This is an excellent introduction to nature-based solutions! The benefits listed make great talking points when introducing alternative ideas of mitigation, management, and development to decision makers.
I’m not clear why nature-based solutions are intrinsically holistic and bottom up while hard infrastructure isn’t. There can be lots of consultation and participation in the latter and very little with the former. The key question is surely ‘what works?’ and assessing that in whole system terms, taking into account ‘externalities’ etc. Similarly, why the rule that if a nature-based solution doesn’t increase biodiversity it isn’t a NBS? What’s the reasoning here? - it seems very top down!
Re: the latter. It's partly to ensure consistency in outcomes/approaches. It's easy to greenwash with these sorts of things. Yes, you can use nature in a way that is beneficial for a particular target but not really providing a benefit to nature as well, but that wouldn't qualify as a NbS in the strictest sense. It's about looking for win-wins where nature benefits too -- it's all too easy to forget that biodiversity loss is rampant so we need solutions that address risk to humans but also helping biodiversity. Long-winded response sorry -- hope it makes sense.
Re: your first point. Agree -- my above answer should help to make that clearer. A true NbS will have these attributes. It's all a bit semantic really, but greenwashing is so problematic that criteria are needed.
Agree 100% that what works is required. I'm all for pragmatic approaches. Hard infrastructure is absolutely necessary in many many cases. We've built on river banks after all -- so we can't avoid it. And there'll no doubt be many more cases of the necessity of hard infrastructure as climate change continues.
'...their focus is much more diverse than just climate mitigation.'
Indeed, when combating something as huge as climate change, the solutions very much need to be holistic, rather than focusing on a single aspect. Leaders/governments that apply the latter approach are irresponsible and disingenuous in their efforts of tackling climate change.
I’m happy I found you, as I’m keen to learn more about implementing nature-based solutions in my work. I working in town planning in Ireland. We have policies about nature-based solutions, but I need to really understand how it can be designed into all projects so that we are creating a resilient future for all. Thanks Jonathan for this write up! Keep up the good work 💚
Great to connect, Claudine! Very happy to hear this. Do feel free to jump on the chat too to suggest specific stuff you're keen to hear more of. Cheers!
HI Jonathon, small catalysts can create great changes when working with the forces of nature rather than against . many of our greatest failures have been when forcing nature to do as we wish rather than heeding what it requires.
The best book that I have read in order to understand the 5 key landscape functions:nsolar energy cycle, water cycle, the solar-energy cycle, the water cycle, the soil mineral cycle, dynamic ecosystem cycles & the human-social components is 'The Call of the Reed Warbler' by Charles Massey
Hi everyone, Preston Weller here! I just joined, and great article Jonathan! I work for an NGO that works with country teams globally to set up nature-based carbon projects. I really like that NBS carbon project are controversial for if they actually "work" or are greenwashing. To me that indicates we are truly on to something. That it could grow into a major solution. If done quitably, it could also be one of the greatest transfers of wealth from ultra wealthy corporations, to the rural poor.
Thanks Preston! Great to have you on board. Great thoughts. Yes, there's been some greenwashing for sure, but natural solutions are absolutely a key part of the puzzle! Cheers.
I was just having a conversation about this in terms of future food security last night. The conversation was specifically about apples, but would apply to other foods.
We currently grow a few trees selected for the local climate. Successful harvests typically depend on matching the variety to the winter conditions. These are becoming less predictable and depending on the speed of change from either global warming- making our area more like the south of France, or the Atlantic current stopping, sending us to a more Arctic zone.
The conclusion feels like we have to plant more varieties from a range of zones to stand a chance of continued production.
A bit like returning to medieval ridge and furrow planting to allow for unpredictable rain.
Thanks for sharing! Yes, I think a lot of thought needs to go into planting more diverse crops, including those that are resilient to extreme climatic conditions. Things are changing and the food we grow needs to change too.
Great explainer Jonathan, lots of people should read it. And I guess you know what I am going to say next. Solutions to what? Well-being is in the definition along with the obvious nature preservation, but people are not sure of their well-being any more. They think of it as ‘more’… So how do we promote nature as a tool without it slipping back into a resource to be exploited?
Thanks very much! Yes, I hear you. I think there is a gradual shift to being more environmentally conscious and aware of our planet's limits, and the fact that 'things' don't make us happy. But yes, it does require a shift in thinking from growth to sustainability or degrowth!
I hear you. It sometimes feels insurmountable but it is absolutely achievable. It just needs the social movement to help drive change as much as anything. There are countries leading the way for sure, but we're all stuck in short-term political cycles, unfortunately.
Gorgeous
Thanks Lidia!
The first post I ever read of yours! It happened to come out right when I joined.
You're an O.G.! Stoked you've stayed for the ride! :)
Miyawaki mini forests, Home Grown National Park, Charles Massey, Gabe Brown, plus many more. Check these out.
Thanks
This is an excellent introduction to nature-based solutions! The benefits listed make great talking points when introducing alternative ideas of mitigation, management, and development to decision makers.
