  to  be 
incorporated into obligatory urban planning processes. 

Finland:  Boreal  peatland  life:  Restoring  the  Natura  2000  network  of  boreal 
peatland ecosystems 

This  LIFE project116, which was implemented from  2010 to  2014, aimed to  improve 
the  habitat  quality  of  54 Natura  2000  sites  in  the  unique  Finnish  peatland  network. 
Almost 600 ha of valuable peatlands were acquired for nature conservation, with some 
4 700 ha of drained peatlands in 51 Natura 2000 sites restored. 

Ireland:  LIFE  Irish  raised  bogs:  Restoring  active  raised  bog  in  Ireland’s  SAC 
network (2016 – 2020) 

The  project  aims  to  improve  the  conservation  status  of  active  raised  bog  habitat  by 
protecting and restoring 12 Natura 2000 network sites in the midlands of Ireland117. 

Malta: Alter Aqua Water Programme 

The  programme 118  aims  to  mobilise  non-conventional  water  resources  in  order  to 
secure  water  availability  and  facilitate  sustainable  development.  It  is  a  multi-
stakeholder initiative, financed by Maltese Ministries and The Coca Cola Foundation. It 
was  launched  in  November  2011  in  Gozo  and  expanded  to  the  Island  of  Malta  in 

115

 http://www.eeagrants.cz/en/programmes/eea-grants-2009-2014/cz02-environment/cz02-approved-

projects/complex-approach-to-the-protection-of-fa-1716 

116  

Boreal Peatland LIFE Project. Working for the Finnish Peatlands. Layman’s report: 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showFile&rep=file&fil=LI
FE08_NAT_FIN_000596_LAYMAN.pdf 

117 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id

=5321 

118  

Trinomics, ALTERRA, Arcadis, Risk & Policy Analysis, STELLA Consulting, and Regional 
Environmental Centre (2016) ‘Green Infrastructure in Malta’, in Supporting the Implementation of Green 
Infrastructure, Final report to the European Commission under service contract ENV.B.2/SER/2014/0012, 
Annex I. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/pdf/Green%20Infrastructure/GI_MT.pdf 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
January 2014.  

The programme’s activities include rainwater harvesting, greywater reuse systems and 
storm water management in the Ramla Valley. The latter involves reconstructing rubble 
walls  to  increase  water  availability  for  irrigation,  allow  aquifer  replenishment  and 
prevent soil erosion. Rubble walls also serve as an important ecological corridor and a 
refuge for a number of endangered terrestrial fauna.  

Project  benefits  include  increased  water  availability,  prevention  of  soil  erosion  and 
increase in connectivity and biodiversity. 

The Netherlands: Room for the River Programme 

Thanks  to  interventions  at  more  than  30  locations,  the  programme119 uses  technical 
and natural solutions to accommodate higher water levels and flows. The measures are 
also  designed  in  such  a  way  that  they  improve  the  quality  of  the  immediate 
surroundings. 

Sweden: The system of forest ‘eco-parks’ 

Sveaskog,  the  state-owned  forestry  company,  has  a  system  of  eco-parks  that  cover 
large,  connected  forested  areas  of  particular  ecological  value.  It  currently  owns  and 
manages 36 eco-parks in Sweden, ranging from  1 000 ha to 21 000 ha. The first park 
was established in 2003.  

In  an  eco-park,  at  least  50 %  of  the  productive  forest  must  be  used  for  conservation 
purposes,  more  specifically  to  protect  and  actively  support  the  function  of  its  natural 
values.  Practical  management  measures  include,  for  instance,  reintroducing  grazing 
cattle  to  old  pastoral  forests  and  cutting  coniferous  forest  to  support  deciduous  forest 
growth.  Management  plans  are  designed  in  collaboration  with  relevant  stakeholders 
across different sectors120. 

UK: Nature Improvement Areas 

12 Nature Improvement Areas121 were established in England in 2012 (in response to a 
review of the adequacy of the protected areas in England) to create joined up networks 
of individual parcels of land recognised for the value of their nature122. 

119  

https://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/english/ 

120

http://www.sveaskog.se/Documents/Trycksaker/Ekoparksmaterial/V%C3 %A5ra%20ekoparker%20sv

e.pdf 

121  

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nature-improvement-areas-improved-ecological-

networks 

122  

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nature-improvement-areas-improved-ecological-

networks/nature-improvement-areas-about-the-programme 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
Box 6 — Examples of cross-border and transnational initiatives 

European Green Belt 

The European Green Belt123 forms a transcontinental axis of the European ecological 
network.  With  a  total  length  of  12 500  km  along  the  former  Iron  Curtain,  it  passes 
through  eight  biogeographic  regions  and  24  countries  (Finland,  Norway,  Russia, 
Estonia,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Poland,  Germany,  Czech  Republic,  Austria,  Slovakia, 
Hungary,  Slovenia,  Italy,  Croatia,  Romania,  Serbia,  Montenegro,  Albania,  Greece, 
Macedonia, Bulgaria, Kosovo and Turkey).  

The  Green  Belt  connects  national  parks,  nature  parks,  biosphere  reserves  and 
transboundary protected areas as well as non-protected areas along or across borders. It 
also promotes regional development initiatives in the field of nature conservation.  

The Lower Danube Green Corridor 

The  Lower  Danube  Green  Corridor124 aims  to  coordinate  national  efforts  and  cross-
border  cooperation  among  the  Lower  Danube  countries  (Romania,  Bulgaria,  Ukraine 
and Moldova) in order to protect and restore wetlands and floodplain habitats. A large-
scale ecological corridor of up to 1 million ha of existing and new protected areas and 
223 608 ha of areas was proposed to be restored to natural floodplains. 

TRANSGREEN  —  Integrated  Transport  and  Green  Infrastructure  Planning  in 
the Danube-Carpathian Region for the Benefit of People and Nature 

This  Interreg  project125 aims  to  better  connect  the  Carpathian  region  with  transport 
infrastructure  that  takes  nature  conservation  into  account.  It  will  do  so  by  improving 
planning frameworks and developing concrete environmentally friendly and safe road 
and  rail  transport  solutions,  taking  into  account  elements  of  green  infrastructure,  in 
particular ecological corridors.  

The  project’s  pilot  areas  are  located  in  Hungary,  Slovakia,  Romania,  Czech  Republic 
and  Ukraine.  The  project  will  run  from  2017  to  2019  and  will  cost  EUR 2.5  million, 
EUR 2.1 million of which will come from the European Regional Development Fund 
(ERDF). 

PROTOMEDEA  —  Towards  the  establishment  of  Marine  Protected  Area 
Networks in the Eastern Mediterranean 

The  goal  of  this  DG  MARE-funded  project 126 (2015-2018)  is  to  design  a  Marine 
Protected  Area  network  in  Greece  and  Cyprus,  taking  into  account  the  protection  of 
ecological  characteristics  and  essential  fish  habitats,  significant  areas  for  fisheries  as 

123  

http://www.europeangreenbelt.org/ 

124  

http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/case-studies/lower-danube-green-corridor-floodplain-

restoration-for-flood-protection 

125  

http://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/transgreen 

126  

http://msp-platform.eu/projects/protomedea-towards-establishment-marine-protected-area-networks-

eastern-mediterranean 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
well as their socio-economic impact through a participatory bottom-up process. 

Protected GI and water bodies in Zemale Region and North Lithuania 

Nine  municipalities  in  Latvia  and  Lithuania  came  together  to  jointly  implement  the 
motto  ‘Let’s  make  our  cities  greener’.  The  project127 focuses  on  urban  areas  and  on 
improving  their  green  infrastructure.  Emphasis  was  placed  on  the  collaboration 
between architects and city planners of both countries in trying to find the best way to 
balance the aesthetics, ecology and functionality of the green areas. 

Alpine  Space:  Alpine  Ecosystem  Services  —  mapping,  maintenance  and 
management (AlpES) 

The  objectives  of  this  INTERREG  project128,  which  runs  from  December  2015  to 
December  2018  and  covers  Slovenia,  Austria,  France,  Germany,  Italy  and 
Liechtenstein,  are  to  introduce  ecosystem  services  as  a  regional/transnational 
environmental governance framework and to train and support the AlpES target groups 
in understanding, valuing and managing them. 

Danube floodplains: Restoration and management of Danube floodplain habitats 

This  LIFE  project129,  which  is  located  in  Slovakia  and  Hungary,  aims  to  restore  the 
key  natural  habitats  of  Danube  floodplains  and  to  introduce  sound  sustainable 
management in order to control future flooding in the region.  

Habitat  restoration  will  be  achieved  by  improving  the  water  regime  in  the  vast  river 
branch  system  and  by 
to  secure  favourable 
conservation status of targeted habitats. The project runs from August 2015 to January 
2022. 

introducing  direct 

interventions 

SustainBaltic: ICZM Plans for Sustaining Coastal and Marine Human-ecological 
Networks in the Baltic Region 

This ERDF-funded project130 (2016-2018) focuses on improving the share of managed 
coastal  networks  in  the  Central  Baltic  region  by  increasing  cross-border  planning, 
preparation and co-evaluation of the integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) plans 
in order to ensure that sea-land interfaces are preserved and further developed.  

