No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Urban Climate Action Plans are instruments increasingly being used by governments to identify vulnerabilities and propose technological, engineered and ecosystem-based actions for adapting to and mitigating climate change effects. However, as the outcomes of the climate response could asymmetrically affect marginalised communities already more impacted by climate-related hazards, researchers and practitioners have expressed concerns regarding the lack of attention given to the environmental justice (EJ) implications of climate action planning. In this context, this study uses content analysis to review the inclusion and framing of EJ concerns in Urban Climate Action Plans from 30 Latin American cities as a less studied and particularly vulnerable world region. Moreover, we investigate whether and how these documents translate justice concerns into concrete strategies, with particular emphasis given to the use of Nature-based solutions. We found that, through the years, the concerns related to EJ are more prominent but are rarely concretised into specific actions. When they are, these actions are less framed within systemic policy interventions and more into educational and capacity-building strategies. Finally, most planning documents frame Nature-based solutions for biodiversity conservation purposes, forgoing the opportunity to adopt the socially transformative potential of the term for enhancing sustainable and just futures.

Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) has been widely applied on the European Union (EU) mainland, whereas the EU Overseas entities still bear potential for implementation. This paper presents novel applications of the MAES procedure in the EU Outermost Regions and Overseas Countries and Territories ("EU Overseas"). Eight case studies from different geographical areas were analysed through a comparative assessment by applying an established framework following key steps in the MAES process, in order to stipulate lessons learned and recommendations for MAES in the EU Overseas. These key steps include the identification of policy questions, stakeholder networks and involvement, application of MAES methods, dissemination and communication and implementation. The case studies were conducted and analysed under the umbrella of the EU MOVE pilot project, including the Azores, the Canary Islands, Saint Martin, French Guiana, Martinique, Reunion Island and the Falkland Islands. Each case study represented different governance, policy and decision-making frameworks towards biodiversity and environmental protection. Case studies predominantly addressed the policy domains of Nature and Biodiversity Conservation and Marine and Maritime Policy. Ecosystem Services (ES) were assessed across a wide range of themes, biomes and scales, focusing on terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystems. Results show that the implementation of the case studies was accompanied by extensive communication and dissemination activities. First success stories were visible, where the MAES exercise led to meaningful uptake of the ES concept to policies and decision-making. Yet, there is still work to be done - major bottlenecks were identified related to the MAES implementation centring around financial resources, training and technical expertise. Addressing these aspects can contribute to an enhanced implementation of MAES in the EU Overseas in the future.