Nature-Based Climate Solutions Require Us to Answer the "Where" and the "Who"
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Journal of Science Policy & Governance OP-ED: NATURE BASED CLIMATE SOLUTIONS
Nature-Based Climate Solutions Require Us to
Answer the “Where” and the “Who”
Rachel L. Lamb1, Jeremy Schmidt2
1 Universityof Maryland, Department of Geographical Sciences, College Park, MD
2 Universityof Maryland, School of Public Policy, College Park, MD
https://doi.org/10.38126/JSPG180206
Corresponding author: rachlamb@terpmail.umd.edu
Keywords: carbon monitoring; climate change; community-based management; geography; indigenous
peoples and local communities; natural climate solutions; nature-based solutions
Executive Summary: The protection and restoration of nature are critical for climate change
mitigation. As such, many international initiatives have been launched to champion the
implementation of nature-based climate solutions (NBCS) while supporting other societal
goals. Given global momentum, it is critical that policymakers proactively define successful
NBCS activities to avoid perverse incentives and harmful land-use change. We argue that
effective NBCS will support clear goals and make transparent the relative costs and benefits to
climate, biodiversity, and human livelihood. To do this, NBCS must be designed based on the
best geospatial science and implemented alongside empowered local communities.
Specifically, NBCS should be accompanied by strong benefit-sharing mechanisms that involve
procedural equity. Further, where changes in land management and land-use are required,
land restoration should be accompanied by financial incentives that make such restoration
profitable. Carbon markets could be expanded to include land-based carbon, and auction
proceeds or tax revenues could be utilized to fund restoration on private land where
landowners may be required to forego other profits over the short term. NBCS will help the
global community advance important societal goals if policymakers can be specific about where
national goals will be implemented and who will be empowered to make decisions about their
design.
I. Introduction economic development with plans to reduce GHG
Over the next decade, many countries will emissions, slow biodiversity loss, and increase the
experience the joint challenges of rebuilding their circularity of supply chains to reduce waste (Lieuw-
economies after COVID-19, raising political Kie-Song and Pérez-Cirera 2020).
ambitions to curb the impacts of a warming planet,
and pursuing broad-scale ecosystem restoration Commitments to expand the implementation of
after decades of degradation (Naidoo and Fisher NBCS have proliferated over the past several years.
2020; UN n.d.). Identifying solutions at the Under the Paris Climate Agreement, countries are
intersections of these challenges will be critical. looking to increase the contributions of land-based
Nature-based climate solutions (NBCS) provide a carbon to their Nationally Determined Contributions
unique opportunity for countries to directly meet the (NDC) (UNDP 2019). Currently, most NDCs indicate
needs of local communities while supporting broad inclusion of land sector mitigation, and several
societal goals (Owen and Durham 2020; Griscom et indicate their participation in the framework on
al. 2020). Further, those solutions which capitalize Reducing Emissions from Degradation and
on natural regeneration and restoration can be Deforestation (REDD+). However, less than a quarter
particularly cost-effective (Crouzeilles et al. 2020). If of them quantify specific land sector mitigation
implemented strategically, NBCS can help us “build contributions (Forsell et al. 2016). Further, land-
back better” to safeguard future growth and align based sequestration efforts receive only about 2.5%
www.sciencepolicyjournal.org JSPG, Vol. 18, Issue 2, June 2021Journal of Science Policy & Governance OP-ED: NATURE BASED CLIMATE SOLUTIONS
of climate mitigation dollars due to uncertainties mitigation and securing related co-benefits, there is
about potential carbon sequestration and related the potential for confusion in terms. Already, there
costs, concerns about the permanence of storage, are similar names for work with common elements,
and socio-political barriers to implementation including nature-based climate solutions, natural
(Buchner et al. 2019; Griscom et al. 2017). In parallel, climate solutions, nature-based solutions, ecosystem
the UN has launched the Decade on Ecosystem restoration with climate co-benefits, and activities
Restoration (2021-2030). Through this effort, the that increase the ability of “natural and working
UN hopes to amplify restoration as an opportunity to lands” to sequester carbon and maintain ecosystem
simultaneously end poverty, combat climate change, resilience (e.g., Griscom et al. 2017; USCA 2020;
and prevent a mass extinction event (UN, n.d). One UNDP 2020). While all of these terms may imply that
specific initiative, predating but complementing the related projects have a positive impact on climate,
UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, is the Bonn biodiversity, and community development, this is far
Challenge, launched by the Government of Germany from guaranteed. Consistency in how related efforts
and the International Union for Conservation of are discussed and designed will encourage clearly
Nature (IUCN) to restore 350 million hectares of defined goals with measurable and monitored
degraded land globally by 2030 (Bonn Challenge, progress.
