News category: NBSI_PUBLICATION

NbSI publications

Oxford’s first Citizens’ Jury on people and nature

Written by Lila Stewart-Roberts and Melissa Felipe Cadillo

While Oxford is a city where nature and urban life are closely intertwined, this is a complex relationship marked by stark social inequalities, pressures from economic growth and housing demand, and increasing urgency to tackle the biodiversity and climate crises. In 2019, the Citizens’ Assembly on Climate Change called for a greener Oxford to enhance public health, foster stronger communities and strengthen the city’s resilience to climate change. As policies and strategies are developed to work towards these goals, capturing perspectives from across society – including residents’ voices – is critical.

What is a Citizens’ Jury and why do we need one?

A Citizens’ Jury is a deliberative process that brings together a small, diverse group of individuals to learn about a societal issue, engage in structured discussions, and collectively develop recommendations.

In short, citizens’ juries serve as a model to give community members the chance to have a say on what happens where they live.

Oxford’s Citizens’ Jury was motivated by increasing recognition that critical voices are often missing from decision-making on the future of nature recovery in the UK – those of community members. In 2021, the People’s Assembly for Nature, co-led by NbSI’s director Nathalie Seddon, created a conversation at the national level, bringing citizens together from Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland to collectively plan how to tackle the nature crisis. The Oxford Citizens’ Jury aimed to do the same but at the local scale, allowing for a more targeted, place-based focus.

The Citizens’ Jury operated on the basis of deliberative democracy – a tool which is increasingly recognised for its potential in navigating complex societal issues through inclusive and reflective discussion. The jury was selected to represent a cross-section of Oxford’s population, with participants selected based on different demographics, including their level of engagement with nature.

8 key recommendations and a shared vision for nature in Oxford

Over four days of deliberative workshops, the jury co-created a shared and actionable vision for Oxford city:

“Oxford and its surroundings will be an accessible city for all, with protected green spaces, clean rivers, and rich biodiversity. These will be interconnected through green corridors that nurture the health of both people and nature. To achieve this, we propose enhancing biodiversity and protecting and improving our sustainable built and natural environment, while also reducing division and increasing inclusion among stakeholders. These efforts will be led by diverse and inclusive custodians and supported by strong policies.”

Grounded in this vision and insights from expert speakers, the jury co-created 8 recommendations on priority actions. For each recommendation, the jury identified key target stakeholders and first steps to make them actionable. Explore the full recommendations in the report.

The recommendations fall into four overarching themes: systemic changes, the built environment, inclusivity & access, and water quality.

 

Empowering community members to act on nature

The Jury showed the importance of community participation in urban environmental decision-making, beyond producing valuable recommendations, through the impact that the process had on participants themselves.

At the report launch event, several of the participants shared feelings of empowerment and agency from engaging with the Citizens’ Jury. As Alice Ogilvie reflected:

“I have lived in Oxford for 20 years, but this is the first time I felt like I had a voice, I had never even heard of a citizens’ jury before…”

Participants added that they enjoyed engaging through deliberative workshops, which created an environment for learning and discussion which felt open and unbiased. They particularly appreciated the support from expert speakers and facilitators, and jury members shared how it changed their perspective:

“I learned so much, I didn’t even think Oxford had nature” – Arwen Baxter

As well as the critical role that people have to play:

“I realised nature won’t recover without people”

These reflections indicate the potential of citizens’ juries and similar approaches to have a deeper impact on their participants, empowering community members to act as nature advocates.

As one jury member put it:

“We want to take action as community members… we want to be a part of it”

Participants also shared how encouraged they were by the diverse range of experiences brought together in the jury, and how, with facilitation, they were able to reach common ground and a shared vision.

 

In what ways can Citizens’ Juries contribute to a more inclusive governance?

Here Melissa Felipe Cadillo, the project lead, shares key learnings from running the Citizens’ Jury.

Oxford’s Citizens’ Jury demonstrates the potential of deliberative processes to strengthen participatory environmental planning, particularly in urban areas where space, priorities, and access to nature are often contested. Through this process, we learned that deliberative approaches could nurture bottom-up governance by fostering a sense of belonging, responsibility, and advocacy among residents at neighbourhood, community, and city levels.

As researchers, we also reflected on the role that institutions such as universities can play. Sitting at the intersection of formal knowledge and lived experience, universities are well-placed to help bridge the gap between communities, researchers, and decision-makers. In doing so, we can support more equitable and collaborative approaches to urban nature recovery.

Beyond shaping a collective vision for Oxford, the Citizens’ Jury process highlighted the power of bringing together diverse voices. Participants not only generated thoughtful recommendations, but they also developed new understandings of the city, its nature, and their place within it. For many, it was the first time they felt heard in local decision-making.

For others looking to run similar processes, we offer several reflections:

  • Representation and recruitment: We prioritised participation from residents not already engaged in nature or conservation activities, to widen the conversation. While this helped surface new perspectives, some minority groups remained underrepresented. Recruitment strategies should be tailored to the context and aim of the process.
  • Information design: Less can be more. Carefully curating information and allowing time for participants to process and reflect helps create an inclusive learning environment. Visual and interactive formats also enhanced engagement.
  • Process over consensus: Disagreement is natural and valuable. What matters is creating space for respectful discussion and documenting how decisions were made, so outputs can be meaningfully shared with participants and stakeholders.
  • Resourcing and trade-offs: With limited budgets, some compromises may be necessary. Prioritising skilled facilitation and inclusive recruitment is crucial to the process’s legitimacy and impact.

Ultimately, our experience showed that Citizens’ Juries are not just a means to produce recommendations. They are powerful tools for building capacity, amplifying marginalised voices, and creating shared ownership of urban futures. We hope this experience can inspire others to explore deliberative democracy as a pathway to more inclusive and just environmental governance.

Read the full report: Oxford Citizens’ Jury on People & Nature – Final Report

 

Oxford’s Citizens’ Jury on People and Nature was led by Melissa Felipe Cadillo and Guillemette Gandon from the Biodiversity & Society Programme and Interdisciplinary Centre for Conservation Science (ICCS), with facilitation support from Involve Foundation. The project was funded by the Agile Initiative and the Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery, with additional support from the Nature-based Solutions Initiative (NbSI).

 

For more information on the project, contact Lucy Radford, ICCS Research facilitator, at iccscoordinators@maillist.ox.ac.uk.

 

Photo by Javiera Pérez Ribalta
A “one-stop shop” for ecological monitoring of NbS

From the UK’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan to the Biodiversity Monitoring Framework agreed at COP16, there is an increasing recognition that nature and biodiversity projects require better monitoring if they are to be successful. Nature-based solutions must deliver benefits for biodiversity, alongside tackling societal challenges, but gathering the right data can prove challenging.

New research out today in Ecological Solutions and Evidence provides a monitoring framework which could significantly help.

“Our study tackles the question of ‘How can we monitor biodiversity?’ which is now critical to NbS and a priority focus globally since the Global Biodiversity Framework was agreed at COP15,” explains lead author Dr Emily Warner, Postdoctoral Researcher at the Nature-based Solutions Initiative.

“While there are a few different frameworks for biodiversity monitoring, until now there has been a gap between the methods proposed and the data that is collected on the ground. I see our framework as bridging this gap between the high-level ambitions set by global policy and practitioner needs.”

Bridging this gap is particularly urgent given the increased interest in biodiversity credits, and the need to ensure that these actually deliver positive biodiversity outcomes.

The team also looked at the possible impact of technological solutions for biodiversity monitoring including AI, remote sensing, acoustic monitoring and environmental DNA. “All have the potential to significantly reduce fieldwork effort and bypass expertise constraints, particularly taxonomic knowledge required to identify more challenging groups of organisms,” says Dr Warner.

Graphical abstract illustrating how the monitoring framework was developed (Warner et al., 2025)

To construct their framework, the researchers identified above and below-ground metrics for monitoring the success of Nature-based Solutions and ranked them using a scoring system to assess their informativeness and feasibility. Their work culminated in a searchable database of metrics and their characteristics, aimed at UK practitioners but with wider applicability. “It’s effectively a one-stop shop for effective monitoring of Nature-based Solutions,” says Dr Warner. The database was developed as part of an Agile Initiative research sprint on Scaling up Nature-based Solutions in the UK.

The monitoring framework is now used by people working at the forefront of nature restoration and biodiversity credits in the UK, including Ross Johnson, Head of Nature Markets at Wilder Carbon, who comments:

“The Biodiversity & Soil Health Metrics Tool provides a useful framework, enabling objective assessment of ecosystem monitoring techniques which is really useful for nature restoration-focused NbS initiatives, such as Wilder Carbon. The metrics in the tool’s inventory capture multiple aspects of biodiversity categorised into function, structure and composition and this holistic representation of ecosystems aligns with Wilder Carbon’s whole-ecosystem approach to reestablishing natural processes and ecosystem functioning in our projects.”

