Search results

Nature-based solutions (NbS) have the potential to build climate resilience and tackle key societal challenges while also providing multiple co-benefits to biodiversity and human well-being. The demand for nature-based innovation is strongly felt in Malta – a small island state, with the highest population density in the European Union. Against this background, the Horizon 2020 project ReNature (Promoting research excellence in nature-based solutions for innovation, economic growth and human well-being in Malta) has the goal to enhance research excellence of the Malta College of Arts, Science and Technology (MCAST), as well as the national research, policy, business and stakeholder community. The six strategically designed training activities fostering capacity-building and research excellence, delivered during the first half of the project, resulted in useful learning outputs. These are twelve presentations, available as attachments to this article, which cover a large scope of topics related to the implementation of NbS. At a later stage, ReNature will publish another round of learning outputs, resulting from the rest of the training activities planned within the scope of the project.

Nature-based solutions (NBS) is a term often used to refer to adequate green infrastructure that provides multiple benefits to society whilst addressing societal challenges. They are defined as actions to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural or modified ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits. Malta, the smallest member state of the EU, has been characterised by rapid economic growth and urbanisation and Maltese citizens had the highest rate of exposure to pollution, grime or other environmental problems, in the EU. The project ReNature aims to establish and implement a nature-based solutions research strategy for Malta with a vision to promote research and innovation and develop sustainable solutions whilst improving human well-being and tackling environmental challenges. Here, we introduce the opening of ReNature collection of research articles in the Open Access Research Ideas and Outcomes (RIO) journal to publish unconventional research outputs and training materials. It will host key outputs relating to the sustainable use of biodiversity, biodiversity – ecosystem functioning, green infrastructure and ecosystem service assessments across rural-urban gradients, equitable access to the benefits derived from nature in cities and socio-environmental justice, payments for ecosystem services, and designing nature-based solutions.

1. Pollination by insects is a key input into many crops, with managed honeybees often being hired to support pollination services. Despite substantial research into pollination management, no European studies have yet explored how and why farmers managed pollination services and few have explored why beekeepers use certain crops. 2. Using paired surveys of beekeepers and farmers in 10 European countries, this study examines beekeeper and farmer perceptions and motivations surrounding crop pollination. 3. Almost half of the farmers surveyed believed they had pollination service deficits in one or more of their crops. 4. Less than a third of farmers hired managed pollinators; however, most undertook at least one form of agri‐environment management known to benefit pollinators, although few did so to promote pollinators. 5. Beekeepers were ambivalent towards many mass‐flowering crops, with some beekeepers using crops for their honey that other beekeepers avoid because of perceived pesticide risks. 6. The findings highlight a number of largely overlooked knowledge gaps that will affect knowledge exchange and co‐operation between the two groups. ; Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, Grant/Award Number: 841.11.001; Ministarstvo Prosvete, Nauke i Tehnološkog Razvoja, Grant/Award Number: 43001; Natural Environment Research Council, Grant/Award Number: NE/K015419/1 and NE/N014472/1; Javna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RS, Grant/Award Number: V4‐1622 and P1‐0255; Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division; Bayer Crop Science; European Cooperation in Science and Technology, Grant/Award Number: oc‐2013‐1‐15320; BBSRC, Grant/ Award Number: BB/R00580X/1; The Scottish Government Rural Affairs and the Environment Strategic Research Programme ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

