Can Nature Help Solve Human Problems Like Climate Change? Researchers Weigh Up Pros And Cons

(MENAFN- The Conversation) Nature-based solutions use nature to solve environmental problems caused by humans, such as global climate change. But not every ecological project counts as a nature-based solution. Some projects only bring about a slight improvement to the environment, while others even cover up environmental damage. Cornelius Okello and Timothy A. Downing research climate change adaptation and development. They discussed their latest research into nature-based solutions with The Conversation Africa.

What are nature-based solutions?

Nature-based solutions are inspired by nature or use nature to address problems in society. These problems include food and water shortages, poor health, and environmental degradation. Nature-based solutions bring about benefits to biodiversity (the wellbeing of the environment) and human wellbeing.

Their intention is to acknowledge nature's role in the economy and society, and include nature as a participant in finding ways to repair environmental damage.

They've been embraced by international policymakers and funders as the model approach for addressing biodiversity loss .

Read more: Urban greening in Africa will help to build climate resilience -- planners and governments need to work with nature

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature has created a global standard that projects must meet in order to qualify .

A nature-based solution must show that it has led to an increase in the number of plant or animal species in an area. This enhances the natural balance among organisms and their environment. It also has to show that it is based on local conditions (rather than a one size fits all blueprint). Nature-based solutions must involve local communities, include Indigenous knowledge and make sure that the most disadvantaged people in the area benefit from the solution.

Read more: Planting trees can help the climate, but only if we also stop burning fossil fuels

Where benefits to the environment may lead to unintended harms to people, a nature-based solution must monitor and address these harms as soon as they occur and include safeguards to protect local communities.

It must also promote adaptive management based on rigorous science. This means that scientists and environmentalists must continually learn from mistakes and use these lessons to improve the nature-based solution.

Why are they considered to be a solution?

Nature-based solutions use the power of ecosystems to solve problems that are intertwined with nature . For example, food security, water security, human health, economic and social development, environmental degradation, climate change, and natural disasters are problems which cannot be solved without involving nature.

This re-framing of how problems should be solved is empowering. The nature-based solutions concept suggests that environmental problems caused by humans can be solved – and that the solutions exist in nature.

Nature-based approaches are also often more cost-effective because they use locally available materials. They're less likely to create additional environmental problems. For example, urban greening projects are not expensive to implement. They bring tangible benefits to cities without negative repercussions.

What are their shortcomings?

Few projects meet the global standard set by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. For example, our research looked into projects in savanna ecosystems in Africa that addressed land degradation, food and water security, and resource scarcity. But we found that there is not yet enough evidence to show that these projects comprehensively restore the continent's savanna grasslands.

In another research project, we investigated whether nature-based solutions could help conserve water supplies for the 200 million people who live in Africa's arid and semi-arid lands. These water scarce areas cover 66% of the continent.

Agroforestry, Rwanda. Pool/Getty Images

In these areas, initiatives have been set up to improve soil quality, harvest water, and start agroforestry (where food crops are planted with trees, saving water needed for irrigation). Our research found that these kinds of interventions are successful, or not, largely depending on their design and how they are implemented.

We think a clear understanding of nature-based solutions is important. Otherwise, policymakers and project funders may support any project that claims to be a nature-based solution.

Nature-based solutions may even become oversimplified approaches to complex issues.

For example, a small tree-planting project that a corporation may implement to improve its image. This opens the door for potential“greenwashing” – when a wide variety of projects can claim to be solving environmental problems with natural solutions, even when this is not true.

Where have nature-based solutions worked?

Innovative activities have been implemented in Africa with some success. For example, sustainable biofuel projects and attempts to make agriculture resilient to changing climate. Paying communities incentives to conserve natural land is another example.

These projects have been successful on a small scale throughout Africa but do not meet all the criteria of a nature-based solution.

Zaï pits in the Sahel. Alina Bossuet/Flickr

For example, zaï pits are meant to be a nature-based solution that restores damaged grassland and improves soil for farming. They conserve water and create habitats for termites. The termites improve the soil by breaking down plant matter and digging holes that allow rainwater to seep into the ground.

Zaï pits have a basis in nature and they use Indigenous knowledge and locally available material. However, researchers do not yet know if they will be able to support grassland restoration over the long term, or if they might negatively affect other species. They are labour-intensive to set up, and therefore it is unlikely that they'll be established on a large enough scale to reduce global climate change.

This raises the question: can a nature-based solution be small enough to suit the local context but large enough to address global problems sustainably?

We concluded that perhaps nature-based solutions are a contradiction in terms. However, they force a discussion that would otherwise be lacking about who benefits from environmental“solutions” projects and who loses, at what social and ecological cost, and with what implications for the future.

The authors would like to thank Yvonne Wambui Githiora , who co-wrote this article and the original research, and Professors Daniel Olago and Margaret Owuor for their reviews.

MENAFN04022025000199003603ID1109167156