Accelerate climate resilience: going beyond business as usual
What actions are missing to unlock the full potential of nature-based solutions around the world?
.png?width=326&height=325&name=Cyan%20(2).png)
Christian Nyerup Nielsen (CNN): To better prioritise nature-based solutions over traditional grey infrastructure, the market needs a mindset change. We all need to better understand the potential impact of the co-benefits linked to nature-based approaches when evaluating and comparing urban and coastal water management solutions. We need to prioritise the long-term benefits, rather than the short-term costs. We also need regulations to recognise nature-based solutions equally to traditional infrastructure. Today, even if presented a solution or project that can evidentially provide more social justice and nature regeneration compared to traditional solutions, the market does not often select it. This is due to a narrow view on CAPEX, OPEX, and reduced damage which disregards other potential co-benefits. This needs to change in both regulatory approvals and financing.
Trine Stausgaard Munk (TSM): Reducing climate risks should be a minimum requirement when prioritising climate resilience solutions. We must demand more of our investments and designs. We need to challenge traditional grey solutions, not only because of their carbon footprint but also because they are single purpose, which yields little additional value to communities. To do so we must expand our design understanding, toolboxes, and procurements processes to include a socioeconomic lens. Such a lens can help prioritise multi-functional and nature-based solutions that provide co-benefits to communities in addition to pure risk reduction.
How can you show stakeholders the added value of co-benefits?
TSM: We can evaluate tangible and intangible co-benefits of plans, designs, and other development aspects to effectively consider in business development decision-making. However, decision makers do not often recognise co-benefits as valid parts of socioeconomic assessments. By quantifying these benefits, we can build capacity with stakeholders to start thinking differently about the business cases they prioritise.
We are increasingly getting better at quantifying and monetising co-benefits such as air quality, recreation, physical health, job creation, carbon sequestration, traffic safety, and urban heat island reduction. However, climate justice is not easily quantifiable nor scalable. For instance, we cannot say, ‘this is how we did climate justice in Singapore, so let's do exactly that in New York City.’ Climate justice is unique to each community because it reflects historic, political, physical, economic, and cultural inequities in each location. Climate change often exacerbates these inequities. However, in climate resilience, we have an opportunity to prevent this amplification of injustice while also reversing historic injustices by prioritising additional co-benefits in our solutions.
CNN: We can put a monetary value on reducing potential damages from climate risks and we can show how reduced air pollution improves a community’s health, for example. However, it takes time to assess situations and measure the full potential of a project. Markets, like Europe, are getting there. We know nature-based solutions outperform traditional solutions when it comes to decarbonising societies, but we still need this at scale and in every region. Hopefully, we see true acceleration at the UN Water Conference with tangible metrics and policies that help us bring nature-based solutions and co-benefits to more communities. In this regard, we need to see commitments from both public and private organisations through active partnerships.
How do we increase public engagement in climate resilience?
TSM: Community engagement is fundamental to climate justice regardless of location. We are in the processes of maximising co-benefits with a focus on equity. Unfortunately, engagement is often not prioritised and financed appropriately in procurements. As designers and consultants, we want to find the most inclusive solutions in every local context to benefit as many stakeholders as possible. This requires early and continuous community and stakeholder engagement. For this, we hope to see a substantial increase in funds allocated to engagement in future procurements.
CNN: Public engagement allows us to ensure co-benefits match a community’s needs. For instance, real estate prices and rents typically increase with urban renewal. It can push people out. How do we prevent that? For the Buzzard Point project in Washington DC, Ramboll evaluated opportunities for community members to gain both temporary and permanent jobs as part of an overall resilience strategy. Another important action governments can take is setting requirements in their procurement to include local labour in the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of infrastructure projects.
How do we get the private sector to invest in climate resilience?
TSM: Today there are few incentives urging the private sector to invest in climate resilience. This is especially true in short-term timeframes for return on investments. However, climate change and water does not respect ownership structures or administrative boundaries. Developing resilient communities and infrastructure should be a long-term vision, supported by a socio-economic business case, co-owned and co-financed by a diverse setup of public and private partners.
CNN: Cities, private, and private-public developers need to partner for the long haul with each other and with knowledge-based consultancies to synergise ideas, resources, and plans. Cross-sectoral partnerships can enable the private sector to look at broader co-benefits. Such partnerships can be immensely profitable when sharing investments and strategies in competitive and limited urban spaces. Investors must recognise their already established networks can accelerate change.
When partnering with developers and local governments, we can help them to understand and compare co-benefits as the best long-term investment opportunities. If they only look at traditional business case benchmarks instead of expanding their considerations to co-benefits, they miss 50 % of the benefits in the business cases.
TSM: Our recommendation is to dare to expect more from private partners. For property and infrastructure owners, developers, and investors there is much to gain by investing in the resilience business case. Together, we can dive into the socioeconomic parameters that help disrupt traditional business cases for urban development. And we need academia onboard as well. Doing so not only makes investing more exciting and inclusive, but also sets a new standard for long-term, planetary dedication. I believe caring and creative partnerships will become the new norm for future designers, researchers, and investors – and I cannot wait!