 

Check out the NbS monitoring framework.

Explore the NbS Knowledge Hub: a one-stop resource for the governance, designing, funding and monitoring of NbS projects.

 

 

How can we monitor soil health for NbS?

Soil health is critical for the success of nature-based solutions (NbS). It underpins ecosystem multifunctionality and resilience by supporting biodiversity, improving carbon sequestration and storage, regulating water flow, and enhancing plant productivity. NbS projects often protect soil health and restore degraded soil. Yet many NbS projects do not monitor soil health. A new paper explores the challenges and opportunities in monitoring soil health and introduces a practical tool to help select suitable metrics for monitoring soil and biodiversity.

Led by Licida Giuliani, the review, “Advancing nature-based solutions through enhanced soil health monitoring in the United Kingdom”, was published yesterday in Soil Use & Management as part of a special issue on integrating NbS into soil and land management decisions.

Co-author and NbSI researcher Emily Warner takes us through the key findings:

The importance of soil health for successful and sustainable NbS

Soil health is made up of chemical, physical, and biological properties, which contribute to key soil processes and functions. Physical properties reflect pores, aggregates, and structures in soil that determine the movement of air and water, and provide habitat for soil biodiversity. Chemical properties influence the transformation of chemical components, providing energy and nutrition. Biological properties include biodiversity, ranging from the genetic to community level, as well as the biochemical and biophysical processes that they influence. We emphasise the interlinked and reciprocal relationship between above- and below-ground ecosystems, such that successful NbS are dependent on, benefit from, and support healthy soils.

How can soil health be monitored?

To maximise synergies between soil health and other outcomes of NbS projects, we need a robust system for monitoring soil health outcomes. A current absence of guidelines on enhancing soil health and metrics for assessing soil health mean that it is often overlooked in habitat restoration projects, limiting their potential. Our review considers the existing frameworks and metrics for monitoring soil health, highlighting the variety of different metrics and sampling protocols available for soil health assessment.

Robust monitoring, reporting and verification systems are essential to ensure that policies and practices of soil health improvement are effectively implemented and achieve their intended outcomes. The first step to developing a robust monitoring system is to identify appropriate soil health indicators. We explore the tensions between adopting a standardised set of metrics, to facilitate comparisons between sites and projects, and reflecting the complexity and local variability of soil systems, and the diverse priorities, skills and resources of stakeholders. To address this, we recommend integrating a range of monitoring techniques which encompass soil and above-ground biodiversity alongside socio-economic outcomes, to provide a cohesive narrative on ecosystem health in NbS.

For practical implementation of this approach, we introduce an interactive tool to help users select suitable soil and biodiversity metrics.

The Biodiversity and Soil Health Metrics Tool (Warner et al. 2024) provides a framework for selecting above-ground ecological metrics and soil health indicators for assessing NbS outcomes, developed as part of the Agile Initiative Sprint on Scaling up Nature-based Solutions in the UK. It allows practitioners to filter metrics based on their project needs, feasibility of data collection, and informativeness for each metric.

Finally, we emphasise the need for supportive policy frameworks and incentives to effectively integrate soil health into current and future NbS. Regulatory support, guidance, and funding mechanisms will be key to enabling long-term systemic change.

Read the new paper: Advancing nature-based solutions through enhanced soil health monitoring in the United Kingdom.

Explore the Biodiversity and Soil Health Metrics Tool on our NbS Hub.

The imperative of aligning policy on climate and biodiversity

In a new article published yesterday in The Conversation, NbSI’s Nathalie Seddon and Audrey Wagner explain why aligning climate and biodiversity policy is essential.

The message is clear: healthy ecosystems are crucial for climate resilience and a stable climate is essential to protecting biodiversity. Climate action must not come at the expense of biodiversity or human rights. As Nathalie and Audrey highlight:

“The scientific consensus is clear: we cannot address climate change by industrialising the biosphere. Effective climate solutions must protect ecosystem integrity and support biodiversity, not compromise them for carbon gains.”

However, the recent UN Biodiversity Conference in Colombia (COP16) brought both progress and concerning developments. In particular, key language addressing the need to transition away from fossil fuels and warning of the dangers of bioenergy for biodiversity was deleted from the final text.

On the positive side, we saw growing political support for aligning climate targets with biodiversity goals, including commitments to stronger coordination across the three conventions – on biodiversity, climate change and desertification. In a landmark step towards more inclusive governance, a new subsidiary body for the ‘full and effective’ participation of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities was established.

Read the full article in the Conversation: “The climate and biodiversity crises are entwined, but we risk pitting one against the other”

 

 

Do we have enough information to scale up carbon removals sustainably?

As COP29 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) commences in Azerbaijan, the need for effective and sustainable strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is more critical than ever. However, most global scenarios also rely heavily on carbon dioxide removals (CDRs) to keep within the Paris Agreement temperature targets, and many ‘net-zero’ pathways indicated by governments contain a significant amount of CDR.

But do we know what the wider effects of these CDR practices will be, or which approaches might be more or less sustainable?

A new paper, led by Dr Isabela Butnar of UCL and NbSI’s Dr John Lynch, argues that we currently have only limited evidence to address these important questions.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methods, widely used to assess the environmental impacts of products and services, are increasingly used to inform policy decision-making around CDR practices, to suggest which practices are most favourable and whether there may be adverse effects that need to be considered. However, this new analysis highlights the urgent need for more comprehensive and consistent LCA studies to enable comparison between different CDRs and reveal the potential consequences of scaling CDRs up in the future.

Reviewing the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) literature on CDR, the authors found that while there is much valuable and informative research, which usually covers the full life cycle of removals, studies of different types of carbon removal have different methods and norms, making cross-comparison challenging or impossible. In many cases, research only explored a small number of impacts beyond climate effects, if any, so there is limited data on the wider effects – positive or negative – of many CDR practices. The social and environmental impacts of CDR must be understood in order to scale-up practices that support co-benefits, and do not risk damage to the biosphere or human rights violations. Further analysis on the wider effects of CDR can help to identify practices which prioritise multiple core benefits alongside carbon sequestration, such as biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Finally, LCA papers predominantly take an ‘attributional’ rather than ‘consequential’ approach, meaning that they track impacts at project-scale, but cannot reveal systemic effects: key to understanding whether large-scale roll-out can be sustainable.

The paper concludes that more consistent and comprehensive LCA studies will be vital in determining the roles of different carbon dioxide removal practices in a sustainable future. This evidence would enable us to plan the best way to deploy CDR to achieve our climate commitments while minimising trade-offs and maximising additional benefits.

The work was undertaken as part of the CO2RE greenhouse gas removal hub, in collaboration with the wider GGR-D Biochar, Enhanced Rock Weathering, Peatlands, Perennial Biomass Crops and Woodland Creation & Management, demonstrators.

Read the paper: “A Review of Life Cycle Assessment Methods to Inform the Scale-Up of Carbon Dioxide Removal Interventions”

Read about the need for social and ecological sustainability limits for CDR here.

Supporting the economy with nature-based solutions

Download our policy brief

With negotiations over nature finance heating up in Cali at COP16, the spotlight is firmly on solutions that can support biodiversity whilst also bringing economic benefits. Among these, nature-based solutions (NbS) are emerging as promising pathways to genuinely sustainable economic recovery. Our new research published this week, shows how NbS have the potential to drive job creation, boost income, as well as contribute to Sustainable Development Goals, making them essential in the discussions at COP16.

“Nature’s value is often overlooked in accounting frameworks, yet our study highlights its tremendous economic benefits. At a time when global systems are under strain and the planet is warming, nature-based solutions offer a vital opportunity to boost the resilience of ecosystems—and the economies that depend on them.” Prof Nathalie Seddon, Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment and Department of Biology, University of Oxford.

What are nature-based solutions (NbS)?

NbS encompass actions that protect, restore, and manage ecosystems to address societal challenges, benefiting both biodiversity and communities locally. Carefully implemented, they offer a holistic approach to issues like climate change, biodiversity loss, and socioeconomic inequalities, aligning well with the goals of a just transition that negotiators are pushing for at COP16.

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the need for recovery strategies that integrate nature at their core. NbS can also help in recovering from other shocks, such as natural disasters and conflicts, by restoring degraded landscapes, supporting displaced communities, and rebuilding infrastructure. Despite these advantages, NbS remain underused in economic recovery plans due to misconceptions about their viability, short-term policy focus, and gaps in evidence.

To address this knowledge gap, the new study led by Alex Chausson conducted a systematic review of 66 reviews on the economic impact of investments in nature.

