1
DEBRIEF Stakeholder Workshop
'Nature-Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities'1
8 December 2014, Brussels
Introduction
Context
The Stakeholder Workshop 'Nature-Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities' held in Brussels on 8
December 2014 was part of an on-going multi-stakeholder dialogue which aims at contributing to
developing a Research & Innovation (R&I)agenda on Nature-Based Solutions (2014-2020). The
objective of this EU R&I agenda is to position Europe as world leader both in R&I and in the global
market of Nature-Based Solutions. Four challenges have been highlighted by the work of the
Horizon2020 Expert Group on 'Nature-Based Solutions and Re-naturing Cities':
Sustainable Urbanisation
Restoration of Degraded Ecosystems
Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation
Improved Risk Management and Resilience.
The objective of the workshop was to encourage discussion on the most promising strategic
opportunity areas for an EU R&I agenda on Nature-Based Solutions, as well as specific R&I actions
required to achieve these opportunities. Relevant actors and possible indicators (of implementation
success) were also debated. 56 participants from different sectors, including government, business,
finance, academia, policy, CSOs attended the workshop (link to participant list). Discussions were
held in parallel break-out groups (corresponding to the four challenges), using the outcomes of the E-
consultation on Nature-Based Solutions of 12 November 2014 as a starting point. Each break-out
group was introduced to the e-consultation results by the respective moderators of the e-
consultation. The break-out group moderation was done by a professional moderator, and results
were reported back to the plenary sessions by a volunteer participant .
1 The results in this report reflect the discussions of the Stakeholder Workshop on Nature-Based Solutions and
Re-Naturing Cities of 8 December 2014. It does not necessarily represent the views of the European Commission.
2
Main Conclusions
Sustainable Urbanisation focused its discussions on resilient cities, health & well-being, and urban
Living Labs (click here for a detailed report of the session). Discussions in the Restoration of Degraded
Ecosystems session focused on using Nature-Based Solutions for regulating pollution and natural
resource management, integration of urban planning and land restoration, integrating sustainable
agriculture and climate change adaptation and mitigation (click here for a detailed report of the
session). The Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation session emphasised the need for a holistic
approach and focused on the use of green infrastructure for protection from gradual (slow) climate
change impacts and from extreme weather events, and on bio-mimetic solutions. (click here for a
detailed report of the session). Improved Risk Management and Resilience focused on extreme water
level and prevention (click here for a report account of the session). There was significant overlap
across all four sessions. For example, urban issues and agriculture were discussed within the context
of all four challenges.
Overarching issues and plenary discussions resulted in the following conclusions:
Adopt an integrated and holistic regional landscape approach. There was an overall consensus on
the need to adopt an integrated and holistic urban/spatial planning approach. This is also the case
for cities, which are not independent of the wider environment / landscape / seascape (and the
people that live and work elsewhere). Programmes for research and innovation on Nature-Based
Solutions should therefore also address the interconnectedness and the interdependencies between
urban and non-urban areas (and people).
Innovate with "living labs" and diverse stakeholders. The idea of “living labs” for innovation and
experimentation on Nature-Based Solutions, both within and outside the urban context, was raised
several times at the workshop. Such living labs can provide the ground for inter- and trans-
disciplinary research and innovation, however the issue of interconnectedness with the broader
landscape should not be ignored. Nature-Based Solutions deliver benefits to diverse stakeholders,
hence the full stakeholder spectrum and their multiple values need to be considered.
Value the multiple benefits. The need for research and innovation on the valuation of the multiple
benefits of Nature-Based Solutions – also in the longer term, as well as into assessment tools was
also a recurring message. Indeed, the valuation (monetary and non-monetary) of the multiple
benefits of Nature-Based Solutions and the development of performance indicators, standards,
technical and scientific reference models for Nature-Based Solutions is necessary for their wider and
systemic implementation.
Create the suitable institutional and financial frameworks. Research and innovation into
governance practices including decision-making processes, constraints and opportunities related to
institutional and regulatory frameworks, as well as the development of new financial instruments are
all necessary to create a market for Nature-Based Solutions.
Map and build-on existing knowledge, and innovate. Research and innovation on Nature-Based
Solutions should include novel approaches, while also learning from and building on existing tools
3
and methods, knowledge, databases and networks. Connecting existing networks as well as “learning
by comparing" are additional strategies that are recommended.
Opening plenary session
Kurt Vandenberghe, Director of Climate Action and Resource Efficiency (EC, DG Research &
Innovation) emphasized the need for smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth. R&I policy on Nature-
Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities will support this type of growth by transforming societal
challenges into innovation opportunities. Nature-Based Solutions go beyond technological innovation
to include all possible innovations: business, finance, regulatory, governance, organisational and
social innovation. Solutions will be co-designed and co-created with stakeholders and maximise the
economic, social and environmental co-benefits. Universities, private sector, public sector and the
civil society are invited to work together to find a robust and scientific approach to Nature-Based
Solutions.
Dirk Sijmons, Professor of Landscape Architecture at Delft University of Technology, provided
illustrative examples of Nature-Based Solutions with a focus on the urban context, from the sixth
edition of the International Architecture Biennale Rotterdam
(http://iabr.nl/en/editie/urbanbynature).
Wilhelm Krull, Secretary General of VolkswagenStiftung H2020 and chair of the Horizon2020 Nature-
Based Solutions Expert Group, presented the work of the Expert Group, including the evolution of
the concept and definition of Nature-Based Solutions, as well as the underlying principles of R&I
actions within this policy. These include capitalising on existing knowledge, promoting responsible
innovation (i.e. integrating social, economic and environmental considerations), delivering role-
models to promote up-scaling, creating opportunities for capacity-building, fostering trans-
disciplinary and multi-stakeholder involvement, innovating with governance, finance and business
models, and leveraging both public and private sources of funding.
Horst Korn, Chair of the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS,
http://www.epbrs.org/) described the platform which is a science-policy interface with more than 15
years of experience and with a good foundation in the national networks. The platform is used to
deal with overarching issues like Nature-Based Solutions, and has extensively dealt with topics like
sustainable use and sustainable development. The EPBRS platform facilitated the organisation of the
e-consultation on Nature Based Solutions.
Jurgen Tack, CEO of Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) and co-chair of EPBRS,
presented the main outcomes of the e-consultation. These included the need to adopt a broader
systemic/ holistic thinking, the need for further clarification on the definition of Nature-Based
Solutions also by integrating existing (ecosystem-based) concepts, the need to think and work within
the full stakeholder spectrum and to increase awareness within a broader public, and to better
quantify and qualify the economic dimension, also on the long term.
