Nature-based solutions: getting the message right

A year ago I described nature-based solutions (NbS) as a hot topic at the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP23. I rather wish I hadn’t as it has left me at a loss for words how best to capture the extent to which NbS dominated the side-event schedule at the COP24 in Poland this year. I lost count of the number of events and workshops featuring NbS either explicitly or implicitly (i.e. many sessions on landuse change, restoration and sustainable agriculture, agroforestry, etc.). My own side-event, convened by IUCN, discussed how we might increase ambition for nature in the NDCs, highlighting the importance of intact ecosystems and science-based targets. A Q&A session hosted in the Nordic Pavilion explored synergies between climate change and biodiversity, during which, Executive secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity Christiana Pasca-Palmer, stated that “we cannot address climate change without dealing with biodiversity loss, and vice versa”. A particularly memorable NbS highlight came from Al Gore who, in his heart-breaking address on the state of the climate, put it well when he said “the best and most effective technology of taking CO2 out of the air is a tree. Taken to scale it is called a forest”.

Meanwhile, in one of many excellent NbS events in WWF’s #PandaHub, the inspiring Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim (co-chair International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate change and the Association for Indigenous Women and Peoples of Chad) eloquently stated that “what you call nature-based solutions we call a way of life”. She emphasised how indigenous people are experienced stewards of nature and are emerging as major climate champions in their role as the best defenders of forest (e.g. rates of deforestation are lowest in their territories than outside). This view was strong endorsed by Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, who stated that “Indigenous People must be part of the solution to climate change. This is because you have the traditional knowledge of your ancestors. The important value of that knowledge simply cannot—and must not—be understated. You are also essential in finding solutions today and in the future.”

Indeed, one of the most important developments at COP24 was the formal recognition of the “need to strengthen knowledge, technologies, practices and efforts of local communities and indigenous peoples related to addressing and responding to climate change” and the establishment of the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform (LCIPP). Declared a major milestone in the history of the UNFCCC, the platform will allow for “exchange of experiences and sharing of best practices on mitigation and adaptation in a holistic and integrated manner.”

And then on Wednesday of week 2, the Polish presidency announced the “Ministerial Katowice Forests for Climate Declaration”. This encourages all Parties to take action to conserve and enhance forests sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases. Some have dismissed this as “green wash” distracting from the need to severely cut fossil fuel emissions. However, the declaration emphasises “healthy, biologically diverse, and resilient forests adapted to climate change”, which really counts for something (see below).

But beyond the number of side events and high-level declarations, nature permeated the venue and the vibe at COP24. Hallways connecting meeting rooms were decked with stunning imagery from the natural world. The event logo spoke of the interdependency of climate (blue) and biosphere (green). And through the whole of the first week, delegates were treated to our animation defining and explaining nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation as they arrived (thank you whoever was responsible for this – we never managed to find out). 

So: no, there was no escaping nature at this year’s COP24. But where is it all heading?

Getting the NbS message right in 2019 and beyond

Throughout both weeks there was palpable excitement in the conservation community that, on the back of the Global Climate Action Summit in California in September, nature-based solutions are one of six key action areas (so-called “action portfolios”) for the UN Climate Summit in September 2019. This is extremely encouraging and testament to the persistence and decades of hard work by my brilliant colleagues (thank you).  But great care is warranted as momentum for the summit builds. We—as scientists, conservationists and champions of nature-based solutions—must work very closely with policy makers and the UN secretariat to get the message right. There are three major issues we need to be clear on.

• First, nature-based solutions are not an offset mechanism for emissions from the fossil fuel sector. They are not an alternative to keeping carbon in the ground. This can’t be emphasised enough. Emissions must be drastically cut in parallel with promoting nature-based solutions for effective mitigation and adaptation. This is the message of the CLARA alliance, which I endorse strongly.
• Second, nature-based solutions involve the sustainable and equitable stewardship all natural ecosystems (not only forests) and must be grounded in biodiversity science. As I have said elsewhere, and will keep reiterating, in order to deliver longterm carbon sequestration and other key services, natural ecosystems (not only forests) must themselves be resilient. Biodiversity science informs us that this means supporting the widest possible diversity of species, communities, and habitats and ensuring their connectivity, integrity and intactness. NbS do not include monoculture tree plantations.
• Third, nature-based solutions support human adaptation to climate change and other societal goals. In other words, working with nature really isn’t just about storing carbon and slowing warming, it’s also about cost-effective protection of ecosystems to help shield us from floods, droughts, landslides, storms, heatwaves, fire and other disasters increasingly common under climate change.
  
  Ultimately, NbS involve working with nature in such a way that ecosystems continue to support human development and wellbeing in the face of change.

Climate change policy must be grounded in sound biodiversity science

Our failure to either stabilise the climate (e.g. IPCC Special Report - Sept 2018) or slow biodiversity loss (e.g. WWF Living Planet Report - Oct 2018) in many ways reflects the fact that these issues are treated separately. In reality, biodiversity loss—especially through deforestation—is a major driver of climate change, while climate change increasingly exacerbates biodiversity loss.

In recognition of this, many are now advocating that we work with natural ecosystems to address climate change. These so-called nature-based solutions (or natural climate solutions) received much attention at the United Nations biodiversity conference last week, and are again in the limelight at the UN climate change conference this week. They are even starting to make it into mainstream media (e.g. BBC).

However, it is extremely concerning that pledges for “nature” in climate policy often translate into targets for afforestation (tree planting). This is in large part because most modelled pathways that achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement assume massive scaling up of afforestation for greenhouse gas removal. Unfortunately, this encourages monoculture plantations of fast-growing exotic species (often in naturally treeless habitats rich in biodiversity, carbon and more resilient to climate change).  While these plantations store carbon in the short-term, their capacity to do so longterm is impaired by changing conditions and disturbances that are becoming more severe under climate change. 

To reliably provide services to people, including carbon storage, ecosystems must be able to resist, recover and/or adapt to change. A growing body of ecosystem science informs us that such resilience is, in turn, determined by connectivity, heterogeneity and diversity at multiple trophic levels. For example, recent experimental studies demonstrate that compared to monocultures, diverse plantations of tropical forest are more resilient to extreme floods and droughts, while mixed species forests are more resistant to pests and disease. Connectivity, meanwhile, is widely viewed as being critical to the adaptive capacity and integrity of intact forests and their biota in the face of environmental change.

It is essential that biodiversity scientists ensure their knowledge of ecosystem resilience better informs target-setting in climate policy. Otherwise, we will neither stabilise the climate nor protect nature at scale. We will only make things worse. 

[For a more detailed discussion see: Seddon et al (2018)]

****

Essential resources

Hutchinson, C. et al. Scientific Reports 8:15443 (2018)

IPCC Special Report. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland (2018)

Jactel, H. et al. Curr. For. Rep. 3, 223-243 (2017).

Nature-based Solutions Policy Platform: www.nbspolicyplatform.org

Oliver, T. H. et al. Trends Ecol Evol 30, 673-684 (2015).

Sakschewski, B. et al. Nature Climate Change 6, 1032 (2016).

Watson, J. E. M. et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol 2, 599–610 (2018).