Rapid biodiversity loss is one of the most pressing issues of our time. In response, 196 countries, including the Nordic countries, signed the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) in 2022. Now the task is to move from agreement to implementation and policy. This challenge requires careful science-based policy grounded in knowledge of local and regional ecosystems and biodiversity challenges, as well as transnational and transdisciplinary collaboration. The Nordic Biodiversity Framework (NBF), a collaborative project between Iceland, Finland, and Denmark, was developed in 2024 to support such synergy.
The cultural, political, and historical similarities between the Nordic countries provide good grounds for Nordic cooperation on the protection of nature and biodiversity. However, there are lessons to be learned through comparison. Iceland, Finland, and Denmark have relevant differences in climate, nature, political culture, and infrastructures for biodiversity protection. Both the similarities and differences provide the diversity to create synergy that enables us to learn from each other and identify important issues and leading practices. The NBF aimed to lay the groundwork for this by compiling existing knowledge about biodiversity issues and examining the status of GBF implementation of Targets 1–8 in each of the member countries (Iceland, Finland, and Denmark). To accomplish this, three workshops were conducted in 2024, one in each member country, as well as several supportive side activities.
Some of the main differences between NBF member countries are political, primarily in terms of EU membership, which affects policy making, implementation, and governance of biodiversity actions. The threats to biodiversity differ greatly between the three countries but a common thread is competition between biodiversity and business (or defence) interests. Other common themes and messages emerged, such as the need for a better understanding and larger role of the Ecosystem Approach, conflicting interpretations or misunderstandings of key concepts (e.g., biodiversity, protected areas), a lack of effective or relevant policies for biodiversity conservation, and a lack of support and resources. There are different obstacles to implementing the national targets (NBSAPs): Finland's NBSAP has not been approved by the government, Denmark’s NBSAP was criticized by the Danish Biodiversity Council and Iceland failed to submit an updated NBSAP to the Convention of Biological Diversity Secretariat for COP16 in 2024. Regardless of these barriers, there are various efforts ongoing to implement the GBF’s goals and targets in these countries, and there is clearly a general increase of awareness of biodiversity within both the public and political spheres.