The project targets four ICZM case studies areas from Estonia and Finland, with four 
ICZM  plans  produced  based  on  the  current  spatial  data  on  ecological,  land  use  and 

127  

Trinomics,  ALTERRA,  Arcadis,  Risk  &  Policy  Analysis,  STELLA  Consulting,  and  Regional 
Environmental Centre (2016) ‘Green Infrastructure in Latvia’, in  Supporting the Implementation of Green 
Infrastructure, Final report to the European Commission under service contract ENV.B.2/SER/2014/0012, 
Annex I. 

128  

http://www.cipra.org/en/cipra/international/projects/current/alpes 

129 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=534
1&docType=pdf 

130  

http://database.centralbaltic.eu/project/51 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
human activities. The novelty of the SustainBaltic approach involves working closely 
together  to  define  the  most  crucial  planning  criteria  to  be  utilised  and  implemented 
further in the Central Baltic programme area. 

The Green Infrastructure Network (GreenInfraNet) 

The aim of this Interreg project131 (2012-2015) was to strengthen the development and 
implementation  of  green  infrastructure  in  11  EU  regions  by  exchanging  experiences, 
expertise and good practices. 

GREEN  SURGE:  Green  Infrastructure  and  Urban  Biodiversity  for  Sustainable 
Urban Development and the Green Economy 

Funded  by  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme  and  running  from  2013  to  2017,  the 
project132 aims  to  identify  and  develop  ways  of  linking  green  spaces,  biodiversity, 
people and the green economy in order to meet the major urban challenges  related to 
land use conflicts, climate change adaptation, demographic changes and human health 
and well-being.  

It  will  provide  a  basis  for  urban  green  infrastructure  planning  and  implementation, 
exploring the potential for innovation to better link environmental, social and economic 
ecosystem services with local communities. 

E2STORMED 
Co-funded by the ERDF and completed in 2015, the E2STORMED project133 aimed to 
improve energy efficiency in the urban water cycle and in buildings by promoting the 
use  of  innovative  stormwater  solutions  such  as  sustainable  drainage  systems  in 
Mediterranean cities.  

The project was implemented in Greece, Spain, Croatia, Italy, Malta and Montenegro. 
One  of  its  outputs  was  a  decision  support  tool  designed  to  include  energy  efficiency 
and environmental criteria in urban stormwater management decisions. 

Many  of  the  GI  initiatives  identified  (some  of  which  have  been  illustrated  in  the  text 
boxes  above)  consist  of  restoration  activities  and  therefore  contribute  to  achieving  the 
EU target of restoring 15 % of degraded ecosystems by 2020. However, estimates of the 
aggregate contribution that existing GI initiatives generate towards the 15 % restoration 
target are not available. 

Numerous initiatives (including many of the restoration ones) are linked to Natura 2000 
sites. Implementation of the EU’s GI strategy therefore contributes to the goals of the EU 
Nature Directives, and vice versa. 

131  

http://www.greeninfranet.org/ 

132  

http://greensurge.eu/ 

133  

http://www.e2stormed.eu/project/ 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Mainstreaming green infrastructure in other policy areas 

Based  on  the  information  collected  in  the  country  factsheets,  some  integration  of  GI 
considerations  into  other  relevant  policy  areas  has  taken  place  in  most  Member  States, 
although  the  range  of  policy  areas  and  the  extent  of  the  integration  varies  widely.  In 
many cases, green infrastructure is not mentioned directly in the respective policies, and 
it is the broader areas of biodiversity and nature conservation that have been integrated. 
However,  it  is  worth  noting  that  the  information  collected  in  the  factsheets  does  not 
represent an exhaustive list of GI mainstreaming initiatives, but rather the best available 
information  that  could  be  acquired  from  online  public  sources,  complemented  by 
information  from  national  experts  (if  submitted).  As  such,  it  is  difficult  to  draw 
comparisons between countries or policy areas. 

The  sections  below  outline  the  most  relevant  available  examples  of  how  GI 
considerations  have  been  integrated  into  other  policy  areas  across  different  Member 
States. 

  Agricultural policy 

In  terms  of  agricultural  policy,  several  country  factsheets  highlight  the  fact  that  rural 
development  programmes  (RDPs)  contribute  to  GI  objectives  through  measures  that 
support the conservation, restoration and creation of habitats. For example, 1.2 million ha 
of high nature value grasslands in Romania (out of a total of 2.4 million ha identified in 
the country) were protected under the previous RDP by granting financial compensation 
to  farmers  who  undertook  commitments  to  apply  management  requirements 134 .  In 
Germany, the RDPs of several federal states explicitly mention green infrastructure. This 
is also the case for several regional RDPs in Italy135. 

In Sweden, various actions performed by the Swedish Board of Agriculture (government 
agency  responsible  for  agriculture)  contribute  to  GI  implementation.  For  example,  the 
Board  worked  together  with  several  other  government  agencies  in  2016  on  transition 
zones between  forestry  and agricultural  land to  support  biodiversity, GI and ecosystem 
services.  The  Board  emphasises  the  value  of  connectivity  between  natural  areas  in  the 
agricultural landscape and offers guidance to land owners on how to achieve a varied and 
connected landscape to support pollinators, birds, and hunting and game management. A 
number of farms in Sweden are used as demonstration examples of agricultural systems 
that benefit biodiversity. 

In Flanders (Belgium), the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Department 
of  Environment,  Nature  and  Energy  launched  the  AGNABIO136 initiative  in  2009.  Its 
aim  was  to  strengthen  policy  coordination  and  knowledge  exchange  in  the  fields  of 
agricultural nature management and agrobiodiversity. Among the actions taken was the 
development of a practical guidance on ‘Agriculture and Nature’. 

134  BISE  (2015)  Romania  —  Contribution  to  the  mid-term  review  of  the  EU  biodiversity  strategy  to  2020 

based on the 5th national report to CBD. http://biodiversity.europa.eu/mtr/countries/romania/ 

135  ISMEA (2016) PSR 2014-2020 Il paesaggio rurale e le misure dei PSR 2014-2020. 

http://www.terrainnova.it/wp-
content/uploads/sites/3/2016/12/RRN_Analisi_PSR_2014_20_Paesaggio_2016.pdf 

136  http://lv.vlaanderen.be/nl/voorlichting-info/voorlichting/agnabio-en-fab-0#Agnabio 

37 

 
 
 
                                                           
Malta’s Rural Policy and Design Guidance (2014)137 aims to protect landscape features 
and  ecological  corridors  such  as  rubble  walls,  natural  ponds  and  stands  of  indigenous 
trees in agricultural areas.  

  Forestry 

Another area where links to green infrastructure were found in several Member States is 
forestry.  Forests  are  one  of  the  physical  building  blocks  of  green  infrastructure  and,  if 
healthy  and  managed  sustainably,  provide  multiple  ecosystem  services.  The 
multifunctionality  of  forests  and  the  importance  of  sustainable  use/management  are 
recognised in the EU Forest Strategy and in many national forest programmes, strategies 
or acts.  

For  example,  the  Austrian  Forest  Programme  launched  in  2007  consists  of  seven 
thematic  areas  that  reflect  the  different  ecosystem  services  of  forests  and  their  part  in 
green infrastructure: 

the contribution of forests to climate mitigation and adaptation; 

 
  health and sustainability of the forests; 
  productivity and economic aspects of the forests; 
  biodiversity; 
  protection against disasters and extreme weather events; 
  social and economic aspects of the forest; and 
 

international responsibility for sustainable forestry.  

A  large  part  of  Austrian  forests  (around  20 %)  is  classified  as  ‘protection  forest’,  for 
which  the  objective  is  to  safeguard  the  benefits  they  provide  to  human  well-being, 
especially  their  protective  function  (e.g.  controlling  natural  hazards),  their  value  for 
recreation and tourism and general socio-economic functions). Protection of these forests 
and their ecosystem services remains a priority within forestry policy. Protection forests 
also exist in Croatia. 

Germany’s  Forest  Strategy  2020  and  the  National  Biodiversity  Strategy  emphasise  the 
multifunctionality of forests as a guiding concept. GI-related measures include increasing 
the area of forests and maintaining or increasing the ecological value of forests. Germany 
has also set a target for the area, with natural forest development to reach 5 % of the total 
forest area by 2020. 

The non-productive role of forests is also recognised, for example, in the Polish Forest 
Act (1991) and Latvian forest policy. 

