Inclusivity and governance

Further details on the systemic and synthesis for this European Green Deal Criterion are available in the MERLIN Deliverable Report page 95.

IG3 Inclusivity in CS board

Across clusters (Table 1), public sector stakeholders were the most consistently represented; NGO and private actors were also commonly involved. Presence of community group in the CS boards, while strong in a few peatland cases (CS01 and CS05) and Tzipori (CS15), was generally limited across clusters. Large transboundary river sites had the least diverse representation, probably because of their transboundary nature and the vast areas they cover, making Inclusion of community groups and private actors in case study boards less practical.

Case study IG3.1 Public sector IG3.2 Private IG3.3 NGO IG3.4 Network IG3.5 Community Group IG3.6 Other
Peatlands and wetlands
CS01 — Kvorning wetland rewetting DK 5 4 3 0 5 2
CS03 — Beaver River engineering SE 6 5 2 0 0 0
CS05 — Kampinos wetland rewetting PL 12 1 4 0 6 4
CS06 — Hutovo Blato peatland rewetting BiH 6 6 3      
CS12 — Lima floodplain forest restoration PT 6 7 2 0 2 0
CS14 — Komppasuo peatland rewetting FI 11 4 2 0 0 0
Small streams and basins
CS02 — Deba barrier removal ES No data reported
CS11 — Emscher basin restoration DE No data reported
CS13 — Sorraia river restoration PT 48 11 4 0 0 0
CS15 — Tzipori basin restoration IL 24 5 1 0 3 4
CS16 — Upper Scheldt restoration BE 22   1 1  
CS17 — Forth basin restoration UK 10 0 2 0 0 2
CS18 — Ervidel river restoration PT 0 3 0 0 0 0
Large transboundary rivers
CS04 — Room for the Rhine NL No data reported
CS07a — Danube floodplain restoration AT 3 0 4 0 2 0
CS07b — Danube sidearm reconnect HU No data reported
CS08 — Danube floodplain reconnect RO 5 1 1 0 1 0
CS09 — Tisza floodplain rewetting HU 2   2 1 10  
CS10 — Blue Belt Germany DE 4 1 2 1 0 0
Table 1. Number of stakeholder types involved in case study boards. CS15 submitted percentages for stakeholder type instead of exact counts, while CS13 counted individuals instead of count of types.

Back to Case Studies Assessment