The contribution of EU cities and regions to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
Date: 2024-10-23
Institutions: Commission for the Environment, Climate Change and Energy
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU strategy, biodiversity, conservation of resources, environmental law, financial aid, multi-level governance, nature restoration, nature-based solution, protected area, quality of the environment, regional and local authorities, regional policy, report, sustainable development

Commission for
the Environment,
 Climate Change and Energy

The contribution
of EU cities and regions
 to the Kunming-Montreal 
Global Biodiversity 
Framework

E
V
N
E

.

m
o
c
k
c
o
t
s
e
b
o
d
a
/
c
i
p
o
M
©

 
 
 
© European Union, 2024  
Partial reproduction is permitted, provided that the source is explicitly mentioned. 

More  information  on  the  European  Union  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  is  available  online  at 
http://www.europa.eu and http://www.cor.europa.eu respectively.  

Catalogue number: QG-01-24-017-EN-N; ISBN: 978-92-895-3662-2; DOI: 10.2863/5187788  

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This report has been written by Paltriguera, L., Vona, L., Vroom, I., and 
Markowska A. from Milieu Consulting SRL. 

It does not represent the official views of the 
European Committee of the Regions. 

 
  
 
 
Table of contents 
Summary ............................................................................................... 7 

1.  Role of subnational governments in protecting biodiversity and 
restoring nature ............................................................................ 10 

1.1  Regulatory frameworks guiding local and regional biodiversity actions

12 

1.2 

Local and regional biodiversity measures and actions ......................... 14 

1.2.1 

1.2.2 

Local Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans ........................... 14 

Nature-based Solutions ................................................................. 15 

1.2.3  Other initiatives and policy instruments ....................................... 16 

1.3 
Financial and technical support for local and regional biodiversity 
initiatives ......................................................................................................... 20 

1.3.1 

1.3.2 

Financial support .......................................................................... 20 

Technical support .......................................................................... 24 

2.  Case studies and analysis ............................................................. 30 

2.1  Green Cluj Programme ......................................................................... 30 

2.1.1 

2.1.2 

2.1.3 

Authority responsible for implementation .................................... 30 

Location ........................................................................................ 30 

Policy framework .......................................................................... 30 

2.1.4  Governance structure.................................................................... 31 

2.1.5 

Enabling factors ............................................................................ 31 

2.1.6  Measurable outputs, outcomes and impacts ................................. 32 

2.1.7 

2.1.8 

2.1.9 

Co-benefits .................................................................................... 32 

Challenges and burdens ................................................................ 33 

Lessons learned ............................................................................. 33 

2.2  Košice region Green Restoration Programme ...................................... 35 

2.2.1 

2.2.2 

2.2.3 

Authorities responsible for implementation .................................. 35 

Location ........................................................................................ 35 

Policy framework .......................................................................... 35 

2.2.4  Governance structure.................................................................... 35 

2.2.5 

Enabling factors ............................................................................ 36 

2.2.6  Measurable outputs, outcomes and impacts ................................. 36 

1 

 
 
 
2.2.7 

2.2.8 

2.2.9 

Co-benefits .................................................................................... 37 

Challenges and burdens ................................................................ 37 

Lessons learned ............................................................................. 37 

2.3 

Podkarpacie Natural Grazing Programme ............................................ 38 

2.3.1 

2.3.2 

2.3.3 

Authority responsible for implementation .................................... 38 

Location ........................................................................................ 38 

Policy framework .......................................................................... 38 

2.3.4  Governance structure.................................................................... 38 

2.3.5 

Enabling factors ............................................................................ 38 

2.3.6  Measurable outputs, outcomes and impacts ................................. 39 

2.3.7 

2.3.8 

2.3.9 

Co-benefits .................................................................................... 39 

Challenges and burdens ................................................................ 40 

Lessons learned ............................................................................. 40 

2.4  Habitat Management in the Weidmoos Bird Reserve .......................... 41 

2.4.1 

2.4.2 

2.4.3 

Authorities responsible for implementation .................................. 41 

Location ........................................................................................ 41 

Policy framework .......................................................................... 41 

2.4.4  Governance structure.................................................................... 41 

2.4.5 

Enabling factors ............................................................................ 41 

2.4.6  Measurable outputs, outcomes and impacts ................................. 42 

2.4.7 

2.4.8 

2.4.9 

Co-benefits .................................................................................... 42 

Challenges and burdens ................................................................ 43 

Lessons learned ............................................................................. 43 

2.5  Control of the Japanese Beetle (Popillia japonica) in Lombardy ....... 44 

2.5.1 

2.5.2 

2.5.3 

Authority responsible for implementation .................................... 44 

Location ........................................................................................ 44 

Policy framework .......................................................................... 44 

2.5.4  Governance structure.................................................................... 45 

2.5.5 

Enabling factors ............................................................................ 45 

2.5.6  Measurable outputs, outcomes and impacts ................................. 46 

2.5.7 

Co-benefits .................................................................................... 47 

2 

 
 
2.5.8 

2.5.9 

Challenges and burdens ................................................................ 47 

Lessons learned ............................................................................. 48 

2.6 

Fish migration river in the Afsluitdijk .................................................. 49 

2.6.1 

2.6.2 

2.6.3 

Authority responsible for implementation .................................... 49 

Location ........................................................................................ 49 

Policy framework .......................................................................... 49 

2.6.4  Governance structure.................................................................... 50 

2.6.5 

Enabling factors ............................................................................ 50 

2.6.6  Measurable outputs, outcomes and impacts ................................. 51 

2.6.7 

2.6.8 

2.6.9 

Co-benefits .................................................................................... 51 

Challenges and burdens ................................................................ 51 

Lessons learned ............................................................................. 52 

2.7  Võru’s Biodiverse Urban Space ........................................................... 53 

2.7.1 

2.7.2 

2.7.3 

Authority responsible for implementation .................................... 53 

Location ........................................................................................ 53 

Policy framework .......................................................................... 53 

2.7.4  Governance structure.................................................................... 53 

2.7.5 

Enabling factors ............................................................................ 54 

2.7.6  Measurable outputs, outcomes and impacts ................................. 54 

2.7.7 

2.7.8 

2.7.9 

Co-benefits .................................................................................... 55 

Challenges and burdens ................................................................ 55 

Lessons learned ............................................................................. 55 

2.8  Chambon-Feugerolles: a pesticide-free town ....................................... 56 

2.8.1 

2.8.2 

2.8.3 

Authority responsible for implementation .................................... 56 

Location ........................................................................................ 56 

Policy framework .......................................................................... 56 

2.8.4  Governance structure.................................................................... 56 

2.8.5 

Enabling factors ............................................................................ 57 

2.8.6  Measurable outputs, outcomes and impacts ................................. 57 

2.8.7 

2.8.8 

Co-benefits .................................................................................... 57 

Challenges and burdens ................................................................ 58 

3 

 
 
2.8.9 

Lessons learned ............................................................................. 59 

2.9  River Jamor Green and Blue Axis ........................................................ 60 

2.9.1 

2.9.2 

2.9.3 

Authorities responsible for implementation .................................. 60 

Location ........................................................................................ 60 

Policy framework .......................................................................... 60 

2.9.4  Governance structure.................................................................... 60 

2.9.5 

Enabling factors ............................................................................ 61 

2.9.6  Measurable outputs, outcomes and impacts ................................. 61 

2.9.7 

2.9.8 

2.9.9 

Co-benefits .................................................................................... 62 

Challenges and burdens ................................................................ 62 

Lessons learned ............................................................................. 62 

2.10  Fruit trees in Brussels: the ARBRES and Pépinière citoyenne projects

64 

2.10.1  Authorities responsible for implementation .................................. 64 

2.10.2  Location ........................................................................................ 64 

2.10.3  Policy framework .......................................................................... 65 

2.10.4  Governance structure.................................................................... 65 

2.10.5  Enabling Factors .......................................................................... 65 

2.10.6  Measurable outputs, outcomes and impacts of the project .......... 66 

2.10.7  Co-benefits .................................................................................... 67 

2.10.8  Challenges and burdens ................................................................ 68 

2.10.9  Lessons learned ............................................................................. 69 

3.  Lessons learned: Facilitating factors and challenges in 
implementing biodiversity conservation and ecosystem 
restoration measures at local and regional level ....................... 71 

4.  Policy recommendations .............................................................. 76 

4.1  Recommendations for LRAs ................................................................ 76 

4.2  Recommendations for national governments ....................................... 79 

4.3  Recommendations for EU institutions ................................................. 81 

Annex 1: Case studies’ links to GBF targets................................... 83 

Annex 2: References .......................................................................... 84 

4 

 
 
 
List of tables 
Table 1: Partnership on sustainable use of land and NBS in cities ..................... 18 

Table 2 Examples of local authorities using innovative financing to support 
biodiversity projects ............................................................................................ 23 

Table 3.  Organisations, initiatives and platforms offering technical support on 
biodiversity action to LRAs ................................................................................ 24 

List of figures 
Figure 1. Estimated contributions to biodiversity from the EU budget over the 
2021-2027 period (EUR million) ........................................................................ 21 

5 

 
 
 
 
List of abbreviations 
CBD 
CEF 
CEU 
COP 
CoR 
EAFRD 
EEA 
EGC 
EGL 
ERDF 
ERSAF 
EU 
GBF 
GHG 
ICLEI 
IPPC 
LBSAPs 
LRA 
NBS 
NBSAPs 
NGO 
PES 
RRF 
SDG 
SME 
YEP 

UN Convention on Biological Diversity 
Connecting Europe Facility 
Le Centre d'écologie urbaine (Centre for Urban Ecology) 
Conference of the Parties 
European Committee of the Regions  
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 
European Environment Agency 
European Green Capital 
European Green Leaf 
European Regional Development Fund 
Regional Agency for Agriculture and Forestry 
European Union 
Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework 
Greenhouse Gas 
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives 
International Plant Protection Convention 
Local biodiversity strategies and action plans 
Local and regional authority 
Nature-based solutions 
National biodiversity strategies and action plans 
Non-governmental organisation 
Payments for ecosystem services 
Recovery and Resilience Facility 
Sustainable Development Goal 
Small and medium-sized enterprise 
Young elected politician 

6 

 
 
Summary 
This study is the CoR’s contribution to the Plan of Action for the upcoming CBD 
COP 16 in Cali, Colombia. This report explores how local and regional authorities 
(LRAs) in the European Union (EU) contribute to the Kunming-Montreal Global 
Biodiversity Framework (GBF)  and its targets. It details the actions LRAs can 
take and have already implemented, emphasising their vital role as key partners 
in biodiversity protection and restoration efforts. 

As urbanisation is a major driver of biodiversity loss, the report underscores the 
significance  of  cities  and  regions  in  biodiversity  conservation.  The  EU  has 
recognised this critical role, particularly through the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 
2030 and the recently adopted EU Nature Restoration Law. These policies offer a 
comprehensive  framework  for  LRAs  to  integrate  biodiversity  into  subnational 
actions while ensuring coherence across different levels of governance. 

Local and regional biodiversity measures and actions 

The report highlights several strategies used by LRAs to enhance biodiversity in 
their  jurisdictions,  including  local  biodiversity  strategies  and  action  plans 
(LBSAPs)  and  nature-based  solutions  (NBS).  LBSAPs  are  critical  tools  for 
integrating  biodiversity  into  subnational  decision-making  processes.  It  also 
highlights the adoption of NBS across European cities  to  promote biodiversity 
while  simultaneously  addressing  challenges  such  as  public  health.  It  features 
initiatives  such  as  the  EU's  Green  City  Accord  and  urban  nature  plans,  which 
encourage cities to develop ambitious strategies for urban greening.  

Financial and technical support 
The  report  details  the  financial  and  technical  resources  available  to  LRAs  for 
biodiversity  projects.  EU  funding  mechanisms, such  as the  European  Regional 
Development Fund (ERDF), European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 
(EAFRD), and the LIFE Programme, play a significant role in supporting local 
and regional biodiversity initiatives. There are also examples of LRAs benefitting 
from innovative financing mechanisms such as green bonds and private grants. 
The report underscores the importance of technical support, including capacity-
building, advocacy, networking and data/knowledge. It highlights platforms (e.g. 
Eurocities)  where  LRAs  can  exchange  best  practices  and  collaborate  on  urban 
challenges; the EU Urban Nature Platform, which offers guidance on developing 
urban greening plans; and the NetworkNature initiative, which provides resources 
and  knowledge  for  implementing  nature-based  solutions.  Technical  assistance 
from organisations such as Local Governments for Sustainability Europe (ICLEI) 
helps  LRAs  to  access  data,  financial  resources,  training,  and  best  practices  to 
enhance their biodiversity efforts.  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Case studies 

Ten case studies are used to illustrate how LRAs across the EU have successfully 
implemented biodiversity protection and restoration projects, together with their 
challenges and lessons. These are: 

1.  Green  Cluj  Programme  (Romania):  Increases  green  spaces  and  reduces 
carbon  dioxide  (CO2)  emissions  through  urban  greening  and  sustainable 
transport initiatives. 

2.  Košice region Green Restoration Programme (Slovakia): Implements green 
infrastructure and water  management solutions across cities, forests, and 
agricultural lands. 

3.  Podkarpacie Natural Grazing Programme (Poland): Uses livestock grazing 
to  manage  grasslands  and  restore  biodiversity  in  protected  areas  while 
promoting cultural heritage. 

4.  Habitat  Management  in  the  Weidmoos  Bird  Reserve  (Austria):  Restores 
peatland  habitats  to  support  bird  populations  and  promote  sustainable 
tourism. 

5.  Control  of  the  Japanese  Beetle  in  Lombardy  (Italy):  Implements 
comprehensive measures to control  an invasive species and protect local 
ecosystems. 

6.  Fish  Migration  River  in  the  Afsluitdijk  (Netherlands):  Creates  a  unique 

river passage through a major dike to restore fish migration routes. 

7.  Võru’s  Biodiverse  Urban  Space  (Estonia):  Restores  a  heavily  modified 

riverbank into a biodiverse urban park for learning and leisure. 

8.  Chambon-Feugerolles:  A  Pesticide-Free  Town  (France):  Achieves 
pesticide-free  status  by  adopting  alternative  green  space  management 
practices. 

9.  River Jamor Green and Blue Axis (Portugal): Restores a degraded river and 
its  surroundings,  integrating  green  infrastructure  and  promoting  eco-
friendly mobility. 

10.  Fruit trees in Brussels (Belgium): the ARBRES and Pépinière citoyenne 
projects:  Two  projects  that  reintroduce  fruit  trees  into  the  urban 
environment for environmental and social benefits.  

Facilitating factors and challenges 

The report identifies several factors that contribute to the success of biodiversity 
projects,  including  supportive  policy  frameworks,  multilevel  governance, 
community  engagement,  adequate  funding,  and  long-term  commitment.  It  also 
highlights  common  challenges,  including  administrative  and  legal  burdens, 
funding  and  resourcing,  and  broader  environmental  threats  such  as  climate 
change. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy recommendations 
The report concludes with targeted policy recommendations for LRAs, national 
governments, and EU institutions: 

•  LRAs should actively seek diverse funding sources, implement NBS, develop 
LBSAPs, engage citizens in biodiversity protection, and integrate GBF targets 
in their LBSAPs. 

•  National  governments  should  support  the  integration  of  biodiversity  into 
national planning and education, provide financial support, ensure legislative 
and regulatory support, and lead challenges requiring large-scale intervention. 
•  EU  institutions  should  expand  financing  for  local  biodiversity  initiatives, 
strengthen  technical  support,  and  ensure  policy  coherence  and  biodiversity 
mainstreaming. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. Role  of 

subnational  governments 

in  protecting 

biodiversity and restoring nature 

Around three-quarters of the European Union (EU) population live in cities, towns 
and suburbs1, with the proportion estimated to rise to 90% by 21002. Nature and 
biodiversity positively influence the well-being of populations3 and the liveability 
of more urbanised or more densely populated areas4, placing urban action at the 
centre of EU nature restoration5 and efforts to tackle biodiversity loss.  

Cities  have  historically  been  viewed  as  a  serious  threat  to  biodiversity6. 
Urbanisation is one of the main causes of biodiversity loss7, responsible for 16% 
of the total loss of natural habitat from 1992 to 2000, with a forecasted 290,000 
km² of natural habitat to be urbanised between 2000 and 2030,  with significant 
regional  consequences  for  various  habitats8.  While  urbanisation  negatively 
impacts biodiversity, neglecting the positive roles of cities in conservation misses 
an  opportunity  to  leverage  their  governance  capacities  and  may  worsen 
biodiversity loss9. Accordingly, it is important to see cities as valuable partners in 
biodiversity action10.  

The role of cities and regions in achieving global commitments  is increasingly 
recognised at international level. Before the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP 
15)  to  the  UN  Convention  on  Biological  Diversity  (CBD),  the  European 
Parliament  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  (CoR)  called  for  ‘a  better 
assessment of the role of urban areas and cities in the preservation of biodiversity’ 
and  ‘increased  involvement  of  cities  and  local  authorities  in  the  definition  of 
policies  for  the  protection  and  conservation  of  biodiversity  and  ecosystem 

1 Eurostat statistics explained, Urban- Rural Europe – introduction, 2023. 
2 Puppim de Oliveira et al., Integrating Biodiversity with Local and City Planning: the Experiences of the Studios 
in the Development of Local Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans – LBSAPs, 2014. 
3 Díaz et al., ‘Assessing nature’s contributions to people’, Science, Vol. 359, Issue 6373, 2018, pp. 270-272.  
4 Guery et al., Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities, Global Platform for Sustainable Cities (GPSC), 2021.  
5 Wilk and Utkarsh, The proposed EU Nature Restoration Law: What role for cities and regions?, Policy brief 
drafted by ICLEI Europe for NetworkNature (H2020 project No. 887396), 2022. 
6  Xie  and  Bulkeley,  City  for  Biodiversity:  The  Roles  of  Nature-Based  Solutions  in  European  Cities, 
NATURVATION, 2020; Xie et al., Mainstreaming sustainable innovation: unlocking the potential of nature-based 
solutions for climate change and biodiversity, 2022.  
7 European Environment Agency (EEA), State of nature  in the EU  – Results from reporting under the  Nature 
Directives 2013-2018, 2020. 
8  McDonald  et  al.,  ‘Research  gaps  in  knowledge  of  the  impact  of  urban  growth  on  biodiversity’,  Nature 
Sustainability, Vol. 3, 2019, pp. 16-24; Xie and Bulkeley, Realising the Urban Opportunity: Cities and the Post-
2020 Biodiversity Governance,  PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2021.   
9  Xie  and  Bulkeley,  City  for  Biodiversity:  The  Roles  of  Nature-Based  Solutions  in  European  Cities, 
NATURVATION, 2020. 
10 Xie and Bulkeley, Realising the Urban Opportunity: Cities and the Post-2020 Biodiversity Governance,  PBL 
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2021.   

10 

 
 
 
 
services’11.  Decision  15/1212  was  adopted  at  COP  15,  calling  for  stronger 
engagement  of  subnational  governments,  cities  and  other  local  authorities  to 
enhance  the  implementation  of  the  Kunming-Montreal  Global  Biodiversity 
Framework (GBF). The Decision recognised the CoR as a key partner to support 
and  facilitate  the  development  of  the  Plan  of  Action  on  Subnational 
Governments13. 

This study represents the CoR’s contribution to the Plan of Action in view of the 
next CBD COP 16 in Cali, Colombia. By gathering best practices and relevant 
projects from EU cities and regions, the CoR aims to showcase their efforts and 
crucial role to successfully achieve the goals of the GBF.  

This  section  describes  how  local  and  regional  authorities  (LRAs)  are  actively 
involved in protecting biodiversity and restoring nature. It will first establish the 
regulatory framework guiding LRAs’ actions (section 1.1), outline their specific 
biodiversity measures and initiatives (section 1.2), and review the financial and 
technical resources available to support these efforts (section 1.3). 

11 Resolution of 16 January 2020 on the 15th meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP 15) to the Convention on 
Biological Diversity (2019/2824(RSP)); European Committee of the Regions, Opinion – Bio-diverse cities and 
regions beyond 2020 at the UN CBD COP 15 and in the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, CoR 2020/00530. 
12 CBD COP Decision 15/12; all decisions of that COP are available at https://www.cbd.int/decisions/cop?m=cop-
15 
13  CBD  COP  Decision  15/12,  point  D.4;  CoR,  EU  regions  and  cities  at  UN  CBD  COP16:  Shaping  global 
biodiversity policies, 2024. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1.1 Regulatory  frameworks  guiding  local  and  regional 

biodiversity actions  

The EU started to protect and preserve nature some 40 years ago with the adoption 
of two landmark pieces of environmental legislation – the Birds14 and Habitats15 
Directives  (the  so-called  Nature  Directives).  Together,  they  aim  to  protect  all 
naturally occurring wild bird species present in the EU and their most important 
habitats16. The Natura 2000 network was created, based on the Nature Directives. 
Natura 2000 is the world’s largest network of protected areas, covering Europe’s 
most crucial and endangered species and habitats across all 27 Member States, 
both on land and at sea17. It currently covers over 18% of the EU land area and 
9% of its sea territories18. 

Despite  this  robust  framework,  ecosystems  remain  degraded  and  biodiversity 
continues to decline19. In 2018, about 81% of habitats evaluated under the Habitats 
Directive were found to have poor or bad conservation status, while the capacity 
of  EU  ecosystems  to  provide  timber,  flood  protection,  crop  pollination,  and 
nature-based recreation was no better than in 201020. To strengthen its efforts, the 
European Commission has adopted the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and an 
accompanying action plan21 as a central component of the European Green Deal22. 
This Strategy is an ambitious and long-term plan designed to protect nature and 
restore ecosystems. It outlines specific actions and commitments  to achieve by 
2030 to ensure that Europe’s biodiversity begins to recover. Key actions include 
establishing a larger EU-wide network of protected areas both on land and at sea 
and launching an EU-wide nature restoration plan23.  

One of the planned actions has recently been achieved with the formal adoption 

14 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation 
of wild birds. 
15 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and 
flora. 
16  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Environment  and  Sundseth,  K,  The  EU  Birds  and  Habitats 
Directives – For nature and people in Europe, 2015. 
17 EEA, Natura 2000 protected areas network, 2023; EEA, Natura 2000 viewer, n.d.  
18 EEA, Natura 2000 barometer, 2018.  
19 INTERREG Europe, Preserving and restoring biodiversity, 2022.   
20 Wilk and Utkarsh, The proposed EU Nature Restoration Law. What role for cities and regions?, Policy brief 
drafted by ICLEI Europe for NetworkNature (H2020 project No. 887396), 2022.  
21 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 – Bringing nature back 
into our lives, COM/2020/380 final.  
22  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  European  Council,  the  Council,  the 
European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  The  European  Green  Deal, 
COM/2019/640 final.  
23 European Commission, Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, n.d. 

12 

 
 
 
 
of  the  EU  Nature  Restoration  Law24.  This  is  the  first  Europe-wide  legal 
requirement for large-scale nature restoration, setting legally binding targets and 
providing  a  historic  opportunity  to  tackle  the  climate  and  biodiversity  crises 
simultaneously25. The Law aims to protect and restore all ecosystems in Member 
States,  addressing  the  limited  ecosystem  coverage  in  the  Birds  and  Habitats 
Directives,  which  excluded  76%  of  terrestrial  ecosystems,  particularly  urban 
ecosystems, forests, and agroecosystems26. This Law highlights the importance of 
ensuring  policy  coherence  and  coordinating  approaches  across  different  policy 
levels and governance structures27.  

While  primarily targeting  Member  States,  the Nature  Restoration Law  directly 
affects  LRAs  through  specific  urban  ecosystem  targets.  These  targets  include 
achieving  no net loss  of urban green spaces by  2030  and reaching  satisfactory 
levels of these urban green spaces and tree canopy cover by 205028. LRAs will be 
involved through the development and monitoring of  national restoration plans 
and in integrating the Law’s requirements into local planning and policies29. The 
legally binding urban greening targets of the Nature Restoration Law can enhance 
ambition and improve the legitimacy and accountability of non-binding local and 
subnational  policies,  such  as  Local  Biodiversity  Strategies  and  Action  Plans 
(LBSAPs), urban nature plans, and green infrastructure plans30. 

24 Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 on nature restoration 
and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869, OJ L, 2024/1991, 29.7.2024; European Council, Environment Council, 
17 June 2024, 2024.  
25 European Commission, Nature Restoration Law, n.d.; CoR, Opinion – EU Nature Restoration Law, World Wide 
Fund for Nature (WWF), CoR 2022/04206.  
26 Wilk and Utkarsh, The proposed EU Nature Restoration Law. What role for cities and regions?, Policy brief 
drafted by ICLEI Europe for NetworkNature (H2020 project No. 887396), 2022.  
27 See, for instance, recitals 11 and 83. 
28 European Commission, Nature Restoration Law, n.d.  
29 Wilk and Utkarsh, The proposed EU Nature Restoration Law. What role for cities and regions?, Policy brief 
drafted by ICLEI Europe for NetworkNature (H2020 project No. 887396), 2022.  
30 Ibid. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
1.2 Local and regional biodiversity measures and actions 
In its October 2020 opinion31, the CoR stated that: 

‘LRAs,  through  responsible  production  and  consumption,  as  well  as 
integrated territorial land use planning and implementation, and nature-
based solutions (NBS) and solutions that are based on the protection and 
sustainable  use  of  natural  and  primary  resources  that  are  sensitive  and 
specific to social, economic and ecological contexts, can make significant 
contributions to relevant UN Conventions.’  

Being  closest  to  local  communities,  LRAs  can  effectively  raise  awareness  and 
mobilise  the  multi-stakeholder  support  necessary  for  coordinated  and  systemic 
action32. 

The following subsections will examine several measures and actions that can be 
implemented by LRAs to enhance biodiversity, such as LBSAPs (section 1.2.1), 
NBS (section 1.2.2) and other initiatives and policy instruments (section 1.2.3). 

1.2.1 Local Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans  

LBSAPs  are  comprehensive  strategies  with  specific  actions  to  guide  local 
governments in managing biodiversity and ecosystem services. They enable local 
action, influence city plans and decisions, and extend their impact beyond city 
boundaries.  LBSAPs  can  either  stand  alone  or 
integrate  biodiversity 
considerations into broader city plans. The main goal is to integrate the actions in 
the LBSAP within the city’s overarching plan, ensuring that different departments 
and functions understand their role in delivering these actions. Although LBSAPs 
are  local  policy  tools,  they  can  contribute  significantly  to  global  biodiversity 
conservation,  given  the  substantial  consumption  of  natural  resources  by  urban 
areas33. 

The Annex to Decision 15/12 of the COP 1534 urges the Parties to involve LRAs 
in  developing,  updating  and  implementing  national  biodiversity  strategies  and 
action plans (NBSAPs). Parties are also invited to encourage LRAs  to develop 

31 CoR, Opinion – Bio-diverse cities and regions beyond 2020 at the UN CBD COP 15 and in the EU Biodiversity 
Strategy  for  2030,  CoR  2020/00530;  Díaz,  et  al.,  IPBES  (2019):  Summary  for  policymakers  of  the  global 
assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on 
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, 2019.  
32 Wilk and Utkarsh, The proposed EU Nature Restoration Law. What role for cities and regions?, Policy brief 
drafted by ICLEI Europe for NetworkNature (H2020 project No. 887396), 2022.  
33 Based on Puppim de Oliveira et al., Integrating Biodiversity with Local and City Planning: the Experiences of 
the Studios in the Development of Local Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans – LBSAPs, 2014.  
34 COP 15, Plan of Action on Sub-ational Governments, Cities and Other Local Authorities for Biodiversity (2023-
2030), annexed to Decision 15/12 of the COP15 to the CBD.  