In  Finland,  the  process  of  ecosystem-based  natural  resources  planning  (ENRP)  aims  to 
reconcile  different  land  uses  in  a  sustainable  manner,  including  nature  conservation, 
forestry,  recreation,  ecotourism,  real  estate  development  and  the  sale  of  soil  resources. 
The  key  aim  of  the  process  is  to  ensure  the  sustainable,  multiple  use  of  land  by 
harmonising  ecological,  economic  and  socio-cultural  objectives  of  forest  management. 
Landscape ecological planning (LEP) is the ecological component of the ENRP process 
that aims to ensure: 

the survival of the area’s native species as viable populations; 

 
  conservation of existing valuable habitats; and 

137  https://era.org.mt/en/Pages/RURAL-POLICY-AND-DESIGN-GUIDANCE-2014.aspx 

38 

 
 
                                                           
 

improved  connectivity  of  the  protected  area  network  in  surrounding  production 
forests.  

The  ENRP/LEP  process  includes  a  range  of  elements  integral  to  the  GI  concept, 
including  key  biotopes  and  areas  with  threatened  species  (e.g.  protected  areas),  areas 
important for ecological connectivity, areas in need of restoration and/or enhancement of 
biodiversity, game reserves, areas important for their scenic or cultural value and special 
areas for traditional livelihoods. 

In  Denmark’s  2016  Nature  Package,  the  government  pledged  to  set  aside  13 300  ha  of 
state forest to protect biodiversity. A new national forestry programme will be launched, 
and all forests with particularly high biological value will be mapped and registered, with 
land owners encouraged to voluntarily protect such forests. 

The  Spanish  Forest  Plan  (2002-2032)  aims  to  introduce  reforestation  programmes  to 
increase the amount of carbon stored in forests. These programmes include: 

  hydrological‐forest restoration; 
 
 
  planting 19.5 million trees (which were planted by 2011, leading to reforestation of an 

the CAP agricultural land reforestation programme;  
reforestation within the Natura 2000 network; and 

area of more than 29 000 ha). 

 

Spatial planning and urban policy 

As  outlined  in  Section  1,  GI  objectives  have  been  integrated  into  the  spatial  planning 
policies  of  several  Member  States,  e.g.  by  means  of  requirements  on  ecological 
connectivity,  the  prevention  of  fragmentation,  the  establishment  of  national  ecological 
networks (and consideration of these networks in development plans and projects) etc. 

In  addition,  GI  considerations  have  been  integrated  into  urban  policy  by  means  of 
specific  requirements  on  the  extent  and/or  quality  of  urban  green  areas  (see  e.g. 
Lithuania’s  Law  on  Green  Plots,  Slovenia’s  Spatial  Planning  Act  and  the  sustainable 
urban  strategies  adopted  by  Slovenian  urban  municipalities  in  2015)  as  well  as 
government funding for green roofs (e.g. in the Czech Republic).  

Another  example  of  GI  integration  in  urban  policy  is  the  German  National  Urban 
Development  Policy,  which  has  been  in  place  since  2007.  In  its  latest  update  (2015), 
increasing vegetation, especially in densely populated neighbourhoods, is an opportunity 
to  improve  quality  of  life.  The  creation  of  water  retention  basins  and  reduction  in  soil 
sealing are seen as important measures for adapting cities to climate change.  

The green paper Green in cities — for a liveable future published in 2015 acknowledges 
the many functions of nature (health, well-being, climate adaptation and risk reduction, 
environmental  conditions,  biodiversity,  social,  cultural  and  educational  functions, 
production  of  food  and  resources)  in  different  forms  and  shapes  (from  natural  areas  to 
green roofs, as separate building blocks or connected). In Hungary, the Green City Calls 
under  the  Territorial  and  Settlement  Development  Operational  Programme  (2014-
2020)138 provide financial support for the setting up of green infrastructure development 
and maintenance plans. As outlined in Section 1, several cities have developed GI-related 
strategies and policy initiatives. 

  Transport policy 

138

 https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/regional-innovation-monitor/policy-document/alfold-es-

eszak/territorial-and-settlement-development-operational-programme 

39 

 
 
                                                           
In  the  transport  sector,  the  main  means  of  integrating  green  infrastructure  have  been 
measures to maintain or increase the permeability of transport infrastructure for wildlife 
as well as environmental impact assessments of transport projects (to identify and reduce 
negative impacts on nature and biodiversity, rather than green infrastructure specifically). 

In Austria, it has been mandatory since 2007 to establish a wildlife corridor every third 
kilometre  when  a  newly  developed  road  or  railway  poses  a  threat  to  wildlife139.  A 
working  group  was  set  up  to  address  this  issue.  It  developed  a  guidance  document 
‘Defragmentation  of  habitats:  Guidance  for  reducing  the  effects  of  roads  and 
railways’140.  The  guide  can  help  various  levels  of  administration  identify  the  critical 
zones affected and select appropriate measures to address defragmentation. The working 
group also developed a guide on how to identify areas to be defragmented (2014) as well 
as a guide on how to design wildlife crossings and fences (2015). 

The Swedish  Transport  Administration published a report in  2016 on the adaptation of 
transport infrastructure as a contribution to well-functioning green infrastructure141. The 
report states, for example, that the agency is working to complete plans and measures to 
adapt  transport  land  use  in  order  to  help  achieve  the  Swedish  environmental  quality 
objectives  and  well-functioning  green  infrastructure.  The  agency  identifies  and  focuses 
on four key factors in  relation  to  green infrastructure:  safe passages for animals,  noise, 
biodiversity-rich infrastructure environments, and invasive alien species. 

Romania’s General  Transport  Master  Plan mentions  the  need  to  respect  conservation 
measures in future projects, including integrating non-structural and green infrastructure 
measures  and  avoiding  negative  impacts  on  protected  areas,  forested  areas  and  non-
protected areas where species of community interest are identified by reconsidering route 
plans142. 

In  the  UK,  the  National  Policy  Statement  for  National  Networks 143 states  that  as  a 
general  principle,  transport  network  developments  ‘should  avoid  significant  harm  to 
biodiversity  and  geological  conservation  interests,  included  through  mitigation  and 
consideration  of  reasonable  alternatives’  and  highlights  the  importance  of  appropriate 
green  infrastructure  as  an  integral  part  of  proposed  developments.  The  Linear 
Infrastructure  Network144,  which  comprises  members  from  over  70  organisations  with 

139  

Büro für Wildökologie und Forstwirtschaft (2015) Grüne Infrastruktur: Lebensraumvernetzung. Status 

Quo und Umsetzungsmöglichkeiten. Winterausgabe Natur und Land, 101. JG. -Heft 4. 
http://www.zobodat.at/pdf/nat-land_2015_4_0032-0036.pdf 

140   Ministerio  de  Agricultura,  Alimentación  y  Medio  Ambiente  (2013)  Desfragmentación  de  hábitats. 
Orientaciones para reducir los efectos de las infrastructuras de transporte en funcionamiento. Documentos 
para la reducción de la fragmentación de hábitats causada por infrastructuras de transporte, numero 5. O.A. 
Parques Nacionales. 

141  

Trafikverket (2016) ‘Anpassning av transportinfrastrukturen som ett bidrag till en fungerande grön 

infrastruktur. Planera, bygga och sköta’, Publikation 2016:133. 

142  

Trinomics, ALTERRA, Arcadis, Risk & Policy Analysis, STELLA Consulting, and Regional 

Environmental Centre (2016) ‘Green Infrastructure in Romania’, in Supporting the Implementation of Green 
Infrastructure, Final report to the European Commission under service contract ENV.B.2/SER/2014/0012, 
Annex I. 

143  

Department for Transport (2014) National policy statement for national networks. Department for 

Transport, UK Government. 

144  

https://www.tcpa.org.uk/linear-infrastructure-network 

40 

 
 
                                                           
an  interest  in  linear  infrastructure,  aims  to  demonstrate  the  benefits  that  well  designed 
and maintained green infrastructure can deliver alongside grey infrastructure assets. 

Poland’s  Transport  Development  Strategy  until  2020  provides  for,  among  other  things, 
GI-related measures such as the development and application of innovative solutions to 
protect  wildlife  against  collisions  with  vehicles,  maintenance  of  existing  wildlife 
passages,  and  implementation  of  best  available  practices  while  designing  new  wildlife 
passages. 

Other examples include Germany’s Federal Defragmentation Programme and the Dutch 
Multiannual Programme Defragmentation, which were both described in Section 1. 

  Energy policy 

There  are  relatively  few  examples  of  GI  integration  in  the  energy  policy  sector.  In 
Germany,  the  independent  Competence  Centre  for  Nature  Conservation  and  Energy 
Transition145 (Kompetenzzentrum  Naturschutz  und  Energiewende)  was  established  in 
2016.  It  collects  and  disseminates  information  on  how  nature  protection  issues  can  be 
integrated into decision processes on energy transition. 

The  Swedish  Board  of  Agriculture  carried  out  a  project  linked  to  the  national 
environmental  quality  objective  ‘A  varied  agricultural  landscape’.  It  developed  a 
handbook and recommendations on how to benefit biodiversity around rural wind energy 
infrastructure. The publication discusses the concept of ‘kreotop’, which is defined as a 
natural environment built on a general model for how different ecological structures can 
benefit biodiversity146. 

