EA: Why are nature-based solutions such a valuable tool for delivering climate resilience in major infrastructure projects?

We’re facing a highly changeable, dynamic climate, bringing increasingly unpredictable intense weather events which impact our aging infrastructure. There is clearly a place for ‘hard’ engineering solutions to protect our infrastructure assets but there simply isn’t the money or the time to keep up with the increased impact from our changing climate.

NbS (like wetlands, woodlands, or restored floodplains) tackle climate threats and deliver added value. By “working with natural processes” (slowing and storing water, stabilising soil, etc.) we can protect infrastructure more effectively and often more affordably than with hard defences alone.

At the same time, these solutions boost biodiversity, sequester carbon, and can improve community well-being. In other words, NbS manage risks and extend infrastructure lifespans, all while delivering co-benefits like improved biodiversity and carbon sequestration. This multi-functional value is critical as climate change brings complex challenges. NbS create resilient systems that adapt and even strengthen over time; a wetland or woodland can grow and absorb more impact, whereas a seawall does not. 

Additionally, embracing NbS aligns with emerging policy and investor expectations . Many UK infrastructure bodies now see NbS as key to meeting climate adaptation goals and sustainability metrics.  NbS and natural flood management are being positioned as integral solutions to deliver both biodiversity net gain and climate resilience. The recently published National Infrastructure Strategy states that “New ‘grey’ solutions should only be deployed if other solutions are not viable, with impacts mitigated in a strategic way.” The ability of NbS to address two agendas at once (resilience and environmental enhancement) makes them especially valuable. This co-benefit approach also extends across infrastructure owners; we are seeing increasing dialogue between infrastructure owner and operators about how they can work together to deliver NbS projects at a catchment or landscape level that protect and enhance multiple assets.

EA: Balancing ecological priorities with commercial realities can be challenging; how can developers, ecologists, and investors better align to embed biodiversity net gain and other NbS approaches from the outset?

I’ve always had a problem with the use of the term ‘environmental constraints’, it still often feels like environmental considerations are seen as blockers or driving additional expense to project delivery.

Instead, we must focus on integrating environmental considerations and NbS from the outset, as part of the ‘solution’, before the final project is formed. Developers, ecologists, and investors should collaborate from the outset, ideally in co-design workshops, to identify NbS that align with project goals and budgets. Early, joint planning prevents costly redesigns and ensures environmental measures are integrated efficiently, meeting both commercial and ecological objectives.

Developers and investors are more likely to support BNG/NbS if the benefits are quantified e.g. in reduced future maintenance costs, carbon or BNG credits, enhanced asset longevity, or social value . Tools like natural capital valuation and risk modelling can put a pound value on ecosystem services (flood protection, water purification, pollination) that NbS provide. One of the ongoing challenges is the demonstration of benefits and efficacy of NbS, compared to the more predictable grey engineering solutions, where performance and cost data is more established. This will require detailed modelling and monitoring of NbS to ensure that performance matches, or betters the more traditional alternative. 

Breaking internal silos is important, as an industry we’ve divided our infrastructure organisations, whether clients or supply chain in to both asset-led structures e.g. civils, comms, bridges, drainage, earthworks etc. and/or by discipline e.g. environment, engineering, project management. NbS don’t neatly fit in to one of these ‘boxes. It is therefore important we form cross-discipline groups early to build empathy and understanding of the needs and drivers of these different parts of project organisations to focus on ‘solutions’ and outcomes, rather than inputs. Showing successful examples where green and commercial goals aligned can help convert sceptics.

EA: Collaboration is key to addressing data and monitoring gaps for NbS in the UK. What models or partnerships are working well to build the evidence base needed for wider adoption?

One of the realities of NbS  is that they rely on multiple parties or stakeholder s to deliver and maintain. Therefore collaboration is key. We’re beginning to see a growing number of partnership-led approaches to NbS which will inevitably produce increasing amounts of data which is essential as strong evidence is what is really needed to push such solutions in to the mainstream. For example, Defra and the Environment Agency (EA) ran Natural Flood Management pilots across England, requiring collaboration between councils, river trusts, and landowners. This approach led to a broad, shared data set on effectiveness that was made publicly available. The Catchment Based Approach (CaBA) similarly brings together stakeholders to plan and share results, ensuring project data informs others. By fostering joint ownership, these models break down silos and build a robust, shared evidence base for NbS success. Collaborative joint funding models, such as partnerships involving a council, an infrastructure operator, and environmental finance providers, can facilitate multi-faceted data collection. As a result, technical and commercial outcome data may become more accessible, which could support future projects.