Dialogue on National Restoration Plans and knowledge gaps encountered when drafting them

www.clevercities.eu Dialogue on National Restoration Plans and knowledge gaps encountered when drafting them Deliverable subtitle (if any) EUROPEAN PARTNERSHIP Dialogue on National Restoration Plans CLEVER Cities Visual Identity 2 www.biodiversa.eu Document Information Grant Agreement number: 101052342 Project acronym: Biodiversa+ Project full name: The European Biodiversity Partnership Biodiversa+ duration: 7 years Biodiversa+ start date: Start date: 1st October 2021 For more information about Biodiversa+ Website: http://www.biodiversa.eu/ Email: [email protected] Twitter: @BiodiversaPlus LinkedIn: Biodiversa+ Deliverable title: D4.12 Report on 4th dialogue on National Restoration Plans and knowledge gaps encountered when drafting them Authors: Jérémie Orliac, Thibault Prévost, Catherine Julliot (MTECT) Work package title: WP4 Connecting R&I programs, results and experts to policy Task or sub-task title: Subtask 4.1.1: Consultations and dialogues with environmental policy makers, R&I policy makers, managers, experts and relevant stakeholders Lead partner: MTECT Date of publication: September 2025 Disclaimer Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. Cover page illustration: © [Pixabay - https://pixabay.com/photos/azores-hydrangeas-mountain-pasture-3713859/] Dialogue on National Restoration Plans CLEVER Cities Word Template 3 www.biodiversa.eu What is Biodiversa+ The European Biodiversity Partnership, Biodiversa+, supports excellent research on biodiversity with an impact for policy and society. Connecting science, policy and practise for transformative change, Biodiversa+ is part of the European Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 that aims to put Europe’s biodiversity on a path to recovery by 2030. Co-funded by the European Commission, Biodiversa+ gathers 81 partners from research funding, programming and environmental policy actors in 39 European and associated countries to work on 5 main objectives: 1. Plan and support research and innovation on biodiversity through a shared strategy, annual joint calls for research projects and capacity building activities 2. Set up a network of harmonised schemes to improve monitoring of biodiversity and ecosystem services across Europe 3. Contribute to high-end knowledge for deploying Nature-based Solutions and valuation of biodiversity in the private sector 4. Ensure efficient science-based support for policy-making and implementation in Europe 5. Strengthen the relevance and impact of pan-European research on biodiversity in a global context. More information at: https://www.biodiversa.eu/ Dialogue on National Restoration Plans CLEVER Cities Visual Identity 4 www.biodiversa.eu What is the BiodivRestore Knowledge Hub The BiodivRestore Knowledge Hub was launched on 30 and 31 May 2024 in Paris and aims to establish a pan-European knowledge hub on nature restoration, thereby strengthening the knowledge base for the implementation of the Nature Restoration Law (NRL). It was set up to build on the success of the “BiodivRestore” ERANET COFUND that was jointly launched by Biodiversa+ and Water JPI/Water4All. It is part of the actions linked to the call for projects, co-funded by the European Commission, and brings together 52 specialists from a range of expertise relating to the restoration of freshwater, terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystems. Likewise, it is seen as a first step in the European scientific community's contribution to support the implementation of the EU's proposed Nature Restoration Law (NRL), by building on existing initiatives and practices, and in line with countries' needs. The aim is to support countries in the development and implementation of their future national restoration plans through knowledge sharing and shared research activities. The BiodivRestore Knowledge Hub plans to develop activities related to: • Development of science-based guidelines/standards/good practices to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of restoration measures by countries; • Improving general knowledge of the purpose and principles of ecological restoration, success factors, co-benefits associated with ecological restoration and how to manage conflicting interests. More information at: https://www.biodiversa.eu/engagement/biodivrestore-knowledge-hub/ Dialogue on National Restoration Plans CLEVER Cities Word Template 5 www.biodiversa.eu Table of contents What is Biodiversa+ ........................................................................................................... 3 Executive summary ........................................................................................................... 6 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 7 1. Where are Member States in the process of planning restoration? .......................... 7 1.1. Defining the current state and dynamics of habitats and species ...................................................... 7 1.2. What capacities? ................................................................................................................................. 9 2. Stakeholder engagement in the NRPs ....................................................................... 