4
Birgit de Boissezon, Head of Unit Sustainable Management of Natural Resources (EC, DG Research &
Innovation) concluded the opening plenary with an outline of the day's programme and objectives
(agenda).
5
Feedback from the Break-Out Group Session on
Sustainable Urbanisation
Ania Rok (session moderator) Marina Tsalkatidou (volunteer rapporteur) Luise Noring (E-Consultation introducer) Ugo Guarnacci & Marie Yeroyanni (EC rapporteurs) Strategic Opportunity Areas (Table 1.1)
Cities as labs and hubs for innovation and experimentation in the field of Nature-Based
Solutions
Systemic urban governance
Nature-Based Solutions for health, wellbeing and social cohesion
Urban farming for self-sustained urban economy
R&I Actions to consider, practical steps and key actors (Table 1.2)
Cities as labs and hubs for innovation and experimentation in the field of Nature-
Based Solutions The following types of actions were identified as needed: demonstration projects with a strong
replication and up-scaling capacity, relying on existing city networks to match the frontrunners and
followers and support the peer-to-peer learning process. The attention should also fall both on
historic districts and dismissed industrial sites that are not functioning anymore in order to enhance
their attractiveness and convert their use. Strong attention should be also paid here to visionary
approaches for innovating cities with nature, combing engineering and scientific approaches (i.e. eco-
dynamic solutions). In addition, the demonstration projects should prove the added value of Nature-
Based Solutions for energy efficiency and climate change resilience in particular in contrasting urban
heat island effect, improving air quality and reducing noise. The focus on experimentation,
particularly in terms of initiatives that could offer combined social, environmental and economic
benefits, should be grounded in reflection on how to adequately measure impact of these
experiments (time scale, distribution, quantitative or qualitative, learning outcomes, etc.) in a way
that would not discourage involved actors from going beyond the status quo.
Systemic urban governance There is a need for overarching coordination in order to map, analyse and assess existing successful
business models, financing mechanisms and municipal initiatives to innovate cities with nature while
adopting a systemic, multi-stakeholder and trans-disciplinary approach. The focus should be not only
6
on capital cities but also on small-medium cities and regional perspective. Moreover, there is a need
to propose and suggest tools and training for innovating architects, practitioners and policy makers.
Nature-Based Solutions for health, wellbeing and social cohesion The focus, according to the discussion, should be on behavioural aspects and experimental
approaches aimed at understanding the values that may drive citizen behaviour, their relationship to
nature and willingness to develop/adopt Nature-Based Solutions. In particular, the need to involve
children and youth was highlighted. Moreover, more research is needed on the positive effects of
Nature-Based Solutions in hospitals, schools and other public spaces, highlighting and assessing not
only the environmental positive impact, but also the economic and social added value for health,
wellbeing and cohesion (including security). The process of urban gentrification in this context should
also be investigated, taking into account gender issues.
Urban farming for self-sustained urban economy Urban Circular Economy was considered to be too broad to be addressed in such a short space. There
is a need to further define this term, looking at it also in the context of reindustralisation of European
cities, and of support to innovative SMEs. The group recommended to focus on urban farming for
self-sustained urban economy.
Research and innovation in this area should promote a landscape approach (city-scape both for
“green” and “blue” cities close to sea, lake and rivers) with particular attention to the urban/peri-
urban link and to transition initiatives led by different stakeholders (including SMEs) involved in the
demand-supply chain for strong local economies that inspire urban renaissance.
7
STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY AREA (or PROBLEMS TO SOLVE)
AREAS OF INNOVATION
(what are the current 'promising' areas of innovation and action in NBS, within the
strategic opportunity areas?)
NBS for health & wellbeing
. Value creation
. Evidence-based design
. Green historical buildings
. Indoor
cities as living labs
. Integrated governance
. Adaptive management
. Dynamic policy, space for change
. Attractive city
. Community building
urban circular economy (urban metabolism)
. Reindustrialisation
. Support SMEs
. New consumer-producer relationships
. Data leads to action
. Self-sufficiency
. Food waste
climate change resilience
. tech/eco connection
. Balance
. Adaptive capacity
. Risk & resilience
. Soil
. Air quality and noise
. Urban-rural interface
. Technical networks
. Urban landscapes
. Awareness for nature as a solution
Table 1.1: SUSTAINABLE URBANISATION - WORKSHOP, BREAKOUT GROUP 1
Note: During the first breakout group, the group discussed strategic opportunity areas and potential areas of innovation. From these areas, there
was agreement that some opportunity areas, and some innovation areas, were particularly promising and/or significant. These are marked in
bold.
8
Chosen Solution (for one or
spanning more than one
areas of innovation)
R&I Actions
PRACTICAL STEPS
1. What actions are needed to make the commercial use of NBS
in each sector possible?
2. How could we stimulate the market for this NBS?
3. If far from commercialisation, what knowledge is needed
before commercialisation is possible?
4. What knowledge-generating processes will be required?
How long will these processes take and what will they consist
of?
5. How do we formulate these actions into strategies?
ACTORS
(who can make the action happen?)
INDICATORS
(how would we measure success?
What outcomes should we look
for?)
. planning for heat island effect . Start with a needs survey
. Demonstrate solutions
. Show impact
. Produce assessments of sustainability
. Build platforms for exchange
. Develop metrics and monitor
. Flood & drought, solved through combining
water to transport heat (veg. species)
. Combine
. Grey-black water recycling . Start with a needs survey
. Demonstrate solutions
. Show impact
. Produce assessments of sustainability
. Build platforms for exchange
. Develop metrics and monitor
. Green buildings, passive heating & cooling . Assess sustainability
. Use green spaces for carbon sequestration . Start with a needs survey
. Demonstrate solutions
. Show impact
. Produce assessments of sustainability
. Build platforms for exchange
. Develop metrics and monitor
how can cities be
resilient?
Table 1.2: SUSTAINABLE URBANISATION - WORKSHOP, BREAKOUT GROUP 2
Note: During the second breakout group, the group discussed in greater detail the strategic opportunity areas identified as promising in the first session. For these, Research and Innovation actions, practical steps, and actors
were identified.
9
. Design public space for quality of life . Create inventory, build networks
. Pay attention to the scale
. Evidence-based design . Produce "fair" cost/benefits analysis
. Values and/or monetise
. Acceptable distances . Social innovation
. Community benefits / value resources . Access to services
. Ownership
. Openness of data
. Deal with pollution . Do not forget indoor pollution
. City as a lab, can be used to test & explore
policy questions through application and
demonstration
. Engage in: data mapping and intergation
. What time scale?