In  Hungary, 
the  ‘Accessible  Sky’  agreement  between  distribution  companies, 
governmental  and  non-governmental  conservation  organisations  was  signed  in  2008  to 
minimise bird mortality along power lines. 

  Climate change and disaster risk reduction policies 

The  role  of  green  infrastructure  is  recognised  in  the  climate  change  and  disaster  risk 
reduction  policies  of  some  Member  States.  For  example,  Romania’s  National  Climate 
Change Strategy (2016-2030) mentions that biodiversity conservation and the restoration 
of degraded ecosystems can help reduce vulnerability and increase resilience to climate 
change. Specific measures include:  

 

 
 

restoring vegetation,  which can reduce climate extremes by means of soil formation 
and retention; 
increasing soil permeability and reducing surface temperatures; and 
sustainable use of natural resources to prevent extreme events such as floods.  

The strategy also sets the objective of increasing the capacity of biodiversity to adapt to 
climate  change  by  improving  conservation  status,  restoring  degraded  ecosystems, 
establishing and developing ecological corridors and refuge areas further both within and 
between Natura 2000 sites, and implementing in-situ conservation measures. 

145 https://www.naturschutz-energiewende.de/ueber-uns/about-us-english-version/ 

146  

Nilsson, E., Arnesson, M. & Ericsson, A. (2011) ‘Vindkraft i slättlandskapet: så gynnar anläggning av 

naturmiljöer den biologiska mångfalden’. Jönköping: Jordbruksverket. 

41 

 
 
                                                           
Spain’s  Third  Work  Programme  for  Adaptation  to  Climate  Change147 includes  action 
lines  related  to  the  development  of  an  ecosystem-based  approach  for  adaptation  to 
climate  change  as  well  as  the  development  of  guidance  for  integrating  climate  change 
adaptation within ecological restoration and connectivity initiatives. 

The National Flood Protection Programme adopted by Germany in 2014  includes three 
categories  of  priority,  supra-regional  effective  flood  protection  measures:  controlled 
flood  retention,  dike  relocations  and  elimination  of  weak  points.  The  plans  provide  for 
1 180  million  m3  of  controlled  retention  volume  and  more  than  20 000  ha  of  active 
floodplains to be recovered by dike relocations. The Sigma Plan in Flanders148, which 
aims  to  protect  against  flooding  of  the  Scheldt  and  tributaries  while  boosting  natural 
values,  recreation  and  economy,  is  another  example  of  GI  integration  in  flood  control 
policy. The mainstreaming of sustainable development principle in the ESIF has led to an 
increased  use  of  green  infrastructure  solutions  for  risk  prevention  and  management 
supported by the ERDF and the CF. 

Italy’s  Partnership  Agreement  for  the  2014-2020  programming  period 149  includes 
actions that specifically mention GI measures for disaster risk reduction150. 

A recent review151 of the urban climate adaptation plans of 14 European cities152 found 
that  all  the  cities  affected  by  water  scarcity  included  at  least  one  ecosystem-based 
adaptation  (EbA)  measure  in  their  plans  to  cope  with  this  challenge.  This  was  also  the 
case for cities affected by floods. All but one city proposed EbA measures to cope with 
heat  waves.  The  most  common  EbA  measures  across  the  14  cities  examined  were 
maintaining/enhancing  urban  green  (e.g.,  ecological  corridors,  trees,  gardens)  and 
maintaining and managing green areas for flood retention and water storage. Green walls 
and  roofs  were  mentioned  in  more  than  half  of  the  cities.  Measures  such  as 
avoiding/reducing  impervious  surfaces,  ensuring  ventilation  from  cooler  areas  outside 
the city through waterways and green areas, and promoting the use of vegetation adapted 
to local climate and drought conditions were less common in the urban adaptation plans 
examined. The authors identified the implementation component as a main gap; in many 
cases, the plans do not set out how the proposed EbA measures will be implemented. 

  Water management 

On  GI  integration  in  water  management  beyond  flood  protection,  several  country 
factsheets  mention  the  role  of  river  basin  management  plans  adopted  under  the  Water 

147   Ministerio de la Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente (2014) Plan Nacional de Adaptación al 

Cambio Climatico: Tercer Programa de Trabajo 2014-2020. http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/cambio-
climatico/temas/impactos-vulnerabilidad-y-adaptacion/3PT-PNACC-enero-2014_tcm7-316456.pdf 

148  http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/case-studies/an-integrated-plan-incorporating-flood-protection-

the-sigma-plan-scheldt-estuary-belgium 

149 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/partnership-agreement-italy-summary-oct2014_en.pdf 

150  

See actions 5.1.2 and 5.1.3, 

http://www.agenziacoesione.gov.it/opencms/export/sites/dps/it/documentazione/AccordoPartenariato/Accor
do_di_Partenariato__ALL__I__Risultati-Azioni.pdf 

151  

Geneletti,  D.  and  Zardo,  L.  (2016)  Ecosystem-based  adaptation  in  cities:  An  analysis  of  European 

urban climate adaptation plans. Land Use Policy 50, pp. 38-47. 

152  

Amsterdam,  Athens,  Barcelona,  Berlin,  Copenhagen,  Heidelberg,  London,  Madrid,  Milan,  Paris, 

Rome, Rotterdam, Stockholm, Venice and Warsaw. 

42 

 
 
                                                           
Framework  Directive  as  well  as  concrete  measures  carried  out  such  as  restoration  of 
water bodies. 

  Marine and coastal policy 

Evidence  of  GI  integration  in  marine  and  coastal  policy  is  scarcer  compared  to  other 
policy  areas.  Relevant  aspects  include  the  designation  of  marine  Natura  2000  sites  and 
national marine protected areas as well as specific projects implemented in the Member 
States, such as: 

  PROTOMEDEA  –  whose  goal  is  to  design  a  Marine  Protected  Area  network  in 

Greece and Cyprus; and 

  SustainBaltic  –  which  focuses  on  developing  integrated  coastal  zone  management 
plans  for  sustaining  coastal  and  marine  human-ecological  networks  in  the  Baltic 
region. 

  Tourism and leisure policy 

Based on the information collected in the country factsheets, the specific integration of 
GI  aspects  in  tourism  and  leisure  policy  appears  limited  apart  from  recognition  of  the 
importance of natural areas in Member States’ tourism strategies and policies to protect 
GI  areas  for  their  scenic  and  historic  value.  One  relevant  example  (although  not 
explicitly  referring  to  green  infrastructure)  is  Romania’s  Territorial  Development 
Strategy,  which  includes  a  measure  on  developing  tourism  networks  to  harness  the 
potential of unique Natura 2000 sites. It underscores the importance of Natura 2000 sites 
for regions and mentions that they should be used, for example, to attract more visitors 
and  develop  eco-tourism  activities.  A  related  measure  in  the  strategy  provides  for  the 
development  of  management  plans  to  regulate,  among  other  things,  tourism  activities 
within protected areas and in their vicinity in order to stop landscape degradation. 

The  Swedish  Parliament  adopted  10  objectives  in  2012  for  policies  related  to  outdoor 
leisure activities153. One of these goals states that all Swedes should have the possibility 
to visit and enjoy nature. The 2015 evaluation of the progress towards achieving this goal 
showed that the number of municipalities that have adopted plans for green structure and 
nature has increased. 

An interesting initiative is underway in Denmark; summer house owners are encouraged 
to allow nature to ‘move into’ their properties in order to increase the amount of habitat 
for vulnerable species. The Danish  Government  has set  aside DKK 2 million to fund a 
communications campaign providing inspiration and guidance to summer house owners. 

  Health policy 

The  health-related  benefits  of  green  infrastructure  are  becoming  recognised  more  and 
more154, although little information was available on concrete initiatives to mainstream 
green  infrastructure  in  national  health  policies.  However,  there  are  numerous  examples 
of projects carried out by various stakeholders whose aim is to realise health and social 

153  

154  

https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/skrivelse/mal-for-friluftslivspolitiken_H00351 

See for example the ’Evidence Statement on the links between natural environments and health’ 

published by the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), UK, 
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=14042_EvidenceStatementonnaturalenvironmentsandh
ealth.pdf 

43 

 
 
                                                           
benefits  by  working  with  and  in  nature155.  As  an  example  of  policy  integration,  the 
Swedish authorities acknowledge that spending time in nature is good for public health. 
One of the 2012 objectives for policies related to  outdoor leisure activities is  to  ensure 
that  all  Swedes  have  the  ability  to  be  physically  active  in  the  natural  and  cultural 
landscape156. 