10 2.1. Progress and strategies related to stakeholder involvement ............................................................ 10 2.2. Barriers and opportunities ................................................................................................................. 10 2.3. Planning for and beyond the first NRP.............................................................................................. 11 3. Needs and Biodiversa+ and BiodivRestore Knowledge Hub contributions ........... 12 3.1. Regulation interpretation ................................................................................................................... 12 3.2. Knowledge gaps on ecosystems and restoration measures ............................................................ 13 3.3. Socio-economic obstacles and related needs .................................................................................. 14 Concluding remarks ........................................................................................................ 15 Annexe 1: Agenda .................................................................................................................................. 16 Annexe 2: Participants ........................................................................................................................... 19 Annex 3 – References Marine and Freshwater ................................................................................... 21 Annex 4 – BACI ....................................................................................................................................... 26 Dialogue on National Restoration Plans CLEVER Cities Visual Identity 6 www.biodiversa.eu Executive summary Representatives from twenty Member States (MS) of the European Union (EU) convened in Paris under the auspices of Biodiversa+ partnership to discuss the implementation of the Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR). The focus of the meeting was on the preparation of the first version of the National Restoration Plans (NRPs) to be delivered to the EU Commission by 1 September 2026. MS representatives could share, among themselves and with experts from BiodivRestore Knowledge Hub (KH), their advancement and the pressing scientific, technical and administrative obstacles they were encountering. They laid stress on the challenge of characterising the baseline ecological conditions for habitats and species to be included in their first NRPs. They acknowledged the limitations of the in-situ data currently exploitable within Natura 2000 areas as well as the paucity of information at their disposal outside these areas. They specifically pointed out the lack of data and knowledge on marine areas and freshwater ecosystems. In the short term, they admitted that operational guidelines would be much needed to assist them in mapping habitats, defining pertinent measures to improve their quality and quantifying favourable reference areas (FRAs). They also identified the need to improve stakeholders’ involvement in the planning process. On the communication side, they raised the importance of better conveying to the public the concrete co-benefits of restoration along with the costs of inaction. In this regard, they highlighted that refined cost/benefit evaluation methods would be highly desirable to make their communication strategies more effective. In the meantime, they emphasised the numerous opportunities opened up by the NRR, among which: the strengthening of the coordination/collaboration between ministries, relevant institutional structures and stakeholders; the building of crosscutting expertise in the multiple fields covered by the NRR; the development of cross-border synergies with the design of joint restoration projects. In addition, they voiced concerns on the funding of each step of the NRR implementation and called for a better alignment of EU policies and funding to support the restoration of ecosystems. Dialogue on National Restoration Plans CLEVER Cities Word Template 7 www.biodiversa.eu Introduction The 2025 edition of Biodiversa+ dialogue event was held on 15-16 May at the premises of the French ministry in charge of the environment in Paris La Défense. Its focus was on the obstacles, and associated theoretical and experimental ways forward, to the implementation of the Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR), EU 2024/1991 1 . An emphasis was put on the development of the first version of the National Restoration Plans (NRPs) to be delivered to the European Commission by September 1st 2026, the date of the NRR enforcement. The need for such a dialogue event had been formulated during the previous year's edition. The event provided a platform for representatives from 20 Member States (MS) to share, among themselves and with experts, their advancement and the pressing scientific, technical and administrative obstacles they were encountering. By highlighting obstacles and root problems, they managed to collaboratively identify pathways forward, knowledge gaps and systemic barriers remaining to be addressed. Six experts from BiodivRestore Knowledge Hub (KH) 2 supported the proceedings and contributed to the discussions. The event was also a key opportunity to inform BiodivRestore KH work plan, fostering its alignment with the policymakers’ present and future needs, as well as to inform Member States’ representatives of the existence of the already delivered and upcoming activities from this Knowledge Hub. 1. Where are Member States in the process of planning restoration? 