1. Pollination by insects is a key input into many crops, with managed honeybees often being hired to support pollination services. Despite substantial research into pollination management, no European studies have yet explored how and why farmers managed pollination services and few have explored why beekeepers use certain crops. 2. Using paired surveys of beekeepers and farmers in 10 European countries, this study examines beekeeper and farmer perceptions and motivations surrounding crop pollination. 3. Almost half of the farmers surveyed believed they had pollination service deficits in one or more of their crops. 4. Less than a third of farmers hired managed pollinators; however, most undertook at least one form of agri‐environment management known to benefit pollinators, although few did so to promote pollinators. 5. Beekeepers were ambivalent towards many mass‐flowering crops, with some beekeepers using crops for their honey that other beekeepers avoid because of perceived pesticide risks. 6. The findings highlight a number of largely overlooked knowledge gaps that will affect knowledge exchange and co‐operation between the two groups. ; Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, Grant/Award Number: 841.11.001; Ministarstvo Prosvete, Nauke i Tehnološkog Razvoja, Grant/Award Number: 43001; Natural Environment Research Council, Grant/Award Number: NE/K015419/1 and NE/N014472/1; Javna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RS, Grant/Award Number: V4‐1622 and P1‐0255; Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division; Bayer Crop Science; European Cooperation in Science and Technology, Grant/Award Number: oc‐2013‐1‐15320; BBSRC, Grant/ Award Number: BB/R00580X/1; The Scottish Government Rural Affairs and the Environment Strategic Research Programme ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Social-ecological systems in the Mediterranean Basin are characterised by high biodiversity and a prolonged cultural influence, leading to the co-evolution of these systems. The unique characteristics of Mediterranean social-ecological systems, current pressures leading to a decline in ecosystem services, and the need for coordinated action are recognised by policies promoting the protection and sustainable use of the region's heritage. Ecosystem assessments provide valuable information on the capacity of the Mediterranean Basin to ensure the well-being of its population. However, most assessments simplify the complexity of these systems, which may lead to inaccurate ecosystem services supply and flow estimations. This paper uses the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model to guide an expert consultation that identifies the key characteristics of the Mediterranean social-ecological systems and analyses how these should be included in ecosystem assessments. Data collection was carried out through expert consultation with ecosystem services researchers. Multiple sources of complexity were identified, including the relationship between historical human activities, biodiversity spatio-temporal patterns, as well as the seasonal and long-term variability in ecosystem services. The importance of incorporating this complexity in ecosystem assessments for evidence-based decision-making is identified, suggesting that there is a need to adapt assessment approaches for the Mediterranean Basin social-ecological systems. ; This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 809988. JVRD was supported by the Government of Asturias and FP7-Marie Curie-COFUND European Commission program (Grant 'Clarín' ACA17-02). SdM benefited from a Serra-Húnter Fellowship provided by the Generalitat of Catalonia.

We would like to thank the participants of the Mediterranean Working Group workshop held at the 2016 European Ecosystem Services Partnership conference in Antwerp, and the Ecosystem Services Partnership for the support to the Mediterranean Working Group. MVB acknowledges funding from the ReNature project. JVRD was supported by the Government of Asturias and FP7-Marie Curie-COFUND European Commission program (Grant 'Clarín' ACA17-02). SdM benefited from a Serra-Húnter Fellowship provided by the Generalitat of Catalonia. ; Social-ecological systems in the Mediterranean Basin are characterised by high biodiversity and a prolonged cultural influence, leading to the co-evolution of these systems. The unique characteristics of Mediterranean social-ecological systems, current pressures leading to a decline in ecosystem services, and the need for coordinated action are recognised by policies promoting the protection and sustainable use of the region's heritage. Ecosystem assessments provide valuable information on the capacity of the Mediterranean Basin to ensure the well-being of its population. However, most assessments simplify the complexity of these systems, which may lead to inaccurate ecosystem services supply and flow estimations. This paper uses the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model to guide an expert consultation that identifies the key characteristics of the Mediterranean social-ecological systems and analyses how these should be included in ecosystem assessments. Data collection was carried out through expert consultation with ecosystem services researchers. Multiple sources of complexity were identified, including the relationship between historical human activities, biodiversity spatio-temporal patterns, as well as the seasonal and long-term variability in ecosystem services. The importance of incorporating this complexity in ecosystem assessments for evidence-based decision-making is identified, suggesting that there is a need to adapt assessment approaches for the Mediterranean Basin social-ecological systems. ; publishersversion ; published

Social-ecological systems in the Mediterranean Basin are characterised by high biodiversity and a prolonged cultural influence, leading to the co-evolution of these systems. The unique characteristics of Mediterranean social-ecological systems, current pressures leading to a decline in ecosystem services, and the need for coordinated action are recognised by policies promoting the protection and sustainable use of the region's heritage. Ecosystem assessments provide valuable information on the capacity of the Mediterranean Basin to ensure the well-being of its population. However, most assessments simplify the complexity of these systems, which may lead to inaccurate ecosystem services supply and flow estimations. This paper uses the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model to guide an expert consultation that identifies the key characteristics of the Mediterranean social-ecological systems and analyses how these should be included in ecosystem assessments. Data collection was carried out through expert consultation with ecosystem services researchers. Multiple sources of complexity were identified, including the relationship between historical human activities, biodiversity spatio-temporal patterns, as well as the seasonal and long-term variability in ecosystem services. The importance of incorporating this complexity in ecosystem assessments for evidence-based decision-making is identified, suggesting that there is a need to adapt assessment approaches for the Mediterranean Basin social-ecological systems. ; We would like to thank the participants of the Mediterranean Working Group workshop held at the 2016 European Ecosystem Services Partnership conference in Antwerp, and the Ecosystem Services Partnership for the support to the Mediterranean Working Group. MVB acknowledges funding from the ReNature project. This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 809988. JVRD was supported by the Government of Asturias and FP7-MarieCurie-COFUND European Commission program (Grant'Clarín'ACA17-02). SdM benefited from a Serra-Húnter Fellowship provided by the Generalitat of Catalonia.