In  Finland,  several  initiatives  related  to  nature-based  solutions  in  healthcare  have  been 
implemented.  For  example,  Green  Care  Finland,  which  was  established  in  2010, 
coordinates, develops and promotes the use of nature-based and animal-based methods in 
combination with well-being and health services in Finland. In its current strategy, Parks 
& Wildlife Finland157, which manages all the state-owned protected areas including 39 
national parks, refers to the promotion of health and well-being through nature as one of 
its  four  key  priorities.  Its  health  promotion  activities  are  guided  by  the  Healthy  Parks 
Healthy  People  Finland  programme 158 .  The  goal  is  to  improve  public  health  by 
encouraging  people  to  get  out  into  natural  settings,  enjoy  positive  and  genuine 
experiences, and improve their health through a wide range of outdoor activities159. 

  Financing green infrastructure 

The  factsheets  gathered  information  on  several  finance-related  aspects,  including  the 
types of  funds available  for GI implementation  in  each Member State, estimates of the 
total  amounts  available  and  the  relative  contribution  of  different  sources  (i.e.  EU, 
national,  sub-national,  and  private  sector  financing),  as  well  as  information  on  the 
(potential) financing gap for achieving GI policy goals. 

However,  for  most  Member  States  little  information  was  available  specifically  on  the 
funding  of  GI  actions.  No  dedicated  estimates  of  the  overall  funding  requirements  or 
actual  allocations  for  green  infrastructure  are  available,  apart  from  information  on  the 
amounts  allocated  to  some  specific  GI  programmes  and  projects  (see  for  example  the 
factsheets developed for the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK). 

In  general,  green  infrastructure  is  primarily  financed  by  the  funds  dedicated  to  nature 
conservation and funding under different sectors (e.g. agriculture, forestry). 

EU funding sources 

Although  limited  information  was  available  on  the  relative  contribution  of  different 
funding  sources  (EU,  national,  sub-national,  and  private  sector  financing),  EU  funds 
were  identified  as  an  important  source  of  (co)-funding  in  most  country  factsheets.  In 

155  

See for example the case examples collected in ten Brink P., Mutafoglu K., Schweitzer J-P., Kettunen 
M., Twigger-Ross C., Baker J., Kuipers Y., Emonts M., Tyrväinen L., Hujala T., and Ojala A. (2016)  The 
Health  and Social  Benefits  of  Nature  and  Biodiversity  Protection.  A  report  for  the  European  Commission 
(ENV.B.3/ETU/2014/0039), Institute for European Environmental Policy, London/Brussels. 

156  

https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/skrivelse/mal-for-friluftslivspolitiken_H00351 

157 http://www.metsa.fi/web/en/parksandwildlifefinland 

158 https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/content/documents/healthy_parks_finland.pdf 

159  

ten  Brink  P.,  Mutafoglu  K.,  Schweitzer  J-P.,  Kettunen  M.,  Twigger-Ross  C.,  Baker  J.,  Kuipers  Y., 
Emonts  M.,  Tyrväinen  L.,  Hujala  T.,  and  Ojala  A.  (2016)  The  Health  and  Social  Benefits  of  Nature  and 
Biodiversity  Protection.  A  report  for  the  European  Commission  (ENV.B.3/ETU/2014/0039),  Institute  for 
European Environmental Policy, London/Brussels. 

44 

 
 
 
                                                           
particular,  the  LIFE  Programme  for  the  Environment  and  Climate  Action 160 
supports  a  range  of  GI-related  projects  in  the  Member  States  (see  for  example  the 
projects identified in Section 2). During the 2014-2020 period, the programme is divided 
into  two  sub-programmes:  environment  and  climate  action.  LIFE  Environment  covers 
three priority areas: (i) environment and resource efficiency; (ii) nature and biodiversity; 
and  (iii)  environmental  governance  and  information.  LIFE  Climate  Action  covers  (i) 
climate  change  mitigation;  (ii)  climate  change  adaptation;  and  (iii)  climate  change 
governance and information. GI-related projects are mainly funded under the nature and 
biodiversity  component  (which  supports,  for  example,  projects  related  to  Natura  2000, 
ecosystem  restoration),  although  other  priority  areas  are  also  relevant  to  green 
infrastructure. 

In  addition,  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESIF)  are  another 
important  source  of  EU  funding  for  green  infrastructure.  The  European  Agricultural 
Fund  for  Rural  Development  (EAFRD),  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund 
(ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund contribute in particular to GI implementation.  

Box 7 provides a few examples of how these funds are used in the Member States. 

Box 7 — Using ESIF to finance green infrastructure  

Bulgaria:  Under  the  Operational  Programme  Environment  2014-2020161,  a 
call  for  proposals  entitled  ‘Identifying  and  complementing  the  establishment  of 
marine Natura 2000 sites’ was launched in December 2015. The eligible activities 
include: 

  development/update  of  methodologies  for  mapping  and  for  conservation 

status assessment of marine species and natural habitats; 
research, studies and mapping of marine natural habitats and species; 

 
  development  of  documentation  pursuant  to  Art.  8  of  the  Biodiversity  Act 
with  proposals  for  new  Natura  2000  sites  or  for  amending  the  existing 
Natura 2000 sites; 

  upgrade  and update the  existing information  system  for  Natura 2000 sites 

etc. 

Czech  Republic:  The  Operational  Programme  Environment  has  financed  a 
range of structures to support the continuity of watercourses. The current focus of 
this  programme  is  on:  (i)  improving  water  quality  and  reducing  flood  risks;  (ii) 
improving air quality in towns and cities; and (iii) protection and care for nature  
and landscape.  

Specific measures include: 

  planting and regeneration of isolating green covers to separate residential 
built-up  areas  from  industrial  buildings  or  commercial  premises  or  busy 
traffic corridors; 

  measures  to  preserve  and  improve  the  natural  conditions  in  forests  and 

specially protected areas; 

  construction and renewal of retention areas, revitalisation of watercourses 

and wetlands, construction of polders; and 

160 https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/budget/life_en 

161

 https://www.eufunds.bg/index.php/en/programming-period-2014-2020/operational-programmes-2014-

2020/operational-programme-environment-2014-2020 

45 

 
 
                                                           
  establishing and revitalising significant residential green areas, individual 
management  and  renewal  of  parks,  tree  stands,  cemeteries,  urban  and 
community forested parks. 

Slovakia: The implementation of the Territorial System of Ecological Stability 
at  regional  level  (RÚSES)  was  supported  by  financial  contributions  from  the 
Operational  Programme  Environment  2007-2013 162 .  Within  the  project 
‘Encouraging  the  protection  of  NATURA  2000  sites  in  integrating  territorial 
system  of  ecological  stability’,  22  RÚSES  documents  were  developed.  The 
development  of  such  documents  in  another  50  districts  will  be  financed  by  the 
Operational Programme Quality of the Environment 2014-2020163. 

Slovenia:  EU  cohesion  policy  is  a  major  source  of  financing  for  Natura  2000 
projects  in  the  2014-2020  period.  EUR 45  million  has  been  allocated  through 
ERDF  to  Natura  2000  restoration  projects  according  to  the  Operational 
Programme  for  the  Implementation  of  EU  Cohesion  Policy  in  the  period  2014-
2020 period164, priority area ‘Protecting and restoring biodiversity and soil and 
promoting  ecosystem  services,  including  through  Natura  2000,  and  green 
infrastructure’. These funds will finance some 15 projects from 2017 to 2020. 

UK: Agri-environment measures funded by CAP rural development programmes 
are by far the largest source of public funding for the management and restoration 
of semi-natural habitats in protected areas (such as grassland habitats and lowland 
in upland heathland habitats) as well as farmland in the wider countryside. Rural 
development  programmes  also  support  forest  measures  that  support  green 
infrastructure,  such  as  the  Forest  Grant  Scheme165 in  Scotland,  which  supports 
the  creation  of  new  woodlands  and  sustainable  management  of  existing 
woodlands. 

In Scotland, the Green Infrastructure Fund is available through the 2014-20 ERDF 
as  part  of  the  £  37.5 million  Green  Infrastructure  Strategic  Intervention166,  led 
by  Scottish  Natural  Heritage.  £  6  million  has  so  far  been  awarded  to  seven 
projects to improve greenspace in deprived areas. There is also the £ 0.5 million 
ERDF Green Infrastructure Community Engagement Fund, which aims to deliver 
at least 10 projects to help urban communities understand and engage with their 
green places. 

A number of GI-related projects have been financed through the European Territorial 
Cooperation  programmes  (Interreg) 167 ,  which  are  funded  by  the  ERDF..  Such 
programmes  foster  cross-border,  interregional  and  transnational  cooperation  in  Europe. 
In  addition,  the  promotion  of  green  infrastructure  should  be  taken  into  account  in  the 
definition of projects at macro-regional scale. For example, the project TRANSGREEN 

162

 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/atlas/programmes/2007-2013/slovakia/operational-programme-

environment-4 

163 https://www.minv.sk/?operational-programme-quality-of-environment-2014-2020 

164 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/atlas/programmes/2014-2020/slovenia/2014si16maop001 

165 http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/supporting/grants-and-regulations/forestry-grants 

166 https://www.greeninfrastructurescotland.org.uk/ 

167 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/cooperation/european-territorial/ 

46 

 
 
 
                                                           
(Integrated  Transport  and  Green  Infrastructure  Planning  in  the  Danube-Carpathian 
Region  for  the  Benefit  of  People  and  Nature),  which  runs  from  January  2017  to  June 
2019, is being implemented under the Interreg Danube Transnational Programme168. 