n.d.). Of particular focus is reforestation and
afforestation, which promise to yield significant In 2016, at the World Conservation Congress,
carbon sequestration benefits (e.g., Waring et al. members of the IUCN defined nature-based
2020). solutions (NBS) more broadly as “actions to protect,
sustainably manage and restore natural or modified
Given the momentum around NBCS, policymakers ecosystems that address societal challenges
must design and implement strategic activities that effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing
embrace the best available science and draw upon human wellbeing and biodiversity benefits” (IUCN
local knowledge of ecosystems so that land 2016). They also created a global standard to ensure
restoration can be carried out in partnership with that NBS could achieve their potential to address
landowners. In May 2020, the Global Environment societal goals. This guidance advances eight
Facility (GEF) Science and Technology Panel supporting principles, which together aim to ensure
reviewed lessons learned from past projects and NBS are designed based on site-specific natural and
programs and noted that mainstreaming NBCS cultural contexts that include traditional, local and
policy is still a work in progress with a need for more scientific knowledge; produce societal benefits fairly
transparency in the trade-offs associated with NBCS and equitably in a manner that promotes
implementation (GEF 2020). transparency and broad participation; and maintain
biological and cultural diversity and the ability of
To avoid perverse incentives and harmful land-use ecosystems to evolve over time (IUCN 2016).
change, we argue for a clear and common definition Although not focused specifically on climate
of NBCS, a strong commitment to scientific mitigation, this guidance implies that true nature-
measurement and monitoring of NBCS benefits and based solutions will both advance human wellbeing
costs, the development of an enabling legal and protect biodiversity in addition to any ancillary
environment that supports community-based climate benefits they provide.
ownership and management, and supportive
financial markets that make restoration profitable We suggest that any proposed NBCS make clear the
(Figure 1). intersectional and intended benefits for
carbon/climate, nature/biodiversity, and human
II. Pathway towards effective design and wellbeing/livelihoods. Although all three outcomes
implementation may not be simultaneously maximized in any single
location, initiatives should endeavor to identify
i. Common definition—make the goals clear those areas where overlap can occur with
With many emerging papers, reports, and initiatives justification. For example, while fast-growing and
focusing on the role of nature in climate change monocultured tree plantations may still support
www.sciencepolicyjournal.org JSPG, Vol. 18, Issue 2, June 2021Journal of Science Policy & Governance OP-ED: NATURE BASED CLIMATE SOLUTIONS
climate change mitigation and promote local local economies may no longer be forest-dependent.
livelihoods, they will not provide the same level of Recent work on the climate change mitigation
benefit to biodiversity as the intact and diverse potential of reforestation suggests that even with
forest ecosystems they often replace (e.g., Osuri et al. conservative estimates of carbon uptake, regrowth
2020). In this sense, the best NBCS will also be NBS, of natural forests in the absence of cost constraints
as defined by the IUCN. remains the single largest natural climate solution
(Cook-Patton et al. 2020). Further embedding
ii. Geospatial application—identify the “where” reforestation within local economies will ensure this
One significant challenge facing the implementation solution can be leveraged at scale.
