Nature and wealth — rebuilding nature [2/3]
See all sections of this piece: Part 1, Part 2 (this piece), Part 3, and Supporting material).
SOLUTION Part 1 — Rebuilding nature
Nature is our primary supplier, and it needs to be healthy enough and in sufficient quantity, to meet humanity’s needs — alongside sustaining itself. As with the IPBES concept of nature’s contributions to people, which exist when there is a two-way interaction between people and nature (ie. a contribution does not exist in the absence of people), so too do ‘nature based solutions’ require the presence of people as beneficiaries.
Both may simply be specific instances of natural (ecological) functions directed towards people rather than other species/natural systems, but with cultural and technological evolution, many NCPs/NbS may be quite specific to peoples’ needs.
What quality and what quantity?
This boundary or target for nature’s health and provisioning has parts, quantitative and qualitative:
- Quantity — 25% of every square kilometre should meet this criterion. Critically, this is locally determined for each square kilometre of land and is not simply an average across large expanses.
- Quality — high-function, semi-natural habitat — this expressly includes native, but also non-native and non-pristine habitats. Altered habitats may have sufficient function to provide specific benefits for people, as may restored and novel habitats. It depends on the specific functions/benefits that are the focus of interest, but with the caveat that in toto, one must consider multiple (other) benefits and broader aspects of diversity beyond the specific benefits of interest.
Derived from Earth Commission WG2 (biosphere) work — Mohamed et al. (2024) and Declerck et al. (2021 — preprint).
Some specifics
A) Both these criteria are met where nature is intact, as by definition coverage will be high and naturalness criteria would be met.
B) With climate change, must consider the long term trajectory of what ‘semi-natural’ system may be healthy and functioning in a location, and what may be done to optimise its emergence/evolution.
C) the same principles will apply to freshwater and marine habitats, but the specific thresholds need to be determined. i.e. will the proportion be more or less than 25%, and would the scale be linear (as in rivers) or larger (e.g. in the ocean due to higher connectivity the grain of resolution might be larger than 1 km2).
Landscape/seascape and ecosystem-based approach
This is a landscape solution, acknowledging the variation in spatial uses at the square kilometre scale and that a proportion at this scale must be managed to achieve and meet ecosystem-based objectives of health and function.
Terminology differences between the important policy frameworks must not be held as a barrier for this solution, it is based on the equivalence and complementarity across frameworks:
- ecosystem-based approaches in the biodiversity convention,
- nature-based solutions in the climate convention, etc.
Operationally, solutions must improve the status (and functions, see below) of and use of nature, following biodiversity-positive and ecosystem-based principles. By definition, solutions must provide for people, with rights-based and justice principles assuring equity.
Improving functions of nature must also extend to provisioning of multiple benefits: solutions focused on any one benefit (e.g. carbon sequestration, food, building, water/air regulation, soil fertility, etc) must assure either neutral effects or improvements to the provisioning of other benefits.
The solution framing is fundamentally just
Access to benefits is fundamental to wellbeing, or ‘good quality of life’. The spatial scaling down to 1 km2 attempts to combine a meaningful spatial range for any person, with the scale of action of benefits — many NCP operate at scales within 100s of meters, so the source of provisioning must be close enough to people for them to benefit from it.
Derived from Earth Commission WG4 (transformation) work — See Gupta et al. 2023, Mohamed et al. 2024.
An overarching principle/rule of thumb
In many ways this solution sets a first principle, within which more specific and quantifiable targets can be expressed.
For example, individual NCPs operate in very different ways and may require very specific spatial patterning (e.g. riparian vegetation along river banks, erosion-control vegetation on steep slopes). In any specific local context the overarching “25% per km2” must be replaced by an NCP-specific result depending on the NCP and location.
Multiple NCPs must then also be considered, and their separate requirements aggregated. Whether this aggregate meets the 25% per km2 target will vary for each location.
The same may also be done for other targets, thinking particularly about those needed to meet the GBF and/or actor-oriented targets, such as through science-based targets for actors (e.g. SBTN). Specific quantitative allocations need to be identified locally and using appropriate methods, the overarching principle providing a broad-brush umbrella under which more specific resource, NCP and actor-specific targets will need to be identified.
In the absence of more quantifiable and detailed targets, this overarching principle can provide a start for aligning and mobilising actors, to reinforce good practice, and to facilitate the development of locally-specific targets and agreements for sustaining biodiversity to support people.
Shared spaces
The shared spaces framework is an explicit application of this principle — acknowledging the need for locally-driven planning of landscapes/seascapes, using the criterion set here of 25% per km2 under high function, semi-natural habitat that provides NCP to people locally and justly.
A key principle as expressed in the shared spaces framework is that with local actors and value systems represented, sufficient safeguards and emphasis on local priorities can be assured, also fostering pluralism and recognition of multiple value systems and cultures.
See all sections of this piece: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Supporting material).
Primary sources
Bai X, Hasan S, Andersen LS, et al (2024) Translating Earth system boundaries for cities and businesses. Nat Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01255-w
DeClerck F, Jones SK, Estrada-Carmona N, et al (2023) Spare Half, Share the Rest: Ecosystem Intactness and Functional Integrity as Complementary Whole Earth Biodiversity Goals. SSRN
IPBES (2022) Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment regarding the diverse conceptualization of multiple values of nature and its benefits, including biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services (assessment of the diverse values and valuation of nature)
Mohamed A, DeClerck F, Verburg PH, et al (2024, in press) Biosphere functional integrity for people and Planet. Nature Sustainability.
Obura DO, Katerere Y, Mayet M, et al (2021) Integrate biodiversity targets from local to global levels. Science 373:746. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abh2234
Obura D (2023) The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: Business as usual or a turning point? One Earth 6:77–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2023.01.013
SBTN (2021) Science Based Targets for Nature — Initial guidance for business. Science Based Targets Network