Research findings: how NbS can support economic recovery

This latest analysis offers robust evidence of the economic recovery benefits of NbS, with findings falling into several key themes:

Positive economic impacts: The research reviewed 66 studies and found that 65% of economic outcomes from NbS initiatives were positive, particularly in nature-based agriculture and ecosystem management. Compared to traditional approaches, NbS often delivered equal or better results.

Broader societal benefits: Beyond economic returns, NbS contribute to climate resilience, food security, and community empowerment. These wider benefits are crucial for stabilising economies, making them a vital part of the negotiations at COP16.

Mixed and context-dependent outcomes: While the majority of results were positive, some varied based on reliance on subsidies, regional differences, and market conditions. This underscores the importance of tailored, well-designed NbS that align with local realities—an approach with strong support at COP16.

Trade-offs and win-wins: Both trade-offs and win-win scenarios were observed. For instance, while short-term resource extraction conflicts with biodiversity goals, agroecological practices can simultaneously boost crop yields, soil health, and income. Integrating community involvement is key to achieving equitable outcomes.

Knowledge gaps and biases: The evidence is currently skewed towards certain sectors, like food production, with limited research on NbS in Europe, North America, and the Middle East. Filling these gaps should be a focus of further research.

Policy recommendations

To maximise the potential of NbS, COP16 negotiators and policymakers should consider the following:

  1. Integrate NbS into economic recovery programmes
    Governments should include NbS in recovery strategies, aligning fiscal policies with sustainable development goals. Interventions must be tailored to local contexts, a core message at COP16.
  2. Focus on high-integrity NbS
    All NbS should follow best practices, such as the IUCN Global Standard, ensuring community involvement and demonstrable biodiversity benefits. This is essential for minimising trade-offs and is central to the discussions in Cali.
  3. Establish robust monitoring and evaluation
    Effective national frameworks are needed to monitor the impacts of NbS on jobs, income, ecosystem health, and social benefits, ensuring transparent, adaptive management—one of the primary goals outlined at COP16.
  4. Broaden economic assessments
    Policymakers should adopt comprehensive analyses that consider not only immediate gains but also long-term benefits like ecosystem services, food security, and disaster risk reduction. Such holistic approaches are a key focus in Cali.
  5. Promote local ownership and inclusive governance
    Successful NbS require community engagement and local leadership, integrating Indigenous knowledge and ensuring that benefits are shared equitably. This emphasis on inclusivity is central to the equity discussions at COP16.
  6. Strengthen capacity building
    Investments in education and training are critical to equipping communities with the skills needed to design, implement, and maintain NbS, creating high-quality jobs and driving eco-innovation—objectives that align with the just transition theme at COP16.
  7. Enhance research and collaboration
    Collaborative research should focus on filling evidence gaps, particularly around job security and economic growth. Partnerships among practitioners, economists, and local communities are being encouraged at COP16 to drive informed action.
  8. Align NbS with broader sustainable development goals
    NbS should be embedded in circular economy policies, ensuring that economic growth supports both people and nature. Policymakers must balance trade-offs and win-wins, ensuring equitable development and sustainability—an overarching goal of the COP16 agenda.

Conclusion

Nature-based solutions represent a transformative opportunity for economic recovery that incorporates sustainable development goals and delivers genuine long-term benefits. Aligning fiscal policies to support high-integrity NbS, in line with the recommendations in this briefing, will help governments transition to a circular economy that sustains rather than undermines the health of the biosphere on which our societies depend.

Download our policy brief

Read the paper: Harnessing nature-based solutions for economic recovery: A systematic review

Growing positive change – NbS Conference 2024 insights, report and recordings

Download NbS Conference 2024 Report

We are living in a time of immense urgency, as the interconnected crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and social injustice call for transformative action. Achieving this systemic change requires more than just data and policy—it demands a shift in values, relationships, and the integration of diverse worldviews and knowledge systems.

The Nature-based Solutions Conference 2024 brought together a wide range of voices, including Indigenous scholars, interdisciplinary researchers, public and private sector practitioners, as well as musicians and artists. Over the course of three days, we combined science, traditional knowledge, music, and art to discuss and co-create an action plan for nature-based solutions that can drive positive social and environmental change.

Key high-level insights from across conference included:

  1. Redefining NbS through justice and equity
    A major takeaway was the need for transformative NbS that prioritise justice and equity. Addressing global inequalities and ensuring that NbS initiatives are led by, or in close partnership with, Indigenous Peoples and local communities is critical to their success. These groups’ knowledge, leadership, and perspectives were highlighted as central to delivering effective and enduring solutions.
  2. Embracing complexity to drive resilience
    The conference emphasised the importance of embracing complexity. NbS should work within complex systems, integrating ecological, social, and cultural dimensions to build resilience. Learning by doing, with adaptive frameworks that evolve based on real-world outcomes, was seen as essential for scaling NbS effectively in a rapidly changing world.
  3. New governance models grounded in local knowledge
    An important insight was the need for governance models that move away from traditional top-down approaches. Local and Indigenous-led governance was seen as essential to successful NbS. These models not only provide the leadership required for ecological projects but also offer new ways of addressing social challenges, demonstrating how local knowledge can guide solutions on a broader scale.
  4. Reframing the economy within biosphere limits
    The conference proposed a shift in how we think about the economy, advocating for framing economic activity within the limits of the biosphere. This approach challenges the traditional sustainable development model and prioritises long-term ecological health over endless growth. NbS were presented as a pathway to a transformed economy, one that is in service of the web of life and focused on supporting the flourishing of ecosystems and communities alike.
  5. Collective responsibility and democratic renewal
    A key theme was the importance of collective action and responsibility in achieving better social and ecological outcomes. Discussions called for democratic renewal through mechanisms like citizens’ assemblies to ensure that decision-making processes are inclusive and representative. Empowering people to participate in shaping policies and ensuring governments act on public demand for NbS are crucial for creating long-term change.
  6. Transforming finance for long-term sustainability
    Another critical insight was the need to redesign financial systems to support long-term ecological and social resilience. Discussions highlighted the urgent need to move financial resources away from harmful subsidies and practices that degrade ecosystems, toward nature-positive investments. Creating robust regulatory frameworks and aligning financial systems to prioritise long-term ecological health were recognised as essential steps to ensuring that NbS deliver sustainable and equitable outcomes for people and the planet.
  7. Expanding the concept of health to include nature
    One of the standout insights was the growing recognition of the interconnectedness between human and ecosystem health. Nature-based solutions were presented as vital components of public health strategies, not only for their environmental benefits but also for improving mental and physical health. This points to a future where healthcare systems fully integrate nature-based interventions as part of a holistic approach to well-being.
  8. Reconnecting with nature as a foundation for systemic change
    The conference also stressed that reconnecting with nature is essential to achieving systemic change. By deepening connection with the natural world, individuals and societies can reimagine their place within the web of life, cultivating the empathy and care required to restore ecosystems and build a future where humanity and nature thrive as one.

Find much more including key actions and session summaries in our Report:

Download NbS Conference 2024 Report

Watch the recordings on Youtube:

 

 

A new research agenda for exploring nature’s contribution to wellbeing

The complexity of societal challenges like climate change, biodiversity loss and air pollution, require interdisciplinary research to address them effectively. Models and scenarios, particularly integrated assessment models (IAMs), offer valuable insights into these complex problems and play a crucial role in informing decision-making. Despite significant scientific advances, key gaps remain.

The study ‘Integrated modelling of nature’s role in human well-being: a research agenda’, led by Rebecca Chapling-Kramer from WWF in collaboration with world-class modellers for integrated assessment, including NbSI research fellow Aline Soterroni, identifies to five critical research areas for enhancing the integration of biodiversity and ecosystem services into global Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs).

A key area identified by the authors is the downscaling the impacts of direct and indirect drivers on ecosystems. Current IAMs operate at broad scales, which inadequately capture fine-scale ecological processes such as water quality and pollination. It is essential to understand the specific locations where human pressures affect nature and its contributions to people, as the location of these pressures greatly influences their impact. Thus, incorporating detailed, localised data into models is necessary to better represent these critical ecological processes.

Incorporating feedbacks within and between ecosystems is also essential. To assess the long-term impacts of our decisions, it is important to understand how these impacts cascade through interconnected systems. Without accounting for these cascading effects, models cannot accurately predict the broader implications of ecological changes over time. Therefore, developing models that capture these feedbacks is vital for effective long-term planning.

Linking ecological impacts to human well-being is also critical. Although there have been significant advancements in ecosystem service modelling, these models often fall short of translating biophysical changes into values that resonate with decision-makers. IAMs need to more effectively integrate the impacts of changes in biodiversity and ecosystems on various social and economic dimensions of well-being to provide a clearer picture of their true value.