of NBCS involves identifying specific geographic
locations where these activities will occur. Global Governments need a plan to be able to measure
commitments must ultimately be resolved at local current and future carbon sequestration potentials.
levels, especially regarding land-use decisions Part of this process includes a commitment to
because they inherently involve rights, access, and “ground-truthing” their goals with the best available
ownership. NBCS are foundationally geospatial, with science and technologies. Investing in sound
profound social and economic implications as the co- geospatial science, such as that being advanced
benefits are not the same across space (Brancalion et through the NASA Carbon Monitoring System (Hurtt
al. 2019; Strassburg et al. 2020). Furthermore, with et. 2014; NASA, n.d.), is critical for mapping carbon
regards to climate change mitigation, the global baselines, modeling carbon sequestration potential,
community must separately prioritize the ongoing and monitoring ongoing carbon changes at the
protection of existing carbon stocks and the landowner scale. Countries without the in-house
identification of opportunities for additional capability to monitor and evaluate the carbon
ecosystem restoration or reforestation. These benefits of NBCS should enjoy support from and
strategies are likely to have different co-benefits, collaboration with those that do.
produce related benefits or costs across different
time scales, and involve different actors. Further, if NBCS are also about improving
livelihoods, there should be supporting entities
For example, the Global Deal for Nature is a science- responsible for measuring and reliably tracking
driven plan offered by scientific researchers to other social and environmental benefits. Tracking
advance the Paris Climate Agreement's goals while such metrics can improve the design of NBCS
increasing protected areas. This plan focuses on interventions and ultimately generate demand from
maintaining currently unprotected carbon stocks to sources of market-based finance looking to support
support climate stabilization and curb biodiversity “win-win” strategies with measurable outcomes
loss (Dinerstein et al. 2019; Dinerstein et al. 2020). (GEF 2020). A geospatial approach to quantification
In particular, this work signals that ~74% of all would help to ensure policymakers are choosing
mapped indigenous lands globally overlap sites for NBCS that are benefiting rather than
extensively with the additional land they identified harming local communities.
for protection. In this case, recognizing land
ownership and stewardship of indigenous iii. Legally enable communities—identify the “who”
communities could further advance climate In addition to sound science, policymakers need to
mitigation goals. proactively build an enabling legal environment that
secures and protects individual and community land
In contrast, restoration on land areas where the rights and clarifies the allocation of costs and
carbon sequestration gap (i.e., remaining carbon benefits. Many carbon-rich environments are home
sequestration potential) is highest and thus more to indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs)
attractive for additional climate mitigation is likely whose fate is intertwined with their land. Further,
located on agricultural land or areas previously IPLCs often maintain traditional ecological
degraded due to land management activities knowledge and embedded values of environmental
(Chazdon et al. 2020). In this context, fostering stewardship and protection (Sangha et al. 2018).
alternative livelihood practices will be critical as Studies show government recognition and
www.sciencepolicyjournal.org JSPG, Vol. 18, Issue 2, June 2021Journal of Science Policy & Governance OP-ED: NATURE BASED CLIMATE SOLUTIONS
protection of indigenous and community rights drive Finally, countries will be able to advance ambitious
the most successful forest conservation outcomes NBCS if this work is accompanied by increased
(Stevens et al. 2014). For example, when the financial capacity. Targeted incentives will be
government of Niger protected the forest rights of important for maximizing climate, biodiversity, and
local communities, it led to the planting of 200 livelihood benefits, especially where planned
million new trees (Maclean 2018). Therefore, activities require a significant change in current land
governments need to help IPLCs secure and protect management or land-use. Given the current
a spectrum of land and resource rights, including economic stressors that many countries face,
those related to access, withdrawal, management, private-public partnerships will be increasingly
exclusion, and alienation (Schlager and Ostrom important for helping countries overcome financial
1992). Governments can protect indigenous rights to barriers. One attractive option for funding this work
forests by introducing legislation that recognizes may be the creation of land carbon markets, where
those rights, mapping community forest boundaries, every ton of carbon sequestered is assigned a
expelling illegal loggers, and not conceding forest monetary value that can be rented, purchased, or
areas to commercial interests (Stevens et al. 2014). traded (e.g., Lintunen et al. 2016).
