News category: NWS_POLICY

Policy

Updating guidance for effective and just Nature-based Solutions & Ecosystem-based approaches

Written by Audrey Wagner

Nature-based solutions (NbS) and ecosystem-based approaches are key to achieving Targets 8 and 11 of the Global Biodiversity Framework, but can only reach their potential if they are designed and implemented with the right guidelines and safeguards.

In 2019, the first guidelines were published after being formally adopted by the Parties to the UN Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD): Voluntary Guidelines for the Design and Effective Implementation of Ecosystem-based Approaches to Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction.

However, the six years since their publication have seen an explosion of interest around NbS, bringing important developments including the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions and its guidance for use in 2020, the four NbS guidelines from the NbSI, a multilaterally agreed-upon UNEA definition of NbS in March 2022, and the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) in December 2022.

To reflect this progress, Parties at CBD COP16 in Cali asked for a supplement to the original voluntary guidelines to provide guidance and tools based on good practices for the design, effective implementation and scaling up of nature-based solutions and ecosystem-based approaches, including updating guidance for fit-for-purpose social and environmental safeguards.

Earlier this month, experts gathered in Cambridge for a three-day workshop hosted by the UN CBD and UNEP-WCMC to work on the development of this supplement, including NbSI’s Audrey Wagner.

Key takeaways on guiding effective and just NbS and ecosystem-based approaches:

1. Building from and integrating with existing guidance

Participants recognised the importance of not ‘reinventing the wheel’, emphasising that the original guidelines remain highly relevant, and that the supplement will serve to integrate and align them with recent policy developments and other key guidelines including:

 

2. Recognising local context and the rights of IPLCs

Conversations highlighted the importance of properly understanding the local context prior to any intervention, building on existing governance structures, and embedding meaningful participation and/or leadership by Indigenous Peoples and local communities. As a minimum, this includes Indigenous Peoples’ right to self-determination, and a reminder of states’ legal obligation to practice free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). Safeguards should prevent existing inequalities being exacerbated and ensure access to justice and remedy in case harm does occur.

3. Promoting synergies and overcoming siloed thinking

Seeking to fill the gap in the current guidance, which focuses on climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction, the new supplement will, in part, focus on NbS and ecosystem-based approaches for climate mitigation. Audrey Wagner stressed that best-practice NbS projects, including those designed to bring mitigation benefits, should bring multiple local benefits where the intervention is based, which may encompass climate adaptation, food security, livelihood support and more.

In the workshop, Wagner called for better integration between guidance for mitigation and adaptation interventions to promote NbS and ecosystem-based approaches with holistic benefits. She warned that providing distinct guidance for ‘mitigation projects’ could further entrench the siloes between the mitigation and adaptation communities and exacerbate the carbon ‘tunnel-vision’, which has resulted in some mitigation-focused projects sidelining local priorities and biodiversity for the sake of carbon gains.

The need for policy coherence, integration and synergies has been gaining recognition recently (e.g. the IPBES Nexus Assessment and CBD decision 16/22 on biodiversity and climate synergies). It is thus imperative that all new guidance going forwards reflect this and strives to move beyond siloed thinking, whether between climate and biodiversity or mitigation and adaptation. Breaking these siloes in funding and financing mechanisms is particularly key, as intervention objectives and framings are often driven and determined by finance priorities geared towards narrow outcomes instead of multiple benefits and the needs of local people.

4. Embedding ecological integrity

The latest understanding of the importance of ecological integrity for providing multiple benefits and Nature’s Contributions to People should be reflected in the supplementary guidelines and in policy. All NbS interventions must, by definition, support and enhance biodiversity and therefore stronger biodiversity safeguards and guidelines for protecting and restoring ecological integrity are important for ensuring this and holding actors to account.

5. Ensuring robust implementation

Participants acknowledged that while many good safeguards exist, they are frequently not fully applied and implemented, often in the name of urgency. The dissemination, communication and uptake of the original and supplementary guidelines will be crucial for them to have impact. The guidelines, principles and safeguards in the new supplement must be well designed, but the implementation, monitoring and adaptive learning from them are equally vital steps.

 

Read more about the imperative of aligning policy on climate and biodiversity (The Conversation article by Nathalie Seddon and Audrey Wagner).

The Academia and Research Organisations group: engagement at CBD COP16

Written by Audrey Wagner and Hannah Nicholas

During the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16) to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Cali, Colombia, NbSI’s Audrey Wagner, alongside Hannah Nicholas, coordinator of CASCADE at the University of Oxford, led the Academia and Research Organisations group.

The Academia and Research Organisations group (A&R group) provides a collective platform to support meaningful participation and engagement of academics and researchers in CBD processes.

Comparable to the role of RINGO (Research and Independent Non-Governmental Organizations) in the UNFCCC climate convention context, the A&R group emphasises the importance of evidence-informed decision making and highlights the unique contributions that science and research can make in global environmental policy.

While Academia and Research has been an official constituency in the CBD for decades, the A&R group was dormant until it was revived in 2022. This renewal has allowed for academia to begin employing a more coordinated approach to engaging at CBD COPs such as COP16, which took place from Oct 21st to Nov 1st, 2024. COP16 was the biggest biodiversity COP to date with increased participation across the board, including over 800 individuals formally registered under Academia and Research accreditation.

The A&R group contains a diverse collection of researchers working across disciplines and regions, with individuals focused on the wide variety of issues under the CBD. Expertise ranges from geneticists and lawyers working on digital sequencing information, to ecologists informing the indicators of the monitoring framework, to anthropologists working on issues surrounding the participation of Indigenous Peoples. Despite the inherent challenges of reaching consensus across such broad research areas, the group was nevertheless able to make significant strides at COP16, including:

  • Crafting Opening and Closing Statements: Under Audrey’s and Hannah’s leadership, the A&R group was able submit opening and closing statements developed by consensus. The opening statement was co-delivered by NbSI Programme Coordinator and Researcher Audrey Wagner on behalf of A&R in plenary at the conference, and highlighted that integrating a diversity of knowledge systems will be crucial to achieving the goals and targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF).
  • Hosting the A&R Hub: The group coordinated the A&R Hub throughout the two weeks of COP16, where A&R members hosted dozens of ad-hoc side events. Topics included NbS for transformational change, and a workshop on how academics can better engage with the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which plays a similar role to the CBD as the IPCC plays in synthesising scientific evidence for informing negotiations in the climate convention.
  • Organising an Official Side Event: The A&R group contact points also organised an official side event in the Multistakeholder Auditorium, titled ‘Academia and Research Actions for the CBD Global Biodiversity Framework’. The event was opened with a presentation by David Obura, Chair of IPBES, and followed by a series of flash-talks from A&R members, showcasing the diversity of A&R delegate expertise.
  • Daily check-ins: Daily morning meetings were held in the dedicated pavilion for Academia and Research Organisations. These meetings enabled delegates to share intel on the negotiations and other relevant side events, discuss group activities and strategies, draft statements, network, and build community.
  • Communication: An A&R COP16 WhatsApp chat also served to unite academics and researchers attending COP16, facilitating connections and networking between scientists, delegates, the CBD Secretariat, and other caucuses. Interest in leveraging the group’s expertise grew amongst Parties as the group’s profile increased in prominence compared to past COPs, resulting in the group’s members being informally called upon to help provide evidence to support ambitious outcomes in the negotiations.

The increased visibility and impact of the A&R group at COP16 signals a shift toward greater recognition of the essential role academia can play in biodiversity governance. To achieve the ambitious goals and targets of the KMGBF, it is critical that academia and research remain actively engaged in CBD processes.

Over the coming months and in the lead up to CBD COP17 in Armenia in 2026, the A&R group will be actively building connections, strengthening its community, increasing the diversity of its membership, fostering partnerships, enhancing knowledge-sharing mechanisms, and advocating for the integration of science in the mission to halt and reverse biodiversity loss.

Fragmented Governance Endangers Biodiversity, Climate, and Human Systems, Warns IPBES Report

A new report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) highlights the dangers of fragmented governance across biodiversity, climate change, food, water, and health systems. The “Nexus Assessment” emphasizes the interconnectedness of these crises and warns that addressing one issue in isolation risks compounding others.

Prof Pam McElwee, co-chair of the report and a professor at Rutgers University, told a press briefing that biodiversity, climate, food, water and health should not be treated as “single-issue crises”.

She further underscored the urgency of a unified approach: “These are interlinked crises. They are compounding each other. They are making things worse, and the current business as usual approach is not only failing to tackle the drivers of these problems, [but] in some cases, we are wasting money because we’re duplicating policies, when in fact, we could be treating them as issues that need to be dealt with together.”

