In search of the Holy Grail: Is innovation policy the one-size-fits-all solution to support marine, coastal, and freshwater ecosystem restoration in Europe?

Stemming and reversing the (marine) biodiversity loss is one of the main global ambitions for the current decade and up to 2050. The European Union (EU) policy framework has responded with the European Green Deal, Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, and more recently Nature Restoration Regulation. These policies mirror the global ambitions and, sometimes, extend them even further. However, the question is how can these ambitious policy goals be achieved, particularly within the marine realm?

The EU policy framework tends to emphasise the importance of innovation, both to achieve the environmental goals and to ensure continued economic growth and increased EU global competitiveness. We have used the combination of semi-structured interviews, online surveys, focus groups, as well as policy and literature reviews to assess whether EU innovation policies provide adequate support for innovation to play a significant role in achieving the restoration targets for 2030 and 2050, with particular focus on the Atlantic-Arctic, Danube, and Mediterranean regions.

While the EU innovation policy has progressed significantly over the last 15 years, bridging many of the previously identified gaps and has been more and more linked to the EU environmental acquis as well, it is currently not adapted to the challenges that the restoration initiatives across Europe are facing. Most of the policy goals and tools are focussed on technological innovations, often specific to technologies for climate mitigation, but being vague when it comes to biodiversity, most often only mentioning “green transition”.  The financing mechanisms, governance structures, and ultimately policies are still in their infancy in relation to ecosystem restoration innovations. This contrasts with the fact that most restoration experts seem well aware of the relevance of different innovations (economic, financial, social, and policy), but there is little policy foundation to build upon.

The EU Mission Ocean initiative, in turn, is being effective in bringing innovation into the debate between policy makers, researchers, practitioners, and local administrators working on ecosystem restoration, also strengthening and widening existing networks in the four EU basins. At the same time, innovation in ecosystem restoration is still a new subject for many of them, and innovation ecosystems are not yet fully functional to streamline the entrepreneurial approaches. Evidence indicates that public sector support services for developing entrepreneurial initiatives in restoration activities remain limited, and there is little to no interest from the private sector in investing in such initiatives. For example, few existing services and mechanisms supporting innovation (e.g., incubators) can apply to ecosystem restoration practices.

Consequently, perhaps the role of innovation in restoration needs to be rethought, by either refocussing it more on the barriers that restorations actors are facing or moving towards wider implementation of tried and tested approaches with existing policy backing (e.g., strict protection and passive restoration). Where should we go to find restoration’s Holy Grail?