IPLCs may be incentivized to sustainably manage
their land towards specific national goals when their A recent analysis by the World Bank shows that if all
rights are protected, and they can derive financial planned carbon taxes and pricing systems were
benefit from generated ecosystem services, such as implemented worldwide, they would cover 22.3% of
natural carbon storage and water purification global GHG emissions (World Bank, n.d.). In the
(Camacho et al. 2016; Parrotta et al. 2016). United States, the most mature carbon pricing
schemes, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas
Governments must establish benefit-sharing Initiative and the California Cap-and-Trade Program,
mechanisms and codify these best-practices into have promoted significant reductions in greenhouse
law. In the context of REDD+, benefit-sharing gas emissions even while focusing exclusively on CO2
mechanisms commonly refer to the set of emissions from non-land-based sources (CARB, n.d.;
institutional means, governance structures, and RGGI, n.d.). The mechanics of including land-based
instruments that distribute resources and other net carbon within existing cap-and-trade or carbon tax
benefits from project implementation (Lutrell et al. systems may be complicated, but much of the
2013; Vhugen et al. 2012). As NBCS include but challenge comes from concerns about scientific
extend beyond the REDD+ framework, it makes accuracy. Current high-resolution carbon
sense to establish benefit-sharing as a foundational monitoring and modeling efforts may provide an
component of all planned activities. Further, any unprecedented opportunity for integration at policy-
selected mechanism should exhibit a high degree of relevant scales, with the ongoing expansion of this
“procedural equity.” That is, different stakeholders science globally (Dubayah et al. 2020; Ma et al. 2019;
with varying perspectives need to have an Ma et al. 2021). However, more must be done to
opportunity to shape the decision-making process operationalize this work and bridge scientific
(Brown and Corbera 2003). Including the voices of expertise with decision-making (Lamb et al. 2021a).
local communities in NBCS design will contribute to
overall effectiveness and increase the likelihood of Even if land-based emissions are not directly traded,
realizing and maintaining multiple types of benefits auction proceeds or tax revenues from existing
for climate, biodiversity, and human livelihood. Local governmental markets could be used to
communities may already have context-specific incentivize/fund reforestation efforts on private
knowledge about the ecosystems in which they live land (NJDEP 2020). Paying for carbon capture
and how to manage them sustainably. through NBCS can make reforestation or other forms
of land restoration more feasible in regions where
landowners may need to forgo other profits in the
iv. Profitable restoration—provide strong financial short term (Lamb et al. 2021b). Such an approach
incentives could build on other successful payment for
ecosystem services (PES) schemes (CPI 2016). For
www.sciencepolicyjournal.org JSPG, Vol. 18, Issue 2, June 2021Journal of Science Policy & Governance OP-ED: NATURE BASED CLIMATE SOLUTIONS
example, localized PES in the Bellbird Biological mitigation needed between now and 2030 to
Corridor in Costa Rica have provided direct stabilize warming to below two degrees Celsius
economic payments to individuals with lower (Griscom et al. 2017). As more good work is done
income, education, and property sizes than globally to advance NBCS, policymakers must be
otherwise engaged under national level sure that all activities are well designed,
programming (Brownson et al. 2020). These implemented, and evaluated relative to clear goals
programs have also generated additional “spillover” that are defined in partnership with local
benefits, as local NGOs leverage these payments to communities. If policymakers commit to making
finance research, environmental education, and decisions based on the best geospatial science and
conservation on other lands not under PES contract. maintain a strong commitment to local ownership
and management, their efforts are most likely to
III. Conclusion advance local human well-being and ecosystem
Recent research suggests that NBCS can provide resilience in the process of securing a better global
over one-third of the cost-effective climate future.