. Ensure local NBS reflect local needs
. Replication of NBS in other cities/regions through up-scaling
. Capitalise on existing results
. How many cities should be involved?
. How many ecosystems?
. Urbact network
. Avoid stakeholder fatigue by working in
smaller groups
. City as a hub, of creativity and social
innovation
. Research by design
. Indicators for circular economy?
health & wellbeing
urban living labs
10
Feedback from the break-out group session on
Restoration of Degraded Ecosystems
Heidi Wittmer (session moderator) Fabien Quetier & Machteld Schoolenberg (volunteer rapporteurs) Bill Sutherland (E-Consultation Introducer) Attilio Gambardella (EC rapporteur)
Strategic opportunity areas (Table 2.1)
To begin, the group agreed that the area “green cities” (identified during the E-Consultation) should
have not been discussed in this session. Together with the areas, “Using Nature-Based Solutions for
regulating pollution and natural resources management” and “Integration of urban planning and land
restoration”, another opportunity area that was considered of relevance was “integrating sustainable
agriculture and climate change adaptation and mitigation”. The group then decided to further
address all the three areas mentioned above in the second part of the discussion..
Areas of innovation (Table 2.1)
Within the three strategic opportunity areas, promising sectors identified for innovation in Nature-
Based Solutions – where Nature-Based Solutions have been proven to be effective, cost-efficient and
upscale-ready – are sustainable land/water management practices (water catchments management,
afforestation, use of vegetation to reduce soil erosion, re-use of brownfields to minimize use of peri-
urban land) and restoration of ecosystems functions (e.g. coastal areas).
Within this context it is important to stress the potential role of EU regional and structural funds as
well as the link with relevant EU policies, such as Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), Water
Framework Directive (WFD), Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), Common Fisheries Policy
(CFP) which can offer additional funding opportunities (e.g. CAP funds for soil erosion are currently
underused).
R&I Actions to consider, practical steps and key actors (Table 2.2)
There is a need for clearer definition, delimitation and explanation of the concept of Nature-Based
Solutions.
11
There is a need to have research on decision-making processes (governance) and on measurable
performance indicators (interdisciplinary). More in detail, there is a need for research on:
how to assess the value (not just monetary: benefits provided to society) of an ecosystem (as
natural capital), not just looking at each ecosystem service separately;
how to compare decisions against non-monetary criteria (e.g. Multiple-Criteria Decision
Analysis) and how to include these criteria into the decision making process (e.g. resilience);
how to include risk analyses into the implementation of Nature-Based Solutions etc. (e.g.
invasive species, biodiversity impacts, natural hazards, etc.)
business models for capturing/incorporating the value of ecosystems and ecosystem
services, and then mainstreaming them into planning and economic decisions.
Overall it is important to develop an integrated approach that addresses all relevant issues at
national level, which then needs to be specified for each area.
Specific Research & Innovation Actions may include:
Modification of built-structures, or different way of building, to rebuild/re-create ecosystems
functions (e.g. wind farms, harbours, sea walls in coastal ecosystems to improve resilience of
coastal lines to erosion).
Innovative methods for CO2 sequestration and soil conservation
Innovative governance / implementation of ecosystem conservation and restoration.
Role of vegetation in the deployment of Nature-Based Solutions: how vegetation reacts to
extreme weather patterns, diversity cultivars and varieties adapted to climate change.
Clearer knowledge on local soil biodiversity as basis to restore it also with regard to
structure, health and reduction of pollutants.
12
STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY AREA
(or PROBLEMS TO SOLVE)
AREAS OF INNOVATION
(what are the current 'promising' areas of
innovation and action in NBS, within the strategic
opportunity areas?)
Has this solution been proven to
be effective, and is it cost-efficient?
Is it upscale-ready and
transferable?
Is the solution close to the market/wider use? Is
there demand for it? What are the barriers to
wider implementation?
1. Using NBS for regulating
pollution and Natural Resources
Management (NMR)
a) - managing water catchments for multipurpose
benefits;
- "Afforestation" + rewetting of peatlands.
b) - restoring natural coastal functions;
- restoring marine ecosystems.
c) - use of vegetation to reduce soil erosion.
d) innovative governance / implementation of
ecosystem conservation and restoration
Yes
Yes
Good evidence saltmarsh
Evidence inter subtidal (non EU)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
EU behind North America
?
BARRIERS:
Price of land
Lack of awareness
Land ownership and national regulations
Knowledge exchange (outside EU)
link to relevant policies and funding WFD, MSFD,
CFP
2. Integration of urban planning
and land restoration
a) Minimize use of peri-urban land -(stimulate re-use
of brownfields)
b) Planning land restoration
?Yes
BARRIERS:
Planning, Who decides?
Cost effective for whom?
Very regulated in many countries
Scaling of decision making process
3. Integrating sustainable
agriculture and climate change
adaptation and mitigation
a) sustainable land + water management practices
b) innovation in agriculture for climate change
mitigation
c) innovation + markets for Environmental services
Water harvesting = effect
Connect with food production or
other use
Under-used Common
agriculture Policy (CAP) should
be used.
?
Table 2.1: RESTORATION OF DEGRADED ECOSYSTEMS - WORKSHOP, BREAKOUT GROUP 1, PART 1
Note: During the first breakout group, the Restoration group discussed strategic opportunity areas and potential areas of innovation.Three were chosen, and were rated in terms of effectiveness,
transferability etc.
13
Chosen Solution (for one or
spanning more than one areas
of innovation)
R&I Actions
PRACTICAL STEPS
1. What actions are needed to make the commercial use of NBS in each sector
possible?
2. How could we stimulate the market for this NBS?
3. If far from commercialisation, what knowledge is needed before
commercialisation is possible?
4. What knowledge-generating processes will be required? How long will these
processes take and what will they consist of?
5. How do we formulate these actions into strategies?
ACTORS
(who can make the action
happen?)
INDICATORS
(how would we
measure success?
What outcomes
should we look for?)
1. Using NBS for regulating
pollution and Natural
Resources Management
(NMR)
a) - managing water catchments for
multipurpose benefits;
- "Afforestation" + rewetting of peatlands.
b) - restoring natural coastal functions;
- restoring marine ecosystems.
c) - use of vegetation to reduce soil erosion.
d) innovative governance / implementation
of ecosystem conservation and restoration
Local biodiversity should be the starting point for restoration
1) Identifying the effectiveness of "single" "local" solutions
a) what are the benefits of landscape scale interventions? On water flow, Ph,
fisheries, etc.