This paper analyses and compares a set of case studies on ecosystem services (ES) mapping and assessment with the purpose of formulating lessons learned and recommendations. Fourteen case studies were selected during the EU Horizon 2020 "Coordination and Support Action" ESMERALDA to represent different policy- and decision-making processes throughout the European Union, across a wide range of themes, biomes and scales. The analysis is based on a framework that addresses the key steps of an ES mapping and assessment process, namely policy questions, stakeholder identification and involvement, application of mapping and assessment methods, dissemination and communication and implementation. The analysis revealed that most case studies were policy-orientated or gave explicit suggestions for policy implementation in different contexts, including urban, rural and natural areas. Amongst the findings, the importance of starting stakeholder engagement early in the process was confirmed in order to generate interest and confidence in the project and to increase their willingness to cooperate. Concerning mapping and assessment methods, it was found that the integration of methods and results is essential for providing a comprehensive overview from different perspectives (e.g. social, economic). Finally, lessons learned for effective implementation of ES mapping and assessment results are presented and discussed.Graphical Abstarcat in Fig. 1.

The Paris Agreement aims to limit global mean temperature rise this century to well below 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels. This target has wide-ranging implications for Europe and its cities, which are the source of substantial greenhouse gas emissions. This paper reports the state of local planning for climate change by collecting and analysing information about local climate mitigation and adaptation plans across 885 urban areas of the EU-28. A typology and framework for analysis was developed that classifies local climate plans in terms of their alignment with spatial (local, national and international) and other climate related policies. Out of eight types of local climate plans identified in total we document three types of stand-alone local climate plans classified as type Al (autonomously produced plans), A2 (plans produced to comply with national regulations) or A3 (plans developed for international climate networks). There is wide variation among countries in the prevalence of local climate plans, with generally more plans developed by central and northern European cities. Approximately 66% of EU cities have a type Al, A2, or A3 mitigation plan, 26% an adaptation plan, and 17% a joint adaptation and mitigation plan, while about 33% lack any form of stand-alone local climate plan (i.e. what we classify as Al, A2, A3 plans). Mitigation plans are more numerous than adaptation plans, but planning for mitigation does not always precede planning for adaptation. Our analysis reveals that city size, national legislation, and international networks can influence the development of local climate plans. We found that size does matter as about 80% of the cities with above 500,000 inhabitants have a comprehensive and stand-alone mitigation and/or an adaptation plan (Al). Cities in four countries with national climate legislation (A2), i.e. Denmark, France, Slovakia and the United Kingdom, are nearly twice as likely to produce local mitigation plans, and five times more likely to produce local adaptation plans, compared to cities in countries without such legislation. Al and A2 mitigation plans are particularly numerous in Denmark, Poland, Germany, and Finland: while Al and A2 adaptation plans are prevalent in Denmark, Finland, UK and France. The integration of adaptation and mitigation is country-specific and can mainly be observed in two countries where local climate plans are compulsory, i.e. France and the UK. Finally, local climate plans produced for international climate networks (A3) are mostly found in the many countries where autonomous (type Al) plans are less common. This is the most comprehensive analysis of local climate planning to date. The findings are of international importance as they will inform and support decision making towards climate planning and policy development at national, EU and global level being based on the most comprehensive and up-to-date knowledge of local climate planning available to date.

