9. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The 15 analysed cases cover a wide range of different policies and management measures. As illustrated in the overview table below, the cases were selected to cover as many different types of successful practices as possible. There are many similarities between the Nordic countries, how their regulatory systems are structured, how they have divided administrative governance, and they are also obligated to many of the same international agreements.

The wish to achieve synergies in environmental governance is not new. As early as 2002, the UNEP Governing Council called for enhancing linkages and synergies among multilateral environmental agreements, to improve connectivity in our tackling of environmental challenges,

Visseren-Hamakers (2015)

and - as discussed earlier - an important part of the IUCN NbS Standard. Multiple studies and initiatives have aimed to map the enablers for creating synergies. Several initiatives have been focusing on how to improve coordination and knowledge management across different internal entities to better achieving synergies namely at local scale. In recent years, the awareness of the intrinsic interconnectedness of the nature and climate crises has increased rapidly, and there has been a shift to focus on measures that can achieve one goal while contributing positively to achieving others.

United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (2020)

This can create incentives for increasing measures that generally face obstacles such as lack of prioritisation or funding. This is especially the case for many conservation measures. This shift in focus among the wider society serves as an enabling factor, as well as the increasing acknowledgement of nature’s essentiality for human existence.

When considering the selected cases, all countries see the potential in wetland restoration and afforestation. These measures are promoted in all the individual countries’ climate mitigation plans. Several of the analysed cases have incorporated multiple interdisciplinary goals from the beginning of project initiation, and the literature shows an increasing acknowledgement of the necessity to address these issues simultaneously in order to ensure that agendas do not counteract each other and to ensure the most effective ways of implementation. Sometimes policy measures have been promoted simultaneously but independently in different action plans e.g., climate change and biodiversity.

Limited land area makes it necessary to make prioritisations in land use. Incorporating ecosystem-based management approaches and applying an adaptive management approach can be a way to actively minimize trade-offs. An example is seen with the CFC management approach, that improves the quality and connectivity of forests habitats, while still allowing forestry practices.

This is one of the major strengths of nature-based solutions – that the standard’s structure allows for identifying potential synergies across sectors early in the process, and that these are included in monitoring and evaluation, so unintentional effects and trade-offs can trigger an adaptive management response.

IUCN (2020)

A = Financial
B = Management
C = Law & regulations
D = Voluntary
E = National
F = Regional
G = Local
H = Ecosystem restoration ap-proaches
I = Issue-specific ecosystem-related approache
J = Infrastructure-related approaches
K = Ecosystem-based management approaches
L = Ecosystem protection approaches

Cases with a national scope are overrepresented in this study which is expected since the study has a focus on policy. Policies promoting joint measures for biodiversity, climate change and pollution are still most common at the national scale. However, the practical execution of national action plans is often done by municipalities. Some of the cases exemplify the policies through local examples, where national action plans are executed at local scale.

State funding where private landowners are paid for managing ecosystem services are key part of multiple initiatives and programmes and are present in all the Nordic countries. Many of the financial measures in use are combined with voluntary agreements in order to respect private ownership and minimize conflicts.

Although the Nordic countries have many similarities, there are also differences between them and what they prioritize when governing environment and spatial planning. This mirrors the different problems they face, as well as their history of land use change. While Iceland has a century- long focus on afforestation, Denmark has focus on handling flooding, cloudbursts and taking lowland soils out of agricultural production. Norway and Sweden both focus on re-establishing peatlands, and Sweden considers more sustainable forestry practices, which is also highlighted in Finland’s action plans for biodiversity. Another key focus in Finland is to improve biodiversity protection; especially in the southern part of the country.

This project also identified the following key enablers for achieving synergies in the cases analysed, across different policy measures and across different scales:

Taking a holistic view and surveying the landscape prior to project implementation contributes to increasing habitat connectivity at a regional scale. This can also contribute to identifying potential trade-offs. Prior to the establishment of flower meadows in the municipality of Porsgrunn in Norway, the entire area was mapped to find the most suitable location for the pollinator flower meadows, thereby ensuring the best possible connection with the surrounding landscape to secure the best possible habitat connectivity for the pollinators.

The Finnish Peatland Strategy and the Finnish Conservation Programme also ensure, as far as possible, that activities considered harmful are limited to already drained or altered peatlands, instead of damaging pristine areas. In several of the programmes that involve privately owned land, the land area is screened prior to approval to determine if the area is suitable, and if so, to identify the most suitable location for implementation or conservation. This approval process is part of the Icelandic Afforestation Project, the Finnish METSO Programme, the Danish lowland projects, and the Norwegian wetland restoration projects.

