Suchergebnisse

Nature-based Solutions (NbS) build synergies between biodiversity conservation and societal challenges such as climate change. This paper derives a working definition of NbS based on an evaluation of existing definitions, in particular the IUCN (2016) definition. It comprises the key elements of the existing definitions that we believe to be important to inform the scope of this study. It critically assesses the global mitigation potential of NbS in relevant studies for forests, croplands, grasslands, terrestrial and coastal wetlands as well as settlements. Recommendations for international climate policy are derived. The study finds that it is likely that NbS potentials provided by scientific literature overestimate the realistic potential of NbS for climate change mitigation. This is due to a lack of integrated studies, overly optimistic assumptions on land availability as well as the quality of available information. Furthermore, the influence of measures on GHG fluxes, uncertainties related to carbon fluxes and quantification methodologies as well as climate impacts are not taken into account. The majority of studies evaluating the mitigation potential of NbS focus on the technical mitigation potential. General ecological constraints such as existing threats to ecosystems, and biodiversity impacts, land use conflicts and other social, cultural and political barriers as well as the risk of non-permanence further limit mitigation potentials. The success of NbS to mitigate climate change and deliver ecological and social co-benefits will very much depend on eliminating direct and indirect pressures on ecosystems caused by current patterns of production and consumption. Nevertheless, the uncertainties related to the quantification of mitigation effects of NbS should not be used as an argument against their implementation. Neither should they be used as an excuse to delay ambitious mitigation action to reduce emissions. In the UNFCCC negotiation process, information on NbS in biennial transparency reports may serve as a basis for technical discussion to improve methodologies and indicators to assess how NbS contribute to achieving NDCs and to make further financial support available. In implementing activities under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, the specific risks related to NbS must be taken into account. In the development of processes or support schemes to foster NbS, social and environmental safeguards need to be put in place. Coherence with work under other international policy frameworks such as the other Rio Conventions is required to foster synergies.

This study aims to contribute to the further development of the Member States' reporting to the EU with regard to the National Energy and Climate Change Plans (NECPs), especially with regard to the national progress reports, the NECP updates and a possible revision of the Governance Regulation. The study was designed as a meta-analysis of the current state of knowledge regarding the methodology and impact of selected policies and measures (PaMs), following its appropriate preparation, by means of an analytical framework. The analysis was based on the example of the German NECP, taking into account the NECPs of Denmark, France, Sweden and Slovenia. In total, the authors examined a selection of 23 PaMs as well as ex-ante and ex-post evaluations that analysed the PaMs' impacts. The authors investigated, in particular, the methodology of ex-ante and ex-post evaluations, the contribution of selected PaMs to achieve the EU's climate protection and the energy transition targets adopted for 2030 as well as the socio-economic and further ecological impacts associated with the PaMs. On this basis, the authors developed an in-depth understanding of the selected PaMs and the methodological and systemic uncertainties involved in their ex-ante and ex-post impact assessment. For this purpose, the authors discussed knowledge gaps, uncertainties, conflicts and synergies as well as political challenges, opportunities for action and obstacles to it. As a result, the authors have developed suggestions regarding the content requirements of NECP reporting as well as suggestions that can improve the transparency and traceability of evaluation methods and impact assessments of PaMs.