Workshop on re-designing the landscape, connecting ecosystems and benefitting from

their services by Green Infrastructure

Budapest, 7 October 2013

Report

2

Acknowledgements We are grateful for the valuable contributions to the writing of this report to all the presenters and participants. The event and its related activities, including but not limited to the writing of this report, were generously funded by the European Commission, but do not necessarily reflect its views or opinions.

Foreword CEEweb for Biodiversity and ECNC organized a workshop on ‘Redesigning the landscape, connecting ecosystems and benefitting from their services through Green Infrastructure’ on 7th October 2013 in Budapest, Hungary. The main aim of the workshop was to promote the concept of Green Infrastructure, raise awareness of potential projects and their benefits and to induce the creation of Green Infrastructure projects among national decision-makers, local authorities and NGOs. The workshop hosted around 30 participants from the European Commission, Member States, local authorities and the scientific, business and non-profit sectors from 15 countries. The workshop started with an introductory to the Green Infrastructure Strategy presented by Patrick Murphy, European Commission followed by some cases from the field to provide some ideas for the participants of the next session of small group works. Here, participants were asked to think about an imaginary landscape also identifying ecosystems, their services, how to connect them and what kind of cooperation, implementation and financing are needed. The workshop resulted in a range of suggestions that are to be reflected on in the upcoming work of CEEweb and ECNC to provide guidance for Green Infrastructure implementation.

3

List of abbreviations

ACC – Alps-Carpathian Corridor

CEE – Central and Eastern Europe

CoR – Committee of the Regions

DG – Directorate General

EAFRD – European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development

EC – European Commission

ECNC – European Centre for Nature Conservation

EESC – European Economic and Social Committee

EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment

ES – Ecosystem Services

EU – European Union

GI – Green Infrastructure

IENE – Infra Eco Network Europe

NGO – Non-Governmental Organization

MS – Member State

SEA – Strategic Environmental Assessment

TEN-G – Trans European Green Infrastructure

TSES – Territorial System of Ecological Stability

4

I. Introductory block on Green Infrastructure Introducing the Green Infrastructure Strategy – theory and possible implementation on the field with special focus on local and regional opportunities. Patrick Murphy, DG Environment, EU Commission

Mr. Patrick Murphy of DG Environment, EU Commission provided a keynote presentation on the EU’s Green Infrastructure (GI) Strategy for the introductory section of the workshop. He reminded the participants that the Commission has stipulated in Action 6b, target 2 of its Biodiversity Strategy the elaboration of a Green Infrastructure Strategy as a contribution to further integration of biodiversity considerations into other EU policies: “The Commission will develop a Green Infrastructure Strategy by 2012 to promote the deployment of green infrastructure in the EU in urban and rural areas, including through incentives to encourage up-front investments in green infrastructure projects and the maintenance of ecosystem services, for example through better targeted

use of EU funding streams and Public Private Partnerships”. The Communication on „Green Infrastructure (GI) – Enhancing Europe’s Capital” was adopted earlier this year in May, triggering a policy signal towards decision makers, planners and promoters to invest in GI projects at local, regional, national and cross-boundary level. The GI Strategy should work towards improving knowledge base and promoting innovation, while at the same time providing better access to finance and assessing opportunities for Trans European Green Infrastructure (TEN-G). The communication on GI is currently on the agenda of the European Parliament, the European Council, the Committee of the Regions (CoR) and the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC). The EU Commission has been working on technical guidance for the integration of the strategy into the main policies and their associated funding mechanisms. Already available guidance is related to better environmental options for flood risk management; connectivity; natural water retention measures; integration of biodiversity

