It is an opportunity because funds are being released for action on the ground, where fiscal resources are increasingly squeezed, and where the right kind of action could spark all sorts of benefits for people and nature. It is a problem because like all “development” funding it generally comes with strings attached, and the funders (even when the intentions are good) have not necessarily thought through the implications for the countries and ecosystems where they intend to implement these interventions. 

In particular, most development funding in Africa is now framed in terms of Nature Based Solutions (defined broadly as “Actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural and modified ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously benefiting people and nature”1). 

This sounds good on paper, but in reality, the chances of finding projects that truly are good for climate, people and nature all at the same time are quite rare, and a recent review illustrates how often the most vulnerable and least privileged people and ecosystems are the ones that end up losing out (TES NBS Holden). 

Scientists in Africa are aware of this, and many tentatively put their weight behind projects that they know are likely to have mixed consequences and will not be able to fulfil these unrealistic expectations, yet they also desperately need the finances to help drive projects on the ground. 

African negotiators in a quandary

This places African negotiators at the CBD (and the UNFCCC) in a quandary: individual countries (and their negotiators) want and need the money, but not with the particular strings that are currently attached. 

Their options are therefore: 

1. Take the money and promise things that they know either are not achievable, or could have negative consequences for biodiversity and/or livelihoods.
2. Defer (reject the current wording) in order to achieve more convergence on the implementation of NbS, and clarity about the terms and the funding mechanisms. This is risky, and requires a really active and vibrant science-policy space, and the capacity to suggest and promote alternative actions and interventions, and be taken seriously.

The other challenge is that Option 1 can occur at a bilateral level between two countries, whereas Option 2 requires a coordinated response from the majority (or even all) of the relevant countries, which is hard to push forward when Option 1 is on the table, especially given the lack of alternative funding currently. So how to enable Option 2, without stalling the process too much (we are in a climate crisis after all) and without losing potentially vital and necessary funding to help us adapt to climate change? 

Future Ecosystems for Africa (FEFA) is partnering with various organisations working for change on the ground and in the international sphere to help highlight this conundrum, especially in the African context, and to explain why more nuanced funding, based on better information, is needed. We are also coordinating among scientists on the continent to build the evidence base for negotiators and other government officials to use to support their arguments. 

Land managers and scientists in Africa understand their ecosystems, and are aware of the trade-offs involved in different interventions, but often this information is not available to the people who need it, or has not been packaged in a way that helps to inform the negotiations and NBS guidelines. By developing data-sharing platforms, and producing regional and continental-scale maps and policy documents, African researchers can ensure that their information and perspectives are included. 

Read more in Daily Maverick: The road to COP28 — key debates and expectations for South Africa

It might seem that the horse has already bolted, as many NBS programs are already underway, while the negotiations continue to drag on. But it is all the more important in these instances for people with data and contradictory perspectives to help drive these programs in the right direction. For example, the original vision behind the Great Green Wall has evolved as the implementers engaged with the communities and realised that the original project was misinformed. (From the FAO website: “The idea that initially inspired the initiative has given way to the vision of  a mosaic of sustainable land use practices.”) 

The original vision behind the Great Green Wall has evolved as implementers engaged with communities and realised that the project was misinformed (From the FAO website: “The idea that initially inspired the initiative has given way to the vision of a mosaic of sustainable land use practices”). (Photo: UNCDD / Wikipedia)

This could all be made a lot easier if funders were able to recognise and give credit to countries and implementers that embrace the trade-offs and make them explicit – where projects are assessed not in terms of whether they provide all of the co-benefits, but in terms of who in the community benefits, and who or what loses out and whether this is justifiable. Funders therefore need checklists that talk not only to biophysical metrics (such as how much carbon is sequestered), but also to less measurable, but no less important aspects, such as who is making decisions, whose aspirations are being acknowledged and who is really winning. We propose expanding these criteria to include:

• Most agreement from different interest groups about the current state and the desired state of the ecosystems to be manipulated (past maps of “degradation” have sometimes highlighted biodiversity and water provision hotspots with large tourism income as requiring NBS interventions2).
• The widest range of useful interventions (careful thinking about particular interventions to be applied, rather than a one-size fits all approach).
• Most alignment between livelihoods, carbon and biodiversity needs, and an ability to make the trade-offs explicit (ie encourage honesty about the challenges of implementing NBS, rather than unrealistic promises).
• Leaves open the most opportunities for the future (ie doesn’t limit future land use options).

So watch this space – negotiators have just returned from the UNEA intergovernmental consultations on nature-based solutions and SBSTTA 25 (the subsidiary body for scientific, technological and technical advice of the CBD) in Nairobi, where there was significant push back from a range of countries (mainly in the Global South) against wording relating to a range of aspects about the objectives and implementation of Nature Based Solutions (ie Option 2 is on the table, and there is sufficient coordination and agreement between countries in the Global South to be able to propose alternative mechanisms). 

Negotiators are just heading off to the UNFCCC COP28 in Dubai, where these plans will again be on the table, and we will need to have a clear coordinated strategy if we are going to be able to steer the funding and energy in directions that work for the continent, its people and its nature. DM

Sally Archibald is a Professor in the school of Animal, Plant and Environmental Sciences at the University of Witwatersrand, and a principal investigator at Future Ecosystems for Africa. Laura Pereira is Associate Professor, Global Change Institute, University of the Witwatersrand and Stockholm Resilience Centre. She is also a principal investigator at Future Ecosystems for Africa. Odirilwe Selomane is a senior lecturer at the University of Pretoria, researching ecosystem services, social-ecological systems, sustainable development indicators, food systems and nexuses, and ecological economics. Barney Kgope is Director: Biodiversity Risk Management, Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment.

1. Definition from Seddon et al 2020. There are currently three definitions being used globally, each emphasising different aspects of Nature Based Solutions. The IUCN definition focuses on biodiversity and people, the EU definition emphasises innovation and economic benefits, and the UNEA definition introduces the aspect of sustainable development. This creates confusion at the multilateral platforms in terms of what constitutes a nature-based solution intervention, given this diversity in the absence of a global and cohesive guidelines and criteria for implementation of NBS. 

2. Bond et al  TREE: “The Trouble with Trees”