a context of rising sea levels
Status: FINALISED / ON-GOING / INCEPTION Table 2.3Issue + Criterion Indicator Naples Alicante Málaga Senda Nº of answer indicators Issue relevance ADAPTIVE
MANAGEMENT 7. NbS are managed adaptively, based on evidence
7.1 A NbS strategy is established and used as a basis for regular monitoring and
evaluation of the intervention 1 1 0 2
7.2 A monitoring and evaluation plan is developed and implemented throughout 25%
the intervention lifecycle 1 0 0 1
7.3 A framework for iterative learning that enables adaptive management is
applied throughout the intervention lifecycle 0 0 0 0
MAINSTREAMING 8. NbS are sustainable and mainstreamed within an appropriate jurisdictional context
8.1 NbS design, implementation and lessons learnt are shared for triggering
transformative change 0 1 0 1
42%
8.2 NbS inform and enhance facilitating policy and regulation frameworks to
support its uptake and mainstreaming 1 1 0 2
8.3 Where relevant, NbS contribute to national and global targets for human wellbeing, climate change, biodiversity and human rights, including the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) 1 1 0 2
TOTAL 18 22 8
% OF INDICATORS ANSWERED 64 79 29
© © IMAGE SORCE: http://www.ingenierospaisajistas.com/parque-del-mar
Issue + Criterion Indicator Ljubljana Vitoria-Gasteiz Barcelona Nº of answered indicators Issue relevance SOCIETAL
CHALLENGES 1. NbS effectively address societal challenges
1.1 The most pressing societal challenges for rights holders and
beneficiaries are prioritised 1 1 1 3
1.2 The societal challenges addressed are clearly understood and 100%
documented 1 1 1 3
1.3 Human wellbeing outcomes arising from the NbS are identified,
benchmarked and periodically assessed 1 1 1 3
DESIGN AT SCALE 2. Design of NbS is informed by scale
2.1 Design of NbS recognises and responds to the interactions between the
economy, society and ecosystems 1 1 1 3
2.2 Design of NbS integrated with other complementary interventions and 100%
seeks synergies across sectors 1 1 1 3
2.3 Design of NbS incorporates risk identification and risk management
beyond the intervention site 1 1 1 3
BIODIVERSITY NET-GAIN 3. NbS result in net gain to biodiversity and ecosystem integrity
3.1 NbS actions directly respond to evidence-based assessment of the current state of the ecosystem and prevailing drivers of degradation and
loss 1 1 1 3
100%
3.1 NbS actions directly respond to evidence-based assessment of the current state of the ecosystem and prevailing drivers of degradation and
loss 1 1 1 3
3.1 NbS actions directly respond to evidence-based assessment of the current state of the ecosystem and prevailing drivers of degradation and
loss 1 1 1 3
3.1 NbS actions directly respond to evidence-based assessment of the current state of the ecosystem and prevailing drivers of degradation and
loss 1 1 1 3
4.1 The direct and indirect benefits and costs associated with the NbS, who
pays and who benefits, are identified and documented 1 1 1 3
58%
4.2 A cost-effectiveness study is provided to support the choice of NbS
including the likely impact of any relevant regulations and subsidies 1 1 0 2 4.3 The effectiveness of an NbS design is justified against available
alternative solutions, taking into account any associated externalities 0 1 1 2 4.4 NbS design considers a portfolio of resourcing options such as
market-based, public sector, voluntary commitments and actions to support
regulatory compliance 0 0 0 0
INCLUSIVE
5.1 A defined and fully agreed upon feedback and grievance resolution mechanism is available to all stakeholders before an NbS intervention can
be initiated 1 1 1 3
87%
5.2 Participation is based on mutual respect and equality, regardless of gender, age or social status, and upholds the right of Indigenous Peoples to
Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) 0 1 1 2
5.3 Stakeholders who are directly and indirectly affected by the NbS have
been identified and involved in all processes of the NbS intervention 1 1 1 3 5.4 Decision-making processes document and respond to rights and
interests of all participating and affected stakeholders 1 1 1 3
5.5. Where the scale of the NbS extends beyond jurisdictional boundaries, mechanisms are established to enable joint decision-making among the
stakeholders in those jurisdictions affected by the NbS 0 1 1 2
Type 4:
Mature
projects
Status: FINALISED / ON-GOING / INCEPTION Table 2.4Issue + Criterion Indicator Ljubljana Vitoria-Gasteiz Barcelona Nº of answer indicators Issue relevance BALANCE
TRADE-OFFS 6. NbS equitably balances trade-offs between achievement of their primary goal(s) and the continued provision of multiple benefits
6.1 The potential costs and benefits of associated trade-offs of the NbS intervention are explicitly acknowledged and inform safeguards and any
appropriate corrective actions 0 1 0 1
6.2 The rights, usage of and access to land and resources, along with the 33%
responsibilities of different stakeholders are acknowledged and respected 1 1 0 2 6.3 Established safeguards are periodically reviewed to ensure that mutually
agreed trade-offs limits are respected and do not destabilise the entire NbS 0 0 0 0
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 7. NbS are managed adaptively, based on evidence
7.1 A NbS strategy is established and used as a basis for regular monitoring and
evaluation of the intervention 1 1 1 3
7.2 A monitoring and evaluation plan is developed and implemented throughout 78%
the intervention lifecycle 1 1 1 3
7.3 A framework for iterative learning that enables adaptive management is
applied throughout the intervention lifecycle 0 0 1 1
MAINSTREAMING 8. NbS are sustainable and mainstreamed within an appropriate jurisdictional context
8.1 NbS design, implementation and lessons learnt are shared for triggering
transformative change 1 1 1 3
100%
8.2 NbS inform and enhance facilitating policy and regulation frameworks
to support its uptake and mainstreaming 1 1 1 3
8.3 Where relevant, NbS contribute to national and global targets for human wellbeing, climate change, biodiversity and human rights, including the
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) 1 1 1 3
TOTAL 21 25 23
% OF INDICATORS ANSWERED 75 89 82
© XANTANA | DREAMSTIME.COM
These practices Type 4 have been developed over a long period of time, often with several complementary approaches and with separate phases of action over time, allowing them to be refined, identifying gaps and complementing visions. As a result, they therefore have the highest ratings in almost all categories, except for Adaptive Management where newer urban practices show better results and in the Trade-Offs analysis, they: where perform the worst. This issue is related to the fact that the mature practices
analysed have a markedly urban character (albeit contextualised as a green infrastructure) and the question of trade-offs was a very new element that was not raised in its conception.
Taking into consideration this aspect, these practices are not included in the summary presented in the following Table 3 since their degree of implementation don’t allow for a comparative framework in relation to the other analised categories.