1.1. Defining the current state and dynamics of habitats and species Natura 2000 as a starting point Most MS started developing their NRP through the scope of already existing data from the Nature directive reporting exercises, especially those falling under article 17 of the Habitats Directive (HD) and article 12 of the Birds Directive (BD). While some MS had nation-wide habitat mapping schemes beyond Natura 2000 (N2000) areas, most reported having either scarce or accidental/fragmented data on habitats outside these areas. In addition, several MS representatives assessed the quality and the exploitability of the existing data related to habitat condition as somewhat unsuitable for the purpose of the NRPs, as these data could be: 1) not up to date (because of capacity or funding shortages); 2) unreliable or incomparable (because of the bias or discrepancies introduced by expert judgement and/or heterogeneous methodologies); 3) hard 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1991/oj/eng 2 BiodivERsA (now Biodiversa+) and Water JPI (now Water4all) jointly launched the “BiodivRestore” ERANET COFUND in 2020 to support research on ecosystem restoration. Building on its success, BiodivRestore partners established a pan-European Knowledge Hub on Nature Restoration, launched in May 2024. BiodivRestore KH gathers experts on restoration from various disciplines on a voluntary basis. Some of the experts come from the BiodivRestore funded projects while others come from other Biodiversa(+) projects and EU funded projects. For a 2-year period, ending in September 2026, it aims to consolidate, synthesise and disseminate knowledge related to biodiversity restoration, thereby facilitating informed decision-making and collaborative efforts in the field, especially in the light of the recently approved Nature Restoration Regulation. Dialogue on National Restoration Plans CLEVER Cities Visual Identity 8 www.biodiversa.eu gathering/processing (because of their scattering across different places/databases, under various digital and non-digital formats). Even in the cases where the data were considered reliable and exploitable, several MS representatives identified persistent difficulties/challenges, among which: the characterisation and mapping of species’ habitats; the definition of relevant measures to improve their quality; the quantification of favourable reference areas (FRAs). More generally, most MS representatives highlighted the lack of ecosystem approach inherited from the previous directives requirements (focused on particular habitat types or on particular species) and the challenge of building suitable databases on that heritage for evaluating ecosystem restoration measures. Venturing beyond Natura 2000 MS representatives shared many examples of ways forward to overcome the limitations inherited from N2000 data and methods. Four dimensions were explored: pre-existing national monitoring schemes, modelling, citizen science, national registry/platform setup for restoration. A few MS reported having in place, or in project, monitoring schemes on a national level (developed independently from EU law reporting schemes). Some of these schemes were aimed at characterising structural functions of habitat types or documenting stressors. However, these initiatives were limited in scope or maturity, with funding on the wane in many cases. Most MS representatives considered it too soon to think about monitoring or adaptive management, as they were not at all at that stage (far behind that, as restoration plans were still to be elaborated and the identification of restoration measures were still ahead). Some MS mentioned the use of modelling to (at least partially) address the lack of in-situ data – e.g. inferring habitat type or condition from satellite imaging and bioclimatic data, or quantifying FRAs from generic/isolated vegetation and animal species data. Yet MS acknowledged the limitations of such approaches and the need to acquire more data on the field. Citizen science emerged also from the discussion as a useful, albeit limited, contribution to the restoration endeavour. Several MS had developed elaborate citizen science-based schemes to monitor the abundance of some “charismatic” and/or “easy-to-recognise” species like birds, butterflies, bats, flowering plants (with data gathered over several decades for some). Such schemes were hailed as a “brilliant tool for public engagement” yet requiring a robust support framework of professional experts with appropriate financial means to ensure their long-term viability. In some instances, citizen science approaches failed due to serious shortfalls in volunteer supply with adequate knowledge and/or a lack of sustained rigour/discipline in the collection of field data. Some MS emphasised the benefit of developing centralised databases on a national level to keep track more systematically and thoroughly of ongoing restoration projects (as funded or supervised by public entities, profit or non-profit organisations, casual citizens). A few MS supported, or were about to support, the setup of such platforms/registries, yet over a limited scope (e.g. forest management) and with restricted means. Although