5

and climate change into Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs); connecting Smart and Sustainable Growth through Smart Specialisation; multi-benefit investments. Upcoming guidance works will deal with agriculture and climate adaptation. The Commission is currently reviewing the extent and quality of spatial and technical data available in relation to GI development. Work is also underway to assess the contribution technical standards could make to “grow the market” of GI products and to explore opportunities for setting up innovative financial mechanisms to support GI. Moreover, assessment of opportunities for developing EU TEN-G initiatives are being carried out and the Commission is coordinating efforts to promote GI approaches in communication to citizens. The Commission plans to revive the Green Infrastructure Working Group focusing on GI Implementation, which will have a mandate to a) facilitate information exchange between EC, MS and other stakeholders, including civil society on the implementation of tasks mentioned in the GI Communication; b) agree on measures/processes which MS/stakeholders/civil society should/need to undertake to guarantee implementation on national/regional level; c) give added value to EC actions by transferring them to the national context and vice versa and d) develop useful indicators to monitor the uptake of GI, and e) develop further ideas regarding securing funds (public and private) for the development of GI. More information on Green Infrastructure, including the above mentioned guidance, can be found here>> Green Infrastructure and cases from Europe – IENE, a networking for greener linear infrastructure. Miklos Puky, Danube Research Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Centre for Ecological Research Mr. Miklos Puky introduced the participants to Infra Eco Network Europe (IENE), an initiative promoting networking for greener linear infrastructure. He began by stressing that infrastructure has a crucial impact in the future dynamics of biodiversity and at the moment, the situation is likely to induce more biodiversity loss. Thus, a new perspective is needed. IENE aims to provide an independent, international and interdisciplinary arena to encourage and enable cross-boundary cooperation in research, mitigation and planning. At the moment, IENE has more than 200 registered members from 44 countries and 41 organizations around the world. IENE’s approach to linear infrastructure is that of a gradual change from focus on fauna passages and technical specifications to mortality and wildlife collisions, cost effectiveness, development of mechanisms to contribute to biodiversity and procurements to describe expected functions rather than technical solutions. In 2013, IENE’s special focus has been on the Carpathian region, with focal points of activity in Romania, Hungary and the Czech Republic. In Romania, the Lugos Scientific and Technical Workshop held earlier this year brought into discussion the status of the planned Deva-Lugos motorway stretch, which passes through a wildlife corridor of European importance.

6

A Hungarian-Serbian workshop was held in Budapest with the purpose of providing an overview on the state of the art of linear infrastructure and wildlife in Hungary, with valuable insight on Serbia. In mid-October, IENE also organized a workshop in the Czech Republic on learning from experience in transportation infrastructure and wildlife corridors. In mid-November, another workshop is planned for Spain with the purpose of giving on overview on the current situation in the Iberian Peninsula. The network supports initiatives directed to greening the linear infrastructure by offering annual awards for such projects – in 2012, the winner was the Alps-Carpathian Corridors (ACC), a Slovak-Austrian initiative to connect the two mountain ranges. Future activities of the network include plans to establish a European Roadkill Observatory System and an info-web-tool on fauna passages. Also, IENE plans to organise two international conferences in 2014, Sweden and 2016, to launch a European Drawing Contest for children and release a Green Infrastructure Guide-Toolkit. Workshops in Hungary, Spain and Sweden are also on the agenda. Green Infrastructure projects from the CEE and other regions – planning, stakeholders and financing. Kristijan Civic, ECNC and Agnes Zolyomi, CEEweb Mr. Kristijan Civic of the European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC) informed the participants on the purpose of the workshop and related future activities. He suggested that the workshop and the case studies presented can be a good base to serve as a kick-off for brainstorming on project planning and implementation and identification of potential ‘traps’. Future joint activities of ECNC and CEEweb include a brochure on the case studies and the workshop outcomes, the

7

2nd European Conference on Regions and Biodiversity on 19-20th November in Brussels and the Croatian workshop on sectoral implementation of GI, 27 November in Zagreb.

The first case presented was the Czech Territorial System of Ecological Stability (TSES) designated at local, regional and national level by public authorities, often in cooperation with land owners. TSES is financed through national and EU funds, in particular through operational programmes and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). Activities undertaken for the TSES are related to mapping, designation, identification and establishment of

biocorridors on the ground and creation of urban greenery. Deeming the scale of implementation, the system has multiple benefits, ranging from restoration of degraded ecosystems and tackling habitat fragmentation to increase in the number of tourists and the jobs generated by the tourism sector. Another case was the conservation of Baltic raised bogs in Pomenaria, Poland. This consisted in removing of invasive trees and old draining systems, blocking drainage systems, construction ditches, drawing up management plans and extending the Natura 2000 network within the site. In Romania, Comana wetlands (page 22, see pictures below) were restored by the Giurgiu County Council through the Sectorial Operational Programme Environment 2007-2013.

Ecological restoration of habitats and reinforcement of species population was achieved through the construction of a small dam to achieve a permanent retention rate at Comana pond and through implementation of a monitoring system of wild birds and environmental factors. Tourism related improvements such as construction of a pavilion for information, walkways and a network of ornithological observatories were also carried out.

