Benthic-based contributions to climate change mitigation and adaptation

Abstract

Innovative solutions to improve the condition and resilience of ecosystems are needed to address societal challenges and pave the way towards a climate-resilient future. Nature-based solutions offer the potential to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural or modified ecosystems while providing multiple other benefits for health, the economy, society and the environment. However, the implementation of nature-based solutions stems from a discourse that is almost exclusively derived from a terrestrial and urban context and assumes that risk reduction is resolved locally. We argue that this position ignores the importance of complex ecological interactions across a range of temporal and spatial scales and misses the substantive contribution from marine ecosystems, which are notably absent from most climate mitigation and adaptation strategies that extend beyond coastal disaster management. Here, we consider the potential of sediment-dwelling fauna and flora to inform and support nature-based solutions, and how the ecology of benthic environments can enhance adaptation plans. We illustrate our thesis with examples of practice that are generating, or have the potential to deliver, transformative change and discuss where further innovation might be applied. Finally, we take a reflective look at the realized and potential capacity of benthic-based solutions to contribute to adaptation plans and offer our perspectives on the suitability and shortcomings of past achievements and the prospective rewards from sensible prioritization of future research. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Climate change and ecosystems: threats, opportunities and solutions'.

Getting the message right on nature‐based solutions to climate change

“…This has been fuelled by influential estimates of the potential for ‘Natural Climate Solutions’ that are optimistic upper limits (Griscom et al, 2017, 2020, Section 5.2), or simply incorrect (Bastin et al, 2019, see critiques: Friedlingstein, Allen, et al, 2019; Lewis, Mitchard, et al, 2019; Veldman et al, 2019; and the correction: Science, 2020). While protection of the carbon stored in intact terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystems is critical (Solan et al, 2020; Watson et al, 2018), over‐reliance on NbS as a cheap offsetting option in corporate mitigation policies or as a political fig‐leaf risks distracting from the urgent need for aggressive and rapid greenhouse gas emission reduction in all sectors of the economy (Anderson et al, 2019; Friedman, 2020; Griscom et al, 2019).…”

“…Protecting intact terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems, restoring degraded habitats to their natural state and managing working lands more sustainably can deliver significant biodiversity benefits (Bustamante et al, 2019; Coetzee et al, 2014; IPBES, 2019; Solan et al, 2020). However, as discussed in Section 6.2, investments and policy support are currently being directed largely towards created ecosystems, especially tree plantations.…”

“…Nonetheless, there is still uncertainty as to what ‘counts’ as an NbS and the extent to which NbS represent a departure from existing concepts and practices. In the context of climate change, concerns have been raised that NbS are being used to excuse business‐as‐usual consumption of fossil fuels (Anderson et al, 2019; Edwards, 2020); that there is an over‐emphasis on tree planting as a ‘silver‐bullet’ solution to climate change (Holl & Brancalion, 2020; Seymour, 2020) and that this is distracting from the urgent need to protect and connect a wide range of intact ecosystems across landscapes and seascapes (Solan et al, 2020; Watson et al, 2018). These issues arise partly from uncertainties in the underlying science, such as the limited set of contexts in which the broader benefits of NbS have been demonstrated (Chausson et al, 2020).…”

The changing Arctic Ocean: consequences for biological communities, biogeochemical processes and ecosystem functioning

“…Very little attention has been devoted to formulating an integrated sustainable management plan for the Arctic, or to determining which evidence is needed to support decision and policy making. Indeed, a solution-based narrative is not well-developed for the marine benthos [57], and there are virtually no socio-economic studies for the Arctic [58,59]. Approaches involving multiple disciplines that mobilize and build on indigenous and local knowledge are urgently required [16,60], but need to be supplemented by socio-ecological contributions to aid understanding of system dynamics.…”

From Multidisciplinarity to Transdisciplinarity and from Local to Global Foci: Integrative Approaches to Systemic Resilience Based upon the Value of Life in the Context of Environmental and Gender Vulnerabilities with a Special Focus upon the Brazilian Amazon Biome

“…"Nature-based solutions" (NbS) are proposed for contributing to protecting people from climate change impacts, supporting biodiversity, and securing ecosystem services [60]. According to some researchers, NbS benefits have not been rigorously assessed and there are concerns for their reliability and cost-effectiveness and their resilience to climate change is lacking.…”