such initiatives could help save resources and learn quickly from existing projects, they remained especially challenging, as centralising and maintaining relevant databases for long-term use required substantial additional resources (at least in the short term) as well as strong coordination effort. Dialogue on National Restoration Plans CLEVER Cities Word Template 9 www.biodiversa.eu 1.2. What capacities? Resources and coordination within ministries and agencies Most MS representatives reported experiencing personnel constraints and fatigue in the process of developing their NRPs, with “increasing responsibilities for the same number of people”. Most of these people worked in ministries or agencies and were already committed to various duties (e.g. ensuring fulfilment of HD art. 17 and BD art. 12). Setting new/additional priorities in this context often meant giving up or postponing important tasks. To help them manage the elaboration of their NRPs in the short term, several MS asked for technical support from the European Commission, notably via dedicated Technical Support Instruments (TSI). In addition to these personnel constraints, several MS representatives reported remaining in early stages of institutional setup, with unclear attribution of responsibilities and insufficient coordination between agencies. Some emphasised significant uncertainty around the designation of competent authorities, particularly concerning the division of roles between environmental and sectoral ministries or agencies. These unclear governance structures contributed to delaying the formulation of coherent strategies and stakeholder engagement processes, ultimately affecting the design and implementation of the NRPs. Strengthening inter-ministerial collaboration and clarifying institutional mandates were considered as critical next steps in this context. Scientific and technical expertise Implementing the NRR required the development of a long-term expertise (whether scientific or technical). Several MS representatives stressed on enduring challenges in the mobilisation of professional experts, among which: the (up)levelling of this expertise (to ensure comparability and reproducibility of the data to be collected over the next decades); the ageing of some communities holding niche expertise in highly valuable domains; the mere reluctance of some experts to get involved in the process, for reasons that might differ from one country to another (lack of time, inadequate financial resources, unhappy experience with previous reporting exercises…); the complexity of certain tasks requiring cross-cutting skills and/or substantial financial means. All this pointed to the need of allocating significantly higher resources to education and training in the multiple fields covered by the NRR. Cross-border synergies, required “where possible” by Art. 14.17 of the NRR, were deemed relevant for countries sharing terrestrial or marine ecosystems, as they could lead to the design of joint restoration projects, harmonised monitoring protocols, shared scientific data, coordinated management objectives and shared funding schemes. Cross-border collaboration could also contribute to identifying and addressing cumulative pressures, ensuring connectivity across habitats, and avoiding duplication of efforts or conflicting restoration actions. Such coordinated efforts could be key to achieve ecological coherence and maximise the impact of restoration strategies at both landscape and seascape scales. As reported post event, the Alpine Convention was working on a plan for a transnational cooperation in nature restoration, with the first objective of proposing a strategic overview for EU countries to be included in the respective textbox of their NRPs. To operationalise even more this recommendation, the establishment of biogeographical regional platforms could be proposed, or a re-alignment of the Biogeographical seminars organised for years by the EC. Dialogue on National Restoration Plans CLEVER Cities Visual Identity 16 www.biodiversa.eu Annex 1: Agenda Agenda of the Dialogue event on National restoration plans and knowledge gaps encountered drafting it: 15th-16th May 2025 Biodiversa+ Thursday 15th May Grande Arche de la Défense – Reception Desk: 12h00 1 Parvis de la Défense, 92800 Puteaux LUNCH 12h00 – 13h00 (Foyer Ségur et Passy ; with participants of KH annual event) PLENARY SESSIONS – (Salle SEGUR) 13h00 – 13h30: Opening 13h00-13h05: Welcome words by Marc Moroni, Vice-director of Research department, CGDD, MoE-FR - 5 min presentation 13h05-13h20: Presentation of Biodiversa+ & BiodivRestore Knowledge Hub by Rainer Sodtke, Biodiversa+ co-chair - 10 min presentation - 5 min Q&A 13h20-13h30: European Commission expectations for the event by Benedicte Blaudeau (EC, DG ENV) - 5 min presentation - 5 min Q&A Dialogue on National Restoration Plans CLEVER Cities Word Template 17 www.biodiversa.eu 13h30 – 15h25: NRR interpretation and Concrete feedback from 3-4 MS representatives 13h30-13h55: NRR key terms (alignment on interpretation); uniform format; existing guidelines by Rachel Kristensen & Laura Puertolas - 10 min presentation - 15 min Q&A 13h55-14h10: Favourable reference area definition by Kris Decleer - 5 min presentation - 10 min Q&A 14h10-15h25: Member State representatives presenting their obstacles and advances in the process