The Nordic Biodiversity Framework (NBF) organized three workshops in 2024. The first one was held in Iceland in April, the second in Finland in October and the third in Denmark in December. Further details and information about the workshops, recordings and results are available on
https://biodice.is/nordic-biodiversity-framework/Workshop 1 in Reykjavík, Iceland, April 23rd, 2024
The aim of the workshop was to analyse and discuss the issue of biodiversity as it appears in Icelandic administration. The workshop was well attended by representatives from nearly all Icelandic Government Ministries, their institutions, and other related entities that work with biodiversity issues at the highest level of administration. After introductory presentations, the participants met in discussion groups with the intent of 1) connecting people across administrations and 2) sharing information on the state of affairs and examining whether the projects of ministries and government agencies reflect the importance of biodiversity and contribute to the fulfilment of the goals of the GBF policy. Themes included: 1) understanding of biodiversity, 2) how projects (planned and ongoing) on biodiversity and the GBF goals are progressing, and 3) cooperation between stakeholders and cooperation between ministries/ institutions. Analysis of the focus groups showed that there is generally a shallow understanding of the concept of biological diversity, except where experts in life sciences work. Although the issue affects the work of all participants to some extent, the connection was unclear in many cases. Participants specifically mentioned biodiversity’s links to public health and prevention, the global goals and sustainable development, climate change, and planning issues. Participants mentioned many obstacles to projects on biodiversity, including weak administration and lack of resources, and made enthusiastic and useful suggestions for improvement. Detailed results from the workshop are available on
biodice.is/nbf-workshop-in-iceland.
Main outcomes
The connection between biodiversity and planning was recognized by participants as necessary, even though they are often disconnected. This is especially the case since there are great external demands (e.g., from the European Union), but there is a lack of information, education, and funding to satisfy them.
Obstacles to biodiversity projects: weak administration, lack of research and data, access to information and dissemination, conflicts of interest, lack of resources and capacity, misaligned priorities, and lack of accountability.
Suggestions for improvement: clearer and more effectively communicated information, better access to data, strengthened cooperation across institutions and Ministries, increased funding, the involvement of stakeholders in planning processes, and the establishment of a Biodiversity Council.
Workshop 2 in Helsinki, Finland, October 7, 2024
The workshop’s objective was to explore specific GBF targets and their implementation in Finland. Participants were representatives from Finnish Ministries, institutions, companies, NGO’s, the Finnish Nature Panel, universities, and others. Presentations explained the structure of the GBF as well as the status of implementation in Iceland and Finland. These were followed by a survey given to conservation scientists and experts about Target 3 (“30 by 30”). The preliminary results identified will (inner drive or intention to act) as the main barrier to successful conservation in land, sea and inland waters and underlined the importance of equal protection for all biomes. Two panel discussions focused on the limited freshwater protection in Finland (Target 3: “30 by 30”) and the impacts of pesticide use on human health and biodiversity. Recordings from the workshop’s presentations and panel discussions are available on
biodice.is/nbf-workshop-in-finland.
Main outcomes
Finland has great potential to conserve freshwater ecosystems and species and a great responsibility for freshwater resources in Europe. Conservation actions should treat all biomes equally – land, sea, and inland waters.
Endangered species (Red Listed Species) should not be hunted.
For example, the Common Eider was listed as an endangered species in Finland in 2019 but over 4,000 of them were hunted in 2019–2023. International and national laws should not allow hunting or fishing of endangered species. Likewise, Finland should update the hunting law and remove Red Listed Species from the list of hunted species.
Chemical taxes are urgently needed to lower environmental contamination, mitigate biodiversity loss, and avoid chemical risks for humans. Finland should follow Denmark's example in implementing pesticide taxes on harmful chemicals, which lowers environmental contamination, mitigates biodiversity loss, and avoids chemical risks for humans.
Chemical treatments in nature are not the best way to eliminate invasive or harmful alien invasive species. Chemicals do not affect only the target species but kill or harm many other species directly or indirectly and can lower the vitality of ecosystems. Alternative methods for chemical treatments should always be considered the first and the best methods to address invasive species-related problems.
Safety and biodiversity are linked. Countries' actions to improve internal safety may impact biodiversity, and sabotage during times of peace can have an unwanted effect on biodiversity. Defence and sabotage actions affecting Nordic biodiversity must be recognised, and their harmful impacts on biodiversity should be compensated in Nordic countries.
The fact that policymakers can exert agency in many ways – through laws, regulations, and biodiversity funding – goes hand in hand with their ability to change the wellbeing of Nordic nature. All these aspects of policymaker actions come with a responsibility to safeguard the present and future Nordic nations and nature.
Workshop 3 in Copenhagen, Denmark, December 10–11, 2024
The two-day workshop was highly successful and very well attended (physically and online) by a broad representation of institutional and societal representatives from research, policy, private sector, think tanks and civil society. However, despite being invited, no government representatives were able to attend. The objectives of the workshop were to: 1) compare the efforts to protect biodiversity and implement the GBF targets in Iceland, Finland, and Denmark; 2) explore what these countries can learn from each other; and 3) to share and discuss strategies for biodiversity protection with different stakeholders and practitioners. The starting point for the discussion was the main preliminary findings of the NBF project, which were presented by the project participants and in a draft document. The presentations were followed by focused and in-depth discussions among workshop participants, ranging from scientists and researchers to representatives from non-governmental organisations, think tanks, and civil society stakeholders. As well as functioning as a synthesis exercise for the NBF project, the workshop was also meant to provide inspiration for non-government stakeholders on how they can best support efforts to safeguard and restore biodiversity. From the discussion segments, it became evident that while no member country in the NBF project (Iceland, Denmark, and Finland) is fulfilling its obligations to the CBD, there are great opportunities for sharing experiences and best practices in the Nordic countries regarding biodiversity. Recordings from the workshop’s presentations are available on
biodice.is/nbf-workshop-in-denmark.
Main outcomes
Government accountability: “Despite various efforts and non-governmental pressures, the governments of Iceland, Denmark, and Finland have largely failed to comply with the effective implementation, action, and reporting of the GBF targets.”
Skúli Skúlason, Icelandic Museum of Natural History and Hólar University.
Non-state actors' role: “The Trepart Minister's refusal to present DK biodiversity goals and plans at the Nordic Workshop on biodiversity highlights the importance of non-state actors in protecting biodiversity.”
Katherine Richardson, Research Centre on Ocean, Climate, and Society, University of Copenhagen.
Infrastructure differences: “Denmark and Finland have the best infrastructure, while Iceland lacks a public biodiversity council. At this workshop, we share experiences, learn, and adapt to help Iceland's complex ecosystems”.
Skúli Skúlason, Icelandic Museum of Natural History and Hólar University.
Action and empowerment: “We are all waiting for politicians to tell us what to do, but what can we do to make it easier for them to move forward with necessary actions?”
Katherine Richardson, Research Centre on Ocean, Climate, and Society, University of Copenhagen.
Polycentric governance: “Dynamic ecosystems require dynamic management! Locals are often better at responding to changes than centralized governments are. Polycentric governance is key to empowering people to take care of nature.”
Ole Sandberg, Researcher at University of Iceland.
Recognition of harmful impacts: “Defence and sabotage actions affecting Nordic biodiversity must be recognised, and their harmful impacts on biodiversity should be compensated in Nordic countries.”
Hanna-Kaisa Lakka, Postdoctoral Researcher at University of Jyväskylä.
Biodiversity history in Iceland: “The history of biodiversity is relatively brief due to the special nature of Iceland.”
Snorri Sigurðsson, Icelandic Institute of Natural History.