The assessment identifies critical challenges, including the dominance of economic systems that prioritize short-term gains at the expense of biodiversity and equity. While biodiversity loss is accelerating due to unsustainable practices, the report also outlines pathways to reverse these trends. The report, which contains over 70 recommendations for addressing these interconnected issues in a holistic manner, include shifting to sustainable healthy diets, investing in biodiversity-positive activities, and reforming financial systems to close the $300 billion to $1 trillion annual funding gap for nature protection.

The Nexus Assessment report calls for integrated governance to align global actions, ensuring mutually beneficial outcomes for nature and humanity.

Read the full summary for policymakers on the IPBES website.

The promise and the challenges of Brazil’s new NDC

At COP29, Brazil was one of the first countries to submit its updated Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), pledging to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by up to two-thirds by 2035, compared to 2005 levels. The early submission of credible and ambitious NDCs by signatories is critical for keeping the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C temperature goal within reach. This move marks a significant step under the Paris Agreement, which requires countries to update their NDCs every five years. The next round of submissions is due by February 2025, ahead of COP30 in Belém, where all Parties’ NDCs will be reviewed.

Brazil’s new NDC: ambitious targets with room for improvement

Brazil’s updated NDC commits to reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by 59%–67% by 2035, compared to 2005 levels. This translates to a target range of 1.05 GtCO2e (upper limit) to 0.85 GtCO2e (lower, more ambitious limit) by 2035. This is a marked improvement from the country’s 2016 NDC, which set less ambitious goals of a 37% reduction by 2025 and 43% by 2030.

While Brazil’s early submission has been applauded, critics argue that the country should strive to meet the lower, more ambitious end of its target range. As one of the world’s largest economies and a significant emitter of greenhouse gases, Brazil’s leadership is pivotal, especially as it prepares to host COP30 in 2025. The country’s vast biodiversity, including 60% of the Amazon rainforest, positions it uniquely to influence global climate discussions.

Alignment with our research

Brazil’s NDC’s target of 0.85 GtCO2eq by 2035 closely aligns with projections from one of the scenarios developed in a study led by NbSI Fellow Aline Soterroni, published last year (Soterroni et al., 2023), supported by the Agile Initiative. The research integrated Brazil’s official emissions model (BLUES) with the detailed GLOBIOM-Brazil model, focusing on land use and agriculture, sectors responsible for nearly three-quarters of Brazil’s emissions.

The study estimates that fully implementing Brazil’s Forest Code could reduce emissions to 0.82 GtCO2e by 2035. This would require halting illegal deforestation and restoring 12 million hectares of native vegetation. Dr Soterroni emphasised the importance of the Forest Code, stating:

“Although our study indicates that a more ambitious scenario would be possible for 2035, it also reinforces the urgent need of the Forest Code’s implementation for Brazil to achieve significant short-term emissions reductions. These efforts would also deliver multiple benefits for people and nature, including enhanced resilience against climate change impacts and the conservation of biodiversity in critical ecosystems such as the Amazon”.

Strengths of Brazil’s updated NDC

Brazil’s NDC demonstrates leadership in several aspects.

The document underscores the importance of guaranteeing the rights of Indigenous peoples and traditional populations, while promoting climate justice and advancing human rights. This commitment represents a significant breakthrough in acknowledging the essential, practical, and transformative roles that Indigenous peoples and local communities play in safeguarding and restoring biodiversity and, by extension, maintaining the health of the biosphere. Considering the pivotal role these communities play in stewarding Brazil’s uniquely biodiverse and carbon-rich biomes, this recognition is both timely and vital. Civil society have also commended Brazil for making reference to “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems” and for making one of its National Mitigation Objectives to “encourage the replacement of fossil fuels by promoting the development and use of sustainable biofuels and electrification solutions”.

The document underscores the importance of guaranteeing the rights of Indigenous peoples and traditional populations, while promoting climate justice and advancing human rights.

To implement its NDC, Brazil will update its national climate plan, incorporating national mitigation and adaptation strategies. These strategies will be broken down into “16 sectoral adaptation plans and seven sectoral mitigation plans, which are intended to be finalised around the mid[dle of] 2025.” Ensuring that NDC targets are closely linked to and translated into national policies is crucial to maintaining the plan’s credibility. The NDC highlights Brazil’s commitment to mainstreaming climate mitigation and adaptation efforts, adopting a “whole-of-government, whole-of-society and whole-of-economy” approach to tackle the complex challenges of climate change.

Another strength of the NDC is that it emphasises the importance of the protection and restoration of nature, ecosystem-based adaptation, and of integrating nature-based solutions with sustainable urban development.

Concerns and challenges

Despite its strengths, Brazil’s NDC raises several concerns. One issue is the broad emission target range of 1.05 GtCO2e to 0.85 GtCO2e by 2035, which may complicate implementation and analysis due to its significant variability.

Another concern is the omission of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s pledge to achieve “zero deforestation” in Brazil by 2030. While the NDC includes language about “coordinated and continuous efforts to achieve zero deforestation, by eliminating illegal deforestation and compensating for the legal suppression of native vegetation and the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from it,” this phrasing is vague and lacks a clear, time-bound commitment. Such ambiguity leaves potential loopholes for continued deforestation, undermining the credibility of Brazil’s climate objectives.

Worryingly, the NDC places significant reliance on biofuels and bioenergy as part of its transition plans, using language such as aiming to “expand sustainable biofuel production,” “develop bioenergy-related value chains,” and “adopt measures to increase the use of biofuels in the Brazilian energy matrix.” Specific mention is made of “expanding biofuel production associated with carbon capture and storage to meet the demand for negative greenhouse gas emissions,” referring to the practice of Bioenergy Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS). However, BECCS remains highly contentious, with scientific uncertainty surrounding its sustainability and significant challenges related to nascent carbon capture and storage technology, land-use requirements, and potential trade-offs with food and water security. There are also uncertainties about the presumed advantage of bioenergy crops over fossil fuels when emissions are assessed across their full lifecycle. Large-scale monoculture plantations for bioenergy crops are particularly vulnerable to climate impacts such as droughts, further questioning their viability. These risks exemplify how climate action could come at the expense of other societal goals, signalling a misalignment between Brazil’s climate and nature agendas.

Brazil, like a great many other nations, missed the COP16 deadline to submit its National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP). It’s important that its NBSAP complements rather than contradicts the NDC, working synergistically to balance climate and biodiversity goals. As Soterroni et al. (2023) demonstrates, nearly 80% of Brazil’s net-zero pledge could be achieved through nature-based solutions (i.e halting deforestation and restoring native habitats), offering a sustainable pathway to emissions reductions whilst protecting much of Earth’s biodiversity and the ancestral lands of many Indigenous groups.

Adding to these concerns, ongoing oil exploration in the Amazon basin starkly contradicts Brazil’s stated ambitions to lead in environmental stewardship. Such activities jeopardise both biodiversity and the credibility of the country’s climate leadership.

While the country’s early updated NDC submission is encouraging and the headline emission reduction targets appear to be aligned with the achievement of the Paris Agreement goals, gaps remain around its implementation. As COP29 has come to a close, the world now looks to Brazil, the host of COP30, dubbed the ‘nature COP’, to lead by example and align policy agendas on climate action and biodiversity conservation.

Read a more detailed analysis of Brazil’s NDC for more information.

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.

Nature-based solutions for transformative change at COP16

At the halfway point of COP16 in Cali, our Director, Nathalie Seddon, joined fellow academics and researchers to discuss how nature-based solutions (NbS) can drive the transformative change urgently needed to restore balance between people, nature and climate.

“Nature-based solutions have the power to transform not just our landscapes but also how we think and act. They have the potential to be genuinely holistic, going beyond being solutions to climate, biodiversity and justice issues—they have potential to reshape our mindset and invite us to see nature as a partner in our well-being. Rather than being seen as tools or projects or policies, NbS might best be understood as pathways to a more balanced relationship with the earth” – Prof Nathalie Seddon, Director of NbSI

Key attributes of NbS

There was consensus amongst the panellists that NbS hold three core attributes:

  • Addressing societal challenges: NbS must address societal challenges, such as climate change and economic inequality
  • Ecosystem integrity: NbS must restore and maintain ecosystem integrity and biodiversity
  • Indigenous and local rights: NbS must secure rights and promote benefits for people locally

Barriers and enablers for transformative NbS

The panel emphasised the importance of avoiding trade-offs between climate policy and biodiversity. Nathalie warned against NbS projects that prioritise carbon sequestration over biodiversity or community well-being. She highlighted the risks of viewing NbS as purely technical solutions, like large-scale monoculture plantations, rather than considering their local ecological, social and cultural context.  The transformative power of NbS lies in inclusive, community-led approaches supported by strong governance, clear policies, and ongoing adaptive management to respond to evolving conditions and unique ecological contexts. The panel underscored the critical importance of amplifying Indigenous Peoples and local communities’ voices, whose worldviews are the foundations and drivers of lasting systems change. Nathalie shared:

“What gives me hope is the growing strength of the leadership and agency of IPLCs and other marginalised groups in NbS, and linked to this, deepening interest in nature reconnection as a core part of system change. There’s more awareness that rebuilding our relationship with nature is fundamental, not just for tackling climate and biodiversity crises but for shifting our entire mindset towards sustainable living. The surge in research and collaboration around this is inspiring. ”

She emphasised the importance of working collaboratively to embrace this mindset change, support local initiatives, share knowledge, and make space for diverse voices to shape NbS that benefit nature, and people as part of nature.