of drafting their NRP by: Baptiste Maury, Head of Biodiversity territorial tools at French MoE Łukasz Rejt, Ministry of Climate and Environment of Poland Jonas Gaigr, Nature Conservation Agency of Czech Republic Elin Forsberg, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency - 10 minutes presentation per Member State - 5-10 min Q&A per Member State, + extra time as needed 15h25-15h30: Presentation of the survey’s results, of this Dialogue event’s objectives, and of the practical organisation (group sessions…) by Jérémie Orliac - 5 min presentation 15h30 – 15h55: Break time (coffee…) GROUP SESSIONS 15h55 – 18h00: 3 groups going through both focuses, where you have the word (rooms: 5S32, 8S32, 9S32) We kindly ask you to think in advance about the sub-questions below. Please, come with notes or enough thinking to make full use of the discussion (groups of 6 representatives, limited time). Focus 1: How do you perform the baselining of habitat conditions and how to plan the monitoring of deterioration or restoration trends adaptively? (1 hour) Sub-questions (related obstacles to be outlined): - How do you plan to build your baseline (historical and current state, favourable reference area) and monitor for adaptive management of restoration or deterioration trends? - How do you anticipate the impact of the restoration actions you plan? How do you evaluate the intensity of action needed to reach good conditions or to reverse biodiversity indicators? - Supposing no more or only little resources will be allocated to the restoration effort, do you have questions about how to efficiently use these limited resources? - Where do you get information and guidelines for these topics? Dialogue on National Restoration Plans CLEVER Cities Visual Identity 18 www.biodiversa.eu Focus 2: How are you planning to structure the collaboration between stakeholders and to manage conflicts? (1 hour) Sub-questions to be addressed, and related obstacles to be outlined: - Article 14.20: how do you plan to “give effective opportunities to [relevant stakeholders] to participate in the preparation [of your NRP]”? - What vehicle do you plan to use to make restoration works happen (subsidies, regulation...)? Do you plan to reorient EU funds (CAP, FCP..) to finance restoration actions? - Your official strategy might be based on outlining win-wins in the process of restoration: are you missing insights on win-wins or trade-offs to be presented in the NRP? 18h00 END OF DAY Dinner at 19h30 at the hotel’s restaurant (Pullman Paris La Défense) Friday 16th May Grande Arche de la Défense – Reception Desk: 8h30 1 Parvis de la Défense, 92800 Puteaux WELCOMING COFFEE 8h30 – 9h00 (Foyer Passy) PLENARY SESSIONS – (Salle PASSY) 9h00 – 10h00: Group Session Restitution 10h00 – 11h00: Targeted experts’ talks based on the needs outlined the day before 11h00 – 12h00: Presentation of BiodivRestore Knowledge Hub workplan (Ondrej Kusbach) and identification on the knowledge gaps addressed through these works, or broader, by Biodiversa+ LUNCH – END OF THE EVENT 12h00 – 13h30: Lunch (Foyer Passy) Dialogue on National Restoration Plans CLEVER Cities Word Template 19 www.biodiversa.eu Annex 2: Participants Member State Representatives Ala-Honkola Outi Maarit, Finland, Finish Ministry of Environment Carré Aurélien, France, PatriNat Casella Laura, Italy, Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research Chrysopolitou Vasiliki, Greece, National Museum of Natural History - Greek Biotope / Wetland Centre Forsberg Elin Kristina, Sweden, SEPA Nature analysis unit Gaigr Jonas, Czech Republic, Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic Galea Lara, Malta, Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) of Malta Gambiroza Patricija, Croatia, Ministry of Environmental Protection and Green Transition Manta Nicolae, Romania, Romanian Ministry of Environment, Waters and Forests Biodiversity Directorate Marczin Ors Szilard, Hungary, Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture, Department for Nature Conservation, desk officer for nature conservation development Maury Baptiste, France, MTE-FR Moller Kadri, Estonia, Estonian Ministry of Climate Moniz Dos Santos Maria Gabriela, Portugal, ICNF - Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e das Florestas - Portugal Nedelnikova Tereza, Czech Republic, Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic Onorbe Esparraguera Manuel, Spain, Spanish Ministry for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge Rejt Lukasz, Poland, Ministry of Climate and Environment of Poland, Unit of Nature restoration Roche Jennifer, Ireland, National Parks and Wildlife Service (Ireland) Schlaberg Juliana, Germany, German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation Slaukstins Valdimarts, Latvia, Ministry of Smart Administration and Regional Development of the Republic of Latvia Van Oosterhout Martin, Netherlands, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Food security and Nature of the Netherlands. Viestova Eva, Slovakia, Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic BiodivRestore Knowledge Hub Experts Cambria Vito Emanuele, Italy, Botanic Garden of Rome, Sapienza University of Rome Dialogue on National Restoration Plans CLEVER Cities Visual Identity 20 www.biodiversa.eu Decleer Kris, Belgium, Research Institute for Nature and Forest; Society