8

II. Small group sessions on re-designing the landscape

Participants were asked to draw a map of a fragmented, topographically varied imaginary (or real) landscape, which would include: roads, energy infrastructure, a town/villages/smaller settlements, farms and natural habitats. Subsequently, the map was used in order to identify ecosystem services (ES) and to identify bottlenecks in the landscape for the movement of species. Next, participants were asked to think of possible projects for improving/restoring ES or for solutions to the connectivity bottlenecks (see table 1 below).

Projects were prioritised based on the benefits they would provide, ecological imperatives, financial issues, likely political constraints. Discussions were then directed towards stakeholder engagement and key issues and/or opportunities in implementation on the ground. The results included a multitude of varied situations, projects, challenges and opportunities. One of the groups imagined a medium sized city on a river, surrounded by agricultural land, wetlands and an ancient forest, which was also a Natura 2000 site. Key infrastructure elements included an airport, railways, a port, a factory complex, landfill and an upstream dam. The group considered that prioritisation should be given to wetland restoration because of its multiple deliveries of ES: flood retention, fishing, recreation and biodiversity conservation. The Natura 2000 site was also in the limelight, due to its importance in terms of biodiversity conservation, recreation and values related to culture and identity for the local community. The forest was divided in two parts by a railway and several green bridges were proposed. Also, birds nesting here and breeding in the wetlands were considered endangered by collision with the planes. Solutions were related to introducing no-fly times, regulating landings, implementing technological measures or moving the airport, which was particularly seen as appropriate in the context of future expansion. A network of green roofs, sustainable urban drainage systems and green recreational areas was seen as another good project idea. Usually, funds for the projects would come from EU programmes, private investment from companies/factories and other private actors, public money or a combination of public and private financing. Another group looked more into larger landscape re-designation in areas with less human presence and activity but with linear infrastructure fragmenting the habitats and causing habitat loss. Green bridges and tunnels were suggested in this case. Floodplain rehabilitation was proposed to prevent flooding and therefore damages to infrastructure and human settlements in the area.

9

Group Map components Ecosystem services and

bottlenecks Projects

Group 1 Medium sized city with: river running through, airport, railway system, landfill, Natura2000 site close to suburbs, industrial platform, river dam upstream, wetlands in the proximity

Wetlands: water purification, breeding site for birds, biodiversity rich, bird-watching; Natura 200o site: clean air, recreational and aesthetic value; River: water (irrigation, residential and industrial consumption), food (fish), aesthetic and recreation value; Lowlands: food Bottlenecks: river dam, railways, airport

1. Animal crossings 2. Flood mitigation

through widening the river valley and allowing “natural” meandering flow;

3. Creating a network of old and new recreational, green areas in the city;

4. Green roofs; 5. Relocation of

airport or mitigation measures to avoid bird collision;

6. Wetland restoration;

7. Side-channel on the river dam for fish movement and migration;

Group 2 Small to medium city with: low proportion of green areas, an abandoned highway, shopping mall, former gas plant, fish ponds, Danube running through, surrounding villages, some marginal forests, some agriculture

River and ponds: water (irrigation, residential and industrial consumption), food (fish), aesthetic and recreation value; Forest: clean air, soil stabilisation, aesthetic and recreational value from forests; Bottlenecks: abandoned highway, former gas plant, dense and compact urban area with low proportion of green spaces

1. Forestation in buffer zones adjacent to the abandoned highway and water bodies (including the river);

2. Windmills; 3. Increase in green

spaces in the urban area;

4. Greening of the abandoned highway

10

Group 3 Sparsely populated rural area with: river and river hydro powerplant, ponds, agriculture, highway, railway, forest, degraded areas close to the river, wetlands

River and ponds: water (irrigation, residential and industrial consumption), food (fish), aesthetic and recreation value; Wetlands: water purification, breeding site for birds, biodiversity rich, bird-watching; Forest: clean air, soil stabilisation, aesthetic and recreational value from forests; Lowlands, regions close to the river: food

1. Tunnel or passing bridge for animals over the railway and highway (they run in parallel);

2. Floodplain rehabilitation;

3. Restoration of the riverbank and degraded area;

4. Fish passage at the river dam;

5. Biocorridor by creating a nature reserve

Group 4 Comana Wetlands (see sections above for more details). Group 4 discussed the challenges and opportunities of an already implemented GI project.