Appendix
Figure 1. Nature-based climate solutions (NBCS) are fundamentally defined by their ability to advance climate mitigation
through natural carbon sequestration; however, the best NBCS will simultaneously support biodiversity protection and
human livelihood and wellbeing (dotted box), making transparent the tradeoffs among these three goals. Effective
implementation of NBCS rests upon four foundational pillars (right box).
References Ecosystem Ecosystem Services Influences Social
Bonn Challenge. n.d. “About the Bonn Challenge,” Accessed and Environmental Outcomes in Costa Rica.”
December 30, 2020. Ecological Economics 174 (August): 106659.
https://www.bonnchallenge.org/about https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106659
Brancalion, Pedro H. S., Aidin Niamir, Eben Broadbent, Buchner, Barbara, Alex Clark, Angela Falconer, Rob
Renato Crouzeilles, Felipe S. M. Barros, Angelica M. Macquarie, Chavi Meattle, Rowena Tolentino, and
Almeyda Zambrano, Alessandro Baccini, et al. Cooper Wetherbee. 2019. “Global Landscape of
2019. “Global Restoration Opportunities in Climate Finance 2019.” Climate Policy Initiative.
Tropical Rainforest Landscapes.” Science Advances https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-
5 (7): eaav3223. content/uploads/2019/11/2019-Global-
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aav3223. Landscape-of-Climate-Finance.pdf.
Brown, Katrina, and Esteve Corbera. 2003. “Exploring California Air Resources Board (CARB). n.d. “Cap-and-
Equity and Sustainable Development in the New Trade Program.” California Air Resources Board,
Carbon Economy.” Climate Policy 3 (S1): 41–56. Accessed February 28, 2021.
https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.clipol.2003.10.004. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-
Brownson, Katherine, Elizabeth P. Anderson, Susana work/programs/cap-and-trade-program.
Ferreira, Seth Wenger, Laurie Fowler, and Laura
German. 2020. “Governance of Payments for
www.sciencepolicyjournal.org JSPG, Vol. 18, Issue 2, June 2021Journal of Science Policy & Governance OP-ED: NATURE BASED CLIMATE SOLUTIONS
Camacho, Leni D., Dixon T. Gevaña, †Antonio P. Carandang, Forsell, Nicklas, Olga Turkovska, Mykola Gusti, Michael
and Sofronio C. Camacho. 2016. “Indigenous Obersteiner, Michel den Elzen, and Petr Havlik.
Knowledge and Practices for the Sustainable 2016. “Assessing the INDCs’ Land Use, Land Use
Management of Ifugao Forests in Cordillera, Change, and Forest Emission Projections.” Carbon
Philippines.” International Journal of Biodiversity Balance and Management 11 (1): 26.
Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 12 (1– https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-016-0068-3.
2): 5–13. Global Environment Facility (GEF), 2020. Nature-Based
https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2015.11244 Solutions And The GEF: Workshop Summary.
53. https://www.stapgef.org/sites/default/files/doc
Centre for Public Impact (CPI). 2016 “Reforesting Costa uments/FINAL%20NbS%20workshop%20summ
Rica through Payments for Environmental ary-September4.pdf
Services (PES).” Centre for Public Impact, Last Griscom, Bronson W., Justin Adams, Peter W. Ellis, Richard
modified April 14, 2016. A. Houghton, Guy Lomax, Daniela A. Miteva,
https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/case- William H. Schlesinger, et al. 2017. “Natural
study/payments-for-environmental-services. Climate Solutions.” Proceedings of the National
Chazdon, Robin L., David Lindenmayer, Manuel R. Academy of Sciences 114 (44). National Academy
Guariguata, Renato Crouzeilles, José María Rey of Sciences: 11645–50.
Benayas, and Elena Lazos Chavero. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710465114.
