News category: NBSI_PUBLICATION

NbSI publications

NbSI-WWF-RSPB report on Nature-based Solutions in UK Climate Adaptation Policy

Our report, ‘Nature-based solutions in UK climate adaptation policy‘, commissioned by the RSPB and WWF,  summarises evidence on the many ways in which Nature-based solutions (NbS) can address climate impacts in the UK, and explores the barriers and enabling factors that influence their wider uptake.

NbS can play a critical role in helping the UK to adapt to the impacts of climate change, including sea-level rise, floods, droughts and heatwaves, and our report highlights how the government could harness the potential of nature and make changes that would directly benefit the quality of life. A key strength of NbS is that they deliver multiple benefits: they tackle both the causes and effects of climate change, protecting against impacts such as floods and heatwaves, but also storing and sequestering carbon in soils and vegetation. In some cases, NbS can also enable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from other sources, such as when green roofs and urban trees help to cool buildings and reduce the need for air conditioning, or when nature-based farming reduces the need for synthetic fertilisers. NbS can also provide attractive, nature-rich places for recreation, education, and interaction with nature, supporting human health and wellbeing, and can provide new business opportunities such as through eco-tourism. As NbS support or enhance the health and diversity of ecosystems, in contrast to engineered solutions that often have negative impacts on both climate and biodiversity, they can thus tackle both the climate and biodiversity crises while also supporting health and local economies.

Globally, there are many initiatives to protect forests and plant more trees with the aim of capturing and storing carbon, but there is much less recognition and support for the role of NbS in climate change adaptation. The report outlines how NbS can help to address 33 of the 34 risks identified in the third Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA3), how they can help us adapt to a 2°C warmer world, and how they can be better integrated into UK and Devolved Administration policy, including in the next round of National Adaptation Plans.

A set of nine NbS case studies featured in the report exemplify these benefits and include urban green roofs and walls, river and wetland restoration, coastal realignment, beaver reintroduction, peat bog restoration, sustainable drainage projects, planting trees on farmland, and restoring kelp forests and seagrass meadows.

The report points out the government needs to provide far more funding and support for a nature-first approach to tackling climate impacts and presents many detailed recommendations to help with scaling up high-quality and resilient NbS. Working together to implement NbS can protect, restore, connect and enhance the natural assets that underpin the resilience of our economies, health and well-being, to provide benefits for both people and nature and safeguard the quality of life for millions in the UK.

Read more in the report press release and explore the details in the full report.

Investing in nature for development: do nature-based interventions deliver local development outcomes?

Does investing in nature actually deliver development at the local level? In a recent report undertaken in collaboration with IIED we provide insights into the types of direct, site-based interventions that can help or hinder the achievement of development outcomes for local people and, ultimately, the delivery of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

We consider a wide range of interventions and development outcomes, both positive and negative. Focusing specifically on poorer (low- and lower-middle-income) countries, the report explores documented evidence on how ‘nature-based interventions’ or ‘investments in nature’ (including protection, management, restoration, and harnessing nature for food production), can deliver tangible development outcomes for local people, including jobs, food security, empowerment, as well as resilience to climate change.

Overall, we found a wealth of evidence that investments in nature can be a ‘win-win’ for biodiversity and development. Our findings confirm those of previous analyses and provide a sound empirical evidence base to complement the wealth of anecdotal evidence on nature-development links, while also highlighting key remaining ‘knowledge gaps’.

Concluding with key recommendations for policy and practice, read the full report online.

Nature-based Solutions can help cool the planet – if we act now

This publication in Nature clarifies the role of NbS in climate change mitigation by presenting the projected effect of worldwide implementation of NbS on global temperatures. This approach differs from previous calculations of the climate change mitigation potential of NbS, which have focused solely on the amount of carbon that NbS could remove from the atmosphere. The analysis shows that although NbS have an important role to play in climate change mitigation up until 2050, their greatest contribution will be in the second half of this century, but to reap such benefits the processes of ecosystem protection, management and restoration must be initiated as soon as possible.