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LBSAPs in harmony with these NBSAPs. The Decision reaffirms Decision X/2235 
(2010), which significantly supported and recognised the critical role of LRAs in 
reducing  biodiversity  loss  and  improving  ecosystem  management36.  Through 
alignment with NBSAPs, LBSAPs serve as a key mechanism by which the CBD 
can achieve biodiversity targets at local level37. 

LBSAPs  emphasise  the  regulatory  and  planning  responsibility  of  LRAs38  in 
conserving and enhancing biodiversity. To date, the approach has not been widely 
adopted, often due to the overly technical nature of LBSAPs39. However, LRAs 
have a dual capacity that can be leveraged: beyond their planning roles, they can 
engage 
in  innovative  actions,  investments,  and  partnerships  with  non-
governmental actors. Evidence from the European Urban Nature Atlas40 indicates 
that many urban biodiversity initiatives are implemented through collaborations 
between government and non-government entities, highlighting the importance of 
partnerships.  Additionally,  nature-based  solutions  are  often  pursued  through 
diverse  initiatives  and  projects  rather  than  solely  through  long-term  planning 
frameworks.  By  recognising  the  multifaceted  role  of  LRAs  –  as  innovators, 
investors,  consumers,  and  partners  –  the  potential  of  LBSAPs  can  be  fully 
realised. Explicit  attention  to  ‘nature’s  contribution  to  people’  and  NBS  in  the 
GBF can help to ensure that actions are comprehensive and inclusive, resonating 
with urban actors and fostering widespread support41. 

1.2.2 Nature-based Solutions  
The 2020 Naturvation project report42 defines NBS as ‘deliberate interventions 
that can be inspired by or support nature in addressing urban challenges’. NBS 
involve the design and management of new ecosystems, such as the restoration of 
degraded terrestrial ecosystems (e.g. soil and slope revegetation, planting trees, 
hedges or perennial grass strips to intercept surface run-off). They also include 
the  restoration  and  creation  of  semi-natural  water  bodies  and  hydrographic 
networks (e.g. re-vegetation of riverbanks, constructed wetlands, built structures 
for water management), as well as the restoration of degraded coastal and marine 
ecosystems43. The guiding principle for NBS is to enhance existing spaces and 

35 COP, COP 10 Decision, n.d.   
36 Puppim de Oliveira, et al., Integrating Biodiversity with Local and City Planning: the Experiences of the Studios 
in the Development of Local Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans – LBSAPs, 2014.  
37 Ibid.  
38 Xie and Bulkeley, Realising the Urban Opportunity: Cities and the Post-2020 Biodiversity Governance,  PBL 
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2021.   
39 Ibid. 
40  Almassy  et  al.,  Urban  Nature  Atlas:  A  Database  of  Nature-Based  Solutions  Across  100  European  Cities, 
Naturvation, 2018.  
41  Based  on  Xie  and  Bulkeley,  Realising  the  Urban  Opportunity:  Cities  and  the  Post-2020  Biodiversity 
Governance,  PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2021.   
42 Davis et al., Nature-based Solutions in European and National Policy Frameworks, 2018.   
43 Wilk and Utkarsh, The proposed EU Nature Restoration Law. What role for cities and regions?, Policy brief 
drafted by ICLEI Europe for NetworkNature (H2020 project No. 887396), 2022.  

15 

 
 
 
 
prioritise multifunctional land use to ‘grow greener instead of greyer’44. 

In  its  October  2020  opinion,  the  CoR  emphasised  that  innovative  NBS 
implemented  by  LRAs  are  among  the  most  effective  tools  for  restoring 
ecosystems  and  mobilising  people’s  ability  to  thrive  with  nature45.  The  2020 
Naturvation project report contains a good overview of planned and implemented 
NBS across European cities and identifies how cities work with NBS to conserve 
nature,  restore  nature,  and  thrive  through  harnessing  nature’s  contribution  to 
people in order to protect and reinforce biodiversity46.  

NBS  ensure  and  enhance  nature’s  contribution  to  people,  i.e.  benefits  that 
ecosystems and biodiversity provide to human societies47, and generate multiple 
social,  economic  and  environmental  benefits.  These  enable  LRAs  to  make 
significant  and  simultaneous  contributions  to  sustainable  development  goals 
(SDGs), including climate change mitigation, water management, land use and 
urban development, social interaction promotion, and biodiversity conservation48.  

1.2.3 Other initiatives and policy instruments 

In the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, the EU has recognised the importance 
of  cities  and  regions  in  achieving  its  biodiversity  targets  through  several 
initiatives. The European Commission implemented a new Green City Accord49 
with cities and mayors to make cities cleaner and healthier. The Accord aims to 
improve the quality of life for all Europeans and accelerate the implementation of 
relevant  EU  environmental  laws.  By  signing  the  Accord,  cities  commit  to 
addressing  five  areas  of  environmental  management:  air  quality,  water, 
nature/biodiversity, waste/circular economy, and noise. The Green City Accord is 
open to any city in the EU with 20,000 or more inhabitants. To join the Green 
City  Accord,  cities  must  first  have  their  municipal  council  approve  the 
commitment, then the mayor (or equivalent representative) can sign the political 
commitment electronically. Interested cities should contact the Green City Accord 
secretariat to confirm eligibility50. 

44 Ibid. 
45 CoR, Opinion – Bio-diverse cities and regions beyond 2020 at the UN CBD COP 15 and in the EU Biodiversity 
Strategy for 2030, COR 2020/00530.  
46 Xie and Bulkeley, City for Biodiversity: The Roles of Nature-Based Solutions in European Cities, Naturvation, 
2020. 
47 Xie and Bulkeley, Realising the Urban Opportunity: Cities and the Post-2020 Biodiversity Governance,  PBL 
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2021; Díaz et al., IPBES (2019): Summary for policymakers of 
the  global  assessment  report  on  biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services  of  the  Intergovernmental  Science-Policy 
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, 2019.  
48 Xie and Bulkeley, City for Biodiversity: The Roles of Nature-Based Solutions in European Cities, Naturvation, 
2020; Xie and Bulkeley, Realising the Urban Opportunity: Cities and the Post-2020 Biodiversity Governance,  
PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2021. 
49 European Commission, Green City Accord, n.d.  
50 European Commission, How to join the Green City Accord, n.d.  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
In the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, the European Commission called on 
European cities of at least 20,000 inhabitants to develop ambitious urban nature 
plans51. These plans include measures to create biodiverse and accessible urban 
forests, parks and gardens, urban farms, green roofs and walls, tree-lined streets, 
urban meadows and urban hedges. They should also help to improve connections 
between green spaces, eliminate the use of pesticides, and limit excessive mowing 
of urban green spaces and other biodiversity harmful practices. The Urban Plan 
Nature  Guidance52  highlights  the  importance  of  a  collaborative  approach  in 
developing  such  plans,  particularly  the  need  to  engage  citizens  and  other 
stakeholders. It also emphasises cross-departmental cooperation and integration 
of  urban  nature  plans  with  other  urban  development  areas,  including  mobility, 
health, air and water quality, energy, and climate adaptation53. 

The CoR set up the Green Deal Going Local Working Group54, which actively 
involves  CoR  members  and  young  elected  politicians  (YEPs)55  in  EU  climate 
neutrality efforts. The group aims to promote the role of LRAs in the European 
Green  Deal  framework  and  to  provide  them  with  practical  information  to 
successfully implement projects, policies and measures that contribute to green 
transition  at  local  level.  It  also  encourages  LRAs  to  take  action  to  achieve  the 
goals of the European Green Deal through an open call to collect best practices56. 
Any  city  or  region  can  submit  a  project  in  areas  such  as  energy  efficiency  in 
buildings, adaptation to climate change, biodiversity, zero pollution or sustainable 
mobility.  These  best  practices  are  then  displayed  on  the  CoR  website  or  CoR 
social media channels to inspire other EU cities and regions to accelerate their 
own implementation of the European Green Deal and demonstrate the key role of 
the EU in the green transition. 

LRAs  benefit  from  increased  access  to  EU  funding,  tailored  guidance  on 
their 
implementing  sustainable  projects,  and  opportunities 
achievements on  the CoR Map of Best Practices. This helps LRAs  to  enhance 
their role in environmental governance and ensures that they have a direct impact 
on shaping EU policies for a greener future.  

to  showcase 

The Urban Agenda for the EU57 introduces a novel approach to multilevel and 
multi-stakeholder collaboration, aiming to reinforce the urban perspective within 
EU  policies.  It  unites  the  European  Commission,  national  ministries,  city 

51 The EU Biodiversity Strategy originally referred to ‘Urban Greening Plans’, but the term ‘Urban Nature Plans’ 
is now used.  
52 European Commission, Urban Greening Plan Guidance, CIRCABC, 2022. 
53 Based on European Commission, Urban Nature Platform, n.d.  
54 CoR, Green Deal Going Local, n.d.  
55 CoR, Young Elected Politicians (YEPs) programme, n.d.  
56 CoR, Call for best practices from EU local and regional authorities, n.d.  
57 European Commission, Urban Agenda for the EU, n.d.  

17 

 
 
 
 
 
authorities, and various stakeholders in partnerships to address the problems faced 
by  cities  by  enhancing  legislation,  simplifying  funding  access,  and  facilitating 
knowledge-sharing on urban-related matters. A priority theme is ‘sustainable use 
of land and NBS in cities’, which is connected to the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 
203058. 

Table 1: Partnership on sustainable use of land and NBS in cities 
The  partnership  on  sustainable  use  of  land  and  NBS  aimed  to  understand 
suburbanisation  processes  and  integrate  NBS  into  urban  development  across 
Europe.  Coordinated  by  Poland,  the  Partnership  included  Member  States 
(Poland,  Cyprus,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Portugal,  Slovenia,  and 
the 
Netherlands as an observer), cities (Bologna, Antwerp, Cork, Lille, Stavanger, 
Stuttgart, and Zagreb), and organisations such as Eurocities, URBACT, ICLEI, 
INCASÒL,  the  European  Commission,  and  the  European  Investment  Bank 
(EIB). The Partnership developed strategies for sustainable land use, promoted 
cooperation  to  mitigate  urban  sprawl,  and  created  guidelines  for  brownfield 
redevelopment.  Key  initiatives  included  improving  regulations,  securing 
funding,  raising  awareness,  and  setting  targets  for  NBS,  urban  green 
infrastructure, biodiversity, and ecosystem services in cities59. 

The European Commission’s green city awards (European Green Capital (EGC) 
for  cities  over  100,000  inhabitants  and  the  European  Green  Leaf  (EGL)  for 
smaller cities of 20,000 inhabitants) recognise and reward local efforts to improve 
the environment and quality of life in urban areas, as well as giving impetus to 
bolder actions and spurring local pride. Winning cities set an example  through 
their innovative practices that enhance biodiversity, such as creating green urban 
spaces and adopting sustainable urban planning60.  The awards offer  significant 
recognition, enhancing visibility that can attract investment and tourism, while 
facilitating access to additional EU initiatives. The EGC receives EUR 600,000, 
and the EGL winner(s) receive EUR 200,000, which supports their sustainability 
efforts. In the award year, the city hosts prominent international events, expanding 
its  professional  network.  Additionally,  EGC  winners  gain  entry  to  a  unique 
network  of  past  winners  and  finalists,  fostering  informal  exchanges  and  idea 
development61. The applications for the 2026 cycle closed on 30 April 2024. The 
applications for the 2027 cycle will be launched by the end of 2024. The winner 
of  EGC  2025  was  Vilnius,  the  Lithuanian  capital,  recognised  for  its  strong 
commitment to sustainability and its realistic, down-to-earth approach. Treviso 
won the EGL62. 

58 European Commission, Sustainable use of land and NBS in cities, n.d.  
59 Urban Agenda, Sustainable Land Use, n.d.; Portico, Sustainable Land Use, n.d.  
60 Based on European Commission, EU Green Capital & EU Green Leaf Awards, n.d.  
61 European Commission, Applying for the Awards – FAQs: What are the main benefits of winning the awards?, 
n.d.  
62 European Commission, Winning cities - European Green Capital & European Green Leaf Awards, n.d.  

18 

 
 
 
Finally, green infrastructure63 is 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  while  enhancing  biodiversity.  This 
network of green (land) and blue (water) spaces enhances environmental quality 
and the condition and connectivity of natural areas, while boosting citizens’ health 
and quality of life64. The backbone of the EU’s green infrastructure is the Natura 
2000  network  of  protected  areas,  and  LRAs  can  play  a  significant  role  in 
managing  and  protecting  these  sites.  To  assist  planners,  policymakers,  and 
businesses, the Commission has released two key guidance documents: the first65 
focuses  on  supporting  the  expansion  of  strategic  EU-level  green  and  blue 
infrastructure and promotes a more integrated approach to investment scaling; the 
second66  focuses  on  integrating  ecosystems  and  their  services  into  decision-
making,  underscoring  the  diverse  benefits  of  nature  for  people  and  offering 
methods to better incorporate these benefits into policy, planning, and business 
investment decisions. 

63 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Green Infrastructure (GI)  – Enhancing Europe’s Natural 
Capital, COM/2013/0249 final.. 
64 European Commission, Green infrastructure, n.d.  
65 European Commission, Guidance on a strategic framework for further supporting the deployment of EU-level 
green and blue infrastructure, SWD(2019) 193 final. 
66 European Commission,  EU Guidance on Integrating Ecosystems and their Services into Decision-Making  – 
Summary for Policymakers in Government and Industry, 2020.  

19 

 
 
 
 
1.3 Financial  and  technical  support  for  local  and  regional 

biodiversity initiatives 

Section I of the GBF emphasises that its full implementation and the achievement 
of its goals and targets depend in part on support mechanisms and the provision 
of ‘adequate, predictable and easily accessible financial resources from all sources 
on a needs basis’67. The CoR stressed the importance of financial and technical 
support  to  biodiversity  action68,  producing  the  Green  Deal  Going  Local 
Handbook69, which provides targeted guidance on financial and technical support 
for climate adaptation, biodiversity and building retrofitting.  

1.3.1 Financial support  

The case studies in Part 2 of this report highlight that financial support is a key 
enabler of successful biodiversity protection and restoration projects implemented 
by LRAs. One source of financial support is the EU, via different programmes, 
and  several  case  studies  in  Part  2  benefitted  from  these  programmes.  Figure  1 
shows  the  estimated  contribution  of  EU  funding  towards  biodiversity  for  the 
2021-2027  period,  although  these  funds  do  not  exclusively  fund  biodiversity 
projects.  

67 COP, Section I. Implementation and support mechanism and enabling conditions, 18 December 2022. 
68 CoR, Opinion – Bio-diverse cities and regions beyond 2020 at the UN CBD COP 15 and in the EU Biodiversity 
Strategy for 2030, COR 2020/00530; CoR, Commission for the Environment, Markowska, A., et al., Financing 
biodiversity action – Opportunities and challenges for EU subnational governments, 2020. 
69 CoR, Green Deal Going Local Handbook, n.d. (Country-specific handbooks are available.) 

20 

 
 
 
Figure 1. Estimated contributions to biodiversity from the EU budget over the 2021-
2027 period (EUR million) 

Source: European Commission, EU action on biodiversity financing, 2020. 

The Cohesion Fund70 and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)71 
play  a  significant  role  in  supporting  LRAs  to  implement  biodiversity  projects. 
Under  the  2021-2027  Cohesion  Policy  programme,  over  EUR  22  billion  in 
investment is planned for biodiversity initiatives, with approx. EUR 16.8 billion 
coming from EU funding72. The ERDF and the Cohesion Fund operate under a 
framework of shared responsibility between the European Commission and the 
national and/or regional authorities of the Member States. For these two funds, 
the national and/or regional authorities  choose  the  projects to finance  and take 
responsibility for day-to-day management73, giving regional authorities influence 
over how and where to spend the fund. INTERREF programmes74 funded under 
the ERDF provide opportunities for different LRAs to collaborate, including on 
biodiversity-related projects75.  

70 European Commission, Cohesion Fund, n.d.  
71 European Commission, ERDF, n.d.  
72 European Commission, Cohesion Policy: biodiversity tracking, n.d.  
73 For more, see overview of the European Regional Development Fund. Contact details of the national managing 
authorities can be found online, and several of these authorities are regional authorities. 
74 Interact, About Interreg, n.d.  
75 INTERREG Europe, Policy brief, 5 April 2022.  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) is a pillar of 
the Common Agricultural Policy  (CAP). It  provides financial  support  for  rural 
areas in implementing agri-environmental and climate measures, and one strategic 
objective  directly  contributes  to  the  protection  of  biodiversity76.  National  and 
regional authorities are managing authorities for rural development programmes. 
They  determine  the  content  of  these  programmes,  select  the  projects,  and 
authorise payments, thereby creating opportunities to support actions that benefit 
biodiversity.  

The LIFE programme, the EU’s funding instrument for environment and climate 
action77,  provides  targeted  support  for  biodiversity  and  nature  conservation 
projects78. LRAs can benefit from the LIFE programme in different ways: they 
can access funding by participating in calls for proposals, or use project outputs 
(e.g. biodiversity data) to improve local and regional policy and decision-making.  

LRAs can also access funding provided by private foundations for biodiversity 
protection  and  restoration  projects.  For  example,  the  Regional  Council  of 
Southwest  Finland  received  a  grant  from  the  Open  Rivers  Programme  to  co-
finance a project to remove part of a dam in the Aneriojoki River to support fish 
migration and enhance an existing Natura 2000 site79.  

In addition to accessing EU funds, private financing, or using their own resources, 
LRAs can obtain funding for biodiversity projects, including through innovative 
financing  instruments,  such  as  green  bonds,  payments  for  ecosystem  services 
(PES) and biodiversity offsetting. The Guide to Biodiversity Financing for Cities 
and  Regions80  provides  comprehensive  information  on  the  types  of  funding 
available and how LRAs can access these. Some local authorities in Europe have 
successfully used innovative financing for their biodiversity projects (see Table 
2).  

76  European  Commission,  Specific  objective  (SO)6:  Contribution  to  the  protection  of  biodiversity,  enhance 
ecosystem services and preserve habitats and landscapes, CAP funds, n.d.  
77 European Commission, Nature and Biodiversity: Nature and Biodiversity sub-programme, n.d.  
78 European Commission, Information on LIFE Calls for proposals for 2024, n.d.  
79 Open Rivers Programme, Removing the Holstenkoski Dam has had significant ecological benefits, 2024. EU 
funding was also used for this project. 
80 ICLEI, Guide to Biodiversity Financing for Cities and Regions, 2023, p. 8.  

22 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Table 2 Examples of local authorities using innovative financing to support biodiversity 
projects 

Paris (France) Sustainability Bond Framework 
Paris issued its first climate bond in 2015, which in 2017 evolved into a wider 
sustainability bond81  to fund social  and environmental projects.  Achievements 
from the bonds issued in 202182 include 1.57 hectares of new green areas, 127 
hectares of revegetated buildings and 15,284 trees planted, with a total allocation 
of EUR 12.5 million.  

Ghent (Belgium) crowdfunding platform 
Managed by the city of Ghent, the crowdfunding.gent83 platform allows residents 
to  propose  projects  that  provide  wider  benefits.  Two  small  but  notable  green 
projects were realised via this platform: a project encouraging urban farming in 
social housing and another project for edible streets84. The edible streets project 
resulted in 88 planters in three streets. In addition, the city is providing further 
financial and technical support to urban gardening initiatives85.   

Despite  the  high  number  of  financial  instruments  available  for  biodiversity 
funding, there is a pressing need to enhance environmental mainstreaming across 
EU  funding  mechanisms  and  increase  the  availability  and  streamlining  of 
biodiversity-specific  funds  for  LRAs.  A  CoR  report  on  financing  biodiversity 
actions86 highlighted that, existing procedures (e.g. under the LIFE programme) 
often present challenges for LRAs due to their complexity and focus on large-
scale projects.  It also  highlighted that financing for subnational action remains 
limited, complicated and scattered87. Regional structures that facilitate access to 
finance for municipalities are vital in ensuring effective distribution of  EU and 
Member  State  funds.  These  structures,  such  as  coordination  and  regional 
development commissions, can enhance financial management and prioritisation 
among  municipalities,  leading  to  more  impactful  interventions  at  a  territorial 
scale88.  

81 Mairie de Paris, City of Paris Sustainability Bond Framework, 2017.   
82 City of Paris, Report on the € 300 M sustainability bond issued by City of Paris in November 2021, 2024.  
83 Crowdfunding Ghent platform, n.d.  
84  Climate  Adapt,  Ghent  crowdfunding  platform  realising  climate  change  adaptation  through  urban  greening, 
Belgium, 2023.  
85 City of Ghent, Ghent sustainability report 2023: Focus on the Planet, n.d.  
86 CoR, Commission for the Environment, Markowska et al., Financing biodiversity action – Opportunities and 
challenges for EU subnational governments, 2020; CoR, Opinion – Bio-diverse cities and regions beyond 2020 at 
the UN CBD COP 15 and in the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, COR 2020/00530.   
87 CoR, Opinion – Bio-diverse cities and regions beyond 2020 at the UN CBD COP 15 and in the EU Biodiversity 
Strategy for 2030, COR 2020/00530.   
88 Wilk and Utkarsh, The proposed EU Nature Restoration Law: What role for cities and regions?, Policy brief 
drafted by ICLEI Europe for NetworkNature (H2020 project No. 887396), 2022.  

23 

 
 
 
 
 
1.3.2 Technical support 
Technical support is necessary for biodiversity action89. As stressed by the CoR 
in its opinion in February 202390, the effective design, execution, and monitoring 
of restoration actions and biodiversity actions will require considerable technical 
expertise  and  investment  of  resources  from  the  implementing  LRAs.  This 
expertise needs to be built, developed and improved, and could be integrated with 
existing capacity-building tools and platforms. Table 3 presents an overview of 
organisations, initiatives, tools and platforms that provide technical support for 
LRAs  on  biodiversity  action,  together  with  examples  of  how  LRAs  have 
benefitted or participated are also provided. These benefits are classified as: 

•  Networking  –  opportunities  to  connect  with  other  LRAs  and  technical 
experts  to  exchange  best  practices,  implement  strategies  for  habitat 
restoration and green infrastructure, and find out about available funding;  
•  Advocacy – promoting the interests and concerns of LRAs at national, EU 
and international levels on policies, strategies, and frameworks related to 
biodiversity, sustainable development, and climate change;  

•  Capacity-building – provision of advice, training and/or technical support 
to enhance LRAs’ knowledge and ability to plan, procure, implement and 
govern sustainability projects and programmes effectively;   

•  Data/knowledge – access to international, EU, national, regional and local-
level data and information to support LRAs to make informed decisions on 
environmental policies and actions.  

Table 3.  Organisations, initiatives and platforms offering technical support on 
biodiversity action to LRAs 

Name 

Benefits for LRAs 

Type 

EU/European level 
BioAgora91 

LRAs can receive third 
party funding from this 
EU Horizon project 
(2022-2027) by 
responding to calls to 

Capacity-
building 

Data/ 
knowledge  

Example of 
LRA 
participating
/ 
benefitting 

No demo 
cases 
available92 

89 Ibid. (on the link between financial and technical support).   
90  CoR,  Opinion  –  EU  Nature  Restoration  Law:  On  the  importance  of  technical  support,  also  considering  the 
current lack of LRAs expertise, COR 2022/04206; Wilk and Utkarsh, The proposed EU Nature Restoration Law: 
What role for cities and regions?, Policy brief drafted by ICLEI Europe for NetworkNature (H2020 project No. 
887396), 2022.  
91 Bioagora, n.d.. Available at BioAgora (accessed 07 August 2024).  
92 As of 12 September 2024.  

24 

 
 
 
Name 

Benefits for LRAs 

Type 

Example of 
LRA 
participating
/ 
benefitting 

EEA93 

Eurocities97 

participate as a new 
demonstration case. 
Successful LRAs will be 
prepared to integrate 
biodiversity into public 
and business decision-
making across all 
sectors 
LRAs can access 
technical reports, data, 
and tools to inform their 
biodiversity action plans 
and projects. Examples 
are nature reporting 
data94, urban tree cover 
viewer95, and green 
infrastructure viewer96 
LRAs can access a 
network of European 
cities to share best 
practices and collaborate 
on urban challenges, and 
receive capacity-
building support through 
workshops, events, and 
training opportunities. 
LRAs can also be 
involved in shaping EU 
policies that affect urban 
areas 

Data/ 
knowledge 

Ljubljana 
(Slovenia): 
BeePath 
project98 

Networking 

Advocacy 

Capacity-
building 

Data/ 
knowledge 

93 EEA, European Environment Agency, n.d.  
94 EEA, Explore nature reporting data, 2023.  
95 EEA, Urban tree cover viewer, n.d.  
96 EEA, Percentage of total green infrastructure, urban green space, and urban tree cover in the area of EEA-38 
capital cities (excluding Liechtenstein), 2022-2023.  
97 Eurocities, EUROCITIES, n.d.  
98 Dragonetti, W., Bringing bees back to Llublana, 2023.  

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Name 

Benefits for LRAs 

Type 

EU Urban Nature 
Platform99 

ICLEI Europe102  

NetworkNature106  

LRAs can access 
guidance and knowledge 
to support them in 
developing their own 
nature/greening plans100 

LRAs can receive 
assistance in 
implementing the 
European Green Deal 
and the Strategy for 
Climate Neutrality. 
Initiatives and actions 
include 
UrbanByNature103 and 
the Transformative 
Actions Programme 
(TAP)104 
Enables LRAs to 
cooperate and maximise 
the impacts and spread 
of NBS. They are also 
able to access resources 
and knowledge on 
implementing NBS 

Networking 

Capacity-
building 

Data/ 
knowledge 
Networking 

Advocacy 

Capacity-
building 

Data/ 
knowledge 

Networking 

Capacity-
building 

Data/ 
knowledge 

Example of 
LRA 
participating
/ 
benefitting 

Burgas 
(Bulgaria): 
pilot city in 
the Urban 
Nature Plans+ 
project101 

Barcelona 
(Spain): green 
infrastructure 
projects105 

Gorla 
Maggiore 
(Italy): 
constructed 
wetlands107 

99 European Commission, EU Urban Nature Platform, n.d.  
100 A separate Urban Greening Plan Guidance was developed in collaboration with Eurocities and ICLEI Europe; 
European Commission, Urban Greening Plan Guidance, CIRCABC, 2022.  
101 Burgas, Bulgaria: Greening City. Cities involved in the Urban Nature Plans+ project participate in capacity-
building via UrbanByNature to ensure that their renaturing activities align with the standards  of the EU Urban 
Nature Platform framework. 
102 ICLEI Europe, ICLEI Europe, n.d.  
103 UrbanByNature is a capacity-building programme promoting exchange among cities, researchers, small  and 
medium-sized  enterprises  (SMEs)  and  non-governmental  organisations  (NGOs)  to  collaborate  with  NBS 
communities across the world.  
104 TAP brings together financial institutions, project preparation facilities and the private sector to assist LRAs 
and local businesses to realise their sustainable infrastructure ideas.  
105 ICLEI European Secretariat, Barcelona: harnessing its natural heritage to benefit all, 2020.  
106 NetworkNature, NetworkNature, n.d.  
107 NetworkNature, Constructed wetlands as a multipurpose green infrastructure in Gorla Maggiore, Italy, n.d.  