“Fostering Natural Forest Regeneration on Griscom, Bronson W., Jonah Busch, Susan C. Cook-
Former Agricultural Land through Economic and Patton,Peter W. Ellis, Jason Funk, Sara M. Leavitt,
Policy Interventions.” Environmental Research Guy Lomax, et al. 2020. “National Mitigation
Letters 15 (4): 043002. Potential from Natural Climate Solutions in the
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab79e6. Tropics.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Cook-Patton, Susan C., Sara M. Leavitt, David Gibbs, Nancy Society B: Biological Sciences 375 (1794). Royal
L. Harris, Kristine Lister, Kristina J. Anderson- Society: 20190126.
Teixeira, Russell D. Briggs, et al. 2020. “Mapping https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0126.
Carbon Accumulation Potential from Global Hurtt, George, Diane Wickland, Kenneth Jucks, Kevin
Natural Forest Regrowth.” Nature 585 (7826): Bowman, Molly Brown, Riley Duren, Stephen
545–50. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020- Hagen, and Ariane Verdy. 2014. “NASA Carbon
2686-x. Monitoring System: Prototype Monitoring,
Crouzeilles, Renato, Hawthorne L. Beyer, Lara M. Monteiro, Reporting, and Verification.”
Rafael Feltran-Barbieri, Ana C. M. Pessôa, Felipe S. https://carbon.nasa.gov/pdfs/2014_CarbonMoni
M. Barros, David B. Lindenmayer, et al. 2020. toringSystem_ProgressReport.pdf.
“Achieving Cost-Effective Landscape-Scale Forest International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Restoration through Targeted Natural 2016. “IUCN Global Standard for NbS.”
Regeneration.” Conservation Letters 13 (3): International Union for Conservation of Nature.
e12709. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12709. Accessed December 30, 2020.
Dinerstein, E., A. R. Joshi, C. Vynne, A. T. L. Lee, F. Pharand- https://www.iucn.org/theme/nature-based-
Deschênes, M. França, S. Fernando, et al. 2020. “A solutions/resources/iucn-global-standard-nbs.
‘Global Safety Net’ to Reverse Biodiversity Loss Lamb, Rachel L, George Hurtt, Tee Jay Boudreau, Elliott
and Stabilize Earth’s Climate.” Science Advances 6 Campbell, Edil Sepúlveda Carlo, Hong-Hanh Chu,
(36): eabb2824. Jennifer de Mooy, et al. 2021a. “Context and Future
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abb2824. Directions for Integrating Forest Carbon into Sub-
Dinerstein, E., C. Vynne, E. Sala, A. R. Joshi, S. Fernando, T. National Climate Mitigation Planning in the RGGI
E. Lovejoy, J. Mayorga, et al. 2019. “A Global Deal Region of the U.S.” Environmental Research Letters,
For Nature: Guiding Principles, Milestones, and February. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-
Targets.” Science Advances 5 (4): eaaw2869. 9326/abe6c2.
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw2869. Lamb, Rachel, Ma, Lei, Sahajpal, Ritvik, Hultman, Nathan,
Dubayah, Ralph, James Bryan Blair, Scott Goetz, Lola Edmonds, James, Dubayah, Ralph, Kennedy,
Fatoyinbo, Matthew Hansen, Sean Healey, Jennifer, & Hurtt, George. 2021b. “Geospatial
Michelle Hofton, et al. 2020. “The Global assessment of the economic opportunity for
Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation: High- reforestation in Maryland (USA).” Environmental
Resolution Laser Ranging of the Earth’s Forests Research Letters. In review.
and Topography.” Science of Remote Sensing 1
(June): 100002.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srs.2020.100002.
www.sciencepolicyjournal.org JSPG, Vol. 18, Issue 2, June 2021Journal of Science Policy & Governance OP-ED: NATURE BASED CLIMATE SOLUTIONS
Lieuw-Kie-Song, Maikel, and Vanessa Perez-Cirera. 2020. Osuri, Anand M., Abhishek Gopal, T. R. Shankar Raman,
“NATURE HIRES: How Nature-Based Solutions Ruth DeFries, Susan C. Cook-Patton, and Shahid
Can Power a Green Jobs Recovery.” Publication. Naeem. 2020. “Greater Stability of Carbon Capture
http://www.ilo.org/employment/units/emp- in Species-Rich Natural Forests Compared to
invest/rural-urban-job- Species-Poor Plantations.” Environmental
creation/WCMS_757823/lang--en/index.htm. Research Letters 15 (3): 034011.