“Remembering our kinship with all of nature, and shifting from an anthropocentric to an ecocentric or kincentric world view is central and I do think nature-based solutions can play a critical role in that.”

Looking forward, the panel celebrated the momentum created by the community at COP16 and the potential for NbS to bring transformative change by connecting biodiversity, climate and equity through collaborative action.

Director Seddon at COP16
Director Seddon at COP16. Photo Philipp Montenegro

Explore further key actions for transformative NbS in our 2024 Conference Report: Growing Positive Change.

Update from COP16: Signs that Latin America is stepping up on climate and nature leadership

As hosts of the COP16 Biodiversity summit and the upcoming COP30 Climate, Colombia and Brazil are showing signs of leadership on how the crises of biodiversity loss and climate change are closely linked and must be tackled together. An open letter from over 70 global leaders – representing business, finance, civil society, Indigenous Peoples and youth – calls on President Petro of Colombia and President Lula of Brazil, to drive ‘one year of united action on climate, nature and food.’

The letter from these leaders asserts that, “Colombia and Brazil can forge a Latin American partnership that will guide the world by demonstrating the interconnectedness of climate and nature.”

This endorsement comes during a crucial phase at the ongoing CoP16, where nations are attempting to come to agreements over how best to operationalise the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

Signatories of this call to action include influential environmentalists Christiana Figueres, Mary Robinson, Johan Rockström, and crucially Indigenous leaders Juan Carlos Jintiach and Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim. Big companies with high impacts on nature, such as Natura, Danone, and Nestlé, as well as financial organisations such as Legal & General Group plc, PRI, and IIGCC, are also backing the initiative, alongside civil society groups.

The letter outlines three main priorities for the coming year of collective action:

 

  1. Strengthen national strategies by aligning climate plans with biodiversity and food security goals. This approach aims to create benefits for society, nature, and food security, with policies to end deforestation and strengthen ocean protection by 2030.
  2. Boost investment for nature and food system transformation by increasing financial flows. This should include tripling biodiversity finance by 2030 and prioritising direct access to finance for farmers, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities. Hopefully at COP this week divisions on financing the GBF can be overcome!
  3. Ensure inclusive decision-making by bringing farmers, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities to the forefront of decision making, policy discussions and monitoring processes. Their knowledge and leadership are absolutely critical to protecting and restoring biodiversity.

At a high-level event in Cali, Sônia Guajajara, Brazil’s Minister of Indigenous Peoples, and Nohora Quintero, Colombia’s Ambassador, also welcomed the broad support and stressed the importance of advancing both climate and nature action in synergy.

In tandem, the decision text on the need for synergies between these issues is improving and there have been some important related announcements at COP16, including growing support for a Tropical Forests Forever Facility and Brazil’s renewed commitment to restore 12 million hectares of native ecosystems by 2030.

Leadership by Latin America on climate and nature is vital as the region holds much of the world’s biodiversity and land-based carbon, making it key to the global fight against biodiversity loss and climate change. However, such leadership is undermined by the much less positive news that a key paragraph warning about the dangers to biodiversity of scaling bioenergy crops was dropped from the negotiated text; while the UK, EU and other nations supported its inclusion, Brazil rejected it, and were backed by China and Argentina…

Read the open letter: Cali to Belém

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

NbSI at COP16: What we’re doing, what’s happening, and what outcomes we’re hoping for

The 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16) to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity is now well underway in Cali, Colombia, bringing together nearly 190 nations to tackle the critical challenge of reversing biodiversity loss, addressing the interconnected climate crisis, and improving well being globally. This COP is particularly significant as it is the first since the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) at COP15, and the key overarching question is how countries will fulfil their pledge to protect at least 30% of the world’s land and water and restore 30% of degraded ecosystems by 2030. In other words, how will countries translate their commitments into concrete actions on the ground.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres described it as an opportunity to “make peace with nature” and turn the framework into a lived reality. Known as the “people’s COP,” it emphasises inclusive, equitable solutions that prioritise Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.

What NbSI Is doing at COP16

As negotiations progress, with much at stake, we are working to strengthen the link between science and policy with a focus on the role of high integrity nature-based solutions in aligning policy action on climate and biodiversity.

We’re taking a multi-layered approach:

We are collaborating with NGOs in direct communication with negotiators to help ensure that the most up-to-date scientific insights are reflected in decision texts. This includes facilitating connections between the Academia and Research Organisations Group—which we are coordinating and of which the Oxford delegation is part—and coalitions like the Friends of Synergies group.

Participating in side events, we are helping to enhance understanding of the potential of high-integrity NbS not only to help mitigate climate change by enhancing carbon storage and reducing emissions but also to support adaptation to climate change and other societal goals. This week we are sharing our recent study showing how investment in nature-based solutions can support economic recovery. Stay tuned.

We are advocating for the alignment of biodiversity and climate action based on scientific evidence, emphasising the importance of prioritising the protection of high-integrity ecosystems—those that are biodiverse, healthy, connected, and community-stewarded— as these show greatest resilience to climate impacts and harbour most of Earth’s biodiversity. To this end, we are actively monitoring the negotiations on agenda item 25, which addresses the links between biodiversity and climate action.

We are doubling down on what counts as a nature-based solution. It is crucial to clearly define NbS, ensuring they genuinely embody community involvement, biodiversity enhancement, and human rights-based approaches. We are committed to keeping these principles at the forefront of discussions.

We have organised Oxford’s largest delegation to a biodiversity COP, reflecting our commitment to integrating the best evidence into policy and aligning efforts on biodiversity and climate. We aim to elevate biodiversity loss to the same level of urgency as climate change, ensuring both crises are addressed concurrently.

Key issues so far

During the first week, some progress has been reported on addressing the root causes of biodiversity loss, sustainable management of wildlife and on establishing collaborations among countries that are attempting to integrate nature into policies for agriculture, education, and health. Perhaps most welcome, is the universal recognition of the critical importance of ensuring that diverse values and knowledge systems guide practical actions on the ground and that robust flows of finance must be secured to IPLCs.

Ongoing discussions are centred on strengthening synergies between climate and nature initiatives, as addressed in agenda item 25, which relates to Target 8 of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). Additionally, deliberations are underway on Article 8J, involving new proposals for a work programme and the establishment of a permanent body to provide institutional support, ensuring the full and meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in the Convention’s efforts.

A key challenge under agenda item 25, focusing on biodiversity and climate change, is paragraph 5, which aims to optimise co-benefits and synergies in financing while avoiding double counting of biodiversity and climate funds. Developing countries, in particular, have raised concerns that double counting could reduce overall financing for their biodiversity and climate initiatives. This issue ties into ongoing discussions on resource mobilisation, and deliberations are in progress for a resolution. Another important aspect is paragraph 14, which may propose steps to enhance cooperation between the CBD and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), including potential wording on a Joint Work Programme across the conventions, or more likely, on a joint CBD/UNFCCC expert meeting on biodiversity and climate change in 2025, to further explore other options, and to prepare a summary report of this expert meeting for consideration prior to COP17.

Despite progress, substantial divisions remain, particularly regarding resource mobilisation and benefit-sharing from the use of genetic resources. Moreover, as of the end of the first week, only 34 countries and the European Union (representing 18% of Parties) have submitted revised National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), with 115 countries (59% of Parties) revising their national targets. Colombia, as the COP16 Presidency holder, set an ambitious tone by submitting a strong NBSAP on the opening day, providing an example for others. Nevertheless, we need to see all parties submitting robust NBSAPs, ideally aligned with NDCs and NAPs, over the coming months.

It remains uncertain whether disagreements over how to mobilise adequate financial support for the implementation of the KMGBF will be resolved in the coming days.