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Example of 
LRA 
participating
/ 
benefitting 

Greece: 
implementati
on of green 
budgeting 
practices110 

Capacity-
building 

Networking 

Capacity-
building 

Budapest 
(Hungary): 
partner city in 
BiodiverCity
113 

Name 

Benefits for LRAs 

Type 

Technical Support 
Instrument (TSI)108 

URBACT111 

LRAs, via a (Member 
State) national 
coordinating authority, 
can submit a request109 
for technical support on 
their green transition 
delivered under EU, 
national or local 
programmes 
A project where LRAs 
can exchange 
experiences and learn 
through thematic 
networks and technical 
workshops. 
BiodiverCity112 is an 
urban-biodiversity 
(2023-2025) initiative 
under URBACT, where 
partner cities will 
support and enable 
communities to plan 
local NBS and foster 
pro-environment 
behaviours 

International level 
Berlin Urban Nature 
Pact114 

Initiated by the city of 
Berlin and working with 

Networking 

Advocacy 

To be 
launched at 
COP16 

108 European Commission, Technical Support Instrument (TSI), n.d.  
109 Requests must be submitted by 31 October for each year.  
110 European Commission, Supporting the Implementation of Green Budgeting Practices among the EU Member 
States, n.d. The Reform support projects interactive map features Member-State level projects and not projects at 
LRA level.  
111 URBACT, URBACT, n.d.  
112 URBACT, BiodiverCity, n.d.  
113  Szigeti-Böröcz,  Tools  to  activate  residents  to  transform  their  private  gardens  in  to  biodiversity  oases  - 
BiodiverCity case study 5, 2024.  
114 CitiesWithNature, Berlin Urban Nature Pact, 2024. The Pact seeks to halt and reverse biodiversity loss to put 
nature on a path to recovery for the benefit of people and the planet in cities worldwide by 2030. 

27 

 
 
 
 
Name 

Benefits for LRAs 

Type 

Example of 
LRA 
participating
/ 
benefitting 

Capacity-
building 

other organisations115, 
the Pact encourages 
other cities to commit to 
the transition towards 
implementation of bold 
biodiversity action. 
Signatories commit to 
six principles for the 
implementation of key 
actions against targets, 
and cities can join116 the 
Pact to become official 
signatories 

CitiesWithNature117  LRAs and their partners 
can connect and engage 
on their work towards a 
more sustainable urban 
world. The 
CitiesWithNature 
Action Platform118 
allows cities to 
showcase their actions 
and plans to contribute 
to global nature goals 

ICLEI Local 
Governments for 
Sustainability 

LRAs can access 
support and resources to 
help them to achieve the 
SDGs 

Networking 

Capacity-
building 

Glasgow 
(United 
Kingdom 
(UK)): 32 
actions119 

Municipality 
of Marousi 
(Greece): 
ICLEI 

Networking 

Advocacy 

Capacity-
building 

115 ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and the International Union 
for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The Pact is also supported by the United Nations Convention on Global 
Biodiversity, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and other partners.  
116 The launch event for the Pact is at COP16 in Columbia, and there will be a follow-up period for cities to join 
the Pact and become official signatories.  
117 CitiesWithNature, CitiesWithNature, n.d.  
118 CitiesWithNature, CitiesWithNature Action Platform, n.d. This platform will also be used to enrol cities for the 
Berlin Urban Nature Pact. 
119 CitiesWithNature, Glasgow City Council Actions in CitiesWithNature, n.d.  

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Name 

Benefits for LRAs 

Type 

Example of 
LRA 
participating
/ 
benefitting 
member since 
1997120 

Catalonia 
(Spain): 
Green 
Infrastructure 
Programme123 

Data/ 
knowledge 
Networking 

Capacity-
building 

Åland Islands 
(Finland): 
Development 
and 
Sustainability 
Agenda for 
Åland125 

Networking 

Advocacy 

Capacity-
building 

Data/ 
knowledge 

RegionsWithNature 
121 

Regions4124 

LRAs can access tools, 
guidance and support to 
integrate nature into 
regional planning and 
development. An action 
platform for regions has 
been announced122, 
which will allow LRAs 
to share their 
commitments and 
actions for nature 

LRAs can showcase 
their biodiversity actions 
and access opportunities 
to speak with a united 
voice in international 
sustainability forums. 
They can also access 
global knowledge, 
networks and best 
practices to enhance 
their capacity to address 
sustainability challenges 

120 ICLEI, Municipality of Marousi: ICLEI Member Profile, n.d.  
121 RegionsWithNature, RegionsWithNature, n.d.  
122  RegionsWithNature,  Coming  soon:  UN  CBD-recognised  Action  Platform  for  regional/subnational 
governments to share their commitments and actions for nature, n.d.  
123 Espadalé Gelis, Green Infrastructure Programme of Catalonia, 2023.  
124 Regions4 Sustainable Development, Regions4, n.d.  
125 Regions4 Sustainable Development,  Development and Sustainability Agenda for Åland and the Bärkraft.ax 
Initiative, n.d.  

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. Case studies and analysis 
This  section  presents  10  case  studies  of  how  LRAs  across  the  EU  have 
implemented  effective  biodiversity  protection  and  restoration  projects  and/or 
programmes, showcasing their innovative approaches and tangible impacts. They 
underscore the vital role of LRAs in biodiversity protection and restoration, as 
well  as  offering  valuable  insights  for  future  initiatives.  Details  include:  the 
project/programme  name,  time  period  of  implementation  and  purpose;  the 
authority  or  authorities  responsible  for  implementation;  location  of  the 
project/programme; policy framework; governance structure; enabling factors for 
the project/programme; measurable outputs, outcomes and impacts; co-benefits; 
challenges and burdens; and lessons learned. Their links to the GBF targets126 are 
presented in Annex 1.   

2.1  Green Cluj Programme  
Initiated  in  early  2020,  the  Green  Cluj  programme127  (or  the  Cluj  Green 
Infrastructure Initiative) aims to increase green spaces in Cluj-Napoca, conserve 
biodiversity,  promote  healthier  lifestyles,  and  contribute  to  reducing  CO2 
emissions. Actions to conserve and promote biodiversity include the installation 
of  green  walls  and  roofs,  community-based  urban  farms  and  gardens,  and 
accessible green corridors.  

2.1.1 Authority responsible for implementation 

Cluj-Napoca Municipality and Local Council.  

2.1.2 Location 

Cluj-Napoca is a historic city in Transylvania, Romania, at the confluence of the 
Apuseni Mountains, the Someș plateau and the Transylvanian plain. It is known 
for its rich cultural heritage, is home to several renowned universities, and is also 
a ‘StartupCity’ 128 for driving innovation.  

2.1.3 Policy framework 

•  Cluj-Napoca General Urban Plan129; 

126 CBD, 2030 Targets (with Guidance Notes), 2022.  
127 Functional areas in the EU, Cluj Green Infrastructure Development Initiative – Cluj-Napoca Metropolitan Area, 
n.d.  
128 Cluj Business, Cluj-Napoca StartupCity, n.d.  
129  City  Hall  and  Local  Council  Cluj-Napoca,  Cluj-Napoca  General  Urban  Plan  (Plan  Urbanistic  General  al 
Municipiulu Cluj-Napoca), n.d.  

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
•  Integrated Urban Development Strategy for the Municipality of Cluj-Napoca 
and its Metropolitan Area130, SO3: Carbon Neutral, Green and Resilient City; 

•  Romania’s Recovery and Resilience Plan131. 

2.1.4 Governance structure 

Local governance, in collaboration with local stakeholders and residents. 

2.1.5 Enabling factors 

•  EU funds: European Regional Development Fund 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 
programme,  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility  (RRF)  grants  and  loans, 
national/state and local budgets;  

•  The city received support from the EU Horizon 2020 ProGIreg project as a 
‘follower city’. In partnership with the ProGIreg project team and other key 
stakeholders, 
identify  and  plan 
implemented  activities 
the  city 
transformation areas and relevant NBS;  

to 

•  The city hosted international design competitions for the new green areas to 

attract experienced architects and other specialists; 

•  Cluj-Napoca  is  an  active  participant  in  numerous  European  networks, 
facilitating  the  formation  of  international  consortia132.  These  collaborations 
enable  members  to  exchange  knowledge,  pilot  innovative  projects,  and 
implement best practices from other European countries in urban revitalisation 
and  greening  efforts,  as  well  as  in  a  wide  range  of  other  areas.  Examples 
include the Eurocities network, Startup Europe133, UNESCO City of Film134, 
EU  Mission  for  Climate-Neutral  and  Smart  Cities135,  Green  City  Accord, 
URBACT, and the Network of European Youth Capitals136; 

•  The  governance  model  in  Cluj-Napoca  follows  a  multi-helix  approach137, 
involving citizens, academia, the private sector and NGOs, all aligned with the 
city’s  strategic  direction.  This  broad  stakeholder  engagement  supports  the 
vision of a green, digital and resilient city, facilitating the implementation of 
projects and fostering ideation and co-creation; 

130 City Hall and Local Council Cluj-Napoca and the World Bank, Integrated Urban Development Strategy for the 
Municipality of Cluj-Napoca and its Metropolitan Area, 2021. 
131 Romanian Ministry of European Investments and Projects, Romanian Recovery and Resilience Plan (Planul 
Naţional de Redresare şi Rezilienţă), 2023.  
132 Information provided by a representative from the Green Department of Cluj-Napoca Municipality and Local 
Council on 23 September 2024. 
133 European Commission, Startup Europe, 2024.   
134 Cluj Napoca was designated a UNESCO City of Film in 2021.  
135 Municipality of Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca : towards climate neutrality, 2024.  
136 Cluj-Napoca was the 2015 European Youth Capital.  
137 Information provided by a representative from the Green Department of Cluj-Napoca Municipality and Local 
Council on 23 September 2024. 

31 

 
 
 
 
•  A change in the national legislation138 allowed the expropriation of private land 
where it serves a public utility or is of significant national interest. Within this 
law, ‘public utility’ covers work for renaturalisation. This change enabled the 
City of Cluj Napoca to identify and obtain other areas for the programme.  

2.1.6 Measurable outputs, outcomes and impacts  

•  200  hectares  of  green  areas,  making  use  of  existing  public  areas  and  the 
requisition  of  private  land.  These  green  areas  include  public  spaces  (e.g. 
rehabilitation of existing parks) and ecological corridors to connect protected 
areas. A key initiative is the development of a green-blue corridor along the 
Someș  River,  connecting  four  localities  within  the  metropolitan  area:  Cluj-
Napoca, Gilău, Apahida, and Florești. Long-term plans to extend this corridor 
to localities in the second ring of the metropolitan area are still in the early 
stages139; 

•  Planting of over 100,000 mature trees by 2030;  
•  The city aims to achieve a fully ecological, zero-emission public transport fleet 
by 2030, with the current percentage at 60%. This will contribute to the city’s 
target of 80% reduction in its GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions by 2030.  

2.1.7 Co-benefits 

•  Climate  change  mitigation,  adaptation  and  air  quality  improvement:  The 
project involves creating green spaces with active transport options (e.g. cycle 
paths)  and  planting  trees  to  enhance  urban  greenery.  It  also  includes  the 
extension  of  dedicated  public  transport  and  bike  lanes,  along  with  a  bike-
sharing system, supporting the city's goal of reducing GHG emissions by 80% 
by 2030; 

•  Cluj-Napoca  lacks  a  network  of  large  green  spaces,  particularly  in  densely 
populated  multi-family  residential  areas,  which  is  a  key  source  of 
dissatisfaction  for  residents  of  all  ages140.  The  initiative  promotes  social 
inclusion,  fosters  healthy  lifestyles,  and  enhances  both  mental  and  physical 
well-being through the creation of spaces for sports and recreational activities. 
These  green  areas  improve  the  city’s  environment  while  offering  vital 
opportunities for community engagement and healthier living; 

•  The Cluj-Napoca project will develop a series of comprehensive guidelines to 
support  the  replication  of  its  solutions  in  twin  cities  and  other  urban  areas. 

138 Law No 255 of December 14, 2010 regarding expropriation for reasons of public utility, necessary to achieve 
objectives of national, county and local interest, Official Monitor No 853 of December 20, 2010 (LEGE nr. 255 
din 14 decembrie 2010 privind exproprierea pentru cauză de utilitate publică, necesară realizării unor obiective 
de interes național, județean și local. MONITORUL OFICIAL nr. 853 din 20 decembrie 2010).   
139 Information provided by a representative from the Green Department of Cluj-Napoca Municipality and Local 
Council on 23 September 2024.   
140  Functional  Areas  in  the  EU,  Cluj  Green  Infrastructure  Development  Initiative  –  Cluj-Napoca  Metropolitan 
Area, n.d.  

32 

 
 
 
 
strategies, 

particularly 

These guidelines will facilitate the adaptation and implementation of climate-
neutral 
high-density,  multi-apartment 
neighbourhoods  (e.g.  guide  for  citizen  activation  and  engagement  in  the 
transition  process  to  climate  neutrality  at  neighbourhood  level;  guide  for 
enhancing the capacity of local ecosystems to plan, implement and monitor 
climate neutral policies at neighbourhood level)141; 

in 

•  Increased  trust  in  the  administration:  the  participatory  approach  adopted 
throughout the project fosters a community that is resilient and well-informed 
about  the  city’s  sustainable  development  plans.  Citizens  gain  a  better 
understanding  of  administrative  procedures,  creating  greater  trust  in  the 
administration. 

2.1.8 Challenges and burdens 

•  While Cluj-Napoca successfully attracts external funding for its development 
projects, the resources remain insufficient for the needs of its rapidly growing 
community. The external funding for green initiatives tends to focus primarily 
on  energy  efficiency,  building  administrative  capacity,  and  communication 
efforts.  However,  additional  funding 
is  needed  for  equipment  and 
infrastructure works; 

•  Although  most  local  projects  in  Cluj-Napoca  are  implemented  smoothly, 
challenges  arise  when  expanding  the  vision  to  the  wider  metropolitan  area. 
This requires navigating complex administrative procedures and coordinating 
with  neighbouring  localities.  The  documentation  and  project  development 
phases  are  often  prolonged  by  legislative  changes  and  delays  caused  by 
lawsuits related to public procurement; 

•  Both  the  housing  stock  and  the  use  of  private  vehicles  continue  to  grow 
steadily, driven by the increasing appeal of Cluj-Napoca (and its metropolitan 
area) to young people from across the country and abroad142. Combined with 
the city's rapid population growth, this complicates the allocation of sufficient 
land for green spaces while accommodating urban expansion; 

•  Securing private land for public green spaces, especially in urban areas, can be 
legally  and 
legislation. 
financially  complex,  even  with  supportive 
Expropriation processes often face resistance from property owners and can 
delay progress. 

2.1.9 Lessons learned 

•  Continued support for cohesion policy and complementary funding streams, 
such as Horizon, INTERREG, and Net Zero Cities, is crucial for successful 

141 Net Zero Cities, Cluj-Napoca's Pilot City Activity: Blueprint for Net-Zero Apartment-block Neighbourhoods, 
n.d.  
142  Functional  Areas  in  the  EU,  Cluj  Green  Infrastructure  Development  Initiative  –  Cluj-Napoca  Metropolitan 
Area, n.d.  

33 

 
 
 
 
implementation  of  urban  projects  in  cities  and  regions.  Ongoing  efforts  at 
European  and  national  level  are  encouraging,  with  expectations  that 
frameworks and conditions will progressively and continuously support local 
efforts; 

•  Knowledge exchange with EU institutions has demonstrated significant value 
in  facilitating  project  implementation  at  local  level.  The  concept  of  ‘city 
advisors’  or  designated  experts  to  assist  in  addressing  specific  urban 
challenges merits further exploration;  

•  The implementation of climate neutrality actions is led by a Net Zero Local 
Coalition143 involving public administration, academia, private sector, NGOs, 
and civil society. This collaborative governance model ensures that efforts are 
community-driven and involve all relevant stakeholders; 

•  Cluj-Napoca’s success in expropriating private land for green spaces, enabled 
by  legislative  changes,  shows  the  value  of  aligning  local  initiatives  with 
national policy to secure resources for biodiversity efforts. 

143 Net Zero Cities, Cluj-Napoca's Pilot City Activity: Blueprint for Net-Zero Apartment-block Neighbourhoods, 
n.d.  

34 

 
 
 
 
2.2 Košice region Green Restoration Programme  
Under  the  Green  Restoration  Programme  2021-2030144,  authorities  and  other 
stakeholders in the Košice region have installed a range of green infrastructure 
and NBS in cities, forests and agricultural land to collect water, restore watersheds 
and soils and promote biodiversity. Solutions include the installation of log dams, 
bio-retention ponds, green roofs and rain gardens, and the restoration of erosion 
gullies.  

2.2.1 Authorities responsible for implementation 

Košice Self-Governing Region Council and the Water Advisory Boards of the six 
districts in the region. 

2.2.2 Location 

Košice region, Slovakia. The region has a temperate climate and is covered by 
forests, grasslands and arable land. 

2.2.3  Policy framework 

•  Green Restoration Programme for the Košice region145  
•  Action  and  recovery  plans  prepared  by  six  Water  Advisory  Boards  of  the 

individual districts in the Košice region146; 

•  Košice Region Spatial Plan147; 
•  Climate Change Adaptation Strategy of the Košice region 2020148. 

2.2.4 Governance structure 

Multi-level  governance:  the  Programme  is  under  the  responsibility  of  the 
Regional  Council,  with  action  plans  drawn  up  by  the  Water  Advisory  Boards. 
Membership  of  these  Water  Advisory  Boards  includes  representatives  from 
municipal,  city  and  regional  governments,  state  administration  bodies, 
entrepreneurs149, NGOs and activists, volunteers and the public. The key feature 
is local ownership of the solutions. 

144  The  Green  Restoration  Programme  is  an  integrated  watershed  restoration  plan,  whose  final  version  was 
approved in 2021. It aims to restore water resources and watersheds to address environmental degradation, climate 
change challenges and promote economic recovery in the Košice region.  
145 Košice Self-Governing Region, Green Restoration Programme for the Košice Region of Slovakia: Landscape 
and Watershed Recovery 2021-2030, n.d.  
146 Plans for the districts of Abov , Gemer , Spiš , Zemplín I - Trebišov ,  Zemplín II - Poondavie , Zemplín III - 
Michalovce, Sobrance were discussed and approved between October and December 2020.  
147 KSK Archive, Territorial Plan of the Region (Územný plán regiónu (ÚPN VÚC)) 2017, 2023.  
148 Tešilar et al., Adaptation strategy to the impacts of climate change in the Košice region (Adaptačná stratégia 
na dôsldeky zmeny klímy v Košickom kraji), n.d. . 
149 Including farmers and forest owners. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2.5 Enabling factors 

•  Funding from a range of sources: EU funds (e.g. INTERREG Central Europe 

2021-2027), EEA and Norway Grants150; 

•  Local ownership via the establishment of the six Water Advisory Boards, which 
developed action plans for their respective districts, with clearly defined goals, 
pilot  projects,  and  responsibilities.  All  parties  actively  participated  in  the 
preparing the programme, while awareness-raising activities increased public 
interest;  

•  There  is  continuous  monitoring  of  progress  to  ensure  alignment  with  the 
programme document. An annual evaluation report summarises the activities 
and associated costs151, as well as the action plan for the following year;  
•  This  programme  benefitted  from  the  lessons152  of  similar  initiatives  in  the 
region, e.g. the 2010-2012 Landscape Revitalisation and Integrated River Basin 
Management Revitalisation Programme153 and the 2005 Košice Water Protocol 
for water in the 21st century154; 

•  Conferences  and  seminars  in  2019  featured  local,  national  and  international 
experts,  who  shared  their  experiences  of  implementing  water  management 
solutions155. These insights informed the Water Advisory Boards’ development 
of action and recovery plans156.  

2.2.6 Measurable outputs, outcomes and impacts  

•  Water-retaining  structures  and  groundwater  recharge  structures  with  a  total 
capacity of 60 million cubic metres of water will be constructed or installed in 
almost 70,000 hectares of forests, agricultural land, and cities; 

•  Schools  held  awareness-raising  events,  as  well  as  competitions  related  to 
climate change and the value of water. A catalogue of green measures157 was 
produced for secondary schools;  

•  Several  biodiversity-related  initiatives  have  emerged  as  part  of  the  Green 
Restoration  Programme158.  Notably,  green  roofs  and  reservoirs  have  been 

150 EEA and Norway Grants, Slovakia, 2024.  
151 Records of programme activities for 2022, 2023 and 2024 are available as of 25 July 2024.  
152  Previous  initiatives  demonstrated  the  effectiveness  of  water  retention  structures,  the  empowerment of  local 
communities to co-create solutions for their own benefits, and economic benefits through the creation of ‘green’ 
training and employment.  
153  Government  of  the  Slovak  Republic,  Draft  of  the  Program  of  Landscape  Revitalization  and  Integrated 
Watershed Management of the Slovak Republic and draft of its implementation project 2010 (Návrh Programu 
revitalizácie krajiny a integrovaného manažmentu povodí Slovenskej republiky a návrh jeho realizačného projektu 
2010), 2010.  
154 Košice Self-Governing Region Council, Kosice Water Protocol for Water in the 21st Century: People and Water 
(Košický protocol pre vodu v 21. storočí: Ľudia a voda), 2005.  
155 Košice Self-Governing Region Council, 2019. Available at: Landscape restoration program (Program obnovy 
krajiny). (accessed 29 August 2024).  
156 Information provided by representatives of the Programme during an interview on 16 August 2024. 
157 Košice Self-Governing Region Council, The Green Catalogue  (ZELENÝ CATALÓG), 2022.  
158 Information provided by representatives of the programme during an interview on 16 August 2024. 

36 

 
 
 
constructed on the school grounds in Spišská Nová Ves and Klimapark Kysak, 
and an environmental education centre has been established in the village of 
Kysak. ‘Project Biodiversity’ focuses on revitalising and restoring ecosystems 
throughout the Košice region in response to environmental challenges. 

2.2.7 Co-benefits 

•  The main benefits are reduced risk to human health, economic activities and 

property, e.g. from floods, droughts and soil quality degradation;  

•  Improved microclimates are expected, due to higher humidity levels in areas 
where  measures  have  been  implemented.  Estimated  improvements  include 
12,000 l/s of aquifer recharge, an average temperature reduction of 0.7°C in the 
region and 1.3°C in cities, and 1.8 million tonnes of soil and biomass carbon 
sequestration;  

•  Expected  economic  and  financial  benefits  to  agriculture  and  forestry  from 
improved water security and reduction of dust and erosion: 3,200 new jobs, and 
EUR 32 million of annual crop yield increase due to the enhancement of soil 
fertility,  and  increased  crop  production  (EUR  80  per  hectare)  and  increased 
forest biomass (at least EUR 20 per hectare). 

2.2.8 Challenges and burdens159 

•  There is a high administrative workload and a lengthy process for construction 
procedures,  which  are  exacerbated  by  complicated  ownership  regulations 
requiring coordinated efforts from numerous stakeholders;  

•  The  approval  process  for  applications 

the 
implementation  of  measures  is  frequently  put  on  hold  while  awaiting 
(European) funds.  

is  often  prolonged  and 

2.2.9 Lessons learned160 

•  Changes in legislation, delivered at national level, supported the success of 

the programme;  

•  Increasing the allocation of financial resources enabled the construction of a 

sufficient number of water retention measures; 

•  Active communication at the start of the new programme period allowed the 

proper identification of challenges and allocation of responsibilities; 

•  Establishing good relationships between all parties involved, the creation of a 
common goal, and a step-by-step management approach helped to minimise 
conflict. 

159 Ibid. 
160 Ibid. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2.3 Podkarpacie Natural Grazing Programme  
The Podkarpacie (Subcarpathia) Natural Grazing Programme was established in 
2012 to address a progressive decline in livestock numbers and low utilisation of 
permanent grasslands, and to manage protected areas in the region161. Through 
grazing of livestock in valuable meadow and pasture areas, it preserves, protects 
and restores biodiversity and manages soil health and vegetation. The third round 
of the programme (2021-2025) started in 2021, with the first contracts awarded in 
2022162.  

2.3.1 Authority responsible for implementation 

Marshal's Office of the Podkarpackie Voivodeship. 

2.3.2 Location 

The  Podkarpackie  region  in  southeastern  Poland  lies  within  the  continental 
biogeographical area. The region is known for its diverse landscapes, including 
mountains, forests, and river valleys. A significant portion of the region lies within 
the Carpathian Mountains, which influence its biodiversity and ecosystems. 

2.3.3  Policy framework 

•  Development  Strategy  of  the  Podkarpacie  Voivodeship  –  Porkarpackie 

2030163;  

•  Thematic Area 3.8: Management of natural heritage resources, including 

protection and enhancement of biodiversity and landscape.  

2.3.4 Governance structure 

Public-private contracts between the Podkarpacie Voivodeship government, local 
not-for-profit organisations and farmers. 

2.3.5 Enabling factors 

•  Regional government funding of PLN 17 million (approx. EUR 4 million) for 
the  2021-2025  period,  with  over  PLN  3.3  million  of  contracts  awarded  in 
2024; 

•  Through an open tender process164, the regional government provides funding 
to farmers’ associations and successful applicants then sub-contract farmers 

161 CONSOLE, Natural Grazing in Podkarpacie Region, 2022.  
162 Marshal's Office  of the Podkarpackie Voivodeship, Podkarpacie Natural Grazing III decision (Podkarpacki 
Naturalny Wypas III - rozstrzygnięcie), 2022.  
163 Marshal's Office of the Podkarpackie Voivodeship, Development Strategy of the Podkarpacie Voivodeship – 
Podkarpacie 2030 (Strategia rozwoju województwa - Podkarpackie 2030), 2020. 
164 The documents for the 2024 open tender announcement provide details on the conditions for implementing the 
tasks and eligible expenditure under the 2024 contracts.   

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
to  graze  their  cattle  on  the  land.  A  contract  is  signed  between  successful 
applicants and the Marshal's Office of the Podkarpackie Voivodeship;  

•  Identifying  the  right  stakeholders  to  partner  with  –  in  this  case,  farmers’ 
associations – was a crucial success factor. The contracts for subsidies mainly 
cover  the  costs  of  transporting  the  animals  to  the  meadows  and  are  signed 
between  the  regional  authorities  and  the  farmers  associations,  enabling 
significant cost savings. Farmers’ associations then distribute the subsidies to 
the  individual  farmers.  In  2023,  contracts  were  signed  with  eight  farmers’ 
associations, which distributed the subsidies to approximately 600 farmers;  
•  The  programme  addresses  the  specific  conditions  and  needs  of  the  region. 
Podkarpackie  is  a  mountainous  region  with  poor  quality  soil.  Agricultural 
farms are small and dispersed and it is not suitable for intensive agriculture, 
yet its abundant natural meadows make it ideal for ecological farming.  

2.3.6 Measurable outputs, outcomes and impacts  

•  Monitoring  of  sample  sites  within  the  grazing  areas  in  2019  to  2020165 

showed:  

o  Increase in the number of medicinal plants; 
o  No increase in invasive plant species; 
o  More than 100 species of melliferous plants166; 
o  Good variability of grasses that indicate good quality pasture.  

