Nature Based Solutions - Implementation Models Database

Implementation model

Private and public funding to adapt Western Harbour in Malmö

A short description of the NBS project

Since the early 1990s, the city of Malmö has been experienced negative effects of climate change due to rising temperatures and excessive rainfall, dealing with various flood-related problems (the most problematic issue has been the frequent overflow of sewage systems). Therefore, the city aimed to realise climate adaptation measures by integrating it directly in the design of urban development projects. It has chosen to realise its sustainability ambitions (including climate change adaptation) by focussing on co-creation with private developers through the organisation of so-called ‘stakeholder partnership processes’. This allows for an effective mix of private and public funding. The approach entails the initiation of dialogues with private developers from the very start of an urban development process. Through the dialogue a sustainable urban development model is co-created for a specific site. In this way the city makes sure that the envisioned sustainability ambitions take shape in the construction of the urban development without having the financial responsibility for its execution. In addition, the city is able to identify through the dialogue whether additional (public) funding needs to be obtained to realise a higher level of environmental standards. Western Harbour is an example of an urban development project in Malmö in which stakeholder partnerships are utilized. This former brownfield was redeveloped into a sustainable ‘eco-city’. The development includes both climate adaptation and mitigation measures (i.e. green roofs, green areas and stormwater management measures). One of the first projects in Western Harbour consisting of housing development included the following phases: • Phase 1: design of a Quality Program which consisted of a set of strict sustainability guidelines developed together with a selection of developers. • Phase 2: dialogue with the stakeholders. It involved all the private developers attached to the area as a buyer or owner of land. Through the dialogue the stakeholder partnership developed 5 to 6 sustainability goals for the area. • Phase 3: evaluation to check whether the developers have lived up to their promises from the previous two phases. The Quality Program is a document developed specifically for the Western Harbour case. The document included a common ground for developers, a minimal quality level and requirement standards for architecture, landscape, energy, water, waste management and 1. It outlined a set of guidelines that were developed together with all stakeholders to ensure that high environmental standards were maintained. The program was developed through a set of meetings that are referred to as the “Creative Dialogue” to emphasize its open character. The Quality Program served as a stringent base for the consecutive phases of the project. Two programs were developed to foster site sustainability. The first is the Green Space Factor requirement and the second is the Green Points system. The green space factor is a 1994 City of Berlin innovation that essentially defines the percentage of the development parcel that must be permeable. The Green Points list is another measure developed during the Creative Dialogue sessions and incorporated in the Quality Program to ensure that developers incorporate site sustainability measures but allow them to do so in a creative and context sensitive way. In particular, developers agreed to incorporate at least 10 of the 35 green point options within each development parcel. Some of these 35 Green Point Options are: • All the buildings have green roofs; • A section of the courtyard is left for natural succession; • At least half the courtyard area consists of water; • Only recycled construction materials are used in the courtyard; • All rainwater from buildings and hard surfaces in the courtyard is collected and used for irrigation; • No more than five trees or shrubs of the same species; • All walls, where possible, are covered with climbing plants; • No surfaces in the courtyard are impermeable (all surfaces are permeable to water); • All non-paved surfaces within the courtyard have sufficient soil depth and quality for growing vegetables; • The courtyard has a certain colour (and texture) as the theme; • Etc.