for Ecological Restoration Europe Guimarães Laura, Portugal, CIIMAR, University of Porto Kristensen Rachel, Denmark, Copenhagen University Puértolas Domènech Laura, Spain, ALBIREM SUSTAINABILITY Sotirov Metodi, Germany/Bulgaria, University of Freiburg, Chair of Forest and Environmental Policy, Germany Biodiversa+ Partners Julliot Catherine, France, MTECT, CGDD Orliac Jérémie, France, MTECT, CGDD Prévost Thibault, France, MTECT, CGDD Sodtke Rainer, Germany, DLR, Biodiversa+ co-chair Kusbach Ondrej, Czech Republic, TACR Support: Durieux Cloé, France, FRB, Biodiversa+ operational team Laethem Marlies, Belgium, BelSPO, Biodiversa+ operational team European Commission presence (first day) Blaudeau Bénédicte, EC DG-ENV www.clevercities.eu Annex 3 – References Marine and Freshwater Document Document typology Topic Environment Ecosystem typology Target audience Geographical relevance Cebrian E et al. (2021) A roadmap for the restoration of Mediterranean macroalgal forests. Frontiers in Marine Science 8 research article guidelines/ roadmap marine brown macroalgal forests practitioners/ policy makers Mediterranean sea Silvia Bianchelli Fabbrizzi et al. 2023 The challenge of setting restoration targets for macroalgal forests under climate changes. Journal of Environmental Management 326 research article areas prioritization marine brown macroalgal forests practitioners/ policy makers Mediterranean sea Silvia Bianchelli Smith et al. (2023) A decisionsupport framework for the restoration of Cystoseira sensu lato forests. Frontiers in Marine Science 10 research article guidelines/ro admap marine brown macroalgal forests practitioners/ policy makers Mediterranean sea Silvia Bianchelli National Biodiversity Future Center project handbook guidelines terrestrial, freshwater, marine, urban all practitioners/ policy makers Italy Silvia Bianchelli National Biodiversity Future Center project IN PREPARATION summer school training terrestrial, freshwater, marine, urban all young researchers, practitioners Italy Silvia Bianchelli MaCoBioS - Marine Coastal Ecosystems Biodiversity and Services in a Changing World https://mac obios.eu/ Various resources and toolbox to support the implementati on of marine coastal ecosystems mangrove forests, coral reefs, kelp forests, maërl beds, seagrass beds, practitioners/ policy makers/rese archers Northern Europe, Northwestern Mediterranean, and the Lesser Antilles MaCoBioS consortium Dialogue on National Restoration Plans CLEVER Cities Visual Identity www.biodiversa.eu NatureBased Solutions for restoration in marine coastal ecosystems saltmarshes FutureMARES - Climate Change and Future Marine Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity https://ww w.futurema res.eu/ Resources to provide socially and economically viable actions and strategies in support of naturebased solutions and natureinclusive harvesting for climate change adaptation and mitigation. Developmen t of solutions to safeguard future biodiversity and ecosystem functions to maximise natural capital and Various storylines: Norwegian Coast, inter-relationships among kelp, sea urchins and cod Salmon at Hardangerfjord, Norway Restoration of eelgrass (Zostera marina) in the southwest Baltic Sea Conservation of coastal seaweeds, seagrasses, invertebrates and fish in the north-east Baltic Sea Basin scale management & Marine Protected Areas in the Baltic Sea Sustainable mussel culture in the Limfjorden, SW Baltic Sea Restoration of oysters in Dutch coastal waters Various practitioners/ policy makers/rese archers Baltic Sea, NE Atlantic & North Sea, Bay of Biscay & Iberian Coast, Caribbean & South Pacific, Mediterranean Sea FutureMAR ES consortium Dialogue on National Restoration Plans www.biodiversa.eu its delivery of services from marine and transitional ecosystems Saltmarsh, seagrass and kelp habitats in the North Devon UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve Marine spatial planning (broad coverage) Seaweed, mussels, and oysters in the north-east Atlantic and North Sea Diadromous species in the NE Atlantic Ocean, including transitional and upstream waters Nature-based Solutions in the Basque coast of Bay of Biscay: seagrass restoration, protected areas, and sustainable seafood harvesting Kelp forests & biodiversity in northern Portugal Restoration of seagrass (Posidonia oceanica) in the Balearic Islands (NW Mediterranean) Marine Protected Area network for Aegean biodiversity Karpathos & Saria Dialogue on National Restoration Plans CLEVER Cities Visual Identity www.biodiversa.eu MPAs: seagrasses and meadows, soft/rocky bottom Seagrass meadows and macroalgal forests in the MPA network of the Tuscan Archipelago Habitat-forming macroalgae / corals in the western Mediterranean Sea Conservation / Fisheries Sustainability in the Western Mediterranean from a regional perspective + synergies Basin-wide sea turtle conservation in the Mediterranean Sea Climate change and bioinvasion impacts on reef & canopyforming macroalgae and shelf fisheries in SE Mediterranean Sea Biogeography and biodiversity change on coastal communities at continental scales Hotspots and refuges for Dialogue on National Restoration Plans www.biodiversa.eu European Seas under the pressures of warming, acidification and deoxygenation Sustainable Seafood Harvesting in the Belize EEZ Ecosystem approach for the Chilean island systems