These compressed mountain life zones host exceptional biodiversity — large carnivores, ibex, raptors and a rich invertebrate fauna. The main pressures are the loss of traditional silvo-pastoral practices, mechanised forestry, and increasingly severe wind- and snow-throw that heightens vulnerability to pest outbreaks.

Climate change hits hard at altitude. In 2018, Storm Vaia caused unprecedented windthrow followed by enduring bark-beetle damage at both sites.

The goal is to find financially viable pathways that preserve and restore biodiversity while reducing dependence on timber revenue. Environmental aims include enhancing forest biodiversity and habitat quality, increasing climate resilience, promoting mixed-species natural regeneration, protecting soils and watersheds, improving connectivity and supporting carbon sequestration.

The work aligns with the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030, the EU Forest Strategy 2030 and the Nature Restoration Regulation; the Austrian site is additionally pursuing recognition as an OECM (Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measure).

Primary beneficiaries are the landowners and managers responsible for conserving habitats and protecting species. Secondary beneficiaries include actors along the forestry value chain, impact investors, and local communities that rely on the forest for recreation and water supply.

Research begins with a desk review (WP2) of the policy and legal framework for biodiversity protection and of relevant financial instruments, assessing each for suitability, feasibility and scalability. Findings then feed continuous stakeholder engagement at both sites — one-to-one meetings and workshops with landowners, conservation authorities, research institutions, NGOs and forest-sector operators — to co-design viable business models with the WP4 and WP5 teams.

A structured Natural Capital Accounting system, a credible MRV framework, clear biodiversity indicators and strong governance are the enabling conditions for moving beyond timber revenue. Against these, UC1 examines the most relevant instruments:

The transition carries several layered risks: exogenous climatic and biological disturbance; legal-institutional complexity in changing established business models; dependence on the active involvement of impact investors and public authorities; operational difficulty in setting up new systems such as Natural Capital Accounting and MRV; and questions of social acceptance that can slow implementation. These are managed through careful planning, close work across work packages, and frequent stakeholder dialogue.

The use case focuses on agricultural biodiversity measurable by geodata: crop and livestock diversity, and semi-natural elements such as hedgerows, flower strips and wetlands that raise habitat complexity. Historical pressures include the shift to monocultures, pesticide and fertiliser use, land-use change and the loss of hedgerows and field margins.

Climate change adds shifts in species distribution, soil degradation and water stress. The biodiversity baseline is captured through each plot’s technical itinerary and landscape features, with indicators being developed in WP3.

The aim is to restore biodiversity within productive farming so as to strengthen pollination, soil fertility, natural pest control, water regulation and carbon storage. France is already a frontrunner in agroecology — through the 2014 Loi d’Avenir, GIEE collectives and CAP eco-schemes — which positions UC2 to test how mature regenerative systems can be rewarded financially.

It aligns with the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030, the European Green Deal, the CAP, the Water Framework Directive, the Farm to Fork Strategy and the UN SDGs. Its distinctive role is to pilot the scaling and standardisation of biodiversity-based instruments in high-performance regenerative systems.

Primary beneficiaries are landowners and farmers, who would receive support to implement biodiversity-friendly practices. Secondary beneficiaries include private investors, public institutions and governments, consumers, NGOs and advocacy groups, and agri-food supply-chain stakeholders.

The methodology centres on monitoring agroecological practices across a varied pool of farms (WP3): engaging farmer groups to adopt agro-ecological infrastructure and transition practices; experimenting with biodiversity-enhancing measures such as crop diversification, hedgerows and no-till; and evaluating candidate financial mechanisms against deployment potential, governance and certification, cost versus funders’ willingness to pay, and replicability. Monitoring combines ground-level data with geospatial technologies.

Instruments are studied in WP2, with the most appropriate selected for the French context. Remote sensing underpins verification, while clear regulatory frameworks and ESG-driven corporate demand act as enablers. Key barriers are the difficulty of valuing biodiversity, immature credit markets, and the limits of remote sensing for species-specific data.