Solutions should build on the above (effectiveness of single measures)
a) similar approach might be applicable to all areas
b) Identify potential restoration objective/targets
Modify (or build in a different way) built-structures (e.g. wind farm, harbours, sea
walls) to rebuild/re-create coastal ecosystems
Eco-designed infrastructure (e.g. green roof in a city)
Improve resilience of coastal lines to erosion by rebuilding coastal ecosystems
c) Soils (pollution)+ forests and their interactions, people do not want to build on
polluted soil - change ways of restoration
Water companies
Risk authorities, coastal
management
Different of authorities
involved in coastal
management
Table 2.2: RESTORATION OF DEGRADED ECOSYSTEMS - WORKSHOP, BREAKOUT GROUP 2
Note: In the second breakout group, these all three strategic opportunity areas were further discussed. Research and innovation actions required to develop the solutions further were continued to be analysed and
developed, as well as practical steps, relevant actors, and indicators of success.
14
2. Integration of urban
planning and land restoration
a) Minimize use of peri-urban land -
(stimulate re-use of brownfields)
b) Planning land restoration
Local biodiversity should be the starting point for restoration
Research on what should be restored, and how to decide, and how to measure
success
How to actually do the restoration, particularly cost-effective restoration incl. Long
term management, risks, resilience, especially if animals will destroy them ("geese in
restored lakes")
Upscaling requires testing + research + learn how to manage "adapt. management"
Tools to assess the value/benefits of ecosystems including non-monetary values
includ. by MCDA
Business models to mainstream the values generated; Ways to manage exernalities,
or liabilities-based
How to build the institutional arrangements to make these business models
compete with urban land use or intensive agriculture?
Safeguards or restoration actions that minimize ecological but also social impacts
(invasive alien species)
Governments +
authorities at different
scales local-regiona-
national
Researchers +
practitioners involved
Business including farms,
fish, forestry …
Civil society organisations
(everywhere except
purely technology)
Planning authorities
European Investment
Bank
peak + low flows, N,
water colour,
economic
investments,
biodiversity, fisheries,
quality of life.
Persistance of habitat,
fisheries.
3. Integrating sustainable
agriculture and climate
change adaptation and
mitigation
a) sustainable land + water management
practices
b) innovation in agriculture for climate
change mitigation
c) innovation + markets for Environmental
services
Local biodiversity should be the starting point for restoration
a) innovative methods for CO2 sequestration and soil conservation; cultural
landscape approach (mosaic, blue and green infrastructure)
b) how does vegetation react to extreme weather patterns
Requirements for implementation of a) including governance + investments +
knowledge exchange + management (both a) and b))
Research on nutrient recycling and access to nutrients (esp. in Europe)
c) Clearer knowledge on local soil biodiversity as basis of production + how to
restore it also with regard to structure, health and reduction of pollutants
Intensifying agriculture sustainably including all options - high-tech innovations,
vertical farming, agro ecology, fossil-fuel-free
Diversity cultivars + varieties adapted to climate change
d) business model for environmental services
WOCAT
EIB
World Bank
15
Feedback from the Break-Out Group Session on Climate change adaptation and mitigation
Martin Watson (session Moderator) Ernst-Jan Mul & David Avelar (volunteer rapporteurs) Pam Berry (E-Consultation Introducer) Eleni Manoli (EC rapporteur)
Strategic Opportunity Areas
An initial, key consideration addressed by the break-out group concerned the fact that Nature-Based
Solutions should address both climate change adaptation and climate change mitigation objectives,
rather than be considered a single-purpose solution, to either adapt to climate change or only
mitigate green-house gas (GHG) emissions. In addition, the strategic opportunity areas initially
defined through the e-consultation were broadened and expanded to address:
Slow onset climate change impacts (i.e. gradual climate change), as well as protection from
extreme weather events;
Mitigation/restoration of past GHG emissions;
The holistic approach needed across all priorities on which the Nature-Based Solutions is
working on (sustainable urbanization, restoration of degraded ecosystems, climate change
adaptation and mitigation, improved risk management) to identify and address cross-overs
among them and identify/meet complementary objectives.
For the complete list of Strategic Opportunity Areas, please refer to the Table 3.1.
Particularly on the holistic approach, the group noted that solutions should at least integrate
adaptation and mitigation objectives, and address both regulatory and policy requirements (and
especially the regulatory frameworks that inevitably create the boundary conditions for the wide
implementation of Nature-Based Solutions).
Areas of innovation
The group identified a set of promising areas for innovation under each of the four Strategic
Opportunity Areas, as well as links among them (see relevant Table 3.1 and Table 3.2). Broadly
speaking, and under all four Strategic Opportunity areas, the following common innovation areas
were identified:
16
Green infrastructure, both at the city level (urban green infrastructure), and at the river
basin/watershed level. Despite the fact that green infrastructure is already being
implemented in several cities across Europe (e.g. London and Barcelona), there are specific
needs for further research and innovation, mostly relating to the development of a
systematic approach to embed/integrate green infrastructure to the urban environment,
new buildings, coastal management plans.
The following aspects were highlighted:
o The dense urban fabric requires new types of urban nature.
o ‘Urban green’ is closely linked to human health and well-being.
o Air quality should be addressed together with the other challenges.
o Existing economic assessments from European cities showcase that green
infrastructure can be indeed an economically attractive and efficient solution, when
the many co-benefits are taken into account.
o The integration of green infrastructure can be an interesting area for companies and
property developers to work with, as it increases the value of real estate
developments, but often the business case is not made.
o A holistic thinking is needed across sectors (e.g. water management, energy
efficiency/use, land use) to mobilise stakeholders and get more impact from actions;
the most promising sectors (and the cross-sectoral trade-offs and co-benefits) should
be identified.
o Integrated assessments are still needed for low-regret and no-regret measures (such
universal and systematic frameworks do not appear to exist or be systematically
applied).
o Green education for Nature-Based Solutions in cities can also help to boost their
implementation.
o At the watershed/river basin level, ‘green management’ should also address
enhancement of water retention and infiltration to cope with extreme events (both
floods and droughts).
Biomimicry can provide solutions both for carbon sequestration and for climate change
adaptation (the latter case by looking at how living organisms/nature responds and adapts to
weather/hydro-meteorological extremes and climate change).
Urban agriculture, when done the ‘Nature-Based Solutions way’, can also be promising. Main
benefits include the shortening of food loops and the fact that urban agriculture can be a
source of social innovation, bringing together local communities. The potential economic
value is also high as urban agriculture can create new types of jobs in the urban environment
and economic loops for the local economy. Urban gardening can also have short-term
benefits (e.g. property value increase). Nonetheless, the derived economic value will also
depend on local market conditions for agricultural products and for properties/land.