Disaggregating outcomes for distributional equity is another important research area. Understanding average impacts on people is insufficient because averages can mask significant inequalities. Those most dependent on nature—often the most vulnerable—face disproportionate impacts. IAMs must address these disparities by disaggregating outcomes based on socio-economic characteristics such as gender, age, and income to ensure that policy measures promote equity and address the needs of the most affected groups.

Incorporating dynamic feedbacks of ecosystem services on the socio-economic system represents the final critical frontier that actually integrates the previous research areas, offering a comprehensive view of how ecological changes feedback into social and economic systems. Without linking outcomes back to the drivers, models are limited to static snapshots and fail to anticipate how ecological degradation impacts the broader economy and society.

A key policy question requiring an integrated social-economic-ecological assessment is the full benefits and costs of nature-based solutions for climate mitigation and adaptation, as well as their resilience to future climate change impacts. When comparing nature-based solutions with technological alternatives, it is important to include the broad range of non-market environmental and social benefits that nature provides. Evaluating the long-term resilience of nature-based solutions also requires assessing the security of these investments under climate change and determining how to maintain the ecosystems that deliver essential benefits.

IAMs are powerful tools for exploring linkages and feedbacks among social, economic, and ecological systems, but further development is needed for them to more effectively inform policy and practice.

 

Download the paper. 

Brazil spotlight on agriculture, biodiversity, and ecosystem services

NbSI research fellow, Aline Soterroni, recently participated at the launch of the Summary for Decision Makers (STD) of the upcoming report by the Brazilian Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (BPBES) on Agriculture, Biodiversity, and Ecosystem Services.

Alongside two colleagues, Aline led the chapter on scenario modelling, which outlines potential pathways for Brazilian agriculture. The summary for decision makers, unveiled on 17 July 2024 at the Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden, provides a concise synthesis of an extensive study aimed at bridging the gap between environmental conservation and rural production in Brazil, underscoring how agribusiness relies on ecosystem services.

Vital ecosystem services, including pollination, pest control, climate regulation, and soil fertility maintenance, are foundational to agricultural productivity. Authors highlight that agricultural expansion in Brazil has come at the cost of native vegetation, severely impacting the environment and the very ecosystem services upon which agribusiness depends. From 1985 to 2022, Brazil’s agricultural land increased dramatically, with agribusiness contributing significantly to the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The publication also issues a stark warning about the future, pointing to scientific evidence that climate change could render vast productive areas unviable by 2060, particularly in the Amazon-Cerrado region. It calls for the adoption of more sustainable agricultural models that make better use of natural resources and focus on restoring degraded lands.

Additionally, the report underscores the indispensable role of family farming, which supplies approximately 70% of the food consumed in Brazil and provides employment for two-thirds of the rural workforce. Despite its more environmentally-friendly practices, the family farming sector faces challenges such as limited access to credit and technical support. Strengthening this sector and encouraging sustainable practices is highlighted as a key strategy for balancing agricultural output with biodiversity preservation.

The study offers several transformative solutions for agribusiness, including enforcing the Native Vegetation Protection Law (NVPL), also known as Brazil’s Forest Code, enhancing pasture productivity, and introducing economic mechanisms like Payments for Ecosystem Services and biodiversity credits. It also advocates for scaling up sustainable approaches such as the Crop-Livestock-Forest Integration System and restoring protected areas.

For these changes to take root, the report stresses the importance of integrated governance and coordinated actions across societal and governmental sectors. The preservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services, it concludes, is not a hindrance to economic development but a vital component for ensuring the sustainable future of agribusiness in Brazil.

 

Read the Press Release (Portuguese). 

View Youtube recording of the event. 

Download the Summary

 

 

 

Collaboration for Nature: Launch of UK NbS Knowledge Hub

Working with external stakeholders, through the Agile Initiative sprint funding, members of NbSI have launched a new ‘Knowledge Hub’, including cross-disciplinary tools, guides and policy briefs designed to inform and transform the use of nature-based solutions in policy and practice.  

With the aim of overcoming key challenges and barriers to scaling up high-quality nature-based solutions in the UK, the Knowledge Hub offers stakeholders, including practitioners, local land management bodies, and policymakers, guidance on implementing NbS projects based on the latest science and best practices.

To ensure the relevance and practicality of the outputs, they have been collaboratively developed with a diverse group of experts and practitioners from government departments, non-governmental organisations, scientific and educational institutions, charities, and community organisations involved in NbS design and implementation.

“The guidance [from the Knowledge Hub’s ‘Recipe for Engagement’] helped form the foundation of our organisation’s engagement strategy, which is a central component of our efforts for building natural capital. It’s great to see this practical guidance available to support others’ work.”- Calum Brown, Chief Scientist, Highlands Rewilding

This guidance aims to empower stakeholders engaged in NbS, whether they are involved in on-the-ground project implementation, strategic support for NbS initiatives, advisory and consultancy roles in NbS projects, or policy and decision-making for the future of NbS, regardless of whether they are addressing local projects or national initiatives.

Specifically, the Knowledge Hub provides a range of tools:

  • Recipe for Engagement: a guide to support best practice engagement for governing NbS, while ensuring decision-making is collaborative, participatory, and democratic.
  • Biodiversity & Soil Health Metrics Tool: a tool to help with designing a biodiversity and soil health monitoring strategy which will ensure genuine benefits and monitor impact.
  • Mapping Opportunities: generate local maps which show the potential of NbS and nature recovery opportunities in your area.
  • Case Studies: an interactive platform showcasing good practice examples of delivering NbS in the UK.
  • Funding Programmes Tool: a searchable datable of major funding options available to support NbS in the UK.
  • Guidance Tool: a searchable list of useful guidance for implementing NbS.
  • Policy Briefs: reports produced by the research team highlighting specific opportunities to embed NbS into policy.

 

“The Nature-based Solutions [Knowledge] Hub provides practitioners and policymakers with the tools they need to understand the benefits of NbS, and guide them on how to govern, fund and evaluate NbS. It also gives examples of great programmes and projects across the UK that can be used to inspire even more initiatives.” – Kathryn Brown, Director of Climate Change and Evidence, Wildlife Trusts.

You can also read more about the research behind the NbS Knowledge Hub by visiting the Agile Initiative Sprint page: How do we scale up Nature-based Solutions. 

New evidence that nature-based solutions can support economic recovery in Peru

NbS in Peru hold huge potential but face limited investment, partly due to a lack of concrete evidence for how NbS can contribute to economic recovery and local development. To address this knowledge gap, NbSI Peru conducted a mixed-methods study – including stakeholder workshops with practitioners and policymakers – analysing practical case studies at local, regional and national scales, producing a comprehensive report on ‘Nature-Based Solutions and their Socio-Economic Benefits for Peru’.

The findings highlight socio-economic benefits including the promotion of local economies, water and food security, social equity and inclusivity, and climate change adaptation and mitigation.

The report launch event attracted over 100 attendees, including policy makers from the Peruvian government, practitioners, academia, and civil society, to discuss how NbS can play a key role in a resilient and sustainable post-pandemic recovery in Peru.

 

NbSI Peru also presented new evidence on the socio-economic benefits of NbS as part of the ‘Employment Generation through Ecosystem Services,’ led by the International Labor Organization and aimed at decision-makers in Latin America and the Caribbean. The team presented the case of the project “Upscaling Mountain Ecosystem-based Approaches” as part of the module “Nature-based solutions to promote ecosystem services and employment generation”.  

 

The full report is available in Spanish: Nature-Based Solutions and their Socio-Economic Benefits for Peru

Read the key findings in English here. 

NbSI Peru are hosted by the Instituto de Montaña (IdM) in collaboration with NbSI Oxford.

Visit the NbSI Peru news page for more information.

Nature-based solutions critical for Brazil’s Net Zero goal

Dr. Aline Soterroni, a member of the Nature-Based Solutions Initiative (NbSI) team at the University of Oxford, led new research that finds that nature-based solutions, mainly ending deforestation and scaling up native vegetation restoration, could mitigate nearly 80% of Brazil’s net zero pledge. The paper, titled “Nature-based solutions are critical for putting Brazil on track towards net zero emissions by 2050,” is part of the Agile Sprint research that ran from July to December 2022.

Dr. Soterroni and her colleagues found that, although the implementation of Brazil’s Forest Code is key for the country to meet and increase the ambition of its short-term NDC targets, it will not be enough to bridge the gap to net-zero GHG emissions by mid-century. However, by scaling up nature-based solutions, such as eliminating illegal and legal deforestation and promoting enhanced large-scale native vegetation restoration, the country could stay on a clear path to net zero GHG emission during the next 20 years without the need to deploy costly and not-mature-yet negative emissions technologies such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).