The new model estimates that if NbS are ramped up by 2025, assuming that only NbS with a cost of up to $100/tCO2 are implemented, then they could remove 10 GtCO2 from the atmosphere each year over coming decades. To put this figure in context, the global annual emissions from the transport sector were 8 GtCO2 in 2018. The the global mitigation potential of NbS comes 50:50 from avoided emissions and enhanced carbon sinks. Although restoration of ecosystems has gained the most public attention, the calculations show that restoration of forests and wetlands is responsible for sequestering carbon by only 2 GtCO2/yr. The bulk of mitigation potential actually comes from protection of intact forests, wetlands and grasslands (4 GtCO2/yr) and improved management of croplands, grazing lands and timber production (4 GtCO2/yr). 85% of the land requirement for this scenario would involve improving management of agricultural land, grazing pastures and forests, rather than changing land use altogether.

The authors modelled the effect of this scale of implementation on the “peak temperature” reached this century. This revealed that if non-NbS actions to reduce emissions managed to limit the peak of warming to a 1.5°C rise by 2055, then the additional implementation of NbS could reduce this warming by 0.1°C. In other words, NbS could allow us to peak at just 1.4°C of warming, keeping us well within Paris Agreement Targets. In contrast, if non-NbS actions limited peak warming to a 2°C rise by 2085, then implementation of NbS could reduce this warming by 0.3°C, i.e. reducing peak warming to 1.6°. Furthermore, NbS would continue to cool the atmosphere after peak warming has been reached. For example, in the 1.5°C scenario above, NbS would reduce warming by a total of 0.4°C by 2100, bringing temperature rise back down to under 1°C.

The overarching message is that the potential of NbS for slowing climate change is small compared to what can be achieved by cutting emissions across all sectors of the economy. However, so long as such emissions cuts do take place, NbS can substantially reduce the amount by which global temperatures rise. Upscaling NbS must also, crucially, follow best practice to ensure they provide their additional promised benefits in terms of climate change adaptation, enhancing the lives of local communities, and supporting healthy, resilient ecosystems.

This paper is the culmination of a team effort including Cécile Girardin (NbSI Technical Director) as lead author and Nathalie Seddon (NbSI Director).

On the misuse of nature-based carbon ‘offsets’
  1. Nature-based solutions (NbS*) are being misused for greenwashing. Promoting NbS as carbon ‘offsets’ while continuing business as usual in fossil fuel use is not a solution to climate change. In fact, it can encourage continued or even increased fossil fuel consumption leading to more emissions overall and can distract from the need for systemic change and a transition to a nature-positive economy [1].
  2. NbS can make an important contribution to reaching net-zero emissions, but only if combined with dramatic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. by burning less fossil fuel). Well-designed NbS, including the vital protection of carbon stored in intact ecosystems, play a key role in climate change mitigation as well as supporting other societal goals such as climate change adaptation, economic recovery and biodiversity conservation [2,3]. However, if they are not combined with rapid emission reductions, then impacts of climate change such as fires, droughts and disease will cause the carbon stored in ecosystems to be released back into the atmosphere, leading to further acceleration of climate change [4,5].
  3. Poor quality nature-based ‘offsets’ may have limited or negative effects on climate change mitigation as well as adverse impacts on biodiversity. Poorly planned carbon offset schemes, such as inappropriate tree planting on natural grasslands and peatlands, can add more carbon to the atmosphere than they take up (as carbon-rich soils are disturbed) [6-8]. There can also be negative impacts on biodiversity as the many species that depend on these naturally open habitats are lost [9,10].
  4. Poor quality nature-based ‘offsets’ can lead to human rights abuses. Some projects have been implemented without regard to the legal or customary land use rights of local people [11,12]. When this occurs, carbon offsetting can shift the burden of reducing emissions from wealthy countries, companies or individuals (who have contributed the most to climate change) to vulnerable people in the Global South (who have contributed the least) [13]. Furthermore, projects that are not led by or co-implemented with local people and fail to bring social benefits are less likely to be maintained as carbon stores in the long term [10,14].
  5. Fossil fuel extraction is often socially and ecologically destructive [15-17]. Using NbS to ‘offset’ the use of fossil fuels distracts attention from addressing these harmful impacts on people and the environment.