As  part  of  a  study  for  the  European  Commission,  the  overall  levels  of  LIFE  and  ESIF 
funding  for  green  infrastructure  for  the  2007-2013  period  were  estimated  in  2016169. 
Based on an analysis of project databases and (in the case of  EAFRD) annual financial 
reports,  EU  funding  of  green  infrastructure  in  the  programming  period  2007-2013  was 
estimated to be EUR 6 579 million (average of almost EUR 940 million per year). This 
includes funding from LIFE+, the ERDF, the European Social Fund (ESF), the Cohesion 
Fund,  the  EAFRD,  and  the  European  Fisheries  Fund  (EFF).  The  most  important 
contribution  (EUR 5 631 million,  or 86 % of total  EU funding  for  green infrastructure) 
was  estimated  to  come  from  the  EAFRD.  Funding  from  LIFE  amounted  to  almost 
EUR 774 million (representing 12 % of the total EU funding for GI and 36 % of the total 
LIFE  budget).  The  ERDF,  Cohesion  Fund  and  ESF  together  contributed  EUR 141 
million to the financing of GI projects, and the EFF EUR 33 million. The analysis also 
revealed  that  in  2007-2013,  EU  funding  was  primarily  allocated  to  the  conservation  of 
core  areas  (EUR 5 960  million;  91 %  of  all  GI  funding)  and  restoration  (EUR 463 
million; 7 % of all GI funding). By contrast, GI funding of sustainable use zones, green 
urban  and  peri-urban  areas,  and  natural  and  artificial  connectivity  features  each 
amounted to less than 1 % of all GI funding.  

For the 2014-2020 period a legal provisions on horizontal mainstreaming of sustainable 
development  –  including  environmental  protection  requirements  and  biodiversity  –  is 
included in the ESIF legal basis  . Green infrastructure measures could be seen as one of 
the ways to translate the sustainable development principle into practice. The European 
Commission  included  in  its  guidance  to  the  Member  States,  particu  and  in  the 
discussions  of  the  draft  operational  programmes  explanations  that  ecosystem-based 
adaptation  should  be  one  of  the  preferred  options  for  investments,  as  a  cost-effective 
alternative  or  a  complementary  measure  to  'grey'  infrastructure  and  intensive  land  use 
change.   

This has led to an increased uptake of green infrastructure measures by Member States. 
For  example,  for  the  ERDF  and  CF  the  direct  allocations  to  biodiversity,  nature  and 
green infrastructure are, with EUR 3.7 billion, more than one billion higher than in the 
2007-2013  period.  Green  infrastructure  is  also  further  supported  as  part  of  investments 
in,  for  example,  flood  protection,  water  purification,  renovation  of  buildings.  The 
horizontal  integration  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  these  investments  are  included  in 
several  funding  priorities  (so  called  Thematic  Objectives),  covering  not  only 
environmental  protection  but  also  low-carbon  economy,  climate  change  adaptation  and 
risk prevention, transport and social inclusion. 

About  EUR  600  million  of  the  investments  for  nature  and  green  infrastructure  cited 
above are delivered through European Territorial Cooperation programmes. Furthermore, 
the  EU's  Macro-regional  Strategies  (for  the  Adriatic-Ionian  Region,  Alpine  Region, 
Baltic  Sea  Region  and  Danube  Region)  are  useful  platforms  for  conceiving  and 
implementing  infrastructure  projects  that  embed  the  concept  of  green  infrastructure. 

168  

http://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/transgreen 

169  

Trinomics,  ALTERRA,  Arcadis,  Risk  &  Policy  Analysis,  STELLA  Consulting,  and  Regional 
Environmental  Centre  (2016)  Supporting  the  Implementation  of  Green  Infrastructure.  Final  report  to  the 
European Commission under service contract ENV.B.2/SER/2014/0012. 

47 

 
 
                                                           
Countries  (EU and non-EU), regions  and stakeholders involved in  these  Strategies will 
be  encouraged  to  develop  projects  and  initiatives  with  a  macro-regional  relevance  on 
nature protection in the regions covered. 

Horizon  2020  (and  its  predecessor,  FP7),  the  EU  framework  programme  for  research 
and  innovation,  also  supports  research  on  and  innovation  in  green  infrastructure.  For 
example,  the  2016-2017  Horizon  2020  work  programme  included  several  calls  for 
‘Nature-based  solutions  for  territorial  resilience’.  In  addition,  the  cross-cutting  call 
‘Smart  and  Sustainable  Cities’  covers  innovation  actions  under  the  theme  ‘Sustainable 
cities  through  nature-based  solutions’.  In  mid-2017,  for  example,  four  projects  funded 
under the call ‘SCC-02-2016-2017: Demonstrating innovative nature-based solutions in 
cities’  were  launched;  their  aim  is  to  improve  urban  resilience  to  climate  change  and 
enhance  water  resources  management  sustainability  through  the  deployment  of  nature-
based solutions170. 

In some Member States, GI-related projects (or biodiversity and nature in broader terms) 
can  also  be  financed  by  EEA  Grants  and  Norway  Grants.  Their  goal  is  to  reduce 
economic  and  social  disparities  and  strengthen  bilateral  relations  with  Central  and 
Southern  European  countries.  Beneficiary  countries  comprise  the  Member  States  that 
joined in 2004, 2007 and 2014, as well as Greece, Portugal and Spain. 

Innovative financing mechanisms and private sector investment 

Only limited information is available on innovative financing mechanisms and private 
sector investment in GI initiatives. In the UK, a few initiatives have been developed by 
water companies to promote land use management that largely improves water quality in 
a  cost-effective  manner,  while  also  providing  co-benefits  in  terms  of  habitat  condition 
and  carbon  sequestration  and  storage.  For  example,  United  Utilities’  sustainable 
catchment  management  programme171 successfully  trialled  such  measures  on  its  own 
land.  South  West  Water  set  up  the  ‘Upstream  Thinking’  catchment  management 
scheme172, which provides grants to help farmers improve land management and water 
quality. 

In Croatia, the ‘Contribution of forests to common good’ mechanism requires companies 
to contribute 0.0265 % of their total income in a calendar year to maintaining, restoring 
and managing forests. 

An  interesting  innovative  financing  instrument  in  Germany  is  MoorFutures 173 ,  a 
voluntary  carbon  credits  market  launched  in  2011  to  support  peatland  restoration.  It 
currently supports projects in  Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Brandenburg  and Schleswig-
Holstein. 

170  

COproductioN  with  NaturE  for  City  Transitioning,  INnovation  and  Governance  —  CONNECTING 
Nature  (https://sc5.easme-web.eu/?p=730222);  Green  Cities  for  Climate  and  Water  Resilience,  Sustainable 
Economic  Growth,  Healthy  Citizens  and  Environments  —  GROW  GREEN  (https://sc5.easme-
web.eu/?p=730283);  New  Strategy  for  Re-Naturing  Cities  through  Nature-Based  Solutions  —  URBAN 
GreenUP  (https://sc5.easme-web.eu/?p=730426);  Urban  Nature  Labs  —  UNALAB  (https://sc5.easme-
web.eu/?p=730052). 

171  

172  

173  

https://www.unitedutilities.com/corporate/responsibility/environment/catchment-management/ 

http://upstreamthinking.org/index.cfm?articleid=8692 

http://www.moorfutures.de/ 

48 

 
 
                                                           
In 2013,the city of Gothenburg issued green bonds earmarked for investment in ‘green’ 
projects,  including  various  GI-related  projects174.  It  was  the  world’s  first  initiative  of 
this kind at municipal level.175 

The  independent  Danish  Nature  Fund  launched  in  January  2015  is  an  impressive 
example  of  a  public-private  partnership.  The  Danish  government  and  two  private 
foundations,  VILLUM  FONDEN  and  Aage  V.  Jensen  Naturfond,  joined  forces  to 
improve  terrestrial  and  marine  environmental  quality  in  Denmark.  The  fund  supports 
among other things projects that help expand and/or improve natural areas. 

In  the  UK,  the  Department  for  Environment,  Food  &  Rural  Affairs  commissioned  a 
series of payments for ecosystem services (PES) pilot projects between 2012 and 2015 to 
test the practical application of the concept in new contexts176. 

  Developing the knowledge base 

Further  development  of  the  knowledge  base  on  green  infrastructure  is  considered  an 
important  component  of  the  EU’s  GI  strategy  implementation.  In  this  respect,  both 
progress  in  mapping and assessment and the development  of new tools and research is 
vital. 

All Member States except Cyprus have started to map and assess the state of ecosystems 
and  their  services  in  their  national  territory  (MAES  report);  some  Member  States  have 
made more progress than others177. 