17
R&I actions, Practical Steps and Key Actors (Table 3.3)
From the three areas of innovation described above, the group decided to focus on green
infrastructure and biomimicry, as it was considered that the contribution of urban agriculture to
climate change adaptation and mitigation would be small overall. The group was split in two sub-
groups to analyse the two remaining areas of innovation, green infrastructure and biomimicry.
As a general comment, both sub-groups pointed out that the definition of Indicators ‘to measure
success’ would be difficult, because of the difference in time between R&I actions and impacts which
that would demonstrate effectiveness in terms of climate change adaptation and mitigation.
Green Infrastructure Four potential R&I actions were identified: (a) the development of value assessment tools, (b)
research on the interaction between (urban) greening and air pollution, (c) the development of
performance-based contracts for urban and real-estate development, and (d) innovation for high
density green infrastructure (e.g. green facades, etc.). Due to time limitations, the sub-group
analysed the a-c R&I actions.
Value assessment tools
Despite the fact that the multiple benefits of green infrastructure are broadly recognized, the low-
dynamic functions of green infrastructure are still badly valued from an economic point of view,
when compared to the highly dynamic functions provided e.g.by buildings, roads, transport
networks, etc. Research on these multiple benefits and ways through which they can be valorized is
still very much relevant. Examples on benefits that should be addressed within the context of
integrated methodology frameworks and subsequently implemented through studies include human
health, mental health and well-being, soft mobility, and others. Existing guidelines remain simplistic:
there are very few tools that can assess specific impacts in a specific context.
In the above framework, practical steps that R&I would need to address:
o The development of connections among the many different databases of solutions,
approaches, indicators that have been developed so far to provide a set of examples that are
proven and documented so as to facilitate replication;
o The linking/further development of existing tools to quantify benefits in a comparative, user-
friendly framework that looks at the whole lifecycle of solutions and values the actual return
to society;
o The creation of living labs within cities, as a demonstration space, empty of rules where new
forms of planning can be tested and demonstrated, and solutions can be translated to local
situations.
For such actions to work and develop replicable solutions, they would need to engage actors besides
R&D institutes, such as local governments, local societies, real estate developers, and contractors
taking up public tenders for infrastructure development.
18
Interaction between greening and air pollution
This was considered by the sub-group as an area where strategic research is still lacking to
understand how green infrastructure can help to mitigate air and noise pollution, and what can be
the corresponding economic benefits in terms of optimal design/location, reduction of health
expenditure and the meeting of quantitative air quality targets.
Based on the Barcelona example, it can be argued that practical steps would include a
comprehensive mapping, analysis and documentation of synergies and an analysis of cost savings
would provide the evidence-base much required to engage with the implementation of green
infrastructure solutions.
Besides R&D institutes, actors that should be engaged include health institutions and the health
sector in general, as well as the government at all levels (from local to national and the EU), as air
quality standards are set at national and EU levels.
Performance-based contracts
Performance-based contracts can be used to set quantitative targets for real estate developers and
public sector contractors for specific design objectives for new buildings/infrastructures, as well as
indicators for performance monitoring. Practical steps should first focus on providing an overview of
successful contracts/tenders that have managed to embed such targets and objectives. Targets and
monitoring indicators for performance and for the integration of green infrastructure should be co-
defined together with developers/contractors so that they are feasible and economically attractive,
and with local governments so that existing tendering procedures are modified in a way that is
beneficial also from the administrative and social point of view (see list of actors in the relevant
table). Pilot performance-based contracts can then be demonstrated and implemented through the
city living labs. Public buildings can also be an effective demonstration field.
Bio-inspiration/Biomimicry Examples of biomimetic solutions, which can be investigated through R&I actions are:
o Algae systems that capture CO2 or recycle organic waste as a carbon source to produce feed
or new energy, where larger scale demonstration is needed;
o Buildings with microalgae on the façade which can treat wastewater and provide other
ecosystem services;
o Bio-assistance, a form of biomimicry in which living organisms are put into ecological
systems. Some are examples are more nature-based, others more technology-based.
Examples of specific research and innovation actions would be to:
o Examine how energy is produced by nature (renewable energy), how nature uses it
efficiently (the concept can then apply to buildings) and how energy flows (can mimic energy,
water and heat flows);
o Analyse and apply nature concepts for climate change adaptation (biomimicry in adaptation).
For example, it has been discovered that different trees have different ways of conducting
water from the soil to the canopy, but trees that deal with drought have the same pattern of
movement i.e. have small channels and these are highly connected. This can be applied to
19
dealing with flood water. Similarly it has been found many small reservoirs for flood water
storage are better than a single large one.
o Upscale further bio-sequestration of carbon; there are already pilots but there is need to
adapt these to different industrial settings.
For commercializing solutions, it was pointed out that many of biomimicry adaptation benefits
appear in the longer-term, whereas the market is looking for short-term returns. Still, the analysis of
multiple benefits could speed up marketability and would be a way to ensure other revenue streams
to help the translation of the activity into an action which generates income.
As such, and in terms of practical steps, R&D funding would be needed to get the proof-of-concept
for the suggested solution, which should be communicated to the principal actors and main
stakeholders. Then, further funding would be needed for developing and proving scalability and this
is the area where funding is generally lacking. The full commercialization would then involve
addressing the market and potential investors.
Actors to engage in the development of biomimetic solutions for climate change adaptation would
include researchers, the insurance sector (provided that it can be demonstrated that the sector has
indeed an economic return/interest for investing in Nature-Based Solutions), local governments,
land-owners and real-estate planners.
In addition to traditional R&I actors, the further development of carbon bio-sequestration solutions
would include major CO2 emitting sectors (chemical, waste, the agro-food industry, etc.).
20
STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY AREA (or PROBLEMS TO SOLVE)
AREAS OF INNOVATION
(what are the current 'promising' areas of innovation and action in NBS, within the
strategic opportunity areas?)
Protection from gradual (slow) climate change and from
extreme weather events
Green infrastructure to fight surface flooding in cities
New building modes (houses) with embedded green infrastructure (roofs etc.)