For further information on policy guidelines on how to implement successful, sustainable NbS that avoid social and environmental pitfalls please visit www.nbsguidelines.info and read our paper on getting the message right on nature-based solutions; for guidance criteria on how to implement NbS with integrity visit IUCN’s Global Standard for NbS.

*NbS are ways of working with nature to address societal challenges, providing benefits for human well-being and biodiversity. They are actions that involve the protection, restoration or management of natural and semi-natural ecosystems; the sustainable management of aquatic systems and working lands such as croplands or timberlands; or the creation of novel ecosystems in and around cities.

Download PDF – On the misuse of nature-based carbon ‘offsets’.

References

1.     Seddon, N., Smith, A., Smith, P., Key, I., Chausson, A., Girardin, C., House, J., Srivastava, S. and Turner, B., 2021. Getting the message right on nature‐based solutions to climate change. Global Change Biology, 27(8), pp.1518-1546. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15513

2.     Griscom, B.W., Busch, J., Cook-Patton, S.C., Ellis, P.W., Funk, J., Leavitt, S.M., Lomax, G., Turner, W.R., Chapman, M., Engelmann, J. and Gurwick, N.P., 2020. National mitigation potential from natural climate solutions in the tropics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 375(1794), p.20190126. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0126

3.     Chausson, A., Turner, B., Seddon, D., Chabaneix, N., Girardin, C.A., Kapos, V., Key, I., Roe, D., Smith, A., Woroniecki, S. and Seddon, N., 2020. Mapping the effectiveness of nature‐based solutions for climate change adaptation. Global Change Biology, 26(11), pp.6134-6155. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15310

4.     IPCC, 2018. Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Retrieved from: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

5.     Lovejoy, T.E. and Nobre, C., 2018. Amazon tipping point. Science Advances, 4(2). https://10.1126/sciadv.aat2340

6.     Brown, I., Castellazzi, M., & Feliciano, D. 2014. Comparing path dependence and spatial targeting of land use in implementing climate change responses. Land, 3, 850–873. https://doi.org/10.3390/land3030850

7.     Friggens, N. L., Hester, A. J., Mitchell, R. J., Parker, T. C., Subke, J.‐A., & Wookey, P. A. 2020. Tree planting in organic soils does not result in net carbon sequestration on decadal timescales. Global Change Biology, 26, 5178–5188. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15229

8.     Dass, P., Houlton, B.Z., Wang, Y. and Warlind, D., 2018. Grasslands may be more reliable carbon sinks than forests in California. Environmental Research Letters, 13(7), p.074027. https://10.1088/1748-9326/aacb39

9.     Veldman, J.W., Overbeck, G.E., Negreiros, D., Mahy, G., Le Stradic, S., Fernandes, G.W., Durigan, G., Buisson, E., Putz, F.E. and Bond, W.J., 2015. Where tree planting and forest expansion are bad for biodiversity and ecosystem services. BioScience, 65(10), pp.1011-1018. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv118

10.   Fleischman, F., Basant, S., Chhatre, A., Coleman, E.A., Fischer, H.W., Gupta, D., Güneralp, B., Kashwan, P., Khatri, D., Muscarella, R. and Powers, J.S., 2020. Pitfalls of tree planting show why we need people-centered natural climate solutions. BioScience, 70(11), pp.947-950. https://doi:10.1093/biosci/biaa094

11.   Cavanagh, C. and Benjaminsen, T.A., 2014. Virtual nature, violent accumulation: The ‘spectacular failure’ of carbon offsetting at a Ugandan National Park. Geoforum, 56, pp.55-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.06.013

12.   Barletti, J.P.S. and Larson, A.M., 2017. Rights abuse allegations in the context of REDD+ readiness and implementation. Center for International Forestry Research. http://www.jstor.com/stable/resrep16247

