Search

The Mitigation Hierarchy is the sequence of actions (avoid-minimise-restore-compensate) to anticipate and avoid adverse impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. The avoid or prevent stage is the first and most important stage of the mitigation hierarchy in which developers anticipate adverse impacts on biodiversity before actions or decisions are taken. Action is then taken to prevent adverse impacts by considering different options in the project location, scale, layout, technology and phasing. Avoidance is often the easier, cheaper and more effective way than trying to restore a damaged habitat or offset elsewhere. The Mitigation Hierarchy application is mandatory in France. However, the French Biodiversity Agency put a request to Eklipse to find out to what extent the adherence to and implementation of the hierarchy is correctly applied and ecosystem services are considered and well documented. To answer this request, an Expert Working Group on Mitigation hierarchy was established to answer three main questions: 1. To gather knowledge on how ecosystem services/natural capital as concepts foster the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity within planning processes in sectors that are likely to have a direct impact on biodiversity, e.g., infrastructure development, resource use and land use change. 2. To identify EU-wide cases and practices that actively consider and address the aspect of ecosystem services in the mitigation hierarchy; for example, in natural capital assessments, impact assessments of projects, plans, programmes, policies or similar processes. 3. To develop guidance on best practices and information on: a. If and how the consideration and operationalisation of ecosystem services can be integrated into natural capital assessments, impact assessments, and policymaking processes to enhance biodiversity conservation as well as to understand the risks and potential ecosystem service trade-offs involved. b. What kind of outcomes, impacts, challenges, solutions, etc., may occur when the ecosystem services concept is used in the natural capital assessments, impact assessments, mitigation hierarchy and similar processes? c. The level of replicability/transferability of suggested/known tools/guidance/processes in other countries or regions that have been used successfully in the avoid stage. Three steps were implemented to answer the questions: i) A systematic mapping approach was used to provide an overview of the available evidence and knowledge gaps. ii) An Applied Policy Delphi process for deliberative consultation, discussion, and feedback. iii) An analysis of results and conclusions based on the findings from the systematic mapping and the Applied Policy Delphi. This research aimed to unveil whether land use planning and development in Europe is in line with the state of the art on biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services. The report also provides evidence-based knowledge on if and how ecosystem services can be considered in projects, programmes, policies and associated impact assessments with a particular focus on the avoid stage of the mitigation hierarchy. Due to the focus of the report, restoration and compensation stages of the mitigation hierarchy were not included in the research., This request was put to Eklipse by the French Biodiversity Agency (OFB). Eklipse was created in 2016 to help governments, institutions, businesses, and NGOs make better-informed decisions. Since 2022 Eklipse has been established as a mechanism under the management of the non-profit organisation Alternet

The present report is developed as the final deliverable for Activity 4.2. of the FANBEST Project (Funding Atlantic Network for Blue Economy Technology Transfer; www.fanbest.eu). This action is part of the W.P.4, related to the identification of the financial needs to propel Blue Economy innovation in the Atlantic Regions, being 4.2. the Analysis of the potential of Atlantic R&D+i for blue growth. This document is based on a sample of 610 companies creating a panel data to perform a descriptive analysis in terms of patenting activity on Blue Economy companies and financial evolution of Blue Economy firms. Results show that the Blue Economy in the Atlantic Area has had an important capacity to innovate in the last two decades, where bigger companies were the ones capturing to a greater extent its potential benefits, and strong differences exist between regions in terms of company characteristics and innovative capacity.

