5. Main gaps and opportunities for nature-based solutions in the Nordic policy context

This chapter summarises some of the typical cross-cutting barriers, gaps, opportunities and enablers for the nature-based solutions (NBS) policy inclusion identified during the policy study, expert consultations and workshop.

The cross-Nordic gaps and barriers identified through the A-DVICE project are greatly in line with those identified in other studies. They are mainly related to the topics of funding, cooperation, planning, knowledge, strategy, and local level administration.

Lack of financing is an often-mentioned barrier for NBS implementation. At the current stage, there is economic data missing on the benefits of some NBS, meaning that it can be seen as a less attractive solution compared to other, more well documented solutions to climate adaptation and other challenges. For NBS to gain more acceptance, there is a need to generate more evidence of the economic benefits.

Available public funding initiatives in the Nordic countries can enable NBS. However, there are shortcomings which can also stand in the way. In some instances, the funding is short-termed, meaning that it can cover implementation of NBS, but not maintenance or evaluation. Another barrier is funding that does not cover the entire project cost or does not account for reporting efforts. This makes grants less attractive to apply for, which in some cases leads to a reduction of available funds, since they cannot be proven popular among the targeted actors. Reduction of available funds has also been the case with agricultural funds, where farmers are responsible for applying for funding, and insufficient interest in implementing environmental measures can lead to a reduction in the grants available.

In many cases, municipalities are investing in NBS as part of the municipal budget. This can be a challenge, as municipalities are very different in size as well as in availability of resources. Often in the Nordic countries, sparsely populated municipalities will have more natural resources and less of the municipal budget to protect them, while municipalities with higher population densities typically have larger budgets to instead be focused on infrastructure expansion projects. This imbalance in the funding and land available can be seen in river estuaries, where upstream municipalities typically have access to less funds, but theoretically have the opportunity to prevent flooding through implementation of NBS and keeping the water upstream. On the other hand, municipalities downstream are typically closer to the coast with less access to land available for NBS.

Planning processes greatly influence the if, how and when of NBS implementation. Lack of designation of NBS in national planning legislation influences this, making it difficult for regional and local authorities to appoint suitable areas. Lacking cooperation between the administrative levels can therefore be a challenge, especially when goals are different on different levels.

There is currently a lack of communication related to NBS between municipalities and private landowners and businesses in general, and industry engagement is missing. In some instances, cooperation with certain sectors, such as the building sector, works as a barrier for NBS when the sector is too conservative. Another issue involves the planning requirements from municipalities, which already try to focus on multifunctional planning and that have specific requirements to the functions of certain areas. It can cause issues in municipal-private cooperation, as this can be a barrier for the contractors, who in theory would like to implement or invest in NBS, but who cannot always document that a NBS will be able to live up to all the requirements in terms of design or multifunctionality.  

Some of the barriers identified for NBS policy implementation are connected to local governments, and especially municipalities. It is well known that there are common practices in municipal land use planning that may collide with climate adaptation and NBS efforts, such as building housing close to water where it is profitable, but at the same time increases the risk of flooding. This is a case of misdirected economic incentives. In most Nordic countries, there is also lack of requirements from the national level to consider NBS.

Another barrier is the size of some municipalities, and the related room for action. Some Nordic municipalities are very small, and as a result of this also lack the necessary knowledge and resources to carry out NBS policy and practice. Meanwhile, national legislation does not always fit with local conditions, and small municipalities may have difficulties in reaching these goals. In this case, it is dependent on whether local politicians are engaged and interested in implementing national goals or introducing local policies. 

Lack of knowledge is seen as another barrier for supporting NBS through policy. NBS is a relatively new term, and in many public administrations, there are still insecurities surrounding the term itself, as well as the principles of NBS. In addition to this, there is a lack of evaluation of implemented NBS efforts, making it difficult to foresee the effects of these types of solutions. There is also a strong need for monitoring and documenting the NBS that are implemented, as it is the impacts of NBS that will drive more evidence-informed decisions.

The NBS knowledge sources that exist are often scattered, and it can be a tedious task for actors to find information that is relevant for them. Lack of more comprehensive data sources and knowledge material directed towards different actor groups has therefore been a barrier for implementation of NBS. Some areas in the Nordics also lack data on the environmental status of certain areas, making it difficult to develop NBS for these areas.

Policy gaps for fields such as climate adaptation, green infrastructure or agricultural production can lead to a lack of strategic direction and missed opportunities for implementing NBS. Stakeholders included in this study have mentioned that while NBS is interesting as a concept, they cannot be motivated to use it until it is specifically appointed through strategy. Strategy also needs to be accompanied by guidelines for implementation to be brought into life.

Several opportunities and enablers have been identified throughout this project, which are applicable at a wider scale across the Nordics. Naturally, some of the themes can be recognised as gaps in the above section since the same things that may present issues and cause problems when they are lacking, can be important opportunities or enablers when they are in place. 

Funding through grants, EU programs, and private funds has been pointed out as one of the main enablers for NBS implementation. It is clear that to alter the status quo and apply NBS instead of other solutions, there is a need for economic incentives and initiatives that cover the economic risk. A clear enabler for NBS is earmarked funding, which is not pooled with financing for, e.g., other types of climate adaptation. This allows specific financing streams for NBS. Earmarked money can be applied in national budgets, in public tenders, and as criteria for state funding for municipal projects. Private funding is also seen as a strong opportunity for implementing more NBS.

NBS requires increased cooperation across spatial and temporal scales as well as across governance layers. Successful examples often point to extensive dialogue among all involved stakeholders as one of the key enablers. This is often connected to a step away from classical top-down or bottoms-up governance models, and a step towards network-oriented governance which includes novel partnership structures anchored in local communities. In some cases, designated coordinators have been hired to facilitate projects across actor groups, such as across a specific river basin district. This designated responsibility focuses resources and knowledge which can drive NBS development forward.

Planning processes are at the core of NBS. In most cases, NBS requires space, although this can be at very varying scales, ranging from small urban areas to landscapes. Integration of NBS in spatial planning, either formally through outspoken integration in planning processes and regulation, or informally through increased knowledge among planners at municipal level, is therefore a clear opportunity to put NBS into practice. Involving knowledgeable actors, for example from a municipal environmental office, country administrative office or consultancy, early in the planning process is key to include NBS in comprehensive plans. If NBS are not included in municipal plans, it may be difficult to add them into zoning plans at a later point. Using blue-green factor planning has been one successful way to integrate NBS early in the planning process across several Nordic countries.

Access to knowledge of NBS principles, policy frameworks and successful examples of implementation are the prerequisites for successful implementation and have been pointed out as another key opportunity for increased uptake of NBS. In some cases, knowledge is accessible from key personnel in the local or regional administration, which provides opportunities for establishment of local projects driven by NBS “enthusiasts”. In other cases, national guidance and guidelines provide knowledge resources which can be used by local administrations when planning and implementing NBS.

At a national level, knowledge can be anchored through an interdisciplinary working group in one agency or across agencies. By facilitating conversation across agencies and sectors, an internal network contributes to mainstreaming of NBS across departments.

Strategy documents at all governance levels set the direction for climate and nature interventions at a wider scale. A finding in successful NBS implementation is that NBS projects are scoped based on strategy which explicitly mentions NBS or the synergy of positive effects between biodiversity and climate. International agreements and panels such as the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention and IUCN provide useful frameworks to develop and use NBS strategies, supporting the individual countries and administrations in developing NBS policy.