13.   Hickel, J., 2020. Quantifying national responsibility for climate breakdown: an equality-based attribution approach for carbon dioxide emissions in excess of the planetary boundary. The Lancet Planetary Health, 4(9), pp.e399-e404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30196-0

14.   Fa, J. E. et al. (2019). Importance of Indigenous Peoples’ lands for the conservation of Intact Forest Landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2148

15.   Healy, N., Stephens, J.C. and Malin, S.A., 2019. Embodied energy injustices: Unveiling and politicizing the transboundary harms of fossil fuel extractivism and fossil fuel supply chains. Energy Research & Social Science, 48, pp.219-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.09.016

16.   Bruederle, A. and Hodler, R., 2019. Effect of oil spills on infant mortality in Nigeria. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(12), pp.5467-5471. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1818303116

17.   Beyer, J., Trannum, H.C., Bakke, T., Hodson, P.V. and Collier, T.K., 2016. Environmental effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill: a review. Marine pollution bulletin, 110(1), pp.28-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.06.027

Why efforts to address climate change through nature-based solutions must support both biodiversity and people

In an essay published by the Royal Society, NbSI Director Nathalie Seddon describes the potential of working with nature to address the causes and consequences of climate change and discusses why NbS must be designed, implemented and adaptively managed by or in partnership with local communities to provide measurable benefits for biodiversity and ecosystem health.  Read the essay here.

Getting the message right on nature-based solutions

The role of nature-based solutions (NbS) in tackling the climate and nature crises has gained the world’s attention. They were high on the agenda at the World Economic Forum and the Climate Adaptation Summit last week, and will continue to be a central topic of discussion in the wake of COVID-19 and in the run-up to the CoP26 climate summit in November. However, confusion remains as to what exactly ‘counts’ as an NbS, how to deliver them successfully and their potential to contribute to different societal goals. Such lack of clarity has permitted the misuse of NbS for greenwashing by companies that drive climate change, and overemphasis on tree planting as a ‘silver bullet’ solution.

Our review, published today in Global Change Biology, provides clarity on how to ‘get the message right’ on NbS, to help enable large-scale investment in NbS and address the issues of greenwashing and poorly-planned projects. We provide a consensus on what comprises sustainable NbS, and present key recommendations on how to enable NbS to fulfill their potential and avoid their failure and misuse.

Key messages:

– Understanding of what NbS comprise has evolved over the last decade; we clarify the framing as ways of working with nature that are underpinned by biodiversity and led by local communities; people and nature co-produce ecosystem services (or Nature’s Contributions to People) which in turn benefit society and also feedback to support ecosystem health.

– The NbS concept has been co-opted to excuse business-as-usual fossil fuel use, and tree planting specifically has been over-emphasised as a ‘silver bullet’ solution to climate change. We collate examples of tree planting initiatives and public and private sector pledges for use of nature for climate change mitigation, and explain the potential pitfalls of such strategies, namely: distraction from decarbonising energy systems, oversight of non-forest ecosystems, and adverse impacts on local communities and biodiversity from poorly implemented projects.

– To sustainably scale NbS to address the biodiversity and climate crises, we identify three key needs:

  1. Practitioners, policymakers and researchers need to follow standardised principles and frameworks. We present four high-level guidelines which serve as policy guardrails:
    • NbS are not a substitute for the rapid phase out of fossil fuels and must not delay urgent action to decarbonize our economies.
    • NbS involve the protection and/or restoration of a wide range of naturally occurring ecosystems on land and in the sea.
    • NbS are implemented with the full engagement and consent of Indigenous Peoples and local communities,including women and disadvantaged groups, and be designed to build human capacity to adapt to climate change.
    • NbS support or enhance biodiversity, that is, the diversity of life from the level of the gene to the level of the ecosystem.
    • These guidelines complement existing frameworks which fill different roles, for example, the IUCN Global Standard provides detailed guidance on designing, implementing and verifying NbS actions.
  2. More holistic approaches are needed to balance the trade-offs and maximise benefits from NbS. This involves 1) participatory design and implementation using diverse forms of knowledge, 2) using a landscape approach including interactions between ecosystems, 3) managing the full suite of benefits and trade-offs across landscapes and stakeholders, 4) implementing NbS as part of an integrated sustainability strategy across sectors.
  3. Filling the annual ~US$300 billion funding gap for nature will require innovative strategies for mobilising both private and public finance. There is an urgent need for regulation of carbon offsetting using NbS, including parties claiming offsets meeting stringent criteria for emission reductions throughout their operations, and adoption of standards for evaluating the quality of NbS projects. We also highlight a need for a typology that identifies the benefits and trade-offs of NbS interventions for different stakeholders. All these changes must be supported by a fundamental shift in the economy to a sustainable model.