NBS in water management for flood protection (sustainable management of river
basins)
Health (also looking at particular/sensitive population groups i.e. senior citizens)
New urban nature typologies between ecosystem function and service
Drought protection-water infiltration
Heatwaves protection- greening of cities city
Bio inspiration for adaptation to extreme events (immitating the adaptation of
ecosystems/living organisms to extreme events)
Climate change mitigation including a restorative approach
for the mitigation of past greenhouse gas emissions
Urban green for the mitigation of air pollution and climate change
Green walls in urban areas as part of the green infrastructure
Electrostatic fine dust "catcher" based on electric fields from tries (tested in Hong
Kong and by TU Delft)
Urban agriculture (GSA, …) as a solution for closed short loops, and a solution of
high social potential and with contribution to the local economy
Food production - mitigation (transition movement)
Carbon sequestration of past GHG emissions using biological systems/biomimicry
Integration of natural resource management and disaster
risk protection
Agricultural "waste" remediation by growing algae on effluents; preventing the
run-off of nutrients while creating valuable ingredients (tested in Netherlands)
Holistic approach
Integrated solutions that address/meet both adaptation and mitigation objectives
Identification and assessment of no regret and low regret measures for both
mitigation and adaptation
Integration of grey, blue & green infrastructures (database of solutions,
approaches & indicators, with proof of concept)
Integration of regulations and policy & Mainstreaming of CCAM into sectoral
policies (land use, transport, buildings, etc.): (a) Identify processes, stakeholders,
technologies; (b) sharing of capacity-building, opportunities).
New alliances in financing coastal adaptation (transition wheel)
Process architecture
Cross-over (between sectors) - trade-offs
Bio-inspiration/Bio-mimicry as an effective NBS tool
Table 3.1: CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION & MITIGATION - WORKSHOP, BREAKOUT GROUP 1, PART 1
Note: During the first breakout group, the CCAM group discussed strategic opportunity areas and potential areas of innovation. From these areas,
three were chosen which were rated in terms of effectiveness, transferability etc. These three are marked in bold.
21
Chosen Solution (for one or
spanning more than one areas of
innovation)
Has this solution been proven to be
effective, and is it cost-efficient?
Is it upscale-
ready and
transferable?
Is the solution close to the
market/wider use? Is there demand for
it? What are the barriers to wider
implementation?
Bio-inspiration/Biomimicry as an
effective tool for Nature-Based
Solutions
ENV: 5 (potentially)
ECON: to be investigated (depending on
carbon prices)
SOC: 3
YES: 5 YES: 5
Green Infrastructure (for
addressing flood risks, improving
health & well-being, attenuating
heatwaves, droughts, etc.)
ENV: 4
ECON: 4 (to be investigated)
SOC: 5
YES: 5 City Counci: 3-4
Urban Agriculture in a 'Nature-
Based Solutions' way
ENV: 4
ECON: 4
SOC: 5
YES: 5 ± 3-4/locally dependent
Table 3.2: CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION & MITIGATION - WORKSHOP, BREAKOUT GROUP 1, PART 2
Note: During the first breakout group, the CCAM group discussed strategic opportunity areas and potential areas of innovation. From these
areas, three were chosen which were rated in terms of effectiveness, transferability etc. Results are reported in this table.
22
Chosen Solution (for one or
spanning more than one
areas of innovation)
R&I Actions
PRACTICAL STEPS
1. What actions are needed to make the commercial use of NBS
in each sector possible?
2. How could we stimulate the market for this NBS?
3. If far from commercialisation, what knowledge is needed
before commercialisation is possible?
4. What knowledge-generating processes will be required?
How long will these processes take and what will they consist
of?
5. How do we formulate these actions into strategies?
ACTORS
(who can make the action happen?)
INDICATORS
(how would we measure success?
What outcomes should we look
for?)
Translating the adaption patterns of
ecosystems to climate stressors into
innovative solutions
1) Identify demands for solutions to specific stresses and
impacts
2) Mapping of examples
a) researchers
b) insurance, if it can be demonstrated that
they have vested interests
c) local government
d) land owners and real estate
Meteorological indicators of
extreme events and cost savings
(damage avoided)
R&D projects on biosequestration
R&D projects on carbon sequestration
Platforms for linking sequestration to mitigation and MNC CO2 emitting sectors e.g. chemical, waste,
agrofood
a) Price of CO2 equivalent
b) tracking carbon containing
waste streams
Bio-inspiration/Biomimicry
as an effective tool for
Nature-Based Solutions
Table 3.3: CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION & MITIGATION - WORKSHOP, BREAKOUT GROUP 2
Note: During the first breakout group, the CCAM group chose two solutions to focus on. In the second breakout group, these two solutions were further discussed. Research and innovation actions required to develop the
solutions further were identified, as well as practical steps, relevant actors, and indicators of success.
23
Value assessment tools a) Connect existing databases
b) Quantify through (by linking) existing tools
c) use living labs for urban development for applying tools
in practice
a) local government
b) local society
c) real estate developers
d) contractors
e) R&D institutes
R&D on the interaction between greening and
air polution
a) overview of existing effects
b) legal actions
a) health institutions
b) government & communities - local, national
and EU level
Performance-based contracts for urban/real-
estate development
a) Overview of successful contracts/tenders
b) Definition of targets for green infrastructure and indicators
for adopting instruments
c) connect /implement/demonstrate through living labs
a) local government
b) local society
c) real estate developers
d) contractors
e) R&D institutes
High density green infrastructure (e.g. green
facades, etc.)
Green Infrastructure (for
addressing flood risks,
improving health & well-
being, attenuating
heatwaves, droughts, etc.)
24
Feedback from the Break-Out Group Session on Improved Risk Management and Resilience
Stefanie Dannenmann (session Moderator) Marisol Estrella (volunteer rapporteur) Allan Watt (E-Consultation Introducer) Denis Peter (EC rapporteur)
Strategic opportunity areas (Table 4.1)
The first consideration addressed by the group was to agree that the discussion of Nature-Based
Solutions would mainly concern hydro-meteorological /climatological hazards (e.g. floods, low water
levels /drought, urban heat, wildfires). Following the more sectorial examples given in the original
tables, it was made clear that one should consider the landscape level (or watershed level) and the
several interconnections that exist from the mountains up to plains and the coastal areas or between
the rural-urban interface. An overall area called "extreme water level, prevention" merged the idea of
flood prevention and coastal risk considering not only excessive water situation but also low level
water cases (low stream rivers, drying issues, ..). Discussion of Nature-Based Solutions should
therefore be understood in the context of "integrated risk management ". Another possible area that
came out were: "Risk reduction through biodiversity & sustainable agriculture" and "risks in cities”.
Both topics were not addressed further as other groups dealt with them. The topic area "risk
management in mountains" would further be addressed in the context of “extreme water level
prevention”.
Area of innovation (Table 4.1)
Promoting ecosystem-based approaches, nature based solutions in the context of risk management
represents in itself an innovative approach that needs to be considered with a larger and integrated
risk management and planning perspective (with possible hybrid solutions of hard engineering and
ecosystem-based approaches).