Transition risks are agronomic, climatic, economic and methodological. Short-term yield variability is mitigated through diversified rotations, technical support from SCARA and peer exchange within APAD. Climatic risks (drought, late frost) are buffered by improved soil structure and parametric insurance. Income uncertainty is addressed through PES, certificates and green loans; measurement gaps by combining remote sensing with in-situ observation; and regulatory uncertainty through engagement with authorities in both Grand Est and Occitanie.

Forest curtains attract pollinators and insectivorous birds and shelter small mammals; the organic farm shows high soil biodiversity, beneficial insects and spontaneous plant species. Threats include ecological isolation from surrounding intensive agriculture, pesticide drift, wind erosion, seedling mortality, and the perception that tree belts take land from cultivation.

The region is among Romania’s most climate-vulnerable — severe water deficit, summers above 40°C, strong winds and erosive torrential rain. Before intervention, the arable site had very low biodiversity; the organic farm was at a moderate but rising level.

The objective is to identify and design financial mechanisms that support the uptake and scaling of agroecological practices and green infrastructure in lowland Romania, using the two pilot farms as representative cases. A core idea is to explore a biodiversity-linked instrument — such as a biodiversity-linked bond or performance-based payment — that ties returns to ecological targets like soil health, pollinator activity and habitat connectivity.

Environmental goals target soil and pollinator biodiversity, reduced erosion and greater drought resilience; social goals address farmer perceptions and replicable models for south-east Romania; economic goals demonstrate feasibility and identify new financial flows. It aligns with the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030, the Green Deal, the CAP, Romania’s National Strategy for Sustainable Development and the Natura 2000 directives.

Primary beneficiaries are farmers. Secondary beneficiaries include local communities (through microclimatic benefits, dust reduction and soil stabilisation), green-project investors, local and county administrations, and the agri-food sector through more stable production.

The approach combines bibliographic analysis of agroecology, CAP eco-schemes and the role of forest belts with field-based discussions at the two pilot farms to understand local conditions. It is supported by iterative consultations with other farmers and continuous dialogue with project partners, who contribute technical expertise in defining and testing proposals.

Implementation is supported by existing CAP eco-schemes, growing interest in nature-based solutions, and the ecological potential of lowland landscapes. Structural barriers remain: a lack of incentivised funds for maintaining green infrastructure in its early years, the perception that agroecology reduces output, and the absence of functional biodiversity-credit markets nationally. UC3 analyses how these constraints can be overcome through appropriate instruments and continuous dialogue.

The use case faces operational risks from high climate variability and severe drought, which can dampen both motivation and early-year results. Institutional risks arise from administrative complexity and the limited integration of innovative instruments into existing policy. Social and economic risks include the perception of agroecology as costly, immature biodiversity-credit markets, and limited local administrative capacity. Mitigation rests on continuous dialogue with farmers and authorities, realistic feasibility assessment, and gradual testing with partners.

These grasslands support high plant, pollinator and butterfly diversity, with indicator species such as Phengaris teleius, Phengaris nausithous and Lycaena dispar. Pressures include intensification, abandonment, woody encroachment, fragmentation and the loss of traditional management — reinforced by ageing farmers, depopulation and low profitability.

Climate change brings hotter, drier summers, drought, frost, storms and hail. Many target habitats remain in unfavourable conservation status, and key butterfly indicators are declining.

UC4 seeks financing approaches that help conserve and restore species-rich grasslands, linking biodiversity-positive management to measurable indicators, stakeholder-supported governance and finance that complements existing public support. Environmental goals focus on habitat quality for pollinators; social goals on the viability of traditional management amid depopulation; and economic goals on combining public and innovative finance without replacing the CAP baseline.

It aligns with the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030, the European Green Deal, the Birds and Habitats Directives, the Natura 2000 framework, the CAP, the Nature Restoration Regulation and the EU Pollinators Initiative, with KPIs covering habitat condition, indicator species and scheme participation.

Primary beneficiaries are farmers, tenants and land managers responsible for grassland management, together with the habitats and species that depend on appropriate mowing, grazing and restoration. Secondary beneficiaries include local communities, municipalities, protected-area managers, Natura 2000 and conservation institutions, public authorities, advisory bodies, NGOs, processors, tourism actors and potential future private funders.

