Last week, I had the pleasure of hosting a very positive roundtable discussion on nature-based infrastructure solutions. For anyone not entirely sure what this means, these solutions develop or optimise infrastructure, while leveraging the power of nature to mitigate the impacts of climate change and protect people.
Within our discussion, there was a significant focus on building Scotland’s resilience to flooding events and improving our management of surface water through natural drainage solutions.
The event was a collaboration between the Institution of Civil Engineers and Green Action Trust, in our role facilitating delivery of the Central Scotland Green Network. The roundtable included academics and attendees from across the third, private and public sectors – with national and local government and agencies represented.
During the open discussion, there was broad agreement that the barriers to delivering nature-based infrastructure solutions can and should be overcome. Everyone who attended and contributed had an interest in developing the discussion into collaborative action. More on that later.
Themes and barriers
The following themes and barriers to the implementation of nature-based solutions emerged during the discussion:
- Lack of a big-picture vision and strategy: Multiple participants spoke about the lack of an overarching vision in Scotland around what we can and want to achieve for our communities through our infrastructure. Some people spoke of an historical and current piecemeal approach to developing blue-green infrastructure, and challenges with integrating multiple policy areas without an overarching vision to drive alignment.
- Monetisation: While the financing of nature-based solutions was cited as a barrier, there was general agreement that monetisation was the real challenge. If the value of the solutions could be properly monetised, it would be easier to secure financing. There was discussion around a lack of economic valuing of nature, as well as a failure to connect and compare the financial cost of climate-related flooding events with the cost of preventative and mitigating measures.
- Maintenance: Many participants felt that local authorities are sometimes reticent to deploy nature-base solutions because of the potential costs of maintaining the assets over time. There were diverging opinions at times about whether these assets are more or less expensive to maintain, but agreement that there was insufficient evidence to influence decision makers.
- Community support: The importance of community involvement in the design and delivery of local solutions was a re-occurring theme. Anecdotal evidence was given around community members looking after assets better when they were more involved in their development. Examples were also given around projects that have failed or stalled due to communities not feeling involved and not understanding the risks the projects are looking to mitigate. Ultimately, everyone agreed that community involvement and support for projects was essential to the wholistic approach of nature-based solutions.
Solutions and next steps
As I mentioned above, there was strong interest in ensuring the conversation didn’t end with the close of the event. There was a desire for not just more conversation, but action and the sharing of data, insight and case study examples.
At Green Action Trust, we convened this discussion with the hope that it would be a platform for further engagement and action, and we are already looking to facilitate a short-life working group on this topic.
If you weren’t at the discussion but would like to get involved, please reach out me via email at: [email protected].