Why we must get the message right on Nature-based Solutions to Climate Change.
According to a recent study by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) with Oxford University, Ecosystems can generate one-third of the climate mitigation expected by 2030.
This can been done through “Nature-based solutions”, which rely on natural ecosystem functions and biodiversity, offering further proof that climate and biodiversity go hand in hand.
The effectiveness of ecosystems in climate change mitigation is no new discovery. Oceans, forests and soil have been known for years to be natural carbon sinks.
According to Dr Dorothee Herr, the IUCN Marine and Polar Program director, “30 million tons of CO2 are absorbed in the first hundred meters of sea and ocean surfaces, the equivalent of between one-quarter and one-third of emissions from human activities.”
In addition, coastal ecosystems like mangroves contribute to the climate change resilience of populations during extreme weather events.
Nature does not only offer solutions for the climate, it also provides ecosystem services that are vital for humanity: it is the prerequisite for our survival and development.
As evidence builds that the natural systems on which we depend are deteriorating beyond a point of no return, it is clear that larger scale and more coherent approaches to tackling global challenges are needed.
For example, protecting and restoring habitats along shorelines or in upper catchments can contribute to climate change adaptation by protecting communities and infrastructure from flooding and erosion, at the same time as increasing carbon sequestration and protecting biodiversity.
Meanwhile, increasing green space and planting trees in urban areas can help with cooling and flood abatement while mitigating air pollution, providing recreation and health benefits and sequestering carbon.
Nonetheless, there is still uncertainty as to what ‘counts’ as an NbS and the extent to which NbS represent a departure from existing concepts and practices. In the context of climate change, concerns have been raised that NbS are being used to excuse business-as-usual consumption of fossil fuels.
That there is an over-emphasis on tree planting as a ‘silver-bullet’ solution to climate change, and that this is distracting from the urgent need to protect and connect a wide range of intact ecosystems across landscapes and seascapes.
These issues arise partly from uncertainties in the underlying science, such as the limited set of contexts in which the broader benefits of NbS have been demonstrated.
They also arise as a result of miscommunications about the mitigation potential of working with nature, such as the recent meme that NbS can provide 30 percent of the climate solution.
There are also concerns that where rights are weak, especially around land tenure, NbS may be implemented in the absence of community consent or cause adverse social consequences.
Such rights infringements can impede the success and sustainability of interventions.
In order to solve this confusion, we must get the message right. To implement NbS at scale and avoid simply displacing environmental impacts, land must be freed up from other uses, through a shift towards plant-based diets and widespread adoption of a circular economy to reduce demand for raw materials.
If we follow these guidelines to the latter, we can design robust and resilient NbS that address the urgent challenges of climate breakdown and biodiversity loss, sustaining nature and people together both now and into the future.
Chopped by