” Deforestation control and native vegetation restoration are ready to be implemented immediately at a relatively low cost compared to engineered solutions such as BECCS,” said Dr. Soterroni. ” This gives Brazil a comparative advantage over other countries, and it is also a multiple win situation because the careful implementation of nature-based solutions not only helps mitigate and adapt to climate change, but also curbs biodiversity loss, and supports the economy.”

The NbSI team are working with the Agile Initiative and other partners to develop a roadmap for a credible Brazil’s net-zero pathway grounded in nature-based solutions. The team are also working to raise awareness of the importance of incorporating nature-based solutions holistically in national climate pledges, including Brazil’s.

 

“We are committed to helping Brazil revise its national climate policy and incorporate a credible and robust net zero plan.” said Dr. Soterroni. “Nature-based solutions are key for Brazil to address the intertwined crises of climate and biodiversity “

Read more about Agile research here.

Read more about this news from the University of Oxford here.

Read the paper here.

Diverse forests can store over 70% more carbon than monocultures

New research published in Frontiers’ Forests and Global Change journal found that diverse planted forests can store over 70% more carbon than monocultures – the greatest increase in carbon storage relative to monocultures in four-species mixtures.

Researchers, including Nature-based Solutions Initiative researcher, Dr Emily Warner, analysed studies published since 1975 that directly compared carbon storage in mixed and single-species forests. They combined this data with previously unpublished data from a global network of tree diversity experiments, to create a comprehensive meta-analysis of whether forest diversification provides carbon storage benefits.

In the dataset used in this study, four-species mixes were found to have the greatest increase in carbon storage. Mixes with two species also had greater above-ground carbon stocks than monocultures and stored up to 35% more carbon. Forests made up of six species, however, showed no clear advantage to monocultures.

Forest restoration plays a key role in sequestering carbon, mitigating climate change, conserving biodiversity, and meeting sustainable development goals. Replanted forests store carbon not only in trees but also in soil and shrubs. Authors of this study suggest that mixed forests are particularly effective at carbon storage because they contain different species with complementary traits, meaning that they can more effectively use the resources in an area to attain higher growth rates.

A mix of species also contributes to wider ecosystem services and biodiversity. Mixed forests are also more resilient to pests, diseases, and climate change, which makes them more effective long-term carbon sinks.

“As momentum for tree planting grows, our study highlights that mixed species plantations would increase carbon storage alongside other benefits of diversifying planted forests,” said Dr Susan Cook-Patton, from The Nature Conservancy.

“This study demonstrates the carbon sequestration benefits of the diversification of planted forests,” Warner said. “As we go towards COP28, we are likely to see a lot of countries making reforestation pledges. This study shows the benefits of creating diverse planted forests, providing multiple benefits.”

Read the paper here.

The study was the result of work from an international team of researchers. The authors are particularly grateful to the Tree Diversity Network of experiments, for contributing data. With thanks to NERC for funding.
Can the concept of “Loss and Damage” help Avert the Biodiversity Crisis?

A new article, co-authored by NbSI’s Tasfia Tasmin, examines how progress on ‘loss and damage funds’ relate to nature and biodiversity loss. Funds designated for climate change could be assigned to assist communities in dealing with the social and economic effects of biodiversity loss, incorporating mechanisms to address non-economic factors into the current framework for climate change justice.

It is widely recognised that biodiversity loss in the Global South is largely caused by the actions of affluent countries.[1] For example, the consumption of commodities such as crops, cattle-related products, and timber in the UK has been associated with extensive tropical deforestation. Similarly, activities of EU fishing fleets in West Africa, driven by consumer demand, have led to overfishing and depletion of fish stocks, adversely affecting local communities.[2] By acknowledging biodiversity loss as a form of non-economic loss and damage, we are able to acknowledge both the economic and non-economic consequences experienced by marginalized communities.

Developing nations have long demanded that developed countries take responsibility for their disproportionate greenhouse gas emissions, which have caused irreversible damage worldwide. At the 2022 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, COP27, a landmark agreement was finally reached to establish new “funding arrangements for responding to loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change”.

One month later, the COP15 of the Convention on Biological Diversity convened and discussed similar concepts of the ‘polluter pays’, this time in terms of biodiversity. An agreement was reached to adopt of a new framework of goals and targets for reversing biodiversity loss (the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)), with resource mobilization included the establishment of a Global Biodiversity Framework Fund to support implementation.

However, although this fund is intended to contribute to the mission of the GBF to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, the authors of this article argue that it lacks financial provision for the effects of losing biodiversity and it is not yet clear how the fund will work in practice. The authors suggest that funds allocated for climate change impacts could be used to support communities in coping with the social and economic consequences of biodiversity loss. They also suggest that integrating mechanisms to address non-economic losses and damages within the existing climate change loss and damage framework is also a crucial practical step.

Extending the loss and damage framework to include biodiversity financing is vital, with the inextricable link between climate change and nature. By holding affluent nations accountable for consumption patterns and compensating those affected, we can foster a more equitable and sustainable global approach to biodiversity conservation.

Read the article here.

[1] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Organization), 2012. A Literature Review on the Topics in the Context of Thematic Area 2 of the Work Programme on Loss and Damage: A Range of Approaches to Address Loss and Damage Associated with the Adverse Effects of Climate Change: Note. UN.
[2] Watson, R., Baste, I., Larigauderie, A., Leadley, P., Pascual, U., Baptiste, B., Demissew, S., Dziba, L., Erpul, G., Fazel, A. and Fischer, M., 2019. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany, pp.22-47.
Strengthening England’s Adaptation Programme with NbS to Bolster Climate Resilience

A policy brief, produced by the University of Oxford Agile Initiative and Nature-based Solutions Initiative, highlights the need to scale-up nature-based solutions in England’s National Climate Change Adaptation Programme. Drawing on our report “Nature-based Solutions in UK Climate Change Adaptation Policy”, the brief highlights that NbS can contribute to all eight of the highest priority climate risks from the UK’s third Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA3).

Nature-based solutions (NbS) involve working with nature to help address climate change challenges, simultaneously providing benefits for both people and biodiversity. Examples include saltmarshes protecting coastal areas; trees and green roofs mitigating floods and urban heat; and agro-ecological practices improving soil health and farming resilience. Despite their potential, Nature-based Solutions Initiative researchers found that NbS were underrepresented in the previous adaptation program; risking missed opportunities for enhancing climate resilience. To address this gap, this brief emphasises the importance of integrating a wider range of nature-based solutions, combined with implementation through robust policies, targeted funding, high-quality standards, and effective monitoring.
Nature-based solutions not only contribute to preserving biodiversity, but also have a role in enhancing carbon storage, improving air quality, promoting human health, generating employment opportunities, and reducing costs associated with climate impacts. This brief highlights the significance of community engagement and interdisciplinary research to maximize the local benefits of NbS for biodiversity and society.

The policy brief presents key recommendations to enhance the role of Nature-based Solutions (NbS) in the third National Adaptation Plan, ensuring their effective integration and mainstreaming across various sectors:

  1. Integrate a wider range of NbS: including examples such as sustainable drainage systems (SuDS), agroforestry, nature-based agriculture, natural regeneration of woodlands, rewilding, and the protection of marine habitats. Additionally, existing NbS mentioned in previous plans, such as natural flood management, require strengthened support and funding for successful implementation.
  2. Recognise NbS as essential climate adaptation and develop surrounding policies: Establish a cross-departmental working group to foster collaboration among relevant ministries and develop shared visions, targets, and action plans for NbS. NbS should be included in national nature recovery plans. Planning policy reforms must protect ecosystems, promote participatory approaches, and ensure that environmental protection legislation remains robust.
  3. Fund high-quality NbS for climate adaptation: Monitor and incentivise uptake of NbS options within the Environmental Land Management Scheme (ELMS) and adjust funding accordingly. Reform funding and procurement mechanisms to consider NbS alongside engineered options, accounting for their wider benefits. Develop blended finance options to leverage private investment, establish frameworks for stacking and bundling multiple benefits, and distribute costs and benefits effectively. Increase funding for research, demonstration, and long-term monitoring to strengthen the evidence base for NbS effectiveness and secure additional funding from public and private sources.

Read the full policy brief here.

For more information on the role of NbS for adaptation, check out the following esources:

Nature-based Solutions in UK Climate Change Adaptation Policy

Nature-based Solutions evidence platform

NbS Case Studies

Mapping the effectiveness of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation

Going beyond market-based mechanisms to finance nature-based solutions and foster sustainable futures

Investments in activities that exploit and destroy biodiversity and its ecosystems currently outweigh investments in restoration and preservation. Subsidies for extractive industries total 1.8 trillion USD per year, while the finance and funding gap for biodiversity is estimated to be up to 891.3 billion USD. To address the biodiversity funding gap, calls have been made to increase private finance through market-based mechanisms, such as natural capital markets, which aim to leverage finance for nature-based solutions (NbS).