Read the article here and the press release here.

Role of NbS for Climate Change Adaptation in UK Policy

Just ahead of tomorrow’s Climate Ambition Summit, this report considers the important role of nature-based solutions (NbS) in climate change adaptation policy for the UK and its fourteen overseas territories. The report was written by NbSI, in collaboration with WWF and RSPB; together we will work with the UK government over the coming months to further develop the role of NbS in the UK climate change adaptation objectives, and will expand on the work set out in this document ahead of a revision of the Government’s Adaptation Communication expected in Summer 2021.

Nature-based solutions can reduce the negative effects of climate change on people, the economy and nature, and therefore increase the resilience of our societies to climate change. Critically, NbS can provide these adaptation benefits whilst also contributing to climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation. This report summarises the types of benefits that can be provided by different types of NbS that have potential to be upscaled in the UK and its territories. For example, protecting and restoring natural habitats along coasts or in river catchments can protect communities and infrastructure from flooding and erosion, whilst also enhancing biodiversity and increasing carbon storage. In urban areas, green spaces and trees can help with cooling and flood abatement, whilst storing carbon, filtering air pollution and providing recreation and health benefits for people.

The report also provides five key recommendations on how to ensure that NbS deliver multiple benefits, including climate change adaptation:

  1. NbS for climate change adaptation should be integrated with other policy areas, to unlock synergies and avoid adverse effects.
  2. Policy support should explicitly recognize the need for a landscape approach involving a diverse portfolio of NbS across different habitats.
  3. NbS should be carefully designed and implemented through a bottom-up and participatory approach involving multiple stakeholders.
  4. NbS should be planned to deliver measurable benefits for biodiversity through enhancing the health, diversity and connectivity of ecosystems and their habitats and species.
  5. Adaptation policy should set well-defined time-bound objectives and build capacity to effectively monitor NbS outcomes over the long term.

Read the report now.

The role of nature in the UK NDC

This report, from the RSPB and WWF based on analysis by Pete Smith and colleagues at the University of Aberdeen and with inputs from the Nature-based Solutions Initiative, makes science-based recommendations on how to include nature in an updated UK Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). Every Paris Agreement signatory has the chance to submit an updated NDC by the end of 2020; hence the UK still has a chance to strengthen its commitments to nature-based solutions for climate change mitigation and adaptation.

The report provides four key action points:

  1. Targets should include protecting existing carbon stocks, especially native woodlands, peatlands and permanent grasslands
  2. Targets should include enhancing carbon sinks through improved management, restoration and creation of a range of habitats. Key actions include rewetting peatlands, and nature-friendly woodland expansion, using a mix of native species and not planted on semi-natural grassland.
  3. Targets should explore mitigation potential beyond options that are currently accounted for the Greenhouse Gas Inventory. The importance of coastal and marine ecosystems for climate change adaptation must also be recognised.
  4. NDC implementation to 2030 and the long-term strategy to 2050 in the land and forest sector should prioritise the NbS approach, following the NbS Guidelines, so as to deliver biodiversity and wider socio-economic benefits in concert with outcomes to address climate change.

The report presents analysis of carbon dynamics in forests, peatlands, grasslands and seagrass meadows, estimating that improved protection, restoration, management and creation of these ecosystems could sequester an additional 75-123 MtCO2e by 2030 and 278-492 MtCO2e by 2050. With improved management of agricultural land, and NbS in other ecosystems such as kelp forests, the mitigation potential would be even greater.