Thanks very much, Jesse! Glad you think so.
I’m not clear why nature-based solutions are intrinsically holistic and bottom up while hard infrastructure isn’t. There can be lots of consultation and participation in the latter and very little with the former. The key question is surely ‘what works?’ and assessing that in whole system terms, taking into account ‘externalities’ etc. Similarly, why the rule that if a nature-based solution doesn’t increase biodiversity it isn’t a NBS? What’s the reasoning here? - it seems very top down!
Thanks for diving in.
Re: the latter. It's partly to ensure consistency in outcomes/approaches. It's easy to greenwash with these sorts of things. Yes, you can use nature in a way that is beneficial for a particular target but not really providing a benefit to nature as well, but that wouldn't qualify as a NbS in the strictest sense. It's about looking for win-wins where nature benefits too -- it's all too easy to forget that biodiversity loss is rampant so we need solutions that address risk to humans but also helping biodiversity. Long-winded response sorry -- hope it makes sense.
Re: your first point. Agree -- my above answer should help to make that clearer. A true NbS will have these attributes. It's all a bit semantic really, but greenwashing is so problematic that criteria are needed.
Agree 100% that what works is required. I'm all for pragmatic approaches. Hard infrastructure is absolutely necessary in many many cases. We've built on river banks after all -- so we can't avoid it. And there'll no doubt be many more cases of the necessity of hard infrastructure as climate change continues.
'...their focus is much more diverse than just climate mitigation.'
Indeed, when combating something as huge as climate change, the solutions very much need to be holistic, rather than focusing on a single aspect. Leaders/governments that apply the latter approach are irresponsible and disingenuous in their efforts of tackling climate change.
100% -- singular focused band-aid solutions just don't work. Holistic solutions are required.
I’m happy I found you, as I’m keen to learn more about implementing nature-based solutions in my work. I working in town planning in Ireland. We have policies about nature-based solutions, but I need to really understand how it can be designed into all projects so that we are creating a resilient future for all. Thanks Jonathan for this write up! Keep up the good work 💚
Great to connect, Claudine! Very happy to hear this. Do feel free to jump on the chat too to suggest specific stuff you're keen to hear more of. Cheers!
HI Jonathon, small catalysts can create great changes when working with the forces of nature rather than against . many of our greatest failures have been when forcing nature to do as we wish rather than heeding what it requires.
So true! Thanks Theodore.
The best book that I have read in order to understand the 5 key landscape functions:nsolar energy cycle, water cycle, the solar-energy cycle, the water cycle, the soil mineral cycle, dynamic ecosystem cycles & the human-social components is 'The Call of the Reed Warbler' by Charles Massey
Thanks for sharing, Merry! Will have to look it up.
I agree with this so much I want the boundaries of “nature” and “management” to dissolve until the Wild can eat plastic and grow products… https://earthstar111.substack.com/p/earth-star-vision-daily-harvesting
Love that vision.
Hi everyone, Preston Weller here! I just joined, and great article Jonathan! I work for an NGO that works with country teams globally to set up nature-based carbon projects. I really like that NBS carbon project are controversial for if they actually "work" or are greenwashing. To me that indicates we are truly on to something. That it could grow into a major solution. If done quitably, it could also be one of the greatest transfers of wealth from ultra wealthy corporations, to the rural poor.
Thanks Preston! Great to have you on board. Great thoughts. Yes, there's been some greenwashing for sure, but natural solutions are absolutely a key part of the puzzle! Cheers.
I was just having a conversation about this in terms of future food security last night. The conversation was specifically about apples, but would apply to other foods.
We currently grow a few trees selected for the local climate. Successful harvests typically depend on matching the variety to the winter conditions. These are becoming less predictable and depending on the speed of change from either global warming- making our area more like the south of France, or the Atlantic current stopping, sending us to a more Arctic zone.
The conclusion feels like we have to plant more varieties from a range of zones to stand a chance of continued production.
A bit like returning to medieval ridge and furrow planting to allow for unpredictable rain.
Thanks for sharing! Yes, I think a lot of thought needs to go into planting more diverse crops, including those that are resilient to extreme climatic conditions. Things are changing and the food we grow needs to change too.
Great explainer Jonathan, lots of people should read it. And I guess you know what I am going to say next. Solutions to what? Well-being is in the definition along with the obvious nature preservation, but people are not sure of their well-being any more. They think of it as ‘more’… So how do we promote nature as a tool without it slipping back into a resource to be exploited?
Thanks very much! Yes, I hear you. I think there is a gradual shift to being more environmentally conscious and aware of our planet's limits, and the fact that 'things' don't make us happy. But yes, it does require a shift in thinking from growth to sustainability or degrowth!
Well done 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Thanks Dave!
I hear you. It sometimes feels insurmountable but it is absolutely achievable. It just needs the social movement to help drive change as much as anything. There are countries leading the way for sure, but we're all stuck in short-term political cycles, unfortunately.