Facilitate monitoring and documenting the effects of NBS
Systems to assess the multiple short- and long-term benefits of NBS enable improvement and scalability of NBS initiatives.
Specific Advice
Documenting the effects of NBS require monitoring (Photo: NIVA).
An important component of mainstreaming and scaling up NBS is the development of standardized monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems that can effectively track both ecological and socio-economic outcomes over time. Monitoring should encompass the main natural functions the NBS was designed for, including biodiversity, soil microbiological processes, hydrological processes, but also the co-benefits such as human well-being, social cohesion effects, and so on.
Evaluation of NBS projects can expand NBS knowledge through learning from both individual experiences and external examples. By documenting and drawing on past successes and failures, practitioners can build a more comprehensive understanding of what works and why, allowing for more effective future planning. Mechanisms for long-term assessment of NBS performance should focus on identifying trends, successes, and areas for improvement. This is especially important as NBS often will not have full effect right after implementation, but after some time. Continuous data collection can provide insights that inform future projects and enhance the scalability of NBS.
Monitoring and evaluation should be designed to be flexible and adaptive, allowing for continuous refinement based on data and feedback. This can ensure that NBS initiatives remain responsive to changing environmental conditions, social needs, and economic aspects. It is essential to allocate funding specifically for long-term monitoring, as NBS funding tends to cover only the implementation during a limited project period. It is also important to plan for monitoring and evaluation before and during a project, to ensure that the baseline conditions are documented. For example, NBS funding schemes could make monitoring and evaluation plans a mandatory part of applications.
The key principles of NBS impact assessment are that it should be scientifically sound, practical and straightforward, use reference conditions and baseline assessment to establish the point of reference, align with policy principles and reporting obligations, and be based on a transdisciplinary approach that includes variable knowledge.
Good to Know
Communicate clear results: Clear and well-documented results are key to build credibility and trust in NBS initiatives. Transparent reporting of outcomes can help gain public and financial support, essential for the sustained success of NBS projects.
There is a need to ensure that data are recorded both before, during and after interventions to measure NBS effectiveness, increase trust in the solutions and enable adaptive management.
Lack of funding for monitoring is a typical reason why there is not always sufficient knowledge about different NBS types. This can be avoided by facilitating longer term projects, ensure a follow-up monitoring after the end of a project and strongly encouraging or requiring monitoring and evaluation of NBS as part of tenders and project calls.
Where monitoring and evaluation is done, the data and results should be shared inside and between countries. Collaboration with research institutions might be beneficial in this process.
Context
Many countries, including the Nordics, face challenges in mainstreaming NBS due to insufficient data, unclear metrics, and fragmented monitoring systems. For example, more than half of the 70 countries that have adopted a national climate change adaptation plan (NAP) do not assess its implementation (Leiter, 2021).
The lack of monitoring causes an uncertainty regarding NBS’ performance and hesitation to implement NBS due to the potential risks and uncertainties involved. This is particularly true in areas where traditional, engineered solutions have been the norm and their efficiency are well-known. As a result, when comparing the different options, grey solutions may be preferred because there is more data and evidence of their effects than for NBS. To overcome this, it is necessary to monitor and study existing NBS to build a knowledge base to enable evidence-based decisions.
The effect of NBS can vary a lot depending on design details and local conditions (i.e. type of soil, underground permeability). Previous Nordic NBS reports included clear recommendations to develop tools and standards for measuring the effects of NBS and to ensure long-term monitoring (Sandin et al. 2022). Frameworks that aim to standardise monitoring can ensure credibility and comparability between NBS initiatives.
By enhancing monitoring systems, stakeholders can track the success of NBS over time and identify areas for improvement. Clear, documented results can build confidence in the scalability and replicability of NBS projects across different contexts, and provide the necessary evidence to support wider implementation. Building an evidence base can inform policies and lead to more funding opportunities.
Examples and Cases
Nordic examples of facilitating monitoring and documenting the effects of Nature-Based Solutions:
#FINLAND – National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP)
The Finnish National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) is a policy framework designed to safeguard the country's biodiversity and promote the sustainable use of natural resources. Aligned with international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the NBSAP outlines actions to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 while ensuring ecosystems can continue to provide essential services. It focuses on the implementation of the principle of sectoral responsibility, and on the impact that actions taken have had on biodiversity.