Lintunen, Jussi, Jani Laturi, and Jussi Uusivuori. 2016. “How https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab5f75.
Should a Forest Carbon Rent Policy Be Owen, Emily, and Courtney Durham. 2020. “Nature-Based
Implemented?” Forest Policy and Economics 69 Solutions Can Help Rebuild Economies After
(August): 31–39. COVID-19.” Pew Trusts. August 3, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.04.005. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-
Luttrell, Cecilia, Lasse Loft, Maria Fernanda Gebara, analysis/articles/2020/08/03/nature-based-
Demetrius Kweka, Maria Braockhaus, Arild solutions-can-help-rebuild-economies-after-
Angelsen, and William D. Sunderlin. 2013. “Who covid-19.
Should Benefit from REDD+? Rationales and Parrotta, John, Youn Yeo-Chang, and Leni D. Camacho.
Realities.” Ecology and Society 18 (4). 2016. “Traditional Knowledge for Sustainable
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05834-180452. Forest Management and Provision of Ecosystem
Ma, Lei, George Hurtt, Lesley Ott, Ritvik Sahajpal, Justin Services.” International Journal of Biodiversity
Fisk, Steve Flanagan, Benjamin Poulter, Shunlin Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 12 (1–
Liang, Joe Sullivan, and Ralph Dubayah. 2020. 2): 1–4.
“Global Ecosystem Demography Model (ED- https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2016.11695
Global v1.0): Development, Calibration and 80.
Evaluation for NASA’s Global Ecosystem Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). n.d. “Welcome:
Dynamics Investigation (GEDI).” Other. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.” Regional
Climatology (Global Change). Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Accessed December 20,
https://doi.org/10.1002/essoar.10505486.1. 2020. https://www.rggi.org/.
Ma, Lei, George Hurtt, Hao Tang, Rachel L Lamb, Elliott Sangha, Kamaljit K., Luke Preece, Jaramar Villarreal-Rosas,
Campbell, Ralph O. Dubayah, Maddie Guy, et al. Juma J. Kegamba, Kiran Paudyal, Tui
2021. “High-Resolution Forest Carbon Modeling Warmenhoven, and P.S. RamaKrishnan. 2018. “An
for Climate Mitigation Planning over the RGGI Ecosystem Services Framework to Evaluate
Region, USA.” Environmental Research Letters, Indigenous and Local Peoples’ Connections with
February. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748- Nature.” Ecosystem Services 31 (June): 111–25.
9326/abe4f4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.017.
Maclean, Ruth. 2018. “The Great African Regreening: Schlager, Edella, and Elinor Ostrom. 1992. “Property-
Millions of ‘magical’ New Trees Bring Renewal.” Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A
The Guardian, August 16, 2018, sec. World news. Conceptual Analysis.” Land Economics 68 (3):
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug 249–62. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146375.
/16/regreening-niger-how-magical-gaos- Stevens, Caleb, Robert Winterbottom, Jenny Springer, and
transformed-land. Katie Reytar. 2014. “Securing Rights, Combating
Naidoo, Robin, and Brendan Fisher. 2020. “Reset Climate Change.” World Resources Institute.
Sustainable Development Goals for a Pandemic https://www.wri.org/publication/securing-
World.” Nature 583 (7815): 198–201. rights-combating-climate-change.
https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01999-x. Strassburg, Bernardo B. N., Alvaro Iribarrem, Hawthorne L.