•  Milestones achieved in the 2017-2020 programme167: 

o  Improvements  in  areas  previously  unfavourable  to  agricultural 

production; 

o  Halt in the decline of livestock numbers; 
o  Awareness-raising  measures  among  farmers  of  the  importance  of 

meadow communities that are important to pollinators.  

2.3.7 Co-benefits 

•  Preservation of cultural heritage and natural landscapes; 
•  Provision of support to agricultural activities such as beekeeping and breeding 

beef and dairy cattle;  

•  Promotion of regional products, especially dairy products produced from milk 

or grass-fed cows; 

165  Kazcmarski  et  al.,  Program  aktywizacji  gospodarczo-turystycznej  województwa  podkarpackiego  poprzez 
promocję cennych przyrodniczo i krajobrazowo terenów łąkowo-pastwiskowych z zachowaniem bioróżnorodności 
w oparciu o naturalny wypas zwierząt gospodarskich i owadopylność – Podkarpacki Naturalny Wypas III, 2021.   
166 Melliferous plants attract bees and other pollinators. The Podkaparcie region has the second highest number of 
bee colonies in Poland.  
167  Kazcmarski  et  al.,  Program  aktywizacji  gospodarczo-turystycznej  województwa  podkarpackiego  poprzez 
promocję cennych przyrodniczo i krajobrazowo terenów łąkowo-pastwiskowych z zachowaniem bioróżnorodności 
w oparciu o naturalny wypas zwierząt gospodarskich i owadopylność – Podkarpacki Naturalny Wypas III, 2021.   

39 

 
 
 
 
•  Financial support to farmers, who do not have to bear the costs of feeding the 
animals and managing their stables during the period when animals can graze 
in meadows (spring to autumn). The costs of transporting the animals to the 
meadows are covered by the subsidies received from the programme; 

•  Increase in animal welfare.  

2.3.8 Challenges and burdens 

•  Funding may be a challenge,  but the authorities of the Podkarpackie region 
recognise the benefits of the programme and have allocated more funds since 
2012; 

•  Although initially a challenge, over time farmers became more aware of the 
benefits  and  their  interest  grew.  Regional  authorities  organised  conferences 
and workshops to inform farmers about the benefits of the programme; 

•  Invasive  species  are  increasingly  widespread.  The  regional  authorities  are 
currently investigating funding options to combat invasive species and have 
contacted the Ministry of the Environment. 

2.3.9 Lessons learned 

•  The  programme  benefits stakeholders  and  clearly  contributes  to biodiversity 
protection  and  enhancement.  According  to  the  regional  authorities,  similar 
programmes could be implemented in other regions, although would require 
financial support from EU funding or national budgets;  

•  Programmes need to be tailored, i.e. they should address the specific conditions 
and  needs  of  the  regions.  Ecological  farming,  particularly  nature  grazing,  is 
suitable for mountainous areas with low population density and poor soil;  
•  Appropriate beneficiaries should be targeted, with specific awareness-raising 

activities to gain their interest;   

•  Engaging  appropriate  stakeholders  for  cooperation,  such  as  using  farmers’ 
associations  as  intermediaries  between  the  regional  administration  and  the 
individual farmers, was significantly more cost-effective than signing contracts 
directly with farmers.  

40 

 
 
 
 
 
2.4 Habitat Management in the Weidmoos Bird Reserve   
Historical  damage  from  peat  extraction  in  the  Weidmoos  drained  a  significant 
portion of the habitat. The end of peat extraction activities created ideal conditions 
for the area to become an important – if somewhat fragmented and threatened – 
bird  habitat168.  The  Habitat  Management  in  the  Weidmoos  Bird  Reserve  LIFE 
programme project169 ran from 2003 to 2007, implementing restoration measures 
to  preserve  the  Weidmoos  and  its  biodiversity,  while  increasing  accessibility. 
Post-project efforts continue to preserve and enhance the habitat.  

2.4.1 Authorities responsible for implementation 

Salzburg  Regional  Government  Nature  Protection  Department  and 
Lamprechtshausen and St. Georgen Local Councils.  

the 

2.4.2 Location 

The Weidmoos Bird Reserve is located in the north of the Flachgau region, near 
Salzburg, Austria. It lies within the Alpine biogeographical area, serving as a vital 
wetland habitat for migratory birds and biodiversity conservation. 

2.4.3  Policy framework 

EU Birds and Habitats Directives. 

2.4.4 Governance structure 

Multi-stakeholder  partnership  between  the  Salzburg  Regional  Government 
Nature  Protection  Department,  the  Austrian  Federal  Ministry  for  Agriculture, 
Forestry,  Environment  and  Water  Management,  the  Lamprechtshausen  and  St. 
Georgen Local Councils, and the Weidmoos Peatland Renewal Association170. 

2.4.5 Enabling factors 

•  Funding  from  the  EU’s  LIFE  programme,  with  additional  funds  from  the 
Salzburg Regional Government Nature Protection Department, the Austrian 
Federal  Ministry  for  Agriculture,  Forestry,  Environment  and  Water 
Management, the Lamprechtshausen and St. Georgen Local Councils, and the 

168 The Weidmoos is an important feeding, breeding and resting area for birds, including threatened species, in 
Europe. In 2001, it was designated a Special Protection Area (SPA) under the Birds Directive and is now part of 
the Natura 2000 network.  
169 Nature Protection Department of the Salzburg Regional Government, Association Torferneuerungsverein 
Weidmoos, Lamprechtshausen Local Council, and St Georgen Local Council, LIFE Project Habitat Management 
in the Weidmoos Bird Reserve, n.d.   
170 Locally known as Torferneuerungsverein Weidmoos. Membership includes people interested in the nature of 
the Weidmoos, farmers, hunters, and representatives of the Lamprechtshausen and St. Georgen communities.  

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Weidmoos Peatland Renewal Association. The project fund was EUR 1.21 
million over five years;  

•  Since  the  completion  of  the LIFE project in 2007,  the  Weidmoos  Peatland 
Renewal Association has taken responsibility for several measures (e.g. tree 
care) to preserve the habitats, with technical and financial support from the 
Salzburg  Regional  Government  Nature  Protection  Department.  Volunteers 
from  the  Association  act  as  guides  for  visitors  and  staff  the  visitor  centre, 
maintain the facilities, and arrange events. Local farmers with land within or 
bordering the reserve also carry out maintenance work; 

•  Trusting and close collaboration with other stakeholders, such as local farmers 
and communities, including the mayors who play a key role in the community. 
On completion of the project, several follow-up initiatives were carried out to 
sustain  and  build  on  successes.  Having  the  same  core  team  throughout  the 
project and into its follow-up ensured continuity171.  

2.4.6 Measurable outputs, outcomes and impacts  

•  The creation of more than 30 hectares of new water and wetland area from the 
purchase or lease of 46 hectares of land and the installation of 50 clay dikes 
to retain rainwater;  

•  Ornithological  surveys  showed 

that  many  endangered  bird  species 
successfully  adopted the habitats and new bird species have been observed 
also. Insects, reptiles and amphibians have been recorded in the different areas 
of the Weidmoos, as have new species of plants and animals;  

•  The  installation  of  recreational  facilities,  including  a  nature  walk,  a  nature 
viewing tower, and an information centre with exhibits and presentations. The 
information centre hosts cultural, music, art and literature events, as well as 
welcoming visitors172.  

2.4.7 Co-benefits 

•  Socioeconomic benefits to different groups: outdoor education for school-
aged  children;  excursions  for  older  adults  for  their  mental  and  physical 
well-being; and financial benefits for local businesses, such as restaurants 
and accommodation providers; 

•  Environmental benefits: enhanced water retention capacity to mitigate local 
flooding, while raised bogs act as carbon sinks and contribute to combating 
climate change. Maintenance activities produce a by-product that serves as 
a straw substitute in agricultural practices;  

•  Sustainable  tourism:  encouraged by  a  local  tourism  board  that  organises 

171 Information provided by a representative of the Salzburg Regional Government Nature Protection Department 
during an interview on 27 August 2024.  
172 Vogelparadies Weidmoos, What’s going on in Weidmoos, n.d.  

42 

 
 
 
 
suitable activities. Ongoing improvements and updates to the infrastructure 
contribute to positive assessments of the location173; 

2.4.8 Challenges and burdens 

•  There  are  new  threats  to  the  bird  populations  in  Weidmoos,  including  an 
outbreak of bird flu in 2023 that resulted in the death of around 250 black-
headed gulls. This reflects wider threats to bird populations in Europe; 

•  The arrival of new bird species to the site requires a degree of acceptance from 
local communities, including farmers. Open communication played a crucial 
role in that acceptance174; 

•  If not mitigated well, global warming is expected to pose major risks to the 

ecosystem on site175.  

2.4.9 Lessons learned176 

•  Continuity  is  ensured  through  the  long-term  planning  of  resources  and 
personnel,  the  designation  of  an  on-site  caretaker,  and  strong  relationships 
with stakeholders;  

•  Maintain and create interest and support for the site by implementing follow-

up measures and celebrating new developments; 

•  Leverage lessons from a local pilot project. Subsequent projects can benefit 
from the experience and insights gained from the Weidmoos Bird Reserve, 
with the first (LIFE) project serving as a milestone for future initiatives. 

173 The Vogelparadies Weidmoos has a score of 4.8/5 on Google reviews (as of 28 August 2024). 
174 Information provided by a representative of the Salzburg Regional Government Nature Protection Department 
during an interview on 27 August 2024 
175 Ibid. 
176 Ibid.  

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2.5 Control  of  the  Japanese  Beetle  (Popillia  japonica)  in 

Lombardy 

Popillia  japonica  is  an  invasive  beetle  that  feeds  on  numerous  species  of 
herbaceous,  shrubby  and  arboreal  plants,  causing  damage  to  wild  flora  and 
agricultural crops. Its potential economic, environmental and social impact saw it 
included in the list of 20 priority quarantine pests for the  EU177. Following the 
discovery  in  2014  of  Popillia  japonica,  the  Phytosanitary  Service  of  the 
Lombardy  Region  has  undertaken  numerous  actions  to  limit  its  damage  and 
counteract  its  spread  in  the  area178.  Actions  include  annual  visual  inspections, 
larval monitoring through soil coring, trapping (for mass capture and population 
trend  monitoring),  inspections  of  nurseries  and  turf  production  centres,  and 
managing sites at risk of passive spread. The Lombardy region also implements a 
treatment  plan  against  larvae  and  adult  beetles  using  chemical  and  biological 
products179. In addition to the plan for the entire regional territory, specific action 
plans have been implemented for areas with particular phytosanitary risks, such 
as the 2021-2025 Plan for the protection of Malpensa airport and the 2022-2024 
Plan for the management of the risk of passive spread of the harmful organism 
Popillia japonica Newman in the San Siro area (Milan). 

2.5.1 Authority responsible for implementation 

Phytosanitary Service of the Lombardy region. 

2.5.2 Location 

Lombardy region in Northern Italy. The southern part of Lombardy, including the 
Po Valley, belongs to the continental biogeographical region, while the northern 
part, which includes the Alps, is part of the Alpine biogeographical region. 

2.5.3 Policy framework 

•  Italy  has  not  approved  a  national  phytosanitary  strategy,  nor  has  a  unified 
strategy been adopted at EU level. However, at global level, the International 
Plant  Protection  Convention  (IPPC)  Strategic  Framework  2020-2030180  has 
been approved, serving as the international reference framework with which 
the Lombardy region’s plan to combat Popillia japonica is aligned; 

177  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1702  of  1  August  2019  supplementing  Regulation  (EU) 
2016/2031 of the European Parliament and  of the Council by establishing the list of priority  pests. OJ L 260/8, 
11.10.2019, Annex. 
178 This case study was significantly informed by insights from a representative of the Phytosanitary Service of the 
Lombardy Region. 
179  Regione  Lombardia  Servizio  Fitosanitario  Regionale,  Popillia  o  Japanese  beetle  (Popillia  japonica)  –  Cosa 
stiamo facendo, 2024.  
180 IPPC Secretariat, Strategic Framework for the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) 2020-2030: 
Protecting global plant resources and facilitating safe trade, 2021.  

44 

 
 
 
 
 
•  Control activities are regulated by various EU phytosanitary regulations, such 
as  EU  Implementing  Regulation  2023/1584181,  and  by  Italian  national 
legislation182; 

•  Drawn up at regional level and notified at national level, the plan provides for 
the implementation of the measures indicated in the national emergency plan183 
and other necessary local measures. 

2.5.4 Governance structure 

Multi-level  governance:  the  entity  responsible  for  implementation  is  the 
Phytosanitary Service of the Lombardy Region, while the Regional Agency for 
Agriculture  and  Forestry  (ERSAF)  and  the  Minoprio  Foundation  are  also 
involved.  Other  phytosanitary  services  collaborate  on  the  plan,  including  the 
National  Phytosanitary  Service  and  those  of  the  neighbouring  regions,  with  a 
particular  synergy  with  the  Piedmont  Region.  Various  research  centres  also 
participate, including the universities of Brescia, Turin, Verona, Padua and the 
Consiglio  per  la  Ricerca  in  Agricoltura  e  l'Analisi  dell'Economia  Agraria 
(CREA: Defence and Certification (CREA-DC)). Other area-specific action plans 
involve numerous partners184. 

2.5.5 Enabling factors 

•  The  plan  receives  funding  from  the  EU  Single  Market  Programme185,  the 
Italian  Ministry  of  Economy  and  Finance,  and  the  Lombardy  Regional 
Authority; 

•  The  extensive  experience  of  the  Phytosanitary  Service  of  the  Lombardy 
Region in managing outbreaks of harmful quarantine organisms is a key factor 
in the successful implementation of this action plan. Since the early 2000s, the 
Lombardy region has become an international leader in managing outbreaks 
of  various  invasive  species,  including  Anoplophora  chinensis,  Anoplophora 

181  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2023/1584  of  1  August  2023  on  measures  to  prevent  the 
establishment and spread of Popillia japonica Newman and on measures for the eradication and containment of 
that pest within certain demarcated areas of the Union territory, OJ L 194, 2.8.2023, pp. 17–38. 
182 Decree of 22 January 2018 and Legislative Decree no. 19 of 2 February 2021. 
183  Il  Ministro  dell’agricoltura,  della  sovranità  alimentare  e  delle  foreste,  Adozione  del  Piano  di  emergenza 
nazionale per Popillia japonica Newman, n.d.  
184 Several key organisations were involved in the 2021-2025 Plan to protect Malpensa Airport, including Società 
Esercizi  Aeroportuali  (SEA),  the  airport  manager;  Ferrovie  Nord,  the  transport  company;  Azienda  Nazionale 
Autonoma delle Strade (ANAS), the Italian joint-stock company responsible for road infrastructure; and various 
airlines.  Key  organisations  involved  in  the  2022-2024  Plan  to  manage  the  risk  of  passive  spread  of  Popillia 
japonica in the San Siro area of Milan included: the Municipality of Milan; Snaitech SPA, the manager of the 
Hippodrome; and M-I Stadio Srl, the manager of San Siro Stadium.  
185  Regulation  (EU)  2021/690  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  28  April  2021  establishing  a 
programme for the internal market, competitiveness of enterprises, including small and medium-sized enterprises, 
the  area  of  plants,  animals,  food  and  feed,  and  European  statistics  (Single  Market  Programme)  and  repealing 
Regulations  (EU)  No  99/2013,  (EU)  No  1287/2013,  (EU)  No  254/2014  and  (EU)  No  652/2014,  OJ  L  153, 
3.5.2021, pp. 1–47.  

45 

 
 
 
 
glabripennis,  Aromia  bungii,  Popillia 
graminicola; 

japonica,  and  Meloidogyne 

•  A  key  strength  of  the  plan  is  its  comprehensive  territorial  surveillance, 
bolstered  by  innovative  annual  communication  campaigns186  in  airports, 
subways, and on social media channels. Technical meetings and information 
materials  were  used  to  foster  participatory  management,  supported  by  a 
spokesperson to enhance engagement187; 

•  The support of research centres and collaboration within the national technical 
table have been crucial to the success of the plan, both during the initial phase 
and in the ongoing search for innovative solutions;  

•  Active participation of the Phytosanitary Service of the Lombardy Region in 
the IPPC Plant Health Strategy 2020-2030 strengthened the effectiveness of 
the actions.  

2.5.6 Measurable outputs, outcomes and impacts  

•  The  enormous  efforts  made  by  local  and  regional  authorities  to  deal  with 
Popillia  japonica  have  limited  the  spread  of  the  beetle  to  16,232  square 
kilometres in Italy188;  

•  Several measures have been implemented to control the adult populations of 
Popillia  japonica  in  the  infested  areas,  including  various  traps189,  such  as 
funnel traps for mass capture, traps that help spread a beneficial fungus, and 
‘attract & kill’ devices190. In 2019, over 1,200 traps were installed, capturing 
more than 32 million beetles191. In 2022, 6,000 traps were placed across the 
affected regions of Lombardy and Piedmont192; 

•  Trials  with  chemical  and  organic  insecticides193  showed  medium  to  high 

efficacy in reducing adult infestations and defoliation rates194; 

•  For  larval  control,  2,200  hectares  were  treated  with  biological  agents, 
including beneficial nematodes (e.g. Heterorhabditis bacteriophora) and fungi 
(e.g. Metarhizium anisopliae). 

japonica  -  Italian  Outbreak  Management.  PowerPoint  presentation 

186  Regione  Lombardia,  Popillia 
(regione.lombardia.it), p.16, 2023.  
187 Aldo Giovanni e Giacomo Ufficiale, GIOVA LOVES NATURE - EPISODIO SPECIALE – LA POPILLIA, 
2022.   
188 Gotta, P. et. al., ‘Popillia japonica – Italian outbreak management’, Frontiers Insect Science, 2023.  
189 Ibid.  
190  This  innovative  technique  uses  devices  to  attract  the  beetles,  which  are  then  trapped  in  nets  laced  with 
insecticide. This minimises the need for insecticide use across entire fields.  
191  Regione  Lombardia,  Popillia 
(regione.lombardia.it), p38, 2023.  
192 Ibid. 
193 These include deltamethrin, etofenprox, lambda-cyhalothrin, acetamiprid and chlorantraniliprole.  
194 Gotta, P. et. al., ‘Popillia japonica – Italian outbreak management’, Frontiers Insect Science, 2023.  

japonica  -  Italian  Outbreak  Management.  PowerPoint  presentation 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
2.5.7 Co-benefits 

•  By controlling the beetle population and disseminating the correct indications 
for its control, the measures have helped to limit damage to public green areas, 
gardens  and  private  vegetable  gardens,  ensuring  continuous  agricultural 
productivity and minimising economic losses for farmers; 

•  Maintaining the health and aesthetics of ornamental trees and shrubs in urban 

areas has improved the quality of life for residents;  

•  The  guidelines  strongly  advised  citizens  and  municipal  administrations  to 
avoid chemical treatments and instead recommended physical methods, such 
as using nets to protect plants or manually collecting beetles. This approach 
not only minimised health risks to the public but allowed recreational facilities 
such  as  sports  fields  and  horse  tracks  to  remain  in  use,  benefitting  local 
communities; 

•  The prompt response of the Phytosanitary Service of the Lombardy Region in 
providing accurate guidelines for controlling Popilla japonica, coupled with 
ongoing collaboration with the scientific community, has effectively mitigated 
significant economic impacts on the region's agricultural sector, preserving the 
livelihoods of farmers and workers; 

•  The  ‘attract  and  kill’  method  was  introduced  for  the  first  time  worldwide 
during the outbreak in Northern Italy. This approach has successfully slowed 
the  natural  spread  of  Popillia  japonica,  giving  neighbouring  regions  and 
countries time to prepare for the arrival of the parasite and benefit from the 
experience and research results obtained in Lombardy. 

2.5.8 Challenges and burdens 

•  The Lombardy region’s plan involves an annual financial commitment for the 
public  body  of  between  EUR  200,000  and  EUR  500,000.  This  cost  is  only 
partially  alleviated  by  other  funding,  which  also  covers  the  costs  of 
communication campaigns; 

•  There  was  initial  difficulty  in  obtaining  the  necessary  funding  to  support 
research. The Lombardy region intervened promptly, anticipating support at 
the national level; 

•  The costs of prevention measures were covered by the respective organisations 
involved  in  area-specific  plans.  For  instance,  SEA  (the  manager  of  Milan 
airport) and airlines funded aircraft treatments, while ANAS (responsible for 
the  country’s  road  infrastructure)  and  Ferrovie  Nord  (a  railway  company) 
managed  vegetation  management.  The  racecourse  and  the  Municipality  of 
Milan  covered  their  respective  treatment  expenses.  In  each  case,  the  costs 
amounted to tens of thousands of euros.  

47 

 
 
 
2.5.9 Lessons learned 

•  Financial and human resources should be planned for the long term, along with 
the necessary tools and instruments. The immediate and adequate availability 
of these resources was critical and required the Regional Directorate to review 
its intervention priorities; 

•  Cooperation  with  neighbouring  regions  and  countries  is  crucial,  with  the 
collaboration  with  the  Canton  of  Ticino  being  particularly  effective  in 
facilitating the exchange of data and information; 

•  The  involvement  of  research  institutes  made  it  possible  to  quickly  fill 

knowledge gaps and implement effective phytosanitary measures; 

•  Citizens and professionals were informed promptly, resulting in reports from 
the  territory  using  tools  such  as  the  FitoDetective  app195  and  social  media 
channels (e.g. LinkedIn, Facebook,  Instagram). 

195  Servizio  Fitosanitario  Regionale,  App  FitoDetective,  last  update  July  2021.  The  FitoDetective  app  was 
developed by the Phytosanitary Service of the Lombardy Region for operators and enthusiasts in the plant sector. 
It allows users to obtain useful information to quickly identify the presence of organisms harmful to plants and 
report  any  suspicions  through  geo-referencing.  IT  also  provides  updates  on  threats  to  biodiversity  and  food 
security, as well as alerts in the event of encounters of pests relevant to the territory. 

48 

 
 
 
 
2.6 Fish migration river in the Afsluitdijk  
The Fish Migration River196 is a unique migration system that will be constructed 
through  the  Afsluitdijk197,  a  major  dike  in  the  Netherlands  that  separates  the 
IJsselmeer, a large inland lake, from the Wadden Sea, part of the North Sea. The 
project  concept  was  devised  in 2011 and officially  adopted  by  the province of 
Fryslân in 2014. This four-kilometre river will enable all types of migratory fish 
to swim freely between the Wadden Sea and the IJsselmeer, while maintaining 
the  separation  between  saltwater  and  freshwater.  The  Afsluitdijk  remains  a 
primary  flood  defence,  meaning  that  the  Fish  Migration  River  can  be  closed 
during high water levels or storms by lowering sluice gates. Construction started 
in 2019 and the Fish Migration River is expected to open in 2025. 

2.6.1 Authority responsible for implementation 

The Province of Fryslân is the project commissioner.  

2.6.2 Location 

The Fish Migration River is being constructed at Kornwerderzand in the eastern, 
Frisian  side  of  the  Afsluitdijk.  This  area  is  influenced  by  both  marine  and 
freshwater ecosystems and experiences high humidity and frequent winds due to 
the open water on both sides of the dike. 

2.6.3 Policy framework 

•  The  Fish  Migration  River  is  included  in  the  Netherlands’  National  Delta 
Programme198 and Agenda IJsselmeer 2050199. These have links to the Water 
Framework Directive, which emphasises the importance of restoring natural 
migration routes of aquatic organisms;  

•  Birds Directive: both the Wadden Sea200 and the Ijsselmeer201 are Natura 2000 

sites;  

•  As the Fish Migration River is the first of its kind, there are no existing laws 
or  guidelines  covering  its  construction.  Established  laws  and  regulations 
address conventional infrastructure and water management projects, such as 
those  related  to  environmental  protection  (e.g.  the  Environmental  Planning 
Act202)203.  

196 The Afsluitdijk, Fish Migration River Afsluitdijk, n.d.  
197 Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, The Afsluitdijk Project, n.d.  
198 Delta Commissioner, The Netherlands' National Delta Programme (Nationaal Deltaprogramma), n.d.  
199 Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, Agenda IJsselmeer 2050, 2018. 
200 European Commission, Waddenzee – Netherlands, n.d.  
201 European Commission, Ijsselmeer - Netherlands, n.d.  
202 Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, The Environment and Planning Act of the Netherlands, 2021.  
203 A representative from The New Afsluitdijk provided detailed insights for this case study. They  observed the 
potential for more flexible application of regulations for innovative projects that have a significant positive impact 
on nature and climate, such as the Fish Migration River. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
2.6.4 Governance structure 

The Fish Migration River is a multi-stakeholder partnership, involving national, 
provincial  and  municipal  authorities  and  environmental  and  community-based 
organisations.  It  was  made  possible  by  The  New  Afsluitdijk,  a  partnership 
between the  provinces  of North Holland and  Fryslân and the municipalities of 
Holland  Kroon  and  Súdwest-Fryslân.  The  project  initiators  are  a  nature 
conservation  association,  Waddenvereniging204,  a  provincial  association  for 
nature  conservation  in  Fryslân,  It Fryske  Gea205,  a  sports  fisheries  association, 
Sportvisserij Nederland206, a coalition of parties to protect the Ijsselmeer, Coalitie 
Blauwe  Hart  Natuurlijk207,  and  an  organisation  for  small-scale  fisheries, 
NetVISwerk208.  The  Department  of  Waterways 
and  Public  Works 
(Rijkswaterstaat) is responsible for the flood defence function of the Afsluitdijk 
and commissioned a contractor to construct the passage.   

2.6.5 Enabling factors 

•  The project has a budget of almost EUR 60 million, funded by the province of 
Fryslân,  the  province  of  North  Holland,  the  national  government,  the  LIFE 
programme, Natura 2000, the National Postcode Lottery, the Wadden Fund, 
and the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF);  

•  The project’s focus on sustainable construction209 means it will use as many 
materials from the surrounding area as possible. Other materials include rubble 
available from reinforcing the Afsluitdijk, sand from the shipping channel near 
Kornwerderzand,  soil  from  the  N31  road  conversion,  soil  from  the 
construction of a new pumping station, and reeds transplanted from a nearby 
nature reserve, Makkumer Noordwaard; 

•  The  construction  team  includes  the  Province  of  Fryslân,  the  contractor 
IJsselmeerwerken VOF, and various experts such as ecologists. Together, they 
decide the optimal design, ensuring that opportunities are fully utilised, risks 
are assessed, and problems are tackled. This innovative approach differs from 
traditional  contract  delivery,  where  the  contractor  typically  carries  out  the 
design;  

•  Success relies on mutual support, creating stakeholder backing, and inspiring 

others, even beyond national borders. 

204 Waddenveriniging, Waddenvereniging, 2024.  
205 It Fryske Gea, It Fryske Gea, n.d.  
206 Sportvisserij Nederland, Sportvisserij Nederland, n.d.  
207 Coalitie Blauwe Hart Natuurlijk, Coalitie Blauwe Hart Natuurlijk, 2024.  
208 NetVISwerk, NetVISwerk, n.d.  
209 For example, a dam in the Wadden Sea, built with local soil and rubble, then covered with silt from the seabed 
to promote natural vegetation. 