The NBSAP outlines actions and measures to halt biodiversity loss. One important aspect of this is monitoring and documenting the effects of the measures done within the framework. The evaluation group conducted a systematic assessment of all 150 actions, focusing on the following: the status of implementation, the direction and magnitude of the desired change, financial allocation for implementing the action, direct and indirect targets of the action, impact on biodiversity over the NBSAP period, and the future potential of the action. The project used Finnish ecosystem service indicators from biodiversity.fi to monitor the effects of the NBS. Also, during the evaluation project, multiple hearings, workshops, and information-sharing events were held, with input from 75 additional experts. The multisectoral National Biodiversity Monitoring Group played an active role in the process. The project maintained broad communication efforts, and its findings received significant coverage in the national media.
More information about the NBSAP can be found here:
#FINLAND – Evaluating the impacts on NBS in Tampere using EC/UNaLab guidance
NBS development within the Horizon 2020 project UNaLab (Urban Nature Labs) was tightly paired with NBS monitoring and impact assessment. Selection of indicators for each NBS implementing city followed the local challenges identified during the co-creation stage. The NBS impact assessment framework developed in the UNaLab project was applied to the City of Tampere (Finland). The steps included identification and collection of baseline data (where applicable and available), selection of suitable indicators of change and acquisition of appropriate equipment (monitoring stations, data loggers) and identification of other required data collection methods (manual sampling, open data, surveys, questionnaires, biodiversity surveys). Whenever baseline data for a NBS site was unavailable, a parallel twin site was selected as a baseline. A combination of monitoring and modelling methods was used for evaluating the impact of NBS.
The main learning points were that rigorous stakeholder engagement and co-definition of indicators were essential for identifying the local challenges and the potential outcomes of NBS implementation that informed the monitoring and evaluation needs. Early planning of monitoring needs ensures that the monitoring takes place and considers the monitoring scale (spatial and temporal). After the initial interest in water management and climate resilience, which were the main foci for NBS in Tampere, stakeholders identified biodiversity as another key challenge to be addressed and monitored.
More information about the (name of the example) can be found here:
Evaluating the impact of nature-based solutions: Summary for policymakers: https://op.europa.eu/s/zXcX
Evaluating the impact of nature-based solutions: A handbook for practitioners: https://op.europa.eu/s/zXcY
Evaluating the impact of nature-based solutions: Appendix of methods: https://op.europa.eu/s/zXcZ
UNaLab project: https://unalab.eu/en
Learn more
The European Commission has published guidance for evaluating the impact of NBS based on experiences of 17 NBS projects, the European Environment Agency and the Joint Research Centre. The handbook includes key principles for designing NBS monitoring and impact assessment along with an exhaustive list of recommended and additional impact indicators for 12 societal challenges. https://op.europa.eu/s/zXcY
The Nature-based Solutions Knowledge Hub has published a biodiversity & soil health metrics tool for guiding monitoring efforts: https://nbshub.naturebasedsolutionsinitiative.org/monitoring-outcomes/
This paper demonstrates how the large-scale restoration in Hjerkinn (Norway) has been assessed with both qualitative and quantitative indicators: From military training area to National Park over 20 years: Indicators for outcome evaluation in a large-scale restoration project in alpine Norway (Hagen, D. et al., 2022). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1617138121001722
The MULTISOURCE project, funded by EU, monitor a raingarden to evaluate its performance. The sensors were installed at the inlet and outlet, measuring the conductivity and turbidity. Real-time data from these sensors are accessible here: https://www.niva.no/en/projects/multisource/real-time-sensor-data
The city of Oslo adopted a policy for daylighting streams in 2022 which includes three main objectives related to (1) climate adaptation and stormwater management, (2) water quality and ecology, and (3) recreation and public health. Each objective comes with targets and indicators to assess to which degree each daylighting projects achieve the objectives. The policy is available here (in Norwegian): https://www.oslo.kommune.no/miljo-og-klima/slik-jobber-vi-med-miljo-og-klima/vannmiljo-og-overvann/elver-og-bekker/#gref (‘Styringsdokument: Gjenåpning av elver og bekker i Oslo’)
International Obligations
Target 2
of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030
“Effectively manage all protected areas, defining clear conservation objectives and measures, and monitoring them appropriately.”Facilitating the monitoring and documenting of NBS supports Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. For example, by systematically documenting the effects of NBS, authorities can track how these solutions contribute to conservation goals, improve ecosystem resilience and support biodiversity. This data-driven approach ensures that protected areas are managed more efficiently, helping achieve restoration and preservation objectives outlined in the strategy.