Our hopes for NbS at COP16

We have several key outcomes relevant to scaling nature-based solutions that we’re hoping for at COP16:

  • Synergies between climate and biodiversity action
    We hope that COP16 will strengthen the synergies between policy and action for biodiversity, climate, and social equity. This includes aligning National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) with Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs). We believe that Colombia’s leadership will be crucial in achieving this alignment, setting a precedent for cross-convention collaboration through agenda items like 13 (Cooperation) and 25 (Biodiversity and Climate Change). Strong commitments from Colombia and other parties could establish a clear pathway for collaboration, benefiting future COPs, including COP30 in Brazil.
  • Centring justice and equity
    NbS must be co-designed and implemented in close collaboration with Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs), who are the primary stewards of biodiversity. We hope that the decision text has strong commitments to human rights-based approaches, explicitly protecting the rights of IPLCs, women, and marginalised groups. Empowering these communities is crucial for achieving both effective biodiversity conservation and social equity, ensuring that NbS provide fair, inclusive, and genuinely sustainable outcomes.
  • Ensuring ecosystem integrity
    Protecting ecosystem integrity is essential for the long-term success of NbS. This means enhancing ecosystem health and resilience, while supporting critical services like carbon sequestration, water regulation, and biodiversity conservation. COP16 should maintain strong language that emphasises the importance of integrity and resilience, ensuring that NbS continue to provide sustained environmental benefits that humanity relies upon.
  • Safeguards against greenwashing
    Robust safeguards are needed to prevent NbS from being used as a cover for greenwashing or harmful carbon offsetting schemes. True climate action must not come at the expense of biodiversity or the well-being of local communities. We therefore need mechanisms that enforce these safeguards, ensuring that NbS do not perpetuate environmental and social harm or serve merely as superficial carbon offsetting tools.
  • Embracing complexity and building resilience
    NbS must consider the complexity of ecological and social systems, which requires adaptive governance frameworks that evolve in response to real-world outcomes. We therefore hope  for some language that reflects this.
  •  Accountability and transparency
    Accountability is vital for the success of NbS. We call for robust monitoring and reporting systems to track progress and ensure transparency. NbS initiatives must adhere to high standards with clear, open governance and decision-making processes. Strengthening accountability mechanisms will ensure that NbS deliver measurable and verifiable benefits, building trust in these solutions and their implementation.

 

Keep up-to-date with our work at COP16 on LinkedIn and X.

Read our newly released NbS Conference 2024 Report to explore key actions for COP16 and beyond: Growing Positive Change Report.

The cost-effectiveness of nature-based solutions for reducing disaster risk

Although  nature-based solutions are widely recognised by international frameworks and national policies, the economic viability and equity implications of them as potential solutions to reduce disaster risks requires further exploration.

A recent study, led by Marta Vicarelli from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, addresses this critical gap by developing a comprehensive database of peer-reviewed studies that analyse the economic and social impacts of NbS.

Building a global knowledge base for Eco-DRR and EbA

This study centres on two primary forms of nature-based solutions (NbS): Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction (Eco-DRR) and Ecosystem-based Climate Change Adaptation (EbA). Both approaches are designed to bolster resilience by utilising natural ecosystems—such as wetlands, coastal areas, forests, and mangroves—to mitigate risks like flooding, erosion, and storms.

The research team compiled data from 402 observations across 87 peer-reviewed studies, resulting in a comprehensive database that highlights the effectiveness, funding structures, and socio-economic outcomes of these interventions.

This in-depth review builds on a broader global assessment of more than 500 studies that analyse Eco-DRR approaches. By concentrating on the economic dimensions of these nature-based strategies, the research adds to the growing body of evidence supporting their use as effective alternatives to traditional engineering-based solutions.

Cost-effectiveness and socio-economic benefits

A key finding of the study is that over 80% of the reviewed studies found NbS to be more cost-effective than conventional engineering solutions for disaster risk reduction. Beyond offering direct economic benefits by shielding communities from environmental hazards, these interventions provide significant co-benefits, such as biodiversity restoration, improved water quality, and carbon sequestration—all of which support long-term socio-economic resilience.

However, cost-effectiveness is context-dependent. Around 24% of the studies reviewed pointed out that while NbS are generally effective, their success often hinges on factors such as geographic location and ecosystem type. Mangroves, wetlands, and coastal ecosystems emerged as consistently among the most effective in disaster mitigation, with robust evidence of their ability to reduce risks associated with flooding and storms.

Social justice and equity impacts

The study also explores the equity implications of NbS, going beyond purely economic considerations. It underscores the vital role of local and indigenous communities in ecosystem stewardship, highlighting the importance of inclusive decision-making processes. By adopting participatory approaches, NbS policies can more effectively reflect the needs and preferences of marginalised groups, ensuring equitable distribution of benefits across socio-economic boundaries.

The review also identified gaps in the existing literature concerning the social justice aspects of NbS. Further research is needed to evaluate how various income groups benefit from ecosystem-based interventions, especially in regions where vulnerable populations are most at risk from climate-related disasters.

Scaling-up with finance

One of the critical insights from the study is the need for more comprehensive approaches to financing NbS. At present, most NbS projects are funded by the public sector, but there is increasing recognition of the potential role of blended public-private partnerships in scaling these interventions to meet global challenges. Engaging private sector finance in green infrastructure could be key to expanding these efforts on a larger scale.

The authors also note that the success of NbS is often linked to property rights. Effective governance structures are crucial for managing and restoring ecosystems, and financing models must take into account different property ownership arrangements.

Challenges and research gaps

Despite the promise of NbS, the review highlights several challenges and research gaps. A major issue is the lack of a globally standardised approach for monitoring and evaluating NbS performance, which complicates comparisons of effectiveness across different ecosystems and regions. Additionally, some hazards—such as drought—are underrepresented in the current literature, despite their significant impact on millions worldwide.

The study concludes by strongly endorsing NbS as a sustainable and cost-effective solution for disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation, finding that NbS not only provide immediate economic benefits but also contribute to long-term social and environmental resilience. However, as climate change accelerates and disasters become more frequent and severe, the study emphasises further research into the biodiversity benefits of NbS and their long-term effectiveness is needed.

This research offers key timely insights into the viability of nature-based solutions, providing a foundation for informed decision-making by policymakers and stakeholders. By considering both the economic and social dimensions of NbS, we can develop a more holistic understanding of how natural ecosystems can contribute to mitigating global disaster risks and enhancing climate adaptation efforts.

Read the paper.

 

The cross-boundary impact of EU’s carbon dioxide removal strategy in Brazil

In a recent publication, NbSI’s Aline Soterroni and collaborators took a a close look at the European Union’s (EU) Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) strategy and its implications beyond EU borders, particularly in Brazil. The study, published in a broader work on European climate policy, raises important questions about the environmental and social impacts of CDR measures like Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and large-scale afforestation projects on the Global South.

Europe’s climate strategy—implications beyond its borders

The EU aims to reach climate neutrality by 2050, and CDR methods are a significant part of this plan. These include afforestation, reforestation, and the deployment of BECCS—technologies that convert biomass into energy while capturing and storing carbon emissions. However, with the land required to implement these strategies often being sourced in regions like Latin America, there is a growing concern about the potential for negative ecological and social impacts on these areas.

The study explores the requirements for Brazil to support EU carbon neutrality, which could involve vast areas of land—up to 152.5 million hectares by 2050. This requirement could exceed 80% of Brazil’s projected pasturelands, leading to intense competition for land between agriculture, forest restoration, and CDR projects. Such pressures threaten to undermine local food production and natural ecosystems, complicating Brazil’s own sustainability goals.

Environmental and social threats of carbon removal in Brazil

The study highlights significant risks linked to the deployment of short-rotation monoculture Eucalyptus plantations—a typical choice for BECCS. While fast-growing, these plantations can lead to severe soil degradation, including compaction and nutrient depletion, which could have long-term consequences for soil health and productivity. Additionally, large-scale monocultures affect biodiversity by replacing native habitats and could result in reduced resilience of the local ecosystems.

Water scarcity is another critical issue. Eucalyptus plantations are water-intensive, particularly in regions that are already water-stressed, such as northeastern Brazil. The study notes that monoculture afforestation could exacerbate water shortages, affecting both agricultural productivity and the availability of clean drinking water.

The social consequences are no less severe. The displacement of indigenous and local communities due to large-scale land-use change poses risks to traditional livelihoods and food security. Past experiences with similar afforestation initiatives in Brazil have shown negative effects, including forced displacement, land dispossession, and increased land prices that drive local farmers out of economically feasible farming.

Land tenure and climate justice

A significant part of the report’s findings relates to land tenure—a crucial issue for the Global South. Without secure land tenure, local and indigenous communities are more vulnerable to losing their land to large-scale CDR projects. The EU’s carbon strategies could inadvertently perpetuate neo-colonial practices, where the environmental costs of wealthy nations are outsourced to less affluent countries.

The study urges the EU to consider the ethical implications of relying on land-based CDR strategies outside its borders. It recommends enhancing collaboration with countries like Brazil, ensuring that land use changes for CDR do not compromise local communities’ rights or undermine sustainable land management practices. A rights-based approach to land tenure is suggested as essential to making such projects socially just and environmentally sustainable.