A study from Southern Finland provides examples of how prioritising land areas allows for maximising benefits and concludes that it is possible to significantly improve biodiversity and carbon uptake with optimal allocation of no harvest-areas. Lastly, as also described in several of the cases when conducting restoration, the results generally improve when the area is in the proximity of undisturbed ecosystems.

The lack of funding is often identified as a key barrier even for projects otherwise considered to be successful. In the Swedish Threatened Species Programme, lack of funding has been identified as an obstacle for ensuring long-term strategic planning. When progress and successful outcomes have been accomplished, it is a pity if these are discontinued due to lack of funding.

The Icelandic farmers participating in the afforestation scheme also reported how unsteady funding leads to an uneven supply of tree saplings which can hamper the afforestation processes. It can often be more cost-efficient to prioritise conservation, as in the case of the Swedish eelgrass meadows, where conserving the remaining eelgrass meadows outside of Gothenburg and providing conditions for natural extension was far more resource effective than planting new eelgrass meadows.

This also highlights the importance of carefully considering all alternative options before damaging or altering a pristine ecosystem, since once lost re-establishment of an ecosystem to a former state is not only challenging and potentially very expensive, but it is not always possible. Thereby not saying that restoration of already degraded ecosystems should not be prioritized; this is highly necessary if the Nordics shall live up to their climate and biodiversity commitments. Restoration efforts are also parts of the Nordic countries' climate action plans and biodiversity action plans.

When applying nature-based solutions, numerous stakeholders are involved at the different stages of the process. Several successful measures presented in the analysed cases have involved private landowners, often receiving payment for protecting ecosystem services. Examples are the Finnish METSO Programme, the Icelandic Afforestation Projects, the Swedish Endangered Species Act, and the Danish Lowland Scheme.

All the cases analysed involve the use and management of land in one way or another. Land management often comes with a risk of conflict due to different interests colliding on finite space. In connection to this, both how and when stakeholders are involved is important. How landowners are compensated or engaged vary across the different cases. There are examples of private land and forest owners getting funding and education for new types of land management such as forestry, or the state offers to buy their land for conservation, or farmers and foresters themselves can apply for funding for habitat protection or more sustainable management practices. Others have simply volunteered their land for revegetation efforts as the Hekluskógar project in Iceland. This shows that there are multiple ways to successfully engage stakeholders.

Some of the analysed cases illustrate collaboration and stakeholder engagement from national and regional levels down to a local level. The Swedish National Action Plan for Threatened Species and Habitats is a success story showing how national agencies collaborated across sectors with NGO’s, municipalities, and private landowners to determine and implement rewarding measures. Different collaborations have been engaged at different stages, first in collaboration with the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management to decide on specific action plans, later during actual implementation at the landscape level between the agencies, county administrative boards and infrastructure agencies, and lastly with the executioners e.g., private landowners or contractors.

There is an increasing focus on improving collaboration between different stakeholders involved with national action plans, both internally and across agencies, and between multilateral levels of governments. This was part of the new Norwegian governmental plan, where there is increased focus on strengthening local municipalities due to their responsibility in land-use management. In Sweden, their newest strategy for biodiversity and ecosystem services entails a practical division of responsibility at a national level, and the responsibility to provide proper guidance and access to knowledge at the regional level for counties and at the local level for municipalities.

In a landscape as complex as environmental management, it is very important to ensure information flows to stakeholders. The analysed cases hold multiple examples of how this is done successfully. For instance, the Icelandic Afforestation Scheme provide forestry education for the farmers. There are many different terms and definitions in play in the environmental field, it is therefore important to streamline and ensure that the same definitions and approaches are applied. In Sweden the forest agency has issued guidelines that clarify the definitions of Continuous Cover Forestry (CCF), to clarify definitions for stakeholders and contribute to spreading knowledge with stakeholders. Our ecosystems are changing fast, this calls for taking more dynamic approaches. In 2018, Finland launched the six-year project 'IBC-Carbon' that aims to provide knowledge on the effects of climate change through forest growth modelling, biodiversity modelling, as well as knowledge of carbon budgeting, and ecosystem services.

Several of the analysed cases had multiple objectives from the start, also spanning across different topics. Focusing on achieving multiple benefits instead of just one allows actors to better identify, mitigate and manage trade-offs and other potential conflicts.

Sharifi (2016)

When managed right, this is one of the key attributes to practising nature-based solutions that the entire ecosystem is taken into consideration. The Danish synergy project is one example of synergies being the core of the project. When restoring mires and peatlands, achieving several targets such as carbon sequestration and restoring threatened biotopes were a key part of the national action plans in both Finland and Norway.