NASA. n.d. “NASA Carbon Monitoring System.” Carbon Beyer, Carlos Leandro Cordeiro, Renato
NASA. Accessed February 28, 2021. Crouzeilles, Catarina C. Jakovac, André Braga
https://carbon.nasa.gov/. Junqueira, et al. 2020. “Global Priority Areas for
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Ecosystem Restoration.” Nature 586 (7831): 724–
(NJDEP). 2020. ‘Regional Greenhouse Gas 29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2784-
Initiative (RGGI) Strategic Funding Plan’. 9.
https://nj.gov/rggi/docs/rggi-strategic-funding- United Nations (UN). n.d. “About the UN Decade.” Decade
plan.pdf on Restoration. Accessed December 30, 2020.
https://www.decadeonrestoration.org/about-
un-decade.
www.sciencepolicyjournal.org JSPG, Vol. 18, Issue 2, June 2021Journal of Science Policy & Governance OP-ED: NATURE BASED CLIMATE SOLUTIONS
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2019. Vhugen, Darryl., Soledad Aguilar, Leo Peskett,
“Pathway for Increasing Nature-Based Solutions andJonathan Miner. 2012. “REDD and Carbon
in NDCs: A Seven-Step Approach for Enhancing Rights: Lessons from the Field. Property Rights
Nationally Determined Contributions through and Resource Government Project.” Washington,
Nature-Based Solutions.” New York: UNDP. DC, USA: United States Agency for International
https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ Development. https://land-links.org/research-
librarypage/climate-and-disaster-resilience- publication/redd-and-carbon-rights-lessons-
/pathway-for-increasing-nature-based-solutions- from-the-field/.
in-ndcs.html. Waring, Bonnie, Mathias Neumann, Iain Colin Prentice,
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2020. Mark Adams, Pete Smith, and Martin Siegert. 2020.
“Nature-Based Climate Solutions.” UNDP. “Forests and Decarbonization – Roles of Natural
https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ and Planted Forests.” Frontiers in Forests and
librarypage/climate-and-disaster-resilience- Global Change 3. Frontiers.
/UNDP-Issues-Brief-on-Nature-Based-Climate- doi:10.3389/ffgc.2020.00058.
Solutions.html. World Bank. n.d. “Carbon Pricing Dashboard | Up-to-Date
United States Climate Alliance (USCA). 2020. “Natural and Overview of Carbon Pricing Initiatives.” Accessed
Working Lands Challenge.” United States Climate December 30, 2020.
Alliance. Last modified January 14, 2020. https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org.
http://www.usclimatealliance.org/nwlchallenge
Rachel L. Lamb is a Maryland Sea Grant State Science Policy Fellow with the Maryland Department of the
Environment Climate Change Program. She also serves as a Postdoctoral Fellow with the University of
Maryland (UMD) Department of Geographical Sciences where she recently earned her PhD. Rachel also holds
a Master of Public Policy and Master of Science in Sustainable Development and Conservation Biology from
UMD. Her recent research focuses on advancing strategic reforestation in support of climate mitigation and
other social and environmental goals alongside member states of U.S. Climate Alliance and partners at NASA’s
Carbon Monitoring System. Twitter @Rachel_L_Lamb.
Jeremy Schmidt is a Master of Public Policy graduate student at University of Maryland with career interests
in sustainable development in Latin America. Most recently, he has conducted research for Department of
State investigating environmental and social safeguard policies for development financed by multilateral
development banks. He has consulted for Conservation International where he researched the viability of
carbon pricing mechanisms paired with natural climate solutions offsets in East and West African countries.
He graduated from Brandeis University Summa Cum Laude with degrees in Psychology, Anthropology and
Latin American Studies. He also served in the Peace Corps from 2015 to 2017.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dr. Thomas Hilde at University of Maryland for his helpful comments on an earlier
version of this manuscript.
www.sciencepolicyjournal.org JSPG, Vol. 18, Issue 2, June 2021You can also read
