Unlocking Policy for Nature Based Solutions (NBS): Looking at our initial findings

Led by Sam Ramsden, iCASP Impact Translation Fellow

Workshop participants discussing initial findings and NBS policy challenges.

There’s a lack of clarity and consistency in regulatory guidance across different authorities and agencies
Contradictions between internal policy departments hinder progress, for example, two government departments offering conflicting advice
Regulatory regimes such as Common Arrangement of Work Sections (CAWS) and Conduct of Authorised Persons rules (COCA)s were mentioned as inflexible or outdated for NBS
Participants called for a unified national framework that allows planners and developers to confidently and consistently implement NBS (for example, permitted development for NFM)

Current funding streams are fragmented, short-term, and often inaccessible to voluntary and local groups
“Before data” funding is notably absent – early feasibility assessments are not adequately supported
A need for green finance mechanisms, baseline payments (especially in peatland restoration) and long-term financial security was emphasised

Stakeholders expressed that proving the value and impact of NBS remains a hurdle, particularly when impacts are diffuse and long-term
Standardised metrics and monitoring frameworks are lacking, making it difficult to gain trust and justify investment
There is a disconnect between available data and what planners and funders require

Many noted a shortage of skilled practitioners, especially for peatland and ecosystem restoration
Concerns about staff retention and knowledge transfer (for example, loss of expertise due to high turnover)
There is also a communication divide between the public sector and delivery organisations. A middle-person or clearer interface was recommended
Organisations often work in silos, with inconsistent decision-making and communication within teams

A prevailing risk-averse culture in public institutions was repeatedly mentioned
Participants said there was a need for a bold national vision – top-down leadership (for example, from the Secretary of State) to give confidence to act
Organisations are often reactive instead of proactive, with inconsistent leadership across departments

NBS implementation is frequently hindered by landowner resistance or a lack of understanding of long-term agreements
A consistent theme was the importance of clear communication, certainty in contracts, and evidence of benefits for landowners
Making NBS and Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) prerequisites in planning was a recurring recommendation

Delays from consultations, unclear permissions, and administrative red tape emerged as common frustrations

Suggestions included:

Create a national policy framework for NBS, including standard CBA models
Expand permitted development to NBS practices
Provide ongoing financial support, including early-phase (pre-feasibility) funding