Cities across the globe recognise their role in climate mitigation and are acting to reduce carbon emissions. Knowing whether cities set ambitious climate and energy targets is critical for determining their contribution towards the global 1.5°C target, partly because it helps to identify areas where further action is necessary. This paper presents a comparative analysis of the mitigation targets of 327 European cities, as declared in their local climate plans. The sample encompasses over 25% of the EU population and includes cities of all sizes across all Member States, plus the UK. The study analyses whether the type of plan, city size, membership of climate networks, and its regional location are associated with different levels of mitigation ambition. Results reveal that 78% of the cities have a GHG emissions reduction target. However, with an average target of 47%, European cities are not on track to reach the Paris Agreement: they need to roughly double their ambitions and efforts. Some cities are ambitious, e.g. 25% of our sample (81) aim to reach carbon neutrality, with the earliest target date being 2020. 90% of these cities are members of the Climate Alliance and 75% of the Covenant of Mayors. City size is the strongest predictor for carbon neutrality, whilst climate network(s) membership, combining adaptation and mitigation into a single strategy, and local motivation also play a role. The methods, data, results and analysis of this study can serve as a reference and baseline for tracking climate mitigation ambitions across European and global cities. Highlights• 78% of cities have a mitigation plan with targets (avg. 47% GHG reduction)• Only 25% of cities strive for carbon neutrality, most by 2050, avg. by 2045 • 90% of cities striving for carbon neutrality are members of a climate network • Ambition is driven by city size, climate networks, M-A combination, local motivation • European cities must double their ambitions to meet the aims set by the Paris Agreement

The EU Water Framework Directive aims to ensure restoration of Europe’s water bodies to “good ecological status” by 2027. Many Member States will struggle to meet this target, with around half of EU river catchments currently reporting below standard water quality. Diffuse pollution from agriculture represents a major pressure, affecting over 90% of river basins. Accumulating evidence shows that recent improvements to agricultural practices are benefiting water quality but in many cases will be insufficient to achieve WFD objectives. There is growing support for land use change to help bridge the gap, with a particular focus on targeted tree planting to intercept and reduce the delivery of diffuse pollutants to water. This form of integrated catchment management offers multiple benefits to society but a significant cost to landowners and managers. New economic instruments, in combination with spatial targeting, need to be developed to ensure cost effective solutions – including tree planting for water benefits - are realised. Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) are flexible, incentive-based mechanisms that could play an important role in promoting land use change to deliver water quality targets. The PESFOR-W COST Action will consolidate learning from existing woodlands for water PES schemes in Europe and help standardize approaches to evaluating the environmental effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of woodland measures. It will also create a European network through which PES schemes can be facilitated, extended and improved, for example by incorporating other ecosystem services linking with aims of the wider forests-carbon policy nexus.

Climate smart forestry (CSF) is considered as a promising approach for climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies as highlighted in several European policy documents. This paper describes a prospective approach to introducing an incentive-based scheme to facilitate the implementation of CSF through a case study in Iceland. It is argued that the payments for ecosystem services (PES) scheme allows for effective CSF management and long-term sustainability if introduced in compliance with local, cultural and social values. In a case study of an Icelandic afforestation programme, we conducted an institutional analysis of the PES scheme and assessed its effect on forest ecosystem services provision on long-term sustainability. We provide preliminary findings on the application of CSF in the 30-year-old Icelandic afforestation programme scheme. The perspectives of forest and policy experts, as well as local farmers participating in the scheme, were crucial for assessing the effectiveness of PES scheme performance in Iceland.

No abstract