However, there are potential pitfalls in relying solely on market-based mechanisms. Recent research on NbS highlights five key limitations and pitfalls of a narrow focus on natural capital markets: limits to scalability, reinforcing the separation between people and nature, a limited view of barriers to scaling NbS, challenges in governance and achieving equity for indigenous peoples and local communities, and reinforcement of Global North and Global South power imbalances.

To ensure that private finance mechanisms support high-integrity NbS, the authors put forward four recommendations. Firstly, NbS should be recognized as place-based partnerships between people and nature that harness diverse values. Secondly, indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) should be recognized as leaders of NbS, rather than beneficiaries or passive partners. Thirdly, alternative modes of finance beyond market-based mechanisms should be explored. Finally, governments must decenter GDP growth as a core economic and political target and refocus on human and ecological well-being.

The authors stress that financial instruments and natural capital markets must address both justice and biodiversity protection as one cannot be realized without the other. They call for a balance between scaling up natural capital markets and alternative modes of finance such as fiscal policy measures, debt relief schemes, or decolonial climate reparations. Ultimately, achieving the Convention on Biological Diversity 2050 vision of ‘living in harmony with nature’ requires addressing power, politics, and justice issues that shape flows of money and capital. The authors stress that NbS must simultaneously not distract attention from reducing emissions associated with fossil fuel use.

Read the full article for more details.

Mobilizing funding for equitable transdisciplinary research partnerships

The new Sentinel briefing on Funding equitable transdisciplinary research partnerships for societal impact is now out. NbSI team member Alexandre Chausson was a contributing author on this report which evaluates how designing, implementing, and assessing the effectiveness of Nature-based Solution to tackle societal challenges rests on well-designed, transdisciplinary research.

This briefing outlines ways in which we can help deliver knowledge to match up with policy design and implementation. Creating this research often requires broad collaborations bringing together stakeholders across a wide range of technical and contextual expertise. Scaling up the availability of this evidence therefore requires effective, demand-driven international research partnerships. Although desire for this kind of research is increasing, in practice, there are barriers to the shift towards transdisciplinary research.

A key barrier that the briefing identifies is the difficulty in establishing equitable research partnerships across disciplines, as well as between Global North and Global South research partners. In this policy brief they highlighted six overarching recommendations, drawing on the experience of the Sentinel research partnership, an interdisciplinary research project which sought to address the challenge of achieving ‘zero hunger’ in sub-Saharan Africa, while at the same time reducing inequalities and conserving ecosystems

Their six fundings on what fostering such research requires are:

  1.  Supportive incentive structures for researchers engaging in interdisciplinary research and research user engagement
  2. Funding structures which foster equitable partnerships
  3. Seed grants designed to build and test research partnerships
  4. Longer-term funding cycles and budget flexibility to reduce the transaction costs on researchers
  5.  Ample time to formulate research proposals to enable co-creation
  6.  Promote balanced team balance in responsibilities and expertise, with facilitators, sustained capacity strengthening for equitable transdisciplinary working, and embedding monitoring, evaluation and learning

The full brief can be viewed on the Sentinel website and NbSI Policy Page.

Increased success in large carnivore translocations and rewilding

A new study in the journal Biological Conservation, a team of researchers led by the NbSI’s Seth Thomas looked at factors which influence the success of large carnivore translocations and reintroductions. In their paper titled “Evaluating the performance of conservation translocations in large carnivores across the world” they examined the factors which can help influence the survival rate of these animals.

The study found that two thirds (66%) of the relocations were successful (where the animal survived in the wild for over 6 months). Success rates for large carnivore relocations have increased significantly since before 2007. For wild-born carnivores, success rates increased from 53% to 70%; and for captive-born animals, success rates doubled from 32 % to 64 %. They also found that factors such as choosing younger individuals and using ‘soft releases’ can help increase the likelihood of success.

Large carnivores play an important role in regulating their ecosystems, and thus their reintroductions are important to many landscape restoration projects. Here in the United Kingdom the research could help inform Eurasian lynx reintroductions, which could play a part in facilitating natural forest regeneration.

Prof Alastair Driver, the director of Rewilding Britain said, “This study could not come at a better time here in the UK, with the devolved governments at last consulting positively on the merits of species reintroductions and various groups working hard on the feasibility of reintroducing species such as the European Wildcat and Eurasian Lynx. […} I have no doubt that this will, in turn, lead to well-planned and implemented carnivore reintroductions which only 10 years ago, I would have thought inconceivable in my lifetime.”

The study does however caution that translocations remain a risky endeavor for the animals moved. They found that 33% of all translocations fail and of the successful translocations documented, only 37% showed reproductive behavior. This underpins the importance of involving local communities and stakeholders in all translocations in order to set the animals up for the highest likelihood for success.

Read the full article in Biological Conservation and check out the University and Biology Department coverage of the story to learn more.

Nature-based solutions can play an important role in reducing vulnerabilities to climate change across the rural Global South

Woroniecki et al. 2022

A new paper by the NbSI team and lead by group member Stephen Woroniecki is out now in the journal Climate and Development, and it evaluates how nature-based solutions(NbS) are increasingly addressing societal challenges while also helping communities adapt to climate change. The article titled, Contributions of nature-based solutions to reducing people’s vulnerabilities to climate change across the rural Global South, evaluated 85 nature-based interventions and analyzed factors mediating their effectiveness.

NbS can be utilized to address a wide range of societal challenges, such as climate change mitigation, food security and water security. A well-designed NbS can also be more holistic and integrative in approach than a similar adaptation which focuses solely on infrastructure changes.

While working with and enhancing nature to address societal challenges has become increasingly integrated into the way we adapt to climate change, few studies examine the mechanisms through which this is achieved. In this study the team considered a wide variety of ecosystems, climate impacts and interventions. They then applied a framework to analyze people’s social-ecological vulnerability to climate change. Their results found that 95% of interventions showed a reduction in overall vulnerability, with the largest influence being reduction in sensitivity to climate impacts, which encapsulated 73% of interventions.

It was also found that 52% of intervention reduced social sensitivity, 36% reduced ecological exposure, 31% increased social adaptive capacity, 19 % increased ecological adaptive capacity, and 14% reduced social exposure. Through highlighting the presence of this diverse range of vulnerability reducing factors, it suggests that previous conceptualizations of social-ecological vulnerability focused heavily on ecological pathways may have missed important aspects of how NbS can shape social vulnerability.

In order to ensure that NbS are effective, equitable, and sustainable, we must continue to take into consideration key social indicators . While the environmental factors of the intervention are important, the study concluded that social dimensions of NbS are important mediating factors for the equity and effectiveness of its implementation.

Read the full open access Climate and Development paper: Contributions of NBS to reducing people’s vulnerabilities to climate change across the rural Global South

Biodiversity outcomes of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation: Characterising the evidence base

Key et al., 2022

A recent Frontiers in Environmental Science paper, Biodiversity outcomes of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation: Characterising the evidence base, by the NbSI team aims to improve our understanding of the ecosystem health outcomes of nature-based interventions for climate change adaptation.

The potential of NbS to tackle both the climate and biodiversity crises depends on whether they enhance the health of an ecosystem, including its biodiversity, the condition of its soil and water, and its ability to maintain its functions despite environmental change. However, while research has helped to improve our understanding of how nature-based interventions for climate change mitigation affect ecosystem health, there is less understanding of the outcomes of interventions aimed at addressing climate change adaptation. To address this, in this project we systematically reviewed the outcomes of 109 nature-based interventions for climate change adaptation across 33 different indicators of ecosystem health.

This review shows that 88% of interventions with reported positive outcomes for climate change adaptation also reported benefits for ecosystem health, while interventions were associated with a 67% average increase in species richness. All eight studies that reported benefits for both climate change mitigation and adaptation also supported ecosystem health, leading to a “triple win.”  However, there were also trade-offs, mainly for forest management and creation of novel ecosystems such as monoculture plantations of non-native species.

We also identified remaining gaps in our understanding of the outcomes of NbS for ecosystem health. The indicators of ecosystem health were limited in scope, with a lack of reported outcomes for key aspects such as functional diversity and habitat connectivity. Fifty percent of interventions also only had evidence for effects on plants, while 57% of outcomes did not distinguish between native and non-native species. These gaps indicate that assessments of ecosystem health outcomes of NbS could benefit from using a broader suite of metrics, covering a range of taxa and identifying if species are native or non-native and whether they pose a threat to the ecosystems. This is especially important in revealing negative outcomes that may otherwise go unnoticed. However, ecosystem health assessments must also incorporate essential place-based local and indigenous knowledge, and choice of metrics should be informed by the expertise, time and funds available, as well as its relevance to end-users including policymakers.