25
R &I Actions to consider, practical steps and key actors (Table 4.1):
There is a clear need to have more evidence-based knowledge on Nature-Based Solutions (Eco-DRR)
in order to help the designers, engineers, planners, decision makers, etc. to consider them in relation
to other options and within a strategic risk management plan.
1. Developing technical and scientific references for Nature-Based Solutions Need to develop methods, protocols, standards, performance tools, guidance for the way to
compare green-grey-hybrid solutions for using and implementing Nature-Based Solutions for risk
management.
A practical step would be to go for regional test sites at high risk areas in order to develop a portfolio
of solutions. Two aspects need to be considered:
Identifying those zones which could be undertaken using natural capital mapping or so called
Eco-DRR opportunity mapping to identify areas where ecosystem based solutions can be
applied to manage or reduce risks, preferably at a large scale i.e. river basin scale
Literature review of all available guidelines/standards/protocols that exist for specific ecosystem
management solutions e.g. wetlands restoration, protection forests, forest fire.
2. Developing financial instruments/market for Nature-Based Solutions for risk
management There is a need to consider new roles of the financial/private sector in order to enable to create a
new market valuing Ecosystem services and their benefits, especially ecosystem regulatory services
that contribute to preventing/mitigating/regulating hazards that are often not valued or under-
valued. This would consider:
identifying, adapting PES (payment of ecosystem services) schemes specifically designed for
risk management, that would link upstream and downstream stakeholders
creating financial incentives to support Nature-Based Solutions for risk management e.g. tax
breaks, etc
working with insurance companies to develop innovative ways for promoting Nature-Based
Solutions for risk management e.g. pooling of insurance between towns/cities/countries,
Nature-Based Solutions linked to setting insurance premiums and pay-outs,
bringing together of key parties e.g. local governments (e.g. cities), investors, insurance
companies, engineers and developing partnerships on Nature-Based Solutions-DRR schemes
that bring about enabling policies and new business models that support Nature-Based
Solutions-DRR.
Other considerations:
3. Nature-Based Solutions and land use Overall the goal is to have a land use evolution that should be guided by sustainable development
(e.g. sustainable agriculture that underpin relevant policies, mechanisms and measures, that
promote biodiversity management, responsible behaviour, …)
26
In the case of focusing on the river basin/catchment based approach for water management linking
upstream and downstream water users – it will be important to identify the types of financial, social,
economic, political incentives needed to make river basin management work for e.g. flood risk
management. Taking a river basin approach will also help link the urban-rural interface, as well as
upstream and downstream links, as the unit of research for developing all sorts of innovative
schemes
4. Nature-Based Solutions and multiple benefits Identify Nature-Based Solutions for multi-risk management, recognizing that certain ecosystems, e.g.
wetlands, can be managed to address multiple hazards (floods, drought, fire, etc. )
In implementing Nature-Based Solutions for risk management, there is a need to explore all the
direct and indirect benefits brought by these options (short to long-term) and assess the added
value.
5. Engaging with multiple actors / partners in designing, researching, implementing
Nature-Based Solutions for disaster risk management Multiple actors needs to be involved, from natural scientists/ecologists, to engineers, from public to
private sectors (e.g. SMEs, insurance, investors, etc) , but interacting with key stakeholders (where
possible via the National Platforms for Disaster Risk Reduction) that have decision-making capacities
(ministries, sectorial authorities, users, …).
We also need to maximize engagements with universities, university networks, as well as the
Europe’s main Research Centres of Excellence in driving forward this research agenda on Nature-
Based Solutions for disaster risk management to establish a baseline of knowledge in the European
context.
27
Strategic Opportunity Areas R&I Actions
PRACTICAL STEPS
1. What actions are needed to make the commercial use of NBS
in each sector possible?
2. How could we stimulate the market for this NBS?
3. If far from commercialisation, what knowledge is needed
before commercialisation is possible?
4. What knowledge-generating processes will be required?
How long will these processes take and what will they consist
of?
5. How do we formulate these actions into strategies?
ACTORS
(who can make the action happen?)
INDICATORS
(how would we measure success?
What outcomes should we look
for?)
Extreme water level and
preventionA - need for development of
standards/protocols for NBS adapted for risk
assessment
e.g. wetland restoration,
e.g forest fire management
Try out in regional cases where disaster risks are urgent and
create portfolio of solutions
Natural capital mapping to prioritise NBS = oppor. Mapping =
ESB disaster reduction - future oriented
Review hidden knowledge (literature review) - NoK-network
Env. scientists/engineers
Multiple responsible ministries
National platform on disaster risk
management (e.g. Cobra) + EU Level
B - Financial instrument
- Creating market systems on ESS
- upstream/downstream
- payment solutions ESS for risk management
Develop mechanisms of cooperation
Capturing ecosystem values between up/down stream
Value aspects of natural resources that reduce risks
C - Insurance "pooling" between
towns/cities/countries
- new BN's financial incentives to reduce risks
(private business involvement) premium
reductions
Insurance/Governmnets/Finance regulators
D - Develop new ways of financial
management/innov. Instrument
- alignment of key parties (governments,
associations, investors, engineers, insurances)
- pro-active insurance practives: insurances -
customers
Inducing resilience
Insurance companies
Local (multilevel) governments
Financial regulators e.g. insurance comp.
Land owner/assetowner
Managers of land/occupier of assets =
citizens/urbanists
Table 4.1: IMPROVED RISK MANAGEMENT AND RESILIENCE - WORKSHOP, BREAKOUT GROUP 2
Note: During the first breakout group, the Risk Management group identified three possible areas of strategic opportunity: 'risks in cities', 'risk reduction through biodiversity & sustainable agriculture' and 'extreme water level
prevention', which merged the areas of flood prevention and coastal management. In the second breakout group, it was decided to focus on the last of the three, as the other two were being dealt with in other groups. During
the second breakout group, strategic areas 'extreme water level prevention' was thus further discussed, and R&I actions, practical steps, and relevant actors were identified.
28
E - Transforming sustainable
agriculture/landuse
- via (mandatory) policies
- landscape level
- strategic water management opportunities
Develop mechanisms (policies) for risk management for
sustainable landuse (behavioural, policies, BM) baed on
drought/flood scenario's
Landowners - producers
Government
Industries that use land resources
Policy beneficiaries
F - Explore multiple benefits from practical
options (multirisk prevention).
