TWN Info Service on Climate Change (Mar22/01)
3 March 2022
Third World Network

IPCC: Controversy over ‘nature-based solutions’ term in assessment report

Delhi/Penang, 3 March (Indrajit Bose and Meena Raman) – The use of the term ‘nature-based solutions’ proved contentious during the approval of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group 2 (WG 2) on ‘Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’.

The issue arose over a footnote on nature-based solutions (NbS) under the sub-section titled ‘Future Adaptation Options and their Feasibility’. The contention was around whether the term NbS should be used under the sub-section.  

Following intense wrangling among developed and developing countries, the final footnote which was eventually agreed to in the SPM reads as follows: -

“Ecosystem based Adaptation (EbA) is recognised internationally under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD14/5). A related concept is Nature-based Solutions (NbS), which includes a broader range of approaches with safeguards, including those that contribute to adaptation and mitigation. The term ‘Nature-based Solutions’ is widely but not universally used in the scientific literature. The term is the subject of ongoing debate, with concerns that it may lead to the misunderstanding that NbS on its own can provide a global solution to climate change.”

(The SPM was approved by governments after two weeks of hectic negotiations on 27 February. See related TWN update.)

Developed countries led by France advocated for NbS as a measure to reduce climate risks to people, biodiversity and ecosystem services and to treat it on par with ecosystem-based adaptation.

This was opposed by developing countries led by South Africa who argued that the term was contentious and should not be included. They were of the view that there is no clarity on what NbS means since there is no multilaterally agreed definition of NbS and were uncomfortable with nature being expressed as a “solution” to climate change when the focus should be on urgent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

(A multilaterally agreed definition on NbS was reached on March 2^nd at the 5^th meeting of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA 5) in Nairobi, Kenya. See further details below).

Developing countries also pointed out that reference to the use of the concept in the underlying literature (referring to the underlying technical assessment report) was restricted to largely Europe, and they saw including NbS in the SPM as being “policy prescriptive”. (The IPCC reports are meant to be neutral, and policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive.).

The controversy first began around the following paragraph proposed for approval:

“Ecosystem-based Adaptation reduces a range of risks to people and nature concurrently with biodiversity co-benefits. Trees and other vegetation provide local cooling and shade. Natural river systems, wetlands and upstream forests reduce flood risk by storing water and slowing water flow. Coastal wetlands protect against coastal erosion and flooding associated with storms and sea level rise where sufficient space and adequate habitats are available until rates of sea-level rise dominate coastal processes.”

France, Belgium and the European Union (EU) proposed that NbS to be added to the paragraph and Belgium called for including the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) definition of the term.

Argentina, Brazil and South Africa objected to the inclusion of NbS, saying they would not accept IUCN’s definition of NbS and there was no multilaterally agreed definition. Argentina further proposed that ecosystem-based adaptation (EBA) must be strengthened by referring to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) process, where there is clarity on what EBA means.

The United States (US) disagreed with Argentina’s suggestion on referring to the CBD since it was “not supported in the underlying text”. (The US is not a Party to the CBD).

Following discussions, the authors proposed the following footnote:

“Footnote XX: Ecosystem-based Adaptation is used in this report to refer to adaptation measures that benefit people and biodiversity. The related concept of Nature-based solutions refers more broadly to approaches that benefit people and biodiversity, including climate change adaptation, mitigation and other services. Nature-based solutions is a term increasingly used in the scientific literature and elsewhere.”

Sweden and France spoke in favour of the text. Belgium said NbS should be in the main text rather than in a footnote. Norway, Germany and the US stressed that the term has been used in the underlying literature and should find mention in the SPM.

South Africa, Brazil, India, Argentina explained why they did not see the term NbS as appropriate.

India stressed the problem is with the word “solutions” and added that the world needs urgent reduction of industrial emissions, while NbS gave the idea that planting trees would be enough, and such a message would be “skewed”.

India also referred to the use of NbS in the underlying chapters that states that “Much of the conceptual framework for NbS has come from initiatives to bring environmental, social and economic dimensions to the same level of importance particularly in the context of a highly urbanized society...” and added further that much of the conceptual framework has come from the EU to position itself as a global leader in sustainable development using NbS. It added that EBA is broad and does not deter from the message of other emissions from other sectors. It suggested using the term nature-based approaches or nature-based adaptation instead.

Brazil said the footnote gave the impression that the term is used widely which was not the case, since it was restricted to largely one region.

The authors acknowledged that NbS is used by policymakers in some countries, not all, and the term could be “abused and has been” but that there was no “scientific” reason to not use the term.

An alternative footnote emerged in a huddle, which read: “A related concept extensively used in the literature and assessed in the underlying report is Nature-based Solutions, that form a broader set of approaches, including those that contribute to adaptation and mitigation”.

