Can law ensure that the financing of Nature-based Solutions is receptive to plural concepts of nature in alignment with Nature’s Contribution to People under the Global Biodiversity Framework?

Increased levels of biodiversity finance are imperative to achieving the aims of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and arresting the decline of biodiversity globally. The intersection between climate change and biodiversity, as outlined in the GBF, is key to maximising high integrity finance.

Nature based Solutions (NbS) can foster this synergy, with the GBF calling for integrated NbS approaches that promote Nature’s Contribution to People (NCP) under Target 11. All NbS should adhere to promoting NCP. The background of our paper is how NCP promotes plural and diverse conceptualisation of nature, and how these concepts are informed and influenced from the perspective of people and communities.

We identify the conceptualisation of nature under climate finance regimes and NbS projects funded by the Australian government, which when examined considering NCP highlights the limits of certain conceptualisations. Our review of multilateral climate funds and NbS projects suggests that climate law and finance narrowly construe nature through heavily instrumental and quantifiable bases (i.e., tCO2e). While this is one conceptualisation of nature under NCP, questions remain as to impacts on communities and the double-materiality challenges of nature, the metrics used to justify NbS, and whether appropriate safeguards exist.

Notwithstanding new GBF funding criteria, we propose a framework that ensures that the assessment of NbS projects is receptive to plural and diverse concepts of nature as key in the value-proposition. The framework established in our paper can be utilised to assess the impacts of NbS projects from a broader perspective than currently available.