E.g. win-win's - resilient areas of innovation
Multimple risk prevention (see A))
Env. scientists/engineers
Multiple responsible ministries
National platform on disaster risk
management (e.g. Cobra) + EU Level
G - Proper transdisciplinary research with
engagement of citizen level for flood
prevention protection
Combine/explicitise best practicesResearchers
Citizens (org) CSO/NGO
29
Agenda
Stakeholders Workshop 'Nature-Based Solutions and Renaturing Cities'
8 December 2014, Brussels
(SDR1-2, Rue du Champ de Mars, 21)
09:00 - 09:30 Registration and Coffee
09:30 - 10:45 Plenary session – Setting the scene for action
Chair: Dr Wilhelm Krull, Secretary General, VolkswagenStiftung
Keynote speaker: Dirk Sijmons, Professor of Landscape Architecture at Delft University of
Technology.
o Policy framework and objectives – Kurt Vandenberghe, Director I, DG RTD
o H2020 Nature-Based Solutions Expert Group – Dr Wilhelm Krull, Secretary General,
VolkswagenStiftung
o EPBRS – contributions to R&I policy – Horst Korn, Chair of EPBRS
o Outcome of the E-consultation on Nature-Based Solutions – Jurgen Tack, CEO INBO
o Outline of the day's programme – Birgit de Boissezon, Head of Unit, I3
10:45 - 12:00 Parallel break-out groups – Actions for strategic opportunities
o Group 1: Sustainable Urbanisation – Introduction: Dr Luise Noring Moderator: Ania Rok
o Group 2: Restoration of Degraded Ecosystems – Introduction: Dr Bill Sutherland Moderator: Dr. Heidi Wittmer
o Group 3: Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation – Introduction: Dr Pam Berry Moderator: Dr. Marc Gramberger
o Group 4: Improved Risk Management & Resilience – Introduction: Dr Allan Watt Moderator: Dr. Martin Watson
12:00 - 12:45 Plenary session – Debrief from the break-out groups Chair: Dr Wilhelm Krull, Secretary General, VolkswagenStiftung
Moderator: Dr Allan Watt
o Each group (5 minutes)
o Input/suggestions from participants to other break-out groups
12:45 - 13:45 Lunch
13:45 - 15:00 Parallel break-out groups – Actions & stakeholders & indicators for
strategic opportunities o Group 1: Sustainable Urbanisation – Moderator: Ania Rok
o Group 2: Restoration of Degraded Ecosystems – Moderator: Dr. Heidi Wittmer
o Group 3: Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation – Moderator: Dr. Martin Watson
o Group 4: Improved Risk Management & Resilience – Moderator: Dr. Stefanie Dannenmann
15:00 - 15:30 Coffee
15:30 - 16:45 Plenary session – Debrief from the break-out groups Chair: Dr Wilhelm Krull, Secretary General, VolkswagenStiftung
Moderator: Dr Allan Watt
o Each group (5 minutes)
o Input/suggestions from participants to other break-out groups
o Discussion
16:45 – 17:00 Conclusions - Chair / RTD I
End of the meeting
30
PARTICIPANTS2
2 Only participants who attended the workshop are mentioned here. Many registered participants were unable
to reach the workshop venue following a general strike on the day of the workshop.
GROUP NAME AFFILIATION
Plenary Kurt Vandenberghe European Commission - DG RTD
Plenary Dirk Sijmons Delft Technical University
Plenary Wilhelm Krull VolkswagenStiftung
Plenary Horst Korn Federal Agency for Nature Conservation
Plenary Jurgen Tack Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek (INBO)
Plenary Birgit de Boissezon European Commission - DG RTD
DG RTD Christos Fragakis European Commission - DG RTD
DG RTD Jana Perkovic European Commission - DG RTD
DG RTD Sofie Vandewoestijne European Commission - DG RTD
Urbanisation Luise Noring Copenhagen Business School
Urbanisation Ania Rok ICLEI
Urbanisation Claudio Cecchi University Roma La Sapienza
Urbanisation Annette PiorrInstitute of Socio-Economics Leibniz-Centre for
Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF e.V.)
Urbanisation Francesco Garofalo Openfabric
Urbanisation Marina Tsalkatidou Environmental Sciences of Trinity College
Urbanisation Murielle EylettersEuropean Female Entrepreneurship / European
Commission Reseau Diane
Urbanisation Nektarios Chrysoulakis Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas
Urbanisation Paris Sansoglou European Dredging Association
Urbanisation Adrian Hill BUUR
Urbanisation Adriana Bernardi CNR - ISAC
Urbanisation Chantal van HamInternational Union for Conservation of Nature
(IUCN)
Urbanisation Jonas Bylund JPI Urban Europe
Urbanisation Marie Yeroyanni European Commission - DG RTD
Urbanisation Ugo Guarnacci European Commission - DG RTD
Restoration Bill Sutherland Cambridge University
Restoration Heidi Wittmer Helmholtz-Centre for Enviromental Research - UFZ
Restoration Fabien Quetier BIOTOPE
Restoration Machteld SchoolenbergPBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency -
Sustainable Development
Restoration Attilio Gambardella European Commission - DG RTD
Restoration Bend Jepsen Astrale
Restoration Federico Nogara European Commission - DG RTD
Restoration Isabel Sousa Pinto (PT)Centre for Marine and Environmental Research,
University of Porto
Restoration Joao Silva Astrale
Restoration Marie-Alice Budniok European Landowners’ Organization
Restoration Silvia Giannisi VELTHA IVZW
Restoration Adrian Peres European Commission - DG RTD
CCAM Martin Watson PROSPEX
CCAM Pam Berry Oxford University
CCAM Annemie Wyckmans NTNU
CCAM David Avelar University of Lisbon
CCAM Fina AmbattleAdvisory Council for Sustainable Development of the
Catalan Government
CCAM Julia Poliscanova London's European Office
CCAM Lucie Blondel Climate Alliance
CCAM Madeleine van Mansfeld Climate-KIC
CCAM Caroline Zaoui NovoBiom
CCAM Eleni Manoli European Commission - DG RTD
CCAM Ernst-Jan Mul TU Delft
CCAM Han Vanderveyvere VITO Transition Platform
CCAM Helen Davies ADAS UK Ltd
CCAM Marianna Elmi Permanent Secretariat of the Alpine Convention
CCAM Sandra Ramos EUROCITIES
CCAM Søren Heinecke
DRR Allan Watt Centre for Ecology & Hydrology
DRR Stefanie Dannenmann UNISDR
DRR Marisol EstrellaUnited Nations Environment Programme /Disaster
Risk
DRR Peter Maxson World Bank GFDRR Brussels office
DRR Andrew Bower European Commission - DG ECHO
DRR Anton Imeson
DRR Blanka Krivankova GEOtest, a.s. - FWC Department
DRR Denis Peter European Commission - DG RTD
DRR Peter Smith Interserve
Top Related