Designing a network of green infrastructure for the EU

•We designed a EU network of green infrastructure (GI) using spatial planning tools.•We compared efficiency of a GI network designed at continental vs national-scale.•GI planned at EU-scale is more efficient for large demands on ecosystem services.•The network of GI can indirectly cover a large distribution of species and habitats.•The EU-network of GI relies on management of both agricultural and forest areas. The EU’s Green Infrastructure Strategy aims at developing a strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas to support the maintenance of ecosystem services (ESS) and connect protected areas (PAs), promoting in this way multifunctional landscapes. This network of GI aims to address the decline in ESS across the EU and also contribute to achieving the objectives of the Biodiversity Strategy, such as halting biodiversity loss. Here, we demonstrate how a spatial planning tool could be used for designing a network of GI across the EU. We tested two alternative planning scenarios: an EU-based, where the full network is planned at the continental scale, and a country-based scenario, where independent planning exercises are made by each EU member State. Both scenarios pursued the same objectives: to cover the distribution of 767 vertebrate species and 229 habitats under a “conservation management zone” and to warrant the provision of 5 ESS under the GI network, while connecting existing PAs already designated as Natura 2000. A systematically planned GI could warrant ESS provision and increase the connectivity of N2000 sites, while improving the coverage of species of EU-conservation interest beyond current protected areas. This network of GI is allocated in similar proportions on forested and agricultural areas. The EU-based planned GI was more efficient (less area needed for achieving targets) than the Country-based one for intermediate-large targets, including more areas along borders between countries, rather than consolidating connectivity among PAs within each country. Country-based solutions collectively achieved the EU targets. However, while all targets for species, habitats and ESS could be achieved under the EU-based scenario, targets for some ESS (especially Carbon retention) could not be fully achieved under the country-based scenario for some countries. Our results demonstrate the benefits of cross-country collaboration when designing the future network of GI in the EU and highlights the need for more robust policy instruments