The ESPON GRETA project

1. The ESPON GRETA project Workshop 08WS481: Green Infrastructure: enhancing ecosystem services for territorial development Gemma Garcia Blanco TECNALIA Research and Innovation Gemma.garcia@tecnalia.com

2. What is Green Infrastructure? • Key Features of Green Infrastructure • Connectivity–creatingnetworkedgeographical areas. • Multifunctionality–performingseveralfunctions while also providing valuable ecosystem services. • Multi-scale approach – integrating spatial planningacrossurban,peri-urbanandrural settings. GRETA adopts the Green Infrastructure (GI) definition proposed by the European Commission (EC) in 2013 Green roofs Hedgerow bordering and agricultural field Urban trees River and riparian vegetation Wetlands Figure 1. conceptual illustration of strategically planned green infrastructure across spatial scales. Elaboration by GRETA research team. Icons from https://thenounproject.com/.

3. Snap shotontheappliedresearchresults Literature review on GI and ES benefits and challenges and economic valuation methods • Spatial distribution of GI in Europe • Characterization in physical terms at regional and city level • Characterization in functional terms at regional level Spatial analysis of ES synergies and trade-offs, accessibility, supply and demand for GI to inform planning decisions Analysis of policy context, strategies and planning instruments in Europe in support to GI implementation and management 32 NFS 12 Case studies and 25 good practice examples Policy guidelines and practice briefings

4. Ecological, social, cultural and economic benefits of Green Infrastructure in Europe But, green infrastructure has potential side effects that are important to be aware of, like: Risk of invasion by alien species Eco-gentrification Figure 2. Summary of main benefits provided by Green Infrastructure at different scales. Elaboration by GRETA research team. Icons from https://thenounproject.com/. Human health effects Higher costs to initiate or maintain green infrastructure

5. Innovative spatial analysis for physical and multifunctional mapping of GI in European regions (NUTS2/3) Connectors Physicalmapping • Standardized comparison of “potential” GI • Evaluation of the ability of GI to serve different policy objectives: i.e. biodiversity, climate change and water management. • Transferable methodology GI connectors (natural and semi-natural notprotected) Hubs GI hubs (Natura 2000 EMERALD) Connectivity WaterFrameworkDirective Biodiversity Climatechange & DRR Planning & management perspective Policies (Multiplepurposes) Ecosystem ServicesFunctionalmapping Recreation Potential Gross Nutrient Balance Habitat Quality Relative pollintation Net Ecosystem Productivity Soil Erosion Control Water Retention Index Water Purification Multifunctionality Food production To whatextentthe ES of each GI component can suport specific policies? Maps of ecosystem services Water retention Recreation potential

6. The physical characteristics of potential GI • Two contrasting patterns: • Low percentage. north-western France and Germany, south-eastern UK and Ireland, and Denmark; • Very high percentage. the Nordic countries, the Balkan countries along the Adriatic Sea and the eastern Alpine region

7. The functional performance of potential GI • Areas with higher percentage of GI potential tend to be monofunctional/ single policy- i.e Nordic countries water regulating services: north Spain climate change through carbon storage and soil erosion • Areas with low percentage of GI potential are more multifunctional and various policy objectives • Opportunity for increasing cross-sectoral cooperation in areas where GI supports multiple policies

8. The geographic distribution of potential GI in European cities • Changes in urban green inside core areas- 2002-2016 Urban Atlas updated information in June 2020 • Central and north-western Europe relatively stable green/blue spaces over time. • Eastern and southern European countries decreasing orange/redish, likely due to urbanisation processes resulting from economic development after the accession of the countries to the EU (eastern Europe) or due to tourism development (southern Europe). • On the other end of the spectrum, only three cities show an increase in urban green spaces: :Faro, Nice, and Capelleaan den Ijssel,

9. How do European regions fare in meeting the existing demand for regulating, provisioning and cultural services offered by GI Analysis in progress • GRETA suggested a simple approach on how to explore the capacity of GI to meet the demand for Ecosystem Services- • Based on modelling and potential GI • Soil protection • Recreation • Water purification • Flood regulation- Shown in the map • The extreme cases- i.e. green and red are clear situations • The yellow areas is where there is a need to investigate with more detail to find out which are the circumstances leading to such stability. • More sophisticated modelling would be required to have an appropriate quantitative balance

10. How European countries implement the European GI strategy To assess if and how European countries implement the European GI strategy (2013), National Policy Factsheets have been created for each country in the ESPON space based on a desk study and questionnaire. The 32 National policy factsheets describe the policy and planning contexts for GI. Strategies and policies for GI in Europe: • 11 of the 32 ESPON countries have GI specific policies on national levels. • GRETA research results indicate that in those countries where the national level have established GI specific policies and action plans, the implementation of GI is more in progress. • All countries, however, include GI in one or more policy sectors.

11. Key messages from the National Fact Sheets • In Europe, some policy sectors are more clearly including GI principles. • Land use and spatial development planning • Water management • Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries • Climate change mitigation and adaptation • Environmental protection • Rural development • This suggests that GI is perceived as broader than biodiversity protection, which is what the European Green Infrastructure Strategy from 2013 intended. • In other policy sectors principles of GI are not prominent. • Finance • Health • Social Services

12. Messages from the case study analysis • Main challenges for GI implementation are transport, boundary issues, demographic pressure, agriculture and non-sustainable forest management and forest drainage. • Lack of high-level guidelines on zoning and land use management in the planning instruments alongside political commitment and financial and economic investment constitute also key constraints. • Ecosystem based territorial planning for GI is recognized as a potential opportunity to utilize cross-border cooperation There is no one-size-fits-all solution • Generally speaking, the case studies have adopted GI – to different extent – as an intrinsic part of spatial and urban planning, • Although ES are not always formally recognised, it seems that they are implicitly assessed in the GI approach, with a special emphasis on ecological connectivity, biodiversity, recreation, culture and wellbeing. GRETA investigates 12 case studies that represent different spatial, institutional and governance settings and that range from urban centres to rural countryside.

13. Zoom in to GRETA spatial analyses Themapstellus a full narrativeonthe GI phenomena and itsimplicationsforplanning and management The GRETA methodological approach can be adapted and downscaled to produce detailed input information for strategic planning purposes if local level data is available.

14. Some messages • At the EU level GRETA provides a novel methodology which allows characterization of GI from a physical and functional perspective • Allows for identification of existing assets and opportunities for GI to respond to territorial challenges i.e. climate change • Allows the identification to HOT SPOTS areas in need for special attention • Also opportunities for cross-scale and cross-border collaboration. • Strategic planning of GI should be embedded into spatial planning – as the discipline that has the capacity to articulate the deployment of other policies- • The questions are “how?” with different planning cultures in EU and “what is the governance? who is responsible for GI?” • Further research on the Supply of / and Demand for GI is needed, particularly peri-urban and rural scales- since strong effort is being recently placed on urban scale.

15. Some messages • How to better consider “agriculture” into the analysis of GI and potential consequences to the sector • Ensure availability/ accessibility of data and monitor progress of GI is crucial- • Time series and change/trend analysis • Investigate failure of implementation. The GRETA research indicates a need to further identify failure of implementing GI. Such failures could for instance be found in situations with low political support for GI, and where a holistic and spatial perspective of GI is lacking.

16. Policy briefings

17. Thankyou onbehalfof GRETA Team