Key recommendations for EU climate policy

The researchers present several recommendations for ensuring that EU climate actions are environmentally and socially responsible:

  1. Stricter emission reductions within the EU: The European Commission should focus more on internal emission reductions rather than relying heavily on land-based CDR outside the EU. Expanding the EU Emission Trading System (ETS) and imposing a carbon tax could incentivise emission reductions domestically.
  2. Investing in regenerative land management: The study calls for increased funding for sustainable agricultural practices and the restoration of natural ecosystems to increase carbon sequestration within the EU, rather than placing this burden on third-party countries.
  3. Supporting technological transfers and collaboration: To balance the burden, the EU should allocate funds to facilitate technology transfer and capacity building in the Global South, allowing for the shared development of CDR technologies.
    Responsible carbon offsetting: Revisiting the Renewable Energy Directive to include strict socio-environmental safeguards is necessary to prevent the negative impacts of BECCS and afforestation projects in Brazil and other countries.
  4. Enhanced accountability and monitoring: The EU should improve its Monitoring, Verification, and Reporting (MVR) system to include all sectors of its economy, ensuring the transparency and credibility of carbon removal efforts.ConclusionThe study underscores the potential dangers of exporting the burden of carbon neutrality to the Global South. While technologies like BECCS and large-scale afforestation are promising tools for mitigating climate change, their deployment must be approached with caution, considering both environmental sustainability and social justice. By securing land tenure for local communities, ensuring equitable participation, and focusing more on reducing emissions within its own borders, the EU can lead a more ethical path to climate neutrality.

The path to carbon neutrality must not come at the cost of local communities and ecosystems. A just and sustainable transition is needed—one that respects the rights of those who may otherwise bear the unintended consequences of these ambitious climate strategies.

Reimagining land use in climate pledges: a call for high ambition

In the new climate guide from the Land Gap Report, the focus is squarely on rethinking how land use is integrated into Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). NDCs are the national climate action plans underpinning global efforts to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. However, the authors argue that the initial rounds of NDCs often fell short in addressing the complexities of land use, leading to an over-reliance on unrealistic land-based solutions like carbon removals, rather than cutting emissions at their source.

Land use as a climate solution—challenges and promises

The land sector has the potential to be both a significant carbon sink and an emissions source. Forests, peatlands, and grasslands store vast amounts of carbon and help regulate the Earth’s climate. However, land use change, such as deforestation for agriculture, releases significant amounts of greenhouse gases. The report highlights that previous NDCs too often resorted to land-based carbon sequestration methods, like tree planting and biomass burning, as a way to offset emissions from other sectors. Such strategies, while useful, have limits and can even backfire if they overlook local ecological and social contexts.

For instance, the large-scale tree planting schemes commonly proposed can sometimes lead to unintended negative outcomes. These include conversion of natural ecosystems, such as grasslands, into monoculture tree plantations, which in turn can threaten biodiversity and water resources. As the report notes, protecting and allowing natural ecosystems to regenerate is far more effective for carbon sequestration than establishing plantations. The focus should be on conserving existing high-integrity ecosystems and avoiding projects that require substantial land-use changes, potentially displacing local communities and damaging food security.

The importance of land tenure

A major theme in the report is the importance of secure land tenure as a foundation for effective climate action. The rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities must be recognised, as these groups often manage vast areas of global forests and other crucial ecosystems. Despite their essential role, many Indigenous and local communities lack formal legal recognition of their land rights, which exposes them to risks such as land-grabbing, forced displacement, and the undermining of traditional stewardship practices.

The report argues that recognising land rights and providing secure tenure is not only a matter of social justice but also a highly effective climate strategy. Communities with recognised land rights are better equipped to manage and protect natural resources sustainably. The report calls for future NDCs to include commitments to formalise these rights, streamline land titling and registration processes, and halt illegal encroachments. Empowering local communities and Indigenous Peoples through secure tenure rights is one of the most equitable and cost-effective strategies to protect remaining forests and mitigate climate impacts.

Key recommendations for ambitious NDCs

The report lays out several pathways for countries to achieve high-ambition land-sector contributions in their updated NDCs. These include:

  1. Protecting and restoring existing ecosystems: Instead of focusing on new tree plantations, efforts should aim at safeguarding intact forests, peatlands, and grasslands, which provide multiple co-benefits for climate, biodiversity, and local livelihoods
  2. Securing land tenure for Indigenous Peoples and local communities: Recognising land tenure rights is fundamental for sustainable land management. This ensures that those who have lived on and managed these lands for generations are empowered to continue their stewardship, which has proven to be more effective than top-down conservation initiatives.
  3. Transitioning agriculture towards sustainability: Shifting away from agro-industrial practices to agroecological methods, such as polyculture, agroforestry, and ecological livestock systems, can help build resilience in food systems while also reducing emissions.
  4. Avoiding reliance on offsets: The report criticises the heavy dependence on carbon offsets, particularly those involving land-based sequestration, as a way to balance continued fossil fuel emissions. True high-ambition NDCs should focus on genuine emissions reductions across all sectors, not just compensatory offsets.
    A realistic approach to climate pledges

One of the most striking insights from the report is its emphasis on the scale of land required for many existing pledges. Governments have proposed using up to a billion hectares for carbon sequestration—an area larger than the combined territories of South Africa, India, Turkey, and the European Union. This level of land use is not only unrealistic but also risks pushing ecosystems, land rights, and food security to the brink.

Moving forward, climate pledges need to prioritise the protection of natural ecosystems and incorporate transparent, socially responsible strategies that don’t overly burden the land sector as a catch-all solution. High-income countries, in particular, must reduce their dependence on land-based carbon removals and instead accelerate efforts to decarbonise other parts of their economies, such as energy and heavy industry.

The message is clear: the next round of NDCs must be more ambitious, realistic, and equitable, focusing on genuine emissions reductions while ensuring that land use strategies are environmentally sustainable and socially just. Empowering Indigenous Peoples and local communities through secure land tenure is central to this mission, as is recognising that the path to net-zero requires not just technological advances and policy shifts, but also a renewed commitment to preserving the health of our land and the rights of those who depend on it.

Read the report here

Overlooked potential of peatland restoration

Research by NbSI’s John Lynch and Xiao Zhang in collaboration with The Wildlife Trusts, as part of the Agile Initiative, has quantified the climate benefits of vital peatland restoration work that may have been omitted from official greenhouse gas statistics.

Peatlands are effective natural carbon sinks – removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere that would otherwise contribute to global warming and storing it as soil carbon long-term – if conditions remain ecologically favourable. However, when these ecosystems are damaged, they release their stored carbon, exacerbating climate change. This makes the restoration of peatlands essential to achieving net-zero emissions.

Yet, despite their importance, concerns have been raised that there is a lack of ambition in the amount of peatland restoration anticipated over current climate policy expectations. In a recent article, The Wildlife Trusts argued that this appears to stem from under-reporting of how much peatland restoration is happening already. The piece advocates for several key changes to ensure that the full scope of peatland restoration efforts is recognised and accounted for:

• The creation of a shared national map of active restoration sites and a standardised reporting mechanism for all land managers involved in restoration.
• Public access to the data used in national inventories, allowing for independent verification and the identification of gaps in restoration efforts.
• A more inclusive approach that accounts for the full range of restoration activities and funding sources, providing a true picture of progress.

As the UK prepares to revise its Net Zero Strategy, it is critical to recognise the full extent of peatland restoration efforts and to develop a more accurate and comprehensive measurement system. By fostering collaboration between the government, NGOs, and academic institutions, the UK can ensure that peatlands receive necessary funding and restoration.

This work is part of a project exploring decision-making relating to biogenic greenhouse gas emissions, through The Agile Initiative at the Oxford Martin School.

Peatlands can play a crucial role in achieving Net Zero goals. These unique ecosystems act as natural carbon sinks, and are unique habitats with significant biodiversity value. However, data on peatland restoration projects needs to be better tracked so that that the climate benefits are accurately monitored, and policy developed that recognises the value of this  nature-based solution.

Read the full article.

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

 

 

 

Directors’ Duty to Consider Nature 

A recent legal opinion commissioned by Pollination and Commonwealth Climate and Law Initiative on the nature-related risks and directors’ duties could indicate a changing tide in the environmental risks faced by financial institutions and their board of directors. (Commonwealth Climate and Law Initiative, 2024).

In the opinion, Sharif A. Shivji KC suggested that a company’s board of directors ought to consider nature-related risks to ensure they fulfil their fiduciary duties.  Directors of publicly listed companies have fiduciary duties to their shareholders, which include the duty of promoting the success of the company, the duty to act with reasonable care, skill and diligence, and the obligation to disclose information about the company in reports (Commonwealth Climate and Law Initiative, 2024; Investopedia, 2023). If found to have failed to uphold their fiduciary duties, directors can be held personally liable, threatening companies and their directors with lawsuits and resulting reputational and financial damage.  

This opinion was the first time that nature-related risks have been explicitly described as within the remit of directors’ duties in England and Wales (Commonwealth Climate and Law Initiative, 2024).