The methodology combines policy and financing analysis (WP2), biodiversity baselines and indicators (WP3), development of financial solutions such as PES and biodiversity certificates (WP4 and WP5), and stakeholder engagement (WP6). Remote sensing and GIS support land-cover and habitat analysis; field visits and expert input validate spatial data; and ecological, financial and social indicators are tracked to underpin future MRV-compatible financing.

The financial architecture is a mixed model: public funding (mainly CAP) remains the baseline, while BIO-CAPITAL explores how innovative mechanisms could complement it. The framework is well suited to Triple Capital Accounting, since grassland value depends simultaneously on natural, human/social and financial capital. Enabling conditions include clear indicators, credible MRV and additionality rules; barriers include fragmented ownership, short leases, low trust, transaction costs and the risk of double-funding with the CAP.

Environmental risks include drought, heat, frost, storms, hail, flooding and continued habitat deterioration. Operational risks stem from fragmented ownership, informal leases, low trust, administrative complexity and the gradual loss of local management capacity. Financial risks include low profitability of extensive management, immature biodiversity-finance markets and weak private demand. Mitigation rests on continued CAP support, farmer advisory and engagement, pilot testing, risk-mitigation tools, clearer indicators and MRV, and stronger institutional coordination.

UK wetlands and river corridors form vital, dynamic networks — riffles, pools, fens, reedbeds and wet woodlands that support salmon, trout, otter, water vole, white-clawed crayfish and kingfisher, while delivering nutrient cycling, water purification and flood storage. Historical drainage, channel straightening and embankment building disconnected rivers from floodplains, and today agricultural runoff, urban drainage, weirs and invasive species add further pressure.

Climate change brings more frequent floods and droughts, warmer water and rising sea levels. Most surveyed reaches show low baseline biodiversity value (generally below one unit), indicating strong potential for measurable uplift.

The objective is to identify and implement innovative solutions for restoring and protecting riparian and wetland ecosystems — applying conservation covenants, nature-based solutions and Biodiversity Net Gain to deliver measurable gains, and testing whether these can leverage real finance. Economically, it aims to mobilise investment and market-based instruments so that landowners can adopt restoration without compromising viability.

The work aligns with the EU and UK Biodiversity Strategies for 2030, the 25 Year Environment Plan, the Water Framework Directive (retained in UK law) and Environmental Land Management schemes, and contributes to climate adaptation and Net Zero. BNG is now a legal route in the UK for leveraging biodiversity improvements linked to development.

The primary beneficiary is Nature itself, alongside landowners, farmers and river-corridor managers who may receive financial incentives and gain stewardship and resilience benefits. Secondary beneficiaries include local communities, recreational users, public bodies such as flood authorities, and investors and conservation organisations that benefit from measurable, evidence-based biodiversity gains.

Remote sensing and GIS enable scalable habitat assessment and spatial mapping of riparian zones and connectivity, informing where interventions deliver the greatest gain. Field methods are detailed: River Condition Assessments using Cartographer software, standardised MoRPh hydromorphological surveys, Biodiversity Net Gain frameworks to quantify habitat units, ground-level soil and water measurements, eDNA sampling for species detection, and sensor-based monitoring of flow, temperature and water quality.

Restoration is linked to finance principally through Biodiversity Net Gain, now a legal route in the UK, with habitat units quantifying measurable uplift. Conservation covenants — legal agreements between landowners and a Responsible Body such as WRT, with habitat banks acting as brokers — protect interventions over the long term, while novel biodiversity certificates are tested as a complementary route. The market is still thin: watercourse BNG units are currently valued between £95,000 and £205,000, with scarce availability and complex watercourse ownership.

Environmental risks include floods, droughts and extreme weather, climate impacts on hydrology and species, and invasive or unexpected ecological responses. Operational risks involve stakeholder resistance, land-tenure complexity, multi-site coordination, landowner uncertainty over BNG returns and fluctuating demand for off-site units, and the long-term enforcement obligations of a Responsible Body. Financial risks include short-term funding against 30-year BNG commitments, incentives that may not cover delivery and maintenance, an emerging and uncertain BNG market, high upfront costs and credit-stacking complexity. Mitigation emphasises transparent engagement, capacity building, stacked interventions, adaptive monitoring and diversified funding.