Standardisation of ecosystem health assessments that includes best practice in data collection could provide opportunities to compare outcomes and improve intervention methods, while there is a parallel need for further systematic investigation into the ecosystem health outcomes of NbS through rigorous scientific approaches. Building on the rapidly expanding research base on NbS is also key to better understanding the contexts (e.g. intervention methods, timeframes, spatial scales) produce benefits for both biodiversity and climate goals in the long term.

There is a clear opportunity for creation of consistent guidance on how to monitor the ecosystem health outcomes of NbS. This could comprise a set of criteria to be considered when designing an ecosystem health assessment strategy, including (but not limited to): metric choice, study taxa choice, data collection methods, study design, data analysis methods and data sharing standards, as well as how these decisions should be made—namely through a locally-driven, bottom-up approach. As many indigenous and local communities have existing ecological monitoring  methods based on their own knowledge systems, these should continue to be prioritised and considered equally valid in assessing ecosystem health as any external methodology.

Local, subnational, national and international policy reforms are needed to fully realise the potential of NbS as a means for biodiversity conservation while tackling climate challenges. These must ensure that ecosystem health is prioritised in NbS design and implementation. Signatories to the Paris Agreement that include NbS in the adaptation and/or mitigation components their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) currently overly focus on forests and primarily use area-based targets, rather than protection and restoration of a diverse range of native ecosystems and using more comprehensive metrics of success. Strong biodiversity targets and safeguards should be included in policy, with careful evidence-based co-design following the IUCN Global Standard for NbS (IUCN 2020) to ensure delivery of ecosystem health benefits and reduce trade-offs with other outcomes. Showing that quality standards have been followed and demonstrating verified benefits for both biodiversity and society can also help to mobilise new financing streams for NbS.

For NbS to realise their full potential, the research, practice, funding and policy communities need to work together to improve the design, monitoring and adaptive management of NbS so that they deliver benefits for biodiversity and ecosystem health alongside climate goals. However, the biodiversity benefits from both NbS and conservation, may be undermined if they do not occur alongside the transformational change critically needed across sectors to address the ultimate drivers of habitat loss, including poor governance, and unsustainable consumption patterns and production methods.

Read the full Frontiers in Environmental Science paper, Biodiversity outcomes of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation: Characterising the evidence base.

Can sustainability certification enhance the climate resilience of smallholder farmers? The case of Ghanaian cocoa

Thompson et al., 2022

A recent Journal of Land Use Science paper Can sustainability certification enhance the climate resilience of smallholder farmers? The case of Ghanaian cocoa, led by NbSI’s Dr William Thompson, explores the Ghanaian cocoa value chain, the world’s second largest industry supplier. Threatened by drought and heatwaves that are increasing under climate change, the paper asks if certification can deliver for cocoa farmers.

The authors co-designed a climate resilience indicator framework with farmers & industry,  to assess the effectiveness of sustainability certifications for smallholder cocoa production in Ghana. Certified and non-certified systems were compared, namely: UTZ, Rainforest Alliance (RA) and Organic; chosen as they are prominent both globally as well as in Ghana.

Household surveys, biophysical on-farm measurements and satellite data from across two regions and five districts were integrated. This found that certification has a strong effect on adoption of basic farm management e.g. fertilization, but a weak influence on more complex resilience enhancing strategies such as agroforestry or income diversification. Beyond certification, the study identifies strong regional patterns in resilience.

Together these findings suggest that sustainability certification has some potential to enhance climate resilience but greater focus on facilitating diversification and adapting to sub-national contexts is required for improved effectiveness.

Read the full Journal of Land Use Science paper, Can sustainability certification enhance the climate resilience of smallholder farmers?

The role of Nature-based solutions in supporting social-ecological resilience for climate change adaptation

Turner et al., 2022

A new paper, The role of Nature-based solutions in supporting social-ecological resilience for climate change adaptation, has recently been published in Annual Review of Environment and Resources, led and co-authored by NbSI team members Beth Turner, Nicole Chabaneix, Stephen Woroniecki, and Nathalie Seddon, and collaborators Tahia Devisscher and Christian Messier.

NbS are underpinned by social-ecological systems which must be resilient for NbS to navigate climate-change and continue providing adaptation and other societal benefits into the future. The researchers developed a two-part framework to show how NbS can affect key enabling mechanisms that underpin social-ecological resilience, that ensure the delivery of adaptation benefits (nature’s contributions to adaptation).

Potential resilience mechanisms are compiled, but the authors highlight the need for reciprocal feedbacks between social and ecological mechanisms. NbS in forests were examined, with evidence found that NbS may build resilience by positively affecting many mechanisms such as: local rights and ownership, livelihood diversity, reducing ecosystem and biodiversity degradation, and increasing ecosystem area.

However, there is an evidence gap for some key mechanisms needed for long-term resilience rather than short-term, such as species functional diversity, and applying adaptive management. Mixed or negative mechanism effects of NbS in forests were also found; inequitable benefit distribution, and a lack of indigenous and local knowledge inclusion. Both effects jeopardize long-term equitable resilience.

NbS in forests was found to support a range of nature’s contributions to adaptation, such as flood, erosion, and wildfire control. Most adaptation contributions of NbS were already valued, but there is some evidence on novel contributions too, such as new forest-based income sources becoming more suitable than previous sources under climate change.

The authors present future research questions and issues to address to ensure NbS support adaptation and thriving social-ecological systems in a changing world.

Read the full Annual Review of Environment and Resources paper, The role of Nature-based solutions in supporting social-ecological resilience for climate change adaptation.

Science paper: Harnessing the potential of nature-based solutions for mitigating and adapting to climate change

New research by NbSI Director Nathalie Seddon on Harnessing the potential of nature-based solutions for mitigating and adapting to climate change, published in Science, summarises recent research on the benefits and limits of nature-based solutions and highlights critical areas for future research to address current controversies.

To hear Nathalie discussing nature-based solutions, listen to the Science podcast.

Synopsis

Nature-based solutions (NbS) are actions that involve people working with nature, as part of nature, to address societal challenges, providing benefits for both human well-being & biodiversity. The concept has risen rapidly up business, policy & research agendas. Want to see examples of good practice checkout our case study platform.

While many governments and organisations are embracing NbS, some have rejected the approach due to concerns about effectiveness and misuse in greenwashing. This Science Review summarizes how interdisciplinary research & traditional knowledge can help address these issues.

The article discusses how recent scientific research is clear that NbS make a vital contribution to reaching net-zero emissions this century by reducing the release of GHGs from working lands, and by protecting and enhancing carbon sinks on land and in the sea; but only if combined rapid fossil-fuel phase out. This underscores the need to consider the many other well-evidenced benefits of NbS, especially their critical role supporting human adaptation to climate change as a process through time and by protecting biodiversity. NbS also have the advantage of being effective, ready, scalable, and affordable, relative to technological solutions, especially over the long-term, and NbS can help bridge the growing gap between adaptation needs and action. Yet the default remains engineered solutions. This is a missed opportunity to build resilience, especially in lower income nations where dependency on natural resources is high and finance for technology limited.

Overall, protecting intact ecosystems has the highest potential for addressing climate mitigation and adaptation,

NbS effectiveness varies with type and condition of ecosystems, interventions involved, how they are implemented, and target beneficiaries. But overall, protecting intact ecosystems has the highest potential for addressing climate mitigation and adaptation, followed by management of working lands, and lastly restoration. But the potential of NbS is limited by availability of suitable land and sea areas. But though protection and restoration compete with the production of food and fibre, most of land needed comes from improving the management of existing working lands, where NbS such as agroforestry can stabilise or even enhance yields in more unpredictable climates.

Even where there is suitable space for NbS, anthropogenic stressors threaten the health and resilience of ecosystems and their ability to provide benefits to society. Climate change driven risks (fire, floods, droughts & new pests) can be too high to allow for recovery & adaptation; many ecosystems have transitioned or are transitioning to states that either cannot support human adaptation or are net-sources of GHGs. Such climate-driven threats are compounded by pollution, logging and fragmentation, which reduce resilience via loss of biodiversity. Conversely, careful adaptive management of nature-based solutions over time can reduce these threats and increase resilience.

In addition, many institutional and socioeconomic factors hinder NbS implementation & upkeep, especially the need to overcome siloed governance & for secure, sustainable finance flows to the communities and projects that need it most. Land ownership and access are also critical considerations.

Despite evidence for multiple benefits of NbS, the article highlights how and why the term “nature-based solutions” has become controversial.