These risks are defined as “the potential threats posed to an organization that arise from its dependencies and impacts on nature, [which include] but are not limited to climate related risks”. Based on this legal view, publicly listed companies ought to be considering nature-related risks in their decision-making and strategic planning or risk breaching their duty and face legal consequences (Commonwealth Climate and Law Initiative, 2024). This builds on recent Australian and New Zealand legal opinions describing nature-related considerations for corporate governance as well as similar legal opinions illustrating climate-related related considerations for corporates in many other countries (Commonwealth Climate and Law Initiative, 2024).

This article is very timely as it follows the English’s court May 2023 dismissal of ClientEarth’s case against 11 of Shell’s Directors for mismanaging climate risk and the January 2024 appeal rejection (ClientEarth, n.d., 2024). The High Court of England and Wales dismissed the case on the grounds that ClientEarth, an environmental NGO, could not be acting in the best interests of the company, hence, the case did not pass procedural hurdles (ClientEarth, n.d., 2024).

Nevertheless, globally, climate litigation is on the rise with recent landmark victories for climate suits in Switzerland, where the government now has a legal duty to take greater action on reducing emissions, and in India, where citizens’ now have the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change (Dickie et al., 2024). There are further climate litigation cases pending in Australia, Brazil, South Korea, and Norway, among others.
Climate litigation experts suggest that risks posed to corporates by climate litigation are material, increasing and currently unmanaged (Wetzer et al., 2024). Since 2015, over 100 climate litigation cases have been filed annually. Despite this, in a survey of central banks, 93% did not quantify the potential impact posed by these cases (Wetzer et al., 2024). Furthermore, biodiversity or nature-related litigation is lagging behind climate-related legal action, despite mounting evidence of the severe societal and economic harm caused by damage to the biosphere (Ranger et al., 2024).

Now, nature-related risks to corporates, financial institutions and Central Banks are coming to the forefront. In late 2023, the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) published their Green Scorpion Occasion paper on nature-related risks to financial stability and the Taskforce for Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) released their final recommendations (Ranger et al., 2023; TNFD, 2023). In 2024, the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which is the first legally-binding common reporting framework for environmental disclosures and includes nature-related considerations, will release the first reports following the newly laid out requirements (Climate Disclosure Standards Board, n.d., 2020).

Legal scholars posit that biodiversity litigation, specifically rights-based biodiversity litigation, is primed to soon accelerate as climate litigation did in the 2010s (Rodríguez-Garavito & Boyd, 2023). The 2022 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, having been lauded as nature’s answer to the 2016 Paris Agreement for climate change, provides potential framing for litigation with its quantitative targets for global biodiversity action and rights-based language (Andrea Willige, 2021; Rodríguez-Garavito & Boyd, 2023).

It remains to be seen whether directors will be successfully held personally responsible for environmental-related strategic decision-making, as personal liability can be challenging to establish. However, this opinion piece is important as it adds to a growing body of legal literature on nature-related litigation and makes a strong case that it is time for companies to start seriously considering nature-related financial risks in their strategic decision-making or face the consequences (Commonwealth Climate and Law Initiative, 2024).

Author: Emma O’Donnell

 

Bibliography:

 

Andrea Willige. (2021, October 11). How the UN’s Global Biodiversity Framework could become the ‘Paris Agreement for nature.’ World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/10/global-biodiversity-framework-cop15-sustainable-food-systems/ 
ClientEarth. (n.d.). Our application to appeal in our case against Shell’s Board of Directors has been rejected. Retrieved April 24, 2024, from https://www.clientearth.org/latest/press-office/press/court-fails-to-engage-with-key-climate-risk-arguments-in-shell-directors-case-dismissal/ 
ClientEarth. (2024, January 24). Our groundbreaking case against Shell’s Board of Directors comes to an end. https://www.clientearth.org/latest/news/we-re-taking-legal-action-against-shell-s-board-for-mismanaging-climate-risk/ 
Climate Disclosure Standards Board. (n.d.). EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). Retrieved April 24, 2024, from https://www.cdsb.net/what-we-do/policy-work/eu-sustainability-reporting 
Climate Disclosure Standards Board. (2020). The state of EU Environmental Disclosure in 2020. https://www.cdsb.net/nfrd2020 
Commonwealth Climate and Law Initiative. (2024, March 11). Company directors should consider company’s nature-related risks (including climate risks): Landmark English law legal opinion. https://commonwealthclimatelaw.org/company-directors-should-consider-companys-nature-related-risks-including-climate-risks-landmark-english-law-legal-opinion/
Dickie, G., Abnett, K., Levaux, C., Dickie, G., & Abnett, K. (2024, April 9). Swiss women win landmark climate case at Europe top human rights court. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-activists-seek-breakthrough-human-rights-court-ruling-against-european-2024-04-09/ 
Investopedia. (2023, May 24). What Is a Fiduciary Duty? Examples and Types Explained. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042915/what-are-some-examples-fiduciary-duty.asp 
Ranger, N., Alvarez, J., Freeman, A., Harwood, T., Obersteiner, M., Paulus, E., & Sabuco, J. (2023). The Green Scorpion: The Macro-Criticality of Nature for Finance. https://www.ngfs.net/en/the-green-scorpion-macro-criticality-nature-for-finance 
Ranger, N., Oliver, T., Alvarez, J., Battiston, S., Bekker, S., Killick, H., Hurst, I., Liadze, I., Millard, S., Monasterolo, I., Perring, M., Sabuco, J., Juanino, P. S., Vause, J., Verhoef, A., & Wolstenholme, J. (2024). Assessing the Materiality of Nature-Related Financial Risks for the UK. Green Finance Institute. https://www.greenfinanceinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/GFI-UK-NATURE-RELATED-RISKS-FULL-REPORT.pdf 
Rodríguez-Garavito, C., & Boyd, D. R. (2023). A Rights Turn in Biodiversity Litigation? Transnational Environmental Law, 12(3), 498–536. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102523000171 
TNFD. (2023). Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) Recommendations. https://tnfd.global/publication/recommendations-of-the-taskforce-on-nature-related-financial-disclosures/ 
Wetzer, T., Stuart-Smith, R., & Dibley, A. (2024). Climate risk assessments must engage with the law. Science, 383(6679), 152–154. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adj0598 
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. 

TNFD at Davos Highlights Critical Role of Indigenous Communities in Biodiversity Conservation

The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) announced a significant milestone at Davos, with 320 organisations and corporations committing to adopting its guidelines on nature-related financial disclosures within the next two years. These guidelines include provisions to prioritise engagement with IPLCs in describing human rights policies and activities related to nature-related dependencies, impacts, risks, and opportunities.

Elizabeth Mrema, co-chair of the TNFD, emphasised the pivotal role of Indigenous participation in biodiversity project implementation during a WEF session dedicated to biodiversity credits. Their invaluable role as stewards of the land and resources cannot be overlooked, particularly in the nascent biodiversity market.

“Negotiations take place at a high level, but actual implementation is on the ground level. The local communities are only 5% of the world’s population but are safeguarding 80% of the biodiversity. They have the land and the resources.”, Mrema said during a biodiversity credit session at WEF.

While the current voluntary biodiversity credits market stands at approximately $8 million, projections suggest that global demand could surge to $180 billion in the future. However, such expansion necessitates alignment on principles of integrity and equitable participation.

“Communities own or are custodians of the lands, but developers and investors negotiate with the government, and the government signs the contracts. Local communities must be respected from day one as partners”, said Esther Netshivhongweni, chair of the Community Advisory Panel at the Biodiversity Credits Alliance (BCA).

Netshivhongweni emphasised the imperative of respecting local communities as partners from the outset of negotiations. She highlighted the discrepancy between community ownership or custodianship of lands and the governmental and investor negotiations that often sideline their voices.

Mariana Sarmiento, founder and CEO of Terrasos, a Colombian developer, emphasised that IPLCs are not just stewards of nature but also knowledge holders, questioning whether they are adequately equipped to participate in the market.

In a bid to enhance the integrity of biodiversity credit markets, Tim Coles, CEO of RePlanet, proposed two crucial initiatives: a transparent system for recording benefits to families and local communities regularly to ensure accountability; and allocating at least 60% of the final value of biodiversity credits to local communities into a sustainable business livelihood fund.

The discourse at Davos underscores the urgent need to centre IPLCs in biodiversity conservation efforts and market mechanisms, with empowering Indigenous voices and communities a foundational principle for tackling biodiversity loss.

 

Read more about Nature developments at Davos from our social venture Nature-based Insights here.

Unlocking the Power of Engagement for Nature Recovery and Nature-based Solutions

Recently, Dr. Caitlin Hafferty hosted a free webinar for practitioners called Unlocking the Power of Engagement for Nature Recovery and Nature-based Solutions, supported by the Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery and the Agile Initiative, in collaboration with the Nature-based Solutions Initiative.

