Nature unsettled: How knowledge and power shape ‘nature-based’ approaches to societal challenges

Woroniecki, Stephen; Wendo, Hausner; Brink, Ebba; Işlar, Mine; Krause, Torsten; Mahmoud, Yahia; Falla, Ana Maria Vargas

doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102132

Cited by 68 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This can strengthen core motivations to implement NbS, promoting their scaling‐up across landscapes (Fedele et al, 2018). In contrast, a lack of alignment with local perspectives can deter active participation and disempower local communities, which, in turn, can compromise local support for NbS, jeopardizing their success (Woroniecki et al, 2020; see Section 6.3), while also constraining local adaptive capacity (Woroniecki, 2019).…”

Section: Biodiversity and People At The Foundation Of Nature‐based Somentioning

confidence: 99%

Getting the message right on nature‐based solutions to climate change

Seddon

Smith

et al. 2021

Global Change Biology

527

294

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nature‐based solutions (NbS)—solutions to societal challenges that involve working with nature—have recently gained popularity as an integrated approach that can address climate change and biodiversity loss, while supporting sustainable development. Although well‐designed NbS can deliver multiple benefits for people and nature, much of the recent limelight has been on tree planting for carbon sequestration. There are serious concerns that this is distracting from the need to rapidly phase out use of fossil fuels and protect existing intact ecosystems. There are also concerns that the expansion of forestry framed as a climate change mitigation solution is coming at the cost of carbon rich and biodiverse native ecosystems and local resource rights. Here, we discuss the promise and pitfalls of the NbS framing and its current political traction, and we present recommendations on how to get the message right. We urge policymakers, practitioners and researchers to consider the synergies and trade‐offs associated with NbS and to follow four guiding principles to enable NbS to provide sustainable benefits to society: (1) NbS are not a substitute for the rapid phase out of fossil fuels; (2) NbS involve a wide range of ecosystems on land and in the sea, not just forests; (3) NbS are implemented with the full engagement and consent of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in a way that respects their cultural and ecological rights; and (4) NbS should be explicitly designed to provide measurable benefits for biodiversity. Only by following these guidelines will we design robust and resilient NbS that address the urgent challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss, sustaining nature and people together, now and into the future.

show abstract

Section: Biodiversity and People At The Foundation Of Nature‐based Somentioning

confidence: 99%

Getting the message right on nature‐based solutions to climate change

Seddon

Smith

et al. 2021

Global Change Biology

527

294

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other important strands of the debate touch on the patterns of emerging societal debates and their possible polarization (Colvin et al, 2020) as well as the public perception (Cox et al, 2020), socio-political prioritization (Fridahl, 2017;Rodriguez et al, 2020), innovation dynamics (Nemet et al, 2018), incentive structures for research and deployment (Lomax et al, 2015;Cox and Edwards, 2019;Fajardy et al, 2019;Torvanger, 2019;Fridahl et al, 2020;Bellamy et al, 2021) and framings of different CDR methods (Bellamy and Osaka, 2020;Waller et al, 2020;Woroniecki et al, 2020). Furthermore, the literature highlights the role of CDR in integrated assessment modeling and possible implications for climate policy (Geden, 2016b;Beck and Mahony, 2018;Haikola et al, 2019;Workman et al, 2020), negative implications of deploying large-scale CDR for sustainability and biodiversity (Buck, 2016;Smith et al, 2019;Dooley et al, 2020;Honegger et al, 2020), and justice and equity considerations (Anderson and Peters, 2016;Peters and Geden, 2017;Shue, 2018;Fyson et al, 2020;Morrow et al, 2020;Pozo et al, 2020).…”

Section: Applying the Multi-level Perspective (Mlp) To Cdr Policiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Especially in political debates, CDR methods are often separated with the rather ambiguous differentiation of "natural" and "technological" approaches. As framings of certain CDR methods have considerable political implications, in particular the terminology of "natural" or "nature-based" (Bellamy and Osaka, 2020;Waller et al, 2020;Woroniecki et al, 2020), we use the analytical and intended to be valueneutral distinction between ecosystem-based and geochemicalbased approaches 6 .…”

Section: Applying the Multi-level Perspective (Mlp) To Cdr Policiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon Dioxide Removal Policy in the Making: Assessing Developments in 9 OECD Cases

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015, spurred by the 2018 IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, net zero emission targets have emerged as a new organizing principle of climate policy. In this context, climate policymakers and stakeholders have been shifting their attention to carbon dioxide removal (CDR) as an inevitable component of net zero targets. The importance of CDR would increase further if countries and other entities set net-negative emissions targets. The scientific literature on CDR governance and policy is still rather scarce, with empirical case studies and comparisons largely missing. Based on an analytical framework that draws on the multi-level perspective of sociotechnical transitions as well as existing work on CDR governance, we gathered and assessed empirical material until early 2021 from 9 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) cases: the European Union and three of its Member States (Ireland, Germany, and Sweden), Norway, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. Based on a synthesis of differences and commonalities, we propose a tripartite conceptual typology of the varieties of CDR policymaking: (1) incremental modification of existing national policy mixes, (2) early integration of CDR policy that treats emission reductions and removals as fungible, and (3) proactive CDR policy entrepreneurship with support for niche development. Although these types do not necessarily cover all dimensions relevant for CDR policy and are based on a limited set of cases, the conceptual typology might spur future comparative work as well as more fine-grained case-studies on established and emerging CDR policies.

show abstract

“…It also prioritizes the natural sciences and environmental economics, crowding other disciplines essential to understand human-nature interactions such as human-environment geography, ecological economics, environmental anthropology or the environmental humanities (Bennett et al, 2017). Furthermore, research on how NbS links to issues of social and environmental justice remains peripheral in the literature on NbS (Cousins, 2021;Woroniecki et al, 2020). Therefore, crucially important knowledge is left out hampering the design, implementation and governance of NbS.…”

Section: Box 1 Applying the Core Frame In Research On Nature-based Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, the way NbS is framed, which aspects of NbS are made salient in policies or documents, has critical implications for how research, policy and practice around NbS are interpreted (de Jesús Arce-Mojica et al, 2019;Entman, 1993;Hanson et al, 2020). Reflecting on how framings influence research and knowledge production is essential to produce research supporting transformative change (West et al, 2020;Woroniecki et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%