Lack of effective policies: Biodiversity plans are often disconnected from planning and policy decisions, as is the case in Iceland. For example, Iceland needs firmer paths to implement laws, regulations, and international agreements for biodiversity. Intentional and unintentional delays in developing and executing action plans are far too common in all NBF countries. This issue may stem from previously discussed points, such as the lack of understanding of key concepts, lack of resources, and lack of assessments.
Focus on key issues: Some key issues and GBF targets arose repeatedly in the workshops. Freshwater conservation is a key component of biodiversity protection in all Nordic countries but was discussed particularly for Finland. Conservation actions should treat all biomes equally – land, sea, and inland waters. Another repeated issue was the call for restrictions on hunting endangered species (Red Listed Species).
Increased awareness: Despite the negative messages and misunderstandings, some positive news did arise during the workshops. Public and political awareness and interest are on the rise in the Nordic countries. This was evident among the political stakeholders who participated in the Icelandic workshop. There was a general willingness to learn and a shared interest from the Icelandic governmental administrative sector in removing barriers to a holistic approach to biodiversity protection. Additionally, in Denmark, there is a measurable trend in the increased frequency of mentions of the word “biodiversitet” (biodiversity) in Danish media.
Respecting and protecting Nordic nature: The Nordic countries must recognize their role as primary caretakers of some of Europe’s most unique and sensitive ecosystems.
Emerging themes
One of the purposes of bringing people together from different countries and sectors in the three country workshops was to explore the usage of words and concepts among those working to protect biodiversity, and whether we are in agreement on what they mean. Several themes emerged throughout the workshops that are worth commenting upon.
Biodiversity: The word "biodiversity" itself can often have unclear or conflicting definitions which lead to misunderstandings and confusion. This was showcased, in particular, in the workshop in Iceland among governmental representatives. At best, these misunderstandings led to inaction and at worst, actions that are actually harming biodiversity. The number of species is often miscommunicated or misunderstood as the most important component of biodiversity, when in reality, it is much more nuanced than that. This misunderstanding has led to the intentional introduction and use of alien species in native ecosystems, which may be harmed if these species become invasive.
Protection: The concept of “protected areas” is a common thread throughout the GBF targets. However, it is not always well defined, and different agencies can operate with different interpretations. This was evident especially during the Danish workshop, where it was explicit from the beginning that the Danish Biodiversity Council and the Danish government hold very different definitions. Although both lean upon documents and definitions from the European Union, the Biodiversity Council’s definition is much stricter than the governmental definition. This discrepancy leads to very different assessments of how much area can be considered “protected” and a discussion centring on the quality of protected areas. What criteria should be used for selecting areas to be protected – e.g., size or habitat? This lack of clarity often overshadows the importance of selecting areas for protection which fulfil the criteria of having value for biodiversity. Unfortunately, areas that would naturally be flourishing native ecosystems are also often areas valuable for human habitation and other human activities, which could leave the least fertile and least biologically flourishing areas to be declared “nature protected areas”. Such a move could easily be made, for example, in Iceland, where it is possible to declare the uninhabitable highlands protected. This would certainly not be without value, but if it is done merely to achieve a quantitative goal without taking into account the biological significance of different ecosystems, it could be dangerous, as it would leave more biodiverse habitats unprotected. Furthermore, protection focused on the most accessible or dominant habitat risks neglecting other important habitats. This is exemplified by conservation efforts focused primarily on forests in Finland and agroecosystems in Denmark.
A discussion among experts at the Danish workshop centred around the value (or lack thereof) of semi-protected areas (those that fall between fully protected and not protected) and of urban biodiversity efforts. Should biodiversity protection focus only on “untouched nature” where human activities are strictly limited? Or is there also value in the areas where there is a necessary interaction between humans and nature? This discussion can be pushed even further in questions of intrinsic value. Presupposing the intrinsic value of nature and biodiversity, which does not need to be justified by other values, greatly affects decisions about its protection. The Danish Biodiversity Council has worked with metrics including the size and coherence of the area, the abundance of biodiversity, the health of the ecosystems, and other relevant factors, but no established international consensus has yet been reached on these fundamental questions.
Ecosystem Approach: The Ecosystem Approach is the underlying principle in implementing all actions related to the CBD, and thus the GBF targets. Its practices and principles are necessary for overcoming differences and encouraging cooperation and participatory co-management. The workshop discussions suggested that scientists and practitioners who are involved in hands-on implementation of conservation management, whether in civil society or private sector, seemed to have an intuitive understanding of this. However, it was also plain in the workshops that there is still a need for the CBD to make an effort to increase the knowledge and understanding of this guiding principle – even among experts in the field – and to integrate consistent guidelines for implementation in the description of the targets. More detailed information on the Ecosystem approach can be found on
biodice.is/the-ecosystem-approach.
Theory of science: Some discussions, especially in the concluding Danish workshop, revolved around deeper underlying theoretical differences in the conceptions of nature and science. For example, a view of nature as predictable with universal laws lends itself to a view of science with mathematical modelling of these laws. On the other hand, a view of nature as unpredictable, messy, and complex lends itself to a different view of the role of science: as the attempt to see and expect patterns and regularities while acknowledging more context-dependency. This parallels a broader discussion within the sciences, such as the division between “natural science” and “social science”. Given that biodiversity protection necessarily involves human factors, input from the social sciences is necessary. Further complications can arise with differences in perspective between what has been labelled scientific knowledge and what is categorized as indigenous or traditional/local knowledge. While these can support each other, it is necessary to engage in respectful dialogues, as they typically rely on different schemes of justification which can lead to miscommunication, and thus to failures of cooperation and management.
These underlying discussions are not necessarily issues of one position being wrong or right. Different positions and uses of words can be valid in their own right and have relevant, important perspectives and insights. The problem arises when we are using the words in different ways without realizing, and thus speak past each other. Biodiversity protection benefits from considering diverse perspectives and values, which can be highlighted by encouraging discussions across fields and among stakeholders. This is the “whole of society approach” emphasized in the Ecosystem Approach. Therefore, it can be useful to have more clarity on where the disagreements lie and how words are used. These are all relevant and important discussions which show the practical importance of “philosophical” or semantic disagreements. Such disagreements are not always explicit, which can result in unnecessary conflicts and miscommunication. To avoid further confusion, it would be very useful if international bodies like the CBD were to create more practical guides to what constitutes key concepts.
Together, the NBF workshops were a strong step in continuing important work to secure a thriving future for Nordic biodiversity. This project provided valuable insights into the status of biodiversity understanding and implementation, growth points, and leading practices to model after. In many ways, the Nordic nations were not aware of the responsibility and extent of their commitments when they signed the GBF agreement. That is why these workshops, discussions, and comparisons were necessary. Successful completion of the GBF commitments requires such collaboration and willingness to learn from each other. This report represents a tool that is meant to be built upon and lays the groundwork for a pan-Nordic plan for implementing the GBF.