The webinar recording can be accessed on YouTube here

The “Recipe for Engagement” shows practitioners who are interested in nature recovery and NbS how to deliver more collaborative and inclusive processes for multiple, integrated benefits for people, nature and climate. You can download the guidance here, which includes some specific ‘engagement in action’ case studies.

Listen to the podcast on ‘Rewilding: People and Participation’ with guests Calum Brown (Highlands Rewilding) and Josh Davis (Countryside and Community Research Institute), discussing specific case study examples of participatory research and practice in UK Nature-based Solutions projects.

Ireland adopts Holistic Approach to Biodiversity

The National Biodiversity Action Plan (NBAP) arrives at a time when Ireland’s natural landscapes are under pressure, linked to human activities and climate change. Once teeming with diverse flora and fauna, nature in Ireland is now facing unprecedented challenges, with every species category of native plants and animals ‘under threat’ and significant declines observed in crucial habitats.

Alarming statistics revealing the severity of the situation: Almost a third of EU-protected species and a staggering 85% of Ireland’s most precious habitats are in an unfavourable state, with nearly half experiencing ongoing declines. More than half of native Irish plant species have declined in the last 20 years. From marine ecosystems to peatlands, grasslands, and woodlands, the impacts of human-induced degradation are widespread, highlighting the need for urgent action. 

The root causes of this decline are multifaceted, but a fundamental issue highlighted by the National Economic & Social Council (NESC) is a historic failure to explicitly cite nature in policy decision-making, often being overlooked in favour of short-term economic gains.

To tackle these challenges, the NBAP emphasises accountability and measurable outcomes, with a focus on strategic interventions to conserve habitats, address invasive species, and promote nature-friendly practices in agriculture and forestry. The integration of natural capital accounting, (as advocated by NESC), offers a valuable tool for quantifying the economic value of ecosystems and integrating environmental considerations into national policy frameworks.

The plan, which details evidence of accelerating biodiversity loss in Ireland, sets out 194 actions to counter the widespread decline of nature and commits the National Parks & Wildlife Service (NPWS) to exploring ways in which rights of nature could be formally recognised – including potential for constitutional change.

The larger context of the EU’s nature restoration regulation further underscores Ireland’s commitment to nature conservation. By setting legally binding targets for ecosystem restoration and disaster prevention, coupled with the development of a national nature restoration plan, Ireland is aligning itself with broader international efforts to safeguard biodiversity and combat climate change. 

• Ireland’s 4th NBAP aims to protect and restore nature across the country
• It is the first biodiversity plan to be backed by legislation, with legal requirements for public bodies
• Actions include expanding National Parks, tackling invasive species, strengthening efforts on wildlife crime and working with communities
• Key recommendations from the Citizen’s Assembly on Biodiversity Loss are also addressed

Taking an ‘all-of-Government, all-of-society’ approach, Ireland’s fourth NBAP aims to meet urgent conservation and restoration objectives across terrestrial, marine and freshwater ecosystems, and secure nature’s contributions to people, while enhancing the evidence base for action and strengthening Ireland’s efforts on international initiatives. 
 
Promising initiatives towards reversing nature loss have already begun to be made through community-led efforts – supported by NGOs, local authorities, and landowners – which are making significant strides in habitat protection and restoration. Collaborative projects focusing on conservation, nature-friendly farming practices, and the engagement of biodiversity officers at the local level are yielding tangible results. A notable achievement is the restoration of vast areas of peatlands in the midlands and an increase in the corncrake population, demonstrating the effectiveness of targeted conservation efforts.

Ireland’s new Biodiversity Action Plan marks a pivotal moment in the country’s conservation efforts, with the recognition that nature conservation is not just a moral imperative but also an economic necessity. By leveraging statutory powers, fostering community engagement, and embracing innovative approaches, Ireland can chart a course towards a more sustainable future where nature thrives, benefiting both present and future generations.

Major research investment into UK land use transformation

A new consortium model has been awarded £6.25 million by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) to establish a ‘Land Use for Net Zero’ (LUNZ) Hub.  

The LUNZ Hub, co-led led by The James Hutton Institute and the University of Leicester, will provide UK and devolved nations with timely evidence around land use, from renewable energy to soil carbon and green finance, to help drive the land transformations needed to achieve Net Zero by 2050.

Agriculture and land use have a major impact on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as a wide range of other environmental, societal and economic outcomes, but progress towards decarbonisation is currently lagging behind other sectors. By carefully balancing and optimising competing land uses we can scale up the implementation of nature-based solutions for climate mitigation and adaptation, nature recovery and food security, but this requires supportive land use policy frameworks.

The declaration on sustainable agriculture, resilient food systems and climate action at the recent COP28 states the UK government’s intent to act on land use and climate change by increasing public financial support and scaling science-based solutions, and LUNZ will be a key conduit for these actions.

With increasing urgency to tackle GHG emissions and meet environmental targets, policymakers need access to up-to-date, consensus-based evidence on addressing land use and agriculture as a major GHG-emitting sector. The LUNZ Hub aims to bridge the gap between policymakers and research through a novel approach to collaboration, providing all four UK governments with the evidence they need in the format and timeframe they need.

The Hub has an equally novel focus on stakeholder participation, as Hub Co-lead, Professor Heiko Balzter (University of Leicester), explained:

“Creating a fair, realistic path to Net Zero in the land use sector can only be achieved with the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders throughout the process– to provide their expertise, share the Hub’s outputs and ensure its proposals work in practice as well as theory.” 

Researchers from the Nature-Based Solutions Initiative and the Agile Initiative, directed by Professor Nathalie Seddon, are among the consortium of more than thirty leading research and science institutions including stakeholders ranging from those at the cutting edge of climate change modelling to farmers’ groups, advisory organisations, NGOs and an arts collective.

Similar to the University of Oxford’s Agile Initiative, the LUNZ Hub is pioneering an ‘Agile policy centre’ research model to respond to policymakers’ needs, producing rapid solutions-oriented environmental research by bringing together cross-disciplinary researchers with partners working on the ground.

“This is a great opportunity to build on our Agile Initiative work to help policymakers explore how land use, food and agriculture policy can help to deliver our climate and nature recovery targets. We are really looking forward to working with our many partners from academia, policy and practice at the LUNZ Hub, using interdisciplinary, solutions-focussed research to help to co-design more sustainable land-use options for the UK.” (Alison Smith, NbSI) 

As part of the LUNZ Hub, the Food, Agriculture, Biodiversity, Land Use and Energy (FABLE) model will be developed to explore future land-use change pathways within each of the four UK nations.

The FABLE model has so far been developed by a partnership of over 20 countries which each run their own national model, with models subsequently linked together to balance imports and exports at a global scale. The UK version has been developed by the UK Centre for Hydrology and Ecology and the University of Oxford, including NbSI researchers Alison Smith and John Lynch. This work will contribute to the development of plausible and innovative Net Zero scenarios and pathways.

 

Read more about Agile Initiative work here.

Comment on forthcoming changes to Environmental Land Management schemes

At the start of 2024, the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) released an updated Agricultural Transition Plan, outlining changes to agricultural policy. If successful, this could play a key role in nature recovery and more sustainable land use, including wider uptake of nature-based solutions to make farming more resilient to future change.

Opportunities for nature and ecosystem health

Reforming the system of agricultural and land-sector subsidies following the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy presented an opportunity to shift to a less environmentally damaging, more nature-positive land-use system. The Government developed ‘Environmental Land Management schemes’ (ELMs) as a new way of providing funding for land-based activities in England.

There are three components: a Sustainable Farming Incentive with payments for undertaking basic actions to improve farming sustainability, such as improving soil health; an extension to the pre-existing Countryside Stewardship programme to support targeted actions such as species management and habitat restoration; and a Landscape Recovery scheme for larger-scale and longer-term habitat protection and restoration projects involving co-ordinated action by multiple landowners in a region.

While there were many positive points in the proposed schemes, there were also concerns about what they would actually achieve and how they were implemented. Furthermore, some farmers and land-managers found the schemes unnecessarily complex, with lack of clarity over future developments. In their recent report on ‘Progress in improving the natural environment in England 2022/2023’, the Office for Environmental Protection conclude that ELMs deployment has thus far been too slow “…and the programme is marked by uncertainty and concern from farmers. For enough farmers to choose to participate and commit long-term to managing their land in support of Net Zero, environmental improvement and food security, things must improve, and improve quickly.”

The proposed changes include streamlining the application process (combining SFI and Countryside Stewardship), increasing payments for actions, and improving advisory services, which should provide a welcome increase in uptake. Payments for upland farms are increasing to match those for lowland farms, and more frequent payments will benefit small farmers and tenant farmers. And payments for maintaining existing habitats are being brought into line with those for creating new habitats, to ensure that those who have already made changes are not disadvantaged.