A  range  of  GI-related  tools  have  been  developed  in  recent  years,  including  tools  for 
mapping, valuation and decision support. A few selected examples: 

  The Danish Spatial Act required municipalities to designate areas to the green map of 
Denmark  based  on  a  common  base  map  and  common  criteria.  To  help  the 
municipalities  develop  the  green  map  and  improve  land  use  planning,  a  new  digital 
mapping  service of biodiversity in  Denmark was developed.  It  provides information 
about the distribution of threatened and vulnerable species and an overview of high-
value natural areas. It is part of a suite of mapping services known as the Nature Map. 
  The  Finnish  ‘Green  Infra’  project 178  developed  a  new  GIS-based  tool  to  guide 
decision-making  on  land  use  and  green  infrastructure.  The  tool  aims  to  identify  the 
key areas for green infrastructure. 

  SITxell 179  is  a  decision  support  tool  based  on  different  layers  of  geographical 
information that aims to evaluate the non-built-up areas of the province of Barcelona. 

174  

https://stadsutveckling.goteborg.se/sv/nyheterreportage/groan-obligationer/ 

175 http://ddnf.dk/english/ 

176

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/payments-for-ecosystem-services-review-of-pilot-projects-

2011-to-2013 

177  An overview of progress and results in each Member State can be found on the MAES country pages on 
website, 
System 

Information 

Europe 

(BISE) 

for 

the 
http://biodiversity.europa.eu/maes/maes_countries 

Biodiversity 

178 http://www.syke.fi/projects/greeninfra 

179  

http://www.sitxell.eu/en/ 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
It  resolves  to  influence  land  planning  processes  in  the  province  by  providing  socio-
economic and ecological information. 

  The Nature Value Explorer180 developed in Flanders is a web-based tool that allows 
users to estimate the impact that various land use scenarios will have on the value of 
ecosystem services. 

  Padua’s tree database has been collecting information on street trees since 1999. Data 
are  collected  on  the  ground  by  trained  and  experienced  surveyors  using  mobile 
devices  and  paper  forms,  and  all  records  are  checked  for  accuracy.  Each  tree  is 
spatially identified, with detailed data on size, health status and maintenance needed. 
This  information  has  many  potential  applications  related  to  MAES  and  urban 
management,  e.g.  deriving  estimates  for  services  such  as  air  quality  regulation  and 
micro-climate regulation. The data are also very useful for validating models based on 
land cover and land use alone, which helps reduce uncertainty181. 

 

In the UK, the Forest Research and the Forestry Commission has used the BEETLE 
(Biological  and  Environmental  Evaluation  Tools  for  Landscape  Ecology)  suite  of 
tools182 to plan forest habitat networks. 

  Several tools have been developed in the UK to  assess the economic value of green 
infrastructure,  e.g.  CAVAT183,  the  Green  Infrastructure  Valuation  Toolkit184 and 
InVEST185. Additional tools to assess the environmental and social benefits include 
GRaBS  (Adaptation  Action  Planning  Toolkit)186,  STAR  tools187,  NEAT  (National 
Ecosystem  Approach  Toolkit) 188 ,  EVT  (Ecosystem  Valuation  Toolkit) 189  and 
TESSA (Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessment)190. 

  The ORVal191 (Outdoor Recreation Valuation) tool is map-based and allows users to 
explore  the  distribution  of  accessible  greenspace  across  England,  plotting  out  the 
locations  of  existing  recreation  sites  or  drawing  new  ones.  It  presents  economic 
welfare  values  and  visit  estimates  that  are  derived  from  a  sophisticated  model  of 
recreational demand. 

180  

https://www.natuurwaardeverkenner.be/ 

181  

European  Commission  (2016)  Mapping  and  Assessment  of  Ecosystems  and  their  Services.  Urban 
ecosystems.  4th  MAES  Report.  Technical  Report  —  2016  –  102.  Luxembourg:  Office  for  Official 
Publications of the European Communities. 

https://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/beetletools 

http://www.cavattv.org/ 

182  

183  

184 

http://www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk/html/index.php?page=projects&GreenInfrastructureValuationToolk
it=true 

185  

186  

187  

188  

189  

190  

191  

https://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/invest/ 

http://www.ppgis.manchester.ac.uk/grabs/ 

http://maps.merseyforest.org.uk/grabs/ 

http://neat.ecosystemsknowledge.net/ 

http://www.eartheconomics.org/ecosystem-valuation-toolkit/ 

http://tessa.tools/ 

http://leep.exeter.ac.uk/orval/ 

50 

 
 
                                                           
  The  statutory  advisor  in  Wales  has  developed  a  GIS  tool  for  implementing  the 
Environment (Wales) Act: SCCAN192 (Natural Resource Planning Support System). 
The  mapping  system  will  be  used  to  identify  ‘opportunity  spaces’  for  nature-based 
solutions in order to implement the natural resource policy through the area statement 
regional evidence bases. 

  The  region  of  Stockholm  uses  the  MatrixGreen  planning  tool193 developed  by  the 
Stockholm Resilience Centre and the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences to 
assess connectivity between various habitats and biotopes in the region. 

  The city of Umeå in Sweden has developed the ‘Green Target’ tool, which is used as 
a quality control in the planning process. It aims to ensure that all citizens have access 
to  facilities  such  as  playgrounds,  small  groves,  lawns  etc.  within  250 m  of  their 
homes. 

  Challenges and opportunities for GI development 

While  the  challenges  identified  differ  among  Member  States,  there  are  a  few  common 
themes.  The  limited  availability  of  financial  resources  is  a  constraint  highlighted  in 
several  Member  States,  which  points  to  the  need  for  additional  investment  (including 
private sector finance) as well as better uptake of existing funding opportunities such as 
ESIF. 

The lack of understanding or awareness of the potential benefits of green infrastructure 
(and its links to economic growth) is perceived as one of the reasons for underinvestment 
in green infrastructure, particularly in South-Eastern Europe.  

On  the  other  hand,  recognition  of  the  value  of  green  infrastructure  is  growing  in  other 
Member  States,  and  this  is  seen  as  a  key  opportunity.  For  example,  there  is  a  growing 
appreciation in the UK of the economic case for improving the sustainability of land use 
in  the  wider  environment,  e.g.  to  maintain  soil  carbon  stocks  and  improve  raw  water 
quality, which may encourage further GI deployment. In Denmark, there seems to be an 
interest among policy-makers in the concept of connectivity between natural areas,and in 
increasing  the  amount  and  quality  of  nature  in  the  landscape  for  the  benefit  of  both 
nature  conservation  and  human  well-being.  Similarly,  local  authorities  in  Ireland  are 
actively promoting green infrastructure. 

Limited technical know-how and capacity are identified as  yet another common barrier 
in  a  few  Member  States.  Insufficient  mainstreaming  of  green  infrastructure  across 
relevant  sectors  (in  particular  in  spatial  planning)  is  another  challenge  facing  several 
Member  States.  Another  factor  identified  as  hampering  GI  development  is  competition 
between  different  land  uses,  together  with  tendencies  towards  trade-offs  between 
cultural/regulating services and provisioning services. 

On the other hand, the opportunities listed tend to be more country-specific depending on 
the Member State’s stage of GI development,  geographic factors etc. However, several 
country factsheets indicate that there is a particular focus on two opportunity areas:  

192 http://www.goodpractice.wales/casestudy-3368 

193  

http://www.rufs.se/rufs-2050/en-ny-plan/ 

51 

 
 
 
                                                           
  highlighting the economic, social and other co-benefits of green infrastructure to 
encourage  the  further  uptake  of  green  infrastructure  over  other  infrastructure 
alternatives; 

  strong  integration  and  coordination  with  other  policy  areas  and  urban  policy  / 

spatial planning in particular. 