NBS Implementation context
Location Sweden, Malmö (Sweden)
Latitude
Longitude
Status Ongoing (since 2001)
Dates
Description of the NBS
NBS Scale object (building, etc.)
NBS Impacts scale • Object (building, etc.) • Neighbourhood • City
Urban density/ Soil consumption High (dense city center)
Combined with other(s) environmental friendly solution(s)?
if other
NBS Typology
Open the NBS Solution Explorer
NBS Uban Challenges
Climate Issues Climate mitigation
Climate adaptation
Other 0
Urban water management and quality Urban water management and quality
Flood management
Other 0
Air Quality Air quality at district/city scale
Air quality locally
Other 0
Urban Space and Biodiversity Biodiversity
Urban space design
Urban space management
Other 0
Urban Regeneration and Soil Air quality at district/city scale
Other 0
Resource efficiency Food, energy and water
Raw materials
Waste
Recycling
Other 0
Public health and well-being Acustic
Quality of life
Health
Other 0
Environmental justice and social cohesion Environmental Justice: Recognition
Environmental Justice: Procedural Justice
Environmental Justice: Distributional Justice
Environmental Justice: Capabilities
Environmental Justice: Responsibility
Social Cohesion
Other 0
Urban planning and governance Urban planning and form
Governance in planning
Other 0
People Security Control of crimes
Control of extraordinary events
Other 0
Green economy Circular economy
Bioeconomy activities
Direct economic value of NBS
Other 0
Other
Stakeholder and Governance
Who Started this initiative? Governments • Local government/municipality
Contracting Authority
Project manager (leader and main partners): entities names, and know-how involved
Who (else) was involved in the project ? (Inhabitants, local association, etc.)
More detail on the process and the role of the different stakeholders (How did it happen?)
OPTIONAL Considering the actual impacts, who are the primary beneficiaries of the project.
Cluster Governance Model Description
cluster2_new_public_managementPublic_private_partnership The costs for the city to implement a partnership process are limited. They include the time spent by policy officers managing the process and the provision of resources to facilitate meetings and workshops. Private developers are responsible for all the costs relating to the development of the plots. Even the roads, parks and streets on the site, which are developed by the city, are included in the price of the building plots and are therefore indirectly paid by developers. The costs of the development of the building plot itself are completely covered by the developers. The stakeholder partnership process can offer an opportunity to private partners to reduce costs by conducting shared studies. In the case of Western Harbour a sustainability coordinator was employed by the municipality and the developers to make exhaustive energy calculations. The costs involved in this hire were split between the municipality and the developers. These costs would have been much higher in case each developer would have needed to pay a coordinator separately. In the case of Western Harbour the city applied for funding from both national and European sources to improve energy efficiency, realise green roofs and organise events to raise awareness (i.e. higher level standards). A total of SEK 250.000.000 (approximately €26.300.000) in national funding (Local Investment Fund) was awarded to the city for the implementation of various environmental projects within Western Harbour. The projects ranged from a sustainability exposition to support developers in the realisation of green roofs. The subsidies were also used to construct more energy efficient buildings. The involvement of the number and type of stakeholders in the funding application varies case by case. The application involving national funding to acquire energy efficient materials for the Western Harbour development was created in cooperation with the developer. In the case of funding for green roofs, the city completely managed the application and the developers applied for the funding from the city. This difference in approach was mainly due to the fact that the decision to apply for funding came later into the development process. The European funding application for the energy system was developed by the city in cooperation with the energy company. The selection of stakeholders to involve in the funding application is usually made by the city based on the input of the stakeholder participation process. This allows the city to make more specific funding proposals. The city always acts as the initiator and lead writer of the funding application.
Financing
Global Estimated cost of the project more than 5M€ (€26.300.000)
Cluster CLUSTER 1: Public financing; CLUSTER 4: PUBLIC-PRIVATE
FM • Private Finance Iniative PFI
Description of the financing mechanism The costs for the city to implement a partnership process are limited. They include the time spent by policy officers managing the process and the provision of resources to facilitate meetings and workshops. Private developers are responsible for all the costs relating to the development of the plots. Even the roads, parks and streets on the site, which are developed by the city, are included in the price of the building plots and are therefore indirectly paid by developers. The costs of the development of the building plot itself are completely covered by the developers. The stakeholder partnership process can offer an opportunity to private partners to reduce costs by conducting shared studies. In the case of Western Harbour a sustainability coordinator was employed by the municipality and the developers to make exhaustive energy calculations. The costs involved in this hire were split between the municipality and the developers. These costs would have been much higher in case each developer would have needed to pay a coordinator separately. In the case of Western Harbour the city applied for funding from both national and European sources to improve energy efficiency, realise green roofs and organise events to raise awareness (i.e. higher level standards). A total of SEK 250.000.000 (approximately €26.300.000) in national funding (Local Investment Fund) was awarded to the city for the implementation of various environmental projects within Western Harbour. The projects ranged from a sustainability exposition to support developers in the realisation of green roofs. The subsidies were also used to construct more energy efficient buildings. The involvement of the number and type of stakeholders in the funding application varies case by case. The application involving national funding to acquire energy efficient materials for the Western Harbour development was created in cooperation with the developer. In the case of funding for green roofs, the city completely managed the application and the developers applied for the funding from the city. This difference in approach was mainly due to the fact that the decision to apply for funding came later into the development process. The European funding application for the energy system was developed by the city in cooperation with the energy company. The selection of stakeholders to involve in the funding application is usually made by the city based on the input of the stakeholder participation process. This allows the city to make more specific funding proposals. The city always acts as the initiator and lead writer of the funding application.
Business Model
Class Type Description
-
Temporal Factor
Expected time for the NBS to be fully effective after its implementation
Expected life time of the intervention
Already feedbacks on the project? In case, the project has already been adapted to new requisites, please explain the modifications brought
Success and limiting factors
Process Enablers
Class Subclass Type Description
Knowledge_driversAwareness • Climate Change There are several aspects that are essential in the realisation of a successful partnership. One of the most essential factors is trust between the partners. In some cases, developers were found to have difficulties trusting each other since they are usually competitors. As trust needs to build over time, it makes the stakeholder partnership process less suitable as a solution to short term (policy) problems. However, once trust is gained it is a very powerful tool to realise more sustainable developments at limited public financial investment. There are also external factors beyond the city’s control that can influence the success of a stakeholder partnership process. Environmental awareness among stakeholders is important to the success of a stakeholder partnership. Other factors that can influence the success of a partnership are developments in national legislation. Until 2016 the stakeholder participation process was complemented by the ‘Environmental Building Code’. This municipal program includes additional technical building requirements, such as energy norms and nature compensation requirements. The Green Space Factor, a tool applied in the Western Harbour case, has been integrated into the program. It was in use for almost 10 years, but a recently passed national legislation has made it impossible to impose more stringent technical legislation at the municipal level. It is not known yet how the implementation of the stakeholder partnership process without the ‘Environmental Building Code’ will affect its impact. A stakeholder partnership process can be a useful policy instrument when a city is not financially responsible for the implementation of an urban development. The stakeholder participation process does however require an investment of time from the municipality without a guarantee for success. It also requires an interest of private parties in developing the site.
Governance_driversCo-creation and participation • Tools to build a common vision
Economy_driversDe-risking • Sharing risks • Public de-risking strategies
Process Inhibitors
Class Subclass Type Description
Knowledge_driversUncertainty • Operational unknown • Performance unknown
Governance_driversDisconnection between short-term actions and long term goals Institutional barriers • Establishment of long term responsibilities; • Lack of flexibility of decision making structures • Bureaucracy and unsupportive legal frameworks
Economy_driversBudget constraints • NBS not a priority
What makes this project a pioneer?
Field
Criteria
Brief description of the innovativeness
Has the project received a prize, an award?
Has the project received a media coverage? (in reviews, in press, etc.)
IM Keywords
References