Many of the cases have not been evaluated. Some of the cases are still being implemented or have recently been implemented. Evaluation is an important factor in identifying unintentional synergies that can be better incorporated in future project and ensuring that implemented measures generate the expected effects. There are still great uncertainties regarding the effects of some ecosystem-based measures including rewetting, wetland restoration and afforestation schemes, and monitoring and evaluation can contribute to addressing this.

It is important that the measures implemented lead to the expected effects, and if not that it is acknowledged. However, it can take a long time for some effects to manifest, potentially making it difficult to evaluate. There are very few examples of grand scale NbS, making it especially important that these are evaluated in order to contribute to expanding the knowledge foundation concerning the effectiveness of large-scale NbS.

Additional data can provide information on synergies ensured, and the cost-effectiveness of implementing NbS.

Calliari et al. (2022)

Applying adaptation management can help in identifying these, since it provides the possibility for adjustments to practice.

When an evaluation is carried out, it is often the results that are evaluated and not the policy process itself.  this makes it more difficult to identify the initiatives and policy instruments that as part of the process contribute to synergies in the finished project.

Several of the cases achieved other effects than climate mitigation and/or adaptation, pollution prevention, and biodiversity protection. Other goals were also often part of the initial scope in several of the projects. Especially recreational values were often a project objective alongside the environmental objectives.

Improving local recreational facilities was a key part of several of the Danish synergy projects. The Icelandic afforestation projects have also contributed to local recreational activities; this was not one of the original objectives for the project, but it is now highlighted as an additional benefit of the afforestation project. The afforestation project can also contribute by increasing private farmers economic income, when they over time develop a forest resource on their land, providing income by selling timber. Furthermore, several farmers have identified an improvement in the microclimate on their farms that is beneficial for their other farming practices. Continuous cover forestry is considered to improve the recreational values of the forests since the landscape is experienced as more scenic than in forests applying clear-cut forestry, that causes large empty lots disrupting the forest connectivity.  

Initiatives that foster green cities are appraised for contributing to improving mental health and social health for urban citizens. Green roofs or establishment of green urban areas like the Norwegian pollinator meadows contribute to improving the local environment for urban citizens. Several of the Danish synergy projects also provided new recreational options for the local urban residents.

Protected areas such as the Swedish eelgrass meadows, the METSO protected forests in Finland and the Eyja Bakkar wetlands in Iceland can also improve recreational facilities. In the case of Sweden, the eelgrass meadows can provide improved conditions for anglers, and in Iceland the conservation area contributes to preserving an iconic landscape that sustains tourism. Revegetation around the volcano Mount Hekla can contribute to disaster risk reduction when eruptions occur and reduce impacts on the surrounding area.

Without necessarily being part of the targeted goals, many of the analysed cases can enhance water quality due to the soil’s natural filtration abilities that retain or break down pollutants or excess nutrients.

As illustrated by the case examples, knowledge concerning successful measures has already been accumulated, but the awareness of success stories elsewhere is sometimes limited; both between countries and more locally. Many of the measures that enable synergies have the potential to be implemented and practiced in other countries, regions, or settings, since the general methods are not site specific, and the threats from biodiversity loss, climate change and pollution prevention are similar, even though the local environment and ecosystems need to be considered individually. There is as such great potential to transfer knowledge and experience between different countries, regions, municipalities, and between different levels of governance. For instance, applying measures such as payment for ecosystem services, prioritising conservation, allocation of proper funding to restoration projects, and safeguarding those practices implemented creates connectivity and contributes to diminishing fragmentation. Furthermore, good general management practices such as proper involvement of stakeholders in the various stages of the implementation can contribute to increased achievement of synergies, just as an analysis of the surrounding environment also increases the chance of achieving better results and minimizes the risk of trade-offs. Most of the measures implemented have been introduced to meet international regulations and agreements from the EU and the UN, many of which all the Nordic countries have committed to; this increases the opportunities for implementation elsewhere as they must contribute to achieve the same regulatory and agreed upon goals regardless of country.

Another consideration that is beyond the scope of this project is tele coupling effects and off-sets in areas beyond the Nordics. In many cases, western embedded companies off-set their pollution by buying or afforesting land in other parts of the world, that might damage local biodiversity or violate the rights of local populations. It is important to be aware of how good intentions can be mismanaged, and here decision makers have an important responsibility. Another observation beyond the scope of this study is that many NbS projects are executed with public funding. To ensure a wider implementation of NbS solutions, better involvement of the private and financial sector is necessary, if we aim to implement NbS at a sufficient scale to achieve our targets.