Furthermore, a number of promising new actions are being introduced, including payments for agroecological practices (e.g. agroforestry, no-till farming and multi-species cover crops), or habitat management (e.g. creating and managing species-rich floodplain meadows, reduced grazing density on moorland and upland peat, and later cutting of hay meadows). A new range of natural flood management options has been introduced, to slow the flow of water, reduce runoff and reconnect rivers to their floodplains, creating a wetland mosaic. There are plans to support greater coordination between ELMs and Local Nature Recovery Strategies, new options to encourage greater public access, and premium payments for key options such as scrub mosaic habitats. These changes are very welcome.

A Note of Caution

These positive changes will only help achieve our environmental targets (such as to “halt the decline in species populations by 2030, and then increase populations by at least 10% to exceed current levels by 2042”) if uptake covers a sufficiently large area. The updated Agricultural Transition Plan sets ambitious targets including “at least 70% of farmers and land managers to be undertaking environmental land management actions alongside food production, on at least 70% of farmed land” by 2028,  for “65% of farms to adopt nature-friendly practices on 10 to 15% of their land”, to bring “at least 40% of agricultural soil into sustainable management by 2028 and 60% by 2030” and to “create or restore 48,000km of hedgerows by 2037 and 72,000km of hedgerows by 2050”. However, as ELMS is voluntary, it remains to be seen to what extent some of the more ambitious, environmentally transformative options are pursued.

Another issue that has sparked concern is that the new voluntary scheme replaces the previous Cross-Compliance criteria that required farmers receiving the Basic Payment (i.e. almost all farmers) to protect soil, water and hedgerows. For example, farmers had to avoid ploughing or spraying land within two metres of the centre of a hedge or right next to a river, and they could not cut hedges in the bird nesting season from March to August. Now, however, even farmers who sign up for the new voluntary schemes will not be automatically fined for non-compliance, with enforcement relying mainly on “education and support” – a significant loophole. The new strategy will also “remove barriers in securing permission for development” on farms, which could have further consequences for farmland habitats. Wildlife groups are calling for urgent action to plug these regulatory gaps.

A more integrated, systemic approach to land use decision-making would be very useful here. This would ideally be provided by the long-awaited ‘land use framework’ promised in the 2022 Government food strategy policy paper “…to ensure we meet our net zero and biodiversity targets, and help our farmers adapt to a changing climate, whilst continuing to produce high quality, affordable produce that supports a healthier diet.” This strategic approach is essential for delivering all the benefits we need from our land.

 

John Lynch and Alison Smith are researchers in the Nature-based Solutions Initiative.

Treading Lightly: Policy Implications of the Restated Evidence on Grazing Livestock and Soil Carbon

This week, the Oxford Martin School released a ‘restatement’ of the natural science evidence base concerning grassland management, grazing livestock and soil carbon storage. These Scientific Restatements review the contemporary evidence underlying areas of current policy concern and controversy, aiming to help stakeholders make informed decisions.

The degree to which grazed soils can capture carbon is a difficult topic for policymakers to navigate. Some claim that enough carbon can be stored in pastures to balance all other emissions from livestock production, whilst others state that the carbon storage potential is minimal and easily reversed. The Restatement summarises the available evidence (particularly as it relates to the UK), indicating where there is a broad consensus but also where there is still uncertainty, to maintain scientific integrity.

The Restatement, which involved John Lynch (a postdoc in the Nature-based Solutions Initiative), highlights the potential for rapid carbon accumulation in degraded pastures, but cautions against misleading extrapolations. It emphasised that the vulnerability of stored carbon in grasslands necessitates long-term preservation measures and comprehensive carbon policies that address both livestock emissions and systemic effects. Innovative grazing methods like mob-grazing warrant further investigation: there is some scientific justification for claims that this practice is beneficial, but dependent on local conditions.

‘Governments and policymakers have a tough task trying to make informed decisions around the role grassland management, grazing livestock and carbon soil storage can play in mitigating climate change due to the complexity and difficult-to-navigate nature of the current evidence base. It is our hope that this Restatement presents the current evidence in an easy-to-read and policy-neutral manner that will make it easier for policymakers and other relevant stakeholders to understand the strengths and limitations of the science involved and so make more informed decisions.’ – Professor Sir Charles Godfray, Director of the Oxford Martin School.

Key points highlighted by the Restatement:

  • Severely degraded pasture can accumulate carbon rapidly if managed appropriately but this will plateau over time. Extrapolating from accumulation rates measured at different times can be very misleading.
  • Soils differ greatly in their physical and chemical properties and this must be taken into account when estimating storage potentials.
  • Grazing regimes affect carbon accumulation and there is some evidence that new ideas such as mob-grazing can have positive effects. This is an area where policymakers would benefit from more evidence.
  • Carbon stored in grassland soils can easily be lost, for example after ploughing or if over-grazed. If grasslands are to act as carbon stores then measures are needed for their long-term preservation.
  • In developing a grassland soil carbon policy, it is important to consider the emissions from livestock as well as possible indirect effects (for example, reducing stocking density may lead to displaced food production and emissions somewhere else). It is also important to consider the counterfactual and question whether fewer emissions may occur if the land was used in an alternative way.

John Lynch said: ‘There has been a lot of excitement about the potential of soil carbon sequestration to help mitigate climate change recently. If soil carbon increases are achieved through agroecological measures that support soil health and restore ecosystem functioning, there could also be significant benefits for biodiversity and the wider environment: a valuable nature-based solution. Yet some estimates for the potential scale of carbon that could be removed are implausibly high, and fail to highlight the broader agricultural shifts that will be required to meet our climate and environmental goals. I hope that our “restatement of the natural science evidence base concerning grassland management, grazing livestock, and soil carbon storage” can help clarify the science. In it, we explain the underlying scientific evidence and highlight the significant opportunities that do exist for increased soil carbon sequestration, but also note that the amount of carbon that can be stored is location and management-specific, and would not provide large-scale removals indefinitely.’

 

This Restatement has been published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

 

We must Scale-up Action to meet Nature Targets in England

The Government is largely off-track to meet its legally binding environmental targets in England, and action must be speeded up and scaled up, according to a progress report by the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP).

The OEP’s annual report on progress towards the goals of the Environmental Improvement Plan was released on the 18 January, covering the year from April 2022 to March 2023. Dame Glenys Stacey, the OEP chair, said the report shows that “deeply concerning adverse environmental trends continue”, and that “more must be done, and done at pace”.

Of the 40 targets assessed, the report found we are on track to deliver just four. There is partial progress towards 11, and we are off-track for 10, including waste management, sustainable fisheries, chemicals and nature recovery. For fifteen targets there is not even enough evidence to do an assessment.

Similarly, of 51 environmental trends, over half are either getting worse (8), not improving (10), or have no evidence (8). Those that are improving include greenhouse gas emissions, and some air pollutants and chemical pollutants. But the government is off-track to meet the key overall goals of ‘thriving plants and wildlife’ as well as climate change mitigation and adaptation, and exposure to pesticides.

Delays in long-awaited policies such as a Land Use Framework, Chemicals Strategy and Pesticides Strategy are amongst the reasons given for lack of progress, as well as a failure to provide enough resources to tackle urgent problems such as the spread of invasive non-native species. The Government has announced policies such as cleaning up air and water and helping wildlife recover, but failed to back them up with delivery plans and resources.

It’s clear that there is an urgent need to rapidly scale up action on nature recovery – and our Agile Initiative sprint is developing tools and guidance to help with this. We are working with local partners across the UK to test approaches for delivering successful, sustainable nature-based solutions to societal challenges, with multiple benefits for nature and people.

Our mapping tools can help to locate the right NbS in the right places, and our ‘Recipe for Engagement’ shows how local communities and other stakeholders can be involved in participatory governance of NbS. We have also developed tools to help practitioners find funding, and select indicators to monitor the outcomes of their projects for biodiversity and soil health. We are creating a map of inspiring case studies, and modelling land-use strategies that make space for nature recovery and carbon sequestration alongside food production.

Yet nature-based solutions cannot deliver their potential unless there is a supportive policy framework to ensure ecosystem health and resilience. Unfortunately, the OEP report comes against a backdrop of contradictory policies that undermine progress towards nature recovery. These include issuing new oil and gas licenses, approving ‘emergency use’ of banned neonicotinoid pesticides for the fourth year in a row, abandoning the commitment that everyone should have access to nature-rich green space within a 15 minute walk, and scrapping of swathes of environmental legislation under the Retained EU Law Bill.

We urgently need a joined-up approach that both delivers nature recovery and reverses damaging policies and harmful subsidies. Only then will nature be able to play its part in underpinning a healthy, prosperous and resilient society.

 

Alison Smith is a Senior Research Associate at Nature-based Solutions Initiative, as well as in the Ecosystems Group at the Environmental Change Institute, Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery and Agile Initiative.

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.