Wetlands: water purification, breeding site for birds, tourism, bird-watching;

1. Small dam to achieve a permanent retention rate at Comana pond and through implementation of a monitoring system of wild birds and environmental factors;

2. Pavilion for information, walkways and a network of ornithological observatories;

Table 1) Summary of small group discussions

The riverbank and a part of the landscape that was assessed as ‘degraded’ were proposed for rehabilitation, while fish passages and biocorridors were the other projects advanced for consideration. Again, funding would be provided mostly through EU programmes and from public money. In one of the groups, some of the experts responsible with the implementation of Comana wetlands project in Romania were present and this fostered a productive

11

discussion regarding the challenges and opportunities encountered during the implementation phase. The group drew up the approximate map of the Comana wetlands and its environment depicting the potential disturbing factors (such as the approximation of Bucharest, the sewage system and property buildings of the nearby town, extensive agriculture, fragmentation due to linear infrastructure and tourism). However, the group faced difficulties with that how severely these potential disturbing factors can influence the actual wetland and nearby wetlands and the neighbouring forests in the particular project site. The neighbouring settlement is proved to be rather sustainable with small number of inhabitants and extensive agriculture, mostly focusing on sheep grazing. The city of Bucharest, although being relatively close, does not pressurize significantly the site and connected with the nearby settlement only via one road and railway, which do not necessarily affect crucially the connectivity of the adjacent ecosystems. Connectivity of wetlands is ensured by natural and semi-natural river channels and streams, and the nearby Natura 2000 forests are fragmented only by bicycle and smaller tourist routes. The highest likely danger of the area can be the very same thing that provides the social benefits: tourism and recreation. Although small scale at the current stage, mostly daily visitors from Bucharest visit the site due to the natural beauties but also due to a historic monastery. Besides, there is a probable threat that an increased number of properties may be sold for those coming from the capital and wish to spend there weekends/afternoons out in nature (although they may be retained because of the potential threat of flooding). Increased, associated pressures in the form of noise, waste, increased sewage and disturbance may also cause negative impacts on biodiversity. However, currently most of the lands are in the hands of the regional authority and the number of tourism and associated effects are relatively limited. Therefore, these threats can be addressed with pre-cautious spatial planning, related policies and the continued involvement of wide range of stakeholders also considering and carefully balancing the needs of the environment and social-economic benefits and needs. The group exercise provided an instructive take home message. The group was keen on identifying disturbing and fragmenting factors (roads, land grabbing, agriculture, etc.) that should be tackled as in many views, Green Infrastructure has the main priority of connecting sites. However, in this case, it proved fairly difficult to identify real and severe threats affecting the site, but focusing on identifying and evaluating rather the threats and disturbing factors, the fact was overlooked that the depicted ecosystems already in place provide essential ecosystem services and form the integrated part of the Green Infrastructure already. Focus here should be rather on measures on further preservation. Interesting ideas generated by the other groups were planting abandoned highways or diverting part of the river when this crosses a town for flood mitigation and subsequent development of a green belt. In general, there was recognition on the multiple and valuable services deriving from GI projects and the need to involve a broad range of stakeholders in order to ensure post-implementation continuity. Innovative financing mechanisms were deemed as essential and so was cooperation with private actors.

12

III. Suggestions and reflective thoughts The presentations, small group discussions and active interactions between participants resulted in a number of valuable suggestions and reflecting thoughts, which are summarized in Table 2 below. Suggestions Reflective thoughts

GI should contribute to growth and creating jobs. Biodiversity benefits can be indirect;

The multiple land-use benefits of GI projects should be stressed. These include functions of green corridor, climate change mitigation, flood management, stepping stone for bird migration;

Include the social housing element in GI project development in order to avoid driving away ordinary people and creating segregation between rich/ordinary;

Prioritise in order to maximise benefits. An option would be to focus on “quick wins”;

Support policies (including incentives) can very often contribute substantially to GI. Promotion of cycling paths to reduce the number of cars or green policies for urban areas are just a couple of examples;

Innovative funding sources should be used to support GI projects. Some examples include using IAS for fuel, depositing waste materials for a fee and using the revenue for restoration or preparing food from ingredients collected directly from nature, locally – the so called “wild cuisine”;

GI project developers should ensure that appropriate technical solutions, sound scientific data and cost-efficiency are important;

It is often a political decision when it comes to which stakeholders to involve;

GI projects might lead to an increase in the value of land and attract rich people in the area, while driving away ordinary citizens;

GI projects can be implemented at any level (local/regional/national), their size depend on the initiator;

Landownership is very often an issue when considering/implementing GI projects;

Aligning various sources of funding for large GI projects usually poses a big challenge;

NGOs can play an important role in carrying out awareness raising campaigns and generating support for GI projects;

It is important to zoom in/zoom out at the right level in order to realise what needs to be done;