50 

 
 
 
 
2.6.6 Measurable outputs, outcomes and impacts  

•  The  Fish  Migration  River  will  allow  millions  of  migratory  fish,  including 
species such as the European eel, Atlantic trout, sea lamprey, river lamprey, 
salmon,  European  sturgeon,  three-spined  stickleback,  flounder,  allis  shad, 
houting,  twaite  shad,  and  smelt,  to  travel  back  and  forth  through  the 
Afsluitdijk.  Experts  expect  a  5%  annual  population  increase  for  these  fish 
species;  

•  Fish-eating  birds,  including  great  crested  grebe,  mergansers,  terns,  black-
headed gulls, cormorants, and white-tailed eagles, are also expected to benefit, 
with their numbers potentially reaching hundreds  of thousands. All of these 
birds,  along  with  other  species,  are  directly  or  indirectly  dependent  on  a 
healthy fish population. The Fish Migration River thus supports the entire food 
chain and broader biodiversity. 

2.6.7 Co-benefits 

•  The Fish Migration River project aims to become a leading scientific research 
station for ecosystem restoration. Once open to fish, scientists will begin to 
study the river’s functioning, count fish, and monitor their behaviour. Fish will 
be  tracked  using  underwater  acoustic  equipment  and  transmitters,  with 
receivers placed at various points to study their movement through the system. 
Efforts  will  be  made  to  remove  barriers  in  areas  where  fish  cannot  swim 
through easily; 

•  As the world’s first project of its  kind, the Fish Migration River has drawn 
international interest, highlighting the need for barrier-free migratory routes 
across Europe. It aims to raise awareness and inspire efforts nature restoration 
efforts by governments, engineers, and ecologists;  

•  The  project  focuses  on  education,  with  walking  paths  and  interactive 
experiences  designed  by  Bruno  Doedens210,  a  renowned  Dutch  land  artist. 
While the Fish Migration River is not yet fully open, the public can visit the 
environment of the building site through guided tours or explore the project 
via a virtual reality (VR) experience at the Afsluitdijk Wadden Centre; 

•  The  project’s  focus  on  sustainable  construction  reduces  the  need  for  raw 
material  extraction,  cuts  emissions  through  shorter  transport  routes,  and 
maximises budget efficiency. 

2.6.8 Challenges and burdens 

Completing the Fish Migration River as sustainably as possible offers significant 
benefits, but also presents challenges, particularly due to the reliance on locally 

210 Doedens’ Happy Fish logo is used by the World Fish Migration Foundation to represent the positive results 
‘from people working together to create freer flowing waterways that connect fish, rivers and people’ (World Fish 
Migration Foundation, What is Happy Fish?, n.d.).  

51 

 
 
 
 
sourced materials. If the properties of these materials differ from design estimates, 
adjustments may be required, or availability might vary, with materials arriving 
earlier or later than planned. For example, the local materials used to construct the 
western  part  of  the  Fish  Migration  River  were  finer  than  initially  estimated, 
leading to design adjustments, including a gentler slope in the western section. 
This situation underscores the need for a flexible and creative approach within the 
construction team to ensure successful completion. 

2.6.9 Lessons learned 

•  As the Fish Migration River is the first of its kind, continuous coordination, 

transparency, and trust play an important role;  

•  The  ambition  to  make  the  project  as  sustainable  as  possible  requires  an 
innovative approach and a dedicated team willing to tackle the work and the 
challenges; 

•  The use of available materials forms the foundation of the project’s execution, 
guiding  the  team  to  plan  more  broadly  and  flexibly.  This  material-focused 
approach means that project and design requirements cannot always be defined 
upfront, but are collaboratively determined throughout the process. 

52 

 
 
 
 
2.7 Võru’s Biodiverse Urban Space 
As part of the BioAware project211, the Võru Town government spearheaded the 
restoration of 4.2 hectares of a heavily modified Koreli river shoreline. The aim 
was  to  enhance  local  biodiversity  within  an  urban  environment.  The  local 
government proposed this project to focus on biodiversity within an urban setting, 
while  creating a space for recreation and outdoor education.  Part of the Koreli 
stream was selected for revitalisation and the construction of a park, due to its 
proximity to schools and other important facilities212. The Koreli park, with its 
outdoor learning, leisure and exercise areas, was completed in November 2019, 
and the BioAware project ended in April 2022. 

2.7.1 Authority responsible for implementation 

Võru Town Government. 

2.7.2 Location 

Võru, Estonia. Võru is a small town in southeastern Estonia, on the shore of Lake 
Tamula,  and  is  the  administrative  centre  of  Võru  County.  The  region  is 
characterised  by  a  temperate  climate  and  is  surrounded  by  forests,  lakes  and 
rivers. 

2.7.3 Policy framework 

•  The BioAware project was enabled and financially supported by the Estonia-
Russia  cross-border  2014-2020  Cooperation  Programme213.  One  of  the 
thematic objectives of the Programme was environmental protection, climate 
change  mitigation  and  adaptation,  including  improving  the  biodiversity  of 
natural assets and increasing awareness of environmental protection;  

•  No published local policy framework, strategy or plan specifies this project, 
but the local government has committed to finding solutions with biodiversity 
benefits for its infrastructure projects214.  

2.7.4 Governance structure 

The  project  was  a  multi-stakeholder  partnership,  led  by  the  Võru  Town 
Government,  and  in  partnership  with  local  schools  (Võru  Kreutzwaldi  School, 

211  State  Shared  Service  Centre  of  Estonia,  Bioaware  project,  n.d.  The  overall  aim  of  the  project  was  to  raise 
awareness of the importance of environmental protection and energy-efficient practices. The town of Pskov in 
Russia was also a beneficiary.  
212 Information provided by a representative of the Võru Town Council during an interview on 3 September 2024.  
213  The  Cooperation  Programme  was  suspended  in  February  2022  following  the  outbreak  of  Russia’s  war  of 
aggression against Ukraine. The Estonian (Võru) side of the project was completed.  
214 Information provided by a representative of the Võru Town Council during an interview on 3 September 2024. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Võru City Centre School, Võru Järve School), a local environmental investment 
centre (Keskkonnainvesteeringute Keskus), and the Võru Gymnasium.  

2.7.5 Enabling factors 

•  For the revitalisation of the Koreli stream and creation of the park, the local 
government  provided  more  than  EUR  603,000  of  funding,  while  more  than 
EUR  272,000  came  from  the  Estonia-Russia  cross-border  2014-2020 
Cooperation  Programme.  Keskkonnainvesteeringute  Keskus  provided 
additional funding of EUR 27,000. The Võru Town Government recognised 
the added value of co-funded projects in enabling quicker implementation and 
achieving a wider range of objectives, including urban renewal and biodiversity 
restoration215; 

•  Participation of the local community in the ‘greening’ of Koreli park created a 
spirit  of  local  ownership  and  achievement.  Local  landscaping  and  design 
companies were involved in the design and construction of the park;  

•  There  was  a  significant  focus  on  delivering  educational activities  for  school 
children,  including  outdoor  research  and  learning,  creating  ornaments  from 
recyclable materials and in-school exhibitions of local flora and fauna216. This 
allowed  the  project's  messages  to  reach  a  broader  audience,  potentially 
fostering more widespread environmental behaviour changes217. 

2.7.6 Measurable outputs, outcomes and impacts  

•  A total of 132 trees (including more than 28 types of willow) and more than 
2,000 shrubs were planted on the Koreli river shoreline by 400 residents and 
schoolchildren;  

•  Schoolchildren  received  educational  materials  and  equipment,  such  as 
microscopes, to help them to identify and learn about local flora and fauna in 
and  around  the  Koreli  river.  These  materials  and  equipment  continue  to  be 
used in biology classes218. 

215 Ibid. 
216 Võru City Government, ER65 BioAware, n.d.  
217 Educational and awareness activities targeted at schoolchildren can create a wider ripple effect, influencing 
knowledge  and  behaviours  of  their  parents  and  even  broader  communities  (Damerell  et  al.,  ‘Child-orientated 
environmental education influences adult knowledge and household behaviour’, Environmental Research Letters, 
2013; Vaughan et al., ‘The effect of environmental education on schoolchildren, their parents, and community 
members: A study of intergenerational and intercommunity learning’, Journal of Environmental Education), 2003. 
218 Ibid.  

54 

 
 
 
 
 
2.7.7 Co-benefits 

•  The Koreli park and recreational area is popular for the wide range of activities 
it  offers,  such  as  sports,  exercise,  relaxation,  learning  and  leisure219.  Small 
businesses, including cafés, have sprung up around the park220; 

•  The recreational area is used for local, cultural and music events,  helping to 

promote the town and region, as well as local cultural heritage221. 

2.7.8 Challenges and burdens222 

•  Obtaining funding for an urban renewal project was initially challenging. The 
Võru Town Council had to commit to spending local money and identify a 
central theme (biodiversity) to plan and propose the project under the Estonia-
Russia cross-border 2014-2020 Cooperation Programme;  

•  Challenges  persist  in  securing  funding  to  obtain  additional  biodiversity  or 
environmental benefits from other infrastructure projects, e.g. upgrading water 
or  sewerage  infrastructure.  There  are  opportunities  to  provide  other 
environmental benefits from these projects (e.g. additional greening of an area 
after a large infrastructure project), but additional funding is required.  

2.7.9 Lessons learned223 

•  The  BioAware  project  demonstrated  better  return  on  investment  from 
combining  different  sources  of  funding  to  implement  a  project.  Combined 
funding  enables  different  complementary  activities  (e.g.  area  renewal, 
educational  activities,  biodiversity  protection),  achieving  a  wider  range  of 
socioeconomic and environmental objectives;  

•  For  its  infrastructure  projects,  the  Võru  Town  Council  has  now  adopted  a 
decision-making approach that aims to maximise environmental benefits while 
minimising non-financial costs (e.g. local disruption). It also involves a range 
of stakeholders at the planning stage to identify common priorities, objectives 
and new delivery ideas. This also provides opportunities to identify additional 
available resources to deliver the objectives. 

219 The park features a playground, outdoor exercise and sports equipment and several seating areas.  
220 Information provided by a representative of the Võru Town Council during an interview on 3 September 2024. 
221 The Võro indigenous people, with their own dialect, traditions and customs, live in the town and region.   
222 Information provided by a representative of the Võru Town Council during an interview on 3 September 2024. 
223 Ibid.  

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2.8 Chambon-Feugerolles: a pesticide-free town224 
In  2014,  the  municipality  of  Chambon-Feugerolles  signed  the  ‘Charter  of 
commitment  of  municipalities  –  zero  pesticide  objective  in  our  towns  and 
villages’ (Charte d’engagement des communes – Objectif zéro pesticide dans nos 
villes & villages)225, committing to reduce the use of phytosanitary products. It 
received official designation as a pesticide-free municipality in June 2021226, i.e. 
chemical  treatments  are  not  used  in  municipal  public  spaces  such  as  roads, 
cemeteries, parks, paths, footpaths and stadiums. Instead, municipal services use 
alternative techniques and equipment: for example, weeding is done manually or 
mechanically,  plants  in  municipal  greenhouses  use  natural  fertilisers,  and  all 
vegetation  is  maintained  naturally227.  The  community  has  preserved  the  same 
amount of green space and continues to carry out a  ‘town/city in bloom’ (ville 
fleurie) campaign228.  

2.8.1 Authority responsible for implementation 

Municipality of Chambon-Feugerolles. 

2.8.2 Location 

The  city  of  Chambon-Feugerolles  is  located  in  the  Ondaine  valley  in  the 
Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region of France. The region has a mix of continental and 
mountainous climates, but the initiative is implemented mainly in an urban area. 

2.8.3 Policy framework 

The municipality’s decision aligns with its political and environmental choices. 
While the city signed the Charter in 2014, the process of reducing phytosanitary 
products had started earlier and the Charter formalised this commitment229. 

2.8.4 Governance structure 

Single-level governance, with the initiative the sole responsibility of the city. 

224 Information retrieved from the  Green Deal  Going Local website; Interview  with two representatives of the 
Municipality of Chambon-Feugerolles on 10 September 2024. 
225 France Nature environnement – Loire, Engage your community (Engagez votre commune), n.d.; Charter signed 
by the municipality of Chambon-Feugerolles. 
226  France  Nature  environnement  –  Loire,  The  ‘Pesticide-free  Municipality’  label  (Le  label  ‘Commune  sans 
pesticide’), n.d.  
227 Ville du Chambon-Feugerolles, ‘La ville exemplaire’, HORIZONS, 2021. 
228 Le Chambon Feugerolles, ‘Une ville fleurie’, n.d.  
229  Information  from  an  interview  with  representatives  of  the  Municipality  of  Chambon-Feugerolles  on  10 
September 2024.  

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.8.5 Enabling factors 

•  Political  will  of  the  municipality  over  several  years,  despite  the  lack  of 

financial or technical support from other organisations; 

•  An  awareness  campaign  to  explain  the  changes  to  the  population.  The 
municipal newspaper regularly published articles on zero pesticides, usually 
every three to six months, to keep residents informed and raise awareness230; 
•  The evolution of French regulations reinforced the municipality’s actions by 
almost  completely  banning  phytosanitary  products,  including  for  private 
individuals231.  This  has  made  it  possible  to  harmonise  practices  and 
consolidate the approach undertaken locally. 

2.8.6 Measurable outputs, outcomes and impacts 

•  The  city  has  completely  stopped  using  pesticides  on  its  territory,  including 
roads,  parks,  paths,  footpaths  and  stadiums.  Alternative  techniques  and 
equipment are used to maintain 80 kilometres of roads and 62 hectares of green 
spaces, such as mini-sweepers with weeding arms, weed burners, and rotary 
hoes.  Systematic  mulching232  is  also  carried  out  around  plantations,  wood 
chips and/or ground cover plants; 

•  The  community  now  accepts  spontaneous  flora  –  vegetation  that  grows 

without human intervention and is a source of biodiversity; 

•  Landscaped areas and flower beds were created on abandoned plots to promote 
pollination and embellish the areas. Flowers were also planted in hazardous 
areas to reduce the need for frequent interventions and encourage biodiversity 
(e.g. on medians in the middle of major roads); 

•  Integrated pest management uses predatory insects against pests; 
•  The  return  of  birds  to the  city  centre has  been noted by the  population  and 
municipal  officers,  and  is  linked  to  the  elimination  of  the  use  of  chemical 
treatments.  

2.8.7 Co-benefits233 

•  Protection of public health: the elimination of pesticides protects the public 
and municipal staff from the dangers associated with their use in green spaces; 

230  Ville  du  Chambon-Feugerolles,  ‘La  ville  exemplaire’,  HORIZONS,  2021;  Ville  du  Chambon-Feugerolles, 
‘Fleurir la ville oui, mais sans phyto’, HORIZONS, 2023; Ville du Chambon-Feugerolles, ‘Le choix du “0 phyto”’, 
HORIZONS, 2024; Le Chambon Feugerolles, n.d. 
231 See, in particular, the Labbé law, which limited the use of pesticides since 2017 for local authorities and since 
2019 for individuals.  
232  A  cover  (in  the  form  of  straw  or  sawdust)  spread  over  the  soil  to  protect  plant  roots  from  heat,  cold,  or 
evaporation, prevent soil loss, control weeds, enrich the soil, or keep fruit clean. 
233  Information  from  an  interview  with  representatives  of  the  Municipality  of  Chambon-Feugerolles  on  10 
September 2024. 

57 

 
 
 
 
•  The  switch  to  pesticide-free  methods  reduced  soil  and  water  pollution, 
particularly  important  given  the  many  slopes  in  Chambon-Feugerolles. 
Despite previous precautions, chemical runoff remained a significant problem, 
with elimination treatment priority given to areas at risk of infiltration. The 
municipality  also  changed  its  snow  removal  practices,  replacing  salt  with 
gravel to protect rivers and support local biodiversity; 

•  The  shift  away  from  pesticides  improved  the  municipality’s  image  by 
eliminating  the  need  for  heavy  protective  gear,  which  previously  raised 
concerns  among  citizens  about  the  toxicity  of  the  products  used.  Visible 
weeding methods,  such as  the use of brushes and hoes, signal less risk  and 
foster more positive perceptions of the municipality’s environmental efforts; 
•  Regular exchanges with private organisations supporting the Charter, such as 
France  Nature  Environnement  -  Loire234  and  Fredon  Centre  Val  de  Loire 
(CVL)235, facilitates the sharing and dissemination of the municipality’s best 
practices, strengthening ecological transition efforts among communities. 

2.8.8 Challenges and burdens236 

•  Public acceptance: the shift from impeccable maintenance to areas with grass 
led to complaints from the population, especially for sensitive places such as 
the cemetery. To alleviate such concerns and raise awareness of the initiative, 
the municipality installed explanatory panels at the entrance to the cemetery237.  
•  Acceptance  of  the  municipality’s  agents:  introduction  of  the  new  practices 
required awareness-raising work within the municipal teams, who were used 
to perfectly maintained  spaces.  Some  agents  found it difficult to  accept  the 
idea of letting the grass grow naturally, necessitating continuous efforts to raise 
awareness and encourage acceptance; 

•  Investment  and  training:  the  transition  to  alternative  methods  required 

significant investment in new equipment and training on its use238; 

•  Increased working hours: the adoption of new methods significantly increased 
working hours, especially for weeding. The municipality had to devote more 
manpower  to  this  task,  impacting  other  missions  and  generating  additional 
costs. Green space management practices have been adapted by reducing the 
frequency of mowing and leaving some areas in grassland; 

•  Financial  autonomy:  while  organisations 

such  as  France  Nature 
Environnement  -  Loire  and  Fredon  CVL  offer  technical  support  to  local 

234 France Nature Environnement - Loire, France Nature Environnement Loire, 2024.  
235 Fredon Centre Val de Loire, FREDON CVL, 2019.  
236  Information  from  an  interview  with  representatives  of  the  Municipality  of  Chambon-Feugerolles  on  10 
September 2024. 
237 Ibid. 
238 For example, the municipality organised a day dedicated to manufacturers of alternative equipment showcase 
non-chemical weed control solutions.  Real-time demonstrations offered participants the opportunity to test and 
evaluate the equipment. 

58 

 
 
 
authorities,  their  most  valuable  services,  beyond  occasional  exchanges  at 
annual  meetings,  come  at  a  cost.  As  a  result,  the  municipality  had  to 
independently manage the initiative and bear the associated expenses. 

2.8.9 Lessons learned 

A key lesson is that the transition to a pesticide-free policy must be gradual if it 
is to be effective. An abrupt and immediate change is impractical and could create 
major  difficulties.  Achieving  the  zero  pesticide  target  took  a  long  time  and 
required careful anticipation of key aspects, including the acquisition of expensive 
equipment. For example, requesting an additional EUR 200,000 for the purchase 
of alternative equipment would be difficult to justify to elected officials due to 
budgetary  constraints.  This  adaptation  must  also  consider  human  resources, 
technical means, and long-term planning. It is crucial to understand that tangible 
results are achieved gradually, by anticipating and adjusting to the constraints at 
each stage. 

59 

 
 
 
 
2.9 River Jamor Green and Blue Axis  
The  area  along  the  Jamor  River  suffered  from  pollution  and  ecosystem 
degradation,  with  illegal  waste  dumping,  urban  sprawl,  and  inadequate 
infrastructure  planning  posing  public  health  and  safety  risks.  The  Jamor  River 
Green  and  Blue  Axis  project239  was  launched  in  2016  to  restore  both  the 
watercourse and surrounding green spaces. The project integrates natural areas, 
waterways and sustainable infrastructure, such as walking and cycling paths, to 
enhance  the  environment  while  promoting  eco-friendly  mobility.  Spanning  16 
kilometres, the project also aims to improve residents' quality of life and foster 
socioeconomic connections across municipalities.  

2.9.1 Authorities responsible for implementation 

Local  authorities  of  the  Sintra,  Oeiras  and  Amadora  municipalities  and  the 
Parques de Sintra Monte da Lua authority in Lisbon, Portugal. 

2.9.2 Location 

Routes  along  the  Jamor  River,  spanning  the  Sintra,  Amadora  and  Oeiras 
municipalities  in  Portugal.  The  river  originates  in  the  mountainous  Serra  da 
Carregueira  in  Sintra,  flows  through  the  urbanised  area  of  Amadora,  and 
eventually reaches the estuary in Oeiras, where it meets the Atlantic coast.  

2.9.3 Policy framework 

•  A  protocol  signed  in  2016  between  the  authorities  of  the  municipalities  of 
Sintra,  Amadora  and  Oeiras  and  the  Parques  de  Sintra  Monte  da  Lua240 
authority;  

•  Lisboa 2020 or the Lisbon Regional Strategy 2020241, 242, and its Priority Axes 

4243, 6244, and 8245. 

2.9.4 Governance structure 

Co-governed and co-managed by the authorities of the municipalities of Sintra, 
Amadora and Oeiras and the Parques de Sintra Monte da Lua authority.  

239 Silvano, S., Jamor Green and Blue Axis (Jamor eixo verde e azul), n.d. 
240 Parques de Sintra, Who we are (Quem Somos), 2020. The Parques de Sintra authority, an entity co-owned by 
the Sintra municipality council, manages some of the cultural heritage properties in Sintra. 
241 Lisboa2020, POR Lisbon 2020, n.d.  
242 Lisboa2020, Lisboa2020 supports the Jamor Green Blue Axis (Lisboa2020 apoia o Eixo Verde Azul do 
Jamor), n.d.  
243 Priority Axis 4: Preserve and protect the environment and promote the efficient use of resources.  
244 Priority Axis 6: Promote social inclusion and combat poverty and discrimination.  
245 Priority Axis 8 : Sustainable urban development.  

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.9.5 Enabling factors 

•  The  Portuguese  Environment  Agency  (APA)246  provided  technical  and 
logistical expertise and assistance and also proposed solutions for the project; 
•  Total  investment  for  the  project  is  EUR  1,739,628247,  with  the  ERDF 
contributing  EUR  869,814  through  the  Lisbon  and  Tagus  Valley  Regional 
Operational Programme for the 2014-2020 programming period248;   

•  Each municipality opened public tenders to contract the services required to 

deliver the project (e.g. construction, weed eradication)249; 

•  The  cultural  and  historical  heritage  of  the  river  played  a  significant  role  in 
garnering local support for the project. Additionally, the involvement of the 
Parques de Sintra Monte da Lua authority ensured that aspects of the project 
preserved cultural heritage;  

•  The  project  included  a  detailed  mapping  of  the  environmental  and  social 
composition of the area to guide the development and execution of the project. 
For example, densely populated areas were selected for the development of 
leisure  and  meeting  areas,  while  the  behaviour  of  local  birds  was  carefully 
considered to ensure that the ongoing construction and completed project did 
not disrupt their habits250. 

2.9.6 Measurable outputs, outcomes and impacts  

•  There has been an 86% increase in green area surrounding the Queluz Nacional 
Palace, equipped and formally open to the public. Almost 15 kilometres of new 
walking  and  cycling  routes  were  opened  and  over  14  kilometres  of  treated 
water lines were installed251; 

•  The  prevention  of  fluvial  flooding  was  a  priority  objective  for  the  Sintra 
municipal  authority252.  The  absence  of  flooding  during  recent  rainfalls 
suggests that this has been achieved253; 

•  The return of the Portuguese Boga to the Jamor River was observed after many 
years of absence254. Biologists have also identified signs of otters, indicating a 
positive shift in the river's ecosystem255. 

246 APA, Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente, 2021.  
247  Silvano,  S.,  Jamor  Green  and  Blue  Axis (Jamor  eixo  verde  e  azul),  n.d.  Other  project  phases  are  yet  to be 
delivered.  
248 European Commission, Lisboa e Vale do Tejo Operational Programme (PORLVT), n.d.  
249 Information from an interview with a representative of the municipality of Sintra on 13 September 2024.  
250 Ibid.  
251 INTERREG Europe, EVA: Eixo Verde Azul/Green Blue Axis, n.d.  
252 Sintra Municipality Council, 28 abril 2018, 2018.  
253 Information from an interview with a representative of the municipality of Sintra on 13 September 2024. 
254 Ibid. 
255 Ibid.  

61 

 
 
 
 
2.9.7 Co-benefits 

•  Promotion  and  improvement  of  public  health,  through  increased  access  to 
nature and soft mobility alternatives. The design of the pedestrian and cycle 
route  avoided  the  use  of  physical  barriers,  ensuring  unrestricted  access  for 
individuals with reduced mobility, such as wheelchair users; 

•  Increased public use of the area discourages illegal rubbish disposal256; 
•  The Sintra municipal authority has established agreements with local schools, 
enabling  students  to  visit  the  revitalised  areas  as  part  of  environmental 
education programmes focused on teaching the importance of environmental 
protection257. 

2.9.8 Challenges and burdens258 

•  The  geographical  scope  of  the  project  overlapped  privately  owned  land, 
necessitating negotiation of the transfer of land property. This caused some 
delays in the project. The COVID-19 pandemic also delayed execution of the 
project;  

•  Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and the consequent energy crisis 

led to an increase in the budget for certain parts of the project; 

•  Funding  has  not  yet  been  allocated  for  future  phases  of  the  project259, 
presenting a challenge in securing resources for the ongoing maintenance of 
the revitalised watercourse and surrounding green areas. Although the Sintra 
municipality  has  committed  to  maintaining  the  areas  within  its  jurisdiction, 
municipal resources could be reallocated due to unexpected needs or changes 
in local government, making long-term maintenance uncertain260. 

2.9.9 Lessons learned 

•  The  partnership  between  the  municipal  authorities,  the  Parques  de  Sintra 
Monte  da  Lua  authority,  and  the  APA  facilitated  the  development  of  joint 
solutions  to  address  challenges  such  as  ecosystem  degradation  and  urban 
renewal,  enhancing  the  outputs  and  impacts  of  the  project.  This  successful 
collaboration inspired the Sintra municipality to join forces with the municipal 
authorities of Mafra and Cascais in 2020 to create a common protected marine 
area  on  their  coast261.  While  joint  initiatives  between  municipalities  rely 
heavily on individual initiative, a national platform could help to promote and 

256 European Commission, EU-funded project creates Green and Blue Axis in Lisbon, Portugal, 2020.   
257 Information from an interview with a representative of the municipality of Sintra on 13 September 2024. 
258 Ibid. 
259 For example, see Silvano, S., Jamor Green and Blue Axis (Jamor eixo verde e azul), Slide 26, n.d.  
260 Information from an interview with a representative of the municipality of Sintra on 13 September 2024. 
261 Ibid.; Oceano Azul Foundation, ‘Marine Protected Area of Community Initiative Cascais, Mafra, and Sintra: 
To  create  a  Marine  Protected  Area  of  Community  Initiative  (MPACI)  along  the  coast  of  Cascais,  Mafra,  and 
Sintra’, n.d. 

62 

 
 
 
 
streamline these collaborative efforts, making it easier to initiate and manage 
joint projects across regions262; 

•  The involvement of three different municipalities necessitated ongoing support 
from local communities in all areas. This was gained through workshops and 
co-creation  events  to  promote  the  project  and  explain  its  importance  and 
benefits263. 