The presented report is part of WP4 of the FANBEST (Funding Atlantic Network for Blue Economy Technology Transfer; www.fanbest.eu) Project and is addressing Action 4.1. aimed at analysing the stakeholder and agent landscape in the Blue Economy (BE) in the Atlantic Area. The report is meant as a conclusion report presenting an Atlantic wide methodology for the collection and analysis of spatial and non-spatial information of stakeholders supporting BE and the evaluation of results on the distribution and type of stakeholders present in the five countries of the Atlantic area (United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Spain and Portugal). The method was based on a structured BE Stakeholder Directory and comprises over 600 stakeholder of local, regional, national and international (EU wide and global) level, playing a potential role (financier, service providers, research/innovators, regulators/policy makers in the Atlantic BE landscape. Results from the analysis were presented in terms of geospatial distribution of stakeholders and in terms of quantitative representation of the stakeholder type(e.g. public institutions, private companies, investment banks, clusters, crowed funding organizations, etc...). The report draws attention on a set of conclusions and recommendations on the current opportunities and challenges of mapping BE stakeholders across the Atlantic Area, the financial instruments available at sectoral and at territorial level.

The range and intensity of uses and activities in the land sea interface has grown significantly in the recent past. This growth presents challenges to the health of our ocean and coastal habitats and it has also led to conflicts between users of coastal and marine resources. In addition, the negative impacts of climate change phenomena is particularly evident in marine and coastal areas. Calls for more sustainable management of the marine and coastal environment were addressed in the EU by the adoption of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in 2008. This Directive is the legislative framework that requires EU Member States to adopt an ecosystem approach to managing human impacts on the marine environment in order to ensure the sustainable use of marine resources, to maintain biodiversity and achieve Good Environmental Status (GES). Research undertaken in the Ocean and Coastal Governance COST Network has revealed that significant progress has been made since the adoption of the MSFD with a much higher level of awareness of the challenges facing our marine and coastal areas. Extensive data sets on marine resources and biodiversity levels have been gathered, marine areas have been mapped and this information has been used to prepare and inform Marine Spatial Plans in each EU Member State. The need for effective governance is also recognised and member states have developed new mechanisms to improve their marine and coastal management systems. However, the COST research also demonstrates that further improvements are required at multi-level governance scales and between different regulatory domains at Member State level to ensure that GES can be delivered., POLICY BRIEF 2020/1 developed within the OceanGov COST Action (CA15217 - Ocean Governance for Sustainability - challenges, options and the role of science). Web: https://www.cost.eu/actions/CA15217/

Spatial decision-support tools can be used for scenario analysis and guide decision-makers towards transparent and knowledge-based spatial planning. Their application for multi-objective zoning in marine socio-ecological systems is beneficial for supporting the on-going Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) process. We consider the sustainable development of aquaculture as one of the main maritime activities for sustainable Blue Growth in the Adriatic Ionian Region. The objective of this research is to conceptualize a strategic multi-objective zoning process for aquaculture expansion and biodiversity protection (seabed habitats, marine mammals, seabirds and turtles species distribution, nursery and spawning areas of commercially important fish species) in the Emilia Romagna Region (Italian Northern Adriatic Sea). This area is characterized by the highest productivity of mussels in Italy and is also intensively used by several maritime industries. The projected growth of the Blue Economy is likely to result in an increase of conflicts and impacts on sensitive environments. The decision support tools Marxan and Marxan with Zones are applied to develop alternative planning scenarios and compare solutions in terms of potential impacts on human activities. To do so, we i) build an aquaculture suitability distribution for important commercial species using a multi-criteria analysis that considers environmental, biological and socio-economic factors; ii) prioritize biodiversity using Marxan, while testing how different considerations of human impacts influences priorities (e.g. minimizing the area, number of maritime activities, distance from ports, aquaculture suitability); iii) simultaneously prioritize aquaculture and biodiversity using Marxan with Zones, while minimizing the impact of the number of maritime activities in the Emilia Romagna Region. We compare our scenarios using a novel nearest-neighbour statistical analysis for Marxan’s outputs to understand similarities and differences among scenarios. We conclude that an integrated multi-objective zoning approach, which simultaneously plans for biodiversity and aquaculture, will support more efficient, and therefore more effective strategies for Blue Growth objectives in the AIR.&nbsp