Read the report here.

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

Our systematic review on the effectiveness of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation has been published in Global Change Biology. It is the first global systematic review of the effectiveness of nature-based solutions and provides evidence that nature-based solutions play a key role in addressing the impacts of climate change, but also highlights potential trade-offs to be avoided and evidence gaps where further study is needed.

The review investigates nearly 400 scientific studies including both real-world cases, and modelled scenarios. Of the real-world cases, most nature-based interventions (59%) were found to reduce climate impacts such as flooding, soil erosion and loss of food production, although in 12% of interventions some negative climate impacts were exacerbated.

Social, environmental, and greenhouse gas reduction benefits were also reported from nature-based solutions, supporting the proposition that they have an important role to play in global efforts to mitigate climate change and biodiversity loss, while also achieving other sustainable development goals. Although comparative studies were rare, where data were available nature-based solutions were found to be as or more effective than alternative approaches.

You can explore the evidence for yourself in our open-access interactive tool: www.naturebasedsolutionsevidence.info. This tool is the first of its kind, and is designed to help policymakers, practitioners and scientists identify evidence for the effects of specific types of nature-based solutions on climate impacts, greenhouse gases, biodiversity and local people.

‘This review shows that there is a wealth of evidence that nature-based solutions can and should play a key role in countries’ plans to mitigate and adapt to climate change,’ says Professor Nathalie Seddon, study author and Director of the Nature-based Solutions Initiative at the University of Oxford. ‘But not all solutions are equally beneficial. Evidence from artificial systems, such as tree plantations made up of non-native species, often found trade-offs, where some benefits are offset by adverse effects such as decreased water availability.’

Nature-based solutions are actions that work with and enhance nature to help address societal challenges while also supporting global biodiversity. Tree-planting is a well-known example with the potential to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and help achieve net-zero emissions targets. Other examples include protecting old-growth forests to reduce floods and landslides, and restoring coastal ecosystems as a defence against storms and sea level rise.

‘We hope policymakers will use this research to better understand which nature-based solutions are most effective, and how they can help with climate-related challenges while providing social and environmental benefits,’ explains Alexandre Chausson, study author and senior researcher in the Nature-based Solutions Initiative, University of Oxford. ‘It’s not just about tree-planting and greenhouse gas removal. In many cases nature-based interventions can help communities adapt to the wave of climate change impacts we’ve seen over the past months, from record-breaking heatwaves to wildfires and hurricanes.’

‘Although seeing nature-based solutions solely through an economic lens can undervalue their benefits, it’s also important to highlight their role in the green economic recovery from COVID-19,’ adds Alison Smith, study author and researcher at the Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford. ‘In the UK for example, restoring peat bogs or native woodland has been highlighted as a potential source of green jobs.’

‘Nature-based solutions can also provide goods and services that help to buffer communities when other sources of income fail,’ adds Beth Turner, study author and researcher at the Nature-based Solutions Initiative. ‘In Zimbabwe, for example, protected forests provide honey to supplement food and income when crops are lost to droughts. And beyond monetary value, properly implemented nature-based solutions can empower communities and build equity, which can contribute to climate change resilience in the long term.’

While the study highlights many successful nature-based solutions, there are still considerable research gaps. In particular, the evidence base is biased toward the Global North, despite communities in the Global South being generally more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and having the highest direct dependency on natural resources. There is also a great need for assessments of cost-effectiveness of nature-based solutions compared to alternative interventions, and integrated assessments looking at multiple different types of outcome (climate change adaptation and mitigation, social and ecological outcomes) simultaneously from the same nature-based solution, aiding identification of synergies and trade-offs.

Read the full paper here

Written in collaboration with Lucy Erickson, Head of Strategic Communications at the Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford

Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges

Understanding the value and limits of Nature-based Solutions to climate change and other global challenges. We discuss how NbS can contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation, and in what ways NbS is limited in a warming world. We examine NbS for adaptation in the context of the vulnerability framework, and look at how the major financial and governance challenges to implementing NbS at scale can be overcomes.