262 Ibid.  
263 Ibid. 

63 

 
 
 
 
2.10 

 Fruit  trees  in  Brussels:  the 

ARBRES and Pépinière citoyenne projects 

Amid growing ecological and climate concerns at the core of urban challenges, 
two Brussels initiatives stand out for their innovative approaches: ARBRES or 
Arboriculture  Régionale  Bruxellois  pour  une  Résilience  Écosystémique  et 
Solidaire  (Brussels  Regional  Arboriculture  for  Ecosystem  and  Solidarity 
Resilience)264  and  Pépinière  citoyenne  (community orchard)265.  The  Centre for 
Urban  Ecology  (Le  Centre  d'écologie  urbaine;  CEU)  developed  both  projects, 
with a goal of reintroducing fruit trees into public spaces to enhance ecological 
benefits, boost urban food resilience, and contribute to ecosystem services. 

The ARBRES project was a three-year participatory action research project from 
2021  to  2024.  The  Pépinière  citoyenne  project,  launched  in  2017  and  still 
ongoing,  stands  out  for  its  more  practical  approach.  The  latter  supports  and 
accompanies the planting of fruit trees and shrubs with free access in public and 
collective spaces in Brussels. To date, it has enabled the creation of three citizen 
orchards in Uccle266, Forest267, and Ganshoren268. 

2.10.1 

Authorities responsible for implementation 

For  the  ARBRES  project,  the  CEU  took  the  lead  in  project  development  and 
collaborated  as  a  co-researcher  with  various  partners,  including  Velt  Brussels 
vzw269,  Brussels  Environment  (a  regional  authority),  and  the  municipal 
administrations  of  Uccle  and  Forest.  Similarly,  for  the  Pépinière  Citoyenne 
project,  the  CEU  developed  the  initiative  and  is  working  alongside  Brussels 
Environment and participating municipal administrations to implement it. 

2.10.2 

Location 

The projects are located in the Brussels-Capital Region of Belgium. Brussels is 
located in the Western Europe biogeographical, characterised by a mix of forests, 
grasslands, and urban ecosystems.  

264 Information about the ARBRES project has been sourced from the publication Charpentier, A. et al. ARBRES 
– L’arbre fruitier comme levier de résilience du système alimentaire bruxellois. Rapport de recherche Innoviris 
Co-Create (2021-2024), 2024. The information gathered from the desk research was also reviewed and confirmed 
by the ARBRES Project Coordinator during an interview on 27 September 2024. 
265 Information about the Pépinière citoyenne project was sourced from the Pépinière citoyenne webpage of the 
Centre for Urban Ecology and an interview with a biologist leading action research at the Centre, conducted on 27 
September 2024. 
266 Centre for Urban Ecology, La pépinière citoyenne d’Uccle, n.d.  
267 Centre for Urban Ecology, La pépinière citoyenne de Forest, n.d.  
268 Centre for Urban Ecology, La pépinière citoyenne de Ganshorenn, n.d. 
269 Velt Brussels vzw is an independent and pluralistic association which encourages and enables participation in 
community projects such as gardening, biodiversity and energy efficiency.  

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.10.3 

Policy framework 

Both projects were spearheaded by the CEU and their work on urban agriculture. 
Once developed and implemented, they were seamlessly integrated into Brussels’ 
Good Food 2.0 (2022-2030) strategy270, which introduced a new focus on fruit 
cultivation in the region. 

2.10.4 

Governance structure 

Both  projects  are  implemented  within  the  framework  of  a  multi-stakeholder 
partnership. The ARBRES project involves the CEU, Velt Brussels vzw, Brussels 
Environment, and the municipal administrations of Uccle and Forest. Similarly, 
the  Pépinière  Citoyenne  project is managed by the CEU in close collaboration 
with Brussels Environment and the participating municipalities. 

2.10.5 

Enabling Factors 

For the ARBRES project: 

•  The project was funded by Innoviris271; 
•  The planting of 50 fruit trees in the municipality of Forest was financed 

with EUR 2 500 by the Region272; 

•  The partnership with Brussels Environment was highly effective, as the 

administration developed a tool similar to ARBRES. 

For the Pépinière citoyenne project: 

•  The project receives a subsidy from Brussels Environment as part of the 
Good Food strategy 2.0 and other entities are also providing funding273. 
The total amount of funding received since 2017, excluding VAT, is EUR 
282,739274. This funding covers the cost of workshops which are offered 
free  of  charge  for  the  participants  as  well  as  the  materials  needed  for 
planting and managing the trees; 

•  A  participatory  approach  is  put  in  place  to  guarantee  the  quality  and 
sustainability  of  the  project.  The  involvement  of  citizens,  volunteers, 
project managers and technical experts is crucial to the project's success; 

270 Brussels Environment, The Good Food Strategy 2 (2022-2030), 2024.  
271 Action co-creation, Le projet ARBRES, n.d.   
272 Belga, P., Forest teste l'adaptation d'une cinquantaine de fruitiers au réchauffement climatique, 2023. 
273 The rest of the funding is given by the following parties: SENSE Foundation Brussels, Mycelium Foundation, 
municipal administration of Uccle, municipal administration of Ganshoren, municipal administration of Berchem-
Sainte-Agathe, City of Brussels, municipal administration of Ixelles, Ladies Circle Brussels, CERA. 
274 Centre for Urban Ecology, Portfolio du Centre d'écologie urbaine, n.d.  

65 

 
 
 
 
 
•  Municipalities  play  an  active  role,  providing  more  than  just  financial 
support. The green departments of partner municipalities offer technical 
and material assistance, directly participating in the project's activities275. 

2.10.6  Measurable outputs, outcomes and impacts of the project 
Both projects aim to reintroduce fruit trees into urban spaces in various forms276, 
not only to preserve endangered varieties, but also to protect and enhance urban 
biodiversity.  Increasing  the  diversity  of  species  and  functions  allows  for  more 
adaptable  solutions  that  cater  to  the  unique  configurations  of  different 
municipalities in the Brussels-Capital region, while considering local constraints 
and preferences. Some naturalists also argue that leaving fruit for insects and birds 
enhances biodiversity, while damaged or inaccessible fruits also enrich the local 
ecosystem. 

From the ARBRES project: 

•  In collaboration with the CEU, the municipality of Forest planted the first 
trees  for  an  exploratory  orchard  in  the  Bempt  park  in  February  2023, 
bringing together about 50 fruit trees277; 

•  Similarly, in Uccle, a variety of fruit trees and shrubs, including medlars, 
almonds, apricots, sea buckthorns, and hazelnuts, were planted in 2023. 

From the Pépinière citoyenne project: 

•  As  of  June  2024,  the  Uccle  orchard  contains  733  fruit  trees,  the  Forest 
orchard has 255, and the Ganshoren orchard has 52. Additionally, 286 fruit 
trees have been planted in public spaces in the municipality of Uccle, 52 in 
Forest, and 148 in Ganshoren; 

•  The  project  enhances  biodiversity  by  preserving  and  propagating 
endangered ancient fruit varieties. To address climate change, it diversifies 
the  species  planted,  incorporating  fig,  persimmon,  pomegranate,  kiwi, 
apricot, peach, citrus, and sea buckthorn trees alongside traditional apple, 
pear, plum, and cherry trees. This approach not only fosters a more resilient 
ecosystem but also raises community awareness about the importance of 
biodiversity. 

275 For example, during a planting event, a municipality promptly sent a team to help citizens when the project 
team was unavailable. 
276 For example, climbing plants on facades, espaliers in heritage areas, or roadside trees.  
277 Belga, P., Forest teste l'adaptation d'une cinquantaine de fruitiers au réchauffement climatique, 2023. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.10.7 

Co-benefits 

From both projects: 

•  In  urban  settings,  trees  provide  several  ecosystem  services,  including 
regulating services (e.g. mitigating impacts of heavy rains and heat waves), 
production services (e.g. wood) and cultural services (e.g. health promotion 
and stress reduction). Healthy trees that grow in an enabling environment 
help mitigate the localised effects of climate change and help communities 
adapt to its challenges278; 

•  In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the demand for green spaces and 
play  infrastructure  has  intensified279,  and  both  projects  are  committed  to 
addressing this need; 

•  The  key  benefits  of  fruit  picking  include  providing  leisure  activities, 
educating  children  about  the  origins  of  food,  and  offering  nutritional 
advantages compared to commercially available fruit280; 

•  Fresh  products  such  as  fruits  are  among  the  most  difficult  for  food  aid 
agencies to obtain. Fruit from fruit trees in public spaces, as well as from 
private  gardens,  represents  an  important  potential  to  reduce  waste  and 
contribute to a system of redistribution. 

From the ARBRES project: 

•  The  overall  objective  is  to  maximise  its  benefits  in  the  face  of  climate 
challenges, to position it as a provider of ecosystems and to explore its role 
in the resilience of the Brussels food system281. This project also aims to 
increase  fruit  diversity  to  strengthen  genetic,  specific  and  functional 
diversity in urban areas; 

•  Some schools are interested in maintaining fruit areas, driven by teachers 
who  are  passionate  about  horticulture  and  using  the  opportunity  for 
experiments or teaching.  

From the Pépinière citoyenne project: 

•  Maintaining fruit trees requires technical knowledge, so the project offers 
free training workshops for green space workers and local residents. These 
workshops are essential because gardeners often lack proper training and 
the  profession  is  undervalued.  Through  the  workshops,  participants  gain 

278 De Muylder, V., Climat : des fruitiers dans la ville, 2023. 
279 Golinvaux, M., Faire de Bruxelles un verger, 2021.  
280  The  Brussels-Capital  Region  has  a  Regional  Pesticide  Reduction  Programme  2023-2027  that  aims  for  a 
significant reduction in the use of pesticides in the region. This involves the complete cessation of pesticide use in 
all public spaces and the restriction of pesticide use in gardens and private areas. This means that fruit picked from 
the trees planted from the projects are unlikely to contain pesticides.  
281 Golinvaux, M., Faire de Bruxelles un verger, 2021. 

67 

 
 
 
 
valuable  skills  for  tree  care  and  production,  boosting  their  professional 
worth. Additionally, taking part in planting and caring for the trees gives 
them a sense of pride and strengthens their connection to nature and the 
community; 

•  The  project  provides  significant  social  benefits  through  strong  citizen 
participation during planting and management operations. It attracts people 
who are often isolated or in difficulty, offering them a space to connect with 
nature and with other volunteers. Participants gain an enriching experience 
that contributes to their well-being and strengthens their connection with 
the environment. 

2.10.8 

Challenges and burdens 

For the ARBRES project: 

•  There is a general lack of awareness and understanding when it comes to 
fruit  trees.  Many  citizens  associate  them  with  urban  nuisances  such  as 
biting  insects,  allergens,  and  litter,  and  view  fallen  fruit  as  a  potential 
hazard for pedestrians, increasing the risk of slips and falls; 

•  Fruit trees are often seen as requiring more maintenance, which slows their 
adoption in urban areas. Green space departments are often undervalued 
and lack resources, which combined with recruitment difficulties, worsen 
the situation. Many team members also lack the skills needed to address 
current ecological concerns effectively; 

•  Integrating  fruit  trees  into  the  urban  landscape  is  part  of  urban  spatial 
planning. Priorities and needs on how to use space often differ between and 
within administrations therefore pose challenges for public officials;  
•  Some administrations lack the resources, operational tools and knowledge 
needed to plant fruit trees in complex urban environments. They may also 
be unfamiliar with agronomic standards when acquiring and transporting 
the trees. Additionally, good planting practices are not always applied due 
to a lack of human and material resources;  

•  The project revealed challenges related to interdepartmental collaboration 
and outsourcing. Outsourcing can lead to a loss of control, with profit being 
prioritised over quality. In contrast, insourcing would not only improve the 
work of gardeners but also help develop and enhance the skills of teams. 

For the Pépinière citoyenne project: 

•  The primary challenge facing this project is the lack of sufficient funding. 
While regional and municipal subsidies have been secured, they only cover 
the cost of one part-time position, which is inadequate given the regional 
scale  of  the  project,  currently  involving  three  orchards.  This  financial 
instability significantly undermines the project's long-term viability; 

68 

 
 
 
•  Not all municipalities in Brussels are participating in the project, as their 
involvement varies based on differing priorities and budgets. This disparity 
reflects  varying  political  agendas,  with  some  municipalities  prioritising 
such initiatives, while others focus on different concerns. 

2.10.9 

Lessons learned 

From both projects:  

•  For  groups  implementing  a  fruit  project  through  a  multi-stakeholder 
participatory  process,  the  initiative  will  be  significantly  smoother  if  the 
group  can  handle  the  selection  process  and  create  planting  plans 
independently. In this model, the role of public authorities is best limited to 
providing information and support. Ideally, material assistance and training 
for  the  group  should  be  offered  over  several  years  to  ensure  long-term 
success; 

•  Involving  citizens  from  the  beginning  of  a  project  promotes  better 
ownership. However, challenges remain, including material management 
and  the  coordination  of  schedules  between  technical  services  and 
volunteers.  The  presence  of  an  intermediary  structure,  such  as  a 
sustainability  department  or  an  external  organisation,  facilitates  these 
collaborations; 

•  Public authorities need to strike a balance between an effective top-down 
approach and a flexible bottom-up approach, offering support for citizen 
initiatives without overstepping or exploiting them. Recognising the value 
of volunteer work and its positive impact will help sustain these projects in 
the long term. 

From the ARBRES project:  

•  Raising awareness gradually and through time are essential for changing 
negative  perceptions and  increasing  social  acceptance  of  fallen  fruit  and 
fruit trees in urban environments;  

•  Providing  better  uniforms,  improving  working  conditions,  increasing 
salaries,  providing  training,  and  encouraging  active  staff  participation  in 
projects  are  necessary.  However,  these  need  to  be  complemented  with 
adequate funding to enable teams to tackle emerging ecological challenges. 

From the Pépinière citoyenne project:  

•  Proactive communication is key to raising awareness about the project and 
building trust with citizens. While it may take time to gain momentum, it is 
essential for residents to be informed and recognise the project's benefits. 
A variety of channels can be used, such as a dedicated website and social 
media  platforms  like  Facebook  and  Instagram,  which  are  effective  in 

69 

 
 
 
 
attracting participants. Local events also play a crucial role in informing the 
community and offering opportunities for continued engagement; 

•  It  is  essential  for  municipalities  to  have  sufficient  space  to  establish 
community orchards, allocate a budget for subsidies, and employ motivated 
staff  who  are  invested  in  the  project.  These  factors  greatly  enhance 
collaboration and help foster stronger community connections; 

•  Collaborating with multiple parties who  bring  diverse  expertise enriches 
the project and enhances its implementation. While the project can begin 
independently, involving various stakeholders adds significant value. 

70 

 
 
 
3. Lessons  learned:  Facilitating  factors  and  challenges  in 
implementing  biodiversity  conservation  and  ecosystem 
restoration measures at local and regional level 

LRAs  are  central  to  efforts  to  protect  biodiversity  and  restore  nature.  Despite 
significant challenges posed by urbanisation and the historical view of cities as 
threats to biodiversity, it is clear that LRAs have strong potential to drive positive 
change. By leveraging their governance capacities and actively involving urban 
stakeholders and local communities, LRAs can transform cities and regions into 
key  players  in  biodiversity  conservation.  The  regulatory  frameworks,  financial 
support, and diverse technical resources described provide a robust foundation for 
these efforts. 

The  case  studies  demonstrate  the  different  factors  that  facilitate  successful 
biodiversity protection and restoration schemes:  
•  Supportive policy frameworks at regional and local levels that align with 
national, EU and international biodiversity goals: the Podkarpacie Natural 
Grazing  Programme  is  included  in  the  region’s  development  strategy  and 
highlights its role in economic development and environmental protection. The 
municipality  of  Cluj-Napoca’s  Integrated  Development  Strategy  was 
developed in the context of international, EU and national strategies, including 
the Agenda for Sustainable Development, the 17 SDGs, the Paris Agreement 
on  Climate  Change,  the  European  Green  Deal,  and  Romania’s  National 
Strategy for Sustainable Development. There are instances where local actions 
have been supported by changes at national level. For example, the evolution 
of  French  regulations  on  the  control  and  use  of  phytosanitary  products 
reinforced the ‘0 phyto’ actions of the municipality of Chambon-Feugerolles.  
•  Multi-level  governance  and  community  engagement  to  ensure  that 
measures are  locally  accepted  and  owned:  the  involvement  of  a  range  of 
local  stakeholders  in  developing  solutions  for  the  Košice  Region  Green 
Restoration Programme and in the delivery of the BioAware project in Võru 
fostered cooperation, a sense of ownership, local responsibility and pride. This 
also gives a voice to stakeholders who may otherwise be excluded in decision-
making282.  In  the  case  of  the  actions  taken  by  the  Lombardy  Phytosanitary 
Service to control the invasive species  Popillia japonica, innovative annual 
public  communication  campaigns  ensured  that  the  technical  messages  were 
effectively  communicated  and  understood  by  the  public  and  other  target 
groups. The two fruit tree projects in Brussels demonstrate that initiatives led 
by  non-profit  organisations,  supported  technically  and  financially  by 
municipalities,  and  involving  local  community  participation  can  achieve 

282  The  Water  Advisory  Boards  of  the  Košice  Region  responsible  for  creating  the  action  plans  include  NGOs, 
activists, volunteers and the public. On the other hand, schoolchildren and teachers had strong involvement in the 
BioAware project.  

71 

 
 
 
significant success. 

•  Adequate  funding  and  technical  support:  the  Green  Cluj  Programme  is 
supported by EU funds (ERDF 2014-2020 and 2021-2027; RRF) and national 
and local budgets. The city also received technical support from the Horizon 
2020 ProGIreg project in identifying and planning transformation areas and 
relevant  NBS.  The  successful  construction  of  an  adequate  number  of  water 
retention  measures  under  the  Košice  Region  Green  Restoration  Programme 
was made possible by increased financial allocation. In addition to receiving 
funding from a range of national and European sources, the Fish Migration 
River in the Afsluitdijk also benefitted from combined expertise in the fields 
of  ecology  and  construction.  The  team  worked  together  to  identify 
opportunities and problems as early as possible.  

•  Ecological considerations: the Weidmoos slowly became an important bird 
habitat after the cessation of peat extraction activities, but the area did not have 
a positive long-term outlook. The Habitat Management in the Weidmoos Bird 
Reserve LIFE project  undertook targeted restoration measures  to ensure the 
long-term survival of the habitat and its capacity to support bird populations. 
This  project  took  advantage  of  conditions  on  the  ground  to  sustain  natural 
changes  in  the  long-term.  Similarly,  the  River  Jamor  Green  and  Blue  Axis 
project involved comprehensive mapping of the area's environmental features 
to  protect  critical  habitats  and  species  from  adverse  impacts  during 
construction  and  from  the  resulting  infrastructure,  preserving  biodiversity 
throughout the project. 

•  Long-term  commitment  and  consideration  of  challenges:  biodiversity 
projects require long-term commitment and continuity. It took seven years for 
the Chambon-Feugerolles municipality to obtain its pesticide-free status, as it 
had  to  change  existing  practices  and  attitudes  around  phytosanitary 
management and raise local awareness that perfectly landscaped areas often 
entail  risks  to  human  and  environmental  health.  The  adoption  of  ‘0  phyto’ 
methods  such  as  manual  weeding  significantly  increased  working  hours, 
balanced by reducing the frequency of mowing and allowing some areas to 
remain as natural grassland. The Weidmoos Habitat Restoration initially began 
as  a  LIFE  project,  but  ongoing  local  actions  now  sustain  and  amplify  the 
benefits  of  the  original  initiative.  The  bird  population  in  this  habitat  faces 
threats  from  external  factors  such  as  climate  change,  but  the  long-term 
commitment of LRAs and the local community ensures that these threats are 
promptly identified and addressed. The fruit tree projects in Brussels aim to 
shift  public  perception  of  fruit  trees  in  urban  environments.  This  requires 
gradually raising awareness, particularly about the environmental and social 
benefits of incorporating fruit trees into city spaces. 

•  Sharing of learning and experiences: the Lombardy Phytosanitary Service 
has  extensive  experience  in  managing  outbreaks  of  harmful  quarantine 
organisms. This expertise was further strengthened through collaboration with 

72 

 
the  scientific  community,  including  contributors  to  the  IPPC  Plant  Health 
Strategy. The Service actively shares its expertise, insights and data with this 
community and other regional authorities, aiding other regions and countries 
to effectively address Popillia japonica. In the case of the partnership between 
the municipal authorities, the Parques de Sintra Monte da Lua authority and 
the APA, the exchange of knowledge and joint problem-solving led to more 
robust solutions for the River Jamor Blue-Green Axis project. This successful 
collaboration amplified the project's outcomes and inspired further cooperative 
initiatives,  such  as  the  creation  of  a  common  protected  marine  area  by  the 
Sintra  municipality,  in  partnership  with  the  municipalities  of  Mafra  and 
Cascais.  

Notwithstanding their success, these initiatives experienced challenges, several of 
which are ongoing: 
•  Additional  human  resources  (capacity,  skills,  hours):  the  transition  to 
biodiversity  positive  practices  require  investment  in  equipment  and  human 
resources,  which  can  be  costly  and  time-consuming.  For  example,  the 
transition of the city of Chambon-Feugerolles to ‘0 phyto’ methods required 
buying  expensive  machinery  and  training  staff  on  its  use.  Additionally, 
maintenance  activities  (e.g.  weeding)  required  more  working  hours.  The 
ARBRES  project 
that  some 
administrations face due to limited resources, operational tools, and expertise 
required  to  successfully  plant  and  maintain  fruit  trees  in  complex  urban 
environments.  

in  Brussels  underscored 

the  challenge 

•  Administrative and legal burdens: several of these initiatives cover a large 
area,  prompting  lengthy,  complicated  procedures,  and  occasional  legal 
hurdles. For example, property/land ownership created complications during 
the delivery of the Košice Region Green Restoration Programme and the River 
Jamor  Green  and  Blue  Axis  project.  Similarly,  Cluj-Napoca,  despite  the 
change in national legislation permitting the expropriation of private land, met 
with resistance from other parties, including private landowners.  

•  Short  and  long-term  funding:  unexpected  delays  in  accessing  funds, 
particularly 
from  European  or  national  sources,  can  stall  project 
implementation.  For  example,  Võru's  ongoing  efforts  to  secure  additional 
biodiversity or environmental benefits from other infrastructure projects are 
often not covered by the funding allocated for those projects. Certainty of long-
term funding is necessary to ensure that actions are sustained.  For example, 
the implementation of the Lombardy region’s plan to control Popillia japonica 
is only partly funded by EU, national, and regional sources, creating future 
risks for certain actions within the plan. Unexpected cost increases driven by 
external factors (e.g. increase in energy prices) create financial pressures.  
•  Wider environmental threats: invasive species, animal disease and broader 
environmental  threats  (e.g.  climate  change)  pose  ongoing  challenges  to 

73 

 
 
biodiversity  conservation  efforts.  For  example,  increasing  problems  with 
invasive  species  affect  the  Podkarpacie  Natural  Grazing  Programme, 
prompting  authorities  to  seek  funding  to  manage  this  issue,  while  climate 
change  impacts  and  avian  flu  pose  major  risks  to  bird  populations  in  the 
Weidmoos.  Individual  LRAs  have  limited  control  over  these  threats, 
highlighting  the  importance  of  working  with  other  LRAs  and  within  the 
context of national, EU and international action.  

There are commonalities between these challenges and enabling factors,  which 
are sometimes two sides of the same coin. Several of the LRAs in the case studies 
have demonstrated that challenges and burdens were addressed by harnessing the 
factors that contributed to the success of the initiative.  

The  case  studies  also  highlight  that  LRAs  recognise  their  role  in  biodiversity 
protection and restoration and are taking the lead on actions to improve their cities 
and  regions.  They  are  delivering  these  actions  through  proactive  collaboration 
with  a  range  of  stakeholders,  especially  local  communities  and  scientific  and 
technical experts. Their long-term vision and ambitions for biodiversity in their 
jurisdictions are reflected in the integration of biodiversity into urban planning, 
the adoption of NBS, undertaking pioneering and sometimes large-scale projects, 
a  strong  focus  on  restoration  and  conservation,  and  alignment  with  broader 
environmental goals such as climate adaptation and public health improvements. 
Outside  of  the  case  studies,  there  is  evidence  that  LRAs  are  increasingly 
leveraging available technical and financial resources. For example, these LRAs 
maintain both local and broader interest in their projects, programmes, and actions 
by  promoting  their  developments  and  achievements  through  participation  in 
initiatives such as the Green Cities Accord, the Eurocities network, URBACT, 
NetworkNature, and Regions4. They also benefit by receiving technical advice 
(e.g.  on  developing  LBSAPs  or  identifying  appropriate  NBS)  and  exchanging 
experiences with other LRAs on their projects. Some LRAs are also implementing 
innovative ways to finance their biodiversity projects, including the use of green 
bonds (e.g. Paris), crowd-funding (e.g. Ghent) and private funds (e.g. the Regional 
Council of Southwest Finland).  

LRAs’  work  on  biodiversity  protection  and  nature  restoration  contributes  to 
different GBF targets, although their individual influence is more pronounced in 
some targets (see Annex 1 for specific examples of how the case studies influence 
the  targets).  LRAs  in  the  EU  can  make  significant  contributions  to  GBF 
targets  associated  with  ‘reducing  threats  to  biodiversity’283  and  ‘meeting 
people’s  needs  through  sustainable  use  and  benefit  sharing’284.  This  is 
because they can take individual action through local and regional strategies, 

283 GBF 2030 Targets (with Guidance Notes), GBF Targets 1 to 8.  
284 GBF 2030 Targets (with Guidance Notes), GBF Targets 9 to 13.  

74 

 
 
 
 
 
programmes and projects. For example, all of the LRAs associated with the case 
studies have high or medium influence on GBF Target 11: Restore, maintain and 
enhance nature’s contributions to people. This is because the main objectives of 
the programmes and projects recognise the importance and contribution of nature 
to local community well-being. On the other hand, for targets associated with 
‘tools  and  solutions  for  implementation  and  mainstreaming’285,  LRAs 
together have a stronger influence on national governments, EU institutions, 
international organisations and on the private sector.  For example, individual 
–  especially  smaller  –  LRAs  are  unlikely  to  exert  significant  influence  in 
mobilising  significant  amounts  of  finance  for  biodiversity  (Target  19)  or  in 
strengthening biosafety and the distribution of biotechnology benefits (Target 17). 
However, by participating in EU and international initiatives, they can promote 
best practice, share  and learn from  challenges,  and  jointly advocate for  further 
efforts from other actors to protect biodiversity and restore nature.  

285 GBF 2030 Targets (with Guidance Notes), GBF Targets 14 to 23. 

75 

 
 
 
 
4. Policy recommendations 
Several  policy  recommendations  emerge,  particularly  from  the  case  studies, 
interviews  and  written  contributions.  The 
which 
recommendations are summarised below for each of LRAs, national authorities 
and EU institutions. 

included  stakeholder 

4.1 Recommendations for LRAs 
Actively apply for funding and combine various funding sources 

LRAs should be creative in applying for financial support from diverse EU and 
national programmes, even if some are not dedicated exclusively to biodiversity 
enhancing interventions (e.g. Cohesion Policy funding). LRAs should combine 
various funding instruments, including innovative sources such as green bonds or 
biodiversity offsets, to support biodiversity restoration and enhancement projects, 
as these could provide good return on investment.  

Actively use the technical and financial support programmes available  

LRAs  should  actively  use  technical  and  financial  support  programmes  and 
cooperation platforms, as well as funding for capacity-building, to become better 
informed  about  financing  and  technical  possibilities,  including  knowledge  and 
exchanges  of  good  practice.  Active  involvement  in  such  programmes  can  also 
help  to  identify  partnerships  to  invest  in  larger-scale  interventions.  These 
programmes serve as advocacy platforms for LRAs, amplifying their influence in 
shaping policies to protect and restore nature at national, EU, and international 
level. 

