Overstating wild animal roles in carbon capture may hinder, rather than facilitate, effective climate-mitigation and conservation efforts.
The two greatest environmental challenges of our time are global climate change and biodiversity loss, and it is attractive to look for synergies that can address both these challenges. This has generated support for nature-based solutions to climate change which, until recently, have largely focused on vegetation restoration and tree planting. However, there are increasing news stories circulating on how conserving and restoring large animal wildlife, such as elephants and whales, can absorb carbon and bring climate change mitigation benefits. This sounds very attractive: potential carbon could bolster much-needed funding for conservation and rewilding. What’s not to like?
In this opinion piece in Nature Climate Change we inject a voice of caution into this story. The science around wildlife providing climate benefits is generally weak and very context-dependent – in many cases animal wildlife like savanna elephants may reduce carbon stocks. Many widely reported studies are modelling studies which incompletely capture the many ecological processes at play – actual convincing field-based evidence is very rare – yet such studies get a disproportionate amount of media attention. We show there is very selecting media reporting of the minority of studies that suggest climate benefits of animal wildlife. There is a real danger that claimed climate benefits may not exist, leading to backlash and discrediting of otherwise creditable conservation and rewilding schemes when paid-for carbon benefits do not emerge. Many vibrant ecosystems such as savannas and grasslands can have lower carbon stocks than similar ecologically degraded ecosystems. And excessive focus on carbon can encourage bioperverse outcomes, such as reducing animal wildlife abundance where it is seen to negatively impact carbon stocks. There are both practical and moral dangers around excessive “carbonization” of wildlife that we need to be alert to.
Biodiversity is rising rapidly on the global agenda, prompting businesses to adopt the “nature-positive” framing, expressing a commitment to combat biodiversity loss and contribute to global nature recovery goals. However, realizing these ambitions requires transformative changes in business operations, which will be challenging given the uncertainties surrounding possible strategies and pathways. A research-driven approach for business action on biodiversity is vital to prevent unintended environmental and social consequences, but there is currently no coordinated research effort on this topic. Here, we present our vision of a conceptual framework for nature positive extending beyond individual business actions, encompassing processes that influence business involvement, a spectrum of sectoral strategies, and the need for impact measurement at various scales. We utilize this framework to propose high-priority research questions where we believe collaboration between researchers, consultants, and sustainability practitioners is needed to guide effective, feasible, and equitable action to protect and restore nature.
Enhanced CO2 assimilation by forests as atmospheric CO2 concentration rises could slow the rate of CO2 increase if the assimilated carbon is allocated to long-lived biomass. Experiments in young tree plantations support a CO2 fertilization effect as atmospheric CO2 continues to increase. Uncertainty exists, however, as to whether older, more mature forests retain the capacity to respond to elevated CO2.
Delivery of ecosystem restoration plans can lead to gains and losses of environmental and societal benefits, disproportionately impacting different groups of society. The tradeoffs and inequity can potentially be large when considering plans focused on a single benefit. Such information is especially lacking in tropical countries, such as India, that must balance local societal needs while delivering actions for ambitious global climate change and biodiversity goals. Here, we show that forest restoration schemes aimed at multiple objectives deliver most of the available benefits, implying minimal tradeoffs. Such schemes deliver benefits evenly across potential restoration areas, implying multiple land options for implementation. Lastly, these schemes are equitable as they deliver benefits to a large proportion of Indians who are socioeconomically disadvantaged.
The relevance of cocoa agroforestry is widely discussed in debates on sustainability transition in cocoa, especially in the context of ending hunger and poverty among cocoa farmers. Whereas this has led to multiple cocoa agroforestry investments by NGOs, governments, and cocoa and chocolate companies in West and Central Africa, a notable gap exists in the literature on how these interventions respond to the needs of cocoa farmers who are typically framed as the primary target of equity in cocoa sustainability discussions. This paper contributes to bridging this gap by analyzing equity in implementing various cocoa agroforestry projects by different actors in Ghana’s Juabeso-Bia Landscape (JBL)
Nature-based Solutions (NbS) have gained global attention for their transformative potential to simultaneously address biodiversity loss, climate change, and human well-being. However, there are concerns that dominant framings reinforce vested interests, marginalise alternative perspectives, and lead to persistent patterns of inequality and injustice. While participatory governance of NbS is widely acclaimed to support more equitable and ‘just’ outcomes, it is unclear to what extent the necessary changes can occur within dominant framings and approaches. To address this gap, this paper foregrounds the messy, contested, and discontinuous politics of sustainability transformations to explore how different framings influence the transformative potential of NbS.
Paper published in the Journal of Environmental Management examining the benefits and drawbacks of digital tools for engagement. The paper tests the applicability of current theories for engagement in digital and remote settings, finding that key factors known to shape outcomes in engagement take on new dimensions in digital environments. New considerations are suggested which make engagement theory more relevant and applicable in digital contexts, with actionable recommendations for practitioners.
Pre-print paper on the politics of Nature-based Solutions governance for transformative change. This paper finds that dominant framings can end up undermining, rather than supporting, the changes that are needed for transformation to happen. Techno-centric and market-oriented approaches, perceptions of risk and uncertainty, and “democracy washing” risk perpetuating power imbalances and superficial participation. Making space for transformative change requires a commitment to cultivate and open up – rather than control and close down – alternative perspectives, pathways, and possibilities that foster justice and well-being for humans and nature.
The Nature-based Solutions Knowledge Hub is an integrated one-stop resource to guide users through the process of governance, designing and funding Nature-based Solutions (NbS), and monitoring the outcomes. The Hub is aimed at those involved with NbS in the UK, though much of the guidance would also be applicable in other locations.
Visit the Knowledge Hub here
There is an increasing expectation for companies to revise their activities to minimize impacts on biodiversity, as well as undertake compensatory and proactive actions to restore biodiversity. To contribute towards global biodiversity goals, such actions need to be both ambitious and effective. Yet, implementation of mitigation actions to avoid impact is often poor or omitted, and actions to minimize and restore can be of varying effectiveness. The financial costs of actions are often seen as a barrier.
