This third and last workshop of the Nordic Biodiversity Framework project took place at the The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Copenhagen on December 10-11, 2024. The workshop was hosted and organized by Katherine Richardson and Carsten Rahbek on behalf of the Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate (CMEC) and the Sustainability Science Centre (SCC) at the University of Copenhagen as well as the Queen Margrethe’s and Vigdís Finnbogadóttir’s Interdisciplinary Research Centre on Ocean, Climate, and Society (ROCS) at the University of Copenhagen and the University of Iceland. Emilie Hippe Brun, Erla Björk Atladóttir and Chloé Wijgergangs at the University of Copenhagen were among the many who helped organizing the workshop at the Danish side.
The objectives of the workshop were to compare the efforts to protect biodiversity and implement the GBF targets in Iceland, Finland and Denmark and what these countries can learn from each other and 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 this project which were presented both in presentations 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. Besides functioning as a synthesis workshop for this 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.
The closing part of the workshop, on the afternoon of the second day, had a broader topic and was focused more on public and private initiatives presented to a broader audience. Thus, different people participated in different segments of the workshop. The workshop was generally very well attended with broad representation of institutional and societal representatives from research, policy, private sector, think tanks and civil society. On site participants were 60-70 and 30-40 participated online. The whole event was live-streamed and recorded. The workshop description and programme can be seen at the original even page.
Workshop programme
Below is a summary of the workshop with links to the recordings and slides of the presentations:
Day 1, 10. December 2024
- Welcome and introduction by Katherine Richardson and Carsten Rahbek (link to recording).
- Setting the Scene: Status for Convention on Biological Diversity and COP 16 deliberations and overview of the Ecosystem Approach by Skúli Skúlason and Ole Sandberg (link to recording / link to slides)
- Successes and challenges regarding biodiversity protection in network countries:
- Finland by Hanna-Kaisa Lakka (link to recording)
- Iceland by Snorri Sigurðsson (link)
- Denmark by Carsten Rahbek (link)
- Summary of the project Nordic Biodiversity Framework: Presentation of the draft report and identification of areas needing input by Skúli Skúlason and Ole Sandberg with open discussion (link)
- Plenary Discussion 1: Identifying “best practice”? What has worked where? Are there lessons from one country that might be transferable to others? How might these lessons best be shared? A representative of each country will kick off the discussion by identifying one action from their home countries that they believe should be considered/enacted by other countries. Moderated by Katherine Richardson. (link to video)
- Plenary Discussion 2: Mobilising synergies between the academic community and non-academic stakeholders to catalyse political and societal “buy-in” with regard to the protection of biodiversity: the role of “think tanks” and “funds”. The discussion was opened by a short talk by Liselotte Holwy Stokholm, Tænketanken Hav. (link to video and slides)
Day 2, 11. December 2024
Morning program, focused on the NBF project.
- Plenary Discussion 3: Where do we go from here? What could/should future initiatives addressing biodiversity in the Nordic countries look like? What do we need to know about the political initiatives made by each country in order to assess the status of biodiversity protection in the Nordics? What questions should be addressed in future initiatives? How can a comparison between the different countries be used to apply pressure for improve biodiversity protection in the Nordics? How can the barriers for establishing legal protection of biodiversity be best addressed? The discussion was opened with a talk by Skúli Skúlason followed by points from Hanna-Kaisa Lakka and Katherine Richardson. (link to video and slides). [need to decide if this is going to be one or two videos]
- Conference conclusions and presentation of the results of the network and presentations of Danish efforts to protect biodiversity
- Presentation of the Network conclusions by Skúli Skúlason and Ole Sandberg (link to video and slides)
- Presentation of Biodiversity Council and its reports by Signe Normand (link to video and slides)
- Presentation of the Grøn Trepart’s objectives and potentials by Anders Horsten (link to video and slides)
Afternoon program with emphasis on public and private activities.
- Presentation of the Biodiversity Partnership (Biodiversitetspartnerskabet) by Karin Klitgaard (link to video)
- How can research best support efforts to protect and restore biodiversity? by Carsten Rahbek (link to video)
- Presentation by Alexander Holm on how to communicate the value of biodiversity, followed by panel discussion on the role of non-governmental stakeholders in enhancing biodiversity protection with Alexander Holm, Signe Normand and Anders Horsten (link to video)
Main Outcomes
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. Besides 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, Finland and Denmark) is fulfilling their obligations to the CBD, there are great opportunities for sharing experiences and best practices in the Nordic countries regarding biodiversity.
- 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.
- Denmark’s Biodiversity Challenges: “Safeguarding biodiversity requires large, cohesive areas of nature, which are currently lacking in Denmark. We need transformative changes to address this issue.” Carsten Rahbek, Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, University of Copenhagen.
- Plastic Waste Impact: “Plastic waste near Arctic waters poses a risk to biodiversity. People in the area know this, but it needs wider recognition. Policymakers’ actions come with a responsibility to safeguard the Nordic nations’ nature now and in the future”. Hanna-Kaisa Lakka, Postdoctoral Researcher at University of Jyväskylä.
- Protected Areas: “Biodiversity actions should take place to enlarge and connect existing protected areas of high conservation values. This has been echoed by many speakers during the workshop with the Nordic Network on Biodiversity.” Anders Horsten, Nature Policy Advisor, Danish Society for Nature Conservation (DN)
- National Biodiversity Law: “We know what it takes and how to prioritize in order to revert the loss of biodiversity. What we need is a national biodiversity law.” Signe Normand, Aarhus University, Chairperson, Danish Biodiversity Council.
More information on the Nordic Biodiversity Framework