There needs to be a balance between the services deriving from GI. For instance, overexploitation of cultural, spiritual and aesthetic services can lead to unsustainable tourism and biodiversity loss/ecosystem degradation;

GI projects restore ecosystems and provide the benefits of ES;

GI projects increase the recreational and tourist potential, as well as the safety of people and their property;

Table 2) Summary of suggestions and reflective thoughts of the workshop

13

Participant list - Workshop on Green Infrastructure, Budapest, 7 October 2013 Name Organization Country Email Aleksandra Sivevska Biosfera Macedonia sivevska@gmail.com Alexandr Prodan Cutezatorul Moldova alexandrprodan@gmail.com Gjoko Zoroski Ecologist Movement of Macedonia Macedonia zoroski@gmail.com

Natasa Crnkovic Center for Environment Bosnia and Herzegovina natasa.crnkovic@czzs.org

Marina Ilic School for Survival Serbia mrnilic@yahoo.com

Edit Karanovic International scientific Forum for Danube Serbia forumdanube@yahoo.com

Matt Smith Joint Nature Conservation Committee UK matt.smith@incc.gov.uk Kristijan Civic ECNC The Netherlands civic@ecnc.org Mart Külvik Estonian University of Life Sciences Estonia kylvik@emu.ee Lucas Knippenberg Radboud University BIMOT FP7 The Netherlands l.knippenberg@science.ru.nl Jüri-Ott Salm Estonian Fund for Nature Estonia jott@elfond.ee Puky Miklós Academy of Sciences Hungary Hungary puk7949@mail.iif.hu Attila András Takács

Ministry of Rural Development, Hungary Hungary attila.andras.takacs@vm.gov.hu

Dominik Pietrzak Ministry of Environment Poland Poland dominik.pietrzak@02.pl Chris Baker Wetlands International The Netherlands chris.baker@wetlands.org Anikó Kovács-Hostyánszky Academy of Sciences Hungary Hungary kovacs.aniko@okologia.mta.hu Udroiu Adriana Giurgiu County Council Romania mi_cjg@yahoo.com Peicea Daniela Giurgiu County Council Romania daniela_peicea@yahoo.com Márton Kiss University of Szeged Hungary kiss.marton@geo.u-szeged.hu

Péter Dezsényi Green Wall and Green Roof Construction National Alliance Hungary info@zeosz.hu

Rita Földesi Academy of Sciences Hungary Hungary foldesi.rita@okologia.mta.hu Patrick Murphy European Commission EC patrick.murphy@ec.europa.eu Réka Aszalós Academy of Sciences Hungary Hungary aszalos.reka@okologia.mta.hu Zsolt Somorjai-Tamássy GreenCities Hungary somorjai@green-city.hu Veronika Mohácsi GreenCities Hungary mohacsi@green-city.hu Zsófi Bakacsi Academy of Sciences Hungary Hungary zsofi@rissac.hu Agnes Zolyomi CEEweb for Biodiversity Hungary zolyomi@ceeweb.org Sarolta Tripolszky CEEweb for Biodiversity Hungary sarolta@ceeweb.org Eduard Nedelciu CEEweb for Biodiversity Romania nedelciu@ceeweb.org Mátyás Prommer CEEweb for Biodiversity Hungary prommer@ceeweb.org

Mosor Prvan Association for Nature, Environment and Sustainable Development “Sunce” Croatia mosor.prvan@sunce-st.org

Vytautas Narusevicius

Lithuanian Environmental Protection Agency Lithuania v.narusevicius@aaa.am.lt

François Laviolette

Department of Nature and Forests within the DG Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment (Walloon Region) Belgium francois.laviolette@spw.wallonie.be

Roman Shkabara ECOPROJECT Belarus Roman.shkabara@gmail.com

14

Photo sources and further information

CEEweb for Biodiversity http://www.ceeweb.org ECNC http://www.ecnc.org European Commission, DG Environment. Green Infrastructure (p4;p8) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/ Infra Eco Network Europe http://www.iene.info SURF Nature. 2011 (p7 photos) http://www.surf-nature.eu/fileadmin/SURFNATURE/Publications/Green_Infrastructure.pdf VSB. 2007 (Faculty of Mining and Geology of Ostrava) (p7 TSES map) http://hgf10.vsb.cz/546/Ekologicke%20aspekty/cviceni/cviceni_loticky/revitalizace.htm

This event was generously supported by the European Commission, but does not necessarily reflect its views and opinions.