Search results

In urban policy there is an increasing emphasis on the management and sharing of information in and about cities. This paper focuses on external sharing practices which are facilitated by boundary‐spanning organisations. Boundary‐spanning organisations are hybrid structures that provide a platform to link internal networks of the city government with external actors, and in particular focus on engaging various types of stakeholders. The paper offers a preliminary assessment of a sample of boundary‐spanning organisations based across six case studies (Barcelona, Chicago, London, Medellin, Mexico City and Seoul) and across three types of BSOs: living labs, innovation districts and sector‐oriented BSOs. Unpacking the shape and development of BSOs, and "placing" them in urban governance, we begin to sketch a preliminary agenda geared to offer a better appreciation of the "information ecosystem" underneath policy‐making in cities.

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.