Three broad reasons are given for this:

  1. NbS are being used in “greenwashing”, delaying decarbonization.
  2. Actions badged as NbS are sometimes implemented without respecting local rights & perpetuating power asymmetries.
  3. Misuse of NbS can harm biodiversity, e.g. when plantations replace or distract from need to protect intact ecosystems.

To address these issues, many organisations are developing guidance on what constitute successful, sustainable NbS. These converge on a set of key recommendations:

  1. NbS are not an alternative to decarbonisation.
  2. NbS protect, restore and connect a wide range of ecosystems on land and sea.
  3. NbS espect local rights and knowledge.
  4. NbS support biodiversity.

Ultimately, nature-based solutions need to be understood as ways of working with and as part of nature and framed in a way that ensures multiple values of nature are respected.

Ensuring long-term social-ecological integrity of NbS requires an improved evidence base, informed by science, practitioner and local and indigenous knowledges. There is urgent need for better understanding of where, when, how and for whom NbS can support mitigation and adaptation, especially in marine and non-forest ecosystems, low-income nations in general and their cities in particular and in comparison to technological solutions.

The article concludes that achieving net-zero will require systemic change in the way we behave as societies and run our economies, shifting to a dominant world view that is based on valuing quality of life and human wellbeing rather than material wealth, and connection with nature rather than its conquest. There are signals that this shift is taking place (e.g. rise of environmental activism). NbS offer an opportunity to accelerate this transition, whilst slowing warming, building resilience and protecting biodiversity

 

Ensuring nature-based solutions support both biodiversity and climate change adaptation

New research examines whether nature-based solutions can deliver a win-win for biodiversity and climate change adaptation.

Our recent study reviewed the effects of nature-based interventions for climate change adaptation on different metrics of ecosystem health (such as the diversity of species, their population sizes, or soil and water quality). Most interventions with positive outcomes for climate change adaptation also reported measurable benefits for ecosystem health. However there was also evidence of some trade-offs between outcomes for climate and biodiversity, mainly resulting from interventions involving forest management and creation of novel ecosystems that are not designed according to the ecological context, or with biodiversity in mind.

The briefing, ‘Ensuring Nature-based Solutions support both biodiversity and climate change adaptation’, includes recommendations for policymakers:

  1. Ensure that nature-based climate policy always explicitly supports biodiversity and ecosystem health.
  2. Design targets for NbS commitments, including within NDCs, that cover a wide range of aspects of ecosystem health, rather than using simplistic targets such as forest extent or measuring single benefits such as carbon storage.
  3. Initiate transformative change across sectors to address direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss which is essential for the sustainability of NbS.

Research, practice and policy communities need to work together, and with local communities, to improve the design, monitoring and management of NbS so that they deliver clear benefits for biodiversity and ecosystem health alongside climate goals.

Read the full briefing for key findings, and further policy and practice recommendations on how to improve understanding and delivery of better ecosystem health outcomes of NbS.

The briefing is based on the findings of:
Key, I., Smith, A., Turner, B., Chausson, A., Girardin, C., MacGillivray, M., Seddon, N. (2021). Can nature-based solutions deliver a win-win for biodiversity and climate change adaptation? Preprints 2021, 2021100336 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202110.0336.v1)
For queries, please contact: Professor Nathalie Seddon, corresponding author.

Keep updated by following @NaturebasedSols for the latest NbSI news and COP26 updates.

Nature-based solutions can reduce vulnerability to climate change

Our recent research examines the role of nature-based solutions (NbS) in addressing climate vulnerability in Bangladesh and rural Global South in general, and on ensuring NbS support both biodiversity and climate change adaptation.

We have summarised the key findings from these studies for policymakers in three briefings.

Bangladesh

This briefing ‘Tackling climate change with nature-based solutions in Bangladesh’ summarises a review by Smith et al. (in press) that found robust evidence that NbS can provide resilient and effective protection from climate risks while also supporting sustainable development and enhancing biodiversity.

The briefing includes recommendations for policymakers that focus on integrating support for NbS into government policy, focusing on four key success factors:

  1. Participatory delivery of NbS involving all stakeholders.
  2. Strong and transparent governance.
  3. Provision of secure finance and land tenure.
  4. Systematic monitoring of outcomes for people and biodiversity, in line with good practice guidelines.

Understanding the benefits of NbS can help to make the case for protecting Bangladesh’s remaining high-value natural assets, including the Sundarbans mangroves and Chittagong hill forests, as well as implementing more sustainable agricultural practices such as agroecology and agroforestry in the farmed landscape.

Read the full briefing for key findings, enabling factors, and evidence gaps for addressing climate vulnerability with nature-based solutions in Bangladesh.

Global South

This briefing ‘Reducing people’s vulnerability to climate change in the rural Global South using Nature-based Solutions’ synthesizes the findings of a recently published assessment of the effectiveness of nature-based interventions at reducing social and ecological vulnerability through different pathways, with findings that suggest that NbS (such as ecosystem-based adaptation), can help reduce people’s vulnerability to climate change impacts across a diversity of social and environmental contexts.

The briefing includes four recommendations for policymakers:

  1. Make explicit, in policy, that NbS can be implemented across a wide range of ecosystems and socioeconomic contexts.
  2. Recognize that the effectiveness of NbS and enabling factors are context-dependent.
  3. Engage the full range of affected stakeholders and rights holders to understand what makes NbS effective, address people’s adaptation priorities and needs, and how they link to wider development processes.
  4. Adapt policy response considering enabling factors and barriers that impact NbS effectiveness: political, technical, social, or economic.

Increasing insight into whether and how NbS reduce vulnerability to climate change in the Global South is key, given that this region is home to the majority of the world’s most climate-vulnerable people.

Read the full briefing for key findings, enabling factors, and an illustrative example of NbS effectiveness in reducing people’s vulnerability to climate change in the rural Global South.

Biodiversity & Climate Change Adaptation

Our third briefing summarises research by Key et al. (in review) that addresses the question: can nature-based solutions (NbS) deliver a win-win for biodiversity and climate change adaptation?

The study reviewed the effects of nature-based interventions for climate change adaptation on different metrics of ecosystem health (such as the diversity of species, their population sizes, or soil and water quality). Most interventions with positive outcomes for climate change adaptation also reported measurable benefits for ecosystem health. However there was also evidence of some trade-offs between outcomes for climate and biodiversity, mainly resulting from interventions involving forest management and creation of novel ecosystems that are not designed according to the ecological context, or with biodiversity in mind.

The briefing, ‘Ensuring Nature-based Solutions support both biodiversity and climate change adaptation’, includes recommendations for policymakers:

  1. Ensure that nature-based climate policy always explicitly supports biodiversity and ecosystem health.
  2. Design targets for NbS commitments, including within NDCs, that cover a wide range of aspects of ecosystem health, rather than using simplistic targets such as forest extent or measuring single benefits such as carbon storage.
  3. Initiate transformative change across sectors to address direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss which is essential for the sustainability of NbS.

Research, practice and policy communities need to work together, and with local communities, to improve the design, monitoring and management of NbS so that they deliver clear benefits for biodiversity and ecosystem health alongside climate goals.

Read the full briefing for key findings, and further policy and practice recommendations on how to improve understanding and delivery of better ecosystem health outcomes of NbS.

The Bangladesh Briefing is based on the findings of:
Smith, A., Tasnim, T., Irfanullah, H.M., Turner, B., Chausson, A. and Seddon, N. (2021) Nature-based Solutions in Bangladesh: evidence of effectiveness for addressing climate change and other sustainable development goals. Frontiers in Environmental Science (in press).
For queries, please contact: Tasfia Tasnim, Lead researcher.
email: tasfia.tasnim@icccad.org
Twitter: @NbSBangladesh
For more information on NbS in Bangladesh please visit nbsbangladesh.info.

The Global South briefing is based on the findings of:
Woroniecki, S.; Spiegelenberg, F.A.; Chausson, A.; Turner, B.; Key, I.; Irfanullah, H.; Seddon, N. Contributions of Nature-Based Solutions to Reduce Peoples’ Vulnerabilities to Climate Change across the Rural Global South. Preprints 2021, 2021100403 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202110.0403.v1).
For queries, please contact: Stephen Woroniecki, PhD, Lead researcher.
email: stephen.woroniecki@liu.se   twitter: @stephenworoniec

The biodiversity & climate change adaptation briefing is based on the findings of:
Key, I., Smith, A., Turner, B., Chausson, A., Girardin, C., MacGillivray, M., Seddon, N. (2021). Can nature-based solutions deliver a win-win for biodiversity and climate change adaptation? Preprints 2021, 2021100336 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202110.0336.v1)
For queries, please contact: Professor Nathalie Seddon, corresponding author.

Keep updated by following @NaturebasedSols for the latest NbSI news and COP26 updates.