The Paris Agreement aims to limit global mean temperature rise this century to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. This target has wide-ranging implications for Europe and its cities, which are the source of substantial greenhouse gas emissions. This paper reports the state of local planning for climate change by collecting and analysing information about local climate mitigation and adaptation plans across 885 urban areas of the EU-28. A typology and framework for analysis was developed that classifies local climate plans in terms of their alignment with spatial (local, national and international) and other climate related policies. Out of eight types of local climate plans identified in total we document three types of stand-alone local climate plans classified as type A1 (autonomously produced plans), A2 (plans produced to comply with national regulations) or A3 (plans developed for international climate networks). There is wide variation among countries in the prevalence of local climate plans, with generally more plans developed by central and northern European cities. Approximately 66% of EU cities have a type A1, A2, or A3 mitigation plan, 26% an adaptation plan, and 17% a joint adaptation and mitigation plan, while about 33% lack any form of stand-alone local climate plan (i.e. what we classify as A1, A2, A3 plans). Mitigation plans are more numerous than adaptation plans, but planning for mitigation does not always precede planning for adaptation. Our analysis reveals that city size, national legislation, and international networks can influence the development of local climate plans. We found that size does matter as about 80% of the cities with above 500,000 inhabitants have a comprehensive and stand-alone mitigation and/or an adaptation plan (A1). Cities in four countries with national climate legislation (A2), i.e. Denmark, France, Slovakia and the United Kingdom, are nearly twice as likely to produce local mitigation plans, and five times more likely to produce local adaptation plans, compared to cities in countries without such legislation. A1 and A2 mitigation plans are particularly numerous in Denmark, Poland, Germany, and Finland; while A1 and A2 adaptation plans are prevalent in Denmark, Finland, UK and France. The integration of adaptation and mitigation is country-specific and can mainly be observed in two countries where local climate plans are compulsory, i.e. France and the UK. Finally, local climate plans produced for international climate networks (A3) are mostly found in the many countries where autonomous (type A1) plans are less common. This is the most comprehensive analysis of local climate planning to date. The findings are of international importance as they will inform and support decision-making towards climate planning and policy development at national, EU and global level being based on the most comprehensive and up-to-date knowledge of local climate planning available to date. ; EU COST Action TU0902 that made the initial work possible and the positive engagement and interaction of the members of this group which led to this work. MO acknowledges funding from the Spanish Government (Grant no. FPDI-2013-16631). EKL was supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of CR within the National Sustainability Program I (NPU I), grant number LO1415. OH and RD were funded by the EC project RAMSES Reconciling Adaptation, Mitigation and Sustainable Development for Cities (contract Ref 308497) and the EPSRC project LC Transforms: Low Carbon Transitions of Fleet Operations in Metropolitan Sites Project (EP/N010612/1).

The Paris Agreement aims to limit global mean temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This target has wide-ranging implications for Europe and its cities, which are the source of substantial proportions of greenhouse gas emissions. This paper reports the state of planning for climate change by collecting and analysing local climate mitigation and adaptation plans across 885 urban areas of the EU-28. A typology and analysis framework was developed that classifies local climate plans in terms of their spatial (alignment with local, national and international policy) and sectoral integration (alignment into existing local policy documents). We document local climate plans that we call type A1: non-compulsory by national law and not developed as part of international climate networks; A2: compulsory by national law and not developed as part of international networks; A3: plans developed as part of international networks. This most comprehensive analysis to date reveals that there is large diversity in the availability of local climate plans with most being available in Central and Northern European cities. Approximately 66% of EU cities have an A1, A2, or A3 mitigation plan, 26% an adaptation plan, 17% joint adaptation and mitigation plans, and about 30% lack any form of local climate plan (i.e. what we classify as A1, A2, A3 plans). Mitigation plans are more numerous than adaptation plans, but mitigation does not always precede adaptation. Our analysis reveals that city size, national legislation, and international networks can influence the development of local climate plans. We found that size does matter as about 70% of the cities above 1 million inhabitants have a comprehensive and stand-alone mitigation and/or an adaptation plan (A1 or A2). Countries with national climate legislation (A2), such as Denmark, France, Slovakia and the United Kingdom, are found to have nearly twice as many urban mitigation plans, and five times more likely to produce urban adaptation plans, than countries without such legislation. A1 and A2 mitigation plans are particularly numerous in Denmark, Poland, Germany, and Finland; while A1 and A2 adaptation plans are prevalent in Denmark, Finland, UK and France. The integration of adaptation and mitigation is country-specific and can mainly be observed in countries where local climate plans are compulsory, especially in France and the UK. Finally, local climate plans of international climate networks (A3) are mostly found in the many countries where autonomous, i.e. A1 plans are less common. The findings reported here are of international importance as they will inform and support decision-making and thinking of stakeholders with similar experiences or developments at all levels and sectors in other regions around the world.