Implement and scale up NBS and multifunctional projects 

LRAs  should  adopt  NBS  in  urban  planning:  green  infrastructure,  reforestation 
projects, and wetland restoration all provide co-benefits such as climate resilience 
and public health protection. LRAs should also prioritise multifunctional spaces 
that  integrate  biodiversity  and  human  needs,  with  a  focus  on  reducing  urban 
sprawl and protecting peri-urban ecosystems. 

Develop and implement LBSAPs 

LRAs should develop and implement LBSAPs that align with national and EU 
biodiversity strategies, integrating biodiversity into urban and rural development 
plans. These strategies guide local governments in managing biodiversity and can 
extend their impact beyond city boundaries. Despite their potential, LBSAPs are 
underused due to their technical nature, but LRAs can overcome this by fostering 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
partnerships and using NBS, ensuring  that their efforts contribute to both local 
and global biodiversity goals. 

Participate and collaborate in cross-border initiatives 

LRAs should collaborate with neighbouring regions and international partners on 
transboundary  biodiversity  initiatives  to  ensure  continuity  of  actions  across 
borders and amplify the positive outcomes of projects. This collaboration can be 
strengthened  by  participating 
initiatives  and  organisations  such  as 
NetworkNature, URBACT and Regions4,  which offer greater opportunities for 
sharing  knowledge  and  best  practices  and,  in  some  cases,  providing  advocacy 
platforms for LRAs. 

in 

Educate and engage citizens in biodiversity protection 

LRAs  should  launch  awareness  campaigns  to  educate  citizens  about  the 
importance  of  biodiversity  and  sustainable  practices.  Following  national 
guidance, education about the importance of biodiversity should be implemented 
by LRAs at all levels in schools. LRAs should also develop participatory projects 
that involve citizens, such as community-driven green space restoration or species 
monitoring efforts. These actions are crucial for building public support, fostering 
environmental stewardship, and enhancing the long-term success of biodiversity 
initiatives as these build a better informed and invested community. 

Foster multi-stakeholder participation and input in biodiversity projects 

LRAs  should  engage  a  broad  spectrum  of  stakeholders,  including  local 
communities,  sectoral  organisations,  civil  society,  businesses,  academia  and 
national  agencies,  at  every  stage  of  biodiversity  initiatives,  from  planning  to 
implementation and monitoring. This inclusive approach ensures that projects are 
more  locally  relevant,  widely  supported,  and  sustainable.  Involving  diverse 
stakeholders  in biodiversity efforts  allows  for  a more  comprehensive  approach 
that addresses local needs, leverages a broader range of knowledge and resources, 
and enhances the likelihood of long-term success in conservation and restoration. 
It  also  ensures  that  all  voices  are  heard,  particularly  those  of  groups  that  are 
typically underrepresented. 

Integrate the GBF targets in the development of LBSAPs  

The  GBF  targets  provide  a  clear  set  of  global  priorities  and  objectives  for 
biodiversity  conservation  and  restoration.  Although  ‘global’  targets,  they  help 
LRAs to contextualise global biodiversity challenges such as habitat loss, invasive 
species and climate change within their local context. These targets can act as a 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
guide for LRAs to align their local actions with broader biodiversity goals, aiding 
the prioritisation of actions with the most significant impacts, given the available 
resources. These targets are accompanied by specific and measurable indicators 
that  can  be  used  to  assess  the  effectiveness  of  biodiversity  actions.  They  also 
empower  LRAs  to  adopt  inclusive  approaches  to  governance  beyond  areas 
concerned with biodiversity and nature protection.  

78 

 
 
 
4.2 Recommendations for national governments 
Support the integration of biodiversity into national and regional planning  

National governments should ensure that NBSAPs are developed in collaboration 
with LRAs, aligning them with regional biodiversity strategies to create synergies 
between national and subnational actions. As biodiversity does not stop at borders, 
Member States should promote cross-municipal and cross-regional collaboration. 
This  could  be  facilitated  by  national  governments  in  their  NBSAPs.  National 
legislation and strategies should include clear mandates on the role of LRAs in 
implementing and monitoring biodiversity measures.  

Support  the  integration  of  biodiversity  into  research,  awareness-raising  and 
education 

National  authorities  should  increase  education  and  awareness-raising  activities 
focusing on biodiversity protection and multi-benefits of nature, as well as  the 
challenges  and  risks  related  to  biodiversity  decline  due  to  human  activities. 
Special focus should be on health and well-being benefits of nature protection, 
which  provide  convincing  arguments  for  society  and  local  communities  to 
advocate and support biodiversity enhancing activities. Such knowledge should 
be  mainstreamed 
levels.  Biodiversity 
in  programmes  at  all  education 
considerations  should  be  integrated  into  research  on  industrial  development, 
spatial planning, agriculture and any other domains of human activity known to 
have (or potentially have) negative impacts on  biodiversity. 

Undertake  activities  at  national  level  for  issues  requiring  larger  scale 
intervention 

Certain  challenges  (e.g.  those  involving  the  introduction  of  invasive  species) 
require national intervention, as they exceed the capacities of regional authorities. 
National authorities need to take the lead and provide standardised approaches 
and guidance to be applied at regional and local levels. 

Provide financial support for biodiversity protection 

National governments should provide financial resources (e.g. dedicated funding 
programmes) for subnational authorities to invest in biodiversity protection and 
nature restoration, particularly in urban and rural regions with critical ecosystems. 
They should also encourage (e.g. through legislative provisions, policy documents 
and  guidance)  innovative  financing  mechanisms,  such  as  biodiversity  offsets, 
green bonds and PES, to enable LRAs to fund biodiversity projects. 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ensure legislative and regulatory support 

National  governments  should  harmonise  biodiversity-related  legislation  to 
enhance  nature  protection,  while  reducing  the  administrative  burden  on  local 
authorities and making it easier for them to implement biodiversity actions. Other 
sectoral legislation should be developed in a way that promotes nature protection 
and includes adequate safeguards for its preservation in situations where planned 
activities pose biodiversity risks.  

National  authorities  should  inventory  legislative  barriers  that  may  hinder  the 
implementation of biodiversity protection and enhancement initiatives, ensuring 
that any issues requiring national-level resolution are  identified and addressed. 
National  policy  should  not  only  ensure  compliance  with  EU  environmental 
legislation,  but  actively  promote  biodiversity  considerations  in  all  sectoral 
policies, including those with limited EU competence (e.g. spatial planning, forest 
that  EU 
management,  soil  policy).  National  authorities  should  ensure 
mainstreaming of biodiversity is reflected in national policies. 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
4.3 Recommendations for EU institutions 
Provide targeted financing for local biodiversity initiatives 

Adequate financing is one of the main enablers for implementation of biodiversity 
protection  and  restoration  projects  at  local  and  regional  level.  Access  to 
biodiversity-specific  funding  for  LRAs  should  be  expanded  and  streamlined, 
including through enhanced allocations in funding instruments such as the LIFE 
programme,  Horizon  Europe,  and  Cohesion  Policy  funding.  Earmarking  of  a 
larger share of the EU budget for biodiversity would help to expand the funding 
opportunities for LRAs. EU institutions should facilitate the use of EU funding 
for  multi-benefit  projects  involving  biodiversity  protection  and/or  enhancing 
solutions.  For  example,  certain  types  of  infrastructure  projects  could  have  a 
requirement to also deliver biodiversity and/or climate benefits and to prioritise 
NBS.  Guidance  on  biodiversity  funding  opportunities  should  be  expanded  to 
target specific  initiatives  or LRAs  (particularly those without  sufficient human 
resources  to  investigate  financing  options).  EU  distributors  could  introduce 
simplified  procedures  for  LRAs  to  access  EU  biodiversity  funds,  ensuring 
technical and financial assistance for biodiversity projects implemented at local 
level. EU funding should be available for implementation of specific projects, as 
well as capacity-building among LRAs. 

Strengthen technical support and capacity-building 

Some local authorities may lack the experience and technical expertise to design, 
implement and monitor effective biodiversity protection and restoration projects. 
They  need  better  access  and  knowledge  of  learning  and  techniques  developed 
from EU-funded projects (e.g. LIFE, Horizon Europe). The EU institutions should 
promote the exchange of best practices and knowledge on biodiversity-enhancing 
initiatives  implemented  in  LRAs  across  Member  States,  using  established 
technical advisory support programmes and platforms. Various programmes and 
their specialised segments could focus on diverse topics and issues such as NBS, 
development  and  implementation  of  LBSAPs,  or  financial  engineering.  EU 
Missions under Horizon Europe286 now promote and require the involvement of 
LRAs in research and innovation projects, and this could usefully be expanded to 
other  EU  funding  instruments.  The  EU  could  fund  and  organise  thematic 
workshops and conferences that bring together LRAs, national governments, and 
(e.g. 
biodiversity  experts 

to  exchange  experiences  and 

innovations 

286 EU Missions aim to deliver concrete solutions to some of the most pressing challenges by 2030. Currently, the 
five missions focus on: 1) climate change adaptation, 2) cancer, 3) restoring oceans and waters, 4) achieving 100 
climate-neutral and smart cities, and 5) promoting healthy soils. Research and innovation projects within these 
Missions are designed to mobilise local and societal adoption of new solutions by directly funding the participation 
of various stakeholders, including LRAs. The involvement of LRAs includes testing the solutions developed within 
the projects and building the necessary capacity to implement them effectively. 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
implementation of NBS and LBSAPs). 

Foster policy coherence and biodiversity mainstreaming 

The EU should ensure stronger alignment between its policies on biodiversity and 
climate  change,  utilising  mutual  synergies,  particularly  between  climate 
adaptation  and  nature  protection.  EU  institutions  should  increase  efforts  to 
mainstream biodiversity objectives into sectoral frameworks, such as transport, 
waste  and  water  management  policies.  This  could  be  achieved  by  establishing 
clear,  EU-level  policy  of  no-net  biodiversity  loss  linked  to  infrastructural 
investments.  Mechanisms  for  regular  dialogue  between  the  EU,  national 
governments  and  LRAs  should  be  developed  to  ensure  coherence  and 
coordination  in  implementing  the  Kunming-Montreal  GBF  and  the  EU 
Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. 

82 

 
 
 
 
Annex 1: Case studies’ links to GBF targets 

This table outlines how the individual case studies link or contribute to the 23 GBF targets. These links are assessed on the 
basis of the objectives, outputs, outcomes and impacts of each case study relative to the target and its elements.  

83 

ThemeTargetGreen Cluj ProgrammeKošice Region Green Restoration ProgrammePodkarpacie Natural Grazing ProgrammeHabitat Management in the Weidmoos Bird Reserve  Control of the Japanese Bettle in LombardyAfsluitdijk: Fish Migration River in FryslânVõru’s Biodiverse Urban SpaceChambon-Feugerolles: a pesticide-free townRiver Jamor Green and Blue AxisFruit trees in BrusselsTarget 1: Plan and Manage all Areas To Reduce Biodiversity Loss mediummediummediumhighnonemediumlowmediummediummediumTarget 2: Restore 30% of all Degraded EcosystemslowmediumlowhighnonemediummediummediumhighmediumTarget 3: Conserve 30% of Land, Waters and SeaslowmediumlowhighlowmediumlowlowmediumlowTarget 4: Halt Species Extinction, Protect Genetic Diversity, and Manage Human-Wildlife ConflictslowlowlowhighnonehighnonelownonehighTarget 5: Ensure Sustainable, Safe and Legal Harvesting and Trade of Wild SpeciesnonenonenonenonenonenonenonenonenonenoneTarget 6: Reduce the Introduction of Invasive Alien Species by 50% and Minimize Their ImpactnonenonelownonehighnonenonelownonenoneTarget 7: Reduce Pollution to Levels That Are Not Harmful to BiodiversitynonenonenonenonenonenonenonehighnonenoneTarget 8: Minimize the Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity and Build ResiliencemediumhighlowmediumnonelownonelowmediummediumTarget 9: Manage Wild Species Sustainably To Benefit PeoplenonenonelowmediummediumlownonelownonenoneTarget 10: Enhance Biodiversity and Sustainability in Agriculture, Aquaculture, Fisheries, and ForestrynonehighhighlowmediumnonenonelownonemediumTarget 11: Restore, Maintain and Enhance Nature’s Contributions to PeoplehighhighmediumhighmediumnonehighmediumhighhighTarget 12: Enhance Green Spaces and Urban Planning for Human Well-Being and Biodiversity highmediumnonelownonenonehighhighhighhighTarget 13: Increase the Sharing of Benefits From Genetic Resources, Digital Sequence Information and Traditional KnowledgenonenonenonenonenonenonenonenonenonenoneTarget 14: Integrate Biodiversity in Decision-Making at Every LevelhighmediummediumlownonenonehighmediumlowhighTarget 15: Businesses Assess, Disclose and Reduce Biodiversity-Related Risks and Negative ImpactsnonenonenonenonenonenonenonenonenonenoneTarget 16: Enable Sustainable Consumption Choices To Reduce Waste and OverconsumptionnonelownonenonenonenonenonemediumnonehighTarget 17: Strengthen Biosafety and Distribute the Benefits of BiotechnologynonenonenonenonenonenonenonehighnonenoneTarget 18: Reduce Harmful Incentives by at Least $500 Billion per Year, and Scale Up Positive Incentives for BiodiversitynonenonemediumnonenonenonenonenonenonenoneTarget 19: Mobilize $200 Billion per Year for Biodiversity From all Sources, Including $30 Billion Through International FinancelowlowlowlowlowlowlowlowlowlowTarget 20: Strengthen Capacity-Building, Technology Transfer, and Scientific and Technical Cooperation for Biodiversity nonenonenonenonelowmediumnonenonelowmediumTarget 21: Ensure That Knowledge Is Available and Accessible To Guide Biodiversity Action lowhighnonemediummediumlownonenonemediummediumTarget 22: Ensure Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice and Information Related to Biodiversity for all mediummediumnonemediumnonenonemediumnonemediummediumTarget 23: Ensure Gender Equality and a Gender-Responsive Approach for Biodiversity ActionnonenonenonenonenonenonenonenonenonenonehighThe case study demonstrates significant influence/links on this target, and an objective of the case study can be directly associated with the target. mediumThe case study demonstrates influence/links on this target. lowThe case study demonstrates some influence/links to the target, but it is expected as a further impact (e.g. if you protect a habitat, you protect the species that live there too).noneThe case study has no link to the target. Reducing threats to biodiversityMeeting people’s needs through sustainable use and benefit-sharingTools and solutions for implementation and mainstreamingLegend 
 
Annex 2: References 

Action co-creation (n.d.) Le project ARBRES. Available at: 
https://www.cocreate.brussels/projet/arbres/ (accessed 25 September 2024).  

Aldo Giovanni e Giacomo Ufficiale (2022) GIOVA LOVES NATURE - 
EPISODIO SPECIALE – LA POPILLIA. Available at: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAW1oyILluE (accessed 12 September 
2024) 

Almassy, D., Pinter, L., Rocha, S., Naumann, S., Davis, M., Abhold, K. and 
Bulkeley, H. (2018) Urban Nature Atlas: A Database of Nature-Based Solutions 
Across 100 European Cities. Available at: 
https://naturvation.eu/sites/default/files/result/files/urban_nature_atlas_a_databa
se_of_nature-based_solutions_across_100_european_cities.pdf (accessed 26 
July 2024). 

APA (2021) Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente. Available at: 
https://www.apambiente.pt (accessed 10 September 2024). 
Bioagora (n.d.) BioAgora. Available at: https://www.bioagora.eu (accessed 7 
August 2024).  

Belga, P. (2023) Forest teste l'adaptation d'une cinquantaine de fruitiers au 
réchauffement climatique. Available at: https://www.rtbf.be/article/forest-teste-l-
adaptation-d-une-cinquantaine-de-fruitiers-au-rechauffement-climatique-
11153282 (accessed 25 September 2024).  

Brussels Environment (2024) The Good Food Strategy 2 (2022-2030). Available 
at https://goodfood.brussels/fr/content/good-food-strategy-2-2022-
2030?domain=cit (accessed 24 September 2024).   

CBD (2022) 2030 Targets (with Guidance Notes). Available at: 
https://www.cbd.int/gbf/targets (accessed 30 July 2024).  

CBD COP Decision 15/12 (2024) Engagement with subnational governments, 
cities and other local authorities to enhance implementation of the Kunming-
Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Available at: 
https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-12-en.pdf (accessed 26 
July 2024). 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Centre for Urban Ecology (n.d.) La pépinière citoyenne de Ganshoren. 
Available at: https://urban-ecology.be/pepiniere-citoyenne/#pepiniere-ganshoren  
(accessed 25 September 2024). 

Centre for Urban Ecology (n.d.) La pépinière citoyenne de Forest. Available at: 
https://urban-ecology.be/pepiniere-citoyenne/#pepiniere-forest (accessed 25 
September 2024). 

Centre for Urban Ecology (n.d.) La pépinière citoyenne d’Uccle. Available at: 
https://urban-ecology.be/pepiniere-citoyenne/#pepiniere-uccle (accessed 25 
September 2024). 

Centre for Urban Ecology (n.d.) Pépinière Citoyenne. Available at: 
https://urban-ecology.be/pepiniere-citoyenne (accessed 25 September 2024). 

Centre for Urban Ecology (n.d.) Portfolio du Centre d’ecologie urbaine. 
Available at: https://urban-ecology.be/notrevision  (accessed 01 October 2024). 

Charpentier, A., De Muynck, S., Lacroix, P., Mauquoy, C., Pieters, C., and 
Tahon, N. (2024) ARBRES – L’arbre fruitier comme levier de résilience du 
système alimentaire bruxellois. Rapport de recherche Innoviris Co-Create 
(2021-2024). Available at: 
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/lygxnb5l95e2zxn67elgb/2024.-Rapport-de-
recherche-ARBRES-
compress.pdf?rlkey=jq5g6ib2qmjiq8a8d2zwuphtj&e=1&dl=0 (accessed 24 
September 2024). 

CitiesWithNature (2024) Berlin Urban Nature Pact. Available at: 
https://www.citieswithnature.org/berlin-urban-nature-pact (accessed 27 
September 2024). 

CitiesWithNature (n.d.) CitiesWithNature. Available at: 
https://www.citieswithnature.org (accessed 27 September 2024). 

CitiesWithNature (n.d.) CitiesWithNature Action Platform. Available at: 
https://www.citieswithnature.org/action-platform (accessed 27 September 2024). 

CitiesWithNature (n.d.) Glasgow City Council Actions in CitiesWithNature. 
Available at: https://citieswithnature.org/city-
profiles/Glasgow%20City%20Council?section=commitments (accessed 27 
September 2024). 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
City Hall and Local Council Cluj-Napoca and the World Bank (2021) Integrated 
Urban Development Strategy for the Municipality of Cluj-Napoca and its 
Metropolitan Area. Available at: 
https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099848210282223121/pdf/P17238
40e027c30360a8be0c93fd4db9e69.pdf  (accessed 24 July 2024). 

City Hall and Local Council Cluj-Napoca (n.d.) Cluj-Napoca General Urban 
Plan (Plan Urbanistic General al Municipiulu Cluj-Napoca). Available at: 
https://primariaclujnapoca.ro/strategii-urbane/plan-urbanistic-general/ (accessed 
24 July 2024). 

City of Ghent (n.d.) Ghent Sustainability Report 2023: Focus on the Planet. 
Available at: 
https://stad.gent/sites/default/files/media/documents/00_sdg_rapport2023_ENG
_150dpi_0.pdf  (accessed 8 August 2024). 

City of Paris (2024) Report on the €300 M Sustainability Bond Issued by City of 
Paris in November 2021. Available at: 
https://cdn.paris.fr/paris/2019/07/24/cc0a71674202b85fe270f95df4909104.pdf  
(accessed 8 August 2024). 

Climate Adapt (2023) Ghent Crowdfunding Platform Realising Climate Change 
Adaptation through Urban Greening, Belgium. Available at: https://climate-
adapt.eea.europa.eu/en/metadata/case-studies/ghent-crowdfunding-platform-
realising-climate-change-adaptation-through-urban-greening (accessed 8 August 
2024). 

Cluj Business (n.d.) Cluj-Napoca StartupCity. Available at: 
https://clujbusiness.ro/business-support/startup-city/ (accessed 24 July 2024). 

Cluj-Napoca in Cities of Film (2021) UNESCO City of Film Designation. 
Available at: https://www.citiesoffilm.org/cluj-napoca  (accessed 23 September 
2024). 

Cluj-Napoca in European Youth Capital (2015) European Youth Capital 
Designation. Available at: https://www.youthforum.org/topics/youthcapital  
(accessed 23 September 2024). 

Coalitie Blauwe Hart Natuurlijk (2024) Coalitie Blauwe Hart Natuurlijk. 
Available at: https://www.hetblauwehart.org/ (accessed 23 September 2024). 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/1702 of 1 August 2019 
supplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council by establishing the list of priority pests. OJ L 260/8, 11.10.2019, 
Annex. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1570788497660&uri=CELEX:32019R1702 (accessed 30 
September 2024). 

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1584 of 1 August 2023 on 
measures to prevent the establishment and spread of Popillia japonica Newman 
and on measures for the eradication and containment of that pest within certain 
demarcated areas of the Union territory. OJ L 194, 2.8.2023, pp. 17–38. 
Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2023/1584/oj (accessed 30 
September 2024). 

Commission Staff Working Document (2019) Guidance on a Strategic 
Framework for Further Supporting the Deployment of EU-Level Green and Blue 
Infrastructure. SWD(2019) 193 final. Available at: 
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9762-2019-INIT/en/pdf 
(accessed 27 September 2024). 

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, 
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the 
Regions (2013) Green Infrastructure (GI) – Enhancing Europe’s Natural 
Capital. COM/2013/0249 final. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52013DC0249 (accessed 27 September 2024). 

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European 
Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions (2019) The European Green Deal. COM/2019/640 
final. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2019%3A640%3AFIN (accessed 27 
September 2024). 

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, 
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the 
Regions (2020) EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 – Bringing Nature Back into 
Our Lives. COM/2020/380 final. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52020DC0380 (accessed 27 September 2024). 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (2022) 
Section I. Implementation and Support Mechanism and Enabling Conditions. 
Available at: 
https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/e6d3/cd1d/daf663719a03902a9b116c34/cop-15-l-25-
en.pdf (accessed 30 July 2024). 

CONSOLE (2022) Natural Grazing in Podkarpacie Region. Available at: 
https://console-project.eu/blog/2021/02/18/natural-grazing-in-podkarpackie-
region/ (accessed 24 July 2024). 

COR 2020/00530, European Committee of the Regions (2020) OPINION – Bio-
diverse cities and regions beyond 2020 at the UN CBD COP 15 and in the EU 
Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020IR0539 (accessed 30 July 2024). 

COR 2022/04206, European Committee of the Regions (2022) OPINION – EU 
Nature Restoration Law. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52022AR4206 (accessed 30 July 2024).  

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural 
habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Available at: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/1992/43/oj (accessed 27 September 2024). 

Crowdfunding.gent (n.d.) Crowdfunding.gent. Available at: 
https://crowdfunding.gent (accessed 08 August 2024). 

Davis, M., Abhold, K., Mederake, L., and Knoblauch D. (2018) Nature-based 
Solutions in European and National Policy Frameworks. Available at: 
https://naturvation.eu/sites/default/files/result/files/naturvation_nature-
based_solutions_in_european_and_national_policy_frameworks.pdf  (accessed 
30 July 2024). 

Delta Commissioner (n.d.) The Netherlands' National Delta Programme 
(Nationaal Deltaprogramma). Available at: https://english.deltaprogramma.nl/ 
(accessed 18 September 2024). 

De Muylder, V. (2023) Climat: des fruitiers dans la ville. Available at: 
https://www.mc.be/en-marche/societe/environnement/climat-des-fruitiers-dans-
la-ville (accessed 25 September 2024).  

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R.T., Molnár, Z., 
Hill, R., Chan, K.M.A., Baste, I.A., Brauman, K.A., Polasky, S., Church, A., 
Lonsdale, M., Larigauderie, A., Leadley, P.W., van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., van 
der Plaat, F., Schröter, M., Lavorel, S., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Bukvareva, 
E., Davies, K., Demissew, S., Erpul, G., Failler, P., Guerra, C.A., Hewitt, C.L., 
Keune, H., Lindley, S., and Shirayama, Y. (2018) Assessing nature’s 
contributions to people. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826 
(accessed 30 July 2024). 

Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio, E.S., Ngo, H.T., Guèze, M., Agard, J., Arneth, 
A., Balvanera, P., Brauman, K.A., Butchart, S.H.M., Chan, K.M.A., Garibaldi, 
L.A., Ichii, K., Liu, J., Subramanian, S.M., Midgley, G.F., Miloslavich, P., 
Molnár, Z., Obura, D., Pfaff, A., Polasky, S., Purvis, A., Razzaque, J., Reyers, 
B., Roy Chowdhury, R., Shin, Y.J., Visseren-Hamakers, I.J., Willis, K.J., and 
Zayas, C.N. (2019) IPBES (2019): Summary for Policymakers of the Global 
Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the 
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem 
Services. Available at: https://www.ipbes.net/global-assessment (accessed 26 
July 2024). 

Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 
November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds. Available at: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32009L0147 (accessed 
27 September 2024). 

Dragonetti, W. (2023) Bringing bees back to Llublana. Available at: 
https://eurocities.eu/stories/bringing-bees-back-to-ljubljana/ (accessed 12 
September 2024). 

EEA (2022-2023) Percentage of total green infrastructure, urban green space, 
and urban tree cover in the area of EEA-38 capital cities (excluding 
Liechtenstein). Available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-
maps/daviz/percentage-of-total-green-infrastructure#tab-googlechartid_chart_11 
(accessed 7 August 2024). 

EEA and Norway Grants (2024) Slovakia. Available at: 
https://eeagrants.org/countries/slovakia (accessed 24 July 2024). 

EEA (2018) Natura 2000 barometer. Available at: 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/dashboards/natura-2000-barometer  
(accessed 26 July 2024). 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EEA (2020) State of Nature in the EU – Results from Reporting under the 
Nature Directives 2013-2018. Publications Office of the European Union. 
Available at: https://doi.org/10.2800/705440 (accessed 4 July 2024). 

EEA (2023) Explore nature reporting data. Available at: 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/at-a-glance/nature/state-of-nature-in-
europe-a-health-check/explore-nature-reporting-
data?activeAccordion=9d63caab-6941-4f3b-b533-a3a298dce29d (accessed 12 
September 2024). 

EEA (2023) The Natura 2000 protected areas network. Available at: 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/biodiversity/natura-2000/the-natura-2000-
protected-areas-network (accessed 26 July 2024).  

EEA (n.d.) European Environment Agency. Available at: 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/en (accessed 7 August 2024). 

EEA (n.d.) Natura 2000 viewer. Available at: https://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/ 
(accessed 26 July 2024). 

EEA (n.d.) Urban tree cover viewer. Available at: 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/maps-and-charts/urban-tree-cover-
dashboards (accessed 12 September 2024). 

Espadalé Gelis, A. (2023) Green Infrastructure Programme of Catalonia. 
Available at: https://regionswithnature.org/tools-and-resources/50 (accessed 12 
September 2024). 