52 

 
 
 
 
3. Detailed GI-related country fiches 

Those country fiches are available on the BISE website  

(at  https://biodiversity.europa.eu/countries/gi ) 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4. Further resources and publications 

  DG 

Environment 

website 

on 

green 

infrastructure: 

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

 

the 

Supporting 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/docs/green_infrastructures/GI%20Final
%20Report.pdf 

Implementation 

Infrastructure 

of  Green 

(2016 

report): 

  Mapping 

and  Assessment 

of 

Ecosystems 

and 

their 

Services 

(MAES): 

http://biodiversity.europa.eu/maes 

  Disaster risk reduction portal: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/what/humanitarian-aid/risk-reduction_en 

  Exploring nature-based solutions — the role of green infrastructure in mitigating the impacts of 
(2015): 

weather- 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/exploring-nature-based-solutions-2014 

change-related 

hazards 

climate 

natural 

and 

 

Spatial 
green 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/spatial-analysis-of-green-infrastructure 

infrastructure 

analysis 

of 

in 

Europe 

(2014): 

  Green 

infrastructure: 

better 

living 

through 

nature-based 

solutions 

(2015): 

https://www.eea.europa.eu/articles/green-infrastructure-better-living-through 

 

Synthesis paper on green infrastructure by the OpenNESS project: 
http://www.openness-project.eu/library/reference-book/sp-green-infrastructure 

  Mapping  green  infrastructure  based  on  ecosystem  services  and  ecological  networks:  A  Pan-
(2015): 

European 
case 
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901115300356 

study 

 

 

Forest  Europe,  2015.  State  of  Europe’s  Forests  2015  Report.  Status  and  Trends  in  Sustainable 
Forest  Management  in  Europe,  Ministerial  Conference  on  the  Protection  of  Forests  in  Europe, 
Forest Europe, Liaison Unit Madrid, Madrid.  http://foresteurope.org/state-europes-forests-2015-
report/ (Indicator 4.7) 

Saura,  S.,  Estreguil,  C.,  Mouton,  C.,  Rodríguez-Freire,  M.,  2011.  Network  analysis  to  assess 
landscape  connectivity  trends:  Application  to  European  forests  (1990-2000).  Ecological 
Indicators 11: 407-416. http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC61726 

  Clerici,  N.,  Vogt,  P.,  2013.  Ranking  European  regions  as  providers  of  structural  riparian 
corridors  for  conservation  and  management  purposes.  International  Journal  of  Applied  Earth 
Observation 
https://ac.els-
cdn.com/S0303243412001390/1-s2.0-S0303243412001390-main.pdf?_tid=cf0862a4-d4d6-11e7-
8a59-00000aab0f27&acdnat=1511940652_37114e3e199abaae6b5f31ea29a985ff 

Geoinformation 

477-483. 

(2013) 

and 

21 

  Mubareka,  S.,  Estreguil,  C.,  Lavalle,  C.,  Baranzelli  C.,  Rocha  Gomes  C.,  2013.  Integrated 
modelling of the impact of Natural Water Retention Measures on Europe’s Green Infrastructure. 
International  Journal  of  Geographical  Information  Science.  Special  Issue  on  Land  Change 
Modelling: Moving Beyond Projections. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2013.782408 

  Estreguil, C., Caudullo, G., San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., 2013. Connectivity of Natura 2000 Forest 

Sites. JRC scientific and policy report EUR 26087EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the 
European Union. 
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC83104/lbna26087enn.pdf 

 

Saura, S., Estreguil, C., Caudullo, G., 2015. Pilot analysis of the connectivity of the Natura 2000 
forest  sites  to  guide  forest  conservation  and  restoration.  Final  report  of  SC16  contract  in  the 
framework contract reference No 388432 with the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) for 
the  ‘provision  of  forest  data  and  services  in  support  to  the  European  Forest  Data  Centre’. 

54 

 
 
 
for 

Available 
/http://fise.jrc.ec.europa.eu/media/filer_public/46/b7/46b721b4-ff50-4512-a4b5-
58a72a8e97a3/pilot_connectivity_n2000_spain2.pdf 

download 

http://fise.jrc.ec.europa.eu/topics/ecosystem-services; 

at 

  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. 

  Estreguil,  C.,  Caudullo,  G.,  Rega,  C.,  Paracchini,  M.  L.,  2016.  Enhancing  Connectivity, 
DOI:10.2788/170924; 

Improving 
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC102149/lb-na-28142-en-n.pdf 

Infrastructure; 

EUR 28142 

Green 

EN; 

  Estreguil, C., de Rigo, D., Caudullo, G., 2013. A proposal for an integrated modelling framework 
to characterise habitat pattern. Environmental Modelling & Software, Vol. 52 (February 2014), 
pp. 176-191, ISSN 1364-8152, DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.10.011 

  Estreguil,  C.,  Caudullo,  G.,  de  Rigo,  D.,  2014.  Connectivity  of  Natura  2000  forest  sites  in 
Europe. F1000Posters 2014, 5: 485. DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1063300. ArXiv: 1406.1501 

 

Pan  European  Networks:  Horizon  2020  projects.  Article  on  Nature’s  solutions  (2015): 
http://www.paneuropeannetworkspublications.com/GOV16/#80 
or 
http://www.paneuropeannetworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/4GOV16-G-Dige-5070-atl-
special.pdf 

  Environment Life programme: Article on looking to nature for environmental solutions (2015): 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/features/2015/nat_solutions.htm 

 

Indicators  for  urban  green  infrastructure:  https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/sustainability-
transitions/urban-environment/urban-green-infrastructure/indicators_for_urban-green-
infrastructure 

  What is green infrastructure?: https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/sustainability-transitions/urban-

environment/urban-green-infrastructure/what-is-green-infrastructure 

  Urban  Green  Infrastructure  (GI)  typology:  https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/sustainability-

transitions/urban-environment/urban-green-infrastructure/typology-for-urban-green-
infrastructure 

  Climate 

change 

adaptation 

and 

the 

role  of  green 

infrastructure:  http://climate-

adapt.eea.europa.eu/ 

 

 

 

resilient 

'Building 
of 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/cities-taking-action-learning-from; 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/building-resilient-cities-key-to 

tackling 

effects 

cities 

key 

'Restoring  European 
improves 
and 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/restoring-european-rivers-and-lakes 

rivers 

cities 

lakes 

in 

climate 

change': 

quality 

of 

life' 

green 
Information 
http://biodiversity.europa.eu/topics/green-infrastructure 

infrastructure 

on 

in 

Europe 

(BISE 

website): 

  Urban  adaptation  to  climate  change  in  Europe  2016  —  Transforming  cities  in  a  changing 
climate:  European  Environment  Agency,  2016.  This  report  maps  urban  adaptation  to  climate 
change  in  Europe,  including  green  infrastructure,  and  in  particular  progress  achieved  since  the 
last  report  in  2012:  https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/urban-adaptation-2016.  The  report 
highlights  in  particular  that,  in  European  cities’  adaptation  plans,  the  most  frequently  used 
measure  is  green  infrastructure.  Examples  of  green  infrastructure  as  a  key  element  of  urban 
planning e.g. in Karlstad (Sweden) and Barcelona (Spain). 

  CLIMATE-ADAPT resources on green infrastructure (search results): 

55 

 
 
http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/data-and-
downloads?SearchableText=green+infrastructure#SearchableText=green+infrastructure&b_start
=0 

  Cohesion 

policy 

support 

to 

the 

environment: 

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/themes/environment/  

  ESIF  Open  Data  Portal  (allocations  and  expected  results  for  environmental  investments): 

https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/themes/6   

  Guide  to  Multi-Benefit  Cohesion  Policy  Investments  in  Nature  and  Green  Infrastructure: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/guides/2013/guide-to-
multi-benefit-cohesion-policy-investments-in-nature-and-green-infrastructure  

  ENEA-MA  working  group  report  on  mainstreaming  the  environment  in  cohesion  policy: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/pdf/enea/ENEAMA_eport_April_2017_24.pdf 

  Cohesion policy project database: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/projects/ 

 

Fifth  EIONET  meeting  National  Reference  Centres  Land  Use  and  Spatial  Planning  (NRC 
LUSP): Workshop on green infrastructure and planning (03/10/2016  to 04/10/2016). Link to the 
minutes: 
https://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-landuse/library/5th-eionet-meeting-land-use-and-
spatial-planning/meeting-documents   

  European 

Commission 

2016b. 

Policy 

topics: 

Nature-based 

solutions. 

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

  European Commission 2015b. Towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for nature-
based solutions & re-naturing cities: Final report of the Horizon 2020 expert group on ‘Nature-
based 
Brussels. 
https://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/pdf/renaturing/nbs.pdf 

re-naturing 

solutions 

cities.’ 

and 

 

 

 

Faivre,  N.,  Schmidt,  L.,  Sgobbi,  A.,  Happaerts,  S.,  Raynal,  J.,  and  Peter,  D.  (in  prep.): 
Translating the Sendai Framework into action: the EU approach to ecosystem-based disaster risk 
reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 

Faivre,  N.,  Fritz,  M.,  Freitas,  T.,  de  Boissezon,  B.,  and  Vandewoestijne,  S.  (submitted  2017): 
Nature-Based  Solutions  in  the  EU:  innovating  with  nature  to  address  social,  economic  and 
environmental challenges. 

Fritz,  M.,  de  Menna,  E.,  Papoulias,  F.,  Raynal,  J.,  and  Vandewoestijne,  S.  (submitted  2017): 
Innovating with nature and culture in European urban and rural areas — EU initiatives on green 
infrastructure, nature-based solutions and cultural heritage. 

  Eggermont,  H.,  Balian,  E.,  Azevedo,  J.  M.  N.,  Beumer,  V.,  Brodin,  T.,  Claudet,  J.,  Fady,  B., 
Grube, M., Keune, H., Lamarque, P., Reuter, K., Smith, M., van Ham, C., Weisser, W. W., and 
Le Roux. X.,  2015. Nature-based Solutions: New Influence for Environmental Management and 
Research in Europe. GAIA — Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 24:243-248. 

  Wikipedia 

article 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_Based_Solutions 

on 

nature-based 

solutions: 

56