The European Union (EU) Horizon 2020 Coordination and Support Action ESMERALDA aimed at developing guidance and a flexible methodology for Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) to support the EU member states in the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy's Target 2 Action 5. ESMERALDA's key tasks included network creation, stakeholder engagement, enhancing ecosystem services mapping and assessment methods across various spatial scales and value domains, work in case studies and support of EU member states in MAES implementation. Thus ESMERALDA aimed at integrating various project outcomes around four major strands: i) Networking, ii) Policy, iii) Research and iv) Application. The objective was to provide guidance for integrated ecosystem service mapping and assessment that can be used for sustainable decision-making in policy, business, society, practice and science at EU, national and regional levels. This article presents the overall ESMERALDA approach of integrating the above-mentioned project components and outcomes and provides an overview of how the enhanced methods were applied and how they can be used to support MAES implementation in the EU member states. Experiences with implementing such a large pan-European Coordination and Support Action in the context of EU policy are discussed and recommendations for future actions are given. This article is part of: Mapping and assessing ecosystems services. ESMERALDA special issue.

The European Union (EU) Horizon 2020 Coordination and Support Action ESMERALDA aimed at developing guidance and a flexible methodology for Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) to support the EU member states in the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy's Target 2 Action 5. ESMERALDA's key tasks included network creation, stakeholder engagement, enhancing ecosystem services mapping and assessment methods across various spatial scales and value domains, work in case studies and support of EU member states in MAES implementation. Thus ESMERALDA aimed at integrating various project outcomes around four major strands: i) Networking, ii) Policy, iii) Research and iv) Application. The objective was to provide guidance for integrated ecosystem service mapping and assessment that can be used for sustainable decision-making in policy, business, society, practice and science at EU, national and regional levels. This article presents the overall ESMERALDA approach of integrating the above-mentioned project components and outcomes and provides an overview of how the enhanced methods were applied and how they can be used to support MAES implementation in the EU member states. Experiences with implementing such a large pan-European Coordination and Support Action in the context of EU policy are discussed and recommendations for future actions are given.

Experiences of data management and analysis supporting MSP… starting from ADRIPLAN. Presentation given at the Kick Off Meeting of the EU funded project I-STORMS, Venice, 2 March 2018.

Fra la terra e il mare: analisi e proposte per la Pianificazione dello Spazio Marittimo in Emilia-Romagna

Presentation atCumulative Impact Tools for MSP Expert - Roundtable.Venice, 18th January 2018

The increasing demand for ocean resources exerts an increasing pressure on the use of ocean space across all European Sea Basins. This underlines issues of compatibility (or conflicts) between different maritime uses as well as between economic activities and environmental protection. The idea of multi-use (MU), as a guiding concept for efficient allocation of compatible activities in the same marine space, can increase spatial efficiency and at the same time provide socio-economic and environmental benefits. However, its transition from a concept to real-world development is facing several barriers. Based on analysis of five European sea basins done under the Horizon 2020 MUSES project (Multi-Use in European Seas), this paper aims to clarify the concept of MU by discussing: 1) the definition in the literature and practice so far, and; 2) how existing regulatory and planning regimes are supporting and challenging the development of several MUs (considered as the most promising). The analytical methodology developed for the MUSES project relied on data collected via desk research and semi structured interviews with key stakeholders (e.g. industry, regulators), over the period of seven months. The semi-quantitative analysis of data conducted, identified the commonalities and differences among countries in respect to each of the analyzed MUs. The paper points out priorities for the MU development in different sea basins and recommends initial steps to overcome existing barriers, whilst maximizing local benefits. This paper is a starting point towards a broader scientific debate on: (i) what could be the role of management policies (like for instance maritime spatial planning - MSP) in supporting and fostering MU concept development, (ii) what are technical and technological challenges for technically advanced MUs, (iii) how added values of MUs concept (e.g. benefits for local economies, positive impacts on environment) could be enhanced.