Agricultural intensification and associated loss of high-quality habitats are key drivers of insect pollinator declines. With the aim of decreasing the environmental impact of agriculture, the 2014 EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) defined a set of habitat and landscape features (Ecological Focus Areas: EFAs) farmers could select from as a requirement to receive basic farm payments. To inform the post-2020 CAP, we performed a European-scale evaluation to determine how different EFA options vary in their potential to support insect pollinators under standard and pollinator-friendly management, as well as the extent of farmer uptake.A structured Delphi elicitation process engaged 22 experts from 18 European countries to evaluate EFAs options. By considering life cycle requirements of key pollinating taxa (i.e. bumble bees, solitary bees and hoverflies), each option was evaluated for its potential to provide forage, bee nesting sites and hoverfly larval resources.EFA options varied substantially in the resources they were perceived to provide and their effectiveness varied geographically and temporally. For example, field margins provide relatively good forage throughout the season in Southern and Eastern Europe but lacked early-season forage in Northern and Western Europe. Under standard management, no single EFA option achieved high scores across resource categories and a scarcity of late season forage was perceived.Experts identified substantial opportunities to improve habitat quality by adopting pollinator-friendly management. Improving management alone was, however, unlikely to ensure that all pollinator resource requirements were met. Our analyses suggest that a combination of poor management, differences in the inherent pollinator habitat quality and uptake bias towards catch crops and nitrogen-fixing crops severely limit the potential of EFAs to support pollinators in European agricultural landscapes. Policy Implications. To conserve pollinators and help protect pollination services, our expert ...

Agricultural intensification and associated loss of high-quality habitats are key drivers of insect pollinator declines. With the aim of decreasing the environmental impact of agriculture, the 2014 EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) defined a set of habitat and landscape features (Ecological Focus Areas: EFAs) farmers could select from as a requirement to receive basic farm payments. To inform the post-2020 CAP, we performed a European-scale evaluation to determine how different EFA options vary in their potential to support insect pollinators under standard and pollinator-friendly management, as well as the extent of farmer uptake. A structured Delphi elicitation process engaged 22 experts from 18 European countries to evaluate EFAs options. By considering life cycle requirements of key pollinating taxa (i.e. bumble bees, solitary bees and hoverflies), each option was evaluated for its potential to provide forage, bee nesting sites and hoverfly larval resources. EFA options varied substantially in the resources they were perceived to provide and their effectiveness varied geographically and temporally. For example, field margins provide relatively good forage throughout the season in Southern and Eastern Europe but lacked early-season forage in Northern and Western Europe. Under standard management, no single EFA option achieved high scores across resource categories and a scarcity of late season forage was perceived. Experts identified substantial opportunities to improve habitat quality by adopting pollinator-friendly management. Improving management alone was, however, unlikely to ensure that all pollinator resource requirements were met. Our analyses suggest that a combination of poor management, differences in the inherent pollinator habitat quality and uptake bias towards catch crops and nitrogen-fixing crops severely limit the potential of EFAs to support pollinators in European agricultural landscapes. Policy Implications. To conserve pollinators and help protect pollination services, our expert ...

1. Agricultural intensification and associated loss of high‐quality habitats are key drivers of insect pollinator declines. With the aim of decreasing the environmental impact of agriculture, the 2014 EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) defined a set of habitat and landscape features (Ecological Focus Areas: EFAs) farmers could select from as a requirement to receive basic farm payments. To inform the post‐2020 CAP, we performed a European‐scale evaluation to determine how different EFA options vary in their potential to support insect pollinators under standard and pollinator‐friendly management, as well as the extent of farmer uptake. 2. A structured Delphi elicitation process engaged 22 experts from 18 European countries to evaluate EFAs options. By considering life cycle requirements of key pollinating taxa (i.e. bumble bees, solitary bees and hoverflies), each option was evaluated for its potential to provide forage, bee nesting sites and hoverfly larval resources. 3. EFA options varied substantially in the resources they were perceived to provide and their effectiveness varied geographically and temporally. For example, field margins provide relatively good forage throughout the season in Southern and Eastern Europe but lacked early‐season forage in Northern and Western Europe. Under standard management, no single EFA option achieved high scores across resource categories and a scarcity of late season forage was perceived. 4. Experts identified substantial opportunities to improve habitat quality by adopting pollinator‐friendly management. Improving management alone was, however, unlikely to ensure that all pollinator resource requirements were met. Our analyses suggest that a combination of poor management, differences in the inherent pollinator habitat quality and uptake bias towards catch crops and nitrogen‐fixing crops severely limit the potential of EFAs to support pollinators in European agricultural landscapes. 5. Policy Implications. To conserve pollinators and help protect pollination services, ...