EUROCITIES (n.d.) EUROCITIES. Available at: https://eurocities.eu/  
(accessed 27 September 2024). 

European Commission (2020) EU-funded project creates Green and Blue Axis 
in Lisbon, Portugal. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/projects/portugal/eu-funded-project-
creates-green-and-blue-axis-in-lisbon-portugal (accessed 9 September 2024). 

European Commission (2020) EU Guidance on Integrating Ecosystems and 
their Services into Decision-Making – Summary for Policymakers in 
Government and Industry. Available at: 
https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/3f466d71-92a7-49eb-9c63-
6cb0fadf29dc/library/69344fc4-de8e-4cfe-b418-
4af78e7db690/details?download=true (accessed 3 September 2024). 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Commission (2023) EU action on biodiversity financing. Available at: 
https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/biodiversity/eu-action-biodiversity-
financing_en (accessed 24 July 2024). 

European Commission (2024) Startup Europe. Available at: https://digital-
strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/startup-europe (accessed 23 September 2024). 

European Commission (n.d.) "Lisboa e Vale do Tejo" Operational Programme 
(PORLVT). Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/in-your-
country/programmes/2000-2006/pt/lisboa-e-vale-do-tejo-operational-
programme-porlvt_en (accessed 13 September 2024). 

European Commission (n.d.) Applying for the Awards – FAQs: What are the 
main benefits of winning the awards?. Available at: 
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/urban-environment/european-green-
capital-award/applying-awards_en (accessed 3 September 2024). 

European Commission (n.d.) Biodiversity strategy for 2030. Available at: 
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/biodiversity-strategy-2030_en  
(accessed 26 July 2024). 

European Commission (n.d.) Cohesion Fund. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funding/cohesion-fund_en (accessed 8 
August 2024). 

European Commission (n.d.) Cohesion policy: biodiversity tracking. Available 
at: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/stories/s/21-27-Cohesion-policy-
Biodiversity-tracking/rza5-iu48/ (accessed 8 August 2024). 

European Commission (n.d.) EU Green Capital & EU Green Leaf Awards. 
Available at: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/urban-
environment/european-green-capital-award_en (accessed 7 August 2024). 

European Commission (n.d.) EU Urban Nature Platform. Available at: 
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/urban-environment/urban-nature-
platform_en (accessed 27 September 2024). 

European Commission (n.d.) European Regional Development Fund. Available 
at: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funding/erdf_en (accessed 8 August 
2024). 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Commission (n.d.) Green City Accord. Available at: 
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/urban-environment/green-city-
accord_en (accessed 26 July 2024).  

European Commission (n.d.) Green infrastructure. Available at: 
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/green-
infrastructure_en (accessed 7 August 2024). 

European Commission (n.d.) How to join the Green City Accord. Available at: 
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/urban-environment/green-city-
accord/how-join-green-city-accord_en (accessed 3 September 2024). 

European Commission (n.d.) Ijsselmeer - Netherlands. Available at: 
https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/NL9803028 (accessed 23 
September 2024). 

European Commission (n.d.) Information on LIFE Calls for proposals for 2024. 
Available at: https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/programmes/life/life-calls-proposals-
2024_en (accessed 12 August 2024). 

European Commission (n.d.) Nature and Biodiversity: Nature and Biodiversity 
sub-programme. Available at: 
https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/programmes/life/nature-and-biodiversity_en (accessed 
8 August 2024). 

European Commission (n.d.) Nature Restoration Law. Available at: 
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/nature-
restoration-law_en (accessed 26 July 2024). 

European Commission (n.d.) Common agricultural policy funds. Available at: 
https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/financing-cap/cap-
funds_en  (accessed 8 August 2024). 

European Commission (n.d.) Supporting the Implementation of Green Budgeting 
Practices among the EU Member States. Available at: https://reform-
support.ec.europa.eu/what-we-do/revenue-administration-and-public-financial-
management/supporting-implementation-green-budgeting-practices-eu_en 
(accessed 12 September 2024). 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Commission (n.d.) Sustainable use of land and nature-based solutions 
in cities. Available at: https://commission.europa.eu/eu-regional-and-urban-
development/topics/cities-and-urban-development/priority-themes-eu-
cities/sustainable-use-land-and-nature-based-solutions-cities_en (accessed 7 
August 2024). 

European Commission (n.d.) Technical Support Instrument (TSI). Available at: 
https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-
programmes/technical-support-instrument/technical-support-instrument-tsi_en 
(accessed 7 August 2024). 

European Commission (n.d.) Urban Agenda for the EU. Available at: 
https://commission.europa.eu/eu-regional-and-urban-development/topics/cities-
and-urban-development/urban-agenda-eu_en#priority-themes (accessed 7 
August 2024). 

European Commission (n.d.) Waddenzee – Netherlands. Available at: 
https://biodiversity.europa.eu/sites/natura2000/NL9801001 (accessed 23 
September 2024). 

European Commission (n.d.) Winning cities - European Green Capital & 
European Green Leaf Awards. Available at: 
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/urban-environment/european-green-
capital-award/winning-cities_en (accessed 3 September 2024). 

European Committee of the Regions (2024) Call for best practices from EU 
local and regional authorities. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/GDBestPractices (accessed 19 September 
2024). 

European Committee of the Regions (n.d.) Green Deal Going Local Handbook. 
Available at: https://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/political-priorities/green-deal-
going-local/green-deal-going-local-handbook (accessed 19 September 2024). 

European Committee of the Regions (n.d.) Green Deal Going Local. Available 
at: https://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/political-priorities/green-deal-going-
local#toc-green-deal-going-local-working-group (accessed 19 September 2024). 

European Committee of the Regions (n.d.) Young Elected Politicians (YEPs) 
programme. Available at: https://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/cooperations-and-
networks/young-elected-politicians-programme (accessed 19 September 2024). 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Parliament (2020) Resolution of 16 January 2020 on the 15th meeting 
of the Conference of Parties (COP15) to the Convention on Biological Diversity 
(2019/2824(RSP)). Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020IP0015 (accessed 30 September 
2024). 

Eurostat (2023) Urban-Rural Europe – Introduction. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Urban-
rural_Europe_-_introduction (accessed 18 July 2024). 

France Nature Environnement – Loire (n.d.) Engage your community (Engagez 
votre commune). Available at: 
https://zeropesticide.fneloire.fr/collectivites/engagez-votre-commune/  (accessed 
4 September 2024). 

France Nature Environnement – Loire (n.d.) The "Pesticide-free Municipality" 
label (Le label « Commune sans pesticide »). Available at: 
https://zeropesticide.fneloire.fr/collectivites/label-commune-sans-
pesticide/#:~:text=Toute%20commune%20qui%20a%20totalement,FREDON%
20Auvergne%2DRh%C3%B4ne%2DAlpes (accessed 4 September 2024). 

France Nature Environnement Loire (2024) France Nature Environnement 
Loire. Available at: https://www.fne-aura.org/loire/ (accessed 9 September 
2024). 

Fredon Centre Val de Loire (2019) FREDON CVL. Available at: 
https://fredon.fr/cvl/ (accessed 9 September 2024). 

Functional Areas in the EU (n.d.) Cluj Green Infrastructure Development 
Initiative – Cluj-Napoca Metropolitan Area. Available at: 
https://functionalareas.eu/cluj-green-infrastructure-development-initiative/ 
(accessed 24 July 2024). 

Golinvaux M. (2021) Faire de Bruxelles un verger. Available at: https://urban-
ecology.squarespace.com/s/20210619_Faire-de-Bruxelles-un-verger-Le-Soir-
pages-1.pdf (accessed 25 September 2024).  

Gotta, P., Ciampitti, M., Cavagna, B., Bosio, G., Gilioli, G., Alma, A., Battisti, 
A., Mori, N., Mazza, G., Torrini, G., Paoli, F., Santoiemma, G., Simonetto, A., 
Lessio, F., Sperandio, G., Giacometto, E., Bianchi, A., Roversi, P.F., and 
Marianelli, L. (2023) Popillia japonica – Italian outbreak management. 
Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/insect-
science/articles/10.3389/finsc.2023.1175138/full (accessed 12 September 2024). 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Government of the Slovak Republic (2010) Draft of the Program of Landscape 
Revitalization and Integrated Watershed Management of the Slovak Republic 
and draft of its implementation project 2010 (Návrh Programu revitalizácie 
krajiny a integrovaného manažmentu povodí Slovenskej republiky a návrh jeho 
realizačného projektu 2010). Available at: 
https://rokovania.gov.sk/RVL/Material/6512/1 (accessed 24 July 2024). 

Guerry, A.D., Smith, J.R., Lonsdorf, E., Daily, G.C., Wang, X., and Chun, Y. 
(2021) Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities. The GPSC. Available at: 
https://www.thegpsc.org/sites/gpsc/files/final_urban_nature_and_biodiversity_f
or_cities.pdf (accessed 30 July 2024). 

ICLEI Europe (n.d.) ICLEI Europe. Available at: https://iclei-europe.org/ 
(accessed 27 September 2024). 

ICLEI European Secretariat (2020) Barcelona: harnessing its natural heritage 
to benefit all. Available at: https://iclei-
europe.org/news/?Celebrating_the_biodiverse_cities_of_the_future_this_Interna
tional_Day_for_Biological_Diversity_&newsID=NBcmhze2 (accessed 12 
September 2024). 

ICLEI (2023) Guide to Biodiversity Financing for Cities and Regions. Available 
at: https://interactbio.iclei.org/resource/guide-to-biodiversity-financing-for-
cities-and-regions/ (accessed 7 August 2024). 

ICLEI (n.d.) Municipality of Marousi: ICLEI Member Profile. Available at: 
https://iclei.org/network_city/municipality-of-marousi/ (accessed 27 September 
2024). 

Il Ministro dell’agricoltura, della sovranità alimentare e delle foreste (n.d.) 
Adozione del Piano di emergenza nazionale per Popillia japonica Newman. 
Available at: https://www.protezionedellepiante.it/wp-
content/uploads/2024/06/masaf-2024-0154311-masaf-2024-0141823-allegato-
dmpianoemergenzapj19032024_1_signed.pdf (accessed 17 September 2024). 

Interact (n.d.) About Interreg. Available at: https://interreg.eu/about-interreg/ 
(accessed 8 August 2024). 

Interreg Europe (2022) Preserving and Restoring Biodiversity. Available at: 
https://www.interregeurope.eu/find-policy-solutions/policy-briefs/preserving-
and-restoring-biodiversity (accessed 4 July 2024). 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interreg Europe (n.d.) EVA: Eixo Verde Azul/Green Blue Axis. Available at: 
https://www.interregeurope.eu/good-practices/eva-eixo-verde-azulgreen-blue-
axis (accessed 9 September 2024). 

IPPC Secretariat (2021) Strategic Framework for the International Plant 
Protection Convention (IPPC) 2020-2030: Protecting global plant resources 
and facilitating safe trade. Available at: 
https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/a01aa160-a92d-40dd-9384-b6c9c0b62d79  
(accessed 23 September 2024). 

It Fryske Gea (n.d.) It Fryske Gea. Available at: https://www.itfryskegea.nl/ 
(accessed 23 September 2024). 

Kazcmarski, M., Kilar J., and Szewczyk M. (2021) Program aktywizacji 
gospodarczo-turystycznej województwa podkarpackiego poprzez promocję 
cennych przyrodniczo i krajobrazowo terenów łąkowo-pastwiskowych z 
zachowaniem bioróżnorodności w oparciu o naturalny wypas zwierząt 
gospodarskich i owadopylność – Podkarpacki Naturalny Wypas III. Available 
at: https://www.farmer.pl/multimedia/pliki/127924.html (accessed 24 July 
2024). 

Košice Self-Governing Region Council (2005) Kosice Water Protocol for Water 
in the 21st Century: People and Water (Košický protocol pre vodu v 21. storočí: 
Ľudia a voda). Available at: 
https://static.kosice.sk/s/15acf68da6f00a9acb044/show (accessed 24 July 2024). 

Košice Self-Governing Region Council (2019) Landscape restoration program 
(Program obnovy krajiny). Available at: 
https://web.vucke.sk/sk/kompetencie/regionalny-rozvoj/program-obnovy-
krajiny/ (accessed 29 August 2024). 

Košice Self-Governing Region Council (2022) The Green Catalogue (ZELENÝ 
CATALÓG). Available at: https://www.arr.sk/zeleny-katalog/ (accessed 25 July 
2024). 

Košice Self-Governing Region (n.d.) Green Restoration Programme for the 
Košice Region of Slovakia: Landscape and Watershed Recovery 2021-2030. 
Available at: https://www.waterholistic.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/KSK-
EN.pdf (accessed 8 August 2024). 

KSK Archive (2023) Territorial Plan of the Region (Územný plán regiónu 
(ÚPN VÚC)) 2017. Available at: https://web.vucke.sk/sk/kompetencie/uzemne-
planovanie/uzemny-plan-regionu/rok-2017/ (accessed 8 August 2024). 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Le Chambon Feugerolles (n.d.) A flowery city (Une ville fleurie). Available at: 
https://lechambon.fr/ma-ville/fleurissement/ (accessed 16 September 2024). 

Lisboa2020 (n.d.) Lisboa2020 supports the Jamor Green Blue Axis (Lisboa2020 
apoia o Eixo Verde Azul do Jamor). Available at: 
https://lisboa.portugal2020.pt/np4/https:/lisboa.portugal2020.pt/np4/1204.html.h
tml (accessed 13 September 2024). 

Lisboa2020 (n.d.) POR Lisbon 2020 (POR Lisboa 2020). Available at: 
https://lisboa.portugal2020.pt/np4/54.html (accessed 10 September 2024). 

Mairie de Paris (2017) City of Paris Sustainability Bond Framework. Available 
at: 
https://cdn.paris.fr/paris/2019/07/24/cc0a71674202b85fe270f95df4909104.pdf 
(accessed 8 August 2024). 

Markowska, A., Labayle, L., Banfi, P. and McGuinn, J. (2020) Financing 
biodiversity action – Opportunities and challenges for EU subnational 
governments. Publications Office of the European Union. Available 
at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2863/569317 (accessed 4 July 2024). 

Marshal's Office of the Podkarpackie Voivodeship (2020) Development Strategy 
of the Podkarpacie Voivodeship – Podkarpacie 2030 (Strategia rozwoju 
województwa - Podkarpackie 2030). Available at: 
https://www.podkarpackie.pl/images/pliki/RR/2022/Strategia_rozwoju_wojew%
C3%B3dztwa_-_Podkarpackie_2030_-_Sejmik_WP_28.09.2020_r.pdf  
(accessed 24 July 2024). 

McDonald, R.I., Mansur, A.V., Ascensão, F., Colbert, M., Crossman, K., 
Elmqvist, T., Gonzalez, A., Güneralp, B., Haase, D., Hamann, M., Hillel, O., 
Huang, K., Kahnt, B., Maddox, D., Pacheco, A., Pereira, H.M., Seto, K.C., 
Simkin, R., Walsh, B., Werner, A.S., and Ziter, C. (2019) Research Gaps in 
Knowledge of the Impact of Urban Growth on Biodiversity. Nature 
Sustainability. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0436-6 
(accessed 25 July 2024). 

Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management (2018) Agenda IJsselmeer 
2050 (Agenda IJsselmeergebied 2050). Available at: 
https://www.hetblauwehart.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/06/AgendaIJsselmeergebied2050_LR.pdf (accessed 18 
September 2024). 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management (n.d.) The Afsluitdijk Project. 
Available at: https://theafsluitdijk.com/wp-
content/uploads/sites/3/2021/01/19038-RWS-
Afsluitdijk_brochure_ENG_DIGI_DEF_DV.pdf (accessed 23 September 2024). 

Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (2021) The Environment and 
Planning Act of the Netherlands. Available at: 
https://iplo.nl/publish/pages/191405/environment-and-planning-act-of-the-
netherlands-june-2021.pdf (accessed 23 September 2024). 

Municipality of Cluj-Napoca (2024) Cluj-Napoca: towards climate neutrality. 
Available at: https://clujnapoca2030.ro/ (accessed 23 September 2024). 

NET ZERO CITIES (n.d.) Cluj-Napoca's Pilot City Activity: Blueprint for Net-
Zero Apartment-block Neighbourhoods. Available at: 
https://netzerocities.eu/cluj-napoca-pilot-city-activity-blueprint-for-net-zero-
apartment-block-neighbourhoods/  (accessed 20 September 2024). 

NetVISwerk (n.d.) NetVISwerk. Available at: https://netviswerk.nl/ (accessed 
23 September 2024). 

NetworkNature (n.d.) Constructed wetlands as a multipurpose green 
infrastructure in Gorla Maggiore, Italy. Available at: 
https://networknature.eu/casestudy/17252 (accessed 12 September 2024). 

NetworkNature (n.d.) NetworkNature. Available at: 
https://networknature.eu/themes/biodiversity-enhancement-and-ecosystem-
restoration (accessed 27 September 2024). 

Nature Protection Department of the Salzburg Regional Government, 
Association Torferneuerungsverein Weidmoos, Lamprechtshausen Local 
Council, and St Georgen Local Council (n.d.) LIFE Project Habitat 
Management in the Weidmoos Bird Reserve. Available at: 
https://www.salzburg.gv.at/umweltnaturwasser_/Documents/Publikationen 
Natur/Life-Projekt Weidmoos - Brochure english.pdf (accessed 25 July 2024). 

Open Rivers Programme (2024) Removing the Holstenkoski Dam has had 
significant ecological benefits. Available at: https://openrivers.eu/news/removal-
of-holstenkoski-dam-has-significant-ecological-benefits/ (accessed 8 August 
2024). 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Parques de Sintra (2020) Who we are (Quem Somos). Available at: 
https://www.parquesdesintra.pt/pt/sobre-nos/quem-somos/ (accessed 10 
September 2024). 

Portico (n.d.) Sustainable Land Use. Available at: https://portico.urban-
initiative.eu/urban-agenda-eu/sustainable-land-use (accessed 3 September 2024). 

Puppim de Oliveira, J.A., Shih, W., Moreno-Peñaranda, R., and Phillips, A. 
(2014) Integrating Biodiversity with Local and City Planning: The Experiences 
of the Studios in the Development of Local Biodiversity Strategies and Action 
Plans – LBSAPs. UNU Collections. Available at: 
http://collections.unu.edu/view/UNU:2568 (accessed 26 July 2024). 

Regione Lombardia (2023) Popillia japonica - Italian Outbreak Management. 
PowerPoint presentation (regione.lombardia.it), p.16. Available at: 
https://fitosanitario.regione.lombardia.it/wps/wcm/connect/ef322c89-8877-
450e-a946-
2f975d5b9768/Update+Popillia+japonica+outbreak+21.04.2023.pdf?MOD=AJP
ERES&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE-ef322c89-8877-450e-a946-
2f975d5b9768-p7YxgLj (accessed 30 September 2024). 

Regione Lombardia (2023) Popillia japonica - Italian Outbreak Management. 
PowerPoint presentation (regione.lombardia.it), p.38. Available at: 
https://fitosanitario.regione.lombardia.it/wps/wcm/connect/ef322c89-8877-
450e-a946-
2f975d5b9768/Update+Popillia+japonica+outbreak+21.04.2023.pdf?MOD=AJP
ERES&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE-ef322c89-8877-450e-a946-
2f975d5b9768-p7YxgLj (accessed 30 September 2024). 

Regione Lombardia (2023) Popillia japonica - Italian Outbreak Management. 
PowerPoint presentation (regione.lombardia.it), p.39. Available at: 
https://fitosanitario.regione.lombardia.it/wps/wcm/connect/ef322c89-8877-
450e-a946-
2f975d5b9768/Update+Popillia+japonica+outbreak+21.04.2023.pdf?MOD=AJP
ERES&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE-ef322c89-8877-450e-a946-
2f975d5b9768-p7YxgLj (accessed 30 September 2024). 

Regione Lombardia Servizio Fitosanitario Regionale (2024) Popillia o Japanese 
beetle (Popillia japonica) – Cosa stiamo facendo. Available at: 
https://fitosanitario.regione.lombardia.it/wps/portal/site/sfr/DettaglioRedazional
e/organismi-nocivi/insetti-e-acari/popillia-japonica (accessed 17 September 
2024). 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Regions4 Sustainable Development (n.d.) Regions4. Available at: 
https://regions4.org/ (accessed 27 September 2024). 

Regions4 Sustainable Development (n.d.) Development and Sustainability 
Agenda for Åland and the Bärkraft.ax Initiative. Available at: 
https://regions4.org/actions/development-and-sustainability-agenda-for-aland-
and-the-barkraft-ax-initiative/ (accessed 12 September 2024). 

RegionsWithNature (n.d.) Coming soon: UN CBD-recognized Action Platform 
for regional/subnational governments to share their commitments and actions for 
nature. Available at: https://regionswithnature.org/actions/ (accessed 12 
September 2024). 

RegionsWithNature (n.d.) RegionsWithNature. Available at: 
https://regionswithnature.org/ (accessed 27 September 2024). 

Regulation (EU) 2021/690 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 
April 2021 establishing a programme for the internal market, competitiveness of 
enterprises, including small and medium-sized enterprises, the area of plants, 
animals, food and feed, and European statistics (Single Market Programme) and 
repealing Regulations (EU) No 99/2013, (EU) No 1287/2013, (EU) No 
254/2014 and (EU) No 652/2014. OJ L 153, 3.5.2021, p. 1–47. Available at: 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R0690  
(accessed 30 September 2024). 

Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 
June 2024 on nature restoration and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869. OJ L 
2024/1991, 29.7.2024. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32024R1991 (accessed 26 July 2024). 

Romanian Ministry of European Investments and Projects (2023) Romanian 
Recovery and Resilience Plan (Planul Naţional de Redresare şi Rezilienţă). 
Available at: https://mfe.gov.ro/pnrr/ (accessed 24 July 2024).  

Servizio Fitosanitario Regionale (2021) App FitoDetective. Last update July 
2021. Available at: 
https://www.fitosanitario.regione.lombardia.it/wps/portal/site/sfr/sorveglianza/fit
odetective (accessed 12 September 2024). 

Silvano, S. (n.d.) Slide 26 in Jamor Green and Blue Axis (Jamor eixo verde e 
azul). Available at: 
https://www.interregeurope.eu/sites/default/files/inline/11_Green_Blue_Axis_-
_Sofia_Silvano.pdf (accessed 10 September 2024). 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sintra Municipality Council (2018) 28 abril 2018. Available at: https://cm-
sintra.pt/index.php?option=com_content&Itemid=638&catid=8,12,11,17,25,219
,182&id=6091&view=article (accessed 13 September 2024). 

Sportvisserij Nederland (n.d.) Sportvisserij Nederland. Available at: 
https://www.sportvisserijnederland.nl/  (accessed 23 September 2024). 

State Shared Service Centre of Estonia (n.d.) Bioaware project. Available at: 
https://www.estoniarussia.eu/projects/bioaware/ (accessed 3 September 2024). 

Sundseth, K. (2015) The EU birds and habitats directives – For nature and 
people in Europe. European Commission, Directorate-General for Environment. 
Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2779/49288 (accessed 25 July 2024). 

Szigeti-Böröcz, A. (2024) Tools to activate residents to transform their private 
gardens into biodiversity oases - BiodiverCity case study 5. Available at: 
https://www.biodivercity.eu (accessed 12 September 2024). 

Tešliar, J., Juhászová, M., Barančíková, G., Barka, I., Dzurdženík, J., 
Frühaufová, I., Juhászová, M., Kiraľvargová, H., Kravčíková, D., Kučeravcová, 
A., Lapin, M., Mikulová, K., Šebešová, A., Šťastný, P., Tauš, P., Tóthová, S., 
Vilček, J., Višňovská, M., and Zeleňáková, M. (n.d.) Adaptation strategy to the 
impacts of climate change in the Košice region (Adaptačná stratégia na dôsldeky 
zmeny klímy v Košickom kraji). Available at: https://www.arr.sk/wp-
content/uploads/2021/09/Adaptacna-strategia-KSK-zastupitelstvo.pdf (accessed 
29 August 2024). 

The Afsluitdijk (n.d.) Fish Migration River Afsluitdijk. Available at: 
https://theafsluitdijk.com/projects/fishmigrationriver/ (accessed 23 September 
2024). 

URBACT (n.d.) URBACT. Available at: https://urbact.eu/ (accessed 27 
September 2024). 

URBACT (n.d.) BiodiverCity. Available at: 
https://urbact.eu/networks/biodivercity (accessed 27 September 2024). 

Urban Agenda (n.d.) Sustainable Land Use. Available at: 
https://www.urbanagenda.urban-initiative.eu/partnerships/sustainable-land-use  
(accessed 3 September 2024).  

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ville du Chambon-Feugerolles (2021) An exemplary city (La ville exemplaire). 
HORIZONS. Available at: https://lechambon.fr/wp-
content/uploads/2021/07/Bulletin-118.pdf (accessed 4 September 2024). 

Ville du Chambon-Feugerolles (2023) Flowering the town, yes, but without 
phyto (Fleurir la ville oui, mais sans phyto). HORIZONS. Available at: 
https://lechambon.fr/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Bulletin-126-light.pdf 
(accessed 11 September 2024). 

Ville du Chambon-Feugerolles (2024) The ‘0 phyto’ choice (Le choix du « 0 
phyto »). HORIZONS. Available at: https://lechambon.fr/wp-
content/uploads/2024/03/Bulletin-129-VALIDE%CC%81.pdf (accessed 11 
September 2024). 

Vogelparadies Weidmoos (n.d.) What’s going on in Weidmoos. Available at: 
https://www.weidmoos.at/aktuelles/ (accessed 27 August 2024). 

Võru City Government (n.d.) ER65 BioAware. Available at: 
https://www.voru.ee/et/er65-bioaware (accessed 2 September 2024). 

Waddenveriniging (2024) Waddenvereniging. Available at: 
https://waddenvereniging.nl/  (accessed 23 September 2024). 

Wilk, B. & Utkarsh, N. (2022) The Proposed EU Nature Restoration Law: What 
Role for Cities and Regions? H2020 project No. 887396. Available at: 
https://networknature.eu/product/27017 (accessed 4 July 2024). 

World Fish Migration Foundation (n.d.) What is Happy Fish?. Available at: 
https://www.worldfishmigrationday.com/happy-fish/ (accessed 23 September 
2024). 

Xie, L. & Bulkeley, H. (2020) City for Biodiversity: The Roles of Nature-Based 
Solutions in European Cities. NATURVATION. Available at: 
https://networknature.eu/product/22733 (accessed 4 July 2024). 

Xie, L. and Bulkeley, H. (2021) Realising the Urban Opportunity: Cities and the 
Post-2020 Biodiversity Governance. PBL Netherlands Environmental 
Assessment Agency. Available at: https://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/realising-
the-urban-opportunity-cities-and-the-post-2020-biodiversity-governance 
(accessed 25 July 2024). 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EN

ISBN 978-92-895-3662-2
doi:10.2863/5187788

QG-01-24-017-EN-N

Created in 1994, the European Committee of the Regions is the EU’s political 
assembly of 329 regional and local representatives such as regional presidents or 
city-mayors from all 27 Member States, representing over 446 million Europeans.

© European Union 2024

Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 101  | 
www.cor.europa.eu  | 

  |  BELGIQUE/BELGIË  | 

@EU_CoR  | 

/european.committee.of.the.regions 

/european-committee-of-the-regions  | 

@EU_regions_cities