Reacting to the alternative footnote, South Africa said it did not work for them and explained that NbS as a concept has too many gaps and, it is not understood nor widely implemented. It also said that the underlying report is clear that NbS is being implemented in Europe. The concept of EBA is acceptable because it has been discussed at length, adopted and implemented across most parts of the world, it said further.

The US disagreed with South Africa that NbS is under-developed and said it would be strange for the report not to comment on the concept, given its prevalent use and mention in adaptation action and research.

France agreed with South Africa that there are limits to NbS approaches which are also mentioned in the underlying literature and it does not want to present NbS as a panacea that would save the world, adding that it would be important to mention NbS in the SPM. Belgium supported France and proposed including caveats to NbS in the footnote.

Following more discussion, the authors proposed further additions to the footnote: “A related concept extensively used in the literature and assessed in the underlying report is Nature-based Solutions, that form a broader set of approaches, including those that contribute to adaptation and mitigation. The term is not universally accepted and is the subject of ongoing debate.”

There was no consensus on this too and the gridlock, continued. With no resolution in sight, the Co-Chair of WG2 Debra Roberts, in consultation with the IPCC’s legal officer suggested adding another footnote naming countries that did not agree with the use of the term NbS.

The proposed additional footnote then read: “The delegations of x,y,z do not agree with the use of the term of “Nature-based Solutions”.

Several developing countries referred to the process as being an “unprecedented way forward” and a discussion on how to word the additional footnote ensued, with no agreement.

Governments then moved into a huddle to find a resolution. During the huddle, the authors proposed yet another formulation for the footnote on NbS to address concerns of governments.

The version read: “Ecosystem based Adaptation is recognized internationally under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD14/5). A related concept is Nature-based Solutions (NbS), which includes a broader range of approaches, including those that contribute to adaptation and mitigation. The term ‘Nature-based Solutions’ is not universally accepted and is the subject of ongoing debate; it is however used in the scientific literature. The main report includes assessment of potential benefits, risks and evidence gaps of some of these approaches. When effectively implemented EbA and NbS measures can provide benefits, but implementation needs to be carefully planned to be appropriate to local ecological and societal contexts”.

During discussions on the new footnote proposed by the authors, South Africa repeated its objection on the use of the word “solutions” since it does not see “nature as a solution to climate change”, and appealed for a resolution on the matter. It further said that the last sentence of the footnote treats EBA and NbS equally and suggested separating the two, and proposed using the words “nature-based approaches, including NbS”, rather than just NbS. It added that NbS was not even in the SPM section when they first started discussing it.

In an attempt to reach resolution, the authors proposed another formulation, which read as follows:

“Ecosystem based Adaptation is recognized internationally under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD14/5). A related concept is Nature-based Solutions (NbS), which includes a broader range of approaches, including those that contribute to adaptation and mitigation. The term ‘Nature-based Solutions’ is widely used in the scientific literature assessed in this report. However, it remains a subject of ongoing debate: in some countries there is significant opposition to the use of the term because it may give a false impression of the extent to which specific, local, nature-based interventions can address global climate change.”

France objected to the last sentence of the footnote and governments moved back to a huddle to discuss the formulation. Discussions in the huddle were intense around how to express the caveats sufficiently in order for NbS to not come across as a solution for climate change. The huddle finally reached agreement the formulation set out above.

(The use of the term NbS had also been controversial at the UNFCCC COP 26 last year in Glasgow, where some developing countries opposed references to the term, as they were concerned that it was not defined in the UNFCCC and could give rise to problems, especially when linked to carbon markets and offsets. The final decision adopted in this regard did not refer to NbS and reads as follows: “Emphasizes the importance of pro­tecting, conserving and restoring nature and ecosys­tems to achieve the Paris Agreement temperature goal, including through forests and other terrestrial and marine eco­systems acting as sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases and by protecting biodiversity, while ensuring social and environmental safeguards”).

Meanwhile, at UNEA 5 in Nairobi, Kenya, which concluded on March 2^nd, a resolution on “Nature-based Solutions for Supporting Sustainable Development” was adopted, and includes the following:

“…Acknowledging the need for a multilaterally agreed definition of the concept of nature-based solutions, cognizant of and in harmony with the concept of ecosystem-based approaches, and in light of concerns about the potential misuse of the concept of nature-based solutions…

Decides that nature-based solutions are actions to protect, conserve, restore, sustainably use and manage natural or modified terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems, which address social, economic and environmental challenges effectively and adaptively, while simultaneously providing human well-being, ecosystem services and resilience and biodiversity benefits…”.

The UNEA resolution appears to have settled the conundrum over what is NbS.