Read the full paper.

Abstract

There is growing awareness that ‘nature-based solutions’ (NbS) can help to protect us from climate change impacts while slowing further warming, supporting biodiversity and securing ecosystem services. However, the potential of NbS to provide the intended benefits has not been rigorously assessed. There are concerns over their reliability and cost-effectiveness compared to engineered alternatives, and their resilience to climate change. Trade-offs can arise if climate mitigation policy encourages NbS with low biodiversity value, such as afforestation with non-native monocultures. This can result in maladaptation, especially in a rapidly changing world where biodiversity-based resilience and multi-functional landscapes are key. Here, we highlight the rise of NbS in climate policy—focusing on their potential for climate change adaptation as well as mitigation—and discuss barriers to their evidence-based implementation. We outline the major financial and governance challenges to implementing NbS at scale, highlighting avenues for further research. As climate policy turns increasingly towards greenhouse gas removal approaches such as afforestation, we stress the urgent need for natural and social scientists to engage with policy makers. They must ensure that NbS can achieve their potential to tackle both the climate and biodiversity crisis while also contributing to sustainable development. This will require systemic change in the way we conduct research and run our institutions.

Enhancing climate ambition through NbS

On the basis of an analysis of comparative assessments of nature’s prominence in NDCs to date, our new report with IUCN highlights what can be done to fully harness the potential of NbS in global climate action. National commitments to NbS are also available via our NBS Policy Platform.

Global recognition of Nature-based Solutions

Our new paper reveals global support for Nature-based Solutions to climate change but highlights the need for high-level pledges to be met by science-based targets that benefit both people and ecosystems.

Non-technical summary

Ecosystems across the globe are vulnerable to the effects of climate change, as are the communities that depend on them. However, ecosystems can also protect people from climate change impacts. As the evidence base strengthens, nature-based solutions (NbS) are increasingly prominent in climate change policy, especially in developing nations. Yet intentions rarely translate into measurable, evidence-based targets. As Paris Agreement signatories revise their Nationally Determined Contributions, we argue that NbS are key to meeting global goals for climate and biodiversity, and we urge researchers to work more closely with policy-makers to identify targets that benefit both people and ecosystems.

Biodiversity loss is a development issue

“From genes to micro-organisms to top predators and even whole ecosystems, we depend on biodiversity for everything from clean air and water to medicines and secure food supplies. Yet human activities are destroying biodiversity around 1,000 times faster than natural ‘background’ rates.

This global biodiversity crisis is hitting the poorest communities first and hardest because they can ill-afford to ‘buy in’ biodiversity’s previously-free goods and services (and are already bearing the brunt of climate change).

So why does the development community often ignore biodiversity loss? This paper unpicks misunderstandings and sets out the evidence that biodiversity loss is much more than an environmental problem – it is an urgent development challenge.”

Grounding nature-based climate solutions in sound biodiversity science

We have a new paper out now in Nature Climate Change

Summary

The current narrow focus on afforestation in climate policy runs the risk of compromising long-term carbon storage, human adaptation and efforts to preserve biodiversity. An emphasis on diverse, intact natural ecosystems — as opposed to fast-growing tree plantations — will help nations to deliver Paris Agreement goals and much more.

Nature-based solutions: delivering national-level adaptation and global goals

“Many of the world’s vital natural ecosystems, and the communities reliant on them, are vulnerable to climate change. But there is increasing recognition that ecosystems — if sustainably restored and protected — can also form a strong line of defence against the direct impacts of climate change and support human adaptation over the long term. As the evidence base grows, ecosystems are increasingly prominent in climate change policy, especially in developing nations. Yet intentions rarely translate into robust and informed measurable targets, undermining action. As signatories to the Paris Agreement revise their Nationally Determined Contributions for 2020, we argue that nature-based solutions are a key tool for meeting global goals on climate change and sustainable development. In this policy brief, we urge national policymakers to work with scientists to identify meaningful targets that benefit both people and the ecosystems on which they depend.”