Governance innovation through nature-based solutions

There is growing recognition that using the properties of nature can help provide viable and cost-effective solutions to a broad range of societal challenges, including disaster risk reduction

NBS in-depth case study analysis of the characteristics of successful governance models

This deliverable (D5.1) provides a comparative overview of governance frameworks that have enabled the initiation, planning, design and implementation of NBS across three successful NBS cases: i) mitigating flood risk through the restoration of the Isar River in Munich, Germany; ii) halting deforestation and encouraging afforestation as measures to reduce flood/landslide risk in the Wolong Nature Reserve, China; and iii) reducing landslide risk with natural measures in Nocera Inferiore, Italy. All case studies address two main questions: • How do public authorities and other stakeholders view the success of implemented NBS in terms of their main benefits and co-benefits? • What pre-existing conditions (external to the project) and new and potentially innovative factors helped enable the NBS?</p

Catalyzing Innovation: Governance Enablers of Nature-Based Solutions

There is growing recognition that using the properties of nature through nature-based solutions (NBS) can help to provide viable and cost-effective solutions to a wide range of societal challenges, including disaster risk reduction (DRR). However, NBS realization depends critically on the governance framework that enables the NBS policy process. Drawing from three case studies in Nocera Inferiore (Italy), Munich (Germany), and Wolong (China), we identify key governance enablers—the contextual preconditions, policy processes, and institutions—that proved essential for NBS initiation, planning, design, and implementation. In the three cases, interviews confirm the success of the NBS measures and their benefits in terms not only of DRR but of multiple ecological and social–economic co-benefits. Results highlight critical governance enablers of NBS, including: polycentric governance (novel arrangements in the public administration that involved multiple institutional scales and/or sectors); co-design (innovative stakeholder participatory processes that influenced the final NBS); pro-NBS interest and coalition groups (organized pressure groups that advocated for an NBS); and financial incentives (financing community-based implementation and monitoring of NBS). Findings show that the transition to NBS can contribute to multiple global agendas, including DRR, climate change adaptation, and sustainable development

Designing a Resilient Waterscape Using a Living Lab and catalyzing Polycentric Governance

The both polycentric governance and Living Labs concepts are based on decentralized participatory planning, co-design, and decisionmaking. While the concept of Living Lab is still emerging, the Isar-Plan (2000 ~ 2011) pioneered the approach for selecting, co-designing, and implementing nature-based solutions along the Isar River in Munich, Germany. Despite multiple governing authorities involved in the decisionmaking process of the Isar-Plan, the polycentric governance that led to the success of the project has to date not been analyzed. This paper presents the results of an ex-post-analysis of the Isar-Plan restoration planning process based on stakeholder interviews and a literature review. The contribution describes the evolution of Isar-Plan governance arrangements and discusses the Living Lab approaches to cooperative governance. The analysis demonstrates how polycentricity facilitated trust, learning, and the co-design of a resilient waterscape. The paper concludes that Living Labs can be a way of applying polycentric governance when autonomous and multi-scale decision-makers are collaboratively involved in the design of policy solutions, and vice-versa

The future of biodiversity monitoring in Europe

Current biodiversity monitoring in Europe is fragmented and often inconsistent across countries. Monitoring efforts face multiple challenges including insufficient technical and human capacity, limited funding, data unavailability, and lack of long-term policy support. To address these challenges, the Europa Biodiversity Observation Network (EuropaBON) proposes five clusters of solutions to improve the collection and uptake of policy-relevant biodiversity data: - Enhance coordination and collaboration of monitoring efforts by identifying priorities, using standardized protocols, and aligning reporting requirements with specific indicators. - Increase data standardization through the combination of Essential Biodiversity and Essential Ecosystem Services Variables (EBVs and EESVs) with dedicated data sharing and exchange mechanisms that adhere to open and FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) principles. - Leverage modeling efforts and new technologies to integrate with traditional monitoring methods. - Enable additional, consistent, and long-term financial resources for monitoring efforts, including more and better coordination across countries, institutions, and sectors, along with privatesector investments. - Expand, adapt, and deliver capacity building, such as expert training, creating new exchange knowledge platforms, and embracing citizen science initiatives. We propose the creation of a European Biodiversity Monitoring Coordination Centre in the near future to implement lasting improvements in the collection, analysis, reporting, and political uptake of biodiversity data in all European countries

Biodiversity monitoring in Europe: User and policy needs

To achieve the goals of the 2030 Global Biodiversity Framework, the European Biodiversity Strategy, and the EU Green Deal, biodiversity monitoring is critical. Monitoring efforts in Europe, however, suffer from gaps and biases in taxonomy, spatial coverage, and temporal resolution, resulting in fragmented and disconnected data. To assess user and policy needs in biodiversity monitoring, we employed a four-step user-centered stakeholder engagement process with over 300 stakeholders including a public stakeholder workshop, online survey, interviews, and a meeting with experts from 18 EU member states, the European Commission, and the European Environment Agency. The stakeholders identified policy needs, current challenges, and potential solutions. Based on the policy and stakeholder assessment, we recommend establishing a European Biodiversity Observation Coordinating Centre to optimize existing observation efforts, harmonize data, and enhance our ability to predict and respond to key challenges related to biodiversity loss in Europe

Dietary protein intake and distribution patterns of well-trained Dutch athletes

Dietary protein intake should be optimized in all athletes to ensure proper recovery and enhance the skeletal muscle adaptive response to exercise training. In addition to total protein intake, the use of specific proteincontaining food sources and the distribution of protein throughout the day are relevant for optimizing protein intake in athletes. In the present study, we examined the daily intake and distribution of various proteincontaining food sources in a large cohort of strength, endurance and team-sport athletes. Well-trained male (n=327) and female (n=226) athletes completed multiple web-based 24-hr dietary recalls over a 2-4 wk period. Total energy intake, the contribution of animal- and plant-based proteins to daily protein intake, and protein intake at six eating moments were determined. Daily protein intake averaged 108±33 and 90±24 g in men and women, respectively, which corresponded to relative intakes of 1.5±0.4 and 1.4±0.4 g/kg. Dietary protein intake was correlated with total energy intake in strength (r=0.71, p 1.2 g protein/kg/d, but the distribution throughout the day may be suboptimal to maximize the skeletal muscle adaptive response to training.</p